 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
It's only proof when you supply, from outside, the hermeneutic or major premises needed to get it to say one thing and not another. So you (this is all the generic "you" by the way) aren't just going by the Bible, but the Bible + Hermeneutic. At some point, calling the Bible the "Word of God" ceases to have any useful meaning, unless you are willing to call our hermeneutic the "Word of God" also.
That doesn't make any sense.
Let's say that after polishing off a bottle of Jameson at a bar in Dublin, three clerics (one Roman Catholic, one Church of Ireland, and one from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland) all decide that James Joyce is a prophet of God and all their differences of opinion can be solved by appeals to the Blessed Joyce. With that in mind, they purchase three copies of Finnegan's Wake and set to reading. After a while, they find they have fundamental disagreements on the meaning of the text. How they interpret Finnegan's Wake depends on the hermeneutic each brings to the text. Still, nobody can deny that Finnegan's Wake is the word of James Joyce.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
At some point, calling the Bible the "Word of God" ceases to have any useful meaning, unless you are willing to call our hermeneutic the "Word of God" also.
That doesn't make any sense.
Yes it does.
That is exactly why in my tradition we call Swedenborg's writings the Word of God.
Swedenborg does little more than interpret the Bible, at great length and in great detail. But unless we had confidence that this interpretation was God's interpretation, why should we accept it?
In the end the question is whether the whole package makes sense, is self-consistent, and presents a wholly systematic theology.
It's a question for each individual to answer for themselves.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin: [QUOTE]Isn't the God-breathed-ness of Scripture apparent in the way that Scripture can suddenly speak to our deepest needs as though it were alive, as though God were speaking to us directly through words hundreds of years old?
Why do (you) say "as though" it were alive and "as though" God were speaking.(?) It is alive and God is speaking.
I don't think we are in disagreement here DM. To me, part of the wonder of Scripture is that it is (on one level) a set of words on a page, written for people in a very different situation to mine, and yet there are times when God uses it to speak directly to me.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15
Timothy was exhorted to rightly handle something called "the word of truth". Presumably this "word" wasn't Jesus himself, even though he himself is truth.
quote:
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:14-17
Timothy is reminded that his schooling in "the sacred writings" (v.15) have made him wise for salvation because they are "breathed out by God". These Scriptures are "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".
Those sacred writings or "Scripture" are then called "the word" in the immediate verses that follow.
quote:
1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 2 Tim 3:1-2
So, Timothy is told to 1) rightly handle the word of truth, 2) to continue in what he has learned in the sacred writings which are also called scripture, and 3) to preach the word.
The word of truth that Timothy is told to preach is sacred God-breathed scripture that he had known from childhood. It is the word of God.
[ 22. February 2014, 21:40: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." Acts 6:2-4
The Apostles called preaching the word of God the ministry of the word.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, daronmedway - and that 'word' would have been what we call the OT ... it may also, might it not, have been some of what we'd call the Apocryphal or Deutero-canonical writings ...
You know as well as I do that Timothy wouldn't have been a GLE with a NIV tucked under his arm and a nice Bible case to hold it in ...
Any more than everyone since NT times has been wearing 16th century Geneva gowns or liberal 20th century Birkenstocks ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Point well made, Beeswax Altar ... but if your comment was aimed at me I'm not a liberal.
I thought your analogy with the Baptist chap and Mary was well made though and I do agree that some liberal have over-reacted to fundies to the extent that they fall into equal and opposite errors in the other direction. Spot on.
I think I can see the point that Mousethief is making - and it's to underline or defend his view of Holy Tradition, of course - which is fine as this is the paradigm he operates within.
But I can't see how it is detrimental to Holy Tradition as understood in an Orthodox way to refer to the Bible as the word of God (small w). Bishop Kallistos Ware and other Orthodox I've come across don't seem to have any difficulty with that concept ... in fact, from a two-day session I attended where Bishop Kallistos was speaking his views weren't a million miles from those expressed here by Beeswax Altar on this particular issue ... although I'm sure there would have been differences in degree, rather than in kind, on some of these aspects.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, daronmedway - and that 'word' would have been what we call the OT
Undoubtedly.
quote:
it may also, might it not, have been some of what we'd call the Apocryphal or Deutero-canonical writings.
I'm open to that possibility.
quote:
You know as well as I do that Timothy wouldn't have been a GLE with a NIV tucked under his arm and a nice Bible case to hold it in ...
Yes, I do. But I can't see how that fact, in itself, negates my reading of his mail.
quote:
Any more than everyone since NT times has been wearing 16th century Geneva gowns or liberal 20th century Birkenstocks ...
And?
[ 22. February 2014, 22:44: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Perhaps but her knowledge would be about what the Christian Church actually believed. Her opinions on disagreements within Christianity are irrelevant. I can explain the disagreements between Shia and Sunni. My opinion on who is right is meaningless because I don't even share the same presuppositions shared by Sunni and Shia.
You have confined "opinion" to "judgment as to who is correct." This is your right, but you should know that that's not the only way the word is used by others.
quote:
We know for a fact that everyone from that time period were good 20th century liberals in togas rather than tie dye and birkenstocks.
kofCatholickofOrthodoxkof
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15
Timothy was exhorted to rightly handle something called "the word of truth". Presumably this "word" wasn't Jesus himself, even though he himself is truth.
This could easily mean the oral tradition he received from Paul, or the oral tradition of the other apostles. Which are not coterminous with the NT, let alone the OT.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
Point well made, Beeswax Altar ... but if your comment was aimed at me I'm not a liberal.
It wasn't aimed at you.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15
Timothy was exhorted to rightly handle something called "the word of truth". Presumably this "word" wasn't Jesus himself, even though he himself is truth.
This could easily mean the oral tradition he received from Paul, or the oral tradition of the other apostles. Which are not coterminous with the NT, let alone the OT.
It could certainly include an Apostolic hermeneutic of the OT Scriptures which, of course, later becomes inscripturated in the NT. However, as I've already shown, the logic of the passage strongly suggests that Timothy is being exhorted to use his extensive knowledge of Scripture in his teaching and preaching ministry. And whether it's the oral Tradition of the Apostles, the written word of OT scripture or (as I suspect) both the use of the term "the word" in this letter doesn't refer to the person of Christ.
[Arg. Couldn't code properly. Sorry]
[Fixed - Eliab]
[ 23. February 2014, 07:49: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Jesus the Word of God vs the Bible as the Word of God? Not really an argument, surely, given that Jesus himself referred to the OT as the word of God? Perhaps I’ve got it wrong, but I thought that when John used that phrase ‘The Word’ he was using a kind of multiple meaning to convey to Greek readers that Jesus was, or could be considered as, what their philosophers thought of as the ‘Logos/Reason’ in the universe. He would never have meant to create the Jesus/Scripture opposition that has been implied in much of this thread….
On tradition and Catholic/Protestant disagreements – there is a third way (no, go away Blair, I don’t mean your lot!); that third way is the Anabaptist view (feel free to groan, Gamaliel!!).
In that view, things went much wrong in the 4th Century CE (‘Christian Era’, please, not ‘Common Era’ or other PC fudges!), when over a period of 70-80 years the Christian faith went from being at last tolerated by the Roman Empire to a point in 381CE when it effectively became compulsory for Roman citizens by an edict of Theodosius. This was in fairly total contradiction of the teachings of Jesus himself, and of the Apostles (including especially Peter, the supposed ‘first Pope’, whose First Epistle is a favourite Anabaptist text and sits badly with much RC teaching). The resulting mongrel concoction of Church and State made claims to ultimate authority which by the inevitable logic of that situation led to persecution of heresy, the Inquisition(s), Crusades and other religious wars, and a corruption of Christian teaching by worldly ideas. [Note that here ‘persecution of heresy’ means ‘by the power of the state’. Obviously the Church is entitled to defend itself against heresy, but without the state link this is basically benign – analogous to “If you really refuse to play according to the rules, we have no choice but to ask you to leave the football team”, but of course with no further consequence in such terms as burning at the stake! I won’t develop this point further here]
Despite its massive claims to authority, by making the mistake of allying itself with the State, and contradicting the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles on Church/State relations, the Catholic Church, and its two derivatives of Eastern Orthodoxy and western Roman Catholic, has actually forfeited any credible claim to special authority – if you can make a mistake and contradict Jesus on that scale, how am I supposed to take you seriously on other claims?? The organisation or institution is certainly continuous as RC propaganda claims; but the teaching and much of the practice becomes radically discontinuous. The excuse for many of the additions and distortions was the idea that the Church had a ‘tradition’ as a parallel authority source to the Scripture, a tradition which the Church in the sense of the institution under the Pope could expound and interpret, with an ultimate claim of ‘infallibility’.
Over the centuries the disparity between NT and RC became such that the Reformation became necessary. At this point the problem was that the Reformers went back to the Bible in all sorts of areas (and probably not always correctly and occasionally throwing out babies with the filthy bathwater – but they didn’t give up the State and Church link which was the original root of RC error. This was by providence not entirely evil – the existence of powerful Protestant states and a divided Europe meant that there was some space for other dissenting views which previously would have been too easily suppressed by the monolithic RC church, so over the centuries since the Reformation the original ‘believer’s church’ view has gradually grown though still not fully accepted by too many of the world’s churches which remain nominally state churches (Anglican, Lutheran, and the RC/Orthodox groups) or at least still support some notion of a ‘Christian country’ – Ian Paisley’s lot being a good example of that.
I’ll stop here till I see what objections the rest of you bring up. Obviously the Anabaptist view is the NT view (waves red rag at sundry bulls….)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Jesus himself referred to the OT as the word of God?
Just out of curiosity, have you a cite for that?
quote:
The resulting mongrel concoction of Church and State made claims to ultimate authority
If the Anabaptists had never taken over any cities and imposed their religion on all the inhabitants, this might have some bite. But they did, so it doesn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Jesus himself referred to the OT as the word of God?
Just out of curiosity, have you a cite for that?
The term "word of God" is only used fifty times in the Bible, almost all in the New Testament. One of those is Mark 7:
quote:
Mark 7:8 (Jesus said) "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men — the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
He said "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition." So He considered Moses' teaching to be the word of God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
He said "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition." So He considered Moses' teaching to be the word of God.
Or at least the Ten Commandments, which unlike the entirety of the rest of what is recorded in the Scriptures, were actually written directly by the hand of God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the Anabaptists had never taken over any cities and imposed their religion on all the inhabitants, this might have some bite. But they did, so it doesn't.
Right, so the fact that some rebel anabaptists for about 1 year 500 years ago decided to try to take over a city means that their peace message is totally invalid and without bite - despite the fact that at that point the anabaptists had not even developed their theology, being a very new movement.
I don't think so. Even if at that point they thought that it was a fair-enough thing to do, they certainly have disowned and disavowed that stance in the centuries since.
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think these things fall into neat categories such as:
Historic/established Churches = bad.
Anabaptist churches = good.
Or vice-versa.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Anabaptist position. I've been a Baptist in the past. I retain a lot of respect for Baptists and 'baptistic' Christians as a whole.
The issue I have with it is the same as the one which Richard Baxter the very eirenic Puritan raised. He criticised the RC and 'Greek' churches for thinking they were better than everyone else because they were the biggest and oldest - and the RC's in particular because 'they damned the rest of mankind' who didn't belong to their Church (at that time) ...
Conversely, though, he criticised the Anabaptists for having a somewhat holier-than-thou attitude.
'We've not done the things the rest of you have done so ... nurrrhhhh!'
Or, as we've just had here, 'We have done some of the things the rest of you have done but it was only for one year and some 500 years ago now so that doesn't count ... we haven't been doing these things for hundreds of years like you lot ...'
Much as I appreciate the Anabaptist tradition, there seems to me to be an inherently judgmental and almost Pharisaical streak within it ... deep down.
That doesn't mean that I believe that Baptists are any more Pharisaical than other Christians ... it's just that they don't always recognise and acknowledge as much themselves.
It's a subtle thing. Who can discern his errors?
We are all hypocrites. We are all sinners. We all need to remove dirty great big telegraph poles out of our own eyes.
The Anabaptists wouldn't have the scriptures and the tradition (small t) if it hadn't been for the older, historic Churches that they separated from. Any attempt to establish some kind of pure, unadulterated quasi-Anabaptist tradition that goes back through the Hussites and Lollards to the Waldensians and some kind of pure, unadulterated Anabaptist style early Church is complete moonshine.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Steve Langton, I've got the message that you think it would all have been better had Constantine and Theodosius not got involved. However, I'm not clear what you're saying is the 'third' Anabaptist approach to scripture, or what this might have to say to the issues on this thread. How did the Anabaptists have a take on either scripture or Christology (or both?) that was different from the more familiar ways of looking at them?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Or, as we've just had here, 'We have done some of the things the rest of you have done but it was only for one year and some 500 years ago now so that doesn't count ... we haven't been doing these things for hundreds of years like you lot ...'
Erm, excuse me, that isn't actually what I said. Mousethief said something to tarnish the whole of anabaptists because of something that related to a small number of people at one year from the last 500. Do not misread that to mean that I'm agreeing with the rest of the post to which he is responding.
quote:
The Anabaptists wouldn't have the scriptures and the tradition (small t) if it hadn't been for the older, historic Churches that they separated from. Any attempt to establish some kind of pure, unadulterated quasi-Anabaptist tradition that goes back through the Hussites and Lollards to the Waldensians and some kind of pure, unadulterated Anabaptist style early Church is complete moonshine.
In your opinion. Many others might, and do, suggest that an appeal to some kind of unadulterated RC or Orthodox view of the faith is equally moonshine. You takes your choice.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
He said "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition." So He considered Moses' teaching to be the word of God.
Or at least the Ten Commandments, which unlike the entirety of the rest of what is recorded in the Scriptures, were actually written directly by the hand of God.
Nope.
quote:
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’
Mark 7:10 has Jesus quote Exodus 20:12 (from the Decalogue, as you say) and Exodus 21:17 (not the Decalogue).
Jesus says that both constitute the commandment of God which "Moses said". Jesus identifies "the commandment of God" in what "Moses said" which - for Jesus - was to be found in the words Scripture, which Jesus then calls "the word of God" in verse 13.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
I'm not sure I'm following the point - Exodus 20:22 implies that God spoke to Moses the paragraphs including the one that daronmedway says.
I'm not sure that we can conclude anything from Mark 7:10 other than that Jesus is accepting the tradition that God spoke to Moses - and that the law of Moses in these chapters is from God.
.. or perhaps that he was making a point by refering to a tradition that his listener's accepted - in the sense of showing that they said that they believed the words that the text was from God, and yet they seemed happy to disregard it.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure I'm following the point - Exodus 20:22 implies that God spoke to Moses the paragraphs including the one that daronmedway says.
I'm not sure that we can conclude anything from Mark 7:10 other than that Jesus is accepting the tradition that God spoke to Moses - and that the law of Moses in these chapters is from God.
.. or perhaps that he was making a point by refering to a tradition that his listener's accepted - in the sense of showing that they said that they believed the words that the text was from God, and yet they seemed happy to disregard it.
Look at Mark 7, verse 13. What does Jesus say the Pharisees are making void? He says "you are making void the word of God by your tradition". What is the "word of God" in this context? It is the commandment of God given through Moses recorded in writing.
[ 24. February 2014, 09:20: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Look at Mark 7, verse 13. What does Jesus say the Pharisees are making void? He says "you are making void the word of God by your tradition". What is the "word of God" in this context? It is God's commandments given through Moses in writing.
I am looking at the text. Given what I've already said above, the simplest explanation is that the Pharisees-and-teachers-of-the-law are not taking seriously the 'God's words' spoken to Moses. In fact, that they're totally ignoring it.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Anabaptist thing is a bit of a tangent in this context, I think - with due apologies to Steve Langton ...
Because most 'orthodox' Anabaptists have continued with aspects of the older tradition they've inherited from the Reformers and from them the Patristic witness ...
Plenty of Anabaptists hived off into neo-Arian and other heretical viewpoints - from the standpoint of orthodox (small o) and Orthodox (Big O) Christianity.
Not all of them did. Why not? Because they remained true to aspects of a tradition they'd received. If they continued to believe in the Trinity and Deity of Christ, for instance, it's because they stuck to received interpretation. They didn't just wake up in the morning, read their Bibles and come to these conclusions themselves.
@Pydseybare - no, it's not just my opinion about the Baptist 'bloodline' and the Broadbent 'Pilgrim Church' thing. Plenty of secular and Christian historians would say the same thing.
But I take your point about Mousethief's post and your response to it.
My own take is that of course there was development from NT times through what became the Orthodox and RC Churches. That doesn't mean that all developments were either positive or negative.
I don't believe that there is a pure, unadulterated and squeaky-clean version of Christianity ... but I do incline to a Paleo-Orthodox position (a la Rowan Williams) despite recognising some discrepancies and problems with this position.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Pydseybare - no, it's not just my opinion about the Baptist 'bloodline' and the Broadbent 'Pilgrim Church' thing. Plenty of secular and Christian historians would say the same thing.
I didn't claim that nobody else shared your opinion, but the claim that Anabaptists cannot claim lineage, and that such a claim is moonshine is, by definition, your opinion. Other opinions are available: including, but not exclusive to, the opinion that the historic Roman Catholic church held (exclusively) the revealed truth (which therefore implies that all of the innovations at the reformation are false) and so on.
quote:
But I take your point about Mousethief's post and your response to it.
My own take is that of course there was development from NT times through what became the Orthodox and RC Churches. That doesn't mean that all developments were either positive or negative.
I don't believe that there is a pure, unadulterated and squeaky-clean version of Christianity ... but I do incline to a Paleo-Orthodox position (a la Rowan Williams) despite recognising some discrepancies and problems with this position.
OK, but not everyone shares that opinion. We might agree that certain extremes are obviously wrong (or not), but that doesn't change the fact that there is a fundamental and incontroversial difference in belief as to the churches on the different sides of the Reformation. I don't really see how it helps to try to muddy the water by pretending those differences do not exist.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
In fact, daronmedway, you'd have a better argument if you could show an OT passage that Jesus ascribed as being the 'word of God' which was not preceded with the phrase 'and God said to Moses'.
No I wouldn't. The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ himself says that something in Scripture which "Moses said" is the "the word of God" is a very, very strong evidence that the Scriptures can rightly be called the word of God because we have example of precisely that from Jesus Christ himself.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
No I wouldn't. The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ himself says that something in Scripture which "Moses said" is the "the word of God" is a very, very strong evidence that the Scriptures can rightly be called the word of God because we have example of precisely that from Jesus Christ himself.
In your opinion. I have already explained two different explanations as to why that might not reflect how Jesus Christ used the term, but you don't seem to want to engage with those.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
No I wouldn't. The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ himself says that something in Scripture which "Moses said" is the "the word of God" is a very, very strong evidence that the Scriptures can rightly be called the word of God because we have example of precisely that from Jesus Christ himself.
In your opinion.
Yes, and I'm happy to keep showing you what the text says until you either walk away from the debate or admit that my opinion is right. The third option, of course, will be to wriggle out of it by saying things like, "In your opinion".
quote:
I have already explained two different explanations as to why that might not reflect how Jesus Christ used the term, but you don't seem to want to engage with those.
Neither of which are convincing because they are merely speculative, having no basis in the text itself. Sure, you've dreamed up a couple of half-excuses but you've offered nothing of substance yet. When you do I'll engage. I either that or you can bow out now. Your choice.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ himself says that something in Scripture which "Moses said" is the "the word of God" is a very, very strong evidence that the Scriptures can rightly be called the word of God because we have example of precisely that from Jesus Christ himself.
That's my view as well. It really seems that Jesus regards all of the Law and the Prophets that way.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, and I'm happy to keep showing you what the text says until you either walk away from the debate or admit that my opinion is right. The third option, of course, will be to wriggle out of it by saying things like, "In your opinion".
How am I wriggling out? You are claiming that this verse means that Jesus Christ took the whole OT to be the 'word of God' and I've given two different explanations as to why that might not be. Other than asserting your opinion, you've not actually engaged any further with the text.
quote:
Neither of which are convincing because they are merely speculative, having no basis in the text itself. Sure, you've dreamed up a couple of half-excuses but you've offered nothing of substance yet. When you do I'll engage. I either that or you can bow out now. Your choice.
Oh right, because I don't instantly kowtow to your great eminence, I'm not providing a serious discussion.
Actually no. I think the idea that Jesus Christ is calling the OT 'the word of God' based on this verse is a figment of your imagination. Your move.
[ 24. February 2014, 10:41: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Compare our posts. I attempt to exegete the text. You don't. You just dream up fantastical speculations without any solid substantiation from the text. Read the thread. It's just one case after the other.
The problem with you Po-Mo's is that you can't tell the difference between an exegetical argument and the imaginations of your own heart. Argue something. Please.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
A quick partial response before I go shopping. The Reformation was a confused period during which there were some people who were 'Anabaptists' in the sense that they practised either straightforward "believer's baptism" or sometimes 'rebaptism' of their own children, but who had not initially worked out the other ideas of rejecting the 'Christian state' and warfare. One such group did establish a small Anabaptist kingdom by force in parts of Holland and Germany particularly in Munster, and were roundly defeated by the various Catholic and Protestant authorities.
Others were already on the side of separating Church and state or worked it out - from the BIBLE - in the aftermath of Munster. Menno Simons in particular apparently lost a brother in a siege related to the Munster group and that is what drove him back to the Bible and so into Anabaptism. It would appear a bit odd to criticise the Anabaptists for the very few groups who in fact practised the same things as their opponents; if those Anabaptists were wrong, their Catholic and Protestant opponents were also wrong on their own say-so!
I wasn't particularly addressing the Anabaptist view of scripture directly; I was pointing out that the Catholic claims to special authority were contradicted by their evident disobedience to scripture in accepting the relationship with the state in the 4th Century, and that Protestants who retained the 'Christian country' idea had not fully followed through their claim to be biblical.
A quick survey of my concordance showed Jesus using the OT in a 'word of God' way - for example, quoting as authoritative the incident of David and the 'shewbread', and quoting Psalms. You haven't answered my basic point that John calling Jesus 'The Word' (no capitalisation in the Gk anyway) was making a point in/for Greek philosophy rather than trying to set up a conflict between Jesus and the written Word of God.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Compare our posts. I attempt to exegete the text. You don't. You just dream up fantastical speculations without any solid substantiation from the text. Read the thread. It's just one case after the other.
The problem with you Po-Mo's is that you can't tell the difference between an exegetical argument and the imaginations of your own heart. Argue something. Please.
I am not a POMO.
And I don't appreciate being called names by you.
I assume that you have no argument to counter the points I've made. Therefore Jesus Christ cannot be calling the OT the 'word of God'.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Compare our posts. I attempt to exegete the text. You don't. You just dream up fantastical speculations without any solid substantiation from the text. Read the thread. It's just one case after the other.
The problem with you Po-Mo's is that you can't tell the difference between an exegetical argument and the imaginations of your own heart. Argue something. Please.
I am not a POMO.
And I don't appreciate being called names by you.
I assume that you have no argument to counter the points I've made. Therefore Jesus Christ cannot be calling the OT the 'word of God'.
You. Haven't. Made. Any. Points.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
You. Haven't. Made. Any. Points.
Yes I have:
1. The verse you've highlighted is speaking of a chapter which is described in the text as being words that God spoke to Moses. Hence Jesus can accurately be said to be describing them as the word of God without making any reference to all of the OT texts.
2. He could be using convention in order to make a point to his pharisee audience.
So, actually, I have made at least two points. You just don't want to talk about them.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Where. Did. Jesus. Read. The. Words. Moses. Said?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Point. Two. Isn't. An. Arg. U. Ment. It. Is. An. Un. Sub. Stan. Ti. A. Ted. Spec. U. La. Tion.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Where. Did. Jesus. Read. The. Words. Moses. Said?
Second, the words were in a scroll of the OT books.
What does Jesus call those words?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Where. Did. Jesus. Read. The. Words. Moses. Said?
Scripture, of course. But saying that a specific passage of scripture that is a direct quotation of God's words to Moses represents "the word of God" cannot be extrapolated to mean that all scripture is "the Word of God", any more than the fact that Acts 1:20 is the words of Peter means the whole of Scripture is the Word of Peter.
God gave the Law to Moses and Moses repeated it to the people. That does not automatically mean every single other book of the Bible is the Word of God.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.’
9 And he continued, ‘You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, “Honour your father and mother,” and, “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God) – 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.’
Jesus is quoting Scripture and he calls the words he quotes the word of God.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Where. Did. Jesus. Read. The. Words. Moses. Said?
Scripture, of course. But saying that a specific passage of scripture that is a direct quotation of God's words to Moses represents "the word of God" cannot be extrapolated to mean that all scripture is "the Word of God".
True. We'll get there later. But for now Jesus is quoting scripture and he calls the words he quotes the word of God. Let's call it a toe in the door.
quote:
God gave the Law to Moses and Moses repeated it to the people. That does not automatically mean every single other book of the Bible is the Word of God.
Correct. We'll have to look at that later.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Where. Did. Jesus. Read. The. Words. Moses. Said?
Scripture, of course. But saying that a specific passage of scripture that is a direct quotation of God's words to Moses represents "the word of God" cannot be extrapolated to mean that all scripture is "the Word of God".
True. We'll get there later.
Now's a good time.
quote:
But for now Jesus is quoting scripture and he calls the words he quotes the word of God. Let's call it a toe in the door.
Call it what you like, it's still not doing what you want it to do. If you can find an instance of Jesus calling a part of scripture that isn't a direect quote from God "the word of God" then you'll have a much better case.
It still wouldn't be a conclusive case, of course. But it would be much better.
quote:
quote:
God gave the Law to Moses and Moses repeated it to the people. That does not automatically mean every single other book of the Bible is the Word of God.
Correct. We'll have to look at that later.
Now's a good time.
[ 24. February 2014, 11:47: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Someone else please help - daronmedway is just repeating the same point, namely that Jesus Christ was calling the words that God gave to Moses the 'word of God'.
Yes, Jesus is quoting scripture - not just the decalogue - and he calls the words he quotes the word of God.
So, we're in agreement that there are at least two sentences of scripture which Jesus calls the word of God. Right?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... I don't believe that there is a pure, unadulterated and squeaky-clean version of Christianity ... but I do incline to a Paleo-Orthodox position (a la Rowan Williams) despite recognising some discrepancies and problems with this position.
That gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Meanwhile:-
Tangent alert
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton
I wasn't particularly addressing the Anabaptist view of scripture directly; I was pointing out that the Catholic claims to special authority were contradicted by their evident disobedience to scripture in accepting the relationship with the state in the 4th Century, and that Protestants who retained the 'Christian country' idea had not fully followed through their claim to be biblical.
Thank you for explaining that. I can see how the Anabaptist view of how the Christian should relate to the state comes from the situation in which the Early Church found itself in the Roman Empire. I've a lot of sympathy for it. However, as a dogmatic position to be binding for all time, under different states and in different conditions, it involves ignoring everything the Old Testament has to say on the subject.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Someone else please help - daronmedway is just repeating the same point, namely that Jesus Christ was calling the words that God gave to Moses the 'word of God'.
He is right.
The point is that Jesus evidently means to refer to the Scriptures in their entirety. This is because elsewhere He speaks of these books as if they are the foundation of all that is true. He does not distinguish the words of Moses as having more authority.
This is true whether He calls them the Law and the Prophets:
quote:
1.Matthew 7:12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
2.Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
Or whether He calls them the Scriptures:
quote:
1.Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
2.Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
3.Matthew 26:54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”
4.Matthew 26:56 But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.
5.Mark 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?
6.Mark 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”
7.Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
8.Luke 24:32 And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?”
9.Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
10.Luke 24:45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
11.John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
These books are the word of God that Jesus came to fulfill.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
