Post Reply
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Stories, Meanings, and Myths
4 years ago  ::  Sep 13, 2010 - 7:42AM #41
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Teil, if you are going to use terms like "sin," you really should explain them, regardless of the thread. I note that your definition is not a biblical one, doesn't really reflect the Greek (or Hebrew) used in the Bible, thus must be a later theological version. (For instance, Romans uses three different words to mean "sin," each with different meanings and connotations, though one (hamartia), which means "missing the mark" is generally used in the Christian canon. This is the one theologians used to morph into the definition you used. The other two are paraptoma and parabasis.) 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 13, 2010 - 12:05PM #42
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,684

Dennis, what do the other two mean?


Dave

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 13, 2010 - 12:39PM #43
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Sep 13, 2010 -- 12:05PM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Dennis, what do the other two mean?


Dave





paraptoma - alienation of humanity from the creator... Sometimes translated as "trespasses."


parabasis - Bad deeds... "transgressions."


hamartia - Life that misses the mark. Not to be what we were created to be. This is the most frequent term used as "sin." Theologians expel a lot of psychobabble on this particular term.


I was just interested in what was meant in the sentence Teil used.


Dennis

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 14, 2010 - 11:01AM #44
teilhard
Posts: 49,970

So ... BACK to the Topic of The Thread ...


Sep 12, 2010 -- 8:17AM, teilhard wrote:


The Authority of The Bible Stories -- Mythological in Character, or not -- is received AS such BY and IN The Community of Faith which PRODUCED and RECEIVES The Stories ...





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 8:56PM #45
teilhard
Posts: 49,970

So ... more from Bultmann, op. cit., p. 10 --


"Myth is an expression of man's conviction that the origin and purpose of the world in which he lives are to be sought not within it but beyond it -- that is, beyond the realm of known and tangible reality ... "


So ... The "Material-ist" World-View, in which EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING is reduced to "The Realm of the Physical Sciences," DOES indeed take on its own "Mythological" Character, i.e., in the CLAIM that  "Origins" and Meaning(s) -- if any -- are to be found ONLY in Matter and Energy, Space and Time ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 18, 2010 - 9:11AM #46
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Of course, no one has this myth of "everything about everything... reduced to 'the Realm of the physical science,'" so that would be a straw man argument. Unless of course, one can give some exact evidence to the contrary, when it comes to the Bible (the name of the forum),  biblical scholars' beliefs. So, that end of the spectrum isn't a part of biblical scholarship. In the Christian religion, on the other hand, the views DO seem to fall completely to the other side of the spectrum, with probably a majority at least reciting the mythical creeds of resurrection, virgin birth, God as creator, etc; believing it as factual. It's easy to create straw men arguments and set up a false scenario like we have below, even though the scenario doesn't exist, because it plays right into the mindset of those whose beliefs feeled threatened... Fear is powerful. We saw that exact reaction, of course, in the early part of the twentieth century, when Darwinism and other scientific discoveries left the religious community threatened to the point that some created Christian "fundamentals," which led to the term "fundamentalism" for those who put the scientific community at odds with some of the Christian community.  


Sep 15, 2010 -- 8:56PM, teilhard wrote:


So ... more from Bultmann, op. cit., p. 10 --


"Myth is an expression of man's conviction that the origin and purpose of the world in which he lives are to be sought not within it but beyond it -- that is, beyond the realm of known and tangible reality ... "


So ... The "Material-ist" World-View, in which EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING is reduced to "The Realm of the Physical Sciences," DOES indeed take on its own "Mythological" Character, i.e., in the CLAIM that  "Origins" and Meaning(s) -- if any -- are to be found ONLY in Matter and Energy, Space and Time ...





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2010 - 8:26AM #47
teilhard
Posts: 49,970

I agree ... Hence my REJECTION of "Materialism" AND "Fundamentalism" and my Embrace of a POST-"Modern" View of these Questions ...


Sep 18, 2010 -- 9:11AM, Dennis wrote:


It's easy to create straw men arguments and set up a false scenario ...


Sep 15, 2010 -- 8:56PM, teilhard wrote:


So ... more from Bultmann, op. cit., p. 10 --


"Myth is an expression of man's conviction that the origin and purpose of the world in which he lives are to be sought not within it but beyond it -- that is, beyond the realm of known and tangible reality ... "


So ... The "Material-ist" World-View, in which EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING is reduced to "The Realm of the Physical Sciences," DOES indeed take on its own "Mythological" Character, i.e., in the CLAIM that  "Origins" and Meaning(s) -- if any -- are to be found ONLY in Matter and Energy, Space and Time ...









Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2010 - 10:17AM #48
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

"I agree ... Hence my REJECTION of "Materialism" AND "Fundamentalism" and my Embrace of a POST-"Modern" View of these Questions ..."


They aren't questions. You have largely contrived a picture of "materialism" in your own image of it. I submit that your picture of the "materialist" is completely errant when it comes to biblical scholars. They sift through the dusty texts looking for meaning in them, looking for historicity in them. For instance, when they look at the six "exorcisms" in the synoptics, they conclude "Jesus drove out what were thought to be demons" (Acts of Jesus, index). They don't make the value judgment of what "demons" were. When they look at the nineteen "cures and resuscitations" they conlude "Jesus cured some sick people" (Acts of Jesus, index). When they look at the resurrection (raising) of Jesus, they use the "dusty texts" not to conclude that a resurrection of a corpse couldn't have occurred, but that it didn't occur.  It's not a "materialistic" statement denying a resurrection (raising), but several statements comporting to the various source material within the texts, canonical and otherwise. (Also used in addition to the canon are at least the Gospel of Peter, Pseudo-Mark, Gospel of Mary and Gospel of the Hebrews.)


So, in attempting to hang a "materialist" label on biblical scholarship, one misrepresents the scholarship.


So, now that this has been clarified, who are these "materialists" with whom you are at odds? And, is it relevant to biblical studies?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2010 - 11:11AM #49
teilhard
Posts: 49,970

Exactly my Point ... !!!


GOOD Historical Biblical Scholarship does NOT give "Materialism" or "Modernism" an unqualified Embrace, but rather The Texts are received and studied  AS  THEY  ARE ...


So, where's your Problem ... ???


Sep 19, 2010 -- 10:17AM, Dennis wrote:


"I agree ... Hence my REJECTION of "Materialism" AND "Fundamentalism" and my Embrace of a POST-"Modern" View of these Questions ..."


They aren't questions. You have largely contrived a picture of "materialism" in your own image of it. I submit that your picture of the "materialist" is completely errant when it comes to biblical scholars. They sift through the dusty texts looking for meaning in them, looking for historicity in them. For instance, when they look at the six "exorcisms" in the synoptics, they conclude "Jesus drove out what were thought to be demons" (Acts of Jesus, index). They don't make the value judgment of what "demons" were. When they look at the nineteen "cures and resuscitations" they conlude "Jesus cured some sick people" (Acts of Jesus, index). When they look at the resurrection (raising) of Jesus, they use the "dusty texts" not to conclude that a resurrection of a corpse couldn't have occurred, but that it didn't occur.  It's not a "materialistic" statement denying a resurrection (raising), but several statements comporting to the various source material within the texts, canonical and otherwise. (Also used in addition to the canon are at least the Gospel of Peter, Pseudo-Mark, Gospel of Mary and Gospel of the Hebrews.)


So, in attempting to hang a "materialist" label on biblical scholarship, one misrepresents the scholarship.


So, now that this has been clarified, who are these "materialists" with whom you are at odds? And, is it relevant to biblical studies?


 





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2010 - 2:41PM #50
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Problem? You've contrived a situation that doesn't exist, setting up a straw man argument based on nothing. At least you have given no specifics - examples and citations of this "materialist" worldview you seem to see as a threat. Threat to what? What threat?

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

    Beliefnet On Facebook