So, after talking with the dean and the dean visiting our class, it appears that the instructor has moderated his tone a bit -- at least now he's not blatantly telling me I'm wrong, he just alludes to it. 
Other than having the joy of being able to call up Bobby after class to gleefully state that "it's demons," this took on a very different tone compared to last week's. Most notably after the dean left the class, we watched a short on the Spiritual Freedom Church, and their exorcism's of demons (hence the demons comment). Now, I don't believe in demons, so my disparaging remarks - yes I made them in class - is not surprising. So, while I knew that everyone else in the class believed in demons, because I was the lone desenter when the question was posed, I felt obligated to to provide an alternative view otherwise the class comments would have sounded as though they were taken from some political party convention - it's no fun if everyone is in agreement. Here's my take on the Spiritual Freedom Church:
You need to consider the purpose of this individual. He's a Televangelist. That means he's in the business of selling God. He's about hype and encouraging people to not accept responsibility for their choices in life. This guy [the one that had the demon in him] clearly is torn between fulfilling his mother's desires to go into ministry and his own wishes to do something else.
I know it's not a popular view, but there it is. I think this one girl in the class attempted to make a point so as to prove demons existed by quoting something from 1 Peter 5 -- I'm not sure how this was really supposed to relate, because I didn't see any reference to demons. If anyone knows, please let me know. I probably should have asked her after class, but the only reason she mentioned the book and verse was because she knew I'd ask -- and she said it so dismissively that I dared not actually talk to her.
So, the other exciting event that occured in the class -- at least for me, was what I will always refer to my gift from God. As I noted before, I'm not keen on the New King James Bible and have held steadfast to my Catholic New American Bible even though he requested we all use the New King James Bible. As I mentioned in my previous post, one of my biggest concerns with this course was the instructors presentation of these alternative dates of authorship of the New Testament that placed them prior to the Fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Well, right after the dean had questioned him on his dates of authorship he selected a parable from Matthew for us to read and try to interpret. His statement concerning the dating of texts centers around his belief that there are no references to the fall of the Second Temple in the Gospel and that this lack of information alludes to the fact that the texts must have been written prior to it. Ok, so back to Matthew -- well, of all the Gospel parables he could have selected he chose Matthew 22:1-14.
I'm going to let that sink in a minute because the significance of Matthew's The Parable of the Wedding Feast at that exact moment, I mean right after he said there was no reference to the fall of the Second Temple... it was just perfect.
So, part of the beauty of my NAB is the footnotes, so I'll include here an excerpt of the footnote for Matthew 22:1-14:
22, 1-14: This parable is from Q; see Lk 14, 15-24. It has been given many allegorical traits by Matthew, e.g., the burning of the city of the guests who refused the invitation (7), which corrsponds to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. ....
Beautiful. Of course, he disregarded it -- but at least he didn't say I was wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment