Is this true? (Main Forum)

by Beehive , Brigadoon West Australia, Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 00:48 (429 days ago) @ Brian Coyne

Beehive, you write: How we have complicated things? It is our penchant for definition, precision and categorisation that has woven a web of entanglement that has trapped us.
Brian you write: "Yes certainly the Western, scientific and theological paradigm is more complex, and I'd agree it causes some entanglement in some sectors of society, but on the bigger canvas my sense is that our increasing insights have largely served humanity well."

Beehive: I applaud the advancement achieved of our Western scientific paradigm. It proceeds from hypothesis to experiment which tests its validity. Until that is achieved it remains a hypothesis. The Western theological paradigm however, has no validity test; no objective measure outside itself. A sample of the woven web of theological web of entanglement is:
Brian you write. "The challenge we collectively face is making the Divine insights of Jesus accessible within our paradigm and cultural envelope. I'm not even sure these days that it is "just Jesus — the historical individual". To me the historical figure is some kind of "archetypal skelton or coathanger" onto which has been draped this rich theological and spiritual insight over a couple of millenia. If the historical figure re-appeared today do you think he would understand the paradigm out of which we moderns do our thinking, and living?"

Beehive: What does this mean? How much of this is real? What is its basis? Where is the proof of its validity? Divine insights of Jesus? Historical figure an archetypal skeleton? Rich theological and spiritual insight? All I can say is that if the historical Jesus re-appeared he would not have a clue what this is supposed to mean. I think he'd have a good laugh. This precisely is the kind of entanglement I was referring to.

Brian you write: "What you write certainly gives insight into the culture and language that was the crucible for Christian belief but I don't have a sense that culturally we can revert to that cultural and language paradigm."

Beehive: We are forever having to tune into the language and culture of a speaker. Be it a three year old, a politician, a physicist, or IT boffin. This is basically all I am trying to say. A language is circumscribed by its inherent limitations. We extrapolate it's message at our peril.

Brian you write: " The other thing I am intrigued about is your closing couple of paragraphs. This seems to be a radically different construct you are advancing to the usual Paulian one that if we cut out the resurrection our beliefs are worthless. I hope in time you can expand a bit more on the insights you are developed in this area."

Beehive : Yes this is a construct initiated and developed from a study of Old Testament prophecies that appear in single scrolls written by individuals in different places and periods about the promised "Anointed" and "Servant". They predate the New Testament and Paul by around 500 years. They look forward to some unknown character(s), and each finds its fulfilment in Yeshua. This process in no way nullifies the usual Pauline construct you mention. Paul's writing is in fact the first to bear witness to this fulfilment. The Gospels particularly the crucifixion narratives complete the picture. I am aware of the popular criticism this generates.

I will be happy to share this at some later date but let's get through this one first.