If you do not believe in God, you must not have read the Bible

Okay what have you proved?

 

Yes I asked but was just letting you know that your answers were incorrect.

Which story in the Bible?

What in the world are you talking about?

This is what we were talking about;
You said:

To which I replied:

and you replied:

You see the problem is that I did not try to explain your statements in my own terms because my terms are not your statements. If you look closely at the hi-lighted parts you will see that I merely quoted you.

As if you didn't know.

 

Exactly but I don't think Dope wants to hear it.

 

That you cannot report the meaning of what you read unless you make the investment of interpretive association.

Beyond that I have shown you the disparities of premise represented by your interpretation of the words unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Can you reconcile the ritual eating observance as giving life should be performed once a year during the anniversary of passover with, "it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out, or with "the measure you give is the measure you receive", or with "as you judge so you will be judged", or with "a man is justified by his words"?

Can you reconcile "the bible interprets itself" with, if salt has lost it's taste, what good is it for seasoning?

Make love your aim and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.

There are doubtless many different languages in the world and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.

 

Says who?

The story of the birth of jesus and the story of how things are done to "fulfill prophecy"

Which parts specifically?

No, you didn't merely quote me you added, Jesus was not talking about getting an "enlivening experience", you are but Jesus was not.

Correct I do not. I asked you how could that possibly be a problem to me?
How do you reconcile that statement with my statement that I reach for communication and understanding?

 

Not only did I read it, I gladly responded to it.

 

No, You have not proved anything, least of all how I process the written word or if I process it at all.

Perhaps you would like to try again.

 

God.

Perhaps then you can explain how either one of those "stories" have any thing to do with the comment you made.

The whole thing of course

Hey Dope, I thought you were suppose to be the one with the understanding of human language. What I "added" has nothing to do with changing or modifying your terms or statements as you stated.

Yeah, right. Perhaps you should ask your good spirit buddy that teaches all things, he should know.

Because I've talked with you enough to know what you are reaching for.

 

Just for reference: Heidegger explained two attitudes to understanding, the verbalized and the imaginative. St. Luke believes communication is with signs (who sees the signs), and with the trend of expressions of the Age (who's in touch with the trends: promises, promises, promises).

 

I saw it written by you. Are you god then.

I did. read the bible, how many times do you see the suffix it was done to fulfill the prophecy. If you have a statement of "prophecy" and you know what it written and then you go and act out what is written, using what is written as a guide, that is called doing things to fulfill prophecy, or planting evidence.

What items in particular? When you give answers like this, it simply is not helpful.

Yes it does. The only words you quoted of mine were enlivening experience.
If you are not alive or there is no life in you unless you eat the flesh, then to eat the flesh is an enlivening experience. To become alive by eating the flesh, to have life only by eating the flesh is then an enlivening experience. Enlivening experience, the experience of being alive. Living is experiential.

Give to those who ask. I asked you. You, have some salt. You said it, not the holy spirit. Are you refusing to answer the question? Do you not really have an answer? Are you just trying to get your licks in however you feel you can? If you truly understood or even cared to understand you would know that for you to know and understand what I am saying, is one of the reasons I post. I do not post to conceal things. Being exposed is the best thing for me.

If your knowing about me reflects anything other than what I have told you my motives are, then you are mistaken. I notice you do not say what it is you feel I'm reaching for. I notice you are good with innuendo but light on honest dealing.

 

I have found it to be the other way around, those who most feverishly devout themselves to Christianity generally know almost nothing of the texts that they worship.

 

Perhaps you would like to try and answer the questions? Didn't you read what you quoted?

Can you reconcile the ritual eating observance as giving life should be performed once a year during the anniversary of passover with, "it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out, or with "the measure you give is the measure you receive", or with "as you judge so you will be judged", or with "a man is justified by his words"?
Can you reconcile "the bible interprets itself" with, if salt has lost it's taste, what good is it for seasoning?

You have made your statements regarding your process in interpreting the bible, suggesting what? Strongs concordance. I am not making it up
You compare, look for similar meaning, determine context, etc.. That process by definition is called exegesis.
ex·e·ge·sis
1. analysis of texts: the explanation or interpretation of texts, especially religious writings
2. interpretation of specific text: an explanation or interpretation of a specific text, especially a religious one
[Early 17th century. < Greek exēgēsis < exēgeisthai "interpret" < hēgeisthai "to guide"]

You are in self denial.

 

Perhaps some worship texts, it appears waterbrother does. I apply principle.

 

In defense of Olderwat., thedope, do you find our Prime Minister transparent to expressing the values of Christian Justice OR Ethics; because I sure don't.

 

I haven't looked for your prime minister but I do not see any tension or battle between good and evil. God is not mocked, reality is not spinning of it's hinges.
As far as I am concerned there is no one who is not equal to any virtue. Anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so, therefore it is the lesson, learned so well, that is suspect. Forgive them, they know not what they do, is not a statement defining particular action. "They", are without motive but respond mechanically to cultural software, a state of hypnotic suggestion. Thus the call to watch, stay awake, be vigilant only for god and his kingdom.

"Heaven and earth", are diametrically opposed perceptions of the very same phenomena. I don't regard any moral decrepitude, but I see much mis-identification. So you ask me a question, about the prime minister?, as if
to wash the old wine skin? What is so, is upside down, inside out, and backwards from what we dream should be or imagine it is. In the kingdom of heaven the last becomes first and the first last.

We imagine we go forward by virtue of our actions, but it is the thought that comes first. We imagine we are born of the earth but we are born of magnanimous intent that transcends any locale or environment.

In defense of waterbrother, he is blessed however superstitious.

 

Like in your example, before anything has any meaning to you, you first have to learn it. A person could be raised as a French Canadian, but they can still learn the customs and language of Russia. In the same way, a person can be born in any culture or language and can still learn the language and meaning system of the Bible.

 

My point is friend, the bible does not interpret itself. You must have a model in your mind to compare with in order to read at all.

Consider if the bible interpreted itself, then any persons understanding would be correct, because no one could independently interpret the text. The belief that the bible interprets itself does not take into account the way the mind understands text. It does not matter if it is the holy bible or slaughter house five, the mind interprets symbols by comparison to a model establish in the mind by virtue of focus and experience.

Could I put the question to you? If it is not what goes into a man but what comes out that defiles him, how is it also, unless you eat transmuted substance you are without life?

 

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. "

Amen essentially means, "What I'm telling you is absolute. Rock Solid." Amen leaves no room for this interpretation of the scripture. Jesus was being literal. Christians have been taking it literally for 2000 years. They used to usher non Christians out of Mass before the Liturgy of the Eucharist so they wouldn't know that they believed they were eating the flesh of Christ. It was called the Disciplina Arcani, or Discipline of the Secret. There are also other meanings coupled with this, one being what The Dope mentioned. You have to remember that people left him when he said this, and he did not say "Oh fellas, I didn't mean it like that, I'm being metaphorical."

 

If you mean that the Bible doesn't literally interpret itself, you're right. It requires the person the interpret it. But the meaning behind, it interprets itself is that the Bible gives the reader knowledge of what is being said and as I said previously, it can be verified.

Also, the matter of multiple interpretations. There are multiple interpretations but there is only one true one. You feel perhaps remorse that there are so many different interpretations, but if you really look into it, these interpretations can be proven untrue through a bit of research. A person born and raised in China can have the same interpretation from someone in America. The number of interpretations are limited.

As for your last question, I don't really know what you're saying. What you say seems very esoteric and I can't verify what you're saying unless you explain it to me.

Earlier today someone told me that the meaning behind Hebrews 4:12 is that it discusses an actual sword, but I explained to him that it does not.

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

My question is; in that given verse, is it talking about an actual sword or something else?

 

Yes, amen essentially means that it is true or rock solid but we have to consider what exactly he thought was rock solid. Was he saying that we are to literally eat his blood and flesh or was he describing unleavened bread and how it represents his sacrifice? In the same area where we get your given text, it says: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing".

Another example is the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man. Was Jesus saying that all rich people are evil by virtue of being rich or is it to represent something else? Many believe that Lazarus represents Jesus and the Rich man represents the hypocrites. So if this is true, given the context, the rich men would be something of a tongue in cheek message.

Jesus used people and events as instruments to deliver a higher meaning.

With another example, many believe that the good Samaritan in the parable represents Jesus because he gave money to someone else to take care of the sick man until he returns, which parallels the parable of the workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16).

In the end, I think they were offended not because they didn't want to accept that it literally was the blood and body but because they didn't believe that God revealed his son's sacrifice through the customs of the Jews or simply did not see it.