LimitedNegatives?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3390
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by steve » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:26 am

That is a sensible suggestion, but I don't think that is the context in which I first heard the term used as a technical one. Some teacher to whom I was listening (in the 70s or 80s, I would think) spoke of the phenomenon we are discussing here and gave it that name in such a manner and context that it led me to believe it was a recognized term among scholars. I have not been able to confirm that—even through Google! However, it makes a very suitable term for the construct, and I would not mind taking the credit for having coined it—except that I didn't. :-)

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by backwoodsman » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:31 am

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/v ... 28276.html

Look about 3/4 of the way down, in the 3rd paragraph of the section titled, "The Arguments Of Jesus". Notice the date at the bottom, 1984.

A much earlier occurrence is in 'Studies in the Life of Christ: The Early Period' by R. C. Foster, originally published 1938:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3NiZ9 ... sm&f=false

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3390
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by steve » Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:48 pm

Woohoo! You are da MAN, Dan! Mystery solved. I was reading Foster back in the 80s. I probably got it from him.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by Homer » Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:53 pm

R. C. Foster! Steve, you been reading that Church of Christ stuff! ;)

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3390
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by steve » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:05 pm

It's a great work. I still have a rather worn-out copy on my shelf.

User avatar
Soulsnaxx
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by Soulsnaxx » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:54 am

In this conversation with a caller to the Narrow Path radio program, Steve Gregg clarifies what Jesus meant when He instructed His disciples to pray, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOeBOXylAEQ

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by mattrose » Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:24 pm

Hmm... thinking about an Old Testament possibility today

Deuteronomy 5:3
It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us...

Should we take that to mean:
It was not [only] with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us...

I think Moses is making the point that the previous generation failed on their end of the covenant... but the covenant wasn't extended only to them, but also to the next generation of their descendants. What say you?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3390
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by steve » Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:43 pm

Sounds like another example to me.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by mattrose » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:55 pm

I am actually working on a Bible-study discussion for this Wednesday about this concept

Here are some more POSSIBILITIES. Please keep in mind that I am not suggesting all of these fit the category. I am simply trying to keep as open a mind as possible so I don't discount any verse without even thinking it through.

1.

One could argue that Peter was mindful of the things of God to some degree, of course. Could this verse mean that he was not ONLY mindful of the things of God, but also (even primarily) the things of men?

2.

I've been reading a lot about doubt. Could it be that we've over-read the badness of doubt in the New Testament? If you ALSO have faith, not ONLY doubt? Doubt is not a big deal to God, perhaps, if you persist in faithful action in spite of it. The only form of doubt God is against is paralyzing doubt.

3.

Same idea here. It's not that they shouldn't be afraid at all... it's that their fear should not paralyze them.

4.

It was indeed cool that the spirits were subject to them, but even more cool that their names were written in heaven.

5.

Fear is not necessarily an unhealthy emotion when people are out to try to kill you... but we should primarily be concerned with our relationship to God.

6.

It wasn't necessarily wrong to cry for what was happening to Jesus, but there were other realities which they should be even more upset about.

7.

Actually, the things said just before this in context were pretty marvelous... but not as marvelous as what he was about to say.

8.

It wasn't only Jesus who had a problem with these guys... their hero Moses' was also not a fan.

9.

Don't just hold/cling to me... but also go and tell others

10.

It is inevitable that you will be conformed to some degree to your culture... but your primary aim should be transformation to godliness

11.

Don't only provide your bodily needs, but think primarily of what Jesus wants

12.

We do not war ONLY against the flesh, but ALSO against spiritual realities.

13.

Don't just be anxious... pray through your anxieties

14.

He is an enemy, but he's also a brother

15.

Don't just be sad about the sufferings of your spiritual predecessors... join in their sufferings

16.

Practically, he will be publicly shamed, but he'll also bring glory to God (which is even more important)

17.

Give every spirit the initial benefit of the doubt... but that doesn't mean they don't have to prove themselves over time

18.

It is not wholly inappropriate to be afraid to die, but don't allow your fear to keep you from being faithful even unto death.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: LimitedNegatives?

Post by mattrose » Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:33 pm

My evaluation of the above 18

1. Not likely a limited negative. Better to interpret it is literally true of Peter's present attitude/statement
2. Not likely a limited negative. Better to allow the bible to mean, by 'doubt' paralysis
3. Not likely a limited negative. See above (afraid=paralyzed)
4. Likely a limited negative
5. Likely a limited negative
6. Likely a limited negative
7. Likely a limited negative
8. Maybe... not sure
9. Not likely a limited negative. Better to understand the hold as 'cling' and Jesus' words as a literal command
10. NO... we definitely should avoid conformity to the world
11. NO... see above
12. NO... we should not fight physically at all
13. NO... instead of presently worrying... pray
14. NO... they are still a brother at this point
15. NO... don't think shame equals sadness here. I think it has more to do with turning away from Christ b/c of public shame
16. NO... see above
17. NO... that'd be too gullible
18. Maybe... but likely not

Post Reply

Return to “General Bible Discussion”