The Temple Sanctuary

[JoshuaStone7]

What I said was the though the temple worship continued, the temple itself was outdated, and was soon to stop functioning altogether. Nothing about this separates sacrifices from the temple itself--it all was outdated, continued to be used, and was soon to be destroyed.

I quoted it for you. This verse suggests that despite the outdating of the temple worship, it had not yet "ceased."

Heb 8.13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

You haven't grasped what I have presented yet. What makes you think Hebrews 8:13 doesn't all apply to the moment Jeremiah knew a new covenant was coming? You apply your own interpretation by spreading out that scripture over 600 years. I'm telling you Hebrews 8:13 only spans less than 3 seconds of time. Only long enough to say, "A new covenant is coming." The rest of that scripture is just the results of that one comment.

Read the scripture again; it says the old covenant was obsolete the moment Jeremiah was told there was a new coming. Just telling Jeremiah the new was coming made the old obsolete. And from that moment it was obsolete, it was soon to disappear. The entire scripture is only talking about the moment Jeremiah was told the new covenant was coming.

The old covenant vanished the moment Jesus brought the new. The new covenant discussed in Heb 8:13 vanished the old when Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, the same moment the temple ceased.

Then the temple ceased functioning that same moment Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role.

You'll have to understand what I'm presenting brother, because this is what the text is saying, I promise...lol

And yet, you seem to be doing that by denying there were any physical Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD??

I'm saying Paul says there were no Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE. You keep giving me your understanding of a Jew as a physical one separate from a spiritual one, but that's not what scripture says. Paul says Christians are Jews, which means if you don't believe in Christ, you're not a Jew. By you saying I'm wrong, you're saying Paul is wrong. By you saying there were Jews in Jerusalem, you're contradicting Paul. According to Paul, any non-believer is not a Jew. Period...

The physical Jew was only a shadow. We are the real Jews; Christians by faith through the promise made to Abram.

That's what Paul says.

All love...

Joshua

[Athanasius]

We want the mind of scripture, right? We want the mind of Christ, the Word...

So if we have the mind of Christ, the mind of the Word, then would we not understand that as far as God's Word sees it...

Are you suggesting that other views stem from some other mind than the mind of scripture, Christ, or the Word?

Do you see what I mean? According to Hebrews, it was no longer the Holy Place, no longer the sacrifices. Christ did away with the first by establishing the second, the realities in Him. He fulfilled the Law; Christians were no longer under the Law.

I understand what you're saying but I don't find the reasoning compelling. For instance, you ask: " [How c]ould Jesus have been calling the physical temple in Jerusalem the Holy Place in 70 CE if it no longer held that title, no longer fulfilled that role, and no longer was functioning in any way in God's Word?"

In response, I have to consider that Jesus was speaking to people who did view the physical temple as holy. This causes me to wonder if the line of argument is anachronistic, taking what we read in Hebrews 8 and applying it to Jesus' earlier utterances in Matthew 24 -- with perhaps little consideration to the recipients of Jesus' message?

That is, the question of how God viewed the temple is distinct from the question of how religious Jews in the first century viewed the temple; and, it seems to me that Jesus would have accommodated the understanding of those religious Jews when speaking to them, otherwise, what will they do except become hung up on what they'd see as a lunatic's ranting about the inefficacy of the temple?

And, was it the case that the temple had been obsoleted for those faithful Jews who continued to attend, perhaps having not heard about Jesus? I'm not sure that we can cut clear lines through this stuff.

Okay, brother, let's look at this rationally for a moment.

Were we looking at it irrationally before?

Brother, is there anything more detrimental to uncovering truth than confirmation bias? This is our biggest hurdle. Over the years, I have constantly had to keep my confirmation bias in check every step of the way. I've come to leap for joy when I discover I was wrong about something and have learned to really relish in those moments. Why? Because it meant I was one step closer to the truth, and our Lord allowed me to understand and to be corrected. I don't mean this toward you or anyone else; I was just sharing how I approach scripture.

Always condemned to be the brother, sigh. Anyway. I am, by the way, just not pleased about it.

The thing about testimony struck from the record and a jury instructed to ignore it, is that the jury can't really ignore it. How does that old poem go -- the eye it cannot choose but see // the ear it cannot bid be still? The problem with a thought like the one above is its implication. You've had a problem with confirmation bias. It's been your biggest hurdle -- wait, our biggest hurdle? You've had to keep it in check.

I'll give you an 8 out of 10 cats... err effort, for trying though. The foundational issue is that I haven't provided hard opinion, especially after previously stating a disinterest in eschatology, followed by a clear hypothetical response to the idea of another poster regarding what they think the abomination of desolation might be.

So let's be careful with the patronising presumptions.

So at one time, I believed the Holy Place and the Sacrifices at the temple in 70 CE were ceased in fulfillment of prophecy until I realized that none of those things were in Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Again, I would ask for your assistance, and maybe you can change my mind. Is there any reason to believe that Jerusalem in 70 CE was anything other than an antichrist false religion where no Jews died?

All love...

Joshua

That's interesting because I replied to this:

"Should we not conclude that the only thing in Jerusalem in 70 CE was an antichrist false religion?"

But now you're asking me to provide a reply to this:

"Is there any reason to believe that Jerusalem in 70 CE was anything other than an antichrist false religion where no Jews died?"

The immediate answer is: given the large number of people who died in the siege of Jerusalem, I'd say it's irresponsible to make the claim that there were no faithful Jews left in the city (who weren't at that time Christian) and that all that was left as 'an antichrist false religion'. I'm not one to make soteriological claims about another person so I'd be very hesitant to agree with your position.

That's not confirmation bias, by the way. I speak out of an awareness that life isn't comprised of the neatly chunked decades the history books would have us believe. Religious belief is incredibly difficult, and to declare all Jews who weren't Christian as antiChrist seems to overstep considerably.

You predicate your view on the following:

"In the same way, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.” The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God." Gal 3:6,7

"For Abraham is the father of all who believe." Rem 4:16b

"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly." Rom 2:28,29

"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children." Rom 9:6,7

And that's cool and all, but do you know enough about the people in Jerusalem in 70 CE to state definitively that "The only thing that was there was an antichrist false religion and people of the world who followed the satan."?

That's what Jesus told them, there father was the satan. Should I contradict our Lord? Not me anyway...

You would be contradicting Jesus if you commented on John 8 and disagreed with Jesus' words in v44. You are not, however, contradicting Jesus in declaring Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE as actual followers of Satan instead. You're certainly extending His words, but that extension isn't infallible.

Prove it wrong dear friend...

That's not how this works. The claim is irresponsible given its breadth, so why should we consider it responsible given the realities of faith in the lives of every day people?

[JoshuaStone7]

Were we looking at it irrationally before?

If that's what I meant, I would have said that. "Let's think rationally for a moment" is a fill statement, a set-up proposition. Had I wished, I could have said, "You are not thinking rationally;" however, that had never crossed my mind until you suggested it.

Are you suggesting that other views stem from some other mind than the mind of scripture, Christ, or the Word?

Again, had I meant that that's what I would have said. I prefer to say what I mean and mean what I say.

A common communication error is to take what someone else says and interpret it however you wish. The only person that has the right to the meaning of what is said is the one who speaks. There is no such thing as personal truth. No one has the right to interpret what you say however they wish.

Case in point: If you were to say I was wrong about something, do I have the right to think you're calling me an idiot? That's not what you said, right? It would be unfair for me to twist your words.

My statements about having the mind of Christ and thinking rationally, I stand by as set up propositions, a way to open an idea. Had I wished to say you weren't rational, I wouldn't beat around the bush about it; I would have said that. There's no reason to look past my exact words.

With all due Christian respect...

Always condemned to be the brother, sigh.

If you are a sister, I apologize for assuming you were a brother. Please accept my apology in this matter.

So let's be careful with the patronising presumptions.

This is disconcerting... If you've read into any of my statements a "patronizing" or "presumptuous" attitude, I'm afraid you have misread me, in my humble opinion, of course.

In response, I would have to say that you have dully misrepresented me through your mischaracterization and twisting of words. Removing the originally intended context to create a new narrative is a character flaw, IMO. If one says, "let's think rationally here," that's what they mean; they don't mean you're not thinking rationally; otherwise, that's what they would have said.

With all due Christian love...

Joshua

[RabbiKnife]

As opposed to "with all undue Christian love"

 

Carry on!

 

[Athanasius]

If that's what I meant, I would have said that. "Let's think rationally for a moment" is a fill statement, a set-up proposition. Had I wished, I could have said, "You are not thinking rationally;" however, that had never crossed my mind until you suggested it.

Within the last six months or so I've become uniquely gifted at drawing out implications no speaker could ever possibly have meant. But also, you seem to have a style of conversational filler that makes it easy to be cheeky.

A common communication error is to take what someone else says and interpret it however you wish. The only person that has the right to the meaning of what is said is the one who speaks. There is no such thing as personal truth. No one has the right to interpret what you say however they wish.

Do people interpret arbitrarily, though? Communication is a dance: the speaker speaks, the listener receives, and then a dialogue follows in which both may discuss what was said and how it was understood. Certainly, it's true that it's not the listener's place to tell the speaker what they meant, but it's fairly difficult for a person to refrain from 'interpreting... however they wish' given the difficult task that communication is. The listener receives as he or she receives, and it's a mistake for any listener to think that their understanding is infallible.

Certainly, we should all guard against misinterpretation, misconstrual, and so on.

I do think there are personal truths, though. Or, maybe we could distinguish between objective truth as fact, and subjective truth as the inward working out of one's faith. Or I don't think there's any conflict between these two. Maybe I'll need to brush up on my Kierkegaard.

Anyway, a speaker can certainly make clear their intention in speaking, but that doesn't disqualify those who receive the message from interpreting it, analysing it, and so on. The speaker may intend to say one thing, but find that they've said far too much; or, they might find that what they've said applies in a way they didn't intend. Communication is interesting.

Case in point: If you were to say I was wrong about something, do I have the right to think you're calling me an idiot? That's not what you said, right? It would be unfair for me to twist your words.

My statements about having the mind of Christ and thinking rationally, I stand by as set up propositions, a way to open an idea. Had I wished to say you weren't rational, I wouldn't beat around the bush about it; I would have said that. There's no reason to look past my exact words.

With all due Christian respect...

I think what we've learned is that we should be mindful of the implications of the things we write. I would never call you an idiot, by the way. I might instead suggest that you had some issue with bias, or exhort you to have the mind of Christ, or of the Word, or of the Scriptures. To think rationally for a moment.

See how it comes across? These are the sorts of things that are said as filler, or they're the sorts of things that are said at someone because it's thought that they maybe aren't quite there. They're not the sorts of things said to a person who is thought to be thinking rationally, without bias, who has the mind of Christ, etc. Not in the conversations I've been exposed to, anyway. Maybe it's a unique geographic feature of where you're from. It's hard to say: given the nature of the internet, too many unstated cultural assumptions go into communication that is often assumed to share common foundations and understandings.

If you are a sister, I apologize for assuming you were a brother. Please accept my apology in this matter.

You could refer to me as 'sister' but then the entire Conservative element of the church would think you were pretty damned liberal. I'm a dude, reluctantly.

This is disconcerting... If you've read into any of my statements a "patronizing" or "presumptuous" attitude, I'm afraid you have misread me, in my humble opinion, of course.

Yes, this is the nature of communication. It's possible to convey something intended and to incorrectly interpret what wasn't meant.

In response, I would have to say that you have dully misrepresented me through your mischaracterization and twisting of words. Removing the originally intended context to create a new narrative is a character flaw, IMO. If one says, "let's think rationally here," that's what they mean; they don't mean you're not thinking rationally; otherwise, that's what they would have said.

With all due Christian love...

Joshua

Oh no, my character is flawed. Well, I knew that, but it's not flawed in the way that you suggest. I'll need to keep tin mind that you're a bit touchy.

By the way, if one says "let's think rationally here" in the middle of a conversation, the implication is that the conversation has taken an irrational or non-rational trajectory. It's an exhortation to get back to thinking rationally. If it's said at the beginning of a conversation, then the implication is that one's interlocutor has a habit of thinking irrationally or non-rationally. It's probably best to just refrain from saying such things.

It's the same with your other statements, like "We want the mind of scripture, right? We want the mind of Christ, the Word..." Well, yes, but now you're risking the suggestion that any view that disagrees with the one presented isn't of the mind of Scripture, of Christ, of the Word, etc.

This isn't a mischaracterisation, either. This is a question about the meaning of the things said. Forums as cross-cultural communication. Wunderbar.

[JoshuaStone7]

but it's fairly difficult for a person to refrain from 'interpreting... however they wish' given the difficult task that communication is. The listener receives as he or she receives, and it's a mistake for any listener to think that their understanding is infallible.

Why not think positively? If you think there may be some ill intent from the speaker, why not ask and allow them to define what they mean? You may be implying an ill will to someone else's statements when there was never that intent.

I might instead suggest that you had some issue with bias, or exhort you to have the mind of Christ, or of the Word, or of the Scriptures. To think rationally for a moment. See how it comes across?

No... If someone says, "Let's think rationally for a moment," I think, "Okay, let me think rationally about this." I don't think the other person is telling me I'm not being rational, they didn't say that. Only someone thinking negatively would take offense. In the new kingdom, that type of thinking will be gone. It's human imperfection.

That's exactly what the satan did in the Garden. He changed YHWH's words around to mean something other than what God meant. Are you saying it was okay for the satan and Eve to interpret YHWH's words however they wished because it was their truth? (And I guess I have to say: "I'm not saying you are, I'm asking if you would say that based on your current understanding.)

Again, only the one who says something has the right to interpretation. I believe this is 100% of the time, with one exception, unless the speaker intended their words to be ambiguous through such things as art.

But hey, this is my opinion, as I've said... I don't tell anybody what to think; you have to make up your own mind.

These are the sorts of things that are said as filler, or they're the sorts of things that are said at someone because it's thought that they maybe aren't quite there. They're not the sorts of things said to a person who is thought to be thinking rationally, without bias, who has the mind of Christ, etc.

You say that as though it's a fact...lol I believe you are voicing an opinion. Again, IMO....

Because I don't take offense, I prefer to think positively. Perhaps you are the one that is sensitive...

You could refer to me as 'sister' but then the entire Conservative element of the church would think you were pretty damned liberal. I'm a dude, reluctantly.

So that I understand and don't mischaracterize what you're saying: Are you saying you identify as female? Do you identify as gay? Do you support same-sex marriage?

I'm forward yes; however, I don't intend any presumptuous or "cheeky" play of words. As I said, I say what I mean and exactly what I think. I don't need to be cheeky or beat around the bush.

With that said, I'm asking about your sexuality because of your response. My questions aren't hiding any preconceived ideas about you. If I have further comments on this matter, I'll reserve those till I allow your response. That's how I prefer communication...

Oh no, my character is flawed. Well, I knew that, but it's not flawed in the way that you suggest. I'll need to keep tin mind that you're a bit touchy.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. It appears to me you were the first to take offense/a bit touchy.

By the way, if one says "let's think rationally here" in the middle of a conversation, the implication is that the conversation has taken an irrational or non-rational trajectory. It's an exhortation to get back to thinking rationally. If it's said at the beginning of a conversation, then the implication is that one's interlocutor has a habit of thinking irrationally or non-rationally. It's probably best to just refrain from saying such things.

It's the same with your other statements, like "We want the mind of scripture, right? We want the mind of Christ, the Word..." Well, yes, but now you're risking the suggestion that any view that disagrees with the one presented isn't of the mind of Scripture, of Christ, of the Word, etc.

This isn't a mischaracterisation, either. This is a question about the meaning of the things said. Forums as cross-cultural communication. Wunderbar.

Again, I completely disagree. Just because you wouldn't say those things because you feel they would be inflammatory doesn't make that a fact.

So, If I disagree with you and believe those statements can be used positively (as I used them), what gives someone else the right to tell me what I can and can't say? Again, only the intent of the speaker is important, not what you would say or how you would say it.

Did the satan and Eve have the right to interpret God's words?

Anyway, I can't change my positivity because others infer negativity.

Joshua

[RabbiKnife]

Isn't "thinking" by definition supposed to be rational?

Isn't the phrase "thinking rationally" sort of like saying "corrupt Congressman"?

[RabbiKnife]

We always have the right to interpret others actions/words/communication.  After all, communication is a two way street, and until A communicates to B and B returns a communication that demonstrates agreement/understanding, no actual communication has occurred.  There has perhaps been an exchange of information, but not necessarily communication.

So yes, we all (like Adam and Eve) have the right to interpret, but the communication loop is not closed until our interpretation is re-transmitted to the original speaker/writer in such a way as to confirm understanding, even if not agreement.

[JoshuaStone7]

So yes, we all (like Adam and Eve) have the right to interpret.

Let me get this straight: You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret YHWH's words?

[RabbiKnife]

So yes, we all (like Adam and Eve) have the right to interpret.

Let me get this straight: You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret YHWH's words?

Absolutely.  Doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct (it clearly was not), or that they won't suffer the consequences for interpreting incorrectly or from acting on an incorrect interpretation, but certainly, yes, everyone interprets everything.  That's how communication works.

[Athanasius]

Let me get this straight: You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret YHWH's words?

In your example, it's not that Satan and Eve (?) had the 'right' (I wouldn't use this word, personally) to interpret God's words, but that interpretation is a necessary component of communication and is inevitable. Interpretation involves the listener receiving what they've been told and determining a meaning based on what they've understood. This doesn't guarantee that their understanding is correct, which only the speaker can confirm. All it guarantees is that information has been passed from person A to person B. You're interpreting this as you read it.

I think what you're talking about would be better classified as reinterpretation. But even in this case, I'm not sure that it's the right word to use when talking about Satan or Eve.

[JoshuaStone7]

So yes, we all (like Adam and Eve) have the right to interpret.

Let me get this straight: You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret YHWH's words?

Absolutely.  Doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct (it clearly was not), or that they won't suffer the consequences for interpreting incorrectly or from acting on an incorrect interpretation, but certainly, yes, everyone interprets everything.  That's how communication works.

Aren't you talking about free will? You're saying the satan and Eve had the right to interpret God was lying, and that they wouldn't die as God said. If they had that right, then they would not have died. According to God they did not have that right, hence the warning they would die.

They certainly had the right to not believe God and die, but the right to twist His words? Seriously?

God's words will remain, and all those who twist them will be done away with. God will have no mercy on those who interpret His words any other way than how He means.

You realize we are talking about interpretation of the Bible, right? There is only one meaning to every single sentence in there, there is no personal interpretation.

That is reality, in my humble opinion...

Joshua

[JoshuaStone7]

Interpretation involves the listener receiving what they've been told and determining a meaning based on what they've understood. This doesn't guarantee that their understanding is correct, which only the speaker can confirm.

I disagree (partially)... I believe it's the responsibility of the listener to understand exactly what the speaker means without allowing their own interpretive confirmation bias to stand in the way. It's the job of the listener to work out exactly what the speaker means, not what the speakers words mean to them.

The Bible is a book of communication. Each and every sentence in it has only one meaning. Sure, people can believe that they can read it and have their own personal interpretation based on their own beliefs and cognitive biases; however, that does not make their understanding correct, that does not lend oneself to allowing scripture to speak for iteself.

Again, it is my humble opinion that only the speaker has the right to define what is being said, and it is the job of the listener to understand what the speaker means. Interpretation was brought into the world by the satan and is called the lie. Interpretation is sin...

Sure, the satan and Eve had free will to choose to interpret God's words other than what He meant and look what it caused. Only God had the right to the definition of His words, just like each and every one of you. Interpretation is the reason for every death and war throughout mankind's history.

Again, in my humble opinion...

Joshua

[Athanasius]

Why not think positively? If you think there may be some ill intent from the speaker, why not ask and allow them to define what they mean? You may be implying an ill will to someone else's statements when there was never that intent.

See, communication is difficult. I haven't assumed any intent. But yes, I did ask for clarification:

- "Are you suggesting that other views stem from some other mind than the mind of scripture, Christ, or the Word?"
- "Were we looking at it irrationally before?"

These are questions, not statements. They aren't rhetorical, either. While both assume a 'no', it's that view towards a 'no' that raises the further question, 'then why write these things?'

You immediately went on the defensive, which doesn't seem like assuming positive intent. Also, as I noted, the comments were a cheeky way of pointing out that maybe these things weren't the best things to say in an already progressing conversation.

No... If someone says, "Let's think rationally for a moment," I think, "Okay, let me think rationally about this." I don't think the other person is telling me I'm not being rational, they didn't say that. Only someone thinking negatively would take offense. In the new kingdom, that type of thinking will be gone. It's human imperfection.

You might think that, but not everyone will. If you say 'let's think rationally for a moment' to someone who already thinks they've been thinking rationally, they'll react by wondering what it is they said that the other person thinks wasn't rational. It elicits a, 'wait, how do you think I've been thinking about this?' response. They're not going to double down -- 'okay, I've been thinking rationally but I'll think doubly rationally for this one.'

This has nothing to do with thinking negatively, but I agree that we'll be much better communicators in the new creation. You'll hopefully understand that I'm highlighting the difficulty with communication from both ends: your delivery, my understanding. In fact, that you seem confident that my understanding results from a negative outlook is interesting, and betrays something of the shortcomings in your own perspective.

That's exactly what the satan did in the Garden. He changed YHWH's words around to mean something other than what God meant. Are you saying it was okay for the satan and Eve to interpret YHWH's words however they wished because it was their truth? (And I guess I have to say: "I'm not saying you are, I'm asking if you would say that based on your current understanding.)

You didn't have to say that in this case, no. It's appreciated though. Despite the leading question.

I'm not sure I follow the phrasing of your question -- what do you mean by 'okay'? If you mean, was it permissible? Then no, it was not permissible for Satan or Eve to reinterpret God's instruction. It was, however, impossible for Eve to have understood God's instruction without interpreting it (towards an understanding). An interpretation was inevitable because that forms the basis of understanding, but reinterpretation is another question entirely.

As for the 'their truth' bit, I think you have a different idea of 'personal truth' in mind than I have. Personal truths don't violate or contravene objective truth, or God's truth, etc.

Again, only the one who says something has the right to interpretation. I believe this is 100% of the time, with one exception, unless the speaker intended their words to be ambiguous through such things as art.

I would say that they have the right to determine the meaning of what they said.

But hey, this is my opinion, as I've said... I don't tell anybody what to think; you have to make up your own mind.

You say that as though it's a fact...lol I believe you are voicing an opinion. Again, IMO....

I'm saying them as if I have a position in mind. You're free to disagree and provide a counter perspective, although given what you mentioned above regarding the 'think rationally' comment, I'm not sure that you're considering the viewpoint of others as empathetically as you might ideally be.

Because I don't take offense, I prefer to think positively. Perhaps you are the one that is sensitive...

I'm not sure of that at all:

"Case in point: If you were to say I was wrong about something, do I have the right to think you're calling me an idiot? That's not what you said, right? It would be unfair for me to twist your words."

That's pretty on point for someone who wasn't offended, or at least, taken aback. Neither is the comment above, which attempts to turn around what I said. I mean, there's also the fact that we're still going on about this when you could have replied back with cheek and we would have probably left it at that.

Me being sensitive, though. That's a good one. Got a laugh.

So that I understand and don't mischaracterize what you're saying: Are you saying you identify as female? Do you identify as gay? Do you support same-sex marriage?

Curious. No, no, and no but I'm not against it either insofar as the state marrying people is concerned. How do you see these questions connecting?

I am dysphoric, but let's give my metaphysic some credit.

Again, I completely disagree. Just because you wouldn't say those things because you feel they would be inflammatory doesn't make that a fact.

The same is true in reverse, but isn't that the broader point I'm making regarding the difficulties and challenges of communication?

So, If I disagree with you and believe those statements can be used positively (as I used them), what gives someone else the right to tell me what I can and can't say? Again, only the intent of the speaker is important, not what you would say or how you would say it.

The speaker's intent contends with the listener's understanding. If you believe you've spoken one way, but others have understood you a different way, then it's worth thinking about why that's happened. It's not always the result of a character flaw, and just as the listener isn't infallible, neither is the speaker about how they say what they say.

[Athanasius]

Interpretation is sin... Interpretation is the reason for every death and war throughout mankind's history.

Is that your interpretation, is it?