John A. Broussard

Good for you. If you don't answer questions, you can't be giving any wrong answers.

Amaleq13

I don't understand how anyone could establish a given meta-narrative reading as "wrong". Nor do I understand how a discussion could be had on the subject except between Christians because a meta-narrative reading of the text appears to require faith to be accepted as legitimate.

IOW, it is less about the actual text than what you believe the text means, correct?

Cross Examiner

In terms of time alone, it is a monstrous task for me to unpack my worldview from the bottom up all the way to the top where my understanding of the grand, over-arching story lives. I wanted to see a show of good faith from you before beginning on such a project; at least something along the lines of a specific criticism for a specific proposition of mine based upon whatever understanding of the source text(s) you might possess. But if all you're looking for is a brain-dump then I'll have to pass. I really don't have the time for that. Nor am I enthusiastic about laying my understandings bare for you to poke and prod. I think if I were to do something like this, I'd require that you or some other reciprocate so that I'd have something to argue for, like my understanding is more faithful to the texts and orthodox theology than yours/his/theirs or some such.

John A. Broussard

Good for you. Stick by your guns.

As I said before, "If you don't answer questions, you can't be giving any wrong answers."

Gawen

Amaleq13 beat me to it. And besides, metanarritive grand, all-emcompasing stories are rather suggestive as they are stories told in order to legitimise its "truth". And a great deal depends on someone's own experiences and thoughts through reading it and the outcome if any after the reading.

Chili

Is that not just the other way around? You be the judge.

John 5:39- writes "You search the scriptures wherein you think you have eternal life; yet you fail to come to me to get that life."

In "Prior by Nature and Prior to Us" of the Posterior Analytics 71b38 ff Aristotle writes:

"For these are not the same: what is prior by nature and what is prior to us, nor what is more knowable [by nature] and what is more knowable to us. I say: to us, prior and more knowable are the things nearer to perception, while absolutely prior and more knowable are the things farther [away]. Matters which pertain to the whole are farthest, while matters which pertain to each thing are nearest."

The life we [can] have in Jesus of John 5 must be prior to us by nature so the major premiss that is newly arrived in our vocabulary can make sense when we read about it (where it comes nearer to us). Life in Jesus, here, is like the full-bodied seeing of the celestial waters that we can walk on and go by instead of happily skipping along the tide-pools (bible passages) of those waters.

They (bible passages), may never fail us but in not seeing that they are part of the whole we will never arrive at the place we fist started: "All teaching and all learning . . . emerge out of the making sense out of things (gnosis) which has already been originated (pro-hypo-archousia) before we started. This, then, is where his last line meets the first line confirming that intuition is the origin of knowledge.

I guess, my point here is that they will fail us if they do not lead us back to Eden before we die.

Casper

I would like to know what the correct interpretation of the temptation in the desert.

Satan offers Christ something that belongs to God, who is Christ.

Early tradition of selling Brooklyn Bridges? It makes no sense to me, unless Christ is separate from God, and Satan rules the material world. Or else Satan is God, and Christ is not. Or Christ is God, but has no control over satan and the material world. Or....(you insert meta-narrative view here).

Is that narrow enough? And the question is legitimate, because I really want to know how this is compatible with a trinitarian worldview.

Chili

Satan was pointing at particulars while Jesus (not Christ) was looking at the universal (the Christ who owns all the bridges in New York is God).

Satan is not God but he is 'like god" who deals with particulars to which he leads us one by each. Here he wanted Jesus to keep what he already had while Jesus was after the grand inquisition or final rout that led to the pearl of great worth for which he needed to deny all that which pertains to the particular.

If it helps you any, the Trinity is an inspired concept to explain the essence of God while we are away from Eden. Here we are in a time of abandonment where we must cross bridges instead of owning them to make the eye of the needle big enough for us.

Casper

Okay, that's not how I read it, but that's certainly an answer I can think about. I was wondering if BGIC might also want to answer, but maybe there is no need if you have nailed it.

Chili

Maybe it was wrong for me to jump in but it seemed to fit just right with my previous post. Thank you for asking the question.

Let me add that the Trinity collapsed with the descent of the HS because the Father and the Son became one. The outsider here is Jesus to whom this happened with Christ being the enigma (Lord your God) to be uncovered (Luke 4:8). The difficulty here is that in abandoning our only connection with the world as we know it we must trust the unknown Christ to be our guide. We see here how Peter (=faith) needed to keep his eyes on Jesus to see the noesis of faith released so he could walk on water (= without gravitating energy draining thoughts about his articulations).

Mind you, it worked for Jesus who at this time was filled with the HS which is like being Christ instead of Jesus. It was therefore that satan left him, to await another opportunity. The Gospels continue to show how the articulations of Christ increase while those of Jesus decrease to arrive at the foot of the cross where faith and doubt are replaced with the blind power of omniscience.

So it really is a true story that Aristotle wrote about in his days.