Presumably because the Gospels don't always agree with each other and because we have no way of knowing whether the Gospels were mucked around with by later adherents of Christianity.
[RD] Ask a Theologian V
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
Presumably because the Gospels don't always agree with each other and because we have no way of knowing whether the Gospels were mucked around with by later adherents of Christianity.
Which ignores the fact, of course, that a lack of absolute proof doesn't mean that the closest available source should be taken as, well, gospel.
Is there any evidence that Jesus wanted to Universalise the faith?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
Well in this case the only sources? Since they seem to be the only acceptable sources, perhaps that is why they all were included, so future generations could decide for themselves how to piece the information together?
When you say absolute proof, are we not getting ahead of the ability to do so here? Having absolute proof for things was not even a process until much later in history. The absolute proof of the day was the meticulous copying by scribes and even that has been questioned by many people. It was not even till the advent of video recorders that we get absolute proof, so are you saying that we should not accept any history before the advent of modern man? And even today we get people mucking with absolute proof, so is there anything left over that we can actually say is absolute proof?
It doesn't really make much sense to me, to be honest. The whole point of the idea of God, as I understand it, is that he's a perfect being. That's the basis of the concept and of any reason for believing in him. I take it that if the concept of a God who is both good and evil is to have any meaning, it means that sometimes he acts in a good way and sometimes in an evil way; but such a God would obviously not be perfect.
I suppose if one were inclined to believe that the universe must have a personal creator, and one were to infer the nature of that creator from observing what the universe is like, then one might think that the creator is sometimes good and sometimes evil, or perhaps neither. That might be a reasonable way of arriving at such a view. But then I don't think there's any good reason for thinking that the universe has a personal creator in the first place.
No problem - likewise.
I don't think that all Jews thought that, and I don't think that Jesus thought that, either. Think of Mark 7:24-30 and Jesus' rebuff to the gentile woman: "Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." That doesn't seem to me like an attempt at universalisation.
"Son of Man" doesn't exactly have that meaning, though, or at least not only that meaning. That's what it means in Ezekiel, but in Daniel it refers to an eschatological figure. In the Gospels, Jesus seems to use it in both senses.
In any case, Jesus didn't constantly show by his actions that he was more than merely human. Even if you take the Gospels at face value, there's nothing he does during his ministry that other characters in the Bible don't do as well. In Acts 20, for example, Paul raises someone from the dead, and no-one either in the story or otherwise thinks that Paul is more than merely human.
We know that they can't all do so, because they contradict each other. We don't know that any particular Gospel - say Mark or John - doesn't record Jesus' words and deeds with perfect accuracy, but it seems extremely unlikely that it does so, given the variant traditions between the Gospels and the evident fact that the material in all of the Gospels has been shaped by the oral tradition for years before being written down.
However, the point before wasn't that we know that the Gospels aren't 100% accurate. It was that we don't know that they are 100% accurate. We can't just assume that, because one or more of the Gospels say Jesus said or did something, he actually did.
No, and I'm not sure that it could be defined or labeled in any reasonable sense as Judaism.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
This question would be akin to: "Do you know something about the pre-revolutionary United States of America?"
There would be a history of people and the thirteen colonies. But the birth of the US was the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and proclaiming a new nation.
The theology of Judaism has always declared the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is one God.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
You could probably still talk about Henotheistic Judaism. There was a period when the Jews held that there is only one God they ought to worship yet did not assert the definite non-existence of other deities.
That might be more like talking about the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation.
That might be more like talking about the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
That would not change Judaism itself. Since monotheism deals with a belief system, you could say that the Jews always persisted to recognize other gods. They even worshipped them, but in order to do so they left Judaism. They never changed the belief system itself.
In Judaism there is nothing else besides God. That is what makes it monotheistic. I am sure there are some humans that would declare there are no gods at all, but yet recognize that humans in the past had gods in their belief systems.
One could also point out that the three Abrahamic religions point to the same God, but because of their belief system the other two views are false, and that would seem to imply there are three different Gods.
In Judaism there is nothing else besides God. That is what makes it monotheistic. I am sure there are some humans that would declare there are no gods at all, but yet recognize that humans in the past had gods in their belief systems.
One could also point out that the three Abrahamic religions point to the same God, but because of their belief system the other two views are false, and that would seem to imply there are three different Gods.
Berzerker
Deity
if God is perfect how can God create imperfection?
It really depends on how you define "Judaism". If you insist that Judaism is by definition monotheistic then this is so. However, remember that even after the development of monotheism, Judaism has still often shown tendencies to revert to polytheism - either by effectively deifying angels (as in the books of Enoch) or by hypostasising properties of God (as in the books of Wisdom). So I would be cautious about being quite so dogmatic on this score.
If you don't define "Judaism" so rigidly then obviously the question makes more sense, though then you have the difficulty of finding an alternative definition of "Judaism".
He doesn't, because "imperfection" isn't a thing. To the extent that anything exists at all, it's perfect; if it has defects that just means it lacks further perfection.
Berzerker
Deity
creation was good, not perfect... is that a distinction I shouldn't read anything into?
the choice of words is somewhat intriguing
the choice of words is somewhat intriguing
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Does that not introduce the question can one even change their belief system? Humans have always had a problem defining or describing God. It may also be inferred that gods are just an attempt to do so. Most humans will attribute or not attribute what they can relate to in their formation of something that is beyond or outside of their sphere of control.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
This doesn't make much sense, does it?
Can there be degrees of perfection?
Existence is an absolute too, so I suppose that's what you mean by "to the extent that anything exists at all, it's perfect".
But the rest, I simply don't understand.
Yes, of course belief systems change - all the time!
True, existence and perfection don't come in degrees, but one can still quantify them because one can quantify the things that have them.
For example, if I lack a leg, I am to that degree imperfect. But the bits I have got are perfect. The only problem is that I'm missing a bit. So I don't have an "imperfection" - there's no such thing - rather, there's just something missing that, if it were there, would be an extra bit of perfection. Or something like that.
All I'm articulating here is the standard Neoplatonic-Christian answer to this issue, which seems reasonable to me. God doesn't create evil, because evil is merely the absence of good. Of course this doesn't explain why God doesn't create more good, but that's a different issue.
The traditional answer to that is, yes, qua existing being and creature of God, Satan is perfect, though he misuses that perfection. This is why Gregory of Nyssa argues that the "destruction" of evil promised in the Bible mean only the removal of evil intentions from the demons and other evil creatures, not their actual destruction, because that would be the destruction of something good.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Care to give any contradictions?
