Posts by hmike

19

Studies of the NT

by Balsam in

bart ehrman delivered this presidential address to the audience gathered at the southeastern commission for the study of religion in macon, georgia, on march 14, 1997. a fuller discussion of the textual variants mentioned below (luke 22:19-20) can be found in ehrman's book the orthodox corruption of scripture, pp.

interpreters of the nt are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore.

in many instances, we don't know what the authors of the nt actually wrote.

hmike

Thanks for the reply, Pete. There are old issues here which may never be settled. I'm all for scholarship to clarify truth, and I respect the scholars here like yourself. I only wish to caution people against making conclusions from a small amount of data. When information is lacking, there are multiple ways to interpret what it can mean. It can be like taking 10 pieces out of a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle box, and without having seen the picture, trying to determine what the picture is from just the 10 pieces. My impression is that some people are primarily guided to conclusions based on their bad experiences with religious organizations like the JW.

19

Studies of the NT

by Balsam in

bart ehrman delivered this presidential address to the audience gathered at the southeastern commission for the study of religion in macon, georgia, on march 14, 1997. a fuller discussion of the textual variants mentioned below (luke 22:19-20) can be found in ehrman's book the orthodox corruption of scripture, pp.

interpreters of the nt are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore.

in many instances, we don't know what the authors of the nt actually wrote.

hmike

Hi Pete,

I understand your POV, but let me ask: T he book of Acts has several testimonies about Jesus in Chs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 26; some from Peter, some from Paul. Each one is different. If someone was "manufacturing" history to make a point, why would they do it that way? Why not be more consistent? In fact, why have so many testimonies at all?

Also, we don't know if Luke had a copy of Matthew to refer to. He may have had Mark's and wanted to expand it, and perhaps had other written accounts and oral testimonies for reference, but he may have also wanted to counter some erroneous accounts in circulation.

19

Studies of the NT

by Balsam in

bart ehrman delivered this presidential address to the audience gathered at the southeastern commission for the study of religion in macon, georgia, on march 14, 1997. a fuller discussion of the textual variants mentioned below (luke 22:19-20) can be found in ehrman's book the orthodox corruption of scripture, pp.

interpreters of the nt are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore.

in many instances, we don't know what the authors of the nt actually wrote.

hmike

Once again, great article, Balsam. Thanks for posting it. I'll be interested it reading anything else from the series.

Some points I'd like to bring up about this article:

1. The real issue is not what Luke believes or what kind of words he has or has not used, but what Jesus actually said. Also, the speeches he quotes were made by others without his commentary, so it's difficult to draw any firm conclusions about his own position or understanding.

2. In none of these speeches is Jesus said to die "for" anyone. Instead, the scandal of his death as God's righteous one drives people to their knees in repentance, and it's this repentance that brings forgiveness of sins.

In the quotations of others where repentance and forgiveness are mentioned, some of them, particularly the earlier speeches, and especially in Peter's speech at Pentecost, there is a call to express repentance. In fact, the early evangelistic message is reminiscent of John the Baptist's call, where one or more of the elements of expressing repentance, being baptized (now it is in the name of Jesus) for forgiveness of sins, and living a new life are part of the message. As time goes on, however, we do not see overt expressions of repentance, nor are they called for. The eyewitness testimony is declared, and those who believe are baptized. The forgiveness of sins seems to be automatically awarded to anyone who accepts Jesus as the Christ. A significant turning point was reached at the household of the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10). After testifying to what he had seen, Peter concludes with, "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (v. 43), probably a reference to the second part of Isaiah 53:11. The listeners accept the message in their hearts, and receive an obvious manifestation of the Holy Spirit. It is after that Peter has them baptized. My point is that the apostolic teaching transitioned to accepting Jesus as the Christ as being what brought forgiveness.

3. While it's true that none of the speakers Luke quotes overtly mention an atoning death, in four places in Luke & Acts, after the resurrection, mention is made that the Christ had to suffer and die according to God's will. My obvious question is, "Why?" Why was he "led like a sheep to the slaughter?" Why did God determine that the Christ had to die, and why in a manner that shed his blood?

4. In the Last Supper account, Ehrman prefers the shorter version as the original. In it, there is a passing of a cup of wine, Jesus says he will not drink it again until the kingdom of God comes, and there is a passing of the bread, and that's it. A lot is left out of both versions. There are four cups of wine at the seder: two passed before the bread, two after. It doesn't seem likely that Jesus would stop the meal after passing the bread. (I've seen it suggested that the third cup, the "cup of redemption," is the one Jesus associated with his blood, and that the fourth cup, the "cup of consummation" is the one he declined to drink until a future time.)

Anyway, hope to see more on this when you get the series.

19

Studies of the NT

by Balsam in

bart ehrman delivered this presidential address to the audience gathered at the southeastern commission for the study of religion in macon, georgia, on march 14, 1997. a fuller discussion of the textual variants mentioned below (luke 22:19-20) can be found in ehrman's book the orthodox corruption of scripture, pp.

interpreters of the nt are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore.

in many instances, we don't know what the authors of the nt actually wrote.

hmike

Very interesting article. This is why I have no problem using a modern translation such as the NIV, which attempts to take into account alternate readings, rather than the KJ, which is based on a single manuscript. I'm all for getting back to the original. I have to say, though, that the evidence for this argument about Luke is circumstantial, and not particularly strong at that.

Concerning the specific issue of Luke and the Last Supper, if the account was really written by a gentile for a gentile, it is somewhat understandable that he might not include a mention of the atoning sacrifice. The blood sacrifice for sins was meaningful to Jews, but not to gentiles with no history of blood sacrifices to cover sin. The gentiles didn't have the Mosaic laws, so they wouldn't even have a clear understanding of what sin was. The omission would not be a particularly big deal, since no single document covers all the issues of theology.

Still, though, it does legitimately raise the issue of differences in manuscripts, which cannot be denied. The doctrine of inspiration, incidentally, states that only the original documents are considered inspired, not the copies, so it does behoove us to attempt to get as close to the original as possible.

One issue I have with the doctrine of inspiration concerns the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures, which was commonly used in the time of Jesus as is often quoted by NT authors. This legitimizes the LXX, yet it differs from the Masoretic text, and, presumably, from the Hebrew text used BCE. So what does that say about the choice of words used? Considering how much can turn on a phrase or single word, what can we say? So maybe alterations to the text are acceptable as long as they are consistent with the general intent of the text?

19

Early Christology question

by M.J. in

my knowledge about this is limited to some quotes of what various early church fathers taught and what they said about "heresies", in addition to the nt.

could some of the more knowledgeable folks on this board give their input as to what schools of thought were out there in the 1st century regarding christ's nature, the worship of christ, etc.?

leolaia in another post mentioned how there were three principle factions around the question of salvation.

hmike

Leolaia,

I am not familiar with the work of John Day. Is that the basis for WT Christology? It looks to me like the Son of Man must have been considered to be Jesus:

Daniel 7:13-14, "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was lead into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations, and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." (NIV)

I Chron. 17:11-14, "When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take away my love from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever." (NIV)

Luke 1:32,Gabriel to Mary: "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." (NIV)

Here in Luke, the connection appears to be made between the "one like a son of man" and the descendent of David, who would also be called the Son of God, through the everlasting throne. Also, Psalm 1:2 strongly implies a link between the Son of God and the Annointed One--Messiah--and is quoted in Acts 4 and applied to Jesus. The writer of Hebrews picks this up in Heb. 1:8, clearly distinguishing the Son from angels by virtue of the everlasting throne.

24

A study of Galatians

by Billygoat in

several months ago, i asked a friend of mine from church to become my "accountability partner.

" basically, someone that meets with me once a week and we share what is going on in our lives.

the point is to share joys, unburden griefs, pray together, pray for each other, be brutally honest with each other, study the bible together, etc.

hmike

With all due respect to the late Dr. Scott, Martin Luther, and others, I disagree about the book of James not belonging in the Bible. It contains important guidelines about living out the Christian life.

Experiencing God's salvation by faith has always been a fundamental teaching of the Bible, including the OT. If you believed what God said about something, and took whatever action was appropriate based on that belief (obedience), then you received the corresponding benefits. If you didn't believe, then of course, you didn't act in line with what God said, and you didn't benefit. In the NT, the fundamental teaching is that Jesus of Narareth is the Christ/Son of God/Son of Man/ Son of David/King/suffering servant of Isaiah 53 based on eyewitness testimonies of how the teachings of Jesus, how he lived his life, his death and resurrection matched those prophecies. To believe this testimony is essential because it is believing what God has said (the NT claim about Jesus), but it doesn't really stop there. As such, he is Lord and Master, and his word is supreme, so professing believers should make the attempt to live according to his teachings. So when he talks of loving and not sinning, to accept that teaching is all part of the believing (this also extends to the teachings of the Apostles, because he said, "whoever listens to you [the Apostles] listens to me.") It makes sense, doesn't it? If I believe that smoking is bad for me and will kill me, assuming I want to live, I'm at least going to try to quit, aren't I? In the Synoptic Gospels, believing Jesus to be the Messiah sent by God meant obeying his teachings; that was the expectation for people living at that time. After the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and Pentecost, the gift of the Holy Spirit and inclusion into the promise to Abraham comes into play, but how people were to live was never negated.

We need guidelines to live by because, even though our inner self is regenerated, the outward self, including how we think, should ideally be brought into conformity with the inner self. Although this cannot be fully achieved, we should be on the path to becoming a fully integrated being. Loving God (and his Son) is first and foremost, and making the effort to please God with our lives is part of loving God. It's part of praise, worship, and thanksgiving. It's a natural consequence, isn't it? When you have legalism, the love has been lost; it's all about self--"What do I get out of it?"

Yes, the canon does consist of different perspectives from different authors, but I see that as a good thing. Each has something to contribute to the big picture, and it somehow all fits together.

8

All things have been handed to me

by peacefulpete in

on another thread the story about jacob wrestling god and cliaming to have seen god face to face reminded me of an interesting point about matt 11:27: "all things have been delivered to me (handed to me) by my father"; and noone knows the son except the father and none knows the father except the son and anyone whom the son choses to reveal him.".

this verse is often lifted from context and used to support a number of doctrinal positions, however in context the stament alludes to jesus being superior to previous prophets including moses and jacob because of his having seen god and had the associated full disclosure from him.. .

the connections between "seeing" god and having his full disclosure "knowing god" and his mind, is made at ex.33:12-23 where moses asks to "know"god's ways and the response is to allow him to "see" him though in a indirect way.

hmike

While Moses and others were said in the OT to have seen God, NT writers in John 1:18 and 6:46, and in I Tim. 6:15-16 take the position of Exodus 33:20 that no mortal has ever seen God, or at least not see Him and live.

For those who did see God, he may have reduced the intensity of his glory, or they looked at him through some kind of filter or diffuser. Consider that people could not look at Moses due to the radiance he picked up from being in God's presence. If we consider Moses to be like phosphorescent material after exposure to light, and the intensity of the light from the source had been reduced, how bright that original source would have been. The ancient people might say Moses saw God through some kind of veil.

Jesus, on the other hand, because he was holy and righteous, could have beheld the full glory of the Father without being evaporated. He had unique knowledge of the Father, but the Synoptic Gospels don't indicate when, or how, it was revealed to him. Since John writes about Jesus as the pre-incarnate Word, the implication is that at least much of the knowledge was already in him from birth. We are told that Jesus frequently went off by himself to pray, but we are never given insight as to what the Father replied or by what means he did (verbally, non-verbally, by angel, by vision, or just intuitively by the Holy Spirit).

Keep in mind that Moses, the prophets, or any other mortal only knew as much about God as He revealed to them. The full revelation was never given to any mortal (the original "need-to-know" directive). Consequently, these people occasionally questioned and even argued with God about what He would do, or how, or why He was going to it. With Jesus, it was clear from the beginning of his ministry that he had unique knowledge of the Father. Somehow, Jesus knew the Father's nature and will far beyond what Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, or anyone else had. Consequently, he was able to speak authoritatively, not as teachers or even prophets did. The way Moses and the others saw the Father would be like one of us having to use filters to look directly at the sun. The filters enable us to look without strain or danger, but we miss details. As Paul wrote of knowledge of the coming kingdom, "Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face" (I Cor. 13:12, NIV)--the difference between partial, restricted knowledge, and full disclosure.

While Matt. 11:25-27 and the parallel passage in Luke 10:21-22 speak of revelation, I think they also do speak of authority. In Matt. 11, Jesus transitions from his "woes" to cities where he was not well-received to praise to the Father for hiding truth from the wise and learned and revealing it to children ( the humble, trusting, and obedient--those not high up on the socioeconomic ladder who lord it over those beneath them). The Jewish leaders and teachers, many of whom did not accept Jesus as sent by God, considered God as their Father because they understood the Scriptures and kept the law (as evidenced by high socioeconomic status--a reward from God), unlike the common folk (whose struggles were evidence of their shortcomings before God). Verses 25-27 and Luke 10:21-22 seem to tie in well with John 6:44-46. To bring glory to the Son, the Father set up the requirement that the only way to truly know him is through the Son; only the Father fully knows the Son; the Father will bring people to the Son; and the Son reveals the Father to them as only he can do. When v. 27 states, "no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him," that says to me that the Son had the authority to make the choice of who would truly know the Father. We see this kind of thing happening when Jesus explains the parables to his disciples, but leaves the others wondering. In this sense, the Father has already turned the kingdom over to the Son, and the Son fulfills his responsibility in accordance with his Father's will.

15

would you think this scripture could be used for religious tolerance?

by candidlynuts in

mark 9: 38-40 nwt.

38 john said to him: ?teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.?

39 but jesus said: ?do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us.

hmike

Thanks, Pete.

Luke 9:49-50, "whoever is not against you is for you."

- Acts 15. The Jersalem council of apostles approves of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles.

- Acts 18:24-28. Paul approves of Apollos, and supports his work after filling him in on new information about Jesus.

- Phil 1:12-18. Paul rejoices that Christ is preached, even if some do it with improper motives.

Today: If a secular group is feeding and helping the homeless, the church should not object to that simply on the grounds that they are not a Christian group.

32

Bible Reading Leading to More Doubt Than Faith... :(

by jeanniebeanz in

ok, it?s taken me longer to get my thoughts together on this than i expected, but here is the reason that i have come to have doubts in the divine nature of the bible; its failure to show that the god it describes is abiding by "his" own standards.. for example, according to 2 peter 1:20, the entire bible is inspired of god.

the main attributes of "god" are that "he" is love (1 john 4:8), "he" is just (deuteronomy 32:4), and "he" has all of the power (revelation 7:12).. with that in mind, my first problem with the bibles authenticity is that this ?loving god?

murdered the entire world of men at one point in history by drowning them.

hmike

Jeannie,

I'm going to take a different approach than others who have replied.

First, don't be too concerned about the references to God in the masculine gender. Male/female is not an issue; if there was a genderless pronoun that could be used to refer to an intelligent, living entity, that is what would be used. Perhaps the masculine pronoun is used because the Bible was written in a male-dominated culture.

My personal opinion is that it has to do with the idea that the man provided the seed to the woman that brought about conception--life. Sometimes, the word of God is referred to as seed. So, naturally, if God's word is seed, then the one providing it would be referred to as male.

As for the other problems you are having with the brutality and violence of the OT, it has long been a problem to people. Some church leaders couldn't accept that the God of the Gospels is the same God as mentioned in the OT. Some believed this was a different deity altogether, some wanted to throw out the OT. Yet, doesn't it seem strange that NT writers Paul and John, who wrote the most about love, didn't seem to have any problem with the way God did things in the OT (Tanak)? In Romans 3:2, Paul refers to the OT as the "very words of God," so there is no question about his opinion of inspiration. Here was an expert in the OT, far closer to its events in time and culture than we are, yet he doesn't have a problem with it.

I don't think we are in a good position to evaluate God or the Hebrews through our modern, Western civilized eyes;we weren't there, and we don't have all the facts.

To me, the amazing thing is that this God is patient and tolerant with the world today, and that Jesus suffered in his body a personal measure of this wrath. And, if the book of Revelation is to be taken literally, one day this same kind of bloodshed will be poured out on the earth. This is not WT dogma, as I am not, and never have been, a JW. This is from my own heart as I read the accounts.

15

would you think this scripture could be used for religious tolerance?

by candidlynuts in

mark 9: 38-40 nwt.

38 john said to him: ?teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.?

39 but jesus said: ?do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us.

hmike

The passage in Mark is consistant with the statements by Jesus about ?good tree/good fruit, bad tree/bad fruit? in Matt 12:33-35 and Luke 6:43-45, and somewhat with what Paul wrote in I Cor. 12:3 (??no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, ?Jesus be cursed??). The teaching appears to be about consistency?that goodness and light cannot coexist with evil and darkness. I think this passage is saying that if someone has joined you in doing God?s work, that?s a good thing. Not only does it benefit the work of the kingdom, but if someone is joined in the efforts, they are not going to work to hinder that at the same time. It wouldn?t make sense for them to knowingly work in harmony with God and against him at the same time.

The value of this work to the one(s) supporting the work of God would depend on motives and how they live their personal lives:

?Many will say to me on that day, ?Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?? Then I will tell them plainly, ?I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers.? (Matt. 7:22-23, NIV).

So it looks like it is possible to openly work for God?s kingdom, yet live an unrighteous personal, hidden life. Now this we know very well to be true. Kingdom work without personal value can also be done for selfish motives, such as greed or to gain attention to oneself (see Matt. 6:1-8, 16-18; Acts 8: 9-24).

Back to the original question of whether or not this teaches religious tolerance?you can say it does within a limited context. These people were properly using the name of Jesus to liberate the oppressed as Jesus did and the same way the disciples had been doing even though this group had not been officially authorized with the 12 (Matt. 10:1). This is fine for as far as it goes. The same actions were done in the name of Jesus as the disciples did, so this glorifies the name of Jesus and accomplishes the work of God. There is no mention what, if anything, these outsiders were teaching along with these works. There didn?t seem to be any deviant doctrines as of yet. The only issue seemed to be, ?Is Jesus sent and approved by God?? Miracles done in his name answered, ?Yes!?

Once Jesus left the earth, different teachings sprang up. The writers of the NT letters definitely had limits as to what differences were acceptable (e.g., the letter to the Galatians, and 2 John 10-11 chastises anyone in the church who gives aid and comfort to false teachers).