Posted                       

quote:

---

How do you interpret this, and on what basis?
Well here's how I would do it. I am not theologically learned.

Text/context/co text

Text :Assume these words convey Jesus' meaning in translation

Context: Jewish understanding would be that in the OT, eating of flesh with blood was anathema and so his audience of disciples are intentionally being shocked
Context 2: the utterance occurs soon before Calvary. Jesus must be flagging his imminent crucifixion.

Co text: 1There are parallel utterances eg my flesh is real food,my blood is real drink. I am the bread of life, he who comes to me shall not hunger. Do this in memory of me.

Co text 2 Paul refers to the taking of bread by Jesus and says 'when supper was ended he took the Cup.' etc.. And By doing this we signify the Lord's death till he come.
There are others

Conclusion: Jesus has created for his immediate audience a violent paradigm shift. He has played on their OT knowledge of the Torah to force them to look at him as a sacrifice animal with his blood as a source of new life.
Paul has created a repeatable action by which believers can celebrate the source of their regeneration. He even goes so far as to enjoin that to eat and drink unworthily is to eat and drink damnation to oneself but to say the number of times one can do this is unrestricted. There is a chance to examine ones own heart as well as celebrate the new life..the new reality..the regeneration.

So the basis of this is text linked to context linked to co text.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Lil Buddah: Suffice it to say that certain viewpoints have an historic and ongoing negative effect on others, even extending into laws that should be neutral.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
That's a literal interpretation that doesn't match reality in the slightest. What man? What wife? What fall?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Jamat, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy so that if someone doesn't accept, as you do, that everything in Scripture is all in perfect harmony and true, they must believe that it's all a lie.

You've been on the Ship long enough, I would have thought, to grasp that that is a false dichotomy. The view of many people here is that there are things in the Bible that are problematic.

With all due respect, one of the most difficult things in talking to you is that you tend not to engage with any such notion of difficulty.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Lil Buddah: Suffice it to say that certain viewpoints have an historic and ongoing negative effect on others, even extending into laws that should be neutral.

---

I take it from this that you are against any belief that the Bible is a consistent and overarching meta narrative of God's dealings with mankind as leading to wars, conflicts and prejudices and bad laws that we all should be crusading against. Please confirm.

If so, it is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of whether afore mentioned Bible IS an overarching metanarrative of God's dealings with mankind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
lB--

An excuse doesn't mean it's ok that something happened. It means that the doer may have mitigating circumstances, and therefore may not be at fault, as far as punishment.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
That's a literal interpretation that doesn't match reality in the slightest. What man? What wife? What fall?

---

ISTM that your discovery of post modern theory leads you to think that everything we experience is smoke and mirrors but then you,
'except Jesus'
as if this answers everything.

In response to your statement:

The man Jesus mentions, the woman Jesus mentions and, Fall? the reason Jesus came.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.

---

I am saying a little more than that. I am saying that you seem to have trouble agreeing to disagree on things that are open to interpretation, because you can't see why they might be open to interpretation.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You seem to want me to engage on the presupposition that scripture is based on myths.

---

quote:

---

You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God.

---

quote:

---

How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth?

---

quote:

---

But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.

---

quote:

---

What Jesus are you believing in?

---

quote:

---

A possibly historical human about whom swirls myths? You could find a better role model than that.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.

---

I am saying a little more than that. I am saying that you seem to have trouble agreeing to disagree on things that are open to interpretation, because you can't see why they might be open to interpretation.

---

If agreeing to disagree is saying : " Hey, you might be right about that" then you are really giving in. You have to be genuinely convinced to do that with integrity. But in the present discussion,you seem to be asking me why Am I not convinced as it is patently obvious to everyone else here that the Bible couldn't possibly be a complete divine message.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.

---

I am saying a little more than that. I am saying that you seem to have trouble agreeing to disagree on things that are open to interpretation, because you can't see why they might be open to interpretation.

---

If agreeing to disagree is saying : " Hey, you might be right about that" then you are really giving in. You have to be genuinely convinced to do that with integrity. But in the present discussion,you seem to be asking me why Am I not convinced as it is patently obvious to everyone else here that the Bible couldn't possibly be a complete divine message.

---

No. There's the false dichotomy again. The question is rather: why are you so convinced that it IS a complete divine message that you feel the need to show those who aren't convinced it's a complete divine message that they are wrong?

Even by starting this thread, there's a sense that you are going out of your way to prove things. For whose benefit, exactly?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
@Mousethief: unsure that this is all about Your point whatever it is.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are really saying is that I disagree with people that have a different view.

---

I am saying a little more than that. I am saying that you seem to have trouble agreeing to disagree on things that are open to interpretation, because you can't see why they might be open to interpretation.

---

If agreeing to disagree is saying : " Hey, you might be right about that" then you are really giving in. You have to be genuinely convinced to do that with integrity. But in the present discussion,you seem to be asking me why Am I not convinced as it is patently obvious to everyone else here that the Bible couldn't possibly be a complete divine message.

---

No. There's the false dichotomy again. The question is rather: why are you so convinced that it IS a complete divine message that you feel the need to show those who aren't convinced it's a complete divine message that they are wrong?

Even by starting this thread, there's a sense that you are going out of your way to prove things. For whose benefit, exactly?

---

I think it is called evangelism in the New Testament. So the false dichotomy is caring enough to affirm truth? Well, (shrug) feel free to ignore. One day everyone will answer for their choices ( if the Bible is correct). Sounds judgemental I know but there it is. Here's a question for you. What if you die and discover yourself on the wrong side of eternity. You've made a ghastly mistake and it is too late to remediate? 'Oh ***! my mates on SOF were mostly on the broad road.'

I only began this as the inerrancy thread was closed at the time.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
@ Martin. Here's a bloke I like listening to. Dave Hunt You tube Sermon.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The issue is being so sure that you have the truth, in all its completeness, that you have to have everyone else agree with it.

---

quote:

---

Do you really think that everyone will answer for whether they interpret Scripture the same way? That doesn't seem Biblical to me. I was always taught that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ, not through being in complete agreement with what every verse in the Bible meant.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe that the Bible condemns doubt, or questioning. If it does then I guess I'm fucked, but then one has to start asking why God created brains if we were forbidden to try using them. If God is only happy with one point of view, then God really ought to have pre-programmed it in, instead of allowing all this messy diversity of thought and all the difficulties involved in communicating through the imprecision of language (amplified by translation between languages and a couple of thousand years of cultural change).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
@ Martin. Here's a bloke I like listening to. Dave Hunt You tube Sermon.

---

What's his interpretation?

---

Whatever your want it to be



--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth?

---

How could He not?

---

quote:

---

But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.

---

quote:

---

What Jesus are you believing in?

---

quote:

---

No, a definitely 100% historical 100% human. In literary terms He is 100% mythic too. The claim of divinity is literarily mythic. I accept the claim. I couldn't possibly do any better and neither can you or anyone else. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

[qb]
You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God.

---

I can.

---

You have a logic problem here. Are you saying that you are constructing your reality to such an extent that a myth to you is more real than your reality? Sounds to me like Plato gone mad.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
@ Martin. Here's a bloke I like listening to. Dave Hunt You tube Sermon.

---

What's his interpretation?

---

Whatever your want it to be

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You seem to want me to engage on the presupposition that scripture is based on myths.

You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God. How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth? But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.

What Jesus are you believing in? A possibly historical human about whom swirls myths? You could find a better role model than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
No. There's the false dichotomy again. The question is rather: why are you so convinced that it IS a complete divine message that you feel the need to show those who aren't convinced it's a complete divine message that they are wrong?

Even by starting this thread, there's a sense that you are going out of your way to prove things. For whose benefit, exactly?

---

I think it is called evangelism in the New Testament. So the false dichotomy is caring enough to affirm truth? Well, (shrug) feel free to ignore. One day everyone will answer for their choices ( if the Bible is correct). Sounds judgemental I know but there it is. Here's a question for you. What if you die and discover yourself on the wrong side of eternity. You've made a ghastly mistake and it is too late to remediate? 'Oh ***! my mates on SOF were mostly on the broad road.'

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth?

---

How could He not?

---

Now that is arguing like a Rabbi. I realise that Jesus laid aside his godly attributes to become human but would that have included his common sense?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, a definitely 100% historical 100% human. In literary terms He is 100% mythic too. The claim of divinity is literarily mythic. I accept the claim. I couldn't possibly do any better and neither can you or anyone else.

---

Here I think you fail Philosophy 101.

---

quote:

---

You cannot ride multiple realities by saying all are mythical and also historical.

quote:

---

---

If you say so.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God.

---

I can.

---

You have a logic problem here.

---

Where?

quote:

---

Are you saying that you are constructing your reality to such an extent that a myth to you is more real than your reality?

---

No.

quote:

---

Sounds to me like Plato gone mad.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I feel degraded by this. Soiled. A fool. I only have myself to blame for having any hope that ... for any hope period. Vanity eh? Futility. I just failed very similarly with my 86 year old mother too. Will I ever learn? To give up trying to throw good thinking after bad?

I also feel reproached. If I have not charity ...

Not for the first time: God bless you Jamat.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:


Why on earth do you feel qualified to claim that my belief in Jesus can be no good to me? I worship the incarnate God, NOT an "historical human about whom swirls myths"

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.

---

Yes they can. Indeed the whole of the Christian faith is built on that kind of oxymoron: the incarnation.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.

--American First Lady Abigail Adams. (Quotery)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--

quote:

---

I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.

--American First Lady Abigail Adams. (Quotery)

---

NOTE: That's not a slam at your intelligence. Just pointing out that there are other ways to look at contradictions, FWIW.

---

Nice one ..depending one your gender?


--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I feel degraded by this. Soiled. A fool. I only have myself to blame for having any hope that ... for any hope period. Vanity eh? Futility. I just failed very similarly with my 86 year old mother too. Will I ever learn? To give up trying to throw good thinking after bad?

I also feel reproached. If I have not charity ...

Not for the first time: God bless you Jamat.

---

Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.

---

quote:

---

The Jesus of the Bible is neither a sacramental Jesus or a post-modern Jesus.

---

quote:

---

He said himself in Matt 24 that false Christs would arise.

---

quote:

---

You think you've come from where I am now

---

quote:

---

but who made Derrida et al the holy screen to see everything through?

---

quote:

---

Their insight ISTM was to allow for the validity of text to be determined by the reader's world as well as by the writer's. It isn't authoritative or unquestionable.

---

quote:

---

The danger of a false Jesus is a false gospel that does not save.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--

How are you defining "myth", please?

I know of at least two definitions:

--a story that is false;

--a deep Story that helps you live, which may or may not have factual elements.

ISTM you're using the first definition.

IMHO, Myth is based on story and truth; and Legend is based on story and fact. Sometimes, myth and legend intertwine, as with King Arthur.

Thx.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Because the true Jesus believed things that aren't true doesn't make them true or Him untrue.

---

There is dissonance in this that I simply cannot digest, sorry.

Regarding your comments about evolution. Everyone here seems to swallow it but I do not but that is old ground. On another note, I do hope your health is holding up mate.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--

quote:

---

I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.

--American First Lady Abigail Adams. (Quotery)

---

NOTE: That's not a slam at your intelligence. Just pointing out that there are other ways to look at contradictions, FWIW.

---

Nice one ..depending one your gender?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.

---

What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Because the true Jesus believed things that aren't true doesn't make them true or Him untrue.

---

There is dissonance in this that I simply cannot digest, sorry.

Regarding your comments about evolution. Everyone here seems to swallow it but I do not but that is old ground. On another note, I do hope your health is holding up mate.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.

---

What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.

---

It is assertive of its own authority as shown by the verses I quoted in the OP. So many times the writers claim "And the word of the Lord came to..."
If you define the word 'interpretation' you can look at it in one sense as the way a reader understands a specific meaning or alternatively as the way meaning is transferred. It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative. It is already evident that the Bible is a library of varied works of genres from narrative to poetry. All of which adds up to a very general argument if held in a vacuum. I'm sure we mostly would agree that Paul claimed apostolic authority. However, was Peter appointed the first pope? I'd say that's a stretch but not to an RC. Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting but just as certainly makes interpretive claims in the second sense. It claims to transfer a divine message.

---