|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Word of God?
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Further to this.
There is in Kerygmania a very interesting illustration of how two sets of Christian scholars with very different presuppositions about Scripture and Tradition come to the same conclusion about the meaning of a key metaphysical text; John 1:1
Here is a link to the thread.
The argument is primarily a literary one, but you will see that working from different premises and publishing their workings, conservative evangelical scholars and scholars involved in the compilation of a new translation of the Eastern Orthodox New Testament come to an almost identical view of the meaning of the text translated as "and the Word was God".
The conevos come up with "What God was, the Word was" and the Orthodox come up with "the Word was (what) God (was)".
Their workings are published and open, they are based on a critical examination of the Koine, and they can be followed by any critical student of New Testament texts. As it happens, they both support the orthodox Christian understanding of the person of Christ better than the traditional translation. Here is a key post by me on that topic.
Both analyses show awareness of the need for critical appreciation (i.e. non-dogmatic) of the need for an accurate translation of this key scripture and how they went about it.
Presuppositions do not come into play in either the translation process or its application to the dogmatic significance of the text in understanding both the Trinity and the Person of Jesus.
An agnostic translator can follow the literary process of translation, can see the dogmatic significance, and agree the coherence of the revised English translation with the dogma, without ever agreeing the truth of the dogma. That agreement lies in the context of faith; the meaning of the text and its most effective translation into English is simply a matter of scholarship. Professionals of various presuppositions can appreciate the accuracy of the scholarship behind the detailed modern translation and its independence from dogma.
[ 21. May 2013, 17:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, FWIW, I stay away from things extra-Biblical that claim inspiration.
I don't, Tom. And here's why.
God has a Name--YHVH or Jehovah or Yahweh or Jehovih are its approximations.
There are OTHER BOOKS WITH HIS NAME APPENDED.
So I don't just automatically trash them: the
Oahspe, the Urantia Book both have God's NAME inscribed in them.
The Oahspe is completely untained by Babylonian hierarchy teachings, and the Urantia Book is SOLID HIERARCHY from front to back, but they both paint YHVH as "NOT a God who would have people stoned for premarital relations."
God in more recent inspirations has learned that, there is no way--no ethical way--to just get even; and culling people for their feelings doesn't work out in the long haul.
God YHVH is way past such vindictive and karmic behavior in these other inspired tomes.
It's worth giving some reading time and thought to, methinks.
Emily ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
I find also, in confronting experience and existence by principle and by coherence, the inspired work of Swedenborg is very helpful to keep Biblical personalities and quirks and ego out of the mix when we must confront the absolutes of God.
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Well, I don't automatically trash them, either, though I haven't read the particular works that you refer to (nor does my reading of Scripture lead me to stone people for pre-marital relations). But the work does have to stand on its own merits.
I have read a few of the gnostic works, and a few works such as the Protoevangel of James, that "didn't make the cut", found them indeed to be wanting. But as Solomon said, "of making books there is no end" and I have to draw a line somewhere, I just don't have time to read that much.
There used to be a good read on this site, I think by Stephen Tomkins, called "Unholy Writ". It takes a more tongue-in-cheek approach to some of the works in the genre I mentioned (not the ones that you did) Can't find it now, but it was a hoot!
I guess I don't get where you find the need to be concerned about hierarchy. LIke I said, I have trouble enough with those two primary commandments, love God & love my neighbor.
And it may be a mis-type on your part, but "God in more recent inspirations has learned..." if allowed to stand, is certainly wrong - perhaps we have learned ABOUT God, but certainly God has no need of learning, surely?
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I would be interested in knowing how we tell the difference between which parts in the Bible are mere cultural conditioning and which parts are the Real Stuff. Is there a hermeneutic, beyond "this agrees with my politics and this doesn't," or "this offends my culturally-conditioned sense of right and wrong and this does not"?
I think we can make a good start by using what we know of Jesus' behaviour and attitudes as a plumb line. So, for a start; how well does ordering genocide fit with the NT accounts of Jesus?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
But the Bible isn't one book, with one viewpoint. It's lots of books, spanning generations and cultures, with a whole range of viewpoints (sometimes conflicting?).
So, there has to be a middle ground between full-out unquestioning acceptance of everything and dismissal as irrelevant.
Someone raised the question earlier of 'which Bible' too. For someone like me, who like Karl, is nervous about calling the Bible "the Word", (primarily because that's the Bible's own title for Jesus), and has a reasonably loose defininition of 'canon', that's not a big deal.
But if you're going to have an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, then you'd better be certain as to which books count. And the problem is, the arguments on both sides seem fairly convincing. So is (for example), the Prayer of Manassah the Word of God? If not, why not?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
I've read a variety of religious Books, and the Bible shows me peoples' experiences with a Personal God, that the others don't show me.
God is an impersonal Deity in all the other Books, including the Grande Sahib of the Sikhs, the Mary Baker Eddy SCIENCE & HEALTH, Swedenborg's Tome, the Oahspe, even the Urantia Book.
The Course In Miracles is para-personal, getting into one's deepest thoughts as a textbook in psychiatry might. But that's not really personal either.
To me, the reason I pray to God [YHVH] alone, is because He's personal, as I'm personal, and that quality comes out of Bible stories.
Em
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
But the Bible isn't one book, with one viewpoint. It's lots of books, spanning generations and cultures, with a whole range of viewpoints (sometimes conflicting?).
So, there has to be a middle ground between full-out unquestioning acceptance of everything and dismissal as irrelevant.
Someone raised the question earlier of 'which Bible' too. For someone like me, who like Karl, is nervous about calling the Bible "the Word", (primarily because that's the Bible's own title for Jesus), and has a reasonably loose defininition of 'canon', that's not a big deal.
But if you're going to have an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, then you'd better be certain as to which books count. And the problem is, the arguments on both sides seem fairly convincing. So is (for example), the Prayer of Manassah the Word of God? If not, why not?
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I've read a variety of religious Books, and the Bible shows me peoples' experiences with a Personal God, that the others don't show me.
God is an impersonal Deity in all the other Books, including the Grande Sahib of the Sikhs, the Mary Baker Eddy SCIENCE & HEALTH, Swedenborg's Tome, the Oahspe, even the Urantia Book. f not, why not?
Emily, this board is for discussion of the Bible, not other religious books.
Moo, Kerygmania host
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
But the Bible isn't one book, with one viewpoint. It's lots of books, spanning generations and cultures, with a whole range of viewpoints (sometimes conflicting?).
So, there has to be a middle ground between full-out unquestioning acceptance of everything and dismissal as irrelevant.
Someone raised the question earlier of 'which Bible' too. For someone like me, who like Karl, is nervous about calling the Bible "the Word", (primarily because that's the Bible's own title for Jesus), and has a reasonably loose defininition of 'canon', that's not a big deal.
But if you're going to have an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, then you'd better be certain as to which books count. And the problem is, the arguments on both sides seem fairly convincing. So is (for example), the Prayer of Manassah the Word of God? If not, why not?
Oh, I'm well aware of the complexity of Scriptures. Having come from a tradition that does hold an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, I'm trying to work my way towards an understanding of how to still respect, value and learn from the Scriptures without seeing every word as divine dictation. I know it's not a simple "throw the baby out with the bathwater" business, but when I see people writing off the Scriptures as the ramblings of uneducated primitives, and then claiming that their faith is founded on Jesus alone -- the Jesus revealed IN the Scriptures -- I get a feeling of jarring cognitive dissonance.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I would be interested in knowing how we tell the difference between which parts in the Bible are mere cultural conditioning and which parts are the Real Stuff. Is there a hermeneutic, beyond "this agrees with my politics and this doesn't," or "this offends my culturally-conditioned sense of right and wrong and this does not"?
I think we can make a good start by using what we know of Jesus' behaviour and attitudes as a plumb line. So, for a start; how well does ordering genocide fit with the NT accounts of Jesus?
The problem with using the NT accounts of Jesus’s character as the complete determinant of what God’s character is like is that when Jesus came to earth the first time at the incarnation, he came to offer himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and to establish the New Covenant in his blood under which the blessings previously only available to the people of Israel could be offered to all the nations of the world (as promised to Abraham). His character displayed at this time is symbolised by a lamb, as recognised by John the Baptist at Jesus’s baptism – humble, meek, unthreatening.
But at Jesus’s second coming, the character that will be seen is that symbolised by a lion – mighty, all-powerful, triumphant; bringing judgement to all the people of the earth, the fulfillment of salvation to all his chosen people, and the destruction of evil and of all those who oppose his will. Jesus’s teaching on this is recorded in the NT, but the only time when an aspect of this character was seen during his life on earth (as far as I can think of at the moment) was at the transfiguration.
The Old Testament is essential for a complete picture, because it points forward to both aspects: the character Jesus displayed at his first coming, and the character which will be seen on his return. The offering of blessing and covenant love to those who obeyed God’s commands, and the eventual destruction of those who oppose him and do evil. The execution of the Amalekites is an essential part of God’s revelation of himself, because it pre-figures the eternal destruction of all evil, and of those who oppose God, that will happen when Jesus returns at the second coming. The Book of Revelation also speaks of both aspects of the character of Jesus as lion and lamb (see ch.5 for example).
That’s just a very sketchy outline, and all that I have time for just now.
Speaking more generally on the overall theme of the thread, I have found that an understanding of the Bible as the word of God comes from accepting all of it in its entirety, and placing myself under its authority rather than placing myself in judgement over it. Then I found that the understanding I gained from studying it with this attitude formed such a coherent and united structure, that I have come to be convinced of its supernatural origins. This works the opposite way round to any other text, in which the first step is understanding, then followed by acceptance. I suspect that with the Bible as God’s word, acceptance of it and submission to it are prerequisites for understanding it – not the other way round.
So to go back to the first two posts in this thread, perhaps the ‘word of God’ is the comprehension generated in the mind of the reader by the words of the text. More of an experiential thing than something solely intrinsic to the text itself.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
Once again Angus, You've said it so well that all I can do is ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) .
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You are aware that the "execution" of the Amalekites is meant to have included babes in arms? They're EVIL that must be DESTROYED?
Fuck that. Fuck that to Hell and back.
And that has to be the end for me with this fuckwitted concept of God the mass murderer, and I have no more time for it nor for defences of the utterly indefencible.
Gaa. Every time I start to think I want to get closer to God someone comes and paints him as someone I'd cosy up to Stalin before I'd go near with a bargepole.
[ 23. May 2013, 15:47: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Here's an old thread that wrestles with that question: "Ethic" Cleansing. Some interesting stuff. THe thread is still active if you want to post on it.
[ 23. May 2013, 15:59: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
Pooks - you are too kind, but I appreciate the compliment.
Karl - I'll try to post a response on the thread that Mamacita has linked to.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
You mean like this? I think that Protestantism would traditionally be quite comfortable with the reading you would place on the term.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
A.Pilgrim: But at Jesus’s second coming, the character that will be seen is that symbolised by a lion – mighty, all-powerful, triumphant; bringing judgement to all the people of the earth, the fulfillment of salvation to all his chosen people, and the destruction of evil and of all those who oppose his will.
If this is the Jesus that will come back, then as far as I'm concerned, He can stay right where He is.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
tclune:
quote:
I think that Protestantism would traditionally be quite comfortable with the reading you would place on the term.
OK, maybe so, but not the protestants I have mostly known.
If I give you my word, that relates to some promise, and yes, you could take the Bible as God's word to fulfil the promises. But most people would want to include much more factual content about God in the phrase "the word of God". E.g. the miracle stories of the Gospels (if not more), the statements about faith and grace etc.
I don't see this as included just under the idea of the word of God as the promise of God.
But I can see virtue in the idea, and will have a think.
(I know some people have a think before they post, but there you go!)
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
I don't like the idea at all.
And i am uncomfortable to learn that a large church near me calls the Bible 'the words of Jesus'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
I don't like the idea at all.
And i am uncomfortable to learn that a large church near me calls the Bible 'the words of Jesus'.
Seriously. Moses-like, he managed to dictate his own death. In Jesus' case, at least there was the resurrection, and maybe that body can use pens.
Meanwhile, Moses and David get the shaft. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I wonder what they think the titles of the gospels are supposed to mean?
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
You mean like this? I think that Protestantism would traditionally be quite comfortable with the reading you would place on the term.
Very comfortable.
As we sang at communion today:
quote:
O send Thy Spirit, Lord, now unto me,
That He may touch my eyes, and make me see:
Show me the truth concealed within Thy Word,
And in Thy Book revealed I see the Lord.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Copying posts from the closed "Word of God = Bible?" thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Does anyone know of a good study of the formulas "The Word of God" or "The Word of the Lord" as they're actually used in Scripture? Just thinking about the passages I'm familiar with, it seems to me that these are never used to refer to "The Bible." This suggests to me that equating the concept of "the word of God" with "the Bible" is itself un-Biblical. If you know a good book on this topic, I'd love to hear about it.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Al Eluia: Does anyone know of a good study of the formulas "The Word of God" or "The Word of the Lord" as they're actually used in Scripture? Just thinking about the passages I'm familiar with, it seems to me that these are never used to refer to "The Bible."
It's almost like the people who wrote the Scriptures didn't know that one day these would be canonized as 'The Bible'
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's almost like the people who wrote the Scriptures didn't know that one day these would be canonized as 'The Bible'
I once dared to ask (elsewhere) if St Paul was aware that his letters would be considered on the spiritual level of the Torah. I was a little taken aback by the hostility with which my question was received.
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha, it seems to refer mainly to prophetic words, visions, or knowledge coming to people. In the New Testament, it refers mostly to the Hebrew Bible (esp. Mark and Matthew, with John throwing in a reference to the Psalms) and to the gospel (Luke-Acts, Paul).
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I wonder what they think the titles of the gospels are supposed to mean?
What titles are those?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I wonder what they think the titles of the gospels are supposed to mean?
What titles are those?
--Tom Clune
Well obviously they didn't originally have titles, but presumably people referring to the entire Bible as the "words of Jesus" still refer to individual books as "Mark," "1 John," and so on, rather than "1 Jesus," "2 Jesus," and so on. Although more power to them if it's the latter...
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Mark has a title. Its the first line of the text:
"The Good News of Jesus the Messiah the Son of God"
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
A.Pilgrim: But at Jesus’s second coming, the character that will be seen is that symbolised by a lion – mighty, all-powerful, triumphant; bringing judgement to all the people of the earth, the fulfillment of salvation to all his chosen people, and the destruction of evil and of all those who oppose his will.
If this is the Jesus that will come back, then as far as I'm concerned, He can stay right where He is.
Yes. That does sound like 'no more Mr nice guy' and 'forget the suffering servant mask'.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
Certainly God's promises are part of what is meant by the phrase "the Word of God" : see, e.g., Romans 9:4.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
forget the suffering servant mask'.
Nothing like a little Gnosticism inserted into a conversation about the nature of Jesus.
Anyway, as to the question of which parts of Scripture to take as authoritative about the character of God or to set aside -- like Gramps, I believe that Scripture is the cradle that holds the Christ. Lutherans are taught to read the entirety of Scripture through the lens of Christ. So to me the God who initiates genocide, "solves" the social problem of rape in a tribally acceptable way that nonetheless re-victimizes the victim on a personal level, ordains gender and social inequalities as part of the divine plan, etc. -- well, seen through the Christological lens those things seem "right strawy," and I don't feel compelled to consider them either prescriptive or authoritative as far as a glimpse into the mind of God.
(Although in the case of the rape victim forced to marry her attacker, it can be argued that the Levitical law was a step up from what may have been happening in surrounding cultures since it gave the victimized girl, now considered "spoiled goods" by her family and the community, the social protection of marriage, even if it was to the ******* who raped her, and gave him the financial burden of a wife, or another wife, and all the obligations to her clan -- to our eyes a hand-slap, but again perhaps more of a punishment than he'd have gotten in a neighboring culture. So if you try really hard I suppose you can see this now alarming bit of tribal justice as a tentative if primitive and flawed attempt to protect the victim in this case from further public shaming and thus an illustration of a people beginning to discern/model divine qualities of justice and compassion. Or you can write it off as another example of sinful human beings turning other human beings into commodities and treating serious injuries to person and spirit as contractual complications, and chalking their own encultured prejudices and preferences up to God.)
To answer the question I anticipate, about how does one read Scripture through a Christological lens without assuming factual or other inerrancy on the part of the NT writers: In the final analysis it takes a leap of faith. I don't have the theological burden of trying to reason through this paradox; it's not a "head" thing. Which puts me in the same position as the original folks who encountered the first disciples and their witness of their experience with Jesus. Who are these guys/gals that I should believe anything they say? But I do, to the extent that I'm willing to use their encounters with the one they consider God With Us as my interpretative guide for what I read in Scripture, including their own work.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
