Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
(SD version) "all generations will call her blessed."
What does the Bible say?
Luke 1:
[48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
SD:Don't call me fast and loose. If Jesus says "rather" that means, in plain English, "instead."
The word "rather" never came into play with me. Why you ring it in, I have no idea.
It's obvious that you skipped over the word. Please think about it again. "It's a lovely day" "No, rather, it's rainy and gray"
Does the word "rather" mean anything, or is it like the word "vain" that doesn't add any meaning to "vain repetition?"
When you change the words "call me" to "call her" you are changing the entire meaning of the passage.
Oooohhhh Reeeaaallllly? Please explain the vast signifigance of the horrible injustice I have done. One way has Scripture saying that Mary will be called blessed. The other has Scripture saying Mary will be called blessed.
Vastly different, I know.
Of coruse, I was in error. It is a bit of bragging if Mary says that she will be honored. When the angel says it, it is actually a stronger statement.
That, old spinner, is playing fast and loose.
Guilty as charged. I tried to down play Mary by making her a braggart.
SD
Forget about the "i know not a man" part. I agree it is present tense.
Focus on the entire idea of why she would ask "how can this be?"
If she was about to get married and have lots of juicy sex, wouldn't she expect to conceive a child in a natural way?
SD
Typical scholarship on the OT tends to follow old source criticism and form criticism. But these theories of the 19th century got us nowhere. I am currently taking a class on First Isaiah where the professor buys into source criticism in that he thinks that we can actually tell if something is Isaianic or a mere gloss (He is old school Harvard). He is one of the most conservative historical critics, though, in that he attributes VERY LITTLE to later disciples of Isaiah (e.g. passages that are taken by Christians as messianic are authentically Isaianic. You can't say that Isaiah didn't give these oracles merely because they have a sense of eschatological hope, as if, Isaiah was incabable of this). While I have enjoyed his class (and the man kicks some ass in Akkadian, Egyptian....), I don't find it actually feeding me faith, and I don't find these methods actually useful in the ecclesial setting of sermon making. They seem unhelpful because they are incredibly speculative and they presume things we will never know unless we miraculously uncover a scroll of Isaiah's oracles before they were compiled. I think NT scholarship has noted the uncertainty of such scholarship by their shying away from source criticism in Acts of the Apostles. In other words, source criticism and form criticism strikes me as a bunch of bologna!
What we do have - the actual MT and the amazing narratives that have fed a community (you might say...communities) for centuries. If we use these narratives and assume incredible intelligence on the part of authors and redactors, what does the final product do for us. The incredible pay off of this is the benefit of word proclamation (i.e. sermon delivery). Asking how the character of Samuel is portrayed in 1 Samuel offers meaning to my life. Wondering how we know if Samuel's words were actually the words of God has incredible import to my life as I look at things like Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart (both A/G ministers ... and boy are we proud). If our fear is irrelevance (as was the fear of these U of Chicago proffessors), we might also ask are these narratives irrelevant. Are they merely one more theory at how to view the universe that will fail?
I guessI'm now just wondering - what isn't theory? isn't our faith a very theory of explaining the universe? am I missing something?
None of that means that I can not disagree with another's interpretation. Just as you scoff at my synthesis, I scoff at his hyperliteral interpretation.
Except John 6. That is, until we get to John 6:63.
You are a phony!
What is your problem!?
I state that we mutually scoff at each other's interpretations. Which is nothing but true.
And you call me a "phony" for this? Please settle down.
S
If she was about to get married and have lots of juicy sex, wouldn't she expect to conceive a child in a natural way?
Focus on the idea of "I know not a man". Present tense. Again "I know not a man", not "I will never know a man". I'm tired of this conversation, its so disengenuous. yuk. Carry on without me.
Surely you mean the defense of the indefensable? Can you say "false doctrine"?
Um, where did they promise to take anyone? Serious question.
I am currently taking a class on First Isaiah where the professor buys into source criticism in that he thinks that we can actually tell if something is Isaianic or a mere gloss
To what goal? This is the problem with such critical methods. They are like dissecting gossamer. The only end-product of such an inquiry seems to be a lack of faith in the Text at all. The goal is to reject the existing texts as authentic and to try to pick them apart to find what is "real" and what is not.
SD
Why do you continue to make this point? I have ceded it.
Now focus on the rest of the statement. "How can this be?"
Do you have a rational answer for why an about-to-be-married woman would take this announcement in a non-natural conception way?
SD
I can see why you would want to drop it there. Since that argumentdoesn't make much sense. Taking that single present-tense statement out of the rest of the conversation meant that Mary was saying that it wasn't possible because she wasn't having sex at that very moment.
"Angelus Interruptus"?
I think that it's pretty clear that the unamed disciple John is speaking of is himself, ... John.
I suppose it would be considered "arrogant" to point out that this is a nugget of wisdom passed down as Sacred Tradition and not as part of the text itself.
SD
Ya mean that "Crossing Over" guy? ;-)
SD
Man is evil "if you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children"
Jesus is the son of man Therefore:
A is to B as A is to C if B = C so Jesus is the son of Evil, making Mary the mother of evil. Or these little word games to derive titles are foolish.
Any woman who's never had sex and is told they are going to have a baby is going to wonder "How can this be".
Have I mentioned "I know not a man" (present tense)?
John 1 verse 1. He is the book
Arrghhhh!!
To reduce the uncreated Logos of God to a collection of writings is ridiculous.
SD
Perhaps you did not understand that "going to" is a statement about the future.
Ask your wife. If an angel told her two days before your wedding that she was going to become pregnant, would she wonder how this was going to happen?
SD
I have context. See Matthew 1:24 & 25. Oh and did I mention "I know not a man"? (present tense)
Ask your pysciatrist "How did months turn into 2 days.?"
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.