Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
And I say there is a meaning, which you do not comprehend.
Reasoning along closely with you, as you have suggested,
I will point out there has traditionally been understood to be several layers of meaning in the Bible.
. . . 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
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.
YHWH is simply a dreamed up deity, Yeshua was just another human; and nature continues its natural course.
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 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.
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.
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. ?
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
It is also interesting to reflect that fundamentalism is a protestant movement.)
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 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..
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?
Here are some random sentences, generated here:Random Sentence Generator
(Deckard exposed me to this--thanks!)
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.)
I think Nietzsche was a protestant! First scrap priest. Then scrap "God."
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.
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.
You don't deny that the end of the world scenario originated in Zoroastrianism, not Judaism, though, right?
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"?
I think that's what Kierkegaard suggested Protestants had done.
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.
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.