• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
[quote='BusNative;83190;7]I just read this for a second time, and realized what a good point this is: the imagery in Revelation is largely borrowed from Daniel and other prophetic books, so is, in that sense, religious, but many have argued that the imagery is used to convey a political message that would have been obvious to certain people at that time.

Many times, especially since people try to relate Biblical material to modern times, the temporal political aspect of the Bible gets lost. I think its important to remember that things like Paul's letters, Revelation and other parts of the Bible were written by people of that time FOR people of that time. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but, from what I've observed, the intent of the many authors of the Bible gets dramatically misunderstood as people today try to apply the Bible to our day-to-day lives.

The below is a link to a book that does a very good job at arguing this point with regards to Paul.

Reinventing Paul - John Gager[/quote]
I understand what you're saying, and have read alot about it.. but i still maintain the book of revelation is a revelation of the end of times.
 
Upvote 0
[quote='BusNative;83190;7]I just read this for a second time, and realized what a good point this is: the imagery in Revelation is largely borrowed from Daniel and other prophetic books, so is, in that sense, religious, but many have argued that the imagery is used to convey a political message that would have been obvious to certain people at that time.

Many times, especially since people try to relate Biblical material to modern times, the temporal political aspect of the Bible gets lost. I think its important to remember that things like Paul's letters, Revelation and other parts of the Bible were written by people of that time FOR people of that time. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but, from what I've observed, the intent of the many authors of the Bible gets dramatically misunderstood as people today try to apply the Bible to our day-to-day lives.

The below is a link to a book that does a very good job at arguing this point with regards to Paul.

Reinventing Paul - John Gager[/quote]

I've tried to argue similar things on this thread, and you've stated it much more clearly. Well done. AS for forgiving you for stating the obvious, while I agree it is "obvious" I anticipate several others do not agree, and thus, it's not at all "obvious" :biggrin:
More Signs of the Times?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
[quote='BusNative;83190;7]I just read this for a second time, and realized what a good point this is: the imagery in Revelation is largely borrowed from Daniel and other prophetic books, so is, in that sense, religious, but many have argued that the imagery is used to convey a political message that would have been obvious to certain people at that time.

Many times, especially since people try to relate Biblical material to modern times, the temporal political aspect of the Bible gets lost. I think its important to remember that things like Paul's letters, Revelation and other parts of the Bible were written by people of that time FOR people of that time. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but, from what I've observed, the intent of the many authors of the Bible gets dramatically misunderstood as people today try to apply the Bible to our day-to-day lives.

The below is a link to a book that does a very good job at arguing this point with regards to Paul.

Reinventing Paul - John Gager[/quote]

The book looks interesting, in fact after reading the synopsis at amazon I would say it is in line with a bible study series my brother-in-law and I did this past winter on re-examining what Paul actually says in his letter to the Romans. We were in complete agreement with the author on the following:

Paul was not the founder of Christianity
Paul did not condemn works in favor of faith
Paul never criticized Judaism or the Jewish law

These arguments have actually been made in the Messianic Jewish movement for at least three decades now.

The one place where the author appears to be wrong (at least if the summary at amazon.com is to be believed) is that Paul did not say the Jews had to accept Jesus as their savior. I'm not sure how one can come to that conclusion and I can't think of any place where that would be supported by anything Paul wrote.

I think its important to remember that things like Paul's letters, Revelation and other parts of the Bible were written by people of that time FOR people of that time.

Could you elaborate on this idea as I think the use of the word "FOR" is incorrect as it would be better to say "TO". It is important to recognize who the author is writing TO in order to understand the historical and social context Paul, Peter, John, or whoever is addressing. However, to say it was written TO a particular person or church does not mean it was not written FOR everyone. What I mean is that as long as we understanding the teachings of Scripture in the context TO which they were addressed, why would it not be reasonable to say that those teachings are FOR all Christians regardless of time or place?
 
Upvote 0
Bleed S & G;832019; said:
I understand what you're saying, and have read alot about it.. but i still maintain the book of revelation is a revelation of the end of times.
Click to expand...

That's fair. I'm no minister - just a Buckeye fan.

Buckeyeskickbuttocks;832126; said:
I've tried to argue similar things on this thread, and you've stated it much more clearly. Well done. AS for forgiving you for stating the obvious, while I agree it is "obvious" I anticipate several others do not agree, and thus, it's not at all "obvious" :biggrin:
More Signs of the Times?
Click to expand...

Yup. Like its not obvious to everyone that the state up north is the devil (according to my dad).

buckeyegrad;832192; said:
The one place where the author appears to be wrong (at least if the summary at amazon.com is to be believed) is that Paul did not say the Jews had to accept Jesus as their savior. I'm not sure how one can come to that conclusion and I can't think of any place where that would be supported by anything Paul wrote.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, I don't think that was Gager's conclusion, but it's been years. I'll have to look at the book again.

buckeyegrad;832192; said:
Could you elaborate on this idea as I think the use of the word "FOR" is incorrect as it would be better to say "TO". It is important to recognize who the author is writing TO in order to understand the historical and social context Paul, Peter, John, or whoever is addressing. However, to say it was written TO a particular person or church does not mean it was not written FOR everyone. What I mean is that as long as we understanding the teachings of Scripture in the context TO which they were addressed, why would it not be reasonable to say that those teachings are FOR all Christians regardless of time or place?
Click to expand...

Please excuse my unclear grammar - TO would have been better in this case. "For" implies that Paul, in this case, wrote something to be handed over to all people as religious doctrine, which is not what I meant to say. Paul wrote letters to certain communities with regards to specific issues. What seems clear to me is that the letters, as arranged in the NT, are lacking a significant amount of very important context. Why, for example, did Paul write that circumcision was not necessary? Because someone asked. In an ideal world, we would have all of the inquiries and letters that Paul received as well as all of the letters he wrote in order to rebuild the dogmatic dialogue that was occurring at the time.

So, to be perfectly clear, when Paul wrote to the Romans, the Corinthians, etc. he was speaking specifically to internal issues they were having within their Jesus-following communities. As people were forming their own communities in different parts of the ancient world, they would have had varying problems aligning a new political and religious movement with no clear leader - because He was crucified (if you believe He existed, BKB :wink2: ) - no clear set of rules and no clear direction with their preexisting cultures. Hopefully that is a clearer version of what I was trying to say.
 
Upvote 0
[quote='BusNative;83245;2]They were written in the language that most people spoke/wrote/read at the time.[/quote]
Perhaps.... I mean, yeah, I get that... but, it seems to me the best way to reach out to Jews would be through Hebrew and not Greek.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;832720; said:
Perhaps.... I mean, yeah, I get that... but, it seems to me the best way to reach out to Jews would be through Hebrew and not Greek.
Click to expand...

The rabaiis and the wealthier literate jewish people would have been able to read Hebrew, but it was a Greek (or Aramaic) speaking world at that time.
 
Upvote 0
[quote='BusNative;83272;5]The rabaiis and the wealthier literate jewish people would have been able to read Hebrew, but it was a Greek (or Aramaic) speaking world at that time.[/quote]
But, wasn't Torah always in Hebrew? I mean, I guess sorta like there are some chruches that still insist on saying mass in Latin, I guess I figured Judiasm has more or less always been presented in Hebrew/Yiddish. But, maybe I'm wrong... certainly I'm no expert in the area.. THanks for your info.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;832742; said:
But, wasn't Torah always in Hebrew? I mean, I guess sorta like there are some chruches that still insist on saying mass in Latin, I guess I figured Judiasm has more or less always been presented in Hebrew/Yiddish. But, maybe I'm wrong... certainly I'm no expert in the area.. THanks for your info.
Click to expand...

Nah, the Septuagint (Greek translation) was widely available. Jesus probably new the Torah through the Targums (Aramaic summaries of the Hebrew scriptures). The work of Bruce Chilton is facinating concerning the impact of the Targums on the teachings of Jesus and the development of the Gospels. Do an Amazon search for Bruce D. Chilton and you'll come across some stuff like

A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (Good News Studies)

and Revelation: The Torah and the Bible
 
Upvote 0
MuckFich06;832775; said:
Nah, the Septuagint (Greek translation) was widely available. Jesus probably new the Torah through the Targums (Aramaic summaries of the Hebrew scriptures). The work of Bruce Chilton is facinating concerning the impact of the Targums on the teachings of Jesus and the development of the Gospels. Do an Amazon search for Bruce D. Chilton and you'll come across some stuff like

A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (Good News Studies)

and Revelation: The Torah and the Bible
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links. I'll check em out.
[quote='BusNative;83285;4]Also, you first asked about the Gospels, its widely believed that the Gospels would have started as an oral tradition before being committed to paper - that would mean either Greek or Aramaic[/quote]

True. I was more thinking in terms of something Bgrad said earlier on this thread about how the point was to convince jews of Jesus' being the Massiah, and not gentiles.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;832862; said:
True. I was more thinking in terms of something Bgrad said earlier on this thread about how the point was to convince jews of Jesus' being the Massiah, and not gentiles.
Click to expand...

That is true of the Gospel of Matthew, not necessarily the other ones, which take either a more gentile-persuasion or universal tone. Interestingly, there is a tradition that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and then later translated to Greek. There are no copies of the Aramaic original, so it remains only an unproved tradition, but it definitely makes sense considering its audience.
 
Upvote 0
Don't want to hijack this interesting discussion, but I have a quick question of this rather well read group (more well read on theology issues anyway)

I may have been rude to a BP poster who argues that LDS members are "Christians" I think not, although maybe I have not been articulate enough on that thread to express it better. Quick question so not to interrupt too much, but do y'all think LDS is a "Christian" church? Feel free to pm me if responding here detracts from the thread. thanks
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top