Advice For Bible Students Beware Of The Scholars

[BilliardsBall]

Have you had a discussion in which someone who claims to be trained in ancient Hebrew, Greek or is a Bible Scholar, or has been to seminary gives the impression that because of their education in any of the fields they must be right and you must be wrong? It happens all of the time to me. And lets put that into perspective.

Jesus as a child impressed the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Later, as an adult, he strongly criticized those religious leaders. Jesus wasn't a scholar. Nor were his disciples. Nor were nearly all of the writers of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The only scholars I can think of were Ezra and Paul, and Paul's training had him persecuting and savagely killing Christians until his conversion.

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, the only one who could ever be proven, by legal documentation to have been the Messiah since the records were destroyed in the Roman destruction of the temple in 66 - 70 C.E.

Jehovah therefore rejected the Jewish system and expanded his approval to the Gentile followers of Christ.

But Christianity is hardly any better off. Paul foretold the future apostasy of Christendom and their preference over myth and legends. The soul isn't immortal. Jesus didn't die on a cross. The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies, then don't let the so called scholars change your thinking. Listen to what they say but don't put your trust in them, or anyone else, including me, gurus, the Pope, Rabbis, Bible Scholars, or even the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.

I agree that there is a fallacy of an appeal to authority, however, it is annoying when skeptics frequently point to Bible issues that are not there with a cursory look at the Hebrew or Greek--cursory because they are too lazy or too willful or both to look at basic Bible dictionaries.

But I would also caution you are strongly as I know how that Paul and the apostles warned that false teachers would deny:

* eternal judgment
* Christ come to save souls
* universalism
* etc.

 

[Katzpur]

But Christianity is hardly any better off. Paul foretold the future apostasy of Christendom and their preference over myth and legends.

I agree with you that Christianity is in pretty bad shape today, and that Paul prophesied that an apostasy was imminent even in his day.

The soul isn't immortal. Jesus didn't die on a cross. The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies, then don't let the so called scholars change your thinking. Listen to what they say but don't put your trust in them, or anyone else, including me, gurus, the Pope, Rabbis, Bible Scholars, or even the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

I agree with some of these statements and disagree with others. But you've got to admit that your interpretation of the scriptures pretty closely matches that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Study for an equal amount of time with another denomination and you'll probably change your mind on at least one or two of your current conclusions. (As an example, you believe the soul to be mortal. I can understand how the Jehovah's Witnesses could have convinced you of that, but I think they're wrong.) At any rate, I don't think it was your intention to get into the specifics of any of these doctrines on this particular thread.

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.

I agree 100%. As my LDS bishop once pointed out to our congregation, "Your salvation is between you and the Lord. It's not between you and your bishop. It's not even between you and the Prophet. It's between you and the Lord. Period."

 

[Neuropteron]

[QUOTE="

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.[/QUOTE]
............

Good advice.
However, we don't live in a vacuum.

:"The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies".[endquote]
Even you must have received this understanding from somewhere.

After all didn't Paul say that God "gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as shepherds, some as teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones?
doesn't that indicate that we should listen to someone ?

I am correct in assuming you mean that we should be discriminate in who we listen to and choose those that have works that support their reliability ?
Jesus said:" Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize them.

Be well

 

[ASPls]

It would be nice if people start including Bible verses to support their claim or views in this thread. Right now it seems like people are just throwing their interpretation or doctrine around, claiming it to be "more biblical" without citing any biblical source. It makes it quite hard for us humble layman to learn a thing.

 

[sojourner]

Have you had a discussion in which someone who claims to be trained in ancient Hebrew, Greek or is a Bible Scholar, or has been to seminary gives the impression that because of their education in any of the fields they must be right and you must be wrong? It happens all of the time to me. And lets put that into perspective.

Jesus as a child impressed the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Later, as an adult, he strongly criticized those religious leaders. Jesus wasn't a scholar. Nor were his disciples. Nor were nearly all of the writers of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The only scholars I can think of were Ezra and Paul, and Paul's training had him persecuting and savagely killing Christians until his conversion.

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, the only one who could ever be proven, by legal documentation to have been the Messiah since the records were destroyed in the Roman destruction of the temple in 66 - 70 C.E.

Jehovah therefore rejected the Jewish system and expanded his approval to the Gentile followers of Christ.

But Christianity is hardly any better off. Paul foretold the future apostasy of Christendom and their preference over myth and legends. The soul isn't immortal. Jesus didn't die on a cross. The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies, then don't let the so called scholars change your thinking. Listen to what they say but don't put your trust in them, or anyone else, including me, gurus, the Pope, Rabbis, Bible Scholars, or even the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.

That’s hardly “putting things into perspective.” First of all, the example is a story, not a factual account. Second, you’re not the Son of God. Third, the example of Paul isn’t one of scholasticism, it’s one of conversion. The point of the story isn’t that “conversion trumps scholarship.” If people whose profession is studying the Bible know more about it than you do, it’s because they’re supposed to! They’re not doing their job if they don’t know more than you do. If you want to compete with that, no one’s keeping you out of graduate biblical studies.

 

[sojourner]

Not exactly. I question it as I believe one should. Anyone has access to it these days. In the past reading and studying the Bible was a capital crime. The notion that anyone, especially anyone prone to cling to tradition has a superior knowledge, immediately calls for caution in my mind.

But the Bible is part of the Tradition. Why would that bother you?

 

[sojourner]

According to the Jewish Scriptures, Jesus is not the messiah and since Christianity came from Judaism and tries to justify its messiah using Jewish Scriptures, it's fair to say he wasn't. You don't just get to redefine the term and then accuse the people who came before you, who own the Scriptures, of being wrong and misled.

That’s fine, except that Xy was a Jewish sect, so the texts did “belong to them,” and they interpreted them, just as rabbis of other sects did — and do.

 

[oldbadger]

Have you had a discussion in which someone who claims to be trained in ancient Hebrew, Greek or is a Bible Scholar, or has been to seminary gives the impression that because of their education in any of the fields they must be right and you must be wrong? It happens all of the time to me. And lets put that into perspective.

Certainly! Indeed, you can add many of 'experts' to the above. I'm amazed at how many people will try to impress by waving qualifications and past experience around.
But there is surely an answer for that?
The answer to such folks is:- Your truth is only as good as what you can write and post here. Nothing else counts.

Jesus as a child impressed the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Later, as an adult, he strongly criticized those religious leaders. Jesus wasn't a scholar. Nor were his disciples. Nor were nearly all of the writers of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The only scholars I can think of were Ezra and Paul, and Paul's training had him persecuting and savagely killing Christians until his conversion.

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, the only one who could ever be proven, by legal documentation to have been the Messiah since the records were destroyed in the Roman destruction of the temple in 66 - 70 C.E.

Jehovah therefore rejected the Jewish system and expanded his approval to the Gentile followers of Christ.

But Christianity is hardly any better off. Paul foretold the future apostasy of Christendom and their preference over myth and legends. The soul isn't immortal. Jesus didn't die on a cross. The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies, then don't let the so called scholars change your thinking. Listen to what they say but don't put your trust in them, or anyone else, including me, gurus, the Pope, Rabbis, Bible Scholars, or even the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.

I read all of your post......... it does seem that our individual searches often do end up with totally differing results. My searches about Yeshua the handworker who met with the Baptist and took up a mission to end Temple and Priesthood corruption do produce differing results to your searches, but I acknowledge your opinions and findings .......... that's probably how and why there are over 3000 Christian Creeds out there. People differ.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Have you had a discussion in which someone who claims to be trained in ancient Hebrew, Greek or is a Bible Scholar, or has been to seminary gives the impression that because of their education in any of the fields they must be right and you must be wrong? It happens all of the time to me. And lets put that into perspective.

Jesus as a child impressed the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Later, as an adult, he strongly criticized those religious leaders. Jesus wasn't a scholar. Nor were his disciples. Nor were nearly all of the writers of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The only scholars I can think of were Ezra and Paul, and Paul's training had him persecuting and savagely killing Christians until his conversion.

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, the only one who could ever be proven, by legal documentation to have been the Messiah since the records were destroyed in the Roman destruction of the temple in 66 - 70 C.E.

Jehovah therefore rejected the Jewish system and expanded his approval to the Gentile followers of Christ.

But Christianity is hardly any better off. Paul foretold the future apostasy of Christendom and their preference over myth and legends. The soul isn't immortal. Jesus didn't die on a cross. The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies, then don't let the so called scholars change your thinking. Listen to what they say but don't put your trust in them, or anyone else, including me, gurus, the Pope, Rabbis, Bible Scholars, or even the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.

Reminds me of what Jesus said @ Luke 10:21.... if you don’t have Jehovah revealing His Word to you, helping you understand, you’re basically just wasting your time.

This would require we recognize, as did the Ethiopian Eunuch, that we need to be “guided” by those who have Jehovah’s spirit. — Acts of the Apostles 8:30-31.

 

[metis]

Reminds me of what Jesus said @ Luke 10:21.... if you don’t have Jehovah revealing His Word to you, helping you understand, you’re basically just wasting your time.

That's like saying "You cannot understand that jumping off a high cliff may be bad for your health unless you actually jump off a high cliff".

 

[Kenny]

Ah, but you see, you don't read the soul is immortal in the Bible.

You don't read that LSD shouldn't be used but if one uses their noggins, one can figure out that the soul is immortal because it is connected to an immortal spirit.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You don't read that LSD shouldn't be used but if one uses their noggins, one can figure out that the soul is immortal because it is connected to an immortal spirit.

Then tell me, why is there a Resurrection? There would be no need, if one never really dies. These two teachings are contradictory; there can't be both.

But the Bible does promise a Resurrection, a "standing back to life." -- John 5:28-29; Acts of the Apostles 24:15. (Note the future tense.)

The Resurrection

 

[Kenny]

Then tell me, why is there a Resurrection? There would be no need, if one never really dies. These two teachings are contradictory; there can't be both.

But the Bible does promise a Resurrection, a "standing back to life." -- John 5:28-29; Acts of the Apostles 24:15. (Note the future tense.)

The Resurrection

A new body.

 

[Milton Platt]

Have you had a discussion in which someone who claims to be trained in ancient Hebrew, Greek or is a Bible Scholar, or has been to seminary gives the impression that because of their education in any of the fields they must be right and you must be wrong? It happens all of the time to me. And lets put that into perspective.

Jesus as a child impressed the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Later, as an adult, he strongly criticized those religious leaders. Jesus wasn't a scholar. Nor were his disciples. Nor were nearly all of the writers of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The only scholars I can think of were Ezra and Paul, and Paul's training had him persecuting and savagely killing Christians until his conversion.

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, the only one who could ever be proven, by legal documentation to have been the Messiah since the records were destroyed in the Roman destruction of the temple in 66 - 70 C.E.

Jehovah therefore rejected the Jewish system and expanded his approval to the Gentile followers of Christ.

But Christianity is hardly any better off. Paul foretold the future apostasy of Christendom and their preference over myth and legends. The soul isn't immortal. Jesus didn't die on a cross. The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies, then don't let the so called scholars change your thinking. Listen to what they say but don't put your trust in them, or anyone else, including me, gurus, the Pope, Rabbis, Bible Scholars, or even the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.

So how did you determine that you were right and the scholar who actually studied the subject was wrong?

 

[rrobs]

Have you had a discussion in which someone who claims to be trained in ancient Hebrew, Greek or is a Bible Scholar, or has been to seminary gives the impression that because of their education in any of the fields they must be right and you must be wrong? It happens all of the time to me. And lets put that into perspective.

Jesus as a child impressed the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Later, as an adult, he strongly criticized those religious leaders. Jesus wasn't a scholar. Nor were his disciples. Nor were nearly all of the writers of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The only scholars I can think of were Ezra and Paul, and Paul's training had him persecuting and savagely killing Christians until his conversion.

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, the only one who could ever be proven, by legal documentation to have been the Messiah since the records were destroyed in the Roman destruction of the temple in 66 - 70 C.E.

Jehovah therefore rejected the Jewish system and expanded his approval to the Gentile followers of Christ.

But Christianity is hardly any better off. Paul foretold the future apostasy of Christendom and their preference over myth and legends. The soul isn't immortal. Jesus didn't die on a cross. The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies, then don't let the so called scholars change your thinking. Listen to what they say but don't put your trust in them, or anyone else, including me, gurus, the Pope, Rabbis, Bible Scholars, or even the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.

The Apostle Paul would certainly agree with you on this. Me too!

A post I wrote a while ago: Paul's Dung.

 

[Marcion]

Not exactly. I question it as I believe one should. Anyone has access to it these days. In the past reading and studying the Bible was a capital crime. The notion that anyone, especially anyone prone to cling to tradition has a superior knowledge, immediately calls for caution in my mind.

I agree with you in part, but for most people this will mean that they will get lost in their christian bible because it is filled with all kinds of different viewpoints and adjustments made by secondary redactors.

For me personally, only the Jesus I found in Q has scriptural authority and I very much like his teachings and instructions.

But even to find out the exact extent of Q and its correct reconstruction I needed the work of learned scholars on this specialised subject.
I also needed the intructions of non-christian scholars to be able to fathom the deeper meaning of the teachings of Jesus.

But in the end I had to put it all together all by myself and no-one seemed to be able to help me understand the complete picture of the teachings in Q. No scholar I spoke to supported my final understanding but that did not worry me because those scholars cannot agree among each other either.

 

[pearl]

For me personally, only the Jesus I found in Q has scriptural authority and I very much like his teachings and instructions.

Yet "Q" is found in both Mt and Lk. It doesn't seem plausible they would include material that was a contradiction. "Q" definitely has a gnostic flavor. The two source hypothesis has its critics just as does the four source hypothesis, JEPD, of the Pentateuch.

 

[Marcion]

Yet "Q" is found in both Mt and Lk. It doesn't seem plausible they would include material that was a contradiction. "Q" definitely has a gnostic flavor. The two source hypothesis has its critics just as does the four source hypothesis, JEPD, of the Pentateuch.

Q is only found in Matthew and Luke the way that Mark is found in these two gospels, but in a heavily edited form distorting its original ideology.
I support the three source hypothesis with aLuke knowing gMark, gMatthew and Q-lite.
Q-lite could be called gnostic, but I give it the label tantric-mystic (tantric in its broadest universal sense and right-handed).
I don't see a link between Q-lite and the gnostic gThomas.

Why would the aMatthew and aLuke use a text (Q-lite) that does not completely correspond to their own theology? Why indeed would aLuke use gMatthew as a template for writing his own gospel if it contradicted his theology? Or why would the orthodox church of Rome adopt the gnostic pseudo-graphic letters of Paul into their holy scriptures after heavily editing them?
They did this because they decided that heavy modifications could make them suitable for their own purposes.
aThomas may have written gThomas by modifying sayings from gMatthew and gLuke and adding new ones.
They all felt that these texts were somehow important but were only useful after heavy editing in the direction of new theological developments in their own communities.

Christianity started out as different sects that knew about each others sacred texts but preferred their own versions. After a couple of centuries these heterodox sects were surpressed and absorbed into a more centralized (so-called orthodox) church that concentrated control and power.

 

[pearl]

but in a heavily edited form distorting its original ideology.

How original after layers of redaction and perhaps each with its own theological view? To me Q has a gnostic flavor because there is no reference to a crucifixion or resurrection. I read in your post that you have substituted this portrait of Jesus, the wisdom teacher, cynic, no messianic proclamation, etc., for the Jesus of the Gospels and of church faith.
Myers reminds that 'Q' is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, originating community, and stages of composition cannot be known.' Yet Q is the best way of explaining the agreements between Matt and Luke in material not borrowed from Mark.

Christianity started out as different sects that knew about each others sacred texts but preferred their own versions.

Because each were concerned with and addressed the needs of their particular community.

After a couple of centuries these heterodox sects were surpressed and absorbed into a more centralized (so-called orthodox) church that concentrated control and power.

Otherwise these sects might have followed their own path out of existence.

 

[Marcion]

How original after layers of redaction and perhaps each with its own theological view? To me Q has a gnostic flavor because there is no reference to a crucifixion or resurrection. I read in your post that you have substituted this portrait of Jesus, the wisdom teacher, cynic, no messianic proclamation, etc., for the Jesus of the Gospels and of church faith.
Myers reminds that 'Q' is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, originating community, and stages of composition cannot be known.' Yet Q is the best way of explaining the agreements between Matt and Luke in material not borrowed from Mark.

The absence of a mention of crucifixon or resurrection could signify that Jesus in his teachings did not at all mention or predict such events. But their absence does not automatically point to a connection to gnostic teachings.

I see the teachings of Q-lite as the teachings of a tantric-mystic type of teacher who places himself in the centre as a realised Master who is at one with the Father. This is by no means similar to the Jesus of the gospels because the christian Jesus is seen as being a messianic divine saviour through his death and resurrection (and predicted apocalyptic return) and not as a mystic Master who mediates through his divine personality and private teachings in Q-lite.

Although such a Jesus is very different from the church Jesus, there is one parallel and that is the divine status of Jesus right from the start. The cynic or gnostic Jesus cannot be convincingly shown from Q-lite. Of course this depends on the selection of sayings you make and how you interpret both the individual sayings and in which way they resonate with one another ideologically. It can be hard to make a clear distinction between sayings that betray the tantric-mystic Jesus and those that were invented by the church, especially when you are not used to this type of spiritual philosophy.

Otherwise these sects might have followed their own path out of existence.

Yes, maybe that also happened. Some of these sects managed to survive for centuries after orthodox christianity got support from the Roman emperors like the Ebionites and the church of Marcion. How or why they disappeared is not clear to me.