This is a wonderful lecture by the great Keith Ward. Humane, utterly sensible and revelatory. Every believer should listen and digest. Ward and his ilk represent the way forward for Christianity.
27:00 I agree with how sad it is that fundamentalists won't take evolution seriously in the face of evidence. Genesis 1 is poetic, meant to establish foundational theology about God, not a literal science text.
***** True, it's a real problem when they start ignoring reality and such it makes Christians look more than a little nuts & it's really a shame because it makes people turn away in digust when there's also a lot of wisdom & beauty in The Bible & Christianity.
I wonder how someone ever could take this in any other was as a mythic text. I think it helps a lot to be a fundamentalist when you do not read the bible.
Rev. Ward's views are pretty close to what I learned in Eastern Orthodox Catechism classes. Also, allegorical interpretation is right there from the beginning of the Church, with saints like Origen of Alexandria.
I disagree with his view regarding Mark's gospel presenting Jesus as "not divine" since Mark includes the account of Jesus claiming authority to forgive sin right at the beginning of his ministry. The context makes it clear that both Jesus and the religious leadership were acutely aware of the theological significance of this. They rightly said "only God can forgive sin."
Jesus was also clear that the Father knew things that he didn't and that was made clear on several counts including the time he asked, "My Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" Only God in his fullness would know. He also couldn't predict the last day, unlike the Father. If Christ was fully God, he would be fully knowledgable no less than God is. But I do believe he was the fullness of the Holy Spirit and was present with the Father at the beginning, and that he mirrors so many of the characteristics only attrributable to God. Jesus was "God" but limited by the inherent limitations of the flesh, hence his inability to know the end of days or why the Father had forsaken him. Or at least, that's all I can gather to make any sense of it. Jesus was God and man and the man part made Jesus a little less than God the Father. But he was more than a man and very special and the intermediary between us and the Father. But even Christ asks us to pray to the Father, not to him. That's an interesting point, but I always end the model prayer with, "In Jesus' name I pray."
@@silversurfer4441 Both the comment and your reply were well thought out and awesome! I love seeing people think and process the scripture while magnifying God and his fullness, wherever that does lead us. Happy new year and God bless you!
Came here to say this. Keith fell victim to post-Enlightenment thinking here. The message of Mark is clearly that Jesus is divine, because the whole gospel is portraying Jesus as doing things only God can do. It doesn't spell it out "JeSuS iS gOd" because it's up to the reader to come to that conclusion, as emphasized by the disciples in Mark struggling to understand what Jesus said and did. Clearly Jesus is God in Mark and it's not even close to say anything else.
Silver Surfer answered well:) It is not about Jesus being absolute God in Mark's Gospel... It is being limited on Earth as God-man (Read Moltmann, Nicolas Berdyaev, etc.) They brilliantly show, that it is about "kenosis", self-limiting in God incarnate!!! Of course, Juses could not as a human being be everywhere, knowing all things, etc. In process theology and openness of God position, even God in particular sense cannot do all things... It is a big subject, and not that onsided as some would like to think:)
@@musiclover9361 I am glad that even as an admitted atheist you are open to discussion. I think you'd like Jesus a whole lot better than many (but not all so don't lump) of those claiming His name. Peace,
After years of study of scripture and prayer, the Lord led me back into the Catholic Church following several years in fundamental churches. My studies revealed to me that the Catholic church had a lot of accurate theology that was lacking in the fundamental circles, particularly in the area of interpreting scripture and its application of principles in the modern world in light of scientific advancements.
Neo-Fundo-Evangelical commentary of Theological Definitions 1.Anthropomorphic;Giants, Sea Monsters, and Donkeys claiming to be messengers of God. 2.Apocalyptic; Biblical writings used by prosperity doctrine ministers to scare people into giving them money. 3.Apocrypha; Biblical narratives written by people trying to make sense of the rest of the Bible. 4. Apologist; A person who studies ways to say there sorry for having so many genetic defects. 5.Cheep Grace; Free to do what ever you want and condemn everyone else. 6.Dispensation; A way to dismiss the early Church Fathers commentary on Biblical subjects. 7.Documentary Hypothesis; A belief that Jesus (J) Elijah (E) and Paul (P) were the same person. 8.Exegesis; Taking Jesus out of the Bible. 9.Fundamentalism; Believing every word in the Bible is true even tough you haven't read it. 10. Hermeneutics; An ancient Roman gym coach named, Herman, who invented new exercise programs to train Olympians. 11.Higher Criticism; Criticizing the Bible when you're stoned. 12.Liberal Theology; A way to study the Bible without throwing your brain away. . 13. Literal-ism; Ignore the original meaning and translate scripture to benefit yourself today. 14.Lower Criticism; Criticizing the Bible using low down disgusting arguments. 15.Source Criticism; Denying any scientific evidence proving the age of the earth is more than 6,000 years. 16.Systematic Theology; Putting Bible verses in your own order to prove what you believe. 17.Trinity; The first worship group to sing three part harmony. 18.Typology;The same Biblical stories retold with slight variation. (TYPO) 19. Universal-ism; Believing all religions are good and if you don't believe that your wrong. 20.Vulgate;A system used by Roman warriors using long polls to jump over the gates of well fortified cities.
If English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me. Oppps the text of the new testament is in koine greek in the oldest copies. Paul could not read English and it tooks up to the fourth century that we have some manuscript which is close to what we consider new testament.
Samuel Saenz Well when people belief that graves opened and corpses walked through the streets of Jerusalem just because some story tells so how should one tell joke and fiction?
I do hope that those who listen to this lecture will also read the New Testament for themselves. There were a few places I felt Dr. Ward misrepresented what it says, at least a bit.
He misrepresented it a lot. There are and have been many who have explained in detail how these can be reconciled. He even alluded to this-in that many investigators have said that it is inherently not irreconcilable. Also, there are many self refuting arguments he introduced, showing he is speaking with authority yet his so called facts are not at all. Please those who are listening, educate yourself. Read the "other side", as we should all know that one can sound persuasive until you hear the other side present thier arguments. All of this for the purpose of refuting fundamentalism? I find that most know little about the definition of fundamentalism. They define it as taking the Bible literally. And as with any liturgy, we must use grammatical- historical interpretation. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to us and the Word is spiritually discerned. Yet often that is used as excuse for bad hermeneutics. Truly, unless the God who made you gives you understanding, your own heart darkens your mind. I'd give James White a try. He clearly answers all of this and will reasonably present both sides and give truth for your consideration. One point, Wars speaks of contradictions, the law etc. But the scriptures themselves clearly explain what is moral, what is ceremonial, etc. Read it! Ask Yahweh in Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit to explain the truth to you. And as far as fundamentalisn goes, I hate the independent fundamentalist Baptist crazies who want homosexuals to shoot themselves and Obama to die...Steven Anderson...yet Reformed Baptist theology which uses Wards definition of interpretation - fundamentalism- would quickly quote a bevy of scriptures that explain how ungodly and anti Christian those attitudes are. The true people of Christ Jesus love others, even those who hate them (us) and pray for and give ourselves,bout money and our time to helping and loving all. As Christ said, go into all the world and preach the gospel teaching them to obey all I command. Make disciples of everyone...the one who does not live is not of God. And also, God's word is not for you to pick at with your tweezers, it's from the God who made us and was and is kind enough to reveal truth to us. We will a stand before Him one day being responsible for what we did with all the truth he gave us- All the light! aomin.org has much that will answer these questions
Right on point. The argument that the resurrection never happened based on differences in the accounts is a complete misunderstanding of the mentality of the gospel writers and their times. People then did not obsess over these things, they understood the writers were using poetic license to relate multiple messages, layered within each other. Moderns read it and see only the superficial truth, AND GET IT WRONG.
Personal notes: Love springs from the heart which is transfigured(transformed into something more beautiful or elevated) by the knowledge of the presence of God. Take the Bible seriously but not literally. Creation/Genesis--God created all.
In some sense, the trouble with Fundamentalism is that it attempts exactly what I said (forcing a 21st cent., western understanding) onto ancient writings by Eastern thinkers. I agree fundamentalism has many problems, but I don't think this video is a very high quality critique.
What if, just hear me out. What if, John Calvin was being sarcastic a lot and accidentally forgot to tell everyone he was trolling them before he died 🤔
One thing I do agree with, is if your faith is not working out for you, you may have to take a look and see what you truly believe. Find a place where you can trust the Teacher and his Teaching. Matt 28:"Mary from Magdala and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. Suddenly there was a powerful earthquake. An angel of the Lord had come down from heaven and rolled the stone away and was sitting on it.The Angel rolled back the stone, right. Mark 16: Mary from Magdala, Mary, and Salome bought spices to go and anoint Jesus. vs. 3: "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb. When they looked up they saw the stone had been rolled away. vs5, "As they went into the tomb, they saw a young man. He was dressed in a white robe and sat on the right side. An unmistakable angel. vs.6 ; "Don't panic your looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been brought back to life. He's not here.Look at the place where they laid him.Go and tell his disciple and Peter that he's going ahead of them to Galille. There they will see him, just as he told them. One Angel.Luke 24: vs1: "Very early on Sunday morning the women went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. When they went in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. ... two men in clothes that that were as bright as lightning stood beside them. Two Angels. The men asked the women. " Why are you looking for the dead among the living one.? He's not here. He has been brought back to life. John 20: vvs1. "Early on Sunday morning, while it was still dark,Mary from Magdala went to the tomb. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb's entrance. 20 vs 11: Mary, however stood there and cried as she looked at the tomb. As she cried , she bent and looked inside. She saw two Angels in white clothes. They were sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying. One angel was where Jesus head had been, and the other where his feet had been. The angels asked her why she was crying. Mary said, 'They have moved my Lord, and I don't know where they've put him. After she said this, she turned around and Jesus was standing there." This guy better rethink his position and he better do it soon. If he does not believe Jesus is coming for his Church and the final Judgement, he better thing about this too. The sooner the better.
He's in gods hands, it's none of your business to judge, technically. The fundamental problem with fundamentalists is they turn people away from God and faith. Maybe YOU should think about that and get right with God about YOUR beliefs.
Very interesting and enlightening. After all there are more differences in the MSS than there are words in the NT. Religious fundamentalism, in all the Abrahamic religions, makes whose that take their scriptures literally have to jettison rationality and reason.
I view rejection of The Holy Spirit when sensed in your being, as the singular unforgiveable sin, and that at just the individual, finish of "this" existence.
And you must actually know what you're doing in order for it to be a sin at all. I sincerely believe that you can't commit a single sin in this life that God can't forigve or doesn't want to forgive.
Origen did in fact make usage of the various strains of Platonism , so did the Alexandrian school . They're hermeneutical approach made use of the knowledge at the time . How else is one to form a hermeneutic without it ?
I disagree with things Keith says, it is not like I swallow it all without thinking. But yes, I do like what Keith is saying in its entirety, because it is exactly what I observe. Fundamentalists really are the most unloving and uncaring in my opinion. Fundamentalists always equate their belief and interpretation with what God says and if one disagrees then one is hell bound.
This is a remarkable lecture. It's remarkable because Keith Ward is a very intelligent man, and as a very intelligent man he has managed to produce a lecture in which almost every statement is either false outright or else a severe misrepresentation. From what fundamentalists believe to his recounting of the biblical and historical data, it's almost entirely errant. I wonder if he's ever actually read any of the more "fundamentalist" scholars he's critiquing. I highly doubt he's read any D.A. Carson for example if he's still making errors like this. For a corrective, read Lydia McGrew, who's neither a fundamentalist nor an inerrantist, but effectively shreds all these claims of gospel contradictions and disharmony.
That's not what I said in my post. No, I don't think that the Gospels are all "literal" in the sense that most people define "literal." My point was he criticizes things that just ain't there, and I provided examples. He blatantly misrepresents what the text says.
Im familiar with Pardes and Jewish interpretation. However, much of this comes from Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, contemporary to Christ and the Apostles but was not in Judea. That's the point. It's not that we should throw out typology or allegory completely, or that it is completely absent from the Bible, but that we should be careful of the type of syncretism that we see in Origen and others. Obviously there are multiple levels of meaning in Scripture, Prophecies being the most obvious example.
But do you do think though that all Gospel accounts are all literally true? He might be wrong on some things, but he is right that either one of them (or more) has to be wrong on certain details and aspects.
He does NOT question the doctrine of salvation. He merely stated that he thinks that Mark does not view Christ as a divine being. Why don't you read his books about Christianity yourself before you start saying it might very well be justified to call him a fake Christian?
I've seen inference used in cognitive psychology , artificial intelligence , and as a foundation for presuppositional logic . Never have I seen it used in literary theory , Etymology nor do I recall Heidegger , Habermas , Gadamer , or Ricoeur , use it much less engage in it . If you know of theologians who use the laws of inference used as a heuristic device , I'd like to read them .
Actually allegorical interpretation began with the Jews themselves. Jesus often uses allegory to compare himself to various Old Testament images. The whole concept of him being the Messiah is allegory in some sense, since he was not a secular king and really, never will be.
I like Keith Ward a lot, but his Biblical interpretation is a little spotty. Like the part about Jesus declaring all foods clean, the subject of this passage was about the Jews' cleansing ritual before eating. It was something that is not in the OT and was added as a separate tradition. Jesus was pointing out that they were adding extra stuff to the Law, which is why the Pharisees ran away with their tails between their legs after he said it.
I partially agree, I partially disagree. The authors can not possibly communicate what the authors intend was, unless their intend was only to show Christ's lordship. Just look at the dozens of interpretations people come up with to this day, what exactly do you mean with 'the clear communication of the authors intend'?
And btw, the video I just sent lays more focus on the theological reading of Genesis. This video addresses Christianity and evolution more specifically: ruclips.net/video/yf5ovSpS2GU/видео.html
"I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel' [Romans 1:16]." - St. Basil
God never says 6 days, you read Genesis in the wrong way. Genesis (or the Bible )is not meant to be read as a scientific book, it is to be read as a theological book. The point is exactly that you don't understand it. There is a difference between reading it plainly and reading it thoroughly. The latter does justice to the text. You affirm what you read out of the Bible with a 21st century mindset. What status do you think you have to say that what you read out of the text is correct?
At a basic level, interpretations should not be anachronistic, and the recognition that you have biases is probably the first step. For instance, a 1st Century Jew's conception of "faith" is very much different from most modern conceptions, or even that of the Reformers (who mostly relied on Augustine's views, which were developed 3 centuries after Christ). Jews had a more holistic view whereas many today simply mean mental affirmation and other components (e.g. repentance) are wholly separate.
Church councils condemned certain elements of Origenism- I'm not defending those. Reincarnation and Subordinationism in the Trinity don't have a place in orthodox Christianity. But Keith Ward isn't really arguing for those. He's really a very good example of an orthodox Anglican from thel tradition dating back to the 17th century, interested in the metaphysical implications of Christianity.
Some certainly emphasized Jesus' Lordship and humanity whereas others emphasized his divinity. However, these are not the *only* things they probably meant to convey. Luke, for instance, explicitly tells us his intent, as does John (Lk 1 & Jn 20, respectively). The reason people come up with dozens of interpretations is partially because they fail to recognize their own biases, but they also make basic exegetical mistakes and have no consistent hermeneutic.
But to a certain degree everyone will force their own cultural mindset onto a text. And even if one were to abandon the western 21st century mindset completely, what does one choose then? A 5th century mindset???
That's the point, you can't escape it, so why try, you have to embrace it. That's why the faith will fundamentally change, because people and the generations will change with it. It can be edited, and was edited in the past, so there's no reason to assume it is set in 5th or 21st century stone.
I have so far listened up to the eighth minute of his lecture and i can tell listeners that keith ward has no formal understanding of the law of non contradiction. If he does and he should since apparently he is a philosopher , he has obviously forgotten the formal understanding of the law of non contradiction. Without going into great detail, none of his examples violate the law of non contradiction or in the final analysis prove to be bona fide contradictions. If you dont know what constitutes a true contradiction you will put many examples of apparent contradictions in the true contradiction category when they in fact are not. His voice is sweet and gentle but forgive me his logic is doesnt hold water is very wishy washy.
We can't be dogmatic about the metaphysical implications of Christianity because we are largely ignorant of how our universe and the godhead "work," with the exception of divine revelation. The early church *dogmatically* mixed Theology with Platonism and Aristotelian philosophy, neither of which are exactly correct. What you call orthodoxy is pagan philosophy mixed with Scripture.
Listening to this man with his apologetics, to me, just strengthens the point that religion and Christianity are all rubbish. A book full of contradictions that must be cherry picked and weighed and measured as to which parts are true and those to disregard is a sure fired way to create chaos, fighting and unrest of all sorts. If it is divinely inspired, God is a sadist and indeed the author of confusion. I believe most seekers of the truth have tried their very best to decider what this God wanted and required of them. Obviously,if he, exists, he tells different people different things. Look around you to see the results of this nonsense. I have read the bible twice, once as a fundamentalist, once as a liberal skeptic. I was a believer for nearly fifty years. I am so relieved and glad to say I have given up the whole nauseating and sickening concept for real brotherhood with my fellow humans. I am a humanist atheist. My life now has a peace not even possible with religion.
have you ever seen that funny photo of 3 doctors in the room of a dying king, bickering over the best diagnosis? There is little over hell that is not subject to contradiction, and surely more so when you speak of stories that aim at teaching human lessons, not at listing facts.
Name me one book that doesn't present with rubbish AND value. It's the transformative power of Christ that compels someone to take a closer look at the book that references him to see what value there may be as dictated by our conscience. Call it cherry picking if you will, but the atheists are best at it. They're always pointing at OT passages of bloodletting while ignoring the more reasonable and loving passages of the NT. And they'll even take NT passages that are obviously representative of a more symbolic meaning (e.g. I come to bring a sword) and skew them to look bad. Propaganda cuts both ways.
"is the only way god wanted us to treat his word." How do you know this? Where are the verses on hermeneutics and exegesis. Oh wait, never mind. They don't exist.
Keith Ward mentions the origins of fundamentalism as being in the 1900's in Chicago, so it should also be said that liberalism and textual criticism began in the 1800's in Germany. The genetic fallacy swings both ways, but I digress. What I can hardly believe is that Ward actually claims that the early church didn't really believe in the miracles or the resurrection. These people were being persecuted and put to death for what they saw, and yet this man says they didn't believe what they were dying for! I'm sure Ward was a smart guy but this is pretty silly stuff.
Just gonna preempt this since lots of people want to debate on youtube: No, I am not a fundamentalist who thinks the whole bible is literal. I am not a literal 6 day creationist, nor am I a strict calvinist. I love you all and you are my neighbors. I just wanted to get my feelings out about Ward's speech, since biblical liberalism is as annoying to me as literalism. Have a great day!
@@TheRoark I know that the early art work doesn't portray the crucifixion. I believe I have read that the emphasis in those days was the COMING of God's Kingdom, not the resurrection. Of course, that isn't the same as denying the resurrection, as you rightly point out.
You set that one on a tee for me: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. - (Matthew 7:13-14) The sheer numbers involved mean very little. Even in minor issues of life, the majority is most often wrong. When it comes to life's most important isues, the majority is virtually always wrong. The Catholic Church is not right simply because there is a lot of them. The Catholic church is wrong because on virtually every distintive Catholic teaching, they are in contradiction ot the teaching of Scripture.
Really? Didn't scripture also say those who are not against me are for me? Sounds like an inclusive and non-sectarian passage to me. Sounds like Jesus wouldn't have a problem with anyone merely because they're Catholic. He might, however, have a problem with someone who fancies himself the judge of other people. Hint hint.
+Mind Mix the irony of judging someone for being judgmental, ends up being the very thing you are accusing someone else of being. It is pretty interesting when you think about it.
I wouldn't regard Catholics as being "for Christ." Try going to a country controlled by the Catholic Church and see where you get in regard to preaching the Gospel of Christ. They are not "for Christ." They are "for the Church" (meaning their idea of church).
And the Evangelicals are doing better with their thumbs up to war, run-amok capitalism and resistance to universal healthcare? And don't forget their immeasurable greed. Sounds like the whore of Babylon to me. I just attended a Catholic church and i noticed something interesting; they actually talked about Jesus! They talked about helping the poor and needy. I never get that from a Protestant church. What i get instead are sermons damning drinking and smoking and the sermons only refer to Paul and the Old Testament. It seems the Catholics are the closest thing we have to a real Christian.
"Fundamentalists affirm the authority of God's word in contrast to liberals." I disagree. Fundamentalists say that their interpretation is Gods word and anyone who has a different interpretation is undermining scripture. "It is very commendable attitude for christians who believe the bible really is God's flawless word." Christians who believe that have never read the Gospels seriously. They can't all be true at the same time, therefore at least one is in error.
I don't like the word literal. It is too loaded and too many people mean different things. I think the Gospels truly communicate what the authors intended to communicate in a way that was understood by a people 2000 years removed and culturally, linguistically, and philosophically very different from 21st Century Westerners. If you try to ram a 21st Century Western interpretation onto the Gospels, then yes, I would agree that you will never reconcile them. Do you have an example in mind?
1st Century Jews weren't Platonists and didn't think like Greeks, and Paul explicitly argued against mingling Greek philosophy with doctrine. Jewish thought wasn't exactly homogeneous, but they did have a fairly well defined method of exegesis and hermeneutics. We'd be better off following them than pagan philosophers. You don't need Platonism to form hermeneutics. You seem to be confusing philosophy with the basic laws of inference.
"Keith Ward is a Christian philosopher, theologian, pastor and scholar. He has an MA and DD degrees from both Cambridge and Oxford, and he served as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford from 1991 to 2004." A nice introduction and a way of saying he's an expert, too bad he hasn't a clue, like so many other educated nitwits who rely on impressive titles to add public credence to their own brand of psychobabble gibberish.
Liberalism comes with protestantism, because there is no conceptual authoritative view of the Bible... ever wondered why there are so many denominations within protestantism? I think that young earth creationists like yourself treat the Bible terribly, but that doesn't mean I don't respect you or condemn you. I like to learn about your position and read books, its not going to kill me. To simply say that any interpretation that disagrees with you is disturbing, is in fact disturbing of its own.
This ridiculous arguments about the law have answers. There are differences between moral and ceremonial. You'll notice he quotes eating with Gentiles. But then when someone like him wants to make application, it's because they want to do something immoral. And the scriptures clearly explain what the difference is between civil, judicial moral, ceremonial etc. Come on Ward. You should know better.
Origen pretty much began allegorical interpretation in the 3rd century. Hardly from the infancy of the church. It was a novelty, which is why he's called the "father of allegorical interpretation," and its real source is his former neo-Platonism, not Divine Revelation. The mixing of man-made philosophy with Revelation has always created heresy and division in the church, as is demonstrated between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools.
This guy plays fast and loose with reported facts and totally misses the point. Claim: the women in Mark saw an angel descend and roll away stone. Not in Mark. Claim: Jerusalem Council commands Gentiles to follow kosher food laws. Not what's recorded. It's not surprising that someone with such a low view of Scripture would blatantly misrepresent what's in the text. He does not even have his basic facts right on orthodoxy. Allegorical interpretation was a late development.
I am pretty sure I already sent you this, but judging by what you are saying now I don't think you have watched it. So here it is again: ruclips.net/video/5bKa92eLkQM/видео.html (search the link in youtube and pick the top link)
So, diminish the Bible and it's contents. So much for the effete and pseudo-intellectual efforts of Keith Ward. What is clear from the bible is ignored and relegated as less than convincing when one follows 'orthodox-Christianity'. There can be no mistakes in the original auto-graphs.
ok i've listened up to fifteen minutes now and cannot recommend this teacher as a good expositor of scripture , very poor. If i may , i recommend you tube videos of RC Sproul for a thorough exposition and teaching of the bible. Ligonier ministries.
The Bible isn't a historical text? Are you fucking kidding me? No text has withstood as much historic testing as the New Testament. This guy completely lost me.
What are you talking about?................How can you historically validate miracles and divine acts?............Especially when there isn't a shred of evidence validating such delusions today? Yes the Bible has historical information in it.................but so does the movie King Kong have an accurate recreation of the city of NY in the 1930's............but does that mean a big ape climbed the empire state building??. Grow up............
"The Bible" is indeed not a historical text. It is an anthology of different texts, some of which are historical, some mythological and some pseudo-historical.
So tell me how do you test: A. Dead people leaving the graving and walking through Jerusalem and appear to many. B. Turning water into a wine. (A miracle performed by Dionysus follower who made even wells of wine) C. Casting demons into swine. D. Multiplying food (This is amusingly a miracle done by Elijah before.) So would you please show me how they tested A,B,C,D and who claim to which conclusions based on what? No one in the time of Jesus wrote anything about this miracles. We have later stories by followers but how were they tested to be true.
+TorianTammas Lecture 12: Does God Really Act? vimeo.com/41753716 Lecture 13: The Physical Resurrection of Jesus and the Fact that Matter Matters vimeo.com/42179889
This is a wonderful lecture by the great Keith Ward. Humane, utterly sensible and revelatory. Every believer should listen and digest. Ward and his ilk represent the way forward for Christianity.
100%
Ward blows the socks off Fundamentalism in a charming way. Love his presentation
27:00
I agree with how sad it is that fundamentalists won't take evolution seriously in the face of evidence. Genesis 1 is poetic, meant to establish foundational theology about God, not a literal science text.
***** True, it's a real problem when they start ignoring reality and such it makes Christians look more than a little nuts & it's really a shame because it makes people turn away in digust when there's also a lot of wisdom & beauty in The Bible & Christianity.
I wonder how someone ever could take this in any other was as a mythic text. I think it helps a lot to be a fundamentalist when you do not read the bible.
All the Reformed Baptist’s left the chat room
Rev. Ward's views are pretty close to what I learned in Eastern Orthodox Catechism classes. Also, allegorical interpretation is right there from the beginning of the Church, with saints like Origen of Alexandria.
Ward does not believe in deity of Christ!
Wasn’t Origen branded as a heretic though?
@@Jonathanhdz16 No. Only certain ideas associated with him were condemned... by one council.
Man, I love the pic of the giant Dr. Ward over these fundamentalist “reformed” evangelicals
I disagree with his view regarding Mark's gospel presenting Jesus as "not divine" since Mark includes the account of Jesus claiming authority to forgive sin right at the beginning of his ministry. The context makes it clear that both Jesus and the religious leadership were acutely aware of the theological significance of this. They rightly said "only God can forgive sin."
Jesus was also clear that the Father knew things that he didn't and that was made clear on several counts including the time he asked, "My Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" Only God in his fullness would know. He also couldn't predict the last day, unlike the Father. If Christ was fully God, he would be fully knowledgable no less than God is. But I do believe he was the fullness of the Holy Spirit and was present with the Father at the beginning, and that he mirrors so many of the characteristics only attrributable to God. Jesus was "God" but limited by the inherent limitations of the flesh, hence his inability to know the end of days or why the Father had forsaken him. Or at least, that's all I can gather to make any sense of it. Jesus was God and man and the man part made Jesus a little less than God the Father. But he was more than a man and very special and the intermediary between us and the Father. But even Christ asks us to pray to the Father, not to him. That's an interesting point, but I always end the model prayer with, "In Jesus' name I pray."
@@silversurfer4441 Both the comment and your reply were well thought out and awesome! I love seeing people think and process the scripture while magnifying God and his fullness, wherever that does lead us. Happy new year and God bless you!
Came here to say this. Keith fell victim to post-Enlightenment thinking here. The message of Mark is clearly that Jesus is divine, because the whole gospel is portraying Jesus as doing things only God can do. It doesn't spell it out "JeSuS iS gOd" because it's up to the reader to come to that conclusion, as emphasized by the disciples in Mark struggling to understand what Jesus said and did. Clearly Jesus is God in Mark and it's not even close to say anything else.
Silver Surfer answered well:) It is not about Jesus being absolute God in Mark's Gospel... It is being limited on Earth as God-man (Read Moltmann, Nicolas Berdyaev, etc.) They brilliantly show, that it is about "kenosis", self-limiting in God incarnate!!! Of course, Juses could not as a human being be everywhere, knowing all things, etc. In process theology and openness of God position, even God in particular sense cannot do all things... It is a big subject, and not that onsided as some would like to think:)
@@silversurfer4441 "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me" is alluding to the prophecy foretold in Psalm 22...
I would love to see Ward in debate with McArthur. It’d be very telling.
And probably very funny:))))) 💪🏼
I'm going to listen to the Rev. professor Ward on Saturday. So far, I like what he says. I'm an atheist.
musiclover9361 exciting!! have fun.
MegaMiir It was and I did. It was last year. :-)
@@musiclover9361 I am glad that even as an admitted atheist you are open to discussion. I think you'd like Jesus a whole lot better than many (but not all so don't lump) of those claiming His name. Peace,
He’s a great guy
Great man! How said that so many do not hear the truth!!!
After years of study of scripture and prayer, the Lord led me back into the Catholic Church following several years in fundamental churches. My studies revealed to me that the Catholic church had a lot of accurate theology that was lacking in the fundamental circles, particularly in the area of interpreting scripture and its application of principles in the modern world in light of scientific advancements.
The comments on this thread are great!Real truth seekers working this out for themselves😀❗️
If the King James Bible was good enough for the Apostle Paul it's good enough for me.
The King James Bible wasn't around in Paul's time.
Neo-Fundo-Evangelical commentary of Theological Definitions
1.Anthropomorphic;Giants, Sea Monsters, and Donkeys claiming to be messengers of God.
2.Apocalyptic; Biblical writings used by prosperity doctrine ministers to scare people into giving them money.
3.Apocrypha; Biblical narratives written by people trying to make sense of the rest of the Bible.
4. Apologist; A person who studies ways to say there sorry for having so many genetic defects.
5.Cheep Grace; Free to do what ever you want and condemn everyone else.
6.Dispensation; A way to dismiss the early Church Fathers commentary on Biblical subjects.
7.Documentary Hypothesis; A belief that Jesus (J) Elijah (E) and Paul (P) were the same person.
8.Exegesis; Taking Jesus out of the Bible.
9.Fundamentalism; Believing every word in the Bible is true even tough you haven't read it.
10. Hermeneutics; An ancient Roman gym coach named, Herman, who invented new exercise programs to train Olympians.
11.Higher Criticism; Criticizing the Bible when you're stoned.
12.Liberal Theology; A way to study the Bible without throwing your brain away.
.
13. Literal-ism; Ignore the original meaning and translate scripture to benefit yourself today.
14.Lower Criticism; Criticizing the Bible using low down disgusting arguments.
15.Source Criticism; Denying any scientific evidence proving the age of the earth is more than 6,000 years.
16.Systematic Theology; Putting Bible verses in your own order to prove what you believe.
17.Trinity; The first worship group to sing three part harmony.
18.Typology;The same Biblical stories retold with slight variation. (TYPO)
19. Universal-ism; Believing all religions are good and if you don't believe that your wrong.
20.Vulgate;A system used by Roman warriors using long polls to jump over the gates of well fortified cities.
If English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me. Oppps the text of the new testament is in koine greek in the oldest copies. Paul could not read English and it tooks up to the fourth century that
we have some manuscript which is close to what we consider new
testament.
How did everyone seriously miss his joke and take what he said seriously?
Samuel Saenz Well when people belief that graves opened and corpses walked through the streets of Jerusalem just because some story tells so how should one tell joke and fiction?
I do hope that those who listen to this lecture will also read the New Testament for themselves. There were a few places I felt Dr. Ward misrepresented what it says, at least a bit.
He misrepresented it a lot. There are and have been many who have explained in detail how these can be reconciled. He even alluded to this-in that many investigators have said that it is inherently not irreconcilable. Also, there are many self refuting arguments he introduced, showing he is speaking with authority yet his so called facts are not at all. Please those who are listening, educate yourself. Read the "other side", as we should all know that one can sound persuasive until you hear the other side present thier arguments.
All of this for the purpose of refuting fundamentalism? I find that most know little about the definition of fundamentalism. They define it as taking the Bible literally. And as with any liturgy, we must use grammatical- historical interpretation. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to us and the Word is spiritually discerned. Yet often that is used as excuse for bad hermeneutics. Truly, unless the God who made you gives you understanding, your own heart darkens your mind. I'd give James White a try. He clearly answers all of this and will reasonably present both sides and give truth for your consideration.
One point, Wars speaks of contradictions, the law etc. But the scriptures themselves clearly explain what is moral, what is ceremonial, etc. Read it! Ask Yahweh in Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit to explain the truth to you. And as far as fundamentalisn goes, I hate the independent fundamentalist Baptist crazies who want homosexuals to shoot themselves and Obama to die...Steven Anderson...yet Reformed Baptist theology which uses Wards definition of interpretation - fundamentalism- would quickly quote a bevy of scriptures that explain how ungodly and anti Christian those attitudes are. The true people of Christ Jesus love others, even those who hate them (us) and pray for and give ourselves,bout money and our time to helping and loving all. As Christ said, go into all the world and preach the gospel teaching them to obey all I command. Make disciples of everyone...the one who does not live is not of God. And also, God's word is not for you to pick at with your tweezers, it's from the God who made us and was and is kind enough to reveal truth to us. We will a stand before Him one day being responsible for what we did with all the truth he gave us- All the light!
aomin.org has much that will answer these questions
Right on point. The argument that the resurrection never happened based on differences in the accounts is a complete misunderstanding of the mentality of the gospel writers and their times. People then did not obsess over these things, they understood the writers were using poetic license to relate multiple messages, layered within each other. Moderns read it and see only the superficial truth, AND GET IT WRONG.
We're all modern, we all get it wrong.
Personal notes: Love springs from the heart which is transfigured(transformed into something more beautiful or elevated) by the knowledge of the presence of God. Take the Bible seriously but not literally. Creation/Genesis--God created all.
In some sense, the trouble with Fundamentalism is that it attempts exactly what I said (forcing a 21st cent., western understanding) onto ancient writings by Eastern thinkers. I agree fundamentalism has many problems, but I don't think this video is a very high quality critique.
This is amazing! These thoughts have plagued my mind for a while now. Keith has cleared a lot up.
Me too long ago:)
What if, just hear me out. What if, John Calvin was being sarcastic a lot and accidentally forgot to tell everyone he was trolling them before he died 🤔
THAT was funny!I caught it!🤣😂👊❗️
Not really:) Unfortunately he was that way.. But it is always good to have such examples from history:)!
One thing I do agree with, is if your faith is not working out for you, you may have to take a look and see what you truly believe. Find a place where you can trust the Teacher and his Teaching.
Matt 28:"Mary from Magdala and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. Suddenly there was a powerful earthquake. An angel of the Lord had come down from heaven and rolled the stone away and was sitting on it.The Angel rolled back the stone, right. Mark 16: Mary from Magdala, Mary, and Salome bought spices to go and anoint Jesus. vs. 3: "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb. When they looked up they saw the stone had been rolled away. vs5, "As they went into the tomb, they saw a young man. He was dressed in a white robe and sat on the right side. An unmistakable angel. vs.6 ; "Don't panic your looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been brought back to life. He's not here.Look at the place where they laid him.Go and tell his disciple and Peter that he's going ahead of them to Galille. There they will see him, just as he told them. One Angel.Luke 24: vs1: "Very early on Sunday morning the women went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. When they went in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. ... two men in clothes that that were as bright as lightning stood beside them. Two Angels. The men asked the women. " Why are you looking for the dead among the living one.? He's not here. He has been brought back to life. John 20: vvs1. "Early on Sunday morning, while it was still dark,Mary from Magdala went to the tomb. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb's entrance. 20 vs 11: Mary, however stood there and cried as she looked at the tomb. As she cried , she bent and looked inside. She saw two Angels in white clothes. They were sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying. One angel was where Jesus head had been, and the other where his feet had been. The angels asked her why she was crying. Mary said, 'They have moved my Lord, and I don't know where they've put him. After she said this, she turned around and Jesus was standing there." This guy better rethink his position and he better do it soon. If he does not believe Jesus is coming for his Church and the final Judgement, he better thing about this too. The sooner the better.
He's in gods hands, it's none of your business to judge, technically. The fundamental problem with fundamentalists is they turn people away from God and faith. Maybe YOU should think about that and get right with God about YOUR beliefs.
Yes in Matthew it does say not a jot will pass away but in Matthew 15: 11 its says"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean"
Very interesting and enlightening. After all there are more differences in the MSS than there are words in the NT. Religious fundamentalism, in all the Abrahamic religions, makes whose that take their scriptures literally have to jettison rationality and reason.
I view rejection of The Holy Spirit when sensed in your being, as the singular unforgiveable
sin, and that at just the individual, finish of "this" existence.
And you must actually know what you're doing in order for it to be a sin at all. I sincerely believe that you can't commit a single sin in this life that God can't forigve or doesn't want to forgive.
Origen did in fact make usage of the various strains of Platonism , so did the Alexandrian school . They're hermeneutical approach made use of the knowledge at the time . How else is one to form a hermeneutic without it ?
How is it contradictory to say that two DIFFERENT groups of women saw different things at the tomb?
I disagree with things Keith says, it is not like I swallow it all without thinking. But yes, I do like what Keith is saying in its entirety, because it is exactly what I observe. Fundamentalists really are the most unloving and uncaring in my opinion. Fundamentalists always equate their belief and interpretation with what God says and if one disagrees then one is hell bound.
This is a remarkable lecture. It's remarkable because Keith Ward is a very intelligent man, and as a very intelligent man he has managed to produce a lecture in which almost every statement is either false outright or else a severe misrepresentation. From what fundamentalists believe to his recounting of the biblical and historical data, it's almost entirely errant. I wonder if he's ever actually read any of the more "fundamentalist" scholars he's critiquing. I highly doubt he's read any D.A. Carson for example if he's still making errors like this. For a corrective, read Lydia McGrew, who's neither a fundamentalist nor an inerrantist, but effectively shreds all these claims of gospel contradictions and disharmony.
That's not what I said in my post. No, I don't think that the Gospels are all "literal" in the sense that most people define "literal." My point was he criticizes things that just ain't there, and I provided examples. He blatantly misrepresents what the text says.
Im familiar with Pardes and Jewish interpretation. However, much of this comes from Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, contemporary to Christ and the Apostles but was not in Judea. That's the point. It's not that we should throw out typology or allegory completely, or that it is completely absent from the Bible, but that we should be careful of the type of syncretism that we see in Origen and others. Obviously there are multiple levels of meaning in Scripture, Prophecies being the most obvious example.
But do you do think though that all Gospel accounts are all literally true? He might be wrong on some things, but he is right that either one of them (or more) has to be wrong on certain details and aspects.
He does NOT question the doctrine of salvation. He merely stated that he thinks that Mark does not view Christ as a divine being. Why don't you read his books about Christianity yourself before you start saying it might very well be justified to call him a fake Christian?
I've seen inference used in cognitive psychology , artificial intelligence , and as a foundation for presuppositional logic . Never have I seen it used in literary theory , Etymology nor do I recall Heidegger , Habermas , Gadamer , or Ricoeur , use it much less engage in it . If you know of theologians who use the laws of inference used as a heuristic device , I'd like to read them .
Actually allegorical interpretation began with the Jews themselves. Jesus often uses allegory to compare himself to various Old Testament images. The whole concept of him being the Messiah is allegory in some sense, since he was not a secular king and really, never will be.
What is the strictly genteel way of telling SOMEBODY YOURE GOING TO HELL IF YOU DONT ACCEPT JESUS?
I like Keith Ward a lot, but his Biblical interpretation is a little spotty. Like the part about Jesus declaring all foods clean, the subject of this passage was about the Jews' cleansing ritual before eating. It was something that is not in the OT and was added as a separate tradition. Jesus was pointing out that they were adding extra stuff to the Law, which is why the Pharisees ran away with their tails between their legs after he said it.
As far as the women at the tomb. As Keith said they are different women. Couldn't be that both events happened?
I partially agree, I partially disagree. The authors can not possibly communicate what the authors intend was, unless their intend was only to show Christ's lordship. Just look at the dozens of interpretations people come up with to this day, what exactly do you mean with 'the clear communication of the authors intend'?
And btw, the video I just sent lays more focus on the theological reading of Genesis. This video addresses Christianity and evolution more specifically: ruclips.net/video/yf5ovSpS2GU/видео.html
"I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel' [Romans 1:16]." - St. Basil
God never says 6 days, you read Genesis in the wrong way. Genesis (or the Bible )is not meant to be read as a scientific book, it is to be read as a theological book. The point is exactly that you don't understand it. There is a difference between reading it plainly and reading it thoroughly. The latter does justice to the text. You affirm what you read out of the Bible with a 21st century mindset. What status do you think you have to say that what you read out of the text is correct?
I didn't knew John Piper was a "fundamentalist"
At a basic level, interpretations should not be anachronistic, and the recognition that you have biases is probably the first step. For instance, a 1st Century Jew's conception of "faith" is very much different from most modern conceptions, or even that of the Reformers (who mostly relied on Augustine's views, which were developed 3 centuries after Christ). Jews had a more holistic view whereas many today simply mean mental affirmation and other components (e.g. repentance) are wholly separate.
Church councils condemned certain elements of Origenism- I'm not defending those. Reincarnation and Subordinationism in the Trinity don't have a place in orthodox Christianity. But Keith Ward isn't really arguing for those. He's really a very good example of an orthodox Anglican from thel tradition dating back to the 17th century, interested in the metaphysical implications of Christianity.
Some certainly emphasized Jesus' Lordship and humanity whereas others emphasized his divinity. However, these are not the *only* things they probably meant to convey. Luke, for instance, explicitly tells us his intent, as does John (Lk 1 & Jn 20, respectively). The reason people come up with dozens of interpretations is partially because they fail to recognize their own biases, but they also make basic exegetical mistakes and have no consistent hermeneutic.
But to a certain degree everyone will force their own cultural mindset onto a text. And even if one were to abandon the western 21st century mindset completely, what does one choose then? A 5th century mindset???
That's the point, you can't escape it, so why try, you have to embrace it. That's why the faith will fundamentally change, because people and the generations will change with it. It can be edited, and was edited in the past, so there's no reason to assume it is set in 5th or 21st century stone.
Inference ? Are you sure what hermeneutics is ?
I have so far listened up to the eighth minute of his lecture and i can tell listeners that keith ward has no formal understanding of the law of non contradiction. If he does and he should since apparently he is a philosopher , he has obviously forgotten the formal understanding of the law of non contradiction. Without going into great detail, none of his examples violate the law of non contradiction or in the final analysis prove to be bona fide contradictions. If you dont know what constitutes a true contradiction you will put many examples of apparent contradictions in the true contradiction category when they in fact are not. His voice is sweet and gentle but forgive me his logic is doesnt hold water is very wishy washy.
I share a similar sentiment. I’m going to further reflect on what is he is saying that seems misguided, can’t quite settle it...
My views are far more orthodox than liberal and that includes Genesis, atonement and the way to read scripture.
We can't be dogmatic about the metaphysical implications of Christianity because we are largely ignorant of how our universe and the godhead "work," with the exception of divine revelation. The early church *dogmatically* mixed Theology with Platonism and Aristotelian philosophy, neither of which are exactly correct. What you call orthodoxy is pagan philosophy mixed with Scripture.
Ward's a fantastic philosopher, but a horrible theologian and biblical exegete.
A better theologian than fundamentalists are
Listening to this man with his apologetics, to me, just strengthens the point that religion and Christianity are all rubbish. A book full of contradictions that must be cherry picked and weighed and measured as to which parts are true and those to disregard is a sure fired way to create chaos, fighting and unrest of all sorts. If it is divinely inspired, God is a sadist and indeed the author of confusion. I believe most seekers of the truth have tried their very best to decider what this God wanted and required of them. Obviously,if he, exists, he tells different people different things. Look around you to see the results of this nonsense. I have read the bible twice, once as a fundamentalist, once as a liberal skeptic. I was a believer for nearly fifty years. I am so relieved and glad to say I have given up the whole nauseating and sickening concept for real brotherhood with my fellow humans. I am a humanist atheist. My life now has a peace not even possible with religion.
People seem to fail to realize Christians can and more often than not DO have unity without uniformity.
You should read "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and It's Scientific Pretensions" by agnostic David Berlinski
have you ever seen that funny photo of 3 doctors in the room of a dying king, bickering over the best diagnosis? There is little over hell that is not subject to contradiction, and surely more so when you speak of stories that aim at teaching human lessons, not at listing facts.
Name me one book that doesn't present with rubbish AND value. It's the transformative power of Christ that compels someone to take a closer look at the book that references him to see what value there may be as dictated by our conscience. Call it cherry picking if you will, but the atheists are best at it. They're always pointing at OT passages of bloodletting while ignoring the more reasonable and loving passages of the NT. And they'll even take NT passages that are obviously representative of a more symbolic meaning (e.g. I come to bring a sword) and skew them to look bad. Propaganda cuts both ways.
Why yes, I am. And with a comment like that, I'm sure your interpretations are outrageously bad and inconsistent.
"is the only way god wanted us to treat his word."
How do you know this? Where are the verses on hermeneutics and exegesis. Oh wait, never mind. They don't exist.
Keith Ward mentions the origins of fundamentalism as being in the 1900's in Chicago, so it should also be said that liberalism and textual criticism began in the 1800's in Germany. The genetic fallacy swings both ways, but I digress. What I can hardly believe is that Ward actually claims that the early church didn't really believe in the miracles or the resurrection. These people were being persecuted and put to death for what they saw, and yet this man says they didn't believe what they were dying for! I'm sure Ward was a smart guy but this is pretty silly stuff.
Just gonna preempt this since lots of people want to debate on youtube: No, I am not a fundamentalist who thinks the whole bible is literal. I am not a literal 6 day creationist, nor am I a strict calvinist. I love you all and you are my neighbors. I just wanted to get my feelings out about Ward's speech, since biblical liberalism is as annoying to me as literalism. Have a great day!
@@TheRoark I know that the early art work doesn't portray the crucifixion. I believe I have read that the emphasis in those days was the COMING of God's Kingdom, not the resurrection. Of course, that isn't the same as denying the resurrection, as you rightly point out.
And what became Christianity after the 4th century is really just out of context Judaism for non Jews out of context. That tradition continues.
You set that one on a tee for me: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. - (Matthew 7:13-14) The sheer numbers involved mean very little. Even in minor issues of life, the majority is most often wrong. When it comes to life's most important isues, the majority is virtually always wrong. The Catholic Church is not right simply because there is a lot of them. The Catholic church is wrong because on virtually every distintive Catholic teaching, they are in contradiction ot the teaching of Scripture.
Really? Didn't scripture also say those who are not against me are for me? Sounds like an inclusive and non-sectarian passage to me. Sounds like Jesus wouldn't have a problem with anyone merely because they're Catholic. He might, however, have a problem with someone who fancies himself the judge of other people. Hint hint.
+Mind Mix the irony of judging someone for being judgmental, ends up being the very thing you are accusing someone else of being. It is pretty interesting when you think about it.
+Mind Mix also, I'm not saying I agree with his point regarding Catholicism, at all. But I just thought that was funny.
I wouldn't regard Catholics as being "for Christ." Try going to a country controlled by the Catholic Church and see where you get in regard to preaching the Gospel of Christ. They are not "for Christ." They are "for the Church" (meaning their idea of church).
And the Evangelicals are doing better with their thumbs up to war, run-amok capitalism and resistance to universal healthcare? And don't forget their immeasurable greed. Sounds like the whore of Babylon to me. I just attended a Catholic church and i noticed something interesting; they actually talked about Jesus! They talked about helping the poor and needy. I never get that from a Protestant church. What i get instead are sermons damning drinking and smoking and the sermons only refer to Paul and the Old Testament. It seems the Catholics are the closest thing we have to a real Christian.
"Fundamentalists affirm the authority of God's word in contrast to liberals."
I disagree. Fundamentalists say that their interpretation is Gods word and anyone who has a different interpretation is undermining scripture.
"It is very commendable attitude for christians who believe the bible really is God's flawless word."
Christians who believe that have never read the Gospels seriously. They can't all be true at the same time, therefore at least one is in error.
If you can not name any , merely say so . And the laws of inference assume facts as truths , hence presuppositional .
I don't like the word literal. It is too loaded and too many people mean different things. I think the Gospels truly communicate what the authors intended to communicate in a way that was understood by a people 2000 years removed and culturally, linguistically, and philosophically very different from 21st Century Westerners. If you try to ram a 21st Century Western interpretation onto the Gospels, then yes, I would agree that you will never reconcile them. Do you have an example in mind?
1st Century Jews weren't Platonists and didn't think like Greeks, and Paul explicitly argued against mingling Greek philosophy with doctrine. Jewish thought wasn't exactly homogeneous, but they did have a fairly well defined method of exegesis and hermeneutics. We'd be better off following them than pagan philosophers. You don't need Platonism to form hermeneutics. You seem to be confusing philosophy with the basic laws of inference.
"Keith Ward is a Christian philosopher, theologian, pastor and scholar. He has an MA and DD degrees from both Cambridge and Oxford, and he served as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford from 1991 to 2004."
A nice introduction and a way of saying he's an expert, too bad he hasn't a clue, like so many other educated nitwits who rely on impressive titles to add public credence to their own brand of psychobabble gibberish.
Liberalism comes with protestantism, because there is no conceptual authoritative view of the Bible... ever wondered why there are so many denominations within protestantism? I think that young earth creationists like yourself treat the Bible terribly, but that doesn't mean I don't respect you or condemn you. I like to learn about your position and read books, its not going to kill me. To simply say that any interpretation that disagrees with you is disturbing, is in fact disturbing of its own.
This ridiculous arguments about the law have answers. There are differences between moral and ceremonial. You'll notice he quotes eating with Gentiles. But then when someone like him wants to make application, it's because they want to do something immoral. And the scriptures clearly explain what the difference is between civil, judicial moral, ceremonial etc. Come on Ward. You should know better.
Origen pretty much began allegorical interpretation in the 3rd century. Hardly from the infancy of the church. It was a novelty, which is why he's called the "father of allegorical interpretation," and its real source is his former neo-Platonism, not Divine Revelation. The mixing of man-made philosophy with Revelation has always created heresy and division in the church, as is demonstrated between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools.
It wasnt made heresy until it was labeled heresy by the people that think they had the true interpretations.
This guy plays fast and loose with reported facts and totally misses the point. Claim: the women in Mark saw an angel descend and roll away stone. Not in Mark. Claim: Jerusalem Council commands Gentiles to follow kosher food laws. Not what's recorded. It's not surprising that someone with such a low view of Scripture would blatantly misrepresent what's in the text. He does not even have his basic facts right on orthodoxy. Allegorical interpretation was a late development.
I am pretty sure I already sent you this, but judging by what you are saying now I don't think you have watched it. So here it is again: ruclips.net/video/5bKa92eLkQM/видео.html
(search the link in youtube and pick the top link)
So, diminish the Bible and it's contents. So much for the effete and pseudo-intellectual efforts of Keith Ward. What is clear from the bible is ignored and relegated as less than convincing when one follows 'orthodox-Christianity'. There can be no mistakes in the original auto-graphs.
ok i've listened up to fifteen minutes now and cannot recommend this teacher as a good expositor of scripture , very poor. If i may , i recommend you tube videos of RC Sproul for a thorough exposition and teaching of the bible. Ligonier ministries.
You believe that because you're a fundamentalist and for you, the shoe fits and you don't like it.
The Bible isn't a historical text? Are you fucking kidding me? No text has withstood as much historic testing as the New Testament. This guy completely lost me.
He's a snake!
What are you talking about?................How can you historically validate miracles and divine acts?............Especially when there isn't a shred of evidence validating such delusions today?
Yes the Bible has historical information in it.................but so does the movie King Kong have an accurate recreation of the city of NY in the 1930's............but does that mean a big ape climbed the empire state building??.
Grow up............
"The Bible" is indeed not a historical text. It is an anthology of different texts, some of which are historical, some mythological and some pseudo-historical.
So tell me how do you test: A. Dead people leaving the graving and walking through Jerusalem and appear to many. B. Turning water into a wine. (A miracle performed by Dionysus follower who made even wells of wine)
C. Casting demons into swine. D. Multiplying food (This is amusingly a miracle done by Elijah before.)
So would you please show me how they tested A,B,C,D and who claim to which conclusions based on what?
No one in the time of Jesus wrote anything about this miracles. We have later stories by followers but how were they tested to be true.
+TorianTammas
Lecture 12: Does God Really Act?
vimeo.com/41753716
Lecture 13: The Physical Resurrection of Jesus and the Fact that Matter Matters
vimeo.com/42179889
Yup, exactly what you would expect from somebody with a 21st mindset that thinks that the Bible has to be read scientifically. Not interested.