Question of the Week

Off Topic
441

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

If I am “dangerous” because I encourage folks to open the Word and read for themselves without having the church approved doctrinal manual right next to them then so be it, I’m dangerous.

[/quote]

Not dangerous at all. FWIW, That was a damn interesting take on a part of the bible that I’ve glossed over for lack of interest, and should probably give another look at.

Thanks.
[/quote]

Trying to read and understand a translated complex work written thousands of years ago in a remote far removed culture by yourself is nonsense. Tradition is context. Trying to understand without tradition means reading without context.[/quote]

Precisely. The Song of Solomon must be understood within both the context and the tradition of its day.

Trying to understand it within the context and tradition of the Middle Ages is not conducive to proper interpretation.[/quote]

Like it or not, the church tradition is the context. The church is repeatedly an important part of faith according to Jesus.

I agree with should all bring what we can to the table in discussion and investigation, but figuring it all out on your on is vast arrogance.

The Church is a necessary and good part of Christianity. You cannot disavow the church and claim to follow the new testament at all. I mean a large portion of the new testament is nothing more than internal Church memos between Church leaders establishing policy and tradition.

If you claim to know all you need without the Church, you must necessarily tear at least the epistles out of your Bible. [/quote]

I’m not speaking for Push, but I seriously doubt that is what he means.

The Church is simply the followers of God…and they are faulted just like man as a result. They are also the victim of SOCIAL circumstances that change with time and relevance.

That means we need to understand the social circumstances at the time a text is written to truly understand its intended context.

What something means today is not what the same thing meant thousands of years ago in another language and culture.

442

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

If I am “dangerous” because I encourage folks to open the Word and read for themselves without having the church approved doctrinal manual right next to them then so be it, I’m dangerous.

[/quote]

Not dangerous at all. FWIW, That was a damn interesting take on a part of the bible that I’ve glossed over for lack of interest, and should probably give another look at.

Thanks.
[/quote]

Trying to read and understand a translated complex work written thousands of years ago in a remote far removed culture by yourself is nonsense. Tradition is context. Trying to understand without tradition means reading without context.[/quote]

Oh right. I’ve heard that before.

What would you recommend instead?

444

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

If I am “dangerous” because I encourage folks to open the Word and read for themselves without having the church approved doctrinal manual right next to them then so be it, I’m dangerous.

[/quote]

Not dangerous at all. FWIW, That was a damn interesting take on a part of the bible that I’ve glossed over for lack of interest, and should probably give another look at.

Thanks.
[/quote]

Trying to read and understand a translated complex work written thousands of years ago in a remote far removed culture by yourself is nonsense. Tradition is context. Trying to understand without tradition means reading without context.[/quote]

Oh right. I’ve heard that before.

What would you recommend instead?
[/quote]

Not instead, in conjunction. And there is a lot out there. Catechisms are a good start.

Right now I’m starting to look into learning more about Jewish tradition.

But “tradition” includes a lot of things. Verbal, stories, ceremony, est. in addition to doctrine.

Edit:
For example Jesus was a temple observant Jew. Reading even the new testament is difficult without a better understanding of what that means and what traditions and customs that entails.

445

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

If I am “dangerous” because I encourage folks to open the Word and read for themselves without having the church approved doctrinal manual right next to them then so be it, I’m dangerous.

[/quote]

Not dangerous at all. FWIW, That was a damn interesting take on a part of the bible that I’ve glossed over for lack of interest, and should probably give another look at.

Thanks.
[/quote]

Trying to read and understand a translated complex work written thousands of years ago in a remote far removed culture by yourself is nonsense. Tradition is context. Trying to understand without tradition means reading without context.[/quote]

Precisely. The Song of Solomon must be understood within both the context and the tradition of its day.

Trying to understand it within the context and tradition of the Middle Ages is not conducive to proper interpretation.[/quote]

Like it or not, the church tradition is the context.

[/quote]

It is not the only context. Repeat: the context and tradition of the Hebrews, the Israelite nation and Judaism must be understood when studying the Old Testament. It cannot be discarded.

No one would advocate figuring it all out on your own.

The New Testament was written almost entirely by Jews and under the influence of Jewish culture present at that time. An understanding of the Hebrews, the Israelite nation and Judaism must be understood when studying the New Testament. It cannot be discarded.

And this policy and tradition was established almost entirely by Jews and under the influence of Jewish culture present at that time. An understanding of the Hebrews, the Israelite nation and Judaism must be understood when studying the New Testament. It cannot be discarded.

[quote]

If you claim to know all you need without the Church, you must necessarily tear at least the epistles out of your Bible. [/quote]

Agreed.

But what was written in the epistles and what has been practiced in the Church has varied widely within the denominations on many different subjects.[/quote]

So, do you think the epistles are important?

How did you go about figuring out the context of nuanced Jewish tradition in the middle east thousands and thousands of years ago in order to correctly interpret individual phrases?

447

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

If I am “dangerous” because I encourage folks to open the Word and read for themselves without having the church approved doctrinal manual right next to them then so be it, I’m dangerous.

[/quote]

Not dangerous at all. FWIW, That was a damn interesting take on a part of the bible that I’ve glossed over for lack of interest, and should probably give another look at.

Thanks.
[/quote]

Trying to read and understand a translated complex work written thousands of years ago in a remote far removed culture by yourself is nonsense. Tradition is context. Trying to understand without tradition means reading without context.[/quote]

Oh right. I’ve heard that before.

What would you recommend instead?
[/quote]

Not instead, in conjunction. And there is a lot out there. Catechisms are a good start.

Right now I’m starting to look into learning more about Jewish tradition.

But “tradition” includes a lot of things. Verbal, stories, ceremony, est. in addition to doctrine.

Edit:
For example Jesus was a temple observant Jew. Reading even the new testament is difficult without a better understanding of what that means and what traditions and customs that entails. [/quote]

That has always been a tricky one with me. As many times as I’ve tried, I get turned off by the congregations. Had a really good personal relationship with the pastors at a church I lived next door to for a long time, but invariably I end up in run ins among the general populace.

I’m not good with or in crowds.

448

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

If I am “dangerous” because I encourage folks to open the Word and read for themselves without having the church approved doctrinal manual right next to them then so be it, I’m dangerous.

[/quote]

Not dangerous at all. FWIW, That was a damn interesting take on a part of the bible that I’ve glossed over for lack of interest, and should probably give another look at.

Thanks.
[/quote]

Trying to read and understand a translated complex work written thousands of years ago in a remote far removed culture by yourself is nonsense. Tradition is context. Trying to understand without tradition means reading without context.[/quote]

Precisely. The Song of Solomon must be understood within both the context and the tradition of its day.

Trying to understand it within the context and tradition of the Middle Ages is not conducive to proper interpretation.[/quote]

Like it or not, the church tradition is the context. The church is repeatedly an important part of faith according to Jesus.

I agree with should all bring what we can to the table in discussion and investigation, but figuring it all out on your on is vast arrogance.

The Church is a necessary and good part of Christianity. You cannot disavow the church and claim to follow the new testament at all. I mean a large portion of the new testament is nothing more than internal Church memos between Church leaders establishing policy and tradition.

If you claim to know all you need without the Church, you must necessarily tear at least the epistles out of your Bible. [/quote]

I’m not speaking for Push, but I seriously doubt that is what he means.

The Church is simply the followers of God…and they are faulted just like man as a result. They are also the victim of SOCIAL circumstances that change with time and relevance.

That means we need to understand the social circumstances at the time a text is written to truly understand its intended context.

What something means today is not what the same thing meant thousands of years ago in another language and culture.[/quote]

That’s exactly what I meant.

One cannot come along in 513 A.D. or 1513 A.D. or 2013 A.D. and say, “I don’t care what the Song of Solomon meant in 950 B.C. written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and included as a canonical book, we have decided it means something different now so therefore the new tradition and the new context trumps the old one.”[/quote]

You mean, like Jesus and the New testament?

450

Start a porn thread on TNation. In two weeks time it turns into theology class.

454

[quote]csulli wrote:
Start a porn thread on TNation. In two weeks time it turns into theology class.[/quote]
Exactly

455

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Start a porn thread on TNation. In two weeks time it turns into theology class.[/quote]

Irony extraordinaire.[/quote]
Just for you push

456

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Start a porn thread on TNation. In two weeks time it turns into theology class.[/quote]

Irony extraordinaire.[/quote]
Just for you push[/quote]

:slight_smile:

459

[quote]pushharder wrote:

So the culture, doctrine and context of Christianity cannot be fully understood by beginning with the epistles or even the New Testament. The NT means nothing without the Old.

[/quote]

This has always been my take on it but invariably, as is demonstrated in this thread, there is always someone saying “You’re doing it wrong!” and usually a few other condescending statements.

When you point out that it the book says is to be taken as a whole, they just accuse you of having been deceived or must be confused.

460

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Derek, can you imagine having 1,000 women in your harem who are all doing some variation of that just for you on a regular basis?

Sheesh.[/quote]
I just need my woman doing this every day.

:slight_smile: