Scriptural literacy

[Foster Zygote]

I can't be the only one stunned at the irony.

Some of us are simply desensitized.

 

[Arthur Denton]

How appropriate, considering that every last one of your arguments has been with no one but yourself. Thanks for demonstrating that true "scholarship" consists of imposing one's own flaws on other people, debating against straw atheists, and sitting there arguing with the imaginary voices in one's head. You think your statements are clever or convey an air of superiority, but they prove no more than the petulant complaints of a schoolchild who didn't get his way. Your arguments, if I can even call them that, are actually demolishing your own credibility; the same credibility on which you have leaned so heavily when attacking other people.

Ouch, that burns! (with reason).

Any religion that requires a prime evil entity to use as a scapegoat for all the world's problems, or to handwave all the inconsistencies in its own dogma, must be very shallow indeed.

This pretty much sums it up. I'd add that any religion which has based its teachings on a 2000 years old book with no updates, reviews or admiting that the data that sustains the faith was tampered with deserves no respect from the rest of the world community. That means that every religion I know is out of my "respect range".

 

[Piggy]

Let's look at a claim Radrook has actually made several times on this forum, and see where that falls in terms of scriptural literacy. Radrook has repeatedly argued that Satan and his demons, not God, are responsible for the problem of evil in the world.

I would say that there is a fundamental problem with both Radrook's approach and your approach to this issue.

The concept of Satan as an embodiment of evil (or of being evil at all) is not found throughout the Bible. The Satan of Job, for instance, is simply not recognizable in contemporary Christianity's post-monastic, post-Miltonian conception of the rebellious angel out to steal souls. The two have nothing to do with each other.

However, the Satan of Matthew 4, Luke 13, and Acts 26 is more in line with that concept.

And equating the serpent in the garden with Satan is an entirely modern notion.

In trying to find in the Christian Bible a single, unified idea of Satan, one which portrays him as inherently evil and in opposition to God and which casts him as the serpent of Genesis, modern readers of the Bible take the text on their terms, not on its own terms.

 

[Toke]

As an scriptural illiterate I find it very amusing to point out the errors in radrook´s "reasoning".

Piggy and others with actual knowlegde of the bible are rather boring.
I mean, some would find it very interresting who wrote what, and what they they meant by it, who they vere inspired by and so on.
Of cource you find Radrook´s accucations of illiteracy insulting.

I find his claims to merging original context with modern society rather pathetic.
The theologist I know pick and choose to get something that fit modern moral values.

(I do have a problem with active and passive english vocabulary, learn to live with it)

 

[Piggy]

Piggy and others with actual knowlegde of the bible are rather boring.
I mean, some would find it very interresting who wrote what, and what they they meant by it, who they vere inspired by and so on.
Of cource you find Radrook´s accucations of illiteracy insulting.

Well, I won't deny that.

But of course that's true for every field.

When the topic of a thread is scriptural il/literacy, tho... you have to expect a few dull academic types like myself.

Still, in defense of legitimate Bible study, I have to say that if you dive in, it really is fascinating.

Tracing the development of the idea of Satan through time is much more interesting than propounding on some imaginary idea of the Devil!

And the Bible is one of the oldest, most widely read, and most influential books on the planet. It gives us insight into ancient cultures, as well as into modern cultures who use it for their purposes.

But like all kinds of study, unfortunately, it takes time and effort to uncover those fascinating and insightful bits.

 

[Piggy]

Radrook, I have another question for you.

Would you consider these men "Godless" and out to denigrate the Bible?

Mitchell Reddish, chair of the Religious Studies Dept. at Stetson University (link to dept. site, link to faculty page). Quoted in Oxford Press's release materials for the 3rd edition of their annotated NRSV (link to the PDF). Author of many books on the Bible (link to Amazon page). A Christian, and a professor of religion, with an M.Div. and Ph.D. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Ted Lewis, Hebrew Bible scholar (link to Dr. Lewis's CV, link to Dr. Lewis's books on Amazon), currently working on a book for the Anchor Bible series (link to Amazon entries) arguably the most prestigious translations of and commentaries on the books of the Bible for a popular audience.

Marc Lovelace, member of the team that excavated the Dead Sea scrolls, author of Compass Points for Old Testament Study (link to Amazon page), Christian, and lifelong teacher.

These men, Christian and Jew, are not "Bible believing" like you are.

They have no problem admitting that there are various strains of thought in the Bible, that there are irreconcilably different versions of the same stories told within the Bible (e.g., David's youth, God's opinion of the establishment of the kingship, Joshua's conquest, the creation), that the gospels attributed to Mark and Matthew were not written by Mark and Matthew, that the book of Daniel was composed after the events supposedly prophecied there.

Yet they are men who practice their religion, and who have dedicated their lives to studying the scripture.

Do you think these men are Godless, that they are out to denigrate the scripture?

 

[Greediguts]

Mark is the "most Jewish" because his theology is a clearly Jewish theology and his writings are directed at a Jewish community.

We don't see, for instance, John's Hellenistic philosophy, or Paul's sense of mission to the gentiles, or Luke's accusations against the Jews.

Mark is a Jew writing for Jews, and he sees the Jesus movement as a Jewish one.

Your comments made me do some searching as I would not know what is "clearly Jewish theology" and I found this at JewishEncyclopedia.com. "The gospel of Mark is written in the Pauline spirit, for pagans. Being, however, the oldest attempt at presenting the story of Jesus in full, it shows greater simplicity and better historical and geographical knowledge than the rest."-This is taken from the page regarding the New Testament Books and the attributed author of the work is Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D., Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Beth-El, New York; President of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio.

There is alot to go through at the site, so if I can determine why Rabbi Kohler feels Mark was written for pagans I'll let you know. If you have any examples or sources you could post to back your ideas on Mark I would appreciate it as I know little about Jewish customs, traditions, and history so any chance to learn is welcomed.

 

[Piggy]

Your comments made me do some searching as I would not know what is "clearly Jewish theology" and I found this at JewishEncyclopedia.com. "The gospel of Mark is written in the Pauline spirit, for pagans. Being, however, the oldest attempt at presenting the story of Jesus in full, it shows greater simplicity and better historical and geographical knowledge than the rest."-This is taken from the page regarding the New Testament Books and the attributed author of the work is Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D., Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Beth-El, New York; President of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio.

There is alot to go through at the site, so if I can determine why Rabbi Kohler feels Mark was written for pagans I'll let you know. If you have any examples or sources you could post to back your ideas on Mark I would appreciate it as I know little about Jewish customs, traditions, and history so any chance to learn is welcomed.

Actually, I think you're correct.

Obviously, I've been away from my studies for too many years.

Looking back at my notes, I see that Mark does take pains to explain Jewish customs, and that Matthew is much more aligned with assumptions which would be held by a Jewish audience.

So I got that wrong.

And this is interesting, because now I'll have to go back and review the passage that Matthew shares with Luke accusing the Jews.

I was basing too much on my recollection of that passage, and mis-remembering my studies, probably attributing the characteristics of Matthew's gospel to Mark because Mark was likely the earlier text.

Thanks for the correction.

I have a 3rd edition Oxford annotated Bible arriving any day, so this will give me a project to use to dive into it with!

 

[Greediguts]

Actually, I think you're correct.

Obviously, I've been away from my studies for too many years.

Looking back at my notes, I see that Mark does take pains to explain Jewish customs, and that Matthew is much more aligned with assumptions which would be held by a Jewish audience.

So I got that wrong.

And this is interesting, because now I'll have to go back and review the passage that Matthew shares with Luke accusing the Jews.

I was basing too much on my recollection of that passage, and mis-remembering my studies, probably attributing the characteristics of Matthew's gospel to Mark because Mark was likely the earlier text.

Thanks for the correction.

I have a 3rd edition Oxford annotated Bible arriving any day, so this will give me a project to use to dive into it with!

No need to apologize or thank me. Actually, I appreciate the error as it has made me realize how little I know about Jewish history. So more reading and learning for me!!!!

Reading what the JewishEncyclopedia.com article has to say about Matthew is quite interesting. As you pointed out, his hostility towards the Jews is evident in his telling of the crucifixion, even though the book of Matthew stands nearest to Jewish life and mode of thought. My question right away is why would the most Jewish book of the NT(as you said, probably written by a Jewish author for Jews), show more open hostility towards the Jews in his telling of the crucifixion? Was this caused by someone editing the work at a later date?

 

[joobz]

Piggy, Greediguts and others, Please
keep the discussion going. I'm learning a lot from all of you.


It's been my experience that when someone has a solid knowledge of the subject, they are never afraid to admit error.

 

[Radrook]

Example of godless reasoning


"The Jews didn't um understand what Jesus was talking bout cause they ummm, were not familiar with their own Messianic religious beliefs! So when Jesus talked to them bout a Messiah restoration stuff found in Isaiah they umm said :

"Huh? Watcha talkin bouts restorations? Ya making that up?"

"Well, both the Bible and secular history tells us that the Jews of those times learned such things in their youth. Look at the scriptures that tell us that these things were being taught in the synagogues!"

"Well, umm, that must have been injected there later to make it seem that way."

"Well, I guess everything the Bible tells us can be dismissed that way regardless of biblical and extra-biblical confirmation-right?"

"Ummm, uhuhm! Injected later!"

"How about non-biblical commentaries proving otherwise?"

"Ummm, uhuhm! Injected later!"

BTW

Perhaps this fellow is confusing a misunderstanding of Jesus message with total ignorance of the message's subject matter.

 

[Mark Felt]

Example of godless reasoning

That's strange, I haven't seen any reasoning like that in this thread or on this forum. Perhaps you'd like to cite where you brought this quote from, so that we can read the context?

 

[joobz]

Example of godless reasoning

that's an example of adhom attack mixed with strawman. Radrook, You've demonstrated a poor ability to defend your arguments.

You could learn from Piggy.

 

[Radrook]

Rad are you just avoiding to show examples (And what I mean by examples is well studied, researched, and discussed) that solidify your argument?
Or can you not answer the questions or examples put forth to you so they can be discussed?

That assumes that discussioin is possible with those hell-bent on foisting straw man arguments at every imaginbable and unimaginable opportunity. It isn't. What happens is they wind up arguing against their own propositions and I wind up watching the ridiculous time-wasting spectacle from the sidelines.

 

[Piggy]

My question right away is why would the most Jewish book of the NT(as you said, probably written by a Jewish author for Jews), show more open hostility towards the Jews in his telling of the crucifixion? Was this caused by someone editing the work at a later date?

No, I don't know of any evidence (or claims) of later editing.

And actually, it falls right in line with certain strains of prophetic tradition.

Just look at the screeds from Jeremiah!

There is a long tradition in ancient Hebrew texts of the true prophet of God rebuking Israel, who has fallen away and is whoring after false doctrine.

It's likely that Matthew is placing himself -- and Jesus -- in this tradition, positing the Jesus cult as the true Israel, and warning of the fate that will befall those who fail to recognize the true messiah, the true prophet of God.

 

[Mark Felt]

that Assumes That Discussioin Is Possible With Those Hell-bent On Foisting Straw Man Arguments At Every Imaginbable And Unimaginable Opportunity. It Isn't. What Happens Is They Wind Up Arguing Against Their Own Propositions And I Wind Up Watching The Ridiculous Time-wasting Spectacle From The Sidelines.

Holy ****ing ****.

 

[Piggy]

Example of godless reasoning


"The Jews didn't um understand what Jesus was talking bout cause they ummm, were not familiar with their own Messianic religious beliefs! So when Jesus talked to them bout a Messiah restoration stuff found in Isaiah they umm said :

"Huh? Watcha talkin bouts restorations? Ya making that up?"

"Well, both the Bible and secular history tells us that the Jews of those times learned such things in their youth. Look at the scriptures that tell us that these things were being taught in the synagogues!"

"Well, umm, that must have been injected there later to make it seem that way."

"Well, I guess everything the Bible tells us can be dismissed that way regardless of biblical and extra-biblical confirmation-right?"

"Ummm, uhuhm! Injected later!"

"How about non-biblical commentaries proving otherwise?"

"Ummm, uhuhm! Injected later!"

BTW

Perhaps this fellow is confusing a misunderstanding of Jesus message with total ignorance of the message's subject matter.

What fellow? Who are you quoting?

Radrook, you are quickly becoming irrelevant to the discussion on this thread, which is getting rather interesting.

 

[joobz]

What fellow? Who are you quoting?

Radrook, you are quickly becoming irrelevant to the discussion on this thread, which is getting rather interesting.

Unfortunately, Piggy, you are being too kind.

The true statement is:
"Radrook, you have become irrelevant to the discussion on this thread, which is getting rather interesting."

 

[joobz]

That assumes that discussioin is possible with those hell-bent on foisting straw man arguments at every imaginbable and unimaginable opportunity. It isn't. What happens is they wind up arguing against their own propositions and I wind up watching the ridiculous time-wasting spectacle from the sidelines.

glass houses,
beams and motes,

There are limiteless ways of describing hypocricy and projection. It's a shame that those who claim to follow Jesus habitually commit the sins he preached against.

 

[Radrook]

What really saddens me about scriptural illiteracy is that it leads to the conclusion that anything which the person doesn't know and therefore might find unfamiliar is a personal interpretation. It seems to me that there are mindless individuals who surf the net, see all the doubts expressed about the scriptures and assume that everything the Bible says is self contradictory. In short, they don't have to think, just accuse the person who is stating a basic universally agreed-upon biblical fact of personal interpretation and Voila! He's a respected skeptic. A true pity since skepticism is the diametrically opposed opposite of that type of simplistic,lethargic, uncritical mentality.