Reverend Ole is the pastor of the local Norwegian Lutheran Church in Rockford IL ,and Pastor Sven is the minister of the Swedish Covenant Church across the road. One day they were seen pounding a sign into the ground, that said:
DA END ISS NEAR!
TURN YERSELF AROUNT NOW
BAFOR IT'S TOO LATE!
As a car sped past them, the driver leaned out his window and yelled, "Leave me alone, you Skandihoovian religious nuts!" From the curve they heard screeching tires and a big splash.... Rev. Ole turns to Pastor Sven and asks, "Do ya tink maybe da sign should yust say, Bridge Out?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Link between the New Testament and the Torah?
Friday, April 25, 2008
This is my comment on a posting at http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/ (posting included)
Do you take the New Testament to be a modification or view correction of the Torah/Tawrat? At saying this I have never read the Torah (Jewish) or Tawrat (Muslim) or even works on either of them: although if I came across an English translation I probably would. What I am getting at is if the words of Jesus (in the New Testament) is taken as a modification to these, but not a complete replacement of, then a middle-ground/blind of the two types of thoughts could be said to exist (i.e., concrete and abstract).
Added comment: "Alex Marshall said... Hm... I'm assuming you're using Torah and Old Testament somewhat interchangeably. I would say that there is a huge degree of continuity between that and the New Testament. I see the New Covenant with Christ as an extension or "modification" (not a perfect word) of the Old. But in examining them in this light, it only makes the problem greater, in my understanding. The New Testament relies a lot on the concrete thinking of the Hebrews (all of its writers were Jewish with the possible exception of Luke). So while some Greek thought might be reflected in it, it seems the western reasoning we read it through so often may be very distant from the way of thinking its authors intended it to be read through." (as copied-and-pasted from http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/)
__________
http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Underlying Hermeneutical Question
We've been doing some pretty in-depth studies on baptism. It is quite interesting to realize that, contrary to the very prevalent protestant (and especially Baptist) ideas that prevail today, baptism is fairly closely linked to salvation in the New Testament. It is definitely linked to that in the writings of the apostolic fathers. Further, infant baptism is pretty prevalent in the early Christian writings and closely linked to circumcision.Obviously, there is a question of how to evaluate these things. Protestants today are very likely to overlook these things in the apostolic tradition or say they got it wrong (while ironically appealing to the same writers for the support of such essential doctrines as the canon and trinity).I think that beyond the level of questioning the authority of tradition, there is an underlying hermeneutical question that taints our interpretations of the biblical and historical data.If we examine ancient Hebrew thought, including at the time of Christ, we learn that they are very concrete thinkers. They don't look at things in terms of abstract concepts but much more rigid and concrete standards and symbols. They describe God in terms of analogies to concrete, everyday things, not in abstract concepts like omniscience that must be examined philosophically. Those abstract ideas are much more Greek.Interestingly, the reformation occurred right on the heals of the renaissance, when Greek thought reemerged in Europe. I think this new emphasis on Greek thought deeply influenced the reformers, and thus we see a shift to much more abstract theology. It is at this point in history that we see the emergence of thought opposed to infant baptism or to baptism as necessary to salvation.So, the question, it seems to me, is should we follow the hermeneutical ideas of the ancient Jews or should we take a more contemporary western thought pattern. If we follow an older hermeneutic, it seems we are very likely to find our doctrines re-embracing much of what was left behind in Catholicism because of its concrete symbolism. If we decide to follow the thinking of the reformers, we will find ourselves delving into much more philosophical areas of theology that lead to different sets of conclusions.I may be looking at that in a completely wrong manner. Being myself someone who is very interested in philosophy, I find certain things appealing about both sides of this discussion, leading to my seemingly constant desire to find the middle-ground. Any thoughts?
Posted by issues-issues at 11:39 AM
This is my comment on a posting at http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/ (posting included)
Do you take the New Testament to be a modification or view correction of the Torah/Tawrat? At saying this I have never read the Torah (Jewish) or Tawrat (Muslim) or even works on either of them: although if I came across an English translation I probably would. What I am getting at is if the words of Jesus (in the New Testament) is taken as a modification to these, but not a complete replacement of, then a middle-ground/blind of the two types of thoughts could be said to exist (i.e., concrete and abstract).
Added comment: "Alex Marshall said... Hm... I'm assuming you're using Torah and Old Testament somewhat interchangeably. I would say that there is a huge degree of continuity between that and the New Testament. I see the New Covenant with Christ as an extension or "modification" (not a perfect word) of the Old. But in examining them in this light, it only makes the problem greater, in my understanding. The New Testament relies a lot on the concrete thinking of the Hebrews (all of its writers were Jewish with the possible exception of Luke). So while some Greek thought might be reflected in it, it seems the western reasoning we read it through so often may be very distant from the way of thinking its authors intended it to be read through." (as copied-and-pasted from http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/)
__________
http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Underlying Hermeneutical Question
We've been doing some pretty in-depth studies on baptism. It is quite interesting to realize that, contrary to the very prevalent protestant (and especially Baptist) ideas that prevail today, baptism is fairly closely linked to salvation in the New Testament. It is definitely linked to that in the writings of the apostolic fathers. Further, infant baptism is pretty prevalent in the early Christian writings and closely linked to circumcision.Obviously, there is a question of how to evaluate these things. Protestants today are very likely to overlook these things in the apostolic tradition or say they got it wrong (while ironically appealing to the same writers for the support of such essential doctrines as the canon and trinity).I think that beyond the level of questioning the authority of tradition, there is an underlying hermeneutical question that taints our interpretations of the biblical and historical data.If we examine ancient Hebrew thought, including at the time of Christ, we learn that they are very concrete thinkers. They don't look at things in terms of abstract concepts but much more rigid and concrete standards and symbols. They describe God in terms of analogies to concrete, everyday things, not in abstract concepts like omniscience that must be examined philosophically. Those abstract ideas are much more Greek.Interestingly, the reformation occurred right on the heals of the renaissance, when Greek thought reemerged in Europe. I think this new emphasis on Greek thought deeply influenced the reformers, and thus we see a shift to much more abstract theology. It is at this point in history that we see the emergence of thought opposed to infant baptism or to baptism as necessary to salvation.So, the question, it seems to me, is should we follow the hermeneutical ideas of the ancient Jews or should we take a more contemporary western thought pattern. If we follow an older hermeneutic, it seems we are very likely to find our doctrines re-embracing much of what was left behind in Catholicism because of its concrete symbolism. If we decide to follow the thinking of the reformers, we will find ourselves delving into much more philosophical areas of theology that lead to different sets of conclusions.I may be looking at that in a completely wrong manner. Being myself someone who is very interested in philosophy, I find certain things appealing about both sides of this discussion, leading to my seemingly constant desire to find the middle-ground. Any thoughts?
Posted by issues-issues at 11:39 AM
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Thoughts on the Gospel of Mark (detailed outline)
Monday, April 7, 2008
Thoughts on the Gospel of Mark (detailed outline)
GOSPEL OF MARK
CHAPTER ONE
Baptism -- Water (John); Holy Spirit (God): Introduction of John and the forthcoming of Jesus (preparing for Jesus arrival). Jesus great ness over that of John’s (focus on the Devine over that of earthly-human). [1-9]
God speaks to Jesus: you are my son and I am pleased with you [10-11]. (Isn’t this what we all want to hear from our fathers?) [10-11]
Jesus tempted by Satan in the desert (40 days). Wild animals and angels. [12-13] (fully man and fully god complex)
John message of time to begin to repentance. [15]
Jesus calling on people and them leaving their fathers to follow Jesus (first introduction to that we need to be prepared to put the Devine above all else). [16-20]
Not allowing demons to speak as they know he is the Son of God. [34]
Jesus preaching, healing, and driving out the demons: trying to focus on teaching. Realizes people will not lesson to his teachings if they are worked-up: today you almost would say he was trying to get a low-key, but eventual loud mumble going (if he wasn’t God that is and if it was in modern times in politics)—nature of people (if a person is not to talk about something, they are going to). [21-45]
__________
CHAPTER TWO
First sign of persecutions to come for Jesus. Jesus forgiving a paralytic of sins (only God by law has this right). Jesus saying anyone should be able forgive (to forgive is divine, not just reserved for the divine). Paralytic walking, thus proving Jesus is God (they are unable to openly accuse Jesus for blasphemy, even through they would want to because he is a threat to their position/way of life). [1-12]
Analogy of Doctor and patients vs. Doctors and healthy. [15-17]
Analogy-foresight of fasting of what it will be like for us after Jesus’ death. [19-20]
Sabbath. Continuing theme against being too legalistic: “…they are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath…Then [Jesus] said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’” (translation: the Sabbath is meant to serve the needs of man, not man to serve the Sabbath) [24-27]
__________
CHAPTER THREE
The “appointment” of the twelve apostles [14]
“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand…If Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand” [22-26]
Again message of needing to be prepared to leave ones (earthly family), like Jesus, and joining the Christian family. [31-34]
__________
CHAPTER FOUR
Jesus as the one spreading the seed, word of God as seed, those lessening as the soil. [1-20]
Other parables illustrating the ways of heaven. [21-33]
__________
CHAPTER FIVE
Demons and pigs: symbolism of low status of pigs; possible the mercy of Jesus (demons not having physical form); animal instinct to kill themselves. Animals/pigs knowing/fear the evilness inside of them; speaks to the pigs/animals not having souls (no needed for the pigs to agree to the possession—not possible for animals to sin). [10-11]
__________
CHAPTER SIX
Jesus giving “authority over evil spirits” to the Twelve Apostles and instructions for there journey(s) ahead. [7-11]
Pre-runner of pilgrimages (people enjoy imitating those whom they look-up to and as away to show how devout they are). [8-11] I can almost see people going on pilgrimages and not bring anything with them to imitate the Apostles.
The biblical justification for (Christian) communions (people living together) – the breaking up the bread and fish. [39-44]
__________
CHAPTER SEVEN
· Cautions about hypocritical acts and legalism. [6-13]
· Jesus’ words possibly being used for trench warfare between religion differences: spiritual cleanliness; the difference between outward and inward cleanliness (and creating legalities to excuse behaviors). I can see how people could have used these words to label religions rather acts individuals to be unclean (i.e., fear mongering, religious politics). [14-15]
1. “What comes out of man is what makes him ’unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality…” [20-21]. First time sexual immorality is brought-up (gives no definition or examples of acts).
__________
CHAPTER EIGHT
Peter says Jesus is the “Christ” [29-39]
Jesus reveals the persecution he will now face. Peter “rebuke[s]” Jesus; Jesus “rebuked” Peter. [32-33]
__________
CHAPTER NINE
Power of prayer [29]
Protection and innocence of children [36-37]
Atonement for immoral deeds: cutting off ones hands, etc. being equaling/mending. [43-48]
__________
CHAPTER TEN
Definition of marriage between a male and female: “…and the two will become one flesh.’…Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” [8-9]
Marriage after divorce, definition as adultery: “…Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery” [10-12]
The importance distancing/separating oneself form material possessions: “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” [23]
Jesus’ assurance that faith will be rewarded: “…no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age…and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are the first will be last, and the last first” [29-31]
Start to show the faulty character(s) of the Apostles, they are human after all: “Then James and John, sons of Zebedee, came to him...Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory…Jesus said, “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with baptism I am baptized with?” “We can,’ they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink…but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” [37-40]
Faulty character: greed, vanity, worries, doubting their faith.
At this time the Apostles are probably thinking: things have been going quite well for us, everything considered. Son of God is here and we are under the protection of him. But he soon will not be walking among us, and those that wish to, and will, prosecute him [“…the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will raise”] will do the same to us. What assurances do we have? What in it for us? How do we know we should not be abandoning him before it is too late? It sounds like Jesus was trying to say, like an adult explaining to a child, ‘you may think you are ready, but you are not ready…’ I t could be argued that the true test of the Apostles faith occurs once Jesus had died. That no longer did they have the psychical of Jesus to bring about the compulsion to say, ‘this is the Son of God’ without out him physically being there doubt may take over. Could the reason that Jesus rose was to demonstrate that even after death he was the Son of God. This may have been especially true as they would confront people that would doubt Jesus’ words as they challenged their way of life (in terms of their moral conduct) as well as justification of rulers by religious laws. I will need to research this to see what evidence there is to support this claim of Jesus challenging or being perceived as a threat to power authorities. Certainly, it seems he was a threat in terms of priests, etc. positions that where based (there authority and thus there livelihood) on the pre-Jesus ways: i.e., if the priests where wrong would anyone lesson to them and thus goes their authority/power. Can the same be said of modern day Christian Churches: yes, what examples? History: grain mills (monopoly economy.
The other way this passage could be interrupted, and I think it has been used to raise the status of the Apostles. It could be interrupted as highlighting the devotion of the Apostles to Jesus, despite their naive ness of what they would be committing themselves to and their lack of skill (i.e., they have not been “prepared” for that roll). It could be interrupted as justification to raise their stature in the eyes of Christians above where their stature should be that they have/will “…drink the cup [Jesus drank] and be baptized with the baptism [Jesus got] baptized with…” Note: the passage states “we can” not ‘we have’. That is the Apostles state they can be in the same light as Jesus (while not being equal to him). I do not see why it should be taken literally to mean that they literally drank from the same cup as Jesus (drinking Jesus’ blood symbolism) or being baptized in the same waters or by the same person as Jesus, if this was the case.
Jealousy or revelry among the Apostles, “…When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, “…whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be the first must be slave of all.” [43-44] I can see the Apostles reveling among themselves to be Jesus favorite or making a pack that no one will be hirer than the rest so non of them lose stature, and Jesus saying (1) you must work for it, and (2) you must humble yourself not only before myself but also yourselves (people).
_________
CHAPTER ELEVEN
· “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you and your sins.” [24-27]
__________
CHAPTER TWELVE
· “…What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”[9] Analogy of what is happening to Jesus. Tenets are those persecuting Jesus. Tenets could also be interrupted as anyone that does not follow the word of God. Analogy could be associated with the fall from Grace.
__________
CHAPTER 13
· “…birth pains…”. End of the world associated with the renewing of righteous: earth being cleansed [ch. 13].
· Preamble keeping watch; we do not know when it will happen (possible after the “rooster crows”). [35]
__________
CHAPTER 14
· Judas Iscariot betrayal [10-11]
· Jesus revealing that he will be betrayed by one of the Twelve Apostles. [18-21]
· “…Take [the bread]; this is my body…Then he took the cup…This is my blood of the covenant…” [22-25]
· “You [as in all the Apostles] will fall away…Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not…Jesus answered, today—yes, yes tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times” [27-30]
· Jesus goes prays to for God to take the covenant away; when he returns to his Apostles they are all (including Simon/Peter) sleeping (even after he said to them “Stay here and keep watch”. [34-37] Is ‘here” earth? Jesus going to pray, returning and finding them a sleep happened three times [41].
· “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” [38] Culture affects of this passage such as whipping flesh, the flesh being a portal/threshold to sin, etc., which would be contradictory to 7: 20-21. Why did these cultural trends come about: was it to prove they could over come their animal nature and thus be worthy of salvation or was it to “keep watch” both literally and metaphorically?
Eluned Summers-Bremner in MacLean’s magazine states that resisting sleep in the Middle Ages was a trend (March 17, 2008: 18). That is a person (she cites the example of “Saints) that could go without sleep was thought that to have God actively influential in that person’s acts (18). Eluned made the conclusion that this culture trend was the result of the operation of monasteries in which the monks would begin their days at 3am chanting (18). She also said to some extent it was a practical reason that people would take turns staying-up such as to keep the fire going as it was the source of heat (18).
I now wonder what role 14: 34-38 played in this trend. How concerned were the people in the Middle Ages of the world coming to an end that they stayed-up all night “keeping watch”. Did they consider staying awake instructions from Jesus? Did they considered a cautionary note from Jesus that if they did not keep watch that perhaps that would be the time of the end or be caught by surprise? Did they believe that sleep was a time that they might be attacked by evil forces or be more easily seduced into temptation because of not being conscious to resist? What role did they believe praying had in resisting temptation and/or staying awake? Were they trying to improve their behavior beyond that of the Apostles (a Christian regret of sorts)?
· Peter denying his association with Jesus to “one of the servant girls of the high priest” twice (once when she asked alone, once when she called him on it when she was apart of a group) [66-68] and he denied his association with Jesus a third time when those around cursed him [71], thus disowning Jesus three times: “…Immediately the rooster crowed the second time…” [72]
__________
CHAPTER 15
· Jesus and the Pilate: the release of Barabbas (at the Feast) from prison because of the actions of the chief priests [6-9].
· Jesus crucifixion [25-39]
__________
CHAPTER 16
· Jesus rose after the Sabbath [1-8]
Posted by issues-issues at 3:14 AM
Thoughts on the Gospel of Mark (detailed outline)
GOSPEL OF MARK
CHAPTER ONE
Baptism -- Water (John); Holy Spirit (God): Introduction of John and the forthcoming of Jesus (preparing for Jesus arrival). Jesus great ness over that of John’s (focus on the Devine over that of earthly-human). [1-9]
God speaks to Jesus: you are my son and I am pleased with you [10-11]. (Isn’t this what we all want to hear from our fathers?) [10-11]
Jesus tempted by Satan in the desert (40 days). Wild animals and angels. [12-13] (fully man and fully god complex)
John message of time to begin to repentance. [15]
Jesus calling on people and them leaving their fathers to follow Jesus (first introduction to that we need to be prepared to put the Devine above all else). [16-20]
Not allowing demons to speak as they know he is the Son of God. [34]
Jesus preaching, healing, and driving out the demons: trying to focus on teaching. Realizes people will not lesson to his teachings if they are worked-up: today you almost would say he was trying to get a low-key, but eventual loud mumble going (if he wasn’t God that is and if it was in modern times in politics)—nature of people (if a person is not to talk about something, they are going to). [21-45]
__________
CHAPTER TWO
First sign of persecutions to come for Jesus. Jesus forgiving a paralytic of sins (only God by law has this right). Jesus saying anyone should be able forgive (to forgive is divine, not just reserved for the divine). Paralytic walking, thus proving Jesus is God (they are unable to openly accuse Jesus for blasphemy, even through they would want to because he is a threat to their position/way of life). [1-12]
Analogy of Doctor and patients vs. Doctors and healthy. [15-17]
Analogy-foresight of fasting of what it will be like for us after Jesus’ death. [19-20]
Sabbath. Continuing theme against being too legalistic: “…they are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath…Then [Jesus] said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’” (translation: the Sabbath is meant to serve the needs of man, not man to serve the Sabbath) [24-27]
__________
CHAPTER THREE
The “appointment” of the twelve apostles [14]
“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand…If Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand” [22-26]
Again message of needing to be prepared to leave ones (earthly family), like Jesus, and joining the Christian family. [31-34]
__________
CHAPTER FOUR
Jesus as the one spreading the seed, word of God as seed, those lessening as the soil. [1-20]
Other parables illustrating the ways of heaven. [21-33]
__________
CHAPTER FIVE
Demons and pigs: symbolism of low status of pigs; possible the mercy of Jesus (demons not having physical form); animal instinct to kill themselves. Animals/pigs knowing/fear the evilness inside of them; speaks to the pigs/animals not having souls (no needed for the pigs to agree to the possession—not possible for animals to sin). [10-11]
__________
CHAPTER SIX
Jesus giving “authority over evil spirits” to the Twelve Apostles and instructions for there journey(s) ahead. [7-11]
Pre-runner of pilgrimages (people enjoy imitating those whom they look-up to and as away to show how devout they are). [8-11] I can almost see people going on pilgrimages and not bring anything with them to imitate the Apostles.
The biblical justification for (Christian) communions (people living together) – the breaking up the bread and fish. [39-44]
__________
CHAPTER SEVEN
· Cautions about hypocritical acts and legalism. [6-13]
· Jesus’ words possibly being used for trench warfare between religion differences: spiritual cleanliness; the difference between outward and inward cleanliness (and creating legalities to excuse behaviors). I can see how people could have used these words to label religions rather acts individuals to be unclean (i.e., fear mongering, religious politics). [14-15]
1. “What comes out of man is what makes him ’unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality…” [20-21]. First time sexual immorality is brought-up (gives no definition or examples of acts).
__________
CHAPTER EIGHT
Peter says Jesus is the “Christ” [29-39]
Jesus reveals the persecution he will now face. Peter “rebuke[s]” Jesus; Jesus “rebuked” Peter. [32-33]
__________
CHAPTER NINE
Power of prayer [29]
Protection and innocence of children [36-37]
Atonement for immoral deeds: cutting off ones hands, etc. being equaling/mending. [43-48]
__________
CHAPTER TEN
Definition of marriage between a male and female: “…and the two will become one flesh.’…Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” [8-9]
Marriage after divorce, definition as adultery: “…Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery” [10-12]
The importance distancing/separating oneself form material possessions: “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” [23]
Jesus’ assurance that faith will be rewarded: “…no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age…and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are the first will be last, and the last first” [29-31]
Start to show the faulty character(s) of the Apostles, they are human after all: “Then James and John, sons of Zebedee, came to him...Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory…Jesus said, “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with baptism I am baptized with?” “We can,’ they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink…but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” [37-40]
Faulty character: greed, vanity, worries, doubting their faith.
At this time the Apostles are probably thinking: things have been going quite well for us, everything considered. Son of God is here and we are under the protection of him. But he soon will not be walking among us, and those that wish to, and will, prosecute him [“…the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will raise”] will do the same to us. What assurances do we have? What in it for us? How do we know we should not be abandoning him before it is too late? It sounds like Jesus was trying to say, like an adult explaining to a child, ‘you may think you are ready, but you are not ready…’ I t could be argued that the true test of the Apostles faith occurs once Jesus had died. That no longer did they have the psychical of Jesus to bring about the compulsion to say, ‘this is the Son of God’ without out him physically being there doubt may take over. Could the reason that Jesus rose was to demonstrate that even after death he was the Son of God. This may have been especially true as they would confront people that would doubt Jesus’ words as they challenged their way of life (in terms of their moral conduct) as well as justification of rulers by religious laws. I will need to research this to see what evidence there is to support this claim of Jesus challenging or being perceived as a threat to power authorities. Certainly, it seems he was a threat in terms of priests, etc. positions that where based (there authority and thus there livelihood) on the pre-Jesus ways: i.e., if the priests where wrong would anyone lesson to them and thus goes their authority/power. Can the same be said of modern day Christian Churches: yes, what examples? History: grain mills (monopoly economy.
The other way this passage could be interrupted, and I think it has been used to raise the status of the Apostles. It could be interrupted as highlighting the devotion of the Apostles to Jesus, despite their naive ness of what they would be committing themselves to and their lack of skill (i.e., they have not been “prepared” for that roll). It could be interrupted as justification to raise their stature in the eyes of Christians above where their stature should be that they have/will “…drink the cup [Jesus drank] and be baptized with the baptism [Jesus got] baptized with…” Note: the passage states “we can” not ‘we have’. That is the Apostles state they can be in the same light as Jesus (while not being equal to him). I do not see why it should be taken literally to mean that they literally drank from the same cup as Jesus (drinking Jesus’ blood symbolism) or being baptized in the same waters or by the same person as Jesus, if this was the case.
Jealousy or revelry among the Apostles, “…When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, “…whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be the first must be slave of all.” [43-44] I can see the Apostles reveling among themselves to be Jesus favorite or making a pack that no one will be hirer than the rest so non of them lose stature, and Jesus saying (1) you must work for it, and (2) you must humble yourself not only before myself but also yourselves (people).
_________
CHAPTER ELEVEN
· “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you and your sins.” [24-27]
__________
CHAPTER TWELVE
· “…What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”[9] Analogy of what is happening to Jesus. Tenets are those persecuting Jesus. Tenets could also be interrupted as anyone that does not follow the word of God. Analogy could be associated with the fall from Grace.
__________
CHAPTER 13
· “…birth pains…”. End of the world associated with the renewing of righteous: earth being cleansed [ch. 13].
· Preamble keeping watch; we do not know when it will happen (possible after the “rooster crows”). [35]
__________
CHAPTER 14
· Judas Iscariot betrayal [10-11]
· Jesus revealing that he will be betrayed by one of the Twelve Apostles. [18-21]
· “…Take [the bread]; this is my body…Then he took the cup…This is my blood of the covenant…” [22-25]
· “You [as in all the Apostles] will fall away…Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not…Jesus answered, today—yes, yes tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times” [27-30]
· Jesus goes prays to for God to take the covenant away; when he returns to his Apostles they are all (including Simon/Peter) sleeping (even after he said to them “Stay here and keep watch”. [34-37] Is ‘here” earth? Jesus going to pray, returning and finding them a sleep happened three times [41].
· “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” [38] Culture affects of this passage such as whipping flesh, the flesh being a portal/threshold to sin, etc., which would be contradictory to 7: 20-21. Why did these cultural trends come about: was it to prove they could over come their animal nature and thus be worthy of salvation or was it to “keep watch” both literally and metaphorically?
Eluned Summers-Bremner in MacLean’s magazine states that resisting sleep in the Middle Ages was a trend (March 17, 2008: 18). That is a person (she cites the example of “Saints) that could go without sleep was thought that to have God actively influential in that person’s acts (18). Eluned made the conclusion that this culture trend was the result of the operation of monasteries in which the monks would begin their days at 3am chanting (18). She also said to some extent it was a practical reason that people would take turns staying-up such as to keep the fire going as it was the source of heat (18).
I now wonder what role 14: 34-38 played in this trend. How concerned were the people in the Middle Ages of the world coming to an end that they stayed-up all night “keeping watch”. Did they consider staying awake instructions from Jesus? Did they considered a cautionary note from Jesus that if they did not keep watch that perhaps that would be the time of the end or be caught by surprise? Did they believe that sleep was a time that they might be attacked by evil forces or be more easily seduced into temptation because of not being conscious to resist? What role did they believe praying had in resisting temptation and/or staying awake? Were they trying to improve their behavior beyond that of the Apostles (a Christian regret of sorts)?
· Peter denying his association with Jesus to “one of the servant girls of the high priest” twice (once when she asked alone, once when she called him on it when she was apart of a group) [66-68] and he denied his association with Jesus a third time when those around cursed him [71], thus disowning Jesus three times: “…Immediately the rooster crowed the second time…” [72]
__________
CHAPTER 15
· Jesus and the Pilate: the release of Barabbas (at the Feast) from prison because of the actions of the chief priests [6-9].
· Jesus crucifixion [25-39]
__________
CHAPTER 16
· Jesus rose after the Sabbath [1-8]
Posted by issues-issues at 3:14 AM
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Atheistic Perceptive on the Bible: A debate
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Atheistic Perceptive on the Bible: A debate
Abstract:
the bible was written at a point in time and the times have changed - can we not update our thinking a little? is the bible not malleable in any way? I think we touched on this in book club.
if you do start to modify and update the bible, does that become a slippery slope? our judicial system and our system of laws and norms come from the bible, so if you start to update it it really starts to get grey: what do you edit, improve or leave out?
if we were all to come to the realization that the bible - and all religious tomes - are simply works of fiction that were created to help guide us through our lives, and we were to try and re-develop our society without the bible's influence, what would come up with? for example, what if "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" had been left out of the bible? would we then have a society where infidelity and polygamy were the norm?
what is the opposite of religion? if we hadn't immersed ourselves in religion, what would have brought the collective masses together, and what would they have discussed? would we have been more reasonable and philosophical individuals?
http://breakthehabitsofliving.blogspot.com/
My response:
It depends if you reside on the side of the fence that states the Bible is the word of the Devine for all time and is unchangeable and within it there is consistency without contradiction, and it is up to us to understand/perceive this consistent, non-contradictory lessons. Or, if you reside on the side of the fence that says you need not to listen to the exact wording of the Bible (although you cannot act contrary to it), but instead listen/follow the Spirit of it lessons.
However, if you are a non-believer what right can you cite in wanting to update the Bible? As if you are truly a non-believer than your actions would not be based on Biblical lessons or, if you are going from the historical affect approach on society, then if you recognize the Bible affects then you should be able to resist those Biblical affects and as such what does it matter to you: as you are free to live and choose how to live your life (assuming we are indeed--more than less--a free-society and you can agree to live by society’s laws). Also, it could come across (possible unintentionally) that there is between the lines of your argument that non-believers should be able to assert control over the beliefs of believers (i.e., what behaviors are acceptable, etc.). Do not get me wrong I find it distasteful when people try to shove religion down the throats of others, but I find it equally distasteful when people try preventing others from practicing their faith(s).
I do not think updating the Bible would have much affect on our systems of justice—because while they are based on Christian teaching the systems of justice have long become their own masters. The question becomes on what grounds does a believer become justified in updating the Bible and how do believers know it is the will of God (i.e., what is being written, etc.).
From those I have spoken to they take serious thought whether or not there is a God. They often have doubts about the existences of God, and they are fully aware of the influence that culture has on religion (they also have trouble in reconciling that if people religion is based on people’s culture then how is it there is any true religion or purist of religion; as such, is it reasonable for them to think it is their religion or to practice any religion as none of them may have gotten it right enough give due respect to the Creator). They have difficulty of reconciling many faiths (if it is true that there is one God—especially if other religions are not willing to concede that those that believe in one God worship the same God just in a different way).
They have difficulty in reconciling the expectations of organized religion (or any group that requires a minimum amount of conformity) with their own personal internal beliefs (developed through how they were raised, their life experiences, etc.). Moreover, those belonging to organized religion often cannot freely comment on their doubts less risk being accused by others (both non-believers and believers) as being hypercritics and/or being non-devout. On top of this believers are thought by many non-believers as simpletons for their beliefs. If nothing else people should give believers respect for holding on to their convictions in the face of adversary.
Atheistic Perceptive on the Bible: A debate
Abstract:
the bible was written at a point in time and the times have changed - can we not update our thinking a little? is the bible not malleable in any way? I think we touched on this in book club.
if you do start to modify and update the bible, does that become a slippery slope? our judicial system and our system of laws and norms come from the bible, so if you start to update it it really starts to get grey: what do you edit, improve or leave out?
if we were all to come to the realization that the bible - and all religious tomes - are simply works of fiction that were created to help guide us through our lives, and we were to try and re-develop our society without the bible's influence, what would come up with? for example, what if "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" had been left out of the bible? would we then have a society where infidelity and polygamy were the norm?
what is the opposite of religion? if we hadn't immersed ourselves in religion, what would have brought the collective masses together, and what would they have discussed? would we have been more reasonable and philosophical individuals?
http://breakthehabitsofliving.blogspot.com/
My response:
It depends if you reside on the side of the fence that states the Bible is the word of the Devine for all time and is unchangeable and within it there is consistency without contradiction, and it is up to us to understand/perceive this consistent, non-contradictory lessons. Or, if you reside on the side of the fence that says you need not to listen to the exact wording of the Bible (although you cannot act contrary to it), but instead listen/follow the Spirit of it lessons.
However, if you are a non-believer what right can you cite in wanting to update the Bible? As if you are truly a non-believer than your actions would not be based on Biblical lessons or, if you are going from the historical affect approach on society, then if you recognize the Bible affects then you should be able to resist those Biblical affects and as such what does it matter to you: as you are free to live and choose how to live your life (assuming we are indeed--more than less--a free-society and you can agree to live by society’s laws). Also, it could come across (possible unintentionally) that there is between the lines of your argument that non-believers should be able to assert control over the beliefs of believers (i.e., what behaviors are acceptable, etc.). Do not get me wrong I find it distasteful when people try to shove religion down the throats of others, but I find it equally distasteful when people try preventing others from practicing their faith(s).
I do not think updating the Bible would have much affect on our systems of justice—because while they are based on Christian teaching the systems of justice have long become their own masters. The question becomes on what grounds does a believer become justified in updating the Bible and how do believers know it is the will of God (i.e., what is being written, etc.).
From those I have spoken to they take serious thought whether or not there is a God. They often have doubts about the existences of God, and they are fully aware of the influence that culture has on religion (they also have trouble in reconciling that if people religion is based on people’s culture then how is it there is any true religion or purist of religion; as such, is it reasonable for them to think it is their religion or to practice any religion as none of them may have gotten it right enough give due respect to the Creator). They have difficulty of reconciling many faiths (if it is true that there is one God—especially if other religions are not willing to concede that those that believe in one God worship the same God just in a different way).
They have difficulty in reconciling the expectations of organized religion (or any group that requires a minimum amount of conformity) with their own personal internal beliefs (developed through how they were raised, their life experiences, etc.). Moreover, those belonging to organized religion often cannot freely comment on their doubts less risk being accused by others (both non-believers and believers) as being hypercritics and/or being non-devout. On top of this believers are thought by many non-believers as simpletons for their beliefs. If nothing else people should give believers respect for holding on to their convictions in the face of adversary.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Genetic Screening
This post-comment is in response to what I read at http://www.carlonline.blogspot.com/
Despite the issue of whether or not we should be playing God with embryos (or at what point do we start playing God); I think an area of concern of mine is parents choosing embryos based on their own personal preferences and not what is in the best interest of the ‘child to be’.
A case could be made that just because the technology is there does not mean it should be used to its full extent. Perhaps a ‘list,’ for a lack of a better term, of disabilities that would not cause serious impairment to the quality of life should be made, and if a disability is on that ‘list’ then the implantation should be allowed with (and not to the exclusion of) normal embryos (to allow probability and fate to take it course): random selection of the approved embryos (including both normal and disability) could be used to decide which embryos are actually to be implanted. The question then becomes how to create such a list including realizing the quality of life of a child is partially based of the financial wealth of the child’s parent and the implementation practice of the list (i.e., taking into account whether or not a particular couple could afford a child with a disability).
Still another concern of mind with these screening practices (regardless if the aim is to assure or eliminate a genetic characteristic) is what occurs if a child, by perhaps a some small chance, does not turn out how the parents desire. Will the parents be allowed to put the child up for an adoption; do the parents’ financial obligations end with the adoption, etc.?
Another issue is if people are able creating children without genetic imperfections is the environmental variable (i.e., nature vs. nurture) enough to make things fair for those born without genetic screening: granted screening is one thing and creating imperfection (or genetic superiority) is another.
Despite the issue of whether or not we should be playing God with embryos (or at what point do we start playing God); I think an area of concern of mine is parents choosing embryos based on their own personal preferences and not what is in the best interest of the ‘child to be’.
A case could be made that just because the technology is there does not mean it should be used to its full extent. Perhaps a ‘list,’ for a lack of a better term, of disabilities that would not cause serious impairment to the quality of life should be made, and if a disability is on that ‘list’ then the implantation should be allowed with (and not to the exclusion of) normal embryos (to allow probability and fate to take it course): random selection of the approved embryos (including both normal and disability) could be used to decide which embryos are actually to be implanted. The question then becomes how to create such a list including realizing the quality of life of a child is partially based of the financial wealth of the child’s parent and the implementation practice of the list (i.e., taking into account whether or not a particular couple could afford a child with a disability).
Still another concern of mind with these screening practices (regardless if the aim is to assure or eliminate a genetic characteristic) is what occurs if a child, by perhaps a some small chance, does not turn out how the parents desire. Will the parents be allowed to put the child up for an adoption; do the parents’ financial obligations end with the adoption, etc.?
Another issue is if people are able creating children without genetic imperfections is the environmental variable (i.e., nature vs. nurture) enough to make things fair for those born without genetic screening: granted screening is one thing and creating imperfection (or genetic superiority) is another.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Topics: Theology and Evolution, and Faith
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Faith: What is it?
I am not sure why people have such difficulty with faith. By faith I mean trust without certainty, loosely speaking. To believe in something people it seems nowadays more than ever need evidence to justify that belief (or should I say our palates have become more refined/advanced in what we accept as evidence). I think this is the result of the advancement made in science and more particular the application of technology within science. People would like to think that because of the aforementioned advancement(s) that we are at a stage were if something exists then we should be able to prove it; as such, people are less likely to believe that something exists even through they have no evidence for it and refuse to settle until they have a scientific explanation for an event that at first glance seems to be unexplainable. This is no truer than the existence of God.
People seem to be determined that they need evidence to show God’s existence, rather than simply believe that God exists. This possibly is because as we have become more scientific the world has seemed to become less mystical and as such less is contributed to the Devine realm (as some other explanation is gained). This leads to either people questioning God’s existence or feeling the need for evidence for God’s existence: if those things that once were contributed to the Devine are now contributed to the scientific then what says there is a God at all. To say, before science (in particular its advancement) the evidence of God’s existence was in those things that where contributed to the Devine realm (i.e., there must be God as God was how we explained things). However, as science has not really been able to prove (or really disprove—even after considering the discredit of religious artifacts: just because an artifact is discredited does not necessary mean that God does not exist) God existence people have turned to other means to try to prove God’s existence.
People then turned to theology for evidence (or proof) of God existence, but quickly realized that theology is based on faith. Many have tried to combine theology and philosophy. By doing this partnership I believe they hope to replace those aspects of theology that are faith based with philosophy (usually of which basic root is that before believing something we should be certain/justified of it and if the belief is true we can/must be justified/certain of it). However, as I have said in pervious posts how can we prove God’s existence and as such how can we be absolutely be certain/justified in believing God’s exists. The problem is it is highly doubtful that we will every be able to absolutely prove God’s existence; thus, ultimately it boils down to not whether people are certain/justified in believing that God’s exists, but instead if people have trust without certainty that God exists (i.e., faith).
Posted by issues-issues at 11:36 PM 2 comments
Labels: religion
Wrestling Theology together with Evolution
"...Believing in both evolution and the soul requires you to accept one of the following views. Either the single-cell organisms in the evolutionary primordial soup had souls (this looks unattractive for obvious reasons), or there was some point in evolutionary history where the beings that are now humans started having souls. But what point was this, and more to the point, how can we make sense of this idea without it just being an arbitrary line to draw?..." http://www.carlonline.blogspot.com/
My Position:
-----The Main Argument-----
First, Quaking (to tell when ‘humans’ gain a souls), Second, it is up to God to decide when a species is, will, or can be evolved enough to have a soul (or should I say pre-determines). Whom says God did not pre-determine (or decided) when we where evolved enough to have souls. I think the question(s) are then (1) at what stage of evolution did God gave (or pre-determined) us to have a soul, and (2) in what sense do we mean evolution? It is in God’s right to have decided when we got souls, but was there a specific reason that we gained souls at a specific time in our biological development? Was it when our the physiology of our brains were well developed enough to understand consequences of sin, etc.?
-----More Arguing of My Position-----
After this the question of evolution becomes is evolution itself pre-determined by God (it must be if we wish to accept that we are the only creatures (biological) that have souls and will have souls)? Otherwise, how can the principle of theology that states we are the only creatures (biological) with souls be justified? I think this brings up another issue: does God take a passive (pre-determinism) or an active role in our existence of evolution (i.e., stopping other creatures from evolving to gain souls)? If evolution is pre-determined by God then does this mean God does not take an active role is our lives (or does pre-determinism only applies to evolution)? If evolution was pre-determine by God (and our science is correct) then what prevents other creatures from evolving to the same point we gained souls?
If this occurs why would God not give them souls as well? If God gave them souls then the principle of us being the only ones having souls is incorrect. Did God pre-determine evolution? If our scientific understanding of evolution is correct an other creatures could evolve to have souls (or replace us as the dominating species, especially if we as a species die-off) does this mean God is repressing evolution of other creatures or does the principle of us only having souls only in affect until our species dies off (i.e., Judgment Day, etc.)? If is God repressing evolution of other creatures so he does not give them souls or did he pre-determine that their evolution will not developed that far? Will God simply not give them souls if they evolve to the point where we gained them?
I suppose what I getting at is if pre-determinism evolution is stretched farther enough it could imply that either God does not have an active role in our lives or other creatures might evolve to the point they too can be given souls. We can defend this off only so far off by means of presumptions (as I have done): God will simply not give them souls or God pre-determined that they will not developed so far. However, we really have no proof and we must base these presumptions on faith; that is, other creatures either will not evolve to the same point when we God souls, God will not give them souls if they do evolve to that point, or Judgment Day for our species will have already arrived (before the time they gain souls).
Faith: What is it?
I am not sure why people have such difficulty with faith. By faith I mean trust without certainty, loosely speaking. To believe in something people it seems nowadays more than ever need evidence to justify that belief (or should I say our palates have become more refined/advanced in what we accept as evidence). I think this is the result of the advancement made in science and more particular the application of technology within science. People would like to think that because of the aforementioned advancement(s) that we are at a stage were if something exists then we should be able to prove it; as such, people are less likely to believe that something exists even through they have no evidence for it and refuse to settle until they have a scientific explanation for an event that at first glance seems to be unexplainable. This is no truer than the existence of God.
People seem to be determined that they need evidence to show God’s existence, rather than simply believe that God exists. This possibly is because as we have become more scientific the world has seemed to become less mystical and as such less is contributed to the Devine realm (as some other explanation is gained). This leads to either people questioning God’s existence or feeling the need for evidence for God’s existence: if those things that once were contributed to the Devine are now contributed to the scientific then what says there is a God at all. To say, before science (in particular its advancement) the evidence of God’s existence was in those things that where contributed to the Devine realm (i.e., there must be God as God was how we explained things). However, as science has not really been able to prove (or really disprove—even after considering the discredit of religious artifacts: just because an artifact is discredited does not necessary mean that God does not exist) God existence people have turned to other means to try to prove God’s existence.
People then turned to theology for evidence (or proof) of God existence, but quickly realized that theology is based on faith. Many have tried to combine theology and philosophy. By doing this partnership I believe they hope to replace those aspects of theology that are faith based with philosophy (usually of which basic root is that before believing something we should be certain/justified of it and if the belief is true we can/must be justified/certain of it). However, as I have said in pervious posts how can we prove God’s existence and as such how can we be absolutely be certain/justified in believing God’s exists. The problem is it is highly doubtful that we will every be able to absolutely prove God’s existence; thus, ultimately it boils down to not whether people are certain/justified in believing that God’s exists, but instead if people have trust without certainty that God exists (i.e., faith).
Posted by issues-issues at 11:36 PM 2 comments
Labels: religion
Wrestling Theology together with Evolution
"...Believing in both evolution and the soul requires you to accept one of the following views. Either the single-cell organisms in the evolutionary primordial soup had souls (this looks unattractive for obvious reasons), or there was some point in evolutionary history where the beings that are now humans started having souls. But what point was this, and more to the point, how can we make sense of this idea without it just being an arbitrary line to draw?..." http://www.carlonline.blogspot.com/
My Position:
-----The Main Argument-----
First, Quaking (to tell when ‘humans’ gain a souls), Second, it is up to God to decide when a species is, will, or can be evolved enough to have a soul (or should I say pre-determines). Whom says God did not pre-determine (or decided) when we where evolved enough to have souls. I think the question(s) are then (1) at what stage of evolution did God gave (or pre-determined) us to have a soul, and (2) in what sense do we mean evolution? It is in God’s right to have decided when we got souls, but was there a specific reason that we gained souls at a specific time in our biological development? Was it when our the physiology of our brains were well developed enough to understand consequences of sin, etc.?
-----More Arguing of My Position-----
After this the question of evolution becomes is evolution itself pre-determined by God (it must be if we wish to accept that we are the only creatures (biological) that have souls and will have souls)? Otherwise, how can the principle of theology that states we are the only creatures (biological) with souls be justified? I think this brings up another issue: does God take a passive (pre-determinism) or an active role in our existence of evolution (i.e., stopping other creatures from evolving to gain souls)? If evolution is pre-determined by God then does this mean God does not take an active role is our lives (or does pre-determinism only applies to evolution)? If evolution was pre-determine by God (and our science is correct) then what prevents other creatures from evolving to the same point we gained souls?
If this occurs why would God not give them souls as well? If God gave them souls then the principle of us being the only ones having souls is incorrect. Did God pre-determine evolution? If our scientific understanding of evolution is correct an other creatures could evolve to have souls (or replace us as the dominating species, especially if we as a species die-off) does this mean God is repressing evolution of other creatures or does the principle of us only having souls only in affect until our species dies off (i.e., Judgment Day, etc.)? If is God repressing evolution of other creatures so he does not give them souls or did he pre-determine that their evolution will not developed that far? Will God simply not give them souls if they evolve to the point where we gained them?
I suppose what I getting at is if pre-determinism evolution is stretched farther enough it could imply that either God does not have an active role in our lives or other creatures might evolve to the point they too can be given souls. We can defend this off only so far off by means of presumptions (as I have done): God will simply not give them souls or God pre-determined that they will not developed so far. However, we really have no proof and we must base these presumptions on faith; that is, other creatures either will not evolve to the same point when we God souls, God will not give them souls if they do evolve to that point, or Judgment Day for our species will have already arrived (before the time they gain souls).
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Association between Government and Religion
I read a post on http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/ that was making the argument that Christianity and the American style of governance are “comparable” with one another, but unlike how some think they do not “inspire” each other. I found this argument very interesting as it reminded me that often governments and church’s develop agreements between each other to “justify and support” each other (as I said in the blog’s comment section). In return for the support of the church pronouncing the government as righteous (or following correct religious principles or practices that do not break church doctrine)--which gives support and stability to the government through the masses—the government in return gives legal sectioning to the church thus giving creditability to the religion (via people’s support for or views on the governments own creditability—granted this is the logic faults of guilt or innocence by association(s) as well as ad hoc reasoning) as well as often not taxing the church or taxing at a lower rate or by financially contributing to the church’s projects through various charitable and culture funding projects. It is especially helpful to the government when the churches’ of its country support their military conquests or at least ‘forgive’ or rule acceptable the actions of their soldiers as part of their duty to their country.
Monday, February 4, 2008
'fully man' and 'fully god' (continue #2)
I have been thinking of the 'fully god 'and 'fully man' issue a little more. It seems to me that if one considers the union as combining the two together in one flesh without either of the two losing any part of them then it could be said that there is not a contradiction.
If we begin by asking the question what is man (irrespective of sin) and what is God? Then we may see that there is no contradiction in saying that what is man and what is God being put in flesh together: to say the answers of the above questions? I think to most Christians this might find this acceptable as for them it has already occurred (i.e., Jesus). As I have said previously, part of theology rests on faith as trying to prove it (or disprove with actual evidence), especial physical, would be quite challenging to say the least. I thin some would go far to argue that we must also be careful of crossing the line between understanding the relationship between the 'fully man' and 'fully god' and being so conceited to think that our conception will determine the relationship between the two. In other words, we need to remember that Jesus was/is Jesus regardless of what we think the relationship is/was; the relationship does not change even if our conception of it does. Our job is to understand the relationship and not to determine it.
I think a remaining question would be is Jesus without sin because he is 'fully God' or is it because he rested temptation, but unlike any other human is not sinful? I think if the argument that the two exists in one flesh, but are separate then the answer to be consist would have to be the later (i.e., rested temptation despite being fully man).
This I think this might bring back the argument that if Jesus was 'fully God' then he had an advantage on the rest of us (i.e., knowing what was right and wrong, how to go about things in a rightful manner, etc.). With the response being that we too can have access to this knowledge through first Jesus (as it is through him that we find entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven and through him we are brought to God--the father).
If we begin by asking the question what is man (irrespective of sin) and what is God? Then we may see that there is no contradiction in saying that what is man and what is God being put in flesh together: to say the answers of the above questions? I think to most Christians this might find this acceptable as for them it has already occurred (i.e., Jesus). As I have said previously, part of theology rests on faith as trying to prove it (or disprove with actual evidence), especial physical, would be quite challenging to say the least. I thin some would go far to argue that we must also be careful of crossing the line between understanding the relationship between the 'fully man' and 'fully god' and being so conceited to think that our conception will determine the relationship between the two. In other words, we need to remember that Jesus was/is Jesus regardless of what we think the relationship is/was; the relationship does not change even if our conception of it does. Our job is to understand the relationship and not to determine it.
I think a remaining question would be is Jesus without sin because he is 'fully God' or is it because he rested temptation, but unlike any other human is not sinful? I think if the argument that the two exists in one flesh, but are separate then the answer to be consist would have to be the later (i.e., rested temptation despite being fully man).
This I think this might bring back the argument that if Jesus was 'fully God' then he had an advantage on the rest of us (i.e., knowing what was right and wrong, how to go about things in a rightful manner, etc.). With the response being that we too can have access to this knowledge through first Jesus (as it is through him that we find entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven and through him we are brought to God--the father).
Sunday, February 3, 2008
'fully man' and 'fully god' (continue)
I suppose the best way in philosophy terms I can explain “conceptually separate” is, for example, to keep them epistemology and metaphysically separate in how we think of them.
I think it is important to realize there is a 'first principle' (as I said in my original posting) in Christianity and that is Jesus was God: this principle either rests of faith alone or very little evidence. The theologians would point to Jesus rational when people accused him of driving out demons by being a demon himself: it simply does not make sense that demons would expel one another because it would defeat the purpose of what they are trying to do: "[25]Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined...[26]If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself..." (Matthew 12). This passage could be interpreted to show either one or two things that either Jesus is the Son of God (and as such God himself) or at the very least he is on the side of divinity (i.e., doing god's work).
Once the 'first principle' is accepted then the argument might go: [second principle] we know Jesus was man as well as god (and not god alone) because he humbled himself in front of God and was obedient to his heavenly father (it makes no sense, some may argue, that a God would humble himself in front of himself and be obedient to himself). The response could be simply why not, if they are equal to each other? Who says a God could/should not humble himself in front of himself? Who are we to question a God's practice? In Christianity, there seems to be a debate that some like to perpetrate of whom is more important/powerful/etc. Jesus or God: it seems to me that most church's response have been the God is above Jesus (because of the humbling and obedience of Jesus to God (the father) in importantance (for a lack of better phrasing), but they are both equal in stature.
If we accept these two principles then this leads to the third principle, that Jesus is fully god and fully man (or at least some combination of both--I think it would be difficult to argue that Jesus was more man then God so if you are going to argue anything else then it must be that Jesus was more God than man, which according to some would not simply make sense. Remember there has been thousands of years in how religion has made us culturally think of Jesus--this is not to say the 'not make sense' group is correct or incorrect it just to make the point of cultural and religious bias and the changes of them over time.
Once you accept that Jesus is ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ then the next step is to pick an approach that best causes understanding for us. I think it is to keep them conceptually separate (as I explain the meaning of at the start of this posting) so we can work with them in our minds to understand them.
If you are looking for a coherent concept of ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ do you mean linear? It would be my opinion that theology cannot be completely linear as components of it rest on faith alone (for example, Jesus was a God--try actually proving it with evidence, especially physical?) and faith is rarely linear or even logical. I am now wondering if this means if faith is incoherent.
I think it is important to realize there is a 'first principle' (as I said in my original posting) in Christianity and that is Jesus was God: this principle either rests of faith alone or very little evidence. The theologians would point to Jesus rational when people accused him of driving out demons by being a demon himself: it simply does not make sense that demons would expel one another because it would defeat the purpose of what they are trying to do: "[25]Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined...[26]If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself..." (Matthew 12). This passage could be interpreted to show either one or two things that either Jesus is the Son of God (and as such God himself) or at the very least he is on the side of divinity (i.e., doing god's work).
Once the 'first principle' is accepted then the argument might go: [second principle] we know Jesus was man as well as god (and not god alone) because he humbled himself in front of God and was obedient to his heavenly father (it makes no sense, some may argue, that a God would humble himself in front of himself and be obedient to himself). The response could be simply why not, if they are equal to each other? Who says a God could/should not humble himself in front of himself? Who are we to question a God's practice? In Christianity, there seems to be a debate that some like to perpetrate of whom is more important/powerful/etc. Jesus or God: it seems to me that most church's response have been the God is above Jesus (because of the humbling and obedience of Jesus to God (the father) in importantance (for a lack of better phrasing), but they are both equal in stature.
If we accept these two principles then this leads to the third principle, that Jesus is fully god and fully man (or at least some combination of both--I think it would be difficult to argue that Jesus was more man then God so if you are going to argue anything else then it must be that Jesus was more God than man, which according to some would not simply make sense. Remember there has been thousands of years in how religion has made us culturally think of Jesus--this is not to say the 'not make sense' group is correct or incorrect it just to make the point of cultural and religious bias and the changes of them over time.
Once you accept that Jesus is ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ then the next step is to pick an approach that best causes understanding for us. I think it is to keep them conceptually separate (as I explain the meaning of at the start of this posting) so we can work with them in our minds to understand them.
If you are looking for a coherent concept of ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ do you mean linear? It would be my opinion that theology cannot be completely linear as components of it rest on faith alone (for example, Jesus was a God--try actually proving it with evidence, especially physical?) and faith is rarely linear or even logical. I am now wondering if this means if faith is incoherent.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
fully man and fully god
I think maybe a way that people can handle the "fully man” and "fully god" thing is to keep them conceptually separate. I am not sure if people would be just willing to do this or if they need a reason for doing so. If they do not need a reason then it works fine; if they do then a reason needs to be come up with.
On a theological said of things, I think a reason could be that Jesus himself while realizing he was God humbled himself in front of God (his father). I think for the Christians this might do; for those coming from the atheistic said of things I think they might want something else which is not based on theology as well as they would say: why was it necessary or why would Jesus humble himself in front of God as this could be thought as Jesus humbling himself in front of himself.
The response from the Christians would be either you do not understand our perceptive/understanding of the make-up and nature of the trinity (in it components or its whole) or that was part of what made Jesus so great and it is the goal of Christians to focus on God and the Kingdom of Heaven and not earthly issues (as Jesus demonstrated i.e., ‘walking the walk,’ rather than just preaching which is the message behind ‘God sending his only Son to us’). The atheistic (I mean from an intellectual side of things) might say that was fine-and-dandy for Jesus to do as he is God and thus at no risk for damnation or that because of being God he knows without a doubt that God exists and he knows without a doubt what is expected to be done and how to rightfully go about achieving it.
This leads us to the issue of whether or not Jesus was fully God and fully man (a circular issue). I think the Christians would respond by saying Jesus is shown to be fully man and fully God because he was faced by the same temptation in human form as rest of us (that he is God is an untouchable/should not be touched first principle of faith): I think this open the question of that if Jesus fell for temptation (such as that by Satan and offering the world) would he have faced damnation like the rest of us. I think the response would be it is not in the nature of Jesus to fall for temptation (I think they would be forced to say this as to suggest that Jesus had a nature that might have permitted him to have fallen would be blasphemy); however, the response to this could be, in that case is it fair to say Jesus was ‘fully man’ if he did not have the same nature as us. The response to this would be Jesus was the type/nature of person that would have not chosen (i.e., Free-will) to fall for temptation but he could have if he wanted to: which brings us into a debate about what makes a person fall for temptation and more importantly what prevent someone (in both cases here more specifically Jesus) including questions down the line of what is Free-will? Some also might consider it blasphemy to consider Jesus not having Free-will.
The aesthetics would respond saying what about Jesus’ inside understand of God existence and what is expected and how to go about it? The Christians would explain the knowledge is ours through Jesus and/or the Bible. The aesthetics would respond what about uncertainty. The Christians would respond uncertainty does not exist through Jesus or the Bible it exists either through not understanding what is being taught (i.e., limited capacity) or things (or ourselves) blocking/distracting us from understanding i.e., temptations, sin, etc.
I think to break the circular issue we need to say theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy (to say that theology and philosophy are two very different things) should not meet. I think too many people conceive theology as the Philosophy of Religion (which it is not as Philosophy of religion is the application of principles of philosophy on religion or religious issues) or they conceive theology as Religious Philosophy (which it is not as to say ‘religious philosophy’ is to suggest that its base root is philosophy that in my understanding that philosophy has its own rules/way-of-doing-things which do not rely on religious principles or beliefs for its base).
In short, (1) we need to keep fully man and fully god conceptually separate to understand them (and have faith in reality the two exists together in symbiosis); and (2) that theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy cannot be reconciled together, paired respectively.
On a theological said of things, I think a reason could be that Jesus himself while realizing he was God humbled himself in front of God (his father). I think for the Christians this might do; for those coming from the atheistic said of things I think they might want something else which is not based on theology as well as they would say: why was it necessary or why would Jesus humble himself in front of God as this could be thought as Jesus humbling himself in front of himself.
The response from the Christians would be either you do not understand our perceptive/understanding of the make-up and nature of the trinity (in it components or its whole) or that was part of what made Jesus so great and it is the goal of Christians to focus on God and the Kingdom of Heaven and not earthly issues (as Jesus demonstrated i.e., ‘walking the walk,’ rather than just preaching which is the message behind ‘God sending his only Son to us’). The atheistic (I mean from an intellectual side of things) might say that was fine-and-dandy for Jesus to do as he is God and thus at no risk for damnation or that because of being God he knows without a doubt that God exists and he knows without a doubt what is expected to be done and how to rightfully go about achieving it.
This leads us to the issue of whether or not Jesus was fully God and fully man (a circular issue). I think the Christians would respond by saying Jesus is shown to be fully man and fully God because he was faced by the same temptation in human form as rest of us (that he is God is an untouchable/should not be touched first principle of faith): I think this open the question of that if Jesus fell for temptation (such as that by Satan and offering the world) would he have faced damnation like the rest of us. I think the response would be it is not in the nature of Jesus to fall for temptation (I think they would be forced to say this as to suggest that Jesus had a nature that might have permitted him to have fallen would be blasphemy); however, the response to this could be, in that case is it fair to say Jesus was ‘fully man’ if he did not have the same nature as us. The response to this would be Jesus was the type/nature of person that would have not chosen (i.e., Free-will) to fall for temptation but he could have if he wanted to: which brings us into a debate about what makes a person fall for temptation and more importantly what prevent someone (in both cases here more specifically Jesus) including questions down the line of what is Free-will? Some also might consider it blasphemy to consider Jesus not having Free-will.
The aesthetics would respond saying what about Jesus’ inside understand of God existence and what is expected and how to go about it? The Christians would explain the knowledge is ours through Jesus and/or the Bible. The aesthetics would respond what about uncertainty. The Christians would respond uncertainty does not exist through Jesus or the Bible it exists either through not understanding what is being taught (i.e., limited capacity) or things (or ourselves) blocking/distracting us from understanding i.e., temptations, sin, etc.
I think to break the circular issue we need to say theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy (to say that theology and philosophy are two very different things) should not meet. I think too many people conceive theology as the Philosophy of Religion (which it is not as Philosophy of religion is the application of principles of philosophy on religion or religious issues) or they conceive theology as Religious Philosophy (which it is not as to say ‘religious philosophy’ is to suggest that its base root is philosophy that in my understanding that philosophy has its own rules/way-of-doing-things which do not rely on religious principles or beliefs for its base).
In short, (1) we need to keep fully man and fully god conceptually separate to understand them (and have faith in reality the two exists together in symbiosis); and (2) that theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy cannot be reconciled together, paired respectively.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Luke 14:26 and Luke 14: 33
I have found it useful to sometimes focus on general principles rather than specific and then applying the specifics to the general. For example, if detachment is taken as to be able to leave this world behind to gain eternal life (whether or not in a Christian sense). That Luke 14: 26 speaks to more of that people should not be consumed with human companionship. Luke 14, 33 states ‘…any of you who does not give everything he has cannot be my disciple”. These taken together it would seem to me it is all about detachment (or in other words as much it may seem to be painful for us, to be in a sense cold towards earthy-fondness unless risk being coming to close to them). I must admit that I have become increasing wary that the meaning of the Biblical phrases have been changed either because of language translation or intentional linguistically interpretation, which brings me back to my original point that unless a person wants to devote his/her life to Biblical studies including learning ancient Greek and possible Arabic, etc. then the best approach is to focus on the general principles an applying the specifics to the general (and even at this, we may have to accept some contradictions and to do our best to live with them unless risk going insane trying to get all the ‘ducks in a row’). Another thing that needs to be considered is assuming that Biblical words have kept their meaning through translation and interpretation is the absolute wording of things: i.e., an all or nothing approach such as “everything,” so I must ask myself is that I use translation and interpretation (and thus the focus on generality) as an excuse or is it valid that we have lost something overtime through written changes?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Fears
Psalm 34, 4: I sought the LORD, and he answered me; he delivered me from my fears.
Matthew 10, 28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Outside the literal interpretation (of the devil) I read this to mean be weary of your actions, not because the physical consequences but rather the affects they have on your and others souls: because it is through individual persons that evil is done. Be weary of your actions by giving yourself and others respect.
Revelation 13, 16-18: [16] He also forced everyone…to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, [17] so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.
Hebrews 13, 5-6: [5]Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” [6]So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?”
Matthew 10, 28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Outside the literal interpretation (of the devil) I read this to mean be weary of your actions, not because the physical consequences but rather the affects they have on your and others souls: because it is through individual persons that evil is done. Be weary of your actions by giving yourself and others respect.
Revelation 13, 16-18: [16] He also forced everyone…to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, [17] so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.
Hebrews 13, 5-6: [5]Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” [6]So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?”
Monday, December 3, 2007
Luke 10, 10-11
[10] But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, [11] 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’
I take "...we wipe off against you" to mean not to hold things against each other or to judge others as this is not matter for people to engage in, rather it is God’s.
There is some debate about the origins of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke with some saying Luke is based on Mark and Matthew as well as there is a debate of whether Mark is based on Matthew or if Matthew is based on Mark. Type in “Mark’, “Matthew’, and/or “Luke’ into yahoo.com search and there will be a listing for Wikipedia on the first page for each one entered.
Some argue that the role of scholarship is to prove biblical teachings. I think the role of scholarship is to study biblical teachings and raise our spirits when there is evidence to support them and challenge our faith when there is not or when the evidence contends what we believe to be the case: after all if faith is not about being tested what is? Through this process our faith is strengthened as we face falsehoods or fears and conquering them by replacing them with truths. While learning truth may challenge our faith it will never destroy it as God exists and nothing can change this.
I take "...we wipe off against you" to mean not to hold things against each other or to judge others as this is not matter for people to engage in, rather it is God’s.
There is some debate about the origins of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke with some saying Luke is based on Mark and Matthew as well as there is a debate of whether Mark is based on Matthew or if Matthew is based on Mark. Type in “Mark’, “Matthew’, and/or “Luke’ into yahoo.com search and there will be a listing for Wikipedia on the first page for each one entered.
Some argue that the role of scholarship is to prove biblical teachings. I think the role of scholarship is to study biblical teachings and raise our spirits when there is evidence to support them and challenge our faith when there is not or when the evidence contends what we believe to be the case: after all if faith is not about being tested what is? Through this process our faith is strengthened as we face falsehoods or fears and conquering them by replacing them with truths. While learning truth may challenge our faith it will never destroy it as God exists and nothing can change this.
Excuses
Luke 14, 16:..."A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests...[18]But they all alike began to make excuses...[21]The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alley of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, and blind and lame.'...I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'
There are several points that I would like to bring up here: (1) those that refuse God's guidance will not be saved is the usual interpretation; (2) we cannot excuse our behavior from God is another standard interpretation: we can only ask for forgiveness; (3) that by making excuses in our personal daily lives we give up opportunities simply for no other reason than not considering our options; and (4) we have constructed social mechanisms that permit us to create polite social excuses that achieve nothing: as we try to deceive one another (yet we all know what each other is doing) and thus prevent humanity from becoming closer.
There are several points that I would like to bring up here: (1) those that refuse God's guidance will not be saved is the usual interpretation; (2) we cannot excuse our behavior from God is another standard interpretation: we can only ask for forgiveness; (3) that by making excuses in our personal daily lives we give up opportunities simply for no other reason than not considering our options; and (4) we have constructed social mechanisms that permit us to create polite social excuses that achieve nothing: as we try to deceive one another (yet we all know what each other is doing) and thus prevent humanity from becoming closer.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Salvation
Hebrews 10, 36: You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised...[39]But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
Mark 13, 5-13: "[13]...All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved".
It is with these two passages that we can know that what God has promised us is salvation.
Mark 13, 5-13: "[13]...All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved".
It is with these two passages that we can know that what God has promised us is salvation.
Mark 9, 33-34
[33]But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples he rebuked Peter. "Out of my sight, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in the mind the things of God, but the things of men." [34] Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me..."
I read "things of men" to mean concerns of death (to be more specific doubting there is an afterlife, because there is no God) and other earthy matters. I read “he must deny himself” to mean to serve God a person must putout of his mind desires and focus on “things of God” and not believe it is acceptable to give themselves leeway for failure (falling short in competition of task or not being completely devoted to the task or God) due to fault in character (i.e., that they should not focus on how the task will affect them, only on the competition of the task): serve God a person must be obedient and to be truly obedient a person must have humility. I read “take up his cross” to mean what I have just said, but to put emphasis on that it is not an easy path: to putout of a person’s own mind desires and focus on the wants of God. That focusing on “things of God” means the pursuit of eternal life (i.e., life in heaven) but only if a person commits his- or her- self to serving God for the purpose of serving God and not just to gain eternal life.
I read "things of men" to mean concerns of death (to be more specific doubting there is an afterlife, because there is no God) and other earthy matters. I read “he must deny himself” to mean to serve God a person must putout of his mind desires and focus on “things of God” and not believe it is acceptable to give themselves leeway for failure (falling short in competition of task or not being completely devoted to the task or God) due to fault in character (i.e., that they should not focus on how the task will affect them, only on the competition of the task): serve God a person must be obedient and to be truly obedient a person must have humility. I read “take up his cross” to mean what I have just said, but to put emphasis on that it is not an easy path: to putout of a person’s own mind desires and focus on the wants of God. That focusing on “things of God” means the pursuit of eternal life (i.e., life in heaven) but only if a person commits his- or her- self to serving God for the purpose of serving God and not just to gain eternal life.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Philosophy of Religion vs. Theology
What is Philosophy of Religion? Philosophy of Religion is the branch of philosophy that deals with questions related to the cultural element known as religion. It covers aspects such as the existence of god, how we know that god exists, etc. The questions that are asked are directed at religion in general or a specific religion but still in a general framework.
What is Theology? In any specific religion there are questions that arise related to its specific beliefs, values, rules of behavior, practices, principles, history, creation, etc. Theology is the method that a specific religion has to answer these questions. Characteristic of a specific religion’s theology is the theology’s commitment to the religion fundamental elements.
Theology of a specific religion is restricted in as much as it is not permitted to challenge these fundamental elements less risk disproving that which it is meant to defend and create support for. For this reason theology is restricted in it pursuit of truth: another way to look at it is to state that truth begins at these fundamental elements (i.e., first principles).
One thing that concerns me is the presents of those that claim to be religious but are unable to take part in their religion’s theology because they either do not know the method or they do not know the debated issues. This is also true for those that while do not proclaim to belong to any specific religion claim to belong a universal category such being Christian, etc. It concerns me because it may lead a claim that god does not exist.
It concerns me because if the members of a religion or a universal category do not know their theology then what prevents their religion from changing, and if this occurs when does it become a new religion. Furthermore, if a religion changes into a new religion then what defense can be put forth to argue that we know nothing of god(s) and if this happens why cannot an argument be put forth that we cannot be assured that god exist: that leads to an argument that because we cannot be assured that god exists then god does not exist as it would sound reasonable that if god exists then he would want us to know.
What is Theology? In any specific religion there are questions that arise related to its specific beliefs, values, rules of behavior, practices, principles, history, creation, etc. Theology is the method that a specific religion has to answer these questions. Characteristic of a specific religion’s theology is the theology’s commitment to the religion fundamental elements.
Theology of a specific religion is restricted in as much as it is not permitted to challenge these fundamental elements less risk disproving that which it is meant to defend and create support for. For this reason theology is restricted in it pursuit of truth: another way to look at it is to state that truth begins at these fundamental elements (i.e., first principles).
One thing that concerns me is the presents of those that claim to be religious but are unable to take part in their religion’s theology because they either do not know the method or they do not know the debated issues. This is also true for those that while do not proclaim to belong to any specific religion claim to belong a universal category such being Christian, etc. It concerns me because it may lead a claim that god does not exist.
It concerns me because if the members of a religion or a universal category do not know their theology then what prevents their religion from changing, and if this occurs when does it become a new religion. Furthermore, if a religion changes into a new religion then what defense can be put forth to argue that we know nothing of god(s) and if this happens why cannot an argument be put forth that we cannot be assured that god exist: that leads to an argument that because we cannot be assured that god exists then god does not exist as it would sound reasonable that if god exists then he would want us to know.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Adultery and Divorce
Sometimes it appears there are contradictions within the writing of the bible: for example the writing on Adultery and Divorce.
Matthew 5, 31: ‘ “ It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ [32] But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for martial unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery.’
This writing is often used to put the ownership on women for the success of marriage: that she will be the one to commit adultery if the marriage fails for another reason than (in this scenario) marital unfaithfulness.
Mark 10, 11: “…Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. [12] And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
How can the difference between the two writings be reconciled? (1) Matthew 5, 31 does not preclude the husband responsibility (after all it is he whom is responsible for her act of adultery—i.e., Adam and Eve: Adam being responsible for Eve after the fall) as well as it does not say that the male has not committed adultery through divorce (in other words it does not exclude an act of adultery of male because of him divorcing her). I also think that that Matthew 5, 31 can be read as saying for males to take responsibility for the success of a marriage (i.e. the attitude of you have made your bed now it is time to lye in it): it is the responsibility of males to take care of females spirituality protection—i.e., Adam and Eve—and the man would not be doing his duty if he divorces her because this would compromise her spirituality (i.e., if he divorces her). I also think that there is an underlying thought that divorce will lead to sexual relations between different people in other marriages. The bible says:
Matthew 5, 33: “ ‘Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ [34]But I tell you, Do not swear at all…Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”
Does this only apply to oaths in general or does this apply to marriages? Can we have unions not be based on oaths; instead being based on ‘Yes’ those together be faithful to each other?
Mark 10, 7: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and [8] the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. [9]Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate’
How can we know what God has joined together? Can there be difference between who God has planned us to be together and whom we marry? Is the joining by God is done, occurs, or represented by the sexual act or has it happen before are birth and we need to find that person or a person that we match with?
Matthew 5, 31: ‘ “ It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ [32] But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for martial unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery.’
This writing is often used to put the ownership on women for the success of marriage: that she will be the one to commit adultery if the marriage fails for another reason than (in this scenario) marital unfaithfulness.
Mark 10, 11: “…Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. [12] And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
How can the difference between the two writings be reconciled? (1) Matthew 5, 31 does not preclude the husband responsibility (after all it is he whom is responsible for her act of adultery—i.e., Adam and Eve: Adam being responsible for Eve after the fall) as well as it does not say that the male has not committed adultery through divorce (in other words it does not exclude an act of adultery of male because of him divorcing her). I also think that that Matthew 5, 31 can be read as saying for males to take responsibility for the success of a marriage (i.e. the attitude of you have made your bed now it is time to lye in it): it is the responsibility of males to take care of females spirituality protection—i.e., Adam and Eve—and the man would not be doing his duty if he divorces her because this would compromise her spirituality (i.e., if he divorces her). I also think that there is an underlying thought that divorce will lead to sexual relations between different people in other marriages. The bible says:
Matthew 5, 33: “ ‘Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ [34]But I tell you, Do not swear at all…Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”
Does this only apply to oaths in general or does this apply to marriages? Can we have unions not be based on oaths; instead being based on ‘Yes’ those together be faithful to each other?
Mark 10, 7: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and [8] the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. [9]Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate’
How can we know what God has joined together? Can there be difference between who God has planned us to be together and whom we marry? Is the joining by God is done, occurs, or represented by the sexual act or has it happen before are birth and we need to find that person or a person that we match with?
for those that would judge others
‘But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "if any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. [9] At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. [10] Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" [11] "No one, sir,' she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."’ (John 7:53-8:11)
[Italics added]
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. [2] For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Matthew 7: 1-2)
[Italics added]
I think the relevance of these two teachings is that they show us that we are not fit to judge as well as that we should not judge (not that we can judge if are measures are correct: we are unfit to have perfect measures): Matthew is a caution of about if we judge (there is no technical loop hole of judging because of us having correct measures--we do not have correct measures as we are not perfect. If Jesus would not condemn a sinner, then what makes us fit to do so: nothing?
I think it is also important to realize that only those that are not perfect are capable of sin; however, this does not mean that if someone is not perfect he/she will automatically sin. It does mean that only those whom are perfect should pass judgment. This is shown in Luke 18, 18-19 ‘[18]A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” [19]”Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone…”’ However, is there a difference between Luke and Matthew 19, 16-17, ‘‘‘[16] Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “[17] Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good…”’ I think it is clear based on the pervious on goings that it is the same situation that both are writing about: why is it a ‘man’ in Matthew and a ‘ruler’ in Luke and why is it ‘Good Teacher’ in Luke and ‘good thing’ in Matthew? Is it because of how they were translated? Did the disciples did not hear Jesus all the same way (i.e., they were paraphrasing)? Was it the editing effects of those that compiled the writings in the Bible?
I think that in Matthew 20, 20 when the ‘young man’ replied ‘ “[20]All these I have kept.”…”What do I still lack?” to Jesus statement of obeying the commandments ‘[21]Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”[22]When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.”’ I think this conversion brings-up several important points (1) we are not perfect, (2) we have options (and Jesus gives these to us), and (3) Jesus does not expect us to do everything by ourselves:‘[23]Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [24]Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [25] When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” [26] Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’”
[Italics added]
[Italics added]
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. [2] For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Matthew 7: 1-2)
[Italics added]
I think the relevance of these two teachings is that they show us that we are not fit to judge as well as that we should not judge (not that we can judge if are measures are correct: we are unfit to have perfect measures): Matthew is a caution of about if we judge (there is no technical loop hole of judging because of us having correct measures--we do not have correct measures as we are not perfect. If Jesus would not condemn a sinner, then what makes us fit to do so: nothing?
I think it is also important to realize that only those that are not perfect are capable of sin; however, this does not mean that if someone is not perfect he/she will automatically sin. It does mean that only those whom are perfect should pass judgment. This is shown in Luke 18, 18-19 ‘[18]A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” [19]”Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone…”’ However, is there a difference between Luke and Matthew 19, 16-17, ‘‘‘[16] Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “[17] Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good…”’ I think it is clear based on the pervious on goings that it is the same situation that both are writing about: why is it a ‘man’ in Matthew and a ‘ruler’ in Luke and why is it ‘Good Teacher’ in Luke and ‘good thing’ in Matthew? Is it because of how they were translated? Did the disciples did not hear Jesus all the same way (i.e., they were paraphrasing)? Was it the editing effects of those that compiled the writings in the Bible?
I think that in Matthew 20, 20 when the ‘young man’ replied ‘ “[20]All these I have kept.”…”What do I still lack?” to Jesus statement of obeying the commandments ‘[21]Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”[22]When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.”’ I think this conversion brings-up several important points (1) we are not perfect, (2) we have options (and Jesus gives these to us), and (3) Jesus does not expect us to do everything by ourselves:‘[23]Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [24]Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [25] When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” [26] Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’”
[Italics added]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
