----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 1:56 PM Subject: Re: Jesus-anity
> > But Paul never met Jesus (unless new scripts that I > haven't heard about have emerged from somewhere); the > Gospels purport to be accounts from eyewitnesses and > direct followers of Jesus. So I give more weight to > them than to one "inspired by" the Holy Spirit. Few non-Fundamentalist scholars think they were eyewitness accounts. The general understanding of the vast majority of scripture scholars is that, of the synoptic gospels, Mark is primary with Mark and Luke having a copy of Mark and a copy of "Q" that they relied upon. Mark was, in all likelihood, a pastor in Rome around the time of Nero. Among other things, Mark made very elemental geography mistakes, something that a person who had been in Galilee, let alone traveled with Jesus would not make. There are other strong indications. Raymond Brown, for example, thinks that John is more likely to have the date of the crucifixion correct than do the synoptic gospels. This would argue strongly against the synoptic gospels being eyewitness accounts. > Which is why I find those who claim "the Bible says > so!" as justification for their viewpoint silly. I > will be the first to admit that I pick and choose, > based on my own understanding and experience of what > it means to 'live a godly life,' but neither do I > claim that *my* POV is The Exclusive One And Only > Truth. <wry> Then there's the teeny fact that I'm > admittedly a heretic... ':} I see a middle ground between believing everything is in black and white in source X and believing that morality comes totally from within, and then looking for texts and people who agree with oneself. I see it more as being in dialog with the text. As my daughter Amy has pointed out, every Christian has a "cannon within the cannon." Mine is Jesus' discussion of the two greatest laws. I view other scripture through that lens. But, I do not use a scissors when I do it. I read and reflect on the entirety of scripture, even the parts that challenge my views. The advantage I see in this is that it promotes dialog. This dialog is not only with the past, but with the present. After one person says, I snipped A and kept B because A agrees with what I've developed internally and B doesn't, and the other says the reverse (snipping B and keeping A), the chances for dialog are minimal unless they can find some other standard upon which they disagree. But, if one uses A to interpret B and the other uses B to interpret A, then possibilities for dialog improve. I have significant empirical evidence for this in my discussions with fundamentalists. I can almost always keep the dialog going because I don't throw out the passages they quote. I quote other passages to put them in context. Let me give an example. There is the passage in Paul that states that women should be quiet in church. It seems pretty definite. Yet, right above that passage is one that describes the appropriate attire for women to wear while prophesizing in church. The most plausible explanation I've seen is that a redactor of Paul added this; when there was a conflict involving women speaking in church. There are a number of ways this can be read; one of which is that there was an active dialog concerning the roll of women...and the validity of the radical departure shown by Christians from Judaism. Given the fact this was most likely written before the name Christian was used, and that Paul wrote before following Jesus was seen as a different religion from Judaism...which did not even have men and women worshiping together, you can get a feel for the dynamics. This brings in Peter Gomes suggestion that we use biblical principals, not biblical practices as a guide. Indeed, I'd argue strongly he is taking his lead in the interpretation of scripture from the gospels and from Paul in arguing for this. > FWIW, it was, in fact, one of the pastors I knew who > said that we really have 'Paulanity' rather than > 'Jesus-anity.' (But the bit about "The Lord's Supper > Club" is my very own!) ;) But, if you read Paul, he is the first strong source for Jesus being the center of our religion. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
