02 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI took out the sentence on the number of denominations. Nevertheless, a cursory look at differences between denominations show that they are quite often based on differences in exegesis (though that need not be the only cause).
The number of denominations need not have anything to do with the clarity of the message. The rest is your repeating a position that you continue to fail to support in any way. I say that based on the text, the historical record and the supporting evidence that it was never intended by Jesus that his message be only accessible to a privileged few who wer ...[text shortened]... ansmit their vast knowledge down to the peasants by fiat. Present some evidence to the contrary.
As to my presenting a position that I "fail to support" - the only position I've presented is that what's obvious to the common man (where? In America? In India? In Africa?) today need not have been obvious to a 1st cent. Jew and vice-versa. This is obvious.
An example I cited earlier ("Call no man 'Father'😉 would be a case in point. For a 1st cent. Jew accustomed to factions arising in Pharisaic Judaism, where the leaders would be called the 'Father' of that faction, the statement would be obvious. Not so obvious for a 21st cent. American.
Everyone knows the story of the Good Samaritan. But why did Jesus choose a Samaritan to the hero of that story? What was the impact that parable had on a 1st cent. Jew? Most modern readers in the Western world are aware, to some extent, of the manner in which Jews viewed Samaritans back in those times. If you picked up a person from India or Africa to whom the term 'Samaritan' means nothing, the parable would lose half its impact.
When you say Jesus meant his message for all men and all time, you're being too simplistic. Yes, the underlying message was meant to be universal - it doesn't mean the words themselves are universal. You cannot just pick up any random person from any random place at any random point of history, just hand him a copy of the Gospel in his language and expect him to pick up the basic message (let alone nuances in meaning and import) without any assistance whatsoever.
EDIT: This reminds me of the time my eight year-old brother was reading the verse where Jesus cries on the cross, "Eli, eli! Lema Sabachtani?" and broke out laughing - the word 'eli' in my native tongue means 'rat'.
EDIT 2: When you pick up a copy of the Bible today to read what it says, you have the benefit of years of CCD or RE or Sunday School that you bring with you to the text (and, even when you don't, there are aspects of these preserved in your language and culture due to its Christian heritage). It is precisely there where you assimilate the "expertise" of (say) the RCC, or Martin Luther, or some other exegete.
Do you deny this?
02 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is extreme goal post moving. The first post you responded to said this, in pertinent part:
I took out the sentence on the number of denominations. Nevertheless, a cursory look at differences between denominations show that they are quite often based on differences in exegesis (though that need not be the only cause).
As to my presenting a position that I "fail to support" - the only position I've presented is that what's obvious to the c ay) the RCC, or Martin Luther, or some other exegete.
Do you deny this?
However, I do not regard it as a particularly difficult proposition to read the Gospels and understand its basic message based on a common sense evaluation of the words used in the context they are used in. As it is also pretty clear that Jesus preached to many non-believers as well as a few believers and that he spoke in a clear manner (according to the Gospels anyway), thus I believe this is how he would have intended his words to be interpreted.
So far, you've yet to make an argument that any part of this is incorrect. You claimed the "context" required "expertise" but other than saying it does over and over and over again, you've made no compelling argument why. If you are now saying what you meant by the word "expertise" is that some knowledge of the historical circumstances that Jesus spoke in is necessary to correctly interpret the message he was trying to convey, then I have no argument with that. However, the original discussion was with FreakyKBH and his meaning of "expertise" is one vastly different. Perhaps you should more precisely define the term since I can't tell whether you're using it in a standard meaning or not or if you are, which standard meaning you're using (I see you put the word in quotes in your 2nd edit; something you hadn't done before).
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I've said many times before, if you don't understand what I'm saying, don't accuse me of 'moving the goal-posts'.
This is extreme goal post moving. The first post you responded to said this, in pertinent part:
However, I do not regard it as a particularly difficult proposition to read the Gospels and understand its basic message based on a common sense evaluation of the words used in the context they are used in. As it is also pretty clear that Jesus prea ...[text shortened]... ee you put the word in quotes in your 2nd edit; something you hadn't done before).
So far, you've yet to make an argument that any part of this is incorrect.
I didn't say any part of it was incorrect. What I said was that understanding the context requires expertise. If you don't have it yourself, you'll have to trust someone who does.
You claimed the "context" required "expertise" but other than saying it does over and over and over again, you've made no compelling argument why.
Now I can claim you're the one moving the goal-posts. Earlier you said I provided no support at all, now you're claiming I've provided no "compelling argument".
However, the original discussion was with FreakyKBH and his meaning of "expertise" is one vastly different.
FreakyKBH never used the word "expert" or "expertise".
If you are now saying what you meant by the word "expertise" is that some knowledge of the historical circumstances that Jesus spoke in is necessary to correctly interpret the message he was trying to convey, then I have no argument with that.
To have "some knowledge of the historical circumstances" you must either be an expert yourself or rely on an expert.
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI see you've simply resorted to not responding meaningfully at all. Please define "expertise" as you are using it. Your last sentence is too stupid for words; if all you meant to say was that someone had to read a book or article or something about 1st Century Palestine in order to understand the historical context of 1st century Palestine, than your "point" doesn't even rise to the level of "trivial".
As I've said many times before, if you don't understand what I'm saying, don't accuse me of 'moving the goal-posts'.
[b]So far, you've yet to make an argument that any part of this is incorrect.
I didn't say any part of it was incorrect. What I said was that understanding the context requires expertise. If you don't have it yourself, you'll ances" you must either be an expert yourself or rely on an expert.[/b]
EDIT: You get yet another NitPickery Award; Freaky said:
I don't believe in SDR's either... with the exception that doctrine is the domain of believers, and that via a properly trained person with the gift of pastor/teacher.
I'm sure you can explain the vast difference between "a properly trained person" and an "expert".
03 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI am using 'expertise' in its normal sense of skill or knowledge about a subject.
I see you've simply resorted to not responding meaningfully at all. Please define "expertise" as you are using it. Your last sentence is too stupid for words; if all you meant to say was that someone had to read a book or article or something about 1st Century Palestine in order to understand the historical context of 1st century Palestine, than your "po explain the vast difference between "a properly trained person" and an "expert".
if all you meant to say was that someone had to read a book or article or something about 1st Century Palestine in order to understand the historical context of 1st century Palestine, than your "point" doesn't even rise to the level of "trivial".
I meant that someone had to understand the context of 1st century Palestine to understand what Jesus is saying. As you say, it "doesn't even rise to the level of 'trivial'". But then you're the one disputing it, not me.
I'm sure you can explain the vast difference between "a properly trained person" and an "expert".
I don't know what he means by a "properly trained person". But, since he speaks of "domain of believers" and "gift of pastor" in the same sentence, the most reasonable interpretation is that he is talking about spiritual training or formation (especially since he uses "proper" rather than "extensive" or "rigorous" ), not intellectual - which is what I'm talking about.
If you want to call that nitpicking, you can call anything you want nitpicking.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerFunny, you weren't before:
I am using 'expertise' in its normal sense of skill or knowledge about a subject.
[b]if all you meant to say was that someone had to read a book or article or something about 1st Century Palestine in order to understand the historical context of 1st century Palestine, than your "point" doesn't even rise to the level of "trivial".
I meant tha ...[text shortened]... ]that[/i] nitpicking, you can call anything you want nitpicking.[/b]
Then we clearly don't need experts in Roman-occupied Palestine, NT Greek or Jewish history, right?
People with some expertise don't have to be "experts" as you used the term. This whole "debate" of yours has denigrated into a nitpicking, semantical one. These have no interest to me. I've stated my point of view that an average person can understand Jesus' message in the Gospel without any special, formal training. If you want to dispute that do so; please stop wasting my time with your petty, meaningless drivel.
Since the whole argument was about the proper way to interpret the Gospels, Freaky's "properly trained person" and your "expert" were the same thing in this context. But nitpick some more; I'm sure he wouldn't agree that the training he was referring to isn't "intellectual".
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI've never disputed that. All I've ever tried to say is that the average person will need the help of those who have expertise (and I don't limit this term to just those with training; a person who's run a successful business for 10 years has at least as much expertise as an MBA) to do so.
I've stated my point of view that an average person can understand Jesus' message in the Gospel without any special, formal training. If you want to dispute that do so
03 Apr 06
'Fraid you're both right on this one. A properly trained person with the gift of pastor/teacher is one who is first off, in possession of the spiritual gift of pastor/teacher. This gift is bestowed by the Holy Spirit, not simply an ordination by man-made organizations.
"Properly trained" refers to one who has undergone rigorous training utilizing the ICE method. Specifically, Isagogical, Categorical and Exegetical study. This necessarily employs language, etymology, hermentuetics, history, sociology, etc. However, this study also demands learning doctrine 'line upon line, item by item.' One cannot teach what one does not know.
There are many 'experts' in any number of fields relative to understanding the context of any passage of Scripture; without both sides of the equation, they are merely intellectual masters of their given field of inquiry without obtaining the position of pastor/teacher of doctrine.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo if a believer committed a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, you would post priori conclude
The promise that John relayed was for believers. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can only be committed by unbelievers.
that s/he was an unbeliever?
Sounds like self-fulfilled prophesying to me.
Nemesio
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by NemesioThe only blasphemy possible relative to the Holy Spirit is rejection of His work, namely, of convincing the person of their separation from God and etc.
So if a believer committed a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, you would post priori conclude
that s/he was an unbeliever?
Sounds like self-fulfilled prophesying to me.
Nemesio
As long as there is life, there is hope. Once life is over, if a person spent their entire allotted time rejecting the convincing work of the Holy Spirit, they have committed blasphemy of the same.