What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Yoshua]

4. The role of the Holy Spirit in Bible interpretation means that the unregenerate do not welcome and apply God's truth, though they are able to comprehend many of its statements cognitively.

Obviously unsaved men can mentally grasp something of the objective data of the Bible. Many unbelievers have understood many of the historical facts presented in the Word of God. Some have even followed the logic of certain portions of the Bible. They have cognitively grasped certain objective biblical facts - that certain Bible personalities performed certain tasks, said certain words, went to certain geographical locations, argued with certain points of logic, and so on - yet they do not personally know the God of the Scriptures. "The world through its wisdom did not know him" (1 Cor 1:21). Even with determined and diligent research on a high scholarly level, they are unable to respond to the true divine sense of the Scriptures.[8] The Spirit's illuminating of Christians, then, must include something more than mental apprehension of the Bible of which non-Christians are capable.

Though the unsaved may mentally observe objective data of the Bible, it remains foolishness to them (1 Cor 1:18; 2:14 ). Though perhaps able to follow the logic of Paul's reasoning in his epistles, unbelievers do not "take to heart" the truth involved. The grammar of John 3:16 may be clear to the unsaved, but this does not mean that they receive to their hearts the truth of the verse . The unsaved do not welcome God's truth, because it strikes at the very core of their sinfulness.

Only the saved are able to welcome God's truth. When Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that "the man without the Spirit soulish, unsaved man") does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, "he did not mean that an unsaved person is totally incapable of comprehending any of the grammatical data of the Bible. Rather, Paul meant that a nonChristian does not welcome its truth! The Greek word translated "accept" means "welcome." If "receive" were intended, a different Greek word would have been used. The verse does not mean that an unsaved person, who is devoid of the Holy Spirit, cannot understand mentally what the Bible is saying; instead it means that he does not welcome its message of redemption to his own heart.[9] He rejects the message, refusing to appropriate it and act on it. By contrast, people in Berea "received the message with great eagerness" (Acts 17:11), and the Thessalonians "received the Word... with the joy of the Holy Spirit" (1 Thess 1:6).

The statement in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that the things of the Spirit of God are "foolishness" to an unbeliever would indicate that he has some understanding of what the Bible says. Otherwise, if nothing were communicated to him, how could he judge such a communication to be foolish? He could not call something foolishness unless he had some cognitive awareness of it.

"But," someone may argue, "this verse also states that an unsaved person cannot even know the things of the Spirit. Does not this argue against the point being made that the unsaved can be cognizant of Bible facts?" No, because the Greek word that is used means "know by experience", as opposed to which means "know intuitively or intrinsically." An unbeliever does not know God's truth experientially. He may grasp portions of it mentally, but he does not discern it spiritually nor experience it personally. Virkler summarizes this point well when he writes:
Thus unbelievers do not know the full meaning of scriptural teaching, not because that meaning is unavailable to them in the words of the text, but because they refuse to act on and appropriate spiritual truths for their own lives. Furthermore, the psychological results of such refusal make them less and less able (and willing) to comprehend these truths.[10]

In illumination the Holy Spirit's work is not only to show what the Bible means, but also to persuade Christians of its truth. Illumination is the Spirit's work, enabling Christians to discern the meaning of the message and to welcome and receive it as from God. Hodge states that obedience in the believer's life is the inevitable result of the illuminating work of the Spirit.[11]

To receive God's truths fully, one must first understand them and then appropriate them. Bromiley expresses this fact when he says that the Holy Spirit, who has given the Word of God, seeks to "open the eyes of the readers to perceive its truth and receive its light."[12] Klooster puts it this way: "Understanding Scripture requires more than an intellectual grasp of the historical setting of the text or the literary structure of the passage".

Heart-understanding demands the heart response in the totality of one's being to the living, triune God."[13]

5. The Spirit's role in hermeneutics does not mean that only Bible scholars can understand the Bible. The Bible was given to be understood by all; hence its interpretation is not in the hands of an elite few. (cf. 1 John 2:20, 27). And yet believers ought not neglect the interpretive helps that can be afforded by biblical scholars.

6. The Holy Spirit's role in interpreting Scripture requires spiritual devotion on the part of the interpreter. Thomas "Aquinas used to pray and fast when he came to a difficult passage of Scripture. Most of the scholars whose Biblical studies have blessed the church have mixed prayers generously with their studies."[14] "A deep religious experience has enlightened many an otherwise ill-instructed mind as to the meaning of much of the Holy Writ."[15] "Apart from the quickening of the Spirit, the interpreter will have only words and phrases. Only through the Holy Spirit can he enter into the meaning of the biblical writers..."[16]

However, this is not to say that prayer automatically guarantees that a person's interpretations will be accurate. Spiritual devotion, depth, and sensitivity make correct interpretations more possible, but does not assure their accuracy. More is involved, as other propositions indicate.

7. The Holy Spirit in interpretation means that lack of spiritual preparedness hinders accurate interpretation.[17] A worldly Christian, one who is not obeying the truth and is not yielded to the Lord, is unable to understand the Word fully (1 Cor 3:1-3) and "is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness" (Heb 5:13). A Christian who is in sin is susceptible to making inaccurate interpretations of the Bible because his mind and heart are not in harmony with the Spirit. As Chafer wrote, "Carnality of life excludes [believers] from understanding, or progressing in, the deep things of God."[18] God reveals His truths by the Spirit only to spiritual Christians. "The spiritual man" has greater depth in his discernment of spiritual truths (1 Cor 2:15).

8. The role of the Spirit in interpretation is no substitute for diligent study. With a heart sensitive to the Spirit, the interpreter must study the Word intensely. The point here is that the Spirit does not make study superfluous. "The more self-consciously active the interpreter is in the process, the more likely is the Spirit's illumination."[19] The Holy Spirit works through the efforts of the individual as he reads the Bible, and studies it, meditates on it, and consults other works about it. In the inspiration of the Bible the Holy Spirit was working but so were the human authors. In a similar way in the interpretation of the Bible, human work is involved.

 

[Yoshua]

9. The Spirit's work in biblical interpretation does not rule out the use of study helps such as commentaries and Bible dictionaries. "It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible competently without helps."[20] They assume they can go to the Bible and that the Holy Spirit interprets it for them directly. This seems to them more spiritual than relying on man's writings. Ramm answers this view by stating that no one has either the right or the learning to bypass all the godly learning[21]of other Bible scholars both past and present. He suggests that such an affirmation is "a veiled egotism."[22]

Of course commentaries can come between a person and the Bible. It is possible to rely on others' interpretations to the neglect of one's own personal study of the Scriptures. Rather than using commentaries and other study helps as a crutch and accepting others' views unquestioningly, one should consult them and evaluate the views suggested in the light of his own study of the Scriptures (cf. Acts 17:11). This should be done prayerfully and humbly in dependence on the Spirit's guidance.

Chafer addresses this point well.
No student of the Scriptures should be satisfied to traffic only in the results of the study of other men. The field is inexhaustible and its treasures ever new. No worthy astronomer limits his attention to the findings of other men, but is himself ever gazing into the heavens both to verify and to discover; and no worthy theologian will be satisfied alone with the result of the research of other theologians, but will himself be ever searching the Scriptures.[23]

10. The ministry of the Holy Spirit in Bible interpretation does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic. Since the Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26 ; 16:13 ), He would not teach concepts that failed to meet the tests of truth. (In a correspondence theory of truth, truth is what corresponds to the actual state of affairs.[24]) The Holy Spirit does not guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency.

Two believers may be spiritual, but one or both may be wrong in their understanding of a Bible passage because of failure to think through the Bible logically. Two contradictory views may both be wrong, or one may be wrong, but they cannot both be correct. The Spirit seeks to aid the Spirit-filled learner to think clearly and accurately. The interpreter "must employ principles of reasoning in making inductions, deductions, analogies, and comparisons."[25]

Bible students recognize that while the Bible is a unique book - inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore infallible and authoritative - it is a written means of communication (from God to man), which suggests that it must be understood in that light. As with any written communication the interpreter seeks to expose the meaning of the passage in its original setting, as it was understood by its original hearers. The Bible was written in languages unknown by most modern readers today, in cultural environments that differ from those in Western culture, in geographical settings that are distant from most present-day readers of the Bible, and in literary styles unlike many common literary forms today. These gaps - linguistic, cultural, geographical, and literary - are often hindrances to communication. Removing these hindrances or closing the gaps is much of what is involved in properly interpreting the Bible.[26]

Just as one uses common sense in seeking to bridge communication gaps within his own culture, so he should use common sense in interpreting the Bible. A reader normally gives an author the benefit of doubt if the author makes a statement that seemingly conflicts with a previous statement. The same should be granted the Bible. Also a reader normally uses principles of logic in seeking to understand an author's writing. He does not read into the writing a meaning that is foreign to the material. The same should be granted with regard to the Bible.

Though spiritual truths often supersede man's reasoning ability, they do not contradict or conflict with reason. Clear thinking, then, along with normal procedures followed in comprehending written communications is essential in Bible interpretation and harmonizes with the Holy Spirit's role.

 

[Yoshua]

11. The place of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible means that He does not normally give sudden intuitive flashes of insight into the meaning of Scripture. Though many passages are readily understood, the meaning of others may come to light only gradually in the arduous process of careful study (as stated earlier in proposition 8). Still other times an interpreter may concentrate on a passage a long time with its meaning still eluding him. But later, after leaving the passage for awhile, the meaning may seem to jump to his mind suddenly. "The interpreter's struggle to understand always precedes that... experience, it does not occur in connection with a text on which one has expended no effort."[27] This sudden insight, if it occurs, does not come without his having studied the passage earlier.

To speak of the Spirit's part in hermeneutics is not to suggest some mysterious work that is beyond verification or validation. Lee argues against the view that the role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation and religious instruction means that His activity is a "mysterious and unfathomable" work[28] so that learning activity is unexplainable, unpredictable, or unverifiable,[29] or that teaching and learning are "miracles magically wrought by... zaps of the Holy Spirit."[30] Though Lee stresses this valid point about learning not coming by sudden impulses of the Holy Spirit, he then goes too far in ruling out the Holy Spirit's work altogether.31 To depend on the Holy Spirit is, Lee says, to "spookify" religious instruction as if it were "an ethereal, mysterious, nonterrestrial affair which is fundamentally beyond the regular workings of nature."[32] But while some educators may seek to overemphasize the Holy Spirit, an equally dangerous direction is to neglect His work completely.

12. The Spirit's ministry in interpreting the Bible is included in but not identical with illumination. Illumination, as stated earlier, is the Spirit's work on the minds and hearts of believers that enables them not only to discern the truth but also to receive it, welcome it, and apply it. In interpretation a believer is aided by the Spirit to ascertain the meaning of a passage. This is the first step in illumination. But illumination is not complete until one has appropriated it to his life. Interpretation involves perception; illumination includes it but also involves reception.

13. The role of the Spirit in scriptural interpretation does not mean that all parts of the Bible are equally clear in meaning. Some scholars claim that all the Bible is equally perspicuous, that its meaning is clear and plain. However, perspecuity does not mean that all parts of the Bible are equally clear. Even Peter said that Paul's epistles "contain some things that are hard to understand" (2 Pet 3:16). Perspecuity means, instead, that the central message of the Bible, the message of salvation, is clear to all.

14. The Spirit's work in interpretation does not result in believers having a comprehensive and completely accurate understanding of the entire Scriptures. The exact meaning of many passages still eludes many Bible scholars, even after a lifetime of study in the Scriptures. The precise meaning of some verses will not be known until believers see the Savior "face to face" (1 Cor 13:12). Students of the Bible, even though they are devout and are Spirit-taught, must admit that the correct interpretation of at least some passages simply cannot be fully ascertained this side of heaven.

These propositions suggest that at least five elements are necessary for properly interpreting the Bible: salvation, spiritual maturity, diligent study, common sense and logic, and humble dependence on the Spirit of God for discernment. Clearly the Holy Spirit needs to be much involved in the process of a believer's efforts to comprehend and interpret the Bible.

References
[1] A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), p.5.
[2] H. C. G. Moule, Veni Creator: Thoughts on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit of Promise (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890), p. 63.
[3] Joseph Parker, The Paraclete (NewYork: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1875), p. 78.
[4] Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), p. 13.
[5] J. Theodore Mueller, "The Holy Spirit and the Scriptures," in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958), p. 276.
[6] Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacraments (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), pp. 128-29.
[7] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. William Pringle, 3 vols. (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 3:375.
[8] John F. Walvoord, "How Can Man Know God"? Bibliotheca Sacra 116 (April-June, 1959): 105.
[9] Daniel F. Fuller, "Do We Need the Holy Spirit to Understand the Bible"? Eternity, January 1959, p. 22.
[10] Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), p. 30.
[11]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1960), 3:403.

[12] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, "The Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration," Christianity Today, November 23, 1959, p. 139 (italics added.)
[13] Fred H. Klooster, "The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Hermeneutic Process," Paper read at the Chicago Summit Conference II (Oakland, CA: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1982), p. 16.
[14] Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, pp. 13-14.
[15] John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 4:205.

[16] Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, p. 39.
[17] Parker, The Paraclete, p. 83
[18] Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual (1918; rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), p. 62.
[19] Klooster, "The Role of the Holy Spirit," pp. 12-13.
[20] Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 17.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.

[23] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas, Tex: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 1:vi.
[24] Cf. Norman L. Geisler, "The Concept of Truth in the Contemporary Inerrancy Debate," Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (October-December 1980): 327-39.
[25] Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Authority (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), p. 37.
[26] Robert T. Sandin, "The Clarity of Scripture," in The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz, eds. Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 240-41.
[27] Klooster, "The Role of the Holy Spirit," p. 14.
[28] James Michael Lee, "The Authentic Source of Religious Instruction," in Religious Education and Theology, ed. Norma H. Thompson (Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1982), p. 194.
[29] Ibid., p. 195.
[30] Ibid., pp. 196-97.
[31] Ibid., pp. 193-94.
[32] James Michael Lee, "Toward a New Era: A Blueprint for Positive Action," in The Religious Education We Need, ed. James Michael Lee (Mishawaka, IN: Religious Education Press, 1977), p. 130.

 

[Yoshua]

Only if you ignore evidence and make convoluted interpretations of the stories to make them "fit" together into some strained narrative, making two donkeys and one donkey mean the same thing by saying it was a single magical donkey with 12 legs and 2 heads kind of beast that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on. Of course, that's a new "Mashup" Gospel and none of the ones in the Bible. Talk about interpretation gone wild!

How about the word and teaching of Christ, do you find it inconsistency and contradictory with the other gospels?

There is only Spirit. It's not a "who". And it doesn't work the way you imagine coming from your own ideas and interpreting the world around you to fit into those. It's nothing I could communicate that you would be able understand.

How come that you could not identify the Holy Spirit as “who”? How does you understand the Spirit’s working in you?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Can you explain and prove that they didn't?

Why pass my question to me? it is you who claimed that they examined the Scriptures through contemplation? Does examining the Scriptures is contemplation?

OK. But the Milky Way galaxy was unknown at that time. You're engaging in eisegesis here, and it produces false results.

Wait! Is there a study that the Milky way just exist in a certain time and period? Or did God include the Milky way in His creation?

That doesn't prove that belief is fact.

Yes, it is. God created the universe and planets, even the stars. Do you know someone other than God who created the constellation?

Fine. I urge you to pick up a copy of, say, John, as originally printed in Koine Greek, all caps, no punctuation, no sentence or paragraph structure, and try to make sense of it without interpretation -- and try to have it magically interpret itself.
ITSTOUGHENOUGHTOUNDERTAKETHISENDEAVORWHENMODERNLETTERSSCRIBEDINALINGUISTICSYSTEMYOUATLEASTUNDERSTANDAREEMPLOYEDTOPROPAGATEACERTAINPARTICULARMESSAGENOWIMAGINEALLTHISBEINGSAIDBYSOMEONEINALINGUISTICSYSTEMYOUNEITHERUNDERSTANDNORCANDECIPHERONYOUROWNWITHOUTPROFESSIONALINTERVENTIONTOGIVEANAPROPOSEXAMPLELETSTAKEALOOKSTAYINGWITHINTHEPARAMETERSOFOURESTABLISHEDMETHODOFWRITINGATSOMECULTURALSPECIFICLINGUISTICPHENOMENACOMMONLYCALLEDJARGONARGOTORSTREETLINGOWITHWHICHYOUAREPROBABLYNOTFAMILIARANDSEEIFTHETEXTINTERPRETSITSELFMANUPNANCYIMTALKINGTOHERTIPABLUNTWATCHBENSONGRANNYDUMPINGABOUTHALFRIDETHEWILDBALONEYPONYMILKTHELIZARDFUBARCINCHOUSEPLUSNUMEROUSOTHEREXAMPLESDOYOUSEENOWHOWIMPOSSIBLEITBECOMESFORTHESEANCIENTTEXTSTOINTERPRETTHEMSELVESISITBECOMINGCLEARERTHATMUCHSCHOLARSHIPISNEEDEDINORDERTONOTONLYMAKESENSEOFWHATHASBEENWRITTENBUTWHATINTENDEDMESSAGETHEWRITERHOPEDTOCONVEYUSINGUNKNOWNCULTURALSPECIFCEXPRESSIONSSELFINTEPRETATIONISSISYPHUSESQUEATBESTANDIRRESPONSIBLEATWORST

Why need to use the koine Greek to make yourself difficult in understanding the Scriptures? Choose the best translation of the Bible that can be easily understood by the readers. As I said before, the Scriptures interprets itself by its literal sense, paralleling with other scriptures, and by diligent study. Just as John 3:16, a very understandable verse to start with. Read my posted message by Prof. Roy Zuck about the Holy Spirit and Biblical interpretation. It is a balance perspective regarding the biblical interpretation and the Holy Spirit.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Christianity, and Judaism before it, grew out of a society where monarchy was the type of government, so the religion naturally reflects that culture. The tendency to see things hierarchically is not inevitable, it is the result of growing up in a particular culture and learning to see things in those terms, as the authors of the Bible did. They wrote in terms of monarchy and "God as boss" because those were terms that made sense to them given their cultural context. There are other cultures that are not set up to have kings or rulers (hunter-gatherer societies, some pastoralists). I bring this up by way of pointing out that monarchy is not an inevitable state of human affairs. There are other ways of thinking about how society runs. There are also other ways of thinking about divinity that are not monarchical.

Hi Orbit,
So would you think that is an excuse for being submissive to God’s will? Who created man? Is it God? Man is under God, whether we like it or not.

One difference between literalist evangelical religion (you) and other Christian traditions like Orthodox Christianity is that Orthodox Christianity does not say that ONE interpretation of the Bible is correct, rather God himself can reveal interpretations to anyone in their meditations. What God chooses to reveal to another person isn't up for your criticism. God speaks to us all in a way that we are ready and prepared to hear. Yoshua you do NOT have the ONE right answer, the ONE correct interpretation of the Bible. That's false pride. I think this conversation would be at an end if you would simply say "This is MY interpretation of the Bible, your interpretation may be different but who am I to say it is wrong?" I think that's a more honest thing to say rather than cutting and pasting Bible verses and trying to ram your view down others' throats while simultaneously condemning their experience as "false". Cast the mote from your own eye before criticizing your brother.

Orbit, can you start to cite one of my statement that you think I’m wrong, my interpretation is wrong? What if I just comment my views and not post any supporting Scriptures of what I’m saying? I believe this is obviously will look like my own interpretation (without any proof or evidence in Scripture). What if someone tell you God is non-existing, there is no God, human is not created by God, God did not created man and women. Will you allow that person to prove it to you by just saying it? Or it is better to show you something as evidence or proof?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

This is an interesting topic. Jesus did quite explicitly tear down hierarchies ("The first shall be last and the last shall be first") and questioned the received wisdom of the conservative guardians of "correct" religion at the time -- the Pharisees of Judaism. He was always countering their literalness and legalism with pleas to hear the wider context, the wider meaning, of God's law. For the Pharisees, God's law was connected to many literal, technical Bible passages that specified cleanliness, uncleanliness, and temple sacrifice. It was all about rules, regulations, and reading scripture correctly for the Pharisees, who were religious authorities at the time. Jesus turned all of that on its head by telling the Pharisees that they were "blind". This means that they were missing the point. The were too focused on the letter of the law and not focused on the deeper meaning and importance of the law. He explained to the Pharisees that LOVE was the most important commandment, love the Lord, and love your neighbor--and all the laws rested on this foundation. Love was the message. There was nothing hierarchical about the way Jesus thought, he praised the humble, took lowly tax collectors on as disciples, drank wine, and dined with sinners. He was obeying a higher moral authority, personified compassion, and saw Judaism as it was in his time as having a wrongheaded fundamentalist insistence on the letter of the law. This is why he said "you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel". Yoshua if you won't hear it from us, hear it from Jesus, from his words, from his actions.

I agree with that love you are mentioning. That is true. The love that was taught by Jesus includes remaining and abiding to His word. How about this scripture, how do you understand this? It should be followed or not?

John 14:23
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.

Is this passage as keeping His word, a pharisaic practices?

If there is no hierarchical about what Jesus had taught, why He used Master and slave/servant in His teachings and examples? Why Jesus submit to the Father?

I just thinking if Jesus submitted to the Father (God), and the disciples to Jesus, why as a believer and follower of Christ should not submit to His word? Why?

Why this is mentioned in Philippians?

Phil. 2:10-11
10. that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth,
11. and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Orbit, did John 14:23 which I’m following right now—is hearing it from Jesus, from His words?

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Why pass my question to me? it is you who claimed that they examined the Scriptures through contemplation? Does examining the Scriptures is contemplation?

Sometimes. One such practice is called lectio divina -- "sacred reading." It's a contemplative reading technique. Unless you can prove that the ancients didn't use contemplative prayer techniques, I don't see how you can unequivocally state that they did not.

 

[sojourner]

Wait! Is there a study that the Milky way just exist in a certain time and period? Or did God include the Milky way in His creation

It doesn't matter. The acients didn't know about it, and so could not have written about it. Therefore, what you're reading aobut isn't the Milky Way -- it's something else, and you're eisegeting "Milky Way" into it.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, it is.

Fine. Prove it as fact. Show me the empirical evidence.

 

[sojourner]

Why need to use the koine Greek to make yourself difficult in understanding the Scriptures? Choose the best translation of the Bible that can be easily understood by the readers. As I said before, the Scriptures interprets itself by its literal sense, paralleling with other scriptures, and by diligent study. Just as John 3:16, a very understandable verse to start with. Read my posted message by Prof. Roy Zuck about the Holy Spirit and Biblical interpretation. It is a balance perspective regarding the biblical interpretation and the Holy Spirit.

Sorry. It's just not that easy. We use the Greek, because it's the most original, least corrupted text we have. In textual scholarship, you always go to as close to the beginning as you can get. Otherwise, you're just reading a translation.

 

[Yoshua]

Where shall I start? It's biased and academically shallow.

Hi Sojourner,

You may start with the one at first paragraph, choose the statement, and comment what is academically shallow and biased with that statement.

No there isn't. God is All. God is One. You're employing dualistic thinking, which simply isn't present in the OT.

Where is dualistic here? what particular things that you are pointing at not in the Old testament? We are talking about logic here like this another example: God is moral, so if there is moral, there is immoral.

But one can never be the other. There can never be a "false truth." There can only be truth or falsehood. By definition, if the truth were false, it wouldn't be truth.

Oh. I see your point. Yes, there is truth, but there is a truth that is making it false as lie. How about God and Satan. God is truth, Satan is a liar, the father of lies.

Does Buddhism teach love? Then it teaches what Jesus taught.

No doubt for Buddhist that their love is projected through their actions by helping people. I admired their good works which I believe that we may learn from them. But for Christianity, good works came from the Jesus Christ, the outworking of the Holy Spirit, not by physical effort, but by the Spirit. Jesus said, "follow me to become a disciple, Come to me and put your trust in me." In Buddhism, the attainment of spirituality is through self-help/effort, thus being dependent on himself. Christianity is dependency with Christ and through Christ.

Faith is a poor substitute for scholarhsip when endeavoring to understand ancient texts. Faith doesn't fly airplanes. Faith doesn't exegete texts.

Jesus said (not me), have faith. Faith does not fly airplanes? but faith can move mountains.
Mark 11:22-23
22. And Jesus answered saying to them, "Have faith in God.
23. "Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it shall be granted him.

Matt. 17:20
20. And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, `Move from here to there,' and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

You may start with the one at first paragraph, choose the statement, and comment what is academically shallow and biased with that statement

Not interested. Not worth the effort. Again, one doesn't have to dissect a rusted out, dented pickup truck belching blue smoke, in order to know that it's a defective $hitbox.

 

[sojourner]

Where is dualistic here? what particular things that you are pointing at not in the Old testament? We are talking about logic here like this another example: God is moral, so if there is moral, there is immoral

But there's no such thing as "immoral morality." There is morality and there is immorality. One doesn't need the other in order to exist. You don't have to have darkness in order to have light. Light is not dependent upon darkness. Morality isn't dependent on immorality. Truth isn't dependent upon falsehood. God isn't dependent upon Satan.

 

[sojourner]

No doubt for Buddhist that their love is projected through their actions by helping people. I admired their good works which I believe that we may learn from them. But for Christianity, good works came from the Jesus Christ, the outworking of the Holy Spirit, not by physical effort, but by the Spirit. Jesus said, "follow me to become a disciple, Come to me and put your trust in me." In Buddhism, the attainment of spirituality is through self-help/effort, thus being dependent on himself. Christianity is dependency with Christ and through Christ.

Just different ways of looking at the same thing, essentially. Love is a relationship in which we participate. I don't think either Xy or Buddhism see that any differently.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus said (not me), have faith. Faith does not fly airplanes? but faith can move mountains

It's a metaphor -- and a fair bit of hyperbole. Faith isn't magic. It's a wholehearted commitment. If one has faith, therefore, one will be committed enough to undertake the scholarship necessary to thoroughly understand the texts.

 

[Yoshua]

Sometimes. One such practice is called lectio divina -- "sacred reading." It's a contemplative reading technique. Unless you can prove that the ancients didn't use contemplative prayer techniques, I don't see how you can unequivocally state that they did not.

Yes, I know they used the Lectio Divina, as well as the Roman Catholics/monks. I believed that Lectio Divina has prayers, reading of the Scriptures, reflection, and the "still voice" as the Holy Spirit speaking to him/seeking the mystical experience of God. As a follower of Christ, the Scripture is not a substitute for Spirit's illumination, and mystical experience from God. Jesus' disciples are always at the back to follow His command. The word becomes a "living word" for Lectio Divina, and neglect the word for diligent study. It is just like saying the Scriptures has to be taken into consideration as needed, and not as priority since the claimed mystical experience is coming from God. Still, this Scripture is the standard for meditative practice. I may do prayer, reading and reflecting with the Scripture, but not seeking supernatural/mystical as the guarantee for the indwelling of Holy Spirit's illumination, or as God is speaking to you.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17. that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I know they used the Lectio Divina, as well as the Roman Catholics/monks. I believed that Lectio Divina has prayers, reading of the Scriptures, reflection, and the "still voice" as the Holy Spirit speaking to him/seeking the mystical experience of God. As a follower of Christ, the Scripture is not a substitute for Spirit's illumination, and mystical experience from God. Jesus' disciples are always at the back to follow His command. The word becomes a "living word" for Lectio Divina, and neglect the word for diligent study. It is just like saying the Scriptures has to be taken into consideration as needed, and not as priority since the claimed mystical experience is coming from God. Still, this Scripture is the standard for meditative practice. I may do prayer, reading and reflecting with the Scripture, but not seeking supernatural/mystical as the guarantee for the indwelling of Holy Spirit's illumination, or as God is speaking to you.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17. that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Thanks

Whatever. Your phrase "I believe" negates any fact-finding. Belief isn't fact. It's belief. If we're ever going to get anywhere, you've simply got to stop treating your own beliefs as irrefutable fact.

 

[Yoshua]

Fine. Prove it as fact. Show me the empirical evidence.

Gen. 1:1-5
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Gen. 1:14-19
14. Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
15. and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18. and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Ps. 8:3
3. When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained;

Ps. 147:4
4. He counts the number of the stars; He gives names to all of them.

Rev. 4:11
11. "Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created."

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

But there's no such thing as "immoral morality." There is morality and there is immorality. One doesn't need the other in order to exist. You don't have to have darkness in order to have light. Light is not dependent upon darkness. Morality isn't dependent on immorality. Truth isn't dependent upon falsehood. God isn't dependent upon Satan.

I don't pushed that the opposite is dependent on the other. It is like good and evil, truth and lies, light and dark and others. Just to clear up with you that there is always the opposite side.

Thanks