|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Lewis's Trichotomy
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Trilobites I know. I know trilobites very well. Some of my best friends are trilobites. And you, sir, are no trilobite.
@Lamb Chopped: Didn't the Stylites do "You are Everything" and "Betcha By Golly Wow"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thyme
Shipmate
# 12360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trilobites I know. What the heck are Tribolites?
A tribolite is an immature
tribble
--------------------
The Church in its own bubble has become, at best the guardian of the value system of the nation’s grandparents, and at worst a den of religious anoraks defined by defensiveness, esoteric logic and discrimination. Bishop of Buckingham's blog
Posts: 600 | From: Cloud Cuckoo Land | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In a similar vein, and from a Synoptic no less:
quote:
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
(Mark 2:7, NIV)
There you go. In Mark, the Gospel we've been told doesn't spell it out for us.
So the Jewish religious got upset when someone from outside their clique claimed to speak for God. Meh.
We read these texts as people who are already convinced. People who are not already convinced and do not have the weight of doctrine and history do not read the 'obvious' things we see there.
On thing I have found illuminating about this thread is to put myself in the shoes of atheists and other unbelievers with regard to Christians. Many of us make all kinds of claims about God - specifically that he (God) is communicating with us and is directly involved in our lives.
According to the Lewisian mindset, the unbeliever should think that we're either mad, bad or true witnesses to the triune God.
But the turd in the fruitcake is that there are plenty of people 'on our side' who are saying all kinds of things that we disown. Even people who, according to the perception of an unbeliever, are very similar to us. So the task of evaluating claims is not as simple as we're making out.
The second thing I was thinking is about how atheists relate to Christians. Most of us, I suspect, want to be treated as rational and reasonable human beings. But if you are an atheist, then belief in the supernatural is a sign of a delusion (or something worse) and according to Lewis, they ought to decide that we are too way off the chart to be trusted with anything.
Certainly not their children, their elderly, hospitals or running the country.
The fact that there are intelligent (and above all, I suspect, reasonable) Christians who can relate to atheists and unbelievers on the level (thinking about Rowan Williams, for example), is enough for some atheists to admit that not all Christians are totally bonkers or deluded.
I'm not sure where else to go with this train of thought, though.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But televangelists claim exactly that all the time, and a great many folks who would gladly quote Lewis as some kind of divine savant have absolutely no problem with it. What does that do to the power of the trichotomy? Do you insist that it is powerful, but only to those who post on this thread?
I trust that it will be no surprise to you if I think that people who trust televangelists claiming a hotline to God are wrong to do so. Rational argument has no power to convince people who don't care about rational argument, but that's not a fault of rational argument.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In a similar vein, and from a Synoptic no less:
quote:
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
(Mark 2:7, NIV)
There you go. In Mark, the Gospel we've been told doesn't spell it out for us.
So the Jewish religious got upset when someone from outside their clique claimed to speak for God. Meh.
Your willingness to read a different text to the one actually there is truly astounding.
It does NOT say that their clique had the capacity to speak for God in the area of forgiving sins - quite the reverse - so the clique has nothing to do with it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
According to the Lewisian mindset, the unbeliever should think that we're either mad, bad or true witnesses to the triune God.
Indeed. But the intensity of the adjectives needs to vary with the intensity of the claim. So, for instance, Jesus claiming to be the Son of God might get the full intensity of mad/bad/Son of God.
A televangelist claiming to have a special encounter probably gets deluded/bad/prophet.
A Christian claiming regular spiritual experiences might get easily misled/ bit of a fantasist/ follower of true God alternatives.
And someone saying "On balance a lot of this rings true for me" might get wrong/sloppy thinking/got a point.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But the intensity of the adjectives needs to vary with the intensity of the claim.
Exactly. Lewis' version of the 3 options is based on the fact that Jesus made extraordinary claims.
And I think that's why the attack against Lewis involves playing down the idea that Jesus actually made those claims. Because, as I've said, the basic logic of 3 options is impeccable regardless of the claim that you apply it to. The only way out of the Lewis version is to reduce the intensity of what Jesus said.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your willingness to read a different text to the one actually there is truly astounding.
It does NOT say that their clique had the capacity to speak for God in the area of forgiving sins - quite the reverse - so the clique has nothing to do with it.
Ahem, that isn't what I meant.
You assume it was blasphemous because only God can forgive sins and therefore by forgiving sins Jesus was claiming to be divine.
I'm saying it is a possible interpretation that anyone claiming to speak for God outwith of the religious norms would have been described as blasphemous. And furthermore, by saying what he said, maybe Jesus was claiming to speak for God rather to be God.
It would be a whole lot easier if Jesus saying in the gospel 'hey you people, I am a member of the triune God, y'know! You haven't heard of it, but I'm a god-man, fully God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father in heaven! Born of a virgin!"
But of course he doesn't, he speaks in riddles.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Indeed. But the intensity of the adjectives needs to vary with the intensity of the claim. So, for instance, Jesus claiming to be the Son of God might get the full intensity of mad/bad/Son of God.
A televangelist claiming to have a special encounter probably gets deluded/bad/prophet.
A Christian claiming regular spiritual experiences might get easily misled/ bit of a fantasist/ follower of true God alternatives.
And someone saying "On balance a lot of this rings true for me" might get wrong/sloppy thinking/got a point.
That makes some kind of sense, except that is a subjective view. Some might think that believing in miracles and/or a God who communicates with you is on the level of believing you are God or believing you are a boiled egg.
Tell me - if you believe God has told you to sacrifice your own children on an altar, is that more or less intense than stating that you think you might be divine?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
It would be a whole lot easier if Jesus saying in the gospel 'hey you people, I am a member of the triune God, y'know!
And imagine how different his ministry would have been had he done that. He would have needed to really back up those claims with something spectacular as well. (Unless he was going for the instant stoning option). Something really in your face like turning stones to bread and leaping off the top of the temple to be caught by angels. And probably the inevitable follow up would have involved conquering the world.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And imagine how different his ministry would have been had he done that. He would have needed to really back up those claims with something spectacular as well. (Unless he was going for the instant stoning option). Something really in your face like turning stones to bread and leaping off the top of the temple to be caught by angels. And probably the inevitable follow up would have involved conquering the world.
Or like walking on the water, raising the dead, healing etc? I'm not sure your argument works.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
the long ranger wrote:
On thing I have found illuminating about this thread is to put myself in the shoes of atheists and other unbelievers with regard to Christians. Many of us make all kinds of claims about God - specifically that he (God) is communicating with us and is directly involved in our lives. According to the Lewisian mindset, the unbeliever should think that we're either mad, bad or true witnesses to the triune God.
That's very interesting, as is the whole post it is taken from. I chat with atheists and skeptics quite a lot on t'internet, and in actuality, most of them don't see it like that. The word 'delusion' pops up again, since I suppose this is one of the commonest epithets used, following Prof. Dawkins.
But being deluded doesn't mean mad. I suppose some skeptics do indicate bad, not in a moral sense, but really in a kind of instrumentalist sense, that theists haven't really got a handle on life!
But I'm a (sort of) believer but the trilemma makes me cringe. Funny old world, eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
You assume it was blasphemous because only God can forgive sins and therefore by forgiving sins Jesus was claiming to be divine.
I'm saying it is a possible interpretation that anyone claiming to speak for God outwith of the religious norms would have been described as blasphemous. And furthermore, by saying what he said, maybe Jesus was claiming to speak for God rather to be God.
The first sentence of your second paragraph completely ignores the fact that the passage says WHY they regarded it as blasphemous.
Whether or not they might have misinterpreted Jesus' claim is another thing which I'll come to in a minute. But it's quite clear how THEY interpreted it was: it's blasphemous not because of some other rule you've just made up, it was blasphemous because only God can forgive sins.
And then, the second sentence of your paragraph completely ignores the next bit of the text. Verse 10. Jesus doesn't say "you misunderstand my intent, I'm just the messenger here". HE ASSERTED HIS AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS.
I'm not actually asking you to agree that the Gospel of Mark is an accurate record here. I'm asking you to agree that this is what the Gospel of Mark ACTUALLY SAYS. It says that Jesus said "your sins are forgiven", and that the religious powers who heard this regarded it as blasphemous BECAUSE ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE SINS. It then records Jesus as ASSERTING HIS AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS.
In other words, I'm not assuming anything. It's all sitting there in the text. And your "possible interpretation" is (it seems to me quite wilfully) ignoring the actual words of the text to create an alternate version that is missing parts of sentences that don't suit you.
[ 06. September 2012, 09:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@orfeo I'll thank you not to shout at me.
quote:
Mark 2 from bible.org
2:1 Now after some days, when he returned to Capernaum, the news spread that he was at home. 2:2 So many gathered that there was no longer any room, not even by the door, and he preached the word to them. 2:3 Some people came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 2:4 When they were not able to bring him in because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Jesus. Then, after tearing it out, they lowered the stretcher the paralytic was lying on. 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 2:6 Now some of the experts in the law were sitting there, turning these things over in their minds: 2:7 “Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! 14 Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 2:8 Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk’? 2:10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” – he said to the paralytic – 2:11 “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.” 2:12 And immediately the man stood up, took his stretcher, and went out in front of them all. They were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
Now, I appreciate that it is offensive to you, but it is possible to read this passage and not believe that Jesus was claiming to be God.
1. Jesus preached.
2. Jesus told the man that his sins were forgiven
3. The teachers of the law were offended because only God can forgive sins
4. Jesus asked them which was easier - forgiving sins or healing the man?
5. Jesus stated that to show he had authority to forgive sins, he would heal the man
6. The people were amazed and praised God.
The implication at 3. is that only God can forgive sins, and that as in 2. Jesus is claiming to forgive them, he must be claiming to be God.
However in 5. Jesus does not claim to be God but claims to have the authority to forgive and to heal, which can be interpreted to mean that he is answering 3. by claiming to be God or that he does, in fact, have the authority from God to do it.
In fact, given 6, the people did not appear to believe that Jesus was God - because they then praise/worship God and not Jesus.
I know you don't like this interpretation. But it is an interpretation which fits the passage.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Moreover, later in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, characters are shown both healing and forgiving sins. By the same logic, they're being blasphemous (because only God can forgive sins) and hence they're claiming to be divine.
Clearly they're not, they are just claiming to have authority from God/Jesus to heal and forgive sins.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And imagine how different his ministry would have been had he done that. He would have needed to really back up those claims with something spectacular as well. (Unless he was going for the instant stoning option). Something really in your face like turning stones to bread and leaping off the top of the temple to be caught by angels. And probably the inevitable follow up would have involved conquering the world.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Or like walking on the water, raising the dead, healing etc? I'm not sure your argument works.
It's not really an argument actually. It was simply a speculation based on the temptations of Christ in the desert.
It is interesting that Jesus often told people not to tell anyone about his miracles. Walking on water was only known by the disciples, not by any others. Although raising Lazarus might be a bit showy, the passage might be at pains to indicate Jesus was driven to acting based on his emotions.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's not really an argument actually. It was simply a speculation based on the temptations of Christ in the desert.
It is interesting that Jesus often told people not to tell anyone about his miracles. Walking on water was only known by the disciples, not by any others. Although raising Lazarus might be a bit showy, the passage might be at pains to indicate Jesus was driven to acting based on his emotions.
Well feeding the five thousand was pretty obvious and also one of the temptations in the desert. In fact there is a stream of theology that suggests the feeding of the multitude stories were the temptation.
I see what you're saying, but given the text is full of miracles, claiming unambiguously to be divine makes more sense rather than less.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mdijon: It is interesting that Jesus often told people not to tell anyone about his miracles. Walking on water was only known by the disciples, not by any others.
I guess they disobeyed Him then, by writing about these miracles in the Gospels ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well feeding the five thousand was pretty obvious and also one of the temptations in the desert.
Possibly, except that doing it by gradual breaking of bread and passing it around is a bit less showy than an alakazam-bread-out-of-a-hat moment. For instance, people have been able to suggest that the bread was in fact already kept by various members of the crowd who were hanging on to it for themselves, and the boy coming forward and Jesus passing the broken pieces around led people to start sharing.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
The implication at 3. is that only God can forgive sins, and that as in 2. Jesus is claiming to forgive them, he must be claiming to be God.
However in 5. Jesus does not claim to be God but claims to have the authority to forgive and to heal, which can be interpreted to mean that he is answering 3. by claiming to be God or that he does, in fact, have the authority from God to do it.
Yes. That is a correct analysis.
That is a different analysis to your previous one, however, which involved Jesus claiming authority to speak for God. He isn't claiming that. He is claiming authority to forgive sins.
Now, whether or not it is correct theology that only God can forgive sins, is a separate question which we can now explore.
[ 06. September 2012, 10:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
mdijon: It is interesting that Jesus often told people not to tell anyone about his miracles. Walking on water was only known by the disciples, not by any others.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess they disobeyed Him then, by writing about these miracles in the Gospels
I guess it was more like an embargo than a permanent secrecy clause.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The same, by the way, for the question of whether only God has authority to send prophets.
[x-post: should follow on from my previous post.]
[ 06. September 2012, 10:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I'm very sorry if you think that 'speaking for God' is different to 'having the authority from God to forgive' - but either way, the passage does not necessarily imply that Jesus claimed to be divine, which was the basis of why you introduced it into the conversation in the first place.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm very sorry if you think that 'speaking for God' is different to 'having the authority from God to forgive'
You mean, you don't? You think being a messenger and being the person who actually does things are no different from each other?
I really should try that with my boss and see if he'll agree...
EDIT: I'll also have to go and see whether the language used by God's other messengers - the prophets - is consistent with this. I suspect it isn't, and I suspect that's precisely why we don't say that Jesus was simply another prophet, but you never know.
[ 06. September 2012, 10:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm very sorry if you think that 'speaking for God' is different to 'having the authority from God to forgive' - but either way, the passage does not necessarily imply that Jesus claimed to be divine, which was the basis of why you introduced it into the conversation in the first place.
I think that's the view of people like Ehrman, isn't it, that the synoptics can be mainly seen as about someone who is appointed/adopted by God, but who is not necessarily God himself? Sometimes it seems a fine line, and no doubt, confirmation bias plays some role here.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for the first, if you mean Matthew 23, that is about some future event, not the past. Or is there another verse that I have missed? (The past tense does occur in the words of jesus in the musical Godspel).
Leo, I've no idea about Godspell, but the Greek of Matthew 23:34 is present tense (apostello), which tense is often (usually?) translated in a continuous sense. Thus "I am sending you" or "I keep on sending you". This is all the more interesting as the future tenses occur in descriptions of what Jesus' enemies would do to his servants the prophets and etc.--surely the most natural habit of speech would have been to say "I will send... and you will kill..."? Unless, of course, Jesus had another emphasis he wished to stress--that in fact he had done this already, was doing it at the moment of speech, and was going to continue doing it into the future. This is further supported by his prophecy that because of this, "On on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar." Both named victims are obviously in the past, and clearly sent by God himself. So the present continuous is a perfectly appropriate tense for God himself to use when he describes an action he has been taking throughout human history, past, present, and future.
Matthew 23 is so blatantly anti-Semitic that the mainstream churches who use the lectionary have omitted all but the first few verses, which is near as you can get to tearing pages out of scripture.
It is likely to have been written at the parting of the ways of church and synagogue and, therefore, reflects the arguments going on between the pharisees and the leaders of the church rather than reflecting the actual words of Jesus.
My point still stands, too, that the tense is not PAST - the person who suggested that it was seemed to be arguing that Jesus identified himself with the God who 'sent' Isaiah, Jeremiah et al. and was this 'claiming to be God'. Thisd is simply not the case.
Also, the chapter seems to be in the style of some sort of oracle, so the 'I' that Jesus speaks about isn't necessarily himself - as one fairly conservative commentary suggests: quote:
The I here is emphatic: "I am sending," that is, "am about to send." In Luke 11:49 the variation is remarkable: "Therefore also, said the wisdom of God, I will send them," &c. What precisely is meant by "the wisdom of God" here, is somewhat difficult to determine. To us it appears to be simply an announcement of a purpose of the Divine Wisdom, in the high style of ancient prophecy, to send a last set of messengers whom the people would reject, and rejecting, would fill up the cup of their iniquity. But, whereas in Luke it is "I, the Wisdom of God, will send them," in Matthew it is "I, Jesus, am sending them"; language only befitting the one sender of all the prophets, the Lord God of Israel now in the flesh. They are evidently evangelical messengers, but called by the familiar Jewish names of "prophets, wise men, and scribes," whose counterparts were the inspired and gifted servants of the Lord Jesus; for in Luke ( Luke 11:49 ) it is "prophets and apostles."
source here
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your willingness to read a different text to the one actually there is truly astounding.
It does NOT say that their clique had the capacity to speak for God in the area of forgiving sins - quite the reverse - so the clique has nothing to do with it.
Ahem, that isn't what I meant.
You assume it was blasphemous because only God can forgive sins and therefore by forgiving sins Jesus was claiming to be divine.
I'm saying it is a possible interpretation that anyone claiming to speak for God outwith of the religious norms would have been described as blasphemous. And furthermore, by saying what he said, maybe Jesus was claiming to speak for God rather to be God.
It would be a whole lot easier if Jesus saying in the gospel 'hey you people, I am a member of the triune God, y'know! You haven't heard of it, but I'm a god-man, fully God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father in heaven! Born of a virgin!"
But of course he doesn't, he speaks in riddles.
Indeed - and Jesus referred to the authority of the enigmatic 'Son of Man' not 'Son of God'.
This passage seems to be saying that forgiving sins need not be seen as a divine prerogative, as Peter, later on all the twelve and, in James, all Christians can forgive sins.
My priest regularly forgives me my sins but she doesn't see herself as divine.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My priest regularly forgives me my sins...
I don't think she does. I think she pronounces your sins to be forgiven by God, but I don't think she sees herself as doing the forgiving.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
We read these texts as people who are already convinced. People who are not already convinced and do not have the weight of doctrine and history do not read the 'obvious' things we see there.
On the contrary. I first read these texts as a complete unbeliever, in fact with a mild prejudice against Christianity and a determination not to be tarred with that brush. It was the text that converted me. I was then about as lacking in Christian knowledge or understanding as it is possible to be in a Western country--and that's pretty possible when it's suburban California.
You talk here as if you were a cradle Christian and in fact still a believer--is that correct? Because if so, it is more than a little ironic that the former unbeliever is arguing my position, and the Christian, yours.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for the first, if you mean Matthew 23, that is about some future event, not the past. Or is there another verse that I have missed? (The past tense does occur in the words of jesus in the musical Godspel).
Leo, I've no idea about Godspell, but the Greek of Matthew 23:34 is present tense (apostello), which tense is often (usually?) translated in a continuous sense. Thus "I am sending you" or "I keep on sending you". This is all the more interesting as the future tenses occur in descriptions of what Jesus' enemies would do to his servants the prophets and etc.--surely the most natural habit of speech would have been to say "I will send... and you will kill..."? Unless, of course, Jesus had another emphasis he wished to stress--that in fact he had done this already, was doing it at the moment of speech, and was going to continue doing it into the future. This is further supported by his prophecy that because of this, "On on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar." Both named victims are obviously in the past, and clearly sent by God himself. So the present continuous is a perfectly appropriate tense for God himself to use when he describes an action he has been taking throughout human history, past, present, and future.
Matthew 23 is so blatantly anti-Semitic that the mainstream churches who use the lectionary have omitted all but the first few verses, which is near as you can get to tearing pages out of scripture.
It is likely to have been written at the parting of the ways of church and synagogue and, therefore, reflects the arguments going on between the pharisees and the leaders of the church rather than reflecting the actual words of Jesus.
My point still stands, too, that the tense is not PAST - the person who suggested that it was seemed to be arguing that Jesus identified himself with the God who 'sent' Isaiah, Jeremiah et al. and was this 'claiming to be God'. Thisd is simply not the case.
Also, the chapter seems to be in the style of some sort of oracle, so the 'I' that Jesus speaks about isn't necessarily himself - as one fairly conservative commentary suggests: quote:
The I here is emphatic: "I am sending," that is, "am about to send." In Luke 11:49 the variation is remarkable: "Therefore also, said the wisdom of God, I will send them," &c. What precisely is meant by "the wisdom of God" here, is somewhat difficult to determine. To us it appears to be simply an announcement of a purpose of the Divine Wisdom, in the high style of ancient prophecy, to send a last set of messengers whom the people would reject, and rejecting, would fill up the cup of their iniquity. But, whereas in Luke it is "I, the Wisdom of God, will send them," in Matthew it is "I, Jesus, am sending them"; language only befitting the one sender of all the prophets, the Lord God of Israel now in the flesh. They are evidently evangelical messengers, but called by the familiar Jewish names of "prophets, wise men, and scribes," whose counterparts were the inspired and gifted servants of the Lord Jesus; for in Luke ( Luke 11:49 ) it is "prophets and apostles."
source here
Leo, this is one of the more scattergun answers I have had the privilege to read. You appear to be claiming that Jesus is not in fact presupposing his own deity by making the statement "I am sending you prophets etc." BECAUSE:
1. It's antisemitic. To which I reply, WTF? and second, if you truly think that's so, take it up with Jesus, not me.
2. Out of thin air you date it long after the life of Christ (which I take leave to doubt, your grounds being so flimsy) and THEN blithely skate over the question of whether it derives from an eyewitness or not. Which question has nothing to do with the date it was finally written down.
3. You ignore everything you've been told about the verb tenses in the Greek (go read it for yourself, why don't you?) and in particular pretend you never saw the point about the subject of the verb ("I") indicating a claim to Godhood regardless of what tense the verb may be in. Come on, there are two posts on the subject. You can't pretend you didn't see them, can you?
4. You then drag in a commentary as if it were the final clinching authority, and waffle on about something called "oracle style" that apparently means people can claim something without actually claiming that thing. (And why should I credit your commentary over the text as it stands? First century (or even second!) beats twentieth any day.
Leo, it isn't working. Just give it up.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Not 'out of thin air' at all but you don't want pages and pages of commentary and you probably wouldn't accept it anyway.
If commentators and mainline denominations reckon that chapter to be dodgy, that is good enough for me and I still think that Lewis's mad, bad or God thing rests on a fundamental lack of knowledge of biblical scholarship - after all, it wasn't his field.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Leo, go off please and get some education in all these areas you are so blithely dismissing. Then maybe the rest of us will be able to communicate with you. It's hard to even know where to start when you waffle on about mainline denoms to a member of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, and about antisemitism to someone with immediate family who are Jews. I don't need eggsucking lessons, thank you very much.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Leo, go off please and get some education in all these areas you are so blithely dismissing. Then maybe the rest of us will be able to communicate with you. It's hard to even know where to start when you waffle on about mainline denoms to a member of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, and about antisemitism to someone with immediate family who are Jews. I don't need eggsucking lessons, thank you very much.
The Lutherans in Missouri don't have thast passage in their lectionary - unless they have recently reintroduced it.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Hmmmmmmmm,. Do I allow myself to get suckered back into this? What to do, what to do . . .
Nah. I'll go read Hebrew galley proofs. Much more fun.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I note how LC gives a very detailed list of problems with leo's post, and leo ignores all of it except two (of the more minor) points. Are you running for president by any chance?
Oh, and ignores a point by mdijon, too, that skewers one of his arguments:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My priest regularly forgives me my sins...
I don't think she does. I think she pronounces your sins to be forgiven by God, but I don't think she sees herself as doing the forgiving.
If she does, RUN.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Dyslexia Rules, KO!
Don't you mean, "Dyslexia Lures?"
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems to me to be the other way round - he dismissed what i said without engaging with it.
In the words of our Lord, "Go and do likewise..." ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems to me to be the other way round - he dismissed what i said without engaging with it.
She.
And she did begin by engaging before concluding her time would be best spent elsewhere.
I notice you only made it to the 2nd line of MT's post.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Lutherans in Missouri don't have thast passage in their lectionary - unless they have recently reintroduced it.
I'm probably wasting my time saying this, and prolonging a pointless tangent, but the LCMS have a helpful table on their website and in point of fact their lectionary does include Matt 23:34 - on St Stephen's Day. (The CofE schedules it that day too.)
There is life beyond the Principal Sunday Lectionary...
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Now I'm wondering if the word "I" is anti-Semitic, and if so what a reasonable alternative is.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elephenor:
I'm probably wasting my time saying this
Not in the sense that I think it worth knowing that that element of the argument was incorrect, so thanks for the research. But if you were hoping to get some acknowledgement from Leo regarding your skewering of that element of his argument then I'm afraid you probably are a bit hopeful.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I'd be surprised if Matthew 23 was considered particularly antisemitic. In my observation it is verses where the Jews are portrayed as declaring themselves responsible for the death of Jesus that have caused the most problems - particularly Matt 27:25. Whatever the purpose of the original writer of putting in that verse, there is a history of it being used as blood libel to justify pogroms.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Perhaps leo will pop along and tell us why that Matt 23 verse is antisemitic. And address some of the other responses to his claims so far. I'd certainly like to hear what he has to say on those issues, if only to see if he's really thought them through for himself. Shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and all that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Now I'm wondering if the word "I" is anti-Semitic, and if so what a reasonable alternative is.
איך
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
In Hebrew that appears to be the word for 'how', in aramaic 'like, similar to', in Yiddish the first person singular.
Remind me of why we're using words in Yiddish again..
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Well I thought it was funny. Quotes file level, IMO.
[ 07. September 2012, 11:32: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elephenor:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Lutherans in Missouri don't have thast passage in their lectionary - unless they have recently reintroduced it.
I'm probably wasting my time saying this, and prolonging a pointless tangent, but the LCMS have a helpful table on their website and in point of fact their lectionary does include Matt 23:34 - on St Stephen's Day. (The CofE schedules it that day too.)
Yes, the bit about people being killed, but not any more of the chapter except for the first few verses.
The Lutherans have done less work on antisemitism that, e.g. the RCC quote:
The Lutheran liturgists and the liturgists within the other Christian denominations who became interested in the Lectionary for Mass and in adopting it with modifications for their own use apparently had no concerns about the expanded use of defamatory anti-Jewish texts (twenty-three in the Lectionary for Mass compared to six in the "historic pericopes") either. In fact, the liturgists from my own Lutheran tradition added ten more viciously and blatantly anti-Jewish selections in the Lutheran three-year lectionary, as can be seen above.
This article from which the above is quoted, details all the passages that have been incliuded or excluded.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
