Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dado · 06-23-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Words can both be true literally and also have deeper meaning.
One does not deny the other.

i gave you a specific example where they mean exactly opposite. we also have Maimonides saying anything taken literally that violates the knowledge of our own senses makes a mockery of faith. the evidence is overwhelming that you are simply wrong: if you have actual refutatatory evidence, feel free to present it.

dado · 06-23-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ichabod crane

But the point is that fundamentalism is not just a Christian phenomena.

i don't believe i have ever argued otherwise. in fact i have argued the other way: that whatever the framework of thought, there will be a segment of people drawn to the simplicity and (false) comfort of a literalist variant. it's just plain easier - at least in the beginnning - than having to think for yourself.

Toto · 06-23-2004, 11:06 AM

Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul

Review

Another review

CX · 06-23-2004, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dado

if you have actual refutatatory evidence, feel free to present it.

No making up words.

Magdlyn · 06-23-2004, 12:08 PM

Toto, got a slight problem with your first review of Hays' book:

Quote:

Hays suggests that the following criteria should used to evaluate all readings of Scripture:

...Scripture must be read as a witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. No reading can be legitimate if it fails to acknowledge the death and resurrection of Jesus as the climactic manifestation of God's righteousness.

Because readers who discern the true[sic] message of Scripture behold the glory of God in Jesus Christ, Paul tells us, they are "changed into his likeness." No reading of Scripture can be legitimate, then, if it fails to shape the readers into a community that embodies the love of God as shown forth in Christ.

I think the author is referring to Hebrew scripture, as that is what Paul uses. So the author must be a Xtian believer, telling us all, Jews inluded, that the entire Bible (including the Hebrew books) must only be interpreted in a Xtian context? Hm.

Quote:

Community in the likeness of Christ is cruciform; therefore right interpretation must be cruciform.

I do not know what this means at all. And talk of right and wrong in this review just makes me nervous.

Magdlyn · 06-23-2004, 12:12 PM

The second review is written by some guy with no credentials other than an unspecified affiliation with a Southern Baptist Seminary. Just the same, he seems more broadminded than the author or the 1st reviewer.

Toto · 06-23-2004, 01:07 PM

I posted the links to the reviews for reference, in case someone wants to pursue the book further. R.B. Hays and the reviewers all appear to be Christian and not explicitly literalist Christians, but it does appear that Hays is doing as much theology as NT criticism. He would probably reject most of our readings as lacking Christ, which would make it impossible for non-Christians to read the Bible.

dado · 06-23-2004, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CX

No making up words.

i disaccept your disallowation.

Albion · 06-23-2004, 04:32 PM

Quote:

By the way, it is important to be clear about two distinct issues, which Magdlyn has quite correctly alluded to. I'm afraid I've confounded them a bit, but the original poster also confounded them. The one is the issue of hermeneutics (how we interpret the text), the other is the issue of inerrancy (the veracity of the text). These are two different issues.

Sorry about that; the problem is that the fundamentalists I deal with on that board spend a lot of time confusing them too. As far as they're concerned, the Bible is to be interpreted literally because the literal interpretation is the only correct interpretation, and it's a short step from there to the claim that literal is the same as inerrant.

BTW, is her assertion correct that Diodorus of Tarsus was a literalist? I thought literalism was a much later development.

NOGO · 06-23-2004, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Maglyn
We do not actually know if Paul or Jesus believed in the ancient stories as facts. I think, it did not matter to them. I think the symbolism and import of the old stories to Paul and the evangelists was on the deeper level, they did not even need the old stories to be literally true. After all, they, just as we, had no other way of determining their authenticity, besides their own scrolls from the 7th century. And Paul had to depend on the Greek translations. He was not a Pharisee. He did not even understand Hebrew.

We do not know if it mattered to them or not. What we do know is that they spoke about the stories as if they were fact.

Paul could not tell people that Jesus was sent to correct man's error in the Garden of Eden and at the same time tell them Adam never existed and he did not eat of the apple and there was no such thing as the Garden of Eden.

For Paul's myth to hold the Garden story has to be history, which makes Jesus' story history, which gives people assurance that the promise of salvation is going to be HISTORY. ie Real!

Just look today...
why do you think that Christians cannot accept that Jesus never existed as a man?

Deeper meaning is fine but if the foundation is vapor you have nothing.

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

06-23-2004, 11:06 AM	#53
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul Review Another review

06-23-2004, 12:12 PM	#56
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	The second review is written by some guy with no credentials other than an unspecified affiliation with a Southern Baptist Seminary. Just the same, he seems more broadminded than the author or the 1st reviewer.

06-23-2004, 01:07 PM	#57
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I posted the links to the reviews for reference, in case someone wants to pursue the book further. R.B. Hays and the reviewers all appear to be Christian and not explicitly literalist Christians, but it does appear that Hays is doing as much theology as NT criticism. He would probably reject most of our readings as lacking Christ, which would make it impossible for non-Christians to read the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.