I appreciated the content of the talk, so thanks for that. However, it's rather spoiled by the subtitles which have numerous errors and inconsistencies with the audio. At 6:52, 9:57 and 10:51 the narrator says 'validity' while the graphical text has 'vitality'. And at 11:55 he says "not if we want the texts to gain vitality" when on screen it repeats the text from a minute earlier "In which alone the texts gain vitality". Another major one is "thing-in itself", which is a very odd construction. My translation of CPR has "thing in itself" but "thing-in-itself" would also be valid, if not vital.
Lacan, in seminar VII, writes that one cannot suoersede Descartes, Kant, Marx, Hegel, Freud and some others. They have set the direction for the reasearch, a true orientation (Ethics p. 253)
What happens when one begins reading Sacred Scripture as an archeological text, and in the manner of the original writers and readers (i.e. historical context and Hellenistic allegory), and move from that basis into theology? Here there doesn't seem to be any bias, ideology or later philosophical school that one is bringing into a dialectic or dialogical interface with the text and its message. I'm thinking of Lonergan's functional specialisations, of Ratzinger's life of Jesus of Nazareth, which begin with data analysis, and when followed in its own and trajectory, lead by the textual and historical evidence to incremental certitude towards Christian certitude. I'm just thinking out loud, and not making any claims, just observing patterns. Although I have a feeling it's probably to do with the difference possibilities open to Catholic and Protestant theology. Time to read von Balthasar on Barth on Romans.
All our knowledge begins with our senses, not faith, after what we perceive comes understanding, and ends with reason. Kant said: there is nothing higher than reason. Kant did not mentioned God, I’m afraid to say.
Constitutive and regulative use of reason (ethics and in the 1st Critique) + deeply Protestant anthropology + Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason The function of God is evident throughout Kant if you read beyond the transcendental aesthetic my dude. One of the most famous quotes by Kant: "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."
I don’t think I agree with Barth. Believe once we come to Christ, the gospel destroys all philosophy. So to state that Luther was platonic is ridiculous to me, in Luther Christ wiped out any philosophical assumptions Luther had.
Absolutely fascinating, thank you, extremely helpful!
I appreciated the content of the talk, so thanks for that. However, it's rather spoiled by the subtitles which have numerous errors and inconsistencies with the audio. At 6:52, 9:57 and 10:51 the narrator says 'validity' while the graphical text has 'vitality'. And at 11:55 he says "not if we want the texts to gain vitality" when on screen it repeats the text from a minute earlier "In which alone the texts gain vitality".
Another major one is "thing-in itself", which is a very odd construction. My translation of CPR has "thing in itself" but "thing-in-itself" would also be valid, if not vital.
sorry about that . I noticed that after i had put it on TH-cam. That’s what's comes of being dyslexic I'm afraid
Lacan, in seminar VII, writes that one cannot suoersede Descartes, Kant, Marx, Hegel, Freud and some others. They have set the direction for the reasearch, a true orientation (Ethics p. 253)
I loved the video. 👏👏👏👂👂
Just wondering did the theological college shut down?
Good but should be just about 6 min long
What happens when one begins reading Sacred Scripture as an archeological text, and in the manner of the original writers and readers (i.e. historical context and Hellenistic allegory), and move from that basis into theology? Here there doesn't seem to be any bias, ideology or later philosophical school that one is bringing into a dialectic or dialogical interface with the text and its message.
I'm thinking of Lonergan's functional specialisations, of Ratzinger's life of Jesus of Nazareth, which begin with data analysis, and when followed in its own and trajectory, lead by the textual and historical evidence to incremental certitude towards Christian certitude.
I'm just thinking out loud, and not making any claims, just observing patterns. Although I have a feeling it's probably to do with the difference possibilities open to Catholic and Protestant theology. Time to read von Balthasar on Barth on Romans.
Can’t listen to this with the music.
All our knowledge begins with our senses, not faith, after what we perceive comes understanding, and ends with reason. Kant said: there is nothing higher than reason.
Kant did not mentioned God, I’m afraid to say.
Constitutive and regulative use of reason (ethics and in the 1st Critique) + deeply Protestant anthropology + Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason
The function of God is evident throughout Kant if you read beyond the transcendental aesthetic my dude.
One of the most famous quotes by Kant: "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."
I don’t think I agree with Barth. Believe once we come to Christ, the gospel destroys all philosophy. So to state that Luther was platonic is ridiculous to me, in Luther Christ wiped out any philosophical assumptions Luther had.
Two such great thinkers and two such awful writers. The German Dilemma.
Nur Gelaber!