Jane H

Sheshbazzar- Thank you for a very full set of replies.

Firstly, there are more than three common points between Paul and Jesus- those were just the first to hand; the book (or via: amazon.co.uk) referred to lists 400 pages of other connections.

Secondly, recent approaches in scholarship have re-invigorated the question of his role. By viewing the NT writings within their contemporary context, the supposed differences between apostolic and Pauline teaching have been shown to be just not there.

For example on Torah. The OT told of an “age to come” in which the “nations” would share in God’s salvation (Isaiah 2:2 etc). This gave rise to the question, “Do they have to keep the Torah?” The experiences of God amongst the gentiles related in Acts, and the understanding of the changed role of Torah lead to the Jerusalem council in which Peter and James BACKED UP Paul’s reading, that it was not necessary to keep it. With this decision taken, the disciples and Paul worked closely together on getting Christianity underway. (The only known conflict, Galatians 2, being a reminder to Peter of a decision he had already taken).

The main conflict I referred to was not with the apostles, but with Judaism. Judaism was an extremely strong and vibrant culture, religion and national identification rolled into one. There were many who regarded teaching making the Torah optional as a betrayal of Judaism.

Finally, I partly agree with your analysis on getting things from the Bible. Does that surprise you? I think the sort of approach that you grew up with (if I read your powerful account correctly), that the Bible should be approached in the same way that Muslims approach the Koran, is misguided. It’s based on an idea of how the Bible should be.

I prefer to let the Bible speak on its terms. (I am convinced that OT and NT tell a coherent story and that something shocking happened that caused the sorts of rethinking exampled above.)

If I might finish with an overdue nod to the OP, this all leads to my suggestions for commandments. Jesus wanted us to follow God. He wanted us to love others as ourselves. The rest is gravy.

The outworking of that means visiting the lonely, helping the poor, avoiding hurting others, and not behaving selfishly.

Toto

Wenham's book is reviewed here (from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.)

bacht

I would challenge the coherence of the NT, there seem to be multiple voices and perspectives, ranging from simple practical religion as you describe all the way to rabid apocalyptic. Then there are the quibbles about docetism vs incarnationism, and of course the central question of whether Yeshua the Nazarene ever walked this earth at all.

Would you agree with the characterization of catholic Christianity as "Judaism lite", that is, a form of Yahweh worship without the rituals and regulations?

bacht

Another thought: the editors of the NT seemed to consciously copy the OT in abbreviated form, to wit:

Gospels echoing Genesis (esp. John "In the beginning")
Acts echoing the OT histories
Epistles echoing the prophets
Revelation echoing the apocalypticists like Daniel

In other words, the redactors imposed a pseudo-chronological mirror of the Hebrew writings, condensing a millenium of Jewish experience into a few decades (allegedly) of Christian history.

Obviously the catholics were serious about the "new covenant" theme, at least at the level of text organization. Can we trust them about the content of these texts, or their interpretations of the original Xtian mss?

rizdek

Maybe, but that would just be a guess, wouldn't it? If it meant nonattachment, wasn't there any words that would have meant that instead of hate? Like, don't be so attached to...father, mother, etc etc that it interferes with your relationship with me. That would be clear wouldn't it?

Sheshbazzar

Something that got left behind in this thread, in the digression into discussion of the NT use of the word "hate", and has not yet recieved sufficient attention was the implications of these following verses;
(To get to the point, I"ll condense text and bold the key words.)

Each of these suggest much more than some simple "principal of non-attachment".
They quite clearly call for men to physically "forsake" and to "leave" their homes, their families and material possessions to "follow" Jesus and the gospel.
And this is not directed only at his immediate followers or the Apostles as indicated by Matt 19:29 & Mark 10:29 "no man..."
These sayings are joined and supplemented by;
These make it quite clear that men were (are) -required- by Jesus to leave their homes and families behind to "FOLLOW" him, and "GO" preach the gospel.
No allowance is made for any man to remain and take care of his family, or concern himself with family matters, they are "forsake" and "leave"-"house, brothers, sisters, father, mother, wife, children, and lands" and "GO preach the Kingdom of God"
If they do not forsake and leave their entire family then they are not "fit for the kingdom of God."

This would not even allow for the wife and kids to travel along with that preacher, as he is expressly instructed to "forsake" and to "leave" his wife, children, and home.

I see no other honest way to interpret or understand these verses, than as a call for men to abandon (forsake and leave) their families, as the only way to properly obey and "FOLLOW" Jesus in the way that He commands.
So it is not just "love your family less than Him" its "love your family -one hell of a lot less- than Him" even forsake and leave them.

And Why so? as I asked earlier, and the answer is and can be, nothing more or less than that the individual that so shirks all his family responsibilities is promised a pie-in-the-sky place in the Kingdom of Heaven, for only himself, and no one else.
To me a person that would do such a thing to his own family, to his father and mother, and to his wife and children, comes far closer in his actions to the definition of the word hate, and of actually "hating" them, than he does to just "loving them less".

As a family man, one that loves my wife and my children, family and friends, I would much rather die with them, and in the care and defense of them, than to live forever in luxury with the knowledge that I had so betrayed them so as to save my own worthless ass.
I said it once, and I'll say it again;
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
I'd say, "Take a hike" or "Go to hell you damn demon possessed piece of shit" to ANY religious loony, that attempted to persuade me that I needed to "hate", or abandon ("forsake-leave") my family, my loved ones, and friends, to follow their crazy half-baked religious teachings.
What the hell is wrong with peoples heads, that permits them to continue to be so utterly stupid, self-centered, and irresponsible to their loved ones, as to buy into such odious religious crap?

This is what I was attempting to express in my earlier posts #22, 39 & 41,
All the digressions into possible meanings of the word "hate" do not at all alter what I was pointing out.
And I'm not afraid to use the word HATE in its most vehemenent sense, I HATE that vile abomination called the "Christian religion", more than I hate anything in the world.
I don't hate "Christ Jesus" because he is only a imaginary character in a book of lies. (might as well hate The Tooth Fairy)
I do not hate any person on earth, only sick ideas and vile teachings that are peddled in the name of a religion.
I do not even hate the Bible, after all it is only a book, it is men that make of it what they will.

Finally, I am not blind to what actually is good in religion, or to the will of some men to do good. The Bible certainly supplies us with many wise sayings, and gives us food for thought, after all, my own ethical revulsion would not be so exercised, were it not for the existence of those "bad things" that are also part and parcel of the Bible.

rhutchin

Better than that. You have the Bible itself.

rhutchin

From what you have written, I don't think you were ever able to deal with the errors presented in your youth and those errors later shaped your desire to study and the conclusions you reached and now expound.

Deus Ex

Except that everyone interprets the the Bible differently based on presuppositional beliefs before they ever crack the book open.

Example: Let an Arminian and a Calvinist Christian exegete the meaning of Romans 8-9 and you will get two very different interpretations. We interpret the Bible using hermeneutics that we are trained to use.

Christians would not need Bible Study classes if just anyone could read the Bible and come away with the exact same exegesis.

bacht

Ah, but the Protestant reformers removed the need for specialist interpreters by providing vernacular translations to Everyman...