fides quaerens intellectum

Is Everything a Nail?

Posted: Thursday Oct 22nd | Author: JohnO | Filed under: Dialogue, Early Church, Epistemology, Jesus | View Comments

So, an aquantaince shared a PDF written by a certain Charles Dickenson in 2007 titled A Proposed “Paradigm Shift” in Christology. The thrust of the argument is to offer historical Jesus methodology as a way to understand Christology, since all previous methods of understanding Jesus and trinitarian ideas have always had their problems. I think this basic thesis suffers on two points. First, we should be careful to think that we can propositionally, without problems, understand either God, or Jesus (regardless of whether it is the historical Jesus or the Jesus of faith, or even if those distinctions are proper). Second, that a historical methodology is applicable to a resurrected and exalted Jesus. All arguments concerning resurrection aside – everyone is in agreement that a crucified messiah-claimant does not start a Jewish offshoot group. To work based on a method that aims to get behind the proclamation of the early Church is precisely to set aside the Christological question as it has come down to us today. On to pointed reflection, I only aim to talk about the interesting points, not offer a full review, so this is going to be choppy.

It seems to me that making a Christological problem out of the crucifixion of the incarnate Jesus Christ by linking it to the Death of God movements put forth by Nietszche is an incredible non-sequitur. The language borrowed has no bearing whatsoever on the concepts behind the train of thought.

It is true that the conclusions of the early Church created problems – they experience these problems. I would sense that any talk of God that did not create problems to be entirely vacuous, making no claims of interest whatsoever. Let us not suppose any construction of God – as they are all constructions – will be without fault. Rather one ought to recognize that our constructions are mere devices, whether those devices be around another individual you know, or around God. Both constructions are faulty, but they are necessary. The better question is not “are there problems with the construction?”, but “is the construction effective?”. Dickinson answers in the negative, as is fair to do.

I find that the true issue at stake here is a failure to grasp the larger picture of the task of theology, and perhaps the nature of truth and worldview.

…only sharpens the question whether they do not presuppose conceptions of divinity and humanity which must now be abandoned as ultimately mythological.

To claim that the very worldview of the Greek Fathers is mythological, seems to me, to be incorrect. At this point, I wonder if I am in possession of a hammer – and consequently see everything as a nail – because the viewpoint that appears to be presupposed is that our Enlightenment, or even post-Enlightenment, worldview is inherently better than the Greek Fathers worldview. Granted they are both different, but if Naugle’s Worldview is correct, worldviews are neither inherently “better” than another. To resort to calling their view ‘mythological’, while ours is depicted as truer is inherently false based on the very function of ‘worldview’. Let it be known that our own worldview is also mythological – just on different terms and it different ways.

Rather, we ought to recognize (again Naugle) that truth is contextual. The truths of (however much is contained in) the early Church belong to the presuppositions, and questions of the early Church. Their answers that they claimed as truth are for themselves. What one ought to recognize is the referent to which those answers point, what considerations in light of their presuppositions did they make, why, and what could they not do? I find more and more that I am persuaded by this maximalist approach:

Third, there is the principle of what may be infelicitously called
Christological maximalism: every possible importance is to be ascribed to Jesus
that is not inconsistent with the first rules. This last rules, it may be noted,
follows from the central Christian conviction that Jesus Christ is the highest
possible clue (though an often dim and ambiguous one to creaturely and sinful
eyes) within the space-time world of human experience to God, i.e., to what is of
maximal importance. Lindbeck

That is to say, if Christ is the perfect depiction of God to us, and the perfect depiction of us Godward, on what appropriate grounds ought anything be denied him? And surely this is absolutely a referent which both the NT and the Greek Fathers point at. This is not to say, however, that everything we accord him must be perfectly congruous as we shift between each of these perspectives. If there is a consistent mistake made, it is one of harmonization, smoothing out the edges for our own mental well-being. Again, truth is contextual. The perspective approached determines the validity. When bringing together perspectives there is no reason they wouldn’t conflict! This is a very human truth, and we are human. The creation of a pure, clean, objective, rational, and paradox-free truth is a hoax. We do not experience that in our lives lived. Why do we create another world in which we apply this strange principle to?

It is at this point if I wonder I am missing the forest for the trees. Is the de-mythologization program exactly what I’ve pointed out? Going behind the worldview and finding the referent? On one level I think I am saying the same thing. However, whenever I’ve seen it executed, no care is taken to our own presuppositions as being equally mythologized as where we’ve gotten this new piece of data from.

So likewise for us today: the very fact that ancient world-views allowed for and even expected the divine to incarnate itself in a human being, but that we today no longer share those world-views, makes it
more probable for us that ancient stories of such incarnations are products of those world-views than of anything that actually happened.

First, the issue is that the Jewish world-view in no way whatsoever allowed or expected YHWH to incarnate himself. This is the standard history of religions approach without taking any sensitivity to the context in question. That is the large origins question that needs answering, in Hurtado’s words “How On Earth Did Jesus Become God?” in the first century according to Jews! Furthermore every formulation comes directly out of one’s worldview and resulting experiences. Those experiences recount things that are perceived to have actually happened. I don’t have to understand the reasons behind the east coast blackout during the summer of 2002 I was caught in, but I experience it and it created a formative experience. The incredible interdependence of our society is just a part of my worldview – and it might not be shared by another reader in another time and place, yet that experience does in fact state that something happened.

I have read Wright’s first three volumes, and am a supporter of his approach in general. What I don’t think my acquaintance realizes is what this actually entails. He supposes that such an approach a priori vindicates his own theological stance, before he has even handled the evidence, over and against the orthodox opinion. As for Dickenson’s essay, I am not sure why, in his estimation the third quest should offer him better prospects for a problem-free Christology.

  • http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/ Name

    JohnO,

    The reason I shared the article in question was because I had found within it good summaries to some of the historical “Christological” movements in question. I fail to read in it any arguments or theological bias the writer may have regarding the subject, as he has no clear concluding remarks as to what this may all mean.

    As to your comments of the aforementioned article, to be frank, I found them exceedingly trite and cumbersome. I guess I cannot quite reach the “heights” of your reasoning. So it would be misrepresenting your arguments [whatever they are supposed to be] if I were to make any sort of comments or arguments regarding your train of thought. I just fail to see what your point is.

    But, as to your comments regarding what my motivation or “theological stance” might be, I do not see how sharing said article has given you the foresight to make such concluding remarks as the ones you have made here. I guess you might know a little bit of where I'm coming from in terms of my personal theology if we know some of the same people. But still, you imply to know what I am all about without really knowing where I am coming from [IF anywhere].

    All in all, its a pity that this article I shared with you [and many others] has nothing to offer you.

    Your “acquaintance” :P

  • http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/ Name

    JohnO,

    The reason I shared the article in question was because I had found within it good summaries to some of the historical “Christological” movements in question. I fail to read in it any arguments or theological bias the writer may have regarding the subject, as he has no clear concluding remarks as to what this may all mean.

    As to your comments of the aforementioned article, to be frank, I found them exceedingly trite and cumbersome. I guess I cannot quite reach the “heights” of your reasoning. So it would be misrepresenting your arguments [whatever they are supposed to be] if I were to make any sort of comments or arguments regarding your train of thought. I just fail to see what your point is.

    But, as to your comments regarding what my motivation or “theological stance” might be, I do not see how sharing said article has given you the foresight to make such concluding remarks as the ones you have made here. I guess you might know a little bit of where I'm coming from in terms of my personal theology if we know some of the same people. But still, you imply to know what I am all about without really knowing where I am coming from [IF anywhere].

    All in all, its a pity that this article I shared with you [and many others] has nothing to offer you.

    Your “acquaintance” :P

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    The article does sum up the history of the quests for Jesus, and as I stated in email, I'm unsure why another was necessary. Each of the quests have summed up the quests before them, stated their issue, and moved on to their own quest.

    I'm not talking about any “heights” of reasoning here. I'm just reflecting on the article as I read it, based on other things I've read. It is kind of what the academic disciple is all about. None of it is a value judgment, but a critical analysis of certain passages and claims the author might make.

    I don't know what you personally are all about, and the same can be said for you about myself. However, I do know the general moves that the community we know makes with scholarship. And I should have written more than just one paragraph to clarify what I meant – but the Yankee game was on, and I was distracted ;)

    What I was trying to get at is this: taking a conclusion of scholarship and using it to uphold one's belief should be done cautiously. Scholarship changes its conclusions, and those conclusions are arrived at exclusively through sifting evidence. As evidence comes and goes and conclusions can get wiped off the map of possibility. Without going through the evidence and method of the scholar who has come to a conclusion one won't know what is truly at stake and how tenuous it might or might not be. That is all a general statement. For the specific, the community we know has, in my estimation, taken some scholarly conclusions for their own, and has not dealt with some evidence to the contrary. The arrival at a conclusion, if we're going to treat this academically, cannot be at the expense of evidence. If we're not going to be academic about it, then why are the conclusions of scholarship taken in? On the basis that it is more “correct”? What about the scholars that disagree, are they not equally scholars? Why ought one to be “followed” and another not?

    It is on the basis of this evidence that again, I've felt has been passed over, that I wonder why this third question – for this community – has any great significance. Since, I've seen this evidence re-emerge in multiple places, not least in the work of NT Wright. And again for Dickenson, I am unsure why he sees this to be a problem-free approach. In all that I've read thus far there are still problems that need to be worked out.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    The article does sum up the history of the quests for Jesus, and as I stated in email, I'm unsure why another was necessary. Each of the quests have summed up the quests before them, stated their issue, and moved on to their own quest.

    I'm not talking about any “heights” of reasoning here. I'm just reflecting on the article as I read it, based on other things I've read. It is kind of what the academic disciple is all about. None of it is a value judgment, but a critical analysis of certain passages and claims the author might make.

    I don't know what you personally are all about, and the same can be said for you about myself. However, I do know the general moves that the community we know makes with scholarship. And I should have written more than just one paragraph to clarify what I meant – but the Yankee game was on, and I was distracted ;)

    What I was trying to get at is this: taking a conclusion of scholarship and using it to uphold one's belief should be done cautiously. Scholarship changes its conclusions, and those conclusions are arrived at exclusively through sifting evidence. As evidence comes and goes and conclusions can get wiped off the map of possibility. Without going through the evidence and method of the scholar who has come to a conclusion one won't know what is truly at stake and how tenuous it might or might not be. That is all a general statement. For the specific, the community we know has, in my estimation, taken some scholarly conclusions for their own, and has not dealt with some evidence to the contrary. The arrival at a conclusion, if we're going to treat this academically, cannot be at the expense of evidence. If we're not going to be academic about it, then why are the conclusions of scholarship taken in? On the basis that it is more “correct”? What about the scholars that disagree, are they not equally scholars? Why ought one to be “followed” and another not?

    It is on the basis of this evidence that again, I've felt has been passed over, that I wonder why this third question – for this community – has any great significance. Since, I've seen this evidence re-emerge in multiple places, not least in the work of NT Wright. And again for Dickenson, I am unsure why he sees this to be a problem-free approach. In all that I've read thus far there are still problems that need to be worked out.

  • http://benadam74.wordpress.com/ Name

    John,O

    If I understand you correctly, your saying that because biblical scholarship tends to 'ebb and flow' and thus change over time, we should be cautious in our own conclusions as both scholars and the general readership? As a result, truth is relative, dependant on what 'shifting scholarship' epoch you find yourself in? If that is the case, I must say that sounds a lot like a post-modern, New Age Christian stuff. Becayse your basically suggesting that even for a Christian, truth, in the absolute form that the Bible testifies to having, is ultimately unattainable.

    Also, you mention that our “community” is ignorant of this fact hence not “academic” or “scholarly” enough? And not only that, biased in their use of said scholarship and thus presumptious in what they perceive as orthodoxy? If this is what you meant, I do not perceive our “community” as isolationist or nitpicky when it comes to engaging all types of biblical scholarship and other Christian beliefs. As far as I can see, they try to work through other's line of reasoning with scripture and exegetical tools in hand. Which take in modern [Wright, Dunn, Hurtado etc] and past scholars [Bultmann, Loofs, Harnack, etc] alike . But, if by “scholarship” and the academia you mean writing stuff few can understand, I guess that's not us :P One of the things that attracted me to the “community” was its clear and unmuddled way of explaining our faith based on biblical language and not EXTRA-biblical psycho-philosophical babble [ala trinis].

    You are right, we do not know each other personally [I hope, perhaps, one day we will], but from what little I have heard of you and especially from these few exchanges, it sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder. I may be wrong, but I also detect some UNBELIEVE in your comments. As in your not sure of certain biblical truths.

    But, I may be wrong.

  • http://benadam74.wordpress.com/ Name

    John,O

    If I understand you correctly, your saying that because biblical scholarship tends to 'ebb and flow' and thus change over time, we should be cautious in our own conclusions as both scholars and the general readership? As a result, truth is relative, dependant on what 'shifting scholarship' epoch you find yourself in? If that is the case, I must say that sounds a lot like a post-modern, New Age Christian stuff. Becayse your basically suggesting that even for a Christian, truth, in the absolute form that the Bible testifies to having, is ultimately unattainable.

    Also, you mention that our “community” is ignorant of this fact hence not “academic” or “scholarly” enough? And not only that, biased in their use of said scholarship and thus presumptious in what they perceive as orthodoxy? If this is what you meant, I do not perceive our “community” as isolationist or nitpicky when it comes to engaging all types of biblical scholarship and other Christian beliefs. As far as I can see, they try to work through other's line of reasoning with scripture and exegetical tools in hand. Which take in modern [Wright, Dunn, Hurtado etc] and past scholars [Bultmann, Loofs, Harnack, etc] alike . But, if by “scholarship” and the academia you mean writing stuff few can understand, I guess that's not us :P One of the things that attracted me to the “community” was its clear and unmuddled way of explaining our faith based on biblical language and not EXTRA-biblical psycho-philosophical babble [ala trinis].

    You are right, we do not know each other personally [I hope, perhaps, one day we will], but from what little I have heard of you and especially from these few exchanges, it sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder. I may be wrong, but I also detect some UNBELIEVE in your comments. As in your not sure of certain biblical truths.

    But, I may be wrong.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    If I understand you correctly, your saying that because biblical scholarship tends to 'ebb and flow' and thus change over time, we should be cautious in our own conclusions as both scholars and the general readership?

    No, I am saying that we should be cautious in stating that scholarship, which shifts by its nature, necessarily upholds the truth proclaimed in Christ.

    As a result, truth is relative, dependant on what 'shifting scholarship' epoch you find yourself in? If that is the case, I must say that sounds a lot like a post-modern, New Age Christian stuff. Becayse your basically suggesting that even for a Christian, truth, in the absolute form that the Bible testifies to having, is ultimately unattainable.

    The conclusions of scholarship shift. Fact, or knowledge, is a much different epistemological claim than truth. Moreover you would have to establish in what nature (e.g. Westminster?) absolute truth is found in the Bible.

    You are right, we do not know each other personally [I hope, perhaps, one day we will], but from what little I have heard of you and especially from these few exchanges, it sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder. I may be wrong, but I also detect some UNBELIEVE in your comments. As in your not sure of certain biblical truths.

    I've written a fair bit on how I approach the Bible seeing as we cannot just approach it as if it was intended to speak to us. So, I do resist the label of “unbeliever” because I might not agree with approaching it as Westminster does. I will at all times approach the text giving it the appropriate justice it deserves according to its genre, literary quality, location, and time of authorship. That justice is the reverence I have for the text. But I do not mistake the text for the One behind it. My faith does not rest on the biblical text.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    If I understand you correctly, your saying that because biblical scholarship tends to 'ebb and flow' and thus change over time, we should be cautious in our own conclusions as both scholars and the general readership?

    No, I am saying that we should be cautious in stating that scholarship, which shifts by its nature, necessarily upholds the truth proclaimed in Christ.

    As a result, truth is relative, dependant on what 'shifting scholarship' epoch you find yourself in? If that is the case, I must say that sounds a lot like a post-modern, New Age Christian stuff. Becayse your basically suggesting that even for a Christian, truth, in the absolute form that the Bible testifies to having, is ultimately unattainable.

    The conclusions of scholarship shift. Fact, or knowledge, is a much different epistemological claim than truth. Moreover you would have to establish in what nature (e.g. Westminster?) absolute truth is found in the Bible.

    You are right, we do not know each other personally [I hope, perhaps, one day we will], but from what little I have heard of you and especially from these few exchanges, it sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder. I may be wrong, but I also detect some UNBELIEVE in your comments. As in your not sure of certain biblical truths.

    I've written a fair bit on how I approach the Bible seeing as we cannot just approach it as if it was intended to speak to us. So, I do resist the label of “unbeliever” because I might not agree with approaching it as Westminster does. I will at all times approach the text giving it the appropriate justice it deserves according to its genre, literary quality, location, and time of authorship. That justice is the reverence I have for the text. But I do not mistake the text for the One behind it. My faith does not rest on the biblical text.

  • Name

    “My faith does not rest on the biblical text.”

    You know, anyone [especially a "Christian"] who reads this would conclude your not a believer.

    As far as I know Christian “faith” comes via “the biblical text”, I mean, where or what else from???

    So you question the God and Jesus of the Bible?

  • Name

    “My faith does not rest on the biblical text.”

    You know, anyone [especially a "Christian"] who reads this would conclude your not a believer.

    As far as I know Christian “faith” comes via “the biblical text”, I mean, where or what else from???

    So you question the God and Jesus of the Bible?

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    I should have said it better: Ultimately my faith does not rest on the biblical text. The biblical text is informative, formative, and authoritative for Christian life, just as the working of the Spirit is informative, formative, and authoritative for Christian life.

    Where else would it come from? Well there is this guy named Jesus that is Lord, that is where it comes from.

    Did Job question God? Did the writers of psalms question God? Did Jesus question God? There have been many many faithful people, common and uncommon who have questioned God in faith. How do you think these texts even came down to us? The entire Scriptural story is full of “How could ____ if God is _____”.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    I should have said it better: Ultimately my faith does not rest on the biblical text. The biblical text is informative, formative, and authoritative for Christian life, just as the working of the Spirit is informative, formative, and authoritative for Christian life.

    Where else would it come from? Well there is this guy named Jesus that is Lord, that is where it comes from.

    Did Job question God? Did the writers of psalms question God? Did Jesus question God? There have been many many faithful people, common and uncommon who have questioned God in faith. How do you think these texts even came down to us? The entire Scriptural story is full of “How could ____ if God is _____”.

  • Name

    JohnO,

    Bro, your confusing me, purposely or what? What we know of Jesus is based on the “biblical text” which you claim not to have sway over your personal faith.

    Yes, people questioned God, but the question I asked was geared more to your seeming unbelieve and perceived “problems” you see in the “biblical text” concerning God and Jesus. You follow?

  • Name

    JohnO,

    Bro, your confusing me, purposely or what? What we know of Jesus is based on the “biblical text” which you claim not to have sway over your personal faith.

    Yes, people questioned God, but the question I asked was geared more to your seeming unbelieve and perceived “problems” you see in the “biblical text” concerning God and Jesus. You follow?

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    Why isn't “What we know of Jesus” more based on living in Christ and through the Spirit? What makes the biblical text of utmost importance, bordering on the worship of the biblical text rather than the animating Spirit behind it?

    Certainly there are problems within the biblical text. But if you want to focus on the relation of Jesus and God, there is a problem about how to reconcile the evidence offered by the Jewish followers of Jesus with their own preconception of God they would have had in Second Temple Judaism. Ellucidating exactly what that is, refers to, and means, is incredibly difficult. There is no soundbite answer to be offered there.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    Why isn't “What we know of Jesus” more based on living in Christ and through the Spirit? What makes the biblical text of utmost importance, bordering on the worship of the biblical text rather than the animating Spirit behind it?

    Certainly there are problems within the biblical text. But if you want to focus on the relation of Jesus and God, there is a problem about how to reconcile the evidence offered by the Jewish followers of Jesus with their own preconception of God they would have had in Second Temple Judaism. Ellucidating exactly what that is, refers to, and means, is incredibly difficult. There is no soundbite answer to be offered there.

  • Name

    Bro, no one is talking about “worshipping” [making an idol] out of the “biblical text”, but it goes without mentioning that they are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousnes”. Why? Because we believe them to be “God breathed” [2Tim 3.16].

    “Breathed out by God: translates a Greek word (theopneustos) that does not occur in any other Greek text (biblical or otherwise) prior to this letter…The term stresses the divine origin and thus THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. Paul does not point to the human authors of Scripture as inspired people but says that THE WRITINGS THEMSELEVES (“Scripture,” Gk. graphē, “writing,” which IN THE NT ALWAYS REFER TO BIBLICAL WRITINGS [TEXT]) are the words spoken (“breathed out”) by God. Whereas it seems that Paul and Timothy's opponents stressed CERTAIN ASPECTS OR PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE (e.g., genealogies, 1 Tim. 1:4; cf. Titus 3:9), Paul stresses the authoritativeness of all of Scripture. The DIVINE ORIGIN OF SCRIPTURE is the reason for its POWER TO CONVERT (2 Tim. 3:15) and its USEFULNESS IN TRAINING (v. 17). Because Scripture comes from God himself, “all” of it is profitable in a range of ways, ultimately leading to righteousness.” ESV Study Bible

    “For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me…The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life…Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life…Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this Life Jn 17.8; 6.63, 68

    “…the Holy Spirit works powerfully in and through the words that Jesus speaks, and those words are spirit and life in the sense that they work in the unseen spiritual realm and awaken genuine spiritual life.” ESV

    If “problems with the biblical text” you refer to grammatical ones, they can hardly be used to falsify or somehow minimize the impact of the whole of scripture as divinely authorative. I guess we would agree to disagree there. For me personally it further authenticates and makes reliable the NT scriptures as historical records.

    I do not quite follow what you mean by the “evidence” the “Jewish followers of Jesus” had to “reconcile” when it came to God and Jesus. That Jesus was the Son of the living God [Mat 16.16], prophesized Messiah [Jn 1.45], redeemer of Israel [thus making him God's supreme agent, Shalich]? I think they pretty much knew not only who Jesus was but who he was representing. The only thing they seem to be clueless about [pre-resurrection] was his eventual sacrifice and death on the cross.

  • Name

    Bro, no one is talking about “worshipping” [making an idol] out of the “biblical text”, but it goes without mentioning that they are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousnes”. Why? Because we believe them to be “God breathed” [2Tim 3.16].

    “Breathed out by God: translates a Greek word (theopneustos) that does not occur in any other Greek text (biblical or otherwise) prior to this letter…The term stresses the divine origin and thus THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. Paul does not point to the human authors of Scripture as inspired people but says that THE WRITINGS THEMSELEVES (“Scripture,” Gk. graphē, “writing,” which IN THE NT ALWAYS REFER TO BIBLICAL WRITINGS [TEXT]) are the words spoken (“breathed out”) by God. Whereas it seems that Paul and Timothy's opponents stressed CERTAIN ASPECTS OR PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE (e.g., genealogies, 1 Tim. 1:4; cf. Titus 3:9), Paul stresses the authoritativeness of all of Scripture. The DIVINE ORIGIN OF SCRIPTURE is the reason for its POWER TO CONVERT (2 Tim. 3:15) and its USEFULNESS IN TRAINING (v. 17). Because Scripture comes from God himself, “all” of it is profitable in a range of ways, ultimately leading to righteousness.” ESV Study Bible

    “For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me…The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life…Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life…Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this Life Jn 17.8; 6.63, 68

    “…the Holy Spirit works powerfully in and through the words that Jesus speaks, and those words are spirit and life in the sense that they work in the unseen spiritual realm and awaken genuine spiritual life.” ESV

    If “problems with the biblical text” you refer to grammatical ones, they can hardly be used to falsify or somehow minimize the impact of the whole of scripture as divinely authorative. I guess we would agree to disagree there. For me personally it further authenticates and makes reliable the NT scriptures as historical records.

    I do not quite follow what you mean by the “evidence” the “Jewish followers of Jesus” had to “reconcile” when it came to God and Jesus. That Jesus was the Son of the living God [Mat 16.16], prophesized Messiah [Jn 1.45], redeemer of Israel [thus making him God's supreme agent, Shalich]? I think they pretty much knew not only who Jesus was but who he was representing. The only thing they seem to be clueless about [pre-resurrection] was his eventual sacrifice and death on the cross.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    I don't mean grammatical issues whatsoever. I mean the discordant records contained within the OT, NT, and then the massive shift of thought between the two – which includes Jesus. There are disagreements within both the NT and OT themselves. There are massive changes of internal thought as well. Approaching from a harmonizing perspective to erase these distinctions, disagreements, growth, and conflict within the text is a detriment to fully understand what is going on in the text. Any traditional, conservative, or fundamentalistic approach to the text that result in such an inerrancy claim (visa vi Westminster Confessions) are, in my opinion, bibliolatry, the worship of the text.

    Without question all the characters contained in the Scriptures who interacted with the Scriptures saw in it the chance to address their present needs by using older texts and traditions around them. This resulted in the growth, discordant, and disagreements we see within the texts themselves. And I have no hesitation in talking about the contradictions – nor the fact that each approach, in their own way, is inspired, and authoritative.

    When I talk about the evidence needing reconciliation – I am talking about the fact that *we* need to reconcile the evidence concerning the Jewish followers of Jesus and the surprisingly new fashion in which they address Jesus in prayer and in worship.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    I don't mean grammatical issues whatsoever. I mean the discordant records contained within the OT, NT, and then the massive shift of thought between the two – which includes Jesus. There are disagreements within both the NT and OT themselves. There are massive changes of internal thought as well. Approaching from a harmonizing perspective to erase these distinctions, disagreements, growth, and conflict within the text is a detriment to fully understand what is going on in the text. Any traditional, conservative, or fundamentalistic approach to the text that result in such an inerrancy claim (visa vi Westminster Confessions) are, in my opinion, bibliolatry, the worship of the text.

    Without question all the characters contained in the Scriptures who interacted with the Scriptures saw in it the chance to address their present needs by using older texts and traditions around them. This resulted in the growth, discordant, and disagreements we see within the texts themselves. And I have no hesitation in talking about the contradictions – nor the fact that each approach, in their own way, is inspired, and authoritative.

    When I talk about the evidence needing reconciliation – I am talking about the fact that *we* need to reconcile the evidence concerning the Jewish followers of Jesus and the surprisingly new fashion in which they address Jesus in prayer and in worship.

  • Name

    If such is the inneracy caused by these “massive changes”, what hope is there for your run of the mill Christian to even believe a Jesus of Nazaret existed? Why do you still believe in the “historical Jesus” at all?

    As I noted in my previous post, a Christian assumes the doctrine of inspiration. That is, that the original authors of the Bible were inspired. Whilst these were transmitted by scribes and copyists who took their work seriously, they nonetheless were not inspired as the original authors were. This might account for the typical errors that all scribes and copyists do before the age of copy machines, word processors, and spell checks. This is stardar, textual criticism stuff that I am sure you know but probably disagree with.

    Honestly, you sound like B. Ehrman, a man who proclaims to “love the Bible”, yet goes around the world trying to proove how unceremoniously reliable and full of contradictions it is. I am sure you are aware of his work? Probably influenced you as well. Yet you probably also know that many world-class textual critics disagree with him if not directly, then indirectly.

    With that being said, NT attestation is hands down the greatest of any book of antiquity. This is extremely important when it comes to proving or disapproving any points of fact:

    “The plethora of New Testament manuscripts is a great benefit when trying to determine the original reading of the New Testament, for it is easier to sift through and evaluate the various extant [existing and known] readings than to emend [correct] texts with no evidence” (Paul D. Wegner, A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, p. 41)

    The apparent ease and simplicity with which many ancient texts are edited might be thought, on a hasty view, to imply that the New Testament cannot be restored with equal security. But this ease and simplicity is in fact the mark of evidence too scanty to be tested; whereas in the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writing (Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greekvol. 2, p. 561)

    You know, it is baffling to see under what scrutiny and bias the Bible has [and goes] through yet, no one disputes or makes a point of the fact regarding other books of antiquities and their writers [i.e. Plato, Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, etc].

  • Name

    If such is the inneracy caused by these “massive changes”, what hope is there for your run of the mill Christian to even believe a Jesus of Nazaret existed? Why do you still believe in the “historical Jesus” at all?

    As I noted in my previous post, a Christian assumes the doctrine of inspiration. That is, that the original authors of the Bible were inspired. Whilst these were transmitted by scribes and copyists who took their work seriously, they nonetheless were not inspired as the original authors were. This might account for the typical errors that all scribes and copyists do before the age of copy machines, word processors, and spell checks. This is stardar, textual criticism stuff that I am sure you know but probably disagree with.

    Honestly, you sound like B. Ehrman, a man who proclaims to “love the Bible”, yet goes around the world trying to proove how unceremoniously reliable and full of contradictions it is. I am sure you are aware of his work? Probably influenced you as well. Yet you probably also know that many world-class textual critics disagree with him if not directly, then indirectly.

    With that being said, NT attestation is hands down the greatest of any book of antiquity. This is extremely important when it comes to proving or disapproving any points of fact:

    “The plethora of New Testament manuscripts is a great benefit when trying to determine the original reading of the New Testament, for it is easier to sift through and evaluate the various extant [existing and known] readings than to emend [correct] texts with no evidence” (Paul D. Wegner, A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, p. 41)

    The apparent ease and simplicity with which many ancient texts are edited might be thought, on a hasty view, to imply that the New Testament cannot be restored with equal security. But this ease and simplicity is in fact the mark of evidence too scanty to be tested; whereas in the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writing (Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greekvol. 2, p. 561)

    You know, it is baffling to see under what scrutiny and bias the Bible has [and goes] through yet, no one disputes or makes a point of the fact regarding other books of antiquities and their writers [i.e. Plato, Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, etc].

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    Your entire comment is based on textual issues – which is not on any level what I am talking about. Ehrman is silly when he even tries to approach theological issues in which he is not trained. He approaches the text on the same fundamentalistic basis that many other Christians do. He sees the same “problems” that many scholars see with that approach. Rather than discard the approach – he discarded his faith (which his teacher Metzger wept over).

    There are many faithful and believing Christians who see the issues of source criticism, literary dependence, and disagreements within the text itself. And these “problems” are not problems at all, but rather reflect the actual history of the coming together of these documents – why should we be afraid of history? We shouldn't.

    I am not afraid to say that Moses did not write the pentatuech, and that the priests in the exilic and post-exilic period likely compiled the traditions which had come down to them into the first five books. Who is inspired there? Moses? The generations of people who told their children the stories about Moses? The anonymous people who first wrote them down? The last anonymous priests who put it all together?

    In the NT, who is inspired when it comes to the birth narratives, since they don't agree in every detail and flatly have contradictions. Your inerrancy position demands you to treat these texts *against* the grain – against the original intention of the authors, in an effort to “harmonize” a “complete historical record”. These birth narratives can't be reconciled to agree, despite decades of attempts. Who is inspired, the writer of Revelation who states that eating food sacrificed to idols is in need of repentance? Or Paul who says it is alright since an idol basically doesn't exist?

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    Your entire comment is based on textual issues – which is not on any level what I am talking about. Ehrman is silly when he even tries to approach theological issues in which he is not trained. He approaches the text on the same fundamentalistic basis that many other Christians do. He sees the same “problems” that many scholars see with that approach. Rather than discard the approach – he discarded his faith (which his teacher Metzger wept over).

    There are many faithful and believing Christians who see the issues of source criticism, literary dependence, and disagreements within the text itself. And these “problems” are not problems at all, but rather reflect the actual history of the coming together of these documents – why should we be afraid of history? We shouldn't.

    I am not afraid to say that Moses did not write the pentatuech, and that the priests in the exilic and post-exilic period likely compiled the traditions which had come down to them into the first five books. Who is inspired there? Moses? The generations of people who told their children the stories about Moses? The anonymous people who first wrote them down? The last anonymous priests who put it all together?

    In the NT, who is inspired when it comes to the birth narratives, since they don't agree in every detail and flatly have contradictions. Your inerrancy position demands you to treat these texts *against* the grain – against the original intention of the authors, in an effort to “harmonize” a “complete historical record”. These birth narratives can't be reconciled to agree, despite decades of attempts. Who is inspired, the writer of Revelation who states that eating food sacrificed to idols is in need of repentance? Or Paul who says it is alright since an idol basically doesn't exist?

  • Name

    Well if scripture is not inspired, as per what the “biblical text” says over and over again, why believe anything else it might say regarding any given issue, person, event etc?

    How can you maintain, in any biblical sense, a “faith in the Lord Jesus” [perse] if the text from which we learn about him is full of contradictions because of the patchwork nature of the accounts it relates??

    I just do not see the point of calling yourself a Christian when you do not sound like one.

  • Name

    Well if scripture is not inspired, as per what the “biblical text” says over and over again, why believe anything else it might say regarding any given issue, person, event etc?

    How can you maintain, in any biblical sense, a “faith in the Lord Jesus” [perse] if the text from which we learn about him is full of contradictions because of the patchwork nature of the accounts it relates??

    I just do not see the point of calling yourself a Christian when you do not sound like one.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    Just because I don't sound like the Christians you might know doesn't mean I'm not a Christian. I do believe the texts are inspired, and authoritative (as I've said before). There is no indication – especially from the texts themselves – that what mainline fundamentalism interprets those phrases to mean is actually correct and what the authors intended you to understand.

    You actually sound like you agree with David Hume's line of argumentation that the only reason we should believe in anything is because it would pass as evidence from a witness in a court of law. There are many different kinds of knowledge, even though the modern day story of the “Enlightenment” would have you think there is only one. You know your wife loves you, and you don't need a courtroom testimony to believe it.

    All this brings me back around to my first point – that one ought to be careful to lean on the conclusions of scholars, be sure you know who you're getting into bed with. The “Third Quest”, yes even NT Wright, operates under all the same provisions and methods I've been talking about. I would recommend on this topic of inspiration, authority, and inerrancy a very helpful book on the topic: James Dunn “The Living Word”

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    Just because I don't sound like the Christians you might know doesn't mean I'm not a Christian. I do believe the texts are inspired, and authoritative (as I've said before). There is no indication – especially from the texts themselves – that what mainline fundamentalism interprets those phrases to mean is actually correct and what the authors intended you to understand.

    You actually sound like you agree with David Hume's line of argumentation that the only reason we should believe in anything is because it would pass as evidence from a witness in a court of law. There are many different kinds of knowledge, even though the modern day story of the “Enlightenment” would have you think there is only one. You know your wife loves you, and you don't need a courtroom testimony to believe it.

    All this brings me back around to my first point – that one ought to be careful to lean on the conclusions of scholars, be sure you know who you're getting into bed with. The “Third Quest”, yes even NT Wright, operates under all the same provisions and methods I've been talking about. I would recommend on this topic of inspiration, authority, and inerrancy a very helpful book on the topic: James Dunn “The Living Word”

  • Name

    Wait a minute, so let me get this straight. Who are the “mainline fundamentalism”? All of us who still hold to the “biblical text”, despite its errors and contradictions, as authoritative and reliable? Or certain sections like the traditional orthodox church? I may be misreading you once again. First you say the “biblical text” is full of holes and basically one cannot know for sure whats what and whose who. Then you say you “believe the texts are inspired, and authoritative”??

    As to your “law of court” parallel. It helps when the evidence we have regarding any matter is very solid and reliable. How else can we make a valid and legitimate judgment on anything? There may be “different kinds of knowledge”, but when it comes to the Bible and what it perceives as the “truth” it is absolute, eclusivist and not revisionist or post-modern.

    Yes, I like Dunn and think most mainstream evangelical scholars [and others] have alot to offer in the way of biblical scholarship and textual analysis. I do not limit myself to any narrowminded way of reasoning, as you previously suggested, but try to explore all points and facets of my Christian faith.

    I must say JohnO I am having troubles following your way of reasoning things. You jump backward and forward in your reasoning. It doesn't seem like I can get a simple straight answer from you without lollygagging around and dispensing with the fancy word play, contradictory statements and inherent bias towards the “biblical texts”.

  • Name

    Wait a minute, so let me get this straight. Who are the “mainline fundamentalism”? All of us who still hold to the “biblical text”, despite its errors and contradictions, as authoritative and reliable? Or certain sections like the traditional orthodox church? I may be misreading you once again. First you say the “biblical text” is full of holes and basically one cannot know for sure whats what and whose who. Then you say you “believe the texts are inspired, and authoritative”??

    As to your “law of court” parallel. It helps when the evidence we have regarding any matter is very solid and reliable. How else can we make a valid and legitimate judgment on anything? There may be “different kinds of knowledge”, but when it comes to the Bible and what it perceives as the “truth” it is absolute, eclusivist and not revisionist or post-modern.

    Yes, I like Dunn and think most mainstream evangelical scholars [and others] have alot to offer in the way of biblical scholarship and textual analysis. I do not limit myself to any narrowminded way of reasoning, as you previously suggested, but try to explore all points and facets of my Christian faith.

    I must say JohnO I am having troubles following your way of reasoning things. You jump backward and forward in your reasoning. It doesn't seem like I can get a simple straight answer from you without lollygagging around and dispensing with the fancy word play, contradictory statements and inherent bias towards the “biblical texts”.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    I may be misreading you once again. First you say the “biblical text” is full of holes and basically one cannot know for sure whats what and whose who. Then you say you “believe the texts are inspired, and authoritative”??

    Don't confuse me, or scholars, of approaching the text with a bias to undermine it. Certainly there are certain individuals – on every side of every fence – who wish to undermine the text. Scholarship's goal is to show everyone what these texts actually are, in their intention, aims, composition, viewpoint, origin, reflections they offer on their origin, and what they offer today.

    The belief that the texts are inspired and authoritative is a faith claim. No amount of academic, or scientific reasoning can support or deny these (faith belongs in a different realm of knowing).

    The evidence that the texts are gathered, compiled, redacted, over thousands of years by many different communities with different theological viewpoints does not hinder my faith. Certainly it does hinder some people's faith. It is explicitly why Ehrman left the faith. He was brought up in a fundamentalistic tradition which I'm sure would have agreed with the Westminster definition of inerrancy. Finding the evidence about the texts, he left his faith, rather than realize the definitions and implications of his faith were incorrect.

    As to your “law of court” parallel. It helps when the evidence we have regarding any matter is very solid and reliable. How else can we make a valid and legitimate judgment on anything? There may be “different kinds of knowledge”, but when it comes to the Bible and what it perceives as the “truth” it is absolute, eclusivist and not revisionist or post-modern.

    The Bible itself is very revisionist. The priestly writers revising the traditions that have come down to them. There are prophets attacking one another in the narratives. Some canonical prophets are emphatically against the monarchy. Others are decidedly in favor of it. The New Testament is a *vast* revision of the Hebrew Bible. On all these topics, again, I heartily offer Dunn's book.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    I may be misreading you once again. First you say the “biblical text” is full of holes and basically one cannot know for sure whats what and whose who. Then you say you “believe the texts are inspired, and authoritative”??

    Don't confuse me, or scholars, of approaching the text with a bias to undermine it. Certainly there are certain individuals – on every side of every fence – who wish to undermine the text. Scholarship's goal is to show everyone what these texts actually are, in their intention, aims, composition, viewpoint, origin, reflections they offer on their origin, and what they offer today.

    The belief that the texts are inspired and authoritative is a faith claim. No amount of academic, or scientific reasoning can support or deny these (faith belongs in a different realm of knowing).

    The evidence that the texts are gathered, compiled, redacted, over thousands of years by many different communities with different theological viewpoints does not hinder my faith. Certainly it does hinder some people's faith. It is explicitly why Ehrman left the faith. He was brought up in a fundamentalistic tradition which I'm sure would have agreed with the Westminster definition of inerrancy. Finding the evidence about the texts, he left his faith, rather than realize the definitions and implications of his faith were incorrect.

    As to your “law of court” parallel. It helps when the evidence we have regarding any matter is very solid and reliable. How else can we make a valid and legitimate judgment on anything? There may be “different kinds of knowledge”, but when it comes to the Bible and what it perceives as the “truth” it is absolute, eclusivist and not revisionist or post-modern.

    The Bible itself is very revisionist. The priestly writers revising the traditions that have come down to them. There are prophets attacking one another in the narratives. Some canonical prophets are emphatically against the monarchy. Others are decidedly in favor of it. The New Testament is a *vast* revision of the Hebrew Bible. On all these topics, again, I heartily offer Dunn's book.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    I replied below, we're getting a bit too indented…

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    I replied below, we're getting a bit too indented…

  • Name

    I disagree once again JohnO, the NT is a REVELATION of the Hebrew Scriptures. The fulfillment of all its promises, archetypes etc…cp. Hebrews. It is not “revisionist” in terms of countering all the so-called arguments you suggest priests and prophets were having in the scriptures. Why are you making this so complex? To me its simple bro'.

    As to your generalisation regarding what faith is [faith belongs in a different realm of knowing], faith without understanding is “blind faith”. Lets not limit the biblical definition of faith as just “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” [Heb 11.1]. But sound doctrine based on a knowledge of the truth that leads to salvation. How can we “gently instruct those who oppose us, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth” [2Tim 2.25], if our Christian definition of faith is not within the real of kowing anything?!

    Apparently all your answers are in Dunn's books. I still don't really know what we're [seemingly] arguing about since I also find some things of value in Dunn, Wright and others you mentioned. Especially when your 'beef' regarding the “fundamentalist view” is the same one I share! A view of “Westminster inerracy” we do not hold anyway!!

  • Name

    I disagree once again JohnO, the NT is a REVELATION of the Hebrew Scriptures. The fulfillment of all its promises, archetypes etc…cp. Hebrews. It is not “revisionist” in terms of countering all the so-called arguments you suggest priests and prophets were having in the scriptures. Why are you making this so complex? To me its simple bro'.

    As to your generalisation regarding what faith is [faith belongs in a different realm of knowing], faith without understanding is “blind faith”. Lets not limit the biblical definition of faith as just “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” [Heb 11.1]. But sound doctrine based on a knowledge of the truth that leads to salvation. How can we “gently instruct those who oppose us, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth” [2Tim 2.25], if our Christian definition of faith is not within the real of kowing anything?!

    Apparently all your answers are in Dunn's books. I still don't really know what we're [seemingly] arguing about since I also find some things of value in Dunn, Wright and others you mentioned. Especially when your 'beef' regarding the “fundamentalist view” is the same one I share! A view of “Westminster inerracy” we do not hold anyway!!

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    That the NT can be regarded as a revelation not withstanding – it is explicitly revisionist, just as the development of Christianity was (and remains) revisionist! If Moses was divinely inspired, authorative, and inerrant to give his teaching – then there is no way any deviation is *not* revisionist! Any development is just that, a development. Why are you hesitant to call things what they are?

    The Christian definition of faith is within the realm of knowing – I explicitly stated that. I disagreed with placing all Christian claims under an 'empirical' category of knowledge (which any “inerrancy” position implicitly tries to do).

    I'm glad to hear that you don't hold to the chicago statement on biblical inerrancy, it will only be a stumblingblock to the very faith it seeks to uphold. I know very many people who would articulate exactly this document without ever having read it. Based on your insistence that the biblical record is an accurate historical portrayal (it is flatly not in most cases), and the fact that you are alarmed at the suggestion of contradiction within the text, I am of course thinking of this statement: “We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it.” That statement collapses in on itself. To perform A, and then not to perform A on divine authority is either a correction or a contradiction in the most basic terms.

    Why is this so complicated you ask? Because history is complicated. Because people are complicated. Because these texts are complicated in all their facets. To treat them simply, or naively, in my opinion, is to do an injustice to them. Surely faithful people would not want to do that to their text.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    That the NT can be regarded as a revelation not withstanding – it is explicitly revisionist, just as the development of Christianity was (and remains) revisionist! If Moses was divinely inspired, authorative, and inerrant to give his teaching – then there is no way any deviation is *not* revisionist! Any development is just that, a development. Why are you hesitant to call things what they are?

    The Christian definition of faith is within the realm of knowing – I explicitly stated that. I disagreed with placing all Christian claims under an 'empirical' category of knowledge (which any “inerrancy” position implicitly tries to do).

    I'm glad to hear that you don't hold to the chicago statement on biblical inerrancy, it will only be a stumblingblock to the very faith it seeks to uphold. I know very many people who would articulate exactly this document without ever having read it. Based on your insistence that the biblical record is an accurate historical portrayal (it is flatly not in most cases), and the fact that you are alarmed at the suggestion of contradiction within the text, I am of course thinking of this statement: “We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it.” That statement collapses in on itself. To perform A, and then not to perform A on divine authority is either a correction or a contradiction in the most basic terms.

    Why is this so complicated you ask? Because history is complicated. Because people are complicated. Because these texts are complicated in all their facets. To treat them simply, or naively, in my opinion, is to do an injustice to them. Surely faithful people would not want to do that to their text.

  • Name

    I view statements regarding the nature of God, His Spirit, Jesus, and the things pertaining to “salvation history” [the gospel] as simply stated and as a result, understood by ANYONE seeking answers with a humble, and honest heart.

    “There is much more we would like to say about this, but it is difficult to explain, especially since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen. You have been believers so long now that you ought to be teaching others. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the basic things about God’s word…So let us stop going over the basic teachings about Christ again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in our understanding. Surely we don’t need to start again with the fundamental importance of repenting from evil deeds and placing our faith in God. You don’t need further instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And so, God willing, we will move forward to further understanding.” Heb 5.11-12; 6.1-3

    Heb. 6:1–2 elementary doctrine of Christ. Cf. “basic principles” (5:12). Three paired examples of doctrine are given: (1) Christian conversion through repentance (i.e., turning away) from works that cannot save and through faith in God (on faith, see 6:12; 10:22, 38–39; 12:2; 13:7; and ch. 11; on dead works, see 9:14); (2) washings (plural of Gk. baptismos), where the plural may refer to teaching about the differences between Jewish purification rites and Christian baptism, and laying on of hands, which could refer to an initiatory rite at the time of baptism (cf. Acts 8:14–17; 9:12, 17–19; 19:5–6) or to other hand-laying practices during prayers for healing and during commissioning of individuals for ministry (see notes on Luke 4:40; Acts 6:6; 9:17; 13:3); and (3) the believers' future hope of resurrection and the eternal judgment upon all people (see Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 11:19, 35). ESV Study Bible

  • Name

    I view statements regarding the nature of God, His Spirit, Jesus, and the things pertaining to “salvation history” [the gospel] as simply stated and as a result, understood by ANYONE seeking answers with a humble, and honest heart.

    “There is much more we would like to say about this, but it is difficult to explain, especially since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen. You have been believers so long now that you ought to be teaching others. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the basic things about God’s word…So let us stop going over the basic teachings about Christ again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in our understanding. Surely we don’t need to start again with the fundamental importance of repenting from evil deeds and placing our faith in God. You don’t need further instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And so, God willing, we will move forward to further understanding.” Heb 5.11-12; 6.1-3

    Heb. 6:1–2 elementary doctrine of Christ. Cf. “basic principles” (5:12). Three paired examples of doctrine are given: (1) Christian conversion through repentance (i.e., turning away) from works that cannot save and through faith in God (on faith, see 6:12; 10:22, 38–39; 12:2; 13:7; and ch. 11; on dead works, see 9:14); (2) washings (plural of Gk. baptismos), where the plural may refer to teaching about the differences between Jewish purification rites and Christian baptism, and laying on of hands, which could refer to an initiatory rite at the time of baptism (cf. Acts 8:14–17; 9:12, 17–19; 19:5–6) or to other hand-laying practices during prayers for healing and during commissioning of individuals for ministry (see notes on Luke 4:40; Acts 6:6; 9:17; 13:3); and (3) the believers' future hope of resurrection and the eternal judgment upon all people (see Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 11:19, 35). ESV Study Bible

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    Why does anyone think they are able, or ought to, import their own understanding of whatever concepts the writer of Hebrews is talking about and therefore declare “this are the doctrines and understanding that he is talking about, 1,2,3 etc as I understand them”. All the more that Hebrews was one of the very last books that was even considered for inclusion in the canon by Christians – and that is no slight on Hebrews, it is one of my favorite books. I find your statement incredible that the “nature” is part of salvation history – since no Jewish writer is *ever* concerned with “nature” as a metaphysical concept.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    Why does anyone think they are able, or ought to, import their own understanding of whatever concepts the writer of Hebrews is talking about and therefore declare “this are the doctrines and understanding that he is talking about, 1,2,3 etc as I understand them”. All the more that Hebrews was one of the very last books that was even considered for inclusion in the canon by Christians – and that is no slight on Hebrews, it is one of my favorite books. I find your statement incredible that the “nature” is part of salvation history – since no Jewish writer is *ever* concerned with “nature” as a metaphysical concept.

  • Name

    Fine JohnO, “regarding WHO [the person of] God and Jesus are”, better?

    Boy, your really pedantic. Anyway, I think we have exhausted this topic. Thank you for replying. Now I have a better idea where your coming from.

    Good luck to you.

    adios

  • Name

    Fine JohnO, “regarding WHO [the person of] God and Jesus are”, better?

    Boy, your really pedantic. Anyway, I think we have exhausted this topic. Thank you for replying. Now I have a better idea where your coming from.

    Good luck to you.

    adios

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    “Who” is exactly the right question to ask! And exactly how the Jewish people of the second temple period arranged the question. Now we're getting somewhere. I'd rather be pedantic than rush in where angels fear to tread.

  • http://theoradical.net jobelenus

    “Who” is exactly the right question to ask! And exactly how the Jewish people of the second temple period arranged the question. Now we're getting somewhere. I'd rather be pedantic than rush in where angels fear to tread.

blog comments powered by Disqus