Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 1/25/2025 at 10:03 PM, gsoda3 said:

I've never read it cover to cover like a novel so I started doing that last year from page 1. I'm using the MacArthur Study Bible, all the notes are helpful.  Really helps to reinforce the gulf there is between the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man (and myself).

Actually, the Old Testament God is really an asshole. A murdering genocidal, kill kids type of asshole.  

The Gnostic folks tried to resolve this dilemma of God is Holy, while being a true asshole, by concluding that there was a different Old Testament God than the New Testament God of love who cares for man.   They theorized that the New Testament God was superior to the lower status sorta evil Old Testament deity.     It might’ve been a tad simplistic, but it certainly helped to resolve issues with God slaughtering so many innocents.   And  really, what type of supposed Supreme Being is hung up on smelling the barbecue goodness of an animal offering to him?  

That dichotomy is also a nifty way to side step the band on eating shrimp, poor boys and the refusal to adhere to menstruation tents. I had a conversation with my minister on this subject, and I asked him how seminary education dealt with that vengeful Old Testament God thing.   He replied that they were far more important things to focus on, like the salvation of man.

Has anyone had a similar discussion with their pastor?

  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/7/2025 at 11:43 PM, F250 said:

For the Christ followers, I am curious as to your thoughts on this verse.

Matthew 16:18
New Revised Standard Version


18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

From L. Michael White (Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin):

Quote

 

Matthew's gospel is clearly written for a Jewish Christian audience living within the immediate proximity of the homeland itself. Matthew's is the most Jewish of all the gospels. The community for which Matthew was written was a Jewish Christian community that was encountering some new tensions in the period of reconstruction after the first revolt. It would appear that they've been there for quite some time. They actually show a consciousness of an older legacy of Jesus' tradition, going back to before the war. But now they're experiencing new tensions and new problems in the aftermath of the revolt as a political and social reconstruction is taking place.

Matthew was written with what appears to be a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians located probably in Syria. Matthew's prime concern was that the Jewish tradition should not be lost in a church that was increasingly becoming gentile.He frequently cites Jewish scripture, the portrays Jesus as the new Moses along with other events from Jewish history, and the concern to present Jesus as fulfilling, not destroying, the Law

The Gospel of Mark is a New Testament book written for Gentile converts and Roman believers.

Mark appears to target a more classically Roman audience. He often tends to portray Jesus as the "suffering servant," using language like in Mark 10:45, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. " Instead, Mark chooses to focus on the actions and sacrifices made by Christ. For a Roman audience this would have been a rather compelling picture; many of the Roman lower class were slaves or servants by trade, and could have identified with this representation. Its presumption that readers will be unfamiliar with Jewish customs , Aramaic terms, and Palestinian geography suggests an origin beyond Palestine.

Latinisms and Mark's tendency to translate Aramaic sources indicate that his audience was highly roman and did not understand Aramaic. This tends towards indicating a date after the destruction of Jerusalem, as Mark seems to be writing in diaspora.

In Acts, we find that Simon was the first to hear Yhwhs message and say 'hey the Gentiles are people too, believing in jesus saves us and them.' More gospel verses later Simon Peter tells Paul to go out and mentor more twards Gentiles and that he would take care of the Jews for Jesus.

Paul's audience (whom Mark is written for) argues that Gentiles don't have to get circumcised but Jewish sons did. He seems to make it quite clear that Gentiles arnt bound by the strict Jewish laws.

The Gentile church eventually wins out but Matthew's laws are still firm in the gospel and Bible.

There is some thought, though certainly in the minority, that the name "Peter" might be ironic (like calling a 6'7" 310 lbs guy Tiny) given how often Peter is admonished in gMark and how often he appears to be clueless.

It's also famous for being part of the basis of the Catholic Church claiming primacy over all other churches via their claim that Peter was the first "Pope". Of course this is a rather anachronistic claim since early churches didn't seem to have a single "leader" but a council of presbyters, along with the fact that no single church was viewed as "Primary" over the others until centuries later when when the Roman Empire would be split between Rome and Constantinople. Peter Brown, in The Rise of Western Christendom says that while churches of the West might think of the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter and Paul and heirs of Roman order, it would "be a serious anachronism to see the bishops of Rome as central to the Latin churches of the West."

The succession from Peter is an idea that first appears around 180 CE, in Irenaeus' Against Heresies, where he compares the many "heretical" groups at the time to the "universally known church founded and organized by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul.". One problem with this idea is that, according Paul's own letter to the Romans, there is an already existing Roman church which he did not found. There is additionally no early information that Peter founded a church in Rome. Even Peter's early alleged successor, Pope Clement does not make that claim in 1 Clement. Irenaeus' assertions about the "apostolic church" with a continuous lineage of "bishops" dating from Peter's time to his own, looks to be a device to contrast against the illegitimacy of all groups who did not recognize episcopal authority like his own as Bishop of Lyons. He was describing the kind of church he would like to see, not the church as it was in his time. His idea of a Roman episcopal genealogy begotten by Peter and Paul naturally appealed to bishops of Rome in later times, but it has no verifiable basis in history. The very "heretics" he was writing against were acting freely in Rome itself, showing any supposed supreme leader lacked control over dissenters.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Viper said:

From L. Michael White (Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin):

There is some thought, though certainly in the minority, that the name "Peter" might be ironic (like calling a 6'7" 310 lbs guy Tiny) given how often Peter is admonished in gMark and how often he appears to be clueless.

It's also famous for being part of the basis of the Catholic Church claiming primacy over all other churches via their claim that Peter was the first "Pope". Of course this is a rather anachronistic claim since early churches didn't seem to have a single "leader" but a council of presbyters, along with the fact that no single church was viewed as "Primary" over the others until centuries later when when the Roman Empire would be split between Rome and Constantinople. Peter Brown, in The Rise of Western Christendom says that while churches of the West might think of the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter and Paul and heirs of Roman order, it would "be a serious anachronism to see the bishops of Rome as central to the Latin churches of the West."

The succession from Peter is an idea that first appears around 180 CE, in Irenaeus' Against Heresies, where he compares the many "heretical" groups at the time to the "universally known church founded and organized by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul.". One problem with this idea is that, according Paul's own letter to the Romans, there is an already existing Roman church which he did not found. There is additionally no early information that Peter founded a church in Rome. Even Peter's early alleged successor, Pope Clement does not make that claim in 1 Clement. Irenaeus' assertions about the "apostolic church" with a continuous lineage of "bishops" dating from Peter's time to his own, looks to be a device to contrast against the illegitimacy of all groups who did not recognize episcopal authority like his own as Bishop of Lyons. He was describing the kind of church he would like to see, not the church as it was in his time. His idea of a Roman episcopal genealogy begotten by Peter and Paul naturally appealed to bishops of Rome in later times, but it has no verifiable basis in history. The very "heretics" he was writing against were acting freely in Rome itself, showing any supposed supreme leader lacked control over dissenters.

Solid post.

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...