Archive for May 8th, 2012

May 8th, 2012

The Search for the Historical Jesus: The Period of No Quest

by Max Andrews

After the first search for the historical Jesus ended in 1906 the next search, or better said, the period of no quest, began and lasted until 1953.  At this point there was little optimism for finding the “historical Jesus.” Karl Barth (1886-1968) was the key figure during this time.  He claimed that the Jesus of history has little to do with theology–the Christ of faith is more important.  Barth ushered in Neo-Orthodoxy–an emphasis on sin, sovereignty, grace, and faith.  This was a de-emphasis on what actually happened.

This led to form criticism: An analysis of the forms in which the narratives of the gospels come down to us. Not literary, but their pre-literary oral forms. The idea was that different kinds of stories have distinctive kinds of forms that effect how they should be interpreted: miracle stories, healing stories, apothegms, etc.

May 8th, 2012

Defining ‘Fine-Tuner’

by Max Andrews

There are two ways of understanding the definition of fine-tuner: a positive and negative definition.  By fine-tuner in the positive sense I mean a mind, or agent, capable of articulating information (non-noise information or a specified and complex information).  Not only would this mind be merely capable in articulating this information but also intended to articulate the precise information we find in nature.  The negative definition is the negation of necessity, regularity, mindless chance, or any other combination of the sort. Note that a fine-tuner is distinct from a mere intelligence since intelligence can mimic regularity or chance, and thereby rendering its actions indistinguishable from regularity or chance.[1]  Thus, it’s important to recognize the combination of the two definitions, which serve different explanatory roles but are identical in reference.

May 8th, 2012

Forgiveness and the Agapeistic Ethic

by Max Andrews

This is an ethic proposed by Søren Kierkegaard based out of 1 Pt. 4.8.

Hiding by Not Discovering

Hiding:  “[Love] does not discover sins; but not to discover what still must be there, insofar as it can be discovered—that is hiding.”

Discovery:  Reveals sin and increases the multitude of sin.

“To make discoveries even with regard to evil, with regard to sin and the multitude of sins, to be the shrewd, sly, foxy, perhaps more or less corrupt observer who can really make discoveries—this is highly regarded in the world.” It is not that any discovery of sin is bad or itself a sin, but rather the attitude that seeks out sins in others and relishes in their discovery is.

Hiding a multitude of sins does not mean that the sins are not there; they are, but are hidden.  And thus forgiveness, which is a form of hiding, while very generous, does not cheapen sin or the offense of sin which requires forgiveness. Discovery is praised in the world, while hiding is not. Example:  If you discover that your neighbor is abusing his children and help to put an end to it, good has been done.  There are sins which cannot be hidden in this way, which have to be seen. What Kierkegaard is criticizing is an attitude toward other people which seeks purposely to discover the faults of others and revels in such discovery.