I think you are misunderstanding the correct use of formula. Let me give you an example:
Islam = Jesus isn’t God or Savior
Christianity = Jesus is God and Savior
Islam, therefore, is not the same as Christianity or vice versa
What you wrote sounds lovely and spiritual but is uninformed (and untrue).
Those are not formulas, at least not in the context I was speaking of. I was speaking of formulas for salvation, meaning you've got to get the recipe right, such as:
1. The blood of Jesus to counteract the acidity of God's wrath against you
2. Personal prayer of acceptance in order to activate the blood agent on your behalf
3. Live according to approved church doctrines and standards to remain in the fold of the "saved"
4. Bake in the oven for the rest of your life, pull out at and and let rest in heaven
That's what I mean by a formulaic salvation.
I understand you. However, you have begged several questions:
1. On what basis do you know for certain the events of the Bible are “all symbolic”? Because I know that Tillich and Fowler weren’t there contemporaneous to the Bible times. You seem to act like they were and they know.
I don't think you actually do understand me because you ask a question like this. Hopefully in my response you will begin to understand what I've been saying all along.
Every word we use is symbolic. All language is ultimately metaphor. Them "being there" is utterly irrelevant as these moderns, and postmoderns, have an understanding of how human language and symbolic representation works for all humans, in all ages, just like the way a biologist would understand the digestive system of a St. Peter even though he lived 2000 years ago.
You'll need to spend some time digesting what I'm about to share in order to begin to track with me in the things I've been saying about this. First here's a few great quotes to set the tone, then an academic look at this:
“The metaphor is perhaps one of man’s most fruitful potentialities. Its efficacy verges on magic, and it seems a tool for creation which God forgot inside one of His creatures when He made him.” Jose Ortega y Gasset (Spanish philosopher and humanist , 1883-1955)
“A world ends when its metaphor has died” Archibald MacLeish (American Poet and Critic. 1892-1982)
“Language is memory and metaphor”, Storm Jameson
Where I am really getting at here can be found expressed in this article on
Metaphor and Phenomenology:
While the basic features of phenomenological consciousness – intentionality, self-awareness, embodiment, and so forth—have been the focus of analysis, Continental philosophers such as Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida go further in adding a linguistically creative dimension. They argue that
metaphor and symbol act as the primary interpreters of reality, generating richer layers of perception, expression, and meaning in speculative thought. The interplay of metaphor and phenomenology introduces serious challenges and ambiguities within long-standing assumptions in the history of Western philosophy, largely with respect to the strict divide between the
literal and figurative modes of reality based in the
correspondence theory of truth.
.....
In purely conventional terms, poetic language can only be said to refer to itself; that is, it can accomplish imaginative description through metaphorical attribution, but the description does not refer to any reality outside of itself. For the purposes of traditional rhetoric and poetics in the Aristotelian mode, metaphor may serve many purposes; it can be clever, creative, or eloquent, but never true in terms of referring to new propositional content. This is due to the restriction of comparison to substitution, such that the cognitive impact of the metaphoric transfer of meaning is produced by assuming similarities between literal and figurative domains of objects and the descriptive predicates attributed to them.
The phenomenological interpretation of metaphor, however, not only challenges the substitution model,
it advances the role of metaphor far beyond the limits of traditional rhetoric. In the Continental philosophical tradition, the most extensive developments of metaphor’s place in phenomenology are found in the work of Martin Heidegger, Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida. They all, in slightly different ways, see
figurative language as the primary vehicle for the disclosure and creation of new forms of meaning which emerge from an ontological, rather than purely epistemic or objectifying engagement with the world.
......
According to the standard model, a metaphor’s ability to signify is restricted by ordinary denotation. The metaphor, understood as a new name, is conceived as a function of individual terms, rather than sentences or wider forms of discourse (narratives, texts). As Continental phenomenology develops in the late 19th and 20th centuries,
we are presented with radically alternative theories which obscure strict boundaries between the literal and the figurative, disrupting the connections between perception, language, and thought. Namely, the phenomenological, interactionist, and cognitive treatments of metaphor defend the view that metaphorical language and symbol serve as indirect routes to novel ways of knowing and describing human experience. In their own ways, these theories will
call into question the validity and usefulness of correspondence and reference, especially in theoretical disciplines such as philosophy, theology, literature, and science.
What is important also to understand that they referenced in that article is the
Correspondence Theory of Truth. I would spend some time familiarizing yourself with this as I do touch on it in these discussions, though I don't name it as such.
2. On what basis are you claiming that people who died for proclaiming Jesus and Savior and God were mistaken? On what basis do you claim THEIR aim was to promote the symbology of God rather than the saving gospel of God?
Promoting the symbol of God is effectively doing that. We access our higher Self through archetypal forms. We aren't just translating the world through symbols, but reaching beyond the mundane which is the role of archetypal symbols. The symbol of death and resurrection is commonplace in human culture for a good reason.
Now, did the Apostle Paul understand these things were operating at that level? I highly doubt that! He would not be able to articulate this as he never examined language and symbols on that level. That's a very postmodernist realization. He just simply used them that way, the way they function, without a conscious awareness of how these things work. That describes 95% of people today as well, just simply using them not understanding what they are.
3. If Hell and Heaven are literal destinations, what should loving people say to other people?
If true, then loving people should try to help other deal with the terror of living under such a threat from such a deity! I get this mental image of siblings trying to comfort and console each other to help them deal with the constant threat of a parent-figure who holds all power over them, never quite sure whether or not he'll strike them down with his wrath. This is one reason I think psychologically such a theology is damaging to spiritual seekers. It's the whole "love me or else" invitation that disturbs me to the core.
It was already crystal clear to me before.
Then why did you berate me saying I hadn't answered you and made me respond saying essentially the same thing again?
But Paul wrote this regarding the resurrection:
“. . . And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”
Yes, that's how the Apostle Paul thought about these things. Unlike you, I do not view Paul's opinion as the opinion all must believe in order to have a valid, living relationship with God! But even then, even if it is a requirement of salvation as part of the magical formula I mentioned that people accept that Paul's words are absolute without any of his own ego and personality types blasting themselves all over in his teachings, I would find that extremely difficult to do, considering that even he and the other Apostles disputed points of views and theologies amongst themselves! This is not a requirement of anything to accept him as flawless in thought.
The Apostle Paul is an interesting man. There is a quote I've heard regarding Paul which expresses my own opinion of him. It goes, "
Paul is like that proverbial child. When he's good, he's really, really good! But when he's bad, he's horrid!". That's how I feel about Paul too. He has some very genuine mystical insights, but then he turns around with his temper-tantruming ego, "I'm in charge! Listen to me! A curse on those others who dispute what I say!", as one example. I've known ministers like him with huge egos like that.
That said however, like anything I do find value in what Paul says, but I realize that a Paul, or a Peter, or a James, etc, are really just people like you or me. And like me, they tried their ernest best to follow their path to God using what they had available to them, which is why you end up with so much of the symbols of that culture in their theologies. That's why you end up with the images of Jesus you see Paul bring to the table that others did not, because he was part of the culture in Asia Minor.
Please remember I do not believe one can magically speak of truth independent of these factors. Those factors in themselves alone mean that the
truth is relative to them. But in my understanding, I can find that same truth in other relative contexts. This point you in fact do not understand yet.
Paul understood, as do I, that unless Jesus literally, not symbolically or figuratively only, but literally, rose from the dead, that he was preaching a falsified eternal resurrection for believers.
Again, this comment shows that you have not been understanding me yet. Hopefully that link and quotes I provided will help rectify that.
I'll spend some time on the pre-Jesus myths in a separate post as I very much want to bring our focus to them....
Firstly, I have explained how I come to my understandings and none of them have to do with magic. That's your approach to truth and the Bible, via magic. There are no magic voices, no auditory hallucinations, no purely emotionally biased interpretations. I've said it before, which you seem to forget here, that I use reason, as well as personal experience to weigh the truth and meaning of these things to me. This is not reflected in your imaginary assessment of me magically figuring stuff out. Again, you are projecting here. It is you who has magic as an element of finding truth in the Bible, not me. You use magic. Not me.