david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (03/07/85)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz)
Message-ID: <1206@aecom.UUCP>
Date: 5 Mar 85 17:42:21 GMT
The Jewish perspective is much easier to follow. Jesus was a man like
any other person, and died just as others die. His death was in no way an
atonement more than any other person's death is. One doesn't need the idea
of trinity.
Eliyahu Teitz.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is said that Jesus asked his disciples, "Who do you say
I am?" And they gave various popular and personal opinions, likening
him to the teachers or the prophets of the past, until, finally,
Simon Peter said, "You are the Christ." But, then, Jesus replied that
no man, but God alone, had revealed this to Peter, and that upon
this "rock" would the church stand, prevailing forever, even against
the greatest forces of destruction.
Clearly, he was not referring literally to Peter, as some
would have it. What this means is that the knowledge that "Jesus
is the Christ" ultimately is given by the revelation of God. (I
would say that it is certainly known by the "self-revelation" of
God, the so-called "Name" of God, which has been given to Jesus
so that Christ may be known in every generation by those who are
called by this Name. A sort of "Good Housekeeping Seal of approval",
if you like. This is my own experience, before I became a "Christian";
however, you should read the last discourse attributed to Jesus before
his death -- John 17 -- even if you would disregard my testimony.
Also, there is what was considered to be the most important
Gospel account by the early church, which immediately follows this
episode in the Gospels, the "transfiguration" of Jesus as Christ,
in which he appears with the glory of God before his intimate
apostles -- Peter, John, and his brother James. Once again, Jesus
is revealed by God to be uniguely distinguished, from Moses and
Elijah, representative of the Law and the Prophets. This is,
perhaps, a preposing of the experience of Christ's resurrection,
in which the thoroughly discouraged disciples unexpectedly found
that they were wrong about Jesus -- for he did live, as the eternal
Christ. For this reason the Gospels were written, so that others
might remember the life of Jesus and its significance to the
first of those who were called to be Christians.
Also, we may understand the conversion of Paul in this light,
the only psychological account of a conversion in the NT, and
an experience which he identifies with that of "the risen Christ."
For Paul then gave up his old life, that the spirit of Christ might
live in him. (This does not mean Paul was not Paul -- but that he
was spiritually changed, in the twinkling of the eye -- a much better
man who made Christ known to all the world -- one who wanted others
to know the grace of God.)
It was this, his experience of "the risen Christ", which
was the seal of his apostleship, to which he refers again and
again in his letters. He never was acquainted with Jesus before his
death. If his experience was different from that of the Peter
and James, the chief apostles in Jerusalem, who were intimately
acquainted with Jesus, who were "witnesses" to the resurrection,
then they never would have approved his calling to evangelize to
the Gentiles (of all things for a Jew to do.) But they did, and it
is not Moses who has made the name of God known to all the world,
but it is the light of Christ revealed in the hearts of men.
What about the "second coming" of Christ -- when He shall
be made known to all? Actually, the expression never occurs in the
NT. Rather, it says he will come again, on the so-called Day of the
Lord. The Greek word "parousia" does not mean second coming, as
such; it means "royal appearance", as of a distinguished visitor.
The earliest NT writings are those by Paul, not those of the Gospels.
He does not say that he and the other apostles "saw" the "risen
Christ"; he says that He did "appear" to them at various times.
The Day of the Lord comes unexpectedly. As the Quaker George Fox
has said, any day may be that Day, when we are found out by God,
and, by the grace of God, called to live another life.
For this reason, the man Jesus is said to be glorified
by God, raised up to the eternal "heaven", given the authority of
God, so that we, in his spirit, may live. In this sense, Jesus
is uniquely of God, for God has made him known to us, so that
he has made God known to us. Therefore, he is not, as you say,
an ordinary man, like me, or you even, because he has been uniquely
"glorified" by God.
There remains the question -- Why does not God make known
Christ here and now to all?
I don't think it matters to God whether we profess to be
a "Jew" or a "Christian", so long as we faithfully reflect the
true nature of God -- we are to be faithful and merciful to others,
without prejudice, as He is; no one wins points for believing
theological formulae. As it is said, even Satan is a monotheist.
On the other hand, who will test God? Could we coerce Him
so that He proves Himself in a series of replicable experiments?
Hardly. It is we who are to be tested. Everyone who first sincerely
seeks to know the truth about himself, and to change his life, and
calls upon God to help him -- that one will found out the truth.
Of course,if you believe you already know the truth, and
that Christ has nothing to offer you. Well then, what do you expect?
After all, is this some sort of intellectual challenge, like that
by Russell, of God to prove Himself? What sort of autonomous
existence, as moral beings, would we have if God browbeat us?
What sort of God would be challenged by intellectual twits who
are full of themselves? No, I think things are just so.
(As for why there is suffering -- again, that seems a
test of mankind rather than of God.)
Why do the Jews not acknowledge Jesus as the Christ?
Well, there are three important historical reasons I can think of.
For one thing, in the beginning, he infuriated many of the contemp-
orary religious leaders. (I'm sure he would do the same thing today.)
Also, Jesus was not what they expected, a temporal king of Israel
(as opposed to an eternal Christ, whose Presence is with us in
every generation). But I suppose the main reason that they have
not accepted Jesus as the Christ is because "Christians" have not
been very much like Jesus -- their history is short on charity
and justice, very long on hypocrisy and violence.
But, again, I would say -- Is this a test of Jesus, as the
Christ? Or, is this, rather, a judgment of us who have betrayed him?
The Gospels attribute an unconsciously prophetic remark to
the high priest of Israel, made before the arrest of Jesus by the
authorities. He said that it was better for one man to die than for
all the people to perish. (Of course, the literal meaning was that
it was better to be rid of Jesus than to have him stir up trouble
with the Romans -- who eventually destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple
later when Israel was become ungovernable.)
There is no question but that Jesus believed that he was
the Christ, but also that he would die so that others might live.
How many of us will give up our lives so that others may live?
It isn't a matter of sacrifice to God, since He does not want
our deaths -- he wants us to be merciful to others. But if mankind
is destroyed tomorrow, it will be because we have betrayed Christ.
And if mankind is to live on the day after, will the others have died
in vain, or will the spirit of Christ be received at last?
I would say that it is better that one has died, so unjustly
that we may know it, for the justice of God, so that not all the
people would perish in the darkness. But he has given his life so
that we may know how to live, and if we are to live, we shall
live even as He does.
Let us give thanks to the Lord, for His mercy, in Christ,
endures forever.
David Harwoodbarry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/07/85)
How can you use such a ridiculous argument?
Paraphrasing:
Teitz - Jews don't believe Jesus was "the Christ", but just another man
whose death meant very little
Response - The bible says Jesus was, and Jews don't accept that because we're
not good enough christians.
WAIT A MINUTE!
I won't bother to go into the dribble about the bible being the final
authority. It was written by men (and a woman, but they took that part out
when the early church decided women were evil and undeserving of enlightenment)
My books say that Jesus was an enlightened man whose only claim to "son of
god" is the same claim we all have to being sons and daughters of the deity.
My books were written by men and women also. And some claim divine help in
writing their books, but that's not my main point.
I can't speak for jews, but I can speak for myself. I don't give a good damn
how good christians those calling themselves christians are, I STILL DON'T
BELIEVE that Jesus died for my sins, OR that he was the only son of god.
And somehow, I don't believe the jews would either.
I don't mind if your views disagree with mine.In fact, many pagans respect
ALL religion since ALL contain portions of the truth, and I don't think god
minds what name he/she/it is called. But don't tell the rest of us that we
don't believe in your religion because you aren't good enough christians.
And don't try to make proofs based on your book if you don't take mine into
account, and everyone elses too for that matter.root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (03/13/85)
A very nice article! But I have some comments (as always)... > On the other hand, who will test God? Could we coerce Him > so that He proves Himself in a series of replicable experiments? > Hardly. It is we who are to be tested... The intention is not so much to "test" God but to discover through intellectual means if God really exists; if there is some proof of his existance; or if what is said of him is really the truth. This last issue might be considered testing God, but without such tests we cannot be assured that he is indeed everything he says he is. Reason provides an added dimension to perceiving the world. > What sort of God would be challenged by intellectual twits who > are full of themselves? No, I think things are just so. > (As for why there is suffering -- again, that seems a > test of mankind rather than of God.) Starving thousands of helpless people in remote third-world countries seems to test little. If we are to believe that God is just and merciful we should see it in everyday life... yet reality provides glaring contradicitions. How can we love a God that allows (or according to your reasoning CREATES) such suffering when it seems to serve no useful purpose? If anything, reality provides a great deal of evidence that God is not merciful or just. If God were willing to answer your questions, wouldn't YOU want to know why he did things this way? And if his arguments weren't reasonable, wouldn't you object to them? -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And Frith made the world"
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/19/85)
> Starving thousands of helpless people in remote third-world countries > seems to test little. If we are to believe that God is just and > merciful we should see it in everyday life... yet reality provides > glaring contradicitions. How can we love a God that allows (or > according to your reasoning CREATES) such suffering when it seems > to serve no useful purpose? If anything, reality provides a > great deal of evidence that God is not merciful or just. > How can you love any person, who upon hearing of the starving in Africa does not donate money to help those who are starving? Not only that, but we should send them not only money, but other goods too. How can you travel in luxury, in a privately owner car,wasting money on gas when you could send that money for food. If you have to get to work, take a bus. Just as you don't judge people by these standards, so too, don't judge G-D by these standards. The question should not be how can G-D let this happen. Rather ask, how can man let it happen. Eliyahu Teitz.
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (03/23/85)
>> Starving thousands of helpless people in remote third-world countries >> seems to test little. If we are to believe that God is just and >> merciful we should see it in everyday life... yet reality provides >> glaring contradicitions. How can we love a God that allows (or >> according to your reasoning CREATES) such suffering when it seems >> to serve no useful purpose? If anything, reality provides a >> great deal of evidence that God is not merciful or just. > > How can you love any person, who upon hearing of the starving in > Africa does not donate money to help those who are starving... "Are you to accuse man now in order to justify God?" > Just as you don't judge people by these standards, so too, don't judge > G-D by these standards. The question should not be how can G-D let > this happen. What do you mean "Just as you don't judge people by these standards...?" We certainly DO judge each other by these standards, and we judge God by higher standards because he demands so much more of us! Does man claim to be perfect? Does man claim to love his neighbor unconditionally? Does man claim to care for all of his children? Does man claim to protect "his people" forever and ever. Who is it that promises eternal life? Who is it that demands unconditional love and obedience... God or man? God is judged by high standards because of his claims. But who can love a God that does not live up to them? > Rather ask, how can man let it happen. Many of our problems (especially those in East Africa) are, in fact, attributible to human mismanagement, you are right about this. And the more generous of us CAN do something about it. One can easily rationalize the view that man is an extension of God's love. That's one reason why he established the belief in Christ (who advocated "love thy neighbor" etc). To claim, however, that it's ALL man's fault and that a Holy God is somehow aloof and removed from the cause of the suffering does not show balance. It displays the typically exagerated doctrine of a human belief. Man cannot be held responsible for the climate. Similarly, we cannot be held responsible for any natural disaster that brings death and mutilation. Is man responsible for the painful myriad of birth defects that often end in early death? Is it man's fault that desease strikes down those least capable of coping with such misery? Tell me why man should be held responsible for events that are beyond his control? The answer to your question is, "Man can only sit by, watch it happen and try to ease the suffering after the fact." But if God is indeed a loving God, why does he create such torment for these people when there is NOTHING that humanity can do to prevent it? The problem is that man did not create the situation (if we accept Mr. Harwood's premise that GOD CREATED suffering for some positive purpose). If God created this useless suffering then why is it man's responsibility to clean up the mess? But more importantly, what "divine purpose" could possibly justify such deliberate cruelty? -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And Frith made the world"
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (04/02/85)
Well, it's been said many times before, but it is still true.... evil is a result of SIN. Pure :) and simple. I guess sin can't be pure. God does not initiate evil in any way. Don't forget about Satan (though we sure would like to). Only those who are followers of Jesus can be guaranteed that it will all work out in the end. They will still have suffering, but there suffering will have purpose. If we rebel God will also let us feel the evil we have done (reap what you sow principle). It is a little more complicated than this but you get the general idea. God does not initiate evil, but He does punish those who are choosing evil (now and at later judgement). karen