|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Define literal vs non-literal. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Please show this. What historical events? You can see it in the most basic Christian teaching of Paul, the book of Romans.
" Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, a called apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, Which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, Concerning His [God's] Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh, Who was designated the Son of God in power according to the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 1:1-4) There is no reason to believe that this reference is so abstract and other worldly that it cannot refer to a Jesus rooted in history. The clock of history does not stop and we ascend into some nebulous, abstract realm when it says " His Son, Who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh". Paul goes on to mention that this descendent of David according to the flesh was "designated the Son of God in power ... out of the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ ..." The birth of Jesus is mentioned here, flesh wise, a descendent of David another historical character. The promise of the Hebrew Scriptures about then coming historical events is mentioned. And the resurrection is mentioned. The point is that this is a Jesus Christ rooted in history. In chapters 9 through 11 of Romans Paul discusses theological themes based upon Israel's rejection of Jesus as the Deliverer. Aside from the theology the facts underneath are conveyed as historical events. For example - "They [Israel] stumbled at the stone of stumbling, a rock of offense, and he who believes on Him shall not be put to shame." The "stumbling" in context entails Christ's historical rejection, sentencing, and execution instigated by the religious clerical class in Israel.
Me: But his audience to a great degree, and obviously were familiar with the events and the person. You:That is a pretty big assumption. Paul no where talks about the happenings of the Gospels. There is a reference to a last supper but ther is no historical info or info that This was addressed already. But Paul "talks" about his own reputation of opposing the church. Those who called on the name of Jesus he hauled away to prisons. Paul's conversion and first attempts to preach the Gospel establish a link between the events of the Gospels and his ideas -
"And one he had taken food, he [Saul / Paul] ... was with the disciples in Damascus for some days. And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, that this One is the Son of God. AND ALL WHO HEARD HIM were amazed and said, Is this not the one who ravaged those who call upon this name [Jesus] IN JERUSALEM and came here for this, that he might bring them bound before the chief prists?" (Acts 9:19-22) His audience associated Paul's speeches with the all the events of Christ's disciples' persecution in Jerusalem about the name of Jesus. I think you have to be pretty dense or dishonest to spin this to having nothing to do with the Jesus of the four Gospels. The same persecution aimed at Jesus is now directed towards Paul.
"But Saul was all the more empowered, and he counfounded the Jews dwelling in Damascus by proving that this One is the Christ. And as a considerable number of days were being fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to do away with him; But their plot was made known to Saul ...." (Acts 9:22-24a) Essentially what this shows is that Paul's words from his early conversion, were understood by his audience to be about the events of the four Gospels, especially the rejection of "this One" Whom Paul NOW agrees is as Christ and His 12 apostles affirmed - "this One is the Son of God". Ie, In essence Paul is testifying publically - "I Saul now agree with the apostles of Jesus and side with them and with Jesus. I have turned from a persecutor, as those who opposed Jesus, to a disciple and supporter of that proclamation." Then we have also Paul's referencing both John the Baptist and the historical trial in Jerusalem, execution, and resurrection of Jesus (David's descendent). And the way it is told his audience seems familiar with the associated events: See Acts 13:16-41 1.) Paul refers to Jesus as a descendent of David - "From this man's seed, God, accoirding to promise, brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus ... (13:23) 2.) Paul refers to John the Baptist - "After John had proclaimed, prior to His [Christ's] public entrance, a baptism of repentence to all the people of Israel. Now as John was completing his course, he said, What do you suppose that I am? I am not [the Christ] . But behold, One is coming after me, the sandels of whose feet I am not worthy to untie."" (13:24,25) 3.) Paul refers to Christ's trial - "For those dwelling in Jerusalem and their rulers, being ignorant of this One and of the words of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by judging [Him]. And though they did not find one cause of death in Him, they asked of Pilate that He be done away with." (vs. 27,28) 4.) Paul goes on to the resurrection - "But God raised Him from the dead. And for many days He appeared to those who had come up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now His witnesses to the people." (vs. 30,31) 5.) Paul goes on to speak of the resurrection as being fulfillment of familiar prophetic words concerning David and his Son in 13:33-37). Paul was speaking in a synagogue. All the events spoken of span a range from the Exodus from Egypt (v.17) to the apostolic announcement of Christ as the risen Son of God (v.31,32) I think the evidence leans towards his Jewish synagogue audience being familiar with the events spoken of by Paul. Paul is apparently reviewing happenings which did not require a total education about from nothing. Paul again refers to John the Baptist and his ministry to some disciples who knew about John the Baptist's baptism - " And he [ Paul ] said, Into what then were you baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with a baptism of repentence, telling the people that they should believe into the One coming after him, that is, into Jesus. And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus ..." (Acts 18:3-5) These disciples were deficienct in their understanding of the new covenant. However, they must have understood Paul about John the Baptist's messages. This also firmly links Paul's words with the record of the Gospels. And it proves his audience, though perhaps deficient on doctrinal particulars, were nonetheless the results of Gospel recorded activities. It is quite apparent that Agrippa knew what Paul's gospel of Christ was all about concerning the major aspects of Christ's life, death, and resurrection for Paul says to Agrippa - " .. the king knows about these things, to whom also I speak freely, for I am persuaded that none of these things have escaped his notice; for this has not been done in a corner." (Acts 26:26) The large audience of Hebrew speaking Jews snapped into fury the second Paul mentioned that he had become an apostle to the Gentiles to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 22:17-22). Thier vehement reaction does not suggest no understanding of what he was talking about, but rather disbelief or disapproval. Admittedly, Paul does refer to Jesus speaking to him in a trance (v.17). However, He refers to his participation in the death of Stephen (v.20). And Stephen was killed because of his witnessing to the resurrection and lordship of Jesus. Paul's approval of his stoning links him to his pre-conversion opposition to the facts of the four Gospels. Paul says He told the resurrected Jesus in this trance experience -
"And when the blood of Your witness Stephen was being shed, I myself also was standing by approving and keeping the garments of those who did away with him." (v.20)
Me: Doesn't First Corinthians 15 discuss the resurrection of Jesus and His appearances to disciples, some of which were still alive to refute or verify what Paul was telling the church in Corinth ? You:Not a physical resurrection on this earth and not a physical appearance to disciples. Incorrect. Paul speaks of the body of Jesus being BURIED (1 Cor. 15:4). That involves the earth. And almost the entire discussion of the chapter is to instill hope in a PHYSICAL resurrection of the body BECAUSE Christ PHYSICALLY was resurrected. And it is foolish suggest that the REPEATED use of the word "APPEARED" (v.5,6,7,8) can be understood to mean anything else but an actual and physical visible verification that Jesus was alive. You must be reading the Bible with the most profound mental denial, to the point of obsession with contradicting what is plainly conveyed. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
XTREAM FAITH Junior Member (Idle past 5089 days) Posts: 9 From: Muskogee, OK, US Joined: |
OK, I realize I am new here and will take a lot of crap from most. How can you make assumptions about Paul and his writings when you have not read them. To say that he was talking about a "Jesus that exists in another realm" ??? Jesus did exist in his time. After Jesus died Saul who we now know as Paul was executing the believers of Jesus "Christians". The writings of Paul make this very clear. They even go as far as Showing Paul eating with the Disciples. You can find this in Galatians 2:11-21. In these verses it should clear up two things for you.
1. Paul did live in the time of Jesus he was eating with the same ppl who walked with him. Showing that he was eating and talking to Peter and Barnabas, both Disciples of Jesus. 2. Paul knew Jesus as a real man not a "Other worldly Son of Man". Seeing that in verse 21 he states that if righteousness could be gained by law Christ "DIED" for nothing. Why would he say that Christ had died if he did not live? Why would he be eating and in fact in this passage be correcting a Disciple if he did not live in the same time frame of Jesus? So Theodoric in fact the Gospels do portray Jesus as a literal person and so do the writings of Paul, which do mention the happenings in the Gospels which did exist in his time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4994 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
I'd suggest closing this topic now.
There are clearly no well defined rules for what is to be taken literally and what is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: You may have every right to believe this but, for the sake of argument, from what evidence do you derive this? On the timing of the writings of the NT - people who actually study the writings such as biblical archeologists have said that the NT was completed no later then 80AD. Its only critics who watch from the sidelines who make claims to the contrary. They dont offer any proof, they simply make statements and proclaim it as fact. Regarding Jesus as being a real historical figure - Josephus mentions his brothers by name as "James the brother of the one called Christ"And there are Roman writers such as Suetonius, Pliny, and the Roman historian Tacitus who all confirm the historicity of Jesus. For critics to claim that he was not a real person is just ludicrous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I agree I have stated I will not be responding to responses in this thread because it has been deemed out of topic by you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Can you explain what you mean by this? PD and I have posted two formulations of rules for interpretation. What do you object to in them? What further information would you like? If you are looking for some sort of mechanical formula that can be blindly applied to the text (especially the ENGLISH text), you are out of luck. We are discussing literary interpretation. This is more of an art than a science. It requires a knowledge of the language, culture, and history of the writer. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Regarding Jesus as being a real historical figure - Josephus mentions his brothers by name as "James the brother of the one called Christ" And there are Roman writers such as Suetonius, Pliny, and the Roman historian Tacitus who all confirm the historicity of Jesus. For critics to claim that he was not a real person is just ludicrous. Showing he was a real person does not imply that what he was alleged to have done was in any proved, Just that he existed. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Showing he was a real person does not imply that what he was alleged to have done was in any proved, Just that he existed. true, so why do many continue with the silly notion that he was not a real person???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4994 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
"kbertsche" writes: Can you explain what you mean by this? PD and I have posted two formulations of rules for interpretation. What do you object to in them? What further information would you like?
Both the methods of interpretation you and PD have proposed are far too broad. Rules must be objective and leave no room for interpretation, otherwise we end up with... an 18 page forum thread trying to define even the simplest of words.. like "day".
"kbertsche" writes:
If you are looking for some sort of mechanical formula that can be blindly applied to the text (especially the ENGLISH text), you are out of luck.
Surely reading the text without understanding the difference between literal and non-literal meaning would be a more "blind" way of reading it than having some clearly defined rules... that's why we have YEC's and non-YEC's for example.. right? (not to mention 30000 different christian denominations).
"kbertsche" writes:
We are discussing literary interpretation. This is more of an art than a science.
Right, as I said, there's no clearly defined rules.
"kbertsche" writes:
It requires a knowledge of the language, culture, and history of the writer.
Unfortunately many people (including some in this thread) are happy to pick and choose the language, history and culture that suites their own story best, and simply ignore or not respond to any part that directly (or indirectly) contradicts it. That's people for you. Edited by killinghurts, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
true, so why do many continue with the silly notion that he was not a real person??? I hope that is a rhetorical question, since I can't say what John Doe or Jack Sprat thinks. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:It sounds like you are looking for something that does not exist, and can not exist. You are asking for rules of literary interpretation that leave no room for interpretation. You seem to be trying to impose a mathematical or engineering-type precision on literature. This is nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4994 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
"kbertsche" writes: It sounds like you are looking for something that does not exist, and can not exist. You are asking for rules of literary interpretation that leave no room for interpretation. You seem to be trying to impose a mathematical or engineering-type precision on literature. This is nonsense.
I am not "asking for rules of literary interpretation that leave no room for interpretation" I am asking for rules of interpretation that result in objective meaning. I.e - when two or more people independently read a passage in the bible, they conclude the meaning of the passage in much the same way - like a street directory if you like. This clearly doesn't happen. I am beginning to agree with you that it cannot exist due to the nature of the text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I.e - when two or more people independently read a passage in the bible, they conclude the meaning of the passage in much the same way - like a street directory if you like. This clearly doesn't happen. I am beginning to agree with you that it cannot exist due to the nature of the text. I find it happens all the time among believers. We tend to get the same thing out of any given Bible passage. I've often read a passage and later heard (or read) it preached on, and the preaching agrees with what I understood on my own reading. It's probably a matter of whether you are a believer or not, but of course it isn't always true that believers agree either -- just that most of the time I've found that we do. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4994 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
"Faith" writes:
I find it happens all the time among believers. We tend to get the same thing out of any given Bible passage. I've often read a passage and later heard (or read) it preached on, and the preaching agrees with what I understood on my own reading. It's probably a matter of whether you are a believer or not, but of course it isn't always true that believers agree either -- just that most of the time I've found that we do.
Hi Faith, I'm sure like minded individuals can come up with the same interpretation, especially where the subject matter is trivial. I'm interested in the non-trivial interpretations - like the 6 day creation event. YEC's define it literally, others point at reality and what we know about the workings of the world to debunk such a claim...., but then reject reality in favor of "divine intervention" when asked about other non-trivial events - like parting a large body of water with a stick... it's inconsistent and leads to confusion. Much like a game where the rules are made up as you play it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Unfortunately many people (including some in this thread) are happy to pick and choose the language, history and culture that suites their own story best, and simply ignore or not respond to any part that directly (or indirectly) contradicts it. That's people for you. Do you also have this frustration with disagreements among Evolutionists about interpretation of evidences and methods ? Do you think a person should stop cold and consider no more of the Bible because of interpretive disagreements over the use of the word "day" in Genesis 1 ? In your study of science are there some things you kind of put on the backburner, not fully resolved yet perhaps, while you examine other matters ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024