> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > But Paul never met Jesus (unless new scripts that
> I haven't heard about have emerged from somewhere);
--I should have added that the last time I
semi-seriously studied the Bible (i.e. in a class with
an actual doctor of theology) was over 2 decades ago,
so unless it was earth-shaking news I wouldn't have
heard of new information--
> the
> > Gospels purport to be accounts from eyewitnesses
> and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ {{emphasis added now}}
> > 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. <snip> 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 think I also wrote something here about 'not
actually knowing what Jesus (or others like Buddha)
actually said or did' -- this is extremely important,
as it renders most discussion of what *really*
occurred impossible to validate. I was also
apparently not clear on my opinion of the Bible in
general (although I do think I touched on that in
other posts previously): it is not literally true, and
much of what was included or excluded came out of the
hands of men who had an agenda, yet there are lessons
to be learned from its study. I think it difficult to
be truly literate in Western culture without at least
a nodding aquaintance with the Bible and Shakespeare
[or works that purport to be his ;) ].
> 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.
<very serious> I have state jokingly that I am a
"heretic Lutheran Deist," but that is in fact true. I
do _not_ believe that one must be Christian or indeed
of any particular faith to experience and love the
Divine. I am by definition not a true Christian,
since I do not acknowledge acceptance of Jesus as the
only Savior and means of experiencing the Divine
(ditto for the rest of the Nicene Creed). By
upbringing I am Lutheran, and that does profoundly
affect my views on many things -- like being
confrontational. <smile> Someone recently posted what
a deist believes in general. So what I 'scissor out
or in' is pretty much for purposes of countering
claims of 'what should be done/believed/accepted as
true.'
***However, see below WRT discussion -- I have ceased
attempting to change minds already fixed in stone --
you may choose to see this as a cop-out, failure or
lack of conviction in my own beliefs...I see it as
refusing to waste any more of my time or energy on the
deliberately ignorant. Not very nice, but that is
what I feel. Frex my response to the sock-puppet:
first observation, next a gentle reprimand (and test),
then flat refusal to 'feed the troll.' Not worth my
time or energy or effort. Both not-nice and
comtempuously arrogant. <shrug>
> The advantage I see in this is that it promotes
> dialog. This dialog is not
> only with the past, but with the present. <snip> 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.
You have an advantage in discussing anything with a
fundamentalist -- you are a man. As a woman, my views
are *automatically* dismissed by fundamentalists as
those of a lesser creature. I have previously posted
(in snippets) some of my problems with nearly all
organized religions WRT being a woman. I will be
happy to get into that again, but it deserves a
separate post. Attitude toward women is one of the
major reasons I became a non-Christian.
>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.
Yes, that is a passage I distinctly remember being
discussed vis-a-vis Paul's attitude towards women.
Quasi-ditto Lot, his daughters and the
strangers/angels. As I wrote before, I did not
consciously realize until I was a full adult how the
constant, yet often exquisitely subtle, denigration of
women by the Church has impacted devastatingly on
impressionable young girls. In my view, it is a form
of spiritual vampirism. >:/
> 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.
<no smile> The 'do as I say, not as I do' argument?
> > FWIW, it was, in fact, one of the pastors I knew
>>who said that we really have 'Paulanity' rather than
> > 'Jesus-anity.'
> But, if you read Paul, he is the first strong source
> for Jesus being the center of our religion.
<blinks> So, if as you noted above, we have no
verifiable eyewitness accounts of what Jesus said or
did, we are left with what _Paul_ says as the basis of
Christianity...?
It seems to me that you are agreeing with the position
that we _don't_ have 'Jesus-anity,' although you
disagree firmly with my viewpoints on why this is so
--and I daresay you are far more up-to-date on
Biblical scholasticism (sp?!) than I, so I accept your
reasons as better than mine.
I stand by my statement that what is and has been
practiced/believed is far more Paul-anity than
Jesus-anity.
Debbi
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
