The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bible &

[shawn]

THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY CHURCH AS TOWARD THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF OUR BIBLE & HOW IT CHANGED OVER TIME


I found this interesting series of articles in my email this morning and wanted to share it.

Although many are aware that Christianity as a religion arose in course of the first century A.D. (Anno Domini, "the year of our Lord"), not so well known to the populace at large is "by what mechanisms" the Christians eventually would come to have a differing understanding of the "the Christ" and "messiah", contra the mainstream Judaic understandings and interpretations preserved by the Rabbis. This article will explore this somewhat "overlooked" topic.
Christianity, although not so in its very beginning, would evolve over the earliest centuries of its existence to claim that its "own" understandings or interpretations of God's message or intent for His people, present in the Old Testament, and even earlier in the existing ancient Wisdom Religion of the ancients, superceded earlier Jewish understandings and interpretations preserved by mainstream Rabbis of the first century A.D. and even the Spiritual sages of antiquity which has kept basically intact the "common" understanding of the ancient world's Spiritual Mysteries and Wisdom Religion.

the testimony of the early church as toward the interpreation of the Bible

the truimph of literal christianity over allegorical christianity no1

triumph of literal christianity over allegorical christianity #2

triumph of literal christianity over allegorical christianity #3

triumph of literal christianity over allegorical christianity #4

ancient sources of divine knowledge and danger of its misinterpretation

 

[Dream]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Shawn, you are a treasure hunter. This author's book I should purchase. Something like this could be useful for undermining the stage magicians that have gotten so popular. I hope he keeps improving his theory and accepts input about it. I was skimming the first link and thought I'd quote:

The ancient Spiritual Wisdom which contains story after story of the Gods and Goddesses that parallel our "Jesus Story", from beginning to end, were never meant to be understood as if real "historical" or "literal" events but spoke rather to the metaphysical reality of the Soul within mankind and its "Savior", the descended Mind of God as the Logos and "Krst/Karest/Christ" which "fell" into "matter" as well and was in like manner "crucified on the cross of matter" as had the Soul; thus God humbling Himself and "dying a death" of "material crucifixion in matter" in order that the Soul of humanity might be "saved" from the animal nature in which is has incarnated. This "crucifixion of Christ" in "matter" was in order to aid the Soul to Spiritually evolve on this plane of existence before its return home to the Father. This is a metaphysical reality believed by mankind since the beginning of time which was captured in Sacred Scripture and Spiritual myth after myth from nation to nation for over 10,000 years and which yet exists in our Christian Bible today. Today this "same story" lies totally misunderstood and badly misinterpreted by contemporary Christianity but such is not the history of our very own faith. At the earliest times the earliest Christians before the rise of Roman "literal" interpretation of the Bible saw and recognized, as had the ancient Mystery Religions, the significance of the "allegorical" interpretation of the Bible's texts which parallels the ancient Spiritual Wisdom mention over and over in the "crucifixion" of their "Gods" and "Goddesses".

 

[Ahanu]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

This is awesome. I'll have to make time to read this sometime. Interestingly, below is the first quote I read, so the link is too enticing not to read now!

Origen would go on to say:

[SIZE=+1]"What may appear as errors to us are intended by the Holy Spirit, to call the reader’s attention to 'the impossibility of the literal sense', and therefore signal the need for 'an examination of the inner meaning'"[/SIZE] (Ibid., p. 287).​

 

[Ahanu]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

http://thesacredmysteries.netfirms.com/testimony_early_church_interpretation_bible.htm

the testimony of the early church as toward the interpreation of the Bible

As for my thoughts on the first link, I learned that Origen was part of the Alexandrian school, where they did not tolerate literalism like the school of Antioch.

At first, I was beginning to think, will the author mention people that didtake portions of the text literally before Christianity became the religion of Rome? I think this is a key quote:

Enter the Latin Fathers of the Church. Here we find a mixture at first of both "allegorical" and "literal" interpretations at the beginning which will over time gravitate to pure "literalism" of interpretation of the Bible. Among the Latin Fathers, Hippolytus (d. 236), the Latin commentators of the fourth century, Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367), and Ambrose (d. 397) preferred, also for dogmatic reasons, the allegory-centered approach of the Alexandrian school, while Tertullian (d. about 240) and Cyprian (d. 258) stressed the literal meaning. Jerome (d. 420) in his earlier works "preferred the allegorical meaning of Origen whenever the proper literal sense seemed to him to render a text unbecoming or ridiculous," but in his later works "he insisted more upon the literal meaning" (Steinmueller, Companion, vol. 1, p. 324). Augustine (d. 430) in his homilies "indulged in allegories, the mystical interpretation of numbers, and moral applications," while [SIZE=+1]"in his theological works he adhered to the literal sense"[/SIZE] (Ibid.). Of importance are Tertullian and Augustine being the most influential of the lot who gravitated to the "literal" interpretation over the "allegorical" in their writings; thus tipping the balance of Scriptural interpretation away from the "allegorical" interpretation of the text.

Of course the literal interpretation is going to always win. Why do you think Tertullian, Augustine, and Lee Strobel constantly take certain passages literally? Irenaeus "was a disciple of Polycarp, who was said to be a disciple of John the Evangelist," says wiki with them all. Irenaeus and Origen just don't mix. I know wiki is a bad source, but the quote about the connection with a disciple may be a fact the Alexandrian school just can't whip. However, the quote from Origen above makes good sense too and is an argument the other side does not have.

 

[wil]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Namaste Shawn,

Darned interesting read.

I'd love to have Thomas toss in his two cents...

 

[Dream]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Its on order, plus a few other things. This deserves the good, the bad and the ugly song on ukeleles (go forward to 1 minute if you're impatient): [youtube]V3gp7B8WC4Q[/youtube]

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Whether we like so-called 'literal' sense or we do not, we must confess that the general understanding of this 'literal sense' is often based on contemporary epoch peoples live in. We can't find any literal sense that the author meant himself - that he wrote might have been easily understood by the people of his own epoch. Although simbology says even men of that century couldn't catch the symbological language of authors' philosophical texts...

 

[wil]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Again quite the read. Now that I've got to the end it was almost like the stories folks told me about getting hoodwinked into an Amway meeting...you get through the whole thing before you find out it is the truth according to Theosophy...

It was interesting in how it was annotated...sometimes a reference...sometimes not, me thinks that was probably intentional...would have liked more references for quotes...might be ready to take another trip through it if it had.

 

[Joedjr]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Hi, Wil you're done reading all this guy's commentary? I agree that it's hard to read sometimes with the way it's constructed.
BTW there's quite a bit more to read there, bet emet ministries websiteswhich is an index page of sorts. He also has a good part on the Covenant of Noah which was a topic elsewhere. This is a work in progress, he has added more ideas as time has gone on.

 

[wil]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Yeah I killed some trees and printed out the pages and read when I was away from the computer and highlighted stuff I needed to follow up on....

if he'll add hyperlinks to bible texts when he says this or that it'll help folks keep up and verify...

 

[Dream]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Whether we like so-called 'literal' sense or we do not, we must confess that the general understanding of this 'literal sense' is often based on contemporary epoch peoples live in. We can't find any literal sense that the author meant himself - that he wrote might have been easily understood by the people of his own epoch. Although simbology says even men of that century couldn't catch the symbological language of authors' philosophical texts...

I think I agree with you.

 

[wil]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Literal only miight...might work if you were to read the origiinal hebrew, greek, or aramaic...but literal umpteenth generation english literally has no literal left...

 

[shawn]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

This bit came from the page that Joedjr mentioned.

As stated earlier we begin our study with Bet Emet Websites with a "historical" assumption and present studies to show the beauty of Judaism over the dishonesty in Christian theological dogma and do so by using the depiction of the New Testament Jesus as if "historical" because he provides a vehicle for the teaching of Jewish theology, monotheism, morals, values, ethics, etc. It is not my purpose to reveal the weaknesses behind such a historical presentation of Jesus at this time as it will be developed and proven at a later time as one's studies progress through the Mystical Jesus and the Mythical Jesus as detailed on the above websites.

Of concern for us of course is the "Jesus Story" as depicted in the New Testament and its reliability as understood "literally" since it is being taught as a literal truth today about a historical man who lived 2000 years ago. You will come to see in time as you study that the Ancients as far back as Egypt understood this "Karast/Christ" entirely different from how we have been taught today under the direction of Roman and Protestant Christianity. Here are some big questions for you to ponder in light that most Christians trust in this Jesus Christ for their Eternal Salvation.

• Answer for yourself: Who or what is truly behind the name "Jesus Christ"? Can it be proven that the "Jesus Story" is nothing but the personification of the Sun and its passage through the various houses of the Zodiac as it passes through the 4 seasons and the equinoxes and solstices? If so then what do you do now?
• Answer for yourself: Are the infancy narratives and later depictions of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ in the New Testament nothing more than solar stories told as allegories which were later "literalized" and subsequently written into Rome's New Testament and depicted as a literalized historical Jesus Christ when in fact they were understood by the Ancients as astrological myths taken from astronomy?
• Answer for yourself: Did Rome destroy the Gnostic Christ of the earliest "Christians" which had existed since the beginning of time over the first 5 centuries of the early Church and replace it one of their own making? What are you to do when you see this from your studies on our Websites?
• Answer for yourself: If I study the Websites and find that the "Jesus Story" follows chronologically the Gospel of Matthew from chapter one through the end of chapter 28 and see for myself that the "Jesus Story" presented there parallels identically the personification of the Sun in its path through the Zodiac then what should this mean to me regarding my belief in Jesus as the historical Christ and him being the Jewish Messiah?
• Answer for yourself: Have we as Christians and followers of the "the Christ" been deceived by Rome and spent a good part of our lives worshipping a man as God as Rome has declared in their New Testament since the Nicean Council (325 A.D.) when in fact we should have been worshipping the one true Creator as the Pharaoh Moses (Akhenaton) instructed when he stood up to the religious establishment of Egypt when some were straying from the truth in their worship of the "godman" similarity to what we have done today with Rome's historical Jesus? Are we guilty of idolatry as Christians because we have believed a fable no more real than Snow White and the seven dwarfs?

Well the following studies in the above websites is not for the weak of heart as I will present over and over again infallible proofs that the "Jesus Story" as depicted in the New Testament is but a hoax perpetrated upon us by Rome in their hatred of the Jewish faith and Jewish Gnosticism back in the first century. You will see, in the last website depicting the Mythical Christ, as we move chronologically from one sign of the Zodiac to the other, from month to month, from season to season, from Spring equinox to Summer solstice, from Autumn equinox to Winter solstice, and repeating again this cycle, along with the study of selected events from the depiction of the life of Jesus in Rome's New Testament, that if you study with us and finish the studies on this website, that the "Jesus Story" as depicted in the New Testament is nothing more than the literalization by Rome of the path of the Sun through the Zodiac along with other solar myths later incorporated into their "Jesus Story" as later literalized by Rome as well. In so doing you will see as I and many others have that we have not been taught the truth about "the Christ within" and how He is so integral to the proper worship of the Invisible God as Egypt and Moses taught. It would seem that Egypt got it right in the beginning but thanks to Hellenism and Romanism we lost these earliest and correct understanding of Divine Concepts witnessed in God's Heaven and Nature. In a way these were our classroom and where we were to be instructed by the Creator about our life and purpose in God's creation. We are truly blessed today to live in an age where archeology and the information age can bring these truths back to life for you and me.

 

[GlorytoGod]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

so what book is this from ?

 

[shawn]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

so what book is this from ?

This bit came from the page that Joedjr mentioned.
#9

 

[Dream]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

Have we as Christians and followers of the "the Christ" been deceived by Rome and spent a good part of our lives worshipping a man...

I think this does not give enough credit to the Christians who resisted government interference and who throughout the centuries have fought corruption. The RC clearly has an inner mystical tradition that is separate from the political one, and it seems to me that this could not have been started by the Roman government. The way it looks to me from here is that there are two Rome's which struggled against each other over the centuries. A lot was preserved and used to soften the bad; and that is important. Whatever is good should be used again for good, or it is terribly wasteful. I'm not saying that this author is against preserving the good, just that I think saying 'Rome has deceived us' needs clarification.

 

[Dream]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

So nobody is going to correct me on any of my statements? I think the problem relates to cOde's question about trains and levers. The above goal of preserving good while throwing out bad is an ideal, but because time passes it is not always possible. Obviously you have to make the decision to kill or to save. I cannot give more time for a decision to be made, because there isn't any. Do you save the girl or the passenger train? I take the perspective of someone on the train, and I think its appropriate for the hero to give her life. I take the perspective of the girl, and it also seems appropriate if a little scary. I pull the lever, ka-chink.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/what-would-you-do-11072.html

 

[Joedjr]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

I think this does not give enough credit to the Christians who resisted government interference and who throughout the centuries have fought corruption. The RC clearly has an inner mystical tradition that is separate from the political one, and it seems to me that this could not have been started by the Roman government. The way it looks to me from here is that there are two Rome's which struggled against each other over the centuries. A lot was preserved and used to soften the bad; and that is important. Whatever is good should be used again for good, or it is terribly wasteful. I'm not saying that this author is against preserving the good, just that I think saying 'Rome has deceived us' needs clarification.
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[/SIZE]

So nobody is going to correct me on any of my statements?

Some folks see a plain disconnect between the church of apostolic times, as portrayed in the biblical stories, and the church after it gained acceptance by the roman empire. You very well may be correct to say that there were people holding on to the ways of the early church, before Constantine acceptance, and still did afterward. Under the influence of roman power and wealth the Catholic church also became an entity with great power and wealth. Did it keep to biblical tradition, I don't see how it has. Is there some secret mystical Catholic group keeping to biblical truths and not following the waywardness of common Catholic teaching, haven't heard of any myself. IMHO I don't see Catholicism as the lighthouse keeping this ship from the rocks.
If one wanted to find what is good here, to separate the "wheat from the chaff", then IMHO one needs to compare notes with biblical scripture and keep the things that can be traced to the writings rather than the things that have no biblical foundation. Just because someone back in history said this is the way or that is the way doesn't make it truth. I think you can agree with that.

 

[Penelope]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

every thing in the Scripture is mystery ... every man must hold these things for images, under which hidden sense lies concealed ...

Interesting stuff.
Origen ... is someone worth delving more deeply into.

But I'm biased, here.

& & &

When it comes down to the question of accepting literalism versus accepting allegory, I will go with literalism most times.
With one caveat to the literalists:

PROVE IT !

(Give me solid historic evidence. Which will not crack under analysis.)

& & &

Mystery religions and their message may indeed date back 10,000 years (to Catal Hoyuk), but I sincerely doubt it. However, I will grant that these mystical faiths (full of arcane symbolism in pursuit of 'illumination') are a product of agrarian (pre-Iron Age) civilization.

(Pre-modern consciousness. Prior to the rise of historic consciousness.)

"Ancient" truth is agrarian truth, not modern.
(Its deep human meaning is not particularly 'deep' nor all that 'humanistic.' It is a 'narrow path' for an elite. Not for the common man.)

Religion based upon symbolic "truth" will never stand up to any scientific test.

& & &

The visual art in Western (Roman) Christendom during Saint Augustine's time was notable for having a gritty (earthy) realism to it. This was a realism lost during the Middle Ages but found again with Giotto and the early Renaissance. Questionable theological content aside, the writing style of Augustine contained this same gritty realism. And Augustine became the first great explorer of the Inner Life (opening the Neoplatonic exclusivist 'inner garden' into a vast miasma of conflicting drives and psychic contents, true to every human being). Augustine stepped beyond symbolism and looked at the world (outer world and Inner Life) with a cold eye.

Augustine was the first great writer - great explorer of the human core - in the modern (Shakespearean) sense of the word 'writer.'

(Augustine's literalism - what he wrote - is highly problematical by any competant historian's standards. But his style and passion - how he wrote - are remarkably realistic.)

& & &

Did Jesus exist?
Anecdotal and some direct evidence suggest he did.

Was Jesus born in Bethlehem?
No. (This, to most historians, is allegorical invention.) He was probably born in Nazareth.

Was Jesus raised by a "carpenter" father names Joseph?
No. (Another allegorical invention.) He was probably raised by a single-parent mother (who may or may not have been named Mary).

Did Jesus die in the spring, at Passover?
(No. In September. More allegory, by association.) But he was almost definitely executed by the Roman authorities, though his execution was witnessed by none of his friends, followers, and loved-ones.

Jesus died alone.

& & &

At least 90% of the Gospel passages are allegorical inventions developed in the Oral Tradition, to validate Jesus as the Jewish messiah foretold in the Old Testament. Close analysis by historians of these and other documents have revealed most of these texts to be anecdotes told be preachers before their congregation, anecdotes of the "George Washington cutting down the cherry tree" variety. Naive enhancements of a beloved figure.
(These oral anecdotes were later taken down in print - transcribed by writers - as 'gospel.')

The naked facts:
- Jesus existed.
- Jesus was revered, by many people, in his lifetime.
- Jesus died alone.
- Jesus continued to be revered after he died.

Some of the words he spoke were likely the real deal, unembellished.
But beyond that, everything else is - literally - in-question.

& & &

This is a modern, historical means for looking at the life and meaning of Jesus of Nazareth. This is the starting point. This is the road that Augustine, for one, began to take us down. This node of realism - and this one alone - is specifically what makes Christianity a modern religion ... and not the archaic (agrarian) religion that Origen would have had Christianity become.

As fun as the Kabbalah and Gnosticism and the Mystery Religions are to think about, they step away from the reality of Jesus the man. They step away from any hard reality. They step away from the grit of external reality and the struggle contained within the Inner Life - which Augustine and others contributed to. The symbolic languages of mystical systems step away from the making of a modern, historical consciousness - they step away from the world which we know today.

No. I'll take Augustine's flawed literalism, any day.

& & &

On the upside ...
Mystical systems try to invent a "God Language" about the meaning of life - which, for the agrarian world, was perhaps a highly noble pursuit.

But, in the post-agrarian world, the only "God Language" of any value, to my eye, is Science.

 

[shawn]

Re: The testimony of the early church as toward the correct interpretation of our bib

In previous times the only way to explain science was via allegory.
Just do a cursive study of the alchemists during the dark ages beavering away at their chemistry and physics, yet unable to write freely about their studies under pain of death or torture.
We are at present seeing a development of the science of the soul which is struggling to be free of the impediments of obscure terminology.
But, if you do not understand parables...............