RE: theage.com.au ~ GAY ministers still up for debate

[Greg Crawford]

As a scholar, Geza Vermes ought to know better. The words placed on Jesus’ lips by Gospel authors are as much an _expression_ of what the authors believed about Jesus as they are about what Jesus actually said. However, that may be quite helpful, because it gives us a kind of “meaning-for-meaning” translation, rather than a “word for word” one.   To discover this, compare the sayings of Jesus across the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) and see how they change to reflect the situation to which each Gospel is being addressed. This is another way of saying I don’t think we can get back behind the Gospel presentation of Jesus to some theoretical “historical” Jesus. We are from the beginning (i.e. the Gospels) being given a presentation of Jesus which is already in the process of interpreting his relevance for a new situation.   Furthermore, I think understanding the difference between an ancient context and our modern one can make a big difference to the meaning. For example, take Jesus’ teaching on divorce. What a difference it makes to discover the ancient context: Two schools of rabbinic thought debating whether a man can divorce his wife for any and every reason, or, for one reason alone. Matthew’s Jesus sides with the more conservative view and allows divorce in rare circumstances. So compare Matthew 5:31 with the passage that gives it context - 19:3; then take a look at Mark 10:2-12 where there are no exceptions. St Paul apparently knows Jesus’ teaching but feels free to provide another exception (1 Corinthians 7:10-15) in a different context. In the ancient context, divorce may have led to abuse of the woman; in the modern context, inability to divorce may perpetuate abuse. Greg   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Sent: Friday, 30 July 2004 3:43 PM To: Insights Subject: Re: theage.com.au ~ GAY ministers still up for debate   G'day Darren & Sue,   As a Christian, I also feel uncomfortable with terminology such as Orthodox, Fundamentalist, Liberal, Conservative etc, when applied particularly to believers of Christ.  It implies and somewhat helps to perpetuate the gaps that divide us, not only within but throughout other denominations as well.   There seems to be a modern day tendency for some believers, to interpret or re-interpret Scripture to their belief system. For example you would find that many Social Workers, Shelter Workers, those working with Homeless or those wanting social change, tend to be in the Liberal category (box). This is not saying they are more right or wrong than any of us but it will colour their perceptions and interpretations of the Message. Whilst we want and need social change, does that therefore lead to necessarily wanting the Message or Church also to change accordingly.  Surely the great and wondrous thing about Scripture, is that it as relevant today as when it was written and we don't have to reinterpret it to apply it.   Is this why the Sexuality debate keeps on going, because we want to fit the Message to it rather than the other way round?   But I am new to all this and maybe see it differently because I was outside and have now come back in.   To paraphrase Geza Vermes, we should take more notice of what Jesus said than what is said about Him.   Peace and blessings to all,   Terry Bester   [EMAIL PROTECTED]