sky4it

You can call me sky, you can call me 4it but then I might miss your post. You can call me skyit, doesn't matter to me. You are not allowed to call me sHit tho, this would NOT be allowed.

anyway, I shall try to get all the spelling of the names right, and have noted that point thanks. :wave:

oatmealia

Thanks, Sky.

Still here, still reading. I ordered "How to Read the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Kugel today, should be an interesting read.

funinspace

Yes, the word fundamentalism has diminished in usage in the last 50 years, and now many favor the word evangelical for essentially the same theological POV. You don't know me well enough to presume that it means "Yep, we know what this turkey is all about". I could have just as well said conservative vs. liberal Christian with the similar intent in mind. Me thinketh you protest to much.

Christian fundamentalism was a reaction to the liberal theologies coming out of various seminaries about a 100 years ago, and yes many spelled out what they called fundamental truths that should be defended. It may not have been a creed, since it didn't encompass just one sect. Here's a link with a little history if your interested: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=578310
Meet Earle V. Pierce (an early fundamentalist) where he titles his article "Why I Am A Fundamentalist"
http://www.feasite.org/Tracts/fbcwhyiam.htm

Meet today's John MacArthur
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/08/21/l...on-larry-king/
Yeah, Calvin wasn't real nice. Would you like a long list of such Christians that would include the likes Luther and Augustine? The theology is not the person, and Calvin is long dead. Some also charge the Christianity was built much around the cult of Paul and some say the cult of Yeshua. I find the word cult to generally be one of those code words you seamed all concerned about previously, to simply label someone else as being "in left field" or "nutty". Yes, some people call all of Christianity a cult, just like many Christians call LDS a cult, or Islam a cult. It does seam a popular human trait to disparage other peoples ways of thinking.

-Jay-

I ordered that one a couple of days ago, and should get it the first part of next week. I'd be very interested in hearing what you think about it.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

I appreciate it.

Well, I'm not certain I'd agree that anyone can be considered religious, unless one broadens the conventional definition of the word. That, however, would be a discussion for another thread. I used the term in a very basic, non-loaded way, which wasn't intended to imply a white robe mentality. I can see your point though, and apologize for the misunderstanding.


regards,

NinJay

Jane H

Oatmelia- very interesting to read your thoughts. Clearly you’re thinking beyond simple categories of prophecy. I hope the following thoughts are helpful, although since I have had to keep things absurdly short, they may miss that goal.

Firstly I would not try to use prophecy to ‘prove’ Xianity, as some of my co-religionists do. However I would argue that the prophecies are true. The examples you used in post 39 were Matt 2:15 and Isaiah 53. The key thing to understand is that Jesus is being used in both passages as representing and embodying the Jewish people.

Matthew is telling an exodus story, he has just told a Genesis story, and then will be rerunning Deuteronomy (ch5-7), a royal and prophetic ministry, an exile story (cross) and reconciliation (resurrection). Again, as I outlined in post 5, it’s the significance of the whole story, the whole OT picture, that is being referred to, rather than a tiny sound-bite from an seemingly irrelevant passage. Matthew is setting Jesus within Israel’s story, not setting up a magical “Wow that prophecy came true!!!” thing. Indeed, the quoted Hosea 11 tells the story of God’s relationship to His ‘boy’ Israel.

Isaiah 53, where an individual is used to talk about Israel suffering, must be read in the context of the rest of Isaiah 40-55; YHWH restoring His people after the exile. Jesus felt called to enact this programme. How was the story of Isaiah 52:7-12 to be achieved? Through the servant of YHWH in ch53. Jesus as the representative of Israel would take Israel’s suffering on Himself.


Very interestingly, from Qumran comes this, including about ch 52:

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/commelc.htm

It illustrates how in some C1 Jewish thought, the Isaianic herald could be seen as a messianic individual.

Imagine a new car about to be unveiled. Under the covering, you can see the shape, and the form, without actually seeing the car. That’s a bit how I see prophecy, and I think that’s how the various NT “letters” see it.

sky4it

Funinspace & NinJay:

funinspace:usaid: It does seam a popular human trait to disparage other peoples ways of thinking.

If you are referencing that to me and my personal view of Calvinism, you got me there, I would have to plead "GUILTY" How's that for honesty in evaluating my usage of the word cult? I just don't know how else to explain my view of Calvinistic thought. The scope of Calvinism is certainly beyond this thread. After reading Calvin, some of it I found to be hysterical. In fact, I made my point on a Calvin thread, that the actual John Calvin "contraption" is so sophisticated, that modern day Calvinists don't even know what they got. It even has political levers and such built into the contraption, which I found to be more than amusing.

With respect to the word fundamentalism, it certainly isnt a hot button word for me. Perhaps in context with the other words and phases that were flung around it was just one more arrow sticking in me, thus the harsh response. Since you were the last one in the door, it was probably inapprobriate for me to toss it back at you. Anyway, thanks for the links. If in fact a fundamentalist is one who believe that scripture is a posit for truth by definition, then, yes, I would be a fundamentalist. Actually, I don't need much on Luther. From my persective, Luther's writings are not commonly preached, in most Lutheran Churches I have attended. Most Lutheran churches I have attended, mainly speak from Biblical perspectives and church patriarchs are rarely cited.

Ninjay: I think a lot gets lost in usage of words. Another word would be the word "preach" which is commonly used to describe biblical agenda's. Since us "fundamentalists" :wave: (I am not uncomfortable bieng one) believe the "THY Word is Truth" , our view would be preaching to be nothing more than a sceintists giving an on campus lecture. Still, I realize that you would not view preaching in that fashion. Preaching, I think, is something every one does when they try and convince someone of a view.

You certainly didn't need to apolgize for the misunderstanding. Hell, you ought see what my wife has done to me sometimes; and I dont even get a sympathetic glare in response.

Your probably right tho, getting caught up in word symantics is going to get us nowhere real fast.

Cheers :wave:

oatmealia

Thanks for sharing. I think I might be misunderstanding you... you say that one shouldn't use prophecy to "prove" Christianity. Do you say that because you believe that there is proof but it's not in prophecy? Or because you object to people trying to prove Christianity at all? To be honest, I'm losing track of some of my thoughts, so I guess I should ask: if you do believe that Christianity can be proven, where lies the proof (if not here)?

I'm not asking for full-blown arguments or anything, just wondering about you personally as an example of someone who accepts a more liberal interpretation of prophecy. I'm wondering where one would go from there. Be as vague or specific as you wish.

Also, to all, I've been reading a little more and I've come across the term "midrash." From what I'm picking up, there seems to be a theory that Matthew et als were employing a Midrashic interpretation of the Scriptures in order to show that Jesus was the Messiah. Any suggesting reading on this topic would be much appreciated.

I should be getting my copy early next week, too. I'm sure I'll end up talking about it somewhere -- maybe a thread will pop up?

blastula

Thomas Jefferson said something similar.

From Jefferson's letter to John Adams, from Monticello, April 11, 1823:


By the way, sky4it, to learn how to do the quote function, see this page Quotes 101.

sky4it

Oatmealia:

I agree with the statements by others here that having good family support is important for any person. It even made me think back to my father and mother. My father, was a guy who never said hardly a lick of Bible, yet I do not know of another man I knew, who lived it out better than he did. I guess I was fortunate to have great parents. I actually considered my mother and father my best friends.

With respect to your new book, I do not know anything about it so will not comment. I couldn’t nor would I recommend you to any particular denomination. Humorously, throughout my life I have been through numerous denominations so much so that one time my mother called me a spiritual “gypsy.” I guess I liked to window shop so to speak.

There is a group of women that is interdenominational which is called BSF or Women’s Bible Study Fellowship which is available in many differing denominations. They also have a men’s side. My sister, who is in her 30's, has been going to these meetings for around 2 years. She has told me she has learned a lot. She is however, I think, a brighter lightbulb than me. Anyway, for what its worth, I thought to mention that to you, as I am quite sure they would be somewhere in your area/community.

Best of luck on your quest for truth and knowledge. My grandpa always used to say, the fun is on the run. I think he was right. Learning and growth should be fun.

Best wishes and regards

me