Quote Originally Posted by juggalo420
While you may argue that the literal interpretation was invented by the established churches, I counter by saying the bible created the established churches. I mean in the bible itself it says how Jesus said to Peter you are the rock that I will build my church upon, Jesus also says that those who listen to you (talking to the apostles) listen and obey me and those that deny you deny me. And who put the bible together in the first place, the church did, they did at the council of Nicea, they put it together therefore I hold they have the right to interpret it in the manner they see fit. The arguments you give about how you shouldnâ??t take the bible literally, while legitimate, I wouldnâ??t call Christian, and I would call it more or less new age humanism.
Of course, any one can interpret the Bible any way they want, and they can get together with other people who think along similar lines. My gripe against the first Christian leaders is that they intentionally mislead the people by making what was commonly understood to be myth into historical fact.

Take the gospels for example. I'm sure everyone's familiar with the broad lines of Jesus's life. Now, has anyone read other ancient biographies of mythical heroes? The story of the lives of Horus (Egyptian god), Moses, Hercules, Romulus (legendary founder of Rome) are almost exactly identical, with one major exception: the gospels present Jesus's version as completely historical and factual. Almost all these people had 'virgin births' (Isis was a virgin when Horus was born, so was Romulus's mother, and Hercules's father was Zeus (i.e. a holy spirit)). All were in danger of being killed when they were babies (Horus and Hercules had to fend off serpents when they were toddlers, Moses and Jesus had to be kept away from officials who were under orders to kill all male newborns). The list goes on and on, but you get the point.

The point is this: Jesus's 'life' had been played out so many times before in older religions and mythologies that it cannot be possible that the Gospels are factual. From this comes the reasoning that it's NOT SUPPOSED to be factual, but mythological, legendary. It makes sense to me.