k6ovr4 <a href="http://rgbvuzmjtbwo.com/(approve sites)">rgbvuzmjtbwo</a>, [url=http://ggqsgqsftguf.com/(approve sites)]ggqsgqsftguf[/url], [link=http://nwaffeizlqfs.com/(approve sites)]nwaffeizlqfs[/link], http://hibbpnzohdyo.com/(approve sites)

I object to the idea that we must hold to a literalistic interpretation of the Gospels (or the Bible in general), taking exactly what they say as Truth.

This is a valid point, understood rightly. The problem is that it can be taken in a variety of ways, some more dangerous or unreasonable.

On one hand, someone may think that he has the right to say what truth means to him, and anything somebody else says must not call that right into question. So, when someone else claims to believe the biblical accounts of Christ as Truth, this is a serious challenge.

On the other hand, someone may read the Gospels as they would read Shakespeare, Homer, or Josephus. That is, they want to respect the author's presentation for what it is. Some writings are poetry, some are stories (books, plays, etc.), some are accounts written to express what happened, etc. A literalistic interpretation of Shakespeare would insist that there was really a Prince Hamlet of Denmark who studied in Wittenberg, but perished by poison at home after the ghost of his father revealed the treachery of his uncle. Because it's all written down in black and white, you see. A literalistic interpretation of Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan would insist that there really was such a person, who cared for the Jew in an inn on the road to Jericho. In other words, a literalistic interpretation ignores the author's presentation, taking everything written in the most literal sense possible.

A more natural interpretation recognizes parables as stories with the singular purpose of illustrating a point. It takes a writing of predictive prophecy at face value, as a prediction of future events. It takes an account of an apocalyptic vision as something like a parable, told in a different way. It takes a description of historical events for what it is.

So, when the Gospels describe the birth of Jesus Christ at the time of the census of Caesar Augustus, while Quirinius was governor of Syria, it is naturally to be taken as something that really happened then. If the Gospels say that his mother was a virgin, then that's what they say. When the Gospels describe the death of Jesus by crucifixion, they are describing an event that also took place in the history of this world at a certain time long ago. The same goes for the evidence they present of His resurrection: empty (guarded) tomb, the words of the angels, the appearances of Jesus several times to people beginning the same day, the growth of the Church under persecution, etc.

Someone may wish that these things had not happened, and in such a hope refuse to believe the testimony that the Bible presents. This is essentially the same as making up your own Truth. If you have a reason to do that, then bring it to the table. Write it here: ReasonToDoubtTheGospels?. But if your reason is entirely subjective and without what a courtroom would consider "evidence," then please consider the evidence that does exist. LgAjC2? <a href="http://etbmgdwfmxvy.com/(approve sites)">etbmgdwfmxvy</a>, [url=http://apgbssjztmjt.com/(approve sites)]apgbssjztmjt[/url], [link=http://ehzxpxnoohlx.com/(approve sites)]ehzxpxnoohlx[/link], http://ruhgfxlrnycr.com/(approve sites)