kmoney

I also forgot to answer your Murakami question. Yeah, it is "Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and his years of pilgrimge". Will finish before I go to sleep today. I quite enjoy Murakam, this is the 5th of his novels that I read. It is hard to describe his books, it is often called "magical realism". It is a mix of a realistic story with magical and weird happenings, some of the books can be quite surreal. This book is more like his book "Norwegian Wood" though, not much surrealism to it.
I enjoy his books quite a lot. Interesting main characters, characters that often have a deep appreciation for music and the arts in general, which I like.
I'm no expert on fiction books though, so can't really say more than that.

:e4e:

The deed to the house is in H&G's name now, so don't worry about it... lain:

I'm doing OK. Have a horrendous headache today, so will get to your PM another day :chuckle:

Cool. I haven't finished the whole thing. :noid: ...but I think I only missed 2-3 classes. What did you think? :think:

:chuckle:

I'm just picturing you hearing sawing and hammering from the basement, quite worried about what they are up to now.

How are things?

:e4e:

...Paul is not observing the law, he is accommodating Jewish Christians. Paul's concern is theology, which comes up when Gentiles convert. He doesn't care if Jewish Christians continue to follow the law (as they did for some time). He even circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3). See especially the footnote to verse 20 in the Oxford link.

I think you are right to point to 1 Cor 9:20, but I don't think Paul ever donned a different theology. No one tells the Jews to stop following the law, though in time it becomes obvious that the law does not hold the same place, especially as the Jews begin to understand Christ's sacrifice as once-for-all. Maybe Paul really did write Hebrews and that is where you find his extended treatment of the Jewish understanding. :idunno:

That's how I currently understand it, but I'll get back to you once I have the class on Paul.

Oh, I wasn't answering that question. lain:

Gal 4:10-12 is not about the law, it is about pagan worship of the sun, moon, etc. (see Gal 4:8). Why think that Paul continued to observe the law? And if Paul abstained from murder, would you say he was observing the law? Given the fact that Christ fulfilled the law, and we are in Christ, there is no doubt that the Spirit will lead us to "follow the law." Externally, it may look morally similar to the Jews but a different internal principle is at work (Heb 10:16).

I did some reading on Acts 21. The Jerome Biblical Commentary agrees with the NAB and New Oxford Annotated Bible...

Regarding Paul, I think everything Sela said is right, but the basis could be developed. The question to ask is, "What is the difference between Christianity and Judaism?" The person of Christ is the fulfillment of the law. When we are baptized, we are incorporated into Christ and thus divinized, being grafted onto the vine that is the life of the Holy Trinity. Now we worship in Spirit and Truth (Jn 4:24). This is why the Galatians are so stupid (Gal 3:1). They seek after powerless signs rather than what those signs signified. This is also the basis for the qualitative distinction between circumcision and baptism (Acts 19:3-5). The Galatians have been baptized into Christ and yet seek circumcision. They are like those who have living water bubbling up inside them and yet they are seeking out wells--wells which have run dry and no longer contain water (for a well is not an efficacious sign of water as circumcision is not an efficacious sign of grace and covenant).

I mean one that rejects prayer and has substantial cultural reasons to dislike extreme forms of monasticism. Desert monasticism is a way to achieve prayer, poverty, and renunciation of the world. No one said it was the only way. I don't see why you think they can't light the world, love their neighbor, and sanctify the world from the desert. :idunno:

Ah, okay. My professor okay'd each of them, though I understand what you are saying. :e4e:

Philippians 3 seems to contrast circumcision (mutiliation of the flesh Philippians 3:2) with spiritual circumcision (Philippians 3:3) though. The problem with dispensationalism is that they seem to equate law with good works. Paul wants the righteousness that comes from the covenant of faith, not the covenant of circumcision. I think there are grounds for thinking that this primarily have to do with the role of ritual law, law that seeks to set Jews apart from other believers. But once again, it is hard to know what he is replying to. We really should get a hand on the other side of the correspondence :chuckle:

I'm sure you believe in prayer, but I also think the modern mindset has its influence. There is a Biblical basis for desert prayer, radical poverty, and renunciation of "the world." But, more importantly, where is the contrary scriptural basis? I would say scripture is either silent or in favor.

What would you say the answer to the question is? I actually tend toward sin rather than death, but I realize the East doesn't see them as necessarily competing. Why do you like Wilken's book? I'd like to read all of them. The Wilken recommendations are personal as many of the professors know him, and I've also heard good things from other sources. :e4e:

I also think it is a mistake to contrast Paul with James 2:14-26. James speaks of faith as in intellectual ascent to a proposition, that is a much narrower definition of faith than what we find in Paul. For Paul, faith is always active. So I do not think that Paul would disagree with the statement that says faith without works is dead. He would probably disagree with faith without circumcision is dead.

It is not alway easy to judge the relationship between Paul and James. Paul's writings are letters and we can only really guess at what the other side of the conversation was saying. I think the tension between Paul and James is taken too far. I do not think that Paul intended to disband the entire law, and I definitely think that dispensationalists read the works versus faith in Paul too superficially. My impression from reading "new perspective" studies on Paul is that his concern is primarily with removing ethnic barriers between believers. He views dietary laws and circumcision as visible signs of a particular people's covenant with God, but he thinks the sign of the new covenant is the circumcision of the heart, faith in Christ, ergo the Gal 3:28 statement. There may have been followers of Paul that took this further and thus the episode in Acts 21.

The main reason moderns dislike "desert monasticism" is because they don't believe in prayer. If you actually read the desert fathers you will see that they were perfectly "involved" with the world. They were even seen as an essential element of the Church via prayer and received their material support from various patrons in a relationship that was seen as symbiotic. Furthermore, many were famous for receiving visitors, and it became common to make pilgrimages to the monasteries to seek the advice or prayer of a man--seen as very holy--who lived there. The stylites were particularly famous for this.

Would be quite interesting to hear your impressions on Bonhoeffer as you read the him. I don't agree with everything he says, some of his theology can be a biit too Lutheran for me (somewhat ironic since I'm a soon to be Lutheran minister), but his critique of cheap grace remains extremely relevant.

Been reading a few Norwegian theology books. I did pick up an interesting book at the library today that I want to read: "The Eclipse of God" by Martin Buber. I'm also reading the latest Murakami novel.

:e4e:

All that I have just been saying has been the object of the human search for centuries, in religions, philosophies, sciences, ideologies. Heroic practitioners of justice and of love for their fellows have not been lacking in history, even in recent history. But then what?—Even after all this the basic question that holds the human being in its grip and has found no real answer remains. I exist (says every human being), but I exist for death at every moment and in the final moment. Of what use to me are the models of morality and fine promises of life as long as the root of this disastrous tragedy—death—has not been pulled up—not tomorrow, but now? This is the only really important question. Everything else is just a passing episode and a distraction.

What, then, does it mean to say that our God saves human beings? Does it mean that he gives them a course in theology? That he gives them a moral law, or even that he gives them the commandment of love? That he teaches them to change structures, whether personal, social, or cosmic? That he lets them know in the smallest detail the kind of worship agreeable to their creator? That he reveals to them that God is a Father, and kind and merciful, and does so by letting them experience it, as we do with one another in our good moments? But then what?—

They could function as a reference material for someone who wants some answers regarding baptism or the Trinity.

Things are going well. Not much to tell, just busy. :idunno: I'm reading a real nice book by the Eastern Catholic Jean Corbon called The Wellspring of Worship. It's about worship and the divine liturgy. Here's an excerpt:

What could be better?

I'm doing alright, been quite busy.

What about Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship?

The life on Athos is fascinating. I agree with you, I do not like the part of the monk who didn't go see his father either. The life there seems peaceful, but it does disturb me a bit as well. Aren't they removing themselves from the world? It does seem that it can become a form of lighting a lamp and putting it under a bowl. I am a bit skeptical of forms of monasticism that removes the practicioner away from the rest of the world.

:e4e:

How is it going?

I'm familiar with Mount Athos, but I have not seen the 60 minutes about it, should be interesting. It is a fascinating place. Would love to go there and see how it is.

:e4e:

If you're interested, this is currently the definitive historical study of baptism. :e4e:

Also, regarding Christology you might be interested in Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, or Brown's An Introduction to New Testament Christology.