 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Boyd's former Peer a Heretic? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Jewgrass
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 10/19/2001 10:21 AM (GMT -6) |   | This is my third time to post a new topic and the third time for me to open up with a statement of where I am from, but it is necessary: I am a Hebrew/Religion student at the ever-liberal University of Texas in Austin. I am currently taking my second class on Christianity taught by this guy named Michael White. White treats the Bible as literature and seems influenced by (though not nearly as radical as) the Jesus Seminar. White and Boyd have a connection: Boyd received his masters from Yale in 1982... White received his doctorate from Yale in 1982 (I was born in 1981, lol).
I find it curious how people with such similar educational backgrounds differ so much. Although Boyd may not be so appreciated among the ultra-conservative Calvinist circles, all evangelicals would agree that White is clearly in the wrong.... but is he? I would like to post some of his arguments and get some response.
Compare Matthew 14:22-33 and mark 6:45-52. In this story about Jesus walking on the water. While Mark says the disciples "were utterly astounded for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened." In Matthew, the disciples worshiped and said, "Truly you are the Son of God." How could they acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God and at the same time have their hearts hardened with unbelief?
Also, the famous Quirinius passage. I have heard varying arguments ranging from crazy Greek grammatical statements from F.F. Bruce to the different meanings of the Greek word for governor as explained by Craig Blomberg. Do yall have any insight into this discussion?
As more contradictions/problems present themselves, I will post.
Thanks,
Greg Burris, gburris.jewgrass@mail.utexas.edu | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/20/2001 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't know Michael White, but its not at all surprising that Yale can put out a White on the one hand and a Me on the other. Its a VERY diverse school. On the whole, however, White appears closer to "the Yale tradition" than I. All the classes I took there in Bible were more or less in line with standard historical-critical methodology (with the possible exception of B. Childs who had a canonical-critical approach).
As to the specific "contradictions" you propose -- I confess that I have long since stopped worrying over these. The "solutions" aren't on the top of my head right now, but I've gone through so many of them that I have concluded that in all such cases, one or more of three things is true.
a) the alleged discrepancy is precisely the kind historians have come to expect from documents which speak of the same event but from different viewpoints;
b) often there is an easy way to harmonize them if only one TRIES and gives the authors the benefit of the doubt (rather than assume they are wrong). Historians usually give documents the 'benefit of the doubt' in matters like this -- but not with the gospels (for some odd reason).
c) the discrepancies, even when they can't be explained, are so minor that they don't affect the main point of the narrative, and certainly not the over all trustworthiness of the Gospels.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 10/23/2001 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Are you enjoying UT? I have to agree that it is liberal, but since they will challenge your beliefs, that only makes it more fun, hehe.
I go to Hardin-Simmons, a relatively liberal school of theology (at least in my Baptist tradition). From my estimates, the majority of the faculty don't look at Scripture through the traditional historical-critical method, but ya know what? Every single one of them is very active in the Christian. From my estimates and from statements they have made within class, some of them view the Scriptures no differently than Michael White. The difference is that they assume the Bible still contains truth. It would be a long stretch to say that the Bible is completely fiction, and I doubt any scholars do that. Assuming that some of it is true, even some of the most liberal biblical critics remain Christians because they understand that Christ is the center of the Christian faith, and not the Bible. It's like Doc said, even the contradictions that can't be explained don't seem to effect the heart of what the Bible is saying.
Kyle Essary
P.S. Don't get the impression that since I go to a liberal school that this is my hermeneutical ethic, because it isn't, hehe. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:30 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|