Who's authority?

[Ahanu]

If divine inspiration is authority how do we differ that from opinion?

I went nuts thinking about this question for the past two nights (). I do not know the answer.

I noticed that Thomas quoted many passages from Matthew. Like Moses on Mount Sinai, Matthew gives us a picture of Jesus as if he is the "new Moses" giving God's commandments on the mountainside to his listeners (Matt 5-7). So how do I differentiate between Jesus being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and if it is just the mere opinion of Jesus? Jesus said:

"All power is given to me in heaven and in earth."

Thomas said:

Authority rests only within 'the community of faith' — so the Buddhist Sutras have no 'authority' within Christianity, any more than the Beatitudes are authoritative within Buddhism.

For example, since Jesus is looked at as a "new Moses" giving a "new Torah" by his followers, I was obviously thinking that the Beatitudes would have authority within Judaism. Well, at least that is what they think. During the time, Jesus is a Jew, so Jesus has authority just because he was resurrected from the dead and declared, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth?"

Hope this question does not seem stupid, but that is what I get from Matt 28:18 all isolated by itself. However, even before he was resurrected, Jesus was looked at as one with authority.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by wil

Feel free to tell me to move this if it doen't fit the criteria for this section.

Thomas Moore, Roman Catholic, Monk, Spiritual Writer, Psychologist...from his book "The Souls Religion" As I understand it educate is from a greek root which means 'to draw out' not to shove in.

My question is what is spiritual authority?

Here's a Greek word translated as authority in Matt 7:29

For 1063 he taught 1321 2258 them 846 as 5613 [one] having 2192 authority 1849, and 2532 not 3756 as 5613 the scribes 1122.

exousia

1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases

a) leave or permission

2) physical and mental power

a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises

3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
4) the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)

a) universally

1) authority over mankind

b) specifically

1) the power of judicial decisions
2) of authority to manage domestic affairs

c) metonymically

1) a thing subject to authority or rule

a) jurisdiction

2) one who possesses authority

a) a ruler, a human magistrate
b) the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates

d) a sign of the husband's authority over his wife

1) the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself

e) the sign of regal authority, a crown

The power and responsibility of free choice...Would Spiritual Authority be that which releases us from being a slave to the works of the flesh? (Compare the fruits of the Spirit with the works of the flesh in Galatians 5.)

This would bring Spiritual Authority out of the realm of just opinion/theory, having some observable empirical evidence to back it up.

"By their fruits you shall know them."
--Matt 7

and

"What do you think, Kalamas? When [greed, aversion, or delusion] arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm, lord."

"And this [greedy, aversive, or deluded] person, overcome by [greed, aversion, or delusion,] his mind possessed by [greed, aversion, or delusion] kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
--Kalama Sutta

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

a real authority on sex is one who doesn't use any imagination? deary me, how dull.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Once again Man proves his superiority over the dog that is limited to sex without imagination. Pure sex - what kind of authority is that? With us, sex furthers our imagination and self deception creating real authority. OK, now I get it.

[Snoopy]

Is this why the tumble weed is blowing across the theology sub forum? - because a consensus or a definitive statement by the moderator / owner (hi there ) has not established what or who is the authority to be accepted around this neck of the woods?

s.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

oh, i think nick a has THE answer on who we should treat as a scriptural authority. hur hur hur.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Simone wouldn't want that if for no other reason because of how she became an authority. She wrote:

In my arguments about the insolubility of the problem of God I had never foreseen the possibility of that, of a real contact, person to person, here below, between a human being and God I had vaguely heard tell of things of this kind, but I had never believed in them. In the Fioretti the accounts of apparitions rather put me off if anything, like the miracles in the Gospel. Moreover, in this sudden possession of me by Christ, neither my senses nor my imagination had any part; I only felt in the midst of my suffering the presence of a love, like that which one can read in the smile on a beloved face.

I had never read any mystical works because I had never felt any call to read them. In reading as in other things I have always striven to practice obedience. There is nothing more favorable to intellectual progress, for as far as possible I only read what I am hungry for at the moment when I have an appetite for it, and then I do not read, I eat. God in his mercy had prevented me from reading the mystics, so that it should be evident to me that I had not invented this absolutely unexpected contact.

Slavery to "experts" cannot lead to understanding but just defense of acquired pre-conditioning. You don't understand this which is why you cannot understand her or what it means to "verify."

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Slavery to "experts" cannot lead to understanding but just defense of acquired pre-conditioning.

But Nick, do you not see that, from my viewpoint, you seem to be quite enslaved to Simone Weil? There is no possibility in you that she might be wrong, in fact you seem to insist she knows better than anyone else.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

You don't understand this which is why you cannot understand her or what it means to "verify."

That's a moot point. I could easily say your attachment to Simone Weil blinds you to the possibility of her being wrong.

Thomas

[Thomas]

I saw this on wiki when looking up one of my favourite authors:

Frithjof Schuon, (June 18, 1907 – May 5, 1998) was a German philosopher, metaphysician and author of numerous books on religion and spirituality.

Schuon was known as an authority on philosophy, spirituality and religion, an exponent of the Religio Perennis, and one of the chief representatives of the Perennialist School. He was not an academic, but his writings have been noticed in scholarly and philosophical journals, and by scholars of comparative religion and spirituality.

Italics my emphasis.

So I suggest 'an authority' is a recognised representative of a particular philosophical school, religious denomination, theological/philosophical position, etc. and that is what we're pursuing here.

Of course, everyone is the authority when it comes to their own opinion, but again, opinions are well catered for elsewhere, here we're looking for a bit more substance.

Thomas

[Nick_A]

Thomas

But Nick, do you not see that, from my viewpoint, you seem to be quite enslaved to Simone Weil? There is no possibility in you that she might be wrong, in fact you seem to insist she knows better than anyone else.

Simone refers to a concept most commonly known as Plato's Cave. It refers to the human condition. A person either verifies it within themselves or they don't. I'm not attached to her or the concept but rather have verified its reality in me. The purpose of Christianity leads to freedom from cave restrictions.

She's not the only one that had experiential knowledge of it. Using her I avoid the "what they do" argument. People cannot say it is what Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever do. Simone is Simone and pre-conditioning towards her begins and ends with her..

The one person I wish she would have known I never mention because of possible negative pre-conditioning.

That's a moot point. I could easily say your attachment to Simone Weil blinds you to the possibility of her being wrong.

This is your trouble. You believe that to inwardly verify denies faith but it doesn't. IMO it just means that Christendom including modern day Catholicism misinterprets faith.

Naturally then for you inner verification is a moot point since the idea is to have faith and blind faith is the ultimate attachment. Simone refers to the value of the ancient idea of conscious attention that leads to freedom from attachment but it is irrelevant to you.

So I suggest 'an authority' is a recognized representative of a particular philosophical school, religious denomination, theological/philosophical position, etc. and that is what we're pursuing here.

Of course, everyone is the authority when it comes to their own opinion, but again, opinions are well catered for elsewhere, here we're looking for a bit more substance.

Do you consider Simone Weil an authority even though not connected with any "particular philosophical school, religious denomination, theological/philosophical position, etc"

Do you consider Jesus Christ an authority even though he wasn't associated with any particular philosophical school, religious denomination, theological/philosophical position, etc when he walked the earth or was he just a person with opinions?

Like most, you appear to associate substance with formulations of the "Great Beast." Yet defining objective substance includes confronting that moot point of inner verification.

In the East, a student would gradually receive knowledge as he became able to understand it. In Christianity the idea is referred to as the necessity to put new wine into new bottles. But this is too insulting to be taken seriously in modern times so it is a moot point. OK, I get it. Bring on the experts. But it is very misleading to assume that those that the "Great Beast" calls experts are in any way objectively substantive

[Thomas]

Nick —

Frankly I'm amazed this has dragged on so long.

What you seem to be saying is that Simone Weil is an authority, but no-one else is. She alone is right, indeed she is infallibly and unconditionally right, in all things, to the point of omniscience.

Furthermore you seem to imply that unless you agree with her absolutely and unconditionally, not only are you wrong, but your position is contemptible.

Is that a fair summation?

Thomas

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Nick —

Frankly I'm amazed this has dragged on so long.

What you seem to be saying is that Simone Weil is an authority, but no-one else is. She alone is right, indeed she is infallibly and unconditionally right, in all things, to the point of omniscience.

Furthermore you seem to imply that unless you agree with her absolutely and unconditionally, not only are you wrong, but your position is contemptible.

Is that a fair summation?

Thomas

No. I am stressing that just because authorities have been accepted by secularism is no proof of substance. You call authorities substantive, This may or may not be true. The only way for a person to be able to know is to strive to become substantive but it is far easier just imagine that these "experts" understand something substantive and become followers.

Followers never lasted long around Simone and many left Jesus since he had no use for blind followers to make slaves of but needed those he could awaken so they could become free from the psychological restrictions of cave life so as to become themselves.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by wil

Thomas Moore, Roman Catholic, Monk, Spiritual Writer, Psychologist...from his book "The Souls Religion" As I understand it educate is from a greek root which means 'to draw out' not to shove in.

Thomas Moore is a former monk. I've actually talked to him more than once - though not about religion. Has to do with my "other life."

I think the ability to work miracles and prophetic powers have traditionally been seen as signs of spiritual authority.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

No. I am stressing that just because authorities have been accepted by secularism is no proof of substance.

I take your point, but nor is it a proof of the lack of substance.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

You call authorities substantive, This may or may not be true ... The only way for a person to be able to know is to strive to become substantive ...

Well there's a logical jump there, isn't there?

In the absence of Plato's insight, for example, how do we know what substantive is? Then we discover Plato, and it seems reasonable, but I still suggest we take Plato on faith until we substantiate his claims for ourselves, and even then, we could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Followers never lasted long around Simone and many left Jesus...

That doesn't prove anything. They could well be thoroughly unpleasant individuals. Or cranks. Or wrong.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

... but needed those he could awaken so they could become free from the psychological restrictions of cave life so as to become themselves.

Well their own testimony refutes that, as even John, the most insightful, realised they understood nothing until the Pentecost in Jerusalem.

I can accept your psychology, but only in a very limited sense, on the basis that it's the Holy Spirit that does the real work, not by any 'self-work' we might do, that can only realise a human potential or possibility ...

You can't attain theosis via psychology.

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

This board is open to such discussions relating to any faith, but as always, please ensure discussions are reasonably civil.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Is this why the tumble weed is blowing across the theology sub forum? - because a consensus or a definitive statement by the moderator / owner (hi there ) has not established what or who is the authority to be accepted around this neck of the woods?

Originally Posted by wil

My question is what is spiritual authority?

Originally Posted by thomas

Authority rests only within 'the community of faith' — so the Buddhist Sutras have no 'authority' within Christianity, any more than the Beatitudes are authoritative within Buddhism.

(I neglected to include in with the other posts)

I had thought perhaps to interject a little from some Native American traditions I stumbled on recently. But if I am to understand this remit, these Aboriginal traditions would not be welcome because they are not Christian, let alone Catholic?

If this is so dearest Thomas, then I am afraid this entire board seems to me no more than a cheering section for the Catholic faith...quite a different remit than I originally understood Brian to have meant. Please clarify this for me, if you would be so kind? Surely you do not intend to mean that Native Americans have no *valid* claim as to what constitutes Spiritual Authority, do you?

[wil]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

(I neglected to include in with the other posts)

I had thought perhaps to interject a little from some Native American traditions I stumbled on recently. But if I am to understand this remit, these Aboriginal traditions would not be welcome because they are not Christian, let alone Catholic?

If this is so dearest Thomas, then I am afraid this entire board seems to me no more than a cheering section for the Catholic faith...quite a different remit than I originally understood Brian to have meant. Please clarify this for me, if you would be so kind? Surely you do not intend to mean that Native Americans have no *valid* claim as to what constitutes Spiritual Authority, do you?

If I may interject either I have misunderstood or you have. I think what has been determined is that native thought would be authorative on native discussion, buddhist on buddhist, catholic on catholic, protestant on protestant, etc.

So if the topic being discussed is the Catholic understanding of X your aborginal resource maybe interesting but would be trumped by a Catholic source. And vice versa, if discussing some intricacy of the use of the tree in the Ghost Dance, the Catholic Priest that claims it is herecy would have no standing in anothers religion.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by wil

If I may interject either I have misunderstood or you have. I think what has been determined is that native thought would be authorative on native discussion, buddhist on buddhist, catholic on catholic, protestant on protestant, etc.

So if the topic being discussed is the Catholic understanding of X your aborginal resource maybe interesting but would be trumped by a Catholic source. And vice versa, if discussing some intricacy of the use of the tree in the Ghost Dance, the Catholic Priest that claims it is herecy would have no standing in anothers religion.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm trying to clarify. Goodness knows I am not perfect, I do misunderstand at times. That is why I am requesting a clarification.

It is evident to me that Native thought should not be construed as a trump to Catholic or Christian thought, but it seems to me that when considering the "authoritative sources" that each of us subscribe to in order to support and build our positions, it hardly seems fitting to me to disclude any from discussion on the basis of the OP in question. For instance, where a Christian discussion might gravitate towards the trinity, there may be Native American insights that build on that premise, just as there may be Buddhist (for example) insights that refute that premise.