Interpreting Scripture

[Crabtownboy]

I believe that throughout the Bible we see God gradually revealing himself. The revelation is slow and gradual. The fullest revelation of God and of God's teachings are through Jesus Christ and I am sure we do not fully understand all of his teachings. Certainly his disciples did not fully understand. Certainly Paul did not fully understand as he defended slavery. Gradually over the centuries mankind has gained a bit more understanding, but it is not full nor complete. In my opinion we still have a long way to go.

But what does this have to do with interpreting scripture? Just this, IMHO. Any interpretation of any portion of scripture that conflicts with the teachings of Jesus or the way Jesus lived his life, is an interpreting error. All interpretation of scripture, whether it be OT or NT must fit within the teachings of Jesus and must fit within the example he showed in the way he lived.

 

[JesusFan]

I believe that throughout the Bible

we see God gradually revealing himself. The revelation is slow and gradual. The fullest revelation of God and of God's teachings are through Jesus Christ and I am sure we do not fully understand all of his teachings. Certainly his disciples did not fully understand. Certainly Paul did not fully understand as he defended slavery. Gradually over the centuries mankind has gained a bit more understanding, but it is not full nor complete. In my opinion we still have a long way to go.

Doctrine of progressive revelation, as God unfolded more information througout Biblical History...

Does NOT mean more inspired, or infallible, as ALL were equally as such, but that God let us know more in "fulness of time"

Apostle Paul did NOT OK Slavery, neither did Jesus, at least in the American sense of slavery...

Slavery in Roamn times closer to persons working jobs to pay off their debts owed!




But what does this have to do with interpreting scripture? Just this, IMHO. Any interpretation of any portion of scripture that conflicts with the teachings of Jesus or the way Jesus lived his life, is an interpreting error. All interpretation of scripture, whether it be OT or NT must fit within the teachings of Jesus and must fit within the example he showed in the way he lived.

2 points!

make SURE that its the Biblical Jesus as the standard, NOT culture/current/liberal views of Him!
Also

ALL scripture is insoired from God, so ANY truth is truth, wherever its found in the Bible!

 

[humblethinker]

Certainly Paul did not fully understand as he defended slavery.

Interesting... Would you consider that your interpretation of Paul defending slavery is incorrect, assuming that it conflicts with Jesus' teachings or lifestyle, which I take as your position based on your comments below? Do you not consider Paul's writings as inspired?

Gradually over the centuries mankind has gained a bit more understanding, but it is not full nor complete. In my opinion we still have a long way to go.

I'm interested in where you think we should be heading in order to get to the final destination that you are referring to, or are you saying that we will only be able to know once we get there? IYO, is there anyone that has this knowledge/understanding now?

But what does this have to do with interpreting scripture? Just this, IMHO. Any interpretation of any portion of scripture that conflicts with the teachings of Jesus or the way Jesus lived his life, is an interpreting error. All interpretation of scripture, whether it be OT or NT must fit within the teachings of Jesus and must fit within the example he showed in the way he lived.

That seems reasonable, depending on the details, of course.

 

[JesusFan]

Interesting... Would you consider that your interpretation of Paul defending slavery is incorrect, assuming that it conflicts with Jesus' teachings or lifestyle, which I take as your position based on your comments below? Do you not consider Paul's writings as inspired?


I'm interested in where you think we should be heading in order to get to the final destination that you are referring to, or are you saying that we will only be able to know once we get there? IYO, is there anyone that has this knowledge/understanding now?


That seems reasonable, depending on the details, of course.

All depends on which jesus that you are comaring to!
Some would have a jesus who would NOT have any problems with "alternative" lifestyles, or would not see Him as ONLY way to God, or would say no hell!

TAHT Jesus obviously NOT one of the Bible!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Interesting... Would you consider that your interpretation of Paul defending slavery is incorrect, assuming that it conflicts with Jesus' teachings or lifestyle, which I take as your position based on your comments below? Do you not consider Paul's writings as inspired?

That is a very interesting question to me if we change the question just a bit to "Are all of Paul's writings inspired."

I believe that Paul did not make that claim for himself. There are places where he says "This is God ............" There are places where he says, "This is me talking ...................." I believe where he says "This is me talking," that those are not inspired and I do not believe Paul believed they were inspired. That then brings up a harder question, at least for me. That question is, what about all the writings where Paul does not say this is from God nor this is from me. I have scratched my head over this for quite a long time.

Also it is difficult, for me at least, to determine which commands of Paul's are universal and which are aimed at a specific location. For example his command that women wear a head covering. Is this a universal command or was he addressing a local problem. I believe it was aimed at a specific place and problem and thus was not a universal command.

I'm interested in where you think we should be heading in order to get to the final destination that you are referring to, or are you saying that we will only be able to know once we get there? IYO, is there anyone that has this knowledge/understanding now?

I look at the disciples and it is obvious they did not understand what Jesus was teaching much of the time. As time has gone by we, mankind, has, IMHO, slowly gleamed a deeper understanding of Christ's teachings. I believe setting slaves free was one such enlightenment that happened relatively recently in the sense of history.

That seems reasonable, depending on the details, of course.

I am not sure what you mean by details.

I appreciate your calm, rational answer.

 

[JesusFan]

That is a very interesting question to me if we change the question just a bit to "Are all of Paul's writings inspired."

I believe that Paul did not make that claim for himself. There are places where he says "This is God ............" There are places where he says, "This is me talking ...................." I believe where he says "This is me talking," that those are not inspired and I do not believe Paul believed they were inspired. That then brings up a harder question, at least for me. That question is, what about all the writings where Paul does not say this is from God nor this is from me. I have scratched my head over this for quite a long time.

Also it is difficult, for me at least, to determine which commands of Paul's are universal and which are aimed at a specific location. For example his command that women wear a head covering. Is this a universal command or was he addressing a local problem. I believe it was aimed at a specific place and problem and thus was not a universal command.




I look at the disciples and it is obvious they did not understand what Jesus was teaching much of the time. As time has gone by we, mankind, has, IMHO, slowly gleamed a deeper understanding of Christ's teachings. I believe setting slaves free was one such enlightenment that happened relatively recently in the sense of history.





I am not sure what you mean by details.

I appreciate your calm, rational answer.

When paul referenced that it was his opinion, meant that Jesus did not directly address that question...

Inspiration demands that ALL scripture is EQUALLY inspired and infallible, so IF Paul wrote any thing down regarding doctrines, or principles to live by, was and is "thus sayeth the Lord!" as HS inspired it down!

 

[sag38]

It's called "Red Letter" liberalism and it's straight from the pit of hell.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It's called "Red Letter" liberalism and it's straight from the pit of hell.

I see my stance as much more conservative than those who say when Paul said "I" he did not me "I".

Please elaborate. One lines do not add much to a rational discussion. Thanks in advance.

 

[Crabtownboy]

When paul referenced that it was his opinion, meant that Jesus did not directly address that question...

Inspiration demands that ALL scripture is EQUALLY inspired and infallible, so IF Paul wrote any thing down regarding doctrines, or principles to live by, was and is "thus sayeth the Lord!" as HS inspired it down!

You are saying that when Paul said "I" he did not mean "I". That is a liberal interpretation of the Bible. I am taking a more conservative, fundamental view of this scripture. When Paul said "I" he meant "I". When Paul said "God" he meant "God."

You first statement is not logical and I see no way it can be accurate. [gently said.]

 

[Jim1999]

I think we need to understand the difference between "inspiration" of scripture, and "understanding" what has been said in scripture. They do differ.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[thomas15]

Certainly Paul did not fully understand as he defended slavery. Gradually over the centuries mankind has gained a bit more understanding, but it is not full nor complete. In my opinion we still have a long way to go.

What you are saying is some Scripture is more God-breathed than other Scriptures?

 

[sag38]

We have evolved everyone! Another lie from the pit of hell.

 

[Crabtownboy]

What you are saying is some Scripture is more God-breathed than other Scriptures?

When Paul said "This is me, not God speaking" ... is that God-breathed?

What do you mean by God-breathed?

I do wonder how the long enealogies can be considered as important as, say, the Sermon on the Mount. I do not believe I have ever heard a sermon on the genealogies, though I do seem to remember a few where they were mentioned.

 

[thomas15]

When Paul said "This is me, not God speaking" ... is that God-breathed?

What do you mean by God-breathed?

I do wonder how the long enealogies can be considered as important as, say, the Sermon on the Mount. I do not believe I have ever heard a sermon on the genealogies, though I do seem to remember a few where they were mentioned.

Jehovah must have a good reason to direct the writers of the Holy Bible to include things in the Bible that you don't think are important. That you don't see it that way is of course your right.

As for your questions, I don't meant to sound unkind but I don't have the time to help you acquire the skills traditionally associated with secondary school. Sorry if that offends.

 

[mandym]

When Paul said "This is me, not God speaking" ... is that God-breathed?

What do you mean by God-breathed?

I do wonder how the long enealogies can be considered as important as, say, the Sermon on the Mount. I do not believe I have ever heard a sermon on the genealogies, though I do seem to remember a few where they were mentioned.

Wow!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Jehovah must have a good reason to direct the writers of the Holy Bible to include things in the Bible that you don't think are important. That you don't see it that way is of course your right.

I believe Matthew included the genealogies to prove Jesus' line back to David. That probably was very important in his day and time and culture. I may be wrong, but I think that one one of Matthews primary aims in his writing the life of Jesus.

As for your questions, I don't meant to sound unkind but I don't have the time to help you acquire the skills traditionally associated with secondary school. Sorry if that offends.

Absolutely no offense taken. There is no reason for impoliteness in a discussion. Offensive and catty remarks are made too often on this BB ... but I just chalk it up to the source. It is hard to not respond in kind at times. I try not to do so ... and sometimes succeed and sometimes fail.

Have a blessed day.

 

[thomas15]

... but I just chalk it up to the source.

Sir, We agree on this point.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It seem this tread has been sidetracked from the interpretation of scripture in line with Jesus' teachings and his life. I'd like to hear comments on the subject of the OP. Thanks.

 

[mandym]

2 points!

make SURE that its the Biblical Jesus as the standard, NOT culture/current/liberal views of Him!
Also

ALL scripture is insoired from God, so ANY truth is truth, wherever its found in the Bible!

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[thomas15]

It seem this tread has been sidetracked from the interpretation of scripture in line with Jesus' teachings and his life. I'd like to hear comments on the subject of the OP. Thanks.

There are enough responses to the OP that would indicate that many here find your position to be fundamentally flawed in its basic premise.