Who should carry the name "anachronists?"

Just being bothersome here....

Seems that both "sides" of the debate enjoy an overly literal (does 'plenary' mean verbal inspiration?) reading of the older Old Testement texts.

While eventually the "conceptual mileu" and the "thought forms and language by which the prophets and sages expressed their understanding of God's presence and activity within the life of the people" (Breck) developed into something that we can recognize as paralleling our own. It even seems to have continued to develop during the time from Christ to the end of the writing of the New Testement. BUT... the form in which statements about God and official narratives of God's actions with man take in the Bible's earliest narratives is just SO FAR DIFFERENT from what it is with, say, an Ezekiel, or a Matthew that to read those earlier passages with the same eye and mind that we would our own life's experiences is to be anachronistic!


.........................

BTW, It is interesting also to read "The Sacred and the Profane" for a world religions ovreview.

quote:

---

I think that our understanding of inspiration is impoverished. It is more about the scientific method than the Spirit that blows where it will.

Electra

---

quote:

---

That is, by over analyzing something one removes one's ability to be in awe of it.

---

quote:

---

Hmmm...I'm assuming ALL this leeway to biblical poetic licence applies to the Gospels and their conflicting stories too. Thus, it doesn't MATTER if Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, or some of those great parables attributed to him. Or if Jesus really walked on water or raised Lazarus from the dead. As I see it, affirming the historicity of the resurrection is not affirming the historicity of the Gospels...right? And what does the EXACT NATURE of the resurrection mean anyway? Perhaps it WAS primarily thought of as spiritual (Paul's encounter with the flash of light, "spiritual body", "flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom..."etc) and EVOLVED to an understanding of BODILY RESURRECTION, contra Gnostic overtones. Possibility. Hey, as long as the resurrection happened (meaning individual existence beyond death), it's all gravy...right?

---

quote:

---

However, I think that the difference between a work of art and an illustration is that art can sustain analysis indefinitely, whereas an illustration need not be revisited once you “get the point.” So in the case of an illustration, analysis decreases awe; but in the case of art, analysis increases awe.

Electra

---

And with some things their venue is within corporate worship. They are not datum (I'm not really high-brow; I'm just using a big word to sound cool! ) They "live" in worship.And in worship the "analysis" is directed by the liturgy. Over and over again the same lines can bring us deeper and deeper.

....................


Meph, I don't care if Christ went up the hill or down the hill (Sounds like you don't either. It is still his truth.) I'll buy that Luke wrote it "up" in Mark and then "down" as a revision -- aluding to Moses down off Sinai in Luke, and it won't phase me a bit.

PoW

P.S. -- I'll even accept the idea that Luke put some of Paul's words in Christ's mouth, and in Steven's. (Evidence suggests) It is still the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/18/2002 3:29:29 PM

The trilogy of the Latin words "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, et Lex Agendi" (Law of Praying, Law of Believing, Law of Acting.) Lex Agendi amplifies the Theological saying "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi." These words imply that orthopraxis in actions should observe what the orthodoxy believes in faith. And, the beliefs in faith should never contradict the holiness of the prayers because they are taught by the Holy Spirit.

www.seadinternational.com/harvest/do.htm

Meaning we say to ourselves, "What are the asserted things about Christ that MUST be true in order for my PRESENT experience of and/or relationship with Christ (whatever form that may take) to TRULY exist?"

(1) "The two phrases 'lex orandi' and 'lex credendi' are juxtaposed, but without an indication that one is only cause and the other only effect."
(2)"the beliefs in faith should never contradict the holiness of the prayers because they are taught by the Holy Spirit."

quote:

---

Thus the problem is easily solved...any historical events that are NON-ESSENTIAL to the reality of Christ as Resurrected One are inconsequential (like POW's "up/down" thing). But those that are essential to the idea (ie. the "witness" of people experiencing a post-death Jesus) are then dubbed very important.

---

This entire grouping, the Theotokos and the Apostles, stands as an expression of the establishment and role of the Church. The icon includes not only those who actually witnessed the Ascension; it also includes the Apostle Paul (who historically could not have been there) at the head of the group or to the right. What is intended is that the Church witnesses to this event. home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Ascent.htm

quote:

---

The Church's celebration of the ascension, as all such festal celebrations, is not merely the remembrance of an event in Christ's life. Indeed, the ascension itself is not to be understood as though it were simply the supernatural event of a man floating up and away into the skies. The holy scripture stresses Christ's physical departure and his glorification with God the Father, together with the great joy which his disciples had as they received the promise of the Holy Spirit who was to come to assure the Lord's presence with them, enabling them to be his witnesses to the ends of earth (Lk 24:48-53; Acts 1:8-11; Mt 28:20; Mk 16:16-14).

In the Church the believers in Christ celebrate these very same realities with the conviction that it is for them and for all men that Christ's departure from this world has taken place. The Lord leaves in order to be glorified with God the Father and to glorify us with himself. He goes in order to "prepare a place" for and to take us also into the blessedness of God s presence. He goes to open the way for all flesh into the "heavenly sanctuary ... the Holy Place not made by hands" (see Hebrews 8-10). He goes in order send the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father to bear witness to him and his gospel in the world, making him powerfully present in the lives of disciples.

The liturgical hymns of the feast of the Ascension sing of all of these things. The antiphonal verses of the Divine Liturgy are taken from Psalms 47, 48, and 49. The troparion of the feast which is sung at the small entrance is also used as the post-communion hymn.

...Thou hast ascended in glory O Christ our God, glory
...granting joy to Thy disciples by the promise
...of the Holy Spirit. Through the blessing
...they were assured that Thou art the Son of God,
...the Redeemer of the world! (Troparion).

...When Thou didst fulfill the dispensation for our sake,
...and didst unite earth to heaven, Thou didst ascend
...in glory, 0 Christ our God, not being parted from those
...who love Thee, but remaining with them and crying:
...I am with you and no one will be against you! (Kontakion).

- Hopko, OCA.org

---

quote:

---

So, just to clarify. Is this the way it works? Let me know...

We work BACKWARDS from the posited reality of Christ being the Risen One with whom we have "experience" or "relationship" (whatever form that may take.) Meaning we say to ourselves, "What are the asserted things about Christ that MUST be true in order for my PRESENT experience of and/or relationship with Christ (whatever form that may take) to TRULY exist?" And historicity only REALLY matters in those areas. Thus the problem is easily solved...any historical events that are NON-ESSENTIAL to the reality of Christ as Resurrected One are inconsequential (like POW's "up/down" thing). But those that are essential to the idea (ie. the "witness" of people experiencing a post-death Jesus) are then dubbed very important.

Is this effectively what I'm hearing? If so, can some one please let me know what prevents this from being applied in an ad hoc manner, with respect to the veracity of any PARTICULAR biblical event in the Gospels? Again, let me know.

---