Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 03-13-2013, 08:05 PM

There can be no communication with persons who can only discuss history in terms of thir own religous faith. Even persons of equal religous fervor will never communicate if they are stuck in different religous preconceptions.

So how do we go about the study of history in Christian origins? How can people of differing faiths and indeed no faith have a meaningful discussion? By adherence to Historical Critical methodology.

ON THE HISTORICAL AND DOGMATIC METHODS IN THEOLOGY [1898]
Ernst Troeltsch
Translated by Jack Forstman (Used by permission.)
Gesammelte Schriften, Volume II (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1913), pp. 728—753
http://tinyurl.com/23zaa75

It is entirely possible for a person of religous faith to abide by the rules of the historical critical method.
A notable example is Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, Vanderbilt University.

" A self-described "Yankee Jewish feminist who teaches in a predominantly Christian divinity school in the buckle of the Bible Belt," Professor Levine combines historical-critical rigor, literary-critical sensitivity, and a frequent dash of humor with a commitment to eliminating anti-Jewish, sexist, and homophobic theologies."
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/divinity/f...ges/levine.php

At the 2010 SBL held in Atlanta, there was a paper offered by entitled “The Rules of the Game: History and Historical Method in the Context of Faith”
Here is the Abstract. http://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/abstract.aspx?id=16534

“Numerous scholars who engage in historical Jesus research have some type of faith perspective with respect to the subject of their inquiry--including myself. This may be one of the factors motivating our personal interest in the subject. But the question arises, should this presupposition affect or alter our understanding of either the concept of history or our application of historical method? This paper will respond to this question in the negative. The “rules of the game” of history should preclude historians who have a faith perspective altering either the concept of history and or historical method.”

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv · 03-13-2013, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

At the core of the answer is to have some rational thought as to what Elohim is trying to do with mankind. Most think He created Adam and Eve with a perfect nature...with no inclination to sin, and they believe "Jesus" dying in their place fixes their sin and Adams. That belief is wrong. Elohim created mankind to be against Him, and He didn't give anyone a "free will." He "bound" or "consigned" all of mankind to disobedience (Rom 11:32), including Adam and Eve, by creating them and us NAKED, FLESHLY, sinners.
... Hope this helps to clarify a few rational thoughts. KB

There is nothing rational at all about your post. You are not preaching a sermon to the devout here.

spin · 03-13-2013, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The Messiah died because of or for the sake of our sin so that we could be blessed in departing or turning from iniquity/sin. He did not die in our stead to pay any penalty for sin...that is a delusional gospel.

If according to the law the wages of sin are death and all men have sinned (women fortunately are excluded from this), then the law is clear: they all have to die.

The messiah dying according to your scheme achieves nothing. He could have come and frolicked a while then left without all the stagecraft. Dying for people's sin makes no sense if the dying achieves nothing, is not necessary. Christianity works on the notion of redemption, ie something is paid to redeem. That payment is central to the religion, the emblem of Jesus dying on the cross. The sinless person acting as a proxy can redeem the sinner. The death of Jesus frees the sinner from the law.

One can understand why Marcion did not like the lawgiver.

If you disagree with the above, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the death of Jesus: what did the death itself do.

Hi Spin, you bring up and ask some very good questions. At the core of the answer is to have some rational thought as to what Elohim is trying to do with mankind. Most think He created Adam and Eve with a perfect nature...with no inclination to sin, and they believe "Jesus" dying in their place fixes their sin and Adams. That belief is wrong. Elohim created mankind to be against Him, and He didn't give anyone a "free will." He "bound" or "consigned" all of mankind to disobedience (Rom 11:32), including Adam and Eve, by creating them and us NAKED, FLESHLY, sinners.

Now, there is a redemption taking place from HOW Elohim created us, by FIRST bringing an Elect to the Knowledge of the Truth concerning how their sin did bring about the suffering and death of Yeshua. He is trying to deliver us OUT of sin, and is letting some of us SEE how our sin caused Yeshua's suffering and death, who was totally innocent, righteous, and undeserving of death. This is the catalyst in causing our sin to go into remission. In Elohim's plan, He wants us all to be clothed in righteousness, and not to remain naked, in our sin-(Rev 19:8, Job 29:14, Psa 132:9, Isa 61:10).

Think along the lines of the Passover Lamb. It took killing an innocent Lamb, putting the blood on the doorposts, and then totally being ready to FLEE from Egypt. Well, Yeshua's shed blood placed on the doorposts of my conscience and heart is what delivers or causes me to flee from sin.

One final point. Yeshua said that when He would be LIFTED up on the Cross, He would draw ALL MEN (mankind) to Him (John 12:32). Paul stated that when Yeshua died, ALL died, and he (Paul) doesn't look at anyone as "living," or according to the "flesh." (2 Cor 5:14-16) As far as Paul was concerned, everyone is dead. So in that respect, the wages of sin was paid in that ALL died when He died, and it should not be viewed as a substitute dying in their stead. Hope this helps to clarify a few rational thoughts. KB

I'm not particularly interested in your witnessing to your personal beliefs. If you cannot speak normally about the issues under discussion you may not be able to be open to the possibility of reasoned discussion. The christian literature does not use the term elohim. In English the normal means of referring to the christian god is simply "god". Doing contrary suggests theological need. Putting Jesus in quotes also smells of the same need. The central figure of the gospels is called ιησους, which we represent in English as Jesus. Replacing that with Yeshua is going beyond the evidence, for from the 3rd c. BCE onwards in the diaspora Greek forms of Jewish names were used and, where appropriate, names in translation Jonathan -> Theodorus or Dorotheus. There is no evidence to indicate that ιησους was not called ιησους.

You say rhetorically that I ask "interesting questions", when in fact I didn't ask one question.

You've merely swerved around the issue I posted on and tried to play Paul against Jesus. Jn 3:16b is clear: "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Note that bit about not perishing: no-one who believes will perish, despite the fact that they all have sinned and must die according to the law. It was the giving of the son, implying his death, that prevented the perishing.

Ken Brown · 03-14-2013, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The Messiah died because of or for the sake of our sin so that we could be blessed in departing or turning from iniquity/sin. He did not die in our stead to pay any penalty for sin...that is a delusional gospel.

If according to the law the wages of sin are death and all men have sinned (women fortunately are excluded from this), then the law is clear: they all have to die.

The messiah dying according to your scheme achieves nothing. He could have come and frolicked a while then left without all the stagecraft. Dying for people's sin makes no sense if the dying achieves nothing, is not necessary. Christianity works on the notion of redemption, ie something is paid to redeem. That payment is central to the religion, the emblem of Jesus dying on the cross. The sinless person acting as a proxy can redeem the sinner. The death of Jesus frees the sinner from the law.

One can understand why Marcion did not like the lawgiver.

If you disagree with the above, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the death of Jesus: what did the death itself do.

Hi Spin, you bring up and ask some very good questions. At the core of the answer is to have some rational thought as to what Elohim is trying to do with mankind. Most think He created Adam and Eve with a perfect nature...with no inclination to sin, and they believe "Jesus" dying in their place fixes their sin and Adams. That belief is wrong. Elohim created mankind to be against Him, and He didn't give anyone a "free will." He "bound" or "consigned" all of mankind to disobedience (Rom 11:32), including Adam and Eve, by creating them and us NAKED, FLESHLY, sinners.

Now, there is a redemption taking place from HOW Elohim created us, by FIRST bringing an Elect to the Knowledge of the Truth concerning how their sin did bring about the suffering and death of Yeshua. He is trying to deliver us OUT of sin, and is letting some of us SEE how our sin caused Yeshua's suffering and death, who was totally innocent, righteous, and undeserving of death. This is the catalyst in causing our sin to go into remission. In Elohim's plan, He wants us all to be clothed in righteousness, and not to remain naked, in our sin-(Rev 19:8, Job 29:14, Psa 132:9, Isa 61:10).

Think along the lines of the Passover Lamb. It took killing an innocent Lamb, putting the blood on the doorposts, and then totally being ready to FLEE from Egypt. Well, Yeshua's shed blood placed on the doorposts of my conscience and heart is what delivers or causes me to flee from sin.

One final point. Yeshua said that when He would be LIFTED up on the Cross, He would draw ALL MEN (mankind) to Him (John 12:32). Paul stated that when Yeshua died, ALL died, and he (Paul) doesn't look at anyone as "living," or according to the "flesh." (2 Cor 5:14-16) As far as Paul was concerned, everyone is dead. So in that respect, the wages of sin was paid in that ALL died when He died, and it should not be viewed as a substitute dying in their stead. Hope this helps to clarify a few rational thoughts. KB

I'm not particularly interested in your witnessing to your personal beliefs. If you cannot speak normally about the issues under discussion you may not be able to be open to the possibility of reasoned discussion. The christian literature does not use the term elohim. In English the normal means of referring to the christian god is simply "god". Doing contrary suggests theological need. Putting Jesus in quotes also smells of the same need. The central figure of the gospels is called ιησους, which we represent in English as Jesus. Replacing that with Yeshua is going beyond the evidence, for from the 3rd c. BCE onwards in the diaspora Greek forms of Jewish names were used and, where appropriate, names in translation Jonathan -> Theodorus or Dorotheus. There is no evidence to indicate that ιησους was not called ιησους.

You say rhetorically that I ask "interesting questions", when in fact I didn't ask one question.

You've merely swerved around the issue I posted on and tried to play Paul against Jesus. Jn 3:16b is clear: "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Note that bit about not perishing: no-one who believes will perish, despite the fact that they all have sinned and must die according to the law. It was the giving of the son, implying his death, that prevented the perishing.

Hi Spin, I guess I need to clarify your questions for you. Your first question above is in green font, and you second question is in purple font. Both questions are related, but different, and this is what I was answering in my reply. The reasoned discussion that we are having is trying to show that it is delusional to kill or murder someone just so a debt or ransom can be paid. Consider these Scriptures:

(Ex 23:7) Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

(Deut 27:25) Cursed [be] he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

(Prov 17:15) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to יהוה.

The traditional, irrational, locked in thinking about "Jesus," the sinless one, standing in as a proxy for the wicked ones, is delusional and not according to the Scriptures. KB

spin · 03-14-2013, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The Messiah died because of or for the sake of our sin so that we could be blessed in departing or turning from iniquity/sin. He did not die in our stead to pay any penalty for sin...that is a delusional gospel.

If according to the law the wages of sin are death and all men have sinned (women fortunately are excluded from this), then the law is clear: they all have to die.

The messiah dying according to your scheme achieves nothing. He could have come and frolicked a while then left without all the stagecraft. Dying for people's sin makes no sense if the dying achieves nothing, is not necessary. Christianity works on the notion of redemption, ie something is paid to redeem. That payment is central to the religion, the emblem of Jesus dying on the cross. The sinless person acting as a proxy can redeem the sinner. The death of Jesus frees the sinner from the law.

One can understand why Marcion did not like the lawgiver.

If you disagree with the above, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the death of Jesus: what did the death itself do.

Hi Spin, you bring up and ask some very good questions. At the core of the answer is to have some rational thought as to what Elohim is trying to do with mankind. Most think He created Adam and Eve with a perfect nature...with no inclination to sin, and they believe "Jesus" dying in their place fixes their sin and Adams. That belief is wrong. Elohim created mankind to be against Him, and He didn't give anyone a "free will." He "bound" or "consigned" all of mankind to disobedience (Rom 11:32), including Adam and Eve, by creating them and us NAKED, FLESHLY, sinners.

Now, there is a redemption taking place from HOW Elohim created us, by FIRST bringing an Elect to the Knowledge of the Truth concerning how their sin did bring about the suffering and death of Yeshua. He is trying to deliver us OUT of sin, and is letting some of us SEE how our sin caused Yeshua's suffering and death, who was totally innocent, righteous, and undeserving of death. This is the catalyst in causing our sin to go into remission. In Elohim's plan, He wants us all to be clothed in righteousness, and not to remain naked, in our sin-(Rev 19:8, Job 29:14, Psa 132:9, Isa 61:10).

Think along the lines of the Passover Lamb. It took killing an innocent Lamb, putting the blood on the doorposts, and then totally being ready to FLEE from Egypt. Well, Yeshua's shed blood placed on the doorposts of my conscience and heart is what delivers or causes me to flee from sin.

One final point. Yeshua said that when He would be LIFTED up on the Cross, He would draw ALL MEN (mankind) to Him (John 12:32). Paul stated that when Yeshua died, ALL died, and he (Paul) doesn't look at anyone as "living," or according to the "flesh." (2 Cor 5:14-16) As far as Paul was concerned, everyone is dead. So in that respect, the wages of sin was paid in that ALL died when He died, and it should not be viewed as a substitute dying in their stead. Hope this helps to clarify a few rational thoughts. KB

I'm not particularly interested in your witnessing to your personal beliefs. If you cannot speak normally about the issues under discussion you may not be able to be open to the possibility of reasoned discussion. The christian literature does not use the term elohim. In English the normal means of referring to the christian god is simply "god". Doing contrary suggests theological need. Putting Jesus in quotes also smells of the same need. The central figure of the gospels is called ιησους, which we represent in English as Jesus. Replacing that with Yeshua is going beyond the evidence, for from the 3rd c. BCE onwards in the diaspora Greek forms of Jewish names were used and, where appropriate, names in translation Jonathan -> Theodorus or Dorotheus. There is no evidence to indicate that ιησους was not called ιησους.

You say rhetorically that I ask "interesting questions", when in fact I didn't ask one question.

You've merely swerved around the issue I posted on and tried to play Paul against Jesus. Jn 3:16b is clear: "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Note that bit about not perishing: no-one who believes will perish, despite the fact that they all have sinned and must die according to the law. It was the giving of the son, implying his death, that prevented the perishing.

Hi Spin, I guess I need to clarify your questions for you. Your first question above is in green font,

Not a question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

and you second question is in purple font.

Rhetoric which asked no answer. I think your position is looney tunes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Both questions are related, but different, and this is what I was answering in my reply. The reasoned discussion that we are having is trying to show that it is delusional to kill or murder someone just so a debt or ransom can be paid.

And you just demonstrated my point. You aren't dealing with the rhetoric, just restating your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Consider these Scriptures:

(Ex 23:7) Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

(Deut 27:25) Cursed [be] he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

(Prov 17:15) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to יהוה.

I think you think there was some point in citing these verses. I see the daisy chain value, but they don't apparently relate to the issue in any meaningful sense.

Perhaps you can supply the missing stuff that's in your head that pushed you to choose these verses, if you can supply the simple logic. Until you make your thought clear to yourself, it cannot be fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The traditional, irrational, locked in thinking about "Jesus," the sinless one, standing in as a proxy for the wicked ones, is delusional and not according to the Scriptures. KB

The pathos is entertaining.

Ken Brown · 03-14-2013, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The Messiah died because of or for the sake of our sin so that we could be blessed in departing or turning from iniquity/sin. He did not die in our stead to pay any penalty for sin...that is a delusional gospel.

If according to the law the wages of sin are death and all men have sinned (women fortunately are excluded from this), then the law is clear: they all have to die.

The messiah dying according to your scheme achieves nothing. He could have come and frolicked a while then left without all the stagecraft. Dying for people's sin makes no sense if the dying achieves nothing, is not necessary. Christianity works on the notion of redemption, ie something is paid to redeem. That payment is central to the religion, the emblem of Jesus dying on the cross. The sinless person acting as a proxy can redeem the sinner. The death of Jesus frees the sinner from the law.

One can understand why Marcion did not like the lawgiver.

If you disagree with the above, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the death of Jesus: what did the death itself do.

Hi Spin, you bring up and ask some very good questions. At the core of the answer is to have some rational thought as to what Elohim is trying to do with mankind. Most think He created Adam and Eve with a perfect nature...with no inclination to sin, and they believe "Jesus" dying in their place fixes their sin and Adams. That belief is wrong. Elohim created mankind to be against Him, and He didn't give anyone a "free will." He "bound" or "consigned" all of mankind to disobedience (Rom 11:32), including Adam and Eve, by creating them and us NAKED, FLESHLY, sinners.

Now, there is a redemption taking place from HOW Elohim created us, by FIRST bringing an Elect to the Knowledge of the Truth concerning how their sin did bring about the suffering and death of Yeshua. He is trying to deliver us OUT of sin, and is letting some of us SEE how our sin caused Yeshua's suffering and death, who was totally innocent, righteous, and undeserving of death. This is the catalyst in causing our sin to go into remission. In Elohim's plan, He wants us all to be clothed in righteousness, and not to remain naked, in our sin-(Rev 19:8, Job 29:14, Psa 132:9, Isa 61:10).

Think along the lines of the Passover Lamb. It took killing an innocent Lamb, putting the blood on the doorposts, and then totally being ready to FLEE from Egypt. Well, Yeshua's shed blood placed on the doorposts of my conscience and heart is what delivers or causes me to flee from sin.

One final point. Yeshua said that when He would be LIFTED up on the Cross, He would draw ALL MEN (mankind) to Him (John 12:32). Paul stated that when Yeshua died, ALL died, and he (Paul) doesn't look at anyone as "living," or according to the "flesh." (2 Cor 5:14-16) As far as Paul was concerned, everyone is dead. So in that respect, the wages of sin was paid in that ALL died when He died, and it should not be viewed as a substitute dying in their stead. Hope this helps to clarify a few rational thoughts. KB

I'm not particularly interested in your witnessing to your personal beliefs. If you cannot speak normally about the issues under discussion you may not be able to be open to the possibility of reasoned discussion. The christian literature does not use the term elohim. In English the normal means of referring to the christian god is simply "god". Doing contrary suggests theological need. Putting Jesus in quotes also smells of the same need. The central figure of the gospels is called ιησους, which we represent in English as Jesus. Replacing that with Yeshua is going beyond the evidence, for from the 3rd c. BCE onwards in the diaspora Greek forms of Jewish names were used and, where appropriate, names in translation Jonathan -> Theodorus or Dorotheus. There is no evidence to indicate that ιησους was not called ιησους.

You say rhetorically that I ask "interesting questions", when in fact I didn't ask one question.

You've merely swerved around the issue I posted on and tried to play Paul against Jesus. Jn 3:16b is clear: "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Note that bit about not perishing: no-one who believes will perish, despite the fact that they all have sinned and must die according to the law. It was the giving of the son, implying his death, that prevented the perishing.

Hi Spin, I guess I need to clarify your questions for you. Your first question above is in green font,

Not a question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

and you second question is in purple font.

Rhetoric which asked no answer. I think your position is looney tunes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Both questions are related, but different, and this is what I was answering in my reply. The reasoned discussion that we are having is trying to show that it is delusional to kill or murder someone just so a debt or ransom can be paid.

And you just demonstrated my point. You aren't dealing with the rhetoric, just restating your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Consider these Scriptures:

(Ex 23:7) Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

(Deut 27:25) Cursed [be] he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

(Prov 17:15) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to יהוה.

I think you think there was some point in citing these verses. I see the daisy chain value, but they don't apparently relate to the issue in any meaningful sense.

Perhaps you can supply the missing stuff that's in your head that pushed you to choose these verses, if you can supply the simple logic. Until you make your thought clear to yourself, it cannot be fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The traditional, irrational, locked in thinking about "Jesus," the sinless one, standing in as a proxy for the wicked ones, is delusional and not according to the Scriptures. KB

The pathos is entertaining.

Hi Spin, it appears you get side tracked very easy. Were we not discussing the role of a proxy paying a debt for sinners? Why can't you continue in following the simple logic of the discussion? I tell you that Messiah did not die in the place of sinners and you tell me, "Christianity works on the notion of redemption, ie something is paid to redeem. That payment is central to the religion, the emblem of Jesus dying on the cross. The sinless person acting as a proxy can redeem the sinner." That's hogwash, it's delusional and the 3 Scriptures I quoted, prove it. Those 3 Scriptures are just a sampling of the Scriptures which show Elohim's justice is against punishing or killing the innocent and righteous in place of the wicked. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? KB

jakejonesiv · 03-14-2013, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi Spin, it appears you get side tracked very easy. Were we not discussing the role of a proxy paying a debt for sinners? Why can't you continue in following the simple logic of the discussion? I tell you that Messiah did not die in the place of sinners and you tell me, "Christianity works on the notion of redemption, ie something is paid to redeem. That payment is central to the religion, the emblem of Jesus dying on the cross. The sinless person acting as a proxy can redeem the sinner." That's hogwash, it's delusional and the 3 Scriptures I quoted, prove it. Those 3 Scriptures are just a sampling of the Scriptures which show Elohim's justice is against punishing or killing the innocent and righteous in place of the wicked. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? KB

Ken, you know that there is no True Church. No one is saved by Jesus or their own righteousness. It is all a load of crap.
BTW, the New Testament was written in Greek. Jesus = Iesous (not Yeshua) and God = Theos (not Elohim). You know nothing.

spin · 03-14-2013, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi Spin, it appears you get side tracked very easy. Were we not discussing the role of a proxy paying a debt for sinners? Why can't you continue in following the simple logic of the discussion? I tell you that Messiah did not die in the place of sinners and you tell me, "Christianity works on the notion of redemption, ie something is paid to redeem. That payment is central to the religion, the emblem of Jesus dying on the cross. The sinless person acting as a proxy can redeem the sinner." That's hogwash, it's delusional and the 3 Scriptures I quoted, prove it. Those 3 Scriptures are just a sampling of the Scriptures which show Elohim's justice is against punishing or killing the innocent and righteous in place of the wicked. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? KB

What's hard to grasp is your total lack of content. Those three verses do fuck all to illustrate anything of use to the relationship between the death of Jesus and the redemption of sinners. God sent an innocent man into the world and the world did with him as it chose.

What's amazing is your inability to actually explain anything. You rattle off a few verses as though that is enough. We can't see your brain at work in the simple citing of these verses, if there is any work, so here we go again:

[T2](Ex 23:7) Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

(Deut 27:25) Cursed [be] he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

(Prov 17:15) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to יהוה.[/T2]
As you didn't do it before, try to make your point now.

jakejonesiv · 03-15-2013, 01:10 AM

Ken Brown is trying to peddle his :horsecrap: supernaturalism. No one rose from the dead whether the name be Yeshua or Jesus.

03-13-2013, 08:05 PM	#51
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	On the Historical and Dogmatic Methods in Theology There can be no communication with persons who can only discuss history in terms of thir own religous faith. Even persons of equal religous fervor will never communicate if they are stuck in different religous preconceptions. So how do we go about the study of history in Christian origins? How can people of differing faiths and indeed no faith have a meaningful discussion? By adherence to Historical Critical methodology. ON THE HISTORICAL AND DOGMATIC METHODS IN THEOLOGY [1898] Ernst Troeltsch Translated by Jack Forstman (Used by permission.) Gesammelte Schriften, Volume II (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1913), pp. 728—753 http://tinyurl.com/23zaa75 It is entirely possible for a person of religous faith to abide by the rules of the historical critical method. A notable example is Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, Vanderbilt University. " A self-described "Yankee Jewish feminist who teaches in a predominantly Christian divinity school in the buckle of the Bible Belt," Professor Levine combines historical-critical rigor, literary-critical sensitivity, and a frequent dash of humor with a commitment to eliminating anti-Jewish, sexist, and homophobic theologies." http://www.vanderbilt.edu/divinity/f...ges/levine.php At the 2010 SBL held in Atlanta, there was a paper offered by entitled “The Rules of the Game: History and Historical Method in the Context of Faith” Here is the Abstract. http://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/abstract.aspx?id=16534 “Numerous scholars who engage in historical Jesus research have some type of faith perspective with respect to the subject of their inquiry--including myself. This may be one of the factors motivating our personal interest in the subject. But the question arises, should this presupposition affect or alter our understanding of either the concept of history or our application of historical method? This paper will respond to this question in the negative. The “rules of the game” of history should preclude historians who have a faith perspective altering either the concept of history and or historical method.” Jake Jones IV

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2013, 01:10 AM	#59
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Ken Brown is trying to peddle his :horsecrap: supernaturalism. No one rose from the dead whether the name be Yeshua or Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.