Nt Lecture Exam 2

Front 1

"Errors" in the Book of Luke according to Pepe Rodriguez

Back 1

Matthew dates the birth of Jesus AD 4/5 while Luke dates 6/7 BC

Front 2

"Errors" in the Book of Luke according to the Jesus Seminar

Back 2

Believed the gospels were embellished by mythic elements

Front 3

WML de Wette (1780 - 1848)

Back 3

1st major scholar to challenge the historicity of Acts

Front 4

FC Baur (scholar who attacked the historicity of Acts)

Back 4

Believed Jewish Party vs Gentile Party
-Both sides embellished things a little bit to prove they are right and Acts was written by Gentile person. This led to early catholicasim

Front 5

Albert Schwegler
(Scholar attacking the histoticity of Acts)

Back 5

-Believes Acts was written 120 - 130
-Acts is historically inaccurate because all the eye witnesses are gone
-Acts was talking about the 2nd century church, not the first

Front 6

Eduard Zeller
(Scholar attacking the histoticity of Acts)

Back 6

Believes miracles are impossible and therefore, Acts is impossible and historically inaccurate

Front 7

Martin Diberlius
(Scholar attacking the histoticity of Acts)

Back 7

-Speeches of Acts are invented and made up
-There was a diary of someone who traveled and then decided to say that Paul traveled whatever happened in the Diary

Front 8

Ernst Haenchen
(Scholar attacking the histoticity of Acts)

Back 8

-Writes Commentary saying everything in Acts is all made up
-People usually read commentaries when reading the bible, so commentaries are powerful stuff!

Front 9

Hans Conzelmann
(Scholar attacking the histoticity of Acts)

Back 9

Another scholar writing a commentary about Acts being false

Front 10

Mathias Schneckenburger
(Response to attacks of the historicity of Acts)

Back 10

-Disagreed with Baur
-thought Luke was an eye witness and that it was written before 70

Front 11

Albert Ritschl
(Response to attacks of the historicity of Acts)

Back 11

-Studied under Baur and originally held his view
- Read Acts, and concluded Baur was wrong

Front 12

James Smith
(Response to attacks of the historicity of Acts)

Back 12

Was an expert yachtsmen (boat dude)
-Took his yacht and took a trip that Paul "supposidly took"
- Made a conclusion that "the voyage is an account of real events written by a real eyewitness"
- Showed that Luke was accutate in his titles (ie: King, Ambassador)

Front 13

Sir William Ramsey
(Response to attacks of the historicity of Acts)

Back 13

-Classical Scholar and Archeologist
-Expert in Asia Minor
-Read Acts and found him accurate in his descriptions
- (At first, skeptical, and did not see the importance of reading Acts...it was wrong anyway)
-Said "A writer who proves to be exact and correct in one point will show the same qualities in other matters"

Front 14

FF Bruce
(Response to attacks of the historicity of Acts)

Back 14

-Wrote 2 Commentaries on Acts
- Defended Luke's accuracy on all parts
- Said "If an author is found accurate in places where we can test him, we should not assume that he is less accurate in those places where we cannot test him”

Front 15

AN Sherwin - White
(Response to attacks of the historicity of Acts)

Back 15

Said "Any attempt to reject the basic history of acts, even in its details, must now appear quite absurd"

Front 16

Colin Hemer
(Response to attacks of the historicity of Acts)

Back 16

-Wrote "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History"
-Went chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and compared it to Greek history
- after, he says "all of these perspectives has converged to support the trustworthiness of the document through the intricate details, which are interspersed throughout the narrative.”

Front 17

Problems in Luke 2:1-5

Back 17

The Date: Joshepus writes of a census in AD 6 or 7, but there is no evidence in a worldwide census under Ceaser Agustus. We should also note that Matthew tells us that Jesus was born durning time of Herod who died in 4BC
-Why did they have to go to Bethlehem, Mary was pregnant
-Quirunius was Govenor in AD 6 or 7 not 4 BC

Front 18

Examination of the "problems" in Luke 2:1-5

Back 18

The Date: In Herod's last will and testament he gave a detailed summary of his wealth of the Kingdom. In order to do so, he needed to "assest" his wealth and to do so would have needed to do a census
- The Romans could have let the Jews people go to their homeland, becuase family lineage is very important to them
-Governor can mean "leader, commander, ruler" not a king or high ranking ruler

Front 19

Apocalyptic Genre

Back 19

- Gives a glimpse with realities with the human eye (spiritual realities) - bad things happen, God is still in Control
-Recitial of History
-Fight of good vs. Evil

Front 20

The Preterist Interpretation
(Interpreting Revelation)

Back 20

-Most popular option between scholars
- Argues that Revelation was written for the church in crisis to give them hope
- Do not interpret it literally
- Written to Christians being persecuted by Rome
- The Beast: Roman Empire

Front 21

The Historical View
(Interpreting Revelation)

Back 21

This approach sees Revelation as a prophecy of the history of the church. Accordingly, the seals, trumpets, and bowls of the prophect are identified as specific events nations, and persons throughout history
The Beast: The Pope

Front 22

The Symbolic Method
(Interpreting Revelation)

Back 22

Problem: symbols in apocalyptic literature
The Beast: 666 (the number 7 means completion, 6 means imcompletion)

Front 23

The Futurists

Back 23

-The most important group that follows the point of view that is dispensationalists
-They believe that this group is pre-millennial, they believe things will get worse and worse until the end
The Beast: Some future antichrist

Front 24

Classical Dispensationalists
(Interpreting Revelation)

Back 24

(Subheading under futurist movement)
This is a prophecy of the end, this will be in the future
Beast: Future Anti Christ

Front 25

Progressive Dispensationalist View
(Interpreting Revelation)

Back 25

(Subheading under futurist interpresation
There are events that occured in the 1st century that Revelation is talking about and typologically point ahead to the final days
Beast: Future Anti-Christ and Nero

Front 26

Typological Means

Back 26

It will happen in the same way, but different
(You know what will happen at the end of American Idol, but there is always a different winner, so it is the same, but different)

Front 27

Theology of Revelation

Back 27

(1) Problem of Evil
(2) The coming Wrath
(3) The coming of the kingdom
- Judgement of Evil
- The coming of a New
Kingdom

Front 28

Meaning of Asking for your Father's estate
(Prodigal Son)

Back 28

The son is basically saying "Dad, I wish you were dead so that I can get your money"

Front 29

Meaning of: The Prodigal Son longed for the Pig's food

Back 29

-This would have been a dire circumstance
-He lusted after Pig's food
-Pigs are unclean

Front 30

Meaning: "But while he was still a long way off his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him
(Prodigal Son)

Back 30

Meaning: God is relationally loving"

Front 31

Meaning of The Father Running to his Son
(Prodigal Son)

Back 31

- A man would NEVER EVER run
- You would have to pull your robe and tuck it in your belt, showing your naked legs. It was shameful for a man to show his legs, so it would bring shame to him

Front 32

Kezazah
(Prodigal Son)

Back 32

If a Jew went to Gentile land and spent all his inheritence, people would grab a clay pot and smash it into peices, and kicked the son out of the community

Front 33

Why did he Run?
(Prodigal Son)

Back 33

The dad knows the son will enter into the Kezazah and bring shame, so the father runs and shames himself and run to his son so that his son is saved from this public communication
(The son is not shamed becuase the father is shamed)

Front 34

Meaning of: The father accepting the Son back with the best robe, ring, and sandals
(Prodigal Son)

Back 34

Because the father has accepted the Son back, given him a robe, ring, and sandals, and walks through the crowd with him, no one will do the Kazazah

Front 35

Meaning of: Feasting
(Prodigal Son)

Back 35

Instead of the Son being shamed, he is celebrated. A fattened calf means a lot of people will eat, so it was a big feast!

Front 36

Implications of Prodigal Son

Back 36

Personal Application
(1) Forgiveness is a benifit to us
(2) The Father takes our shame upon himself
(3) He celebrates when we return
Community Applications
(1) We want to be a community that accepts EVERYONE
(2) We are the hands of the father offering forgiveness

Front 37

The Point of this Parable
(Prodigal Son)

Back 37

The father is different!
(Jesus eats with tax collectors and sinners, the ones who repent

Front 38

Martin Luther
(Background of Paul)

Back 38

Luther was fighting the Roman Catholic Church who was about works

Front 39

Problem with Luther's understanding
(Background of Paul)

Back 39

Jews in the 1st century were not Legalistic. Scholars are sayin that Jews did not try and earn their way into heaven

Front 40

Kirster Stendahl
(Background of Paul)

Back 40

-argued that Paul did not have a problem with "fighting against legalism"
Romans 3:6

Front 41

What Paul fought against according to Kirster Stendahl

Back 41

The Problem of what we do with the Gentiles. Jews have been brought up all their life to hate and seperate from Gentiles, and now they are supposed to eat, and accept them into the church

Front 42

JDG Dunn
(Background of Paul)

Back 42

Argues that the "works of law" was not about being legalistic, but rather, a social things, setting the Jews apart from the Gentiles

Front 43

How the Jewish Works of Law served a social function, not so much a legal function

Back 43

(1) Shows who is a member of that community
(2) Setting them off as Jews, distinct as gentiles
(3) As a result, once you realized you are in and they are out, you can become boastful and prideful and that is what happened to Jews

Front 44

Characteristics of Apocalyptic Genres

Back 44

Angelic Meditation, Ethical Discourse, Freaky weird things, Revelatory Communication, Discourse Cycles, Esoteric Symbolism

Front 45

JB Lightfoot
(Responce to the attacks of historicity of acts)

Back 45

Destroyed Baur's Hypothesis
proved that there was no division in the early church, and also proved that Luke was accuate in his titles

Front 46

EP Sanders
(Background of Paul)

Back 46

Worte "Paul and the Palestinian Judaism"
-set out to destroy the view of the 1st century Jews were legalistic and Christianity was a religion based on faith
-Investigated Jewish Documents
-Concluded it was a nonlegalistic religion defined as "Convental Nomism"

Front 47

Covenantal Nomism

Back 47

We gain our relationship with God from the covenant through faith, and maintain the relationship by the law or by doing

Front 48

What if Sanders was right?...

Back 48

That would mean that Judiasm in the 1st century was not legalistic in orientation, and this will drastically change the interpretation of Paul

Front 49

Applications of the Different Interpretations

Back 49

(1) Many times we Christians take the place of the Jews in this diagram and non Christiams are like the gentiles (We are in, they are out attitude)
(2) We are not diverse, most of the churches are segregated