Bible Study

[Deputy Fife]

question: What do you guys mean by "personal God"? and don't give me a link or a quote; what does that statement mean to you? @ Trut and Fife

A god interested in relationships with Homo sapiens.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I fail to see how this objective information advances your agenda.

No real agenda. Just posted that in response to your ridiculous quote by Harris.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It's not clear that one must be a believer. They cannot reject their belief.

We must be working off different semantics. This isn't making any sense.

 

[Septic]

No real agenda. Just posted that in response to your ridiculous quote by Harris.

What was ridiculous about it, specifically?

 

[therealUT]

We must be working off different semantics. This isn't making any sense.

There's a difference between simply never having the belief and having the belief but hiding that belief from others, according to the Quran.

 

[PKT_VOL]

There's a difference between simply never having the belief and having the belief but hiding that belief from others, according to the Quran.

I agree. I would consider that under the "works" idea/doctrine.

 

[508mikey]

 

[Deputy Fife]

I'll play:

 

[rjd970]

Yeah, the methodology that I use is the methodology that is ****ing correct. The alternatives must assume that the author of the complete work meant to provide an incoherent account. That's a ridiculous assumption (by definition), so, to avoid the ridiculous, we assume that the intent was to provide a coherent account. With that assumption, this is the only methodology available.

You're "methodology" appears to be nothing more than: let's simply look at what others say about this book in order to understand what this book is trying to say. That's beyond dumb.

Any gas left in that "Let's turn our attention away from the actual text of the Quran" tank? Or, do you want to take issue with the text that I have now provided at "face value"?

Given the bolded....

This is a for real honest question, since your methodology is correct, and this is a Bible Study thread. Did Jesus have a brother? I'm not being facetious, honestly, I'm being serious, since your methodology is correct:

Did Jesus really have a brother? - CNN.com

But Catholics also believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, so Martin surmises that James and the other brothers were Joseph's children from a prior marriage."It makes sense that Joseph would have been older and Mary was younger, so I see them in a sense as stepbrothers.

Other Catholic scholars see James and Jesus as cousins, an idea that began in the fourth century, when St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament into Latin, argued the point against the theologian Helvedius, who said Mary and Joseph had other children.

Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary, offers the Protestant view that Jesus and James were full brothers, with Jesus being the elder.

"The New Testament says nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin, it says she virginally conceived Jesus, and it certainly implies that she went on to have more children after that, and his brothers and sisters are in fact his brothers and sisters," Witherington says.

Again, not contentious. I'm simply saying that we have three, well educated people, who have obviously read the text, all reading from the same said text, drawing different conclusion (in the Catholic case, based on what it HAS to be given prior belief).

So, how do you know your contextual and interpretive reading is the "****ing correct one", free from bias, free from influence?

 

[therealUT]

Given the bolded....

This is a for real honest question, since your methodology is correct, and this is a Bible Study thread. Did Jesus have a brother? I'm not being facetious, honestly, I'm being serious, since your methodology is correct:

Did Jesus really have a brother? - CNN.com







Again, not contentious. I'm simply saying that we have three, well educated people, who have obviously read the text, all reading from the same said text, drawing different conclusion (in the Catholic case, based on what it HAS to be given prior belief).

So, how do you know your contextual and interpretive reading is the "****ing correct one", free from bias, free from influence?

I don't know. But, if Jesus did have a brother, one of the interpretations is the right interpretation. If he didn't, then, again, one is the right interpretation.

That is, either Jesus had a brother or he didn't. I've never focused on such a question, because I don't see it as interesting.

 

[therealUT]

Furthermore, you are a goon if you think you have offered some defeater for my position of what it is to be a proper interpretation of an author's work. The assumption that must be granted is that the author is attempting to relay a coherent thought to the readers. Thus, working on that assumption, we would approach the following books in the following way:

The Quran: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

Now, onto the New Testament:

The Gospel of Matthew: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

The Gospel of Mark: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

The Gospel of Luke: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

The Gospel of John: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

etc., etc.

Now, since we have multiple authors providing multiple accounts, we face a real problem of inconsistency. We do not assume that any author is attempting to provide an account which coheres with any other author's account.

However, each of these books is compiled in a larger book, and the compilers claim to be presenting a consistent message. So, we face another interpretive problem. Yet, this problem is not unsolvable and this problem does not require going outside of the text to find the range of proper interpretations and rule out improper interpretations.

Basically, we now assume that the compilers are attempting to relay a coherent thought. So, working off of the most coherent readings of the individual authors, we now search for the coherent string that holds them together. It might not be biographical details; it might not be ensuring that the color of some building is the same throughout. It might be that the coherent strings are the following: the divinity of Jesus and Jesus's teachings.

When reading the New Testament, as a whole, those appear as the obviously most important things the New Testament is attempting to convey. Thus, we need to interpret these things, across these books, in a way that is coherent. Interpretations of Jesus's divinity and Jesus's teachings that allow for incoherence on these issues within the text, are improper and ought to be ruled out.

You probably should have just stopped at "nvm".

 

[rjd970]

Furthermore, you are a goon if you think you have offered some defeater for my position of what it is to be a proper interpretation of an author's work. The assumption that must be granted is that the author is attempting to relay a coherent thought to the readers. Thus, working on that assumption, we would approach the following books in the following way:

The Quran: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

Now, onto the New Testament:

The Gospel of Matthew: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

The Gospel of Mark: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

The Gospel of Luke: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

The Gospel of John: the work of a single author, we assume is attempting to relay a coherent thought, and, so, when we approach any seeming inconsistency in the work, we look to the work as a whole to resolve and interpret this seeming inconsistent in a manner that makes it consistent.

etc., etc.

Now, since we have multiple authors providing multiple accounts, we face a real problem of inconsistency. We do not assume that any author is attempting to provide an account which coheres with any other author's account.

However, each of these books is compiled in a larger book, and the compilers claim to be presenting a consistent message. So, we face another interpretive problem. Yet, this problem is not unsolvable and this problem does not require going outside of the text to find the range of proper interpretations and rule out improper interpretations.

Basically, we now assume that the compilers are attempting to relay a coherent thought. So, working off of the most coherent readings of the individual authors, we now search for the coherent string that holds them together. It might not be biographical details; it might not be ensuring that the color of some building is the same throughout. It might be that the coherent strings are the following: the divinity of Jesus and Jesus's teachings.

When reading the New Testament, as a whole, those appear as the obviously most important things the New Testament is attempting to convey. Thus, we need to interpret these things, across these books, in a way that is coherent. Interpretations of Jesus's divinity and Jesus's teachings that allow for incoherence on these issues within the text, are improper and ought to be ruled out.

You probably should have just stopped at "nvm".

Well, you've at least acknowledged there can be multiple interpretations of these texts, that's a start I guess. Your interpretation of the text, did Jesus have a brother?

This is a question with obvious implications into Jesus's claim to divinity, especially as it relates to the virginity of Mary. Obviously, it isn't just a minor biographical detail to people.

I'll quote you again:


Yeah, the methodology that I use is the methodology that is ****ing correct. The alternatives must assume that the author of the complete work meant to provide an incoherent account. That's a ridiculous assumption (by definition), so, to avoid the ridiculous, we assume that the intent was to provide a coherent account. With that assumption, this is the only methodology available.

Using your methodology (the only one available, evidently), did he have a brother? Are both "yes" and "no" legitimate answers? Given that you know you are right, by whatever means you think, tell us what the right answer is.

 

[therealUT]

Well, you've at least acknowledged there can be multiple interpretations of these texts, that's a start I guess. Your interpretation of the text, did Jesus have a brother?

This is a question with obvious implications into Jesus's claim to divinity, especially as it relates to the virginity of Mary. Obviously, it isn't just a minor biographical detail to people.

It actually has no implications on his divinity, as even in these debates, none of these scholars are claiming that the conception of Jesus was the result of human-to-human sexual intercourse.

Of course there can be multiple interpretations. There can be multiple interpretations of anything. That does not mean that all the interpretations are proper.

Further, like I asserted, if Jesus existed, then there is a fact of the matter as to whether or not Jesus had a brother. Thus, there is a correct interpretation.

However, whether or not Jesus had a brother is of no relevance to whether or not Jesus was divine and is of no relevance to Jesus's teachings. Thus, the coherent string that runs through the works of multiple authors is not one of biographical details.

I'll quote you again:


Yeah, the methodology that I use is the methodology that is ****ing correct. The alternatives must assume that the author of the complete work meant to provide an incoherent account. That's a ridiculous assumption (by definition), so, to avoid the ridiculous, we assume that the intent was to provide a coherent account. With that assumption, this is the only methodology available.

Using your methodology (the only one available, evidently), did he have a brother? Are both "yes" and "no" legitimate answers? Given that you know you are right, by whatever means you think, tell us what the right answer is.

You still don't get it. There is not one author of the Gospels. There are four. There is not one author of the New Testament. There are at least seven. Multiple authors are going to give multiple accounts of the same phenomena. The synods and councils compiling the books of the New Testament understood that, very clearly. What they found in these accounts was a coherent thought regarding the divinity of Jesus and his teaching.

"Yes" and "no" are both not legitimate answers. That's ****ing crystal clear, since to say "It is the case that Jesus had a brother and it is not the case that Jesus had a brother" is a ****ing contradiction.

However, to say, "It is the case that Matthew said that Jesus had a brother and it is the case that Mark said that Jesus did not have a brother", is not a contradiction, whereas if Matthew said both it would be a contradiction.

It is quite clear that different New Testament authors provide different and inconsistent accounts of certain events, yet, we can say that they cohere in certain ways as well: those ways regard the divinity of Jesus and Jesus's teachings.

But, thanks for demonstrating that you are a goon.

 

[joevol320]

It actually has no implications on his divinity, as even in these debates, none of these scholars are claiming that the conception of Jesus was the result of human-to-human sexual intercourse.

Of course there can be multiple interpretations. There can be multiple interpretations of anything. That does not mean that all the interpretations are proper.

Further, like I asserted, if Jesus existed, then there is a fact of the matter as to whether or not Jesus had a brother. Thus, there is a correct interpretation.

However, whether or not Jesus had a brother is of no relevance to whether or not Jesus was divine and is of no relevance to Jesus's teachings. Thus, the coherent string that runs through the works of multiple authors is not one of biographical details.



You still don't get it. There is not one author of the Gospels. There are four. There is not one author of the New Testament. There are at least seven. Multiple authors are going to give multiple accounts of the same phenomena. The synods and councils compiling the books of the New Testament understood that, very clearly. What they found in these accounts was a coherent thought regarding the divinity of Jesus and his teaching.

"Yes" and "no" are both not legitimate answers. That's ****ing crystal clear, since to say "It is the case that Jesus had a brother and it is not the case that Jesus had a brother" is a ****ing contradiction.

However, to say, "It is the case that Matthew said that Jesus had a brother and it is the case that Mark said that Jesus did not have a brother", is not a contradiction, whereas if Matthew said both it would be a contradiction.

It is quite clear that different New Testament authors provide different and inconsistent accounts of certain events, yet, we can say that they cohere in certain ways as well: those ways regard the divinity of Jesus and Jesus's teachings.

But, thanks for demonstrating that you are a goon.

what inconsistencies are you talking about? these different authors are witnesses to Christ's teachings and his life. there are no inconsistencies or contradictions between the various gospels. if anything the multiple witnesses confirm Christ's ministry and life in a consistent manor.

 

[rjd970]

what inconsistencies are you talking about? these different authors are witnesses to Christ's teachings and his life. there are no inconsistencies or contradictions between the various gospels. if anything the multiple witnesses confirm Christ's ministry and life in a consistent manor.

:whistling:

 

[therealUT]

:whistling:

Really, you are going to use JoeVol as evidence that these are proper interpretations?

If anything, JoeVol making such a comment speaks in favor of my view.

 

[Septic]

Really, you are going to use JoeVol as evidence that these are proper interpretations?

If anything, JoeVol making such a comment speaks in favor of my view.

JoeVol is like the Rodney Dangerfield of the VNPF.

 

[rjd970]

Really, you are going to use JoeVol as evidence that these are proper interpretations?

If anything, JoeVol making such a comment speaks in favor of my view.

I'm simply using it as an evidential example of what I've been saying. Everyone believes their interpretation is the right one. I've said nothing different than this the entire thread.

You are making the claim your methodology is the "****ing correct" one. Is Joevol's equally correct?

 

[joevol320]

I don't believe my interpretations are correct, because I don't have an interpretation. I trust the early Biblical fathers who spent their whole life translating proof reading the texts.

I don't have a doctor's degree in 'all things Bible or politics' as Real or septic(tank) does.

they are the greatest minds that have ever graced volnation, if you don't believe them just ask them.

 

[therealUT]

I'm simply using it as an evidential example of what I've been saying. Everyone believes their interpretation is the right one. I've said nothing different than this the entire thread.

You are making the claim your methodology is the "****ing correct" one. Is Joevol's equally correct?

No, JoeVol's is not equally correct.

In reading any work of any author, you must assume they are attempting to relay a coherent thought. To deny that assumption is to assert that the purpose of the text is incoherence; in other words, the author has no purpose.

But, communication is purposive. Utterances that are not purposive are not communication and, as such, there is no meaning at all to be conveyed in such utterances/texts.

Some texts end up actually having irreconcilable inconsistencies, in spite of the author's intention to relay a coherent thought. However, one does not gain the right to assert that without having exhausted every possible outlet to make the text internally consistent.

One can read the New Testament and clearly see some consistent strands of thought strung across various authors and various works: namely, the divinity of Jesus and his teachings. One can also point out irreconcilable inconsistencies regarding biographical details, historical facts, etc.

You are either as dumb as JoeVol or you are just arguing to argue. So, here's a test, posed in the form of a "yes" or "no" question:

Do you think the intellectually proper approach to any written work is the one that assumes that the author is attempting to convey a coherent thought?

 

[therealUT]

I don't believe my interpretations are correct, because I don't have an interpretation.

False.

I trust the early Biblical fathers who spent their whole life translating proof reading the texts.

Yet, there are "Biblical fathers" and Church doctors who disagree on what is the proper interpretation. That is, they think there is a proper interpretation, they do not think that just any interpretation will do, they interpret based on the text and according to reason in order to avoid inconsistencies, and they point out that other interpretations, to include those of other "Biblical fathers" and Church doctors, are inconsistent and incoherent.

I don't have a doctor's degree in 'all things Bible or politics' as Real or septic(tank) does.

they are the greatest minds that have ever graced volnation, if you don't believe them just ask them.

Feel free to ask me.

 

[rjd970]

No, JoeVol's is not equally correct.

In reading any work of any author, you must assume they are attempting to relay a coherent thought. To deny that assumption is to assert that the purpose of the text is incoherence; in other words, the author has no purpose.

But, communication is purposive. Utterances that are not purposive are not communication and, as such, there is no meaning at all to be conveyed in such utterances/texts.

Some texts end up actually having irreconcilable inconsistencies, in spite of the author's intention to relay a coherent thought. However, one does not gain the right to assert that without having exhausted every possible outlet to make the text internally consistent.

One can read the New Testament and clearly see some consistent strands of thought strung across various authors and various works: namely, the divinity of Jesus and his teachings. One can also point out irreconcilable inconsistencies regarding biographical details, historical facts, etc.

You are either as dumb as JoeVol or you are just arguing to argue. So, here's a test, posed in the form of a "yes" or "no" question:

Do you think the intellectually proper approach to any written work is the one that assumes that the author is attempting to convey a coherent thought?

To your question, Yes.

I'm simply pointing out that working under that assumption doesn't always mean we all agree with the the personal interpretation of said work. See JoeVol, or the interpretation of canonical teachings with the numerous different flavors of religions we have. I disagree that any one interpretation is more correct than any other. I also disagree with your assertion yours is the correct one. It may be, but there is no way you can know that.

As to the other bolded, it isn't that easy. I can point out the differences in the birth of Jesus and how he came to be in Nazareth between the different authors all day, somebody, somewhere, will squint at it hard enough and convince themselves there are no such inconsistencies.

This is all I've been saying. You can insult all you want, it doesn't bother me. But you're making claims that simply aren't true, and why the entire premise of this thread is a colossal waste of time that I'm not going to participate in. And furthermore, the arrogance of giving everybody else in this thread a Bible lesson as if you have all the correct answers is illustrative of the problem when everybody else believes they have all the correct answers of stuff they couldn't possibly know or understand.

 

[therealUT]

To your question, Yes.

I'm simply pointing out that working under that assumption doesn't always mean we all agree with the the personal interpretation of said work.

Has anyone disagreed with this point?

See JoeVol, or the interpretation of canonical teachings with the numerous different flavors of religions we have. I disagree that any one interpretation is more correct than any other.

So, an interpretation that admits of an inconsistent and incoherent strand of thought is not less correct, on your view? That's absurd.

I also disagree with your assertion yours is the correct one. It may be, but there is no way you can know that.

I can easily know that my interpretation is one that displays a coherent thought and that other interpretations do not. So, I can know that other interpretations are improper. And, I can know that there is a proper interpretation, because we cannot reject the assumption that the author or compiler wrote or compiled the text in order to present a coherent thought. If we have interpreted it in a way that the author's intended coherent thought matches our interpreted coherent thought, then we have successfully and properly interpreted the text.

As to the other bolded, it isn't that easy. I can point out the differences in the birth of Jesus and how he came to be in Nazareth between the different authors all day, somebody, somewhere, will squint at it hard enough and convince themselves there are no such inconsistencies.

I can also point to these inconsistencies. However, you cannot point to such inconsistencies within the Gospel of Matthew, within the Gospel of Mark, etc. You are pointing to them across these works. The compilers could see these inconsistencies, thus they were not compiling these books in order to present a coherent biographical picture. They were compiling them, as we can see when we read all the New Testament texts and see what it is that makes them cohere, an account of Jesus's divinity and teachings.

This is all I've been saying. You can insult all you want, it doesn't bother me. But you're making claims that simply aren't true, and why the entire premise of this thread is a colossal waste of time that I'm not going to participate in. And furthermore, the arrogance of giving everybody else in this thread a Bible lesson as if you have all the correct answers is illustrative of the problem when everybody else believes they have all the correct answers of stuff they couldn't possibly know or understand.

I'm not making claims that simply are not true. Further, your only hope of saving your ridiculous position is to show that inconsistencies exist across multiple works by multiple authors. No ****! I tell a fable about a tortoise and Achilles, you tell a fable about a tortoise and a hare. Yet, we can compile these in a single work, with the aim of presenting a consistent moral story, knowing that biographical details do not cohere. However, were I to say that Achilles was a man and Achilles was a rabbit, and at the same time he ran erect on two legs and on all fours, I would be incoherent. Yet, if I said, "Achilles is a rabbit sprinting to the finish line" and also said, "Achilles is one of the greatest men and Greek heroes", then one could provide a consistent reading: i.e., when I said, "Achilles is a rabbit", I was speaking figuratively and metaphorically. That's easy.

Furthermore, you are using this angle to argue against there being a proper interpretation of the Quran, which is a single work of a single author. You admit of the assumption regarding coherency, yet the bull-**** out of context reading that you pick up in snippets from Sam Harris's blog (of which, you simply relay Harris's misidentification of verse numbers...telling), is a reading that is inconsistent and incoherent. Thus, it is an improper reading.

I've admitted that many who profess to be Muslims are working off of improper readings. Improper readings can also be handed down through the generations. However, I can stand on firm ground in calling them improper, since they present the text as incoherent, when the text can easily be interpreted as coherent. Of course, this interpretation becomes a bit harder when you decide to quote half of a ****ing sentence from the text to prove your point, removing all the qualifiers about oppression, persecution, being fought against and fighting back, etc.

That is, you are doing something that is intellectually irresponsible, and then proclaiming, "On this far-fetched and bull-**** interpretation, that is accepted among those who are illiterate, uneducated, or are simply power-hungry exploiters, the Quran says this".

Way to go, Columbo!

 

[therealUT]

the arrogance of giving everybody else in this thread a Bible lesson as if you have all the correct answers is illustrative of the problem when everybody else believes they have all the correct answers of stuff they couldn't possibly know or understand.

By the way, this made me laugh.

 

[LouderVol]

I can easily know that my interpretation is one that displays a coherent thought and that other interpretations do not. So, I can know that other interpretations are improper. And, I can know that there is a proper interpretation, because we cannot reject the assumption that the author or compiler wrote or compiled the text in order to present a coherent thought. If we have interpreted it in a way that the author's intended coherent thought matches our interpreted coherent thought, then we have successfully and properly interpreted the text.

How do you know your one coherent interpretation is any better than someone else's? We can know there is a "Ultimate Interpretation" but with in the realm of not knowing the author's exact purpose, and the Bible adds another level of complexity as it was "inspired by God", it is impossible to know what the "Ultimate Interpretation" is. so beyond the argument of coherency there is no real way to tell who is most coherent, and therefore the 'winner' of any ideological(may not be the right word there) argument on the subject.