About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

September 5, 2015 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 5 September 2015

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment393

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (393)

Login to comment or vote

SPC

Ugly, what is, in the matter of faith? And who says? Faith is of the realm beyond known facts – apart from scripture.

And as you will note the writings of James and Paul are both in scripture.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 6:41pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

Kimbo,

In the matter of the faith, there is no objective evidence to determine truth, but scripture.

Agreed

As for the relevance of scholarship and academic method as a tool, this has always been secondary to church direction and determination.

In subjective or objective terms? For example, Martin Luther was a scholar, initially out of step with “church direction and determination”.

However, I agree that if someone is not willing, then no amount of “evidence” will persuade them. Whether the (church or individual) direction or determination is sound and in accord with Scripture and the ministry of the Holy Spirit is another matter.

After all the church has always claimed that it has the authority in the matter of scriptural meaning – and that claim to authority can be found in scripture itself.

Umm, both Catholics and Protestants would agree with you…yet that is an indication your statement is not precise enough as they believe very different things regarding the interaction between the church’s authority and Scripture’s meaning – although I acknowledge in practice sometimes they are little different. One can be a Pope over a congregation of 50 people, jsut as one can be a Pope over a billion :).

Thus no church has ever needed to respond to dissent resulting from academic or scholarship work – something a true scholar in the field would have already noted.

Yet it can and does

Martin Luther and the matter of indulgences and justification by grace/supreme authority of the Scriptures that teach that doctrine.

Karl Barth and the “otherness” of God, who does not accept “the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of all men and the inexorable improvement of human society” as taught and believed by the 19th Century German church

Martin Luther King and segregation and racism within the church and society.

Scholars are merely men and women, but, when God chooses, he uses their specialist skills in rightly dividing the word of truth to apply it with power to effect change in his church and world.

Thus it absurd to try to place some academic method/scholarship peer review test on someone’s bible interpretation. No church or individual of faith would accept being bound by it.

As per my implication above regarding the relationship between the Scripture and the church’s authority to interpret it (and be corrected by it!)above, the grammatico-historical is the “quality-control” method that Protestants have affirmed and used. Often not perfectly or faithfully – nothing in human life is. Yet that is what they affirm…which of its very nature requires (to quote you) “academic method/scholarship peer review test on someone’s bible interpretation”

I’d suggest this best explains how that dynamic works – or at least how it should.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hermeneutical-Spiral-Comprehensive-Interpretation/dp/0830828265
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 6:56pm
Kimbo

@ SPC & UglyTruth

In mind of – what is truth, and who determines truth in matters of faith?

Consequence, truth is what is. Truth is always consistent with the facts.

Umm, to save you both a bit of time, and apply a bit of academic (!) analysis to your above exchange:

I’d suggest you are both talking past one another as you are working with different assumptions of truth and “how” (if at all) it can be determined.

UT has assumed the the logical positivist position – “truth” is an objective reality outside of ourselves, timeless, unchanging, simply requiring the uncovering of the right “facts” and the application of “reason” to discover it.

SPC has assumed the interpretivist position – whether “truth” can be determined objectively or not is pointless. People, both corporately and personally make and construct their own truths that are meaningful to them and live by them. regardless of what men in white coats, scholars and ‘experts” say is so.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:12pm
SPC

Kimbo, in practice (Protestant) scholars who believe their dissent from (established) church interpretation of scripture, form new churches and their new church then validates the dissent (this requires them to have some wider acceptance for their interpretation).

The demonstrated capacity to cite God’s grace authority over any established church to justify and enact rebellion leaves Protestant churches having to account for the practice as a valid part of the wider Christian faith and provides (often false) hope to reformers within the established church (in effect more impact on practice of belief, rather than on the belief tradition).
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:14pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

Faith is of the realm beyond known facts – apart from scripture.

Yet the contours of “faith” are determined by Scripture – or at least one’s understanding of it, and how much one accords it authority.

Plus, in the Christian conception, it is the means by which the Holy Spirit “speaks” and imparts the gift of faith.

Faith may be “different” from Scripture, but they are not, as you have said “apart”. “Distinct but not separate” may be a better way to capture the relationship between the two.

And while “faith” is not “facts”, again it is not divorced from them – or it need not be. Facts are the basis for an “informed” faith. Or at least the right facts should be 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:16pm
SPC

Kimbo 7.12pm, no.

Faith is of the realm beyond our knowledge, there are no known truths – once they are known, there is no faith issue involved.

Some believe scripture provides such knowledge, or if not scripture, guidance from God, but this is not a demonstrable truth but a faith.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:19pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

Kimbo, in practice (Protestant) scholars who believe their dissent from (established) church interpretation of scripture, form new churches and their new church then validates the dissent (this requires them to have some wider acceptance for their interpretation).

The demonstrated capacity to cite God’s grace authority over any established church to justify and enact rebellion leaves Protestant churches having to account for the practice as a valid part of the wider Christian faith and provides (often false) hope to reformers within the established church (in effect more impact on practice of belief, rather than on the belief tradition).

As I implied in a prior post above, yes! What did you expect out of a human endeavour that must, of its very nature, be flawed in some respect.

But sometimes, irrespective of what the status quo might say, they get it right.

Welcome to life.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:22pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

Kimbo 7.12pm, no.

Faith is of the realm beyond our knowledge, there are no known truths – once they are known, there is no faith issue involved.

I suspect your definition is reliant (perhaps unwittingly) more on Søren Kierkegaard than the biblical teaching on the matter.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:24pm
SPC

Kimble, 7.16pm, faith in God does not require scripture. Claim of knowledge of God may do.

That sort of covers 7.24 as well.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:28pm
UglyTruth

Ugly, what is, in the matter of faith?

A perception, an idea as distinct from truth as knowledge.

And who says?

The observer.

Faith is of the realm beyond known facts – apart from scripture.

It 2/3 the same as truth, but it’s a more perception based and more general.

Scripture is just data, it can be used or misused like anything else.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:32pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth and SPC

Scripture is just data, it can be used or misused like anything else.

I disagree (due to faith!) that it is “just” data, but agree it can be used or misused like anything else – particularly literature.

The original author’s intent is the “correct use”, hence the need for “scholarly tools” to attempt to determine that.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:35pm
UglyTruth

“In James 2 he is speaking of a singular man, not a group of men”

Why does that make a difference?

Because it’s absurd to think that a reference to one could mean a reference to many when a reference to many means a reference to many in your example.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:38pm
UglyTruth

The original author’s intent is the “correct use”

Not when the author has evil intent.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:40pm
SGA

Kimbo at 7:35 pm

The original author’s intent is the “correct use”, hence the need for “scholarly tools” to attempt to determine that.

Not a postmodernist then, Kimbo 🙂
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:42pm
SPC

Surely one means the author’s original intent?

Or is this code for original language of writing and subsequent language translation it is read in, and or the writer being the medium for God’s word.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:49pm
SPC

Kimbo, the bible is not so much data as a record of a God faith tradition, that the church has “inherited” some authority to interpret (and when claiming the bible is the word of God enable itself to declare knowledge of God).
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 7:53pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

The original author’s intent is the “correct use”

Not when the author has evil intent.

Yes, even then. “Correct” in the sense “we understand what he or she was intending to mean” – irrespective of whether we agree with or not, or even if it is evil.

Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 8:00pm
SPC

Ugly, oh vain man – and the singularity point.

It can refer to any man who places emphasis on faith rather than knowledge of the scriptural tradition – which requires some semblance of subordination to the received works of the tradition. It speaks to the Jew as circumcised by work of faith (Isaac) and of the ten commandments – Paul was also both.

It was a call for status to the Jewish establishment of the Christian faith, that the church of the faith later rejected. It seeing the faith in their own image. An equal vanity.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 8:02pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

Kimbo, the bible is not so much data as a record of a God faith tradition, that the church has “inherited” some authority to interpret (and when claiming the bible is the word of God enable itself to declare knowledge of God)

Sounds like a faith statement to me! 🙂

I agree it is exemplary, but (by faith) I consider it more: the exclusive written Word of God. And the Koran, while the former, is not the latter.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 8:02pm
Kimbo

…and that decision to eliminate the Koran from contention is, I think, based on some good reasons.

There is a self-contained contradictory nature to the Koran’s supposed “revelation”, and gets wrong what it says concerning the Biblical Scriptures.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 8:11pm
SPC

Kimbo, if I was describing my own position, as distinct from what the bible word claimed.

It would be that it was a record of a faith tradition – that a prophet founded their nation by covenant with God after promises to patriarchs that this would be so. That some Jews changed its meaning by adding new writing that claimed the Messiah had authority over the word of God (faith tradition) and this authority was handed over to the church.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 8:16pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

Kimbo, if I was describing my own position, as distinct from what the bible word claimed.

…a prophet founded their nation by covenant with God…some Jews…add(ed) new writing…(with) authority over the word of God (faith tradition) and this authority was handed over to the church.

Within the schema of your position, you don’t think Israel/Judaism (then and now), and Islam doesn’t also do the same? (Substitute “the faith community, particularly its leadership” for “the church”?

As previously, you seem to be describing human nature.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 8:31pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

Surely one means the author’s original intent?

Correct. Got “original” and “author” the wrong way around 🙂

Not a postmodernist then, Kimbo 🙂

A method with obvious inherent contradictions and also existentially nonviable as a whole-of-life discipline, but a useful occasional tool…especially when some authority is trying to mind-fuck with you!
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 8:54pm
SPC

Kimbo, well it is natural for any faith group to have a “myth” of origin and some recognition for/of a continuing authority

On that point one could note that the idea behind the Revelation of the so called 12 groups in heaven, corresponds to the early leadership of the church faith (of the received tradition amongst the people of the land of the tribes of Israel) being replaced by their Gentile converts in church authority on earth.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 9:00pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

Kimbo, the bible is not so much data as a record of a God faith tradition

…and that is a false dichotomy, IMHO.

Both/and, not either/or.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 9:02pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

On that point one could note that the idea behind the Revelation of the so called 12 groups in heaven, corresponds to the early leadership of the church faith (of the received tradition amongst the people of the land of the tribes of Israel) being replaced by their Gentile converts in church authority on earth.

Yes – as per my attempts (!) to explain/interpret some of the content of The Revelation to UT earlier!

Although the “predominantly Gentile converts standing continuity with the early leadership, who are in turn in continuity with Israel’s origins” would capture it better for me.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 9:11pm
SPC

Kimbo, as to the exclusion of Dan and Ephraim from the list of 12, we can note the issue of judgement as related to Dan/to judge and as for Ephraim, whom has been called a drunkard – there is the last part of the writing with reference to a bride saying come drink.

In total the metaphor is the communion cup of the church and the issue of grace of god and the nature of the church faith as to judgment. That can raise faith and works and judgment of either or both.

The church adds new members by faith, and heaven also includes new members once they have prevailed over judgment in their lives on earth.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 9:40pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

“In James 2 he is speaking of a singular man, not a group of men”

Why does that make a difference?

Because it’s absurd to think that a reference to one could mean a reference to many when a reference to many means a reference to many in your example.

Nope. The writings of Paul himself give an example of one hypothetical yet generically typical person who is addressed, who really means many.

Romans 2: 1:

2 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man (anthrope – singular vocative), whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. (he is referring to a hypothetical Jew under the law of Moses, judging “godless Gentiles”)

and
he continues the vocative singular rhetorical form of address in 2:17:

17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God

…and Paul concludes that train of thought over a chapter later in 3:9 with

“What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews (plural!) and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.”
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 9:43pm
SPC

Kimbo, I would differentiate objective data from a more subjective account – of a God faith tradition.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 6, 2015 9:43pm
Kimbo

@ SPC

…faith in God does not require scripture. Claim of knowledge of God may do.

Not according to the Scriptures:

Romans 10: 14-17

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 12:48am
UglyTruth

Nope. The writings of Paul himself give an example of one hypothetical yet generically typical person who is addressed, who really means many.

So what? James was the author, not Paul.

Like I said, only the truly faithful would try to argue these absurdities and irrelevancies.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 7:18am
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

Nope. The writings of Paul himself give an example of one hypothetical yet generically typical person who is addressed, who really means many.

So what? James was the author, not Paul.

He he he. Now I know you’re trolling because you aren’t that silly or unable to follow the thread of a discussion.

The “so what?” is that it is not (to quote you) absurd for a biblical writer such as James in 2:20-21 to use the singular vocative address to a single hypothetical yet generic individual…while meaning many…as there is a biblical precedent for that rhetorical device as per Paul in Romans.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 8:21am
UglyTruth

He he he. Now I know you’re trolling because you aren’t that silly or unable to follow the thread of a discussion.

I’m not trolling. I just know an argument of desperation when I see one.

The “so what?” is that it is not (to quote you) absurd for a biblical writer such as James in 2:20-21 to use the singular vocative address to a single hypothetical yet generic individual…while meaning many…as there is a biblical precedent for that rhetorical device as per Paul in Romans.

Non sequitur. James doesn’t use that rhetorical device, his criticism is of a specific vain man since vanity is unrelated to the doctrine that he criticizes.

Who was the most vain man in the Bible?

“For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:” ~ 2 Co 10:8
“For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” ~ 2Co 11:5

The context is of James attacking other aspects of Paul’s theology, so Occam’s razor points to Paul as the vain main because of all the extra assumptions that must be made for alternate explanations.

James refers to the “perfect law of liberty”, but Paul calls the law a curse.

James takes a swipe at Paul in the first chapter when he says “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways”

Paul describes himself as:

… to them that are under the law, as under the law … To them that are without law, as without law ..
1 Co 9:20-21
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 12:57pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

The “so what?” is that it is not (to quote you) absurd for a biblical writer such as James in 2:20-21 to use the singular vocative address to a single hypothetical yet generic individual…while meaning many…as there is a biblical precedent for that rhetorical device as per Paul in Romans.

Non sequitur. James doesn’t use that rhetorical device, his criticism is of a specific vain man since vanity is unrelated to the doctrine that he criticizes…

No, that is a non sequitir. From a biblical perspective, if one adheres to and propounds a false doctrine, they are vain (biblical meaning: empty, of no account to God and his people)

James takes a swipe at Paul in the first chapter when he says “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways”

If he has a specific rather than hypothetical yet generically typical person in mind he would have a least have used the definite article, “The double minded man is…”

But rather than engaging with your latest round of discussion in full, let’s take things in a reasonable order:

So to clarify the question I am now asking you for a third time, are you saying the understanding I have given for “O vain man” in James 2: 20-21 is…impossible?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 1:28pm
UglyTruth

No, that is a non sequitir.

Well look at the following verse about Abraham then, as this connects James’ criticism to Paul’s doctrine about faith and Abraham, not to anyone or anything else.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:20-21

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:7

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Romans 4:90

So to clarify the question I am now asking you for a third time, are you saying the understanding I have given for “O vain man” in James 2: 20-21 is…impossible?

Yes, because you’ve got to disregard the context of faith and Abraham to make it work.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 3:55pm
Griff

To nuts arguing about what the long dead mungs think their imaginary friends say in the worlds most contradictory book of fiction.
How quaint.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 4:03pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

is…impossible?

Yes, because you’ve got to disregard the context of faith and Abraham to make it work.

Cheers. So there is no possibility you have misunderstood the context. At all. Most of us hold our views, no matter how “certain” to be in some sense “provisional”. But not you. That’s pretty bold, seeing you are human, and subject to fallibility. Instead like the “faithful” clinging to dogma whom you criticise, you have a closed mind to a contrary possibility, no matter

1. what the alternate data

2. and the possibility you are mis-interpreting it.

Gotta go. Anymore investment of time would indeed be (to quote Griff), “nuts”, but thanks for the dialogue. It was stimulating…and informative, especially regarding your methods.

From a personal perspective, your epistemology, theory-generation and rhetorical methods are almost identical to the Jehovah’s Witnesses…irrespective of the data being examined and the opinions being exchanged.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 4:20pm
UglyTruth

Cheers. So there is no possibility you have misunderstood the context. At all.

No, not as far as the identity of the vain man goes. The schism between Paul and the “judaizers” goes back to when the Jews of Asia rioted against Paul and his teachings (Acts 21:27).

Most of us hold our views, no matter how “certain” to be in some sense “provisional”. But not you. That’s pretty bold, seeing you are human,

No, it don’t partake in the human condition. But that’s a story for another time.

and subject to fallibility. Instead like the “faithful” clinging to dogma whom you criticise, you have a closed mind to a contrary possibility, no matter

I’m certainly not infallible, but I’m not wrong about the identity of the vain man. Paul’s vanity is well evident in the Bible and the doctrine that James opposed in reference to the vain main was Paul’s alone. Testing our two explanations against Occam’s Razor is another way of looking at the problem – your explanation has far more unknowns and assumptions than mine.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 5:35pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

No, it don’t partake in the human condition. But that’s a story for another time.

Fascinating. Please, leave that one packed and allow my imagination to roam 🙂

…your explanation has far more unknowns and assumptions than mine.

It may. It may not.

But that wasn’t the question.

The question was…is it impossible?

Even if mine has “far more unknowns and assumptions”, you seem to be implying…maybe..just possibly…yes.

So which is it? Impossible or not?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 6:20pm
SPC

Ugly, how do you reconcile the Abraham faith tradition with the lack of Sabbath day keeping by Moslems?

Or is your objection to faith without any required works of observance of law, and difference on law such as on rest days is not as important as that principle?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 7:44pm
UglyTruth

The question was…is it impossible?

No, as far as the identity of the vain main goes, I haven’t misunderstood the context.

Occam’s Razor doesn’t deal in certainties, only in probabilities. Since your explanation (an unknown group) has more assumptions that mine (Paul) it follow that according to Occam’s Razor my explanation is the more likely one.

Assumptions: the unknown group exists, the unknown group was known to James, the phrase “faith without works is dead” was meaningful to the unknown group.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 8, 2015 8:31am
UglyTruth

Ugly, how do you reconcile the Abraham faith tradition with the lack of Sabbath day keeping by Moslems?

IMO it’s due to religious tribalism, maintaining religious traditions in the face of oppression from outsiders.

Judaism and Islam are similar in many respects, and the Quran often refers to the application of reason (eg if the religions are fundamentally the same like the Quran says, then shouldn’t the tenets of Judaism also apply in Islam?)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 8, 2015 8:56am
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

OK…so to clarify: my proposed understanding is…impossible?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 8, 2015 11:00am
UglyTruth

Within the wider context the understanding that the vain man refers to an unknown group is impossible.

As far as Occam’s Razor is concerned it is only improbable.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 8, 2015 1:07pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

Within the wider context the understanding that the vain man refers to an unknown group is impossible.

As far as Occam’s Razor is concerned it is only improbable

You do know, of course, that the interpretation I have given you is the one that most have adhered to throughout the centuries? And they have a different interpretation to Rev 2:2, and the other texts you insist are immediately linked (even though they are in differing books) to support your view of what Occam’s Razor determines in this matter?

No matter, they are coming from a faith perspective. Does that automatically render in impossible?

Another question: What external quality control tests have you placed on your own interpretation, such as, and maybe including the falsification test?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 8, 2015 4:51pm
UglyTruth

Yes, I’m aware of the usual interpretation. I’ve only used the direct inferences from James 2: 20-21 for the Occam’s Razor test.

Faith and truth are not necessarily the same.

My position could be falsified by Paul being like the 12 apostles after Judas, ie by not being a Pharisee, by honouring the law instead of calling it a curse, by not lying to make himself look more important… the list goes on.

But the key is really Paul contradicting himself about the events on the road to Damascus. “Proceed to Damascus for instructions” and “I appoint you as a minster and a witness” can’t both be true in the circumstances.
Paul had a habit of boasting. If he really was appointed like he said in Acts 26, then why did he wait so long before telling anyone?
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 8, 2015 7:48pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

Faith and truth are not necessarily the same.

Indeed, but then neither are they necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact those who have studied the Scriptures would suggest a key teaching of the Scriptures themselves is “fides quaerens intellectum/faith seeking understanding”. Now if that is indeed what the Bible itself teaches is how it should be understood (while not ignoring the need for good interpretive skills, nor succumbing to childish gullibility)…then I wonder if you are properly qualified to be commenting with such dogmatic certainty.

The reason I say that is those who make it a life-long vocation and discipline to study, understand and explain the Scriptures would usually resile from the absolute certitude and dogmatism you have shown regarding the meaning of James 2:20-21. Instead, a scholar may be almost absolutely certain…yet most, as a matter of professional and epistemological necessity, would always keep the door open to alternatives. Hence as I posted earlier, they usually adopt a position where they acknowledge some measure of provisionality. The reason they do that is to try and mitigate against that which you imply people of faith are unable to avoid – dogmatism. Which, ironically, is what your own posts exhibit due to your utter insistence and no allowance for any possible alternative. Which is why you ultimately sound more like a propagandist than a carefully considered researacher – no matter how worthwhile your thoughts might be.

Which is really interesting when you get around to answering my question, “What external quality control tests have you placed on your own interpretation, such as, and maybe including the falsification test?“?…

My position could be falsified by Paul being like…But the key is really Paul contradicting himself…

No, no. You are still hammering away at the text as the “objective” issue. What I’m asking is what external tests do you apply to yourself and your methods?

What are your methods for ascertaining if you are likely to have read the context? Not just in the case of James 2:20-21, but for all texts/pieces of writing?

What are your methods for constructing a framework of understanding? Not just with James 2:20-21 and Revelation 2:2 and the other texts you have linked together. You should be able to step out of yourself, look back in and describe your methods of theory generation. They might seem “obvious” and “rational” and certainly feel like that when you are using them on James 2: 20-21. OK. So tell us what they look like, not just what they are finding and concluding

In other words I’d like to see your epistemology so you and I both have a tool to see how you reach the conclusions you do…and what you are maybe assuming that could be wrong…and could maybe, just maybe be skewing the results you are coming up with.

I’m sure from your perspective everything you say seems “obvious” and “rational”. Fair enough. But what tests do you apply to test…yourself?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 12:55am
Viking2

So how is that great rise in manufacturing going then you ask???

New Zealand manufacturing sales volumes fell in the second quarter, driven by the continued decline in petroleum and coal, and in meat and dairy.

Total seasonally adjusted sales volumes declined 0.2 per cent in the three months ended June 30, after a 0.3 per cent drop in the first quarter, according to Statistics New Zealand.

The volume of dairy and meat, the two largest exports, fell 0.6 per cent and excluding those two industries, volumes rose 0.6 per cent.

The volume of sales for the petroleum and coal product industry, which don’t tend to follow a stable seasonal pattern, fell 5.2 per cent, following two quarters of gains.

Manufacturing is the last significant piece of data that feeds into gross domestic product in the second quarter, which is scheduled for release next week.

The Reserve Bank had projected quarterly GDP growth of 0.8 per cent in its June monetary policy statement. Before yesterday’s figures, bank economists had been expecting a weaker number, of between 0.3 per cent and 0.7 per cent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11509839

ANZ’s analysis of traffic on our key roads over August is signalling bad news for the economy.

Its Heavy Traffic Index fell 0.6% in August, indicating a loss of momentum consistent with a weaker economy.

Its Light Traffic Index, which typically leads gross domestic product (GDP) by six months, also fell by 0.6%, bringing the strong upwards trend that’s been evident since mid-2013 to an end.

ANZ’s Truckometer is a measure of economic activity using real time traffic data from around the country. Traffic data is a good indicator of economic activity, as a large portion of freight in New Zealand is transported by road.

Looking at the Heavy Traffic Index first, ANZ points out it has declined during seven of the last eight months, declining in August further to a 0.3% drop in July.

http://www.interest.co.nz/business/77482/anz-warns-economy-has-slowed-down-markedly-having-looked-traffic-our-key-roads-during

Like all rock stars here today and gone tomorrow.

trouble ahead.

2% OCR and hurry up.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 6:50am
UglyTruth

In other words I’d like to see your epistemology so you and I both have a tool to see how you reach the conclusions you do…and what you are maybe assuming that could be wrong…and could maybe, just maybe be skewing the results you are coming up with.

Fair enough. It’s based on linguistics, since language is the means by which we represent knowledge and communicate it. The pivotal event involving language involved the tower of Babel (meaning confusion). The role of language as a creative agent is evidenced by Biblical reference to the WORD and by the Book of Formation. This leads to the inference that language is fundamentally definitive rather then declarative – at a fundamental level language defines reality rather than describes it. By following the historical development of Babylon through Rome we can track the source of confusion.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 7:19am
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

Fair enough. It’s based on linguistics…at a fundamental level language defines reality rather than describes it

OK, thanks.

Now take it up the next step from the fundamental to the mechanical level. What do you do then?

Also, just out of interest, what do you mean by the “Book of Formation”? Is it this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Yetzirah
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 8:17am
Kimbo

…and then please explain why and how, compared to others, did it lead you to a different interpretation of James 2:20-21?

I’m not asking you to repeat why you think what you do about it – you have made that abundantly clear and furnished your ‘proof’.

So not just “they are depending on faith and I am using reason”. Show me how and why it would lead to differing results from the “scholarly mainstream” in other cases…

For example I know why I, as a Protestant disagree at times with Roman Catholics. I know the primary reason (it is one of authority – for Protestants the Bible is of supreme authority, for Catholics there are equal authorities – tradition, councils, the Pope).

And it therefore means that unless a Protestant is convinced there is a good internal biblical reason to adopt an understanding of a text, then church teaching/tradition is not necessarily in itself sufficient to adopt that understanding – hence my discussion and disagreement above with Fletch over purgatory.

And beyond that, like you, Catholic and Protestant exegetes seek to utilise reason as an aid to understand the text. Yet so do you, yet you are coming up with very different results.

Why? Please show me the mechanics of your processes beyond “I am doing it right and they are not”.

Not my down tick of your latest post, btw…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 8:31am
UglyTruth

Now take it up the next step from the fundamental to the mechanical level. What do you do then?

You build a map of related concepts using ideas from the words themselves, as well as from the way that the words are applied in historical texts.

For example Paul -> Saul -> Shaul -> Sheol -> hell
Also from the SY is the phrase “by sefer, by sefer, and by sefer”, a threefold pattern about language which relates to 9, 22, and 26 (glyphs for Hebrew, English, & counting numbers), which relates to the chapters of Acts which include a recounting of the events on the road to Damascus.

And beyond that, like you, Catholic and Protestant exegetes seek to utilise reason as an aid to understand the text. Yet so do you, yet you are coming up with very different results.

I treat the Bible as data, not as an authority, so it’s easier for me to recognize inconsistencies in the text.
Also the Bible isn’t the only source of relevant data, there are many source texts containing valuable information.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 9:45am
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

You build a map of related concepts using ideas from the words themselves, as well as from the way that the words are applied in historical texts.

For example Paul -> Saul -> Shaul -> Sheol -> hell
Also from the SY is the phrase “by sefer, by sefer, and by sefer”, a threefold pattern about language which relates to 9, 22, and 26 (glyphs for Hebrew, English, & counting numbers), which relates to the chapters of Acts which include a recounting of the events on the road to Damascus.

OK. Thanks. Is this a method you have developed yourself, or does it utilise an existing method you have learned and/or adapted/? And not that I know much about it, is it related to kabbalah?

I treat the Bible as data, not as an authority, so it’s easier for me to recognize inconsistencies in the text.

Um, isn’t that a false dichotomy? While most (but not all) exegetes from a “faith perspective” regard the Bible as an authority of some sort…the very fact they are exegeting and interpreting, and using various methods and principles to do so, shows they too treat the Bible as data
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 10:08am
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

which relates to 9, 22, and 26 (glyphs for Hebrew, English, & counting numbers

…and as per above, I wonder to what extent your method differs from what the Reformers appealed to as the “plain sense” of Scripture…and why.

For example, as I posted above, the original chapter and verse divisions and numbers were never part of any</b biblical text. Therefore the Reformers would rule it out immediately as having any significance to determining meaning, because, ultimately it is extra-biblical and coincidental, no matter what “number patterns” one can discern.

Why do you take a differing view?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 10:20am
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

You build a map of related concepts using ideas from the words themselves, as well as from the way that the words are applied in historical texts

Yeah, ok. But in there own way so does everyone who spends time trying ton “make sense” of a text like the bible, whether from a faith perspective or treating it as a piece of literature. What makes you decide you have understood the right (to quote you) “related concepts”(jig saw pieces) and have put/built them together into the right “map” (completed puzzle).

For example, as per my post on an earlier thread, I’m sure at first glance there are a number of “related concepts” in the following three passages which I’ve “built into a map” and the way they have been applied in historical texts: –

“So Jesus told him (Judas), “What you are about to do, do quickly”. (John 13:27b)

“Then he (Judas) went away and hanged himself.” (Matthew 27:5b)

“Jesus (said), “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:37)

The first two clearly relate to the same person – Judas, a false believer, while the last is an instruction to those who have falsely understood the meaning of the Law of Moses (it is Jesus’ instruction at the end of the story of the Good Samaritan).

Plus the first and last are spoken by Jesus, while the second is Judas’ anguish at having betrayed him.

Yet we both know that Jesus and the Bible did not intend to teach/encourage readers to commit suicide – or at least I hope we don’t! 🙂

Now, I don’t so much what to know what alternate “related concepts” you would choose to “build a map” that would be different. I’m, more interested in why that “map of related concepts” would be correct.

Show me your map-building process, irrespective of the texts, that safeguards your “maps” from mere coincidence and/or your arbitrary choices.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 10:58am
UglyTruth

The map building process deals with intangibles like motivations more than the concrete aspects of a situation. This reflects the SY where the underlying elements are for the most part directly related to consciousness rather than to the physical world. The process considers origins and outcomes to be fundamentally interconnected (this is another idea from the SY). The primary safeguard is consistency – the map must be internally consistent and not arbitrary in the way that is filters relevant information.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 11:20am
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

The map building process deals with intangibles like motivations more than the concrete aspects of a situation…underlying elements are for the most part directly related to consciousness rather than to the physical world

Wow! “Motivations” are incredibly difficult to discern in ourselves, let alone in others. And “intangibles” are, of their very nature…intangible compared to the much more readily/easily measured “concrete aspects”.

And “consciousness” rather than the “physical world”. OK, I can see why you think most of the “western world” has got it wrong, because the safeguards I have been taught from western civilisation are now in over saying “warning!”. Doesn’t mean you are necessarily wrong, though. But then, as you are not prepared to open your mind to the possibility your interpretation of James 2:20-21 was right, why should I logically open my mind to your interpretation, let alone your this different way of “map building”>

Also, most of all – what is your cosmology, i.e., view of how reality/the world/Universe is, such that you value “motivations”, “intangibles” and “consciousness” (which I’d suggest western thought would categorise as “esoteric” – are you happy with that description of your epistemology?) rather than the “material world?

the map must be internally consistent

Hmm. Yes, but in their own way, so too are Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are remarkable in that respect because, even though they are “instructing” what we would view as “faith”. Indeed, like you they appeal to “reason” and continually. And ultimately the need for “internal consistency” is their ultimate appeal – even though it actually causes them to mis-read/shoe horn texts into their “map”. So what quality control methods to ensure you don’t do that?

However, they fail in other regards. So what are your additional tests?

Sorry, I must have lost it in the thread somewhere. What does “SY” stand for?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 11:52am
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

…Sorry, meant to write

“But then, as you are not prepared to open your mind to the possibility my interpretation of James 2:20-21 was right, by what logic/reason should I open my mind to your interpretation, and consider your explanation of what is “logical”, let alone your this different way of “map building”?”

I was implying that it seems to me a good safeguard to mis-interpreting that one should always keep an open mind…or at least accept an understanding one’s knowledge/reasoning/conclusions/grasp of truth is always, in some sense…provisional.

So why don’t you exercise that safeguard (I’m drawing that conclusion from your advise that my interpretation of James 2:20-21 is impossible)? I’m prepared to keep open the possibility I could be wrong, and you may be right. What in your “map building” processes and principles/methods means you don’t reciprocate?

An internal inconsistency in your methods, perhaps?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 12:08pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

OK, sorry, got it. As I asked earlier, SY is Sefer Yetzirah?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Yetzirah

So is this “authoritative”, not necessarily for faith, but at least in furnishing the “map building” process by which you (or anyone else who properly understood) can interpret the “data” in the Bible correctly? And if so

…why?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 12:17pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

@ UglyTruth

Earlier I asked about your cosmology.

From that wikipedia entry on Sefer Yetzirah, is this what you think the Universe is like and how it functions?: –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Yetzirah

Theories of contrast in nature
In addition to the doctrine of the Sefirot and the letters, the theory of contrasts in nature, or of the syzygies (“pairs”), as they are called by the Gnostics, occupies a prominent place in the Sefer Yetzirah. This doctrine is based on the assumption that the physical as well as the moral world consists of a series of contrasts mutually at war, yet pacified and equalized by the unity, God. Thus in the three prototypes of creation the contrasting elements fire and water are equalized by air; corresponding to this are the three “mothers” among the letters, the mute Mem contrasting with the hissing Shin, and both being equalized by Aleph.

Seven pairs of contrasts are enumerated in the life of man:

Life and death
Peace and strife
Wisdom and folly
Wealth and poverty
Beauty and ugliness
Fertility and sterility
Lordship and servitude (iv. 3).
From these premises the Sefer Yezirah draws the important conclusion that “good and evil” have no real existence, for since everything in nature can exist only by means of its contrast, a thing may be called good or evil according to its influence over man by the natural course of the contrast.

The book teaches that man is a free moral agent, and therefore a person is rewarded or punished for his or her actions. While the ideas of heaven and hell are left unmentioned in the book, it teaches that the virtuous man is rewarded by a favorable attitude of nature, while the wicked man finds it hostile to him.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 12:40pm
UglyTruth

So why don’t you exercise that safeguard?

Because the facts don’t leave any room for misunderstanding of who James meant by the vain man – Paul’s own words about his non-existent commission, his vanity, the warning against Pharisees, Paul’s history of lying, Paul’s antinomian doctrine, Paul’s attachment to Rome, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Yetzirah

This isn’t too bad for a Wikipedia article, but it’s best to go to the source IMO.

From these premises the Sefer Yezirah draws the important conclusion that “good and evil” have no real existence

Once again Wikipedia totally fails to give a reasonable summary of the subject matter.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 12:42pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

So why don’t you exercise that safeguard?

Because the facts don’t leave any room for misunderstanding of who James meant

Um, but that is an appeal to and “internal” test within James and how your “map building” has already determined what are the other texts (e.g., Revelation 2:2, etc).

It is not an external test.

To put it another way, here is the problem when you rely only on an internal test of the material:

How do your know that Paul is the vain man James is referring to?

Answer Other texts (to quote you) “don’t leave any room for misunderstanding”.

And how do you know those are the right texts by which to interpret James 2:20-21?

Because the other texts indicate Paul was a “vain man”

How do you know Paul was the vain man James 2:20-21 was referring to?…

Widen the circle with as many texts as you like to form a map (as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do), it doesn’t matter. The same essential process is occurring.

Which, as you can see, on its own, without an external test is circular…and therefore reasonable…or at least not on its own.

Hence my queries to understand your external tests/methods
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 12:59pm
Ryan Sproull

From these premises the Sefer Yezirah draws the important conclusion that “good and evil” have no real existence, for since everything in nature can exist only by means of its contrast

I wonder what the writer thought he or she meant by “real existence”. “Existence” itself only has meaning in contrast with “non-existence”.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 1:07pm
Kimbo

@ Ryann Sproull

I wonder what the writer thought he or she meant by “real existence”. “Existence” itself only has meaning in contrast with “non-existence”.

But doesn’t the descriptor real qualify that?

Mental formulations and constructs exist, e.g., the American Constitution, but they are not necessarily “real” – even though they result in real expression, such as the American government. Mind you “government” is a construct too. But throwing people into prison, and taking their money via a thing called “tax” are very real!
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 1:21pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

…sorry, another typo. Meant to write (in 12:59)

“Which, as you can see, on its own, without an external test is circular…and therefore unreasonable…or at least on its own.”
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 1:33pm
UglyTruth

I wonder what the writer thought he or she meant by “real existence”. “Existence” itself only has meaning in contrast with “non-existence”.

Not only that, but the dimension of peace and evil is one of the dimensions of the hypercube described by the SY. Moral of the story is don’t trust Wikipedia for anything important.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 6:27pm
UglyTruth

Um, but that is an appeal to and “internal” test within James

No, all of the points are external to James. Here it is again:

Because the facts don’t leave any room for misunderstanding of who James meant by the vain man – Paul’s own words about his non-existent commission, his vanity, the warning against Pharisees, Paul’s history of lying, Paul’s antinomian doctrine, Paul’s attachment to Rome, etc.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 6:30pm
Kimbo

@ Ugbly Truth

No, all of the points are external to James. Here it is again:

But not external to the Scriptures you insist are built into a map, which you’ve arranged in a loop.

What are your external interpretive principles, method and “rules” that you abide by to test, irrespective of the texts in question

1. Have I rightly understood the meaning of this text?
2 Have I rightly identified immediately related texts?
3. Have I arranged them into the right “map”?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 7:49pm
UglyTruth

But not external to the Scriptures you insist are built into a map, which you’ve arranged in a loop.

I don’t insist the Scriptures are built into a map.
The map is not a loop.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 7:56pm
Kimbo

@ Ugbly Truth

For example, the Reformers believed in the authority of Scripture…but they spent a lot of time discussing the “external methods” by which it was to be interpreted..and why.

You don’t have to agree with their methods and conclusions, but at least they can demonstrate them.

So like them, and everyone who formally or informally studies and interprets the Bible, what are your external interpretive principles, method and “rules” that you abide and test yourself by?

Where is your check list to provide quality control? You keep focusing on the James 2:20-21 and the other texts you have mentioned. No, those are internal context (as far as you have discerned/decided it exists).

Yet so far you have provided nothing external…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 8:01pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

I don’t insist the Scriptures are built into a map.

The map is not a loop.

Umm, then what did you mean at September 9th, 2015 at 11:20 am?: –

“The primary safeguard is consistency – the map must be internally consistent and not arbitrary in the way that is filters relevant information”.

And what does “internal consistency mean if not…a loop? As per my post at September 9th, 2015:

How do your know that Paul is the vain man James is referring to?

Answer Other texts (to quote you) “don’t leave any room for misunderstanding”.

And how do you know those are the right texts by which to interpret James 2:20-21?

Because the other texts indicate Paul was a “vain man”

How do you know Paul was the vain man James 2:20-21 was referring to?…
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 8:07pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

I don’t insist the Scriptures are built into a map.

…and again at September 9th, 2015 at 9:45 am

” Now take it up the next step from the fundamental to the mechanical level. What do you do then?

You build a map of related concepts using ideas from the words themselves, as well as from the way that the words are applied in historical texts”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 9:42pm
Griff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L-2uYVleKI
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 9, 2015 9:53pm
UglyTruth

“The primary safeguard is consistency – the map must be internally consistent and not arbitrary in the way that is filters relevant information”.

And what does “internal consistency mean if not…a loop? As per my post at September 9th, 2015:

You’re conflating what the map is with that the safeguards are.

How do your know that Paul is the vain man James is referring to?

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/09/general_debate_5_september_2015.html#comment-1581925

Paul’s own words about his non-existent commission, his vanity, the warning against Pharisees, Paul’s history of lying, Paul’s antinomian doctrine, Paul’s attachment to Rome, etc.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 10, 2015 12:00pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

“The primary safeguard is consistency – the map must be internally consistent and not arbitrary in the way that is filters relevant information”.

And what does “internal consistency mean if not…a loop? As per my post at September 9th, 2015:

You’re conflating what the map is with that the safeguards are.

If I have, then I’d suggest it is because, despite repeated requests for you to lay out your interpretive system (instead of merely examples of you interpreting a series of texts), you have failed to do so. The one or two sentence answers you have given indicates

1. You haven’t really thought about it,

2. let alone examined it formally. Instead,

3. you judge on what seems “obvious”, “logical”, and “reasonable” to you – as all of us like to think our thoughts are…hence we instinctively consider what we say is self-evident truth…which probably accounts for the (to quote you) “black-and-white” non-negotiable nature of your rhetoric.

4. Therefore your lack of an external self-examination quality-control tool/method by which you determine the meaning of texts and how they “fit together/make sense of” other texts, is perfectly illustrated by the following:

Paul’s own words about his non-existent commission, his vanity, the warning against Pharisees, Paul’s history of lying, Paul’s antinomian doctrine, Paul’s attachment to Rome, etc.

Yet again you have constructed an “internal loop” out of a series of texts, and appealed to that as sufficient proof…just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses do. And like the Jehovah’s Witnesses in example after example (their particular choice of texts and interpretations are irrelevant for the purposes of our discussion)

…each of those texts you are alluding to have alternate interpretations…yet the force of your interpretive loop is forcing them to mean what you think/want them to mean. And when challenged to show your external method of interpreting that applies to all texts

..you run, yet again, despite repeated requests to the contrary, to the internal consistency of the way you have arranged them. Yet there may well be other ways of understanding them, and arranging them with other texts that make just as much, or even more sense…a possibility you deal with by refusing to even consider it a possibility. Well, yes, that is one way to deal with a problem!

So yet again you have demonstrated the following as the proof:

How do I know the individual texts all show Paul was the vain man?

Answer: Because the combination of texts show it.

How do I know the combination of texts show Paul was the vain man?

Answer: Because the individual texts all show it…

Circular reasoning and therefore, on its one and in the absence of a quantifiable/testable external test…illogical.

2.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 10, 2015 1:40pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

the map must…not (be) arbitrary in the way that is filters relevant information”..

Yet what are your external tests to ensure that? Let alone tests if you have even determined what is “relevant information”, and what is not, or at least may not be…and how to find it?!

Here is one, and I’ve suggested it on a number of occasions:

No matter how certain or sure you are, all understandings and conclusions should be held in some sense as provisional.

Yet when that has been suggested to you – and let’s face it, who knows or really wants to face the pride-deflating prospect that we are being arbitrary..or at least could be – you have continued to insist alternate understandings to your conclusions are “impossible”, and there is a “black-and-white” to what the matter under discussion must and does mean.

And in doing so you close the door to a valuable tool that will alert you to when you yourself could be “arbitrary”.

Hence my surprise you are so quick to dismiss the reasoning and conclusions of those with a faith perspective…because you are even more dogmatic than many of those whom you dismiss.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 10, 2015 2:13pm
SPC

Ugly, there would have been a natural division between what Paul taught in his outreach to Gentiles and the expectation that Jews of the faith had for themselves. Given that this God faith would be without both Jewish covenant nation people tradition and obligation.

Jews like James would have been embarrassed by Paul because he made conversions of other Jews to the faith more difficult, as Jews were accustomed to seeing Gentiles converted to being Jews rather than seeing God faith separated from their covenant nation tradition. However this only made James unfit for leadership of the wider church, not the source of truth and veracity on religion.

Simon Peter was more able to appreciate the necessity of flexibility, personally accepting the burden of the son of God faith sign for the new faith – something that was always to be a barrier to widespread Jewish conversion (unless posed as the natural title for the Messiah as one in place of God as King of the covenant nation, thus acting in place of God like a son).

To call Paul’s writing antinomian is a lie.

In terms of moral law there is only the ten commandments – the so called central component of the God faith prior to the covenant nation law. And even here, the Sermon on the Mount re-teaching of these demonstrates the nature of the moral law that Paul taught.

As I have noted Paul himself remained a Sabbath day keeper, without requiring this of Gentile converts to Christianity. To call Paul’s followers Christians and suggest that those of James had another name is nonsense. Whether Messianic Jews or Christian Greeks, they shared faith that Jesus was Messiah son of God. Greeks thought of the Jews of the faith as fellow Christians and the Jews thought the Gentile converts had joined to God faith by belief in the word of the gospel of the royal rabbi/Messiah.

There certainly came to be a difference over what son of God meant, to Jews who still kept the Sabbath day – the anointed of their God not changing a word of the ten commandments. As for the Greeks, saved from separation from God by belief in the Messiah and his gospel to them via the apostles, rest from their ungodliness was supposed be seven days a week – if they were to be followers with a faith of being risen into the kingdom of God.

Paul’s decision to have the church gather on the first day of the week was not a sign of antinomianism but a determination to separate Jewish identity sign from Christianity (sign belief that Jesus was son of God). This left a division in the church between those who gathered on the sabbath day (Jewish centred congregations) and the others. It would have been predicted after the Gentile Christians organised the religion under their leadership they would expect “their” Jewish converts to give up Sabbath day keeping. Thus the writing of Revelation Chapter 7 to leave a form of record of those who had earlier formed the religion but who no longer led the faith on earth.

Titans then Olympians, Jews of Israel then Greek Christians – coming into faith of a kingdom of God inheritance.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 10, 2015 8:52pm
UglyTruth

Jews like James would have been embarrassed by Paul because he made conversions of other Jews to the faith more difficult, as Jews were accustomed to seeing Gentiles converted to being Jews rather than seeing God faith separated from their covenant nation tradition.

I dunno, they way that Paul was almost lynched and then stoned left for doesn’t sound like a response to embarrassment.

To call Paul’s writing antinomian is a lie.

No, really, it is.

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mar 12:29-31

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal 5:14
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 11, 2015 4:42pm
UglyTruth

“You’re conflating what the map is with that the safeguards are.”

If I have, then I’d suggest it is because, despite repeated requests for you to lay out your interpretive system (instead of merely examples of you interpreting a series of texts), you have failed to do so.

LOL – so you are saying that your misrepresentation of what I wrote was due to me not writing enough?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 11, 2015 4:45pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

LOL – so you are saying that your misrepresentation of what I wrote was due to me not writing enough?

No.

Your lack of clear thought regarding your epistemology, including any external tests on your interpretations is

…,not surprisingly, manifesting itself in a lack of clarity of expression when you are pressed to discuss the matter,

…resulting in a failure of others to adequately summarise and engage with your thoughts to your satisfaction.

Put it this way – in academia it is usually the sign of a muddled and ultimately illogical thinker who continually objects, ““I’ve been misunderstood and/or misinterpreted”, when others critique his or her thoughts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 11, 2015 5:28pm
SPC

Ugly, are you saying that Jesus was antinomian?

If so, why do you call Paul a false apostle when he was being true to what Jesus said?

Or do you say Paul was a false apostle for believing what Jesus taught, and that the dispute of James with Paul was due to James holding to Jewish tradition despite what Jesus taught?

So you have been a little shy all this time to say what you really think, you believe Jesus was a false Messiah.

Not even Moslems do that, though they deny him the son of God status that Gentile Christians gave him, eventually even God from God in the Trinity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 11, 2015 5:53pm
SPC

Ugly, it was not Jews who followed Jesus who tried to stone people – not even Paul.

The Jamesian faction was content to note their adherence to the works of faith, possibly conflating the tradition of the law as a work of faith (not so when one was judged for not keeping the law, a work of faith is not a legal obligation, though it could be a condition of religious group membership). And raise a point of difference to others of faith – but to be relevant to discussion and educative purpose required the others to be of the same faith.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 11, 2015 6:03pm
UglyTruth

Your lack of clear thought regarding your epistemology, including any external tests on your interpretations is

…,not surprisingly, manifesting itself in a lack of clarity of expression when you are pressed to discuss the matter,

…resulting in a failure of others to adequately summarise and engage with your thoughts to your satisfaction.

LOL. The atheists are probably stupid enough to believe that, I’m not sure who else you would convince.

Let’s recap. You said that my my map was a loop based on what I said a safeguard was, not what I said the map was.

K: “Show me your map-building process, irrespective of the texts, that safeguards your “maps” from mere coincidence and/or your arbitrary choices.”

UT: “The primary safeguard is consistency – the map must be internally consistent and not arbitrary in the way that is filters relevant information.”

…

K: But not external to the Scriptures you insist are built into a map, which you’ve arranged in a loop.

U: I don’t insist the Scriptures are built into a map. The map is not a loop.

K: Umm, then what did you mean at September 9th, 2015 at 11:20 am?: –

K : “The primary safeguard is consistency – the map must be internally consistent and not arbitrary in the way that is filters relevant information”.

K:And what does “internal consistency mean if not…a loop? As per my post at September 9th, 2015:

UT: You’re conflating what the map is with that the safeguards are.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 12, 2015 8:23pm
UglyTruth

Ugly, are you saying that Jesus was antinomian?

No, of course not.

If so, why do you call Paul a false apostle when he was being true to what Jesus said?

Paul wasn’t. He was teaching a secular version of the law.

Let’s recap:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/09/general_debate_5_september_2015.html/comment-page-1#comment-1583150

The summary of the law from Matthew 12 begins with the shema, and moves to a description of worship of deity. It then considers speaks of love of one’s neighbour..

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mar 12:29-31

In contrast there is no mention of deity if Paul’s secular summary of the law.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal 5:14
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 12, 2015 8:32pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

…Let’s recap. You said that my my map was a loop based on what I said a safeguard was, not what I said the map was.

No, how about you don’t “recap”.

Instead, if you insist you have been misinterpreted/misunderstood, how about you take this opportunity to answer the question I’ve asked repeatedly, and in doing so explain the external tests you use on your map/safeguard/whatever terminology you want to use and however you want to arrange it.

So far you seem to have rejected two external tests

1. You consider alternate interpretations of James 2: 20-21 impossible, thereby rejecting the external safeguard of keeping all conclusions in some sense provisional.

2. You also reject the application of peer review to your conclusions…yet there is an entire body of work from scholarship (by people of faith and those who are not) who are subject to the external test of peer review with whose work, due to your decision in 1. above, you refuse to meaningfully engage.

So how about you stop wasting time on the secondary (or is it even tertiary?!) issue of trying to replay how we got to this situation of supposed confusion and who was responsible…by ending the confusion once and for all?

Yet again:

What are the external tests you place on your understandings and interpretations once you have arranged them in a way that seems reasonable, so that you avoid nothing more than a proof that is (to quote you) “internally consistent” like the following piece of circular reasoning?:

How do I know the individual texts all show Paul was the vain man?

Answer: Because the combination of texts show it.

How do I know the combination of texts show Paul was the vain man?

Answer: Because the individual texts all show it…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 13, 2015 12:21pm
UglyTruth

Instead, if you insist you have been misinterpreted/misunderstood, how about you take this opportunity to answer the question I’ve asked repeatedly, and in doing so explain the external tests you use on your map/safeguard/whatever terminology you want to use and however you want to arrange it.

What guarantee do I have that you won’t continue to misinterpret what I write?

So far you seem to have rejected two external tests

In what way do you think that these tests are meaningful?

“all conclusions are provisional” isn’t even a test, it’s just a way of saying that you’re not sure.

You also reject the application of peer review to your conclusions

Can you name a single one of these so-called peers that have addressed the issue of Paul’s contradictory accounts of his commission as an apostle?

So how about you stop wasting time on the secondary (or is it even tertiary?!) issue of trying to replay how we got to this situation of supposed confusion and who was responsible…by ending the confusion once and for all?

What’s the point when you take the Bible as a source of authority? All you get is defence of the usual interpretation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2015 6:12pm
Kimbo

@ Ugly Truth

Blockquote>What guarantee do I have that you won’t continue to misinterpret what I write?

he he he. I’ll leave aside the “have you stopped beating your wife?” nature of your question and observe

1. Very little in life is “guaranteed”. However
2. As this is now the 10th (!) day you’ve continued to interact with my statements, I kinda figure you must give me some credit in that regard…or else you’ve wasted your time engaging with someone you are now trying to dismiss as essentially dishonest. Your call…

So far you seem to have rejected two external tests

In what way do you think that these tests are meaningful?

I suggest you are willfully slow of comprehending.

Test 1, keeping all conclusions no matter how sure we are of their certainty, as in some sense provisional means we are actually open to the possibility we could be wrong…and may actually change our minds. Most would consider it a common courtesy, let alone an epistemological necessity in a debating format such as this.

Test 2, Being wiling to submit our research and conclusions to peer review and give weight and some measure of respect to that which is, may actually help to guard us against pride…and the likelihood that the united labours of others will almost certainly produce more of value than someone working on their own. Chances are, whomever comes up with an offbeat or unorthodox theory has simply stumbled upon something others have considered before…and discarded for good reasons.

Can you name a single one of these so-called peers that have addressed the issue of Paul’s contradictory accounts of his commission as an apostle?

Nope. Not yet. Everything in order. Let’s see your external tests before we start engaging in the forest of specifics. In other words, what are the agreed “rules” for debate before we actually engage in the “game”.

What’s the point when you take the Bible as a source of authority? All you get is defence of the usual interpretation.

Nope. In the first instance I treat the Bible as data, to be treated like any other literature…so let’s see your external tests for scrutinising data
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2015 6:37pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

“all conclusions are provisional” isn’t even a test, it’s just a way of saying that you’re not sure.

Nope. It is more nuanced than that, and with very good reason.

I think I’m sure, I’m 100% positive I’m sure…yet I keep open the door of possibility that my understanding may be wrong – a healthy position given we are all human and subject to fallibility. And it has a philosophical grounding in the skepticism of Descartes and David Hume.

If not, then there is no basis for real dialogue and exchange of ideas, just propaganada and attempts to persuade, but not listen, and truly consider alternatives…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2015 8:33pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

…which maybe indicates you’re not the only one around here who thinks they are being misinterpreted. 😉

At least in my case I’m prepared to suggest there is another factor other than carelessness when it happens. When one it utterly insistent that that other understandings of truth are “impossible”, then it quickly becomes very easy to subconsciously treat the opinions and reasoning process with disdain, or fail to properly consider what they are really saying and meaning, and the “so what?”.

Why bother, when you are so utterly sure of the answers?

Hence holding all conclusions as in some sense provisional is a good external test that helps engender some degree of self-awareness and self-accountability.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2015 8:53pm
UglyTruth

When one it utterly insistent that that other understandings of truth are “impossible”, then it quickly becomes very easy to subconsciously treat the opinions and reasoning process with disdain, or fail to properly consider what they are really saying and meaning, and the “so what?”.

The point is that there is no reasonable explanation for Paul’s contradictory accounts other than that he was a liar and a false apostle.
The other arguments about the rejection by those in Asia only reinforces this further.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2015 8:38pm
stephieboy

Ugly Truth , did you do a dissertation on the Theological apostasy of the apostle Paul ?

Does it trouble you that he had dual citizenship – Jewish and Roman ? Especially the former .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2015 8:49pm
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

The point is that…

…you continue to persist in trying to turn discussion back to an internal test of a specific set of texts you insist can only be understood on their own and collectively in one way way…and in doing so continually ignore discussion and examination of any external tests you place on yourself…and when you are repeatedly called out on the matter, you merely ramp up the intensity, just as any propagandist does – irrespective of the issue.

I said earlier that I suspected it was because you have never “journeyed out of yourself”, looked back, and inspected your own epistemology – let alone even considered what epistemology is, much less applied it to yourself and your thought process. I’m pretty much getting to the stage where I’m prepared to move that off the “suspected” to “damn near certain” shelf.

But as in all things, UT, I’m prepared to at least keep an open mind about that, and hold my conclusion as in some sense provisional. 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 17, 2015 12:23am
Kimbo

@ UglyTruth

Tell you what, UT, let’s try and break the Mexican stand-off.

How about you answer my previous question – what is your cosmology? And a follow up question – how do you “know” it is like you think/know it is?

Come back to me for an explanation and/or definition of the terms if you want – although you strike me as a bright guy, if prone to rather willful and ‘unorthodox’ study methods, so I’m guessing you can figure it out if you don’t immediately know…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 17, 2015 12:30am

More comments:

‹
1
2
3
4

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Dame Margaret Bazley

Trapped in Nauru »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Centrist: NZ media downturn accelerates
Breaking Views
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
Bob Ekelund Remembered
Utopia
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
This Weeks Email To Prime Minister Luxon.
No Minister
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d