Interview with the ABoC
Mark Goodge
with Rowan Williams in today's Daily Telegraph, available online at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/12/nbish112.xml
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"Look at the stars; look how they shine for you"
Gareth McCaughan
> For anyone who hasn't seen it, there's a very interesting interview
> with Rowan Williams in today's Daily Telegraph, available online at:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/12/nbish112.xml
It is indeed very good. Thanks!
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Pam
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> > For anyone who hasn't seen it, there's a very interesting interview
> > with Rowan Williams in today's Daily Telegraph, available online at:
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/12/nbish112.xml
>
> It is indeed very good. Thanks!
Excellent and inspiring.
I probably shouldn't say it, but I gaffawed at "They object to what
they think I believe" (although most of the article was a lot more
positive than that). I appreciated the fact that the author actually
*interviewed* him properly and let him speak in his own words.
Blessings,
Pam
Paul Hardy
> For anyone who hasn't seen it, there's a very interesting interview
> with Rowan Williams in today's Daily Telegraph, available online at:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/12/nbish112.xml
>
> Mark
I thought this was the best bit. The interviewer is asking RW about
meeting the Pope...
Q: Is there a particular thing you want to discuss with him or is it
just to meet him?
A: [Laughing] I would really like to talk to him about poetry and
about Hans Urs von Balthasar.
It's good to see that RW has such a keen grasp of the important issues
that face our country, as Catholics and Protestants slaughter each
other on the streets of Belfast and we prepare for a global showdown
with the Islamic world. Such leadership is indeed admirable.
Paul
Simon Crouch
news:e3bcf730.03021...@posting.google.com...
Q: What's the most important thing that two leaders need to do first in
order to work effectively together?
A: Develop rapport.
all the best,
Simon.
Phill Skelton
> I thought this was the best bit. The interviewer is asking RW about
> meeting the Pope...
>
> Q: Is there a particular thing you want to discuss with him or is it
> just to meet him?
>
> A: [Laughing] I would really like to talk to him about poetry and
> about Hans Urs von Balthasar.
>
> It's good to see that RW has such a keen grasp of the important issues
> that face our country, as Catholics and Protestants slaughter each
> other on the streets of Belfast and we prepare for a global showdown
> with the Islamic world. Such leadership is indeed admirable.
If they were both actively supporting or funding one side or the other,
there might be something for them to talk about. But what do you expect
them to say? "I disapprove of this!" "So do I!" What do you expect the
CofE and RCC to do to stop the violence in Ulster, and why do you think
they ought to wait until the ABoC and the Pope meet to talk about this?
Phill
Alan Zanker
>I thought this was the best bit. The interviewer is asking RW about
>meeting the Pope...
>
>Q: Is there a particular thing you want to discuss with him or is it
>just to meet him?
>
>A: [Laughing] I would really like to talk to him about poetry and
>about Hans Urs von Balthasar.
>
>It's good to see that RW has such a keen grasp of the important issues
>that face our country, as Catholics and Protestants slaughter each
>other on the streets of Belfast ...
I'm sure the Abp is able to exert even less influence over protestant
thugs in NI than the Pope can over RC terrorists there,
> ... and we prepare for a global showdown
>with the Islamic world.
They appear to be in broad agreement over the ways Christians should act
towards their Muslim sisters and brothers. Discussions on poetry and
theology might well be more fruitful.
Alan
Michael J Davis
<ukfree...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>I thought this was the best bit. The interviewer is asking RW about
>meeting the Pope...
>
>about Hans Urs von Balthasar.
>
>It's good to see that RW has such a keen grasp of the important issues
>that face our country, as Catholics and Protestants slaughter each
>other on the streets of Belfast and we prepare for a global showdown
>with the Islamic world. Such leadership is indeed admirable.
I don't think that discussions between those two on these subjects (on
which they are, AIUI, already agreed) would have any further impact on
those who are causing the trouble.
Understanding one another is often the most important aspect of
leadership.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Matthew Vernon
> I thought this was the best bit. The interviewer is asking RW about
> meeting the Pope...
>
> Q: Is there a particular thing you want to discuss with him or is it
> just to meet him?
>
> A: [Laughing] I would really like to talk to him about poetry and
> about Hans Urs von Balthasar.
...and then goes on to admit that he thinks it unlikely he'll do
so. You've taken him way out of context.
Matthew
--
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out
of my hand". John 10 27-28
http://www.pick.ucam.org/
Richard Emblem
ukfree...@yahoo.com (Paul Hardy) writes:
>I thought this was the best bit. The interviewer is asking RW about
>meeting the Pope...
>
>Q: Is there a particular thing you want to discuss with him or is it
>just to meet him?
>
>A: [Laughing] I would really like to talk to him about poetry and
>about Hans Urs von Balthasar.
>
>It's good to see that RW has such a keen grasp of the important issues
>that face our country, as Catholics and Protestants slaughter each
>other on the streets of Belfast and we prepare for a global showdown
>with the Islamic world. Such leadership is indeed admirable.
I agree that a bit of laughter or lightheartedness is just what is needed in
such serious times.
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Steven Carr
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<86fzqtw...@g.local>...
> > Mark Goodge wrote:
> >
> > > For anyone who hasn't seen it, there's a very interesting interview
> > > with Rowan Williams in today's Daily Telegraph, available online at:
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/12/nbish112.xml
> >
> > It is indeed very good. Thanks!
> I probably shouldn't say it, but I gaffawed at "They object to what
> they think I believe" (although most of the article was a lot more
> positive than that). I appreciated the fact that the author actually
> *interviewed* him properly and let him speak in his own words.
The Archbishop appears to be learning rapidly to avoid controversy.
'Do you believe that Scripture is the infallible and inerrent word of
God in every respect? There is a sense in which I will happily say yes
to that but without believing that commits me to saying that the date
of the death of Sennacherib was necessarily accurate. '
I wasn't aware that the Bible gave a date for the death of
Sennacherib. Very clever of the Archbishop! Who can disagree with his
statement?
Simon Woods
news:dc3l4vkhtloipftk0...@news.markshouse.net...
FWIW
I found his thoughts on prayer helpful
"not an absense of God but rather an absense of me" [paraphrased - couldn't
find the bit again]
but when he said
"It is precisely that it is because it is God that is revealed in Jesus
Christ that you would expect some difficulties in talking about it. It's a
great deal bigger than the words you can use."
it strikes me that the Bible, and the words it uses, don't appear to have
any difficulty talking about it.
2p
Simon
Bernard Hill
<simon...@virgin.net> writes
>
>"It is precisely that it is because it is God that is revealed in Jesus
>Christ that you would expect some difficulties in talking about it. It's a
>great deal bigger than the words you can use."
>
Yes. If God is can be completely comprehended he's not much of a God.
>it strikes me that the Bible, and the words it uses, don't appear to have
>any difficulty talking about it.
Who knows whether the writers of the Bible had difficulty?
Certainly readers do. Consider the arguments on this forum.
And remember the Bible is a product of its own age, when philosophies
were simpler. I wonder what a Bible written today would say?
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Simon Woods
news:kZbQ1RAT...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
> In article <b2i133$1c94fe$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
> >
> >"It is precisely that it is because it is God that is revealed in Jesus
> >Christ that you would expect some difficulties in talking about it. It's
a
> >great deal bigger than the words you can use."
> >
>
> Yes. If God is can be completely comprehended he's not much of a God.
Agreed. But what has this to do with difficulties? Why should lack of
complete comprehension cause difficulties? It won't in heaven.
> >it strikes me that the Bible, and the words it uses, don't appear to have
> >any difficulty talking about it.
>
> Who knows whether the writers of the Bible had difficulty?
But I'm not really talking about the writers of the Bible.
> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
Bernard Hill
<simon...@virgin.net> writes
>"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:kZbQ1RAT...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b2i133$1c94fe$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
>> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
>> >
>> >"It is precisely that it is because it is God that is revealed in Jesus
>> >Christ that you would expect some difficulties in talking about it. It's
>a
>> >great deal bigger than the words you can use."
>> >
>>
>> Yes. If God is can be completely comprehended he's not much of a God.
>
>Agreed. But what has this to do with difficulties? Why should lack of
>complete comprehension cause difficulties?
You only have to look at the big unanswered questions.
>It won't in heaven.
An interesting assumption. I would still not expect to comprehend God.
No more in heaven than on earth.
>
>
>> >it strikes me that the Bible, and the words it uses, don't appear to have
>> >any difficulty talking about it.
>>
>> Who knows whether the writers of the Bible had difficulty?
>
>But I'm not really talking about the writers of the Bible.
The Bible itself says nothing. It's inanimate. The writers are the
people saying things.
>
>
>> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
>
>... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
... so...?
(I note the jest).
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
andrew criddle
> > >
> > > > For anyone who hasn't seen it, there's a very interesting interview
> > > > with Rowan Williams in today's Daily Telegraph, available online at:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/12/nbish112.xml
> > >
> > > It is indeed very good. Thanks!
>
> > I probably shouldn't say it, but I gaffawed at "They object to what
> > they think I believe" (although most of the article was a lot more
> > positive than that). I appreciated the fact that the author actually
> > *interviewed* him properly and let him speak in his own words.
>
> The Archbishop appears to be learning rapidly to avoid controversy.
>
> 'Do you believe that Scripture is the infallible and inerrent word of
> God in every respect? There is a sense in which I will happily say yes
> to that but without believing that commits me to saying that the date
> of the death of Sennacherib was necessarily accurate. '
>
> I wasn't aware that the Bible gave a date for the death of
> Sennacherib. Very clever of the Archbishop! Who can disagree with his
> statement?
The Bible does not give a date as such for the death of Sennacherib.
On the other hand it implies (2 Kings 19 35-37) that he was
assassinated shortly after the siege of Jerusalem under Hezekiah.
According to Assyrian evidence Sennacherib died in 681. The biblical
siege of Jerusalem is normally identified with the invasion of
Palestine by Sennacherib in 701, which means Sennacherib died 20 years
after failing to capture Jerusalem by siege.
To reduce the gap between the siege and the assassination some
conservative scholars have postulated a second invasion of Palestine
around 690 of which no Assyrian records survive but which corresponds
to the biblical siege. Most scholars think this unlikely.
Rowan Williams may mean that he is not committed to reconciling the
implications of the Biblical passage (Sennacherib died a few years
after 701) with the recorded death of Sennacherib in 681.
Andrew Criddle
Matthew Vernon
> In article <b2ilod$1ctvue$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
> >Agreed. But what has this to do with difficulties? Why should lack of
> >complete comprehension cause difficulties?
>
> You only have to look at the big unanswered questions.
>
> >It won't in heaven.
>
> An interesting assumption. I would still not expect to comprehend God.
> No more in heaven than on earth.
Can I cite 1 Corinthians 13 as reason to differ with you?
Matthew
[12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now
I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.]
David Anderson
> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age, when philosophies
> were simpler. I wonder what a Bible written today would say?
Ooh - is Plato really simpler than modern philosophers? Plato may be
simpler than Derrida I suppose. Even then, I'm not sure.
David Anderson
David Anderson
> >
> >But I'm not really talking about the writers of the Bible.
>
> The Bible itself says nothing. It's inanimate. The writers are the
> people saying things.
The writers aren't saying anything: they're all dead.
Basic point of interpretation: what we have to interpret is the words on the
pages in front of us. The intentions and thought processes of the writers
are for the most part a distraction (and impossible to determine anyway).
With that caveat, I agree with everything you're saying: and it seems to me
that the Bible does at several points register the difficulty of talking
about God.
David Anderson
Bernard Hill
<mat...@debian.org> writes
>Bernard Hill <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In article <b2ilod$1ctvue$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
>> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
>> >Agreed. But what has this to do with difficulties? Why should lack of
>> >complete comprehension cause difficulties?
>>
>> You only have to look at the big unanswered questions.
>>
>> >It won't in heaven.
>>
>> An interesting assumption. I would still not expect to comprehend God.
>> No more in heaven than on earth.
>
>Can I cite 1 Corinthians 13 as reason to differ with you?
Yes. I thought you would. But it does not say "understand completely". I
have always understood that to mean that it is Christ we see face to
face. Remember that Paul was blinded by the risen Christ and this has
coloured his vision [pun unintended but it's nice, eh?].
And "know" does not mean understand. I know my wife, but I don't
understand her ;-)
>
>Matthew
>
>[12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now
>I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.]
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
Anderson <dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> writes
>"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote
>> Simon Woods <simon...@virgin.net> writes
>> >"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote
>> >> Who knows whether the writers of the Bible had difficulty?
>> >
>> >But I'm not really talking about the writers of the Bible.
>>
>> The Bible itself says nothing. It's inanimate. The writers are the
>> people saying things.
>
>The writers aren't saying anything: they're all dead.
I had noticed that ;-)
But can they not still speak to us? It's metaphor surely. Can I not say
that "Shakespeare speaks to me" when I read his poetry or plays?
>Basic point of interpretation: what we have to interpret is the words on the
>pages in front of us. The intentions and thought processes of the writers
>are for the most part a distraction (and impossible to determine anyway).
Well not entirely. For instance John's gospel is very hard to get to
grips with unless you treat it differently from the others and try to
get inside his mind. The same thing of course with Paul: he was never
interested in the historical Jesus as the Jesus he met was the risen one
and the glory of Jesus is his model. Yet Luke is different, Matthew too
has his own agenda and viewpoint... the list goes on.
>With that caveat, I agree with everything you're saying: and it seems to me
>that the Bible does at several points register the difficulty of talking
>about God.
Agreed, as you say.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
David Anderson
> David Anderson <dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> writes
> >The writers aren't saying anything: they're all dead.
>
> I had noticed that ;-)
>
> But can they not still speak to us? It's metaphor surely. Can I not say
> that "Shakespeare speaks to me" when I read his poetry or plays?
Strictly speaking, I think it's metonymy. That is, you say that Shakespeare
speaks to us when you mean that the poems and plays say or mean something.
What I don't think is valid is to contrast Shakespeare speaking and the
plays speaking, and choose the former.
> >Basic point of interpretation: what we have to interpret is the words on
the
> >pages in front of us. The intentions and thought processes of the
writers
> >are for the most part a distraction (and impossible to determine anyway).
>
> Well not entirely. For instance John's gospel is very hard to get to
> grips with unless you treat it differently from the others and try to
> get inside his mind. The same thing of course with Paul: he was never
> interested in the historical Jesus as the Jesus he met was the risen one
> and the glory of Jesus is his model. Yet Luke is different, Matthew too
> has his own agenda and viewpoint... the list goes on.
I think that 'Matthew's agenda and viewpoint' can only legitimately be a
shorthand for the agenda and viewpoint advanced and made clear by Matthew's
Gospel. Matthew the writer's agenda no doubt had several elements which for
one reason or another didn't find expression in the Gospel - or which can't
be reconstructed from the Gospel: they're irrelevant. Likewise, if Matthew
inadvertently advanced an agenda that he didn't personally subscribe to,
then that agenda is now part of the Gospel.
Likewise, I don't think that 'getting inside John's mind' can mean anything
literally which would be other than dealing with the words on the page
between Luke and Acts (and with possible first-century context and possible
twenty-first century context).
I think that to understand uses of language, texts in the broadest sense[1],
we probably do need to realise that people use language in order to advance
personal agendas, express personal viewpoints, and so on. And we need to
realise that they do this through personal styles, etc. Even so, what the
texts mean and do is in principle different from the agenda that the writer
hoped to advance through the text; as with all actions, what the writer
intends to mean may not be what the writer ends up actually meaning.
David Anderson
[1] i.e. including speech.
Bernard Hill
Anderson <dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> writes
I'm no student of Plato. But the plethora of philosophies today makes
for a more complicated viewpoint. As I say, I wonder what a bible
written today would say.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Keith Hood
>Date: 2/15/03 12:01 AM GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <navg1wAC...@braeburn.demon.co.uk>
Well, it should at least start with
Some of the characters and events in this work are fictional...
:-)
Keith
Associate, Society for Editors and Proofreaders
Member, Society of Indexers
Pam Seeker
Well, it strikes *me* that most of the writers of the New Testament had
trouble speaking about it! The gospels "resort" to narrative which is, I'm
sure, the best way to speak about Jesus' life. But it's not exactly the
sort of propositional statements that the "Everything about Jesus is
easy-peasy and contained in the bible" argument suggests. When Paul tries
to talk in direct propositional statements about the meaning of Jesus, or
even about the Christian life, he goes all around the houses. And *his*
writings got into the canon. Just my 2p or even 2 cents.
Blessings,
Pam
Gareth McCaughan
>>> Basic point of interpretation: what we have to interpret is the
>>> words on the pages in front of us. The intentions and thought
>>> processes of the writers are for the most part a distraction (and
>>> impossible to determine anyway).
>>
>> Well not entirely. For instance John's gospel is very hard to get to
>> grips with unless you treat it differently from the others and try to
>> get inside his mind. The same thing of course with Paul: he was never
>> interested in the historical Jesus as the Jesus he met was the risen one
>> and the glory of Jesus is his model. Yet Luke is different, Matthew too
>> has his own agenda and viewpoint... the list goes on.
>
> I think that 'Matthew's agenda and viewpoint' can only legitimately be a
> shorthand for the agenda and viewpoint advanced and made clear by Matthew's
> Gospel.
I know that's present-day critical orthodoxy, but I think it's an
oversimplification. I suspect you do too, since you also wrote
> I think that to understand uses of language, texts in the broadest sense[1],
> we probably do need to realise that people use language in order to advance
> personal agendas, express personal viewpoints, and so on. And we need to
> realise that they do this through personal styles, etc. Even so, what the
> texts mean and do is in principle different from the agenda that the writer
> hoped to advance through the text; as with all actions, what the writer
> intends to mean may not be what the writer ends up actually meaning.
>
> [1] i.e. including speech.
Three reasons why I think it's an oversimplification:
There is no reason, other than present-day critical orthodoxy, why
we shouldn't be just as interested in "what the writer meant" as in
"what the text means". It's not unusual to read[2] a text largely
out of interest in the author's opinions or thought processes.
If "what the text means" means anything other than "what the text
means to one particular reader on one particular occasion", then
(1) it's even less clear how you're supposed to decide "what the
text means" than it is how you're supposed to decide "what the
author meant", and (2) I think "what the author meant" is an important
piece of information about "what the text means".
- I'll expand on that last one. Meaning isn't something that
inhabits texts. The meaning of a text depends on its linguistic
environment. And that means not only some sanitized standardized
version of The Language, but all the messy details of how the
language is actually used in the community where the text resides.
And, especially, how it's used by those closest to the text:
the author and the reader. Now, what does it mean to ask how
language is used by a particular person? I think it means asking
what they mean when they say particular things. Well, then,
if you want to understand a text then you need to understand
how its author used the language in which it was written[2].
In other words, you need to understand what sort of things the
author meant when s/he said things like that. That's not so far
from understanding what the author meant by the text, is it?
A text is a human document. Ultimately, understanding what something
means amounts to building mental structures that somewhat correspond
to mental structures the author had when writing it[2]. (That's probably
an oversimplification too, but if *something* along these lines isn't
right then it would seem to be a coincidence that communication ever
happens.) Doing that implies having some sort of mental model of the
author, even if it's a very crude, generic and limited one that could be
built from a copy of Greenbaum and Quirk and a small dictionary. Saying
that we're not supposed to think about what the author meant (except
as some sort of weird way of saying "what the text means") amounts to
saying that we musn't go far beyond that sort of generic model; I don't
see why we shouldn't. (None of this precludes deciding that what the
author ended up writing wasn't what s/he actually meant; and for some
purposes -- e.g., scriptural inerrantism or Freudianism -- we might
pay more attention to what they said than to what we think they meant.)
Now, how does all this apply to, for instance, the gospel of Matthew?
When the canon was being decided on, one important criterion was
that of apostolicity: a book was included if its author was thought
sufficiently close to the events, and sufficiently close to God.
That's not a very modern way of thinking[3], perhaps, but I think
most Christians would say -- and I certainly would -- that if it
turned out that the gospel of Matthew was written in the fifth
century[4] then its value would be considerably diminished. Why?
Because much of the value of the gospels is that they tell us (1)
things about Jesus whose origins are quite close to the events
and (2) how some of the earliest Christians thought about Jesus.
Note that both of these are facts about the authors and what they
intended to write, not about the texts as such.
But perhaps hoping for "what the author meant" is vain; perhaps
we have to accept that all we have is the text. Well, duh, of course
all we have is the text. But there's nothing wrong with using the
text to try to understand the author. And there's nothing wrong
with using what we know about the author from other sources to
try to understand the text.
[1] NMF; see quoted text above.
[2] I'm assuming a written text largely for convenience, but also
because in practice spoken texts tend to have quite a different
context which makes the way we deal with them different.
Sometimes, anyway.
[3] It might still be a good way of thinking. Not that I think
it's likely that Matthew is apostolic.
[4] Scarcely conceivable, of course.
[5] Defined as "the author of the document commonly known as the
Gospel of Matthew".
Bernard Hill
<seek...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Just my 2p or even 2 cents.
Hm. I think you mean 2d. "Tuppence-worth" had to refer to pre-decimal
days. A 2p coin is not a tuppenny-piece.
The more you think about it the more you realise the theological
implications alone are staggering.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
Anderson <dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> writes
>"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote
>> David Anderson <dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> writes
>> >The writers aren't saying anything: they're all dead.
>>
>> I had noticed that ;-)
>>
>> But can they not still speak to us? It's metaphor surely. Can I not say
>> that "Shakespeare speaks to me" when I read his poetry or plays?
>
>Strictly speaking, I think it's metonymy. That is, you say that Shakespeare
>speaks to us when you mean that the poems and plays say or mean something.
>What I don't think is valid is to contrast Shakespeare speaking and the
>plays speaking, and choose the former.
Well I had to look it up... and seems you're right!
>
>> >Basic point of interpretation: what we have to interpret is the words on
>the
>> >pages in front of us. The intentions and thought processes of the
>writers
>> >are for the most part a distraction (and impossible to determine anyway).
>>
>> Well not entirely. For instance John's gospel is very hard to get to
>> grips with unless you treat it differently from the others and try to
>> get inside his mind. The same thing of course with Paul: he was never
>> interested in the historical Jesus as the Jesus he met was the risen one
>> and the glory of Jesus is his model. Yet Luke is different, Matthew too
>> has his own agenda and viewpoint... the list goes on.
>
>I think that 'Matthew's agenda and viewpoint' can only legitimately be a
>shorthand for the agenda and viewpoint advanced and made clear by Matthew's
>Gospel. Matthew the writer's agenda no doubt had several elements which for
>one reason or another didn't find expression in the Gospel - or which can't
>be reconstructed from the Gospel: they're irrelevant. Likewise, if Matthew
>inadvertently advanced an agenda that he didn't personally subscribe to,
>then that agenda is now part of the Gospel.
>Likewise, I don't think that 'getting inside John's mind' can mean anything
>literally
er, no, not literally getting inside John's mind... <g>
> which would be other than dealing with the words on the page
>between Luke and Acts (and with possible first-century context and possible
>twenty-first century context).
>
>I think that to understand uses of language, texts in the broadest sense[1],
>we probably do need to realise that people use language in order to advance
>personal agendas, express personal viewpoints, and so on. And we need to
>realise that they do this through personal styles, etc. Even so, what the
>texts mean and do is in principle different from the agenda that the writer
>hoped to advance through the text; as with all actions, what the writer
>intends to mean may not be what the writer ends up actually meaning.
All true.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Paul A Dean
> In article <b2ilod$1ctvue$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
> >
> >Agreed. But what has this to do with difficulties? Why should lack of
> >complete comprehension cause difficulties?
>
> You only have to look at the big unanswered questions.
>
> >It won't in heaven.
>
> An interesting assumption. I would still not expect to comprehend God.
> No more in heaven than on earth.
The "face to face" someone else quotes is more than about physically
seeing the face of Jesus, it's about "Then I shall know fully, even as
I am fully known" 1 Cor 13:12.
> >> >it strikes me that the Bible, and the words it uses, don't
> >> >appear to have any difficulty talking about it.
> >>
> >> Who knows whether the writers of the Bible had difficulty?
> >
> >But I'm not really talking about the writers of the Bible.
>
> The Bible itself says nothing. It's inanimate. The writers are the
> people saying things.
Consider an abstract painting. One might say of it, "It speaks to me
of loneliness"; one wouldn't say, "the painter speaks to me of
loneliness".
> >> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
> >
> >... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
>
> ... so...?
>
> (I note the jest).
The point is that we recognise your statement as a product of your
age. Your philosophy says, "It's important to remember the Bible is a
product of its own age" but a corrolary is also "It's important to
remember that your philosophy is just as much a product of its age".
The question is, which age producing which product is more worthy of
consideration? I have no reason to choose yours over the bible
writers.
--
Paul
Matthew Vernon
> In article <7jn0kyk...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk>, Matthew Vernon
> <mat...@debian.org> writes
> >Bernard Hill <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> writes:
> >> An interesting assumption. I would still not expect to comprehend God.
> >> No more in heaven than on earth.
> >
> >Can I cite 1 Corinthians 13 as reason to differ with you?
>
> Yes. I thought you would. But it does not say "understand completely". I
We aim to please :)
> have always understood that to mean that it is Christ we see face to
> face. Remember that Paul was blinded by the risen Christ and this has
> coloured his vision [pun unintended but it's nice, eh?].
Fine. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of
this passage; to me I think that Heaven is at least partly finally
fully comprehending God, and the love of God. I'm equally happy with
your interpretation, I just happen not to agree with it :)
YMMV,
Matthew
Richard Emblem
<ber...@braeburn.co.uk> writes:
I think you inadvertently omitted the smiley.
Simon Woods
> The Bible itself says nothing. It's inanimate. The writers are the
> people saying things.
"The Scripture says to Pharaoh ... " (Rom 9:17) when the OT account is of
the Lord telling Moses what to say to Pharaoh. Doesn't sound inanimate to
me.
> >> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
> >
> >... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
>
> ... so...?
From Paul's explanation, I judge that he's far more able than I to progress
this point so - over to you Paul!
David Anderson
> David Anderson wrote:
> > I think that 'Matthew's agenda and viewpoint' can only legitimately be a
> > shorthand for the agenda and viewpoint advanced and made clear by
Matthew's
> > Gospel.
>
> I know that's present-day critical orthodoxy, but I think it's an
> oversimplification. I suspect you do too, since you also wrote
I don't think that it's an important oversimplification. The next paragraph
was trying to make sense of the intuitions that motivate disagreement with
what I think is not merely a critical orthodoxy but actually pretty much in
accord with people's practice.
> > I think that to understand uses of language, texts in the broadest
sense[1],
> > we probably do need to realise that people use language in order to
advance
> > personal agendas, express personal viewpoints, and so on. And we need
to
> > realise that they do this through personal styles, etc. Even so, what
the
> > texts mean and do is in principle different from the agenda that the
writer
> > hoped to advance through the text; as with all actions, what the writer
> > intends to mean may not be what the writer ends up actually meaning.
> >
> > [1] i.e. including speech.
>
> Three reasons why I think it's an oversimplification:
>
> There is no reason, other than present-day critical orthodoxy, why
> we shouldn't be just as interested in "what the writer meant" as in
> "what the text means". It's not unusual to read[2] a text largely
> out of interest in the author's opinions or thought processes.
The present day critical orthodoxy may overstate sometimes, but I don't
think it rules out either of those interests. What it does say is that both
those interests require as a necessary former stage finding out what the
text means.
> If "what the text means" means anything other than "what the text
> means to one particular reader on one particular occasion", then
> (1) it's even less clear how you're supposed to decide "what the
> text means" than it is how you're supposed to decide "what the
> author meant", and (2) I think "what the author meant" is an important
> piece of information about "what the text means".
I don't see 1) at all. Much of the time the only real evidence for 'what
the author meant' will be 'what the text means' - and on most other
occasions, most of the other evidence will be other texts.
One can decide on what the text means by consulting the general way in which
language is used in a community. Not with the certainty of turning up a
single definitive answer - but then we can't always guarantee that
certainty. Yes: on this account there is always a problem about deciding
'what the text means'. It seems to me that this means that this account
explains an empirical fact.
> - I'll expand on that last one. Meaning isn't something that
> inhabits texts. The meaning of a text depends on its linguistic
> environment. And that means not only some sanitized standardized
> version of The Language, but all the messy details of how the
> language is actually used in the community where the text resides.
> And, especially, how it's used by those closest to the text:
> the author and the reader. Now, what does it mean to ask how
> language is used by a particular person? I think it means asking
> what they mean when they say particular things. Well, then,
> if you want to understand a text then you need to understand
> how its author used the language in which it was written[2].
> In other words, you need to understand what sort of things the
> author meant when s/he said things like that. That's not so far
> from understanding what the author meant by the text, is it?
I think you're moving rather quickly from 'the language used in the
community where the text resides' to 'the language used by the author and
reader' and then to 'how language is used by a particular person'. It's
certainly possible in principle to decide that a certain author had a
tendency to misuse words in regular ways - but that can only be determined
firstly on the basis of systematic misuse in the texts, and secondly against
a background of general agreement with communal use.
Again, I think that the reason that one can move from 'how the author used
the language in which the text was written' to 'what sort of things the
author meant when s/he wrote things like that' is because the latter is a
slightly less perspicuous way of saying the former. :)
> A text is a human document. Ultimately, understanding what something
> means amounts to building mental structures that somewhat correspond
> to mental structures the author had when writing it[2]. (That's probably
> an oversimplification too, but if *something* along these lines isn't
> right then it would seem to be a coincidence that communication ever
> happens.)
I'd see the coincidence as being the other way around: the theory takes for
granted what needs to be explained: the link between mental structures and
words.
There are also problems with the mental structures approach on the whole:
how much somewhat and correspond are you allowed.
For example, if I read your statement but disagree with it, have I formed a
corresponding mental structure? What is the difference between belief and
comprehension?
More importantly, various speech-acts don't seem aimed at building
corresponding mental structures at all. If someone gives an order they want
the orderee to perform an action; in the basic case, the orderer is not
going to perform that action.
> Doing that implies having some sort of mental model of the
> author, even if it's a very crude, generic and limited one that could be
> built from a copy of Greenbaum and Quirk and a small dictionary. Saying
> that we're not supposed to think about what the author meant (except
> as some sort of weird way of saying "what the text means") amounts to
> saying that we musn't go far beyond that sort of generic model; I don't
> see why we shouldn't. (None of this precludes deciding that what the
> author ended up writing wasn't what s/he actually meant; and for some
> purposes -- e.g., scriptural inerrantism or Freudianism -- we might
> pay more attention to what they said than to what we think they meant.)
I don't think that if someone tells us to go on to the end of the road and
turn right, and the station is down the second road on the left, we can't
miss it, then we need to be constructing any sort of mental model of the
speaker. We're probably concentrating on forming a mental model of the
local street plan.
> Now, how does all this apply to, for instance, the gospel of Matthew?
> When the canon was being decided on, one important criterion was
> that of apostolicity: a book was included if its author was thought
> sufficiently close to the events, and sufficiently close to God.
> That's not a very modern way of thinking[3], perhaps, but I think
> most Christians would say -- and I certainly would -- that if it
> turned out that the gospel of Matthew was written in the fifth
> century[4] then its value would be considerably diminished. Why?
> Because much of the value of the gospels is that they tell us (1)
> things about Jesus whose origins are quite close to the events
> and (2) how some of the earliest Christians thought about Jesus.
> Note that both of these are facts about the authors and what they
> intended to write, not about the texts as such.
No: I don't think that either of those are facts about what the author
intended to write. (They may be facts about the authors, but that doesn't
mean that interpreting the work is getting at the author's intended meaning:
language in an autobiography doesn't work in an essentially different way
from language in a biography.)
In so far as the text expresses what the earliest Christians thought about
Jesus, the text may tell us some of that, and be evidence for other parts of
it: but that doesn't mean that what the text means is what the authors
thought.
> But perhaps hoping for "what the author meant" is vain; perhaps
> we have to accept that all we have is the text. Well, duh, of course
> all we have is the text. But there's nothing wrong with using the
> text to try to understand the author. And there's nothing wrong
> with using what we know about the author from other sources to
> try to understand the text.
I think we need to distinguish between using what we know about the author
as a means to understanding the text, and identifying the activity of
understanding the author and understanding the text.
David Anderson
Debbie
<dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> wrote:
>The present day critical orthodoxy may overstate sometimes, but I don't
>think it rules out either of those interests. What it does say is that both
>those interests require as a necessary former stage finding out what the
>text means.
....and more.
A propos of this discussion, there's an interesting and rather heated
article in (I think) the February edition of the journal Theology,
entitled something like "How the academy has betrayed protestantism"
(It's at work, so I can't check till tomorrow morning). The writer
argues that contemporary academic theology, which insists on critical
evaluation, doesn't leave any room for rhetorical readings or readings
wholly determined by faith, thus making it impossible for protestant
theologians to hold their own with integrity in academic debate.
--
Debbie
Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
Simon Woods
news:3e4d6ec1$0$14163$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> it seems to me
> that the Bible does at several points register the difficulty of talking
> about God.
David, perhaps you could given an example of your angle, please - thanks.
AISI, the Bible is the "Word made page" as opposed to the "Word made flesh".
On that basis I would attribute to it divine characteristics (without it
actually being God, in the same way that Christ's spoken word was divine but
not deity). Therefore, given this, would struggle with your assertion. I
wouldn't struggle if you were saying something like "this bible character
confessed his difficulty is apprehending every aspect of God".
Simon
Pam Seeker
> A propos of this discussion, there's an interesting and rather heated
> article in (I think) the February edition of the journal Theology,
> entitled something like "How the academy has betrayed protestantism"
> (It's at work, so I can't check till tomorrow morning). The writer
> argues that contemporary academic theology, which insists on critical
> evaluation, doesn't leave any room for rhetorical readings or readings
> wholly determined by faith, thus making it impossible for protestant
> theologians to hold their own with integrity in academic debate.
I'd be interested in a precis as I no longer have access to a theological
library.
Did you really mean to write "doesn't leave *room* for faith"? Or is it that
it doesn't *incorporate* faith?
Blessings,
Pam
Paul Roberts
[snip]
> AISI, the Bible is the "Word made page" as opposed to the "Word made
> flesh". On that basis I would attribute to it divine characteristics
> (without it actually being God, in the same way that Christ's spoken
> word was divine but not deity).
Simon, why do you believe this?
--
Paul R.
Remove "nospam" for valid email address
Phil Saunders
news:b2q02c$1e2fi0$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de...
Now we see through a glass darkly? Hardly a statement that all about God is
easily understood by the author.
Now we know in part? Likewise.
The bible is a collection of books about God and His relationship with
people. It most certainly is not the written version of Jesus nor was it
thought to be so by the early church.
Phil
Bernard Hill
<simon...@virgin.net> writes
>"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> The Bible itself says nothing. It's inanimate. The writers are the
>> people saying things.
>
>"The Scripture says to Pharaoh ... " (Rom 9:17) when the OT account is of
>the Lord telling Moses what to say to Pharaoh. Doesn't sound inanimate to
>me.
>
As pointed out in another thread, that's an example of a metanym and not
relevant to our discussion.
>
>> >> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
>> >
>> >... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
>>
>> ... so...?
>
From Paul's explanation, I judge that he's far more able than I to progress
>this point so - over to you Paul!
I'd be interested to know where.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<pau...@redeemed.org.uk> writes
>
>Consider an abstract painting. One might say of it, "It speaks to me
>of loneliness"; one wouldn't say, "the painter speaks to me of
>loneliness".
A painting is not a book. I have just finished a book by Joe Simpson
about climbing the Eiger north face. Now I'm not a climber but the
author communicated the need to do so very well: I don't say, "the book
communicated the need to climb".
>
>> >> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
>> >
>> >... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
>>
>> ... so...?
>>
>> (I note the jest).
>
>The point is that we recognise your statement as a product of your
>age. Your philosophy says, "It's important to remember the Bible is a
>product of its own age" but a corrolary is also "It's important to
>remember that your philosophy is just as much a product of its age".
>The question is, which age producing which product is more worthy of
>consideration? I have no reason to choose yours over the bible
>writers.
I understand the paradox. But if I don't believe the philosophy of my
age is larger than the biblical one then I can't live in the modern
world. Each subsequent generation sees the previous ones in a new light.
You can't go backwards and cut off your knowledge.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<rem...@aol.com> writes
>In article <RUDN2fAx...@braeburn.demon.co.uk>, Bernard Hill
><ber...@braeburn.co.uk> writes:
>
>>In article <b2lgl2$i3m$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Pam Seeker
>><seek...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>Just my 2p or even 2 cents.
>>
>>Hm. I think you mean 2d. "Tuppence-worth" had to refer to pre-decimal
>>days. A 2p coin is not a tuppenny-piece.
>>
>>The more you think about it the more you realise the theological
>>implications alone are staggering.
>
>I think you inadvertently omitted the smiley.
Just for effect, just for effect. It's my dry sense of humour.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Simon Woods
> >> >> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
> >> >
> >> >... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
> >>
> >> ... so...?
> >>
> >> (I note the jest).
> >
> >The point is that we recognise your statement as a product of your
> >age. Your philosophy says, "It's important to remember the Bible is a
> >product of its own age" but a corrolary is also "It's important to
> >remember that your philosophy is just as much a product of its age".
> >The question is, which age producing which product is more worthy of
> >consideration? I have no reason to choose yours over the bible
> >writers.
>
> I understand the paradox. But if I don't believe the philosophy of my
> age is larger than the biblical one then I can't live in the modern
> world. Each subsequent generation sees the previous ones in a new light.
>
> You can't go backwards and cut off your knowledge.
... but one's understanding can become darkened.
Simon Woods
> In article <b2p0ck$1eq4v1$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
> >"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> >> The Bible itself says nothing. It's inanimate. The writers are the
> >> people saying things.
> >
> >"The Scripture says to Pharaoh ... " (Rom 9:17) when the OT account is of
> >the Lord telling Moses what to say to Pharaoh. Doesn't sound inanimate to
> >me.
> >
>
> As pointed out in another thread, that's an example of a metanym and not
> relevant to our discussion.
You would make it irrelevant by showing that Scripture isn't saying anything
to Pharaoh (and I'm not sure how one could do that) rather than assigning
the way the language is used a rather fancy name!
> >> >> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
> >> >
> >> >... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
> >>
> >> ... so...?
> >
> From Paul's explanation, I judge that he's far more able than I to
progress
> >this point so - over to you Paul!
>
> I'd be interested to know where.
A few threads above, the way I've got my news-reader set. - I meant Paul
Dean :-) - wasn't clear there.
Simon Woods
news:1r14a.260$uz6....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:b2q02c$1e2fi0$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de...
> > "David Anderson" <dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3e4d6ec1$0$14163$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > > it seems to me
> > > that the Bible does at several points register the difficulty of
talking
> > > about God.
> >
> > David, perhaps you could given an example of your angle, please -
thanks.
> >
> > AISI, the Bible is the "Word made page" as opposed to the "Word made
> flesh".
> > On that basis I would attribute to it divine characteristics (without it
> > actually being God, in the same way that Christ's spoken word was divine
> but
> > not deity). Therefore, given this, would struggle with your assertion. I
> > wouldn't struggle if you were saying something like "this bible
character
> > confessed his difficulty is apprehending every aspect of God".
> >
> > Simon
>
> Now we see through a glass darkly? Hardly a statement that all about God
is
> easily understood by the author.
>
> Now we know in part? Likewise.
... as I said above, I wouldn't struggle with this. Other than the Lord
Jesus, I don't believe any man has a full knowledge of God.
> The bible is a collection of books about God and His relationship with
> people. It most certainly is not the written version of Jesus nor was it
> thought to be so by the early church.
Agreed. The Word become flesh is Jesus. The Written Word is called the
Bible. (I accept that "Word become page" is a naff expression). So the Bible
is not a written version of Jesus , but what Jesus expresses about God, the
Bible does also. Also what the Bible expresses, Jesus fulfills. The huge
difference between the two is that whereas the Bible perfectly expresses
something which is "forever settled in heaven", Jesus is the Word come down
from heaven. Thus the Bible tells us about salvation. Jesus not only tells
us about it but effected it as well.
Simon Woods
news:b2q7hh$8ud$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
> Simon Woods articulated ...
nice you thought so ... I would have used 'burbled' as the verb!
> [snip]
> > AISI, the Bible is the "Word made page" as opposed to the "Word made
> > flesh". On that basis I would attribute to it divine characteristics
> > (without it actually being God, in the same way that Christ's spoken
> > word was divine but not deity).
>
> Simon, why do you believe this?
"Word made page" is a rubbish expression! I'll retract that and hope that
various newsgroup archives become corrupted!
Which bit did you have in mind, Paul? (See if I can redeem myself, at least
in my own eyes! If you say "all of it" I'll have to take time-out to try and
fathom what I was on when I wrote that!)
Simon
Paul A Dean
> In article <m2el69e...@redeemed.org.uk>, Paul A Dean
> <pau...@redeemed.org.uk> writes
> >
>
> >Consider an abstract painting. One might say of it, "It speaks to
> >me of loneliness"; one wouldn't say, "the painter speaks to me of
> >loneliness".
>
> A painting is not a book. I have just finished a book by Joe
> Simpson about climbing the Eiger north face. Now I'm not a climber
> but the author communicated the need to do so very well: I don't
> say, "the book communicated the need to climb".
A painting is a work of art, as is the bible. "Climbing the Eiger for
Dummies" is not a work of art ;) A work of art can speak on its own,
it can even speak things the creator never intended or imagined to be
spoken.
> >> >> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
> >> >
> >> >... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
> >>
> >> ... so...?
> >>
> >> (I note the jest).
> >
> >
> >The point is that we recognise your statement as a product of your
> >age. Your philosophy says, "It's important to remember the Bible
> >is a product of its own age" but a corrolary is also "It's
> >important to remember that your philosophy is just as much a
> >product of its age". The question is, which age producing which
> >product is more worthy of consideration? I have no reason to
> >choose yours over the bible writers.
>
> I understand the paradox. But if I don't believe the philosophy of
> my age is larger than the biblical one then I can't live in the
> modern world.
I don't follow that at all. If I think the philosophies of past ages
is no less valid than that of the present age, then I can't live in
the modern world? Yes, it means that I can't embrace the modern world
like a zealous patriot (I'm not saying that's what you're doing, it's
exaggeration). Surely it just means that I have a viewpoint to offer
to the modern world?
> Each subsequent generation sees the previous ones in a new light.
> You can't go backwards and cut off your knowledge.
Ah, here we have the real reason why you think your philosophy is
better than that of previous times, and it's quite a commonly held
notion.
Do you think it's possible to go backwards in ways other than
knowledge? Philosophies are based upon more than knowledge, for
example wisdom and revelation. Given that I can be knowledgeable
without being wise and without revlation, why should an increase in
knowledge imply a greater philosophy?
Even further, philosophies are indebted to the philosophies that
preceded them but not only in an analytical way. The philosophy of
one age might be worse than the one preceding it because it's reacting
against one or two unsavoury points and throwing away a lot of good as
well as the small bit of bad. There are fashions and trends which
must be taken into account and which are wholly unrelated to an
idealistic "steady march of knowledge".
I agree, though, in one sense - in the sense that we must work with
what we have, the sense in which we cannot escape our cultural
surroundings any more than we can escape our bodies! We can, however,
try to not be culturally arrogant, or "temporally" arrogant.
--
Paul
Nick Milton
<simon...@virgin.net> wrote:
>AISI, the Bible is the "Word made page" as opposed to the "Word made flesh"
Why do you think this? I know it is a common view in some circles, but
where do you get it from? It is not in any of the creeds
Nick
Debbie at work
No, I meant what I wrote - doesn't leave room for rhetorical readings
or *readings wholly determined by faith*. Whether that's exactly
what the author wrote...I'll have a look at the journal when the
periodicals room has been vacated, and see if I can post an abstract.
D
Paul Roberts
> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@ncl.nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b2q7hh$8ud$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
>
>> Simon Woods articulated ...
>
> nice you thought so ... I would have used 'burbled' as the verb!
>
:-)
>
>> [snip]
>>> AISI, the Bible is the "Word made page" as opposed to the "Word made
>>> flesh". On that basis I would attribute to it divine characteristics
>>> (without it actually being God, in the same way that Christ's spoken
>>> word was divine but not deity).
>>
>> Simon, why do you believe this?
>
> "Word made page" is a rubbish expression! I'll retract that and hope
> that various newsgroup archives become corrupted!
>
Too late!
> Which bit did you have in mind, Paul? (See if I can redeem myself, at
> least in my own eyes! If you say "all of it" I'll have to take time-
> out to try and fathom what I was on when I wrote that!)
I see Nick has asked pretty much the exact same question!
I'm trying to get at how you arrived at the view that the Bible has
"divine characteristics", or why you believe that it's God's word (note
the small 'w') to us today, if that's what you mean.
I know it's a popular view and I've been trying to find out from people
on ukrc where it comes from.
Bernard Hill
<simon...@virgin.net> writes
>"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:UIVMRiA2...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b2p0ck$1eq4v1$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
>> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
>> >"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> The Bible itself says nothing. It's inanimate. The writers are the
>> >> people saying things.
>> >
>> >"The Scripture says to Pharaoh ... " (Rom 9:17) when the OT account is of
>> >the Lord telling Moses what to say to Pharaoh. Doesn't sound inanimate to
>> >me.
>> >
>>
>> As pointed out in another thread, that's an example of a metanym and not
>> relevant to our discussion.
>
>You would make it irrelevant by showing that Scripture isn't saying anything
>to Pharaoh (and I'm not sure how one could do that) rather than assigning
>the way the language is used a rather fancy name!
>
The word was new to me until another contributor pointed it out. But
it's entirely apposite: we often say that "The White House says that"
when we mean "the government/president etc says that" - it's closer than
a metaphor and is called a metanym. Look it up like I had to.
>
>
>> >> >> And remember the Bible is a product of its own age
>> >> >
>> >> >... says a philosophy of its own age ;-)
>> >>
>> >> ... so...?
>> >
>> From Paul's explanation, I judge that he's far more able than I to
>progress
>> >this point so - over to you Paul!
>>
>> I'd be interested to know where.
>
>A few threads above, the way I've got my news-reader set. - I meant Paul
>Dean :-) - wasn't clear there.
OK
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<pau...@redeemed.org.uk> writes
>A painting is a work of art, as is the bible. "Climbing the Eiger for
>Dummies" is not a work of art ;) A work of art can speak on its own,
>it can even speak things the creator never intended or imagined to be
>spoken.
Um. What's "a work of art". Is it possible for a work of art to have
thousands of contributors, and not be written with the intention of
being a work of art?
>> >choose yours over the bible writers.
>>
>> I understand the paradox. But if I don't believe the philosophy of
>> my age is larger than the biblical one then I can't live in the
>> modern world.
>
>I don't follow that at all. If I think the philosophies of past ages
>is no less valid than that of the present age, then I can't live in
>the modern world? Yes, it means that I can't embrace the modern world
>like a zealous patriot (I'm not saying that's what you're doing, it's
>exaggeration). Surely it just means that I have a viewpoint to offer
>to the modern world?
We're just not connecting. Your paragraph does not make any sense in
terms of the discussion we are having.
You can't live in the modern world without accepting its viewpoint is
what I meant. It's not possible to undo all the knowledge and culture
and become a 1st century (or pre-Christian) man again.
>
>> Each subsequent generation sees the previous ones in a new light.
>> You can't go backwards and cut off your knowledge.
>
>Ah, here we have the real reason why you think your philosophy is
>better than that of previous times, and it's quite a commonly held
>notion.
>
>Do you think it's possible to go backwards in ways other than
>knowledge? Philosophies are based upon more than knowledge, for
>example wisdom and revelation. Given that I can be knowledgeable
>without being wise and without revlation, why should an increase in
>knowledge imply a greater philosophy?
"greater philosophy"?
Only greater in the sense of having more knowledge... I made no
evaluation of it our world-view.
>
>Even further, philosophies are indebted to the philosophies that
>preceded them but not only in an analytical way. The philosophy of
>one age might be worse than the one preceding it because it's reacting
>against one or two unsavoury points and throwing away a lot of good as
>well as the small bit of bad. There are fashions and trends which
>must be taken into account and which are wholly unrelated to an
>idealistic "steady march of knowledge".
>
>
>I agree, though, in one sense - in the sense that we must work with
>what we have, the sense in which we cannot escape our cultural
>surroundings any more than we can escape our bodies! We can, however,
>try to not be culturally arrogant, or "temporally" arrogant.
>
I would agree with that. It's as I suspected, we don't disagree at all.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Phil Saunders
agreed
> but what Jesus expresses about God, the
> Bible does also.
No. The bible expresses some things about God.
> Also what the Bible expresses, Jesus fulfills. The huge
> difference between the two is that whereas the Bible perfectly expresses
> something which is "forever settled in heaven", Jesus is the Word come
down
> from heaven. Thus the Bible tells us about salvation. Jesus not only tells
> us about it but effected it as well.
The big difference is that Jesus is God our saviour and the bible is a book.
Phil
Gareth McCaughan
> You can't live in the modern world without accepting its viewpoint is
> what I meant. It's not possible to undo all the knowledge and culture
> and become a 1st century (or pre-Christian) man again.
I think reducing all of what's commonly believed in "the modern
world" to a single "viewpoint" is a mistake. It may perhaps be
impossible to live in the modern world, in some sense, without
accepting (say) that quantum mechanics is a fairly accurate
description of how the world works. I don't see why it should
be impossible to live in the modern world, in any useful sense,
without accepting (say) that the enterprise of science is a
normative model for all attempts to understand anything, which
is another "modern world view".
And, more generally: I don't see what is supposed to be impossible,
or even very difficult, about living in the modern world while
believing that *in some respects* the understanding found in the
Bible is better than what's commonplace these days.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan
> The word was new to me until another contributor pointed it out. But
> it's entirely apposite: we often say that "The White House says that"
> when we mean "the government/president etc says that" - it's closer than
> a metaphor and is called a metanym. Look it up like I had to.
Simon, you'll find it easier to look it up if you look under
"metonym". :-)
Paul A Dean
> In article <6o4r73c...@merlot.maths.nott.ac.uk>, Paul A Dean
> <pau...@redeemed.org.uk> writes
>
> >A painting is a work of art, as is the bible. "Climbing the Eiger
> >for Dummies" is not a work of art ;) A work of art can speak on its
> >own, it can even speak things the creator never intended or
> >imagined to be spoken.
>
> Um. What's "a work of art"?
A non-scientific expression of beauty and truth.
> Is it possible for a work of art to have thousands of contributors,
> and not be written with the intention of being a work of art?
IMO.
> >I don't follow that at all. If I think the philosophies of past
> >ages is no less valid than that of the present age, then I can't
> >live in the modern world? Yes, it means that I can't embrace the
> >modern world like a zealous patriot (I'm not saying that's what
> >you're doing, it's exaggeration). Surely it just means that I have
> >a viewpoint to offer to the modern world?
>
> We're just not connecting. Your paragraph does not make any sense in
> terms of the discussion we are having.
OK
> You can't live in the modern world without accepting its viewpoint
> is what I meant. It's not possible to undo all the knowledge and
> culture and become a 1st century (or pre-Christian) man again.
I don't agree (at least in absolute terms). The modern world has all
sorts of viewpoints which we, as Christians, are definitely opposed
e.g. promiscuity is acceptable for the young, e.g. materialism is a
possible route to fulfillment. These are examples of viewpoints in
which we are immeresed within our culture and yet we reject.
> >> Each subsequent generation sees the previous ones in a new light.
> >> You can't go backwards and cut off your knowledge.
> >
> >Ah, here we have the real reason why you think your philosophy is
> >better than that of previous times, and it's quite a commonly held
> >notion.
> >
> >Do you think it's possible to go backwards in ways other than
> >knowledge? Philosophies are based upon more than knowledge, for
> >example wisdom and revelation. Given that I can be knowledgeable
> >without being wise and without revlation, why should an increase in
> >knowledge imply a greater philosophy?
>
> "greater philosophy"?
>
> Only greater in the sense of having more knowledge... I made no
> evaluation of it our world-view.
I think I see - the only reason you prefer it is that it's part of
your culture and you feel you're better off with that than a strange
alien one? I can see how that could be a valid point of view.
> I would agree with that. It's as I suspected, we don't disagree at
> all.
ok :)
--
Paul
Paul A Dean
> A propos of this discussion, there's an interesting and rather
> heated article in (I think) the February edition of the journal
> Theology, entitled something like "How the academy has betrayed
> protestantism" (It's at work, so I can't check till tomorrow
> morning).
I'd be interested to read it. Is it on the web?
[aside - I find it difficult to take seriously academic publications
which aren't on the web]
--
Paul
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Bernard Hill <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> Um. What's "a work of art"?
>
>A non-scientific expression of beauty and truth.
Why "non-scientific"?
Mark
--
Currently trying to flog:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3008631920
"A sky isn't always blue, a sun doesn't always shine. It's
alright to fall apart sometimes"
Debbie
wrote:
Unfortunately, academic theology in the UK is seriously
under-represented in this area. Subscriptions to theology journals
are generally expensive - and hugely inflated for institutional
subscriptions - so there's a strong counter-incentive to publishing
them on the www. Because of this, there are *no* serious theology uk
publications available in full, up to date, online.
My observation is that many academic theologians are reluctant to get
to grips with IT, and mistrust anything that can't grow mould in their
libraries, have corners folded down and be scribbled on in spidery
handwriting in indelible pencil. They think they have cracked
electronic communication if they can scrawl a handwritten reply on to
a printed out email for their secretary to copy-type.
Debbie
>No, I meant what I wrote - doesn't leave room for rhetorical readings
>or *readings wholly determined by faith*. Whether that's exactly
>what the author wrote...I'll have a look at the journal when the
>periodicals room has been vacated, and see if I can post an abstract.
OK, I finally managed to get into the periodicals room, and
immediately discovered that it was in Modern Believing, not Theology.
We get so many journals...
The author is Theo Hobson, who wrote a recent article in the Grauniad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4474988,00.html
I think I can quote some bits of the MB article without infringing
copyright, since there is no abstract.
All quotations form Hobson, Theo, 2003, "The Academic Betrayal of
Protestant Theology" in /Modern/ /Believing/ Vol 41.1 January 2003,
pp. 39-46
"...Protestant thought has been severely marignalised by academic
theology. To a surprisingly large extent, academic theologians have
lost interest in Protestantism" (p.39)
"To identify oneself with specifically Protestant tradition is the
quickest way to remove oneself from theological relevance." (p.41)
"To summarise, [Postmodern Anglo-Catholic Theology(PACT)] locates the
essence of Christianity in the distinctive /social practice/ of the
community, central to which is ritual. And theology's role is to
/interpret/ this practice, to serve as its articulate voice, to
commentate upon it. The key point, for my purposes, is that PACT
presupposes a disjunction between religion itself and theology. The
former is done primarily in churches, the latter is done in articles
and books." (p.42)
"For Protestantism, a form of /human rhetoric/ is God's main medium,
overwhelmingly eclipsing others." (p.43)
"Protestantism understands God as a powerful speaker, who creates and
redeems through his word. It has to reproduce this cosmic voice of
creative, gracious authority through its own rhetorical
performance...Protestantism puts all its eggs into the basket of
rhetoric. It finds God in a certain rhetorical tradition; and it
witnesses to God by participating in this tradition, by re-performing
such speech." (p.43)
"Within the academy Protestant theology has to assume an alternative
identity, wear a mask. For it cannot perform its rhetorical
particularity here." (p.44)
"What theology can and must do is dwell on the problem, and indeed
/perform/ the problem. It must expose the pretension of every human
claim to authority, and it must also strive to convey the true
authority, the Word of God. This requires a highly rhetorical,
indeed, dramatic, form of discourse...it is miles away from the
normal, single voiced discourse of academic theology." (pp.44-45)
"Subsequent Protestant theology [to Barth]...chooses to speak about
Christianity from outside rather than from within...It fails...to root
theology in a distinctive form of rhetorical performance." (p46)
"Within the academy, Protestant theology cannot perform its own
rhetorical particularity, its dialogical drama - communicating the
Word of God in its otherness." (p.46)
"...this, I suggest is the most that Protestant theology can do: be
the literary criticism of confessional, performative theology. It is
a limited but significant role." (p.46)
I would take issue with some of the assumptions behind what Hobson
writes, but I think he articulates in a useful way some of the
tensions behind current debates about the new ABC, punch-ups on ukrc,
and the mutual suspicion between "liberals" and "fundamentalists".
Bernard Hill
<pau...@redeemed.org.uk> writes
>Bernard Hill <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In article <6o4r73c...@merlot.maths.nott.ac.uk>, Paul A Dean
>> <pau...@redeemed.org.uk> writes
>>
>> >A painting is a work of art, as is the bible. "Climbing the Eiger
>> >for Dummies" is not a work of art ;) A work of art can speak on its
>> >own, it can even speak things the creator never intended or
>> >imagined to be spoken.
>>
>> Um. What's "a work of art"?
>
>A non-scientific expression of beauty and truth.
Why non-scientific?
A mathematical proof can be a work of art.
>
>> Is it possible for a work of art to have thousands of contributors,
>> and not be written with the intention of being a work of art?
>
>IMO.
>
>> >I don't follow that at all. If I think the philosophies of past
>> >ages is no less valid than that of the present age, then I can't
>> >live in the modern world? Yes, it means that I can't embrace the
>> >modern world like a zealous patriot (I'm not saying that's what
>> >you're doing, it's exaggeration). Surely it just means that I have
>> >a viewpoint to offer to the modern world?
>>
>> We're just not connecting. Your paragraph does not make any sense in
>> terms of the discussion we are having.
>
>OK
>
>> You can't live in the modern world without accepting its viewpoint
>> is what I meant. It's not possible to undo all the knowledge and
>> culture and become a 1st century (or pre-Christian) man again.
>
>I don't agree (at least in absolute terms). The modern world has all
>sorts of viewpoints which we, as Christians, are definitely opposed
>e.g. promiscuity is acceptable for the young, e.g. materialism is a
>possible route to fulfillment. These are examples of viewpoints in
>which we are immeresed within our culture and yet we reject.
We're not connecting. I'm not referring to any such moral viewpoints.
I'm talking of a largely scientific (ie causal) world-view. If something
happens we look for a reason.
>
>> >> Each subsequent generation sees the previous ones in a new light.
>> >> You can't go backwards and cut off your knowledge.
>> >
>> >Ah, here we have the real reason why you think your philosophy is
>> >better than that of previous times, and it's quite a commonly held
>> >notion.
>> >
>> >Do you think it's possible to go backwards in ways other than
>> >knowledge? Philosophies are based upon more than knowledge, for
>> >example wisdom and revelation. Given that I can be knowledgeable
>> >without being wise and without revlation, why should an increase in
>> >knowledge imply a greater philosophy?
>>
>> "greater philosophy"?
>>
>> Only greater in the sense of having more knowledge... I made no
>> evaluation of it our world-view.
>
>I think I see - the only reason you prefer
who said I prefer it? I just can't get rid of it.
>it is that it's part of
>your culture and you feel you're better off with that than a strange
>alien one? I can see how that could be a valid point of view.
>
>> I would agree with that. It's as I suspected, we don't disagree at
>> all.
>
>ok :)
>
:-)
Bernard Hill
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>> The word was new to me until another contributor pointed it out. But
>> it's entirely apposite: we often say that "The White House says that"
>> when we mean "the government/president etc says that" - it's closer than
>> a metaphor and is called a metanym. Look it up like I had to.
>
>Simon, you'll find it easier to look it up if you look under
>"metonym". :-)
>
OUCH. Sorry. Learn a new word, spell it wrong. Seemed a good idea at the
time :-(
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
David Anderson
> Um. What's "a work of art". Is it possible for a work of art to have
> thousands of contributors, and not be written with the intention of
> being a work of art?
Don't ask questions like that when there's a philosopher about. :)
What is a work of art? This is a highly contested question in aesthetics.
One major theory is that 'a work of art' is anything that is treated as
being a work of art by a particular society. To be treated as a work of art
means to be exhibited in a museum, contemplated for its aesthetic qualities
rather than as evidence for the way we lived in the past, etc. Of course,
this means that nothing that nothing was a work of art until the social
practices grew up in which we have institutions such as museums. Actually,
I should think that most institutional theorists would allow for some sort
of genetic transmission: our modern concept of 'work of art' is descended
from earlier concepts which are relevantly similar.
Can a work of art have thousands of contributors? Probably. It wouldn't
make any difference to the Iliad's standing in our culture if we discovered
for certain that it was the result of generations of interpreters. And if
anything is a work of art, the Iliad is. Likewise, the Kalevala is a work
of art, and we know that it's the creation of an editor working on disparate
folk tales. Gothic Cathedrals are also works of art with thousands of
contributors.
Can a work of art be produced without the intention of being a work of art?
Well, certainly if we accept the institutional theory above, then yes: most
works of art dating back to earlier than the eighteenth century were not
works of art in the modern sense. In particular, Aeschylean tragedy, Greek
sculpture, Orthodox Icons, etc. were not originally works of art.
David Anderson
Simon Woods
I know nothing of the divine nature of Jesus other than by Scripture. How is
it possible then that Scripture reveals less of God?
> > Also what the Bible expresses, Jesus fulfills. The huge
> > difference between the two is that whereas the Bible perfectly expresses
> > something which is "forever settled in heaven", Jesus is the Word come
> down
> > from heaven. Thus the Bible tells us about salvation. Jesus not only
tells
> > us about it but effected it as well.
>
> The big difference is that Jesus is God our saviour and the bible is a
book.
"Thou hast magnified Thy Word according to all Thy Name" (Ps 138:2). Jesus's
name is above every name but God's Word is "up there" as well.
Simon Woods
Bernard
I don't doubt that one can easily parallel "The Scripture says ..." and "The
White House says". But because you can parallel them or place them into the
same "metanymic" category (someone'll have to tell me if that is the
adjective!) doesn't mean that you've made them the same thing. Something is
not inanimate because it is metanymic. It would be correct to call something
inanimate if it were not animate. It appears that even he who is dead can
still speak by faith (Heb 11:4)
AISI, you have to tackle it head-on and show that Scripture isn't saying
anything to Pharaoh. God did tell something to Moses and Moses relayed that
to Pharaoh. AFAICS, the issues are more
a) "Is it correct for Paul to equate 'God having spoken to Moses and
Moses having spoken to Pharaoh' as 'Scripture saying something to Pharaoh'"
b) "If so ... has Scripture stopped saying it"?.
I really don't see how it is possible to challenge this on it's own terms?
TMM it is more likely, giving our tendency towards anthrocentricity, we
assume our saying or speaking as normative rather than as revealling
something of the image of God in us.
Simon
Simon Woods
> I'm trying to get at how you arrived at the view that the Bible has
> "divine characteristics", or why you believe that it's God's word (note
> the small 'w') to us today, if that's what you mean.
2 Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed.
This verse teaches that Scripture, itself, is God breathed. Not simply that
the men who wrote Scripture were inspired by God.
This link looks okay http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/55-17.HTM
BBWarfield is good http://www.markers.com/ink/bbwauthority.htm
Bernard Hill
<simon...@virgin.net> writes
>
>"Thou hast magnified Thy Word according to all Thy Name" (Ps 138:2). Jesus's
>name is above every name but God's Word is "up there" as well.
Bear in mind that "Thy Word" does not refer to the bible when used in
the Old Testament. And even in the new testament it does not refer to
the New Testament.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<deb...@removethiscybertheology.org.uk> writes
>
>I would take issue with some of the assumptions behind what Hobson
>writes, but I think he articulates in a useful way some of the
>tensions behind current debates about the new ABC, punch-ups on ukrc,
>and the mutual suspicion between "liberals" and "fundamentalists".
Yes, it sounds interesting and illuminative and rings many bells.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
David Ould
"Thy Word" certainly refers to scripture in the OT.
For example, much of Ps 119 referring to the Torah and other scriptures.
Or much of the Prophets where what is recorded is directly referred to as
God's Word.
--
David Ould
www.livejournal.com/users/davidould
Simon Woods
Accepted - it refers to God's Word!
But, for clarifications sake, obviously that doesn't mean that the Old and
New Testament as per our Bibles aren't God's Word.
Simon Crouch
news:rdm25vs42akol46sd...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:46:01 GMT, I wrote:
>
>
> >No, I meant what I wrote - doesn't leave room for rhetorical readings
> >or *readings wholly determined by faith*. Whether that's exactly
> >what the author wrote...I'll have a look at the journal when the
> >periodicals room has been vacated, and see if I can post an abstract.
>
> OK, I finally managed to get into the periodicals room, and
> immediately discovered that it was in Modern Believing, not Theology.
> We get so many journals...
>
> The author is Theo Hobson, who wrote a recent article in the Grauniad
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4474988,00.html
>
>
> I would take issue with some of the assumptions behind what Hobson
> writes, but I think he articulates in a useful way some of the
> tensions behind current debates about the new ABC, punch-ups on ukrc,
> and the mutual suspicion between "liberals" and "fundamentalists".
This is very interesting and not really something I've thought about before.
I wonder if Anglo-Catholicism has mounted an intellectual resurgence in
response to the resurgence in Roman Catholic thought since Pius XII's (and
latterly Vatican II's) liberalisation of the restraints put upon RC
scholars? Much of the re-thinking (revisionism?) of conditions before the
reformation in England has come from RC scholars, rather than those on the
AC side, for example.
all the best,
Simon.
Nick Milton
<simon...@virgin.net> wrote:
>"Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@ncl.nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:b2qvco$jt2$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
>
>> I'm trying to get at how you arrived at the view that the Bible has
>> "divine characteristics", or why you believe that it's God's word (note
>> the small 'w') to us today, if that's what you mean.
>
>2 Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed.
I am sure you are well aware of the alternative ways of translating
this verse, and of the logical leap you therefore have to make to
ascribe even second-hand divinity to the Bible?
Nick
Tim Whittingham
news:rdm25vs42akol46sd...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> The author is Theo Hobson, who wrote a recent article in the Grauniad
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4474988,00.html
Thanks, Debbie. Interesting. I laughed at the Guardian article and
browsed a bit over lunch. Would you believe what I found?
"Jesus was almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of
the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural
texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his
disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings."
I nearly choked on my prawn sandwich. Read all about it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,869359,00.html
Tim W
Bernard Hill
<NOSPAMd...@stgeorges.org.sg> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>> In article <b2skr8$1focpq$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon
>> Woods <simon...@virgin.net> writes
>>>
>>> "Thou hast magnified Thy Word according to all Thy Name" (Ps
>>> 138:2). Jesus's name is above every name but God's Word is
>>> "up there" as well.
>>
>> Bear in mind that "Thy Word" does not refer to the bible when
>> used in the Old Testament. And even in the new testament it
>> does not refer to the New Testament.
>>
>
>"Thy Word" certainly refers to scripture in the OT.
>For example, much of Ps 119 referring to the Torah and other scriptures.
>
At the risk of being elementary, the OT was not written at the time the
Psalms were written.
>Or much of the Prophets where what is recorded is directly referred to as
>God's Word.
Indeed, but not the same as what we now understand as the Old Testament.
I bet you wouldn't even accord the OT Apocrypha the same sobriquet.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<simon...@virgin.net> writes
>"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:BNPZwkAf...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b2skr8$1focpq$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
>> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
>> >
>> >"Thou hast magnified Thy Word according to all Thy Name" (Ps 138:2).
>Jesus's
>> >name is above every name but God's Word is "up there" as well.
>>
>> Bear in mind that "Thy Word" does not refer to the bible when used in
>> the Old Testament. And even in the new testament it does not refer to
>> the New Testament.
>
>Accepted - it refers to God's Word!
>
>But, for clarifications sake, obviously that doesn't mean that the Old and
>New Testament as per our Bibles aren't God's Word.
It implies they are not synonymous. Our Bibles may contain God's word,
or part of God's "word" may be the bible, or contained in the bible.
God's Word is of course His Son.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Pam
Debbie:
Thanks for posting this. I'll have to read it a few more times and
try to digest it.
> "To identify oneself with specifically Protestant tradition is the
> quickest way to remove oneself from theological relevance." (p.41)
>
> "To summarise, [Postmodern Anglo-Catholic Theology(PACT)] locates the
> essence of Christianity in the distinctive /social practice/ of the
> community, central to which is ritual.
I don't understand whether he's distinguishing between "Protestant
tradition" and PACT or saying that they are one and the same thing.
> And theology's role is to
> /interpret/ this practice, to serve as its articulate voice, to
> commentate upon it. The key point, for my purposes, is that PACT
> presupposes a disjunction between religion itself and theology. The
> former is done primarily in churches, the latter is done in articles
> and books." (p.42)
I'm not sure why this is a particularly Protestant phenemenon. At the
very liberal end, I can see Roman Catholic theologians envying
Protestant theologian's freedom to write what they believe without
being evicted from their faith community. But I don't see Roman
Catholic worshippers as having some sort of theological grounding in
their Sunday worship experience that is missing to Protestant
worshippers (I can't speak about Eastern Christian traditions, so I
won't).
> "Protestantism understands God as a powerful speaker, who creates and
> redeems through his word.
I think what we Protestants tussle over is the extent to which God's
True Being can be manifested in human words.
> I would take issue with some of the assumptions behind what Hobson
> writes, but I think he articulates in a useful way some of the
> tensions behind current debates about the new ABC, punch-ups on ukrc,
> and the mutual suspicion between "liberals" and "fundamentalists".
Well, I'd agree with that. But I still reduce even this to the basic
issue of how people perceive the world around them; maybe we can add
to this "How they process the information they receive and how
accurately they believe it can be communicated to others".
Blessings,
Pam
Phil Saunders
> "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Ao94a.1268$QF6.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > news:b2ql3h$1elqig$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1r14a.260$uz6....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > > > "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:b2q02c$1e2fi0$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > "David Anderson" <dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > > > > news:3e4d6ec1$0$14163$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
snip
> > > but what Jesus expresses about God, the
> > > Bible does also.
> >
> > No. The bible expresses some things about God.
>
> I know nothing of the divine nature of Jesus other than by Scripture. How
is
> it possible then that Scripture reveals less of God?
I know Jesus because I know Jesus. The bible tells me much but without a
personal knowledge and the indwelling Holy Spirit all I would have would be
a book.
> > > Also what the Bible expresses, Jesus fulfills. The huge
> > > difference between the two is that whereas the Bible perfectly
expresses
> > > something which is "forever settled in heaven", Jesus is the Word come
> > down
> > > from heaven. Thus the Bible tells us about salvation. Jesus not only
> tells
> > > us about it but effected it as well.
> >
> > The big difference is that Jesus is God our saviour and the bible is a
> book.
>
> "Thou hast magnified Thy Word according to all Thy Name" (Ps 138:2).
Jesus's
> name is above every name but God's Word is "up there" as well.
1) The bible is NOT God's Word.
2) The bible is NOT God's Word.
3) The bible is NOT God's word.
Can you see what I am saying. The bible contains importnat truths about God
and tells us a great deal. God's Word is not a book.
Phil
Phil Saunders
> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@ncl.nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b2qvco$jt2$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
>
> > I'm trying to get at how you arrived at the view that the Bible has
> > "divine characteristics", or why you believe that it's God's word (note
> > the small 'w') to us today, if that's what you mean.
>
> 2 Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed.
>
> This verse teaches that Scripture, itself, is God breathed. Not simply
that
> the men who wrote Scripture were inspired by God.
But that verse does not define what is or is not scripture.
Phil
Paul Roberts
> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@ncl.nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b2qvco$jt2$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
>
>> I'm trying to get at how you arrived at the view that the Bible has
>> "divine characteristics", or why you believe that it's God's word
>> (note the small 'w') to us today, if that's what you mean.
>
> 2 Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed.
>
> This verse teaches that Scripture, itself, is God breathed. Not
> simply that the men who wrote Scripture were inspired by God.
>
Hmm. This is usually the verse which is given to support this view.
However, I don't think it goes anywhere near as far as you - and those
who share your view - would like it to. It talks about being "useful" or
"profitable" - this is a far cry from "inerrant" or "a final authority".
Eric Potts, one-time contributor to this group, has written an excellent
discussion of this verse at
http://www.revpotts.freeserve.co.uk/gospelzone/gospelset.html, in which
he puts the arguments better than I can.
However, the question still remains: even if the interpretation of this
verse which you place on it is correct, what made you trust it in the
first place? It still involves a decision on your part.
> This link looks okay http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/55-17.HTM
> BBWarfield is good http://www.markers.com/ink/bbwauthority.htm
OK, I need to spend some time looking at these. Thanks for that.
--
Paul R.
Remove "nospam" for valid email address
Debbie at work
<timothy.wh...@SPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>Thanks, Debbie. Interesting. I laughed at the Guardian article and
>browsed a bit over lunch. Would you believe what I found?
>
>"Jesus was almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of
>the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural
>texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his
>disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings."
Haven't you come across that idea before? About three years ago, we
had printed on a sweat shirt for one of my sons "Jesus was a dirty
hippie" with a picture of a cannabis leaf. I believe the research
you cited was merely a serious attempt to puts some flesh on the bones
of that idea.
Simon Woods
"So speaks The LORD, the God of Israel, saying, Write all the Words that I
have spoken to you in a book." (Jer 30:2) Would the book that Jeremiah wrote
not then be a book of God's Word?
Debbie at work
>I don't understand whether he's distinguishing between "Protestant
>tradition" and PACT or saying that they are one and the same thing.
Hobson invents the acronym to describe Postmodern Anglo Catholic
theology as the *opposing* force with respect to Protestant theology
>> And theology's role is to
>> /interpret/ this practice, to serve as its articulate voice, to
>> commentate upon it. The key point, for my purposes, is that PACT
>> presupposes a disjunction between religion itself and theology. The
>> former is done primarily in churches, the latter is done in articles
>> and books." (p.42)
>
>I'm not sure why this is a particularly Protestant phenemenon. At the
>very liberal end, I can see Roman Catholic theologians envying
>Protestant theologian's freedom to write what they believe without
>being evicted from their faith community. But I don't see Roman
>Catholic worshippers as having some sort of theological grounding in
>their Sunday worship experience that is missing to Protestant
>worshippers (I can't speak about Eastern Christian traditions, so I
>won't).
I'm sorry - I've clearly not included enough to make clear what Hobson
is saying. But I have neither the time to copy up more, nor the
inclination to risk violating copyright, so you might be advised to
trot along to your nearest liberal Anglican church and see if the have
Modern Believing on their library.
>> "Protestantism understands God as a powerful speaker, who creates and
>> redeems through his word.
>
>I think what we Protestants tussle over is the extent to which God's
>True Being can be manifested in human words.
I suspect that as far as Hobson is concerned, you would not be on the
Protestant side of the fence!
>> I would take issue with some of the assumptions behind what Hobson
>> writes, but I think he articulates in a useful way some of the
>> tensions behind current debates about the new ABC, punch-ups on ukrc,
>> and the mutual suspicion between "liberals" and "fundamentalists".
>
>Well, I'd agree with that. But I still reduce even this to the basic
>issue of how people perceive the world around them; maybe we can add
>to this "How they process the information they receive and how
>accurately they believe it can be communicated to others".
Please feel free to take that up with Hobson - I was merely drawing
people's attention to the article.
Paul Roberts
> "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:b2snmq$1fl361$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de...
[snip]
>> 2 Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed.
>>
>> This verse teaches that Scripture, itself, is God breathed. Not
>> simply that the men who wrote Scripture were inspired by God.
>
> But that verse does not define what is or is not scripture.
Phil, I'm puzzled. You are almost coming across as a "liberal" in this
thread regarding your view of the Bible - and yet, AIUI you identify
yourself as a "fundie" and regard scripture as inerrant.
How, then, do you arrive at this view?
Simon Woods
> In article <b2t3ic$1fbflm$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
> >"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:BNPZwkAf...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <b2skr8$1focpq$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
> >> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
> >> >
> >> >"Thou hast magnified Thy Word according to all Thy Name" (Ps 138:2).
> >Jesus's
> >> >name is above every name but God's Word is "up there" as well.
> >>
> >> Bear in mind that "Thy Word" does not refer to the bible when used in
> >> the Old Testament. And even in the new testament it does not refer to
> >> the New Testament.
> >
> >Accepted - it refers to God's Word!
> >
> >But, for clarifications sake, obviously that doesn't mean that the Old
and
> >New Testament as per our Bibles aren't God's Word.
>
> It implies they are not synonymous.
I don' t think it does. It is not saying anything explicitly about the Old
and New Testaments as we have them. It is speaking of "Thy Word". However,
if the Old and New Testaments are the "Thy Word", then by inference it is
talking about them and they therefore would be synonymous.
> Our Bibles may contain God's word,
> or part of God's "word" may be the bible, or contained in the bible.
>
> God's Word is of course His Son.
Would you accept that the word that Jesus spoke was also the Word of God as
per
"And it happened that the crowd pressed on Him to hear the Word of God ..."
(Luk 5:1)
Simon Woods
news:3e51f5c9...@news.demon.co.uk...
Nick
"All God-breathed Scripture", "every God-breathed scripture" - I really
don't mind. Were there other's you had in mind? (I had a brief look at
Eric's stuff - quite interesting ...)
I quoted this to show the divine characteristics part of the argument.
The other links I included were more about addressing the assertion that the
Bible as we have it today is God's Word.
Simon
Simon Woods
Agreed
Pam Seeker
Debbie:
>> I don't understand whether he's distinguishing between "Protestant
>> tradition" and PACT or saying that they are one and the same thing.
>
> Hobson invents the acronym to describe Postmodern Anglo Catholic
> theology as the *opposing* force with respect to Protestant theology
I suspected, but wasn't certain.
> I'm sorry - I've clearly not included enough to make clear what Hobson
> is saying. But I have neither the time to copy up more, nor the
> inclination to risk violating copyright, so you might be advised to
> trot along to your nearest liberal Anglican church and see if the have
> Modern Believing on their library.
Fair enough. I think that there was a bit too much snipping, but I
understand the two reasons why you don't want to quote more.
>>> "Protestantism understands God as a powerful speaker, who creates
>>> and redeems through his word.
>>
>> I think what we Protestants tussle over is the extent to which God's
>> True Being can be manifested in human words.
>
> I suspect that as far as Hobson is concerned, you would not be on the
> Protestant side of the fence!
Dunno. Not really got enough of an idea of what he's saying. I certainly
don't think that the entirety of what God is can be reduced accurately to
anything human - words, images, symbols, what-have-you. And I happen also
to think that it's the height of human arrogance to think that God can be so
reduced.
>>> I would take issue with some of the assumptions behind what Hobson
>>> writes, but I think he articulates in a useful way some of the
>>> tensions behind current debates about the new ABC, punch-ups on
>>> ukrc, and the mutual suspicion between "liberals" and
>>> "fundamentalists".
>>
>> Well, I'd agree with that. But I still reduce even this to the basic
>> issue of how people perceive the world around them; maybe we can add
>> to this "How they process the information they receive and how
>> accurately they believe it can be communicated to others".
>
> Please feel free to take that up with Hobson - I was merely drawing
> people's attention to the article.
Um, fine. If I ever run into him I'll let you know.
Blessings,
Pam
Phil Saunders
> "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:nur4a.493$Bo2.106626@newsfep2-gui...
> > "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > news:b2skr8$1focpq$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Ao94a.1268$QF6.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > > > "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:b2ql3h$1elqig$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1r14a.260$uz6....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > > > > > "Simon Woods" <simon...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:b2q02c$1e2fi0$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > > > "David Anderson" <dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > > news:3e4d6ec1$0$14163$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > snip
> > > "Thou hast magnified Thy Word according to all Thy Name" (Ps 138:2).
> > Jesus's
> > > name is above every name but God's Word is "up there" as well.
> >
> > 1) The bible is NOT God's Word.
> > 2) The bible is NOT God's Word.
> > 3) The bible is NOT God's word.
> >
> > Can you see what I am saying. The bible contains importnat truths about
> God
> > and tells us a great deal. God's Word is not a book.
>
> "So speaks The LORD, the God of Israel, saying, Write all the Words that I
> have spoken to you in a book." (Jer 30:2) Would the book that Jeremiah
wrote
> not then be a book of God's Word?
No! The words that God spoke are God's words. The rest of the book isn't God
speaking. Nor do you know that the book that God commanded to be written is
the book that we call Jeremiah.
Phil
Gareth McCaughan
> In article <86smumh...@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
>> Bernard Hill wrote:
>>
>>> The word was new to me until another contributor pointed it out. But
>>> it's entirely apposite: we often say that "The White House says that"
>>> when we mean "the government/president etc says that" - it's closer than
>>> a metaphor and is called a metanym. Look it up like I had to.
>>
>> Simon, you'll find it easier to look it up if you look under
>> "metonym". :-)
>
> OUCH. Sorry. Learn a new word, spell it wrong. Seemed a good idea at the
> time :-(
"metanym" is a *very* plausible spelling even though it happens to be
wrong: "meta" plus "nym". The trouble is that actually the Greek word
for "name" is "onyma", and that initial "o" is part of the word.
It's not just a coincidence that "anonymous", "homonym", "antonym",
"pseudonym" and so on all end in "onym", not just "nym". So it's
meta + onym -> metonym.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
David Ould
>>>
>>
>> "Thy Word" certainly refers to scripture in the OT.
>> For example, much of Ps 119 referring to the Torah and other
>> scriptures.
>>
>
> At the risk of being elementary, the OT was not written at
> the time the Psalms were written.
>
er, a lot of it already was. What's your point.
>> Or much of the Prophets where what is recorded is directly
>> referred to as God's Word.
>
> Indeed, but not the same as what we now understand as the Old
> Testament. I bet you wouldn't even accord the OT Apocrypha
> the same sobriquet.
>
It's *part* of the OT. I don't understand your point. The prophets are part
of the OT.
--
David Ould
www.livejournal.com/users/davidould
Simon Woods
> > > Can you see what I am saying. The bible contains importnat truths
about
> > God
> > > and tells us a great deal. God's Word is not a book.
> >
> > "So speaks The LORD, the God of Israel, saying, Write all the Words that
I
> > have spoken to you in a book." (Jer 30:2) Would the book that Jeremiah
> wrote
> > not then be a book of God's Word?
>
> The words that God spoke are God's words.
If the words that God spoke are solely God's word, how have you ever heard
them? ISTM, that there is always an intermediary - Moses, Isaiah, the Gospel
writers, Paul etc.
The use of intermediaries is God's way. He has also spoken "to the fathers"
in the prophets and "to us" in His Son according to Heb 1:1,2. So the
prophets and His Son were able to "pass on" God's speaking to the desired
recipients.
> The rest of the book isn't God speaking.
If I write down exactly what God has just said, is not that which is written
down before me also God's words.
> Nor do you know that the book that God commanded to be written is
> the book that we call Jeremiah.
I wasn't suggesting that it was the whole book of Jeremiah. All I was
seeking to show is that God thought it important that the words which He
spoke to Jeremiah on that occasion, He desired to have reported in a book.
Phil Saunders
> "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:_Rx4a.2415$%g....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> > > > Can you see what I am saying. The bible contains importnat truths
> about
> > > God
> > > > and tells us a great deal. God's Word is not a book.
> > >
> > > "So speaks The LORD, the God of Israel, saying, Write all the Words
that
> I
> > > have spoken to you in a book." (Jer 30:2) Would the book that Jeremiah
> > wrote
> > > not then be a book of God's Word?
> >
> > The words that God spoke are God's words.
>
> If the words that God spoke are solely God's word, how have you ever heard
> them? ISTM, that there is always an intermediary - Moses, Isaiah, the
Gospel
> writers, Paul etc.
"One small step for man, one giant leap for manking". Whose words are they?
How I got to know that the person who spoke them did so does not alter
whether they said it or not.
God said what God said. Who recorded it does not affect who said it.
> The use of intermediaries is God's way. He has also spoken "to the
fathers"
> in the prophets and "to us" in His Son according to Heb 1:1,2. So the
> prophets and His Son were able to "pass on" God's speaking to the desired
> recipients.
Yes the prophets etc passed on what they heard from God.
> > The rest of the book isn't God speaking.
>
> If I write down exactly what God has just said, is not that which is
written
> down before me also God's words.
Yes.
> > Nor do you know that the book that God commanded to be written is
> > the book that we call Jeremiah.
>
> I wasn't suggesting that it was the whole book of Jeremiah. All I was
> seeking to show is that God thought it important that the words which He
> spoke to Jeremiah on that occasion, He desired to have reported in a book.
Which I did not disagree with. I merely pointed out that what God said is
limited to what God said and not whatever else anyone else wrote.
Phil
Bernard Hill
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>> In article <86smumh...@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
>> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
>>> Bernard Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>> The word was new to me until another contributor pointed it out. But
>>>> it's entirely apposite: we often say that "The White House says that"
>>>> when we mean "the government/president etc says that" - it's closer than
>>>> a metaphor and is called a metanym. Look it up like I had to.
>>>
>>> Simon, you'll find it easier to look it up if you look under
>>> "metonym". :-)
>>
>> OUCH. Sorry. Learn a new word, spell it wrong. Seemed a good idea at the
>> time :-(
>
>"metanym" is a *very* plausible spelling even though it happens to be
>wrong: "meta" plus "nym". The trouble is that actually the Greek word
>for "name" is "onyma", and that initial "o" is part of the word.
>It's not just a coincidence that "anonymous", "homonym", "antonym",
>"pseudonym" and so on all end in "onym", not just "nym". So it's
>meta + onym -> metonym.
I stand corrected and am pleased to be corrected in such superb style
:-)
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<NOSPAMd...@stgeorges.org.sg> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Thy Word" certainly refers to scripture in the OT.
>>> For example, much of Ps 119 referring to the Torah and other
>>> scriptures.
>>>
>>
>> At the risk of being elementary, the OT was not written at
>> the time the Psalms were written.
>>
>
>er, a lot of it already was. What's your point.
My point is that you can't use the term "thy word" in the Bible as
synonymous with the Bible. That's the point I made in the bit you
snipped.
>
>>> Or much of the Prophets where what is recorded is directly
>>> referred to as God's Word.
>>
>> Indeed, but not the same as what we now understand as the Old
>> Testament. I bet you wouldn't even accord the OT Apocrypha
>> the same sobriquet.
>>
>
>It's *part* of the OT. I don't understand your point. The prophets are part
>of the OT.
Do you, then, regard the book of the prophet Baruch as the Word of God?
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<simon...@virgin.net> writes
>"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:JBMbDYAQ...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b2t3ic$1fbflm$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
>> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
>> >"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:BNPZwkAf...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
>> >> In article <b2skr8$1focpq$1...@ID-123654.news.dfncis.de>, Simon Woods
>> >> <simon...@virgin.net> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >"Thou hast magnified Thy Word according to all Thy Name" (Ps 138:2).
>> >Jesus's
>> >> >name is above every name but God's Word is "up there" as well.
>> >>
>> >> Bear in mind that "Thy Word" does not refer to the bible when used in
>> >> the Old Testament. And even in the new testament it does not refer to
>> >> the New Testament.
>> >
>> >Accepted - it refers to God's Word!
>> >
>> >But, for clarifications sake, obviously that doesn't mean that the Old
>and
>> >New Testament as per our Bibles aren't God's Word.
>>
>> It implies they are not synonymous.
>
>I don' t think it does. It is not saying anything explicitly about the Old
>and New Testaments as we have them. It is speaking of "Thy Word". However,
>if the Old and New Testaments are the "Thy Word", then by inference it is
>talking about them and they therefore would be synonymous.
>
It can't be synonymous! There was no Bible at the time the words were
written, so it can't be referring to it!
>
>> Our Bibles may contain God's word,
>> or part of God's "word" may be the bible, or contained in the bible.
>>
>> God's Word is of course His Son.
>
>Would you accept that the word that Jesus spoke was also the Word of God as
>per
>
>"And it happened that the crowd pressed on Him to hear the Word of God ..."
>(Luk 5:1)
ie message.
"Word of God" is not equal to "Bible". That's my whole point, and it
distresses me to have people equate it.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
andrew criddle
>
>
> >or *readings wholly determined by faith*. Whether that's exactly
> >what the author wrote...I'll have a look at the journal when the
> >periodicals room has been vacated, and see if I can post an abstract.
>
> OK, I finally managed to get into the periodicals room, and
> immediately discovered that it was in Modern Believing, not Theology.
> We get so many journals...
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4474988,00.html
> copyright, since there is no abstract.
> All quotations form Hobson, Theo, 2003, "The Academic Betrayal of
> Protestant Theology" in /Modern/ /Believing/ Vol 41.1 January 2003,
> pp. 39-46
>
> "...Protestant thought has been severely marignalised by academic
> theology. To a surprisingly large extent, academic theologians have
> lost interest in Protestantism" (p.39)
>
> "To identify oneself with specifically Protestant tradition is the
> quickest way to remove oneself from theological relevance." (p.41)
>
> "To summarise, [Postmodern Anglo-Catholic Theology(PACT)] locates the
> essence of Christianity in the distinctive /social practice/ of the
> /interpret/ this practice, to serve as its articulate voice, to
> commentate upon it. The key point, for my purposes, is that PACT
> presupposes a disjunction between religion itself and theology. The
> former is done primarily in churches, the latter is done in articles
> and books." (p.42)
>
> overwhelmingly eclipsing others." (p.43)
>
> "Protestantism understands God as a powerful speaker, who creates and
> creative, gracious authority through its own rhetorical
> performance...Protestantism puts all its eggs into the basket of
> rhetoric. It finds God in a certain rhetorical tradition; and it
> witnesses to God by participating in this tradition, by re-performing
> such speech." (p.43)
>
> "Within the academy Protestant theology has to assume an alternative
> identity, wear a mask. For it cannot perform its rhetorical
> particularity here." (p.44)
>
> "What theology can and must do is dwell on the problem, and indeed
> /perform/ the problem. It must expose the pretension of every human
> claim to authority, and it must also strive to convey the true
> authority, the Word of God. This requires a highly rhetorical,
> indeed, dramatic, form of discourse...it is miles away from the
> normal, single voiced discourse of academic theology." (pp.44-45)
>
> "Subsequent Protestant theology [to Barth]...chooses to speak about
> Christianity from outside rather than from within...It fails...to root
> theology in a distinctive form of rhetorical performance." (p46)
>
> "Within the academy, Protestant theology cannot perform its own
> rhetorical particularity, its dialogical drama - communicating the
> Word of God in its otherness." (p.46)
>
> "...this, I suggest is the most that Protestant theology can do: be
> the literary criticism of confessional, performative theology. It is
> a limited but significant role." (p.46)
>
>
> I would take issue with some of the assumptions behind what Hobson
> writes, but I think he articulates in a useful way some of the
> tensions behind current debates about the new ABC, punch-ups on ukrc,
> and the mutual suspicion between "liberals" and "fundamentalists".
Theo Hobson is making some very interesting and important points but
I'm not sure how relevant they are to Rowan Williams.
Works such as "Resurrection" and "Christ On Trial" could be regarded
as examples of the biblical rhetoric Theo Hobson is advocating.
Andrew Criddle
Tony Gillam
news:eabdd101.0302...@posting.google.com
>> All quotations form Hobson, Theo, 2003, "The Academic Betrayal of
>> Protestant Theology" in /Modern/ /Believing/ Vol 41.1 January 2003,
>> pp. 39-46
>>
>> "To summarise, [Postmodern Anglo-Catholic Theology(PACT)] locates the
>> essence of Christianity in the distinctive /social practice/ of the
>> community, central to which is ritual. And theology's role is to
>> /interpret/ this practice, to serve as its articulate voice, to
>> commentate upon it. The key point, for my purposes, is that PACT
>> presupposes a disjunction between religion itself and theology. The
>> former is done primarily in churches, the latter is done in articles
>> and books." (p.42)
>>
cannot change things, a relationship with God does. If all there is is
ritual then the thing is dead and empty. Ritual can convey truth but it
has to be a vibrant and living experience.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Patrick Herring
...
> Haven't you come across that idea before? About three years
> ago, we had printed on a sweat shirt for one of my sons "Jesus
> was a dirty hippie" with a picture of a cannabis leaf. I
> believe the research you cited was merely a serious attempt to
> puts some flesh on the bones of that idea.
Hmm, no cannabis leaf IIRC. It was just the slogan on a fuzzy
background, from Mark Baldwin's Dirty Liberal Hippy site, which had now
disappeared. I don't remember anything about cannabis on that site, not
that I read it all. I believe the joke in the DLH line is "you mean
you're a /liberal/???".
--
Patrick Herring
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/cgi-bin/makeperson?P.Herring
Nick Milton
<simon...@virgin.net> wrote:
>"Nick Milton" <nick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3e51f5c9...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:38:38 -0000, "Simon Woods"
>> <simon...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@ncl.nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:b2qvco$jt2$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
>> >
>> >> I'm trying to get at how you arrived at the view that the Bible has
>> >> "divine characteristics", or why you believe that it's God's word (note
>> >> the small 'w') to us today, if that's what you mean.
>> >
>> >2 Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed.
>>
>> I am sure you are well aware of the alternative ways of translating
>> this verse, and of the logical leap you therefore have to make to
>> ascribe even second-hand divinity to the Bible?
>
>Nick
>
>"All God-breathed Scripture", "every God-breathed scripture" - I really
>don't mind. Were there other's you had in mind? (I had a brief look at
>Eric's stuff - quite interesting ...)
>
>I quoted this to show the divine characteristics part of the argument.
"God-breathed". What does that mean? Adam was "God-breathed" (Gen 2:7)
and that made him neither divine, infallible nor inerrant
Nick
Paul Roberts
[snip]
> If I write down exactly what God has just said, is not that which is
> written down before me also God's words.
>
Yes, but if you wanted to demonstrate that that was the case, you would
need *every* one of the Bible writers to say something like "this
message was given to me by God".
In the absence of such evidence, your viewpoint becomes only an
assumption.
Tim Rowe
<simon...@virgin.net> wrote:
>"Thou hast magnified Thy Word according to all Thy Name" (Ps 138:2). Jesus's
>name is above every name but God's Word is "up there" as well.
Er, I would read that as God's name is above every name but Jesus is
"up there" as well...