Incorrect. Once again you’re stuck in binary thinking.
Why do you always take the statement as if it is my belief when i am talking about your viewpoint.
I do not think in binary. You do.
I do no claim there is a right and wrong, you do
Richard
There may have been one meaning originally. Generally authors - as we understand authors now - have an intent with what they write.. But that one meaning is no longer accessible to us for all the reasons that have already been discussed.
It would make sense for the authors to link their present to the mythical past. That seemed to be a common approach taken by ancient civilizations.
I would agree. The A&E story tilts more towards myth with archetypes which is different than the fanciful stories like Goldilocks. Genesis was trying to make a theological point so it makes sense to use archetypes and myth to get those points across. A better comparison might be Aesop’s Fables which used animals as archetypes for human characteristics to teach about morals, ethics, and philosophy.
1 Like
Sorry, but if you think that what I cited from you is my viewpoint, you’re either not paying attention or you’re lying. You’re the one who says “If there is one meaning, then there is one meaning”. And you can only say that if you have no clue how language and literature work.
I might have agreed with that fifty years ago, but God has allowed us to discover so much more knowledge in the period it isn’t really true any longer.
1 Like
Which is why a Greek readings course in which all of Aesop’s Fables were read in the original (not just the “safe for schoolboys” ones usually seen in English) was a prerequisite for second-term biblical Greek Readings.
The parallels are much more evident when read in the original language.
1 Like
That is the conversation. We are talking about your view that there is definitive meaning not mine
Kindly retract your lying accusations.
Richard
Reception theory is not only applicable to ancient texts with murky backgrounds, but with this very post the moment I publish it, We bring ourselves to everything we read. As we cannot be the authors of the texts themselves, we cannot receive any text precisely as the author intended, Although we can read graciously, it is still different from reading as the author actually intended.
1 Like
The other important point to consider is that the Bible is not a real time daily diary. All of the Gospels were written after the death of Jesus. Things that are connected to other things are from the minds (inspired or not) of others…not necessarily Jesus Himself.
Here’s another way to read the Bible…Read the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and stop there, no use going any further, since who can add to, or follow Jesus. Then add non-Biblical Gospel of Thomas, 114 sayings of Jesus. Of course read the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, since that is what Jesus read. Memorize lots of His sayings, since Jesus and His Word are One.
This reminds me of Samaritans who only accepted the Torah as the Holy Scripture… Some kind of Christian version of this attitude?
1 Like
Well i guess it means you can completely ignore Paul and the epistles. There is, however some credit to avoiding Revelations. That is a book that needs particular care and wisdom to understand and yet is the core of some branches of Christianity
Just to clarify, I am not one who automatically sets Paul against Christ.
Richard
Paul ignored Jesus. He quotes the Hebrew Bible but not Jesus.
In theory they were singing from the same hymn sheet then.
The Gospels were almost certainly not readily available to Paul so where was he supposed to get his quotes from?
Besides, do you think the Gospels are word perfect on what Jesus said?
I do not wish to get dragged into the Paul v Jesus debate.
Richard
Your last comment would imply the Biblical writers were purposefully misleading and deceiving their readers, or could be. Do you really believe that?
you really think the gospel of Thomas is a reliable recording of Jesus’ words and actions?! You would rather read that than Paul’s letters? You also left out Acts, was that because Paul is in there. Why do you trust Luke’s Gospel but not his Acts? Oh dear.
1 Like
No, but the second genealogy of Jesus must have been created by some-one.
To Richard, knor & EDC1,
As I said, I’m presenting another way of reading the Bible.
Sorry, if I came across as anti-Christian, since I consider myself one.
As a scientist, I’m skeptical of miracles. I’m not saying they didn’t happen or couldn’t happen, with a Creator God all things are possible, but no one knows in the Bible what stories are true and what are made up.
The resurrection of Jesus is problematic for sure. If He rose from the dead why would he just quickly take off. And the explanation of Him dying for the sins of the world….well…that’s a hard one for me to accept. I do believe he was crucified and that, indeed, was tragic, especially for those close to him, his followers and family. But it all may very well be true as told, since dedicated, good, honest people, like Paul the intellectual, are writing that it happened.
But for me, I’ll just focus on what I see as solid, and amazing, and here with us today – the sayings of Jesus and most and many of the stories about Him from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I include the gospel of Thomas since it looks legitimate, half or so of the sayings there are pretty much identical to those found in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Finally, I don’t dislike Acts. I could study it, but Jesus is out of the picture by then.
In Jesus always, Doug
There is too much to unpack from your post and it would end up like a sermon, so I will leave it alone unless you really want to, preferably by PM not public forum.
Richard