Ask a Theologian IV

Yes, but the judicial sense is really uncalled for in this context.

There are also about 30 exceptions where hearsay is admissible evidence in court. Amusingly in the context of this discussion, there is an exception for ancient documents.

Also, that seems like a meaningless distinction anyway. Nobody's hauling Peter into court for unlawful assumption of the office of the papacy.

History's about weighing evidence. In the case of Irenaeus, he says two things (of interest to us). One of these things is contradicted by other evidence, and the other is not. There's no contradiction in judging that he's probably right about one thing and probably wrong about the other, because we're not reading his text in isolation from all other sources - we're building a picture of the probable truth on the basis of a number of sources, including his.

If you're saying it's inconsistent to think Irenaeus probably right on one matter and probably wrong on another, you might as well say it's inconsistent to think Aristotle probably right on the subject of octopus' mating behaviour and probably wrong on the subject of salamanders' ability to walk through fire unharmed. If, on the other hand, you're not saying it's inconsistent to evaluate Aristotle in this way, what are you saying, and why?

Interesting to see that now you´re both missing the point... (And Plotinus, I´m not argueing, you are; it´s not me who´s quoting out of context.)

What is the point, then? And what have I quoted out of context?

Back to "The Dark Ages," I always thought the use of this term was due to the perception that relatively few advancements in science and philosophy were made in comparison with other epochs. Wouldn't this be true as well?

I think so. It's a reference to the supposedly particularly unpleasant and ignorant nature of the period, as well as the relative poverty of the sources for it.

Can Jesus' instructions for life be simplified like the "Ten Commandments" of the old testament, or must we read and re-read what he has said in the New Testament and others who later interpret what he meant. i.e. "Is there a simple how-to guide to be Christian with clear bullet points."

The only idea that comes through for me is "Love thy neighbour", and everything else is associated with that.

kiwitt said:

Can Jesus' instructions for life be simplified like the "Ten Commandments" of the old testament, or must we read and re-read what he has said in the New Testament and others who later interpret what he meant. i.e. "Is there a simple how-to guide to be Christian with clear bullet points."

The only idea that comes through for me is "Love thy neighbour", and everything else is associated with that.

Click to expand...

The first thing I thought of was the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plains. Maybe the Beatitudes?

kiwitt said:

Can Jesus' instructions for life be simplified like the "Ten Commandments" of the old testament, or must we read and re-read what he has said in the New Testament and others who later interpret what he meant. i.e. "Is there a simple how-to guide to be Christian with clear bullet points."

The only idea that comes through for me is "Love thy neighbour", and everything else is associated with that.

Click to expand...

I first heard this in church as a much younger man:

But when the Pharisees had heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, who was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him and saying, "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus said unto him, "`Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind' - this is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself'. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Just two commandments. Lets deal with them one by one.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind"

1. Yet to be convinced God does exist ... it does not help with Jesus saying he is God as well and he was created by the Holy Spirit and Mary
2. Love with All thy heart, soul and mind - means there is nothing left for loving others and even yourself

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself

1. See point 2 above ... If all your love is to God, there is no love left for you and others.
2. It is a truism for all religions and even being a human being without belief (e.g. Human Rights).

So if you can not obey the first commandment, because you love others and yourself and are not convinced that God exists on top of that to give him some love as well. Even if I was forced to choose between God and someone else I love, I would choose someone else (e.g. my loving wife).

The second commandment is simply a good sound principle on how to interact with others, which has been further refined by the UN in its declaration and by others in their religions and beliefs.

That been the case, what then makes being a Christian any different to being any other religious adherent or even an Atheist (like me), other than the fact you are following Jesus' and his followers teachings in a unique way.

TBH, I find the idea of being commanded to love someone is pretty hilarious. I have to wonder how it is even possible to make yourself love someone.

kiwitt said:

Just two commandments. Lets deal with them one by one.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind"

1. Yet to be convinced God does exist ... it does not help with Jesus saying he is God as well and he was created by the Holy Spirit and Mary
2. Love with All thy heart, soul and mind - means there is nothing left for loving others and even yourself

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself

1. See point 2 above ... If all your love is to God, there is no love left for you and others.
2. It is a truism for all religions and even being a human being without belief (e.g. Human Rights).

So if you can not obey the first commandment, because you love others and yourself and are not convinced that God exists on top of that to give him some love as well. Even if I was forced to choose between God and someone else I love, I would choose someone else (e.g. my loving wife).

The second commandment is simply a good sound principle on how to interact with others, which has been further refined by the UN in its declaration and by others in their religions and beliefs.

That been the case, what then makes being a Christian any different to being any other religious adherent or even an Atheist (like me), other than the fact you are following Jesus' and his followers teachings in a unique way.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that love is a zero-sum game. I also believe he is implying that if you love God in such a way you will then treat others well as commanded by God and as a way of honoring God. I always take it that way anyway.

The golden rule has been used by others to be sure (Rabbi Hillel and Confucius come to mind) though it certainly isn't universal in its application. I would also think universality to be a good thing.

Perhaps i'm mistaken, but i don't believe Jesus is quoted as claiming to be God in the Gospels. John's Gospel implies this, but Jesus (or more accurately the Gospels authors) never say this specifically. Again if i'm wrong someone please correct me.

I have to say i think you are making this more complicated than it is. Not sure you are on the right track.

Whiskey_Lord said:

TBH, I find the idea of being commanded to love someone is pretty hilarious. I have to wonder how it is even possible to make yourself love someone

Click to expand...

There are of course different kinds of love. Especially true in Greek, the language of the New Testament.

Hebrew has even more words for love than does Greek, and with clearer distinctions between them. I am fairly certain that the Hebrew word for Love used in the old testament verses that Christ was quoting there is Chesed, not Ahav. Chesed is not emotion, but devotion. It is the act of the will reorienting itself towards another, the choice to be loyal to another and do what is in the beloved's best interests. (The word was most commonly used in the context of honoring the terms of a wedding contract or a treaty of alliance between nations, especially when it would be more convenient to break the covenant.) You can certainly make yourself have Chesed love for someone, but can never be forced to do so. Ahav is a different matter. That term refers to the love you feel emotionally, as well as to things done to express this affection. Ahav is easier for others to manipulate, and harder if not impossible for us to completely control. It is often intermittent, not constant like Chesed. Chesed often leads to Ahav, but the absence of Ahav at any point is not evidence for the lack of Chesed. Chesed is most pronounced when you chooses to love someone for whom you feel only negative emotions.

So in Hebrew it's a bit like "Honour and Devotion" for "God" above all others (i.e. other "Gods"). That's makes more sense.

What are the most relevant quotations by the Church Fathers that would be applicable to diologue between Catholics and Protestants today? (In other words, what quotes would give us an idea of what the Church fathers would think about the debate today.)

How common was belief in Transubstantiation in the Early Church?

Are there any such thing as a Protestant denomination which totally rejects Calvinism? When were the first "Calvinistic" viewpoints advocated (Technically the word would not have been used until Calvin, but I'm talking about the general idea of Predestination, or in other words, that people might not really have free will.)

If you were going to build a theology based on a scholar's perspective of what you feel Christianity teaches, what would it look like?

MagisterCultuum said:

Hebrew has even more words for love than does Greek, and with clearer distinctions between them. I am fairly certain that the Hebrew word for Love used in the old testament verses that Christ was quoting there is Chesed, not Ahav. Chesed is not emotion, but devotion. It is the act of the will reorienting itself towards another, the choice to be loyal to another and do what is in the beloved's best interests. (The word was most commonly used in the context of honoring the terms of a wedding contract or a treaty of alliance between nations, especially when it would be more convenient to break the covenant.) You can certainly make yourself have Chesed love for someone, but can never be forced to do so. Ahav is a different matter. That term refers to the love you feel emotionally, as well as to things done to express this affection. Ahav is easier for others to manipulate, and harder if not impossible for us to completely control. It is often intermittent, not constant like Chesed. Chesed often leads to Ahav, but the absence of Ahav at any point is not evidence for the lack of Chesed. Chesed is most pronounced when you chooses to love someone for whom you feel only negative emotions.

Click to expand...

kiwitt said:

So in Hebrew it's a bit like "Honour and Devotion" for "God" above all others (i.e. other "Gods"). That's makes more sense.

Click to expand...

Something needs to be cleared up. Chesed does not mean "love." Chesed means "kindness." It's a noun. Ahav does mean "love" & does have several forms including usage as a noun or a verb.

I have no idea how that relates to anything Jesus may or may not have said, but the misunderstanding of Hebrew above needed to be corrected.

When asked what the greatest commandment in the law was, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4-5, the opening of The Shema. (After this he added the corollary "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," from Leviticus 19:18. In one gospel he calls this a second commandment, while in another he seems to combine the two into one. Later in the new testament, loving one's neighbor is presented as a prerequisite for loving God.) It seems that most Christians falsely think that these teachings originated with Christ, but I was pointing out that they are very much Jewish in nature, are in the Torah, and that when there are questions as to their meaning we should turn to the Hebrew original.


I was apparently quite wrong about the word for love used here though. When I finally got around to looking up a transliteration of the original Hebrew, I could see that the first word of the verse seemed to be a form of ahav.


I knew that chesed was a noun, but had presumed that there was a closely related verb used here, and that it was better to be a little grammatically incorrect and use the word I knew rather than taking the time to look up a verb expressing the idea.


Kindness is certainly the most common translation of Chesed and is not wrong, but is insufficient to convey the word's full nuance in every context. Like so many foreign words, it does not have a exact equivalent in our language. In some passages loyalty or steadfast love are considered better renditions. There are Jewish experts who prefer to translate it as covenant-love or loving covenant obligation.


-----------


Romans 13 is generally interpreted as saying that all worldly governments are ordained by God and so resisting their authority is resisting the authority of God.

However, I've also seen it argued that the passage really means the opposite: the higher powers mentioned here are The Church (or its leaders, or its doctrine, or God's commandments) which God has ordained and which must be followed. However, Worldly Governments (or at least some of them, those hostile to godliness) are not ordained by God, and are thus have no authority over us.

Which interpretation do you think is more valid?

To add to MagisterCultuum's post, Romans 13 also refers to the government punishing those who do evil and praising those who do good. I've always interpreted this to mean that if a government doesn't even do this at a basic level (Nobody does it PERFECTLY but most governments do it to a point, a few incredibly warped governments do the opposite) they lose their legitimacy and can legitimately be overthrown or disobeyed. Does this argument hold any water in your view?

MagisterCultuum said:

Romans 13 is generally interpreted as saying that all worldly governments are ordained by God and so resisting their authority is resisting the authority of God.

However, I've also seen it argued that the passage really means the opposite: the higher powers mentioned here are The Church (or its leaders, or its doctrine, or God's commandments) which God has ordained and which must be followed. However, Worldly Governments (or at least some of them, those hostile to godliness) are not ordained by God, and are thus have no authority over us.

Which interpretation do you think is more valid?

Click to expand...

Both are equaly valid, given Jesus didn't give us a Appendix for clarification. Now I can be both a sinner and not a sinner for doing one action. Cool!