Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
A very interesting class
Topic Started: Mar 15 2012, 02:10 PM (570 Views)
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I'm in the midst of a class in Christology right now - that is, the part of theology that is specifically related to understanding precisely who Jesus Christ is (and equally, who he isn't), what he is/isn't; what he did/does; how he did/does that, etc.

It's only through a quirk in the registrar's office and the academic calender that I need to take this class. I've actually already had this class while a student at Pittsburgh. It was quite possibly my favorite class while there, the first class taught at the school by this guy, a brilliant young theologian/academician that the seminary was really pleased to have just coaxed on board, and who also happens to be an old friend of Chris Aher. He is Dutch, coming out of the Dutch Reformed Church and now a Presbyterian minister. He was one of the people who wrote a letter of recommendation for me when I transferred schools, and is someone I felt very fortunate to have been taught by.

But according to the course distribution required for graduation, I need a couple more Theology credits, and the only class that fits the schedule between now and graduation is this one. So, I'm in this class, covering much the same territory, and even in a few cases, reading the same assigned readings.

In any case, the class is very interesting. Certainly, the subject matter is interesting, but what makes it all the more so is the makeup of the class. About half of the class is Lutheran, which would be expected at a Lutheran seminary. But the other half is a mix - five Episcopalians, a Presbyterian, a Pentecostal, and a member of the Orthodox church. The course is being taught by an Episcopalian priest, and covers the various differentiations between these various denominational understandings of the issues, as well as comparing with Roman Catholic, and other, views as well.

Whereas my first version of the class was in an entirely Reformed/Presbyterian setting, the diverse mix of the current class makes for lots of interesting discussion. It's a really, really interesting class, even if the subject matter is to some extent replowing the same field. It's also interesting to watch the professor - and the students - explaining certain theological points to other students coming out of different traditions, theological points or arguments that do not resonate within their own traditions.

Anyway, no big deal. Just thought I'd say the class, and especially the class makeup, is really interesting. ^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Does sound interesting. When at Oregon State I took lots of Religious Studies classes, several under the infamous blasphemer Marcus Borg. He was very engaging, looked like George Carlin with even longer hair, and was a founding member of the Jesus Seminar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Borg
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
This looks like an interesting book by Borg (and a co-author I've not heard of) about the Apostle Paul. I admit that I had not heard that there was general consensus that many of the books attributed to Paul were not written by him. Would make for interesting reading.

http://www.amazon.com/First-Paul-Reclaiming-Conservative-ebook/dp/B001NLKYOW/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Dewey
Mar 15 2012, 02:10 PM
The course is being taught by an Episcopalian priest, and covers the various differentiations between these various denominational understandings of the issues, as well as comparing with Roman Catholic, and other, views as well.


All these interpretations. Why don't they just teach what the bible says.



(NNTTM,L)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
jon-nyc
Mar 15 2012, 03:18 PM
Dewey
Mar 15 2012, 02:10 PM
The course is being taught by an Episcopalian priest, and covers the various differentiations between these various denominational understandings of the issues, as well as comparing with Roman Catholic, and other, views as well.


All these interpretations. Why don't they just teach what the bible says.



(NNTTM,L)
Jon's back home from work, I see. :lol2:
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I think the Bible says

STFU,

love, Jesus.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jane D'Oh
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
jon-nyc
Mar 15 2012, 03:18 PM

(NNTTM,L)
What? Splaining for me please?
Pfft.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
"No Need to Thank Me, Larry"?
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Yep
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
:lol:
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Kincaid, I'd bet that a class taught by Borg would be interesting - infuriating at times; he says lots of things I disagree with. And you're right about the Carlin resemblance. Regarding the Pauline letters, there's a pretty solid consensus that Paul definitely wrote Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians (although probably not as one extant letter; perhaps an editing together of two or three letters of Paul by some of his disciples), Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are generally agreed upon as having been written by Paul himself. Also, many scholars would say that at least some of Ephesians is by Paul, although some of it may have been later additions. Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus, are generally understood to have probably been written by some of Paul's disciples, but were given Paul's name as a sign of honor, a somewhat commonplace practice in antiquity - or frankly, sometimes maybe an attempt to have the writing carry more weight than it would if it had been called "Fred's Letter to Timothy." Even given this, these scholars agree that, overall, the letters are generally consistent with the theology espoused in his undisputed letters, although on occasion the actual author/editor goes a bit further, so they are still considered part of the "Pauline Letters." If I'm reading them from the pulpit, if they're part of the undisputed corpus, I'll introduce them as "A reading from Paul's Letter to the Romans," for example; if it's from a letter of unknown authorship, I'll just say "A reading from the Second Letter to the Thessalonians."

The dispute on authorship revolves around grammatical and stylistic differences in the writing of the letters - vocabulary, including preferred words used to define the same concept, change within some of them.

This isn't universally accepted among biblical scholars; many very sharp people disagree with the whole idea. But it is widely accepted, and not only among "liberal" scholars. Even people like the extremely conservative and traditional Robert Gagnon, a former professor of mine, and many others of similar outlook, accept that Paul did not write all of the Paulines. But that doesn't mean that they aren't to be considered scripture equally as any other book in the canon; the belief is that God was at work in their inclusion in the canon regardless of who really wrote the words; it's the words themselves that are important.

In the dispute about authorship, the "ranking" of which books might be by someone other than Paul would look something like this:

Books of greatest suspicion: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus;
then Ephesians;
then Colossians;
and least for 2 Thessalonians.

So it isn't a 100% agreement - but it is a widely accepted way of understanding the authorship of these books.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I've taken two Christology classes -- the first was modern: most reading from Karl Rahner, Dermot Lane and Edward Schillebeeckx. The second was reading from the ante-Nicene Father and the Councils, showing the development in response to the various heresies of early Christianity. It was rather bizarre seeing the moderns rehashing the same sort of Gnostic positions -- albeit in a contemporary psychologizing language -- that the Fathers supposedly defeated.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
In both of these Christology classes, as well as my Systematics class and several other Theo courses, we've read and studied Catholic theologians including Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Gutierrez, Boff, and others, plus those across a pretty broad range of the Protestant spectrum, from the Reformation era onward and covering "traditional" liberation theology, black liberation theology, feminist and womanist theologies, ecotheology, etc. (some of these only very briefly), as well as the early church fathers and the remainder of pre-Reformation theologians that both Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions share. How much did your courses include readings and study of Protestant theologians and theologies?
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
None in those classes. I've read and enjoyed Meyendorff and Lossky, both contemporary Orthodox theologians; and I really like Margaret Barker -- her work is about the most interesting stuff out there that contextualizes and opens up new insights into the early Church's understanding of Jesus. Who do you think is the most interesting of the moderns?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well, the largest single influence for me among the moderns is without question Karl Barth. Maybe sleeping in the seminary library with my feet resting on his old writing desk really did work a sort of theological osmosis in me. But my theology also draws from other wells also. Key among these would be (and probably in descending order of influence) Jurgen Moltmann; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Gustavo Gutierrez, Douglas John Hall, and James Cone; and throwing in bits of Pannenberg and Stanley Hauerwas for good measure. The aforementioned Edwin van Driel, certainly nowhere as well known as the members of the theological pantheon (or rogues' gallery, depending on your viewpoint) but amazingly perceptive, has also had a significant influence in the Christological component of my theology. David Bosch has had a definite influence in my theology of mission. For what it's worth, I think that Barth and Gutierrez are the most significant theologians of the twentieth century; I don't think that any other theologian has had such a huge impact on the direction of the faith than either of these two.

That's quite a diverse, and certainly in some circles heretical, list. Making it even more perplexing is that some on the list have serious differences among themselves. But in this "list of influence," I make no claim that I agree with any of them completely - I don't - only that in some way, some of their theology has become a part of my own. Sometimes, that even means that I will hold some views in clear tension with one another, in a theological "system" (I don't like using that word due to the baggage that comes with it in this sense, but it's as close a term as I can come up with) that includes internal contradiction. I'm actually fine with that, as I believe that God by definition is utterly incapable of being "systematized" in any way completely resolvable by our own finite understanding.

So much for the moderns. But there are also new voices within the postmodern era and the related emerging church movement (they're distinct, but related enough that I'm lumping them together here). Even though we're just in the opening scene of the play, I think there are some voices worth reading, even if their ink is still, in relative terms, wet on the page. In this list I'd include Peter Rollins ("The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief;"" "Insurrection: To Believe is Human, to Doubt, Divine;"), Brian McLaren ("Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished Christian;" "Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope;"), and Phyllis Tickle ("The Great Emergence"). None of these titles are even remotely anything like systematized theology, but there are nonetheless important points in them that are pointing in the direction that God is moving in the world, and in ways that are different from many of our earlier assumptions and understandings.

If you know many of these people, you'll also likely note that many of the influences that I've drawn my personal theology from are not the strictly academic theologians, but rather, are people whose theology has sprung out of their primarily pastoral role - Barth, Bonhoeffer, Gutierrez, Rollins, and McLaren were/are first and foremost pastors, and they see theology as being something that must inherently serve the pastorate, and not the other way around. Given our past conversations, this point probably doesn't come as any surprise to you; I've often stressed that my theological concerns and the primary direction of my own ministry are decidedly pastoral and concerned with "where the rubber meets the road" in the faith.

Anyway, that's my list of greater and lesser influences.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Thanks, Dewey.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Honestly, man, you need to go to bed. I have a reason for being awake right now, but even with the time zone difference, you should be sawing logs right now. ^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
What's keeping you up?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I'm at work - I'm at the hospital every Friday/Saturday overnight, 11p - 7a.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
hey you jesus people, why not add flusser to your reading list...

i took a course with him in my youth

you may not agree with him but at least you get the hometown version of things....
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Thanks, bach, I'll check him out. FWIW, the Wikipedia article says, "Dr. Flusser was rather remarkable in his strong insistence that not only was Jesus a Jew from birth to death, but that Jesus did nothing that could be interpreted as a revolt or questioning of the basic principles of the Judaism at the time." That's actually pretty consistent with what the two mainline Protestant seminaries I've attended teach their students. There's really nothing that Jesus taught that can't be found in the Hebrew Bible, even if that sometimes means a somewhat different interpretation than had been traditionally understood. Sometimes, Jesus seemed to be "loosening" the interpretation, but more often, he was actually calling for a stricter interpretation of the scriptures than the society was following. In any case, Jesus remained a faithful, observant Jew his entire life. The idea of Christianity being a separate faith from Judaism is more the (perhaps inevitable) outcome of historical developments than of anything Jesus specifically taught or advocated.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
thats always been my understanding as well

to me nothing else makes sense.

"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Forgive my relative ignorance in this, but didn't Jesus believe himself to be the son of God? And wouldn't such a belief deviate from faithful observance of Judaism?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
forgive me my heresy, but he may have thought of himself as the messiah...

but the messiah in jewish terms would never have been considered the incarnation of the divine, but rather a human redeemer.

he would not have considered himself the "son" of god in anything but symbolic terms as all israel were considered sons of god...

(Deut 14:1."You are the sons of the LORD your God...)

any understanding of being an incarnation of god as a literal son would be a retroactive post factum version of things...

but then again, forgive my heresy.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Pretty much what bach said.

To be honest, for Jesus to have called himself the "Son of Man" would have been, as contradictory as it seems to our ears, more of a claim to divinity than "Son of God." He does use this term fairly frequently in the gospels. The idea of Jesus' claiming, or recognizing, his full *divinity* as well as his full humanity are drawn from several texts, where he either implies his divinity heavily through his words or actions, or he says things like, "before Abraham was, I AM" - the term being the translation of The Name of God, and his hearers, hearing his comment, clearly recognizing what his words meant try to drag him out and stone him for the blasphemy of claiming equality with God. Or in his frequent acts of forgiving a person of their sins - something which only God can do, and for a human to do so is similar blasphemous equating of one's self with God. A point that Jesus responds to, while healing a paralytic, by saying "Which is easier? To say, 'Your sins are forgiven (supposedly, without any real proof that the divine forgiveness had occurred), or to tell this paralyzed man to stand up and walk?" upon which, he does exactly that, and the man walks. Another example would be his saying "I and the Father are one. Granted, there are some interpretations of those words that would say this wouldn't necessarily mean that he was claiming divinity, but that would be a minority interpretation.

The Hebrew scriptures clearly attest to a coming messiah. But the understanding of that messiah was one who would be a temporal civil and religious leader of the people who was called out by God in a special way to serve that role, but it was never assumed that this messiah would be divine. This is one tweak that Jesus adds to the mix - claiming consistency with the core truth of the scriptures, but adding an interpretive wrinkle to them, in that case expanding/revealing a layer of understanding beyond that which the Jews had seen them.

My comment regarding "nothing really new" dealt specifically with Jesus' moral teaching and explanation of what pleases God, and how to live as a member of the kingdom/reign of God. Just as today, and just as with all religions, first century Judaism was not a monolithic belief system, and one could find pretty much all of Jesus' teachings being espoused by someone else within the overall mix of things. He did, directly and indirectly challenge those within his faith on the application of some of those scriptures, and he did challenge them on the nature of his own identity/being. Still, Jesus never stepped out of Judaism to start a new faith; even in his most strident of challenges he remained part of that faith throughout.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1