Again, sorry for the delay.
Life. It is not always conducive to the things we want to do.
Also, crap, it is 12:30 in the morning. Again.
I should offer that that last post, when I said I was going to bed? Turns out I was wrong. The book came out at 12:30 that morning. So when I checked Hawkeye, out of habit, there it was. And what is any good addict to do but start reading? I finished at about 1 am yesterday morning.
I am sleep deprived and super caffeinated. Clearly I make bad life choices on occasion.
This is what adult hood looks like.
Knowing something is a bad idea and doing it anyway. Because you can.
Possibly I am not the best adult. :D
Right. Actual content of post!
Chapter 5 opens with another well known story, that of the paralytic at the pool.
5 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For
an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the
water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water,
was made well of whatever disease he had. 5 Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years.
I should say that I find the details of this man's case slightly odd. We don't know how old he is, but we know that he is at least 38 - since he could have had the infirmity since childhood. The average life expectancy for a man in that time was about (I believe) the late thirties, early forties. So this man is either at the twilight of his life or he has greatly exceeded expectations in spite of his infirmity.
This implies, to me at least, that he had people to help take care of him. Family or friends, someone. He did not live alone in this condition his entire life.
6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?”
7 The
sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when
the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down
before me.”And yet here he is, so close to the possibility of healing but alone. With no one to help him into the pool. How did this happen? How did it come to pass that someone who was obviously assisted and looked after for a large portion of his life comes to be so close to healing and abandoned?
If he is extremely old, perhaps he outlived everyone? Or perhaps he was a bad person and he drove away any family that would have been there to help him?
8 Jesus said to him, “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” 9 And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked.
And that day was the Sabbath.
Here is another miracle, whether by Jesus' power or God's (with Jesus relaying the message?) Only this one seems to be with purpose different from the first two discussed in John.
I'm not entirely certain why Jesus decided to turn the water into wine, except perhaps that his mother asked him and maybe he was just having a good time at the wedding or the groom was a friend of him.
The officers son who was healed was done due to the faith of the father, I believe.
But this man, the paralytic, so far as we can see, makes no plea nor declaration of faith prior to Jesus declaring him healed. Certainly the man desired healing or he wouldn't be at the pool, but Jesus seems to decide to heal him almost at random.
Though if we follow the tack that Jesus has extra knowledge (things we should not know through ordinary means) then the choice of this man could have been extremely deliberate. If you are going to attract the attention of the powers that be, without seeming to *want* to attract their attention, how better than to heal a man who will immediately run to the temple after his healing?
We assume, from the fact that this man went to the temple after being healed that he is either a very religious man from the start or that he went there, perhaps to be declared clean? We're not given the exact nature of his illness, but perhaps it was something that also made him ritually impure and therefore unable to take part in the worship at the temple?
14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” 15 The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.
This is problematic for me. Verse 14 seems to be saying that the man's illness, his infirmity, was caused by his sin. But this doesn't bear out in real life at all. Plenty of truly terrible people are walking around this earth without having to bear the physical wounds of their sins. And good, innocent people suffer illness and bad fortune in life all the time.
If sin = physical illness, shouldn't we see some real life correlation? Or is this just a kind of wishful thinking, that a persons villainy should be evident in their body, an easy way to tell.
16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”
I...can entirely see the Jewish priests and others being upset at the Law being broken, but I have a hard time imagining that *this* is the reason they sought to kill Jesus. Far more likely the rebellion that he was fomenting, with the turning over of the money changers' tables and such was the problem. Rome was not exactly known for their kind and loving method of enforcing the peace.
Though the next verse says that they were extra incensed because Jesus here claimed that God was his father, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps there is something in the original wording used that makes it clear he was referring to God and not to an actual human father?
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
It does not, either, follow that claiming God as his father would make Jesus equal with God. This was a time of gods and demi-gods after all. Certainly the Jewish people had become monotheistic over time, but they were surrounded by polytheistic cultures. Someone claiming to be a son of god (or God) was hardly an unknown quantity. There remains, also, the fact that many people throughout the Bible are referred to as the 'son' of God. These men were not claiming divinity, or at least they were never treated as such.
19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel.
Why, if the Son is equally as divine and a part of the Godhead, does the Father need to show him anything? I would never argue that Jesus, incarnate, has access to the divine omniscience, but it remains that if he was truly equal in substance and being with the Father then he would know what the Father knows. And if you are a part of an omniscient being, can you actually set aside your own power? Once Jesus (assuming divinity and incarnation) became a man, did he cease to be God in some way? He limited himself in ways that God certainly never is.
21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
Does any of this read to anyone else like a father passing on a mantle or a responsibility to their son? If the Son is part of God which is the Father (as the unbegotten, uncreated 'part' of God) how are these jobs differentiated? How does the Trinity keep one part of itself out of the judging, etc.?
26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.
Again, if the Trinity is equal, how can one part grant the other part life or power? It seems that there is a very fine line between Triunity and being three separate entities. If one, the Father, has the ultimate control over what the other two are capable of doing, then they cannot be equal in any sense.
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Does this not sound as though works are important in the deciding of the destination of a persons soul? That there are things that one can do, laws that one can follow, that enable you to enter heaven?
30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
If Jesus is God, it would seem from verse like this that he is a lesser one, wouldn't it? That he cannot claim the equal power of his other thirds? That the Father is a superior being in some way?
37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
While it is true that none have seen God's form (I would question that He even had one, being a transcendent being) several people in the Old Testament are reported to have spoken to God in person, as it were.
38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
Again, prophecy. I am not a big fan of prophecy in general, to be perfectly honest. Prophecies are things that are never clear prior to an event, but seem to become clear when big events happen. We've seen this happen with the 9/11 attacks. People were suddenly shouting at anyone who would listen that the attacks had been predicated by Nostradamus and every other prophetic medium since time immemorial.
You can see almost anything in prophecy if you're willing to believe in it.
I would also point out that they searched the scriptures because the scriptures were given to them as a guide to God's good graces and eternal life. We know that some prophecies referenced in the New Testament as pointing to Christ have been fulfilled by force, as it were. The New Testament authors wrote pieces of the gospels to match Old Testament prophecy of the messiah in order to make Christ the messiah.
Yay, you survived the reading frenzy! I enjoyed your post, and reading the things that stood out to you. I may say more later, but it's after 10 and I am tired. :)
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you're back in John! I must say, I'm enjoying listening to the book during my commute. The guy who narrates my version (Max McClean) is a stage actor, and although he doesn't read in an overly melodramtic way, he's skilled enough that I can almost picture being there during these confrontations Jesus has.
ReplyDelete// Though the next verse says that they were extra incensed because Jesus here claimed that God was his father, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps there is something in the original wording used that makes it clear he was referring to God and not to an actual human father? //
I think the key is to see not just how Jesus was intentionally doing things that violated the Pharisees' notion of how to "rest" on the Sabbath, but the WAY he did it. They had already been annoyed at the newly-healed man carrying his mat, and Jesus is entirely unconcerned that he violated their rules. He tells them that God himself instituted the Sabbath as a day of rest, and yet it is the privilege (and necessity) of God to continue to work on the Sabbath to uphold the entire universe.
"Oh, did I say 'God' upholds the universe, guys? I meant to say it's my FATHER upholding the universe. He does work on the Sabbath because He's the Lord of the Sabbath. Oh and by the way, I'm working too because I'm the Lord of the Sabbath as well.
So, a violation of the Pharisees' legalistic notions about the Sabbath right in front of their faces, and an unashamed claim of divinity to boot. They definitely got the message, and wanted that blaspheming troublemaker dead.
// If the Son is part of God which is the Father (as the unbegotten, uncreated 'part' of God) how are these jobs differentiated? //
Good question, and there have certainly have been many wrong answers given about the Trinity over the centuries. The error of Arianism would say that Jesus wasn't really divine at all, but just some kind of demiurge or exalted created being. Subordinationism would teach that Jesus may be divine, kind of, but inferior in power or rank to the Father.
In fact, the Father, the Son and the Spirit are all of the same essence. Jesus is equal to God in every way ontologically. But they operate in different roles. The Father sends the Son. The Father and Son send the Spirit. And especially in Jesus' earthly ministry, we see his willing subordination to the will of the Father. (not that there has ever been or ever would be any disagreement among the members of the Trinity. But in this case there is a clear delegation of authority, which all three members of the Trinity willingly submit to.)
As you'd probably guess, it's a big subject, and since we don't have anything analagous to the Trinity in creation, there are areas that we just have to admit we don't know about. CARM has a pretty good page on the Economic Trinity and Subordinationism here, if you're interested. (It'll probably help as you get into John 8 and 10, too.)
http://carm.org/ontological-and-economic-trinity
// Prophecies are things that are never clear prior to an event, but seem to become clear when big events happen.. You can see almost anything in prophecy if you're willing to believe in it. //
Yeah, but Jesus wasn't talking about vague Nostradamus-type stuff. One of the condemnations of the Jewish leaders was how they had missed so many of the specific prophecies about their Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus -- he would be born in Bethlehem, be born of a virgin, from the line of Judah, of the lineage of King David, would spend time in Egypt, would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, would be a suffering servant rather than a conquering earthly king, would die with pierced hands and feet, would die in the presence of criminals, would be buried among the rich, and so on. These were pretty specific prophecies, written hundreds of years earlier.
I listen to novels in the car very often and the narrator can sometimes make or break the story. The one I listen to most often is a fantasy series and fourteen of the fifteen books are narrated by the same actor (James Marsters) but he was unavailable for one of the more recent ones so they got John Glover (certainly no slouch in the acting department) and there was a lot of questioning in the fan community over whether or not we would buy his interpretation of the text.
Delete"I think the key is to see not just how Jesus was intentionally doing things that violated the Pharisees' notion of how to "rest" on the Sabbath, but the WAY he did it."
I can see that a few verses later, but in verse 17 all Jesus says is that his father has been working and so he is working. In the next couple of verses it is made explicit that father = God in this scenario but prior to that (at least in the English) it just seems like the pharisees are extra determined to kill him because he says his father (the first assumption would be a human father) has been working too. It's why I said that there may be something in the original language of the text that makes it more clear in that first verse.
"Good question, and there have certainly have been many wrong answers given about the Trinity over the centuries."
The Trinity is truly one of the most confusing things about Christianity, of course.
If the Father begot the Son then the Son cannot have existed from the beginning with the Father, can he? There had to have been a time (however brief) when the Son did not exist or he could not have been begotten. And if the Spirit is a function of the love between the Son and the Father then the Spirit could not have existed except after the begetting of the Son. So the Spirit is even younger and more dependent on the other two thirds of the Trinity for existence. And if they are all equal, though differentiated in jobs as it were, then what is the role in which the Spirit or the Son is in authority over the Father? There doesn't seem to be any.
I'll check out the CARM link, thank you. But I have to say that the lack of logic (that I am able to make out) in the working of the Trinity bothers me and has for many years. I have tried to keep in mind that God is, above all else, a mystery, but I'm not very good at not poking at those until they're solved.
"One of the condemnations of the Jewish leaders was how they had missed so many of the specific prophecies about their Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus"
I am certain you're aware that many of the prophecies that are said to have been fulfilled in Jesus are questioned? The texts of the Gospels, specifically, in that many people believe they were written not so much for historic fact (as regards Jesus lineage, etc.) but to match these ancient prophecies. So with that in mind, how are we to trust that the texts are historically accurate and not a revision of the facts in order to bolster the messianic claim of Jesus and his followers?
// ) it just seems like the pharisees are extra determined to kill him because he says his father (the first assumption would be a human father) has been working too. //
DeleteWell, remember that Jesus has been referring to "My Father" many times in his dealings with the Jews. In ch.2 He tells them not to make His Father's house a house of merchandise. In ch.3 He says that the Father loves the Son, and whoever believes the Son has eternal life. He's obviously not speaking about Joseph here (especially since it's assumed that Joseph may have been dead by this time.)
And again, keep in mind that gospels are terse versions of the events - a summarizing of what took place. I'm sure his conversations at the wedding in Cana, with Nicodemus, with the woman at the well, with the man at the pool, and with the Pharisees lasted much longer than the few seconds it would take us to speak out loud the words we read in John.
// There had to have been a time (however brief) when the Son did not exist or he could not have been begotten. //
Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses go wrong at this point in assuming that Jesus is really way, way up there in rank but still at least one rank below the Father. But we have to harmonize this notion of "begetting" with what the rest of scripture teaches about the Son - namely, that He is uncreated, eternally preexistent with the Father and Spirit, and exactly the same nature and essence as the Father and Spirit.
I think we have to acknowledge that there are both points of similarity AND dissimilarity in the word "begotten". We are looking into the relationship of three divine persons within a single being called "God", and much of it is going to be incomprehensible. (Not all, but a lot).
Susanne's discussion of "monogenes" is helpful, especially where it clarifies that the "firstborn" refers not to Jesus' coming into existence, but his place of rank far above all creation.
The ancient church wrestled with this too. The lesser-known second verse of the Christmas hymn "O Come All Ye Faithful" goes like this:
God of God
Light of light
Lo, he abhors not the virgin's womb
Very God,
Begotten not created
O come, let us adore him
Christ the Lord
This is the formulation from the Nicene Creed which was designed to explain the eternal begetting of the Son. It's not a modern scientific description of course, but as the light from the sun exists simultaneously with the sun, and the sun cannot exist without its light also existing, so the Father has always begotten the Son without there being a point (either temporally or logically) that the Son did not exist.
This also, by the way, grounds the doctrine of the love of God. Can it be said that God IS love even before creation, before there was any men or creation to love? Yes, because the Father has always loved the Son, and the Son has always delighted in the Father from all eternity. There has never been a time that the 3 persons of the Trinity were not fully loving and fully satisfied in each other.
BTW, as an aside, have you considered the apologetic argument that the Trinity presents? If you were a first-century Jew, steeped in old-testament monotheism, trying to win converts to your newly invented religion, the very LAST thing you'd want to do is to try to convince orthodox Jews that their monotheistic God actually exists in three distinct persons. It was not a good tactical move at all, and most Jews rejected it as blasphemy. As a plan for winning their countrymen over, it was largely a laughable flop. There aren't too many good reasons why they even would have come up with such an idea... unless they were convinced it was actually true.
(Google's limit of 4096 characters should probably warn me not to type so much. Maybe next time... next time...)
Delete// So with that in mind, how are we to trust that the texts are historically accurate and not a revision of the facts in order to bolster the messianic claim of Jesus and his followers? //
I still think it's important not to underestimate just how defeated, confused and hopeless the disciples were after Jesus' death. They had banked everything they had on him being the Messiah, and his death put them into a tailspin. So either Jesus rose from the dead and the Spirit transformed them into new men, or else they somehow gathered the strength to keep on rebelling against the religious leaders and preach that Jesus had actually RISEN.
And if that second option is what really happened, it's hard to understand what possible good they thought it would do them, now that their failed Messiah was dead.
What's more, they didn't even give themselves an easy way out by saying that Jesus had risen in some spiritual, mystical sense. No, they claimed that He had walked right out of the tomb, body and all. And again, all the Pharisees had to do was drag out the rotting body of Jesus from his grave, and Christianity would have been finished. The fact that the Pharisees didn't lends great credence to the idea that they couldn't. That there was no dead body to produce.
Furthermore, regarding prophecies, keep in mind that the testimony of the original disciples and then Paul was being transmitted and codified within a very, very short period after the events took place -- SO short a period that there would have been plenty of eyewitnesses around to debunk the claims. These weren't stupid, credulous people who would swallow any old myth. It ought to have been easy to have rebuttals like:
"You claim Christ was crucified in fulfillment of Psalm 22, but I was there when he was beheaded by a Roman sword. And so were 50 of my friends".
"You say that none of Jesus bones would be broken just like Psalm 34 says? Even though that was standard procedure for crucifixions, to speed it up? Well, I watched the soldiers break Jesus' legs with my own eyes. So much for your prophecy, huh?"
"Judas wasn't actually paid with 30 pieces of silver. And the money they gave him didn't go to buy a potter's field. So I guess that prophecy from Zechariah 11 didn't really fit Jesus, huh?
and so on. One or two matching prophecies could be a coincidence. And vague prophecies could be molded to fit just about anyone. But when you've got multiple, very specific prophecies that could have been refuted by the contemporaries of the apostles (but weren't), it's not as easy to dismiss it as all just historical revisionism.
" He's obviously not speaking about Joseph here (especially since it's assumed that Joseph may have been dead by this time.)"
DeleteIt seems obvious to us, because we know the whole of Jesus' story and are looking at it in extreme retrospect, having only been presented with the scenes that were deemed important, correct?
I don't doubt that the Pharisees and the other people in power were not eager to have Jesus running around fomenting rebellion. They had a fairly good thing going on the one hand, and were in a precarious position on the other. No one really wants Rome to notice them.
As you say, the conversations related here (and everywhere in the Bible) are summaries more than anything else, the points that the author of John thought the most important - assuming they had historical events as their inspirations of course. Jesus very likely said something that set the Pharisees on edge. I just wonder if it was really referring to a father.
"But we have to harmonize this notion of "begetting" with what the rest of scripture teaches about the Son - namely, that He is uncreated, eternally preexistent with the Father and Spirit, and exactly the same nature and essence as the Father and Spirit."
And therein lies my difficulty. I am unable to harmonize such opposite assertions.
"It's not a modern scientific description of course, but as the light from the sun exists simultaneously with the sun, and the sun cannot exist without its light also existing, so the Father has always begotten the Son without there being a point (either temporally or logically) that the Son did not exist."
That...actually makes sense. To a point, of course. And we all know there's only so far any analogy can be taken with regard to God so I'll just roll with it. :)
...and then I went over the character limit...
Delete"BTW, as an aside, have you considered the apologetic argument that the Trinity presents?...There aren't too many good reasons why they even would have come up with such an idea... unless they were convinced it was actually true."
Unless we take the stance that the Trinity only came into the discussion when the original Jesus followers took their message to the Gentiles. Who were polytheists and very used to having gods with multiple facets (and offspring). They weren't making a lot of headway with the Jews anyway, after Jesus' death since that took him out of the running for the kind of Messiah the Jewish people were looking for. Paul turning toward evangelizing the pagans around them is really what saved Christianity, isn't it?
"I still think it's important not to underestimate just how defeated, confused and hopeless the disciples were after Jesus' death."
People are capable of believing the most impossible things. It is entirely possible that they believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, this belief giving them the strength to keep going in the face of ridicule and persecution. Belief does not make a thing so.
"Furthermore, regarding prophecies, keep in mind that the testimony of the original disciples and then Paul was being transmitted and codified within a very, very short period after the events took place -- SO short a period that there would have been plenty of eyewitnesses around to debunk the claims. These weren't stupid, credulous people who would swallow any old myth. It ought to have been easy to have rebuttals like:"
But we don't have any of these early texts, do we? As we discussed before, the earliest known surviving fragment is P52 which is dated at the earliest at around 100 CE by most people. The last apostle is believed to have died around...68 CE, I believe? That leaves us 30-40 years at least for there to be theological drift with no eye witnesses to argue against them.
All prophecies are vague. That's the nature of prophecy.
Psalm 22 mentions piercing hands and feet, but it is not a clear description of crucifixion - not one that cannot be denied, I mean.
Psalm 34 does say that God guards against broken bones for the righteous man. Why does this necessarily have to be about Christ? The Romans weren't really in the habit of making an execution faster unless they were bribed to do so. Breaking their legs shortened the ability of the condemned to teach a very important lesson about how one shouldn't annoy Rome. The fact that Jesus' legs weren't broken would be the more common course of events, rather than a rarity.
"multiple, very specific prophecies that could have been refuted by the contemporaries of the apostles (but weren't), it's not as easy to dismiss it as all just historical revisionism."
We don't know that for a fact though, do we? We only have a portion of the Christian texts that were written throughout the centuries. We know that there are references in the Gospels to letters that we do not possess. The canon of the Bible itself is something that was decided on based on tradition - the texts that were included agreed with the theology of the church. We have the gnostic texts and other non-canonical gospels to prove that there were other theologies and other writings circulating throughout the Christian community.
// Unless we take the stance that the Trinity only came into the discussion when the original Jesus followers took their message to the Gentiles. //
DeleteBut there's no historical reason to make that assumption. The gospels and epistles clearly talk about Jesus being killed because He made himself out to be equal with God, while still distinguishing himself from the Father and the Spirit. The headquarters of the church continued to be in Jerusalem for many years. It seems that many of the apostles (Peter, James, etc.) continued to focus their evangelism on Jews rather than Gentiles. Even Paul maintained the practice of preaching in Jewish synagogues in every city he visited when He could.
This wasn't a massaging of the story to fit pagan ears. It was the church's story from the beginning.
// It is entirely possible that they believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, this belief giving them the strength to keep going in the face of ridicule and persecution. //
To make that argument work, you'd have to argue that the apostles intentionally wrote stories about their own cowardice and abandonment of Jesus, their preparation to return to their former ways of life, and then their sudden reversal such that they are willing to DIE for their belief in Jesus... and yet all that happened in a way other than how they said it happened. That something ELSE transformed them from cowards to fearless messengers, but it wasn't seeing Jesus risen from the dead.
Or, that they were delusional. That all of them somehow came to an hypnotic, yet unshakable belief that they had actually seen Jesus walking and talking after He died, repeatedly for about a month. All 11 of them, separately. And all the other disciples who were not among the original twelve. And that not one of them, facing beheading, or about to be sawn in half or crucified, ever cracked and said "you know, I might possibly have been wrong about seeing Jesus really alive."
You'd also have to argue that the several thousand who believed in Jesus in Jerusalem within a few weeks of his resurrection were also completely delusional, or were credulous half-wits who would believe a story about Jesus resurrection without, you know, going to the tomb and checking it out for themselves.
I just don't see how that line of reasoning is going to work.
Continued...!
// The last apostle is believed to have died around...68 CE, I believe? //
DeleteRevelation is usually dated to the 90's, so John would have still been around. Not to mention many, many others would been alive in the 30's, easily able to refute any myths that the apostles made up that allegedly took place in their own lifetime.
// We only have a portion of the Christian texts that were written throughout the centuries. //
Not sure what you're referring to here.
// The canon of the Bible itself is something that was decided on based on tradition - the texts that were included agreed with the theology of the church. //
That's more of the Roman Catholic view - that the canon is authoritatively established by the church. But I strongly disagree, because that grounds scripture on the authority of the church instead of what is proper: grounding the church on the authority of scripture.. The early church fathers viewed scripture as self-authenticating and did not see themselves as creating the canon, but recognizing what was already canonical in and of itself.
Bruce Metzger, one of the greatest Biblical scholars and textual critics of the last century, said "The Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the church.". And William Barclay says "It is the simple truth to say that the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so."
May I humbly recommend a class on the canon of scripture that I taught? It's all Powerpointy and stuff. http://www.grbc.net/sermons/browse.php?sermon_id=7800
// We have the gnostic texts and other non-canonical gospels //
Those all data to the 2nd century and later, though. None of them were ever in serious contention for canonization.
“The gospels and epistles clearly talk about Jesus being
Deletekilled because He made himself out to be equal with God, while still
distinguishing himself from the Father and the Spirit.”
We disagree about the clarity (throughout the New Testament) of Jesus claiming to be God. There are some direct references to Jesus being God but I am not convinced that Jesus himself said them as opposed to them
being interpretations added in later by his followers, or the followers of his
followers. You trust that the Bible is accurate because…well because
you believe in it for whatever reasons you have. Which is fine, I’m not asking you to justify your faith. But I don’t have that.
“The headquarters of the church continued to be in Jerusalem for many years. It seems that many of the apostles (Peter, James, etc.) continued to focus their evangelism on Jews rather than Gentiles. Even Paul maintained the practice of preaching in Jewish synagogues in every city he
visited when He could. This wasn't a massaging of the story to fit pagan ears. It was the church's story from the beginning.”
And how many of their converts came from the synagogues? What was their success rate in bringing people to this very pagan seeming concept from a religion that espoused pure monotheism? Paul and the original apostles certainly had their disagreements about how closely to adhere to the Jewish laws, didn’t they? Paul’s version of Christianity was much easier and less painful (in the short run) to convert to for a Gentile than the
Christianity of Peter.
Christianity very quickly became a religion of Gentile converts as opposed to the Jewish sect that it started out as. And that’s the Christianity that we have now, filtered through an ancient pagan population.
“To make that argument work, you'd have to argue that the apostles intentionally wrote stories about their own cowardice and abandonment
of Jesus, their preparation to return to their former ways of life, and then
their sudden reversal such that they are willing to DIE for their belief in
Jesus... and yet all that happened in a way other than how they said it happened. That something ELSE transformed them from cowards to fearless messengers, but it wasn't seeing Jesus risen from the dead.”
I’m certain you’re familiar with the evangelists conceit of relaying how terrible a sinner they were before Jesus saved them? They tell all these stories about how they were beset by sin. Pornography, drinking, smoking,
theft, womanizing, etc. etc. etc. Terrible reprobates. And then they saw the
light. They encountered Jesus through one way or the other and now they are good and pure and definitely not using your money to fun their third million dollar mansion.
Would you be more impressed by their testimony of faith if you didn’t have some sort of background to tell you that Jesus had changed their lives entirely? Some of these men might even be sincere (I should point out here that I trust evangelists – especially of the tv variety – not even as far as I can throw them). They believe that Jesus has changed their lives. Is this a provable fact? Not really. Their lives changed and they changed based on the faith that these people have in their experience. But their experience, the blinding light of revelation, cannot be proven to have been anything other than a manufacturing of their own minds.
I listen to the Baptist (they’re probably not all actually Baptists but that’s how I think of it) radio station on occasion on my drive to and from work. There are plenty of local preachers who seem to be willing to die for what they believe, at least based on what they’re shouting at their congregations. Willingness to die doesn’t make their belief true. It just means that they truly believe it.
I don’t know what the disciples or the other believers saw or didn’t see. I know what has been recorded but I have no reason to trust that this is a historically correct recording of events. They believed, fine. They believed enough to die for it. This doesn’t make what they believed true.
...and continuing...
Delete“Revelation is usually dated to the 90's, so John would have still been around. Not to mention many, many others would been alive in the 30's, easily able to refute any myths that the apostles made up that allegedly
took place in their own lifetime.”
I fall into the group of people who don’t believe that John the Apostle is the one who wrote Revelation. So.
I’m not aware that we have any surviving texts or fragments that can be dated back to Jesus’ lifetime or that shortly thereafter. Do we?
“// We only have a portion of the Christian texts that were written throughout the centuries. // Not sure what you're referring to here.”
Sorry. I’m referring to the assumption that there are letters to and between the churches and the apostles that did not survive. Or that are not known to have survived. And that not all theological treatise, etc. survived even past the age of the apostles and into the Church era.
“That's more of the Roman Catholic view - that the canon is authoritatively established by the church.”
Less the ‘Roman Catholic’ view and more the historical view. This is what happened. There were multiple canons in use and the Catholic church sat down and decided which canon was correct based on which one matched
the Tradition. Tradition and Scripture together – it’s the Catholic Church’s
thing. Tradition grows out of Scripture and also expands and enforces it. The whole…thing that the Protestants did makes very little sense to me. ‘We don’t trust you to interpret scripture but we’re going to trust that you got what constitutes scripture right. Except for these parts here. We’re just gonna cut those out. Because they’re very Catholic.’
“But I strongly disagree, because that grounds scripture on the authority of the church instead of what is proper: grounding the church on the authority of scripture.”
But that’s not what is actually going on in the Catholic church. The Catholic church sees itself as grounded in the authority of the texts that became the Bible – this is in part where the authority of the Popes comes from, after all, in Matthew 16:18. And then on the other side, the Catholic church asserts the authority of the scripture that gives it it’s authority…It’s a bit of a circle.
And your view, that the scriptures are self-authenticating, how does that work? At one point in your class you say that they, “can be recognized (through the testimony of the Holy Spirit by and with the Word) by their many divine excellencies such as their majesty, consent of its parts, light to convert and convince sinners, etc.)”
Do we require the Holy Spirit to come to us to be able to recognize their self-authentication? The fact that they don’t convert all sinners, on their own or with the aide of a believer, does that impact their self-authentication at all? I mean some of the criteria is rather open to personal interpretation. I personally don’t find them all that majestic and not all of the narratives agree from one Gospel to the next.
I did enjoy your class, Power Pointy-ness and all.
“Those all data to the 2nd century and later, though. None of them were ever in serious contention for canonization.”
True. But they do show that there were other versions of Christianity out there at one time. And there are certainly plenty of versions of the faith around now.
Amber, I remember reading this about 'monogenes' awhile back when I was looking up 'only begotten son.' I don't know if this explanation will satisfy you, but it might help a little.
ReplyDelete"So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.
The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.
The bottom line is that terms such as "Father" and "Son," descriptive of God and Jesus, are human terms that help us understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you can understand the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally "begotten" as in “produced” or “created” by God the Father.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html#ixzz34o9aYTkp
Helpful indeed, Susanne. I find that I keep focussing on the generation aspect of the word begotten. Even if we look at it as the production of a force, energy, etc., it still implies that the begotten thing came after the unbegotten, doesn't it? Even the use of the term 'monogenes' only serves to say that there was something special and unique about Jesus, not to define him as divine, necessarily.
Delete