|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: By ALL possible means save some?
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I've always taken the crucifixion of Jesus as a pretty dramatic unselfish thing to do.
And yet the writer to the Hebrews says that "For the joy that was set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." That suggests a degree of self-interest to me. The self-interest of experiencing the joy of being the saviour.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Is God the Son really like that?
There's an implication in the Hebrews passage that Jesus did do this for some kind of personal reward, but it feels very uncomfortable to me. The "kenosis" of Philippians 2, coupled with the "therefore God exalted him", paints a contrasting picture of obedience and consequence.
It all gets muddy in the Trinity at that point! The obedience of one hypostatis of God to Another kind of does the brain in. Or at least does mine in. But Love incarnate does not look for personal reward. At least I don't think so.
Where that leaves the Hebrews passage is something I'll leave to better exegetes than me.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You need to read all of Psalm 22 Daronmedway. The reason for His joy is obvious. There again you've already identified it and ... twisted it somehow. That giving eternal fulfilment to a hundred billion people for a start is selfish?! How does one find anything negative in that? Ah ... disposition.
REJOICE MAN!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
Not this far:
quote:
The Alhambra Decree (also known as the Edict of Expulsion) was an edict issued on 31 March 1492 by the joint Catholic Monarchs of Spain (Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon) ordering the expulsion of Jews from the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon (not from the Kingdom of Navarre) and its territories and possessions by 31 July of that year.
Some Jews were only given four months and ordered to convert to Christianity or leave the country.
Scholars disagree about how many Jews left Spain as a result of the decree; the numbers vary between 130,000 and 800,000.
Other Spanish Jews (estimates range between 50,000 and 70,000)[citation needed] chose to avoid expulsion by conversion to Christianity.
The punishment for any Jew who did not convert or leave by the deadline was death without trial.
- Wiki
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Definitely not.
(Un/)Fortunately like the lying example, as well as failing the loving your neighbour test, it didn't even work.
A bit later there was doubt about whether they had really converted, and the ramifications of the 'solution' to that still harm mission today (although did give a funny Mony Python sketch).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Merchant Trader - that's even more gnomic than me!
@mousethief & targets - of course what Jesus meant by Hell He never explains. And how He was understood we haven't the faintest idea unless we really, REALLY try to be C1st Jews.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is God the Son really like that?
There's an implication in the Hebrews passage that Jesus did do this for some kind of personal reward, but it feels very uncomfortable to me. The "kenosis" of Philippians 2, coupled with the "therefore God exalted him", paints a contrasting picture of obedience and consequence.
It all gets muddy in the Trinity at that point! The obedience of one hypostatis of God to Another kind of does the brain in. Or at least does mine in. But Love incarnate does not look for personal reward. At least I don't think so.
Where that leaves the Hebrews passage is something I'll leave to better exegetes than me.
I think Jesus rejoiced at the idea of saving his bride the church and presenting her to himself pure and spotless. His bride is his inheritance and reward; he takes joy in his bride and that joy is a very good and beautiful thing. I'd much rather believe that when Jesus looked through the cross he saw the glorified church and it gave him great joy. And so, yes I do believe that in some deep and mysterious way the church even benefits from Jesus' self-interest. Such is the purity of Jesus.
[ 27. April 2013, 18:41: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Bride the church? really? He talked to the two others crucified beside him, and expressed concern about his mother. More selflessness. The things he expressed were about people, people!
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In Gethsemane He assented to giving His all, losing His life. On Golgotha He found what that meant. Complete and utter meaningless in de facto atheism. He lost God. And said yes to that. How did that serve His self? He lost EVERYTHING. For what? At the moment of loss? For what?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Bride the church? really? He talked to the two others crucified beside him, and expressed concern about his mother. More selflessness. The things he expressed were about people, people!
Um, yes? The people who collectively constitute his bride.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
In Gethsemane He assented to giving His all, losing His life. On Golgotha He found what that meant. Complete and utter meaningless in de facto atheism. He lost God. And said yes to that. How did that serve His self? He lost EVERYTHING. For what? At the moment of loss? For what?
For the joy set before him.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Being FULLY human that wasn't there. All hope, all joy, gone. The joy went before Him. There could have been no joy in dying as utterly alone in obscene Godless agony for the One who had always known His Father's presence.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The problem is, when you're dealing with someone who really truly loves his enemies ( to the point of death on a cross), it becomes impossible to distinguish between other-centered motivation and self-centered motivation. Their good becomes his good; their loss is felt as his own. So "the joy set before him" is both his and our joy, and the question of selfishness turns into a nonsense.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Lamb Chopped
Here's the point as I see it: the self-interest of Jesus as a sinless person is utterly self-giving. Jesus was motivated by the joy that was set before him, and the joy that was set before him was the salvation of humanity. He endured the cross for a greater joy. But is was his joy, a real joy for which he was prepared to endure the cross and scorn its shame.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed, agreed daronmedway. No yeah buts all round ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Harmony! If only we could have both.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Bride the church? really? He talked to the two others crucified beside him, and expressed concern about his mother. More selflessness. The things he expressed were about people, people!
Um, yes? The people who collectively constitute his bride.
Umm no. The bride of which you speak, the church, is an organization. Or multiple organizations, with power and money and authority. The corporate entity of church is not the same as the people. Which accounts for the alienation a large part of the population feels from it, at least in part.
Jesus did his thing one person at a time. Not collectively. Which is a point worth discussing. The net effect was all, but the effort was individual, and his end of life discussions were with and about individuals.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
There certainly is a difference between the orgainised denominational organisations that we commonly call "churches" and the Catholic - meaning Universal - Church. However, I don't think the individualistic vision of salvation that you present accords with how the Apostles Paul and John speak of the Church (collective noun) as the bride of Christ.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm sorry, I spent a lovely weekend at the side of (and part of the time in) a beautiful lake.
quote:
mousethief: quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
On this thread, this is about whether it is Jesus or Paul who taught more about selfish pursuit of a ticket to Heaven. The question of whether Jesus might be referring to a literal Hell or making a moral exaggeration, is relevant to this.
1. So you say. How?
Alright, let me try to give an analogy. You're saying "Jesus is scaring people more into agreeing him than Paul." My answer to this: "This depends on whether you believe Jesus' threats of Hell were real, or just a moral exagerration."
An analogy would be something like this. Suppose that I would make a long post in the Ship's Hell rambling on by saying that abortion is un-Christian. Normally, I can expect a Hell-Host to post in reply: "Take it to Dead Horses, or I'll fry your balls in boiling oil."
Ok, so I'll obey this Hell-Host. Would I do this out of a selfish feeling of self-preservation of my testicles? Or would I obey because I respect the Host's authority and I believe that such a rule is better for the Ship?
The answer to this question depends a lot on whether I believe the threat to be real, or a moral exaggeration.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You're saying "Jesus is scaring people more into agreeing him than Paul." My answer to this: "This depends on whether you believe Jesus' threats of Hell were real, or just a moral exagerration."
What does it matter, if they were scary? And if they weren't scary, what was the use?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: What does it matter, if they were scary?
The threats of Hell are only scary if they are real. In this case, this ultimately would make God a cruel Being, and following Him an act of egoism.
quote:
mousethief: And if they weren't scary, what was the use?
I don't know. Like I said, I have the feeling that Jesus exagerrated a bit sometimes, simply because He liked it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Then he was saying things that he should have known (being God and all) could be deathly scary to some people, just to have a bit of sport. Seems out of character.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: Then he was saying things that he should have known (being God and all) could be deathly scary to some people, just to have a bit of sport. Seems out of character.
I would venture that to the people He was talking to a the time, the moral exagerration was obvious.
An example is His story of the rich man and Lazarus. To me, He was trying to make a moral point with this story: don't ignore the beggar on your doorstep! He used a bit of colourful language of fire and gnashing of teeth to drive this point through, and I think His audience understood that.
Of course, being God, He could know that this story would be read by people 2000 years later in a different way. Maybe the lesson He wanted to teach to these people is: don't take everything I say so fucking literally.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The problem with this "Jesus was just exaggerating when he talked about Hell" argument is that you should apply it consistently to his about pronouncements the general resurrection or Heaven as well. Are Jesus' words about these things also to taken as merely pious exaggerations? If Jesus really was into this kind of disingenuousness then in the final analysis he was a liar.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: Then he was saying things that he should have known (being God and all) could be deathly scary to some people, just to have a bit of sport. Seems out of character.
I would venture that to the people He was talking to a the time, the moral exagerration was obvious.
An example is His story of the rich man and Lazarus. To me, He was trying to make a moral point with this story: don't ignore the beggar on your doorstep! He used a bit of colourful language of fire and gnashing of teeth to drive this point through, and I think His audience understood that.
But to some extent with the 'threat' taken away, it loses it's moral teaching.
There's no other explanation of why not to maltreat the poor at his gate (in the parable).
And with the heaven/hell bit known to be an colourful language, I don't see how it's driving it's point, it kind of breaks the story.
An exaggerated taking the extremes of the possible, quite possibly (for obvious reasons I hope that's the case).
An expression of what Jesus wanted to be true, possibly but that's even more terrifying.
A white lie to credulous 1st Century Natives, and we now know better, again possible, but then his audience didn't understand that.
But...
"Once there was a rich man, and a poor man, and the rich man treated the poor man badly. The rich man died and dissolved to dust and the poor man died and dissolved to dust."
Doesn't really relate to the theme, rather you need to be nice because there's no reversal of roles.
And...
"Once there was a rich man, and a poor man, and the rich man treated the poor man badly. The rich man died and went to heaven and the poor man died and went to heaven."
Doesn't really relate to the theme, even suggests it doesn't really matter.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
If my last post hadn't been done on an iPhone it would have said: quote:
The problem with this "Jesus was just exaggerating when he talked about Hell" argument is that you should really apply it consistently to his pronouncements about the general resurrection or Heaven as well. Are Jesus' words about these things also to be taken as merely pious exaggerations? If Jesus really was into this kind of disingenuousness then in the final analysis he was a liar.
Also, it occurs to me that Jesus disapproved of using parables to trick people. He certainly didn't like the way the Sadducees used absurd parables to promote unbiblical doctrines.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So says the apostle Paul, who I have heard described as "the ultimate pragmatist".
I have run across some people who appear to think that "all" here extends to include perpetrating known lies, provided these pull a crowd and get people to a place where they will "take a decision".
Assuming you take the Scriptures to have some kind of value in determining how the Good News is proclaimed, what if any limits to you think there are to "all" in this instance?
Paul and Silas seem to outline the ethics of their evangelistic strategy in 1 Thessalonians 2:4-6. quote:
4 For we speak as messengers approved by God to be entrusted with the Good News. Our purpose is to please God, not people. He alone examines the motives of our hearts. 5 Never once did we try to win you with flattery, as you well know. And God is our witness that we were not pretending to be your friends just to get your money! 6 As for human praise, we have never sought it from you or anyone else.
They seem to suggest that pure motives are as important as the content of the message and reject the use of flattery, pretence of friendship, and other forms of people pleasing as inappropriate methods of evangelism. So, ISTM, that Paul wasn't in favour of any sort of pragmatism that would allow for sensationalism or economy with the truth.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: The problem with this "Jesus was just exaggerating when he talked about Hell" argument is that you should really apply it consistently to his pronouncements about the general resurrection or Heaven as well.
I guess this is true if you treat the Gosple as a rule-book of what must I do to get into Heaven and avoid Hell. However, going back to my earlier example, there is no need for Ship Hosts to be consistent in their moral exagerrations. I get it that when a Host threatens to fry my balls it's an exagerration (I hope ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ), and that when they say that I should take it to Dead Horses it is an order. Humans are usually capable of dealing with this kind of ambiguity, I don't see why it should be different with Jesus.
quote:
Jay-Emm: But to some extent with the 'threat' taken away, it loses it's moral teaching.
Why? Is it only possible to teach someone a moral lesson if you use threats? I've been working with children and young people for a long time, and I would say quite the opposite.
quote:
Jay-Emm: There's no other explanation of why not to maltreat the poor at his gate (in the parable).
No, but maybe Jesus just wanted us to understand: don't maltreat the poor at your gate because, you know, maltreating somone is a bad thing. Maybe He needed a bit of moral exagerration to reinforce this point, but he'd also kinda hope that we'd get it by ourselves.
quote:
Jay-Emm: "Once there was a rich man, and a poor man, and the rich man treated the poor man badly. The rich man died and dissolved to dust and the poor man died and dissolved to dust."
I agree with you that this wouldn't work. That's why Jesus had to exagerrate.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Jay-Emm:[qb] But to some extent with the 'threat' taken away, it loses it's moral teaching.
Why? Is it only possible to teach someone a moral lesson if you use threats? I've been working with children and young people for a long time, and I would say quite the opposite.
No,
For example "Do not worry" doesn't use a threat. From Paul "Since you are going to judge the world, can't you decide the little things among yourselves"
But the parable hinges on the change of circumstances.
If for contrast you said "God doesn't care about the sparrows" then the point is lost from that parable. The alongsideness of it is destroyed.
If you take aware the second half of the parable you're left with nothing.
quote:
quote:
Jay-Emm: There's no other explanation of why not to maltreat the poor at his gate (in the parable).
No, but maybe Jesus just wanted us to understand: don't maltreat the poor at your gate because, you know, maltreating somone is a bad thing. Maybe He needed a bit of moral exagerration to reinforce this point, but he'd also kinda hope that we'd get it by ourselves.
But he conspicuously doesn't make it (here). It's kind of assumed but only with the second half.
Compare and Contrast with Nathans Parable, which leaves the situation but it clear it's wrong.
[ 29. April 2013, 17:27: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: The problem with this "Jesus was just exaggerating when he talked about Hell" argument is that you should really apply it consistently to his pronouncements about the general resurrection or Heaven as well.
I guess this is true if you treat the Gospel as a rule-book of what must I do to get into Heaven and avoid Hell.
Firstly, my guess is that next to no-one holds that opinion that the gospel is a book. And secondly, I'm not sure how what you've said relates to my comment. Perhaps you could expand on it a bit?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jay-Emm: If you take aware the second half of the parable you're left with nothing.
I'm not arguing that you should take it away. I'm saying that I treat it as a moral exagerration.
quote:
daronmedway: Firstly, my guess is that next to no-one holds that opinion that the gospel is a book.
Sigh, yes I know that. I'm a bit sloppy in my use of language sometimes.
quote:
daronmedway: And secondly, I'm not sure how what you've said relates to my comment. Perhaps you could expand on it a bit?
I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear. Whether you should apply a certain argument consistently or not to Jesus' pronouncements depends on how you interpret these pronouncements.
If I read a Law book, I have to be consistent in how I interpret what it says. If I listen to a school teacher, I can make a difference in: now she's making a moral exagerration, now she is giving an order... I don't have to interpret what she says consistently.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Le Roc said: I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear. Whether you should apply a certain argument consistently or not to Jesus' pronouncements depends on how you interpret these pronouncements.
If this is the case then ISTM that the issue at hand is whether your interpretation is correct. I get the impression that you see interpretation as the means by which subjective meaning is imposed on objective sequences of words - a method of making words mean what we would like them to mean, or of preventing words from meaning that which we do not want them to mean.
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. I think he did. But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. I think he did. But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
You decide based on his character and actions. He was inclusive, forgiving, loving and he valued people for who they were. Far more so than our 21st century eyes now often notice. Valuing/forgiving/loving can not = condemning to hell.
[ 30. April 2013, 07:19: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. I think he did. But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
You decide based on his character and actions.
Are you are talking about the written record of his character and actions that has come to us in the New Testament scriptures? Because if you are, I'd have to ask you whether the picture of Jesus that you paint below requires you to set aside anything in those Scriptures which doesn't accord with your particular definition of inclusivity, forgiveness and love, like condemning people hell for example. Because - like it or not - that is precisely what Jesus does in the pages of the New Testament.
So, I seems to me that the one whose picture of Jesus' character and actions requires the least editing is likely the most accurate and - by the same token - the one whose picture requires the most editing will, naturally, be the least accurate. No?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: I get the impression that you see interpretation as the means by which subjective meaning is imposed on objective sequences of words - a method of making words mean what we would like them to mean, or of preventing words from meaning that which we do not want them to mean.
I agree only partly with the first part of the sentence, and I disagree with the second part. Interpretation is something that we always do. Only very rarely in the Bible, there are objective sequences of words with meanings are so clear that they don't need to be interpreted. They are words spoken in the First Century to people of a different culture, and written down only generations later. If we want to apply them to our Twenty-First Century lives, we always have to interpret.
But I realize that this is a Dead Horse topic, so I'll leave it here. You may interpret the words of the Bible differently from me, and you may even call them 'objective'. The only thing I'm saying here is: people interpret the Bible in different ways, and whether you consider Jesus' words a threat highly depends on your interpretation.
quote:
daronmedway: But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
I'm pretty much with Boogie here. I decide based on Jesus' overall character as portrayed in the Gospel, and on His command of love.
Does this give me a guarantee that I have the 'right' interpretation? No, but I'm not very concerned with having the 'right' interpretation in the first place. I just try to stumble along and live my life as given in Jesus' example, in my relation with myself, with others and with God. The rest is up to Him.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Le Roc,
Surely you would agree that the words of scripture are objective inasmuch as they objectively exist as they are irrespective of our speculations about them. I was asking whether you see interpretation as the imposition of entirely subjective meaning on an historically objective text or if you think that interpretation is about seeking to find the intended intrinsic meaning of the text.
The interpretive endeavour is, I would suggest, the attempt to reach the intended and intrinsic meaning of the texts thereby submitting our subjectivity to the word of God. This being the case, you would probably understanding why I find your stated lack of interest in finding the correct interpretation of the text somewhat perplexing.
Surely, if you are prepared to acknowledge that the text is rooted in a specific historical context which must be understood in order to rightly understand the text, you would therefore be interested to ensuring one interpretation of the text is 'correct' inasmuch as it expresses as closely as possible the meaning that was originally intended?
Why else your insistence that Jesus' original meaning was hyperbolic? The problem of course that there isn't much evidence to prove your hypotheses, which ISTM means that it's really just an exercise in wishful thinking.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. I think he did. But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
You decide based on his character and actions.
Are you are talking about the written record of his character and actions that has come to us in the New Testament scriptures? Because if you are, I'd have to ask you whether the picture of Jesus that you paint below requires you to set aside anything in those Scriptures which doesn't accord with your particular definition of inclusivity, forgiveness and love, like condemning people hell for example. Because - like it or not - that is precisely what Jesus does in the pages of the New Testament.
So, I seems to me that the one whose picture of Jesus' character and actions requires the least editing is likely the most accurate and - by the same token - the one whose picture requires the most editing will, naturally, be the least accurate. No?
No, because he was using hyperbole! This argument will go round for ever.
In the end, we believe what we want to. I happen to believe in a loving, forgiving God, who forgives before we even reach home and does so 70X7.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No, because he was using hyperbole! This argument will go round for ever.
But even if Jesus were using hyperbole, presumably he'd still be seeking to make a point or sound a warning. If I say "my bag weighs a ton" as hyperbole, I don't mean it literally weighs a ton but I do want you to know that my bag is darned heavy. If I say "this country's going to hell in a handcart" as hyperbole, I may not literally mean it, but I will mean that this country's in a pretty bad way (I'm not sure I do believe that, btw).
Saying "it's hyperbole" (which it may well have been) doesn't negate that Jesus was sounding a warning here. Even if Jesus didn't mean "Believe in me or fry in hell" (and I really don't know my answer to the "does Hell exist?" question), I think it's safe to say there are sayings of Jesus that, at the least, give a warning that rejecting Him and the message He brings has serious consequences.
Hyperbole has to have some meaning behind it. Jesus wouldn't just start saying that sort of stuff for the fun of it, because he liked the words, or because he thought it made him sound impressive, or he liked to scare people. If he wasn't seeking to warn people through hyperbole, then he was just frightening them for the fun of it - which is about as un-Christ-like as it gets (as well as being dangerously abusive).
While I want to affirm the wonderful inclusiveness and grace of Jesus and that He came not to condemn the world but to save it, I don't think it's satisfactory to simply write-off the words of warning as "hyperbole" as if that renders them null and void.
quote:
In the end, we believe what we want to. I happen to believe in a loving, forgiving God, who forgives before we even reach home and does so 70X7.
So do I. I'd be screwed if God wasn't like that. But I also think God leaves it up to us whether we accept that forgiveness or not - and lays the cards on the table about what it means not to.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I really don't think that I can answer this without climbing on a mount that's starting to get suspiciously smelly.
quote:
daronmedway: Surely you would agree that the words of scripture are objective inasmuch as they objectively exist as they are irrespective of our speculations about them.
What we objectively have, is words that were written at least two generation's after Jesus' death, ressurection and ascension, in a language that He probably didn't use.
quote:
daronmedway: I was asking whether you see interpretation as the imposition of entirely subjective meaning on an historically objective text or if you think that interpretation is about seeking to find the intended intrinsic meaning of the text.
I'm not an expert on Bible interpretation, but I would guess that to me the second option is important. Jesus said some things to a couple of Jews in the First Century. But, being God, he also meant for this words to have a meaning for me in the Twenty-First. Bible interpretations to me is trying to find out what this meaning could be.
quote:
daronmedway: The interpretive endeavour is, I would suggest, the attempt to reach the intended and intrinsic meaning of the texts thereby submitting our subjectivity to the word of God.
No, I wouldn't put it like this. My interpretation is submitted to the question: "What can Jesus' words mean to me in the Twenty-First Century?"
quote:
daronmedway: Surely, if you are prepared to acknowledge that the text is rooted in a specific historical context which must be understood in order to rightly understand the text, you would therefore be interested to ensuring one interpretation of the text is 'correct' inasmuch as it expresses as closely as possible the meaning that was originally intended?
As far as the historical context goes, I am interested in the question: "What would Jesus' words mean to First-Century Jews?" Because this helps me to understand what they might mean to me.
quote:
daronmedway: The problem of course that there isn't much evidence to prove your hypotheses, which ISTM means that it's really just an exercise in wishful thinking.
I'm not really interested in evidence or proving my hypothesis. It's my interpretation of the Gospels, just like every one else's approach to them is theirs.
Look, this isn't really rocket science. I'm sure that almost everyone on the 'liberal' end of the Christianity spectrum approaches the Bible more or less in this way.
quote:
Stejjie: But even if Jesus were using hyperbole, presumably he'd still be seeking to make a point or sound a warning.
Yes. To me, the point He was trying to make (in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) is: "Don't ignore the beggar on your doorstep!"
quote:
Stejjie: I don't think it's satisfactory to simply write-off the words of warning as "hyperbole" as if that renders them null and void.
The fact that something is a hyperbole doesn't render it null and void. To the contrary. To me, it expresses that when Jesus told us to look out for the beggar on our door-step, He really meant it.
quote:
Stejjie: Jesus wouldn't just start saying that sort of stuff for the fun of it, because he liked the words, or because he thought it made him sound impressive, or he liked to scare people. If he wasn't seeking to warn people through hyperbole, then he was just frightening them for the fun of it - which is about as un-Christ-like as it gets (as well as being dangerously abusive).
Like I said before, I have a suspicion that His First Century audience might have understood that it was hyperbole.
As for us, well it doesn't seem that He tried very hard to help our Twenty-First Century interpretation much. I mean, He could have explained the right position on homoousis and homoiousis and prevented a couple of wars. You might as well call it abusive that He didn't do that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not really interested in evidence or proving my hypothesis. It's my interpretation of the Gospels, just like every one else's approach to them is theirs.
So you are happy to publicly promote an interpretation of scripture for which you have no evidence or proof? And furthermore you wish to assert that your interpretation of scripture is as valid as any other simply because you happen to believe it? Surely you can see how weak an argument that is?
[ 30. April 2013, 14:44: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: So you are happy to publicly promote an interpretation of scripture for which you have no evidence or proof? And furthermore you wish to assert that your interpretation of scripture is as valid as any other simply because you happen to believe it? Surely you can see how weak an argument that is?
I don't care very much if you find it weak. FWIW, I'm not trying to convince anyone.
The only thing I am saying on this thread is: "Whether you believe that Jesus was ushering threats, depends on how you interpret His words." And that continues to be true, no matter how strong or weak you may find my interpretation.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: So you are happy to publicly promote an interpretation of scripture for which you have no evidence or proof? And furthermore you wish to assert that your interpretation of scripture is as valid as any other simply because you happen to believe it? Surely you can see how weak an argument that is?
I don't care very much if you find it weak. FWIW, I'm not trying to convince anyone.
The only thing I am saying on this thread is: "Whether you believe that Jesus was ushering threats, depends on how you interpret His words." And that continues to be true, no matter how strong or weak you may find my interpretation.
Well, given that the subject under debate concerns the teaching of Jesus Christ on the eternal destiny of humankind I think we should take care to base our interpretation on something more substantial than our personal feelings.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: Well, given that the subject under debate concerns the teaching of Jesus Christ on the eternal destiny of humankind I think we should take care to base our interpretation on something more substantial than our personal feelings.
To be honest, when I read the Bible I don't concern myself very much with the eternal destination of humankind (by which I assume you mean what happens to us after death), and in my interpretation the parable of the rich man and Lazarus doesn't teach me a lot about that.
It does teach me some other things, though. And as to what happens to me after death, I leave that pretty much up to God.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: Well, given that the subject under debate concerns the teaching of Jesus Christ on the eternal destiny of humankind I think we should take care to base our interpretation on something more substantial than our personal feelings.
To be honest, when I read the Bible I don't concern myself very much with the eternal destination of humankind (by which I assume you mean what happens to us after death), and in my interpretation the parable of the rich man and Lazarus doesn't teach me a lot about that.
It does teach me some other things, though. And as to what happens to me after death, I leave that pretty much up to God.
You're speaking as if the only person for which the teachings of Jesus have any relevance is yourself, hence your willingness to trust your own private interpretation despite the lack of substantial evidence. But surely you think the teaching of Jesus on Hell - hyperbolic or not - might have some wider ramifications that your own personal spirituality?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: You're speaking as if the only person for which the teachings of Jesus have any relevance is yourself, hence your willingness to trust your own private interpretation despite the lack of substantial evidence.
Let me try to clarify: when I speak about my interpretation, I mean by this: it isn't something would bestow upon you, and I respect that you might have another interpretation. It isn't an assertion of individuality in the sense that I don't need anyone else. I'm definitely not the only one in the world that has this kind of interpretation, and sharing with other people is an important part of it.
quote:
daronmedway: But surely you think the teaching of Jesus on Hell - hyperbolic or not - might have some wider ramifications that your own personal spirituality?
Maybe. In what sense?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: You're speaking as if the only person for which the teachings of Jesus have any relevance is yourself, hence your willingness to trust your own private interpretation despite the lack of substantial evidence.
Let me try to clarify: when I speak about my interpretation, I mean by this: it isn't something would bestow upon you, and I respect that you might have another interpretation. It isn't an assertion of individuality in the sense that I don't need anyone else. I'm definitely not the only one in the world that has this kind of interpretation, and sharing with other people is an important part of it.
quote:
daronmedway: But surely you think the teaching of Jesus on Hell - hyperbolic or not - might have some wider ramifications that your own personal spirituality?
Maybe. In what sense?
I wouldn't want you respect my interpretation if you thought it was wrong. I would want you to try to change my mind.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: I wouldn't want you respect my interpretation if you thought it was wrong. I would want you to try to change my mind.
I think it's obvious that we are interpreting the Bible in different ways. To a degree, this implies that we don't always use the same language in describing the Bible. Indeed, some of the words I use might seem alien to you and vice versa.
If I'd try to express it, then to me it's a book (yes, yes, collection of books) that tries to inspire me in my relation with God, others, and myself, through the stories, thoughts and examples of others who have tried this kind of relation in the past.
To me, it isn't much of a rule book of how I will get into Heaven and avoid Hell. So, having the 'right' interpretation isn't very important to me. In fact, some of the words you use like 'right', 'valid', 'proof' and 'evidence' don't have much significance to me when I talk about interpreting the Bible. I guess it's the same to you with some words I'm using.
Questions like "Is our interpretation of the Bible the right one, and do we have evidence to prove its validity?" don't come up a lot in the church group I attend. It's not how we think about the Bible.
So, I see no reason why I'd want to change your mind about whether your Bible interpretation is right or wrong.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yer woodenists can't see the culture being used against itself for the trees LeRoc.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
