Parables, can we break the code? (Jesus, moral, Kingdom, beliefs)

[sojourner]

Except when it doesn't.

then it's not a parable. It's something else.

But there's little or no way of testing the methodology to know that it generates an "original meaning" or even to determine how "close" it gets.

this is my point. Even if we don't know how close it gets, at least it's something. We have to start somewhere, and we have to have some way of determining congruent meaning.

Right, so exegesis is eisegesis with a dirty mirror.

I guess I don't understand. Exegesis is a "reading out of" process. It begins with no assumptions and informs understanding. Eisegesis is a "reading into" process. It begins with an assumption and then seeks to find that assumption inherent in the reading.
Hopefully, what we read out of scripture will be congruent with what we have previously come to understand about it. it is a test, because, sometimes, the exegesis informs us that our theology is wrong and needs to change.

Who is "us"? Are you telling me that if I don't agree with what you think it means, it doesn't have any meaning to me? . . . Even if it does have meaning to me?

No, I'm saying that exegesis works way better than eisegesis in formulating a theological stance. The whole thing about the Bible that makes it special is that it can embrace multiple interpretations. The meaning you take away is the meaning you take away.

Exegesis is a clever means of trying to construct an "appeal to authority" argument, when in fact, the "intent" of the author is actually quite unknown. In the case of the story at issue, the author(s) is actually quite unknown.

but exegesis is the best we've got. We use the best tools available to us.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

You choose the meaning that appeals to YOU.
The meaning that is meaningful to you.

Depth of personal meaning is hardly intellectual masturbation.
Not that I have anything against anyone's personal style of masturbation mind you...
(and then even masturbation can hold personal meaning & power.)

Some people like to choose/find/construct/hold their OWN meaning(s).
Some people choose to imagine that others do it for them.
Some people prefer that others actually do it for them.

(suddenly EVERYTHING is sounding sexual! )

It's not the garnering of meaning that's useless, it's the rampant skepticism.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

then it's not a parable. It's something else.

Call it whatever you want. A rose by another name . . ..

Originally Posted by sojourner

this is my point. Even if we don't know how close it gets, at least it's something. We have to start somewhere, and we have to have some way of determining congruent meaning.

Saying it's at least something isn't exactly high praise. But why do we have to have "some way of determining congruent meaning"? And does "exegesis" lead to "congruent" meaning or to just a whole bunch of disparate and conflicting "congruent" meanings? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelical Fundamentalists, Aryans, and even non-"Christians" are also pretending to find the "original meaning" through "exegesis," too.

Originally Posted by sojourner

I guess I don't understand. Exegesis is a "reading out of" process. It begins with no assumptions and informs understanding.

Except that it doesn't. No examination of reality can "begin with no assumptions" and "informing understanding" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Originally Posted by sojourner

Eisegesis is a "reading into" process. It begins with an assumption and then seeks to find that assumption inherent in the reading.

Right. Which is why exegesis is eisegesis with ignorance of the theological, psychological and emotional biases and assumptions of the would-be scholar.

Originally Posted by sojourner

Hopefully, what we read out of scripture will be congruent with what we have previously come to understand about it. it is a test, because, sometimes, the exegesis informs us that our theology is wrong and needs to change.

Give me an example of theology that was adjudged to be wrong by the leadership of a religious institution based on exegesis?

Originally Posted by sojourner

No, I'm saying that exegesis works way better than eisegesis in formulating a theological stance.

And I'm saying there's really no difference between the two, except that one is designed to impose an interpretation on others by pretending that you have the "original meaning". And then the real intellectual masturbation begins as people argue about nonsense such as whether "God" is a "Trinity" or not - and if "He" is, what kind of "Trinity" - for two thousand years and counting.

"Exegesis" can appear to be utterly silly.

Originally Posted by sojourner

The whole thing about the Bible that makes it special is that it can embrace multiple interpretations. The meaning you take away is the meaning you take away.

Exactly. Which is all I'm saying.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

It's not the garnering of meaning that's useless, it's the rampant skepticism.

Skepticism about what, exactly?

[doppelgänger]

I would add, BTW, that the collection of books that make up the "canonical" Bible don't necessarily belong together, don't necessarily come from authors with the same core beliefs or values, and don't have the same theological, mythological, cultural, aesthetic or artistic methods, intent, or purposes . . . which only adds to the confusion of pretending to perform an exegesis on the Bible.

[Heneni]

Perhaps its time for another parable:

I can recall one poster found this parable to be evidence that the bible has mistakes in it, since a mustard seed does not grow into a tree. What do you think the parable means? Any suggestions? And what about the mustard 'tree'

Luke13:18Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? 19It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches."

Another version:
Mark 4: 30Again he said, "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? 31It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. 32Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade."

[Heneni]

Matthew 17:20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, `Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.

Hi Charity...perhaps you are referring to this scripture instead?

Why is the kingdom of God likened to a mustard seed? How then can the kingdom grow?

Heneni

[Charity]

Heneni Good day how are you? In referencing I find that the mustard seed can grow in very favorable conditions up to 10 feet. Said the plant could reach that tall and then it would be referred to as a tree.

Sorry I looked at the wrong scripture, I Had just signed on and looked at the wrong place. That's why I deleted it.

[Charity]

Mat 13:31-32
Is referring to the fact that the Kindgom of God will seem insignificant in the beginning, but will eventually spread through out the world. According to my NIV it says that this is suggesting that the kingdom of heaven will expand to world dominion and people from all nations will find rest in it.
33 In the Bible yeast usually sumbolizes that which is evil or unclean. Here it is used as a symbol of growth...Just as the yeast permeates a batch of dough, so will the kingdom of heaven spread thorugh a person's life. Or it could also signify the growth of the kingdom by th