In response to my essay, Hmm — The Apostles’ Teaching Didn’t Seem to Include a Divine Jesus, Dr. Todd Granger, a frequent commenter and fellow blogger, took the time to write a detailed post. I was going to respond on his blog, but the response got so long that I thought it’d be better to post it here.
Thanks for a thoughtful post, Todd. I'm grateful for your having taken the time to read, and respond to, my own essay. I also appreciate the personal kind words. Let me address some of your points below.
Your post spends a lot of time on the views of Paul. But my purpose was not to review what Paul thought. Paul was a latecomer who apparently never knew Jesus during his lifetime.
What I wanted to explore was something else. I wanted to focus on the apostles who actually knew and followed and loved Jesus during his lifetime. What did those men actually say and do during the early days of their post-crucifixion ministries? In particular, at that time, did they think Jesus was God incarnate?
Another Reason to Explore What the Early Apostles Actually Taught
In writing this response, I realize that there’s another reason to explore what the original apostles taught in the early days. Their early teachings would seem to be quite relevant to the question of what teachings they might have received from Jesus himself. If we knew that, it could give us another, indirect view of Jesus’s teachings, which we could try to piece together with the Gospels.
On the subject of what the apostles actually taught, the Book of Acts is far from perfect. Like the Gospels, it was written decades after the fact. But it seems to be the best evidence the church has to offer.
A Priori Mindsets
I have to dispute your claim that I'm supposedly "committed to an historical reading of the text that a priori rules out such possibilities as God incarnate as a man and that questions the trustworthiness of the canonical texts." I’ve got a fairly long paper trail, on this blog and in comments on others. I would hope my writing shows that my only a priori commitment is to the truth, whatever the truth turns out to be, paraphrasing the Rev. Barbara Brown Taylor.
A Litigator’s Outlook
You’re right, however, that I have serious questions about the trustworthiness of the canonical texts, including Acts. Those questions arise from years of professional experience as a litigator, and in particular, a technology litigator. I claim that this experience is relevant to the task of analyzing Scripture.
Litigators and biblical scholars both analyze accounts of past events. Litigators' work is regularly judged in the harsh light of adversarial proceedings, with opposing counsel seeking to undermine everything they say and do. If litigators do their work badly, they learn about it promptly. There are real-world consequences waiting, both for their clients and for them personally. This, I can assure you, tends to sharpen and intensify one's focus. I wonder how many biblical scholars have ever ventured professionally into that kind of environment.
Plastic Memory and Story Mutation
Anglican biblical scholars have long used tradition and reason as tools in the analysis of Scripture. There's no a priori reason not to include related traditions from other walks of life in the toolbox. One deeply-ingrained analytical tradition in the legal world – and for good reason – is the hearsay rule.
Humanity long ago recognized that both memory and storytelling are fallible. Memory often conforms to preconceived notions. It’s also plastic: it can change, to varying degrees and for various reasons, especially with the passage of time. Stories can subtly mutate in the retelling, even when the retellers have the best of intentions. Story mutation is a particular danger when a storyteller has an argument to win or an axe to grind. This was recognized as far back as the Hebrew Scriptures, which prohibited putting someone to death except on the testimony of not just one, but two witnesses (Num. 35.30, Deut. 17.6-7, Deut. 19.15).
N.T. Wright claims that things were different in New Testament times. He says that "informal controlled oral tradition" was sufficient to counterbalance these problems. It seems to me that Wright goes badly wrong here, embracing a fantasy because it supports the conclusions he wants to reach. Moreover, a key source Wright cites, one Kenneth Bailey, has been accused of misrepresenting some of his own source material on just this point. I discussed this briefly in a responsive comment last night on my original essay.
Inconsistencies in the Texts
My professional questions about the canonical texts are amplified by obvious inconsistencies in the texts themselves. For example:
- According to the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that he would be killed and later raised back to life. So why then were they so despondent at his death, and so shocked and fearful when they encountered him, instead of joyously awaiting his return?
- According to Matthew, Jesus supposedly commanded his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So why then does Acts uniformly report that the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus alone?
- According to the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly predicted his return from heaven at the imminent end of history. So why then didn't it happen — and hasn’t happened yet, nearly 2,000 years later?
Clearly, something is amiss here.
Traditionalists often excoriate people who call attention to these questions. They think we should all simply shut up and accept the church's teaching. But their repetition of their mantras doesn't make them true. So far as I know, no traditionalist has ever persuasively addressed the merits of the questions themselves.
The Origins of Paul's Views
While I think you missed the mark in focusing so intensely on Paul, I was still pleased to see your citation of 2 Peter 3.16. That verse remarks that Paul's letters "contain some things that are hard to understand." This indicates that Paul came up with some of his ideas all by himself.
But wait – we know that already, don't we, because Paul openly boasts about it in Galatians 1.11-12:
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Um, yeah. This, from the man who never met Jesus during the latter’s lifetime, but who flipped from being a furious persecutor of Jesus’s followers, to being a fiery, even obsessive, advocate of his own particular views about the man.
And it's not as if Paul's views were uniformly greeted with hosannas by the folks who actually had known the living Jesus. On the contrary, much of the Jerusalem church regarded Paul as an intermeddler, so much so that he had to insist on the validity of his own claim to apostleship (1 Cor. 9.1–2; see also Acts, passim, James 2, and Galatians 2).
So can someone please explain why we should give Paul’s “revelation” any more credence than those of, say, Muhammad, or Joseph Smith? How about Jim Jones, or David Koresh, or Marshall Applewhite?
Paul's Leadership, Peter's Views
Let's assume arguendo that 2 Peter is authentic. Its comment in 3.16-17, along with other scriptural evidence, hints at an interesting possibility.
We know from the Gospels and from Acts that Peter was not always the most dominant personality in the world. Before Pentecost, he often wavered, even though in the clutch he found the strength to come through. After Pentecost he apparently flip-flopped whether Gentiles had to observe the Law (see Gal. 2).
Paul, on the other hand, was a firebrand, a dynamo. There seems to have been no trace of the wallflower to him. His epistles suggest him as a candidate for a rhythmic epithet I heard from my dad years ago about a co-worker: Often mistaken, but never in doubt.
It's plausible to me that over time, Paul's dynamic leadership may have gradually shaped and molded Peter's own beliefs.
Can I prove this? No. Is it per se unreasonable? No.
So is it correct? We'll probably never know.
Anyway, Todd, thanks again for paying me the compliment of responding to my essay in such depth.
Subscribe
to my feed
Dear D.C.
There is some merit in what you say, but I think your conclusion—that the Disciples saw the Messiah as a mere man, goes too far.
Even if you want to challenge Paul’s conclusions about the nature of Christ, what he says likely reflects what the followers described in Acts were saying and thinking. If his interpretation of Christ’s Godhood was objectionable to Luke, I would think would have been more debated by Luke in his composition of Acts. It is difficult to believe that Luke would have given Paul the limelight in Acts, if their views diverged on this critical issue.
I think there is general agreement that the Gospels were written at the same time or subsequent to Paul’s letters, and not before. Therefore, Paul's letters are strong evidenceo of what the first Christians were thinking. Further, these other sources may not contain theology that is as explicit as Paul’s, but I think it would be a mistake to characterize them as understanding Jesus as a mere man.
See Luke 5:20-26, where the Pharisees and teachers ask “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Jesus responds “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.....” [the Son of Man is a reference to the Daniel prophecy of a Messiah, here Jesus claims not only that he is the Messiah but the grant of amazing powers.]
See also, Luke 7: 44-50, “Then Jesus said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
The Transfiguration further identifies him as the Son, again in a manner that while not explicit, is suggestive of his Godhood.
You dismiss the prologue of John rather quickly. However, that summary only further explains one of the central messages of John’s Gospel. In John 2:18-21 he foretells his death and resurrection, and “The Jews replied, ‘It has taken 46 years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?’ But the temple he had spoken of was his body.”
And never forget John 3:16-18 “For God so loved the World that he gave his one and only son....”
Please also see John 5, which tells the story of Jesus curing a crippled invalid. He teaches about the power of the Son. However, also note the detailed reference to the specific location where this miracle occurs: “near the Sheep Gate a pool ... which is surrounded by five colored colonnades.” In the preface to John in my copy of The Jerusalem Bible it states that this location was buried in the Roman sack of Jerusalem, and only rediscovered in modern archaeological digs. The translators of this Bible offer this as one of the reasons for accepting John for what it claims to be, an eyewitness source, and not a subsequent recording of oral tradition.
My point to these various quotations is that these accounts of the Disciples demonstrate an understanding that the “Messiah” in his walk on earth was more than a man. If they were not all clearly settled on exactly what that meant, that only heightens the mystery. Unless you are going to arbitrarily pare away much of this evidence in the manner of the Jesus seminar, and if instead you are willing to accept these accounts as the records of eyewitnesses who attempt to explain the extraordinary events they witnessed, which I do, then what remains, at a minimum, is a mystery that is part of the Holy Trinity. While that doctrine is never explicitly articulated in the Bile, the early church concluded that the best understanding of reconciliation of all the material in Scripture was the doctrine of the Trinity. The Godhood of Christ (the Messiah) is part of that reconciliation. That such a non-mathematical explanation, and one so at odds with the natural understanding of things (three in one), has withstood two thousand years of challenge is evidence of the strength of its interpretation.
So in conclusion, I think you being tougher on the evidence offered than it deserves. However, the questions you ask are at the core of what we are about.
Regards,
Posted by: Fred Kruger | May 18, 2005 at 03:07 PM
Therefore, Paul's letters are strong evidenceo of what the first Christians were thinking.
Fred,
Galatians 2.11 would seem to suggest otherwise. So would 2 Peter 3.16, I think, albeit in a round-about way.
What are we to think when Paul -- a man who never knew the earthly Jesus -- claims to have a better grasp on Jesus' teachings than Peter, a man who worked closely with Jesus for at least three years, a man who is supposedly the "rock" which Jesus' would build his "ekklesia"?
The question above is not rhetorical. I'm a young man, and new to this whole Biblical-historical line of questioning, (having more than a few questions myself) so I'd like to see where we end up finding the truth.
Thanks,
Posted by: Karl | May 18, 2005 at 03:49 PM
May I ask why you still call yourself a Christian? Why would you want to be a Christian if you think Paul was full of b.s., making stuff up, and that he hadn't received his teachings from Jesus. And how can you call yourself a Christian if you believe that the Apostles didn't think Jesus divine. In your search for authenticity of scripture you've come to the point where you consider everything that one who calls himself a Christian defines himself by to be historical mistakes. If I thought Christianity was wrong from the get go or had become so wrong as to elevate a normal man to God and to follow the madeup teachings of a zealot like Paul then I would run away from the world of Christianity. Because like it or not that is what Christianity is now and if it was not meant to be by Jesus than he had no authority to truth anyway because God would have kept his message safe and certainly not let it become so distorted as you claim it to be.
Posted by: Michael | May 18, 2005 at 06:22 PM
D.C., thanks for the response to what I posted early this morning.
Just a couple of points, in which I think that you demonstrate that my resignation in not being able to persuade you with any evidence that I can adduce.
First, I appreciate your stated devotion to seeking the truth, but I would suggest that the first and most basic commitment you bring to the task is what you believe truth to be. There is no objective point on which to stand here. In the task of sifting through the evidence to determine what the "facts" are with regard to the truth, you will bring your prior commitments to bear. What, for example, as the prior commitments that you bring to bear in dismissing Pauline christology, simply because he is later and did not know Jesus in his lifetime? Why is the resurrected Jesus - to whom Paul claims to be a witness, and indeed to whom the writer of the book of Acts states that Paul is a witness - any less real or alive than Jesus before his crucifixion and resurrection? In short, why is Paul assumed to be a unreliable witness?
If litigators do their work badly, they learn about it promptly. There are real-world consequences waiting, both for their clients and for them personally. This, I can assure you, tends to sharpen and intensify one's focus. I wonder how many biblical scholars have ever ventured professionally into that kind of environment.
Few, I suspect, though there are real-world, eternal consequences for doing exegesis badly. Though the adversarial model of the courtroom is not universally applicable, and while the truth is not always rightly served in the courtroom, this is nevertheless a powerful way of putting the matter.
As to the problem of sustaining a faithful oral tradition (and even a subsequent faithful documentary tradition), we're all of us - confessional readers and liberal readers - in the same boat as far as the texts at our disposal. The differences between our prior commitments are seen with perhaps no greater acuity than at this point. The confessional reader is content to live under the authority of the canonical tradition, believing (there is no proof at this point) the Church rightly to have written and to have discerned the authority of those texts that bear apostolic witness to Jesus. Whatever the human tendencies in transmitting a tradition, oral or written, the confessional reader believes that the Holy Spirit was an integral part of the process, guiding and keeping the Church throughout the passing on of apostolic tradition. The liberal reader - predisposed to view documents and oral narrative in a certain way, namely with suspicion as to its reliability - will approach the matter entirely differently. I insist that there is no objective point for deciding between the perspectives, including such evidence as you adduce from studies of how oral traditions mutate over time.
Traditionalists often excoriate people who call attention to these questions. They think we should all simply shut up and accept the church's teaching. But their repetition of their mantras doesn't make them true. So far as I know, no traditionalist has ever persuasively addressed the merits of the questions themselves.
I see nothing wrong with calling attention to differences like this. There are faithful, orthodox exegetes - including Wright, Reginald Fuller, the late Robert Brown - who have called attention to these differences and have explored their roots. Differences in witness may be a problem in the courtroom, but I cannot see that this is a problem for the canonical texts of Scripture. Only one seeking indubitable certainty in an inerrant text would have a problem with, for example, the Matthean and the Lucan witness differing in their teaching emphasis and their narrative details. Also, it bears pointing out that while the details of narratives may differ or indeed even be contradictory (for example the post-resurrection appearance narratives), all the witnesses are unanimous in bearing witness to the raising of Jesus from the dead, however much their narrative accounts of that event differ.
So can someone please explain why we should give Paul’s “revelation” any more credence than those of, say, Muhammad, or Joseph Smith? How about Jim Jones, or David Koresh, or Marshall Applewhite?
No doubt greater minds than my own could provide more convincing answers, but whether one trusts the witness of Muhammad (who claims to bear faithful witness to his prophetic predecessor, Jesus) or of Joseph Smith eventually comes down simply to the certainty of faith alone, however much historical analysis could permit our comparing what the Quran and Hadith have to say about Jesus and what witness the Scriptures and the writings of the early Fathers bear to who Jesus is. As to Jim Jones and David Koresh, their works and Paul's give us more than enough basis to judge between them.
Posted by: Todd Granger | May 18, 2005 at 06:22 PM
Thanks for the comment, Todd. A couple of responsive points:
1. You say: The confessional reader is content to live under the authority of the canonical tradition, believing (there is no proof at this point) the Church rightly to have written and to have discerned the authority of those texts that bear apostolic witness to Jesus.
That's a difference in mindsets between thee and me. My response to a lot of church doctrine can be summed up in the standard courtroom phrase, "Objection, your honor; assumes facts not in evidence." My Navy experience taught me to be extremely careful in assuming that things are the way I imagine them. See, for example, my post from March 14, Submarines and Scripture: You Can't Always Trust Your Navigational Charts.
I might choose believe something for which I don't have evidence. But normally I'll only do so if it seems to fit with the rest of the evidence I do have. If it doesn't seem to fit, I want to see at least some probative evidence before I'll believe it. And I'll try to remember that I might have incomplete information, or that what I do have is simply wrong.
If it's a really important matter -- and a claim that Jesus was God incarnate is about as important as I can imagine -- I'll want to see more than just some probative evidence; I'll be looking for something like clear and convincing evidence.
2. You say: I insist that there is no objective point for deciding between the perspectives, including such evidence as you adduce from studies of how oral traditions mutate over time.
I'm forced to disagree. I submit that there is indeed an objective point for deciding between the perspectives: How well do the different perspectives work in the real world that God has created? We don't really know how well our different perspectives work in eternity. But we do indeed know how well they work in the real world.
The perspective I try to bring to the inquiry -- as does N.T. Wright -- is that of critical realism. That perspective has been marvelously fruitful in another of its manifestations, viz., the scientific method. On that score, of course, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know intimately as a physician.
I see no reason for treating theological matters in a materially different way than we do scientific matters (mutatis mutandis, of course). That may be because I don't see a principled reason for distinguishing between the natural world and what we call the supernatural realm. I proceed on the working assumption -- backed by a great deal of history -- that what we currently think of as supernatural is just part of God's creation that we haven't yet understood. Maybe we'll never understand it, but history suggests that's an unwise assumption.
3. You say: Differences in witness may be a problem in the courtroom, but I cannot see that this is a problem for the canonical texts of Scripture.
In some cases I would agree with you, but it would very much depend on the particular issue.
Consider a hypothetical example from the legal world. Suppose two courtroom witnesses were to disagree on whether a traffic light was green or red. Obviously that would be an important issue if the case was about a driver allegedly running a red light and killing a pedestrian in the crosswalk. But it might not be important at all if the driver allegedly jumped the curb in mid-block and killed a pedestrian on the sidewalk.
Similarly, the Gospels tell conflicting stories about who was the first disciple to reach Jesus's tomb on Easter Sunday. I don't get too excited about that. But the Gospels also tell conflicting stories in respect of some fundamental aspects of what is now Christian doctrine. I've cited a few of them in the bullet points of my post above. Those trouble me, as they should any other Christian.
4. You say: Only one seeking indubitable certainty in an inerrant text ....
I don't consciously look for certainty in anything. In anything we do, we're making bets on how things will turn out. For some bets, I want more of a sense of confidence than I do for others.
5. You say: [I]t bears pointing out that while the details of narratives may differ or indeed even be contradictory (for example the post-resurrection appearance narratives), all the witnesses are unanimous in bearing witness to the raising of Jesus from the dead, however much their narrative accounts of that event differ.
I accept that at least some of the disciples thought they saw Jesus after his death. I know all too well how stories can mutate, so I'm less inclined to accept some of the more-vivid stories in the Gospels, e.g., Jesus eating a piece of fish. Paul's contention that more than 500 people saw the risen Jesus is pure hearsay. It's probably multiple layers of hearsay at that.
I can think of possible alternative explanations for the reported sightings (people saw Elvis for years after his death), and for the empty tomb (my own speculation is that Joseph of Arimathea moved the body after the sabbath and deliberately didn't tell the hoi polloi disciples).
But I still take very seriously the possibility that Jesus, alive after his death, did indeed appear to the disciples. My mother, a registered nurse not given to jumping to conclusions, tells how several of her dead family members appeared to her when she was recovering from heart surgery. She says they smiled at her and that her father held up his hand to indicate that it wasn't time for her to join them. My late grandmother reported that after one of my cousins died, he appeared to her to say goodbye. In the book Flyboys, the mother of a World War II flyer captured by the Japanese is said to have reported that she saw her son flying overhead waving goodbye. At the time, all she knew was that her son was missing; she didn't know that he had just been executed.
That's evidence. I don't discount it at all. I simply think we don't know enough to formulate an intelligent theory about what really happened with Jesus.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I doubt we'll convince each other, but the interchange is challenging and forces me to articulate what I think.
Posted by: D. C. | May 18, 2005 at 07:12 PM
As Paul noted, Christianity rests of the historical validity of our Faith. In our various own ways, all of us are seeking that. Karl, in response to the Galatians reference, I think that illustrates my point: where there were differing points of view, it was recognized. It doesn’t interfere with what for me is the weight of consistent evidence. As to Peter, well, that is an elliptical, odd comment (in Scripture) that I don’t understand. However, I do not seek perfection—I only ask for enough to rely on these Words.
Posted by: Fred Kruger | May 18, 2005 at 07:16 PM
Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I doubt we'll convince each other, but the interchange is challenging and forces me to articulate what I think.
Agreed, D.C.
Posted by: Todd Granger | May 18, 2005 at 11:05 PM
I think Todd Granger answered his own question, actually, when he wrote that:
I insist that there is no objective point for deciding between the perspectives, including such evidence as you adduce from studies of how oral traditions mutate over time.
and then:
As to Jim Jones and David Koresh, their works and Paul's give us more than enough basis to judge between them.
And that is the objective basis for deciding how to understand Scripture, as D.C. notes: how things work in the real world. This is something I think most in the Church would agree with, and it's why "Reason" is part of the deal, and an important part.
Posted by: bls | May 19, 2005 at 10:19 AM
In the Talmud (Yoma 22b), the Rabbis discussed why it was just that God order the Israelites to exterminate the Amalekites when only Amalek was guilty of injuring the Israelites and offending God. Why obliterate his descendants? Let us just say that the Rabbis found a great deal of conflict between God's position in this case and the affirmation of the value of human life they generally read in the Torah. At a certain point in the discussion we are told that a divine voice came from heaven and quoted Ecclesiastes 7:16, "Be not righteous overmuch."
It's easy to argue against this sentiment. Ecclesiastes is one of those peculiar species of Biblical literature called Wisdom Literature whose mistaken attitudes about truth and the destiny of Israel I think Jesus' teaching and (need I say it) incarnate deity was (in small part) meant to counteract, but I think the Talmudic incident in which it was quoted teaches us something valuable about the dangers of human reason in hermeneutics. (Gosh, did I just say that?)
Despite the insistence of Ph.D.'s in Early Christian Literature against this position, I find that the Talmudic Rabbis and the Christian Fathers (especially the Nicene ones) had a great deal in common intellectually. And the defining thread of Patristic hermeneutic that I see is this: be not reasonable overmuch.
This is not the same as "sit down, shut up, believe what the Church teaches." The Fathers might be this heavy-handed to their hearers but it would be ridiculous to believe they could be this way among themselves. Instead, the orthodox Fathers developed Christian orthodoxy, I think, by agreeing among themselves what things were necessary to salvation (and the spiritual eudaimonia of the Church) and excluding all arguments that might jeopardize those truths. Yes, these positions might contradict reason. Yes, these positions certainly would not stand up to the scientific method nor the modes of inquiry at common law from whence the scientific method came. But as Plato discourses on method,
"as to the mathematical sciences which, as we were saying, have some apprehension of true being--geometry and the like--they only dream about being, but never can they behold the waking reality so long as they leave the hy- potheses which they use unexamined, and are unable to give an account of them. For when a man knows not his own first principle, and when the conclusion and intermediate steps are also constructed out of he knows not what, how can he imagine that such a fabric of convention can ever become science?"
And the same I think with the science of theology. The axioms are the foundation of the entire enterprise and yet must be independent from the system. Math itself doesn't tell you how you should do it. And yet mathematicians have come up with all sorts of axiomatic technology about rigorous standards of proof and good math being "beautiful." What has disturbed me so much about QC's arguments is that he expects the axioms to be verifiable in the texts, where "the letter killeth" or perhaps rather would replace them with a new set of axioms.
And now I'm sure everyone will be in arms. How do you expect the salvific axioms of orthodox Christian faith to be verifiable outside the boundaries of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament which contain everything necessary to salvation? Well, what do you expect the role of the Paraclete is if not to reveal axiomatic truth? What kind of truth but axiomatic truth is easily communicated except in spiritual sensibility? Even the scientific method and legal reasoning are based more on sensibilities for rigor, honesty, and the passion for justice than any textual maxims.
So the natural question to ask when critiquing hermeneutics is to elucidate what salvific truths some problematic method is endangering. QC is helpful, blindingly and delightfully honest in telling us what is in danger when he reads the Bible. The chief one I say endangered is this: Jesus did not rise from the dead. Well, tell us what confidence we should have in a bodily resurrection. Must we remain disembodied souls beyond the circles of the worlds, never embracing the material reality of a physical universe truly reborn by the reconciling love of God? Apparently.
I wonder why endangering this truth is really necessary in a modern rational framework. The scientific method is solely concerned with repeatable phenomena. As far as I know, Jesus' resurrection isn't a repeatable phenomenon, since the Incarnation is a one-time deal as well. Frankly, I have no idea how it happened. But I know enough quantum chemistry and thermodynamics to understand that the Resurrection, like the evolution of the human race, was not impossible just ridiculously improbable. The Letter to the Hebrews speaks of "faith [as] the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" or perhaps it should read "faith is an open mind for the extremely improbable in hope of being given something extraordinarily beautiful and good." Faith through the Spirit, again I say, is the source of the hermeneutical axioms that are true (and still not fully known).
Pardon me for speaking with a little more heat than light. Yet what I want to know is with what axioms QC would have us replace the Patristic axioms?
Posted by: Caelius Spinator | May 19, 2005 at 11:44 AM
...and the debate continues. I praise God for you thinkers, analyzers and researchers- but so far (in keeping with my 'traditionalist' devotion) I've seen one or two posts that give forth the basis, by which we all who claim to be Christians, live: by faith.
Paul himself- merely a man, but annointed from on high to the work he was called, thank you Jesus- said it so perfectly, simply and straightforwardly: We see now, as in a glass, darkly.... but the day will come when we will see all.
[Please forgive the paraphrasing- those who have read that particular scripture will know what I'm writing- those who don't, well, take this as a challenge to find this verse and correct me-please!- if need be.]
Furthermore, Paul/Saul explained that the just live by faith and not by sight. Mr. D.C., this is what you need to ask God for: Faith. Understanding. Knowledge. Discernment.
These things you need to ask of Him, since all things are gifts from Him, and not of ourselves- just like His saving grace- in Jesus' Name, through the Holy Spirit. Is that a 'traditionalist' view, or do those intsructions come from the very Word Himself?
By all means, prove God by His Word. But the core of your problem seems to lie in your reliance on your earthly experience, rather than your experience with God. I ask you- how are you going to discern the Divine by earthly means? All insight and revelation are gifts of God, given to us in kind according to the measure of our faith- again, also given by God. 'Trad.' view, or Word?
Like I said, get your head out of them intellectually stimulating books- as illuminating as they may be- and get your spiritual stimulation on with the Word, brother!!! The people perish for lack of knowledge... Man shall not live by bread alone...
God bless you and keep you, man!!!
Posted by: Mike again! | May 19, 2005 at 12:21 PM
Caelius Spinator writes: Well, tell us what confidence we should have in a bodily resurrection. Must we remain disembodied souls beyond the circles of the worlds, never embracing the material reality of a physical universe truly reborn by the reconciling love of God? Apparently.
Caelius, why must we have confidence in a bodily resurrection? Why limit God like that?
The history of the universe (or at least our little corner of it) has been one of steady progress, steady increases in orderliness (as opposed to chaos) and "goodness." The progress hasn't been monotonic -- it's had its ups and downs -- but the overall trend is unmistakably up. Given the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that's a pretty neat trick.
That gives me an intellectual basis for believing that it's all in God's hands, and that in the end, the future will work out unimaginably well. If that future includes some version of a post-mortem "me," that's wonderful. My hunch (and that's all it is) is that God loves us and won't discard us, his created co-creators.
But if the ultimate future doesn't include a post-mortem "me," I can still live with it (if you'll pardon the expression). What matters is that God is good, and eternal.
In any case, thanks for stopping by; I appreciate your having left the comment.
Posted by: D. C. | May 19, 2005 at 02:12 PM
The theological point of embarkation for the Catholic must always be one of faith. Whose faith, you very well may ask? Well of course the Church's Faith, which is Christ's Faith, i.e. the faith that he gave us.
You point out that it seems at various places that the Apostles did not hold what the Church now holds to be true, i.e the doctrine of Christ's divinity and other doctrines. I find this a hard to support proposition if you consider all of the scriptures together, especially the fact that historically the epistles of Paul were probably written before the rest of the NT. Since Paul himself testifies to handing down what had been given to him, without a doubt by the twelve, this seems like a worthy source, it goes without mentioning that Christ appeared to Paul.
However, setting aside the guessing games that modern bible "scientists" play at, one contradicting another, I simply want to ask, where do you make room for the Spirit? Christ said, I have not told you all things because you can not bear it now, but I will send the Spirit of Truth and he will teach you all things. We are fraile humans, our capacity to understand God is non-existant. St. Thomas is quite clear about this in the Summa, what we say about God is negative theology, i.e. we say how he is not like our experience of the world. Our capacity for God allows us to know him as person, or rather as persons, Father, Son, and Spirit only through his Revelation and Grace. But to know a person is not to know in the cognitive sense but in the relational sense, because the person is always a mystery. God pours out upon the Church his Spirit so that in every age the Church can pass on an encounter with the persons of the Trinity. Theology attempts to grow in understanding of the persons from what they have revealed about themselves, but this understanding is always meant to be at the service of the being in relationship with the Persons of the Trinity. But how can you be in relationship with someone who's self-revelation you have rejected? You can't. But the God has revealed himself, in (all of) the Scripture, and also in the Church, who the Spirit teaches all things. Thus those who deny God's Revelation, in Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, can not engage in Catholic Theology. What they are doing is engaging scriptures as a myth to which they can find meaning, but the meaning of Scriptures is long ago set, by God who both reveals and interprits.
Posted by: romani | May 20, 2005 at 04:22 AM
Instead, the orthodox Fathers developed Christian orthodoxy, I think, by agreeing among themselves what things were necessary to salvation (and the spiritual eudaimonia of the Church) and excluding all arguments that might jeopardize those truths.
And how did they come to agree about these things? In particular, how did they decide what was good for the "spiritual eudaimonia of the Church"?
(I should add that I agree with you about many things you're saying here, and also that we should "be not reasonable overmuch." Also that we should "be not righteous overmuch." But we should be righteous, and also reasonable, no?)
Posted by: bls | May 20, 2005 at 08:55 AM
BTW, here's an article in today's L.A. Times: Definitional Drift: Math Goes Postmodern. Thought you might be interested.
Excerpt:
Posted by: bls | May 20, 2005 at 09:01 AM
The history of the universe (or at least our little corner of it) has been one of steady progress, steady increases in orderliness (as opposed to chaos) and "goodness."
Mr. Toedt: the above is not an accurate statement but dialectical hopefulness.
Mankind's technological progress has not been matched by an increase in "goodness" but by a heightened efficiency in a man's ability to kill other men.
This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Christian view of each person's sinfulness, whether the source is inherited (Augustine and the West) or not (Eastern Orthodoxy).
See Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, "The Bomb", Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Slobodon Milosovic, Augustin Bizimungu Saddam Hussein and the ongoing persecution of Christians in the 10/40 window for starters.
Posted by: EP | May 30, 2005 at 03:35 PM
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Posted by: Daniel Marsh | August 01, 2005 at 01:59 PM