|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Two approaches to Theology
« Back to club forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 @apatzer 13:47I also like how Jesus says *He* will raise it up, which is also consistent with Him being God incarnate. Were He only a man, He likely would have said God would raise Him up. |
||||||
|
@dmaestro |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Defining the New Testament Canon It took a while, because many churches scattered around the Empire had different books or letters, but nobody had them all until quite late. In the meantime a lot of alternative texts were also being produced and circulated. The question was largely decided on the criterion of authorship. If a book could be traced back to an apostle or someone known to be associated with an apostle (e.g., Luke was linked to Paul and Mark linked to Peter), and had been used 'since the beginning' (i.e., had been found appropriate for use in teaching since apostolic times), then it carried a lot of weight. Some, such as the Letter to the Hebrews and the Pastorals, were conveniently 'deemed' to have been written by Paul because they were popular for their theology. Books that didn't fit these criteria were not excluded; they were often still used and many continued to be copied for church use, but as 'helpful books' rather than as Inspired Scripture. Much like Tom Wright's or Charles Spurgeon's books today. 'The Shepherd' by Hermas is one such. There were others which not only didn't fit and were considered misleading in their teaching. There are a few Gnostic Gospels from the third and fourth century in this category. Gnosticism was a form of belief that there was a 'secret knowledge' available only to the 'cognoscenti'. For example, the Gospel of Thomas says "These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down." The 'hidden words' is a strong gnostic fingerprint. This 'hidden knowledge' emphasis contradicts Paul's declaring that the 'mystery' has now been made public, and Jesus saying 'the Gospel must be preached to all peoples (ethne)'. These gnostic teachings met with disapproval, but the Church didn't go on a book-burning rampage over them. The real book-burners of the age were the Marcionites in the second century. Marcion rejected the entire Old Testament, kept only Luke's Gospel (which he edited with a chainsaw first) and only ten of Paul's letters (again, edited). This was probably the single biggest trigger for the rest of the church to formalise a fixed list of books for their canon. |
||||||
|
Pastor Drees on Umbrage www.youtube.com |
||||||
|
Shiva 08:15 |
||||||
|
Simplify, from Günter Dantrimont Why this riddle is on-topic for our group The punchline is that if you include all the letters from a to z, you get a term (x-x) = 0, so the whole product is zero! But if you leave out (x-x), it isn’t zero anymore. It all depends on how literally you read the question. This is a playful reminder that ambiguity can trip us up — not just in math, but also when reading ancient texts like the Bible. Literal readings can sometimes miss the bigger picture or context, and selective literalism can be misleading. That’s why most Christians, and many scholars, interpret scripture thoughtfully rather than rigidly. A real-life example: During World War II, the famous Enigma machine was used to send secret messages. The machine had a quirky rule: when it scrambled letters, it could never map a letter to itself (for example, an “A” could never become “A”). This was a tiny detail, but it created a pattern that codebreakers could exploit to crack Enigma’s codes. It shows how even a small, overlooked rule — or a too-literal assumption — can have big consequences! So, whether it’s equations, ancient stories, or even wartime codes, let’s be careful not to let our preferences decide what’s “literal.” Sometimes, a little context (and a sense of humor) goes a long way! End quote |
||||||
|
Shiva 09:51 With a bit of training, m'lud, you might even become a passable amateur theologian! The 'Literalism' problem is the biggest obstacle to intelligent faith, but it is only one aspect of a wider disease which you have accurately identified. That is the absence of context. The three biggest factors in good exegesis are context, context and context. That is, the immediate context of the chapter and book as a whole, the cultural context in which the writer and first readers were immersed, and the historical context into which it was written. This whole bundle is typically thought of as 'Sitz im Leben", or 'Situation in Real Life'. Too many moderns don't bother with this, specially in Christian communities such as abound in America. They assume that they are the centre of God's Universe as well as the focus of Universal History (which is why the Rapture is always expected in THEIR generation). American Exceptionalism translated into theology! Instead, these people need to understand that they are reading a document written by a specific person to a specific receiver at a specific time and place in response to a specific question, a conversation which they are just lucky enough to overhear in one tiny part. The Scripture is NOT written by someone 'just like me' to people 'with the same problems that I have' to answer the questions that 'I think are crucial'. If there is one flaw such people can never be convicted of, it is excessive humility. |
||||||
|
At the risk of promoting apostasy... It covers several bases, but to me the most appropriate to our times was the difference in how 'Truth' is assessed. This applies not only to religious questions, but to political and other social issues as well. Are we to accept what we are told 'on authority', or are we to test what we are told? European civilisation and all the technological advances since the Enlightenment have been gained by Empiricism, the demand that 'truth' must be testable, verifiable. Too many religious people just haven't understood this. As a religious person myself, I still accept that there is an ultimate Mystery, and the role of 'religion' is to understand that Mystery as intelligently and coherently as I can; and that requires that I test all inputs to my beliefs, that I stand ready to modify details (and even core understandings!) as required by evidence. This is what drove me to understand the futility of reducing 'faith' to mere 'assent to doctrine'. To me, 'faith' is the desire to be a complete human within a community of complete humans. That doesn't mean a community where everyone agrees with my perception of how to describe 'completeness', but where everyone is sincere in that aim. Not there yet, in either measure, but the goal is worth effort. www.youtube.com |
||||||
|
I'll explain, are we called to be people of "our times "? Or to conform to the world or the times there of? I don't think so. No , I change that. I know we are not, because we have been instructed and told as much. But not to take that out of context, that isn't to say one can dismiss truth when it is presented by anyone and also proven to be true. Should we test that? Absolutely, but if we are unable to refute, we should align with the truth. I disagree with the statement of the role of religion. That may be how you see it, or how you believe it should be. I have my ideas about what the role of religion also. But what has organized religion done? What do they the leaders of that religion, see as the roles of religion? The same as the Pharisees and Sadducees. The gatekeepers and the holders of the knowledge. No, I'll have none of that thank you. But I am only speaking for myself, I'm sure others enjoy it. To me the role of religion is to nurture and cultivate relationships, to share each other's burdens in life and to sharpen one another through the word of God. I am about relationship not religion. "As a religious person myself, I still accept that there is an ultimate Mystery, and the role of 'religion' is to understand that Mystery as intelligently and coherently as I can"~Bob That is a very admirable desire. But that is your desire and joy that you are projecting onto religion. Religion is no such animal. I also accept that there is an ultimate mystery, but where I differ is. I don't believe that it can be understood or figured out. That should never stop us from trying. We have strayed so far from our creation and we are so busy trying to figure out the mysteries of the universe. That we are leaving this planet to die a slow death along with most life on it. And we have the means to end life on this planet virtually overnight. Where has that gotten us?! We were put here to tend the garden that is called earth. Have we been doing that? No, and we wonder why there are problems. As for faith? I also disagree with what is written above... The Bible defines faith most clearly in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”. This means faith involves confident trust in God and His promises, even when they are not visible or fully realized. Biblical faith is more than just intellectual agreement; it includes actively relying on God—trusting Him enough to act on His Word and promises. And why would we even begin to have faith without first having a relationship? Cultivating that relationship? And having open communication in that relationship? I offer anyone reading this. God is here now, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be answer. Ask and you will have an answer. Ask: Bring your requests to God in prayer. Seek: Pursue God and His will with persistence and focus. Knock: Take action and persist in approaching God, trusting He will respond. Jesus Christ spent an enormous amount of alone time in communion with God. Most of us barley try at all and when we do. It is on moments of trouble and need. Which is fine but we should cultivate a relationship with him through all times good and bad. in sickness and in health etc etc. This is my opinion and I don't mean to disparage anyone elses thoughts or beliefs. I am simply sharing. |
||||||
|
Clarification Sorry |
||||||
|
Patz 17:20 But once we tidy up that definitional difference, we are very much in agreement. As for 'organised religion', that is not where I think religion is centred. These organisations have their place, just like a chainsaw has a place in the toolshed. Like a chainsaw, they can be used to help, or they can be used to kill. I personally have moved through a few different such organisations, but have always seen them as convenient places in which religion can be put into practice, not as the religion itself. So why bother with the 'organised' part? I suggest that your post misses one detail. That is, that the relationship is not just to the Ineffable, but also to other people with a similar commitment. Being fully human is not a solo achievement, but can only be done in community. As Genesis 2 says, "The man being alone is not good." The second human was not created primarily for purposes of procreation, but for companionship, for community. FROM that companionship and community, procreation emerges. That's the difference between a soulmate and a breeding mate. In so far as any organisation can assist in this task of creating a community, it is helpful. But when it is perverted into a power structure, it has become corrupted. |
||||||
|
bobspringett |
||||||
|
Patz |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What it Is The goal is to align each as closely as possible with objective reality. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Patz 08:40 and shiva 08:44 An excellent question! And for the finicky like me, it is NOT the same question as "Is there an objective reality?" An 'objective reality' exists. Anyone who has been taken by surprise (e.g., hit in the head from behind) knows that things exist prior to the victim becoming aware of them. But how we sense and interpret evidence for that objective reality is through a subjective pathway. <The goal is to align each as closely as possible with objective reality.> Which is a fair description of Science, or indeed, of a wise world-view in any area of experience. <The brain has along with the other senses has no problem lying to you to keep you alive or sane.> Which is to say "Not all subjective interpretations are as accurate as they should be." But if the 'lie' helps keep you alive, then it has served its purpose at that time and place; therefore you can call it a 'simplification' of the problem, or a 'useful parallel' of objective reality. |
||||||
|
A new topic. This article is interesting, but it assumes an above-average understanding of Theology and Church History. As I read it, I found myself both agreeing in part but also objecting to some of his embedded assumptions. Probably the most persistent embedded assumption was that any particular doctrine can be 'true' in the objective sense of the word; to my mind, the best that human language can do is construct and convey a useful metaphor of 'Truth'. It's convinced me that Zorro's accusation against me is accurate. I am not a 'Traditional Christian' in the sense used by most people; I'm a mystic that uses Christian concepts. I take comfort in knowing that the same can be said of St. Paul and Augustine of Hippo at least. substack.com |
||||||
|
Another interesting Article The first time I heard the name Friedrich Nietzsche was in seventh grade. Believe it or not, one of the guys on my junior high basketball team was reading him. The youth pastor found out and decided that was unacceptable, so the kid got reprimanded. When I asked who Nietzsche was, I was told, “some atheist thinker.” That was the end of the conversation. It wasn’t until years later that I began to understand why Nietzsche is so despised, and why, of all the philosophers, he still manages to stir so much controversy and attention. I call him the wrecking ball. Nietzsche didn’t just enter philosophy. He smashed it to pieces. He changed the game so completely that everything before him looked fragile, and everything after him had to deal with the crater he left behind. If you take him seriously, if you present him accurately, you’ll quickly find how impossible it is to wriggle out of his grip. He puts you in a chokehold, backs you into a corner, and leaves you intellectually pinned. It’s frustrating, it’s uncomfortable, but I believe he’s worth grappling with. How Nietzsche Blew Up Philosophy The best guide I’ve found for tracing this shift is The Plain Sense of Things by James C. Edwards. Edwards divides the history of philosophy into four great ages, each building on the one before it until Nietzsche shows up and drives the final nail into the whole project. The Age of the Gods This is where everything begins. For centuries, the gods explained the world. Humans came from God and returned to God. The meaning of life was to obey, to live under divine order. Christianity, Judaism, Islam all lived in this world. So did the Greeks and Romans, with their pantheons of gods hurling storms, starting wars, and punishing mortals with one-eyed monsters. The sacred was external, and life made sense because the gods gave it sense. The Age of Reason Plato shook that foundation. He pointed away from Olympus and Sinai and argued that the sacred was found in eternal forms. Truth, justice, love, courage. These ideals existed outside the physical world, unchanging and eternal. The philosopher’s task was to peel back illusions and find the essence of things. Philosophy became a kind of salvation: through study, dialogue, and intellectual discovery, you could rise to higher truth. The Age of the Ego Then came Descartes, who tipped the whole apple cart again. He doubted the gods. He doubted the forms. He doubted everything that could be doubted. What was left? Only the self. “I think, therefore I am.” The thinking subject was the one indestructible fact. Salvation, for Descartes, meant certainty. But certainty came at a price. The gods and the forms were reduced to objects of belief, products of the mind. Nothing outside the self could escape doubt. It was a fragile, weeping kind of victory, because the sacred felt out of reach. The Age of Nihilism And then comes Nietzsche. He takes the project one step further and detonates the whole structure. The self is not a mirror of reality. It is not passive. It is not simply reflecting truth. The self is an active force, a manipulator, an interpreter. Knowledge is not discovered, it is imposed. Interpretations are laid on top of the ambiguous chaos of experience to make it manageable. And values? They are simply structures of interpretation, created to preserve what we want the world to be. At the bottom of it all is the will to power, the raw drive of human beings to order the world according to their own desires. The gods collapsed. The forms collapsed. Even the self collapsed. What is left to ground anything? Nothing. Every age of philosophy eventually cancels out the last, until Nietzsche closes the circle. And what we inherit is nihilism. In the age of nihilism, everything is in flux, and nothing is finally sacred. No single value stands above the rest. No hierarchy of values survives. No ultimate ground can hold the weight. What Christians Should Do With This So what do Christians do with this? For one thing, don’t pretend Nietzsche can just be brushed aside. You can’t slap Aquinas on the table and expect the argument to be over. Nietzsche exposed the weakness in foundationalism itself. That’s why pressing the Nietzschean critique makes so many conversations grind to a halt. He ripped up the foundation, and once you’ve seen that, it’s hard to go back. But Christianity doesn’t need to win by playing Nietzsche’s game. The strength of Christianity is not in conquering philosophy but in being lived. Christianity thrives when it doesn’t demand airtight certainty. It thrives when it admits, as Paul did, that “we see through a glass darkly.” It thrives in epistemic humility. Knowing God has never meant assembling indisputable proofs. It means trust. Relationship. Faith that is lived, not dissected. Faith survives Nietzsche because faith was never about absolute certainty. It was never about airtight arguments. Faith lives in the dark, with trust, with hope, with love. Post-Nietzsche, this is still the way forward. Because the real danger is not Nietzsche. The real danger is folding into despair, believing that the loss of certainty means the loss of meaning. [END OF ARTICLE] (My comments) This is something that too many Evangelicals and Classicists forget. Things like 'Assurance of Salvation' and 'Perserverance of the Saints' is a matter of trust and personal commitment, not a mathematical inevitability. Even if 'salvation' is not 'assured', the life of intelligent faith is a life worth living. |
||||||
| |||||||
