Who is to Explain?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Which makes them inherently and objectively useless and worthless as they are inherently
vague and unclear.

Logic and reason demonstrate this and thus clearly demonstrate why they are worthless and
should be ignored.

However if you still want to argue about meaning then Bayesian analysis is THE way to go
as it will allow you to determine the ...[text shortened]... d meaning given the available evidence
and rank other meanings by their various probabilities.

Gosh. I think we have a new science geek award winner. Take the stage , googlefudge!! 🙂

"Which makes them inherently and objectively useless AND worthless as they are inherently vague and unclear."
Obviously parables have some worth.
Everything that has survived until this point in time has some worth.
Or so is my contention, that everything that persists, everything that does not go away by conventional means, has some sort of place in our society.
I think there are bad and good "things that persist".

1. If it's an inherently bad thing, then perhaps it keeps coming back because of a lesson we have not learnt. (This may be on an individual or collective basis)

2. If it's a good thing that has been kept alive through the ages by spoken word or by means of literature, then surely it has served a purpose of some sort, either now or in the past.

For people that are old enough , they realize "nothing is really new under the sun", but by that I could mean a lot of things.
For this post , I would like it to refer to the above spirit (of the post).
which is? I guess this is my non-scientific retort to an over simplified, passionately disconnect , absolutely unspiritual and demonstratebly unhelpful post, which passes as some sort of "truth" and attempts to wave some sort of "hand of law" over the perspective situation as if the scientific was the most high of all types on thinking , having ably demonstrated that which most people with common sense already know. The obvious.
All right then, lets all start class and learn to classify some more of the obvious for our scientific records, eh?

Originally posted by JS357
I respect the lengths to which you go, and the civility you express, in your replies. I chose this parable precisely because it has an interpretation following it, so that the question of how do we know it is reliable and accurate applies in the case of a parable that, because it has an interpretation, should be most free of ambiguity and risk of unsound inter sound, not just how to know that the interpretation of a Bible passage IS NOT sound.

You seem to exclude the parable of the wheat and tares from the need for interpretation, because Jesus interprets it.

I meant that we are at a great advantage because of His own interpretation. I should have put it that way.

Granting you the point that Jesus' interpretation is sound, I question how we know we have a sound understanding of Jesus' interpretation.

This is getting a little involved. Christians are opened to examining nuances of interpretation. I am. On a case by case bases I can discuss these finer points.

Can't you go overboard though. I mean how do we know we have a sound interpretation of a sound interpretation of a sound interpretation ... ad infinitum ? How do we know, and how do we know that we know ?

As Christian, I think, this introspection possibly can be taken too far.

I am completely opened to a point to see what nuances you have questions about. I may give my feeling about it.

The Bible is like an onion with many layers. I don't think anyone has the last word on that parable in a legalistic way.

What are your issues ?

In effect, Jesus' interpretation REPLACES the parable, so it is our understanding of the Bible passage that is his interpretation that is of concern.

There is always a question of literalism in passages like "The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Frankly, I could see the entire passage including the original passage supporting the idea that we should let God take care of unwelcome people in our midst, and not go after them ourselves, which sounds like an appeal to pacifism, somewhat removed from the fire and suffering that is promised.

I would consider how the actions of the parable square up with other plain teaching on eschatology.

Given more direct teaching about actions carried out by Christ in His second coming, I don't see the parable as out of character with what we are clearly told elsewhere.

But you go on to offer some "negative" indicators -- by which I mean indicators that an interpretation is NOT reliable or accurate. One is that it comes from an atheist. Your wording is unclear. Do you believe that ALL atheists consider the Bible as junk?

In terms of the Bible being a revelation of the reality of God, they would not be Atheists if they regarded it as so.

I don't mean that an Atheist could not admire the "Golden Rule" or an Atheist could not get something out of the poetry of Ecclesiastes. Sure, they may say that some useful things are there.

As a revelation of the reality of God, an Atheist has low regard for the Bible. They don't believe that they are being told the truth, period.

I can see your being dismissive of such atheists as interpreters of the Bible, since they would have no appreciation of the fact that the Bible is, among other things, a compendium of the human wisdom of its age, and many of its passages are relevant today. There are atheists and non-theists who have this appreciation. Are their interpretations automatically unsound?

Yes, for the most part. Why go there FIRST ?

I'll see what Bertrand Russell has to say about the Gospel of Luke AFTER I have seen what te faithful Christian disciple with experience as a disciple has to say.

H.G. Well had some interesting things to say about Jesus. But I put people like that on the back burner, at the end of the line.

Why as a Christian, should I put at the top of my pile of books on New Testament interpretation what Christopher Hitchens has to write ?

If you want to go to Atheists to get your interpretations of the teaching of Jesus, go ahead. Life is kind of short for that, I think.

Another negative indicator is that reference to increasing proper religious hunger and desire,

Possibly you read my words "hunger for Christ" and think in your mind "Ah, religious hunger".

I really mean a hunger for a specific living Person - God / Jesus Christ. I am not sure any general "religious hunger and desire" is really what I mean.

The wiccan seeking to get away from the Christ of the NT can be said to have some "religious hunger and desire" of SOME sort.

The Jehovah's Witness has a "religious hunger and desire" which includes persecuting the incarnation of God as a man, as the chief priests and Pharisees also persecuted.

that indicates that it is at least SAFE. This does not quite make the mark of a sign that it is sound. Equally negative is the criteria that a sound interpretation would not make your heart cold. Would it be that a sound interpretation always warms the heart?

I did not say merely "warms the heart". I said, I believe, "warms the heart towards Christ" or something equivalent.

You have seemingly quoted me a couple of times, yet with a kind of abbreviation.

Hunger for God - religious hunger

Warm the heart towards Christ - warm the heart

I try to be careful how I write things. I see some miscommunication here.

Anyway, I believe the I don't hold that my interpretations are infallible. And I don't think there is nothing more to say about Matthew 13 after I write a post or two discussing it.

And unbelievers can point out some interesting things about the Bible. And an atheist may say something interesting about the Bible. For sound interpretation, I don't firstly consult the man opposed to the concept of God's existence.

Originally posted by jaywill

You seem to exclude the parable of the wheat and tares from the need for interpretation, because Jesus interprets it.

I meant that we are at a great advantage because of His own interpretation. I should have put it that way.

[quote] Granting you the point that Jesus' interpretation is sound, I question how we know we have a tly consult the man opposed to the concept of God's existence.

Me: Granting you the point that Jesus' interpretation is sound, I question how we know we have a sound understanding of Jesus' interpretation.

You: This is getting a little involved. [Me: agreed.] Christians are opened to examining nuances of interpretation. I am. On a case by case bases I can discuss these finer points.

Can't you go overboard though. I mean how do we know we have a sound interpretation of a sound interpretation of a sound interpretation ... ad infinitum ? How do we know, and how do we know that we know ?

As Christian, I think, this introspection possibly can be taken too far.

I am completely opened to a point to see what nuances you have questions about. I may give my feeling about it.

The Bible is like an onion with many layers. I don't think anyone has the last word on that parable in a legalistic way.

What are your issues ?

Good idea: back to basics.

I will add one more quote from your reply first:

I'll see what Bertrand Russell has to say about the Gospel of Luke AFTER I have seen what te faithful Christian disciple with experience as a disciple has to say.

I assume 'te' is 'a' or 'the'.

So, what are my issues?

The thread title asks, who is to explain? It could ask how are we to know whom to listen to. I was taught that the words of Paul, etc. in the Bible were not really the words of those living men, they were the Word of God. I remember learning about the apostolic succession, which came under criticism for good reason. I was also taught that some Protestants believe that no man should stand as interpreter between a person and the Word of God, regardless of the fact that some if not all Protestant leaders were doing it themselves.

I assume you agree that ultimately the responsibility for such decisions; who to listen to, is mine/each of ours, and the resulting outcome, is mine/each of ours. The choice might be that we will have no one explain, no one in between. Not even the person who says, "Read it for yourself" has privileged status.

I have surveyed explanations rather far and wide, and like Omar, I come to this:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

Originally posted by JS357
[quote] Me: Granting you the point that Jesus' interpretation is sound, I question how we know we have a sound understanding of Jesus' interpretation.

You: This is getting a little involved. [Me: agreed.] Christians are opened to examining nuances of interpretation. I am. On a case by case bases I can discuss these finer points.

Can't you go overboard t Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

From what I can tell, the vast majority of Christians reject taking Jesus at His word even with His explanation. Jesus explicitly states that "all thing that offend" and those who "do iniquity" will be "cast...into a furnace of fire."

His explanation makes sense. Those who are righteous, i.e, do not commit sin, are the children of the kingdom and will "shine forth" in the kingdom. Those who are not righteous, i.e., commit sin, are children of "the wicked one" and will be cast out.

Seems that the vast majority of Christians believe they will not be cast out even though they continue to commit sin. Even though Jesus explicit states that they will be cast out. That they will be cast out is consistent with what Jesus taught on the whole when He walked the Earth.

At the end Jesus commanded, "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." But the ears of the vast majority of Christians are deafened by the teachings of Paul and others. Jesus explained it, but the vast majority of Christians are not listening.

Matthew 13
38The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I can tell, the vast majority of Christians reject taking Jesus at His word even with His explanation. Jesus explicitly states that "all thing that offend" and those who "do iniquity" will be "cast...into a furnace of fire."

His explanation makes sense. Those who are righteous, i.e, do not commit sin, are the children of the kingdom and will the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[/quote][/b]

At the end Jesus commanded, "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." But the ears of the vast majority of Christians are deafened by the teachings of Paul and others. Jesus explained it, but the vast majority of Christians are not listening.

Thanks.

There is or was a project called The Jesus Seminar that, among other things, compiled a New Testament that highlighted the statements attributed to Jesus and used color codes to indicate which ones they believe were said by Jesus, which ones may have been, which one's weren't but expressed his ideas, etc.

So It's not just Paul whose words are in question.

But there has been a lot of criticism of the project.

Besides, is it the Jesus Seminar, that is to explain the Bible or tell us which words matter, any more than it is you or me?

Originally posted by JS357
[quote] Me: Granting you the point that Jesus' interpretation is sound, I question how we know we have a sound understanding of Jesus' interpretation.

You: This is getting a little involved. [Me: agreed.] Christians are opened to examining nuances of interpretation. I am. On a case by case bases I can discuss these finer points.

Can't you go overboard t Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

The thread title asks, who is to explain? It could ask how are we to know whom to listen to. I was taught that the words of Paul, etc. in the Bible were not really the words of those living men, they were the Word of God. I remember learning about the apostolic succession, which came under criticism for good reason. I was also taught that some Protestants believe that no man should stand as interpreter between a person and the Word of God, regardless of the fact that some if not all Protestant leaders were doing it themselves.

I assume you agree that ultimately the responsibility for such decisions; who to listen to, is mine/each of ours, and the resulting outcome, is mine/each of ours. The choice might be that we will have no one explain, no one in between. Not even the person who says, "Read it for yourself" has privileged status.

I have surveyed explanations rather far and wide, and like Omar, I come to this:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

I'm sorry JS357, but I think I don't understand your issue that well.

I don't know what to say. This has not been a problem to me. All I want to say is that the Bible tends to say things in many different kinds of ways. If a single parable leaves one puzzled virtually the same point can be found elsewhere. And that in perhaps much less veiled speeh.

This constant repetition of themes is a safeguard, I think, upon hanging too much on just one single passage.

When Jesus taught the people from the Old Testament and with His new words, it says that the people were astounding. They were astounded because He spoke with authority and not as the scribes and Pharisees.

In my years of Bible study and hearing the study of others, occasionally I just have a sense that someone is speaking with authority (if not astounded, impressed). Perhaps this because he or she is living the life of the teaching. They are walking the walk.

This kind of ring of genuine power makes me regard seriously the thoughts of the person concerning a Bible passage. I do not need to consider his or her interpretation as "infallible". But I take it into serious consideration.

And I have no concept that I regard as absolutely hanging on one and only one Bible passage. So if that teacher is wrong in some detail it is not that serious of an issue.


It might be fun for me to testify how I CHANGED my mind about a passage over time. Ie. decided that a former interpretation was not that good and adopted another better one. I have changed my opinion at times.

You may notice that sometimes I write that "At this time" I believe this or that. I am opened to the possibility I may think differently about a passage in the future.

The Jesus Seminar is whacko It's the equivalent of rolling dice on what did Jesus actually say or not say. Ok the beads indicate this ok let's roll with that. LOL 🙂

To the original post I guess after further thought appealing to common sense may not be the only answer or solution to explain a parable. I was thinking it's possible Jesus wants the reader/listener to dig deeper. The example of eat my flesh and drink my blood why these words?

Manny

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] The thread title asks, who is to explain? It could ask how are we to know whom to listen to. I was taught that the words of Paul, etc. in the Bible were not really the words of those living men, they were the Word of God. I remember learning about the apostolic succession, which came under criticism for good reason. I was also taught that some Protes ...[text shortened]... . I am opened to the possibility I may think differently about a passage in the future.

I agree with the idea of listening to someone who we see is walking the walk, living the (life of) the teaching. I have done this in other areas of my life, why not here? In a sense, their teaching is by their actions, their way of living, their example, as much as or more than it might be by their words.

I don't mean to cut this discussion short with this reply, but I think you have said something that is worth considering, without a whole lot more elaboration being needed. Thanks.

Originally posted by menace71
The Jesus Seminar is whacko It's the equivalent of rolling dice on what did Jesus actually say or not say. Ok the beads indicate this ok let's roll with that. LOL 🙂

To the original post I guess after further thought appealing to common sense may not be the only answer or solution to explain a parable. I was thinking it's possible Jesus wants the reader ...[text shortened]... ener to dig deeper. The example of eat my flesh and drink my blood why these words?

Manny

I tend to agree, after all I am asking, "Who is to Explain?" Is it to be the Jesus Seminar? But the question behind the Jesus Seminar -- did Jesus really say all those things -- lingers. It seems to matter. Should it?

Good point. It is possible that digging deeper, or revisiting from time to time, is a ood idea. It seems to be a mark of worthwhile inspirational literature.

Originally posted by JS357
I tend to agree, after all I am asking, "Who is to Explain?" Is it to be the Jesus Seminar? But the question behind the Jesus Seminar -- did Jesus really say all those things -- lingers. It seems to matter. Should it?

Good point. It is possible that digging deeper, or revisiting from time to time, is a ood idea. It seems to be a mark of worthwhile inspirational literature.

I think in the case of what was written and said to be the words of Christ have to be taken as what He said. You can flip the question around and instead of asking what of these words did Christ actually say and prove Christ did not say these words.

An interesting note at the end of the book of John 21:25

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Manny

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I can tell, the vast majority of Christians reject taking Jesus at His word even with His explanation. Jesus explicitly states that "all thing that offend" and those who "do iniquity" will be "cast...into a furnace of fire."

His explanation makes sense. Those who are righteous, i.e, do not commit sin, are the children of the kingdom and will ...[text shortened]... the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[/quote][/b]

So then in your opinion what is Paul's place ?




Manny

Originally posted by JS357
... did Jesus really say all those things -- lingers. It seems to matter. Should it?

Good point. It is possible that digging deeper, or revisiting from time to time, is a good idea.
It seems to be a mark of worthwhile inspirational literature.

The question "did Jesus really say all those things?" is indeed a good one but it's not the first question to ask.

The First question is "did Jesus really exist?" with a follow up of "If Jesus did exist was he the son of god?"


The answer to the first question is probably not. It is (based on currently available evidence) vastly more likely
that Jesus is a mythological character and never really existed. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667/

The answer to the second (bearing in mind that the odds of JC existing are tiny) is an unequivocal NO.
The chances that Jesus was the son of god based on currently available evidence is so tiny that it is for all
intents and purposes indistinguishable from zero.

Which then brings us to the question "did Jesus really say all those things?".

Well first off, the reasonable answer has to be that no he didn't because he didn't exist he was a myth.

Secondly, why should we care? because in the incredibly unlikely event that he did exist he wasn't the son of god.

Thirdly, in the ridiculously and impossibly unlikely event that Jesus both existed and was the son of god there is
still absolutely no way of determining if ANY of the words in the bible were actually uttered by Jesus let alone which
words were his.


And finally, even if Jesus were the son of god, did exist, and we could tell what words in the bible he did or did not say,
That still does not mean that Jesus is in any way worth listening to because we know that what is promised in the bible is a lie.
Souls don't exist, there is no spirit, we are our brains and thus there is no afterlife.
Heaven and hell do not exist, and thus even if JC were the son of god then both he and god were liars, for there is no heaven or
hell for us to go to.
And objective morality is and must be independent of any being supernatural or otherwise, and so there is nothing Jesus or god
can say about morality that is of any use or benefit whatsoever.


The only way of making a reasoned decision about the truth of anything is through the use of rationality skepticism and logic.
And the only conclusion rationality allows you to reach in the case of the words in the bible is that Jesus almost certainly didn't
exist, wasn't the son of god even if he did exist, and that there is no way of knowing what if anything was said by him even if
he did exist AND was the son of god.

Thus the only remaining option is to believe whatever words in the bible make you feel good and agree with your own
pre-conceived ideas and morality and take it on faith that you have got it right.

If you do this then you have given up on caring about truth.
Faith is never the road to truth, it rarely stumbles upon it and when it does it has no way of knowing it.
Faith is the way to ignorance and falsehoods.
Faith is the way to bad decisions based on those falsehoods and that ignorance.
Faith is immoral.

Originally posted by menace71
So then in your opinion what is Paul's place ?




Manny

without Paul it would have been impossible for Christians to get a handle on how the
Jewish system related to their own form of worship and many of the meanings would
have been utterly lost, this fundamental fact escapes all those anti Paulians who, in
their effort to limit the meaning of scripture to the words of Christ exclusively fail to
comprehend anything, for paintings were meant to be looked at, not sniffed, as
Rembrandt reminds us.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The question "did Jesus really say all those things?" is indeed a good one but it's not the first question to ask.

The First question is "did Jesus really exist?" with a follow up of "If Jesus did exist was he the son of god?"


The answer to the first question is probably not. It is (based on currently available evidence) vastly more likely
that to bad decisions based on those falsehoods and that ignorance.
Faith is immoral.

who reads these incessant reams of text?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
who reads these incessant reams of text?

It's 545 words or 1 1/2 pages of formatted a4 at 12 point text and can be read in well under a minute.

So anyone who isn't a goldfish or has a severe case of ADHD.