Dear Mark,
I never knew there was a name for that kind of interpretation. I partly
agree/disagree with that way of interpreting scriptures. On the one hand, I
am not a literalist and I don't believe in a physical paradise, hell, etc.
But on the other hand, I can sympathize with fundamentalists
Matt Haase wrote:
I never knew there was a name for that kind of interpretation. I
partly agree/disagree with that way of interpreting scriptures. On the
one hand, I am not a literalist and I don't believe in a physical
paradise, hell, etc. But on the other hand, I can sympathize with
For those who are interested, here are links to more information on this
subject:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
Each of these, except for the first (narrative theology), is making
presuppositions about the substantive content of the text. What I am saying
is that the Gospels can be approached in much the same way as Nabil/Shoghi
Effendi prepared Nabil's Narrative, i.e., not as modern scientific history
mark,
i am quitre familiair with this theory, and cloely relatd ones.
i would offer that they are interpreted upside down.
i would ofer that i ocasionally tell people the One has very few tricks, but
is Very Good at Them.
:Tanakh
and, especially, the New Testament never took place.
firestorm wrote:
another view is that this is why the events took place the ay they did,
becuase that is How It Is Done, and people can get over it or not.
Hi, firestorm:
That is what I called the metaphysical view. For what it's worth, I
personally see that approach as a kind of
When I first saw the subject of astrotheology there is a passage in
the Kitab-I-Iqan which came to mind. It talks about the Star of
Bethlehem and alludes to signs of the heavens heralding the birth of
Muhammad (saaws) but then also seems to say that the other
Manifestations had *visible signs* in
