In Praise of Confusion as protection against the lust for clarity

[Willis E. Elliott]

Neuroscientists report the brain's ability to keep us confused as protection against the horrors of false clarities.

Some musings thereon:

1

Yesterday's six-hour Washington confrontation on health care clarified the opposing positions & left the country properly confused as to what to do.  Before, I was clear; now I'm confused; confused is (I think, in this case) better.

2

Tragically, Wall St. was clear that concentrating attention on the bottom line would be, indirectly for many & directly for some, good for everybody.

3

The Wannsee Conference (1942), struggling with "the Jewish problem," unfortunately came to clarity: "the final solution."

4

Christianity has always been organizationally confused - confused from the viewpoint of an organizational unity on the model (say) of the Roman Empire.  This confusion (diversity) blocked yjr U.S. from repeating Europe's church-state unity (based on the 1648 "cuius regio, eius religion": the ruler determines his people's religion).  This confusion-profusion of Christian cults was the womb of America's unique contribution to the history of government, viz. "the separation of church [institutions] and state [institutions]."

5

Millions of American couples come to the clarity that they should separate, that living together is just not worth it - "it" being the pains & confusions of living together.  But many separated solitary souls have second thoughts....

6

In the case of a religion, the further one gets from its population center the clearer (& thinner) the religion's minds, left & right, become.  (My image for this is the human eye-shape.)  As life in its ultimate dimension, a religion is in verisimilitude with life, which is a rich mix & maze of confusions & clarities.

7

The Bible does not yield to the human LUST for cognitive clarity beyond our NEED for clarity, which it satisfies for those whose hearts are open.  To the extent that he permits, we can "think God's thoughts after him."  But in both Testaments he says "my thoughts are not your thoughts."  We add to our confusions or arrive at false clarities when (like Job's friends) we straight-line/single-level seek to penetrate the mysteries of God's mind with questions such as (1) Why doesn't God just forgive, instead of all this talk about sacrifice? and (2) If Jesus is all that important, why did he take so long to come to us?  /  Three minds, here: God's mind, the Bible's mind, our ("Western" straight-line/single-level) mind.  For our difficulty in entering into the Bible's complex, multi-level mind, I offer this analogy.  While Loree & I, living on the top floor, daily reduce all floors to one by our thumbs (which stop/start the elevators), in a hotel in Egypt '58 we had to be keenly conscious of the different levels: our thumbs were useless: the elevator (a continuous belt) never stopped: we were at risk of being cut in half by jumping too late or too soon.  The Bible never stops: jump on!  Or remain a groundling.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

[Gabe]

Open Forumites,

Great dialog on sermon notes.

How about the Shack discussion? I only get notices of OF if I press
"Discuss" on Bookmarks, so I may have missed something.

--Gabe

[Willis E. Elliott]

Donald

 

Thank you.  This post is the clearest I've gotten as to who you are & (implicitly) what you want.

1

Christianity assumes community: Christian thought occurs within Christian community.  While Christian thought interests you, you've given me no evidence of interest in participating in Christian community.  Your posts seem like speculations of someone standing outside church & commenting on what supposedly is going on inside.

2

Every church has developed its own rules for playing soccer, and ecumenical rules evolve as churches play together.  Churches differ in degree of desire to play together & resistance to playing together (Rome, as you say, is highly resistant).

IRONY: I as a participant take the situation as normal-human, you as a NON-participant get all upset about it!

3

Depending on the doubter's intent, doubts can be walls or doors.  Your doubts (which I haven't the time to addressas fully as you 'd find satisfying)) seem to me to suffer from evidential deficits.  You don't seem to be reading substantial books that would enrich your cogitations.  I've suggested a few.  Now, I suggest "The Future of Atheism," by Alistair McGrath & Daniel Dennett.

4

How is theodicy "the starting point"?  Do you mean that for you it's the highest hurdle?  You find the Christian answer unsatisfying, but here it is again in anecdote:  Not many hours after his 25-year-old son was killed in an accident, Bill Coffin in his pulpit (NY's Riverside Church) said "God was the first one to weep."  But am I correct to surmise, from the below, that you find atheism even more unsatisfying than Christianity?

 

(I ask, again, that you consider my sight.  Please do not write me in other than black.)

 

Grace and peace--

Willis 

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:47 PM

Subject: AW: Haiti

Hi Willis,

 

yes, I felt a nudge.

 

Irony in the irony:  according to my self-conception I am not a Christian, according to a clergy’s conception, I sure am. Why? Since I was baptized, which means quote: “you belong to Christ, anyway”, quote. But besides that, Willis, why shouldn’t I care about  Christian issues as long as Christians claim to have a message that concerns each and everybody? A you-are-non-of-us-so-mind-your-own-business-attitude falls short.

Evil and good as mysteries, that’s a story that doesn’t wash with me.

I am ”in debate mode”? I am in learning mode. Learning – a life-long process, a life-long one.

 

 How do I do my learning in this matter? I confront those who claim to be Christians with my doubts and questions. I invite them to respond and hope for answers that manage to open up a bottleneck of satisfying answers. I hope for answers that manage to resolve my doubts. No one can resolve doubts by maintaining, those who doubt are no seekers, got something wrong, overlooked that there are no reasons to doubt. Or  fail for themselves to specify their own doubts (which is the case in your case, which is fine with me, I can live with this, but don’t suppose me to say this was a satisfying response for me) – just as if doubts wouldn’t , even couldn’t exist at all, wouldn’t or couldn’t exist for them, never existed for them or by now ceased to exist, as if they had managed to eliminate them all after a long, long trail. Or had them resolved by a just deity, whose justice is a mystery and only understandable to those predetermined to understand, etc.

 

OK, lets take another look at the Eucharist and your response to what I described as failure: the lack of a common understanding of Eucharist.

“Did we (you Christians) try?” you ask. I don’t know how many of you , but yes, Willis, some of you tried. And got punished for it. Whack!  A Catholic clergy at the Kirchentag o5 or o6, Berlin, participated in the Lutheran ceremony and got dismissed. Whack! I hope you don’t want me now, to prove that bullshit is bullshit, ok?

For you, this is no problem? For me, it is. Why? No Rom.Cathy clergy would celebrate the Eucharist without, Willis, without asserting to have gotten it right, I mean what Jesus intended the Supper to be.

You know one Lutheran clergy who would say: I got it wrong. And alas! they fail and fail and fail in the name of Jesus to celebrate together what they claim is so important for a ? Alas! A Christian!

 

It is as weird as if some 2oo nations assert to love to play soccer, but fail to agree on the rules for the game, still maintaining to be able to play soccer. Nobody can play the game without accepting certain rules. That is it.

Yes, Willis, why not meditate on that one for a while?

And let’s not forget the starting point: why allows a good and almighty innocents to suffer?

Serenity, Donald.

 

 

 

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Februar 2010 15:00
An: Donald de Marco
Cc: Loree Elliott
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Yes, Donald, sad to see "so much dissonance...."  "Simul justus et peccator," as Luther said.  Have you ever felt a nudge to get in there & try to reduce it?

 

Irony: Though you're not a Christian, intra-Christian dissonance bothers you, it seems, more than it does me.  I consider it normal, given (1) the complexity of the issues & (2) what you call "inheritance sin" (viz., the fact that resistance to God's will is a characteristic of our species [as is the fact that each of us has defective genes], whatever etiological tale one may tell to explain it).  It's a wash: the mysteries of evil & of good.

 

Instead of taking my responses as occasions for meditation, you take them propositionally, subjecting them to rational analysis.  You are in debate mode, I am not.  A good workman selects the proper tool for the task: reason is not the proper tool for the spiritual task God has given you in the here-&-now.

 

An instance of your misperception of the Christian mind: you say "you Christians failed to find a common, just one understanding for all Christians of the Eucharist."  Failed?  Did we try?  If we had tried & succeeded, think of all the material it would have left on the cutting-floor!  What we have is the NT's embarrassment of riches, materials for ever-continuing discussion & emerging insights.  Preferring unity to diversity seems to me so - well, so German.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 5:54 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

Willis,

 

“People had a problem with sacrifice, and “God-when-human” solved the problem”, interesting response of yours, which leads to

Question 1: what was the problem people had with sacrifice?

And to

Question 2: why did it take the “almighty” and “all-knowing” and “all-benign” so long (many centuries at least) to “solve” the problem by a strange, disconcerting method: replacing one problem with another, see: Mt, 26, 39. Which proves that the bible depicts a deity that even insists on blood as a sacrifice, after the deity had been asked to do without it. So we definitely have a deity pictured here, not people, a deity that is eager for sacrifice. Bloody human sacrifice, n.b..

Of course, all this leads to asking: Were the Jews a little all mixed up here? They really, really  never, ever learnt before, that their deity wasn’t (according to Willis!) interested in bloody sacrifice at all???

From this point of view, your “BEING THE SACRIFICE-ENDING SACRIFICE” looks confusing,  presenting the deity soliciting himself in his anguish  to let him out of the sacrifice and afterwards rejecting himself(!). The wording “BEING”, especially this “BEING the sacrifice-ending sacrifice after having read Mt 26, 39 looks weird, makes the scene look as if a poor moron conducts a conversation with himself.

 

Let’s Feuerbach laugh! It certainly was not the first and only awkward situation that embarrassed him. AND his opponents, dear Willis.

As for “We Christians use sacrifice only metaphorically –eg Rom.12,1”, let’s remember that you Christians failed to find a common, just one understanding for all Christians of the Eucharist. To this very day, after some 2ooo years(!) neither you, nor me see a Roman bishop and an Evangelical-Lutheran bishop, resp. lower clergy celebrate the Lord’s supper together in the same ceremony. Maybe Feuerbach would laugh at that, too.

I by contrast find this sad. Deeply sad. So much quarrel, so much bickering over s.th. that is supposed to enhance life.

No matter how strongly folks might disagree about Jesus, no  matter on which grounds they do so, no one can deny that Jesus was concerned with questions concerning life. Against the backdrop of this, I say it is sad, sad, sad to see so much dissonance among those who call themselves Christians.

 

Serenity, Donald

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 20:00
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

Feuerbach would laugh at the notion that God has a problem with sacrifice.  People had a problem with it, & God-when-human solved the problem by BEING the sacrifice-ending sacrifice.  Hence, we Christians use "sacrifice" only metaphorically - e.g., Ro.12.1.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:31 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

 

Dear Willis,

 

I wished at least one of the two of us could name a final benchmark that allows to discern an exaggerated from an unexaggerated opinion of the importance of reason. Regarding humans use of reason, I’d name orientation as a proper field expressis verbis.

 

Is importance of reason  typical of my generation of Germans?

 Well, typical of my generation is, I’d say, the idea/conviction that “Selbstverwirklichung” trumps economical success, “Politisches Bewusstsein” is more important than a car, a house, a colour- tv, solidarity trumps the individual’s incessant endeavors to prevail over his neighbor. As we see, all this still could not solve the essential problems of our global village.

Money still is perceived as N#1, reckless fools, as we see these days in Italy, ruin nature (by using oil to pollute earth and water) others do similar things, almost anywhere on the planet.

As you said, Willis, there is little reasonable about human life. And let me add, about human behavior.

Sometimes it is hard to close with serenity.

 

As for Amos, I suppose he’s not got it quite right, otherwise millions and millions of Christians would not assert that the death of Jesus of N. was a necessary sacrifice. In other words, the deity to this very moment is viewed as having been very interested in the famous sacrifice.

Nonetheless, serenity,

Yours Donald

 

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:24
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

Religion?  Please broaden that: there's little reasonable about human life.  Humans use reason primarily for confirmation of opinion (including self-justification), secondarily for exploration, tertiarily for criticism.  You have such an exaggerated opinion of the importance of reason; is that typical of your generation of Germans?

 

Said Amos, God is interested in justice, not blood sacrifice.  In the NT, Jesus ended blood sacrifice by being just that.  But don't you know all this?  Don't you believe in "The Evolution of God" (as Robert Wright titled his book)?

 

Please do not email me in any color, only black.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:52 PM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

WILLIS:

 

Well, is there anything „reasonable“ about religion, anyway?

Who would challenge the picture of a deity that is intellectually more capable than any human? However, the same deity is supposed and believed and asserted to have been interested in  bloody sacrifice some two thousand years ago? Whereby bloody sacrifice fits more easily homo sapiens sapiens of former times than a sovereign deity with supernatural capabilities.

 

Serenity, Donald.

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Februar 2010 03:42
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

On Wittgenstein, see my "surmise" section in what I sent you earlier today.

 

Your statement that "Paradigmenwechsel" occurs only only when "reasonable" is too narrow.  E.g., Jesus' resurrection (without which "Christianity" would not have occurred) was not reasonable.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:36 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

Willis,

on 2

definitely good job on describing the situation

If it wasn’t God’s will, whose was it? I personally, of course would leave the “evil spirits” out, while, I agree, Haiti-Mama probably views them as “most available cultural option”.

I personally agree with what you call “cosmic-impersonal”: it was not anybody’s “will”.

 

On 7

You write “the unprovables are more important”, and if I take your view, which luckily I think I can for the purpose, I fully agree.

Your view, so it seems, is not too far away from Wittgensteins, who once accordingly said: auch wenn alle Tatsachen benannt wären (if it was the case that all facts could be  found out) , so ist doch über das Wesentliche, über Gott ( here our “unprovable”) noch gar nichts gesagt.

 

Probability theory: are we allowed to pick a paradigm arbitrarily? As we know from history the “Paradigmenwechsel” never fell out of the skies. Which is to say we change a paradigm since it makes sense, it is reasonable.

 

Serenity, Donald.

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Februar 2010 22:33
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

on 2

Yes, "it is the mother that needs consolation."  YOU, of course, could find no consolation in what the priest said; nor could she if (as in your case) she wasn't invested in a relationship with God.  I can understand your inability to find consolation in what the priest said, so you need to expand your imagination.  /  In my pastoral experience, I ministered to many who could find consolation in any sentence beginning with "God...."  If it's all about reason, that's nonsense: if it's all about relationship (the heart of "The Shack") it's immediate sense.  /  I do recommend that you read "The Shack."  /  Another angle: If it wasn't GOD's will, whose was it?  "Evil spirits'" is your standard voodoo response.  That's the Haitian Mama's most available cultural option.  A third option is the cosmic-impersonal: it wasn't anybody's will.

on 7

Yes, there are provables & unprovables (as you say, "questions that cannot be decided finally").  The unprovables are more important. and to me more interesting, while I thank God for the wondrous increase in the provables.  /  As for probability theory, it's paradigm-dependent.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 4:39 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

Willis:

So here is what I think about almightiness/benignity/theodicy regarding Haiti.

Your response will be appreciated.

Serenity, Donald.

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2010 19:30
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

Your response does not address the main concern of my column, but "Attach" (written by good-friend Gabrief Fackre) does.  If you study his article & send me your response (along with the below), I may respond.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Cc: Jef...@gmx.de

Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:46 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

Dear Willis,

 

to your attachment, the on faith question,

 

on your 2

you start out with “WHY DOES GOD ALLOW INNOCENTS TO SUFFER?”

A question any man could ask who was told  the Christian deity was “ALMIGHTY AND BENIGN AT THE SAME TIME”.

The question asked above turns pointless the very moment we let go the usual characterization almighty/good at the same time.

Let’s remember: the almighty/good characterization is not of divine origin. It is theology, the theorizers of belief constructed this conjunct.

 

Almightiness/benignity are ascriptions of human origin. They are not divine information, given by the deity to man, like “Listen Mo, it’s me, your god, lend me an ear, please,  I got news for you! I am almighty and benign at the same time. Thanks for listening. Keep in mind what I told you and let my people know. And now go, go, go!

 

The respective conjunct more probably derives from PETRUS DAMIANI’S ( 1oo6-1o72) intellectual attempts to extend the Hebrews’ PANCRATOR god by calling him “OMNIPOTENT”, thus changing the quality of power from factual to potential. Damiani  thought he would have found out how the deity would be. This is where the trouble probably starts.

 

Now the Haitian rubble-priest asks:

 “WHY GIVE THANKS TO GOD?” THE PRIEST ANSWERS HIMSELF:” Because we are here. What happened is the WILL (!!!) of God! We’re in the hands of God NOW!”

(Whereat we may ask what the priest meant by his “NOW”. Let’s assume in his favor he felt a bit nervous and surprised by what his God willed. Moreover, we may detect in his statement the old attempt to render the Christian deity incapable of doing wrong. God’s WILL ALONE  is proclaimed the BENCHMARK!

Unluckily such attempts to protect his god have to fail. Such attempts try to enhance religious certainty, but merely dissolve it in the end:

“Dad comes home. Hi Dad! Hi son! Puff! A slap in the face of son.

Why this, Dad? Well, it was my will, son! Oh, thank you, Dad! You’re welcome , son. Want some more? Sure, now that I know it’s due to your will, it doesn’t hurt anymore.”

Problem solved, Willis?

 

No, it is NOT the time for ridicule/scorn and derision.

It is time to recognize that all what the priest (most probably a man of honesty and good will) can offer is an undoubtedly desperately poor response. He would offer more, if he had more to offer, but he has not! Imagine a mother that lost her baby in the rubble and let’s remember what the poor priest said:  “IT IS GOD’S WILL!” PUFF! Slap in the face!

 

The poorness of his answer leads us back to YOUR question: “Why does God allow innocents to suffer?” Obviously the priest’s response does not really contain an answer. Why did you allow the house burn down? Well, it was my will. OK. But WHY did you want it to burn down? See? Still we have the fly in the ointment, with or without “ god’s will”.

The priest’s statement is less of a proper quantum of solace for the mother’s broken heart than the priest’s attempt to defend his alleged “almighty-benign” god.

Unluckily it is not the deity that needs the priest’s theological attempts of defense , it is the mother that needs consolation.

 

ON YOUR  7

To me, in a way the reductionism-bickering (“NOTHING BUT…) seems definitely superfluous.

Can I prove there is a tea-pot on the dark side of Uranus? Can I prove the contrary? Neither.

All I can prove is, that there are questions that cannot be decided finally.

But it makes sense, to go with probabilities. Which is to say, if I went to Uranus I wouldn’t bring tea-bags.

 

With good reason we may doubt the Christian’s “GOTTESBILD”, concept of god, its aptness is not provable. We may even doubt the existence of god itself. God’s existence is not provable.

The slippage of tectonic plates is what we can give as an explanation we can NOT  doubt.

The slippage IS provable. It is no assumption.

Any comment?

Serenity,Donald.

 

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Samstag, 23. Januar 2010 03:48
An: Carol Underwood
Betreff: Haiti

 

Did the Haiti quake put God on the defensive?

Only if you let it be so.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2693 - Release Date: 02/17/10 01:35:00

[Willis E. Elliott]

Donald

 

What is "false clarity"?  Clarity of commitment to something not so or immoral (an instance of the latter, the Nazi decision for "a final solution" - in my section 3).

 

Your other comments are on my section 7:

1

Of course "other religions maintain the same"!  Every world-paradigm explains everything, making the existence of the other world-paradigms unnecessary.  Instead of accepting this as the human condition, some become cynical (denying "truth" as available to humanity) & drop out, some try by persuasion & violence to secure the dominance of their paradigm, all who are sincerely commitment to their paradigm try to persuade to it, some make up their own religion in hope of its replacing the others (e.g., M.Yosso's "transreigious unitivelove"), & some agree with Alice's Queen of Hearts that "all have won and all shall have prizes."  /  The hypothetical that if I were born in some other time & place, would I not believe the then-&-there paradigm, is nonsense: I wouldn't be me.  /  My paradigm "should be preferred" because (as I said of anybody's paradigm) it "explains everything, making the existence of the other world-paradigms unnecessary."

2

Falsely, you claim that the reason the religions claim superiority (with irrational support from "dogma") is their inability to "show why" one "could be preferred" to the others.  I claim that (biblical-orthodox) Christianity should be preferred to its rivals because it best supports human dignity, the human potential, & human hope - it is in closest verisimilitude to the human condition - it alone tells the story of God becoming one of us, & that coming's consequences to God & us - & it warns us against the arrogance (& violence) of assuming that we have access to God's mind beyond God's self-revelation in the Biblical Story (as I said in section 7, in both Testaments God says "my  thoughts are not your thoughts").

3

As to "Subject" (above), I must advert to the irony that your response STATES the "confusion" of world-paradigms & ILLUSTRATES, nevertheless, "the lust for clarity."  You & the Islamists admit the confusion & (you, nonviolently) demand clarity!  The Bible's 11th chapter tells an ironic story of how confusion came about (& produced the word "babble" from "Babel"-Babylon): God defeated human clarity of purpose by severely reducing humans' communication-ability: we sinners do less damage when we can't get our thing together.  An accurate title for Gn.11.l-9 would be the "Subject" (above).  (This is a double-purpose etiological tale: how we got different languages, & how we got spread all over the earth.  Both were divine actions: "the LORD confused the people with different languages" & "scattered them all over the world" [Gn.11.1-9 NLT].  Since God is the central actor in the drama of Scripture, your typical biblical story begins with a sentence beginning with "God...." [e.g., the Bible's first sentence].  The universe is fundamentally & primarily about God: if you don't get that, you "don't get it," & the Bible doesn't make sense to you.)

4

This week's online OnFaith questions are from an atheist, D.Dennett.  My column-response is above ("Attach").  Indirectly, it addresses some of your concerns.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:07 AM

Subject: AW: In Praise of Confusion as protection against the lust for clarity

Hi Willis,

 

What the heck are we supposed to think of a “FALSE” clarity?

  

Your 7

 

Again shows clearly your personal bible-approach: first of all the bible is right. Period. Then let’s see how this proposition could be confirmed or reconciled with any sort of doubts/objections.

The main problem about that sort of approach is: other religions maintain the same. (You certainly are aware of that). But they all fail to show why the respective religion should be preferred to its contestants. Sure, there is the culture argument. Your religion belongs to your culture, so stick to it.

Wouldn’t this mean, if Willis was born somewhere in Australia, some 2oo years ago, he would stick to the Aborigines’ religion?

 

Instead of showing why the one rel. could be preferred to the other, the respective religion claims its superiority.  Any doubts concerning superiority? Well, they can be resolved by setting dogmatic benchmarks (which of course should not be doubted: there is no need to offer more cognitive clarity than beyond our need of cognitive clarity. Sounds convincing, just like any circular argument. We don’t need more water, than we need. Who could object!

 And what about the benchmark? Dogma is used to set it. Whereby dogma has a real big advantage: it’s always right. (Extremely impressively celebrated by the Witnesses of Jeh.) If you tell’em they’re running round in circles, they tell you, you got all wrong, what you see as circle is a line. Only a bended one. And again, Bob’s your uncle! OK, Bob may be anyone’s uncle, but not mine.

Any comment?

 

Serenity,

Donald.

[Willis E. Elliott]

Donald

1

The NT sees Jesus Crucified-Risen as fulfilling the traditional Jewish leader-roles of prophet/priest/king/judge.  Obviously, the sin-offering idea falls into the second role.  How would YOU see the second role's fulfillment WITHOUT including the sin-offering idea?

2

The heart of the creed, from the start, has been *Kyrios Iesous* (Jesus is Lord).  The intellectual dimension of it is the evidencing of Jesus' lordship WITHOUT REMAINDER, which includes lordship over nature/history/hope.  Now, lordship over history includes showing how Jesus presently/proleptically fulfills "the desire of all nations" & of all social-structural leadership roles.

3

"Lordship" is an INCLUSIVE idea & ideal: nothing & nobody is left out.  The early Christian intellectual project was imperial: Emperor Jesus was "Lord of all" ideas & ideals, & prospectively of all powers & authorities - a project the Roman Emperors (until Constantine) took a distinct disliking to.

4

Now, Donald, you do not share the early Christian apologetic-polemic inclusive-Lord intellectual project.  Within this big picture of roles-fulfillment, you do not grasp that seeing Jesus as fulfilling some roles requires a "theological suspension of the ethical" (Kierkegaard's correct understanding of how to read the Bible, contra your literalism).  E.g., to fulfill & end the blood-sacrifice tradition, Jesus was seen as both the sacrificing priest & as the sacrifice ("victim") itself & even as the sacrificial site, the temple, whose destruction (a generation later) parallels his death.  (In AD 70 BCE, [blood-sacrificial] Judaism died & Rabbinism began.)

5

My reference to the genetic fallacy is your insistence on judging & rejecting Christianity by what you see as imperfections in some of the God-ideas in some of the traditions the NT sees Jesus as fulfilling.  Specifically in your present post, you are criticizing the behavior of the biblical drama's central character, the one you say I call "god" (no, I call him "God").

5.1

Your precise criticism is that "Jesus' crucifixion as sin-offering" does not "fit" a universe-"producer" "interested in his human product," but rather one who "require[s] the allowance of torture to death for defeating death."

5.2

Implicitly, you're proposing either ATHEISM (that there's no story to tell other than the one told by ancient Jewish & pagan historians, viz. that Jesus was executed [in the Jewish case, as a blasphemer; in the Roman case, as a dangerous disturber of the peace]) or a RETELLING of the Jesus story, removing the misfitting.  For my purpose, I'll assume the latter.

6

I'd like to hear your retelling.  Might it go something like this?  You are the Father (whose behavior needs improving by your retelling) & you send your Son to save the world from "sin and death" and he does so and then returns to you after beginning a post-death movement: unlike Kierkegaard's realistic "theological suspension of the ethical," your retelling eliminates the theodic problem: there's nothing to question the pro-humanity of the drama's "producer."  Neat.  But if it is to be a story instead of a bare statement, it must include HOW "he does so"; & if it is to be a world-story (a paradigm) rather than mere fiction, it can leave nothing out; but this retelling (so conveniently for you!) leaves out sin-offering history & Jesus' crucifixion-resurrection.  (Seeing the first as cancelled by the second, the NT leaves nothing out except your literalistic insistence that the Father either changed his mind from the first to the second or tortured the Son to death.)

7

Where I spoke of the NT's "angles" for seeing the Cross, you speak of "disagreements on what to think of 'the Cross'."  When in East Berlin we walked around the bust of Nefertiti (two Communist-gov't. guards close to protect her!), we saw not a series of "disagreements" but THE SAME REALITY from different angles (as the Gospels see Jesus & the NT sees the Cross).  Your confusion of mentalities would be laughable were it not so sad.  /  In like vein, you complain that the Jesus-as-criminal angle "plays [in the NT] no major role, if any."  Historically, as I said of the Jews & Romans, this is the ONLY angle, & implicit in the cross as a mode of execution.  It plays no role in the Qur'an, which denies that the Cross happened to Jesus; but the NT accepts it, does not evade it.

8

Donald, I must conclude that your interest is in atttacking the story, not retelling it  -  your interest is not in redesigning, but in eliminating, the deity.  Drop God out of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel "Creation of Adam," & what is left is Adam reaching his hand upward toward nothing.  In the development of Christian doctrine, the human side is hard, long ASPIRATION & intellection; the divine side (God's finger touching Adam's hand) is REVELATON, which is majorly narrative & minorly propositional.  The Bible begins with a story-doctrine which was a long time in developing, viz. creation, the end-product of a long process of communal & personal awe, wonder, prayer, surmise, coherent thought.  So, too, with the developed doctrines of the Church, the person of Christ, the atonement, & the Trinity.  The Christian mind in the ecumenical creeds is an emergent from a thousand years of life in the biblical tradition  -  & you want everything to "fit" neatly as though it were written by a single philosopher-scientist!  The Bible & the Christian mind are realistic about the complexity & messiness of human life & thought: your idealistic-perfectionist insistence on comprehensive cognitive logical coherence is adolescent, a life-stage you are some decades in advance of.  Please take off the table & put in your pocket that insistence, & put on the table your deepest longings for yourself, your son, humanity, & the good earth.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:47 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

WILLIS:

 

I got that right? You experience my question as a “nonquestion”?

 

From a psychological standpoint there is no arguing your “experience”.

From a philosophical standpoint we would ask: what allows a question to be denied as a question? ( I may assume we both are aware that it is a trick to deny a thing to be what it is)

It seems the question that puzzles you tries to let flow together these two different standpoints. A bit risky, I’d say.

 

You mention a number of angles from which the NT views “the Cross”.

The most obvious variant to see “the Cross”, namely as an execution as an act of punishment plays no major role, if any, in the NT.

The various angles you mention, don’t they point at disagreement on what to think of “the Cross”? What would you say?

 

Are you really saying the NT differs on Jesus’ crucifixion as sin-offering?

But your question was:

What would be the point of denying Jesus’ execution to be a sin-offering?

Well, the point would be to see the producer of something as subtle as the Universe (in case the producer is really interested in his human product) as an entity that is not interested in inhuman and primitive torture to death as requirement for final peace among humans and the entity you call “god”. It would show a deity that does not require the allowance of torture to death for defeating death. As if such a subtle and potent deity could be in need of such a primitive act. The one does not fit the other.

Best,

Donald.

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. April 2010 13:39
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

The NT views the Cross from a number of angles, one being sin-offering (as I said, in effect: the sin-offering to end all sin-offerings).  What would be the point of denying it?  This & every other early Christian angle on the Cross is in light of the Resurrection (which is the defeat of death, of course including bloody sacrifice).

 

I'm puzzled, Donald: Is it literalism or perfectionism or both motivating you to ask what I experience as a nonquestion?

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:42 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

WILLIS:

For thousands of years the predominant interpretation of Jesus’ death said his death was a “Sühnopfer”. This is what your brother in Christ, Joe Ratzinger, let the world know, again – Easter. You do not agree with his interpretation? OK. Still remains the question, whose interpretation to follow? Both cannot be right at the same time.

Best,

Donald

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Samstag, 10. April 2010 23:40
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

We have the OT bound with the NT only because the early Christians, including the canonists, read the OT anagogically, through Christ.  They did not imagine (as you believe they did) that God was EVER interested in bloody sacrifice: the NT is clear (as I said, from a number of angles) that God was interested in ELIMINATING bloody sacrifice, & did.  Even in the OT, God says "I hate your [bloody] sacrifices."

 

Can't you get beyond the genetic fallacy?

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:12 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

I am aware, Willis, of what the NT wants to make of the death of Jesus of Nazareth, don’t bother about that.

 

My use of “primitive” here means “uncivilized/brachial/niedrig, crude, rudimentary”. Not  “urtümlich/anfänglich, original, primary as you want to have it.

 

It is a deeply human, Willis,  a deeply human not divine notion, a profoundly human unsophisticated and rudimentary and crude notion, Willis, to say of the deity that first “He” let his people know and then for some 7oo years was interested in bloody sacrifice, insisted on bloody sacrifice, wanted  sacrifice, wished sacrifice, enjoyed sacrifice more or less, but anyway sacrifice (Mo.4,4 and 5 and on and on and on) felt quite fine with it, flattered and ok with sacrifice and then, Willis, oh what a whim! changed his divine non-material mind, “his” super-dooper unfathomable

non-material brainy spirit, deciding: Some at least 7oo or 8oo years of bloody sacrifice –that’s enough. Enoughy is enoughy. Now after some 7oo/8oo years even I, the unfathomable Earth-rattler  came to think of this: enough is enough. Well, not enough of rattling (Hawaii, Chile and on and on and on) and shaking and penetrating(?). But enough of sacrifice, even so.

But this final one, well, I cannot do without it,no, no, you, my beloved little creatures do not have to allow me having my last human, sorry, divine, oh, divine-human, mischmasch sacrifice. Candidly,  I just need it. Period. Let’s get to work. Where are the nails?

 

You believe in this Willis? Wow, Willis, wow! I don’t mind. George W. wouldn’t either. Sort of southern comfort.

I, for my part,  believe in the Yeti. And his twin sister, Yeta. And maybe I come to believe in White Flake, their, of course, silent  god. Who is at least as silent as Jhwh in Auschwitz. Maybe even a little more silent.

Serenity,Donald.

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. April 2010 02:23
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

A number of times you've said that bloody sacrifice is a primitive notion.

I agree.

Why primitive?  Because Jesus, in his own person, put an end to it.  From several angles (which I mustn't take time to enumerate), the NT says this.  But you say the idea never should have existed, or God should not have taken it seriously, or some such anachronistic ignorance.  Donald, YOU sould primitive.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:31 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

 

Dear Willis,

 

I wished at least one of the two of us could name a final benchmark that allows to discern an exaggerated from an unexaggerated opinion of the importance of reason. Regarding humans use of reason, I’d name orientation as a proper field expressis verbis.

 

Is importance of reason  typical of my generation of Germans?

 Well, typical of my generation is, I’d say, the idea/conviction that “Selbstverwirklichung” trumps economical success, “Politisches Bewusstsein” is more important than a car, a house, a colour- tv, solidarity trumps the individual’s incessant endeavors to prevail over his neighbor. As we see, all this still could not solve the essential problems of our global village.

Money still is perceived as N#1, reckless fools, as we see these days in Italy, ruin nature (by using oil to pollute earth and water) others do similar things, almost anywhere on the planet.

As you said, Willis, there is little reasonable about human life. And let me add, about human behavior.

Sometimes it is hard to close with serenity.

 

As for Amos, I suppose he’s not got it quite right, otherwise millions and millions of Christians would not assert that the death of Jesus of N. was a necessary sacrifice. In other words, the deity to this very moment is viewed as having been very interested in the famous sacrifice.

Nonetheless, serenity,

Yours Donald

 

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:24
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

Religion?  Please broaden that: there's little reasonable about human life.  Humans use reason primarily for confirmation of opinion (including self-justification), secondarily for exploration, tertiarily for criticism.  You have such an exaggerated opinion of the importance of reason; is that typical of your generation of Germans?

 

Said Amos, God is interested in justice, not blood sacrifice.  In the NT, Jesus ended blood sacrifice by being just that.  But don't you know all this?  Don't you believe in "The Evolution of God" (as Robert Wright titled his book)?

 

Please do not email me in any color, only black.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:52 PM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

WILLIS:

 

Well, is there anything „reasonable“ about religion, anyway?

Who would challenge the picture of a deity that is intellectually more capable than any human? However, the same deity is supposed and believed and asserted to have been interested in  bloody sacrifice some two thousand years ago? Whereby bloody sacrifice fits more easily homo sapiens sapiens of former times than a sovereign deity with supernatural capabilities.

 

Serenity, Donald.

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Februar 2010 03:42
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

On Wittgenstein, see my "surmise" section in what I sent you earlier today.

 

Your statement that "Paradigmenwechsel" occurs only only when "reasonable" is too narrow.  E.g., Jesus' resurrection (without which "Christianity" would not have occurred) was not reasonable.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:36 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

Willis,

on 2

definitely good job on describing the situation

If it wasn’t God’s will, whose was it? I personally, of course would leave the “evil spirits” out, while, I agree, Haiti-Mama probably views them as “most available cultural option”.

I personally agree with what you call “cosmic-impersonal”: it was not anybody’s “will”.

 

On 7

You write “the unprovables are more important”, and if I take your view, which luckily I think I can for the purpose, I fully agree.

Your view, so it seems, is not too far away from Wittgensteins, who once accordingly said: auch wenn alle Tatsachen benannt wären (if it was the case that all facts could be  found out) , so ist doch über das Wesentliche, über Gott ( here our “unprovable”) noch gar nichts gesagt.

 

Probability theory: are we allowed to pick a paradigm arbitrarily? As we know from history the “Paradigmenwechsel” never fell out of the skies. Which is to say we change a paradigm since it makes sense, it is reasonable.

 

Serenity, Donald.

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Februar 2010 22:33
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

on 2

Yes, "it is the mother that needs consolation."  YOU, of course, could find no consolation in what the priest said; nor could she if (as in your case) she wasn't invested in a relationship with God.  I can understand your inability to find consolation in what the priest said, so you need to expand your imagination.  /  In my pastoral experience, I ministered to many who could find consolation in any sentence beginning with "God...."  If it's all about reason, that's nonsense: if it's all about relationship (the heart of "The Shack") it's immediate sense.  /  I do recommend that you read "The Shack."  /  Another angle: If it wasn't GOD's will, whose was it?  "Evil spirits'" is your standard voodoo response.  That's the Haitian Mama's most available cultural option.  A third option is the cosmic-impersonal: it wasn't anybody's will.

on 7

Yes, there are provables & unprovables (as you say, "questions that cannot be decided finally").  The unprovables are more important. and to me more interesting, while I thank God for the wondrous increase in the provables.  /  As for probability theory, it's paradigm-dependent.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 4:39 AM

Subject: AW: Haiti

 

Willis:

So here is what I think about almightiness/benignity/theodicy regarding Haiti.

Your response will be appreciated.

Serenity, Donald.

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2010 19:30
An: Donald de Marco
Betreff: Re: Haiti

 

Donald

 

Your response does not address the main concern of my column, but "Attach" (written by good-friend Gabrief Fackre) does.  If you study his article & send me your response (along with the below), I may respond.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Cc: Jef...@gmx.de

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]
Gesendet: Samstag, 23. Januar 2010 03:48
An: Carol Underwood
Betreff: Haiti

 

Did the Haiti quake put God on the defensive?

Only if you let it be so.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

[Willis E. Elliott]

Donald

1

I agree that "Christian belief" was [from below] "a courageous and adventurous, bold and daring construction," & I see it [from above] as REVELATION, an instance of God's "mysterious ways."  World-views are mixes of the potencies of (& of materials available to) human consciousness; & the Christian world-story gets my vote, my commitment.

2

We are persons, & have the choice of seeing the universe as - in origin & operation - personal or impersonal.  (Or, as string theory allows, both.)  For personalism, the physical size of the universe is not a factor.  Nor is the particularity of the personal stories (e.g., of one people, many peoples, all people - & persons).  But to you, the bilblical world-&-mind has become strange, even "ridiculous."

3

As for the divine activity, I see it as both direct-theistic & as indirect-deistic (as Darwin's "secondary causes" at the end of "The Origin of Species").  The "sacrificial system" is one mode of human devotion & of divine activity (with Rene Girard's exposition of it in counterpoint).  In Gn.4, it is associated with murder: you deny "original sin," but ritual sacrifice spoke to the evil in the human heart.  From Amos onward, ritual sacrifice was paralled by both "the sacrifice of praise" & "justice": you approve of justice, but does "the sacrifice of praise" seem "ridiculous," foolish, to you?

4

Jesus' resurrection is historicistically impossible & historically true.  /  Your penultimate paragraph contains a falsehood: "40 years after the crucifixion...Jesus already was becoming a figure of legend."  The truth is that not long after the crucifixion, Jesus was believed in as God incarnate; e.g., the hymn quoted by Paul in Phil.2.

5

Your speculations about "the universe's constructor" may be only a shadow of the biblical Creator, or (like Einstein & ex-atheist [philosopher] Antony Flew) you may be a deist.  Atheists are uncomfortable with conversions from their ranks to deism, but are enraged by conversions to the Christian (trinitarian) God (e.g., ex-atheist [geneticist] Francis Collins).

6

You claim to know "what is going on in the universe" in contrast to "the theological frame."  One contrast is that in the second instance, Somebody is in charge; in the first, nobody.  A second contrast is in what is being observed: in the first instance, process; in the second, purpose.  A third contrast: you claim to know something that began only with action (the big bang) - in contrast to what biblical faith claims, viz. that the universe began with an act, creation.  /  But for up-to-date Christian theology, the impoverishing contrast does not exist.  David Bentley Hart's "Atheist Delusions" exposes the intellectual & spiritual poverty of the false contrast, as preached in Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion."

7

Donald, you seem to me to be an old-fashioned rationalist with a deflated sense of ancient "reason" & an inflated sense of Enlightenment "reason."  Eric Kandel, Nobel Prizeman in neuroscience, denies the existence of an emotively free "reason."  It is not just that you have narrowed "reason" down to a scientistic definition which father-of-science Francis Bacon denied, but you have also broadened its use to cancel as "irrational" whatever fails to pass your narrow definition of reason.  (E.g., your saying, vis-a-vis the resurrection, that we should "use our brains...logic...")  But yours, it seems, is what the European mind has temporarily come to.  Temporarily: negativity is evanescent.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald de Marco

To: 'Willis E. Elliott'

Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 2:12 PM

Subject: AW: The NT roots of christology - ATONEMENT: "misfit" of sin-offering & "God"? - the nature of Christian doctrine

WILLIS:

1

As my previous post’s ending described already said: I doubt that a deity that constructed such a subtle thing as the universe would be interested in archaic sacrifice-models. This is from a modern standpoint-no harm meant-ridiculous. So we, again, may see that I doubt the original sin -“redeeming” sacrifice - system.

In face of the presumed subtlety of the universe’s constructor it appears extremely, yes, ridiculous to assume this deity would be interested in such a thing. To me, this looks as ridiculous as maintaining Heisenberg or Schrödinger used the abacus to  calculate quantum mechanics. An abacus might be a useful device – but not for the mentioned problem.

 

2

A theologian is supposed to do what you do: offer a theological answer. I don’t blame you for that. (How generous I am)

 

But if we leave the theological frame and compare it to what is going on in the universe ( including our funny, little planet) it - again no harm meant - looks ridiculous to claim god “revealed” himself 2018 years ago, to be exact,  by hurrying for an uncertain amount of time unsystematically from place to place through the desert sands of a region this deity surrendered to the enemy of –whatever this may mean-“his” people. (here  we come about another archaic idea: lost wars mean a punishment, just as a disease)

It is –again, again no harm meant – ridiculous in face of the fact that long before there were any Jews there were tons of human beings shuffling through all sorts of sands all over the world and of course at those times the constructor of the universe already existed, provided the constructer exists  anyway.  So it looks a little sloppy not to have “revealed” himself at once so that all of his creatures could profit from this and a “sin-offering”.  It really looks just ridiculous to think of this deity to suddenly for some unfathomable reason have come up with the idea to reveal himself to a bunch of itinerant archaic tribes that were slaves of an high culture which existed thousands of years before.

Yes, Willis, I know the usual counter-argument that we cannot prescribe the deity what to do. But this argument is invalid since it merely starts all over again from a standpoint (still) in question. If something is questioned we may not push the question aside maintaining the issue is no issue and it does not need to be questioned. Your argument “We cannot prescribe to god his ways” implies what must not be implied: a tenet treated as fact. Believe the constructor of the universe chose these tribes later called Jews. But don’t say it is a fact.

I offered some arguments, solid arguments that show why it makes sense to doubt that the constructor of the universe “chose” the “Jews” as “his” people – as if the rest of humans were not “his” product.

3

I fully agree.

4

As for Kirkegaard I would tell him, what you are saying (as a parallel) is this: in order to show that death-penalty is inhuman we have to execute it.

I am aware of the traditional Christian interpretation of Jesus of N.

5

I am confident the deity will not mind a small “g” instead of a capital one.

5.2

The alternative is not either Jesus Christ or atheism. Of course, I don’t have to tell you this, a muslim e.g., is a theist, too. And deism, dear Willis, makes also sense.

6

Your description of how a “story” (instead of a bare statement) works is ok for me.

Well, is it about retelling a story? Or is it about asking whether the stories really tell what happened?

I have no doubt, Willis, no doubt whatsoever, that beside many others the more than 4 writers of the gospels believed in Jesus as Christ. But is it impossible that they erred? Were profoundly mistaken? Unintentionally, unwittingly, of course, but still. THIS is impossible? Of course it is not and so we are invited to use our brains and check the pro/contra balance.

If it comes to using our brains, we have to argue and if we argue, logic plays not a solely but still an essential role.

 

The average, fairly uneducated Christian is made believe rather in a literal way what is written in the so-called Bible than a sophisticated way, especially, again the Catholics, do not spend too much energy on pointing out that the Bible is man’s word in which –maybe- God might be found. Mass after mass they recklessly call the word of God what has not been written by God but by man and what documents the writers’ belief/intentions. A slight difference? An important difference? Judge for yourself. Anyway a problematic one.

But back to the “story” thing:

 

Years BEFORE the birth of J.o.Naz. a resolution in honour of CAESAR AUGUSTUS was passed…”who being sent to us … as our savior(!) (soter) has put an end to war and has put all things in order, and whereas, having become visible (phaneis…) and whereas finally that the birthday of the God ( viz. Caesar A., Capital) has been for the whole world the beginning of the Gospel (evangelion!) concerning him, therefore let all reckon a new era beginning from the date of his birth.

(Source: documents for the study of the Gospels, pp13-14)

A stone from the marketplace of Priene in Asia Minor reads: “The birthday of the god (Augustus) was for the world the beginning of evangelion because of him.”

Mark uses the same formula to open his book: the beginning of the gospel.

What I am saying is Mark e.g. begins his text with ready-made language and concepts. Difference: his evangelion is not of Caesar but of  Jesus as Christ.

 

Even a few years earlier HORACE wrote an ode for the same Caesar, presenting him as an incarnation of the god of Mercury.

Descent as son of a god appointed by the chief deity to become incarnate as a man atonement, restoration of a sovereignity, ascension to heaven, all in all a gospel. The Christian gospels follow the pattern.

Didn’t Mark write some 4o years after the crucifixion, when Jesus already was becoming a figure of legend? Accurate first-hand info was hard to come by, wasn’t it?

 

I consider Christian belief a courageous  and adventurous, bold and daring construction.

To be continued.

BEST, Donald.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Willis E. Elliott [mailto:elli...@charter.net]

Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. April 2010 05:19
An: Donald de Marco

Cc: CC