PDA

View Full Version : CNN Faith Blog - Do You



SCSaunders
08-01-2011, 11:33 AM
Do You Speak Christian?

Here we go again. Or maybe not.

I don't take this as a slam, like that book Unchristian (http://www.amazon.com/Unchristian-Generation-Really-Christianity-Matters/dp/1596445777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312209290&sr=8-1) certainly was.

A food for thought article on modeling our presentation of the good news to the masses after the Master. No one can rightly claim that He distorted or watered down the content. He wasn't in the least bit embarrassed about the content. He was the content. He did however, present it in a form that the yet-to-believe person could grasp.

http://i52.tinypic.com/r92b28.jpg (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/31/do-you-speak-christian)

A salient quote, "If you donít want to speak Christian, they say, pay attention to how Christianityís founder spoke. Jesus spoke in a way that drew people in, says Leonard, the Wake Forest professor. 'He used stories, parables and metaphors,' Leonard says. 'He communicated in images that both the religious folks and nonreligious folks of his day understand.'"

bkMitchell
08-02-2011, 09:18 AM
A salient quote, "If you don’t want to speak Christian, they say, pay attention to how Christianity’s founder spoke. Jesus spoke in a way that drew people in, says Leonard, the Wake Forest professor. 'He used stories, parables and metaphors,' Leonard says. 'He communicated in images that both the religious folks and nonreligious folks of his day understand.'"


"the disciples went, and asked him, Why do you speak to them in parables?
He answered saying to them, Because you are granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but it has not been granted to them.
For whoever has, it will be given, and they will receive more in abundance: but anyone who does not have, even what they have will be taken.
Therefore. I speak to them in parables: so that observing they do not see; and listening they do not hear, nor do they understand."
(Mat 13:10-13)

However, I do agree that Stories, parables, and metaphors continue to communicate to audiences today with out any need for special jargon to get the point across.

SCSaunders
08-02-2011, 09:40 AM
"the disciples went, and asked him, Why do you speak to them in parables?
He answered saying to them, Because you are granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but it has not been granted to them.
For whoever has, it will be given, and they will receive more in abundance: but anyone who does not have, even what they have will be taken.
Therefore. I speak to them in parables: so that observing they do not see; and listening they do not hear, nor do they understand."
(Mat 13:10-13)

However, I do agree that Stories, parables, and metaphors continue to communicate to audiences today with out any need for special jargon to get the point across.

Great passage, the context of which more clearly defines who "to them" are - (Mat 13:14-16 ESV) "14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. 15 For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear."

Divine discipline comes in many forms. Veiling the hearts of "them" to the message is scarey stuff indeed. (2Co 3:14-16 ESV) "14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed." Paul ought to know: it's personal testimony with him.

bkMitchell
08-08-2011, 05:26 AM
(2Co 3:14-16 ESV) "14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed." Paul ought to know: it's personal testimony with him.

If, the metaphorical veil is lifted when one comes comes Christ...
it is a wonder why more Christian communities do not take the Pentateuch/Torah more seriously since they no longer are hampered by the veil?


Eisegesis, is a serious problem we must each struggle to deal with. Some, blame the publisher Art Scroll for making commentaries that only reflect one particular point of view while ignoring others. The Stone Chumash published by them is one which many accuse of representing only Rashi's point and that of the ultra-Orthodox. However, their Hebrew only Jaffah Chumash contains more commentaries than just Rashi and if one is able to read Aramaic then the Targum(available in both the stone and Jaffah editions) also provides for an alternative point of view. However, definitely the traditional Miqraot Gedolot contain far more points of view that any of Art Scrolls selections. In the end it is up to us to do our best to struggle and wrestle with each text.

SCSaunders
08-08-2011, 07:33 AM
If, the metaphorical veil is lifted when one comes comes Christ...
it is a wonder why more Christian communities do not take the Pentateuch/Torah more seriously since they no longer are hampered by the veil?I'm with you. The more I read the Pentatuech/Torah the more it helps me understand the New Testament. It's "Mystery Doctrine" is totally dependent upon it. Paul wrote a lot of it. I would have loved to have been there to hear the scales drop from his eyes.



Eisegesis, is a serious problem we must each struggle to deal with. Some, blame the publisher Art Scroll for making commentaries that only reflect one particular point of view while ignoring others. The Stone Chumash published by them is one which many accuse of representing only Rashi's point and that of the ultra-Orthodox. However, their Hebrew only Jaffah Chumash contains more commentaries than just Rashi and if one is able to read Aramaic then the Targum(available in both the stone and Jaffah editions) also provides for an alternative point of view. However, definitely the traditional Miqraot Gedolot contain far more points of view that any of Art Scrolls selections. In the end it is up to us to do our best to struggle and wrestle with each text. I'm not familiar with everything you wrote here, but I have read some of the Art Scroll stuff. At my local libraries, folks donate books. The library sells them for 50 cents/paperback and $1.00/hardback. Got a GKC, barely opened, for my dad for a buck. Somebody has been donating their Art Scroll stuff, as well as other stuff. I've been flipping it's pages, back to front.

To me, FWIW, Eisegesis includes any POV not intended by the Divine Author. To me all of Scripture is not a matter of one's private own interpretation. I believe Scripture is unlike any other writing. It's alive and powerful. It judges the thoughts and intents of man's hidden heart - and most folks hate it when someone can read their heart. They'd rather gather at the feet of a speaker who will tickle their ears. I think to let Scripture speak for itself is to hear the voice of God in all it's doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness - as painful as that pruning process is. It's all good; good news.

bkMitchell
08-08-2011, 11:25 AM
...To me, FWIW, Eisegesis includes any POV not intended by the Divine Author. To me all of Scripture is not a matter of one's private own interpretation...

Saunders, when all is said and done it is painfully obvious that no one seriously believes that there is more than one right understanding of scripture. After, all if those of us with in the Judeo-Christian continuum actually accepted relativism/Subjectivity in terms of hermeneutics as being legitimatized there would be no need for various denominations or sects with Judaism or Christianity. We could all just go to one big generic congregation and be happy. But, sects, groups, denominations, translations, and theologies abound preciously because we can not in good faith accept the claims of everyone else as valid interpretations of Scripture.

"If the scripture has more than one meaning, it has no meaning at all."
Milton Terry, as quoted by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr in the Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House 1995)

This is why I believe we must each struggle and wrestle with the texts in search of meaning and application. It is not enough to accept our families or congregations interpretations, we must find out whether or not these things are so for ourselves. Yes, our parents' and congregations'(or confessional) interpretations maybe absolutely correct, but if we did not work to obtain and come to our own understanding of scripture and theology we will surely not appreciate as much as if we had. Some who hold to 'orthodox' theology fall away when attacked/challenged either by their own doubts or by external forces simply because they never truly had an understanding of the texts they professed to believe in.

By the way 'The Handbook on the Pentateuch' by Victor P. Hamilton is one I think is great representation of the grammatico-historical method and of a man I think to be a very enlightened Christian scholar of the Torah.

ISalzman
08-08-2011, 12:15 PM
Hey Brian, here (http://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Hope-Testament-Studies-Theology/dp/0805446540/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312816427&sr=8-1) is a book that you might really like. It argues for one meaning. It is very well done.

SCSaunders
08-08-2011, 12:32 PM
Saunders, when all is said and done it is painfully obvious that no one seriously believes that there is more than one right understanding of scripture. After, all if those of us with in the Judeo-Christian continuum actually accepted relativism/Subjectivity in terms of hermeneutics as being legitimatized there would be no need for various denominations or sects with Judaism or Christianity. We could all just go to one big generic congregation and be happy. But, sects, groups, denominations, translations, and theologies abound preciously because we can not in good faith accept the claims of everyone else as valid interpretations of Scripture.

"If the scripture has more than one meaning, it has no meaning at all."
Milton Terry, as quoted by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr in the Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House 1995)

This is why I believe we must each struggle and wrestle with the texts in search of meaning and application. It is not enough to accept our families or congregations interpretations, we must find out whether or not these things are so for ourselves. Yes, our parents' and congregations'(or confessional) interpretations maybe absolutely correct, but if we did not work to obtain and come to our own understanding of scripture and theology we will surely not appreciate as much as if we had. Some who hold to 'orthodox' theology fall away when attacked/challenged either by their own doubts or by external forces simply because they never truly had an understanding of the texts they professed to believe in.

By the way 'The Handbook on the Pentateuch' by Victor P. Hamilton is one I think is great representation of the grammatico-historical method and of a man I think to be a very enlightened Christian scholar of the Torah.

Brian, my lifelong experience - with biblical scholars and their scholarship - has been that there is a great chasm between statement of the principles you've mentioned above and the acting according to them. I currently summarize it this way: scholarship is a genre [and all that that implies] that begins not with the text, but with the cacophony of differing interpreted meanings of the text.

In Scripture the church is described as the household of the living God and a pillar and foundation of His truth. His truth does not contradict itself nor is it some Zeleg that goes chameleon in every "I'm of *insert interpreter's name* setting. Scholars and scholarship ask us to hold "our" [own private or *I'm of ______________'s*] interpretations of this truth "lightly" - as if this is a form of humility. Any view held this way certainly would not warrant the backbone of trusting and believing to the point of martyrdom. Yet martyrdom has been the fate of many great members of this household.

I personally don't believe the literary voice of Master Communicator speaks with that much forked-tongue, not when combined with the Illuminating work of God the Holy Spirit. I think when God's church listens to these kind of debates - over periods and periods of time - it destroys His sheep who are listening [2Ti 2:14]. The listeners need to be protected from these kind of speakers, be they supposed super apostles or not.

bkMitchell
08-08-2011, 09:57 PM
Brian, my lifelong experience - with biblical scholars and their scholarship - has been that there is a great chasm between statement of the principles you've mentioned above and the acting according to them.

I am in agreement with you.

However, I wasn't addressing the academic Biblical Scholars, but rather I was trying to point out that there are numerous denominations, with in Christianity some of which claim to have the 'truth' or the right interpretation in exclusion of other points of views held by other denominations.



In Scripture the church is described as the household of the living God and a pillar and foundation of His truth. His truth does not contradict itself nor is it some Zeleg that goes chameleon in every "I'm of *insert interpreter's name* setting.
Unfortunately, there are over 33,820 denominations often with rival claims to 'truth' and the very thing spoken of above continues to happen thousands of times.





I personally don't believe the literary voice of Master Communicator speaks with that much forked-tongue, not when combined with the Illuminating work of God the Holy Spirit.

On the following BWs' thread(link) (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?4911-The-Feast-of-Tabernacles&daysprune=365) I ran into a forum user claiming to hold the spiritual interpretation or some type of spiritual exegetical method? I tried to get that user to define and clarify the steps necessary to perform this type of method. Here is a short quote :



There are many OT and NT truths taught in the Bible that the saints of God have not really experienced or come into in any real great depth, but God will bring his choice bride into all of them in the last days as he reveals more of His logos to us through the written Word and by his Holy Spirit...how are we a going to understand it and obtain unto this marvelous wonderful truth unless the Holy Sprit gives us more revelation and understanding that will be based on the written Word of God?...


Is, the statement above simular what you have in mind when you speak of the Holy Spirit helping readers understand scripture? I personal find the kind of statements like the above to be far more confusing than helpful. So, maybe you can help me comprehended what that user was trying to convey?



I think when God's church listens to these kind of debates - over periods and periods of time - it destroys His sheep who are listening [2Ti 2:14]. The listeners need to be protected from these kind of speakers, be they supposed super apostles or not.

Yes, but which denomination do you believe is God's Church?
Or, are all denominations collectively apart of God's Church?

Less, than one percent of the population is Christian in Japan, but in the area in which I live in there are Catholic, Anglican, Mormon, Jehovah witness, united Church of Christ, reform christian church, church of Christ, missionary Baptist, and non-denominational congregations.

bkMitchell
08-08-2011, 10:45 PM
Hey Brian, here (http://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Hope-Testament-Studies-Theology/dp/0805446540/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312816427&sr=8-1) is a book that you might really like. It argues for one meaning. It is very well done.

Thanks, this book does look interesting. How, does it compare with Walter Kaiser's studies on the same issues?
I have also read Raphael Patai's 'The Messiah Texts' compilation or anthology, but in general I think Walter Kaiser's no non sense approach is great.

ISalzman
08-08-2011, 10:51 PM
Kaiser's book is an excellent one and I have nothing but profound admiration for him. I've met him. He is a wonderful man, great writer, and an excellent and very entertaining speaker. But I think this book surpasses Kaiser's.

SCSaunders
08-09-2011, 10:39 AM
.... <em>All that was quoted in yesterday's 8:15 PM ....</em>I don't disagree with the letter and spirit of the overwhelming majority of your part in our discussion. I do have personal experience issues with pragmatics that flows from some of it's key implications. Let me focus and explicate what I mean.


Learning is a process that is cumulative - it's transformational effect builds over time [durative, persevering, progressive faithfulness]
Learning has a curriculum - the word of God - its contributions are profitable to our transformation [other curriculum is not]
Learning has divinely appointed divisions of labor - the gifts of pastors and teachers, those who study to show themselves approved unto God
Learning is not accomplished equally well by every member in this labor workforce - some are good, some are bad, some are approved and some are not
Learning equips one to discern who in this division is good and who is bad, who is approved and who isn't [A sheep will learn to recognize the voice of its shepherd and not be deceived by the voice of others]
And here's the crux of what wool-covered me has learned in order to discern the voice of a God-approved shepherd:

My real life for God is a life of Faith in God - this is where the rubber meets the road
My real life of faith mirrors the exemplars of the faith, the role models of the faith, as found in the curriculum of God
My faith like theirs and their faith like mine wrestles - we wrestle with our faith
Our faith wrestles much, much, much more with the God of the text than the text of God [His curriculum is not all that grey, clowdy and foggy to us]
His curriculum is way, way, way more transparent than opaque
This transparency is what I'm looking for from God, its what I need from God, through His curriculum, mediated by the office of elders [His under-shepherds] who cling with conviction to the curriculum, a curriculum saturated with patrons of the faith wrestling with the God of the text

They have lived a substitutionary life of the faith in every archetypal human experience of the faith
I live vicariously through them; seeking to model their successes and avoid their failures in every archetypal human experience of the faith
This gives me transformational wisdom - lessons from life substitutionary-vicarious experience


When the pulpit is high-jacked from a spiritually qualified elder, clinging to the word, preaching its every word with conviction by a philosophical scholar who lightly holds some flavor of the moment position - the cumulative effect is a never-ending vagina monologue and not the sovereign, transformational voice of God



JMHO

bkMitchell
08-09-2011, 01:53 PM
SCSaunders,



I am neither a Philosopher nor a Scholar
I am a layman
I come from a faith movement in which the Bible is studied empirically and with passion
Because, God's word came in human clothing or rather language; grammar, syntax, and cultural context must be taken into consideration

spiritual/allegorical interpretations seem rather arbitrary to these ears
A text means nothing more and nothing less than what it meant to it's original audience (or rather what it was intended to mean)
I think we may see eye to but our jargon is different

SCSaunders
08-09-2011, 03:37 PM
Brian,

Denominations are traditions, traditions started by men.
Denominations are the traditions of men, that is why so many of these traditions bear the name of men.

The written word is severely denuded of the Divine Author's craft of language, when grammar, syntax and cultural considerations are aborted from genre. Genre consideration is not spiritual/allegorical interpretation but literary delivery. Images. Metaphors. Allegories. Stories. Parables. Motif. Archetypes. Song. Poetry. Characters. Plot. Conflict. Symbols.

The word of God means exactly what God intended it to mean. God intended its meaning for every member of His flock, in every generation of all time, in any culture - starting in those from Babel onward. His message is timeless, not frozen in time. His message is missionary - crossing cultural boundaries.

We may very well be seeing eye to eye and yes I balk, pretty severely, at some of our jargon differences.

Can you think of a single positive example from the word of God, even during the time of Christ's incarnation, in which scholarship or a scholar, as defined by our culture's current definitions are modeled in Scripture? There were scholars in Christ's day. There were the "men of the books." There were the "experts in the law." How are they portrayed? Good light? Bad light? How did they interact with our Savior? He with them? Was Christ what we would call a scholar? Did His preaching evidence what we would call scholarship? Just curious. Just asking. You are sharpening my iron.

Scott

bkMitchell
08-10-2011, 12:44 PM
Denominations are traditions, traditions started by men.
Agreed!


The written word is severely denuded of the Divine Author's craft of language, when grammar, syntax and cultural considerations are aborted from genre.
You're preaching to the choir as we clearly agree on this one!:rolleyes:
On July, 2nd 2011 I wrote on my blog“I assume that when reading literature in one’s native language one automatically (or from experience and being condition to do so) tags Genre. So, when one hears or reads the words “once upon a time…” he/she knows that he/she is reading a fairy tale and not a news paper article. Now, I presuppose that the writings called Scripture or the Bible can be taken as a literary anthology of the ancient near east and if the NT (or even the LXX) is also included as Hellenist Jewish literature. Now, if Scripture can be consider as literature then it may also be categorized further into genre.”




The word of God means exactly what God intended it to mean.
Once, again we agree.



Can you think of a single positive example from the word of God, even during the time of Christ's incarnation, in which scholarship or a scholar, as defined by our culture's current definitions are modeled in Scripture? Not, sure what you mean by our culture? So, let's just go by the dictionary definition instead:
[1.a person who attends a school (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/school) or studies under a teacher : pupil (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pupil)

2.a person who has done advanced study in a special field : a learned person

3. a holder of a scholarship (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholarship) ]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholar

The first definition is the one most likely to apply to vast majority of characters we encounter in scripture. During the time Jesus walked the earth most Jewish boys studied under a teacher who taught them how to read the torah scroll, then later they were either sent to learn a craft or study under teacher who taught would would become the mishnah. In the gospel accounts we find that Jesus was able to take part in the scriptural readings and apparantly no one taught it was strange that he could read. We, also find that some of the disciple/pupils studied under John and then later followed Jesus as their Rabbi. These same disciple we able to write in Koine Greek, unless of course they first wrote in Aramaic and it was later translated into Greek. But, if they were able to write in Greek they proved they recieved a multilingual education. If Luke was physician then it is evident that the 2nd definition applies to him. Luke was able to write in an almost attic style of Greek and he was able to do his own research. Paul may have started off as the type of scholar who dislike, but apparently after he came to Christ his scholarship was put to use in writing much of the new testament and traveling around to teach.


Nicodemus a pharisee and a teacher does not appear to be painted in a bad light. He seems to be a sincere scholar he clearly kept any eye on Jesus and even when to pay his respect to Jesus at his funeral.


Ezra is also a scholar, scribe, and teacher of God's instruction/Law.
Ezr. 7:10
Neh. 8:13

Deuteronomy 6:7 contains the direct command to teach the Torah and to on it
Psalms 1:2 seems to support the idea that it is a good thing to study God's Law/Torah as well as many other Psalms.

Study or rather Scholarship according to what I have seen does not appear to be a bad thing.


There were scholars in Christ's day. There were the "men of the books." There were the "experts in the law."
I tell you, that if your righteousness does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you guys will not enter to the kingdom of the heavens. (Mat 5:20 )

Did, Jesus attack some of the Pharisess, yes! Did he attack each of the various sects of the Pharisees? No! Later, in the book of Act's we find that some Pharisees did come to believe in Jesus. We also know from both the NT an history that James the brother of Jesus presided over the Jerusalem Church made up of pharisaic Christians. Were, they perfect, no and neither were the Christians in other nations Paul writes, too. Now, what about Roman, Jesus says very little about the injustice done by the Romans immoral and cruel leadership. Does that mean that Roman practices were approved off in his sight? They were also other nations who held to pagan practices, since Jesus does not mention the are they therefore okay? If, the answer is no, then Jesus' ridiculing of the Pharisess and Scribes may not some how equate to a totally disregard of all study/scholarship.



Was Christ what we would call a scholar? Did His preaching evidence what we would call scholarship?
Yes, very often it is. A lot, of what Jesus says often sound like the saying from the Mishnah. Jesus' quotes something like the LXX but often it appears that he corrects it to the Masoretic text unless of course he was quoting the MT along. Then his interpretations or readings often reflect a how text could be read without the massoretic vowel points. Jesus in the gospel comes off as a Hasidic rabbi/scholar in the way talks and handles debates.

This of course is my opinion or reading of the texts.

POST SCRIPT:

We, both wary of religious charlatans and we have thus far discussed two types:

(a) a particular scholarly type that can be arrogant and cause trouble in churches by preaching theories and current fads as truth and thus leading the biblically literate astray.
(b) preachers who use a so called 'Spiritual interpretation' as an excuse to ignore literary context and read whatever meaning they want into the text.

Both of the above issues could be circumvented (in my opinion) if more congregations are Biblically literate and if congregants are able to test doctrines and spirits using a basic knowledge of the Bible and Biblical based theology as their guide. I believe that the Holy Spirit often guides us by bring verses and scriptures to our mind when we face trials.


Although, I do not know much about the theology of Col. R.B. Thieme Jr. one of your teachers, I do know he was a fellow Houstonian and he helped to lead a congregation and individuals to become more Biblically literate through mentoring them. Whether or not I agree with everything he taught, I can appreciate the fact that did help people and do the best he could according to his understanding of the scripture.

SCSaunders
08-11-2011, 10:12 AM
Although, I do not know much about the theology of Col. R.B. Thieme Jr. one of your teachers, I do know he was a fellow Houstonian and he helped to lead a congregation and individuals to become more Biblically literate through mentoring them. Whether or not I agree with everything he taught, I can appreciate the fact that did help people and do the best he could according to his understanding of the scripture.

Brian,

As usual, love your comments and interactions. I think we have strong similarities. Sorry about that! :o

Here's the thing with Col. Thieme. He was a part of my past. A very big part of my past, a past with influences that remain. I will never deny Col. Thieme. I will never rewrite him nor his ministry out of my past. I will revise his remaining influences as I spend time in the word - advice that he himself advocated. I will pass along some of his ministry to my daughters: I think it's that good. It correlates very well with the text, the arbiter of my judgement calls. He advocated seminary education. He wasn't threatened if you went after this kind of training. I know how he treated - on a personal level - some of my friends who graduated from DTS. He was very kind to them. Like so may public figures, there's a personal side you will never hear about. But .... whatever.

I respectfully treat what he taught me the same way I do my parents. I keep some things. I revise others. But, what I will never personally do is sacrifice him on some alter of expediency so that I can gain entry into some fellowship, especially if that fellowship is one of philosophical and scholastic types. JMHO.

I don't parrot this man's ministry and I don't parrot those who hate his ministry.

Just as Paul revised his opinion and relationship regarding his former tradition [denomination of Pharisee] and it's leaders, I have done and will continue to do the same. And like Paul, without blaming the text.

Ultimately we all get judged. Realistically we all have many judging us. The judge I care the most about sits on the bema seat of Christ. I attempt my best in anticipation of His judgment. I don't really care about the bema seat of so 'n' so nor such 'n' such. To the former I sing, "How Great Thou Art!" To the latter I text, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot."

And from time to time, when navigating all this, I chuckle at some of the history that a professor @ DTS shared during his historical theology courses. Not all the brothers and sisters kissed each other. Some of them fanged each other and did so with humor. I can't remember who, but one would quip when his critics started condemning from upon their high horse toilet seats, "The dogs are barking!"

Scott

PS I don't think your posts are the barking of dogs. Just making that clear.

Dan Phillips
08-11-2011, 07:53 PM
Thanks, this book does look interesting

FWIW, BK, I reviewed Rydelnik's book here (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/12/book-review-messianic-hope-by-michael.html). Liked it a lot.

bkMitchell
08-12-2011, 03:08 AM
FWIW, BK, I reviewed Rydelnik's book here (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/12/book-review-messianic-hope-by-michael.html). Liked it a lot.
Thank you! I have recently placed an order for the book, but it's probably going to be a while before it gets, here. So, your detailed review will be really appreciated by me.



Brian,
As usual, love your comments and interactions.
Me, too.



I think we have strong similarities. Sorry about that!
Unfortunately, that is one the side effects when more two or more take Biblical text at face value and with an open mind. People from different backgrounds sometimes start coming to simular conclusions. Previously, I was a lot more hardhearted/stubborn than I am today when read scripture; I did my best to rationalize conclusions away I wasn't comfortable with.


Here's the thing with Col. Thieme. He was a part of my past. A very big part of my past, a past with influences that remain. I will never deny Col. Thieme. I will never rewrite him nor his ministry out of my past. I will revise his remaining influences as I spend time in the word ...Just as Paul revised his opinion and relationship regarding his former tradition [denomination of Pharisee] and it's leaders, I have done and will continue to do the same. And like Paul, without blaming the text.

Think Paul did something simular cause he continued to be able to say:
ἐγὼ Φαρισαῖός εἰμι, υἱὸς Φαρισαίου (Act 23:6 GOC)
I am a Pharisee the son of a Pharisee

You, do bring up an important point about respect. Think about the fact that although Jesus defended himself from the Pharisees and denounced the Pharisee he told his followers: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice". (Mat 23:2-3 ESV) Therefore, even in the worse cases it is possible to respectfully disagree and learn from others in authority.

Now, concerning Col. Thieme I am aware that even he revised some of his ideas and continued learning and that's a good thing. Since, I am not really a theologian and did not know the man I can not sit in judgement on his theology. However, I have meet students of his and those I have met show a lot of maturity in that they like you are able to take the good from bad and tend to have a passion for Biblical languages and text. I am sure you know that Jesus (Matthew 7:20 ) speaks us about discernment of individuals. Yet, this discernment(at least in this context) is not about peoples theologies/doctrines, but rather about their actions. When, Jesus does speak about Judging earlier in that same section (Matthew 7:1) there is a warning that way we judge is the way we will be judged.

SCSaunders
08-12-2011, 11:11 AM
You, do bring up an important point about respect. Think about the fact that although Jesus defended himself from the Pharisees and denounced the Pharisee he told his followers: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice". (Mat 23:2-3 ESV) Therefore, even in the worse cases it is possible to respectfully disagree and learn from others in authority.Agreed. And at the same time, this is why the name of God was/is being blasphemed among the Gentiles, referring to Paul's comments in Romans about the Jews and how they were using the Hebrew Scriptures on other people, not themselves. So busy with all those wood splinters in everyone else, never saw the log in their own.


Now, concerning Col. Thieme I am aware that even he revised some of his ideas and continued learning and that's a good thing. Since, I am not really a theologian and did not know the man I can not sit in judgement on his theology. However, I have meet students of his and those I have met show a lot of maturity in that they like you are able to take the good from bad and tend to have a passion for Biblical languages and text. I am sure you know that Jesus (Matthew 7:20 ) speaks us about discernment of individuals. Yet, this discernment(at least in this context) is not about peoples theologies/doctrines, but rather about their actions. When, Jesus does speak about Judging earlier in that same section (Matthew 7:1) there is a warning that way we judge is the way we will be judged.Col. Thieme is like anyone from history who as had an influence. They have haters. He's had/has followers who rightly cause the name of Thieme to be blasphemed. Rightly. I don't deny it.

At the same time, in my lifetime, bible college graduates, seminary graduates, Christian book store addicts - the exact same thing can be said. To be around them is very Deju Vu of a Thieme-taper. Yet the math remains: This archetypal pattern + selectively limited to a Theime taper = evil. This archetypal pattern + freely open to any other "taper" = "Ahhhhhh, look at the journey they are on. What a wonderful life of the mind, letting truth take them wherever it may lead. How cute."

In any conversation with a fellow Christian, when we reach an impasse, "Oh, you were/are a taper. That it explains it." Bigoted dismissal. To be fair, I'm tempted to do the same, "Oh, he's a 'five pointer.' Learned that from 'so 'n' so.' That explains it." At some point this all gets very circular. It all gets very double-standard. It gets old.

I post a thread, after having been a member of this forum for some time, a thread merely praising God for what Bob had done for me - my personal testimony and no one else's, posting it at the time of Bob's death and "Whammo!" The dogs started barking.

Lesson learned. Did not repeat that blunder before this group when his wife went to be with the Lord, nor when his brother in law, nor when others I met through his ministry.

Scott

ISalzman
08-12-2011, 10:53 PM
FWIW, BK, I reviewed Rydelnik's book here (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/12/book-review-messianic-hope-by-michael.html). Liked it a lot.

Hey Dan, excellent review! (I liked your review almost as much as I liked the book!) By the way, I noticed Michael himself posted a comment. Do you know him?

Irving

ISalzman
08-12-2011, 10:56 PM
Thank you! I have recently placed an order for the book, but it's probably going to be a while before it gets, here. So, your detailed review will be really appreciated by me.



Hey Brian, I'll be curious to hear your feeling about the book when you eventually get to read it. I've read it and think every serious student of the OT should read it.

bkMitchell
08-16-2011, 06:43 AM
... I'll be curious to hear your feeling about the book when you eventually get to read it...
I just received confirmation via E-mail that the book in discussion has been sent!
I will be more than happy to offer you my impression of the work after I have had time to read it.

ISalzman
08-16-2011, 10:50 AM
Sounds good, Brian. No rush. I have a feeling that you'll love the book though!

Irving

bkMitchell
08-16-2011, 11:37 AM
At the same time, in my lifetime, bible college graduates, seminary graduates, Christian book store addicts - the exact same thing can be said.
Hey, I resemble that comment!:eek: Opps, I meant to say...


I post a thread,...and "Whammo!...
Yeah, I know which thread you speak of...



Sounds good, Brian. No rush. I have a feeling that you'll love the book though!

Irving Thanks for mentioning the book!

SCSaunders
08-16-2011, 07:01 PM
Hey, I resemble that comment!:eek: Opps, I meant to say...Actually, no you don't. I've personally asked you for your bewk lerninz. It was just like being in skew. I found it very helpful. I told you so. Do you remember that thread as well?

There's something to be said for not making the exception the rule. Seminary professors who preach from the pulpit in your church on the the dark, depraved, sinfulness of a man's heart, do it while undressing your wife with their eyes. At least, the one that I saw did.

bkMitchell
08-17-2011, 08:47 PM
Hello Scott,


Actually, no you don't. I've personally asked you for your bewk lerninz. It was just like being in skew.
I got what you meant. I was trying to be funny but I also can get obsessed with the minutia and miss the bigger picture sometimes.



I found it very helpful. I told you so. Do you remember that thread as well?
Yep, it is has the most number of views and comments of any thread that I am aware of. A bit sad and disturbing concerning the nature of many of the comments.



Grace and Peace,
Brian