It became literal when they started executing people for gathering sticks on the sabbath. “You don’t believe there were a literal 7 days, you’re a blasphemer and you forfeit your life too.”
Felix,
Can you see the problem? This goes back to Ned’s OP. There isn’t a word in the bible not subject to interpretation. Even the position of those who say take the words literally is an interpretation. That is the paradox isn’t it? The “word of God” comes back to “The men in charge agree…” The traditional answer has always been that God wouldn’t allow man to place words in his bible that weren’t inspired by Him. Really? The problem is that we only have “The men in charge agree…” to vouch for that. That is Ned’s question… who do you trust? The problem with questioning faith in authority, is that once done, there is no going back, and that introduces uncertainty, which is the contradiction of pure faith.
This is why I suggest that one must look for understanding commensurate with life experience. The symbols point in a direction, but each of us has a different perspective no matter how much we would like to agree with “The men in charge…”
If that’s the case, what do you put your faith in? The interpretations that suit you?
TPT asks:
From my perspective, there is no choice, but I would also suggest that it isn’t what “suits” me, because I find that quite often what I understand and what I perform are at odds. It is looking at the words as they apply to my life experience, my unique perspective. In this sense, I have no “faith” in the supernatural, only what limited understanding I may have in stillness. I’m quite comfortable with the contradictions and paradoxes. To me they are part of the mystery of sentience.
That I am a poor practicioner of my understanding doesn’t mean that I can’t have understanding… For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…
Ever consider pursuing a different direction for your practice? I agree that probably almost all of us have sinned, but only the ones with the responsibility for that sin can fix it, at least that’s what Jesus’ compatriot, John the Baptizer said. Paul invented atonement via belief in Jesus’ resurrection.
Execution did not begin with the sabbath. Nor did it end when the sabbath, and biblical literalism were abolished. (The French Revolution, The Soviet Union, and Communist China, of course). I don’t practice either the sabbath or literalism but I can see that. Religious injustice is merely a subset of human injustice not its sufficient cause.
I found this information from another site:
[b]"The Lord Jesus, who is our example, kept the Sabbath.
However, He explained that there are three classes of deeds which do not violate the universal principle of Sabbath observance:
a. Deeds of mercy, such as healing, or feeding animals, are permissible (Mat. 12:10-12; Mark 3:2-5; Luke 6:6-10; 13:10-17).
b. Deeds of necessity, such as the proper care of animals, are permissible (Mat.12:1-12; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:2-5).
c. Deeds associated with worship, such as priests offering sacrifices, are permissible (Mat. 12:5). The priests had to kill the animals for sacrifice, skin them, cut them up as prescribed by God, and place them on the altar. This involved work on the Sabbath. But it was not “secular†work for personal financial gain. It was work associated with God’s requirement for worship."[/b]
If we take our cars to church, then decide to eat at an establishment afterwards, are we therefore causing the people who work and own the restaurant to sin on our account?
Paineful Truth,
Before replying in detail to your response, I think we need to agree on what is acceptable evidence. Having been through enough of these discussions in the past, it many times comes down to that each party has a different idea of what is acceptable evidence. If we don’t agree on what is acceptable evidence, then we are just going to be arguing in circles.
I bring this up because I frequently get people who say they don’t accept testimonial evidence as valid for any reason. I’m not going to assume that we are in agreement on this, particularly based on some of your above comments. What is your view on the value and use of testimony as evidence?
You changed the subject.
Show-me wrote:
It varies widely. If a man’s fingerprints were on a pitchfork that was embedded in his wife’s chest that the neighbors had heard him arguing with, and he said the pitchfork belonged to the Devil, I think his testimony can be discounted. The fingerprints are incontrovertible scientific evidence that have no motivation to lie. The most reliable testimony from individuals is where they are testifying on an issue in which they have no vested interest, or better yet, when their testimony goes against their general beliefs or interests. The latter especially are hard to come by but they are the most likely to be what the person believes to be the Truth.
But my main point is that with human testimony being the only evidence back then, we are forced to view it as highly suspect in light of the human weaknesses and temptations I mentioned. Today we can use human testimony in conjunction with other more scientific evidence, which has no temptations or motivations.
I know you’d like me to agree somehow that it still might be possible, but with all this plus the internal Biblical contradictions and all the other revealed religions and sects, I give it no possibility at all.
I find this question a problem, since the question to my mind can only be, “On what basis could the bible be taken literally?"
You can only take the Bible literally when you are convinced that what is being described would need no intervention “from on high†to make it possible and that it is acknowledged by what else we know about the time, the situation and the people. Otherwise, the Bible is more a compilation of reminiscences and serves to lay the foundations for ritual and practice. This is especially true of the New Testament. The Old Testament, after a closer and learned look, is not as old or as original as it is claimed to be. The compilation is sourced by the traditions around Israel, with which Israel had enough exchange through attempts to assimilate them.
The 5 books attributed to Moses were at least revised after the Babylonian captivity, but so were the so-called historical books, which in fact are legends around the kings and heroes of Israel. Genesis is an absolutely genial description of the rise of mankind because it is a pre-scientific description of the psychological effects of a rising awareness and the development of spirituality in an idolatrous and superstitious cultural surrounding. It describes a movement from blissful ignorance through a phase of material dependency towards a holistic understanding of reality.
The love of wisdom is being collected by the Arch-Fathers, an awareness grows that the “God†of the fathers is not a local deity, but is Being itself; it is the source of life and its “name†(synonymous in Aramaic to light, sound, vibration) is heard from the stars. Comparisons to the eternal Om are allowed. The legends encompass so many aspects of life, teaching us as we are moved along through the narrative, taken through the experiences of those venerable persons, making their mistakes, fighting their battles, learning their lessons. It is a pedagogical journey through the world as it was then into the slavery of Egypt and the Exodus, when suffering is put into perspective and freedom has to be fought for – fighting against an inner enemy.
There is so much to be gained by reading the Bible in this way that the literal interpretation seems to be vapid and without profile in comparison.
Shalom
No Pain you changed the subject. Your riff about executing people has literally nothing to do with the question “on what basis should the bible be taken literally.” I merely responded to your tangential assertion.
I really don’t think anyone has directly addressed the question in this thread yet. So, maybe I should explain the issue more clearly.
Let’s look at a few simple passages. I’ll keep us to the gospels to make things nice and easy, but we can move on to other books later if anyone is still interested.
Passage 1
Matthew 22
37Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Passage 2
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Passage 3
Matthew 28
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee.
Passage 4
Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Passage 5
Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.
So, tell me which of these passages should be taken literally and which should not? The questions are…
Passage 1: Did Jesus teach that the golden rule, or not?
Passage 2: Did Jesus teach that there is no access to God except through him?
Passage 3: Did Jesus actually die and rise from the dead?
Passage 4: Did Jesus teach his followers to convert non-believers?
Passage 5: Did Jesus teach his followers to cut out their eye if they sin?
As I see it, if your answer to all these questions is “NO” then you don’t have any problem, except for the fact that you’re not a Christian and I have no idea why you would be reading this thread.
If your answer is “YES” to all questions then you don’t have a problem except that you may be needing to learn braille sometime soon.
But, if you answered “YES” to some questions and “NO” to others then you have a problem. You have interpreted SOME passages as literal and SOME passages metaphorically. And I’m betting the vast majority of Christians of all shapes and flavors are in this boat.
The question is, ON WHAT BASIS did you interpret some passages as literal and some as metaphorical?
All these passages have figurative elements. If they are viewed as strictly literal they have little or no relevance to me.
1: Did Jesus teach that the golden rule, or not?–Sort of. It needed to be fleshed out a bit. It’s impossible to “love” everyone, love requires respect and there are definitely people we can’t respect because they don’t respect themselves. But we should be committed to the moral code of the equal rights of all to their life, liberty and property. The golden rule could be stated more succinctly as–Tolerate no moral double standards, and its corollary, Vanity is the source of all sin.
2: Did Jesus teach that there is no access to God except through him?–I’m not positive, but I’m relatively sure that’s Paul (Christianity as we know it should rightly be called Paulism). In any case, even if Jesus were God and that’s what he actually said, what about the people born before him or never heard of him? To hell with them? This passage should not be accepted literally or metaphorically.
3: Did Jesus actually die and rise from the dead?–No. Happy Easter. (Sorry, that was mean, but it’s too well timed to erase.)
4: Did Jesus teach his followers to convert non-believers?–To spread Paulism, No. I think his mission was to expose the corruption in the Temple. For that, he may have considered himself the prophesied messiah. The cleansing of the Temple is probably the best bit of pure history in the NT; except when they say Jesus cleansed the Temple, it is a metaphor for the band of men he led. Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, but he didn’t fight it by himself. A single man causing such havoc would have been seized by the Temple Guards immediately.
5: Did Jesus teach his followers to cut out their eye if they sin?–That’s a definite metaphor, and probably a genuine Jesusism as well as most of the parables.
Hi Ned,
I think the most important thing about this passage is that it is a reply to the question “Teacher, which [is] the great commandment in the Law?†and it is portrayed as part of a theological banter between Jesus and the Pharisees. The whole of the Gospel of Matthew is primarily about the struggle of Jesus with this group and “Matthew†gives them a great deal of blame for the death of Christ. Mark ends the exchange with (Mar 12:34), “And seeing that he answered intelligently, Jesus said to him, You are not far from the kingdom of God.†No such statement with Matthew. Luke adds the parable of the good Samaritan because the lawyer “desiring to justify himself†asks, “and who is my neighbour?â€
So we can see that the same situation is remembered in different ways by the synoptic Gospels, although they are clearly using the same source. This means that we can’t take the situation literally, because we don’t know who (if anyone) is giving the original report. The debate before and after also throws light onto the issue that each Evangelist sees as being important for his readers. However, the combination of the “Shema, Yisrael†with Lev 19:18 seems to be the original answer of Jesus. On the other hand, this isn’t the “golden ruleâ€.
If we take the passage in its context, we can see where these words come from.
Joh 14:5-11
Thomas says to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going away. And how are we able to know the way?”
Jesus says to him, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life! No one comes to the Father except through [or, by means of] Me!
“If you* had known Me, you* also would have known My Father, and from now on you* know Him and have seen Him.”
Philip says to Him, “Lord, show to us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
Jesus says to him, "[For] so long a time am I with you*, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one having seen Me has seen the Father, and how do you say, ‘Show to us the Father?’
"Do you not believe [or, Are you not convinced] that I [am] in the Father and the Father is in Me? The sayings which I speak to you*, I do not speak from Myself, but the Father abiding in Me, Himself does the works.
"Be believing Me that I [am] in the Father and the Father [is] in Me, but if not [fig., or else] be believing Me because of the works themselves.
Thomas and Philip are portrayed as the ones who cannot grasp the truth that Jesus is telling them here – and it is quite persistent. Obviously, Thomas and Philip, as Disciples, do not connect very quickly, or it isn’t obvious what Jesus is telling them. The question is, why does John write the account in this way? John’s Jesus pushes home a point that the synoptic Gospels do not press in the same way, namely in the synoptics he places little or no emphasis on belief in himself in order to be saved, but rather he emphasises a radical change of heart and life. Here it is different.
If we assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic, the dispute takes on another aspect. The somewhat frustrated “I am the Way†is rendered “ena ena urha, sherara, hayye†which is in a transliteration sounds like “I, I, the illuminated path, the opening truth, the sacred life.†Thomas and Philip haven’t recognised the symbiosis between the Father and the Son in Christ’s words, that the Father is speaking through his Son and the Son is in his Father, revealing the path, the truth and the life. The proof is in “the works†which no-one else does.
However, the text goes on (Joh 14:12), “Most positively, I say to you*, the one trusting in me, the works which I do that one also will do, and greater than these he will do …†This means the one who trusts and follows Christ will do even greater things than Christ. This must also mean that the Father will also abide in that follower, since Jesus says that “the Father abiding in Me, Himself does the worksâ€. The question was, “Did Jesus teach that there is no access to God except through him?†If this whole 14th chapter isn’t mystical, I don’t know of one that is.
This account records several things, firstly “A great earthquake occurred†(V.2); “an angel of the Lord … rolled away the stone from the entrance and was sitting on it†(V.2); “the ones keeping guard shook because of the fear of him, and they became as dead†(V.3); “having gone out quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they [the women] ran to report to His disciples†(V.
; “as they were going to tell to His disciples, and look!, Jesus met them …†(V.9); “some of the guard having come into the city reported to the chief priests all the [things] having happened†(V.11); “having been gathered together with the elders, and having taken counsel, they gave much money to the soldiers†(V.12); “So having received the money, they did as they were taught. And this account was spread widely among Jews until this day†(V.15).
The question, “Did Jesus actually die and rise from the dead?†has to be answered with a faithful yes, but the problem is that nobody else records this in the same way. We have already seen that the Evangelists have the freedom to compose their Gospels out the material they have, and we have seen that Matthew in particular is known for his polemic against the Sanhedrin. This seems to go the whole way. Out of the assuredness that Jesus has risen from the dead, the visions and sightings which his disciples have had, which were passed on (as we know from Paul) and became part of the Easter liturgy, this account goes beyond anything else we have.
The risen Christ is portrayed as appearing on the mountain “which Jesus appointed†… “they prostrated themselves in worship before Him, but some were doubtful.†At the best, something was not clear about what was happening on that mountain. At worst this is an example of legend building to underline what already was the practice of the Church.
The question, “Did Jesus teach his followers to convert non-believers?†has to be no, conversion isn’t a subject here. The text doesn’t tell the disciples to convert people from one tradition to another, only to “make disciplesâ€. For me that doesn’t imply immediately a interchange.
Clear figurative speech.
Shalom
That must mean that there are also non-figurative elements.
How do you decide which is figurative and which is not?
Purely based on your own opinion?
And does that change over time?
And if it does, does this say anything about the divine inspiration of the passage to you?
I’m guessing this isn’t a huge issue for you 
If I understand you correctly, the only passage that contains ANY literal meaning is passage 1, and even then you’re not too sure about that.
On what basis do you decide that passage 1 has more merit to be taken literally than any of the others?
From this response, I’m still not clear how you understand this passage. Did Jesus teach the “golden rule” (or some variation of it) or did he not teach it?
OK, so this is a figurative passage in your understanding.
So, you believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, rather that this passage being some metaphor for a new life?
Ok to recap…
passage 1 I don’t understand how you interpret it
passage 2 is mystical and NOT literal
passage 3 is literal (Jesus actually rose from the dead)
passage 4 is literal since you believe Jesus instructed followers to do something practical
passage 5 is figurative
So, on what basis do you make these choices about what the passage IS and ISN’T?
Other people read these passages and have a different interpretation so it’s not as “clear” as you imply.
It seems to me that this question is the most important question when dealing with the bible, since many disagreements about theology will come as a direct result of this initial assumption about what the passage IS or ISN’T.
So, how do you make this choice?
Passage 1
Matthew 22
37Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Love I take literally. Lord metaphorically. God theologically, ontologically and metaphorically. Heart metaphorically. Soul and mind psychologically, literally and metaphorically. Commandment literally and ironically. Neighbor metaphorically.
Passage 2
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Way, truth, life and father I take metaphorically.
Passage 3
Matthew 28
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.
6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.
7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee.
This I take literally and metaphorically.
Passage 4
Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
This I take literally and metaphorically. Father and Son and I take metaphorically and theologically.
Passage 5
Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.
Sin I take literally, the rest figuratively. I still have my right eye. 
It’s a judgement in every case based on my experience and consequentially my understanding of language, the bible, history, reality, etc.
Yes, informed opinion, if you will.
Yes.
Not necessarily. It says something about me. I’m changing so meanings change for me.
Hi Ned,
The problem is that the text you used as the “golden rule†isn’t the golden rule. The golden rule is (Mat 7:12) “All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets†or (Luk 6:31) “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.â€
I don’t read the passage in a literal manner – that is word for word. I believe that this passage, like much of the New Testament is reminiscence. It is liturgical tradition, a narrative re-enacted that illustrates an event – and which has been written down. Therefore, if you ask me whether the passage is without exaggeration or inaccuracy I have to answer, no! But if you ask whether I believe Psa 16:10 “For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption†then I would say yes!
This too is part of the legend-building which is probably based on scripture (Psa 22:27-28, 98:2-3; Isa 42:1-4, 49:6, 52:10 and 66:18-19 comes to mind) and authorises the practise of the Church.
The first thing I do is to try and understand the text in its context. OT Prophecy has, for example, a local and real-time meaning, besides being quoted as a prophecy of what has happened or will happen. Often the message between the lines is more powerful than the narrative and the spiritual journey one is taken on is more important than the historicity of the text.
Secondly I ask myself whether there is anything that forces me to believe in things that I do not witness happening in my perception of reality. Normally there are no reasons for such a belief, but other explanations give convincing answers to my questions. Sometimes I find that the witnesses are remembering that the whole situation was out of the ordinary, inexplicable, paradoxical and portraying it that way. It isn’t a case of believing every word, but the experience of disbelief is what the narrative is supposed to invoke.
Thirdly, I look at the oriental mind-set and language and ask whether a cultural misunderstanding is taking place. What other meaning could be hidden behind translations? What is the spiritual answer? What relevance does it have to our spiritual journey? Why am I being told this?
Fourthly, I carry those words of scripture around with me that haven’t been satisfactorily answered and I meditate or pray over them. More often than not an intuitive answer comes out of nowhere. Sometimes it may be a part of an answer and slowly it pieces together. Sometimes I see something that shows what is meant figuratively. Inspiration has many forms.
Now that is a true word!
Shalom