Jesus' words - literal vs metaphorical

Knightmeister made a good point in the thing of beauty thread a while back.

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=76271


I was arguing that Jesus encouraged endocannibalism - that he literally wanted his followers to ritualistically drink his blood and eat his flesh in John 6:53+.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_gospels/the_flesh_and_blood_of_jesus/jn06_59p48.html


Endocannibalism is a widespread phenomenon in ancient societies, and cannibalism is referred to quite a lot in the Bible:

http://www.answers.com/topic/cannibalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannibalism
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/cannibalism.html


EinsteinMind responded that "NOT ALL OF THE BIBLE IS EXACTLY LITERAL!!!! John 2:19"

However in John 2:20-21 Jesus gives an explicit disclaimer making it very clear that he was not being literal. If he gives such a disclaimer here, then one would think he'd do it elsewhere when he was not being literal. Thus I felt my position was bolstered, not weakened by this challenge.

Knightmeister then offered up John 15 (or rather he paraphrased it - I guess he didn't know how to find that part of the Bible so he could give me a scriptural "address" ). Now, in John 15, Jesus says he's a vine. Well, that makes zero sense if taken literally, but there's no disclaimer from Jesus like there is in John 2.

So, all this leads me to the question -

When do I take Jesus literally, and when don't I? I'm asking as a person investigating a long dead historic figure. If it requires the Magic Decoder Holy Spirit to show one the "correct" interpretation, then I'm not interested. I want an argument based on analysis of the text of the Bible, or analysis supported by other sources.

Of course I don't own this forum, so you can say what you want. However I'm asking out of sincere interest and would like to hear from people with solid logical perspectives grounded in natural evidence (as opposed to supernatural "evidence" ).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
When do I take Jesus literally, and when don't I?[/b]

Whenever your priest, pastor, youth group leader or a "biblical scholar" tells you to do so or not. After they've passed the collection plate, of course.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Knightmeister made a good point in the thing of beauty thread a while back.

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=76271


I was arguing that Jesus encouraged endocannibalism - that he literally wanted his followers to ritualistically drink his blood and eat his flesh in John 6:53+.

[i]http://www.theb ...[text shortened]... pectives grounded in natural evidence (as opposed to supernatural "evidence" ).

use the Weslyan Quadrilateral: Scripture(what does it say), Tradition(why or how have we done things), Reason(what does your intellect tell you), and Experience(how does your life experience aply here)

Originally posted by duecer
use the Weslyan Quadrilateral: Scripture(what does it say), Tradition(why or how have we done things), Reason(what does your intellect tell you), and Experience(how does your life experience aply here)

I learned something today! I'll check out this Quadrilateral.

Originally posted by David C
Whenever your priest, pastor, youth group leader or a "biblical scholar" tells you to do so or not. After they've passed the collection plate, of course.

Not all churches are greedy money grubbers. Most churches struggle to pay their bills. Passing the collection plate is a neccessary(sic) part of church. The lights don't go on for free. The oil company expects to be paid for the heating oil, in protestant denominations the pastor can marry, and s/he must support a family.

Originally posted by duecer
use the Weslyan Quadrilateral: Scripture(what does it say), Tradition(why or how have we done things), Reason(what does your intellect tell you), and Experience(how does your life experience aply here)

I started my analysis with Scripture and Reason already, as can be seen from my OP. Tradition? I don't know how to apply that here. Experience tells me that people, especially those who tend to be superstitious, will believe what they want to believe, despite evidence to the contrary.

How would one apply Tradition to this question?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I started my analysis with Scripture and Reason already, as can be seen from my OP. Tradition? I don't know how to apply that here. Experience tells me that people, especially those who tend to be superstitious, will believe what they want to believe, despite evidence to the contrary.

How would one apply Tradition to this question?

By tradition I suppose one could point to the historical reference points of the 2000 years of church history

edit: And I agree, people tend to want to believe what they want to believe. Sad but true.

Originally posted by duecer
By tradition I suppose one could point to the historical reference points of the 2000 years of church history

edit: And I agree, people tend to want to believe what they want to believe. Sad but true.

Why would I look at 2000 years of history? Jesus said his piece and died well before all that.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why would I look at 2000 years of history? Jesus said his piece and died well before all that.

You asked how to aply "Tradition". That's the answer, accept it or reject it as you wish.

Originally posted by duecer
You asked how to aply "Tradition". That's the answer, accept it or reject it as you wish.

OK. In my opinion what is being called "tradition" has little relevance to my question. Scholars over the last 2000 years have undoubtably had good insights about Jesus, but those insights should stand on their own, not be trusted simply because they came from a Christian as part of some Christian Tradition.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
OK. In my opinion what is being called "tradition" has little relevance to my question. Scholars over the last 2000 years have undoubtably had good insights about Jesus, but those insights should stand on their own, not be trusted simply because they came from a Christian as part of some Christian Tradition.

the idea is you don't make decisions about religion based on only tradition, the other 3 legs of the quadrilateral are equally important

Originally posted by duecer
...in protestant denominations the pastor can marry, and s/he must support a family.

...and L. Ron Hubbard needed a luxury yacht. Jimmy Swaggart needed prostitutes to spank him in seedy motel rooms, and Ted Haggard needed crystal meth and rubdowns from a gay "masseuse". I'll concede that not all churches are about the money, because my point was one man's "exegesis" is another's "eisegesis".

Originally posted by David C
...and L. Ron Hubbard needed a luxury yacht. Jimmy Swaggart needed prostitutes to spank him in seedy motel rooms, and Ted Haggard needed crystal meth and rubdowns from a gay "masseuse". I'll concede that not all churches are about the money, because my point was one man's "exegesis" is another's "eisegesis".

As a certified massage therapist, I'd like to point out that a masseuse is a woman. A male massage therapist is a masseur.

I suppose a masseuse or masseur who gives happy endings would be a mas...

Oh, never mind.

Originally posted by duecer
use the Weslyan Quadrilateral: Scripture(what does it say), Tradition(why or how have we done things), Reason(what does your intellect tell you), and Experience(how does your life experience aply here)

Well, John Wesley was pretty hypocritical, then, since he insisted on deviating from years of
tradition when he started his Methodist movement. The foundation of Methodism was because
of liturgical and theological disputes with the Anglican communion. Just like with the Reformation
(in which anything that looked 'Roman' was tossed), many Anglican traditions, held up for over
two hundred years were disopsed of. Similarly, the Methodist church did not appeal to an even
longer standing tradition (e.g., the Roman or Orthodox ones) as a means to establish their own
ritual but invented their own.

Nemesio

Originally posted by David C
Whenever your priest, pastor, youth group leader or a "biblical scholar" tells you to do so or not. After they've passed the collection plate, of course.

What's wrong with passing the collection plate? People can give, or not give, as they choose. I like the "pass the collection plate" method better than the "government" method, which takes money by force so secular preachers like Bill Moyers can have a job on PBS at taxpayer's expense.