Gaston, read what I wrote, not what you want to answer. It is “mistaken” to think that any one is right when everyone claims to be “right” with no evidence.
I read what you wrote. What everyone claims is of no concern to me or to this debate as far as I've gathered. I'm discussing wether it is legimate to interpret the passages in the way I do. And as far as I've seen, you've argued against that, which is what I'm replying to. I can't -and I have no intention to defend what christians do and interpret.
You claim that you “try to read passages in a context”. What context? That of a book written over a very long time, by various cultures influenced by other cultures, about events that have little evidence of happening, claiming to convey what a deity thinks and how it sent down itself to be the sacrifice for the world?
The context of the situation. The plot may be ridicolous -and at best, chopped up, but that doesn't remove the context of the situations which are described in the Bible.
This is how I do it. I have read the entire bible at least twice and probably more at this point. I look at common themes and one theme I see is the abandonment of the world. It’s all through the thing and I don’t’ decide that one part is suddenly only meant for a certain audience, since the bible, was put together to be one entity. Christians claim that was by god, and the evidence shows that it was by man.
What Christians claim isn't really of a concern to me in regards to interpreting the Bible. What does the themes of the Bible have to do with this discussion? I was discussing certain passages. If you want me to say that the Bible is inconsistent and full of contradictions, I'll be the first one to admit that. But that isn't really what the issue is here...
I am curious what this “context” is that you use. Can you describe it? Why is your context, whatever it is, valid when considering the book’s origins? Let me explain. If I read Moby Dick should I read it in the context of its time, and the author as much as I know about him? Or should I make some claim that Moby Dick is really about modern society, something that the author could not have known about? I may be able to do some generalizations, the usual literature lines about “man vs. nature, man vs. man, man vs himself”, but any more than that is placing meaning on something that could never have had that intended. This is what makes an interpretation stronger, if not more “valid”, those lines of reasoning. If I had not seen the theme of abandoning the world through the bible, I would think your interpretation, that the rich young man is being addressed on his own, is valid. I will reserve further comments about your interpretations until I know what indeed you are using as your “context”.
When I say context, I mean the context of the situation. I wouldn't interpret and read the Bible as a whole. It makes no sense since it's written by different people from different times with different agendas. I don't make any extrapolations saying what Jesus said was meant for us today or anything like that. I'm saying that i the context of the situation it makes sense (at least as far as I'm informed) to interpret them the way I did.
You seem to be intimating that I am not interpreting the verses on “what the text says”. Unfortunately, that is not true. I am disappointed that you would try to claim something so untrue. Oh well.
You mean insinuating? You've actually admitted yourself that you don't do this completely in the following quote:
Why do his apostles have no money but what they share communally? Why does he say hate your mother and father? Again and again we see that this world is to be shaken off. This is the context I read this in.
Reading it in context is pretty much not reading the verses on "what the text says". Though there's nothing wrong with doing that in itself. I do it myself, so for me to complain about that would be at best hypocritical. I though, posit that your interpretation isn't neecessarily that only one that is valid in regards to the passages in question.
The direct detailed command, as I have said twice now, is “sell your belongings, give the money to the poor and follow me”. And I have shown why it carries merit.
If I can selectively interpret “rich” as in the camel through the eye of the needle quote, I can decide what I think I need to do to please God. I can decide that I am not that “rich” and I can still be close to God. If I run into the “give up your possessions” that’s pretty direct, a action that one must do. Here’s another example, what makes a virgin? We’ve seen that if one just says “don’t have intercourse” some kids think that anything else is okay. If you don’t’ teach about other sex acts, leave it vague, then kids and evidently presidents, don’t’ think it counts. There, that’s the “legitimacy” for interpreting things my way.
In the context of the situation, I don't interpret it as a direct command to followers, but merely to the man himself adressing how he can be "perfect".
As far as I can gather, you seem to be arguing that because "rich" is a vague term, then the instruction to the rich man should be abblied to all Christians. Is this wrong? If so, could you specify where?
If not:
The definition of "rich" is vague, but that doesn't necessitate that what was said to the rich man applies to all those who seek the kingdom of Heaven.
From what I have seen, your reason to interpret the rich young man story as being a command only addressed to him is that it is what the sentence says. Indeed it does, but again, a sentence in a book should be in context since it does not stand alone. Again, what is yours?
"my context" is the context of the situation. I interpret it as Jesus adressing the man himself as opposed to his followers or saying so in a sermon or something.
Yep, I said “to me” which indeed could be a magic decoder ring answer *if* I had not explained why I think so. I may be wrong, but I would like you to show me that my context is flaws. And again, yep, nothing in matthew 19 about being given whats needed. That’s where context comes in. The whole book not just separate sentences. Let me ask, in John 15, Jesus says “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.” Does this mean only the apostles? Or is this about all Christians? When Paul says “women should remain silent in the churches” does this only apply to the Corinthians a very localized limited command, or…as Paul actually says in full “As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches.”
I'm not saying you're wrong, but just that you're interpreting something that isn't necessarily intended there (though it may have been)
Q1: Well he is adressing the apostles in a way that is somewhat specific to them, but his point and analogy seems to be applicable on a general level as well. So I'd interpret it as counting for all those who would seek the kingdom of Heaven. Though I'm not sure if I disagree with another interpretation.
Q2: The Paul thing I think should apply to all those who wish to follow the Bible.
I know that saying “what shall we eat” isnt’ the same as give up everything. Sheesh. But again, Jesus is saying give up everything and come with me. Why give up everything? because you worry about it. Yep, I’m assuming Jesus meant what he said about being tied to the world in Matthew 6 when he is speaking to the young man. Oh well, I see that you don’t’ see them as part of the same story, no matter if they are in the same gospel or not. My context isnt’ something I manufacture for myself, with no basis. It isn’t what I have called a magic decoder ring, making the story to fit an desired outcome. I’m curious if yours is similar.
They're part of the same gospel yes, but it seems to me that you are extrapolating (as am I.) Nothing wrong in itself, but I'd still argue it's a subjective interpretation. And not necessarily something that should automatically be a qualifier for all who seek the kingdom of Heaven.
