Progressive Revelation

You're becoming a bore, jaywill.

I am not a biblical scholar. I don't keep this information at my fingertips.


I am not a biblical scholar either.

You actually have some pretty heavy assumptions at your fingertips. You just don't have a very straight forward and simple way to test their veracity.

Maybe you don't like what Jesus said because it interfers with your love for the Saturday Sports shows. Maybe you find it poppycock to have to think about such matters as Jesus taught when you would rather forget the eternal destiny of your soul and watch the weekend sports instead.

Some didn't want to follow Him for various reasons. Maybe it is not the authenticity of the teachings that bother you but thier inconvenience.

So blame them on Paul or the Christians who messed it all up. After all Jesus really just said something like:

"Yea, I say unto you, Don't miss the ball game this weekend! Verily Verily it should be really good!"

Originally posted by jaywill
Can you give us a clear example of an original saying and a tacked on saying?

Let's take the fifth chapter of John or the fifth chapter of Matthew. Verse by verse place a O for original and a T for tacked on.

All I need is number of verse and an accompanying letter O or T.

Matthew 5 has 48.

Can you give us a clear example of an original saying and a tacked on saying?

For one, the story of the adulterous woman in John 8:1-8:11. Ehrman’s comments—

“Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other problem that it poses [in addition to questions raised in the story itself]. As it turns out, it was not originally in the gospel of John. In fact it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by a later scribe.

“How do we know this? In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case. Later in this book we will be examining in greater depth the kinds of evidence that scholars adduce for making judgments of this sort. Here I can simply point out a few basic facts that have been proved to nearly all scholars of every persuasion: the story is not found in our oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John; its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John’s (including the stories immediately before and after); and it includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel.”* (Emphasis added.)

From Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus

A questionable text in Paul—

Woman Apostle?

Of the various “offices” listed in the NT for the early church—apostles, bishops, deacons, prophets, teachers, evangelists (and a single mention of “pastor” )—women are mentioned specifically in three: apostle, prophet and deacon. They are all mentioned by St. Paul.

Despite sometimes getting a “bad rap” for statements attributed to him concerning women, the Paul’s letters have some of the most affirming statements about women. For example—

> NRS Galatians 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

> NRS Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae,

> NRS Romans 16:3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, 4 and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Greet also the church in their house.

> NRS Philippians 4:2 I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

__________________________

Keeping Silent

These women he considers co-workers with him in Christ. However, he also says:

> NRS 1 Corinthians 14:34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?

Now, this is a passage in some dispute among biblical scholars. For one thing, it seems to contradict a passage ocurring just three chapters prior, in the same letter:

> NRS 1 Corinthians 11:5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head-- it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.

(It also says in Acts 2:18—“Even upon my slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.&rdquo😉


It is hard to see how a woman can prophesy, and keep silent at the same time. Some biblical scholars conclude that verses 34-36 were not actually written by Paul, but inserted by a later scribe (an apparently not uncommon phenomenon, according to those who study all the manuscript variations). Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman, after examining the evidence on this passage, concludes:

“As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within the short space of three chapters, it appears that the verses in question do not derive from Paul.

“And so on the basis of a combination of evidence [which he addresses in preceding pages]—several manuscripts that shuffle the texts around, the immediate literary context, and the context within 1 Corinthians as a whole—it appears that Paul did not write 1 Cor. 14:34-35. One would have to assume, then, that these verses are a scribal alteration of the text, originally made, perhaps as a marginal note and then eventually, at an early stage of the copying of 1 Corinthians, placed in the text itself. The alteration was no doubt made by a scribe who was concerned to emphasize that women should have no public role in the church, that they should be subservient to their husbands. This view then came to be incorporated into the text itself, by means of a textual alteration.”

—Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 2005 (p. 184)


In 1st Timothy, Paul seems to take a similar stand on women keeping silent:

> NRS 1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

There are several problems here, however. First, “Scholars are by and large convinced that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but by one of his later, second-generation followers.” (Ehrman, p. 181) Second, it is difficult to see how a woman can prophesy, or be an apostle, or even a deacon, and keep “silence with full submission;” it certainly does not fit with Paul’s other references to women as “co-workers.” Third, it sets a different salvation standard for women than men (which contradicts Paul in Galatians), and one which is inconsistent with the dominant NT message that all (men and women) are saved by grace through faith, baptism, etc.

___________________________

Junia, the Apostle

> NRS Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among [or within] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Junia is a woman. In the Greek, her name is Iounian, and is feminine, accusative, singular in form.

The NIV translation says: “They are outstanding among the apostles” (as does the NAS). KJV says: “who are of note among the apostles.” NJB says: “Greetings to those outstanding apostles,...”

The text is clear: Junia is a woman apostle. An apostolos is one sent to proclaim a message, in this case the gospel message. How can a woman be an apostle if she has to remain silent? And, as an apostle, Junia is in the top ranks of the “ecclesial structure” as outlined by Paul—


> NRS 1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.

One could argue that there is gospel precedent for a woman serving the “apostolic role”—

> NRS Matthew 28:1 After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.' This is my message for you." 8 So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him.
10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."
In Mark:16, it is Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome:

> NRS Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."

In the Gospel of John:

> NRS John 20: 17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

A common thematic statement in these passages is “go, tell” (this formula is not in the Lucan account).

________________________

Recognizing the Christ

Matthew’s gospel has Peter as the first one recognizing (at least out loud) that Jesus is the Christ:

> NRS Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah (Christos), the Son of the living God."

Luke’s version is similar. In the Gospel of John, however, it is not Peter but, first Andrew (John 1:41); then (unless one counts the woman at the well, and some folks who wondered) it is Martha:

> NRS John 11:27 She [Martha] said to him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world."

_________________________

The bottom-line is that some strong women played prominent, leadership roles in the early Christian community, and not just administrative ones—and not just child-rearing and serving meals to the males.

Originally posted by jaywill
Could you give me an example of Paul's twisting of the Old Testament which you say has no basis in anything Jesus taught in the gospels?

PLEASE tell me WHICH teaching of Jesus was distorted by the Apostle Paul.

Rwingett didn’t accuse Paul of distorting Jesus’ teachings. You are putting words in his mouth. He said that Paul “twisted” the OT to serve his [Christocentric] purposes. I would rather say that Paul as doing “midrash.” Are you familiar with midrash? The author of Matthew makes large use of it. It wasn’t/isn’t considered illegitimate (among Jewish and early Christian exegetes—take a look at Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses), but it is an openly “creative” exegesis.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says that he didn’t come to “abolish” the law (Torah), but in [Paul’s?] letter to the Ephesians, it says that he has “abolished” the law. The dietary portions of the law were apparently also abolished (Acts, Ch. 10 and Romans, Ch. 14).

So, which portions of the law are/are not abolished? And, if any were abolished, why did Jesus say: “until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law...?” Have heaven and earth passed away? Is all accomplished?

All throughout Romans and Galatians, for example, Paul has a fairly “antinomian” theme—Christians are “discharged” from the law (Rom. 7:6); or “not subject” to the law (Gal. 5:18)—the law is set over against Christ and faith. Since Matthew is generally dated between 80 and 90 C.E., perhaps Paul was not aware of Jesus’ teaching.

Again, the clear passages in contradistinction are Matthew 5:17 (“I have not come to abolish...” ) and Ephesians 2:15 (“He has abolished...” ).

_________________________________

> NRS Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

> NRS Luke 16 "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.

> NRS Ephesians 2:15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,

Also—

> NRS Romans 7:6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

> NRS Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]PLEASE tell me WHICH teaching of Jesus was distorted by the Apostle Paul.

Rwingett didn’t accuse Paul of distorting Jesus’ teachings. You are putting words in his mouth. He said that Paul “twisted” the OT to serve his [Christocentric] purposes. I would rather say that Paul as doing “midrash.” Are you familiar with midrash? The author of Matthe ...[text shortened]... ake a look at Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses), but it is an openly “creative” exegesis.[/b]

Let Rwingett answer for himself. After he enjoys his Saturday afternoon ball game.

"Distort" Christ's teaching verses "twist" the Old Testament?

I am familiar (a little) with something called The Midrash.

Do you level this midrash charge against Jesus Christ also?

If not why not? The record of His trial before the high priest certainly would indicate that they thought he was twisting the Hebrew Bible to center upon Himself.

Do you disagree with this?

In John chapter one we have this:

"Nathaniel answered Him, Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.

Jesus answered and said to him, Is is because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree that you believe? You shall see greater things than these. And He said to him, truly, truly, I say to you, You shall see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man" (John 1:49-51)

This was Christ's referal back to Genesis 28:11-22. By this reference He implies that He, the man Jesus, is the reality and fulfiment of Jacob's dream of Bethel, the house of God. Jacob saw in a dream, a ladder set up on the earth joining earth to heaven. He called that place "the house of God." He thought it was an awesome and frightful place where God was establishing a dwelling place for Himself upon the earth. The angels of heaven going up and down in preparation of the building of this house of God.

Jesus teaches that He is the real house of God on the earth. He is the human Bethel. He is the dwelling place of the Almighty God. He is God living in a man.

He confirms this teaching in the next chapter when He says that if they destroy the temple God - "My Father's house," He will raise it up in three days:

"Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Then the Jews said, This temple was built in forty-six years, and You will raise it up in three days?

But He spoke of the temple of His body." (John 2:19-21)

Christ taught that His physical body was therefore the house of God, the temple of God, and Bethel - God's dwelling place on the earth. They accused Him of saying He would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days not realizing that He was teaching about His resurrection from the dead in three days.

Before Paul, don't we then see Jesus Christ teaching the Hebrew Bible in a "Christocentric" manner?

Your post after this one replied to is most interesting and a challenge which I will gladly take up latter.

First I want to know why you do not also include Jesus in this midrash business - if it is that and not the pure revelation from God by God's authority to enlighten man on the meaning of His own words.

Originally posted by jaywill
This accusation you have of Christians twisting around the Old Testament to suit our own purpose.

Would you extend that accusation to the central figure of our faith Jesus Christ? He refered to the Hebrew Bible quite a bit. Do you accuse Jesus of twisting the Old Testament to suit His purposes also?

I don't think of it as twisting to suit our purposes, more like the lights
came on we now know what it means. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says that he didn’t come to “abolish” the law (Torah), but in [Paul’s?] letter to the Ephesians, it says that he has “abolished” the law. The dietary portions of the law were apparently also abolished (Acts, Ch. 10 and Romans, Ch. 14).

So, which portions of the law are/are not abolished? And, if any were abolished, why did Jesus ...[text shortened]... For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Upon close examination and comparison of Matthew with Romans 7 and 8 it is clear that Paul was teaching exactly the same thing that Christ was teaching.

You failed to quote the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:3,4 -

"For what the law could not do, in that is was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, That the rightoues requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit."

It is true that latter He says that Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes. But here he also teaches that those who walk according to the regenerated and Christ indwelt human spirit will spontaneously fulfill the righteous requirement of the law.

What the law requires in moral conduct, in holiness, in righteousness, in being set apart for God and unto God in behavior and in relationships will be fulfilled in those who walk in the realm of the indwelling Spirit of Christ.

"That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit"

Birth is the beginning of the new life. Growth and maturity are the continuation of the new life. And learning to walk according to the God indwelt regenerated spirit will cause the walker to live up to the righteous requirement of the law.

Though Christ alone has accomplished the redemptive function of the law in His atoneing death, the moral requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who walk "in newness of life". Those forgiven, those redeemed, those justified in Christ's death, and those indwelt by Christ the life giving Spirit - learn to walk in the realm of His life and fulfill the righteous requirement of the law.

In Matthew's gospel Jesus teaches the same thing yet with different expressions. We shall be perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect. We need a life relationship with God so that He is our begetting Father. We then possess the divine life of the Father and possess the divine nature of the Father by which we learn to walk as kingdom people.

Though both Jesus and Paul underplay many ritualistic aspects of the ordinances such as Sabbath keeping, circumcision, various kinds of washings, and feasts, new moons, and ordinances of the law, the moral requirement of the law of God they uphold, make more intense, uplift, and teach that the Christ indwelt sons of God should and can walk according to its requirements.

In is Christ within them who is the power of this righteous living.

So Matthew's record of Christ's teaching is the same as Paul's teaching.

Originally posted by rwingett
Faith, faith, faith. Whether you're equivocating or not, everything comes back to faith for you doesn't it?

I think Mr. Ehrman makes a convincing case in his book I mentioned earlier. His argument is very cogent and well researched. Plus his background as a former evangelical christian removes any possible charge of bias from his research. He is, as the "faith" it simply isn't worth my while to have another go around on the topic with you.

Yes it does come back to faith for me, we either know the
truth, or we believe we do. Knowledge based on facts means
that the foundation of our knowledge rests in the legitimacy
of our facts, do they really mean what we think they do?
Simply questioning what cannot be proven wrong isn’t a bad
in and of itself, neither is accepting something that cannot be
proven either, the issues arise in the details of the subject
matter what is being accepted and where does it lead us, what
does it cause to do or accept as an outcome either directly or
indirectly.
Kelly

Originally posted by jaywill
Let Rwingett answer for himself. After he enjoys his Saturday afternoon ball game.

I will let Vistesd speak for me here. He has far more training as a biblical scholar than I do and is using essentially the same examples I might have done if I had bothered to take the time to do so. I have no intention of going through the fruitless exercise of arguing specific examples with you, but I invite you to look into this body of research on your own.

Michigan defeated Wisconsin 27-13, by the way. God must have smiled upon them.

Originally posted by rwingett
I will let Vistesd speak for me here. He has far more training as a biblical scholar than I do and is using essentially the same examples I might have done if I had bothered to take the time to do so. I have no intention of going through the fruitless exercise of arguing specific examples with you, but I invite you to look into this body of research on your own.

Michigan defeated Wisconsin 27-13, by the way. God must have smiled upon them.

Did you see the Michigan State vs Notre Dame game? That one made
me glad I cheer for Illinois, which is really hard to do in football?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Did you see the Michigan State vs Notre Dame game? That one made
me glad I cheer for Illinois, which is really hard to do in football?
Kelly

Yes, I saw it. I don't care so much about Mighigan State, but I always root against Notre Dame. At least Michigan beat them last week.

Originally posted by jaywill
Let Rwingett answer for himself. After he enjoys his Saturday afternoon ball game.

"Distort" Christ's teaching verses "twist" the Old Testament?

I am familiar (a little) with something called The Midrash.

Do you level this midrash charge against Jesus Christ also?

If not why not? The record of His trial before the high priest certainly wo ...[text shortened]... om God by God's authority to enlighten man on the meaning of His own words.

First, with regard to Jesus doing “midrash”*—Yes, in his teachings and arguments based on interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, I think that is exactly what he was doing. As a first-century Jew, that is how he would’ve learned to exegete the scriptures. I don’t call midrash “twisting” because I think that is the creative method that ought to be applied (or something like Ignatian-style lectio divina)..

Second, I think Biblical literalism/inerrancy is—well, an error, and a dangerous one, as it leads to an idolatry of “the Book.” Where that line is crossed, I haven’t figured out yet, but to call the Bible the Word of God—especially if by that one means ho logos tou theou, is a move in that direction (although i realize that many people and churches use that phrase just as one of regard).

Third, I think your Beth-El, temple, Jesus-as-Christ (i.e., as logos: John 1:14) reading is very well done! It is also midrash. That is, you are weaving strands from different texts in an artful and creative way—and one that does not do violence to the texts, so long as one does not cling to the “plain” (or literalistic) level of reading.

Fourth, with regard to “Christocentrism” in both the Gospels and Paul—and, particularly, was Jesus taking that line? making the turn from logos in/as Torah to logos incarnate?—I frankly can’t say much at this point. If Jesus thought of himself as messiah (Christos), what did he think of the nature of his messiahship?** For most of my life I held to what is sometimes called a “high Christology”—you might find a book called The Mystery of Christ, and Why People Don’t Get It, by Episcopal priest and theologian Robert Farrar Capon interesting here. I have no argument to make...

I’ll comment on your other post just briefly below.

______________________________________

* I use the word with a lower-case “m” to indicate the general method, and with a capital “M” when referring to the traditional Midrashic literature.

** Just a couple of thoughts here: (1) According to Oxford scholar Geza Vermes, in his book Jesus the Jew, such phrases as “son of God” and “son of man” were euphemistic usages that any Jew might use in referring to himself. (2) How many messiahs, and kinds of messiahs are there in the Hebrew Scriptures? Again, these are just thoughts.

Originally posted by rwingett
I will let Vistesd speak for me here. He has far more training as a biblical scholar than I do and is using essentially the same examples I might have done if I had bothered to take the time to do so. I have no intention of going through the fruitless exercise of arguing specific examples with you, but I invite you to look into this body of research on your own.

Michigan defeated Wisconsin 27-13, by the way. God must have smiled upon them.

I will let Vistesd speak for me here.

That’s a first! 🙂 Thank you for the compliment.

It was just “synchronicity” that you mentioned the Ehrman book, and I happen to have it out from the library. It is excellent, and I didn’t really know anything about the manuscript tradition and textual criticism before reading it.

Originally posted by rwingett
*Yawn*

You're becoming a bore, jaywill.

I am not a biblical scholar. I don't keep this information at my fingertips. I would have to do a fair amount of research to satisfy your demands. With the Michigan / Wisconsin game on TV I am disinclined to do any research at all on your behalf. I've told you where to find the information you seek on your own. If you wish to perpetually wallow in ignorance then that is your prerogative.

*Yawn*

You're becoming a bore, jaywill.

Seems to be a common occurence for you lately. Maybe you should change tacks.