Theological Opinions , PART II

[Lief Erikson]

One important thing to note, GreyMouser, is that because something isn't mentioned in a text doesn't mean the text denies that it happened.

One text might say, "Lief Erikson went to the bank, got some money and went home." Another might say, "Lief Erikson and his brother Minor Fwan went to the bank, got some money and went home." The first text is not inaccurate because it doesn't mention Minor Fwan. The fact that I went to the bank is still a fact, whether Minor Fwan did or not, and omission does not equal discrepency.

If omission was a discrepency, you might justly argue that both accounts are invalid, since neither mentions the people who work in the bank or says that they cashed the checks. It might also be a discrepency to history that the floor color wasn't mentioned. In this case all history books are full of errors, since all of them always leave out something. Omission does not equal discrepency .

This is important to note, for a huge number of the "errors" people see in the Bible come from simple omission. Not all, I grant you, but a huge number of them.


The difference between Luke and Matthew here is that Luke doesn't mention Herod's attempt to kill Jesus. So Luke doesn't mention what Matthew does, that Jesus was taken to Egypt for a while for his own safety, while Herod was alive. Then when Herod died, Joseph took his child (Jesus was still young, according to Matthew 2:20) back to Israel, to the town of Nazareth. Matthew 2:19-23 describes the story and says to conclude, "So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: 'He will be called a Nazarene.'"

*I'll continue this post later. I don't have time right now- my family is dragging me off the computer . . . AHH!!!*

. . . continued.

The purification at the Temple described in Luke is circumcision. That occurred "on the eighth day." That would have been shortly after his birth. According to the NIV text note in Matthew 2:11, the Magi would have showed up some months after Jesus was born. So that was well after the incident at the temple. In short, after being born in Bethlehem (Matthew and Luke), he was purified at the Temple (Luke) and lived for a short time in Nazareth (Luke). Then his parents took him out of Israel to Egypt (Matthew) and brought him back to Nazareth after Herod died (Matthew).

So the accounts don't all recount the exact same events. Matthew doesn't mention the prophecies at the Temple, and Luke doesn't mention Herod's attempts to kill Jesus. Yet the fact that the two authors chose to describe different events in their narratives doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

slight rabbit trail - re Lief's female Holy Spirit thing -

I just heard a few weeks ago that in John's gospel, John (un-grammatically!) specifically uses the masculine article to refer to the H.S. in a few places.

I'd need to see some evidence that it was used ungramatically. It was used when gramatically connected with the masculine Greek word Counselor.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I think that James is about as far back as you can go, and I think there was some sort of falling out between James and Paul over just this topic. But I do have more to learn on this. As always. So far it seems to me that James, while the leader of the faith in Israel, did not function as an intercedent between a worshipper and God. And it seems to me that he was reluctant to interpret, but did so only because he didn't like the way things were going with Paul, especially the syncretism with the Neo-Platonic idea of the Logos. But I admit I do not have enough evidence to support these theories. Paul, Luke, and others, (edit: here I'll stick in John "by way of Justin Martyr and Iranaeus"), pretty much won out over James. But I can't help but think that James, being Jesus' brother, had a better sense of what Jesus was about.

I disagree with you that James was in favour of a personal rather than hierarchical religion; why exactly do you think that? I'll re-read James and try to deal with this more tomorrow.

Why do you say that he was reluctant to interpret?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

.... So the accounts don't all recount the exact same events. Matthew doesn't mention the prophecies at the Temple, and Luke doesn't mention Herod's attempts to kill Jesus. Yet the fact that the two authors chose to describe different events in their narratives doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

Also a good indication that there wasn't a conspiracy to make up and write the gospels.


(psst - hey, Elfhelm, Gwai didn't disagree with you that James was Jesus' brother! *pokes Gwai* )

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The difference between Luke and Matthew here is that Luke doesn't mention Herod's attempt to kill Jesus. So Luke doesn't mention what Matthew does, that Jesus was taken to Egypt for a while for his own safety, while Herod was alive. Then when Herod died, Joseph took his child (Jesus was still young, according to Matthew 2:20) back to Israel, to the town of Nazareth. Matthew 2:19-23 describes the story and says to conclude, "So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: 'He will be called a Nazarene.'"

*I'll continue this post later. I don't have time right now- my family is dragging me off the computer . . . AHH!!!*

. . . continued.

The purification at the Temple described in Luke is circumcision. That occurred "on the eighth day." That would have been shortly after his birth.

Actually, it was described as "after their time of purification according to the Laws of Moses" so that would have put it 41 days after Jesus was born

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5

(two weeks plus 66 days for a girl)
Leviticus 12

Not that it makes a difference, just that poor Mary would have had a tough donkey ride to Jerusalem just 8 days later.

According to the NIV text note in Matthew 2:11, the Magi would have showed up some months after Jesus was born. So that was well after the incident at the temple. In short, after being born in Bethlehem (Matthew and Luke), he was purified at the Temple (Luke) and lived for a short time in Nazareth (Luke). Then his parents took him out of Israel to Egypt (Matthew) and brought him back to Nazareth after Herod died (Matthew).

So the accounts don't all recount the exact same events. Matthew doesn't mention the prophecies at the Temple, and Luke doesn't mention Herod's attempts to kill Jesus. Yet the fact that the two authors chose to describe different events in their narratives doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

Are you saying the Wise Men saw Jesus in Nazareth?

[Lief Erikson]

You're right; it would have been after the purification, which means 41 days.

I think Luke really picks and chooses what he will put in his book, like all of the Gospel writers do. John complained in his book that the world wouldn't fit the number of books that should be written about Jesus' life . Luke describes the prophecies, the virgin birth, and then the Temple prophecies. He then just skips right over the flight to Egypt, the Magi and the threat from Herod, straight over to Jesus and his family returning to Nazareth. I think Luke 2:39 just skipped over a huge number of events to reach Galilee.

You could insert in the verse, "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, [a few years later after other adventures] they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth."

The omission doesn't make it inaccurate, especially at it's in a point in the story where it's clear that Luke is abbreviating. He says in the very next verse, "And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him."

That a clear abbreviation. He next goes on and says, "when he was twelve years old . . ." He's clearly reached the point in his account where he's going to skip over material quickly to get to the next story he wants to focus on.

So the omission is not an inconsistancy. One could read it as, "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they [immediately] returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." Yet the context shows that Luke had reached a point where he would do twelve years of skipping events, so the word "immediately" doesn't have to be assumed. If you assume it, there's a contradiction, but if you don't insert it, then there needn't be one.

[GreyMouser]

"39When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth."

So this should actually be read as "When Jesus and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord [they returned to Bethlehem where three Magi presented gifts, and then an angel warned Joseph that Herod was after them and they should flee to Egypt, where they lived until Herod died and then they went back, but they were still so scared of Herod's heir Archelaus that they skirted Judea altogether and then they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

[GreyMouser]

My own biography:
"When he had finished visiting his sister in England , he returned to Canada"

By which I mean "When he finished visiting his sister in England he travelled across Europe to Greece and then sailed down the Nile and crossed through Ethiopia into to Kenya where he worked as a volunteer schoolteacher for six months, after which he headed down to Rhodesia where he worked on the railroad for eight months, then took a boat to India and spent another year travelling through South-East Asia and working in Australia and after four years he returned to Canada."

Skipping events is one thing- we probably don't need to know about Jesus cutting his teeth or learning to walk or read and write or his early lessons in carpentry, but to skip the return to Bethlehem and the flight into Egypt and subsequent living there for years- in the middle of a sentence???

[GreyMouser]

You want to know what I think? No? I'll tell you anyway

Both the eponymous, anonymous authors of Matthew and Luke, writing years after the event and working from Mark (which has no mention of Jesus's birth ) faced a problem.

Jesus was a Galilean from Nazareth, but everyone knew the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, so they individually came up with different explanations.

Luke remembers there was a census somewhere around that time, and thinks, right, a lot of people had to return to their ancestral homes where they still held property to be registered (they still do this in Taiwan- every election, death or any other event involving the law everybody has to return to their birthplace)
So he comes up with the story of the manger and the shepherds- intensely moving, the Saviour born outcast and first revealed to the humblest.

Jesus is a Nazarene who is born in Bethlehem.

Matthew, being more steeped in Jewish history (and much more dramatic- look at his Crucifixion/Resurrection, with earthquakes and the dead coming to life) , remembers the sufferings of the Jews under the evil Herod, paranoid for his throne, and thinks "Aha! they must have had to flee their home in Bethlehem"- remember, no mention of Nazareth or journey.

The flight into Egypt, to fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah coming up out of Egypt- but how do they end up in Nazareth, of all backwoods places?

They're afraid of Herod's heir Archelaus, so they go there to take refuge, unnoticed.

Please note, I'm not accusing these guys of propogating falsehoods as part of some conspiracy- they were basically concerned with the message of the Messiah, not writing biographies.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

My own biography:
"When he had finished visiting his sister in England , he returned to Canada"

By which I mean "When he finished visiting his sister in England he travelled across Europe to Greece and then sailed down the Nile and crossed through Ethiopia into to Kenya where he worked as a volunteer schoolteacher for six months, after which he headed down to Rhodesia where he worked on the railroad for eight months, then took a boat to India and spent another year travelling through South-East Asia and working in Australia and after four years he returned to Canada."

And here's how you'd conclude: "And there you grew wise. And you stayed there for ten years."

So did anything happen during those ten years? Why did you so specifically describe your trip across Europe and through Ethiopia into Kenya and into Rhodesia, though through India and South-East Asia and Australia, and then leave the next ten years of your life a blank? You talk talk talk talk in detail, and then stop mentioning a thing. Did your life stop?

Originally Posted by Luke 2:39-42

39When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.

41Every year, his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to their custom.

You should be able to see that when Luke said, "they returned to Galilee," in the very next lines he started jumping over a huge amount of Jesus' life. It is perfectly possible that Luke was already doing this in verse 39. That doesn't mean that nothing happened in the time he was skipping; it was a time when Jesus was growing in favor with God and men and gaining wisdom and strength of character.

Let's see how this Luke passage would look with your bit interspliced in:

Originally Posted by Luke 2:39-42

When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, [they returned to Bethlehem where three Magi presented gifts, and then an angel warned Joseph that Herod was after them and they should flee to Egypt, where they lived until Herod died and then they went back, but they were still so scared of Herod's heir Archelaus that they skirted Judea altogether and then] they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.

Every year, his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to their custom.

This places a significant amount of detail on one part of Jesus' life, and then nothing about the next few years.

It's clear from the context of verse 39 that Luke was already skipping other things, so the idea that he may have been skipping things in verse 39, which is right next to verses 40-42, is perfectly possible as well. If Luke was trying to give a thorough account of all Jesus' life, there certainly would have been more he could have found to fill in the gaps.

The existence of a gap where nothing is described does not mean that a gap existed where nothing happened. Verse 39 was right up next to verses 40-42, in which Luke skipped a large chunk of Jesus' life, so it is perfectly possible that Luke was skipping over Jesus' live in verses 39-42, rather than only in 40-42.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Skipping events is one thing- we probably don't need to know about Jesus cutting his teeth or learning to walk or read and write or his early lessons in carpentry, but to skip the return to Bethlehem and the flight into Egypt and subsequent living there for years- in the middle of a sentence???

When I'm talking to people who don't want a detailed account of what I'm saying, I will often abbreviate it drastically or not mention at all significant events, in order to be brief. Jesus had loads of exciting events in his life, including many miracles and incidents which the authors of the Gospels judiciously skipped. That's why sometimes an account of a miracle or some other amazing incident will occur in one Gospel, but not in another.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(psst - hey, Elfhelm, Gwai didn't disagree with you that James was Jesus' brother! *pokes Gwai* )

"Brother" is said in many ways.

Anywho, I await your response, Elfhelm. I'm interested in delving more into this question.

[Elfhelm]

Even Eusebius calls him the brother of Jesus. And the Pseudo-Clementine documents are addressed to James with the same appelation. But when the church needed to syncretize the virgin birth myths of paganism, the word "brother" was redefined to mean anything other than what the word brother means.

Anyway, I hedged on what i said about James and intercession. I guess one could make the opposite case more strongly, considering James' position on Last Rites.

But I mself actually get the idea of a non-priestly religion from Jesus' own acts and words. I will enumerate the specific passages if you wish, but I will ask you to accept that I am not trying to tell you to think differently, that you are certainly right in studying and deciding things based on your own studies.

This discussion has gone beyond where I wanted it to go. On another thread filled with so much judgement and finger-pointing supposedly because of religion I tried to remind people that Jesus continually reminds us to stop looking into each other's windows for the sins of other people and get about the business of our own personal perfection. And all this picking at rabbit trails is an excuse to ignore what I quoted there!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

On another thread filled with so much judgement and finger-pointing supposedly because of religion I tried to remind people that Jesus continually reminds us to stop looking into each other's windows for the sins of other people and get about the business of our own personal perfection.

Yeah, it's sad that merely because a person is considered by others to be "religious" that they get fingers pointed at them, and they get called "haters" and "intolerant" and things like that So how is that not wrong? How is that not judging?

And I don't look in windows. I don't judge people, but I do have opinions on what actions I think are right or wrong, just like you do. But I wouldn't let that stop me from being friends with anyone. I'm in the same boat - none of us are perfect.

I"m hoping to get caught up tonight or Monday on a few threads here.

[Elfhelm]

edit: I'd rather keep those discussions on the other thread. And I'd rather not even discuss anything anymore, for that matter. Sorry I said anything.

Look, if I say it's not right to kick a puppy because the moon is made of green cheese, it doesn't make it right to kick puppies just because the moon is made of rocks.

Similarly, if I happen to be fascinated by some heretic who was refuted by your favorite church father, it doesn't mean I'm wrong to remind people that they should not be throwing stones.

So give it up. It's not possible to weasel out of our responsibilities by arguing theology.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

edit: I'd rather keep those discussions on the other thread. And I'd rather not even discuss anything anymore, for that matter. Sorry I said anything.

What other thread? I thought it was more on-topic here, but I guess it could be several places.

Similarly, if I happen to be fascinated by some heretic who was refuted by your favorite church father, it doesn't mean I'm wrong to remind people that they should not be throwing stones.

No, you're not wrong to do this. What I'm discussing with you is the judgement issue. I was pointing out that I think you are pulling one verse out of context and using an overbroad definition of judgement. Also, you seemed to be chiding people for doing something that you yourself are doing.

What I see the homosexual rights side doing, when they use that verse, is saying "it's wrong to say homosexuality is wrong because it's wrong to judge, according to the Bible." Well, they're judging by saying we're doing something wrong, aren't they? I'm not trying to get out of something here - I'm trying to point out an error because I want to do and act rightly.

I don't doubt your good heart and intentions, Elfhelm, even though you seem to doubt mine. I can separate a person's heart and their opinions - I realize that people (including myself) can be wrong but can be driven from good motives. I think you are very wrong in some of your opinions, but I also think that your motives are loving. But your good motives doesn't mean that I'll just let your (IMO) wrong opinions slide by. That's why I'm in this discussion.

So anyway, it seems to me that the judging Jesus is talking about is more of a "entire person" type of judging. For example, Jesus says adultery is wrong, and Paul says to lovingly correct brothers found in sin; how is this done apart from judging? See, I think the judging that is called for is judging of the action as opposed to judging of the person. We are called to do the former; God will do the latter.

The Pharisees looked down on Jesus when he ate with "tax collectors and sinners". They were judging in the wrong way, IMO. Jesus, with the woman caught in adultery, knew that the woman committed adultery. He correctly judged her action ("go and do no more") but did not judge her as a person ("everyone, stay away from this terrible adulteress!"). Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't go around judging homosexuals. That's not my job.

So give it up. It's not possible to weasel out of our responsibilities by arguing theology.

I totally agree, and God will call each of us to account for our actions and motives. I'm sincerely trying to do my best to discover what is true and right and live by it, even if it's not easy. And I sincerely think that the act of homosexuality is wrong, and will discuss that on threads about homosexuality, even if it's not popular, and I end up getting insulted by insinuations that I"m trying to weasel out of something. I'm just glad God knows my heart - you sure don't if you can think that I'm trying to weasel out of something

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What other thread? I thought it was more on-topic here, but I guess it could be several places.

No, you're not wrong to do this. What I'm discussing with you is the judgement issue. I was pointing out that I think you are pulling one verse out of context and using an overbroad definition of judgement. Also, you seemed to be chiding people for doing something that you yourself are doing.

What I see the homosexual rights side doing, when they use that verse, is saying "it's wrong to say homosexuality is wrong because it's wrong to judge, according to the Bible." Well, they're judging by saying we're doing something wrong, aren't they? I'm not trying to get out of something here - I'm trying to point out an error because I want to do and act rightly.

I don't doubt your good heart and intentions, Elfhelm, even though you seem to doubt mine. I can separate a person's heart and their opinions - I realize that people (including myself) can be wrong but can be driven from good motives. I think you are very wrong in some of your opinions, but I also think that your motives are loving. But your good motives doesn't mean that I'll just let your (IMO) wrong opinions slide by. That's why I'm in this discussion.

So anyway, it seems to me that the judging Jesus is talking about is more of a "entire person" type of judging. If Jesus says adultery is wrong, and Paul says to lovingly correct brothers found in sin, how is this done apart from judging? See, I think the judging that is called for is judging of the action as opposed to judging of the person. We are called to do the former; God will do the latter.

The Pharisees looked down on Jesus when he ate with "tax collectors and sinners". They were judging in the wrong way, IMO. Jesus, with the woman caught in adultery, knew that the woman committed adultery. He correctly judged her action ("go and do no more") but did not judge her as a person ("everyone, stay away from this terrible adulteress!"). Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't go around judging homosexuals. That's not my job.

I totally agree, and God will call each of us to account for our actions and motives. I'm sincerely trying to do my best to discover what is true and right and live by it, even if it's not easy. And I sincerely think that the act of homosexuality is wrong, and will discuss that on threads about homosexuality, even if it's not popular.

You would make an excellent Pope, Rian Bravo.

[Rían]

thanks, hector ... ::blush::

It's so hard to be accused of hate and other awful things when what I have in my heart is love

Pope, ay? Well, there's a few things I'd like to change about the Catholic church, that's for sure but every church has their issues, as we see in the book of Revelations. I'll just stay where God in His wisdom has put me.

[Elfhelm]

What does it gain you to pretend you are the victim here? A reversal?

You have never been insulted and derided to the extent that young men who seem slightly effeminate have been insulted! Your religion says it is OK to do this. You may think you are getting all lovey-dovey by supposedly loving the sinner but hating the sin, but the fact remains...

We are abused and you are not. Please stop trying to coopt the victim status. When did the gays burn Christians at the stake, eh? Doesn't this belong on that thread?

[inked]

Elfhelm,

You seem awfully touchy about who gets to label victims. Only persons identified by you as victims would seem to be appropriately victims. Can there be no victim except the one(s) recognized by Elfhelm?

It is rather amusing to see the victim argument refuted by alleged victims, though. Thanks for the entertainment.

It's not my fault, I'm a victim.
It's not my fault, it's society's.
It's not my fault, it's my parent's (for father select a, for mother b).
It's not my fault, it's my siblings' (you get the idea!)
It's not my fault, it's my significant other's.
It's not my fault, it's my spouse's (ygti).
It's not my fault, the serpent deceived me.
It's not my fault, God, you made me.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

What does it gain you to pretend you are the victim here?

I'm pointing out a FACT, Elfhelm. That's all.

You have never been insulted and derided to the extent that young men who seem slightly effeminate have been insulted!

I haven't said that I've been insulted and derided to the same extent; however, I am pointing out that I've been insulted and derided. Please read what I say, and don't extrapolate! I try to word things accurately and carefully.

Your religion says it is OK to do this.

Uh, not MY religion. You must have some weird idea of what my religion is. Please don't put me into a little stereotyped pigeonhole - just take me as a person and listen to what I say, and I'll do the same with you. I'm not aware of anywhere in Christianity where it says that it's right to insult and deride people. If I hear people deriding gays, I tell them I think that's wrong and please stop. If I hear people using "gay" in a joking way, I give them a lecture about how it's hurtful and wrong.

You may think you are getting all lovey-dovey by supposedly loving the sinner but hating the sin, but the fact remains...

We are abused and you are not. Please stop trying to coopt the victim status.

The fact remains that I've been abused, too, and I can cite posts to prove it. Why is that so hard to assent to?


Here's what I think, and I hope you can stop and seriously think about this. I'll grant you the courtesy to believe that your motives are good. Note this is a courtesy, because I can't tell for sure. But from your posts, I think that that is a good guess. I think the problem is that YOU know that YOUR motives are good, and you therefore make the WRONG assumption that anyone that has different opinions must have a BAD motive. But this is not necessarily true! Please think about that for a moment. Maybe it will help in this discussion.

I'll state it plain and simple - my motives are good, although my opinions are different. Now unless you can find posts where I've insulted gays, please grant me the same courtesy and believe that my motives are good. I defy you to find a post where I've ever said anything hateful about gays. I defy you to find a post where I've treated the homosexuals/bi people here any differently than anyone else. There will NOT be any such posts, because I think we're all the same.