Markus Evangelium

Übernächstewoche fangen wir bei German Bible Cafe eine neue Serie an. Hier ist meine entwurf der Werbung:

if you know any German-speakers who may be interested in studying the Bible in German, please bring them along.
if you're one of my German-speaking friends reading this, you know I'd love you to come along.

spread the word!

Historical Fall in the key of B

so far i've narrowed my doctrine essay down to the following points:

• Babes or bound (the historical debate - Pelagius vs Augustine)
  
  
• Blocher or Barth (the current debate)
  
  
• (Bavinck and Bloesch - minnows, relatively, yet helpfully starting with a B)
  
  
• Bible (Romans 5 and Genesis 3)

and finally, inevitably, painfully:

• Bibliography

i'll probably talk about Ricoeur also, but i may have to deliberately rename him Bicoeur for the purposes of this essay.

check here and also here for the background.

don't know why all this matters? this is why.

temporary new blog address

for the special period of the AFL final series, in homage to the very important MTV awards, my blog has been moved to here. for a limited time only. this blog will return to the regular location after then.

(it only makes sense if you click)


h/t John

Naked. living in the past.

Naked (1993, by Mike Leigh) is one of my favourite films ever, despite N, S, D, L, A, and any other warnings you can think of appropriately being on the video cover.

in other words, not a date movie.

but the following clip is from a section of the movie where Johnny (David Thewlis) is given a tour by Brian (Peter Wight) around the building he guards. their conversation reminds me both of conversations i've had with people who are not so well mentally, or alternatively of very very late-night chats that just get weird.
i think the only warning for this clip is L.


a great line from Johnny:

"So you think you can make the present palatable by projecting into the future. you're living in the past, pal. it's the future that f***s you up, Brian. it's the maggot in the apple."

the myth of the fall

i've been thinking this week through the question of the theological consequences of denying an historical fall. one thing that has been growing on me today is the question of where the idea of the Edenic sinless perfectionism comes from. i'm sure everyone's seen the first two boxes of 2WTL (click on the link if you are unaware), the first one being the one where everything's perfect, sort of like the island the Phantom puts all his animals, after he's taught them to be piscetarians (is that what people who eat no meat except for fish call themselves?).

now the whole point of showing that everything was tops was to explain

1. why life isn't always tops now, despite a good God, and
2. to give a picture of what we're looking forward to.

however, on 2/, despite the line in the otherwise great Rob Smith song 'Worthy of All Praise' back to the garden, we don't really want to go back to the garden, but look forward to the new creation. so now i'm trying to work out the importance of 1/ - why do we need to say there was something perfect that humanity "fell" from?

it sort of smacks of platonism, and i have this vibe that it promotes a dualistic view of things. so can we read the account of "the Fall" in Genesis 3:1-13 differently? not that it doesn't depict perhaps the first direct transgression of God's law, but is it such a great "fall" as all that? where does our eschatology fit with a fall?

and yes, this is linked to my previous post!

[apologies for my absence. exegetical to hebrew to greek to doctrine has made for a busy period of time.]