If then God gave them the same gift He gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?
When the Lord shows us the way, who are we to say, ‘No, Lord, it is not prudent! No, let’s do it this way’… and Peter in that first diocese – the first diocese was Antioch – makes this decision: ‘Who am I to admit impediments?’
A nice word for bishops, for priests and for Christians. Who are we to close doors? In the early Church, even today, there is the ministry of the ostiary [usher]. And what did the ostiary do? He opened the door, received the people, allowed them to pass. But it was never the ministry of the closed door, never.
既 Pope Francis 上週以彼得被上帝挑戰的救恩論想像為例，表態「願為火星人施洗」後，幾天前他說明「沒有教會就不成基督徒」。
One cannot « understand a Christian alone » any more than « Jesus Christ alone » can be understood.
Jesus Christ did not fall from the sky like a superhero who comes to save us. No. Jesus Christ has a history. And we can say, and it is true, that God has a history because He wanted to walk with us. And you cannot understand Jesus Christ without His history. So a Christian without history, without a Christian nation, a Christian without the Church is incomprehensible. It is a thing of the laboratory, an artificial thing, a thing that cannot give life.
Our Christian identity is belonging to a people: the Church . Without this, we are not Christians. We entered the Church through baptism: there we are Christians.
And for this reason, we should be asking for the grace of memory, the memory of the journey that the people of God has made; also of personal memory: What God did for me, in my life, how has he made me walk … Ask for the grace of hope; ask for the grace to renew the covenant with the Lord who has called us every day.
May the Lord give us these three graces, which are necessary for the Christian identity.
« Encounter between traditions has as its goal a kind of contest, where each participant tries to out-narrate the other, although in the Christian case this is performed with a desire to imitate God’s harmoniousness rather than human competitiveness. »
— John Milbank in Theology and Social Theory, rephrased by Nicholas Adams in Habermas and Theology (2006), 219
« Every true philosophical dialogue is but an interaction of two monologues »
與之相對的是耶利哥王和他的軍兵與差役。耶利哥王和約書亞一樣是位居幕後的主使。他派出的人，對約書亞派出的人製造了生命的威脅。如此我們可以說，兩大政權對壘的代理戰爭（proxy war ）在這兩組人物的刻畫下就隱然成形了：在探子才剛踏入耶利哥的城門歇腳的當晚，就有情報傳到耶利哥王耳中，讓他立刻派出人（v.2）去逮捕約書亞派出的人（v.1）。象徵以色列政權興亡的兩個代表。而保障耶利哥政權和諧安定的戰士，就在此時如同死神（death）和活神（living God）耶和華的角力般，隔著喇合的妓女戶大門展開了。
· Joshua 2:1 於是二人去了、進入（enter into）到一個妓女名叫喇合的家裡、就在那裡躺臥（שׁכב=lay down ）。
· Joshua 2:3 耶利哥王派人到喇合那裡，說：「把那些進到你這裡（הַבָּאִ֤ים אֵלַ֙יִךְ =the men who are coming into thee），進了你家中的人（בָּ֣אוּ לְבֵיתֵ֔ךְ）帶出來（bring out），因為他們來是要窺探（dig a hole）全地的。」
· NET Joshua 2:4 But the woman hid the two men and replied, « Yes, these men were clients of mine （我的恩客）, but I didn’t know（יָדַע ，
這些躺臥（這個字眼在有異性同房的條件下都是指性）、進出（具有交合的意象）、認識（這個字眼在對象是異性時很多時候都是指性行為。例： ESV Genesis 4:1 ¶ Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain）where they came from.）、挖洞的希伯來文動詞，在翻譯過來時那些「不當的雙關意味」（double entendre）都被淡化掉了。從原文中解釋中我希望大家能感受原初經文那種詭異、讓人不舒服的氛圍，但講台上不能再講更露骨了，所以台下如果有年輕人，到現在都聽不懂我在解釋什麼的話，那我恭喜你們將是國家未來的棟梁。）
It might have been at the very time when the command was given to the Israelites, for, according to a common Hebrew manner of speech (see, for instance, 1 Sam. 16:10), the three days (ver. 22) may include the whole time spent by the spies in their exploring expedition. Out of Shittim. Literally, from the valley of acacias. in Joel 3:18 and Num. 33:49, the Israelites had sojourned for some time (see Num. 25:1; cf. 22:1), (Num. 33:48, 49, 50; 36:13; cf. Deut. 1:5). We may add that it has nowhere been said that they were at Shittim. We find this out from Num. 25:1.
Young men, as we are told in ch. 6:23, and therefore active, feet of foot as well as brave and prudent. All these qualities, as the subsequent narrative shows, were urgently required.
與創世紀十九章的互文：spies, the narrator appropriates language from the story of Lot and his angelic visitors in Genesis 19.33 Besides linguistic influences, the two episodes share the elements of strange visitors, a night setting, and characters escaping a doomed city, and also share similar storylines,34 ‘thereby placing [Josh. 2] against a dark and threatening backdrop’ similar to that of Genesis 19.35
 The name Mahlon (מַחְלוֹן, makhlon) is from מָלָה (malah, « to be weak, sick ») and Kilion (כִליוֹן, khilyon) is from כָלָה (khalah, « to be frail »). The rate of infant mortality was so high during the Iron Age that parents typically did not name children until they survived infancy and were weaned. Naomi and Elimelech might have named their two sons Mahlon and Kilion to reflect their weak condition in infancy due to famine – which eventually prompted the move to Moab where food was abundant.
 行淫的意向在申命記史觀中被等同於背道（idolatrous apostasy）。經文證據在在說明暗示著迦南的淫亂對以色列是很大的宗教威脅。以色列探子找上妓女，立刻準備小命不保。The narrator sets up the reader to expect nothing positive from Rahab.
 a confession of religious faith, and act of religious conversion. By thus placing Rahab in the role of a deus ex machina, the calamity motif, instead of being followed through logically, is unexpectedly transformed into a deliverance motif.）
Latin: « god out of the machine »; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly inextricable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.
 Rahab’s covenant as common to ancient Near Eastern covenants: a preamble (v. 11); a prologue (w. 9-11); stipulations by Rahab and the spies (w. 12-13,18-20, respectively—in this case, protection for her house on condition of obedience); sanctions (w. 18-20—in this case, either salvation or death); an oath (w. 14,17); and a sign (w. 18-20), which is a cord. Though the elements do not occur in formal sequence
η θεολογία postliberale ne concerne pas simplement de la narrationalité,
des images copieusement légendées, la [re]mythologisation de
l’histoire, ou bien la customisation/personnalisation de tous faits divins de notre foi au mode quotidien.
D’une part, «je veux dire la légende, le mythe, la fable, qui sont comme
de vie nationale, comme des réservoirs profonds où dorment le sang et
des peuples.» (Baudelaire) D’autre part, «les [royaumes] lointaines dont
nous avons rêvé […] sont aussi désespérément
familières et quotidiennes pour les yeux et le cœur de leurs habitants »
Radical Orthodoxy is a postmodern Christian theological movement founded by John Milbank that takes its name from the title of a collection of essays published by Routledge in 1999: Radical Orthodoxy, A New Theology, edited by John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward. Radical Orthodoxy is a critique of modern secularism, and Kantian accounts of metaphysics. The name « Radical Orthodoxy » emphasizes the movement’s attempt to return to or revive traditional doctrine. « Radical » (lat. radix, « root »), « Orthodoxy » (gr. oρθός orthós « correct », and δόξα dóxa « teaching », [God-] »honoring », therefore, « correct faith »). The movement brings politics, ethics, culture, art, science, and philosophy in discussion with the sources of Christian theology. Its ontology has some similarities to the Neoplatonist account of participation.
One of the key tasks of Radical Orthodoxy is to revisit the philosophy of Duns Scotus. Scotus’ (1265-1308) rejection of analogy is often presented as the precursor of modernity (including his optimistic view of reason’s ability to attain truth about the divine).
The Druze, a religious community found primarily in Lebanon, Israel, and Syria, incorporate neoplatonic concepts into their beliefs.
Central tenets of Neoplatonism, such as the absence of good being the source of evil, and that this absence of good comes from human sin, served as a philosophical interim for Augustine of Hippo, but he eventually decided to abandon Neoplatonism altogether in favor of a Christianity based on his own reading of Scripture.
In the Middle Ages, Neoplatonist ideas influenced Jewish thinkers, such as the Kabbalist Isaac the Blind, and the Jewish Neoplatonic philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol, who modified it in the light of their own monotheism. Neoplatonist ideas also influenced Islamic and Sufi thinkers such as al Farabi and Avicenna. Neoplatonism survived in the Eastern Christian Church as an independent tradition and was reintroduced to the west by Plethon （他所撰述的《論亞里斯多德不同於柏拉圖》明確區分了柏拉圖與亞里斯多德思想的差異，喚起人文主義學者對柏拉圖的興趣，也對義大利文藝復興的哲學傾向產生決定性的影響）.
太精彩了這段…it pithily brings out what Hauerwasian post-liberal project is all about and at the same time allude to the fact that the agenda of ever-dominant RCC Thomism/natural theology and the Enlightenment humanistic optimism/modernism basically share the same ideology!!
然後這樣的再現神話要直到後結構（Barthes’ Mythology）、後現代時才被破除（and then the constructive theology/post-liberal theology again makes constructive model in response to what deconstruction has torn apart.）
為甚麼RO反對現代呢？因為米爾班克認為，現代就是司各脫的反神學走向，因而是「異端的、偶像的和世俗的」（頁49），RO要做的是制勝現代，而不是發展現代；而且，只有神學才是唯一可以制勝現代的後現代。米爾班克批評道，康德肯定界限以外的他者，但不知道這他者的內容；可是，他怎知道有限一定不能推及到界限以外之地呢？他的肯定是教條式的，他正正相信自己知道永恆是甚麼。（頁50）如果所知的僅限於有限，與無限隔斷，我們又怎知道這所知的不是主觀的，而無限不是一種投射呢？（頁51）RO的立論是，在之所以在，在於其多於所是（all there is only is because it is more than it is）（頁69）。他們的邏輯是：元敘事造就了本體性超越，本體性超越造就了參予，而參予造就了類比。
Hick 跟 Kant做出了相同的推斷（這不能說一定錯誤）：肯定界限以外的他者，但不知道這他者的內容。the question we must ask is: isn’t there any better working assumption?
Milbank’s approach is narrative theology that truths depend on the strength of hermeneutical weight, given there is nothing outside of text (Derrida) and the narratability of human existence (Ricoeur). R. William則指向敘事和詩學對於「符號本質」與再現理論的根本差異。詩的關注在於符號本身，觀念界理念的能指遊戲。
Fictional nihilism如我說過，是個很誤導的名稱。它的消極形式是解構，就是Derrida的破壞，本身必須不停地游牧（沒錯，你忽略了Deleuze）和迂迴；但其也具備積極形式，就是RO、敘事神學的後自由神學。Metaphysical nihilism則按照Heidegger說法，以Nietzsche為最後一個代表（事實上我個人認為在他之後還有Sartre），其虛無的方式是暴力的，because the way he « represented » « le neant » is still logocentric!! 然而Deleuze本身承襲了Nietzsche，所以他否定Heidegger說法。必須注意的是，Deleuze之所以難搞，是因為（如我在別處說過的）他本身在進行的就是「本體論的後現代」。所以一方面來說Deleuze是Foucault- Derrida (Heidegger excluded- being himself the « Ground of postmodernism », he does not belong to it.) 那派同樣作為Fictional nihilism的重大代表—Foucault破壞了倫理學（and Levinas built a lame version on top of the ruin）；Derrida破壞了認識論（and Rorty built a lame model on top of its ruin）；Deleuze（嚴格歷史意義上說來是Heidegger & Wittgenstein）破壞了本體論（but he himself built an ill-defined model on top of the very ruin），但另一層面意義上，what Deleuze is doing is exactly the resumption of the Nietzschean project, i.e., A « Metaphysical nihilism »。在本體論這層面上Deleuze的工作是雙重的！Fictional nihilism和Metaphysical nihilism的分類標準變成完全不適用。