Who do you say Jesus is?

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Who do you say Jesus is?

Post by RND » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:14 pm

karenprtlnd wrote:Potlucks
Vegetarian?
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:03 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Who do you say Jesus is?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:54 am

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Some "trinitarians" might not be monotheists, if their trinitarian theology is "unorthodox" - and many Christians do have "unorthodox" ideas about the Trinity, whether they are aware of it or not.

Jason wrote:
Unorthodox in the sense of not agreeing with the earliest Christian councils? The Bible nowhere gives us an orthodoxy of Trinitarian doctrine.
(a) "Unorthodox" in the sense of contravening the hegemonic stance of the church, shall we say.

(b) As Alanis Morissette could have noted, the bible nowhere gives us a hermeneutic of sola scriptura.

Jason wrote:
Emmet, you mentioned that you hold Genesis as Canonical but not Dueteronomy. I'm wondering what your basis is for determining Canonical inclusion.
I do not hold Genesis as canonical either. My canon consists of the mitzvot given in the wilderness - so, portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. I don't treat the narrative portions as canonical. The mitzvot are the key: they are the terms of the covenant; they establish a concrete paradigm for conduct, and they evince quite limited concern for belief in either speculative theology or the sacred stories that surround them.

In scholastic circles, Deuteronomy is conventionally held to have a different background than the Tetrateuch. This wouldn't of itself be a problem, necessarily, but it paves the way for the book to be engaged independently from the others. And when doing so, the book sets off a few flags.

There are a number of paradigms that are curiously unique to Deuteronomy: only Deuteronomy includes legislation on levirate marriage (cf. Leviticus 18:16 & 20:21); only Deuteronomy articulates a paradigm for divorce and remarriage (24:1-4); only Deuteronomy imposes a peculiar third-year tithe (14:28f.); only Deuteronomy commands for the Canaanite nations to be put under the chrm (7:2 & 20:16f.; cf. Exodus 22:20; Leviticus 27:29; Numbers 21:1-3; caveat - this issue is thorny, so perhaps this latter example might not hold, depending upon construal); and Deuteronomy imposes peculiar paradigms for eating carrion (14:21; cf. Leviticus 17:15f.). There may be other examples, but some or another of these might contribute to concern about the reliability of the text and/or its consonance with the balance of the mitzvot tradition.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Who do you say Jesus is?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:23 am

Hi, Karen,
I believe that there can be many many churches of Jesus Christ, the LDS are great about this I think, and could make the christian community both fun, and interesting. Why are you this? Why am I that? This is how I am this....and this is how you are that..... Its all good. (Just don't hurt anybody).

Volley Ball
Potlucks
Musical gatherings
Lectures
etc... though diametrically opposed? Yes. (But only for the brave and the very mature perhaps...) This is not Northern Ireland you Know.
Some years ago I was involved in a very cool Jewish adult education program. It was sponsored by Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and it was not taught from a single denominational perspective; as it engaged different topics, it introduced different perspectives from various sources, be they ancient or modern, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or elsewise. The scope of the curriculum helped students acquire some breadth in Jewish literacy, and it would be great if there were some similar type of program for Christian studies. But many Christians do not want people to learn about different sorts of Christianity than their own.

Links to the adult education program I was involved in, if you're interested in exploring the concept:

http://www.fmams.org.il/

http://www.meltonportland.org/
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Who do you say Jesus is?

Post by Jason » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:07 pm

(a) "Unorthodox" in the sense of contravening the hegemonic stance of the church, shall we say.
A simple "yes" would suffice. :-) All kidding aside, the church has held different opinions on this throughout its history (especially early) and has, save for Rome, not had a single authority by which to govern Trinitarian orthodoxy. When the councils met to discuss this they were debating Scripture. Therefore it has always been the writings of the apostles and, before them, the prophets who decided these matters. Since the doctrine is somwhat fuzzy (I say somewhat because I AM a Trinitarian Christian) in scripture, we shouldn't make it a rule of orthodoxy.
(b) As Alanis Morissette could have noted, the bible nowhere gives us a hermeneutic of sola scriptura.
Well, the bible contains the only real records of what Jesus and the apostles taught. Therefore, a rule of sola scriptura is hardly necessary if one understands where the source of authority for one's belief is derived. For the Christian our authority comes from Jesus and the apostles - specifically their written records. To a more subjective degree, we are governed by the leading of the Holy Spirit. And near as I can tell, the Holy Spirit has not informed me on these matters.
I do not hold Genesis as canonical either. My canon consists of the mitzvot given in the wilderness - so, portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. I don't treat the narrative portions as canonical. The mitzvot are the key: they are the terms of the covenant; they establish a concrete paradigm for conduct, and they evince quite limited concern for belief in either speculative theology or the sacred stories that surround them.
What reason do you have to assume the mitzvot actually came from the Creator? How do you know these laws were not the result of early human imagination? Christians hold that the OT prophets, including Moses, are speaking from YWHW because they predicted things that would later happen. You seem to reject the writings of the prophets, the only possible Divine link by which to ascribe authority, so why are you personally convinced the mitzvot laws are of Divine origin?

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:11 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Who do you say Jesus is?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:11 pm

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(a) "Unorthodox" in the sense of contravening the hegemonic stance of the church, shall we say.

Jason wrote:
A simple "yes" would suffice. :)
No :) .
Jason wrote:
All kidding aside, the church has held different opinions on this throughout its history (especially early) and has, save for Rome, not had a single authority by which to govern Trinitarian orthodoxy.
(a) Hegemony does not mean universality.

(b) A single authority is not necessary to yield a state of hegemony.
Jason wrote:
When the councils met to discuss this they were debating Scripture. Therefore it has always been the writings of the apostles and, before them, the prophets who decided these matters. Since the doctrine is somwhat fuzzy (I say somewhat because I AM a Trinitarian Christian) in scripture, we shouldn't make it a rule of orthodoxy.
(a) A historical study of the councils would not reduce their decisions to the writings of the apostles and the prophets.

(b) "We" have a rather limited privilege when it comes to making rules of "orthodoxy." That market has been cornered considerably by 1500+ years of investment.

(c) Certain specific hypotheses related to the Trinity are rejected by the hegemonic stance of the church across time, even when taking into account both conciliar and non-conciliar parties. And some or all of these hypotheses are nevertheless held by unwitting Christians in the present day.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
(b) As Alanis Morissette could have noted, the bible nowhere gives us a hermeneutic of sola scriptura.

Jason wrote:
Well, the bible contains the only real records of what Jesus and the apostles taught. Therefore, a rule of sola scriptura is hardly necessary if one understands where the source of authority for one's belief is derived. For the Christian our authority comes from Jesus and the apostles - specifically their written records. To a more subjective degree, we are governed by the leading of the Holy Spirit. And near as I can tell, the Holy Spirit has not informed me on these matters.
(a) Most Christians - historically and presently - belong to churches that do not reduce authority to the written records of Jesus and the apostles. Many Christians believe in authority found in the church itself.

(b) You have the privilege of formulating your own theological understanding as you see fit, but you should be cautious when declaring what "Christians" think or believe. History and facts on the ground may dispute your assertion.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
I do not hold Genesis as canonical either. My canon consists of the mitzvot given in the wilderness - so, portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. I don't treat the narrative portions as canonical. The mitzvot are the key: they are the terms of the covenant; they establish a concrete paradigm for conduct, and they evince quite limited concern for belief in either speculative theology or the sacred stories that surround them.

Jason wrote:
What reason do you have to assume the mitzvot actually came from the Creator? How do you know these laws were not the result of early human imagination? Christians hold that the OT prophets, including Moses, are speaking from YWHW because they predicted things that would later happen. You seem to reject the writings of the prophets, the only possible Divine link by which to ascribe authority, so why are you personally convinced the mitzvot laws are of Divine origin?
(a) The mitzvot may or may not come from the Creator in a conventional sense. But one way or the other, the situation remains the same: whether the immediate result of human imagination or of extraordinary mystical encounter, the mitzvot are the stipulations of a commitment to G-d.

Let us imagine that Hilkiah vows to G-d that he will not shave his beard. Of course, he will become quite handsome, but that is a secondary issue ;) . Whether the idea was Hilkiah's invention or whether it was immediately inspired by HSHM, Hilkiah is responsible to fulfill his commitment and not shave his beard (so long as the vow is not sin, so as to be repented of rather than fulfilled).

(b) When it comes to predictions of things that later happen, in literature like the Tanakh, these are less than compelling indicators. We are so far removed from the texts that in some cases we may hardly ascertain whether the "prediction" was actually written before the events of the "fulfillment" or not. Likewise, in some cases we may hardly ascertain whether the "prediction" and/or the "fulfillment" have represented fairly the facts on the ground. Beyond this, if the Tanakh is accurate in its portrayal of there being many prophets - "true" and "false" ones - it stands to reason that a certain percentage would be shrewd and/or lucky enough to make successful predictions, and naturally these would be the ones preserved by the recorders of tradition. And finally, there is a major "safety valve" built into the system, in that many predictions without an apparent fulfillment can be salvaged as applying to the future or to some unknown circumstance.

(c) Lack of inclusion in canon does not directly equate to wholesale rejection of a document. Canon is a basic standard, and when the mitzvot are the stipulations of one's commitment to G-d, they naturally fit here.

Prophetic literature, on the other hand, may be engaged like a faith healer come to town - frequently, it is not necessary to canonize or to demonize his activity. Relationship with G-d does not hinge upon cataloguing all of his true servants and identifying every possible sliver of inspiration.

(d) The essential setting of religious experience is not in the past, but in the present; whatever G-d did or did not do in ancient times, we interrelate with him in the here and now. And the essential personnel of religious activity are not giants of yore, but those living in the present world: G-d, neighbor, and self.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:09 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Who do you say Jesus is?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:30 pm

I didn't mention it above, guys, but it's not "YWHW." That has the "H"s and the "W"s swapped.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:03 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Judaism”