1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999A word-sign: God.
Vistesd, I find this to be a very thought provoking statement. I think you said it in another thread a few minutes ago. Care to enlarge on it and probably give some examples. Thanks.
The sign consists of a signifier (the letters G-o-d, or their phonetic pronunciation) and a signified (the definition or meaning of the word-sign “God” ).
But the referent is whatever is in reality that that chosen word-sign is—referring to. That referent has no name, no word-sign, originally. It just is. Whatever relationship I have to that referent—just is, before I think/speak about it in any way.
Everything that Jesus said was about his—and our—relationship to that referent. His language was somewhat culturally determined, although he tried to reach out of that. His language—and the language of the gospels and the rest of the NT—was “formal”. But that form—that formality—is not the issue: the issue is the relationship with the referent.
My own language is “formal”. The issue, however, is relationship with (and in, and of) the referent—of which/whom I am.
But “religious” people tend to get hung up with the form—with the “proper” formal expressions of that relationship. They “idolize” the form, and exclude a priori any other attempts at formal expressions of that relationship.
All such formal expressions are provisional—mine, yours, anyone else’s. They are like maps. Idolatry is to cling to the map, rather than to visit the territory.
Maps are okay. They can help to reach the territory. But they are not the territory.
A “heretic” (infidel, etc.) is one who has the “wrong” map. This is not to say that some maps are not better than others—depending on which aspect of the territory you want to discover/understand (e.g. topographical maps versus road maps). And some maps may just be more accurate at depicting the territory than others. But a person might find himself in the territory using even bad maps.
It is the territory that matters, not the map that gets you there. Jesus, as the Christ, expressed himself as a map (as an exemplar, a sacrament). Actually, he expressed himself—for all of us, not exclusively for himself—as an aspect, a manifestation, an incarnation of the territory (God, the ground of all being, in which/whom, we live and move and have our being).
What I am calling formalists get hung up on the map (“Only this map will save you!” ). A non-formalist recognizes that there are many maps, none of which actually is the territory. A non-formalist may, however, choose to use one map in particular (a Trappist monk, say), without denying any and all efficacy to other maps.
I am a non-formalist. That is why I can use this particular religious language now, and another language tomorrow. The danger for a non-formalist is that s/he can end up as a kind of spiritual dilettante, studying this and that map without ever getting to the territory. The danger for a formalist is idolizing a specific map.
As a nonformalist I see the various religious understandings as a bit like different-colored streams of the one clear light, refracted through the prism of human consciousness, cultural context, and the like. I see Jesus as the Christ as pointing (both in his message and in his person) along one stream back to the source, from which all the streams are manifest/incarnated. [The metaphor is limited; however, might the logos be the prism?]
A formalist sees the primary risk as having the wrong map—one that will not lead you to the territory/referent (i.e., that will not be salvific). A non-formalist sees idolatry of the map as the primary risk.
It is the realization of this distinction that led me to refuse to answer yes or no to the question “Are you a Christian” in PinkFloyd’s thread. It is this realization that led to me no longer identifying myself as a Zen Buddhist. It is this realization that has allowed me to revisit the whole “Christic” map that I had jettisoned.
I am now exploring from a different perspective...
Originally posted by vistesdThanks. Im pretty sure Christ was trying to say some of this.
A word-sign: God.
The sign consists of a signifier (the letters G-o-d, or their phonetic pronunciation) and a signified (the definition or meaning of the word-sign “God” ).
But the referent is whatever is in reality that that chosen word-sign is—referring to. That referent has no name, no word-sign, originally. It just is. Wh ...[text shortened]... ole “Christic” map that I had jettisoned.
I am now exploring from a different perspective...
Anyway, if I apply your theory to Christianity : the 'map' represent outward expressions of spirituality :
- belief and faith
- baptism
- dressing up and going to church
- singing of hymns and clapping of hands
- reading and studying scripture
- understanding doctine in a particular way
- breaking of bread and drinking of wine
- etc
Correct?
What would be the terrority ?
4 edits
Originally posted by vistesdThis verse has nothing to do with scriptural texts.
[b]The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27).
What the...?!!?
This verse has nothing to do with scriptural texts.
The logos (“word” ) of God is not the Bible. The Logos incarnate is the Christ, the “Son” of God, exemplified by—but not limited to—Jesus of Nazareth. Of course the church recognizes th so likely at the root of my own frustration with my own attempts to communicate on here of late.[/b]
Jesus says that his sheep recognize his voice. Aren't his words among the scriptural texts? Not only the letters in red, but in every verse directly inspired (God-breathed) by the Holy Spirit?
The logos (“word” ) of God is [b]not the Bible.[/b]
It was undoubtedly a mistake to capitalize the word "Word" in the statement you highlighted. I'm well aware that the Logos is not the Bible. However, Christ's sheep recognize the voice of the Logos, and the voice of the Logos is definitely contained in ever genuinely inspired scriptural text.
(Hell, I recognize that Word—though likely not in the particularistic, exclusivist way that you do.)
I don't ever remember being an exclusivist regarding the Logos. In fact, I've admitted before that those who have never heard of Jesus Christ (the ancient Jewish carpenter) are still capable of being justified in God's eyes by believing in and following the disincarnate Logos of God. Abraham is a prime example of this.
What I do believe is that Jesus Christ is the fullest expression of the Logos. "The exact likeness of the unseen God" (Colossians 1:15).
And even if there was a verb in 2nd Timothy 3:16, to cite scripture in support of the inspiration of scripture is viciously circular.
This is besides the point, IMO. Any given scripture is either God-breathed or it isn't. If it is God-breathed, then Christ's sheep will recognize it as such. This may not be sufficient evidence to convince a non-believer of the NT's validity, but that's not really what we're discussing here. The bottom line is, the authority of inspired text, in my opinion, is not given to it by ecclesiastical decree.
(1) I have never—never—dismissed your mystical (or “charismatic”, if you prefer) experiences. I have perhaps challenged your interpretations of them, especially in the context of any—at least any universal, as opposed to personal—epistemic warrant.
What mystical experiences are you referring to?
(2) Sola scripturist or not, there are many instances in which I think your reading of scripture is just—wrong. (Again, at least in any universal sense.) Hence, I cannot ascribe to such readings/interpretations the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, regardless of the charismatic context in which they might have been informed.
Fair enough. But I don't write in these forums with the pretension of being divinely inspired. Maybe I come across like that inadvertently, I don't know. I have my opinion like everyone else and it is what it is. Whatever my opinion can ultimately be categorized as I personally have no interest in.
"Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Okay, a third point: I suspect that you accede to the charge of epistemic irresponsibility far too readily, as if—in light of spiritual inspiration—that was okay.
Why isn't it okay? Unless I'm misunderstanding the term epistemic (which is a real possibility, due to the fact that I haven't anything more than a high school degree under my belt). If Hume says it's irrational to believe in miracles, is that the same as saying it's epistemically irresponsible to believe in miracles? If not, then I need to reconsider my position. Otherwise, I have no problem being irresponsible epistemically, and gladly exercise the right (outlined by William James) to believe any live hypothesis that tempts my will.
Let me just say this (do you recall my “sermon” about “Coloring Inside the Lines”, in the sermon contest last year?)...well, I’ll just leave that open. Except—do you think I just make that stuff up? Do you think that whenever I adopt “Christic” language in/from which to speak, I am just faking it? Because I am also willing to use other language if is seems appropriate?
I do recall your sermon from last year. And, no, I don't think you just make that stuff up. Neither do I think that you're faking anything.
Did I miss something? Is my interpretation of scripture a personal affront to you? I assure you, I never mean it to be, if that's the case.
Originally posted by Conrau KLike I said, I have no problem with tradition. Only bad tradition, i.e., that which cannot be substantiated by scripture.
Ahh...Tradition!
If you want to say that we need sacred tradition in order to be properly equipped doctrinally and spiritually, then you must establish that the Bible is not sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness -- and doctrinal issues.
Are you able to do this?
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas"I don't ever remember being an exclusivist regarding the Logos."
[b]This verse has nothing to do with scriptural texts.
Jesus says that his sheep recognize his voice. Aren't his words among the scriptural texts? Not only the letters in red, but in every verse directly inspired (God-breathed) by the Holy Spirit?
The logos (“word” ) of God is [b]not the Bible.[/b]
It was undoubte ont to you? I assure you, I never mean it to be, if that's the case.[/b]
FWIW, I seem to remember. 🙂
I believe it was the first discussion I had with you. As I remember you took a very hard line on this (speaking in "hard words" ), so I called you "arrogant", which you took exception to.
Perhaps "tomorrow" tends to forget "today's" hard words 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOn the contrary, our first discussion was about hypocritical Christians, and we differed about whether a Christian could be imperfect and not hypocritical at the same time. Your position was, as it still is, that a Christian's imperfection implies hypocrisy.
[b]"I don't ever remember being an exclusivist regarding the Logos."
FWIW, I seem to remember. 🙂
I believe it was the first discussion I had with you. As I remember you took a very hard line on this (speaking in "hard words" ), so I called you "arrogant", which you took exception to.
Perhaps "tomorrow" tends to forget "today's" hard words 🙂[/b]
__________
The conversation you're referring took place later. It was a discussion about the person of Christ.
I've done a lot more research in apologetics since then, and, admittedly, was wrong in asserting that faith in Jesus Christ (the ancient Jewish carpenter) is the only way to justification - there is the exception of those who have never heard of him. In all other instances involving those who have heard of him, Jesus says that anyone who denies him (i.e., Jesus, the man; the exact likeness of the invisible God) he will deny before his Father who is in heaven (Matthew 10:33).
"And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8-9).
You disagreed with this.
__________
I don't disagree that this may make me an exclusivist, as vistesd claimed.
Originally posted by epiphinehasLike I said, I have no problem with tradition. Only bad tradition, i.e., that which cannot be substantiated by scripture.
Like I said, I have no problem with tradition. Only bad tradition, i.e., that which cannot be substantiated by scripture.
If you want to say that we need sacred tradition in order to be properly equipped doctrinally and spiritually, then you must establish that the Bible is not sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness -- and doctrinal issues.
Are you able to do this?
This is bizarre: To determine the veracity of the claim to divine inspiration, you must appeal to the tradition by which that scripture came to be recognised as such. But whether that tradition is good or not is determined by whether it can be substantiated by scripture. This is circular. You have claimed that tradition substantiated scripture, but then, scripture must substantiate tradition.
How do you know the scripture came from a good tradition? And please don't say because the scripture says so...
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KTo determine the veracity of the claim to divine inspiration, you must appeal to the tradition by which that scripture came to be recognised as such.
[b]Like I said, I have no problem with tradition. Only bad tradition, i.e., that which cannot be substantiated by scripture.
This is bizarre: To determine the veracity of the claim to divine inspiration, you must appeal to the tradition by which that scripture came to be recognised as such. But whether that tradition is good or not is determined by ...[text shortened]... the scripture came from a good tradition? And please don't say because the scripture says so...[/b]
I never appealed to tradition as an authority in itself, so there is nothing circular in my reasoning. You're the one who's (bizarrely) appealing to tradition. My answer to your question, if you remember, was, "yes, scripture is self-validating."
How do you know the scripture came from a good tradition? And please don't say because the scripture says so...
This is a red herring. The original point I made was that a genuinely God-breathed book's authority does not come from any ecclesiastical decree.
__________
EDIT: If you want to say that we need sacred tradition in order to be properly equipped doctrinally and spiritually, then you must establish that the Bible is not sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness -- and doctrinal issues.
Are you able to do this?
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI never appealed to tradition as an authority in itself, so there is nothing circular in my reasoning. You're the one who's (bizarrely) appealing to tradition. My answer to your question, if you remember, was, "yes, scripture is self-validating."
[b]To determine the veracity of the claim to divine inspiration, you must appeal to the tradition by which that scripture came to be recognised as such.
I never appealed to tradition as an authority in itself, so there is nothing circular in my reasoning. You're the one who's (bizarrely) appealing to tradition. My answer to your question, if you ection, and training in righteousness -- and doctrinal issues.
Are you able to do this?[/b]
If you are not appealing to some tradition, then you still need to explain how you know that scripture is divinely inspired and how the claims of divine inspiration by other books are invalid.
This is a red herring. The original point I made was that a genuinely God-breathed book's authority does not come from any ecclesiastical decree.
No; that is the red herring. Church councils only decreed that such and such books were "God-breathed" and that other books were not; they did not claim to give authority but to recognise that such books already had authority. Only you equivocate on this point. If you reject the authority of these decrees, you must explain why you recognise these books as "God-breathed" and not others.
Originally posted by epiphinehas"Your position was, as it still is, that a Christian's imperfection implies hypocrisy."
On the contrary, our first discussion was about hypocritical Christians, and we differed about whether a Christian could be imperfect and not hypocritical at the same time. Your position was, as it still is, that a Christian's imperfection implies hypocrisy.
__________
The conversation you're referring took place later. It was a discussion about th ...[text shortened]...
__________
I don't disagree that this may make me an exclusivist, as vistesd claimed.
This is not now and never was my position. I'm not sure what you inferred this from.
I'm also not sure why you infer that Matthew 10:33 and Luke 12:8-9 necessarily mean "Jesus, the man" especially in light of Luke 12:10.
Originally posted by epiphinehasLet me make just a few of points:
[b]This verse has nothing to do with scriptural texts.
Jesus says that his sheep recognize his voice. Aren't his words among the scriptural texts? Not only the letters in red, but in every verse directly inspired (God-breathed) by the Holy Spirit?
The logos (“word” ) of God is [b]not the Bible.[/b]
It was undoubtedly a mistak ...[text shortened]... ont to you? I assure you, I never mean it to be, if that's the case.[/b]
(1) Okay, I’m touchy on that whole logos/word thingy; your point about Jesus voice in the texts is well taken in general.
(2) I really don’t know what “god-breathed” means; the only use of that phrase in the whole Biblical collection (so far as I have found) is 2nd Timothy 3:16, which properly refers back to the sacred writings, mentioned in 3:15, that “Timothy” (the “you” in verse 15 is singular in the Greek) knew from childhood.
The whole point is that the determination of which writings are inspired, and what inspiration (or theopneustos) means—both itself and for the texts—comes from outside of scripture itself. It comes from the decisions of one ekklesia or another, early or late. I do not think that—and this is not aimed at you per se*—a particular belief about inspiration a Christian makes or breaks.
(3)
Fair enough. But I don't write in these forums with the pretension of being divinely inspired. Maybe I come across like that inadvertently, I don't know. I have my opinion like everyone else and it is what it is. Whatever my opinion can ultimately be categorized as I personally have no interest in.
My bad. No, you generally come across as someone who does his best exegetical due diligence. See, again, my footnote below.
(4)
...due to the fact that I haven't anything more than a high school degree under my belt...
Well, one would never know that!!! What I think we have meant by “epistemic irresponsibility” here (remember, I’m not the professional philosopher here either) is either willingness to claim that a belief need not be justified in some normative way (e.g., by appeal to evidence), or being careless about what constitutes justification. Hume argued that the weight of justification, even in the face of his own hypothetical witnessing of a “miraculous” event, had to be with the general natural laws of the cosmos.
It is epistemically irresponsible, in my view, to simply throw up one’s hands and say, “Okay, so I cannot really justify my belief in P, so I’m epistemically irresponsible—but I’m just going to believe P anyway, without justification.” I don’t think that’s what you are intending. We can argue about justifications, and I haven’t seen you attempting to abdicate that epistemic responsibility—which is why I said that I think you are accepting the “charge” far too readily.
(5)
Did I miss something? Is my interpretation of scripture a personal affront to you? I assure you, I never mean it to be, if that's the case.
Oh no, not at all! Don’t mistake my passion (or even heat) in and for the argument for that.
(6) Re: the “disincarnate logos”. I have to think about that. It might go to something like Paul Tillich’s distinction (which was not original with him; his is just the only version that I have some past familiarity with) between essence and existence. It might also go to the orthodox distinction between God’s essence and God’s energies. But I probably really have in mind Meister Eckhart notions of very creature being an expression incarnate of the Logos. I’ll have to sit with it for awhile...
____________________________________
* I, too, sometimes fall into error of lumping all evangelical protestant views on scripture into one basket. Mea cupola (pub intended). 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI think it roughly equates to divine inspiration. The two terms, curiously, are identical in their original meanings: "inspiration" derives from the Latin "spirare" (to breathe); so "divine inspiration" is probably a Latinate version of the Germanic "god-breathed".
(2) I really don’t know what “god-breathed” means; the only use of that phrase in the whole Biblical collection (so far as I have found) is 2nd Timothy 3:16, which properly refers back to the sacred writings, mentioned in 3:15...
Originally posted by Rajk999What would be the territory ?
Thanks. Im pretty sure Christ was trying to say some of this.
Anyway, if I apply your theory to Christianity : the 'map' represent outward expressions of spirituality :
- belief and faith
- baptism
- dressing up and going to church
- singing of hymns and clapping of hands
- reading and studying scripture
- understanding doctine in a particular way
- breaking of bread and drinking of wine
- etc
Correct?
What would be the terrority ?
The reality as it is before we think anything at all about it (of course, there is a recursive “loop” in that, since when we think, our thinking/conceptualization process—as a process—is also part of that). The underlying reality includes us.
In theological terms, the territory is the ground of our being (whether one conceives of that in terms of God or Brahman or the Tao, etc.) in which/whom “we live and move and have our being”. That territory is not just the ground, but also being-expressed—whether one talks about God the creator, or the Tao as the source of the “ten thousand things”. And that expressing implies power and action—so now you have a whole trinitarian formulation: ground, power and manifestation (symbolized in personal terms as “Father, Spirit (pneuma and Logos/Son” ). A dualist would express it differently than a non-dualist—or perhaps a panentheist.
Meister Eckhart, to my mind, expresses it most clearly within a Trinitarian Christianity (he did get into a bit of trouble with the church, though).
So-called “mysticism” (a word that I do use, without any implication of the “supernatural” or the occult) is just being in touch with the divine ground. Formal “maps”—including the one’s you list—can facilitate that being-in-touch. They also represent our attempts to express our understanding of that being-in-touch.
In my soteriology of transformation and healing, it is that being-in-touch that is transformative and salvific. Not simply what we think about it—which would be a kind of “believe right and be saved”.
We are, of course, always being-in-touch. Which moves the discussion to another level—one having to do with illusion, realization, metanoia, the openness of the kind of existential faith that I talk about (and the only way in which I use that word—at least in a spiritual context), etc.
Sorry for being so abstract, but I am trying to sort out my basic thinking before I put it into any more particular or symbolic language, whether, say, Christic or Buddhist, or...
Originally posted by Conrau KI understand that. But some people fall back on the “God-breathed” to support a doctrine of direct verbal communciation to/through the writers. Others take it far more metaphorically. I should have been more specific.
I think it roughly equates to divine inspiration. The two terms, curiously, are identical in their original meanings: "inspiration" derives from the Latin "spirare" (to breathe); so "divine inspiration" is probably a Latinate version of the Germanic "god-breathed".
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasAre you able to do this?
[b]To determine the veracity of the claim to divine inspiration, you must appeal to the tradition by which that scripture came to be recognised as such.
I never appealed to tradition as an authority in itself, so there is nothing circular in my reasoning. You're the one who's (bizarrely) appealing to tradition. My answer to your question, if you ection, and training in righteousness -- and doctrinal issues.
Are you able to do this?[/b]
Yes.
The Biblical collection is not sufficient to establish that the Biblical collection is so sufficient.
The Biblical collection was not sufficient to establish what the exact contents of that collection would be (as you put it, it had to be “vetted” ).
The Bible is not sufficient to exegete itself (at the most basic level, people—i.e., the tradition—had to determine where to punctuate in order to form phrases and sentences; that is what training in rhetoric once did; this is what I have examined with the translations of 2nd Timothy 3:16).
Further, 2nd Timothy 3:16 does not say “sufficient”—Ophelimos means useful or valuable or beneficial, not sufficient or self-sufficient.
Also—
Acts 8:30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.
Philip then begins to exegete the passage in question from Isaiah from the point of view of the Christ. We are not given his exegesis in the text.
The patristic tradition, from the beginning, was doing just that: guiding people (originally from oral tradition) to understand how to read the texts.
_______________________________
There might be a weaker version, however. One might admit that the Bible is sufficient, but not complete without the attending tradition, and vice versa. An off-the-cuff analogy: my two-fingered typing gets the job done, but just because it is sufficient does not say that nobody ought to take typing lessons—or that one who has done so might not be able to teach me better typing. I also might learn to make fewer keystroke errors...