You could be an exclusivist about truth (Religious claims are true or false, and when there is a contradiction only one side can be right), but a pluralist about reasonableness (reasonable people can hold contradictory positions when it comes to complex issues without being open to charges of irrationality), and a pluralist about salvation (People can be saved even if they don't believe certain things about God or Christ).
I personally lean toward all three of those positions.
96 comments:
reasonable people can hold contradictory positions when it comes to complex issues without being open to charges of irrationality
I think this needs more detail. Can the same person hold contradictory positions? Or can 2 reasonable people hold contradictory positions to each other's?
The Bible itself holds contradictory positions. The two irreconcilable accounts of creation in Genesis. The two irreconcilable accounts of the conquest of Canaan in Joshua/Judges. The two contradictory accounts of David's reign in Samuel/Chronicles. The various irreconcilable accounts of the Resurrection, or the weirdly differing accounts of the birth of Christ.*
Or how about this?
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares." (Isaiah 2:4)
"Beat your plowshares into swords." (Joel 3:10)
I think what the Holy Spirit is telling us is that we ought not to be resolutely dogmatic about our opinions and beliefs, but make space for opposing viewpoints (and perhaps even to hold them). To listen as well as to speak. This is not a license to spew untruths (such as the Moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, or the Big Lie that Trump supposedly won the 2020 election), but rather an encouragement to dialog amongst persons genuinely interested in coming to the Truth.
"There are many rooms in my Father's house." (John 14:2)
* I am in no way saying that these differing accounts make what they say untrue. If fact, I regard such inconsistencies as a prime evidence that they are true.
I don't think you know what a contradiction is.
I know that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between your political views and your professed Christian faith.
I know that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between your political views and your professed Christian faith.
Are you the pot or the kettle?
Having a different opinion of the best way to help a problem is not the grave evil it is portrayed as.
I highly suggest you (and bmiller, too) read We Cry Justice, ed. by Liz Theoharis - one of the best books that I know of on how to combine one's faith with one's politics, while keeping true to the Scriptures.
Starhopper,
Can we leave politics out of this thread, please?
I think the world is so complex that any attempt to boil it down into statements simple enough to be called "true" or "false" will result in a person believing things that are both true and false. That doesn't mean they accept a contradiction, it means our ability to express reality is limited.
"Can we leave politics out of this thread, please?"
I will if you will. Starting... now! (Cosmo Kramer)
Starhopper,
The reason I posted what I did was that none of the examples you proclaimed were examples of contradictions. I worded it sharply because you used examples from the bible and called those contradictions. To atheists, that only confirms their false belief that faith is unreasonable.
Something cannot be both true and not true in the same sense and at the same time. It's the Law of Non-Contradiction and is fundamental reason.
So it may be true to say bmiller is blue (because he's distressed he has to explain this) and not blue (because no one painted him) at the same time, but the sense of blue is different for the 2 cases. Likewise before bmiller is painted blue he is not blue, but after he is painted blue he is blue. Same sense, different times.
Why did you bring politics into this topic?
"To atheists, that only confirms their false belief that faith is unreasonable."
I am not about to start "lying for Jesus", in the atheist parlance. If there are contradictions in the Bible, then we need to own them. I happen to think they are a strength, and a good reason to believe in what the Bible says. If atheists cannot see this, then they haven't read scriptures properly.
"Why did you bring politics into this topic?"
Because someone needs to tell you that your irrational and unjustified hatred of "leftism" (whatever that means) poisons everything you have to say on any other subject. I say this for your own good.
Starhopper,
I am not about to start "lying for Jesus"
You'd have to know what you were talking about in order to lie.
Try reading a Bible commentary instead of drinking scotch while you read and coming up with your insights.
I say this for your own good.
Likewise.
I have at least 5 feet of bible commentaries on my bookshelves, and have read them all.
And I don't drink scotch. I'm strictly a gin man.
Shouldn't read commentaries while drinking gin either.
When you're not drinking, some time re-read those 2 passages from the prophets and try to make a case why they contradict each other. Then we can discuss.
Are you saying there are no contradictions and/or inconsistencies in Sacred Scripture?
I want you to defend your assertion that the examples you gave were contradictions.
Start with why you think these 2 quotes is a contradiction:
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares." (Isaiah 2:4)
"Beat your plowshares into swords." (Joel 3:10)
In Genesis Chapter 1, the order of creation is plants, animals, man. In Genesis Chapter 2, the order is man, plants, animals. Is that not a contradiction?
In Joshua, the conquest of Canaan is an unstoppable blitzkrieg, accomplished before the death of Joshua. In Judges, the conquest is a generations long, painful process which is never completed. Is that not a contradiction?
In 1 Samuel, Saul first meets David in Chapter 16, when David is brought in to play the lyre for Saul. Yet in the very next chapter, David is introduced to Saul for the first time when David volunteers to fight Goliath. Is that not a contradiction?
In 2 Samuel Chapter 24, it says that the Lord incited David to take a census of Israel. But in 1 Chronicles Chapter 21, it says that Satan incited David to number Israel. Is that not a contradiction? Otherwise, you're saying that God and Satan are the same thing.
The two phrases in Isaiah and Joel are direct opposites of each other.
In Matthew, the disciples see the risen Christ for the first time in Galilee. In the other 3 Gospels, the first appearance is in Jerusalem.
There are literally hundreds of other such examples. But far from being "problems" for a believer, they are actually one of the great strengths of Scripture. The Bible would be far less believable did it not contradict itself. It is a glory that Scripture is "messy". Otherwise, it would seem to be a purely human artifact, rather than the work of the Holy Spirit. God never wanted humanity to be a collection of robots, with no free will and no diversity, and the quirkiness and ragged edges of the Bible is evidence of this. We are encouraged to be different, to hold differing opinions, to have points of view. Read Dante's Paradiso (Heaven). There, everyone sees God (the Beatific Vision). But no two persons see the same thing.
bmiller, are you a biblical literalist, or a fundamentalist? Neither is compatible with Catholicism.
In Genesis Chapter 1, the order of creation is plants, animals, man. In Genesis Chapter 2, the order is man, plants, animals. Is that not a contradiction?
No. To be a contradiction chapter 2 would have to have said that the order was not "plants, animals, man". Even if both passages were intended explictiy to literally describe the order of creation as the main point. They were not.
Likewise with the rest. You are confusing apparently different accounts with contradictions. This might befuddle a fundamentalist or someone who has never tried to find out what scholars have historically said about the matter. It's ironic that you're accusing me of being a wooden literal fundamentalist when you're interpreting the passages like one yourself.
Let's stick with the 2 quotes to retain focus.
The two phrases in Isaiah and Joel are direct opposites of each other.
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares." (Isaiah 2:4)
"Beat your plowshares into swords." (Joel 3:10)
Even plucking these 2 quotes out of their context the way you did they do not contradict each other.
Here is the full passage of Isaiah. He is speaking of a future time when wars will end. The first commentary I encountered thought it was self-explanatory.
And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.
The same commentary has this on Joel's passage:
Returning to the picture of nations gathering for war in the valley outside Jerusalem, the prophet ironically urges the enemy armies to make full preparation for the battle. He then calls upon God to send down his angelic armies (his ‘warriors’; v. 11b) to be ready to carry out his sentence of judgment upon the enemy (9-12).
God’s moment of decision comes and he announces his verdict on the nations. They are guilty, their wickedness is great, and therefore they must die. They are cut down like grapes from a vine; their blood flows like grapejuice overflowing a winepress. The valley of God’s judgment is filled with the bodies of dead soldiers (13-15).
So Isaiah is speaking about time when war among nations will end, while Joel is speaking about the final battle and the mocking of God's enemies. So here are just some of the many reasons they do not contradict each other:
1) They are not addressing about the same group of people.
2) They are not talking about the same instant of time
3) Joel is mocking the enemies of God, not telling us all nations are going to go to war with each other after God's judgement
Do you want to discuss another example in detail?
My point is that Sacred Scripture is not internally consistent on purpose, It was meant to be that way. Any attempt to define its inherent contradictions out of existence is one aspect of biblical literalism. Accepting (and appreciating) them is the very opposite of wooden literalism. It is a good thing that the Bible is "all over the map". Otherwise... well, I can't speak for you, but I certainly wouldn't believe it.
"you're accusing me of being a wooden literal fundamentalist"
I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you whether you were a literalist or a fundamentalist. If someone were to ask you whether you liked clam chowder, would that be an accusation, or simply a question?
Are you a nutter? I do like clam chowder. Is that what your brain is made of?
Just a rhetorical response to your "simply a question".
I don't agree with you that the Bible is intended to be inconsistent and that is not and has never been a teaching within orthodox Catholicism. You're welcome to your own views but they are heterodox. I wonder why you even claim to be a practicing Catholic.
Regardless. You have been using the word "contradiction"...THIS.
"I wonder why you even claim to be a practicing Catholic."
Because I am. I attend Mass regularly, and when I can't I have the Host brought to my home by a Eucharistic Minister. I study the Scriptures a minimum of 2 hours per day, and pray the Rosary each evening (I am never without one in my pocket, and there's always one in my car). I recite the Divine Mercy Chaplet daily at 3 PM, and regularly pray for the souls in Purgatory. I give at least one quarter of my monthly income away to others who need it more than me, and support the Church with my time and my resources. I have taught CCD at the grade school level, and run social events at my parish. I believe in and profess every word of the Creed, and wholeheartedly support the Pope. I've read every encyclical published in my lifetime. I occasionally (but admittedly not regularly) pray the Divine Office, and am fairly proficient in Latin. I am currently studying Old Church Slavonic (a real challenge, by the way) in order to read the Orthodox Fathers in the original language. My home is "decorated" with a Crucifix and a number of statues of Jesus and Mary. In my watercolor class, I am in the middle of painting the 14 Stations of the Cross. I have a Catholic bumper sticker on my car.
Just what more evidence do you need?
Just what more evidence do you need?
I meant by being a practicing Catholic, actually believing and proclaiming what the Church teaches rather than your own version. If you want to be a Protestant, please, please, please join the UMC like Victor or anywhere else. If there's a fee, I'll pay it.
Regarding your external devotition (including the bumper sticker), I think we should all keep this in mind:
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’
I was expecting that ridiculous answer. Jesus was referring to those who claim to be his followers, but who insist on supporting social and political systems (example: the American right wing and contemporary Republican Party) that are in direct opposition to His teachings. These are the "workers of lawlessness" He was warning against.
Well there you go.
We who vote differently have sinned against THE PARTY and the big DEM is going to send us to DEM hell.
You keep using the word Catholic. I don't think it means what you think it means.
And I don't think you know what ANYTHING means.
This is what Starhopper sounds like
4 minutes 32 seconds in.
(Two can play at that game.)
Next time use the "copy video URL at current time"
Then you don't have to tell us the time mark.
Penske.
I've often wondered where DEM hell is.
Chicago? San Fran? Baltimore?
Starhopper. Is it hot there?
Mar-a-Lago
Oh, by the way. I live in Baltimore, and it is a good candidate for the greatest city in the USA in which to live. If you haven't been here, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Sure, we have our problems, but show me someplace that doesn't.
As for the heat, the entire world is heating up. And it will get a lot worse, unless humanity as a whole does something about it ASAP.
I'm not worried. Hot air spewing boomers are on their way out.
Oh, by the way. I live in Baltimore, and it is a good candidate for the greatest city in the USA in which to live.
I'm glad to know that. If someone like you thinks Baltimore is DEM heaven, then I'll be in actual heaven if I get sent to what you think is DEM hell.
Baltimore is not a "DEM heaven" - it is a jewel in America's crown. It is a city of great beauty, wonderful neighborhoods, astonishing diversity, world class art galleries and museums, one of America's greatest universities (Johns Hopkins), free public transportation, the water taxis (not free), various festivals throughout the year, a lively arts and music scene, weekend farmers' markets, beautiful churches that are full of worshipers, America's oldest city park (Patterson Park), a long and storied history that can still be seen in its architecture, Fort McHenry and the national anthem, crab cakes, painted screens, tire planters, pink flamingoes on the lawn, John Waters, a city wide culture of walking down the streets in the evenings and socializing with your neighbors... and, of course, the Baltimore Orioles (who, no matter where they are in the standings, are forever the greatest team in baseball).
It may not be Heaven, but it's definitely in the neighborhood! Don't knock it until you've lived here and seen for yourself how wonderful it is.
Wife likes crab cakes.
Not sure she will be lured to DEM heaven to get them. Maybe GrubHub.
If there are no crab cakes in Heaven, then I don't want to go there! :)
I'll let you know when I get there. I doubt they make them in Hell's Kitchen.
Bmiller, what is it about the idea of Scripture being inconsistent with itself that bothers you? I see no problem here. In fact, I regard it as a strength.
Please don't answer with just "There are no inconsistencies." Tell me why you think there shouldn't be.
I realize that being incoherent appeals to you. It doesn't appeal to me.
I will give a more detailed explanation later to non-Catholics, but for Catholics, the inerrancy of Scripture has been an article of faith from the beginninig and been officially reiterated many times.
Pope Leo XIII in his 1893 encyclical, On the Study of Holy Scripture (Providentissimus deus)
It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred ... For all the books which the Church receives as Sacred and Canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not True. This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church... It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error.
Inconsistency does not imply error. Scripture can be (and is) both inerrant and inconsistent.
For an example, compare Matthew 3:13-15 with John 1:32-33. In Matthew, John recognizes Jesus for who He is prior to His baptism, while in John, the Baptist does not recognize Jesus until after He has been baptized. Both accounts are without any error whatsoever, yet the two are inconsistent.
One of the ways we judge if someone is telling the truth or not is if their story remains consistent. Witnesses who are cross examined in court and give inconsistent accounts are not believed by jurors. Police cross examine suspects to see if their story is consistent within itself or consistent with other facts. If not, they are considered to have lied.
Here are the 2 passages in context:
13Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. 14But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” 15But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he permitted Him. 16After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’
I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.
And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”
Looks to me like John recognized Jesus as the Messiah before baptism in the Jordan in both accounts.
We need to define what we mean by inconsistent.
Certainly various manuscripts have copyist errors or missing parts. Different translations may disagree with each other. But that does not mean the source material is in error.
I've heard a lot of claims of the Bible being untrue that don't even get into the ballpark of being reasonable.
"I don't see the Bible mention dinosaurs, so it can't be true". This was from a very intelligent technical person.
"People used to believe the sun circling the earth so you can't believe anything it says"
So basically the claims attack the historical account and especially anything regarding what "science" knows and that prominently means no miracles allowed.
Regarding the 2 claims above:
The Bible being false because it doesn't mention dinosaurs makes as much sense as saying a math book is false for the same reason. The Bible is not the history of everything that ever happened.
Similarly, the scientific concensus at the time was that the sun revolved around the earth. Then the heliocentric theory became the scientific consensus. Now relativity tells us that depending on how you look at it, both are right.
Part of the problem started out with rationalism attacking Christian beliefs regarding miracles. Not scientific was the claim. Then nominalism caused us to question reality itself. Then reinterpreting the Bible with those assumptions. Since miracles don't happen, then we can't assume anything is historically correct in there.
Mainline Protestant churches just couldn't stand up to it. They wanted to be part of the cool-kid jet set. So they're pretty much atheists now.
I have to ask Starhopper.
What book are you plucking these "inconsistencies" from? All anyone has to do is actually read the context to see its a false claim. Why are relying on a book that is "lying against Jesus"?
"One of the ways we judge if someone is telling the truth or not is if their story remains consistent. Witnesses who are cross examined in court and give inconsistent accounts are not believed by jurors. Police cross examine suspects to see if their story is consistent within itself or consistent with other facts. If not, they are considered to have lied."
As regards the police, the above is not true. The surest way to arouse suspicion when 2 persons are questioned is if their stories dovetail too neatly - a sure sign of collusion and "getting one's story straight", a.k.a., lying.
As to John not knowing Jesus until after His baptism, what part of "I myself did not know him" do you not understand? John's Gospel makes it clear that the Baptist did not recognize Christ until the Holy Spirit descended as a dove.
"What book are you plucking these "inconsistencies" from?"
The Bible. I can recognize an inconsistency when I see one. What I don't understand is why you are troubled by them, when they are supposed to be there.
It seems you did not understand what I wrote. If a person can't keep his story straight it's a sign he's telling a false story. You mentioned 2 people when I was talking about a single person. I agree that 2 different people describing an event are unlikely to describe it exactly the same.
Starhopper,
The context of John's Gospel has John the Baptist being asked by the Pharisees he explained that he is baptizing in the anticipation of the Messiah, but at that time did not know who the Messiah was. Only that he was present among them. Both Matthew and John have John the Baptist recognize Jesus was the One before the baptism, ratified after the baptism.
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is He of whom I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’
He sees Jesus and proclaims that this is the Messiah. It was at this point that Matthew adds the detail that John thinks Jesus should be baptizing him rather than the other way around.
31I myself did not know Him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that He might be revealed to Israel.
He reiterates his mission to identify the Messiah although he didn't know who it was at the start. Then the baptism occurs.
32Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and resting on Him. 33I myself did not know Him, but the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is He who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
Now we have the additional detail revealed. The Holy Spirit resting on Jesus was fortold to John as a sign.
I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”
what part of "I myself did not know him" do you not understand?
He did not know him until he did, which is when he approached John prior to being baptized. What does the phrase "Lamb of God" mean to you? Matthew and John confirm each other.
I can recognize an inconsistency when I see one.
That's the problem with private interpretation. You see things that aren't there.
Especially while drinking Gin.
After reading that bit of incoherency, I think I need another one. You're embarrassing yourself with your pretzel twisting attempts to square the circle. And it's not "private interpretation". It's simply reading the text for what it is, as it was intended to be read.
The Bible is neither a science text nor a history book, so it is impossible for it to err in either of those fields. Just as I cannot be criticized for failing to swim the English Channel when I was climbing Mount Washington.
Starhopper,
If you think what I wrote was incoherent then you need to tell me why.
Maybe you think:
“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is He of whom I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’
is just another way of saying:
Hey Cuz. Whatup?
Is that what you think is going on at Mass when the priest displays the Eucharist to the congregation?
I admit I'm not a Bible expert and memorized 5 commentaries like you. But here is one I just looked up on the internet:
Verse 29. The next day — The day after that on which the Jews had been with John, John 1:19.
Behold the Lamb of God, c.] This was said in allusion to what was spoken Isaiah 53:7. Jesus was the true Lamb or Sacrifice required and appointed by God, of which those offered daily in the tabernacle and temple, Exodus 29:38-39, and especially the paschal lamb, were only the types and representatives. See Exodus 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 5:7. The continual morning and evening sacrifice of a lamb, under the Jewish law, was intended to point out the continual efficacy of the blood of atonement: for even at the throne of God, Jesus Christ is ever represented as a lamb newly slain, Revelation 5:6. But John, pointing to Christ, calls him emphatically, the Lamb of God:-all the lambs which had been hitherto offered had been furnished by men: this was provided by GOD, as the only sufficient and available sacrifice for the sin of the world. In three essential respects, this lamb differed from those by which it was represented.
Alternately someone like you could say that there is no evidence in Matthew that JTB knew who Jesus was even after the baptism. That passage doesn't explicitly state that JTB made any testimony at all to that affect.
You'll note that when John the Baptist says "Behold the Lamb of God!" that it's the day after Christ's baptism. He follows that by relating that the day before, when Jesus came to him to be baptized, John says "I myself did not know him." But then he sees the Spirit descend on Jesus and only then, after the fact, does he realize who he has just baptized.
But in Matthew, John says "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Obviously, John recognizes who Jesus is before He was baptized.
Can you point me to textual evidence that Jesus was baptized the day before?
But in Matthew, John says "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Obviously, John recognizes who Jesus is before He was baptized.
If Jesus was baptized the day before as you say, then John's Gospel is silent on what JTB said to Christ before his baptism. How can you conclude then that JTB did not say "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" as Matthew indicates he did?
"Can you point me to textual evidence that Jesus was baptized the day before?"
John 1:35. It's as plain as day.
Your 2nd question. John 1:31. "I myself did not know him." Followed by John 1:33. "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit." So John didn't learn whom he had just baptized until the Holy Spirit descended, which was after the baptism.
Best conversation this site had had in some time. Keep it up!
I would like to see some others weigh in on the issue, rather than it just be a one on one debate. Come on, people. Who else out there has an opinion on this subject?
John 1:27+
…27He is the One who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.” 28All this happened at Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!…
John 1:33+
33I myself did not know Him, but the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is He who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.” 35The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus walking by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”
If John 1:35 is the day after Jesus was baptized that supports my proposition. JTB proclaimed him the Lamb of God when Jesus approached him the day before that.
Your 2nd question. John 1:31. "I myself did not know him." Followed by John 1:33. "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit." So John didn't learn whom he had just baptized until the Holy Spirit descended, which was after the baptism.
The question is when did he find out. You're assuming it was not until after the baptism but John does not say that explicitly and Matthew tells us differently if the phrase you point out in Matthew indicates that JTB knew before the baptism.
From New Advent:
The Fathers of the Church answer very appropriately that this was the occasion preordained by the Father when Jesus should be manifested to the world as the Son of God; then again, by submitting to it, Jesus sanctioned the baptism of John. "But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?" (Matthew 3:14). These words, implying, as they do, that John knew Jesus, are in seeming conflict with a later declaration of John recorded in the Fourth Gospel: "I knew him not" (John 1:33). Most interpreters take it that the Precursor had some intimation of Jesus being the Messias: they assign this as the reason why John at first refused to baptize him; but the heavenly manifestation had, a few moments later, changed this intimation into perfect knowledge. "And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice. Then he suffered him. And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him. . .And, behold, a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:15-17).
So after reading a bit more, it looks like John's Gospel does not describe the events of the baptism at all other than his testimony of the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus.
Where I was contending that the first time in that Gospel that JTB was proclaiming Jesus the Lamb of God....that was most likely after the baptism event. I don't see an indication of how long before. His preaching before that indicates that the revelation had already occurred and he knew Jesus was the One while talking to the Pharisees. When Jesus showed up again, he pointed him out to them.
These words, implying, as they do, that John knew Jesus, are in seeming conflict with a later declaration of John recorded in the Fourth Gospel: "I knew him not" (John 1:33).
What I take issue with is the assertion that a "seeming conflict" is an "inconsistency" or a "contradiction". If a seeming difficulty can be reasonably resolved it is neither inconsistent nor a contradiction.
If a person gives truly inconsistent or contradictory testimony, then he is either in error or lying. No one who believes the Bible to be inerrant should use those terms.
That would be inconsistent or contradictory.
The inconsistencies in the various accounts of Christ's baptism are merely one example of literally thousands of such in Scripture as a whole. If one were to commit himself to pretzel twisting logic in an attempt to deny their obvious presence, then that is all a person would do. Far more important than such wooden literalness is the meaning of Scripture, which is superior to the actual narratives.
If one gets caught up with reconciling the various voices in the Bible to the extent that their individuality and diversity are squelched, then the nuances of message are lost. Acknowledging the authority of the Magisterium (which we all must do) is not a warrant to surrender one's reasoning and senses. We have a divinely ordered responsibility to think, and thereby add our own small contribution to the ever growing knowledge of the Truth. John tells us to "test the spirits" and Paul urges us to "renew our minds". (I'm not sure what George and Ringo have to say on the matter.) And remember what that great philosopher, General Patton, said: "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
Scripture, by its inherent messiness, encourages us to think. Literalism, fundamentalism, and ideology, by their rigidity, are enemies of thought.
In addition, an insistence on pretending that Scripture does not contradict itself (which is a good thing) is Evangelical poison. A person outside the faith would be turned off by someone telling him that he must believe what his own reasoning tells him cannot be so. Meanwhile, rejoicing in the Bible's diversity can be a major "selling point", and would silence the skeptics.
You are in error. You are inconsistent. And you contradict yourself.
Let's all celebrate.
"A foolish [a.k.a., stubborn] consistency Is The hobgoblin Of little minds" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)” (Walt Whitman)
Guess God has a little mind according to RWE.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
RWE also probably also never passed a math test in his life.
Emerson was far, far wiser than a person who could simply "pass a math test".
Guess he looks wise to people bad at math and logic.
Then they get to believe there are no right answers and consequently no ultimate Truth.
Of course I have nothing personal against RWE. Just people misapply his quotes.
The Bible is true but riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. The inability to make sense of the Bible is it's strength. I consistently hold to this belief and don't you dare contradict me, because contradictions are the truth....or something. Anyway, Ralph Whitman and away!
His brother Slim is my favorite of all time.
Hey, Victor! This would be a great topic for this website. Is Aristotelian Logic the only game in town, or are there equally valid, alternate methods of reasoning?
bmiller,
This discussion got me to thinking. The writers of (most of) the Old Testament were totally unfamiliar with Greek philosophy, and those who were probably didn't care too much for it. And that would include Aristotle. So... is it legitimate to subject the OT to a system of logic that would have been utterly alien to its writers? Good (or at least interesting) question.
Part of such a discussion might include the now medically discredited idea of right and left brained persons - a left brain person gravitating toward logic, order, routine, and consistency, whilst a right brained person is more intuitive, creative, spontaneous, and puts greater stock in the emotions.
Keeping in mind that contemporary medicine regards these alleged differences as largely bunk, it's still interesting. There do seem to be two very much opposed ways of thinking out there, and the labels "right brain, left brain" are nevertheless useful.
Starhopper,
No one has to be Aristotle to see when a position is incoherent and self defeating. By the very fact that you're arguing with me shows that you don't believe contradictions are true or that inconsistencies are strengths (at least things inconsistent with your beliefs). Not to mention that you are squelching my diversity and individuality. The nuance of my voice is being lost. How can you be so closed-minded?
I can think of two works of 20th Century fiction, in which a major premise was the verity of non-Aristotelian logic:
Shadows of Ecstasy, by Charles Williams (the "3rd Inkling")
The World of Null A, by A.E. Van Vogt
Both novels were explorations of the idea that sometimes A really did equal not-A.
Oh, and by the way, the Catholic Church embraces that idea, in the contemplative ways of the via positiva and the via negitiva. ("This also is Thou" and "This also is not Thou") Both are considered equally valid, although apparently contradictory.
I think you've made up your mind that whatever thought comes into your head is "your" truth. No need to explain yourself to anyone else. Solipsism.
But an old man angry form of Solipsism. A get off my lawn form of Solipsism.
Me? Angry? au contraire, I have the serenity of the Buddha.
Well, not all angry old men yell all the time. But all Solipsists think other people's opinions don't really matter or exist for that matter.
Therefore no reason to engage with their counterpoints
"You may call yourself what you please, so long as you do your duty. The Navy speaks in symbols, and you may suit what meaning you choose to the words." (The closing lines to Chapter Four of Patrick O'brian's Master and Commander.)
"Is it shorter to Buffalo? Or by bus?" (Some homeless guy. Probably Starhopper)
I've never been homeless, although I did sleep in a bombed out warehouse in Kuwait for two weeks. Does that count?
Hard to tell the crazies apart when they start talking.
All of the books of the OT were written before Aristotle and Plato were born.
When the Alexander the Great took over the Holy Land elements of Greek philosophy were adopted in Jewish thought. You can see that in Paul's writings as well as some Jewish philosophers.
Neo-Platonic philosophy was widely employed by the Early Church Fathers both east and west to defend and propagate the faith. "The One" of Neo-Platonic philosophy derived purely through rational investigation is almost the same as "I Am" in the OT. God's revelation adding the detail of the personhood of God and His relationship to us humans more fully. It's a false dichotomy suppose rational thought is not compatible with revelation. They support each other in the understanding of the other.
"It's a false dichotomy suppose rational thought is not compatible with revelation."
Nobody said they were incompatible. But they are not synonymous. Revelation embraces reason while superseding it. Revelation includes "processes" which are either a-rational or super-rational, or both.
It's kind of like "Vermont is a state, but not all states are Vermont." In the same way, "Aristotelian logic is a valid mode of thinking, but not all valid thinking is Aristotelian.
You're confused.
Rational thought is not "Aristotelian logic". If Aristotle was wrong, and he was in places, then he was wrong. Later philosophers noticed those occasions and corrections were made. Much like Aristotle noticed problems with some of Plato's proposals and offered better solutions.
Revelation is not "a-rational or super-rational", it's just information that we don't normally have means to acquire by our ordinary methods. Let me put it this way. A revelatory fact is neither rational nor irrational. It's a category mistake to say revelation is or is not "a-rational or super-rational". How we reason with the facts we have can be rational or irrational.
"How we reason with the facts we have can be rational or irrational."
Our reasoning can also be a-rational or super-rational.
Maybe some people are just not very good at reasoning or don't like what it leads to. So it gives them comfort to attack rational thought in order to hold onto their differently-abled ideas.
What I mean is that these people have to sell that they have some superior thought process to rational thought in order to attack rational thought in the first place (whether they actually believe it or not). So if you buy what they're selling then you too will be superior. Crazy, but you've been sold that crazy is superior. I'm thinking some people like it because they can invent any excuse for evil this way and others just like to go along with the cool-kids.
When you listen to Mahler's 2nd Symphony, are you using "reason" to grasp its truth, or are you employing super-rational thought processes?
Sometimes questions are just too badly formed to answer. This is one of them.
Does Mahler's 2nd Symphony taste like fruit loops?
That's what it sounds like.
Post a Comment