How do we know . . . .

[Thekla]

... for example, it is a "tradition" (correct interpretation) that the resurrection is not a metaphor, allegory or -merely- a psychological manifestation.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

... for example, it is a "tradition" (correct interpretation) that the resurrection is not a metaphor, allegory or -merely- a psychological manifestation.

Not sure where you're going with this one??????

Help me understand.

Go Cards!

 

[Thekla]

Not sure where you're going with this one??????

Help me understand.

Go Cards!

the biblical references and statements concerning the resurrection of Christ are understood by some (for example, a 'guy' I heard on the radio Fri) to be high metaphor, indicating allegorically a psychological shift of priority and world view in the (early) followers of Christ. In short, the resurrection of Christ was not physically actual, according to some (many I've heard over the years) who refer to themselves as Christian. Indeed, the Bible does not provide any objective factual evidence of the resurrection. The understanding that the resurrection is an actual physical event, in this light, is an extra-textual belief (cannot be conclusively, exhaustively derived from text alone). The belief, as extra-textual, that the resurrection of Christ is actual is a "Tradition", traditional interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Uphill Battle]

the biblical references and statements concerning the resurrection of Christ are understood by some (for example, a 'guy' I heard on the radio Fri) to be high metaphor, indicating allegorically a psychological shift of priority and world view in the (early) followers of Christ. In short, the resurrection of Christ was not physically actual, according to some (many I've heard over the years) who refer to themselves as Christian. Indeed, the Bible does not provide any objective factual evidence of the resurrection. The understanding that the resurrection is an actual physical event, in this light, is an extra-textual belief (cannot be conclusively, exhaustively derived from text alone). The belief, as extra-textual, that the resurrection of Christ is actual is a "Tradition", traditional interpretation of the Bible.

it's only extra-textual, if the person who was making the assertion, is completely unable to read.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

it's only extra-textual, if the person who was making the assertion, is completely unable to read.

Or just in denial... as so many are.

Forgive me...

 

[Thekla]

it's only extra-textual, if the person who was making the assertion, is completely unable to read.

not at all - can anyone conclusively prove the physical resurrection (ek-nekron) using just the Bible ? Yes, the writers of the Bible state it, but it cannot be conclusively proven that they were not appealing to, for example, high metaphor or describing a "psychological" interpretation of events (witness of an interior shift in their understanding).

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

the biblical references and statements concerning the resurrection of Christ are understood by some (for example, a 'guy' I heard on the radio Fri) to be high metaphor, indicating allegorically a psychological shift of priority and world view in the (early) followers of Christ. In short, the resurrection of Christ was not physically actual, according to some (many I've heard over the years) who refer to themselves as Christian. Indeed, the Bible does not provide any objective factual evidence of the resurrection. The understanding that the resurrection is an actual physical event, in this light, is an extra-textual belief (cannot be conclusively, exhaustively derived from text alone). The belief, as extra-textual, that the resurrection of Christ is actual is a "Tradition", traditional interpretation of the Bible.

Does it take "objective, factual evidence" for you to believe everything the closed Canon says -- or is it just supernatural things like the resurrection that need the testimonies of others to actually prove it happened?

Go Cards!

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Another Tradition that can be argued both ways (physical or metaphor) using scripture, is the presence of Christ in The Holy Eucharist.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

not at all - can anyone conclusively prove the physical resurrection (ek-nekron) using just the Bible ? Yes, the writers of the Bible state it, but it cannot be conclusively proven that they were not appealing to, for example, high metaphor or describing a "psychological" interpretation of events (witness of an interior shift in their understanding).

uh huh. As I said, unable to read.

it makes no difference, really. People can play with the words if they want to, but it says "He rose." He was touched. He ate.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Another Tradition that can be argued both ways (physical or metaphor) using scripture, is the presence of Christ in The Holy Eucharist.

Forgive me...

sure.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Another Tradition that can be argued both ways (physical or metaphor) using scripture, is the presence of Christ in The Holy Eucharist.

Forgive me...

sure.

 

[Thekla]

Does it take "objective, factual evidence" for you to believe everything the closed Canon says -- or is it just supernatural things like the resurrection that need the testimonies of others to actually prove it happened?

Go Cards!

the understanding of the resurrection, and any event in the Bible (or any text) relies in part on one's "interpretive tradition" (which is often 'invisible' to oneself). I accept Tradition on this matter - that Christ actually physically rose from the dead. I understand that on this point - and others - my understanding appeals to Tradition. Islam reads the same text and does not accept Tradition on the matter.

 

[Thekla]

uh huh. As I said, unable to read.

it makes no difference, really. People can play with the words if they want to, but it says "He rose." He was touched. He ate.

this can just as easily be read as a psychological reality for the apostles. You have the benefit of a Tradition in understanding the text.
This Tradition is being lost, and has been lost on many other Biblical matters.

 

[Uphill Battle]

this can just as easily be read as a psychological reality for the apostles. You have the benefit of a Tradition in understanding the text.
This Tradition is being lost, and has been lost on many other Biblical matters.

I don't think it has anything to do with benefit of Tradition.

It's plain reading comprehension, in this case.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

the understanding of the resurrection, and any event in the Bible (or any text) relies in part on one's "interpretive tradition" (which is often 'invisible' to oneself).

Please explain the invisible part.

Go Cards!

 

[Thekla]

Please explain the invisible part.

Go Cards!

it easy to see the 'traditions' of others - the more they are unlike our own, the easier. As a northerner who has lived in the south, for example, it became glaringly obvious that my understanding of english was foreign to many around me (and not just accent). Another example; the meanings of words change over time - we tend to understand using the meanings and conventions of our present location and era when reading/listening. Language is just one example of a 'tradition which is invisible' to us.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

it easy to see the 'traditions' of others - the more they are unlike our own, the easier. As a northerner who has lived in the south, for example, it became glaringly obvious that my understanding of english was foreign to many around me (and not just accent). Another example; the meanings of words change over time - we tend to understand using the meanings and conventions of our present location and era when reading/listening. Language is just one example of a 'tradition which is invisible' to us.

If societal and cultural norms vary and change as they do from one generation to the next, wouldn't it then be a very dangerous thing to place any weight on the traditions of men that have been handed down through the years? The only thing God said He would preserve was His Word -- not someones interpretation of His words. The only sure source has got to be the Scriptures. Can we gain insight and some knowledge from reading the traditional interpretations of man? Sure. But in the end it will be me standing before God and His Word alone will be the measuring stick.

Go Cards!

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

it easy to see the 'traditions' of others - the more they are unlike our own, the easier. As a northerner who has lived in the south, for example, it became glaringly obvious that my understanding of english was foreign to many around me (and not just accent). Another example; the meanings of words change over time - we tend to understand using the meanings and conventions of our present location and era when reading/listening. Language is just one example of a 'tradition which is invisible' to us.

If societal and cultural norms vary and change as they do from one generation to the next, wouldn't it then be a very dangerous thing to place any weight on the traditions of men that have been handed down through the years? The only thing God said He would preserve was His Word -- not someones interpretation of His words. The only sure source has got to be the Scriptures. Can we gain insight and some knowledge from reading the traditional interpretations of man? Sure. But in the end it will be me standing before God and His Word alone will be the measuring stick.

Go Cards!

 

[Thekla]

If societal and cultural norms vary and change as they do from one generation to the next, wouldn't it then be a very dangerous thing to place any weight on the traditions of men that have been handed down through the years? The only thing God said He would preserve was His Word -- not someones interpretation of His words. The only sure source has got to be the Scriptures. Can we gain insight and some knowledge from reading the traditional interpretations of man? Sure. But in the end it will be me standing before God and His Word alone will be the measuring stick.

Go Cards!

where the Traditions are apostolic, the benefit is obvious per the Tradition (interpretation) of the understanding of the resurrection. Other Traditions (interpretations) are less apparent to modern Christians because of cultural shifts in understanding (for example, the real presence). Tradition is, in part, a bulwark against cultural shifts and historical trends. For example, the hymns maintain the apostolic era of the meaning of words. The apostles witnessed; Tradition maintains the understanding based on witness.

Often, Christ is cited as speaking against 'traditions of men' - here the line must be drawn per what the 'tradition of men' is. Christ admonishes in Matthew that the Jews have been provided with prophets, scribes ... was, then, Christ speaking against all the scribes and pharisees, or just some ?

 

[Thekla]

If societal and cultural norms vary and change as they do from one generation to the next, wouldn't it then be a very dangerous thing to place any weight on the traditions of men that have been handed down through the years? The only thing God said He would preserve was His Word -- not someones interpretation of His words. The only sure source has got to be the Scriptures. Can we gain insight and some knowledge from reading the traditional interpretations of man? Sure. But in the end it will be me standing before God and His Word alone will be the measuring stick.

Go Cards!

where the Traditions are apostolic, the benefit is obvious per the Tradition (interpretation) of the understanding of the resurrection. Other Traditions (interpretations) are less apparent to modern Christians because of cultural shifts in understanding (for example, the real presence). Tradition is, in part, a bulwark against cultural shifts and historical trends. For example, the hymns maintain the apostolic era of the meaning of words. The apostles witnessed; Tradition maintains the understanding based on witness.

Often, Christ is cited as speaking against 'traditions of men' - here the line must be drawn per what the 'tradition of men' is. Christ admonishes in Matthew (23:34) that the Jews have been provided with prophets, scribes ... was, then, Christ speaking against all the scribes and pharisees, or just some ?