Sort these statements of Jesus’ into the following categories: a) metaphor, b) hyperbole, c) literal:
Be perfect as your father in Heaven is perfect
Judge not that ye be not judged
Remove the log from your own eye before attending to your neighbour’s
Slay my enemies in front of me
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off.
Turn the other cheek
Give to all who ask
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life
Whatever you ask for in prayer believe that you have receive it and it will be yours
If you have faith enough you can move mountains
Love your enemies
There are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
After three days I will rise again
Some who are standing here will not see death before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom
I am the Resurrection
Do works even greater than mine
Answers? Damned if I know (and no doubt damned if I don’t.) I do, however, know a man who thinks he knows. He says as a rule of thumb, if you don’t like the sound of something Jesus says, it’s definitely not literal. But if it fuels your fantasy then of course it is.
Thanks, Don.
rejectingjesus, 
Sadly, a very important verse was omitted by a scribe who’d run out of space on his last leaf of parchment. Since then, it’s been missing from biblical manuscripts. It is reproduced here:
“Behold, in the last days I will send you Don Camp, the prophet, and he will give you the One True Interpretation of all these things.”
Sadly, in recent years this verse has turned up in various bible translations each with the name of one of their early leaders in the place of Don Camp.
Oh, wait! That’s not true. Fact is, God has gone out of his way to make his Divinely Inspired Word uninterpretable. It’s like he doesn’t want people to understand it. To deliberately keep the word of salvation hidden would be evil. Which is another point for the God is a Moral Monster side of the debate.
LikeLike
Don’s doing his damnedest to make up for that unfortunate omission. Thank God we’ve got him here to keep us straight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for misquoting me. I am not surprised, however.
I am surprised that someone acquainted with literature has so much trouble distinguishing metaphor and literal description.
Metaphor: The lake was a mirror. Literal description: The lake was so still it reflected the sky perfectly.
“Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life” Literal.
“Slay my enemies in front of me” Part of a parable and not a historical event. But it is a warning that to be the enemy of God is a foolhardy choice.
“There are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Well, you may know of at least one from history, but the idea is metaphorical.
So, once again how are figures of speech detected IN ANY KIND OF LITERATURE? 1) When they are so extreme as to be impossible but something less extreme is quite possible . 2) When the context, such as when embedded in a parable, recommends something other than literal. Or when they are explained or restated in literal language. 3) When they are obviously a synecdoche 40 When it is obviously comparing two things.
Or you could google the question. https://reesmccann.com/2014/11/17/how-to-spot-whether-something-is-a-metaphor-or-not-your-metaphorometer/
Neil: Answers? Damned if I know.
Really, And you taught literature?
LikeLike
That’s right, Don; I taught literature, not history. I appreciate your insistence that the gospels are literature and nothing more, which is why you analyse them as such. You’re right of course, they’re completely made-up stories. Glad we see eye-to-eye on this one at least.
Well done too in going for the soft options in explaining to us which are the metaphors in Jesus’ statements. I notice though you steered well clear of telling us which of them are hyperbole, and also the extent to which he expected any metaphorical and hyperbolic commands to be followed. Just because they’re expressed in poetic language doesn’t mean they can be ignored, does it?
Anyway, let’s apply your criteria to one of the other statements in the list: ‘I am the Resurrection’.
1) Is it so extreme as to be impossible? Yes. Bodies can’t and don’t resurrect. Is something less extreme quite possible? Yes again; many other possibilities are more likely than a body returning from the dead after 36 hours.
2) Does the context recommend something other than literal? Yes; in this case the statement is part of a collection, all of which begin ‘I am’. For example, ‘I am the bread of life’ which is ‘obviously’ metaphorical.
3) Is it ‘obviously’ a synecdoche? Not obviously but possibly; Jesus could be being made to say that his (supposed) resurrection is representative of the general resurrection early Christians mistakenly thought was imminent.
4) Is it comparing two things? No, but then again you’re confusing metaphor with simile. And you taught literature?
So Don, we can confidently say, principally on the basis of 1) and 2), that ‘I am the Resurrection’ is a metaphor, invented by the writers of the fourth gospel, that does not describe an historical event and really has no relevance outside of the story in which it is placed. I’m sure, having applied your criteria, you’ll agree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You guys are working hard to make your points. FACT: Regarding the basics, there is and has been from the earliest days remarkable agreement among believers about the basics of the faith.
FACT: There have also been many who have twisted the basics. But if you read the writers from the first three centuries through the modern era, they have always been easily detected by those who have remained faithful to the historical truths. Read Irenaeus and Justin.
AND there have always been antagonists who make a lot out of nothing. Which you and Neil are doing. This whole blog post is an example. Neil knows that he is trying to make something out of nothing, but he seems to be convincing to you.
LikeLike
Don says: ‘You guys are working hard to make your points. FACT: Regarding the basics, there is and has been from the earliest days remarkable agreement among believers about the basics of the faith.’
FACT: this is not a fact, as your next supposed FACT acknowledges! Squabbles were taking place from the early days of the cult, which is why Paul had to send out many of his letters, to set early churches straight on what they should be believing. Orthodoxy had to work hard to establish itself, by suppressing and eliminating other interpretations of Xtnty (Gnosticism, Marcionism and a whole host of variations it deemed heretical.) It continues to do so to this day; evangelicals, for example, refusing to acknowledge Catholics as ‘real’ Christians. Your perspective of historical truth is blindingly inaccurate, not to mention dishonest.
You’re right though, I do make a lot of out of nothing; the nothing that is Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Read what you wrote carefully and slowly, Don … there is and has been from the earliest days remarkable agreement among believers. Focus especially on the last two (bolded) words.
This is why so much of what you present is lacks validity to atheists and non-believers. For us, there is no “remarkable agreement.” In fact, there is consistent disorder, disarray, and pure bewilderment that others cannot see what is so obvious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point, Nan. I am quite sure that you cannot distinguish between true and false or between what is basic and core to the Christian faith and affirmed in every piece of writing of the first and second centuries as well as today and what is not. But historically the church has been able to do so. And in that there is remarkable agreement, even when there is divergence on other issues. I do think that you and Neil have gotten lost in the trees so that you cannot see the forest. If you did science that way, you would be just as lost; there are simply too many diverging opinions and ideas. It becomes overwhelming, and you quickly reach the point where nothing is reliable. But you don’t, at least I don’t think you do. So, ask yourself why not.
LikeLike
In nearly every comment, Don, you add a rational word or phrase that trips up your faith-based reply. This time? … there are simply too many diverging opinions and ideas. And within those words is the reason why you will never convince Neil (and others) of the validity of your Jesus belief.
Somewhere along the way, it’s obvious that you (and untold numbers of others) fell under the spell of Paul, a religious charlatan, and in the process, put all objective and justifiable reasoning aside. It’s a sad commentary, but one that has implanted false hopes in so many.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anybody know what Don’s talking about?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
you cannot distinguish between true and false or between what is basic and core to the Christian faith and affirmed in every piece of writing of the first and second centuries as well as today and what is not. But historically the church has been able to do so.
And how many “heretics” had to burn to ensure this consensus of “the Christian faith?”
LikeLike
Oh, and not just “heretics” but “heretical” texts? How many pyres were lit to create your Christian consensus, Don?
LikeLike
@Don
If the : “I am the Resurrection” saying is to be taken as literal what evidence …. historical, archaeological etc is there to demonstrate it’s veracity?
Thanks
Ark.
LikeLike
I had to laugh this morning when I checked in on Don’s blog.
Don, of course, believes the end is nigh. Just like every generation of Christians before him. Just like Jesus, Paul, and John of Patmos.
The fact that Jesus, Paul, John (of Patmos), and every generation of Christians since were demonstrably wrong doesn’t deter Don. Nope. This time it’s really going to happen.
So, what are we to do? There’s nothing we can do except Jesus harder. Be more Christian than you’ve ever been before, people! Oh, and missionary harder! Bother people all over the world who don’t want or need to know about Jesus. (After all, the good and just God is going to burn everyone who doesn’t beleive in him, whether they’ve heard of him or not.)
Sorry, Don. Jesus ain’t coming. Now or ever. But don’t feel bad. Jesus got it wrong too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, this time it’s for real! You listenin’ Jesus? Get yourself back here! Don demands it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for checking my blog.
I base my conclusion (never absolute) on the fact that all the markers of the end of the age are converging in these days. The main driver seems to be climate warming. It will result in increased conflict among the nations, famine, increased possibility of pandemic, and climate migration and increased violence in societies around the world. The one marker that is not yet present is the falling of the stars, but there is an increased awareness of the possibility and even the inevitability of such an event as the result of an asteroid or comet strike.
All these things have happened in the past and within human history, including the stars falling. but never have they happened in close conjunction. If Jesus is right, this conjunction will mark the beginning of the final stage of human history, including his return.
LikeLike
@Don
Do you have evidence for me regarding my question of the resurrection!?
If so, would you present it .
Thanks
LikeLike
If Jesus was right this would all have happened two thousand years ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
I base my conclusion (never absolute) on the fact that all the markers of the end of the age are converging in these days.
Again, this is what every generation of Christian has said since, and including, Jesus himself. But, besides being nauseatingly cliché, shows you don’t understand Jewish apocalyptic literature.
Here’s how Jewish apocalyptic literature works. It’s written in two parts. In the first part the author elaborates all the woes afflicting the people, most often in highly symbolic language. In the second part, the author tells how God is going to set things right, again most often in highly symbolic language.
The first part, the woes part, is not in any way prophetic. The woes and abominations it describes is how the author see his world at the time of writing. The second part, while prophetic is imminent. It is not something that will happen thousands of years later. The author’s prophecies are going to happen any minute now. “Behold, I come quickly!”
Inevitably what we see in these writings is the first part accurately describes the time of the author, and the second part fails to occur. Believers then either twist the words of the second part to “show” they really did happen, or they place the fulfillment at some future date, collectively called by Christians “The End Times™.”
We see this in Daniel. Scholars can give the year Daniel was written – 167 BCE, if I recall correctly – because the first accurate part describes events prior to that date, and the second prophecy part never happens.
The same can be seen in Mark. The author describes the, current to him, destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but the imminent coming of Christ in clouds of glory doesn’t happen.
The same with Paul. He describes his times and the imminent resurrection at Christ’s coming (which will include Paul and his followers), but the coming nor the resurrection ever happen.
As with the author of the Revelation. He describes his current view of the world and the Roman empire and the imminent destruction to precede the imminent coming of Christ (“Behold, I come quickly!“) which never happens.
Sorry, Don. You’re making the same mistake all those Christians have made before you. Taking Revelation as a prophecy of a distant (to the author) future time instead of the happening right then time the author was describing.
Perhaps the church should have listened to all those heretics rather than burning them. Perhaps they should have read those heretical texts rather than burning them. Perhaps then Christianity could have come to an accurate consensus on these things rather than the ridiculous one they came up with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, Kos. Would you mind if I put this comment up as a post in its own right?
LikeLike
Feel free, Neil.
LikeLike
Neil: I appreciate your insistence that the gospels are literature and nothing more, which is why you analyse them as such.
Here in the US the trend has been toward considering all writing as literature, even history – yes, even technical writing. If you are a reader of history, you know that there are pieces that are written elegantly as well as accurately. When history is biography, the people in focus may be quite “literary” in the way they speak. I particularly enjoy Winston Churchill’s language in “The Grand Alliance.”
RE: “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?””
I usually consider a simile as a comparison made with either “like” or “as.” No simile here. But metaphors also compare two things. ” A metaphor is a type of figurative language that compares two things by asserting that one thing is another.” (Study.com)
Neil: Does the context recommend something other than literal?
No. The context recommends literal.
If “resurrection” is metaphorical, what is it metaphorical of? Metaphors are comparisons. In this case – and in none of the others – Jesus went on to demonstrate that he was the source of resurrection by raising Lazarus. In the following, the phrase is clearly metaphorical: “I am the water of life.” I am the bread of life.” “I am the light of the world.” How do we know? Because of how Jesus develops the ideas in the pericopes. He does not demonstrate that he is literally bread by allowing people to eat him or the light of life by literally illuminating the scene.
So, I can confidently say based on the failure of your criteria that the “resurrection” in John 11 is not metaphorical.
LikeLike
For the sake of sanity, I’ve cut down Don’s latest long comment and reply here to his main points (my responses in italics)
Don says: ‘Here in the US the trend has been toward considering all writing as literature, even history – yes, even technical writing.’ Really? Where’s your evidence for this remarkable claim? There’s nothing online that supports it; just the opposite in fact.
Don then says he can’t see the use of simile in Jesus’ statement ‘I am the resurrection’, which is a non-sequitor as I didn’t claim there was one.
And then we get this:
Don quotes me as saying: Does the context recommend something other than literal?
And responds with: No. The context recommends literal. If “resurrection” is metaphorical, what is it metaphorical of? (see my next post; it is, as you like to say, ‘obvious’.) Metaphors are comparisons. In this case – and in none of the others (my emphasis) – Jesus went on to demonstrate that he was the source of resurrection by raising Lazarus (considered by scholars to be a complete fabrication). In the following, the phrase is clearly metaphorical: “I am the water of life.” I am the bread of life.” “I am the light of the world.” How do we know? Because of how Jesus develops the ideas in the pericopes. He does not demonstrate that he is literally bread by allowing people to eat him or the light of life by literally illuminating the scene.
So, I can confidently say based on the failure of your criteria (they were your criteria, Don, not mine. You changed your mind about them now?) that the “resurrection” in John 11 is not metaphorical.
Got it! All the other ‘I Am’ sayings are metaphorical, but this one isn’t.
Oh, come on Don. You’re fooling no-one here except yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person