Jellyfish Really?

[Blessedj01]

Indeed. Do not base your faith upon the conviction that you have no misconceptions.

From I Corinthians 7:25-31

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.


What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

​

[emphasis mine]

There is a reason the writer of II Peter places his little proclamation that Paul's writings are Hard to Understand in the exact place he does in his letter. He does it because he has just claimed that it was a misunderstanding all along to assume that the time was near when the actual point is that the time is utterly unpredictable, and now has to sweep Paul under the rug along with everything else.

Let me suggest a thought experiment.

Read I Corinthians start to finish with the mindset that Paul sincerely expects, according to Christ's prophecy, that the world as he knows it is ending in his generation and anticipates that any question of earthly things such as marriage, gender rolls, ownership of property, etc. are about to become moot. Note what he says and his tone entirely in light of this mindset. Don't look for evidence that I am right or wrong during this reading. You can do that later. For now, just read it through as if this were an accepted matter of fact and see how it feels.

Let that experience sit for a few days.

Then read II Peter and observe how you feel about it when you get to the end.

I do have misconceptions, it doesn't affect my faith. I don't blame the Bible and it's author's for my failure to understand the context information was written in. I don't try to find hidden agendas with the Bible's authors.

I don't wholesale reject God, just because I think Paul might have handed out bad advise. I ask myself:

a) am I interpreting that advise correctly? (in this case, probably not)
b) I look at the situation: christian persecution was rife, family life was difficult for Christians

Amongst others. You're welcome to your opinons of course, but you aren't going to convince me to give up on Jesus just because of a few things Paul said and the way we're trying to spin that today.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I do have misconceptions, it doesn't affect my faith. I don't blame the Bible and it's author's for my failure to understand the context information was written in. I don't try to find hidden agendas with the Bible's authors.

I don't wholesale reject God, just because I think Paul might have handed out bad advise. I ask myself:

a) am I interpreting that advise correctly? (in this case, probably not)
b) I look at the situation: christian persecution was rife, family life was difficult for Christians

Amongst others. You're welcome to your opinons of course, but you aren't going to convince me to give up on Jesus just because of a few things Paul said and the way we're trying to spin that today.

I am not trying to convince you to give up on Jesus.

I apologize if I strayed into territory that made it feel as if I were trying to personally de-convert you.

 

[Blessedj01]

I am not trying to convince you to give up on Jesus.

I apologize if I strayed into territory that made it feel as if I were trying to personally de-convert you.

Nah, it's okay. I get your point too and I'm sorry if I'm being rude as well. I just think you should look at that book again and think about it...if God is really good why would He want us to learn things that aren't good? There's so many ways we can see things in a negative light when we aren't looking at it from the right perspective. Perspective is everything.

 

[grayeagle48]

Ebola outbreak in West Africa now the largest on record - CBS News

 

[Glass*Soul]

Nah, it's okay. I get your point too and I'm sorry if I'm being rude as well. I just think you should look at that book again and think about it...if God is really good why would He want us to learn things that aren't good? There's so many ways we can see things in a negative light when we aren't looking at it from the right perspective. Perspective is everything.

Well, putting on my "if God" hat, I think one could look at II Peter as a cautionary tale. It's a look at what happens if you're unwilling to say, "We were pretty much all dead wrong about this folks, and a lot of people got hurt." Because sometimes people who intended to do the right thing end up having to say that. And prophecy is necessarily difficult to get right. At best one might manage to cotton to a trend. Anyway, the worst thing to do when a retraction and apology is due is to double down instead.

What the writer of II Peter could have done (after apologizing on behalf of the church) was to explore the central messages of Christianity as preached by Christ, which are timeless and still hold true and have nothing to do with forming a new religion. Really. Take out the lust for orthodoxy that sprang up in the immediate post-apostolic period, ignore all the conflicting supernatural claims that made people crazy, have a little healthy skepticism when people start preaching some brand of utter amorality and license (because it never works), and Jesus' words begin being true without any need for threats or insults or power plays.

*ahem*

I appreciate your suggestion to read the book again. I will do so. I suspect my perspective won't change because that would require a cognitive trick I probably can't pull off, but I suggested that you try applying a similar cognitive trick so it's only fair.

 

[theophilus777]

If you follow the writings of Paul, you realize that with Paul's encouragement many early Christians opted to forgo marriage and childbearing due to the conviction that Christ would return in their generation after a period of violence that would be particularly unfortunate for mothers and their small children. This belief was based on Christ's prophesy recorded in Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 that states, "...this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

By the time of the writing of II Peter, most if not all of that generation had passed away. So, people were questioning. The writer of II Peter hand-waves those lives sacrificed to a false belief aside by deftly re-framing the prophecy in a way that renders it untouchable. Now, with God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Jesus' prediction of his return in "this generation" can now mean anytime, ever.

Sorry but this is eisegesis.

Jesus' prediction happened just as He said. That you don't perceive what He said does not mean those of His day missed it.

 

[theophilus777]

Let me suggest a thought experiment.

Read I Corinthians start to finish with the mindset that Paul sincerely expects, according to Christ's prophecy, that the world as he knows it is ending in his generation and anticipates that any question of earthly things such as marriage, gender rolls, ownership of property, etc. are about to become moot. Note what he says and his tone entirely in light of this mindset. Don't look for evidence that I am right or wrong during this reading. You can do that later. For now, just read it through as if this were an accepted matter of fact and see how it feels.

Let that experience sit for a few days.

Then read II Peter and observe how you feel about it when you get to the end.

More eisegesis. This is not the implication.

The lust for orthodoxy (as you put it) did not spring up until Constantine decided he needed everything codified. Presumably so he could then control it. After that, things got out of hand.

 

[FireDragon76]

The lust for orthodoxy (as you put it) did not spring up until Constantine decided he needed everything codified. Presumably so he could then control it. After that, things got out of hand.

Very true. One thing I did years ago when I really was going through a spiritual crisis involving "religion", I realized that a lot of the early Church Fathers like Basil were much more "generous" in their orthodoxy than what would come later in Christendom, they refused to participate in further politics.

 

[theophilus777]

Very true. One thing I did years ago when I really was going through a spiritual crisis involving "religion", I realized that a lot of the early Church Fathers like Basil were much more "generous" in their orthodoxy than what would come later in Christendom, they refused to participate in further politics.

I think its important to define what we mean by "early Church."

We have Scripture itself, which is our MAIN record. Anything else is secondary, and WAY down in terms of sheer value, and even credibility. Even though this is true, some secondary sources are entirely credible, and quite worthwhile.

Chronologically speaking, after Scripture and before Constantine, there is precious little. And most of that is the few that were literate, disseminating info to illiterates. While their re-statement of Scripture is apt, most of it is no better than very good posts right here.


By the time you get to the Church Councils, I mostly find nauseating corruption. Which is not to say that the Church disappeared, but it does give credence to the idea of the "invisible Church." I totally understand why the Desert Fathers retreated entirely away from their society, and that is where (Christian) Spirituality remained until the enlightenment, for the most part.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Sorry but this is eisegesis.

Jesus' prediction happened just as He said. That you don't perceive what He said does not mean those of His day missed it.

Theophilus!

I'm arguing that Paul got the prophecy wrong and the writer of II Peter thought so too and tries to sweep that fact under the rug. I can accept an honest mistake much more easily than I can someone weaseling out of something, which is what I see in II Peter.

That is quite different from me stating my understand of the prophecy and its fulfillment. About the only thing I've said that reveals my take on it is that, "...prophecy is necessarily difficult to get right."

As for eisegesis, this is my attempt to lay aside what I have always been told this book should mean and seeing what it is actually saying.

It is quite possible that my anger when I read II Peter, or even see it referenced as I did in this thread, may be making it difficult to convey my meaning clearly. I seem to be getting quite a bit of feedback that leads me to believe that I have failed to communicate well.

 

[Glass*Soul]

More eisegesis. This is not the implication.

The lust for orthodoxy (as you put it) did not spring up until Constantine decided he needed everything codified. Presumably so he could then control it. After that, things got out of hand.

I propose that the content of the later epistles, particularly their escalating insulting tone, is good evidence that the lust for orthodoxy (and the power to enforce it) were already becoming established at the time of their writing.

Try reading them in chronological order.

(BTW. I don't find the word "eisegesis" alone to be a very compelling argument. I bring to the scriptures what I bring to them, just as those who value orthodoxy bring what they need to bring to them in order to support and preserve it. I respect scholarship but am not bound by the need for orthodoxy.)

 

[theophilus777]

Theophilus!

I'm arguing that Paul got the prophecy wrong and the writer of II Peter thought so too and tries to sweep that fact under the rug.

Hello to you - I hope today finds you well?

I do know you are advancing this point, and I'm pretty certain you have not arrived at this conclusion lightly. I also do see how it is possible to think such a thing, which is why I felt it necessary to address. What these Epistles are for is to correct glaring mistakes in the Church that could not wait for an Apostle to arrive in person, and then to instruct those advancing in the Faith in the attempt to preserve capable leadership after the Apostles were dead. How I would love to hear, or see, what and how the Apostles taught in person! And yet even as I write that. I am corrected that that is what the Holy Spirit is for. Fortunately for me this is given in a light, humorous fashion; at least in this instance.

I will not posit that any Apostle or Saint was not human. Subject to humanity, we all have various thoughts and doubts run through our mind. Jesus did too! We don't need to speculate if they never gave in to error in their writings we have preserved as Canon, all we need do is take it in context. And the context you refer to is that they admonished the Church to live in the fear of the Lord. Why? Because this is how our species departs from evil; FEAR, in the sense of literal fear. This is not any pinnacle of maturity, but when you are struggling with evil the most mature thing on the horizon is to not go through with it, and the fear of the Lord is our best armament for that battle. It is interesting to compare this thought to the Eph 6 "whole armor of God" to see how this idea is represented there, but the short answer is, quite fully.

For an Apostle to exhort us to live in the fear of the Lord is, well, Apostolic. It's totally appropriate. Certainly repetitive, but safe. What you came away with from those same passages is eisegesis and I would certainly welcome a further exploration of your ideas, and for my own personal edification.
But I think maybe we are away from the jellyfish concept of the thread? (Maybe not?) I do find it fascinating how topics morph.

I can accept an honest mistake much more easily than I can someone weaseling out of something, which is what I see in II Peter.

Part of the context can still be seen today, that Peter and Paul clashed. Paul always won, except for in the RCC. I could use a refresher in 1 vs 2 Peter anyway. Do you have opinion of authenticity of these 2 books? I mean do you have any notion that one is more likely written by Peter than the other? To coin a cliche, 1 Peter Blesses my socks off. I find it also to be well written, and well organized. It does what Paul says he always did, which is to present the whole Gospel, except Peter does it much more simply. 2 Peter starts out with what I hold to be the most concise wording of applying the Gospel evar, in vv 3-8. Not even long verses, esp when compared to Paul's.

Paul's writing IS harder to understand, and people still argue over that to this day. I don't see Peter weaseling around anything, although he very clearly did not understand even the basics by the time of Jesus' death.

That is quite different from me stating my understand of the prophecy and its fulfillment. About the only thing I've said that reveals my take on it is that, "...prophecy is necessarily difficult to get right."

Absolutely. And the Prophecy you referred (by Jesus, about "this generation shall not pass until ...") has been incredibly worked over, with seemingly infinite variation of understanding. So I do not fault you at all.
Normally I eschew commentaries and even official Church teaching, but looking at this one item warrants it. In reverse order. It would be interesting to examine what both the Orthodox and the RCC teach on this passage. While I do think it likely that Jesus designed layers of meaning into that, I also think we could find a commentary teaching that passage means Paul is the Walrus

As for eisegesis, this is my attempt to lay aside what I have always been told this book should mean and seeing what it is actually saying.

And I value that! Our "path" can bring us all sorts of places, and by definition not all those places are our final destination. I do not share the barbaric principles of the dark ages that suggest examining an idea that turns out to be false deserves punishment, or is even harmful. It's just walking along a path ... and with all this talk of founding and Christian principle lately, it is good to appreciate the freedom we do have. Relative to human history, it is still a brief thing; and still unavailable to millions.

It is quite possible that my anger when I read II Peter, or even see it referenced as I did in this thread, may be making it difficult to convey my meaning clearly. I seem to be getting quite a bit of feedback that leads me to believe that I have failed to communicate well.

I find you to communicate quite well, and to be a joy to converse with. I have no problems encountering anger in others, understand it is part of the human experience, and do not think it diminishes the fact that you are a lovely person. So 2 Peter is a touchy subject for you? It is your decision to avoid it, or perhaps I can help you process it. I find when anger reveals itself, it points to something that needs to be resolved. It is an energy to effect necessary change. While I clearly have my own opinions, I am always in the process of gathering info to first develop understanding, and then to see that cause my Faith to grow. Sometimes that necessitates knocking down falsehoods I collected, unaware. It is liberating! And I have certainly vented some anger on CF, and then been better able to process something I was stuck on.

 

[theophilus777]

I propose that the content of the later epistles, particularly their escalating insulting tone, is good evidence that the lust for orthodoxy (and the power to enforce it) were already becoming established at the time of their writing.

Try reading them in chronological order.

Ok I will! Will you present what you feel is the correct order? I do already agree that we see authors grow, esp Paul. And that we see tone change. And that well after the Biblical era, tone becomes more than nasty, and that trend continues for a very long time, getting worse and worse. I also decided that the next time I read through the history books of the Bible, it should be in chronological order. Judges - Esther is tough!

(BTW. I don't find the word "eisegesis" alone to be a very compelling argument.

Neither do I. I was simply taking a position, and seeing how you might respond.

I bring to the scriptures what I bring to them, just as those who value orthodoxy bring what they need to bring to them in order to support and preserve it.

Everyone brings something. As you can see from the above, my path has not been to value Orthodoxy, but more along the lines of American individualism. You cannot imagine my surprise when I learned my own Faith developed such as to arrive at ... Orthodoxy, in the sense of agreeing with what the Orthodox Church teaches.

I respect scholarship but am not bound by the need for orthodoxy.)

I suspect I value modern scholarship somewhat less than you do and am more critical of it, particularly of WHICH scholar is speaking; but such differences are what makes life interesting, right? There's an old saying, 2 + 2 always = 4; i.e., it still has to pass the smell test. SOME modern scholarship stinks and I have a certain knack for making it clear when I come upon it. You are welcome to your own opinions, as always.

 

[grayeagle48]

Originally Posted by Glass*Soul I propose that the content of the later epistles, particularly their escalating insulting tone, is good evidence that the lust for orthodoxy (and the power to enforce it) were already becoming established at the time of their writing.

Obviously your referring to the Catholic Church. As they were the only game in town @ that time.

 

[theophilus777]

Obviously your referring to the Catholic Church. As they were the only game in town @ that time.

They hadn't yet become the Catholic Church. That didn't exist until the great schism of 1054, although the distinctions between them and the Orthodox started (and deepened) LONG before that. At the time in question it was an East-West distinction.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Obviously your referring to the Catholic Church. As they were the only game in town @ that time.

Nope. There was no Catholic church as of yet.

Edit: Whoops. Already answered by theophilus.

 

[grayeagle48]

Suit Supposedly Keeps Ebola Out

This Suit Keeps Ebola Out — So How Can A Health Worker Catch It? : Goats and Soda : NPR


Scoffers and mockers would do well to take this material seriously.


Habakkuk 1:5 Behold ye among the heathen, (nations) and regard,and wonder marvellously:
for I willwork a work in your day, which ye will not believe, though it be told you. KJV

 

[grayeagle48]

Puerto Rico declares epidemic as chikungunya virus continues to spread unabated - NaturalNews.com

 

[grayeagle48]

End of days scoffers & mockers, don't believe in end of days,
tell it to the Christians in Iraq.

Amid Ethnic Cleansing of Christians, ISIS Now Massacres Iraq's Yezidi Minority


Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus.
The text of the scripture is quite clear, if you still don't delieve in the end of days after seeing the prophecy fullfilled, you fulfill this prophecy: Habakkuk 1:5 Behold ye among the heathen, nations) and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your day, which ye will not believe, though it be told you. KJV

ISIS, beheadings and the success of horrifying violence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...dings-and-the-success-of-horrifying-violence/

 

[Blessedj01]

End of days scoffers & mockers, don't believe in end of days, tell it to the Christians in Iraq. Amid Ethnic Cleansing of Christians, ISIS Now Massacres Iraq's Yezidi Minority Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus. The text of the scripture is quite clear, if you still don't delieve in the end of days after seeing the prophecy fullfilled, you fulfill this prophecy: Habakkuk 1:5 Behold ye among the heathen, nations) and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your day, which ye will not believe, though it be told you. KJV ISIS, beheadings and the success of horrifying violence http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/13/isis-beheadings-and-the-success-of-horrifying-violence/

I'm sure Christians have been beheaded before. I don't think it's a great idea to make calls on end times. I'm still sitting comfortably in my pad about to go buy some crispy pork belly.