Jump to content


Photo

Inspiration And Exegesis


  • Please log in to reply
237 replies to this topic

#21 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:09 AM

:playball:
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#22 itinerant_*

itinerant_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:11 AM

In the context of inerrancy knowing what is being said to be inerrant is key.
There is clearly a potential for circular logic as I pointed out above.

Your definitions were:

the biblical message - something which is expressible in any language
the text - writing recorded in specific languages at specific times in specific cultures

So I tried this definition of something in your summary (by merging your two sentences above) to try to work out what you meant.

Message = The ideas expressed in the original text

Since you don't like it, please supply another.

Edited by itinerant, 03 October 2003 - 08:12 AM.


#23 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:14 AM

:stereo:
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#24 Grace

Grace

    Spam Hammer

  • Spam Patrol
  • 2,229 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 03:42 PM

Um. To clarify, I don't actually have a 'position'. I am merely trying to understand how the Christadelphian view of demons reconciles with the Christadelphian view of inerrancy. I am also trying to understand the different views on inerrancy, and what exactly the consequences of those views are..... which is what prompted my questions.

#25 Grace

Grace

    Spam Hammer

  • Spam Patrol
  • 2,229 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 03:50 PM

So Ev, can you please stop stuffing your face with popcorn and come back to this thread? :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

:grace:

#26 tarkus

tarkus

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,356 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 05:39 PM

Your definitions were:

the biblical message - something which is expressible in any language
the text - writing recorded in specific languages at specific times in specific cultures

So I tried this definition of something in your summary (by merging your two sentences above) to try to work out what you meant.

Message = The ideas expressed in the original text

Since you don't like it, please supply another.

'the message = (all) the ideas' is your problem.

'there is no God' is clearly an idea that is part of the text. If you divorce it from its setting you have an idea that is wrong. But the statement is not errant, because its setting tells us that it is a foolish idea.

Job's friends were not inspired when they tried to persuade Job of the error of his ways. The "message" of Job's friends was wrong. But the book of Job is an inspired record of their debate and this record leads us to some important conclusions about life.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is just that: a parable. As with all parables, the literal framework is not the message, it is a framework which is designed to lead an inquiring mind to certain ideas which lie outside it.

Where's the enormous mustard tree? It doesn't have any existence except as an idea in the reader's mind - but that doesn't mean that the comments about the mustard seed aren't inerrant. Who was the woman who leavened the meal? Again, she was just a figment of Jesus' audience's imagination.

With passages like the creation record we are inclined to read ideas into the text and then demand that they are treated as inerrant - without too much justification sometimes. The text of these passages is simple because the point is simple - and itinerant peasants of 1000BC and itinerant students of 2000AD are both supposed to draw the same conclusions from it. That is not the same as believing that the biblical text teaches contemporary errors.

If you examine the demon passages you will see that the biblical text teaches very little about demons at all.

Regards
T

#27 Grace

Grace

    Spam Hammer

  • Spam Patrol
  • 2,229 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 07:55 PM

So far various categories of language use have been introduced which I think are clouding the issue:
  • Metaphor
  • Parables
  • Oral communication
  • Biblical commentary
I don't think that anybody would suggest that use of metaphor, parables, or the conveying of oral communication (apart from words from men inspired by the Holy Spirit ie prophets, and Jesus) would somehow prove errancy; in fact, that would be plain silly. I would suggest that the primary issue arises from commentary passed by the writers themselves; men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have always assumed that inspiration works hand in hand with truth; and thus, any commentary passed by the writer can be assumed to be correct. Therein lies my problem.

If you examine the demon passages you will see that the biblical text teaches very little about demons at all.


When I examine the demon passages, they teach me that demons exist; they can be cast out; they cause strange, unexplainable illnesses; they know who Jesus is; they believe they will somehow be judged; they can cause 2000 pigs to fly down into a lake and drown themselves.

I agree with all the reasons for why we don't believe in demons; paucity in the Old Testament; lack of evidence today etc. Which leads me back to my original question - errancy and inerrancy.

Edited by Grace, 04 October 2003 - 09:20 PM.


#28 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:16 PM

To me, the restriction of passages which would appear to support the existence of 'demons' and 'devils' to the gospels, is the key issue.

Any ideas why? :popcorn:

#29 Grace

Grace

    Spam Hammer

  • Spam Patrol
  • 2,229 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:21 PM

I think you should expand that to the gospels and Acts. There are still many occurences of 'casting out demons' in Acts.

There could be two explanations:

1. They are the only books of narrative in the New Testament
2. Their non-existance was proved by the time the epistles were written (which is the one I think you are angling at....)

#30 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:27 PM

If you are consistent and keep the Biblical definition of a demon that it equals an inferior god then there is no problem.

Jesus cast inferior gods out of people: and we know inferior gods don't exist. The gospel writers tell us that Jesus cast things that don't exist out of people. Just read "inferior god" instead of "demon".

#31 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:28 PM

I think you should expand that to the gospels and Acts. There are still many occurences of 'casting out demons' in Acts.

Well perhaps. I did think of the Acts, but I rather think that the treatment in the Acts is a little different, and the emphasis is definitely in another direction.

There could be two explanations:

1. They are the only books of narrative in the New Testament
2. Their non-existance was proved by the time the epistles were written (which is the one I think you are angling at....)


I think perhaps we have to take into account the relative audiences. We talk a lot about what the apostate Jews would have made of the gospels, but in reality they would never have read them.

#32 Grace

Grace

    Spam Hammer

  • Spam Patrol
  • 2,229 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:31 PM

Jesus cast inferior gods out of people: and we know inferior gods don't exist. The gospel writers tell us that Jesus cast things that don't exist out of people. Just read "inferior god" instead of "demon".


Hi Adanac! (That name is still weird to me.....)

So how do you prove that that is what was in the minds of the writers of the Gospels? To me, it seems that they believed demons were something very real; not something non-existant.

#33 Grace

Grace

    Spam Hammer

  • Spam Patrol
  • 2,229 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:33 PM

I think perhaps we have to take into account the relative audiences. We talk a lot about what the apostate Jews would have made of the gospels, but in reality they would never have read them.


I agree. That isn't my problem. My problem is what the gospel writers themselves believed, and thus portrayed in the gospels.

#34 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:35 PM

I agree. That isn't my problem. My problem is what the gospel writers themselves believed, and thus portrayed in the gospels.

My question is whether or not the audience had something to do with the way the gospel writers presented the gospels.

#35 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:36 PM

Perhaps we need to ask - very seriously, I might add - what the purpose of the gospel records was?

#36 Grace

Grace

    Spam Hammer

  • Spam Patrol
  • 2,229 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:38 PM

My question is whether or not the audience had something to do with the way the gospel writers presented the gospels.


So are you asking this question as a question or as an answer? I never can tell with you....

#37 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:40 PM

So are you asking this question as a question or as an answer? I never can tell with you....

As a question. Given that all but one of them was addressed to believers, what was their function?

#38 Grace

Grace

    Spam Hammer

  • Spam Patrol
  • 2,229 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:40 PM

Perhaps we need to ask - very seriously, I might add - what the purpose of the gospel records was?


The purpose of the gospel records were to show Jesus' triumph over sin and evil, and his ability to heal mankind of their sin and evil.

#39 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:42 PM

The purpose of the gospel records were to show Jesus' triumph over sin and evil, and his ability to heal mankind of their sin and evil.

I agree entirely. :clap2:

Now, given that the believers already... believed this, what was the function of the gospels?

#40 Grace

Grace

    Spam Hammer

  • Spam Patrol
  • 2,229 posts

Posted 03 October 2003 - 08:46 PM

Now, given that the believers already... believed this, what was the function of the gospels?


Well, to be honest, I always thought the function of the gospels was to create a preserved record to convert others down track who had never heard of Jesus; ie us. Er, not sure if this is the answer you're looking for.....

Edited by Grace, 03 October 2003 - 08:50 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users