M
Man.0
Guest
Yes, we should have knowledge of God through revelation, not interpretation.
The Paradigm Effect
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Yes, we should have knowledge of God through revelation, not interpretation.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Sort of. You're the only Catholic I know who believes in reincarnation and pantheism.
RevTestament
New member
Because that is what most people identify as being a follower of Christ since the time the Way spread to Antioch, which is how I view myself.
Wow... the English G word which comes from Gott. I prefer to think of God in Hebrew words which give Hebraic connotations or meanings. But possibly to answer your question I believe although Jesus is not El Elyon, the Most High "God," He is JHWH Elohim with Him.
Not all "Christians" seem to ie Calvinist. I believe we can choose between the good and the bad, but that there are aspects of our lives which are not necessarily "free." ie Read the story of Job.
That is a word whose meaning can have several different connotations. Let's just say I believe I am presently saved, but I am a work in progress....
Others of course believe what they want.
My personal take is that none of us do that perfectly. But if we are giving our true effort that is accounted as righteousness, and His atonement makes up the difference, which is how we are saved by grace.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Your paradigm isn't a Catholic paradigm.
It's uniquely your paradigm, but it's not an archetypal Catholic paradigm.
how is it inconsistent with the catholic paradigm?
no one else needs to believe this
I need it to make sense of the world I live in
few need to do that
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Because Catholicism doesn't teach either reincarnation or pantheism.
I'm not faulting you. It's your paradigm, and if you need it to make sense of the world you live in, and it works for you, I'm glad.
It's just that when you say you're Catholic, most people will assume that you believe in neither of those two things.
How do you tell the difference?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I will give anyone my pair of dimes in exchange for a quarter.
Exactly!
I remember a Fair I was at as a child, in a small town. Ice cones were a dime.
That summer I came to "know" what a dime was because, to my child's mind, back then, that torch on the other side of the dime, was "an ice cream cone - dimes are for ice cream..."
So I ask the old man for money for ice cream. He hands me a quarter and walks off. Needless to say, I was not too happy, lol.
From within my paradigm "happiness" was "a dime - ice cream money!!!"
In 1 Corinthians 2 the Apostle Paul relates that what he was speaking of, his spirit had received from God, by His Spirit, concerning the mind of Christ on the things of God:
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
He then relates...
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
He then returns to this contrast between those two in chapter 3:
1. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
In chapter 12, he continues to deal with this problem:
1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
And in chapter 13, he compares the difference between how a child sees things, and how and adult will:
11. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
What he is dong is relating a contrast between allowing oneself to look at things through the fleshly mind, and that mind that looks at things through the mind of Christ contained in Scripture.
2 Corinthians 10:
2. But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
3. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4. [For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;]
5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Colossians 3:
16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
How can one know one's knowledge is of God through revelation, and not interpretation.
I just laid out how, as well as what the difference is between the two.
"Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom... that ye might know what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, Rom. 12:2 - through - His - Word - dwelling - in - you - through - time - in - His - Word - that "by reason of use" you might come to a "full age" your "senses exercised to discern both good and evil."
All else is the fleshly mind - its' owner "useth milk" he "is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe... yet carnal"
Hebrews 5:
12. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of
strong meat.
13. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
RevTestament
New member
By the very nature of language we interpret the revelations of God we read. Since the time we began to learn our language we build a "paradigm" for each word we learn and what it "means." So we try to communicate back and forth using these "common" meanings. But one person's "common" meaning may not be another person's common meaning. I can give many examples of this. Jesus used the word "dog." Was He being derogatory or not?
The most common debate regarding biblical language is whether it is literal or not.
When I read the KJV the meanings of some of the archaic English words have completely changed. So I have to try to understand them within their original context. The same applies to the language patterns of the Hebrews. Using a straightforward literal interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek often will miss the context of the meaning.
It is important to know the Hebrews tried to understand scriptural language not in terms of a linear or fixed meaning or "box." They viewed it more in terms Pardes, or "layers" so to speak. God understood this so He spoke to them within this context. He also told the people that He used "similitudes" when speaking to them by the ministry of the prophets. Hosea
Here are the 4 main Pardes/approaches:
Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.
Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'sore') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
PRDS - PaRDeS
Jesus spoke in parables so that allegorical and inspirational meanings were hidden except to followers. Many of His deepest teachings on the kingdom were given this way. Why? I pose it is because there is much more to the kingdom than just being "saved." Paulines who jump up and down each week because someone is "saved" by accepting the name of Jesus are missing the vast tapestry of the word - imho of course.
Going back to what Man.O said "Yes, we should have knowledge of God through revelation, not interpretation" - what I do is get a feel for the meaning in a literal sense. If it seems to be symbolic, then I try to understand the symbolism being used. God usually teaches His symbolism.
For instance from Daniel we learn that stars can refer to men. Yet there is a poster on TOL who regularly posts about the falling stars of Revelation as being an asteroid or comet which is going to hit the earth...
From Daniel 7 we also learn that beasts are ruling countries, kingdoms or peoples. "King" can also be used this way rather than just referring to one individual.
We learn that in a prophetic vision "days" may refer to years, etc.
Books like Isaiah are couched in reams of allegorical and symbolic language. They simply cannot be fully understood from strictly a literal sense. To understand them one must thoroughly learn the language of God in His Word, and pray about what one doesn't seem to fully understand. We find Daniel doing as much in Daniel 9. In summation, to receive the revelation of scripture we must understand the paradigm of His Word from His Word.
Since God will only reveal some of His mysteries when the appointed time comes and probably to those for whom it is appointed, sometimes we will just have to be satisfied with our present understanding. For example the vision of Daniel 11&12 is a complex vision which says some will exalt themselves to establish the vision but will fail. According to it, the vision was shared by none but the angel and Michael (the ancient of days) Daniel 10:21, and is revealed when the Ancient of Days stands up at the end. To those who claim there will be no more "prophets," I guess this vision will never be established and is moot - they will not believe that the vision could be referring to our day, nor whoever reveals it.
Last edited:
M
Man.0
Guest
Interpret means to 'to explain the meaning of (something). : to understand (something) in a specified way' (Merriam-webster dictionary)
Revelation means: 'a : an act of revealing or communicating divine truth. b : something that is revealed by God to humans.' (Merriam-webster dictionary)
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with interpretation of the Scriptures. I believe it is only wrong when the interpretation is devoid of Divine understanding - which comes via revelation. And that's one way you can tell the difference. If your understanding has come from God, it is revelation. But if your understanding has come from yourself, your own reasoning, then it is your own interpretation. And what does the bible say about such interpretation?
'...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.' (1 Peter 1:20-21)
Revelation, I believe, is necessary, to understand the spiritual meanings of Scripture. Would Philip have been able to correctly interpret the Scriptures, to the Ethopian, without having had revelation from God?
Revelation is certainly needed before one can correctly interpret. But what many carnal men are doing - through such practices as exegesis and hermeneutics - is trying to interpret the Word of God, without God. And in doing so, they arrive at many dreadfully wrong conclusions.
One of the main differences between revelation and personal interpretation is that revelation is objective, and comes from God; while personal interpretation is subjective, and comes from one's own mind.
If you are reading the bible and arrive at a conclusion through your own reasoning; then that is surely due to personal interpretation. On the other hand, have you arrived at a conclusion which you could not have reached by yourself? Then that is, I believe, because of revelation.
so it really comes down to
who reveals it to us
and
how it is revealed to us
now
everyone can claim that it is God who is revealing it to them
who can argue with that?
who can prove it?
but
you would think God would reveal the same thing to everyone
so
we really need another test
and
there are many other ones
test of time
test of numbers
reason test
source test
even the bible tells us to test the spirits
maybe not your bible
but
most other bibles actually use the word test
I'm not sure you understood the question.
David Koresh claimed to have had divine revelation. In fact he claim he was divine revelation and he could stand in front of you, look you straight in the face and quote scripture all day long.
How would you have advised a Branch Dravidian to be able to determine before they all died (well most of them) that he was a liar?
How do you know this?
By what standard do you declare hermeneutics as being carnal?
Please, please show me biblically how hermeneutics is carnal but by all means do so without using hermeneutics or exegesis.
Are you saying that you've heard God speak to you audibly and that He personally told you the your doctrine was correct?
If not what are you saying? How does this divine revelation happen? Describe the experience of receiving divine revelation.
You believe its because of revelation or you know that it is?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Yes, I do. I'll get there.
Would you say that what you've said in the above post is absolutely true?
Interplanner
Well-known member
RevTestament:
Christ is indeed the revelation of the Father. Not a text about him, but what Christ did.
Christ is indeed the revelation of the Father. Not a text about him, but what Christ did.