Theological Opinions

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Put Mark before what? When you say "first" you mean before something else. I don't understand what you mean.

The reason I just spent so much time in responding to you is that I was looking around google for any information on this. I didn't find any. What are your sources?

Before Matthew, of course. Why would they put Matthew first? If his and Luke's texts are derivative, they should follow Mark, not sandwich it. That's me. I'm suspicious of these decisions. It seems to come from a desire to add credibility.

You didn't find anything when you googled Enoch? The Book of Enoch was discovered in Ethiopia. As you know, the queen there got her learning straight from Solomon. I would have to dig through my books at home for more details. I'm surprised Google isn't turning this stuff up for you.

I haven't looked recently, but there should be something about the Samaritan discrepancies at least. The difference between the Samaritan and the Jewish Pentateuch should at least raise a few eyebrows. Please forgive any scatter-brain misrememberings. I don't have my books here.

I can certainly understand those quotes from Thomas being misinterpreted. Of course, Arius would have liked the first one. So that has to be the reason they cut it. The second one is just cool. I bet the nuns would flip over it.

To my wrongheaded way of seeing the world, it's alright for there to be errors in the scriptures. They shouldn't be so holy. We should have to have our own personal issues with them. For instance, this business about setting father against son. And the other one about coming with a sword. They appear to contradict other statements in which he says to obey your father and not to live by the sword.

These things don't bother me because I think he was a great teacher and fallible. So I do my best to find his best teachings and take them to heart. I won't put aside my doubt for Aristotle or Zoaraster either. Why should I?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Before Matthew, of course. Why would they put Matthew first? If his and Luke's texts are derivative, they should follow Mark, not sandwich it. That's me. I'm suspicious of these decisions. It seems to come from a desire to add credibility.

If you're suspicious, it'd be good to look it up. Or to ask questions, as you have done . Unfortunately I'm not an expert. I doubt my apologetics sources have anything on something that obscure.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

You didn't find anything when you googled Enoch? I haven't looked recently, but there should be something about the Samaritan discrepancies for one thing. The Book of Enoch was discovered in Ethiopia. As you know, the queen there got her learning straight from Solomon. I would have to dig through my books at home for more details. I'm surprised Google isn't turning this stuff up for you. Please forgive any scatter-brain misrememberings. I don't have my books here.

No problem. I found plenty of information on the Book of Enoch, even a few full copies of the book posted on the Internet for anyone to access. Plenty of Christian sources too, explaining why its being quoted once in the Bible doesn't mean it's canonical. You didn't bring that up though, so I didn't look much at that. There was nothing that I could find on it being bumped out of the canon, though. That's what I really was looking for, and that's what I'd like to hear evidence on.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I can certainly understand those quotes from Thomas being misinterpreted. Of course, Arius would have liked the first one. So that has to be the reason they cut it. The second one is just cool. I bet the nuns would flip over it.

To my wrongheaded way of seeing the world, it's alright for there to be errors in the scriptures. They shouldn't be so holy. We should have to have our own personal issues with them.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

These things don't bother me because I think he was a great teacher and fallible. So I do my best to find his best teachings and take them to heart. I won't put aside my doubt for Aristotle or Zoaraster either. Why should I?

Now we're coming out of the realm of argument and into the realm of personal beliefs . That's fine; I'm glad and honored that you will tell me what you believe. Skepticism is good too; it gives you answers to questions and greater understanding of truth. What caused you to be a skeptic in the first place?

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

For instance, this business about setting father against son. And the other one about coming with a sword. They appear to contradict other statements in which he says to obey your father and not to live by the sword.

Well, it's obvious that Jesus wasn't saying we should literally use swords. Otherwise he would have seemed rather ridiculous when he rebuked Peter for hacking off the high priest's servant's ear in Gethsemane.

When he talked about setting families against one another, he was referring to what would happen when one family member accepted Christ and the rest didn't. This is clearly coming to pass in the Muslim world and the Mormon communities. Whenever one person embraces Christianity, there is a huge commotion over it. Everyone tries to keep the person in the true faith, and sometimes direct action is taken to keep them there. Muslims will sever all connection with the person. In some countries Muslims will severely punish people who turn to Christianity. In Mormonism they'll take away your property, care over your children, your job, etc. That's because they virtually own Utah. Throughout history that scripture has also been actively fulfilled.

[inked]

Lief,

You are doing superbly here in your data presentation and argumentation. KUDOS.

The listing of the books in the NT Gospels is the traditional order of composition and scholars are substantiating that order. However, the literary critical school has maintained a shared source known as Q which is a hypothetical collection of sayings CONSTRUCTED by the critics and for which no manuscript evidence has ever been found. So, under that school of analysis and its presuppositions, it is argued that Mark is earliest. For a detailed introduction to the problem with multiple references to aid further study, either for you or Elfhelm, I would suggest MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by Josh McDowell.

As to canonicity, the word canon means rule or standard. The OT canon was fixed at the Council of Jamnia in AD 70 because of the concerns of the Jewish community that documents of doubtful authority were being promulgated by Christians and other Jewish sects (Essenes for example). They excluded certain texts which were later judged canonical by the Roman Catholic Church in the CounterReformation. These are known as the dueterocanonical books or Apocrypha. Since the Bible is a collection of books in its OT compilation, it does in fact reference texts as sources that are no longer extant. That does not mean that were those texts recovered (miraculously) they would automatically be canonical for Jews or Roman Catholics or Protestants.

In the NT the same sorts of problems arose with persons/sects/syncretists manufacturing allegedly hidden or secret Gospels. The establishment of the Christian canon of the NT was in response to this. There is usually annually much ballyhoo about some scholar's "discovery" of one or more of these "repressed" texts which are alleged to have been deliberately suppressed under the agenda of the orthodox viewpoint. They have in fact been extant for some time and they are of late date and demonstrably inferior to the genuine Gospels. The latter are supported by early textual evidence, multiple citations in patristic writings, and are primary. The "lost" gospels are clearly derivative, of late textual support, and are not reproducible from patristic quotations. In fact these false gospels are so lacking in the historicity of the Gospels that they have been variously purported to support every new fad coming down the pike for the last century. Some of my favorites for amusement are those used in THE DAVINCI CODE (Thomas, Mary Magdalene) and they partake of the same level of inspiration - a thrilling read for a whodunit but toilet paper or charcoal starter after one read. What most of the NT apocryphal books are is the equivalent of romance novels for the public today; though the occasional work will rise to the level of the Hobbit, none achieve the august realm of the LOTR in subcreation, for example.

For a good survey of the predictions, their messianic import, and mathematical probabilities of accidental achievement, check out EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, also by Josh McDowell. Excellent references.

For the issues of the historicity of Jesus and the dates of Herod, Quirinius, et alia, see HE WALKED AMONG US by (guess! ............................)
Josh McDowell. Excellent references.

I mention Mr. McDowell's books because they are accurate, current, easily available, inexpensively priced, and can serve as springboards to more scholarly texts. I DO NOT GET A COMMISSION!

Finally, fundamentalism in Christianity is a specific set of beliefs enunciated by largely Canadian and British scholars of the essentials of Christian faith in a received tradition of Biblical doctrine and interpretation. It has been denigrated to a perjorative implying witless adherence to mumbo-jumbo, which is totally errant misapplication by the media and their imitators, or worse, glib hacks who cannot be bothered with precision or accuracy of less than nuclear swaths. Imagine if you will that Islamic militants of the beheading sort and those caricatures of Clarence Darrow's inflammed rhetoric in the Tennessee courtrooms are the same. That is what perjorative use of fundamentalist is intended to convey. Any educated or thinking person can easily enunciate the differences, but that leaves out the media and their slavish adherents to bastardized language. And I have not yet assessed the political aspects of the errors of the terminology, but this is the THEOLOGY thread, after all, so I shall desist!

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for the history background. That's really interesting, learning about the Council of Jamnia in particular. I'm glad you were able to answer that issue Elfhelm raised about the Old Testament Canon.

EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT is actually the main source I used in the Belief thread, during the earlier part of this discussion with Elfhelm, when we were discussing the Canon. It's the first time in a long time I've had to resort to any other book then "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel. Have you read that, Inked? It may be my very favorite book, and that's even taking fiction into account .

Originally Posted by inked

For the issues of the historicity of Jesus and the dates of Herod, Quirinius, et alia, see HE WALKED AMONG US by (guess! ............................)
Josh McDowell. Excellent references.

Or for Herod, Quirinius, and the historicity of Jesus, and the Messianic predictions, see "The Case for Christ," the main source book I've been using on the Belief thread. I don't suppose you've read it, Inked, though you've got a lot of the same information available to you, nevertheless. It's an amazing book. The real KUDOS go to Lee Strobel .

[Elfhelm]

Thanks both for interesting answers and the references. I'll probably get those books sometime soon. I don't know much about theology, but I do think I know right from wrong. And I think that's the thing to do. As Lord Krishna told Arjuna: "Among thousands of men, one perchance strives for perfection; even among those successful strivers, only one perchance knows Me in essence."

[inked]

Lief,
I'll try to locate the reference by Strobel.

Elfhelm,
I think you do know right from wrong as those blessed with our years have had ample learning opportunities. It is the boldness of the reflection on ourselves that distinguishes whether we have done that which was right as we should have and avoided the wrong we should have, and what that means before the ultimate Source and Arbiter. I do not believe in the doctrine of total depravity for I believe we are bent or twisted in such fashion as to know the right and wrong but unable to achieve total embrasure of the first or total avoidance of the latter. Then in that grey, great middle I find self-interest skewing my choices consciously and wreaking God-alone-knows havoc unconsciously! But to borrow a mellifluous expression "God has broke through the carapace of our self-indulgent hearts and desires in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ, and set us free to be what He calls us to be, not what we poorly perceive, receive, or choose without Him."

A reflective 50 year old such as myself has plenty of material on which to reflect, and having lost the brash,assured, self-centredness of early life, see where some of my truest failures have been and Whose hand it is that is needed to mend me and those matters. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! The Latin dresses it up but it remains: my fault, my error, my own most grevious sin! (Note the range of perception in my loose translation! - a fault, an error, and the true beast, sin.)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Thanks both for interesting answers and the references. I'll probably get those books sometime soon.

EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT is primarily a book full of notes. It's got lots of useful information on key issues that Christians have to deal with. It's written like a big stream of notes, though, broken into sections according to topic for the reader's convenience. EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT contains information on the Old Testament as well as the New, while "The Case for Christ," particularly involves the New Testament, and most especially of all the Gospels. "The Case for Christ," is written in a manner that engages the reader more, in my opinion, for it isn't written as a huge collection of notes. It is written as a series of discussions, discussions between the writer, Lee Strobel, and various experts in different fields of Christianity. He asks all the important questions- it is very rare that someone hits me with a question on Entmoot about the evidence supporting Christianity without his having the answer written in his book. On the other hand, I did have to go to EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT in order to get detailed answers for your questions involving the canon. Getting both together, like you're thinking of doing, is probably a good idea.

[Elfhelm]

Thanks.

In general I want to stay away from theology. The logy of theo seems to be a vain attempt to understand that which exceeds our capacity to know. But on the other hand I keep getting drawn to these books. I must think that I'll find something valuable in them. Well, actually, sometimes I think I do.

As you can probably tell from several posts now, I think that first one has to see to one's own soul/spirit/karma/relationship to God or whatever one's culture calls it, and only then can one even hope to enter into any sort of Presence, at which point experience replaces guesswork. And I think that everyone is told at some point where "the door" is and how to open it, whether it's Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or Taoist, and they can choose to open it or not. But until they do open it, there's no sense in trying to describe what comes in when you do.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree that everyone at some point in their lives is given a chance to come into God's presence or not. It may be somewhat useless to conjecture about the relationship with God before one has actually experienced it. It may be, but not entirely, for one can learn things about God from his creation and the way we were made. It also is possible to listen to those who do believe they have relationships with God, to form conjectures about the relationship with God. I'll drop the subject there, though.

[Elfhelm]

No wait... I would gladly drop the subject because I am not very good at it, but I wanted to point something out that might interest you.

You just wrote, "one can learn things about God from his creation and the way we were made".

But earlier you wrote "In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus says, 'Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there.' That's pantheism, saying that he is coterminous with the substance of the world."

To my mind, what the writer who named himself after the Apostle Thomas wrote (after 100 years of word-of-mouth transmission) is Jesus saying in his typical quirky way the very same thing you just said. To my mind, interpreting what Jesus said to actually mean He is actually inside wood or actually under a rock is a failure of the mind to grasp the metaphor. And that is the kernel of what bothers me about reading The Bible literally. Jesus just wasn't a literal speaker. Fundamentalism just doesn't get that.

I won't hold you to dropping the subject. It's completely understandable that you'll want to reply. But I will probably just read it and try to understand, probably not reply.

[Lief Erikson]

You can learn about me from reading a book I've written. Look at my book and you'll learn something about my own personality and beliefs. In a far more sophisticated and astounding way, God reveals truths about himself through creation. The sun giving life to the world is like Christ giving life to people's souls. Physical light works backward as well as forward in time, just as Christ is eternal. The death of a star brings new and astounding life. Creatures eat one another by nature, just as Christ commands us to eat his flesh. A kernel of wheat falls into the earth and dies, only to rise as a full stalk. The parallels to nature that are visible in the world and through creation to our awesome God are endless, and I believe applying to everything. I don't have many of the answers as to how things reveal God's nature. Millions of other Christians are better at that then I, for I have just not studied nature enough. Many scientists and astronomers become Christians or philosophers because of what they discern through nature, though. I can't likely answer many questions AT ALL that you might ask as to how a part of nature might connect with the nature of God. There are billions of questions in this vein you could ask, and I would probably be able to answer . . . like . . . three . Or maybe a little more. So you'd better go to someone else if you want more examples on this. God's nature can be revealed in nature, but God himself is not nature.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

And that is the kernel of what bothers me about reading The Bible literally. Jesus just wasn't a literal speaker. Fundamentalism just doesn't get that.

When Jesus says He is the vine and we are the branches, I realize that is a metaphor - I don't check my body for leaves . However, just because Jesus often spoke in metaphors or stories does not mean He NEVER spoke literally. He often did.

[Elfhelm]

Yes, I guess a statement like "blessed are the peacemakers" is pretty literal. But in that case the very same people who take chapter 1-3 of Genesis literally find a way to equivocate away the unequivocal. So I still conclude that politics has besmirched the teachings of Jesus and have not yet found any church I can accept. Which is fine. Something tells me I'm better off staying away from churches... my conscience!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Yes, I guess a statement like "blessed are the peacemakers" is pretty literal. But in that case the very same people who take chapter 1-3 of Genesis literally find a way to equivocate away the unequivocal. So I still conclude that politics has besmirched the teachings of Jesus . . .

Could you explain that again? For me? I don't quite get your point about the first three Genesis chapters.

[Elfhelm]

My point? About people taking them literally? I don't know if it was a point exactly. Some people embrace the beauty contained within myths, derive wisdom from them, teach them to their children, but don't need to read them literally. My point was not about that. I take that as a given. A literal reading is completely erroneous, I think. I can't even carry on a reasonable conversation once a person entrenches him/herself in that sort of misreading.

I can't help but notice how there seems to be a direct relationship between reading obvious metaphors literally while equivocating away the obvious instructions about what is and what is not moral behavior. One would think a literalist would not eqivocate in this way, but then, whoever said other people had to make sense?

[Lief Erikson]

You're making fairly widespread assertions. Usually in the scripture (Note usually, not always 100% of the time) it seems very clear whether it's a literal or a figurative passage. Sometimes people see very strange things in visions, but it says that those are visions. Sometimes people use metaphors or parables, but it usually says those are parables, or it's clear that they're metaphors.

Why do you say the Genesis chapters are obviously figurative?

[Elfhelm]

I really don't want to get into that. I can already sense that we will just argue pointlessly for days to no good end. Please accept my apologies. Besides, my boss will kill me if I don't get something done today!

Just consider this: I embrace the beauty contained within myths, derive wisdom from them, teach them to my children, but don't read them literally.

[Lief Erikson]

Very well. Good luck on your work . Au revoir, mon ami .

[Nurvingiel]

Inked and I were talking about what orthoxody means in PM, because I am very confused about this thing.

(from the PM)

Originally Posted by inked

The confusion of Orthodox and orthodox is understandable. They sound the same. When capitalized it is a shorthand for Greek Orthodox and related national churches. When adjectival and non-capitalized, it refers to adherents of classic, traditional Church doctrine in regard to matters of faith (dogma, organization, canons, etc).

Anglican examples would be that the Global South churches are orthodox in their understanding of the authority of scripture, matters of faith, matters of organization, and matters of morality. The ECUSA and the ACA are heterodox in their understandings of sexual morality (no details needed, right ), scriptural authority, and issues of communion organizational interaction.

Ortho means "true, right, correct" as opposed to hetero meaning "different" (not that again, ) and both attached to -doxy meaning "teaching". So ECUSA and ACA are heterodox in their stands on same-sex marriages/blessings/homosexual clergy and bishops, that is they have different teachings in those areas for which they are being held accountable by the other members of the Anglican Communion who hold orthodox views and actions.

Better?

This raises a few questions for me.

1. How do you know you're orthodox? What if one of the non-orthodox branches of Anglicanism (for example) was actually correct? Is the one that came first orthodox automatically?

2. Where/what is the Global South, the ECUSA, and the ACA?

3. Your explanation makes sense, but how does this tie in to Russian or Greek Orthodox?

4. Does orthodoxy apply only to Christianity?

Thanks for your answers Inked!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Inked and I were talking about what orthoxody means in PM, because I am very confused about this thing.

(from the PM)

This raises a few questions for me.

1. How do you know you're orthodox?

You look on the bottom of your right foot, at the tip of your little toe - if there's an "O" there, you're orthodox