Interpretation

[csuguy]

I agree with that too but I found out the worldly life includes the personality, the sense of identity, the image of being a handsome young black man, a Christian, a Catholic, a father, a hard-working employee, a musician, a champion track runner, etc. It included things I didn't even know I was holding onto like my mind, my thoughts, my body, the tensions in my body, my resistance to avoiding emptiness, feelings of shame and guilt, old beliefs, patterns and compulsions. All of that and more were symptoms of me trying to avoid lack of self-worth. I thought I could get self-worth from outside of me but it wasn't until I went down to the darkest, deepest and blackest depths and felt everything I was trying to avoid feeling in their entire fullness that I came to realize that I was one with infinity, eternity and unconditional self-worth.

Such is not in line with what the scriptures teach - but is rather a clear example of infusing outside philosophical concepts into the scriptures. When the scriptures speak of worldliness it is speaking of living a selfish life, chasing after money and the pleasures of the flesh, etc. This is contrasted with living a spiritual life where one makes love for God and their fellow man their top priorities, even at great personal sacrifice.

Romans 8:5-17 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.

12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba,[g] Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.​

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Interpretation

Such is not in line with what the scriptures teach - but is rather a clear example of infusing outside philosophical concepts into the scriptures. When the scriptures speak of worldliness it is speaking of living a selfish life, chasing after money and the pleasures of the flesh, etc. This is contrasted with living a spiritual life where one makes love for God and their fellow man their top priorities, even at great personal sacrifice.

Romans 8:5-17 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.

12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba,[g] Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.​

Again, I think it depends on interpretation. Let us also question if the interpretation of the scriptures comes from God or man. The Bible may be divinely inspired but the interpretation may not. Furthermore there are many unconscious lists and pleasures of which we may not be aware. The dependence on something outside of us as a substitute for genuine self-worth for example.

Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[csuguy]

Again, I think it depends on interpretation. Let us also question if the interpretation of the scriptures comes from God or man. The Bible may be divinely inspired but the interpretation may not. Furthermore there are many unconscious lists and pleasures of which we may not be aware. The dependence on something outside of us as a substitute for genuine self-worth for example.

Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You are not basing your understanding upon the scriptures but are rather trying to force an outside philosophy onto the scriptures - attempting to make them say what you want and ignoring all the contradictions scripture has for your philosophy. This is called eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis) and is simply a bad practice. You aren't looking to understand scripture, but are rather seeking to twist it to fit your preconceived views.

self-worth is great and all, but isn't really much of a topic in Christian Theology. There are some relevant passages, like this: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Such verses emphasize our worth in God's eyes. But, beyond that sort of thing, there's little to nothing on the topic.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Interpretation

You are not basing your understanding upon the scriptures but are rather trying to force an outside philosophy onto the scriptures - attempting to make them say what you want and ignoring all the contradictions scripture has for your philosophy. This is called eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis) and is simply a bad practice. You aren't looking to understand scripture, but are rather seeking to twist it to fit your preconceived views.

self-worth is great and all, but isn't really much of a topic in Christian Theology. There are some relevant passages, like this: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Such verses emphasize our worth in God's eyes. But, beyond that sort of thing, there's little to nothing on the topic.

The enemy designed it that way for a reason. He prowls seeking to devour our self-worth. Instead we look for self worth outside ourselves. The standard translation and the traditional understanding of the scriptures are pointing to something much bigger and better than the literal Jesus. It is pointing to our inward divinity, namely the soul. Born pure of a virgin, miraculous, rejected and buried yet still lives. Yes I know this is outside the box but it does not negate the literal interpretation but rather sits beside it as one of many possible interpretations. Also be aware the traditional version is also leaning on someone else's understanding.

We can use our own discernment to decide the validity of each. I don't claim to have the entire picture but I know for sure that the traditional Christian view is only one slice of the pie. It is not the entire truth. The story of Jesus can be seen as an allegory for the infinite eternal part of us which is left out of the Trinity. Taking it literally misses this point by a large margin in favor of something more popular and more palatable. Without the soul we have no way to experience God. It is one with God, heaven and salvation. He who has seen me has seen the Father is about what is infinite, eternal and unconditional. This is a higher meaning to the scriptures. The church does not teach this to us because they don't know any better and it wouldn't be as profitable either.

Finally let's not worry too much about what others are doing. I think it's important that we find out what is true for ourselves instead of taking someone else's word for it.

Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[patrick jane]

The standard translation and the traditional understanding of the scriptures are pointing to something much bigger and better than the literal Jesus.
The story of Jesus can be seen as an allegory for the infinite eternal part of us which is left out of the Trinity. Taking it literally misses this point by a large margin in favor of something more popular and more palatable.

God help your soul

 

[csuguy]

The enemy designed it that way for a reason. He prowls seeking to devour our self-worth. Instead we look for self worth outside ourselves. The standard translation and the traditional understanding of the scriptures are pointing to something much bigger and better than the literal Jesus. It is pointing to our inward divinity, namely the soul. Born pure of a virgin, miraculous, rejected and buried yet still lives. Yes I know this is outside the box but it does not negate the literal interpretation but rather sits beside it as one of many possible interpretations. Also be aware the traditional version is also leaning on someone else's understanding.

We can use our own discernment to decide the validity of each. I don't claim to have the entire picture but I know for sure that the traditional Christian view is only one slice of the pie. It is not the entire truth. The story of Jesus can be seen as an allegory for the infinite eternal part of us which is left out of the Trinity. Taking it literally misses this point by a large margin in favor of something more popular and more palatable. Without the soul we have no way to experience God. It is one with God, heaven and salvation. He who has seen me has seen the Father is about what is infinite, eternal and unconditional. This is a higher meaning to the scriptures. The church does not teach this to us because they don't know any better and it wouldn't be as profitable either.

Finally let's not worry too much about what others are doing. I think it's important that we find out what is true for ourselves instead of taking someone else's word for it.

Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You are misusing that word "Interpretation." Interpretation means that you are explaining the meaning of a text - not making up your own separate non-sense and claiming it is divine. You are not seeking truth, you aren't attempting to understand scripture. You are claiming to have a greater truth than what we have received from Christ, the Son of God, and doing so under the guise of Christianity so as to attempt to deceive others into accepting your "truth." You are a wolf in sheep clothing, a false teacher, and bordering on being a false prophet.

You claim that Christianity is just one slice of the pie, part of a bigger whole. You aren't the first to make such proclamations, and you won't be the last. That is, after all, a big part of the Islamic faith - they took credit for all of the big religious figures in the world, claimed their teachings had been distorted, and set off to invent their own belief system which they claim is what all these other figures really taught and believed in contradiction to the oral and written traditions. And there have been many other such movements throughout history.

If you truly think that Christianity is part of the truth, then you need to study what Christianity teaches in and of itself. Only then can you meaningfully compare it with other religions and philosophies and proceed to meaningfully argue for merging it with other, complementary views. If you do this honestly then you will quickly find that Christianity is incompatible with most other religions - as I pointed out above with Buddhism.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

God help your soul

There is a misunderstanding in what the soul actually is. The soul doesn't need help because it is infinite and eternal and therefore one with God. It is the personality that needs help to be reversed in order to realize this truth.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Prizebeatz1]

You are misusing that word "Interpretation." Interpretation means that you are explaining the meaning of a text - not making up your own separate non-sense and claiming it is divine. You are not seeking truth, you aren't attempting to understand scripture. You are claiming to have a greater truth than what we have received from Christ, the Son of God, and doing so under the guise of Christianity so as to attempt to deceive others into accepting your "truth." You are a wolf in sheep clothing, a false teacher, and bordering on being a false prophet.

You claim that Christianity is just one slice of the pie, part of a bigger whole. You aren't the first to make such proclamations, and you won't be the last. That is, after all, a big part of the Islamic faith - they took credit for all of the big religious figures in the world, claimed their teachings had been distorted, and set off to invent their own belief system which they claim is what all these other figures really taught and believed in contradiction to the oral and written traditions. And there have been many other such movements throughout history.

If you truly think that Christianity is part of the truth, then you need to study what Christianity teaches in and of itself. Only then can you meaningfully compare it with other religions and philosophies and proceed to meaningfully argue for merging it with other, complementary views. If you do this honestly then you will quickly find that Christianity is incompatible with most other religions - as I pointed out above with Buddhism.

That is one way to see it. I was in fact a Catholic for 35 years. Interpretation comes from man not God. Notice how badly we are grasping onto beliefs. That is a symptom of lack of self-worth the enemy does not want us to notice. It is trying to avoid the empty spaciousness it would feel if were to let go. That spaciousness is part of what is infinite and eternal yet the personality judges it as bad because it doesn't know when to quit biting the forbidden fruit. It is in fact avoiding the soul and God and will often do this at all costs. There is a lot more to be learned.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[freelight]

'Interpretation' is 'relative'..........

'Interpretation' is 'relative'..........

You are not basing your understanding upon the scriptures but are rather trying to force an outside philosophy onto the scriptures - attempting to make them say what you want and ignoring all the contradictions scripture has for your philosophy. This is called eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis) and is simply a bad practice. You aren't looking to understand scripture, but are rather seeking to twist it to fit your preconceived views.

Hi csuguy,

Note that prizebeatz1 and myself are much more liberal, universal and eclectic...accepting also the allegorical/esoteric meaning of religious writing and not limited to the Bible, since there are also other religious writings of value and antiquity, plus modern day innovations. The terms 'eisegesis' and 'exegesis' cannot apply to one not bound or limited to the Bible alone. We of a more liberal esoteric approach to 'scripture' go by every facet of meaning a text may provide, all angels and dimensions. It still remains the text stands, but may have many layers of meaning allegorically speaking. Only those assuming a proper 'exegesis' set up apologetics to defend their terms.

self-worth is great and all, but isn't really much of a topic in Christian Theology. There are some relevant passages, like this: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Such verses emphasize our worth in God's eyes. But, beyond that sort of thing, there's little to nothing on the topic.

Yes,...since the scriptures are a limited collection of various writings of any given cultural context and time-period, from many different authors. The Bible as a religious text, a product of religious cult-ure, represents the ideas, concepts, beliefs, opinions, narrative creations of its authors,....written for their own purpose or agenda,...these may vary, as well as other factors that affected their 'canonization'. Prizebeatz1 view of the soul points to the inner being being of the nature/essence of 'God', so that the supreme value and 'love' is inherent within one's own being....using the term 'soul' as describing the timeless, eternal, divine aspect or nature of God, that divine spark, or fragment of divinity within. Of course different schools describe the 'soul' differently as far as what it is, its composition, relation to the body and spirit, etc. I gather the use of 'soul' in his view is more generic perhaps without getting too intricate or detailed about its constitution. In a simpler format, a basic duality of 'body' and 'soul' avails, being used in the general sense of the word, as qualified by the writer....the 'soul' being that immortal part of man.


I'd like to add, while this is about the 'interpretation' of 'scripture' (meaning the Judeo-Christian Bible here unless otherwise noted), this does not mean our religious liberties and philosophical studies are limited to it alone, except for those who presume or believe that the Bible alone is valid or authoritative. Granted the whole of human knowledge and breadth of religious writings(scripture) from the various world religions, it would be a bit narrow-minded to assume the Bible contains the sum-total of divine revelation to mankind, when it only represents one or two religious traditions and cult-ure (Judaism/Christianity). Some parts of the Bible are not even regarded or deemed applicable today since certain customs and beliefs have been abandoned, being obsolete in the light of modern times in a more enlightened era.

While keeping discussion within a 'biblical context', the literal meaning of the text speaks for itself on the surface, alongside a host of inner/symbolic/esoteric meanings, with variables effected within different contexts. One can worship one's concept, idea or image of 'God' or a 'holy book' and have that become an 'idol'. Dogmatism/legalism is also a trap. Only the living truth or Spirit-reality is what avails as 'Real God', while all else is intellectual commentary and speculation, symbolic language. The 'word' is never the actual 'thing' described...its only a description/pointer. Futhermore, when dealing with what is truly infinite, DEITY,...that original and supreme reality is above any 'eisegesis' or 'exegesis', as these terms only apply to a literal study of human language subject to 'interpretation'. So, beyond a literal reading of anything, it all comes back to 'interpretation' and seeing the inner meaning, truth or value being conveyed in the dress of language.

 

[freelight]

'God'.....just a word

'God'.....just a word

God help your soul

Well, lets hope this 'reality' or 'person'? we refer to as 'God' is of any real help, since our concept, image or idea of 'God' may be just that....just a concept, image or idea.

 

[patrick jane]

Well, lets hope this 'reality' or 'person'? we refer to as 'God' is of any real help, since our concept, image or idea of 'God' may be just that....just a concept, image or idea.

Feeling like a heathen today?

 

[csuguy]

Hi csuguy,

Note that prizebeatz1 and myself are much more liberal, universal and eclectic...accepting also the allegorical/esoteric meaning of religious writing and not limited to the Bible, since there are also other religious writings of value and antiquity, plus modern day innovations.

Yes I am aware that you both like to study a variety of religions and philosophies and try merge these in some fashion into your own belief structure. To a degree I commend your efforts - I also like to study various religions and philosophies. And within Christianity I study sources outside of the scriptures as well - like the writings of the Church Fathers, works on Church History, etc. Where we mostly diverge in how we categorize and assimilate such information. I first seek to understand a thing in of itself. If I'm studying Christianity, then that is separate from my studies in Buddhism, which is again separate from my studies of Plato, etc. Within particular contexts there maybe a valid cross-over between these different belief systems - but before those can be properly evaluated we must first understand the individual belief systems in their own right. You and prizebeatz1, on the other hand, seem to pay little to no mind to such distinctions - but freely carry ideas over from one belief system into your interpretations of another belief system. The result is a lack of understanding of any of the individual belief systems that you claim to be inspired by.

The terms 'eisegesis' and 'exegesis' cannot apply to one not bound or limited to the Bible alone. We of a more liberal esoteric approach to 'scripture' go by every facet of meaning a text may provide, all angels and dimensions. It still remains the text stands, but may have many layers of meaning allegorically speaking. Only those assuming a proper 'exegesis' set up apologetics to defend their terms.

Wrong - the terms are applicable when you engage in either respective form of interpretation. Your religious self-identification doesn't give you immunity from such classifications. If you read into a text your preconceived views/philosophies as a means of interpreting the text then you are engaging in eisegesis. If you study the text to discern what it's author was attempting to communicate, then you are engaging in exegesis. When you read a text like the bible, the authors were attempting to communicate history, ideas, instructions, etc. down to later generations. It's not a free for all - there was clear intent behind what is written, and it is an theologians/interpreters job to uncover these intended meanings.

Yes,...since the scriptures are a limited collection of various writings of any given cultural context and time-period, from many different authors. The Bible as a religious text, a product of religious cult-ure, represents the ideas, concepts, beliefs, opinions, narrative creations of its authors,....written for their own purpose or agenda,...these may vary, as well as other factors that affected their 'canonization'. Prizebeatz1 view of the soul points to the inner being being of the nature/essence of 'God', so that the supreme value and 'love' is inherent within one's own being....using the term 'soul' as describing the timeless, eternal, divine aspect or nature of God, that divine spark, or fragment of divinity within. Of course different schools describe the 'soul' differently as far as what it is, its composition, relation to the body and spirit, etc. I gather the use of 'soul' in his view is more generic perhaps without getting too intricate or detailed about its constitution. In a simpler format, a basic duality of 'body' and 'soul' avails, being used in the general sense of the word, as qualified by the writer....the 'soul' being that immortal part of man.

very gnostic like

I'd like to add, while this is about the 'interpretation' of 'scripture' (meaning the Judeo-Christian Bible here unless otherwise noted), this does not mean our religious liberties and philosophical studies are limited to it alone, except for those who presume or believe that the Bible alone is valid or authoritative. Granted the whole of human knowledge and breadth of religious writings(scripture) from the various world religions, it would be a bit narrow-minded to assume the Bible contains the sum-total of divine revelation to mankind, when it only represents one or two religious traditions and cult-ure (Judaism/Christianity). Some parts of the Bible are not even regarded or deemed applicable today since certain customs and beliefs have been abandoned, being obsolete in the light of modern times in a more enlightened era.

Regardless of whether one believes the scriptures or not, when one interprets them the purpose should be to understand what they say in their own right - as opposed to attempting to twist the scriptures to say what you want, as prizebeatz1 has done. If you want to say "this is what the scriptures say, and that's wrong/I disagree/etc." I wouldn't mind that - and there would probably be some good discussion there.

While keeping discussion within a 'biblical context', the literal meaning of the text speaks for itself on the surface, alongside a host of inner/symbolic/esoteric meanings, with variables effected within different contexts. One can worship one's concept, idea or image of 'God' or a 'holy book' and have that become an 'idol'. Dogmatism/legalism is also a trap. Only the living truth or Spirit-reality is what avails as 'Real God', while all else is intellectual commentary and speculation, symbolic language. The 'word' is never the actual 'thing' described...its only a description/pointer. Futhermore, when dealing with what is truly infinite, DEITY,...that original and supreme reality is above any 'eisegesis' or 'exegesis', as these terms only apply to a literal study of human language subject to 'interpretation'. So, beyond a literal reading of anything, it all comes back to 'interpretation' and seeing the inner meaning, truth or value being conveyed in the dress of language.

I'm not a literalist - I fully accept the fact that scripture at times is poetic, at other times intentionally vague, at other times it speaks in riddles and parables, and there are deeper teachings beyond the mere surface text. That's all good and well - but if you are going to offer up an interpretation that attempts to elucidate such deeper meaning in the text then you need to be able to provide a coherent, logical argument to back it up.

Eisegesis and exegesis are NOT limited to the merely top-level literal interpretations of a text, but to interpretation at any level. Either you are deriving your understanding of the text from objectively studying it in its own right, or you are doing something else, like eisegesis.

 

[freelight]

Substance and image.................

Substance and image.................

Feeling like a heathen today?

I'd review my response again, and look a little deeper into its inquiry. It was given as a stimulus for your own research. Lets go over it again. There are concepts, ideas, images of 'God',...and then there is 'God', the reality itself, being what it IS (beyond words, even prior to space or time). - The word, idea, image or concept of 'God' is not 'God'. Ask yourself: Is an idea or concept of God, God himself? Is an idea or concept about an orange, the orange itself? No, its just an idea or concept of or about that object or subject. The words, ideas, images, concepts of 'God' are but de-scriptions or con-ceptions of 'God'. The reality that 'God' represents is but the very essence of itself, independent of anything else. Follow?

Are we really worshipping 'God' (Spirit), or just our caricature, image or concept of 'God'? I think such an inquiry is thought-provoking, and may help us to differentiate between spirit (essence/being) and soul (intellection).

 

[freelight]

Cookies n creme........

Cookies n creme........

Yes I am aware that you both like to study a variety of religions and philosophies and try merge these in some fashion into your own belief structure. To a degree I commend your efforts - I also like to study various religions and philosophies. And within Christianity I study sources outside of the scriptures as well - like the writings of the Church Fathers, works on Church History, etc. Where we mostly diverge in how we categorize and assimilate such information. I first seek to understand a thing in of itself. If I'm studying Christianity, then that is separate from my studies in Buddhism, which is again separate from my studies of Plato, etc. Within particular contexts there maybe a valid cross-over between these different belief systems - but before those can be properly evaluated we must first understand the individual belief systems in their own right. You and prizebeatz1, on the other hand, seem to pay little to no mind to such distinctions - but freely carry ideas over from one belief system into your interpretations of another belief system. The result is a lack of understanding of any of the individual belief systems that you claim to be inspired by.

I agree with getting to know a particular religious tradition itself, at least the fundamentals in their own context in the study of comparative religions. But such depends on one's own approach, experience and study in any given field, religious tradition or school, and how liberal or conservative one is in getting to know each tradition, how they relate, differentiate or merge the concepts of such. How we coordinate or 'weave' these is part of the adventure, to see if they cohere or compliment each other in some synergestic fashion.

You mention the Church Fathers,...Im more in sync with the Alexandrian school, particularly Origen and Clement - a glimmering of my pagan & gnostic tendencies. - as you note, the fathers were greatly influenced by the greek philosophers, hence Christian theology bears the metaphysics and nomenclature of such in its development of doctrine, so that 'Christianity' is itself a confluence of various schools, symbols and concepts merged, borrowed and adapted. I could only chuckle when seeing a bumper sticker that said "Christainity has pagan DNA"

Wrong - the terms are applicable when you engage in either respective form of interpretation. Your religious self-identification doesn't give you immunity from such classifications. If you read into a text your preconceived views/philosophies as a means of interpreting the text then you are engaging in eisegesis. If you study the text to discern what it's author was attempting to communicate, then you are engaging in exegesis. When you read a text like the bible, the authors were attempting to communicate history, ideas, instructions, etc. down to later generations. It's not a free for all - there was clear intent behind what is written, and it is an theologians/interpreters job to uncover these intended meanings.

:thumb:

ok, I agree.

On the note that we ought to study to discover the authors intent or agenda in writing their works, I very much agree. Are you familiar with Dr. Steven DiMattei's work, mostly on the OT here? I find it excellent so far. He delves into the study of contradictions in the bible, thru an objective study of the authors intentions and purpose of creating the texts.

very gnostic like

Well, I'm somewhat one of the resident gnostics here for those who've been around very long. While respecting the Gnostics of the 2nd - 4th centuries, I use the term 'gnostic' more liberally to mean any religious path or philosophical study that focuses on 'gnosis' (knowledge) as a means towards enlightenment/liberation/salvation,...so being a 'gnostic' for me includes one's own personal path of religious experience and communion with the divine, embracing the ancient wisdom of the ages,...hence my interest and frolicking with Theosophy.

Regardless of whether one believes the scriptures or not, when one interprets them the purpose should be to understand what they say in their own right - as opposed to attempting to twist the scriptures to say what you want, as prizebeatz1 has done. If you want to say "this is what the scriptures say, and that's wrong/I disagree/etc." I wouldn't mind that - and there would probably be some good discussion there.

Gotcha.

I'm not a literalist - I fully accept the fact that scripture at times is poetic, at other times intentionally vague, at other times it speaks in riddles and parables, and there are deeper teachings beyond the mere surface text. That's all good and well - but if you are going to offer up an interpretation that attempts to elucidate such deeper meaning in the text then you need to be able to provide a coherent, logical argument to back it up.

Eisegesis and exegesis are NOT limited to the merely top-level literal interpretations of a text, but to interpretation at any level. Either you are deriving your understanding of the text from objectively studying it in its own right, or you are doing something else, like eisegesis.

Roger

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Yes I am aware that you both like to study a variety of religions and philosophies and try merge these in some fashion into your own belief structure. To a degree I commend your efforts - I also like to study various religions and philosophies. And within Christianity I study sources outside of the scriptures as well - like the writings of the Church Fathers, works on Church History, etc. Where we mostly diverge in how we categorize and assimilate such information. I first seek to understand a thing in of itself. If I'm studying Christianity, then that is separate from my studies in Buddhism, which is again separate from my studies of Plato, etc. Within particular contexts there maybe a valid cross-over between these different belief systems - but before those can be properly evaluated we must first understand the individual belief systems in their own right. You and prizebeatz1, on the other hand, seem to pay little to no mind to such distinctions - but freely carry ideas over from one belief system into your interpretations of another belief system. The result is a lack of understanding of any of the individual belief systems that you claim to be inspired by.

I think the lack of understanding comes from not seeing the commonalities between systems and approaches. We try to rationalize away the parts that don't agree with us. We think only one school holds the truth and it does but none of them hold the whole entire truth. Let's say we are looking at a house and one person is looking at it from the north and another is looking at it from the south. Is it not still the same house?

 

[Totton Linnet]

there are not many ways to interpret bible truth, only many, many ways to twist bible truth

....people will have to answer for it

 

[Prizebeatz1]

there are not many ways to interpret bible truth, only many, many ways to twist bible truth

....people will have to answer for it

Why wouldn't your interpretation be one example out of the many twists? I suppose you take the bible fully literally? If not then you are twisting. "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." John 6:54. How are you going to literally eat Jesus' flesh? You are one of the people that will have to answer for it too.

 

[csuguy]

I think the lack of understanding comes from not seeing the commonalities between systems and approaches. We try to rationalize away the parts that don't agree with us. We think only one school holds the truth and it does but none of them hold the whole entire truth. Let's say we are looking at a house and one person is looking at it from the north and another is looking at it from the south. Is it not still the same house?

Regardless of whether truth can be found in different religions and philosophies - and certainly each has some wisdom in its own right - you won't find that truth unless you take the time to understand what each says in its own right. The way you are doing things - you don't really understand any of those many religions and philosophies you claim to study, because you haven't truly studied them in their own right. You've twisted them all to fit your preconceptions.

This is reflected in your use of "interpretation." You try to use the word to justify why whatever you invent is an equally plausible understanding as the understandings of the text derived by those who truly study the scriptures. Of course, no one is buying it - and not all interpretations are equal. What you fail to understand is the purpose of an interpretation - which is to elucidate what has been communicated through the text. The authors wrote with a purpose, they wanted to communicate specific histories, beliefs, commands, prophecies, etc. to other people. Seeking to understand these intended meanings of the text is what a proper interpretation does. And this can only be done by attempting to understand the context from which the author was writing. As soon as you start infusing outside religions and philosophies into the text - it is impossible for you to understand where the author was coming from, impossible for you to find the truths that are being communicated through the text. At that point you are just making things up - you have no real understanding of the text.

As for the idea that all religions are just saying the same thing from a different perspective - hogwash. Such a view is easily dismissed by taking the time to study each religion in their own right - as I demonstrated earlier with Christianity and Buddhism. The beliefs that are taught, their values, morality, purpose, etc. all vary wildly with different religions, and even different sects of a specific religion.

 

[csuguy]

On the note that we ought to study to discover the authors intent or agenda in writing their works, I very much agree. Are you familiar with Dr. Steven DiMattei's work, mostly on the OT here? I find it excellent so far. He delves into the study of contradictions in the bible, thru an objective study of the authors intentions and purpose of creating the texts.

No I'm not familiar with Dr. Steven DiMattei's work. I'll check it out.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Why wouldn't your interpretation be one example out of the many twists? I suppose you take the bible fully literally? If not then you are twisting. "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." John 6:54. How are you going to literally eat Jesus' flesh? You are one of the people that will have to answer for it too.

You admit that to not take the bible literally is to twist it, Christ goes on to say "the flesh availeth nothing, the words that I speak unto you are spirit and truth

Truth

I already answer for it for I have all that His word says, that's how I know.