A Dialogue with Emmet....

[Guest]

Emmet, thanks again for your time. My thoughts:

An assumed posture of credulity floods the landscape with a menagerie of chimerae and pegasii and geese that (purportedly) lay golden eggs.

I think you misunderstood my argument... most likely due to lack of clarity on my part. I'm not saying one should assume credulity when assessing religious claims, nor was I making a specific point about Middle-Eastern men being more honest than others. My point is simply this... when I read biblical scholars (Old and New Testament) it seems that undue skepticism is placed on anything that challenges a naturalistic worldview.

For example, in Isaiah 44-45 we read of a man named Cyrus who would do certain things in the Future. A couple centuries later, it happened. When Old Testament scholars look at such a passage they say, "We need to move the timeline now... Isaiah must've been written after Persia conquered Babylon." In other words, there is undue skepticism placed on supernatural claims. The same is true of Daniel and the claims of Jesus regarding the destruction of the temple under Titus.

I'm not arguing that one should abandon reason and hold that every claim is veritable. But the claims of the bible are unique (as I'm sure you would agree) in that, they are claiming certain things happened in history, involving real people. We know that Isaiah was accurate about Cyrus and Daniel was accurate about a number of things.

As it is, we may acknowledge that Luke's written output is in large part a secondary piece of evidence, being one stage (or more) removed from first-hand accounts. As such, we not only face the challenge of engaging the personal filter of eyewitness testimony, but also the subsequent filters of interpersonal transmission and edition by a non-witness.

I would implore you to revisit the book of Acts since Luke was, himself, an eyewitness to many supernatural occurances with the apostle Paul. His information about Jesus was second-hand but he certainly knew whether or not Paul was a miracle-worker who had been instructed by the ressurrected Christ. I gather from Luke's writings that he was an astute man and a careful researcher, not given to credulity. Your field is religious studies and mine is literature so we may differ here.

Besides which, I criticize diction as a means for cracking people out of their conceptual cocoons. Many Christians dismiss "religious" things, being fully blind to the religious character of even their putatively religionless Christianity. They despise ritual, oblivious to the fact that the Lord's Supper and baptism and even their worship conventions are rituals; they denigrate theology, ignorant of how their own beliefs and the ways they articulate them are the end-product of theological enterprise. Such short-sightedness is obnoxious, and an obstacle to mature engagement of religious matters.

I apologize if you've found me to be obnoxious and ignorant. I'll carefully weigh whether or not those terms apply to me and will adjust accordingly as I see fit. In terms of my diction, I must respectfully disagree with your objection. James defined religion as visiting widows and orphans in their trouble and keeping oneself from being defiled by the world. I'm sure you'd accuse him of using bad diction as well but I think it hardly matters. You are free to criticize the way in which I use the word "religion" but I feel you're overstating your case in defense of your objection by attempting to show how "damaging" this is to one's theological perspective. I sincerely hope you don't find me obnoxious simply because I disagree with you.

A person who follows Jesus' teachings as articulated in the New Testament will find that they are living out the fundamentals of religion: belief; discipline; and celebration. And someone who simply adheres to what Jesus taught will not trumpet a rejection of religion when Jesus plainly validated it by his own paradigms.

I don't object to this form of religion, nor do I assert that Jesus commanded anyone to refrain from ritualistic observance... only that the rituals themselves are not necessary for salvation and can become, like in the examples I gave you, a burdensome thing. The mentality that we must observe rituals to cleanse us from sin is what Jesus addressed so often. Without any respect to the ritual itself, Jesus said God looks on the heart. You are aware that Jesus broke Sabbath, right?

And yet your New Testament indicates that Jesus commanded the observance of at least two rituals: viz., baptism; and the Lord's Supper.

My New Testament also indicates that those rituals are not what save us, hence we have peace with God through a pure heart, and not getting water poured on our head or taking bread and wine. I realize many Christians would disagree with me on this but I'm OK with that.

Emmet, you earlier told me you have a romanticized view of the Creator. Perhaps you also have a similar view toward religious rituals. Would this be correct? God bless you, brother...

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

My point is simply this... when I read biblical scholars (Old and New Testament) it seems that undue skepticism is placed on anything that challenges a naturalistic worldview.

This can be the case, though "undue" is a debatable assessment in different instances. Although many phenomena have been attributed to the supernatural (both within Christian thought and without), often enough it has turned out that more prosaic explanations are better suited for such things. So it is not inappropriate to consider that prosaic factors may have yielded phenomena that at first blush are held to be supernatural.

Of course, not all biblical scholars will rule out the possibility of the supernatural - myself included. I will, however, be cautious about attributing supernatural character to phenomena.

For example, in Isaiah 44-45 we read of a man named Cyrus who would do certain things in the Future. A couple centuries later, it happened. When Old Testament scholars look at such a passage they say, "We need to move the timeline now... Isaiah must've been written after Persia conquered Babylon." In other words, there is undue skepticism placed on supernatural claims. The same is true of Daniel and the claims of Jesus regarding the destruction of the temple under Titus.

For Daniel and "Second" Isaiah, there are additional factors besides the predictive elements that support assigning them to later dates, though the matter in my mind is less than definitive. Besides which, there are other ways to explain such prophecies in naturalistic terms, besides questioning the apparent timeline. But I have little problem with prediction per se, except that I will attribute it to God's reliable ability to accomplish his intention rather than to God's actually seeing the future.

I would implore you to revisit the book of Acts since Luke was, himself, an eyewitness to many supernatural occurances with the apostle Paul. His information about Jesus was second-hand but he certainly knew whether or not Paul was a miracle-worker who had been instructed by the ressurrected Christ. I gather from Luke's writings that he was an astute man and a careful researcher, not given to credulity.

There is no need to "implore" .

Luke may have witnessed some phenomenal events in the ministry of Paul, which may or may not have been on the order of such phenomena that are experienced in a variety of different religions. (In and of themselves, miraculous events do not constitute proof of theological verity.) But regardless of what Luke saw of Paul as a miracle-worker, this does not mean that he knew Paul had been instructed by the resurrected Christ, inasmuch as Paul's visions were private. Luke could only know that Paul claimed (and likely believed) that he had been instructed by Jesus - unless Luke himself had mystical confirmation of this, which he did not share with his audience.

We might expect from Luke's being a physician, and from his superior use of Greek, that he was a relatively intelligent man. But we must also recognize that, even in our times, relatively intelligent men can become convinced of untrustworthy things. For example, even within the medical field - their own realm of expertise - intelligent physicians can stumble into quackery.

But I will press you a bit for specific evidence that has led you to "gather from Luke's writings that he was an astute man and a careful researcher, not given to credulity."

James defined religion as visiting widows and orphans in their trouble and keeping oneself from being defiled by the world. I'm sure you'd accuse him of using bad diction as well but I think it hardly matters.

In the first place, it is questionable whether James was intending to posit a fully comprehensive definition. Perhaps one should visit the handicapped adult male in his trouble? Or even a healthy, gainfully employed male with a Mazda and a picket fence, in his trouble? What about offering praise and thanksgiving? Or believing in God?

In the second place, James was not a speaker of modern English. He did not know the word "religion," and had little recourse to Webster's.

In the third place, if you were to buy into James here as an authoritative definition for "religion," then you would have little call for asserting that Jesus freed people from it.

You are free to criticize the way in which I use the word "religion" but I feel you're overstating your case in defense of your objection by attempting to show how "damaging" this is to one's theological perspective.

There are serious problems with abusing the term "religion."

it serves to dismiss basic forms of human thought and experience, which have probably been designed and intended by God, and which at the very least have served as major venues for divine-human interrelationship. As has been experienced in recent Christianity, this dismissal leads to multifold impoverishment (e.g., aridity and flaccidity). Accordingly, many Christians in recent years have gravitated back toward celebration of ritual and the classic disciplines, and have benefited from the fruits of these activities;

it inhibits the ability of Christianity to be self-aware. The objection of some Christians that they are not religious is like the objection of some humans that they are not animals. Humans certainly are not plants, or fungi, or crystalline entities, and regardless of their special abilities, their physical design is thoroughly mammalian. By denying this, people can deprive themselves of the insight to their own selves that such a realization affords (e.g., understanding of the self as a biochemical and instinctual entity). Likewise, denial that Christianity is a religious entity can deprive people of the insights that this affords; when people better understand the nature of their activities (psychologically & socially, dynamically & structurally), they are better able to facilitate and draw upon them, increasing their potential yield;

it contributes to the isolation of Christianity. By imagining themselves not to be religious, some Christians are thus able to parcel off other religious paradigms and dismiss them. This deprives Christians of the lessons they might learn from fellow participants in religious being, and it cuts off lines for communication and mutual understanding between religions.

Christians have nothing to fear from acknowledging that they are religious people, participating in a religious paradigm. And acknowledging this fact opens venues for greater understanding of themselves and of others. But the abuse of "religion" (in significant part through sloppy or idiosyncratic/esoteric diction) distances people from these benefits.

I sincerely hope you don't find me obnoxious simply because I disagree with you.

"Sincerely"?

I don't object to this form of religion, nor do I assert that Jesus commanded anyone to refrain from ritualistic observance... only that the rituals themselves are not necessary for salvation and can become, like in the examples I gave you, a burdensome thing. The mentality that we must observe rituals to cleanse us from sin is what Jesus addressed so often. Without any respect to the ritual itself, Jesus said God looks on the heart.

Interesting. I suppose there are Christians who would consider baptism and the Lord's Supper to be burdensome things. One might wonder about the character of their hearts, though. When one appreciates the wisdom of God, one cherishes his rituals and delights in them.

As for necessity - this is a more complex issue than one might appreciate at first. Rituals are not utterly necessary, I will agree. And yet they may be seen as practically necessary, either:
inasmuch as they are attendant to obedience, and inasmuch as obedience is attendant to faithfulness, with faithfulness being necessary; or
inasmuch as they may be the sole, ordained, and/or pivotal means for touching a person's heart at a critical moment.

I agree that God looks on the heart, and neither ritual nor crucifixion eclipses its true character from the sight and judgment of God.

You are aware that Jesus broke Sabbath, right?

It's possible. I am not one who holds that he was sinless.

Quote: And yet your New Testament indicates that Jesus commanded the observance of at least two rituals: viz., baptism; and the Lord's Supper.

My New Testament also indicates that those rituals are not what save us, hence we have peace with God through a pure heart, and not getting water poured on our head or taking bread and wine. I realize many Christians would disagree with me on this but I'm OK with that.

I cannot entirely agree that "rituals are not what save us," inasmuch as rituals affect the disposition of the heart and contribute toward our spiritual formation, and as such they may be part-and-parcel of certain persons' salvation.

Jesus does not free Christians from ritual, if he requires ritual of them in obedience. One might as well say that he frees Christians from service to the poor.

Emmet, you earlier told me you have a romanticized view of the Creator. Perhaps you also have a similar view toward religious rituals. Would this be correct?

To reiterate, I said that "I approach relationship with God as romantic (in both the broad sense and the narrow)" - which as a person from the field of literature you may appreciate more sensitively than the average individual. Like "religion," "romantic" bears a technical definition.

I regard rituals as kinetic poetry: celebrative and potentially didactic, with the ability to sensitize the mind and the heart. They may serve as lightning rods for mystical experience and as means for dialogue in relationship with God, and they are strongly and validly engaged in emotional terms, so in those respects I may approach them romantically; but they are not magic and do not so much accomplish things by dint of supernatural mechanics or powers, so my romanticism does not extend in that direction.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet, thank you for engaging me once again with your ideas.

But I will press you a bit for specific evidence that has led you to "gather from Luke's writings that he was an astute man and a careful researcher, not given to credulity."

That's a fair and reasonable question. Acts 27 would probably be my "go-to" chapter when demonstrating the mind-numbing level of detail that Luke seemed to enjoy recounting. Since he was a physician by trade, one wouldn't necessarily expect him to know so much about seamanship but his level of expertise was apparent. Luke also seemed to be politically savvy and all this leads me to believe he was an astute man. Can intelligent people have wrong ideas? Sure. You're intelligent.

There are serious problems with abusing the term "religion."

This seems like an important issue with you so I won't dismiss it outright. I still don't feel I've abused the word "religion" in any way but would it be helpful if I used another term for the sake of clarity? Perhaps I will alter my original assertion that Jesus set us free from the constraints of religion to the following: Jesus sets believers free from idle (not idol) worship.

This may not prove to be helpful, however, since your fascination with my phraseology has led you away from the point I set out to make. If you feel that God somehow honors a person slitting the throat of a yak to appease his darkened, unrepentent heart then be my guest. I choose to believe that God honors a humble and lowely heart, without respect to the slaying of an animal. There are certain religious practices that cover for an unrepentent heart and the dangers therein should not be overlooked.

Quote:
I sincerely hope you don't find me obnoxious simply because I disagree with you.


"Sincerely"?

One word responses are sometimes helpful. This is not the case here.

Jesus does not free Christians from ritual, if he requires ritual of them in obedience. One might as well say that he frees Christians from service to the poor.

I'm not sure why you'd say obedience to Christ is a ritual. Are you referring to his replacement of Passover with the Lord's Supper or perhaps his command to love your enemy? In either case, I believe Jesus spoke only the words his Father gave him and his command was to love God and man with a pure heart. One could safely add ritual observance to that command but there's a danger in looking to the ritual itself for salvation, instead of the source. In other words, it's making the alter holy because the showbread is sitting on it.

To reiterate, I said that "I approach relationship with God as romantic (in both the broad sense and the narrow)" - which as a person from the field of literature you may appreciate more sensitively than the average individual. Like "religion," "romantic" bears a technical definition.

I certainly appreciate the notion. So often our Creator is thought to be a cosmic abstraction without opinions or feelings. I see God as an intensely personal being who enjoys fellowship with the meek and pure of heart. I also see his son as the one appointed to judge mankind by the words he spoke. Do you love God and neighbor more than yourself? That was his command.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

Acts 27 would probably be my "go-to" chapter when demonstrating the mind-numbing level of detail that Luke seemed to enjoy recounting. Since he was a physician by trade, one wouldn't necessarily expect him to know so much about seamanship but his level of expertise was apparent.

Acts 27 is part of the "we" component of the text. Apparently Luke was present for this portion of the narrative, and when one has endured an arduous journey, it is understandable if one remembers certain details. It would be quite natural if Luke were hanging on every word of the old salts on board, hoping to glean some clue that would enhance their prospects for surviving what was in those days a perilous journey.

Although this may demonstrate attention to detail, this does not demonstrate Luke's research sensibilities when it comes to historiography. An essential part of historiography is the careful gauging and vetting of sources, including those who are not available for direct interview. This process would have been less applicable to Luke's direct experience of seafaring in Acts 27.

Can intelligent people have wrong ideas? Sure. You're intelligent.

So, there's two things we agree on, right there....

&

This seems like an important issue with you so I won't dismiss it outright. I still don't feel I've abused the word "religion" in any way but would it be helpful if I used another term for the sake of clarity? Perhaps I will alter my original assertion that Jesus set us free from the constraints of religion to the following: Jesus sets believers free from idle (not idol) worship.

Here I will ask: when were believers subject to "idle worship"?

If you feel that God somehow honors a person slitting the throat of a yak to appease his darkened, unrepentent heart then be my guest. ... There are certain religious practices that cover for an unrepentent heart and the dangers therein should not be overlooked.

Unless I am mistaken, yaks were not indigenous to the Levant, and (so far as I am aware) we lack any indication of an arduous journey to Central Asia in biblical times, to obtain such a beast.

But since the yak is a bovine, it may be a potentially acceptable animal for Levitical sacrifice. But you accept the Old Testament as inspired, correct? So I should not presume that you are attempting to mock the genius of God.

I do not believe that any religious practices "cover" an unrepentant heart; neither do I believe that the blood of an innocent person serves as adequate camouflage from the sight and judgment of God.

I choose to believe that God honors a humble and lowely heart, without respect to the slaying of an animal.

A "humble and lowly heart" is obedient to God's commandment, and therein lies the respect.

I'm not sure why you'd say obedience to Christ is a ritual. Are you referring to his replacement of Passover with the Lord's Supper or perhaps his command to love your enemy? In either case, I believe Jesus spoke only the words his Father gave him and his command was to love God and man with a pure heart. One could safely add ritual observance to that command but there's a danger in looking to the ritual itself for salvation, instead of the source. In other words, it's making the alter holy because the showbread is sitting on it.

According to your New Testament, both baptism and the Lord's Supper were commanded by Jesus. Both of these activities are rituals, yet if they were commanded, how are we to say that faithful Christians are freed from their observance? What is more, when Jesus was done, the Gentiles were beholden to more ritual observance than before he came!

Our line of discussion stemmed from your comment that "Unlike most people in my camp, I don't believe Jesus came to start a new religion. Rather, I believe he came to abolish religion and set people free from the constraints of such things." It has seemed like you are trying to steer this in the direction of soteriology, which is itself a complex subject. But if we are to delimit freedom to the utter minimal threshhold of salvation (which is a thorny move to make), then Jesus has not really changed anything, since the ritual of the Torah was never utterly necessary for salvation in the first place. The same ways in which Torah ritual was necessary correspond to the ways in which Jesus' commanded rituals might be seen as necessary.

Do you love God and neighbor more than yourself? That was his command.

I appreciate the valor of loving a neighbor more than oneself, but I'd like a verse reference for that "command," if you don't mind.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Greetings, Emmet. Let's discuss..

Although this may demonstrate attention to detail, this does not demonstrate Luke's research sensibilities when it comes to historiography. An essential part of historiography is the careful gauging and vetting of sources, including those who are not available for direct interview. This process would have been less applicable to Luke's direct experience of seafaring in Acts 27.

In referencing Acts 27 I was intending to demonstrate that Luke was an astute man with a wide knowledge base. With respect to my assertion that he was a careful researcher, I'd point to several things. First, he claimed this himself in Luke 1. Second, it's highly unlikely that Luke would take such great pains in naming historical people (Quirinius, Sergius, Gallio, Paullus, Felix, Festus, Gamaliel, Caiaphas, Herod Agrippa I and II, etc) if accurate reporting were not his intention. Third, it's commonly believed that Luke wrote his letters to a Roman official who could've easily checked his references. If this was not the case, I hardly see any reason to mention so many seeminly mundance details. If Luke were merely writing to a group of believers, for example, why bother with all the trivial stuff?

Here I will ask: when were believers subject to "idle worship"?

That statement was very tongue-in-cheeck, which is why I added the "laughing" smiley. If you don't find my brand of humor amusing, perhaps it's time to move on from this point.

Unless I am mistaken, yaks were not indigenous to the Levant, and (so far as I am aware) we lack any indication of an arduous journey to Central Asia in biblical times, to obtain such a beast.

I'm not sure if this statement was intended to be sardonic but I was referring to paganism and not the Jewish system of sacrifice. Perhaps I should've said, "Sacrificing one's child on a burning cauldron" but that might be a bit morbid for our discussion. Besides, "yak" is a funny word.

I do not believe that any religious practices "cover" an unrepentant heart; neither do I believe that the blood of an innocent person serves as adequate camouflage from the sight and judgment of God.

As to that second part, maybe it's possible you're projecting your own ideals onto God instead of taking him as he really is. The same could be said of me, except that the God of the Bible is not the one I would invent since he commands my obedience in areas that greatly hinder my own pleasures. As a disciple, I'm obedient anyway. Your notion of God seems rather lofty, uninterested and... quiet. If that's what God is truly like then I have to accept it. To me, it sounds more like projecting.

What does God require of you, Emmet, and how did you draw your conclusions on the matter?

According to your New Testament, both baptism and the Lord's Supper were commanded by Jesus. Both of these activities are rituals, yet if they were commanded, how are we to say that faithful Christians are freed from their observance? What is more, when Jesus was done, the Gentiles were beholden to more ritual observance than before he came!

Baptism is a one-time event, not an ongoing ritual to atone for something. The Lord's Supper is simply eating food with other believers in remembrence of the Christ. Neither of these things are necessary for salvation, though both are necessary for obedience. These particular issues have been talked to death on this very forum so I'd prefer to cover new ground, if possible.

It has seemed like you are trying to steer this in the direction of soteriology, which is itself a complex subject.

I agree that soteriology is a complex (and important) subject, which, I'd imagine, is the reason for your strong objection to my wording. What I find curious is your seeming lack of profoundity in assessing the more simplistic teachings of Jesus. The Lord made several esoteric statements but we're discussing his more obvious points. Perhaps I've just made a case for Calvinism.

I appreciate the valor of loving a neighbor more than oneself, but I'd like a verse reference for that "command," if you don't mind.

That's not a problem but if you don't mind me asking.... why on Earth would it matter, since you reject the scriptures as authoritative?

But, since you asked, I'll give you one to chew on. Jesus commands us to love our enemy in Matthew 5:44. As a disciple, that means I have to act kindly toward someone who may very well kill me at that same moment. To act in such a way means one has to abandon their own interests for the interests of another. This, I would consider, is loving another more than yourself. Of course, you and I may differ on what "love" means.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Finally getting to a response, here....

In referencing Acts 27 I was intending to demonstrate that Luke was an astute man with a wide knowledge base. With respect to my assertion that he was a careful researcher, I'd point to several things. First, he claimed this himself in Luke 1.

Luke describes himself as "following exactly all things from the beginning." Presumably his sources correspond, at least in part, to those mentioned in verse two: "the ones being, from the beginning, eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." This may sound good, but we might welcome a more detailed description of Luke's methodology. How broad or comprehensive was his sampling of sources? How did he sift and gauge claims to eyewitness status? How did he go about the harmonization of testimonies?

What is more, it appears that we might discern here a fundamental bias in Luke's research, inasmuch as his sources are described as "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." One wonders if Luke invested time into debriefing eyewitnesses who did not become ministers of the word or followers of Jesus, who were not so invested in the evolving understanding of the church. Careful historical research involves investigating more than one side of a story.

As it is, your earlier statement that "I gather from Luke's writings that he was an astute man and a careful researcher, not given to credulity" is at best partially bolstered by Luke's self-proclaimed diligence. This suggests care, but hardly speaks to credulity. Some people are attentive to soak up every detail of partisan or outlandish claims.

Second, it's highly unlikely that Luke would take such great pains in naming historical people (Quirinius, Sergius, Gallio, Paullus, Felix, Festus, Gamaliel, Caiaphas, Herod Agrippa I and II, etc) if accurate reporting were not his intention.

Of course, most of these people were not merely historical figures to Luke, but rather persons known directly and/or indirectly by people in the early church.

Third, it's commonly believed that Luke wrote his letters to a Roman official who could've easily checked his references.

I imagine that many Roman officials in the first century would have been less than diligent about checking the references of a minority cult. But even an interested party would have some task at hand, trying to track down official confirmation of dozens of minor events, scattered across the empire. This was not the age of e-mail.

If this was not the case, I hardly see any reason to mention so many seeminly mundance details. If Luke were merely writing to a group of believers, for example, why bother with all the trivial stuff?

"Mundane" and "trivial," of course, are in the eye of the beholder.


If we wish to gauge the quality of Luke's work, this is done easily enough by observing his presentation of material which is also preserved in Matthew and Mark. For whatever reason, Luke appears to feature embroidery of earlier material.

For example, Matthew and Mark have Jesus speak of "my blood of the covenant" in their Last Supper narratives, whereas Luke follows Paul in the rendering "the new covenant in my blood," which features both an added adjective ("new") and a restructuring of the syntax to emphasize the blood as Jesus' own. The Lukan-Pauline construct facilitates evolving theology in the church, but the Matthean-Markan version has less of this injected into it, and is closer to an original representation of the tradition.

For another example, we may look at how Luke recasts the parable of the patched garment. While both Matthew and Mark speak of an unseasoned patch for an old garment, Luke's version forges beyond to introduce imagery where the patch is being taken from a new garment, thus transforming the parabolic imagery dramatically. No longer is the parable about pastoral concern for how to handle the integration of the unseasoned; now one is dealing with a more polarized concept of new and old, with the patch elevated to full status as a garment of its own. It is not surprising in the least that Luke's variation should suit Pauline theology so well, while the Matthean-Markan version is more pastoral than theological.

So if Luke is in fact an attentive researcher, and has not embroidered these materials himself, then we may call into question the pedigree of sources which he has "follow[ed] exactly."

I'm not sure if this statement was intended to be sardonic but I was referring to paganism and not the Jewish system of sacrifice. Perhaps I should've said, "Sacrificing one's child on a burning cauldron" but that might be a bit morbid for our discussion. Besides, "yak" is a funny word.

May I trouble you to restate your point, then?

kaufmannphillips: I do not believe that any religious practices "cover" an unrepentant heart; neither do I believe that the blood of an innocent person serves as adequate camouflage from the sight and judgment of God.

JC: As to that second part, maybe it's possible you're projecting your own ideals onto God instead of taking him as he really is.

Perhaps I am projecting. I expect that God is a god of truth, who judges and engages the world as it truly is - naked before his gaze. But maybe I am projecting authenticity onto God.

It is also my observation that untruth ultimately betrays fulfillment of life. But perhaps I am projecting God's character as a god of life onto him as well.

Maybe God goes around treating lies as truth, and bailing out or ignoring circumstances where untruth starts to take its toll on life. But for my part, I find my projection more satisfying.

The same could be said of me, except that the God of the Bible is not the one I would invent since he commands my obedience in areas that greatly hinder my own pleasures. As a disciple, I'm obedient anyway.

I don't know how to relate to this, since the practice of Torah does not hinder my pursuit of pleasure in any noticeable way.

Your notion of God seems rather lofty, uninterested and... quiet. If that's what God is truly like then I have to accept it. To me, it sounds more like projecting.

Perhaps you are less discomfited by a God who resorts to legal fiction and camouflage in order to "solve" (?!) sin, than by a God who can manage his own emotions for the sake of others?

What does God require of you, Emmet, and how did you draw your conclusions on the matter?

God requires that I be fundamentally available to conform to his will.

I came to this conclusion because the golden plates told me so.



I have concluded (drawing upon theological precedent) that the critical issue for humanity boils down to the stewardship of free will. If one is fundamentally available to conform to the will of God, then there is no essential obstacle to the trustworthy genius of God being fulfilled in one's life, thereby resolving all problems attendant to humanity.

What I find curious is your seeming lack of profoundity in assessing the more simplistic teachings of Jesus. The Lord made several esoteric statements but we're discussing his more obvious points.

Now, how shall I go about pleasing you, Mr. Cunningham? In another forum, I am not simple enough for you; in this forum, I "seem[ to] lack ... profoundity."

kaufmannphillips: I appreciate the valor of loving a neighbor more than oneself, but I'd like a verse reference for that "command," if you don't mind.

JC: That's not a problem but if you don't mind me asking.... why on Earth would it matter, since you reject the scriptures as authoritative?

It matters because you take them seriously.

But, since you asked, I'll give you one to chew on. Jesus commands us to love our enemy in Matthew 5:44. As a disciple, that means I have to act kindly toward someone who may very well kill me at that same moment. To act in such a way means one has to abandon their own interests for the interests of another. This, I would consider, is loving another more than yourself. Of course, you and I may differ on what "love" means.

Of course, your messiah is supposed to have identified "you will love your neighbor as yourself" as a linchpin commandment. "As" is not "more than."

If all the commandments harmonize, loving one's enemy as (but not more than) oneself seems a satisfactory fulfillment of the command to love one's enemy. And surely there are ways to act lovingly toward one's enemy without placing oneself in mortal danger, no?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi, Emmet... thank you once again for engaging me. Our discussions are always enlightening (to me, at least).

Regarding your skepticism of Luke's research reliability and bias, I can only stand by the arguments I've already made. You've presented an alternative viewpoint and I appreciate that, but it's only an alternative. Archeologist, William Ramsey, called Luke a historian of the first rank. He took Luke to task and ended up convinced. I realize this is an "appeal to authority" but my time is limited.

May I trouble you to restate your point, then?

Sure. Any type of ritual (pagan or otherwise) that is performed with an unrepentent heart is not acceptable to God. However, ritual with a heart to please God is something that , I think, he honors. Ancient pagan rituals often involved harming another person so the ritual itself was evidence of a darkened heart or spiritual state. Jesus said to leave your gift at the alter if you remember that you've wronged someone. You are to first go and repent of the deed so God will honor your sacrifice. I don't oppose religious rituals, only the idea that the ritual covers the state of one's heart.

I don't know how to relate to this, since the practice of Torah does not hinder my pursuit of pleasure in any noticeable way.

Pardon my ignorance here but how does one practice Torah? I'm quite intrigued by this concept. Do you attend synagogue? Are there authorities you look to for spiritual guidance? Again, forgive my lack of knowledge in this.

Perhaps you are less discomfited by a God who resorts to legal fiction and camouflage in order to "solve" (?!) sin, than by a God who can manage his own emotions for the sake of others?

That's certainly not my understanding of the atonement. By "legal fiction" are you referring to the acquittal of one who has offended God by reason of his faith in God? It's my understanding that we are saved by turning from sinful ways and following God. This requires faith.

Now, how shall I go about pleasing you, Mr. Cunningham? In another forum, I am not simple enough for you; in this forum, I "seem[ to] lack ... profoundity."

No need to please me, Emmet. Just engage me with your ideas.

And play nice.

If all the commandments harmonize, loving one's enemy as (but not more than) oneself seems a satisfactory fulfillment of the command to love one's enemy. And surely there are ways to act lovingly toward one's enemy without placing oneself in mortal danger, no?

Paul tells us in Phi. 2:3 to humbly consider others better than ourselves. I don't think Jesus disagreed with Paul here. Rather, I see Jesus taking the theme that humans are intrinsicly selfish and we should apply that great level of self-concern to even our enemies. I'm not sure how the distinction you're drawing would make a difference in real life. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

Archeologist, William Ramsey, called Luke a historian of the first rank. He took Luke to task and ended up convinced. I realize this is an "appeal to authority" but my time is limited.

Ramsay's work predates the First World War, and some water has gone under the scholastic bridge since then. But I am not surprised when Christians appeal to authorities from yesteryear.

I don't oppose religious rituals, only the idea that the ritual covers the state of one's heart.

No disagreement here.

Pardon my ignorance here but how does one practice Torah? I'm quite intrigued by this concept. Do you attend synagogue? Are there authorities you look to for spiritual guidance? Again, forgive my lack of knowledge in this.

The practice of Torah consists of: studying the text so as to best ascertain the shape of its parameters; and then, the fulfillment of those parameters in one's actions. Some parameters are concrete; others are more open-ended and allow for personal creativity. As with all human activity, it is a process that should be immersed in prayer.

I attend synagogue infrequently at present, because I live some distance from the nearest congregation. Participation in synagogue can be edifying in terms of structure and community support.

I do not adhere to a rabbi, but I have taken advantage of the labors and the example of others. When their efforts seem solid and compelling, I will act likewise. One significant influence for me has been the Karaite tradition (q.v., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite & http://www.karaite-korner.org).

kaufmannphillips: Perhaps you are less discomfited by a God who resorts to legal fiction and camouflage in order to "solve" (?!) sin, than by a God who can manage his own emotions for the sake of others?

JC: That's certainly not my understanding of the atonement. By "legal fiction" are you referring to the acquittal of one who has offended God by reason of his faith in God? It's my understanding that we are saved by turning from sinful ways and following God. This requires faith.

Here I am at fault. I should not presume that you hold to a common substitutionary understanding of atonement.

Many Christians would not articulate salvation in the terms you have here. Some might assign salvation quite wholly to the activity of Jesus and/or God, disclaiming any action of the individual as salvific.

For my part, I favor applying the label of "salvation" to those things that God (and others) have done to contribute to my repentance, and refraining from applying it to my own contributions - thus avoiding the language of "saving" myself, even though it might not be sheerly inadmissable.

No need to please me, Emmet. Just engage me with your ideas.

And play nice.

I'm not really nice, but I play nice on TV.

kaufmannphillips: If all the commandments harmonize, loving one's enemy as (but not more than) oneself seems a satisfactory fulfillment of the command to love one's enemy. And surely there are ways to act lovingly toward one's enemy without placing oneself in mortal danger, no?

JC: Paul tells us in Phi. 2:3 to humbly consider others better than ourselves. I don't think Jesus disagreed with Paul here.

I love it when people tell me what Jesus thinks by quoting Paul. But I think that attention to Paul's context and diction attenuates your citation here. Paul is addressing church discord, and he advises each party to treat the other as "having hold" over them. This is a matter of humility and submission in communal dynamics, and not an issue of relative love. I am responsible for recognizing that Gov. Christine Gregoire "has hold" over me as a resident of Washington State, but there are limits to such a hold, and I am not required to love her more than my own self (though there may be valor in doing so). Indeed, I may recognize that each of my fellow citizens, howsoever humble, has a hold over me in the mutual obligation of our shared community.

Rather, I see Jesus taking the theme that humans are intrinsicly selfish and we should apply that great level of self-concern to even our enemies. I'm not sure how the distinction you're drawing would make a difference in real life. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

The practical dimension lies in our posture. If we love others more than ourselves, then we have a preferential posture toward them in stewarding our energies and resources - and we become respecters of persons. If we love them as ourselves, then we recognize that, ceteris paribus, we have an equally valid claim upon energies and resources, and our posture is to treat everyone evenhandedly - including ourselves.

Which corresponds more accurately to fairness and truth?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Ramsay's work predates the First World War, and some water has gone under the scholastic bridge since then. But I am not surprised when Christians appeal to authorities from yesteryear.

To be fair, I could quote a number of modern scholars who affirm the biblical record as it corresponds to archeology. About the only thing I watch on TV these days is PBS. Every week, it seems, they have a new show on that hits on this very topic. Last week I watched a program called "Mountain of Fire" where researchers explored what they believed to be the historic Mount Sinai, actually located in modern Arabia. It almost looked like a movie set because it matched the Mosaic record on so many details. If you get a chance, please watch that film and give me your thoughts on it.

I've seen other programs on the New Testament and read a few books on the subject as well. The explorder part of me envies those archeologists a little bit. I'd love to be out on a dig.

Many Christians would not articulate salvation in the terms you have here. Some might assign salvation quite wholly to the activity of Jesus and/or God, disclaiming any action of the individual as salvific.

The bible speaks of salvation as a multi-faceted thing and not, as many Christians presume, a term describing a ticket to Heaven. Eternal life with God is certainly one aspect of salvation but there are other aspects which deserve serious attention. I believe God has a kingdom and it's subjects are those who've (by faith) decided to follow God and turn from doing evil. Christ trumpeted this spiritual kingdom by offering a sacrifice (himself) so that, in a mysterious way, we are able to take part in his rightousness. I don't know why God sees Christ in me, instead of my past sins, but I think he does.

The practical dimension lies in our posture. If we love others more than ourselves, then we have a preferential posture toward them in stewarding our energies and resources - and we become respecters of persons. If we love them as ourselves, then we recognize that, ceteris paribus, we have an equally valid claim upon energies and resources, and our posture is to treat everyone evenhandedly - including ourselves.

Which corresponds more accurately to fairness and truth?

I still don't see a practical distinction but let's just say Jesus was correct and we should love our neighbor as much as ourselves. I certainly don't want to put words into the mouth of my Lord if I have somehow misunderstood Paul's meaning. We both seem to think Paul and Jesus agreed on this issue.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

To be fair, I could quote a number of modern scholars who affirm the biblical record as it corresponds to archeology.

And "modern" is generally preferable . But it is also important to recognize the limitations of this approach. For a parallel: just because a writer correctly lists every magistrate in 1820s New York State doesn't mean that such a writer is reliable when recounting the narrative of Moroni and the golden plates. There can be a qualitative difference between religious testimony and historical recordkeeping, and one should be careful not to conflate the two, even though they may coexist in the same document.

Furthermore, some "modern scholars" may have a less exacting threshold when it comes to "affirm[ing] the biblical record" than many laypeople imagine. That is, an archaeologist may find a proximal correspondence between archaeological evidence and biblical record to be remarkable, whereas many laypeople are imagining precise correspondence.

If you get a chance, please watch that film and give me your thoughts on it.

I don't get TV in my home, unless it is available over the 'net.

The explorder part of me envies those archeologists a little bit. I'd love to be out on a dig.

Participating in a dig can be a viable vacation activity in the holy land. You might be able to arrange to share in a few weeks' labor at a reasonable cost.

Christ trumpeted this spiritual kingdom by offering a sacrifice (himself) so that, in a mysterious way, we are able to take part in his rightousness. I don't know why God sees Christ in me, instead of my past sins, but I think he does.

Ah HA! Perhaps I was not so far off the mark when I spoke of "legal fiction and camouflage." Oh, that "mysterious" hogwash. But no matter how you baptize a pig, even if it's thrice-immersed, it's still treyf.

God sees each of our souls, naked as we are in truth. He sees JC as he is, not JC in Jesus camo. As to why God does not see your past sins ... that is because they are past. When you put them away, they are no longer a part of you. You have put the sinning JC to death, and death is no present threat to the non-sinning JC.


Shlamaa,
Emmet