Ezekiel 18 and Mediation

[Guest]

Hi, Emmet.

But my first counter-counter-question would be: who mediated for the priest under the Mosaic laws?

The same sacrifice, no? The priest, from my understanding, was a point-man called on to carry out the sacrifice and officiate temple dealings. But was the high priest exempted from the sacrificial atonement he offered?

And my second counter-counter-question would be: who mediated for the Chinese, and for the Native Americans, and the Norwegians (etc.) at that time?

Messiah.

Of course, I don't believe the Mosaic sacricifial system did anything more than point to a spiritual reality. You know the type/anti-type spiel. Several members of this board believe Christ's sacrifice atoned for the sins of all people, in all cultures and times the world over. I'm currently undecided on this.

And what of that which the writer of the Qur'an has "revealed" to us? Or that which the writer of the Urantia Book has "revealed" to us?

Because these "revealed" texts can all be tested. There's an entire field of academic study which does this very thing. You partake in this field yourself, if I'm not mistaken.

If we cannot philosophically vet the content of "scripture," how are we to responsibly place ourselves under its direction and invest into its authority?

I read more philosophy than any other topic and it's a great interest to me. However, the pursuit sometimes strikes me as awfully egocentric and presumptuous - though not in all cases. Prentending we can rationalize the mind of God is a silly and somewhat dangerous obsession. It might be more fruitful to look at the various claims of religious people and see if any of them match reality. You hold that Torah is more inspired than Qur'an, right?

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

kaufmannphillips: But my first counter-counter-question would be: who mediated for the priest under the Mosaic laws?

JC: The same sacrifice, no? The priest, from my understanding, was a point-man called on to carry out the sacrifice and officiate temple dealings. But was the high priest exempted from the sacrificial atonement he offered?

The sacrifice is a mediator? Do you really believe that? If so, how is the sacrifice a mediator, and not simply an offering or a ritual expression?

kaufmannphillips: And my second counter-counter-question would be: who mediated for the Chinese, and for the Native Americans, and the Norwegians (etc.) at that time?

JC: Messiah.

Of course, I don't believe the Mosaic sacricifial system did anything more than point to a spiritual reality. You know the type/anti-type spiel. Several members of this board believe Christ's sacrifice atoned for the sins of all people, in all cultures and times the world over. I'm currently undecided on this.

So you would acknowledge that the Mosaic system makes no explicit mediation for Chinese, Native Americans, Norwegians, etc.? Typology can be perilously eisegetical.

Now, doesn't mediation generally require the mediator to be in contact with both parties?

JC: Rather, I'm more interested in what the writers of scripture have revealed to us.

kaufmannphillips: And what of that which the writer of the Qur'an has "revealed" to us? Or that which the writer of the Urantia Book has "revealed" to us?

JC: Because these "revealed" texts can all be tested. There's an entire field of academic study which does this very thing. You partake in this field yourself, if I'm not mistaken.

As you probably are aware, my field does not render a unanimous assessment of your scriptures.

kaufmannphillips: If we cannot philosophically vet the content of "scripture," how are we to responsibly place ourselves under its direction and invest into its authority?

JC: I read more philosophy than any other topic and it's a great interest to me. However, the pursuit sometimes strikes me as awfully egocentric and presumptuous - though not in all cases. Prentending we can rationalize the mind of God is a silly and somewhat dangerous obsession.

Philosophy can be subject to human fallibility. But we have only the tools at our disposal. Appealing to the lack of consonance between the mind of God and human rationality is not without danger, too.

It might be more fruitful to look at the various claims of religious people and see if any of them match reality. You hold that Torah is more inspired than Qur'an, right?

Ah, "reality." And how do we discern when we have transitioned from matching claims to reality into matching reality to claims?

I don't know enough about the Qur'an to fairly gauge its relative level of inspiration.


Shlamaa,
Emmet