jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (35 posts)

Interpret WHAT ????

  1. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    Jane Bovary wrote:
    Okay, I see. For the sake of argument, what if you  came across a saying from Jesus that did strongly contradict your own moral sense?

    Jerami wrote    Just for discusions sake; could you give an example of this from your perspective.
    Posted 15
    =============================

  2. IntimatEvolution profile image79
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

    Jerami, this is off subject, but did you see my other post about being American?

  3. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    No I didn't  Just walked in the door and noticed that the other thread got pulled just when I thought it was about to go someplace.
     
      Wanted to pick it back up ????

      Will go look at that thread right now.

  4. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    I didn't see it .... Where??

  5. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    Jane wrote   
      Well there's this;

    If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.    Luke 1426

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image79
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami-  Luke first of all was not written by a disciple.  Luke was a gentile, and greek physician.  The council men of Nicea included his writings in the bible, because of it's strategic outline and timeline.  It, more than any other bible is written in the tone of a diary, or personal travel journal.  I think anyone who quotes Luke, should first and foremost understand this.  Luke for myself, happens to be my personal favorite gospel.  It is logical and practical.  It speaks more about the geography of the land.  However, it is my least favorite when it comes to representing Christ and his laws/or ties to the Jewish faith.  Why?  Luke was a gentile, and not a Jew.  His gospel is full of Jewish tradition pot holes, and misrepresentations. 

      So if this Jane person quoted something from Luke, I'd tell them to find that scripture in John.

  6. IntimatEvolution profile image79
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

    Doesn't matter, but I'm American kiddo.  I live in Columbia Missouri.  My parents are American too.  But I don't want to highjack this thread.  You've got a good forum post and question asked.  So we will write later.  I did start a new sandpit post called "Where are you from."

    But I answered your reply to me, in the people being scared to go in the religious forum thread that is going around.smile 
    _____________________________________________________________________
    AND.........., as to your question- well I'd have a real problem, and I would reconsider my faith.  However, I do that everyday.  I question my reasonings behind why I believe in Jesus everyday.  I think we should.  I think to live life blindly, and in blind faith alone- well......, is irresponsible.wink

  7. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    That is something that I didn't know. Thanks...  Luke wasn't a Hebrew?   Most of my reasearch has been limited within the scriptures.  Was atempting to simply reference bible on bible contradictions and discovered; in my mind anyway, that most contradictions are the product of misinterpretation or translation.

  8. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    IntimatEvolution  said
       AND.........., as to your question- well I'd have a real problem, and I would reconsider my faith.  However, I do that everyday.  I question my reasonings behind why I believe in Jesus everyday.  I think we should.  I think to live life blindly, and in blind faith alone- well......, is irresponsible.   
    ==========================
      Jerami said 
      I don't question my faith in Jesus nearly as much as I do the Interpretations about him.
      I am simply in doubt of ALL Interpretations.
    Some of them "can" be true but not ALL.
      It is written that all scripture is the inspired word of God.
     
    The disciples  was not adressing everything that was to be called scripture at any time in the future. 
      They may or may not be ???, All I'm saying is that they were not talking about anything that is called the scriptures in their future to be inspired. Claiming this to be making future writings as being "Inspired by God would be an overstatement.

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image79
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah Jerami, you worded it much better than me when it comes to Christ.  However, I must tell you that it is mostly because of Luke writings that I believe that an actual man, name Jesus of Nazareth actually existed.  I also believe that Jesus' last name was Thomas.  But that is a whole other story.  However, Luke's writings as I stated before are very practical, logical, geographical and well explained when it comes to Christ- the individual and man. 

      There are no written accounts whether or not Luke converted to Judaism-Christianity.  And back in them days, that is how it went.  That is until Paul changed the general rule, and opened up the faith to gentiles.  But in the beginning of Luke's life, he was a pagan.  Like most Romans and Greeks were at that time.  Paul was a Roman Pagan worshiper before he was confronted by God on the road to Damascus.  Which ironically he was there, chasing down Christ's brother James, after Christ's death to squash the newly formed Judaism-Christian following. 

      But to get back on track to what your post is asking, like I said before, this Jane person needs to find scriptures from the "hebrews" that followed Jesus.  And as a religious scholar- there are none to support this particular scripture.

      I was not aware of the original forum thread.  But I thought if I could help spread some light on helping you in this new post, I felt I should inform you of some background history.

      With that said, I don't even know what the original conversation was about.  Or why Jane even posted that scripture as an answer.

      But I will say this, I'm a Fideist.  That is I'm a believer, who completely believes in God and Jesus, just off of faith alone.  Faith.  Which doesn't include scripture, which doesn't include artifacts supporting Christ- it is faith and faith only.  But if some compelling evidence was to be found, written in stone that Jesus was an axe murderer lets say, I would really have to change my outlook on what I deem to be correct.  I would have to look into my own eyes and heart, and ask myself whether or not, my faith in this man of 2000 years ago was really worthy of my love.

      1. Jane Bovary profile image85
        Jane Bovaryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If you've got no objections, I'd like to make my own selections IntimatEvolution....and  you can call me *Jane* for short if you like...*this Jane person* must be a drag to type.

        To fill you in...the original discussion  between Jerami and I was in Brenda's Mark Knowles thread, which was shut down. In a nut shell it was about whether it's better to use your own reasoning or follow authority..[not just any authority, but one you have a great deal of faith in]

        1. IntimatEvolution profile image79
          IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah it is actually.  Thanks for that. 

          And that is the great thing about religion and the bible, it is interpretations.  However, as a religious scholar and historian, it sometimes helps other people to understand the timing when something was written, and even who the person was in real life who wrote a passage. 

          As for me, I know the bible like the back of my hand.  I should, it once was my profession, and it is what I have my Masters in.  If you read what I wrote, I never said anything bad and directed negative energy your way.  I simply stated to my confused friend, that he should have you find your scripture in one of the Hebrew disciples text. As in any good debate or argument the opposing side always has that right and option to request more knowledge.  Now whether or not you oblige, and to possibly become more well rounded yourself, again is entirely up to you.wink

          Conversing is a great learning tool.  Not only for the ones conversing/debating back and forth, but to the other readers as well.  Apparently Jerami was extremely confused by your chosen scripture.  Since you offer no explanation to why you chose the text, I took the opportunity to help them understand Luke.  Because like I noted earlier, I don't even know what the original conversation was about.

          Furthermore, I made no ill remarks about any of your interpretations.  So where you get the notion that I was ever referring to your interpretation on the bible, has me a little lost as well.  But that's okay.  Quite truthfully, I don't care and I don't mean that in a bad way.  I just mean, I wanted to let my friend know and others too, a little historical background.

          1. Jane Bovary profile image85
            Jane Bovaryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            IE...I chose that text because Jerami wanted me to provide an example of where the sayings of Jesus conflicted with my own views.

            No negative vibes felt. Thanks for the reply

            1. IntimatEvolution profile image79
              IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Ok, good.   

              But your first post implied to me otherwise.  That is why I tried to explain my own post. 

              But as I said before, the truth is I don't care what scripture or why or what, I was just trying to spread some light on who Luke was, and my own personal interpretation when someones quotes Luke's scriptures. 

              I feel I must ask, why didn't you try to explain your interpretation to better help someone learn?  The apostle Paul was real big on explaining any of the scriptures when one felt compelled to quote one of the. He clearly states that this is because- without the truest explanation that should follow- all listeners should dismiss that person- because that person is only using God's messages in vane.  You know, basically saying an unexplained scripture quoter, is not doing gods will, but rather there own will.  Which according the all the gospels is sin.

              So why not try to explain to Jerami why you selected that quote, and what your interpretation of is meaning is to you? 

              I'm just asking.  You need not reply to me.  I'm not judging you or anything like that, I'm only following my our heavenly father's rules.

              1. Jane Bovary profile image85
                Jane Bovaryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                IE,

                I didn't feel I needed to  explain my interpretation as I'm taking those biblical quotes at face value. Isn't that how they're meant to be read?

                Anyhow I have already given some clues as to why I don't like these passages. Jesus shows no regard for family in these particular quotes. Why would he want to set families at variance? What's the justification for beating servants? Why call upon men to be eunichs?


                There may be different ways to interpret these, but who's to say any one persons interpretation is the correct one? Personally I think the best interpretation is the obvious one....that is, read it the way it was written....and if the real meaning is not obvious then I don't see how we can be expected to get it right.

                How do you interpret them?

                1. profile image0
                  IEsMedicalposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey Jane, it is still me, I',m just working on a new hub on my medical transcription hub account I started last week.  So I don't mean to confuse, but it is still me Julie.  Now only you get to see what I look like....., anyhow back on subject.

                  How do I interpret them.  Well not blindly, as do the lay people of worship.  Preachers, Philosophers(me), Theologians, Historical scholars (me), teachers, priest, etc...., well we interpret based off many elements based from collected data from such areas as an archaeological perspective, documented accuracy in the body of the writing, geographical indications; like who was Emperor of Rome, or who was then the Governor of Judea, and most importantly the Anthropology subject matter.  With all that embedded in the mind, I quote scripture and interpret scriptures based off those facts.  Like I'm not going to quote something from the Romans, pertaining to Christ's personal beliefs.  Why?  Well it was a letter written by Paul.  Who never met Christ, and who was not hebrew.  Furthermore, I wouldn't quote a Roman scripture about Christ, because the Letter to the Romans, is the collective work written by Paul to his followers, after the Roman Emperor of that time had just passed a rule that all Christians had to leave Rome, and any Roman providences.  Including the providence of Judea.  So that collective body of works, is pointless to quote in some instances.   Especially since it is written by a gentile, trying to unravel ancient Jewish tradition that he had no clue about.  Paul didn't read Hebrew.  He read and     wrote in Greek and Roman.

                  But the point I'm trying to make is- I interpret the bible based off factual knowledge.  Not my own interpretations only.  I infuse everything I know, I infuse everything that is historically known to be happening around Christ and his disciples- and then I quote a scripture.

                  And as many will tell you here, I don't quote scripture too often.  Why?  It is too easy to quote scripture as a personal will, rather than to quote scripture in servitude to my heavenly father. 

                  Deep I know- but what of God and Christ isn't deep, and worthy of such love and dedication.  And that is what the Apostle Paul was about.  He clearly went about explaining, if that a person was quoting scripture or speaking in tongues, to insure that interpretations were given about it and/or that somebody be present to interpret.  That way it would insure that people weren't using God's work for spiteful endeavors, or to serve that persons own will and not God's.

                  Therefore- I felt I had to ask, why didn't you bother to do your Christian duty and help explain.  Because clearly- there was a grave amount of confusion.

                  Jane, it has been real nice to chat with you.  I hope we have the opportunity to do so again.  But I'm excited about my new hubpages.com account.  And I have a huge hub on Orthopedic Surgery to write about.  Feel free to email me anytime.  Yours in Friendship, Julie

  9. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    I have to go to work again today. 
      Have bills to pay.  back later...

  10. Jane Bovary profile image85
    Jane Bovaryposted 7 years ago

    Hi Jerami,

    I'm not so sure about SirdDent's  re-translation there, not withstanding his impressive Greek lettering. The common translation of 'miseo' is normally "hate". It seems a  stretch to come up with that alternative...is it in any Greek dictionary? Could it be possible that certain Christian Biblical scholars have a vested interest in finding alternate translations in order to make  unsavoury parts of the Bible more palatable to modern readers?

    Well, whatever...in order to avoid a *my biblical scholar is better than yours* argument I'll let it go.  Whether it is "hate" or  "love less" there is  further evidence in the New Testament to show that Jesus had little respect for family values;

    "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matthew 10:35-36

    That seems quite clear. "I have come to set at variance..." He has come to divide family members

    When one of his disciples asked for some time off for his father's funeral, Jesus fobbed him off with this:
    "Let the dead bury their dead." Matthew 8:22

    To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" John 2:4

    And what's this about?:

    "There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12

    He seems to be saying "if you can bear to make yourself a eunich do it, because you'll be received in heaven". Again, hardly an endorsement of the family. Also, how is anyone to know for sure whether to take this figuratively or literally? Some poor devils have in fact taken it literally. And when it has been taken figuratively,by the Catholic Church for example, that has lead to some serious trouble as well.

    He encouraged the beating of servants: "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Luke 12:47

    Is this kind and loving advice...? I would expect better from a a divine being.

    1. profile image0
      SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      The quote I posted before was from Strong's Concordance. You can look it up online if you want.

      G3404

      μισέω

      miseō

      mis-eh'-o

      From a primary word μῖσος misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension to love less: - hate (-ful).

      http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.c … index=3404

      1. Jane Bovary profile image85
        Jane Bovaryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ok..thanks SirDent. I'll check it out.

  11. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    Goog morning  all
      IE.. I may one of these also? (Fideist). I have said that I believe Jesus to be the Messiah as fortold in the OT. And of courst this would mean that I also believe the God of Abraham wid apear/ speak with him and others.
        I choose to believe this not because scholars say so.

       Upon your sudgestion I did a little reaserch on Issac Newton.
       I came to the conclusion that he and I share a few opinions.
        He was too fearful of the Church to express them at the time.
        I believe that His mathmatical calculations had nothing in common with The train of thought in wich I have persued.
        It is because of this Timeline comparison that I have come to the conclusions that I have.
        This conclusion can be summed up as a total distrust of   "Interpretations"   established by the Church in 326 AD.
    I have sence studied the PROPHESY attempting to remove any and all interpretations that I had previously been taught.

       As my faith in the Church has dwindled; My faith in God has become stronger.
       
        Jane.... I think and type very slow ... Back in a few to say HI.  Hay to you also Sir Dent

    1. Jane Bovary profile image85
      Jane Bovaryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Jerami,

      I agree interpretations can be very slippery things.

      I'm off to bed...

  12. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    Jane wrote .
    Hi Jerami,

    Whether it is "hate" or  "love less" there is  further evidence in the New Testament to show that Jesus had little respect for family values;

    "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matthew 10:35-36
    ===========================================
    Jeramy wrote
      I absolutely am not any sort of schollar ..But .. My immediate understanding of this verse was that his teachings was such that family members were going to turn on each other because of their belief and/or disbelief.
    ==================
       Jane wrote ...When one of his disciples asked for some time off for his father's funeral, Jesus fobbed him off with this:
    "Let the dead bury their dead." Matthew 8:22
    =========================================
       I think This was in reference to that person wanting to becoming a disciple.
    Jesus was heading out right then. Kinda like  "Hay I'm leaving right now, If you want to come with me, let the dead take care of the dead.
       This man was using the death of his family member as an excuse for not following Jesus.  He was wanting to go home and take care of "ALL" of the Business (inheratence issues) which was going to take some time.

      I would have to check these other verses out before making any comment 
       Don't mean to be pushing my views on these issues but only expressing mine.

  13. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    sweet dreams  Jane

  14. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" John 2:4

    And what's this about?:

    "There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12
    Jane wrote
    He seems to be saying "if you can bear to make yourself a eunich do it, because you'll be received in heaven". Again, hardly an endorsement of the family. Also, how is anyone to know for sure whether to take this figuratively or literally? Some poor devils have in fact taken it literally. And when it has been taken figuratively,by the Catholic Church for example, that has lead to some serious trouble as well.
    ====================================================
    Jerami  wrote
    This  began... when a disciple ask ; "is it not good to marry" and Jesus answered... "some men are born eunichs"  meaning that they have no sexual desires from birth. 
        "And there are some eunichs that were eunichs by man"       some slaves/servants  were castrated when working around the Kings concubines and such. 
       And there be some that made themselves eunichs for the kingdom of heavens sake"
       As in the first example; Eunichs "being so born" were not actualy castraded, I doubt that the third example were either, but rather they chose to disregard their sexual desires for their quest for entering the kingdom of heaven.
       "For me"; this is what seems to be actually written.   

    ===============================
     
    Jane wrote...    verse He encouraged the beating of servants: "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Luke 12:47

    Is this kind and loving advice...? I would expect better from a a divine being.
    =================================

       To me; this seems to be a parrable; where Jesus is describing how, in the world,  a servant is mistreating/beating  those that he has authority over and is caught in the act, when HIS master comes home, can expect to be punished in like manner. 
        Jesus seems to be saying that when we disrespectuflly mistreat others, we can expect to be punished in like manner when Jesus returns,
       Kinda sorta.

    1. profile image0
      IEsMedicalposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      OKAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      First of all, Chapter 12, verses 35-48  Is a body of collective sayings that are specifically relating to Luke's UNDERSTANDING of the end of time, and the supposable return of Christ.  They are all talking about the end of the universe, earth, Armageddon- and the fact that Jesus just told them all that he at that time, will once again come back down to earth.  You following me here people? 

      Okay so from verse 40 to 48, verse 40 here being the most important second part to the conversation because it says, "You also must be prepared for at an hour you do not expect, the son of man will come."

      Pretty powerful statement, right.  However the pivotal words here are "be prepared."  So then a hypothetical question is then asked.  It is asking what if my master(JESUS) is delayed............, What if we followers are beaten into submission to start sinning again........., what if.....????

      So then Luke speaks in an authoritian cautionary tone, he says disobey the Master(CHRIST), be beaten for it.  For us Christians, Christs followers have been entrusted by Christ.  He expects more from his followers than to be lost to sin the day before he is to come to the earth again.

      This whole passage from 35-48, is Luke's interpretation, instructions and cautionary advisement, to a hypotheical equation; which is "What if our Master(JESUS) is delayed."  Like he has been, he is delayed about thousand years.  I mean, look at how many times people have thought it is the end of the world. 

      All this rhetoric between the followers was leading up to the WHY and to the REASON to enforce Baptism as part of the new Judeo-Christian religion.

      ______________________________________________________________

      History, Full knowledge of the ENTIRE text, Understanding the author writing the piece- are critical to know- before someone goes spouting scripture.

  15. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    @ IEsMedical  I would agree with all that you said....
      It seems to me that your system of understanding the scriptures is not as much the use of Interpretation as it is simply analizing them. There is a diffrence.
       I guess it depends upon your definition of the word Interpretation; But to me, it sounds that you are examining, and analizing the information as best as possible. Therefore attempting to "Interpret" as little as is possible, while establishing a conclusion as to what you believe it to actually be saying.
       With this I fully agree.

    1. profile image0
      IEsMedicalposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami, it is a must my friend.  Take this all for example, we got people spouting scripture; 1. From Luke, and 2. Without complete awareness as to why the words were written. 3. And, blatantly ignoring the conversation the words were spoken it. 

      That my friend, is why I don't quote scripture that much.  I'm sure Jane meant no ill will or harm in her quoting what she quoted.  But it is extremely clear, she quoted scripture to be used as HER will and not in the servitude of God or God's will.  God bless her, but you know that is a cardinal sin.  And I asked her at least 3x's to explain her explanation.  And 3x's, just like Peter, denied the work of the Lord.  Hopefully people will learn from this; that posting scripture bears much responsibility. 

      Hey darling, I'm off to write my hub.  Take care, and chat with you soon I hope. Xo;)

  16. TLMinut profile image60
    TLMinutposted 7 years ago

    The one that bothers me is Jesus saying "...eat my flesh and drink my blood." He was big on analogies and metaphors, parables, but this was a bit much. A LOT too much. Especially since earlier scripture forbids ingesting blood. If he doesn't mean it literally and I can't imagine he did, he could have found a better way to make his point.

    1. Jerami profile image74
      Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      started to reply but recieved a Ph call from momie..
       
        Am wondering which version of the last supper are speaking of.

      I've heard this interpretated to be refering as when eating the flesh to represent learning his teachings and drinking his blood as absorbing the holy spirit ( or was that my own understanding??)
         Either way I'd want to read it again before making more of a comment.
         Sometimes I am skeptical as to who wrote what versions as told in scripture.  Such as Matt. 24.3?? states "When will these things be? and... and the end of the world" and the other  verse (Mark 13:4)  and the other version does not. This inclusion or exclusion makes a world of diffrence. Though this part of the question was not answered by Jesus.
          This still leads people to think that he did.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        with literally hundreds of contradictions I do not envy you in trying to make sense of it! smile

        1. Jerami profile image74
          Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure you think that I'm bling or something but I think that I have settled that at least in my mind,
            I realy don't see the contradictions as being such.
          Contraversial yes. Misunderstood or misinterpreted Yes.

          1. Jerami profile image74
            Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I would like to add that I do not think of the New Testament "all" to be the "infalible"  word of God.
            I think that the Church that the Roman Empire built did manipulate some of the writings that were accepted into the canon. Two or more similar writters probably had their writtings combined into one book because they all contained a particular point that another did not make. And they saw no need to include too many books that said almost the same things.
               If I am to say that anything in the NT would be the inspired word of God; it would be first the words written "in read".

  17. TLMinut profile image60
    TLMinutposted 7 years ago

    After he said that, many people left him and he asked his disciples if they were going to too. He knew it didn't sound right.

    1. Jerami profile image74
      Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You might be right? And don't mean to sound arguementive,
      I just thought that his asking this was inviting any questions from them if they had any. Kinda like him making a strong stand. Something like that any way?

 
working