Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Understanding the Bible Message-ID: Date: 11 Jun 91 03:41:38 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA Lines: 50 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: I partially understand my own ordering of authority and it runs something like this (this is not a rigid ordering). 1. Synoptic Gospels 2. The Torah 3. The Latter Prophets 4. New Testament Letters 5. The Former Prophets 6. The Writings 7. The Acts of the Apostles There are two books which I don't quite know what to do with, they are the Gospel of John and Revelations. For many Christians I know, their number one authority is (are?) the letters of Paul. While I do not agree, I think that we are both well within the mainstream of Christianity. Interesting. I'd like to see what other think of this ordering. I like the concept, and I'd like to present my own ordering of authority (though I'm not entirely comfortable with that phrase): 1. Synoptic Gospels 2. Latter Prophets, spiritual statements of John, 1 John, and the authentic Pauline letters (which all have a quite similar feeling) 3. The Writings (though the Psalms are not the words of God, but the words of people striving to understand God, and not doing so completely) 4. The Torah, the Former Prophets, Revelation 5. The unauthentic Pauline letters and the Catholic Epistles; the "historical" accuracy of John I'm not sure if I could break things down any more than this. The authentic Pauline letters are taken by me as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, and possibly Colossians. The unauthentic letters are then Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, maybe Colossians, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy, and of course Hebrews. There is a clear preference here for "spiritual" statements and general forms of guidance over specific laws. Also important to understand is the hermeneutic I apply. I read the Pauline letters (of either sort) as advice to specific congregations in a specific time, and I don't think the details of the advice directly apply to today. Similarly, I don't accept a Darbyist reading of Revelation. I can't go into my reading here, because it would be too long. At some point perhaps I will elaborate on that. Rest assured that I don't read the text the way Hal Lindsey et. al. do. -mib