Greatest Sect of Christianity

[Elok]

What "obvious interpretation"? There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to indicate that "The Word" refers to the Bible; in fact, that introduces a serious complication by requiring you to say that Jesus and the Bible--that is, the eternal, transcendent Son of God and a couple of hundred thousand words--are somehow the same thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But I don't recall seeing any evidence of liberation theologians having chucked out the theological baby with the bathwater. As they lived in countries where for centuries (with very few exceptions) the local Church hierarchy and the Vatican had consistently sided with regimes who had used tactics of genocide against indigenous peoples and ruthless political repression against even 'liberals' (what would be Centrists in Western Europe) I don't think that a little emphasis on the more social aspects of New Testament teaching was uncalled for.

That was the main issue with a lot of liberation theologians. That they would preach that the poor were the favored class and speak in terms of societal sin without going into personal sin and personal transformation. Speaking of societal sin is good and necessary, but one must also deal with personal sin and personal failings in order to fully bring the Kingdom to Earth. Remember that in denouncing liberation theology, the Church affirmed a lot of what they were doing among the people of Latin America - they did not like the pushing down of the personal in favor of the societal.

[molly bloom]

It's one of those things that developed.

Alas many Christians have died because they were not traditional Trinitarians.

Michael Servetus (1509 or 1511-October 27, 1553), a Spaniard martyred in the Reformation for his criticism of the doctrine of the trinity and his opposition to infant baptism, has often been considered an early unitarian. Sharply critical though he was of the orthodox formulation of the trinity, Servetus is better described as a highly unorthodox trinitarian. Still, aspects of his theology—for example, his rejection of the doctrine of original sin—did influence those who later founded unitarian churches in Poland and Transylvania. Public criticism of those responsible for his execution, the Reform Protestants in Geneva and their pastor, John Calvin, moreover, inspired unitarians and other groups on the radical left-wing of the Reformation to develop and institutionalize their own heretical views. Widespread aversion to Servetus' death has been taken as signaling the birth in Europe of religious tolerance, a principle now more important to modern Unitarian Universalists than antitrinitarianism. Servetus is also celebrated as a pioneering physician. He was the first to publish a description of the blood's circulation through the lungs.

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

Killing to defend doctrinal orthodoxy and interpretation of scripture. How very Christian...

[Imran Siddiqui]

You now have the aid of historical context if yiu choose to use it but liberals tend not to.

Liberals tend not to use "historical context" in Biblical interpretation?! Now I've heard everything - unless you meant to say Conservatives instead of Liberals.

[Kidlicious]

What "obvious interpretation"? There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to indicate that "The Word" refers to the Bible; in fact, that introduces a serious complication by requiring you to say that Jesus and the Bible--that is, the eternal, transcendent Son of God and a couple of hundred thousand words--are somehow the same thing.

It's the natural way our brains associate words together. Why word translators use "the Word" if they don't mean the Bible (even paraphraae Bibles). Keep in mind the beliefs of the historical church.

[Kidlicious]

Alas many Christians have died because they were not traditional Trinitarians.

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

Killing to defend doctrinal orthodoxy and interpretation of scripture. How very Christian...

Indeed, almost as being a Bible hack!

[Kidlicious]

Liberals tend not to use "historical context" in Biblical interpretation?! Now I've heard everything - unless you meant to say Conservatives instead of Liberals.

I feel a hack coming.

[loinburger]

It's the natural way our brains associate words together.

Only literal-minded doofuses who don't understand metaphor

[Kidlicious]

Well, we could start with your assumption that I believe Jesus was anything other than a radical Jewish rabbi tried for crimes against the Roman state. I can't see anywhere where I've called him a 'liberation theologian'.

Please do quote me, it's much easier than making inaccurate and misleading paraphrases that serve your own agenda.

As for conning people- established churches (the Donation of Constantine) and televangelists (Oral Roberts) have rather more experience in that regard than I do.

So let me get this straight. You aren't one, but you talk as though you are. You don't believe in it but you convince others. That's a con job.

[Kidlicious]

Only literal-minded doofuses who don't understand metaphor

Care to explain the metaphor? I mean just for the off chance that I'll get it. You don't know what a paraphrase Bible is.

[loinburger]

Care to explain the metaphor? I mean just for the off chance that I'll get it. You don't know what a paraphrase Bible is.

The metaphor has been explained to you in this thread many times, and you have proven incapable of understanding it. You just keep repeating "Hack!" over and over again as though this means something.

[Elok]

It's the natural way our brains associate words together. Why word translators use "the Word" if they don't mean the Bible (even paraphraae Bibles). Keep in mind the beliefs of the historical church.

As Imran said, the historical church didn't associate logos specifically with printed words. Its meaning is more complex than that, and has no concise translation in English--there's a similar problem with kairos, one of two Greek words for time. And, to turn the question around, if "the Word" meant "the Bible," why wouldn't they have done anything to support that meaning in the text? John 1:1 goes into great detail about Jesus' role as The Word. It mentions nothing about the Bible as Word. Indeed, as the Bible, at the time he was writing, didn't exist, John would have essentially been saying, "I'm literally writing the second person of the Trinity right now." How would that not have been a colossally arrogant thing to say?

[Barnabas]

The Logos in John is mentioned in context of the creation of the Universe, if I understand correctly, identifying Jesus with, for example, the words "let there be light"
Everything was created through the logos, and the logos is Jesus, who is also God.

[Kidlicious]

The metaphor has been explained to you in this thread many times, and you have proven incapable of understanding it. You just keep repeating "Hack!" over and over again as though this means something.

But you do know what it is? Ok precious.

[loinburger]

But you do know what it is? Ok precious.

What does this even mean??? You are frustratingly stupid