david@ssc-vax.UUCP (05/19/84)
[!]
I'd like to begin this rejoinder properly, with an honest thanks to Lew
Mammel. Although we take entirely opposite positions, his article
demonstrates a sincere desire for an intelligent discussion. He has done
his homework, and has made us (Christians) do some, too. I hope that other
non-Christians, when making some point about ("against") Christianity will
follow his example. Ok, on with the fla-- oops, I mean "rejoinder" :-)
>I was confusing Mark 9:1 with the "Little Apocalypse" of Mark 13, which
>is parallel to Matthew 24. Both of these refer to a generation,
>rather than "some of those standing here". Mark 9:1 immediately precedes
>the Transfiguration, and The Interpreters' Bible suggests, by expressing
>disagreement with the idea, that some hold the view that it was the
>Transfiguration that fulfilled this prophecy. I certainly agree that
>the phrase "in power" suggests much more than this rather private event.
>Anyway, I'm surprised Paul Dubuc didn't mention this.
This is known as the Olivet discourse. In it are some of the most difficult
of Jesus' teachings. I say so not in embarrassment, but that they are
difficult to interpret. Here are some possible interpretations:
1) The filfillment of most of the prophecies in the destruction of
Jerusalem about 70 A.D.
2) Description of the church age, and a tribulation through which the church
must pass before Christ returns.
3) Jesus' description of Daniel's seventieth week.
It is worth taking a look at the greek words which make up the verse for
a better understanding. "Kingdom" is translated from the greek "Basileia".
This term could mean "royalty", "king" or "reign", which opens the verse up
to any number of interpretations. The word "power" comes from the greek
"dunamai", which roughly means to "be able" or to "be of power". This
makes the Transfiguration interpretation at least plausible, and perhaps
allows for such interpretations as Christ's Resurrection or even Ascension.
>The commentator in The Interpreters Bible states that the expectation
>of an imminent Second Coming is unmistakeable in the New Testament and that
>it would be as hard to miss as the Atlantic Ocean on a trip from New York
>to London. This same commentator expresses literal belief in the
>Resurrection, the Transfiguration, and the various miracles.
Well, I don't have an Interpreter's Bible. I did check the local gospel
book store, and they cost ~$250, so I passed. I should mention that I am
glad someone here (non-Christian) cares enough to spend that much on a Bible.
At any rate, I'm not sure that the commentator meant an imminent Second
Coming as within, say, 50 or so years after Jesus' Resurrection. And even
if they did (which I find hard to believe), remember that he is only human
and subject to mistakes.
>As a secular reader, I have no problem seeing what are to me plain
>expressions of feeling and meaning, even if don't take everything to heart.
>I have no problem following the comments of Biblical scholars either,
>even though I don't share their reverence.
As a suggestion, pick up an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and
another commentary. I like Wycliffe, but it seems each has its own strong
points, and even 3 or 4 would be valuable. Perhaps they may help lend
different interpretations of difficult verses.
>I guess I feel that the
>fundamentalist interpretations are simply dishonest, and that's why
>I can't sit still for them. Especially not when these interpretations
>are being used to justify the censoring of such statements as, "The great
>mountain ranges of the world were not all formed at the same time",
>out of public school textbooks. (SCIENCE 30 March 1984,pg 1373)
We are reaching some common ground here. The Scriptures themselves teach that
no Scripture is subject to one man's interpretation. This is a well-used
verse, even worn out, and is often used as a cop-out by young Christians;
even so, there's a lot of truth in it. For me, there are more important
things in the Bible than a means to change public textbooks. But I shouldn't
criticize others, and, at least, we must acknowledge that this
discourse lends little for the veracity of Scripture verses. There will
alwaus be those who take verses out of context for personal reasons:
Matt 27:5 "...and went and hanged himself."
Luke 10:37 "...Go, and do thou likewise."
>Bob Brown drew the distinction between the "kingdom of God", and
>the "kingdom of Heaven", pointing out that "The kingdom of God
>is within you", according to various scriptural statements.
>I think he's setting up a pretty tough position to defend here.
>"The kingdom of God" is clearly identified with the events of
>the Second Coming in Luke 21:31, I Cor. 15:50, and in other places
>I'm sure. Also, isn't "The kingdom of heaven is within you" scriptural?
>I just don't see this kind of fine distinction being drawn. I would
>note that the most devout commentators have had profound difficulties
>when they have tried to make the free expression of the scriptures
>into airtight doctrine. I have to admit that I find these efforts amusing.
"The kingdom of God" is certainly used in such a complimentary manner in
Luke 17:21 and 21:31. I think that "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom
of heaven" are used synonymously at times. However, the "kingdom of God"
is a more comprehensive term, embracing all created intelligences both in
heaven and on earth who are willingly subject to God and thus in fellowship
with Him. The "kingdom of heaven" generally describes any type of rulership
God may assert on the earth at a given period. I couldn't find "the kingdom
of heaven is within you", in any case.
For this partiular example, I think that the meaning of the term will be
different depending on the context (which is often difficult to determine).
If this is what is meant by "free expression", then I agree. But the term
still sits uneasy with me; for one thing, it seems to clash with your earlier
statement of some Scripture as "plain expression of feeling and meaning".
>Finally, Bob stated that skeptics don't give the same "benefit of the doubt"(!)
>to defenders of Biblical inerrancy, that they would give to themselves.
>This is amazing. I think it's contradictory to imagine a skeptic
>defending the inerrancy of any writing, scriptural or otherwise.
Read "apparent" Biblical inerrency. Such defenders are, of course, attempting
to show possible explanations for verses which at first glance appear to be
contradictory or in error. Unless your statement was only meant to be
sarcastic, in which case it is a smudge on an otherwise well-written article.
-- David Norris :-)
-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david