Post Reply
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Switch to Forum Live View Stories, Meanings, and Myths
4 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2010 - 3:07PM #71
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

I'm quoting them, Annie. That's what they SAID. The literal beliefs in the virgin birth and resurrection are there. You are obviously wrong, as I have shown. Now, you would like to tell me that's not what they meant? Convenient, but not very honest.


(I've actually read the stuff.)


Teil, Annie had said that only one of the Church Fathers had a literal belief in the virgin birth and resurrection. I was giving some examples that show this is not correct. That's all. That's the "so."

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2010 - 3:11PM #72
Jenandew7
Posts: 13,282

Oct 21, 2010 -- 3:07PM, Dennis wrote:


I'm quoting them, Annie. That's what they SAID. The literal beliefs in the virgin birth and resurrection are there. You are obviously wrong, as I have shown. Now, you would like to tell me that's not what they meant? Convenient, but not very honest.


(I've actually read the stuff.)


Teil, Annie had said that only one of the Church Fathers had a literal belief in the virgin birth and resurrection. I was giving some examples that show this is not correct. That's all. That's the "so."




Teilhard won't misunderstand me at all, unlike you.  There is a difference between believing a thing that is found in scripture literally true and the doctrine and practice of reading scripture at only a literal level.  Only one Church Father insisted on that hermeneutic.  I suppose that all of them believed in the virgin birth story. 


 

If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday. --Isaiah 58:10
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2010 - 4:15PM #73
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Oh, for Pete’s sakes! Ignatius goes into a spiel in the letter to the Ephesians (XIX) about the historicity of the Lord and how this mystery of his virgin birth and his death were to lead to “the abolition of death.” Even the Epistle of Barnabas, which says everything in the Hebrew scriptures should be interpreted metaphorically, does this for a reason – to prove such as this – “The prophets who received grace from him prophesied of him, and he, in order that he ‘might destroy death,’ and show forth the Resurrection from the dead…” I Clement (XXV) goes to some length speaking about the Phoenix (which he considers historical) as proof of resurrection! In the next chapter, he states, “Do we then consider it a great and wonderful thing that the creator of the universe will bring about the resurrection of those who serve him in holiness, in the confidence of a good faith, when he shows us the greatness of his promise even through a bird?” You have the audacity, without using any evidence whatsoever, to make a statement that not until fairly recent times have people looked at scripture literally!!!


As always,  backing up what I say with evidence, generally straight from the source. Should we move up toward the end of the second century, the third century, to see what Tertullian had to say about the hermeneutics of the Gnostics and Marcion and how their metaphorical treatment was just not literal enough for his sensibilities?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2010 - 5:34PM #74
teilhard
Posts: 51,371

Yes, I've read ( not EVERYTHING, but a LOT of ) The Church Fathers, too ...


"Literal" or not ... ???  That IS The Question, isn't it ... ???  HOW would we KNOW ... ???


Oct 21, 2010 -- 3:07PM, Dennis wrote:


I'm quoting them, Annie. That's what they SAID. The literal beliefs in the virgin birth and resurrection are there. You are obviously wrong, as I have shown. Now, you would like to tell me that's not what they meant? Convenient, but not very honest.


(I've actually read the stuff.)


Teil, Annie had said that only one of the Church Fathers had a literal belief in the virgin birth and resurrection. I was giving some examples that show this is not correct. That's all. That's the "so."





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2010 - 6:58AM #75
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

In the selections I have chosen, it is straightforward that the writings denote a literal belief in the two beliefs, looking at the content of the quotes, the context of the quotes, as well as the audience... Either church instruction or a defense of the proto-orthodoxy.


Oct 21, 2010 -- 5:34PM, teilhard wrote:


Yes, I've read ( not EVERYTHING, but a LOT of ) The Church Fathers, too ...


"Literal" or not ... ???  That IS The Question, isn't it ... ???  HOW would we KNOW ... ???


Oct 21, 2010 -- 3:07PM, Dennis wrote:


I'm quoting them, Annie. That's what they SAID. The literal beliefs in the virgin birth and resurrection are there. You are obviously wrong, as I have shown. Now, you would like to tell me that's not what they meant? Convenient, but not very honest.


(I've actually read the stuff.)


Teil, Annie had said that only one of the Church Fathers had a literal belief in the virgin birth and resurrection. I was giving some examples that show this is not correct. That's all. That's the "so."









Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2010 - 12:24PM #76
teilhard
Posts: 51,371

ALL Writings DO need to be properly interpreted ...


Oct 22, 2010 -- 6:58AM, Dennis wrote:


In the selections I have chosen, it is straightforward that the writings denote a literal belief in the two beliefs, looking at the content of the quotes, the context of the quotes, as well as the audience... Either church instruction or a defense of the proto-orthodoxy.


Oct 21, 2010 -- 5:34PM, teilhard wrote:


Yes, I've read ( not EVERYTHING, but a LOT of ) The Church Fathers, too ...


"Literal" or not ... ???  That IS The Question, isn't it ... ???  HOW would we KNOW ... ???


Oct 21, 2010 -- 3:07PM, Dennis wrote:


I'm quoting them, Annie. That's what they SAID. The literal beliefs in the virgin birth and resurrection are there. You are obviously wrong, as I have shown. Now, you would like to tell me that's not what they meant? Convenient, but not very honest.


(I've actually read the stuff.)


Teil, Annie had said that only one of the Church Fathers had a literal belief in the virgin birth and resurrection. I was giving some examples that show this is not correct. That's all. That's the "so."













Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 24, 2010 - 12:14AM #77
Jenandew7
Posts: 13,282

Dennis,


For someone so well read, it amazes me that you can be so bullheaded about things.  But perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to ridicule.  At this point you still don't comprehend the point that I was originally making about hermeneutics.  Obviously the two of us have been studying different subjects. 


Here is an article about the four senses of scripture from the Catholic (and traditional view of scripture).  As you can see, we all begin at the literal level which is automatic, natural and impossible to avoid.  But as you can see until fundamentalism, there has never been a hermeneutic that stopped at the literal level of scripture.


The Four Senses of Scripture


A.


Oct 21, 2010 -- 4:15PM, Dennis wrote:


Oh, for Pete’s sakes! Ignatius goes into a spiel in the letter to the Ephesians (XIX) about the historicity of the Lord and how this mystery of his virgin birth and his death were to lead to “the abolition of death.” Even the Epistle of Barnabas, which says everything in the Hebrew scriptures should be interpreted metaphorically, does this for a reason – to prove such as this – “The prophets who received grace from him prophesied of him, and he, in order that he ‘might destroy death,’ and show forth the Resurrection from the dead…” I Clement (XXV) goes to some length speaking about the Phoenix (which he considers historical) as proof of resurrection! In the next chapter, he states, “Do we then consider it a great and wonderful thing that the creator of the universe will bring about the resurrection of those who serve him in holiness, in the confidence of a good faith, when he shows us the greatness of his promise even through a bird?” You have the audacity, without using any evidence whatsoever, to make a statement that not until fairly recent times have people looked at scripture literally!!!


As always,  backing up what I say with evidence, generally straight from the source. Should we move up toward the end of the second century, the third century, to see what Tertullian had to say about the hermeneutics of the Gnostics and Marcion and how their metaphorical treatment was just not literal enough for his sensibilities?





If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday. --Isaiah 58:10
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 24, 2010 - 7:53AM #78
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

The short essay has nothing to do with the factors at hand - what the half dozen or so of these Church Fathers believed about the stories of the Bible. What they wrote is what is important. (We find, for those who haven't a copy of Catechism of the Catholic Church), is Article 3 of The Profession of Faith, that this section is entitled "Sacred Scripture," which refers to the canon, not the Church Fathers. It notes, c. 105, "God is the author of Sacred Scripture, that "God inspired the human authors of the sacred books," c.106, etc, and the section on the four "senses of scripture" contains references from Aquinas, 1 Cor. and Rev.) The catechism, of course, does not go back to the second and third century writers, or anywhere near, though, like the Bible, it does quote them from time to time. For instance, it quotes, in 113, Origen speaking about "spiritual meaning."


I was speaking about what the Church Fathers wrote. We don't get anything like a sense of what they "believed" about the scripture from the catechism. We get modern Catholic doctrine, to quote the book (p. 9), "... an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's tradition." (That second council was in the sixties... 1960's.)


1. If you are saying that these Church Fathers were composing "sacred scripture," I would have to disagree. I think that "sacred scripture" is defined differently, in the catechism (which was the author of the essay's "proof").


2. If you are saying that we should read into what they wrote various "meanings," that is not in the quotes I gave and generally isn't in what they wrote. Conversely, if you are saying that they understood this literal reading of the passages in question (resurrection and birth stories) in a way different than what they wrote, it's not in there and we are not "mind readers."


So, if you consider the writings of, who was it... Justin, Clement, Ignatius, did I quote Polycarp?, Barnabas, seems like there were two others... sacred writings, then the catechism the author uses might be relevant to your reading of what they wrote. But, they aren't actually in the sections I quoted, which are representative of the books I quoted. There is no indication, from what they wrote, that there was a "different level" of understanding, like you apparently believe.


Number 110 of the catechism is interesting, because it speaks (and it is talking about the canon, not the Church Fathers) to taking "into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time...." Most of these second century proto-orthodox writings (leaving out the Gnostic and Marcionite) were in the form of the letters, for instruction, or "apologies," defenses of the fledgling church. Both of these genres, when speaking of scripture, tend to use the "sacred scripture" to defend a literal view of beliefs. Are you saying they wrote these things, but did not believe them? Yes, I guess you are. That is not accurate. Not accurate at all.


Oct 24, 2010 -- 12:14AM, Jenandew7 wrote:


Dennis,


For someone so well read, it amazes me that you can be so bullheaded about things.  But perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to ridicule.  At this point you still don't comprehend the point that I was originally making about hermeneutics.  Obviously the two of us have been studying different subjects. 


Here is an article about the four senses of scripture from the Catholic (and traditional view of scripture).  As you can see, we all begin at the literal level which is automatic, natural and impossible to avoid.  But as you can see until fundamentalism, there has never been a hermeneutic that stopped at the literal level of scripture.


The Four Senses of Scripture


A.


Oct 21, 2010 -- 4:15PM, Dennis wrote:


Oh, for Pete’s sakes! Ignatius goes into a spiel in the letter to the Ephesians (XIX) about the historicity of the Lord and how this mystery of his virgin birth and his death were to lead to “the abolition of death.” Even the Epistle of Barnabas, which says everything in the Hebrew scriptures should be interpreted metaphorically, does this for a reason – to prove such as this – “The prophets who received grace from him prophesied of him, and he, in order that he ‘might destroy death,’ and show forth the Resurrection from the dead…” I Clement (XXV) goes to some length speaking about the Phoenix (which he considers historical) as proof of resurrection! In the next chapter, he states, “Do we then consider it a great and wonderful thing that the creator of the universe will bring about the resurrection of those who serve him in holiness, in the confidence of a good faith, when he shows us the greatness of his promise even through a bird?” You have the audacity, without using any evidence whatsoever, to make a statement that not until fairly recent times have people looked at scripture literally!!!


As always,  backing up what I say with evidence, generally straight from the source. Should we move up toward the end of the second century, the third century, to see what Tertullian had to say about the hermeneutics of the Gnostics and Marcion and how their metaphorical treatment was just not literal enough for his sensibilities?









Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2010 - 11:07AM #79
teilhard
Posts: 51,371

What ANYONE "wrote" -- about "The Bible Stories," about "God," about The Historical Lord Jesus of Nazareth, etc., et al. -- is indeed important not least because what a Person WRITES conveys MEANING(S) and, yes, "belief(s)" ...


The plain-sense literal Words of ANY Text are just the BEGINNING Point for eventual UNDERSTANDING ... of MEANING(S) ...


Oct 24, 2010 -- 7:53AM, Dennis wrote:


The short essay has nothing to do with the factors at hand - what the half dozen or so of these Church Fathers believed about the stories of the Bible. What they wrote is what is important.


Oct 24, 2010 -- 12:14AM, Jenandew7 wrote:


Dennis,


For someone so well read, it amazes me that you can be so bullheaded about things.  But perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to ridicule.  At this point you still don't comprehend the point that I was originally making about hermeneutics.  Obviously the two of us have been studying different subjects. 


Here is an article about the four senses of scripture from the Catholic (and traditional view of scripture).  As you can see, we all begin at the literal level which is automatic, natural and impossible to avoid.  But as you can see until fundamentalism, there has never been a hermeneutic that stopped at the literal level of scripture.


The Four Senses of Scripture


A.


Oct 21, 2010 -- 4:15PM, Dennis wrote:


Oh, for Pete’s sakes! Ignatius goes into a spiel in the letter to the Ephesians (XIX) about the historicity of the Lord and how this mystery of his virgin birth and his death were to lead to “the abolition of death.” Even the Epistle of Barnabas, which says everything in the Hebrew scriptures should be interpreted metaphorically, does this for a reason – to prove such as this – “The prophets who received grace from him prophesied of him, and he, in order that he ‘might destroy death,’ and show forth the Resurrection from the dead…” I Clement (XXV) goes to some length speaking about the Phoenix (which he considers historical) as proof of resurrection! In the next chapter, he states, “Do we then consider it a great and wonderful thing that the creator of the universe will bring about the resurrection of those who serve him in holiness, in the confidence of a good faith, when he shows us the greatness of his promise even through a bird?” You have the audacity, without using any evidence whatsoever, to make a statement that not until fairly recent times have people looked at scripture literally!!!


As always,  backing up what I say with evidence, generally straight from the source. Should we move up toward the end of the second century, the third century, to see what Tertullian had to say about the hermeneutics of the Gnostics and Marcion and how their metaphorical treatment was just not literal enough for his sensibilities?













Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook