tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post7129339519265908073..comments2024-01-09T12:59:32.666+01:00Comments on Narrative and Ontology: Programmatic Statement No.# 1Phil Sumpterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-82691605933967919012007-09-12T07:24:00.000+02:002007-09-12T07:24:00.000+02:00love's work (or Blake, what do you prefer?),I high...love's work (or Blake, what do you prefer?),<BR/><BR/>I highly recommend all three. In fact, I feel that the future usefulness of academic theology for the church lies in overcoming the intense specialization that's taken place over the past 200 years. Although I'm in OT, I'm interested in 'theological exegesis', which means I can't ignore the NT or Systematics. In fact, I hope to be able to integrate all three legitimately into my doctorate. I find B.S. Childs extremely helpful (though challenging) in this respect. A new book by the name of "Metaphysics and the God of Israel" also looks particularly interesting.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-60950867019339666742007-09-12T04:43:00.000+02:002007-09-12T04:43:00.000+02:00I do not have much of a field at the moment. I am ...I do not have much of a field at the moment. I am mostly interested in Hebrew and Greek. I try to be some what eclectic :). I hope to get a Ph.D someday in New Testament, Old Testament, or Systematic Theology. What the hell, maybe all three.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-92013624161778870962007-09-10T22:03:00.000+02:002007-09-10T22:03:00.000+02:00Danke Danny.Thanks Scott,Good point, Jn. 1.1-3 is ...Danke Danny.<BR/><BR/>Thanks Scott,<BR/><BR/>Good point, Jn. 1.1-3 is a similar kind of 'ontological' statement (along with Col.1.15; Rev.13.8). But then I find Jn.1.1-3 as mysterious as this statement. No doubt there are hundreds of articles written on the epistemological implications of these verses, I just haven't read 'em. Can you recommend any? I just don't get what the second two clauses mean: “ true reason anticipates revelation, while revelation is simply of true reason which must ceaselessly arrive, as an event”, and I don't get how they result in seeing Christ as the clue to all creation.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-9033278471300043172007-09-10T17:59:00.000+02:002007-09-10T17:59:00.000+02:00I'm no expert on Milbank, but isn't what he is say...I'm no expert on Milbank, but isn't what he is saying here implicit in John 1:1-3?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-15725039359247842822007-09-10T11:10:00.000+02:002007-09-10T11:10:00.000+02:00Could someone decode this cryptic statement by Mil...Could someone decode this cryptic statement by Milbank. It's cited in Bartholomew (2000), looks tantalizingly relevant, but somehow won't let me fully grasp what he's on about:<BR/><BR/>"Hence there can be no reason/revelation duality: true reason anticipates revelation, while revelation is simply of true reason which must ceaselessly arrive, as an event, such that what Christ shows supremely is the world as really world, as creation" (in "Knowledge: The Theological Critique of Philosophy in Haman and Jacobi, 1999: 24).Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-77631289358169622392007-09-10T09:14:00.000+02:002007-09-10T09:14:00.000+02:00Hey, it's great to have some philosophical experts...Hey, it's great to have some philosophical experts on here! Please feel free to correct me, guide me and deconstruct me on such issues. I have a lot to learn. <BR/><BR/>Blake - thanks for your thoughts. We're in agreement concerning the 'storied' nature of both disciplines (an ontology based on participation sounds juicy). Concerning Westphal, et al: I had an intellectual 'turn' while hanging out in Paris for a year in '03/4. I was a conservative Evangelical who had just finished a BA in Cultural Anthropology in department heavily influenced by postmodernism and feminism (I don't think you can ignore that kind of stuff when your job is to 'represent' other living cultures). Theologically I was constantly on the defensive and although I'm grateful to my faith for keeping me on the right path, I had a lot of questions. In Paris I hung about with a bunch of Christians obsessed with NT Wright and interested in postmodern philosophy. I read articles by Westphal, and books by Grenz, J. Smith and Bruce Ellis Benson. These approaches opened up a whole can of worms and yet they also helped me refocus my vision. I'm still trying to work out the implications of their work for my doctorate today. So, yes "Radical Orthodoxy" sounds like it'll be right up my street. I have books by the "Scripture and Hermeneutics Seminar" aching to be read, which I think you would also find extremely interesting. What's your exact field, by the way?<BR/><BR/>Which brings me to Mr. Hood: glad to meet a like-minded enthusiast. You're from Aberdeen! Man, so much cool stuff seems to go on up there (such as the "Offence of Beauty" seminar). I adore Seitz, though I hear he's in Vancouver. I'm in Gloucestershire under G. McConville. I hope to hear more from you. What's your area?<BR/><BR/>Herr Goering - your blog is one of those blogs where I wish I could take a day off just to read all you've written (kinda like J. Hobbin's "Ancient Hebrew Poetry"). You live just down the road from me. Pop in for some Kölsch the next time you're in Bonn! Again, I hope that you will bless me with your superior knowledge in all things Foucaultian.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-87003405301718319852007-09-10T09:07:00.000+02:002007-09-10T09:07:00.000+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-78966956635033897592007-09-10T08:50:00.000+02:002007-09-10T08:50:00.000+02:00Hey, freue mich auf deine nächsten Posts.cheers,Da...Hey, freue mich auf deine nächsten Posts.<BR/><BR/>cheers,<BR/>DannyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-41132103222878872442007-09-10T08:14:00.000+02:002007-09-10T08:14:00.000+02:00Hey, someone who reads Derrida and theology! Sound...Hey, someone who reads Derrida and theology! Sounds good to me. Looking forward to reading more!D. Timothy Goeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09916488903782325371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-91989250762477634632007-09-10T06:07:00.000+02:002007-09-10T06:07:00.000+02:00wow, anyone who quotes Craig Bartholomew straight ...wow, anyone who quotes Craig Bartholomew straight out of the gate is sure to get a return visit from this visitor...well done.J. B. Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17074055343675084879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-26870125262463163362007-09-10T05:42:00.000+02:002007-09-10T05:42:00.000+02:00I find the comments by Deridda to be interesting, ...I find the comments by Deridda to be interesting, however IMHO I find the suggestion that one can place philosophy over theology to be as arbitrary as placing theology in judgement on philosophy. Or the option is one "unfounded story in place of another one", the acceptance of an ontology based on violence or one based on participation.<BR/>What do you think about Milbank, Westphal, Et al. who attempt to get beyond modern and "post"modern philosophy? <BR/>I only ask because I have recently started to read the Radical Orthodox group. Currently James K.A. Smith's "Introducing Radical Orthodoxy" and Graham Ward's "Theology and Contemporary Crticial Theory".<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/>Blake ReasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com