Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[spockrates]

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" in any interpretation, that someone got it "right" 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-

But when I said, "Trolling is unsportsmanlike. I always use bait when I fish!" I actually did have a meaning in mind. Now, if the meaning you give my words is different from the meaning I intended them to convey, then are you not misunderstanding what I'm intending to say?

(I'm beginning to feel like Socrates asking questions of the Sophist Protagoras!)

[The Grand Nudger]

And who, without your explicit words on the subject, could make a definitive statement of knowledge with regards to that Spock? Would whatever meaning you intended to convey alter the words you committed to the page?

No one, and no.

(if our conversation has led you to imagine that you feel like socrates, then you probably have an inordinately high opinion of either yourself, or this conversation)

[spockrates]

And who, without your explicit words on the subject, could make a definitive statement of knowledge with regards to that Spock? Would whatever meaning you intended to convey alter the words you committed to the page?

No one, and no.

(if our conversation has led you to imagine that you feel like socrates, then you probably have an inordinately high opinion of either yourself, or this conversation)

Agreed. I'm no Socrates. You are also no Protagoras. But we both try to become more like the ones we follow.

[The Grand Nudger]

You could always point out any place where you feel I have been unclear. I'm also wondering what led you to liken me to Protagoras in the first place..lol.

[spockrates]

Protagoras' most well known saying: "Man is the measure of things--of things which are, that they are, and things which are not, that they are not." Some might say he was the Father of Relativism. Socrates and he had some lively debates.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you disagree with that, specifically in the context of this conversation were having? Is there some other measure for things which man creates and interprets as he sees fit? How else might we measure a story?

[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.

And though he'd deny that any idea is bull, if you were to turn on him and say he was spouting bull, he would not say you spoke anything but the truth! He was perhaps the most consistent Relativist I know.

[The Grand Nudger]

Truth sounds so easily won that i suspect the word has lost meaning.
(you may, btw, have "misunderstood" Protagoras...lol)

[spockrates]

Would you disagree with that, specifically in the context of this conversation were having? Is there some other measure for things which man creates and interprets as he sees fit? How else might we measure a story?

Well, I'd disagree with Protagoras (and perhaps Relativism itself) for the reason Socrates gave:

"Moreover, the best joke is that [Protagoras] acknowledges the truth of the opinion of those who believe his own opinion is false! For he claims the opinions of all men are true."

(Theaetetus 171)

In our case, I'd say that logic tells me the opinions of Catholics and Protestants regarding the meaning Jesus intended his words to have cannot both be true. For the former denies his words were merely metaphorical and the latter denies his words were literally literal. It is possible that his words were neither (and so, meaningless) or as you suggest both metaphorical and literal.

I think that the words on the page alone are (in this case) insufficient to reveal (with any certainty) which of these four possibilities is the real meaning Mark intended, though the premise that his words were meant to be meaningless seems most unlikely.

---

Truth sounds so easily won that i suspect the word has lost meaning.
(you may, btw, have "misunderstood" Protagoras...lol)

LOL!

[The Grand Nudger]

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. Are they enough to add the sort of depth that you (or catholics, or protestants) hope to find within them? Clearly no, they are not. That doesn't mean that any of you are teasing any meaning out of anything but yourselves.

You have to ask yourself why you feel that the text is ambiguous on this point, why do you feel the need to insert symbolism in this particular case? Are there other places where you would invoke symbolism, are there places that you would invoke a literal reading? What do these things have in common? Is the text incapable of speaking for itself or are you incapable of receiving the message you wish to take from it without further modification along lines that you have decided?

What is it, precisely, that you find unclear about the statement "This is my body"? The elephant in the room, for me anyway, would be that we know that bread and human flesh are not the same thing, and that there is no known way to make them so, that this doesn't happen -"so christ (because Im assuming christ said anything at all -and you probably shouldn't) must have meant something by this, it must be symbolism". But so what, we're not talking about the real world here. This is a story entirely about magic. Fantasy of the highest order. The rules and laws that apply to us here in this world do not apply to the character of christ in that world.