Matt. 25:31-46

Politicon · #51 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 08:18 PM

Bark, I would like to point out some things regarding to the flood and creation. The first one is adapted and the second one is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...is_history.asp

First:

‘But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female. … For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:6–8).

Here, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 about a real first man and first woman.
Furthermore, Jesus said that Adam and Eve were there ‘from the beginning of creation’, not billions of years later.

Secondly:

Quote:

Jesus taught about the sudden reality of His future judgment by comparing it to the time of Noah:

‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all’ (Luke 17:26–27).

Here, Jesus treats Noah as a real person, the Ark as a real ship and the Flood as a real event that destroyed all people outside the Ark.

Peter likewise warned of a coming Judgment by comparing it with the Flood. He even said that one characteristic of ‘scoffers’ was a willful ignorance of two things: the reality of special creation of the world out of water, and its destruction by water (2 Peter 3:3–7).

But if we deny that the Flood was a real event, then logically the future Judgment must be denied as well. And if the Flood was merely a local Mesopotamian flood, then people could have escaped simply by emigrating. Logically, sinners could escape the future wrath of the Son of Man just by keeping out of Iraq!

Summary

These are only a few examples of where other Bible writers take Genesis as history. Indeed, the inspired writers treat the people, events and times as real, not merely literary or theological devices. And the reality of the history is foundational to crucial teachings about faith and morality.

It seems to me that the genre of Genesis is supposed to be historical.

Politicon · #52 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 08:30 PM

I will also copy and paste part of an article written by Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.

The host site for this is http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1329

Quote:

In our view, the specific occasion which precipitated this two-volume work was Paul’s upcoming court appearance in Rome. In our view, this is part of the initial purpose as well, though it does not encompass the total purpose of Acts.

Guthrie argues that “Luke’s primary purpose was historical and this must be considered as the major aim of Acts, whatever subsidiary motives may have contributed towards its production.”56 Yet, Guthrie quickly adds five alternatives to the purpose of Acts (a narrative of history, a gospel of the Spirit, an apology, a defense for Paul’s trial, and a theological document [either written to address the triumph of Christianity or the delay of the parousia]).57

Yet not all would even agree with Guthrie’s basic premise that the primary purpose was historical in a general sense, the real tension concerning the purpose of this work is between history and apologetic. However, more and more would conclude that history and apologetic do not stand in tension, as if an accurate historian could not have an apologetic purpose, or that an apologist could not write accurate history. It has long been recognized that the historical positivism of Ernst Troeltsch of last century is pass�—that is, that no history was ever written from an unbiased motive. If this is the case, then to charge Luke with an apologetic motive is not to deny his being an accurate historiographer.

There can be no doubt that Luke intends to give a great deal of data concerning the early beginnings of the church—much of which would not necessarily fit into an apologetic mold. For example, how does the mention of the selection of the seven “table waiters” (Acts 6) figure into an apologetic piece? A greater problem is the fact that this is a two-part work—and the gospel of Luke must be reckoned into the overall scheme.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a very decidedly apologetic thrust to this work as well. Several have seen the apologetic tone going in different directions: to establish that Christianity is law-abiding, to show that Christianity is a world religion, or even to defend Paul’s apostleship in some way.

It is our contention that Acts is both historical and apologetic, that Luke wrote the work both for Theophilus (as an apologetic piece) and for secondary readers (both for apologetic and historical reasons). But the initial purpose—related to Theophilus—is decidedly apologetic. Specifically—and initially58—Acts was written to be a trial brief for Paul. The evidence is as follows:

1. The beginning of Luke, in which Theophilus is addressed as “excellent” (kravtiste). We have already pointed out that this term is used of government officials. But there is more: the vocative is used almost universally in the papyri only in petitions, as far as my own cursory research reveals (an examination of the first two volumes on the papyri in LCL). If this is the case here, then a petition is implied in Luke-Acts, even though none is stated.

2. The ending of the book, which almost certainly dates it as just before the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. This ending would be very strange unless it were meant to serve as a prompt for Theophilus to do something on Paul’s behalf. The date of Acts and the reasons for the book ending here are the most compelling reasons to see this work as in some sense a trial brief for Paul. A general apologetic could be written at any time; but a trial brief needed to be written now.

3. The mention of Paul being under house arrest for “two years” in Acts 28:30. Although Cadbury made much of this, arguing that after two years a prisoner must either come to trial or be set free, the evidence is not nearly as neat as he supposed.59 Nevertheless, one could appeal to the Roman law of a “speedy trial.” The point may be that Luke is reminding Theophilus that Paul’s case is about to be heard and that his defense needs to be prepared. Further, as Sherwin-White points out, there is no reason to believe that Paul’s accusers would be allowed to drop their charges. They had to prepare the best case they could. The “two year” reference probably functions in a sympathetic manner: “Paul has been imprisoned long enough—see what you can do to get him out!”

4. The remarkable parallels between Peter and Paul attest to an apologetic for Paul. Even Guthrie admits that “the history before the narrative of Paul’s life and work is somewhat scrappy and gives the impression that the author’s purpose is to get to Paul as soon as possible.”60 C. H. Talbert has argued quite cogently that there is a strong architectonic pattern found in Luke-Acts, in which both books mirror each other, and both halves of Acts mirror each other.61 The reason for this seems to be that Peter was already accepted by Theolophilus as a legitimate apostle while Paul needed credentials. Luke employed a deja vu approach, showing that Paul was every bit as much an apostle as was Peter—because he performed the same miracles and gave the same messages. Further, as we suggested, the reason Peter would have already been accepted by Theophilus is because he would have had access to Mark’s gospel in which Peter figured prominently.

5. Coupled with the remarkable parallels between these two great apostles is the fact that the last comment about Peter (apart from his message in Acts 15) is his release from certain death in Acts 12 (the narrative then picks up on Paul’s missionary journeys). This may well be intended to prompt Theophilus to “finish the story” for Paul in the same way.

6. Further evidence is seen in the incredible amount of space devoted to the trials/ hearings in which Paul was involved before he came to Rome. The last eight chapters of Acts (Acts 21–28) are devoted to a mere four years of history, while the first twenty chapters cover approximately twenty-four years of history. The material is more than twice as compact because it now focuses on Paul’s trials and material which would be useful in proving his innocence.

7. The use of prw'ton in Acts 1:1 might be a literary device similar to the ending of Mark (at 16:8), making the work open-ended. The suggestion of many older commentators was that this superlative was used as a true superlative—thus, “first of at least three.” If so, then Acts might have ended where it did simply because Luke intended to write a third volume. We have already discussed this view and found it wanting. However, a modification of it has some attractiveness to it: Could it be that Luke intended Theophilus to “write the third volume”—that is, do what he could to see that Paul’s ministry continued? Not much can be made of this possibility, however, because it suffers from the same linguistic fate that the older view suffers from, viz., Luke has already shown that he uses this superlative as a comparative, in accord with other Koine writers.

8. Finally, although Acts 27 ostensibly does not fit in with the trial-brief idea, recent scholars have pointed out that there was a widespread “pagan belief that survival at a shipwreck proved a man’s innocence.”62

Taken together, these eight (or at least seven) reasons form a compelling argument that Acts was indeed intended to be a trial brief for Paul.

At the same time, one criticism should be mentioned here: If Acts is really intended (in part) to be a trial brief for Paul, then how does Luke fit into this picture? Since both works really belong together, the purpose of Acts is seemingly the purpose of Luke-Acts. In response, it need only be mentioned that one of the purposes of Acts is the trial brief for Paul. It is true that Luke does not neatly fit into this purpose, though it does fit into the broader picture of apologetic of Christianity before the Roman government. The occasion for Acts necessitated the publication of Luke, but it did not thereby dictate the purpose of Luke.

I know that was a little long, but it talks a lot about the purpose of Acts which I think plays into this discussion. Again, I think the genre points to this also being a historical document. Why should I doubt the 40 days again? Why would Luke change the date to add emphasis? To do so would bring the entire history recorded in this book into question, wouldn’t it?

Dom1 · #53 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Areyouforreal

Dom what about

John 14:5-8
Jesus the Way to the Father
5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." 8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

I don't see a conflict with the Petrine Declaration. My whole point was that the idea of exclusive salvation is not uniform across Christianity. Catholics and some Protestants do not believe in it. There are a lot of differences between the various Christianities. Some believe that you only need faith and thus grace, others say they have to be coupled with good works.

You are not going to find uniformity in all Christian faiths. The Petrine Declaration was presumedly in Christ's words, and he let Peter have the authority to handle the church on Earth. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that popes are infallible and I don't believe that everything they have ever written or said was divinely inspired. It is just that if everything is to be taken literally, then the Petrine Declaration can not be ignored.

The church came before the Bible and directly influenced the Bible. At one time, when Christians were not plentiful across Europe, it was handy to preach exclusive salvation, the Church has since changed its stance.

Areyouforreal · #54 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 09:13 PM

I guess only time will tell who is right

Politicon · #55 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 09:21 PM

Interesting side not on Matthew 16:18-19 at http://www.thercg.org/questions/p184.a.html

Dom1 · #56 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicon

Interesting side not on Matthew 16:18-19 at http://www.thercg.org/questions/p184.a.html

Well, Jesus would have said it in Aramaic to people who then told it to people who wrote it in Greek who then translated to Latin, and then of course to all of the vernaculars. I would think that the people who wrote it would know what they meant more than anyone else. The church pre-dates the New Testament.

I am not argueing for the Petrine Declaration, I am merely showing the fallacy of using quotes in the Bible literally, as the Bible that we are reading is in fact different than the original in that we will always lose something in translation. If I am not mistaken, the Catholic Bible has more books in it. When Martin Luther decided to use only the Bible alone as a guide, he picked some things in that guide to leave out.

A couple of years ago I overheard a parent of a child complaining to a school principal saying that the kids should not be using the internet because it says something about it in Revelations. I have no doubt this guy could have given me all kinds of quotes to justify his position.

Politicon · #57 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

Well, Jesus would have said it in Aramaic to people who then told it to people who wrote it in Greek who then translated to Latin, and then of course to all of the vernaculars. I would think that the people who wrote it would know what they meant more than anyone else. The church pre-dates the New Testament.

I am not argueing for the Petrine Declaration, I am merely showing the fallacy of using quotes in the Bible literally, as the Bible that we are reading is in fact different than the original in that we will always lose something in translation. If I am not mistaken, the Catholic Bible has more books in it. When Martin Luther decided to use only the Bible alone as a guide, he picked some things in that guide to leave out.

A couple of years ago I overheard a parent of a child complaining to a school principal saying that the kids should not be using the internet because it says something about it in Revelations. I have no doubt this guy could have given me all kinds of quotes to justify his position.

The only problem with that is that we did not keep going from language to language. There are over 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. When translating the Bible from one language to another, the translation is made from the manuscripts of the original language.

Dom1 · #58 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicon

The only problem with that is that we did not keep going from language to language. There are over 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. When translating the Bible from one language to another, the translation is made from the manuscripts of the original language.

The translations that we read stem directly from St. Jerome's translations into Latin. This one man's translation is what Catholics and Christian religions coming from Catholocism rely upon.

It still does not account for the fact that the Church does pre-date the Bible, and they had direct control on what books were admitted and what books weren't as well as how they were interpreted. They would have been in a much better position to interpret individual word meanings than we are.

Interpretations change over time. The Bible is used now to teach equality and democracy in some instances. It used to be used to tell us slavery was not only acceptable, but morally correct. It also was used to support the right for monarchs to rule from divine right. It has been used to convert whole people to Christianity whether they wanted to or not. What makes interpretations of one time more valid than another?

The basic message remains the same, but parts of it are constantly reinterpreted.

Politicon · #59 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

The translations that we read stem directly from St. Jerome's translations into Latin. This one man's translation is what Catholics and Christian religions coming from Catholocism rely upon.

It still does not account for the fact that the Church does pre-date the Bible, and they had direct control on what books were admitted and what books weren't as well as how they were interpreted. They would have been in a much better position to interpret individual word meanings than we are.

Interpretations change over time. The Bible is used now to teach equality and democracy in some instances. It used to be used to tell us slavery was not only acceptable, but morally correct. It also was used to support the right for monarchs to rule from divine right. It has been used to convert whole people to Christianity whether they wanted to or not. What makes interpretations of one time more valid than another?

The basic message remains the same, but parts of it are constantly reinterpreted.

The point still stands though that since we have so many manuscripts, the translations are as close to the original as possible. Not just in some areas either. ). As said earlier, over 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered. To put this into context we must examine this in the light of other commonly accepted works, such as the Iliad. The Iliad was written sometime before 900 B.C., but the earliest recovered manuscript dates from around 400 B.C., a difference of 500 years. The Iliad contains 15,000 lines while the New Testament’s contains 20,000 lines. In the New Testament only 0.5%, or 40 lines, are in question. The Iliad on the other hand has 5% in doubt, or in other words 764 lines. In light of this evidence, there is very little cause to doubt the Bible’s date and text accuracy when other works, such as the Iliad, are commonly accepted as truth. In other words, the New Testament is very well covered, especially since those who copied scripture considered it holy so there was close to no error. (Some groups counted to the middle letter of the Bible and if it disagreed from the one that they were copying from, they destroyed the entire copy). Anyway, all that is to get to that we don’t need to worry about how many times the Bible has been translated.

You mention how certain parts of the Bible have been used to justify certain actions. I won’t try to justify those actions since I consider them to be wrong….in some cases. Of course slavery is wrong. Is obeying a king who has been set over you wrong? Not necessarily. I would still like to point out though that even those some people have taken those versus out of context in the past (in my opinion) that the basic core beliefs have never really been challenged. (a debate on indulgences is an entirely different matter. I would say that was more of political corruption than necessarily a misinterpretation).

rob · #60 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 03:49 PM

Wow this is great intelligent discussion. I for one refuse to take the Bible literaly and I am a Christian. I don't have a problem with the story in Genisus about the world being created 6 days, even though science has proven that the world is millions of years old. Who can say what a day is to God. Also when you look at the stories of how long people lived in Old Testmant days. If Methusula was indeed the longest lived man of his time, why are people still living that long today?

I am well aware that to beleive in anything outside of what we can see, requires a certian amount of faith.

God is a loving God, otherwise why would he have created or allowed man to be created?