Call No Man Your Father

[metis]

The Nag Hammadi texts for one. This shows the level diversity of thought in the early Christian communities.

According to William Barclay, the selection of the canon in the 4th century involved over 1000 books in consideration, and even after debating this for over 1/2 a century, they still struggled with some.

So, yes there was a multitude of diversity no doubt, and this is exactly what the apostles and the early Church had to deal with, which is why "apostolic succession" was so terribly important since there were so many divergent thoughts that there needed to be some decisions made which were more likely to be more correct. It wasn't the canon that chose the apostles and their appointees-- it was the appointees that chose the canon.

Again, the "mark" that even began to develop when the apostles were alive, namely that they "taught with authority", was whether a church could trace its ancestry back to Jesus and the apostles through appointments, and you see that process being carried out in Acts. Even Paul dare not act without first confronting Peter and the others face-to-face as he says.

It never follows one straight, clean line.

Especially back then when the Church spread faster than good communication could keep up with and that there was no agreed upon canon. It was the Church's response to this confusion that prompted a need to a solution, and the solution they chose was "a.s.", rightly or wrongly.

This is all part of the evolution of the proto orthodox group consolidating its position as the "official" strain chosen upon at a later date, crafting and choosing what to include that supported the preferred views over other views, which were subsequently culled out and literally burned in fire.

Agreed.

Is symbolic truth dependent on facts?

If there are no facts to feed "symbolic truth", then one has to wonder if there's any truth there to begin with.

As you might know, I'm very much the "skeptic", master of "I don't know" (I got it copyrighted, so I'll sue your butt of if you don't seek my permission before using it yourself ), which one can easily ascertain at the bottom of each of my posts where I post "My Faith Statement".

In this sense, the Catholic church as an institution bringing in the wisdom of tradition of early saints and others within its particular lineage (recall I see this as one strain of Christianity which gained prominence and later taught history through its eyes as the 'original' church), has in fact a greater claim to "historical Christianity" than any one of these little upstart churches. But that still does not make it historically factual. It means it's the oldest surviving Christian voice in the world, of what became Christianity to us.

Let me be clear that when I post "apostolic Church", or even most of the time when I just have used the capitalized word "Church" in the context that we are discussing, I am not talking just about the Catholic Church, since with "apostolic succession" there are numerous churches that have long accepted this concept, including the Orthodox Church that also includes the Coptic Church, the Anglican Church, the Moravian Church, and several Scandinavian Lutheran Synods.

The important thing is what is inspired in the heart.

Personally, I agree.

Anyhow, I don't think we are anywhere near as far apart as I thought we were earlier on.

Take care and have a most blessed weekend.

 

[Windwalker]

If there are no facts to feed "symbolic truth", then one has to wonder if there's any truth there to begin with.

What "facts" might there be in symbolic truth? A symbol points the way to a realization one has yet to possess the capability to understand. To speak of facts, implies some concrete thing that the mind can comprehend. If it can be comprehended, then it is not transcendent. It is beyond comprehension for that person. So to say the symbol must be rooted in facts, is to completely misunderstand the nature of symbols.

The symbol is not an image of thing in itself. Rather, it is what the mind that does not yet possess the ability to see the truth it points to, supplies as an image of what is beyond itself. It can take any number of forms for the same thing it points to. I quoted Jung where he speaks about how the symbol is the mechanism for transforming energy. A symbol operates between levels. A symbol is like a gateway to another level. In fact, it very much is that. It's can't be a "fact" in itself, as it represents a reality that has yet to be apprehended.

Once apprehended, then the symbol becomes irrelevant. It's done away with. Then everything becomes a matter of translation of a lived reality, and then we speak of signs pointing to signifieds. "The Virgin Mary", is not some actual woman, but symbolizes many layers of reality one is aspiring to transcend to in themselves, to actualize that into their reality. It's not to become "Mary" as a person, but to become that higher level of Divine Light in themselves, represented by that symbol.

Once that is realized, then they are "Mary".

You see?

 

[idea]

If this is correct, does this have any bearing for how our church hierarchies are structured? And how might this conflict, or alternately be reconciled with, the fact that Jesus - out of a diverse base of followers including many women who travelled with or bankrolled his ministry - chose twelve males to be his chief group of insider apostles and that the church evolved to become a socially stratified patriarchy under a 'holy father' and various lesser 'fathers' in the form of bishops and priests?

I have been thinking about this thread - let me try out this idea - consider that the apostles were horrible leaders - could not walk on water, told the children not to come to Jesus, denied Jesus, could not always heal people, could not stay awake, denied Jesus with a kiss - they were constantly being corrected, seemed dazed and confused....

so... the lord's ways are not mans's ways and all that...

man's ways - call competent educated, trustworthy leaders which results in dependent followers who never learn how to think for themselves, are eternally dependent salverinos ...

God's ways - call incompetent uneducated sinners to be leaders (see Luke 5: "Lord, don't come near me! I am a sinner." - this is who is called as an apostle. the result? stuff like this:

15 “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering terribly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16 I brought him to Your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

Horrible leaders force everyone to be self-reliant, force everyone to go directly to Jesus with no middle man. Perhaps the point of church leadership is not to "lead", but instead, to make everyone realize they cannot rely on the arms of flesh - make everyone realize we all have to think and act for ourselves.

 

[metis]

What "facts" might there be in symbolic truth?

That which the symbol(s) is/are standing for.

IOW, if A symbolizes B, but B doesn't actually exist, then there's likely to be a problem with A.

 

[Windwalker]

That which the symbol(s) is/are standing for.

IOW, if A symbolizes B, but B doesn't actually exist, then there's likely to be a problem with A.

No. Those are signs, referencing to its use within the field of semiotics. I was clear in post number 60 how I am using the term symbol in the psychological sense. I stated, "In the words of Carl Jung, "the mechanism that transforms energy is the symbol". To further explain that, a sign points to something on the current level. It is a matter of translation of facts into signs (semiotics) which the mind can hold within its current framework of reality (or level of consciousness). The symbol on the other hand, is what happens when something doesn't fit within the current frameworks, and then something else stands in to represent that something which cannot be held by the mind.

Huston Smith explains reflecting the traditional view of symbolism as, "Symbolism is the science of the relationship between different levels of reality and cannot be precisely understood without reference thereto." To quote Ken Wilber's take on this, "Translation operates with signs, whereas transformation operates with symbols".

For instance, someone's depression symbolizes one's repressed shadow anger. The depression is a substitute "sign" for the actuality which is not the thing the sign is pointing to, which is the symptom of the issue. They become as it were, mistranslations. Something else symbolizing something other than what it appears as. This is true for both past levels where something gets broken off and doesn't transform into the current level, and it is true for levels not yet moved into. So something of the "future", while sensed, is not understood at the current level, and thus something else symbolizes that which is outside that current stage. The symbol is not operating as a translation, but rather a pointer to something outside the present reality.

So to have an experience of the Christ in a vision, for instance, is not a literal figure. It symbolizes an awakening within the person of a level they have yet to emerge fully into, which they get a glimpse of in such states and it takes the form of a cultural icon that suggests transformation. You would not refer to an image of the Christ as a "sign", of say, "Jesus is here". It's a symbol of a potential awakening within the individual. All religious symbols act this way.

The handout in the pew listing the hours the church is open, is what is a sign, not a symbol. Christ on the cross, is a symbol. And through the practice of meditation and devotion, the symbol becomes, as Jung said, "The mechanism that transforms the energy". The symbol of the Christ, transforms the energy of the believer into the realization of their own salvation, or transformation. This is far more powerful than any sign.

 

[metis]

No.

We're caught in semantics, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

 

[Windwalker]

We're caught in semantics, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

Which is why I point out my usage. It has far more actual depth of meaning than simply conflating the terms together, where sign and symbol are somehow interchangeable. Doing that overlooks the considerable differences. If we ignore these differences, then there is no communication of understanding. If we don't care about that, that's another issue beyond the meanings of the words. In other words, it's not just "semantics". It's resistance to meaning.