Does this make Barfh qualify as a Monstrous Miscreant?
CD = Church Dogmatics
Like all ancient literature the Old and New Testaments know nothing of the
distinction of fact and value between history on the one hand and saga and legend
on the other (CD I, 2, 509).
In common with the creation storythe history of the resurrection has to be regarded
as "saga" or "legend." The death of Jesus Christ can certainly be thought of as
history in the modern sense, but not the resurrection (CD IV, 1, 336).
The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to its
religious or theological content (CD I, 1,509).
The "legend" of the finding of the empty
tomb is not of itself and as such the
attestation of Jesus Christ as he showed himself alive after his death. It is
ancillary to this attestation. The one can be as little verified "historically" as
the other. Certainly the empty tomb cannot serve as an "historical" proof (CD IV, 1,
341).
The prophets and apostles as such, even in their office,
were real historical men
as we are, and
Actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word (CD I, 2, 528-529).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:45:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:35:48 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Frankly, the most ridiculous criticism of Barth I have ever seen.An absolutely laughable commentary.It's a short note and hardly a commentary but have a good laugh on me ...Barth's regard for the scripture's far exceeds anything I have read in your post.He appeals to no other source of information.When you don't believe your source to be accurate it opens the door to adding or subtracting at will. Stop with the lie, Judy. You have nothing to back up your claim but when has that slowed you down in the past. You want Barth to be a threat THEREFORE he is. He spent his lifetime presenting the Message of scripture -- a lifetime. He is all about the biblical message and you are all about making up stuff. Quite a difference.You criticize him for denying the infallibility of scripture (something that is an outright lie) while, at the same time, having no clue (talking about you, Judy) as to a definition for "inspiration." Heck, you can't even tell the difference between inspiration and revelation !!!The Holy Spirit is both inspiration and the source of divine revelation JD. Who has no clue? There's that old accuser again. In this case, the old accuser is you. Your comment verifies my point and makes no statement concerning Barth.Don't waste our time with some internet BS quotation that seems to show that Barth is in line with your claim about inerrancy.Correction: Barth is NOT in line with my claim that the scriptures are inerrant. Prove it.The fact of the matter is this : I challenge you to find a statement of Barth in his Dogmatics that challenges the wording of scripture and places his opinion above holy writ.You really think I would spend time wading through his "dogmatics" to find something like that for you to shoot down JD? So you admit that you have NOTHING against Barth except your own judgmentalism. Thanks. 'Nough said.
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>I know he would not pledge allegiance to Hitler which is noteworthy but the very fact that Hitler and his occult socialist system gained that much control in his country somewhat proves the impotency of his message. He did teach at a University there - right? So he influenced others with his unbelief. God judges Barth the man. I evaluate Barf the theologian who does not believe God's Word to be inerrant.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
