Why did Jesus stop reading?

[morbo3000]

Morbo, I don't think that Dizerner is critiquing your statements. As I'm sure you are aware, Paidion has often stated his opinion about the inspiration of any scripture that suggests God might be the author of acts of judgement.

That makes much more sense, because Dizerner would know that I don't approach the Bible as though it is inspired. It may, or it may not be. I don't need it to be one or the other, or undermine someone else's belief. But I don't approach it as a fore-ordained airtight system.

...the passages that describe a side of God not directly described by Jesus Himself and that seem to be inconsistent with Jesus' peaceful and loving nature, ...were written outside of inspiration and these passages are no more than the words of men who misunderstood their own thoughts as being the words of God.

Written by who? The Jahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, or the Priestly source? Which one of them got it wrong? Was it the redactors? Or scribal errors?

I'm being somewhat silly, because the documentary hypothesis isn't a working model for most people here.

But the methodology proves helpful in this debate. If this is Paidon's argument, then the criteria should be much more stringent than theological cherry picking. These questions and research are the meat and potatoes of the secular academic approach. They are the guys who fastidiously tear through the archaeology, analyze the text, and compare to near eastern mythology to determine the sources of each text, additions and edits. If anyone was capable of determining the underlying theology of God in the Old Testament and how it was suppressed by other sources or editors, it would be them. And I can tell you, they don't substantiate that claim.

From my perspective, this particular passage is Jesus' direct announcement of the arrival of a new King, with a new kingdom.

I agree. Jesus was friends of sinners. He legitimized outcasts. And he actually did prophecy doom for the people who were oppressive to the poor and marginalized.

[mattrose]

My position is that the Bible progressively reveals that 'wrath' and 'vengeance' are more about the natural consequences of our rebellion than they are about direct acts of God. Our rebellion creates consequential space between us and God. It may also be described as God's withdrawal from us (because that is what it feels like). God's wrath is a theological term for what it feels like when God lets us have our own way. At most, I would read Jesus' abstention from finishing the passage as a continuing step in that progressive revelation... good news is what God brings... bad news naturally results for those who reject good news. You can't rebel against the very source of love and grace and mercy without subjecting yourself to evil consequences.

[john6809]

If this is Paidon's argument, then the criteria should be much more stringent than theological cherry picking.

I'll let Paidion speak for himself.

My position is that the Bible progressively reveals that 'wrath' and 'vengeance' are more about the natural consequences of our rebellion than they are about direct acts of God.

I'm not interested in the theory of whether or not God is directly responsible for acts of wrath against mankind. At least not in this thread. The original question was, "Why did Jesus stop reading?" I believe that Jesus is announcing the arrival of a new King (Himself) and He used the passage from Isaiah to state His case. The statement regarding wrath was not relevant to His discussion. To my way of thinking, this is a sufficient reason for stopping where He did. He didn't read more because it was irrelevant to His point.

Regards

[morbo3000]

@john6809

Word


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

Basically, John 6809 had understood me correctly.

But to have stopped where He did is consistent with his teaching about his Father as being kind to ungrateful people and evil people. His quotes from the Old Testament appear to be selective. He never quotes the parts that depict his Father as vengeful and punishing.

However, I have not attempted to deal with the inspiration issue. There are several theories of inspiration. Mine is that the authors were inspired and not the words they wrote.
That is, God influenced their minds as they wrote. This does not imply that their writings were without error. For God did not control their minds; He influenced them. Also, I do not believe inspiration is limited to the books that Athanasius happened to choose to comprise the "canon". Indeed I believe even people in our day are inspired to write (that is influenced by the spirit of God).

The 27 books that Athanasius chose are identical to that which comprise our present New Testament. Does that mean that Athanasius was inspired to select those precise books? If so, then there must be inspiration outside of the Bible.

However, Athanasius' selection of Old Testament books was slightly different from the books found in the Protestant Old Testament. He included Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah, and excluded Esther.

[Homer]

That is, God influenced their minds as they wrote. This does not imply that their writings were without error. For God did not control their minds; He influenced them. Also, I do not believe inspiration is limited to the books that Athanasius happened to choose to comprise the "canon". Indeed I believe even people in our day are inspired to write (that is influenced by the spirit of God).

If this is true the Christian religion is built upon sand.

[john6809]

If this is true the Christian religion is built upon sand

I tend to agree with you, Homer. It seems to me that inspiration is less involved in the selection of writings than it is in the writings themselves.

Matt, I am curious. How would you explain the flood in light of your understanding of progressive revelation? Whether peoples' understanding of God's wrath grows and changes over time or not, it seems to me that a literal flood would only be expected if God was behind it.

Regards.

[willowtree]

I am late in getting into this discussion, but have an interest in so far as I mentioned it not long ago in another thread. The source of my information on this is taken from a book by Kenneth Bailey Jesus through MIddle Eastern Eyes.

Not only did Jesus stop in the middle of the sentence, it appears he did some editing from Isaiah as he read it. Bailey make these observations

'The Spirit of the Lord is on me
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor
(at this point Jesus omits ''to bind up the brokenhearted')
He has sent me...(Jesus brings an entire phrase in from Is 58:6) 'to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind
to release the oppressed'
to proclaim (Jesus upgrades this word from the word 'to call') the acceptable year of the Lord.

Dr. Bailey finds chiastic structures in many bible passages. This passage is no exception.

In Luke's story, he notes
Jesus entered into the synagogue
—he stood up to preach
——he was given the scroll of Isaiah
———he unrolled the scroll
After Jesus had read
———he rolled up the scroll
——he gave the scroll back
—he sat down
the eyes of all in the synagogue were on him

In the passage Jesus read Bailey sees this structure
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
for he has anointed me
a. to preach good news to the poor PREACH
b. He has sent me to proclaim to the prisoners - freedom SENT
c. and to the blind - recovery of sight SIGHT
b. to send forth the oppressed - in freedom SEND
a. to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord PROCLAIM

With this structure, Bailey claims that the emphasis of what Jesus was saying points to the middle phrase - 'the recovery of sight'.

I find this all fascinating, having fewer answers to the many questions.

Graeme

[morbo3000]

If this is true the Christian religion is built upon sand

I tend to agree with you, Homer. It seems to me that inspiration is less involved in the selection of writings than it is in the writings themselves.

I agree also.

IMO, in order to accept divine inspiration, you have to trust the religious pedigree of the texts. The Bible as a canon has centuries and millennia of religious use to support the claim of divinity. The canons have been accepted by Judaism and Christianity, more or less in their current form. While one book or another may be debated, what is never debated is individual passages inside those books.

On the other hand, an academic critical approach has no regard for theological presuppositions, and works from agreed upon critical criteria with the aim to get as close as possible to the original texts, the authors, and the times they were written in. This method has the liberty to analyze verses, sections, and books, asking which are legitimately from the authors or not, that the historical position does not.

Once you say that only texts that meet certain theological presuppositions are divine, you have no foundation in either camp. You're in shifting sand in both.

[dizerner]

The documentary hypothesis has some highly speculative aspects to it, and it's hard to see that as "scholarly." Might as well say the Jesus Seminar was "scholarly." People that deny it don't deny the texts were often edited.