cheapham April 24th, 2008
I heard an interesting quote the other day that I found interesting. I think I’ll present it without any context or commentary and see what sort of comments/responses in evokes. I have my own thoughts, but I think this quote could provoke very interesting (and hopefully fruitful) discussion. It’s short, so here it goes:
I’d rather do violence to a text than violence to a person.
Discuss.
cheapham March 3rd, 2008
“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2
Does the Bible, specifically Genesis 1:1-2, support a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)? Would such a doctrine have made sense to ancient Israelites/early Christians? How does Gen. 1:1-2 fit into the schema of it’s contemporary ancient mediterranean understandings of the creation of the world? If something was there, then what was/is it? Further, what is really at stake in the answers to these questions?
I’m currently reading a lot about this in one of my classes and have some thoughts…but I’d like to see what you guys have. Certainly, those familiar with Hebrew could contribute much to our understanding of what the text itself (may) say(s).
Casey January 19th, 2008
I have always tried to listen before I talk (about theology jargon). I have always tried to learn from others in hope that I can grow to always be following the truth. But I would like to evaluate my approach…is it wrong?
On any (and every) debate I start (or try to) in the middle. I have always been a person who doesn’t like the dogmatics of others and I try not to be like that.
I am not an extremist. I have always seen those in the extreme sides of debates as always being wrong…and their pride/ego gets the best of them. For me, I have found that trying to start in the middle (even when I am still biased) allows for me to have lessened the blinders (though I might still have some on!).
I have two questions for everyone.
1) Is this approach good/bad/dangerous/smart? and why
2) Is there ever a time when starting on one extreme side is more beneficial then starting from middle ground?
Casey
Ps…my questions might be stupid…if they are sorry about wasting your time
tom January 15th, 2008
I don’t think I’ve detected any rampant Dispensationalism here at Mass Theology. However, here are some thoughts/observations on the White Horse in Revelation 6. As you can tell from my previous posts and this one - I sure do love inner-book word studies. They just seem to clear up so much bad theology.
In Revelation 6:2, when the Lamb who was slain unfastens the first of 7 seals, a white horse comes forth carrying a rider who holds a bow, but no arrows. This rider is given a crown and rides out as a conqueror to conquer. Dispensationalists often interpret this rider to be the anti-Christ – the eschatological one who will come and dupe the world into following him. He fools them by bringing peace (hence no arrows), and for 3.5 years is a peaceful chap until something snaps in him and he goes berserk in a cosmic sort of way.
Contrary to this popular interpretation, though, this figure in chapter 6 is hardly some eschatological anti-messiah. This figure really is the actual Messiah, Jesus Christ. He comes forth to conquer, but does not do so with violence – again, the lack of arrows in his bow.
This fact of the crucified, peacemaking Jesus being the figure represented as riding a white horse is supported by simple word studies in the passage. And here’s where I will spend the rest of my time.
First, the Gk. word for white (λευκὀς) only, only, only occurs in reference to Jesus, God, or the faithful followers of Jesus in John’s apocalypse. White is the color of righteous triumph, the color of those who have overcome, the color of the One who delivers the revelation of God. In fact, in 19:11, another (probably the same) white horse comes out with a rider on it who is explicitly shown to be Jesus – the One called Faithful and True. Now, John’s imagery is often difficult to interpret, but I seriously doubt he would put both Jesus and the anti-Christ on the same white horse (or even two horses that came from the same mother). This color is strictly reserved for the righteous and the Righteous One, not the world or Babylon.
Second, the crown this rider receives is the Gk. word (στέφανη) employed only, only, only in reference to the believers and Christ in Revelation. The Beast and other antagonists in Revelation sport a different crown altogether – a completely different Gk. word. The one time an antagonist does wear this righteous crown, Revelation says it is “like a στέφανη of gold” (ὥ στέφανοι χρυσοί ), not an actual στεφανόη. That is, this is a fake στέφανοη.
Third, the Gk. word for conquer (νικών) – from which we get the word “Nike” – is employed only, only, only in relation to Jesus and the saints who faithfully followed him. There are 2 exceptions to this in Revelation, but the overwhelming evidence points to the use I have mentioned here. Furthermore, in the previous chapter – the immediate context, that is - (5:5) the imagery directly pointed to Jesus being the conqueror. John expects his readers to still have that imagery in their mind when they come to this horse.
Fourth, I would look at the bow. Dispensationalists often say that the anti-Christ will conquer with peace, but unfortunately miss that Jesus has already conquered with peace. Jesus brings peace, not through a sword, not through military might, but through being the Lamb that was slain. They got the peace right – they just gave it to the wrong person.
Finally, offering an argument from silence, I would also note that the word “anti-Christ” not only never occurs in this passage, but never occurs outside the books of 2 & 3 John. And there the anti-Christ’s were among the people – they were not some eschatological figure waiting to deceive the world – the deception is occurring now!
Ok, more later, but for now, let me know what you think – especially you Dispensationalists out there in Mass Theology land. Why must this figure be the anti-Christ? In the end, I think the evidence I have provided here is overwhelming, but I’m up for someone making an attempt….(I say with a challenging wink and sly smile).
Honzo December 14th, 2007
Given the shift in the way the Bible portrays Satan from a member of God’s royal court in Job to leader of the rebellion against the Kingdom of God with Paul, how do we, as Christians, construct our concept of Satan?
I think this is a great question on two levels, i) what the heck is Satan and how does it function? and ii) how do we interpret scriptures that have varying views on religious phenomena?
I have some suggestions, but I have a couple of hours to iron out a paper proposal, a panel proposal, and have lunch with Meredith, so I will leave mine later.
Casey November 21st, 2007
Is there any reason to not watch this movie?
What should be our standard with movies (culture)?
Casey September 5th, 2007
Starting Points:
I wonder if our starting points are different, then we will have different outcomes (truths).
If four people watched a car accident and each of the four people were in different locations—it is possible that all four will have a different story of truth. I saw this…I saw that…I felt this.
Perhaps, this doesn’t matter. Some might say that “anything goes” mentality is ok.
But it seems that if we argue about truth, then there is an answer. In my small pea-sized brain, it seems to make sense to understand that there is a right and wrong, truths and false-truths. We have these same truths and false-truths in (ALL) other realms of life. If I pointed to an oak tree and called it a banana tree you could correct me on my error. Why should it be different for our faith?
I wonder about how important it is to make sure we start in the best, most honest way towards scripture/doctrinal stuff/beliefs (S/D/B).
Up until the last 100 years or so, most of our beliefs and “truths” were easily accepted. Now people want to question everything about the S/D/B. I am not afraid of these discussions, and I look eagerly towards them, because I seek truth out.
But what I am wrestling with, is point of view. I hold this viewpoint, you hold that. But if you were in my shoes and I in yours would we have differences still?
How important is it to start in the right spot?
Maybe the first question is “Where should we start?”
Why should I start with assuming the bible is true or mythical?
Why should I start with assuming Genesis is wrong or right, historically speaking (Didn’t science tell us the planet is flat and the atom was the smallest thing, and that there were 9 planets)?
Why do Modernist have to be wrong in understanding the Bible as truth (historically)?
Why assume that the last 2,000 years of tradition and study from men, who are more educated than most, are wrong? Or right?
Why do we all assume that those of yester year were ignorant and did not have the whole story, but today we do?
Why do we assume our limited view of science disproves the historical accuracy of the bible?
In my limited experience, many of the experts and Phd’s—I have found to be in total ignorance and to full of pride to admit error. By no means all of them, but some.
It makes logical sense to me, that God did have a purpose in all of his words that he gave us. Rather, historical or not…He still wanted to convey a message.
Our job is to honestly seek out and study to try to discover his truth. I think most people would agree with me here.
But…
How do I know where to start? Why start in the realm of higher criticism? Why not start there?
Is it possible that because of our pride that we miss out on drawing closer to God? I seek to honestly find him who has found me.
In my mind, I have formulated my answers to these questions, but I am interested to hear what others have to say.
Can a Higher Critic miss truth because of where he started from? Can a preacher?
I see these questions as foundational to our development as students of Christ. Loving God with all of our minds.
Honzo July 23rd, 2007
As many of you know, I do not have much formal theological training. My formal training has come in the areas of philosophy and the study of religion, or better stated, the study of how people are religious. I took a few theology classes at Central College of the Bible and the rest of my learning on the theological front has come via side readings. Some of our other authors are pastors with formal training or are in seminary or will be attending seminary after having some theological training at a Christian university. Despite my lack of formal training, I have attempted to do as much ala carte theological training on my own as my time, budget and changing interests allow.
Tangent to this lack of formal theological training, is a severe lack in a formal knowledge of hermeneutics. Ah, hermeneutics, that wonderful science of interpretation that everyone seems to go on and on about, and yet, there seems to be no unified method employed.1 However, the lack of unified use or lack of good use of hermeneutics by people is not a good excuse to not learn or employ a good hermeneutical method.
Since knowing what one does not know is the first step in gaining wisdom and knowledge, I am attempting to imbue myself with a good hermeneutical method. To this end, I am picking though two books, The Hermeneutical Spiral and Grasping God’s Word.
In the coming months, I hope to have a post series on this post consisting of digested notes from the two books. I more than likely won’t cover much of Grasping God’s Word, as I need to mail it back to Casey in a few days. Stay tuned.
Bad Behavior has blocked 797 access attempts in the last 7 days.