Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[sojourner]

This would have no force, if Jesus were relating an allegorical account to real life situations...

To our modern, Western mind, yes. But not necessarily to the ancient, Eastern mind.

 

[sojourner]

So why do you think there's two different lineages?
I mean, the theory is the Gospels were all put together
a century or so after Jesus, carefully crafted to make
it appear they were contemporaneous with Jesus. Yet
they made his huge blooper.

Matthew and Luke’s authors came up with different genealogies to bolster their unique theological agendas.

 

[sojourner]

The implication of this though is that there is no way of determining who has the true interpretation or not. So nobody will know who the true Christians are.

There’s no such thing as “the true interpretation.” The Bible is multivalent. There are any number of reasonable interpretations, based in a thorough exegesis of the text in question.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity is all about hierarchies - those with less power submitting to those with more power - man to God, subjects to kings, slaves to masters, and wives to husbands

That’s a rather misguided interpretation of what Christianity is all about. Jesus challenged the power structures of his time, he promoted equity, championed the cause of those without a voice. Christianity may have become those things — in some quarters — but it’s hardly what Xy is “all about.”

 

[sojourner]

Wouldnt his bible quote actually be a good explanation why there are many denomination? Wouldnt it explain the methodology they use that causes such division?

What you call “division,” I call “multifaceted.”

 

[sojourner]

The real problem you have (that any theist has) is that in many cases you have absolutely no metric by which to discern who is interpreting correctly and who is not. All you have is the text, and if one person interprets it one way, and the other another way, then going back to the text isn't getting you anywhere... and there is literally nowhere else to turn. What are you going to do? Pray? That's a laugh.

There’s responsible scholarship. That’s where we ultimately turn, if we have any sense.

 

[sojourner]

No wonder their are hundreds of Christian denominations. Everyone is inspired by the Holy Spirit!

Now you’re getting it! Nothing wrong with diversity. Nothing wrong with broad perspective. Nothing wrong with multifaceted. A Fresnell lens will actually focus light and send it further than a singular lens.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah. I have looked into many different views of the Bible. It becomes especially confusing as interpreters switch between figurative and literal interpretation depending on what suits their theology. One also has the textual critical method of interpretation. Which approach is correct, nobody can objectively tell.

There’s no such thing as “the correct method.” There are several valid methods, any one of which may be best for a given objective.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but the Scriptures are like the layers of an onion.

The Good News of the Gospel is simple, anyone can grasp it.

Then, as interest is aroused, the Spirit can and will guide in understanding the deeper layers, with the co operative new believer.

Then, for a lifetime the Spirit will enlighten the deeper and deeper layers of the scriptures, more and more understanding, and sanctification becomes surer and surer.

You had me until your last clause.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There’s no such thing as “the true interpretation.” The Bible is multivalent. There are any number of reasonable interpretations, based in a thorough exegesis of the text in question.

If thorough exegesis can lead to multiple different reasonable interpretations that contradict each other and disqualifies those who believe in the others then there is a big problem.

A good example is christology and who God really is. For instance a Trinitarian will say a Unitarian is a heretic. This results from the problem that the Bible is pretty confusing on the topic of the relationship between Jesus and God. Many of these contradictory concepts of the Godhead are just as reasonable using exegesis.

 

[sojourner]

I would say he probably is due to the many times he contradicts Jesus, showing more anger and less love (so much so that he even encouraged violating to oft repeated command of be fruitful and multiply, which, of course, his sayimg no sex is best prevents covenants with Abraham (and others) that their descendants will be as numerous as the stars). Jesus said he is the way, you go to the father through him, and many will come in his name and many will be decieved.

Pretty shallow reading of Paul, I’m afraid.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What you call “division,” I call “multifaceted.”

There are many different groups with different interpretations who consider other groups heretics. And the splits between the Western Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church and the split that happened during the reformation and the results of that split certainly caused division. Catholics and Protestants fought each other quite a bit because of bible interpretation. Not to mention the cults that appeared afterwards led by Cult leaders.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There’s no such thing as “the correct method.” There are several valid methods, any one of which may be best for a given objective.

To a certain extent yes. It could be said also that methods vary depending on the readers agenda. So for instance some agree that certain people should be punished for eternity in hell, so they will interpret the text that way. Others hate the idea of God punishing for people for eternity in hell fire so they will interpret all those texts as metaphorical.

The correct method can only be known if we know what the original author meant to get express. And we cannot know so it is all confusion.

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ There is no historical records without eyewitnesses. You have been provided three Historical records from different sources of eyewitness accounts of JESUS inside and outside of the biblical records from all people present in the life of JESUS.

Your response...

This is false and foolish. You state it only because you failed utterly in your claim. To be "eyewitness testimony" a name and what the person claimed are needed. Otherwise you only have hearsay. Hearsay is evidence as well but it is lower quality evidence. And this brings up a point. Eyewitness testimony is the lowest quality evidence allowed in a court of law. You do not even have the lowest quality legal evidence for your beliefs. Nope, no such evidence exists. If you drop the term eyewitness you would be correct. Wrong, see above.
Wrong,see above. Not "certified" . You use terms that you cannot support. Most historians accept the claim of a historical Jesus. They do not accept the claims of a magical Jesus, the one that you believe in.

Well that is not true my friend. I have only provided you with historical fact of eyewitness accounts of JESUS from 1. The NON BELIEVING JEWS; the 2. THE NON BELIEVING ROMANS and the 3. CHRISTIANS who were present during the life of JESUS and all three Historical sources both from within Christianity and outside of Christianity say that there were eyewitness accounts of JESUS and that JESUS existed and this is cerified by the History, Historians and verified by nearly all academic scolarship. There is no historical records without eyewitnesses. You have been provided three Historical records from different sources of eyewitness accounts of JESUS inside and outside of the biblical records from all people present in the life of JESUS that nearly all academic scholarship agrees verifies the existence of JESUS. You on the other hand are simply in denial posting your opinion does this not concern you? It should. I believe time will tell who is wrong and who is right. I believe also according to the scriptures, you better hope I am wrong as if I am correct but I believe deep down inside you know I am correct.

I believe that a historical Jesus existed.

Ok great, good answer. So do I. Now why do you believe JESUS existed? How do you know?

 

[3rdAngel]

Welcome to the club. His favorite argument is “Nuh-uh, because bible.” And then proceeds to be creative in biblical facts.

Your not telling the truth. You are provided both historical fact inside and outside of the bible. Sadly your not able to respond to either and your not being honest.

 

[sojourner]

And I am sensing a theme here too.....those who think independence from the Creator is beneficial, and want to do things their way, not his, usually find out the hard way that independent thinking is not all it’s cracked up to be.
“I Did It My Way” was a song, applauding a life lived “their way”, but in reality unless people submit to a rule of law, anarchy will prevail. Put all the free thinkers together and ask if this will create the world you all want? Someone has to be in control. Why not the Creator who designed us to look to him for our definition of right and wrong? Can you depend on humans to get that right?

Typical Pharisaical thinking. Read Paul on the Law.

 

[sojourner]

Many good points, as usual Deeje. I just wanted to add to this:


We all live under Laws, don’t we? But, even though they’re imperfect human laws, they’re usually beneficial, designed to protect the population: “Drive 55 (mph)”, etc.
Jehovah’s are no different. If you really think on them, you can see the benefits, ultimately.

Problem is, its a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The “obedient” mind says, “Must obey law, because it’s the law.” The free-thinking, independent mind says, “Forget the laws, just do what’s right.” They both require the driver to drive a safe speed, but for different reasons. Paul warned against the first. So did Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

If thorough exegesis can lead to multiple different reasonable interpretations that contradict each other and disqualifies those who believe in the others then there is a big problem

Why?

A good example is christology and who God really is. For instance a Trinitarian will say a Unitarian is a heretic. This results from the problem that the Bible is pretty confusing on the topic of the relationship between Jesus and God. Many of these contradictory concepts of the Godhead are just as reasonable using exegesis

Of course. Again: what’s inherently wrong with a multifaceted view of the Faith? God is much, much larger than any one interpretation. Remember: we’re about unity here, not uniformity.

 

[sojourner]

Well that is not true my friend. I have only provided you with historical fact of eyewitness accounts of JESUS from 1. The NON BELIEVING JEWS; the 2. THE NON BELIEVING ROMANS and the 3. CHRISTIANS who were present during the life of JESUS and all three Historical sources both from within Christianity and outside of Christianity say that there were eyewitness accounts of JESUS

Problem is, we don’t have the eyewitnesses to Jesus. None of the biblical writers was an eyewitness.

 

[sojourner]

Your not telling the truth. You are provided both historical fact inside and outside of the bible. Sadly your not able to respond to either and your not being honest.

Oh, waaah!

See your latest response about biblical eyewitnesses to Jesus. There are none. None. Zero. But you claim that there are. Yet you cannot provide any proof of that claim. You constantly confuse belief with fact, and then pass that belief off as fact. It doesn’t work that way.