Gospel: Fisher of Men = Promise of money?

[radhead]

You're the one coming to this forum and making the claim, "the Gospel message is this: be lazy and make money."

YOU are the one who needs to support your claim.

That's practically the LITERAL message of the passage. You can't deny that. It seems like people would have to be living in complete darkness to miss this obvious message.

 

[-V-]

That's practically the LITERAL message of the passage. You can't deny that. It seems like people would have to be living in complete darkness to miss this obvious message.

Yes, I can deny it. All you've given is your interpretation. You're the first person I've ever seen to make such a claim like that. I don't see it "literally" saying that at all. I don't see your interpretation present in the slightest in that passage.

 

[radhead]

You're the one coming to this forum and making the claim, "the Gospel message is this: be lazy and make money."

YOU are the one who needs to support your claim.

You know yourself that if a story contains magic and supernatural elements, then the author's intent is to teach a moral or lesson of some kind. It is not supposed to be taken literally. You know that.

So you have the burden of proving that the author's intent (in this one special case) was to be taken literally.

 

[-V-]

You know yourself that if a story contains magic and supernatural elements, then the author's intent is to teach a moral or lesson of some kind. It is not supposed to be taken literally. You know that.

If we reject that there's a God who isn't bound by the laws of physics, then sure. Christians, however, don't reject that. So just because a Bible account contains details that go against the laws of physics doesn't automatically make it fiction, from a Christian perspective.

So you have the burden of proving that the author's intent (in this one special case) was to be taken literally.

I have no such "burden of proof", because whether that account is literal or allegorical doesn't matter for the question you're asking.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I can deny it. All you've given is your interpretation. You're the first person I've ever seen to make such a claim like that. I don't see it "literally" saying that at all. I don't see your interpretation present in the slightest in that passage.

How do you interpret the passage?

 

[radhead]

That's not the only place where future converts are compared to food (or money). In Acts 10 Peter sees a sheet full of animals descending from the sky (like a tablecloth of food.) And the future (gentile) converts are declared to no longer be "unclean".

 

[possibletarian]

That's not the only place where future converts are compared to food (or money). In Acts 10 Peter sees a sheet full of animals descending from the sky (like a tablecloth of food.) And the future (gentile) converts are declared to no longer be "unclean".

See, I don't see that in that passage, unclean animals would not have been considered food by Peter. So far as i can tell the lesson was clear that Peter was not to reject the gentiles as unclean, because god had declared them clean, and so starting Peter's ministry to the gentiles.

I don't think fishers of men can be interpreted in the way you have either, again the meaning seems clear, go gather men. I don't think these things were meant to be over thought. As a non believer I tend to shake my head at some of the interpretation or overreaching Christians seem to do with scripture without other non believers doing it.