I will certainly be careful about transcendental, as a word. A slippery slope for us all. To quote Barth himself: "God transcends even the undertakings of evangelical theologians."
I've just been emailed with a discount sale on the writings of Karl Barth up to 80 percent, by my bible programme software. Never heard of him so wanna check out and learn what he did
I just got 3 boxes of Barth and Bultmann books - if u want a couple I'll post them from Oz for the price of a stamp - otherwise they're off to the actual rubbish bin from the garbage dump of history !
"The Easter story is not for nothing the story whose most illuminating moment according to the account of Mark’s Gospel consists in the inconceivable fact of an empty sepulcher, a fact which (in producing a trembling and astonishment) lays hold of the three woman disciples and reduces them to complete silence for they told no one of it, for they were afraid (Mk. 16.8). Everything else related by this story can be heard and believed in the very literalness in which it stands, but can really only be believed, because it drops out of all categories and so out of all conceivability. It cannot be sufficiently observed that in the most artless possible way all the New Testament Easter narratives fail to supply the very thing most eagerly expected in the interests of clearness, namely an account of the resurrection itself." Barth, CD I/2 §14, 115.
So the "otherness of God" for Barth was the deed, or eventful deed was the special revelation... i.e. Jesus's life... Although rejecting the word (i.e. the bible) as revelation?
Do you really think Barth is a Reformed Orthodox theologian? Do you really think he attacked the liberal Theologian such as Schreimacher? Do you really understand the relationship between Transdental and Immanence? Do you really understand the true meanings of Barth's Christ-center theology? Do you really understand his doctrine about Word of God? do you really agree with him of the Wholly others? Do you really believe Barth agree with Bible inerrancy? Do you, or do you not, this is a big question. Cheers.
Giving your students such a poor look at such a towering mind....is bad pedagogy. You also know that Barth rejected both Kierkegaard and Schleiermacher as false places to start in terms of epistemology. He was concerned with the epistemological relevance of the Homoousian.
Name one American theologian who comes anywhere close to Barth. There is TF Torrance in Scotland. You are treated a serious topic in a childish way. You should actually engage Barth....who like Einstein....was saying something important and new. You are not in a position to be polemical. You are being Van Tillian.
It is just an overview class, and the audience are mostly High School students. Consider the audience and the amount of time the speaker has to give his students a taste of what Barth believed and achieved.
One of the great philosopher in all respects. Thank you professor Gore
Karl Barth and his theology is very complicated. I undestood better thanks to you. Thanks a lot🙏
Karl Barth araştıran bir Türk göreceğimi düşünmezdim
This is so good, but I wager that the lecture would've been clearer if the Christological dynamo in Barth's theology was more sharply outlined.
Thanks so much....great prof
Not sure how much you monitor the account but what is the title of the
course that these lectures come from? I'm citing you in an essay!
Thanks for uploading!
You are amazing
I'll pass that on to my wife. She has her doubts!
@@GoreBruce ha ha
I will certainly be careful about transcendental, as a word. A slippery slope for us all.
To quote Barth himself:
"God transcends even the undertakings of evangelical theologians."
I've just been emailed with a discount sale on the writings of Karl Barth up to 80 percent, by my bible programme software. Never heard of him so wanna check out and learn what he did
I just got 3 boxes of Barth and Bultmann books - if u want a couple I'll post them from Oz for the price of a stamp - otherwise they're off to the actual rubbish bin from the garbage dump of history !
@@henryv4222 Happy to take them off your hands email ray.timmermans @gmail.com so we can work out shipping
"The Easter story is not for nothing the story whose most illuminating moment according to the account of Mark’s Gospel consists in the inconceivable fact of an empty sepulcher, a fact which (in producing a trembling and astonishment) lays hold of the three woman disciples and reduces them to complete silence for they told no one of it, for they were afraid (Mk. 16.8). Everything else related by this story can be heard and believed in the very literalness in which it stands, but can really only be believed, because it drops out of all categories and so out of all conceivability. It cannot be sufficiently observed that in the most artless possible way all the New Testament Easter narratives fail to supply the very thing most eagerly expected in the interests of clearness, namely an account of the resurrection itself." Barth, CD I/2 §14, 115.
Thank you so much, can you get a student to put these in playlists please?
Find all playlists here:
ua-cam.com/users/GoreBruceplaylists?disable_polymer=1
Thanks!
Long waited！
I liked the Bach two part invention played on guitar. Invention #4 for piano.
So the "otherness of God" for Barth was the deed, or eventful deed was the special revelation... i.e. Jesus's life... Although rejecting the word (i.e. the bible) as revelation?
Barth mows the lawn of Cornelius Van Til.
What's a rube? 😁
You can't embrace Barth because you don't understand him.
Do you really think Barth is a Reformed Orthodox theologian? Do you really think he attacked the liberal Theologian such as Schreimacher? Do you really understand the relationship between Transdental and Immanence? Do you really understand the true meanings of Barth's Christ-center theology? Do you really understand his doctrine about Word of God? do you really agree with him of the Wholly others? Do you really believe Barth agree with Bible inerrancy? Do you, or do you not, this is a big question. Cheers.
Giving your students such a poor look at such a towering mind....is bad pedagogy. You also know that Barth rejected both Kierkegaard and Schleiermacher as false places to start in terms of epistemology. He was concerned with the epistemological relevance of the Homoousian.
Name one American theologian who comes anywhere close to Barth.
There is TF Torrance in Scotland. You are treated a serious topic in a childish way. You should actually engage Barth....who like Einstein....was saying something important and new. You are not in a position to be polemical. You are being Van Tillian.
It is just an overview class, and the audience are mostly High School students.
Consider the audience and the amount of time the speaker has to give his students a taste of what Barth believed and achieved.
@@seandmoore6922 true....good point
I really do not like this teacher
Not sure how much you monitor the account but what is the title of the
course that these lectures come from? I'm citing you in an essay!