A conclusion(?) to the discussion on Revelation... (Main Forum)

i watched that desi
eye opener

so was the first book a fabrication also?

who'd know?

I'm only half-way through this fascinating doco, but already delighted to see my hero Israel Finkelstein still hard at work!

Imagine being an archaeologist living in Israel! Not to mention having all the resources of a most prestigious university and chair at one's disposal. Quel
embarrass de richesse!

A further thought regarding the aside about bishops that I wrote in the past above:

Bishops these days are becoming more and more like politicians. Whenever a politician appears on television or radio these days we are almost immunized to have an attitude of not believing them, or to believing that what we are hearing is not "truth" (about any subject) but "spin" (to bolster some deeper or wider party agenda). In other words we no longer expect to hear what politicians say is "truth" but we need to re-interpret it free from what we perceive is the "spin".

I think the same could be said of bishops. We (society generally) no longer expect to hear bishops "speaking the truth". We expect to hear "spin" that needs to be re-interpreted to find out if what they are saying might also contain some element of truth.

I submit that is a huge problem that bishops collectively need to start to address if they are to collectively restore any credibility to their positions as leaders of their people. The +Bill Morris affair here in Australia was a massive blow to their collective credibility — and also, seemingly, their incapacity to surmount or tame the forces in their own ranks that have brought this sad situation about.

Even on the "We Are So Faithful to the Magisterium" (FTTM) websites you see the same problem where they obviously treat with a grain of salt anything said or written by bishops who do not dance to their agendas.

Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]

Thanks Brian For your professional lay outs. They make it look readable at least. Here is my opinion on the last post. Sounds like Anzac day!

You wrote.

"That is broadly as I suspected. I also watched the program on SBS last night but was having another go at fixing my camera at the same time. (I'm finding that as I get older, or maybe its because I'm a boy, I'm not much good at multi-tasking. Even before reading your post I had resolved to go back and watch the program again as I am sure I missed some of the more subtle bits while my attention was more focused on technical things with my camera.)

The BIG question or questions that flow out of this for me are these:

• Just how much of the story of Jesus actually occurred historically (i.e. as real historical events) and were later seen by the Seers and Writers of the Gospels to have been prophesied in the Old Testament?* And

My Opinion: I have no problem with the accounts being largely historical, from oral sources. It's no big deal for me. I mention this below. These stories are pretty ordinary in the circumstances.

• How much of the Jesus story was re-written by the Seers and Writers of the Gospels to fit with the Old Testament prophesies? (In other words how much "spin" was applied to use a modern day political expression? To cite just one obvious example that springs out from what you've written: the story of Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem? I can think of many, many other examples.)

My opinion: I don't believe this to be so. There was no way this could be worked out without the "Kepler catalyst." All the messianic information had been available and developed during the 1000 year period since David. A secular messiah king was embedded in belief. Nobody could accept that the messiah would be murdered or die for their sins. That is a preposterous idea. And on the other hand, Yeshua was a complete failure with regard to fulfilling the expectations of the secular messiah. He looked like a wimp against that model. He talked forgiving enemies not cleaning them up. Everything was against him being their messiah.

There in a interesting anecdote about this in Acts. Peter and Paul were imprisoned in Jerusalem for preaching this Yeshua Messiah thing. Threats had failed to deter them. The Sanhedrin called a council on what to do. Gamaliel a member, was the Pharisee, who taught Paul Torah in the synagogue of the freedmen in southern Jerusalem. He silenced the gathering and said this.

Ac 5:34" But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.
Ac 5:35 Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men.
Ac 5:36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.
Ac 5:37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.
Ac 5:38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.
Ac 5:39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
Ac 5:40 His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Gamaliel's point was that Theudas was a freedom fighter who looked like being the messiah. Most likely it was the Romans who killed him and soon after his messiah movement petered out. Gamaliel infers that we've killed their messiah, let's wait and see if their movement also peters out. Otherwise we are facing something more serious. Gamaliel was very conscious of the messianic prophecies, he taught them. And this is where Paul would have learnt them.

My personal belief is that it was a bit of both. The Jesus Seminar of recent times was, in a sense, an attempt to answer these questions as well as what "spin" had been applied to words allegedly spoken directly by Jesus.

*Regarding the first question above: if the writers of the Gospel did recognize the links between real events in Jesus' life and the OT Prophets, part of the modern problem we might have is simply the scholarly or writing conventions of different epochs. Today, for example, the modern scholar would be expected for produce footnotes or endnotes pointing out the linkage and explaining it more fully. The convention back then in the time of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John may have been simply to replace some text with some OT text.

My Opinion: Yes I believe this to be the format. But I wish to add something which is fairly new to me. Long agoI used to be preoccupied with the idea that the NT was an attempt to prove that Yeshua was the Messiah, or even God because he consciously fulfilled the prophecies by some kind of miracle. But today I see something different. I was too lazy to go fossicking to find the OT refs, and sometimes when I did so I couldn't understand the connection anyway. I've come to realised that its not a word for word type of identity that is referenced in the margins, but rather a theme for theme comparison. If I now open a NT ref, like the Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem, which is no big deal, and certainly not miraculous. I go back a few verses on the OT to get a handle on what the prophet was referring to at the time of writing. I then then proceed forward to the reference, and then keep reading beyond it until the idea is complete. Then in this case, there is another OT precedent that comes to mind (not immediately) about the use of donkeys in the Judges, which brings in another aspect. The best interpretation of the bible can often be found in the bible itself. What I mean is check how similar ideas pan out, or how the same word is used in different contexts.

Yeshua also read the Tanakh. He would have been very interested in those prophecies, and I think terrified at the possibility of ending up as Isaiah's suffering servant. He read from Isaiah in Nazareth synagogue. I don't see any big deal in all of this. Its pretty ordinary to me.

...and the (Jewish) people might have been expected to be educated enough to see for themselves the connection without it having to be pointed out that some transliteration was taking place. One assumes here that the circles in which Jesus moved, and more especially those who were his followers and who wrote out his story, were highly educated in and familiar with the Judaic texts. i.e. these (Gospel) texts were not primarily written for the yobbo, unsophisticated or uneducated pagans in the society of the time.

My Opinion: No I disagree with much of this. I believe the NT was delivered verbally for years before it was written. Stories of yeshua with individual variations of detail and purpose was delivered to ordinary plebs in diverse places by diverse teachers beginning at Pentecost. I see no problem in this having experienced a little of how well a culture can preserve its history without a written word. We can't rule out the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit in this process. We can't rule out that Yeshua explained it to them post resurrection as mentioned by Luke (and Matt) I think. The NT is quite positive that he explained how the scriptures were fulfilled regarding his death e.g. on road to Emmaus, and spent the best part of 40 days in Galilee doing so. This was completely new eureka moment.

The crucifixion stories curry the flavour of memorised accounts. It's so incredibly boring to endure four separate accounts of the crucifixion during holy week! Its basically the same thing over and over (with a few minor variations). I also don't rule out that the story tellers embellished by putting prophetic words into Yeshua's mouth for sake of economy or emphasis and added or subtracted a few other minor bits, but that's part of verbalised history telling, and doesn't diminish the truth of the main message.

The other question that arises for me out of what you have written is this: What you seem to be arguing (and I don't disagree with this interpretation) is that the Jewish people of the time interpreted the Messianic prophecies more or less in literal and temporal terms. The coming Messiah was some kind of earthly leader albeit one graced or "anointed" by God.

My Opinion: Yes

What seems to have happened post-Jesus and post-the Christian Seers and Gospel Writers is that the Messianic Prophecies began to be interpreted in a more poetic or theological sense.

My Opinion: No I don't think so.

This was not now merely seen as the arrival of some new temporal leader of the people Israel but a supernatural leader — one who literally was God — and hence this leads on to the gradual belief (or realization) that Jesus the Christ literally was not just human but divine also.

My Opinion: I'm reluctant to use the word supernatural. Certainly his kingdom of heaven parables were all lifted to the spiritual plane. The synoptic Gospels have no hint of Yeshua being God, they were very much looking at the man. Paul did make one statement of him being God towards the end of Philippians I think it is. John's Gospel came only at the end of the first century and by this time I think the divinity idea of Yeshua had evolved. Soon after this the Christological controversies began to rage. The final natural outcome was unfortunate. After Nicaea or Constantinople theology, worship and teaching saw him thereafter as God. His humanity became hard to find. Even though his teaching of the kingdom of heaven was spiritual, I see the presentation of him in the synoptics as purely a human being, albeit someone different and special. A man who had dedicated himself to whatever God was going to dish up.

I suspect, or ask, was this some "sudden epiphany" for the Christian followers of Jesus, or something that gradually occurred over decades or centuries?

My Opinion: Yes Both. There's no doubt about an initial "sudden epiphany" his bloody tomb was empty! There's no doubt about a continuing perception evolution of him that continues two millenia later. The God image has predominated since apostolic times. It has thoroughly destroyed his human image. His divinity is on the nose these days, but the historical man has struggled to return. Somewhere we have to strike a balance. Divinity was certainly never part of the messianic package.

My own suspicion is that it was a relatively gradual process extending over decades at least and more likely centuries until the full, and modern, theological explanation or description of Jesus was complete.

My Opinion: No. Destroyed I would say.

Perhaps some of our biblical scholars might like to share with us some observations about this? (Wouldn't it be good if you could ask a few bishops to share their views in that way and not expect to be blinded by a whole lot of institutional "spin" in response?) When one thinks of some of the early controversies in the Church — for example the Arian controversy — one could say the questions were not settled for centuries. The Arian controversy wasn't fully settled until the Council of Constantinople in 381 — and some might argue it still hasn't been totally settled.

My Opinion: Thanks Brian, you found it. Constantinople 381. Bingo

Cheers beehive.

Brian Pitts

But I welcome the smaller "purer" Church, because it will mean that it will not have as many voters to influence the outcome of elections in secular states. The authoritarianism of the current hierarchical crop is evident in their envy of the mad mullahs and their control over Islamic societies. They also want to impose Catholic Sharia law if they have the power. A smaller Church means less power. And we will all be better off.>
The real answer to your question is that of Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neumann: Why worry?

James, don't tell me Alfred E. Neumann is still alive - I remember him well in 1960 when I first became a fan of Mad Magazine. However, I transgress.

What I really wanted to say was that what you say is an interesting part of our evolution insofar organized religion as we know it/new it will no longer have the power that once had. Naturally, as we progress with education and self determination we no longer need to be told how to behave (according to the men who have control of course) but that doesn't mean that religion will die out.

In fact during terrible disasters, both man made (shootings) and natural there isn't an atheist to be seen!! Suddenly people are made aware that there has to be more than this and even though organized religion will no longer be the answer to a lot of people, they still will want to search for God.

And so, in a funny sort of way, religion will still be a need and a want even if not the hoopla in the sky that is currently on offer.

And I think forums like Catholica is a starting point to start the thinking process in what does religon mean to me - is it the Catechism or far, far more than that.

Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ

I have been told that one way to drive a musician mad is to play a piece of music familiar to them but to cut it off suddenly before the concluding bars. Do it often enough deliberately and it can be a torture as bad as water boarding. I don't know for sure because I am not a musician. As a lay person who enjoys listening to the work of musicians and knowing the ways in which a tune we hear on the radio can stay with us for an entire day or longer replaying in our minds I can well understand there is some truth in the observation.

Another observation that might apply to any visual artist, or any creative person for that matter, is that the art in creating a great work is not so much in knowing how to start a work but in knowing when to stop — knowing when the piece of art, sculpture, music, writing, monument or whatever is finished.

In a sense, James, I think religion can be compared to a great piece of collective art. It has been an enterprise engaged in collectively by humankind since the first life emerged from the first womb with the capacity to think.

You seem to be arguing that this enormous creative enterprise we label as religion is at an end. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche posed the proposition back in 1882, "God is dead" . The discussion has raged on in society for the 130 years since with Time magazine posing the question on its front page on 8th April 1966.

I'm not convinced that God is yet dead or that this great enterprise we label as religion is yet finished. It certainly isn't finished at the level of superstition, witch doctors, tarot card readers and all those who need some "God of the gaps" in their lives. There are still plenty of people who are going to be playing in that pool for millennia yet – and there will be no shortage of snake oil salesmen and women ever ready to respond to their needs offering them some holy grail.

Down at what is presently the bottom of this string is a short exchange between Peter Ryan and Brian Pitts on some observations taken from the Vatican II insights on "revelation" [LINK]. I don't consider either Peter or Brian to be snakeoil salesmen. To them, and to myself, Vatican II might be likened to some great "unfinished symphony" — or a piece of music that has been cut off suddenly before its final bars could be played out. I would venture to suggest that in a way Vatican II was a deep, almost primordial, human response to the observations of the likes of Nietzsche. It was an attempt to lift religion out of the swamp inhabited by snakeoil salesmen and give it fresh relevance in our then still-dawning age of technology and scientific insight.

What nobody counted on were the forces in the psyches of this tiny minority who felt their symphony had been ended prematurely. It might be called the Symphony of Trent and Certitude. What happened at Vatican II for them might be likened to the musician who is unable to hear the last bars of a familiar piece of music. They have left no stone, or neuron, unturned in their efforts to allow their music to continue to play. They now largely control the institutional agenda and conduct the orchestra of religion.

My own sense is that there is also still in human society another sizeable sector of the population that has felt their symphony was unfinished, or ended prematurely. They do not see religion fundamentally as some emotional exercise alone — something to pacify our emotional insecurities and the anxieties that plague the human heart. It is viewed as what we might call a far more holistic enterprise — one that engages both the emotions and the intellect. The religious endeavour to this sector of the population, it seems to me, is not interpreted so much as some exercise in trying to tame our demons – our personal insecurities and anxieties – but it is perceived more as an exercise in either trying to understand this Great Mystery that appears to reside at the heart of Life and Creation, or, it is perceived more as an exercise in trying to enter into some kind of communion with the Great Mystery.

To my mind human society seems to be splitting into a number of large divisions in its attempts to find an answer to that question posed on the front cover of time magazine back in 1966 — a couple of months into my first year at university. It could eventually lead to another war so intense are some of the feelings growing. A large sector of society has simply opted out – and that seems to be a relatively new phenomenon in the long history of sentient Creation. "New" at least in the size of this sector as registered by various census and opinion polls around the globe. As I suggested earlier I think we'll always have with us the sector that primarily uses, or relates to religion, as some kind of emotional salve. I think we'll also always have with us the snakeoil salesmen and women and the bureaucrats prepared to cater for whatever they perceive to be what the largest, or most noisy/powerful, factions in society want. They might be called the pragmatists who don't actually believe anything outside of themselves and are like birds principally engaged in feathering their own nests and will say whatever is required to please or appease those they consider the dominant faction in their society that will enable them to feather their own nests. They are actually possibly the smallest faction albeit they exercise a lot of power. The most interesting faction to me is those who have discarded the old superstitions but who haven't given up on the idea of a God, or Force that either drives Creation, or beckons it forward, in other words it provides some kind of direction to this great enterprise we call Life or Creation.

Can anyone put numbers of these divisions or factions in society? I'm not sure. The various census and surveys around the world don't seem to give us enough "fine detail" in order to make accurate calculations. My own sense is that the section that has "opted out" is now more than probably the largest even if they still might tick the "religion" box on a census or survey. Their outlook towards life is essentially pragmatic and summed up in phrases like "life is short, our prime responsibility is to make the best of it while we can" or they have a sense "a pox on both your houses" when thinking of those who still might be interested in religion either as an emotional salve or for some broader reasons. The smallest faction I suspect are those I have labelled the snakeoil salesmen and women and the bureaucrats. They might also be called the religious "main chancers". I suspect the faction that primarily views religion as some kind of emotional salve is globally large, in Western society much smaller probably today at around 5% of the total Western population. They do exercise a power out of proportion to their numbers though.

The most difficult faction to quantify is this last faction which I would count myself a member of. I'd also count a person like yourself as a member of this faction or division in the sense that even though you might be agnostic about belief in some God or higher being, I don't perceive you are agnostic about the progress or welfare of human society. You come across to me as inquisitive about where society is heading and what "makes it tick". I'd make the same observation about the likes of a Richard Dawkins after I saw him in that documentary on the Jungle last week. Dawkins might well be atheistic about belief in some higher power or a God. Self-evidently he is a very excited boy in his wonder at Creation, how it ticks, where it is going, or how it might evolve in the future — and in also trying to discern what the drivers might be to evolution or human progress. I suspect this faction today in the Western world at least is now larger than what we might label as the 5% remnant faction but precisely how large is very hard to gauge.

What is particularly interesting at the moment is watching the rise of the snakeoil salesmen in secular politics in both our own country and in the United States who have a growing sense they smell some advantage. I have to say I am more optimistic that Obama might survive in the United States, especially after the nomination of Ryan as Romney's running mate, than I am of the situation in our own country. I fear that before very much longer our country is going to be governed by the "bovver" boys who believe they are God and have all the answers — the sad thing is that Bob Santamaria and his faction in the Church played a massive part in the formation of their religious, political and social outlook. The DLP might be dead but the Santamaria vision is still very much alive and has found new legs — ironically enough in the Tory Parties at the diametrically opposite side of the circle from where they started. (I suspect that Santamaria had rejected large elements of his own vision in the very last period of his life. What Abbott and company are firing up again is the public vision that was evident through most of Santamaria's public life.)

We live at a fascinating moment in both human and ecclesial history. In the long term I am confident the Ascent of Humankind will continue. There may well be a period we have to travel though where the baboons are again in control of the playground. How long it lasts: who yet knows?

The other huge question mark in all this is the perspectives that are fired into this whole mix by the rise in economic power of China and India. They will, or are already, bringing to the table not only their money and political power but greatly different perspectives in the religious and spiritual realm of human thinking and behaviour.

LINKS:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_God_Dead?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]

I have no religion except the Earth itself.
But in my travels across it I am yet to see an Atheist Foundation soup kitchen.
In the Church - as would make sense of course - the target of the authoritarian attacks by Ratzinger's devils are nuns who in my experience are selfless, charitable, and indispensable to the poor and powerless. I have seen few political operatives "committed to equity" with anything like their daily devotion; for which they win no Media attention or votes. They also provide that non-material resource of inestimable value - solace.
If believing in God, and even all the miracles of the Sacraments, is one identifiable precondition to this 'collateral' benefit - so be it. Such Religion may spout blather; but at least these people show that it does not mean necessarily that good works are excluded by dogma.
They don't blather all the time; like some nasty, insular, authoritarian priests of my acquaintance.

Francis, I hope you feel better soon, as your postings are always interesting, especially the ones about PNG. Take care of yourself. We need people like you .

J A Holznagel

Take care Francis - and by the way how is Mary?

Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ

I am sorry you have not been well for such a long period. May the warmer weather bring you freedom from your illness - not that Brisbane becomes really cold; but feelings generated by the weather are all relative, aren't they?

Thanks for your many posts which I have enjoyed in the past and still enjoy when re-reading them.

I am looking forward to meeting you in celestial joy in the not too distant future.

In Christ,

Peter