If Romans 1 is accepted as having a clear echo of the creation story, then on a very foundational level we need to recognise that God is imaged by both male and female…
via Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality.
The book looks great, but I wanted to comment on this one little bit.
Romans 1.26-27 MUST BE LEFT OUT of the debate on homosexuality from the perspective that it is Paul’s own words.
Paul actually condemns the statements made in this section of Romans.
Thought this might be a good way to break the ice. What does the final two acts of sin mean?
Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
Go on… And, make sure you use relevant literature to define those words.
I can’t find the Greek text, and I really don’t want to spend any more time on it, but this is what we hear Irenaeus say:
“And after their [Peter's and Paul's] departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter”
Several scholars suggest that the word here translated as departure, ἔξοδος, simple means that Peter and Paul left Rome, only to return later and die. By rights, they may be correct to some extent, unless we can supply a better lexicographical meeting. There is a canonical source which does provide us with some suggestion that Irenaeus meant death, and further, that this word is in fact a very Christian understanding of death.
I mean, sure, there is Luke 9.31,
οἳ ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἤμελλεν πληροῦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ.
But, that doesn’t really go well. Luke-Acts is connected to Exodus, and the use of the word here is only a hallmark of the author’s internal theology. We need something else… Something which connects Peter to this particular word and concept.
σπουδάσω δὲ καὶ ἑκάστοτε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς μετὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον τὴν τούτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι. (2Pe 1:15 BGT)
If you follow Bauckham, and to some extent Witherington, then 2nd Peter can be dated between 90 and 100 CE. If you follow some scholars, we can date it to 160. Origen has issues with it, but there is some hints at it in earlier (than 160) works. But, what comes first? If you are going to make a letter look authentic, you need to borrow from existing phrases. That argument is not to be balanced here.
On the other hand, regardless of the date, we can assume that one author is in the other author’s audience. 2 Peter used the word to signify death, or rather, the Christian notion of departing this world for the next.
Get my book sometime early next year. Boom. This is important.
Heard, I mean really heard, this verse Sunday morning in Church:
λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὅτι ἑώρακάς με πεπίστευκας; μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες.
John is writing to those who had already believed, and maybe were facing tough times, but hadn’t seen Christ. Second generation?
I mean, honestly, only the disciples had seen Christ at this point in the story.
Good stuff…. too bad John copied a lot of stuff, except everything, from Mark.
I don’t have a cover yet…. but I do have a somewhat complete working title:
Rhetorical Strategies of the Evangelist: Mimetic Criticism of Mark’s Gospel
Draft overview:
It is hoped that this book will serve as a stage in the evolution of the discussion of Mark’s sources and strategies. The aims are to establish mimetic criticism as something more than a literary tool looking for similar words or phrasing (the literary model) but as a form of criticism not limited by the strict criteria established by both source and redactional critics. Purpose will be added to a set of core criteria already established by one author to show that Mark is not merely following a genre, but becoming an innovator in a Tradition. Once the outlines of mimetic criticism has been drawn, the Gospel of Mark will be examined under this model to discover what episodic passages may be understood as a mimetic attempt to counter the author’s cultural situation immediately after the Jewish War. Finally, it will aim to establish a Mark’s original sources which will aid in the study of the Historical Jesus. Specifically, this work will build on work already done by Thomas Brodie, Dennis MacDonald, and Adam Winn. What will be explicitly new will be the use of mimesis as political rhetoric, setting Mark among other Silver Age rhetoricians. Mark follows Lucan’s innovation and uses multiple sources. Where as Lucan used Virgil, Seneca, and Homer (among others), Mark is using sources which he also seeks to counter as well as sources which give his story structure. Standing upon the shoulders of scholars, this book will trace the development of mimesis post-Virgil, Mark’s use of it, and what this ultimately means in reading the Gospel.
There are a few people that I hold responsible for this… and I’ll get to them in the acknowledgments.
I will be looking for endorsements, by the way.
The anti-Christ. The Battle of Armageddon. The dreaded Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
You don’t have to be a student of religion to recognize references from the Book of Revelation. The last book in the Bible has fascinated readers for centuries. People who don’t even follow religion are nonetheless familiar with figures and images from Revelation.
And why not? No other New Testament book reads like Revelation. The book virtually drips with blood and reeks of sulfur. At the center of this final battle between good and evil is an action-hero-like Jesus, who is in no mood to turn the other cheek.
Authors debunks four big myths about the Book of Revelation – CNN Belief Blog – CNN.com Blogs.
Elaine Pagels hasn’t caused the stir I thought it would, actually, but… I would really like a book to take Revelation from the cosmic view. Admittedly, I haven’t read Pagel’s book, and not likely too anytime in the near future, but I still don’t think she fully gets it.
Oh well… back to the drawing board…
Jim doesn’t like the theological trend which suggests that Mark was written as a performance piece… but what if it was?
Also, what if the Gospel, either in part or near the whole if not the whole, was either meant to be a vision or perhaps, meant to suggest that the audience could understand it to be a vision?
It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” At once the Spirit drove him out into the desert, and he remained in the desert for forty days, tempted by Satan. He was among wild beasts, and the angels ministered to him. (Mar 1:9-13 NAB)
Compare that to:
And to me in a vision it was thus shown: Behold, clouds in the vision were calling and fogs were calling, and courses of the stars and lightnings were troubling me and bothering me, and winds in my vision stunned me. And they lifted me up and brought me into heaven, and I entered until I came near to a wall built with stones of white marble and a tongue of fire around them; and they began to frighten me. (1EN 14:8-9 OPE)
First, the Wilderness could be understood as a vision especially given the presence of the beasts and angels. Further, notice the connection between the clouds and the voices amongst them and the fact that there is no smooth transition between Jesus being in the Wilderness and when John is arrested. Also, following other New Testament language (especially in Revelation), the vision could be started by the compunction of the Spirit. Sure, this may help the mythicists out, but as a friend and I were discussing the other day, it is possible that given the bifurcation of Mark connected at the Transfiguration, then it may be that this scene was meant to end the initial vision. Given my theory that the first part of Mark is anti-Roman Imperial Ideology, which of course happened long after Christ, then a vision would be the best place to house this ‘new’ information. Finally, the final portion of Mark contains prophecies, which could be the result of the vision.
Now, this is only the genesis of the exploration here, but nevertheless, one which I intend to explore. No worries… the fact that Jesus begins outside the vision, and ends outside the vision, if there is a vision, still maintains a historical vision. Remember, the cardinal rule of propaganda is that it has to be based in truth, somewhat, believable, and purposeful.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
