steveorino

Which is not surprising. To a Roman historian what was the big deal about another Jewish Messiah? They knew they had the promise of another "King David". They knew each new messiah had died. So the rumor was this one came back to life. So what? I can't imagine the early Roman historians taking much notice until after the Dispora and this little sect of Judaism began to spread like wildfire into Rome itself. From that point on it was hard to ignore. steveOrino

Everyone has a bias, whether it be secular of religous. I know. I grew up in Texas and believe me the Texas account of history does not jive with Mexican history. What do they put in books about the 1st century for high school and college students? They don't quanitfy it. Some editor has accpeted it as "fact" Even though no manuscripts exist and only a hand full of copies exist. Wouldn't ROMAN historians along with other secular historians have an agenda AGAINST Christianity? steveOrino

Well, not really. I know of no ancient historian who is taken at absolute face value. I said reasonable. Reasonable enough to put their work in a history book and pass it off as fact to students. steveOrino

Yet, historians accept their historical records as reasonable fact. Most likey we have no originals and few copies, yet we have over 5000 copies of books, letters and pieces of books and letters of the NT. EDITED TO ADD: 5000 copies is the most conservative number I have ever read. Others claim copies in the 10s of thousands. steveOrino

You refute eye witnesses claims because we don't have their original documents, just copies of their testimony. I wonder how many original copies of any 1st century historian do we have. I'm not saying there aren't any, I simply want to know if you verifiable evidence of such and where they are. Almost all Jewish writings from before 70 AD will have been destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem. That is common knowledge. steveOrino

I agree that science is a poor description of this type of study. I have always heard theology was the study of God, not the science of God. Semantics. I have dozens of theology books on my shelves and 100s boxed up in tha attic. Seems to be a waste of time to search for references that way anymore. However, this is a good resource I found online that "may" answer some of your question about the "rules" of biblical theology. But understand I don't know of anyone that uses a scientific method for theology, but "criticism" does apply. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hcri.htm steveOrino

Then you know that using a quote without crediting the original author is plagiarism. How many more times must I say it? To have a little fun and BS you guys with some theology wordsmithing, I plagarized a text. Lighten up guys. I admited it. I gave my reasoning without rationalizing that it was okay. steveOrino

www.steve-phelps.com It is the internet -- you never know. steveOrino

Okay, okay, I will be 100% honest. As busy as I am right now, I have time to make a well thought out post. I just wanted to BS you guys with some theology talk. And while I can do it -- there is nothing like the BS a theology professor can spout. I should have said, "Dabney is fond of saying ..." steveOrino

I know ... I'm busy at school and I'm trying to respond. I guess, I'll have to wait until the weekend is over. steveOrino

Take a course in Systematic Theology, (or read a good book on it). While it cannot be easily summed up in a paragraph for forum, it will show Theology does have a method. steveOrino

I've written 20-30 page papers (no plagarism ) on systematic theology for my Masters. I thought an academic's summation would be more understandable than my ramblings. steveOrino

1/2 right. It has rules, but it is not a natural science. steveOrino

Apart from a vague comparison to psychology, you haven't posted the rules theology should come under. How do you measure your performance in the field of theology? The distribution of Theology into didactic, polemic, and practical, is sufficiently known. Now, all didactic inculcation of truth is indirect refutation of the opposite error. Polemic Theology has been defined as direct refutation of error. The advantage of this has been supposed to be, that the way for easiest and most thorough refutation is to systematize the error, with reference to its first principle, or prwton yeudo". But the attempt to form a science of polemics, different from Didactic Theology fails; because error never has true method. Confusion is its characteristic. The system of discussion, formed on its false method, cannot be scientific. Hence, separate treatises on polemics have usually slidden into the methods of didactics; or they have been confused. Again: Indirect refutation is more effectual than direct. There is therefore, in this course, no separate polemic; but what is said against errors is divided between the historical and didactic steveOrino

Tcitus, the Roman historian, was not an adult when Nero reigned so you are saying he was not a reliable historian for him? steveOrino

I have been stating theology should not be under the ruls of science for quite some time. You must have me confused with someone else. steveOrino

I know, I am a member.

I misstated. When one enters into that Ich-Du relationship it is an encounter without any qualification or objectification of one another. In an "Ich-Es" encounter is where the "I" or "Ich" qualifies the "it" Es as a conception and treats it as an object. Essentially this type of relationship, Ich-Es, with God or anyone else for that matter, is really (in his words) a monologue not a dialogue. Buber can do that to you. GREAT quote! On the contrary, I'm a theist who really understands you are not living in denial, nor looking for a way to keep doing your thing w/o judgment. I have simply come to a different conclusion than you and I enjoy exchanging ideas with those who will debate as intellectually as they can and not stoop to name calling and insults. I think for the most part, you and I have tried to remain above the fray.

Or some might see his views as typical - after all Christianity is a pretty restricted club. Either believe what they believe or go to Hell. Rather nasty way to think about people that don't chose to believe the same thing. In your reply it appears you are lumping all Christians together. That is as disingenious as them creating their brand of Christianity that is acceptable. steveOrino

Not that he is right and you are wrong but Buber doesn't have the same equation as you do. He uses the example of a 'tree' in his book, but for similarity sake I will use "guitar". You can contemplate a guitar, accept it's form, density, sound, structure. You can feel it's vibration when strummed, and hear it's melody when played. Throughout all of this the guitar remains an object He goes on to say, "if will and grace are joined, that as I contemplate the 'guitar' I am drawn into a relation, and the 'guitar' ceases to be an 'it'." Okay, he's 'out there' but I do understand when he refers to our relationship with God. I agree with you but I think he is on to something. So to you thou or God is a non-entity. You most likely never be in a relationship to him because of that worldview. I'm okay with your choices even though I think you are most likely wrong. more to follow EDITED TO ADD: I think he is indicating you can take God from an object to be observed and enter into a relationship with him. So, God can be merely an object observed (Ich-Es) or a subject to be in unity with (Ich-Du) but not both at the same time. With that I agree. I have a respose, but I'll write some more on this and post later after I proof what I write. It gets messy when I write and don't think it all through. steveOrino

The word similar doesn't equate the same. That aside, I have thought of this a lot this past day. How does one study God? Should we use the scientific method? Or another method from academia? I remembered a book by Martin Buber (1878-1965) an active Zionist and Hasidic Jew who taught philosophy from 1938-1951 at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In his book, (Ich und Du) I and Thou, he explains that human beings may try to convert the subject-to-subject relation to a subject-to-object relation, or vice versa. However, the being of a subject is a unity which cannot be analyzed as an object. When a subject is analyzed as an object, the subject is no longer a subject, but becomes an object. When a subject is analyzed as an object, the subject is no longer a Thou, but becomes an It. The being which is analyzed as an object is the It in an I-It relation. Therefore when we try to analyze the relationship between man and God (I and Thou) we change God from a subject and reduce him to an object, thus depriving him of his status as divine. Buber states the eternal “Thou” (God) is not an object of experience, and is not an object of thought. The eternal “Thou” is not something which can be investigated or examined. While he is a Hasidic Jew and certainly not a Christian, I think he is on to something and I agree with 99% of what he writes in this book. steveOrino

I like how the farm was the link posted below your comment on the gay policemen website. Are all redskin fans gay or just the cops and grass cutters? steveOrino

I do not use wikipedia, it is very unreliable. Of the 20 professors I have in my Masters of Professional Counseling degree program, 1 has only a MLPC, 1 pyschologist does research (she taught the research methods class) and 18 are pyschologist who practice pychotherpay. They have PhDs and are listed as pyschologist in the course catalog and on their respective name plates. All Master level therapist cannot list themselves as pyschologist with the exception of a school pyschologist who does do testing, but must list their title as "School Pyschologist" not simply "Pyschologist" As I said, perhaps it is different in Europe, but in Oklahoma, USA that is the way it is. My son's pyschologist (he has Asperger's Syndrome) performs therapy as well as testing, but does ZERO research. steveOrino

He lived in the generation that followed Christ. He would have been an adult around the time "Q" and Luke were written. That's like saying I cannot write about FDR's influence on social democracy of the 60s because FDR died 10 years before I was born. He wrote about Nero persecuting the Christians who were followers of Christ. steveOrino

Perhaps in England they all do, but in the USA many/most? pyschologist practice therapy. They do zero study. steveOrino