Scriptural literacy

[Ethnikos]

Not really, no. It was the fact that God has chosen Jesus to fulfill a role and had instituted the new covenant that was important. There was no longer a need for an intermediary. That was the significance of the tearing of the veil in the gospels -- God is now directly available to all with no need for the Holy of Holies.

There are a few places that use the word chosen in the New testament to apply to Jesus. One is when the mob is mocking Jesus at the crucifixion, when they say, "If you are the Chosen One, save yourself". Not exactly the best source to prove Jesus was chosen by God. It can be argued that the very word, Messiah means the chosen one. Some translations have John the Baptist saying of Jesus, "He is the Chosen of God." but that comes from a manuscript that I suspect and do not trust. I go with the majority text that says "The beloved of God". A translation of Mathew has the voice from heaven saying, "the one I have chosen", and again the majority text has it as "who I love".
There are a couple of places that use Old Testament quotes to show how Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. Those verses could be understood to mean Choice, as in of a high quality. Otherwise, the New Testament does not describe Jesus as being Chosen other than one verse that I feel sums up how to understand Jesus, in Ephesians 1:4
"For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love."
I suppose one could take this to mean that before creation God knew us all by name, but I take it to mean that God the Father and God the Son agreed that in the eventuality that mankind would be caught up into the clutches of sin and were in need of the drastic sort of intervention that would amount to God becoming personally involved, the Son was allowed by the Father to participate.
We can take a look at what Paul says about what Jesus Christ does in the role of intermediary.
Justify us.
Galatians 2:16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Romans 3:24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
Blesses us.
Galatians 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.
Gives us faith.
Romans 10:17 Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ.
Gives us strength.
Philippians 4:13 I am able to do all things through the one who strengthens me.
2 Thessalonians 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by grace gave us eternal comfort and good hope, 2:17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good thing you do or say.
Allows us to thank God.
Romans 1:8 First of all, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world.
Colossians 3:17 And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
We receive grace through.
Romans 5:17 For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!
Philippians 1:11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.
Ephesians 3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, so that, because you have been rooted and grounded in love,
Appoints Apostiles.
Galatians 1:1 From Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)
Judge hearts.
Romans 2:16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.
Brings deliverance.
1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.
Is a god.
Colossians 2:9 For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form,

God did not, at the appropriate time, pick out a suitable subject to suffer and die for some obscure reason, and to have no further purpose than to be a model for religious icons. Jesus was sanctified and came out of God, sent from heaven for the fulfilment of the covenant. He is the new covenant in himself and represents it and carries out its administration.
The Most Holy Place was the housing of the Ark of the Covenant. The covering for the ark was called the Mercy Seat. Another name is the Propitiation cover. The propitiation is what protects the sinner from the Law, in the Ark, killing him. The reality that the earthly Ark was a type of, was Jesus and his blood, as shown to witnesses, on the cross.
Romans 3:25 "God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed."

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, but from which I would remove Colossians, since that letter was most likely not written by Paul.

Paul does not seem to view Jesus as god, but rather in cosmic spiritual terms following the resurrection.

As Piggy said, the new covenant was established for humanity by God through Jesus. But there does not seem to be a sense in Paul that Jesus serves an ongoing role as intermediary. That idea -- that Jesus is an intermediary -- seems to me (others may disagree) to be a later interpretation, a later Christology. Moses served as an ongoing intermediary. Jesus' sacrifice tore the veil in the Holy of Holies so that God is now once and forever available to all.

Paul's theology is, of course, more complicated than that, but that's what I get as the gist of it, especially as it relates to this conversation.

 

[Ethnikos]

OK, but from which I would remove Colossians, since that letter was most likely not written by Paul.

Hebrews goes into this aspect of Jesus but I left that out for the same reason you would leave out Colossians.

Paul does not seem to view Jesus as god, but rather in cosmic spiritual terms following the resurrection.

Like I said earlier, Paul does not make a good trinitarian, especially not anything like Athanasius was. Paul does not make clear demarcations between the roles of different entities. But, like you and Piggy say (or I imagine that you do), there is a more clear distinction, with Paul, between the role of the human person, Jesus and the Cosmic Jesus, than he makes between whatever divinities or Spirits are involved in the ongoing application of the covenant sealed by Jesus' blood.

As Piggy said, the new covenant was established for humanity by God through Jesus. But there does not seem to be a sense in Paul that Jesus serves an ongoing role as intermediary. That idea -- that Jesus is an intermediary -- seems to me (others may disagree) to be a later interpretation, a later Christology. Moses served as an ongoing intermediary. Jesus' sacrifice tore the veil in the Holy of Holies so that God is now once and forever available to all.

Jesus through an act of infinite sacrifice, gave satisfaction to the demands of the Law, so that God is free to bestow gifts upon us, who were previously undeserving. The giving of the Law was unnecessary for righteous men but was brought into effect because of sinfulness. A one time event took those decrees of condemnation that were mandated by the Law, and did away with them, by paying the price of the debt with his own blood. This mediation was carried out by the man, Jesus, who died in the flesh. Previous to this, God passed over the sins of the repentant. That does not mean that he forever ignored them, but lifted the burden, of the guilt of the sins, from the sinner. That guilt is applied differently, than it would have been, without the intercession of God. The collective sin of the world was applied to one man.
A new period of grace comes and that same man, who was earlier dead and God raised from the dead, is now with God and is given authority to rule, until the consequences of his earlier actions are brought to fruition.
1 Timothy 1:16 "But here is why I was treated with mercy: so that in me as the worst, Christ Jesus could demonstrate his utmost patience, as an example for those who are going to believe in him for eternal life."
This same Jesus, not a mortal man any longer, demonstrates his power in a spiritual way, in those he chooses, to prepare them to one day be introduced to the Father. They are not on their own worthy but must receive grace from Jesus Christ to confidently approach the God of the Ages.

Paul's theology is, of course, more complicated than that, but that's what I get as the gist of it, especially as it relates to this conversation.

Thanks for pointing those things out. There is a lot more "Christology" going on than I was aware of, apparently.

 

[Greediguts]

So...hey. How'ya doing? Anything new? Read any good books lately?

A ways back in this thread we discussed the Gospel of John. I ended up looking at John again as I've been discussing the NT/OT with some fundamentalist evangelicals.

Just had a thought and wanted to get people's opinions/ideas.

Gospel of John -The women at the well-

Chapter 4 is the story of Jesus sitting alone by a well and talking to a Samaritan woman who came to draw water. I never noticed this before but the story parallels OT stories of someone meeting their future mate at a well (in Exodus, Moses met his wife at one; Jacob met Rachel; Isaac and Rebecca). Many others have noticed this. Obviously, the story is flipped because the woman takes interest in Jesus. Jesus has no physical desire for her but wants to lead her to understanding who he is and to live a virtuous life. By the end of the story, she becomes the first witness in John's Gospel. Also, a whole village of Samaritans start believing Jesus is the Messiah (funny thing that, since in Matthew 10:5 Jesus forbids his disciples from even entering a Samaritan city. In Luke, the Samaritans are still hostile to Jesus. Not until post-resurrection in Acts does Phillip finally brings the Gospel to Samaria.).

So here's my idea (well, partly mine, but coming from reading Raymond Brown) - The author, by having this character and story in the Gospel, could be alluding to more history of the Johannine community and why they became alienated from the synagogue; The author's church converted/accepted Samaritans. This would cause problems with the Jews. Notice later on in chapter 8 this verse:

"The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" (John 8:48)

The suggestion seems to be that the Jews regarded the Johannine community as tainted by Samaritan elements. There would appear to be some truth to this. The Johannine community held some anti-temple views, and their Christology was not centered on a Davidic Messiah. Moses and the Levite priests are predominant in the Samaritan religion and the Gospel of John is filled with Mosaic references. (For those not familiar with the Samaritans, they're still around! You can read about them here.) Jews did not accept the Samaritan's claim to be descendants of Abraham. The Jews that Jesus argues with in chapter 8 go to great lengths to keep mentioning their heritage ("Abraham is our father").

Am I starting to peel another layer of the onion that is the Gospel of John or am I just dancing in the dark? (Great. Now that song is stuck in my head...)

 

[Hokulele]

Hmm, I will have to re-read John in that light. The last time I went through that Gospel, I was in my Philo phase. I will do my best to let that prejudice sit on the side on the re-read.

 

[truethat]

Here's what I have to say about the first post.

Anyone can call anyone else an "Illiterate" when it comes to issues regarding context, or time or history. It is easy to pretend that that one bit of information you've dug out is the "KEY" to unlocking it all.

If you want an example of what hopped up "YOU JUST DON"T GET IT MANNNN!" sounds like in the mouths of modern man then skip over to the Conspiracy Theory threads.

Here's the thing though. There is really no such thing as "Biblical Literacy" when it comes to context, since the books of the Bible have been put together by redactors with an agenda that is religiously motivated, not factually.

When it comes to facts we know for a fact that murdering someone, (as was so eloquently put by Randfan) is immoral, even if God sanctions it.

Now you might want to argue for context or relativity but as that other fantastic Godless man once said


"Relativity applies to Physics, not ethics" Albert Einstein.


In context, the biblical YHWH is downright sadistic. So please for all of you Godful ones please explain what exactly God has done to demonstrate his "goodness?" Cause he seems pretty evil to me.

 

[Greediguts]

Anyone ever noticed that the speech attributed to Stephen by the author of Luke/Acts does not exactly fit? The author sets it up by stating men said "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God." (Acts 6:11) and "This man never stops saying things against this holy place and the law ;..."( Acts 6:13). Yet when the author presents Stephen’s own words, it seems to present a different version of Christianity not associated with what the author practiced.

All of Acts chapter 7 is Stephen's speech in front of the council. He brings up how the early Jews at first rejected Moses (he mentions the construction of the golden calf) then brings up the "tent of testimony" (the tabernacle) and how Solomon finally was allowed by God to build a temple. So far he's just retelling some of the Hebrew Bible, but verse 48 pulls on an "anti-temple" thread that does run in the OT. He quotes Isaiah 66:1-2 in Acts 7:49-50. By doing this Stephen is charging the builders of the temple with idolatry. Verse 48 states "Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands;" then he quotes Isaiah. The phrase “human hands” is associated with idolatry in the Hebrew Bible. (Examples would be Psalms 115:4 and Isaiah 2:8)

Then Stephen goes off.

"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do." (Acts 7:51)

Good way to win the crowd over, huh? But what is more interesting is verse 53 where he says "You are the ones that received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it."

So here Stephen distances God from the law given to Moses. Stephen has now done two things:

1. Claimed that the temple is a form of idolatry.
2. Claimed that the law ("Torah") is not that important because angels passed it on, not God directly.

It would appear to me that Stephen was pretty much speaking out against the temple and denigrates the law.

The author of Luke/Acts states before Stephen's story that the accusations were false, but then you have a story that basically backs up the charges.

Also, the author of Luke/Acts usually presents the temple in a good light. The disciples meet there, Paul goes to the temple all the time and (in accordance with the law) had Timothy circumcised. I think the author included this story because he felt it went along with one of his main themes in Luke/Acts that prophets are persecuted and in most cases, martyred.

Is it not too far of a stretch to say the author took something from another source and inserted into the story? Doesn’t this point to another form of Christianity practiced at the time?

I think I read this idea somewhere, so I'll see if I can dig up a source. Or if anyone else if familiar with this idea please pass on what you know.

 

[Piggy]

Hey, Greediguts. I don't have much time for posting these days, but I'll see what I can dig up and hopefully post something this weekend. It's a fascinating topic, certainly.

Can't guarantee that I'll be able to get back on this weekend, but God willing etc.