Symbolic language and Preterism

[Jude3b]

I have just learned recently what a Preterist is supposed to be and believe and I am more than a little confused at this unusual belief system.
Please tell me what is the principle that a Preterist uses to determine what the words they say are Symbolic are and how does a Preterist figure out their meanings? Anyone know?
Thank you, from Confused, aka Jude 3b

[dizzle]

Jude, I hope htat someone can take the time to address your post. I have been just too busy to participate lately.

[studyhound]

I have just learned recently what a Preterist is supposed to be and believe and I am more than a little confused at this unusual belief system.

Please tell me what is the principle that a Preterist uses to determine what the words they say are Symbolic are and how does a Preterist figure out their meanings? Anyone know?

Thank you, from Confused, aka Jude 3b



Hey Jude3,



We (preterist) interpret passages like most Christians do, when the style i.e. Poetry, apocalyptic, ECT, demand it or when comparing scripture to scripture. That’s the simple answer.



You might try swinging by my thread: Preterism - answering questions (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17023), and see how I interpret some of Revelation’s symbols.



:studyhound:

[kofh2u]

I have just learned recently what a Preterist is supposed to be and believe and I am more than a little confused at this unusual belief system.
Please tell me what is the principle that a Preterist uses to determine what the words they say are Symbolic are and how does a Preterist figure out their meanings? Anyone know?
Thank you, from Confused, aka Jude 3b


I assume you want answers from Preterist?

I know nothing about their methods. Your question would seem a necessary prerequiset to their theories, I would agree. I am looking forward to dee dee getting back and listing her details when she isn't so pressed for time.

In my own process of illuminating my understanding of symbolism, I spent many hours researching that discipllne.

I was impressed by the initial justification for the techniques of symbols, in that they are buffers against the natural erosion of meaning found in the non-symbolic language.

For instance, for almost everyone, and in almost every age, a snake is more than a designation of a particular type of animal. That the meaning of this term transcends almost unfettered by social and cultural evolution gives evidence to the truth of what was reported to me in my study of Symbolic Language.

I also discovered that symbolic dictionaries attempt a rather difficult synergy. In their attempt to give specific meaning to symbols, they find problems evidenced by different opinions, different cultures, and the imposition of institutionalized twistings. In the latter case, the printing of a "Catholic" Dictionary of Symbolism illustrates what is meant. Symbolism is not to be catholic or Boolian, for that matter. Symbolism implies a universal sense on connotation. It is analogous to the idea that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Symbolism is, hopefully, the rather subtle language (seemingly) understood without the requirements of a philosophy superimposed upon it, whether that philisophy be theology or otherwise. Such attempts strike at the heart of Symbolic Language by redirecting the connotation into an intentional use for the very purpose of reinventing meaning. That is exactly the process of erosion in the semantics of the standard language.

Neverthekess, using a number of often conflicting and slightly differing definitions sourced from as many dictionaries on the subject as possible, some help is afforded in our understanding.

We must also recognize that Carl Jung removed the whole idea of symbolic meaning from the field of rational investigation as suggested above. Jung explained that our psyche thinks more this way, in a ready and god-given language of interneural symbolic thought, than in actual language.

Jung is supported in some most recent MRI investigations which have pretty much located our mental facility for language in just one of the Frontal Lobe Functional Areas of the cerebral cortex, leaving the remaining 11 cortex functional areas uninvolved directly in any process of language. Overly simple here, of course. The use of TAT, a thematic appreciation technique of using symbols to intention invoke psychic responses also gas been developed based upon these principles.

Nevertheless, from Joseph, throughout history to our own times, the language of dreams and/by symbols has now the acceptability of Jungian Symbolic interpretation.

In my own analysis, though, I found many direct symbolic definitions in those dictionaries as very informing. A case at hand is the Exodus. The plagues, for instance, translate very clearly in such a way as to support the hypothesis found in thr Freudian Bible Interpretation, (FBI).

Nevertheless, for christians who evidence such academic energy for proofs of understanding, you are correct.
By and large, they are ill trained, poorly prepared, and often clueless, if not simply just content and disinterested in the sophistication of their own indoctrinated and dogmatic conceits about this whole discipline which seems both a companion language to the multiplicity of different national and cultural languages into which scripture has been translated. In this sense, all that is universally common to all mose different translations is the commonality of Symbolic Language. True?

[Ted]

As an interested observer of the Preterist phenomenon, I feel obliged to contribute some observations.

First, there are several flavors of Preterism. DeeDee's is more orthodox, while John Noe and Ed Stevens are more pure/radical/full/hymenaean. Preterism merely speaks of past fulfillment, and in that regard, Preterism and Historicism share some views, in that historicism sees a progressive fulfillment through ages.

As we compare Preterism with Dispensationalism, I must suggest that Preterists are by and large far better students of scripture. Dispensationalists tend to hold to rigidly literal interpretations of scripture, even when the evidence is strong that they should be taken symbolically. On the other hand, as we swing toward the more "full" Preterist position of Stevens and Noe, we find a more rigid symbolic application of scripture, even when there is good evidence that a passage has a concrete application.

As you can see, I take a middle ground. If you look at my posts in other threads or in my book I Want to be Left Behind, you will find longer discussions of this. In most places, I believe that a careful consideration of all three axes of context will allow the student to properly determine whether the passage is to be taken symbolically or literally.

The three axes are:
1. Depth. Step into the picture. See the language from within the culture of the writer.
2. Height. Follow the train of thought of the writer.
3. Width. See what other writers say on the same subject.

If all three axes are in agreement, you have likely reached a proper understanding. If there is disagreement in one or more axis, you have not yet properly understood the passage.

May the Lord bless as you study.

[dizzle]

Ted, I do have to take exception to "more orthodox" as if I and others like me fall short of the mark, but are almost there. I am just as orthodox as you are in my eschatology. There is no more or no less.

[kofh2u]

The three axes are:
1. Depth. Step into the picture. See the language from within the culture of the writer.
2. Height. Follow the train of thought of the writer.
3. Width. See what other writers say on the same subject.

If all three axes are in agreement, you have likely reached a proper understanding.

If there is disagreement in one or more axis, you have not yet properly understood the passage.


If.
Adding one more If, if over 2000 years have passed, and we are little more advanced in having reached "a proper understanding" then we ought get out of the "box" which has pre-set the psychological perspective from which we view the task before us. We probably are trapped in an invisible paradigm framing our every thought.

If I might first compliment you, the three axes are excellent recommendation for the most part. Implicit within them is a respect for former thinkers, and the explicit recommendation, that we should endeavor to add, neither revise nor subtract, from the collective and politically correctness of former experts is usually good advice.

I am not a rebel. But, creative thinking seems in order when so little progress has been made. What guesses and proper interpretation has been made over these centuries has not been comprehensive. Theories do exist effectively shedding light on a few verses, but leaving those verses totally independentfrom the balance of those many remaining.

In this, it seems apparent the over time, the respectful application of your three axes has merely kept each generation of bible student up the wrong trail.

I propose that we search for one overall assumption that seems reasonably capable of linking together all the mysterious and incredible ideas, symbolically expressed or directly literal.

I am saying we should apply Oscam's suggestion, that the simpliest and most comprehensive idea, while yet to be confirmed, is probably the right idea.

Again, forget the axes in regard to 3. Width. See what other writers say on the same subject. If they had said the exact meaning, we would not have to research their work, this is the, THE, puzzle of tge ages, is it not?

I am reminded that scientist are frustrated that they have not maintained a parallel record of failed experiments, a listing of things which do NOT work. That knowledge is useful in the avoidance of repetituos mistales, is it not?

What one idea or initial hypothesis can be laid out over the whole of these 22 chapters which, in every case, will find meaningful concrete and hence confirming application to the content. That would hypothesize the existance of a "key." But, we have been told tgat just such a key exists, have we not? (Is 22:22)

[Robyn Banks]

Ted, I do have to take exception to "more orthodox" as if I and others like me fall short of the mark, but are almost there. I am just as orthodox as you are in my eschatology. There is no more or no less.

"Preterist theology is unorthodox."
- Todd Dennis
http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/otto-randall_da_01.html

There is more than one meaning of 'unorthodox'. It is not only heterodoxy.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I have just learned recently what a Preterist is supposed to be and believe and I am more than a little confused at this unusual belief system.
Please tell me what is the principle that a Preterist uses to determine what the words they say are Symbolic are and how does a Preterist figure out their meanings? Anyone know?
Thank you, from Confused, aka Jude 3b
Well said Ted. I like your three axes. :thumb:

It is all about context. That to me is the beauty of preterism. We use the context to determine meaning. For example: When the phrase, "coming on a cloud" is referring to God coming in judgment, then we assume that the same phrase in the NT talking about Jesus "coming in a cloud" means that it is a propehcy about Jesus coming in judgement.

When it is agreed upon by nearly every orthodox Christian (and Jew for that matter) that heavenly bodies (moon, stars, etc.) are used as symbols for nations in the OT, we assume that they have the same meaning in the NT.

After all, the NT was written by Jews who were well versed in the OT, and were from the same culture.

It is not a pick and choose.

Does that anwer your question?