Yeah and really, when you think about it . . . what is the big deal with Fred Phelps too? I mean sure he is a bigot, but he probably plays nice with his grand kids . . . right? He teaches people to hate, but maybe he cries sometimes too.
So what if someone gets up before a group of people conditioned to obey every suggestion as an order. . . . and tells them he fondled his very young daughter. . . . I mean is he REALLY culpable if any of them go home and try it themselves?. . . . Maybe it was okay with the Mrs.
And what is consensual anyway? I think we can stretch that definition to encompass an older authority figure and an abused young women who is particularly vulnerable to suggestion.
Or kool-aid.
It is just sex . . . not like it could scar a person for life or anything . . . right?
I need a shower now.
Sin is a fine line, but consensual sex between adults should not scar someone for life...
Why do I think this is a key verse in understanding the evil that Wierwille taught and did?
It's going to take me a number of posts to explain, and it may look at times like I'm wandering far afield, so I thank you in advance for your patience and forebearance. It may be that we will have to pause for detailed discussions about issues that come up along the way. That's a good thing.
This is a multi-faceted problem which could be approached from a number of different ways, but I'm going to start with Jeremiah 17:9a, "The heart is deceitful above all things". This is a categorical statement. It doesn't say "Some peoples' hearts are deceitful above all things." It doesn't say "Everybody except Steve Lortz has a heart that is deceitful above all things." It says "The heart is deceitful above all things."
Why would Jeremiah write something like that?
I know we all could jump in with lots of speculation, but since this is a thread about how we read meanings "out from" or "into" the scripture, please have some kind of scriptural basis if you respond to this question. I have three particular verses in mind. See if you can guess which ones they are!
Why do I think this is a key verse in understanding the evil that Wierwille taught and did?
It's going to take me a number of posts to explain, and it may look at times like I'm wandering far afield, so I thank you in advance for your patience and forebearance. It may be that we will have to pause for detailed discussions about issues that come up along the way. That's a good thing.
This is a multi-faceted problem which could be approached from a number of different ways, but I'm going to start with Jeremiah 17:9a, "The heart is deceitful above all things". This is a categorical statement. It doesn't say "Some peoples' hearts are deceitful above all things." It doesn't say "Everybody except Steve Lortz has a heart that is deceitful above all things." It says "The heart is deceitful above all things."
Why would Jeremiah write something like that?
I know we all could jump in with lots of speculation, but since this is a thread about how we read meanings "out from" or "into" the scripture, please have some kind of scriptural basis if you respond to this question. I have three particular verses in mind. See if you can guess which ones they are!
Love,
Steve
Ah, yes, the topic of this thread. So, maybe a little banter about the topic instead of VP? Whadayathink? Of course I realize that things will be yanked in his direction eventually. Just can't get away from the dude. Maybe there are some eisegetic/exegetical mistakes we can fix? I like the fixes. Helps with the walk.
Oh, Steve has started back in on one now! I’ll attempt to answer your question: “Why would Jeremiah write something like that?”
Historically, the context of Jeremiah places this diatribe before the carrying away of Judah into Captivity. He writes this in the face of the obstinence of those Jews who did not trust in the Lord, but rather man (verses 5-7). The “heart” can be “crooked” (lit Heb.) and “incurable”, yet compensation from Yahweh is after He has searched that heart and tested the “kidney” (don’t ya just love FOS?). Look to your “conduct” and what your “deeds” actually do.
Both Roy and Bob remind me that I can't just talk off the top of my head. How can we consider why Jeremiah would have written "the heart is deceitful above all things" without first coming to some sort of agreement about what WE mean when we use the word "heart" in OUR discussion? Bob, in the manner of a good exegete, goes to what is actually written. I'm going to have to spend a little time investigating the points Bob has brought up, and see if I need to readjust my thinking.
I chose Jeremiah 17:9a to start with, but before we're done, the whole of the context, from Jeremiah 17:5 through 17:10 will come into play. Hold my feet to the fire, Bob! I still have a lot of way-brain to overcome.
Oh... and in the course of this thread, I will often be writing "I think it means this..."
In PFAL Wierwille told a story about a Sunday school class, if I remember rightly, where Jonny Jumpup says "I think it means this," and Maggie Muggins says, "I think it means that..." and all the other characters put in their two cents worth. At the end of the story Wierwille declaims with great conviction "We DARE NOT say "I think it means... !"
In truth, all we CAN say about what it means is what we think it means. When Wierwille taught PFAL, he was really only telling us what HE thought the Bible means!
In practice, Wierwille's dictate "we DARE NOT say "I think it means..." morphed into "You DARE NOT think!"
All for now, more later after I've spent some time cogitating.
We have a dam hard time perceiving truth, we tend to believe lies, whenever we think we have answers we are just fooling ourselves, everytime we think we have it right we end up feeling disapointed in ourselves and others, our own judgement will probably surprise us even though it is written fairly plainly.
But sure...go ahead and define "heart" if you must. :B)
We have a dam hard time perceiving truth, we tend to believe lies, whenever we think we have answers we are just fooling ourselves, everytime we think we have it right we end up feeling disapointed in ourselves and others, our own judgement will probably surprise us even though it is written fairly plainly.
But sure...go ahead and define "heart" if you must. :B)
If the heart is so not to be trusted why would God write the word in our hearts? :)
One might think writing the word in stone would have sufficed...
It might imply a heart of stone or that the heart is firmer than rock.
It would seem the fallibility and folly of the heart would only serve to wreak havoc with the word.
Perhaps it is in the trial that error is demonstrated.
Just to interject (and let me say first that I don't know any facts except what I've read on this forum but)...
It is my understanding that VPW drugged women to get them to sleep with him. That's not consent, that's rape.
Rape doesn't make him a "loving spititual father." It makes him a piece-of-.... scumbag.
Did his wife know that he drugged and raped women? (That was a rhetorical question. It don't matter to me none.)
Carry on. :)
If that accusation is truth then it takes VP's action out of the realm of consensual and into the realm of criminal.
Any accusation needs proof to substantiate a claim. Until I see that proof i.e. a blood test or the eye witness account of more than one person I will reserve my own judgment.
There were accusations hung above the head of our lord also.
It is my understanding that VPW drugged women to get them to sleep with him. That's not consent, that's rape.
If that accusation is truth then it takes VP's action out of the realm of consensual and into the realm of criminal.
It sure does. Also note that the covert administration of a pharmacologic substance to an unsuspecting individual (i.e., "slipping someone a mickey") amounts to assault and battery in most jurisdictions.
Any accusation needs proof to substantiate a claim.
The stories have been posted in this forum in first person narrative. Make of them what you will.
I'm sort of in agreement with JeffSjo on the defining of "heart" in this matter. That's something for another time (read: I don't have occasion or vigor to work that all up through every USAGE in the Hebrew Scriptures...there are 600 USES alone and another 156 in the Christian Scriptures). Remember the old "seat of the personal life". That's probably OK for a few places (USES), but certainly not the semantic range (USAGES) we'd need to explore. If it’s not critical for the explication of your thoughts in the matter, Steve, I’ll bow out on it. I’d like to have an idea where you are searching here though. Give us the big picture. We won’t hold it against you.
If the heart is so not to be trusted why would God write the word in our hearts? :)
Stick around, DrWW, we're gonna get there. And I encourage you, as well as Bob, to hold my feet to the fire also. The image I hold in my mind of this thread is a bunch of friends sitting around a campfire in the evening, exchanging their thoughts, with you guys ready to grab me and toast my feet when I utter the foolishness I can sometimes be prone to.
...It takes judgment to find a happy medium amongst the rhetoric of my own conundrum.
In my opinion, judgment is the mental activity whereby the mind compares two or more pieces of information and concludes how they are related. The verbal expression of judgment is a sentence, in both meanings of the word. I think the exercise of judgment is necessary, if we are endowed with freedom of choice. We are to judge the merit of our decisions and actions, but we are NOT to judge other people in the sense of justifying or condemning them. That responsibility belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ ALONE.
There are three forms of objective evidence regarding a person's decisions: their words, their actions and their fruit. I CAN judge Wierwille's decisions based on his words, his actions, and his fruit. I believe his decisions were evil. What Jesus says to Wierwille when V.P. stands in front of Him is up to J.C.
I'm sort of in agreement with JeffSjo on the defining of "heart" in this matter. That's something for another time (read: I don't have occasion or vigor to work that all up through every USAGE in the Hebrew Scriptures...there are 600 USES alone and another 156 in the Christian Scriptures). Remember the old "seat of the personal life". That's probably OK for a few places (USES), but certainly not the semantic range (USAGES) we'd need to explore. If it’s not critical for the explication of your thoughts in the matter, Steve, I’ll bow out on it. I’d like to have an idea where you are searching here though. Give us the big picture. We won’t hold it against you.
re
My brother used to teach humane letters to seventh-graders. One of the first things he would do when introducing philosophy was to make his students come up with a definition for "definition". He and I would argue about it, in front of the students, after each of them had written his or her definition. It wasn't a phoney, argument! We each had our own favorite definition of "definition", and they weren't the same. We felt that part of our pedagogic duties to seventh-graders was to introduce them to the reality that not all questions have pat, easy answers. In fact, we saw their educations as one long introduction to exercising judgment.
My brother believed that a definition of a thing is a description that is neither too broad nor too narrow. My idea of a definition is a description that gives the category the subject belongs to, and then tells how the thing differs from other members of the same category.
I only had a handful of verses in mind, but your earlier post, Bob, sent me back to the concordances and I found a passel more of verses that apply. I'm going to stick to the original few. But first, an interlude.
Exegesis vs. Eisegesis Reading meaning "out from" or "into"?
Some form of Occam's Razor may apply here. Perhaps as Einstein said, "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." God wrote a Book to beings he was responsible to/for - and He looks at them as Children, not grown ups. Therefore, He explains things to them (us) in childish ways, and if you delve into it too much you're going to end up looking foolish.
Maybe He uses foolish things to confound the "wise"?
Maybe you can 'overstudy' - Maybe you can exceed good sense in doing so? How much knowledge is enough for children? How much is simply,... Children being silly?
FYI, I have never read/saw (whichever applies) "Through the Looking Glass."
But right off hand...
perhaps Humpty Dumpty shouldn't have been expecting a knock-down argument?
Understanding is the goal; minutiae oftentimes leads to paralysis IMO. Sometimes the clever fall to cleverness (Bullinger being too caught up in the minutiae of his excessive dispensational argument IMO), the educated fall to people who speak their own language (Tyndale was fooled by a man who was also a Cambridge student who then betrayed him before he could finish translating the Bible).
Some eisegesis is necessary if one is believing that the whole of the OT scriptures point to Christ, yes? Else wasn't the writer of the book of Hebrews mistaken when he likened Melchisidec to Christ, after all Genesis doesn't actually SAY Christ, right? Or again when the book of Hebrews likens all the OT sacrifice as perfected by Christ's once and for all sacrifice. Or yet again when Hebrews states that Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the grave because Genesis doesn't actually SAY what Abraham believed that led him to willingness to carry out the seemingly unattainable commandment.
Understanding is the goal...!? Perhaps best to say, "This we will do, God willing."
FYI, I have never read/saw (whichever applies) "Through the Looking Glass."
But right off hand...
perhaps Humpty Dumpty shouldn't have been expecting a knock-down argument?
Understanding is the goal; minutiae oftentimes leads to paralysis IMO. Sometimes the clever fall to cleverness (Bullinger being too caught up in the minutiae of his excessive dispensational argument IMO), the educated fall to people who speak their own language (Tyndale was fooled by a man who was also a Cambridge student who then betrayed him before he could finish translating the Bible).
Some eisegesis is necessary if one is believing that the whole of the OT scriptures point to Christ, yes? Else wasn't the writer of the book of Hebrews mistaken when he likened Melchisidec to Christ, after all Genesis doesn't actually SAY Christ, right? Or again when the book of Hebrews likens all the OT sacrifice as perfected by Christ's once and for all sacrifice. Or yet again when Hebrews states that Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the grave because Genesis doesn't actually SAY what Abraham believed that led him to willingness to carry out the seemingly unattainable commandment.
Understanding is the goal...!? Perhaps best to say, "This we will do, God willing."
Interesting Jeff, how those two ideas, yours and mine brought this to mind so quickly
Proverbs 4
1Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.
2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.
3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother.
4 He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.
5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Exegesis vs. Eisegesis Reading meaning "out from" or "into"?
Some form of Occam's Razor may apply here. Perhaps as Einstein said, "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." God wrote a Book to beings he was responsible to/for - and He looks at them as Children, not grown ups. Therefore, He explains things to them (us) in childish ways, and if you delve into it too much you're going to end up looking foolish.
Maybe He uses foolish things to confound the "wise"?
Maybe you can 'overstudy' - Maybe you can exceed good sense in doing so? How much knowledge is enough for children? How much is simply,... Children being silly?
Gen-2,
I'll agree to a point. There is language in the Scriptures that refer to the "mature" (as opposed to those needing milk), but I'll agree also that people can "overstudy" and become monkish to a fault (read: eggheads for Jesus). That balance between doctrine and practice is a place I want to live.
the word talks about milk and meat because a stage of life
or should say the bible but the bible is King James words
I can quote the word of God
Milk and Meat
I’m not, really I’m not, trying to ruin anyone’s Lent. But I think we need to talk about, or at least think a little more about milk and meat. In this, I refer to the ancient pedagogic metaphor, found even in the writings of St Paul. Instruction in basic matters is referred to as milk, and instruction in more complex matters is referred to a meat. Simple enough. But there is a further application that I’ve seen: milk is used to refer to the superficial treatment of a particular subject, and meat to a more properly exhaustive, in-depth coverage. It is a combination of these two usages in reflecting upon theology in particular that I’ve been thinking lately.
I’ve been attending and paying attention to introductory classes of various sorts, and keeping my ears open about others (I have some elementary school-aged spies that are very useful!). One of the most interesting things that I’ve consistently noticed is that there is a kind of neglect of meat. I had an eleven year old boy and his younger sister tell me flat out that they wanted to be learning more about God in Sunday School, but all they ever did was “make stuff” (as she flipped some cute little vaguely religion gew-gaw at me; she really didn’t seem to care what it was at all). They sounded exasperated. These are kids telling an adult that! Nuts! (I am, however, honored by their trust!) The message has, to be sure, been relayed to the proper authorities.
Adults are not exempt. We have an “Introduction to Orthodoxy” class which I’m enjoying very much. The priest who is giving the class has put together a truly amazing summary of the history of Eastern Orthodoxy, designed to be complete in six sessions (one night a week for all of Lent). It’s amazing the amount of time and the topics that he’s able to cover, and to cover them coherently. It’s a very fine job! But it, too, is in a way, only milk, because there is insufficient time to go into depth on anything. Everyone is encouraged to ask questions, but there are some people who have so many questions, they are, I think, just overwhelmed. As an illustration of the variation of levels in familiarity with the subject, I will describe an occurrence from a couple weeks ago. The priest was showing pictures of the Monastery of St Catherine in Sinai, and showed various icons and pictures of the Burning Bush. One of the class members said, “Yes, Father, this is all very interesting. But why do you keep calling it ‘the Burning Bush’?” So, we have a range of participants, from those who don’t know the most basic of Bible stories, to someone like myself (embarassingly asked for a second opinion; more embarassingly offering one, at times). And for me, who is in awe of the skill of this priest at squeezing in all Seven Ecumenical Councils into one hour-and-a-half class (think about it), the classes are just fine. They’re a great refresher. And yet, these are supposed to be an introductory class. So I’m thinking, or hoping, that the detailed question and answer stuff will come at the end, when people feel they aren’t being rushed to fit in the last fourteen heresies of ninth century Trebizond or something. Right now, it seems to me that the other class members are just overwhelmed. One guy is someone who’s just interested in Orthodoxy, sitting in. I wonder what he thinks? I suppose I’ll just ask him: Are you finding this a good overview? A good introduction? Or is it too fast, too superficial? Or is that just what you wanted, a quick overview? He’s the kind of person those classes are for, ideally. But educating our own is up there too. “Why do you call it ‘the Burning Bush’?” Remember that, you teachers, and tremble to think where you’ve failed!
But there is also much of this going on in publishing on theological subjects. In much of the Lenten Orthodox reading which I’ve been doing not enough of this Lent, I’ve been noticing more milk treatments, as though the proper understanding of the subject by the reader has been, on the part of the author, taken for granted. That is, the authors seem to write as though the reader already knows the depth of a subject so well that the merest superficially glancing swipe in its general direction is taken as sufficient to recall all the intricacies of argumentation, historical background, and even theological vocabulary. And yet no one any more is putting together all that information so as to present it to the hungry masses of people who want the meat. I recommended W. H. C. Frend’s The Rise of Christianity to a friend, and she’s enjoying it so much, it makes me want to read it again myself. It’s precisely the depth of detail in the coverage that she’s enjoying. I’m reading John Meyendorff’s volume in the SVS Press Church History, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D.. It’s a mixed bag of some milk and some meat. This is mostly due to the peculiar way in which the book is organized, so that it’s not proceeding chronologically, but covering different topics in each chapter. This leads to multiple coverage of times and historical personages, with varying depth and of varying quality. Overall, it’s a kind of chaos, almost. A good editor could’ve done wonders with this book.
In other writings, particularly in the introductions to some translations I’ve been picking through, there is another annoying failure. This is the oversimplification of very complex situations, glossed over by platitidinous models or dichotomies based in older and/or not very good scholarship. Specific details are unnecessary, but one example is the current trend to state that the interior mapping of man is such that kardia is this, and nous is that, dianoia is this other thing, and pneuma and psyche are yet others, yet they are all arranged in some kind of perfectly coherent hierachy of relationships which works perfectly to describe the work in question. Until you read your next introduction to another translation, were the relationships are given differently and the hierarchy is thus altered. It is a failure to try to systematize the non-systematic. It is quite patently the case that Greek Orthodox Patristic writing is not systematic. Systematizing such a thing is a grave mistake. Oversimplifying them is a grave mistake as well. In order to introduce the terminology and topics, oversimplification is used, but is presented as definition, as an authoritative representation of semantic meaning obtained through objective and exhaustive investigation of the usage of the words. One would expect the latter to be the approach of every author, and yet it apparently simply occurs too seldom to register. This oversimplification is misleading to readers, who think they’ve been given the answer by someone who did the legwork to figure it all out. Then they can blurb it to their Orthodox-curious friends, “The nous is the blah blah of the psyche which is related to the blah blah blah….” If such oversimplification is employed, it should be stated to be only the roughest summary (as I’ve too seldom seen done) of the usage of a particular author, noting that the technical vocabulary, while now fixed, was for some time (then and for centuries) actually more fluid.
I suppose I don’t really know where I’m going with this. There is obviously a need for milk (“Why do you call it ‘the Burning Bush’?”), but there is also a need for meat (my Frend-reading friend). I really need some meat, too. Like a big double-cheeseburger of learnin’! Even if it’s a lot of work, it’s worth it. And while I’m learning much from attending to some excellent summaries (really, I am quite in awe of that ability), I think no summary should be without its fully articulated partner presentation, in excruciatingly, exquisitely full detail. Particularly in a setting where people are interested in these things not simply because they’re curious but because they find it relates to their ultimate salvation (such a responsibility!), I think we need to cover our bases better. I know the twentieth was a rough century in particular for Eastern Orthodoxy, but that century is over now. Hopefully, things will improve.
Understanding is the goal; minutiae oftentimes leads to paralysis IMO. Sometimes the clever fall to cleverness (Bullinger being too caught up in the minutiae of his excessive dispensational argument IMO)...
Some eisegesis is necessary if one is believing that the whole of the OT scriptures point to Christ, yes? Else wasn't the writer of the book of Hebrews mistaken when he likened Melchisidec to Christ...
Understanding is the goal...!? Perhaps best to say, "This we will do, God willing."
Dittos to your first observation. I don't think the understandings of the Old Testament written into Hebrews were necessarily eisegesis. They wouldn't need to be if the O.T. passages were written with double meanings possible. I can see where God would have used double meanings to keep hidden the mystery described in Ephesians 1:9&10, a mystery which was first revealed through Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:36), not the same as the mystery first revealed to Paul, and definitely NOT a period of time. But we can save that discussion for another thread.
Interesting Jeff, how those two ideas, yours and mine brought this to mind so quickly
Proverbs 4
1Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.
2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.
3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother.
4 He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.
5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Good stuff, Gen-2! We will be looking at Proverbs 4:20-23 before long also.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
90
45
29
Popular Days
Mar 24
34
Mar 25
28
Apr 10
24
Mar 23
21
Top Posters In This Topic
year2027 39 posts
Steve Lortz 90 posts
geisha779 45 posts
roberterasmus 29 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2010
34 posts
Mar 25 2010
28 posts
Apr 10 2010
24 posts
Mar 23 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hebrews 4:12 .. . . to whom is it written? It was written to the Jews who had intellectually agreed to the gospel, the facts about Jesus, the authority and power of the 1st century church, but were no
geisha779
Hey Gen-2 I am curious what people think strong meat really is? :) Perhaps it is. . . to the measure of the stature of the fullness in Christ. . . . and not some super-duper special x-ray ability,
cman
Excuse me there Bob, but your post has a narrow view. I will not use the word you used to describe a perspective. Other words come to mind. But, you are, as all, entitled to your own works.
soul searcher
Just to interject (and let me say first that I don't know any facts except what I've read on this forum but)...
It is my understanding that VPW drugged women to get them to sleep with him. That's not consent, that's rape.
Rape doesn't make him a "loving spititual father." It makes him a piece-of-.... scumbag.
Did his wife know that he drugged and raped women? (That was a rhetorical question. It don't matter to me none.)
Carry on. :)
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Sin is a fine line, but consensual sex between adults should not scar someone for life...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"Be not high-minded, but fear:"
Why do I think this is a key verse in understanding the evil that Wierwille taught and did?
It's going to take me a number of posts to explain, and it may look at times like I'm wandering far afield, so I thank you in advance for your patience and forebearance. It may be that we will have to pause for detailed discussions about issues that come up along the way. That's a good thing.
This is a multi-faceted problem which could be approached from a number of different ways, but I'm going to start with Jeremiah 17:9a, "The heart is deceitful above all things". This is a categorical statement. It doesn't say "Some peoples' hearts are deceitful above all things." It doesn't say "Everybody except Steve Lortz has a heart that is deceitful above all things." It says "The heart is deceitful above all things."
Why would Jeremiah write something like that?
I know we all could jump in with lots of speculation, but since this is a thread about how we read meanings "out from" or "into" the scripture, please have some kind of scriptural basis if you respond to this question. I have three particular verses in mind. See if you can guess which ones they are!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Steve
yes what is fear but what I'm afraid of?
what is high minded but think you know more than you do?
or what is deceitful or what is wrong?
what is the heart of a man?
what is the heart of the soul?
and what is the heart a spirit?
what is the heart of serpent?
what is the heart of God?
what is in Eve heart and what is in Adam heart?
did the serpent temp Eve or did he teach her?
did Adam follower Eve direction or was fool by Eve?
you see the Serpent had to be there to teach us God's love
with hate there would no need for God's love
I know I ask for questions but that what it takes to understand why the heart works like it does
the heart is red and healthily not black and death
but until we have red there a lot colors to pass until you have red from black
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Ah, yes, the topic of this thread. So, maybe a little banter about the topic instead of VP? Whadayathink? Of course I realize that things will be yanked in his direction eventually. Just can't get away from the dude. Maybe there are some eisegetic/exegetical mistakes we can fix? I like the fixes. Helps with the walk.
Oh, Steve has started back in on one now! I’ll attempt to answer your question: “Why would Jeremiah write something like that?”
Historically, the context of Jeremiah places this diatribe before the carrying away of Judah into Captivity. He writes this in the face of the obstinence of those Jews who did not trust in the Lord, but rather man (verses 5-7). The “heart” can be “crooked” (lit Heb.) and “incurable”, yet compensation from Yahweh is after He has searched that heart and tested the “kidney” (don’t ya just love FOS?). Look to your “conduct” and what your “deeds” actually do.
A little exe and eise…
What’s next in your brain Steve?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Both Roy and Bob remind me that I can't just talk off the top of my head. How can we consider why Jeremiah would have written "the heart is deceitful above all things" without first coming to some sort of agreement about what WE mean when we use the word "heart" in OUR discussion? Bob, in the manner of a good exegete, goes to what is actually written. I'm going to have to spend a little time investigating the points Bob has brought up, and see if I need to readjust my thinking.
I chose Jeremiah 17:9a to start with, but before we're done, the whole of the context, from Jeremiah 17:5 through 17:10 will come into play. Hold my feet to the fire, Bob! I still have a lot of way-brain to overcome.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Oh... and in the course of this thread, I will often be writing "I think it means this..."
In PFAL Wierwille told a story about a Sunday school class, if I remember rightly, where Jonny Jumpup says "I think it means this," and Maggie Muggins says, "I think it means that..." and all the other characters put in their two cents worth. At the end of the story Wierwille declaims with great conviction "We DARE NOT say "I think it means... !"
In truth, all we CAN say about what it means is what we think it means. When Wierwille taught PFAL, he was really only telling us what HE thought the Bible means!
In practice, Wierwille's dictate "we DARE NOT say "I think it means..." morphed into "You DARE NOT think!"
All for now, more later after I've spent some time cogitating.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
"The heart is deceitful above all things"
We have a dam hard time perceiving truth, we tend to believe lies, whenever we think we have answers we are just fooling ourselves, everytime we think we have it right we end up feeling disapointed in ourselves and others, our own judgement will probably surprise us even though it is written fairly plainly.
But sure...go ahead and define "heart" if you must. :B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
If the heart is so not to be trusted why would God write the word in our hearts? :)
One might think writing the word in stone would have sufficed...
It might imply a heart of stone or that the heart is firmer than rock.
It would seem the fallibility and folly of the heart would only serve to wreak havoc with the word.
Perhaps it is in the trial that error is demonstrated.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
deceitful is not the only thing the heart is
that is not what it's saying imo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Judgment is a peculiar subject.
Jesus tells us to judge not but what would the world be like without judgment.
There is good judgment and better judgment :)
Then there is false judgment and there is man's day and the lord's day.
This all seems to be a contradiction.
How can we exist with zero judgment?
We need to judge distance, depth and severity of sins.
If sin is all one size then it seems nothing and everything is a sin.
It takes judgment to find a happy medium amongst the rhetoric of my own conundrum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
If that accusation is truth then it takes VP's action out of the realm of consensual and into the realm of criminal.
Any accusation needs proof to substantiate a claim. Until I see that proof i.e. a blood test or the eye witness account of more than one person I will reserve my own judgment.
There were accusations hung above the head of our lord also.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
It sure does. Also note that the covert administration of a pharmacologic substance to an unsuspecting individual (i.e., "slipping someone a mickey") amounts to assault and battery in most jurisdictions.
The stories have been posted in this forum in first person narrative. Make of them what you will.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
I'm sort of in agreement with JeffSjo on the defining of "heart" in this matter. That's something for another time (read: I don't have occasion or vigor to work that all up through every USAGE in the Hebrew Scriptures...there are 600 USES alone and another 156 in the Christian Scriptures). Remember the old "seat of the personal life". That's probably OK for a few places (USES), but certainly not the semantic range (USAGES) we'd need to explore. If it’s not critical for the explication of your thoughts in the matter, Steve, I’ll bow out on it. I’d like to have an idea where you are searching here though. Give us the big picture. We won’t hold it against you.
re
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Stick around, DrWW, we're gonna get there. And I encourage you, as well as Bob, to hold my feet to the fire also. The image I hold in my mind of this thread is a bunch of friends sitting around a campfire in the evening, exchanging their thoughts, with you guys ready to grab me and toast my feet when I utter the foolishness I can sometimes be prone to.
I "whole-heartedly" agree!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
In my opinion, judgment is the mental activity whereby the mind compares two or more pieces of information and concludes how they are related. The verbal expression of judgment is a sentence, in both meanings of the word. I think the exercise of judgment is necessary, if we are endowed with freedom of choice. We are to judge the merit of our decisions and actions, but we are NOT to judge other people in the sense of justifying or condemning them. That responsibility belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ ALONE.
There are three forms of objective evidence regarding a person's decisions: their words, their actions and their fruit. I CAN judge Wierwille's decisions based on his words, his actions, and his fruit. I believe his decisions were evil. What Jesus says to Wierwille when V.P. stands in front of Him is up to J.C.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
My brother used to teach humane letters to seventh-graders. One of the first things he would do when introducing philosophy was to make his students come up with a definition for "definition". He and I would argue about it, in front of the students, after each of them had written his or her definition. It wasn't a phoney, argument! We each had our own favorite definition of "definition", and they weren't the same. We felt that part of our pedagogic duties to seventh-graders was to introduce them to the reality that not all questions have pat, easy answers. In fact, we saw their educations as one long introduction to exercising judgment.
My brother believed that a definition of a thing is a description that is neither too broad nor too narrow. My idea of a definition is a description that gives the category the subject belongs to, and then tells how the thing differs from other members of the same category.
I only had a handful of verses in mind, but your earlier post, Bob, sent me back to the concordances and I found a passel more of verses that apply. I'm going to stick to the original few. But first, an interlude.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Exegesis vs. Eisegesis Reading meaning "out from" or "into"?
Some form of Occam's Razor may apply here. Perhaps as Einstein said, "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." God wrote a Book to beings he was responsible to/for - and He looks at them as Children, not grown ups. Therefore, He explains things to them (us) in childish ways, and if you delve into it too much you're going to end up looking foolish.
Maybe He uses foolish things to confound the "wise"?
Maybe you can 'overstudy' - Maybe you can exceed good sense in doing so? How much knowledge is enough for children? How much is simply,... Children being silly?
Edited by Gen-2Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Alice was in the middle of a discussion with Humpty Dumpty (Through the Looking Glass, chapter 6)
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously "of course you don't---till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean---neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master---that's all."
More later...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
FYI, I have never read/saw (whichever applies) "Through the Looking Glass."
But right off hand...
perhaps Humpty Dumpty shouldn't have been expecting a knock-down argument?
Understanding is the goal; minutiae oftentimes leads to paralysis IMO. Sometimes the clever fall to cleverness (Bullinger being too caught up in the minutiae of his excessive dispensational argument IMO), the educated fall to people who speak their own language (Tyndale was fooled by a man who was also a Cambridge student who then betrayed him before he could finish translating the Bible).
Some eisegesis is necessary if one is believing that the whole of the OT scriptures point to Christ, yes? Else wasn't the writer of the book of Hebrews mistaken when he likened Melchisidec to Christ, after all Genesis doesn't actually SAY Christ, right? Or again when the book of Hebrews likens all the OT sacrifice as perfected by Christ's once and for all sacrifice. Or yet again when Hebrews states that Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the grave because Genesis doesn't actually SAY what Abraham believed that led him to willingness to carry out the seemingly unattainable commandment.
Understanding is the goal...!? Perhaps best to say, "This we will do, God willing."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Interesting Jeff, how those two ideas, yours and mine brought this to mind so quickly
Proverbs 4
1 Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.
2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.
3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother.
4 He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.
5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Gen-2,
I'll agree to a point. There is language in the Scriptures that refer to the "mature" (as opposed to those needing milk), but I'll agree also that people can "overstudy" and become monkish to a fault (read: eggheads for Jesus). That balance between doctrine and practice is a place I want to live.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Gen-2
When do you eat meat?
When do you need milk?
or is the milk needed to wash down the meat?
the word talks about milk and meat because a stage of life
or should say the bible but the bible is King James words
I can quote the word of God
have you study meat and milk
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Dittos to your first observation. I don't think the understandings of the Old Testament written into Hebrews were necessarily eisegesis. They wouldn't need to be if the O.T. passages were written with double meanings possible. I can see where God would have used double meanings to keep hidden the mystery described in Ephesians 1:9&10, a mystery which was first revealed through Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:36), not the same as the mystery first revealed to Paul, and definitely NOT a period of time. But we can save that discussion for another thread.
Good stuff, Gen-2! We will be looking at Proverbs 4:20-23 before long also.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.