Why didn't Yeshua write anything?

[Stargazer]

On 6/24/2017 at 8:13 AM, RevTestament said:

 

He is def a romantic isn't he? Made me chuckle... He may know this, but I disagree with him somewhat. I don't believe language is useless to communicate spiritual matters. With the right context, it does communicate. He is right that words can be interpreted many different ways, so man often gets the wrong idea, but part of me tells me God wants it this way. He calls on those who understand it in the best spiritual context to be His leaders/teachers. The Lord tells us He speaks and then hides up things. So in a sense He wants the truest interpretation to be hid sometimes. Sometimes He does not allow His prophets to speak plainly. Some things are just designed to be brought forth at certain times. For instance in Daniel 11 we are told that some exalt themselves to establish the vision but shall fall. The vision is not established until the end when the ancient of days rises up and co-establishes the vision. Therefore you can bet your bottom dollar that the scholars got it wrong...

4

The right context for understanding is the testament of the Holy Spirit.  I've felt that communication occasionally when reading mere words, or sometimes when listening to mere words.  And from time to time, when pondering upon mere words.

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Stargazer

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You cannot possibly understand the stupidity of this comment and who USU is.

This is one of the most hilarious things I have ever read on this board.

I can't stop shaking my head and laughing out loud.  Get some humility kid.

Dang, you're on a role today with me, just when I thought your ribbing was a respectful engagement, and now I need to get some humility?  I have no clue who USU is, I've never met him in person, but I've tried to be thoughtful during this discussion.

I thought message board participants were on an equal ground, apparently I don't know my place, eh?  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I know what you said, I was ignoring it because it was irrelevant.  We have been over it a hundred times.

You see the influence of the 3 heavens in the kingdoms of glory, so within the realm of religion it was a perfectly good idea, it was just misapplied to science which is exactly what you do in every post!

Of course they were influenced by the history of science which was an ERROR- they should NOT have been influenced by discoveries of science!   THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT THAT MIXING SCIENCE AND RELIGION IS IRRATIONAL and is in fact your error as well.  THAT is what you do not understand one iota.

THAT is what you cannot see I guess.

Cheesh- why do you think ALL THESE PHILOSOPHERS OF SCIENCE ARE SAYING THAT??  

Remember the quote YOU got from the death of positivism site?

That is what YOU said and yes you got it right!!  I told you that?

The history of psychology was influenced by phrenology too, and medicine was influenced by leaches.  This is pretty frustrating, frankly.

I'm glad we are at least understanding a couple points of each other, in spite of the frustration on both sides.  

I don't believe that mixing science and religion is irrational.  My point is that they are mixed already, and that you can't separate the two no matter how rational you think you are being, science is intertwined in everything we do and see.  

I think there are important differences between what we can expect to get out of religion vs what we can expect to get from science.  I agree with you that science can't ultimately tell us how we should act and what kind of a person to be.  But I do think that science will inform all of these decisions.  

I wish you would answer my question about whether or not you see any value in the sciences, because in your efforts to try and get me to not mix science and religion, I'm left with the impression that you think that the sciences are dead because they are stuck in this Logical Positivism.  Could you clarify what you mean by saying this, because the impression I'm left with is that you don't see any value in physics, mathematics, medical science, etc.  

Just step away from the religion question for a minute and tell me whether you think all the scholarship outside of philosophy has any value in our modern world, because I'm thinking that you believe that all of these scientific endeavors should be dismissed as fatally flawed somehow.  

[mfbukowski]

No I maintain a 16th century lifestyle and don't even have the internet and never go to a doctor because it is witchcraft.

Edited June 28, 2017 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

44 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The right context for understanding is the testament of the Holy Spirit.  I've felt that communication occasionally when reading mere words, or sometimes when listening to mere words.  And from time to time, when pondering upon mere words.

While true for the Gentiles, this may not always be so. Yeshua tells us that He Himself will be among His people in the Millennium. This tells me that prayers will be answered directly, and not through the Holy Spirit. But otherwise, yes, I agree. However, I also find it useful to study out the scriptures, and what others have said. Oftentimes someone's interpretation just strikes me as truth. This has happened more times than I can count. When that happens I often don't even feel the need to pray about it. The witness of its truth is just immediate and powerful.

[RevTestament]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No I maintain a 16th century lifestyle and don't even have the internet and never go to a doctor because it is witchcraft.

Personally, I never go to witch doctors - only Warlocks  

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You have no clue your brilliance in this philosophy stuff is a hundred years old.

I think you need to stop listening to the idiots on the boards and get some education.  Read some Kuhn and Polanyi but I doubt you will even read this wacko-pedia version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

Figure out what Wittgenstein meant by Language Games

I am blinded by your hubris.  A defender of the wall?  Do you have eyes?  Half the people here think I am a relativistic atheist.  The wall has already fallen- I am building the new one brick by brick.  You are just a hundred years behind and don't even see it.

Thanks for the link about Kuhn, I read the whole thing and found it fascinating.  I didn't know really anything about him, he's obviously been very influential and it was cool to learn a bit about his work on paradigm shifts and his writings on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Amazing stuff.  

Not sure why you're so passive aggressive towards me today.  I think I should have earned enough respect by now that you would recognize I'm here to learn and I have learned and continue to want to learn as I interact.  I never claimed brilliance in philosophy, I have constantly brought up that I understand very little on that subject.  You throw out accusations, but then you don't explain what you're accusing me of specifically.  Its honestly hard for me to follow, but I try to just over look the barbs as I seek to understand.  I'll keep trying...

[USU78]

46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No I maintain a 16th century lifestyle and don't even have the internet and never go to a doctor because it is witchcraft.

I like the way you're rolling today

[RevTestament]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the link about Kuhn, I read the whole thing and found it fascinating.  I didn't know really anything about him, he's obviously been very influential and it was cool to learn a bit about his work on paradigm shifts and his writings on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Amazing stuff.  

Not sure why you're so passive aggressive towards me today.  I think I should have earned enough respect by now that you would recognize I'm here to learn and I have learned and continue to want to learn as I interact.  I never claimed brilliance in philosophy, I have constantly brought up that I understand very little on that subject.  You throw out accusations, but then you don't explain what you're accusing me of specifically.  Its honestly hard for me to follow, but I try to just over look the barbs as I seek to understand.  I'll keep trying...

If I may hft, I see you making progress. I think mfb is just trying to get you to stop looking at religion and scripture through scientific lenses. He is trying to get you to throw those away.... at least in matters of religion. If I recall a debate with you, you were fairly insistent on relying on what modern scholars say about the NT based on their textual analysis. I too probably seemed a little impatient, but I just was trying to wrest you away from that mentality of analytical analysis. If it helps at all, you have stuck with mfb for longer than I expected, so good for you. If you can get where he is coming from at least, I think it will help you in the long run.

Edited June 28, 2017 by RevTestament

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If I may hft, I see you making progress. I think mfb is just trying to get you to stop looking at religion and scripture through scientific lenses. He is trying to get you to throw those away.... at least in matters of religion. If I recall a debate with you, you were fairly insistent on relying on what modern scholars say about the NT based on their textual analysis. I too probably seemed a little impatient, but I just was trying to wrest you away from that mentality of analytical analysis. If it helps at all, you have stuck with mfb for longer than I expected, so good for you. If you can get where he is coming from at least, I think it will help you in the long run.

Thanks Rev, that's nice of you to say and hearing your perspective is helpful.  I have been going back and forth with MFB for a while now, and I think I've learned a lot from my vantage, but then some of his comments indicate otherwise.  At any rate, I am a seeker and I'm constantly reading and listening to the perspectives of others in an effort to learn and grow.  

You're right that I do find great value in what I've read by both Mormon and non-Mormon biblical scholars.  What I've learned has been fascinating and I don't like seeing people just dismiss it.  Perhaps MFB is not trying to dismiss it directly, but he's instead trying to get me to think differently.  The thing is, I can't just unlearn what I've learned about scholarship and science.  I find great value in these studies and I take some offense at the idea that we should just put them aside and compartmentalize them.  That doesn't FEEL right to me.  So I'm not going to just pretend what I've learned doesn't exist or hide that part of me.  I'd rather embrace the science at the same time as I try to find my religious identity.  

Best book I've read recently, and I'm a big fan of his podcasts too.   He identifies as a believer in God, but at the same time says that part of his brain is atheist.  I love his perspective, and it really resonates with me these days.  Check out his The Liturgist podcast or Ask Science Mike, both are excellent.  

https://www.amazon.com/Finding-God-Waves-Through-Science/dp/1101906049/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498677007&sr=1-1&keywords=finding+god+in+the+waves

 

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Rev, that's nice of you to say and hearing your perspective is helpful.  I have been going back and forth with MFB for a while now, and I think I've learned a lot from my vantage, but then some of his comments indicate otherwise.  At any rate, I am a seeker and I'm constantly reading and listening to the perspectives of others in an effort to learn and grow.  

You're right that I do find great value in what I've read by both Mormon and non-Mormon biblical scholars.  What I've learned has been fascinating and I don't like seeing people just dismiss it.  Perhaps MFB is not trying to dismiss it directly, but he's instead trying to get me to think differently.  The thing is, I can't just unlearn what I've learned about scholarship and science.  I find great value in these studies and I take some offense at the idea that we should just put them aside and compartmentalize them.  That doesn't FEEL right to me.  So I'm not going to just pretend what I've learned doesn't exist or hide that part of me.  I'd rather embrace the science at the same time as I try to find my religious identity.  

Best book I've read recently, and I'm a big fan of his podcasts too.   He identifies as a believer in God, but at the same time says that part of his brain is atheist.  I love his perspective, and it really resonates with me these days.  Check out his The Liturgist podcast or Ask Science Mike, both are excellent.  

https://www.amazon.com/Finding-God-Waves-Through-Science/dp/1101906049/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498677007&sr=1-1&keywords=finding+god+in+the+waves

 

Doesn't hurt to experiment in faith hft. Try it. you make find it liberating. You can always embrace your scientific analysis. It's not going to go away. It has infiltrated our societal thinking. Try learning a new way of thinking - it may help you look over that wall. 

[USU78]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You have no clue your brilliance in this philosophy stuff is a hundred years old.

I think you need to stop listening to the idiots on the boards and get some education.  Read some Kuhn and Polanyi but I doubt you will even read this wacko-pedia version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

Figure out what Wittgenstein meant by Language Games

I am blinded by your hubris.  A defender of the wall?  Do you have eyes?  Half the people here think I am a relativistic atheist.  The wall has already fallen- I am building the new one brick by brick.  You are just a hundred years behind and don't even see it.

Do you think it's time to teach him our school song?

 

[mfbukowski]

HA!  Now there's a language game for ya! 

Speaking of Schlegel - we never finished up that thread on Schiller, did we?

 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

HA!  Now there's a language game for ya! 

Speaking of Schlegel - we never finished up that thread on Schiller, did we?

 

I've been having a think.  But, yes, I agree.  In fact, I've come to the conclusion that you should write up an article on our discussion for pubby in, perhaps, Dan Peterson's online publication.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Doesn't hurt to experiment in faith hft. Try it. you make find it liberating. You can always embrace your scientific analysis. It's not going to go away. It has infiltrated our societal thinking. Try learning a new way of thinking - it may help you look over that wall. 

I'm going to continue to explore both, I don't think they are mutually exclusive endeavors.  

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I've been having a think.  But, yes, I agree.  In fact, I've come to the conclusion that you should write up an article on our discussion for pubby in, perhaps, Dan Peterson's online publication.

You must have a crystal ball........  

 

[Teancum]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 1:27 PM, RevTestament said:

An idea from someone who says this is why he no longer believes. He says Yeshua left a mess, so we end up with conflicting accounts, and it is just not divine. I believe the answer to this is going to be purely speculative, but are there any good reasons why Yeshua would not write anything as the Father's true representative?

My belief is that everything Yeshua did here was to teach us. Part of the teaching process is to value the word of God, so He left it for men to write, to learn to value what was written. That in actuality the apostles were foreordained to this task, and in a sense share in the glory of God in performing it. Like Yeshua they are serving their fellow men in the very act of writing His words and copying them so other men can have them. I do not believe there are any conflicts which are important to the teaching. There may be some conflict in the order of events and so forth, but this is inconsequential to the teachings contained therein. What do you think?

I think you are doing mental gymnastics to justify your faith in spite of the evidence. There is no reason not to expect Jesus to write his teachings. To leave it to others who wrote many years after his death seems negligent.  One reason he likely did not write is because he believed he was an apocalyptic prophet and ushering in the end times and Kingdom of God on earth.  So why write?

As for conflicts, well the Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke are wildly different from the Jesus of John.  Why is that?

 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

You must have a crystal ball........  

Bwahahahaha .

I'm thinking your approach to a philosophical justification for religion, specifically Restorationist religion, with maybe a pinch of Romantic dialectic, just might be massively important.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I think you are doing mental gymnastics to justify your faith in spite of the evidence. There is no reason not to expect Jesus to write his teachings. To leave it to others who wrote many years after his death seems negligent.  One reason he likely did not write is because he believed he was an apocalyptic prophet and ushering in the end times and Kingdom of God on earth.  So why write?

As for conflicts, well the Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke are wildly different from the Jesus of John.  Why is that?

 

Uh, Pygmalion vs My Fair Lady.

I really have got to move on.

[Teancum]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 1:34 PM, Gray said:

I don't think Yeshua was looking to inspire future generations of people with his wisdom. I think he was trying to usher in the Kingdom of God in his own time.

This

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Bwahahahaha .

I'm thinking your approach to a philosophical justification for religion, specifically Restorationist religion, with maybe a pinch of Romantic dialectic, just might be massively important.

When God is a Human, Humanism becomes theology.

 

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

When God is a Human, Humanism becomes theology.

And here we are, back at JSJr, and poor Br Follett's funeral.  I wish I knew enough Latin.  Homo ludens is obvious  ...  but homo dei  means "man of G-d," so how do we say "g-dly man?"  What we need is an easily defensible, illuminating moniker for the man whom G-d has begotten.

Edited June 28, 2017 by USU78

[RevTestament]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think you are doing mental gymnastics to justify your faith in spite of the evidence. There is no reason not to expect Jesus to write his teachings. To leave it to others who wrote many years after his death seems negligent.  One reason he likely did not write is because he believed he was an apocalyptic prophet and ushering in the end times and Kingdom of God on earth.  So why write?

I'm glad you brought up evidence. That actually provides an excellent reason why Jesus didn't write His words. The more people wrote about Him, the more witnesses testifying of Him, the more the case for an authentic Yeshua stands. Instead of one person claiming "I am God" we have several people declaring it of Him. That makes His court case much stronger. There was an atheist lawyer who took up the challenge to disprove Jesus using the law of evidence - he was a Harvard Jurisprudence professor, Simon Greenleaf. After writing his book, he realized how evidentiarily strong the case for Yeshua was, and became a Christian. You can read his book for free here: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Testimony_of_the_Evangelists.html?id=dL8NdoqCGSIC

The Father didn't come to earth and write His words for us either. Why would His Son?

Is it negligent to allow His apostles to write of Him, or did it make them better apostles? 

John 14:26

26 But the ^aComforter, which is the ^bHoly Ghost, whom the Father will send in my ^cname, he shall ^dteach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Seems like Yeshua had no concerns the apostles would commit negligence or that needed words would get left out.

I believe Yeshua did teach an urgency of the Word, but then He knew that the prince of this world was coming, and the night would set on His day.

Quote

As for conflicts, well the Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke are wildly different from the Jesus of John.  Why is that?

Another good question. Matthew gives the law. Luke completes the picture in Greek. Perhaps at the time Matthew and Mark were not available in Greek. John gives Jesus' spiritual teachings. John was the disciple Jesus loved. Why? One can only assume that John got it. John apparently best understood what Jesus was trying to say and teach, so John was chosen as the one to relay these truths rather than commandments. I have always loved the book of John. It has always been my favorite gospel. We learn more of the Father through John than any other single book I think.

Edited June 28, 2017 by RevTestament

[Johnnie Cake]

Pretty sure Jesus was uneducated and illiterate as were the majority of Judean men of his day...particularly those coming from the countryside

Edited June 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Teancum]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 1:38 PM, RevTestament said:

How was He going to bring judgment to the Gentiles then as prophesied? I mean could He reasonably expect His words to go to the Gentiles if what you are proposing is true?

Isaiah 42:1

1 Behold my ^aservant, whom I uphold; mine ^belect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have ^cput my ^dspirit upon him: he shall bring forth ^ejudgment to the Gentiles.

New Testament writers and we now read back into OT passages something they never meant in order to confirm out bias.