Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 7:22 PM
336 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (2 members, 334 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,103 Year: 28,709/21,208 Month: 775/1,847 Week: 150/475 Day: 43/17 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Because The Bible Tells Me So
Yohuchanan562
Junior Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 2
From: Spring City, TN, 37381, USA
Joined: 03-01-2007


Message 16 of 111 (387827)
03-02-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
03-02-2007 7:44 AM


Re: Shalom All
Shalom Mutt,
Yes, I am with the Sacred Name movement, and here's a better translation to Tehillim (Psalms) 14:2-3
Psa 14:2 יהוה looked down from the heavens on the sons of mankind, To see if there is a wise one, seeking יהוה.
Psa 14:3 They have all turned aside, They have together become filthy; No one is doing good, not even one.

יהוה is the Tetragrammaton which is mentioned almost 7,000 times in the OT and is pronounced YAHUAH, and is Spelled right to left YOD-HEH-VAV-HEH. It's the name that Abraham knew Him by. Exo 3:14 And Elohim said to Mosheh, “I am that which I am.”1 And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” Footnote: 1The Hebrew text reads: ’eyeh ’asher ’eyeh, the word ’eyeh being derived from hayah which means to be, to exist, but the Aramaic text here in v. 14 reads: ayah ashar ayah. This is not His Name, but it is an explanation that leads up to the revelation of His Name in v. 15, namely: יהוה. These things you don't learn in seminary, they must be revealed to you by the Ruach Ha Kodesh,(Set- Apart Spirit)You may want to read this Article, http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/name.html

Shalom & Ahava,
John E562

Edited by Yohuchanan562, : To add information


John Jeffrey Emerson
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 03-02-2007 7:44 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 03-03-2007 12:23 AM Yohuchanan562 has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 111 (387832)
03-03-2007 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Yohuchanan562
03-02-2007 10:34 PM


atheism
EvC שלום, ברוך הבא על

this is basically off-topic, but i'd love to see you and buzsaw (who will not stop using the name "jehovah" no matter what i do) duke it out.

Psa 14:2 יהוה looked down from the heavens on the sons of mankind, To see if there is a wise one, seeking יהוה.

that last instance of ha-shem isn't in the hebrew, it says:

quote:
דֹּרֵשׁ, אֶת-אֱלֹהִים...

...needing god(s)


i'd probably still opt for the singular (no way to tell from the grammar), but the implication is that people are atheists. not just no yahueh, but no gods at all. afterall, this is the psalm that opens:

quote:
אָמַר נָבָל בְּלִבּוֹ, אֵין אֱלֹהִים

the scoundrel says in his heart, "there is no god."



אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Yohuchanan562, posted 03-02-2007 10:34 PM Yohuchanan562 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 18 of 111 (388468)
03-06-2007 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
03-02-2007 11:23 AM


Innerrant or Inane?
Ringo writes:

It is not "good philosophy" to take dictation from some external entity (which might not even exist) or to accept the "wisdom" of people who have a vested interest in our obedience. Philosophy (love of knowledge) ought to be about doing our own thinking.

The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy is a muddled attempt by the Inerrant fundamentalists to explain why they prefer fundamentalism over critical thinking and why they ascribe to theology over philosophy.

My intent within this topic was to examine scripture from a theological perspective more than from a philosophical perspective. Im sorry if I made this unclear at first.

The scripture that is usually used to reaffirm this doctrine is

NIV writes:

2Timothy 3:16-All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Of course, the idea of scripture interpreting scripture is labeled as circular reasoning by logicians. I suppose it all depends on whether critical thinking trumps fundamentalist inerrancy or not in the mind of the layman.


Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Our is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”
--General Omar Bradley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 03-02-2007 11:23 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 03-06-2007 11:57 AM Phat has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 19 of 111 (388469)
03-06-2007 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
03-01-2007 6:00 PM


You wicked, wicked monkey!
Ringo writes:

How can we possibly know what is foolishness to God? The wisdom of the world is all we have.

Hence this topic. We can never know...we can but believe...or not.

The Bible would say:

NIV writes:

Rom 1:18-20--The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Of course, some would say that this is merely more circular reasoning!

Apparently, suppression of the truth is the reason for the wickedness.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 03-01-2007 6:00 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 AM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29763
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 20 of 111 (388520)
03-06-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
03-06-2007 7:03 AM


Re: You wicked, wicked monkey!
You need to read ALL of the passage.

You quoted a short bit from Romans 1, but failed to highlight the explanation of what Paul was saying.

NIV writes:

Rom 1:18-20--The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Note the difference in what you highlighted and what I highlighted.

Paul is not speaking out against the wisdom of the world, rather he is pointing directly to that as all that is possible to know.

Paul is not addressing prophecy or scripture or revelation as the source of knowledge, but rather what we learn from the world around us, what has been made.

The only way to knowledge is through understanding of the world and universe we live in.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 03-06-2007 7:03 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Phat, posted 12-05-2017 5:27 PM jar has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 21 of 111 (388528)
03-06-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
03-02-2007 7:34 AM


Re: Topic Synopsis
I agree. I am not saying that the Bible is Inerrant.

To be honest, I no longer know what it means to say whether the Bible is inerrant. I always understood the "inerrancy of the scriptures" to mean that it is free from textual error. I don't believe that it is free from error. However, if it means that the Bible is the true and inspired Word of God, then I am an inerrantist.

Anyone know, definitively, what biblical inerrancy actually means?

Ringo writes:

How can we possibly know what is foolishness to God? The wisdom of the world is all we have.

Phat writes:

Good point, Ringo. I have always maintained that some folks believe that the source of all human knowledge is human derived while others of us believe that the source of wisdom is God-derived...but you are correct in pointing out that we could never prove it since it is evident that we are human!

This is why at some point you either have to believe that the Bible is true or it is not. None of us can ride the fence on this matter. The Bible was designed to be our guide in a world full of worldliness. If you can't trust that then what exactly sanctifies any Christian who does not believe its importance?

Its like the nihilist position, which seems safe by hiding in obscurity. Nihilists believe that there is no justification for any knowledge claims. They believe that nothing can truly be known with any sort of veracity. It should not take long, however, to see the flaw in their basic premise. How can the Nihilist even purport such a claim if he hasn’t the ability to "know" that knowledge is unattainable? If nothing can be verified then they should not offer any solutions, being that, it means nothing. What I mean to say is, if knowledge is unattainable altogether, then what gives him the reason to question any one else's truth?

Similarly, the one who holds fast to the solipsist argument believes that the "self" is the only verifiable thing anyone could know. Ironically, these are often the same people who will argue with you for hours about reality, and what’s more, morality. If they are only able to acquaint themselves with reality strictly through themselves, then what is their justification for criticizing another's reality? If they do not know if there is even knowledge apart from themselves, then what are they arguing about?

It's this kind of illogic that unwittingly pits the philosopher against his own beliefs. Is it not absurd and contradictory that Nihilists know that knowledge is impossible? I think we can safely say, yes.

Therefore, what other option do you, Phat, as a Christian, have regarding the Bible? Obviously you either believe in its knowledge claims or you don't.

Phat writes:

My stance in this thread is that while the book is not strictly innerrant, it is a source of wisdom and philosophy for many people. Given that this is so, I want to argue the position of why certain Biblically quote mined catch-phrases are used.

You are using the term "quote-mined" incorrectly. Quote mining is when you use quotes nefariously-- meaning, it either has nothing to do with the conversation, or it is being misrepresented, or the quote is inaccurate.

Phat writes:

Are these pearls of wisdom...uttered by Jesus Christ and by supposedly spiritually enlightened Biblical authors such as David (Psalms) Solomon (Proverbs) and Saul aka Paul (Many New Testament Books) relevant as a philosophy and as a world view in modern life?

The wisdom came from somewhere. If not Jesus, then another source. Either way most people seem to agree that the message is just fine. The problem they have is people who don't practice what they preach.

Taz writes:

What good is all this biblical moral high ground bullshit if the followers of this biblical moral high ground bullshit keep trying to oppress other people with their biblical moral high ground bullshit?

Probably because no one is using to oppress, but to free the captives. The easy position for an atheist is that you can't pin them down to anything. And for the most part, whether they are conscious of it or not, they prefer to live life this way. A Christian has clear guidelines for life that easily identifiable. Its easy for the atheist to say moralize and judge the Christian because they know exactly what they believe. Should the Christian do or say anything counter to the biblical claim, they feel obligated to point it out.

But really, atheists have their own set of morals. They simply don't usually relay that. Or if they do, there is always contained in the subtext a perpetual escape clause through their relativistic standards. How convenient. However......

The human condition is the prevailing disposition of man between joy and suffering. And for the sake of a really good argument, perhaps there is no one more acquainted with such a disposition than the carnal Christian who understands the invisible battle between good and evil, and yet lives a duplicitous life anyway. Followed not far behind him is the Christian who wants to befriend the world and Christ. He has one foot in the world, and one foot in the Church, because he wants the best of both worlds. His humility could be perceived as false, because self-deprecation is not really about humility, its about fishing for compliments. It ends up not being about God at all, but about themselves.

Doddy writes:

Anyway, you said I can have other scriptures, so I'd like to discuss the inerrancy of these two scriptures:

quote:
2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly..."

2 Thessalonians 3:14-15
"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."


How does one 'admonish as a brother', without keeping company and with withdrawing?

It means don't hang out with him like he's your buddy, because another scripture says that bad company corrupts good character. Consider this analogy: We have a man in a boat on a lake. The lake represents the world and its ways, the man is the believer, and the boat is the Spirit of God. What Paul is essentially saying is that in order to tell people about God, one needs to be out on the lake. There is no two ways about it. However, what good will it do for the man to be out on the lake without the boat? Without the boat (Spirit of God/Word of God), he will drown in the lake and no one will be saved. That's what it means.

Phat quotes John 17:14-15:

I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.

That's it...

Phat writes:

Perhaps we are showing how a staunch adherence to Fundamentalist Biblical philosophy promotes a sense of privilege and exclusivity in the church community. My question would then become: Well what do you expect us to do? Go around and let it all hang out...cussing and drinking and laughing at dirty jokes?

Exactly Phat. We all know condescending, legalistic Christians who are more focused on the letter of the Law rather than understanding the Spirit behind the Law. However, some Christians are falsely accused of doing this. How then can someone be a friend to the world, without befriending the world? We need to bring your boat and we need to keep our priorities in check with unwaivering support without coming off as a moralizing prig.

As a Christian, I know how tough that subtle dichotomy can be. We should be friendly and compassionate to all without neglecting to give it to them straight even at the risk of them supposing you aren't being compassionate. The reality is that for many people, simply by being a Christian immediately brings up the defensive barrier. And they will only not heap insults on you until you conform to their ways and their rationale.

Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quotes


"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 03-02-2007 7:34 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 2:01 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 5:11 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 22 of 111 (388535)
03-06-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
03-06-2007 6:52 AM


Re: Innerrant or Inane?
Phat writes:

My intent within this topic was to examine scripture from a theological perspective more than from a philosophical perspective.

You also haven't made clear what the difference is between the "theological perspective" and the "philosophical perspective". :)

Of course, the idea of scripture interpreting scripture is labeled as circular reasoning by logicians.

Not necessarily.

What is "scripture"? The Bible™ didn't exist when Paul wrote to Timothy, so that can't be what he meant by "scripture". "Scripture" means anything that is written (and I think we can extrapolate that to things that were written after Paul's time too).

So, according to Paul, The Origin of Species is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

Limiting one's resources to (a few translations of) The Bible™ isn't "circular reasoning".
It isn't reasoning at all.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 03-06-2007 6:52 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 03-08-2007 5:57 AM ringo has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3566 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 23 of 111 (388567)
03-06-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 11:34 AM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Ok, nemesis, here goes my little opinion on the difficulty surrounding inerrancy.

nemesis writes:

To be honest, I no longer know what it means to say whether the Bible is inerrant. I always understood the "inerrancy of the scriptures" to mean that it is free from textual error. I don't believe that it is free from error. However, if it means that the Bible is the true and inspired Word of God, then I am an inerrantist.

Inerrancy undoubtedly has to do with textual accuracy, but I do not believe that this means every word, or as they say, every jot and tittle, is perfectly preserved, BUT that all due care has been observed in preserving the authors' intentions and meanings, and thus, the texts which we use can be 'trusted' to the ultimate extent.

As you can see below, the 'human element' is noted, which involves discrepency in language and copying, presumably.

The big issue is translation, IMO. The church absolutely holds to the entire Bible as inerrant, not, as I would have thought, only those aspects pertaining to faith and morals. Yes, even the science! But therein is the gaping gigantic loophole...how literally do we interpret the parts having to do with science? The RCC, while holding to the doctrine of inerrancy, ALSO teaches evolution in its schools. So, how it can it hold to this hypocritic position? Not so much literalism, I think. Inerrancy and literalism have been linked up as synonomous over time, but very few of us are pure literalists. To be a pure literalist, you would for example, take the parables at face value alone, as 'real' events and nothing more. There are sects like this, but not common. We then have to question whether we will take Genesis, for example, at face value, if it contradicts what we know about science.

If you read the link, you see; genre, mode, poetic liberty, etc. Much of what we call 'science' in the Bible can fall into the category of some various genre, like myth, perhaps, or, the telling of a story through allegory, poetry, and so on.

There are also other parts, even possibly including Genesis, which, when not interpreted so literally, do not directly contradict scientific discovery.

I am not sure that this covers all that is thought to be scientific in the Bible, or if all stories will fit into a 'loop-hole' which allows one to have their inerrant view and eat it too.

Wiki writes:

The Roman Catholic position on the Bible is further clarified in Dei Verbum, one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, n. 11 & 12) This document states the Catholic belief that all scripture is sacred and reliable because the biblical authors were inspired by God. However, the human dimension of the Bible is also acknowledged as well as the importance of proper interpretation. Careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. Genre, modes of expression, historical circumstances, poetic liberty, and church tradition are all factors that must be considered by Catholics when examining scripture. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the authority to declare correct interpretation rests ultimately with the church through its magisterium

When all is said and done, if it comes down to belief in the Bible or doubt of it, it IS the matters of faith and morals which save, (not the history or the science) and these are confirmed in their usefullness by daily life.

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 11:34 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 03-06-2007 3:56 PM anastasia has not yet responded
 Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 4:10 PM anastasia has responded
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 7:49 PM anastasia has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 24 of 111 (388592)
03-06-2007 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by anastasia
03-06-2007 2:01 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Ringo writes:

You also haven't made clear what the difference is between the "theological perspective" and the "philosophical perspective".

Without looking up the definitions again, I can tell you what the terms mean to me.

Theology is the study of religious beliefs. Philosophy is the study of wisdom.
Anastasia quotes Wiki regarding the Dei Verbum document:

quote:
This document states the Catholic belief that all scripture is sacred and reliable because the biblical authors were inspired by God.

IMB, theology assumes God a-priori. Philosophy assumes nothing, except perhaps that humans own their beliefs based on logic. Theology allows no such freedom.

The roots of this argument between the two extremes of human wisdom a-priori or Gods wisdom a-priori come to a head in Euthyphro's Dilemma which is explained by Christian apologist Greg Koukl. Read the article in the link for an explanation of his reasoning.

Here is an excerpt of a lesson in a theology class that is philosophical as well:

Philosophical Theology: Christology
Dr. Garry DeWeese
Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2001

1. The incoherence
1.1 The central Christian affirmation is that Jesus is God.
1.1.1 This is an identity statement, not a predication. Somehow Jesus is
numerically identical to God.
1.1.2 How do we understand this identity statement?
1.2 The second issue is the cosmological one.
1.2.1 If God is the creator, what would it mean for God Himself to become part
of that universe?
1.2.2 Isn’t it demeaning for the Creator to become part of the creation?
1.2.3 If there’s a good reason, a reason in consonance with the Creator and
creation, then it can be explained.
1.2.4 How is it an ontological possibility for the Creator to enter the creation? If
all of creation is ontologically dependent on the Creator to sustain it, then how
could God leave His supernatural perspective and enter what He is sustaining
and still keep it in existence? Can He do this as a creature?
1.2.5 The attributes of the Creator is such that they must be greater than His
creation. So if the Creator assumes the nature of what is made, doesn’t that
necessitate the Creator give up some of His attributes and no longer be the being
He was?
1.3 The epistemological issue
1.3.1 If “Jesus is fully man” is true, then on what basis can we know the doctrine
of incarnation is true? On what basis can we predicate deity of Him? It may be
true, but how do we know it’s true because what we encounter is a man.
1.3.2 There’s a major role for natural theology to play in this.
1.4 The Trinitarian question--If the Trinity is true, how do we understand that if the
second person of the Trinity becomes man?
2. The nature of identity statements
2.1 The “is” of predication (x is y): x is a particular or a class, and y is a property or
a metaphor (qualities, properties, attributes).
2.1.1 That necktie is stylish. “Necktie” is a particular. “Stylish” is a property.
2.1.2 Neckties are torture. “Torture” is a metaphor.
2.1.3 Analogical predication. That book is good. The book isn’t good in the way
that God is good.
2.1.4 Logic shorthand “Fx” – F is the property, x is the particular.
2.2 The “is” of identity: x is numerically identical to y. x is a particular or class, and
y is a particular or class.
2.2.1 That animal is a dog.
2.2.2 The statement should be made so that if x is a particular y is a particular, or
if x is a class then y is a class, too.
2.2.3 Jesus is God could mean that God is a class and Jesus instantiates all of the
qualities of God. But that’s not what orthodoxy holds. This would imply that
the qualities of God could be multiply instantiated. Jesus is the only instance of
God that we can point to.
2.2.4 It’s better to say that both Jesus and God are particulars.
2.2.5 The green necktie is Ed’s. They are numerically identical.
2.3 Identity statements have certain properties.
2.3.1 Reflexivity: a=a. Something is identical to itself.
2.3.2 Symmetry: (a=b) then (b=a)
2.3.3 Transitivity: [(a]
2.3.4 Liebniz’ Law of the indiscernability of identicals: Necessarily, for any
objects a and b, if a is identical to b, then for any property P, a exemplifies P iff b
exemplifies P. (a)(b)[(a]
2.3.4.1 This creates a problem for the Trinity. If Jesus bears the property of
dying for our sins, then the property of dying for our sins is necessarily true
of anything Jesus is identical to, i.e., God.
2.3.4.2 This also creates a problem for the hypo static union. If Jesus as man is
identical to Jesus as God, then the attributes of man would be shared by God
and visa versa. How can limited knowledge be compatible with
omniscience? How can limited location be compatible with omnipresence?
2.3.5 Not Liebniz’ Law of the identity of indiscernibles: Necessarily, for any
objects a and b if for any property P, a exemplifies P iff b exemplifies P, then a is identical to b.
2.3.5.1 This is hotly debated whether it’s true or not.
2.3.5.2 If it’s true, it’s true for pure property is anything that doesn’t depend
on another for its identity. Relations are impure properties because there is another involved.
3. Christology
3.1 Christological distinctions
3.1.1 Christology from above and Christology from below
3.1.1.1 From above is Alexandrian Christology
3.1.1.1.1 Alexandria was a center for Platonism and philosophical study, so it tends to be more philosophical.
3.1.1.1.2 Starts from Jesus’ divinity and works to His humanity. It takes
for granted Jesus’ divinity and tries to work out His humanity. How can God Himself (taken as a presupposition) take on full humanity?

3.1.1.1.3 John’s Gospel is Christology from above.
3.1.1.2 From below is Antiochene
3.1.1.2.1 Antioch was a center for theology in the Greek world early on.
3.1.1.2.2 The epistemology is from Jesus’ humanity to His deity. How
can a human being be God incarnate?
3.1.1.2.3 This is the Christology of the synoptics.
3.1.1.3 You have to choose one of these starting points. Either starting point
can yield a fully orthodox Christology. This class is Christology from above,
which tends to be the approach of philosophical theology.

3.1.2 High vs. Low Christology
3.1.2.1 High Christology puts the emphasis on the divinity of Christ, but
doesn’t necessarily result in the exclusion of His humanity.
3.1.2.2 The danger is the docetic heresy, He appears to be a man but is not.
3.1.2.2.1 Jesus didn’t experience real temptation. If He couldn’t sin then
He couldn’t be tempted.
3.1.2.2.2 It seems undignified for God to live as a man.
3.1.2.3 Low Christology puts the emphasis on Jesus’ humanity to the virtual
exclusion of Jesus’ divinity.
3.1.2.3.1 Because of anti-supernatural presuppositions, this has been the recent trend in theology.
3.1.2.3.2 The danger is the Ebionite heresy, the beginning of the
adoptionistic idea. There is no ontological distinction between Jesus and every other human being.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 2:01 PM anastasia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 03-06-2007 5:41 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 111 (388598)
03-06-2007 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by anastasia
03-06-2007 2:01 PM


Literal, metaphorical, allegorical, figurative interpretations.
Annie, I once read (I don't recall where) that RCC doctrine considers that there are four levels for interpreting the bible: the literal; the metaphorical; the allegorical; and the figurative. I never quite understood this. In particular, is the doctrine that each passage can be interpreted in all four ways or that the various passages can be parsed into four groups? I have also never seen definitions that clearly distinguish the last three options (as far as biblical interpretation goes). Are you familiar with this, and if so can you enlighten me/us as to what it means and where it came from?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 2:01 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 4:31 PM AnswersInGenitals has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3566 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 26 of 111 (388604)
03-06-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals
03-06-2007 4:10 PM


Re: Literal, metaphorical, allegorical, figurative interpretations.
AIG writes:

Annie, I once read (I don't recall where) that RCC doctrine considers that there are four levels for interpreting the bible:

We have discussed this elsewhere on the forum before, and I can give you a brief run-down from memory so that the others may weigh in on the parts I miss.

The four methods of interpreting scripture originate with the Hebrews, and vary little from what you have mentioned.

After Christ, there was a great deal of controversary regarding how scripture should in future be interpreted. A main part of this came from the idea that now we had fulfillment of some of the OT prophecies, and that they should therefore be read as both literal stories of events and also prefigurations of future events.

Another idea was to give up the old testament entirely as being unnecessary for future reference, since Jewish Law did not need to be consulted to the extent that it once had been.

During the first few centuries, this question evolved through stages. There were 3 modes of scripture, 4, or 5 at times...and the names and meanings of these various modes were also argued. Augustine had his version, which was re-thought much later by Aquinas, who produced what you said are the 4 modes? and these do, as far as I can tell, consist of just what the Hebrews had.

I am pretty sure that they are interchangeable from passage to passage...some passages have only one context in which they can be read. Most seem to have two or more possible interpretations. I am not talking meanings, exactly, when I say interpretations, because there are always alternate meanings. If you think about the debates on the Trinity or baptism, it is obvious that there are many meanings even if you are reading only one sense of scripture. But the modes, or senses of whatever, are something akin to tenses at times, as in past, present, future, and even eternal.

To answer what you asked precisely; no. Not every passage can be interpreted all four ways, and they are also not parsed into groups. Some will have one, some two, 3 or 4 of the senses at once.

The famous example is the story of Temple of Jerusalem.

The temple is an actual literal building. It is the body of Christ Himself as He refers to it. It is the body of the entire church, and also the body of the faithful in the life to come. Past, present and future.

I will have to do some refreshing to give you any more particulars about which categories these fall into. Figurative is sometimes called anagogical, and maybe means 'pre-figurative'.

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 4:10 PM AnswersInGenitals has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 4:58 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 111 (388610)
03-06-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by anastasia
03-06-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Literal, metaphorical, allegorical, figurative interpretations.
Thank you. Still leaves a lot of confusion in my mind. Perhaps some examples as applied to specific passages would help if anyone cares to comment. Or perhaps this is dragging us off topic and should be picked up elsewhere. My interest in this goes well beyond the bible and to human discourse in general. For example, I've noticed that most threads in this forum tend to degenerate into name calling or "Why are you misrepresenting what I thought I was saying about what you were trying to assert...", etc. and I see that a lot of this stems from posters speaking from different contexts or levels of interpretations. Perhaps we need to refine our language with additional prefixes or suffixes to indicate mode as well as tense and person. Emoticons are a tiny step in that direction. (Another example: Do we really know if Bush meant 'weapons of mass distruction' literally, metaphorically, allegorically, or figuratively?)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 4:31 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 904 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 28 of 111 (388612)
03-06-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 11:34 AM


Re: Topic Synopsis
nemesis writes:

Probably because no one is using to oppress, but to free the captives.


I'm a bit puzzled on this. So, based on what you said, would you agree that it was the right thing for christians to have captured non-christians from africa and civilize or "free the captives" by enslaving them and teaching them the word of god? Was it a right thing for christians to have driven the natives of the Americas almost to extinction to "free the captives" from their non-christianness?

I'm sorry, I'm not a poetic person at all. I tend to read things directly rather than try to drown the other person in obscurity.

The easy position for an atheist is that you can't pin them down to anything. And for the most part, whether they are conscious of it or not, they prefer to live life this way.

Not necessarily. I'm an atheist and I haven't raped or murdered anyone.

A Christian has clear guidelines for life that easily identifiable.

But history have clearly shown us that these so-called clear guidlines also changes over time. It was the christian thing to burn witches at the stake. It was the christian thing to hang witches a salem. It was the christian thing to consider non-christian subhuman. It was the christian thing to bring about the white man's burden.

What you state as "clear guidelines" are exactly like any other form of moral guideline. Every moral guideline that's ever existed either changes over time or simply disappear. Was it a christian thing for the crusaders to kill every man, woman, and child who inhabited Jerusalem before the first crusade?

I simply don't know why you would claim, or imply, that there is such a thing as a christian guideline that is unchangeble.

Its easy for the atheist to say moralize and judge the Christian because they know exactly what they believe. Should the Christian do or say anything counter to the biblical claim, they feel obligated to point it out.

We feel obligated to point out everytime one of you do something against what you preach is because christianity is currently a very powerful force in the richest and most powerful nation in the world and it continues to seek out new groups of people to oppress.

Rock 'n Roll used to be music of the devil, remember? All homosexuals used to be pedophiles, remember? God used to not want women to vote, remember?

But the main reason why we point out everytime one of you do something counter to biblical claim is because on other issues "the bible says so" seem to be your only defense. Quite simply, people like me are quite tired of seeing christians try to use their own holy book to legitimize their own personal agenda and prejudice. If you think women are only good in bed, just say so. Why drag the bible into it?

But really, atheists have their own set of morals. They simply don't usually relay that. Or if they do, there is always contained in the subtext a perpetual escape clause through their relativistic standards. How convenient. However......

Yes, and our own set of morals are very simple. While they vary from person to person, my own moral is to always use common human decency on others. If I am straight and married to a wonderful woman, I absolutely don't see any reason why I should go out of my way to make sure that gay people can't get the same happiness and benefits as I take for granted. I mean, it really has absolutely nothing to do with me. It's not like I'm going to start shooting people for fun if gay people are allowed to get married.

Common human decency tells me that people of other races and cultures are people, too, and should be treated with respect. CHD tells me that if someone needs help, I ought to help him. CHD tells me that hanging people because some self-hating teenager decided to go on a power trip and accuses people of witch craft is simply wrong. CHD tells me that going to other lands and forcefully destroy other people's cultures and convert them to my own beliefs is so obviously wrong. In fact, CHD tells me that since I know nothing about geology that I should keep my mouth shut when people are talking about geology.

Now, let's look at all the above examples from a christian perspective. A christian would help another person to buy a ticket into heaven. Either that or they don't want to burn in hell. Because of a few accusations of witchcraft, over a dozen innocent people were hanged by otherwise good christians. Just how many valuable artifacts and monuments have been destroyed so the local people could be converted to christianity? And let's not forget this very EvC debate that we have. Do you know how many times I've cringed my teeth because a christian have decided that a single google search would make him smarter and more knowledgable than the rest of us?

These christian guidelines you speak of have done nothing to protect the rest of us from the christian majority. If anything, minority groups have always had to struggle for their "godgiven rights" without the support of the major churches.

The human condition is the prevailing disposition of man between joy and suffering. And for the sake of a really good argument, perhaps there is no one more acquainted with such a disposition than the carnal Christian who understands the invisible battle between good and evil, and yet lives a duplicitous life anyway. Followed not far behind him is the Christian who wants to befriend the world and Christ. He has one foot in the world, and one foot in the Church, because he wants the best of both worlds. His humility could be perceived as false, because self-deprecation is not really about humility, its about fishing for compliments. It ends up not being about God at all, but about themselves.

Sorry, I'm more left-brain person than right brain. Could you be kind enough to translate what you wrote there to something less... nonsensical? It's not you. It's me. I consider myself handicapped when it comes to all this poetic bullshit.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 11:34 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 9:46 PM Taz has responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 111 (388613)
03-06-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
03-01-2007 4:02 PM


Confused in California.
The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.

This passage confuses me greatly. It says that anything we believe to be true (and is therefore an element of our 'wisdom') god believes to be false (because it is mere foolishness). If we accept that god really knows what's what with the universe he created and knows everything that is true and that it is true, and everything that is false and that it is false, then the quote says that everything we believe to be true is actually false. This passage seems to be one of those "This statement is false." type statements, for if we believe the bible, including this passage, to be literally true, then it (the bible and this passage) must be false. But this raises the question: Do you believe what I have just written to be true? Does Godel's incompleteness theorem apply to the bible and if so, what would that imply for theology and biblical exegesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 03-01-2007 4:02 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2007 5:44 PM AnswersInGenitals has responded
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 6:14 PM AnswersInGenitals has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 30 of 111 (388615)
03-06-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Phat
03-06-2007 3:56 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Phat writes:

IMB, theology assumes God a-priori. Philosophy assumes nothing, except perhaps that humans own their beliefs based on logic.

Even if you assume God a priori, how do you know what wisdom comes "from God"? How do you distinguish wisdom that comes "from God" from wisdom that is "made up" by humans?

If you first assume God and then assume The Bible™ as the communication of God's wisdom, what do you have besides a house of cards?

Edited by Ringo, : Changed preposition.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 03-06-2007 3:56 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017