OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[AKAK]

I went to a public high school and remember taking a "Comparative Religions" class as an elective. It was an objectively taught, fact-based class that gave a thorough overview of each of the major Abrahamic religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and the Eastern religions/philosophies (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.).

I don't remember any controversy surrounding the class and I think most of the students were generally interested in learning about other religions around the world. The teacher didn't present any religion as superior over another and there was certainly no indoctrination bias attempting to covert the class over to any particular belief.

It was one of the most interesting classes I took in high school and if it was combined with a philosophy class, probably should have been a required course. A proper education should consist of being exposed to new ideas and information. I don't think any non-religious person (such as myself) would oppose the teaching of an objective religious class in public schools.

Uh, Taoism?

Isn't that banned from this board?

At any rate, yeah, quicker way to say the same tign Brewtus did...

I don't have a problem with a class that is:

"People believe X"

vs. (and I think this is inapporpriate)

"You should believe X"

 

[Muck]

But it would require that all religions get equal time and equal attention.

And that's exactly what the groups who are crying the loudest right now DON'T want.

Using the Mount Vernon/John Freshwater case as an example...do you think he would have had so many supporters in the community if he offered the Star of David, Ankh, Islamic Star & Crescent, Triskelle, Jain Hand &/or an Enso as part of his free scarification offerings?

 

[muffler dragon]

Something I was thinking about while working outside today.

Many people are in agreement, but not all, the creationsim/ID should not be taught in Science classrooms in Public Schools. Which had me thinking. What if, like foreign languages and Music Theory, Theology was offered as a graduated elective in public schools?

Theology 1: In the Beginning
Theology 2: Religion and Natural History
Theology 3: Theory vs Theology; Science and Religion

Opinions?

Like Brewtus, I had a Comparative Religions course in college. I loved it. I also think it was a fine way to go about sharing and learning.

Regarding the Bible in particular, I have to admit that I have reservations about the predominant manner in which things are taught. Regarding Genesis through Malachi (a.k.a. the Christian OT), I think it would be prudent and smart to teach about these books and the points contained therein from a Hebrew-based point of view. The understanding is vastly different from the standard Western/Christian side. And this is no truer than in the Genesis.

 

[Muck]

I had to stick these somewhere:

 

[Jake]

I had to stick these somewhere:

Amen, brother.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

I've always thought that teaching theology in schools is a great idea. Learning western theology would help students with their history and literature lessons as well.

It's pretty easy for me to seperate what's ok in public schools and what's not:

Teaching about religions in a factual way - ok.

Teaching a religion as fact - not ok.

In fact, it seems to me that the only difference is the little proviso of "[religious group] believes..."

For example: "Christians believe God created the world in six days" is ok, but "God created the world in six days..." is not. Pretty easy.

 

[Jake]

[quote='BusNative;119637;5]I've always thought that teaching theology in schools is a great idea. Learning western theology would help students with their history and literature lessons as well.

It's pretty easy for me to seperate what's ok in public schools and what's not:

Teaching about religions in a factual way - ok.

Teaching a religion as fact - not ok.

In fact, it seems to me that the only difference is the little proviso of "[religious group] believes..."

For example: "Christians believe God created the world in six days" is ok, but "God created the world in six days..." is not. Pretty easy.[/quote]

I can live with that, and I'm about as anti-religion as one gets. The fact is they do exist and we'd all be better off if we truly understood their belief systems, the history of how they came into being, as well as how they have conducted themselves over time.

Where "religious groups" will launch at this suggestion is when part of this teaching includes a factual account of just how many millions of people have been murdered in the name of religion - all of them - over the course of recorded history. It's a fact they would all choose to ignore, or blame on some other religion like a child blames his mistakes on those around him.

 

[jwinslow]

It's a fact they would all choose to ignore, or blame on some other religion like a child blames his mistakes on those around him.

um, ok... if you say so.

 

[Jake]

um, ok... if you say so.

Every religion except yours, of course. :p

 

[scooter1369]

Okay, So I'm not crazy. At least not in this sense. I had a girl friend in high school that attended Father Lopez High school in Daytona BEach and every year, she had some level of Theology, as you suspect a catholic school would. I always found her text books and materials fascinating. Actually, she a lot things that I found fascinating.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Actually, she a lot things that I found fascinating.

There was actually video footage of one thing (0:07):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqJ3QtQOjWM"]YouTube - Sarah Michelle Gellar feet (celebfootworld.eamped.com)[/ame]

 

[muffler dragon]

Let's Talk About Paul, Baby!

From the short discussion that I had with 'BusNative regarding Paul:

This is a topic that can most certainly be sent to another thread, but I wanted to caution on taking Paul at his word when attempting to extrapolate a meaning out of the tablet, early Christianity, and things of the like. Paul is not representative of a first century Pharisee. Furthermore, the depiction of the Pharisees in the Gospels is rather spurious (with a few exceptions). If you have an interest in discussing this further; then by all means, let me know.

[quote='BusNative;120090;1]Yeah, my point was unclear. First of all, I was not at all talking about the meaning of the tablet, especially with regards to S/Paul. Moreso, I agree that S/Paul was not a typical Pharisee (though there is evidence that he was before he became a Jesus follower when he comments in his letters (sorry, forget which one) that his zeal for the law was particularly strong, etc., etc.). My point was more to the "sample size" issue. Neither the tablet nor the Jesus-followers were "typical" - that much we know. We know that because typical Jews of the time were just, well, typical Jews, and typical Jewish theology of the time only made its way into Judaism - it never became something atypical.

What's important is that the depiction of a suffering messiah was part of a Jewish movement and borne of the Jewish community - that it was not a complete departure from Judaism. My point about S/Paul, though clumsily put, was that sample size is not relevant to the notion of the tablet or Jesus-followers being based in Judaism. S/Paul was just one guy whose only theological training came from his work as a Pharisee - indeed, his only point of reference for thinking of the new Jesus-movement was relative to his Jewish roots.[/quote]

I completely agree with what you wrote about "sample size". 'Tis true that there were many fringe movements going about in the time frame you spoke of.

However, regarding Paul, I will have to state that I disagree once again. I find that his conduct before the Damascus Road experience does not a Pharisee make. This is just from the scant little that we have; however, to me, it's sufficient to doubt that he actually was a Pharisee (if ever). I happen to find the Ebionite tradition of Paul rather interesting and plausible.

<SNIP>

Whereas, I feel that Paul's theology is also based on his upbringing in Tarsus. But that's for another thread.

<SNIP>

Indeed, Acts 15 is quite the tale when attempting to deem things compatible and incompatible with Pauline theology.

The following is from post #963 in this thread. It gives some background to the Pharisee/Sadducee thing and ties into Paul:

This is really a thread into it's own, but I'll try to express some salient points.

Pharisees v. Sadducees
1) Pharisees gave credence to the Oral and Written Torah. The Sadducees did not.
2) The Pharisees believed in resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees did not.
3) The Pharisees followed a more lenient approach when it came to capital offenses. The Sadducees were literalists.
4) The Pharisees are the Sages of Jewish tradition. The Sadducees became the priests of the Temple, and thus, the High Priest was also a Sadducee.
5) I don't recall the name of the Sadducee, but there was a priest who slaughtered thousands of Pharisees about 2-400 BCE. Therefore, the relationship between the two was rather "chilly".

The above causes concern for the validity of the Christian testament, because of the following reasons which are by no means exhaustive:

1) Oftentimes, the Pharisees are painted as the strict legalists with regard to punishment and outward expression. Whereas, when understanding the role and the mindset of the Sadducean priests, it becomes apparent that there are some quite possible inconsistencies. The Pharisees had nothing to do with people's money or sacrifices; however, this plays a role in the Christian testament.
2) The Sadducees (much like the modern-day Karaites) suffer from unanswerable questions when it comes to observance. Yet, the Pharisees are painted as ignorant in the Christian testament.

Regarding the Pauline epistles and Paul's biography:

1) It is highly unlikely (if not impossible) for a Pharisaic Jew to align himself in the service/employ of a Sadducean High Priest. This distinction is somewhat shown in Acts when Gamaliel (Pharisee President of the Sanhedrin) is lenient towards the new Jewish Sect and the High Priest is sending out letters to arrest them and bring up charges.
2) There is no history in Jewish tradition of Paul being a student of Gamaliel, and yes, students are notated.
3) Paul, IMO, presents a poor understanding of the Torah and its observations. He further misrepresents this concept to Gentiles when Torah observance is never a requirement in the first place.

I imagine, as I read back on this post, that a lot of my points are probably not presented in the most clear fashion. In truth, I haven't spent much time on these topics in the last year+, and I've forgotten a fair amount. It just seems to me that many times the Christian gospels make a claim or stance about the Pharisees when, in fact, the group that would fit such a claim or stance is the Sadducees.

Thoughts anyone? FWIW, I'll gladly go through Acts and the Epistles with people to discuss what I've raised above.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Alright, MD, let's get it on:

Since I'm at work and don't have much time or resources, let's start with Romans (from RSV, at http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp).

I still like to view Paul through his Jewish roots. The thing that, IMO, people get wrong about Paul is reading too much in his Gentile-inclusive letters. I think we have to take for granted that Paul accepts Christ-following Jews into the movement. Unfortunately, because we have no record of the letter sent to Paul, we have a one-sided view of the conversations that Paul is having with Jesus-movement enclaves in the various locations. This may be a bit controversial, but I believe it is safe to assume that the people who are already involved in these groups are Jewish followers of Jesus. Therefore, the dialogue that Paul has with these groups basically centers around whether or not - and if so, how - to include Gentiles into the Jesus-movement.

Anyway, the following passage reflects how Paul has not abandoned his roots as a Pharisee with regards to adherence to the law. In it, he does chastise wayward Jews, saying that they are no better for having the law if they do not practice it. Further, it can be argued that Paul is accepting of Gentiles that, despite not being physically circumcised, live according to the Law.

11For God shows no partiality. 12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. 17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the law, 19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-- 21 you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." 25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.

If we think about the practical realities of forcing circumcision upon adult male Gentile Jesus-followers, it can be argued that the circumcision in particular might not have been a practical request of new Gentile Jesus-followers who are otherwise living 'righteously.' So, in this case, Paul is urging whomever is in charge of the Jesus-movement in Rome to look past the detail of circumcision to make sure that all who are included - Jews and Gentiles - are otherwise living in accordance to the law.

And, moving on, that's why I feel the notion of "Pauline" theology overstates the difference in his ideas. He was an evangelist trying to help Jewish Jesus-following communities think about how to integrate Gentile followers into their - what we can assume to be - very Jewish communities. We have to consider that Paul, as well as the communities with whom he corresponds, take for granted the Jewish roots of their movement (not to mention the actual religion of Jesus).

 

[muffler dragon]

[quote='BusNative;120139;3]Alright, MD, let's get it on:

Since I'm at work and don't have much time or resources, let's start with Romans (from RSV, at http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp).

I still like to view Paul through his Jewish roots. The thing that, IMO, people get wrong about Paul is reading too much in his Gentile-inclusive letters. I think we have to take for granted that Paul accepts Christ-following Jews into the movement. Unfortunately, because we have no record of the letter sent to Paul, we have a one-sided view of the conversations that Paul is having with Jesus-movement enclaves in the various locations. This may be a bit controversial, but I believe it is safe to assume that the people who are already involved in these groups are Jewish followers of Jesus. Therefore, the dialogue that Paul has with these groups basically centers around whether or not - and if so, how - to include Gentiles into the Jesus-movement.

Anyway, the following passage reflects how Paul has not abandoned his roots as a Pharisee with regards to adherence to the law. In it, he does chastise wayward Jews, saying that they are no better for having the law if they do not practice it. Further, it can be argued that Paul is accepting of Gentiles that, despite not being physically circumcised, live according to the Law.



If we think about the practical realities of forcing circumcision upon adult male Gentile Jesus-followers, it can be argued that the circumcision in particular might not have been a practical request of new Gentile Jesus-followers who are otherwise living 'righteously.' So, in this case, Paul is urging whomever is in charge of the Jesus-movement in Rome to look past the detail of circumcision to make sure that all who are included - Jews and Gentiles - are otherwise living in accordance to the law.

And, moving on, that's why I feel the notion of "Pauline" theology overstates the difference in his ideas. He was an evangelist trying to help Jewish Jesus-following communities think about how to integrate Gentile followers into their - what we can assume to be - very Jewish communities. We have to consider that Paul, as well as the communities with whom he corresponds, take for granted the Jewish roots of their movement (not to mention the actual religion of Jesus).[/quote]

'Bus:

I want to thank you for entertaining the dialogue regarding Paul. I have read what you wrote above and I have absorbed the content. What I would like to do (if you're willing) is to discuss things that preceed the usage of the Roman letter and Paul's post-Damascus Road experience.

The portions I have emboldened above are more in line with the points that I raise in my initial post. Personally, I can't accept it as a given that Paul 1) had Jewish roots (physical and theological) and 2) was a Pharisee. These two concepts need to be investigated before I can address his post-Experience theology. Are you interested in this investigation?

 

[PlanetFrnd]

'Bus:

I want to thank you for entertaining the dialogue regarding Paul. I have read what you wrote above and I have absorbed the content. What I would like to do (if you're willing) is to discuss things that preceed the usage of the Roman letter and Paul's post-Damascus Road experience.

The portions I have emboldened above are more in line with the points that I raise in my initial post. Personally, I can't accept it as a given that Paul 1) had Jewish roots (physical and theological) and 2) was a Pharisee. These two concepts need to be investigated before I can address his post-Experience theology. Are you interested in this investigation?

Yeah, I was afraid to go right back to Romans, but its what I'm most academically familiar with and can easily reference when I'm supposed to be financial-modeling.

So some questions:

1) Where do you start an investigation with regards to pre-Demascus Paul? I admit that I do not have many sources on this part of his life.

2) It is unclear to me - what would you consider Paul's background to be? It is clear to me that he departs from a "strict" adherence to the law with regards to the Gentiles, but there is no reason to assume that Paul has himself diregarded the law.

3) How do you surmise that Paul has a poor understanding of the Torah (#3 of your first post above)? If we consider Acts to be post-conversion and the letters to be written with regards to how to admit Gentiles into the Jesus-movement, there is nothing in Scripture to prove his understanding of the Torah one way or another. It is interesting to me that Paul does not engage in any real debate about the law as it applies to Jews in his letters - IMO it's because there is no need to when corresponding with the various communities.