In Buck’s defense, saying something is allegory is not remotely the same as saying it’s a lie or inaccurate. For example, the parables Jesus told are allegorical, stories about fictional people meant to convey truths about a real God and his expectations. So, though there are many problems with the premise (which I won’t waste your time with) it’s possible to say, “I am a Christian who believes the Bible, and Genesis 1-3 are an allegory.”
My question is how one continues to believe in Jesus as Messiah after finding out he’s descended from an allegorical character. It’s sort of like finding out a presidential candidate has Yankee Doodle listed in his genealogy, or finding out Governor Perry claims that Pecos Bill is his great-great-great-great-grandfather.
Indeed, yet those sections where allegory is applied, it is clear that it IS allegory for the most part.
So, though there are many problems with the premise (which I won’t waste your time with) it’s possible to say, “I am a Christian who believes the Bible, and Genesis 1-3 are an allegory.”
I have no problem with you statement as presented.
My question is how one continues to believe in Jesus as Messiah after finding out he’s descended from an allegorical character.
Certainly. But if Jesus is just an allegory . . . what's the use of trying to claim one is a "Christian". One 'believes' in a fictional Jesus - then one has a 'Christianity' based upon fiction too.
I understand the huge and significant difference between saying that the Bible CONTAINS allegory and the Bible IS allegory.
“My question is how one continues to believe in Jesus as Messiah after finding out he’s descended from an allegorical character.” Mary was the willing vessel into which God placed the already existing Jesus at embryo age ... if you know anything about human gestation, you realize that a borrowed womb does not mean a borrowed ovum. Mary 'conceived' when her body received the embryo=aged Jesus, not when some sperm united with a 'Mary ovum'.