Posted on 02/10/2013 6:24:05 AM PST by don-o
Q: Okay, so we’ve worked our way through the uncounted millennia between the emergence of man and the first glimmers of revelation, then the six-thousand-something years it took God to gradually tease out what he had in mind for mankind. On the face of it, the whole thing seems suspicious. Why go through all these fits and starts? Why feed us a series of tantalizing hints, to spice up a steady diet of red herrings and dead ends? Why—if God is so simple, perfect, and benevolent—did he reveal himself to mankind through a series of clues it would take Sherlock Holmes to figure out? Or, if it pleases you, Father Brown?
A: Elementary, my dear godson. What we’ve derived so far from considering revelation is (a) that God is in Himself a perfect unity, but also (b) that His essence is in some sense refracted, as if one ray of light were passing through three distinct lenses, each of which is a Person. That tells us that the primitive rational insight into God’s unity was true but incomplete. Likewise the original revelation of the One God to the Israelites. Within the very essence of God is a nexus of relationships, which He revealed is one of love between a Father, a Son, and a Spirit Who “proceeds” from their interaction. Already, then, there’s something embedded in the very essence of things that tests our brains till they bleed. Add in the intellectual jiu-jitsu required to account for Christ’s divine and human natures—a doctrine that’ll tackle us later—and it almost seems as if God’s purpose all along in revealing Himself to man was to provoke complex heresies, interminable Church councils, and impenetrable tomes in Greek and Latin devoted to explaining the inexplicable.
No wonder so many different sects emerged over the centuries, each devoted to seizing one piece of each of these mysteries and making sure it wasn’t forgotten—at the cost of denying something else of equal importance. Remember the joke about the blind men describing the elephant? One grabs the trunk and declares it a snake, the next the leg and calls it a tree, et cetera? That joke was first told at the Council of Chalcedon by Bishop Pachasinus of Lilybaeum to Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople.
Who told you that? Quite to the contrary. For example when Peter used the term "Hades" as a Greek quivalent of the Hebrew "Sheol"(Ps. 16:10) in Acts 2:25-28 "Hades" was being used as simply the abode of the dead without all the philosophical trappings of classical Greek thought.
The same is true of the term "Logos" as John used it in John 1:1. John used "Logos" in a very restricted sense as is obvious from the rest of his gospel but the so-called "higher critics" would have us believe that John's usage was in some way reflective of the Greek philosophers.
They used "Logos" in the sense of reason or an ordering principle of the universe. John used the term for the prehuman Christ as a representive of his father, a spokesman.
"Read John 1:1. If you try to figure out the implications of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, you're already in dialogue with Greek metaphysics."
Not so since John wrote under the influence of the holy spirit and not according to the hash of Greek metaphysical philosophy prevalent in his own day. It's not surprising that men steeped in the learning of the day would attempt to explain Christianity in the language of pagan Greek philosophy in order to make one palatable to the other.
"Pagan" Greek philosophy, recast in the discourse of Christian believers, becomes Christian Greek philosophy"
Really? Just consider for a moment the confusion wrought in the Bible's use of the terms Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and how these words are translated or the how the term soul is treated.
Attempting to hammer the teachings of Scripture into the shape of pagan Greek philosophy has produced such "kerosene in wine" teachings as purgatory and confusion over what the resurrection is.
"Read John 1:1. If you try to figure out the implications of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, you're already in dialogue with Greek metaphysics."
Paul called the wisdom of the world folishness. "... It is an Areopagus moment: Acts 17:28 "For in him we live, and move, and have our being". as certain also of your own poets have said " For we are also his offspring."
These Stoics and other Greek philosophers ridiculed Paul since he preached Christ and the resurrection of the dead. These Athenians owed Paul a debt as some became believers and are named near the end of Acts chapter 17.
What part of pagan Greek philosophy expresses the Christian faith?
“Recall how Paul engaged that culture on Mars Hill.”
Indeed he appealed to what they believed just as Jesus did with the Samaritan woman when he said she worshipped in ignorance but worship of God must be done in spirit and truth.
That culture was not explaining truth to Paul but just the reverse. That culture considered Paul either mad or a chattering fool because of their concepts and philosophies.
So how would they express the faith?
Who said anything about the Greek language being “not fit”?
Same thing if one is spewaking N ahuatl or Mandarin. You are using words that have a background. A hypertext. Even if you distinguish what you mean by it --- if you mean something unique ---you're culturally hypertexting.
Like I said: this is nothin' new.
Jesus Christ died for my sins, not Aristotle.
This is what you did say:
“Pagan” Greek philosophy, recast in the discourse of Christian believers, becomes Christian Greek philosophy”.
In any case, I do not believe in "attempting to hammer the teachings of Scripture into the shape of pagan Greek philosophy," as you very aptly put it. That would be a big mistake. I am just pointing out that the knowledge we have about God via Jesus, the perfect Word, is transmitted through a Greek New Testament, which is necessarily in dialogue with Greek thought. That "dialogue" sometimes means that the writers have to distinguish themselves FROM Greek philosophical concepts.
Ironically, the intent of some of the Greek-language Scriptures (from Maccabees to the Epistles) was to reduce the influence of Hellenism and Hellenistic Judaism... paradoxically using Greek language to refine, redefine, or refute Greek concepts.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these things. I beg your pardon if I have not dealt adequately with the good thjings you wrote. I am out digging new garden beds and planting garlic today, if the weather holds. So I'll be away fromt he computer, mostly.
Tagline is for you.
Simple. It's the work of God. He is not a God of confusion. He provides. Through faith in Him, He provides salvation. By studying His Word, He continues His work in us to further sanctify us.
Faith and belief are used by the same word in Biblical Greek (PISTIS). Wisdom (SOPHIA) and knowledge (GNOSIS) and an outward knowledge from our heart (EPIGNOSIS) is discernible from these other terms.
1Co 12:8
(8) For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
You’re planting garlic? All is forgiven if there ever was anything outstanding. Cheers!
Exactly...And what that author spews is the biggest heresy of all; that only a select few intellectuals can actually know what God says...
The true beauty of the Catholic Church is that she has more layers than and onion.
1) Same may simple choose to attend on Sundays and holidays.
2)Others enjoy the simple contemplative life of a nun or monk.
3) Others service to others such a s Mother Teresa and the Jesuits teaching.
4) Others such as Augustine and Thomas of Aquinas the philosophical.
There is room for all, and all who seek to live in full communion with Jesus and his Church are welcome.
Lutherans originally had 5 sacraments now they have three (IIRC)
Some evangelicals believe in infant baptism, others adult only.
Some baptists are ordaining women and allowing homosexual marriage, others refuse.
Lutherans and Church of England believe in Consubstantiation, other Protestants don't believe in the real presence at all.
All of the above claim that they have arrived at these beliefs through the study of the Word.
Which ones are wrong and why?
I will be interested to see if any sola believers will engage on the confusion that belief produces.
“Which ones are wrong and why?”
Is that a question you really want to dicuss or simply a throw a way?
The idea is to cause those individuals not in full Communion with The Catholic Church to wonder is "Sola Scritpura" really true and to wonder if Christ really preached unity why there are so many denominations.
Did not Christ also prophesy that many would come on the basis of his name and many merely claiming to be his followers?
Jesus did give a means of determining who was in unity with him and thus enjoy internal unity also.
He also stated there would be false prophets making utterances sweet to the ear.
Christ wants us to uncomfortable in our sin, not go to a place of worship that has good fellowship or great music.
That's really easy...Like the Catholic religion, they add to or take away from the words of God...
You give a pretty good example right there...
Church is a place for healing...We go to worship and to get some spiritual food for our soul (and I don't mean eating a cracker) and to encourage our brothers and sisters and receive the same encouragement from them...
Jesus wants us to be COMFORTABLE in knowing we have a Savior who can and will forgive us of our sins and provide comfort for our sinning souls...
Can you show us in the bible where it says we are to reject good uplifting music that magnifies God??? Or where the bible says we are to forsake fellowship with our brothers and sisters in the Lord??? You can't...
I can show you scriptures that say just the opposite...It's up to you to believe them or not and accept them or not...
So “they” all do it, but your sect alone does not. Is that what you say? Care to identify?
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
Studying Scripture is one method of intaking the Word of God, but without the work of God the Holy Spirit in our human spirit, we do not have our soul sanctified.
Study of Scripture independent of God the Holy Spirit is simply academia and is insufficient to sanctify the soul. It even scars the soul with more sinful tendencies towards legalism or asceticism, or liberalism in antinomianism.
Study of Scripture through faith in Christ, while in fellowship with God the Holy Spirit allows Him to continue His work in us. It is education, as opposed to academics. Education teaches us how to think, whereas academics are simply studies of rational thinking.
1Co 14:33
(33) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Rom 14:23 .... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Joh 6:29
(29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.