Superfluousity in the New Testament

I will happily address your question, jaywill, once we're in agreement that I understand your answer to mine.I asked:

quote:

---

Is it usually a virtue to will yourself to believe something?

---

You say: You are referring to Message 14. Now please tell me if I understand that answer correctly.You are saying that willing oneself to believe something is not a virtue in the usual run of things. Letting one's will trump persuasion based on evidence is an inherently dubious situation because it could lead one to embrace irrational propositions like the moon being made of green cheese.Correct?You further say that willing oneself to believe in the resurrection is an exception to this rule. In this case willed belief is a virtue because the author of John tells you Christ orders you to will such a belief if you want him to save you.Correct?If not, please clarify.__

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Well, way to take the wind out of my topical sails, Archer. I figured the answer would be something like that. Knowing that you are not christian, from an objective ivew, how does this work for the case of inerrancy? or at least for divine inspiration?If the Bible in all cases is written in the literary style of the time-period, does it follow that it is entirely the product of man? Or is there the possibility of a Biblical trinity; truly the Word of God, truly the work of humans with all of their foibles, and truly the Spirit proceeding from it? Is it the Word In-scriptate? Are we trying too hard to make it either totally God or totally human, when it might be both in some 'mysterious' way?Anyway, what about other details? I would still like to search for something completely arbitrary and irrelevant in the text.

Permit me to jump in? You can pursue this to a conclusion with jaywill, but I see the whole debate as built on a false premise.Jesus said 'be not unbelieving, but believing'. IMO, even though it may be interesting to further add meaning to the words of Jesus, the words themselves don't convey to me any type of command to will anything. I think Jesus says something more like 'now you don't have to be unbelieving, because you have proof'. He doesn't say, 'ok, now that you have evidence try to will yourself to believe it'. That is over complicating the message of the passage. It is pretty obvious...the apostles had proof, Thomas did not believe THEM, he had to see for himself. The message is 'blessed...are they who can be 'believing' without this physical proof'. It's not a command to force ourselves to believe, for who could do that?

That's an interesting idea. In my opinion, it does. But do we want to get into the whole subject of what "inspiration" is? I'd like to be able to give examples, but none have popped into my head (inspiration-wise) yet. It seems to go back to the peshat/drash/sod/remez situation that was touched on in another thread. Some people will "read into" every iota a vast significant symbolism when it might have actually been written as an arbitrary and irrelevant detail.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Thanks but it's not entirely my idea...kind of a spin off of the way we think about A. The physical Body of Christ, B. the church on earth as living Mystical Body of Christ, and C. the Spirit speaking through the church. THere are a lot of such three fold symbolisms, whether or not there is anything more to it, well, who can say. That is a good opening for me to propose an idea I hadn't time to post yet. Even if the Bible is all from man's head, with no inspiration other than an artistic one, wouldn't it be kind of hard for any man to put together a story which HAS as much symbolism as that which can be read into the Gospels? You know, 12 apostles, 12 tribes of Israel, all of the fulfilled prophecies, the new ways of looking at old ideas, such as Jesus becoming the 'Temple' of Jerusalem, the way in which Jesus, in Luke, reads from the OT, and almost prophecies the spread of christianity to the Gentiles through Paul...isn't that a LOT of work for a man to string together such a collection of symbols, or at least in the short period of time from when Jesus might have lived, to when the gospels were written? I would expect a story like that to be much more lengthy in the making, something that was added to through centuries of re-telling. I would at least expect a precendent...somewhere someone getting fussy and trying to 'force' a messiah. Well, maybe they did, but I don't think that making up a story would serve the purpose, so I imagine there was a historical Jesus.

But the symbolism - e.g. the magic number 12 - wasn't something the gospel-writers made up. Their culture was awash in symbolism that they could cherry-pick for their purposes.(Isn't this the same as the argument that Shakespeare couldn't have written all those plays in one lifetime? )

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I can see your point, but still.There are symbols of things to come.There are symbols of things past.There are symbols that are past, present and future.There are physical events which have a symbolism to something mystical.There are parables that give meaning to something in-concrete.Does Shakespeare accomplish this much?And I am still looking for an arbitrary detail.

Josephs coat had many colors.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Good jar...but I specifically said New Testament just to narrow the field a bit. There is more symbolism in the gospels which comes from the OT, and more prophecy being fulfilled, so it should be harder to find extra detail.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

anastasia: Wow.You realize, of course, that asking an artist about inspiration is like asking a farmer about dirt.Creation is a process we observe all our lives. It is our livelihood. One may as well ask a gynecolist about childbirth.I can share some ideas from experience. This may be more than you were asking for. I can't claim objectivity, though that is an ideal I value and work to attain.I agree with the idea that 'god or mortals' is a false dichotomy. The only way we experience truth--any truth--is through the medium of the human mind. This holds true for gods as for anything else. Either we have an experience and process it through our minds, or someone else tells us about an experience and we process that through our minds. Human hands always touch it. We can't eliminate human thoughts from the equation.Inspiration is a word we use for those human creations that hold exceptional power to move us. We say a text, an image, or a song is 'inspired' when it contains and conveys some insight we find especially compelling. The experience strikes us as revelatory.For the artist the inspiration comes as a grace. You can't will an extraordinary idea any more than a farmer can will an abundant crop. But you can prepare the ground, plant the seed, and supply water and light. Then all you can do is wait--and keep your harvesting equipment handy.Inspiration comes from a source we don't control. Even so, it tends to come to those who prepare themselves for it.As you know, the source from which inspiration flows has been pictured many ways. Sometimes its element is fire, sometimes air, sometimes earth, sometimes water. Sometimes an unseen being--a muse, deity, or saint--gets the credit; other times it's a beloved human being or a hidden part of ourselves. Sometimes inspiration is said to bubble up from the deep. Other times it is thought to be poured upon us from above or to flow outward from our center.All the pictures tell the truth. Each symbol captures something. None tells everything.And, in the course of doing day-to-day creative work, each symbol is of limited practical use. The process of bringing something new into the world, if mysterious at its source, is never magic.Storks are symbols of childbirth for good reason. But if you are a midwife trying to assist a client whose water has just broken, you don't need a stork. You need your know-how and your equipment. The rest is labor, choices, and getting your hands messy.If the source of inspiration is mysterious, the medium through which it operates is well known. Human beings are the medium. If inspiration is energy, human beings are its conduit.The result is a work shaped by human choices. For this reason I don't see infallibility entering the picture. Inspiration is a grace (in the experience of the artist) or an effect (in the experience of others). Infallibility is a dogma. An artist who claims infallibility for his or her work is immodest. An admirer who ascribes infallibility to that work is idolatrous. Both have blinded themselves to the role played by a (necessarily fallible) human being in the creative process.The Bible is an anthology of human creative works.

Is inspiration apparent in the Bible?
Sure. This anthology has endured as long as it has because it speaks with extraordinary power.

​

Do all parts of the anthology show equal levels of inspiration?
No. Quality in the Bible is uneven. This is typical of large anthologies.
Most readers remember, and draw insight from, Ecclesiastes and the Sermon on the Mount long after they have forgotten the chap from Gath who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.

​

Do other enduring works of art deserve to be called 'inspired'?
Many do. All one has to do is experience them to know this.
Many people who tout the Bible as 'uniquely inspired' never read a good book otherwise. When the bulk of one's reading material consists of tracts, newspapers, and ad copy, the power an epic work of literature possesses can seem miraculous. One would be tempted to deify it.

​

Are any human creations, even inspired ones, infallible?
No. Such is the nature of things produced by human hands.
Still, creations we recognize as 'inspired' remain sublime, insightful, powerful, moving, imaginative, and revelatory. They make us wiser and more grateful. And that's saying plenty.

____Edited by Archer Opterix, : fallibility repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : ditto.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Matthew 14 & 15, the great fish fry. Two stories of miraculous fish fries. In each case the actual count of fish and loaves is given. The actual number is irrelevant to the story and only put in as decoration.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

anastasia: Ah. One good hole in the sails deserves another.
I agree. I don't see how a person can will themselves to believe anything.People do try. But if the will has to be brought into it, one doesn't really believe.Ordering people to believe a thing thus makes no sense. Belief is not an act of will. It is a response to plausibility.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

quote:

---

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus.

​

John 18.10

---

The slave's name is an arbitary detail. It doesn't further the story. It has no symbolic significance. And the detail is a rhetorical bust at this dramatic moment. It is supplied to boost versimilitude. That's about it.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Do you think anybody might see symbolic significance in the fact that it was his right ear?(This is a semi-serious question.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's one that I had thought about off the top of my head. The exact number is unimportant, probably not even known. But the numbers...whatever they were said to be, were still needed to show that of the two miracles one was of greater magnitude.