"we shouldn’t allegorize Jesus’s resurrection to be about our own self-actualization to live a full, happy life' I must take issue with you. If the Resurrection of Jesus is anything, it demonstrates that the living God is very much perpared to intervene into the natural world for those obedient to His will! That religion as we know it has yet to comprehend that will is the tragedy of existing tradition. But no doubt, our return to the grace and favor of our creator is dependent upon it. I have no doubt that is the purpose of the second coming. To free mankind from the theological counterfeit of history so that he might once again 'return' and discover the 'self-actualization' to live a full, wise, righteous and happy life.
Thanks for your comment. If I'm understanding you well, I think we agree more than disagree. My concern is about those who would *deny* Jesus's bodily resurrection from the dead in favor of allegorizing the text to be about human self-actualization (which can necessarily happen without Jesus if you deny the empty grave). You'll also note that I am with you on eschatological happiness. Is that fair?
First cards on table. I don't believe that 'christianity' has even started yet as I don't accept theology [interpretation of scripture by natural reason] as a valid human intellecutal endeavor. Thus to my mind nothing has yet been revealed! I don't regard humanity as spiritual only aspirational to be spiritual. But that 'way' was blocked at the Fall and continues to be the case. Mankind remains a 'prisoner' to the materialist evoutionary paradigm and the loss of Imagio Dei. Thus human nature is by definition 'Dead' to God.
On the Resurrection, it Is both literal as historical fact and allegorical representing the direct intervention into the natural world necessary to correct and remove the Stain of original sin, bringing us to 'Life'.
"This direct, personal experience of Divine transcendence, the discovery of a truly authentic self enjoined with moral purpose is known as the 'first' Resurrection, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the allegorical Sign of Jonah and is the justification of faith. By this act of new creation, a man is reborn, his Imago Dei restored; to flourish on a perfectly objective foundation of divine wisdom, moral principle and righteousness where true virtue and the good Life begins."
Our 'return' to our creator, the very purpose of true religion, founded upon the moral insight, the first 'Law' that Adam transgressed remains unknown until the second coming. Until that time, from my perspective, all is vaniity and chasing after wind!
As I understand it, Jesus taught in parables, metaphors, and allegories. He used these devices to communicate a broader spiritual point. A literary genius.
Yes, I thought about using the parables as another example. But that's one of those instances where authorial intent and allegory seem to go more obviously hand in hand, however few seem to acknowledge it.
Oddly enough, the exclusion of allegorical interpretation of the Scripture is based historically in the Enlightenment and its distaste for anything (so-called) "unscientific." It's strange to me that anti-supernaturalist approaches like these were drilled into me by my very *very* supernaturalist movement.
The division into literal historico-grammatical and allegory is useful for understanding but life itself isn't divided neatly into categories like that. We need to see that both Scripture and our own lives aren't just things that happen they are things that happen that mean something. Jesus is a real man who lived a real life and had real things happen to Him and He really rose from the dead to a real Father in a real Heaven and really intercedes and intervenes in our lives in real ways. But He is also the fulfillment of the prophecies, of the myths and the stories and the dreams.
Nicodemus visited Christ at night to avoid being seen. Allegorically, that is exactly what doing something in darkness means. When the allegory and the literal line up then there is no reason whatsoever to fear the allegory. It is only when the real is diminished or disrespected for the sake of the allegory that it becomes a problem.
"we shouldn’t allegorize Jesus’s resurrection to be about our own self-actualization to live a full, happy life' I must take issue with you. If the Resurrection of Jesus is anything, it demonstrates that the living God is very much perpared to intervene into the natural world for those obedient to His will! That religion as we know it has yet to comprehend that will is the tragedy of existing tradition. But no doubt, our return to the grace and favor of our creator is dependent upon it. I have no doubt that is the purpose of the second coming. To free mankind from the theological counterfeit of history so that he might once again 'return' and discover the 'self-actualization' to live a full, wise, righteous and happy life.
Thanks for your comment. If I'm understanding you well, I think we agree more than disagree. My concern is about those who would *deny* Jesus's bodily resurrection from the dead in favor of allegorizing the text to be about human self-actualization (which can necessarily happen without Jesus if you deny the empty grave). You'll also note that I am with you on eschatological happiness. Is that fair?
First cards on table. I don't believe that 'christianity' has even started yet as I don't accept theology [interpretation of scripture by natural reason] as a valid human intellecutal endeavor. Thus to my mind nothing has yet been revealed! I don't regard humanity as spiritual only aspirational to be spiritual. But that 'way' was blocked at the Fall and continues to be the case. Mankind remains a 'prisoner' to the materialist evoutionary paradigm and the loss of Imagio Dei. Thus human nature is by definition 'Dead' to God.
On the Resurrection, it Is both literal as historical fact and allegorical representing the direct intervention into the natural world necessary to correct and remove the Stain of original sin, bringing us to 'Life'.
"This direct, personal experience of Divine transcendence, the discovery of a truly authentic self enjoined with moral purpose is known as the 'first' Resurrection, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the allegorical Sign of Jonah and is the justification of faith. By this act of new creation, a man is reborn, his Imago Dei restored; to flourish on a perfectly objective foundation of divine wisdom, moral principle and righteousness where true virtue and the good Life begins."
Our 'return' to our creator, the very purpose of true religion, founded upon the moral insight, the first 'Law' that Adam transgressed remains unknown until the second coming. Until that time, from my perspective, all is vaniity and chasing after wind!
As I understand it, Jesus taught in parables, metaphors, and allegories. He used these devices to communicate a broader spiritual point. A literary genius.
Yes, I thought about using the parables as another example. But that's one of those instances where authorial intent and allegory seem to go more obviously hand in hand, however few seem to acknowledge it.
Oddly enough, the exclusion of allegorical interpretation of the Scripture is based historically in the Enlightenment and its distaste for anything (so-called) "unscientific." It's strange to me that anti-supernaturalist approaches like these were drilled into me by my very *very* supernaturalist movement.
The division into literal historico-grammatical and allegory is useful for understanding but life itself isn't divided neatly into categories like that. We need to see that both Scripture and our own lives aren't just things that happen they are things that happen that mean something. Jesus is a real man who lived a real life and had real things happen to Him and He really rose from the dead to a real Father in a real Heaven and really intercedes and intervenes in our lives in real ways. But He is also the fulfillment of the prophecies, of the myths and the stories and the dreams.
Nicodemus visited Christ at night to avoid being seen. Allegorically, that is exactly what doing something in darkness means. When the allegory and the literal line up then there is no reason whatsoever to fear the allegory. It is only when the real is diminished or disrespected for the sake of the allegory that it becomes a problem.
So good. To your point: it's as if the commitment to authorial intent just needs to be taken to it's logical conclusion.