From: Andrew Kulikovsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 24 1997 - 05:37:15 EDT
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Jim Beale wrote:
> On Sep 23, 1:48pm, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> I don't think it is a real contradiction. The command is old in one
> sense and new in another, and we are supposed to think about the
> sense in which it is old (i.e., from the Law of Moses) and the sense
> in which it is new (i.e., it has been written on the heart; compare
> Heb 8:10).
> Whether or not one agrees with my take on the various senses in which
> the concepts are to be understood, it cannot be denied that there *are*
> various senses in which a command can be "new" and in which it can be
> "old." Something can easily be old in one sense and new in another.
> I think there are clues given in the context to help us out here.
an example is the seasons. Autumn is here, it is new - but it is old
because we had it last year as well.
> One never wittingly uses a contradiction to make a point other than
> that he is confused. But this is usually an unwitting use. How can
> a contradiction be used skillfully when it is the epitome of blunder?
> Is there light in darkness, truth in falsehood? Is John's word "Yes
> and No"?
> > [...] I do think that one can understand John better by appreciating
> > the contradictions to see what they point to.
> Ack. Contradictions don't point to _any_thing_. A contradiction is
> an example of non-being; it is something that cannot possibly exist,
> therefore it couldn't possibly *do* anything, least of all point.
Jonathan, do you mean contradictions?, or maybe paradoxes (absurdities)?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:29 EDT