What I showed was that in modern books we have two kinds. One where the author encourages wild interpretations, and one where the author encourages tight following of the author's intent.
Yes, comparing modern books to ancient can be dicey, but it is only this tight versus loose following of the author's intent that I am focused on.
If there were multiple interpretations of the Bible possible, then Jesus Christ could have never known for sure what his mission was, and that it literally meant he had to sacrifice his life.
If I am going to look to the Bible for guidance, it is the kind of guidance Jesus got from the scriptures that I want. All of life is at stake, and a dumb reader's interpretation of the scriptures just doesn't fit with the precision that was needed for Jesus to declare war on death. He needed very tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it.
Mike said: What I showed was that in modern books we have two kinds. One where the author encourages wild interpretations, and one where the author encourages tight following of the author's intent.
T-Bone’s response:How does the author encourage wild interpretations – or to follow the author’s intent? Is this done by a podcast of the author? Are there directions at the beginning of the book? I find your categorizing too restrictive. There’s books, stories, movies, songs, poems, etc. that can be interpreted in a variety of ways…folks can appreciate a work at so many different levels. I think that’s what makes for something that has a wider appeal. In my opinion the Bible is like that – look at all the spin-offs in religions and denominations…I know that really bugged wierwille with his “my interpretation – the rightly-divided Word – is the only correct way to interpret the Bible” – but I’ll get to that in another post soon – I was up late last night reading the chapter Why Division in the green book - The New Dynamic Church…
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: Yes, comparing modern books to ancient can be dicey, but it is only this tight versus loose following of the author's intent that I am focused on.
T-Bone’s response: again to reiterate what I just said – YOU have set up afalse dilemmabased on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. It seems to me you are focused on seeing no further than your own screwy theory. Check out the evidence of literature that can have multiple meanings/interpretations/applications/intentions in both ancient and modern books and you’ll find your theory is incompatible with the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: If there were multiple interpretations of the Bible possible, then Jesus Christ could have never known for sure what his mission was, and that it literally meant he had to sacrifice his life.
T-Bone’s response: well, that’s just it! There are – and has always been multiple interpretations of the Bible…so what does that do to this other theory of yours? Was Jesus a good guesser of what His mission should be?
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: If I am going to look to the Bible for guidance, it is the kind of guidance Jesus got from the scriptures that I want.All of life is at stake, and a dumb reader's interpretation of the scriptures just doesn't fit with the precision that was needed for Jesus to declare war on death.He needed very tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it.
T-Bone’s response: Not sure what you’re expecting to get out of the Scriptures. Jesus had a specific mission – even at an early age He said He must be about His Father’s business. I can’t explain how He knew that – and I certainly can’t even begin to fathom the enormity of His mission and how it relates to me…you…to the universe past, present and future…But I know my mission and the guidance…directives are not only spelled out in the Bible but there’s also an on-demand feature.
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Let me first address wierwille’s twisted situational ethics in PFAL “as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please” … The following Wikipedia quote is a fair description of wierwille’s personal moral code:
Situational ethics or situation ethics takes into account only the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it only according to absolute moral standards. With the intent to have a fair basis for judgments or action, one looks to personal ideals of what is appropriate to guide them, rather than an unchanging universal code of conduct, such as Biblical law…fromWikipedia: situational ethics
In a sense, the 2 great commandments are all the guidance you need. And more specifically moral guidance. One of the first books that freed me from the ridiculous self-imposed pressure of trying to find God’s will for my life wasDecision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View by Garry Friesen & J. Robin Maxson. I won’t get into it here – but maybe a few tidbits to get you interested I’ll say this about the book: In matters of practical life, it opens up more options– for example instead of praying for guidance to pick the job where God wants me to work, as long as it’s legal / legitimate – I’m free to pick a job that fits my preferences, skills, salary needs etc.
Concerning moral guidance – we already have the Bible – and God expects us to abide by the 2 great commandments in any situation and in all applications of putting our theology into practice…now here comes the moral guidance on-demand feature check out the Lord’s Prayer:
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one.’
14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
In my opinion there’s an inexhaustible supply of food for thought, practical theology, and conversation-starters with God in Matthew – but I’ll just focus on the moral-guidance on-demand feature of verse 13. lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one …There’s many ways God can guide us morally – I’ve had times where I was pricked in my conscience – I just knew I did something wrong or I wronged somebody…another way is intuition…a gut feeling…it’s one of those I-can’t-explain-it-but-this-situation-or-wherever-this-situation-might-go-doesn’t-feel-right things…I addressed this in an earlier post about intuition- here .
Like I said, The Lord’s Prayer has some good conversation-starters. I’ve gotten into the habit in my daily prayers to start off with saying this prayer – but not in a mindless repetitious way – it’s more like running down a checklist in my heart – I get to one item – not forgiving others…or I’ve been worrying about finances…or having second thoughts about what someone wants me to do – and that gets me on a tangent of specific prayer and if need be, developing a plan of action.
That's an awesome cover. I love her voice to begin with but bringing in the congas and backup vocals took this rendition over the top. Loved her slide work on the guitar too.
She's great...one of the great things about marriage is the coming together and blending of musical tastes. My wife turned me onto her...we've been to several of her concerts.
She's great...one of the great things about marriage is the coming together and blending of musical tastes. My wife turned me onto her...we've been to several of her concerts.
Great cover. Love that finger picking slide guitar action.
Or Baal who got it so wrong God animated a donkey to lecture him. What happened to the foreknowledge there?
Or that God who is spirit communicated with a donkey who lectured Baalam. So much for God only being able to communicate with spirit because that's what he is.
What you described there was an impotent god with no foreknowledge.
When the True God gives a revelation to a man, that man GETS IT RIGHT, or otherwise God would be wasting His time. God then sticks around to help readers get the right interpretation if they are willing to do the necessary work.
When my mind was wrapped up in cult think I used to also make up a lot of stories that sounded logical to me about what God was doing and why, because that’s what I would do if I were God.
In reality, patient people stick around and keep repeating simple logical truth over and over. That helps people get over logical fallacies regarding their mental models of God.
I think you nailed it accurately, for modern literature.
But I don't think God had His writers handle things that way.
There the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant is TRUE, and the reader's interpretation, where it differs, is WRONG.
How do you know what the author’s interpretation is or what the author meant?
And how do you know where the reader's interpretation differs and is wrong?
If they were really vain babblings everyone would ignore what I write. But because they are right on target, many feel a need to counter them.[/quote]
Incorrect- I've countered vain babblings plenty of times, yours among them but, IMHO, not the vainest (2nd vainest, so you got the Silver.) People have explained WHY they've posted, but there's this constant need to find some HIDDEN MEANING that keeps you from ever reading the obvious- in posts and, apparently, anywhere else.
I did not HIJACK this thread, I commented on penworks post, and in the process I DISAGREED with this thread's original intent. I used very right on comments to say PFAL did not suck. You care little with other major derailments of threads, but when it comes to my right on comments disagreeing with and disrupting your applecart, then you cry "derailment."
We were having an animated discussion on a lot of things, and, as often happens, once you start posting on a thread, you focus solely on ONE thread with lots of posts and hijack it, and it become the Mike show no matter what the previous content. I'm not aware of a rule TECHNICALLY against it, but it's usually considered rude and poor form. Since you haven't been forbidden from doing it, you continue. But the readers can see what's going on, just as the posters do.
Your crying that I hijacked this thread demonstrates that you have no argument against my comments.
There's a certain futility in answering you in according to your posts, Mike, and Rocky acknowledged that. He also pointed out that, once again, you hijacked a thread.
Unlike you, the rest of us can learn from each other, and read and respond to each other's posts accordingly. With you, it's always "what can I pick and choose from what they said and use to push my agenda", so you tend to miss the content, and sometimes who posted it. (I never posted about John the Baptizer's diet nor his outfit, someone else did.) It's a lot like how John Lynn would "advertise" here and refuse to post in threads. He'd post the initial post and run off, or have someone else post something to us, and insist all communications with him be by phone. Whenever someone phoned him, they'd be subjected to a continuous ad of "take my classes and buy my book." In between, he'd criticize us anonymously and pretend he wasn't advertising to us, wink-wink- as if it wasn't plainly obvious to EVERYONE. Looking back, I honestly think he thought we didn't notice, so everybody but him got what was going on and why his advertising wasn't translating into increased sales.
There's a lesson there, for those ready to receive it.
What you described there was an impotent god with no foreknowledge.
When the True God gives a revelation to a man, that man GETS IT RIGHT, or otherwise God would be wasting His time. God then sticks around to help readers get the right interpretation if they are willing to do the necessary work.
That’s funny – you just dialed-down God into being ineffective and dumb as dirt by squeezing your concept of Him into your silly theory of interpreting the Bible.
that's one of those reasons why PFAL sucks - wierwille brazenly "teaches" on what God can and cannot do.
Are you limiting God? wierwille wrote a chapter to answer that question...I wonder if wierwille even realized his tendency to portray God as impotent and dumb was a true confession that he limited God.
I think you nailed it accurately, for modern literature.
But I don't think God had His writers handle things that way.
There the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant is TRUE, and the reader's interpretation, where it differs, is WRONG.
2 hours ago, T-Bone said:
How do you know what the author’s interpretation is or what the author meant?
And how do you know where the reader's interpretation differs and is wrong?
Perhaps your post gets rid of 2 turds in 1 flush.
1. I think wierwille ignored the intent of the Bible’s authors - God meant for His word is to be obeyed
and
2. wierwille's hypocritical lifestyle - leading by example - which taught others to do the same - (this is turd number 2 because of wierwille's bogus claim that he taught "the word " like it hadn’t been known since the 1st century...FYI The second #2 is not the same as # 2 squared in math... - this #2 squared does NOT equal 4. It equals 2 $hit bricks)
Sorry if this has already been posted by someone, but when I ate a cookie, I got this revelation for the 2nd time, so it's established according to the cartoon:
84. It teaches that with enough fudging, forced fitting, linguistic acrobatics and exegetical magic tricks, anyone came make the Bible say and mean anything all to fit one's personal, private agenda.
34. Encourages an us-versus-them mindset - great for fortifying groupthink and isolation. “I have no friends when it comes to the Word.”
34. Encourages an us-versus-them mindset - great for fortifying groupthink and isolation. “I have no friends when it comes to the Word.”
A. wierwille’s animosity toward Christians outside of TWI was camouflaged by his self-righteous stand on “rightly-dividing the Word”.
wierwille’s claptrap on handling the Greek word for “rightly dividing” – I will try to handle in another post – but for now I’ll just say he laid it out as more of an intellectual pursuit rather than paying attention to any ethical demands.
In the green book The New Dynamic Church, in chapter 13 Why Division, on page 171 wierwille explains
The leaders of the spiritual movements in the Church have always been ridiculed and maligned. The confusing element in the entire situation is that it is the religious people, those who are deeply sincere, who cause the division.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
Notice how wierwille paints with broad brush strokes…he makes vague generalizations that could encompass just about anyone, and he also uses stereotyping – an oversimplified and often biased idea of the typical characteristics of a certain group of people. A person can plug in any one they want to for “leaders of the spiritual movements in the Church” as well as pick any religious peoplethey’d like to blame for causing the division.
On page 172 wierwille concludes this chapter with the following remarks:
May God deliver us as the Church from being contentious and difficult, from maligning our brethren, from bickering and quarrelsomeness, from dividing the Body of Christ by our lack of enlightenment. There is too much division outside the Church; our solidarity is imperative to give us strength to move forward in spite of the opposition. May the Father in heaven, for the sake of the only-begotten Son, bless us with such an abundance that we may cease to be part of the problem and become part of the answer. May we as members of Christ’s Body become so filled with love that we may be teachable and have our hearts opened to His Holy Word. And may we receive of Him and carry the blessing to all we meet, that they may see us and know we are His.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
What did wierwille mean by our lack of enlightenment? He is obviously addressing Christians here. Is he talking about a lack of a special type of knowledge? Gnosticism?
After being involved with The Way International for 12 years I now see the hypocrisy of wierwille’s words. I’ve been in open meetings when wierwille would get on one of his anti-Trinitarian rants – and he’d say such hateful stuff along the lines of in order to really believe in the Trinity you’ve got to be possessed by a devil spirit…a lot of the leaders in big denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church are born again of the seed of the serpent. Now is not the time or place to get into analyzing the Trinitarian doctrine – but let’s leave it at this – the Trinity is not as big a deal in Trinitarian groups as it is in wierwille’s polarizing rants.
Always within “the household of faith” – wierwille used manipulative threats to keep us from breaking ranks – I still vividly remember his teaching from John 13to us the way corps – it’s when Judas left Jesus and the disciples to carry out his betrayal and in verse 30 it reads in NIV As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night. wierwille dialed the amp up to 11 with the symbolism of Judas leaving the fold and it was night – then presented us with a dire scenario – if we as way corps leave God’s ministry of the rightly-divided Word the only alternative is oblivion. He'd ask Where else are you going to go? implying there's nothing else out there like his great ministry of the rightly-divided word.
Penworks started a thread - Evidence: Letters VPW wrote to the Way CorpsI think anyone who has a strong sense of disillusionment from the failure of wierwille / TWI to fulfill the declared goalsand the perception of inconsistencies between the actions of certain TWI-leaders and the ideals they supposedly represent should check out that thread.
I could go on about the Mark and Avoid process too but enough on this stuff for now.
Ok. Modern books to ancient is a misnomer. There were no ancient books but handwritten tablets, scrolls, papyrus, etc. Most people in ancient times were illeterate and ancient literary works were typically read aloud in group settings. One of the things you are stumbling with is reading modern day practices into ancient history. These practices were not limited to secular works but religous as well. In Israel the scrolls were kept in the temple until Israel was carried away by the Assyrians. Same holds true for the souther kingdom as well, scrolls were in the temple until they were carried away into Babylon. The synagogues that cropped up in these conquering empires was where the scrolls were eventually kept. So there is no apples to apples comparison with ancient lit vs. modern lit. So there were no Bibles in homes because the first printed Bible didn't come into existance until 1455 with the invention of the printing press that produced the Gutenberg Bible.
Jesus understood his mission from scripture but he most likely used the Septuagint, which will likely make you flip your fundamentalist bic. The Septuagint was translated into Greek from Hebrew and was very common in Jesus day and came into prominence around the 200 B.C. Why was the Septuagint popular? Because many, many Judeans no longer spoke Hebrew or understood it after long captivities inside conquering empires. So, there were multiple intrepretation everywhere. Not to mention that the Babylonian Talmud had come into prominence amongst jews all across the ancient world. That book is extremely twisted but it was the basis of the religious leaders of their day. Jesus confronted this practice when referring to the traditions of men that religious leaders held in greater esteem than the Torah, and other Old Testament writings. To say Jesus was kept from multiple intrepretations ignores history and also runs cross purposes with scripture because Jesus was tempted in all things as we are yet without sin. Naturally he would have been tempted to use ungodly intrepretations of scripture and the earth was steeped in them then, same as today. The world was no less a wilderness in Jesus day from today.
Do you really think that Jesus had access to a book that gave him "tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it."?
Life didn't work that way back then. He would have first been taught orally by his parents and then from the synagogues and temples. Culturally and historically how it worked. I can garuantee you that Joseph never gave Jesus "The Messiah's Manual to Saving the World" that had all this tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it. Technical writing wasnt a thing back then.
I give you the example of Jesus spending a few days in the Temple reasoning and disputing with the elders and Drs when he was 12. That's how they did it back then. They would discuss scriptural matters in the temple/synagogues where they would be exposed to any number of intrepretations from any number of people present. That's why Paul went to the Synagogues to reason with Judeans concerning Christ. They had scrolls there for reference and discussion.
Thanks for the background.
I'm still trying to clarify my idea. Jesus had to be SURE he was on the right path, and that his Father really would raise him from the dead. God demonstrated His ability and willingness to Jesus as he followed the written and direct revelations available to him. Jesus knew that what went on in his Father's mind was worth more than what went on, unassisted, in his own mind. Following Jesus with this attitude,
I value God's intended meanings in the Book of Ephesians more than I value my own, unassisted, opinions.
I want to know the author's intended meaning, like in reading a Physics text by Einstein explaining E=mc2. I don't want my own interpretation of what he writes. I want to hammer my interpretations of each of Einstein's sentences and equations to exactly match his, as much as possible.
There are two major attitudes a reader can take while reading anything:
(1) I want to get the author's exactly intended meanings, in spite of how they make me feel, and
(2) I want to embrace whatever feeling I get from reading this piece.
Again, no answer to my questions. As usual. What are you so afraid of?
What makes you think it's fear. I have a LOT of people's posts to answer besides yours. Plus, you don't make your questions very inviting or very serious. My motivation to get deep with you is low. Try earning my respect.
I'll try to ask it another way.
Good thinking.
An author writes something.
OK
In order for the author to understand what he means, he must interpret himself?
NO. He already understands what he means.
But he must put himself in the shoes of his readers, and anticipate misinterpretations and such. He has to know what they know, and what they don't know, so that he can make his message understood. The better he knows this the better his message can be crafted. If He is God, then this is a done deal.
So the author is doing double work because he couldn't write what he meant, nor understand what he meant the first time? He had to interpret what he meant? Huh?
What kind of author does this? One who hasn't slept in weeks because of a meth binge? A paranoid schizophrenic?
See all that wasted thought? ...down a blind alley.
What were you thinking?
"An author writes something. In order for the author to understand what he means, he must interpret himself?"
What made you make such a silly connection?
Did you honestly believe that was in my head?
These kinds of statements from you get me to think you are paying almost zero attention to the ideas, and just looking for launching pads in words and strings of text, so you can hoot and howl.
You have invested a lot in making me think this way, so next time you think you have something goofy to say, don't be surprised if I ignore it.
Try investing time into CORRECTLY interpreting what I, a writer, am actually intending to communicate, instead of just playing a bunch of silly games.
I'm still trying to clarify my idea. Jesus had to be SURE he was on the right path, and that his Father really would raise him from the dead. God demonstrated His ability and willingness to Jesus as he followed the written and direct revelations available to him. Jesus knew that what went on in his Father's mind was worth more than what went on, unassisted, in his own mind. Following Jesus with this attitude,
Try this for clarifying your idea, Mike.
Do what Jesus did. He read, studied in depth, what was available, over many years. He listened earnestly to what his parents told him. Probably listened to Aunt Elizabeth, too (she whom Mary visited in her pregnancy - to find that Elizabeth the barren was herself pregnant with John later known as the Baptist). He listened earnestly to what learned teachers had to say. He respectfully listened to rabbis and other teachers, considered carefully what they said (and did). Learned by rote and by frequent repetition. And he used his considerable intelligence to sort out chaff from wheat; to sort practical error and hypocrisy from simplicity of God's plans for human interactions; to discern distortions and lies from truth.
Jesus paid close attention to other people, their words, their wishes, their actions.
You'll see that Jesus was astoundingly smart by the age of about 12, following the teaching of rabbis etc in the temple. You'll see a blank period where he was processing what he'd learned, but undoubtedly between 12 and 30 he was continuing to study and ask questions - and listening to the answers. He was learning to listen to, and handle, human beings and their foibles and follies.
Yes, Jesus had to be sure, as much as he could - or did he? - that God would raise him from the dead. (That might be a separate topic in its own right.) In any event, don't you recall that only a short period before, he'd prayed and raised Lazarus from the dead? A demonstration, perhaps, of God's willingness to do that for Jesus?
If you know you are destined to be a sacrifice, does it matter at all if you "know" you will be raised from the dead? Maybe that's too much of a latter-day construction - or something more "western" in concept.
As I said above, Jesus paid close attention to other people, their words, their wishes, their actions.
Perhaps if you tried some of the same, you could "clarify your idea" fairly quickly.
Or that God who is spirit communicated with a donkey who lectured Baalam. So much for God only being able to communicate with spirit because that's what he is.
OFF TOPIC, but I am interested anyway. I have been working on this part of PFAL, of God needing spirit to communicate. Is there a thread on it here?
Do what Jesus did. He read, studied in depth, what was available, over many years. He listened earnestly to what his parents told him. Probably listened to Aunt Elizabeth, too (she whom Mary visited in her pregnancy - to find that Elizabeth the barren was herself pregnant with John later known as the Baptist). He listened earnestly to what learned teachers had to say. He respectfully listened to rabbis and other teachers, considered carefully what they said (and did). Learned by rote and by frequent repetition. And he used his considerable intelligence to sort out chaff from wheat; to sort practical error and hypocrisy from simplicity of God's plans for human interactions; to discern distortions and lies from truth.
Jesus paid close attention to other people, their words, their wishes, their actions.
You'll see that Jesus was astoundingly smart by the age of about 12, following the teaching of rabbis etc in the temple. You'll see a blank period where he was processing what he'd learned, but undoubtedly between 12 and 30 he was continuing to study and ask questions - and listening to the answers. He was learning to listen to, and handle, human beings and their foibles and follies.
Yes, Jesus had to be sure, as much as he could - or did he? - that God would raise him from the dead. (That might be a separate topic in its own right.) In any event, don't you recall that only a short period before, he'd prayed and raised Lazarus from the dead? A demonstration, perhaps, of God's willingness to do that for Jesus?
If you know you are destined to be a sacrifice, does it matter at all if you "know" you will be raised from the dead? Maybe that's too much of a latter-day construction - or something more "western" in concept.
As I said above, Jesus paid close attention to other people, their words, their wishes, their actions.
Perhaps if you tried some of the same, you could "clarify your idea" fairly quickly.
Good words, Twinky. I like them all.
The clarity I was seeking was in how clearly I post ideas.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
T-Bone
Mike said: What I showed was that in modern books we have two kinds. One where the author encourages wild interpretations, and one where the author encourages tight following of the author's intent.
T-Bone’s response: How does the author encourage wild interpretations – or to follow the author’s intent? Is this done by a podcast of the author? Are there directions at the beginning of the book? I find your categorizing too restrictive. There’s books, stories, movies, songs, poems, etc. that can be interpreted in a variety of ways…folks can appreciate a work at so many different levels. I think that’s what makes for something that has a wider appeal. In my opinion the Bible is like that – look at all the spin-offs in religions and denominations…I know that really bugged wierwille with his “my interpretation – the rightly-divided Word – is the only correct way to interpret the Bible” – but I’ll get to that in another post soon – I was up late last night reading the chapter Why Division in the green book - The New Dynamic Church…
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: Yes, comparing modern books to ancient can be dicey, but it is only this tight versus loose following of the author's intent that I am focused on.
T-Bone’s response: again to reiterate what I just said – YOU have set up a false dilemma based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. It seems to me you are focused on seeing no further than your own screwy theory. Check out the evidence of literature that can have multiple meanings/interpretations/applications/intentions in both ancient and modern books and you’ll find your theory is incompatible with the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: If there were multiple interpretations of the Bible possible, then Jesus Christ could have never known for sure what his mission was, and that it literally meant he had to sacrifice his life.
T-Bone’s response: well, that’s just it! There are – and has always been multiple interpretations of the Bible…so what does that do to this other theory of yours? Was Jesus a good guesser of what His mission should be?
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: If I am going to look to the Bible for guidance, it is the kind of guidance Jesus got from the scriptures that I want. All of life is at stake, and a dumb reader's interpretation of the scriptures just doesn't fit with the precision that was needed for Jesus to declare war on death. He needed very tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it.
T-Bone’s response: Not sure what you’re expecting to get out of the Scriptures. Jesus had a specific mission – even at an early age He said He must be about His Father’s business. I can’t explain how He knew that – and I certainly can’t even begin to fathom the enormity of His mission and how it relates to me…you…to the universe past, present and future…But I know my mission and the guidance…directives are not only spelled out in the Bible but there’s also an on-demand feature.
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 22: 34 - 40
Let me first address wierwille’s twisted situational ethics in PFAL “as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please” … The following Wikipedia quote is a fair description of wierwille’s personal moral code:
Situational ethics or situation ethics takes into account only the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it only according to absolute moral standards. With the intent to have a fair basis for judgments or action, one looks to personal ideals of what is appropriate to guide them, rather than an unchanging universal code of conduct, such as Biblical law…from Wikipedia: situational ethics
In a sense, the 2 great commandments are all the guidance you need. And more specifically moral guidance. One of the first books that freed me from the ridiculous self-imposed pressure of trying to find God’s will for my life was Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View by Garry Friesen & J. Robin Maxson . I won’t get into it here – but maybe a few tidbits to get you interested I’ll say this about the book: In matters of practical life, it opens up more options – for example instead of praying for guidance to pick the job where God wants me to work, as long as it’s legal / legitimate – I’m free to pick a job that fits my preferences, skills, salary needs etc.
Concerning moral guidance – we already have the Bible – and God expects us to abide by the 2 great commandments in any situation and in all applications of putting our theology into practice…now here comes the moral guidance on-demand feature check out the Lord’s Prayer:
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one.’
14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Matthew 6: 9 -14
In my opinion there’s an inexhaustible supply of food for thought, practical theology, and conversation-starters with God in Matthew – but I’ll just focus on the moral-guidance on-demand feature of verse 13. lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one …There’s many ways God can guide us morally – I’ve had times where I was pricked in my conscience – I just knew I did something wrong or I wronged somebody…another way is intuition…a gut feeling…it’s one of those I-can’t-explain-it-but-this-situation-or-wherever-this-situation-might-go-doesn’t-feel-right things…I addressed this in an earlier post about intuition - here .
Like I said, The Lord’s Prayer has some good conversation-starters. I’ve gotten into the habit in my daily prayers to start off with saying this prayer – but not in a mindless repetitious way – it’s more like running down a checklist in my heart – I get to one item – not forgiving others…or I’ve been worrying about finances…or having second thoughts about what someone wants me to do – and that gets me on a tangent of specific prayer and if need be, developing a plan of action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Or Baalaam who got it so wrong God animated a donkey to lecture him. What happened to the foreknowledge there?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
She's great...one of the great things about marriage is the coming together and blending of musical tastes. My wife turned me onto her...we've been to several of her concerts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Great cover. Love that finger picking slide guitar action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Or that God who is spirit communicated with a donkey who lectured Baalam. So much for God only being able to communicate with spirit because that's what he is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
When my mind was wrapped up in cult think I used to also make up a lot of stories that sounded logical to me about what God was doing and why, because that’s what I would do if I were God.
In reality, patient people stick around and keep repeating simple logical truth over and over. That helps people get over logical fallacies regarding their mental models of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
How do you know what the author’s interpretation is or what the author meant?
And how do you know where the reader's interpretation differs and is wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s funny – you just dialed-down God into being ineffective and dumb as dirt by squeezing your concept of Him into your silly theory of interpreting the Bible.
that's one of those reasons why PFAL sucks - wierwille brazenly "teaches" on what God can and cannot do.
Are you limiting God? wierwille wrote a chapter to answer that question...I wonder if wierwille even realized his tendency to portray God as impotent and dumb was a true confession that he limited God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
81. Gloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Perhaps your post gets rid of 2 turds in 1 flush.
1. I think wierwille ignored the intent of the Bible’s authors - God meant for His word is to be obeyed
and
2. wierwille's hypocritical lifestyle - leading by example - which taught others to do the same - (this is turd number 2 because of wierwille's bogus claim that he taught "the word " like it hadn’t been known since the 1st century...FYI The second #2 is not the same as # 2 squared in math... - this #2 squared does NOT equal 4. It equals 2 $hit bricks)
Edited by T-Bonewhat are my intentions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Sorry if this has already been posted by someone, but when I ate a cookie, I got this revelation for the 2nd time, so it's established according to the cartoon:
82: Buckets and buckets of bullshonta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
83. Extreme closeups of the thief's face in the last session.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
84. It teaches that with enough fudging, forced fitting, linguistic acrobatics and exegetical magic tricks, anyone came make the Bible say and mean anything all to fit one's personal, private agenda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
85. Chinqualla Bo Shay
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
34. Encourages an us-versus-them mindset - great for fortifying groupthink and isolation. “I have no friends when it comes to the Word.”
A. wierwille’s animosity toward Christians outside of TWI was camouflaged by his self-righteous stand on “rightly-dividing the Word”.
wierwille’s claptrap on handling the Greek word for “rightly dividing” – I will try to handle in another post – but for now I’ll just say he laid it out as more of an intellectual pursuit rather than paying attention to any ethical demands.
In the green book The New Dynamic Church, in chapter 13 Why Division, on page 171 wierwille explains
The leaders of the spiritual movements in the Church have always been ridiculed and maligned. The confusing element in the entire situation is that it is the religious people, those who are deeply sincere, who cause the division.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
Notice how wierwille paints with broad brush strokes…he makes vague generalizations that could encompass just about anyone, and he also uses stereotyping – an oversimplified and often biased idea of the typical characteristics of a certain group of people. A person can plug in any one they want to for “leaders of the spiritual movements in the Church” as well as pick any religious people they’d like to blame for causing the division.
On page 172 wierwille concludes this chapter with the following remarks:
May God deliver us as the Church from being contentious and difficult, from maligning our brethren, from bickering and quarrelsomeness, from dividing the Body of Christ by our lack of enlightenment . There is too much division outside the Church; our solidarity is imperative to give us strength to move forward in spite of the opposition. May the Father in heaven, for the sake of the only-begotten Son, bless us with such an abundance that we may cease to be part of the problem and become part of the answer. May we as members of Christ’s Body become so filled with love that we may be teachable and have our hearts opened to His Holy Word. And may we receive of Him and carry the blessing to all we meet, that they may see us and know we are His.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
What did wierwille mean by our lack of enlightenment? He is obviously addressing Christians here. Is he talking about a lack of a special type of knowledge? Gnosticism?
After being involved with The Way International for 12 years I now see the hypocrisy of wierwille’s words. I’ve been in open meetings when wierwille would get on one of his anti-Trinitarian rants – and he’d say such hateful stuff along the lines of in order to really believe in the Trinity you’ve got to be possessed by a devil spirit…a lot of the leaders in big denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church are born again of the seed of the serpent. Now is not the time or place to get into analyzing the Trinitarian doctrine – but let’s leave it at this – the Trinity is not as big a deal in Trinitarian groups as it is in wierwille’s polarizing rants.
Always within “the household of faith” – wierwille used manipulative threats to keep us from breaking ranks – I still vividly remember his teaching from John 13 to us the way corps – it’s when Judas left Jesus and the disciples to carry out his betrayal and in verse 30 it reads in NIV As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night. wierwille dialed the amp up to 11 with the symbolism of Judas leaving the fold and it was night – then presented us with a dire scenario – if we as way corps leave God’s ministry of the rightly-divided Word the only alternative is oblivion. He'd ask Where else are you going to go? implying there's nothing else out there like his great ministry of the rightly-divided word.
Penworks started a thread - Evidence: Letters VPW wrote to the Way Corps I think anyone who has a strong sense of disillusionment from the failure of wierwille / TWI to fulfill the declared goals and the perception of inconsistencies between the actions of certain TWI-leaders and the ideals they supposedly represent should check out that thread.
I could go on about the Mark and Avoid process too but enough on this stuff for now.
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks for the background.
I'm still trying to clarify my idea. Jesus had to be SURE he was on the right path, and that his Father really would raise him from the dead. God demonstrated His ability and willingness to Jesus as he followed the written and direct revelations available to him. Jesus knew that what went on in his Father's mind was worth more than what went on, unassisted, in his own mind. Following Jesus with this attitude,
I value God's intended meanings in the Book of Ephesians more than I value my own, unassisted, opinions.
I want to know the author's intended meaning, like in reading a Physics text by Einstein explaining E=mc2. I don't want my own interpretation of what he writes. I want to hammer my interpretations of each of Einstein's sentences and equations to exactly match his, as much as possible.
There are two major attitudes a reader can take while reading anything:
(1) I want to get the author's exactly intended meanings, in spite of how they make me feel, and
(2) I want to embrace whatever feeling I get from reading this piece.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The foreknowledge God had at that time with the donkey, was that at a short time later, Balaam would get get a good prophecy perfectly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Try this for clarifying your idea, Mike.
Do what Jesus did. He read, studied in depth, what was available, over many years. He listened earnestly to what his parents told him. Probably listened to Aunt Elizabeth, too (she whom Mary visited in her pregnancy - to find that Elizabeth the barren was herself pregnant with John later known as the Baptist). He listened earnestly to what learned teachers had to say. He respectfully listened to rabbis and other teachers, considered carefully what they said (and did). Learned by rote and by frequent repetition. And he used his considerable intelligence to sort out chaff from wheat; to sort practical error and hypocrisy from simplicity of God's plans for human interactions; to discern distortions and lies from truth.
Jesus paid close attention to other people, their words, their wishes, their actions.
You'll see that Jesus was astoundingly smart by the age of about 12, following the teaching of rabbis etc in the temple. You'll see a blank period where he was processing what he'd learned, but undoubtedly between 12 and 30 he was continuing to study and ask questions - and listening to the answers. He was learning to listen to, and handle, human beings and their foibles and follies.
Yes, Jesus had to be sure, as much as he could - or did he? - that God would raise him from the dead. (That might be a separate topic in its own right.) In any event, don't you recall that only a short period before, he'd prayed and raised Lazarus from the dead? A demonstration, perhaps, of God's willingness to do that for Jesus?
If you know you are destined to be a sacrifice, does it matter at all if you "know" you will be raised from the dead? Maybe that's too much of a latter-day construction - or something more "western" in concept.
As I said above, Jesus paid close attention to other people, their words, their wishes, their actions.
Perhaps if you tried some of the same, you could "clarify your idea" fairly quickly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
OFF TOPIC, but I am interested anyway. I have been working on this part of PFAL, of God needing spirit to communicate. Is there a thread on it here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Good words, Twinky. I like them all.
Edited by MikeThe clarity I was seeking was in how clearly I post ideas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How can I know, except some man should teach me?
Then, after that teaching, it is a lot of working it in Receive, Retain, Release, and walking in love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Very long way to go there, Mike. Very, very long way.
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.