Patron Saint Joseph of Home Sales

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:
Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Obviously, Paul and Silas spoke to the Bereans. Dr. Luke somehow got this report about the Bereans. I would certainly presume that in the 30 odd years of activity that Acts documents Dr. Luke received about the Bereans from Paul.

Well, presumption isn't that uncommon in people's interpretations of the bible.

Jacob Neusner employs the aphorism, "What we cannot show, we do not know."

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Our rumpus here came out of a discussion of what a particular biblical text says. If you want to base your interpretation on extraneous enlightenment from the holy spirit, then that is one thing. But it is another thing to argue your interpretation from the text itself.

RND wrote:
My interpretation, I believe, is directly influenced and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So be clear, in your mind and in your argument, about what you derive from the mystical and what you derive from the text.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I can read the biblical text in its context. The text says: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon [KJV]; it does not say anything about a Canadian who has never left the Western hemisphere (for example). As for what the holy spirit might say to the twenty-first-century reader when they encounter that text, that is a different, distinct matter.

RND wrote:
Sure, the literal is easy to understand. What does Babylon symbolize? Parlor trick or the revelation from the Holy Spirit? Can a Canadian be in the state of Babylon while in Djarkarta? Can a Jew still be in Egypt while living in Beverly Hills?

Where, in the text, are we given to understand that there is symbolism involved here?

RND wrote:
BTW, what happened with Daniel then?

Elucidation, please.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Could you elaborate here?

RND wrote:
No need to. what I wrote in respose to you suggestion is self-evident.

Please elaborate. Articulate how your questions are responding to my antecedent.

RND wrote:
"A" Jewish faith? Chasidic? Reform? Ortho?

Unaffiliated.

[RND]

Well, presumption isn't that uncommon in people's interpretations of the bible.

Jacob Neusner employs the aphorism, "What we cannot show, we do not know."

No doubt. Can you "show me" wear Paul didn't refer to the Bereans?

So be clear, in your mind and in your argument, about what you derive from the mystical and what you derive from the text.

Come again? Nothing "mystical" employed here. What I read from the scripture may be enhanced and expanded upon by the HS whenever necessary.

Where, in the text, are we given to understand that there is symbolism involved here?

I think it's obvious from reading the entire scriptures,and taking them in as a whole as opposed to just one particular verse.

Elucidation, please.

You mean you don't know?

Mat 16:3 And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times?

Please elaborate. Articulate how your questions are responding to my antecedent.

Self-evident:

Such kinds of external activity may be fine and edifying, but the philosopher, theologian, reflector, and/or refractor should not confuse what they have brought to the table with what the scripture itself has said.

God continually speaks, to all, through His Holy Spirit.

Unaffiliated.

Extremely obvious.

[SteveF]

RND wrote

Considering the flattering nature in which Paul speaks of the Bereans I would suggest that your point is off the mark.

kaufmannhillips replied

I am unaware of any place where Paul speaks of the Bereans.

RND replied

Do you think Paul and Dr. Luke never spoke?

kaufmannhillips replied

In other words, neither are you aware of any place where Paul speaks of the Bereans.

It is important that we not make the methodological misstep of assuming that Paul and the author of Acts are always hand-in-glove.

RND replied

Obviously, Paul and Silas spoke to the Bereans. Dr. Luke somehow got this report about the Bereans. I would certainly presume that in the 30 odd years of activity that Acts documents Dr. Luke received about the Bereans from Paul.

kaufmannhillips replied

Well, presumption isn't that uncommon in people's interpretations of the bible.

Jacob Neusner employs the aphorism, "What we cannot show, we do not know."

RND replied

No doubt. Can you "show me" wear Paul didn't refer to the Bereans?

Would it be ok if I called a timeout in this discussion? I suspect a never ending circle.

[RND]

Would it be ok if I called a timeout in this discussion? I suspect a never ending circle.

I'm game! Besides, I doubt I'd get a satisfactory answer to my question.

[SteveF]

Besides, I doubt I'd get a satisfactory answer to my question.

Wait, there's a flag down on the field....

There's a 10 yard penalty for injecting a comment after timeout was called.

[RND]

Besides, I doubt I'd get a satisfactory answer to my question.

Wait, there's a flag down on the field....

There's a 10 yard penalty for injecting a comment after timeout was called.

Is this ruling one that can be challenged with replay?

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:
No doubt. Can you "show me" wear Paul didn't refer to the Bereans?

(snappy comeback to RND) Why yes, I can show you where Paul didn't refer to the Bereans. The New Testament is where Paul didn't refer to the Bereans. Can you "show me" where Paul did refer to the Bereans?

(less-snappy comeback) RND, your response here is LOL. As you can see from Steve's summary, I am not the one who made a positive (or negative) assertion about Paul referring to the Bereans; therefore, I am not the one with the responsibility of "show"ing.

By precedent of your maneuver here, I could ask, "Can you show me that you don't owe me $1000?" - and collect if you can't prove otherwise!

(P.S.) Thank you for the summary of this little go-'round, SteveF. Good times...

kaufmannphillips wrote:
So be clear, in your mind and in your argument, about what you derive from the mystical and what you derive from the text.

RND wrote:
Come again? Nothing "mystical" employed here. What I read from the scripture may be enhanced and expanded upon by the HS whenever necessary.

"Mystical" in the sense of "Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God" {American Heritage Dictionary}

Be clear, in your mind and in your argument, about what you derive from the holy spirit and what you derive from the text.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Where, in the text, are we given to understand that there is symbolism involved here?

RND wrote:
I think it's obvious from reading the entire scriptures,and taking them in as a whole as opposed to just one particular verse.

Would you say, then, that the entire scriptures are latent with symbolism?

RND wrote:
BTW, what happened with Daniel then?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Elucidation, please.

RND wrote:
You mean you don't know?

Mat 16:3 And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times?

Um - "elucidation" means "To give an explanation that serves to clarify." {American Heritage Dictionary}

If I were looking for an exercise from the Will Shortz Academy of Abstruse Allusion, I'd subscribe to the Times.

Oh, I get it! That's what Matthew 16:3 was talking about! I cannot discern the signs of the Times!

kaufmanphillips wrote:
Such kinds of external activity may be fine and edifying, but the philosopher, theologian, reflector, and/or refractor should not confuse what they have brought to the table with what the scripture itself has said.

RND wrote:
God continually speaks, to all, through His Holy Spirit.

I won't argue that point. So let the philosopher, theologian, reflector, and/or refractor be clear, in their minds and in their arguments, about what they have brought to the table, and what they have derived from the holy spirit, and what the scripture itself has said.

RND wrote:
"A" Jewish faith? Chasidic? Reform? Ortho?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Unaffiliated.

RND wrote:
Extremely obvious.

Disappointed that I don't have a union card?

[RND]

RND wrote:
No doubt. Can you "show me" wear Paul didn't refer to the Bereans?

(snappy comeback to RND) Why yes, I can show you where Paul didn't refer to the Bereans. The New Testament is where Paul didn't refer to the Bereans. Can you "show me" where Paul did refer to the Bereans?

(less-snappy comeback) RND, your response here is LOL. As you can see from Steve's summary, I am not the one who made a positive (or negative) assertion about Paul referring to the Bereans; therefore, I am not the one with the responsibility of "show"ing.

By precedent of your maneuver here, I could ask, "Can you show me that you don't owe me $1000?" - and collect if you can't prove otherwise!

Clearly I showed where Paul did in fact speak to the Bereans and in turn must have obviously shared his encounters with Dr. Luke.

"Mystical" in the sense of "Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God" {American Heritage Dictionary}

I shy away from man's attempt to define the work of God.

Be clear, in your mind and in your argument, about what you derive from the holy spirit and what you derive from the text.

Maybe if you asked for the Holy Spirit to help you understand some things better you'd be able to see where I'm coming from instead of making nonsensical statements regarding the absolutes of scripture.

Would you say, then, that the entire scriptures are latent with symbolism?

Most certainly.

Um - "elucidation" means "To give an explanation that serves to clarify." {American Heritage Dictionary}

It does indeed!

If I were looking for an exercise from the Will Shortz Academy of Abstruse Allusion, I'd subscribe to the Times.

Oh, I get it! That's what Matthew 16:3 was talking about! I cannot discern the signs of the Times!

Bingo! Now, what about Daniel?

I won't argue that point. So let the philosopher, theologian, reflector, and/or refractor be clear, in their minds and in their arguments, about what they have brought to the table, and what they have derived from the holy spirit, and what the scripture itself has said.

How can one understanding the things of the Spirit if one doesn't rely on the Spirit?

1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

If you have to ask......

Disappointed that I don't have a union card?

Not at all. A clue? Now that's a different story.

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:
Clearly I showed where Paul did in fact speak to the Bereans and in turn must have obviously shared his encounters with Dr. Luke.

You did not show that Paul "must have obviously shared his encounters with Dr. Luke":

(a) It is by no means necessary for Paul himself to have commented on this episode to the author of Acts. Friends and colleagues do not always discuss every episode in their careers with one another.

(b) Even if Paul did happen to mention this episode to the author, it is not a given that his comments correspond to those made in the Acts passage.

(c) The author of Acts may have obtained some or all of their material on this particular episode from a source other than Paul. The author does not cite their source(s); other possibilities would include Silas and/or Timothy, who are mentioned explicitly in the passage, and/or some unknown party or parties.

Sensitivity to sourcework is a significant matter.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
So be clear, in your mind and in your argument, about what you derive from the mystical and what you derive from the text.

RND wrote:
Come again? Nothing "mystical" employed here. What I read from the scripture may be enhanced and expanded upon by the HS whenever necessary.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
"Mystical" in the sense of "Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God" {American Heritage Dictionary}

RND wrote:
I shy away from man's attempt to define the work of God.

Am I to understand, then, that you shy away from clarifying what you derive from the mystical and what you derive from the text?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Be clear, in your mind and in your argument, about what you derive from the holy spirit and what you derive from the text.

RND wrote:
Maybe if you asked for the Holy Spirit to help you understand some things better you'd be able to see where I'm coming from instead of making nonsensical statements regarding the absolutes of scripture.

Once again, we have a matter of sourcework.

Many people invoke the imprimatur of the holy spirit - e.g., the Latter-Day Saints, Benny Hinn. Not all such claims are convincing. Neither will you find that your claims of inspiration are convincing to all parties. They may imagine you to have confused your subconscious or your pious imagination with the holy spirit. You can choose to rant about their lack of credence, or you can move along to other avenues of discussion. Which do you consider more likely to be effective?

An effective communicator speaks within the potential reach of their audience. Your Paul understood this - "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of G-d but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." [ESV]

Should you wish to communicate effectively, you may find it worthwhile to have done your sourcework. Then you will be prepared to share points that may be effective with an audience that is not convinced of your personal inspiration, but is interested in what the biblical text has to say.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Would you say, then, that the entire scriptures are latent with symbolism?

RND wrote:
Most certainly.

You are not unique in taking this stance. You will find, however, that many contemporary audiences will not be convinced by symbolical interpretation (except in instances where the context makes symbolism clear). They may find it too abstruse, or too arbitrary. They may simply be hostile to the Dan Brown school of reinterpretation.

RND wrote:
Bingo! Now, what about Daniel?

Meti ho luchnos erchetai hina hupo ton modion tethe, e hupo ten klinen, ouch hina epi ten luchnian epithethe?

RND wrote:
How can one understanding the things of the Spirit if one doesn't rely on the Spirit?

On one hand, I have not said not to rely upon the spirit. I have said to be clear about what you derive from the spirit and what you derive from the text.

On the other hand - do you imagine that the spirit cannot make use of what is derived from the text? Or that the process of deriving from the text must be devoid of reliance upon the spirit?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Disappointed that I don't have a union card?

RND wrote:
Not at all. A clue? Now that's a different story.

That's the kind of comment that recommends the spirit within you.

[RND]

You did not show that Paul "must have obviously shared his encounters with Dr. Luke":

Brother KP, Dr. Luke travelled with Paul extensively in a roughly 30 year period. Simple common sense would tell you that Paul would have shared his knowledge of and his interactions with the Bereans to the good Doctor.

(a) It is by no means necessary for Paul himself to have commented on this episode to the author of Acts. Friends and colleagues do not always discuss every episode in their careers with one another.

That's a simplistic generalization frankly.

(b) Even if Paul did happen to mention this episode to the author, it is not a given that his comments correspond to those made in the Acts passage.

The documentation of the encounter is simple proof that Paul must have relayed this information to Dr. Luke. Your point is even more speculative.

(c) The author of Acts may have obtained some or all of their material on this particular episode from a source other than Paul. The author does not cite their source(s); other possibilities would include Silas and/or Timothy, who are mentioned explicitly in the passage, and/or some unknown party or parties.

Sensitivity to sourcework is a significant matter.

Or, maybe, Dr. Luke got his information to document Paul's encounters from all of them!Again, you have to speculate more than look at the situation in a common, naturally communicative formula.

Am I to understand, then, that you shy away from clarifying what you derive from the mystical and what you derive from the text?

No, not at all. The Holy Spirit speaks first to the individual. I have the privilege of defining what the HS is saying to me through scripture. I would shy away from another man's attempt at clarifying my encounters.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Be clear, in your mind and in your argument, about what you derive from the holy spirit and what you derive from the text.

RND wrote:
Maybe if you asked for the Holy Spirit to help you understand some things better you'd be able to see where I'm coming from instead of making nonsensical statements regarding the absolutes of scripture.

Once again, we have a matter of sourcework.

Many people invoke the imprimatur of the holy spirit - e.g., the Latter-Day Saints, Benny Hinn. Not all such claims are convincing. Neither will you find that your claims of inspiration are convincing to all parties. They may imagine you to have confused your subconscious or your pious imagination with the holy spirit. You can choose to rant about their lack of credence, or you can move along to other avenues of discussion. Which do you consider more likely to be effective?

Validating my beliefs through scripture.

An effective communicator speaks within the potential reach of their audience. Your Paul understood this - "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of G-d but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." [ESV]

Should you wish to communicate effectively, you may find it worthwhile to have done your sourcework. Then you will be prepared to share points that may be effective with an audience that is not convinced of your personal inspiration, but is interested in what the biblical text has to say.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression I was communicating with someone who "knew" what the Bible says, and how it says it.

You are not unique in taking this stance. You will find, however, that many contemporary audiences will not be convinced by symbolical interpretation (except in instances where the context makes symbolism clear). They may find it too abstruse, or too arbitrary. They may simply be hostile to the Dan Brown school of reinterpretation.

Too boring is my take.

Meti ho luchnos erchetai hina hupo ton modion tethe, e hupo ten klinen, ouch hina epi ten luchnian epithethe?

Terribly childish. The book of Daniel is loaded with symbolism. Care to comment on any of it?

On one hand, I have not said not to rely upon the spirit. I have said to be clear about what you derive from the spirit and what you derive from the text.

It is the Holy Spirit that makes understanding the scriptures possible.

On the other hand - do you imagine that the spirit cannot make use of what is derived from the text?

The purpose of the Spirit is to reveal what it helped build in what is laid out in scripture. "God breathed."

Or that the process of deriving from the text must be devoid of reliance upon the spirit?

Huh? Without the Holy Spirit understanding the scriptures is not possible.

That's the kind of comment that recommends the spirit within you.

Possibly.