|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Sorry for the delay. I needed to take a few days off from the computer.
I dont actually agree with your understanding of the 2 quotes. The quote from 1 Thessalonians is talking about what happens when time comes to an end, in 1st century Jewish apocalyptic language based on Daniel 7. As you pointed out the Thessalonians were dying and the question was about how to deal with the death of their families and friends. It very clearly talks about WHEN and HOW the return of Christ will occur which is the point.
1 Thes. 4 writes:
Paul is telling them that those who have already died will be raised up before those who are still alive and all of them together will meet in the sky. This is addressed to "we who are alive". It is a very uncomplicated statement.
16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. and more:
1 Thes. 5 writes:
Paul says very clearly not only that it will be sudden and unexpected, but that these are things that the Thessalonians already know and should STILL expect. Like I said, He is doubling down!
Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. In the pagan societies around them there would be extravagant mourning and hopelessness for the families of those who have died. Paul is simply telling them that those who are alive when Christ returns will not be at an advantage to those who have already died.
Thats not the point. As I laid out above, he also is making a claim about the proximity of events. THAT is the major difference between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. He is very clearly assuaging the doubts of the Thessalonians who are operating under the impression (that he affirms their prior knowledge of) that they will personally witness the return of Christ. Most importantly, is how Paul deals with this situation differently in 1 versus 2 Thessalonians. Lets move on to your quote from 2 Thessalonians.
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. Which very much seems like a reference to 1 Thessalonians! At the very least, 2 Thessalonians is speaking very directly about a previous FALSE impression given to the Thessalonians about the nearness of the end times which it purports to correct. But why did you stop the quote there? Keep going!
2 Thes. 3 writes: Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction So he is DIRECLTY saying that the Thessalonians have false information available to them that he is trying to correct concerning the timing of the coming of the lord and the very first thing he says concerning the correction he is offering is about how it is conditioned upon world events! How much more contradictory can you get to "While people are saying, There is peace and security, then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman"? 1 Thessalonians directly says that people will be lulled by peace. 2 Thessalonians says that first there will be conflict.
When Paul talks about the "day of the lord" is not talking about Christ's return but using it in the sense that OT prophets did to refer to climatic political catastrophes. Obviously Paul can't be talking eschatologically because if Christ had returned the Thessalonians wouldn't need a letter to tell them about it. Paul is only talking to them about Christ's presence in their worship in the same terms that churches do today. I don't know how you could possibly come to this interpretation when the quote YOU pulled from 2 Thessalonians is referencing eschatology directly. The author is very specifically saying outright that he is talking about an alternative, correct accounting of the end times in contrast to some other information that the Thessalonians were currently relying on. Your own quote refutes you! But all of this is just to get you to reflect on this notion of context. When you say the word "context" you seem to mean, "the tool I use to create harmony when confronted with conflict." This is disingenuous. A true contextual approach to understanding some reflection of god in the text would take into account the fact that 1 and 2 Thessalonians are contradictory accounts of how early Christians perceived god. It would take into account the reasons for why early writers felt the need to lie about who they were to get their message out. Bear in mind, they didn't just take the name of Paul.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: Let me know if you have any support for that other than your own personal ideas of what was happening. There is not doubt that read literally it describes Jesus rising into the sky, for instance... Sure if read with the mindset of a 21st century fundamentalist, but I don’t accept it as I believe it would be understood by a 1st century Jew. I realize that Luke wrote to a large degree for a Gentile audience but it was still written within a strong Jewish backdrop. Who knows what the ascension might have looked like but IMHO Luke never intended it to mean that Jesus moved on to some other physical location. Here is Stephen P Davis’s view as a Christian scholar: The Meaning of the Asension PaulK writes: Except that it isn't the quote you produced before and none of it contradicts what I said... In fact, isn't it true that this is a symbolic vision ? And it never mentions where the "one like a Son of Man" had come FROM ? Or where the court was set up ? Perhaps you should look at Matthew 24:30 OK. Here is Matthew 24: 29-31: quote: Matthew in verse 29 is referring back to Isaiah 13:10. The quote from Isaiah is talking about the destruction of Babylon. The language in that verse is about large and violent political and social disruptions. In verse 30 Matthew is referencing Daniel 7. I’ll requote the relevant passage.quote: Matthew 30 again is referring back to Daniel 7. When you read the first part of this quote it is obvious that this is not an earthly court. It is obviously a heavenly court that I agree is a symbolic vision. However that does not meant that there it isn’t meant to be taken as metaphoric. In that light it is obvious that the Son of Man has come into the presence of the Ancient of Days in this heavenly, not earthly, setting. The end of the passage is talks about the Kingdom that was established at that time which would be for all peoples and that would never pass away. In verse 31 Matthew is continuing the theme of verse 30 and also obliquely referring back to Exodus 19 with Yahweh speaking to Moses from a cloud, note the cloud reference again), and with Moses coming down the mountain presenting God to the Israelites. Here is part of that reference:quote: Matthew has tied together these 3 passages of the Hebrew Scriptures to explain what is and has happened. Matthew was likely written around the time of or just after the 66-70 AD war. The first verse is about the horrendous suffering and destruction of the Jewish nation at the hands of the Romans which is what Jesus said would happen if they didn’t give up their revolutionary ways. In a sense also he is using this verse as a vindication of Christ’s message of love your enemy which at the time was meant a message of how they should deal with the Romans. He then by referring back to Daniel Matthew is saying that it is Jesus who was the Son of Man in Daniel’s vision and that the Kingdom of God, (or Kingdom of Heaven as Matthew writes), has been established for the world. In verse 31 he is now saying that God is speaking to them through Jesus and through the Kingdom itself. (Unfortunately the Kingdom is made up of very fallible humans and as a result we are left with a very muddles message. However the scriptural message is that God has given humans responsibility for the stewardship of the planet and so we are the best He has to work with. )
PaulK writes:
OK. My position is that if they were just mundane events then there would be no motivation for them to bother recording anything about the events in the first place.
Where the Gospel stories of the post-resurrection appearances are greatly elaborated stories, developing over time, built on mundane events ? PaulK writes: Not really - the whole question of the motive for Judas' betrayal is something that is argued over again and again. Now my speculation makes a lot more sense. Judas abandons the movement after Jesus' death, accepting that it has failed. As a former leading figure he is condemned as a traitor (almost inevitable). The story gets elaborated into a personal betrayal of Jesus before Jesus' death. Of course we can never know because we simply have no sources we can trust to provide us with the information that we need. This is pretty much beside the main point we are discussing, but it is really interesting. He obviously abandoned the movement but I think it goes deeper than that. I see Judas as likely being something of a zealot and as a result would have seen Jesus as a threat to his revolutionary goals There were so many factions in the Jewish world at that time and it would have taken a huge change in the outlet of pretty much any Jew at that time to accept Jesus’ message of love, particularly when applied to the Romans. Personally I have some sympathy for his POV and could even see that he believed that he was acting like a patriot. Of course the whole issue of being paid for the betrayal muddies the whole situation.
PaulK writes: If Jesus was as successful as the Gospels claim then we would expect more notice from non-Christian sources. And it's pretty odd that we have so little from pre-Gospel Christian sources. If Jesus left a body of teachings, for instance, then Paul had little knowledge of it or interest in it. This is all conjecture, but by the time that the movement had actually grown some legs the world outside of the movement would have been more inclined to write about the followers of the movement than about Jesus Himself. The other thing to remember is that even today newspapers write about large scale political and violent events. A group of what were essentially pacifists wouldn’t be particularly noteworthy. As we have no record of the earliest Christian writings except for Luke’s reference to them at the beginning of his Gospel we will never know for sure about what Paul had access to. Paul doesn’t reference them but it seems to me that if he thought that some of what did exist was in error then he likely would have felt a need to correct any errors. As he didn’t reference them they maybe we can conclude that he accepted them and felt no need to reference them.
GDR writes: Luke does say that he is drawing on many sources and presumably this would be the same for the other gospels as well.PaulK writes: I would suggest that that is a very big assumption, and one that cannot be supported by any evidence at all. Even the author of Luke does not identify his sources. A agree that we have no idea of what the sources were, but as Luke agrees to having many sources and as the other Gospels, with the possible exception of Mark, obviously use some of the same sources then I think it is a pretty safe assumption.
PaulK writes: That isn't in fact a good reason. Q is only the hypothetical source for the material common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. Luke is also held to have used Mark and other sources. The real question is whether Luke used Q or in fact had access to a copy of Matthew. I would think that you would find Q more palatable than the idea of Luke rejecting large chunks of Matthew. Frankly, I feel particularly unqualified to discuss the existence or non-existence of the Q document. I am an avid reader of N T Wright and he is sceptical of the existence of Q although he isn’t adamant about that position. That is about as far as I can go.
PaulK writes:
Again you aren't making much sense. There's nothing in Paul's experience that speaks of cognitive dissonance especially. But the Disciples are prime candidates for it. They've seen deeply held beliefs appear to fail. They come to a new "understanding" that lets them reconcile their beliefs with the reality that faces them. It fits all too well. I agree, as I thought that I’d made clear, that There's nothing in Paul's experience that speaks of cognitive dissonance especially. I’d even go further and say that his desire would have been for Jesus to be dead and remain that way. As for the disciples I agree that their deeply held beliefs seem to have failed but I don’t agree that we have a clear understanding of what those deeply held beliefs were. There is certainly within the Gospels the idea that the disciples never really did seem to get their head around Christ’s message until after the events around the resurrection and ascension. Yes they believed Jesus was the Messiah but a messiah was supposed to establish Jewish rule and rebuild the Temple. They never seemed to be able to get their heads around the idea that this would be that the Messiah would rule and the Temple would be rebuilt but in a way for which they had little if any comprehension. My point is, if the whole narrative was born from the cognitive dissonance of the disciples we would be looking at a very different narrative and in my view a very short lived one.
PaulK writes: All of which ignores the point that in this case the location is held to be an important feature of the story. In fact it looks as if Luke is intentionally DENYING the tradition represented in Matthew. And none of the three Gospels dealing with the appearances have a single appearance story in common. Simply writing off important points as mere details is nothing more than an attempt to sweep awkward truths under the rug. I think that is valid point, but I just disagree that a Gospel accounts that is put together of various sources decades after the event are going to have variations in things like timing and locations. I would be much more suspicious of accounts written under those circumstances that lined up completely.
PaulK writes: Of course there needs to be no reason more than the beliefs held by the Gospel writers. Moreover, I consider my ow explanation to be more plausible than yours - and you haven't even bothered to pay attention to it when I described it - an opinion based on wilful ignorance isn't worth much. And as we have seen my view better explains the Gospels as we have them. I think I have responded to all of your points, but if I missed something then let me know. I’m also not sure where the wilful ignorance comes, but I am of the opinion that once we accept the argument for theism that I outlined in the OP then I find my view the more plausible of the two, Having said that though our views are coloured by our positions prior to our having this dialogue. CheersHe 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: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: ...who claims that Jesus rose literally into the sky... Which rather undermines any claim that the text does not mean that....
quote: In other wordes the court which condemns the Earthly and metaphorical beasts and which talks about a Kingdom to be established on Earth must be referring to literal events in heaven? That's hardly something that's clearly established... The rest is just a long winded way of it ignoring the inconvenient point that in Matthew the Son of Man's arrival is seen by the people of the Earth. So obviously it must be an arrival on Earth, not Heaven.
quote: Of course we have no direct records of the events, just greatly elaborated accounts, so to a very large degree you are agreeing with me.
quote: And that is even more speculative than my ideas. For a start as far as I know the only link between Judas and the zealots is the idea that Iscariot is a corruption of sicarius. And Jesus message, even in the Gospels is rather mixed (telling his Disciples to arm themselves, for instance). And if he had a known zealot as a lieutenant then the whole idea of Jesus' pacifism becomes even more questionable.
quote: Of course Paul would be highly likely to reference teachings of Jesus relating to any subject that he was talking about of he DID agree with them.... And if there was a significant body of teachings circulating I find it hard to believe that Paul would have objected to NONE of them. So it seems that the evidence suggests that there wasn't much at that time.
quote: My position is a little skeptical too, because I don't find the argument that Luke would NOT have gone against Matthew entirely convincing any more. Not since I found that Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse disagrees quite sharply with Mark. However it is clear that replacing Q with Matthew does not INCREASE the number of sources used by Luke, so your argument really misses the issue.
quote: I would say that that is an oversimplification. However I think it concedes the point at issue. Paul had a highly convincing experience that did not rely on a physical resurrection.
quote: I agree with the point but not the application. Luke seems quite determined to deny that there were any appearances in Galilee, while Matthew doesn't even hint at any post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem at all (and Mark also implies that the appearances will be in Galilee). Galilee would be about a week's journey away, and I can't believe that if Jesus had appeared to the Disciples before they could leave and told them to remain in the vicinity of Jerusalem it would have been completely forgotten by the community that produced Matthew.
quote: The argument for theism is pretty poor, and doesn't give any credence to the idea that impressive events would be so poorly remembered. So I'd say that you've got three bad arguments there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Jazzns writes: It very clearly talks about WHEN and HOW the return of Christ will occur which is the point. As I said earlier I believe that the point is to reassure them that those who have already died will be ok.
Jazzns writes: Paul is telling them that those who have already died will be raised up before those who are still alive and all of them together will meet in the sky. This is addressed to "we who are alive". It is a very uncomplicated statement. As I said the goal of this is to reassure the Thessalonians. As far as the meeting in the sky is concerned it is just Paul painting an apocalyptic picture of what it will look like when Christ returns at the end of time as we know it. He isn’t talking about when that will happen. What Paul is doing is about the same thing as it would be for one of us trying to explain colour to someone who is blind. His reference to sky is to be understood symbolically.
Jazzns writes: Paul says very clearly not only that it will be sudden and unexpected, but that these are things that the Thessalonians already know and should STILL expect. Like I said, He is doubling down! I think it is much more complex than that. Paul IMHO is paralleling two themes here. He is saying that they live in difficult times. He is saying that in their circumstances there is no peace and security in their day to day lives. He then goes on to say that they are day time people and that they should rise above the squabbles of the day and as he says in 5:8 they are to clothe themselves with the breast plate of faith and love, and the helmet of the hope of salvation.
Jazzns writes: Thats not the point. As I laid out above, he also is making a claim about the proximity of events. THAT is the major difference between 1 and 2 Thessalonians.He is very clearly assuaging the doubts of the Thessalonians who are operating under the impression (that he affirms their prior knowledge of) that they will personally witness the return of Christ. Most importantly, is how Paul deals with this situation differently in 1 versus 2 Thessalonians. Throughout human history there have been those who have said that the end of the world is near and I suspect that will go on for thousands of years into the future. Sure there were those who thought that His return was imminent and they were concerned about those who had already died. Paul is simply reassuring them that there is no need to worry and to get on with things.
Jazzns writes: Which very much seems like a reference to 1 Thessalonians! At the very least, 2 Thessalonians is speaking very directly about a previous FALSE impression given to the Thessalonians about the nearness of the end times which it purports to correct. I disagree. I’ll quote it again. quote:I already explained of how by the term Day of the Lord, in this case, he is referring to major political and social upheaval, specifically in this case in this case to the anticipated response by the Romans to militant Jewish nationalists. It is obvious that he can’t be referring to Christ’s return. They have obviously heard either by spirit, spoken word and/or letter that the Day of the Lord had already happened. If the Day of the Lord was understood as meaning the return of Christ then they wouldn’t have needed a letter to either tell them that it had happened or, for that matter, that it hadn’t happened.
Jazzns writes: But why did you stop the quote there? Keep going!
2 Thes. 3 writes: Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction So he is DIRECLTY saying that the Thessalonians have false information available to them that he is trying to correct concerning the timing of the coming of the lord and the very first thing he says concerning the correction he is offering is about how it is conditioned upon world events! How much more contradictory can you get to "While people are saying, There is peace and security, then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman"? 1 Thessalonians directly says that people will be lulled by peace. 2 Thessalonians says that first there will be conflict. As to your last point I agree simply because it is talking about two distinctly different events. I see Paul saying that in times of peace they should be lulled into a false sense of security because there will still be conflict ahead in their turbulent world. In Thessalonians 2 Paul is saying that there will be conflict, meaning specifically the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem before Christ comes again. Beyond that time Paul doesn’t comment. Where we disagree, (I think) at this point is that the question of the immediate return of Jesus is a direct result of Paul’s first letter. I don’t see anything in the first letter that indicated any timing for the event. There was just an obvious concern for those who had already died. I agree that it is difficult as there seems to be no hard and fast understanding of the term Day of the Lord. It is sometimes used eschatologically, but it is also often used to denote cataclysmic events perpetrated by humans. It appears in Thessalonians 2 that there was now some more immediate speculation about circumstances because they had in one way or another received word that the Roman invasion of Jerusalem had begun and Paul was correcting the misinformation. In summary I’ll just say this. I think that in understanding the Gospels in modern times there has been a mistaken mixing of Jesus’ eschatological teaching and His political message to the Jews in particular and more generally to the Gentiles. He taught that the revolutionary ways of many Jews would only lead to destruction, and that the only way to solve the problem was by understanding that the war was not against Rome but against evil itself. He preached that the way of overcoming evil is through His message of love of neighbour, be it friend or foe. He taught that destruction was imminent and would happen within the life times of many that were hearing His message. His eschatological message was quite different. (No one will know the hour or the minute and He included Himself in that.) His eschatological message was for the world and forecast a future resurrected existence in which there will a great act of re-creation characterized by perfect love and justice for all. I apologise for this being somewhat disjointed as I’ve had to leave and come back to it several times.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: 2.3 |
PaulK writes:
Only in a very loose sense. Here is the pertinent section.
...who claims that Jesus rose literally into the sky... Which rather undermines any claim that the text does not mean that....quote: PaulK writes:
In Daniel 7 vs 2 Daniel said that in his vision by night the for winds of heaven were stirring up a great sea. (Sea was symbolic symbol of evil or hell.) He then goes on to say that the 4 beasts were coming out of the sea. In other wordes the court which condemns the Earthly and metaphorical beasts and which talks about a Kingdom to be established on Earth must be referring to literal events in heaven? That's hardly something that's clearly established...All of this is apocalyptic Jewish writing at its finest and when it talks about the throne of The Ancient of Days it can only be talking about a heavenly vision. It also does go on in verse 27 to say that all of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest one..... In addition when you read the explanation for the vision from verse 15 on it is clear that this vision is something that will take place over a large span of time, whereas Daniel observed it all through this vision in a very short span of time. It is obvious that Daniel understood this vision as being a vision through the veil that separates God’s world from our own. PaulK writes:
Matthew did not IMHO mean it to be understood that way. Verse 30 starts off with saying that the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky which is Jewish apocalyptic and symbolic language for Jesus’ vindication as seen in His resurrection nd ascension.
The rest is just a long winded way of it ignoring the inconvenient point that in Matthew the Son of Man's arrival is seen by the people of the Earth. So obviously it must be an arrival on Earth, not Heaven.PaulK writes:
Not really. In the first place we have direct records in the Gospels which we can accept or reject and I don’t agree that they are greatly elaborated accounts.
Of course we have no direct records of the events, just greatly elaborated accounts, so to a very large degree you are agreeing with me.PaulK writes: And that is even more speculative than my ideas. For a start as far as I know the only link between Judas and the zealots is the idea that Iscariot is a corruption of sicarius. And Jesus message, even in the Gospels is rather mixed (telling his Disciples to arm themselves, for instance). And if he had a known zealot as a lieutenant then the whole idea of Jesus' pacifism becomes even more questionable. Jesus’ choice for disciples was a rather mixed bag which included a tax collector who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I see no reason for Him not to include a zealot. The idea was that hearts were to be changed and it looks as though Judas’ wasn’t.
PaulK writes:
Presumably different churches would have different documents and Paul seems like the kinda guy who would like to have the message delivered in his words not someone else’s. He did, as we can see in my discussion with Jazzns correct correspondence in his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians but that didn’t seem to have anything directly to do with the teachings of Jesus. It is however a valid point.
Of course Paul would be highly likely to reference teachings of Jesus relating to any subject that he was talking about of he DID agree with them.... And if there was a significant body of teachings circulating I find it hard to believe that Paul would have objected to NONE of them. So it seems that the evidence suggests that there wasn't much at that time. PaulK writes: However it is clear that replacing Q with Matthew does not INCREASE the number of sources used by Luke, so your argument really misses the issue. To be frank, I really didn’t have much of a point, but Luke does say that he has drawn on many sources.
PaulK writes: I would say that that is an oversimplification. However I think it concedes the point at issue. Paul had a highly convincing experience that did not rely on a physical resurrection. Sure, but even Paul writes that all that he is saying and doing is a waste of time if Jesus wasn’t resurrected.
PaulK writes: I agree with the point but not the application. Luke seems quite determined to deny that there were any appearances in Galilee, while Matthew doesn't even hint at any post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem at all (and Mark also implies that the appearances will be in Galilee). Galilee would be about a week's journey away, and I can't believe that if Jesus had appeared to the Disciples before they could leave and told them to remain in the vicinity of Jerusalem it would have been completely forgotten by the community that produced Matthew. I get that and it is a good point. I just on balance find the evidence for the bodily resurrection as I have outlined it more compelling.
PaulK writes: The argument for theism is pretty poor, and doesn't give any credence to the idea that impressive events would be so poorly remembered. So I'd say that you've got three bad arguments there. Life is a funny thing. It is all about perceptions. You and I can look at the same books and experience the same world through similar cultures and yet come to diametrically opposed conclusions. I see theism as being the only truly plausible conclusion to come to for the reasons that you find totally unconvincing. The whole Christian story just makes so much sense of my life and the world as I experience it. I certainly have many questions but I have extremely little doubt of the truth of the essential tenets Christianity. I know that you are equally convinced of yours. I’ll be sure to look you up in the next life and we can compare notes as to who was right and who was wrong over some brew or whatever we’ll be drinking then. 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: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: In fact a large part of the article is dedicated to arguing that the event occurred as Luke describes it. Davis doesn't argue that the text is symbolic - he argues that the event was symbolic. You cannot have read the article without realising that. So not in a "loose sense" at all. Davis directly claims that Luke's account must be taken as literally true. The next point concerning Daniel goes nowhere, making no point to be answered.
quote: I think that you are confusing Jewish and Christian thought here. And I note that you offer nothing to support your opinion either.
quote: Since it is well-known that all the Gospels were written decades after the fact and only the last written, John, is even plausibly written by someone who was there, to call them "direct accounts" seems extremely dubious. And your argument against elaboration seems to be that none of the actual appearances were anything more than unimportant details anyway....
quote: A tax collector (especially in the Roman system where they were freelance contractors) need not have a strong commitment to maintaining the system (in fact, so long as he could afford it, he could have done a lot to mitigate the worse parts of the system). This does not compare to someone with a strong religious devotion to expelling the Romans...
quote: Referring to documents to back up his words wouldn't stop him using his own words. So this argument doesn't make much of a case.
quote: Unles you wish to count Matthew as more sources than Q, Luke's claim has no relevance to the existence of Q at all.
quote: Which tells us at most that Paul believed in some resurrection.
quote: If all the evidence can be better explained without invoking miracles - and it can - how can you have compelling evidence for a miracle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
As I said the goal of this is to reassure the Thessalonians. As far as the meeting in the sky is concerned it is just Paul painting an apocalyptic picture of what it will look like when Christ returns at the end of time as we know it. He isn't talking about when that will happen. What Paul is doing is about the same thing as it would be for one of us trying to explain colour to someone who is blind. His reference to "sky" is to be understood symbolically. The main point wasn't about the imagery, it was about the specificity and the quote concerning "we who are alive". I'll note that you are doing here exactly what I talked about at the end of my last post concerning context. It is not a tool for creating harmony. Context is far more important in how it illuminates the differences and reasons for differences in the text. Even if you are pious, it doesn't serve you to try to weave these justifications. For example, look at how someone like Bruce Metzger approached it. For him, the higher criticism was illuminating. I almost took a position similar to his before I found other reasons to toss the faith. Why does everything have to be congruent? Aren't you making a more nuanced faith more inaccessible by this?
Jazzns writes:
Paul says very clearly not only that it will be sudden and unexpected, but that these are things that the Thessaloniansalready know and should STILL expect. Like I said, He is doubling down! I think it is much more complex than that. Paul IMHO is paralleling two themes here. He is saying that they live in difficult times. He is saying that in their circumstances there is no "peace and security" in their day to day lives. He then goes on to say that they are day time people and that they should rise above the squabbles of the day and as he says in 5:8 they are to clothe themselves with the breast plate of faith and love, and the helmet of the hope of salvation. You are completely ignoring the "thief in the night" and "sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman". This means something and if you take it ... in context ... you see that Paul is clearly talking about eschatology.
Throughout human history there have been those who have said that the end of the world is near and I suspect that will go on for thousands of years into the future. Sure there were those who thought that His return was imminent and they were concerned about those who had already died. Paul is simply reassuring them that there is no need to worry and to get on with things. Which is why some anonymous forger wrote 2 Thessalonians. Because Paul clearly was one of those who said that the end of the world is near and he was wrong. Why can't we just take the plain reading and just realize that Paul was wrong? Why is that in and of itself so controversial to you? Would that, if it were true, reduce the character of god revealed in his writings? Moving on ... lets stop splitting up 2 Thessalonian:
2 Thes 2 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. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Please answer these questions What is the "letter seeming to be from us"? What is Paul trying to refute with this letter? This is important. What of this context makes you believe this is about the revolt? What other than your apriori commitment to place this letter at the time of Paul gives any indication that this is about the politics of Paul's time? "Paul" here says that "the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth"; but the revolt was crushed. This was not written at the time of Paul. This was written with knowledge of other apocalyptic literature that came after Paul. This is not Paul!
It is obvious that he can't be referring to Christ's return. No its not obvious at all. The people of the day were already trying to say that the kingdom of god had already come in some spiritual sense. It is the very common and predictable response to a failure of an end times prophecy. The most recent case was that crazy guy in California (was it last year) who spent all that money on advertising. When the day came, they just claimed it was spiritual. Paul in 1 Thessalonians does not shy away from the concern over the late return, he doubles down on the prediction. By the time 2 Thessalonians come around, its been far too long to make excuses and thus you have the apocalyptic conditioning.
They have obviously heard either by spirit, spoken word and/or letter that the "Day of the Lord" had already happened. If the "Day of the Lord" was understood as meaning the return of Christ then they wouldn't have needed a letter to either tell them that it had happened or, for that matter, that it hadn't happened. In this case yes they might have needed a letter because there was already a movement to water down the definition of the kingdom of god since ... you know ... he didn't come.
Jazzns writes:
1 Thessalonians directly says that people will be lulled by peace. 2 Thessalonians says that first there will be conflict. As to your last point I agree simply because it is talking about two distinctly different events. Says you. I have not seen anything to convince me that they are talking about different events or that any contemporary event is tied to 2 Thessalonians.
I see Paul saying that in times of peace they should be lulled into a false sense of security because there will still be conflict ahead in their turbulent world. In Thessalonians 2 Paul is saying that there will be conflict, meaning specifically the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem before Christ comes again. Beyond that time Paul doesn't comment. Well, you are going to have to come up with more evidence that Paul is talking about the revolt in 2 Thessalonians. This is especially considering the fact that it was written afterward and that the Romans won. That doesn't exactly jive with what is written. "Paul" says Jesus will kill them. Reality was different. Either "Paul" is not talking about that event or your 'Day of the Lord' re-interpretation is wrong. Either way it is illuminating of the fact that 2 Thessalonians was not the real Paul. As for the times of peace. Paul says that some people WILL be lulled into a sense of peace which will be rudely interrupted by the return of Christ. He is obviously talking about the suddenness of the return in 1 Thessalonians.
Where we disagree, (I think) at this point is that the question of the immediate return of Jesus is a direct result of Paul's first letter. I don't see anything in the first letter that indicated any timing for the event. Other than the "we who are alive" and "like a thief in the night"? Don't forget the nature of the event. There is a contradiction in the nature too.
There was just an obvious concern for those who had already died. And you are missing the reason for the concern. The reason the Thessalonians are worried is that they though Jesus should have been back by now like he promised. Paul in 1 Thessalonians is making excuses for the failure of Jesus. "Paul" 2 Thessalonians is making excuses for the failure of the real Paul.
I agree that it is difficult as there seems to be no hard and fast understanding of the term "Day of the Lord". It is sometimes used eschatologically, but it is also often used to denote cataclysmic events perpetrated by humans. That sounds very convenient. Can you support this?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Paul. Sorry to be so slow getting back to you. It’s been busy lately and for Jazzns I will reply to you as soon as I can.
PaulK writes: In fact a large part of the article is dedicated to arguing that the event occurred as Luke describes it. Davis doesn't argue that the text is symbolic - he argues that the event was symbolic. You cannot have read the article without realising that. So not in a "loose sense" at all. Davis directly claims that Luke's account must be taken as literally true. If Jesus literally moved from an existing from this universe or dimension into another one it is something that they would have had no language for. They go back to Daniel to come up with words that would give meaning to what happened. They have Jesus literally moving up into the cloud which represents the presence of the Glory of God so that it has both literal and symbolic meaning.
PaulK writes: I think that you are confusing Jewish and Christian thought here. And I note that you offer nothing to support your opinion either. Of course not. Jesus was Jewish who lived and taught while understanding His life and teachings in a Jewish context. The language in the NT is lifted right out of the OT.
PaulK writes: Since it is well-known that all the Gospels were written decades after the fact and only the last written, John, is even plausibly written by someone who was there, to call them "direct accounts" seems extremely dubious. And your argument against elaboration seems to be that none of the actual appearances were anything more than unimportant details anyway.... I should just have said records rather than direct records. My point though that we do have records of the events that would have been taken from earlier accounts as Luke mentions that would have been from eye witnesses. As I said we can choose what it is that we will believe about the records we have.
PaulK writes: A tax collector (especially in the Roman system where they were freelance contractors) need not have a strong commitment to maintaining the system (in fact, so long as he could afford it, he could have done a lot to mitigate the worse parts of the system). This does not compare to someone with a strong religious devotion to expelling the Romans... Matthew would have had a strong financial interest in maintain the status quo. With Judas I don’t see it being a religious devotion but a nationalistic devotion. One point of the message of Jesus is that He was reaching out to everyone and it would be consistent with what He taught that He would have a revolutionary amongst His disciples. The NT is clear that they were talking about a bodily resurrection. NT Wright is considered by many to be the finest NT scholar we have today. Here is what he has to say on the subject.
Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins PaulK writes: If all the evidence can be better explained without invoking miracles - and it can - how can you have compelling evidence for a miracle? I disagree with your premise. I have read the debates between N T Wright and the people like Crossan and Borg and the Crossan/Borg position, (although not completely the same), is basically based on the idea that we know from human experience that once people die they stay dead. In other words we know at the outset that a physical resurrection is impossible so then any other explanation has to be better. Frankly, assuming these guys are theists, (or more likely deists), then presumably they believe that we are the result of a greater intelligence. This then means that at some point we would require a miraculous event to get things rolling. Why then would they deny any possibility of another miraculous event? If we accept the possibility that it is possible for God to intervene in this way then the bodily resurrection of Jesus fits much more plausibly into the accounts that we have than any other explanation IMHO.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: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Which really doesn't change the fact that your source argued that the event literally happened as described. Think on that while you wonder how it is possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions. Sometimes it's the case that one of them only thinks he's looking at the evidence, and is missing something quite obvious,
quote: Of course we aren't talking about Jesus or simple copying language - we're talking about the interpretation of that language by Christians writing decades after Jesus died. I hope that you can concede that the Jews in general would not have been thinking of Jesus specifically!
quote: Of course the absence of direct records was the point, so really you should just have agreed. And since we don't know the sources of Luke other than Mark and maybe Q or Matthew it's questionable whether any of them were first hand (Mark and Matthew are almost certainly not). In fact what we are told in Luke makes it seem as if the documents he refers to are other attempts to compile the story, and it could easily be that all were second hand, or further removed from the events.
quote: If this "Matthew" even existed and if he cared about money that much he probably wouldn't be among Jesus' followers at all. Whiuch rather proves my point.
quote: I would be very surprised if there were many dedicated Jewish nationalists in those days who did NOT have a religious devotion to it. The Judaic religion is strongly nationalistic, even today. Moreover it does seem odd that if Jesus was opposed to the zealots that he would have one as a trusted lieutenant - more than a mere follower. Or that the Gospels don't make more of it - the Gospels are far more pro-Roman so showing Jesus opposing Judas belief in violent revolution would have been very much in keeping with their agenda. Instead we can't even be sure that Judas was a zealot at all. It looks to me far more as if the Gospels are downplaying the violent side of Jesus' ministry.
quote: As I've already pointed out, Paul is not at all clear that the post-resurrection experiences are anything more than visions and the Gospels don't present a straightforward bodily resurrection either.
quote: And yet you cannot refute my argument. Indeed your approach accounts for the evidence by making excuses to discount the bulk of it ! Clearly it is true that I can explain the evidence better than you.
quote: However, my explanation is better than yours EVEN WITHOUT THIS CONSIDERATION. I can explain why we see such strong differences between the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances we see in the Gospels. Why Paul says so little about the post-resurrection appearances. Why Jesus mysteriously comes and goes all the time in those stories. All you can do is try to explain these points away. None of them are expected given your view - and in the first case especially you don't even have a good excuse.
quote: Since your argument relies on effectively ignoring a very large part of those accounts it seems rather clear that your opinion is untrue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
And this article shows you what cognitive dissonance is really like and how people suffering from it rewrite the past in their minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Thats the guy I was thinking of. I couldn't remember his name.
Time and time again we have people who try to predict doom and when they fail that either. 1. Set a new date2. Claim it was spiritual Camping did both. Paul never set a date that we know of nor do we know the direct fallout of the fact that Jesus didn't return in his lifetime. What we do have is later authors making excuses and redefining the circumstances of the return.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Jazzns
Sorry to be so slow replying but I just haven't had the time.
Jazzns writes: The main point wasn't about the imagery, it was about the specificity and the quote concerning "we who are alive". I'll note that you are doing here exactly what I talked about at the end of my last post concerning context. It is not a tool for creating harmony. Context is far more important in how it illuminates the differences and reasons for differences in the text. Even if you are pious, it doesn't serve you to try to weave these justifications. For example, look at how someone like Bruce Metzger approached it. For him, the higher criticism was illuminating. I almost took a position similar to his before I found other reasons to toss the faith. Why does everything have to be congruent? Aren't you making a more nuanced faith more inaccessible by this? I don't disagree with that. Frankly if the 2nd book, assuming it was written by Paul, is trying to explain away the fact that Jesus hadn't returned again then I would be fine with that. I'm just not convinced that it is the case. As far as your last statement is concerned you are probably right, but I wasn't trying to make the point in order to prove it's accuracy. My point is only to try and understand what Paul meant by what he wrote.
Jazzns writes: You are completely ignoring the "thief in the night" and "sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman". This means something and if you take it ... in context ... you see that Paul is clearly talking about eschatology. Well I'd say yes and no. If you go back another verse Paul writes that "there are those who are saying peace and security and then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labour pains.......". They lived in turbulent dangerous times. Paul is writing about the destruction of war. Paul then goes on to say though that they are sons of light and that and as he says in verse 9 that they are not destined for wrath but that that they are destined for salvation and so they should not live in fear.
Jazzns writes: Why can't we just take the plain reading and just realize that Paul was wrong? Why is that in and of itself so controversial to you? Would that, if it were true, reduce the character of god revealed in his writings? IMHO what is plain reading for us in the 21st century does not give clearly the same understanding as it would a 1st century Thessalonian. I agree that even if what you said is correct it would not diminish the character of God. As I said, I am just trying to understand Paul’s point as he intended to have it understood.
Jazzns writes: What is the "letter seeming to be from us"? What is Paul trying to refute with this letter? This is important. We have no indication who it is from but Paul is saying that it should be disregarded as the revolt in Judea hasn’t begun let alone the destruction of Jerusalem.
PaulK writes: What of this context makes you believe this is about the revolt? What other than your apriori commitment to place this letter at the time of Paul gives any indication that this is about the politics of Paul's time? In verse two Paul says that the Day of the Lord hasn’t yet happened and that they should disregard any letter or message that has told them otherwise. If the term Day of the Lord was referring to the final return of Christ they would have hardly needed a letter from Paul to tell them that. The Day of the Lord is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. That is not going to happen until the rebellion has commenced. As Paul says from your quote:quote: Jesus’ political message was that the way to defeat the Romans was through His message of changing Roman hearts by loving them, by turning the other cheek and going the extra mile. He told them that the coming revolution was going to bring about their destruction. I believe that His whole message is that it isn’t our enemies be they Roman or anyone else that is the real enemy, but that the enemy is evil itself and the only way to defeat evil is through His message of love, forgiveness, mercy, truth justice etc. The man of lawlessness would be referring to the Roman emperor in all likelihood. Not that long after the death and resurrection of Jesus the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula believed himself to be in some sense divine. He was angry with the Jews anyway and had a huge statue of himself placed in the Temple in Jerusalem. If he hadn’t been murdered in AD 41 there Roman-Jewish war would likely have begun 25 years earlier. I believe that Paul saw this as important because Jesus had taught that these things would happen before He came again and of course He also taught that no one except the Father knew the hour or the minute. (Thankfully for us it has been a good many minutes and hours. )
Jazzns writes: "Paul" here says that "the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth"; but the revolt was crushed. This was not written at the time of Paul. This was written with knowledge of other apocalyptic literature that came after Paul. This is not Paul! I know that the authorship of this letter is controversial but personally I believe that it was written by Paul. In order to better understand the NT from a non-Christian perspective I have a great book compiled by the Jewish NT scholar utilizing her own work in collaboration with other Jewish scholars. The book is entitled The Jewish Annotated New Testament and I recommend it. It seems that the authorship question seems largely to be based on the understanding of the meaning of the letter. If you are correct in your understanding then it probably wasn’t written by Paul. If however my understanding is correct, ( the scholar that I primarily use for this understanding is again N T Wright), then it is fairly safe to assume that the writer actually is Paul.
Jazzns writes: No its not obvious at all. The people of the day were already trying to say that the kingdom of god had already come in some spiritual sense. It is the very common and predictable response to a failure of an end times prophecy. The most recent case was that crazy guy in California (was it last year) who spent all that money on advertising. When the day came, they just claimed it was spiritual. People still say today that the Kingdom of God has already come. That is actually the essence of the Gospel message but as Jesus says, it is not a kingdom of this world. It is a Kingdom for this world that is meant to bring Christ’s message of truth, peace, forgiveness and love to the world in anticipation of the time when time itself comes to an end. This has nothing to do with the failure of the end times prophesy. I recommend N T Wright’s newest book How God Became King, or Scot Mcknight’s book The King Jesus Gospel.
GDR writes: Where we disagree, (I think) at this point is that the question of the immediate return of Jesus is a direct result ofPaul's first letter. I don't see anything in the first letter that indicated any timing for the event. Jazzns writes: Other than the "we who are alive" and "like a thief in the night"? Don't forget the nature of the event. There is a contradiction in the nature too. As I have already said, it is my view that the we who are alive ‘ part is written to alleviate the concern for loved ones who had already died and to reassure them that their position would be no different than anyone who was still alive whenever it is that Christ returns. The thief in the night is about the coming destruction that will result from the coming rebellion.
Jazzns writes: Well in one sense he did come back with the resurrection but also as to the time of final judgement He said that no one knows the hour or the minute. Any idea that the time was imminent would have been from their own speculation.
And you are missing the reason for the concern. The reason the Thessalonians are worried is that they though Jesus should have been back by now like he promised. Jazzns writes: Paul in 1 Thessalonians is making excuses for the failure of Jesus. "Paul" 2 Thessalonians is making excuses for the failure of the real Paul. For reasons I have already given I disagree.
GDR writes: I agree that it is difficult as there seems to be no hard and fast understanding of the term "Day of the Lord". It issometimes used eschatologically, but it is also often used to denote cataclysmic events perpetrated by humans. Jazzns writes: That sounds very convenient. Can you support this? Essentially The Day of the Lord was used to indicate God’s judgement on Israel for the times they failed to follow Yahweh. As a result it was used to indicate destruction at the hands of their enemies or it could mean God’s final judgement. Here is an example where it is clearly being used to indicate the former from Zachariah 14:
quote:The idea that the Day of the Lord could be used to denote the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Romans is that it would be the result of not following the non-violent teachings of Jesus. 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: 2.3 |
PaulK writes:
Essentially he is saying that it could have been that way or it could just be them doing their best to put into words something they had no language for. Which really doesn't change the fact that your source argued that the event literally happened as described. Think on that while you wonder how it is possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions. Sometimes it's the case that one of them only thinks he's looking at the evidence, and is missing something quite obvious,As for the last statement, I have to admit I have had difficulty understanding how you can keep missing the obvious. PaulK writes: In a sense this goes to the heart of my understanding of the NT accounts. Yes the books of the NT are either specific letters or as in the case of the Gospels they are compilations of earlier writings and oral accounts put together to form a complete narrative. Yes, there would have been interpretation of what it all meant and there would be disagreement. Of course we aren't talking about Jesus or simple copying language - we're talking about the interpretation of that language by Christians writing decades after Jesus died. I’ll engage in a little cognitive dissonance for a minute and assume that deep down you do really believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and so we’ll look at the NT in light of that. We read through the Gospels and see consistently that the disciples just didn’t get it. We have them arguing over who is going to sit at His right and left hand where they clearly have the idea that Jesus is going to lead them in a successful revolution with the help of Yahweh. There are times when they seem to be getting it but in a sense they are projecting on to Jesus their own aspirations. In the end Jesus goes to the cross and they see the whole movement coming to a crashing halt as so many previous movements had done. But then comes the resurrection. What now? There has been no revolution but they now see Jesus as being vindicated by the one Jesus called Father. Now they have to go back into the history and the readings and sort out what it all meant. They have to sort out what it means to their own lives. We don’t know what Jesus told them other than what is left to us. Initially there didn’t seem to be a great need to write about things as the eye witnesses would still have been around, but as the years passed it became obvious that they would require the stories to be documented. In these stories they would be influenced by their own understanding of what was to be understood about the meaning of the resurrection was and what message it was that Jesus taught and how they were to react to it. I’m sure there are some stories that were distorted with the result that there are inconsistencies in the various accounts. As I’ve said before I would be far more distrustful of stories that were completely congruous. Things haven’t changed today. Just as our knowledge of the natural world continues to grow it is my belief that through good scholarship our knowledge of what Christ’s life meant for the world continues to grow. Just as modern scientists build their knowledge on the findings and even the errors of their predecessors, modern theological scholars build on the work of their predecessors.
PaulK writes: I hope that you can concede that the Jews in general would not have been thinking of Jesus specifically! Yes
PaulK writes: since we don't know the sources of Luke other than Mark and maybe Q or Matthew it's questionable whether any of them were first hand (Mark and Matthew are almost certainly not). In fact what we are told in Luke makes it seem as if the documents he refers to are other attempts to compile the story, and it could easily be that all were second hand, or further removed from the events. All we can do is speculate.
PaulK writes: I would be very surprised if there were many dedicated Jewish nationalists in those days who did NOT have a religious devotion to it. The Judaic religion is strongly nationalistic, even today. Moreover it does seem odd that if Jesus was opposed to the zealots that he would have one as a trusted lieutenant - more than a mere follower. Or that the Gospels don't make more of it - the Gospels are far more pro-Roman so showing Jesus opposing Judas belief in violent revolution would have been very much in keeping with their agenda. Instead we can't even be sure that Judas was a zealot at all. It looks to me far more as if the Gospels are downplaying the violent side of Jesus' ministry. I certainly agree that Jewish religious belief would have been very much tied in with their nationalistic aspirations. I don’t agree that there was a violent side to His ministry unless you are talking about knocking around a few tables. He did agree that His message would result in divisions even in families. I guess it would be like someone in Holland in 1942 telling his family and neighbours that the way to defeat the Nazis was to love them. There just might have been some serious discussion around that idea. Our thoughts on Judas are mere speculation but I think that there would be a strong likelihood that He viewed Jesus as someone who would be a thorn in the side of the revolutionaries. Of course maybe he was just being mercenary.
PaulK writes: As I've already pointed out, Paul is not at all clear that the post-resurrection experiences are anything more than visions and the Gospels don't present a straightforward bodily resurrection either. Obviously Paul believed in a resurrection. Also obviously we have to understand what Paul means by resurrection. Here is what N T Wright has to say on the subject from a talk he gave recently.
quote: Here is the link to the whole talk.
‘Christ is Risen from the Dead, the First Fruits of Those who have Died’ GDR writes: If we accept the possibility that it is possible for God to intervene in this way then the bodily resurrection of Jesus fits much more plausibly into the accounts that we have than any other explanation IMHO.PaulK writes: Since your argument relies on effectively ignoring a very large part of those accounts it seems rather clear that your opinion is untrue. It is not that I’m ignoring them. I do however understand that the accounts are written by fallible humans doing their best to convey the truth of what happened. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.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: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: Interesting article and there is no doubt it happens. The question of course is that what happened to the disciples. And this article shows you what cognitive dissonance is really like and how people suffering from it rewrite the past in their minds. I just don't think that the argument for it being the case holds up. I don't see it as something that they would have imagined to be the case, or even something that they would have desired to have happen. I also believe that if it was a case of cognitive dissonance that the eventual narratives would read very differently. For example it wouldn't show the disciples as being such dolts and for that matter in showing Peter, one of their primary spokesmen, as behaving so cowardly.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Sorry to be so slow replying but I just haven't had the time. NO worries. Thanks for replying at all. Our conversations always force me to think harder.
Jazzns writes:
I don't disagree with that. Frankly if the 2nd book, assuming it was written by Paul, is trying to explain away the fact that Jesus hadn't returned again then I would be fine with that. I'm just not convinced that it is the case. As far as your last statement is concerned you are probably right, but I wasn't trying to make the point in order to prove it's accuracy. My point is only to try and understand what Paul meant by what he wrote. Even if you are pious, it doesn't serve you to try to weave these justifications. For example, look at how someone like Bruce Metzger approached it. For him, the higher criticism was illuminating. I almost took a position similar to his before I found other reasons to toss the faith. Why does everything have to be congruent? Aren't you making a more nuanced faith more inaccessible by this?
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 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.
They lived in turbulent dangerous times. Paul is writing about the destruction of war.
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.
IMHO what is plain reading for us in the 21st century does not give clearly the same understanding as it would a 1st century Thessalonian. I agree that even if what you said is correct it would not diminish the character of God. As I said, I am just trying to understand Paul’s point as he intended to have it understood. 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?
We have no indication who it is from but Paul is saying that it should be disregarded as the revolt in Judea hasn’t begun let alone the destruction of Jerusalem. 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 the revolt. I haven't seen anything compelling from you to the effect that we should believe that Paul is talking about the revolt.
In verse two Paul says that the Day of the Lord hasn’t yet happened and that they should disregard any letter or message that has told them otherwise. If the term Day of the Lord was referring to the final return of Christ they would have hardly needed a letter from Paul to tell them that. The Day of the Lord is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. That is not going to happen until the rebellion has commenced. As Paul says from your quote 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. 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. 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 believe that Paul saw this as important because Jesus had taught that these things would happen before He came again and of course He also taught that no one except the Father knew the hour or the minute. (Thankfully for us it has been a good many minutes and hours. ) 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.
I know that the authorship of this letter is controversial but personally I believe that it was written by Paul. In order to better understand the NT from a non-Christian perspective I have a great book compiled by the Jewish NT scholar utilizing her own work in collaboration with other Jewish scholars. The book is entitled The Jewish Annotated New Testament and I recommend it. It seems that the authorship question seems largely to be based on the understanding of the meaning of the letter. If you are correct in your understanding then it probably wasn’t written by Paul. If however my understanding is correct, ( the scholar that I primarily use for this understanding is again N T Wright), then it is fairly safe to assume that the writer actually is Paul. 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.
People still say today that the Kingdom of God has already come. That is actually the essence of the Gospel message but as Jesus says, it is not a kingdom of this world. It is a Kingdom for this world that is meant to bring Christ’s message of truth, peace, forgiveness and love to the world in anticipation of the time when time itself comes to an end. This has nothing to do with the failure of the end times prophesy. I recommend N T Wright’s newest book How God Became King, or Scot Mcknight’s book The King Jesus Gospel. 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.
As I have already said, it is my view that the we who are alive ‘ part is written to alleviate the concern for loved ones who had already died and to reassure them that their position would be no different than anyone who was still alive whenever it is that Christ returns. The thief in the night is about the coming destruction that will result from the coming rebellion. 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?
Well in one sense he did come back with the resurrection but also as to the time of final judgement He said that no one knows the hour or the minute. Any idea that the time was imminent would have been from their own speculation. Which is perfectly fine if you believe Paul in 1 Thes. The real Paul was down with what Jesus said about his return. It only becomes a problem when you start reading "Paul" in 2 Thes.
Essentially The Day of the Lord was used to indicate God’s judgement on Israel for the times they failed to follow Yahweh. As a result it was used to indicate destruction at the hands of their enemies or it could mean God’s final judgement. Here is an example where it is clearly being used to indicate the former from Zachariah 14: The idea that the Day of the Lord could be used to denote the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Romans is that it would be the result of not following the non-violent teachings of Jesus.
But Paul doesn't just use the phrase "the day of the lord". He also says:
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. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024