"Ok, I've a question. It's a legitimate one too. You know I don't believe any of this stuff (other than for metaphorical use for some ethics, psychology and philosophical purposes), but in my studies I've never run across (or I don't remember...) the Christian reasoning behind any condemnation of those who led to Jesus' crucifiction. To an outsider the logic is actually absurd. We hear/read that god sent Jesus to die for christians' sins. God/Jesus are essentially the same thing. Some say THE same thing, so Jesus couldn't be holding back any info from God/himself...so he'd know he'd need to die or mankind is screwed. (so sorta, god is killing himself?! or setting it up that way?) So the crucifiction HAD to happen as it was god's will. Apparently Jesus knew Judas would betray, so ergo Judas HAD to betray... and it seems that Judas would in some sense be a Christian hero because Judas ensured the crucifiction happening, therefore saving mankind. Yet had Judas NOT betrayed, would it have not happened?! Logically, of course not. It HAD to happen. As stated, to me this is mythology and so there doesn't need to be a logic to it, only belief, but I'm curious as to the apologetic for this (seemingly self-contradictory) logic. Also what is the logic behind the statement in one of the books whereby Jesus asks "why have you foresaken me?" If he's a manifestation of god and is doing miracles and such, and I think at some point states that he's to die for humanity as that is his purpose, AND he knows he's going to be crucified, why would he have any question?"
Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
My college roommate is now a philosophy prof at our alma mater -- he's frequently asking me questions like this and I want to make sure I give him a good answer to this -- I'd appreciate your thoughts. There's a lot here, and distilling it in a meaningful yet concise way could be tricky.
Re: Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
Hi Darrin,
Part of your quote of your friend:
Part of your quote of your friend:
Don't have much time at the moment, but I have been reading a series of articles in a book re open-theism and in an article by Jack Cottrell titled "God and Time" Cottrell states that the idea "that God's foreknowledge of a future act, whether it be divine or human, rules out the free-will character of that act" is a "common fallacy". Judas did what he did of his own free will and is thus guilty for his act.Apparently Jesus knew Judas would betray, so ergo Judas HAD to betray... and it seems that Judas would in some sense be a Christian hero because Judas ensured the crucifiction happening, therefore saving mankind. Yet had Judas NOT betrayed, would it have not happened?! Logically, of course not.
Re: Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
and it seems that Judas would in some sense be a Christian hero because Judas ensured the crucifiction happening, therefore saving mankind. Yet had Judas NOT betrayed, would it have not happened?! Logically, of course not. It HAD to happen. As stated, to me this is mythology and so there doesn't need to be a logic to it, only belief, but I'm curious as to the apologetic for this (seemingly self-contradictory) logic. Also what is the logic behind the statement in one of the books whereby Jesus asks "why have you foresaken me?" If he's a manifestation of god and is doing miracles and such, and I think at some point states that he's to die for humanity as that is his purpose, AND he knows he's going to be crucified, why would he have any question?"
It's true Jesus had to die for the sins of man but Judas did'nt know that and his motivation was evil. Presumably if man does have true freewill and Judas would'nt betray Jesus then someone else would have. This thinking that Judas was a hero is like claiming Pharoah was a hero or Caiphas or Pilate.
Re Jesus saying "My God why have you forsaken me" , IMO he was fulfilling Psalm 22 , and he was speaking as mankinds representative asking God , why are you not helping me? That was the question , the answer was mans sin problem , and Jesus provided the solution to the question he had asked.
Perhaps your friend should ask questions first , and think about the answers before deciding it's mythology.
It's true Jesus had to die for the sins of man but Judas did'nt know that and his motivation was evil. Presumably if man does have true freewill and Judas would'nt betray Jesus then someone else would have. This thinking that Judas was a hero is like claiming Pharoah was a hero or Caiphas or Pilate.
Re Jesus saying "My God why have you forsaken me" , IMO he was fulfilling Psalm 22 , and he was speaking as mankinds representative asking God , why are you not helping me? That was the question , the answer was mans sin problem , and Jesus provided the solution to the question he had asked.
Perhaps your friend should ask questions first , and think about the answers before deciding it's mythology.
Re: Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
Hi Darin-
I honestly have some of same questions as your friend, in particular to "guilt" for the crucifixion. Of course I understand that there were evil motives on the part of those that sent him to his death (particularly on the part of the jewish leaders, not necessarily the romans). But Jesus did, in fact, have to die. Peter's first sermon in Acts sets blame ("This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."). But, they are being blamed for something that resulted in something glorious for those who believe.
Looking at it from a bird's eye view, it looks like the end justified the means. But when you drill it down to the individual acts of the perpetrators involved, their guilt is clear.
If I shoot somebody, and during surgery to remove the bullet they discover my victim has a cancer that would have taken his life had it not been discovered and they are able to remove it (and the bullet) succesfully, I cannot be congratulated for shooting him in the first place, although it appears, taking everything into account, that my shooting was actually a good (or at least fortuitous) thing.
TK
I honestly have some of same questions as your friend, in particular to "guilt" for the crucifixion. Of course I understand that there were evil motives on the part of those that sent him to his death (particularly on the part of the jewish leaders, not necessarily the romans). But Jesus did, in fact, have to die. Peter's first sermon in Acts sets blame ("This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."). But, they are being blamed for something that resulted in something glorious for those who believe.
Looking at it from a bird's eye view, it looks like the end justified the means. But when you drill it down to the individual acts of the perpetrators involved, their guilt is clear.
If I shoot somebody, and during surgery to remove the bullet they discover my victim has a cancer that would have taken his life had it not been discovered and they are able to remove it (and the bullet) succesfully, I cannot be congratulated for shooting him in the first place, although it appears, taking everything into account, that my shooting was actually a good (or at least fortuitous) thing.
TK
Re: Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
Your friend is struggling to understand issues like...
God's sovereignty vs. man's free will
Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism
Jesus' divine vs. human nature
Obviously we aren't going to come up with quick and easy answers to these issues. But you're friend seems to misunderstand God's sovereignty as determinism, misunderstand the distinction between the members of the godhead, and misunderstand the effects of incarnation. As to the first, God's knowing the future need not dictate that He determined the future. He may simply know what would be freely chosen. As to the second and third, God is a relationship. Relationships are complex. The complexity of the divine relationship is further complicated by the fact that one member of the godhead became flesh. In limiting himself, Jesus seems not to have had omniscience while on earth (or the other omni's) except when the Spirit worked through Him.
In short, I'd say the main thing your friends needs to consider is the self-limiting habit of God.
God's sovereignty vs. man's free will
Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism
Jesus' divine vs. human nature
Obviously we aren't going to come up with quick and easy answers to these issues. But you're friend seems to misunderstand God's sovereignty as determinism, misunderstand the distinction between the members of the godhead, and misunderstand the effects of incarnation. As to the first, God's knowing the future need not dictate that He determined the future. He may simply know what would be freely chosen. As to the second and third, God is a relationship. Relationships are complex. The complexity of the divine relationship is further complicated by the fact that one member of the godhead became flesh. In limiting himself, Jesus seems not to have had omniscience while on earth (or the other omni's) except when the Spirit worked through Him.
In short, I'd say the main thing your friends needs to consider is the self-limiting habit of God.
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
It's not very good, but about all I have time or ability to do right now and he's bugging me for a response. If anyone can correct gross errors or suggest clarity, I'd appreciate it.
------------
You say you don't believe "any of this stuff." Out of curiosity, do you doubt the historicity of the events themselves or just the post-event claims and conclusions we draw from them? If both, I'm curious of the basis of doubting the historicity.
I apologize for the poor grammar and structure here. Parenting is bar none the most difficult (and rewarding) things I have ever done, and I am absolutely exhausted when I get kids to bed (emotionally, physically, and mentallly). Were I 20 or 30 it might be easier. Regrettably, if I don't get a light day and free lunch, I rarely have time to spend on such things these days. I think we have another year or two before I start to reclaim some part of my mind and time. OK, enough excuses...
Volumes could be (and have been) written on such things, and it's a lot to handle in an email on borrowed time. I'm a bit all over the place here but this should give you some idea (scattered though it is) of some of the Christian responses. I wish I had more time to reflect and digest and synthesize for you and suggest a few literate works but like any complex subject there is a lot of "cruft" to get to a shared context, and it can feel a bit like explaining third order derivatives to someone that won't or hasn't studied arithmetic. It's all the more difficult when you're an amateur mathematician yourself who clings to limited understanding. Though I am intellectually motivated in this area, and spend a great deal of time studying these things and reading early and recent thinkers, there is a ton of divergence and reconvergence of many of these ideas and thousands of years and culture losing context, etc., and much of it is still very difficult to me to synthesize. Thankfully, though, the basics are all pretty simple to the extent we are required to understand them. Too few people stop there, though and don't ask the sort of probing questions you and I would ask. If they did, then maybe we would have a better and more full shared vocabulary and context in the world to discuss these concepts. Left to theologians, it remains somewhat obtuse and mysterious.
I commend you for trying to understand even when it doesn't resonate, and I only hope I can shed some light for you - not to convince you but out of respect for you and your inquiry (and of course a glimmer of hope you might one day understand and agree). Your intellect would be very useful to Christendom. I dare say even pagan philosophers have contributed to proper theology, and a great number of modern theologians are non-Christians, but study these things for their intellectual value.
Standing back a bit, the over-arching element that most fail to appreciate is the self-limiting habit of God. What God "can do" is not always the same thing as what he "does." Also difficult is the interwoven notion that God can "know all things" and yet "freewill" can still exist. A branch of Christian theology driven by symbolic logic known as Evangelical Open Theism would handle this by the theory that God knows everything but "everything" doesn't include the future because it doesn't exist yet. They handle his prophetic ability by his power akin to a master chessman who knows every conceivable move and can not be thwarted by any particular move to ensure a particular outcome. That's a bit of a digression, but I think studying Open Theists like Greg Boyd might really interest you on a number of philosophical levels, and Judas is practically a case study for them. I don't think they have it quite right, but it's a very interesting theory. There are a number of Boyd lectures online, and a number of peer reviewed papers by this crowd that even non-Christian logicians seem to appreciate. Much of that pure symbologic logic is lost on me, but it's stimulating reading. A friend recently recommended the following article about God and time which although I haven't read it seems to have an excellent bibliography of some "unconventional" authors you might benefit from reading "http://internal.ccuniversity.edu/seminary/Cottrell.pdf".
With regard to "blame", some of the "suspects"/"sinners" here would include the Jewish crowds (who "gave him up"), the Jewish leaders (who gave him up out of fear and vengeance and to remove a threat to their own camps/divisions) and Pilate (who sacrificed him out of weakness or political or other gain) - of Judas (who betrayed him), of the other disciples (who failed him in their watch). All of them sinned. It is never God's will that man sin. However, God is able to redeem man's sin and use it for his purposes. The fact that God can and does use man's sin to his ends doesn't negate the condemnation of the sinner for their actions. There are many examples of this in scripture. There is a big debate about whether God's foreknowing events such as this prevents freewill from being exercised. Questioning whether it could have come out any other way is interesting, but usually leads to sophistry as our logic fails when a "mover" outside our physicality that is not bound by time (or perhaps cause and effect) is involved. The philosophy of staunch Calvinist (the main thread evolving from the Reformation such as Presbyterians) would suggest God intended for the sinner to sin and that each of their evil actions would derive from God's will which controls everything with "meticulous sovereignty" akin to a director in a play (I disagree strongly with this view by the way). Their critics (such as myself) would say they make God the "author of evil" instead of merely working with that evil and orchestrating His larger will within those freewill choices (both good and bad). Looking at Judas as an example, I think it could well have happened through another person if necessary as God has a lot of variables at His disposal and there are plenty of evil intentions to work with without causing an individual to do a bad thing. Pharaoh (re: egyptian exile - Moses) is another example. The bible says God "hardened his heart" and many people think that means God caused Pharaoh to treat the Egyptians badly. I don't think that's a necssary conclusion. I think God found Pharaoh already with an evil heart and having done evil continually, God "gave him over" to his "reprobation" (as the bible says God will do when a person has gone so far down the path of evil, etc.) and quit intervening to protect His people from Pharaoh or influencing Pharaoh in ways that would restrain his evil. In that way, His will was done with the Egyptians to get them exiled so that they could become His people and enter the promised land and so on. That doesn't mean that Pharaoh was to be "praised" for his evil anymore than Judas, but only that God can be praised for using even such evil to further His larger plans. God likewise used evil nations to do His bidding and judge peoples -- that doesn't give virtue to their actions. God had been restraining evil and He simply let it go for the furtherance of His plan. We have many examples of evil men and evil intentions (through wars and otherwise) leading to horrific situations that in the scheme of things turn out to be positive turning points for mankind or a society. That doesn't mean we praise those evil men or their actions. Not a perfect analogy, but if I shoot someone, and during surgery to remove the bullet they discover a tumor that would have killed him and they remove it, I still go to jail and am not a hero for saving his life. I see Judas in the same way.
Your side point about Jesus "holding back" from himself since he was God is also difficult -- there is no concept more difficult than the trinity and we don't have a lot of information and probably couldn't comprehend the reality of a prime mover God even if we had more. There is no shortage of metaphors etc. to try and understand the Trinity, and all no doubt fall short of the reality. We are bound in this 4 dimensional reality, and really don't have capacity to escape that context. However, we do have bits and pieces to form some understanding to the extent we need to understand it. One of the best metaphors to me is to view God as the Sun. We don't really see the sun - we feel its warmth and see photons that evidence it's reality. The Holy Spirit can be seen as its warmth and Jesus the light. Both are different from the sun but part of it. There is only one sun, but it has different aspects and we experience it differently through each. Others speak to "personalities" of God - god in three "persons" but that doesn't really help me so much. The bible doesn't really say we have a trinity or three part God (or three essence or three nature God) and there are MANY views of this. I personally lean towards a "two-part/essence" God with the Spirit merely being the spirit shared by both. Since the "spiritual" is so hard to grasp, none of probably get it right anyway so I cling pretty loosely to this largely unknowable idea. I even have some respect for those who question whether Jesus is actually God but instead would share in God's deity as a prince would be fully "royal" without being King. The bible requires us to believe that He has the full authority of God and that He rules God's kingdom, and that we worship him as God, but the same would apply in many cultures to a prince, and many of the relevant texts are somewhat ambiguous. There are some unambiguous texts that convince me that He is actually God, but I don't think that's the measure of true Faith that some would. The narrative of John's visions in Revelation and paying attention to who the characters are in that vision make it pretty clear that Jesus is speaking and is spoken of as the alpha and omega, which (among other parts of that narrative) is clearly a reference to the everlasting Yahweh (the Father, God, who always was and created all things). So, I think those would deny Jesus' "GOD-ness" get it wrong, but if it were that important at that level, I believe Jesus or his apostles would have made it abundantly clear for us.
With respect to Jesus as god-man and his logical omniscience that would seem to follow, there is a concept called "kenosis" (greek for "emptying") that describes God's emptying of aspects of his deity so that as "god-man" Jesus was both fully man and fully God in His "nature," but he lacked certain characteristics of his "god-ness" that would have prevented him from having full "humanity" with all the weaknesses and temptations etc. that a man would have. The bible says he came in the "form" of man, but didn't "cling" to His godness in that aspect so that he could fully identify with us, be tempted as we would be, and yet fulfill God's law as no man had ever been able to do and be the perfect sacrifice that the former jewish system had only hoped to have had in their animal sacrifices. The bible also tells us that Jesus lacked full knowledge and only lived day by day by the influence of God's "spirit" which communicated to Him what the "Father" (the part of God in Heaven that emptied himself partially by becoming a man) wanted Him to do and to know. So, yes, I think God held back some things from Jesus and that he had to walk in faith just as we are to do. Things were revealed to him progressively, I believe and he remained faithful to the end even when it became clear that he must die. In fact, in the hours before his arrest, he struggled with the Father in prayer hoping the Father's will could happen any other way. So, yes, in that way God did in a way kill himself (but only the man, his offspring) as the ultimate expression of His love for man. No greater love has any man but that he lay down his life for another. Since God can't die fully, this was the most full way He could do that without being non-existent (not a possibility).
As to "why have you forsaken me," that too is a much-misconstrued saying. There are many theories about this, but the main ones (or the ones that resonate with me) are (1) in order for Jesus to fully be a sacrifice for all sins of men forever and enable them to be forgiven by God (if they choose to "join his team"), he had to actually (spiritually) take on those sins. So, this man who knew no sin in a sense "became sin" at the instant of his death and at that moment he felt separation for the first time from His father in heaven and felt the full guilt of sin committed by others. In this view, it was a cry of agony. It doesn't require that GOd actually "forsook" Jesus, but that he felt that way. OR (2) this was merely Jesus' way of confirming that this was that prophesied moment in history that scriptures had spoken of in the prophets. This phrase was a very familiar part of a prophesy about the messiah who was to come and would immediately have brought to mind in those jews observing the scene that this was that moment (most Jews still didn't "get it" yet at that time - and still don't). The quoting of that verse didn't mean to imply that Jesus actually was forsaken in that moment, but instead simply applying that scripture to this moment so that the rest of it which did apply to Him would be noticed by those in observance. (3) very similar to 2 above, He was fulfilling the prophets (Psalm 22 in this case), and he was speaking as mankind's representative and asking God on their behalf a very rhetorical "why are you not helping me?" That was the question - the answer was man's sin, and Jesus was providing the solution to the very question he was asking.
There are a good many books and philosophers and theologians throughout the ages who have grappled deeply and voluminously with these issues, and I think far too few philosophers today respect or read those with as much intellectual vigor as they would some pagan philosopher who babbles sophistrial (is that a word?) nonsense.
------------
You say you don't believe "any of this stuff." Out of curiosity, do you doubt the historicity of the events themselves or just the post-event claims and conclusions we draw from them? If both, I'm curious of the basis of doubting the historicity.
I apologize for the poor grammar and structure here. Parenting is bar none the most difficult (and rewarding) things I have ever done, and I am absolutely exhausted when I get kids to bed (emotionally, physically, and mentallly). Were I 20 or 30 it might be easier. Regrettably, if I don't get a light day and free lunch, I rarely have time to spend on such things these days. I think we have another year or two before I start to reclaim some part of my mind and time. OK, enough excuses...
Volumes could be (and have been) written on such things, and it's a lot to handle in an email on borrowed time. I'm a bit all over the place here but this should give you some idea (scattered though it is) of some of the Christian responses. I wish I had more time to reflect and digest and synthesize for you and suggest a few literate works but like any complex subject there is a lot of "cruft" to get to a shared context, and it can feel a bit like explaining third order derivatives to someone that won't or hasn't studied arithmetic. It's all the more difficult when you're an amateur mathematician yourself who clings to limited understanding. Though I am intellectually motivated in this area, and spend a great deal of time studying these things and reading early and recent thinkers, there is a ton of divergence and reconvergence of many of these ideas and thousands of years and culture losing context, etc., and much of it is still very difficult to me to synthesize. Thankfully, though, the basics are all pretty simple to the extent we are required to understand them. Too few people stop there, though and don't ask the sort of probing questions you and I would ask. If they did, then maybe we would have a better and more full shared vocabulary and context in the world to discuss these concepts. Left to theologians, it remains somewhat obtuse and mysterious.
I commend you for trying to understand even when it doesn't resonate, and I only hope I can shed some light for you - not to convince you but out of respect for you and your inquiry (and of course a glimmer of hope you might one day understand and agree). Your intellect would be very useful to Christendom. I dare say even pagan philosophers have contributed to proper theology, and a great number of modern theologians are non-Christians, but study these things for their intellectual value.
Standing back a bit, the over-arching element that most fail to appreciate is the self-limiting habit of God. What God "can do" is not always the same thing as what he "does." Also difficult is the interwoven notion that God can "know all things" and yet "freewill" can still exist. A branch of Christian theology driven by symbolic logic known as Evangelical Open Theism would handle this by the theory that God knows everything but "everything" doesn't include the future because it doesn't exist yet. They handle his prophetic ability by his power akin to a master chessman who knows every conceivable move and can not be thwarted by any particular move to ensure a particular outcome. That's a bit of a digression, but I think studying Open Theists like Greg Boyd might really interest you on a number of philosophical levels, and Judas is practically a case study for them. I don't think they have it quite right, but it's a very interesting theory. There are a number of Boyd lectures online, and a number of peer reviewed papers by this crowd that even non-Christian logicians seem to appreciate. Much of that pure symbologic logic is lost on me, but it's stimulating reading. A friend recently recommended the following article about God and time which although I haven't read it seems to have an excellent bibliography of some "unconventional" authors you might benefit from reading "http://internal.ccuniversity.edu/seminary/Cottrell.pdf".
With regard to "blame", some of the "suspects"/"sinners" here would include the Jewish crowds (who "gave him up"), the Jewish leaders (who gave him up out of fear and vengeance and to remove a threat to their own camps/divisions) and Pilate (who sacrificed him out of weakness or political or other gain) - of Judas (who betrayed him), of the other disciples (who failed him in their watch). All of them sinned. It is never God's will that man sin. However, God is able to redeem man's sin and use it for his purposes. The fact that God can and does use man's sin to his ends doesn't negate the condemnation of the sinner for their actions. There are many examples of this in scripture. There is a big debate about whether God's foreknowing events such as this prevents freewill from being exercised. Questioning whether it could have come out any other way is interesting, but usually leads to sophistry as our logic fails when a "mover" outside our physicality that is not bound by time (or perhaps cause and effect) is involved. The philosophy of staunch Calvinist (the main thread evolving from the Reformation such as Presbyterians) would suggest God intended for the sinner to sin and that each of their evil actions would derive from God's will which controls everything with "meticulous sovereignty" akin to a director in a play (I disagree strongly with this view by the way). Their critics (such as myself) would say they make God the "author of evil" instead of merely working with that evil and orchestrating His larger will within those freewill choices (both good and bad). Looking at Judas as an example, I think it could well have happened through another person if necessary as God has a lot of variables at His disposal and there are plenty of evil intentions to work with without causing an individual to do a bad thing. Pharaoh (re: egyptian exile - Moses) is another example. The bible says God "hardened his heart" and many people think that means God caused Pharaoh to treat the Egyptians badly. I don't think that's a necssary conclusion. I think God found Pharaoh already with an evil heart and having done evil continually, God "gave him over" to his "reprobation" (as the bible says God will do when a person has gone so far down the path of evil, etc.) and quit intervening to protect His people from Pharaoh or influencing Pharaoh in ways that would restrain his evil. In that way, His will was done with the Egyptians to get them exiled so that they could become His people and enter the promised land and so on. That doesn't mean that Pharaoh was to be "praised" for his evil anymore than Judas, but only that God can be praised for using even such evil to further His larger plans. God likewise used evil nations to do His bidding and judge peoples -- that doesn't give virtue to their actions. God had been restraining evil and He simply let it go for the furtherance of His plan. We have many examples of evil men and evil intentions (through wars and otherwise) leading to horrific situations that in the scheme of things turn out to be positive turning points for mankind or a society. That doesn't mean we praise those evil men or their actions. Not a perfect analogy, but if I shoot someone, and during surgery to remove the bullet they discover a tumor that would have killed him and they remove it, I still go to jail and am not a hero for saving his life. I see Judas in the same way.
Your side point about Jesus "holding back" from himself since he was God is also difficult -- there is no concept more difficult than the trinity and we don't have a lot of information and probably couldn't comprehend the reality of a prime mover God even if we had more. There is no shortage of metaphors etc. to try and understand the Trinity, and all no doubt fall short of the reality. We are bound in this 4 dimensional reality, and really don't have capacity to escape that context. However, we do have bits and pieces to form some understanding to the extent we need to understand it. One of the best metaphors to me is to view God as the Sun. We don't really see the sun - we feel its warmth and see photons that evidence it's reality. The Holy Spirit can be seen as its warmth and Jesus the light. Both are different from the sun but part of it. There is only one sun, but it has different aspects and we experience it differently through each. Others speak to "personalities" of God - god in three "persons" but that doesn't really help me so much. The bible doesn't really say we have a trinity or three part God (or three essence or three nature God) and there are MANY views of this. I personally lean towards a "two-part/essence" God with the Spirit merely being the spirit shared by both. Since the "spiritual" is so hard to grasp, none of probably get it right anyway so I cling pretty loosely to this largely unknowable idea. I even have some respect for those who question whether Jesus is actually God but instead would share in God's deity as a prince would be fully "royal" without being King. The bible requires us to believe that He has the full authority of God and that He rules God's kingdom, and that we worship him as God, but the same would apply in many cultures to a prince, and many of the relevant texts are somewhat ambiguous. There are some unambiguous texts that convince me that He is actually God, but I don't think that's the measure of true Faith that some would. The narrative of John's visions in Revelation and paying attention to who the characters are in that vision make it pretty clear that Jesus is speaking and is spoken of as the alpha and omega, which (among other parts of that narrative) is clearly a reference to the everlasting Yahweh (the Father, God, who always was and created all things). So, I think those would deny Jesus' "GOD-ness" get it wrong, but if it were that important at that level, I believe Jesus or his apostles would have made it abundantly clear for us.
With respect to Jesus as god-man and his logical omniscience that would seem to follow, there is a concept called "kenosis" (greek for "emptying") that describes God's emptying of aspects of his deity so that as "god-man" Jesus was both fully man and fully God in His "nature," but he lacked certain characteristics of his "god-ness" that would have prevented him from having full "humanity" with all the weaknesses and temptations etc. that a man would have. The bible says he came in the "form" of man, but didn't "cling" to His godness in that aspect so that he could fully identify with us, be tempted as we would be, and yet fulfill God's law as no man had ever been able to do and be the perfect sacrifice that the former jewish system had only hoped to have had in their animal sacrifices. The bible also tells us that Jesus lacked full knowledge and only lived day by day by the influence of God's "spirit" which communicated to Him what the "Father" (the part of God in Heaven that emptied himself partially by becoming a man) wanted Him to do and to know. So, yes, I think God held back some things from Jesus and that he had to walk in faith just as we are to do. Things were revealed to him progressively, I believe and he remained faithful to the end even when it became clear that he must die. In fact, in the hours before his arrest, he struggled with the Father in prayer hoping the Father's will could happen any other way. So, yes, in that way God did in a way kill himself (but only the man, his offspring) as the ultimate expression of His love for man. No greater love has any man but that he lay down his life for another. Since God can't die fully, this was the most full way He could do that without being non-existent (not a possibility).
As to "why have you forsaken me," that too is a much-misconstrued saying. There are many theories about this, but the main ones (or the ones that resonate with me) are (1) in order for Jesus to fully be a sacrifice for all sins of men forever and enable them to be forgiven by God (if they choose to "join his team"), he had to actually (spiritually) take on those sins. So, this man who knew no sin in a sense "became sin" at the instant of his death and at that moment he felt separation for the first time from His father in heaven and felt the full guilt of sin committed by others. In this view, it was a cry of agony. It doesn't require that GOd actually "forsook" Jesus, but that he felt that way. OR (2) this was merely Jesus' way of confirming that this was that prophesied moment in history that scriptures had spoken of in the prophets. This phrase was a very familiar part of a prophesy about the messiah who was to come and would immediately have brought to mind in those jews observing the scene that this was that moment (most Jews still didn't "get it" yet at that time - and still don't). The quoting of that verse didn't mean to imply that Jesus actually was forsaken in that moment, but instead simply applying that scripture to this moment so that the rest of it which did apply to Him would be noticed by those in observance. (3) very similar to 2 above, He was fulfilling the prophets (Psalm 22 in this case), and he was speaking as mankind's representative and asking God on their behalf a very rhetorical "why are you not helping me?" That was the question - the answer was man's sin, and Jesus was providing the solution to the very question he was asking.
There are a good many books and philosophers and theologians throughout the ages who have grappled deeply and voluminously with these issues, and I think far too few philosophers today respect or read those with as much intellectual vigor as they would some pagan philosopher who babbles sophistrial (is that a word?) nonsense.
Re: Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
In this view, it was a cry of agony. It doesn't require that GOd actually "forsook" Jesus, but that he felt that way. OR (2) this was merely Jesus' way of confirming that this was that prophesied moment in history that scriptures had spoken of in the prophets. This phrase was a very familiar part of a prophesy about the messiah who was to come and would immediately have brought to mind in those jews observing the scene that this was that moment (most Jews still didn't "get it" yet at that time - and still don't). The quoting of that verse didn't mean to imply that Jesus actually was forsaken in that moment, but instead simply applying that scripture to this moment so that the rest of it which did apply to Him would be noticed by those in observance. (3) very similar to 2 above, He was fulfilling the prophets (Psalm 22 in this case), and he was speaking as mankind's representative and asking God on their behalf a rhetorical "why are you not helping me?" That was the question - the answer was man's sin, and Jesus was providing the solution to the very question he was asking.
Exactly , yes he fulfilled Psalm 22 but what did it mean. It had to be rhetorical since Jesus stood in our place and spoke on behalf of sinful man or Jesus really believed God abandoned him even though he had said several times earlier he would suffer and die and be raised on the third day.
Exactly , yes he fulfilled Psalm 22 but what did it mean. It had to be rhetorical since Jesus stood in our place and spoke on behalf of sinful man or Jesus really believed God abandoned him even though he had said several times earlier he would suffer and die and be raised on the third day.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
The most helpful work I have found on "foreknowledge" is the free online article by Prof. Emer. Thomas Edgar of Capitol Bible Seminary. Googling his name and the word foreknowledge will bring you to the article. This article shows why your friend, though logical, is mistaken to think divine foreknowledge means a deterministic future. Edgar clearly demonstrates why the word foreknowledge implies nothing about determinism, since it was understood this way inside and outside biblical literature in 1st century Palestine and in the surrounding Greco-Roman culture.Apparently Jesus knew Judas would betray, so ergo Judas HAD to betray... and it seems that Judas would in some sense be a Christian hero because Judas ensured the crucifiction happening, therefore saving mankind. Yet had Judas NOT betrayed, would it have not happened?! Logically, of course not.
However, your friend is right to suppose that divine, non-determinative foreknowledge is illogical from a human standpoint. But as the philosopher, Godel, showed, every system of ideology (including theologies) has some illogic to it, and so some axiomatic principles must be taken on faith. I think the larger question is to ask how one decides what approach is legiatimate in biblical interpretation. I personally feel that the Bible's words and grammar must be understood according to how it was understood by the people who first received the Scriptures. This is why I think "foreknowledge" ought to be understood the way Edgar claims. Sometimes employing this method may result in having to hold to an aninomy. I know aninonmies make us feel uncomfotable, but as long as your friend insists on logical solutions upon every point in question, he will never be satisfied, regardless of what position he settles on.
I think what also may help your friend is to realize the unique nature of the Persons of the Godhead in Christian theology: Each Person has self-sacrificed for the benefit of the Others. Thus Father gave up His Son so that the Son would be glorified, the Son came not on His own but because the Father sent Him (so that the Father might be glorified), and the Spirit came not to speak of Himself but of the Son. This is the nature of God--selflessness. And the potential of choosing between this and selfishnessw is what constitutes moral Possibility. I don't know of another system besides Christianity that provides such a foundation of ethic from eternity past.
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Help with question from my philosophy prof friend
I can't find that article. Can you post a link or the title of the article?DanielGracely wrote: The most helpful work I have found on "foreknowledge" is the free online article by Prof. Emer. Thomas Edgar of Capitol Bible Seminary. Googling his name and the word foreknowledge will bring you to the article. This article shows why your friend, though logical, is mistaken to think divine foreknowledge means a deterministic future. Edgar clearly demonstrates why the word foreknowledge implies nothing about determinism, since it was understood this way inside and outside biblical literature in 1st century Palestine and in the surrounding Greco-Roman culture.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
(please see next post for hyperlink)
Last edited by DanielGracely on Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:37 am, edited 3 times in total.