Calling out Kirksey...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]There is no standpoint to interpret Scripture straight, so if Kirk twists Scripture, than we all do.

That's like saying that I have the right to interpret what Plato meant when he said, "wisdom is knowing you know nothing," as if he did not have a specific idea in mind. I may have my own clever idea about what he might have meant, but what of t? Is the author's original intent only inconsequential in the Bible's case? If so, why?[/b]

Well, you do have the right to interpret Plato how you would like, though whether your interpretation is better or worse depends on a host of factors. Unfortunately, we cannot ask Plato what he meant by 'wisdom', and even if we could we would have to interpret his response. We do not have direct, unmediated access to the intentions of others, their conceptual frameworks, or their perhaps idiosyncratic deployment of terms. For the Bible, you do not know who the authors were of any number of passages, nor what their intent originally was. You have to work backwards from the text and ancillary sources to infer their intent. Of course their intent matters in determining the accuracy of an interpretation, but you do not have access to that information. Unless, of course, God himself renders unto you the unalloyed truth of authorial intent. Do you think this has happened to you, or to the poster I originally took issue with?

Originally posted by pritybetta
The passage you used is about a Gentile woman who is not an Israelite. While Jesus was here he was teaching only Israelites, hence him not answering her.

Why are you comfortable with this? I mean, what you're basically saying is
that Jesus is a jerk for ignoring this woman with a legitimate need that He
could address, and that this is totally acceptable.

I mean, do you think Jesus' command to see Him in one another only
applies to Jews? Do you think that the command to love one another as God
has loved you is only for the Jews?

How do you justify Jesus' behavior as a reflection of the Divine which is Love?

Nemesio

Well-meaning and faithful exegetes have been grappling with scriptural interpretation for centuries. In modern times, there is form criticism, historical criticism, literary criticism, etc. Among ancient approaches are Jewish midrash, and similar methods for reading “down into” the texts by early Christian exegetes. There are also more personal reading strategies, such as contemplative lectio divina.

What Kirk has offered is a kind of meditative reading, akin to lectio divina and cast in a form to be shared with others whose own mind might thereby be touched and stimulated. It is generally couched in terms that a Jewish midrashist would call remez: the homiletical possibilities underneath the surface of the plain text p’shat—but his note about there being a little of every character in all of us points us, the readers of Kirk’s remez toward the deeper levels of d’rash (allegory) and sod (the mystical level). As I said, early Christian exegetes had similar formulae: Origen’s was three-fold, rather than four-fold; others had different schema. [I frankly do not think that sod can be shared on here at all, except perhaps in poetry, Zen koans, and other such evocative language—which cannot then be explicated through “normal” discourse without defeating its purpose.]

He offered it as that kind of meditation on the text; he understood that that was what I was asking for. Actually, I would call such a meditation—so offered to others—a therapeutic meditation on the text: again, what I was asking for.

______________________________________

With that said, I have no further interest in discussing/debating “proper” exegesis here. My task is now to do my own contemplative work with what Kirk has offered. It begins with noticing how all three of those principal characters (or their “archetypes”, so to speak) voice themselves in my own head, creating a whole perspectival (melo)drama that, in my case, can sometimes run over and over on its own (to use bbarr’s term) epicycles, that I from time to time become lost in. It is also helpful, once I am given the needed “clue”, to see how my own accumulated thinking can “narrow the window of grace” if I don’t keep things sorted out.

I am sometimes accused on here—fairly, I think—of “over-intellectualizing” spiritual matters. That is partly a matter of the kinds of discussions we have on here, partly my intellectual interest in differing religious paradigms, partly my use of this forum as a place to test my own thinking. Sometimes I get caught in that, to the detriment of my own contemplative/meditative spiritual life. Sometimes, it takes me awhile (spinning in those epicycles) to realize that. This time, I took a short retreat to try to clear it out. Often, that’s all I need to do. This time, I decided (when I realized that I was still caught in the same intellectual soap-opera as I posted on here again) to ask for help—from a contemplative mind (from outside my own religious paradigm, sort of) that has helped me to clear things out before.

Now, as I say, I have to go and do the necessary work of getting to that clear ground again. Thanks, Kirk, for the help.

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, you do have the right to interpret Plato how you would like, though whether your interpretation is better or worse depends on a host of factors. Unfortunately, we cannot ask Plato what he meant by 'wisdom', and even if we could we would have to interpret his response. We do not have direct, unmediated access to the intentions of others, their conceptua ...[text shortened]... intent. Do you think this has happened to you, or to the poster I originally took issue with?

You have to work backwards from the text and ancillary sources to infer their intent. Of course their intent matters in determining the accuracy of an interpretation, but you do not have access to that information.

Forgive me for pressing the issue, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say we can infer the author's intent by working backwards from the text and ancillary sources, yet you also say that we don't have access to the author's intent. Am I missing something?

Unless, of course, God himself renders unto you the unalloyed truth of authorial intent. Do you think this has happened to you, or to the poster I originally took issue with?

No. But I do believe the author's intent is discoverable, and that a finite number of correct and harmonious interpretations may exist for any given passage. What we glean from scripture, though it may be as rich and rewarding as Kirksey's insight, may yet miss the mark in a stricter sense.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well-meaning and faithful exegetes have been grappling with scriptural interpretation for centuries. In modern times, there is form criticism, historical criticism, literary criticism, etc. Among ancient approaches are Jewish midrash, and similar methods for reading “down into” the texts by early Christian exegetes. There are also more personal reading st ...[text shortened]... go and do the necessary work of getting to that clear ground again. Thanks, Kirk, for the help.

Perhaps given a little more reflection on my part, I would have recalled Jesus' words from the cross "My God, why have you forsaken me?" as a piece of the story to come for him and a universal story and question for all of us.

Thanks for your feedback..... and call out.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]You have to work backwards from the text and ancillary sources to infer their intent. Of course their intent matters in determining the accuracy of an interpretation, but you do not have access to that information.

Forgive me for pressing the issue, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say we can infer the author's intent by wor y be as rich and rewarding as Kirksey's insight, may yet miss the mark in a stricter sense.[/b]

I did not say that we could infer authorial intent, I said that we have to work backwards if we are to infer authorial intent. Whether we can, in fact, justifiably infer authorial intent depends on the evidence we have at our disposal. But that epistemic point is tangential to the fact that we have nowhere else to begin.

I am unsure as to what I ought to make of your second claim. Presumably, if different interpretations can both be correct, then either authorial intent does not determine meaning, or the authors intended their writings to have multiple meanings, or that there are gestalt meanings of Scripture that are not reducible to the meanings fixed by the intent of the multiple authors of Scriptural passages. What do you think of this?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Why are you comfortable with this? I mean, what you're basically saying is
that Jesus is a jerk for ignoring this woman with a legitimate need that He
could address, and that this is totally acceptable.

I mean, do you think Jesus' command to see Him in one another only
applies to Jews? Do you think that the command to love one another as God
has lo ...[text shortened]...

How do you justify Jesus' behavior as a reflection of the Divine which is Love?

Nemesio

Did you not see where I said that Paul was the one to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles? And NO, I did not mean that Jesus was a jerk for ignoring this woman, He had a reason to do so. The Gospel was to be preached to the Israelites first, then the Gentiles, this is the reason for Jesus not answering her at first.

The Divine is not only love, that is what everyone tries to say so they "feel" better. If you truly read and study the Bible you would know that.

Originally posted by pritybetta
If you truly read and study the Bible you would know that.

Wow.

Originally posted by duecer
I have answered them...you refuse to recognize the truth in my reponses. You believe what you believe, because its what you want to believe, not because its right.

"duecer says: "further into that site (I didn't want to post duel links) the use of Adam to mean the person is primarily used in the second chapter. In the first chapter the usage and inference is of mankind. Adam was created on the 8th day (second chapter) to tend to God's garden in Eden."

duecer says: "http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=0120&t=KJV

(part of context is also cultural, and knowing when these are cultural issues, and when they are spiritual)"

pritybetta says :
duecer, How is it that Adam was made on the 8th day when in Genesis chapter 2 the Bible states that there was not a man to till the ground?

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.


duecer says:
Gen 1: 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I don't know...seams clear to me.



pritybetta says:

If God made man before making Adam then there would have been a man to till the ground, however in Genesis chapter two it states there was not a man to till the ground, thus making Adam the first man. If you look at it the way you say then there would have been man already, so why then would God go and make another when he has already made some? Why couldn't he have just got one of the others to do it? And why would the deffinition of Adam state him as being the first man?

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


duecer says:
your logic is called circular reasoning.e.g. it is because I said so, and because I said so it is.

Do you honestly believe that all human beings are descendants of Adam and Eve? God made science and the laws of nature when he created the universe. Adam and Eve are not a big enough gene pool to populate the earth, after for or five generations there would have been horrible and grotesque birth defects, to the point where reproduction would become impossible. It says thatafter cain slew Abel, God placed on him a mark, and he fled to Nod, married and built a city, for whom did he build a city, and who exactly do you think he married?
Your interpretation of scripture here is not plausible.


pritybetta says:

So insted of focusing on answering my questions you resort to this? Wow, and here I thought I may learn something other than what I though to be true. If you can not answer my questions then you must not have that great of an interpretation yourself.

Do you believe that the Lord could not have keep the birth defects form happening? And what says Adam and Eve didn't have any other children before Cain and Abel? The Bible doesn't say that Cain and Abel were Adam's and Eve's first born.

duecer says:
I have been more than patient with your ignorance. It is no wonder that you don't attend a church, no church on the planet can live up to your standard.
I shall waste no further time reposting my arguments which are abundantly clear.
Having said that, I wish you a long and happy life. Good day."

Now tell me where you answered any of my questions?

Originally posted by bbarr
Wow.

Most Holy, is there a book or incident in the Bible that is relevant to the reality of life as you see it?

Originally posted by pritybetta
Did you not see where I said that Paul was the one to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles? And NO, I did not mean that Jesus was a jerk for ignoring this woman, He had a reason to do so. The Gospel was to be preached to the Israelites first, then the Gentiles, this is the reason for Jesus not answering her at first.

The Divine is not only love, that is w ...[text shortened]... tries to say so they "feel" better. If you truly read and study the Bible you would know that.

So, God instructed Jesus to be a jerk while He was on earth -- that is, refusing
to give the Good News to all the earth and treating this woman poorly -- because
God knew that the Good News would be spread later by St Paul?

And you're comfortable with this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by kirksey957
“Where’s My Moment of Grace?”

Text: Matthew 15:21-28
21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David, my daughter is severly possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his di ...[text shortened]... “be it done for you as you desire.”

May this be the hope that we live for and struggle with.

Well done, as always Kirksey.

I'm curious about one phrase you higlighted “seek and you will find, ask and it shall be given”. I get the impression that you use this site to challenge your faith, your own spiritual understanding if you will. Is this an accurate assessment? Secondly, do you feel that your service to others fulfills you in such a way as it 'proves' the existence of God?

Did you finalize who are the judges for the next competition going to be? I have some choice passages picked out to work into a sermon and I feel the Rev. Billy Bob Blackhand stirring to spread the Good Word. I feel a powerful need welling up within me, a need fueled by human despair and human dignity intertwined.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Well done, as always Kirksey.

I'm curious about one phrase you higlighted “seek and you will find, ask and it shall be given”. I get the impression that you use this site to challenge your faith, your own spiritual understanding if you will. Is this an accurate assessment? Secondly, do you feel that your service to others fulfills you in such a ...[text shortened]... rful need welling up within me, a need fueled by human despair and human dignity intertwined.

No, I would not say any service I do proves the existence of God. I think I use the site for a variety of reasons beyond chess. Community, fun, and stimulation mostly.

I'll try to get my head together to arrange a new competition here soon.

Kirk,

I’ve been meditating on this homily off and on now since my last post on this thread, as I have also been trying to kick-start a renewal of my own contemplative life—against which I have kept on compulsively, and frustratingly, debating on this forum.

Yesterday I had an insight into myself (via your suggested way of viewing that scriptural text) that surprised me. This morning, as I was meditating on it again, something shattered deep inside me—something that goes way back as far as I can remember, though I am not sure of its original source (don’t even know that it matters). Something about my own psychology and hang-ups, and hence my own spiritual frustrations. I’ll just keep to the metaphor, and say that now I can do the work of sweeping away the shards of glass from a dark pane (a pun there) that was closing up that window of grace.

Thank you.

Originally posted by vistesd
Kirk,

I’ve been meditating on this homily off and on now since my last post on this thread, as I have also been trying to kick-start a renewal of my own contemplative life—against which I have kept on compulsively, and frustratingly, debating on this forum.

Yesterday I had an insight into myself (via your suggested way of viewing that scriptural text) ...[text shortened]... of glass from a dark pane (a pun there) that was closing up that window of grace.

Thank you.

You and me both, my brother! I had a recent 900 mile round trip (to visit my aging parents) and the meditation kept coming back to me as I often experience life as "crumbs from the table." I also wondered if a better title for the meditation might be "Stained Glass Window." I think you get the play on words.

I think the woman in the story is somewhat a master of words and if you didn't feel a connection in this respect with her, at least consider it.