Progressive revelation

Originally posted by Varqa
Unity of the planet as one country indicates a level of maturity, one that signals our readiness for growth. This by no means is the end of the line. Baha'u'llah calls humanity an ever-advancing civilization. This advancement is to occur in cycles. The Baha'i revelation claims to have closed the "Adamic Cycle" and opened a new cycle of revelation.

[i]A Reve n the Bahá’í Faith. Baha’u’llah believes we are mature enough to find thing for ourselves.

[/i]Are you saying that you see the 'journey towards God' as taking place in outer space? I guess I see it as taking place in 'inner space', so to speak. It's this journey that I'm most interested in. I'm hoping that future revelations will emphasize this journey. It's a journey that mankind seems to have great resistance in taking. In fact, it seems that mankind is regressing if anything. Just take a look at how the importance of "fulfilling one's desires" seems to be increasing or even the "no repentance required" brand of Christianity that is so prevalent today.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[/i]Are you saying that you see the 'journey towards God' as taking place in outer space? I guess I see it as taking place in 'inner space', so to speak. It's this journey that I'm most interested in. I'm hoping that future revelations will emphasize this journey. It's a journey that mankind seems to have great resistance in taking. In fact, it seems that ...[text shortened]... even the "no repentance required" brand of Christianity that is so prevalent today.

The internal journey of course is the only one that matters. I was trying to think of what other challenges mankind will face after its unity is firmly established.

It would be hard to speculate on the spiritual journey in the future. I don't know....

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The question being what sort of ears one might need to listen.

Invoking the Word was what the early Christians did, or so I'm told. The Logos thing was what the Hellenistic Greeks particularly enjoyed about their not so completely new-fangled faith. The Gospel of John.

What would the Word say to a non Xian?

But this is what Christ did. When tempted in the wilderness Christs ALWAYS responds with, "For it is written...." Christ also made it understood that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. Christ also spoke about the prophetic word in how it related to why he was here with us. It was his credentials, so to speak. This is why we should not follow just anyone who comes along like a John Jones or Joseph Smith. We need to take a closer look at their credentials, so to speak, to see if they truly are of God.

So the followers of Christ do the same as their Master. Therefore, you will continue to hear, "For it is written..." from his followers. Some would call it idoltry to have such emphasis on the written word, howevver, I would just say that I am following my Maters example.

Originally posted by whodey
There is a passage in the New Testament that refers to him as Emmanuel in Matthew 1:23 which means "God with us" There are also passages in Revelation and elsewhere that refer to him as the Lamb of God. I think the term is rather a descriptive term rather than literal.

Also, I realize that Isaiah is written in the past tense and does not mention the Mess ...[text shortened]... ight refer to it is past tense, especially sense I had just seen the completion of the vision.

There is a passage in the New Testament that refers to him as Emmanuel in Matthew 1:23 which means "God with us"

Yes, and as I said, it is simply a direct quotation from the Isaiah verse.

However, I think you will agree that prophesy in the Bible is not linear.

Not only is prophetic speech not always linear (agreed), it is not always future-oriented; sometimes it speaks of the past, sometimes of the present, sometimes of “abiding” things. I want to “un-confuse” some langauge here: a prophet is one who speaks under divine inspiration; what a prophet says may or may not entail predicting the future.

In all your examples, you are—as I noted—playing the game “backwards,” so to speak. You are deciding (1) which statements by which prophets can be linearized strictly toward the future (rather than as messages that might have any meaning for the hearers/readers at the time), and (2) which time in the future that is being addressed (i.e., times from which you can conveniently decode the messages). Basically, the model you are employing is one in which a person is speaking under divine inspiration, not to the people he is speaking to at the time, or the events impinging on their lives, but to people who will not live until centuries and centuries later.

Midrash, as I have pointed out many, many times, is/was a standard Jewish exegetical practice. And that is exactly what Matthew, for example, was doing. Jesus, being quite clearly aware of oral-torah discourse, did the same. But his torah was also new, with a new vision of what messiah means—and one which extends to all, since all are “begotten” through the logos tou theou.

Originally posted by vistesd
In all your examples, you are—as I noted—playing the game “backwards,” so to speak. You are deciding (1) which statements by which prophets can be linearized strictly toward the future (rather than as messages that might have any meaning for the hearers/readers at the time), and (2) which time in the future that is being addressed (i.e., times from which you c ...[text shortened]... means—and one which extends to all, since all are “begotten” through the logos tou theou.[/b]

I am not saying that these all inspired words in the OT that I interpret as being for future reference have nothing to do with the past or the present day of their time. I was merely saying that it does not preclude them from having a prophetic value for our time as well.

Originally posted by Varqa
The internal journey of course is the only one that matters. I was trying to think of what other challenges mankind will face after its unity is firmly established.

It would be hard to speculate on the spiritual journey in the future. I don't know....

I would have thought that such speculation would fall under an 'independent investigation of truth". Or is it you'd rather not say on this forum?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I would have thought that such speculation would fall under an 'independent investigation of truth". Or is it you'd rather not say on this forum?

Why is it I get the feeling that you already have the answers and are merely testing me?

Are we still talking about inner journey and future revelations? If so, I believe we already have enough material for an inner voyage. There is so much we don't understand about what has already been revealed. I think we should spend some time to try to understand that first.

I am open to any suggestions you might have.

Originally posted by whodey
I am not saying that these all inspired words in the OT that I interpret as being for future reference have nothing to do with the past or the present day of their time. I was merely saying that it does not preclude them from having a prophetic value for our time as well.

(1) I think your idea of non-linearity may be an important one, which I want to think about further.

(2) Part of that “non-linearity” may well go to their very “style” of articulation as well, and their lack of simple clarity.

(3) I think that lack of clarity can open them up to multiple interpretations (and, like the parables, may be intended to do so).

(4) I think that can allow them to have prophetic value today—e.g., in speaking to the existential conditions of my own life (as I read and interpret them through those conditions). Continuing midrash is a way of opening up such texts in this way, as is Ignatian-style lectio divina.

(5) I think that very “non-linearity” disallows the kind of historical “cherry-picking” that says, “Well, clearly, as it turns out, the prophet was foretelling this particular historical event.”

Midrash is, or ought to be, a way of opening the texts. Traditional Jewish midrash treats the texts non-linearly (the meaning of the Talmudic dictum: “There is no before and after in the Torah” ). So it is not the non-linearity, per se, that I object to here. It is what I see as forcing the texts into particular historical-linear pigeon-holes vis-à-vis foretelling future events.

Originally posted by Varqa
Why is it I get the feeling that you already have the answers and are merely testing me?

Are we still talking about inner journey and future revelations? If so, I believe we already have enough material for an inner voyage. There is so much we don't understand about what has already been revealed. I think we should spend some time to try to understand that first.

I am open to any suggestions you might have.

I guess I have formulated opinions, but I like to hear other perspectives that may help me to gain greater insight into 'ultimate reality' which, in turn, work to alter my opinions.

In a sense there's been 'enough material for an inner voyage' for thousands of years, yet it's a journey seldom taken, so I have to wonder if there won't be further revelations.

I've been wondering about the unification of theists and atheists. It seems this would be required for the unification of mankind. It appears the foundation for the unification of mankind are in virtues such as compassion, love, justice etc. There are several motivations for living a virtuous life: fear of punishment, seeking reward, and just because it's 'the right thing to do'. It seems that the last of these is the most pure and does not require a 'higher authority'. What would preclude theists and atheists from unifying on such a foundation?

Originally posted by vistesd
Midrash is, or ought to be, a way of opening the texts. Traditional Jewish midrash treats the texts non-linearly (the meaning of the Talmudic dictum: “There is no before and after in the Torah” ). So it is not the non-linearity, per se, that I object to here. It is what I see as forcing the texts into particular historical-linear pigeon-holes vis-à-vis foretelling future events.[/b]

Well I guess it does not suprise me that you have issues with, as you put it, "forcing the text" into pointing to futuristic events in the NT. After all, if you did so you would be a Christian. I, on the other hand, who am a Christian would point to the unmistakble correlations to OT writings and NT events. I think someone told me once there were over a 100 prophetic words spoken in the OT that could be correlated to the Messiah such as stating where the Messiah would be born and him dying for our sins and being rejected of men and being born of the virgin etc. For me, the only way to explain such phenomenon would be to say that some of the hisory written about the Messiah in the 4 gospels were manufactured in order to fit the OT Messiah. Then again, you have OT secriptures such as Daniel 9:24-26 that is a calendar for when Christ came that, as I have mentioned, was also agreed upon by rabbies in the Tulmud hundreds of years after Christ walked the earth even though they rejected Christ as Messiah. There is no manufacturing this prophesy, rather, the evidence for such a prophesy coming to pass is of historical fact.

Also one more point of interest for me is the repetitiveness of prophesy in the Bible. When reading Daniel, for example, and then reading Revelation, it seems at times I am reading some of the same prophesies but only from a different vantage point. For example, the beast in Revelation I think is nothing more that the last beast Daniel talked about. Also, the coming of the Messiah whether it be the first coming or the second coming is a key prophetic event throughout the Bible whether you be a Jew or a Christian.

Originally posted by whodey
Well I guess it does not suprise me that you have issues with, as you put it, "forcing the text" into pointing to futuristic events in the NT. After all, if you did so you would be a Christian. I, on the other hand, who am a Christian would point to the unmistakble correlations to OT writings and NT events. I think someone told me once there were over a 10 ...[text shortened]... cond coming is a key prophetic event throughout the Bible whether you be a Jew or a Christian.

Well I guess it does not surprise me that you have issues with, as you put it, "forcing the text" into pointing to futuristic events in the NT. After all, if you did so you would be a Christian. I, on the other hand, who am a Christian would point to the unmistakable correlations to OT writings and NT events.

Well, I would say that if one needs to “force” the texts in order to be a Christian, and if one realized (even subconsciously) that one was forcing the texts, then one’s belief would be on rather shaky ground.

Remember that the Gospels were early-church documents, written in the context of already formed and continuing Christian groups (though they might not have called themselves that as yet). Paul, for example, did not become an apostle based on his reading of prophecies, but his experience on the Damascus road. Martha and Peter did not confess Jesus as the Christ because of prophecies they had heard or read, but because they recognized in him the logos tou theou.

On top of that, many of the gentile Christians would not have necessarily had any background knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures; some of them may have had their first exposure to them from references in Paul’s letters. And the earliest, post apostolic Christians did not read the texts literally—but allegorically, and “midrashically” (as did Paul).

If, on the other hand, one must first be a Christian in order to see the prophesies “correctly,” then, of course, one must have become a Christian on some other basis.

Are you denying that anyone can be a “true Christian” ™ unless they read and understand the prophets just as you do?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Well I guess it does not surprise me that you have issues with, as you put it, "forcing the text" into pointing to futuristic events in the NT. After all, if you did so you would be a Christian. I, on the other hand, who am a Christian would point to the unmistakable correlations to OT writings and NT events.

Well, I would say that if one needs to ...[text shortened]... nyone can be a “true Christian” ™ unless they read and understand the prophets just as you do?[/b]

No, no, and no.

I do not view my prophetic interpretations as "forcing the text", rather, I simply referred to this wording because you used such words. For me when I read such prophesies as Isaiah 53 I do not view my interpretation as "forcing the text". The meanings for such prophesies for me are a plain as the nose on my face. In fact, you could transplant that chapter into one of the four gospels and none would be the wiser.


When I said that I assumed you did not view prophetic interepretations in the OT as referring to Christ because I already knew you are not a Christian I was simply using logical deduction. For example, lets assume that only a few prophesies in your estimation had come true in the OT regarding Christ being the Messiah. This would be problematic if one were to continue to hold the position that Christ was not the true Messiah. You would more than likely be forced to conceed that the prophetic word is accurate and points to Christ which then one begs the question as to how. You would them probably assume that the Biblical text was divinely inspired by a higher power who knows the future and who placed the Messiah for mankind to follow. These are all assumptions of coarse and if any are off base please feel free to correct me.

Don't get me wrong, I did not come to Christ because of Biblical prophesy. However, I feel as though prophesy was given to us for a reason. I think it is done more than to just give us hope for the future, especially when that future may look bleak. I think as Biblical prophesy comes to pass it simply is continuing evidence for our faith and helps build our faith. At least, it has for me. I have said many times on these boards that my faith is not blind. Just like Pauls faith shaped by the evidence of the voice that spoke to him and blinded him and subsequently gave him back his sight. Just as Peter and the other disciples beheld Jesus following his resurrection and believed with the evidence presented them by his presence. In fact, Thomas demanded to place his hand in the side of Christ as evidence. I too have had "evidences" upon my own personal life that point to the fact that my faith is not displaced. The prophetic word simply is one of many such evidences.

Originally posted by whodey
No, no, and no.

I do not view my prophetic interpretations as "forcing the text", rather, I simply referred to this wording because you used such words. For me when I read such prophesies as Isaiah 53 I do not view my interpretation as "forcing the text". The meanings for such prophesies for me are a plain as the nose on my face. In fact, you could t that my faith is not displaced. The prophetic word simply is one of many such evidences.

We’re perhaps talking past one another now, to little good purpose.

You see Isaiah as prophecy of the future, and specifically referring to Jesus as the Christ—because you already have the Gospels making the connection. A non-Christian also sees connections where the NT writers have already made them; a non-Christian might, after already having read the NT, go back through the OT and find passages that she could say. “Well, if one accepts the premise, then I suppose this passage here could be prophecy too....”

Now, when I was speaking of “forced” and “cherry-picking,” and most of the rest of my comments on prophecy, it had to do with identifying extra-biblical events as being prophesied. The reason I don’t call the NT references to prophecy forced is because I am familiar with Jewish exegesis, argument and midrash. It’s as obvious to me that Matthew, say, and Paul do midrash as it is to you that—no—they just discovered the meaning of the prophecies. A Jewish listener/reader would appreciate the artfulness of the writer in finding such connections, and using them to point to spiritual truths. Neither early Jewish Christians, nor early gentile Christians, would have assumed the kind of literality behind all this as you seem to.

You have to assume two things:

(1) There are at least certain prophecies that are in fact foretelling events far in the future*; and

(2) You are able to identify these prophecies and the events to which they refer.

You seem to assume both of those based on the NT usage, and then seek to apply other “prophecies” to extra-biblical events in the world. I reject those assumptions. I also reject the idea that that is what the NT writers were up to. I also reject the kind of biblical literalism that seems to lie behind it.

One does not have to be a non-Christian to reject those, so my religious beliefs having nothing to do with this whatsoever.

If you want a good idea of how early Christians read the OT scriptures, take a look at St. Gregory of Nyssa’s The Life of Moses, which is an excellent example how Christian midrash was a continuing literary form.

* That is, as opposed to events of the near-future that might be foretold based on what is happening in the present.

Originally posted by vistesd
We’re perhaps talking past one another now, to little good purpose.

You see Isaiah as prophecy of the future, and specifically referring to Jesus as the Christ—because you already have the Gospels making the connection. A non-Christian also sees connections where the NT writers have already made them; a non-Christian might, after already having read the ...[text shortened]... to events of the near-future that might be foretold based on what is happening in the present.

I think your evaluation of prophesy is one in which the author is in control of the meanings/intentions of what is being said rather than a higher power. In fact, I am comfortable with the fact that neither Daniel not John knew with certainty as to what they were having visions about or what they were writing about. If I recall, they were troubled by what they had been shown to write about. I am also comfortable with the notion that the early Christians did not have a full grasp on the prophetic word as did their original authors of such prophesies. I am equally comfortable with the notion that I also do not have a full grasp on the prophetic word as those before me. However, as time passes prophesy by prophesy will be revealed as it comes to pass. You might call it a progressive revelation.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe any Jewish OT prophesies have come to pass? If so, which ones?

Originally posted by whodey
I think your evaluation of prophesy is one in which the author is in control of the meanings/intentions of what is being said rather than a higher power. In fact, I am comfortable with the fact that neither Daniel not John knew with certainty as to what they were having visions about or what they were writing about. If I recall, they were troubled by what t ...[text shortened]... out of curiosity, do you believe any Jewish OT prophesies have come to pass? If so, which ones?

I think your evaluation of prophesy is one in which the author is in control of the meanings/intentions of what is being said rather than a higher power.

Short answer: I don’t know—although you are correct that I have been treating them that way.

Here’s a personal; story that may have some analogous features: My wife and I were once driving on a long trip. I was driving at the time, and my wife had just looked over the map. Shortly after she folded the map away, I asked: “Did you just say that the next exit is 11.3 miles ahead?” (I don’t recall the exact number, but it was that precise.) She looked at me and said: “No, I didn’t say that—but it is.” (Appropriate “Twilight Zone” music in the background.)

Now, that may be a simple coincidence (even with the preciseness). There may be a very natural explanation. It may be what Jung called synchronicity. It may be... I have had a lot of such things happen (and that kind of thing has happened between my wife and I often). But I don’t choose to settle on any particular speculation.

Sometimes, with regard to the written texts, a literary analysis can help. Isaiah, if I recall, (and Deutero-Isaiah perhaps as well) is considered by scholars to have been a very educated person, and a writer of some literary skill. (Another view on Isaiah 53, by the way, is that the “suffering servant” is, in fact, Israel; Israel is often metaphorized as a person.)

Note that I do not use “prophesy” strictly in the sense of predicting future events (especially events in the distant future); that may or not be part of it, but it does not define the Biblical prophets per se. It is quite possible that all their prophetic pronouncements had to do with more or less current events, as well as prophetic analysis of past events.

With regard to the question you posed on the other thread about the possibility of a single prophetic pronouncement being applicable to more than one actual event, separated by perhaps a long time—I was going to ask you the same question! Again, I am always a bit skeptical when people are looking at prophetic statements back through the lens of history, and saying: “Ah, now that one has been fulfilled.”

You might call it a progressive revelation.

Which returns to the theme of the thread! 🙂

Just out of curiosity, do you believe any Jewish OT prophesies have come to pass? If so, which ones?

Again, I am skeptical about that being the purpose and nature of prophesy, so the question has little meaning to me. I think the prophets spoke to (1) as I said, more or less current events; and (2) timeless spiritual principles. It is that second feature that allows people to look for fulfillment of prophetic statements millennia down the road. I just don’t do that.

Again, I am still letting your idea about non-linearity percolate, so to speak. But I suspect that that non-linearity may have a lot to do with (2) above...

Now—keeping in mind my road-trip story—it is one thing to speak in terms of possibilities, and another to speak in terms of assertions. My view of faith—in the religious sense (and, as you know, that is not for me the same as most contemporary use of the word “belief” )—has to do with the kind of confidence/trust/assurance that allows one to be open to possibilities, rather than an insistent dependence upon a body of propositions. (And, yes, I do realize that there is a proposition in that statement, as well; one might say, though it may be a bit convoluted, that that is the kind of faith I put my faith in.) And, although I no longer offer personal details on here, that sense of faith came via another kind of “road-trip” experience...