Loading...When I was in high school one of my passions – along with baseball, tennis, and, well, lots of other things that 16 year old boys can be passionate about – was debate. I threw myself into the debate season and worked like crazy at it. One of the most interesting things about debate is that it teaches you to pursue both sides of a point, vehemently arguing the affirmative of a resolution and then an hour later arguing just as vehemently the negative side.
Still today I use class debates in my university courses at UNC, and even though students are skeptical, reluctant, and afraid going into the debates, they almost always come away thinking that it they are the best part of the entire semester. Everyone in the class has to participate in one formal debate during the term, arguing affirmative of negative of one of three highly controversial topics, based on doing substantial research with teammates in preparation. The topics that I’ve used most recently are (1) Resolved: Paul and Jesus Represented Fundamentally Different Religions; (2) Resolved: Paul’s Views of Women Were Oppressive; and (3) The New Testament Condemns Modern Practices of Homosexuality.
In my view there is not an obvious answer to any one of these questions, which makes arguing each of them interesting. Even better, most students in the class already have a clear opinion about each one before taking the class (1) No; (2) No; and (3) Yes. As it turns out, by far the more challenging and fun side to argue is the one that most people disagree with. It makes you be creative. Anyway, students come away loving the exercise. It not only gets them to do research in an important topic, it hones their analytical skills and helps them develop effective rhetorical strategies. All to the good.
Every year in the course I also put on a debate in front of the entire class – in which I debate myself! This is to show how a debate works. The topic I usually pick is not as “hot” as the three the students participate in; but it’s interesting intellectually and from the point of view of the NT. It is: “Resolved: The Book of Acts is Historically Reliable.” To do the debate I first give an affirmative defense of the resolution. Then I put on a sportscoat and a baseball cap and give a negative attack of the resolution. Then still dressed the same I give a negative rebuttal of what the affirmative side argued. And finally I take off the coat and cap and give an affirmative rebuttal of what the negative side has argued. It all takes 50 minutes, and by the time I’m done, I feel completely discombobulated! But the students enjoy it and they get to see how a debate is done.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW!!!
I think it’s Tabor that asserts that apocalyptic Judaism resulted from Helenic influence. If that’s in fact correct (and I can see it) then our own modern western context is a strange thread of divergence from and influence by that of Jesus. If that is the case, can we really think of his ethics as completely transplanted from him to us? Is there a direct connection between first century Jewish eschatological ethics and those of modern self-proclaimed “end timers” or are the connections purely derived from literary studies and cultural echoes in Jungian “mass subconscious?”
What if the “context” of the bible is Mark 4:11,12 , because “biblically” speaking Jesus said it word be, parenthetically speaking that is. Keeping something from “them” is indicative if them, in the 3rd person, as objectified or better yet separated.
Sorry — I’m having problem following your question (if it’s a question!)….
According to the gospels, Jesus sought out the most lowly of humanity, many of whom were considered to be unclean and rejected by the “pure” Jews of his time. In Jesus’ teachings, in his ethics, the lowly will be those who are exalted and who will inherit God’s kingdom.
In our time, I would guess that the average devoted and faithful church goer see these ethical teachings of Jesus applicable to how we should treat our neighbors. I would also guess that the faithful in our time really don’t care much about Jesus’ apocalyptic world view or Biblical scholarship, for that matter.
This is not to say that such scholarship is not important for a true historical understanding of the Biblical documents, but the people of the church are, in my observations and communications with them, far more interested in how they can apply Jesus’ teachings to their lives and to the growth of their faith in Jesus and in God’s love for them.
I taught many Down Syndrome children during my career as a public school teacher…as well as those with ADHD, Autism, mentally challenged, brain damaged, mental and emotionally ill, physically challenged and so on. I considered that to be my ministry.
These children (and adults) are those who were considered the unclean and the rejects in Jesus’ time. many were killed at birth because of these infirmities.
Many of these children I taught had been given a very rudimentary instruction by their parents about Jesus, God, and simple prayer….all related to God’s love for them (in a very direct and personal way…”God loves you, just the way you are.”.
I have never seen such faith as I did in these children; faith which I wish I had. They are surrounded by God’s love and such radiates from them, and they share this love with others, much more freely than any of use would dare to do.
I am convinced that God does not love us because we may have “correct” knowledge correct knowledge or our understanding of the complexities of doctrine. God loves us just as we are….even if our faith seems stupid and simplistic.
Is said “Yes” to the previous question…it IS important to demythologize for the sake of accurate historical knowledge. That is important to academics.
However, I also now vote “No” to demythologizing the message of God’s love and Jesus’ ethics simply for the sake of historical accuracy, if such will destroy the faith of many.
Myth carries with it very great power and may be one of God’s tools for communicating his love to the least of us.
But is apocalypticism the sole foundation or all encompassing structural context of Jesus’ teachings? Is there not an older Jewish tradition from which Jesus’ teachings are derived, yes, in an apocalyptic context, but not the only or most fundamental context. Albert Schweitzer actually believed that it was the apocalyptic aspect that allows the deeper meaning of the Christ myth to be translated into other contexts, first by Paul and then by others. In other words, maybe the preaching about Chrst has not completely nullified the teaching and faith of Jesus.
Yes, apocalypticism is just one aspect of the context, absolutely!
Regardless of context, it’s always best to be nice -even if it hurts.
I beg to differ from your view. This sort of subject is very discussed in Philosophy of Language and Philosophy of Science, the problem of the degrees of underdetermination of all statements (or in most of the discussions, scientific statements). However, I will present my objections later, when in your next posts you clarify your views.
With the risk of entering the zone of “is anything true”, I wonder how much of what is written on Jesus’ teaching is distorted (and by how much)? It seems that he was an interesting lecturer and as a public speaker likely employed rhymes, plays on words, comedic paradoxes, etc. Along with Aramaic idioms, he could have also used a Hebrew/Ramez style of hinting. In the synoptic gospels Jesus never states point blank that he is the Messiah, however hints in some of what he said/did may have gone beyond his words as would have easily been perceived by his first century Aramaic listeners. Oral traditions presumably began with what someone thought/perceived Jesus said.
I don’t know if it can be determined how many times Jesus gave the same lecture in different places, and each presentation may have differed leading to variances in oral traditions. The Greek gospels naturally introduced additional distortion of some of his Aramaic teachings. So it may be difficult to accurately pinpoint the specifics of Jesus’ teachings on ethics (or even apocalyptic view).
I’m wondering if the only take homes that we can procure with any certainty are that Jesus taught that God would intervene at some relatively near point in human history, and present life should focus on love for others (even enemies) as the governing principle. Anything after that might be speculatory at best based on existing documentation.
Reconstructing the historical Jesus is certainly not an easy task and it would have been nice if he would have written a book/scroll himself (in KJV English of course).
Yes, that would have been easier. But I think we can know some things (maybe the main things) that Jesus proclaims. In addition to my book on Jesus: Apocalpytic Prophet, you might try — if you don’t mind somethhing relatively hard-core — Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus (I jsut read a chapter of it this morning; very intersting).
Thank you. I will look into both your book and Dale Allison’s in the near future.
While it is true that all thoughts are dependant upon their context and that we do not share Jesus’ apocalytic world view, I think we can see in most religious writing a shared pool of context. The human condition is relatively unchanged from era to era and culture to culture. While those inhabiting each milieu provide different answers, the questions remain unchanged. As you so aptly demonstrated in God’s Problem, suffering remains one of the central dilemmas facing us – modern Christians banish it with a heavenly existence while “Hindus” solve the problem by escaping the cycle of death and reincarnation into a state of being/non-being (pardon my primitive understanding here).
The point being that you cannot escape the context of being human and it is because of this we can partially extricate Jesus’ teachings from their husk. Will we find the kernal of his teachings useful? Can we extricate them from the husk of the unique contexts in which we have wrapped them ourselves? That might be the ultimate question.
“The down side of having debate so firmly entrenched into my being – as it is after all these years of doing and watching it – is that I tend to look at both sides of every issue (or rather, multiple sides of every issue) and find myself able to sympathize with a variety of views. ”
Libra – “I Balance”
“We shall call you Cygnus, the God of Balance you shall be”