Seriously, have fun but play nice.

"1) Can God and does God allow the meaning of God's word to be interetted faithfully and accurately by those who do not adhere to a specific faith practice?"

Yes

"1b) Assuming that God does allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents what advantage does the adherent have?"

"Adherent" implies that the person is involved in a religious community which, in my opinion, is one of the most important aspects of religious faith. Jesus didn't not ask us simply to interpret accurately. Among other things, He calls us to follow Him, to do as he did, to bring about the Kingdom. There is, of course, that old saying, Jesus wanted the Kingdom, and all we got was the church. But we are the church, for better and for worse, the ecclesia, those who are called, and I cannot imagine being Christian without a church. It would be like being married with no partner.

Thanks Flitcraft.

I'm gong to hold off on discussing the answers for a bit. Not because they aren't worthy of discussion but rather because I would rather they be part of a whole discussion rather than a discussion fragment.

If that makes sense.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hello revjohn: Assuming that one of them has a more literal and the other a more metaphorical explanation, I've come to realize, from my own experience, that in most cases the two interpretations amount to pretty much the same, and that the metaphorical explanation sometimes goes even deeper than the literal one.

Which version does God approve of? This depends on whether God is regarded as a real being or a metaphor. :-)

I think God approves of both versions.

In Cosmic Unity,

Arminius

Sorry for the excessive use of rather.

Looks like I'm going to have to crack open the thesaurus.

One does not have to belong to a specific doctrinal camp to be 'in the Spirit' of God. This sounds more like a denominational jurisdiction question rather than a question of whether or not God's truth is being understood. Who gets to speak for God is a question of power. What does it mean to listen to God is a question of faith.

RevJames, I think that it is an important part of God's truth and the message of Jesus Christ that we become the church.

First of all, good topic.
I think understanding of the scripture comes not so much who you are or what church you come from or not but whether you come with an open mind or whether you come with an idea that you are trying to prove.

And I don't think you can read the Bible all literally or all metaphorically. Some are literal, some are metaphors and some are both. Reading with an open mind will tell you what it is.
This is my opinion.

Hi RevJohn,
1) Can God and does God allow the meaning of God's word to be interetted faithfully and accurately by those who do not adhere to a specific faith practice?

Yes he can and does, but I'm thinking possibly when you don't allow the holy spirit to enter your heart you are missing the intention of the words. It becomes only a literal interpretation without fulfilment.

1a) Assuming that God does not allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents how would you explain the similarities between the two interpretations?

Some parts of the Bible are fairly straightforward, while others are not.

1b) Assuming that God does allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents what advantage does the adherent have?

He's been blessed with the knowing, whether he rejects it or not.

I hope I interpreted your questions right, I had to keep rereading them. Sort of like those multiple choice questions on school exams. Hey wait a minute, is this a trick to see how many people can interpret your questions?

revJohn said,,,

{1) Can God and does God allow the meaning of God's word to be interetted faithfully and accurately by those who do not adhere to a specific faith practice?}

Yes God can and does , the problem lies with 1) the recipients heart condition to receive that message in humility and openness 2) the condition of the Mind. 3) act of our will to accept

{ 1a) Assuming that God does not allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents how would you explain the similarities between the two interpretations}

Some scripture is simply understood, other scripture needs to be spiritually discerned and can only be if you have faith in him who inspired it to be your teacher.

{1b) Assuming that God does allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents what advantage does the adherent have?}

God does allow this and based on the condition of the recipients heart, mind and williness to act upon it, only God knows the amount of "truth" or interpretation of that truth that can enter that adherent at his point in life to affect the adherent to 1) convict him of our state 2) turn him to God 3) realize we are helpless based on our own strength 4) direct us to the savior , not nesserally in that order and the time of effect ness is different for all but the end goal is all the same to , turn sinful man to God through his sacrifice of Grace , why? Because God is LOVE.

Hi All,

First and foremost, thanks for taking time to respond.

Let's take a look at how things stand so far:

With respect to question 1) four answered definitively in the positive. Three proceeded immediately to commentary without providing a clear and definitive answer (which is okay in discussion but very hard for polling purposes) and nobody thought that the answer was no.

With respect to question 1a) The general consensus of the two posters that directly responded to it posits a two-tier approach. That some parts of scripture are immediately accessible by all but other parts are only accessible to some.

With respect to question 1b) The general consensus of the posters that directly responded suggests that adherents have a definite advantage over non-adherents primarily because of the relationship dimension.

So that is the overview of response to date. As more opinions are layered on we can retabulate.

Having gotten that out of the way. I will now resort to my typical flare and style and spin out other conversational threads.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Flitcraft,

Hi,

Thanks for waiting patiently.

You wrote:

But we are the church, for better and for worse, the ecclesia, those who are called, and I cannot imagine being Christian without a church. It would be like being married with no partner.

Good point.

To summarize, I read you putting forward the argument that the adherent has an advantage because the adherent exists within a common community which can give direction and provide correction as required.

With respect to the specific point of interpretation which frames the initial conversation would you see the communal aspect of direction and correction to be an advantage or disadvantage?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Arminius,

Hi,

Thanks for responding and waiting patiently.

You wrote:

Assuming that one of them has a more literal and the other a more metaphorical explanation,

I think this speaks more to style than it does to the situation I outlined. Nonetheless, I think it adds to the conversation because it also informs how God speaks through us and others.

Following your slant on the question it would be possible for consensus of opinion to be found even though there was a divergence in method applied. Which means that one truth could concievably be reached from different starting points and by different ways.

Grace and peace to you.

John

"To summarize, I read you putting forward the argument that the adherent has an advantage because the adherent exists within a common community which can give direction and provide correction as required."

Yes, that is true. Community also, and perhaps even more importantly, provides a loving and nurturing context. Christian community also allows us to act more effectively in the world, pooling our resources, our money and time, to do the work of Jesus.

"With respect to the specific point of interpretation which frames the initial conversation would you see the communal aspect of direction and correction to be an advantage or disadvantage?"

Community can both enable and constrain, both positively and negatively. Community can give voice to both noble as well as nefarious thought and action. It can curb our negative impulses as well contraining our higher ones. Humans are by nature social beings. Jesus knew that and outlined for us a community - the Kingdom - in which all would belong and all would be loved, recognizing us as unique, and thereby acknowledging both the communal and individual.

RevJamesMurray,

Hi,

Thanks for your thoughts also.

You wrote:

One does not have to belong to a specific doctrinal camp to be 'in the Spirit' of God. This sounds more like a denominational jurisdiction question rather than a question of whether or not God's truth is being understood.

That isn't my real intent. I'm a Calvinist I know who has the 'right' doctrine. :)

But seriously. . .

The intent of the question is to guage whether or not we here at WonderCafe are particularly narrow when it comes to allowing God to speak through others. On a completely "in house" level that could be a matter of doctrine. Moving further afield it can become a denominational distinction issue and moving further still it becomes a matter of my God speaking and other gods not.

You wrote:

Who gets to speak for God is a question of power.

Interesting addition. Power defines revelation. But does it really? Or, is power ineffective to prevent revelation but very effective in directing interpretation?

You wrote:

What does it mean to listen to God is a question of faith.

True but would power not have applications here? Particularly in the defining of what God is actually allowed to say and who God is actually allowed to say it through?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Maremf,

Hi,

Thanks for responding.

You wrote:

First of all, good topic.

You get a gold star!

You wrote:

I think understanding of the scripture comes not so much who you are or what church you come from or not but whether you come with an open mind or whether you come with an idea that you are trying to prove.

So what I hear you putting forward is the idea that revelations is like a hose with no off valve, it is always on, but if you want to hold on to it you need to bring a bucket or two.

Is that close enough?

You wrote:

Reading with an open mind will tell you what it is.

So how open is open? If we just accept everything that comes at us aren't we being more gullible than discerning? Which I guess changes things a bit to how open is good?

You wrote:

This is my opinion.

It is and I thank you for sharing it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

A few buckets are good because I find that I never stop learning from the Bible.
And I guess a door only opens so wide.

Waterfall,

Hi,

Thanks for sharing.

You wrote:

I'm thinking possibly when you don't allow the holy spirit to enter your heart you are missing the intention of the words. It becomes only a literal interpretation without fulfilment.

Interesting. It appears that you are saying that the Holy Spirit allows you to move beyond the words as recorded to the words as intended and without say, some sort of tonal quality to colour the words all we are left with is something flat and two dimensional. Is that a fair summary?

You wrote:

Some parts of the Bible are fairly straightforward, while others are not.

How do we tell the difference between the two?

It looks like you have posited a two-tier revelation. That everyone can get so far but to get all the way a person needs to be "in" the tradition. If that is a fair summary of your position would you agree that it would be better for Christians to follow Jewish interpretations of the Hebrew scriptures rather than other Christian interpretations of them?

You wrote:

He's been blessed with the knowing, whether he rejects it or not.

I think you have lost me. By it are you refering to the interpretation or the person?

You wrote:

I hope I interpreted your questions right, I had to keep rereading them.

While I am not a believer of no wrong answer. I am a big believer of the Regis Philbin school of philosophy which always asks "Is that your final answer" before dropkicking anyone to the curb.

You wrote:

Hey wait a minute, is this a trick to see how many people can interpret your questions?

Well, not intentionally, but that is a good point to raise. By asking the questions I get to shape the discussion somewhat.

There was no attempt to trick anybody into giving an answer.

Grace and peace to you.

John

blackbelt,

Hi,

Thanks for sharing.

You wrote:

Yes God can and does , the problem lies with 1) the recipients heart condition to receive that message in humility and openness 2) the condition of the Mind. 3) act of our will to accept

Your addition of criteria presents an interesting situation. On the one hand you admit that God can speak through any. On the other hand you limit who God can speak through by virtue of extenuating circumstances.

I also note that the extenuating circumstances are two-thirds mental and one-third emotional. Recognizing that English is not your first language I want to be sure that I do not put words into your mouth. Is there a spiritual component connected to the three conditions you mention or is it something separate?

You wrote:

Some scripture is simply understood, other scripture needs to be spiritually discerned and can only be if you have faith in him who inspired it to be your teacher.

This is similar to what Waterfall suggested, you have proposed a slight variation though. If I understand you correctly you are not necessarily positing location within a certain tradition so much as you are putting forward the presence of the Spirit period.

So the same questions are applicable.

How do we tell the difference between what is simply understood and what requires spiritual discernment?

Who would you expect to have a better grasp on the Hebrew scriptures a devout Jew or a devout Christian?

You wrote:

only God knows the amount of "truth" or interpretation of that truth that can enter that adherent at his point in life

If only God knows how do we know that the adherent has or has not been

1) convicted of his or her state?

2) turned to God?

3) convicted of their helplessness?

4) directed to God?

You wrote:

the end goal is all the same to , turn sinful man to God through his sacrifice of Grace , why? Because God is LOVE.

Well put blackbelt thank you.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Revjohn said,,,

{Your addition of criteria presents an interesting situation. On the one hand you admit that God can speak through any. On the other hand you limit who God can speak through by virtue of extenuating circumstances.}

I wouldn't place the limit on God, I would place it on man

{I also note that the extenuating circumstances are two-thirds mental and one-third emotional. Recognizing that English is not your first language I want to be sure that I do not put words into your mouth. Is there a spiritual component connected to the three conditions you mention or is it something separate?}

Im not sure what you mean but here it goes, mind, emotions and will are all part of our soul, our soul is unseen making it 2nd part of our spiritual nature, 1st part is spirit , so the state of our soul effects how we see and hear God, since we are viewing through our soulish sinful nature (and some view even lower more carnal views), and there are a few factors that effect our soul, for one sin, our upbringing, past relationships with friends family, loved ones ect, all that we allow to enter us whether known by us or not will effect our hearing God and viewing his word in the correct light as God does. That is why we have Gods word in written forum, to live by faith in his word because our soul wants self rule and fights the spirit.

{This is similar to what Waterfall suggested, you have proposed a slight variation though. If I understand you correctly you are not necessarily positing location within a certain tradition so much as you are putting forward the presence of the Spirit period.}

Yes that's right, Gods Spirit is the focal point , we then take that understanding and it mixes in with our personality and denominational traditions, but again the outcome is the same fruit.

{How do we tell the difference between what is simply understood and what requires spiritual discernment?}

Spiritual discernment, is required but it Is not earned, it is given, so we don't know what needs discernment until that revelation is given, since Christ walked the earth much has been given and there is still much to be given. In my personal walk, I have seen many visions and after the vision teaching I was taken to scripture to back it up.
That is why we need accountability boards, a good knowledge of the word, communication in the body of Christ, complete trust in Jesus Christ , a heart after Gods own heart and most of all, the Cross because the sin factor sill effects our soul as long as were on earth.

{Who would you expect to have a better grasp on the Hebrew scriptures a devout Jew or a devout Christian?}

I wouldn't base my expectations on whether there Christian or Hebrew but more on the reliance on the teacher being Holy Spirit through Christ in there lives, its all based on relationship with Jesus not traditions, denominations or religious heart.

{If only God knows how do we know that the adherent has or has not been}

John the apostle speaks about it , "tests yourselves whether you are in the faith" along with some guidelines he writes about. So for us we can see most of these points that St john speaks about working in the lives of others over a cretin period of time . eg a regenerated spirit in us.

God Bless

revjohn: Yes, revjohn, that's exactly what I meant! I went over biblical quotes with Jehova's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, and, although my approach to interpreting scripture is more metaphorical than theirs, we arrived at more or less the same meaning. I think even non-Christians reading the Bible can get as much out of it as we do. And we stand to gain from reading the Holy Books of other faiths. After all, most of the biblical wisdom is universal, and so is the wisdom expressed in the Holy Scriptures of other faiths.

The difficulty comes in when interpretation becomes doctrine, and doctrine hardens into dogma. That's when I start to differ with my fundamentalist neighbours.

Can God and does God allow the meaning of God's word to be interetted faithfully and accurately by those who do not adhere to a specific faith practice?

Yes and No.

1a) Assuming that God does not allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents how would you explain the similarities between the two interpretations?

There are levels of interpretation. There is basic interpretation which I have come to realize is called literalism. This actually works for many parts of the Bible. For example "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" One can easily take that literally without looking at the history, metaphors, and context.

Another verse "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved" Again this CAN be taken literally but one needs to have a bit of context. Who is Jesus? and What is saved? would be required for background knowledge/context.

The danger comes when one does not see the metaphors. Many parts of the Bible read as tiring history lessons.

God also promises "My Word will not return to me void" so in other words God's Word (the Bible) is powerful and if one reads it with an open heart God could send His spirit to help interpret.

1b) Assuming that God does allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents what advantage does the adherent have?
The adherant has doctrines to guide him/her. This could also be a hinderance. The adherant has breadth and width of the Bible. They can compare stories and themes in the Bible because the Bible makes sense in context as well.

The adherant has had access to sermons and teaching on specific scripture passages and should read with the historical context in mind.

The adherant should be studying with a faith community so it is not just his/her interpretation. Some pretty scary interpretations can come around without guidance.

Serena, you make a good point in that yes it should be read and understood in a faith group.

blackbelt,

Hi,

You wrote:

I wouldn't place the limit on God, I would place it on man

Fair enough. The limit is on humanity then. But what is being limited is God's is it not? I can say that I am prevented from carrying 40 litres of water but not blame the 40 litres of water and instead blame my 5 litre pail.

And yet, 8 trips with the 5 litre pail allows me to haul 40 litres so while my carrying capacity per load is limited my total carrying ability is limited only by the size of my bucket and the number of trips I can make with it.

If, the limit is on humanity then a greater mass of humanity should allow for some remediation.

If expanding numbers doesn't solve the load problem maybe the difficulty is more than human.

You wrote:

Im not sure what you mean but here it goes, mind, emotions and will are all part of our soul, our soul is unseen making it 2nd part of our spiritual nature,

Thanks blackbelt that helps me to see where you are coming from a little clearer.

You wrote:

all that we allow to enter us whether known by us or not will effect our hearing God and viewing his word in the correct light as God does.

Thanks for this also.

You wrote:

Yes that's right, Gods Spirit is the focal point, we then take that understanding and it mixes in with our personality and denominational traditions, but again the outcome is the same fruit.

I think I would be able to agree that the fruit is good. I don't know if I agree that the fruit is the same. Maybe the difference is not as pronounced as in an apple-orange type of comparison. The difference might be more like the difference between a MacIntosh and say a Honey Crisp.

If I am reading you rightly I think you are saying that the difference between knowledge of God in the stereotypical United Church member would be ultimately, the same as the knowledge of God in the stereotypical Seventh Day Adventist member?

This is good when there is agreement. What do we do when there is disagreement?

You wrote:

Spiritual discernment, is required but it Is not earned, it is given, so we don't know what needs discernment until that revelation is given, since Christ walked the earth much has been given and there is still much to be given.

Fair enough. That approach works well in the presence of agreement. How does it hold up to disagreement?

You wrote:

That is why we need accountability boards,

Can you explain how an accountability board works. It sounds, at first blush to be similar to what we in the UCCAN refer to as the Ministry and Personnel Committee. It might jsut be a jargon issue.

You wrote:

I wouldn't base my expectations on whether there Christian or Hebrew but more on the reliance on the teacher being Holy Spirit through Christ in there lives,

Again, I don't want to put words into your mouth but the above sounds very much to me like you actually basing your expectations on the fact that the individual is Christian as opposed to Hebrew.

Jesus is a Christian entity and not a Jewish one. By that I mean Jesus is important to the Christian tradition but the Jewish tradition existed long before the incarnation.

Your answer, whether you intend it or not, suggests that the deeper wisdom of the Hebrew scriptures was unattainable until Jesus came on to the scene and it sounds a bit like supercessionism. Could you clarify that please?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Serena,

Hi,

Thanks for sharing and welcome to the discussion.

You wrote:

Yes and no.

You get a gold star too. I like people who are boldly non-committal. :)

Seriously, you've balanced your answer and are waiting for more input before making your decision.

You wrote:

There are levels of interpretation.

Okay. This might reflect the same sort of two-tier understanding that both waterfall and blackbelt speak of. Though yours appears to be a variation on the theme.

You point to the various genres of writing that comprise the whole of the Canon of scriptures and suggest that the interpretive style would need to be varied according to the genre of writing that makes up the text to be studied.

If that is the case does the Holy Spirit direct the interpreter as to which genre and style are in play and therefore interpretation x is required or, can anyone with a sufficient understanding of literature do the actual interpretation?

You wrote:

God also promises "My Word will not return to me void" so in other words God's Word (the Bible) is powerful and if one reads it with an open heart God could send His spirit to help interpret.

That is a promise. Is the qualifier of an open heart part of the same text or is it part of the interpretation of the text? The qualifier suggests that a closed heart is more powerful than God's Word and would actually prohibit God sending the Holy Spirit to help. If that is true does God's Word still not return empty?

You wrote:

The adherant should be studying with a faith community so it is not just his/her interpretation. Some pretty scary interpretations can come around without guidance.

So while interpretation has an individual component (we hear what the scriptures say to us) it also has a communal component (we hear what the scriptures say to the world and the best way to ensure that we hear properly what the scriptures are saying to us is to surround ourselves with community to ensure that we are hearing the scriptures speak to us and not just our own imagination?

Grace and peace to you.

John

) Can God and does God allow the meaning of God's word to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who do not adhere to a specific faith practice?

Yes, a resounding YES.

1a) Assuming that God does not allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents how would you explain the similarities between the two interpretations?

see previous answer

1b) Assuming that God does allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents what advantage does the adherent have?

the adherent has the advantage of consciousness

RevJohn;

I should have known that you would have more questions for my answer.
You wrote:

You get a gold star too. I like people who are boldly non-committal. :)

Good. I am pretty noncommital about everything. My minister does not like it.

You point to the various genres of writing that comprise the whole of the Canon of scriptures and suggest that the interpretive style would need to be varied according to the genre of writing that makes up the text to be studied.

If that is the case does the Holy Spirit direct the interpreter as to which genre and style are in play and therefore interpretation x is required or, can anyone with a sufficient understanding of literature do the actual interpretation?

There is also the historical component. Misinterpretation happens because slavery and treating women as second class citizens was part of the culture. That does not agree with the heart of Jesus' teachings which was about love. So even if a person was well educated enough they could miss things by not doing a complete study or by taking certain texts literally that don't make sense in respect to the main points of Christianity because they are lifted literally out of that culture and time.

God also promises "My Word will not return to me void" so in other words God's Word (the Bible) is powerful and if one reads it with an open heart God could send His spirit to help interpret.

That is a promise. Is the qualifier of an open heart part of the same text or is it part of the interpretation of the text? The qualifier suggests that a closed heart is more powerful than God's Word and would actually prohibit God sending the Holy Spirit to help. If that is true does God's Word still not return empty?

It is and interpretation that one needs to have an open heart. (That is one of the problems with being an adherant you believe that things you are taught go with the scripture automatically) I think that people are not strong enough to resist God's spirit so if God wants to speak to someone His word will not return to Him void.

I think though that there can be textual interpretations as well as deeper spiritual ones. Textual interpretations are open to anyone. (with a higher possibility of error) and the deeper ones require the Holy Spirit.

Hi Revjohn...I know you to be a gentle bear, so you won't mind if I jump in without reading the responses...right?

To me, the "holy spirit" or whatever name you will give the "knowing" is given to all. Even without scripture, villages in the most remote regions....have adopted the 10 commandments, as a way of getting along.

Some will say that it is common sense...but I will always believe that there is goodness to connect with...I think we are born with the knowing and it is sometimes drowned out of us...too willingly by our need to be "most" worthy.

Pinga,

Hi! Thanks for joining the conversation.

You wrote:

Yes, a resounding YES.

I haven't tabulated recently but the picture I am getting with respect to the membership is that God is not limited in whom God choses to speak with and through.

You wrote:

the adherent has the advantage of consciousness

????

Does that mean the non-adherent is unconscious? Do we need to get some smelling salts or something to bring the non-adherent around?

I think I understand what you are saying but could you maybe unpack your language a little bit?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Serena,

Hi,

You wrote:

I should have known that you would have more questions for my answer.

Does someone want a detention? :) Sheesh. You hand them a gold star and they want the whole box. You want the whole box you have to earn it.

Of course there will be more questions, that is how conversation works.

You wrote:

Good. I am pretty noncommital about everything. My minister does not like it.

Pretty noncommittal is not the same as being boldly noncommittal. Pretty noncommittal is just a polite way of saying you are apathetic. Boldly noncommittal means you are able to see both sides of the argument and each have value.

You wrote:

There is also the historical component. Misinterpretation happens because slavery and treating women as second class citizens was part of the culture. That does not agree with the heart of Jesus' teachings which was about love.

You are arguing by anachronism. You have positted that what we know now should have been known then and because we would consider it to be wrong now it should have been considered wrong then.

Do you see, or not see, in the Biblical exortations of the treatment of slaves, servants and strangers a definite shift toward love that is not reflected in the wider historical community?

You wrote:

So even if a person was well educated enough they could miss things by not doing a complete study or by taking certain texts literally

This reinforces the two-tier system of revelation and it begs the question (at least it has me begging to ask the question) are we not reinforcing a heirarchical system of authority with the two-tier system?

While I do not think you intend to make the argument I think you are just a few steps away from the "If you were better educated you'd be able to understand" argument that is constantly deployed in a derogatory manner.

What evidence exists that proves a Stephen Hawking has a better ability to comprehend the truth of scripture than say, the local village idiot? (Not our local VillageIdiot but the genuine article). If that is true then revelation would be wasted on the uneducated wouldn't it?

You wrote:

It is and interpretation that one needs to have an open heart.

Hear that everybody? Serena says that the open heart argument is interpretation and not scriptural. Anyone want to raise and objection?

You wrote:

I think that people are not strong enough to resist God's spirit so if God wants to speak to someone His word will not return to Him void.

For testifying to God's sovereignty you get another gold star.

You wrote:

Textual interpretations are open to anyone. (with a higher possibility of error) and the deeper ones require the Holy Spirit.

Fair enough you aren't the first to make the argument but you haven't helped to clarify how anyone can tell which is a simple textual interpretation and which is the deeper spiritual one.

Can you provide an example of how that works?

Grace and peace to you.

John

abpenny,

Hi, thank you for joining the conversation.

You wrote:

I know you to be a gentle bear, so you won't mind if I jump in without reading the responses...right?

I am as gentle as one would expect a godless-killing machine to be yes. Jump in and take your chances. :)

You wrote:

To me, the "holy spirit" or whatever name you will give the "knowing" is given to all. Even without scripture, villages in the most remote regions....have adopted the 10 commandments, as a way of getting along.

Theologically you are speaking to what is understood as 'general' revelation. General revelation allows us to draw certain conclusions about the character and nature of God. For example, God provides sunshine and rain so God is a provider, cultures around the world understand that part of the role of divinity is to provide. They differ on who is providing and how but there is agreement on a providential aspect of divinity.

Is that enough or does humanity require more than what 'general' revelation can pass on?

You wrote:

Some will say that it is common sense...

Some would also say common sense is a ship of fools. I don't think it has to be. I do think it works out that way more often than not.

You wrote:

I think we are born with the knowing and it is sometimes drowned out of us...too willingly by our need to be "most" worthy.

I believe that is reflective of blackbelt's addition of the condition of mind in his responses. So, operating under a 'general' revelation paradigm which may or may not be seriously limiting, when a thing is drowned out can it be recovered and what would the process or mechanism of recovery look like?

Grace and peace to you.

John

hmm..consciousness -- poor choice in words.

Let me try it again.

The adherent has the advantage of awareness.

If one goes to Louvre and reviews the painting or statue without reading anything, just enjoying, you will be blown away by the beauty.

yet, if one reads the plaques, maybe does some reading before hand, or studies the art, one will begin to see patterns, see the subtle differences in style.

Beauty is present, but, one's awareness of what it took to make the beauty, or what was going on in the making of it, the tools, the history, the common threads, comes with an awareness through study.

RevJohn, you mentioned a two tier system. In many ways it would be a multy-tiered system. You get some people that can't read, so only have selected passages read to them, or people that can read but don't understand 10% of the words, And you can go on with the levels. Having said that, I believe that the Gospel can be made very simple for anyone ie that God loves them and Jesus came to be their friend.

I did this yesterday and lost my response in cyberville. Here we go again.

1) Can God and does God allow the meaning of God's word to be interetted faithfully and accurately by those who do not adhere to a specific faith practice?

I believe the answer is yes God can and does. Having read and interpreted from more than a few faith practices in my lifetime I would say yes. Yet, I could be highly mistaken on my interpretation and accuracy. I could say yes based on discussions I have had with those of other faith practices. Again, I could still be wrong and they could perhaps be also wrong. So, with this doubt how am I certain the answer is yes?

The answer is "yes God can" because I cannot limit God's power. God is free to do as God wishes.The answer is "yes God does" because God offered Law to those that it was not already their faith practice. Jesus continued that in dealing with Gentiles and pagans, offering what was not their faith practice. Speaking of Jesus who no longer adhered to Jewish faith practice i.e. touching the unclean... If we are simply not allowed by God to interpet faithfully and accurately what we do not adhere to as a faith then the Hebrew Scriptures should not be part of the Bible of Christianity, should they? (Wasn't the idea of removing them Marcion's heresy?) We would be precluded from understanding even the story of Creation? It would mean that those early Christians could not interpret faithfully and accurately the Tanakh that they pulled from. That concept is actually now far too scary. Also what would be the purpose of spreading just the New Testament to non-believers if they were precluded from interpreting it faithfully and accurately?

1a) Assuming that God does not allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents how would you explain the similarities between the two interpretations?

As above, I do disagree. I decided to try to work however based on the assumption. This is where I am glad my post was lost. I found myself trying to think that we could agree based on society and culture and... That is where my thinking was yesterday.

Then I thought about the deeper concept, if my Buddhist friend and I discuss Scripture and she is prevented by God from interpreting it correctly, then she simply cannot interpret it correctly. Her power of reasoning and intellect and heart and morals...... is not superior to God phohibiting it. It is like a logic puzzle. If God has prohibited it, she must always be wrong. If I agree with her, then I must be wrong. I must always disagree. So, I cannot work within the assumption. I will simply say I disagree based on the answer above.

1b) Assuming that God does allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents what advantage does the adherent have?

I agree with the concept that God allows accurate and faithful interpretation to non-adherents. What advantage does the adherent have? Many and none, depending. If the adherent has the benefit of an adherent or adherent friendly audience and language that audience can comprehend, understand and embrace, they may be at tremendous advantage. If the roles are reversed, they may be at a marked disadvantage. The advantage would be non existent, minimal or marked, depending. =)

Addendum:

If one's study gets in the way of truly enjoying the beauty, then, the adherent has lost any advantage.

Hi revJohn

You said,,,

{I think I would be able to agree that the fruit is good. I don't know if I agree that the fruit is the same. Maybe the difference is not as pronounced as in an apple-orange type of comparison. The difference might be more like the difference between a MacIntosh and say a Honey Crisp.]

Well yes when I said the fruit is the same I meant the outcome, I wouldn't want the fruit to look all the same that would make perty a boring eternity , God loves diversity and so do I . I do prefer Honey Crisp though.

{If I am reading you rightly I think you are saying that the difference between knowledge of God in the stereotypical United Church member would be ultimately, the same as the knowledge of God in the stereotypical Seventh Day Adventist member?}

Yes of course God is God and we are not.

{This is good when there is agreement. What do we do when there is disagreement?}

Simple, look to the one common element that makes us a body, regardless of denominational differences that are man made, look to The Cross, Give it to the Lord and love each other as he loved us. Personally from what I have be understanding through my spirit eyes this is happening today, I believe it to be the latter rain.

{Fair enough. That approach works well in the presence of agreement. How does it hold up to disagreement}

Answered above. Though I should add much prayer also, which helps us look at our faults and sins first, then through that light we are able to see humbly with love and not judgmentally. Judgment clouds the mind, humility opens the heart to see spiritually what is going on with in whether its an individual or a body of people.

{Can you explain how an accountability board works. It sounds, at first blush to be similar to what we in the UCCAN refer to as the Ministry and Personnel Committee. It might just be a jargon issue}

I have seen some bad accountability boards and some excellent ones, a good board relies on Jesus Christ, waits for the Holy Spirit, prays, Looks to the word, are careful in there decisions. One thing though I have never sat on a accountability board so I don't have direct experience here. For me I am accountable to my pastor and some board members I'm close with and trust.

{Again, I don't want to put words into your mouth but the above sounds very much to me like you actually basing your expectations on the fact that the individual is Christian as opposed to Hebrew.}

No, I don't look at who the individual is as a tradition, I look at who is His Guide.

{Jesus is a Christian entity and not a Jewish one. By that I mean Jesus is important to the Christian tradition but the Jewish tradition existed long before the incarnation.}

I wouldn't say that , Jesus is God in flesh , for the sake of our understanding we say we are Christians which means followers of Christ , The man Jesus was Jewish but his entity, his nature, his Spirit , his deity is God , we cannot say that deity or entity is Christian, He just is.

There are more and more Jews becoming Messianic Jews, don't call themselves Christians but are never the less Followers of Christ.

{Your answer, whether you intend it or not, suggests that the deeper wisdom of the Hebrew scriptures was unattainable until Jesus came on to the scene and it sounds a bit like supercessionism. Could you clarify that please?}

Don't know if I would call it supercessionisim or not, all I do know is that once our identity was in Adam, now its in Jesus, How the Spirit of God worked before Christ and After Christ we know in part only by what is written in scripture, the fullness deep workings of Holy Spirit from Genises to Revelations is still a mystery, for now enough has been given to be saved, "For we see now through a dim window obscurely, but then face to face; now I know partially, but then I shall know according as I also have been known."

God bless

Pinga,

Hi,

You wrote:

yet, if one reads the plaques, maybe does some reading before hand, or studies the art, one will begin to see patterns, see the subtle differences in style.

Does one get all that simply from reading a plaque or does one get it from having something of a shared experience? I have never scupted in marble. I have worked with plaster of paris. My appreciation of a marble bust would be more, perhaps, than one who has never worked in any medium but would it be as much as one who has worked in the actual medium and knows something of the difficulty?

You wrote:

Beauty is present, but, one's awareness of what it took to make the beauty, or what was going on in the making of it, the tools, the history, the common threads, comes with an awareness through study.

At the sake of being repetitive does it? How many books do I need to read about canoeing, for example, before I have had the actual experience of paddling?

Do I need to know the history of canoes or the way they are fabricated to be able to sit in one and paddle?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Maremf,

Hi,

You wrote:

In many ways it would be a multy-tiered system. You get some people that can't read, so only have selected passages read to them, or people that can read but don't understand 10% of the words, And you can go on with the levels. Having said that, I believe that the Gospel can be made very simple for anyone ie that God loves them and Jesus came to be their friend.

Okay. The gospel can be made very simple for anyone. I would agree with that.

I don't know if I buy the educational ability as a valid distinction with respect to interpretation. Much of the text we read has come out of an oral tradition where very few could read or write. Obviously one doesn't need to be particularly literate to become Biblically literate. Or do they?

Grace and peace to you.

John

StephenGordon,

Hi,

You wrote:

I did this yesterday and lost my response in cyberville. Here we go again.

Gold star for perseverance.

You wrote:

The answer is "yes God can" because I cannot limit God's power. God is free to do as God wishes.The answer is "yes God does" because God offered Law to those that it was not already their faith practice. Jesus continued that in dealing with Gentiles and pagans, offering what was not their faith practice.

So God's revelation does not require anything to be present other than the will of God for such revelation to break through into the lives of others?

You asked:

If we are simply not allowed by God to interpet faithfully and accurately what we do not adhere to as a faith then the Hebrew Scriptures should not be part of the Bible of Christianity, should they?

Well either that or we submit that Judaism missed the boat completely and never understood what God revealed to them and I, for one, would refute that position.

You also asked:

(Wasn't the idea of removing them Marcion's heresy?)

Two Gold stars (I'm a sucker for anyone who can properly identify heresy).

You asked:

Also what would be the purpose of spreading just the New Testament to non-believers if they were precluded from interpreting it faithfully and accurately?

That is a very good question. I wonder if anyone dares to take on the task of answering it?

You wrote:

If God has prohibited it, she must always be wrong. If I agree with her, then I must be wrong. I must always disagree. So, I cannot work within the assumption. I will simply say I disagree based on the answer above.

Thanks for bringing that to the discussion table.

1b) Assuming that God does allow the word of God to be interpretted faithfully and accurately by those who are not adherents what advantage does the adherent have?

You wrote:

If the adherent has the benefit of an adherent or adherent friendly audience and language that audience can comprehend, understand and embrace, they may be at tremendous advantage. If the roles are reversed, they may be at a marked disadvantage. The advantage would be non existent, minimal or marked, depending. =)

If I read you correctly you are qualifying the community. It must be a sympathetic or a friendly community in order for the adherent to realize any advantage.

Grace and peace to you.

John

blackbelt,

Hi,

You wrote:

You said,,,

God loves diversity and so do I.

Fair enough. How does the concept of diversity apply to the context of interpretation which frames this conversation? Can a passage of scripture tolerate a diversity of interpretations or must all interpretations partake of sameness?

You wrote:

Yes of course God is God and we are not.

Fair enough. God is God. Does this hold true when I move outside of a Christian frameword to a comparison of say, the stereotypical United Church member and the stereotypical orthodox Jewish person?

You wrote:

Give it to the Lord and love each other as he loved us.

What will giving it to the Lord do with respect to the disagreement? Does it reconcile the two or does it reduce both to blank slates and they must start anew?

You wrote:

humility opens the heart to see spiritually what is going on with in whether its an individual or a body of people.

Whose heart would humility open? Mine or the other's?

You wrote:

I have never sat on a accountability board so I don't have direct experience here.

Okay, thanks for sharing that.

You wrote:

No, I don't look at who the individual is as a tradition, I look at who is His Guide.

Fair enough. I don't think that the Jews look to Jesus in that role. I'm pretty confident they would not name Jesus as their guide.

You wrote:

I wouldn't say that,

Fair enough. A Jew likely would. So right there we have a source of conflict how can it be resolved?

You wrote:

we cannot say that deity or entity is Christian, He just is.

Fair enough if we think of Jesus in only spiritual terms but we don't. The incarnation becomes, for lack of a better word, a stumbling block. If we were discussing the spiritual being described as God then we could eliminate the conflict. Part of our Christian identity is recognizing that God has come in human flesh and that perspective or angle is not one that the Jewish community is likely to embrace. So the question is are we talking about the same God or are we talking about different gods?

You wrote:

Don't know if I would call it supercessionisim or not, all I do know is that once our identity was in Adam, now its in Jesus,

As a Christian I would agree with you, again, I'm pretty certain that a Jew would not make the same claim. Because they cannot share in Jesus as a matter of faith are they cast aside or left out of the coming kingdom?

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn,

Your reply asked:
"So God's revelation does not require anything to be present other than the will of God for such revelation to break through into the lives of others?"

I would say that it does not require it, though one can be open, aware, present... to make God's work easier, but if God really willed it, I think resistance would be futile.

AND:
"If I read you correctly you are qualifying the community. It must be a sympathetic or a friendly community in order for the adherent to realize any advantage."

I think that it helps, but the community can become sympathetic or friendly. I am a "it depends on the situation" on advantage.

Thanks for the gold stars. Who knew being a geek bookworm information junkie would pay off in virtual stars...

Peace
Stevie G

RevJohn I dont believe the Jewish people are left out in the coming kingdom, it is just that a blindness has come on parts of Israel. Paul also mentions, that Christ will return to the Jews, when the fullness of the gentiles has come in.

It's all a matter of faith. Have any of you read the story about Abraham? Believing in Christ is the same faith. God said - therefore I believe him.
What's so hard about that?

Revjohn said,,

{Can a passage of scripture tolerate a diversity of interpretations or must all interpretations partake of sameness?}

I'm sure it can, at the same time we need to be careful that it doesn't bear bad fruit

{Fair enough. God is God. Does this hold true when I move outside of a Christian frameword to a comparison of say, the stereotypical United Church member and the stereotypical orthodox Jewish person?}

I believe so yes, although moving out reduces the fullness of the revelation of who God is and what he has done.

{What will giving it to the Lord do with respect to the disagreement? Does it reconcile the two or does it reduce both to blank slates and they must start anew?}

The two should be reconciled already in Christ, giving it to the Lord is having enough faith in him that God will reveal it at a God appointed time.

{Whose heart would humility open? Mine or the other's?}

In my experience it begins with the faith believer ending with the others also.

{ Fair enough. I don't think that the Jews look to Jesus in that role. I'm pretty confident they would not name Jesus as their guide.}

some do, others well the fullness of his plan is not yet. Never the less it is still Jesus that was there from the beginning before Abraham was

{Fair enough. A Jew likely would. So right there we have a source of conflict how can it be resolved?}

Simple have faith in Christ that in time at a God appointed time things will come to light. It is foretold that the Jews will come to that knowledge We are human we cant resolve everything.

{Part of our Christian identity is recognizing that God has come in human flesh and that perspective or angle is not one that the Jewish community is likely to embrace. So the question is are we talking about the same God or are we talking about different gods?}

Yes he's the same God , Christians in Jesus have the fullness of understanding of who he is, Jewish people still are waiting for the fullness of the same God we believe in.

{ As a Christian I would agree with you, again, I'm pretty certain that a Jew would not make the same claim. Because they cannot share in Jesus as a matter of faith are they cast aside or left out of the coming kingdom?}

Good question, salvation is of the Jews , the gentiles have be grafted in , God has been working in the Jewish people for thousands of yrs, from what I see the state of Israel is coming to its fullness as we are see on the world stage. Are all Jews saved , I don't think so , salvation is an individual thing , just like any other race, as Jesus saved the prophets of Old I believe he will save the true Jewish people also after all it is God who is blinding them for a season for the benefit of the world.

God bless for those tough questions

gosh, i don't have to be a painter to recognize beauty in painting.

There is always the question, does it help to have a writeup of the history of the artist, the time, the style to enjoy the beauty of it.

For me, it does...and that is why I chose this analolgy.

You chose canoeing.
I don't have to know anything about canoeing to appreciate the beauty of a canoe going down stream, yet, if i look closer, i might see the subtle strokes, the way the canoe shifts through the water, does it hit rocks?

there is something for being aware, of learning, which can alter / enhance one's experience.

StephenGordon,

Hi,

You wrote:

I think resistance would be futile.

Silver star for that. It isn't Marcus but it is still Borg.

You wrote:

I am a "it depends on the situation" on advantage.

Fair enough.

You wrote:

Thanks for the gold stars.

You are welcome.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hopeful_One,

Hi,

You wrote:

I dont believe the Jewish people are left out in the coming kingdom, it is just that a blindness has come on parts of Israel.

Can you identify the nature of that blindness?

Grace and peace to you.

John

BornFree,

Hi, Thanks for your contribution?

You wrote:

It's all a matter of faith.

And that is part of what we have been discussing. Primarily the connection between faith the revelation. The questions are up top care to take a stab at them?

You wrote:

Have any of you read the story about Abraham?

As a matter of fact I have. Don't doubt the story for a second. I might doubt one's interpretation of it and they might doubt mine. That is the sort of thing I'm trying to work through in this particular thread.

You wrote:

God said - therefore I believe him. What's so hard about that?

Nothing really. So long as that is what God really said and that is what God really meant. Hence the interpretation bit we have been looking at.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I still haven't caught up on all of the posts...but will jabber on with you...please ignore any redundant ideas....

revjohn said "So, operating under a 'general' revelation paradigm which may or may not be seriously limiting, when a thing is drowned out can it be recovered and what would the process or mechanism of recovery look like?"

I think we do recover our personal relationship with the divine mystery, as we age. Possibly, this is because we are less concerned with other's opinions of us, or our opinions of them...and more in tune with "this is true for me, in my individual relationship...it isn't necessarily right for all"

I think, for me, it was important to glean all I could from studies done by others...with expertise in their fields, and then relate it through my personal experiences and "knowing". It isn't important to me that I agree or disagree...it is important that I am authentically expressing myself. I think it is also important to honor this individuality in others.

blackbelt,

Hi,

You wrote:

I'm sure it can, at the same time we need to be careful that it doesn't bear bad fruit.

Okay, this is where we have come this far. Scripture is available to a diversity of options some of which will be God sharing God's truth and that truth can come from a variety of interpreters because it is God who has effective ontrol over the process of interpretation.

Does that sound like a fair assessment of our part of the conversation so far?

You wrote:

I believe so yes, although moving out reduces the fullness of the revelation of who God is and what he has done.

Moving out from where exactly blackbelt? A Christocentric focal point, a Theocentric starting point or perhaps something else?

You wrote:

The two should be reconciled already in Christ, giving it to the Lord is having enough faith in him that God will reveal it at a God appointed time.

Okay, good. That works for the whole Christian family. Does it work when we start having these kind of conversations with our Jewish cousins?

You wrote:

In my experience it begins with the faith believer ending with the others also.

Good it is a mutual opening process.

You wrote:

Never the less it is still Jesus that was there from the beginning before Abraham was.

I believe so but I believe that based on the texts I have and accept as being from God. The jews do not accept the canonicity of what you and I call the New Testament. We can argue that Jesus has always been there all but a minority of Jews are going to argue that isn't so.

It sounds like you are saying that even though we have disagreement about Jesus, we can wait it out (for lack of a better terminology) and they will come around to our way of thinking.

That might be a bit rough language wise but is it the sentiment you are expressing?

You wrote:

We are human we cant resolve everything.

So how will we know whether or not the issue is something we cannot resolve?

Following on that, how do we interact with the Jews until the issue is resolved?

You wrote:

Yes he's the same God , Christians in Jesus have the fullness of understanding of who he is, Jewish people still are waiting for the fullness of the same God we believe in.

So the Hebrew scriptures are insufficient to lead anyone to a fullness of understanding? Again I'm just trying to clarify what I am reading not put words in your mouth.

You wrote:

Good question

Thank you.

You wrote:

the gentiles have be grafted in,

That language is important I think because it is branches that are grafted onto a tree, not roots. The branches are important because they hold the leaves where photosynthesis takes place. The roots are important because they draw in moisture and provide the whole thing with stability.

Nobody would graft a living branch to a dead trunk.

So, if we are grafted onto something it stands to reason that what we are grafted onto is something that is living and is going to continue to live. Our being there as healthy branches will contribute to the life of the whole tree and yet, being grafted to that tree safeguard's our ability to live and to prosper.

You wrote:

Are all Jews saved , I don't think so,

Are all Christian's saved?

You wrote:

salvation is an individual thing,

Is it truly? Or might it be a corporate thing which we experience individually?

You wrote:

God bless for those tough questions

God bless for your willingness to engage them.

Grace and peace to you.

John