This is Theology

[W2L]

Yes, that was my point. The ESV was translated via a different theological perspective than was the ASV or (ugh) The Message.



It's an example. Do you know what a circus is? If so, please tell me.

I think we are making two different points. You are saying English translations are fallible but im saying theology is fallible. Look at the word agape. Its translated as love. Is that wrong? No. So the translation is accurate. However theologians try to say it means more than it does. The theologian is not accurate.

 

[W2L]

It's an example. Do you know what a circus is? If so, please tell me.

Yes its a place for clowns and other circus performers. Can you please explain your intention for this question?

 

[Cis.jd]

fundamentalism causes division. There have been moments here when the absurd views of some people turned me off from Christianity.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think we are making two different points. You are saying English translations are fallible but im saying theology is fallible. Look at the word agape. Its translated as love. Is that wrong? No. So the translation is accurate. However theologians try to say it means more than it does. The theologian is not accurate.

The Greek word for love is agape, then there is another one philio, no wait, there is a third one which is eros. All can be translated love correctly. When Jesus is asking Peter 'do you love me' and Peter replies, 'yes Lord you know I love you', did you know they were using two different words? It's the same word in English, or is it?

 

[W2L]

The Greek word for love is agape, then there is another one philio, no wait, there is a third one which is eros. All can be translated love correctly. When Jesus is asking Peter 'do you love me' and Peter replies, 'yes Lord you know I love you', did you know they were using two different words? It's the same word in English, or is it?

Yes Jesus asked "do you agape me? And what did peter say then? "Yes i philio you"

Did you catch that? Peter is using the words agape and phileo interchangeably.

Also, the pharisees had agape love and God loved Christ with phileo.

What can i conclude? Theologians are making more out of that word than is true.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think we are making two different points. You are saying English translations are fallible but im saying theology is fallible.

I agree with both points. Humans are fallible. That includes you and your interpretations.

Yes its a place for clowns and other circus performers. Can you please explain your intention for this question?

That is the American meaning of circus. There is also an ancient Roman meaning and a British meaning: circus. Were you to read a history book that mentioned the Circus of Maxentius or Piccadilly Circus, and thought they were referring to a "place for clowns", you would be very confused. The prejudices you bring when you read a text influence how you interpret it. No one is free of prejudice.

Reading the Bible is built on an understanding of Hebrew and surrounding cultures. You don't necessarily need to know all those details, but dismissing them and thinking no one needs to understand them is a mistake.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes Jesus asked "do you agape me? And what did peter say then? "Yes i philio you"

Did you catch that? Peter is using the words agape and phileo interchangeably.

Also, the pharisees had agape love and God loved Christ with phileo.

What can i conclude? Theologians are making more out of that word than is true.

I don't think that is what is going on, the word agape implies sacrifice. Peter is saying, Lord I love you like a brother, the literal meaning of phileo. Jesus finally asks Peter, 'do you really phileo me'? in other words, are you even my friend? Peter finally says, Lord I agape you and Jesus tells him the death he would die. Peter knew where he was going with this, Jesus had been warning them since the Sermon on the Mount that there were consequences for discipleship.

In short, no, they were not using the word interchangeably, even though in English both are rightly translated love, we are talking about two different things as the context of the discussion bears out.

 

[W2L]

. You don't necessarily need to know all those details, but dismissing them and thinking no one needs to understand them is a mistake.

good news, i never suggested otherwise. However, one needs to be aware that this understanding you mention may be very flawed.

 

[W2L]

I don't think that is what is going on, the word agape implies sacrifice. Peter is saying, Lord I love you like a brother, the literal meaning of phileo. Jesus finally asks Peter, 'do you really phileo me'? in other words, are you even my friend? Peter finally says, Lord I agape you and Jesus tells him the death he would die. Peter knew where he was going with this, Jesus had been warning them since the Sermon on the Mount that there were consequences for discipleship.

In short, no, they were not using the word interchangeably, even though in English both are rightly translated love, we are talking about two different things as the context of the discussion bears out.

I agree that the words have slightly different meanings, but i dont think that theologians have fully grasped that meaning. I think they have built a flawed theory. God loved the Son with phileo.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Theology is the true philosophy. Christianity is the fulfilment of all pagan musings on the universe. Yet we have a hole in our hearts for understanding of God, he gave us this desire. There is no greater pleasure than to muse over the nature of God and his creation.

 

[Resha Caner]

good news, i never suggested otherwise. However, one needs to be aware that this understanding you mention may be very flawed.

I keep getting the impression (despite words otherwise) this means you want to discard it in favor of your own interpretations. I've had many conversations like this, and they always seem to come from a church of one. But if I'm wrong please correct me. What tradition do your views come from?

 

[W2L]

I keep getting the impression (despite words otherwise) this means you want to discard it in favor of your own interpretations. I've had many conversations like this, and they always seem to come from a church of one. But if I'm wrong please correct me. What tradition do your views come from?

I am a church of many online believers. My beliefs have been shaped by my bible study when debating scriptures online at CF. I dont value tradition, i value simplicity. Why should i value tradition? Whos tradition should i follow? There are many.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am a church of many online believers. My beliefs have been shaped by my bible study when debating scriptures online at CF. I dont value tradition, i value simplicity. Why should i value tradition? Whos tradition should i follow? There are many.

Mmm. This sounds like adhering to a tradition you're unaware of. The views of people at CF didn't spring from a vacuum. Presentism is a sign of the age, though - a very American approach to things that lifts up youth and individualism.

 

[Resha Caner]

Oops. dp.

 

[W2L]

The views of people at CF didn't spring from a vacuum.

And the various traditions of your church and others as well. That doesn't prove i follow tradition though.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think it would greatly help our dialogue. I'm presenting his definition with very little context. He makes a good and succinct case for it.

He had a good start. I especially liked this paragraph (maybe because I frequently harp on 'omniscience'):
Definitions, then, can be helpful teaching tools. But we should not look at them
to find what something “really is,” as though a definition gave us unique insight into
the nature of something beyond what we could find in the Bible itself. A theological
definition of omniscience doesn’t tell you what omniscience really is, as if the biblical
descriptions of God’s knowledge were somehow inadequate, even misleading or
untrue. Even though there are none to few definitions in the Bible, Scripture, not any
theological definition, is our ultimate authority. Theological definitions must measure
up to Scripture, not the other way around.

The comment on 'long definitions' was funny ... and true.

I also liked this phrase: The meaning of Scripture comes not from its individual terms, but from its sentences, paragraphs, books, and larger units. I've always liked the "truth through story" approach to the ineffable as opposed to some kind of clinical reductionism.

His question (if theology is not synonymous with scripture, how is different from scripture?) is intriguing.

His idea that theology is largely teaching and a way to address challenges and doubts is a good one.

But then he goes off the rails. Pointing out what he doesn't like about the way his predecessors defined theology - and then proceeding to define it - raises the bar (often impossibly high). I think his mistake is to focus too heavily on a single word (edification) after just berating such things. He heads himself toward the type of narrow definition he has just decried, moves through an overly broad application of the word "edification" in order to supplant it with another word (application), and ends up discarding what it was that I liked about his early commentary.

 

[Resha Caner]

And the various traditions of your church and others as well. That doesn't prove i follow tradition though.

You're probably thinking of "tradition" as something like reading Twas the Night Before Christmas every 24th of December. I mean that you've accepted ideas from people at CF without realizing they come from a (most likely) American twist on the Pietist tradition - with no idea what stands behind alternative views.

So, unless you want to pick a specific teaching and prove to me it's completely unique and never appears in any church tradition ... or that the idea popped into someone's head with no influence from those traditions ... well, that's my impression of your (unacknowledged) tradition.

 

[mark kennedy]

I agree that the words have slightly different meanings, but i dont think that theologians have fully grasped that meaning. I think they have built a flawed theory. God loved the Son with phileo.

The word in John 3:16 is agape.

 

[W2L]

You're probably thinking of "tradition" as something like reading Twas the Night Before Christmas every 24th of December. I mean that you've accepted ideas from people at CF without realizing they come from a (most likely) American twist on the Pietist tradition - with no idea what stands behind alternative views.

So, unless you want to pick a specific teaching and prove to me it's completely unique and never appears in any church tradition ... or that the idea popped into someone's head with no influence from those traditions ... well, that's my impression of your (unacknowledged) tradition.

You're probably thinking of "tradition" as something like reading Twas the Night Before Christmas every 24th of December.

You shouldn't assume that, lol,

I decided for myself what was good to follow. It all came from scripture, not one churches interpretation but my own god given understanding of scripture. But if it makes you feel better to say i follow church tradition then go ahead.

 

[Tree of Life]

But then he goes off the rails. Pointing out what he doesn't like about the way his predecessors defined theology - and then proceeding to define it - raises the bar (often impossibly high). I think his mistake is to focus too heavily on a single word (edification) after just berating such things. He heads himself toward the type of narrow definition he has just decried, moves through an overly broad application of the word "edification" in order to supplant it with another word (application), and ends up discarding what it was that I liked about his early commentary.

Thanks for reading it. I hope you got something good out of it. If you're at all intrigued by Frame, he is a very readable and edifying theologian and I recommend his works.

What do you think is inadequate about his definition of theology? What does it not account for?