|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: And your point is ?
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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: 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 writingTurbulent 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: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: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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
PaulK writes:
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.
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: "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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
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:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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: 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: Jazzns writes:
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. 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. 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: It would be the destruction of Jerusalem and specifically the temple which be precipitated by the rebellion.
If you are right, what does, "concerning the coming of our Lord" refer to? Something else? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: But didn't you claim that the Maccabees were expecting an immediate physical resurrection to go on with their fight?
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024