• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bible discussion thread

TownieDeac said:
It does seem that it's important then, to make a distinction between evangelism and proselytism, the first being closer to spreading good news, and the latter being more related to actual conversion. So some of the passages that deal with both evangelism and proselytism worth looking into:

Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Colossians 4:5-6 (seasoned with salt?)
Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Ephesians 6:19-20 (ambassador in chains?)
Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...
Click to expand...

Matthew: That's the go-to passage. The "therefore" is important to consider, as it is referring to all authority being given to Jesus. Disciple is a word that means student, so fairly redundant with "teach them..." To me, baptism is about initiation into the KoG, so he's saying "bring them into this reality of the good news."

Col: Sort of goes to my earlier point, be attractive, do what you're supposed to do so that others will know the grace of God through out. More about evangelism in lifestyle than winning converts through proselytizing. I'm at home, so don't have many resources here (they're in my office), but salt was very valuable at the time, sometimes even was a form of payment. So perhaps the sense is "let your conversation be worth something, not just idol chatter."

Eph: Referring to his imprisonments. Mystery of the gospel= it's a stumbling block that someone a man was executed and yet he's still the messiah.

Peter: Awesome passage, and I think one of the most important for Christians because it means that you're taking your discipleship (study/prayer/relationship with God) seriously if you're able to give someone an accounting of the hope that is in you. And again, not conversion by the sword, do it with gentleness and respect.
 
meandmyuncleDeac said:
This really is a very nice thread and topic. How do Christians deal with the fairly recent discovery of the so-called "gnostic texts", the Gospel of Thomas and the like? I am fascinated with this particular gospel. It has at first glance the feel of the synoptics, but it's emphasis is totally different.
Click to expand...

In my mind there is nothing to "deal" with, meaning it certainly doesn't challenge my faith or understanding of Jesus. It's no surprise that communities had different things to say about Jesus that were influenced by their culture and particular theological concerns. Also, as we got further from the lifetime of Jesus, questions started to arise and some of these "gnostic" texts were filling in those gaps (Infancy narratives, for example). The Gospel of Peter is a good one in fact, really has some good stuff to add to the conversation on Resurrection theology.

They certainly aren't going to be added to the Bible, but might be seen in a similar light as books of the Apocrypha is some churches. They are books about the faith, written by faithful people, but they are not looked to as foundational or formational to theology. Academically, they might add some pieces to the puzzle, but since their motives are less certain, they aren't really considered to add as much to the faith side of things. Nevertheless, they are interesting to read.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Matthew: That's the go-to passage. The "therefore" is important to consider, as it is referring to all authority being given to Jesus. Disciple is a word that means student, so fairly redundant with "teach them..." To me, baptism is about initiation into the KoG, so he's saying "bring them into this reality of the good news."

Col: Sort of goes to my earlier point, be attractive, do what you're supposed to do so that others will know the grace of God through out. More about evangelism in lifestyle than winning converts through proselytizing. I'm at home, so don't have many resources here (they're in my office), but salt was very valuable at the time, sometimes even was a form of payment. So perhaps the sense is "let your conversation be worth something, not just idol chatter."

Eph: Referring to his imprisonments. Mystery of the gospel= it's a stumbling block that someone a man was executed and yet he's still the messiah.

Peter: Awesome passage, and I think one of the most important for Christians because it means that you're taking your discipleship (study/prayer/relationship with God) seriously if you're able to give someone an accounting of the hope that is in you. And again, not conversion by the sword, do it with gentleness and respect.
Click to expand...

It's this last one that leaves me really searching to better understand God. Not just for myself, but so that I can answer questions of others!
 
RevDeac06 said:
Most of academia uses the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), which is also the default translation for most mainline protestants, including the Episcopal Church. So I tend to use that one. KJV certainly lacks some of the new (in the last 400 years) academic learnings. The Common English Bible is a good modern language translation, just completed within the last few years. When I preach, I often translate the passage(s) that I'm preaching on from the Hebrew and Greek.
Click to expand...

Rev, would you mind talking a bit about manuscript history? When theologians and academics talk exegesis and revise versions of the bible, are they often updating to account for the discovery of earlier manuscripts (i.e. finding the Dead Sea Scrolls or comparing Coptic texts to later versions), changes in theory about the transliteration from Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Sumerian/etc, or a combination of all of the above?

The problem of translation is absolutely huge in my field, and I imagine even with an entire scholarship devoted to transliteration/translation, it's still hard to find common ground that today's academics can agree on. I know Talmudic scholars continually devote lifetimes to this.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Townie's earlier distinction between evangelism and proselytism is quite helpful (but I'll respond to that in another post). A lot of Paul (and the earlier followers of Jesus) is centered around the legitimacy of Christianity (see Acts). Evangelism, when done properly (and by that I mean authentic Christian living), should be attractive in that it brings people to it without even asking them to. Sort of like a very attractive woman in a bar, she doesn't need to do any attracting of others, it's just going to happen. The problem is when Christians try to make themselves look attractive it often doesn't work. So when people misunderstand Paul, they end up looking bad because they're not living the attractive sort of Christianity that Paul did.
Click to expand...

First of all, this is a really interesting thread. I was raised Christian (pops is very involved in church, brother is a Presby minister). I have sort of bounced around a little in terms of my personal faith. When I read your second to last sentence, I immediately thought of Matthew 25:40 (had to look up the verse), "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

My dad had this verse displayed in our house growing up but I never really thought much about it until I heard it in church a few weeks ago. I know it's dangerous to universally apply singular verses (OH HAI HOMOPHOBES) but this one kind of satisfies the question about how should Christians look at people that either grow up in a different religion or know no religion or just struggle with where they are in life. Do good shit for people who need it and you will be looked upon favorably. I'm no biblical scholar but this verse just sits very nicely with me.
 
TownieDeac said:
Btw, rev, which version of the Bible do you prefer? I tend to go back and forth between NIV and KJV when pulling quotes online.
Click to expand...

I always go Douay-Rheims or the Vulgate since I don't have any Greek (though my sister is fluent in AG, so I send all my stuff to her). Everything I do is pre-15c., so NRSV isn't terribly helpful.

RevDeac06 said:
When I preach, I often translate the passage(s) that I'm preaching on from the Hebrew and Greek.
Click to expand...

You have Hebrew and AG? Mightily impressive.
 
I'd assume he knows ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek rather than their modern versions.
 
TownieDeac said:
Rev, would you mind talking a bit about manuscript history? When theologians and academics talk exegesis and revise versions of the bible, are they often updating to account for the discovery of earlier manuscripts (i.e. finding the Dead Sea Scrolls or comparing Coptic texts to later versions), changes in theory about the transliteration from Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Sumerian/etc, or a combination of all of the above?

The problem of translation is absolutely huge in my field, and I imagine even with an entire scholarship devoted to transliteration/translation, it's still hard to find common ground that today's academics can agree on. I know Talmudic scholars continually devote lifetimes to this.
Click to expand...

Issues of translation are certainly an issue, but not in the same way that it is for Talmudic scholars. I think a lot of Jews would genuinely that if God speaks a language in heaven it would be Hebrew. Very few, if any, Christian scholars would make quite that same claim. Hebrew is the language in which the divine name (YHWH) was revealed, so there is something extra about Hebrew. That being said, the issues of translation become all the more delicate. Furthermore, being a student of both, Hebrew (and I get this is just my opinion) is a much more beautiful/poetic/richer language, so you can do more with translation.

Certainly things we've learned about Ugaritic have influenced our translation of Hebrew, and scholars continue to find the mythic "proto-Hebrew" language that fed all of the Semitic languages, and as they learn about that, we gain new insights into word derivation and usage, often leading us to deeper meanings. But as new manuscripts are discovered, sometimes we get more insight into what different manuscripts were floating around. Not that any one manuscript is "right," but at least we have the range of interpretations. And this, of course, differs from Islamic scholars who view the Qur'an as the literal, spoken words of God/Allah. It should also be noted that the vast majority of manuscripts line up well and even when there is a variant, it is often very minor.

Some of the issues that come up are: scribal errors (copying errors), theological addendums (things were added to the text that weren't original but have become accepted as fully a part of the Bible), lack of vowels in Hebrew (pointing of vowels is a later addition, so sometimes there is some "reading between the lines" that has to happen), among other things. It's certainly a rich tradition and I love it because the texts really are just immensely rich with meaning.
 
TownieDeac said:
I'd assume he knows ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek rather than their modern versions.
Click to expand...

Correct- I'd be worthless in conversations in either Greece or Israel today. They're both dead languages, so I really don't know anything about "speaking" those languages (though I did take Attic Greek composition at Wake). I took 4 semesters of Attic Greek at Wake, 1 semester of 1-on-1 independent study of Hebrew at Wake, and then 1 semester of Hebrew in the Div School at Wake (while I was an undergrad), then took several reading classes in seminary for both Greek and Hebrew (maybe 2 of each), in addition to doing a thesis in Biblical studies that involved translation of key texts on discernment (discernment was my topic). Certainly have developed some rust since I graduated from seminary in 2009, but I try to keep it up by translating the passages whenever I preach.
 
bmoneydeac said:
First of all, this is a really interesting thread. I was raised Christian (pops is very involved in church, brother is a Presby minister). I have sort of bounced around a little in terms of my personal faith. When I read your second to last sentence, I immediately thought of Matthew 25:40 (had to look up the verse), "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

My dad had this verse displayed in our house growing up but I never really thought much about it until I heard it in church a few weeks ago. I know it's dangerous to universally apply singular verses (OH HAI HOMOPHOBES) but this one kind of satisfies the question about how should Christians look at people that either grow up in a different religion or know no religion or just struggle with where they are in life. Do good shit for people who need it and you will be looked upon favorably. I'm no biblical scholar but this verse just sits very nicely with me.
Click to expand...

I, too, think that verse is absolutely crucial to a full understanding of Christianity and what it means to follow Jesus. And you're right, do it for the least of these and you're doing it to God/Jesus, regardless of whether your motivation is simple human compassion or a divine sense of duty. Glad to hear that it's had such an impact on you.
 
Actually Rev, I think the gnostic texts present quite a challenge to traditional Christian theology. For example, traditional Christian teaching is that God and Man are different. One is divine, the other is not. In the Thomas gospel, Jesus says that "he who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he". My interpretation of this is that anyone who incarnates, or brings into his life the message of the word is equivalent to Jesus. The distinction between God and Man is not to be found in this text, and is quite like basic Hinduism and Buddhism.

Consider furthur that in traditional Christian teaching there is a distinction between God and the world. In the Thomas gospel, Jesus is asked when the Kingdom will come. In the 12th chapter of Mark, there is truly a physical end of the world with fire and all that. In Thomas, Jesus says that "the Kingdom will not come by expectation, the Kingdom of the Father IS spread upon the earth, but men do not see it". I take from this that the "kingdom' is not to be experienced in the "hereafter", but right here and right now. The whole world is the kingdom, and all one must do is wake up and recognize it. Again, this is the heart of oriental thinking with Buddha having lived 600 years before Christ.

Rev, what makes this text less "authentic" than those of the "regular" Bible?
 
TownieDeac said:
Rev, would you mind talking a bit about manuscript history? When theologians and academics talk exegesis and revise versions of the bible, are they often updating to account for the discovery of earlier manuscripts (i.e. finding the Dead Sea Scrolls or comparing Coptic texts to later versions), changes in theory about the transliteration from Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Sumerian/etc, or a combination of all of the above?
Click to expand...

I think the word "often" here might be slightly misleading. Things move very, very slowly in the academy, and although Biblical archeology, in general, tends to be better funded (and thus, more productive) than other iron age projects (especially those on the continent), historical/exegetical revision tends to be a long and deliberate process. Also, the codicologist would take issue with your use of "manuscript history" -- maybe 'exegetical bibliography' is better??
 
RevDeac06 said:
Some of the issues that come up are: scribal errors (copying errors), theological addendums (things were added to the text that weren't original but have become accepted as fully a part of the Bible), lack of vowels in Hebrew (pointing of vowels is a later addition, so sometimes there is some "reading between the lines" that has to happen), among other things. It's certainly a rich tradition and I love it because the texts really are just immensely rich with meaning.
Click to expand...

These two are very, very significant in MSS histories/variations in textual families.
 
meandmyuncleDeac said:
Actually Rev, I think the gnostic texts present quite a challenge to traditional Christian theology. For example, traditional Christian teaching is that God and Man are different. One is divine, the other is not. In the Thomas gospel, Jesus says that "he who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he". My interpretation of this is that anyone who incarnates, or brings into his life the message of the word is equivalent to Jesus. The distinction between God and Man is not to be found in this text, and is quite like basic Hinduism and Buddhism.

Consider furthur that in traditional Christian teaching there is a distinction between God and the world. In the Thomas gospel, Jesus is asked when the Kingdom will come. In the 12th chapter of Mark, there is truly a physical end of the world with fire and all that. In Thomas, Jesus says that "the Kingdom will not come by expectation, the Kingdom of the Father IS spread upon the earth, but men do not see it". I take from this that the "kingdom' is not to be experienced in the "hereafter", but right here and right now. The whole world is the kingdom, and all one must do is wake up and recognize it. Again, this is the heart of oriental thinking with Buddha having lived 600 years before Christ.

Rev, what makes this text less "authentic" than those of the "regular" Bible?
Click to expand...

You're right, some gnostic texts are currently interpreted as being heretical, in opposition to what has been accepted as orthodox. The whole study though of how certain ideologies become orthodox and others became heretical is fascinating and far too complex to get fully into here, but there are a lot of good books on the subject.

I would argue though that they don't challenge Christianity, but rather just provide a different lens for us to look through. They give us insight into the debates (not much unlike this thread) that were going on in the 2nd-3rd centuries, which gives us a deeper understanding of what people were saying/wondering/thinking about God/Jesus. As long as we realize that the lens of these gnostic texts aren't accepted as orthodox, I don't see a direct challenge. Just because it's in Scripture doesn't make it right. I realize this is really basic, but I have no issue shaving my beard, even though that's not allowed in the Torah. But I can understand the reason of that law, and it still has meaning for me, even if it isn't proscriptive. Same can be true for gnostic texts, I don't have to agree/follow them, but they still provide helpful information.

The apocalyptic passages of Mark (and other gospels) tends to be passages that are more doubtful as far as authenticity to Jesus (Jesus Seminar would tend to put them more in the gray region than the red). Early followers of Jesus (and we sometimes see this in Pauline passages) were expecting the end to come soon (and you might argue that it somewhat did in 70). Some of those tensions found their way into the text in the form of these apocalyptic references. If you read more of the widely accepted passages that are attributed to Jesus, when he speaks of the Kingdom of God, it is in fact much closer to what you've quoted from Thomas, that the Kingdom is a present reality. Many of the parables about the Kingdom (especially in Luke) focus on the notion that the Kingdom is a reality. Much of what Jesus speaks of is rooted in the present (perhaps with a hope and an eye towards the eventual achievement/fulfillment of the telos of the Kingdom), not looking towards a future promise. Again, apocalypticism (as we know it today) didn't really exist in Jesus time. I'm not aware of any major Jewish movements that anticipated the end of the cosmos, and Jesus was operating out of a Jewish mindset/theology. The whole earth vs heaven dichotomy is a false one, and this is most clearly seen in the doctrine of the Incarnation. God is not separate, but is with us. In the same way, heaven and earth are not completely foreign to each other.

And finally- what makes one less "authentic." Dating is a big factor. The synoptics date 70-90 CE, with John being 90-95ish. Many of the gnostic texts are later 120+. And this was fairly widely known during the canonization process. Another factor is theology that didn't fit with the synoptics, which were all widely accepted. Another factor could be the community which espoused the various gospels as "theirs," and their political relationship to those in power.
 
wakephan09 said:
I think the word "often" here might be slightly misleading. Things move very, very slowly in the academy, and although Biblical archeology, in general, tends to be better funded (and thus, more productive) than other iron age projects (especially those on the continent), historical/exegetical revision tends to be a long and deliberate process. Also, the codicologist would take issue with your use of "manuscript history" -- maybe 'exegetical bibliography' is better??
Click to expand...

Good points. It is slow indeed. Especially because the vast majority of Christians are versed enough to even understand the discussion, all they hear is "you're messing with my Bible," so things tend not to be well received or dismissed as "liberal hogwash."
 
Rev, thank you very much for that splendid explanation. I think the bottom line is that each of us should find that spirituality, that inward thing that we basically are. A chap like myself finds something over here that he like, something over there that he likes, and comes up with his own.

I love the discussion!
 
meandmyuncleDeac said:
Rev, thank you very much for that splendid explanation. I think the bottom line is that each of us should find that spirituality, that inward thing that we basically are. A chap like myself finds something over here that he like, something over there that he likes, and comes up with his own.

I love the discussion!
Click to expand...

Glad you're enjoying the discussion, but I do need to warn/caution against "Sheliaism," or creating our own spirituality/religion through synthesis and finding "what speaks to us." Christianity (and Judaism or Islam) places the emphasis on God, not us. So your line about "something over here, something over there, and comes up with his own" really sends up red flags. It's one thing to use a variety of practices to engage God in different ways, but it is something else to conflate beliefs into a god that we'd like to believe in. A preacher I admire once said that one of the most important reasons for being religious and spiritual instead of spiritual but not religious is that if we're just spiritual, or just worship God in nature then when we think about God, all we're really doing is confirming our own suspicions. Again, I agree that we must know ourselves (as you say, the inward thing that we are)- but I'd say that we are, at our core, a beloved child of God. That being said, there are different ways of maintaining that relationship, but we don't get to make the relationship up. Hopefully the distinction that I'm trying to make is coming through.

Got to go pick up the little one from day care, so might be awhile before I'm able to make an appearance again on this thread today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top