Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!david From: david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: reply to Barry, re reply to Teitz Message-ID: <145@cvl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 07:41:51 EST Article-I.D.: cvl.145 Posted: Fri Mar 8 07:41:51 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 05:24:12 EST Distribution: net Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park Lines: 247 This is a reply to Mikki Barry. I believe you've misunderstood my intention in replying to Eliyahu Teitz: I've always enjoyed reading his articles, and I have no quarrel with him -- he has always been respectful as well thoughtful -- unlike many who post to the Net. When he briefly stated the traditional Jewish view of Jesus, in reply to a criticism of some traditional Christian theological concepts, I decided to present a personal, definitely unorthodox view of Christianity, especially of why the early disciples of Jesus believed that he was the Christ after his death, and of what was the meaning of the resurrection. In short, I am simply giving a private interpretation to some NT scriptures, in the light of my experience: I am suggesting that there is a connection between the significance of the proper Name of God and the reason why the first apostles believed that Jesus was the Christ. I believe that the proper Name is the subjective perception of the sign of the presence of God -- the "glory" of God; the first disciples, all Jews, believed that Jesus was the Christ, after the crucifixion, because this "sign" affirmed that Jesus was uniquely accepted by God. This is the transfiguration of Jesus as the Christ, in the hearts of the apostles, and the resurrection of the spirit of Christ among those first called to be like him. (For what it is worth, I understand the Gospel accounts essentially to be parables within parables -- parables about the reign of God, told by Jesus, within parables about their understand- ing of Christ, told by the first of those called to be Christians. As far as I'm concerned, a literal understanding of the Gospels, and of much of what Paul says, is mistaken.) Again, I am simply giving a private understanding. I'm not condemning anyone. Personally, I don't think God cares much about our theological opinions, including mine, neither are we acquitted by them. So there is every reason for the Jew and the Christian alike to do the best they can within their own traditions, but to be merciful as is God. We may say that God "smiles" at our "perspective", a tradition of 6 millenia, which would appraise a recent appearance of Christ on Earth, one world among a myriad of stars created billions of years ago. History will tell whether Jesus is the Christ -- if our race comes to live as he did, remembering him, living in peace -- then he has fulfilled the purpose of God. But I would say, that if we do not come to live as he did, well, then, our race must certainly have destroyed itself. But our faith is that love is as strong as death, and that his life will have, in the end, overcome our self- destructiveness. David Harwood Article follows: I've added a few comments; you should believe me when I say that am I not judging anyone -- I am simply giving my own view so that Jews and other Christians may know it; I don't believe that anyone is "saved" according to true or false belief in "magic" theological formulae. I want to improve the dialogue among all of us, so that we may know what each other really thinks. (I must admit that I am surprised that a "pagan" would pay me any attention, but I am happy to reply to you.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: reply to Teitz Message-ID: <3757@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: 7 Mar 85 16:54:14 GMT How can you use such a ridiculous argument? Paraphrasing: Teitz - Jews don't believe Jesus was "the Christ", but just another man whose death meant very little ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David: I understand this. But I was trying to present my own view, which apparently is not very much like those of others who have posted articles, of why some believe that Jesus is the Christ. Most of my close friends are Jews, and while none of them is a "Christian", none of them would say that Jesus was "just another man whose death meant very little." You may say this for yourself -- that his life and death have little importance to you, although perhaps this is not so. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Response - The bible says Jesus was, and Jews don't accept that because we're not good enough christians. WAIT A MINUTE! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David: Ok -- I guess I haven't been very clear. I don't believe that Jesus is the Christ because the Bible says so. I was referring to certain NT accounts, not because of their authority, but because I wanted to interpret them with respect to a single viewpoint -- I interpret them to be literary figures of the revelation of Christ -- figures for the same, common, subjective experience of the apostles, after the death of Jesus. (I could have also referred to a common "conversion" experience among some Christians, who are well-known historical figures -- for example, Augustine, the intellectual Father of the Catholic Church, Pascal, literary and mathematical genius, Dante, poet of The Divine Comedy (read the very conclusion), the American Quaker abolitionist John Woolman, and so forth. They all knew for themselves why Christ has been called the light of the world. They did not read it somewhere.) Things are not so because Jesus, or the Gospels, said they are so; things are what they are; Jesus simply told us the truth. Which we will find out someday. Lastly, I believe that "Christianity" has been a scandal to many who might otherwise elect to live charitably with others, without warfare. There is also much that is good, especially about those who are missionaries who help and teach the poor of the world, who protest the injustice of governments and corporations, and the insane profit from production of instruments of war. (The total world expenditure for military purposes is now excess of 700,000,000,000 dollars per year -- greater than the combined income of the poorer half of the human race. The cost of one Trident submarine could eliminate, as far is possible, deaths in Africa because of disease and starvation. The only reason there is this suffering is because we don't give a damn. We don't even give what we can easily afford -- we simply appease our conscience -- we would rather buy a VCR and watch our world's ass on color TV.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I won't bother to go into the dribble about the bible being the final authority. It was written by men (and a woman, but they took that part out when the early church decided women were evil and undeserving of enlightenment) My books say that Jesus was an enlightened man whose only claim to "son of god" is the same claim we all have to being sons and daughters of the deity. My books were written by men and women also. And some claim divine help in writing their books, but that's not my main point. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David: I'm not sure which books you are talking about, but I believe you are right that women have been slighted by Christianity, also Judaism, and other religions. But this has not so much to do with religion as its cultural circumstances, which have changed. As I understand it, the earliest Christian communities were far less repressive of women than the surrounding cultures. (If Paul actually did forbid women to speak in meetings --and this is not all all clear, since there appears to be an interpolation of a contradictory pastoral recommendation-- it may simply be that for women to assume public religious roles would have been scandalous to people of that time and place.) It isn't now though. It is clear that Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were very prominent among the earliest disciples, immediately following his death; others are mentioned by the Gospels, Acts, and Paul. I know that the so-called Gnostic gospels (found at Nag Hamadi) give far more importance to revelations to women, and that women were important in prophetic Montanism and second century Gnostic sects. I also know that these were condemned by the official Church in the third century. (My own impression is that only two or three of these writings are not very misleading; I can understand why they were consider to be heretical, although there is something to be said for knowing about their views. Anyway, I have always remembered a variation of two separate sayings in the Gospels, which are combined in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, "When the two make peace with one another in this one house, they may say to the mountain, "Be moved", and it shall be so." Even with these two or three exceptions, which are enough to emphasize the importance which these sects attached to esoteric "knowledge", and to the status of women as prophets, the problem I have with them is that, although there seems to be some "truth", still these works are almost devoid of ethical teaching; and, frankly, what we need is not "secret teachings", but ordinarily more open, compassionate human beings. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I can't speak for jews, but I can speak for myself. I don't give a good damn how good christians those calling themselves christians are, I STILL DON'T BELIEVE that Jesus died for my sins, OR that he was the only son of god. And somehow, I don't believe the jews would either. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David: What I said was that Jesus accepted that he would give up his life, even to the point of accepting death, so that others would remember him and know how God would have them live. God has chosen this "atonement" for our sins -- that is, those things which are, finally, self-destructive to us as a race, or individually. Anyone who is troubled may look to Christ and know how to live a better life. You believe you don't need him, but I am saying that Jesus died, intending to put an end to sin, among those who will live as he did. They are the ones who have faith in him. We shall see whether mankind comes to live as he did. Obviously, the ideological war-in-heaven, for the hearts of mankind, is not won, nor over yet. (Many have given their lives so that others may live, knowing the truth. There is a striking similarity of the execution of Jesus and that of Socrates a few centuries before. Both were falsely accused, essentially, of inciting defiance of corrupt authority, about which they told people the truth; both could have escaped trial and execution, knowing they would be arrested. Plato says that Socrates had a "daemon" of his conscience, which gave him moral guidance, and which made known to him that he should accept the trial and inevitable execution, so that the truth might be remembered among others.) (I might point out something else that is obvious but also striking -- except for the Gospels and the Pauline letters, which are written about Jesus, the most important ideological source of Western civilization is the writings of Plato, whose subject and teacher was Socrates, in many dialogues. I realize that there are may be Jews who feel that I have slighted the Torah intentionally, but this is not so; in a sense, there is an historical dialectic of Christianity and Judaism which has perpetuated both; neither would survive without the other. Still, the Torah is known, because Jesus was a Jew who was rejected by his own people, but who was accepted by others. I sometimes wonder whether the Gentiles would have easily accepted a proclaimed Messiah. History seems to have its own wisdom.) I did not say that Jesus was the only son of God. The apostle Paul, writing before the Gospel accounts, calls Jesus "the first-born", and he is the prototype of those who are called to be Christians. John calls Jesus "the only (begotten)" son, but I would say that this is his way of distinguishing Jesus from others, since he understands that Jesus has been "glorified" by God in a way that others are not. I believe that he intends something like "the unique" Son, meaning that God has singled him out among others so that we may know it, something like the concept of the Messiah ("the anoited" of God). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't mind if your views disagree with mine.In fact, many pagans respect ALL religion since ALL contain portions of the truth, and I don't think god minds what name he/she/it is called. But don't tell the rest of us that we don't believe in your religion because you aren't good enough christians. And don't try to make proofs based on your book if you don't take mine into account, and everyone elses too for that matter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David: I suppose that I could have taken many things into account; I could have cited many passages in the OT having to do with the self-revelation of God, beginning with with Jacob who became Israel; but my purpose was to say something about Christianity; I will be very glad to read what have to say about these other things. I will also be glad for you if you are a "pagan", if you are helpful and forgiving to others. (Of course, I will probably believe that you are mistaken about he/she/it; but I don't think this means that you are "lost" -- just mistaken.) I know you don't like me to remind you of scripture, but at one point it is said that sayings against God or against Christ are forgiven, but that only sayings against the spirit of God are not. The point is that we may be expressly wrong about nature of God or Christ, even to others, but we must not be expressly wrong about the good will of others. Otherwise, we will become "lost" very quickly. Well, what can I say -- we have not been very good Christians, and this does cause many others to stumble. I didn't say that this was the only reason why some have another religion, or none; after all, I was agnostic for most of my life, with no reason to believe in anything except the glories of human reason, preferably my own. There are very compelling psychological reasons why one believes what one "culturally is" -- rationalization of one's identity. I'm sorry, but I didn't find out God in a book; rather He found out me, like a thief in the night (but just before daybreak), in the instant when I had just thought something at end of a personal crisis. There is a verse which is repeated in two different Psalms -- "The fool in his heart says there is no God."