• BC
    13.7k
    Arcane Sandwich

    But is it really worth our time analysing an entire myth like this when thousands, perhaps millions have come before us?
    — Tom Storm

    Sure, why not? Who says that we can't do better than them, the ones from the past?
    Arcane Sandwich

    One reason we are not going to do better than all those who have preceded us is that 2000 years of thinking and believing have washed up on our shores much to our good (or not). Some of our predecessors developed penetrating insights into the nature of biblical texts also to our benefit.

    Shakespeare died 409 years ago, and there is nothing new and sensible to say about his plays: It's all been said several times over by generations of PhD students toiling away on the doctorates in English Literature. The chance that someone will discover significant information previously unknown about the Gospels is vanishingly small. As small is the possibility that someone will come up with a good idea about interpreting the Gospels nobody has thought of already. UNLESS, of course, they hatch out some total bullshit.

    That said, scholarship in well-plowed fields remains worth while, because learning to plow is still a good idea.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    True, yet Hegel and Nietzsche, among other thinkers of the past, had no access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. Neither did Augustine, Aquinas or Kierkegaard, for that matter. So, any interpretation of Christianity that takes those scrolls into account will be different from what other interpreters have been saying for the past 2000 years or so, since the scrolls in question were discovered in the 20th century.
  • Hanover
    13.2k
    Job never says that God is unjust or bad for the misfortune that befell him. He suffers acceptably.BitconnectCarlos

    That is obviously your narrative, but not the only one that would flow from that.

    Judaism rejects the corporeality of God. Regarding whether God makes verbal utterances we'd need to go the text on that one. I'm fairly certain he's described in the Bible as having a voice and I've never heard of any branch officially denying that he makes verbal utterances but I could be wrong.BitconnectCarlos

    You only go to the text to search for literal meaning if you think that literal meaning of the text is truth. Liberal traditions view the text as allegorical and orthoodox traditions consider many passages as entirely metaphorical. Orthodox Jews, for example, reject the notion that God speaks in a literal sense (because he has no vocal cords, for example) even though the text references speaking, and they do not consider the written text as a stand alone single source document of authority unimpacted by oral tradition.

    See:

    "Maimonides thus contends that even the greatest of all prophets, Moses, through whose agency Israel received the Torah and the mitzvot, did not really hear a voice speaking to him in the inner sanctum of the miškān. The Torah is not to be taken literally when it speaks of a divine voice emanating from between two cherubs on the ark cover. The notion of a talking God is – for the enlightened – as preposterous as the idea of a God possessing form or composed of matter."

    https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-lord-spoke-to-moses-does-god-speak#:~:text=Maimonides%20thus%20contends%20that%20even,inner%20sanctum%20of%20the%20mi%C5%A1k%C4%81n.

    The meaning of certain passages varies significantly depending upon tradition. Christianity finds foreshadowing and references to Jesus in the Hebrew bible, where other traditions do not.

    The point here isn't to reject any one particular interpretation of the Bible, but it's to point out that anyone who says "this is what the Bible means" is asserting an ideology, even if that ideology is that Bible is just an over-rated meandering of stories.

    I meant epistemic humility, as demonstrated through the book of Job.BitconnectCarlos

    Is this humility of understanding peculiar to the Bible or is something that you'd assert exists with any ancient writing? Claiming that the Bible is shrouded in some degree of mystery incapable of full understanding suggests an ideological bent toward the divine nature of the book, which would be a religious assertion particular to certain traditions.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    In the Old Testament God introduced itself as "I am that I am". In Christianity, God is three persons, Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. God is called Allah in Islam.MoK
    "I am that I am" doesn't sound like a proper name. It sounds more like, "I think therefore I am.". Is it not a statement, that he is the one who exists? If it is what God said, then should he not given out why it is the case he exists?

    Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? — Corvus

    Not according to what I am aware of.
    MoK
    But the OP is about the case that Jesus was claiming that he was being abandoned by God. Was Jesus claiming something which is not the case? Or perhaps sometimes God abandons folks, if he has some pre-planned mysterious intentions?
  • MoK
    861
    "I am that I am" doesn't sound like a proper name. It sounds more like, "I think therefore I am.". Is it not a statement, that he is the one who exists? If it is what God said, then should he not given out why it is the case he exists?Corvus
    If I recall correctly that was God's answer when Moses asked what is your name.

    But the OP is about the case that Jesus was claiming that he was being abandoned by God. Was Jesus claiming something which is not the case?Corvus
    Jesus is believed to be God and not a follower of God according to Christians.

    Or perhaps sometimes God abandons folks, if he has some pre-planned mysterious intentions?Corvus
    Perhaps. I am not aware of any other verse that says that God abandoned His believers though. Some people believe that the verse was not the actual thing that Jesus said when He was on the Cross.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    If I recall correctly that was God's answer when Moses asked what is your name.MoK
    "I am that I am." also sounds something is missing in the statement. You say, "I am at the starbucks", or I am in the kitchen. Then the other party will ask you, I meant which country? And you would say, "I am in California, USA near the beach, or Tokyo Japan, near Deigoku Hotel". You don't say "I am that I am." :roll:

    But from my memory of flicking through the Bible long time ago, everyone in the books was addressing the God as "God". And "I am that I am." doesn't sound like a proper name of someone at all to me.
  • MoK
    861

    Exodus 3:13-14: "13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

    14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’"
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    The meaning of certain passages varies significantly depending upon tradition. Christianity finds foreshadowing and references to Jesus in the Hebrew bible, where other traditions do not.Hanover

    Ok. And what of a tradition which finds Justin Bieber referenced throughout the entire Bible? My question is: Are all interpretations equally valid/equally grounded in a reasonable interpretation of Scripture? Scripture that was written in a certain time and place.

    Of course not. So some interpretations/meanings are better than others. Several can hold insofar as they don't contradict each other. For instance one could give a historical analysis of text while another could provide a theological analysis. Both can work and actually supplement the other.

    "this is what the Bible means"

    I agree this quote is too broad. But certain passages and events are fairly straight-forward and historical.

    Is this humility of understanding peculiar to the Bible or is something that you'd assert exists with any ancient writing?Hanover

    It's the message of Job; take it or leave it.
  • Hanover
    13.2k
    Ok. And what of a tradition which finds Justin Bieber referenced throughout the entire Bible? My question is: Are all interpretations equally valid/equally grounded in a reasonable interpretation of Scripture? Scripture that was written in a certain time and place.BitconnectCarlos

    The eating of the apple as being the impetus for God to cause Mary's immaculate impregnation so she could give birth to a messiah to rid mankind of all its inherented sin is no more or less a better interpretation than positing it means Justin Beiber is God if one thinks the text is what is to be referred to for interpretation.

    But not to pick in Christianity, Jewish midrashim are stories built seemingly from scratch in efforts to interpret biblical passages.

    https://jewishcurrents.org/midrash-the-stories-we-tell

    And not to pick on religion. Did you know that for 50 years, the following meant that a woman had diminishing rights to abortion based upon a trimester framework?

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    We establish an authority and then we attribute our norms to that authority.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    The eating of the apple as being the impetus for God to cause Mary's immaculate impregnation so she could give birth to a messiah to rid mankind of all its inherented sin is no more or less a better interpretation than positing it means Justin Beiber is God if one thinks the text is what is to be referred to for interpretation.

    But not to pick in Christianity, Jewish midrashim are stories built seemingly from scratch in efforts to interpret biblical passages.
    Hanover

    I am not a Christian.

    Midrash is a very vast genre. A satisfactory discussion of it would be beyond our purview. I would not dismiss all midrash as fiction either. In any case, Jewish biblical interpretation takes many forms and thinkers like Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides are well-respected in academic biblical scholarship.

    I'm not in the habit of dismissing any group's oral tradition that contains hundreds of texts compiled over many centuries spanning thousands of years of that group's history. Rabbinic tradition contains extensive biblical exegesis that contains various levels of analysis. My own approach is more based in academia but there is much in Jewish texts that is of academic value.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Ok let's return to the OP.

    He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?MoK

    Here, the premise, " if He and God are one", seems not true. He and God are not one obviously. I know you would say, well the Bible says that. But you must not take everything what the Bible says as truth. Because clearly there are lots of contradictions in what it says, and if A is true, then ~A is not true must be the rule of your reasoning. Would you not agree?

    In order for you come up with the premise, you must have demonstrated in logical manner what "A and B are one" implies here. He and God are one? In what way do you think it is the case?

    Bear in mind, "because the Bible says so", is not a clever or intelligible answer in The Philosophical Forum, and won't be accepted as a meaningful statement or answer.
  • MoK
    861
    Here, the premise, " if He and God are one", seems not true.Corvus
    Or maybe they are one but Jesus has never said those words. So who knows!? Other books of the Bible mention that Jesus said other things when He was on the Cross. I can find it for you if you are interested.

    But you must not take everything what the Bible says as truth.Corvus
    That means that the Bible is not the words of God. I have no problem with this but Christians do not agree with this.

    In order for you come up with the premise, you must have demonstrated in logical manner what "A and B are one" implies here. He and God are one? In what way do you think it is the case?Corvus
    I have a problem with the Trinity doctrine. Trinity is a doctrine in which there are three persons, each has their own consciousness and identity yet are not separate beings. I don't think that is possible. They may be united in a sense but that is not what Christians believe. Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    I can find it for you if you are interested.MoK
    By all means please. Thank you for your offer.

    I have no problem with this but Christians do not agree with this.MoK
    Their point of view on the matter would be more faith based system, which will not go well with rational arguments, I would guess.

    Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity.MoK
    I am not familiar with the detail of the theological side of the arguments. But you, as a confessed agnostic, seem to be very much familiar with the theological theories and knowledge, which gives impression that sometime in the past, you might have been a faithful and loyal Christian who attended church studying the doctrine.
  • MoK
    861
    By all means please. Thank you for your offer.Corvus
    Luke 23:46: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last." So according to Luke 23:46, these words are the last words that Jesus said. According to Matthew 27:46-50, Jesus's last words were the verse which is the subject of discussion of this thread.

    Their point of view on the matter would be more faith based system, which will not go well with rational arguments, I would guess.Corvus
    They have all sorts of arguments for the existence of God. I can recall a few names such as Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine as theologians and philosophers. Anselm's argument for the existence of God is already the subject of a thread in this forum. I wanted to get involved in that discussion but unfortunately, my time was short.

    I am not familiar with the detail of the theological side of the arguments. But you, as a confessed agnostic, seem to be very much familiar with the theological theories and knowledge, which gives impression that sometime in the past, you might have been a faithful and loyal Christian who attended church studying the doctrine.Corvus
    I was just discussing different topics with Catholics a long time ago. The knowledge that I gathered is the result of my discussion with them.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Luke 23:46: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last." So according to Luke 23:46, these words are the last words that Jesus said. According to Matthew 27:46-50, Jesus's last words were the verse which is the subject of discussion of this thread.MoK
    :up: :pray:

    Trinity is a doctrine in which there are three persons, each has their own consciousness and identity yet are not separate beings. I don't think that is possible. They may be united in a sense but that is not what Christians believe. Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity.MoK
    Going back to Trinity, it seems to have some logical problems. Saying that three entities are one is like saying 3 =1 or 1+1+1 = 1, which is not true.

    In the bible God is also depicted as Father, and Jesus as son. According to Trinity, it implies The father is also the son, the son is the father and spirit.

    A father cannot be his own son, and a son cannot be his own father.

    Also two different bodies cannot share the same mind. Because all mind is absolutely private to its owner. If spirit in Trinity meant mental entity in nature, then it is a categorical error to say that two different people or bodies or entities share the same spirit (mind).
  • MoK
    861
    Going back to Trinity, it seems to have some logical problems. Saying that three entities are one is like saying 3 =1 or 1+1+1 = 1, which is not true.Corvus
    It is not like that. Christians are aware of this and they distinguish between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I invite you to read this article if you are interested in the topic.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    It is not like that. Christians are aware of this and they distinguish between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I invite you to read this article if you are interested in the topic.MoK

    It is saying, 3 is 1 and 3 is not 1.
    A ^ ~A :chin:
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.2k


    This was taken as referring to the fact that God (and God alone) is subsistent being (everything else being contingent and relying on God as its ground, even things like number, shapes, etc., which are not entirely intelligible in themselves, but only as a part of the entire Logos). Psalm 139 is often interpreted in this way as well. It is God alone who most properly is, ipsum esse subsitens. Likewise, it is God, as universal ground and source of being in who "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

    While such an interpretation is now sometimes presented as being "medieval scholastic innovation," generally by those with an anti-philosphical bent, or particularly "Roman Catholic," one can find it in the earliest Christian commentaries on Exodus (e.g. Origen, the Cappadocians, etc ) and in earlier Jewish commentaries (e.g. Philo), and its suggested more explicitly in some of the later Biblical literature included in the Septuagint.



    bmhtqdpvlxcicd4i.png


    "Three hypostases, one (unknowable) essence." God's essence is not known, only the divine energies.
  • Gregory
    4.8k


    Theothanatology
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    "Three hypostases, one (unknowable) essence." God's essence is not known, only the divine energies.Count Timothy von Icarus

    The figure seems to be saying now 4 is 1 and 4 is not 1.
    God, Father, Son, The Holy Spirit

    Isn't it still A^~A ? :chin: :smile:
  • Corvus
    4.1k


    Looking at it more closely, the circles must have no connections where the paths are "Is Not".
    Connecting them with the paths and making to appear as if they are connected seems to be the problem here.

    "Is not" is not "Is".
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    From the OP,

    He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?MoK

    it clearly seems to indicate and prove that He and God are not one. Therefore Trinity doctrine is false?
  • MoK
    861
    It is saying, 3 is 1 and 3 is not 1.Corvus
    I already answered that. According to Aquinas, there is a difference between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I am not saying that his argument is objection-free, but saying that any valid objection requires a good understanding of the terms he uses. He is saying that three conscious persons build the Trinity, namely Father (who is the highest according to Jesus and this is problematic), Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons, however, share the same essence, which means each person is God yet different from the other persons.
  • MoK
    861
    This was taken as referring to the fact that God (and God alone) is subsistent being (everything else being contingent and relying on God as its ground, even things like number, shapes, etc., which are not entirely intelligible in themselves, but only as a part of the entire Logos).Count Timothy von Icarus
    Oh, I was not aware of that interpretation. I, however, disagree that numbers, truth, etc. are contingent things.

    Psalm 139 is often interpreted in this way as well. It is God alone who most properly is, ipsum esse subsitens.Count Timothy von Icarus
    How could that, ipsum esse subsitens, be a good interpretation of Psalm 139? I am familiar with Aquinas's argument that God's essence and existence are one.

    Likewise, it is God, as universal ground and source of being in who "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).Count Timothy von Icarus
    It is off-topic, but I think people often confuse God, the creator, with the Mind, an omnipresent, changeless entity that experiences and causes.

    While such an interpretation is now sometimes presented as being "medieval scholastic innovation," generally by those with an anti-philosphical bent, or particularly "Roman Catholic," one can find it in the earliest Christian commentaries on Exodus (e.g. Origen, the Cappadocians, etc ) and in earlier Jewish commentaries (e.g. Philo), and its suggested more explicitly in some of the later Biblical literature included in the Septuagint.Count Timothy von Icarus
    I was not aware of them. Thanks for letting us know.
  • MoK
    861
    TheothanatologyGregory
    What do you mean?
  • MoK
    861

    Yes, if we accept that those words were the last ones Jesus said.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    These three persons, however, share the same essence, which means each person is God yet different from the other persons.MoK

    "share the same essence" sounds unclear here. If MoK and John share the same essence which is human, has minds, 2 arms and 2 legs, does it mean MoK is John? Are they the same being? :chin:

    They are clearly different beings, but saying they are one is a contradiction. Even if John and MoK are humans, they are different, and they are not one. MoK is Mok, and John is John.

    Even if it is a theological doctrine, should it not abide by the Law of Identity and Law of Noncontradiction in the doctrine? If any doctrine is based on ignoring these laws, then it cannot be a doctrine. It would be a religious dogma.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.2k


    How could that, ipsum esse subsitens, be a good interpretation of Psalm 139?

    It's seen as supporting the thesis that God is always everywhere, all at once, and so not a thing within space and time.
  • MoK
    861
    "share the same essence" sounds unclear here. If MoK and John share the same essence which is human, has minds, 2 arms and 2 legs, does it mean MoK is John? Are they the same being?Corvus
    As I mentioned Aquinas makes a distinction between persons of the Trinity and essence. You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts of person and essence before you can attack it.
  • MoK
    861
    It's seen as supporting the thesis that God is always everywhere, all at once, and so not a thing within space and time.Count Timothy von Icarus
    I still don't understand how the fact that God is His own essence means that God is always everwhere.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.