As an example of the above,

Merriam-Webster- definition of allegorical "having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text.” 

Matt 27:50-53 "Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many." (NRSV) 

The next chapter of Matthew's gospel reports: 

Matt 28:5-6 "But the angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said." 

Are both of these chapters historical (i.e. they happened) or allegorical (a teaching story)? Or one (chapter) of each?

May 7, 2012 -- 8:42AM, LittleLes wrote:

To what degree should the Bible be considered historically accurate?

The question makes no sense.  What do you mean by degree?

So you're asking:  How much of the bible should [you] consider historically accurate?  (Even that is unclear - use of the word 'should' is ambiguous)

This is another Littleles set-up.  People will answer the question they want to then you'll say something like "Evidence please".

You really should write more clearly

Why don't you ask the question properly:  How many of the stories in the bible do you consider historically accurate?  Then your "Show me the evidence" comment falls flat on its face. 

You just like to set up people so you can knock them down.

PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE, Pope Pius X, 1907

"Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.

Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission,On the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch,
June 27, 1906

The Biblical Commission answers the following questions:
1. Authenticity — Whether the arguments amassed by critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are of sufficient weight, notwithstanding the very many evidences to the contrary contained in both Testaments, taken collectively, the persistent agreement of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal arguments derived from the text itself, to justify the statement that these books have not Moses for their author but have been complied from sources for the most part posterior  (after or subsequent) to the time of Moses.
Answer: In the negative.

Catholics have been required to believe in the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.

Is this view supportable by the evidence?

May 7, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Buggsy wrote:

May 7, 2012 -- 5:47PM, LittleLes wrote:

Or, as Eric Berne pointed out in his book The Games People Play, when one encounters game playing, just ignore it and refuse to play.

Relax man, from what I see you're the game player and you do it well. I just see it . . . tell me what you think and then show me the evidence for why you think so - set'em up, knock'em down. Nice!

I unblocked LittleLes to see his latest ruminations and discovered that if someone is blocked, even threads that he started are blocked and you never see them.  I counted four threads.  Oooooo! 

In any case, Buggsy, the above game you’ve mentioned that LittleLes plays is one of the reasons I blocked him.  I wanted him to give his opinion on something and then present evidence for said opinion.  He didn’t want to do that – choosing instead to accuse me of playing games. [??]  After experiencing this nonsense several times over the years, I simply blocked him, and for several months now have been LittletLes-free.

You clearly are the most masochistic of posters here presently, Buggsy.  I simply cannot abide LittleLes’ nonsense any longer and will, upon posting this post, promptly block him again.  I have to say that in years and years of posting on Beliefnet, LittleLes was the first poster that I ever blocked and remains to this date the only poster on my blocked list.