limtaglongtree

Can the Pentateuch be both Mosaic in origin and sixth century?

Yes, if it is intended for study purposes. The bible is open for critical scholars that they may have their own kind of hypothesis such as in the theory of the Pentateuchal origins of W.M.L. de Wette (1805) that he identified the law book of Josiah’s reform in 621 B.C. The theory was proposed that Deuteronomy was written shortly before its discovery in 621 B.C. This theory establish a date which other literature of the Old Testament was dated. Its religious development and grammatical style were compared to Deuteronomy. After the Evolutionary theory in science was popularized by the publish work of Darwin in 1859, the evolutionary theory was applied to Old Testament studies. And some other works of critical scholars came out we have the ideas of T.Hobbes, F. Astruc, Spinoza, and J.S. Semler. The point that needs to be made clear is simply that both critical and conservatives scholars formulate constructs in their course of their exegesis. It is not the case that the conservative take the Bible at its plain and literal meaning, while critical scholars impose theories of source development on scripture. One can see clearly enough the willingness, even eagerness, of conservatives scholars to construct hypothetical events that would then allow them to resolve to their satisfaction discrepancies that occurred in the text. The difference between critical scholars and conservative scholars therefore does not lie in the willingness of one and the unwillingness of the other to impose alien constructs on scripture. The difference lies in the kind of contracts that are created to account for the present shape of scripture.

No, because the bible is more than History itself. Human ideas and wisdom cannot surpass the purpose of the message of God. . The Bible itself contains its Divine authority itself. According to Paul J. AchTemier, before we investigate further evidence to support the critical hypothesis that such phenomena as we find in scripture are best accounted for on the supposition that our biblical books are composed of varieties of tradition, which have received different formulation and interpretations. The point of biblical material is not primarily historical it is primarily theological. Such historical accounts as there are, are told for the theological point they help to make. This is as true of the patriarchal accounts in Genesis as it is of the Gospels and Acts. Biblical materials are closer in intent to sermon than they are to textbook history. That is not to say that historical accounts are not present and that they are not on occasion remarkably accurate. It is simply to say that the traditions were formulated and the biblical books not to pass on historical information, but to say something about the ways of God with mankind: in the Old Testament through the fate of the chosen people, in the New Testament with the nascent church. To try to make the bible speak as a historical chronicle is therefore to pervert its intention and to distort its truth. I uphold that moses is the writer of the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy 31:24). 

What is the relation between inspiration and authority of the scripture?

The authority of the scripture depends upon its inspiration. The scripture is the word of God. He is the legal source of His words from lines to every thought and the whole plot itself is authored by God. Inspiration will convey all this biblical words to spiritual message that will reveal the message of God with the use of human element side but with the direction of the Holy Spirit so in this process the whole setting of the plot is directed by God (2 peter 1:21-22, the scripture says but know this first of all, that no prophesy or scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation. For no prophesy was ever made by an act of Human will, but men moved by the spirit.). The writers wrote from the personal, historical, and cultural context. Although they used their own minds, talents, language and style, they wrote what God wanted them to write. Inspiration as a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the spirit of God. Because of the divine influence, the writings are authoritative and trustworthy.  This would give a concrete defense for the bible that the bible itself is more than stories, myth or fables. It is more than a literary piece that someone just edits it and distorts its message. Inspiration refers to the reliability of God’s word. Scripture is really trustworthy because God is in control of its writing. The means God used were frail Human beings, but the meanings He made sure were recorded are God’s message to us. Its words are entirely authoritative for our faith and for our life. The bible is our standard for testing everything else that claims to be true. The words of God speak to us in a spiritual manner like in the church where they preaches the word of faith (Romans 10:8-9, 17) that is variously describe as the word of salvation, word of grace, word of reconciliation, word of Gospel, word of righteousness, and the word of life and this is critical because the authority of the scripture must depend on its inspiration, presenting facts from the bible is not just presenting a Hypothesis but exposing the truth itself as it flourishes from the fathers own  mouth it will not return to Him void but will accomplish its own personal desire ( Isaiah 55:11).

What authority does society attribute to the Bible today, and what has led to this position?

            For us the conservatives we uphold that the bible is God’s own word that every word that is written are His and promote that His words are used for teaching, rebuking and training in for righteousness (2 timothy 3:16) and also his words reveals the history that happens from the aged until the event that will happen in the future as written in revelation. We believe that God has used frail Humans to achieve His purpose with the direction of the Holy Ghost. The selection of the books itself were canonized, it undergoes a lot of critical reviews from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

            For the liberals, they promoted the human element side where the bible may contain the words of God. They depend on Human reasoning side. The human element in the origin of the bible is stressed. Most believe that the bible is the result of an evolutionary process. Its inspiration is not to be denied, but the liberals stressed that God speaks in the bible as he speaks elsewhere-through nature, philosophy and arts. They do not place much emphasis on inspiration of the scripture as conservative scholars.

            For the Neo-Orthodox, they promoted that the bible becomes the word of God if it is interpreted as is. As promoted by Karl Barth. The word is of God; the words are of men. He refused to limit revelation to the bible alone. He stated that the bible is one of the means of organs by which the word of God operates. Scripture is not to be identified with the revelation of God, but it is a witness to that revelation and becomes the form or event through which God speaks as it is read. It is a record of revelation but not revelation itself. He attempts to rule out bibliolatry (veneration of the bible) and to minimize the problem of the need of an infallible bible.  Barth promoted that the bible is human record of witness of special divine events or revelation. Since it is the first witness to the divine events, it is the most important body of writing.

Title of the book: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

About the Author:

            Bart D. Ehrman is an Associate professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at system of state-supported universities in North Carolina. Its first campus, at Chapel Hill, was chartered in 1789 and admitted its first class in 1795. The campus at Chapel Hill was the university’s only institution until 1931, when the state legislature redefined the university to include within it other state-supported institutions. By 1972 all public institutions in the state that granted bachelor’s degrees had become part of the University of North Carolina system. Mr. Bart D. Ehrman is the author of Didymus the blind and the text of the Gospel  (1986), The text of the fourth Gospel in the Writings of Origen (1992), and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Earliest Christian Writings ( forthcoming from OUP), He has written extensively on the New Testament and the History of the Early Christianity.

Table of Contents:

Introduction, xi

1. The Text of Scripture in an Age of Dissent: early Christian Struggles for Orthodoxy, 3

2.  Anti-Adoptionistic corruption of the scripture, 47

3. Anti-Seraptionist Corruption, 119

4. Anti-Docetic Corruption of Scripture, 181

5. Anti-Patripassianist Corruption of Scripture, 262

6. The Orthodox Corruptors of Scripture, 274

Bibliography of Secondary Work Cited, 285

Index of Scripture, 303

Index of Modern Authors, 306

Index of Subjects and Ancient Sources, 311

 What is the book all about?

            In chapter 1 the book talks about the text of scripture in the Age of Dissent where Ehramn highlighted about the early Christian struggles for Orthodoxy that Christians he says that in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state of flux. To be sure, at no point in its History has the religion constituted a monolith. But the diverse manifestations of its first three years-whether in terms of social structures, religious practices, or ideologies-have never been replicated. The topics include: orthodoxy and heresy: the classical view; the challenge:Walter Bauer; the regnat Opinio Communis: orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity; theological polemics and the problem of nomenclature; The Use of Literature in Orthodox Polemics.

            In chapter 2: Anti-Adoptionistic Corruption of the scripture, starts with the Adoptionism in Early Christianity-it goes like this, while Christians of the first century agreed that Christ was the Son of God, they disagree over what this sonship might entail. For most believers, it entailed a different level of existence from the rest of Humankind. For them, Christ was Himself divine…other Christians, however, rejected this claim and argued that Christ was flesh and blood being without remainder. it covers the following topic: the early adoptionist; the ebionites; theodotus and hid followers; paul of samosata; anti-adoptionist polemics and the orthodox coruuption of scripture; the orthodox affirmation of the virgin birth;opposition to an adopted jesus; son of God before baptism; orthodox opposition to a low Christology; exchange of predicates: Christ as divine; Christ no ordinary Human. Part of his conclusion to this chapter is for the adoptionist, jesus was flesh and blood humanbeing, born of the natural union of Joseph and Mary.part of the conclusion is: An extraordinary man, without peer and righteousness or wisdom, Jesus was chosen to be the unique son of God, the savior of the world. Some of the early adoptionist situated Jesus election at baptism. Advocates of both position agreed that Jesus was not himself divine, but was, as their opponent put it a “mere man”.

            In chapter 3: Anti-Seraptionist Corruption, starts with the Seraptionist Christologies in Early Christianity. It opens with the transition from the adoptionistic christologies embrace by such groups as the jewish-christian Ebionites to the separtionist views advanced by Gnostic Christian is not so abrupt as one might expect. Here are the following topics included: the orthodox perception of Christian Gnosticism; anti-gnostics polemics and the orthodox corruption of scripture; Jesus Christ: one the same; Jesus, born the Christ; Jesus, the Christ at his baptism; Jesus, crucified as the Christ; Jesus, the Christ raised from the dead; Jesus Christ, son of God; the unity of the name: our Lord Jesus Christ. The conclusion includes in the opinion of the proto-orthodox, this differentiation between man Jesus and the divine Christ was one of the divisive doctrines of the Gnostics.

            In chapter 4: Anti-Docetic Corruption of Scripture, starts in the Docetic chgristologies in early Christianity. Begins with although adoptionist could rightly claim the oldest pedigree Christological heresies, the representatives of the docetism proved far more pestiferous for the second – and third century defenders of orthodoxy. Includes the following topic:docetism among the Johannine Secessionists and the opponents of Ignatius; docetism among the Gnostics; marcion of Pontus;anti-docetic polemics anf the orthodox corruption of scripture; the Christ who suffered in the flesh; the Christ whose body and blood brought salvation; Christ, raised bodily from the dead; Excurses: western non-interpolations; Christ: ascended in body; Christ return in judgment; Christ, the real man of flesh and blood; Christ; born human; Jesus, the Christ of the old Testament God. Ended with although the docetic christologies embraced by these various individuals and groups were not identical in every aspect, they all denied that Christ was a real flesh and blood human being, a man who experience pain and suffering, who actually shed blood and died, who was raised bodily from the dead and exalted to heaven.

            In chapter 5: Anti-Patripassianist Corruption of Scripture, starts with the brief discussion of patripassianism. Includes the following topics: petripassianism and its orthodox opposition and Anti-patripassianist corruption of scripture.

            Chapter 6: conclusion-some part-while Christological issues were under debate, before any group had established itself as dominant and before the proto-orthodox party had refine its Christological views with the nuance that would obtain with the fourth century, the book of the emerging Christian scriptures were circulating in manuscript form.the text of this books were by no means inviolable; to the contrary they were altered with relative ease and alarming frequency. Most of the changes are accidental, the result of scribal ineptitude, carelessness or fatigue. Others were intentional, and reflect the controversial milieux within which they are produced.

 In his book he makes the case “how proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries modified their texts of scripture to make them conform more cosely with their own christological beliefs, effecting thereby the ‘orthodox corruption of Scripture.’” A corruption represents a change from the wording of the original author of a text. The corruptions tended to be in the direction of making the text less compatible with the theology of heretics. The term proto-orthodox is a backward projection. The church in Rome became the dominant or “orthodox” church. The individuals in ancient times recognized by the orthodox church as having carried forward the true faith are referred to as pro-orthodox. Scholars are finding evidences that there was an incredible amount of diversity in the early Christianities. Ancient partisan writings by the church fathers suggested there was only one true faith from which some dissented. The discovery of ancient documents in the desert challenged this view. We had really known all along from scripture that Paul was constantly battling views that dissented from his own. The winner is the one who gets to write the history. Nevertheless, the world views that differed from the proto-orthodox are called heresies. These included:

1. Adoptionism – Christ was a man but not God
2. Separationism – divine Christ and human Jesus were different beings
3. Docetism – Christ was a God but not Man

Gnostic beliefs were diverse. Some Gnostics were Adoptionists. Some Gnostics were Separatists. Gnostic thought often involved a redeemer figure who entered into Jesus and brought knowledge (gnosis) from heaven to some entrapped here on an evil planet.

Chapter II

Seminar question #3:

How does a spiritual God communicate with man?

            God communicates through his revelation, which is His personal activity of revealing who He is. There are two ways; one is the general revelation which God reveals himself in nature, in history, and in all people who is made in His image. Psalms 19:1-4 proclaims that the heavens tell of the glory of God. The skies display His marvelous craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make Him known. They speak without a sound or a word; their voice is silent in the skies yet their message has gone out to all the earth and their words to the entire world. This makes no excuse for man to know him because since time in memorial he has proclaimed His invisible qualities-His eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:20).General revelation is the basis of man’s guilt and of God’s justification in condemning all men as sinners. Though general revelation does not lead to full knowledge of God it does give some light to live that generally there is Creator that holds a higher power and man should recognize this creator but this man can not perceive this God because of he is limited but until he will have a personal encounter with God he will have his full enlightening through God’s initiative that is – special revelation which is the second. Special revelation pertains to the full disclosure of God where He shares his personal intentions to mankind that He is: a righteous God and requires all people to be righteous; a loving and merciful God and will forgive the iniquities of those who repent; has provided eternal life for those who live by faith in him. In the Old Testament times he uses his prophets as a mouthpiece to relay His message like in the calling of Jeremiah the prophet, the Lord said “I knew you before I formed you in my mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.” (Jeremiah 1:4). Jesus is the final ultimate revelation of God (john 1:14). The Holy Spirit has a special role in revealing things. In 1 Corinthians 2:10-12, Paul indicates that the thoughts and words of God must be revealed by the spirit of God. Only the spirit of God can reveal to man’s spirit the wisdom and will of God. The spirit of God alone knows God’s plan and purpose. The spirit used different methods in making known to the apostles the word of God. The Creator of the universe is not limited to one method of making His word known to man. The communication of the Holy spirit to man is not necessarily audible, but it is real. In recording revelation man expresses in his own words the word which God made known to him. Through this process, the revealed word of God takes on the characteristic of the person and the environment which ii is given. Scripture passages are often are often interpretation of God’s act in history. The interpretations are not humanly drawn conclusion based on astute observation of these acts. The meaning of the acts themselves is divine revelation. God’s spirit guides man in interpreting the divine acts. God’s spirit guides the one who reads the bible to understand the meaning of the acts and their interpretations. The Holy Spirit is Jesus’ promise to His disciples (john 14:16-17). He is a teacher (john 14:26).

seminar discussion 1: why is it important for many religious leaders to learn the languages of the bible?

it is for accuracy and exactness odf meaning and translation of the biblical truth of the bible itself for the benifit of those who will be ministered. the the word of God is sacred, For He is also the word in the beginning of time and through Jesus the word became flesh (john 1:1). the truth of the word of God must prevail in a sense that the truth must not be distorted by human frailty interpretation.Religious leaders spend effort learning the three languages of the bible. like for instance in hebrew, religious leaders learn hebrew so that they will be able to interpret what God is saying in the old testament period. they want to capture the exactness of the word in that age of time which is the same with other language like the greek in the new testament age. Also for tracing it’s original context anf refining its meaning, such as in hebrew when there is a repitition of word it connotes a superlative adjective like HOLY,HOLY,HOLY (isaiah 6:3). like other semetic languages, hebrew concentrates on observation more than on reflection. it generally desribes things according to how they appear, rather than analyzing there essence. it notes effect but does not trace those effect through series of causes. also, the language that is used in that time can project the political situation of the israelites like during the roman empire greek a universal language.Attempting to understand biblical language is a noble task. it is a way of getting closer to the true meaning of scripture so that we can think God’s thought after him anfd obey his every word.

is it necessary for the pastor to know the different language?
Attempting to understand biblical language is a noble task. it is a way of getting closer to the true meaning of scripture so that we can think God’s thought after him anfd obey his every word. in these times it is not necessary due to many help guides that would promote easiness in studying the original context but this is not an technical excuse because a pastor must be well-rounded in the interpretation of the biblical truth and it’s truth alone with the authorized help of the holy ghost in constant studying the scripture.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!