"The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture ..."
therefore ... ?
but ... ?
(I'm thinking of the old church tradition / scripture debates)
The author of the best response gets to beat the living crap out of Aaron Ghiloni for me, for this piece of unprovoked malevolence. The runner up gets to help out the winner. The losers get to cheer from the ringside when things get messy.
Christ Sein, Küng
Existiert Gott?, Küng
Der Anfang aller Dinge, Küng
Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat
The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, John R. Franke
Shadow Sides. God in the Old Testament, Eric Peels
The Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight
Gebete des Lebens, Karl Rahner
Jesus and the Victory of God, N.T. Wright
Universal Salvation? The Current Debite, ed. by Robin Parry and C. H. Partridge
18 comments:
"The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture, but the kerygma (as the foundation of the Church) is prior to the Church, and it is the kerygma that lends Scripture its authority."
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture therefore those who say they believe who say they base their faith on the Bible and not on church tradition are somewhat misinformed, but getting them to see that point is probably more effort than it is worth.
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture, therefore canonicity appears to depend on the authority of the Church and not the other way around. But, this does not undermine the contemporary authority or meaning of the scriptures because the Church did canonize them and even before that considered them authoritative.
Therefore, the church decided what would be in the canon of scripture, but canonicity doesn't affect the truthfulness or otherwise of the historical event.
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture...
...but what does artillery have to do with anything?
"The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture, but the Church is the Body of Christ and therefore it is Jesus to whom Scripture and Church both witness who stands preeminent as judge and interpreter of Scripture.
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture...
...So Tilling would have us believe, but let us suppose that Tilling is correct, all we could conclude...
therefore...
...is that the Church is older than the Christian canons of Scripture...
but...
...all the people involved in the process of canonization are worm food yet the canon lives on, and since necromancy is illegal according to the Jewish canon of Scripture we don't do it because we recognize some sort of continuity between the Jewish canon and the Christian canon (because most of the early Christians were Jews anyway), so in the end we give preeminence to the canon over dead guys, no matter how cool they were...
:^P
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture, but "that would be an ecumenical matter"
"The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture ..."
therefore ... Man. Utd. will win the Premiership this season
but ... Liverpool will be relegated.
Makes perfect sense to me.
"The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture...
but
that sounds vaguely Romanist, so my common sense is overridden by my strong anti-Catholic prejudices and THEY PRAY TO MARY AND PRIESTS HAVE SEX WITH KIDS OMG!!1!11!"
therefore we should all be Catholic.
(What do I get if I win?)
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture, but God is ontologically prior to everything, therefore we should attribute qualities proper to God neither to the Church nor to the Scriptures (the latter having been given for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the scriptures, despite what some rabbis in the Talmud would have us believe... {g}) Unless the Church and/or Scriptures are supposed to be God Incarnate, perhaps.
(The artillery reply was much funnier, though. I vote for that one and for Nick's, though Josh's is pretty good too! {g})
JRP
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture...
Which Church and who's canon?
For example; the canon I adhere to predates the Protestant Church by a thousand years.
Therefore ... in some cases, the canons came before the Church that changed the canons.
but... you'll, no doubt, protest.
;-)
john
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture therefore the canon speaks more directly about the beliefs of the church, but this does not necessarily invalidate the canon as a viable witness to truth if the Church was a faithful steward of the truth.
The Church is chronologically prior to Christian canons of scripture and therefore Protestants have to come up with a "but" and long, convoluted statements with which to follow it.*
*See above comments.
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture, but a much stronger statement can be made: Jesus himself spoke about the church to his listeners (at Mt 18:17)!
The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian Canons of scripture THEREFORE it must have been the Oral Gospel that lead them to "choose" (by the hand of God) which books taught the Gospel, BUT if we study what people believed at the time the Canon was 'recognised' we see that they were totally Roman Catholic. 381 Rome, 393 Hippo, 397 Carthage
"The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture because the Incarnate Word chose a coward, a fanatic, an unlicensed doctor, a mystic, and there had to be an Irishman in the mix somewhere, therefore He said conveyed everything with nothing, but His taste in brides is questionable.
Post a Comment