Attn: harmonizers

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
There are many possibilities for “the gain.” I favor psychological possibilities – e. g., desire to compensate for deserting Jesus at his fatal hour, desire to sustain the experience of being involved in the Jesus movement, desire to validate the costs of having followed Jesus, desire to avoid shame as associates of a disgraced figure. Of course, such motives might or might not have been recognized by the disciples themselves. But such motives could have led the disciples to misconstrue or even misrepresent experiences in the wake of the crucifixion.

steve7150 wrote:
Very vague and highly speculative rationals Emmet that would be unlikely for one person much less dozens of people who chose to risk ridicule and torture and financial loss and family security for the reasons you list.

Well, of course these are vague and speculative hypotheses, Steve. I am not intimately knowledgeable about any of these people. Neither are you.

Which is significant. After years of reading bible stories, some Christians may feel like they know Peter or Thomas or Mary Magdalene, etc. But we actually have quite limited information about these persons. And yet we are supposed to accept extraordinary claims based on their say-so, without close knowledge of their minds or personalities? And for that matter, with limited knowledge of the minds and personalities of the persons who wrote the documents through which we encounter Peter, Mary, etc.?

As for it being “unlikely” that many persons would devastate their lives for the reasons I supplied – if you have studied much into religious cults, and/or have some experience with psychological/therapeutic settings, then you should know that people self-immolate (metaphorically speaking) time and again, for reasons just like these.

steve7150 wrote:
As far as mass delusions or mass conspiracies , there were to many people and Jesus was here for to long a period of time for these scenerios to be viable.

(a)This might hold for “mass delusions,” if the stories in the NT are taken at face value. But if we allow for the possibility of migration, elaboration, and innovation (as is commonplace and natural, and which requires no more than weeks or months), then these stories may derive from less spectacular instances of delusion.

(b) As for “mass conspiracies” – taking elements of the stories in the NT at face value, but allowing for some migration, etc., no more than ten or so parties would have been necessary at the outset. And later on, some of these parties could slough off into obscurity; their continuing contribution to the movement would not be necessary.

I generally do not favor a conspiracy theory, but it is not unimaginable. And it would hardly be more a more extraordinary phenomenon than that claimed by the NT.

steve7150 wrote:
As for the first it is not difficult for me to believe that God would move at some point in time to reveal himself and his kingdom to his creations. I find it logical and not unexpected considering how inconclusive the OT is with regards to a resolution of the difficulties between man and God.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(a) One could argue that the OT features G-d revealing himself time and again, and the nature of his kingdom in the stipulations of the Torah.

(b) I fail to see “how inconclusive the OT is with regards to a resolution of the difficulties between man and God.”

steve7150 wrote:
No disrespect meant but excluding the Talmud and judging the relationship between man and God in the Torah alone , it seems to me a form of behavior modification given to sinful man as if man was a little child and must sit in the naughty seat when he is rebellious. This can not be the final fully developed relationship between man and God, for God would not leave us in this undeveloped condition IMHO, hence Jesus came with the much fuller revelation of God as our "Abba."

My memory may be inadequate, Steve, but you have not pursued a life in careful practice of the Torah – am I right? And you have not fellowshipped regularly with persons who do pursue such a life – am I wrong? So whereby are you poised to comment on the Torah’s potential for developing the relationship between G-d and man?

steve7150 wrote:
Another reason i believe the NT Emmet, is that if only the Torah is true or only the OT is true that would mean God only spoke to the jews , and simply left out the gentiles who constitute 99.7 % of the population of the world. Does'nt add up to me amigo.

You are projecting a Christian perspective onto non-Christian sources. Neither the Torah nor the broader OT claims to be the exclusive revelation of G-d.

Other people may pursue relationships with G-d in other ways. And though the Torah is primarily focused on a particular community of people, other people(s) can profit from the Torah and/or interface with the community that practices it.

But your argument actually redounds to your disfavor, Steve. If the OT was an exclusivistic model, then you have a God who potters around with “[0.3%] of the population of the world” for centuries before getting around to everybody else. And then, once he inaugurates his international program for redemption, this God leaves it in the hands of clodhoppers who barely spread it around a mere corner of the world for fifteen centuries. Is this a model of worldwide efficacy, chaveri?

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:
Another reason i believe the NT Emmet, is that if only the Torah is true or only the OT is true that would mean God only spoke to the jews , and simply left out the gentiles who constitute 99.7 % of the population of the world. Does'nt add up to me amigo.

You are projecting a Christian perspective onto non-Christian sources. Neither the Torah nor the broader OT claims to be the exclusive revelation of G-d.

Other people may pursue relationships with G-d in other ways. And though the Torah is primarily focused on a particular community of people, other people(s) can profit from the Torah and/or interface with the community that practices it.

But your argument actually redounds to your disfavor, Steve. If the OT was an exclusivistic model, then you have a God who potters around with “[0.3%] of the population of the world” for centuries before getting around to everybody else. And then, once he inaugurates his international program for redemption, this God leaves it in the hands of clodhoppers who barely spread it around a mere corner of the world for fifteen centuries. Is this a model of worldwide efficacy, chaveri?







Yes Emmet i am in fact projecting a Christian perspective because i confess, i'm a Christian and no doubt you are projecting your perspective also. Therefore since we agree the OT makes no claim to be the only revelation by God to mankind the question remains as to how would a God of justice communicate his message to the rest of humanity? Though it may seem to you that God pottered around for centuries and then used clodhoppers to spread the Word , the Word has indeed spread to just about all the world despite all the pottering around and all the clodhoppers. Truly a work of God beneath all the apparent ineffienciency and time wasting the gospel has indeed spread to virtually the whole world. I can only marvel at how God works out all things in the fullness of time and say Hallelujah! As we approach a new year i can't help but be reminded that despite the world's best efforts to rid itself of Christ we look forward to the new year 2010 , which is marked from the birth of Christ as the beginning point.
Happy new year, amigo.

[steve7150]

But your argument actually redounds to your disfavor, Steve. If the OT was an exclusivistic model, then you have a God who potters around with “[0.3%] of the population of the world” for centuries before getting around to everybody else. And then, once he inaugurates his international program for redemption, this God leaves it in the hands of clodhoppers who barely spread it around a mere corner of the world for fifteen centuries. Is this a model of worldwide efficacy, chaveri?








BTW , IMHO God works through man AKA clodhoppers because he gave dominion of this earth to man and God will not violate his Word , which in Psalms he says he puts above his name. Therefore God speaks through human prophets , and in the fullness of time came as a man to recapture turf from the devil and start the process of redemption. So it may seem inefficient to use people to execute his plan but God will not violate his own integrity for apparent efficiency.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve7150 wrote:
Yes Emmet i am in fact projecting a Christian perspective because i confess, i'm a Christian and no doubt you are projecting your perspective also.

Feel welcome to identify my projection when you encounter it. I don’t imagine myself to be immune to methodological error.

But you should not be insouciant about your own liability to error, simply because it is a “Christian” liability.

steve7150 wrote:
Therefore since we agree the OT makes no claim to be the only revelation by God to mankind the question remains as to how would a God of justice communicate his message to the rest of humanity?

My answer to the question would be that G-d is gracious and promiscuous about engaging persons directly, despite their corruptions and misconceptions.

steve wrote:
Though it may seem to you that God pottered around for centuries and then used clodhoppers to spread the Word , the Word has indeed spread to just about all the world despite all the pottering around and all the clodhoppers.

And in the meantime, millions of people have lived, suffered, and died without the supposed illumination of Christianity or the opportunity to embrace its life-changing power. But it’s easy to be carefree about that when the casualties are mostly faceless foreigners.

steve wrote:
Truly a work of God beneath all the apparent ineffienciency and time wasting the gospel has indeed spread to virtually the whole world. I can only marvel at how God works out all things in the fullness of time.

Then I suppose you are impressed by the spread of Islam? Its distribution after 1400 years is comparable to what Christianity accomplished in a similar span of time.

steve7150 wrote:
As we approach a new year i can't help but be reminded that despite the world's best efforts to rid itself of Christ we look forward to the new year 2010 , which is marked from the birth of Christ as the beginning point.
Happy new year, amigo.

The new year 5770 began months ago. And the new year 1431 began last week. And the new year 4706, 4707, or 4646 will start in February. Big whoop.

As we approach 2010, I do not “marvel” at the persistence of a religion that has enjoyed worldly advantages for most of its tenure. (The survival of Judaism despite centuries of worldly disadvantages is far more impressive.) Rather, I think of a religion that – after nearly two thousand years – has failed and still fails to reach millions of souls with a message that it imagines to be a matter of eternal life and death.

steve7150 wrote:
BTW , IMHO God works through man AKA clodhoppers because he gave dominion of this earth to man and God will not violate his Word , which in Psalms he says he puts above his name. Therefore God speaks through human prophets , and in the fullness of time came as a man to recapture turf from the devil and start the process of redemption. So it may seem inefficient to use people to execute his plan but God will not violate his own integrity for apparent efficiency.

(a) Giving “dominion of this earth” does not preclude G-d from working for himself, for he is Dominus dominantium – Lord of lords.

But let us imagine, for the sake of discussion, that G-d wishes to work primarily through humans. If G-d is so smart and powerful as people make him out to be, then shouldn’t he be able to superintend his ultimate plan so that the “little lords” upon whom it rests are effective – indeed, more effective than we have seen in the history of the church?

(b) In Psalms, G-d does not say that he puts his word above his name. The psalmist is speaking here.

Besides, the verse can be translated in varying ways.

[steve7150]

) Giving “dominion of this earth” does not preclude G-d from working for himself, for he is Dominus dominantium – Lord of lords.

But let us imagine, for the sake of discussion, that G-d wishes to work primarily through humans. If G-d is so smart and powerful as people make him out to be, then shouldn’t he be able to superintend his ultimate plan so that the “little lords” upon whom it rests are effective – indeed, more effective than we have seen in the history of the church?

(b) In Psalms, G-d does not say that he puts his word above his name. The psalmist is speaking here.

Besides, the verse can be translated in varying ways.




Emmet,
According to these various translations of Psalm 138.2 , they say either God's Word is above or equal to his name therefore again i must say if God gave rulership of the earth to man he will not violate his own integrity. As far as Psalm 138 being the Psalmist words , is not the entire bible someone's words which are inspired? I'll accept David's words as inspired, i'm not sure where you stand.
I think that both Judaism's survival and also Christianity's is a work of God as well as the spread of the gospel reaching the world in these last days. As far as Islam's reach goes , i think it is Satan's creation and has spread mostly by force as Communism did in a previous generation. You can claim Christianity became a state religion around 325AD and to a certain extent it remained that until the reformation , but while it was state sponcered it went through it's darkest period. Only since people have freely accepted it has it's transformational power been made apparent.
God could have spread the gospel faster and Christ is in fact desperately needed by millions but God said "knowing good and evil they have become like us" which tells me that the experience of evil is something we must go through to ultimately "become like God." It seems to me the way people learn is by contrasts therefore to really know good we must apparently know evil just as to really appreciate light we must experience darkness.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve7150 wrote:
According to these various translations of Psalm 138.2 , they say either God's Word is above or equal to his name therefore again i must say if God gave rulership of the earth to man he will not violate his own integrity.

(a) You are mistaken. The NLT, NIV, NASB, RSV, and ESV (in the primary rendering) do not “say either God's Word is above or equal to his name.”

The JPS Tanakh notes “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” And the Hebrew construct is challenging, in part due to the great breadth afforded by the preposition. But given the context of the verse itself, I will sally a reading of: “you have made your saying great upon all your name” – i. e., you have made what you say a great thing, based on your great reputation.


(b) But regardless – if G-d gave rulership of the earth to humans, even with the full faith and credit of his word, this still does not mean that G-d won’t act for himself in order to accomplish his will. For the rulership of humanity is not absolute; G-d retains a superior sovereignty. So when he does act – even contrary to the will of humans! – he does not “violate his own integrity.”

steve7150 wrote:
As far as Psalm 138 being the Psalmist words , is not the entire bible someone's words which are inspired? I'll accept David's words as inspired, i'm not sure where you stand.

The psalmist does not claim that his words here are inspired. And I do not claim words to be G-d’s, when they do not even claim that for themselves (with rare exception).

steve7150 wrote:
I think that both Judaism's survival and also Christianity's is a work of God as well as the spread of the gospel reaching the world in these last days. As far as Islam's reach goes , i think it is Satan's creation and has spread mostly by force as Communism did in a previous generation. You can claim Christianity became a state religion around 325AD and to a certain extent it remained that until the reformation , but while it was state sponcered it went through it's darkest period. Only since people have freely accepted it has it's transformational power been made apparent.

(a) Both Judaism and Christianity have spread by means of force; and Christianity has spread hand-in-hand with political, technological, and economic hegemony.


(b) Your conception of the spread of Islam may be somewhat mistaken. You might peruse this article.


(c) As for your claim that “[o]nly since people have freely accepted [Christianity] has it's transformational power been made apparent” – this is quite erroneous, though in step with the cavalier way so many American Protestants have of slandering their predecessors in faith. Strangely, these American Protestants are generally not well-read in the religious legacies of medieval Christianity. But they could start with Francis of Assisi, Geert Groote, Thomas a Kempis, Catherine of Siena, and Johannes Tauler.

steve7150 wrote:
God could have spread the gospel faster and Christ is in fact desperately needed by millions but God said "knowing good and evil they have become like us" which tells me that the experience of evil is something we must go through to ultimately "become like God." It seems to me the way people learn is by contrasts therefore to really know good we must apparently know evil just as to really appreciate light we must experience darkness.

This is an argument that works for the carefree, who can look afield at the wretchedness of faceless masses and treat them as object lessons.

But please tell – in which Christian society are persons so sanctified that they have not experienced evil? Is it really necessary to leave millions of people in ignorance of redemption, so that evil might be known?

[steve7150]

The JPS Tanakh notes “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” And the Hebrew construct is challenging, in part due to the great breadth afforded by the preposition. But given the context of the verse itself, I will sally a reading of: “you have made your saying great upon all your name” – i. e., you have made what you say a great thing, based on your great reputation.


(b) But regardless – if G-d gave rulership of the earth to humans, even with the full faith and credit of his word, this still does not mean that G-d won’t act for himself in order to accomplish his will. For the rulership of humanity is not absolute; G-d retains a superior sovereignty. So when he does act – even contrary to the will of humans! – he does not “violate his own integrity.”


steve7150 wrote:
As far as Psalm 138 being the Psalmist words , is not the entire bible someone's words which are inspired? I'll accept David's words as inspired, i'm not sure where you stand.

The psalmist does not claim that his words here are inspired. And I do not claim words to be G-d’s, when they do not even claim that for themselves (with rare exception).





Even with the definition "you have made your saying a great thing" certainly indicates the sacredness of God's Word and with regards to David's psalms they are referenced by Jesus by Paul by other NT writers therefore i take his words as inspired. Also the manner in which David speaks indicates to me that he thinks he is communicating with God.
I think the fact that God allows evil to flourish indicates that he does allow his promise to give man dominion to play out with all the consequences attached to this despite the fact that God's sovreignty is superior. In addition the NT indicates that Satan is the god of this world because man allowed him entry and that Jesus defeated him on the cross but this benefits those who follow Christ and understand Satan is defeated.
This is my understanding from scripture as to why evil flourishes in this present age and my understanding is that God will ultimately use this evil for a greater good. I neither suggest this in a "carefree" manner nor do i look at the wretched as object lessons, i am simply communicating how i interpret scripture and one of the reasons we see the same events differently is because we have different sources of authority. If you have thoughts about why God allows evil i would love to hear it.
Finally re the medieval church , there were certainly many individual godly people but as a whole the RCC hoarded the bible and kept it in latin to keep it's grip on power and when challenged it reacted in ways that were contrary to Christ. This period of time called the dark ages coincided with their grip on power, not by coincidence, IMO. This is not said in a cavalier way it is simply my observation of history.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve7150 wrote:
...with regards to David's psalms they are referenced by Jesus by Paul by other NT writers therefore i take his words as inspired. Also the manner in which David speaks indicates to me that he thinks he is communicating with God.

Most of the writers of the NT were Jews of the late Second Temple era, so it is not surprising when they reference psalms. But that doesn’t mean they were right if they imagined psalms to be the word of G-d and/or fully reliable. In pious literature that was current in their era, we find evidence of a lot of dubious notions.

Psalms is a songbook. Some songs are more theologically reliable than others. Some songs are more inspired than others. And many people love songs and derive a great deal of their theology from them. But one should not confuse a songbook with an oracle.

As for David (or whomever the psalmist actually might have been) – lots of people think they are communicating with G-d. But when we say something to G-d in prayer, it is not guaranteed that everything we say is accurate.

steve7150 wrote:
I think the fact that God allows evil to flourish indicates that he does allow his promise to give man dominion to play out with all the consequences attached to this despite the fact that God's sovreignty is superior. In addition the NT indicates that Satan is the god of this world because man allowed him entry and that Jesus defeated him on the cross but this benefits those who follow Christ and understand Satan is defeated.

This is my understanding from scripture as to why evil flourishes in this present age and my understanding is that God will ultimately use this evil for a greater good. I neither suggest this in a "carefree" manner nor do i look at the wretched as object lessons, i am simply communicating how i interpret scripture and one of the reasons we see the same events differently is because we have different sources of authority.

If G-d can engage human dominion by incarnating and by defeating Satan and by other miraculous works of wonder that are claimed by Christian tradition, then surely he is not so limited in protocol that he had to depend upon poorly efficient clodhoppers for spreading his international program of redemption. If he brought about the miraculous conception of John the Baptizer, and filled him with a holy spirit from his mother’s womb, then could he not have raised up persons like John the Baptizer to spread the gospel effectively around the world? And isn’t the least person in the kingdom of heaven supposed to be even greater than John?

Now, certainly we do have different sources of authority. I am questioning yours, by questioning the myth which it peddles. If the myth will not stand up to question, then how will the authority stand?

steve7150 wrote:
If you have thoughts about why God allows evil i would love to hear it.

I suppose that G-d allows evil so that humans will learn how to manage their capacity to choose. By allowing real, terrible consequences to transpire, G-d affords humans the opportunity to realize why some choices are bad – not just arbitrarily, but ontologically. But G-d is available to people even in circumstances where evil is allowed to run rampant.

steve7150 wrote:
Finally re the medieval church , there were certainly many individual godly people but as a whole the RCC hoarded the bible and kept it in latin to keep it's grip on power and when challenged it reacted in ways that were contrary to Christ. This period of time called the dark ages coincided with their grip on power, not by coincidence, IMO. This is not said in a cavalier way it is simply my observation of history.

This is a tendentious (though conventional) Protestant sort of portrayal.

Let us engage the points you raise:

“the RCC hoarded the bible” – In a society that predated the printing press and mass production of books, it would take months to produce even a single copy of the bible by hand. This would have to be done by an unusually skilled worker, who would have to be fed and housed, etc., during the lengthy course of production. Copies of the bible were relatively rare and costly to produce. So naturally, the Roman church was not handing out copies at the airport and placing them in motel rooms, etc. Besides which, many people were not literate enough to make much use of a copy if they had one. Which dovetails into your next point...

“and kept it in latin to keep it’s grip on power” – In the West, most people who were literate beyond a rudimentary level (say, able to understand common signs and/or typical notations in their field of work) would probably have known Latin. Unlike the present day, Latin was a fundamental part of education, for those who were lucky enough to receive it.

But as for the motive of power-hoarding – On one hand, this may not have been an only concern. We may compare the situation to our modern-era KJV-onlyists. Did these traditionalists initially cling to the KJV out of a desire to retain power? Or was it a matter of pious attachment to a beloved bible? Or then again, a desire to preserve beloved dogma that was specially reliant on that bible?

On another hand, there may have been more virtue to the desire to maintain power than you appreciate. Just look at the aftermath of putting bibles in the hands of the common people – people who in general are underequipped when it comes to interpreting scripture. As a result, Christians are divided amongst thousands of denominations, wasting their unified potential and frittering away energies on infighting. It is remarkable how people who recognize that power in the hands of a few people can be misused, somehow imagine that power in the hands of a lot of people will not be misused.

Beyond this, displacing the authority of the church redounded to the greater ascendancy of the secular sphere. And now much of the West is in the grips of an irreligious secularism. Well-played, O those who fought the power; well-played indeed.

“and when challenged it reacted in ways that were contrary to Christ” – Oh really? It seems that when Christ returns in your bible, he is not turning the other cheek or playing nicey-nice. When Christ rules, he is willing to play hardball. The passive non-resistance piece is for when one is not in power.

“This period of time called the dark ages coincided with their grip on power, not by coincidence, IMO.” – It’s rather passé to refer to the period as the “Dark Ages,” since there has been greater appreciation in recent times for the culture of the period. But without the church, one may wonder what sort of light at all would have survived from the imperial age. If the church had not become a strong institution, capable of resisting secular meddling and supporting enclaves of culture and learning (like monasteries), who knows what the present-day West would look like? Without the Roman church, the West might have formed much more strongly along the inheritance of northern barbarian culture. And if you think Christianity suffered in the hands of the Roman church, just imagine what it would look like if it had passed through the hands of a beleaguered leadership, who could count mere persistence in survival as a victory. If we wish to speculate, we can look at the histories of Eastern and Oriental Christianities, in the periods when these did not have the advantage of an influential institutional church.

[steve7150]

If G-d can engage human dominion by incarnating and by defeating Satan and by other miraculous works of wonder that are claimed by Christian tradition, then surely he is not so limited in protocol that he had to depend upon poorly efficient clodhoppers for spreading his international program of redemption. If he brought about the miraculous conception of John the Baptizer, and filled him with a holy spirit from his mother’s womb, then could he not have raised up persons like John the Baptizer to spread the gospel effectively around the world? And isn’t the least person in the kingdom of heaven supposed to be even greater than John?

Now, certainly we do have different sources of authority. I am questioning yours, by questioning the myth which it peddles. If the myth will not stand up to question, then how will the authority stand?






Obviously God could raise up great people to spread the gospel yet he seems to work through the least of us and indeed uses clodhoppers to do great things. Jesus has told us that the wheat and the tares must grow together until the last day therefore God has told us that many if not most people will not believe Jesus but the rain and sun shall fall on everyone until the end of this age. I think God is outside of time and already knows who will and will not believe. He knows who will see his plan of redemption for the world as a myth and speak of it sarcastically and scornfully and who will accept it in their hearts and minds.
The NT has stood up to question from the beginning and will stand up to question and contempt until the last day for only one reason, because it is true.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve7150 wrote:
Obviously God could raise up great people to spread the gospel yet he seems to work through the least of us and indeed uses clodhoppers to do great things.

The problem is not that clodhoppers were used to do great things, Steve. The problem is that clodhoppers did not do great things - and millions of people lived, suffered, and died without the supposed illumination of Christianity or the opportunity to embrace its life-changing power.

steve7150 wrote:
Jesus has told us that the wheat and the tares must grow together until the last day therefore God has told us that many if not most people will not believe Jesus but the rain and sun shall fall on everyone until the end of this age.

The rain and sun may reach everybody, but surely the gospel did not, and even to this day has not. How can wheat grow amongst the tares when nobody has sown its seed?

steve7150 wrote:
I think God is outside of time and already knows who will and will not believe.

So he located people who would not believe in places where Christian missionizers would not reach? I suppose the Americas were a convenient place to stow unbelievers for fourteen-and-a-half centuries...

And from where in your bible do you derive the notion that G-d is outside of time?

steve7150 wrote:
He knows who will see his plan of redemption for the world as a myth and speak of it sarcastically and scornfully and who will accept it in their hearts and minds.
The NT has stood up to question from the beginning and will stand up to question and contempt until the last day for only one reason, because it is true.

Many falsehoods endure, because they are perpetuated by persons who have various reasons of their own. But one does not have to wait until "the last day" to recognize a myth for what it is.