Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[The Grand Nudger]

Flying over my head. Mud in your eye. Mudslinging. Trolling. This is my body. All of these statements might have a literal meaning, or a symbolic one. The meaning might be easily discernible from the context of the words, or it might not.

Or maybe, just maybe, they might have both a literal and symbolic meaning. Maybe, just maybe, the story is meant to entertain and engage. Ask yourself this, why is it that so often in the narrative the character of christ performs a miracle directly before laying down some "wisdom"? Perhaps the storyteller is simply looking to grab the listeners attention before delivering the meat of the tale?

I'm thinking it is not easily discernable in the case of Jesus' words. Protestants tell me it is. The words mean what they say, and they say the bread Jesus held in his hands was merely symbolic of his body. Catholics tell me it it is. The words mean what they say, and they say Jesus was holding his own body in his hands. Now you tell me it is. The words mean he was holding his own body in his hands, and that body he held was also a symbol of the body holding that body in its hands. (At least, I think that is what you are telling me, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)

See the above.

What I wonder is this: Which of you three is correct? How do I know you are correct and Catholics and Protestants all have it wrong? Having learned what you believe, I wonder why you believe. Once I know that, I'll be in a better position to decide if why you believe is a good reason why I should believe, too. See what I mean?

It's easy to know the point at which the catholics and protestants have it all wrong with regards to comparison to myself -the moment they start blathering on about god.

What I've been expressing to you aren't statements of belief. Look, find me a narrative with floating text that changes depending upon who lays eyes on it, otherwise we're only discussing peoples interpretations of a narrative. Can a personal opinion be said to be wrong? That there are words on the page is a given, if we're insisting that there is something beyond those words. some "meaning behind it all" -that is not. If we are insisting that the words -as written- are an accurate assessment of some event or of reality that is also not a given.

As for the rest, and honestly, the majority of your questions along this line of "reasoning"......
-All of this begins with the assumption that there is something "right" or "wrong" in any interpretation, that someone got it "right" or "wrong" to begin with...and why are we even making that assumption? These narratives do not have to be "right", no one has to "get them right" etc- It is a story, and it has been used by many people for many purposes. The purpose, it seems, is what matters, not so much the narrative itself.