On 11/15/06, Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 14/11/2006 23:06, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
>
> > ... Also, skepticism about the historical reality
> > underlying the Biblical claims is not a theological position. Theology
is the
> > study of the divine and the study of history does not need to be related
to
> > the study of the divine (unless that is a theological position you hold).
So
> > the position that the book of Ezra must be historically accurate because
it is
> > in the divinely sanctioned canon of books is a theological position. But
the
> > view that the book of Ezra is not necessarily accurate is not a
theological
> > position. To put the point further, the book of Hebrews may be in your
> > theological view, a 1st century book allowing us to see the views of the
Jews
> > at that time. But for me, it is just a book, ...
>
> Yitzhak, I agree with most of what you are saying in this message. It is
> important to distinguish between the meaning intended for example by
> Haggai and later interpretations of his book.
>
> But on the point above I must disagree with you. You are taking a
> theological position by rejecting the accuracy of Ezra or the authority
> of Hebrews. It may be a negative theological position, like that of the
> atheist who takes the position that there is no God, or perhaps that of
> the agnostic who takes the position that the existence of God cannot be
> proved or disproved, but it is still the position you take on a
> theological issue and so a theological position.
Just because you choose a text to be theologically meaningful to you does
not automatically make my position regarding that text also theological....
Yitzhak Sapir
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.