Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Constantinopolis]

The last few years have been a bit of a journey for me. I was born and confirmed in the Latin Catholic tradition. After that I spent a good 5-6 years attending an Eastern Catholic church.

However, the last year and a half or so I have been attending an unprogrammed Quaker meeting.

I have to admit - reluctantly - that the Latinist masses and later Melkite divine liturgies began to feel like... going through the motions. I felt religious but, on further reflection, felt no real connection to the divine within the Divine Liturgy.

Since I started attending meetings of the Society of Friends I have felt a greater connection to God than I ever have before. I think I have finally found the religious tradition that truly speaks to my soul.

Hmm. That's... unfortunate.

I know, at an intellectual level, that many people select their Church based on the emotional connection they feel with that Church's worship services. And I certainly understand the importance of feeling such a connection. But I can't really understand making it the deciding factor in choosing a Church.

Surely one ought to choose a Church based on careful study of its teachings and history, so as to evaluate whether this is the True Church or not. I can't imagine why one might choose based on an emotional connection, though it is of course always preferable to have such a connection if possible.

[New Serrland]

The last few years have been a bit of a journey for me. I was born and confirmed in the Latin Catholic tradition. After that I spent a good 5-6 years attending an Eastern Catholic church.

However, the last year and a half or so I have been attending an unprogrammed Quaker meeting.

I have to admit - reluctantly - that the Latinist masses and later Melkite divine liturgies began to feel like... going through the motions. I felt religious but, on further reflection, felt no real connection to the divine within the Divine Liturgy.

Since I started attending meetings of the Society of Friends I have felt a greater connection to God than I ever have before. I think I have finally found the religious tradition that truly speaks to my soul.

Hmm. That's... unfortunate.

I know, at an intellectual level, that many people select their Church based on the emotional connection they feel with that Church's worship services. And I certainly understand the importance of feeling such a connection. But I can't really understand making it the deciding factor in choosing a Church.

Surely one ought to choose a Church based on careful study of it teachings and history, so as to evaluate whether this is the True Church or not. I can't imagine why one might choose based on an emotional connection, though it is of course always preferable to have such a connection if possible.

I'm familiar with that discussion. That would have been the same discussion I'd have taken part in a few years ago.

On a... hmm... philosophical? Level I would agree with that. I understand the "legitimacy" of the Byzantine tradition. On an Academic level it is indisputable.

The fact of the matter - in my own experience and in my own life - is that I failed to feel a connection to God. I told myself I did. I told myself I felt the presence of the Light of the Lord within me. It was, in my own personal faith experience... just trying to convince myself.

I won't dispute the ecclesiastical or chronological legitimacy of the Eastern Churches.

However - I simply did not feel the presence of God in divine liturgies. I respect those who did. I was... envious of those that did.

I think, at last, I finally feel the presence of God in my life in a direct and personal way. I am content with that. When presented with the choice between feeling an (academic? not entirely sure of the proper word to use) connection to God versus a spiritual and complete connection with God I will choose the latter.

Again - I speak only to my own experience. I have nothing but respect for those who find the presence of God in their own faith traditions.

[Reverend Norv]

The last few years have been a bit of a journey for me. I was born and confirmed in the Latin Catholic tradition. After that I spent a good 5-6 years attending an Eastern Catholic church.

However, the last year and a half or so I have been attending an unprogrammed Quaker meeting.

I have to admit - reluctantly - that the Latinist masses and later Melkite divine liturgies began to feel like... going through the motions. I felt religious but, on further reflection, felt no real connection to the divine within the Divine Liturgy.

Since I started attending meetings of the Society of Friends I have felt a greater connection to God than I ever have before. I think I have finally found the religious tradition that truly speaks to my soul.

That is truly a blessing. If you feel the presence of the Spirit, then your feet are upon the path that God has laid before you. That's the most important thing there is.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not necessarily. Early Hebrews were polytheistic. They believed in many gods, though they swore allegiance to YHWH alone, on paper anyway. How we think they viewed the YHWH's position in that cosmological order is controversial even among individual faculty here at Yale. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that the text claim God was speaking to his angels, or some heavenly court of lesser gods, etc. What we do know however is that the Anti-Trinitarian argument some Jewish Scholars have made in recent years is that YHWH is using the "Royal We," an odd singular plural used by monarchs in feudal Europe. Ancient Hebrew had no such grammatical quirk.

We do know that God is speaking to somebody when he says "us" the question is who? It's possible He's referring to Asherah, who some have argued, could be YHWH's wife that was edited out by the Deuteronomist Reforms.

Could be Christ, could be his angels. It's a matter of interpretation as it stands.

I'm not interested in secular speculation, I only care about what saints have to say. Understanding Scripture comes from reading the works of the Holy and leading an ascetic and holy life; I'd give more credence to the interpretation of an iilliterate hermit in constant prayer, so long as he's in the Church, than I would to the foremost secular academic of Scripture

And that's what we call, willful ignorance coupled with confirmation bias. I said it before and I'll say it again if your response to everything you disagree with is "i don't care I don't believe that" then you really don't need to be in a debate thread such as this. You need to sit in a room by yourself and hear your opinions echoed back to you.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Genesis 18 does not overtly depict God as triune, it declares Abraham saw three men. However the interactions between God, Abraham, and Sarah come from only one of the Men.

Genesis 18:22 sets 22 So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord.

And Genesis 19 opens, "And the two angels came to Sodom."

The text itself presents the three men as the Lord and two of his Angels, not a Triune God, without a level of creative interpretation.

Proverbs 8 and 9 are examples of Biblical poetry. There's no indication in the text that gives the impression that Wisdom is meant to be taken as a literal person, and not just as a literary character.

The angels took until nightfall to get to Sodom?

I'm sticking with what the saints say Proverbs 8 and 9 mean.

Believe what ever you want, biblically your stance is unsupported. And any teaching that conflicts with scripture is heresy

Chapters are a later addition to scripture the original texts had no such breaks. Genesis 8 clearly states that 3 men appeared before Abraham, the Lord is referred to as being one of them. 2 men moves on to sodom while the Lord stays with Abraham. Chapter 9, which would not be disconnected from chapter 8 in the original text, clearly refers to the two angels as they arrived at Sodom.

The text is clear that the two men who appeared with God are not God, and trying to twist it as if this means God is triune is simply contrary to scripture and therefore heresy in point of fact.

[Constantinopolis]

Hmm. That's... unfortunate.

I know, at an intellectual level, that many people select their Church based on the emotional connection they feel with that Church's worship services. And I certainly understand the importance of feeling such a connection. But I can't really understand making it the deciding factor in choosing a Church.

Surely one ought to choose a Church based on careful study of it teachings and history, so as to evaluate whether this is the True Church or not. I can't imagine why one might choose based on an emotional connection, though it is of course always preferable to have such a connection if possible.

I'm familiar with that discussion. That would have been the same discussion I'd have taken part in a few years ago.

On a... hmm... philosophical? Level I would agree with that. I understand the "legitimacy" of the Byzantine tradition. On an Academic level it is indisputable.

The fact of the matter - in my own experience and in my own life - is that I failed to feel a connection to God. I told myself I did. I told myself I felt the presence of the Light of the Lord within me. It was, in my own personal faith experience... just trying to convince myself.

I won't dispute the ecclesiastical or chronological legitimacy of the Eastern Churches.

However - I simply did not feel the presence of God in divine liturgies. I respect those who did. I was... envious of those that did.

I think, at last, I finally feel the presence of God in my life in a direct and personal way. I am content with that. When presented with the choice between feeling an (academic? not entirely sure of the proper word to use) connection to God versus a spiritual and complete connection with God I will choose the latter.

Again - I speak only to my own experience. I have nothing but respect for those who find the presence of God in their own faith traditions.

Well, I can respect that, though I strongly believe you are making a mistake.

Still, may the Lord grant you to find everything that you seek.

[Venerable Bede]

The angels took until nightfall to get to Sodom?

I'm sticking with what the saints say Proverbs 8 and 9 mean.

Believe what ever you want, biblically your stance is unsupported. And any teaching that conflicts with scripture is heresy

Chapters are a later addition to scripture the original texts had no such breaks. Genesis 8 clearly states that 3 men appeared before Abraham, the Lord is referred to as being one of them. 2 men moves on to sodom while the Lord stays with Abraham. Chapter 9, which would not be disconnected from chapter 8 in the original text, clearly refers to the two angels as they arrived at Sodom.

The text is clear that the two men who appeared with God are not God, and trying to twist it as if this means God is triune is simply contrary to scripture and therefore heresy in point of fact.

First you suggest Genesis teaches polytheism, then you accuse ME of heresy for following the saints? Scripture is meant to be read in the Church's context, which is witnessed by what the Saints teach, not your personal reading or what secular teachers say.

[Constantinopolis]

For the record, I honestly have no idea what stance Tarsonis is actually arguing for, here.

Polytheism is correct, but also monotheism is correct, and Judaism is correct, and of course Christianity is correct, so it's heresy to deny the Holy Trinity, unless you're reading Genesis properly, in which case it's heresy to affirm the Holy Trinity...? Am I getting this right?

[Gim]

For the record, I honestly have no idea what stance Tarsonis is actually arguing for, here.

Polytheism is correct, but also monotheism is correct, and Judaism is correct, and of course Christianity is correct, so it's heresy to deny the Holy Trinity, unless you're reading Genesis properly, in which case it's heresy to affirm the Holy Trinity...? Am I getting this right?

Beats me on what he is trying to convey.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

For the record, I honestly have no idea what stance Tarsonis is actually arguing for, here.

Polytheism is correct, but also monotheism is correct, and Judaism is correct, and of course Christianity is correct, so it's heresy to deny the Holy Trinity, unless you're reading Genesis properly, in which case it's heresy to affirm the Holy Trinity...? Am I getting this right?

No. I'm not denying the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I'm countering arguments that Bede is attempting to pass off.


Bede claims that in Genesis 1 when God says "let us" that God had to be talking to Christ and the Spirit, and nobody else, and all other interpretations are post-Christian inventions of Jews. This is simply not true for the reasons I pointed out. The Hebrews who passed this story down, were politheistic. They remained so, in all reality until the late helenistic period, or arguably during thing the Deuteronomistic reforms under Josiah. Monotheism, that is the belief in one single God, came pretty late in the game, and the Jews never believed in a trinity. This isn't secular Scholarship, it's biblical fact. The condemnations of Israel come from the fact that they are constantly incorporating "foreign Gods" in their worship practices. In the passage of the Genesis 1, YHWH says "Let us" and all the evidence states that there are multiple ways that this passage has been understood, to a pantheon that was discarded late in Jewish development, to the heavenly host we see present in Job 1, to possibly a reference to his Triune self via Christian teaching. If he wants to say that the Jews, in all their iterations are mistaken, and didn't fully grasp the complexity of God until it was revealed to Christians, that's a legitimate argument. But if he wants to say that 'Let Us' was always understood as a reference to a Triune God, and the Jews changed it to counter Christian influence, well that's simply false.

Next he claims, that "Genesis 18 overtly depicts God as Triune."

This is again, simply false and is an extremely forced interpretation that ignores the biblical text itself. The text clearly states, that the three "men" Abram and Sarah witness, are El-Shaddai (God Almighty), and two angels. The Lord, stays with Abraham, while the two angels go on to Sodom, and meet with Lot. The Lord and Abraham haggle over the fate of Sodom and then the Lord too goes on his way, but he never personally goes to Sodom. And then in the most pitiful display of desperation, the most Bede could appeal to was that he thinks its odd the angels took until nightfall to get to Sodom.


There's something to be said for finding evidence to support the trinity in the scripture, but not when you have to create blatantly false assertions to get the text to say what you want to say. Again my argument was not a renunciation of the Holy Trinity, just of Bede's nonsensical assertion.

Now lastly, as for Proverbs 8 and 9, Bede and I have multiple times clashed over this issue. If Bede wants to assert that the Character Wisdom is Christ, that's his prerogative. But I'm not gonna let him declare it uncontestedly, when the scriptural evidence, undermines that assertion. These passages are biblical poetry. If he want's to say that the passages are reflective of Christ, like how Solomon's poem to the Bride is reflective of Christ's love of the Church, that's all well and good. That's pretty much the beauty of poetry. But to claim that the Character Wisdom is a real person as understood by the author, and the Isaelites is not true. Proverbs is wisdom literature, it's meant to convey wisdom, good knowledge to the reader. These poems personify wisdom as a literary character but they're not scripture that refers to an actual physical/spiritual conscious person/deity/Godman named Wisdom.

Again this isn't even what I would call "secular study." It's just simple literary analysis.


But to top off the source of my frustration:

Scripture is meant to be read in the Church's context, which is witnessed by what the Saints teach, not your personal reading or what secular teachers say.

I may come close to flaming here, but there's no other way to say it. Bede is an anti-intellectual. He rejects all contrary evidence as false, simply because its contrary evidence. He admittedly dismisses all scholarship, because it's scholarship. His beliefs are true, because he has true beliefs. He's right, because he's right. When any contrary evidence or argument shows up, he doesn't engage in an intellectual debate, he simply shuts down with tautologies and dogmatic statements. Worse he considers this willful ignorance, and anti-intellectualism as virtuous, and is so engrossed in this belief, that he not only professes demonstrably false non-doctrinal ideas (Like all current Jewish doctrine was developed to specifically oppose Christians), he then defends them with the same dogmatic certitude and style. He epitomizes the belief that "All non-orthodox teaching is wrong, and it's wrong because it's not orthodox." That's not a position conducive to debate, which is why I said he shouldn't be on a thread such as this, he should find an echochamber somewhere.

[Gim]

I will pray for the atheists denying the existence of God in the Eternal Damnation thread.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I will pray for the atheists denying the existence of God in the Eternal Damnation thread.

The whobie what now?

[Gim]

I will pray for the atheists denying the existence of God in the Eternal Damnation thread.

The whobie what now?

They are fiercely arguing that God doesn't exist at all.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The whobie what now?

They are fiercely arguing that God doesn't exist at all.

So? Let them.

[Pasong Tirad]

I will pray for the atheists denying the existence of God in the Eternal Damnation thread.

The what thread?

[Gim]

I will pray for the atheists denying the existence of God in the Eternal Damnation thread.

The what thread?

Eternal Damnation.

[Pasong Tirad]

The what thread?

Eternal Damnation.

It doesn't matter.

[Venerable Bede]

I will pray for the atheists denying the existence of God in the Eternal Damnation thread.

Good for you. Also remember to pray for ISIS and all those who persecute Christ, that they prosper in this life and be pardoned of all transgressions in the next life.

[Gim]

I will pray for the atheists denying the existence of God in the Eternal Damnation thread.

Good for you. Also remember to pray for ISIS and all those who persecute Christ, that they prosper in this life and be pardoned of all transgressions in the next life.

Thanks, God bless you, too, and I will pray for your prosperity as well.

[Venerable Bede]

For the record, I honestly have no idea what stance Tarsonis is actually arguing for, here.

Polytheism is correct, but also monotheism is correct, and Judaism is correct, and of course Christianity is correct, so it's heresy to deny the Holy Trinity, unless you're reading Genesis properly, in which case it's heresy to affirm the Holy Trinity...? Am I getting this right?

No. I'm not denying the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I'm countering arguments that Bede is attempting to pass off.


Bede claims that in Genesis 1 when God says "let us" that God had to be talking to Christ and the Spirit, and nobody else, and all other interpretations are post-Christian inventions of Jews. This is simply not true for the reasons I pointed out. The Hebrews who passed this story down, were politheistic. They remained so, in all reality until the late helenistic period, or arguably during thing the Deuteronomistic reforms under Josiah. Monotheism, that is the belief in one single God, came pretty late in the game, and the Jews never believed in a trinity. This isn't secular Scholarship, it's biblical fact. The condemnations of Israel come from the fact that they are constantly incorporating "foreign Gods" in their worship practices. In the passage of the Genesis 1, YHWH says "Let us" and all the evidence states that there are multiple ways that this passage has been understood, to a pantheon that was discarded late in Jewish development, to the heavenly host we see present in Job 1, to possibly a reference to his Triune self via Christian teaching. If he wants to say that the Jews, in all their iterations are mistaken, and didn't fully grasp the complexity of God until it was revealed to Christians, that's a legitimate argument. But if he wants to say that 'Let Us' was always understood as a reference to a Triune God, and the Jews changed it to counter Christian influence, well that's simply false.

Next he claims, that "Genesis 18 overtly depicts God as Triune."

This is again, simply false and is an extremely forced interpretation that ignores the biblical text itself. The text clearly states, that the three "men" Abram and Sarah witness, are El-Shaddai (God Almighty), and two angels. The Lord, stays with Abraham, while the two angels go on to Sodom, and meet with Lot. The Lord and Abraham haggle over the fate of Sodom and then the Lord too goes on his way, but he never personally goes to Sodom. And then in the most pitiful display of desperation, the most Bede could appeal to was that he thinks its odd the angels took until nightfall to get to Sodom.


There's something to be said for finding evidence to support the trinity in the scripture, but not when you have to create blatantly false assertions to get the text to say what you want to say. Again my argument was not a renunciation of the Holy Trinity, just of Bede's nonsensical assertion.

Now lastly, as for Proverbs 8 and 9, Bede and I have multiple times clashed over this issue. If Bede wants to assert that the Character Wisdom is Christ, that's his prerogative. But I'm not gonna let him declare it uncontestedly, when the scriptural evidence, undermines that assertion. These passages are biblical poetry. If he want's to say that the passages are reflective of Christ, like how Solomon's poem to the Bride is reflective of Christ's love of the Church, that's all well and good. That's pretty much the beauty of poetry. But to claim that the Character Wisdom is a real person as understood by the author, and the Isaelites is not true. Proverbs is wisdom literature, it's meant to convey wisdom, good knowledge to the reader. These poems personify wisdom as a literary character but they're not scripture that refers to an actual physical/spiritual conscious person/deity/Godman named Wisdom.

Again this isn't even what I would call "secular study." It's just simple literary analysis.


But to top off the source of my frustration:

Scripture is meant to be read in the Church's context, which is witnessed by what the Saints teach, not your personal reading or what secular teachers say.

I may come close to flaming here, but there's no other way to say it. Bede is an anti-intellectual. He rejects all contrary evidence as false, simply because its contrary evidence. He admittedly dismisses all scholarship, because it's scholarship. His beliefs are true, because he has true beliefs. He's right, because he's right. When any contrary evidence or argument shows up, he doesn't engage in an intellectual debate, he simply shuts down with tautologies and dogmatic statements. Worse he considers this willful ignorance, and anti-intellectualism as virtuous, and is so engrossed in this belief, that he not only professes demonstrably false non-doctrinal ideas (Like all current Jewish doctrine was developed to specifically oppose Christians), he then defends them with the same dogmatic certitude and style. He epitomizes the belief that "All non-orthodox teaching is wrong, and it's wrong because it's not orthodox." That's not a position conducive to debate, which is why I said he shouldn't be on a thread such as this, he should find an echochamber somewhere.

I say God's Wisdom is Christ because Paul and the Fathers do. They also say Communion is literally Flesh and Blood, not simply called that poetically; who are we to put ourselves above the fathers? Scripture is, before ANYTHING else, the Holy Spirit expressing himself; Scripture is understood, before ANYTHING else, through the Spirit; what else Scripture is and what tools we might use to read it, are nothing but prelast unless firmly within, and subordinated to, that context.

I am absolutely anti-intellectual where intellect is elevated above tradition in spiritual matters. Intellect and academia here must either function as the servant of tradition and dogma, or butt out. Matters of God are not understood like secular studies: the Pharisees were quite learned, but Peter couldn't even read...which would YOU go to if you wanted to understand Scripture?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No. I'm not denying the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I'm countering arguments that Bede is attempting to pass off.


Bede claims that in Genesis 1 when God says "let us" that God had to be talking to Christ and the Spirit, and nobody else, and all other interpretations are post-Christian inventions of Jews. This is simply not true for the reasons I pointed out. The Hebrews who passed this story down, were politheistic. They remained so, in all reality until the late helenistic period, or arguably during thing the Deuteronomistic reforms under Josiah. Monotheism, that is the belief in one single God, came pretty late in the game, and the Jews never believed in a trinity. This isn't secular Scholarship, it's biblical fact. The condemnations of Israel come from the fact that they are constantly incorporating "foreign Gods" in their worship practices. In the passage of the Genesis 1, YHWH says "Let us" and all the evidence states that there are multiple ways that this passage has been understood, to a pantheon that was discarded late in Jewish development, to the heavenly host we see present in Job 1, to possibly a reference to his Triune self via Christian teaching. If he wants to say that the Jews, in all their iterations are mistaken, and didn't fully grasp the complexity of God until it was revealed to Christians, that's a legitimate argument. But if he wants to say that 'Let Us' was always understood as a reference to a Triune God, and the Jews changed it to counter Christian influence, well that's simply false.

Next he claims, that "Genesis 18 overtly depicts God as Triune."

This is again, simply false and is an extremely forced interpretation that ignores the biblical text itself. The text clearly states, that the three "men" Abram and Sarah witness, are El-Shaddai (God Almighty), and two angels. The Lord, stays with Abraham, while the two angels go on to Sodom, and meet with Lot. The Lord and Abraham haggle over the fate of Sodom and then the Lord too goes on his way, but he never personally goes to Sodom. And then in the most pitiful display of desperation, the most Bede could appeal to was that he thinks its odd the angels took until nightfall to get to Sodom.


There's something to be said for finding evidence to support the trinity in the scripture, but not when you have to create blatantly false assertions to get the text to say what you want to say. Again my argument was not a renunciation of the Holy Trinity, just of Bede's nonsensical assertion.

Now lastly, as for Proverbs 8 and 9, Bede and I have multiple times clashed over this issue. If Bede wants to assert that the Character Wisdom is Christ, that's his prerogative. But I'm not gonna let him declare it uncontestedly, when the scriptural evidence, undermines that assertion. These passages are biblical poetry. If he want's to say that the passages are reflective of Christ, like how Solomon's poem to the Bride is reflective of Christ's love of the Church, that's all well and good. That's pretty much the beauty of poetry. But to claim that the Character Wisdom is a real person as understood by the author, and the Isaelites is not true. Proverbs is wisdom literature, it's meant to convey wisdom, good knowledge to the reader. These poems personify wisdom as a literary character but they're not scripture that refers to an actual physical/spiritual conscious person/deity/Godman named Wisdom.

Again this isn't even what I would call "secular study." It's just simple literary analysis.


But to top off the source of my frustration:



I may come close to flaming here, but there's no other way to say it. Bede is an anti-intellectual. He rejects all contrary evidence as false, simply because its contrary evidence. He admittedly dismisses all scholarship, because it's scholarship. His beliefs are true, because he has true beliefs. He's right, because he's right. When any contrary evidence or argument shows up, he doesn't engage in an intellectual debate, he simply shuts down with tautologies and dogmatic statements. Worse he considers this willful ignorance, and anti-intellectualism as virtuous, and is so engrossed in this belief, that he not only professes demonstrably false non-doctrinal ideas (Like all current Jewish doctrine was developed to specifically oppose Christians), he then defends them with the same dogmatic certitude and style. He epitomizes the belief that "All non-orthodox teaching is wrong, and it's wrong because it's not orthodox." That's not a position conducive to debate, which is why I said he shouldn't be on a thread such as this, he should find an echochamber somewhere.

I say God's Wisdom is Christ because Paul and the Fathers do.

1 corinthians 1:24 =/=(necessarily) mean the Character Wisdom in Proverbs in 8/9 is Christ. The same way that Ephesians 5:25 doesn't mean that the Bride in Song of Solomon 4, is the Church. Maybe I'm being too pedantic here, but I'm not denying the parallels that can be drawn. We can certainly draw parallels and colloquial literary comparisons between the two pieces. But what I'm saying is, the character in Proverbs 9 is presented as a literary character, not an actual person, and most likely not Christ considering Wisdom is female in that chapter. It's poetry. Have you ever read a poem? Wisdom in the proverbs 9 is like lady justice. She's not a real being, it's an allegorical character we use to represent the concept of justice. If anything Paul is employing an idiom when he calls Christ God's wisdom.

They also say Communion is literally Flesh and Blood, not simply called that poetically; who are we to put ourselves above the fathers?

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Scripture is, before ANYTHING else, the Holy Spirit expressing himself; Scripture is understood, before ANYTHING else, through the Spirit; what else Scripture is and what tools we might use to read it, are nothing but prelast unless firmly within, and subordinated to, that context.

And this ultimately devolves into Literal vs figurative debate. What is the Holy Spirit conveying Propositional or Mimetic Truth. Did Noah really build an Ark? Or is it just a fable that conveys a pretty important truth: The wicked shall perish but those who have faith will be saved? Neither of the those possibilities undermines the validity of Scripture or falls outside the parameters you speak of, but one is supported by science, the other, not so much.

I am absolutely anti-intellectual where intellect is elevated above tradition in spiritual matters. Intellect and academia here must either function as the servant of tradition and dogma, or butt out. Matters of God are not understood like secular studies: the Pharisees were quite learned, but Peter couldn't even read...which would YOU go to if you wanted to understand Scripture?

Kind of an ironic statement considering Peter got slapped down by Paul, a pharisee, at Antioch.

And you seem to have a poor remembrance of the Pharisee's true crime: Hypocrisy, not heresy. Remeber: do as they say not as they do?

[Venerable Bede]

I say God's Wisdom is Christ because Paul and the Fathers do.

1 corinthians 1:24 =/=(necessarily) mean the Character Wisdom in Proverbs in 8/9 is Christ. The same way that Ephesians 5:25 doesn't mean that the Bride in Song of Solomon 4, is the Church. Maybe I'm being too pedantic here, but I'm not denying the parallels that can be drawn. We can certainly draw parallels and colloquial literary comparisons between the two pieces. But what I'm saying is, the character in Proverbs 9 is presented as a literary character, not an actual person, and most likely not Christ considering Wisdom is female in that chapter. It's poetry. Have you ever read a poem? Wisdom in the proverbs 9 is like lady justice. She's not a real being, it's an allegorical character we use to represent the concept of justice. If anything Paul is employing an idiom when he calls Christ God's wisdom.

They also say Communion is literally Flesh and Blood, not simply called that poetically; who are we to put ourselves above the fathers?

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Scripture is, before ANYTHING else, the Holy Spirit expressing himself; Scripture is understood, before ANYTHING else, through the Spirit; what else Scripture is and what tools we might use to read it, are nothing but prelast unless firmly within, and subordinated to, that context.

And this ultimately devolves into Literal vs figurative debate. What is the Holy Spirit conveying Propositional or Mimetic Truth. Did Noah really build an Ark? Or is it just a fable that conveys a pretty important truth: The wicked shall perish but those who have faith will be saved? Neither of the those possibilities undermines the validity of Scripture or falls outside the parameters you speak of, but one is supported by science, the other, not so much.

I am absolutely anti-intellectual where intellect is elevated above tradition in spiritual matters. Intellect and academia here must either function as the servant of tradition and dogma, or butt out. Matters of God are not understood like secular studies: the Pharisees were quite learned, but Peter couldn't even read...which would YOU go to if you wanted to understand Scripture?

Kind of an ironic statement considering Peter got slapped down by Paul, a pharisee, at Antioch.

And you seem to have a poor remembrance of the Pharisee's true crime: Hypocrisy, not heresy. Remeber: do as they say not as they do?

I see the Wisdom spoken of here as what the Saints do. Because they cultivated their relationship with the Spirit. God reveals himself that way, see Matthew 11:25.

Paul was edified mystically (prior to that, when he was a Pharisee, he was an enemy of God), and said knowledge puffeth and worldly wisdom is spiritual foolishness, and spiritual wisdom is worldly foolishness.

Christ said to obey the Pharisees because they were the authorities, but he didn't just call them hypocrites, he also said they were liars and that their doctrine is wrong and is not from God and to beware it.

[Venerable Bede]

Do you think Noah wasn't real, TS? It's one thing to say stylistic hyperbole might be used, but writing it all of as simply a fable is a bit bold. Was Abraham a fable too? What about Moses? I mean, parting the sea? Come on, it's 2017, surely we can't accept things like that.

[Gim]

Do you think Noah wasn't real, TS? It's one thing to say stylistic hyperbole might be used, but writing it all of as simply a fable is a bit bold. Was Abraham a fable too? What about Moses? I mean, parting the sea? Come on, it's 2017, surely we can't accept things like that.

The discovery of Noah's Ark is a hoax. I say the story about Noah is merely figurative.

[Pasong Tirad]

Do you think Noah wasn't real, TS? It's one thing to say stylistic hyperbole might be used, but writing it all of as simply a fable is a bit bold. Was Abraham a fable too? What about Moses? I mean, parting the sea? Come on, it's 2017, surely we can't accept things like that.

Shallow waters, universality of the flood narrative.