Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 106 of 136 (664881)
06-06-2012 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Admin
06-06-2012 8:57 AM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Moderator Suggestion
So one way the disciples may have been experiencing cognitive dissonance was due to the contradiction between their belief in Jesus as Lord versus the reality that Jesus was dead. So they sought to explain away the death by explaining that Jesus wasn't really dead but had returned to life and then ascended to heaven to be by his Father's side.
Not to reply to Percy but rather to springboard off his comment, this is also what I understand PaulK to be saying. I would be greatful if he could at least confirm that. I have waning hope that it would matter to the discussion but the hope is still there.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Admin, posted 06-06-2012 8:57 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2012 12:50 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 107 of 136 (664898)
06-06-2012 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Jazzns
06-06-2012 10:24 AM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Moderator Suggestion
Yes, the dissonance is between Jesus being dead, and Jesus being the Messiah who would restore the kingdom of David and rule over it.
However I feel the need to stress that I do not believe that they were consciously making up ideas to solve the problem, and that I believe that genuine, although mundane, experiences helped persuade them that Jesus somehow still lived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Jazzns, posted 06-06-2012 10:24 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 06-06-2012 8:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 108 of 136 (664954)
06-06-2012 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by PaulK
06-06-2012 12:50 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Moderator Suggestion
Sorry to be slow responding but I’ve been away on a brief vacation. I’ll reply to all of the posts to me as I find time but for now I’ll just quickly address the question of cognitive dissonance.
IMHO cognitive dissonance makes no sense. In order for them to have experienced cognitive dissonance they would have required some previous idea of what it was they were describing. Jesus often referred to Himself as The Son of Man which He drew from Daniel and particularly Daniel 7. We then go to read in chap 10 and read about a Christ like figure.
quote:
4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, 5 I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude. 7 I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground. 10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling. 12 Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them.
This would have been the type of experience that we would expect if they were experiencing cognitive dissonance. There is no Gospel account of a face like lightning etc.
Then in Daniel 12 we read the following.
quote:
1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge." 5 Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. 6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?" 7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed." 8 I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, "My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?" 9 He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.
This describes the Jewish understanding of what resurrection would look like. We don’t see the disciples describing Jesus coming back shining like a star. In the revolt in 135AD Simon Bar Kosiba was given the name Bar Kokhba which meant son of the star as taken from Numbers 24:17. Any idea that the messiah would return after death would be understood in expansive writing that would include luminosity, stars etc.
Again, in the story of the transfiguration we have an account of Jesus whose face shone like the sun’ and His clothes turning white. Instead of that we have Jesus eating fish and being very physical.
I cannot see any evidence that an experience of cognitive dissonance that would lead them to the experiences that they describe. They would have had no anticipation expectation or even hope that Jesus would be resurrected in the manner that they describe. I just do not see cognitive dissonance as being at all plausible.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2012 12:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2012 1:33 AM GDR has replied
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2012 9:23 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 109 of 136 (665012)
06-07-2012 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by GDR
06-06-2012 8:36 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Moderator Suggestion
quote:
IMHO cognitive dissonance makes no sense. In order for them to have experienced cognitive dissonance they would have required some previous idea of what it was they were describing.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me explain the idea very simply. The Disciples strongly believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he would fulfil the Messianic prophecies. But on the other hand Jesus had just been executed and the prophecies remained unfulfilled. They needed to find a way to deal with the facts that allowed them to retain their beliefs. The idea that Jesus was still alive in some sense and would return to fulfil the prophecies did that.
quote:
Jesus often referred to Himself as The Son of Man which He drew from Daniel and particularly Daniel 7. We then go to read in chap 10 and read about a Christ like figure.
Of course this is another problematic issue. The figure in Daniel 7 is described as "one like a Son of Man" - and by implication not even A Son of Man. "Son of Man" simply means "a human being".
quote:
This would have been the type of experience that we would expect if they were experiencing cognitive dissonance. There is no Gospel account of a face like lightning etc.
I don't know what you are talking about. I have NEVER suggested that any experiences were arrived at through cognitive dissonance, and to the best of my knowledge cognitive dissonance doesn't DO that. It simply encourages the acceptance of beliefs that resolve the contradiction.
quote:
This would have been the type of experience that we would expect if they were experiencing cognitive dissonance. There is no Gospel account of a face like lightning etc.
Of course I am suggesting that the post-resurrection appearances are elaborations of ordinary post-bereavement experiences, which explains them a good deal better.
quote:
Again, in the story of the transfiguration we have an account of Jesus whose face shone like the sun’ and His clothes turning white. Instead of that we have Jesus eating fish and being very physical.
And your point is ?
quote:
I cannot see any evidence that an experience of cognitive dissonance that would lead them to the experiences that they describe. They would have had no anticipation expectation or even hope that Jesus would be resurrected in the manner that they describe. I just do not see cognitive dissonance as being at all plausible.
OK, the idea that you made up makes no sense. Perhaps you would like to start addressing my position instead of beating up on a strawman ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 06-06-2012 8:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 06-07-2012 2:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 110 of 136 (665062)
06-07-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
06-07-2012 1:33 AM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Moderator Suggestion
PaulK writes:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me explain the idea very simply. The Disciples strongly believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he would fulfil the Messianic prophecies. But on the other hand Jesus had just been executed and the prophecies remained unfulfilled. They needed to find a way to deal with the facts that allowed them to retain their beliefs. The idea that Jesus was still alive in some sense and would return to fulfil the prophecies did that.
Cognitive dissonance is more than that. It isn't just finding a way to keep the movement going. It is about them actually believing something that is born out of a desire for it to be true, but is in contravention of the facts. The point is though, that if this were the case they would at the very least come up with something that would be consistent with existing scriptures or something that they would have in some way anticipated. There was no thought that anyone would be resurrected in the manner that they describe. I quoted Daniel 7 because Jesus often did particularly in calling Himself "Son of Man". They would come up with something like the transfiguration but they would have no reason to come up with the resurrection stories that are in the NT.
PaulK writes:
Of course this is another problematic issue. The figure in Daniel 7 is described as "one like a Son of Man" - and by implication not even A Son of Man. "Son of Man" simply means "a human being".
It is more than that. This is from Daniel 7.
quote:
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
The "son of man" may well be human but he is also anointed by God.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2012 1:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2012 3:18 PM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 111 of 136 (665064)
06-07-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by GDR
06-07-2012 2:48 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance
quote:
Cognitive dissonance is more than that. It isn't just finding a way to keep the movement going. It is about them actually believing something that is born out of a desire for it to be true, but is in contravention of the facts.
I don't believe that it HAS to be in contravention of the facts - indeed, it's important that they don't KNOW it to be in contravention to the facts. Aside from that, you're just agreeing with me.
quote:
The point is though, that if this were the case they would at the very least come up with something that would be consistent with existing scriptures or something that they would have in some way anticipated. There was no thought that anyone would be resurrected in the manner that they describe. I quoted Daniel 7 because Jesus often did particularly in calling Himself "Son of Man". They would come up with something like the transfiguration but they would have no reason to come up with the resurrection stories that are in the NT.
If they were consciously making up stories, they might well have done that. But that isn't what cognitive dissonance is about - because if they were making up stories about experiences they had never had in reality, they would KNOW that they were false!
Also I'm NOT claiming that the appearance stories that we have were produced by the Disciples OR the product of cognitive dissonance. As I told you in the post that you are replying to!
When you can't even make valid objections to your own blatant strawman you've got real problems.
The only things that I attribute to cognitive dissonance is a willingness to believe that Jesus was somehow alive, based on normal post-bereavement experiences, and the concept of the Second Coming.
And again, I need to remind you of the point that even if Jesus did call himself "Son of Man" (which we can't know) he may have been simply emphasising his own humanity, rather than claiming to be an entity that is implicitly NOT a Son of Man.
quote:
The "son of man" may well be human but he is also anointed by God.
But Daniel 7 doesn't talk of "a son of man" - it talks of "one like a son of man". i.e. Daniel 7 only tells us that this being LOOKS human - and no more.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 06-07-2012 2:48 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 06-07-2012 7:56 PM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 112 of 136 (665096)
06-07-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Jazzns
06-03-2012 4:59 PM


Re: There is no deceit? Lets look shall we?
Jazzns writes:
But don't you agree that the interpretation of authorship and the resulting interpretation of content are linked? The reason you must interpret Paul the way you are seems to be because you are accepting genuine authorship first. Especially considering that you seem to be capable of looking past the apparent contradiction, it seems odd that you would be so defensive of original authorship. There are 7 "undisputed" epistles from which you can derive a lot of theology, rather good theology in my opinion.
I do happen to believe that Paul wrote Thessalonians 2 but I agree that it is an open question as to authorship though. I don’t think that I’m being defensive, as it is just a subject that came up that we were discussing and I gave my opinion.
Jazzns writes:
I happen to think that the world would have been a better place had Marcion won the debate. (I know Marcion accepted certain disputable works of Paul but the ones he rejected help a whole lot.)
If you really believe in the message of Paul, wouldn't you want that message to be the authentic one?
The point I am trying to make is, this seems to be common throughout modern Christianity. There is quite a bit of convoluted theology surrounding issues that more simply explained by the banal facts of how these books came to be.
I have to disagree with that. If Marcion had won his position the world would have become even more anti-semitic than it has been.
I see it this way. In spite of what Paul K says I believe that the evidence for the bodily resurrection Of Jesus makes far more sense than any of the other alternatives. I believe that the resurrection came as a complete surprise to His followers. Since that time theologians and scholars such as Paul have been piecing everything together to make sense of what it all meant. The material that they have were the memories of the disciples and any of His other followers, some of which would have been oral and some which would have been written down, thorough the Hebrew scriptures through which Jesus drew His own self understanding, and through God working through human imagination.
I see us currently in a period of a revival of human understanding of God working in and through us thanks to the proliferation of new material such as the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as access to so much through the internet. As I’ve said earlier I see N T Wright as being the leading scholar in this regard.
Jazzns writes:
You haven't shown that at all (more on that below where it is addressed) and I have not read anyone who agrees with you. It seem like quite a stretch to say that Paul in 1 Thes. is not talking about the return of Christ.
I read N T Wright’s commentary and he agrees. The end part of 1 Thes 4 is about Christ’s return in Jewish apocalyptic style. The first part of Chap 5 is about their current situation. The Roman propaganda was that the peace would hold without problems. Paul is saying that the Roman message is not to be trusted.
Essentially Paul seems to be bringing things together this way. He is talking about Christ coming again when all things will be put right. He then talks about the fact that there are turbulent times ahead but that that by remaining faithful they can be encouraged by the fact that in the end all is well.
Paul had started out the letter in 1:3 by saying We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. The whole letter is about encouraging their faith even in troubled times.
Jazzns writes:
So when he says he is talking about the coming kingdom of god, why don't you believe him? Why do you take him to mean something else just so that it harmonizes with other unrelated works that he is unlikely to have written?
I’m sorry but I’m not clear about your point here. I can’t see where I’m not believing Him. I certainly agree with Kingdom of God theology.
Jazzns writes:
I also asked you to support this claim and you haven't. Paul could not have been talking about the revolt in 2 Thes. because it was written after t he revolt. I haven't seen anything compelling from you to the effect that we should believe that Paul is talking about the revolt.
Well, if you are right and the letter was written after the revolt then my argument doesn’t hold water. I’m of the opinion that Paul did right it making it prior to the revolt.
Jazzns writes:
All he is saying is that it hasn't happen yet. Even if it is symbolic you have no evidence that he is talking about the revolt! This is a huge stretch.
I think I provided evidence that the term Day of the Lord is about God’s judgement which can be understood eschatologically, politically and militarily. Jesus preached against violent revolution and Paul’s letter is a continuation of that political theme.
Jazzns writes:
You are also ignoring what I said regarding what people were doing. We have notions that people WERE clai ming that the kingdom of god was present. People were already modernizing, twisting, making different excuses. "Paul" had reason to reassure them that the real kingdom of god, not some metaphor for current events, was still going to occur in the future.
Absolutely they believed that the Kingdom of God was present and that they were part of it. That Kingdom as established by Jesus would reach its fulfilment when Christ returned again.
Jazzns writes:
You are the one who making this more complicated that it needs to be and the big question for me is still why? To what ends? What does it gain you not to just follow the easy road. The way your going we have to accept not only that Paul is not talking plainly about the kingdom of god, but that what it really references is a revolt for which it is doubtful if that is even possible giving the timing of things.
I’m not clear on your point here. Hopefully my last paragraph clears it up.
Jazzns writes:
Except for that whole, "we who are alive" and back in Luke "this generation will not pass". People REALLY believed that Jesus would be returning in their lifetime. And THEY were not the ones misinterpreting things.
Firstly, I have no doubt that many followers of Christ at that time expected Jesus to return in their lifetimes. This group may have included Paul. I don’t know. There have always been people in all ages who have believed that, and as Jesus had been with them so recently the people of that era would have been more likely to anticipate that than people are today.
However here is the passage from Luke 21.
quote:
20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25 "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Mancoming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." 29 He told them this parable:"Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 34 "Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. 35 For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man." 37 Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, 38 and all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple.
Look at the first verse(20) in the quote. It is talking about Roman soldiers. Look at verse 21. If this was about Christ’s return what would be the point of fleeing to the mountains. Look at verse 23. If it is about the end of the age why would anyone be in distress whether they are pregnant or not? Look at 24. It is obviously about the fall of Jerusalem. Look at 25 — 26. This is Jewish apocalyptic writing
Turbulent upheaval when taken with the earlier verses would be the destruction of Jerusalem.
With that backdrop let’s look at verse 27 and then at the same time look at Daniel 7 vs 13-14.
quote:
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Luke is obviously referring back to this passage in Daniel. In Daniel’s vsion which is taken from a heavenly perspective we see the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days’. It is not about Him coming to the Earth.
The point Luke, (Jesus), is making is that this. All along Jesus is telling them that violent revolution is going to lead to the destruction of Jerusalem. (The earlier verses in Daniel 7:1-8 were about the great beasts which represented the nations that brutalized the Israelis, which is consistent with this understanding of Luke.) I’m not even suggesting that He knew this from being able to look into the future. He is saying though that if they keep it up the Romans will do what they always do. Now Jesus is saying that when they see that happen then His message will have been vindicated and that they will then be able to know that His political message was correct and that they will understand that Daniel’s vision will have been fulfilled, including His Kingdom as told in verse 14 in the quote from Daniel 7.
In verse 28 we can see that then they will know that their redemption is assured and so they should lift up their heads. In verses 29-31 He is just saying that there will be better times ahead after the time of destruction as He will have established His Kingdom and that it is near to them.
Now in verse 32 Jesus is saying that this will all happen within a generation which it did in the war of 66-70AD.
Jazzns writes:
Not all of the issues of authenticity rest on the conflict over parousia. Admittedly this is the least clear cut of the disputed epistles but there are other issues such as the more advanced Christology, the apocalyptic nature, and differences in style in 2 Thes.
I agree that there is a harsher tone to Thes 2 and that is an argument that supports your position.
Jazzns writes:
I am willing to go down that path but I think you are missing the point which is that Paul in 2 Thes. has direct cause to refer to the kingdom of god in its literal sense. Thats the point I am trying to make. Your argument that it must be a metaphor for current events rests on this notion that Paul can't possibly be talking about parousia.
I may not have made my position clear. The Kingdom of God had already been established either by Jesus prior to the crucifixion or at the time of Pentecost. I don’t see the Kingdom of God as being anything but real and not a metaphor.
Jazzns writes:
I can't keep straight which epistle you think is referring to the revolt. In this case you seem to be saying that 1 Thes. is also referring to the revolt and not the return. Is that true?
In 1 Thes 4 Paul is writing about Christ’s return in Jewish apocalyptic style, (not to be understood literally) and in chap 5 he is talking about social turmoil with the message that they should be comforted because in the end all will be well because of his message in chap 4.
Jazzns writes:
But Paul doesn't just use the phrase "the day of the lord". He also says:
quote:
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
The "day of the lord" clearly is "concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". It right there, in the same sen tence. I don't know how it is possible for you to be separating them in your head. And AGAIN, I don't see to what purpose you could possibly be served by doing so.
Firstly as I said earlier the Day of the Lord can’t be referring to Christ’s return as if it were there would be no need for a letter to tell them it had already occurred. I understand Paul’s point to be that he is referring back to again to the quote from Daniel 7 when Christ comes to the Ancient of Days and establishes the kingdom of which they are a part. Paul understanding that the rebellion and the results of it will be the vindication or proof of the message of love and peace that Jesus brought and so he does tie the two together.
Lets’ extend your quote from the NIV. (I don’t know what translation you used.)
quote:
1 Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10 He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. 11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.
Again, it is a message of encouragement so that when the great upheaval happens they will know that in spite of all that they can be assured that Daniel’s vision will have been fulfilled and that Jesus’ Kingdom has been established and that all will be well, so they should go on living lives that are holy and that they should, as Paul says, build each other up which is what he is trying to do with this letter.
My only purpose is to try and understand within context what the Thessalonians would have understood when they read this letter. Frankly I’m not trying to defend and particular position. I’m just like you, searching for truth in an ambiguous world.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Jazzns, posted 06-03-2012 4:59 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Jazzns, posted 06-08-2012 11:47 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 113 of 136 (665097)
06-07-2012 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by PaulK
06-07-2012 3:18 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance
PaulK writes:
I don't believe that it HAS to be in contravention of the facts - indeed, it's important that they don't KNOW it to be in contravention to the facts. Aside from that, you're just agreeing with me.
If it is based on fact it isn’t cognitive dissonance but of course it is important that they don’t know it contravenes the facts. I think we likely do agree on that.
PaulK writes:
If they were consciously making up stories, they might well have done that. But that isn't what cognitive dissonance is about - because if they were making up stories about experiences they had never had in reality, they would KNOW that they were false!
I agree
PaulK writes:
Also I'm NOT claiming that the appearance stories that we have were produced by the Disciples OR the product of cognitive dissonance. As I told you in the post that you are replying to!
OK. Here is what you said.
PaulK writes:
Of course I am suggesting that the post-resurrection appearances are elaborations of ordinary post-bereavement experiences, which explains them a good deal better.
So you are saying that they experienced some form of vision or hallucination of Jesus after the crucifixion. WE all know of people who believe rightly or wrongly that they have experienced the presence of loved ones after they have died. In this case we have groups of people experiencing a post-resurrection Jesus. Also, if this was the case it would only mean to them that Jesus had gone to be with the God and they would be reassured but they wouldn’t have called it a resurrection.
Even if you are right it sure seems to me that it would be a case of cognitive dissonance to get from that to a Jesus who they believe is physical and eats fish.
PaulK writes:
The only things that I attribute to cognitive dissonance is a willingness to believe that Jesus was somehow alive, based on normal post-bereavement experiences, and the concept of the Second Coming.
Which is the point I’m making.
I am saying though that in order for cognitive dissonance to occur there has to be some expectation of what it is that they have come to believe and in this case that expectation doesn’t exist.
PaulK writes:
But Daniel 7 doesn't talk of "a son of man" - it talks of "one like a son of man". i.e. Daniel 7 only tells us that this being LOOKS human - and no more.
You are splitting hairs. All of the Gospels use the term Son of Man repeatedly and if you go to Revelation you can see the term used as well. For example: Rev 14:14: I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2012 3:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2012 1:34 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 114 of 136 (665106)
06-08-2012 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by GDR
06-07-2012 7:56 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance
quote:
If it is based on fact it isn’t cognitive dissonance but of course it is important that they don’t know it contravenes the facts. I think we likely do agree on that.
"Based on facts" is rather too loose a phrase. There likely will be SOME basis for any belief produced by cognitive dissonance, the point is that the belief is accepted almost entirely because it resolves the cognitive dissonance - which requires only that the basis is quite inadequate to rationally support the conclusion.
quote:
So you are saying that they experienced some form of vision or hallucination of Jesus after the crucifixion.
Or saw him in dreams, or "felt his presence", or mistook people they saw for him. The story of Mary's encounter with Jesus in John 20:14-18 could be derived from an event of the latter sort.
quote:
Even if you are right it sure seems to me that it would be a case of cognitive dissonance to get from that to a Jesus who they believe is physical and eats fish.
Since the disciples aren't responsible for the final form of the stories that we have, their cognitive dissonance can't be the entire cause of that form. We have decades of elaboration - and in that particular case, perhaps even a desire to refute opposing ideas of a purely spiritual resurrection - to consider as well.
quote:
Which is the point I’m making.
I am saying though that in order for cognitive dissonance to occur there has to be some expectation of what it is that they have come to believe and in this case that expectation doesn’t exist.
I didn't mention any need for prior expectation and I don't believe that there is such a need and you haven't given me any reason to suppose that there is.
quote:
You are splitting hairs.
Wrong. I am making an important point. We don't know if Jesus actually did claim to be the supernatural entity appearing in Daniel 7 or not. The entity in Daniel 7 is not described as even a Son of Man while the phrase "son of man" just means "human being". Even if Jesus did use the phrase to refer to himself (and we can't even be certain of that) it's ambiguous enough that we would need to understand HOW he used it, which is tough when all we have is the translations of distant - and likely second hand - memories.
quote:
All of the Gospels use the term Son of Man repeatedly and if you go to Revelation you can see the term used as well. For example: Rev 14:14: I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.
Which only tells us of Christian usage of the phrase decades after Jesus died. That's not splitting hairs, that's an important consideration. You have GOT to remember that there is a a temporal distance - and almost certainly a significant theological distance - between the NT writings and Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 06-07-2012 7:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by GDR, posted 06-10-2012 12:44 AM PaulK has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 115 of 136 (665119)
06-08-2012 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by GDR
06-07-2012 7:26 PM


Re: There is no deceit? Lets look shall we?
I do happen to believe that Paul wrote Thessalonians 2 but I agree that it is an open question as to authorship though. I don't think that I'm being defensive, as it is just a subject that came up that we were discussing and I gave my opinion.
I didn't mean to say you are being defensive. I mean that it is more difficult for you to support a convoluted theology that accepts all of the works rather than the simpler (and better evidenced answer IMO) that some of the writings just don't belong. It might feel like you have it all worked out to you, but to me it looks quite a bit like an abstract mess with little remaining value as a faith.
My thinking in this vein comes from the last step in my own deconversion. I was looking for a core of legitimacy in which I could build a new faith. It seems like what you are doing is presenting a central abstraction of truth derived from the whole. You took a different path. I can't be to critical because despite confronting some of the same serious issues I did, you kept your faith and seem happy about it. I just can't go where you are because of the mental contortions I feel I have to make in order to do so.
I have to disagree with that. If Marcion had won his position the world would have become even more anti-semitic than it has been.
Its possible, but I still don't think it could have been any WORSE than what did result including rather virulent anti-semitism. To say that the murderous religious bigotry would have been slightly worse is not saying much.
My point was more geared toward speculating what Christianty may have been like without the pastorals, without the addition of 1 Corinthians 14:34, without Hebrews, without the gospel of John, without Revelations. You could build a rather egalitarian faith with the real Paul's branch of theology.
As an editing note, I am not responding to some stuff just to refocus because I believe that some of the core discussion points have been quote fragmented. Your points have been noted though.
You are also ignoring what I said regarding what people were doing. We have notions that people WERE claiming that the kingdom of god was present. People were already modernizing, twisting, making different excuses. "Paul" had reason to reassure them that the real kingdom of god, not some metaphor for current events, was still going to occur in the future.
Absolutely they believed that the 'Kingdom of God' was present and that they were part of it. That Kingdom as established by Jesus would reach its fulfilment when Christ returned again.
You missed my point. I am talking about the 2 Thes. writer's motivation for what he said, "to the effect that the day of the Lord has come." My point is that people really believed that this was it, that they were living in the "day of the lord". The writer's motivation is clear, his intention is to DISPELL them of that notion. The language is very plain. He says, "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed."
It seems really odd to have to nit-pick on this point but I think it is important because you are clearly presenting a different motivation for the letter that what is plainly read.
However here is the passage from Luke 21.
Your point about Luke is well taken. I'll only note that you agree that many Christians presumed that the second coming would be in their lifetime. Paul seem to be one of them and if he was, it goes to my point that he had cause to write to people about concerns reagarding the second coming.
A further point which I haven't thought of until now is why Paul and the Thessalonians, in terms of their theology, would be overly concerned with the Jewish revolt.
Overall, I still don't get the connection to the revolt. I think it is more correct and MUCH easier to interpret Paul as talking about parousia.
In 1 Thes 4 Paul is writing about Christ's return in Jewish apocalyptic style, (not to be understood literally) and in chap 5 he is talking about social turmoil with the message that they should be comforted because in the end all will be well because of his message in chap 4.
I simply disagree and having seen nothing to convince me that Paul is not talking about a literal "day of the lord." I understand your pulling that phrase from the OT and what it meant in that context but in THIS context, right after Paul just finished talking about issues of parousia regarding the already dead, to try to say that the "day of the lord" means anything other than Jesus' actual return is mind melting apologetics.
You cannot divorce chapter 4 from chapter 5. You are proposing such a sharp change in topic between them that I think anyone should be suspect. Furthermore, I go back to my overarching question, to what end? What do you gain by this convultion of interpretation OTHER THAN harmony with disputed text?
This next part of the discussion gets really weird for me and I think we very much need to clear this next bit up...
GDR writes:
Jazzns writes:
2 Thes. writes:
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
The "day of the lord" clearly is "concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". It right there, in the same sentence. I don't know how it is possible for you to be separating them in your head. And AGAIN, I don't see to what purpose you could possibly be served by doing so.
Firstly as I said earlier the 'Day of the Lord' can't be referring to Christ's return as if it were there would be no need for a letter to tell them it had already occurred..
He is not writing a letter to tell them it had already occurred! Somebody else did that! This letter is a rebuttal. He is writing a letter to make sure they know that it has NOT OCCURRED!
Lets break it down:

  • Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him - How is it possible for you to read this and say with a straigt face that it "can't be referring to Christ's return?" Its right there in his words!
  • we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us - Someone else was telling them stuff. Wrong stuff that would cause them to be upset, "alarmed", "shaken in mind".
  • to the effect that the day of the Lord has come - Someone else was saying that to them and "Paul" is writing THIS letter to correct that problem.
All of that is one complete thought. One sentence.
If you are right, what does, "concerning the coming of our Lord" refer to? Something else?
Lets' extend your quote from the NIV. (I don't know what translation you used.)
...
(quoting 1 Thes. 5)
The previous quote was from 2 Thes. and you're jumping back to 1 Thes... What gives? (by the way, I prefer ESV)
Again, it is a message of encouragement so that when the great upheaval happens they will know that in spite of all that they can be assured that Daniel's vision will have been fulfilled and that Jesus' Kingdom has been established and that all will be well, so they should go on living lives that are holy and that they should, as Paul says, 'build each other up' which is what he is trying to do with this letter.
And I am further confused in that you seem to be acknowledging that 1 Thes 5 here is talking about parousia.... Am I in the twilight zone? Did you not just a few words back go to great effort to connect 1 Thes. 5 to rather mundane "social turmoil".
My only purpose is to try and understand within context what the Thessalonians would have understood when they read this letter. Frankly I'm not trying to defend and particular position. I'm just like you, searching for truth in an ambiguous world.
I want to let you know that I value our discussion. I look forward to your replies eagerly because you make me think a lot harder than I do on my own. Frankly though GDR, your search for truth in an ambiguous world seems to be proceeding by first making the world unnecessarily more ambiguous.
I can guess why. Ambiguity is a great place to hide uncomfortable truths. If there can be doubt about a fact or a plain interpretation, then there is intellectual room to house this robust and inclusive discription of theology.
I don't think that way. Where there is an uncomfortable or uncertain truth I increase my skepticism. Discrepancy give cause to be critical, not more abstract.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by GDR, posted 06-07-2012 7:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by GDR, posted 06-09-2012 9:15 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 136 (665174)
06-09-2012 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by GDR
06-06-2012 8:36 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Moderator Suggestion
GDR writes:
Again, in the story of the transfiguration we have an account of Jesus whose face shone like the sun’ and His clothes turning white. Instead of that we have Jesus eating fish and being very physical.
I agree that there was no cognitave dissonance. They and the rest of the Jews saw only one aspect of what was prophesied about the coming messiah/christ. Had they read more carefully and corroborated, all of OT scriptures, relative to messiah/christ their lack of cognitative disonance would have been factored both the human and devine purpose of Jesus as suffering lamb and coming world ruler.
Scriptures such as Isaiah 53, etc, coupled with your citations of Daniel are what all Jews failed to understand. ,

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 06-06-2012 8:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 06-10-2012 1:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 117 of 136 (665186)
06-09-2012 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Jazzns
06-08-2012 11:47 AM


Understanding Christianity but not only by the Bible
Jazzns writes:
My thinking in this vein comes from the last step in my own deconversion. I was looking for a core of legitimacy in which I could b uild a new faith. It seems like what you are doing is presenting a central abstraction of truth derived from the whole. You took a different path. I can't be to critical because despite confronting some of the same serious issues I did, you kept your faith and seem happy about it. I just can't go where you are because of the mental contortions I feel I have to make in order to do so.
I accepted Christianity about 30 years ago largely based on the writings of C S Lewis. Having said that when I go back and read Lewis now I find so much more there than I did originally. In all honesty a great deal of it may just have been that someone with his intellect was a Christian and what he said generally was very plausible.
After that I went along as a Christian for many years in a general sense in roughly the same manner that I think most Christians do but about ten years ago I decided that I wanted to do more than just go along. I decided to figure out just what it was all about. It is so easy just to use Bible verses to give an explanation to everything without having to go beyond that.
In terms of the topic of this thread it was relatively easy just to ignore things that seemed odd or that were in conflict with other parts of the Bible. I never really believed that it was dictated by God but I certainly tried to understand it in somewhat that manner. Frankly just about all Christians I know do that and frankly when I look at their lives in general I don’t think that it is a bad route to go, but I had decided that I wanted more.
In addition to theology, I was also very interested in science, although I had absolutely no background in it. I started reading on the science side Hawking, Greene, Sagan and others. For Christian scholarship I went back to Lewis, and then N T Wright in particular, along with several others including Tim Keller. I read Dom Crossan and Marcus Borg, although where they are in conflict with Wright I found Wright’s views to be more compelling. In addition there were several authors, most notably John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins who combined their scientific knowledge with their Christian beliefs. For the last several years this forum has been very helpful in both fields as well.
With that as background I’ll try to stay on topic and summarize my current views.
To start with I’ll quote myself from the OP.
quote:
Firstly I contend that it is more plausible to believe that human intelligence and morality are more likely to have evolved from an intelligent moral first cause than from mindless particles without even considering the question of a first cause for the existence of particles.
On the assumption then that we have evolved from an intelligent moral first cause then it is more plausible to assume an ongoing interest and interaction by that pre-existing intelligence than not.
I can’t prove that position but I personally find it much more compelling than the idea that existence and sentient life are the result of an incredibly fortunate combining of atoms, in a very fortunate environment that is able to support such an existence.
I have come to believe that the Bible is written by a large body of men who have been inspired to write down their stories and their understanding of God. Much of what is written would have been drawn from their own experience, but likely a great deal more of it was drawn from either the oral tradition or from earlier written material. The fact that they were inspired does not make what they wrote inerrant but I believe that when taken in context of the entire narrative we can always learn from it and in many cases we can learn from it is a negative sense. (In other words where they talk about Yahweh condoning genocide or stoning we can look at the entire context of the much wider narrative and understand that this was not of God but came from the human condition of a lust for pride and power.)
I believe that what we have done for a variety of reasons, that has largely grown out of the reformation, is that we have allowed the Bible to become the focus of Christian worship, instead of understanding the Bible as one way of gaining an understanding of God and His character. As Christians we are called to be Jesus followers and by seeing Jesus as the anointed one through whom God revealed Himself to His creation. Of course our source for that is the Bible and IMHO there is the one essential in the story that is required so that the Bible is more than just history and the teachings of a 1st century teacher/philosopher/prophet. That essential is of course the resurrection. It isn’t that the resurrection proves Jesus’ divinity but it does vindicate His ministry. As is obvious from the discussion with PaulK there are different views on the truth of the resurrection and for that matter just what did resurrection mean to the authors. I found two books in particular very useful in this regard for seeing both sides of the issue. The first one was a debate between Marcus Borg and N T Wright and the second was a debate between Dominic Crossan and N T Wright. All three are renowned N T scholars who have come to different conclusions.
In the end I am firmly convinced of the fact that Jesus was bodily resurrected. The question then is, in light of that, how do we understand the Bible. As far as Jesus and the OT go I see it this way. Yes there prophesies in the OT in which we can understand as in a sense foretelling Jesus even though I don’t think that is how the original authors would have seen it. I believe that in most, if not all cases the authors were actually talking about Israel itself and its future with Yahweh as King. I believe that Jesus came to understand that He was standing in the place of Israel and that God would act through Him, through Israel, for the world. Being the ultimate lay person I hunted around until I found something by Wright that covers this and I think this essay from a web site devoted to him largely covers this.
JERUSALEM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Tom Wright. It is a bit of a read but worthwhile for anyone who is truly interested.
Then we also have to decide how it is that we are to understand the NT. I don’t believe that the N T authors are infallible either but I do believe that what they have written is a relatively accurate account of the events and teachings surrounding Jesus and that 3 year span of time. Once again, the essential part is the story is the resurrection. Without that then the Jesus stories are of no more importance than a collection of sayings by Mahatma Gandhi. Yes there are inconsistencies and there is disagreement, but when we look at the variety of views held by Christians today it would be very surprising to me that there wouldn’t be differences in the views and details of what we have written in the NT. Each writer would have their own personal and cultural influences along with their own understandings of what it all meant, and we are still trying to sort it all out today.
It is my view that we continue to gain knowledge and that it is in a sense a parallel or even a continuation of human evolution. I’ve mentioned this book before but I found the book by Robert Wright who calls himself a materialistic agnostic titled The Evolution of God interesting in this regard. IMHO we should form our theology by our own experiences, by the experience and wisdom of others, by the Scriptures and by science which I view as a natural theology. Our understanding and knowledge of God continues to evolve.
I have found that this understanding of the Scriptures, along with my Christian faith has given me a sense of the world that is highly consistent with my own life experience, human history and also with my very limited understanding of science and the natural world.
That is a very long answer to one short paragraph.
Jazzns writes:
My point was more geared toward speculating what Christianty may have been like without the pastorals, without the add ition of 1 Corinthians 14:34, without Hebrews, without the gospel of John, without Revelations. You could build a rather egalitarian faith with the real Paul's branch of theology.
I think that this just reinforces my point. If we read the Bible the way I believe that we should, and read those passages in context, then it is all meaningful.
Jazzns writes:
You missed my point. I am talking about the 2 Thes. writer's motivation for what he said, "to the effect that the day of the Lord has come." My point is that people really believed that this was it, that they were living in the "day of the lord". The writer's motivation is clear, his intention is to DISPELL them of that notion. The language is very plain. He says, "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed."
It seems really odd to have to nit-pick on this point but I think it is important because you are clearly presenting a different motivation for the letter that what is plainly read.
But what is plainly read by you today may very well be very different than what would have been plainly read by a 1st century Thessalonian.
Here is an excerpt from the talk/essay by N T Wright that I provided the link for earlier.
quote:
This understanding of Jesus’ message is confirmed as we turn to St. Paul and note his
clear awareness that the days of Jerusalem, as he knew it, were strictly numbered. This is how his conviction must be interpreted that the ‘day of the Lord’ was imminent. Contrary
to the thinking of both scholars and pietists of many backgrounds, Paul was not
envisaging the ‘Parousia’ as an event which had to take place in his lifetime, and which
would result in the ending of the space-time order. If that were so, how could he possibly
write in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 that the church should not be alarmed if they received a
letter saying that the ‘day of the Lord had come’? If Paul meant by ‘the day of the Lord’
the end of the space-time universe, the Thessalonians would presumably not need to be
informed of the fact via the Roman postal service! Instead, Paul here reflects the early
Christian tradition, going back to Jesus himself, according to which Jerusalem was to be
destroyed, and according to which that destruction was to be interpreted as the wrath of
God against his sinful people. In the same Thessalonian correspondence, Paul asserted
that the wrath of God had indeed come upon them ‘to the uttermost’ ( 1 Thess. 2:16.)
It is this awareness of an imminent end to the way the Jewish world had looked for
so long, rather than an imminent end to the space-time universe, that drove Paul on his
mission with such urgency. From his own point of view he lived in an odd interim
period: judgment had been passed on Jerusalem, but not yet executed. There was a
breathing space, a ‘little time’ in which people could repent, and in which the message
of Jesus could spread to Gentiles as well as Jews (though it always remained, for Paul, ‘to
the Jew first’). When Jerusalem fell, Jews on the one hand would undoubtedly blame
those who had reneged on their Jewish responsibilities, including those Jewish Christians
who, like Paul, had been enjoying fellowship with pagans and regarding it as the
Kingdom of God and the true expression of the covenant God made with Abraham. On
the other hand, Gentile Christians would probably respond by regarding Jews as an odd
early stage in the purposes of God, allowed in at the beginning of the new worldwide
movement but now destroyed or at least marginalised. It was in order to avoid this
double danger, which would mean that the principalities and powers had won after all
and that Christ had not after all created a new humanity, that Paul engaged on his
mission, with the aim of creating Jew-plus-Gentile churches on Gentile soil before the
fall of Jerusalem. This explains both the urgency of his mission and the language in
which he expressed that urgency. It also explains the collection of money which he took
to Jerusalem: this was not just an example of poor-relief, but a demonstration to Jewish
Christians that Gentile Christians were in solidarity with them and a reminder to Gentile
Christians that they were a junior part of the same olive tree.
Jazzns writes:
Overall, I still don't get the connection to the revolt. I think it is more correct and MUCH easier to interpret Paul as talking about parousia.
Jesus’ message was also very much a political message. Instead of armed rebellion against the Romans He espoused a message of peaceful co-existence. As Wright says, He didn’t see the Romans as the enemy. He saw the enemy as being evil itself and you can’t combat evil with armed rebellion. The only weapon against evil in the final analysis is love. You can change peoples’ behaviour by fear, but you can’t change their hearts that way.
The resurrection of Jesus vindicated His message and His messiahship but the result of the revolt would be the vindication of His political message vis-a-vis the Romans and they would then know that Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and become reality in and through Him.
Jazzns writes:
I simply disagree and having seen nothing to convince me that Paul is not talking about a literal "day of the lord." I understand your pulling that phrase from the OT and what it meant in that context but in THIS context, right after Paul just finished talking about issues of parousia regarding the already dead, to try to say that the "day of the lord" means anything other than Jesus' actual return is mind melting apologetics.
You cannot divorce chapter 4 from chapter 5. You are proposing such a sharp change in topic between them that I think anyone should be suspect. Furthermore, I go back to my overarching question, to what end? What do you gain by this convultion of interpretation OTHER THAN harmony with disputed text?
My point would be that Paul sees a connection between the two if for no other reason than he believed that the parousia, (whatever that might look like), could not take place until after the revolution and the destruction of Jerusalem.
Jazzns writes:
He is not writing a letter to tell them it had already occurred! Somebody else did that! This letter is a rebuttal. He is writing a letter to make sure they know that it has NOT OCCURRED!
Absolutely. He is saying that the revolt in spite of what they might have heard had not begun. If the Day of the Lord was referring to the parousia they wouldn’t require a letter to advise them of it.
Jazzns writes:
If you are right, what does, "concerning the coming of our Lord" refer to? Something else?
It would be the destruction of Jerusalem and specifically the temple which be precipitated by the rebellion.
GDR writes:
Again, it is a message of encouragement so that when the great upheaval happens they will know that in spite of all that they can be assured that Daniel's vision will have been fulfilled and that Jesus' Kingdom has been established and that all will be well, so they should go on living lives that are holy and that they should, as Paul says, 'build each other up' which is what he is trying to do with this letter.
Jazzns writes:
And I am further confused in that you seem to be acknowledging that 1 Thes 5 here is talking about parousia.... Am I in the twilight zone? Did you not just a few words back go to great effort to connect 1 Thes. 5 to rather mundane "social turmoil".
No, my point is that in 1 Thessalonians 5 Paul is saying that when the rebellion and the results of the rebellion come that they should be encouraged because they will know that Jesus has been enthroned in the language of Daniel 7. They should be encouraged and that they should arm themselves with the breastplate of love and faith and the helmet of the hope of salvation.
Jazzns writes:
I want to let you know that I value our discussion. I look forward to your replies eagerly because you make me think a lot harder than I do on my own. Frankly though GDR, your search for truth in an ambiguous world seems to be proceeding by first making th e world unnecessarily more ambiguous.
The discussion is valuable for me as well. Thank you. My search for what I believe to be truth has actually removed a great deal of the ambiguity for me. It has made sense of so much for me.
Jazzns writes:
I can guess why. Ambiguity is a great place to hide uncomfortable truths. If there can be doubt about a fact or a plain interpretation, then there is intellectual room to house this robust and inclusive discription of theology.
Yes there is ambiguity and maybe I can explain how we live with the ambiguity in an unambiguous way. . All through the Bible and in all religions as far as I can tell we find rules or laws. There are the shall and the shall nots. I think that the message of Jesus - the Christian message — is that the laws are a foreshadowing or a path to the real thing. Paul writes, (I can’t remember where off hand), that all things are permissible for him but not all things are good for him. It isn’t about what we do or don’t do that is what makes us what we are, but it is the desires of our heart. Look at the Lord’s Prayer. We are forgiven as we forgive. True forgiveness by humans can only come from the heart. Yes we can give up the right to seek revenge but it is all together something different to actually desire that the one who has given us grief will prosper. In other words, it isn’t about what we do or don’t do, IMHO it is about where our hearts are — do we love selfishly or unselfishly — can we find our joy in the joy of others and so on.
The point of all that is that there is ambiguity about how genuine love is played out in our daily dealings but the call to love unselfishly and even sacrificially is unambiguous.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Greg

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Jazzns, posted 06-08-2012 11:47 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Jazzns, posted 06-22-2012 11:37 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 118 of 136 (665189)
06-10-2012 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
06-08-2012 1:34 AM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance
PaulK writes:
"Based on facts" is rather too loose a phrase. There likely will be SOME basis for any belief produced by cognitive dissonance, the point is that the belief is accepted almost entirely because it resolves the cognitive dissonance - which requires only that the basis is quite inadequate to rationally support the conclusion.
But my point is that there is NO basis for their particular belief as it is entirely beyond any previous expectation that they might have had.
Paulk writes:
Or saw him in dreams, or "felt his presence", or mistook people they saw for him. Th e story of Mary's encounter with Jesus in John 20:14-18 could be derived from an event of the latter sort.
I’m sure we all know of people who have lost someone close to them. They might say that their dead loved ones are with the Lord or that on some way or another they are ok, but they don’t conclude that they are alive again. Also these occurrences are with individuals not with groups of people.
If what you suggest had been the case, the obvious reaction would have been that He was with Yahweh and that they might even say that in some way or another He was reigning on high but it is a huge (and in my view unbelievable), stretch, to think that they would come up with anything approaching the story that they tell.
PaulK writes:
Since the disciples aren't responsible for the final form of the stories that we have, their cognitive dissonance can't be the entire cause of that form. We have decades of elaboration - and in that particular case, perhaps even a desire to refute opposing ideas of a purely spiritual resurrection - to consider as well.
People then, just as much as people now, know that death is final. The stories that the NT tells concerning the resurrection is outside of what anyone would have anticipated.
Paul’s first letters were within 20 years and Mark was probably compiled within about 30 years of the time of the resurrection. Paul dealt directly with the eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus and was so convinced that he completely reversed the direction of his life both spiritually and physically.
And actually we don’t know how much the disciples had to do with the Gospels. Quite likely they aren’t directly the authors but it is very likely that they had a lot of input into them either orally or from something that they had written.
PaulK writes:
I didn't mention any need for prior expectation and I don't believe that there is such a need and you haven't given me any reason to suppose that there is.
Well I believe that I have, it is that just that you don’t accept it. Maybe prior expectation is the wrong term to use so I’ll just say that there would have resolved the conflict with something that would have been consistent with the Jewish understanding of things.
Here is a quote from N T Wright from his book Simply Christian.
quote:
One theory which would go against this conclusion [that the rise of Christianity is best explained by Jesus' bodily resurrection] was very popular a few years ago but is now widely discredited. Some sociologists suggested that the disciples had been suffering from ‘cognitive dissonance’, the phenomenon whereby people who believe something strongly go on saying it all the more shrilly when faced with contrary evidence. Failing to take the negative signs on board, they go deeper and deeper into denial, and can only sustain their position by shouting louder and trying to persuade others to join them.
Whatever the likely occurrence of this in other circumstances, there is simply no chance of it being the right explanation for the rise of the early church. Nobody was expecting anyone, least of all a Messiah, to rise from the dead. A crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah. When Simeon ben Koshiba was killed by the Romans in AD 135, nobody went around afterwards saying he really was the Messiah after all, however much they had wanted to believe that he had been. God’s kingdom was something that had to happen in real life, not in some fantasy-land.
Nor was it the case, as some writers are fond of saying, that the idea of ‘resurrection’ was found in religions all over the ancient Near East. Dying and rising ‘gods’, yes; corn-kings, fertility deities, and the like. But — even supposing Jesus’ very Jewish followers knew any traditions like that — nobody in those religions ever supposed it actually happened to individual humans. No. The best explanation by far for the rise of Christianity is that Jesus really did reappear, not as a battered, bleeding survivor, not as a ghost (the stories are very clear about that), but as a living, bodily human being.
For both of us though we view this from different starting points. My starting point is that I am a theist. Your starting point is presumably as an atheist or possibly agnostic accepting the possibility of a deistic god. (If I’m wrong in that just let me know.) As a Theist, based on, amongst other things, what I wrote in the OP, then the resurrection stories as told in the NT is IMHO by far the most plausible answer for the historical accuracy of what happened. As an atheist, (if I may take the liberty of calling you that), the idea of God bodily resurrecting Jesus is completely implausible.
PaulK writes:
Wrong. I am making an important point. We don't know if Jesus actually did claim to be the supernatural entity appearing in Daniel 7 or not. The entity in Daniel 7 is not described as even a Son of Man while the phrase "son of man" just means "human being". Even if Jesus did use the phrase to refer to himself (and we can't even be certain of that) it's ambiguous enough that we would need to understand HOW he used it, which is tough when all we have is the translations of distant - and likely second hand - memories.
If you give any credibility to the accuracy of what is in the Gospels then I just can’t see how there can be ant doubt about the fact that Jesus saw himself in the position of the Son of Man in Daniel’s vision. This is from Matthew 16:
quote:
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
Obviously Jesus had tied together the messianic themes and Daniel’s vision in His own self understanding. As an aside I’m not at all convinced that Daniel actually understood his vision to beabout an individual. I’m inclined to think that he understood the son of man to be Israel itself. I believe that Jesus saw Himself as the Son of Man as He saw Himself standing in for Israel and that the Jewish history up to that point was coming to its conclusion in and through Him.
PaulK writes:
Which only tells us of Christian usage of the phrase decades after Jesus died. That's not splitting hairs, that's an important consideration. You have GOT to remember that there is a a temporal distance - and almost certainly a significant theological distance - between the NT writings and Jesus.
From that point of view there is nothing that can be considered relevant in the whole Bible. As for the temporal distance we don’t actually know. We can be pretty certain that the Gospels weren’t compiled in their present form for decades after the resurrection but we have no idea when the writings on which the Gospels were based were written.
I don’t doubt that after the resurrection people went back to their scriptures to understand what had happened but the term son of man occurs 83 times in the NT of which 78 times are in the Gospels. (Interesting, I just looked that up.) I think that we are very safe in assuming that Jesus actually applied the term to Himself and that the use of the term is much more significant than it only meant that He was human. The question that needs answering is whether He got it right or not and on that we obviously disagree.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2012 1:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2012 4:57 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 119 of 136 (665190)
06-10-2012 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Buzsaw
06-09-2012 9:23 AM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Moderator Suggestion
Buzsaw writes:
I agree that there was no cognitave dissonance. They and the rest of the Jews saw only one aspect of what was prophesied about the coming messiah/christ. Had they read more carefully and corroborated, all of OT scriptures, relative to messiah/christ their lack of cognitative disonance would have been factored both the human and devine purpose of Jesus as suffering lamb and coming world ruler.
Scriptures such as Isaiah 53, etc, coupled with your citations of Daniel are what all Jews failed to understand. ,
It is very easy to sit back today and be critical of their scriptural understandings.(I'd also be very careful about using terms like the rest of the Jews. They were a very diverse group in the same way Christians are today.) Jesus drew from the Scriptures a very different understanding in one way or another, (as near as we can tell today), than any one else. Certainly the disciples didn't get it until after the resurrection and frankly we are still trying to understand it today.
In some ways it is like us trying to understand the Gospels written in the first century in 21st century terms. The Hebrew Scriptures had been written hundreds of year before their time. You also have to remember that people then, just as they do now, intertwine their religious beliefs with nationalism, even though in the case of Christianity it is very clear that that is exactly what we are not supposed to do.
AS I said to Paul, in the case of Daniel I don't think that there is much doubt that Daniel himself would have understood the "Son of Man" figure to be representative of Israel. He would have understood his vision to mean that at the end of all the trials that they faced at the hands of the beasts, (representing the nations that conquered Israel and sent them into exile), that there would be the subsequent vindication of Israel for their faithfulness. Jesus it seems reinterpreted that vision in such a way that He would stand in for Israel and that their vindication would happen through Him.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2012 9:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 120 of 136 (665193)
06-10-2012 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by GDR
06-10-2012 12:44 AM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance
quote:
But my point is that there is NO basis for their particular belief as it is entirely beyond any previous expectation that they might have had.
Jesus being executed went beyond their previous expectation, yet I doubt that you would say that they had no basis for believing that it had happened.
quote:
I’m sure we all know of people who have lost someone close to them. They might say that their dead loved ones are with the Lord or that on some way or another they are ok, but they don’t conclude that they are alive again. Also these occurrences are with individuals not with groups of people.
Of course, in none of these cases is there a very strong religious commitment to that person fulfilling prophecies, that had not yet come to pass. (And it would not surprise me if some of the people who claimed to have seen Elvis Presley after his death believed that he was still alive, even without that element.)
quote:
People then, just as much as people now, know that death is final. The stories that the NT tells concerning the resurrection is outside of what anyone would have anticipated.
But didn't you claim that the Maccabees were expecting an immediate physical resurrection to go on with their fight?
quote:
Paul’s first letters were within 20 years and Mark was probably compiled within about 30 years of the time of the resurrection. Paul dealt directly with the eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus and was so convinced that he completely reversed the direction of his life both spiritually and physically.
As you know perfectly well the Biblical accounts attribute Paul's conversion to a visionary experience. And he says so little about the resurrection event itself that we certainly cannot assume that the people he talked to gave him the stories we see in the Gospels.
quote:
And actually we don’t know how much the disciples had to do with the Gospels. Quite likely they aren’t directly the authors but it is very likely that they had a lot of input into them either orally or from something that they had written.
Mark was supposedly based on stories told by Peter, but written years after Peter's death and likely without any direct input from any eye-witnesses. Luke and Matthew use Mark as a major source. Q is still hypothetical, although if it existed, it was written in Greek, which suggests that it is not that early.
quote:
Well I believe that I have, it is that just that you don’t accept it. Maybe prior expectation is the wrong term to use so I’ll just say that there would have resolved the conflict with something that would have been consistent with the Jewish understanding of things.
I'd say that prior expectation is an extreme exaggeration. And if you made an argument for it, then I'd like to know which post.
I find it interesting that your quote from N T Wright not only omits the 2 Maccabees reference, it also omits the belief - quite widespread among the Jews of Jesus' time - that there would be a general resurrection in the End Times. IIRC at least one Epistle suggests that Jesus' Resurrection was the "first fruits" of that general resurrection.
As for his claim that "a Crucified Messiah is a failed Messiah" this simply illustrates that the situation of the Disciples immediately following the execution WAS likely to provoke cognitive dissonance!
So Wright offers no refutation at all.
quote:
If you give any credibility to the accuracy of what is in the Gospels then I just can’t see how there can be ant doubt about the fact that Jesus saw himself in the position of the Son of Man in Daniel’s vision. This is from Matthew 16:
Firstly the Gospels are far enough removed from events that we cannot be certain of the exact wording at all - a problem compounded by the fact that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic rather than the Greek of the Gospels. One way we can try to reduce errors is to compare parallel accounts. If we look at Mark 8:27-30 we see that there is no reference to the "Son of Man" - Jesus simply asks "who do people say that I am". So we cannot be certain that Jesus used that phrase in the actual event at all.
quote:
From that point of view there is nothing that can be considered relevant in the whole Bible. As for the temporal distance we don’t actually know. We can be pretty certain that the Gospels weren’t compiled in their present form for decades after the resurrection but we have no idea when the writings on which the Gospels were based were written.
If we accept that Matthew and Luke drew heavily from Mark we can tell that they had no other sources that they considered superior for the parts that they used. We also know that none of the other sources were preserved - we don't even have identifiable references to them. This militates against a large number of revered sources. More likely a large proportion of their sources were oral, some parts may have been derived from OT scripture (e.g. the whole idea of the virgin birth) and in some (but likely few, if any) cases may even have been largely made up by the authors (as I've said before I find the rewritten version of the Olivet Discourse in Luke highly suspicious).
quote:
I don’t doubt that after the resurrection people went back to their scriptures to understand what had happened but the term son of man occurs 83 times in the NT of which 78 times are in the Gospels. (Interesting, I just looked that up.) I think that we are very safe in assuming that Jesus actually applied the term to Himself and that the use of the term is much more significant than it only meant that He was human. The question that needs answering is whether He got it right or not and on that we obviously disagree.
A simple count can't give you Jesus' interpretation of the phrase. It won't even tell you if the phrase is used to refer to Jesus in each case. You need far more study for that. The fact that your own chosen example is quite likely a case where the phrase was inserted by the author, as seen by comparison with Mark, emphasises the need to show a little more care rather than simpy jumping to conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by GDR, posted 06-10-2012 12:44 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by GDR, posted 06-10-2012 10:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024