aikido7

Individual trees will tell us nothing until we can analyze the soil, the weather patterns, the climate and the evolution of tree species to then fully appreciate the sweep of the forest we find before us.

As in forests, so in textual studies.

Rationalistic/literalistic proof-texting is an enjoyable game as far as it goes, but the ship has long since run aground and it is time for some believers to leave the little board game in the stateroom, get out onto the deck and climb into a lifeboat.

Appreciation and understanding of Scripture does not begin by cherry-picking a few verses, surrounding yourself with disgruntled alarmists masquerading as apologists with axes to grind and putting together what is in effect an elaborate system to keep from facing the obvious.

If Christians are to post here on the New Testament, I would hope they would deem it ethically necessary to spell out what they can actually find out about a passage and what they actually believe about it--and to clearly communicate that difference.

There is a wide consensus among scholars that Mark was the earliest narrative gospel written--sometime in the late 60s or 70s, by most accounts. Recent archeological field work in the earliest layer of Capernaum, where Mark's gospel tells of the stretcher bearers digging through the roof (Mark 2:4) so that the Jesus can heal the paralytic makes perfect sense: wooden beams and branches in the ceilings were covered with reeds and mud. Luke's later account shows that he edits and changes Mark's gospel to read that the paralytic was lowered "through the tiles."

Such a statement is archeologically indefensible.

Also according to archeology and the dating of the gospel accounts, Luke was also wrong about a synagogue at Nazareth, since a "synagogue as building" is not supported by the archeological record.

While not denying any part of his underlying message, we can see Luke clearly is writing from a vantage point outside Palestine and presumes Jesus was not from the lower peasant class but preached among the more elite who had tiled roofs. In doing this he slightly distorts the meaning of Jesus and his preaching.

To hold fixed and frozen trees up as representing a particular forest environment
is like pointing to an icon instead of appreciating its orginal iconoclastic context.

The shift from isolating bits of scriptural verses to "prove a point" toward an in-depth understanding of context, history, anthropology and archeology patterns which surround those verses has been occuring for only about 300 years. This is a drop in the eternal bucket and thus it should really come as no surprise that we all have a long journey ahead of us in becoming biblically literate.

We cannot do it by ourselves, but must sometimes stand on the shoulders of giants (and midgets) before us. We cannot learn how Jesus became Son of God and/or Lord of the Universe by hearing verses read peicemeal from the pulpit. Books like R. Brown's Birth of the Messiah, Gunther Bornkamm's Jesus of Nazareth and From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredricksen should be carefully contrasted with Josh McDowell's Evidence
That Demands a Verdict, Jesus and the Victory of God by Wright and The Christology of Jesus by Ben Witherington.

And don't just read a conservative scholar without reading a progressive one. Seek out West Coast underground writings as well as church-funded publications. Read both "Christianity Today" and "Commonweal," "Tikkun" and "Charisma." After all of that, go back to Scripture itself, mindful that no human alive today can authoritatively know each instance when the Bible is speaking specifically and literally or when it is using figurative language to press a point.

Through a narrow dissemination of information, many Christians and non-Christians have come to see the sacred through the lens of believing or not believing, true or false, right or wrong, in or out. The human community and the Christian community is much broader than that. The Christian term "grace" and the secular term "acceptance" are the keys here.

Biblical scholars will not give us answers, but if they are ethical, they give us facts which can enrich our understanding and let the texts speak for themselves, unadorned without agenda or interpretation.

And a beautiful forest of trees sustains much, much life.

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]

MOJO-JOJO

Well said, aikido. I wish Tercel was capable of understanding this, but everything outside of his indoctrination is just "silly".

aikido7

Thanks, M-J. Did you ever notice how fundamentalists speak and teach their faith literally while Jesus did his in parables? To many "rationalists"--of which fundamentalism is a part--poetry and parable is indeed "silly."

Justus

Very good ... I wanted to post before ... the negative reactions and nit picking starts

While you are specificaly (so it seems focusing on the NT) I think this also hold true for the OT and how X-tians assume it is given that the two are a single unit

really liked ***After all of that, go back to Scripture itself, mindful that no human alive today can authoritatively know each instance when the Bible is speaking specifically and literally or when it is using figurative language to press a point.
*** and I might add no-one really "KNOWS" what is and is not scripture.... in the few short months I have been reading this site there are numerous beliefs about the Bible (Who - When - How) I have had to discard & seriously question.

Also a very big IF and how can we discern ....<STRONG>Biblical scholars will not give us answers, but if they are ethical, they give us facts which can enrich our understanding and let the texts speak for themselves, unadorned without agenda or interpretation. </STRONG>


Edit to add the last quote and shorten the excessive quoting of the OP

[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: Justus ]