Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:22 pm**

They cannot be both.

Very true. But they can be neither. They can simply be propaganda. They may or may not have started out that way - we don't have the originals so we will never know - but they certainly morphed into propaganda.

Posted: **Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:33 pm**

Ishtar wrote:Seeker

It's easy. Either you believe the scriptures are allegoric or literal. They cannot be both. So if you believe they are allegorical, you are not a Literalist. What school of philosophy you are then labelled as being in - Neo Platonist, Neo-Pagan, Neo-Something else, then, is just a fine point. The fact is, you are not a Literalist and so you come under the same heading as those who believe in a non flesh and blood Jesus - someone who believes the stories were made up to teach a deeper truth, and we call those peoples today Gnostics - and these people eventually became anathema to the Literalists and were harried out in one form or another, as Origen was.

However, I expect you're as bored with this discussion as I am. It definitely comes under the heading of "Does it really matter?" in my book.

So you're welcome to reply, but I won't be posting any more on this.

I disagree that Gnosticism is that large an umbrella. No matter though, I doubt that history will change as a result of our readings.

Archaeologica.org

Here's a Present, Ish