| Author |
Message |
    
dancer2
Intermediate Member
Username: dancer2
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2007
Posted From: 62.248.152.33
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 1:39 pm: | 
|
O.K., Cordell's back, so I guess I can't duck this one any more. He and I have both had doubts about each other's comprehension of the Apostle Paul's message to the churches. Now that I've taken some time to re-read these books we could hash them out if he's still game.
Here's what I'd suggest to improve the light-to-heat ratio:
1. We start with areas of mutual understanding in general about these epistles: that they were written in different stages of Paul's career ranging from his first missionary journey until the end of his final imprisonment in Rome. On this basis we then attempt to set a rough chronological order for these books.
2. We take these books one at a time, according to the chronological order we agree on. Jimmy can go first each time and tell us what the main point of the book is, who Paul is writing to, when and why. He can also point out what he finds particularly inspiring about the book in question and how it relates to Christian life in the 21st century. I can then state which parts I agree or disagree with his appraisal on, or which parts I consider to be particularly important that he didn't happen to mention. This phase could lead to many days' constructive debate for some books.
3. Once we have reached a constructive mutual understanding about the general message of a book, I can point out the portions within the book in question which I consider to have a conspicuously human origin, which present problems for a v-p perspective. Here I doubt we will reach any agreement, but we can at least present both sides of the argument in a calm, rational sort of way.
4. If and when we complete this sort of study of the entire set of Pauline epistles, we can each present closing arguments about what we've each learned in the process, and what we still significantly differ in our convictions over.
5. At all stages of this debate we abide by the guidelines for good scholarly debate laid out in the link that Listener gave us: http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html. When we catch each other slipping into one of these fallacies we stop to object and clarify the matter before moving on.
I'm really not in any big hurry about this, but if you want to toss around accusations about reading comprehension, Cordell, this is your chance to put your money where your mouth is. You still game? |
david_munson
Senior Member
Username: david_munson
Post Number: 3810
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 4.156.102.240
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 9:34 am: |
|
Naw,
he's just gamey.
JK
} |
dancer2
Intermediate Member
Username: dancer2
Post Number: 150
Registered: 1-2007
Posted From: 84.231.170.165
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Bump.
The way's been lead.
D2 |
listener
Member
Username: listener
Post Number: 69
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 199.46.198.232
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Pb is a Hazmat, and forbidden by RoHS (although LC would probably agree with your statement). So maybe it'll have to be aluminum. It'll be lighter, anyway. |
dancer2
Intermediate Member
Username: dancer2
Post Number: 151
Registered: 1-2007
Posted From: 84.231.170.165
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Am I supposed to say, "Wow, that's heavy!"?
RoHS: Rules of the Holy Spirit? |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 3:02 am: |
|
why don't you start with a quick explanation of your 'North American siege mentality of North American Protestants in the 19th century' quip concerning the 'verbal plenary' inspiration of scripture.
and who said I was back? |
dancer2
Intermediate Member
Username: dancer2
Post Number: 152
Registered: 1-2007
Posted From: 84.231.170.165
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 4:12 am: |
|
Why don't we quit dicking around with labels and get right to the meat of the matter: your understanding (and mine) of the scriptures themselves?
Philosophical linguistic wrangling about what it means for me to say that you are back are also not worth my time. But of course if you are too busy "freelancing" to post here...
In fact I can appreciate potential schedule concerns. I may have some myself. This is not a discussion that we have to complete within a given time frame. I'm just challenging you to channel what has widely been seen here as your excessive dysfunctional energy into a potentially useful discussion of what you claim as your area of expertise. It might be a bit more difficult than throwing sand in people's eyes, but in the end we all might end up seeing things a bit more clearly.
So ummm... some believe that 1 Thess. was first; I'm more inclined to start with 1 Cor. What's your expert opinion?
D2 |
bjerwin
Advanced Member
Username: bjerwin
Post Number: 524
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 65.32.219.65
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 8:09 am: |
|
Cordell, that would be an interesting thread to read. Please consider and do it. To see real thoughts about so many lovely epistles, hopefully without the dicking around and name-calling and tongue in cheek that GGWO does when it disagrees with someone.
I would love to see real conversation going on. It probably won't convince anyone, but it sure would be a blessing to me and others I think.
Just a thought. |
david_munson
Senior Member
Username: david_munson
Post Number: 3822
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 4.156.99.180
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 9:15 am: |
|
I'm with BJ on this one.
I would enjoy seeing a good discussion on such a topic as this.
I'm sure that every one could find some benefit from such an endeavor.
Maybe some errant GG doctrines could be brough to light and corrected in the process.Who knows?
It could definately be enlightening.
Hey,
go for it.
} |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 3:51 pm: |
|
David,
My initial foray into this discussion concerned your view that:
1. The resurrection of the believer was not essential to orthodoxy.
2. Your comment that the resurrection was not part of the Christology of the Apostles Creed, which you then accused me of fronting a straw man argument when I brought up that the resurrection of Christ in the Christology of the creed is the basis for resurrection of the believer in the section concerning pneumatology and ecclesiology.
3. Your comments concerning Paul's understanding of the resurrection of the believers may have differed from Christ's.
4. Your further comment that you held the opinion that the verbal plenary explanation of the inspiration of scripture was due to, and I can only paraphrase:
"the seige mentality of 19th century North American Protestants."
While I agree that a discussion of the Pauline epistles might prove to be interesting and that there may in fact be points of agreement. I tend to agree with Kreger's point made early on that the sticking point is going to be as you have just phrased:
I can point out the portions within the book in question which I consider to have a conspicuously human origin, which present problems for a v-p perspective.
What I am suggesting is clarification prior to my entering into this 'debate' with you.
I am well aware that scholars (both liberal and evangelical) disagree on the order of the writing of the epistles.
But help me to see the method in your madness, and of course I am game and gamey as well.
My caution stems from this:
You are able to claim belief in the 'literal' resurrection of Christ and somehow discount the scriptural necessity of the resurrection of the believer. This leads me to need to a$$ess (FN doesn't allow this word?) beforehand your method of picking and choosing which is the 'inspired' and which is, as you put it of "conspicuously human origin".
You've put your ground rules of engagement above. I believe it is customary in such circumstances to allow both parties to contribute, so indulge me a little without referring to the request as 'dicking around' if you want to be civil. |
dancer2
Intermediate Member
Username: dancer2
Post Number: 153
Registered: 1-2007
Posted From: 84.231.170.165
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 6:00 pm: |
|
I doubt that there is anything to be gained by way of clarity from my making further personal doctrinal statements here. As Whatsup has pointed out, I've been quite long-winded on that already. It strikes me as smoke-screening on your part to try to discredit the validity of my views in advance because I do not subscribe to your favored doctrinal positions. The more you try to dance around that issue, the less scholarly credibility you give yourself for discussing the actual issues themselves.
I promise not to get too picky on the historical order of things, but one thing that I will be considering is the ways in which Paul's various human experiences, as the apostle to the Gentiles, affected what he wrote in different phases of his ministry. Thus in order to intelligently discuss these matters we first need to have a mutual understanding about approximately when (and from where) he was writing what to whom. As this is more your self-professed area of expertise than mine, I thought it would be entirely appropriate for you to lead on this one.
The issue here is that you accused me of a lack of reading comprehension skills when you proof-texted off my personal position. I confessed that it had in fact been some time since I had stopped to read the portions in question through, and I promised to get back to you once I had. I have kept my word.
Now let's see who is allowing the books of the Bible to speak for themselves and who is looking at them through their own selective doctrinal and/or intellectual goggles.
My understanding of Texas duelling rules is that the insulted party gets to choose the weapons. (I realize that some there just try to shoot the other guy in the back ASAP and then display it as a matter of their superior gunmanship, but I assume there is some resemblance of a code of honor against such practices as well.) If the weapons of my choice are something you find unreasonable, or something you are incapable of shooting, you may address your complaints to the audience gathering here. Then you can either face the challenge or turn yellow and run. |
whatsup
Advanced Member
Username: whatsup
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 24.61.30.105
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 6:36 pm: |
|
I don't know about the rest of "the audience gathering here", but I don't think this is ever really going to get to the epistles...you two are too busy blowing hot air at each other |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 11:36 pm: |
|
there is not any intention on my part on turning tail and running, David. now if you want scholarly debate or a Texas duel you need to make up your mind. I refer you to your original comments which I hope you will have the courtesy to deal with beforehand:
You claimed that the "verbal plenary" position derived from a seige mentality of 19th century North American Protestants.
I hold to this position as outlined here:
The Chicago Statement
Feel free to peruse it and point out any differences you may have, so we can know your position beforehand, not discredit it.
My point in bringing this up is that if the 'verbal plenary' position is as you claim it to be a result (post hoc ergo propter hoc) of a 19th century mentality of any sort, we can as easily and summarily dismiss the debate that brought about any of the historical positions of the church at any of the councils as being peculiar to that geographical location and that particular time. We could just as easily dismiss your own theology as being nothing more than the outcome of the effects of Wellhausen's and Bultmann's late 19th and early 20th century philosophies of higher criticism and demythologizing.
You have already attempted to dismiss my view in a single sentence.
At least you can bless us with a statement of your approach to the Bible that define your stand beforehand rather than keeping us all guessing as you do your dance.
You claimed that you held to a, what was it you said, a more historical view of canonicity? Surely then it must be outlined somewhere, no?
Put that down or post a link somewhere and we can get on with it.
Usually, in a debate, there is a point to be defended. What are you suggesting?
The word 'verbal' has to do with the words of Scripture, the word 'plenary' has to do with 'all' of them. So that position is that each of and all of the words are God's inspired words. I hold that this inspiration applies to the original autographs and that the translations we possess, though not inspired are reliable.
So one might say that there may be at least four possible positions here:
1. All of the words are inspired.
2. Some of the words are inspired.
3. None of the words are inspired.
4. Other words than these are inspired.
Pick one and post a link that we can peruse, as I've done above and we can get on with it. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 11:53 pm: |
|
By the way David, the actual real issue as I see it is not the order of writing, the place and dates of writing, the audience, the particular circumstances of Paul's life at the time he wrote any given piece of writing, his companions at the time or any of the above--these are merely peripheral. The real issue as I see it is this, my view of any of Paul's epistles are going to derive from a stand which says that those writings are 100% Holy Spirit inspired and 100% authored by a human being who was called and prepared from the womb to write what he did in the circumstances in which he was sovereignly placed by his God. The same sovereign God inspired (in each and in all the words) him to write what he did for my benefit and yours.
I have given you enough here to say what you do and don't agree with, and you know what position I'll be defending. So give us a position, else we'll all be standing around saying inane stuff like, "Well, this is what that means to me..." |
orangetwopay
Advanced Member
Username: orangetwopay
Post Number: 633
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 75.34.23.98
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 1:37 am: |
|
maybe if D2 broke out some richard rorty he could really sock it to ya, cordell? eh? eh?
 |
dancer2
Intermediate Member
Username: dancer2
Post Number: 155
Registered: 1-2007
Posted From: 84.231.170.165
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 3:33 am: |
|
I think whatsup has a legitimate point that there has already been too much hot air and posturing, and we should get to the epistles themselves. Hadasa has posted elsewhere that he (?) considers this project to be too ambitious already, and so adding in prefaces re: the Chicago statement, Bultmann, the Niagra conference minutes, Rorty's theories and the rest would be further academic work that would serve no purpose other than increasing hot air/smoke. I do not accept any of the above as required reading prior to the perusal of the scriptures themselves.
The historical context of Fundamentalism is really an entirely separate subject from our reading comprehension. For reading comprehension, all we really need is an understanding of the the historical context of the Pauline writings themselves. I believe that dismissing that one the doctrinal grounds that "it's all the Holy Spirit's gift to us, so that bit doesn't make so much difference" is blatently dishonest hermeneutics.
I believe your 4-part distinction above is a false distinction. On the basis of Genesis 2:7 we could also ask:
1. Is all mankind divinely inspired.
2. Is some of of mankind divinely inspired.
3. Is none of mankind divinely inspired.
4. Has God inspired other elements than mankind.
Gotta run. Hope we can get into the scriptures themselves next time. |
whatsup
Advanced Member
Username: whatsup
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 24.61.30.105
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 7:37 am: |
|
Daved's posts are starting to look interesting |
daved
Intermediate Member
Username: daved
Post Number: 470
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 4.154.231.128
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 7:39 am: |
|
The following text was found at the link provided by Cordell, in an earlier post.
>>>
THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY
Article X
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.
We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs.
We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
>>>
What happens when one Christian Pastor Teacher disagrees with a second Christian Pastor Teacher concerning to what extent what they are preaching faithfully represents the original Word of God?
What happens when neither of the above two mentioned Pastor Teachers fully agrees with the particular English translation of the Word of God that he himself uses.
And what happens when a Christian Pastor Teacher who does not agree with the particular translation of the Bible that he uses in the pulpit, feels free to correct the Bible he is using in the middle of his sermons.
daved
P.S.
How about this definition from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, in 1893:
>>>
The Bible as we now have it,
in its various translations and revisions,
when freed from all errors and mistakes of:
translators,
copyists,
and printers,
(is) the very Word of God,
and consequently wholly without error.
>>>
WOW
If we all had a copy of that Bible,
there would be no controversy about God's name.
(Message edited by daved on March 04, 2007) |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 12:16 pm: |
|
David,
If you would only stop being so obtuse and declare what position you intend to defend, I will be happy to continue. As yet all I see is that you want to discuss the Pauline epistles.
That is not a debate. In a debate you have sides. Rather than "mine" and "yours" don't you think we ought to have some definition there?
"Scholarly", "academic", "formal logic" are terms you introduced but which you fail to abide by.
Genesis 2:7 has nothing to do with the inspiration of Scripture but rather with the creation. The only connection has to do with the breath of God.
Someone who knows you very well has said that talking to you is like screaming into the wind. I am beginning to agree.
Now if you will desist from needing to draw all the lines and define all the terms here unilaterally, I am happy to continue and get on with the discussion.
My 4 part distinction pertains to the possible views of the inspiration of Scripture. I assume you have a view of Scripture? Pray, tell us what that is. If you don't like my four possibilities feel free to add your own from the Indiana Jones School of the Bible (motto: "We're Makin' It Up As We Go Along").
My question to you David, if you can manage a very simple answer is:
What position are you defending? If you answer, "Mine." Then define what "mine" means to the rest of us.
My God, you argue like a high school girl who mistakenly thinks she's gorgeous. I'm not looking for a date, just for a definition of terms. Everybody on FN knows from reams of posts exactly where I stand. You on the other hand prefer some kind of misty ethereal presence.
How 'bout this Miss Davey, can you affirm this, in that you want to tie together Gen.2:7 with 2 Pet.1:19-21 and 2 Tim.3:15,16:
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets...
Can you say how you accept, reject or refine that without mincing like a participant in a gay pride parade?
By the way, most scholars, theologians, students accept my distinctions above. This is particularly important when you summarily dismiss a position (as you continue to do) such as the 'verbal plenary'. Again it has to do with the words, each and all of them. That leaves you with several possibilities which I think are adequately described above.
So, what view of biblical inspiration are you defending?
(Message edited by cordell on March 04, 2007) |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 12:37 pm: |
|
You began your thread above with this assertion:
He (cordell) and I have both had doubts about each other's comprehension of the Apostle Paul's message to the churches.
Let's revisit that offensive of mine. This is what I said to you:
my post of Feb.7,2007 3:50pm (I assume this is why you want the 'debate' as you call it):
D2 said previously: Cordell, suffice to say that if what you and I consider to be obvious: (Obviously, between the death of the believer and his resurrection there is a time where to be "absent with from the body is to be present with the Lord".) was not obvious to the Apostle Paul (efforts to harmonize the scriptures not withstanding), it no longer presents me with a crisis of faith.
To which I responded Nope, just maybe a crisis of dat ol' debbil--reading comprenhension:
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight: ) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Maybe I am mistaken, didn't Paul write this second letter to Corinth? What is it that you think that Paul didn't get in his limited and feeble understanding? post ends here
So what you said was not obvious to Paul was in fact a quote from Paul's Second Corinthian epistle. Is that why you feel 'insulted' as you put it? You should feel embarassed rather. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Inasmuch as you like to make assertions of false distinctions thus:
I believe your 4-part distinction above is a false distinction. On the basis of Genesis 2:7 we could also ask:
1. Is all mankind divinely inspired.
2. Is some of of mankind divinely inspired.
3. Is none of mankind divinely inspired.
4. Has God inspired other elements than mankind.
I'll opt for a biblical version of '1' hence:
"Let us make man in our own image"--so ALL of mankind has received life from the Lord and giver of life and ALL mankind bears his image. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 12:57 pm: |
|
And for the record,
and since you refuse to defend your own words which in my view brought about your desire to debate,
this is what you wrote:
I will make one thing explicit for you: I do not (any longer) believe in "verbal plenary inspiration" as a litmus test for legitimate Christian faith. I see that particular doctrine as based on a siege mentality among 19th century North American Protestants, not an ancient pillar of the faith. But before you make another man of straw out of that, be aware that I do take the cannon (sic) to be just that: a standard against which to measure whether or not a particular belief can be counted as Christian. Obviously the Apostle Paul and I have lived in different worlds. Obviously he was not even aware that the earth was spherical. Yet just as obviously he had a fellowship with God that sets (a major part of) the standard by which I can say whether or not my faith experiences can be called Christian. Yes, I do have friends in the Lutheran hierarchy here who think they know a lot more than Paul about some spiritual matters (e.g. gay marriage); I'm not THAT liberal.
This is YOUR statement which incited this discussion. YOU refuse to defend it. You assert that the V-P is to be allocated to the dustbin of out of date 19th century arguments pertinent only to North America. YOU imply that there seems to be an 'ancient pillar of the faith' some yet undefined 'standard' that defines a belief as Christian or not.
So, what is that 'ancient pillar' or 'standard' in your skullcap? If you wanna dance with me dancin' boy those are the terms on my side. Answer that an we're off to the races. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 1:01 pm: |
|
WOW
If we all had a copy of that Bible,
there would be no controversy about God's name.
That ol' daved, is why we still have to rightly handle the word of truth. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 1:11 pm: |
|
I believe that dismissing that one the doctrinal grounds that "it's all the Holy Spirit's gift to us, so that bit doesn't make so much difference" is blatently dishonest hermeneutics.
This is why I really believe your moniker is appropriate. We did not initially begin the discussion about hermeneutics. We began talking about inspiration. My approach to hermeneutics is preceded by my understanding of the origin of the literature being interpreted--as is yours. I say it's inspired by the Holy Spirit, that is the premise for interpreting the Scriptures because it supplies the necessity that Scripture in all (plenary) its parts (the words) is its own best interpreter because the Divine author is the same in one part as in the other--regardless of the human or historical circumstances. And there is nothing dishonest here.
What is dishonest is desiring to have a debate without first defining the sides. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 1:21 pm: |
|
OTP, the admirable thing about men like Rorty is that you know where you stand when you want to 'dance' with them. Their philosphies, though complex can be stated in terms of argument, thus:
"there is no 'truth' higher than one's ability to (re)create oneself"...
The implications are huge and the possibilities endless, but the side is defined, unlike D2's 'position' whatever it may be. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 1:46 pm: |
|
The way's been lead.
Pb is a Hazmat, and forbidden by RoHS (although LC would probably agree with your statement). So maybe it'll have to be aluminum. It'll be lighter, anyway.
Dat ol' spellin' demon he strike agin':
Lead, Led
lead = noun referring to a dense metallic element: The X-ray technician wore a vest lined with lead.
led = past-tense and past-participle form of the verb to lead, meaning to guide or direct: The evidence led the jury to reach a unanimous decision. |
listener
Member
Username: listener
Post Number: 70
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 199.46.198.234
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Someday I will learn that Dilbert-type minds should not attempt to use engineering humor with the remainder of the universe....theoretically, there are 4 engineering type jokes buried in there. But no-one laughs. Again. Guess I better return to the Humor thread and study Dave M's posts......
While D2 may have been playing with me, at least let me say that RoHS is the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Act, although I thought his variant on the acronym was interesting to ponder(What ARE the Rules of the Holy Spirit? Do they differ from the "rules" set down in Scripture? In what way?). As one who spent a long time in the Pentecostal movement, it brought back some memorable discussions from years past. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Hey listener, wanna play debate moderator here? |
dancer2
Intermediate Member
Username: dancer2
Post Number: 156
Registered: 1-2007
Posted From: 84.231.170.165
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 3:53 pm: |
|
I'll stand corrected on another spelling mistake.
In other matters I think that Whatsup is right: this may never come to any consideration of the epistles themselves with all of the hot air being blown around. I'm really trying not to contribute to that problem.
Cordell, I am intentionally not giving you a handy-dandy ready label to stick on me. I have no established doctrinal school that I am out to defend. My point here is to see if you are really able to honestly read through the scriptures in a way that lets then speak for themselves. You really do strike me as prone to strain out the gnats and swallow the camels. I want to prove that in the broader context of complete epistles, honestly allowed to speak for themselves (with historical context as an important key to understanding what they have to say), you do not have any personal monopoly on truth.
Two thing about my position should be abundantly clear: 1) I believe that each of us stands or falls before God alone, and 2) there is a variety of honest ways to interpret some aspects of Bible doctrine, with other things that require serious obtuseness to ignore. In order to make the distinction between these latter elements I don't think there is any shortcut to going through the epistles themselves, one at a time.
Without giving you a new label to pin on me, I'll let you have this much: I reject Bultmann's "demythologizing" program purely on the grounds that he was trying, as a good Hegelian Lutheran German, to remove all traces of Jewish culture from the Christian message. But liars can sometimes tell the truth, and I believe he had one very important matter right: the "kerygma" - the core message of our faith - is, "your sins are forgiven." The rest is details, put there to make this message more clear to us; but instead, in the hands of some Pharisees, these details can end up blocking our view of what is really important.
I honestly want to see, Jim, if you can still see what is really important. I'll given you a hint: it has nothing to do with pi$$ing contests.
So you can't label my views in advance. Does that mean that you can't join into an exercise of giving the text itself a chance to prove you (and me) wrong? (Written as a rhetorical question, but when I look at it, the honest answer is, maybe you don't have this kind of capacity.)
What you have posted here so far is a list of things you'd rather talk about than the epistles. Most of these items are things about me personally that you don't like and/or can't figure out. My reasons for not playing that game with you should be obvious. What you haven't given is any concrete suggestions for making this a more honest and/or constructive debate.
I'm not going to blow any more hot air in prefacing this thread. (I'm sorry, other readers, for letting him carry me along this far.) If your dysfunctional energy really cannot be channeled in such a positive direction, I'll stop trying to force it on you. So by way of clarification, you, Cordell, can either huff and puff and blow this thread down without it ever getting to the epistles, or you can give your suggestion of where in the epistles we should start and why. My guess is that you'll chose the former, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.
D2} |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1655
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Tell ya what D2, without any further rules, clarifications, allusions to logical fallacies, or any other specifications that could be interpreted as roadblocks I will discuss, debate, talk about, ruminate over or just plain chew the fat over the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians for as long as you like.
This will limit the discussion to the letter which gave occasion to my charge concerning your ability to comprehend what you read.
It will give you further opportunity to discuss the idea that 'being absent from the body and present with the Lord' was not obvious to Paul who somehow was reputed to be the author of the phrase, attempts to harmonize the Scriptures notwithstanding.
It would seem, especially in light of the original conversation which is for the time being recorded for all and sundry to view on FactNet, that you could enlighten those of us of lesser brain which parts of this letter in particular are of 'conspicuously human origin' since it seems you have already hinted in that general direction.
Here's my initial take:
1. This letter is to a church which Paul founded.
2. It contains sufficient biographical material and internal insight into Paul's thought, behavior, morals, theology and spirituality.
3. It provides enough material for pure speculation: Is this 'second' epistle in fact the fourth from Paul? What initiated the original correspondence?
4. You can expound on the liberal view of the two biblical epistles actually consisting of several 'notes' that have been pieced together at a later time, and you can explain how that affects 'inspiration'.
5.You can explain how Paul's Jewish pharisaical background affected his writing, and then you can show how that is a challenge to the 'v-p' view of inspiration.
6. You can give us your take on why there appears to be a change in tone from chapter 9 to chapter 10.
7. and on and on and on...
Dance away, bubba. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 4:21 pm: |
|
So by way of clarification, you, Cordell, can either huff and puff and blow this thread down without it ever getting to the epistles, or you can give your suggestion of where in the epistles we should start and why. My guess is that you'll chose the former, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.
Asked, answered. On yer bike, sonny:
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. 6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1657
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 4:27 pm: |
|
My thinking is that you'll balk here. But I'd love to be proven wrong... |
listener
Member
Username: listener
Post Number: 71
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 199.46.198.234
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Cordell,
Your offer is an honor. But I don't think I would be able to stop writing for a week if I had to play Robert's Rules WRT violations of permissible debate and argument tactics and you and D2 actually go on for long. The refs whistle would never stop. I can just see me marking each post with red words placed at the site of each violation - the posts would all exceed max size. (And I'm posting tonight because I have to work another Saturday and Sunday night, trying to catch up before the glorious NE spring explodes. I'd take a shot at Texas here, but you might say something about MA's congressional delegation. So I'm kind of limited for time.)
I have observed that both of you have the capability of maintaining absolute civility for short periods, until one makes a point that the other deems unfair, at which time the dirty fighter in each comes out.
I am not sure that I would be fair, either, as I find bad attempts at humorous barbs more tolerable than insult by innuendo. I think many others on this board feel differently. I have other biases, also.
My guess is that most who lurk here will skim the discussion, if it happens, and look only for the "good parts" (read: car crashes on the NASCAR circuit).
You can probably list those who will read for content, and you probably already know where they stand on the issues. There will be no sudden conversions, most of these are actually somewhat well-read, HAVE actually considered the various positions, and have decided where they stand.
If any participant expects THIS debate to settle things, then as you have said, "I fart in your general direction". But, those who care will listen carefully, and weigh the REAL points made.
Most of us will laugh when you take shots at each other. The others will lecture you (and D2). I'll learn something, and be entertained, too. I do catch many of the more subtle "shots" fired, and the tactics. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 9:47 pm: |
|
OK, Listener, you seem to have some knowledge of what a 'debate' is anyway.
Help me out here.
A debate is one in which an assertion is made, and one side defends and the other denies that assertion, is that not so?
Do you see anything missing here?
I appreciate the fact that ol' D2 wants to give me ample room to step on my johnson. But again, help me out listener--don't both sides get to contribute to the format and terms in a debate?
What am I missing here?
So what I can see is that D2 wants a scholarly debate with rules on the one hand, yet all he wants to do is prove that I don't have a monopoly on the truth.
That is one point I will concede at the beginning.
I have yet to figure out what exactly is the subject of this 'debate' except that it pertains to the Pauline epistles and my interpretation and his.
But Listener, would you enter a debate where one side allows the other side no definition of the point being argued, no indication of what is being defended or attacked, no information on the other party's point of view and no opportunity to contribute to the terms? And how is defining a point of view a discrediting of that point of view? If you define your position, does that not give all the readers insight into your arguments?
Well, I've given dancin' boy an option above. Let's see if he takes it.
D2, you posted:
What you haven't given is any concrete suggestions for making this a more honest and/or constructive debate.
Actually, I have, sunnyboy.
I have suggested that we define the 'sides' and the subject being argued. The "Pauline Epistles" in totality is not an arguable point. I agree that Paul wrote epistles. I agree that they're in the Bible. I agree that there is possibly an order to them. I agree that hermeneutics has to do with history and grammar. I agree that liberal theologians question the authorship, the inspiration and often the agreement of Paul with Christ's doctrine. What I think the point of disagreement here is, "Are the epistles inspired: in all parts, in some parts, or in no parts?" I could defend an assertion that "All the epistles of the Apostle Paul except Hebrews are authored by him, and all the epistles authored by him are inspired by the Holy Spirit in each and in all the words used in them." That is a position that could be defended or denied.
I have suggested that both 'sides' contribute to the terms. You turned that down. Prove to me that you are not implacable and purposely obtuse.
Here's a point that can be attacked or defended and the epistles can be used to substantiate or corrode:
"Paul was not aware of or did not hold to the position that soul of a departed person was absent with the body and present with the Lord."
If you are such a coward as not to allow me to contribute to the terms and definitions of your so-called 'debate' then off you go with 2 Corinthians--and just 2 Corinthians. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1660
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 9:51 pm: |
|
and D2, you need to give Munson his bracket back, as far as I know he owns that. |
anon_brief
Advanced Member
Username: anon_brief
Post Number: 607
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 205.188.116.10
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 10:02 pm: |
|
Actually, Dave uses a bracket. D2's symbol is a brace. |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 11:29 pm: |
|
D2}
this is from above.
this is from munson's last post on another thread:
}
Now explain the difference again? |
dancer2
Intermediate Member
Username: dancer2
Post Number: 157
Registered: 1-2007
Posted From: 80.186.136.38
| | Posted on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 1:32 am: |
|
The bracket gets left in there accidentally due to FN's (IMHO rather clumsy) formatting mechanism when I'm not careful, IOW it was a side effect of the bold print I used. I don't know why the other David uses them.
2 Corinthians is definitely worth talking about, but I would think that a minimum of context would be provided by at least looking at 1 Corinthians before hand. Many have said that Paul was clamping down on immorality in the Corinthian church in the first letter, and they went overboard with that, so in the second letter one of the main themes was to remember to give grace and recieve back the repentant sinner. I also find it interesting that 1 Corinthians 9:6 is the only place in Paul's writings where Barnabas is refered to as a present co-worker, which might be taken as an indication that this was Paul's very first epistle. So if you're not in too much of a hurry, can we at least start there?
Theories of lost letters in between are not of serious interest to me, and my "theological library" for this discussion consists of a couple of study Bible's but no outside commentaries, liberal or conservative (I haven't seen my Matthew Henry's since my last change of address). So I'm not going to bombard you with liberal theory here. I do have one rather un-tested theory of my own though: the older and more experienced Paul got, the less he talked about escatology and the more he stressed love and the other the fruits of the Spirit on an immanent level (particularly in his prison epistles). In this sense then, 1 Corinthians makes a particularly interesting exception to the rule.
If you'll agree to 1 Corinthians as a starting place then, we can put a separate sub-thread up here for each book we discuss. You game? |
cordell
Senior Member
Username: cordell
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 66.69.35.7
| | Posted on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 9:56 am: |
|
I thought you'd balk.
You can refer to the 'first' letter in the discussion of the second. I think it's valuable for the reasons I've stated above, and Paul's thoughts here can be compared and contrasted to those in other epistles in a variety of places. I'd like to start with the second because you asked ME where I'D like to start.
Don't keep offering a courtesy and then continue by withdrawing it. And don't even suggest that I'm being unreasonable or that I wish to withdraw. So far you've conceded nothing, and you've refused to negotiate on any of your terms. You can concede here just to prove you're capable of concession and for no other reason. 'Gird up your loins' and get on with it, or get your wagon and go back to your treehouse.
I'm game to begin where I suggested, take it or leave it. That's my final answer. |
david_munson
Senior Member
Username: david_munson
Post Number: 3829
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 4.156.99.205
| | Posted on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 11:05 am: |
|
Oh no,
the bracket.
I can't rid myself of this intrusive (I really don't mind it) little stalker.
I am stuck with this curse.
Cordell, I think the bracket owns me.
} |
anon_brief
Advanced Member
Username: anon_brief
Post Number: 608
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 205.188.116.10
| | Posted on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 6:29 pm: |
|
My bad.
They are the same symbols; however, Dave is Brace Boy, not Bracket Boy.
brace }
bracket ]
And D2...now he's just fun to have around regardless of his signature symbol. |
bob_brinton
Senior Member
Username: bob_brinton
Post Number: 1229
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 70.109.253.37
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 5:58 am: |
|
And I thought Brace was a Jeff. Of course, as per usual, I'm not paying any attention to your conversation; so I might be missing some crucial information on the topic. |
david_munson
Senior Member
Username: david_munson
Post Number: 3835
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 4.156.99.144
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 8:38 am: |
|
Brace yourself.
} |
hadasa
Advanced Member
Username: hadasa
Post Number: 645
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 205.172.107.75
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 9:26 am: |
|
neat how you used the word in question in a short sentence while juxtapositioning the symbol in question nearby!
(Message edited by hadasa on March 06, 2007) |
greaterdisgrace
Intermediate Member
Username: greaterdisgrace
Post Number: 109
Registered: 6-2006
Posted From: 68.83.109.13
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Does this guy ever make a point or does he just nit pick spelling errors and typos? I don't think I have ever witnessed someone salivate over others mistakes, ready to nail them to a cross in such a way. |
bob_brinton
Senior Member
Username: bob_brinton
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 70.109.253.37
| | Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 5:40 am: |
|
Being nailed to a cross is what it's all about. You want to be like Jesus, right? |
gone_to_pa
Senior Member
Username: gone_to_pa
Post Number: 1074
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 71.207.64.124
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Just wanted to ask a question of all. Is it true that Paul actaually wrote four epistles pertaining to the church at Corinth? Known as A,B, C, and D. The " A" letter written supposedly in A.D 54 has been lost to us as the "C" letter has also been lost to us. Of course on that line of thinking, Paul writes a letter from Ephesus in Spring of 55 which is our 1 Corinthians and in 57 A.D writes another letter from Macedonia which is our 2 Corinthians. IS this true? Thanks/ Gone to PA |
sandy_point
New member
Username: sandy_point
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 4.230.111.211
| | Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 8:42 am: |
|
I am looking for the previous discussions on here (sometime back) on the Watchman Nee books carl formerly made us study at bible college. They were interesting discussions about the false doctrines Watchmen Nee taught. Can anyone help me locate those those threads? |
kupski
Member
Username: kupski
Post Number: 88
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 71.99.93.236
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Bible college class:
the one you should take before any church entrance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E |
nwmomike
Intermediate Member
Username: nwmomike
Post Number: 199
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 144.226.230.37
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 04, 2007 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Not being a smarty but have you tried the Search feature in the forum? You can do AND type searches so you can narrow stuff down. Other than that I posted stuff here a couple of years ago about Watchman Nee when I found it was behind a lot of the issues.
I'll post some links I have from various sites again if you're interested.
If you can't find them in the search I can probably find my actual post if it's not lost on here.
Michael |
|
