Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Czechanada]

Knowing the history of Eleanor Rigby allows you to enjoy it in a different way. You might even enjoy it more. But the 'message' of Eleanor Rigby doesn't rely on knowing who wrote it, who sings it, or anything about it.

Sure, you can appreciate it in a different way if you know where it exists in a chronology. What it influences. What influenced it. How was it groundbreaking. And so forth.

But none of that changes the song, or it's meaning.

And if the song has any lasting significance, if it touches on something meaningful to the whole human experience, if it's timeless - all that other stuff is irrelevant.

This is arguably the difference between something like Eleanor Rigby by the Beatles.. and, say, "Da Dip" by Freak Nasty. One of them might be a message that will resonate for the ages, and the other was already outdated by the time people stopped doing the dance.

So... is the Bible "Da Dip"? Or is it Eleanor Rigby?

Because that's ultimately the choice you've got to make.

I'm sorry, but this is a sorry argument. A book or song means what the author or artist wants it to mean. Other people's interpretations are invalid. I don't get to decide that Tora Tora Tora! is actually a romance, for example.

That's a rather grand homogenization of the various movements in aesthetics; It's like generalizing Hinduism and Christianity as having the same definition of what it means to be religious because they are both religions. All of the different historical trends in art have different answers on who determines the meaning of a given work of art.

For example, some books within the canon of post-modern literature feature literary minimalism, where the reader is expected to generate most of the meaning of the novel as the author only provides the bare minimum of the details. Similarly, other post-modern trends such as fragmentation and the use of an unreliable narrator rely on the ability of the reader to generate meaning from the text.

In contrast, Realist literature contends that the meanings they represent exist independently of human understanding.

[Constantinopolis]

Alright, against my better judgment, I will revisit one aspect of the debate with Grave_n_idle, because it provides an opportunity to make a vital point about Biblical literalism and Biblical interpretations.

When I say that the scripture literally says a thing, it's because it literally says it - it does nothing for me personally for it to say, or not say, that thing.

For example, when I say that Jesus preached not to call men by religious titles, when I say he said to call no man father, when I say he said that we should be brethren - that's not my opinion, nor my interpretation - I can point you to the verses in Matthew where that is literally recorded as the words he said.

I've explained it to you before - it's not me you're arguing with.

Thank you for pointing out the fundamental error at the heart of your arguments. Yes indeed, sometimes the Scripture literally says things... which no one in their right mind would take literally, and which, historically, were never taken literally by any Christians. Then you come around and say that we should take them literally, and act like this is the obvious true meaning of Scripture.

No. It doesn't work that way. Choosing to take something literally, when it could also be read some other way, is a form of interpretation. Extreme literalism is itself a form of interpretation.

And when we apply extreme literalism to the words of Jesus (even leaving aside the parables), we sometimes get ridiculous results. Take this passage for example:

Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?"
And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, `Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."

Now, what do you suppose the underlined part means? Does it mean that the followers of Jesus were promised superpowers? That is what Jesus literally says here after all. He says if you have enough faith in Him, you'll be able to move mountains by telling them to move. And He says the required amount of faith isn't even that great (mustard seeds are famously small).

And yet, no Christians ever believed that sufficient faith can turn you into one of the X-Men. We believe that Jesus is exaggerating the issue here just to drive home His point. His point is that a little bit of faith can go a long way. But He doesn't mean we can literally get superpowers. Are we all wrong about that?

A less extreme but still excellent example is one that you yourself actually brought up. The verse that says "call no man father". Here it is:

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Now, what does this mean? Does it literally mean "do not use the word 'father' to refer to any human beings, but reserve it strictly for God"? If so, then that implies we should not call our own biological parents "father". After all, Jesus made no exception for biological parents here; in fact He specifically said, ONE is your Father. Not "two are your fathers, God and your biological parent".

So a purely literal interpretation is that the word "father" should be reserved for God and male parents should be called something else.

And yet, no Christians do this. As far as I know, there have never been any Christians who did this. No one ever believed that Jesus literally meant for us to engage in some type of vocabulary reform and remove the word "father" from everyday speech.

Instead, the traditional Christian interpretation of this passage is that Christ is warning us not to give any human being more reverence than we give to God. He doesn't mean that we literally shouldn't call people "father", but that we should always remember the Father in heaven as being greater than them. Are we wrong?

Or what about this one:

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.
If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell."

Does Jesus command self-mutilation?

I could go on. But the fact is, no one consistently applies extreme literalism to the words of Jesus. No one cuts off body parts, refers to his biological father as "male parental unit", and yells at mountains to get out of his way. It is comical to even suggest that Jesus actually meant for us to do such things.

And that is why interpretation is necessary.

(note: I am not saying that the literal meaning is always wrong. Obviously not. In many cases the literal meaning is the correct one. What I am saying, rather, is that the literal meaning is sometimes wrong, so we need interpretation to decide which things to take literally and which ones not to. I also contend that, in practice, no one actually takes everything in the Gospels literally. Everyone engages in interpretation. As they should.)

[Salus Maior]

A less extreme but still excellent example is one that you yourself actually brought up. The verse that says "call no man father". Here it is:

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Now, what does this mean? Does it literally mean "do not use the word 'father' to refer to any human beings, but reserve it strictly for God"? If so, then that implies we should not call our own biological parents "father". After all, Jesus made no exception for biological parents here; in fact He specifically said, ONE is your Father. Not "two are your fathers, God and your biological parent".

So a purely literal interpretation is that the word "father" should be reserved for God and male parents should be called something else.

And yet, no Christians do this. As far as I know, there have never been any Christians who did this. No one ever believed that Jesus literally meant for us to engage in some type of vocabulary reform and remove the word "father" from everyday speech.

Instead, the traditional Christian interpretation of this passage is that Christ is warning us not to give any human being more reverence than we give to God. He doesn't mean that we literally shouldn't call people "father", but that we should always remember the Father in heaven as being greater than them. Are we wrong?

To add to this, Jesus had no problem with calling earthly people fathers. Also from Matthew:

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]” Matthew 19:18.

And what he was talking about in the verse you mentioned can't be referring to the religious title of "Father", because as far as I'm aware you would not call a Priest or Rabbi "Father" in Judaism.

[Grave_n_idle]

Thank you for pointing out the fundamental error at the heart of your arguments. Yes indeed, sometimes the Scripture literally says things... which no one in their right mind would take literally, and which, historically, were never taken literally by any Christians. Then you come around and say that we should take them literally, and act like this is the obvious true meaning of Scripture.

It is my fault for communicating poorly, but 'the fundamental error at the heart of my arguments' isn't in my arguments.

When I say that the text literally says something, I m saying that is exactly the words on the page.

I'm not saying that you should interpret metaphors as being other than metaphors. When it says in Job that his belly boiled, I'm not saying that it literally boiled.

Saying that something is literally in the text does not mean that it should be taken literally.

[Grave_n_idle]

A less extreme but still excellent example is one that you yourself actually brought up. The verse that says "call no man father". Here it is:

Now, what does this mean? Does it literally mean "do not use the word 'father' to refer to any human beings, but reserve it strictly for God"? If so, then that implies we should not call our own biological parents "father". After all, Jesus made no exception for biological parents here; in fact He specifically said, ONE is your Father. Not "two are your fathers, God and your biological parent".

So a purely literal interpretation is that the word "father" should be reserved for God and male parents should be called something else.

And yet, no Christians do this. As far as I know, there have never been any Christians who did this. No one ever believed that Jesus literally meant for us to engage in some type of vocabulary reform and remove the word "father" from everyday speech.

Instead, the traditional Christian interpretation of this passage is that Christ is warning us not to give any human being more reverence than we give to God. He doesn't mean that we literally shouldn't call people "father", but that we should always remember the Father in heaven as being greater than them. Are we wrong?

To add to this, Jesus had no problem with calling earthly people fathers. Also from Matthew:

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]” Matthew 19:18.

And what he was talking about in the verse you mentioned can't be referring to the religious title of "Father", because as far as I'm aware you would not call a Priest or Rabbi "Father" in Judaism.

What Jesus is clearly referring to (based on the context in Matthew), is the Hebrew scripture tradition of spiritual counselors, patriarchs, rulers and benefactors who are granted some ascendancy over their flocks. In the Hebrew scripture, the term used - is 'father'.

Genesis 45:8 "So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt."

In Genesis 45, there are two uses of the word 'father' - one to refer to the ruler or counselor - and the other to refer to a specific parent.

Job 29:12-6 "Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out."

Isaiah 22:20-1 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah."

Job and Isaiah both expand on the title, as well (further linking it to Matthew - see the reference to 'robes') - both texts refer to robes - symbolic for the priestly caste in the Hebrew text, and Job refers to a diadem - which can either symbolically refer to a sovereign or a priest.

So, when Jesus says in Matthew to be brothers, to eschew the robes, and to call no man father - it's transparent what he (a scholar of the Hebrew text) is referring to. There is to be no priestly caste over you - no one appointed over you to tell you spiritual truth.

No wonder 'the church' wants these verses to be interpreted differently.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

... We most definitely can be made in the image of God and be naturally inclined towards evil. It's called the Fall.

Our instincts as people are not naturally inclined towards God. If left to our own devices why would we hold our selves back? Just because we have the capacity for good and evil, does not mean we are neutral. We are not defined by our capabilities or intentions, but by our actions.

No no no again, you're confusing being naturally/ inclined to evil and being inclined to evil. The Fall gave us an inclination towards sin and evil (inclination alone, not a natural inclination - there is a difference), that is how we became corrupted but made in the image of God - but we are still made in the image of God and therefore we cannot be naturally inclined to evil, for that would mean that God is also naturally inclined to evil.

Technically speaking, being made in the image of God, just means we look like him. Not that we're of the same substance, form or nature.

[Salus Maior]

So, when Jesus says in Matthew to be brothers, to eschew the robes, and to call no man father - it's transparent what he (a scholar of the Hebrew text) is referring to. There is to be no priestly caste over you - no one appointed over you to tell you spiritual truth.

No wonder 'the church' wants these verses to be interpreted differently.

If that's what he meant he probably shouldn't have appointed those twelve guys and given them authority as teachers.

And there is no priestly "caste" anyway. Literally anyone can become a Priest if they want, all they need to do is go to school for it.

[Pasong Tirad]

No no no again, you're confusing being naturally/ inclined to evil and being inclined to evil. The Fall gave us an inclination towards sin and evil (inclination alone, not a natural inclination - there is a difference), that is how we became corrupted but made in the image of God - but we are still made in the image of God and therefore we cannot be naturally inclined to evil, for that would mean that God is also naturally inclined to evil.

Technically speaking, being made in the image of God, just means we look like him. Not that we're of the same substance, form or nature.

God should find a handsome man. Like Brad Pitt. Or that guy who played Stephen Hawking in that movie. He's pretty handsome.

[Neanderthaland]

No no no again, you're confusing being naturally/ inclined to evil and being inclined to evil. The Fall gave us an inclination towards sin and evil (inclination alone, not a natural inclination - there is a difference), that is how we became corrupted but made in the image of God - but we are still made in the image of God and therefore we cannot be naturally inclined to evil, for that would mean that God is also naturally inclined to evil.

Technically speaking, being made in the image of God, just means we look like him. Not that we're of the same substance, form or nature.

Is that what that means?

To me that seems like the worst possible interpretation. Not quite blasphemous, but really boring and a little demeaning to everyone.

It says on the one hand, "yes, God is a placental mammal for some reason" and also, "by the way, the reason why humans are special to him is that they share the most superficial similarity possible."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Technically speaking, being made in the image of God, just means we look like him. Not that we're of the same substance, form or nature.

Is that what that means?

To me that seems like the worst possible interpretation. Not quite blasphemous, but really boring and a little demeaning to everyone.

It says on the one hand, "yes, God is a placental mammal for some reason" and also, "by the way, the reason why humans are special to him is that they share the most superficial similarity possible."

Unless, "in our image" is said en expectatum of the incarnation. Which means that God made man in the image of His incarnation, before the incarnation occurred. Wrap your brain around that one.

[ThePeacekeepers]

To add to this, Jesus had no problem with calling earthly people fathers. Also from Matthew:

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]” Matthew 19:18.

And what he was talking about in the verse you mentioned can't be referring to the religious title of "Father", because as far as I'm aware you would not call a Priest or Rabbi "Father" in Judaism.

What Jesus is clearly referring to (based on the context in Matthew), is the Hebrew scripture tradition of spiritual counselors, patriarchs, rulers and benefactors who are granted some ascendancy over their flocks. In the Hebrew scripture, the term used - is 'father'.

Genesis 45:8 "So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt."

In Genesis 45, there are two uses of the word 'father' - one to refer to the ruler or counselor - and the other to refer to a specific parent.

Job 29:12-6 "Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out."

Isaiah 22:20-1 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah."

Job and Isaiah both expand on the title, as well (further linking it to Matthew - see the reference to 'robes') - both texts refer to robes - symbolic for the priestly caste in the Hebrew text, and Job refers to a diadem - which can either symbolically refer to a sovereign or a priest.

So, when Jesus says in Matthew to be brothers, to eschew the robes, and to call no man father - it's transparent what he (a scholar of the Hebrew text) is referring to. There is to be no priestly caste over you - no one appointed over you to tell you spiritual truth.

No wonder 'the church' wants these verses to be interpreted differently.

I agree that no man should be called master or father as the lord has said. I also agree that many church's, catholic principally, bishops and others in power exalt themselves and do that which the Lord has specifically commanded against such as wearing great robes and desiring high seats and also wishing for men to call them master or father which is damnation unto themselves and those who do so.
But if you are saying we are not to have bishops, pastors, or deacons then I must point out that you are scripturally wrong in this matter. If not I apologize for misunderstanding what it is you are saying.

[Lady Scylla]

No no no again, you're confusing being naturally/ inclined to evil and being inclined to evil. The Fall gave us an inclination towards sin and evil (inclination alone, not a natural inclination - there is a difference), that is how we became corrupted but made in the image of God - but we are still made in the image of God and therefore we cannot be naturally inclined to evil, for that would mean that God is also naturally inclined to evil.

Technically speaking, being made in the image of God, just means we look like him. Not that we're of the same substance, form or nature.

If Genesis is to be taken seriously. God, after the Fall, does say "They have become like us" and then cast Adam and Even from the garden before they can eat the tree that would give them immortality.

Genesis 3:22-24

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

I always liked this passage, as it seems that, in a way, we're like demi-gods -- but also that we could have become gods ourselves. One interpretation I entertain: God could have destroyed man at that point, a hard reset essentially, and created Adam and Eve 2.0. He didn't, however. This could be a change in mind -- our suffering could be something God himself had to partake in -- perhaps we, ourselves, could rule eventually as Gods. Of course, that's beyond sacrilegious. Optionally, it could be a reflection done on God -- in this way it humanizes him; if we've become like Him after the Fall, and are suffering for it -- well, we're suffering for the knowledge of Good and Evil -- this could be a reflection on God to illustrate that he too might suffer from this knowledge, and is humbled by it.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Alright, against my better judgment, I will revisit one aspect of the debate with Grave_n_idle, because it provides an opportunity to make a vital point about Biblical literalism and Biblical interpretations.

When I say that the scripture literally says a thing, it's because it literally says it - it does nothing for me personally for it to say, or not say, that thing.

For example, when I say that Jesus preached not to call men by religious titles, when I say he said to call no man father, when I say he said that we should be brethren - that's not my opinion, nor my interpretation - I can point you to the verses in Matthew where that is literally recorded as the words he said.

I've explained it to you before - it's not me you're arguing with.

Thank you for pointing out the fundamental error at the heart of your arguments. Yes indeed, sometimes the Scripture literally says things... which no one in their right mind would take literally, and which, historically, were never taken literally by any Christians. Then you come around and say that we should take them literally, and act like this is the obvious true meaning of Scripture.

No. It doesn't work that way. Choosing to take something literally, when it could also be read some other way, is a form of interpretation. Extreme literalism is itself a form of interpretation.

And when we apply extreme literalism to the words of Jesus (even leaving aside the parables), we sometimes get ridiculous results. Take this passage for example:

Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?"
And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, `Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."

Now, what do you suppose the underlined part means? Does it mean that the followers of Jesus were promised superpowers? That is what Jesus literally says here after all. He says if you have enough faith in Him, you'll be able to move mountains by telling them to move. And He says the required amount of faith isn't even that great (mustard seeds are famously small).

And yet, no Christians ever believed that sufficient faith can turn you into one of the X-Men. We believe that Jesus is exaggerating the issue here just to drive home His point. His point is that a little bit of faith can go a long way. But He doesn't mean we can literally get superpowers. Are we all wrong about that?

A less extreme but still excellent example is one that you yourself actually brought up. The verse that says "call no man father". Here it is:

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Now, what does this mean? Does it literally mean "do not use the word 'father' to refer to any human beings, but reserve it strictly for God"? If so, then that implies we should not call our own biological parents "father". After all, Jesus made no exception for biological parents here; in fact He specifically said, ONE is your Father. Not "two are your fathers, God and your biological parent".

So a purely literal interpretation is that the word "father" should be reserved for God and male parents should be called something else.

And yet, no Christians do this. As far as I know, there have never been any Christians who did this. No one ever believed that Jesus literally meant for us to engage in some type of vocabulary reform and remove the word "father" from everyday speech.

Instead, the traditional Christian interpretation of this passage is that Christ is warning us not to give any human being more reverence than we give to God. He doesn't mean that we literally shouldn't call people "father", but that we should always remember the Father in heaven as being greater than them. Are we wrong?

Or what about this one:

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.
If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell."

Does Jesus command self-mutilation?

I could go on. But the fact is, no one consistently applies extreme literalism to the words of Jesus. No one cuts off body parts, refers to his biological father as "male parental unit", and yells at mountains to get out of his way. It is comical to even suggest that Jesus actually meant for us to do such things.

And that is why interpretation is necessary.

(note: I am not saying that the literal meaning is always wrong. Obviously not. In many cases the literal meaning is the correct one. What I am saying, rather, is that the literal meaning is sometimes wrong, so we need interpretation to decide which things to take literally and which ones not to. I also contend that, in practice, no one actually takes everything in the Gospels literally. Everyone engages in interpretation. As they should.)

By our faith anything is possible unto us as the Lord God Yahweh has said through his son Yahshua the Christ.
John 14:13-14
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Matthew 18:19-20
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

Matthew 21:21-22
21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive

John 14:13-14
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

John 15:5-7
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

John 15:14-16

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 16:23-24
23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

James 1:5-6
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

1 John 3:18-22
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

I will address some of the other points when I have the time as it is getting very late and I must get up early.

[Lady Scylla]

Alright, against my better judgment, I will revisit one aspect of the debate with Grave_n_idle, because it provides an opportunity to make a vital point about Biblical literalism and Biblical interpretations.



Thank you for pointing out the fundamental error at the heart of your arguments. Yes indeed, sometimes the Scripture literally says things... which no one in their right mind would take literally, and which, historically, were never taken literally by any Christians. Then you come around and say that we should take them literally, and act like this is the obvious true meaning of Scripture.

No. It doesn't work that way. Choosing to take something literally, when it could also be read some other way, is a form of interpretation. Extreme literalism is itself a form of interpretation.

And when we apply extreme literalism to the words of Jesus (even leaving aside the parables), we sometimes get ridiculous results. Take this passage for example:

Now, what do you suppose the underlined part means? Does it mean that the followers of Jesus were promised superpowers? That is what Jesus literally says here after all. He says if you have enough faith in Him, you'll be able to move mountains by telling them to move. And He says the required amount of faith isn't even that great (mustard seeds are famously small).

And yet, no Christians ever believed that sufficient faith can turn you into one of the X-Men. We believe that Jesus is exaggerating the issue here just to drive home His point. His point is that a little bit of faith can go a long way. But He doesn't mean we can literally get superpowers. Are we all wrong about that?

A less extreme but still excellent example is one that you yourself actually brought up. The verse that says "call no man father". Here it is:

Now, what does this mean? Does it literally mean "do not use the word 'father' to refer to any human beings, but reserve it strictly for God"? If so, then that implies we should not call our own biological parents "father". After all, Jesus made no exception for biological parents here; in fact He specifically said, ONE is your Father. Not "two are your fathers, God and your biological parent".

So a purely literal interpretation is that the word "father" should be reserved for God and male parents should be called something else.

And yet, no Christians do this. As far as I know, there have never been any Christians who did this. No one ever believed that Jesus literally meant for us to engage in some type of vocabulary reform and remove the word "father" from everyday speech.

Instead, the traditional Christian interpretation of this passage is that Christ is warning us not to give any human being more reverence than we give to God. He doesn't mean that we literally shouldn't call people "father", but that we should always remember the Father in heaven as being greater than them. Are we wrong?

Or what about this one:

Does Jesus command self-mutilation?

I could go on. But the fact is, no one consistently applies extreme literalism to the words of Jesus. No one cuts off body parts, refers to his biological father as "male parental unit", and yells at mountains to get out of his way. It is comical to even suggest that Jesus actually meant for us to do such things.

And that is why interpretation is necessary.

(note: I am not saying that the literal meaning is always wrong. Obviously not. In many cases the literal meaning is the correct one. What I am saying, rather, is that the literal meaning is sometimes wrong, so we need interpretation to decide which things to take literally and which ones not to. I also contend that, in practice, no one actually takes everything in the Gospels literally. Everyone engages in interpretation. As they should.)

By our faith anything is possible unto us as the Lord God Yahweh has said through his son Yahshua the Christ.
John 14:13-14
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Matthew 18:19-20
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

Matthew 21:21-22
21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive

John 14:13-14
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

John 15:5-7
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

John 15:14-16

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 16:23-24
23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

James 1:5-6
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

1 John 3:18-22
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

I will address some of the other points when I have the time as it is getting very late and I must get up early.

Here's a few suggestions. A) If you're going to do the line spam, at least spoiler it. B) Maybe add more about your thoughts, like an original opinion, and not just regurgitate bible verses.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

A controversial statement indeed...

Tbh, I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, but, yeah, I feel pretty comfortable declaring it, unless you want to accept my opinion that the Twilight film series is about economic stagnation in post-industrial societies.

I like to think that if I had made a joke, it would have been at least a little bit funny.

Within the arts, your statement is controversial. Death of the Author vs Authorial Intent etc.

[Lost Memories]

Has anyone heard about the latest attack in Egypt on a Coptic churches?
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent ... -expl.aspx

Do you think there is any social acceptance (or indifference) of those terroristic attacks in Egypt? Or are they equally looked down from anyone, regardless of religious affiliation?
From where, or from which background, could the persons making these attacks come from?

(Probably this isn't the best place to ask this, but was not sure if or how to make a new thread for this news)

Terrorists are terrorists. It matters little what their background or their goals are. They deserve no recognition.

I wasn't trying to go for a justification, or accusation, but if there was a common background among most of the persons joining terroristic groups, it could be argued that common background is what makes them vulnerable to be recruited. So by addressing the background which fires up terrorists, it could be possible to attack the issue at its roots. To stop extremist attacks, by not fueling the extremist groups with new recruits, and to unlit the ones already in them.
It's just an hypothetical.

As a Muslim I see a worrying trend of Salafism and affiliation to the Muslim Brotherhood that greatly disturbs the peace in Egypt and, generally, the middle east.

From Egyptians whom I know, terrorism is not seen as something good there generally. But then again, I do not know Muslims who are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Guess it would be better to continue this talk in the Islamic Discussion then, I'm not informed well enough about the differences in the Islamic branches.

[Lady Scylla]

Terrorists are terrorists. It matters little what their background or their goals are. They deserve no recognition.

I wasn't trying to go for a justification, or accusation, but if there was a common background among most of the persons joining terroristic groups, it could be argued that common background is what makes them vulnerable to be recruited. So by addressing the background which fires up terrorists, it could be possible to attack the issue at its roots. To stop extremist attacks, by not fueling the extremist groups with new recruits, and to unlit the ones already in them.
It's just an hypothetical.

Well, in our most recent problems.

Islamaphobia > Isolation > Resentment > Radicalisation > Terrorist Attack > Islamaphobia > ad infinitum.

[Lost Memories]

I wasn't trying to go for a justification, or accusation, but if there was a common background among most of the persons joining terroristic groups, it could be argued that common background is what makes them vulnerable to be recruited. So by addressing the background which fires up terrorists, it could be possible to attack the issue at its roots. To stop extremist attacks, by not fueling the extremist groups with new recruits, and to unlit the ones already in them.
It's just an hypothetical.

Well, in our most recent problems.

Islamaphobia > Isolation > Resentment > Radicalisation > Terrorist Attack > Islamaphobia > ad infinitum.

What about before the circle was closed?

I don't buy Islamaphobia being the major cause which leads to terrorist attacks.
From where this talk started, Egypt, how much do you think people in Egypt feel threatened or isolated by Islamaphobia? Sounds silly.

[Pasong Tirad]

Well, in our most recent problems.

Islamaphobia > Isolation > Resentment > Radicalisation > Terrorist Attack > Islamaphobia > ad infinitum.

What about before the circle was closed?

Well a couple of centuries ago it was Islamophobia > Crusade > Crusaders leave

[Salus Maior]

What about before the circle was closed?

Well a couple of centuries ago it was Islamophobia > Crusade > Crusaders leave

You forgot the first part.

Caliphates invade everything > Islamophobia > Crusades

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Technically speaking, being made in the image of God, just means we look like him. Not that we're of the same substance, form or nature.

If Genesis is to be taken seriously. God, after the Fall, does say "They have become like us" and then cast Adam and Even from the garden before they can eat the tree that would give them immortality.

Genesis 3:22-24

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

I always liked this passage, as it seems that, in a way, we're like demi-gods -- but also that we could have become gods ourselves. One interpretation I entertain: God could have destroyed man at that point, a hard reset essentially, and created Adam and Eve 2.0. He didn't, however. This could be a change in mind -- our suffering could be something God himself had to partake in -- perhaps we, ourselves, could rule eventually as Gods. Of course, that's beyond sacrilegious. Optionally, it could be a reflection done on God -- in this way it humanizes him; if we've become like Him after the Fall, and are suffering for it -- well, we're suffering for the knowledge of Good and Evil -- this could be a reflection on God to illustrate that he too might suffer from this knowledge, and is humbled by it.

God says we've become like him, but in a very specific way: "knowledge of Good and Evil" that's it. I don't think that implies that God suffers from this knowledge, or is even compelled to sin. We simply have a similar capacity.

With the tree of life thing there, there's also a possible foreshadowing of Christ coming. I'd actually agree with at least the spirit of your interpretation as us being demigods with the ability to become full Gods. While I wouldn't shape as something so, dare I say, pagan, it would make sense in very Christian concept: The incarnation of Christ, the eternal life given through Christ, was always apart of God's divine plan. It seems to imply here, that in our pre-fall state, unable to know Good and Evil, that we could never have known Christ, because we would not know either Good, nor evil. Thus, in a twisted way, we had to fall.

It actually goes along with something I've advocated for a while now, that the "Fall" is an allegory for the "ascent of man" Early man, though intelligent, were little more than animals. Even Homo sapiens were little more than pack animals for hundreds of thousands of years until around 50,000 BC they suddenly started developing culture: ritualistic practices, settlements, the dawn of civilization essentially.

[Constantinopolis]

To add to this, Jesus had no problem with calling earthly people fathers. Also from Matthew:

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” Matthew 19:18.

And what he was talking about in the verse you mentioned can't be referring to the religious title of "Father", because as far as I'm aware you would not call a Priest or Rabbi "Father" in Judaism.

What Jesus is clearly referring to (based on the context in Matthew), is the Hebrew scripture tradition of spiritual counselors, patriarchs, rulers and benefactors who are granted some ascendancy over their flocks. In the Hebrew scripture, the term used - is 'father'.

Genesis 45:8 "So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt."

In Genesis 45, there are two uses of the word 'father' - one to refer to the ruler or counselor - and the other to refer to a specific parent.

Job 29:12-6 "Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out."

Isaiah 22:20-1 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah."

Job and Isaiah both expand on the title, as well (further linking it to Matthew - see the reference to 'robes') - both texts refer to robes - symbolic for the priestly caste in the Hebrew text, and Job refers to a diadem - which can either symbolically refer to a sovereign or a priest.

So, when Jesus says in Matthew to be brothers, to eschew the robes, and to call no man father - it's transparent what he (a scholar of the Hebrew text) is referring to. There is to be no priestly caste over you - no one appointed over you to tell you spiritual truth.

No wonder 'the church' wants these verses to be interpreted differently.

Oh good, so you admit that your interpretation of those verses is, indeed, an interpretation. That's all I really wanted to show.

The next step would be to ask, which is the correct interpretation, yours or ours?

And with regard to this question, I'd just like to point out that Christianity - ALL branches of Christianity, even when they were hostile to each other and disagreed about such fundamental theological issues as whether Christ is God or not - always had an ordained priesthood with apostolic succession, until the 16th century.

No ancient Christian authors, regardless of the side they took in theological disputes, ever argued against the priesthood.

So, between your interpretation and the consensus of ancient Christianity, I'll go with the latter. When we find something that both Arians and Trinitarians agreed on, I think it's safe to say that this was the correct interpretation of Scripture.

[Constantinopolis]

This is a key feature of the Orthodox method of interpretation. Suppose there is a passage in the Bible that has multiple possible interpretations, and let's call those interpretations A, B, and C.

Next, suppose that we have evidence from ancient Christian texts that, in early Christianity, some people interpreted the verse to mean A, and others said it means B, but no one said it means C.

Then we take it as axiomatic that C cannot possibly be the correct interpretation. Even if it looks the most obvious to us. It cannot be correct if it did not exist in early Christianity. The early Christians were much closer to Christ in terms of shared culture and a shared understanding of Scripture. If the idea of C was so alien to them that no one, not even a minority, bothered to argue in favour of C, then clearly there is something very wrong with C. And we defer to the wisdom of the early Christians.

So the correct interpretation must be either A or B. And then we use other arguments to determine which one of those two is correct.

The Catholic Church also agrees with this approach in many cases, although it doesn't feel as strongly about it as we do. Most of the arguments between Orthodox and Catholics are arguments between "A and B" as described in the scheme above. That is to say, we have some ancient texts that seem to support the Orthodox position and others that seem to agree with the Catholic position, so neither of them can be easily dismissed, and that is why we have to argue about them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'd think the role of a priest is misunderstood.

From what I get from people, a priest is a teacher in only the most informal sense. It'd be fair to say that priests are not revealers of truth, but rather keepers of the faith as it was originally taught and spread by the Apostles, who got their teachings from Jesus.

[The Alma Mater]

This is a key feature of the Orthodox method of interpretation. Suppose there is a passage in the Bible that has multiple possible interpretations, and let's call those interpretations A, B, and C.

Next, suppose that we have evidence from ancient Christian texts that, in early Christianity, some people interpreted the verse to mean A, and others said it means B, but no one said it means C.

Then we take it as axiomatic that C cannot possibly be the correct interpretation. Even if it looks the most obvious to us. It cannot be correct if it did not exist in early Christianity. The early Christians were much closer to Christ in terms of shared culture and a shared understanding of Scripture. If the idea of C was so alien to them that no one, not even a minority, bothered to argue in favour of C, then clearly there is something very wrong with C. And we defer to the wisdom of the early Christians.

Why ? The early christians were not allknowing and had a very limited understanding of the universe. Jesus otoh had a direct line to the divine. Why could he not have stated things the world simply was not ready for ?

Or,to use a different angle, what if science shows that certain passages are simply incorrect if taken literally instead of metaphorically - yet the literal interpretation is tradition ?