Paul

To try and answer your question mark, I don't think most people interpret the bible at all. They buy a bible and then with it all too often comes the interpretation. It's arrangement is designed to aid it's desired interpretation. Like the moving of Daniel for example within the jewish "old testement", which was invented by the christians, to aid in the prophetic coming of the messiah. Daniel was not even considered a minor prophet for the jews. Daniel was less important than Nahum but by moving to just after the Prophets, like Ezekial, the actual structure of the christian bible seems to give him authority, importance.
It's like a scientist, if you go looking for supporting evidence you can probably find something out there to help. Daniel was a Korea cloning guy.

So how do people manage the interpretation? They don't they outsource it to specialists. They accept the argument from authority and rest happy that their soul is safe because they have faith. Most "believers" can give you a very good explaination of what they believe because they haven't put much thought into it really. They haven't interpreted, they have consumed. I think you get the point. I personally am Anti-Trinitarian. Mostly because I think it's an invention. I base on my interpretation of the texts which I can find. When I interpret what I read I try to take the author as an honest source of their point of view. I try to compare their beliefs with others that have been voiced, generally allowing some primaty to older sources rather than latter sources. If I find something in a source that runs counter to what most other people are saying I try to find out why and if what they are saying is supported by anything in the collection of texts that perhaps others had missed. Sometimes I find they have simply made something up. Not mentioned elsewhere in the older texts, but then cited again and again to give it the sense of revelation and authority. I'll give you an example. The holy ghost, it's invented. I believe that it was a Greek holdover from Neo-platonic beliefs. It was the sort of god that many greek wannabe christians could believe in, they didn't really buy into the old jewish god, or the new euhemerist Jesus. So the holy ghost was thrown in to the mix to give a little nod to the neo-platonists and the other people who felt like they did so they would go along with the catholic church. I think that studying the religious beliefs of the period shows it was a creation, not out of nothing of course. It was created for Christianity because it already existed in the target audience. Maybe it didn't go down exactly as I have described, but that's what I think is very close to what happened. Just think of the role of Mary....I don't think she is a goddess or divine in a special sense, some do. I interpret the texts and don't see much of an assertion in them that she is. Sure there are some old documents that make arguements on her behalf, but most are minor and unsupported by any authoritative texts. It still hasn't stopped people from trying to make her a peer of Jesus, hell Judas had a stint as the real messiah for some. I think the reason to have appeal is easy to understand. Mary was a woman and a lot of people share her sex, she looks so good there holding the baby. It sells. Judas is a romantic figure that is almost impossible to understand. He has a secret and many people would like to understand it. Why did he do it? Most of the texts about Jeshua don't explain the mystery, or even address that it exists. There is a Gospel of Judas, and others written, around the 2nd century, but they seem suspect as to their honest relation to the Jeshua figure. It also is interesting that the gospels disagree as to what happened between Judas, the temple, rome and jesus. As for interpreting what did happen I think we are unable to come to an authoritative answer.

The sad thing is I think the types of things I have talked about above is how most people go about trying to investigate the religion of jesus. I think it's a silly albeit enjoyable hobby, like painting, but taken too seriously, to the point of pretentious assumptions of knowledge of the truth of revelation is where it all goes bad. Sure you can finish a painting, but with Christianity you can't finish. You either paint enough to be satisfied with the picture(faith), or you realize the painting is lame(disbelief), or you pretend you are done(ignorant allegiance). There are other options but I think you get my drift. I think asking how does one validly interpret art is simlilar to how does one validly interpret religion. It's aesthetic, like almost all things.

I think I tried to cover what I could. So uh how's uh the weather Big Deeb? Li'l deeb? Rob are you getting married? Dave uh could you get your hand off my ass? Mark so uh yer dad eh, reading bibles, doh hope yer ok. I like reading taoist and buddhist shit when things like that happen. Moth so you uh have a girlfriend eh? Does she game? Chris are you gonna come over thursday, I have to work friday? Paul quite typing and go clean the cafe.......ok