|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/28/2008 11:09:57 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 425
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello rcjones
Are the shadows like parables having the same purpose?
Matthew 13:10-17
The Purpose of the Parables
10Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
"'You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
15For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.'
16But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. (ESV)
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/28/2008 11:12:23 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
Any agreement here?
If it's right, and I'll readily admit that it could, possibly, be right, then sure.
But I don't think every portion of Scripture is meant to hint at another portion of Scripture, as you say.
To re-use your example - I think that, sometimes, we just use evergreen trees because they look nice and hold up well inside. They are used to enhance our celebration of Christ's birth, but not used to illustrate who Christ is.
I don't need you to accept it. I need you to play along with it. I expect you to remain skeptical as you should.
At this point it is just the game. It doesn't matter whether it was meant to or not. If you learn to play the game, you will see how much is invention and how much is really there.
So back to the controls.
Assume I completely invent something and have no scriptural basis for it. The fact that it must look like Christ prevents it from being heretical. The rule that requires two witnesses disqualifies it, the rule that requires that it agree with all other scripture disqualifies it. You will see, as you play the game, that the rules quite naturally apply themselves because you know Christ. And just as an adult filters out multiple meanings of words in conversation that have nothing to do with the context, as you play, you will readily identify the riddles that apply to Christ, and quite naturally discard the rest.
I assume you agree to remain skeptical but to play along.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/28/2008 11:15:34 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
"'You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
15For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.'
16But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. (ESV)
Yes. Some people when they apply for a job get the job description then rewrite their resumes to fit.
God hid the full job description from the Jews so that false Messiah's couldn't "game" the system. The full job description is revealed after He was.
He fulfills the law of the leper. What false Messiah would think of doing that?
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/28/2008 11:20:15 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1717
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
I assume you agree to remain skeptical but to play along.
Ayup. : )
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/28/2008 11:36:14 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
So Jesus says let your light shine before men, and don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.
These seem to be contradictory, and there are many discussions trying to reconcile them.
The rabbinic rule says get a third passage to reconcile them.
The sheep go to the right, the goats to the left. The right side appears to be the 'heavenly' or 'spiritual' side and the left appears to be the 'earthly' or 'fleshly' side.
Now the words I used to describe the sides are not important as long as you get the idea of what is being portrayed. Good side and bad side.
Now apply the idea back to the original verses.
We should let our light shine because that is a plain teaching, and not let your earthly, fleshly or bad side know what your heavenly, spiritual or good side is doing.
The words aren't exactly right, but the idea now is that somehow our flesh will rob our spiritual good works. And we are always trying to steal God's glory when we do good works. We want the credit.
So we hold the definition of right = spiritual, heavenly, good etc, tentatively to see if when it is applied to all the rest of scriptures the definition holds or if it is made more precise with each new application.
Herein is where legitimate discussion takes place. What about this or that verse? Is the conclusion in agreement with what we know of God?
This is where I would like our discussions to be. Skeptics are welcome as long as you are willing to play the game. All of the shadow conclusions are tentative until the whole of scripture is unpacked.
Now you can recognize that a person unwilling to accept the first proposal as a proposal, is incapable of evaluating the next set of scriptures using the first proposal. You don't have to buy it as doctrine. After one is capable of discovering shadows for themselves and defend them using the rules, then they are capable of evaluating whether they are invention or real.
When I first started formal proofs, I even had a scoring system to indicate how sure a particular shadow was. I'm a beginner at it, I could still be making mistakes.
Double entendre is easier, since the dictionary not only limits the scope of meaning but suggests it.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/28/2008 11:49:09 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
If you read through the rabbinic rules, you will find that they are very loose when discovering raw material for new meaning.
You might say that they define rules for pun, allegory, double entedre, gamatria. It is no wonder that they wander.
The children who learn this don't go through the formal rules. They just do what comes natural.
So just about anything goes to make an initial proposed link. This is like brainstorming. Anything goes. But just like brainstorming, not everything stands.
After the right brain has done its thing, the left brain filters it with the rigor of the two or three witnesses and the controlling rules.
The essence of correlation is pulling together things that are similar.
We can assume the similarities are accidental, as many literalists do, or we can assume they are intentional. Does God intend to speak to the right brain also? You decide. You can get saved with only half you r brain ;-)
I couldn't resist. It is child's play after all....
The rabbis and the Eastern orthodox assume them to be intentional.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/28/2008 11:54:51 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1717
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
We should let our light shine because that is a plain teaching, and not let your earthly, fleshly or bad side know what your heavenly, spiritual or good side is doing.
This suggests a very dualistic view of our nature. This seems suggest a continuation of the old, sinful nature in the new creation. I don't think it works.
Also, do you believe Ehud's mission was sinful?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/29/2008 12:17:10 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
You specifically asked about the number seven.
The three primary "witnesses" are the candle in the temple, those that testify in heaven and on earth in 1 John, and the sacrifices at the end of Job
Now the problem in justifying it up front for you is that the images are all interlinked. If you don't first see that Job is Christ and his friends are God you will not see the seven sacrifices as the fullness of God no matter how well I explain it. But basically there are three burnt offerings for God who is in heaven, and three for Christ who is the fullness of God on earth, and one that represents their unity. In 1 John there are three which testify in heaven and three which testify on earth. and they are one testimony. The verbiage of the candle has three on one side and three on the other which links to 1 John.
You hold it tentatively to see if it works out with the rest of scripture. After you have applied it successfully in a number of instances, your confidence rises, but it cannot be called valid until all cases of the number seven are examined and explained with a single "idea" definition.
So I know that generally a rock is Christ, so I am tempted to use the term imprecisely, since there is a case where there is a false rock. The context makes it clear that it is a false rock, but the final definition has to be worded to incorporate all cases where it is used.
The problem of easily justifying any particular image is the same phenomenon that shows it is divine.This would be a human impossibility to impose these images after the fact. Pull one thread and the whole tapestry falls apart.
This would be the place for the adamant skeptic to focus attention. They should unpack a shadow, using the rules and show that it can't possible agree with other proposed shadows. This is not just asking for every donkey to be justified. There is a lot of work in that, and simply because it has not been done doesn't mean that it can't be done. I have taken specific challenges like Rev 17 to demonstrate in a limited fashion that the hermeneutic works everywhere. That was the most complex riddle I have seen yet.
I took on Ehud and Elgon as a challenge and the Levite that hacked his concubine, and the guy who sacrificed his daughter.
If you approach it as a game, try to do it yourself, lets chat about it. Together let's see if it works out. If it all falls apart, we still will have some interesting studies along the way.
I heard a guy a few weeks ago talk about how much preparation the disciples had to have before they were sent out, and this is why we need to give more to his camping fund. My 153 fish can't be any worse than that.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/29/2008 12:23:11 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
It suggests nothing more than the discussion in the forum Exactly what is sin?
What is holiness and why do we still sin.
It is no different than wrestling with the flesh.
Can it be twisted? Certainly, just like James and Paul are pitted against one another.
The question is not can it be twisted. The question is can it be understood in the context of proper doctrine.
It can.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/29/2008 12:25:14 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Also, do you believe Ehud's mission was sinful?
The question asks me to mix the literal and the shadow, and we have agreed that we can't do that.
The shadow says that the men who worked to put Christ to death operated in the flesh to accomplish the divine will.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/29/2008 12:46:19 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
I have to clarify this.
In the last few weeks, I have also been playing with all four voices. (Prophet, priest, king and judge) Similar to the traditional beliefs of Catholics and Jews.
There were some scriptures that led me into it. It wasn't just out of the blue.
So there may in fact be four layers to the Ehud passage which I have not parsed out, and since you asked me of it, I have parsed them all out, and in fact the judge voice may have some insights into whether it was sin or not.
I do not yet have the mechanics down for parsing out the other two layers, and propose these as a very rough first pass.
King - A guy named Ehud Killed Elgon
Prophet - Men would kill Christ
Judge - Ehud operated in the flesh
Priest - Christ in the flesh (man) killed Christ
A big tentative IF.... then it would say Ehud operated in the flesh
But I am not yet comfortable with the other layers, yet I recognize a bit of an inconsistency without them.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/29/2008 4:07:51 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 956
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
So essentially this is numerology on Steroids...... I believe Tozer referred to it as "lashing together verses to create floatable doctrines."
I fully understand the method, and I can't say that I agree with it. Not just because of the already heated discussion everyone had over the idea of the Revelation 17 beast being nothing more than a word picture of Jesus taking away the sins of the church, and not because I know that I have already been iggied by the OP... but rather because it requires cross-referencing words regardless of their context within a scripture and applying a meaning to them that might only be explicitly used one time. In the above example of the sheep and the goats making a corollary between the cartographal directions of "left" and "right", the would mean that God sits directly at the dividing line between heaven and hell... and yet, in Revelation 4 nobody is scared of God's "bad side", evidenced by the idea that the multitude is gathered "around the throne" and it is encircled by the rainbow. So either all of scripture is figurative and points to a Jesus of Nazareth that we don't actually know (because the Gospels are figurative) or the only literal scripture in the whole Bible are the four Gospels (which means that doctrinal formulation and systematic theology are a pointless endeavor). Unless we are actually talking about a "dual meaning" of scripture which is too fluid of a concept to be doctrinally reliable anyway.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/29/2008 8:17:02 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
See... you read stuff and completely miss the point.
If the meaning if used only once, then where are your two or three witness verses? See, the rules above, which you haven't bothered to understand require that is it used at least three if not four times.
Then you make the mistake of mixing up the left and right with "around". As though you know word-play.
How can you claim to FULLY understand the method and make such elementary mistakes?
And then you think by presenting false dilemmas you have made some point?
quote:
So either all of scripture is figurative and points to a Jesus of Nazareth that we don't actually know (because the Gospels are figurative) or the only literal scripture in the whole Bible are the four Gospels (which means that doctrinal formulation and systematic theology are a pointless endeavor).
Dual meaning means what it says. And your claim of familiarity of the web site is just as shallow as your claim to fully understand the method, since there are already shadows posted from the gospels.
So most likely you will get iggied again in this thread. Just to make it clear. The whole Bible is literal scripture in differing genres just as you have always believed, and it appears that it all also has shadows. False dillemas and false claims of understanding are easily exposed for what they are.
< Message edited by rcjones -- 7/29/2008 8:35:10 AM >
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/29/2008 11:49:53 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1717
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
rcjones,
I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with it. I do not think that God would hide secret messages in narratives when those messages go completely against what the narrative is saying, such as Aaron and the golden calf incident. Even if the "shadow" ends up "looking like Christ," it won't justify it in my mind, because I do not think Christ is meant to be seen in that passage - except in the sense that we see what happens when we don't follow Him, of course.
To me, shadows must resemble whatever their source is. When I hold my hand up to a flashlight, the shadow looks like a hand. Even if I play around with it and make it look like a dog, or a rooster, or what-have-you, I can still tell it's a hand. Your "shadows" don't look like what their source is, and to me, it just won't fly.
However, since, as I said, I don't see your conclusions as dangerous in any way, that's fine. I think it is best that we agree to stay out of each others' hair, so to speak. Unless I see you preaching something dangerous (which, given what I've seen so far, does not seem likely, but we are all human!), I see no need to comment further on your method.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/29/2008 5:56:43 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Thank you.
It's OK if people don't want to look at it for whatever reason.
That is quite different than actively opposing it before understanding it.
You do have to see it for yourself before it can be evaluated.
I learned it simply by seeing it applied, so it may rub off on you yet.
It's a shame that you don't want to play. I am still looking for people to learn it well enough to evaluate the processes.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 7/29/2008 6:29:43 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
And by the way, only about 20% of the work in seeing the second meaning involves shadow. The other 80% is double entendre. It can be done mechanically for the most part without correlating with other scriptures.
This is the opposite direction for flushing out shadows than Pardes. Pardes goes from hints to hidden. Bottom-up starts with double entendre, then riddle, then solution. If I invented anything, it was simply reverse engineering the Pardes process so that it can be started mechanically. This is what permits me to flush out shadows quickly where it took C.E. Mackintosh and others years.
I am working on a tool to do much of it automatically.
Look at Gensis 2:21 for an easy one in double entendre.
And God caused Christ to die, and he died, and he married his limping side and redeemed mankind. The only shadow is Adam as Christ. The rest can be validated with the dictionary.
Whatever wild inventions someone supposes happens also has to fit into the text of the double entendre.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 8/4/2008 12:02:18 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do not think that God would hide secret messages in narratives when those messages go completely against what the narrative is saying, such as Aaron and the golden calf incident. Even if the "shadow" ends up "looking like Christ," it won't justify it in my mind, because I do not think Christ is meant to be seen in that passage - except in the sense that we see what happens when we don't follow Him, of course.
To me, shadows must resemble whatever their source is.
One of the main differences between shadows and popular typology, is that in typology there is the belief as stated above that that type and ante-type must resemble each other or share moral characteristics.
We were reading today in John 3
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Here is an example that Jesus had no such rule. He very directly shows the serpent on the pole to be a shadow of Christ on the cross. How could this be? It is because Christ bore our sins, he was made to be sin. The serpent on the staff is a perfect shadow of Christ even though the serpent also is Satan in Genesis 3. As I said before, Christ uses ALL things for his glory...
The shadows are not the things themselves. "The law having a shadow..." Heb 10.1.. and therefore do not have to share moral characteristics. They are word play, riddles and ideas.
TJO5 - How would you suggest that one share the shadows? When there isn't a battle over them, there appears to be little interest.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 8/4/2008 5:13:02 PM
|
|
|
Shrommer
Posts: 98
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
The best book I've ever read addressing this kind of issue is the 2006 edition of The Scripture Principle, by Clark Pinnock.
Many Evangelicals do use Scripture in new and relevant ways, just as the New Testament writers and characters did. I am not even sure that Moody Bible Institute is against this.
What I think is important is to recognize each meaning for what it is. It is good to know what we think it meant to the original listeners or readers, but it is also good to know what the Spirit of God is saying today through those same Scriptures.
Hopefully, all Christians can come to a basic agreement about what the Scriptures mean in their original context. I say "basic". For this, we owe a lot to the Jews and Jewish scholars, and should frequently defer to them as God's chosen people.
But all Christians have also been included into God's chosen people. When we begin to use human interpretation and our own experience to re-contextualize the Scriptures, we end up going astray and need to go back to what the original meanings of the Scriptures were. However, when we are being illuminated by the Holy Spirit, we can find multiple meanings and applications for particular Scriptures, and these are appropriate to the communities, cultures, and times in which we live.
If you are not being led by the Holy Spirit, it is not of any worth to you to understand the meaning of the Scriptures in their original sense. However, if you are led by the Holy Spirit, the original sense is of great value to you, and provides a foundation and filter on which to build and through which to understand the Word of God. We need to be workmen rightly dividing the Word of truth.
One of Pinnock's key points is that the work of the Holy Spirit did not end with inspiring the writers of the Bible. The work of the Holy Spirit continues as He illuminates the Bible for the readers.
One or two examples:
There was a praise song "Lift Jesus higher, Lift Jesus higher, Lift him up for the world to see! He said 'If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me.' Lift him up, lift him up, lift him higher. Lift him higher than he's ever been before. Lift him up, praise his name, all ye people. Lift him higher than he's ever been before."
In the original context, Jesus spoke the words "If I be lifted up" to mean "When I am lifted up on a cross and crucified." Thus "Lift him up" basically means "Crucify him".
But the Christians singing that song were not saying "Crucify him, crucify him!" They were saying "Exalt him, magnify him!"
They could not justify the song with the verse that is quoted in the song, but the meaning they were singing is justified in other parts of Scripture.
I am glad when people find out the meaning of the verse and stop singing the song that way, but I don't accuse the singers of heresy. Who knows, perhaps God knew that the English version would be used that way one day for His praise and glory.
Another example is the parable of the talents. Every time someone preaches about it and uses it to talk about our talents, it is taking the Scripture our of context to some degree. We give it a unique application just because of the modern English meaning of the word talent, and this application rarely (if ever) comes up for people where their Bibles have a word for talent that translates to something like "pound" or "measure" or "dollar".
Who knows, maybe if it read "pound" instead of "talent" in our Bibles, we'd all be talking about the need to use our muscles for the Kingdom of God, investing in physical labor.
Any specific meaning like that based just on a coincidental language-specific homonym is really missing the full meaning of the original context of the parable, but God may have chosen that route to use the parable in specific ways for people of different tongues, tribes, and nations, and use it all for His glory.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 8/4/2008 5:24:13 PM
|
|
|
Shrommer
Posts: 98
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
I have two more things to say:
Lots of Old Testament prophesies have more than one fulfilment, and they may have present-day and future fulfilments as well, beyond even what we find in the New Testament Scriptures.
As to the idea that a type refers to the same thing all through Scripture, I disagree. We've got rocks as stumblingstones, rocks used for stoning someone to death, foundation stones, a Temple made with living stone, dry desert rocks that become springs of water, and rocks that prevent the seed from growing roots in the parable of the sower. We can't take the name Peter and simply say that he was used by God to keep people from growing roots when they hear the Word of God. I am sure that there are other concepts like this in the Scritpures, that are not always used as a shadow of the same thing throughout all 66 books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The method of 153 fish - 8/4/2008 6:08:00 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 193
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Shrommer
As to the idea that a type refers to the same thing all through Scripture, I disagree. We've got rocks as stumblingstones, rocks used for stoning someone to death, foundation stones, a Temple made with living stone, dry desert rocks that become springs of water, and rocks that prevent the seed from growing roots in the parable of the sower. We can't take the name Peter and simply say that he was used by God to keep people from growing roots when they hear the Word of God. I am sure that there are other concepts like this in the Scritpures, that are not always used as a shadow of the same thing throughout all 66 books.
Thanks for your notes. However, when I refer to shadows, I am referring to a specific practice of interpretation as mentioned elsewhere, wherein the midrash techniques are used as constrained by the rules. As soon as you take away the rules, it is a different topic. And so according to the rules, the only deviation in the shadow of a stone that I see permitted is when there is a single stone vs. plural stones. This is the case with a number of symbols since "we will be like him". The plural form speaks of us when the singular speaks of Christ. When you get into it, you will see that in fact they all reconcile throughout all 66 books. It's one of the things that continually amazes me. This fact alone distinguishes shadows from all other forms of typology. You will also find the class difference in the layering. Since the stone is Christ and Christ is the word, the stone is the word. Sometimes it helps to see all the words as symbols of the same idea. The idea being Christ as the full revelation of God in heaven and on earth.
quote:
We can't take the name Peter and simply say that he was used by God to keep people from growing roots when they hear the Word of God.
You are correct. You can't say that. This is an example of mixing the literal and the shadow meanings. But you can say that "Simon Peter" is one who heard the rock:word. (Simeon means hearing) And as little rock he is 'like' Christ, the big rock. You can also say that since there are two things, Peter and Christ, one is the earthly rock and one is the heavenly rock, so as Christ leads the church, so Peter would be commanded to "feed my sheep" unlike the other apostles.
Popular typology has it's own set of rules as verbalized by others. This is different. So there may be other systems of interpretation that have other methods and rules, but I doubt that mixing them is very fruitful.
Using "lifted up" in a different way than used in the scriptures is certainly a modern application of the words. I agree that I would not label them as heretics for their novel application. But again, application is a different topic than the specific shadow methods and rules that I have been experimenting with. I have to be very careful to be able to produce formal proofs within the rules for the images that I propose to be shadows.
quote:
Any specific meaning like that based just on a coincidental language-specific homonym is really missing the full meaning of the original context of the parable, but God may have chosen that route to use the parable in specific ways for people of different tongues, tribes, and nations, and use it all for His glory.
I agree, though it is a different topic. God's people heard his voice even when the scriptures were not available to the masses. And he has even used silly methods such as flipping open a Bible and reading a particular verse to speak to a needy mind. Though these are not methods I would ever teach as legitimate for seeking God's will. He just happens to be bigger than me and responds to the heart when people seek Him.
I am intentionally not proposing that the shadows are the result of such accidental methods, which is why I am unable to abandon the rules.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
