Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
it would seem to me that Paul is not claiming inspiration, but letting the reader know in that instance of the marriage problem, that he was showing his apostolic authority...which associated his teaching w/ the Lord's.What about when they say, "I say this (I, not the Lord)..." (1 Cor 7:10-12)?
what do you mean? are they divinely inspired? or what?What about when nothing is said about the narrator?
I acknowledged that and in so doing he was going to an extreme that wasn't readily embraced within Judaism.It should be clear from the quotation I gave that Philo didn't see both allegorical and literal meanings in the Genesis creation accounts. He rejected the literal interpretation as foolish.
There are many passages in scripture where the literal is simply not the real meaning of the text. In spite of what the text says in Gen 49, Judah was not a lion and Dan was never a serpent. There are times when scripture has both literal an allegorical meanings. Other times the allegorical is the intended meaning.
Aaah - but the Messiah isn't in the peshat. He's found in the deeper levels of interpretation where the bruising of the head also has a deeper meaning. You're trying to mix the understandings.What is the meaning of Gen 3:15 Where God tells the serpent he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel? What is the peshat here? Did God speak to a snake and did the Messiah ever step on that snake's head?
You could say that about anything you don't agree with. Saying that doesn't make it right.What God said is true. But the world is full of demons and blasphemy that try and trick u and turn u aginst ur beliefs. The question is, R u strong enough to overcome evil and have enough faith to not question God's word or christian beliefs?
Josephus seemed to take a similar view. Clearly Philo is the most enthusiastic allegorist, but we have a priest from Jerusalem who thought that the intention of Moses in writing about Adam and Eve was allegorical rather than literal.I acknowledged that and in so doing he was going to an extreme that wasn't readily embraced within Judaism.
Who am I to deny God the power to make Judah both lion and man?Are you sure Judah wasn't really a lion?
And when a metaphor is extended it become an allegory.No - of course they employed similes and metaphors, but they were apparent in the peshat. I'm not talking about ultra-literalism here. I'm talking about the surface understanding.
I don't know about that. Eve was hardly a Rabbinically trained scholar, (it is pretty difficult for allegorical figures to enrole). Yet she seemed to attach great significance, even Messianic expectations, to the birth of Cain.Aaah - but the Messiah isn't in the peshat. He's found in the deeper levels of interpretation where the bruising of the head also has a deeper meaning. You're trying to mix the understandings.
The question we have to ask is who was really responsible for tempting mankind to turn from God? A talking snake? Or Satan? You may take further midrashic interpretations from the passage, but there is only room in the story for one mastermind behind mankind's downfall.At it's most plain - we see that God did speak those words to the serpent. That's the peshat... BUT it's not the ONLY level where this is to be understood. As we progress through layers of interpretation, we recognise that God is saying that Man and Snake will have dramasSnakes will bite men; men will tread on snakes. This is also true. Progressing further, we also recognise it to be about the relationship between man and satan and the ultimate victory through the Messiah. It's true on ALL levels and traditionally this is accepted. The deeper levels contain the greater truth here but that doesn't validate discarding the simple understanding altogether.
I don't know about Liberals, my background, after I left the Catholic church anyway, would have been much more along the lines of the evangelical literal meaning of scripture, with a personal dislike of 'typology' which seemed to allow any meaning people wanted.The problem occurs when people opt to narrow their focus to one level only. Fundamentalists occassionally tend towards the Peshat at the expense of the deeper truths and Liberals tend towards the Sod at the expense of the Peshat. In that regard, I'd suggest that the Liberals will often recognise the more important truth... BUT the danger is that by disregarding the Peshat, they remove the context for correctly interpreting those deeper levels. Consistency demands that the Remez and Midrash not contradict the Peshat. By removing it altogether, the Liberal is taking a liberty where they can determine what they want the text to say, thereby missing the simple truths altogether and potentially arriving at false deeper truth.
Peace
Granted - but here we're trying to marry different cultural views and simply put: they aren't a perfect match. Peshat isn't strictly literal and the deeper levels of understanding aren't strictly allegorical. It's just not a perfect fit. The Peshat is the plain reading - the apparent surface intent of the words. You don't need to be a genius to appreciate the difference. Most first graders will spot the Peshat straight away.When the intended meaning is the allegorical, any attempt at more literal interpretation of the passage is nonsensical. Of courser that leave plenty of room still for midrashic interpretations, further allegorical applications drawn out of the the verses. But the primary meaning of the passages is allegorical.
I don't know about that. Eve was hardly a Rabbinically trained scholar, (it is pretty difficult for allegorical figures to enrole). Yet she seemed to attach great significance, even Messianic expectations, to the birth of Cain.
It can't just be that Satan was in the form of a snake? We have to pick one or the otherThe question we have to ask is who was really responsible for tempting mankind to turn from God? A talking snake? Or Satan? You may take further midrashic interpretations from the passage, but there is only room in the story for one mastermind behind mankind's downfall.
ExactlyIt even tells us that Satan was the ancient serpent.
When a writer says..."the Lord said"...or "thus saith the Lord"...then, they're claiming divine inspiration.
He can. Jesus often taught by using stories... BUT it was clear that they were just stories. The same is true of fiction writers, but when an author releases fiction packaged as fact, the author generally gets discredited and may even be found guilty of fraud or slander depending on the circumstances. There was a case on the news here a couple of months back where that occured... so according to the analogy you're using then Genesis may well be considered a lie today if it's not true, while Jesus parables would be perfectly acceptable.All of which still begs the question: why can't God inspire people to tell stories? Why must God always speak truth in facts?
Questions about Charles Dickens don't really serve any practical purpose here.
I'd generally agree that it was initially written and presented to an audience that probably had no clue about science, but again I don't see how that's pertinent to the discussion. It's either a science text or fiction???They were written and presented by their first authors as stories to be told to an audience who wouldn't have known science from pressed beef.
BUT it was clear that they were just stories. The same is true of fiction writers, but when an author releases fiction packaged as fact,
Yeah - that and the fact that the genre is called Fantasy and it was in the Fiction sectionOh, I don't know. In many of the fantasy books I've seen, which include such details like genealogies, maps, linguistic details, the only indicator you'll have that it is fiction (other than the occasional elf) is a very small disclaimer on the copyright page.
But who decides that it goes there?Yeah - that and the fact that the genre is called Fantasy and it was in the Fiction section
I think a lot of them would struggle with passages where the intention of the text is allegorical. How would a first grader read Ezekiel's valley of dry bones? Would they be able to distinguish Balaam's talking ass from Jotham's talking trees? It is a bit of a contradiction to talk of the differences between cultural views and still claim a first graders can spot a Peshat. There is a vast gulf between the ANE mindset and that of modern school children.Granted - but here we're trying to marry different cultural views and simply put: they aren't a perfect match. Peshat isn't strictly literal and the deeper levels of understanding aren't strictly allegorical. It's just not a perfect fit. The Peshat is the plain reading - the apparent surface intent of the words. You don't need to be a genius to appreciate the difference. Most first graders will spot the Peshat straight away.
I think it is. You need to keep you peshat and midrash seperate. Characters in the peshat, real or fictional, are unaware of any midrashic significance people will later see in their actions. The prodigal son didn't comfort himself as he sat down with the pigs 'thank God this is only a parable'. Hagar didn't lament as she ran away that she was not only kicked out of the camp and her son is probably going to die of thirst, but also got stuck representing the lesser covanent.It's not either/or.
No Jesus is literally divine and human. Satan is not a reptile, he never hatched from an egg in some reptilian incarnation, he does not slither on his stomach and eat dust.It can't just be that Satan was in the form of a snake? We have to pick one or the otherWhat about Jesus -do we have to employ the same process to determine whether He was man or God?
Actually Jesus taught by using stories but he very rarely introduced them as fiction. Jotham did not introduce his talking trees as a fictional illustration either. Could that be why people got angry?He can. Jesus often taught by using stories... BUT it was clear that they were just stories. The same is true of fiction writers, but when an author releases fiction packaged as fact, the author generally gets discredited and may even be found guilty of fraud or slander depending on the circumstances. There was a case on the news here a couple of months back where that occured... so according to the analogy you're using then Genesis may well be considered a lie today if it's not true, while Jesus parables would be perfectly acceptable.
Ummm.... are we really going to keep persuing this line of reasoning? I've got my witty retort ready if we are but it seems like an awful waste of time and a major distraction.But who decides that it goes there?
For the most part.I think it is. You need to keep you peshat and midrash seperate.
I disagree emphatically. Usually a fictional character won't because it doesn't serve the purpose of the narrator, so you're right to recognise that the prodigal son wouldn't. He doesn't have any thoughts apart from those attributed to him by Jesus. As for factual characters - that's a whole other ballgame dependant on the circumstances. In fact, such determinations would present a more compelling case for a literal Eve than a fictional but I'll address it all a bit more later.Characters in the peshat, real or fictional, are unaware of any midrashic significance people will later see in their actions.
we're discussing Scripture. It's unique.
If we're going to make analytical literary assessments, perhaps considering what sets it apart is better done by focussing on the manner in which it was received by the culture it came from and how it compares to other texts from the same culture. Just a thought.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?