I see it that way, too, but evidently if I take anything in the Bible as metaphorical or allegorical then I am wrong, which I assume means that I am destined for hell.

I believe you are right that the Bible should be interpreted in a historical, allegorical and anagogical context.

 

The Bible is the true and accurate word of God, but just as Jesus taught using parables, God has left room for interpretation and deeper understanding of His word, while blessing us with the intelect to find the truth and apply it to our own times.

Edited August 14, 201214 yr by Birdsfan

I don't disagree that it was the incarnation of the Christ. I didn't mean to make it seem like the book poofed into Jesus. Only that Jesus is the alpha and omega. He always was and always will be. In the KJV the verse reads (for those who were wondering) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

 

 

I agree Hatz.

 

Cool. I just had actually heard the "Word" as reflective of the written revelation when it is speaking about the incarnational revelation. It's good.

God has left room for interpretation and deeper understanding of His word, while blessing us with the intelect to find the truth and apply it to our own times.

 

I think I disagree. I believe that man has decided that some things are open to interpretation just because they do not like what it says. Symbolism and figurative language is very common in the scriptures but for the most part those passages are obviously symbolic or figurative. And what they symbolize is not subjective at all. I beleive that God wants us to understand the Bible as he has written it, not how we interpet it.

I think I disagree. I believe that man has decided that some things are open to interpretation just because they do not like what it says. Symbolism and figurative language is very common in the scriptures but for the most part those passages are obviously symbolic or figurative. And what they symbolize is not subjective at all. I beleive that God wants us to understand the Bible as he has written it, not how we interpet it.

 

Then why do we have 4 different gospels, who cannot even agree on the basic chronology? Why not one simple story told by one person. Because God used different 'men' to speak to different people and to each they delivered a different message.

 

In Matthew and Sermon on the Mount Jesus says "Blessed are the poor in Spirit"

In Luke and Sermon on the Mount Jesus says "Blessed are the poor".

 

These are two very different things. Which one should I take as the literal words that Jesus spoke?

I think I disagree. I believe that man has decided that some things are open to interpretation just because they do not like what it says. Symbolism and figurative language is very common in the scriptures but for the most part those passages are obviously symbolic or figurative. And what they symbolize is not subjective at all. I beleive that God wants us to understand the Bible as he has written it, not how we interpet it.

 

You truly believe that the Bible we have to do is the pure Word of God and has not been corrupted by Man at all? I'd like to think that it is, but I don't have that much faith in man.

Then why do we have 4 different gospels, who cannot even agree on the basic chronology? Why not one simple story told by one person. Because God used different 'men' to speak to different people and to each they delivered a different message.

 

In Matthew and Sermon on the Mount Jesus says "Blessed are the poor in Spirit"

In Luke and Sermon on the Mount Jesus says "Blessed are the poor".

 

These are two very different things. Which one should I take as the literal words that Jesus spoke?

 

Actually I think in Luke it is the Sermon on the Plain. (Your FAther-in-Law would be upset with me if I didn't point that out)

 

:lol:

You truly believe that the Bible we have to do is the pure Word of God and has not been corrupted by Man at all? I'd like to think that it is, but I don't have that much faith in man.

 

I totally understand your point there mex. I really do. However, I have faith that God would have altered his word over the centuries if that had been his will or if it wasn't the actual truth he wanted us to live by. I believe that I serve an all powerful God who, if in the 1st century, saw his "guide to eternal life" skewed, He would have done something about it. I believe we have what he wants us to have even now. It's stood the test of time and is the same now as it was for a countless number for centuries.

I think I disagree. I believe that man has decided that some things are open to interpretation just because they do not like what it says. Symbolism and figurative language is very common in the scriptures but for the most part those passages are obviously symbolic or figurative. And what they symbolize is not subjective at all. I beleive that God wants us to understand the Bible as he has written it, not how we interpet it.

I'm not implying that it is open to interpretation willy nilly, just to suit an individual whim. I mean that it's interpretation has been shaped by the Sacred Tradition of the Church and has been interpreted for us (and continues to be interpreted) by the magestirium, so as to be most relevant to our modern issues and circumstances.

Then why do we have 4 different gospels,

 

Various audiences and perspectives.

 

Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Upper (SES) Jewish community; just as Matthew was because he was a Jewish Tax Collector.

Mark wrote his Gospel for the Romans (that is why Mark himself writes aramaic translations into his work) and from the perspective of a teenager living during Jesus' time.

Luke wrote his Gospel for the Greeks because he was a Greek Doctor whom at the beginning of his work explains that his research was thorough and based on eye witness accounts because Luke was not around Jesus during his ministry.

John wrote his Gospel at the very end of his life, kind of his final memoir intended for everyone from this perspective of Jesus' right hand man.

 

Four different authors writing about the same topic gives the story validity.

Four different perspectives for different readers and no contradictions.

Indeed there are no contradicitons in the Gospels despite what skeptics claim.

Various audiences and perspectives.

 

Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Upper (SES) Jewish community; just as Matthew was because he was a Jewish Tax Collector.

Mark wrote his Gospel for the Romans (that is why Mark himself writes aramaic translations into his work) and from the perspective of a teenager living during Jesus' time.

Luke wrote his Gospel for the Greeks because he was a Greek Doctor whom at the beginning of his work explains that his research was thorough and based on eye witness accounts because Luke was not around Jesus during his ministry.

John wrote his Gospel at the very end of his life, kind of his final memoir intended for everyone from this perspective of Jesus' right hand man.

 

Four different authors writing about the same topic gives the story validity.

Four different perspectives for different readers and no contradictions.

Indeed there are no contradicitons in the Gospels despite what skeptics claim.

 

If it is written from a perspective for an audience then it can't be LITERAL. While there may not be contradictions there are certainly parts that do not jive.

There is no cut-and-dry, black-and-white guidelines to understanding and interpreting scripture. Some of it is literal, some isn't. Some of the literal stuff can be used allegorically (as Paul does) to make a deeper point.

 

The fact is, the Holy Spirit guides us in understanding God's word. Without Him, we're flailing around like a man lost at sea. Certainly some of it is pretty straight forward and any literate person should be able to grasp it.

 

In my experience, God can speak to us and teach us many different things from a single verse or passage depending on when we read it, the circumstances of our lives, etc.

Various audiences and perspectives.

 

Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Upper (SES) Jewish community; just as Matthew was because he was a Jewish Tax Collector.

Mark wrote his Gospel for the Romans (that is why Mark himself writes aramaic translations into his work) and from the perspective of a teenager living during Jesus' time.

Luke wrote his Gospel for the Greeks because he was a Greek Doctor whom at the beginning of his work explains that his research was thorough and based on eye witness accounts because Luke was not around Jesus during his ministry.

John wrote his Gospel at the very end of his life, kind of his final memoir intended for everyone from this perspective of Jesus' right hand man.

 

Four different authors writing about the same topic gives the story validity.

Four different perspectives for different readers and no contradictions.

Indeed there are no contradicitons in the Gospels despite what skeptics claim.

 

Not sure your descriptions are accurate in the world of Biblical Scholarship.

 

Matthew was written by and for Jewish Christians and attempts to tie the story of Jesus as fulfillment to the logical conclusion of the Hebrew faith. He is also speaking to an established group of believers because of his references to "the church" and "kingdom." I've even read that the faith community may be suffering with conflict between converted Jews and Gentile believers.

 

Mark is the first gospel written and is very likely authored at a time of great transition and persecution. Destruction of Jerusalem led to the destruction of the mother faith community and severe unrest and uncertainty in the region of Palestine. This has led some to speculate that the gospel may have been written in Galilee rather than in a Roman context. Jesus is portrayed by Mark as the Suffering Christ. Hence the speculation that the community he is writing to is in great struggle and persecution.

 

Luke is from a distinctive Gentile perspective and thematically presents Jesus as the Christ who breaks down the barriers. (Also evident in the companion work of Acts) You continue to use the term Greek but Gentile would be more appropriate.

 

John is no like the Synoptics at all. In fact the presentation is much more theological and reads like a novel rather than a chronological story. Symbolism and analogy abound within it's text is written towards the end of the first century. John is more concerned with themes (origin, incarnation, et al) and constructing a story rather than reporting one. For example, John has Jesus cleanse the temple 3 times rather than the once in the Synoptics. Likewise there is no "Eucharist" story but it is instead included in Jesus' teachings at other points in the narrative. In John's gospel Jesus is in complete control because he comes from above, has always been, and lays down his life rather than being killed. It also has a greater emphasis on the Spirit than the other three.

 

Just thought I'd a add a little to your synopsis of the gospels. :thumb:

 

Just thought I'd a add a little to your synopsis of the gospels. :thumb:

 

Collaboration is good.

Saw this and thought it might add to the discussion (if it hasn't already been posted, I haven't been following):

 

 

Transcript

Saw this and thought it might add to the discussion (if it hasn't already been posted, I haven't been following):

 

 

Transcript

 

I think he's an idiot.

I love your name though. I had an uncle named Habib.