fides quaerens intellectum
Mar 11 2010
“I think if we’d asked St. Paul what he thought about Aristotle and his scheme of the virtues, he would have said about it roughly what he said about the Jewish law: it is fine up to a point and as far as it goes, but it can’t actually give what it promises. It’s like a signpost pointing in more or less the right direction (though it will need some adjustment), but without a road that actually goes there” (36).
Read the entire article on NT Wright and Grace:
Nov 20 2009
The speech given by the Apostle Peter in Acts 2 is the first speech given by disciples of the ascended Christ – the first of the new community of believers. It is important, historically, to have this speech which officially delivers the rules of the community to take place on Pentecost. Just as the Gospels establish that Christ is the Passover, this speech served to establish that this was the Church’s Pentecost. It mimicked the scene played out in Exodus 19, and indeed, the later writer of Hebrews notes the comparison as well (Hebrews 12.18-24). Not withstanding the historical significance of placing this speech at the beginning of Christian history we find an attempt at redefining the Hebrew writings in light of the new community and connecting certain aspects of the Jewish Scriptures to salvation and thus the new community.
Nov 18 2009
Sirach is essentially a book of Jewish wisdom in Greek demotic, showcasing post-exilic, pre-Maccabean Jewish life. In this section, we find Sirach’s warning against all manner of women. It is misogynistic. Clearly, women here are seen in a negative light, where even an association is deemed corrupting to the man.
Continue reading “Sirach 9.1-9: The Perilous Association with Women”
Sep 25 2009
Click to Order
I am currently reading Dunn’s work (hope to post a review on Monday), so when I came across this video, I thought it was interesting. Thanks to Euangelion for the tip.
Publisher’s Description: In this third volume in the Library of Biblical Theology series, James D.G. Dunn ranges widely across the literature of the New Testament to describe the essential elements of the early church’s belief and practice. Eschatology, grace, law and gospel, discipleship, Israel and the church, faith and works, and most especially incarnation, atonement, and resurrection; Dunn places these and other themes in conversation with the contemporary church’s work of understanding its faith and life in relation to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ.
Continue reading “Bishop N.T. Wright and James Dunn on the New Perspective of Paul”
Sep 14 2009
Many times, people focus on Phoebe (Romans 16.1) as an example of the woman’s role in primitive Christianity – but what about Chloe?
For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. (1Co 1:11 NKJ)
We know several things about the background of 1st Corinthians, the first and foremost, that the local church was undergoing factionalism. At this time, local congregations did not meet in a large assembly hall, but in homes, perhaps many homes, throughout the city. Further, we know that women were rarely given the same social standing as men.
Continue reading “The Unknown Chloe: 1st Corinthians 1.11 in light of the Roman Household”
Jul 31 2009
Michael has made several posts lately that has caused some stir in the blogosphere. In his latest, he is likely to cause a tad bit more.
What I mean is this: It is often easier to judge one’s actions than his or her thoughts. The former is easier to see. In the same way, it is easier to see the contours of Paul’s Christology by looking at the contours of Pauline Christianity. When I look at the marks of Christianity in the ancient world, I am compelled to believe that the earliest Christians (Paul included) treated Jesus in much the same way they treated God Most High. For example, they prayed to Jesus (”called” on his name), celebrated a modified passover regularly that was centered about Christ, they attempted to do great works in his “name,” etc. Of course, it may objected that this is not “worship” in the sense of sacrificial worship. Perhaps, but it is certainly devotion to Jesus as an expression of their loyalty to God Most High. In this way, to show devotion to Jesus was to express loyalty to “the one who sent him.”
For me, it was the failure to include the eucharist as worship, or even devotion, to Christ as God which left a hole in the arugment of McGrath’s chapter on Paul. It is my opinion that Paul saw the eucharistic sacrament as replacing the sacrifices in/to the Name of God found in such places As Deuteronomy 12.
Michael has an excellent blog, so please check it out.
Jul 17 2009
Click to order from Amazon
My first impressions on James McGrath’s newest book is are here. Jared Calaway, at Antiquitopia, has posted his general impressions as well. When I meet a book that deserves a rolling review, I want to give it one. This book is barely 100 pages in length (not counting notes) and while it is not for the faint of conservative heart, it does bare a responsibility to give it a decent review. I’ll leave that up to someone else, and give you what I can.
I am a conservative Christian, depending upon conservative scholarship to steady my foundation – and that’s how I try not to approach this book. I accept that, but I am also determined to grow in God, first, and knowledge second, so when a book that threatens me a bit comes along, I have no problem reading it.
I am trying not to make this review a response to his work, but I do have to make a point concerning a few things that I have found in chapter 3, Monotheism and the Letters Attributed to Paul. The book thus far has been an intellectual exercise, forcing me to examine some dearly held beliefs, even from his passing comments. (I wonder if he will devote more time to cosmology and monotheism?) Further, he takes the time to speak to non-specialists (what’s the word here?) and keeps away from those nasty Greek, Latin, and German words used so frequently in modern scholarship. I prefer to read the book, instead of having to take the time to either translate the passages or look them up.
One problem that I have with the set-up of the book is that it utilizes endnotes, and not footnotes.
But, returning to my brief point, while the author associates sacrificial worship with monotheism, he never finds the attribution of this worship to Christ in the letters of Paul. Seemingly ignoring 1st Cor. 10, and indeed, the eucharist, McGrath doesn’t connect Paul’s use of idols in this passage with the Deuteronomistic prohibitions to sacrifices in the places of idols, which is further connected to the communion meal of the primitive Church.
I would also contend with the author about his belief that the Trinity (‘three in one’ as the author puts it) was formulated at Nicaea.
Finally, in this section, the author spends considerable time on Philippians 2.9-11, and indeed, he does have a point, that this could very well point to the fact that God took a mediatory figure, which was common in 2nd Temple Judaism, and placed within him the Divine Name – except he pays very little attention to the verses preceding this passage, which focuses heavily on the deity of Christ. More than a mere human, the pre-existence is assumed in vs 6-8 (Pre-existence is also assumed by Paul in 1st Cor. 10.4). Also, he uses a passage in Colossians, which he notes that while it is not considered a true Pauline book it is attributed to Paul, and thus fits into perimeters of his current discussion. Considering the passage in Colossians is fine, but he ignores the deity attributing passages in other letters attributed to Paul, such as 1st Timothy 3.16 and Titus 2.13. He also fails to acknowledge, even in passing as a translation choice, Romans 9.5, a letter generally affirmed to be Pauline.
One of the most positive things about the book – which for me is important – is that while the author sees Jesus as exalted rather than divine, he still allows for the uniqueness of Christ and the history of the Gospels.
Again, this is only my view, as a conservative Christian.
Jul 07 2009
Two posts which are somewhat related – two questions for you to think about.
Let’s set it up:
Let’s say that Christianity is an imagined community from the ground up. No Resurrection of a political Jesus. No miracles. No signs and wonders. No fulfillment of prophecies. Let’s say that the earliest written accounts of this myth called the Son of God, Jesus, was made by a disenchanted Pharisee who took up the rallying cry of a dead Jew. Let’s just say that the biblical accounts of the Resurrection of Christ and the beginning of the Church from Pentecost onward is little more than children’s fairy tales, told to urge rebellion against Nero.
But, we have to answer the history provide for in the Talmud and in other secular sources. Further, while we may discount the miracles of Acts, let’s say we take for a moment the life of Paul – that disenchanted, no good, Pharisee. He preached a risen Christ 30 years after it was said to have happened. He was there, after all, then Stephen had his life exercised from him for speaking in that name of Jesus Christ. He must have known that Jesus was alive and well or dead and buried.
Yet, something happened to that Pharisee where he not only took up the banner of that dead rebel, but began to move it away from the Jewish roots to a combined system of Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Bond and Free. And others joined him.
Of course, he met only a few of the close followers of the dead man. Surely, he would have not mistaken their deep seated ‘he is still with us’ mythology for an actual account of the Resurrection – not enough to rehearse it to a physician.
How can we explain away Christianity if there was a sudden explosion of this new myth which not only saw people willing die – those people that had heard the message of the rebellion from others – but also the closest followers of the decaying man? And what about this Paul fellow? He died too. He killed to prevent the message from being spread. Then he died to spread it.
We can explain away a few hundred people believing a man is a god or a lord, but can we explain thousands to tens of thousands of people who heard the message, who turned from killing to dying for it?
Here are those two articles -
So we are left with options. Either take the NT as it is, more or less; accept an historical analysis that raises more questions than it answers; . . . . or or or . . . .
And
Assuming its true, He’s God. He offers you a life that is radically different; he offers you the opportunity to live forever; he offers you the ability to live to the fullest imaginable extent, IF you buy into his presentation, assuming he really is who he says he is.
We hear an awfully lot about what the message of Christ cannot be true, why He was a really a political rebel, and ever increasing attacks upon our faith – yet, even if you take away the Scriptures, how can you explain away Christianity?
Jul 01 2009
Click to order from Amazon
I am progressing more slowly than I had hoped, but I am enjoying James McGrath’s latest book a great deal. It is providing me with a lot of thinking material. That is ultimately how I judge scholarly books – does it make me think? Does it shake me a bit? Can I explore new avenues, new paths? In the end, do I gain? So, far, I am happy with the time that it is taking me to read is book.
I breeze through fiction books, and books more often than not those books found in the Family Christian Bookstores. I like meat, not milk. (This is a personal reference, and should not be construed as a must for every Christian.)
His writings style is deep – long sentences, long paragraphs, and someone who knows how to use commas. He explains himself – which is part of his goal in trying to reach those with the background usually need for scholarly materials.
One of the issues which he is teasing is the use of creation as a key to monotheism. It’s got me thinking, which he may cover, but what of Genesis? Is Genesis key to the entire idea of the one true God? I mean, remove the Creationism vs. Intelligent Design (Evolution with God at the start) debate, just for a moment. What if the central message of the Creation account was not the 6 days and a literal understanding, but the fact that the only true God was the only true Creator? Rather, that the Creator was the One True God, the God Most High.
There are two subjects dealing with theology which interest me, 2nd Temple Judaism and Doctrinal Development until 381 of the early Church. Frankly, I can see how this book might inform me of the former and thus inform me of the latter.
For other blogs covering this book, try these:
Here si the product page from the publishers.
May 29 2009
In light of a recent finding that evangelical Christians are more likely, statistically, to support the use of torture, a scholar proposes an approach to nonviolence based on the teaching of Christianity’s first theologian.The recent Pew findings—that churchgoers, especially white evangelical Protestants, are more likely to believe that torture can be justified—have caused many commentators to wonder whether particular forms of Christian theology engender an acceptance of the use of torture.
In a recent article on Religion Dispatches, Sarah Sentilles suggests that Christian theologies and images of Christ’s crucifixion (essentially is an act of torture) have influenced some Christian communities’ understanding of torture as salvific, necessary, and justified. This view of torture is especially fueled by what is known as atonement theology: the view that Jesus’ death provided reparation for humanity’s sins against God.
Click to Help
AI-Religion
