God is the Foundation of Faith, Not Texts.

[Storm]

Some people have said they believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christian beliefs. After thinking this over for a few days, I have decided to respond this way: The Bible is a guide book for my path, but it is not the foundation of my faith. The foundation of my faith is God.

Do any other faiths feel the same way about God and their various religious texts?

God should be the foundation of faith, but for far too many believers, it's the text. I consider this idolatry.

 

[waitasec]

To gain a wider, historical and cultural perspective.

i don't see what historical and cultural perspectives have anything to do with god. just read a book about history...

 

[Caladan]

Well, not according to many of the best scholars. "Apocrypha" designates those texts which were found later -- and not included in the early Jewish canon. Those texts are different animals from the later gospel writings. Yes, the LXX was important to the proto-church, but it did not contain any NT writings.

There are several ways to look at texts that are said to be "apocryphal." But they can't all be lumped into the same category, as if they were all together in a collection at one time -- because they weren't.

Seems like this point is straying away. the main points are these: that the early christians did have a scripture, just as the rest of the Jews had, the Septuagint.
the apocrypha I am talking about is the NT apocrypha, as I have brought up the NT canon, and not the canon of the OT.

 

[sojourner]

Seems like this point is straying away. the main points are these: that the early christians did have a scripture, just as the rest of the Jews had, the Septuagint.
the apocrypha I am talking about is the NT apocrypha, as I have brought up the NT canon, and not the canon of the OT.

But the texts they had were uniquely Jewish texts -- not Xian texts. And since they were Xians, the texts would not have informed them as to who God was, in light of the recent revelation they had received.

 

[sojourner]

i don't see what historical and cultural perspectives have anything to do with god. just read a book about history...

As a community of faithful people, we need the historical perspective of our community in order to maintain honest continuity. Since Xy is a multivalent movement, we also need the information we can gather from the wider cultural perspective of the textual accounts. The history and culture we seek is specifically informed by a theological hermeneutic, and not an empirical hermeneutic.

 

[waitasec]

As a community of faithful people, we need the historical perspective of our community in order to maintain honest continuity.

so it's purpose is to validate a community of faithful people by connecting them to the source...meaning judaism?

Since Xy is a multivalent movement, we also need the information we can gather from the wider cultural perspective of the textual accounts.

let me quote levite

the purpose of Torah being an evolving, living thing-- not something static and set in stone.

there was the 1st covenant....according to levite's understanding it is not set in stone...but then there is a 2nd covenant which is set in stone...is this, from the sources POV, a double standard?

The history and culture we seek is specifically informed by a theological hermeneutic, and not an empirical hermeneutic.

i'm not sure if i get that, an empirical understanding (provable by means of observation) does not lend itself towards interpretation...
the destruction of the temple happened or it didn't...
christ rising from the dead happened or it didn't and so on
is it generally understood that the theological interpretation of history is subjective in order to support the foundation of it's doctrine?

 

[sojourner]

so it's purpose is to validate a community of faithful people by connecting them to the source...meaning judaism?

And early Xy.

there was the 1st covenant....according to levite's understanding it is not set in stone...but then there is a 2nd covenant which is set in stone...is this, from the sources POV, a double standard?

Why is the new covenant set in stone any more than the old covenant?

i'm not sure if i get that, an empirical understanding (provable by means of observation) does not lend itself towards interpretation...
the destruction of the temple happened or it didn't...
christ rising from the dead happened or it didn't and so on
is it generally understood that the theological interpretation of history is subjective in order to support the foundation of it's doctrine?

We're looking for belief and story, not proof and facts.

 

[waitasec]

Why is the new covenant set in stone any more than the old covenant?

because what this ultimate sacrifice implies...

We're looking for belief and story, not proof and facts.

ok.

 

[sojourner]

because what this ultimate sacrifice implies...

What do you think it implies? Is there no more room for God to act?

 

[Orias]

Well that certainly is an interesting thing for a Roman Catholic
to say to a Satanist. :flirt:

Let's try it this way (just for fun)...

Perhaps it says that despite what YOU think you see, your 'God' and his (Orias') 'God' are the same.

Heh, he does worship me in secrecy

 

[Quiddity]

I'm always puzzeled when God is pushed further into the ether for fear that the atheist might find him and scrutize Him.

If God exists, let the chips fall where they may. Even if it's something you don't agree with. Most people don't transform over night and the Jews argued with God.

So........maybe there is an ugly side of God.

 

[waitasec]

What do you think it implies? Is there no more room for God to act?

nope. he laid down the law with the ultimate sacrifice. take it or leave it.
but remember, tick toc tick toc...make up your mind before it's too late...

 

[sojourner]

nope. he laid down the law with the ultimate sacrifice. take it or leave it.
but remember, tick toc tick toc...make up your mind before it's too late...

Methinks you're misinterpreting the message...

 

[waitasec]

Methinks you're misinterpreting the message...

i know i'm not alone...

 

[sojourner]

I'm always puzzeled when God is pushed further into the ether for fear that the atheist might find him and scrutize Him.

If God exists, let the chips fall where they may. Even if it's something you don't agree with. Most people don't transform over night and the Jews argued with God.

So........maybe there is an ugly side of God.

God is who God is. That's really all we need to know. If there's an ugly side to God, I suspect that it's that God doesn't always do or be what we would prefer.

 

[Orias]

God is who God is. That's really all we need to know. If there's an ugly side to God, I suspect that it's that God doesn't always do or be what we would prefer.

So that makes me curious...if you can accept that why are you Christian exactly?

 

[Quiddity]

God is who God is. That's really all we need to know.

Which is?

And there lies the problem.

 

[Orias]

Which is?

And there lies the problem.

What needs to be further described?

Its pretty blatant.

 

[Caladan]

But the texts they had were uniquely Jewish texts -- not Xian texts.

of course. we are talking about a Jewish sect.

And since they were Xians, the texts would not have informed them as to who God was, in light of the recent revelation they had received.

the OT is instrumental in supporting the linage of Jesus of Nazareth. it refers us to the prophecy of Isaaiah, and quotes psalms to us.
the Gospel of Matthew gives us a geneology not unlike those of the OT, where it establishes a link to the house of David and to Abraham.
you are placing a hard bargain, because these early christians were part of a larger society, all of them treated the OT or the Septuagint if speaking Greek as scripture.
you might as well be saying that the OT God is not the same NT God. in that case we have to ask, why is Jesus or the Apostles quote the OT when they preach?

 

[sojourner]

of course. we are talking about a Jewish sect.

But only for a very little while. Very quickly the religion became uniquely Gentile, so the Hebrew texts took on an entirely different meaning and role for the new Xians.

the OT is instrumental in supporting the linage of Jesus of Nazareth. it refers us to the prophecy of Isaaiah, and quotes psalms to us.

You're not making sense. Do you mean the NT here? If so, then you're right -- for that's what it does. But we have to remember that the NT was not written or compiled for quite some time following the formation of Xy. And the OT does not refer to Jesus. At all. Any Jew will tell you that.