Very interesting, Vynette and Brian (and Kazantzakis) ... (Sunday Forum)

by Oh Yet We Trust, Brisbane, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 17:44 (1159 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
edited by Oh Yet We Trust, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 18:04

Vynette and Brian, I love reading these 'both sides of the story' comments. Personally, I still go with the theological (traditional) interpretation of the Jesus event - I somehow feel that this is what Jesus meant when he asked of Peter (and of all ever after); "who do you say I am": It was a call to respond personally to who he was. It has to be personal or it is nothing, it is phoney and never integrated into one's spirituality - it begs relationship.

However, I am just about to contradict myself: I originally came on to say that your discussion reminds me of the Last Temptation scene where Paul meets Jesus (as a man - during his last temptation scene where we see Jesus living out his life as a man). Jesus contradicts Paul's theological interpretation of who he is but Paul more or less says, "I don't care what you say Jesus - my Jesus is the risen Christ and I have the numbers now who have chosen to follow that Jesus which made Jesus very angry and not a little confused.

It was one of those mind contorting scenes but ever so interesting.

I suppose what I am asking, particularly of Vynette is the question; "did Jesus want us who came after him to 'interpret' him/his words and deeds, or should we be doing everything we can to work out what he really actually meant as a man and not ever embellish it, interpret it, theologise it as the Bishops here have done and as has been done for 2000 years?" Would Jesus be annoyed with us with our theologising/interpreting of his words and life especially when it does, as you point out seem to stray from the 'original' meaning?

I suppose I also have in the back of my mind those words of Judith Wright when asked what a particular poem of hers meant - her response: "It means whatever you want it to mean". - in other words whatever you get out of it, if it helps you in some way, if it changes your perspective on life to a better one, is OK with me. It's sort of another way of saying, "who do you say I am?" Such is the nature of the words of the poet, the prophet.

Too loose a way to think about scripture? Perhaps. Hence the need to do both: the historical analysis and the poetic, theological interpretation - together, we get a fuller picture and one which protects us from flying off into La La Land as so many have with scripture, and still do.

Just a thought.

Stephen (the eternal synthesist)

Oh yet we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill