Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)

Yes, Jesus was correct.

Next question.

Pete

On Nov 8, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> "It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are not
> expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions rather
> than as a book that reflects active theological thinking."
>
> Hi Pete- overall- as far as Christian interpretation of things, I
> pretty much agree with you. However, my question is more specific
> to the time and place of Jesus' "active theological thinking."
>
> When Jesus talked about "turning the other cheek" I think what he
> meant, given the context is pretty clear. And I think we might
> agree on what he meant. My question goes beyond what most
> Christians want to do, and this is ask the question "was Jesus
> correct?" (I'm sure most Christian philosophers are trained to ask
> such questions so it is no problem for most of them; but all other
> Christians probably think it is out-of-bounds to "question God.")
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Pete Enns
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:49 AM
> To: Murray Hogg
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>
> I'll try to comment more later, but I agree with this. A former
> professor of mine, Paul Hanson, used to talk about the "form/reform"
> dynamic on the OT, where particular ways of thinking gain assent but
> then are themselves later reformed/changed. Chronicles is one global
> example of this.
>
> It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are not
> expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions rather
> than as a book that reflects active theological thinking.
>
> Some of you may no longer be wondering why I left WTS..... :-)
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Murray Hogg wrote:
>
>> Hi Pete,
>>
>> I can see where the Talmud might be an interesting analogue - but
>> I'd have to play with it a bit myself.
>>
>> As it is, the suggestion spawns one random thought:
>> Regardless of what dates we put on the various OT books and portions
>> thereof it seems to be pretty evident that the OT isn't the
>> unvarnished account of Israel's history that many would like it to
>> be. But this fact alone suggests that one doesn't need to even go as
>> far as the Talmud to discover a dynamic engagement with the
>> tradition as we already see just this very thing within the pages of
>> the canonical OT itself. The idea, then, that the covenant community
>> EVER had a static notion of scripture might be a tad unrealistic and
>> we may well need to accept that dynamic engagement with the
>> tradition has ALWAYS been part-and-parcel of the covenant
>> community's practice.
>>
>> Of course, the tradition eventually ends up becoming codified -
>> first in the OT and subsequently in the Talmud and NT (same sort of
>> thing happens in Islam with the Koran and Hadiths) - but I wonder
>> (and it's just an idle musing for now) just what this suggests for
>> our theory of Scripture? All too often the focus is on the
>> codification. But what happens if one focuses on the dynamic nature
>> of the tradition in its formation and subsequent reception?
>>
>> Could it be that the discontinuity and the continuity are, in fact,
>> one and the same thing? That is, might it not be the case that the
>> one constant throughout the entire history of the tradition is that
>> the tradition itself has always been dynamically appropriated?
>>
>> Perhaps our maxim should be "Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme
>> chose" or something of that order?
>>
>> Blessings,
>> Murray
>>
>> Pete Enns wrote:
>>> I think trajectory is a good model for the relationship between the
>>> testament.
>>> Another model I have toyed with--very simply--is that the NT is
>>> analogous to to the Talmud. Both reflect attempts to engage the
>>> Bible/OT in view of changing circumstances: for Jews, the exile and
>>> for Christians the death and resurrection of the messiah.
>>> I think the trajectory and Talmud models together aim at addressing
>>> the continuity and discontinuity seen in the NT vis-a-vis the OT.
>>> To get back to the original point, I think Bernie is concerned
>>> about the fact that discontinuity is something that resides in a
>>> book that is supposedly written on some level by God.
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 8 19:20:05 2009