[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

re: proofs and people

On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, J. Marie Hall wrote:
> peter:

> > So "perfection" and "infallibility" rest on how you judge which things
> > in your life come from God and which things don't?  I dunno, unless
> > you're perfect and infallible yourself, I don't see how that follows.
>
> i can understand the problem here.  and that's probably why i responded
> with question marks.  b/c i don't know how to answer what is perfect
> according to god without relying on an intrinsically subjective
> perspective.  what else could we rest on?

Quite so.  And I like the way you say "perfect *according to* God".  I
take it, then, that we're not arguing perfection exists *apart* from God?
That is, there is no external standard by which God can be *judged*
perfect?  (In that case, though, what sense would it make to say "We
worship a perfect God", as some believers like to claim?)

Of course, we weren't talking about *God's* alleged perfection, but about
the perfection of the Bible, so that's a bit of a red herring.  :)

> but i'm not a postmodernist per se.

More's the pity.  :)  I'm quite happy to be so, myself.  (That may be the
most remotely on-topic thing I've said here in a while.  Hmmm.)

> > > next to "why?" and "is it really possible," "why not?" might be an
> > > equally valid question.
> >
> > Depends where you think the burden of proof lies.
>
> but where i have the problem is that the decision to place it isn't
> exactly made by an entirely qualified and objective participant :)

Ah, but we can try to *agree* on a burden of proof, or a standard whereby
truth-claims can be measured.  I'm not a big believer in objectivity, per
se, but I *am* a big believer in inter-subjectivity.

> > But what if there is *more* than one social or geographical or
> > chronological or textual context for the image?
>
> this is what has me thinking.  will you say more here?  send me some
> examples, possibilities?  are we talking post and pre with
> chronological?  are we talking transmission issues?

Well, without going into any major detail, we're talking about the fact
that the notion of a crucified messiah meant one of two things to the
ancient Jews -- he either wasn't *really* a messiah, or the idea of
"messiah" needed serious redefining.  In the case of every other messianic
movement in that period, Jews made the first conclusion -- "That guy
wasn't the messiah, so let's find another one."  But in the case of the
first Christians (and "Christ" is just Greek for "Messiah"), the followers
of Jesus held on to their notion of "messiah" and had to figure out a new
way of understanding it.  *I* believe that it was only possible for them
to do this because Jesus came back from the dead -- *that* was what
vindicated his claim to be a messiah bringing in the 'new age' when all
would be resurrected and God would reign in the fullness of his power.  
But the resurrection was not complete -- there was, and continues to be, a
delay between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the rest
of creation -- so the Christians had to rethink their ideas about
resurrection, as well as their ideas about messiah.  What you see in the
New Testament are some aspects of that re-defining process.  And I don't
think they're all necessarily in agreement.  With regard to the notion
that God demands blood sacrifice, and therefore God had to sacrifice
himself to himself to satisfy the rule he made himself, some of the
strongest passages in support of that interpretation are to be found in
the book of Hebrews, which was a marginal book at best until the very late
4th century, when it was slipped into the official New Testament canon.  
The epistles of Paul, which were central to many, if not most, Christian
canons from the second century on, take a different approach, and look at
the crucifixion primarily in terms of how Christ took the suffering and
the shame of the world upon himself, to expose our own sin and pride.

And so on, and so on.

> whether it's metaphorical or otherwise, i don't think lewis would posit
> that it doesn't matter whether or not you live eternally (but i'm not
> saying that you implied that).

Oh, no, Lewis was quite clear that eternal life of some sort was central
to his theology -- but it would be life in a different *form* than the
life we know now.  Death was just the point where we shed the *old* form.

> > Well, before we start *looking* for evidence, we have to ask if such
> > evidence is even *possible*.  Is there any way your claim can be
> > falsified?  If so, then we can start looking for that evidence.  If
> > not, then your hypothesis is completely untestable, and, as they say,
> > that which is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.
>
> i don't know that it's that simple.

Oh, but it is.  :)

> one can take it that way; but as far as evidence goes, i was racking my
> brain for issues in modern science and in literary investigation.  a
> little revisionist history?

I like Don's line, to the effect that *all* history is revisionist.  If
you have nothing new to say, no new angle from which to look at historical
events, then why write history at all?

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
References: