tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post2205821982785887289..comments2024-03-28T03:25:49.943-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Are the Ancient Manuscripts of Acts Reliable?Ken Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-17991614036047389742013-08-12T17:33:15.260-04:002013-08-12T17:33:15.260-04:00Ken, the table fellowship comment in regard to Act...Ken, the table fellowship comment in regard to Acts 15 tripped a circuit and lit a light. The whole strangled meat thing makes a bunch more sense in the light of fullfilled Jews and converted pagans eating together as Acts 2 describes. Thanks.Edward Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15874285781265861968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-13045709734063447602013-08-12T07:08:10.273-04:002013-08-12T07:08:10.273-04:00That sounds beautifully poetic, Susan! We do have...That sounds beautifully poetic, Susan! We do have Greek and Hebrew for ministry in alternating summers, but you might be able to take Greek and Hebrew online somewhere. I would start by looking at Asbury once you graduate from undergrad. There might be somewhere that offers them online for undergraduate too... Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-10844203490296268192013-08-12T07:04:28.482-04:002013-08-12T07:04:28.482-04:00"Like the incarnation, you can't communic..."Like the incarnation, you can't communicate with someone unless you first meet them within their own paradigm and categories. Only then can you move them in some other direction". The Common Language is where God meets us and we meet Him in paradigm and categories common to both of us. In His scriptures He takes what He has made that we can see -tree, water, seed, life...- and teaches us about the spiritual realm, which is the realm that we cannot see. He does that by taking the words of the things that He has made and then embellishing them later in scripture with new, spiritual meanings. The light from day one becomes the glory of the Lord, the light of the sun becomes the eternally illuminating revelation of the The Word, etc... But before we can understand the abstract meanings, we first must understand the elements of creation in their physical identity and meaning. Only after we understand and relate to those initial concrete meanings can we best 'grow in Christ'. We can grow in Christ because the Spirit of The Word is in us. So we 'mysteriously' grow as we gain more heart-knowledge of this linguistic meta-language that forms itself, expresses itself, reflects back on itself, describes itself and grows itself. Therefore, in like manner, we also grow.<br />The Common Language both describes for us and defines for us all we are able to now understand about the God who calls Himself, "I AM."<br />What school can I go to that will support my learning, and me mapping out this linguistic meta-language for others to refer to? I need to learn more Hebrew, and Greek. It has to first be mapped out in the original languages.<br />Thanks,<br />Susan Susan Moorehttp://thecommonlanguage.com/wordpress2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-52415402966221314122013-08-12T05:22:14.748-04:002013-08-12T05:22:14.748-04:00Ok. So it seems, then, that your comments mostly a...Ok. So it seems, then, that your comments mostly address the communication between believers and non-believers and the need to find a 'middle language' if one does not become handy with the other's language.<br />I say that because it also seems that when the communication is between two believers, then it is the responsibility of the believer with greater spiritual maturity to meet the other person at their level of understanding and grow them from there (as The Word grows us from concrete to abstract; physical to spiritual). In this case, no new 'middle language' is needed, and no one needs to learn the other's language, because the language is in common to them both. It seems that successful discipling occurs in the realm of living out a progressive understanding of Biblical semantics.<br />Susan Susan Moorehttp://thecommonlanguage.com/wordpress2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-75778628886406986332013-08-11T21:45:48.098-04:002013-08-11T21:45:48.098-04:00What I was thinking, Susan, is that sometimes a pe...What I was thinking, Susan, is that sometimes a person feels ripped from a particular religious language game by some sudden crisis (e.g., a tragedy) that, at least from their perspective, undermines the whole system violently. By force, I meant that an external power can thrust its language and categories on a religious person to where they must use the language of the external force or face dire consequences.<br /><br />This is just thinking off the top of my head, not real sociology :-)Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-19306595122908639292013-08-11T21:41:00.560-04:002013-08-11T21:41:00.560-04:00What do you mean by 'force and faith trauma...What do you mean by 'force and faith trauma'?<br />SusanSusan Moorehttp://thecommonlanguage.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-65548729396742285892013-08-11T20:52:27.765-04:002013-08-11T20:52:27.765-04:00Religious language is usually not the same kind of...Religious language is usually not the same kind of language game as science. Wittgenstein, with whom I do not entirely agree on this issue, even went so far to suggest that religious language about God is non-referential, that it has nothing to do with whether or not there is actually a divine Being. I don't agree with him totally but agree that to address religious issues with data or even "common sense" is to talk right past people "of the Book." It's not to speak their language. It is a different kind of ignorance because it can't understand why the religious person can't understand what seems obvious given evidentiary assumptions.<br /><br />Like the incarnation, you can't communicate with someone unless you first meet them somewhat within their own paradigm and categories. Only then can you move them in some other direction. The only other options I can think of are force and faith trauma.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-34167613638055454302013-08-11T20:16:31.897-04:002013-08-11T20:16:31.897-04:00http://www.gallup.com/poll/1582/alcohol-drinking.a...http://www.gallup.com/poll/1582/alcohol-drinking.aspxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-6998931806103164772013-08-11T19:48:29.636-04:002013-08-11T19:48:29.636-04:00Helpful is perhaps a different category than what ...Helpful is perhaps a different category than what I'm talking about. :-) The Bible is the playing field on which American denominations set their legal boundaries on who is in and who is out, what they can and cannot do. You might be surprised to know how many American Christians think that wine in the Bible was unfermented and use prohibitions about drunkenness to argue that Christians must be teetotal...Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-51707620289729250722013-08-11T19:06:31.332-04:002013-08-11T19:06:31.332-04:00I guess I'm saying there's no there there ...I guess I'm saying there's no there there in two locales--scriptures pertinent to alcoholism, divorce, homosexuality as we confront them in America today, and in what Christians have to say on these matters in a a scripture-based way. My contention is that you can't cite scripture that's helpful to the troubled alcoholic, couple, gay. In the last case, all you can cite only adds to his troubles. So also the couple, who find (in Jesus) only a blanket barebones prohibition. As to alcohol, --is there anything at all to be found? or is it like abortion, hardly a word? To interpret, you first need a text. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-85044355551254070902013-08-11T17:51:19.065-04:002013-08-11T17:51:19.065-04:00Let's assume you are right, Anon, that there&#...Let's assume you are right, Anon, that there's no there there. Then in such cases, would it not be valuable to have experts with the hermeneutical insight to show this to the majority who thinks there is?Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-57642317130176821372013-08-11T17:47:56.796-04:002013-08-11T17:47:56.796-04:00I'm writing nothing off. I'm admitting I d...I'm writing nothing off. I'm admitting I don't see that there's anything to be written off. There's no there there. Cite me something from the Methodist annual meeting or the like that's really based on scripture and really morally defensible. A tax on alcohol--good idea? Requiring couples who get on decently with each other and have children to (a) have to hear from a representative of the children's interests and (b) delay their split--good idea? Gay marriage--good idea? What in the world does the Bible have to say about these questions that's of any use whatever? At least in comparison to sources like the ones I mentioned? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-91917757296834767992013-08-11T17:39:47.896-04:002013-08-11T17:39:47.896-04:00When it comes to divorce, how do those who say the...When it comes to divorce, how do those who say they rely on and believe in what the Bible says--what do they do or say that's sets them apart from anybody else? If they say anything distinctive, how is it informed by scripture (where Jesus, looking past later softening of the message, flatout prohibited divorce--sans rationale, sans discussion of Galilean circumstances). <br />When it comes to alcohol and its ills, what's said?<br />When it comes to homosexuality, what's said that's anything but a present-day source of grief and misery? (Said, that is, on the particular topic of homosexual practices--granted, Jesus’s last-shall-be-first message, and his embrace of the rejected, can be brought to bear as well.) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-40679968483264787652013-08-11T16:22:17.045-04:002013-08-11T16:22:17.045-04:00Do you see The Common Language of God fitting into...Do you see The Common Language of God fitting into any of those last couple of paragraphs you wrote? It's a linguistic meta-language that acts like an exoskeleton of a bug: It protects the contents, and gives textual definition to the form of the being so that the being can be more easily seen and identified.<br />Susan Susan Moorehttp://thecommonlanguage.com/wordpress2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-31331395800562787512013-08-11T15:33:02.221-04:002013-08-11T15:33:02.221-04:00I certainly understand where you're coming fro...I certainly understand where you're coming from Anon, but I don't think you understand the nature of faith communities "of the Book." You sound like you are in a context where you can write off how the majority of American Christians think on issues such as these. I suspect you have the constitutional frameworks of Western nations on your side as well as the trajectory of history.<br /><br />But no one will be able to engage the majority of Christian faith communities in America without engaging the question of Scripture. It is a fundamental reality that cannot be dismissed for anyone who wishes to engage them. This would be another kind of ridiculous.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-47150715354380984182013-08-11T14:56:54.775-04:002013-08-11T14:56:54.775-04:00I hope not to be too readily dismissive, but I mus...I hope not to be too readily dismissive, but I must say I’m genuinely puzzled as to how it might be that exegetes of the Bible, let alone textual critics, could assist in addressing the problems surrounding divorce, alcoholism, and homosexuality. What difference does it make exactly what the Bible says about these problems? How does anything it says begin to match the utility of what Amato or Wallerstein, Philip Cook, or Corvino or Sullivan have to say? Or what might be gleaned from historians of marital and sexual practices and drug usage? Or philosophers by trade who’ve illuminatingly addressed these topics?) If a couple in distress presented themselves, or a struggling alcoholic, or a trouble homosexual--and I sought to address their concerns, it seems to me the sources I’ve cited and others like them would be immensely more pertinent, instructive, and elucidative than any occasional unsupported and unexplained Biblical admonition or command that’s directly on point. I can see that one might find in the capacious pages of scripture some larger framework within which these matters could be approached--say, for instance, Jesus’s acceptance and embrace of the despised and rejected. But such frameworks are not superior to those devised by Aristotle or Kant or Mill, nor are they informed by the particulars discovered by Amato and the like. <br /><br />It seems to me that the squad of exegetes and theologians you’d form up would arrive at the fire with nothing in hand that might douse the flames but an empty hose. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-73240340847319344542013-08-11T12:53:14.372-04:002013-08-11T12:53:14.372-04:00Yes, my point is much more limited, that on the wh...Yes, my point is much more limited, that on the whole, the Byzantine team is mostly rooting for the Alexandrian team in their match up against the Western text of Acts. The subtext is this--KJV types often break out into hives at the mention of the Alexandrian textual tradition. But on this one, KJV fans in the audience should be rooting me on...Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-58368004787730101592013-08-11T12:34:59.830-04:002013-08-11T12:34:59.830-04:00AIUI, if we're playing the text types game, th...AIUI, if we're playing the text types game, the KJV is "Byzantine" (or more helpfully, a mixed type). So like the Western text, it has extra instances of concatenating "Lord Jesus Christ", but there are occasional omissions (e.g. "agitating" at 17.13).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com