Robert

My feeling is that many/maybe most evangelicals believe that  ‘clouds’, ‘seven days’,  ‘beasts coming out of the oceans’ ‘earth consumed by fire’ ‘ a couple eating a literal fruit causing all our woes’, etc  are all literal because God wrote/dictated the Bible and it is perfect and God made sure it is perfect and  therefore everything was written as clearly as was possible. 

Now Dr Erhman holds none of those almost comical premises yet still maintains/agrees that most of those phrases were really meant literally by their authors. Why? Have you seen in his books, writings, blog posts why his views in many instances are so very very close to those held by evangelicals? I haven’t. Are they convincing? 

There is a large amount of christians and conservative christians scholars as smart as he who don’t subscribe to such nonsense.

But to be more exact.

if we accept a certain saying was really made by the historical Jesus, lets say “stars falling from heaven” or a “person standing on a cloud” and it doesn’t really make sense if the words are taken literally, shouldn’t we seriously consider the possibility that they were in fact always intended to express some deeper meaning. often that deep meaning really isn’t that hard to see. for example ‘fire’ coming out of someone’s mouth. removing a ‘log’ from your own eye, etc 

and we 

neither Dr Erhman nor usual evangelical believe every word in bible is literal 

for example I know of no one who really believes Jesus gave ‘swords’ to daughter-in-laws and mothers-in-laws, even tho he said he did, or that he set ‘fires’ all over the place tho that is what he said he came to do.

So ONE question appropriate to this thread would be if we take it as a given that Jesus, Daniel, and author of book of Revelation said someone is going to appear on a cloud  did they intend it literally to mean that person/being would appear on a regularly understood metrological cloud composed mostly of water vapor or was their meaning something else (as in case of ‘sword and ‘fire’ above). also let’s take it as a given that a person standing on a cloud is somewhat ridiculous even to people living at those author’s time. Now the evangelicals have an answer to that  ‘the bible is perfect, God is all powerful, it is God’s prerogative to contravene normal laws (like gravity) maybe God wants us to have faith and believe in ridiculous stuff cause the bible says so, etc etc” Dr Ehrman surely does not assent to  that evangelical line of reasoning but nonetheless comes to their same conclusion.

I really don’t know Dr Ehrman argument why he contends the ‘clouds’ are not meant figuratively.

the other points above b ) to f) in first post ( instantaneous change in normal biological and natural physical laws and human character) are not to my knowledge ever explicitly predicted in the bible, but evangelical and Dr Ehrman tend to infer that there are implicit indications in the bible,  I think they assume God is going to make the ‘ideal’, ‘perfect’ world according to their view of the ‘perfect’ ideal’ word. That ‘ideal’ ‘perfect’ contains no natural disaster no disease and no physical death.

There are however equal or more biblical passages (than the contrary) where we actually we can infer there will be physical death in ‘the new earth’ and droughts and pestilence  in places after appearance of the new Jerusalem and even in Jesus words ‘tasting death’ after the coming of the Kingdom.

regarding Paul 1 Cor 15. I dont think Paul’s concepts are necessarily identical with Jesus, but, form that chapter I do think that Paul believed Christians are ‘immortal’ in some sense. I cannot say for sure he meant ‘immortal’ on the earth, probably not

Again we need to investigate whether ‘life’ everywhere in the bible is identically synonymous with ‘physical life’  ie normally a period of less than 100 years.

What specific points in 1Cor 15 are you referring to and please give your understanding of them  (whether meant literally or figuratively) then I can respond more if you are interested.  

if

a) Jesus giving swords to daughters in law

b) Jesus starting fires everywhere

c) dead people burying other dead people

d) persons standing on clouds

ALL sound ridiculous if every word is taken literally, and in each case there are non-ridiculous understandings (and even deeper religious understands) if we take a few of the the words as metaphorical, then I am going to tend toward the latter interpretation.

I explained MY rule above – all sound ridiculous when taken completely literally

certainly my rule is not without its issues (but i can’t think of anything better at the moment), and I would be very happy for someone to propose a different rule or method which leads them to  conclude 

in a) b) and c) some of the words are to be taken figuratively but

in d) they are all to be taken literally,

as that seems to be both evangelical + Dr Ehrman’s conclusions

i do admit i prefer sensible explanations.

so given the choice of ascribing to an apocalyptic author/speaker a somewhat ridiculous concept vs ascribing to him the use of a particular figurative term, yes I tend to the latter. do you disagree?

The most obvious evidence that the cloud that the man stands on in Daniel is figurative is that it coheres with the seas that beasts appear from immediately preceding.  

My modern sensibilities tell me that either both are figurative or both are literal. Dr Ehrman disagrees. (ie he thinks seas are figurative but clouds, literal)

Tho more than happy to answer your question regarding Maccabees, I will defer till you answer (and hopefully provide little of your reasoning) how you see the clouds and seas in Daniel. both literal, both symbolic, ?

the salient issue is whether the son of man is a supernatural being or completely human, Dr Ehrman sees som as supernatural, the ‘clouds’ are used by evangelicals and probably Dr Ehrman too in order to bolster the supernatural view. 

Dr Ehrman presents plausible reconstruction. however the supernatural elements (see top of thread) he injects into his reconstruction do not add to the plausibility; in fact they subtract from it. imo

It appears the maccabean author believed that the physical bodies, hands and eyes of martyrs torn apart by their persecutors would be reconstructed at the unfolding of God’s reign. I weigh their understanding as less against Jesus’ who believed that some people entering the kingdom would be minus those body parts by their own doing. (Matt 5:29)

I dont understand this

Do you see the difference between interpreting texts from different authors and dates and creating a plausible historical reconstruction of a nonliterary person?  

however it sounds beyond my comprehension/understanding 

see

** you do not have permission to see this link **

there is nothing in this specific blog post that introduces or addresses literal vs figurative language, however it does mention a cosmic person possibly on a cloud

. . .God was to send a kind of cosmic judge of the earth, sometimes also called the messiah or the “Son of Man” to bring about a cataclysmic overthrow . . .it would not be long before God would intervene, sending a savior — possibly on the clouds of heaven in judgment on the earth — bringing with him the good kingdom

An aside maybe for a different thread at a different time – On the other hand Dr Ehrman DOES believe that the son of man in Matt 25 will send sinners to a literal annihilation in some kind of literal inferno, coinciding with typical evangelical ideas. As you might easily surmise, I personally do not agree that Jesus thought his Father was so pernicious as that, so naturally must see ‘fire’ in that chapter as not literal.

however I am sorry the thread has become a rat-hole about ‘clouds’

rather I should have specified in the very beginning  

Evangelicals are led to the idea that Jesus preached supernatural events as accompanying the coming of God’s Kingdom based on their literal reading of the Bible. What leads Dr Ehrman to the view to the coincidence of supernatural phenomena and Kingdom of God? Is it also a literal reading of the same passages and if not, what?