Jesus' Words = Dogma or Something More?

[Josh]

"Now, in fact, Jesus and his words have never belonged to the categories of dogma or law, and to read them as if they did is simply to miss them. They are essentially subversive of established arrangements and ways of thinking. That is clear from the way they first entered the world, their initial effects, and how they are preserved in the New Testament writings and live on in his people. He himself described his words as "spirit and life" (John 6:63). They invade our "real" world with a reality even more real than it is, which explains why human beings then and now have to protect themselves against them."

--Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God, 1997

What do you think?

[yeshuafreak]

what if the gospels claimed Yeshua said something that he didnt- woluld that not make it dogma, and although it is not technically his words, his word has become dogma. many modern scholars think things were addded later on to the gospels.

shalom- john

[Josh]

How do you define dogma, yeshuafreak?

[yeshuafreak]

the way the dictionary does:

dogma


A teaching or set of teachings laid down by a religious group, usually as part of the essential beliefs of the group.

Note: The term dogma is often applied to statements put forward by someone who thinks, inappropriately, that they should be accepted without proof.

this "note" explains how sometimes Dogma is said with negative canotations. the definition with negatives cannotations is my dominant definition becuase most of the time the people i hear using it use it negatively... but thats because i am around sinners alot, or talking to them over the internet.

[Josh]

Normally I define dogma like the dictionary does and don't take it as a negative term, though you're right, it is usually used derisively.

I'm don't think Dallas Willard even thinks of dogma as a bad thing. But one aspect of dogma is that it tends to be "systematic". It is the eternal quest of some theologians to find a system of thought that ties together all loose ends and explains all ambiguities.

Technically speaking, we find the most dogma in the NT in the epistles, notably in the writings of Paul. But even his dogma isn't anywhere near "systematic".

With Jesus' words, we find teachings that are notoriously difficult to dissect, tie down, or thoroughly extrapolate. And if you think about it, this is what we should expect from someone who is more than human, who has, as it were, a God's eye-view. And furthermore, it's the best thing for us because Jesus' words teach us through story, through example, through pathos, through enlightenment-- all in addition to simply appealing to our reason.

[yeshuafreak]

i think Yeshua spoke in parables so that each man could interpret them according to his or her needs.

but as for the dogma thing, i agree that he doesnt seem to understand the worl in a negative lense.

but, i think that Shaul was very systematic in his teachings, and so i think that he could be put under the category of dogma. however, because Yeshua left no writings that can be proved (there are some things that may have been written by Yeshua) than we cannot be sure that his theology was not systematic. i think he had no need of a system of theology however, seeing as how he is the sh'kinah in flesh, Torah/word made flesh.

he was so close to ah, that he told us that he never moved unless Yah did. he was the prallel of Yah, on the earth. like in parallel universes where you may have a twin, Yah seems to have been the spritual that caused the physical actions of Yeshua to happen.

shalom- john

[Josh]

but, i think that Shaul was very systematic in his teachings, and so i think that he could be put under the category of dogma

Yes, there is definitely dogma in Scripture and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Dogma is helpful.

And, yes, Paul, and the New Testament itself, is "systematic" enough to be useful for teaching and correcting and forming an understanding of truth (as far as our finite minds are able), but it's not as "systematic" as a lot of believers would probably like it to be. There's a lot of "gray" left in and I like it that way. Not everything is explained because, guess what, we can't understand everything anyway. Plus, God like to leave some mystery as well.