An excerpt:
“The four gospels contain four similar but variant accounts on Peter’s denial of Jesus. The story is not complimentary to Peter. The gospels preserved it in order to show that when he needed his disciples most Jesus was left to face his fate alone…”
“…in Matthew, Mark, and John the arrest of Jesus is followed by a nocturnal trial. In Luke the mocking of Jesus and the denial in the night are followed by an early morning trial before the Sandhedrin…”
“Two viewers of a game or drama will never relate the story of what they have seen in exactly the same way and two hearers of a story will not relate the story to others in exactly the manner they heard the story told. It is helpful to know this about differing gospel accounts because it invites each of us to form our own opinion of what most likely happened. In this way we become excited for a good purpose. We receive encouragement to think clearly and open our selves to creative involvement in the never-ending task of interpreting the Scriptures.”
COMMENTARIES: New Testament, p.1432
(My apologies if I wasn’t able to indicate the complete information for the reference. The excerpts above were just from my college photocopied notes way back in my religion class.)
I’ve once heard from a catholic mass homily that the bible is a perfect book and the Holy weapon for the holy. According to the thesaurus, the word perfect means: faultless, absolute, exact, accurate, not to be faulted etc.
Is it true that the bible has its own confusions and its accounts do not exactly complement with each other?
This question may be simply answered by either yes or no; because man has his own interpretations. The problem with this conventional idea is that most of us were influenced by the one-side thought; that bible interpretations should always be positive, supplementing the god. By being too idealistic, the context analyses have become more creative and fictional. Numerous of religions have been practicing bible interpretations. Recurrently I’ve encountered people that randomly opens a page, look for a passage, give meaning to what they’ve read and explain it to me with introductory words like “According to God…” or “God told me that…”.
Intrapersonal bible translation: Psychological? Imagination inspired?
Citing the books of Psalms or Songs, its words and terms are Shakespeare-like. Creativity is necessary in deciphering. When I used to study in a Catholic school, I made up my own bible interpretations. As long as my answers sounded good and the thought that “God is love” was present in my essays, my religion grades were saved.
Fortunately, I’m inventive. I got good grades then.
It was just a religion class anyway, and I was just an ordinary student, how about the other inventive people who controls a sect of religion? This starts the exegesis conflict. One big example is two major religions feuding over television programs. People have different views on the so-called messages of god.
Holy weapon for the holy: is it really for unity?
To be considerable, assume that one of the doctrine-striving religion’s exegeses is rational. The root point; most of the members of a religion or sect don’t even know the origin of the bible, its commentaries, obvious context conflicts and logical reviews. The majority is unsighted by leaders’ inventive translations and influence of Vatican hypotheses.
Citing a situation, I’ve been asking Mary (Mother of Jesus) devotees if they are aware that her Assumption to heaven was not mentioned in the Bible. 9 out of 10 answered me NO.
The explanation is because it is how the story was told.
Indeed, the ideas in the bible might just be ideas of man. Like the idea of how Catholics introduce the Assumption of Mary. As interpretations have been told, no religion has yet to prove “which is which” and who unsurpassed. Still, the bible and its context is certainly an unsolved dogma.
But then,
God created man.
Man created bible.
Bible has confusions.
Therefore,
God is a mystic confusion.
“The four gospels contain four similar but variant accounts on Peter’s denial of Jesus. The story is not complimentary to Peter. The gospels preserved it in order to show that when he needed his disciples most Jesus was left to face his fate alone…”
“…in Matthew, Mark, and John the arrest of Jesus is followed by a nocturnal trial. In Luke the mocking of Jesus and the denial in the night are followed by an early morning trial before the Sandhedrin…”
“Two viewers of a game or drama will never relate the story of what they have seen in exactly the same way and two hearers of a story will not relate the story to others in exactly the manner they heard the story told. It is helpful to know this about differing gospel accounts because it invites each of us to form our own opinion of what most likely happened. In this way we become excited for a good purpose. We receive encouragement to think clearly and open our selves to creative involvement in the never-ending task of interpreting the Scriptures.”
COMMENTARIES: New Testament, p.1432
(My apologies if I wasn’t able to indicate the complete information for the reference. The excerpts above were just from my college photocopied notes way back in my religion class.)
I’ve once heard from a catholic mass homily that the bible is a perfect book and the Holy weapon for the holy. According to the thesaurus, the word perfect means: faultless, absolute, exact, accurate, not to be faulted etc.
Is it true that the bible has its own confusions and its accounts do not exactly complement with each other?
This question may be simply answered by either yes or no; because man has his own interpretations. The problem with this conventional idea is that most of us were influenced by the one-side thought; that bible interpretations should always be positive, supplementing the god. By being too idealistic, the context analyses have become more creative and fictional. Numerous of religions have been practicing bible interpretations. Recurrently I’ve encountered people that randomly opens a page, look for a passage, give meaning to what they’ve read and explain it to me with introductory words like “According to God…” or “God told me that…”.
Intrapersonal bible translation: Psychological? Imagination inspired?
Citing the books of Psalms or Songs, its words and terms are Shakespeare-like. Creativity is necessary in deciphering. When I used to study in a Catholic school, I made up my own bible interpretations. As long as my answers sounded good and the thought that “God is love” was present in my essays, my religion grades were saved.
Fortunately, I’m inventive. I got good grades then.
It was just a religion class anyway, and I was just an ordinary student, how about the other inventive people who controls a sect of religion? This starts the exegesis conflict. One big example is two major religions feuding over television programs. People have different views on the so-called messages of god.
Holy weapon for the holy: is it really for unity?
To be considerable, assume that one of the doctrine-striving religion’s exegeses is rational. The root point; most of the members of a religion or sect don’t even know the origin of the bible, its commentaries, obvious context conflicts and logical reviews. The majority is unsighted by leaders’ inventive translations and influence of Vatican hypotheses.
Citing a situation, I’ve been asking Mary (Mother of Jesus) devotees if they are aware that her Assumption to heaven was not mentioned in the Bible. 9 out of 10 answered me NO.
The explanation is because it is how the story was told.
Indeed, the ideas in the bible might just be ideas of man. Like the idea of how Catholics introduce the Assumption of Mary. As interpretations have been told, no religion has yet to prove “which is which” and who unsurpassed. Still, the bible and its context is certainly an unsolved dogma.
But then,
God created man.
Man created bible.
Bible has confusions.
Therefore,
God is a mystic confusion.
