Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was Jesus a myth a great person or the actual son of God?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 01:00 AM
Original message
Poll question: Was Jesus a myth a great person or the actual son of God?
Edited on Sun Dec-04-05 01:08 AM by Quixote1818
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think you've illustrated how to construct a pro-Pagan Jesus poll. :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. read Jesus the Heretic. it will change your life. google it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. My point was that pro-Pagan points were included with certain
poll choices, when they were unnecessary thereby possibly giving the impression that the response to the poll was pro-Pagan. It is a push poll in that regard.

*If you liked Jesus the Heretic, you will probably like The Story of B by Daniel Quinn. It will cha.. etc. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. How about "beats the hell out of me"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I added that for you :-) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OffWithTheirHeads Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
4. I actually like "beats the hell out of me cause
even though I seem to know much more about comparative religion than most christians, I don't consider myself an expert.

Frankly, the topic of the evolution of religion fascinates me but facts are very hard to come by. Sort of like who met with Cheney about energy policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
az chela Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. For the truth
Read "The Bible fraud" by Tony Bushby or "The crucifiction of truth" by the same author.They are both available on www.Joshuabooks.com.
I recommend them highly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
7. Where's the kind-hearted schizophrenic option?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. LOL!!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeTheChange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. It truly should replace the second option about enlightenment..
cause if you dont believe that Jesus was the Son of God, your only other option is that he is a raving lunatic. The whole thought that he was a "prophet" or "enlightened" is absurd. If you dont believe what he said he was was true, then he is crazy.

It is that simple.

I believe that he was the Son of God, personally. I'd wage my life on it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
11. Jesus was indeed the son of God . . .
just as you are . . . and I am . . . and all of us are . . .

what made him special was that he was a lot better at advancing our father's wishes for humankind than the rest of us are . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
12. Jesus was God made into flesh. He came to Earth to sacrifice his
flesh for the salvation of mankind. "Greater love has no man than this: That he would lay down his life for his brother."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bloodblister Bob Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
13. We will never know, so I say treat it as a fairy tale. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkiGuy Donating Member (451 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
14. for the REAL truth
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarbonDate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. If the Word was with God and God was the Word....
...does that mean that God was beside himself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WritingIsMyReligion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-08-07 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. ...
:spray:

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperialism Inc. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-08-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. Logos.
Edited on Sun Apr-08-07 11:18 AM by WakingLife
Logos is of course a Greek word. In the Bible it is usually translated as "the Word" but the full meaning is much more complicated. It basically means the reason and order underlying the world. Greek philosophers often referred to what they were doing as giving a logos. A rational explanation of the world. So the logos could also be thought of as the rationality underlying the world.

Philo of Alexandria is the person responsible for bringing this Greek idea together with Judaism. Philo was a Jew who lived and wrote during the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived. He wrote about the religious and intellectual life in Galilee at that time. The fact that he never wrote about Jesus is one of the more damning silences of the historical record about Jesus. If anyone should have written about Jesus it should have been him... But, I digress.

Philo brought this idea of logos together with the idea of Jewish wisdom traditions. John was an inheritor of this new tradition blending Hellenistic Judaism and Greek philosophy.

Here are a couple interesting links on the subject starting with a quote from a gospel translation called "The Complete Gospels".


John 1:1-5
In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom.

The divine word and wisdom was there with God,
and it was what God was.
It was there with God from the beginning.
Everything came to be by means of it;
nothing that exists came to be without its agency.
In it was life,
and this life was the light of humanity.
Light was shining in the darkness,
and darkness did not master it.



http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=logos
The Greek word λόγος or logos is a word with various meanings. It is often translated into English as "Word" but can also mean thought, speech, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard, or logic, among other things. It has varied use in the fields of philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion.

Use in ancient philosophy

In ancient philosophy, Logos was used by Heraclitus, one of the most eminent Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, to describe the inherent order in the universe and the knowledge men had of each other in Greek society. Logos in Greek means the underlying order of reality of which ordinary people are only unconsciously aware. It is the "Way things are", the totality of the "laws of nature" in the European sense, and, as such, it is always universal (xunos, the common): universal across cultures, though understood differently in each culture via the parochialism of people's expression of, and behavior according to, it -- only if peoples can recognize this.:

(snip)
By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term used to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the world and of each other. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues. The development of the Academy with hypomnemata brought logos closer to the literal text. Aristotle, who studied under Plato and who was much more of a practical thinker, first developed the concept of logic as a depiction of the rules of human rationality.

The Stoics understood Logos as the animating power of the universe,

(snip)
In Christianity, the prologue of the Gospel of John calls Jesus "the Logos" (usually translated as "the Word" in English bibles such as the KJV) and played a central role in establishing the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity. (See Christology.) The opening verse in the KJV reads: "In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Some scholars of the Bible have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word "Logos" to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenists, especially followers of Philo. Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts. Especially for the Hellenists, however, John turns the concept of the Logos on its head when he claimed "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" (v. 14). Similarly, some translations of the Gospel of John into Chinese have used the word "Tao (道)" to translate the "Logos" in a provocative way.
(more)



http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/philo.htm#H11
(snip)
11. Doctrine of the Logos in Philo's Writings

The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century. All other doctrines of Philo hinge on his interpretation of divine existence and action. The term Logos was widely used in the Greco-Roman culture and in Judaism. Through most schools of Greek philosophy, this term was used to designate a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe. This principle was deduced from an understanding of the universe as a living reality and by comparing it to a living creature. Ancient people did not have the dynamic concept of "function," therefore, every phenomenon had to have an underlying factor, agent, or principle responsible for its occurrence. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament the term logos (Hebrew davar) was used frequently to describe God's utterances (Gen. 1:3, 6,9; 3: 9,11; Ps. 32: 9), God's action (Zech. 5:1-4; Ps. 106:20; Ps. 147:15), and messages of prophets by means of which God communicated his will to his people (Jer. 1:4-19, 2:1-7; Ezek. 1:3; Amos 3:1). Logos is used here only as a figure of speech designating God's activity or action. In the so-called Jewish wisdom literature we find the concept of Wisdom (hokhmah and sophia) which could be to some degree interpreted as a separate personification or individualization (hypostatization), but it is contrasted often with human stupidity. In the Hebrew culture it was a part of the metaphorical and poetic language describing divine wisdom as God's attribute and it clearly refers to a human characteristic in the context of human earthly existence. The Greek, metaphysical concept of the Logos is in sharp contrast to the concept of a personal God described in anthropomorphic terms typical of Hebrew thought. Philo made a synthesis of the two systems and attempted to explain Hebrew thought in terms of Greek philosophy by introducing the Stoic concept of the Logos into Judaism. In the process the Logos became transformed from a metaphysical entity into an extension of a divine and transcendental anthropomorphic being and mediator between God and men. Philo offered various descriptions of the Logos.

(snip)

d. First-born Son of God

The Logos has an origin, but as God's thought it also has eternal generation. It exists as such before everything else all of which are secondary products of God's thought and therefore it is called the "first-born." The Logos is thus more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension, to which Philo ascribes many names and functions. The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father: "For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns" (Conf. 63). This picture is somewhat confusing because we learn that in the final analysis the Creative Power is also identified with the Logos. The Creative Power is logically prior to the Regent Power since it is conceptually older. Though the powers are of equal age, the creative is prior because one is king not of the nonexistent but of what has already come into being (QE 2.62). These two powers thus delimit the bounds of heaven and the world. The Creative Power is concerned that things that come into being through it should not be dissolved, and the Regent Power that nothing either exceeds or is robbed of its due, all being arbitrated by the laws of equality through which things continue eternally (QE 2.64). The positive properties of God may be subdivided into these two polar forces; therefore, the expression of the One is the Logos that constitutes the manifestation of God's thinking, acting (Prov. 1.7; Sacr. 65; Mos. 1.283). According to Philo these powers of the Logos can be grasped at various levels. Those who are at the summit level grasp them as constituting an indivisible unity. At the two lower levels, respectively, are those who know the Logos as the Creative Power and beneath them those who know it as the Regent Power (Fug. 94-95; Abr. 124-125). The next level down represents those limited to the sensible world, unable to perceive the intelligible realities (Gig. 20). At each successively lower level of divine knowledge the image of God's essence is increasingly more obscured. These two powers will appear again in Plotinus. Here Undefined or Unlimited Intelligible Matter proceeds from the One and then turns back to its source (Enneads 2.4.5; 5.4.2; 6.7.17)

(snip)

h. The Angel of the Lord, Revealer of God

Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture (Gen. 31:13; 16:8; etc) by an angel of the Lord (Somn. 1.228-239; Cher. 1-3). The Logos is the first-born and the eldest and chief of the angels.
(snip)

m. Summary of Philo's Concept of the Logos

Philo's doctrine of the Logos is blurred by his mystical and religious vision, but his Logos is clearly the second individual in one God as a hypostatization of God's Creative Power - Wisdom. The supreme being is God and the next is Wisdom or the Logos of God (Op. 24). Logos has many names as did Zeus (LA 1.43,45,46), and multiple functions. Earthly wisdom is but a copy of this celestial Wisdom. It was represented in historical times by the tabernacle through which God sent an image of divine excellence as a representation and copy of Wisdom (Lev. 16:16; Her. 112-113). The Divine Logos never mixes with the things which are created and thus destined to perish, but attends the One alone. This Logos is apportioned into an infinite number of parts in humans, thus we impart the Divine Logos. As a result we acquire some likeness to the Father and the Creator of all (Her. 234-236). The Logos is the Bond of the universe and mediator extended in nature. The Father eternally begat the Logos and constituted it as an unbreakable bond of the universe that produces harmony (Plant. 9-10). The Logos, mediating between God and the world, is neither uncreated as God nor created as men. So in Philo's view the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief messenger, stands between Creator and creature. The Logos is an ambassador and suppliant, neither unbegotten nor begotten as are sensible things (Her. 205). Wisdom, the Daughter of God, is in reality masculine because powers have truly masculine descriptions, whereas virtues are feminine. That which is in the second place after the masculine Creator was called feminine, according to Philo, but her priority is masculine; so the Wisdom of God is both masculine and feminine (Fug. 50-52). Wisdom flows from the Divine Logos (Fug. 137-138). The Logos is the Cupbearer of God. He pours himself into happy souls (Somn. 2.249). The immortal part of the soul comes from the divine breath of the Father/Ruler as a part of his Logos.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperialism Inc. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. nevermind...
Edited on Mon Apr-09-07 02:37 PM by WakingLife
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. Jesus discovered his own divinity; he was divine ...
as is each and every one of us.

We are each a perfect piece and expression of Spirit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
16. Jesus was a real person, but not divine.
Edited on Sun Dec-04-05 07:05 PM by Odin2005
I think is was a dissident rabbi influenced by the messianic sects floating around in his day the time, who got POed at the jewish religious establismment, and got executed when he became so popular that the establisment was under threat. His followers somehow get the idea that HE was the Messiah, and word of him spreads. Then a Jew with Roman citzenship has a seizure on his way to Damascus, converts to the new faith, and the rest is history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-06-06 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. I'd Say 1, 2, 5, and 3
But I think that we are all 3, Jesus was just someone who as Marcus Borg would term was a "spirit person" who was able to transcend material reality to find the divine.

of course, this is just my opinion as this is a poll and a response to add to the poll

B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-06-06 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
19. Other
A combination of 1, 2 and 6, with the caveat that some of his story, not most, was drawn from sources outside his life. Some of these were historical; some were mythical. Re which, it's worth remembering that his contemporaries saw nothing unethical in embellishing the stories of great men with such element, and it's worth questioning just how literally their early readers took them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-07-07 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. I'd toss in this for the orphans and founders out there:
“The heart of so great a mystery can never be reached by following one road only.”

--Q. Aurelius Symmacitus, Relatio Tertia


It's hard to know who this guy was. It's hard to completely trust the gospel authors because they can't get their own story straight sometimes. It's hard to trust the Sunday preacher from the pulpit who seems awfully selective sometimes in picking sermon topics.

Really hard to say. The "beats the hell out of me" option seems like it might work the best in answering the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-07-07 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. You're right. It is hard to know who he was.
The gospels aren't biographies, even though Luke and Matthew follow the conventional biographical arc from birth to death. All four of them are more theological explications than they are life narratives, and all four are essentially Pauline in outlook. So we start out not with historical narrative in any modern sense but with texts designed to support a given interpretation of the underlying history--texts designed, to be sure, to tell us something of what one Gallilean rabbi did and said but texts also designed to show how his sayings and doings fulfilled prophecy (Matthew) and how the Romans were really not such bad guys after all (Luke). John, paradoxically, is at once the most theological and possibly the most intriguing historically; for all its neo-Platonism, it may be the one gospel that actually incoporates a bit of eyewitness narrative in the passages concerning the mysterious "beloved disciple."

Up until fairly recently, the situation with the historicity of the gospels has been at least loosely analogous to the situation of the Iliad before Schliemann. It was widely assumed in academic circles that because the Iliad incorporates clearly supernatural elements and borrowings from other hero-stories, the whole poem was pure fiction. Excavations at Hisarlik proved that there was a Troy--nine Troys, in fact, one on top of the other--and that the city had been burned and sacked at the approximate date assigned to the events of the Iliad. We also know from archaeology that, three or four hundred years on, Homer accurately described Bronze Age armor, including the boar-tusk helmet. Some of the names appear to be historical, too. Hittite documents record that a King Alexandus (Alexandros was Paris' real name) got into difficulty around the 12th century BCE with a people called the Ahhyawans (Achaeans).

In the last few decades, archaeology and textual analysis have enabled scholars to come to a closer understanding of what underlies the gospels. Very few scholars will now hold out for a virgin birth, but many have taken the birth stories in Matthew and Luke to indicate that there was something unusual about Mary's pregnancy. James Tabor takes seriously the possibility that there is some truth to later Jewish legend that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier; Bishop Spong raises the possibility that in a country under brutal foreign occupation, she might have been raped. Comparison of the gospels with the Dead Sea Scrolls shows some intriguing possibilities that John the Baptizer and Jesus envisioned a sort of dual messiahship, one as priest, the other as king. The same duality appears in the relationship between Jesus and his brother James. What's most intriguing is that scholarship surrounding James in particular is beginning to show us that the message preached by Jesus and the message preached by Paul may have almost nothing in common.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-06-06 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
20. I didn't vote because I just don't know.
But I will say from a political standpoint that I trust Bill Moyers' interpretation of Christianity a hell of a lot more than I trust Jim Dobson's.

That's often the starting point for me on Christianity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WritingIsMyReligion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-08-07 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
23. Myth.
Edited on Sun Apr-08-07 09:21 AM by WritingIsMyReligion
I find it utterly impossible to rationally believe that somebody can be raised from the dead, for starters. The whole thing doesn't make a whit of sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperialism Inc. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-08-07 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
25. Other.
Edited on Sun Apr-08-07 10:24 AM by WakingLife
I think Jesus is most likely a mythical character or that any historical personage is completely lost to us under the layers of myth. However, I think Jesus is a blend between Jewish and pagan ideas. It is important to not overlook the importance of Jewish influence on the Jesus story. It may be correct to say Jesus is more Jewish than pagan. Though there are important pagan elements and some borrowing, it is more correct to say that the Jesus story follows the more general mythic hero archetype. That hero type is found across various cultures and beliefs without there being direct borrowing. Now, that archetype was certainly present in pagan world so it may seem like splitting hairs to say Jesus wasn't necessarily pagan. But the point is that there didn't need to be direct borrowing. The gospel writers had a story to tell and they knew what form to put it in because that form was all around them and it is also a product of the human mind. The mythic hero archetype cuts across cultures because the human mind tends to find similar ways to express similar ideas. The actual events of gospel story however are almost all borrowed from the Old Testament and told anew.

We know of two Jesuses. The first one is Paul's Jesus, the earliest Jesus we know, who is probably very close to the Jesus of the early Jerusalem church as well. This is a Jesus whose earthly life (if he had one) is of little to no importance. The handful of references (vague and disputed) to an earthly life in the epistles (half the new testament) mention no specifics of time or place. If they conceived of an earthly ministry of Jesus it was probably in a non-specific time. Some time in the (mythical) past. What they did speak of quite clearly was a heavenly Jesus that could be known by combing through the Old Testament scriptures and through direct revelation (visions). I am of course alluding to the possibility that maybe Paul didn't know of an actual earthly Jesus. However, even if you decide that there was an earthly Jesus this is a very strange state of affairs (even stranger if Paul knows of his earthly life). The book of Acts (written much later than the epistles) is what you would expect an early Jesus movement to look like. Lots of talk about the man who came to earth to save us. References to Gospel scenes and sayings. But, none of that is in the epistles. Even where Jesus supposedly addressed an issue (according to the gospels) we find the epistle writer directing us to old testament scripture or appealing to direct revelation from the heavenly Jesus to find the answer. Not Jesus' own words while on Earth?

The Jesus of the Gospels definitely walks the earth. However,the story plot is constructed mainly from the Old Testament. When Moses was born the Pharaoh killed all the males children so Matthew (and only Matthew) inserted the story about the Slaughter of the Innocents in his gospel. Most of the major plot elements have a similar OT source.

On the other hand , the miracle stories seem to me to be the most obvious cases of borrowing from the surrounding pagan culture. They use the same literary form as the pagan culture used to tell of miracles their heros had performed. They also use the same techniques to get rid of demons, as one example. (The person driving the spirit out is supposed to say the demon's name etc Not to mention spit in their eye and other things Jesus does as well.). Some of the miracle stories were almost certainly borrowed directly from traditions about other people. The stories about raising the widow's son and the miraculous fish catch were told of others before they were told about Jesus.

In the miraculous fish catch ,the count of the fish (153) is our biggest clue. There was a very similar story told about Pythagoras. In the Pythagoras story he says he will guess the number of fish. Though our extant version of the Pythagoras story doesn't mention the number, 153, we know that the number 153 was considered "special" by Pythagoras and his followers (it is a "triangular number", the sum of the first 17 integers in this case). Since the story is so similar and the number out of place in the gospel version(Jesus doesn't say anything about guessing the number or counting the fish) it is reasonable to conclude that the story was borrowed from a version withthe number in it and the number was kept as a detail.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC