I have a question concerning exegesis. This is a new concept to me as I am becoming more involved in religious history and doctrine. On another forum, they're telling me there is only one way to interpret the Bible, though exegesis. So do the people/churches who believe as they do all agree that exegesis is the way to understand the Bible? And if so, do those who interpret the Bible different not believe in exegesis, or do they also claim to practice proper exegesis? What I'm getting at, can two churches with two different of interpretations of even just one verse, both claim to practice proper exegesis? Who has the final claim on what is or isn't proper? Or is it a matter of opinion just like anything else?
Is exegesis perfect?
- Thread starter sno_rydr
- Start date
Good stuff, there's a lot worse things you could turn your mind to!
That's right. To understand what (I would assume) they mean, let's look at the word itself. It's from the Greek, exgeisthai, is a verb meaning "to interpret" and it comes from the root ex meaning "out" and the verb hgeisthai, "to lead" — so the role of the exegete is to lead the person out of the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding.
Acts 8:26-31
"Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza ... And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia ... reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
This is a Scriptural example. Philip was one of the first deacons of the Church, trained by the Apostles themselves in the proper understanding and interpretation of Scripture. The Spirit leads him to this encounter, so we may assume that the charism (the spiritual gift) of the exegete works through him.
The Ethiopian, a highly educated man it would seem (he's in charge of the treasury, the Queen and country's wealth), has the wisdom to realise that because he can read Scripture does not mean he will fully understand it.
In general, yes.
The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, "personal interpretation of a text (in this case the Bible) using your own ideas". We have no guarantee that we have the right interpretation of Scripture, we would have to be infallible to say that.
Today many believe eisegesis is the way, but look at it differently, arguing that it matters not what Jesus meant, but what it means to me.
They would claim to practice proper exegesis. They claim the proper interpretation, which others do not have, or have distorted.
Yes.
Well here I declare my utter bias. I am Roman Catholic, so I'll give you an answer from my point of view.
If you read the Gospels, it seems evident that the full implication of what Christ meant when He spoke was not easily understood. So He called a group of men together as His close students, and taught them this deeper meaning.
If you read Acts 2, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles inaugurated the exegetical mission of the Church. Peter spoke to the crowd, and thousands were converted. Acts details the activities of Peter and Paul, but Acts also clearly indicates that it is the Holy Spirit who leads and guides the Church, through the Apostles, and on through their chosen successors.
So the Apostles are the first to be empowered, by the Light of the Holy Spirit, to be exegetes and thus to lead the people from darkness to that Holy light.
I would argue then, that the Apostles taught their successors, and they in turn passed this teaching on. This is what 'tradition' means — "to hand on". So for me, I want to know what the Apostles taught (exegesis) and not what someone thinks of what the Apostles taught (eisegesis).
For me again, that cuts the list back to: Roman Catholic, Greek, Oriental and other Orthodox churches ... we all share the same exegetical understanding. Where we differ is in its theological implications. We all believe in the same thing, we express it differently. (Other ancient churches, such as the Nestorians, we believe to have got it fundamentally wrong, they teach something that is different from what they were taught and broke with the tradition. They would say their teachers got it wrong, and chose to go their own way.)
At the Reformation however, Martin Luther, a very troubled and pessimistic young man, rejected the traditional interpretation of Scripture and introduced a radically different idea — it is not God's will that all men will be saved. He made his case to the Church but lost the argument ... but he, too, decided to break with tradition, and go his own way.
Within a few years one church had become many — now there was the Lutheran, the Calvinist ... each claiming a different exegesis as the authentic teaching, each insisting that those who went before, and their contemporaries, had got it wrong.
And it's been going on ever since.
So you takes your pick.
For me, I get as close as I can to the source. It seems a safer bet to rely on those who got it from the horse's mouth, rather than from those who have a personal opinion of what the message means.
But that's me. You must find your way.
And good luck with that, too!
Thomas
N
Nick_A
Guest
This is of course why we end up with religious wars. I've come to the conclusion that the Oracle was right to consider Socrates a man of wisdom. Around him were all sorts of experts that in reality knew nothing. Socrates admitted he knew nothing which is more than these experts knew.
Exegesis is the same way. It isn't what you know but how to become able to understand. Unfortunately the secular churches don't know so the best thing is to admit it.
Luke 24:
We have to be honest and say that if they needed their minds opened, we may need the same before understanding scripture more then superficially.. The question for me then becomes how to allow my mind to become open rather then be told what to think. Unfortunately, there are all to few in churches that understand this and prefer instead telling people what to think and how to interpret..
Exegesis is the same way. It isn't what you know but how to become able to understand. Unfortunately the secular churches don't know so the best thing is to admit it.
Luke 24:
We have to be honest and say that if they needed their minds opened, we may need the same before understanding scripture more then superficially.. The question for me then becomes how to allow my mind to become open rather then be told what to think. Unfortunately, there are all to few in churches that understand this and prefer instead telling people what to think and how to interpret..
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Welcome to Interfaith, sno rydr, and thank you for a thoughtful question!
Since I am not familiar with the term "exegesis" even though I have run across it many times, I looked it up:
Exegesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So according to this, yes; two churches can with two different interpretations of even just one verse, claim to practice proper exegesis.
If I may suggest, look at any of my discussions with others surrounding the Pauline Conspiracy Theory stuff. A good thread to this end is in the Roman history section titled Rome in transition, where I looked extensively at the historic and cultural perspectives surrounding the birth of Christianity. Yet I can concede that others looking over the same information can arrive at other conclusions.
Good luck in your studies!~
Since I am not familiar with the term "exegesis" even though I have run across it many times, I looked it up:
Exegesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So according to this, yes; two churches can with two different interpretations of even just one verse, claim to practice proper exegesis.
But clearly it is *not* the only way, even though I would agree it is the better way.
Considering that the multitude of accepted and unaccepted denominational interpretations still exist, I would say exegesis has had little impact at the lay level. Where there could be said to be some influence is at the scholarship level.
Both...and a list of variations in between. Whatever is politically convenient for the moment. Even among those who *practice* "proper" exegesis there is a range of interpretation.
If I may suggest, look at any of my discussions with others surrounding the Pauline Conspiracy Theory stuff. A good thread to this end is in the Roman history section titled Rome in transition, where I looked extensively at the historic and cultural perspectives surrounding the birth of Christianity. Yet I can concede that others looking over the same information can arrive at other conclusions.
Of course. Anybody can *claim* anything they wish. The proof however, is in the pudding.
Not I, surely. But I suppose every authoritarian structure by necessity must convey some type of claim of what is proper versus what is not. But then we are back at what is claimed versus what is shown...what kind of fruit does the tree bear? If it seems to be an apple tree, but it gives oranges, something isn't right.
I am of the opinion that the student ultimately is responsible. A teacher may teach me that killing is wrong, and so I go through life believing killing is wrong, to the point of becoming an ardent vegetarian. And then one day I am killed by a mugger because I did not believe it was right to defend myself. Likewise, I may listen to a teacher that says sometimes killing is necessary...so I go off to war to fight for my country, and I come home in a body bag. Which teacher is right? Are they both right? Is "right" a matter of situation and circumstance? As a student I feel it is imperitive that I challenge my teachers to elicit the details and exceptions and all the tiny little anomalies that do not stand to blanket reasoning. In the end, I will be the one standing before the throne answering for myself...and I really don't think I will be able to pass the blame on to my teachers.
Good luck in your studies!~
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Thought I would drop a teaser for the other thread:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875-2.html
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875-2.html
Hi Nick —
For them, it is axiomatic that 'Revelation' lies outside the scope of unaided human reason, so the ability to understand is seen in that context.
Thus true understanding is through faith, not through knowledge.
Indeed, in history there are very, very few who have been converted through the intellectual argument of religion, but there are very, very many who have thought their way out of it. In that sense, Simone Weil is a case in point of the 'modern condition', as someone who talks themselves out of what they want to believe.
As the Zen master said ... enough words, let's sit.
As we say, Christianity is a Way, it's something you follow, it's not an intellectual exercise.
The secular world however, assumes 'opening of the mind' in its secular sense, and thus the effort is thwarted before it's even begun.
Not all doctors are brilliant diagnosticians, but that is no reason to discard medicine as a science, or not to go to a doctor. Indeed, continuing the metaphor, the practice of medicine is now determined by secular concerns — time, money, the risk of litigation ... the actual vocation to heal falls a long way behind.
On the other hand, there are far too many who insist they need not be told, that the interpretation of Scripture is somehow a natural right, that they have infallible insight and direction, via the Holy Spirit, before they even opened a Bible.
We also have to be careful Nick — some would read your trend to indicate that each generation should approach Scripture 'clean' of what went before ... but if we apply that rule across the board, then each generation should ignore everything our forbears might teach us ...
We go back to ground zero, and start again. Of course, were that the case in reality, we'd have never climbed down from the trees.
Thomas
That's the problem with secularism. The traditional churches, which do not espouse secular philosophies, and indeed regard Scripture under a completely different paradigm, treat exegesis as something more than an intellectual exercise.
For them, it is axiomatic that 'Revelation' lies outside the scope of unaided human reason, so the ability to understand is seen in that context.
Thus true understanding is through faith, not through knowledge.
Indeed, in history there are very, very few who have been converted through the intellectual argument of religion, but there are very, very many who have thought their way out of it. In that sense, Simone Weil is a case in point of the 'modern condition', as someone who talks themselves out of what they want to believe.
As the Zen master said ... enough words, let's sit.
As we say, Christianity is a Way, it's something you follow, it's not an intellectual exercise.
That again is part of the exegete's job — 'opening the mind' as a process is itself located within the religious paradigm — opening the mind in Buddhism means something different than opening the mind in Christianity, for example, in which the key is metanoia, a change of heart.
The secular world however, assumes 'opening of the mind' in its secular sense, and thus the effort is thwarted before it's even begun.
Indeed so ... no-one is perfect, and everyone has their faults ... but that does not then stand as a criticism of the paradigm, only our ability, or inability, to live up to it.
Not all doctors are brilliant diagnosticians, but that is no reason to discard medicine as a science, or not to go to a doctor. Indeed, continuing the metaphor, the practice of medicine is now determined by secular concerns — time, money, the risk of litigation ... the actual vocation to heal falls a long way behind.
On the other hand, there are far too many who insist they need not be told, that the interpretation of Scripture is somehow a natural right, that they have infallible insight and direction, via the Holy Spirit, before they even opened a Bible.
We also have to be careful Nick — some would read your trend to indicate that each generation should approach Scripture 'clean' of what went before ... but if we apply that rule across the board, then each generation should ignore everything our forbears might teach us ...
We go back to ground zero, and start again. Of course, were that the case in reality, we'd have never climbed down from the trees.
Thomas
leastone
Well-Known Member
(1) All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2Ti 3:16)
(2) That the Church may exist, there must be doctrine from the Word; because without doctrine the Word cannot be understood. Yet it is not doctrine alone that constitutes the Church with a man, but a life according to doctrine. From this it follows that faith alone does not constitute the Church but the life of faith, which is charity. Genuine doctrine is the doctrine of charity and at the same time of faith, and not the doctrine of faith apart from the former; for the doctrine of charity and at the same time of faith, is the doctrine of life; but not the doctrine of faith apart from the doctrine of charity. [ES New Jerusalem and Heavenly Doctrine (Tafel) n. 243]
(3) (i) It is well known that a church is like its doctrine, and the Word is the source of doctrine. Yet it is not doctrine which establishes a church, but the wholeness and purity of its doctrine, and consequently its understanding of the Word.
But in the case of the particular church which exists in the individual, it is not doctrine which establishes and makes it, but faith and life in accordance with faith.
Likewise it is not the Word which establishes and makes the particular church in the case of a person, but faith in accordance with truths, and life in accordance with the kinds of good which he draws from this source and applies to himself.
The Word is like a mine, the depths of which are rich in gold and silver; or like a mine containing richer and richer veins of gems the further one goes into it. It is the understanding of the Word which opens up these mines. If it is not understood as it is in itself, in its inmost recesses and in its depth, the Word would no more bring about a church in the case of a person than the mines in Asia would make a European wealthy. It would be quite different, if he were among the mine-owners and operators.
[ii] For those who probe the Word to extract from it the truths of faith and the kinds of good which are needed for life, the Word is like treasures owned by the Shah of Persia or the Mogul or Chinese Emperors. People belonging to the church are like their treasurers, who have permission to take out as much as they want for their own purposes.
On the other hand those who merely possess the Word and read it, without seeking for genuine truths to establish faith, and genuine kinds of good to guide life, are like those who know from the newspapers that there are vast treasures there, but never get a penny from them.
Those who possess the Word without drawing from it any understanding of genuine truth or any will for genuine good, are like those people who think themselves wealthy because they have taken huge loans from others, or large proprietors on the strength of renting other people's estates, houses and merchandise. Anyone can see that this is imaginary. They are also like people who walk about in magnificent costume, ride in gilded carriages with outriders behind and on either side and runners in front, yet do not actually own any of these things. [ES True Christian Religion (Chadwick) n. 245]
(4) (i) Blasphemy....signifies the denial of the Lord's Divine Human and the doctrine of the church derived not from the Word, but from one's own intelligence..[…]..insanity from mere falsities…speaks blasphemy, when it denies the Lord's Divine in His Human; and also when it does not draw the doctrine of the church from the Word, but hatches it from its own intelligence.
As to the first, that it is blasphemy to deny the Lord's Divine in His Human, the reason is that he who denies it is opposed to the faith received throughout the whole Christian world, named from Athanasius, where it is expressly said, that in Jesus Christ, God and Man, that is, the Divine and the Human, are not two but one, and that they are one Person, united like soul and body. Therefore they who deny the Divine in His Human, are not far from the Socinians and Arians, especially when they think of the Lord's Human alone as of that of another man, and nothing at all of His Divine from eternity.
(ii) It is blasphemy not to draw the doctrine of the church from the Word, but to hatch it out of one's own intelligence, the reason is, because the church is from the Word, and its quality is according to the understanding of the Word[.]
And the doctrine that faith alone, that is, faith without the works of the law, justifies and saves, is not from the Word, but from a single expression of Paul falsely understood (Rom. 3:28); and every falsity of doctrine is derived from no other source than from one's own intelligence.
For what is more universally taught in the Word, than to shun evil and do good? And what is more evident than that God and the neighbor ought to be loved? And who does not see, that no one can love the neighbor, unless he lives according to the works of the law, and he who does not love his neighbor does not love God? For in the love of the neighbor the Lord conjoins himself with man, and man conjoins himself with the Lord, that is, the Lord and man are together in that love. And what is it to love the neighbor but not to do him evil, according to the commandments of the Decalogue (Rom. 13:8-11)? And as far as man does not will to do evil to the neighbor, so far he is willing to do him good; hence it is evident that it is blasphemy to exclude the works of this law from salvation, as they do, who make faith alone saving, which is faith separated from good works. By "blasphemy" (Matt. 12:31-32; Rev. 17:3; Isa. 37:6-7, 23-24) is meant to deny the Lord's Divine, as the Socinians do, and to deny the Word; for they who thus deny the Lord's Divine cannot enter heaven, for the Lord's Divine is the all in all in heaven, and he who denies the Word denies all things of religion. [ES Apocalypse Revealed (Whitehead) n. 571]
(5)The key to all progress seen in human history is that in every generation a few people were willing to reach for a higher understanding of life—they were willing to think outside the box. Yet in every generation the majority of the people refused to leave their mental prisons. Thus, your first choice on the path to a more rewarding life experience is that you must choose to look outside your mental box. You must decide to look for an understanding that goes beyond your present beliefs. You must be willing to reach for the truth that will make you free. (From the book The Least You Should Know About Life.)
(6) Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God. (Heb 6:1)
(7) But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine (Tit 2:1)
Humbly submitted for your consideration,
Learner
(2) That the Church may exist, there must be doctrine from the Word; because without doctrine the Word cannot be understood. Yet it is not doctrine alone that constitutes the Church with a man, but a life according to doctrine. From this it follows that faith alone does not constitute the Church but the life of faith, which is charity. Genuine doctrine is the doctrine of charity and at the same time of faith, and not the doctrine of faith apart from the former; for the doctrine of charity and at the same time of faith, is the doctrine of life; but not the doctrine of faith apart from the doctrine of charity. [ES New Jerusalem and Heavenly Doctrine (Tafel) n. 243]
(3) (i) It is well known that a church is like its doctrine, and the Word is the source of doctrine. Yet it is not doctrine which establishes a church, but the wholeness and purity of its doctrine, and consequently its understanding of the Word.
But in the case of the particular church which exists in the individual, it is not doctrine which establishes and makes it, but faith and life in accordance with faith.
Likewise it is not the Word which establishes and makes the particular church in the case of a person, but faith in accordance with truths, and life in accordance with the kinds of good which he draws from this source and applies to himself.
The Word is like a mine, the depths of which are rich in gold and silver; or like a mine containing richer and richer veins of gems the further one goes into it. It is the understanding of the Word which opens up these mines. If it is not understood as it is in itself, in its inmost recesses and in its depth, the Word would no more bring about a church in the case of a person than the mines in Asia would make a European wealthy. It would be quite different, if he were among the mine-owners and operators.
[ii] For those who probe the Word to extract from it the truths of faith and the kinds of good which are needed for life, the Word is like treasures owned by the Shah of Persia or the Mogul or Chinese Emperors. People belonging to the church are like their treasurers, who have permission to take out as much as they want for their own purposes.
On the other hand those who merely possess the Word and read it, without seeking for genuine truths to establish faith, and genuine kinds of good to guide life, are like those who know from the newspapers that there are vast treasures there, but never get a penny from them.
Those who possess the Word without drawing from it any understanding of genuine truth or any will for genuine good, are like those people who think themselves wealthy because they have taken huge loans from others, or large proprietors on the strength of renting other people's estates, houses and merchandise. Anyone can see that this is imaginary. They are also like people who walk about in magnificent costume, ride in gilded carriages with outriders behind and on either side and runners in front, yet do not actually own any of these things. [ES True Christian Religion (Chadwick) n. 245]
(4) (i) Blasphemy....signifies the denial of the Lord's Divine Human and the doctrine of the church derived not from the Word, but from one's own intelligence..[…]..insanity from mere falsities…speaks blasphemy, when it denies the Lord's Divine in His Human; and also when it does not draw the doctrine of the church from the Word, but hatches it from its own intelligence.
As to the first, that it is blasphemy to deny the Lord's Divine in His Human, the reason is that he who denies it is opposed to the faith received throughout the whole Christian world, named from Athanasius, where it is expressly said, that in Jesus Christ, God and Man, that is, the Divine and the Human, are not two but one, and that they are one Person, united like soul and body. Therefore they who deny the Divine in His Human, are not far from the Socinians and Arians, especially when they think of the Lord's Human alone as of that of another man, and nothing at all of His Divine from eternity.
(ii) It is blasphemy not to draw the doctrine of the church from the Word, but to hatch it out of one's own intelligence, the reason is, because the church is from the Word, and its quality is according to the understanding of the Word[.]
And the doctrine that faith alone, that is, faith without the works of the law, justifies and saves, is not from the Word, but from a single expression of Paul falsely understood (Rom. 3:28); and every falsity of doctrine is derived from no other source than from one's own intelligence.
For what is more universally taught in the Word, than to shun evil and do good? And what is more evident than that God and the neighbor ought to be loved? And who does not see, that no one can love the neighbor, unless he lives according to the works of the law, and he who does not love his neighbor does not love God? For in the love of the neighbor the Lord conjoins himself with man, and man conjoins himself with the Lord, that is, the Lord and man are together in that love. And what is it to love the neighbor but not to do him evil, according to the commandments of the Decalogue (Rom. 13:8-11)? And as far as man does not will to do evil to the neighbor, so far he is willing to do him good; hence it is evident that it is blasphemy to exclude the works of this law from salvation, as they do, who make faith alone saving, which is faith separated from good works. By "blasphemy" (Matt. 12:31-32; Rev. 17:3; Isa. 37:6-7, 23-24) is meant to deny the Lord's Divine, as the Socinians do, and to deny the Word; for they who thus deny the Lord's Divine cannot enter heaven, for the Lord's Divine is the all in all in heaven, and he who denies the Word denies all things of religion. [ES Apocalypse Revealed (Whitehead) n. 571]
(5)The key to all progress seen in human history is that in every generation a few people were willing to reach for a higher understanding of life—they were willing to think outside the box. Yet in every generation the majority of the people refused to leave their mental prisons. Thus, your first choice on the path to a more rewarding life experience is that you must choose to look outside your mental box. You must decide to look for an understanding that goes beyond your present beliefs. You must be willing to reach for the truth that will make you free. (From the book The Least You Should Know About Life.)
(6) Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God. (Heb 6:1)
(7) But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine (Tit 2:1)
Humbly submitted for your consideration,
Learner
Mine is ... everyone else is a bit ropey.
Sorry all, could not resist, and knowing me as you all do ... what else would you expect?
Thomas
N
Nick_A
Guest
Hi Thomas
While this is true, secularism in the church has perverted to mean faith IN. Faith as Jesus means it is a potential inner quality of Man. When the disciples asked Jesus to increase their faith they weren't referring to a faith IN something but rather developing this inner quality that they realized existed in them as a potential. Yet faith as an inner quality allows one to become able to understand but it is not the same as "belief" which unfortunately seems to be the case in the secular church.
However, the conscious intellect in contrast to our normal dominant associative thought is necessary to help the heart otherwise it falls victim to all sorts of corruption. Simone had this quality of thought.
When Jesus says we must be like little children he doesn't mean some sort of cutsey pooh politically correct speech but rather the importance of impartiality which is a conscious quality necessary for a true human perspective we have the potential for in place of our normal adult conditioned reactions.
Christianity in contrast to Christendom is a conscious way. The highest form intellect is a quality of consciousness and something we have the potential for. We use words like intellect, emotion, art, love, etc. without any appreciation for their objective relative worth. This is normal for secularism but Christianity recognizes these distinctions as it must since the function of Christianity is the raising of human "being" which is measure of objective quality.
Metanoia means a change into a new quality of mind, a new direction. It is what helps the heart to awaken.
Christianity is for individuals. The world must hate it. An individual like Simone comes to see that there is great truth in Christianity but has become perverted into forms of Christendom. Anyone seeking the truth of Christianity must forget all about these "improvements" and like a salmon, swim back to its source.
Scripture indicates our possibilities and the reality of exoteric Christendom reveals its perversion. Then one needs to wipe the slate clean and search for the minority that have done so.
While this is true, secularism in the church has perverted to mean faith IN. Faith as Jesus means it is a potential inner quality of Man. When the disciples asked Jesus to increase their faith they weren't referring to a faith IN something but rather developing this inner quality that they realized existed in them as a potential. Yet faith as an inner quality allows one to become able to understand but it is not the same as "belief" which unfortunately seems to be the case in the secular church.
However, the conscious intellect in contrast to our normal dominant associative thought is necessary to help the heart otherwise it falls victim to all sorts of corruption. Simone had this quality of thought.
When Jesus says we must be like little children he doesn't mean some sort of cutsey pooh politically correct speech but rather the importance of impartiality which is a conscious quality necessary for a true human perspective we have the potential for in place of our normal adult conditioned reactions.
Christianity in contrast to Christendom is a conscious way. The highest form intellect is a quality of consciousness and something we have the potential for. We use words like intellect, emotion, art, love, etc. without any appreciation for their objective relative worth. This is normal for secularism but Christianity recognizes these distinctions as it must since the function of Christianity is the raising of human "being" which is measure of objective quality.
Metanoia means a change into a new quality of mind, a new direction. It is what helps the heart to awaken.
Christianity is for individuals. The world must hate it. An individual like Simone comes to see that there is great truth in Christianity but has become perverted into forms of Christendom. Anyone seeking the truth of Christianity must forget all about these "improvements" and like a salmon, swim back to its source.
Scripture indicates our possibilities and the reality of exoteric Christendom reveals its perversion. Then one needs to wipe the slate clean and search for the minority that have done so.
Hmm, in short, speaking without knowledge is the act of a fool. Refraining from speaking though having knowledge is the act of a liar. Waiting on the Lord for guidance and speaking with the Word is the act of a wise man.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
True.
Of course, there is another way of looking at it:
"Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln
(For the record, this is *not* directed at anybody in particular)
leastone
Well-Known Member
I readily admit that most of my life I have spoken without knowledge and thus (unwittingly) acted as a fool.
Often, also, I have refrained from speaking though knowing better and thus (unwittingly) acted as a liar.
It could be, that in speaking with the Word, I have on rare occasions (unwittingly) acted as a wise man, simply to prove the Biblical precedent that the Lord may speak through an ass.
Learner
PS I thank Quahom1 for forcing this confession.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Welcome to Interfaith, leastone!
I don't believe you are alone in these things,
I suspect the most of us are guilty at one time or another.Wasn't my intent. I was just summarizing what you said.I readily admit that most of my life I have spoken without knowledge and thus (unwittingly) acted as a fool.
Often, also, I have refrained from speaking though knowing better and thus (unwittingly) acted as a liar.
It could be, that in speaking with the Word, I have on rare occasions (unwittingly) acted as a wise man, simply to prove the Biblical precedent that the Lord may speak through an ass.
Learner
PS I thank Quahom1 for forcing this confession.