sjreeves@eedsp.gatech.edu (Stan Reeves) (08/25/90)
You say: Zondervan (like many other editions) also has the idiotic "words of Christ in red". I find it annoying because it's harder to read text in red. It makes no sense theologically either. Are Jesus' words "more inspired" than the rest of the NT? It also misrepresents the original. There are no quotation marks in Greek. We have to guess where the quotations end, and sometimes there are doubts. Adding quotation marks at all can be somewhat misleading, but you sort of have to because that's the way modern English does quotations. But to emphasize it by setting the text in red is just plain wrong. It emphasizes a distinction not present in the original text. I say: Amen to that! It seems that we'd have to stage a massive boycott of Bible buying to get the attention of the publishers, but that doesn't seem like a very good alternative. :-) Maybe one day folks will wake up and realize how silly Red Letter Editions are. Stan
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (08/30/90)
>Zondervan (like many other editions) also has the idiotic "words of >Christ in red". I find it annoying because it's harder to read text >in red. It makes no sense theologically either. Are Jesus' words >"more inspired" than the rest of the NT? It also misrepresents the >original. There are no quotation marks in Greek. We have to guess How can someone ask if the words of Jesus are "more inspired" than the rest of the NT? There is not even any comparison, nor ever could be. The same will also be true for the Son of Man "who is to come". Mark Sandrock BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Joe "Bart" Rossi) (09/02/90)
In article <Aug.30.02.41.57.1990.23660@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: >>original. There are no quotation marks in Greek. We have to guess > >How can someone ask if the words of Jesus are "more inspired" than the >rest of the NT? There is not even any comparison, nor ever could be. >The same will also be true for the Son of Man "who is to come". Keeping in mind I don't necessarily believe that everything Jesus is quoted as saying in the Bible, as having come from his mouth, I must agree that in contrast to say the wordy Paul, the words of Jesus are strikingly simple, poignant and direct. I suppose, though, it is important to note that Jesus never wrote down anything, so maybe this is why. Paul, on the other hand, in keeping with his character, obviously enjoyed the act of writing his letters, and thusly wallowed in flowerly religious language that beat around the bush, much more so than it ever got down to the point. Which is fine, but IMHO, it explains why he has so much appeal to those that are attracted to elaborate, intricate religious systems, as opposed to simple truth. Jesus was never one to waste words it seems, so having his words highlighted in red [which my current Bible lacks :-(] has been in the past a great benefit for me. A good exercise for me has been to read these words while pretending that I am a lone individual whom only met Jesus when he was alive, and thus I recieved his teachings directly. Thus I put myself in the same position as many others who were alive in his time, who heard his words directly, and put them into practice. Hence my experience of Christ is not through Paul, through another apostle, or through a highly organized, institutionlized, system like a Church, but through his words. I find this approach refreshingly successful in coping with my everyday life, and in keeping alive the fire of faith. I must say I really believe Jesus wants it that way. -- "Love is hiding in the city, here in all of you." "Let us stay forever now!" -Pyschedelic Furs
jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Joe "Bart" Rossi) (09/17/90)
In article <Sep.9.00.39.50.1990.9437@athos.rutgers.edu> jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >>strikingly simple, poignant and direct. I suppose, though, it is >>important to note that Jesus never wrote down anything, so maybe > >While there is nothing in the canon that is attributed to Jesus and there >are no writings extant, there is considerable reason to believe that Jesus >may indeed have written something. agreed. I didn't mean to imply I thought Jesus illiterate, or that he had never ever written anything down, but it is apparent perhaps that writing things down was not his forte. One has to wonder if he preferred one on one simple direct communication and maybe even perhaps was supiscious of the "written tradition." Some evidence of this is his hostility towards those who did things to "letter of the law," but were lacking in the "Heart" Department. Anywhere in the gospels does it indicate that Jesus wanted his disciples to write down what he said [don't get me wrong...I'm glad that much of what he said is available] aside from his comments in John pertaining to the "blessed who will hear of him through the disciple's and believe even though they had not seen." He could have meant just those the disciples personally reached as opposed to those throughout time who would read their words. I guess I'm just wondering if Jesus was sensitive to way the written word can be distorted, and perverted, and thus avoided committing his ideas to paper. Just a thought. -- "The affirmation of one's own life-the acceptance of one's destiny as it manifests itself in each moment-is the supreme act of faith."