Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaulS

The Purpose of Life

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Burl said:

You are just scratching the surface of the imagery.  It's rooted in the the vine/vineyard/vintner parables.

There is some imagery and there is some realism.  All is not imagery and all is not literal.  Some is literal and some is imagery.  I don't believe Jesus was using imagery when he spoke (if he actually did) of drinking wine again in the company of his disciples in the new Kingdom - he was being literal, along with much other that he literally meant about a physical, impending Kingdom which had elements of spirituality associated with it, but not to be confused with only a spiritual Kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PaulS said:

he was being literal, along with much other that he literally meant about a physical, impending Kingdom which had elements of spirituality associated with it, but not to be confused with only a spiritual Kingdom.

Or perhaps it was later scribes putting words into his mouth.  In that case what did they mean by it? Ten, twenty years after the fact were they being metaphorical or literal?

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, romansh said:

Or perhaps it was later scribes putting words into his mouth.  In that case what did they mean by it? Ten, twenty years after the fact were they being metaphorical or literal?

I think for the other reasons I outlined (which I mainly derive from Erhman's research admittedly) I think Jesus wasn't being very terribly symbolic at all.  He said something like "when you drink wine, remember me, but one day we will all be together again in the new Kingdom and we'll get on it again then too!".  So I tend to think the scribes were being reasonably accurate at this point, but I admit, you just never do know (and probably never will).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PaulS said:

So I tend to think the scribes were being reasonably accurate at this point, but I admit, you just never do know (and probably never will).

Were these scribes accurate … did they add stuff to the scripture or did they omit? Likely both? Did they have an agenda? We have enough difficulty accurately interpreting/remembering what other members of this forum said (wrote) yesterday nevermind what was said ten years ago.  My point is, we are trying to interpret words of Jesus that have been massaged over the decade(s) after his death … translation, agendas, misunderstanding,  mis-recollection, subtle biases. 

Chinese whispers. Our memories are far from perfect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, romansh said:

Were these scribes accurate … did they add stuff to the scripture or did they omit? Likely both? Did they have an agenda? We have enough difficulty accurately interpreting/remembering what other members of this forum said (wrote) yesterday nevermind what was said ten years ago.  My point is, we are trying to interpret words of Jesus that have been massaged over the decade(s) after his death … translation, agendas, misunderstanding,  mis-recollection, subtle biases. 

Chinese whispers. Our memories are far from perfect.

 

Undoubtedly, so I would caveat any opinion I form about Jesus with "but I could be wrong" and I would suggest anybody who is certain they know and understand Jesus precisely, is kidding themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 9:23 AM, Burl said:

Keep reading.  I only linked the first page.

Further on the subject of physical manifestation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, listen to this testimony of St. Seraphim of Sarov.  A fascinating 15C account many westerners may not be familiar with.  Six short parts; the interviewer gets answers to many of your questions.

I think you and I must hear and read things on a different plane to one another - I don't find any of the info you provided as anywhere near compelling that the early Apostolic fathers, about as early as we can get, viewed Pentecost as being the coming of the God's Kingdom that Jesus preached.  Indeed, rather than cite any early apostolic fathers that may demonstrate this view, those articles cite people from the 19th century.  To me it appears that the earliest 'apostolic fathers' wrote some things and later interpretations began concerning wat the actually meant.  Well may the story of Pentecost later become the Kingdom of God according to some beliefs, but I don't see what you have provided as anywhere near convincing that this was the intention for the original writers.  What you cite is just somebody else's interpretation.  Perhaps it's to your satisfaction, but I find it lacking.

Do you think now you could actually cite some early apostolic fathers that you think make the case as you suggest they do?  Those as early as we can get would be preferable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think you and I must hear and read things on a different plane to one another - I don't find any of the info you provided as anywhere near compelling that the early Apostolic fathers, about as early as we can get, viewed Pentecost as being the coming of the God's Kingdom that Jesus preached.  Indeed, rather than cite any early apostolic fathers that may demonstrate this view, those articles cite people from the 19th century.  To me it appears that the earliest 'apostolic fathers' wrote some things and later interpretations began concerning wat the actually meant.  Well may the story of Pentecost later become the Kingdom of God according to some beliefs, but I don't see what you have provided as anywhere near convincing that this was the intention for the original writers.  What you cite is just somebody else's interpretation.  Perhaps it's to your satisfaction, but I find it lacking.

Do you think now you could actually cite some early apostolic fathers that you think make the case as you suggest they do?  Those as early as we can get would be preferable. 

 

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think you and I must hear and read things on a different plane to one another - I don't find any of the info you provided as anywhere near compelling that the early Apostolic fathers, about as early as we can get, viewed Pentecost as being the coming of the God's Kingdom that Jesus preached.  Indeed, rather than cite any early apostolic fathers that may demonstrate this view, those articles cite people from the 19th century.  To me it appears that the earliest 'apostolic fathers' wrote some things and later interpretations began concerning wat the actually meant.  Well may the story of Pentecost later become the Kingdom of God according to some beliefs, but I don't see what you have provided as anywhere near convincing that this was the intention for the original writers.  What you cite is just somebody else's interpretation.  Perhaps it's to your satisfaction, but I find it lacking.

Do you think now you could actually cite some early apostolic fathers that you think make the case as you suggest they do?  Those as early as we can get would be preferable. 

Still having trouble looking things up yourself?  Paul, if I spoon-fed you that trivia what use would you make of it?  Better you look it up yourself and develop more meaningful questions.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burl said:

 

Still having trouble looking things up yourself?  Paul, if I spoon-fed you that trivia what use would you make of it?  Better you look it up yourself and develop more meaningful questions.

No Burl, I don't have trouble looking things up for myself, it's just that I can't find any substantiation for what you stated - i.e. that the earliest apostolic fathers viewed Pentecost as the arrival of the Kingdom of God.  I don't consider it trivia, but rather I was looking for the evidence of who they were and that this is what actually they thought. If you recall, we were discussing the various interpretations about what Jesus preached as being the Kingdom and Joseph was providing reason for his views, I was providing reason for mine, and well, you chirped in with nothing particularly helpful at all, but I was prepared to look at it.  When I asked who they might be, you point me to some people from the 1800's.

I was only hoping for you to be a little helpful.  Not to worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PaulS said:

No Burl, I don't have trouble looking things up for myself, it's just that I can't find any substantiation for what you stated - i.e. that the earliest apostolic fathers viewed Pentecost as the arrival of the Kingdom of God.  I don't consider it trivia, but rather I was looking for the evidence of who they were and that this is what actually they thought. If you recall, we were discussing the various interpretations about what Jesus preached as being the Kingdom and Joseph was providing reason for his views, I was providing reason for mine, and well, you chirped in with nothing particularly helpful at all, but I was prepared to look at it.  When I asked who they might be, you point me to some people from the 1800's.

I was only hoping for you to be a little helpful.  Not to worry.

Orthodox doctrine has no theological variants.  They are not like Protestants where one can invent novel interpretations.  All Orthodox doctrine must be approved by council as coherent with all previous doctrine including the Apostolic Fathers.  Variation and independent interpretation are simply not relevant.

Orthodox Doctrine in 2019 is constent with Orthodox Doctrine in 119.  This was the reason for the Great Schism.  The Roman Church pronounced doctrine independently of council.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burl said:

Orthodox doctrine has no theological variants.  They are not like Protestants where one can invent novel interpretations.  All Orthodox doctrine must be approved by council as coherent with all previous doctrine including the Apostolic Fathers.  Variation and independent interpretation are simply not relevant.

Orthodox Doctrine in 2019 is constent with Orthodox Doctrine in 119.  This was the reason for the Great Schism.  The Roman Church pronounced doctrine independently of council.

 

Burl, I really don't get why it is so hard for you to simply name which Apostolic Fathers you believe are as early as one can get to accurate Orthodox teaching that Jesus' Kingdom of God came into being at Pentecost.  Do you not know who they are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PaulS said:

Burl, I really don't get why it is so hard for you to simply name which Apostolic Fathers you believe are as early as one can get to accurate Orthodox teaching that Jesus' Kingdom of God came into being at Pentecost.  Do you not know who they are?

 Not exactly what I said.  I was talking about physical manifestations, and access to the Kingdom of God to humanity in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burl said:

 Not exactly what I said.  I was talking about physical manifestations, and access to the Kingdom of God to humanity in general.

Burl, 

You said: “The physical kingdom was manifest at Pentecost”.  

I said: “I don't think that was the version of the Kingdom that Jesus was preaching but rather it became a later interpretation of his words”.

You said: “It goes back to the Apostolic fathers and is still standard Orthodox teaching, so it's about as early as one can get”.

So I was simply asking you which Apostolic Fathers do you attribute to understanding the physical manifestation of the Kingdom of God as occurring at Pentecost. 

Now that you are clarifying that what you meant was that it was 'a' physical manifestation of the Kingdom of God and was about access to the Kingdom of God in general, would you now finally name the Apostolic Fathers that you were referencing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PaulS said:

Burl, 

You said: “The physical kingdom was manifest at Pentecost”.  

I said: “I don't think that was the version of the Kingdom that Jesus was preaching but rather it became a later interpretation of his words”.

You said: “It goes back to the Apostolic fathers and is still standard Orthodox teaching, so it's about as early as one can get”.

So I was simply asking you which Apostolic Fathers do you attribute to understanding the physical manifestation of the Kingdom of God as occurring at Pentecost. 

Now that you are clarifying that what you meant was that it was 'a' physical manifestation of the Kingdom of God and was about access to the Kingdom of God in general, would you now finally name the Apostolic Fathers that you were referencing. 

 

I'm waiting for you to explain how the name of a specific person will help you appreciate the physical nature of the Kingdom of God.  I think you are just asking pointless questions as part of your general cynicism.  You can pick any of the Apostolic fathers as it follows directly from the bible, and there is no shortage of information on the physical aspects of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I assume you were baptized in that wierdo church and wonder why you pray so many posts on this Christian message board.  Those events are related.

If I give you a specific name how will that help you?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burl said:

If I give you a specific name how will that help you?

Well it would give me some confidence in the accuracy of your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burl said:

I'm waiting for you to explain how the name of a specific person will help you appreciate the physical nature of the Kingdom of God.  I think you are just asking pointless questions as part of your general cynicism.  You can pick any of the Apostolic fathers as it follows directly from the bible, and there is no shortage of information on the physical aspects of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I assume you were baptized in that wierdo church and wonder why you pray so many posts on this Christian message board.  Those events are related.

If I give you a specific name how will that help you?

Don't bother Burl.  It's clear you either don't have the information to support your assertions or you are refusing to share that information if you do actually have it.  Either way, I don't find it in the spirit of discussion which this debate & dialogue thread is for and I would prefer not to participate with you in this thread any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, romansh said:

Well it would give me some confidence in the accuracy of your claim.

I have already posted my bona fides.  Perhaps you could post your qualifications to comment on church history and ancient literature?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Burl said:

I have already posted my bona fides

It would seem that you don't differentiate between your bona fides and supporting a claim that you made.

11 minutes ago, Burl said:

Perhaps you could post your qualifications to comment on church history and ancient literature?

I have an SSF*  in church history

*    Sunday School Failed

 But then it is not me that is not backing up my statements.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, romansh said:

It would seem that you don't differentiate between your bona fides and supporting a claim that you made.

11 hours ago, Burl said:

I have already posted my bona fides.  Perhaps you could post your qualifications to comment on church history and ancient literature?  

Rom,

I came across this an awful lot in the 'weirdo' church (to quote Burl) that I was raised in.  In fact it is almost uncanny how Burl is so similar to so many from that congregation.  Defaming somebody as a cynic or a doubter was a common tactic to deflect and avoid giving a proper answer. Attacking the questioner was a normal course of action when an answer couldn't be satisfactorily provided. That does shut a lot of people down - thankfully not everybody or else we probably wouldn't have Progressive Christianity today (or free thought in general for that matter).

The other tools used when they couldn't provide a proper answer would be to give one the run around - read this book, read that book, read the scriptures 'properly' etc.  In this case it was read this web article, watch this YouTube video, do your own extensive research into the Apostolic Fathers to try and find out that what is claimed actually exists.  It's simply Avoidance 101. 

However, most of all it came back to "I have studied the bible, I am an authority and you should accept what I say as the truth".  For me that is the distasteful side of Christianity, but apparently not an issue for some even in a Progressive Christian forum where you would think one would readily provide their reasons or evidence to support their claims, if they had such, in particular in a thread where other participants were putting forth their evidence for their side of the discussion.  That in fact is what I appreciate about most participants here - most are happy to be challenged or disagreed with because it simply isn't a threat to them for another to do so.

Not to worry about this particular topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PaulS said:

Rom,

I came across this an awful lot in the 'weirdo' church (to quote Burl) that I was raised in.  In fact it is almost uncanny how Burl is so similar to so many from that congregation.  Defaming somebody as a cynic or a doubter was a common tactic to deflect and avoid giving a proper answer. Attacking the questioner was a normal course of action when an answer couldn't be satisfactorily provided. That does shut a lot of people down - thankfully not everybody or else we probably wouldn't have Progressive Christianity today (or free thought in general for that matter).

The other tools used when they couldn't provide a proper answer would be to give one the run around - read this book, read that book, read the scriptures 'properly' etc.  In this case it was read this web article, watch this YouTube video, do your own extensive research into the Apostolic Fathers to try and find out that what is claimed actually exists.  It's simply Avoidance 101. 

However, most of all it came back to "I have studied the bible, I am an authority and you should accept what I say as the truth".  For me that is the distasteful side of Christianity, but apparently not an issue for some even in a Progressive Christian forum where you would think one would readily provide their reasons or evidence to support their claims, if they had such, in particular in a thread where other participants were putting forth their evidence for their side of the discussion.  That in fact is what I appreciate about most participants here - most are happy to be challenged or disagreed with because it simply isn't a threat to them for another to do so.

Not to worry about this particular topic.

 

Did you earn an SSF too?   More important - were you baptized?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burl said:

Did you earn an SSF too?   More important - were you baptized?

It would appear that you don't have the skill to tackle the ball Burl. Is this why you are going after the player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, romansh said:

It would appear that you don't have the skill to tackle the ball Burl. Is this why you are going after the player?

Baptism is directly linked to Pentecost and the ability of the Holy Spirit to indwell in humanity.  Baptism is how souls who were not present at Pentecost become connected with the Holy Spirit.

Do some research and I can help, but although I have been graced with the holy charism of teaching I do not have the time to write a personal homilies.  There are plenty of books online that cover your foundational inadequacies, including and especially the scriptures themselves.  

Work on your self-education and I can help you with understanding in two or three sentence increments.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You continue to play the man Burl. 

Frankly I don't care about my foundational or scriptural inadequacies. But I do care about how we treat others and how we formulate an argument. Paul was not asking for personal homilies, but was asking for a name of an Apostolic Father that you attribute to understanding the physical manifestation of the Kingdom of God as occurring at Pentecost.  If you don't have one that is fine, no one will think the worse of you. But you continue to paint yourself into a corner Burl.

I can recommend a couple of books on formulating arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, romansh said:

You continue to play the man Burl. 

Frankly I don't care about my foundational or scriptural inadequacies. But I do care about how we treat others and how we formulate an argument. Paul was not asking for personal homilies, but was asking for a name of an Apostolic Father that you attribute to understanding the physical manifestation of the Kingdom of God as occurring at Pentecost.  If you don't have one that is fine, no one will think the worse of you. But you continue to paint yourself into a corner Burl.

I can recommend a couple of books on formulating arguments.

There's your problem.  It's not about arguments.  It's about revelation, meditation and prayer expressed in prose.  

Aquinas was the guy famous for scholastic arguments.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to reveal the name of an Apostolic Father that meets the requirements. 

I look forward to this revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, romansh said:

Feel free to reveal the name of an Apostolic Father that meets the requirements. 

I look forward to this revelation.

You really need to read all of them.  You cannot seperate them as you can Protestants.  Start with prayerfully reading Cyril of Jesusalem, Athnasius and Gregory of Nanzien (sp?).   They typically refer to we now call Pentecost as just another instance of baptim or simply thae Holy Ghost.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×