Why were ''Gospels'' omitted from the Bible?

[sojourner]

Interpretation has to match the intended meaning. The intended meaning is sometimes understood, or figured out, through tradition. One of the problems with religious text interpretation is that one 'incorrect' idea, can completely alter the meaning of the entire interpreted narrative. This is why, there can be two or more 'interpretations' of religious text that can simultaneously ''make sense''. When that happens, you have to start 'simplifying' the word meaning analysis, and that is where, imo, some exegesis starts to get goofy. When word meaning becomes increasingly subjective to previous assumptions or false conclusions, the narrative becomes more and more subjective, ie, a mess. (In the context of the ''words'' meaning what they would mean from reading it straight, with no theological presuppositions.)

Interpretation is different than determining the "intended meaning." The "intended meaning" can have any number of applications to any number of different circumstances. The post-modern reader's circumstances are largely different from that of the intended audience.

 

[sojourner]

Can 'truths', in the NT, (the compiled Religious works), contradict one another?
They can seem to. Declaring one 'truth' to be less subjective than another is not easy. With a basis of interpretation, (pre-figured out), one can somewhat easily decide which 'truth' is true, and which is ....metaphor, etc.,.. what have you. The difficulty of convincing someone else that your basis of interpretation is ''correct'', is extremely difficult; and problematic. This is a fact, for various reasons. The reasons why this is problematic is because we have the text, the narrative, outside of a interpretational guideline. //We have interpretational guidelines, plural, not one interpretation./
The ''default'' in interpretation, to put it bluntly, is that the most simple 'meaning' is inferred from the words, unless demonstrated by a preponderance of logistical reasoning. And this means preponderance, not somewhat, or an appeal to scholastic authority, etc.
Conclusion. There is not an interpretational guideline that is the clear ''authority'' on the NT.
Basically, we are at the 'default' position of a literal reading. //Word meaning in priority//.

I think you're confusing interpretation with exegesis.

 

[sincerly]

disciple said: ↑
Interpretation has to match the intended meaning. The intended meaning is sometimes understood, or figured out, through tradition. One of the problems with religious text interpretation is that one 'incorrect' idea, can completely alter the meaning of the entire interpreted narrative. This is why, there can be two or more 'interpretations' of religious text that can simultaneously ''make sense''. When that happens, you have to start 'simplifying' the word meaning analysis, and that is where, imo, some exegesis starts to get goofy. When word meaning becomes increasingly subjective to previous assumptions or false conclusions, the narrative becomes more and more subjective, ie, a mess. (In the context of the ''words'' meaning what they would mean from reading it straight, with no theological presuppositions.)
Click to expand...

Interpretation is different than determining the "intended meaning." The "intended meaning" can have any number of applications to any number of different circumstances. The post-modern reader's circumstances are largely different from that of the intended audience.

Sojourner, the "Intended meaning" of what is conveyed has only one meaning---that which the content has conveyed. The Principle expressed.
At Sinai, one was to carry a tool to cover one's excreta. The principle was one of sanitation. I do not carry such a tool to the "rest room" because "flushing" does the same purpose.
All GOD'S laws are not salvational, but those which are have that intent---not to be diminished/minimized.

One does express the same meaning to an "interpreted word or sentence" or the "interpretation" is erroneous.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, the "Intended meaning" of what is conveyed has only one meaning---that which the content has conveyed. The Principle expressed.

And that principle can have any nu her of different applications.

 

[outhouse]

there must have been a community that emigrated from Palestine and settled in Syria, bringing the quotations with them

I don't know about that

Its my opinion here, that when these communities went to Passover early on they shared information with others with similar views before the temple fell.

Then groups like yours went back home with new traditions and information. How much if any made it into Thomas, I wont guess.

 

[e.r.m.]

Interpretation is different than determining the "intended meaning." The "intended meaning" can have any number of applications to any number of different circumstances. The post-modern reader's circumstances are largely different from that of the intended audience.

Agreed, the root intended meaning is one, and after that it can be applied to many situations.