They were still wrong in their exegesis and still did not represent any part of traditional Christian teaching.
I forgot this one.
Atonement by a human sacrifice is most definitely subrational and subethical. This is one of my biggest problems with Christianity. The idea that God would require a blood sacrifice strikes me as unbelievably primative and absurd.
Q is the term for the common written source which skeptics believe to be embedded in Matthew and Luke.
Fixed that for ya.
If they agree, you say they must have copied. If they don’t agree, you say there is a contradiction. And you claim not to be biased?!
Good thing your so smart. I dont know what I would do if you weren’t here to explain things for me. :rolleyes:
The rapture is Jesus taking away his people. Don’t put your own spin on it then try to disprove that. I think you dopers call that a straw man.
First, what’s your authority for saying it’s a bad translation? Do you speak Greek too? Or do you just think it’s bad because it’s in modern english?
But if it makes you feel better, here you go:
And for the Greek Scholars in our midst:
Is that better?
Thanks, I’ve read it.
I’ll explain this to you, but I’m sure it’s unnecessary, since you are such a great scholar, and know so much about the context and culture in which it was written. :rolleyes:
Under roman law, a woman was not allowed to interrupt, interject, or ask questions to anybody in a position of authority or instruction, aka priest, pastor, basically anybody speaking in a position of authority. Only the husband or father was allowed to do so. And since you are not in any authority, it’s perfectly ok for me to do what I do. Especially since I’ve already asked my husband for permission and his is all I need. Anyway, you have no authority for me to usurp, so there is no problem.
But of course you already know the historical context, so this is all just review for you, right?
That should be “you’re”. Sorry.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Actually, you’re wrong. Morgan Edwards, founder of Rhode Island College, now known as Brown University, wrote an eschatological essay for a class, which was published in 1788 as: Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millenium, Last-Novelties. In it he said:
The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in the air” (1 Thess 4:17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millenium, as we shall see hereafter; but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (john 14:2), and so disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment must begin” and that will be “at the house of God” (1 Pet 4:17) (pg 7)
Another event previous to the millenium will be the appearing of the son of man in the clouds, coming to raise the dead saints and change the living, and to catch them up to himself, and then withdraw with them, as observed before [i.e., pg 7]. This event will come to pass when Antichrist be arrived at Jerusalem in his conquest of the world; and about three years and a half before his killing the witnesses and assumption of godhead… (pg 21)
The last event, and the event that will usher in the millenium, will be, the coming of Christ from paradise to earth, with all the saints he had taken up thither (about three years and a half before)…(pg 24)
In addition, Pseudo-Ephraem, written in the 6th century:
For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. (Section 2)
…coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders…(Section 10)
Two very clear declarations that a pre-tribulation taking away, rapture, of the saints occurs; at the end of the tribulation period, those same saints return with Christ as He sets His foot on the Mount of Olives, ending the age and beginning His millenial reign.
Two quick and simple sources to dispute the nonsense that Darby was the originator of the Rapture of the church.
Finally, see Paul’s words in 2 Thes 2:1-2:
Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
Note, the church in Thessalonica has become alarmed at false information attributed to Paul, indicating that the day of the Lord (the tribulation) had already begun. If there were only an end-time gathering of the saints, post tribulation, they wouldn’t be alarmed, rather, they would be rejoicing that their redemption was that much closer. No, instead, they are concerned that the coming of Jesus Christ and their being gathered to him had already occurred (the Rapture!), and they had been left behind to face the great tribulation! Paul reassures them with additional information and guidance to discern the end-time events and the timing of the gathering of the saints.
There is much more scripture to support pre-tribulation rapture of Christians. Paul, as the apostle to the gentiles, was the one to deliver this “mystery” to the church for whom it was intended. At no time does the Bible tell believers to prepare for the tribulation; we are only told to watch for the early signs as indicators that our redemption draws near.
Nope. It’s the common written soorce which has been proven to be embedded in Matthew and Luke.
**
By “agree” I don’t mean that they jibe without contradiction. They are word for word identical…in Greek. It is impossible for two independent writers to come up with precisely the same translations and precisely the same framing narratives. It can’t happen. It didn’t happen. Q is real. QED.
No credible scholar seriously tries to even argue with it any more.
I’m not putting any spin on it, I’m telling you what the plain reading says.
And no, the rapture is not “Jesus taking away his people” Are you sure you really understand Rapture theology?
The part that is made up…the part that is not in the Bible…is that there will be an ascension of the faithful before the tribulations. It;s the before part that is off the reservation for traditional Christian doctrine. Pretty much all Christians agree that Jesus is going to come back and save everybody. Many (probably most) Christians even think they’re going to sail up into the sky. The difference is that they think it’s all going to happen on the last day, not that Jesus is going to save some people who are then going to watch with smug glee as all the sinners go through the tribulations. That part is not in the Bible. That part is what is conventionally called the “Rapture,” the preliminary ascension not the ultimate one.
Thanks. Eveyone of those translations backs up my interpretation that it was simple a reassurance that the dead would go to Heaven with the living.
That’s a nice, twisty-turny, convoluted, self-serving, non-literal interpretation of scripture isn’t it.
BTW, cite for that Roman law? I call bullshit. From what I know of Roman law, women had it relatively good compared to some of the ancient world.
(You have to ask your husband’s permission to post on a message board? :eek:
Creepy…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NaSultainne *
**
You’re only citing Rapture believers who make specious interpretations of scripture. You’re not proving me wrong.
You’re right that there were precursors to Darby but really, this who Rature/end days theology is his baby. He synthicized some earlier elements into his own fevered thesis.
The majority of Christianity never has, and still does not, believe in the Rapture.
Diogenes the Cynic:
quote:
Originally posted by badchad
Diogenes the Cynic:
I also know something about the composition of the Bible which allows me to look at the intent of a given passage or book and the intent of the author in the dialogue he give to his characters.
Poppycock.
How so?
I don’t think having your degree in theology gives you anymore insight into the intent of thirdhand accounts of what a man said 2000 years ago, of which you think there is only a 25% chance (at most) that he even said at all. People mistake intent from one post to the next. Look how long it took for me and Rounder to reach agreement. For you to say you have special insight into the intent of the various characters of the bible is pure hubris if you ask me.
quote:
I agree there. Well, the “praise me or else” stance attributed to god throughout is pretty unified.
Except for the “praise me” part and the “or else” part.
Old testament; praise god or die. New testament; praise god or burn in hell. Need specific examples?
quote:
You’ll have to take that up with them. Polycarp can defend his church better than I can.
As we have both seen of late Polycarp can’t even defend his own beliefs against well reasoned arguments, I doubt he would do much better with that of his church.
So how is that an issue for me?
It’s not. You mentioned his name and seeing as how Polycarp has chickened out of just about every discussion I have had with him all while promicing to answer my questions I just like to make it known that, I haven’t forgotten. (
for you Poly)
I tried to describe my understanding of the Anglican interpretation (that they interpret it within a specific historical and cultural context).
Still sounds to me like the Anglicans aren’t interpreting anything on the given quote just making stuff up.
I apologize if it sounded like I was proposing a personal interpretation (although I do happen to think the Anglican interpretation is quite reasonable). I’m actually not too sure about that quote. Since I don’t think Jesus was God or that he thought he was God, I think it’s unlikely that his intent was to deliver some universal, eternal command about marriage. He was talking about marriage practices as he knew them. He had no way of knowing what marriage would be like in 2000 years, in some other culture, where the practices he was addressing no longer existed. (And that’s if he said that line at all).
I got your point, I guess then we will have to let Polycarp answer as to why Jesus in his omniscience didn’t put a little more forethought into his statement.
It was not intended to an absolute, literal injunction for all time. That’s a fucking stupid, overly legalistic way to read it and that kind of pedantry was exactly what Jesus hated in religion.
What makes you so sure Jesus hated religion? Was it something Matthew made Jesus say that you have only %25 percent confidence that he said in the first place?
quote:
My point is that the Episcopalians have no obligation whatever to follow your’s and Jersey’s definition of Christianity or your simplistic interpretations of scripture.
I’ll take simple interpretations over tortured cherry pickings any day of the week.
And I’ll take reasoned and compassionate contemplation over mindless literalism. Tomato, tomahto.
If you actually believed in any of this BS I would now ask for you reasoned and compassionate contemplation for why god unfairly distributes his gifts and then punished people for not receiving his gift that he offered to others but not them. Personally I don’t think the word “reasoned” should apply at all in these instances.
*The Angican position is that interpretation of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit. make of that what you will. At least it offers an alternative to irrational, “infallible” literalism.[/]
Sure irrational subjectivism.
*2.) Timothy 2: 11,12
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
I don’t see anything about this only pertaining to church. Soounds like a selective interpretation to me.*
See Diogenes, it’s not so hard.
I don’t think I have special insight (and my degree is in Religious Studies, not theology. There’s a difference) but there are certain that things that can be learned about the motivations of some Biblical authors by looking at such things as when a book was written, who the audience was, the literary style of the author, paralells to Hebrew scripture, overriding themes within a narrative, etc. It’s not that earth shaking and it’s not that speculative. There is a minimum level of consensus as to certain motivations and intentions by authors. I am not claiming any new insights, only that I have been somewhat educated as to what the scholarly consensuses are and how they were arrived at.
There are also examples where those ideas are contradicted. I wasn’t saying that “praise God or die” is not in the Bible, only that even that can be contradicted.
I didn’t say that Jesus hated religion, I said that he hated pedantry in religion. One of the most overriding themes in the parables and other sayings is that compassion is more important than legalism.
I don’t understand your Matthew question.
If you’re asking how I got to the 25% figure, I think you’re misstating it. I am not saying I am 25% “confident” in any given saying. I am 99% confident that he said some specific things (about a quarter of what’s attributed to him) and 99% confident that he didn’t say some other things. (I am 100% confident that he didn’t say a word after he died ;))
BTW, *badchad, do you know how to use the quote function?
Just do it like this (but with brackets instead of parentheses)
(quote) blah blah blah (/quote)
Hi, Jersey. With respect, both believers and nonbelievers alike believe that at one time, the Q Document existed. Also, their reasons for presuming its existence are rather more complicated than your epitome above would suggest. It is also not a universally accepted solution to the synoptic problem, as Diogenes seems to argue. It is just the most widely accepted solution.
Also, a much more readable Greek text can be found here.
For what it’s worth, Jersey, The Message translation is pretty misleading. I am surprised that someone with your serious interest in the actual text of scripture uses it.
It’s pretty universal that there was a common written source. That source may or may not have been a sayings gospel, but a common source is beyond serious dispute.
(The only other possibility is that Luke directly copied Matthew but that hypothesis has a number of logical problems with it).
A common written source. Not necessarily Schliermacher’s Q hypothesis.
The exact nature of the source is not really that important. “Q” is used as a matter of convenience to refer to the common material in Luke and Matthew.
The most likely theory, and the most agreed upon, is that Q was an early sayings gospel but it is conceivable the common source existed in some other form (a lost narrative gospel culled only for sayings? An apostolic “notebook” containing remembered sayings?)
The part that matters is that there was a common Greek source and that Matthew and Luke were not composed independently.
This is entirely incorrect. The exact nature of the source is absolutely crucial. Q has never been referred to as a “matter of convenience” by scholars; rather, it has been the source of spectacular disagreement over its contents and its nature. Yes, anyone who reads Luke and Matthew can see that there is common material, but that common material hardly in and of itself justifies the existence of the Q Document let alone assumptions as to its content.
Which does not in and of itself prove or even suggest the existence of a Q Document. I suggest you take a look at the Griesbach Two-Source Hypothesis, which is now the most widely held solution to the Synoptic Problem. I suggest you look into the works of William J. Farmer, probably the most vocal modern champion of the Two-Source theory. Here is what Farmer says in a 1998 to the Society for New Testament Studies:
I think that your belief in the Q Document is a little complacent, *Diogenes. There is a lot of good scholarship out there that can help you to reevaluate your views on the New Testament if you are so inclined.
** What?! In what way can no religious beliefs be proven?
There are plenty of religious beliefs that can be proven, and disproven.
Maeglin, do you have a link describing the Griesbach hypothesis? I’m not familiar with it. It’s been a few years since I was in college but at that time, at least, Q was pretty much considered gospel (so to speak) in Biblical criticism.
I also haven’t heard any convincing reason to challenge the priority of Mark (there’s no question it was a source for Matthew). I can’t really evaluate Griesbach or Farmer without reading their arguments. Do you have a link that would would give a basic rundown of the theory? Or perhaps you could summarize it yourself. The only two-source hypothesis I’m familiar with is the Mark-Q hypothesis. What does Griesbach hypothesize?
My googling seems to show that Griesbach favors a Matthew -> Luke -> Mark succession with no Q. This seems unbelievably weak to me. The evidence for the priority of Mark is all but overwhelming.
I also found the Farrer hypothesis (Mark -> Matthew -> Luke) which is not impossible, I suppose, but there is no real evidence that Luke used Matthew as a source (in fact, Luke disagrees with Matthew quite a bit). I can’t find a rundown on the specifica arguments for these hypotheses, though. Perhaps you can help?
I am mystified by your assertions. If a religious belief could be proven it wouldn’t be a religious belief it would be known fact.
It is a religious belief for many that God created Adam and Eve and that there was no evolution. The fact that these assertions can and have been disproven does not alter the fact that people still believe them.
Religious beliefs are beyond Popperian falsifiability. Even if a test can be devised to falsify a belief, a new assertion can always be made as to why the belief has not really been falsified (e.g God created the earth with all those fossils and made it look old just to fool people). You can’t ever falsify “Goddidit.”
That’s utterly ridiculous. Your assertion that religious beliefs cannot be known facts has no basis.
And yes, you can falsify “Goddidit”; if God’s intervention cannot be distinguished from a lack of intervention in any way, it’s meaningless to say that God intervened.