Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    How about Fuller Theological Seminary? ;-)

    I have attended the first two classes of the semester.
    
    The first class was introductory and the instructor lectured and led a
    discussion regarding the nature of the Bible and Biblical study.  Is it
    intellectual or is it spiritual/emotional.  Is it detached or is it
    idelogical.  He did not provide answers but provoked thought.  The
    discussion lead to the conclusion that it was both.
    
    The Bible is a book of inspiration.  It is the heart of Christian
    studies.  It cannot be approached from a purely detached, intellectual
    approach.  Yet the students need to be detached enough to be objective
    about the Bible.  The student needs to let go of some of the ideology
    to truly examine what the Bible is and what it says.  To examine who
    wrote the various books and when.  To discern how scholars make those
    decisions.
    
    He also began a very brief overview of the History of the Hebrew people
    as background to the NT
    
    For the second class we had to read  two chapters in the text which
    dealt with methods of studying the Bible, The Hebrew History,
    Helenistic culture, and the religious environment in general at the
    time of Jesus.
    
    The class will use primarily two methods of studying
    
    1. The Historic approach.  learning as much as possible about the
    history of the book, the author, and the incidents described.
    
    2. A modified literary approach.  Recognizing the Bible as sacred
    literature written to elicit a response from the reader.  Understanding
    what that response was to the original listener and what the response
    is to each of us today.
    
    Others methods discussed and to be used somewhat are
    
    1. Forms Criticism.  Pealing the Bible back to the original pieces that
    comprised the earliest tradition. For instance looking at the parables
    of Jesus, identifying some of them as part of the earliest tradition.
    
    2. Redaction Criticism.  Studying the final editing.  What did the
    Author of Matthew add to the original forms.  Why?  What was his
    message?  How did the editing support his message?
    
    We looked at the story of Jesus calming the sea in Matthew, Mark, and
    Luke.  We noted similiarities and differences.
    
    In matthew Jesus is Called Lord.  In Mark, we is called teacher.  In
    luke he is called master.  Slight variations.  How do each of those
    variations support the message of the author.
    
    In Matthew Jesus orders the disciples into the boat.
    In Mark he is invited by the disciples into the boat.
    In Luke he and the disciples go into the boat.
    
    The hierarchical nature of Christianity is more evident in the Matthew
    version.  We need to ask the question why and what does that mean.
    
    Existencial Methods,  Reading the Bible from the perspective of what it
    tells us about our human existence today.
    
    Ideological Methods.  Defining ones ideology and reading the Bible from
      that perspective.
    
    Psychological Methods.  Jungian psychological principles applied to the
       Bible.  Freudian.  Others.
    
    
    We discuss the culture of Jerusalem and the Roman world at the time of
    Jesus.
    
    My third Class is Thursday Night.
    
    The readings were 10 of the parables of Jesus in Matthew and Mark.  and
    the chapter in the Text introducing the study of the New Testament with
    a discussion of the parables and the sayings of Jesus.  The author of
    the text states that most scholars feel that the parables and saying
    are part of the earliest Jesus tradition.  They are where we can find
    out most about the historic Jesus.  The discussion talks about the
    approaches of different scholars and how they reach those conclusions.
    
    Patricia

    Mike,
    
    I don't have any experience regarding Fuller Theological School.  I
    would love to hear how study there is different or similiar.
    
                                      Patricia

	Patricia, thanks for sharing that with us. I really enjoyed reading it.
Please share more after your next class!


Glen

>    I don't have any experience regarding Fuller Theological School.  I
>    would love to hear how study there is different or similiar.
    
    We're talking the MIT of Bible Schools ;-)  Fuller is in Dallas, one of
    our assistant pastors went there.  They take the expository approach
    while applying the laws of hermaneutics.  They also do this at Calvary
    Chapel Bible College, where I am taking some classes.  It's very
    similar to what I outlined in topic 119.2-119.6 in here.
    
    The Laws of Hermaneutics deal with "...rightly dividing God's Word."  
    The basics of this involve logic, induction, deduction, and general 
    rules.  For example, there is the Law of First Mention.  Bible study
    has shown that however a subject is first introduced, it will
    continually be referred to in the same manner.  This is usually how
    precedent is set for doctrine.  
    
    Take the Biblical example of tithing.  The first mention of giving in 
    the Bible is done where Abel made the first acceptable freewill offering 
    to the Lord.  The next is where Abram  gave a freewill tithe to 
    Melchizideck.  The next is where Jacob promised a freewill offering to 
    God based on how he is blessed (he bribed God following his dream at 
    Bethel).  All of these were spontaneous, one-time events.  This shows 
    that Tithing was not practiced until the Law was given.  When the Law was 
    given, giving/tithing became *required*.  Under the Law, it was not only 
    mandatory, but complex.  
    
    I haven't read it yet, but the book "The Science of Bibical Hermeneutics" 
    was recently recommended to me.
    
    Mike

    
    mike,
    
    hermeneutics while it is often used to refer to the
    interpretation of scripture is sometimes used it
    the general sense of the word. the "laws" of hermeneutics
    are i would assume one person or school's characterization.
    
    peter

>    the general sense of the word. the "laws" of hermeneutics
>    are i would assume one person or school's characterization.
    
    Peter, I don't think so.  There are too many Bible colleges teaching
    these laws for them to be a person's or school's opinion.  (if that is
    what you meant)
    
    Mike

    Last Night Class we talked about the subject
    
    "The Quest for the Historic Jesus"  I did not read the article since I
    just picked up the book yesterday.
    
    The lecture discussed the History of the Scholarly Quest for the
    Historic Jesus.  The first writing cited was in the 1700's when
    inspired by the Age of Reason, the author began questioning the
    Biblical narrative and question what really happend.
    
    After that it was really the twentieth Century before most of the
    historic work has been done.    There is a parallel between the
    intellectual climate and the works being produce.  During the Romantic
    period, the works were Romantic.  During the 20's the Social Gospel
    movement sprung up.  Then Bultmann and demythologizing the Bible up
    through today with the Jesus Seminars and another quest for who the
    authentic Historic Jesus is.
    
    Then there was a discussion on Is this quest important.
    
    
    After that we broke into small groups and anayzed the parable of the
    Banquet in which the guests are invited but don't come.
    
    The Matthew version has the King inviting guest, nobody comes, he
    invites others.  One man shows up without a robe and is killed.  The
    imfamous weeping and gnashing of teeth line ends the parable.
    
    The Luke version is a man has a dinner banquet and nobody comes.  His
    slaves than go out and invite the poor, lame, and sick.
    
    We also compared the story in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.  THis
    version is very much like Luke.
    
    THe groups determined that the Luke version was the closest to the
    original although that luke himself probably added the identify of the
    poor, lame, and sick since that is a main message of Luke.
    
    The Matthew version was identified as alegorical and scholars generally 
    agree that the allegorical writings are not part of the earliest
    Christian tradition.  Allegory was identified as writing that can be
    decoded.  Each item in the writing has a coded relation to something
    else.  King with God.  Wedding Feast-God's relationship with the elect.
    Destruction of the city, Destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.  etc,
    
    We will continue are discussion of Parables for next week, and then
    move into reading and studying the book of Mark.
    
                                 Patricia

    Hermeneutics is the study of the nature of the texts.
    
    There are many differing hermeneutical approaches depending upon ones 
    assumption of the nature of the text and therefore the questions one is
    trying to answer.
    
    I have never heard the expression "Law of hermeneutics" That may be an
    expression belonging to a school of hemeneutics that believes the Bible
    is a consistent whole and therefore rigid laws could be applied to its
    decoding.  That is just a guess. 

    I wonder if these quick next day recaps from memory will help me
    "A"ce the course. 
    
                           Patricia
    
                             

    We have progressed into the reading and studying of the Gospels
    themselves.  The first Gospel we read was mark.  We read Scholarly
    articles about the book of Mark from three different sources including
    our text, the woman's Bible commentary, and the Dictionary of the
    Gospels.  The lecture was about the structure of the Gospel and the 
    "messianic secret"  I am fascinating with the book of Mark.  It may be
    my favorite Gospel, but I need to finish this course before I make
    that decisions.
    
    Our assignment this week is to read matthew and the Scholarly articles
    from the same sources.  I have been reading up on what Son of God, the
    Messiah, and Lord means in Matthew.  The study of the word Lord is
    fascinating and confusing.  The dictionary of the Gospels which is the
    most conservative of the three books I am using had a synopsis on the
    usage of the Greek words translated into Lord and the evolution of the
    concept.  I did not understand it all.  Sometimes that word is used in
    a transcendent divine sense, sometime it is used for an Earthly Owner,
    It was used in a transcendent sense in Emporor worship and sometimes it
    is used as a title of respect like "sir".
    
    The Dictionary of the Gospel states that in Matthew, Lord occasionally hint
    ed to a transcendent reality during the life of Jesus.  More often it
    is used as a title of respect.  After the ressurrection it is
    supposively used in the more trancendent way.  Since one of my active
    questions as I read the Gospels is Does the gospels identify Jesus as a
    human messiah or a divine messiah, I find the study fascinating.
    
    For some strange reason I tend to come up with theories and ideas
    different than some of my classmates.  I am enjoying the class.  When I
    am done with this class, I will be able to claim familiarity with the
    Whole New Testament.  Then I can go on to tackle the OT classes and the
    Theology classes.
    
                                       Patricia

    speaking of roles...  What do you think is the major theme of Mark?

    THat Christ is the Messiah, but he has radically redefine what it means
    to be the messiah.  To be a disciple of Christ means to serve others as
    Christ has served.  To be a disciple means to be willing to give up
    one's life to save it.  To seek hierarchical power over others misses
    the point of what it means to be a messiah or a disciple.
    
    
    What do you think the major theme is?
    
                                          Patricia

    The authors of the gospels all portrayed a slightly different view of
    Christ.  Given Mark's background as a servant of Paul's, it is easy to
    see why he wrote about Christ the way he did.  When I read Mark, I see 
    him presenting Jesus Christ as the Shamash - the Suffering Servant.  
    Mark 10:45 sums up the theme of the whole book quite nicely:
    
    "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
     minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
    
    You have sensed this theme also.  Mark is full of eyewitness accounts
    of Jesus Christ serving us and giving His life for us.
    
    Mike

    >> To seek hierarchical power over others misses
    >> the point of what it means to be a messiah or a disciple.
    
    There you go again!!!

    Jack,
    
    Boy are you sensitive!
    
    That is exactly what the theme is about.
    
    I am thinking about the episode where James and John ask if they can
    have the top spots in Heaven.
    
    Jesus' chastises them and says that humans authorities think authority
    is lording it over others but real authority is in serving others.
    
    Remember the first should be last and the last first.
    
    I keep telling Jack,  Jesus is a wonderful radical feminist.
    
    Patricia

    I note your sarcasm and apologize!
    
    What are your thoughts on the woman who poured perfume on the feet of
    Jesus and wiped it with her hair.  If Jesus were a radical feminist, he
    certainly wouldn't stand for this...yet he highly condoned her actions.
    
    Would Eleanor Schmiel stand for this?????
    
    -Jack

    .14  I've heard of a possible connection of Mark with Peter, but not
    Mark with Paul.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I looked that up last night in the Dictionary of the gospels.
    
    The conclusion there was that the Mark identified as a disciple of
    Peter and the Mark identified in the Pauline letters are the same
    person.  This is the person who had been traditionally assumed to be
    the author of the book of Mark.
    
     The article went on to say that the authorship of the book of
    Mark cannot be known. The author is anonymous.  It further states that
    nowhere in the book of Mark is any hint of authorship mentioned and the
    only historical dating of the book seems to indicate that it was
    written either shorthly before or shortly after the destruction of the
    Temple.  65-70 CE is the estimated date.  THere is also no way of
    knowing where the book was written or to what audience.
    
                                   Patricia

>     The article went on to say that the authorship of the book of
>    Mark cannot be known. The author is anonymous.  It further states that
>    nowhere in the book of Mark is any hint of authorship mentioned

"Most ecclesiastical writers see in Mk 14:51-52, the episode of the young
man who leaves his sheet behind him as he flees from the garden when Jesus
is arrested, as Mark's own veiled signature to his Gospel, since only he
refers to this episode.  If this were the only reference it would be
ambiguous, but it is supported by other circumstantial evidence: Mark was
the son of Mary, apparently a well-to-do widow, in whose house in Jerusalem
the first Christians used to gather (cf. Acts 12:12).  An early Christian
text (Acta Sanctorum, 2, 434) states that this was the same house as the
Cenacle, where our Lord celebrated the Last Supper and instituted the Holy
Eucharist.  It also seems probable that the Garden of Olives belonged to
this same Mary; which would explain Mark's presence there.  We also know
from the Acts of the Apostles that Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, one of
the great evangelizers of the early days, though not one of the Twelve."

				-- Navarre Bible Commentary
				   Faculty of the University of Navarre

    re .17
    
    In my more flippant days, I always thought of that passage as having
    enormous sexual overtones.  I thought of the passage as one more
    indication of Jesus' humanity.
    
    From studying Mark, I have been made aware of the importance of that
    story for the whole plot of Mark.  
    
    Jesus has redefined the meaning of the Messiah.  The disciples thought
    of the Messiah as a great King annointed by God to destroy Roman rule
    and restore Jeresualem to its days of glory.  Jesus defines Messiahship
    in light of the Cross.  Jesus is going to bring about God's realm not
    be conquest but by dying.  The disciples must also be prepared to take
    up their crosses.  The disciples will not accept this message.
    
    This women, mysteriously appears at the dinner at the Lepers house and
    annoints Jesus with expensive perfume.  SHe is preparing Jesus' body.
    Jesus proclaims that whenever the gospel is proclaimed, this story will
    be told "in memory of her".
    
    An anonymous woman who truly understood Jesus' message of Messiahship.
    
                                     Patricia

    As an FYI, the fact that Mark did not include the lineage from Mary or
    from Joseph, as Matthew and Luke did, would indicate he was directing
    his gospel to a gentile audience, since they would have no use for it
    at the time.  Also John Mark did continue on a missionary journey with 
    Barnabus into gentile regions of Asia minor.
    
    -Jack

    re .20
    
    That young man invented the much honored tradition
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Streaking!!

    re: .17
    
    Personally, I tend to think of the story of the woman annointing Jesus'
    feet, and the story of Jesus washing the discples feet, together.  In
    each case, I think love is being shown through service.
    
    re: .21
    
    For some reason I always thought the woman in this story was Mary
    Magaline (sp?).  Guess I'm confusing the Biblical version witht he
    Jesus Christ Superstar version.  :-)

    Yes, it was a pure act of devotion.  But the question is, Would a
    contemporary feminist today be appalled at this if they had been at the
    party?
    
    -Jack

    .25
    
    	Not the feminists I know, including me.
    
    	It would have been a very different situation had the act been expected
    and imposed upon her, rather than genuine and voluntary.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    Patricia Ireland would have done backward sommersaults out of sheer
    anger.  
    
    -Jack

    I've never heard of Patricia Ireland.  Is she something like a Ralph
    Reed (executive director of Pat Robertson's 'Christian Coalition')?
    
    A true feminist is one who favors the liberation of both women and men,
    especially from prescribed roles.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    For some reason I always thought the woman in this story was Mary
>    Magdalen.  Guess I'm confusing the Biblical version with the
>    Jesus Christ Superstar version.  :-)

For some reason, a number of people (most recently and most pervasively
Andrew Lloyd Webber) have attempted to create an identity between Mary
Magdalen, the woman caught in adultery, and the sinful woman who took
care of Jesus' feet.

There is no evidence of this identity; there is no evidence that Mary
Magdalen was a prostitute; what we know about her is that seven demons
were cast out of her.

/john

    Richard:
    
    Patricia Ireland is presently the president of the National
    Organization for Women.  By your definition, Patricia would not be a
    feminist because whe hates men.  I would be more of a feminist than she
    is.
    
    -Jack

    Mark, or John Mark (Acts 12:25) as he was officially known, was the son 
    of Mary of Jerusalem (Acts 12:12).  He was also related to Barnabas
    (Colossians 4:10).  John Mark went with Paul and Barnabas on their
    first missionary journey (Acts 12:25, 13:5), but was alienated by Paul
    for quitting on them (Acts 13:13, 15:37-39).  Something happened to
    John Mark's spiritual growth between then and 2 Timothy 4:11 because
    Paul then considered him a great help.  What probably happened is that
    Peter tutored and schooled John Mark.  Acts 12 makes it clear that
    Peter and Mark were friends.  Ancient tradition verifies their
    relationship.  Some ancient writers call Mark - Peter's Gospel, because
    he probably furnished or at least suggested, much of the material in the
    book.  We just don't know if it was done directly or indirectly, but we
    do know Peter tutored Mark.
    
    As Jack said, the book is addressed to Gentile Christians, mainly
    because of the lack of OT prophetic references (compared to the other 
    gospels).  Also, the explanation of Jewish words and customs indicate a
    Gentile audience (Mark 3:17, 5:41, 7:1-4,11,34).
    
    Mike

    .30
    
    This is getting way off the topic.  So if I decide to enter another
    reply on the tangent of feminism, I'll place a pointer in this string.
    
    I do not hate men.  Patricia Flanagan does not hate men.  Hating men
    does not make one a feminist.
    
    I've not heard anyone with NOW (I know several members of the local
    chapter) campaigning to abolish men.
    
    To imply that the one defining quality of feminism is a hatred of men
    as a class of beings, indicates a weak grasp of feminism, to say the
    least.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Oh no,  Midterm tonight.
    
    Matthew, Mark, and the theories regarding the Resurrection.
    
    Son of Man, Son of David, Son of God, Messiah, Lord, lord, confusing terms
    rattling around in my brain.
    
    Which parables are in Mark and which are in Matthew and what is the
    difference.  I don't know that I remember anymore.
    
    Besides, the class is taught by two instructors.  The liberal
    instructor wrote one of the books and lectured on Mark.  The orthordox
    instructor lectured on Matthew.  The orthordox
    instructore pretty much told us what he is going to ask regarding
    Matthew.  Do I dare challenge his conclusions in a mid term.  Of Course
    I do?  But what is the risk?
    
    The more I study these books the more like a neophyte I feel.
    
    Its wonderful and scary at the same time.
    
                                      Patricia
    

>    The more I study these books the more like a neophyte I feel.
>    
>    Its wonderful and scary at the same time.
    
    I 100% agree with you here.  The more God reveals His Word to me, the
    more I realize how little I know and how vast the Bible really is.
    
    Mike

 AMEN!

    So, Patricia - how did the midterm go?

    I don't think it went so well, but I am leaving it to the scaling
    factor.  I'm glad it is over with.
    
    Now on to Luke and John.  
    
    For the final, I will rely on memorizing the text rather than
    analyszing and synthesizing multiple versions of commentary on the Gospels.
    
    Patricia

    Yesterday, I picked up my corrected Final and Exegisis Paper on John.
    
    I end the semester with an A-.  I wish it were an A though.
    
    I have now completed my New Testament Requirements having completed 3
    courses.  NT 1 & Nt 2 which included a rapid journey through all the
    books of the NT and the Corinthian Letters.
    
    I was very pleased with my Exegisis Paper.  I lost points because I was
    more concerned with the theological issues raised rather than sticking
    with exactly what the author was saying in John 1:1-5.  But the
    difference was perhaps only part of the difference between the A- and A
    and I am much more concerned with the Theological issues.
    
    The instructor who corrected the paper who is pretty Orthordox in his
    theology did a excellent job correcting the paper and raised some
    questions that challenge me.  That is my ideal for learning.  To do a
    piece of work that I am proud of and yet still feel challenged to
    pursue the topic further.
    
    I am challenged to want to study the Johanine literature, the Gospel, 1
    2,3, John and Revelation as a unit while also studying the history and
    sociology of the Johanine community.  Realizing that some of my
    objections to the Gospel of John are the same as my objections to
    Revelation, I need to learn more.
    
    The question that challenges me, is that if I read this literature as
    the literature that gives hope to an oppressed minority, do I judge it
    differently.  The literature has an exclusive claim that I find
    offensive.  Is an exclusive claim that gives hope to a minority
    experiencing intense prosecution different than an exclusive claim in
    less emotional literature.  It is a good question.
    
    Perhaps I will use one of my electives to pursue the matter.  After a
    soujourn into the liberal Process Theology.
    
    The experience of being the most liberal and one of the most outspoken
    students in a fairly conservative Theology School did leave me a little
    drained.  But the good feeling of pulling much of what I have learned
    together and integrating it into my own theological views more than
    compensated.
    
    I have continued to struggle with the question of whether I define
    myself as a Christian or not.  Mid semester I came to a full
    affirmation of "no I didn't"  and Andover Newton definately was not my
    Faith Community.
    
    Then at Christmas time, I allowed my right brain to intuitively select
    Christmas cards.  For the first time ever, the cards I sent out were
    all religious cards.
    
    It certainly is a good thing that I love paradox.  The real issue
    though is What is Christianity anyway?
    
                                Patricia
    
    
                                 Patricia
    

    Congratulations on your A, Paticia.  I'm proud of you.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Thank you Richard!
    
    

.38>    I end the semester with an A-.  I wish it were an A though.

aren't you setting your standards *very* high? ;-) 

an a- is an excellent result! i would have been happy with much less!!

congratulations!

andreas.