Apokatastasis

[Thomas]

It is not I that tosses aside parts of the bible...but scholars who have found where stuff was added, what doesn't belong, which letters from Paul were inserted. Not me...I don't have that education to do such things.

Some scholars, and they've 'found' no such thing. The posit that as a theory, it is their assumption, but it is no more than that.

Meanwhile many other scholars, equally expert in their field, contend that the findings on what was added, what doesn't belong, etc., is founded on nothing more than presupposition and incredulity.

But who am I to believe, those that studied this for their lives and stand on the shoulders of those that came before them? Or those that simply have faith and this is the word of G!d and nothing should be touched?

Utterly false argument. There are many scholars who refute such ideas based on a profound and in some cases unequalled knowledge of Scripture, the New Testament world ... this is not a case, as you try to present it, of scholarship v blind faith, rather it points to your own partisanship: "My guys think, everyone else toes the line".

Sorry it don't matter how many saints dance on a head of a pin to me... They can have as many councils, cardinals and popes as they like...they are not the be all and end all...and we can read the bible and commune with Jesus/G!d/Spirit thru the mind of Christ within us...and not need an intermediary, interpreter or go to church every Sunday.

Here again you contradict yourself ... for in the paragraph above you say "But who am I to believe, those that studied this for their lives and stand on the shoulders of those that came before them?" — You've made your choice as to who you believe. They are the be all and end all for you ... there's your councils, your cardinals and your popes.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Thomas, do you read anything other than the party line?

Does your theology allow you to explore scholars other than those sanctified by your school of study?

And if it does, do you go out and explore this wonderful world that does not spend its time in apologetics?

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, do you read anything other than the party line?

That's my point Wil — all your posts are on your party line.

And I bet I've read more JS/Historical Jesus stuff than you've read Patristics!

Does your theology allow you to explore scholars other than those sanctified by your school of study?

Not only does it allow, it insists. Does yours? I don't see it.

And if it does, do you go out and explore this wonderful world that does not spend its time in apologetics?

Yes I do ... sadly however, I never get to discuss my theology here as every time I try I'm dragged back into apologetics. One faces so much prejudice and propaganda one can never really get to the meaty stuff.

I'm not saying the JS/HJ line is without interest, but I am saying that what it proclaims as 'true' and what you seem to present as inarguable, stands on a lot flimsier evidence than the contrary and orthodox opinion.

And have you read the Seminar's 'Scholars' Translation' of the Bible? You must see that it's typical 'dumbing down' on a grand scale?

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaste Thomas,

I don't have any particular school of study. I read various books and folks, and no my focus has not been on patrisitics in any way....other than reading quotes you put forth and things that come along the way. I've got a number of books by Thomas Merton, and read some other Jesuit stuff, but I guess the likes of Buckley, Rice and Koontz won't really count as Catholic Authors.

I've got no book list to choose from so Thay, Yogananda, Ruiz, Spong, Ehrman, Starbird and more cross my path as well.

Frankly reading the early theologians may be good for historical conversation and background....but if I am to think about today, I'd rather read folks that studied them than them. Or even folks that read and discarded them and moved on. DaVinci, Pythagarus were great, but if I'm gonna study math and science today, their achievements are elementary compared to those thousands of folks between them and me.

But reading isn't all of it is it. We've got to read with an open mind, without blinders, or our tinted glasses eh? But tis obvious what resonates and excites and makes sense to me, doesn't to you and vice versa.

But what is so often so interesting is we see the similar end results?


ps haven't read the scholars translation...am reading the message...sometimes love it, sometimes it misses the mark, sometimes it confuses...in one place the mustard seed turns into a poppy and in another pine nut..