How did Jesus interpret the Bible?

Originally posted by RJHinds

It is clear that Moses was not perfect like Jesus, but he did the best he could under the situation. I believe the same can be said of the Apostle Paul.

Thank you - that is exactly my point.

We should read what writers of the Scripture (like Paul, John and Peter) said, and then interpret in the light of then-current culture as well as other relevant passages. Then we would not have the knee-jerk reaction of immediate, literal responses.

It seems clear to me that the apostle Paul was not dealing strictly with saintly Christians at the time. But there seems to be no need to judge them harshly for trying to get the people to do God's will.

I certainly agree with you 100% here. We must not (and I do not) judge Paul harshly when all he wanted to do was preserve the purity of the doctrine.

However, the people that I DO judge harshly, are those that take Paul's comments from those days and apply it literally to today's situation, with no attempt to balance it with other things that are clearly stated elsewhere.

Certainly Jesus did not judge Moses as being wrong for allowing divorce, but blamed it on the harshness of the people heart.

Agreed.

The main point of my entire argument is that we should balance and evaluate all scripture against the greater things that Jesus taught - i.e. compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, humility, and not use literal interpretations to score points - recognising the fact that it is generally the literal interpretations that distance us from Jesus' teachings and from each other.

Do you agree with that?

Originally posted by CalJust
[b]It is clear that Moses was not perfect like Jesus, but he did the best he could under the situation. I believe the same can be said of the Apostle Paul.

Thank you - that is exactly my point.

We should read what writers of the Scripture (like Paul, John and Peter) said, and then interpret in the light of then-current culture as well as other rel ...[text shortened]... retations that distance us from Jesus' teachings and from each other.

Do you agree with that?[/b]

Yes. Blood transfusions to save lives should not be prohibited just because Paul said to abstain from blood when he was actually referring to abstaining from pagan customs of the time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes. Blood transfusions to save lives should not be prohibited just because Paul said to abstain from blood when he was actually referring to abstaining from pagan customs of the time.

Thank you - this is indeed progress.

I will now use your formal documented and historical agreement that scripture should be interpreted and NOT taken literally , to start a new thread on your favourite subject.

In peace,

CJ

Originally posted by CalJust
Thank you - this is indeed progress.

I will now use your formal documented and historical agreement that [b]scripture should be interpreted and NOT taken literally , to start a new thread on your favourite subject.

In peace,

CJ[/b]

I did not agree that scripture should not be taken literally. I do agree that it needs to be interpreted correctly and some of it is metaphors, parables, etc.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not agree that scripture should not be taken literally. I do agree that it needs to be interpreted correctly and some of it is metaphors, parables, etc.

You are contradicting yourself.

By acknowledging that scripture needs to be "interpreted correctly" that means precisely that THAT interpretation is more important than the literal words.

Originally posted by CalJust
You are contradicting yourself.

By acknowledging that scripture needs to be "interpreted correctly" that means precisely that THAT interpretation is more important than the literal words.

In most cases, I believe a literal interpretation is the correct way.

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes, and "mercy triumphs over judgement".

Organised religion takes the letter of the law and turns it into a weapon to control people with, to beat them with. It is used by those who seek power over the laity, who are the actual church, the house and body of Christ.

Organised religion is a beast that stands vicariously in place of Christ, it says ...[text shortened]... his one statement sits the profound nature of the good news for mankind. Freedom, hope and life.

Oranized religion is a beast?

Why then did Jesus tell us that he would build a church to himself?

Originally posted by CalJust
One of the things that never ceases to amaze me, is how “Christians” use the Bible to batter one another and to prove a particular point!

A good recent example is the thread “[b] A JW Contradiction….” where a whole list of verses are quoted that encourage the exclusion of certain categories of deviants from our safe and cosy fellowship circles. It sho ...[text shortened]... -them”[/b].

Another Scripture worth remembering: The letter kills, but the spirit gives life![/b]

The Bible says what it says. Those that seek to empower themselves will interpret it to empower themselves, and those that seek to submit themselves to a higher power than themselves will interpret it in such a way. This is for both organized and nonorganized endevours, but usually it is organized.

I view the Constitution in much the same light. There are a myraid of ways to interpret it. Those that seek to empower themselves will trample on the notion of limited government upon which the Founders created the Republic.

There is no real debating the issue since there is no interest in the truth. There is either empowerment or thwarting those that seek to exert power over their fellow man.

Originally posted by CalJust
[b]It is clear that Moses was not perfect like Jesus, but he did the best he could under the situation. I believe the same can be said of the Apostle Paul.

Thank you - that is exactly my point.

We should read what writers of the Scripture (like Paul, John and Peter) said, and then interpret in the light of then-current culture as well as other rel ...[text shortened]... retations that distance us from Jesus' teachings and from each other.

Do you agree with that?[/b]

The main point of my entire argument is that we should balance and evaluate all scripture against the greater things that Jesus taught - i.e. compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, humility, and not use literal interpretations to score points - recognising the fact that it is generally the literal interpretations that distance us from Jesus' teachings and from each other.

If literal interpretations distance one from Jesus' teachings, then wouldn't any and all teachings which are not in lock step with Jesus' teachings also distance one from His teachings?

RJHinds rubbish

Originally posted by RJHinds
In most cases, I believe a literal interpretation is the correct way.

1. When is it not the correct way?

2. How do you know?

Originally posted by wolfgang59

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]In most cases, I believe a literal interpretation is the correct way.

1. When is it not the correct way?

2. How do you know?[/b]

Let me try to answer these two questions - though please note, I am NOT answering them for RJH.

Richard Rohr, a Franciscan Monk, (see his cac.org website, which stands for Centre for Action and Contemplation) suggests the following test for interpreting scripture:

1 The literal words

2 The literal words as interpreted by tradition (and here he means other saints, since we are not the first Christians on earth grappling with difficult passages. How have, for example, the Desert Fathers and Mothers interpreted this?).

3 The literal words as tested against experience. Quite frankly, does it work? This test disqualifies a lot of the "Name it and claim it" and "Prosperity teaching" groups, since their results are slim.

Most if not all the verses quoted to disprove Evolution, and proof of YEC, would not stand the test of 3.

I find these three questions a relatively simple response to your two.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]In most cases, I believe a literal interpretation is the correct way.

1. When is it not the correct way?

2. How do you know?[/b]

Here is an example of what I mean:

So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”

Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

(John 2:18-22 NKJV)

Then some rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.’”

(Mark 14:57-58 NKJV)

CalJust,
One thing is that Christ only had the Old Testament scriptures to "interpret." But the Law of God in the Old Testament meant stoning when a person was to be stoned.

Christ brought "grace and truth." Without Christ's personal sacrifice, there would have been no grace that would save people for eternity. Even the Israelites who were given the Law of God were looking forward in time for the Messiah to come. Christ bore God's judgement for the sins of the world. After that, Christ brought forgiveness for the people of the world. Perhaps, we can call this a new way of God's dealing with the whole world rather than dealing with just the Israelites. Thus, there is reason for the New Testament of the bible.

King James Version
=================
Matthew 27: 46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
*******************************

Matthew 26 starting at verse 38 of the King James Version of the bible shows that Christ did not want to go through something that He possibly could not have gone through if God the Father had let Him not go through it. But, whatever it was, He did go through it. Could it have been that Christ did not want to take on the sin of the world or suffer the way He would have to suffer? I don't know what Christ actually was referring to in prayer.

King James Version
==================
John 1: 14, 17
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4: 15, 16
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Matthew 26: 38-39
Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Hebrews 12: 2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is an example of what I mean:

[b]So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”

Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”


(John 2:18-22 NKJV)

Then some rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will ...[text shortened]... s, and within three days I will build another made without hands.’”

(Mark 14:57-58 NKJV)[/b]

So sorry, but I have no idea what you mean...

You just quote some scripture, but fail to say how this should not be taken literally - as an example of how you interpret the Bible.

Please be a bit more specific.

Originally posted by CalJust
So sorry, but I have no idea what you mean...

You just quote some scripture, but fail to say how this should not be taken literally - as an example of how you interpret the Bible.

Please be a bit more specific.

dude why do you hate us by encouraging Jonah Hinds like this? 😛