The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Get a Life
 
Question of the Week
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37949

DoubleDuce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
pushharder wrote:

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



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

Thanks.


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


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

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


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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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


That's exactly what I meant.

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



You mean, like Jesus and the New testament?


Sorry, but if that's what you think Jesus and the NT did you don't know Jesus and the NT.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37949

DoubleDuce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
pushharder wrote:

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



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

Thanks.


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


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

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


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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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


That's exactly what I meant.

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



You mean, like Jesus and the New testament?



Jesus never said or implied, "I don't care what the SoS or Genesis or 2 Kings or Job or Malachi meant when they were written because they mean something now."

Wow.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37949

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


Irony extraordinaire.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Derek542
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 12720

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

Exactly

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Derek542
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 12720

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


Irony extraordinaire.

Just for you push

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

usmccds423
Level 5

Join date: Jan 2008
Posts: 9526

Derek542 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
csulli wrote:
Start a porn thread on TNation. In two weeks time it turns into theology class.


Irony extraordinaire.

Just for you push


:)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37949

Derek542 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
csulli wrote:
Start a porn thread on TNation. In two weeks time it turns into theology class.


Irony extraordinaire.

Just for you push


Ha! I literally just looked at that gif (over and over and over) again last night for the first time in 8 - 12 months.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37949

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

Sheesh.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SkyzykS
Level 2

Join date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9208

pushharder wrote:

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



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

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

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Derek542
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 12720

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

Sheesh.

I just need my woman doing this every day.

:)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

csulli
Level 1

Join date: May 2012
Posts: 7375

Derek542 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Derek, can you imagine having 1,000 women in your harem who are all doing some variation of that just for you on a regular basis?

Sheesh.

I just need my woman doing this every day.

:)

Does your wife read the TNation forums or does she just take your word for it when you tell her you earned a bunch of brownie points today?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Derek542
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 12720

csulli wrote:
Derek542 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Derek, can you imagine having 1,000 women in your harem who are all doing some variation of that just for you on a regular basis?

Sheesh.

I just need my woman doing this every day.

:)

Does your wife read the TNation forums or does she just take your word for it when you tell her you earned a bunch of brownie points today?

She has an account Jlo, she used to post some when she had time. I married up, some of the guys on here know her through G+ and actually Edgy has met her. Old horny bastard would run off with her if he could.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37949

SkyzykS wrote:
pushharder wrote:

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



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

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



It is the "Book of Books" and you are exactly correct.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DoubleDuce
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12623

pushharder wrote:

Jesus never said or implied, "I don't care what the SoS or Genesis or 2 Kings or Job or Malachi meant when they were written because they mean something now."

Wow.


And I never implied not caring about them. But you do have it backwards. The new testament is the revision. It is the completion and fulfillment of the old. The new should change the way we know and understand the old, otherwise, what was the point?

Much of what Jesus discussed was essentially commentary on the old testament and it's teachings. It is the old that cannot be understood completely without the new.

It is the reliance on the old testament and it's culture that informed the Jewish people of Jesus' day. Exactly the corrupted teachings and practices that he came to correct.

Viewing Jesus' teachings and the new testament through the culture, tradition, and basis of the old testament is exactly what the pharisees and sadducees did. They were also much better at it, more informed, and more studied than you, and they still got it wrong.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37949

DoubleDuce wrote:
pushharder wrote:

Jesus never said or implied, "I don't care what the SoS or Genesis or 2 Kings or Job or Malachi meant when they were written because they mean something now."

Wow.


And I never implied not caring about them. But you do have it backwards. The new testament is the revision.



You can't have it backwards by understanding the latter in light of the former. It's not that way with any book, generally speaking.



The new testament is the revision. It is the completion and fulfillment of the old. The new should change the way we know and understand the old, otherwise, what was the point?



Completion and fulfillment, yes. Revision? No.



Much of what Jesus discussed was essentially commentary on the old testament and it's teachings. It is the old that cannot be understood completely without the new.



Works both ways. It is one book.



It is the reliance on the old testament and it's culture that informed the Jewish people of Jesus' day.



Yes.



Exactly the corrupted teachings and practices that he came to correct.



We're not talking about those.



Viewing Jesus' teachings and the new testament through the culture, tradition, and basis of the old testament is exactly what the pharisees and sadducees did. They were also much better at it, more informed, and more studied than you, and they still got it wrong.


They did it selectively and legalistically and with pomposity, arrogance and hubris. They didn't care so much about the true message as they did with all the details, some of them manufactured out of thin air. Much of the same occurs today and has for the past 2,000 years. You just made my point.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report