Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator:Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm
Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by met » Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:44 am

. Yeah, I did miss it.

What I will honestly say is that...if it took me 2.5 years to have to develop a way to express myself in this subject, then I would expect it will take just as long to give a proper reply to that point that Meta is making.

Peace,
-sgttomas
I'm feeling like it might take that long to finish OUR discussion here too.... my urge is to out-and-out lambast some of your points out of sheer ignorance just as an way to go abit deeper. But I'm resisting it.

Oh well! :)


ETA:

Still, your link suggested you did know what I was getting at, when I brought up that according-to-me-underestimated "darker" aspect of the xian story-
. He said: "Then tell me about the Hour". He said: "The one questioned about it knows no better than the questioner." He said: "Then tell me about its signs." He said: "That the slave-girl will give birth to her mistress and that you will see the barefooted, naked, destitute herdsman competing in constructing lofty buildings
( ... albeit, in a slightly different, easier to paste translation)

How does this apophatic/apocalyptic/theopoetic-seeming aspect of your tradition here relate, for you, to those teachings that are useful for "building lives and societies" that u mentioned above? (& I will leave my question at that!)

P.P.S. - Congrats on your new venture, btw...
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts:2424
Joined:Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by sgttomas » Sat Aug 16, 2014 1:29 pm

Thanks! It's a really exciting time.

That's such a great question you asked. And yes, you did pick up on something. There is a thread within Islamic knowledge that studies precisely that subject. I have had some minor introductions, enough to get the flavour of it. What this study provides us in terms of, "building lives and societies" is a clearer picture of the universal moral hirearchy. The time of God's Messenger on Earth was the best time of all existence. We are then warned of how that condition would degrade, and how that would actually play out in various situations and societies.

Most people today take the Gabriel Hadith as being astonishingly validated by the "naked, barefoot, bedouins, competing in construction" ....have you been to Dubai or Qatar recently?

What role it plays is addressing two things: 1) the content of the knowledge to be implemented for our benefit (for this we need qualified scholarship and upright human beings to distill things out for us common folk) and 2) a sign to the common-man (we are all "common" men, except for whom God chooses to bestow His favour of nearness to Him. These predictions / projections / instructions about the future show a remarkable perception of the personal and social human condition. It also suggests that the Messenger's claims of Divine imparation of this knowledge should be taken at face value, since he (may God send peace and blessings upon him) is a virtuous person of remarkable character.

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by met » Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:20 pm

What role it plays is addressing two things: 1) the content of the knowledge to be implemented for our benefit (for this we need qualified scholarship and upright human beings to distill things out for us common folk) and 2) a sign to the common-man (we are all "common" men, except for whom God chooses to bestow His favour of nearness to Him.



These predictions / projections / instructions about the future show a remarkable perception of the personal and social human condition. It also suggests that the Messenger's claims of Divine imparation of this knowledge should be taken at face value, since he (may God send peace and blessings upon him) is a virtuous person of remarkable character.
Whereas Xianity follows a "failure" - someone whose mission ended in disgrace and who was put to humiliating death by a collusion of secular and religious authorities and whose story and teachings would have likely remained obscure had not
God raised him up. What does this tell us about our respective traditions?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by met » Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:27 pm

Or does it tell us anything? I'm always afraid of making an "Islam vs Xianity" conversation out of what are really just our own personal pov's. :shock:
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts:2424
Joined:Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by sgttomas » Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:46 pm

God raised up both men. From the Islamic perspective it is clearly and strongly identified as a continuation of tradition, just cast through different social circumstances. They were God's Messengers, so we have no conflict between them. What they share is the same godly character that evoked such strong allegiances of love for God's sake.
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by met » Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:18 pm

ST, I understand that, but it doesn't seem to fully answer my question...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam
According to the Quran, Jesus, although appearing to have been crucified, was not killed by crucifixion or by any other means; instead, "God raised him unto Himself". In the 19th Sura of the Quran (in verses 15 and 33) Jesus is blessed on "the day he was born and the day he will die and the day he is raised alive" which clearly declares that Jesus will or did experience a natural death, and will be raised again on the day of judgement or has already been raised.
That's my understanding of the Islamic view, too. Is that inaccurate?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts:2424
Joined:Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by sgttomas » Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:23 pm

I guess so...a common one, anyways. I have heard different interpretations too.

For a Muslim, this aspect of Jesus' life and character is pretty minor. ...it would have clear urgency in a Christian mind.
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by met » Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:21 pm

In the sense that it would be no big deal for God to raise a righteous man from the dead anyway? Yes, I can understand that.

My point is that "guidelines for living" as you suggest xians are lacking are not only unnecessary but wouldn't actually be sufficient for Xians anyway. The Church is called to model Christ for the world, to be "the people for others" in a Bonhoefferian sense (see my link on the other thread). Not to form a closed (even if righteous) society in which we can live out self-interested lives (under some guidelines).

Do you recall on AARM I had a similar debate with Merlin? It involved the idea that in xianity, there were NO rules because the "rules" were actually so strict that you couldn't follow them anyway without experiencing a genuine "inner change" guided by the Spirit and it revolved around interpreting this bit of the Sermon on the Mount...
. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Merlin said that was the most insane idea ever... :? But, thinking along those lines, you can see how a Yale theologian makes the following comments about the gay marriage debate... guided by Paul's famous 'neither male nor female' comments in Gal 3....

"For the Pauline Body of Christ unlinks the authority of creation, read in terms of biological dualism (male and female) or ontologized sexual identity, from its conception of sexual morality. Anatomical sex is ritualized as a baptismal gift of new creation, human nature redefined sacramentally beyond dualism as a uniquely Christian, one-body, multi-gender practice of becoming. Christian sex is thereby transfigured into a transfiguring enactment of God. This would mean, as Paul claims, that sexual ethics in the Body must revolve around communal recreativity rather than individual procreativity. If we took it seriously, neither “male and female,” nor “male” and “female,” nor heterosexuality, nor homosexuality, nor either kind of marriage would be a Christian good—only the sexual and sexed / gendered performances that unnaturally unite divided peoples, in the Body of Christ, for lives of Christian service. •"
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts:2424
Joined:Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by sgttomas » Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:45 pm

met wrote:In the sense that it would be no big deal for God to raise a righteous man from the dead anyway? Yes, I can understand that.

My point is that "guidelines for living" as you suggest xians are lacking are not only unnecessary but
......every single entity on this planet is constantly - at all hours and in all places and in all ways - utterly dependent upon guidelines for living. There are as many approaches to this as there are entities. Humanity in particular is gravely in need. Our needs are considerable, and our reliance upon guidance from our LORD in very practical terms, is essential. There shouldn't be any part of life considered too profane for God to have something to say about it...and if God says something about it, then it ought to be the singularly most important fact of our lives. The only question is figuring out what it means to say, "God says something about it..."

That is ultimately what this discussion is about....


wouldn't actually be sufficient for Xians anyway. The Church is called to model Christ for the world, to be "the people for others" in a Bonhoefferian sense (see my link on the other thread). Not to form a closed (even if righteous) society in which we can live out self-interested lives (under some guidelines).
Why is that what you imagine? Why wouldn't living under the guidance of God be The Most Liberating and Joyful experience and mode of being imaginable? ....proof's in the pudding, on that one.

I find that Islam has remarkable things to say about unified communal existence modelled after the bridge and the church - in that holistic, unifying, beyond words, spiritually uplifting, compassionate, merciful, and loving relationship with our Bride...Muhammad, and with Jesus, and with all of God's Noble Messengers.

Islamically speaking we have been told by our Prophet, to venerate him to any extent, except not to make the mistake of the Christians in attributing divinity to him - may God ennoble his countenance and grant him peace and blessings, to him and to his family, and to all of those who strive in God's ways.

The true consciousness of God cannot occur without the purification of one's heart, in private and in community. And we have needs for a model, a template, an exemplar, a process, a relationship, a guide and a master, our Prophet Muhammad, who was given the religion of Islam to be a mercy to all of the Worlds.
Do you recall on AARM I had a similar debate with Merlin? It involved the idea that in xianity, there were NO rules because the "rules" were actually so strict that you couldn't follow them anyway without experiencing a genuine "inner change" guided by the Spirit and it revolved around interpreting this bit of the Sermon on the Mount...
. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Merlin said that was the most insane idea ever... :? But, thinking along those lines, you can see how a Yale theologian makes the following comments about the gay marriage debate... guided by Paul's famous 'neither male nor female' comments in Gal 3....

"For the Pauline Body of Christ unlinks the authority of creation, read in terms of biological dualism (male and female) or ontologized sexual identity, from its conception of sexual morality. Anatomical sex is ritualized as a baptismal gift of new creation, human nature redefined sacramentally beyond dualism as a uniquely Christian, one-body, multi-gender practice of becoming. Christian sex is thereby transfigured into a transfiguring enactment of God. This would mean, as Paul claims, that sexual ethics in the Body must revolve around communal recreativity rather than individual procreativity. If we took it seriously, neither “male and female,” nor “male” and “female,” nor heterosexuality, nor homosexuality, nor either kind of marriage would be a Christian good—only the sexual and sexed / gendered performances that unnaturally unite divided peoples, in the Body of Christ, for lives of Christian service. •"


...I'm so bamboozled right now, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to even take from this!!! aaaahhh, err, help?!??

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Have you read Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus?

Post by met » Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:24 am

Bamboozled? :shock: I'm feeling bamboozled by your last response too. Seems we have a lot of work to do...

Um, Pauline theology...

In Christ, according to Paul, the believer IS a new creation. So his or her old identity is entirely gone: i.e. their "tribal" identity, economic identity, gender identity, all that no longer exists.
. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Why? Because Xian identity can no longer be defined at all by this world's definitions...
. Romans 12 - (Paul's big "therefore") Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice—alive, holy, and pleasing to God—which is your reasonable service. Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God—what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.
( Notice the part I emph'd there? )

So,according to Paul, there is considerable fluidity in xianity. (Counterbalanced obviously by the demand for considerable responsibility; in fact, as you must recall, Paul says it's better if you don't even marry, just focus on pleasing God. ) What that theologian is saying, I think, is that in the new creation, there is nothing "natural". There is only the UNNatural joining together of tribes, economic classes, and genders for the purpose of bringing in the Kingdom of God....
. .. This would mean, as Paul claims, that sexual ethics in the Body must revolve around communal recreativity rather than individual procreativity. If we took it seriously, neither “male and female,” nor “male” and “female,” nor heterosexuality, nor homosexuality, nor either kind of marriage would be a Christian good—only the sexual and sexed / gendered performances that unnaturally unite divided peoples, in the Body of Christ, for lives of Christian service. •
So, like that. There are NO (hard and fixed) RULES (or roles). Or expectations for life. All bets are off.

Yet, there is also great responsibility - "it's not all about YOU" - & it's insufficient to be "good" according to the old Law or any other set of rules. (Cf my quote from Christ above.) We live - and are strengthened - by the Spirit and that IS both "freedom" and "abundant life". Xianity, after all, is meant to fulfill this quote from Jeremiah
. Jeremiah 31:33 "This is the covenant I will make with the people of ...
"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. New Living Translation ...

I think that's the basic Pauline view. Does that help?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Post Reply