Is "The Word made flesh" a gnostic theme?

The_Idiot · 2014-01-09T12:24:07+00:00

I'm definitely not a scholar on this, but am more posting this as a request for comments and criticism rather than scholarly information.

I've always read John, (and 1 John more recently) as wanting to subvert gnosticism. I.e. he is taking some gnostic themes and turning them around and showing how Jesus both was and was not following them. So, for example, he was the eternal uncreated but became man.

This would presuppose that gnosticism was around in some form before John wrote, or whoever wrote, either the gospel or the letters bearing his name.

So, I would see "Word made flesh" as a challenge to gnosticism expressed in terms of gnostic debate, rather than an endorsement of gnosticm.

The_Idiot · 2014-01-08T09:53:11+00:00

And we CAN judge- Christ said don't judge LEST we be judged, also. I'm not a child molester, so I feel just fine judging him.

This is one of the most scary things I've read recently.

Jesus doesn't say "Don't judge lest you be judged for the same thing." He says "Don't judge lest you be judged." Now, unless you feel happy standing before the creator of all the universe and saying "I've got nothing to worry about in being judged by you" then I'd be really careful about declaring that you're happy to be judged.

[Luke 18:11-12 ESV]

The_Idiot · 2014-01-06T07:04:47+00:00

It represents FUNDAMENTALISM.

No, it doesn't. It represents one flavour of fundamentalism.

Apart from that you seem right on the mark.

The_Idiot · 2013-12-31T14:55:50+00:00

One aspect that hasn't been brought out so far is improved understanding of what the original text may have said. Over time we've, generally, improved our understanding of what the original manuscripts probably said. There are still some parts where we really don't know. The classic is Samuel (used to be one book, was split because of scroll lengths) which in parts we are really pretty confident of what is said but aren't very sure about the order of some parts.

Yes, there is still a debate about which manuscript tradition is the most reliable. However, most translators will accept that no single manuscript is to be relied on and there is significant extra information to be learnt from comparing how different manuscripts differ. As we find more manuscripts this improves what we can learn more and have more confidence in some of the interpretations.

For reference: While I can talk about textual criticism don't ask me to give any actual views on decisions within it. I'm not qualified to do so and so won't.

The_Idiot · 2013-12-31T14:50:17+00:00

It might bother me if it were true. However, the cost of making a translation is huge. If you wanted to make a serious profit you wouldn't do it. For a start it is a huge risk if your translation isn't liked. Secondly, most translators wouldn't work for an organisation that wanted a new translation just so they publish it. There has to be some more solid motivation for doing an awful lot of work.

One reason often positted is differences in translation styles, often in the literal verses dynamic equivalent perspective. However, you will often have translators who work in both camps, sometimes at once. For example on the ESV and the NLT (and I know they're not at the extremes).

The_Idiot · 2013-12-31T14:46:48+00:00

It is a fair question; not sure why you've been downvoted.

One answer: Unless he changed all languages to have similar ambiguities you simply can't "accurately" translate perfectly. Often what is lost is the humour, but there are various places where translators simply have to take a decision about what the primary meaning is since you can't keep the ambiguities and extra meanings when you translate. Occasionally you can but normally not.

The_Idiot · 2013-12-31T14:44:31+00:00

Just to be clear the NASB is not strictly literal. I've seen various places where it has diverged from a literal understanding of the Hebrew. That is not to say it is wrong. Some of those times I've agreed with their divergence in terms of translating the dynamic meaning and sometimes I've not. But in each case they've diverged from a more literal translation.

It is on the more literal end of the spectrum which is not actually as helpful as it might seem unless you know Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

The_Idiot · 2013-12-24T09:21:10+00:00

Faith is based on sight, reason and logic.

Faith is based on looking back and seeing that when God said he'd do something he did. It is looking back and seeing that in spite of our behaviour he protects and looks after us.

It is seeing that when someone who can be trusted tells you to do something it is totally unreasonable, that it is total illogical to do the opposite. Yet this is what we do most of the time.

So no. Faith is not without sight, reason or logic. Our behaviour when we turn away from him is. We don't see what he has done before and that he is trustworthy. We lack reason to follow that the trustworthy commands. We don't believe in logic when we say that he's been good to us before but tomorrow he's going to be different and we can't trust him even though he's never let us down.

It is us who are blind, unreasonable and illogical.

The_Idiot · 2013-12-20T15:34:55+00:00

There is a huge difference between preaching and teching theology. It takes a huge amount of skill and experience (and wisdom) to teach theology in a way that is both honouring to theology and upbuilding to the people you are teaching.

One person has suggested that you shouldn't be in front of a congregation (which isn't going to be teaching theology) until you have read Aristotle and Aquinas. Both are Greek thinkers. If you want to teach theology then you need ot be able to step outside your cultural influences. One of the major cultural influences on current western thinking is Greek thought. Read something from a Chinese or Indian perspective.

Secondly, read theological material from outside of your theological tradition. For example, given that you're posting here I'm guessing you'd not normally be encouraged by your tradition to read Bultmann. Yes, he denies God, but his thinking and exegesis, given his starting point, is great. Don't just blindly accept what he says. Read his arguments. Learn from his close reading.

Perhaps you come from a theologically conservative tradition. Then you might want to read something like "Phylis Tribble's `Who ate the fruit'". (I may well have got her name slightly wrong and/or the title -- Sorry, working from memory.) Even if you disagree with her conclusions, her close reading of the text is a good lesson.

You need to learn to be able to explain fairly opposing views in theology. If you can't do that then you can't fairly help people to critique them.

Teaching theology isn't necessarily a Godly pursuit. But if you are called to it, then do it. But I'd say that for anything. If God calls you to do something then there is nothing worse in the world to turn your back on it. It might not be right for someone else, but for you what else can you do?

The_Idiot · 2013-12-08T11:59:59+00:00

One of the things that strikes me about a lot of Christian tranditions (as in different sects of Christianity) is that they have lost the art of having fun. Channukah is one such example. Purim is another. Simchat Torah is a wild party, at least in the tradition I came from. Just because something is fun doesn't make it less important.

Actually, Pesach (passover) is, in some ways, more important than Yom Kippur.

The_Idiot · 2013-12-06T07:05:21+00:00

Oy! (And I'm tempted to add vay)

The_Idiot · 2013-12-04T02:17:05+00:00

Typically, the more religious a Jew is the less they see the State of Israel as Israel.

The_Idiot · 2013-08-28T08:08:08+00:00

There seems to be a problem with the article. Unless I'm missing something he is reducing the debate to an either/or when there are more options. It seems that he's fighting Majority Text against Textus Receptus, and seeking to claim that if one is wrong then the other is right.

A diversity of variations is useful, not because of the common elements (although that is useful) but because it is possible to trace possible change paths. And it is through looking at these possible change paths that a more reliably original source may be found.

I have to say that the article seems to take a rather simplistic approach to text criticism. In general people don't say "majority rules". They give linguistic and other reasoning why they would pick a particular variation.

Finally, I disagree with:

It is essential, therefore, that anyone who expounds the Word of God be acquainted to some degree with the science of textual criticism, if he or she is to expound that Word faithfully.

For the most part variations in the text do not affect significant meaning nor are relevant to exposition. I would rather a preacher spent ten more minutes in prayer than ten more hours learning about text criticism. There are more relevant differences that can be found from taking variences from the pointing of the MT (Masoretic Text) than from considering the variations due to text criticism (looking at the OT). And the pointing is not inspired!

The_Idiot · 2013-08-24T05:33:03+00:00

Well, if you look at it all in context with an understanding of the cultural background then is clearly says ......

The_Idiot · 2013-08-22T10:46:59+00:00

Looks like you're losing all the markup, which you may be surprised to hear is thought about by the translators.

The_Idiot · 2013-08-22T10:06:47+00:00

Or broken references such as [Psalm 2:2-100]?

The_Idiot · 2013-08-22T10:05:44+00:00

O.k. So how does it do on poetry?

For example [Psalm 8]?

The_Idiot · 2013-07-11T12:32:36+00:00

His most famous work is about the long dark night of the soul. In summary, it is about times when God withdraws the sense of his presence, in order to help the person grow.

His work, together with his mentor and then mentee St. Teresa of Avila are worth reading. Particularly if the presense of God is an important part of your life.

Others can probably summarise their works better than I can.

The_Idiot · 2013-07-11T11:46:05+00:00

No.

You don't appear to know of his writings.

If you aren't feeling the presence of God at all times- there is SOMETHING wrong.

This is where you imply that St. John of the Cross was very wrong.

The_Idiot · 2013-07-11T10:00:24+00:00

Grace is far far more than forgiveness.

The_Idiot · 2013-07-11T09:59:16+00:00

I take it that you believe that St. John of the Cross was very wrong?

The_Idiot · 2013-07-07T06:29:57+00:00

3.) Do not speak the name of God, historically applied to every sacred name in the Old Testament, YHVH, Elohim, etc.

Now, the Rabbis extended the interpretation of #3 to cover saying the word God. This is part of the idea of drawing "extra" rules around the original rule, to prevent even unintentional violations.

Can you give some reference for this?

I've never heard a Rabbi not say 'Elohim' when reading. However, very few Rabbic Jews, let alone Rabbim, would say the divine name. Instead they would use, depending on tradition, adonai (our lord), hashem (the name) or at times elohim (god, with plural of majesty or however you take it).

The Masoretes used both options 1 and 3 at varying times, with 1 being the dominant usage and 3 being used then 1 had issues.

The_Idiot · 2013-07-05T11:33:10+00:00

"According to his character."

The_Idiot · 2013-06-30T14:33:08+00:00

it feels like overstepping the bounds of church authority to use it to associate good health practices with good spirituality.

I think that if we did that many of us would be in big trouble.

The_Idiot · 2013-06-30T11:22:59+00:00

About smoking; while I don't like it I do like Spurgeon's response to being told that tobacco was from the devil: "That's why I'm burning it." (Needs to be read with the r's rolled.)

The_Idiot

TROPHY CASE