Divine Intervention v. Divine Inspiration

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by wil, Aug 8, 2011.

  1. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39

    Food for thought, indeed! I had no idea the shelters were that tainted. There is church that provides shelter for the homeless in my community, but they offer no resources, or anything beyond a place to sleep. If these shelters required the residents to work for their stay, and provided reasonable resources to help them find employment, then it would take care of much of the riff raff that takes advantage of these places.


    Much like the starving children in Africa, the worlds homeless problem really has no easy fix. It will require genuine concern, a genuine love and compassion for the homeless themselves, and perhaps mankind is not yet willing to provide a safe environment for them. I place to keep them safe from the elements, only to endanger them to criminal activities seems to be status quo, huh? Crazy! Even so, perhaps we ourselves lack the resources to provide <sigh>. :(
     
  2. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39

    Understood and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
     
  3. bhaktajan

    bhaktajan Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    10
    It is gambling.

    We should not gamble.

    We know what a "sure-thing" is, we must stick with the tried and true.

    The material world is not a comfortable place--- yet the propaganda says otherwise.

    We must be 'in service to others' for it is the fact of life that others are in service to us ---so we should return the sentiment.

    But those incharge have fallen from the ideal high standard that comes with the title.

    Physician heal thy self.
     
  4. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didnt jesus and the followers cast lots? Isnt that a form of gambling?
     
  5. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its just for fun
     
  6. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, we have the evidence of John's late attestation as well to consider... but that was not the point. I was answering your charge that it was "changing the subject" to go from my doubts about John's reliability as a source to questions of possible alternative motives for its composition. The fact that "there is no evidence beyond supposition" about the motives is exactly why John is not a suitable starting point for considering what Jesus did or did not really say; start with what we have better reasons for thinking original, and then test whether John fits in well with it.
    Yes I can. Social concern is absent from John. There. I just said it.
    The dispute in Ephesus and the other churches in Asia Minor was over whether to obey the Council of Jerusalem's decree that meat dedicated to pagan deities should be avoided (and there hardly existed such things as secular butchers at that time; animals were always killed with some sort of religious ritual, and most "butchers" were actually priests; whether a kosher butcher existed in some area would depend on whether there was a Jewish community already), or to follow Paul's line that this was really a triviality and not worth getting in a lather over. Paul lost decisively on this issue and took it hard ("all of Asia has turned against me"), and John was one of his opponents (he compliments Ephesus for rejecting "those who call themselves apostles, but are no such thing"); Pliny notes by the turn of the century that a crackdown on Christianity has helped the fortunes of the meat-sellers "who previously had trouble finding buyers"; but by that time Johannines and Paulines were no longer at enmity and Johannine leaders like Polycarp are commending Paul's epistles (there may have been a reconciliation of factions when Peter went to Rome to check up on Paul, or the simple fact that both were martyred may have led the factions to set aside all differences).

    None of this is a big issue by the time "John" is composed. The fight is against a specific form of the kind of "dualism" you are talking about, namely the theology of Marcion and like-minded thinkers. That was a 2nd-century development, not anything that the disciple John had to deal with when he was alive.
    In John, the way it comes across is that Christians should love other Christians. There is no mention of taking care of the poor, or of treating outsiders well.
    YOU BET! Why do you want to hang on to the questionable so tightly?
    If that was true, then indeed I would say the whole NT should be thrown in the rubbish bin. I don't find that to be the case.
    Yes, and if you want to have any rational discussion who do not share your faith and have no trust in your "tradition", that is where you need to start.
    Yes, and composing the strikingly original thoughts that Breech, for example, wants to focus on as the core, requires some Great Genius whom we might as well just call "Jesus"; the Ockham's Razor explanation for why the texts say that "Jesus" was the name of the guy who came up with this is, um, because that was his name.
    I'm not a real fan of Bultmann. Things which can be "explained away" as mythological developments should not be dismissed out of hand; but, they should be set aside from the initial stages of thinking about the questions.
    Well, so did the Apollo broadcasts from the Moon (which some people still refuse to accept) or, for that matter, many feats seen in the Olympic Games. But we can fit them together with what we do know about how the world works. Many of the old stories in "Scripture" fit together with what ancients thought was the way the world works, but don't fit now that we know a little better: I remember talking to about the Ascension, and how ancients and medievals had no problem thinking about Jesus just stepping up onto the air and climbing to a "heaven" that was up there, a ways past the Moon; you wouldn't agree that they were really thinking in such crude terms, but-- I'm sorry, they really were.

    It was not part of their "everyday" experience, to be sure, but fit in with their larger conceptions of how the universe as a whole worked, just as Neil Armstrong's trip does for us. Miracles were not "supernatural" (a very modern word) but part of the more unusual and wondrous aspects of the "natural" as they understood it: the conceptualization that there are physical laws that keep chugging along by themselves until, occasionally, God steps in to "suspend" the laws for the duration of the "miracle" is not faithful to how the Biblical authors were seeing things.
    What I was saying is that, although I agree it's not good to be "subjective", it is impossible to get totally away from it. What IS your "benchmark"? The Tradition of the Church? WHY? Because you have had certain experiences that lead you to trust it.
    So far so good. I was worried for a while that you were falling into all-or-nothing thinking.
    It will leave us with a starting point. The day-to-day experience of a disciple following Jesus around cannot have been a constant disjunction from the ordinary ways of the world: Jesus is recorded as having eaten food, and I expect he excreted as well...
    I will look up those names. Neither of them is previously known to me.
    The question of how close to the events any particular piece of text actually is, itself raises a lot of issues. How do we tell? Just by taking someone's word for it?
    The view that will eventually be settled upon will, I think, be every bit as different from your "Dogmatic Constitutions" as from naive verbatim literalism or comprehensive rejectionism.
    In my critique of Meier, which I hope to get up on a web-site at some point (part of a body of writings that is getting very long), I note that he takes for granted, without even thinking about the question, that every one of the gospels has a single date of composition: that if any portion of the book is old, the entire book must be that old. It wasn't until the late 2nd century that the Christians start to treat the gospels as SCRIPTURES: that is, as books that must be copied faithfully letter for letter, without additions or edits. The evidence points to a far looser attitude in the earlier 2nd century. Meier raises very good points about the antiquity of the Passion Narrative in John; I agree that this is well-preserved old material. That does not imply antiquity for the "gospel of John" as we now have it, however.
    Uh... aside from over a millenium of the Church functioning as a brutally totalitarian state?
    We do disregard Native folk-tale "explanations" of the cosmos. We might teach the following in anthropology class, but would not treat it as a good source on astronomy:
    "A mean old Chief once hoarded the three light sources in the world creating perpetual night. The light he kept closed up in three dark bags, which were only opened for his pleasure. However, a Raven got bored of flying around in the dark and decided to bring back the light. To do this he turned himself into a leaf and fluttered down on a gust of wind into the Chief's tepee.

    The Chief's daughter was sipping a drink in the tepee, when a leaf entered and landed in her cup as she was drinking. After swallowing the leaf, the daughter fell pregnant and gave birth to a baby with raven-black hair and dark glowing eyes, naturally they called the new arrival “Ravens Child”. The child however was very temperamental and whenever he was bored or wanted something, he shrieked, and shrieked and cried.

    The Chief while a doting Grandfather, hated all the noise the child made and ordered, “Give the child what ever he wants”. So they gave the child the dark bag containing “the Light of twinkling Stars” to play with. The child was very happy as he played with the Stars, bouncing them off the sides of the tepee. So enthusiastically did he bounce them, that one day they bounced right up through the smoke hole in the ceiling and scattered around the dark of night providing a little Light, much to the displeasure of the Chief.

    Having lost the Stars, Ravens Child soon became bored again and as was his way, he shrieked, and shrieked and cried, all the while driving the Chief crazy with the noise. The Chief relented and ordered, “Give the child what ever he wants”. So they give the child the dark bag containing “the Light of the Moon” to play with. The child was very happy as he played with the Moon, bouncing it of the sides of the tepee. So enthusiastically did he bounce it, that one day it bounced right up through the smoke hole in the ceiling and joined the Stars in the dark of night providing a little more Light, much to the displeasure of the Chief.

    Deprived of yet another toy, Ravens Child threw a major tantrum, and shrieked, and shrieked and cried. So disruptive was the noise he made, it was causing the Chief to tear out his hair, as a result the Chief ordered, “Give the child what ever he wants”. The tepee staff were weary of the child by now, and fearful of the Chiefs wrath should anything happen to the third dark bag, so they tried to find something else to keep the child quiet and restore peace, but none of the usual baby toys would satisfy Ravens Child who kept pointing to the last dark bag. Finally they give it to him, but with dire warnings not to lose it, for it contained the Chiefs most prized possession “The Light of the Sun”.

    Instead of playing with it as he had done with the other dark bags, the child suddenly turned back into a Raven and flew up through the smoke hole in the ceiling carrying the bag in his beak and stealing the Chiefs “Light of the Sun”. Untying the bag Raven spread light throughout the world bring to an end the perpetual night and creating day.
    "
    Uh... the scriptures are what they are, and pretending that they have "hitherto veiled secrets" in them is intellectually. They contain the wisdom and the foolishness of bygone days; face up to what is foolish, throw it away, and replace it with wisdom that was simply unknown to the authors of those old books.
    You were accusing wil of "anthropomorphizing" for saying that Jesus even HAD a human nature. Of course he did. Whether he had some "other" nature as well is a separate question, which can't be sensibly discussed until you at least come to grips with Jesus as a human.
    Hold on, right there! When you talk about God as a being that "chooses" things, you are assuming that God is a mammal.
    I think those words indicate a terrible category confusion. I have elsewhere used the analogy, "The number seven became a chair": does that sentence even have enough meaning to be false? The Platonist conception of "Ideals" as a kind of "object" is presupposed by this whole notion of "The Word" as some kind of creature among the other creatures in the world; it just doesn't work.
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Hi Bob x —

    I don't agree with that line of reasoning, though.

    I could argue that the synoptics are all second-hand materials (at least), whereas John is the testimony of an eye witness, written some time after the synoptics, and that John offers a mature and insightful reflection upon the events that occurred. The eye-witness can be challenged, but it cannot be disproved that the core material is from a first-hand source.

    In which case John could be argued a more reliable, or perhaps a more informed, even though later source.

    Very early on he was honoured with the epithet 'the theologian', so his testimony was recognised as being something quite different.

    Not in the Johannine materials. That was a general question tackled much earlier by Paul, who founded the community there, before John settled.

    John's dispute was over the nature of the Incarnation, and the question of physicality. The community was drifting into a dualist outlook, in which the physical was dismissed and the emphasis was upon the spiritual. John asserts the absolute reality of the Incarnation, and the absolute necessity for understanding the implication of 'the word made flesh' ... the later epistles continue this theme.

    I disagree. Where does it say anything about eating temple meat? Dualism was there in many philosophies before Christ, it's at the heart of most disputes, and took centuries to work out. John's battle, whether with Cerinthus in person, or the idea in general, is all about the unity of the Incarnation.

    John is calling the community to be Christians in their hearts, as well as in their observances.

    As long as the other party understands there is no compelling reason to distrust my "tradition", nor a compelling reason to trust modern scholarship ... it's been proved wrong many times before.

    Good grief, Bob X, how can I be Catholic and refute the Incarnation?
    I was accusing Wil of ridiculing anthropomorphism, and then expressing a faith determined by anthropomorphism to such a degree that all divinity is reduced to an abstraction — a projection of the human ideal.

    her he had some "other" nature as well is a separate question, which can't be sensibly discussed until you at least come to grips with Jesus as a human.

    No I'm not, and you know I'm not.

    Do you? Why? hypostasis means 'to stand under' and this is applied to the relation of the human to the divine in the Incarnation. It's entirely fitting if you understand the principle.

    But that's not what the Prologue says. I thought scholarship had realised its error in assuming the Prologue of John was gnostic/Hellenic in influence?

    You idea of what we believe is utterly wrong, it's more Arian than orthodox. The term 'logos' owes more to Stoicism than Platonism, but the idea of Christ as some kind of uber-creature is not what is thought at all, so I don't know why you bring it up. That's an Arian notion (which does derive from Plato), not one we hold at all.

    A closer idea of 'word' is the Hebrew 'memra', but 'logos' works in principle also.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  8. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    It's called 'truth' ... apparently you have no appetite for it.

    But you're not discussing, are you ... you're avoiding the issue, you're in 'eyes wide shut' mode, simply repeating a mantra over and over again, the message carved in stone you learned from the old dead guys who founded Unity.

    Across the sea of your own fantasia?

    Look out for the rocks of the real, my friend.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  9. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    No, Thomas, it may be your truth, but it isn't mine, and it isn't the truth of most of the world. It is the truth of your world. It is the old song and dance, my stories can beat up your stories, it is the reason people leave the Catholic Church by the millions every year, the reason some stay out of guilt instigated by the church and their family as they squirm in their seats. The whole sanctimonious we are the harbingers of truth and one and only true church is dead, whether you are aware or not.

    I often preface my statements in my opinion, or in my belief, but just because you believe something was worked out in 325, or 1289, or 1965 by your church elders does not make it so for the rest of the world....it only makes it so for you and yours.
    Not quite, I disagree with our old dead guys all the time. As discussed, when I take the beliefnet quiz I end up more in the Quaker, Bhuddist or UU camp than I do knew thought. Unity does not teach you what to think....their goal is to teach us to think. Therin lies the difference. They ask us to question everything, explore everything, and if what they teach, what they believe resonates, come back and see us. ... Can you even imagine the same being done from your pulpit?

    Unity was not a church, our old dead guys didn't have any intentions of forming a church, they were having a Wednesday night bible study with people of many denominations, each going back to their churches on Sunday....unitl those people began insisting that they have a Sunday service...the origin of New Thought out of the Trancendental Movement (Emerson and Thoreau and such) with Phineous Quimby, then grew with the Fillmores, Mary Baker Eddy, Ernest Holmes, and then authors like Emily Cady, Thomas Troward, Wallace Wattles, Napolean Hill, spread it even more.
    Nah the sea and the rocks, and my life and this discussion are metaphors.
    You too brother.
     
  10. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tend to agree with Thomas on what hes saying. Unity to work through the bad to get to the good is the way. I love the comment the man who spoke at the United Nations said about a global movement to do acts of kindness., Isnt the unity to do these things. Working through disagreements in kind ways working to seek the truth?
     
  11. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    And on what basis would you say that the gospel of John is eye-witness testimony? Because it says so? Then, the Qur'an is the best source, being direct testimony from God, right?

    Or if you are relying on the "tradition", you have the problem that the earliest members of the tradition don't confirm the provenance. And the manuscript evidence shows a willingness to edit the material, up to surprisingly late dates; with an early fragment showing some material present and some absent in a way that confirms the division into "early" and "late" material that would be suspected on wholly other grounds.
    Oh, so your argument is a perfect reversal of the burden of proof? Prove to me, then, that it wasn't written by the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

    There are positive arguments (quite good ones, in my opinion) for regarding the Passion narrative as from an early source. You are insisting on an early date for the Discourses material, however; and the one does not follow from the other, absent some strong argument for unitary date-of-composition, a point which too many (such as Meier) simply take as a given, in the teeth of all the evidence for multiple edits.
    The "Johannine materials" are not from the period when Paulines and Johannines were contesting the leadership of Ephesus and the other churches in Asia. Paul "tackled" the question one way, claiming that he was an "apostle" with direct authority from his vision-Christ regardless of whether the people who knew the living-walking-Jesus "claimed to be somebody"; and his resolution of the question was rejected by Ephesus and "all Asia", as Paul laments and John applauds.

    Note: my opinion, which is not shared by most scholars particularly of "liberal" bent, is that Revelations is, indeed, the genuine voice of a 1st-century Galilean fisherman, who knows Greek as a second language but not at all well. It is clear to anyone with "an ear to hear" that Revelations and the rest of the "Johannine materials" are not from the same author; and it is Revelations that I would ascribe to John the disciple.
    A deeper dispute with Paul was over his view, as expressed most clearly in 1st Corinthians, that the resurrected Jesus did not have a body of "flesh" but of some kind of vaguely-defined spirit-stuff; Paul argues this in order to claim that his visionary experience of Christ was the same experience that those who met Jesus in the days after he came out of the tomb had, and therefore that he is just as much as direct "apostle" as those who knew the living-walking-Jesus. I read the mention at 15:6 of "five hundred" seeing the risen Christ all at once-- very peculiar if taken to be speaking of something unmentioned in any other source, since you would think one of the gospels would refer to such an event-- as his way of describing the Pentecost, when the disciples' ecstatic preaching induced a large crowd to "feel Jesus in their hearts" as we might put it nowadays; he thinks that is the same kind of experience that those who met the immediate-post-Easter Jesus had. Chapter 21 of "John" (a tack-on, it appears from the textual evidence; but an early one, prior to the end of the 2nd century, and as likely to be a genuine reflection of the "Johannine community" as the opening Logos hymn) emphasizes that the risen Jesus ate fish; this is pointedly directed against a Pauline picture of the risen Christ as non-"flesh", a floating vision.
    The epistles are from the same family of authors as the gospel. Polycarp's epistle to the Phillipians contains one line matching "1st John" (and it is a line precisely on this theme: "who is anti-Christ but one who denies that Christ came in the flesh?") but, although he is writing specifically about what books they should be reading, he does not say that he has any books from John-- although he mentions epistles by Paul and by Ignatius and preachings by Zosimus and by Rufus. My opinion is that "1st John" is quoting Polycarp rather than the reverse. In the Muratorian Canon, the epistles are mentioned as "one claiming to be by John and one with John in the superscription" acknowledging them as pseudepigrapha, but worthy of inclusion as written by well-intended people.
    That dispute was DEAD by the time "gospel of John" and "epistles of John" were written. There was no longer a polemic need to argue that point.
    Not really. The kind of dualism that we are talking about here, as in Marcion and other Gnostics, wasn't part of the 1st-century vocabulary.
    We don't have anything from Cerinthus personally, just rebuttals directed against him. The later anti-"Cerinthus" attacks don't depict the same enemy as the earlier. In later times he became portrayed as some kind of "docetic" Gnostic, but the older and more reliable sources indicate that he was an Ebionite: one who insisted that Jesus was the son of Joseph, heir to the Davidite throne, gifted with a special inspiration at the time of his baptism, but not superhuman in nature; quite the opposite, in fact, from a portrayal as a non-fleshly "spook" imitating a human being in order to communicate.
    But what does it mean in the gospel of John to be "Christian in your heart"? If you had no other text, it would not appear that it involved anything except praising Jesus a lot.
    The errors of modern scholarship are discovered by... more modern scholarship, which ideally holds to an attitude of humility about our human propensity for error, and seeks to discover and correct error. Your "tradition" on the other hand has a stubborn history of clinging to error, refusing to accept that what has been believed since ancient times might, indeed, be just flat-out wrong. And this is indeed a compelling reason to distrust your tradition.
    I think you are reading Wil uncharitably and inaccurately. But he's a big boy who can handle himself, so I think I will just butt out of the argument between you two. Us two have enough to argue about!
    Yes you are, and I know that you are. The manner of functioning which computes possible future outcomes, and "chooses" actions based on preferences among the possible futures, is a functioning found among a limited class of biological creatures. Assuming that God "chooses" things is on the same level as assuming that God has "brown fronds" since, after all, kelp does. We think it more natural to ascribe mammalian traits to God than kelpish traits only because we ourselves are mammals, and by default we model everything we don't understand in terms of ourselves.
    It was my bad, for using the word "creature" which puts you in mind of the whole Arian controversy over whether the Logos was "created" and blah blah blah-- I really don't have a dog in that fight.
    Let me correct it by saying that the underlying assumption is that an abstraction like "the word" is a concrete object like "a chair", or can transform into one. This is the sloppy habit of thought (arising from the fact that both are "nouns" in our grammar) that Gilbert Ryle dubbed the "category mistake" (I hadn't heard of your Ricoeur, who turns out to have written an extensive and well-respected body of work; have you heard of Ryle? Try his Concept of Mind for a seminal exposition).
     
  12. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Wow, I missed it, is that what he was doing?
     
  13. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    And here I thought he was talking to you, wil, about Quaker, Buddhist, UU or Unity as religious communities. Was I wrong?

    Peace, oh wise wil... Radarmark
     
  14. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Darned if I know.
     
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    On the basis that weighing up the evidence, listening to the arguments, taking the pro's and the con's, allowing for redaction, and knowing that there is, as yet, no definitive answer, I choose yes — along with a number of other scholars — and a number of other writers, who point out numerous 'eye witness' characteristics of his style.

    We were told, for example, that Luke was unreliable because he got so many facts wrong, then one by one archaeologists discovered he had his facts right. So, for example, I am obliged to accept that there is no evidence of a census or a slaughter of the innocents, but then the absence of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen ... and there is some view that there could well have been a census, looking at the political shennanigans at the time.

    Never said they were.

    I agree that the dispute with the gnostics came later, over the practice of fitting the Christian message into their own grand schemata, but those schemas — fundamentally dualist systems of all sorts — were there before Christ, and the tendency was there to shape Christianity to fits one's presuppositions.

    But we do, don't we?

    In the context of this discussion, that's unfair and it's wrong.

    We're not sola scriptura — we hold that tradition produces the text, not the other way round — nor do we declare Scripture inerrant.

    We also state emphatically that we do not know who wrote the Gospels, but we accept the tradition M-M-L-J. We know some of the Pauline texts are Pauls, and some aren't. We know the Letter to the Hebrews was not by Paul, even though it was long ascribed to him.

    We accept redaction took place ... but we do not accept that John was not an eye witness, nor that he did not write his gospel, because there is no compelling evidence obliging us to do so.

    Jean Anstruc might be said to be the father of text criticism of the Bible, and Christian exegetes have kept current with developments and findings ever since. Hermann Gunkel made significant contributions with his 'sitz im leben' work, and the work goes on.

    Dei Verbum, released in the 1960's, gives a view of Scripture — written by men, inspired by God — that stands with contemporary scholarship.

    We do have a stubborn habit of not being swayed by the latest whim or fad, but then all great traditions share that. But to say we 'stubbornly cling to error' is to make a perjorative assertion in this case.

    We might stubbornly refuse to agree with you ... but that's something else.

    OK. But the term is contextualised in Scripture, and was well understood. Word (En) / Verbum (Lt) / Logos (Gk) / Memra (Hb) all have a specific context in the discussion of Revelation and there was no confusion there. Everyone got the point ... even down to the man in the street, even if they did not understand the total theological and metaphysical implication of the term.

    But who's grammar and who's habit of thought are we talking about?

    The John who appears in the Gospel, the Beloved Disciple, we now hold, from modern scholarship, was most probably not simply a poor fisherman of the historical Biblical image, but a well-to-do young man, of some wealth and some standing, who could move easily in the upper echelons of Jewish society.

    Similarly, the long-assumed idea that the Gospel of John, or at least the prologue, was influenced by Greek/Gnostic thinking because of the use of the word 'logos', as many were want to beat me over the head with, has also subsequently shown itself to be wrong. Jewish thought was far more nuanced than the Pharisee v Sadducee image, and John's thinking was steeped in contemporary Jewish speculation.

    So you will excuse us if we don't accept every scholarly assertion as infallible.

    One can get too steeped in scholastics and lose touch with the reality — philosophers can play semantic games, but I'm a firm supporter of common sense and 'sitz im leben' ... they knew what they were talking about.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  16. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you know the word gnostic means someone who is in the know? Has knowledge. So its been distorted by scholars who do not want to accept those gospels because it conflicts with their assessment of scriptures.
     
  17. bhaktajan

    bhaktajan Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    10
    I dredged my memory ---and then today finally googled the topic:

    "drawing lots, Jesus"

    And it was not Jesus and Company Ltd ---it was:

    In the Bible what is casting lots

    Casting lots is simply relying on chance to settle a situation - like tossing a coin or drawing a short straw.

    The two most famous incidences of casting lots are firstly,

    a] When the soldiers who crucified Jesus cast lots (ie gambled) to see who would win Jesus' robe that was stripped from him before his crucifxion. {Bhaktajan: apparently for some mundane acquisition}

    Secondly, the disciples prayed and then cast lots to see who would replace Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, after Judas killed himself. The 'winner' was the new disciple, Matthias. {Bhaktajan: apparently for some in-house administative function}

    This was the last time that casting lots is mentioned in the Bible as, after this, the coming of the Holy Spirit to all people meant that casting lots was not needed, or desired, any more.

    Bhaktajan: apparently Matthias was destined and Judas had volunteered for a suicide mission in Christ's earthly pastimes.

    Then again, maybe Judas's suicide was a falsehood ---for he may have purchased the Robe from the soldiers and then He left for distant lands with the relic ---{BTW, this is a conspiracy theory of my own making as I write this}.
     
  18. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well to me gambling is just for fun but ripping people off is wrong so if the games are fixed its wrong if someone wins just by chance good.
     
  19. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well of course that was wrong with the robe thing but there have always been games of chance just for fun.....good sportsmanship is the key in games. I saw guys fighting on tv over a football game. The game is meant to be a competition but good sportsmanship comes into play when one wins or loses. Why are people taking these things tooo seriously is my point. I remember some time back having a competition over a football game , I would have said good game but the other two on the opposing side were bad sportman. If I had really had my head in the game my team would have won but maybe they didnt so that I could see how the other two reacted. The team we were watching may have won on their side but they lost.
     
  20. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know the answer to stopping someone from harming is to put them somewhere to get good counceling. The opposite of what they are doing. So I believe the act of kindness re evolution is good. Where are all the heros? Remember in the end its always a prince who rescues a princess.
     

Share This Page