Since you believe that Paul was perfectly fine with God and Zeus being one and the same, I thought it perfectly appropriate to quote Paul’s own opinion. What’s wrong with that?
Are you saying that one day Paul says idol worship is demon worship and a few years later he decided that idol worship is actually worship of God? That’s quite a change Bob, and with absoloutely no substatiation. Futhermore, Corinthians was written after the incident in Acts.
That Paul knew that all greek worship was actually demon worship but he decided to use the activity to deliver the gospel.
I seriously doubt that Paul wasn’t worried about demon or daimonion worship. Apart from the fact that he prohibits the activity, “you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons” seems pretty clear. But elsewhere, he also warns Timothy that " some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons". It seems his opinion is a little more negative on demons than yours.
I disagree. I think Paul would be highly disturbed by anyone blurring the definition of what is God, and what is an idol or demon.
Are you saying that Luke reports Peter’s words but somehow doesn’t agree with them? My, your bible reading is getting complicated.
Again, the text does not support your view that Paul had ANY respect for the greek religion. In fact the text supports the idea of adopting cultural ideas in order to communicate the gospel.
You can read into the text whatever you like Bob, but it still comes down to you making it up as you go along. Ever wonder why there are so few Christians on the planet who agree with you? Do you really think you’re so special that only you can find all this nonsense in the bible. I find your approach utterly lacking in humility since it requires a belief that you can find “special things” in the bible when many others have not.
Hi Ned,
considering what I wrote to you last, I find it rather annoying that you ignore everything I have said and proceed to falsify my statements. This may of course be OK with you, but it amounts to lying. I wasn’t prepared for your dishonest dealings with what I have said, purely in the interest of a hidden ad hominem attack.
These are the things which you having knowingly distorted:
“Since you believe that Paul was perfectly fine with God and Zeus being one and the same …†which is a clear falsification of what I said.
“Are you saying that one day Paul says idol worship is demon worship and a few years later he decided that idol worship is actually worship of God?†This rhetorical question is ridiculous.
“… he also warns Timothy that “some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons”. It seems his opinion is a little more negative on demons than yours.†Again, slipshod reading – he warns against deceiving spirits and things taught by demons which cause some to abandon the faith which means that he differentiates between that which is wholesome and furthers the Gospel, and that which leads to discarding the faith.
“I think Paul would be highly disturbed by anyone blurring the definition of what is God, and what is an idol or demon.†It isn’t a question of “blurring†but a question of language, which is clearly the point when Paul uses passages written to Zeus but says that these things are true of theos – the God he was proclaiming.
Ned, I have recognised whilst writing this, that you and Ucc. are indeed as intellectually dishonest as anyone I can find and I have no interest in furthering my point. It may just be helpful to you to know that you are doing precisely what the Pharisees and Scribes were accused of – and it will have the same consequences I’m sure.
Bob, if you don’t like your interpretation of the bible being challenged then just say so.
You claimed that Paul placed some value in Zeus worship which is utter nonsense. You claimed that worship of demons is something that Paul wouldn’t be overly concerned about, again clearly unsupportable from the bible.
When I challenged your view, you get pissed, call me a Pharisee and condemn me to hell (clearly your meaning of “same consequences”).
So, remind me who was doing the “name-calling” in this thread?
And so the conclusion of another aimless, pointless thread that takes no one no where.
Interpretation implies understanding and understanding is the foundation of interpretation. But seeing patterns and relationships would mean letting the words go, and that isn’t going to happen here. Words are reality, right?
And just what do you think is “interpretation”? Interpretation IS imagination, but only to the extent we don’t confuse the symbols for reality. Giving language concreteness, attempting to externalize our “imaginative interpretation”, is a futile attempt to stand outside ourselves and our experience. We know conditionally and provisionally and create our universe with all the imaginative interpretation we can muster.
Ucc,
Gone? Mostly, but not enough to stop being a burr under your saddle.
Clearly what tentative is saying here, is that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, died on the Cross, was raised on the third day, and through Him and Him alone do we have our salvation. That’s my interpretation, anyways.
You might as well say interpretation is a cheese danish.
INTERPET
transitive verb 1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
IMAGINE
transitive verb1: to form a mental image of (something not present) 2archaic : plan, scheme3: suppose, guess 4: to form a notion of without sufficient basis
You can express any interpretation you like since it is nothing but another word for opinion.
Ned,
Interpretation IS cheese danish. All metaphysical claims are just that: Interpretation = Opinion.
Look at your definitions. “to explain or tell the meaning of:” And just who is the proven authority?
I love the last definition. “to form a notion of without sufficient basis” What basis? Your opinion or mine? Sure, you can create a thousand line list of all those who would support your claims, but all I have to say is “or not” (which I’ve done) and we are back to opinion and the old tired is - isn’t argument.
But that aside, there is a further issue, which is the tacit assumption you have to make that there is a discoverable external reality, which is far from provable, or even likely, except as a construct that you choose to believe. I have to hand it to you. You have a great imagination…
At least you’re consistent, if a little “out there”. I wonder if anyone else would agree with your opinion?
Is that a fact you’re stating, or are you just offering your opinion?
All I can say is, everyone seems to understand these definitions except you. The authority depends on the subject matter. If we’re interpreting the meaning of my rumbling stomach, I think I’m the relevant authority to conclude that I need some food, and I’m usually proven correct on the matter. If we’re interpreting the meaning of the bible then there are various authorities possible.
I don’t need any imagination to read the bible and conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. First of all, the text clearly states this occurrence in 5 different ways, so very little interpretation is required. Second, every recognizable Christian organization that ever existed has concluded that the bible teaches Jesus rose from the dead. Therefore, my opinion or imagination doesn’t come into it. Bob’s view on the other hand requires a great deal of imagination.
aspersion
a: a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone’s reputation
I stand by my assertion that anyone who thinks the process of interpretation is a “cheese danish” is “a little out there”. Being “a little out there” is a subjective assessment that others may agree or disagree with. You obviously disagree and have chosen to cast your lot in with the interpretation/cheese danish crowd, as is your choice. I do not think that my assertion is false or misleading, and neither does it harm Tent’s reputation.
For stating my opinion, I don’t think so. Do you get merit points for defending a cheese danish?
