Xeno.of.athens
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
Did anyone just make up an explanation without any attempt at exegesis?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did anyone just make up an explanation without any attempt at exegesis?Did all the parties arrive at the same time? Did anyone go twice?
And how many have lost their faith when they could no longer in good conscience accept the idea? Is it not a matter of life and death with them, as well?Why does it matter? I recall a number of situations where the inerrancy of scripture was what people relied on to be saved. Like it was impossible to believe in Jesus based on knowing Jesus from Him indwelling you.
To situations like that, it might be a matter of life or death.
The thing is, the bible itself acknowledges it has errors in it.And how many have lost their faith when they could no longer in good conscience accept the idea? Is it not a matter of life and death with them, as well?
Yeah, and most reviews of the literature of the church fathers tends to involve in an anachronistic approach where select statements that aren't addressing what modern students are asking are taken as proof positive of agreement. It tends to be a matter of all-or-nothing reasoning that most who defend inerrancy do so on. Whether they are inerrant or not, they are supremely trustworthy.The thing is, the bible itself acknowledges it has errors in it.
They are trustworthy, just apply the teachings and see the fruit. If there are multiple variants of a text, test them all and continue with the one with the best fruit.Yeah, and most reviews of the literature of the church fathers tends to involve in an anachronistic approach where select statements that aren't addressing what modern students are asking are taken as proof positive of agreement. It tends to be a matter of all-or-nothing reasoning that most who defend inerrancy do so on. Whether they are inerrant or not, they are supremely trustworthy.
Whether the stone was already moved (John) or not (Mark) when Mary got there has little to do with misunderstanding the time period of Passover.Like I already said, I don't think there is a problem with the text other than people possibly misunderstanding the time period involved with the Passover, though I haven't looked to see what possible variants are available in the section of text.
I guess we do not need to do anything with it. Just acknowledging that the biblical texts are not perfect and continuing with our life.Yes, but at this point what do we do. Hold them both in doubt? Choose one or the other to be more true? Try to reconcile them as an inerrentist might? I think the best thing to do is to enter into the world of the narrative as best we can. When in John go with it as is. Same with Mark.
I think this is a common misconception among American Christians, because of the culture influenced strongly by evangelicals and by the Seventh Day Adventists.For Protestants, it is a major hurdle to overcome because of doctine like Sola Scriptura
I checked - In John's Gospel, Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb and finds the stone already rolled away (John 20:1). However, Mark's Gospel also describes the stone as already moved when the women arrive - they were worried about who would roll it away, but when they looked up, they saw it had already been rolled back (Mark 16:3-4). So both Gospels actually agree that the stone was moved before the women's arrival.Whether the stone was already moved (John) or not (Mark) when Mary got there has little to do with misunderstanding the time period of Passover.
Perhaps, my background is deeply evangelical so a lot of my interactions have been with people who are fairly insistent on doctrine like the sui generis nature of the Scriptures, the perspicuity of Scripture, a rigid understanding of the canan to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. None of which are conducive to anything approaching a critical assessment of the texts.I think this is a common misconception among American Christians, because of the culture influenced strongly by evangelicals and by the Seventh Day Adventists.
German theology is notorious for producing liberal theology, so is it the traditional Lutherans in Germany or the liberals you're speaking of?More traditional protestant denominations worldwide have accepted evolution or errors in the Bible, textual criticism long time ago. Before the RCC or Orthodoxy. The standard critical text of the New Testament is made by the German Bible society and by protestants.
Orthodox Christianity has a great deal of critical thinking, yes they have a high esteem for the writings of the fathers and they haven't really systematized their theology but it is a very rich source since many of the fathers themselves were philosophically adept. Tradition, in the Orthodox church, is not solely about the past. It is the life of the Holy Spirit in the church, and continues to develop. Don't let their veneration of traditional rites and ceremonies fool you, there is a lot to be said for the intellectual integrity of the Orthodox church.Orthodox Christianity does not have this level of critical thinking, it is based on traditional texts and traditions they call sacred and the RCC is based on too many dogmas to apply critical thinking where needed. That is why it is actually a protestant thing. Protestants can change any doctrine that was proven wrong, after some few tears and after a lot of debate. They are not fixed in some previous tradition or past dogmas. One of the principle of the reformed church is "the church is always reforming".
About 40% of Americans believe in young earth (less then 10,000 years old) and about 10% of Americans believe the Earth is flat. In comparison about 2% of Europeans believe in young earth. I think it is clear that American views about the Bible will be quite different from the rest of the world.Perhaps, my background is deeply evangelical so a lot of my interactions have been with people who are fairly insistent on doctrine like the sui generis nature of the Scriptures, the perspicuity of Scripture, a rigid understanding of the canan to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. None of which are conducive to anything approaching a critical assessment of the texts.
You mean who is behind the Nestle Aland - critical edition of the New Testament? Most members of the committee have been from the EKD, one is Orthodox and one is from the church of England. One is from the USA - Evangelical Free Church of America. But there are also various institutions involved, like the United Bible Societies or German universities.German theology is notorious for producing liberal theology, so is it the traditional Lutherans in Germany or the liberals you're speaking of?
Not when compared to protestantism.Orthodox Christianity has a great deal of critical thinking
Yeah, certainly. And sadly it's likely the view of the Bible that is dictating those other numbers.About 40% of Americans believe in young earth (less then 10,000 years old) and about 10% of Americans believe the Earth is flat. In comparison about 2% of Europeans believe in young earth. I think it is clear that American views about the Bible will be quite different from the rest of the world.
I may have misunderstood what you were saying about the German Bible Society.You mean who is behind the Nestle Aland - critical edition of the New Testament? Most members of the committee have been from the EKD, one is Orthodox and one is from the church of England. One is from the USA - Evangelical Free Church of America.
I wouldn't conflate not being tied to past teachings with critical thinking, and the teachngs that the Orthodox are tied to are fairly few because their approach to theology tends to be apophatic...reserving cataphatic theology almost exclusively to councilatory decrees which, IMO, disagreement would render a group outside of the Christian faith. The domain of acceptable theologoumenon is quite broad, and the non-negotiables involve compromising the divinity and person of Christ.Not when compared to protestantism. Protestantism or reformed churches are the only branch of Christianity that is not bound by some past teachings.
It is interdependent. If we have some self-censorship because we see something from the past as "sacred tradition", it restricts our ability to use critical thinking.I wouldn't conflate not being tied to past teachings with critical thinking
Right, my errorSo both Gospels actually agree that the stone was moved before the women's arrival.
I agree since the Gospels were shaped by theological concerns. The lambs were actually slain on the day of preparation. But blood on the doors on Passover. Also the Passover meal in which John omits the institution of the Eucharist. Instead washes feet.Some propose solutions like different calendar systems being used, while others see theological rather than strictly chronological intentions in the Gospel writers' presentations.
I think the two ideas ought to be kept separate.
Could Mary have gone twice?Whether the stone was already moved (John) or not (Mark) when Mary got there has little to do with misunderstanding the time period of Passover.
I’d say the idea that Mary went to the tomb twice isn’t Church teaching. Is there any specific idea that you use to reconcile the different versions?Could Mary have gone twice?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In the 1980s and ’90s, a controversy swirled within the Evangelical world over the question of biblical inerrancy. A common claim during that time was that the doctrine of inerrancy was an innovation of late nineteenth-century Princeton theologians who were attempting to respond to higher biblical criticism. Before then, the claim continued, Christians did not believe the Bible to be without error, but only “infallible.” It was a distinction that made a big difference. The Bible is accurate in matters of faith and practice, but not without error in other areas, such as science or history.
Though the word “inerrancy” may have been new, the idea was not. How the Early Church fathers described Scripture sounds exactly like what the Princeton theologians meant by inerrancy. The same, in fact, can also be said about medieval, Reformation, and even modern theologians before the rise of theological liberalism.
The attack on the idea of biblical inerrancy 40 years ago is essentially the same as the attack on biblical authority that emerged during the Enlightenment. Once reason and science were elevated as the primary arbitrators of truth, it was necessary to reject things like the biblical claims about miracles. Aligning Scripture, particularly Genesis, with accepted science required assuming that the Bible was not reporting literal history or attempting to make scientific claims.
Continued below.
That question was resolved. My error. The stone was removed in all accounts.Could Mary have gone twice?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I don't remember. . .but each writer does not always include the whole record.I’d say the idea that Mary went to the tomb twice isn’t Church teaching. Is there any specific idea that you use to reconcile the different versions?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?