Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Perhaps someone fully familiar with the "code" will write a book about it someday.

---

If everyone who thought he had the one right way to interpret the Scriptures properly were to write a book, I don't suppose the whole world could contain them.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
So you didn't mean what you said when you said it meant what it said.

---

Yes, I don't think he did.

---

Don't you mean "No, I don't think he did"..... or is that another koan to redirect me to the true meaning of what he really meant when he didn't meant what he said when he said it meant what is said.

Or what you mean when you said you didn't think he really meant that he didn't mean what he said when he said it meant what is said.



--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Don't you mean "No, I don't think he did"..... or is that another koan to redirect me to the true meaning of what he really meant when he didn't meant what he said when he said it meant what is said.

Or what you mean when you said you didn't think he really meant that he didn't mean what he said when he said it meant what is said.

---

No. That's right.

Just keep repeating it over and over. It will help you sleep.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Don't you mean "No, I don't think he did"..... or is that another koan to redirect me to the true meaning of what he really meant when he didn't meant what he said when he said it meant what is said.

Or what you mean when you said you didn't think he really meant that he didn't mean what he said when he said it meant what is said.

---

Freddy's Swedenborgian New Church may well have some very interesting commentaries on Scripture. See:
http://www.heavenlydoctrines.org/

The question would be whether they know what the commentaries mean, that is, how to put them to practical, personal use.

Swedenborg seems to meet the general criteria for having been a prophet. I suspect he knocked, and the door was opened.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
The question would be whether they know what the commentaries mean, that is, how to put them to practical, personal use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Swedenborg seems to meet the general criteria for having been a prophet. I suspect he knocked, and the door was opened.

---

My take is that he didn't knock. He was called. He didn't start any religion, but just wrote books. People of all denominations use them.

I doubt that Swedenborg is unique. There are similar writers in both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

Well, off to Chicago.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Although he is unique, isn't he?

In that the other writers (certainly not the RC or Orthodox ones) quite agree with him completely.

Suggesting that if there is some sort of decoding/knocking-at-the-door approach, it doesn't give reproducible results. Not in that sense, anyway.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.... many of the things you say may well be true.... but if the results are not reproducible then I'd say that does not infer biblical inerrancy, even with the special pleading of a code book.

---

mdijon, I'm not sure what either you or Oreo are getting at.

One of the things I love about Swedenborg is that it is not anything mystical, nor does he claim to have opened a door that anyone can open. The claim, which may be true or false, is that it is written revelation pure and simple.

What is written down and published is concrete information that can be analyzed in depth. Anyone can decide for themselves whether this or some other way of interpreting Scripture is valid or not.

In this sense the results are reproducible, because anyone can use this "code" to interpret Scripture in a consistent way.

The effect of the "code", called the "spiritual" or "internal" sense of Scripture, is that it is built around the assumption of an inerrant Bible.

The idea is that every word of the original communicates a coherent, connected message that is directly from God. Some of this message is open and obvious to everyone, and some is cloaked in appearances so as to appeal to those to whom it was given, and to children and others. These appearances are not in themselves strictly accurate or true, but they are given according to a consistent pattern of symbolism which is true when its meaning is understood - the "spiritual" sense.

I love this system because to my mind it easily overcomes the objections that are usually raised against the inerrancy of Scripture. This enables one who accepts the system to have confidence in the Word of God, giving them what I see as a satisfying epistemological framework for belief in the truths of Christianity.

I don't know how unique Swedenborg is in this. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions have any number of teachers who have interpreted Scripture quite authoritatively. Swedenborg has even been canonized in some branches of Orthodoxy, as one among others who have done this. I think Swedenborg is unique in how extensive and systematic his descriptions are. But in the main these descriptions are acceptable within almost all Christian traditions.

The point is that most people agree that the Bible needs interpretation, otherwise it easily becomes self-contradictory and even misleading. Every denomination, therefore has its own doctrinal premises from which they interpret it. This is true even for those who claim the Bible is inerrant as is, and needs no interpretation.

The question is how to find a rational and reliable way of getting at what the Bible is really about. I guess we each have our own answers to that.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
One of the things I love about Swedenborg is that it is not anything mystical, nor does he claim to have opened a door that anyone can open. The claim, which may be true or false, is that it is written revelation pure and simple.

...

In this sense the results are reproducible, because anyone can use this "code" to interpret Scripture in a consistent way.

The effect of the "code", called the "spiritual" or "internal" sense of Scripture, is that it is built around the assumption of an inerrant Bible.

The idea is that every word of the original communicates a coherent, connected message that is directly from God. Some of this message is open and obvious to everyone, and some is cloaked in appearances so as to appeal to those to whom it was given, and to children and others. These appearances are not in themselves strictly accurate or true, but they are given according to a consistent pattern of symbolism which is true when its meaning is understood - the "spiritual" sense.

...

I don't know how unique Swedenborg is in this.

...

---

I agree. The esoteric tradition opines (for what that's worth) that each story of Scripture can be understood on seven levels. The first level is the story itself. See the evolving thread about Jephtha, who sacrifices his daughter. The second level deals with what the story might mean as an allegory; a good homilist brings this out. For instance, Jephtha made a rash promise. The higher levels are more inaccessible. Is "sons of Ammon" a code phrase? Are there other code phrases built into that story?

I'd guess that Swedenborg had mystical experiences in the same sense as the apostles themselves, and St. John the Divine ("I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day.) Mysticism is found in all of the world's religions; it's most overt in the Orthodox traditions, but it's there in the Roman tradition, too.

Many people have been given the gift of going up into the high mountain to have the higher levels of Scripture explained to them. (I am not one of them.) Some have been told to return to earth and teach what they have been taught.

Swedenborg himself got into a lot of hot water over what he wrote. However, before that time he would surely have been burned, or worse.

One of the more interesting "prophets" of the 20th century was "Samael Aun Weor". His books haven't been systematized like Swedenborg's, and they're only now making it into English translation. His disciples (I am not one of them) have chosen the unfortunate term "Gnosis" for their movement.

"Gnosis" means "knowledge", but it also relates back to the gnostic heresies of the patristic era.

They have a website at http://www.gnosticteachings.com

It's a quirky website; the Judeo-Christian aspects of his teachings are co-mingled with Buddhism, Hinduism, and so forth. I've seen some of the books - it seems to be an admixture of the preposterous and the profound.

It would be interesting for someone who KNOWS Swedenborg's writings to compare them to Weor.

I'm told that the same mystical tradition can be practiced by anybody who is in God's grace and favor. Even Anglicans.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
It would be interesting for someone who KNOWS Swedenborg's writings to compare them to Weor.

---

quote:

---

Luke 16.30 "‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
I'm told that the same mystical tradition can be practiced by anybody who is in God's grace and favor. Even Anglicans.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Your last line was what I was getting at. That if one claims the bible "says what it means" as a form of inerrancy, then that doesn't, to me, seem compatible with "I guess we each have our own answers to that."

---

How about, "The Bible says what it means if we are able to interpret it correctly"?

I add "I guess we each have our own answers to that" because it is hard to agree on what a "correct" interpretation is.

I believe that there IS a "correct" one, or any number of interpretations that are more or less "correct." These interpretations are therefore "inerrant".

This doesn't really help anything, of course, if we don't have a reliable way of finding "correct" interpretations.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Exactly. But I'd not have used the word 'inerrant' to describe the final answer I was trying to get at; if I'm trying to do a sum, it makes more sense to classify my method or answer as 'inerrant' or 'errant', rather than the actual correct solution, were I able to find it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
However, is that really what you think? That all Swedenborg's teachings and the church's subsequent development of them cover the whole message of the bible and are entirely correct and without blemish? And dependably so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Doesn't this require considerable faith in earthly things?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
By earthly things I meant us humans who make up the church, write stuff down, interpret it.... granted, with inspiration of the divine... but not the inerrancy of the divine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I certainly don't believe my tradition to be inerrant. It's changed it's mind too many times, to start with. The same goes for my take on it. Of course, any particular idea I believe I think is correct at the time... but I know the chances are overwhelmingly high that at least 20-30% is wrong. Up to 60-70% I'd say.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
However, is that really what you think? That all Swedenborg's teachings and the church's subsequent development of them cover the whole message of the bible and are entirely correct and without blemish? And dependably so?

---

Isn't this what most people think about their particular traditions?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
However, is that really what you think? That all Swedenborg's teachings and the church's subsequent development of them cover the whole message of the bible and are entirely correct and without blemish? And dependably so?

---

Isn't this what most people think about their particular traditions?

---

Not in my experience. There are some people on the ship who are like that; they tend to get the most flak and calls to Hell.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to shake the complacent. Just that the population here doesn't seem nearly so smug as Freddy wants to say "most people" are.

---

Mousethief, you are right about that. I don't know what I was thinking.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaxChristi:
Actually, I don't see Jesus reading his own Scriptures as a literalist. In fact, he tends to pick and choose the passages to which he gives most authority. He chooses mercy over obedience to law, he chooses forgiveness over judgement/vengeance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaxChristi:
And then he stops. Right in the middle of a verse. In the middle of a Hebrew couplet. He breaks a poetic structure right in half when he leaves off, "And the day of vengeance of our God."

Look it up. Jesus cherry picked his Scriptures, because his Father is not vengeful.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Why can't I convince myself that it would be possible for me (I mean no implication for anyone else) to hold to Christinity whilst rejecting some parts of the Bible? Why can't I do it?

Plenty of other people seem to manage it.

Still, the fact that I find some parts of the Bible to be morally aborant, the fact that I consider some parts to just be just plain wrong, means I can't consider any reversal of my rejection of this faith. I wish it didn't, but it does.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Why can't I convince myself that it would be possible for me (I mean no implication for anyone else) to hold to Christinity whilst rejecting some parts of the Bible? Why can't I do it?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Why can't I convince myself that it would be possible for me (I mean no implication for anyone else) to hold to Christinity whilst rejecting some parts of the Bible? Why can't I do it?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
If you had never been told that you must accept or reject the entire Bible would it even occur to you to think that way? Do you approach any other collection of documents in that way?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
If you had never been told that you must accept or reject the entire Bible would it even occur to you to think that way? Do you approach any other collection of documents in that way?

---

I certainly don't. It is strange isn't it?

The trouble is that this is the way the biblical books present themselves. They talk about events that are impossible if they aren't genuine miracles, and recount people's conversations with God while claiming complete veracity. Other books don't do this.

---

quote:

---

So I think that even if I had never been told that I must accept or reject the entire Bible, it would still occur to me to think as Papio is doing. Maybe others see it differently though.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
I don't see the Bible as speaking with one voice but many - in fact I see an unfolding and expanding view of who God is throughout the Bible rather than a "pretty consistent approach from beginning to end".

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
I guess I don't see the books making up the Bible as being as obviously self-consistent as you do.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
For me revelation is in the people and their ideas of God (and in particular in Jesus and his idea of God) that the Bible fallibly describes, not in the Bible itself.

---

I guess I've always had a bit of trouble separating the two. I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible? I agree, there's nothing truly "sacred" about the volume itself. It's just a book. That's how I feel about church buildings, too; nothing sacred, just a structure. It's what's inside that makes it remarkable and sacred, if you will. But just the existance of the text, preserved in the format we have, with an obvious sense of continuity and blend and prophecy and revelation, makes it hard for me to conceive that it wasn't all guided by the hand of God.

Do I believe every pronoun and apostrophe and spelling is God-breathed? Not really. I do believe the events recorded are historical events (no, NOT the parables, for Pete's sake.) But I could never "reject" parts of the Bible in the sense it is being discussed here, at least, not and keep my faith. The belief I have in God and the scriptures is independent of any other experience in my life. There is nothing or no one in whom I give such trust and faith. Why? Because there is nothing else I consider above failings or inconsistencies or reliance. It sometimes seems odd that I can be so skeptical and unreliant on everything else in life, and yet be so unswerving convinced and confident in the Bible. It's not really my nature to be so trusting, so it must be supernatural.

--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
The belief I have in God and the scriptures is independent of any other experience in my life. There is nothing or no one in whom I give such trust and faith. Why? Because there is nothing else I consider above failings or inconsistencies or reliance. It sometimes seems odd that I can be so skeptical and unreliant on everything else in life, and yet be so unswerving convinced and confident in the Bible. It's not really my nature to be so trusting, so it must be supernatural.

---

Grits, it is interesting that it is this way for so many people, and not for so many others. I feel the way that you do. To me it is inconceivable that the Bible might be untrue. And yet I am an Ivy-League-educated skeptic in most areas of life, committed to evidence and what passes for rigorous thinking. No explaining it, I guess.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
For me revelation is in the people and their ideas of God (and in particular in Jesus and his idea of God) that the Bible fallibly describes, not in the Bible itself.

---

I guess I've always had a bit of trouble separating the two. I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible?

---

quote:

---

[T]he scriptures are only a declaration of the source, and not the source itself, they are not to be considered the principal foundation of all truth and knowledge. They are not even to be considered as the adequate primary rule of all faith and practice. Yet, because they give a true and faithful testimony of the source itself, they are and may be regarded as a secondary rule that is subordinate to the Spirit, from which they obtain all their excellence and certainty. We truly know them only by the inward testimony of the Spirit or, as the scriptures themselves say, the Spirit is the guide by which the faithful are led into all Truth (John 16:13). Therefore, according to the scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader (Rom 8:14). Because we are receptive to the scriptures, as the product of the Spirit, it is for that very reason that the Spirit is the primary and principal rule of faith. (source)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I agree, there's nothing truly "sacred" about the volume itself. It's just a book. That's how I feel about church buildings, too; nothing sacred, just a structure. It's what's inside that makes it remarkable and sacred, if you will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
But just the existance of the text, preserved in the format we have, with an obvious sense of continuity and blend and prophecy and revelation, makes it hard for me to conceive that it wasn't all guided by the hand of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
Do I believe every pronoun and apostrophe and spelling is God-breathed? Not really. I do believe the events recorded are historical events (no, NOT the parables, for Pete's sake.) But I could never "reject" parts of the Bible in the sense it is being discussed here, at least, not and keep my faith.

---

quote:

---

The belief I have in God and the scriptures is independent of any other experience in my life. There is nothing or no one in whom I give such trust and faith. Why? Because there is nothing else I consider above failings or inconsistencies or reliance. It sometimes seems odd that I can be so skeptical and unreliant on everything else in life, and yet be so unswerving convinced and confident in the Bible. It's not really my nature to be so trusting, so it must be supernatural.

---

Personally I would describe my trust as being in the God of Love revealed in and by Jesus and imperfectly witnessed by the writers of the New Testament.

And I'm a lawyer, so it's certainly not in my nature to be trusting

--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
If I were to come to the view that the New Testament was wholly inaccurate or misleading in its description of what Jesus taught about God (as some writers would maintain) then I would certainly have a crisis of faith! I wouldn't call this a 'rejection of the Bible', though. It would be me being dragged kicking and screaming away from it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

No one seems to want to just have faith anymore. We've become too analytical, too intelligent. We have to dig and delve and unearth and compare

---

that's what an inerrantist view of Scripture seems to me to be doing. I read my Bible in the light the Holy Spirit gives me. As it's clear to me you do, not least from the humanity of so much of what you post. And true humanity is surely something that proceeds from God, if we take the Incarnation seriously, huh?

But I'm not an inerrantist. So when I read the Bible, and something comes up that I can't square with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, I just find myself thinking "That can't be right..." "That's not the God I know from Jesus Christ..." What I'm saying is that the simplicity and faith that you talk about is an absolutely crucial element in the reception of the Bible. But it's so on both sides of the "divide" between inerrantists and non-inerrantists. It seems to me that faith is one, wherever you find it, and in whichever "camp". God does the same kind of stuff in souls, whatever they think they believe about what the Bible is.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
What I seem to be discovering more and more, though, is that often the God you feel you don't "know from Jesus Christ" is located in the OT, and I don't think any of us know or will ever know that God. And yes, I know it's a whole other discussion of did God change (I don't believe He did, but the nature of His relationship to man did) after Jesus.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by samara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible?

---

I almost don't understand this question. Almost, because I might have asked it myself at one point in life. But I don't really understand the "all-or-nothing" stance. I accept ideas as valid from all kinds of fallible sources.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

But the more you get wrapped up in biblical studies the harder it gets to tolerate this tension.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Yet out of all this, God speaks. And this tension, and even flat contradiction, is what means that God speaking out of Scripture, the living enocunter, is the thing, not that what God says is somehow in Scripture.

---