Thread: Words of Paul=Jesus? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020337
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
So it was recently Synod in my Anglican diocese. Conversationally, somebody raised the issue that they heard a lot more of Paul's words than Jesus' being quoted. The response from a prominent member of the Synod was that
"In orthodox Christology, the words of Paul ARE the words of Jesus."
This is news to me, that on the face of it seems ludicrous. Can anybody more familiar with this "orthodox christology" help?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm just surprised they didn't say "The words of Paul trump the words of Jesus."
Presumably, this is the heresy that the Bible is the Word of God, rather than Jesus is the Word of God (which we know, because that's what the Bible tell us). I wouldn't call it 'orthodox' in any way.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm just surprised they didn't say "The words of Paul trump the words of Jesus."
They did that a bit later by saying that Paul speaks to the church so that is more relevant to us now than Jesus' words.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Paul would have given them a right telling off for even thinking that.
Nowhere near orthodox.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
I didn't even think that Christology covered that sort of thing? R there 2 issues here, one of Christology and the other of how we approach scripture?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I would say the church came out of the theology of Paul. But I would also add there are times when Paul got things wrong.
I also agree with Doc Tor, the Bible is the manger on which the living Word of God rests. Jesus is that Word, all other is staw.
I see many parts of Christendom working to rediscover the words of Jesus, giving it more importance than the opinions of a fallible man. Paul does give us insight into who Jesus is and what he means for him and us, but his writings should never be equated with the words our Lord.
[ 22. October 2017, 23:13: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm just surprised they didn't say "The words of Paul trump the words of Jesus."
Presumably, this is the heresy that the Bible is the Word of God, rather than Jesus is the Word of God (which we know, because that's what the Bible tell us). I wouldn't call it 'orthodox' in any way.
Sorry, I think it is rather small-o (and probably big-O too) orthodox to say that the Bible is the (small w) word of God. It is orthodox Christian teaching that the Bible is uniquely divinely inspired. Jesus is the (big W) Word of God because he is the unique revelation of God; but the Bible is the unique testament to Christ as that Word of God.
You may disagree with that, perhaps with good reason, but to suggest that it's "heresy" or "unorthodox" is simply not historically correct.
So, if you begin with that historically very orthodox assumption that the Bible is the word of God, and that Paul is part of the Bible, then it stands to reason that Paul's words are divinely inspired.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus = Paul, however, Paul is frequently quoting Jesus (e.g our communion liturgy). The Pauline letters are also the earliest documents we have/closest chronologically to Jesus, and seem to be presented as representing the teachings of Jesus.
That being said, I am sympathetic to the argument being made, just not the way it's being framed. I have in recent years adopted a somewhat similar rubric based on "Jesus is our best revelation of God"-- therefore my "canon w/in the canon" prioritizes those texts that are "closest to Jesus" over those that are further. That is really helpful when dealing with Joshua or Leviticus. Not so much, though, when dealing with Paul, since you end up having to decide do we prioritize the later reported words of Jesus (gospels) or the earlier reported teaching (in general) of Jesus (Paul).
And THAT being said, I don't find as much conflict between Jesus & Paul as many do (Jesus & Joshua, that's another issue...), so it's more of a theoretical issue for me than an actual one.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus = Paul, however, Paul is frequently quoting Jesus (e.g our communion liturgy). The Pauline letters are also the earliest documents we have/closest chronologically to Jesus, and seem to be presented as representing the teachings of Jesus.
Now that this is a heresy if I have ever seen one. I really don't think you mean Jesus equals Paul. Paul would probably be the first to object to that equation.
Moreover, Paul really does not quote Jesus all that much with the exception of the words of institution/communion. He actually does not appear to know the parables, or the sayings, or even many of the miracles.
But I do not think Paul was interested in quoting Jesus more than just the words of institution. Paul was more interested in discussing what Jesus meant for the Christian community.
Jesus is unparalleled in the Christian Scriptures, in my book.
Just this summer I read a book entitled The Islamic Jesus by Mustafa Akyol. Mustafa said if the New Testament only included the Gospels, Muslims would have no trouble accepting it, but Paul basically adds a layer of paganism that he just cannot accept.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That being said, I am sympathetic to the argument being made, just not the way it's being framed. I have in recent years adopted a somewhat similar rubric based on "Jesus is our best revelation of God"-- therefore my "canon w/in the canon" prioritizes those texts that are "closest to Jesus" over those that are further. That is really helpful when dealing with Joshua or Leviticus. Not so much, though, when dealing with Paul, since you end up having to decide do we prioritize the later reported words of Jesus (gospels) or the earlier reported teaching (in general) of Jesus (Paul).
And THAT being said, I don't find as much conflict between Jesus & Paul as many do (Jesus & Joshua, that's another issue...), so it's more of a theoretical issue for me than an actual one. [/QB]
Thanks, that's a helpful summation, I am familiar (living in Sydney one can't not be) with that view, I think it's the idea that the words of Paul are the words of Jesus that makes me uneasy-I don't think Paul would say that.
Instinctively I have always prioritised the Gospels, surely the words of Jesus (even when recorded by another) must trump everyone else's. I'd also go so far (perhaps it is a huge leap) as to suggest that Paul's letters do not present the gospel, so much as offer a commentary and encouragement to those who have already heard it. For those of us who can't hear the gospel preached "first or secondhand", then we need the Gospels first and foremost and Paul's letters offer some general commentary and some particularly applied advice on the teachings of Jesus.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the Bible is the unique testament to Christ as that Word of God.
An eminently Protestant claim.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That being said, I am sympathetic to the argument being made, just not the way it's being framed. I have in recent years adopted a somewhat similar rubric based on "Jesus is our best revelation of God"-- therefore my "canon w/in the canon" prioritizes those texts that are "closest to Jesus" over those that are further. That is really helpful when dealing with Joshua or Leviticus. Not so much, though, when dealing with Paul, since you end up having to decide do we prioritize the later reported words of Jesus (gospels) or the earlier reported teaching (in general) of Jesus (Paul).
And THAT being said, I don't find as much conflict between Jesus & Paul as many do (Jesus & Joshua, that's another issue...), so it's more of a theoretical issue for me than an actual one.
Thanks, that's a helpful summation, I am familiar (living in Sydney one can't not be) with that view, I think it's the idea that the words of Paul are the words of Jesus that makes me uneasy-I don't think Paul would say that.
Instinctively I have always prioritised the Gospels, surely the words of Jesus (even when recorded by another) must trump everyone else's. I'd also go so far (perhaps it is a huge leap) as to suggest that Paul's letters do not present the gospel, so much as offer a commentary and encouragement to those who have already heard it. For those of us who can't hear the gospel preached "first or secondhand", then we need the Gospels first and foremost and Paul's letters offer some general commentary and some particularly applied advice on the teachings of Jesus. [/QB]
It's a little bit more complicated than that with the gospels. We don't have the unfiltered, straight words of Jesus, because Jesus didn't write anything down.
The gospels, then are from a historical-critical viewpoint, the words of Jesus filtered through the lens of each evangelist. So, you don't have necessarily a debate between Jesus and Paul, you really have a debate between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Paul.
Rather suggesting that the gospels trump Paul (Which, in Protestant theology seems inconsistent, no good Protestant I believe would use Matthew's judgment of the Sheep and Goats to undermine the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone), one could say, that the New Testament is an inspired, but not perfect, human witness to Jesus Christ, and discovering the real Jesus is a matter of wrestling with the imperfect but indispensable documents we have.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the Bible is the unique testament to Christ as that Word of God.
An eminently Protestant claim.
Fair enough. And I’ll grant that regularly talking about Scripture as the Word of God is likely more common in (some) Protestant circles than elsewhere in Christianity.
That said, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does at numerous places describe or refer to the OT, the NT, Scripture as a whole and Holy Tradition as a whole (no pun intended) as “the Word of God.” (And yes, the Catechism capitalizes “Word” when the reference is to Scripture or Tradition rather than to Jesus.). So talking about Scripture as “the Word of God” isn’t just a Protestant thing. At the least, it’s a Western Christianity thing.
Is it something seen or done in Orthodoxy? Sometimes? Rarely? Never?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the Bible is the unique testament to Christ as that Word of God.
An eminently Protestant claim.
Fair enough. And I’ll grant that regularly talking about Scripture as the Word of God is likely more common in (some) Protestant circles than elsewhere in Christianity.
That said, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does at numerous places describe or refer to the OT, the NT, Scripture as a whole and Holy Tradition as a whole (no pun intended) as “the Word of God.” (And yes, the Catechism capitalizes “Word” when the reference is to Scripture or Tradition rather than to Jesus.). So talking about Scripture as “the Word of God” isn’t just a Protestant thing. At the least, it’s a Western Christianity thing.
Is it something seen or done in Orthodoxy? Sometimes? Rarely? Never?
The Orfies and the Caffix both regard the Scriptures as the Word of God. The Protestant part is the "unique."
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I heard it elegantly stated that the Word of God, properly spoken is Jesus.
Scripture can only rightly called "the word of God" in its derivative function of revealing Jesus Christ to the church. Or, to use Martin Luther's more down-to-earth "the Bible is the straw that cradles the Baby Jesus".
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Orfies and the Caffix both regard the Scriptures as the Word of God. The Protestant part is the "unique."
Sorry. I thought I was being clear, but looking back, maybe I wasn’t.
I knew you were taking issue with “unique.” And I was agreeing that’s a uniquely Protestant take on things.
I asked about Orthodox usage because I realized that while I knew of many Catholic instances of referring to Scripture as “the Word of God,” I wasn’t as familiar with how common that is (or isn’t) in Orthodoxy. So I thought I’d ask rather than making assumptions one way or the other.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It's a little bit more complicated than that with the gospels. We don't have the unfiltered, straight words of Jesus, because Jesus didn't write anything down.
The gospels, then are from a historical-critical viewpoint, the words of Jesus filtered through the lens of each evangelist. So, you don't have necessarily a debate between Jesus and Paul, you really have a debate between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Paul.
Rather suggesting that the gospels trump Paul (Which, in Protestant theology seems inconsistent, no good Protestant I believe would use Matthew's judgment of the Sheep and Goats to undermine the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone), one could say, that the New Testament is an inspired, but not perfect, human witness to Jesus Christ, and discovering the real Jesus is a matter of wrestling with the imperfect but indispensable documents we have. [/QB]
I am aware of what the gospels are and how they came to be. In these parts 'inerrancy' is big when talking about the Bible by the same people who are claiming the words of Paul are the words of Jesus. I struggle to see if an inerrant Bible says Jesus said this, how can it not be so. Sure, the exact words of Jesus are not recorded (for starters the Bible was written in Koine and Jesus spoke Aramaic) but the message must be faithfully (if not fully by each evangelist) recorded.
As a matter of interest how do you, as a good Protestant reconcile Matthew's story of Jesus' words about the sheep and the goats from Paul's words about justification by faith? How do you interpret Jesus' words in Matthew?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
As a matter of interest how do you, as a good Protestant reconcile Matthew's story of Jesus' words about the sheep and the goats from Paul's words about justification by faith? How do you interpret Jesus' words in Matthew? [/QB]
I think this deserves its own thread: Sheep and Goats and Grace
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Cleaning up a bit of misunderstandings:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller: I wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus = Paul, however, Paul is frequently quoting Jesus (e.g our communion liturgy). The Pauline letters are also the earliest documents we have/closest chronologically to Jesus, and seem to be presented as representing the teachings of Jesus.
Now that this is a heresy if I have ever seen one. I really don't think you mean Jesus equals Paul. Paul would probably be the first to object to that equation.
[/qb]
Well, except I said I wouldn't say that Jesus = Paul.
For the most part I agreed with what you said.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the Bible is the unique testament to Christ as that Word of God.
An eminently Protestant claim.
Fair enough. And I’ll grant that regularly talking about Scripture as the Word of God is likely more common in (some) Protestant circles than elsewhere in Christianity.
That said, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does at numerous places describe or refer to the OT, the NT, Scripture as a whole and Holy Tradition as a whole (no pun intended) as “the Word of God.” (And yes, the Catechism capitalizes “Word” when the reference is to Scripture or Tradition rather than to Jesus.). So talking about Scripture as “the Word of God” isn’t just a Protestant thing. At the least, it’s a Western Christianity thing.
Is it something seen or done in Orthodoxy? Sometimes? Rarely? Never?
The Orfies and the Caffix both regard the Scriptures as the Word of God. The Protestant part is the "unique."
Similarly, I didn't say that the Bible was the unique (small or big w) word of God. Rather, I said that the Bible is the unique testament to Christ as that Word of God.
That may or may not still be an "eminently Protestant claim"-- I'm not really in a position to say, and OK if it is-- but it's a different claim than the one I think you heard (the the Bible is the unique word of God).
[ 23. October 2017, 05:33: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
however, Paul is frequently quoting Jesus (e.g our communion liturgy). The Pauline letters are also the earliest documents we have/closest chronologically to Jesus, and seem to be presented as representing the teachings of Jesus.
You do have an explicit part [found it 1Co 7] where the passage is "Jesus, not Paul commands ... Paul, not Jesus says ..."
Which kind of explicitly shows that both happening and not happening at different (very close points).
Whether the first part comes from common teaching, explicitly the sermon on the mount, or inspiration is not said.
How strong&close Paul considered his authority/interpretation in the second part is also not said.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
So it was recently Synod in my Anglican diocese. Conversationally, somebody raised the issue that they heard a lot more of Paul's words than Jesus' being quoted. The response from a prominent member of the Synod was that
"In orthodox Christology, the words of Paul ARE the words of Jesus."
This is news to me, that on the face of it seems ludicrous. Can anybody more familiar with this "orthodox christology" help?
That is part of the near-deification of Paul taught by Moore College.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Similarly, I didn't say that the Bible was the unique (small or big w) word of God. Rather, I said that the Bible is the unique testament to Christ as that Word of God.
To me, the issue is that it is The Church that is the witness to Christ. There are rare instances of someone picking up a Bible and coming to faith without any prior contact to the Church, but that is a very unusual event.
What the Church witnesses to is what the Church has learnt from itself, that is that witness is informed by Tradition, which includes the Bible. What may be the particular Protestant (or, even just Evangelical) perspective is the emphasis on the Bible as the supreme authority for checking the authenticity of our witness.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Well it seems to me that the witness is actually the Holy Spirit, who of course has worked through the the church and speaks to us through the bible - but crucially works and speaks in other ways.
It also strikes me that there is something slightly ridiculous in saying that there is a difference between the "words of Paul" and the "words of Jesus" given that both come to us mediated by thousands of years of tradition, the church, interpretation etc and so on.
It might be comforting to believe that those who assembled the NT stories managed to keep the stories separate and that the one idea didn't seep into the other, but that seems to me to be more a statement of faith than factual. It seems fairly clear to be that at least some of the statements of Jesus have been edited to include Pauline ideas.
I'm not sure that it matters a whole lot.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
(We should end the thread there, but I've just ruined that!)
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems fairly clear to be that at least some of the statements of Jesus have been edited to include Pauline ideas.
It'd be interesting to see you unpack this a bit.
[That's a completely face-value statement, btw, not snark - I can't, off the bat, call to mind what you might be referring to.]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
It'd be interesting to see you unpack this a bit.
[That's a completely face-value statement, btw, not snark - I can't, off the bat, call to mind what you might be referring to.]
Well not very easily without causing a big argument, I know others have strong opinions in other directions. But to me the idea that Mark is an allegorical rewriting of Paul is a strong one and it seems to me that various other parts of the gospels make most sense if they'd been written by someone with a strong grounding in Pauline theology.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Ah c'mon! This is the thread and this is the realm for it. So what in Mark is Pauline, for a start?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well it seems to me that the witness is actually the Holy Spirit, who of course has worked through the the church and speaks to us through the bible - but crucially works and speaks in other ways.
It also strikes me that there is something slightly ridiculous in saying that there is a difference between the "words of Paul" and the "words of Jesus" given that both come to us mediated by thousands of years of tradition, the church, interpretation etc and so on.
It might be comforting to believe that those who assembled the NT stories managed to keep the stories separate and that the one idea didn't seep into the other, but that seems to me to be more a statement of faith than factual. It seems fairly clear to be that at least some of the statements of Jesus have been edited to include Pauline ideas.
I'm not sure that it matters a whole lot.
I would agree with the above
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
It'd be interesting to see you unpack this a bit.
[That's a completely face-value statement, btw, not snark - I can't, off the bat, call to mind what you might be referring to.]
Well not very easily without causing a big argument, I know others have strong opinions in other directions. But to me the idea that Mark is an allegorical rewriting of Paul is a strong one and it seems to me that various other parts of the gospels make most sense if they'd been written by someone with a strong grounding in Pauline theology.
Which could be hypothesized to suggest that Paul was well grounded in the oral tradition of Jesus
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Do I detect the ghost of a circular argument hovering tantalisingly out of reach?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Do I detect the ghost of a circular argument hovering tantalisingly out of reach?
More of a chicken and egg.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Do I detect the ghost of a circular argument hovering tantalisingly out of reach?
More of a chicken and egg.
Yes, that's probably a better way of putting it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't know. I suppose this is a deeper question about how one understands the texts that we have.
It seems to me that one has to believe that the two traditions (which for simplicity we are calling here the "words of Jesus" versus the "words of Paul") were kept for posterity entirely apart so that we can compare the one with the other like we might compare eyewitness accounts to a crime.
In reality we don't know what happened. We don't know exactly who wrote the gospels, we don't know how they interacted with the epistles and the epistle writers. We have every indication that at least some of the epistles were written before the gospels and some of the gospel texts themselves say that they are the summation of other writings.
It seems to me highly likely that the gospels were written down in an environment that was heavily influenced by Pauline ideas. Of course, you are all perfectly at liberty to disagree, but to me this is all clutching at straws.
This is the thing we've been handed down through the ages by those mystical people who collected the ideas and wrote down the holy scripts, those who collected them into a handy tome, those who made mistakes when they copied them and those who did the editing to make it hang together.
In that context, it seems particularly strange to me to be claiming that there is some gospel writing that it independent of Paul - and even that there is some epistle teaching that is independent of the gospels.
Better minds than I have in the past put forward (what I think are) persuasive arguments about the influence of Paul on Mark, but ultimately it's all just supposition and interpolation.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Do I have to point this out? Not all Protestants understand 'unique' to mean 'only'. Take for instance a certain John Calvin.
Jengie
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
The discussiom reminds me of my LCMS childhood, when I was explicitly taught that every utterance in Scripture, let alone Jesus' versus Paul's, pwas the actual "Word of God" and needed to be given equal gravitas.Imagine my surprise when I got to university and learned that Luther wanted to chuck whole books out of the canon...and when I learned that the Gospwls were written long after the Epistles, and quotes attributed to Jesus may or may not have been actual remembered quotes.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Do I have to point this out? Not all Protestants understand 'unique' to mean 'only'. Take for instance a certain John Calvin.
Sure, but I didn’t understand the assertion that the use of “unique” was “eminently Protestant” as being grounded in an assumption that “unique” meant “only.” I understood the assertion to be premised on the belief held by Catholics and Orthodox but rejected by (most) Protestants that Holy Tradition is equal to Holy Scripture with regard to the claimed “uniqueness.” Or put another way that Scripture is part of but not all of Holy Tradition.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Do I have to point this out? Not all Protestants understand 'unique' to mean 'only'. Take for instance a certain John Calvin.
Unique:
A 1 Of which there is only one; one and no other; single, sole, solitary
2a That is or forms the only one of its kind; having no like or equal; standing alone in comparison with others, freq. by reason of superior excellence; unequaled, uparalleled, unrivaled.
2b of persons.
B a thing of which there is only one example, copy, or specimen; espl, in early use, a coni or medal of this class
b something of which only one is possessed by a person or persons.
2 a A thing, fact, or circumstance by reason of exceptional or or special qualities stands alone and is without equal or parallel in its kind
b. a person of this class
(OED)
Sure is a lot of "only" in there. It's the basic, underlying, foundational meaning of the word Unique. Which only makes sense since it comes from the latin root uni meaning one. If Protestants don't mean "unique" when they say "unique," then yes it does need to be pointed out, and huffing about it is grossly unwarranted.
ETA: and what Nick Tamen says in the post immediately preceding this one is, in fact, what I meant.
[ 23. October 2017, 21:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Paul was writing a lot earlier than the gospels so maybe he was nearer the actual Jesus.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul was writing a lot earlier than the gospels so maybe he was nearer the actual Jesus.
He didn't know him personally, so not quite. The idea that he wrote stuff down earlier doesn't make it closer to Jesus, it makes it more likely that Paul's stuff we read today is nearer to what Paul originally wrote. What we think that Jesus said is what others tell us he said, so probably less accurate.
Which then strikes me that if we think God was interested in us knowing him and Jesus etc, that God was not very interested in the precise text, but rather the general thrust. If we were supposed to have precise text we'd have a Koran/Quran or a Book of Mormon. Glad we don't.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Ah c'mon! This is the thread and this is the realm for it. So what in Mark is Pauline, for a start?
Dammit I'm a bit rusty, but I know when I was writing my dissertation on Paul I found enough echoes of Paul in Mark to become conservative enough to go back to the Mark = John-Mark thesis. But I can't remember them now ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
And I find myself in pretty much agreement with Cliffdweller's post above ...
all of which is not what I popped in to say.
I do think and often say in preaching and teaching that one of the problems we have with the Paul/Jesus dichotomy is what Paul didn't say. I have always argued that we don't have many Jesus sayings in Paul precisely because they were part of the agreed discourse between Paul and his audiences. When I was a sports umpire I didn't blow the whistle and argue the sub-clauses of rule 37.b:ii. I just kicked arse. And I think Paul does that precisely because the loose oral sayi9ng, probably pretty much in that sort of Q format, were undisputed, more or less. So why reinvent the wheel when you're kicking Corinthian or Galatian butt?
Which may or may not be tangential.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
Well, what is the principled difference between, on the one hand, saying that the words of Paul is the words of Jesus or, on the other hand, saying that the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John is the words of Jesus?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, what is the principled difference between, on the one hand, saying that the words of Paul is the words of Jesus or, on the other hand, saying that the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John is the words of Jesus?
What does "principled" mean here? Looks like a weasel word waiting to spring a no-true-scotsman on any potential answer.
The words of the Evangelists, or many of them, actually purport to be the words of Jesus. They tell us, "Jesus said this and did that." Paul does that exactly twice that I know of: in the words of institution, and in introducing "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
They both claim to present us with the teaching of Christ, the Gospel og Christ. I don't see why Matthew, Mark, Luke or John are more reliable than Paul in doing that. We might say that Matthew and John are perhaps more reliable, if we grant that they are two of Christ's apostles, but we also know that both Matthew and Luke is based on Mark, who wasn't a disciple. And Luke was the co-worker of Paul.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
responding to k-mann:
quote:
We might say that Matthew and John are perhaps more reliable, if we grant that they are two of Christ's apostles, but we also know that both Matthew and Luke is based on Mark, who wasn't a disciple. And Luke was the co-worker of Paul.
If we grant...
But in fact, we do not know who wrote any of the four canonical Gospels. The closest we can come with any real degree of certainty is that the Fourth Gospel looks as though it must have come via John, = 'the Beloved Disciple' – though probably not actually written by him. (I like Barnabas Lindars' suggestion that it is based on notes taken during John's sermons). There is nothing in the first three Gospels to say who wrote them: the identifications with Mark, Matthew and Luke are all based solely on tradition.
One very good relatively recent work of good scholarship on the origins of the Gospels, from an interesting and new perspective, is Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2006)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
They both claim to present us with the teaching of Christ, the Gospel og Christ. I don't see why Matthew, Mark, Luke or John are more reliable than Paul in doing that.
Not what you asked.
quote:
We might say that Matthew and John are perhaps more reliable, if we grant that they are two of Christ's apostles, but we also know that both Matthew and Luke is based on Mark, who wasn't a disciple. And Luke was the co-worker of Paul.
We also know that Mark was based on the testimony of Peter, who was. Etc etc. But again nothing to do with the question you asked.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
There is nothing in the first three Gospels to say who wrote them: the identifications with Mark, Matthew and Luke are all based solely on tradition.
[/QB]
While the strictly true in all cases.
Luke&Acts have clearly been written as though part of a pair, and Acts does have some first person narration (from Acts 16?). So (if the stuff in them is considered valid), there is a bit on who the person was in the general sense (someone who traveled with Paul, not Barnabus or JohnMark, even if not who in the sense of a name*)
*which wouldn't mean an awful lot without the detail.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I have always had some difficulties with Paul's teaching, never with what our Lord Jesus Christ said. In fact , I would even go as far as to say that Paul has damaged Christianity for some Christians, particularly in his limited understanding of the role of women. He seems much more judgemental than how I have always felt the Lord would be and imposes strictures that would make the baby Jesus cry.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That astounds me, as Jesus gave us hell and damnation, limited atonement, eternal torture, penal substitutionary atonement, racism you name it. Paul gave us sexism and homophobia - allegedly - what else?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I have always had some difficulties with Paul's teaching, never with what our Lord Jesus Christ said. In fact , I would even go as far as to say that Paul has damaged Christianity for some Christians, particularly in his limited understanding of the role of women. He seems much more judgemental than how I have always felt the Lord would be and imposes strictures that would make the baby Jesus cry.
by Martin 60
quote:
That astounds me, as Jesus gave us hell and damnation, limited atonement, eternal torture, penal substitutionary atonement, racism you name it. Paul gave us sexism and homophobia - allegedly - what else?
Martin is basically right here. bib clearly doesn't know his gospels at all well if he hasn't realised that Jesus is in fact the strict one compared to Paul.
Having said that, Jesus certainly didn't give us racism - at worst some apparent ambiguities because he was operating in the transition period between the time when God operated specially through Israel and the time, brought in by Jesus, when everything is opened up to the whole world. (He is critical not of Jews racially - how could he be as a Jew himself - but of various ways the national religion had developed. It is a problem to this day of how you can critique such a religion of one ethnic group as a religion and not have people accusing you of racism....)
I'm not sure you can say simply that Jesus gave us penal substitutionary atonement. He certainly atoned for our sins in a way that involves substitution, his standing in our place; but his own primary images for that seem to be about payment of debt rather than punishment for crime, and the substitutionary images around the Passover Lamb with which he identified himself. Yes there are some aspects of it where the imagery of the criminal court is used, but these are not as I see it primary.
'Hell and damnation... eternal torture' Indeed. Anyone who presents Jesus as a softie who didn't talk about such things clearly hasn't read the gospels. Jesus indeed speaks of these things more than other NT writers; if you don't like that, just don't believe in Jesus. But don't misrepresent him to suit what you'd rather believe - be honest about what he said. And bear in mind that in John 3 Jesus says
quote:
`And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil;
John 3:19 (YLT)
That, those who end up in hell get what they want and what they prefer to heaven.
"Limited atonement" - I'd need a bit more definition to comment on that. Is Martin referring to the specific Calvinist doctrine so-called, or is he simply saying that Jesus clearly didn't believe in universal salvation?
'Sexism' I'll leave aside for now - this post will be long enough as it is. Though it does perhaps need saying that Paul's supposed sexism was nevertheless far better than what most women faced outside the church at that time.
'Homophobia'? Yes Paul disagreed with those who want to do 'gay sex'. But the basic Christian teaching here comes from Jesus in Mark 10 and its Matthean parallel, with a very strong assertion about the inherent heterosexuality of marriage and therefore of sexual activity. That assertion is so strong that on another thread Shipmate St Deird not only failed to come up with an 'other interpretation', but could apparently only get round Jesus' words by declaring Jesus himself to have been mistaken (and apparently able to be so because God wasn't competent at self-incarnation and his incarnate self couldn't therefore be relied on to interpret his own OT words). Isn't it fabulous that we live in the era when we have St D available to tell us what Jesus should have said...? Detailed discussion of that is I guess for DH, but the basic point is relevant here that Paul was following Jesus rather than him independently giving us his own version of the Christian position - and of course neither was 'homophobic' but simply disagreeing with an inordinate practice.
I repeat - don't make up to suit your own preferences a Jesus different from the Jesus actually portrayed in the gospels. Either honestly accept him or honestly reject him, but don't mess around with him.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I repeat - don't make up to suit your own preferences a Jesus different from the Jesus actually portrayed in the gospels. Either honestly accept him or honestly reject him, but don't mess around with him.
Or perhaps take a bit of notice of the context and stop assuming the bible can be read in isolation.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Ooooh, you dangerous radical mr cheesy! As for racism, calling a Syro-Phoenician woman a dog ...
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
At the risk of introducing a tangent. In the OP the statement was:
quote:
"In orthodox Christology, the words of Paul ARE the words of Jesus."
I don't think that was intended exclusively to refer to Paul - but to any writer of the NT or Scripture as a whole for that matter. So James = Jesus, Peter = Jesus, writer to the Hebrews = Jesus, etc.
I grew up in a church that frowned upon "red letter Bibles" (the ones that put the spoken words of Jesus in red type) as this "elevated" the words of Jesus above all other Scripture (so the argument went).
I think the idea was Jesus said he only spoke what his Father told him to, which was by the Holy Spirit anyway who is the one who as inspired all of Scripture, God the Father, Son & Spirit are all one anyway so basically any passage of Scripture should be read as if Jesus spoke it directly. What Brian McLaren would describe as a "flat" reading of Scripture.
Just thought I would make the point that I don't think the original issue related just to Paul specifically as I have come across similar statements from other people in conversation. Apologies if that was obvious.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I repeat - don't make up to suit your own preferences a Jesus different from the Jesus actually portrayed in the gospels. Either honestly accept him or honestly reject him, but don't mess around with him.
Or perhaps take a bit of notice of the context and stop assuming the bible can be read in isolation.
Actually I'm very keen on reading in context
A) in terms of reading texts in both their local context and in the wider context of the Bible as a whole, and
B) in terms of taking account of the wider context of the surrounding world and definitely NOT reading the bible in isolation.
I may have come to essentially Anabaptist conclusions on many issues - that doesn't mean that I'm some isolated backwoods hyper-literal fundamentalist who only knows the Bible 'in isolation'. As I've pointed out elsewhere I'm a hyperlexic and very widely read. And BTW a considerable CS Lewis fan.
The point here is that LION, the only Jesus we know with any certainty is the Jesus of the NT - the Jesus essentially from accounts of those who knew him, even if, as in Luke's case, collected by someone who wasn't a witness himself. What is recorded as Jesus' teaching in the NT is very strongly likely to represent his actual teaching.
What I'm concerned with here is a phenomenon seen among so-called 'liberal' theologians. As an example I once heard a man preach on one of Jesus' parables and at one point he quoted what Jesus said and then said "Would our Jesus have said that?"
The parable in question is sufficiently unusual that I'd regard it as unlikely that it's anything other than a genuine record of a real occasion which the hearers found memorable. But the thing is that this preacher had no real scholarly reason to deny those words to Jesus - it's just that he doesn't like what Jesus said and would prefer Jesus to have said something else. So he appeals against the recorded teaching to an 'our Jesus' who "wouldn't have said that".
And of course such an 'our Jesus' fits pretty precisely the notion of an idol - a god made up by the worshipper to suit the worshipper's desires. And that's what my objection is here - that someone like 'bib' is in this case setting against Paul what is clearly a very selective version of Jesus rather than the Jesus we see in the Bible. Martin 60 seems to have seen the same point and I was basically agreeing with him on that, albeit with some qualifications/reservations.
As for Jesus calling the Gentile woman a 'dog', I think a great deal would depend on how he said this - and the woman's spirited reply suggests that she saw in Jesus something other than the standard racist Jew, and his further response to that shows that he was not being racist himself. As I said before, Jesus was operating in a transitional period - in which he was responsible for the transition - and in a Jewish culture which wasn't entirely as God would have liked. Note that in most cases he compares Jews unfavorably to Gentiles....
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What I'm concerned with here is a phenomenon seen among so-called 'liberal' theologians. As an example I once heard a man preach on one of Jesus' parables and at one point he quoted what Jesus said and then said "Would our Jesus have said that?"
The parable in question is sufficiently unusual that I'd regard it as unlikely that it's anything other than a genuine record of a real occasion which the hearers found memorable. But the thing is that this preacher had no real scholarly reason to deny those words to Jesus - it's just that he doesn't like what Jesus said and would prefer Jesus to have said something else. So he appeals against the recorded teaching to an 'our Jesus' who "wouldn't have said that"...
As for Jesus calling the Gentile woman a 'dog', I think a great deal would depend on how he said this - and the woman's spirited reply suggests that she saw in Jesus something other than the standard racist Jew, and his further response to that shows that he was not being racist himself. As I said before, Jesus was operating in a transitional period - in which he was responsible for the transition - and in a Jewish culture which wasn't entirely as God would have liked. Note that in most cases he compares Jews unfavorably to Gentiles....
One explanation I've heard is that Jesus was rhetorically echoing either a common saying or the whisperings of the disciples-- who often seem to see themselves as gatekeepers keeping the undeserving-- women, children, Gentiles, hungry crowds-- away from Jesus. By echoing that common saying he was setting the woman up to be the "hero" of the story-- this unlikely preacher gets to be the one who delivers the zinger that changes perspective.
Of course, that sort of exegesis could be as fanciful as the one employed by your "liberal preacher" mentioned above-- just as prone to misuse whenever we hear Jesus saying something we don't like.
I totally appreciate your point about reading narratives contextually and not dismissing something just because we don't like it or it doesn't fit our preconceived presumptions about Jesus. Often it is the things that "don't fit"-- the things that challenge our preconceptions-- that are the most transformative.
And yet-- we have to admit there are passages that seem to be in conflict, passages that seem to present two very different pictures of Jesus. When that happens, we have several options:
1. Do some exegetical gymnastics to try to make both contradictory statements work-- hard to accomplish and lots of cognitive dissonance
2. Assume the NT is a human document so all of it is prone to error, or that Jesus is not perfect (as the story re calling the woman a "dog" suggests) but was simply human and prone to error. I'm guessing you won't like either of these any more than the liberal preacher's approach.
3. Assume some things were either heard/remembered incorrectly or had some cultural allusions (eg to common sayings) that served a rhetorical purpose we don't get.
If we go with #3, the best thing we can do is look to the overall picture of Jesus presented in the gospels, and go with the strongest/ most dominant theme. If something seems out of place (calling Gentiles "dogs" is very much at odds with Jesus' overall pattern of ministry among Gentiles) so we can assume it either was heard incorrectly or we're missing some rhetorical twist.
But that will probably yield something not dissimilar to the liberal theologian's approach, though-- since our reading of the overall narrative arc will of course be influenced by our presumptions about Jesus and confirmation bias. I think to a large extent that's inevitable. Reading Scripture in diverse groups can help with that-- helping you read the narratives thru other people's perspective-- but it's still going to be a subjective approach. Best to admit that and acknowledge all the inherent eisegesis that may suggest imho.
[ 01. November 2017, 15:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
They both claim to present us with the teaching of Christ, the Gospel og Christ. I don't see why Matthew, Mark, Luke or John are more reliable than Paul in doing that.
Not what you asked..
It was.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As for Jesus calling the Gentile woman a 'dog', I think a great deal would depend on how he said this - and the woman's spirited reply suggests that she saw in Jesus something other than the standard racist Jew, and his further response to that shows that he was not being racist himself.
We discussed this a while back, and someone who had lived a long time in the Middle East said that, to Middle Eastern ears, this does not sound the way it does to us. There is apparently a large culture-gap here.
Moo
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by cliffdweller;
quote:
And yet-- we have to admit there are passages that seem to be in conflict, passages that seem to present two very different pictures of Jesus.
Contrary to how some have portrayed it I don't think I know everything and I'm quite happy to admit it. When I post an opinion I'm quite happy to see it challenged by better evidence and better logic.
This is a slightly different situation, though. 'Liberals' are seeing 'very different pictures of Jesus' where I actually see one consistent picture. The 'liberal' finds it necessary to pick and choose to have the picture he wants, that 'our Jesus' who 'wouldn't say that'; I don't find that necessity.
Specifically this is about the passages where far from being the cosy comfortable guy who 'wouldn't say that', Jesus talks far more about hell than even Paul. The 'liberal' is determined that there can't be a hell so he tries to disregard those passages. And so he ends up with a very nice Jesus, but not really the Jesus of the NT - it is a Jesus he has made up to suit what he wants to believe, and there is no serious objective scholarly foundation for that step, it really is just the subjective opinion/wish of the 'liberal'.
Now I don't claim to know if anybody actually ends up finally in the state called 'hell'. But I believe Jesus talks about it because it is a real possibility for those who ultimately reject God. As the passage in John 3 points out, the judgement is that they choose the darkness. I believe it's Milton in Paradise Lost who portrays hell as a realm locked not from the outside by God, but from the inside to keep God out (which of course can't work).
I find it interesting that the 'liberals' and atheists etc who most vehemently reject hell are nevertheless also most vehement in rejecting the idea of God ever compelling anyone. They often aren't even happy that God might tell them what to do, let alone make them do it. But if they want to choose the darkness, why complain that they might get what they've chosen?
I think that in itself is a topic for another thread. The issue here is whether it really works to make up a Jesus to suit yourself but nevertheless claim to be a Christian. I'm currently reading J Gresham Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism" and I think his basic point is incontrovertible - Liberalism is not Christianity but a different religious idea devised by men to suit themselves while using a very selective set of Christian ideas and words to benefit from the association with Christianity.
If you don't do that liberal picking/selecting, Jesus and Paul are not in conflict. If you don't agree with them you surely should not pretend to be a Christian....
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You really don't like us progressives, do you Steve? You realise that by stating you don't know if anyone ends up in Hell you'd be considered a liberal by some don't you - the problem with finger pointing andone drawing is that it's a game all can play.
[ 02. November 2017, 11:03: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Bloody phone - that's *line* drawing
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
This liberal knows that Jesus is perfectly accurately quoted and represented. I don't know any liberal who could possibly believe otherwise.
Jesus, being fully human, was making it up as a He went along of course. He couldn't possibly know anything beyond His human life except by the Spirit. He recalled seeing Satan fall like lightning, He knew that gender is transcended in the resurrection. What else? The end of the Jewish world. Anything else? He believed all manner of untrue things. How could He not? All He had to go on was the TaNaKh; in which He correctly saw His mission despite it not being there, His enculturation and His divine nature, the frog-trumping prince.
[ 02. November 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a slightly different situation, though. 'Liberals' are seeing 'very different pictures of Jesus' where I actually see one consistent picture. The 'liberal' finds it necessary to pick and choose to have the picture he wants, that 'our Jesus' who 'wouldn't say that'; I don't find that necessity.
Specifically this is about the passages where far from being the cosy comfortable guy who 'wouldn't say that', Jesus talks far more about hell than even Paul. The 'liberal' is determined that there can't be a hell so he tries to disregard those passages. And so he ends up with a very nice Jesus, but not really the Jesus of the NT - it is a Jesus he has made up to suit what he wants to believe, and there is no serious objective scholarly foundation for that step, it really is just the subjective opinion/wish of the 'liberal'.
Now I don't claim to know if anybody actually ends up finally in the state called 'hell'. But I believe Jesus talks about it because it is a real possibility for those who ultimately reject God. As the passage in John 3 points out, the judgement is that they choose the darkness. I believe it's Milton in Paradise Lost who portrays hell as a realm locked not from the outside by God, but from the inside to keep God out (which of course can't work).
I find it interesting that the 'liberals' and atheists etc who most vehemently reject hell are nevertheless also most vehement in rejecting the idea of God ever compelling anyone. They often aren't even happy that God might tell them what to do, let alone make them do it. But if they want to choose the darkness, why complain that they might get what they've chosen?
Steve, I have found myself wondering why “liberals” is always placed within scare quotes in your posts. I’m coming to the conclusion that, intentional or not, it signals that the “liberals” being criticized are a hefty over-generalization at best and a caricature at worst. I’m sorry, but the result is that I have trouble taking your criticisms of “liberals” seriously or giving your arguments about “liberalism” any credence at all. (Citations to Machan don’t help in that regard as far as I’m concerned.)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It is because a "liberal" is anyone who doesn't instantly agree with Steve Langton's idiosyncratic view of theology. In fact it turns out that many of those who disagree with this are actually "conservative" or "orthodox" but just disagree with him.
He seems to think that because he has thought it (and because he has aspergers, that somehow means he has thought about, considered and rejected all other objections) and come to a conclusion, then that is the only possible truth. Therefore anyone who doesn't agree is somehow liberal.
[ 03. November 2017, 10:55: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Nick Tamen
quote:
Steve, I have found myself wondering why “liberals” is always placed within scare quotes in your posts.
It might be because I'm not actually thinking in terms of 'scare quotes' but just an emphasis. Though experience does suggest that all too often the 'liberals' are very intolerant and illiberal in realty.
And the 'generalisation' about how 'liberals' treat the Bible is based on an awful lot of examples I've come across over the years.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Nick Tamen
quote:
Steve, I have found myself wondering why “liberals” is always placed within scare quotes in your posts.
It might be because I'm not actually thinking in terms of 'scare quotes' but just an emphasis.
Aside from the fact that quotation marks are not properly used to denote emphasis—that’s what italics and bolding are for—you consistently put “liberals” and “liberalism” in quotation marks every time you use those words. Why the need for emphasis every time? (Indeed, why the need for emphasis at all.)
quote:
Though experience does suggest that all too often the 'liberals' are very intolerant and illiberal in realty.
And the 'generalisation' about how 'liberals' treat the Bible is based on an awful lot of examples I've come across over the years.
Which means nothing except that’s your experience. I can cite an awful lot of examples to the contrary. Either way, anecdotes, not data.
Sorry Steve—it appears to be simple disagreement with and maybe prejudice against “liberals,” whoever they may be exactly, or as mr cheesy says, slapping the “liberal” label on anyone you disagree with.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Nick Tamen
quote:
Steve, I have found myself wondering why “liberals” is always placed within scare quotes in your posts.
It might be because I'm not actually thinking in terms of 'scare quotes' but just an emphasis. Though experience does suggest that all too often the 'liberals' are very intolerant and illiberal in realty.
And the 'generalisation' about how 'liberals' treat the Bible is based on an awful lot of examples I've come across over the years.
So which liberal estate agents here or anywhere are intolerant and illiberal?
[ 03. November 2017, 13:03: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quotes are not for emphasis, Steve. Bold, Italic, Capitals if you must, but quotes mean either "what someone said" or "what people call it but it isn't really"
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You really don't like us progressives, do you Steve? You realise that by stating you don't know if anyone ends up in Hell you'd be considered a liberal by some don't you - the problem with finger pointing andone drawing is that it's a game all can play.
You are probably right; yes the Bible does clearly imply that some humans and other beings will end up 'in hell'. It helps if you think of hell not just as a mere 'place' to which someone could perhaps be inappropriately assigned, but as a state which people only end up in (a) because it's what they choose, being unable to accept living in heaven with God, and (b) because as they can't live with heaven they haven't left themselves a real alternative.
What is nevertheless clear is that Jesus talks frequently about 'hell' (and not only when he uses the actual word for it) and 'liberals' - and there certainly are more than a few - who try to oppose a Jesus who supposedly didn't believe in hell to a supposedly hellfire and damnation Paul seem to be reading the NT in a very odd way indeed - to which I would not feel it appropriate to apply the word 'progressive'.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Karl; Liberal Backslider
quote:
"what people call it but it isn't really"
Yeah, that basically - but why is that usage called "scare quotes"? What does that usefully contribute to the discussion?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Martin 60;
quote:
So which liberal estate agents here or anywhere are intolerant and illiberal?
it is precisely to distinguish so-called 'liberal' theologians from all kinds of other liberals - including the party I still just about vote for - that I use those quotes.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Steve, it would probably help things a great deal if you’d explain the difference you see between a liberal and a “liberal.”
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Karl; Liberal Backslider
quote:
"what people call it but it isn't really"
Yeah, that basically - but why is that usage called "scare quotes"? What does that usefully contribute to the discussion?
Scare quotes is a standard term for what you’re doing: The Wiki on Scare quotes.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Nick Tamen
quote:
slapping the “liberal” label on anyone you disagree with.
I thought I'd "slapped it" on people of a quite specific view/style-of-interpretation which certainly exists and which I disagree with because it's a bad form of interpretation. Which is what we ought to be discussing. Because I'm still puzzled by the way bib seems to have no problem with Jesus but a problem with Paul when, as Martin also pointed out, Jesus is also recorded saying essentially the things bib appears to disagree with in Paul.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You are probably right; yes the Bible does clearly imply that some humans and other beings will end up 'in hell'.
Only if you utterly mangle the different words used in different places together; totally reject the context in which the things were said (or depicted as saying) and totally reject the scholarship about the cultural understanding of the terms.
Yeah, in that situation it is plainly obvious what the bible teaches about hell. For everyone else, the thing is extremely complicated.
quote:
It helps if you think of hell not just as a mere 'place' to which someone could perhaps be inappropriately assigned, but as a state which people only end up in (a) because it's what they choose, being unable to accept living in heaven with God, and (b) because as they can't live with heaven they haven't left themselves a real alternative.
It kinda also helps if you don't parade your thoughts in the same breath as the bible - strongly implying that they're on the same level.
They're not. Your thoughts are exactly just that - thoughts.
No better or worse than anyone elses.
quote:
What is nevertheless clear is that Jesus talks frequently about 'hell' (and not only when he uses the actual word for it) and 'liberals' - and there certainly are more than a few - who try to oppose a Jesus who supposedly didn't believe in hell to a supposedly hellfire and damnation Paul seem to be reading the NT in a very odd way indeed - to which I would not feel it appropriate to apply the word 'progressive'.
Nope it is far from clear. If you'd bothered to even scratch the surface of the words used and translated "hell", you'd know this.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I thought I'd "slapped it" on people of a quite specific view/style-of-interpretation which certainly exists and which I disagree with because it's a bad form of interpretation. Which is what we ought to be discussing. Because I'm still puzzled by the way bib seems to have no problem with Jesus but a problem with Paul when, as Martin also pointed out, Jesus is also recorded saying essentially the things bib appears to disagree with in Paul.
My suggestion would be that if you’re puzzled by bib’s position and form of interpretation, then engage with bib’s position and interpretation rather than making generalized swipes at “liberals” and “liberalism”—especially when it’s really not at all clear who or what you mean by those terms.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Nick, thanks for the reference on 'scare quotes' - as it says at one point in that article, the use of the word 'scare' is potentially confusing, so it's not a helpful term.
"Liberal" is a word with a wide range of meaning from I think an origin in terms of generosity. As a term for theologians it seems to be used of again a quite broad collection of views all of which have in common that they basically try to devise a Christian theology significantly different from that found in the NT - but still want to be thought of as 'Christian'. As Machen said, something that calls itself Christian but is really a different animal, more about how the 'liberal' thinks it should be than about the original teaching.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Liberal" is a word with a wide range of meaning from I think an origin in terms of generosity. As a term for theologians it seems to be used of again a quite broad collection of views all of which have in common that they basically try to devise a Christian theology significantly different from that found in the NT - but still want to be thought of as 'Christian'. As Machen said, something that calls itself Christian but is really a different animal, more about how the 'liberal' thinks it should be than about the original teaching.
There is no Christian theology found in the NT. Christian theology is derived from the NT.
Asserting your opinion over and over again is not proof that your opinion = NT theology.
[ 03. November 2017, 14:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Nick, thanks for the reference on 'scare quotes' - as it says at one point in that article, the use of the word 'scare' is potentially confusing, so it's not a helpful term.
The article does note the word “scare” “may be confusing.” It is, nevertheless, a well-established term.
quote:
"Liberal" is a word with a wide range of meaning from I think an origin in terms of generosity. As a term for theologians it seems to be used of again a quite broad collection of views all of which have in common that they basically try to devise a Christian theology significantly different from that found in the NT - but still want to be thought of as 'Christian'.
This is going to be pretty subjective definition, turning on ones own understanding of what is taught in the NT. By this definition, I have a suspicion that from your perspective the RCs and the Orthodox, among others, are “liberal.”
And you still haven’t explained the difference between “liberal” (with quote marks) and liberal (without quote marks). You’ve suggested there’s a difference, but I for one can’t tell what it is.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And you still haven’t explained the difference between “liberal” (with quote marks) and liberal (without quote marks). You’ve suggested there’s a difference, but I for one can’t tell what it is.
It seems that there are two different kinds of liberals to Steve. There are the "good" liberals, like the Liberal party, who stand for various freedoms that Steve - as an Anabaptist and pacifist - strongly believes in.
But there are also "liberals" who are people who hold erroneous theology and palm off their obviously incorrect theology as liberal whilst at the same time as being illiberal - particularly with regard to accepting that Steve's views are legitimate and should be at least considered as possibly right.
He wants to be around people who say "hmm yes Steve, your views on gay sex are very interesting, I'll go away and think those over and decide whether they might be true" rather than "nope, that's total bollocks".
Which is a silly way to use the term in my view, but there we are.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Presumably, 'liberals' aren't 'Christian' really, in fact, they have 'departed' from the 'truth', or do I mean 'truthiness'? Who 'knows'? Not 'me'.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Always thought it was St Paul who, throwing away the Torah, departed from the 'Thou shalt nots...' and went more for the Yay, whatever floats your boat approach.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, 'liberals' aren't 'Christian' really, in fact, they have 'departed' from the 'truth', or do I mean 'truthiness'? Who 'knows'? Not 'me'.
Cut "it" "out".
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Always thought it was St Paul who, throwing away the Torah, departed from the 'Thou shalt nots...' and went more for the Yay, whatever floats your boat approach.
Perhaps you should actually read Paul??
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I have read some of Paul’s Letters.
He strikes me as someone who himself wasn’t much bothered by sex. However he seemed to be preaching general restraint in the light of excessive perversions in places like Corinth.
That message appears to have stood the test of time when one looks around today.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I have read some of Paul’s Letters.
He strikes me as someone who himself wasn’t much bothered by sex. However he seemed to be preaching general restraint in the light of excessive perversions in places like Corinth.
That message appears to have stood the test of time when one looks around today.
Right here I'm not too 'bothered about sex', except insofar as 'gay sex' is currently a hot topic and difficult to ignore; I mentioned it in an earlier post to show an example of liberalism in dealing with it. But I think I would challenge both the idea that Paul just 'threw away' the Torah and that his approach was just "Yay, whatever floats your boat". I think his position is both more complex and more hard-edged/less 'hippy' than that.
Jesus didn't throw the Torah out either, but as he put it 'fulfilled' it, and in terms of the thread topic here I don't see that he and Paul are in contradiction. Different emphases, yes, but truly different teaching, no. And I think some of the difference in emphasis is precisely because the gospels could, in effect, take for granted what was in the epistles and supplement it rather than repeat it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Always thought it was St Paul who, throwing away the Torah, departed from the 'Thou shalt nots...' and went more for the Yay, whatever floats your boat approach.
Perhaps you should actually read Paul??
My thoughts exactly!!!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy
quote:
quote:
quote from SL;
It helps if you think of hell not just as a mere 'place' to which someone could perhaps be inappropriately assigned, but as a state which people only end up in (a) because it's what they choose, being unable to accept living in heaven with God, and (b) because as they can't live with heaven they haven't left themselves a real alternative.
It kinda also helps if you don't parade your thoughts in the same breath as the bible - strongly implying that they're on the same level.
They're not. Your thoughts are exactly just that - thoughts.
No better or worse than anyone elses.
Kinda agree with you. Again contrary to how some have tried to portray me I don't by any means think I'm any kind of infallible interpreter. I do generally try to show some of the evidence, context, etc for my suggestions. In this case,for example, part of the evidence, mentioned in a previous post and therefore not repeated in the later one, is John 3/18-21 with its point that those condemned have themselves chosen the darkness. And I'd expect from you a discussion of the implications of that rather than just a sneering attack on me for making a fairly ordinary comment which of course I'm quite happy to have challenged by actual evidence. But not at all happy to have it just unhelpfully sneered at.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Nick Tamen;
quote:
My suggestion would be that if you’re puzzled by bib’s position and form of interpretation, then engage with bib’s position and interpretation rather than making generalized swipes at “liberals” and “liberalism”—especially when it’s really not at all clear who or what you mean by those terms.
I've just been back to bib's original comment and my response to both him and Martin 60. At that stage 'liberals' were not mentioned - that happened when mr cheesy and others widened the discussion.
I shared what appears also to have been Martin's puzzlement at bib having no problem with Jesus but having a problem with Paul when Jesus' own recorded statements are also pretty strong - like for instance the many references to 'hell/Gehenna' and so on. I'm quite happy to further discuss that with bib, but until bib shows up again I'm rather left with dealing with others like mr cheesy who have both widened the discussion and really personally insulted me as well.
I am preparing a clarification of some points you (Nick) have queried. Will likely not be finished till sometime tomorrow....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
At the risk of introducing a tangent. In the OP the statement was:
quote:
"In orthodox Christology, the words of Paul ARE the words of Jesus."
I don't think that was intended exclusively to refer to Paul - but to any writer of the NT or Scripture as a whole for that matter. So James = Jesus, Peter = Jesus, writer to the Hebrews = Jesus, etc.
I grew up in a church that frowned upon "red letter Bibles" (the ones that put the spoken words of Jesus in red type) as this "elevated" the words of Jesus above all other Scripture (so the argument went).
I think the idea was Jesus said he only spoke what his Father told him to, which was by the Holy Spirit anyway who is the one who as inspired all of Scripture, God the Father, Son & Spirit are all one anyway so basically any passage of Scripture should be read as if Jesus spoke it directly. What Brian McLaren would describe as a "flat" reading of Scripture.
Just thought I would make the point that I don't think the original issue related just to Paul specifically as I have come across similar statements from other people in conversation. Apologies if that was obvious.
I wouldn't think it was orthodox to simply equate with each other all Scriptural writers - or others whose words they record; but yes, in orthodox Christianity it's all Scripture so it's all from God.
The problem with a 'flat' interpretation is simply that whether with the Bible or most other books (I'm not sure I can quite say "all"), it's an unnatural way to read a text. In more everyday texts we apply, almost subconsciously, all kinds of considerations about context, background knowledge, etc., and interpret in quite a flexible and 3D if not multi-dimensional fashion. At the same time it is the text itself which is the arbiter of how good our interpretation is.
In Biblical interpretation the meaning of the word 'literal' has changed over the years and from c1920 has tended to mean a somewhat 'dumb wooden' or even 'flat' interpretation. Back in the Reformation, as per a passage I've frequently quoted from Tyndale, 'literal' was in contrast to the other (more exotic) of the scholarly 'Four-Fold Sense' interpretation'; and in that context the idea of 'literal' corresponded more to what we'd see as reading the Bible in the same kind of way as we read other books - which as I say is not usually a 'flat' reading.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Always thought it was St Paul who, throwing away the Torah, departed from the 'Thou shalt nots...' and went more for the Yay, whatever floats your boat approach.
This doesn't sound like any Pauline writings I've read. Can you point us to a place or two where he comes across this way to you?
[ 04. November 2017, 22:41: Message edited by: mousethief ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0