I would like to see commentaries written by Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza

Page 3 of 6 (105 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
This post has 104 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 129
John McComb | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 23 2009 8:48 AM

Randy Hartman:

George, what a mess you have created in this thread with your alarming honesty and sharp insight.  Sigh...you are my hero!

Yucch!!!

Yours in Christ

John

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jul 25 2009 9:03 PM

Robert Pavich:

Tom,

No problem but I'm at a loss as to why we'd be talking about Augustine??

Not everything written about Christianity is Orthodox..I agree...and the church fathers are no exception.

BUT...

 

If we are having a hard time defining what orthodoxy is then we are in a heap o trouble! :)

 

Hi Robert,

The reason why I brought St. Augustine into this conversation is because so much of our theology is built on what he said 1600 years ago.  For an example, I do not believe original sin is the first documented case of an STD.

What is orthodoxy?  Every denomination has its own version of orthodoxy.  Thus, we are not going to agree with what is orthodoxy.  Then again, we could just ask George ;-)

Matthew,

In my previous post, I said St. Augustine provided the church with good theological understanding of God for the 5th century church.  St. Augustine formed his theology by using what was known and understood at the time.

We are living during the 21st century, not the 5th.  Thanks to God, our understanding of the universe, the environment, and our bodies has improved tremendously over the 1600 years.

When it comes to our scripture, we now know how it has been edited over the years.  For example, we read in the footnotes of our Bibles things like "most ancient authorities lack. . ."  One example is John 7:53-8:11, and another text critical example is the phrase "in Ephesus" being added to Eph 1:1.

Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus.  Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).

We know these things by using the methods that other fields of study (like criminal justice) have been using for years before biblical scholars applied them to the Holy Bible.

Does this take the authority away from the Bible knowing that Paul did not write 1 Timothy or that the text has been edited over the years, no.  Knowing the history of our scripture keeps our feet on the ground and our heads from becoming too big.  Knowing the history of our scripture helps us to understand what a loving God we worship and serve. 

We all have heard some ridiculous claims that people have made concerning our Bible.  For an example, I once heard someone say that God is the one who wrote the Bible, and God put every period and comma right where God wanted them.  It is very obvious that this person only read one English version of the Bible, and he had no knowledge of the original Greek text, where they did not use things like periods, commas, or even spaces between words.

 Does this mean, using the gifts and tools God has given us in the 21st century, that our theology is going to change, yes.  I think this is a good thing because we are using all of the gifts that God has given us to know God better.  In the next couple of hundred years, our knowledge is going to continue to change, and thus our theology is going to continue to change.

 

 

 

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 2:42 AM

Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus.  Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).


And I believe that these "mystery scholars" are dead wrong.

 

"When it comes to scripture we now know how it's been edited over the years

 

Yes, we do...and it doesn't get any more reliable than the scriptures.

 

 

And PLEASE don't trot out the Pericope Adulterae as some sort of an example of distortion of the bible text...it's neither new nor is it a concern. If you're going to be radically skeptical of this particular ancient document, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

And i'm curious; do you have this level of skeptism for any OTHER historical document?

 

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 390
Alain Maashe | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 2:56 AM

tom collinge:

Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus.  Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).

We know these things by using the methods that other fields of study (like criminal justice) have been using for years before biblical scholars applied them to the Holy Bible.

Does this take the authority away from the Bible knowing that Paul did not write 1 Timothy or that the text has been edited over the years, no.  Knowing the history of our scripture keeps our feet on the ground and our heads from becoming too big.  Knowing the history of our scripture helps us to understand what a loving God we worship and serve. 

I promised myself that I would stay away from theological discussions

In the words of Michael Corleone: “Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.”

Tom Collinge said:

“Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus.  Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).”

The above quote got my attention. It gives the impression that the “pseudonymous” nature of the Pastoral Epistles is a foregone conclusion in the world of scholarship.

It is true to the majority of critical scholars hold to that view but the vast majority of evangelical scholars would disagree (i.e. Mounce’s WBC, Knight’s NIGTC, Fee’s NIBC, Belleville and Laansma in CBC, Kostenberger in EBC rev). Even some critical scholars like J. N. D. Kelly in BNTC maintains that the traditional view which upholds Pauline authorship is to be preferred based on the preponderance of evidence.

Even Luke Timothy Johnson’s take (quoted by Tom above) when read in its full context concedes that the case is far from being closed because “Even those who are not absolutely convinced that the letters come directly from Paul find unconvincing many of the reasons given for assigning their [the Pastoral Epistles] composition to a later Pauline forger” The Writings of the New Testament, 423.

The “assured results of critical scholarship” do not appear to be so solid when one actually looks at the evidence (or the absence thereof)

The arguments based on manuscript evidence (P46) and the silences of Acts are weak at best and are easily countered. The theological arguments are arbitrary while the stylistic objections could easily been explained by the use of an amanuensis or alternatively by Paul having to write without one.

In order to conclude that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous one must disregard the evidence from the earlier church claiming the contrary (the Muratorian Canon (c. 150); Irenaeus (c. 175) in Her. 3.3.3; Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) in Stromata 2.11).

The claim that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous flies in the face of the internal and external evidence in support of the letter. Some scholars like Philip Towner following Howard Marshall argue that allonymity might be a better concept than pseudonymity since it escapes the critical allegations of deception and falsehood by proposing that a student or follower of Paul edited his notes or assumed his mantle to address issues facing later generation (NICNT, 25-26) However, the only examples close to the time of Paul as found in the philosophical schools and considerably differ from the autobiographical and personal character of the Pastoral Epistles making it very difficult to escape the charge of fraud and dishonesty.

This brings me back to the following claim by Tom:

“Does this take the authority away from the Bible knowing that Paul did not write 1 Timothy or that the text has been edited over the years, no.  Knowing the history of our scripture keeps our feet on the ground and our heads from becoming too big.  Knowing the history of our scripture helps us to understand what a loving God we worship and serve. ”

I just finished tracing overall argument of each of the Pastoral Epistles, if the letters were nothing than pious frauds, they would nullify the point that the writer is trying to drive home; especially the need for Timothy and Titus to sharply differentiate themselves from the false teachers that are upsetting the churches in their way to ruin and destruction.

He denounces those who are liars, those who swear falsely (1 Tim 1:10)

A few verses later he emphatically declares:

“For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle– I am telling the truth; I am not lying– and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1Ti 2:7 NET)”

He continues by describing the heretics as “hypocrites, liars, with a seared conscience”

In 2 Tim 3:13 he castigates the false teachers as “imposters” who are proceeding “from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2Ti 3:13)”

In Titus he asks Titus to be on guard against “deceivers” and “liars” (Titus 1:10-12)

This is to be contrasted with the insistence on truth and integrity throughout

The goal is to have “a sound message that cannot be criticized, so that any opponent will be at a loss, because he has nothing evil to say about us. (Tit 2:8 NET)”

The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience.

It was true in the first century, it is still true today

Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g.,  1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv)

If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon.

If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23)

they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us

Alain

 

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 7:09 AM

tom collinge:

In my previous post, I said St. Augustine provided the church with good theological understanding of God for the 5th century church.  St. Augustine formed his theology by using what was known and understood at the time.

We are living during the 21st century, not the 5th.  Thanks to God, our understanding of the universe, the environment, and our bodies has improved tremendously over the 1600 years.

So, you are assuming E.S. Fiorenza & you have all he facts, all the understanding and all the wisdom.....Hmmm, I disagree,  

Although I am not Catholic and only adhere to the Bible, I can comfortably say St. Augustine, at 1600 years in the grave, is miles closer to the truth of God than your method of scholarship will ever get you.  The method you espouse is nothing other than Darwinism, believing you are just improving with age. It was not very long ago when the "wise" of this world said the Hittites could never have existed because WE don't have evidence of them.  Zoologists told us the Bible was mistaken saying a rabbit chews it's cud.  And the examples can go on all day.

tom collinge:

Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus.  Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).

We know these things by using the methods that other fields of study (like criminal justice) have been using for years before biblical scholars applied them to the Holy Bible.

"Scholars" believe a lot of stuff even when it contradicts the stuff they already believe. And we all know, no innocent person has ever been convicted by forensics Confused   (Good tools in the hands of fools can do a lot of harm,  to the fools with the tools & those who trust the fools.)

tom collinge:
In the next couple of hundred years, our knowledge is going to continue to change, and thus our theology is going to continue to change.
Hmm

So here you are admitting you do not currently have the truth and what you believe will definitely change in a few centuries! How do you expect to be taken seriously. You ask us to believe you when you believe you are already wrong. Your self-serving philosophy isn't  serving you very well.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 7:26 AM

Alain Maashe:

If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23)

they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us

Thanks for the advice.  On your recommendation I just ripped them out of my bible.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2855
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 8:31 AM

Alain Maashe:

I promised myself that I would stay away from theological discussions

In the words of Michael Corleone: “Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.”

Tom Collinge said:

“Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus.  Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).”

The above quote got my attention. It gives the impression that the “pseudonymous” nature of the Pastoral Epistles is a foregone conclusion in the world of scholarship.

It is true to the majority of critical scholars hold to that view but the vast majority of evangelical scholars would disagree (i.e. Mounce’s WBC, Knight’s NIGTC, Fee’s NIBC, Belleville and Laansma in CBC, Kostenberger in EBC rev). Even some critical scholars like J. N. D. Kelly in BNTC maintains that the traditional view which upholds Pauline authorship is to be preferred based on the preponderance of evidence.

Even Luke Timothy Johnson’s take (quoted by Tom above) when read in its full context concedes that the case is far from being closed because “Even those who are not absolutely convinced that the letters come directly from Paul find unconvincing many of the reasons given for assigning their [the Pastoral Epistles] composition to a later Pauline forger” The Writings of the New Testament, 423.

The “assured results of critical scholarship” do not appear to be so solid when one actually looks at the evidence (or the absence thereof)

The arguments based on manuscript evidence (P46) and the silences of Acts are weak at best and are easily countered. The theological arguments are arbitrary while the stylistic objections could easily been explained by the use of an amanuensis or alternatively by Paul having to write without one.

In order to conclude that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous one must disregard the evidence from the earlier church claiming the contrary (the Muratorian Canon (c. 150); Irenaeus (c. 175) in Her. 3.3.3; Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) in Stromata 2.11).

The claim that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous flies in the face of the internal and external evidence in support of the letter. Some scholars like Philip Towner following Howard Marshall argue that allonymity might be a better concept than pseudonymity since it escapes the critical allegations of deception and falsehood by proposing that a student or follower of Paul edited his notes or assumed his mantle to address issues facing later generation (NICNT, 25-26) However, the only examples close to the time of Paul as found in the philosophical schools and considerably differ from the autobiographical and personal character of the Pastoral Epistles making it very difficult to escape the charge of fraud and dishonesty.

This brings me back to the following claim by Tom:

“Does this take the authority away from the Bible knowing that Paul did not write 1 Timothy or that the text has been edited over the years, no.  Knowing the history of our scripture keeps our feet on the ground and our heads from becoming too big.  Knowing the history of our scripture helps us to understand what a loving God we worship and serve. ”

I just finished tracing overall argument of each of the Pastoral Epistles, if the letters were nothing than pious frauds, they would nullify the point that the writer is trying to drive home; especially the need for Timothy and Titus to sharply differentiate themselves from the false teachers that are upsetting the churches in their way to ruin and destruction.

He denounces those who are liars, those who swear falsely (1 Tim 1:10)

A few verses later he emphatically declares:

“For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle– I am telling the truth; I am not lying– and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1Ti 2:7 NET)”

He continues by describing the heretics as “hypocrites, liars, with a seared conscience”

In 2 Tim 3:13 he castigates the false teachers as “imposters” who are proceeding “from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2Ti 3:13)”

In Titus he asks Titus to be on guard against “deceivers” and “liars” (Titus 1:10-12)

This is to be contrasted with the insistence on truth and integrity throughout

The goal is to have “a sound message that cannot be criticized, so that any opponent will be at a loss, because he has nothing evil to say about us. (Tit 2:8 NET)”

The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience.

It was true in the first century, it is still true today

Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g.,  1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv)

If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon.

If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23)

they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us

Alain

This is one reason i love Alain Maashe even though i have not met him, long may their kind increase. It is my sincere prayer that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, would be blessed with such teachers who know what they are talking about. May the Lord bless and keep you brother - what a defence of the authority of scripture & a high view of scripture!

 I could not improve on what you have said & thank you for saving me the embarrassment of trying to responded. Well, said Alain.Yes

Ted

2     Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3     For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4     and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

The New King James Version. 1982 (2 Ti 4:2-4). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

 

 

 

 

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 2855
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 8:40 AM

Matthew C Jones:
So here you are admitting you do not currently have the truth and what you believe will definitely change in a few centuries! How do you expect to be taken seriously. You ask us to believe you when you believe you are already wrong. Your self-serving philosophy isn't  serving you very well

Thanks for the responseYes Keep it up.

Regards

Sir T

3     Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

The New King James Version. 1982 (Jud 3). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 2855
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 9:21 AM

Matthew C Jones:

Randy Hartman:

George, what a mess you have created in this thread with your alarming honesty and sharp insight.  Sigh...you are my hero!

 George is your hero?    Tongue Tied     Now, I am afraid!

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John MacArthur, John Piper, C.H. Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul & D.A. Carson are my heroes YesCool

Sir T.

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 10850
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 11:18 AM

Alain Maashe:

The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience.

It was true in the first century, it is still true today

Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g.,  1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv)

If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon.

If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23)

they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us

Alain

Alain Maashe wrote the following post at Today 2:56 AM:

 

Thank you, Alain. the entire post is thoughtful and well-written. If I held the view of Scripture many in this forum espouse, I would have abandoned Scripture as an authoritive guide for life long ago.

Jack

 

Posts 58
ZoesProudDaddy | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 12:13 PM

With all due respect, I don't understand this mindset. The mindset that prefers Logos DOESN'T add specific authors/works to their growing library. I would like to see commentaries on the Qu'ran, BOM, etc... It is up to each individual person whether or not they would be interested in purchasing said work. I would brather Logos has every work of every author rather than ignoring certain works of certain authors.

Posts 58
ZoesProudDaddy | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 12:18 PM

Amen to that. Personally I find feminist theology fasicnating. However, I am of the belief that women should be pastors/etc... so thats probably one reason I am interested in the topic. Never the less, I see Logos becoming a type of digital library but not just for Christian authorship. I would hope that my local library doesn't pick and choose what author/genre to accept based upon their own bias, rather, let me decide whether I am interested in reading the works. I am not comfortable with someone at Logos determining FOR ME what is worthwhile reading which is why I am happy that they continue to broaden their horizons with more works of different genres coming out. Let me the customer decide what I want.

Posts 2855
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 12:49 PM

JackCaviness:

Alain Maashe:

The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience.

It was true in the first century, it is still true today

Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g.,  1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv)

If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon.

If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23)

they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us

Alain

Alain Maashe wrote the following post at Today 2:56 AM:

 

Thank you, Alain. the entire post is thoughtful and well-written. If I held the view of Scripture many in this forum espouse, I would have abandoned Scripture as an authoritive guide for life long ago.

Jack

I feel the same way Jack. It seems to me even if Satan the devil were to offer an opinion in this forum he will get a fair hearing. After all no ideas/point of view are out of bounds. Oh i forget ,some don't even believe the devil exist and this is what they call scholarship! An excise in unbelief.

Sir T.

 

4:1     Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2     speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3     forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

The New King James Version. 1982 (1 Ti 4:1-3). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 58
ZoesProudDaddy | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 1:07 PM

Ted,

So are you comparing feminist theology with Satan? I am sure you are not. Many of us here differ with you and others on interpretation and Scripture. Many of us  believe in its inspiration as message. Many would consider your view of Scripture to be much more liberal than theirs just as you consider many here more liberal than yours. I personally don't believe that one must believe in a literal seven day creation in order for the scripture itself to be true. Why? I don't see the author as trying to explain a scientific point by point diseration on how we came about. Many would differ with me, however, I would hope that my faith in Christ wouldn't be questioned just because I question the seven day theory of creation. By that I am trying to say that just because you disagree with many here on their view of Scripture and who to read or not to read doesn't mean you must question their very faith itself.

I personally find it worthwhile to read all types of authors. I think its worthwhile to read books about Mormon theology, Islamic theology, etc... Why? Not to be able to attack them if I were to have a conversation with them about God but rather to be more educated on why they believe and what it is they believe. I have been that person who would go to my local Christian book store and buy every book on every cult on how to "one up them", what I found was nothing came about except me walking away with a bigger head and them walking away feeling as though they were persecuted for their faith. Nothing good comes out of that. If I can understand feminist theology from a feminist theologian then that allows me to have more to discuss next time I speak to one of them. Perhaps some should cease trying to only use literature to find points where they can attack other religions and viewpoints they disagree with rather than actually learning about what people believe and why.

Just my 2c.

Posts 129
John McComb | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 1:42 PM

 

alanleerosenaur:

With all due respect, I don't understand this mindset. The mindset that prefers Logos DOESN'T add specific authors/works to their growing library. I would like to see commentaries on the Qu'ran, BOM, etc... It is up to each individual person whether or not they would be interested in purchasing said work. I would brather Logos has every work of every author rather than ignoring certain works of certain authors.

Oh, I don't know. I've been following this thread pretty much from the start and I don't think anybody's expressed that view, have they? Have I missed it?

Maybe you can take a post like the second one in the thread and extrapolate that meaning (intent?) from it but I don't think you can write those suspicions in stone without putting words into the poster's mouth. It's a perfectly valid opinion to express on a suggestions board, isn't it? After all, if Logos is going to consider publishing a certain work they want to weigh the interest, both positive and negative, don't they?

In fact, the topic of Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza has generated so much controversy just in this one thread that it might be a signal to Logos that it would be a good work to consider. Controversy is a great seller in the publishing business.

Yours in Christ

John

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 1:43 PM

alanleerosenaur:

Ted,

So are you comparing feminist theology with Satan? I am sure you are not. Many of us here differ with you and others on interpretation and Scripture. Many of us  believe in its inspiration as message. Many would consider your view of Scripture to be much more liberal than theirs just as you consider many here more liberal than yours. I personally don't believe that one must believe in a literal seven day creation in order for the scripture itself to be true. Why? I don't see the author as trying to explain a scientific point by point diseration on how we came about. Many would differ with me, however, I would hope that my faith in Christ wouldn't be questioned just because I question the seven day theory of creation. By that I am trying to say that just because you disagree with many here on their view of Scripture and who to read or not to read doesn't mean you must question their very faith itself.

I personally find it worthwhile to read all types of authors. I think its worthwhile to read books about Mormon theology, Islamic theology, etc... Why? Not to be able to attack them if I were to have a conversation with them about God but rather to be more educated on why they believe and what it is they believe. I have been that person who would go to my local Christian book store and buy every book on every cult on how to "one up them", what I found was nothing came about except me walking away with a bigger head and them walking away feeling as though they were persecuted for their faith. Nothing good comes out of that. If I can understand feminist theology from a feminist theologian then that allows me to have more to discuss next time I speak to one of them. Perhaps some should cease trying to only use literature to find points where they can attack other religions and viewpoints they disagree with rather than actually learning about what people believe and why.

Just my 2c.

"Many" doesn't constitute correct.  Me thinks you have many too many's.   "Broad is the way and many that enter in......" (Also, "evening & morning" constitute a day in my book, but you've gotta have a lot more faith than I do to believe it evolved.)

Perhaps we should all just have a group hug, create a more tolerant religion, promote a one-world government and hope God didn't really mean all that stuff He said about sin & judgement & salvation. I dunno 'bout you but I am engaged in  Spiritual Warfare! No time for compromising.

(I had to turn off the bold text. It was blinding me!Embarrassed)

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 2745
Bohuslav Wojnar | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 1:46 PM

JackCaviness:

Thank you, Alain. the entire post is thoughtful and well-written. If I held the view of Scripture many in this forum espouse, I would have abandoned Scripture as an authoritive guide for life long ago.

Jack

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

Bohuslav

Posts 58
ZoesProudDaddy | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 1:54 PM

Matthew,

 

Notice that I didn't say the many were correct or incorrect. The assumption of correct was put forward by the individual questioning the faith of those of us who he disagrees with. And to your second point, let me guess, every time you meet someone who is of another faith, you are involved in "spiritual warfare". Personally, I am thankful that I don't see a friend of mine who isn't Christian as an opportunity for "warfare". Also, your dramatization and misrepresentation of my statement portrays you as assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is incorrect which is unfortunate but not surprising with many in the Church today. After all, for many it's if you aren't with me you are against me. The only individual who could truly say this was Jesus....

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 1:54 PM

John McComb:

In fact, the topic of Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza has generated so much controversy just in this one thread that it might be a signal to Logos that it would be a good work to consider. Controversy is a great seller in the publishing business.

Yours in Christ

John

I still wouldn't pay much for it   Stick out tongue   but I sure wouldn't get upset if it does get published. I thought Liberation Theology had falllen off the oxcart in the early 80's. I imagine Fiorenza is as good a spokesperson as any for the Feminist agenda in modern day Christianity. I'd give $10 for it in Community Pricing. Then I'd put it next to my JW, Mormon, SDA  and Baha'i literature.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 2745
Bohuslav Wojnar | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 26 2009 1:58 PM

Matthew C Jones:
I still wouldn't pay much for it   Stick out tongue   but I sure wouldn't get upset if it does get published. I thought Liberation Theology had falllen off the oxcart in the early 80's. I imagine Fiorenza is as good a spokesperson as any for the Feminist agenda in modern day Christianity. I'd give $10 for it in Community Pricing. Then I'd put it next to my JW, Mormon, SDA  and Baha'i literature.

Yea, that would work Smile

Bohuslav

Page 3 of 6 (105 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS