Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Salus Maior]

And that good reason really only being rape, incest, or the mother's life is actually in danger.

That is a problematic position to be speaking from; A lack of access to abortion disproportionately negatively impacts poor women of colour and their children that come from unplanned pregnancies:.

Yes, I understand that. Which is why my Pro-Life view doesn't just stop at ending abortion. That's the end goal, but the beginning of it is policies that improve the lives of the poor and people in bad situations and make things easier for them to either keep their baby or putting it up for adoption rather than opting for abortion. And of course there's care for the born child and such.

Obviously it's no small political undertaking. But I think if we can get the pro-life movement at large behind it these things could well be accomplished.

[Venerable Bede]

The OT is a message from God. It might have been carried through various speakers with thoughts and styles and culture, but ultimately it is God's message being imparted to them and then recorded. Trying to read it without keeping in mind that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets, or that Christ is God, and that these facts are extremely relevant to understanding the OT, is a secularist approach, not a Christian one.

Spoken through the prophets,that came from a certain background, and interpreted the holy spirt through their own precognitionsn and conceptiosn. The prophets were Hebrews, speaking to Hebrews, on Hebrew matters. That's not merely a secularist interpretation its demonstrable reality. The "Christian method" you are advocating supplants this reality, ignores the contextual reality pointing only towards their injected reality. It's funny because the Fathers themselves never embraced this position. They never sought to discard the contextual realities of the Hebrew Scriptures. They sought new meanings, they didn't invalidate the old.

This dialogue has to do with you saying Solomon's point in writing has nothing to do with Christ, in response to my understanding Solomon, a prophet, through Christ as a lens. Will you next be saying it is wrong to interpret Psalm 23, or Isaiah, through the lens of Christ? Earlier books of Scripture are very much interpreted through newer books, and were since before Christ's incarnation.

The Church Fathers say Christ as the completion of the Old Testament, and in fact the one who made the truer and most proper sense of it. The OT is God's work; men did not decide to write it of their own sentiments, they were directly moved by God to write it in order to pass on God's message; trying to exclude God's hand from the OT's meaning, is absolutely secularist.

[Venerable Bede]

Does that relate to why the early Christians were expected to "do as they say not as they do," as they were still required to obey those who sat on the seats of Moses', but only until the New Covenant was instituted?

I don't know if it's overtly related, but I think it carries along in the same theme: Christ was a Jew, who came to the Jews, as the Jewish Messiah, to fulfill Jewish Prophecy. It is egregious then, to overtly discard the old traditions and meanings, as worthless and only look at the OT as The biblical prequels. The New Covenant flows from the old Covenant, much of the NT literature explains the new covenant in relation to its differentiation from the Old Testament. We cannot accurately understand the New Covenant without understand the Old first.

We also cannot accurately understand the Scripture of the Old Covenant without the NT. Many things in the Old Testament most people didn't remotely grasp until Christ came and explained them, fulfilled them.

[Venerable Bede]

This is, in fact, what we believe, and it should not be a controversial statement.

I agree with this, from a moral standpoint. Even faced with a choice between my own hand being cut off, and someone else being killed, I wouldn't have a moral option to choose their misfortune over mine- I have a moral responsibility to do the hard thing.

Most particularly if you're their parent.

[Venerable Bede]

We also cannot accurately understand the Scripture of the Old Covenant without the NT. Many things in the Old Testament most people didn't remotely grasp until Christ came and explained them, fulfilled them.

I do see this in the New Testament, as when Jesus explained to his disciples after the resurrection all the places in the Old Testament where people talked about him. I don't think that takes away from its situatedness within Jewish history though- only shows that God can do two things at the same time.

I think it's safe to say that understanding the Old Testament in light of the NT is both Patristic and reasonable and, in fact, advisable. That has nothing to do with whether or not the OT is written in a particular place and time by particular men, since these men were prophets and were relaying God's message; they didn't come up with the Scripture on their own, they only transmitted it in their own voice.

[Venerable Bede]

I think it's safe to say that understanding the Old Testament in light of the NT is both Patristic and reasonable and, in fact, advisable. That has nothing to do with whether or not the OT is written in a particular place and time by particular men, since these men were prophets and were relaying God's message; they didn't come up with the Scripture on their own, they only transmitted it in their own voice.

Yes, but even in scripture's capacity as something God directed men to say, God had more purposes in speaking to the prophets than sending a message to us, Christians who would be reading it in the last days. He was also sending a message to the prophets' own contemporaries, and that would usually have been understood as the immediate purpose of the prophecy. Not necessarily the same message, but if we want to understand what God is saying to us, a helpful starting place might be understanding what he was saying to Israel at the time. Hence God doing two things at the same time- only one of which the prophets themselves would have been aware of.

Yes, a lot of people were not ready or able to understand the entire message. Nonetheless, there was still plenty to understand, and I think it is fine to say that the distinction between spiritual and worldly sorrow wasn't totally inaccessible to God's prophets.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't know if it's overtly related, but I think it carries along in the same theme: Christ was a Jew, who came to the Jews, as the Jewish Messiah, to fulfill Jewish Prophecy. It is egregious then, to overtly discard the old traditions and meanings, as worthless and only look at the OT as The biblical prequels. The New Covenant flows from the old Covenant, much of the NT literature explains the new covenant in relation to its differentiation from the Old Testament. We cannot accurately understand the New Covenant without understand the Old first.

We also cannot accurately understand the Scripture of the Old Covenant without the NT. Many things in the Old Testament most people didn't remotely grasp until Christ came and explained them, fulfilled them.

You can't really understand the New Testament without the Book of Mormon.

[Venerable Bede]

We also cannot accurately understand the Scripture of the Old Covenant without the NT. Many things in the Old Testament most people didn't remotely grasp until Christ came and explained them, fulfilled them.

You can't really understand the New Testament without the Book of Mormon.

You're a Mormon?

[Grave_n_idle]

You can't really understand the New Testament without the Book of Mormon.

You're a Mormon?

Oh, gosh no.

I've just heard the same rationale from Mormons about why mainstream Christians are wrong as I hear from Christians about why the Jews were wrong.

It seems to me that if the argument is valid once, it's valid twice. So, either the Mormons are right, or the Jews are.

[Grave_n_idle]

You can't really understand the New Testament without the Book of Mormon.

Mormons think that, and it follows logically from their premise that it's, and I quote, "another testament of Jesus Christ." Its that premise I disagree with.

Why?

Surely they wouldn't write it if it wasn't true?

Mormons have died for their faith. If it wasn't true - they'd just recant. Surely.

[Venerable Bede]

You're a Mormon?

Oh, gosh no.

I've just heard the same rationale from Mormons about why mainstream Christians are wrong as I hear from Christians about why the Jews were wrong.

It seems to me that if the argument is valid once, it's valid twice. So, either the Mormons are right, or the Jews are.

Except...Christians, at least Orthodox Christians, accept a lot of books in their canon. The NT is not some book written 2,000 years after the last books of the Bible. There's a consistent and ongoing canon right up to it. So please, no tedious, false equivalencies.

Besides, there's also the Samaritans, who don't accept more than the first five books (neither did the Sadducees, in contrast with the Pharisees).

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh, gosh no.

I've just heard the same rationale from Mormons about why mainstream Christians are wrong as I hear from Christians about why the Jews were wrong.

It seems to me that if the argument is valid once, it's valid twice. So, either the Mormons are right, or the Jews are.

Except...Christians, at least Orthodox Christians, accept a lot of books in their canon. The NT is not some book written 2,000 years after the last books of the Bible. There's a consistent and ongoing canon right up to it. So please, no tedious, false equivalencies.

I'm not sure the interval matters with an omnipotent and eternal god.

If the first book of the Hebrew scripture is supposed to be 1200 years old when the first book of the Greek scripture is penned, less than 17 centuries isn't that much.

Besides - the Book of Mormon may have been translated in 1830, but the text was written between 2200BC and AD421.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why?

Surely they wouldn't write it if it wasn't true?

Mormons have died for their faith. If it wasn't true - they'd just recant. Surely.

Oh, another one of those ones who have compressed all Christians into the same person in their head.

That doesn't even make sense. It's certainly not anything I said.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Spoken through the prophets,that came from a certain background, and interpreted the holy spirt through their own precognitionsn and conceptiosn. The prophets were Hebrews, speaking to Hebrews, on Hebrew matters. That's not merely a secularist interpretation its demonstrable reality. The "Christian method" you are advocating supplants this reality, ignores the contextual reality pointing only towards their injected reality. It's funny because the Fathers themselves never embraced this position. They never sought to discard the contextual realities of the Hebrew Scriptures. They sought new meanings, they didn't invalidate the old.

This dialogue has to do with you saying Solomon's point in writing has nothing to do with Christ, in response to my understanding Solomon, a prophet, through Christ as a lens. Will you next be saying it is wrong to interpret Psalm 23, or Isaiah, through the lens of Christ? Earlier books of Scripture are very much interpreted through newer books, and were since before Christ's incarnation.

The Church Fathers say Christ as the completion of the Old Testament, and in fact the one who made the truer and most proper sense of it. The OT is God's work; men did not decide to write it of their own sentiments, they were directly moved by God to write it in order to pass on God's message; trying to exclude God's hand from the OT's meaning, is absolutely secularist.

It really is a shame then that the Facts support what you think is the secularist interpretation, and not your dogmatic assertions. The OT was written, and heavily edited and redacted. While we hold to this notion that Scritpire is inspired, we need to be careful not to go full bibliolotrous, and start holding scripture as the unequivocal word of God from God's lips to your ear. It is a human book, inspired by God. Written by Humans, for Humans, to address Human issues.

But you can't seem to grasp however, is no I'm not saying that it is wrong to interpret Psalms in a new light, to see commonalities of God's method. It's not wrong to see how Christ's actions embody the spirit of say the 23rd psalm. It is wrong however to supplant Christian meaning over the intential meaning of the authors. To say that a prophet was talking about Christ when he was clearly referring to something else.


David was clearly referring to God, YHWH, before the incarnation when he wrote the 23rd Psalm. To say his intent was to mean Christ, that he was talking about Christ as the good Sheperd, is simply egregious. However it's perfectly valid to acknowledge that Christ, being God, furthers this theme as the Fathers do.

You're also technically correct about Christ being the completion of the Old Testament but you're applying the woefully incorrectly. The words Testament and Covenant are interchangeable, being derived from the Greek word diathéké. Christ is the completion of the Old Covenant. His death satisfied the Covenant of Moses, and created a New Covenant. When the Bible uses the words Old Testament and New Testament, it's not referring to the scripture itself, it's referring to the covenants that the blocks of scripture pertain to chronologically. The OT catalogues the lead up to, the formation of, and the living out of the Mosaic Covenant, the "Old Covenant". The New Testament Chronicles the Lead up to, the formation of, and the living out of the Messianic Covenant, the "new Covenant". To then use this to say that every word of the scripture is a reference to Christ in the mind of the creator, is again eronious.

I don't know if it's overtly related, but I think it carries along in the same theme: Christ was a Jew, who came to the Jews, as the Jewish Messiah, to fulfill Jewish Prophecy. It is egregious then, to overtly discard the old traditions and meanings, as worthless and only look at the OT as The biblical prequels. The New Covenant flows from the old Covenant, much of the NT literature explains the new covenant in relation to its differentiation from the Old Testament. We cannot accurately understand the New Covenant without understand the Old first.

We also cannot accurately understand the Scripture of the Old Covenant without the NT. Many things in the Old Testament most people didn't remotely grasp until Christ came and explained them, fulfilled them.

So entire generations heard the prophets, watched the prophets words come to fruition, but didn't understand them? When Isaiah prophesied to Ahaz that Assyria would make war on Judah but the destruction of Judah wouldn't come to pass, it really had nothing to do with the invasion of Judah by Assyria which they won with God's assistance? To say that the Hebrews had no idea what the hell the were doing until Jesus came despite 1700 years of being led by the prophets is farcicle.


That being said, certain parts DO overtly refer to Christ such as Daniel's prophecies, but the text makes this clear.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It really is a shame then that the Facts support what you think is the secularist interpretation, and not your dogmatic assertions. The OT was written, and heavily edited and redacted. While we hold to this notion that Scritpire is inspired, we need to be careful not to go full bibliolotrous, and start holding scripture as the unequivocal word of God from God's lips to your ear. It is a human book, inspired by God. Written by Humans, for Humans, to address Human issues.

But you can't seem to grasp however, is no I'm not saying that it is wrong to interpret Psalms in a new light, to see commonalities of God's method. It's not wrong to see how Christ's actions embody the spirit of say the 23rd psalm. It is wrong however to supplant Christian meaning over the intential meaning of the authors. To say that a prophet was talking about Christ when he was clearly referring to something else.


David was clearly referring to God, YHWH, before the incarnation when he wrote the 23rd Psalm. To say his intent was to mean Christ, that he was talking about Christ as the good Sheperd, is simply egregious. However it's perfectly valid to acknowledge that Christ, being God, furthers this theme as the Fathers do.

You're also technically correct about Christ being the completion of the Old Testament but you're applying the woefully incorrectly. The words Testament and Covenant are interchangeable, being derived from the Greek word diathéké. Christ is the completion of the Old Covenant. His death satisfied the Covenant of Moses, and created a New Covenant. When the Bible uses the words Old Testament and New Testament, it's not referring to the scripture itself, it's referring to the covenants that the blocks of scripture pertain to chronologically. The OT catalogues the lead up to, the formation of, and the living out of the Mosaic Covenant, the "Old Covenant". The New Testament Chronicles the Lead up to, the formation of, and the living out of the Messianic Covenant, the "new Covenant". To then use this to say that every word of the scripture is a reference to Christ in the mind of the creator, is again eronious.



So entire generations heard the prophets, watched the prophets words come to fruition, but didn't understand them? When Isaiah prophesied to Ahaz that Assyria would make war on Judah but the destruction of Judah wouldn't come to pass, it really had nothing to do with the invasion of Judah by Assyria which they won with God's assistance? To say that the Hebrews had no idea what the hell the were doing until Jesus came despite 1700 years of being led by the prophets is farcicle.


That being said, certain parts DO overtly refer to Christ such as Daniel's prophecies, but the text makes this clear.

But Christ himself said "I am the good shepherd." Whatever David meant, it's clear that God also meant for his words to reveal something about Christ to some of the people who would read them. He told us as much in person.

Well objectively, Both 1st century Judea and 10th century Judah, were pastoral societies. Shepherds are a common allegory. What does Christ say, "I am the good shepherd, I lay down my life for my flock". He's using an allegory they would understand in order to convey the truth that he was to die for them. Just because they both used a common allegory doesn't mean one was referring to the other. That David was somehow prophesying Christ by using the shepherd motif. If anything Christ is building on a common theme that already existed in the Jewish Religion.

For example in Mathew 16: 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

This parallels closely the language used by Isaiah:

20 On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.


Does that mean when Isaiah was prophecying about Eliakim, he really was thinking Peter? And that Christ was saying Peter is Eliakim? No. He's using known cultural expressions, idioms, to convey his meaning. He's setting up Peter as an important figure in the Church, just as God had set up Eliakim.


That being said, I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying it's wrong to look at David's prayer and note the parallels. I'm not even saying it's wrong to say Christ exhibits these qualities as expressed by David. What I'm saying is, it's wrong to overlook the original intent of the scritpure and insert an overriding Christian interpretation to invalidate the original understanding.

That is what Bede did, or claims the Early Fathers did, in regards to Ecclessiastes. Ignore a very clear and overt meaning of the text, and supplanting within it a new, contrived meaning, that supports their new theologies. I'm pretty sure Bede is misrepresenting the Early Father's positions, (and I'd take his claims of things being Patristic with a grain of salt). The Early Church Fathers would did not teach that this is how we should do this rather, they taught should take both theologyies, side by side. And see how one illuminates the other.
Progression, not replacement.



B

[Nordengrund]

-

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yes, a lot of people were not ready or able to understand the entire message. Nonetheless, there was still plenty to understand, and I think it is fine to say that the distinction between spiritual and worldly sorrow wasn't totally inaccessible to God's prophets.

As you've defined them, your ideas of spiritual and worldly sorrow surely appear in both the old and new testaments in ways that the authors themselves would have understood.

That raises an interesting question: do you think anyone prior to Christ understood the full extent of what the coming of the messiah would entail, or does that require the evangelion introduced by Jesus himself and spread through his apostles? Or, alternatively, did the evangelion exist prior to Jesus?

It occurs to me that at one point Jesus says it isn't even He who accuses the people who don't recognize him for what he is- it's Moses, who they claim to follow, who accuses them: because Moses wrote about him. At a first reading, that might seem to support the idea that Moses already understood what the messiah would be. What do you think?

This is an interesting conundrum indeed, especially now looking back, we know historically that Moses wrote very little if anything at all. Deuteronomy was written by the D historian, in the shadow the Babylonian Exile. Deuteronomy through Kings were all written/compiled long after their events transpired. Genesis through Numbers has similar history of composition, though all these books existed in their final forms at the time of Christ, (though no official canon existed) So, Christ being all knowing, why would he say that Moses wrote about him, if none of the scriptures attributed to Moses at the time, were not actually written by him? Wouldn't he know? It also doesn't help that Christ doesn't exactly say what moses wrote about him. Genesis 3 has a direct reference, though unlikely moses wrote it. He could be appealing to Deuteronomy 18, but we know A. Moses didn't write it, and B. There are many many prophets, so to say that D wrote Deuteronomy 18, with Christ in mind is not exactly accurate.

It could also be a mere reference to what the Jews understood at the time, and he didn't feel like rehashing their entire history at the moment.

[Coulee Croche]

I don't know if it's overtly related, but I think it carries along in the same theme: Christ was a Jew, who came to the Jews, as the Jewish Messiah, to fulfill Jewish Prophecy. It is egregious then, to overtly discard the old traditions and meanings, as worthless and only look at the OT as The biblical prequels. The New Covenant flows from the old Covenant, much of the NT literature explains the new covenant in relation to its differentiation from the Old Testament. We cannot accurately understand the New Covenant without understand the Old first.

I really dont know what I was trying to get at to be quite honest.

[Pasong Tirad]

Which, by the way, is also why these refugee laws are an abomination. There is no moral right to put yourself first if it means other innocent people are going to be hurt far more than you were ever in any danger of being.

Amen.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This is an interesting conundrum indeed, especially now looking back, we know historically that Moses wrote very little if anything at all. Deuteronomy was written by the D historian, in the shadow the Babylonian Exile. Deuteronomy through Kings were all written/compiled long after their events transpired. Genesis through Numbers has similar history of composition, though all these books existed in their final forms at the time of Christ, (though no official canon existed) So, Christ being all knowing, why would he say that Moses wrote about him, if none of the scriptures attributed to Moses at the time, were not actually written by him? Wouldn't he know? It also doesn't help that Christ doesn't exactly say what moses wrote about him. Genesis 3 has a direct reference, though unlikely moses wrote it. He could be appealing to Deuteronomy 18, but we know A. Moses didn't write it, and B. There are many many prophets, so to say that D wrote Deuteronomy 18, with Christ in mind is not exactly accurate.

It could also be a mere reference to what the Jews understood at the time, and he didn't feel like rehashing their entire history at the moment.

Yeah, I always figured that the incarnation implies that while God might give himself specific knowledge that he, as a normal person, wouldn't have had at that time- along the same lines as his miracles- he wasn't "carrying with him" the infinite knowledge of everything that he has access to by virtue of being divine. It seems like Jesus can find out anything he wants- he felt it was important to know everything about the people around him on more than one occasion- but he may not have given himself irrelevant information- like our later scientific advancements. His understanding of cosmology and disease seem typical for his time and place, and this didn't stop him from performing healings.

This is actually what we're discussing right now in my systematics class, particularily how Christ is legitimately surprised on multiple occasions. It stands to reason an all knowing God would not be able to be surprised. It seems that Christ has limited knowledge.

[Pasong Tirad]

Yeah, I always figured that the incarnation implies that while God might give himself specific knowledge that he, as a normal person, wouldn't have had at that time- along the same lines as his miracles- he wasn't "carrying with him" the infinite knowledge of everything that he has access to by virtue of being divine. It seems like Jesus can find out anything he wants- he felt it was important to know everything about the people around him on more than one occasion- but he may not have given himself irrelevant information- like our later scientific advancements. His understanding of cosmology and disease seem typical for his time and place, and this didn't stop him from performing healings.

This is actually what we're discussing right now in my systematics class, particularily how Christ is legitimately surprised on multiple occasions. It stands to reason an all knowing God would not be able to be surprised. It seems that Christ has limited knowledge.

How would Christ's knowledge be limited? Is it like a Christ-the-Man/Christ-the-Divine dichotomy kind of thing?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This is actually what we're discussing right now in my systematics class, particularily how Christ is legitimately surprised on multiple occasions. It stands to reason an all knowing God would not be able to be surprised. It seems that Christ has limited knowledge.

How would Christ's knowledge be limited? Is it like a Christ-the-Man/Christ-the-Divine dichotomy kind of thing?

God knows all things for all time, at all times. Christ, though possessing great swaths of knowledge, pertinent to his ministry also has limits to his knowledge. He experiences the human life and part of that humanity is not being omniscient. And there are times, such as with the centurion where he is supposed at the events taking place.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This is actually what we're discussing right now in my systematics class, particularily how Christ is legitimately surprised on multiple occasions. It stands to reason an all knowing God would not be able to be surprised. It seems that Christ has limited knowledge.

How would Christ's knowledge be limited? Is it like a Christ-the-Man/Christ-the-Divine dichotomy kind of thing?

God knows all things for all time, at all times. Christ, though possessing great swaths of knowledge, pertinent to his ministry also has limits to his knowledge. He experiences the human life and part of that humanity is not being omniscient. And there are times, such as with the centurion where he is supposed at the events taking place.

[Pasong Tirad]

How would Christ's knowledge be limited? Is it like a Christ-the-Man/Christ-the-Divine dichotomy kind of thing?

God knows all things for all time, at all times. Christ, though possessing great swaths of knowledge, pertinent to his ministry also has limits to his knowledge. He experiences the human life and part of that humanity is not being omniscient. And there are times, such as with the centurion where he is supposed at the events taking place.

Sounds a bit confusing to take in.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

God knows all things for all time, at all times. Christ, though possessing great swaths of knowledge, pertinent to his ministry also has limits to his knowledge. He experiences the human life and part of that humanity is not being omniscient. And there are times, such as with the centurion where he is supposed at the events taking place.

Sounds a bit confusing to take in.

It's the nature of God, it's incomprehensible.