Re: literalism/symbolism

[Guest guest]

literalism/symbolism

says:

>>Do you really think gifted people of the 1st-2nd Century were quite that unmetaphorical? Seems to me since Jesus addressed them largely in parabols they might have been even more metaphorical thinking than in our own time.<<

--I'm sure there's always the same battle between literalism and symbolism, with one group or another dominating the media at any given time. Jesus did speak in parables, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from believing he was literally the son of God, literally resurrected, and forever endorsing uncritically and literally 's visions in Revelation. People argued from the beginning over whether the Communion wafers were literally Christ's body or not. The need to preserve sacred texts can easily lead to the belief that those texts are absolutely, infallibly and literally True with a capital T. Jesus refered to the Pharisees as whitewashed tombs, keeping the form of the religion without the spirit, and that's a conflict found in any age, on any issue.

N: True. And we have no way of knowing how the disciples 'heard' what Jesus said on this subject. My view would be that they each 'heard' him according to their own mind sets which may well have been quite different from one another.

I was responding to your (perhaps unintended) concretizing in:

" wouldn't have needed a sex change,. . "

>>I've heard that verse interpreted as teaching to come to terms with her animus (and contrary-wise with , who provoked the remark.)<<

--The idea of archetypes would probably have been too mixed with angels and other supernatural beings, and it's difficult to regard a supernatural being as an internal fantasy representing individual psychology. There would have been a belief in a physical body and a spiritual body, with distinction made between them in some mystical or philosophical circles. Close enough for some purposes, not for others.

N: , I'm wary of viewing those past as in some way inferior to our own understanding. Seems to me us moderns are all too prone to this view - even as we tend to view those of other cultures as 'being wrong' because different, and thus having nothing to offer our own understanding. I'm thinking here of the most advanced adherents to Islam for example.

Jung wrote very little which was totally original. Mostly he revived thoughts he gathered from earlier eras which had fallen into disrepute.

Seems to me that if granting that Jesus was historically a real person, he must have been exceptional. I prefer to at least consider that he may have had similar understanding to our own (if not even more advanced.) I don't offer that as a dictim of any sort. Just as a viewpoint more fruitful to consider.

Blessings,

C. Lockharthttp://www.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -- Aird“To retain contact with the oppressors neither condones their actions, nor weakens support for and commitment to the oppressed. To work for liberation of the oppressed can be helped by communicating with the oppressors, and may free the oppressors from the degradation by which they are trapped. It cannot be realized unless there is contact with them.” Adam Curle, Quaker international mediator

Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.