Hermeneutics and Faith

Originally posted by Darfius
I don't have a pastor. I'm sorry, where was the debate? He was simply giving his opinion that Jesus Christ died for no reason and I was giving fact back to him. I really don't understand why you think I don't encourage Christians to think about their belief. However, I do not encourage them to waste time on lies.

He was simply giving his opinion that Jesus Christ died for no reason

Another simple, straightforward, unblemished lie. I did not say that. Stop putting words in people mouths and saying that's what they said.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thank you, Henry.

But now I have to go out and fulfull my newly appointed (anointed?) role as a "false prophet," and whisper in the ears of "baby Christians" in order to totally disillusion them from the truth. You know, I never really considered that kind of career before....🙄

Horse hockey...you've been doing that to me for years...you heathen, pagan, unenlightened, uncultured, liberal, democrat, uuhhhhh....(did I leave out anything????)....oh yeah....GOAT GROWER!!!

Originally posted by Richard Parker
Horse hockey...you've been doing that to me for years...you heathen, pagan, unenlightened, uncultured, liberal, democrat, uuhhhhh....(did I leave out anything????)....oh yeah....GOAT GROWER!!!

You just wait till I come down to Atlanta again! (Uh, you gonna feed me when I do?)

EDIT: Just so anyone else reading this knows: RP is my bestest buddy (next to my wife--and maybe Domino), and is not reponsible for his actions....

Originally posted by kirksey957
Such as "the way" is Jesus' way in deed. The "truth" is Jesus' way in truth and integrity. For example, it is entirely permissable in my understanding of the verse that a devout Hindu may manifest more of Jesus' ethics than a Christian. Let me refer you to the "Deliver me, Jesus" thread and ask if you think any of the quotes there well represe ...[text shortened]... at say Ghandi might have more represented the spirit of Christ's teachings than say Benny Hinn?

It's Gandhi, btw.

Originally posted by Darfius
Your opinion means very little to me. You seem to confuse unwavering loyalty to God for pride. Which is your own error, not mine.

"Your opinion means very little to me."

Arrogance, another sympton of pride.

"You seem to confuse unwavering loyalty to God for pride."

You're not being loyal to god, you're being loyal to your faith... like I said before, you dont truly understand what it means to be proud.

MÅ¥HÅRM

Originally posted by Darfius
I reject that idea. The Bible is crystal clear when my Lord Jesus says:

14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am [b]the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. -John[/b]

I'd like to resurrect this thread without the vindictive remarks that have
characterized it. In summary, Stephen was saying that, whenevery something
is written down, it necessarily must be interpretted. That is what 'hermaneutics'
means, literally, the study of the methodological prinicples of interpretation. If
we are asking, what is your 'hermaneutic standpoint,' we are asking what is the
perspective by which you come to a particular conclusion about a given passage.

It comes from the Greek hermeneuein meaning interpreter.

Everything in the Bible is necessarily being 'interpretted.' When you are
reading any passage of the Bible, you are bringing to it everything you have
learned up until that moment, every single passage of Biblical and non-Biblical
literature, every single sermon and commentary, every single experience.

Let us consider St John 14:1-7, which reads:

[Jesus said,] 'Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith in God;
have faith also in me. In my Father's house there are many dwelling places.
If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place
for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and
take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be. Where [I] am going
you know the way.' Thomas said to Him, 'Master, we do not know where you
are going; how can we know the way?' Jesus said to him, 'I am the way and
the truth and the life.' No one comes to the Father except through me. If you
know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know Him
and have seen Him.'

What does it mean when a person says, 'I am the way?' And, what does it mean
when a person says, 'no one comes to X except through me?'

Your answer to these questions are going to necessarily depend on you
hermaneutical standpoint.

The most straightforward interpretation (and let's be clear, that every reading
is an interpretation) is that if someone claims to be 'the way' that they
are saying 'My actions indicate how one should act.' That is, in order to be
'on the way' you must be 'being Jesus.' Saying that, in order to get to X
one must go 'through someone' (where 'through' has an 'ablative' sense of
'by means of' rather that as 'through a tunnel'😉, the interpretation is consistent,
that the text simply reiterates that 'in order to get to the Father, you must
be being Jesus.

Now, what does it mean to 'be Jesus?' We have to make another interpretation.

And then continues the process. After one makes that interpretation, one
must make another series of definitions upon which even more interpretations
are made.

We might call this a 'web of interpretation,' where many interpretations relate to
a series of others, not in a linear trajectory of A to B to C to D, but in a complicated
matrix of interpretations where A relates directly to B, C, D, and E, but so too does
B relate directly to A, C, D, E and so on.

I think Darfius was overly condemning of Stephen, in this case, because Darfius
was literally imposing his 'web of interpretation' upon Stephen's; that is, he was
asserting his hermaneutic over Stephen's when it was clear that Stephen was
just asking questions. It is through questioning one's hermaneutic that one comes
to have a tighter, more logical and consistent 'web of interpretation,' and, as such,
these questions only serve to make us more faithful, to live lives which conform
to higher spiritual callings.

I invite everyone who values the above passage (Christian or not) to participate
in giving their interpretation, to share their hermaneutic on this very unusual passage
in Scripture.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
What does it mean when a person says, 'I am the way?' And, what does it mean
when a person says, 'no one comes to X except through me?'
The most straightforward interpretation (and let's be clear, that every reading
is an interpretation) is that if someone claims to be 'the way' that they
are saying 'My actions indicate how one should act.' That is, in order to be
'on the way' you must be 'being Jesus.' Saying that, in order to get to X
one must go 'through someone' (where 'through' has an 'ablative' sense of
'by means of' rather that as 'through a tunnel'😉, the interpretation is consistent,
that the text simply reiterates that 'in order to get to the Father, you must
be being Jesus.

Maybe this has been covered elsewhere, but if Jesus wanted to say that to reach the Father one must be like him, why not just say, "Mine is the way" rather than "I am the Way"?

If, for e.g., I say, "I am the Key to the Presidency and to become President you must go through me", the most obvious interpretation is that I am somehow critical to the decision of who becomes President. It would be a stretch to interpret it to mean that the next President must act like I did.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by Nemesio
What does it mean when a person says, 'I am the way?' And, what does it mean
when a person says, 'no one comes to X except through me?'
The most straightforward interpretation (and let's ...[text shortened]... interpret it to mean that the next President must act like I did.

This is a good kickoff comment to this discussion. Let us observe that, in my
sample interpretation above, I took a different understanding than lucifershammer's.

And, no, it hasn't been discussed before, so let's use this as a point of departure,
no judgements, no damnations, just discussion.

You use the analogy, 'I am the Key to the Presidency....' The word Jesus uses
'way' (or odos) has, in my mind, a different meaning than 'Key' in your
analogue. The use of the word (some 101 times in the NT) has both a concrete
definition (i.e., road) and an abstract one (i.e., 'Way of the Lord'😉. Key does
not have that degree of interpretative freedom.

As such, my inclination is to choose a latter reading, a more metaphorical one.
Why? My hermaneutic brings to bear the other Johannine 'I am' statements.
For example, Jesus says, 'I am the vine....' Of course Jesus isn't saying that
he is a plant, but he using the vine/branches metaphor to paint an interpretative
picture. Similarly, my opinion is to read 'way' as 'means.' What does it mean
to say that Jesus is 'the means' to 'come' to the Father?

I bring a further hermaneutic that I believe that St John's Gospel is proto-Gnostic.
I do not interpret 'come' to mean 'arrive' but to mean 'come to understand' or
'come to grips with.' As such, Jesus's being the means to coming to understand
the Father would mean one must know what Jesus is. What is Jesus? What are
you? You are the sum total of all your experiences. As we have what people claim
is Jesus's biographical data in the Gospels, understanding how Jesus is the 'means'
requires an understanding of who Jesus was. As a teacher, Jesus assumed that
His Disciples would attend to the His teachings; that is, through example, He is
the Way.

This is why I feel that a Christian understanding of Jesus's example is the Way
is a legitimate one.

You asked, why didn't he just say 'Mine is the way?' I could ask, why didn't he
say, 'I am like a vine and you are like a branch?' St John's Gospel makes use of
the double entendre 'I am' (i.e., it is both the use of the first person, singular of
the verb 'to be' and also the a reference to the OT 'I am' that God says He is).

Nemesio

!?