Patron Saint Joseph of Home Sales

[kaufmannphillips]

One bit more here...

RND wrote:
I came to that realization through the thoughtful teaching of my first preacher, a Baptist minister, who demonstrated to me that all scripture has many different meanings depending on which day of the week it happens to be. This is why I can have conversations with veteran pastors and teachers that share with me that they have read a verse and explain an interpretation of what such a verse is saying to them differently than when this particular verse first spoke to them. Scripture is not simply linear but a vibrant picture of different meaning for particular times.

Scripture does not have different meanings on different days of the week - it has the same meaning from day to year to century. People assign it different meanings on different days of the week. The challenge on any day of the week is to assign the text a meaning that it actually has. Otherwise, the process devolves into hepatoscopy.

[RND]

One bit more here...

RND wrote:
I came to that realization through the thoughtful teaching of my first preacher, a Baptist minister, who demonstrated to me that all scripture has many different meanings depending on which day of the week it happens to be. This is why I can have conversations with veteran pastors and teachers that share with me that they have read a verse and explain an interpretation of what such a verse is saying to them differently than when this particular verse first spoke to them. Scripture is not simply linear but a vibrant picture of different meaning for particular times.

Scripture does not have different meanings on different days of the week - it has the same meaning from day to year to century. People assign it different meanings on different days of the week. The challenge on any day of the week is to assign the text a meaning that it actually has.

That may be true for yourself, but I would hazard to project your restricted view of scripture and how speaks to people in different ways on other people.

Otherwise, the process devolves into hepatoscopy.

Really? You have such a restricted view of what scripture can say to folks? My, oh my! Have you found where wisdom hides her children?

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:

That may be true for yourself, but I would hazard to project your restricted view of scripture and how speaks to people in different ways on other people.

Really? You have such a restricted view of what scripture can say to folks? My, oh my! Have you found where wisdom hides her children?

(a) Please don't miss my other new post at the bottom of the previous page.

(b) Scripture says a lot less to people than they imagine it to. Much of scripture was written to an immediate (and ancient) audience, and thus it does not "say" anything to modern people. Let us take, for example, Jeremiah 29:11 - For I know the plans I have for you," says the LORD. "They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope. [NLT]

Of course, nowadays this verse is plastered on graduation cards and what-have-you. Salvador Molly may read this verse and say, "The scripture told me today that G-d has good things planned for me in the future." But the scripture told Molly no such thing. Rather, the scripture (putatively) tells Jews exiled in Babylon that G-d has devised encouraging things for them; the scripture said nothing to a twenty-first-century girl who is going off to college next year.

Now, this is not to say that Molly did not hear, in her heart, a personal message directed to her. She may have, be it from her pious imagination or from the actual touch of G-d. But these things are distinct from the speaking of the scripture.

Not every thing that can be construed from or derived from or shoehorned into the scripture is an example of the scripture speaking. Often such things are the product of external activity - philosophizing, theologizing, reflecting, refracting. Such kinds of external activity may be fine and edifying, but the philosopher, theologian, reflector, and/or refractor should not confuse what they have brought to the table with what the scripture itself has said.

[RND]

I am unaware of any place where Paul speaks of the Bereans.

Do you think Paul and Dr. Luke never spoke?

Attention to detail, please. I did not capitalize.

I know, I did.

This is not simple name-calling. The gnostic dynamic is but one of many that can adversely infect the interpretive activity of an individual or a community; its manifestation is not limited to the ancient heresy with a capital "G." The dynamic can take various forms, but its basic essence is excessive emphasis on special "knowledge," be it real or imagined. In some cases, the dynamic may involve a fascination with little-known understandings, which may be elaborate and/or exotic, and may include a contrived system of symbology. In some cases, the dynamic may involve neglect or even rejection of simple, mundane, and/or conventional understandings.

Many of us have encountered the gnostic dynamic in our modern lives: persons or communities whose religious lives revolve preponderantly around a peculiar point of dogma; persons or communities who uniformly process their theologies through an arcane and/or synthetic filter; and last but not least, persons or communities who believe that one's prospects for the next life are directly dependent upon accuracy of doctrine.

Major problems can develop from this dynamic, including pride and alienation on the personal front. On the methodological front, the dynamic is susceptible to sophistry, and to gross insensitivity toward elements outside of the esoteric nimbus - including boring truths that can be of great actual significance.

Man, you sure do project an awful lot. Finding greater understanding in the Gospels is not a mere parlor trick and gnostic hocus-pocus but is directly a gift of the Holy Spirit. Whether you choose to believe this or not is on you, not me.

[RND]

(a) Please don't miss my other new post at the bottom of the previous page.

Oh, I didn't. As soon as I saw this post I rusted right over in eager anticipation of some display of wisdom and knowledge.

(b) Scripture says a lot less to people than they imagine it to. Much of scripture was written to an immediate (and ancient) audience, and thus it does not "say" anything to modern people. Let us take, for example, Jeremiah 29:11 - For I know the plans I have for you," says the LORD. "They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope. [NLT]

And you know this how? Can you read the thoughts and intents of a man's heart?

Of course, nowadays this verse is plastered on graduation cards and what-have-you. Salvador Molly may read this verse and say, "The scripture told me today that G-d has good things planned for me in the future." But the scripture told Molly no such thing. Rather, the scripture (putatively) tells Jews exiled in Babylon that G-d has devised encouraging things for them; the scripture said nothing to a twenty-first-century girl who is going off to college next year.

So God doesn't have plans for good and not evil for everyone else?

Now, this is not to say that Molly did not hear, in her heart, a personal message directed to her. She may have, be it from her pious imagination or from the actual touch of G-d. But these things are distinct from the speaking of the scripture.

You're kidding right? Scripture tells me there are people that do the will of God and yet don't know what the will of God even is. Do you think I could have developed such a view on my own without reading scripture? Sure I could have. It's just reading it made the realization of this come home to roost sooner.

Not every thing that can be construed from or derived from or shoehorned into the scripture is an example of the scripture speaking. Often such things are the product of external activity - philosophizing, theologizing, reflecting, refracting. Such kinds of external activity may be fine and edifying, but the philosopher, theologian, reflector, and/or refractor should not confuse what they have brought to the table with what the scripture itself has said.

So God was just kidding when He said, "Come, let us reason together?" How did you become such a qualified arbitrator of the thoughts and intents of the Holy Spirit?

BTW kaufmannphillips are you a Jewish convert? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah?

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I am unaware of any place where Paul speaks of the Bereans.

RND wrote:
Do you think Paul and Dr. Luke never spoke?

In other words, neither are you aware of any place where Paul speaks of the Bereans.

It is important that we not make the methodological misstep of assuming that Paul and the author of Acts are always hand-in-glove.

Man, you sure do project an awful lot. Finding greater understanding in the Gospels is not a mere parlor trick and gnostic hocus-pocus but is directly a gift of the Holy Spirit. Whether you choose to believe this or not is on you, not me.

I expect that for many persons, their scriptural understandings are to varying extents a result of sophistry, parlor tricks, hocus-pocus, and/or incautious imagination, though they may not recognize it. After one has attended enough bible studies, across denominational boundaries, one can be wary of the ways people interpret their scriptures.

What is "on you" is responsibility for carefulness in thought. An understanding that is engendered by the holy spirit is not the same thing as the scripture speaking. If I read a biblical text or have a conversation with a professor or hear a Hank Williams song, and in the process the holy spirit touches me in such a way that new light dawns upon me, this does not mean that the bible or the professor or the singer spoke that insight to me.

Even in the course of mundane conversations, we may recognize that what we hear does not always correspond to what another person is trying to say; this can lead to amusing and serious misunderstandings. As such, it is important for us to distinguish between what we have heard and what has been said.

Our rumpus here came out of a discussion of what a particular biblical text says. If you want to base your interpretation on extraneous enlightenment from the holy spirit, then that is one thing. But it is another thing to argue your interpretation from the text itself.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(a) Please don't miss my other new post at the bottom of the previous page.

RND wrote:
Oh, I didn't. As soon as I saw this post I rusted right over in eager anticipation of some display of wisdom and knowledge.

And this came to pass in order that the scripture might be fulfilled: [M]ake it plain on tablets, That he may run who reads it [NKJV]."

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(b) Scripture says a lot less to people than they imagine it to. Much of scripture was written to an immediate (and ancient) audience, and thus it does not "say" anything to modern people. Let us take, for example, Jeremiah 29:11 - For I know the plans I have for you," says the LORD. "They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope. [NLT]


RND wrote:
And you know this how? Can you read the thoughts and intents of a man's heart?

I can read the biblical text in its context. The text says: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon [KJV]; it does not say anything about a Canadian who has never left the Western hemisphere (for example). As for what the holy spirit might say to the twenty-first-century reader when they encounter that text, that is a different, distinct matter.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Of course, nowadays this verse is plastered on graduation cards and what-have-you. Salvador Molly may read this verse and say, "The scripture told me today that G-d has good things planned for me in the future." But the scripture told Molly no such thing. Rather, the scripture (putatively) tells Jews exiled in Babylon that G-d has devised encouraging things for them; the scripture said nothing to a twenty-first-century girl who is going off to college next year.

RND wrote:
So God doesn't have plans for good and not evil for everyone else?

Whether or not G-d does, Jeremiah 29:11 does not say.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Not every thing that can be construed from or derived from or shoehorned into the scripture is an example of the scripture speaking. Often such things are the product of external activity - philosophizing, theologizing, reflecting, refracting. Such kinds of external activity may be fine and edifying, but the philosopher, theologian, reflector, and/or refractor should not confuse what they have brought to the table with what the scripture itself has said.

RND wrote:
So God was just kidding when He said, "Come, let us reason together?" How did you become such a qualified arbitrator of the thoughts and intents of the Holy Spirit?

Could you elaborate here?

RND wrote:
BTW kaufmannphillips are you a Jewish convert? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah?

(a) One could say that I converted to a Jewish faith.

(b) No, I do not believe that Jesus was/is "the promised Messiah," and I do not buy into that general concept. Royal messianism is not stipulated in the covenantal paradigm. There may or may not be a divinely-sanctioned king someday, but that is little concern of mine.

[RND]

In other words, neither are you aware of any place where Paul speaks of the Bereans.

It is important that we not make the methodological misstep of assuming that Paul and the author of Acts are always hand-in-glove.

Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Obviously, Paul and Silas spoke to the Bereans. Dr. Luke somehow got this report about the Bereans. I would certainly presume that in the 30 odd years of activity that Acts documents Dr. Luke received about the Bereans from Paul.

I expect that for many persons, their scriptural understandings are to varying extents a result of sophistry, parlor tricks, hocus-pocus, and/or incautious imagination, though they may not recognize it. After one has attended enough bible studies, across denominational boundaries, one can be wary of the ways people interpret their scriptures.

What is "on you" is responsibility for carefulness in thought. An understanding that is engendered by the holy spirit is not the same thing as the scripture speaking. If I read a biblical text or have a conversation with a professor or hear a Hank Williams song, and in the process the holy spirit touches me in such a way that new light dawns upon me, this does not mean that the bible or the professor or the singer spoke that insight to me.

Even in the course of mundane conversations, we may recognize that what we hear does not always correspond to what another person is trying to say; this can lead to amusing and serious misunderstandings. As such, it is important for us to distinguish between what we have heard and what has been said.

Our rumpus here came out of a discussion of what a particular biblical text says. If you want to base your interpretation on extraneous enlightenment from the holy spirit, then that is one thing. But it is another thing to argue your interpretation from the text itself.

My interpretation, I believe, is directly influenced and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And this came to pass in order that the scripture might be fulfilled: [M]ake it plain on tablets, That he may run who reads it [NKJV]."

The just do indeed live by faith.

I can read the biblical text in its context. The text says: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon [KJV]; it does not say anything about a Canadian who has never left the Western hemisphere (for example). As for what the holy spirit might say to the twenty-first-century reader when they encounter that text, that is a different, distinct matter.

Sure, the literal is easy to understand. What does Babylon symbolize? Parlor trick or the revelation from the Holy Spirit? Can a Canadian be in the state of Babylon while in Djarkarta? Can a Jew still be in Egypt while living in Beverly Hills?

Whether or not G-d does, Jeremiah 29:11 does not say.

Without the Holy Spirit I would certainly agree. BTW, what happened with Daniel then?

Could you elaborate here?

No need to. what I wrote in respose to you suggestion is self-evident.

(a) One could say that I converted to a Jewish faith.

"A" Jewish faith? Chasidic? Reform? Ortho?

(b) No, I do not believe that Jesus was/is "the promised Messiah," and I do not buy into that general concept. Royal messianism is not stipulated in the covenantal paradigm. There may or may not be a divinely-sanctioned king someday, but that is little concern of mine.

Bummer.

[Suzana]

(a) One could say that I converted to a Jewish faith.

(b) No, I do not believe that Jesus was/is "the promised Messiah," and I do not buy into that general concept. Royal messianism is not stipulated in the covenantal paradigm. There may or may not be a divinely-sanctioned king someday, but that is little concern of mine.

Excuse me for interrupting, but may I ask what then do you believe about Jesus? Who do you say that He was?

thanks,

[kaufmannphillips]

(a) One could say that I converted to a Jewish faith.

(b) No, I do not believe that Jesus was/is "the promised Messiah," and I do not buy into that general concept. Royal messianism is not stipulated in the covenantal paradigm. There may or may not be a divinely-sanctioned king someday, but that is little concern of mine.

Excuse me for interrupting, but may I ask what then do you believe about Jesus? Who do you say that He was?

thanks,

Hi, Suzana,

This is a bit afield here. If you might repost this in the "Judaism" forum, then I'll engage the question there.

Thank you, Emmet

[Jill]

.