Update on Gospel Comparison Bible Study:
Class Dates 2/1/09 & 2/2/09 as well as 2/8/09 & 2/9/09 will be discussing Mark Chapters 7 and 8.
During our in class discussions we discover how many questions we all have regarding the Bible and the Gospels. During our last time together 2 major questions came up:
1. How did the four Gospels come about?
2. What are Gnostics?
I have attached a variety of articles that may help to answer these questions without becoming too burdened by the vast amount of information that does exist on these two topics.
Gnosticism
This article can be found in complete form at: www.newadvent.org
The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be:
A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Savior.
However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects is labor lost.
When Gnosticism came in touch with Christianity, which must have happened almost immediately on its appearance, Gnosticism threw herself with strange rapidity into Christian forms of thought, borrowed its nomenclature, acknowledged Jesus as Saviour of the world, simulated its sacraments, pretended to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and His Apostles, flooded the world with apocryphal Gospels, and Acts, and Apocalypses, to substantiate its claim. As Christianity grew within and without the Roman Empire, Gnosticism spread as a fungus at its root, and claimed to be the only true form of Christianity, unfit, indeed, for the vulgar crowd, but set apart for the gifted and the elect. So rank was its poisonous growth that there seemed danger of its stifling Christianity altogether, and the earliest Fathers devoted their energies to uprooting it. Though in reality the spirit of Gnosticism is utterly alien to that of Christianity, it then seemed to the unwary merely a modification or refinement thereof. When domiciled on Greek soil, Gnosticism, slightly changing its barbarous and Seminitic terminology and giving its "emanatons" and "syzygies" Greek names, sounded somewhat like neo-Platonism, thought it was strongly repudiated by Plotinus. In Egypt the national worship left its mark more on Gnostic practice than on its theories.
Irenaeus and the Second Century Church by Paul Kroll
Information available at this website:
Comparison of the Gospels Bible Study
We will be discussing the following article along with the reading of Mark 8: 27 – 38 on February 22, 23. and March 1, 2.
Who do you say that I am?
Mark 8:27-38
Living by the Word - Column
The Disciples were aware that there was a lot of speculation going around about who Jesus was and who he wasn't, and yet Jesus himself seemed just as glad to steer clear of the subject. Then, in Caesarea Philippi, Jesus himself asked the question: "Who do people say that I am?" The disciples answered easily: "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."
Jesus then followed up with another question: "But who do you say that I am?" At this I imagine that some of the disciples cast down their eyes, like students who are hoping and praying that the teacher won't call on them. Then Peter, never one to be shy, broke the silence. "You are the Messiah."
Why was the question so difficult to answer? By this time the disciples had traveled long miles with Jesus; they had heard him preach; they had seen the lame walk and the blind blink their eyes with new sight after encountering Jesus. Indeed, the disciples had already risked their lives for Jesus. Why was it so difficult to answer this question? We all know how hard it is to be the first to say "I love you" to another, to be the first to break the silence with such a large truth. One does not say anything like that for the first time without sweaty palms and a dry mouth. We may hesitate, not because we doubt that the words are true, but because we know how powerfully true they are, and because having spoken the truth, we can no longer ignore its implications for our lives.
The first question - "Who do people say that I am?" - is as easy for us as it was for the Twelve. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." And you can answer a question like that without offending anyone; you can address it in the public schools without jeopardizing the separation of church and state. A scholar can answer that question historically or sociologically. A preacher can answer it with a sermon packed with quotes from Schillebeeckx and Crossan. It does not ask for commitment of any kind.
But then comes the second question: "Who do you say that I am?" Only one word is different, but that one word makes all the difference. There is no escape into comfortable objectivity. This question demands not so much the insight of our minds as the allegiance of our lives.
When Michael Greene, the British historian of evangelism, addressed a gathering of United Church of Christ pastors a few years ago, he asked us, "When was the last time you told your congregation what Jesus means to you?" At the hotel bar afterwards, Greene's comments generated a heated debate. Many protested that Greene's question was dangerously simplistic, smacked of fundamentalism and represented the kind of piety they had hoped to escape by joining a liberal denomination.
I was among those who felt that Greene's question was a challenging and appropriate one; in fact, I was haunted by it. I could not answer it with certainty. As a Christian preacher I talk about Jesus a good deal, but talk about is quite different from expressing devotion. It is the difference between talking about a loved one and sending a love letter.
We are speaking in generalizations here, of course, but I get the impression that many liberal clergy, if asked, "Who do you say Jesus is?," would respond by asking for a definition of terms. When we get around to responding we cut theological distinctions very thinly, making sure people know what we mean and what we do not mean when we speak of Jesus. And when we have concluded our response, the person asking the question wonders if the question has been answered at all. In Jesus, God came to us as a person, but we are much more comfortable talking about him as a concept.
Is it any wonder that many liberal churches are dying while churches of other traditions, where devotion to Jesus is expressed more openly, are thriving? Even as I write this, I feel as if I must hasten to add, "No, I am not a fundamentalist." That in itself is telling. Can't liberals love Jesus anymore? Our forebears in the faith worried that they might be seen as heretics. Today we seem to be more worried about being mistaken for fundamentalists.
The question "When was the last time you told your congregation what Jesus means to you?" has haunted me. It was in my mind when I preached for the last time to my congregation of nine years. I used that occasion to tell the congregation what Jesus means to me. I did not use a single quote. That is, I did not tell them what people say about who Jesus is. Instead, I attempted to answer Jesus' question, "Who do you say that I am?" in devotional terms.
At the conclusion of that sermon I stood at the door and shook hands with the congregation. One woman, a beloved saint of the church, came to the head of the line but was so overcome with emotion that she could not speak and went to the back of the line. I assumed that she simply did not know how to say goodbye. But when she finally reached me again, her voice cracked slightly as she asked, "Why didn't you tell us this before?"
I did not know how to respond. Now her question, along with Greene's, continues to haunt me.
Martin B. Copenhaver "Who do you say that I am? - Mark 8:27-38 - Living by the Word - Column". Christian Century. www.FindArticles.com. 21 Feb, 2009. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n24_v111/ai_15802300
