Posted by greg chaplik on December 04, 2003 at 18:59:01:
In Reply to: Re: I am channelling all the great philosophers now... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Only $19.95! posted by Bob - the Alien on December 04, 2003 at 10:10:13:
I guess my point was mis understood. My point was that scripture can seem to be ambiguos in certain spots - ie. differant accounts, contradictions( resort to Pastor Steves original posting)ect to allow for flexibility in our faith and relationship to God. The argument that I presented was 1 theory that I studied and as I said in the postings has flaws in itself. I agree with many of the points you have made and I agree that it is our views that are flawed as well. Historians, philosophers and theologians have been arguing over "differances" in scripture since the 2nd century- im sure before this, but recorded in the organized church. I was simply bringing to light 1 of many theories, a theory that has some merit, is flawed, and is rareley discussed in Christian circles. At least in my experience I have not seen this theory discussed very often and this includes when I was attending southeastern college studying Theology and psychology. A little side note- I almost got put on social probation for bringing up points with a professor on an issue in Acts. He was very defensive and thought I was challenging his faith but I was not, I was simply bringing a theory to light that I read about- ironically in the library of the college. So in essance, I was doing the same here- not to say that this theory is correct but for discussion. Iappreciate the other points that have been brought up as well. Any other thoughts?