Post Reply
Page 22 of 24  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why Not Preserve the Tomb Site?
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 12:45PM #211
Ed.W
Posts: 9,423

Jun 17, 2012 -- 12:43PM, bigbear6161 wrote:

Ed, you must have added the last sentence after. Why is it a moot point for Catholics?



Because we are not allowed to have a private interpretation unless it agrees with the church.


So our bias would have to come from the Magesterium.



Jun 17, 2012 -- 12:40PM, bigbear6161 wrote:

Kind of like that quote of Kafka, "A book should be an axe to break the frozen sea inside us."



Franz Kafka (3 July 18833 June 1924) was a Bohemian-Jewish novelist



Would you say Franz had a bias with that remark?

Have you got anything I can sink my teeth into?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 12:52PM #212
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,688
There are very many excellent Catholic scholars involved in Biblical criticism, and if the Magisterium is wrong then it's wrong. They censored Aquinas several times, and needn't we forget Galileo?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 12:53PM #213
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,688
Ed, I can't help but think you're fooling with me.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2012 - 7:54AM #214
koolpoi
Posts: 6,293

Jun 17, 2012 -- 11:06AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 9:02AM, koolpoi wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 8:25AM, bigbear6161 wrote:

I think Johnny may actually have something of a point that people of one religious tradition ought not interpret another's religion or texts for them. That is a job for those within the particular faith tradition. However, many of us who offer interpretations Johnny disagrees with actually are within a Christian community and faith tradition. For instance me. I am a Catholic. But I do think that Biblical scholarship and trying to understand scripture relative to historicity, authorship, and textual meaning not only falls to impartial Biblical scholars but is best handled when done by them. That's because they theoretically suppress their own sectarian religious beliefs in order to find the meaning of the text. Note I use the word "theoretically." While followers do well to learn from such scholarship and incorporate it into religious practice, neither theology nor scholarship are spirituality or a lived faith. Each believer and community/faith tradition must grapple with what it means in this day and age to follow Jesus.



I agree each person much grapple with the meaning of religious tradition.Since Christianity claims a basis in factual history,one way of gappling with it is to examine its historical claims.




Yes, I agree there is value to the search for what is historical and what isn't. That is one reason many Christians see the Resurrection as non-historical. It is a myth to explain the subjective experiences of the Jesus People that Jesus was still present in the Community of faith and especially in the breaking of the bread, ie whatever form the Eucharist took in those early days. Literal resuscitation of corpses don't happen but finding meaning in Jesus' life, one's own, and the Community's does happen.




This is one way of examining the idea that there was an actual (as opposed to a purely spiritual) resurrection.How would people alive at the time have treated the site of this miracle?Is it plausible that the site would be ignored and later forgotten?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2012 - 9:00AM #215
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,688

Jun 18, 2012 -- 7:54AM, koolpoi wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 11:06AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 9:02AM, koolpoi wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 8:25AM, bigbear6161 wrote:

I think Johnny may actually have something of a point that people of one religious tradition ought not interpret another's religion or texts for them. That is a job for those within the particular faith tradition. However, many of us who offer interpretations Johnny disagrees with actually are within a Christian community and faith tradition. For instance me. I am a Catholic. But I do think that Biblical scholarship and trying to understand scripture relative to historicity, authorship, and textual meaning not only falls to impartial Biblical scholars but is best handled when done by them. That's because they theoretically suppress their own sectarian religious beliefs in order to find the meaning of the text. Note I use the word "theoretically." While followers do well to learn from such scholarship and incorporate it into religious practice, neither theology nor scholarship are spirituality or a lived faith. Each believer and community/faith tradition must grapple with what it means in this day and age to follow Jesus.



I agree each person much grapple with the meaning of religious tradition.Since Christianity claims a basis in factual history,one way of gappling with it is to examine its historical claims.




Yes, I agree there is value to the search for what is historical and what isn't. That is one reason many Christians see the Resurrection as non-historical. It is a myth to explain the subjective experiences of the Jesus People that Jesus was still present in the Community of faith and especially in the breaking of the bread, ie whatever form the Eucharist took in those early days. Literal resuscitation of corpses don't happen but finding meaning in Jesus' life, one's own, and the Community's does happen.




This is one way of examining the idea that there was an actual (as opposed to a purely spiritual) resurrection.How would people alive at the time have treated the site of this miracle?Is it plausible that the site would be ignored and later forgotten?




I think if there was an actual empty tomb out of which an historical Jesus rose, then this would have been remembered and pointed to regularly.  I don't think it would have been forgotten until the 4th century "discovery" of it.  I think the empty tomb is an image that Mark used to show that Jesus is risen.  The end of the gospel is hard to figure cause it ends so abruptly with the women being scared out of their wits.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2012 - 1:05PM #216
koolpoi
Posts: 6,293

Jun 18, 2012 -- 9:00AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 18, 2012 -- 7:54AM, koolpoi wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 11:06AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 9:02AM, koolpoi wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 8:25AM, bigbear6161 wrote:

I think Johnny may actually have something of a point that people of one religious tradition ought not interpret another's religion or texts for them. That is a job for those within the particular faith tradition. However, many of us who offer interpretations Johnny disagrees with actually are within a Christian community and faith tradition. For instance me. I am a Catholic. But I do think that Biblical scholarship and trying to understand scripture relative to historicity, authorship, and textual meaning not only falls to impartial Biblical scholars but is best handled when done by them. That's because they theoretically suppress their own sectarian religious beliefs in order to find the meaning of the text. Note I use the word "theoretically." While followers do well to learn from such scholarship and incorporate it into religious practice, neither theology nor scholarship are spirituality or a lived faith. Each believer and community/faith tradition must grapple with what it means in this day and age to follow Jesus.



I agree each person much grapple with the meaning of religious tradition.Since Christianity claims a basis in factual history,one way of gappling with it is to examine its historical claims.




Yes, I agree there is value to the search for what is historical and what isn't. That is one reason many Christians see the Resurrection as non-historical. It is a myth to explain the subjective experiences of the Jesus People that Jesus was still present in the Community of faith and especially in the breaking of the bread, ie whatever form the Eucharist took in those early days. Literal resuscitation of corpses don't happen but finding meaning in Jesus' life, one's own, and the Community's does happen.




This is one way of examining the idea that there was an actual (as opposed to a purely spiritual) resurrection.How would people alive at the time have treated the site of this miracle?Is it plausible that the site would be ignored and later forgotten?




I think if there was an actual empty tomb out of which an historical Jesus rose, then this would have been remembered and pointed to regularly.  I don't think it would have been forgotten until the 4th century "discovery" of it.  I think the empty tomb is an image that Mark used to show that Jesus is risen.  The end of the gospel is hard to figure cause it ends so abruptly with the women being scared out of their wits.




So what his followers saw were visions rather than a physically resurrected Jesus?And the story developed as a physical metaphor for a spiritual teaching?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2012 - 3:10PM #217
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,688

Jun 18, 2012 -- 1:05PM, koolpoi wrote:


Jun 18, 2012 -- 9:00AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 18, 2012 -- 7:54AM, koolpoi wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 11:06AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 9:02AM, koolpoi wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 8:25AM, bigbear6161 wrote:

I think Johnny may actually have something of a point that people of one religious tradition ought not interpret another's religion or texts for them. That is a job for those within the particular faith tradition. However, many of us who offer interpretations Johnny disagrees with actually are within a Christian community and faith tradition. For instance me. I am a Catholic. But I do think that Biblical scholarship and trying to understand scripture relative to historicity, authorship, and textual meaning not only falls to impartial Biblical scholars but is best handled when done by them. That's because they theoretically suppress their own sectarian religious beliefs in order to find the meaning of the text. Note I use the word "theoretically." While followers do well to learn from such scholarship and incorporate it into religious practice, neither theology nor scholarship are spirituality or a lived faith. Each believer and community/faith tradition must grapple with what it means in this day and age to follow Jesus.



I agree each person much grapple with the meaning of religious tradition.Since Christianity claims a basis in factual history,one way of gappling with it is to examine its historical claims.




Yes, I agree there is value to the search for what is historical and what isn't. That is one reason many Christians see the Resurrection as non-historical. It is a myth to explain the subjective experiences of the Jesus People that Jesus was still present in the Community of faith and especially in the breaking of the bread, ie whatever form the Eucharist took in those early days. Literal resuscitation of corpses don't happen but finding meaning in Jesus' life, one's own, and the Community's does happen.




This is one way of examining the idea that there was an actual (as opposed to a purely spiritual) resurrection.How would people alive at the time have treated the site of this miracle?Is it plausible that the site would be ignored and later forgotten?




I think if there was an actual empty tomb out of which an historical Jesus rose, then this would have been remembered and pointed to regularly.  I don't think it would have been forgotten until the 4th century "discovery" of it.  I think the empty tomb is an image that Mark used to show that Jesus is risen.  The end of the gospel is hard to figure cause it ends so abruptly with the women being scared out of their wits.




So what his followers saw were visions rather than a physically resurrected Jesus?And the story developed as a physical metaphor for a spiritual teaching?




Maybe. The early strata of Pauline texts suggest a vision. Paul talks about being born out of time and being given a special gospel by th risen Christ himself. In the later Acts we get the impression the knocked off the horse appearance was an interior vision. And Luke is pretty explicitly tying the resurrection into the Eucharistic "breaking of the bread" which makes the event more liturgical than historical or even a vision.  It's also possible that the experience of the kerygma was the strong conviction of the early community that Jedus was present in a real way in the community and it's rituals especially Eucharist. Other possibilities include that the resurrection is a metaphor for Israel coming back after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, and/or that it represents the dying of seeds and rising of crops applied to the mystery of dying and decomposition and new birth of trees, animals, humans, all life.  Something like that great line in the Lion King when Mufasa tells Simba "When we die our bodies become the grass, and the antelope will eat us." 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 8:04AM #218
Adelphe
Posts: 28,705

Jun 17, 2012 -- 11:16AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 9:15AM, jonny42 wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 8:25AM, bigbear6161 wrote:

But I do think that Biblical scholarship and trying to understand scripture relative to historicity, authorship, and textual meaning not only falls to impartial Biblical scholars but is best handled when done by them.



Jesus taught that his authority was over all people.  Nobody is "impartial" when it comes to understanding Scripture.  In fact, it is those would want to dismiss its claims (especially that we are sinners under God's judgment) that would be most impartial, by far.






I respectfully disagree.  There ought to be a certain striving for impartiality at least. We all have biases and they condition our interpretations but this doesn't mean we can't do our best to apply a reasonable hermeneutics.  As I was trying to point out we do well when we apply both faith and reason to our texts. Theology is different from prayer, and scholarship is different from both theology and prayer. Multiple narratives, multiple modes of interpretation.




The Protestant Reformers wouldn't have agreed with that.


One of the things we need to do as in with any kind of writing is understand authorial intent.


And one of the ways we check that we're understanding correctly is by confirming it with the Church.




Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 8:06AM #219
Adelphe
Posts: 28,705

Jun 17, 2012 -- 12:33PM, Ed.W wrote:

...


If I was biased, nothing would alarm me; I'd just creatively interpret it.




Like that. 


Right.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 8:11AM #220
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,052

koolpoi: A tourist attraction in the 1st century?  People making a buck to visit it?


I imagine there were sites that Jews would have visited at that time simply because Jerusalem has long had such a special place in Jewish history and theology.


Yup, like Jerusalem.  You see, there was even this Messiah who went there as a kid with His parents to see the sights.  Even when He grew up, He made sure to tour the place.  I think He got angry over the entry charges, though.  :)

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 22 of 24  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook