Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View The Obscure Reading of the Gospel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 02, 2013 - 8:02AM #11
Professor_Krepotkin
Posts: 15

I don't get what you think doesn't make a lick of sense, or why you are so hostile, and particularly hostile to a bible discussion, when you are posting on a bible thread of a belief website. What's the point? If you hate the bible, why are you here? What does one usually discuss in a bible subforum of a faith site if not the gospel or the torah? 


As far as what I said, there's nothing new about taking the gospel as the word of God. If that's your complaint, you are way behind.


All I said new so far is that the sense of the account needs to be understood as the first person testimony of the witness himself, as it usually is in a trial, rather than of the stenographer, as has traditionally been the case in understanding the gospel accounts example. Why is that difficult for either of you?




Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 02, 2013 - 7:18PM #12
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

I don't find it "difficult" ... I just disagree ...


Aug 2, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Professor_Krepotkin wrote:


I don't get what you think doesn't make a lick of sense, or why you are so hostile, and particularly hostile to a bible discussion, when you are posting on a bible thread of a belief website. What's the point? If you hate the bible, why are you here? What does one usually discuss in a bible subforum of a faith site if not the gospel or the torah? 


As far as what I said, there's nothing new about taking the gospel as the word of God. If that's your complaint, you are way behind.


All I said new so far is that the sense of the account needs to be understood as the first person testimony of the witness himself, as it usually is in a trial, rather than of the stenographer, as has traditionally been the case in understanding the gospel accounts example. Why is that difficult for either of you?








Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 03, 2013 - 5:00AM #13
Namchuck
Posts: 12,199

Aug 2, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Professor_Krepotkin wrote:


I don't get what you think doesn't make a lick of sense, or why you are so hostile, and particularly hostile to a bible discussion, when you are posting on a bible thread of a belief website.


I'm neither "hostile" or unwilling to participate in a discussion anbout the Bible. I think what you are misperceiving as hostility is simply my refusal to accept that you are proffering either anything original or, for that matter, worthy of discussion.  


What's the point? If you hate the bible, why are you here?


What makes you think I "hate the Bible"? Is it simply because I don't accept your dull and, actually, quite silly attempt to resolve its obvious inconsistencies and contradictions?


Furthermore, I love the Bible and have been reading it since my early youth. I've read it cover to cover at least a dozen times. What I don't accept is that the Bible is anything other than the work of men, which is why I would fully expect it to contain the very sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions that one actually finds in abundance within it. It is only when people whose critical faculties have reached escape velocity and who then start propounding ridiculous apologetics for it that my hackles get raised.


What does one usually discuss in a bible subforum of a faith site if not the gospel or the torah?


I simply don't accept your hypothesis that b'net is only for those of faith.


 


As far as what I said, there's nothing new about taking the gospel as the word of God. If that's your complaint, you are way behind.


You can take the gospels as the word of God if you want, but you are going to have to accept along with that that its God is one lousy communicator if it requires the sort of aplogetic that you are attempting to proffer as a solution to its insurmountable problems if its regarded as the "word of God".


All I said new so far is that the sense of the account needs to be understood as the first person testimony of the witness himself, as it usually is in a trial, rather than of the stenographer, as has traditionally been the case in understanding the gospel accounts example.


And that is where your problem immediately begins. Taking that view, one would be obliged to attribute to the God of the gospels exactly what one perceives about the God of the Old Testament, which is that he is a violent God similar to some sort of Oriental tyrant only bigger and invisible. 


Why is that difficult for either of you?


It is, as teilhard said, not difficult, just plain insupportable and unjustified. 








Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 03, 2013 - 7:34AM #14
Professor_Krepotkin
Posts: 15

I mentioned above that there would be parts that you might object to, but that if you could bear with me, you would see a larger picture. Once you see the larger picture, you understand the steps.



But it has to go a step at a time. I'm telling you that once you do, what you now think is insurmountable - like a man god walking the earth, for example - becomes not only understandable  but very edifying and inspirational.


.... You are thinking not as God does, but as men do.


Mk 8:33


You will look for me but not find me.


Jn 7: 34


What did he mean?


Jn 7:36



But If you think that adopting the thought pattern of reading the text as though God himself were the narrator is entirely unfathomable, when the text itself assures us that " the Father is my witness and human testimony is rejected" then we have farther to go than I thought.



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 06, 2013 - 10:29PM #15
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

It doesn't appear that your Proposed Interpretive-Reading Scheme is attracting any Adherents ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 10, 2013 - 11:35AM #16
Professor_Krepotkin
Posts: 15

Aug 1, 2013 -- 12:26AM, teilhard wrote:


Oh, I quite "get" what you're saying ...


But, no ... I'm NOT "with you" ...





When you think about it, the Gospel really must be told from God's perspective. WHy would God have any use for the perspective of human testimony? Why would he rely upon or be dependent upon it to convey his message?


Moreover, why would anyone believe testamony from the perspecctive of a human as to the definitive nature of God or his actions? Humans are not only notorious liars but they are also easily deceived. Anyone might view a performance by David Copperfield and come away with testimony of the miracles he performed. But that would not provide a basis for faith.


If you and I were to sit across the table, for example, I might see a pompous ass, filled with himself, homely, easily dismissed, and deserving of little or no respect at all.


But what I think hardly matters. What's important is the person that God sees. The soul. THe naked man. Who does God see when he looks at you? One has to think like God thinks.


You think you see, but you don't percieve.


(cite omtted)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 10, 2013 - 1:22PM #17
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

"The Divine Logos became [fully HUMAN] FLESH ... and lived among US ..." (Gospel acc. to John) ...


Aug 10, 2013 -- 11:35AM, Professor_Krepotkin wrote:


Aug 1, 2013 -- 12:26AM, teilhard wrote:


Oh, I quite "get" what you're saying ...


But, no ... I'm NOT "with you" ...





When you think about it, the Gospel really must be told from God's perspective. WHy would God have any use for the perspective of human testimony? Why would he rely upon or be dependent upon it to convey his message?


Moreover, why would anyone believe testamony from the perspecctive of a human as to the definitive nature of God or his actions? Humans are not only notorious liars but they are also easily deceived. Anyone might view a performance by David Copperfield and come away with testimony of the miracles he performed. But that would not provide a basis for faith.


If you and I were to sit across the table, for example, I might see a pompous ass, filled with himself, homely, easily dismissed, and deserving of little or no respect at all.


But what I think hardly matters. What's important is the person that God sees. The soul. THe naked man. Who does God see when he looks at you? One has to think like God thinks.


You think you see, but you don't percieve.


(cite omtted)





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook