|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gee Dee: to put it mildly, your post's more than a bit flippant
Not at all. The canon to me is a settled issue. It does not include the additions Jerome made and I will not be commenting further on it.
My question was much wider than that. If there's no definition of what scripture is or is not, it's pointless to assert that all scripture is divinely inspired in the manner in which you advance that proposition.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
My question was much wider than that
Gee Dee: Do you actually doubt what is scripture? If yes, I do not believe you.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
For him it's the TaNaKh for a start, but not
the Qumran or Masoretic versions we have now. The 'lost original' version at least partially translated correctly in the Septuagint.
I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I'd start from a different position to that which I think you do. I would not say that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, for a start. A better definition is that scripture was composed by people especially inspired by God and that their writings are generally accepted as containing teaching to instruct and guide us.
Moving on from there, forming an exact list of contents is not easy and that is a task I'm not competent to perform. The task I do carry out is to understand that various Christian churches have different lists, and to respect the traditions which produced them.
What I don't do is engage in the Bibliolatry such as that of the Moore College clique. But that is another topic and not relevant to this thread.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
My question was much wider than that
Gee Dee: Do you actually doubt what is scripture? If yes, I do not believe you.
Not to answer for Gee D, who can answer for himself just fine, but I know exactly what is scripture. And I know that you are wrong about it. And what is more, I know why, and you clearly do not.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think the issue of canonicity is not coterminous with regarding writings as helpful or even interesting, unless all you ever read is canonical scripture.
But if you are saying "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" it behooves you to know what exactly you mean by "Scripture" and why. At the very least it lessens the appearance of not knowing what you're talking about.
quote:
I think the drive for canonicity revolved more around use in the liturgy, did it not?
Daily readings, yes. Not necessarily during the Divine Liturgy.
quote:
Plus of course that Judaism today is pretty much derivative from one strand of Judaism, and Qumran was not in that strand.
Yes. This.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
This point is often missed;there is a fashion at the moment for looking to Judaism to understand Christianity, and whilst there's much to commend this (leaving aside the rather odd trend amongst some Evangelicals now to keep not only the Jewish festivals but also Kosher), the idea does seem to be that you could have dropped anyone from Jesus' culture straight into Golders Green and he'd feel immediately at home. This may not be entirely accurate. /tangent
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, perhaps it's material for another thread, but I'd be interested in more on how modern Judaism has developed and the various strands that have fed into it.
Meanwhile, I don't know what the current scholarly consensus is, but I have heard that the received wisdom on the Qumram caves, that it had to do with the Essenes, has recently been challenged and revised.
Of course, that's how these things work, hypotheses are put forward and then challenged and redressed.
On the canonicity issue, I've also heard it postulated that the Jews didn't formalise their canon until well on into the 'Christian era' ... and some have suggested that their reasons for doing so may have been something to do with the emergence of the Church and a reaction to the sect of the Nazarenes ...
Whatever the case, yes, these things do seem to have been fuelled by a desire to agree on what was helpful and useful both for public liturgical use and for private reading - for those few people able to read and, presumably, fewer who actually had access to documents.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
40 Years On: Ah, yes Alan Bennett, before your time though. Not enough to know better though. We needed the intervening 1900+ years. The arc is long and we are remarkably slow learners.
Joyce: Must start before I'm too old. Like Proust...
Ever increasing circles: Aye, even stuff in the first circle around Jesus, Christ the cynosure, Gamaliel's perspective giver and focus from a two thousand year later postmodern perspective, is alien. I wouldn't ditch a ripple, no matter how far it reached and was modulated by the sea bed of culture.
Revelation Wood: The sovereignty of God is ABOVE history. There isn't a trace of God for Karl to have to blame in history. Of divine intervention even at the level of inspiration. Except in the second and third circles beyond history. Where Jesus lives. I brush NOTHING aside. I wish I could brush it in, unlike Jerome. But it can't be done. Not with barely intellectual honesty. I'm touchy about claims. Jesus is the be all and end all, the transcendent hope. He will be in a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, ... years. Ten or so for me. With my eyes I see history. With my heart I feel Jesus. Their ever increasing circles overlap with fascinating interference. Here. On this thread. With some finding second, third order, circle inspiration in apocalyptic, prophecy.
I'd like to take your course. In French of course!
Too weird for Gong! Well I'll be didgiri-done!
G: I still feel sorry for Andre Previn. God through the Incarnation is in the off-key cacophony, including of history and 'prophecy'. Like Sibelius in The Nice's Keith Emerson's version of The Karelia Suite from Five Bridges, bursting through the white noise from 06:13 at 07:45.
Sovereignty: Like eschatology is transcendent. As in your sermon I'm painfully translating. Not of this world. It has NOTHING to do with history, not a single detail. The quantum of solace is in our mental interference between God above Godless history.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
mousethief wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think the issue of canonicity is not coterminous with regarding writings as helpful or even interesting, unless all you ever read is canonical scripture.
But if you are saying "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" it behooves you to know what exactly you mean by "Scripture" and why. At the very least it lessens the appearance of not knowing what you're talking about.
Oh, I agree - and I suppose there is also a supplementary point about how you regard inspiration. I think one of the factors about the texts we now have as the NT was the proximity of the writers to the main actors, which seems very matter-of-fact, though entirely reasonable.
quote:
I think the drive for canonicity revolved more around use in the liturgy, did it not?
Daily readings, yes. Not necessarily during the Divine Liturgy.
Actually I was thinking of the OT canon at this point - sorry for lack of clarity.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry Martin, you've lost me again ...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Sorry G. Ijit me. The main addressee was E. I should have made that clear.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
[QUOTE][b]
The John of authorship could be one of many possible John's and for textual analysis reasons probably not the John who authored a Gospel and 3 epistles. One thing seems certain though the John who wrote it was Jewish. Probably Palestinian, one John the Prophet, with Galilee his original home, having then migrated to Asia Minor. Writers of apocalypses generally lived outside Judea and this type of literature was usually read where the Law was less observed.
Do you have any firm evidence for the presumption that the author was not John the apostle, who also wrote the 4th gospel? Authorship of Revelation
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gee D:I would not say that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, for a start. A better definition is that scripture was composed by people especially inspired by God and that their writings are generally accepted as containing teaching to instruct and guide
What seems to be the difference to you. Why change from 2tim3:16? This establishes scriptural authority and function pretty tightly.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I have always read those as giving my position rather than yours.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gee D:I would not say that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, for a start. A better definition is that scripture was composed by people especially inspired by God and that their writings are generally accepted as containing teaching to instruct and guide
What seems to be the difference to you. Why change from 2tim3:16? This establishes scriptural authority and function pretty tightly.
A good false dichotomy. Were the Torah writers and editors especially inspired to attribute millions of deaths to God the Killer? I see that they WERE especially inspired despite that, transcendently despite where they were in social evolution. Even in dreadfully wonderful stories like Abraham under the Terebinth Trees at Mamre, with God acceding to his every request for mercy to the five cities He was about to nuke. As they evolved, God got better. He completely spared Nineveh. Funny that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
A good false dichotomy. Were the Torah writers and editors especially inspired to attribute millions of deaths to God the Killer? I see that they WERE especially inspired despite that, transcendently despite where they were in social evolution. Even in dreadfully wonderful stories like Abraham under the Terebinth Trees at Mamre, with God acceding to his every request for mercy to the five cities He was about to nuke. As they evolved, God got better. He completely spared Nineveh. Funny that.
A good point which leads on to the question of what 'inspiration' is supposed by many to mean. It seems to me that many conservative traditionalists, (most don't like being labeled fundamentalists), seem to think that wherever an Old Testament author refers to incidents as having been attributable to the will and action of God Almighty, this makes the assertion an inspired 'fact', not just the human opinion of the author.
If it is merely an explanatory footnote to the recorded detail, added by the author, there is no absolute obligation to assume the human opinion was 'inspired' in the sense that the author actually knew the mind of God, and God's reasoning behind the attributed action. Other scripture actually tells us otherwise. Isa 55:8-9, 1 Cor. 2:16. The written assumptions made by OT authors attributing the deaths of many thousands to an angry and vengeful God may be uninspired personal human opinion, but the scripture record itself is still able to be legitimately declared to be 'inspired', in the sense that it now has a God ordained purpose. That purpose is almost certainly NOT to glorify a vengeful and violent God though. It is more likely to reveal a vengeful, violent, self deluding, God blaming, self excusing, humankind., still in the process of discovering the nature of God, rather than having actually found and identified it.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bliss.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Do you have any firm evidence for the presumption that the author was not John the apostle, who also wrote the 4th gospel?
Does it really matter? John was a common name, even in Asia Minor, and the seven churches there, that his apocalypse was addressed to, would have known which John had been exiled to Patmos recently, surely. We don't know who wrote The Epistle to the Hebrews, but does that mean it is not 'inspired'?
If we can't be sure the apostle John, the favorite disciple, wrote Revelation, why insist that it was that particular John?
As I said, textual analysis suggests otherwise.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Do you have any firm evidence for the presumption that the author was not John the apostle, who also wrote the 4th gospel?
Does it really matter? John was a common name, even in Asia Minor, and the seven churches there, that his apocalypse was addressed to, would have known which John had been exiled to Patmos recently, surely. We don't know who wrote The Epistle to the Hebrews, but does that mean it is not 'inspired'?
If we can't be sure the apostle John, the favorite disciple, wrote Revelation, why insist that it was that particular John?
As I said, textual analysis suggests otherwise.
So, no then?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Jamat once again it is not up to RdrEmCoE to make their case here: the burden of proof is on you to show it was John the apostle and not on everyone else to show it wasn't.
But that's not the important question.
The important question, which I've already asked too and which I don't think you've answered, is why does the authorship matter (cf Hebrews, which I also cited)?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Jamat once again it is not up to RdrEmCoE to make their case here: the burden of proof is on you to show it was John the apostle and not on everyone else to show it wasn't.
But that's not the important question.
The important question, which I've already asked too and which I don't think you've answered, is why does the authorship matter (cf Hebrews, which I also cited)?
It matters because who said it is critical in determining its authority.
Some sort of 2nd century John ain’t the same as the one who walked 3 years with the master.
Regarding your other question, the burden of proof is on the claimant not on the questioner of the claim.
That is why I dismiss the perpetual virginity and sinless state of Mary, Christ’s mother. No authoritative text supports it so if you claim it, it is yours to demonstrate.
Rdr.Cof E, glibly wrote that the Author of Revelation was in all probability not John the apostle. Does he have evidence? No, none to cite. He chooses to raise the question and the question devalues the scripture. Someone who reads that scholarly sounding twaddle might just believe it.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It matters because who said it is critical in determining its authority.
So Hebrews, Job, Ruth... in fact everything between Joshua and II Chronicles and some more... are not authoritative because their authorship is unknown?
quote:
Some sort of 2nd century John ain’t the same as the one who walked 3 years with the master.
What proof do you have that the John mentioned in Revelation is the Apostle?
quote:
Regarding your other question, the burden of proof is on the claimant not on the questioner of the claim.
My other question is not about proof. My other question is asking your opinion, and that's twice you've dodged it now.
Why do you believe specific authorship to be important? I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking you why you believe it's important, as is RdEmCoE.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Rdr.Cof E, glibly wrote that the Author of Revelation was in all probability not John the apostle. Does he have evidence? No, none to cite. He chooses to raise the question and the question devalues the scripture. Someone who reads that scholarly sounding twaddle might just believe it.
This is part of where we part company. You are saying that some questions must not be raised because they devalue Scripture and risk leading people astray.
By contrast, it is my contention that if Scripture is in any meaningful way inspired, and indeed if any of my beliefs are worthwhile, they and it ought to be able to withstand questioning. We are, after all, instructed to love God with all our minds.
If my beliefs rely partly on "la, la, la, I can't hear you", it doesn't give me much assurance that they are correct.
Besides, nobody has a monopoly on scholarly sounding twaddle.
You make a number of assertions about which you seem extremely certain (most recently the authorship of revelation, previously the meaning of 'almâ, for instance) and which are apparently cricitcal pillars of your theology. When challenged, you respond with what can equally be described as "scholarly sounding twaddle".
On issues like authorship, I'm instinctively, temperamentally quite close to where you're coming from. I instinctively believe in a literal Abraham, a single Isaiah, Revelation written by the Apostle John, and so on. But when I read the way you try to defend these positions in the face of intelligent, honest questions, and look at how my IVP stalwarts deal with issues like the meaning of 'almâ, I realise that the arguments being set forth are indeed twaddle.
Championing a "high value of Scripture" is great. But trying to use twaddle to do it really doesn't recommend your view of what assigning it a high value means.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus:So Hebrews, Job, Ruth... in fact everything between Joshua and II Chronicles and some more... are not authoritative because their authorship is unknown?
No, they are accepted as part of the OT canon by the Jewish Rabbis etc. They are part of the Septuagint are they not? Not sure how the ancient Jews sorted their canon. I am told that one of the Ptolemaic kings locked up 70 rabbis and made them translate their scriptures into Greek. It is not about authorship with them rather it is about what the likes of Paul would have accepted as scripture and those books, most of them are endorsed by NT writers by quotation or reference.
I am NOT an expert on the canon and you may know more than me. I accept the Bible as received.
I cannot see I am dodging anything OR obligated to justify anything either. It is not I who made claims that the apostle John probably did NOT write Revelation. The link I posted makes a fair case for his authorship. I merely asked if there was evidence of a contrary view. obviously not.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No, they are accepted as part of the OT canon by the Jewish Rabbis etc.
Um, Hebrews?
And besides, you have moved the goalposts. The importance is "accepted as part of the canon" now, is it, not authorship? If so, why does it matter how many people contributed to, say, Isaiah?
quote:
They are part of the Septuagint are they not? Not sure how the ancient Jews sorted their canon.
Indeed, as I understand it at least some versions of the LXX include the Deuterocanonicals. Why do you leave them out?
quote:
It is not about authorship with them rather it is about what the likes of Paul would have accepted as scripture and those books, most of them are endorsed by NT writers by quotation or reference.
Right. So why is the authorship of Revelation such a big deal?
quote:
I accept the Bible as received.
From whom? This is not as self-evident as you are making out.
quote:
The link I posted makes a fair case for his authorship. I merely asked if there was evidence of a contrary view. obviously not.
I had to look no further than Wikipedia. I don't pretend to be in a position to evaluate these claims, but to claim that they "obviously don't exist" appears to me to be a prime example of "la, la, la, I can't hear you".
[ 11. January 2018, 07:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
E.
Do you have any response to my 4th and last paras here?
We have twin tracks on this thread, the two 'extremes' of Jamat and me. I don't regard my position as extreme of course. Neither would Jamat his I'm sure.
What intrigues me is that you seem to be paralleling my journey in coming from extreme (but non-damnationist) fundamentalism (not that you were ever there) via sovereign evangelicalism, neo-orthodoxy to postmodern existential theology. As soon as you examine why you have conservative, traditional beliefs you find that there is no rational basis for them. No intellectually honest basis.
You explicitly want to believe that an historical Abraham from the C19th BCE existed as described by an implicitly historical Moses in the C15th BCE. You exclude the Torah from unknown authorship? Or is it in your 'some more...'?
I do too. An Abraham who was prepared to murder his son under God's command? A God who stopped by to bargain for the lives of thousands of people?
I'm still truly surprised that you still instinctively believe in a single Isaiah. I don't. I can't. But for at least 40 years I did admittedly. John the Apostle on Patmos is still reasonable to me after all. But Isaiah son of Amoz prophesying Cyrus centuries ahead by name?
Believe it or not I just pause there. Could the God we know ONLY in Jesus have done that? Not if it involved crafting Cyrus' nature or decisions regardless to be a good bad guy. No.
And when you look for faithful scholarship, you find people who distort the latter with the former.
Not so long ago I was against female ordination, gay marriage, you name it. I absorbed liberalism despite the apparent lack of scriptural warrant and despite scriptural chauvinism and homophobia on the basis of the trajectory of revelation in culture. Despite conservatives apparently having a point. They must have surely? They build such vast traditional structures on them. But whenever I investigate what they actually say, there's NOTHING there. They have no point that survives scrutiny. As you find?
And so it goes with inspiration, scripture, prophecy, sovereignty, eschatology.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm not sure I can do your questions justice, Martin, but here goes for now: quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Do you have any response to my 4th and last paras here?
Not really. I don't really understand them. quote:
As soon as you examine why you have conservative, traditional beliefs you find that there is no rational basis for them. No intellectually honest basis.
The one I keep coming back to, which I think we share, is a belief in the resurrection of Christ, and I agree with you, in my own way, that everything flows forwards and backwards from the Christ Event.
The thing is, there's more going on here for all of us than pure rationality or intellect, isn't there? Rationality and intellect can only get you so far. We need the Spirit as well(*)
This, posted by TomOfTarsus back in 2012, resonates with me: quote:
Maybe I’ll die and that’s it. I’ll admit that as a purely scientific possibility. But I really doubt it. Heaven beats in my chest and runs through my veins, I can already hear the music, I can almost feel the warm embrace of my Lord, the peeling laughter of His final triumph, when He has made me to be in His image. From this peak I can see the far more glorious peak in the distance. I don’t like the valley I must cross to get there, and I may loose sight of that peak as I descend into the valley’s darkened depths, but I have the Psalmist’s comfort and my Lord’s reassurance.
quote:
You explicitly want to believe that an historical Abraham from the C19th BCE existed
I didn't say I "wanted" to believe it, I said that's what I instinctively believe. Abraham jumps out at me compared to Gen 1-11 as inhabiting a world I can relate to. quote:
You exclude the Torah from unknown authorship?
No, I never said that.
I don't really have the time or inclination to dig into issues of authorship because unlike Jamat, the actual authorship doesn't really bother me. Legitimacy is what is important to me. On that score, I suppose if I think about it I look increasingly to "big-T" Tradition on issues such as the canon. But also (broadly) on issues of interpretation.
quote:
I do too. An Abraham who was prepared to murder his son under God's command? A God who stopped by to bargain for the lives of thousands of people?
On that kind of thing I find myself much in agreement with ReDrCoE; but that's not incompatible with the existence of a historical figure, but again, I'm not really bothered. There's a seminar on here next Saturday put on by a Catholic theologian on the OT God of Violence. 15 euros admission! Perhaps I should go.
quote:
Despite conservatives apparently having a point. They must have surely? They build such vast traditional structures on them. But whenever I investigate what they actually say, there's NOTHING there. They have no point that survives scrutiny. As you find?
And so it goes with inspiration, scripture, prophecy, sovereignty, eschatology.
What I'm increasingly convinced of is that religious institutions have abused the faith to wield power in abusive ways. I'm nervous that this might have been the case right from the start and that the whole thing is and has never been anything more than a scam. Against that I have TomOfTarsus.
I'm also keen to avoid lurching from one fundamentalism to another as my pastor friend did. Agenda-driven intellectual dishonesty is not the monopoly of either side and harder to spot among the new thought community you've just enthusiastically embraced than the one that's just thrown you out.
What is more, while I believe very much in the imperative need to reinterpret Scripture for our times, illumined by the Spirit, as (delightfully recursively) explained to us by Scripture(*), I'm concerned that extreme post-modernism might break the continuous heritage handed down by Tradition for all time, like Humpty Dumpty. If you want to riff on a jazz standard, you still need the basic chords, otherwise you just have noise.
It wasn't so long ago we thought we had reached the End of History. I think Scripture shows us a linear arc and that a sovereign (in some sense of the word) God is both implied and required by that. Interpretations of history are not neutral as Marxism shows.
If I decide only "my" "story" has value then I'm left looking at a worldview shared by Donald Trump and his spin doctors, in which "controlling the narrative" is more important than the facts. I'm not sure I want to take my faith there.
That will have to do for now.
==
(*) as discussed here, for the nth time of referencing.
(**) you can also look (in English!) about what I said about the interpretation of Scripture with a precedent in Scripture here, hopefully, although there seems to be a server problem right now with my site.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thank you very much Eutychus.
Sorry for the incomprehensibility.
I'll respond further and try and make it clear later. I have a sense of us going past each other, along with everything else more positive or at least understood. Due to my failure to communicate.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eeeee E. We've been doing this for bluddy YEARS now.
I don't think we're talking past each other as I thought. We're in complex orbits round the same Body. And I'm less precise than you in my attribution of things to you, on Torah authorship and Abraham for example. I gotta watch that. And you do my questions justice.
Writing for comprehensibility: Concepts like the sovereignty of God, prophecy and eschatology are not of this world. They are metaphors. Yearnings. They aren't true in this world, they'll never be realised in this world, except through us. Shadows on the cave wall at best, even if we achieve egalitarianism of outcome in a thousand years. They will be realised in the next, sublimed, transcendent world.
Conservative, traditional beliefs: Aye, we share the ones with warrant. The ones centred on the Incarnation-Resurrection. All else is opinion.
I remember that beautiful post of Tom's. Thanks for the reminder. Aye we need the Spirit. We have Him. Or rather He has us. The Spirit of a sound mind. The Spirit of rationality, of intellect. Of logos. And ethos and pathos yes, in equal measure. 100% of each.
Intellect and Spirit. I have a paucity of either. On a good day. But I would say that postmodernism is of the Spirit. It helps. Me. But is a threat to you? It used to threaten me big time. There is nothing to fear, even though I'm afraid, because I can't lose, we can't lose Jesus. He won't let go. I've lost everything else, which is scary, but not Him. I can't believe in an afterlife, can't see how that can work at all, apart from purgatorially, but there has to be one, because of Him.
Legitimacy: Your orbit includes your increasingly looking to "big-T" Tradition on issues such as the canon and broadly on interpretation. Mine doesn't. I don't exclude them, but they're subject to postmodern overview. And my paradoxical focus on the incarnation. The canon can be as wide - and as attenuated from that - as it likes.
€15! There again I've paid much more for Rob Bell. And I've corrected his maths. In the absence of historical evidence for the patriarchs, as with Job and Jonah, the silver lining of divine transcendence in the story is the thing.
Scam nerves: Don't worry about the corruption of the Church, of us. Of course we're corrupt. Of course we're hollow. Evil. It doesn't matter. Jesus still loves us, His bride.
Lurching: I think it's easier to be educated out of religion from fundamentalism with no redeeming features: Once one just deconstructs damnationism there's nothing left. I don't see that happening to you. We've seen it happen here some years ago have we not, to Andreas wasn't it? Not that he was damnationist. Just manically religious. You cling to that which is good in Big-T whilst still kicking the tyres I perceive.
I've certainly kicked the tyres of Rob Bell and Brian McLaren in particular. Vigorously. I'm allergic to liberal agenda projection in to the text. Steve Chalke won me round DESPITE my perception of that recently with regard to NT homophobia. If you think I'm deceiving myself and perverting my severely constrained intellect in the name of an arc that isn't in God's intent, you MUST say. That's why I'm on the Ship. To be challenged. The Ship's liberalism helped my long, hard deconstruction and I trust its broad and deep intellect from orthodox, creedal scientists, philosophers, theologians, historians to give my tyres a good kicking.
No community has actively driven me out, I have withdrawn, although I remain involved where I can and will be able to do more soon. I MISS services. I love the Eucharist.
Humpty Dumpty: This needs its own thread. In many ways. What do you mean by extreme post-modernism? By Tradition? Nothing can scare the be Jesus out of me!
I remember Francis Fukuyama's hubris of '89. And yep, I nodded. Islam subsequently said Foxtrot Oscar to that. So does China, Russia, almost everywhere really, bar the educated of W. Europe and its colonies.
My story value: I'm all for setting the narrative free, not controlling it. Letting the facts speak for themselves.
Aye, that'll do!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks. I understood about 45% of that, and need to think about this Sunday now, but I think this nugget might be sig-worthy:
quote:
Nothing can scare the be Jesus out of me!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bugger. I suspect that's a vast improvement.
OK, my attempt to respond to you admittedly all too laterally, paragraph by paragraph with a key word, without quoting every bloody thing is too much. Sorry. I'll quote in future and be as direct as I can.
Talking of which, if there's one single point it's this: it's ALL agendaed metaphor. Apart from the reportage. All? The thousands of years of evolving culture rolled up in scrolls. And all of the other Tradition since.
If that's not explicit enough, within the Tradition we make up, we make God's sovereignty up. It will, can only be experienced in the resurrection, in transcendence.
Just as there is no foretelling prophecy to any significant degree, with any intensity of signal above noise, there is no inspiration, no Tradition, no sovereignty. There is nothing that stands up to critical analysis which necessarily includes extreme post-modernism.
How does that diminish Christ?
Now there's a thread.
God luck for tomorrow.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God luck for tomorrow.
I can never make out whether these are typos or intentional.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
HAH! Serendipity: a happy accident.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The trouble with looking to Big-T for anything is that everything about it is tainted with patriarchy, sexism, homophobia which all bespeak conservative literalism which colours everything; including inspiration, intent, the mind, will and purposes of God, 'natural' law, interpretation, epistemology.
[ 14. January 2018, 11:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I was looking to it more in terms of preserving and passing on the text and its authority, rather than on interpretive content.
Liberals are always berating conservative evangelicals for not recognising the role of the Church in delineating the canon. It seems a bit expedient to then turn round and dismiss the role of the Church altogether. What has come down to us has come down to us via the Church.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry! Absolutely.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
How does that diminish Christ?
By redefining him and rewriting history..which is a luxury everyone would like but cannot afford.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Redefining him in what sense?
I believe that Christ is Very God of Very God, One in essence with the Father and with the Holy Spirit.
Who is 'redefining Christ' on this thread?
As for rewriting history, who is doing that here also?
The scriptures aren't history in the modern sense.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
How does that diminish Christ?
By redefining him and rewriting history..which is a luxury everyone would like but cannot afford.
Redefining Him how? As what? Rewriting what history? How?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And talking of rewriting history, what's the story documented in the rocks?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The scriptures aren't history in the modern sense.
And reinterpreting them isn't rewriting them, unless one fondly thinks one doesn't have an interpretation, but somehow has magic access to the True Meaning -- the typical conevo fault ("everyone else has an interpretation; I have the real meaning").
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Martin60: as there is no foretelling prophecy to any significant degree, with any intensity of signal above noise, there is no inspiration, no Tradition, no sovereignty. There is nothing that stands up to critical analysis which necessarily includes extreme post-modernism.
How does that diminish Christ?
Maybe, by making him a fictional character equivalent to a pseudo-scholarly epithet or maybe the protagonist of a piece of historical fiction.
Is there a real resurrection in there? Nope didn’t think so, so you have a cosmic Christ like Teillard de Chardin. That is rewriting the Christ of the gospels.
And..
The gospels are history. If they are not we may as well be making it up as we go along like you seem to be doing.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think Martin's answer to this is along the lines of
a) we have mansucripts for the Gospels that are much closer in time to the events they claim to record than for the OT so we can be surer of their reliability
b) the type of supernatural intervention seen in the NT is not of the same order as that seen (on a "plain reading") in the OT in that it is neither genocidally violent nor of such a nature (thinking here specifically of predictive prophecy) as to imply a wholly deterministic world.
I think the central problem is that there is both continuity and hiatus between the OT and the NT. If there wasn't hiatus, we'd still all be Jews or converts to Judaism. If there wasn't continuity, we wouldn't believe in the one God, and we'd be hard put to understand the background to the Gospels or the theology of the epistles. The church has struggled with this paradox since the council of Jerusalem.
The question is how this paradox is to be resolved.
Dispensationalism in particular, along with various other types of millenialism and adventism, seeks to resolve it by (as it has it), "rightly dividing the word of truth" to constitute multiple categories of people, types of salvation, and so on, and imposing (as I see it) unnatural breaks in the text to consign various parts to various dispensations as the system requires.
The alternative is to allow the Scriptures, and more particularly the OT, to be reinterpreted as society and our understanding of God changes.
Of course there are risks to this approach, and I share some of your concerns, but I prefer it to the dispensational approach because I think shows more respect (not less) for the integrity of the texts, and because of the precedents:
a) reinterpretation (or at least reapplication) in the light of social change is recorded by the Bible itself as early as the Pentateuch (Numbers 25)
b) the NT writers reapply the LXX for their own ends in line with the Jewish tradition of midrash
c) so did Jesus ("but I say unto you...")
d) the Council of Jerusalem pragmatically reinterpreted and re-applied OT law as their understanding of God's will evolved and as the nascent Church dealt with a changing demographic
e) Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 states the need for Scripture to be understood with the help of the Spirit, failing which it is a "letter which kills": this to my mind suggests that no understanding of inspiration is properly complete if it does not extend to include interpretation
f) this tradition has continued throughout history, during which the Church has reinterpreted Scripture in ways almost universally approved today (eg on the divine right of kings, slavery), so this is nothing new
g) reinterpretation is the only alternative to a kind of fundamentalism that eventually leads either to social withdrawal and irrelevance (eg the Amish) or to violent extremism.
[ 15. January 2018, 05:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Are the only two possibilities Dispensationalism and cultural relativism?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I don't think I'd agree that what I've outlined is cultural relativism because it centres on the Gospel and on its calling to be counter-cultural...
Of course there may be other alternatives, but I can't nail down any rationales other than the two I've summarised above; can you?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't know what you mean by "rationales." You say either we accept Dispensationalism, or allow the faith to be reinterpreted at intervals.
Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy is dispensationalist, but neither require ongoing reinterpretation if I understand what you mean by that.
You seem to have created a false dichotomy when there are many other possibilities. Heck, there are even static Protestant interpretive frameworks that are not dispensationalist.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Let me put it another way; I think all interpretive frameworks struggle with how to reconcile the God of the OT and the God of the NT, and that Jamat and Martin are polar opposites in how that may be achieved.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What puzzles me is how Jamat appears to believe that only by adherence to a rigid and somewhat brittle fundagelical approach we can avoid drifting off into some kind of error or other.
Of course, Big T Tradition or Big C Church systems believe this to be the case if we don't adhere to those - although these are broader and more expansive places that the narrow, sectarian enclaves that fundagelicalism creates.
Be that as it may, I can only speak for myself and I don't see how it is at all incompatible to hold to a traditional creedal understanding of the Person and work of Christ and of the Holy and Undivided Trinity and yet not go in for the somewhat rigid demands of a system like Jamat's.
Jamat seems puzzled by this.
To which I'd say, 'Try it, give it a go. Come on in, the water's lovely and after a while you won't need the inflatable water-wings provided for you by Schofield, Anderson and others who saw some people drowning in a pool of 19th century Liberalism and Modernism and started doing out life-jackets rather than teaching people how to swim ...'
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Martin60: as there is no foretelling prophecy to any significant degree, with any intensity of signal above noise, there is no inspiration, no Tradition, no sovereignty. There is nothing that stands up to critical analysis which necessarily includes extreme post-modernism.
How does that diminish Christ?
Maybe, by making him a fictional character equivalent to a pseudo-scholarly epithet or maybe the protagonist of a piece of historical fiction.
Is there a real resurrection in there? Nope didn’t think so, so you have a cosmic Christ like Teillard de Chardin. That is rewriting the Christ of the gospels.
And..
The gospels are history. If they are not we may as well be making it up as we go along like you seem to be doing.
How does there being no foretelling prophecy to any significant degree, with any intensity of signal above noise, no inspiration, no Tradition, no sovereignty, nothing that stands up to critical analysis which necessarily includes extreme post-modernism make Jesus a fictional character equivalent to a “pseudo-scholarly epithet” or maybe the protagonist of a piece of historical fiction?
Your, if any, answer will be as irrational.
How does there being no foretelling prophecy to any significant degree, with any intensity of signal above noise, no inspiration, no Tradition, no sovereignty, nothing that stands up to critical analysis which necessarily includes extreme post-modernism obviate the Resurrection?
Is there a real resurrection in there? How can you think not?
How does there being no foretelling prophecy to any significant degree, with any intensity of signal above noise, no inspiration, no Tradition, no sovereignty, nothing that stands up to critical analysis which necessarily includes extreme post-modernism make a “cosmic Christ like Teillard de Chardin [sic]”.
Your, if any, answer will be as irrational.
How does there being no foretelling prophecy to any significant degree, with any intensity of signal above noise, no inspiration, no Tradition, no sovereignty, nothing that stands up to critical analysis which necessarily includes extreme post-modernism rewrite the Christ of the gospels.
Your, if any, answer will be as irrational.
And the gospels are not history. They are not historical documents. So what?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Was my restatement of your position here about right, Martin?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17943 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
