1 Crointhians 1:19-25

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

KaseiJin
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 01:29 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;170686 wrote:
And I say there is a meaning, which you do not comprehend.

Yes, jeeprs, that's fine and fair, and my fine and fair response is that there is a meaning which you do not comprehend; namely the very locked-in-time, set in contextual meaning that is in the words in line with the thought Paul was trying to get across--the plain reading, if you will (of which there is no other, at this particular passage). So, where would that leave us? (at a 'tis so/'tis not deadlock? Such arguments are what I call useless)

Therefore Instead . . .
jeeprs;170695 wrote:
Reasoning along closely with you, as you have suggested,
. . . let's go this route.



jeeprs;170695 wrote:
I will point out there has traditionally been understood to be several layers of meaning in the Bible.


Here, we'll need to keep focused on the matters in bold (which is mine). The first one is, again, the word 'Bible.' Why do you keep using this word in relationships with the likes of (to paraphrase here) 'traditional understandings?' It is obvious that you cannot be talking about the year 56, nor even 100, or, actually, even 150--although it is evident that some tradition had started to get set in then; I mean, it had already been almost 100 years since Paul had been killed, and very few of the original congregation, if any, would have been around. Here, Augustine is useless too.

So how would you go about demonstrating that the intended and actual readers of the letter Paul had sent them got more meaning out of Paul's intended communication that what the letter's context has?

I think that is a good analogy, Deckard, even though it appears to be overly simplified--almost to the point of not carrying much weight. The general gist of this is handled quite reasonably and detailed by Sigurd Grindheim (Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul's Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthiams 2:6~16). Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 121, No. 4, (winter) 2002; pp 689~709). Some well researched, and realistically rationed points from that paper are as follows:

[indent]1 Cor 1:10~4:21, is a block of deliberative rhetoric, with vss 1:18~3:23 reflecting contemporary discussions on rhetoric on the wings of Jewish wisdom traditions. According to Strabo 8.6.23 and Epict. Disc. 4:1:157 (historical sources of that age), the population of Corinth consisted mainly of 'freedmen,' which can be understood by source materials, to have been a rather 'boastful' type of Roman citizen, with a tendency for self-display (perhaps to enhance their status). This can also be seen in the 'kraux-' group words which appear some 36 to 37 times in higher frequency in the Corinthian letters that the other non-disputed Paline corpus. It is very reasonable to think that Paul thus additionally felt boasting to be an issue that needed to be addressed.

Also, we can learn that about that time, the Sophist movement had gained some footing in Corinth, and thus it is very thinkable, and fits the circumstances and linguistical context well, that Paul had rejected the use of such eloquence of speech as being a worldly matter not related to YHWH's kingdom--for which being a Christian was to be only concerned about. (and this does touch on the salvation matter)

There's a good bit of detail which I'll have to skip over here as it goes into source material from the non-canonical Wisdom scroll, and Daniel, as well as supporting passages in Paul's other letters, and letters from his troupe (though not him), and Greek. The conclusion of the study is that what Paul is getting across to them, is that following that flashy, showy pattern of the world will do two things--the congregation's factionism will destroy it, and they will lose out on the divine gift.
[/indent]

The understanding I have presented in general, is supported by Matthew V. Novenson's The Jewish Messiahs, the Pauline Christ, and the Gentile Question (JBL Vol 128, No. 2 (summer) 2009, pp 357~373. One point of reference for where our text under consideration fits in here, is highlighted in the conclusion with:

[indent]...there certainly did exist linguistic conventions in Hellenistic- and Roman- period Jewish literature whereby some writers used biblical messiah language to refer to a recognizable set of ideas. We showed that within this set was one idea, suggested by Psalm 18 (=Psalm 17 LXX) and Isaiah 11 and attested by the Roman historians of the First Revolt, of a Jewish king who would not only reclaim the land of Isreal but also rule over the pagan nations. Finally, we showed that Paul was one of a number of Jews (some of whom were Christian, others not) for whom this particular messiah tradition provided an answer to the Gentile question: THe Gentiles are to be neither converted {that is to Judaism} nor destroyed; rather they share in the blessedness of the age to come by virtue of their obedience to the Davidic king of Israel. (bracketed italic clarification mine)[/indent]

I might also add, from Thomas Kazen's The Christology of Early Christian Practice (JBL Vol 127, No. 3 (fall) 2008; pp 591~614) the following:

[indent]We may also be confident that Paul is not painting rosy pictures to feed future reader's romantic ideas of a golden age. Rather, he describes very concrete problems, misbehaviors, and abuses in those early communities that were dependent on him. [/indent]

Of course, this was not the last time either. Clement of Rome had to write the group in Corinth another letter some five or six decades after Paul's death.

jeeprs;170695 wrote:

. . . a good alternative would be to refer to other well-known interpretations of this very passage, to see whether other biblical scholars believe that there is some spiritual import to be gleaned here


If one were to read commentaries designed for clergy, you'd find some ways to apply this passage, and one might find other attempts to explain some 'spiritual' meaning (and I take it you are not referring to just a read for an emotional feel, or re-set, but some non-material something), but I tell you the truth, jeeprs, that's simply because Paul's (and the others') most sincerely held and fully believed in theology and eschatology proved false--YHWH is simply a dreamed up deity, Yeshua was just another human; and nature continues its natural course. If, as they had thought, the course of nature had gone, we'd not be discussing this at all, I'd say; nay, it is only because their message and teaching was a falsehood (regardless of what they had actually believed deep in their hearts), and nothing happened, that the documents and teachings were later searched for 'deeper meaning.'
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 02:13 am
@Deckard,
Another thought experiment. A strange boy liked to play with words. He had strung together 3000 sentences in the course of a year, and his father would sometimes look at these with some curiosity but even more anxiety. Just by chance, he bumped into a sentence that resonated for him, even seemed profound.

There is something almost objective about a text. The spoken word dies in the air, and lives its short moment in context. The written word, no matter why or how it was written, has a different sort of (un-)life. Here are some random sentences, generated here:Random Sentence Generator
(Deckard exposed me to this--thanks!)
Quote:

The classified ghost sugars your particle.Within whatever sequel frowns an anger.
The conductor listens.The tutorial schools an expert.An absorbing boot downs the cousin behind an idiosyncratic bicycle.Your logo sleeps behind the respected window.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 02:27 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;170708 wrote:
YHWH is simply a dreamed up deity, Yeshua was just another human; and nature continues its natural course.


Well I am glad we got to the bottom of that, KJ.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 05:13 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;170708 wrote:

I think that is a good analogy, Deckard, even though it appears to be overly simplified--almost to the point of not carrying much weight.
I'm not sure what analogy you are referring to here. Are you referring to the post in which I introduced Matthew Arnold's Hellenism and Hebraism? I suppose Arnold might be considered a light-weight in some circles. I am intrigued by Paul's characterizations of the Jews and the Greeks. The characterizations reminded me of Arnold's essay so I mentioned it. Arnold wasn't echoing Paul but such characterizations of the Greeks and the Jews are a recurring theme that stretches across the centuries from Paul to Arnold and others. I just thought it was interesting to point out.
KaseiJin;170708 wrote:

I might also add, from Thomas Kazen's The Christology of Early Christian Practice (JBL Vol 127, No. 3 (fall) 2008; pp 591~614) the following:
[INDENT]We may also be confident that Paul is not painting rosy pictures to feed future reader's romantic ideas of a golden age. Rather, he describes very concrete problems, misbehaviors, and abuses in those early communities that were dependent on him.

It is because they are practical that these letters have stood the test of time. 1 Corinthians doesn't do much to foster "romantic ideas of a golden age." For example, it tells us of the supreme importance of love and to "put away childish things." and don't put your trust in the wisdom of men and don't expect any miraculous signs from God.

Furthermore, there are verses of great beauty in these letters that transcends whatever immediate practical matters gave occasion to them. That is why these letters were included in the New Testament. Provided one doesn't have a monomaniacal attachment to the historical context this context can be set aside briefly in order to consider the verses from other angles and levels.
[/INDENT]
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 05:54 am
@Deckard,
Yes, Deckard, I had been talking of that analogy by Arnold, that you shared; and I do agree, it is interesting.

Regarding the quote from that paper, the 'golden age' terminology is referring to the 'new world' (as one might think of from the Revelation document). 'Practical' is referring to the problems in daily living regarding practicing the faith as, and in, a group.

Regarding your points about why the letter survived, or made it into canon, I can say what I have in the past, already, and/or can give further argumentation as to why the concepts are still defenseless. Now I don't think any scholar (or otherwise, for the most part) would deny the beauty of some things in Paul's letters, nor some of the timeless and universal truths which he does touch on in places--altruistic reciprocal emotion is a very major part of the H. sapiens social bonding process.

How familiar are you, Deckard with the canonization process?
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 02:45 pm
@KaseiJin,
In rejecting the Jewish way and the Greek way, Paul is inventing and defining a new identity. Greeks and Jews are racial groups at least somewhat and in any case the two most influential cultural forces. Paul is introducing a third force in opposition to these other two. Identity politics?

But he seems to sacrifice too much. He cedes wisdom to the Greeks, let them pursue their wisdom we have ours already. He cedes the powerful God of miraculous signs to the Jews, let them wait for their miracles we have ours already.

Part of the trick of it is also to say that it is already done, we already have it. We have already been chosen. We don't need to learn anything more than that and we don't need to await any other sign than that. It is decided. It is accomplished. Instant gratification. That's the hard sell and it was, and still is, effective.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:21 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;170937 wrote:

Part of the trick of it is also to say that it is already done, we already have it. We have already been chosen. We don't need to learn anything more than that and we don't need to await any other sign than that. It is decided. It is accomplished. Instant gratification. That's the hard sell and it was, and still is, effective.


Excellent point! Indeed, it can be a dodge, a bluff. How does one tell? I can imagine two humans with conceptually that same exact attitude. But the "spirit" is in my opinion about emotion as much as thought. "The letter kills..the spirit giveth life." Now if a great composer can PUT one in that stage of satisfied bliss, the issue is revolved. You know that so-and-so was there.

It's like Blake's Book of Job. The family opens playing music together. They are there in spirit/emotion. But soon they are seen solemnly reading. Blake presents this as the cause of the disaster. Job and co. have become solemn and righteous. Their instruments hang on the tree. McLuhan would have something witty on this. The letter is always dead, I suggest. Forgive this slight detour...but rocknroll is jesus. and words aren't always necessary?
YouTube - glenn branca solo 1978

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 04:23 PM ----------

Deckard;170937 wrote:

But he seems to sacrifice too much. He cedes wisdom to the Greeks, let them pursue their wisdom we have ours already. He cedes the powerful God of miraculous signs to the Jews, let them wait for their miracles we have ours already.

I'm addicted to the Greeks. The miraculous signs are lesser temptation. He doesn't make the Greeks taboo though. He just implies they will not understand, that they will call it foolishness. I think this is important. He's not making wisdom taboo. Or not right here. ?
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:50 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;170955 wrote:

I'm addicted to the Greeks. The miraculous signs are lesser temptation. He doesn't make the Greeks taboo though. He just implies they will not understand, that they will call it foolishness. I think this is important. He's not making wisdom taboo. Or not right here. ?

On the contrary, he does make the way of the Greeks and the way of the Jews taboo. In saying that they just don't get it he is also saying that their teachings are to be avoided as they will lead you away from salvation. If you go that way, you won't be saved.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 04:23 pm
@Deckard,
It is interesting, then, that Greek philosophy, Platonism in particular, was subsequently absorbed into Christian theology via the Church Fathers, Augustine, and so on. And then you could put the argument that it was Luther and Calvin who once again expelled the 'wisdom of the Greeks', probably very much on the grounds of the very verse we are discussing (although some Bible scholar might know better. I personally find Christian Platonism considerably more interesting than Protestant evangalism. It is also interesting to reflect that fundamentalism is a protestant movement.)
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 04:27 pm
@Deckard,
Quote:

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (from Isaiah 29:14)
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,

23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

- 1 Crointhians 1:19-25
The Isaiah quote is admittedly threatening, granted. And it's a dead text, so I suppose it's an open field, really. I used rocknroll as an example, because one can compare the rock critic whose never been there to the wisdom of the wise who don't have whatever this Christ thing is supposed to be. Now Paul may have been speaking of something shallow. I can't say. Because for me it's just dead letters. But the best meaning I can project is an emphasis that neither ritual nor concept is it.

I don't see Paul saying that ritual or concept is taboo, but he does seem to imply the secondary nature of either. I love concept of course. I think of some guy at a party who knows all the right bands, books, etc., to mention, but just isn't there. Just isn't open. And his focus on the letter blocks his living unity with the present situation. I was at a party once and some guy cornered my with an endless Herzog (director) encomium. Meanwhile I was looking at all the faces come and go. The people who were there, and not the dead. Like Whitman. Breathing moving human flesh. But concept and ritual have their beauty. Maybe they are just bad in comparison. Bad when taken as primaries. I hope the bio notes are not too much of a detour. I just want to be understood here. I admit without hesitation that this is one man's hosting of a dead viral ancient text. I make no claims on universal meaning.

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 05:30 PM ----------

jeeprs;170995 wrote:
It is also interesting to reflect that fundamentalism is a protestant movement.)

I think Nietzsche was a protestant! First scrap priest. Then scrap "God."
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 05:24 pm
@Reconstructo,
What do you mean by "dead text" Reconstructo? I tend to call the authors and original audience dead but the text alive i.e. the living word.
Why "dead text"?
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 06:21 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;170937 wrote:
In rejecting the Jewish way and the Greek way, Paul is inventing and defining a new identity. Greeks and Jews are racial groups at least somewhat and in any case the two most influential cultural forces. Paul is introducing a third force in opposition to these other two. Identity politics?

I feel I can see the general idea you have in mind, which having read that allows you to draw out of it, yet wish to point out that you are not reading Paul, and, additionally, are still reading too much into the text from a present day perspective.

I don't know how much study you have actually done in this area, and it looks--at least appears from what I can deduce (and I could be wrong)--that you have not done that much. The only reason I am saying this, the only reason, is because that lack will not allow a person to more fully grasp some of the things I have presented. There is, actually, a rather well defined boundary within which Pauline theology and doctrine falls. It is a bit nebulous in places, and can be stretched or squeezed a touch here or there, yet even that ability has certain limits.

Paul was an extremely Jewish religious belief system occupied man, and most obviously had been sold on the Davidic messiah theme as being an actual, universal reality. He did not use the term (and one might have to be a bit more familiar with the Greek text's flavor) Greek, to refer to the social, ethnic group, but as a tool to identify a life style which was there and then, in the year 56 (or so).

You are on the right track with the 'new identity point, and the 'political-like' (and notice the application of 'like) point). The new identity is that of 'being a wise and perfect one in the knowledge of what the Davidic king did, requires for salvation by resurrection into the soon to come new heavenly kingdom, and will do after having set up his kingdom. One thing there, on that last point, is that those who live according to the world (and this primarily means non-Jewish cultures and political states), as it was there and then in his life, and the lives of the recipients of that letter. That 'third force' which you speak of, then, is that Davidic kingdom under the messianic ruler, Yeshua.

Please do keep in mind, that the most accurate understanding of the drive there, is to protect his sheep--this is contextual most clear through not only that particular letter, but all the authentic and even doubted Pauline troupe letters--even Hebrews. Thus, all points taken into consideration, all leads followed and investigated, we will find that what Paul had been driving at there, was, as I have said before:

[indent] 'Hey, you guys, I'm your teacher in the christ, your father who bore you, and I'm telling you that you have to stop trying to act like those who are not brothers in the faith--since they don't believe what I am teaching--and stop listening to the rabbi down at the local synagogue--because he wants to see evidence that what I'm teaching is true--and stop trying to split the congregation up by adoring other teachers, or lines of doctrine source, in opposition to me . . . Apollos is equally a brother, Cephas (Peter) is equally an ambassador for the messiah, but I, I am your father and teacher of wisdom of faith that will carry you into the soon to come new kingdom of YHWH--and you'd better listen to me, and be ready...it's gonna happen in THIS generation, for a fact...just we don't know at what particular hour. [/indent]

[quote]It is interesting, then, that Greek philosophy, Platonism in particular, was subsequently absorbed into Christian theology via the Church Fathers, Augustine, and so on.[/quote]
This is from a post by jeeprs up above this one. It is a very true statement of historical development. As best can be deduced (and this is superlative, as opposed to 'comparative') the early Christian cult, like much of the general Jewish thought at the time, was not dualistic at all . . . and thus a resurrection, the rising from the dust once again, was needed.

Then (once again...it simply cannot be over emphasized, I guess) because the Christian movement was a falsehood--i.e. its teachings and beliefs about YHWH's Davidic messiah king and kingdom were not actual facts of reality--it only became necessary to 'interpret' what had been left by the leaders of the first moment of that cult, to fit what was happening. (and thus you get the likes of 2 Peter 3:2~5, 15, 16) Therefore, it is very clear that even the Christianity put forth by the sub-apostle fathers was already not that of the first moments, the first 20 to 30 years of Christianity, much more so that of Augustine, who specifically wrote in one of his works that his education in Platonism paved the way for his Christian thought.

Deckard, that terminology is a misguided one. While Reconstructo's use of 'dead text' is surely quite idiosyncratic, it is much closer to a more realistic concept that the theist-based religious belief system of Christianity's 'living word of god' tenet, from which the concept of the documents of canon being forever true and alive (being god's word). I tell you Deckard (though you may not yet be ready to receive it in its fullness) the Bible of today is a false concept, and the epistles (especially Paul's authentic ones) are nothing more than simply letters--just like one you'd write on paper, or electronic means, to someone--so we firstly have to read them as that, and on that basis alone, then see and test the content to see if there is anything more. (and in this case with 1 Corinthians, there is very little more [when weighing as a percentage of textual content] for us today)
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 06:57 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;171069 wrote:
I tell you Deckard (though you may not yet be ready to receive it in its fullness) the Bible of today is a false concept, and the epistles (especially Paul's authentic ones) are nothing more than simply letters--just like one you'd write on paper, or electronic means, to someone--so we firstly have to read them as that, and on that basis alone, then see and test the content to see if there is anything more. (and in this case with 1 Corinthians, there is very little more [when weighing as a percentage of textual content] for us today)

I haven't done much extensive study of Paul or any of the Bible really. I am very much an amateur but I am enjoying and getting a lot from your posts.

I don't want to hang to much on this but I do like the idea of the text having a life of its own. For example, even if we found out that Paul's letters were just some kind of weird joke and he didn't mean a word he said the text would still be interesting. It would still have been poured over for centuries. You say they are nothing more than simple letters. Well they are written to a congregation of a fledgling religious movement so that makes them a little less simple but I don't say they are anything more than letters... I'll even set aside divine inspiration..

There is a line in one of Nietzsche's journals "I have forgotten my umbrella." It may have been trivial or perhaps Nietzsche was saying something more profound.

Humble beginnings. For some the letters of Paul don't seem to carry enough weight to be considered sacred texts. Some consider them to be only foolishness; for others they are a stumbling stone. Would you have more respect for miraculous signs? Would you have more respect for the wisdom of the philosophers?

But what happened next in the life of Paul's letter to the Corinthians? I think you were going to say something about their canonization. Paul himself chose the letters he thought worthy of leaving to posterity. So in choosing 1 Corinthians we can see that he thought the letter would have meaning for others besides the audience they were originally written for.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:23 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;171083 wrote:
I haven't done much extensive study of Paul or any of the Bible really. I am very much an amateur but I am enjoying and getting a lot from your posts.

I see; thanks for that information, and the appreciation...I'm considering adding on, in this general manner, to that thread I had started and have not been back to in a couple of coon's ages (and I have one more thread that I should get back to and try to wrap up as well...oh boy, oh girl, just got a million things to do...)

Deckard;171083 wrote:
I don't want to hang to much on this but I do like the idea of the text having a life of its own.

I would take fit rom the other perspective, and see it as life (as in H. sapiens form) living on it own, and reading what has been recorded by H. sapiens in the past.

Deckard;171083 wrote:
For example, even if we found out that Paul's letters were just some kind of weird joke and he didn't mean a word he said the text would still be interesting. It would still have been poured over for centuries.

Yes, I understand. On the other hand, if the far greater majority of those believers and non-believers living in the late second century had come to realize such a thing, would you still think that we'd have those letters in such great circulation? I very seriously doubt it, and that's (I'd say) the point here. If those folks had come to learn that it was all a joke back then, then it'd be pretty small chance of any great survival at all, if any (there were plenty of religious-like systems to join).

Deckard;171083 wrote:
You say they are nothing more than simple letters. Well they are written to a congregation of a fledgling religious movement so that makes them a little less simple but I don't say they are anything more than letters... I'll even set aside divine inspiration..

Good point. Just in case, I did not mean 'simple' as in uncomplicated, but as in not some instrument which had been instigated (the usual inspired in both its 'weak' and 'strong' versions), as you have 'set aside.'

Deckard;171083 wrote:
Humble beginnings. For some the letters of Paul don't seem to carry enough weight to be considered sacred texts. Some consider them to be only foolishness; for others they are a stumbling stone. Would you have more respect for miraculous signs? Would you have more respect for the wisdom of the philosophers?

In the event (and I could be misreading your intended application here, so correct me if so) that you might be trying to present an 'as-they-there-and-then-in-the-Corinth-congregation-may-have-seen-it' scenario, we would have to keep in mind that it was the letter, asking such questions to them about the messianic message already taught to them by Paul, and not a question pointing towards his letters, per se.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:37 pm
@Deckard,
Reconstructo;170717 wrote:
Here are some random sentences, generated here:Random Sentence Generator
(Deckard exposed me to this--thanks!)
That reminds me of how people would listen to Beatles songs and find them incredibly profound while Paul McCartney would just slap his forehead. One listener in particular realized the Beatles were telling him the end of the world was at hand... go kill Californians.


jeeprs;170995 wrote:
It is interesting, then, that Greek philosophy, Platonism in particular, was subsequently absorbed into Christian theology via the Church Fathers, Augustine, and so on. And then you could put the argument that it was Luther and Calvin who once again expelled the 'wisdom of the Greeks', probably very much on the grounds of the very verse we are discussing (although some Bible scholar might know better. I personally find Christian Platonism considerably more interesting than Protestant evangalism. It is also interesting to reflect that fundamentalism is a protestant movement.)
Precisely: Luther and the early Protestants were convinced the Second Coming was close. The Pope was the Antichrist.

Reconstructo;170996 wrote:

I think Nietzsche was a protestant! First scrap priest. Then scrap "God."
I think that's what Kierkegaard suggested Protestants had done.

KaseiJin;171069 wrote:
Paul was an extremely Jewish religious belief system occupied man, and most obviously had been sold on the Davidic messiah theme as being an actual, universal reality.
You don't deny that the end of the world scenario originated in Zoroastrianism, not Judaism, though, right?

Deckard;171083 wrote:
Would you have more respect for miraculous signs? Would you have more respect for the wisdom of the philosophers?
A television is pretty miraculous. Especially if one doesn't know how it works. The magician was and is an engineer. A miraculous sign is a concrete reason for belief. So you could say... it's faith with fewer calories. It's not faith as in having no external reason at all for belief. Sooo... I'm saying the sign thing is sombody saying: you're going to have to give me some sort of proof.

What exactly is the wisdom of philosophers? If it's cogito ergo sum, then that's my home base way of approaching things. I'm a professional problem-solver, though. That way of being doesn't feed the bulldog.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:47 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;171093 wrote:

A television is pretty miraculous. Especially if one doesn't know how it works. The magician was and is an engineer. A miraculous sign is a concrete reason for belief. So you could say... it's faith with fewer calories. It's not faith as in having no external reason at all for belief. Sooo... I'm saying the sign thing is sombody saying: you're going to have to give me some sort of proof.

What exactly is the wisdom of philosophers? If it's cogito ergo sum, then that's my home base way of approaching things. I'm a professional problem-solver, though. That way of being doesn't feed the bulldog.

I was referring back to Corinthians 1:19-25. That's the only reason I mentioned miraculous signs (Jews) and the wisdom of philosophers (Greeks).
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:52 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;171093 wrote:

You don't deny that the end of the world scenario originated in Zoroastrianism, not Judaism, though, right?


No, I don't. There were a number of such themes spread around, it does seem...no one had total market share.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 06:47 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;171040 wrote:
What do you mean by "dead text" Reconstructo? I tend to call the authors and original audience dead but the text alive i.e. the living word.
Why "dead text"?



Well the text is alive as long as we integrate into our total human experience. I guess I'm saying that text-sans-reader has no meaning. I view the text as this crystallized sequence of signs that gets its meaning (strange word!) from us...Or better yet the meaning is a cloud that floats between the reader and the text. It's like a series of digits in which we can find a meaningful pattern. Some of us want it as history and others for its present "spiritual" potency, assuming we can find any in it. I personally do. This reminds me of the TLP and the Tao for starters.

Another phrase: logos is alive only when incarnate. The word must take on flesh, and only flesh can take on word in the first place. Opinions of course.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 08:40 PM ----------

Arjuna;171093 wrote:

I think that's what Kierkegaard suggested Protestants had done.

Interesting! Perhaps he was right. And they were only write.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 08:42 PM ----------

Deckard;171083 wrote:

I don't want to hang to much on this but I do like the idea of the text having a life of its own. For example, even if we found out that Paul's letters were just some kind of weird joke and he didn't mean a word he said the text would still be interesting.

I agree with you here. The text would have a life of its own because we do, who read it always, like it or not, within a personal context.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 08:44 PM ----------

Arjuna;171093 wrote:
That reminds me of how people would listen to Beatles songs and find them incredibly profound while Paul McCartney would just slap his forehead. One listener in particular realized the Beatles were telling him the end of the world was at hand... go kill Californians.

Yes, indeed. And yet they were profound, if/when profundity was invented/discovered within them. I suggest that reading is always a merger of the reader and the text.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/23/2019 at 06:08:52