But to that extent we're just doing literary criticism, not theology. Christian theology is to be done from the standpoint of faith in Christ. That means, among other things, that the OT is to be read in the light of the NT. (But, N.B., after it's been read on its own terms!) The NT is full of christological readings of the OT. This does not negate the "original intent" of the OT writers but adds to it - which makes sense if those writers, & the whole of scripture, were inspired by the Spirit of Christ.
rich:
I suggested history and anthropology and you come back with literary criticism. You can't determine the "original intent" of the OT writers. Ending your post with "inspired by the spirit of Christ" just demonstrates your inability to separate a scientific analysis of the texts and a spiritual one.
The Jewish scholars who study the OT themselves profess genesis' allegorical nature and its hidden meaning.
It also makes sense that first/second century writers knew the OT and made sure their writings on Jesus reflected its message.
I agree that "Christian theology is to be done from the standpoint of faith in Christ," but that is not how you study ancient texts in their provenance. You're simply underscoring your reluctance to make the necessary and sufficient distinction that would give you the objectivity to do science. Once you determine the science you may find it supports the theology, but you can't get that far because your faith precludes your science, at least that's what you keep telling me.
rich faussette
Received on Wed Mar 2 07:56:17 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 07:56:17 EST