Another Question for Christians

[JakeStarkey]

You sum it up well.

 

[BluePhantom]

BTW, don't even try to suggest that he dictated it in Aramaic to a scribe who then translated it to Greek. There are things in John that only make sense if it was originally written in Greek. For example the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 is playing on a double meaning of the phrase "gennethe anothen" which can mean both "born again" and "born from above" (or "born in the Spirit"). "Anothen" is the critical word and Nicodemus takes the first meaning "born again" and asks how a person can be put back into the womb and reborn. Jesus clarifies that He meant the second meaning: "born in the Spirit". So Nicodemus misunderstood because of a Greek word that had a double meaning and Jesus clarified what He meant. The Aramaic words for "again" ("oTuob") and "from above" ("Shmayoa") are not alike at all. There would have been no way for Nicodemus to misunderstand. The pericope only makes sense if it was originally written in Greek.

The idea of rebirth, or born again, was a familiar Jewish concept. When a Gentile became a Jew, they were said to be reborn.

I am not arguing that John the Apostle wrote or dictated the Gospel. Just noting that that rebirth was not an uncommon concept in Judaism at the time. Since Nicodemus was already a Jew, he wouldn't qualify as being reborn in the conversion sense. That only left the possibility of being born again from his mother--and he probably knew Jesus wasn't suggesting that.

That's true....it was a familiar concept. However, Nicodemus apparently didn't make that connection because he asks "How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” (John 3:4 NIV) So by Nicodemus asking that question it suggests that he was interpreting it as a literal physical rebirth and completely missed the concept of a spiritual rebirth.

So I would look at that and say "well 'rebirth' was a familiar concept that Nicodemus would have certainly knew about. It seems unlikely to me that he would be confused in such a way. So the account was probably written as a way to explain to gentiles the concept of rebirth and their confusion between anothen as 'again' and as 'from above'." That has the unfortunate effect though of suggesting that the exchange is perhaps a fictional account instead of a historical one.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am probably asking you to repeat yourself yet again but what is your conception of God?

Wow that would take volumes to explain. It's a pretty general question. Can you narrow in a bit more?

 

[RandomVariable]

I am probably asking you to repeat yourself yet again but what is your conception of God?

Wow that would take volumes to explain. It's a pretty general question. Can you narrow in a bit more?

What is your God's name for example.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am not arguing that John the Apostle wrote or dictated the Gospel.

Just a quick note specifically in response to this. Here is how I go about things regarding my faith and my study. When I, after having conducted some pretty considerable research and hearing the arguments on both sides, finally concluded that the Gospel of John was probably not written by John the Apostle, it made no difference to me at all. I reasoned that it doesn't matter who wrote it, it matters what it says and teaches. Regardless of whether the author is John son of Zebadee, John I of England, or John Cougar Mellencamp, if what the book says has value then I am happy to take it and go with that and apply what lessons I can take from it in a positive and constructive way.

So for me, reconciling tradition with critical scholarship often results in me saying "well so what? It's the lesson that is important" and it completely baffles me when people get so worked up about it.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am probably asking you to repeat yourself yet again but what is your conception of God?

Wow that would take volumes to explain. It's a pretty general question. Can you narrow in a bit more?

What is your God's name for example.

I just refer to Him as "God". I don't get all technical and insist that one name is better than another. Now as far as the name of God is concerned,where I probably differ from most is that it's my personal belief, that God, YHWH, Elohim, Allah and the many other names each culture uses to identify a "one true God" all refer to the same entity and each culture filers it according to their understanding. There's a great song by George Harrison called Life Itself that I am reminded of. George was an interesting guy (and a hell of a guitarist) and I don't always agree with his point of view, but I would agree with him in regards to this song and the name of God and "who God is" and how I feel about the Lord.

 

[ninja007]

I can't say that I rely on traditional teachinds as I haven't attended traditional church very often at all.
A good 85-90% of my Christian fiber has been woven between He and I.
Besides my attendance of Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal churches, I read a pretty broad variety of sources, whenever and wherever I can.
My wife has always been a very strict and legalistic Pentecostal and we've had morethan a few arguments over how I disagree with some of their 'stumbling blocks'

law and grace don't mix; good call.

 

[BluePhantom]

I can't say that I rely on traditional teachinds as I haven't attended traditional church very often at all.
A good 85-90% of my Christian fiber has been woven between He and I.
Besides my attendance of Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal churches, I read a pretty broad variety of sources, whenever and wherever I can.
My wife has always been a very strict and legalistic Pentecostal and we've had morethan a few arguments over how I disagree with some of their 'stumbling blocks'

law and grace don't mix; good call.

Did you find your cat?

 

[ninja007]

I can't say that I rely on traditional teachinds as I haven't attended traditional church very often at all.
A good 85-90% of my Christian fiber has been woven between He and I.
Besides my attendance of Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal churches, I read a pretty broad variety of sources, whenever and wherever I can.
My wife has always been a very strict and legalistic Pentecostal and we've had morethan a few arguments over how I disagree with some of their 'stumbling blocks'

law and grace don't mix; good call.

Did you find your cat?

lol, yep.. big thread about it i started in pets section. my neighbor had her in his house....

 

[BluePhantom]

I am probably asking you to repeat yourself yet again but what is your conception of God?

Wow that would take volumes to explain. It's a pretty general question. Can you narrow in a bit more?

What is your God's name for example.

I just refer to Him as "God". I don't get all technical and insist that one name is better than another. Now as far as the name of God is concerned,where I probably differ from most is that it's my personal belief, that God, YHWH, Elohim, Allah and the many other names each culture uses to identify a "one true God" all refer to the same entity and each culture filers it according to their understanding. There's a great song by George Harrison called Life Itself that I am reminded of. George was an interesting guy (and a hell of a guitarist) and I don't always agree with his point of view, but I would agree with him in regards to this song and the name of God and "who God is" and how I feel about the Lord.

Sorry I just have to follow up on this and everyone can blame RV for making me think of it. When I listen to George I just get so fired up for the Lord. He was probably the first "religious rocker"...he was primarily Hindu not Christian but like me he saw all religions as reflections of their culture,. But the songs he sings about God are simply incredible. His last words are recorded as (whispered to his son Dhani) "love one another and the only worthwhile search is the search for God". Damn that's awesome. My last words will probably be something along the lines of "I like big tits" so that puts he and I into perspective.

He wrote so many songs about his love for the Lord and they are so inspiring but I just want to post the lyrics to Life Itself. What I love about it is that it starts out and you think he is singing a love song about a woman and then soon you realize that he is singing about God. The middle part, the bridge, just locks it up and then you see he is expressing his devotion to God. It just fills me with fire for the Lord.

You are the One
You are my love
You send the rain and bring the sun
You stand alone and speak the truth
You are the breath of life itself, oh yes you are
You are the One

You're in my dream
I hold you there in high esteem
I need you more each step I take
You are the love in life itself, oh yes you are
You are the One

You are the one that I'd die for
And you're all that is real
You are the essence of that which
We taste, touch and feel

You are the One
No matter what
You are the real love that I've got
You are my friend and when life's through
You are the light in death itself, oh yes are
You are the One

They call you Christ, Vsnu, Buddha, Jehovah,
Our Lord
You are, Govindam, Bismillah, Creator of All

You are the One
No matter what
You are the real love that I've got
You are my friend and when life's through
You are the light in death itself, oh yes are
You are the One
You are my love
You send the rain and bring the sun
You stand alone and speak the truth
You are the breath of life itself, oh yes you are
You are the breath of life itself, oh yes you are
You are the One

 

[BluePhantom]

I can't say that I rely on traditional teachinds as I haven't attended traditional church very often at all.
A good 85-90% of my Christian fiber has been woven between He and I.
Besides my attendance of Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal churches, I read a pretty broad variety of sources, whenever and wherever I can.
My wife has always been a very strict and legalistic Pentecostal and we've had morethan a few arguments over how I disagree with some of their 'stumbling blocks'

law and grace don't mix; good call.

Did you find your cat?

lol, yep.. big thread about it i started in pets section. my neighbor had her in his house....

I am glad. Praise be upon you

 

[Politico]

I am feeling left out. I have been insulting Islam and religion on FB and the internet for years now. Where is my flogging?

 

[PostmodernProph]

..this uneducated, illiterate, Aramaic speaking peasant wrote a book using beautiful flowing Greek in perfect rhetorical style?

and yet the people who knew him personally had no problem accepting the fact that he wrote it......did you know him better than they did?.....

more importantly, do you have some scholarly historical evidence that outweighs the historical evidence of his contemporaries acceptance of his claims of authorship?.......perhaps some church leader saying "we shouldn't keep a copy of the gospel of John among our church records because we all know he never wrote it!".......that would certainly be relevant critical scholarship......

The contemporaries of John didn't think John wrote the Gospel of John either. .

seriously?.....is this the historical evidence you want to hang with?......so the gospel itself does not proclaim authorship, no manuscript carries a title "Gospel of John". it was shared among the fledgling Christian churches anonymously for two hundred years .....but by the time of canonization the entire Christian community unanimously included it in the Bible as the gospel of John even though they didn't believe he wrote it?......do you see now why I don't give much credit to atheist "scholarship"?........

 

[PostmodernProph]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"?

probably because such claims are not critical scholarship.....absurd claims from atheist wannabees do not have to be given the same weight as theological scholars......

Interesting, but not surprising, that you fit the stereotype of the christian who is hostile to the idea of questioning of so-called "scholarship".

Hollie

Also interesting is that these threads always end up being pissing contests to prove who is the better "christian".

All they do is copy/paste from other sites and say their site is better and use the words to club each other and/or atheists with them. All in all, a very insecure and hostile bunch.

That's why I gave up reading most of threads/posts here.

Well truth be told, I am about done engaging with Postmodern as we are digressing into topics that this thread is not about. I am happy to have a pissing match on a thread where it's more applicable. We are supposed to be discussing the psychology of those...well....like Postmodern. and what makes them behave the way they do in response to scholarship. I apologize for taking part in a side discussion that has gotten off the topic.

next time bring an adequate supply of piss......

 

[hortysir]

Well I think many Christians believe that critical scholarship is an attack on their faith, but I see no evidence of that at all. Is it an attack on faith to point out that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the earliest copies of the gospel or is it simply an observation?

Can you link that for me so I can look through it when I get home?

Sure. Here are a few.

This one is pretty solid and includes several sources
The Ending of Mark Mark 16 9-20

I don't like the language this guy uses (he comes off as a bit of a jerk) but his conclusion is accurate
The Strange Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference 8211 Biblical Archaeology Society

The link below is to Biblegateway.com and you will notice they made an insertion in the middle of the text pointing it out. Most (though not all) Bible's do footnote Mark 16:9-20 and point out that it's a later addition, but this one puts it right in the middle.
Mark 16 NIV - Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was - Bible Gateway

Here's a website that attempts to argue that 9-20 is genuine. I, personally, think their argument stretches credulity on several points (but the website isn't called "Apologetics Press" for nothing ), but in the interests of being fair and balanced I thought I would toss it in. At the very least it's the most thorough and well presented argument in favor of 9-20 that I have seen.
Apologetics Press - Is Mark 16 9-20 Inspired

Whether it was added or not really doesn't subtract from the message

From the last link (no stretching here)

Most, if not all, scholars who have examined the subject concede that the truths presented in the verses are historically authentic—even if they reject the genuineness of the verses as being originally part of Mark’s account. The verses contain no teaching of significance that is not taught elsewhere. Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to Mary is verified elsewhere (Luke 8:2; John 20:1-18), as is His appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:35), and His appearance to the eleven apostles (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23). The “Great Commission” is presented by two of the other three gospel writers (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-48), and Luke verifies the ascension twice (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9).

 

[BluePhantom]

Whether it was added or not really doesn't subtract from the message

From the last link (no stretching here)

Most, if not all, scholars who have examined the subject concede that the truths presented in the verses are historically authentic—even if they reject the genuineness of the verses as being originally part of Mark’s account. The verses contain no teaching of significance that is not taught elsewhere. Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to Mary is verified elsewhere (Luke 8:2; John 20:1-18), as is His appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:35), and His appearance to the eleven apostles (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23). The “Great Commission” is presented by two of the other three gospel writers (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-48), and Luke verifies the ascension twice (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9).

Well yes that's true in regards to events but not so much in regards to...oh what word am I looking for....."promises" perhaps. For example the events in the added section are correct but that's to be expected isn't it? What I mean is originally it seems that Mark ends at 16:8 which reads "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." and that's it. The gospel ends. You have to think ancient readers said "what, that's it? What the fuck happened next?" So Luke and Matthew were written, most scholars think, in order to give a fuller account of the life of Jesus because they felt that Mark was inadequate. In fact the Gospel of Luke actually begins by making the statement that previous accounts are not adequate (although he does not specifically mention Mark as it had not yet been named "Mark" or anything else for that matter). The author of Luke, was probably referring to many gospels, there were hundreds of them although only four made it into the Bible, but certainly he was referring to Mark as well because it is clear that whoever wrote Luke used Mark as a source and just expanded on it.

So after Luke and Matthew and John were written, those accounts had fuller (and happier) endings and someone later added the ending to Mark based on the endings of Luke, Matthew, and John. So Matthew and Luke were based on Mark, but Mark 16:9-20 was based on Matthew and Luke. So it's no surprise that the accounts would be very similar.

Where Mark 16: 9-20 is unique is in the promises that are made. You can handle snakes, you can drink poison...things of that nature are where Mark begins to differ and as I pointed out...people die to this day because of that. I read somewhere (I don't recall where or the time frame referenced) that 71 people have died in the United States by snake bites during religious services where they are convinced that if they get bitten all will be fine because it says so in Mark 16:18. Now I am a believer in God and Jesus and I believe that God has granted us the authority to use His name to work miracles, so I believe as well that if your faith is strong enough that you can receive a venomous snake bite and it will not bother you. The problem is, from my perspective, you had better be DAMN in touch with God before you try that. The article I quoted someone as saying "...handling snakes brings us closer to God..." Well I would agree with that. That will make you real close to God. Standing right next to Him in fact.

Who has that degree of faith? Certainly not me. I have never met anyone who did. I would guess that we could probably count on one hand the number of people throughout history that did. But I know I am not one of them so no snake kissing for me.

 

[Mindlight]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

The useful part of the scholarly historical critical discussion of the bible can either be very clear or speculative and inconclusive. Where it is clear it is a helpful aid where it is not it can simply confuse. From the point of view of living the Christian life biblical theology is a more healthy focus e.g. reading the bible as it is. My hostility to much theological education in Britain, Germany and the USA today has to do with its fruit. Half of all Germans who study theology are atheists at the end of the course. In otherwords they have learnt nothing about God of any actual spiritual value.

Also I see the main criticisms that could have been made about biblical authority to have mainly been resolved in the last 2 centuries. But the result has been the division into partisan camps. So to a great extent it depends on who you read.

 

[GreenBean]

I have been insulting Islam

 

[BluePhantom]

My hostility to much theological education in Britain, Germany and the USA today has to do with its fruit. Half of all Germans who study theology are atheists at the end of the course. In otherwords they have learnt nothing about God of any actual spiritual value.

Also I see the main criticisms that could have been made about biblical authority to have mainly been resolved in the last 2 centuries. But the result has been the division into partisan camps. So to a great extent it depends on who you read.

I think you make an excellent point here. Some things can be quite disturbing to a Christian. I mentioned before that it makes no difference to me, for example, whether Matthew wrote Matthew or not. I don't find that problematic because it's the message that is important and not the author of the gospel that matters to me. There are some things though (and I won't mention what they are because it will cause a shit-storm) that have been far more difficult to reconcile.

I guess how I approach an uncomfortable conclusion I have made is to say "well....if it's true then it's true. So how do I reconcile this new learning with my faith and my belief in who God and Jesus are?" That can sometimes take quite a bit of thought . And it has occasionally required me to dramatically redefine how I understand Him. Yet I have been able to maintain my belief despite the study. But yeah I can easily see how some things that critical scholarship implies can be devastating to someone's faith, especially if they are very steadfast and locked into a particular and rigid set of beliefs.

 

[Mindlight]

My hostility to much theological education in Britain, Germany and the USA today has to do with its fruit. Half of all Germans who study theology are atheists at the end of the course. In otherwords they have learnt nothing about God of any actual spiritual value.

Also I see the main criticisms that could have been made about biblical authority to have mainly been resolved in the last 2 centuries. But the result has been the division into partisan camps. So to a great extent it depends on who you read.

I think you make an excellent point here. Some things can be quite disturbing to a Christian. I mentioned before that it makes no difference to me, for example, whether Matthew wrote Matthew or not. I don't find that problematic because it's the message that is important and not the author of the gospel that matters to me. There are some things though (and I won't mention what they are because it will cause a shit-storm) that have been far more difficult to reconcile.

I guess how I approach an uncomfortable conclusion I have made is to say "well....if it's true then it's true. So how do I reconcile this new learning with my faith and my belief in who God and Jesus are?" That can sometimes take quite a bit of thought . And it has occasionally required me to dramatically redefine how I understand Him. Yet I have been able to maintain my belief despite the study. But yeah I can easily see how some things that critical scholarship implies can be devastating to someone's faith, especially if they are very steadfast and locked into a particular and rigid set of beliefs.

Well Matthew is not mentioned in the scriptures themselves as the author of the gospel so it would not cause a crisis of biblical authority to find out that was not the case. However what is important is that the canon was formed on the basis of its apostolic eyewitness closeness to Jesus. Matthew was a disciple and dead by the date 80-90AD that many scholars suggest for authorship. Personally I believe in a much earlier date and in Matthean authorship (as this is a strong and early church tradition) and have considerable doubts about the q theory etc. It makes more sense to me to explain the relationships between the synoptics in terms of the shared oral tradition and living community of eyewitnesses from which they were drawn rather than treat it like some academic compilation by teams of churchy scholars.

But in terms of what Matthew says - with his emphasis on an appeal to Jews and the saturation of his gospel with Old Testament imagery - Matthew is a sensible choice.

But that there is a discussion about these things does not really change the essential authority of scripture the belief in a God of miracles, in a Messiah who fulfilled prophecy and spoke of the fall of Jerusalem before it happened, rose from the dead etc. There are answers to all the criticisms even if some of them are on the lines of God has not yet given his explanation. A person can live a life in response to scripture without diving too deeply into the theological debates while others who know all the theology can completely miss the point. I suppose the ideal is someone who reverences scripture as inspired by God and believes that it is true as originally given , who can engage with the theological discussions without having that simple child like faith overthrown. I meet too many theological scholars who drowned in details they never put into proper perspective.

A man without a faith should never study theology - it will tear him apart.