Oct 24, 2010 -- 12:42PM, Dennis wrote:

 

Dave: We are discussing a bit about the new Pauline translation in Facebook, Westar pages. As soon as the office opens Monday I will be ordering my copy. From my discussions, however, it seems as if they used the normative paradigm, so I'm bound to be disappointed.  

Yes, I have NO doubt on that ...

SOME Folks operate from a priori Assumptions-Prejudices that WHATEVER "The Normative" Understanding is/has been MUST be WRONG, simply because it IS "Normative" ...

Oct 25, 2010 -- 1:48PM, Dennis wrote:

Oct 25, 2010 -- 11:29AM, teilhard wrote:

Oct 24, 2010 -- 12:42PM, Dennis wrote:

 Dave: We are discussing a bit about the new Pauline translation in Facebook, Westar pages. As soon as the office opens Monday I will be ordering my copy. From my discussions, however, it seems as if they used the normative paradigm, so I'm bound to be disappointed.  

Yes, I have NO doubt on that ...

SOME Folks operate from a priori Assumptions-Prejudices that WHATEVER "The Normative" Understanding is/has been MUST be WRONG, simply because it IS "Normative" ...

Not questioning the normative paradigm, as applied to Pauline studies, lapses into apologetics and fails to consider a century of European biblical historical research.

Yes, yes, yes ... There are ALWAYS ***new***and***improved***  Approaches to everything about EVERYTHING ...

One Difficulty, though, is that when LAST Year's "Heresy" becomes THIS Year's "Orthodoxy" ... ??? 

Being a trained Practitioner of "Historical - Critical" Study, I'm NOT nearly so IMPRESSED with it as you ( a neophyte ) are ...

Nope ... If my Interest and Training were in "Apologetics," I would be arguing with your Claims and Assertions and Conclusions, offering-up point-by-point Refutation ...

Rather ... Having been at-this-in-the-Mix for now a LONG Time, I simply recognize and note your underlying World-View and consequent Assumptions  ...

Oct 26, 2010 -- 8:23AM, Dennis wrote:

Teil stated, Yes, yes, yes ... There are ALWAYS ***new***and***improved***  Approaches to everything about EVERYTHING ...One Difficulty, though, is that when LAST Year's "Heresy" becomes THIS Year's "Orthodoxy" ... ??? Being a trained Practitioner of "Historical - Critical" Study, I'm NOT nearly so IMPRESSED with it as you ( a neophyte ) are ...

Cut the pretentious crap, Teil. You have said nothing that leads one to believe you have been trained in anything other than apologetics. You practice demagoguery, nothing more, nothing less.

LOL ... No indeed ...

There is no Shame in being either an Amateur or even a Dilettante ...

But it IS important that one KNOWS the Level of one's Training and Experience ...

Neither is there  AT  ALL  any particular PROBLEM in proceeding from, in, and with a concerted World-View ...  The Question is whether one RECOGNIZES the CENTRALITY of The World-View Question and its DEEP Implications ...

"This is most certainly True ... "

 -- (The Very Late) Rev. Fr. Prof. Dr. Martin Luther, OSA

Oct 26, 2010 -- 2:44PM, Dennis wrote:

Note: Posting to beliefnet does not one a "practictioner of historical critical studies" any more than attending school makes one a specialist in education! And, I have long been able to discern between the "sitter" and the "stool."

Oct 26, 2010 -- 10:34AM, teilhard wrote:

Nope ... If my Interest and Training were in "Apologetics," I would be arguing with your Claims and Assertions and Conclusions, offering-up point-by-point Refutation ...

Rather ... Having been at-this-in-the-Mix for now a LONG Time, I simply recognize and note your underlying World-View and consequent Assumptions  ...

Oct 26, 2010 -- 8:23AM, Dennis wrote:

Teil stated, Yes, yes, yes ... There are ALWAYS ***new***and***improved***  Approaches to everything about EVERYTHING ...One Difficulty, though, is that when LAST Year's "Heresy" becomes THIS Year's "Orthodoxy" ... ??? Being a trained Practitioner of "Historical - Critical" Study, I'm NOT nearly so IMPRESSED with it as you ( a neophyte ) are ...

Cut the pretentious crap, Teil. You have said nothing that leads one to believe you have been trained in anything other than apologetics. You practice demagoguery, nothing more, nothing less.

For now more than a Hundred Years PLUS, Scholars have been trying very honestly to  both Distinguish and Separate The (so-called) Historical Jesus of Nazareth from The Proclaimed Christ of Faith ...

So far ... It hasn't produced a LOT ... except controversial Speculation and unfortunate hard Feelings ...

This is not a Problem for People of Faith since we have LONG Affirmed that Jesus of Nazareth (The Fully Human son of Mary) IS both Lord and Christ, The Son of "God" ...

So BOTH the proposed Distinction AND the hoped-for Separation haven't "worked" ... very well ...

Oct 21, 2010 -- 12:34PM, whatson2nd wrote:

Historical Jesus sounds like as oxymoron. BTW, how's the quest for an historical Jesus going?