Jason wrote:
All kidding aside, the church has held different opinions on this throughout its history (especially early) and has, save for Rome, not had a single authority by which to govern Trinitarian orthodoxy. When the councils met to discuss this they were debating Scripture. Therefore it has always been the writings of the apostles and, before them, the prophets who decided these matters. {color added}
kaufmannphillips wrote:
A historical study of the councils would not reduce their decisions to the writings of the apostles and the prophets.
Jason wrote:
That would depend upon which decisions we are talking about. The Trinity doctrine (which I believe is correct) still arose late and I've seen no evidence that any particular council (except for perhaps the first council in Jerusalem) was inspired or given authority by the Heavenly King.
I do not claim inspiration for the conciliar decisions; even so, I object to characterization of the conciliar decisions as being decided by scripture (as found in the tinted section above). Historical study of the councils will suggest other important factors in their decisions besides scripture; the contributions of politics and philosophy must be taken into account.
Very often people imagine that their understandings are based on scripture, without recognizing to how great an extent their understandings depend upon influences from outside of scripture. People naturally import external assumptions, methodologies, and biases into their readings of scripture - and the result can be understandings that do not accurately reflect the text itself.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
"We" have a rather limited privilege when it comes to making rules of "orthodoxy." That market has been cornered considerably by 1500+ years of investment.
Jason wrote:
Right, but why should we not exercise our privilege? Also, to be completely accurate, there was always a minority of Christians who didn't submit to the authority of the Roman church. This was always a minority bunch and most were executed but still... God seems to favor minorities.
(a) You may exercise your limited privilege, but you should also be realistic about its limitations. Minority rules of "orthodoxy" are sectarian until demographics shift sufficiently to render them otherwise.
This is not an issue of doctrinal accuracy or of religious propriety. "Orthodoxy" is a historical label, reflecting the hegemonic stance within a religious tradition. Then again, scope and context matters. "Orthodox" LDS doctrine will address the hegemonic stance within that sectarian movement; this same stance, however, will not carry the label of "orthodox" when it comes to Christian doctrine on the larger scale.
(b) Is it that G-d favors minorities? Or is it that - too often, as it happens - what G-d favors is embraced by only a minority of human beings?
How many minorities are there that G-d does not favor?
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Certain specific hypotheses related to the Trinity are rejected by the hegemonic stance of the church across time, even when taking into account both conciliar and non-conciliar parties. And some or all of these hypotheses are nevertheless held by unwitting Christians in the present day.
Jason wrote:
The hegemonic stance of the church is only important when one properly defines what the church is. Are you speaking merely of the institution which began in Rome, had a great schism, and a thousand years later broke off into hundreds of splinter organizations?
I am thinking of the broad field of Christian religion over twenty centuries - taking into account the presence of minor sects, but gauging their significance in light of demographics.
Once again, this is not a matter of doctrinal accuracy or of religious propriety. If we were to ask what "orthodox" Islam believes, we would not be asking which stream of Islamic tradition is most palatable from our perspective or from G-d's perspective. Likewise for Christianity, or for Judaism, or for whatever religious tradition.
Jason wrote:
Well, the bible contains the only real records of what Jesus and the apostles taught. Therefore, a rule of sola scriptura is hardly necessary if one understands where the source of authority for one's belief is derived. For the Christian our authority comes from Jesus and the apostles - specifically their written records. To a more subjective degree, we are governed by the leading of the Holy Spirit. And near as I can tell, the Holy Spirit has not informed me on these matters. {color added}
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Most Christians - historically and presently - belong to churches that do not reduce authority to the written records of Jesus and the apostles. Many Christians believe in authority found in the church itself.
Jason wrote:
Many Christians do indeed believe in the authority of the institutional church, I'm just not one of them - an opinion that would've cost me my head at certain periods in history. But you also don't recognize Orthodox Judaism as authoritative, correct? Does that make you wrong about which writings you choose to follow? We must not think that majority opinion determins truth. The minority could obviously be wrong but it can't be assumed.
I do not assert that majority opinion corresponds to truth, or that minority opinion is necessarily in error; rather, I object to making a broad characterization of Christian perspective, that in actuality telegraphs an understanding held by a minority of Christians (as found in the second tinted section above).
kaufmannphillips wrote:
You have the privilege of formulating your own theological understanding as you see fit, but you should be cautious when declaring what "Christians" think or believe. History and facts on the ground may dispute your assertion.
Jason wrote:
I don't understand this statement. We both agree the majority of Christians throughout history have held a Trinitarian belief so I don't dispute that. I'm only disputing your idea that conformity to majority opinion is what puts one "in the club." Your thinking is very traditional here, which surprises me.
I am addressing the second statement of yours that I have tinted above - a statement about what Christians think or believe.
You have the privilege of deciding what you think or believe. You also have the privilege of deciding what you imagine Christians
should think or believe. But you do not have the privilege of deciding what Christians actually
do think or believe. Christians themselves determine that by their aggregate decisions.
So when you comment on what Christians do or think or believe, you should be careful to try and make sure that your comment corresponds to what Christians actually do or think or believe. And when you intend to comment on what you imagine Christians
should do or think or believe, you should be careful to try and make sure that your comment telegraphs "should"ness, and that it does not telegraph an actuality that does not (as yet, anyway) exist as a fact on the ground.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
The mitzvot may or may not come from the Creator in a conventional sense. But one way or the other, the situation remains the same: whether the immediate result of human imagination or of extraordinary mystical encounter, the mitzvot are the stipulations of a commitment to G-d.
Jason wrote:
Why is it evident that the mitzvot are the stipulations of a commitment to G-d? The Buddhists, Hindus and Atheists might take issue with that statement. The Athiest or Buddhist, for example, would say those are commitments to your imagination so why think there's any virtue in living out the mitzvot? I'm afraid you have to take an objective stand here, right?
(a) The
mitzvot are stipulations of the commitment because the human individual has articulated the terms of the commitment.
(b) Whether or not G-d exists only in the individual's imagination is a tangential concern here, not an essential one. G-d's being imaginary would not preclude his being an object of the individual's commitment.
(c) From your perspective, exactly which sort(s) of thoughts need to be objective for one to act upon them? If I hear a knock at the door, must I believe my hearing to be objective in order to check the door? Or do I check the door, even though it seems that sometimes my subjective hearing tells me there was a knock when there was none?
And if I think a course of action to be the right one, how utterly certain must I be of my correctness in order to act upon it?
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Let us imagine that Hilkiah vows to G-d that he will not shave his beard. Of course, he will become quite handsome, but that is a secondary issue
. Whether the idea was Hilkiah's invention or whether it was immediately inspired by HSHM, Hilkiah is responsible to fulfill his commitment and not shave his beard (
so long as the vow is not sin, so as to be repented of rather than fulfilled).
{color added}
Jason wrote:
The argument you gave still doesn't seem to align with reality. What if Hilkiah, instead of musing over his facial hair, had vowed to kill every Palestinian who lived on his block out of service to HSHM? Would this commitment be honored just because he made a sincere vow and kept it?
(a) Note the third tinted section above.
(b) Hilkiah may choose, rightly or wrongly in G-d's eyes, to honor or repent of whatever commitment he has made.
If I were to be more exhaustive: this, acknowledging that Hilkiah may and/or may not objectively exist, that Hilkiah may and/or may not objectively be able to choose, that G-d may and/or may not objectively exist, that G-d may and/or may not objectively have eyes, that G-d may and/or may not objectively assign rightness or wrongness to Hilkiah's choice, that Hilkiah may and/or may not objectively have made a commitment, and that I may and/or may not be fully accurate in any of my perspectives or comments, in comparison to an objective point of reference. But perhaps you will excuse me for not adding these kinds of disclaimers to every comment I make?
kaufmannphillips wrote:
When it comes to predictions of things that later happen, in literature like the Tanakh, these are less than compelling indicators. We are so far removed from the texts that in some cases we may hardly ascertain whether the "prediction" was actually written before the events of the "fulfillment" or not. Likewise, in some cases we may hardly ascertain whether the "prediction" and/or the "fulfillment" have represented fairly the facts on the ground. Beyond this, if the Tanakh is accurate in its portrayal of there being many prophets - "true" and "false" ones - it stands to reason that a certain percentage would be shrewd and/or lucky enough to make successful predictions, and naturally these would be the ones preserved by the recorders of tradition. And finally, there is a major "safety valve" built into the system, in that many predictions without an apparent fulfillment can be salvaged as applying to the future or to some unknown circumstance.
Jason wrote:
So if Isaiah or Daniel made predictions given to them directly from the Heavenly King, what might we expect those to look like? Couldn't someone always discount them as speculative, lucky or the result of forgery? I know the flavor of modern sholarship is to discount prophecy because it's prophecy but that's not a very open minded way of doing business.
My comments here do not depend upon assumptions concerning the relative likelihood or unlikelihood of prophecy
per se.
Is it difficult to appreciate that a "prediction" that is not meaningfully substantiated - that this is less than compelling, even though it
might be true?
Jason wrote:
But speaking of this - have you, in your studies of Rabbinic teaching, noitced a common or orthodox view of prophecy?
I have a long, long, long way to go in the area of Rabbinic literacy.