I could give you some jive about how the eastern mind is so different from the western mind in that it relies heavily on pictorial representation and how the western mind is very literal but, truthfully, I really don't know.
If it was O.K. for Jesus to read symbolism into the scriptures (ie: the parables), why is it wrong for us to do the same? (ie; privately interpret)
You mean it was ok for Jesus to "think" and not just parrot out the latest Pharisee babblings? Maybe it was cause he was "Jesus" and we're supposed to be lowly head table waiters/waitresses!
I'm betting the Pharisees at least were sharing something interesting rather than reading from notecards for an hour..
My Corps Coord definitely taught us to "think in pictures" - as aids to remembering things. No doubt some of you will remember 1-hen 2-shoe 3-tree with "the object you want to remember" on the hen, shoe, tree or whatever.
The Bible is full of imagery. Symbolism.
Everything in the Tabernacle was symbolic of something to come. Jesus was following a long-established method of teaching. It still works as a method of teaching today - relate something to the person you're trying to teach.
Use of symbols, parables, etc is not "private interpretation."
What is private interpretation is pseudo interpretations of Greek and Hebrew words, and then hanging a whole theology on them.
It's really not just about memory aids or pictorial thinking, in general. It's about being able to say,"To me, the story of Adam and Eve symbolizes-----"
Should the Bible, or any book for that matter, be understood through a grid of our own understanding? Is not the very purpose of reading to expand our thinking and reasoning beyond our own experiences, opinions, etc. To put it more simply, reading helps us to observe and interpret things from another's point of view.
While it's okay to read and ask oneself questions, I don't think one is being true to the text if they only interpret a text in light of their own understanding, culture, experiences, etc. So what is one to do? I would say we all need to think as well as garner others' points of view.
I'm sort of in a hurry right now so I apologize if my reasoning is circular.
waysider, as to the use of symbolism is required, etc. ..........i don't ever recall there being a big or small stink over "using it or employing it as a means to comminicate, so i'm not sure what you're referring to.
as a matter of fact the endless use of metaphor, simile and analogy was pretty popular in the Way throught the 70's and 80's, that i recall.
as far as symbolism in relation to interpretation, i'd suggest that a "symbol" is the representation of something, not the thing itself.. it wouldn't be the symbolism being the problem if there was one, it would be what produces it.
i don't think anything can mean everything to anyone about anything when it comes to the bible, nor that there's no clear way to understand any of it. so all symbols aren't going to be correct. Understandable to the individual perhaps and that's where it gets ambiguous i think - what makes clear to one person can be muddy to another.
If it was O.K. for Jesus to read symbolism into the scriptures (ie: the parables), why is it wrong for us to do the same? (ie; privately interpret)
So we can actually THINK?
I think that's a good point though..
it's like the axioms of geometry, or various geometries. They leave a a number of very key "things" undefined, vague. On purpose. You can think whatever you want about them.. like what is a line, a point..
If you have every concept set in stone, there is no room for improvement, or forming a better understanding.
Sure, there were plenty of metaphors, analogies and the like in The Way. But, we were encouraged to be likeminded, in-unison regarding their meanings. I'm thinking more along the lines of how interpretation unfolds and varies on an individual basis.
We're all familiar with II Peter 1:20. Are there other sections of scripture that stress the importance of this approach? Do we even know if that particular passage has been translated in a manner that conveys the original intent?
We're all familiar with II Peter 1:20. Are there other sections of scripture that stress the importance of this approach? Do we even know if that particular passage has been translated in a manner that conveys the original intent?
Authorship of l and ll Peter is debated. The content of that verse is made clear by the context though - the prophecy of the scripture refers to the O.T. prophecies of a coming Messiah. The writer sets forth that the aposltes, the "we" which apparently include Peter and we could easily assume the other apostles and close followers of Jesus, were eyewitnesses and had personal experience that they spoke from to declare Jesus that messiah, Lord, son of God and that the prophecies could be interpreted that way. It refers to the prophecies as having been from God, not men and that those who (apparently from the reference) offer other versions and explanations of both the prophecies and who Jesus was, were wrong.
There is a strong assertion there that the prophecies might have many interpreters but have only one correct one, which the writer is speaking to.
Take it or leave it, believe it or not but it's fairly clear from the context, at least to me.
In the New Testament epistles (and others not included) there's the same assertions made as to the historical prophecies being fulfilled in Jesus.
If the New Testament is viewed as a collection of writings representing those who had first hand knowledge of and with Jesus Christ, and who through that first generation had opportunity to have revealed to them through study, thought and revelation information about that, it makes sense to understand it as best we can to know what was said or not said written and not written.
It can be said that the condition of the surviving documents prevents that and that those that do exits are unreliable. That's debatable - but if a person wanted to get as much as they can from it and about it, the effort to determine a baseline of "accurate" understanding of what does exist only makes sense. To me.
I agree that "likemindedness" is over emphasized in the Way but that's partially because the early understanding that the true equal mind is in "the mind of Christ" and represents a spiritual reality has eroded over time and been replaced with an expectation that knowing what a verse says collectively is the same as being "likeminded". It's not.
Agreement is one thing - equally "soul"ed is another. In the New Testament we can see a very simple clarity around their "likemindedness" - that they were all witnesses and particpants in the life of Jesus and spoke directly to what they believed from first hand experience was true. This was clearly stamped on their collective consciousness through the fact that they all knew that the Jesus they followed died, was killed and buried. None of them waited with expectation for Him to be alive again, they mourned His death. It's understandable that the impact was life changing for them at that point if - if - the dead man they once knew was alive again. So much of the N.T. revolves around that simplest essential reality that formed the basis for their own "likemindedness".
Another thought along these lines is what can be read of the life of Jesus and His handling of the scripture. A primary aspect of His life was in fact correct interpretation of scripture, both in understanding and in practice. He held forth from scripture at times and responded to questions and situations with what would be an "accurate" understanding. He challenged others like the Pharisees on their interpretation and corrected them.
Stepping back it seems to be fairly clear that the main impact of His message was to declare "truth" and present "this is what it looks and acts like" through His own life, both in word and deed.
Today I see much of the struggle in the arena of "deed". Those who don't do what they teach or who don't consistently meet the standards of what they present as "truth".
Whether the intent is honest or deceptive, achievement can be expected to be inconsistent. A person won't always perform perfectly.
The life and teaching of Jesus Christ appears to be clear - know the truth and practice the truth, understanding that God looks upon the heart and will honor the faithful prayer of the individual to come to Him.
The entire idea of accepting that premise for us assumes some clear understanding of what we're doing - understanding Jesus Christ, His mission and what God's intents are, through him. Doing that we have the information passed down to us from those who knew Him, lived the mission first, and those who within a few generation captured their thoughts and message.
It stands to reason that we would have a similar approach as Jesus Christ did, to expect that a correct understanding of scripture, and now including those early writings, as having a correct interpretation would be necessary. To act accordingly we need the according-to first, what the ideas, concepts, principles are that we're trying to apply. Primary to that understanding is the Message Himself, Jesus Christ. As Jesus and those in earlier times urged others, so are we urged to the same ends.
For those interested in interpretations of scripture and how they affected the creation of the USA, check out the PBS series on God in America. It just ran on public television earlier this week. It's a good overview of the various sorts of Christianity we've inherited.
the big "problem" is I'm looking at what to choose for Stats. If anyone has a particular number.. zero through nine..
please give it to me.
what will it be..
I hope your intuition is on the money here.. I think I know what it is..
a little confirmation would make it good..
Stats for what? Why zero through nine? How will you know if my intuition is "on the money"? If you know what it is, why are you asking for an answer? Confirm what? Most importantly..WHAT DO I WIN IF I'M CORRECT??? :)
For those interested in interpretations of scripture and how they affected the creation of the USA, check out the PBS series on God in America. It just ran on public television earlier this week. It's a good overview of the various sorts of Christianity we've inherited.
last evening i found myself inside getting so upset because my kid (junior in HS) had to compare the Iroquois Creation Myth with the Hebrew/Christian Myth
there were so many similarities, but i was so upset that the Garden of Eden was presented as a complete myth just like the Sky World thingie
Recommended Posts
OldSkool
I could give you some jive about how the eastern mind is so different from the western mind in that it relies heavily on pictorial representation and how the western mind is very literal but, truthfully, I really don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In reality, the human mind, regardless of culture, relies heavily on pictorial representation.
Interesting stats.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Way is not a friendly place for people with autism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No, they used to teach you can "discipline" it out of a child with the rod. (wooden spoon)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams.
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams.
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
When silence drowns the screams.
Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.
Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.
Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
You mean it was ok for Jesus to "think" and not just parrot out the latest Pharisee babblings? Maybe it was cause he was "Jesus" and we're supposed to be lowly head table waiters/waitresses!
I'm betting the Pharisees at least were sharing something interesting rather than reading from notecards for an hour..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
My Corps Coord definitely taught us to "think in pictures" - as aids to remembering things. No doubt some of you will remember 1-hen 2-shoe 3-tree with "the object you want to remember" on the hen, shoe, tree or whatever.
The Bible is full of imagery. Symbolism.
Everything in the Tabernacle was symbolic of something to come. Jesus was following a long-established method of teaching. It still works as a method of teaching today - relate something to the person you're trying to teach.
Use of symbols, parables, etc is not "private interpretation."
What is private interpretation is pseudo interpretations of Greek and Hebrew words, and then hanging a whole theology on them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I started a topic in Doctrinal about a specific aspect of symbolism.
Crossing the Jordan
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's really not just about memory aids or pictorial thinking, in general. It's about being able to say,"To me, the story of Adam and Eve symbolizes-----"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Should the Bible, or any book for that matter, be understood through a grid of our own understanding? Is not the very purpose of reading to expand our thinking and reasoning beyond our own experiences, opinions, etc. To put it more simply, reading helps us to observe and interpret things from another's point of view.
While it's okay to read and ask oneself questions, I don't think one is being true to the text if they only interpret a text in light of their own understanding, culture, experiences, etc. So what is one to do? I would say we all need to think as well as garner others' points of view.
I'm sort of in a hurry right now so I apologize if my reasoning is circular.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
that's where my mind's going mr. arrow.
waysider, as to the use of symbolism is required, etc. ..........i don't ever recall there being a big or small stink over "using it or employing it as a means to comminicate, so i'm not sure what you're referring to.
as a matter of fact the endless use of metaphor, simile and analogy was pretty popular in the Way throught the 70's and 80's, that i recall.
as far as symbolism in relation to interpretation, i'd suggest that a "symbol" is the representation of something, not the thing itself.. it wouldn't be the symbolism being the problem if there was one, it would be what produces it.
i don't think anything can mean everything to anyone about anything when it comes to the bible, nor that there's no clear way to understand any of it. so all symbols aren't going to be correct. Understandable to the individual perhaps and that's where it gets ambiguous i think - what makes clear to one person can be muddy to another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
So we can actually THINK?
I think that's a good point though..
it's like the axioms of geometry, or various geometries. They leave a a number of very key "things" undefined, vague. On purpose. You can think whatever you want about them.. like what is a line, a point..
If you have every concept set in stone, there is no room for improvement, or forming a better understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sure, there were plenty of metaphors, analogies and the like in The Way. But, we were encouraged to be likeminded, in-unison regarding their meanings. I'm thinking more along the lines of how interpretation unfolds and varies on an individual basis.
We're all familiar with II Peter 1:20. Are there other sections of scripture that stress the importance of this approach? Do we even know if that particular passage has been translated in a manner that conveys the original intent?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno.. as far a scripture is concerned..
maybe it's more "Bullingerish".. i.e. not what it means, but where it came from..
Ha! I've seen "the light".. but I dare not define it..
to see it is to love it..
yeah.. symbolism is powerful.. who holds the keys..
the mogster tried to tear down the meaning of the symbols.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
the big "problem" is I'm looking at what to choose for Stats. If anyone has a particular number.. zero through nine..
please give it to me.
what will it be..
I hope your intuition is on the money here.. I think I know what it is..
a little confirmation would make it good..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
We're all familiar with II Peter 1:20. Are there other sections of scripture that stress the importance of this approach? Do we even know if that particular passage has been translated in a manner that conveys the original intent?
Authorship of l and ll Peter is debated. The content of that verse is made clear by the context though - the prophecy of the scripture refers to the O.T. prophecies of a coming Messiah. The writer sets forth that the aposltes, the "we" which apparently include Peter and we could easily assume the other apostles and close followers of Jesus, were eyewitnesses and had personal experience that they spoke from to declare Jesus that messiah, Lord, son of God and that the prophecies could be interpreted that way. It refers to the prophecies as having been from God, not men and that those who (apparently from the reference) offer other versions and explanations of both the prophecies and who Jesus was, were wrong.
There is a strong assertion there that the prophecies might have many interpreters but have only one correct one, which the writer is speaking to.
Take it or leave it, believe it or not but it's fairly clear from the context, at least to me.
In the New Testament epistles (and others not included) there's the same assertions made as to the historical prophecies being fulfilled in Jesus.
If the New Testament is viewed as a collection of writings representing those who had first hand knowledge of and with Jesus Christ, and who through that first generation had opportunity to have revealed to them through study, thought and revelation information about that, it makes sense to understand it as best we can to know what was said or not said written and not written.
It can be said that the condition of the surviving documents prevents that and that those that do exits are unreliable. That's debatable - but if a person wanted to get as much as they can from it and about it, the effort to determine a baseline of "accurate" understanding of what does exist only makes sense. To me.
I agree that "likemindedness" is over emphasized in the Way but that's partially because the early understanding that the true equal mind is in "the mind of Christ" and represents a spiritual reality has eroded over time and been replaced with an expectation that knowing what a verse says collectively is the same as being "likeminded". It's not.
Agreement is one thing - equally "soul"ed is another. In the New Testament we can see a very simple clarity around their "likemindedness" - that they were all witnesses and particpants in the life of Jesus and spoke directly to what they believed from first hand experience was true. This was clearly stamped on their collective consciousness through the fact that they all knew that the Jesus they followed died, was killed and buried. None of them waited with expectation for Him to be alive again, they mourned His death. It's understandable that the impact was life changing for them at that point if - if - the dead man they once knew was alive again. So much of the N.T. revolves around that simplest essential reality that formed the basis for their own "likemindedness".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Another thought along these lines is what can be read of the life of Jesus and His handling of the scripture. A primary aspect of His life was in fact correct interpretation of scripture, both in understanding and in practice. He held forth from scripture at times and responded to questions and situations with what would be an "accurate" understanding. He challenged others like the Pharisees on their interpretation and corrected them.
Stepping back it seems to be fairly clear that the main impact of His message was to declare "truth" and present "this is what it looks and acts like" through His own life, both in word and deed.
Today I see much of the struggle in the arena of "deed". Those who don't do what they teach or who don't consistently meet the standards of what they present as "truth".
Whether the intent is honest or deceptive, achievement can be expected to be inconsistent. A person won't always perform perfectly.
The life and teaching of Jesus Christ appears to be clear - know the truth and practice the truth, understanding that God looks upon the heart and will honor the faithful prayer of the individual to come to Him.
The entire idea of accepting that premise for us assumes some clear understanding of what we're doing - understanding Jesus Christ, His mission and what God's intents are, through him. Doing that we have the information passed down to us from those who knew Him, lived the mission first, and those who within a few generation captured their thoughts and message.
It stands to reason that we would have a similar approach as Jesus Christ did, to expect that a correct understanding of scripture, and now including those early writings, as having a correct interpretation would be necessary. To act accordingly we need the according-to first, what the ideas, concepts, principles are that we're trying to apply. Primary to that understanding is the Message Himself, Jesus Christ. As Jesus and those in earlier times urged others, so are we urged to the same ends.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
For those interested in interpretations of scripture and how they affected the creation of the USA, check out the PBS series on God in America. It just ran on public television earlier this week. It's a good overview of the various sorts of Christianity we've inherited.
God in America
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
I like symbolism, I like Carl Jung.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Stats for what? Why zero through nine? How will you know if my intuition is "on the money"? If you know what it is, why are you asking for an answer? Confirm what? Most importantly..WHAT DO I WIN IF I'M CORRECT??? :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
You win... the boobie prize..
sorry. I'm just crazy sometimes. Hopefully most people find it entertaining..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Thanks Penworks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
am i a complete dumbass
last evening i found myself inside getting so upset because my kid (junior in HS) had to compare the Iroquois Creation Myth with the Hebrew/Christian Myth
there were so many similarities, but i was so upset that the Garden of Eden was presented as a complete myth just like the Sky World thingie
i don't understand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.