theia:-6
Keating is indeed one of God's gifts to the world. An utterly devout and humble man.
shalom
Ted:-6
Tips On Reading The Bible
Tips On Reading The Bible
Ted;730330 wrote: theia:-6
Keating is indeed one of God's gifts to the world. An utterly devout and humble man.
shalom
Ted:-6
That is very clear in his writing, Ted. He writes gently yet inspiringly. I could fill this thread with more quotations from his book...amongst many other things he writes that we do not have to "earn" the love of God because we already have it.
Am I right in saying that you had heard him give a talk?
Keating is indeed one of God's gifts to the world. An utterly devout and humble man.
shalom
Ted:-6
That is very clear in his writing, Ted. He writes gently yet inspiringly. I could fill this thread with more quotations from his book...amongst many other things he writes that we do not have to "earn" the love of God because we already have it.
Am I right in saying that you had heard him give a talk?
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Tips On Reading The Bible
jester:-6
You accuse me of trying to please everyone. That is not the case. Our Lord turned no one away ever. He associated and ate with the sinners and tax collectors and the "dregs" of society. The only time we see him angry is when folks tried to do things, in the name of God, that he knew were wrong. Since I am not the judge I try to interact with all and try to understand them. Since I am both a Christian and a pluralist I also accept folks of other faiths and respect their right to worship and live as they do as long as they are not hurting others.
In many ways it is being a spiritual person as well as a religious person.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You accuse me of trying to please everyone. That is not the case. Our Lord turned no one away ever. He associated and ate with the sinners and tax collectors and the "dregs" of society. The only time we see him angry is when folks tried to do things, in the name of God, that he knew were wrong. Since I am not the judge I try to interact with all and try to understand them. Since I am both a Christian and a pluralist I also accept folks of other faiths and respect their right to worship and live as they do as long as they are not hurting others.
In many ways it is being a spiritual person as well as a religious person.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Tips On Reading The Bible
theia:-6
I took a course from Father Thomas and Cynthia Bourgeault at the Vancouver School of Theology this past summer.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I took a course from Father Thomas and Cynthia Bourgeault at the Vancouver School of Theology this past summer.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Tips On Reading The Bible
Since homosexuality was mentioned earlier I think it is time to take a look at history.
If one looks at the online Jewish Encyclopedia and looks up sexuality there are some very interesting points. For instance if a married man slept with another man's wife it was adultery. The same went for the wife. On the other hand if, in early biblical times, a married man went out and had sex with a non virgin it was not considered adultery. This did not hold for the woman. Today it would be considered adultery.
There were even temple prostitutes in early Judaism and that was quite acceptable.
In Num. 31 we read that the soldiers invading Canaan could save all the virgins for themselves. They could then marry them and thus have sex with them and if things didn't work out they could toss them out. Now in those days a used worman was not treated with any respect whatsoever but she could be used by the raunchy husband and that was ok because she wasn't married by then or a virgin.
We also read about the many wives of the kings. Polygamy was quite acceptable in those days. In fact polygamy was practiced by the Jews even after the death of Jesus.
Thus we see the Bible in fact has no sexual ethic consistent with social practice, that concerned women only women. In fact the Bible does not present us with a consistent sexual ethic. This of course was the context of a patriarchal society. Where only the men were considered real people.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If one looks at the online Jewish Encyclopedia and looks up sexuality there are some very interesting points. For instance if a married man slept with another man's wife it was adultery. The same went for the wife. On the other hand if, in early biblical times, a married man went out and had sex with a non virgin it was not considered adultery. This did not hold for the woman. Today it would be considered adultery.
There were even temple prostitutes in early Judaism and that was quite acceptable.
In Num. 31 we read that the soldiers invading Canaan could save all the virgins for themselves. They could then marry them and thus have sex with them and if things didn't work out they could toss them out. Now in those days a used worman was not treated with any respect whatsoever but she could be used by the raunchy husband and that was ok because she wasn't married by then or a virgin.
We also read about the many wives of the kings. Polygamy was quite acceptable in those days. In fact polygamy was practiced by the Jews even after the death of Jesus.
Thus we see the Bible in fact has no sexual ethic consistent with social practice, that concerned women only women. In fact the Bible does not present us with a consistent sexual ethic. This of course was the context of a patriarchal society. Where only the men were considered real people.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Tips On Reading The Bible
Bryn Mawr;727823 wrote: Jester,
Until Monday - I need time to think whilst I'm away :-6
Having been re-reading Matthew over the weekend and considering your post I have come to the conclusion that I must, in all conscience, reverse my previous position.
However I read it, I cannot get past the brick wall of 5:18/19 :-
"I tell you this: so long as Heaven and Earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has happened.
If any man therefore sets aside even the least of the Law's demands, and teaches others to do the same, he will have the lowest place in the kingdom of Heaven, whereas anyone who keeps the Law and teaches others to do so will stand high in the Kingdom of Heaven."
Not until my ministry is completed - whilst Heaven and Earth endure.
Not as modified by my teachings - every letter and every stroke of each letter.
the rest of Matt 5-7 is comparing and contrasting the way in which the Pharisees keep the Law and the way in which he expects his followers to keep the Law for "I tell you this, unless you show yourselves far better men than the Pharisees and the doctors of the law you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.".
A couple of other points struck me in passing :-
Jesus was quite specific in stating that his ministry was only to the Hebrews and that he was not concerned with the gentiles.
He expresses his disappointment in the poor take up of his teaching amongst the Hebrews several time. You ask what difference this would have made to history, had the Hebrews flocked to his cause then I doubt that his ministry would have been extended to the gentiles at all - indeed, was this not the cause of the first schism in the Church and the reason that power passed for Peter, Jesus's "Rock" to Paul?
Until Monday - I need time to think whilst I'm away :-6
Having been re-reading Matthew over the weekend and considering your post I have come to the conclusion that I must, in all conscience, reverse my previous position.
However I read it, I cannot get past the brick wall of 5:18/19 :-
"I tell you this: so long as Heaven and Earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has happened.
If any man therefore sets aside even the least of the Law's demands, and teaches others to do the same, he will have the lowest place in the kingdom of Heaven, whereas anyone who keeps the Law and teaches others to do so will stand high in the Kingdom of Heaven."
Not until my ministry is completed - whilst Heaven and Earth endure.
Not as modified by my teachings - every letter and every stroke of each letter.
the rest of Matt 5-7 is comparing and contrasting the way in which the Pharisees keep the Law and the way in which he expects his followers to keep the Law for "I tell you this, unless you show yourselves far better men than the Pharisees and the doctors of the law you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.".
A couple of other points struck me in passing :-
Jesus was quite specific in stating that his ministry was only to the Hebrews and that he was not concerned with the gentiles.
He expresses his disappointment in the poor take up of his teaching amongst the Hebrews several time. You ask what difference this would have made to history, had the Hebrews flocked to his cause then I doubt that his ministry would have been extended to the gentiles at all - indeed, was this not the cause of the first schism in the Church and the reason that power passed for Peter, Jesus's "Rock" to Paul?
Tips On Reading The Bible
Bryn Mawr:-6
There are inconsistencies in the Bible to be sure. First of all scholarship does not believe that these words came from Jesus but the early church. These are words the evangelist put into Jesus mouth. This of course was written for a particular audience and a particular context. We see later just before the ascension that Jesus then commanded them to go into all the world.
In the OT Job goes to Nineveh. These were not Jewish people. Thus we see even the early Hebrews made an effort to move beyond themselves as the chosen people.
The comment about Peter being the Rock is also not believed to have come from Jesus at all but from the early church.
If we look at the teachings believed to go back to the historical Jesus we see reflected what Micah 6:8 calls for; justice and kindness. We couple this with the parable of the Good Samaritan and we have the basic message of Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There are inconsistencies in the Bible to be sure. First of all scholarship does not believe that these words came from Jesus but the early church. These are words the evangelist put into Jesus mouth. This of course was written for a particular audience and a particular context. We see later just before the ascension that Jesus then commanded them to go into all the world.
In the OT Job goes to Nineveh. These were not Jewish people. Thus we see even the early Hebrews made an effort to move beyond themselves as the chosen people.
The comment about Peter being the Rock is also not believed to have come from Jesus at all but from the early church.
If we look at the teachings believed to go back to the historical Jesus we see reflected what Micah 6:8 calls for; justice and kindness. We couple this with the parable of the Good Samaritan and we have the basic message of Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Tips On Reading The Bible
Ted;731527 wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
There are inconsistencies in the Bible to be sure. First of all scholarship does not believe that these words came from Jesus but the early church. These are words the evangelist put into Jesus mouth. This of course was written for a particular audience and a particular context. We see later just before the ascension that Jesus then commanded them to go into all the world.
In the OT Job goes to Nineveh. These were not Jewish people. Thus we see even the early Hebrews made an effort to move beyond themselves as the chosen people.
The comment about Peter being the Rock is also not believed to have come from Jesus at all but from the early church.
If we look at the teachings believed to go back to the historical Jesus we see reflected what Micah 6:8 calls for; justice and kindness. We couple this with the parable of the Good Samaritan and we have the basic message of Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Certainly Matt 22 has Jesus defining the Law in far more familiar terms :-
"'Master, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' he answered 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind; that is the greatest commandment. It comes first. The second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. Everything in the Law and the prophets hangs on those two commandments'".
Is my memory about right? That the early Church split over whether to take the message to the Gentiles?
There are inconsistencies in the Bible to be sure. First of all scholarship does not believe that these words came from Jesus but the early church. These are words the evangelist put into Jesus mouth. This of course was written for a particular audience and a particular context. We see later just before the ascension that Jesus then commanded them to go into all the world.
In the OT Job goes to Nineveh. These were not Jewish people. Thus we see even the early Hebrews made an effort to move beyond themselves as the chosen people.
The comment about Peter being the Rock is also not believed to have come from Jesus at all but from the early church.
If we look at the teachings believed to go back to the historical Jesus we see reflected what Micah 6:8 calls for; justice and kindness. We couple this with the parable of the Good Samaritan and we have the basic message of Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Certainly Matt 22 has Jesus defining the Law in far more familiar terms :-
"'Master, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' he answered 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind; that is the greatest commandment. It comes first. The second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. Everything in the Law and the prophets hangs on those two commandments'".
Is my memory about right? That the early Church split over whether to take the message to the Gentiles?
Tips On Reading The Bible
Bryn Mawr:-6
You are correct about the early split. Another split developed around whether or not the gentiles needed to be circumcised. Paul one on that one.
That hurts thinking about it.
Jesus was also know for using exaggeration to make a point as in his comments about leaving the family and following him i.e. hate parents. It was simply an exaggeration to make a point and not to be taken literally.
There's that "literally" again. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are correct about the early split. Another split developed around whether or not the gentiles needed to be circumcised. Paul one on that one.
That hurts thinking about it.
Jesus was also know for using exaggeration to make a point as in his comments about leaving the family and following him i.e. hate parents. It was simply an exaggeration to make a point and not to be taken literally.
There's that "literally" again. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
Tips On Reading The Bible
Hello, good information for me, so thought I'd jot my ideas in case it was the right time to have them addressed :-4
What does levitical law mean? Also mosaic, what this mean?
I have problems believing that if our Christian new testament developed out of the old testament how can any denomination or individual discount the significance of it in terms of the Word of God. Whether the Bible speaks about human discipline, conduct, punishment, morality, forgiveness, metaphorical interpretation? It's like, to me, if God spoke to Hebrews in the old testament, that is the one and same God that spoke in the new testament. If this view is incorrect, that God's law is different from old to new testament, then that pretty much solidifies my opinion that God's word has a humanly subjective slant, one that has got to be recognized for what it is.
How do people interpret the God of these testaments so differently? God wasn't different throughout the times, right, it's just that the times were different, and the reasons for the writings were different. For instance, I once heard that Jesus came into our lives because if he hadn't then all people besides the Jews would not have eternal life. This, to me, sounds like a human reason, but nevertheless I have heard it. If not for Jesus all gentiles would go to hell.
There's more I have to ask about and say but to be honest the responses on this thread are too long and complex and when I read something that strikes a chord within me by the time I want to post, I can't recall what it was I disagreed or agreed or was confused with :-5
Religion and politics are like this I think.
It's late now so I'll just say, sleep tight,
Erin
What does levitical law mean? Also mosaic, what this mean?
I have problems believing that if our Christian new testament developed out of the old testament how can any denomination or individual discount the significance of it in terms of the Word of God. Whether the Bible speaks about human discipline, conduct, punishment, morality, forgiveness, metaphorical interpretation? It's like, to me, if God spoke to Hebrews in the old testament, that is the one and same God that spoke in the new testament. If this view is incorrect, that God's law is different from old to new testament, then that pretty much solidifies my opinion that God's word has a humanly subjective slant, one that has got to be recognized for what it is.
How do people interpret the God of these testaments so differently? God wasn't different throughout the times, right, it's just that the times were different, and the reasons for the writings were different. For instance, I once heard that Jesus came into our lives because if he hadn't then all people besides the Jews would not have eternal life. This, to me, sounds like a human reason, but nevertheless I have heard it. If not for Jesus all gentiles would go to hell.
There's more I have to ask about and say but to be honest the responses on this thread are too long and complex and when I read something that strikes a chord within me by the time I want to post, I can't recall what it was I disagreed or agreed or was confused with :-5
Religion and politics are like this I think.
It's late now so I'll just say, sleep tight,
Erin
Tips On Reading The Bible
Watermark,
Levitical law is that laid out in the Book of Leviticus and Mosaic law is the law of Moses and encompasses all of the Law of the Hebrews.
The first part of the discussion, and one that's still very relevant, is whether the Old Testament is a sacred work for Christians. Does it describe the Christian God or is it the Hebrew view of their God?
Levitical law is that laid out in the Book of Leviticus and Mosaic law is the law of Moses and encompasses all of the Law of the Hebrews.
The first part of the discussion, and one that's still very relevant, is whether the Old Testament is a sacred work for Christians. Does it describe the Christian God or is it the Hebrew view of their God?
Tips On Reading The Bible
jester:-6
You had me on the edge of my seat and then it all came crashing down. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
You had me on the edge of my seat and then it all came crashing down. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
Tips On Reading The Bible
There are, of course, other views on the idea of fulfilling the law.
Jesus was likened to a new Moses. Moses received the law on top of the mountain. Now we see Jesus presenting an updated version of the law on a mountain. Jesus is reported to have said "You have heard it said . . . but I say unto you . . .. Jesus has fulfilled the law because he has made it even more difficult to follow.
i.e. "You have heard that it was said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I sway to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces to to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you." Matt 5:38-42.
That "but" has some powerful implications for all of us. I have chosen this one particularly because it deals with the law of retribution which clearly Jesus has changed. What does this say to capital punishment?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jesus was likened to a new Moses. Moses received the law on top of the mountain. Now we see Jesus presenting an updated version of the law on a mountain. Jesus is reported to have said "You have heard it said . . . but I say unto you . . .. Jesus has fulfilled the law because he has made it even more difficult to follow.
i.e. "You have heard that it was said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I sway to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces to to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you." Matt 5:38-42.
That "but" has some powerful implications for all of us. I have chosen this one particularly because it deals with the law of retribution which clearly Jesus has changed. What does this say to capital punishment?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Tips On Reading The Bible
I would like to comment on the Old Testament.
"Judaism and Christianity are, for us, a double covenant and, no matter how each has disputed the others dignity and integrity through the centuries, we hold them as fully and equally valid before God." pg40. "The First Christmas", Borg and Crossan.
"In Jeremiah 31:31, for example, God promised 'a new covenant,' or testament, which is no more and no less than the old covenant re-new-ed--and renewed differently for Jews and Christians." Ibid. 41
"Both Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 insist that the birth of Jesus is the glorious completion and perfection of the tradition into which he was born. He is, for them, the magnificent and climactic completion of the hope and fears of his people, his tradition, and his homeland." Ibid. 41
The Bible is sacred because of the view that we hold of it and the way in which we use it. We see in the New Testament changes from the Old Testament as per the above post. This indicates to us that we must read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament and in light of the Christ. The wisdom in the OT is just as valid today as it was at the time of writing. The New Testament qualifies the Old Testament.
Since the Bible is to be read parabolically (as parable) we are not to take it literally but to ask ourselves the most important question of all, What does this story mean? What did it mean for the folks then and what does it mean for us now? Because it is a universal story it speaks to all generations but must be interpreted according to the time and context in which it is read. None of this is to deny the existence of some of the characters within. Jesus, David, Solomon, Paul etc did exist. Many of course are part of the parable such as Adam and Eve or Noah or Methuselah etc just as the Good Samaritan is part of a parable and not in and of himself an historical character.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"Judaism and Christianity are, for us, a double covenant and, no matter how each has disputed the others dignity and integrity through the centuries, we hold them as fully and equally valid before God." pg40. "The First Christmas", Borg and Crossan.
"In Jeremiah 31:31, for example, God promised 'a new covenant,' or testament, which is no more and no less than the old covenant re-new-ed--and renewed differently for Jews and Christians." Ibid. 41
"Both Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 insist that the birth of Jesus is the glorious completion and perfection of the tradition into which he was born. He is, for them, the magnificent and climactic completion of the hope and fears of his people, his tradition, and his homeland." Ibid. 41
The Bible is sacred because of the view that we hold of it and the way in which we use it. We see in the New Testament changes from the Old Testament as per the above post. This indicates to us that we must read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament and in light of the Christ. The wisdom in the OT is just as valid today as it was at the time of writing. The New Testament qualifies the Old Testament.
Since the Bible is to be read parabolically (as parable) we are not to take it literally but to ask ourselves the most important question of all, What does this story mean? What did it mean for the folks then and what does it mean for us now? Because it is a universal story it speaks to all generations but must be interpreted according to the time and context in which it is read. None of this is to deny the existence of some of the characters within. Jesus, David, Solomon, Paul etc did exist. Many of course are part of the parable such as Adam and Eve or Noah or Methuselah etc just as the Good Samaritan is part of a parable and not in and of himself an historical character.
Shalom
Ted:-6