Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[Lion IRC]

[downbeatplumb]

Like me, you are not a perfect disciple of the one you follow, for Protagoras would never accuse anyone of believing bull. What Catholics believe is true to them and what Protestants believe is true to them and what Rhythm believes is true to him. All believe the truth, for truth is what each man believes. Man's opinion is the standard by which all truth is measured. Thus, man is the measure of all things.

Ok I have a rabbit here lets all vote on what sex it is and let that be the "truth".

This is the problem with your little pronouncement, it is in every respect wrong.

The truth is what is true and not what people decide is true.

(I can't believe that I have to point out something so fucking obvious)

[spockrates]

Like me, you are not a perfect disciple of the one you follow, for Protagoras would never accuse anyone of believing bull. What Catholics believe is true to them and what Protestants believe is true to them and what Rhythm believes is true to him. All believe the truth, for truth is what each man believes. Man's opinion is the standard by which all truth is measured. Thus, man is the measure of all things.

Ok I have a rabbit here lets all vote on what sex it is and let that be the "truth".

This is the problem with your little pronouncement, it is in every respect wrong.

The truth is what is true and not what people decide is true.

(I can't believe that I have to point out something so fucking obvious)

The point of the post was to express my opinion that Rythm's statements reminded me of those of Protagoras. So I guess your constructive criticism is for his benefit.

But yes, you, Socrates and I all agree that the truth is true no matter how many don't believe it. Protagoras (and his modern disciples who are proponents of Relativism) disagree with us. Unless I'm mistaken and showing my ignorance, to them, truth is essentially synonymous with opinion. It all boils down to what the true meaning of truth is.

[spockrates]

Perhaps you should approach the subject of Jesus as a blank canvass upon which differing sects project their values, ideals, or wishes. The words on the page are enough to tell a story, and that's all we're talking about. ...

But the gospels are not clean slates, are they? Don't they paint extremely detailed portraits of who Jesus was and what he said and accomplished?

The difficulty I'm having in understanding the pictures they paint for us is sumerized well by Socrates. Please consider what he had to say, and let me know what you think:

"Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings, they always say only one and the same thing! And every word, when once it is written, is bandied about, alike among those who understand and those who have no interest in it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak; when ill-treated or unjustly reviled it always needs its father to help it; for it has no power to protect or help itself."

(Phaedrus 275)

The difficulty is, as I've previously suggested, the same that Socrates describes. Now for the difficulty I'm having in accepting your advice, please consider this analogy:

Let's say you and I are admiring Leonardo da Vinci's painting of the Mona Lisa. I wonder why she is smiling. You tell me she is smiling because she has fooled me. She is not a she, but a he--it is a self portrait of Leonardo! A museum curator then corrects you, saying that Leonardo's subject is indeed female and she is smiling because she is enamored with the painter. A janitor sweeping the floor nearby then says you're both wrong--she's smiling because she just passed gas!

Now you might advise me to treat Mona Lisa as a clean canvas and paint whatever picture of her I like, but if any picture I paint is alright, then why would you suggest that your picture of Mona Lisa is better than the rest?

The truth, it seems to me is that only Mona herself and perhaps Leonardo know why she smiles so. To say that any opinion of her disposition is just as good as any other is to ignore the truth that she actually had a reason for the smile Leonardo captured on canvas. The only way to accurrately discern her reason with any degree of certainty is to ask her, or Leonardo, or someone who knew one of them and was told the reason for her expression.

The same is true with writing: Books are sometimes unclear, and when they are, the best way to accurately discern their intended meanings with any degree of certainty is to ask the one quoted in the book, or the author of the book, or someone who knew either one. Do you agree at least with this general principle?

[The Grand Nudger]

If they weren't then it would be difficult to explain the many varying translations of any given part of them wouldn't it? You're having trouble with my responses because you aren't reading them, or because you're reading around them (and again this would be an issue of interpretation and not text wouldn't it?)

At what point has anything I've said diverged from Socrates appraisal here? If you think that he and I disagree on this then I have to suggest again that you are reading around or not at all. Since we are on the subject of Socrates, and since you thought that Protagoras deserved mention as well -and since you seemed to think that Protagoras was invoking relativism with his comment about man being the measure of things- perhaps this is the time to mention to you that the comment you referenced specifically involved those things which are used by or otherwise related to man. I also think it's amusing, since we're using the example of Socrates, to point out that he (and thusly any conversation or comment you wish to reference about him) could be a narrative device himself. This btw, is regardless of whether or not there was an actual Socrates, because even if there were, Plato seems to be using the name for his own purposes. I hope you appreciate the irony here.

Your analogy of Mona Lisa falls flat on its face, perhaps you should have instead used the exit sign in that same hallway as the subject of disagreement. The exit sign is a man/enamored female/bemused at your passing gas. Nevertheless, in your example, the Mona Lisa is a clear canvass, not because the canvass itself is clear or empty, but because what is on that canvass in front of us and the picture we paint of the backstory in our minds are only marginally related. I agree with this bit here about how we might figure out what the artist meant, obviously. If you want to know what an artist -meant-, definitively, you'd have to ask them . Whether or not anyone's opinion of her disposition is any better than any other is not a matter of truth, it is a matter of opinion. If you would like to think that we are ignoring a truth wouldn't you have to establish that there is one to be had in the first place? If we re instead referring to fact, rather than opinion, then they would all be equally wrong, as to the reasons for the smile, because as far as I'm aware, none of those reasons offered have any definitive support.

Don't I now agree with you? Reread my responses in this thread. I don't think we're actually having a discussion with each other at all at this point.....Who have you been talking to?

I'm going to arrange this as a bullet point list, and recap what I've been babbling on about so far.

-The NT is a story, the author of the story and whatever opinions or comments they had about any "true meaning" they may have somehow hidden behind or around the words is lost to us.
-Stories, and characters within those stories, are not confined by the limitations imposed upon us by the real world, any attempt to make a magical story less magical or less inconsistent -as though that would reconcile it with something else (reality/itself) is entirely pointless, see the above.
-Ask two people about the same story and you'll get three opinions, none of which is any "better" or "worse" than any other, because they are opinions.
-Stories can and do leverage the literal within the narrative to evoke the symbolic outside of the narrative.

The question "which of these two sects have it right" is a particularly strange one, in that as long as we are asking this question about a narrative all we have are two book reports expressing the reviewers opinion. If you insist on asking "But what did Jesus really say" well, the problems with that should be obvious - Jesus says nothing -in reality-, the authors attribute words to jesus, and only within the confines of the narrative. Who would ask "but did Batman really say "I am Batman!""? Clearly he does, there it is in the script. "but what did Batman -mean- when he said "I am Batman""?-well, clearly the person asking this requires there to be more meaning than there is expressed in the text, that doesn't mean it's there in the text, but I'm willing to bet that any person willing to ask that question has a whole bag'o'meaning ready to be layed over the fabric of whatever narrative they wish to ask this question about. Take the simple statement we've bee discussing, "this is my body". Catholics have crafted an elaborate sort of sympathetic ceremony in which they replicate the particulars of this narrative to avail themselves of the covenant mentioned. This is found nowhere in the narrative. Protestants maintain that this is deeply symbolic of such and such. This is found nowhere in the narrative. It is a story, being used for differing purposes by different people, and in this context Protagoras appraisal that -man is the measure of all things- is particularly apt. Simultaneously, Socrates comments on the difficulties of words in spite of their stubborn refusal to morph into other things in reality is similarly apt.

(you and I should probably have a conversation about how greek philosophers composed their narratives and recorded their "conversations" with other philosophers as well. You do realize that this is mostly fiction, yes? The particular philospher you've been invoking, Plato-btw-not Socrates would invent a conversation, fill it with straw men, argue with himself, and then declare victory over an intellectual rival (or rival school of thought) in absentia.....)

[spockrates]

If they weren't then it would be difficult to explain the many varying translations of any given part of them wouldn't it? You're having trouble with my responses because you aren't reading them, or because you're reading around them (and again this would be an issue of interpretation and not text wouldn't it?)

At what point has anything I've said diverged from Socrates appraisal here? ...

At the point when you wrote that there are no unclear statements in the Bible. You indicated that nothing in the Bible is ambiguous, and the words speak clearly for themselves. Did I misunderstand you?

[The Grand Nudger]

There aren't. You can distinguish between the letter a and the letter b, can you not? Is the ambiguity in the text or in your reading of it? Approach this story as a story for what it is. Drop any assumptions that it is a retelling of history, or that there must be something factual behind it (however embellished). As a story, as a narrative, is it unclear? How could it be?

[downbeatplumb]

It all boils down to what the true meaning of truth is.

[spockrates]

There aren't. You can distinguish between the letter a and the letter b, can you not? Is the ambiguity in the text or in your reading of it? ...

There is a significant difference when distinguishing between letters and words. Letters most often have sounds rather than meanings associated with them, but even the sounds associated with letters might be either one sound, or another. Take the word tomato. You say tomato, but I say tomato. The letter a in each case is pronounced differently, so letters can be ambiguous as to the pronouncement of them. This is true in nearly every language, with the exception, perhaps of Italian.

---

Rhythm:

But yes, ambiguity is not in the letters, nor the words, but in the sounds, or meanings the reader attaches to them. I agree. Would you also agree that ambiguity is not in the letters, nor the words that the writer uses, but in the sounds, or meanings the writer attempts to convey?

---

---

... Approach this story as a story for what it is. Drop any assumptions that it is a retelling of history, or that there must be something factual behind it (however embellished). As a story, as a narrative, is it unclear? How could it be?

Is what makes a story what it is the intention of the author who gave birth to it? If so, are the intentions of the author self evident to every reader of his offspring? Socrates answered yes to the former and no to the latter question. How do you answer?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not from the writers perspective, no. But from the readers, sure. Again, this only applies when the reader absolutely insists that there must be something more to the words, but why assume this in the first place? Upon what basis do we personally decide to distinguish between that which is "what it is" so-to speak- that which is literal, and that which is symbolic, and of course what is both, or neither. This cuts to the heart of the question as to who's interpretation of such a simple phrase is correct. In the context of the narrative, and as far as it has lead to their differences, neither. In the context of their opinion, both. Perhaps "truth" is more malleable in a narrative than it is in reality eh? This isn't exactly surprising, because again, it is a narrative, not reality. IMHO, when people talk about truth -as it relates to a story or a narrative- they are not talking about -truth- as it may apply elsewhere. Again, this is unsurprising.

As to your question about stories, I'd say no. They seem to have lives of their own far beyond any intent the author may have imagined, don't they? The narrative in question most certainly has.