|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:45 am
1 Corinthians 2:4-5 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. I've been wondering what exactly the wisdom of men is for quite a while now. It's often used polemically by evangelicals to denounce any nonliteral, nonlegalistic exgesis of the Bible or any sort of education that they believe is against them. Without context they would appear to be right. I began looking at the lexicon to see how "wisdom" was being used and one definitions grabbed my attention. "skill in the management of affairs". So examining in context, "wisdom of man" would be the "skill in the management of affairs concerning men". Bluntly it's the skill of how to use any knowledge you have to eat, screw, and have more things better than anyone else. Now if you read the passage down a bit Paul acknowledges that there is wisdom in their words but it's not understandable to this age (Aeon) or the rulers of this age (Archons). So why is the "skill in the management of affairs" not understandable to the Archons? Because the Wisdom of God is not about how to use any knowledge you have to eat and screw better than anyone else. It's outside of what the Archons understand or are concerned so of course it's going to go over their heads. It's like trying to explain how sicknesses work to a 5 year old or Kantian thought with your dog (though I do imagine some dogs understanding it better than some people). The point is that there's nothing wrong with knowledge, just stay aware that there's more to wisdom than how to eat more than Ug, how to have more than Gluk, or how to screw more people than Grog. Wisdom goes beyond this particular application. This application is not foundational to Christianity nor is it a selling point. This is what I think Paul means when he is talking about the Wisdom of Men.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:52 am
In my view, i'm thinking more about how Paul might have thought.
If i am to "cut him some slack", i can easily imagine him being overwhelmed by the divine message, but not understanding huge parts of it because it was so foreign, even alien, to him.
He tried to understand it with his own wisdom, but failed, and then only had the power of God to have faith in.
Thinking all else may have the same problem, he suggested this as a solution.
He may also have considered basic wisdom, including knowledge, as unreliable(true, perhaps, but still not reliable).
.... Are you certain he refers to Archons with "rulers of this age"?
Today, the divine message that Paul may have recieved, may even be more common as knowledge, meaning it may be easier to understand as a whole ..... making it a part of today's "wisdom of men".
This is how i see it, but it rather means that "rulers of this age" would simply mean .. the kings and such of that age. Just ruling, but unable to understand the "wisdom of men".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:53 am
Your free to debate and disagree with Paul if you wish. This group is not sola scriptura by any means.
Since I am looking at this passage from Gnostic view point I guess I should elaborate on some things. One of the things about literature that Gnostics accepted as scripture was that the literature had "layered" meanings. Now I don't claim to know how the Gnostics thought but I think I am on the right track with this reading.
"Rulers of this age" is translated from the word "archon". While literally an archon would be a king of some kind, in the Gnostic cosmology an Archon is an entity that rules over some aspect of this world on a physical and psychological level. Like the kings and rulers of Paul's day and age (and to some degree today), they were only concerned with knowledge or wisdom that would further serve their agendas. Agendas such as how to make their kingdom grow, how to manage their resources, how to gain more resources, etc. Archons have similarities to these kings, they are only concerned with knowledge or wisdom that will serve them, How can I gain more influence and attention, how can I get more of what I crave, How can I get my craving to trump other Archons' cravings, etc...
Wisdom of men I believe would be the type of wisdom or knowledge that helps further a rulers desires. Paul in this quote says that he does not use "persuasive words of wisdom", meaning that instead of giving "healthy and wealthy" quotes he preaches by showing how to see and use that power of the the Spirit and how to connect with God for themselves. That way in stead of trusting that his words are true because they have a useful side benefit, that may one day become obsolete, but rather because now they have the tools to be able to see and test for themselves why what he is describing is true.
You know I have to thank you for posting here cause you just made me think of another meaning I got out of this quote, "give a man a fish and you feed them for a day, show a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:56 am
To begin with, i am ... somewhat familiar with the thought of Archons from a mystical point of view, even though my first "source" was a direct work of fiction, i have doublechecked it a little with actual sources.
If i'm not incorrect, they could be referred as "aspects of God", or perhaps "Powers that be".
Anyway, i now as that you read again what you have just written:
"Like the kings and rulers of Paul's day and age (and to some degree today), they were only concerned with knowledge or wisdom that would further serve their agendas. Agendas such as how to make their kingdom grow, how to manage their resources, how to gain more resources, etc. Archons have similarities to these kings, they are only concerned with knowledge or wisdom that will serve them, How can I gain more influence and attention, how can I get more of what I crave, How can I get my craving to trump other Archons' cravings, etc... "
And this:
"Bluntly it's the skill of how to use any knowledge you have to eat, screw, and have more things better than anyone else."
I'm not sure wether to tell you what to look for or not ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:02 am
Hmmm ("Demiurge" was also mentioned in the work of fiction i referred to .... i may look at the link later, i find it unnessecary for the topic at hand. .... )
Simply put, as i see it, you are contradicting youself, and you also might be reading too much into things, at least in this case.
The contradiction:
You stated that you think "wisdom of man" may be the basal, and carnal skills of regular humans, that the mystical Archons cannot understand.
However
In your respons to my first reply, you described the mystical Archons' skills to be very much human.
"How can I gain more influence and attention, how can I get more of what I crave, How can I get my craving to trump other Archons' cravings, etc... "
=================
I have no need to find layers, unless they affect the surroundings differently than their impressions.
I have to admit, i didn't quite understand it at first, but after reading your first and second post, it became more clear to me:
As i see it, Paul did mean the actual kings and rulers of that time (not any mystical "powers that be" ).
Those rulers would have no use of wisdom/knowledge such as history, philosophy, math, and so on.
They could even ignore pure logic.
Thus, if you were to stand before one of those, you might be totally unable to reason with them, no matter how wise you were, but rater had to put your faith in Gods Power, so that even the unreasonable rulers would understand that power, and bow before it.
This is how i see it.
It may be a simple, but it may also be correct. I mean, it fits ....
Now, i will look at your link, and see if it is what i suspect it to be .... if not, i might learn a bit more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:06 am
No I said Quote: Because the Wisdom of God is not about how to use any knowledge you have to eat and screw better than anyone else. and Quote: Archons have similarities to these kings, they are only concerned with knowledge or wisdom that will serve them, How can I gain more influence and attention, how can I get more of what I crave, How can I get my craving to trump other Archons' cravings, etc... " I'm not seeing how these statements contradict. Archons have human qualities cause well they are very human, they "keep the world" running in away. I think you are thinking of a different type of Archons. They aren't like the Lawful Good D&D creatures. If I did have to give them a D&D comparison I'd say they are close to Inevitables. They only care about keeping the "world" running, anything that tries to oppose them they will try to crush. It's quite possible that Paul could have been just talking about earthly kings but the reason the early Christian sects labeled as Gnostic was this "other meaning" or rather an inward meaning/reflection. The analogy you gave concerning the kings is quite fitting with our own inner "Archons". There are many that cannot be reasoned with and you will have to submit to them. Needing to eat is inescapable, you can only suppress that need until you have to eat or you will die. You are really providing some great insights even while disagreeing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:22 am
Ok, i see the distinction, it seems we disagree on how important that difference is, and so, there seems to be no more i can say on that.
The work of fiction i am now commenting about the third time, is not D&D, but it is an rpg, where they seemed to deliberately confuse the term "Archon" with "Sephiroth", as in Kether & Malkuth, and several inbetween.
The Rpg? It was called "Kult", and was very incorrect in ... certain areas.
I think it is possible that Paul may have used symbolism when talking, but ... when i think of it, ...
Today, we may know those symbols so well, that even an atheist of today could have baffled Paul about insights, that Paul at that time struggled with.
So, when i give my interpretation of "wisdom of men", it may have been symbolical to Paul, but to us, the meaning is obvious.
Also, his sentence is a reflection of a kind, it can even be said to be inwards, because because he talks about personal faith.
But the part about the Archons, i still would say that it is the basic Kings and such he means, and not the mystical/etherical ones, wich would mean that "wisdom of man" is simply the thing that we, in our time, call logic, knowledge, and wisdom.
It sounds good that i seem to give you some insight, though, even if it isn't what i thought it would be.
... Hm, i tried reflecting over the analogy you said i gave .... and i understand that it may be seen that way.
But to me it is more an "this is no news to me, but it is odd to compare basic needs with nearly-divine rulers".
I just understood: If i am correct, then perhaps this is the path you have to walk, anyway.
And if i'm wrong, i just don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:54 am
Oh okay. Yeah an archon in the gnostic mythos would be no way like a Sephiroth on the Tree of Life.
I think this will remain a matter of disagreement on this.
Well yeah of course it's obvious to us. The insight of these early Christians contained in the Nag Hammadi Library was used by Jung in his development of modern psychology.
Fair enough.
Ah understandable. When early Christian sects, such as the Sethians, thought about what God was like, they believed that God would be like a "cosmic" version of the mind. I guess I'm very entrenched in the Gnostic creation mythos so sorry if the analogy seems weird.
I think you do get it as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:34 am
Insights by early christians used by Jung?
Interesting piece of info there.
It could explain why Jung could go further than Freud, and see at least some of Freud's errors as clear as he seems to have done ...
"Cosmic mind" ......
No, not very wierd .....
That is one way to try understanding/explain/envision God...
... But, "mind" as a symbol, tends nowadays to exclude "body" ...
That was why it felt a bit wierd.
Well, if i once was was given the same choise as Solomon, then i think my answer was "to understand, at least enough to give good advices" .....
It seems that may have worked, but it is up to others to say, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
