Do you dare?

[Rose_bud]

Ya, so our claim, and that included minimalist "documentarians" is that the Bible, even as it is, somehow mediates God's revelation in a unique way.
I am afraid I must admit that for me, maybe the Bible is not so unique. But I also must say that I am still holding on to the uniqueness and substitutability of the Gospels. It becomes a question now of Christology. Can a deeper understand be had of Jesus of Nazareth as a historic figure who is also the incarnation of what we call God. He who in his person, life and actions discloses God in a unique and personal way?

That is far more important than to me than Adam and Eve. Yes, I know. Some will tie him to Adam and Eve, their fall as the primary reason for his incarnation and death. But there again, we are talking about further exploration and reflection on Christology. Someone here said that the fall narrative pretty much accounts for the situation we find ourselves in. We all seem "fallen". And yet we are all also post-Christ.

NT Wright also has a distinct view of how Paul refers to Adam in the NT. If I recall correctly he views it as Adam being an archetype for all humanity. Representing our collective vocation as steward of creation. When he disobeyed the voice of God, it was not only a moral failure but also a theological and cosmic failure, missing the mark to care for the creation God entrusted to him. Jesus redeems and restores as the second Adam and the new humanity. Jesus as God incarnate also redeems us not only from our individual and moral sin but from our failure to represent Him as image bearers called to care for all of creation.

I believe his view has sibnificant implications on how we think about God, ourselves, others and the rest of creation. It impacts what we do in the here and now. It also broadens the plan of redemption, avoiding limitations on God in his scope of salvation, and simultaneously allows us to reflect on the extent of our rebellion against God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

NT Wright also has a distinct view of how Paul refers to Adam in the NT. If I recall correctly he views it as Adam being an archetype for all humanity. Representing our collective vocation as steward of creation. When he disobeyed the voice of God, it was not only a moral failure but also a theological and cosmic failure, missing the mark to care for the creation God entrusted to him. Jesus redeems and restores as the second Adam and the new humanity. Jesus as God incarnate also redeems us not only from our individual and moral sin but from our failure to represent Him as image bearers called to care for all of creation.

I believe his view has sibnificant implications on how we think about God, ourselves, others and the rest of creation. It impacts what we do in the here and now. It also broadens the plan of redemption, avoiding limitations on God in his scope of salvation, and simultaneously allows us to reflect on the extent of our rebellion against God.

NT Wright is on of the guys I have not made it to yet. I had a Methodist friend a long time ago who was really immersed in him. The Spirt has not led me to him yet. Right now I am all David Tracy. And he is giving me an education in the history of philosophy and theology as a context for what the situation is right now.

That cosmic/creation aspect is meaningful now. The ancients though, did not have the environmental concerns we have now. Still, Adam as archetype and disobedience speaks to us. Christ in obedience and sacrifice redeeming us and showing us the way, also has meaning for us now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ya, so our claim, and that included minimalist "documentarians" is that the Bible, even as it is, somehow mediates God's revelation in a unique way.
I am afraid I must admit that for me, maybe the Bible is not so unique. But I also must say that I am still holding on to the uniqueness and substitutability of the Gospels. It becomes a question now of Christology. Can a deeper understand be had of Jesus of Nazareth as a historic figure who is also the incarnation of what we call God. He who in his person, life and actions discloses God in a unique and personal way?

That is far more important than to me than Adam and Eve. Yes, I know. Some will tie him to Adam and Eve, their fall as the primary reason for his incarnation and death. But there again, we are talking about further exploration and reflection on Christology. Someone here said that the fall narrative pretty much accounts for the situation we find ourselves in. We all seem "fallen". And yet we are all also post-Christ.

We have lot of scriptural quotes we can throw around. But that all seems so superficial to me. We have to go deeper. But we can't do it all at once. Let the Spirit guide us theme by them.

Akita, you sort of strike me as a more contemplative type of individual. Unfortunately for me, I'm more the existentialist and skeptic by default, so for me, the "Minimalist Dare" in the OP, if indeed it were found to be true, would be a spiritual killjoy. Long ago, I started with Sagan and Sartre, and I personally need more evidential buoyancy to "see" and appreciate the Biblical books than does the average Pooh Bear. Even the Tao, as much as I like a read of Lao-tzu's Tao Te Cheng, doesn't spread far for me. And reading the Enuma Elish does zero for me.

But, that's me .... maybe I'm spiritually short on the sensus divinitatis.

 

[Rose_bud]

NT Wright is on of the guys I have not made it to yet. I had a Methodist friend a long time ago who was really immersed in him. The Spirt has not led me to him yet. Right now I am all David Tracy. And he is giving me an education in the history of philosophy and theology as a context for what the situation is right now.

That cosmic/creation aspect is meaningful now. The ancients though, did not have the environmental concerns we have now. Still, Adam as archetype and disobedience speaks to us. Christ in obedience and sacrifice redeeming us and showing us the way, also has meaning for us now.

NT Wright is definitely worth engaging when the time is right. But I'm glad you enjoying your current material. Hope it give you a great appreciation for the amazing God we serve.

I agree the ancients may of had a different view of creation we have, mostly dependent on agriculture for a source of sustenance, and yet this very source has been subject to abuse then and now. God even instituting that they give it a "shabbat." For even creation should know His shalom/flourishing.

I must admit I'm not familiar with Tracy, but will surely have to look him up.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Akita, you sort of strike me as a more contemplative type of individual. Unfortunately for me, I'm more the existentialist and skeptic by default, so for me, the "Minimalist Dare" in the OP, if indeed it were found to be true, would be a spiritual killjoy. Long ago, I started with Sagan and Sartre, and I personally need more evidential buoyancy to "see" and appreciate the Biblical books than does the average Pooh Bear. Even the Tao, as much as I like a read of Lao-tzu's Tao Te Cheng, doesn't spread far for me. And reading the Enuma Elish does zero for me.

But, that's me .... maybe I'm spiritually short on the sensus divinitatis.

I started out believing in all sorts of thing from new age to creation Genesis. In the 70's I even bough a metal pyramid frame to wear on my head when meditating.

I even thought the Bhagavad Gita was history about real people. I have become more skeptical of everything. Paul Ricoeur calls it a hermeneutic of suspicion. But even with this skepticism and suspicion I firmly believe in a deeper spiritual reality. I think I may be more like Plotinus and Neo-Platonism. I hunger for, more than realize that deeper spiritual realty. So I continue my journey with faith that Christ is leading the way through the desert.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

NT Wright is definitely worth engaging when the time is right. But I'm glad you enjoying your current material. Hope it give you a great appreciation for the amazing God we serve.

I agree the ancients may of had a different view of creation we have, mostly dependent on agriculture for a source of sustenance, and yet this very source has been subject to abuse then and now. God even instituting that they give it a "shabbat." For even creation should know His shalom/flourishing.

I must admit I'm not familiar with Tracy, but will surely have to look him up.

Tracy says that creation is suffering due to our exploitation, lack of care and love.

 

[Rose_bud]

Tracy says that creation is suffering due to our exploitation, lack of care and love.

I agree with this, humanity has not been the best of stewards.
Paul in Scripture speaks of creation and ourselves groaning awaiting the liberation and redemption (Romans 8:21-23).
There appears to be a interconnectedness, our salvation should impact every area of our lives. A cosmic impact, His Church is after all his Body, caring for all of His creation. Our relationship with God is reflected in our relationship with others and the world we share together.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I agree with this, humanity has not been the best of stewards.
Paul in Scripture speaks of creation and ourselves groaning awaiting the liberation and redemption (Romans 8:21-23).
There appears to be a interconnectedness, our salvation should impact every area of our lives. A cosmic impact, His Church is after all his Body, caring for all of His creation. Our relationship with God is reflected in our relationship with others and the world we share together.

Thus perhaps the deeper meaning of Genesis creation accounts and our human failures.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I started out believing in all sorts of thing from new age to creation Genesis. In the 70's I even bough a metal pyramid frame to wear on my head when meditating.View attachment 354291

I even thought the Bhagavad Gita was history about real people. I have become more skeptical of everything. Paul Ricoeur calls it a hermeneutic of suspicion. But even with this skepticism and suspicion I firmly believe in a deeper spiritual reality. I think I may be more like Plotinus and Neo-Platonism. I hunger for, more than realize that deeper spiritual realty. So I continue my journey with faith that Christ is leading the way through the desert.

And I can appreciate all that, along with your reading of Paul Ricoeur, especially since I am influenced by several theologians from the Philosophical Hermeneuticist camp (minus Heidegger---I have no need of his views).

 

[okay]

That difference between sheep and goats is also the only means of salvation; i.e., faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin.
The sheep have true faith. . .the goats have no faith, or they have a counterfeit faith.
Their fruit, or lack thereof, demonstrate whether they have true faith or not.

To me that is a reasonable way to incorporate the parable into the larger story. I basically agree with your theology here, but I don’t see what it has to do with the subject of this thread.

For some of us, engaging with scripture in the ways discussed on this thread is part of how we love God with our minds. It is of course not the only way people can love God with their minds. We are all wired differently.

Again, thinking about multiple interpretations of scripture (including non-literal readings) has been part of our faith since the earliest centuries. Folks who are not interested or comfortable with it should of course feel no obligation to engage with it.

Personally, changing my view of scripture so that I could engage with other interpretations and with biblical scholarship drew me out of a crisis of faith and restored my relationship with God. If I had continued to reject this approach to scripture I am not sure I would have any faith at all at this point.

There are many faithful approaches to following Jesus. I respect yours. I hope you can respect mine.

Cheers

 

[Clare73]

Why would anyone be looking for people to pick on and repeatedly criticize, and nothing but that alone, on a public forum?

I give up. . .why?

Why did Paul pick on the Judaizers?

Could it be that the "dare" has in it too much of the ring of the serpent in Ge 3:1, is not as harmless as it is thought and presented to be, and the poster is unaware/does not see any of these things?

The word of God is not a parlor game, in which we dare to. . .whatever.

Why the need to do so in the first place?

Does anyone think they can improve on the word of God?

Instead of changing the word of God to suit one's needs, perhaps we should change our needs to suit the word of God.

 

[Clare73]

To me that is a reasonable way to incorporate the parable into the larger story. I basically agree with your theology here, but
I don’t see what it has to do with the subject of this thread.

Who brought up the sheep and the goats?

For some of us, engaging with scripture in the ways discussed on this thread is part of how we love God with our minds. It is of course not the only way people can love God with their minds. We are all wired differently.

Again, thinking about multiple interpretations of scripture (including non-literal readings) has been part of our faith since the earliest centuries.

It's not about variety, it's about being in agreement with the rest of Scripture taken in its context.

 

[okay]

Who brought up the sheep and the goats?

I thought you did. In post 64 I quoted you; I believe I was quoting your post 63 since that is what the link on the quote brings me to.

Interesting - your post 63 was from yesterday but you edited it 30 minutes ago. What is with that?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Heidegger

I sure see his name a lot. I am in no hurry to get to him. Maybe Langdon Gilkey. I see his name a lot also, and a funnier name.

Or Rene Descartes. I did not know he was religious until today..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I sure see his name a lot. I am in no hurry to get to him. Maybe Langdon Gilkey. I see his name a lot also, and a funnier name.

Ah yes. Langdon Gilkey is one of my formative 'bros.' I have several of his books.

Or Rene Descartes. I did not know he was religious until today..

Yep. He was Roman Catholic. So was Blaise Pascal (mostly, although Pascal was of the Jansenist movement).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Ah yes. Langdon Gilkey is one of my formative 'bros.' I have several of his books.


Yep. He was Roman Catholic. So was Blaise Pascal (mostly, although Pascal was of the Jansenist movement).

How about Hartshorne? Another name I have seen a lot. Probably wont actually read him. I'd like to read some Greek plays next.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I give up. . .why?

Why did Paul pick on the Judaizers?

Could it be that the "dare" has in it too much of the ring of the serpent in Ge 3:1, is not as harmless as it is thought and presented to be, and the poster is unaware/does not see any of these things?

So, you don't discern any difference between a Judaizer of Paul's time and ..... Akita here on this forum?

The word of God is not a parlor game, in which we dare to. . .whatever.

Of course the Bible isn't a parlor game by which to dare. And traveling into the barren wasteland of Minimalist, non-Christian investigations of the O.T. texts and archaeological remnants isn't for the faint of heart. So, if all of that bothers you, then don't go there.

Why the need to do so in the first place?

Ask Akita what he meant by his "dare." It would be good interpretive method and practice to do so, especially since he's still alive to ask.

Does anyone think they can improve on the word of God?

Taking the "dare" isn't something by which anyone will "improve" on the Word of God. Although, at the same time, I'm going to suggest that you should stay away from the field of Archaeology.

Instead of changing the word of God to suit one's needs, perhaps we should change our needs to suit the word of God.

No one here is "changing" the Word of God to suit one's needs. I'd appreciate it if you stop with that pejorative as well as the pushy banter and verbal bullying you do in disregard of any one else's psychological "needs." If you can't do that, just remember that two can play that game.............

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How about Hartshorne? Another name I have seen a lot. Probably wont actually read him. I'd like to read some Greek plays next.

I know of Charles Hartshorne from a few references here and there in my past reading, but I don't have any of his books.

 

[Clare73]

Why did Paul pick on the Judaizers?

Could it be that the "dare" has in it too much of the ring of the serpent in Ge 3:1, is not as harmless as it is thought and presented to be, and the poster is unaware/does not see any of these things?

So, you don't discern any difference between a Judaizer of Paul's time and ..... Akita here on this forum?

Non-responsive. . .

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I know of Charles Hartshorne from a few references here and there in my past reading, but I don't have any of his books.

Process Theology. I read another current process book by Catherine Keller that I liked, On the Mystery: Discerning God in Process.

She actually started with Genesis.

"genesis in Greek means becoming" "Faith is not settled belief but living process."

How does that sit with you?