Encouragement to study the Bible

[Elijah John]

More than a few Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers encourage their followers to study the Bible each day on their own. In the grand old Protestant tradition of the "Priesthood of all believers".

One wonders, (and this is the question for debate) would they be so encouraging if the rank and file came up with non-conventional, unorthodox interpretations of Scripture?

The way some of us here on these boards have done?

Say...if the independent Bible scholar through his or her own studies learned things like:

-The Bible never teaches the Trinity
-The Bible contradicts itself in some very important ways
-The Bible never really teaches that Jesus is "God" (except, arguably, for the Evangelist John)
-That blood sacrifice is not what God ever wanted or needed.
-That Jesus didn't return when he said he would. (in the lifetime of his apostles)
-That Jesus is not in the Old Testament.
-That Old Testament characters were in communion with the Father without going through Jesus, and did not pray in the Messiah's (Jesus) name.

Would Protestant Evangelical Bible teachers still encourage independent Bible reading in these cases? Would they encourage their followers to share the results of their studies?

Or would they stifle the results of such scholarship?

[bjs]

[Replying to Elijah John]


I am not familiar with Mr. Bright, so I can only speculate on his reasoning. Many people say to start reading at John because it covers the least number of events and takes the most time describing the meaning and importance of those events. Personally, when I encounter someone with minimal knowledge of the Bible I recommend that they start with Mark. Of the four Gospels, it has the fastest pace. I have found that those who start their study in Mark almost universally come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God.

The most common reason people don’t recommend starting in Genesis is that it is soon followed by Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. They are important books, but their slow place can turn off a novice.

The most common reason that people don’t recommend starting in Matthew is that it requires the most knowledge about Jewish history and theology. That’s not a bad thing, but those with less knowledge tend to struggle more.

The letters traditionally attributed to Paul and John together make up nearly half the NT, so certainly orthodoxy (small “o�) finds them important. I have no idea how someone could study the NT without them. However, most people who do independently study the NT conclude that all of NT teaches that Jesus is God. After all, the NT was put together (albeit organically over 150 year period) by people who believed that Jesus is God.

[Elijah John]

A good and thoughtful response, however:

[Replying to Elijah John]


I am not familiar with Mr. Bright, so I can only speculate on his reasoning. Many people say to start reading at John because it covers the least number of events and takes the most time describing the meaning and importance of those events.

Exactly, interpretation...according to "John".

Personally, when I encounter someone with minimal knowledge of the Bible I recommend that they start with Mark. Of the four Gospels, it has the fastest pace.

True, and it is also the earliest, the closest to the events it narrates. Most likely to be accurate, and John, the furthest from those events, the most likely to be distorted.

I have found that those who start their study in Mark almost universally come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God.

Hard to tell if they reached that conclusion soley based on their study of Mark. Most people in Western culture were taught that "Jesus is God" from an early age.

Also, the folks who reached that conclusion probably didn't understand the Shema, quoted only in Mark, which clearly states that the LORD is one. And that the LORD is God.

The Shema is not repeated in the subsequent Gospels, harder to make the case that "Jesus is God" when one's Gospel has Jesus preaching that God is one, and not Trinity.

Do you think it was an accidental omission that "John" did not include the Shema?

The most common reason people don’t recommend starting in Genesis is that it is soon followed by Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. They are important books, but their slow place can turn off a novice.

Good thinkin'.

The most common reason that people don’t recommend starting in Matthew is that it requires the most knowledge about Jewish history and theology. That’s not a bad thing, but those with less knowledge tend to struggle more.

Can't argue with that...

The letters traditionally attributed to Paul and John together make up nearly half the NT, so certainly orthodoxy (small “o�) finds them important. I have no idea how someone could study the NT without them.

Good point..

However, most people who do independently study the NT conclude that all of NT teaches that Jesus is God. After all, the NT was put together (albeit organically over 150 year period) by people who believed that Jesus is God.

Perhaps the folks who compiled the Canon, (the Church Fathers) but can you demonstrate that the NT authors themselves taught unambiguously that "Jesus is God"?

Also, I guess most historical Jesus scholars, (who are not bound by Church creeds), are not "most people"?

Most of them have independently studied the Bible and concluded that the historical Jesus was not God.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Perhaps the folks who compiled the Canon, (the Church Fathers) but can you demonstrate that the NT authors themselves taught unambiguously that "Jesus is God"?

Also, I guess most historical Jesus scholars, (who are not bound by Church creeds), are not "most people"?

Most of them have independently studied the Bible and concluded that the historical Jesus was not God.

Historical Jesus was not god or son of god, he couldn't be.
The mythical/fictional Jesus- a construct of Pauline Christianity, rightly cannot be historical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Right, please?

Regards

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Perhaps the folks who compiled the Canon, (the Church Fathers) but can you demonstrate that the NT authors themselves taught unambiguously that "Jesus is God"?

Also, I guess most historical Jesus scholars, (who are not bound by Church creeds), are not "most people"?

Most of them have independently studied the Bible and concluded that the historical Jesus was not God.

Historical Jesus was not god or son of god, he couldn't be.
The mythical/fictional Jesus- a construct of Pauline Christianity, rightly cannot be historical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Right, please?

Regards

Right....what scholars call the "historical Jesus" I would call the "real Jesus". What scholars charitably call the "Christ of Faith", I would agree is the mythical/fictional Jesus.

I think Christian apologists err when they call the "risen, post-Easter, Christ of Faith", "historical".

[1213]

More than a few Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers encourage their followers to study the Bible each day on their own. In the grand old Protestant tradition of the "Priesthood of all believers".

They should also recommend them to remain in truth, then there would not emerge wrong ideas and “contradictions� or misunderstandings, like that Jesus didn’t return as he said.

[bjs]

A good and thoughtful response, however:

[Replying to Elijah John]


I am not familiar with Mr. Bright, so I can only speculate on his reasoning. Many people say to start reading at John because it covers the least number of events and takes the most time describing the meaning and importance of those events.

Exactly, interpretation...according to "John".

Yes, the four Gospels are books of theology, though not in a systematic form. All four Gospels are written from the standpoint of their author. Orthodox Christians claim that God the Holy Spirit in some fashion inspired those writings.

I have found that those who start their study in Mark almost universally come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God.

Hard to tell if they reached that conclusion soley based on their study of Mark. Most people in Western culture were taught that "Jesus is God" from an early age.

True. It is impossible for a modern American – perhaps even a modern citizen of any nation – to read the Bible without some preformed ideas. We cannot really know what an unbiased reader today would see in the gospels.

Perhaps the folks who compiled the Canon, (the Church Fathers) but can you demonstrate that the NT authors themselves taught unambiguously that "Jesus is God"?

Also, I guess most historical Jesus scholars, (who are not bound by Church creeds), are not "most people"?

Most of them have independently studied the Bible and concluded that the historical Jesus was not God.

It seems that we have some areas that we agree on. The areas we disagree about – particularly that the NT authors believed in the divinity of Christ – are unlikely to be resolved in this thread.

The only thing I have left to add is this: Historical Jesus scholars are not trying to understand what is presented in the NT. They openly declare that they are searching for the historical Jesus behind the scriptures. For the most part, they start with the assumption that Jesus is not God and that any teaching to the contrary in the NT must be false. This is not a jab at these scholars. They have their point of view and they are working from there. However, they state that their goal is not to discover what the NT says, but to discover some truth behind what they consider to be the false parts of the NT.

[Elijah John]

More than a few Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers encourage their followers to study the Bible each day on their own. In the grand old Protestant tradition of the "Priesthood of all believers".

They should also recommend them to remain in truth, then there would not emerge wrong ideas and “contradictions� or misunderstandings, like that Jesus didn’t return as he said.

Truth as defined by who? The Magisterium of the RCC? One's pastor?

It's not just independent believers who realize that Jesus didn't return when he said he would, objective Bible scholars realize this too.

Seems Jesus, like Paul and the author of Hebrews etc, expected the 2nd coming in the lifetime of his apostles.



Context is key.

[Elijah John]

The only thing I have left to add is this: Historical Jesus scholars are not trying to understand what is presented in the NT.

Sure they are..and they are trying to understand historical context of what is presented.

They openly declare that they are searching for the historical Jesus behind the scriptures. For the most part, they start with the assumption that Jesus is not God

A reasonable assumption, isn't it? Until proven otherwise.

Consider the opposite, if they began with the assumption that Jesus is God, they would cease to be scholars and instead become apologists or evangelists.

and that any teaching to the contrary in the NT must be false.

Any teaching to the contrary must be demonstrated to be true. If not, perhaps apologists have failed to make their case?

This is not a jab at these scholars. They have their point of view and they are working from there. However, they state that their goal is not to discover what the NT says, but to discover some truth behind what they consider to be the false parts of the NT.

Their goal is to go where the evidence leads. Being human, they too may allow their bias to influence their findings. But they don't all begin with the same bias. Bart Ehrman, for example, is an Atheist. Marcus Borg, is not...and so on.

HJ scholars pretty much all agree on several facts about Jesus:

-That he existed
-That he was a disciple of John the Baptist
-That he preached.
-That he probably healed in some fashion, even if psychologically.
-That he ran afoul of Temple authorities..(probably by overturning the tables)
-That he was crucified by the Romans for sedition.
-That many of his followers were convinced that he rose from the dead...(which is not to say that he actually did)

Beyond that, it's a matter of faith.

[tam]

More than a few Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers encourage their followers to study the Bible each day on their own. In the grand old Protestant tradition of the "Priesthood of all believers".

They should also recommend them to remain in truth, then there would not emerge wrong ideas and “contradictions� or misunderstandings, like that Jesus didn’t return as he said.

Truth as defined by who?

Truth as defined by Christ.


"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

"Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. Just as no branch can bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me." John 15:4



Peace to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[1213]

Truth as defined by who?

I think truth doesn’t need anyone to define it. It exists independently, but often people just want to ignore it, or twist it. For example, truth is that in Bible there is said that Jesus resurrected and returned 3 days after death many times to see his disciples. Different thing is what really happened, but that is what the Bible tells. Everyone who reads the Bible can notice it. That is why saying “Jesus didn’t return as he said� is not true unless… …the problem is here, how is “return as he said� understood. In this case, person who wants to remain in truth, reads carefully all what Jesus actually said and what actually happened and then comes to right and truthful conclusion.

This is probably not right topic to discuss about this and it has been debated a lot here, so maybe I should leave this and just say, when one takes all that Bible tells, there is no problem with how Jesus returns. If you want do have more specific answer or explanation, please show the scriptures and explain why you think they are not correct.