From: harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Humanism (personal experience)
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:53:02 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

In article <1992Dec19.001101.47679@watson.ibm.com|> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|>In article <62896@mimsy.umd.edu|>, harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood) writes:
|>||> In article <1go5l7INNrr4@hpsdl102.sdd.hp.com|> pauld@sdd.hp.com (Paul Dillinger) writes:
|>||> |>In article  <1992Dec07.231528.32107@watson.ibm.com|>,
|>||> |>             strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|>||> |>|>
|>||> |>|> Of course there is no such passage.  Even if you believed
|>||> |>|> there were such a passage, it wouldn't yield the Messianic
|>||> |>|> position, which is, as far as I can tell, 100% identical
|>||> |>|> to the Christian position --- namely that,
|>||> |>|> (1) t'shuvah is not required
|>||> |>|> (2) belief in the God-hood of the human being who died is required
|>||> |>|>
|>||> |>|> Do you agree that (1) and (2) are the Messianic position?
|>||> |>|> And that they are also the Christian position?
|>||> \\\\\\\\\
|>||> 
|>||> (1) The very first teaching of John the Baptist, forerunner of Jesus
|>||> (in an interesting medieval metaphor, called the morning star which
|>||> precedes the dawn of Christ, called the rising sun of righteousness
|>||> in the Gospel) - John preached "repentance"  - that was his message.
|>||> And - if you are wont to read the Gospels - that was the first message
|>||> preached by Jesus - "repentance" (metanoia means "to turn around" from
|>||> life of sin to life with God) and, moreover, that with his coming,
|>||> "the kingdom of God (heaven)" was become among them.
|>||> 
|>||> So you are very mistaken about (1) - since you haven't bothered to read
|>||> the Gospels, even cursorily (except what little you learned about it
|>||> at Harvard and on TV or family disputes ;-)
|>||> 
|>
|>I am assuming that David Harwood's ad hominem is directed at me,
|>and not at Paul Dillinger.
|>
|>Don't assume what I have or haven't read.  Don't underestimate
|>the *vast* exposure to Christianity that every individual
|>in the US, and especially every educated individual in the US
|>is inevitably exposed to.
|>
|>I am the first to admit I'm not a Bible scholar.  But you can't get
|>through a Harvard religion course without touching on Christianity,
|>and you can't pass the course without reading the New Testament.
|>In the case of the course I took, you couldn't pass the course
|>without reading "Kerygma and Myth" :-( :-(  
\\\\\\\
My remark was perhaps sarcastic - not ad hominem, strictly speaking.
I realize that you very often do not know what you are talking about - eg
in the dispute at hand (re NT teaching about repentance/metanoia= turning
from sin to God) - simply because you are full of contentions (perhaps
because of your family's religious conflicts) but are too lazy to
even reread the NT (which you once studied in college).

The fact is that you know almost nothing about the NT because you
haven't read it carefully, but you have contentions. This is not
an ad hominem argument: you are not ignorant *because* of your
education or family or social background; you are deliberately ignorant
because you do not bother to investigate what is true, when you are
content to live with prejudices. You are ignorant *in spite of*
your education and social experience. (I said you learned little
from it.)

Let me be somewhat apologetic - perhaps I should not have been
sarcastic. But in this case (of your previous contention - which you
have omitted, and which others have contradicted with ample citations)
I was annoyed with your querulous pretensions to knowledge of
Christianity.

[...]
|>In addition, Harvard was originally founded as a divinity
|>school for Christians.
|>The 60's, when I went, was the first decade when Jews
|>weren't officially discriminated against.  There are
|>*lots* of Christians there.  There's a Harvard Christian
|>Fellowship.  Billy Graham, a popular evangelist of
|>the 60's and 70's, visited there.  My roommates were
|>Christians.  People come knocking at your door asking
|>you if you have been "born again".
|>
|>It's possible to graduate from Harvard knowing nothing
|>about Taoism, Buddhism, or even Judaism.  It's impossible
|>to graduate from Harvard knowing nothing about Christianity,
|>or never having read the NT, or never learning what
|>evangelical Christians claim to believe.  You'd have
|>to live in a bubble.
\\\\\\\\
I realize you must know something about Christianity, as a
matter of acquanitance, as well as from academic study. Certainly,
you are acquainted with Christian culture with its prejudices. (On the
other hand, I know that contemporary Jewish culture also inculcates
very similar prejudices - I know this for myself, and I have Jewish
friends (not MJ's or religious) who admit the same - even about
their very well-educated families - as well-educated as you.
(Almost all my friends and colleagues are very well educated -
at Harvard or some other excellent university; but note - they
do not know very much about the NT, or its history or ideology,
despite their undergraduate courses in Christianity and other religions;
neither have they carefully read the Bible (most of them).)

As for what you say about evangelical Christians - yes, they can
be obnoxious. But let me clarify that - the NT does explicitly call
for Christians to be 'evangelical' - to preach the Gospel to all the
world. It is one thing to tell somebody about the Gospel - it is
another to harrass or persecute others, who do not want to be bothered.

But you cannot have faith in the Gospel message (about and of Christ)
without hearing it. You cannot have faith in something you are ignorant
of, or about which you have prejudices based on your background.

I learned about the Gospel as an adult, by reading it carefully for
myself. No one intervened, except for God, when I had a desire to
repent and faith - even though, at the time, I did not believe even
in the existence of God. And if there is no God, then Jesus cannot
be the son of God, and both Christianity and Judaism are essentially
delusions, however humanly well-intentioned are their intellectual and
moral traditions.

So I say - let everyone hear the Gospel -as it is written in the Bible
- not as some philosopher of religion teaches (who are not qualified
for Biblical scholarship, most often). That is enough - God may then
change our hearts and minds, if we sincerely (unconsciously) would
desire Christ, since only God (not even ourselves) knows our hearts.

Ps. I have nothing against Billy Graham. He has changed somewhat over
the many years, but I respect very much his dedication to preaching
the Gospel all over the world. His message is pretty much the essential
message of the Gospel - to turn from sin to Christ,

I suppose you have listened his evangelical TV programs many times ;-)

|>||> (2) I don't think Christians are *required* to believe that Jesus is
|>||> God, or divine - in the sense that their salvation or judgment depends
|>||> on the belief. The last judgment is not about gnosis - but about whether
|>||> we faithfully live as Jesus did, caring for those who suffer because
|>||> of the neglect of the world. I'm sure you must have read about
|>||> "the last Judgment" of the Gospel.
|>||> 
|>
|>Perhaps your sect of Christianity doesn't think Christians
|>are required to believe Jesus is God.  And Laura has also
|>posted, that everyone has his/her own free will to believe
|>or not to believe.  (But why is she so eager to get me
|>to believe, then???  Perhaps I'm already saved!)
|>
\\\\\\\
Maybe so. Has God inpired you to be loving and truthful to others?
To be "saved" means, in the New Testament, to be saved from sin
(destructive intention and acts) - which is called a "slavery to
sin." Paul says what is deficient about the Torah - is that it
tells us what is sin and its harmful consequence for us - but like
any other moral code - while it intellectually informs us, it cannot
by itself give us the intention and desire to follow it. Even the
same is true of the Gospel - it is one thing to hear it - but it
takes God's grace (one of the attributes of God revealed to Moses:
"I am - gracious...") to transform our hearts and intentions so that
we may live like Christ (who was full of God's love and truth.)

|>But many evangelical Christians preach exactly the message
|>"Believe and be saved".  Kenneth Hendrickson on this newsgroup
|>has posted that someone's misunderstanding of the trinity
|>is putting his soul in jeopardy.
\\\\\\\
A lot more than that can put your soul in jeopardy! How about
greed, jealousy, hatred, lies, adulterous intentions, ...
On the other hand, belief in the Trinity isn't going to save anyone.
Even Satan believes in God.

|>Lutherans preach that our works are worthless (and repentance
|>is included in works), and only the grace of God, and our
|>willingness to believe in and accept this gift saves us.
|>
|>Though you quote John the Baptist preaching repentance,
|>it is not mentioned as a prerequisite of salvation.  But
|>others on this very newsgroup have quoted John the Disciple
|>who wrote this:
|>
|>"For God so loved the world that He gave his only son, that
|>whoever believes in him would not perish but have
|>eternal life"  (This is from John 3:16.)
\\\\\\\
I'm not here to defend what you misrepresent; neither am I here
to reform Lutherans. There are some difference among Christian
churches. Some are very important, morally especially. But I suggest
we stay with the what is written in the Gospels. That is what is
most important - Christianity is most faithfully represented there
(besides in the lives of those who have charitable missions, in
my experience - not in offcial pronouncements.)

Yes- John 3.16 has been called an epitome of the Gospel. But
if you read commentaries on the NT concept of "faith" and "belief"
you will discover what is obvous

I am not Lutheran - but while there are surely differences between
churches over whether we are saved "by grace" or "by works" -
you misunderstand what these mean (by rereading carefully all contexts
and considering Jewish tradition and Biblical Hebrew equivalents).

Let us by clear: you must repent (want to turn from sin to God);
but only God can "save" us - this is entirely *His* power to
save our lives (by transforming us to live as Jesus does). (He gave
us life - only he can transform our lives - only He can resurrect
us from the dead - to live with Him.)

When you are "saved" by God, you * will * live as Jesus does, and
intend and do what he does. (Paul says, "I live - but not I - for
it is Christ who lives in me.") These are "the works" of
righteousness, which God intends. They are therefore the consequence
of God's act of salvation.

We repent and desire Christ - to live as He does - and God is gracious 
and powerful to transform us to live as He does. (Most people do not
desire Christ - to live as he does - they prefer another Messiah and
life.)

The contention of the NT is not that works are unimportant - but that
only God can transform us to do what He intends. If we could know, intend,
and do what He wanted, by ourselves, be would not be sinners (destructive)
who need to be saved.

Are there people who do what God intends, who do not profess to be
Christians? All I can say is - in my experience - the only people I know
who I am sure who are "saved" are those who live as Jesus does, as
portrayed in the Gospel. (They come from many backgrounds, but their
light shines forth to us all. They are not like most of my acquaintances
of colleagues at all, in how they live. For example, I have long-time
Christian friends, who founded a ranch in Texas for retarded adults (who
are among the most outcast of society, from whom most people would turn
away); others have unselfishly worked for decades against militarism
of economy and politics, against social injustice (American Indians,
Palestinians, black S. Africans), employment for the handicapped and
homeless - only because of their faith in Christ.

I am not sure about you (or myself sometimes). To tell you the truth,
only God knows our hearts, and can judge among us. But I sometimes
think that not very many "Christians" are "saved" either; but then,
other times, I see their kindness, which I know is motivated by their
love of God and for others, and I recall that God is merciful, and not
only just, more than we are.

|>
|>The above quote is very often repeated by evangelists,
|>This is interpreted by many as implying that belief is
|>a sufficient condition for salvation.  Other passages
|>about the fate of unbelievers are quoted to imply that
|>belief is also a necessary condition for salvation.
|>
|>If you're telling me that the Greek word for "believe"
|>has a different meaning, then the Bible translators
|>should have written "that whoever follows in his ways
|>would not perish".  The Bible translators and the
|>Billy Grahams and the folks actually going around
|>preaching the message aren't preaching your Greek
|>translation but my paraphrase.  You may be right
|>about what the actual words mean in Greek, but you
|>are wrong about what the actual people teach.
\\\\\\\\
I'm not telling you anything that you cannot read in a good
commentary, which includes historical linguistics and is 
informed by Jewish traditon. The NT was written (primarily)
by faithful Jews. The Greek word for "believes" has a sense
which is different from ours, especially as used in this
Jewish Biblical tradition. "Truth" (God is called "God of truth"
(amen) in the Old Testament.) - has a different sense too,
which is related to Biblical Hebrew usage. It does not refer
to intellectual truth value of propositions - but to "reality"
of what is expressed (empirical truth, not abstract truth).
So the Gospel of John, when it declares that Christ was full
of "grace and truth" refers to two (Hebrew) Jewish traditional
attributes of God - not conveyed by the Gentile Greek meanings.
But "believes" means "believes in actuality" (ie without our
notion of hypocrisy in which one may believe something without
consequence, or which is contrary to how we live).

It is explained many, many, many, many times in the Gospels-
if you would bother to reread it - that we must "follow" Jesus;
and moreover, it says about those who call him "Lord" but do not
live as he does, "You call me 'Lord' - but why you do you not do what
I say? I do not know you."


|>
|>Whereas Jews encourage/require their children to learn
|>Hebrew, Christians don't have a mandate to teach
|>their children ancient Greek.  So the English
|>translations are a more appropriate standard
|>of what Christian traditions in English-speaking
|>countries are than the original.
\\\\\\\\
Oh, come off it. Most Jews do cherish their heritage, whether they
are religious or not. But it isn't true, as you suggest, that most
Jews (and I known very many) in this country (and others) "encourage/
require" their children to learn much of anything about Biblical
Hebrew. (Surely they learn some verses and prayers and liturgical
responses.) Besides, the fact that one learns some Hebrew (or any
other language) and reads from a few traditional books - does not
at all mean that one understands what the authors intend. You can
ostensibly read a great novel or play or poem in English and yet
have very little comprehension of what its means, especially as
the author intended.

That is why we have commentaries and translations - they are written
by people who have studied the original writings and relevant subjects for
years. After all, what are the oral traditions and rabbinical writings?
If you read Hebrew, that does not mean you understand much of what you
are reading. (And of course, you realize that some of Maimonides own
controversial writings were originally written in Arabic, only later
translated in Hebrew. How many relevant languages are there to be learned?

The linguistic situation of New Testament is far more complex. As I have
already observed above, Hebrew idioms and religious concepts lie in back
of many NT greek expressions. So obviously, you should learn Biblical
Hebrew and ancient Jewish traditon in order to correctly understand the
New Testament. Studying NT Greek is not enough. Moreover, the NT refers
to the LXX Greek (as we have been discussing for weeks), which is a
pre-Christian Jewish translation. And there are many other concepts,
similar to those of the NT literature to be found at Qumran, and in
ancient Syriac and Aramaic Targums. And what about very ancient Ugartic
which lies in back of some obscure OT Hebrew. Then there are the early
bishops, and Greek and Latin church fathers. And so on for centuries.
(Pilate posted a sign above Jesus, as he was crucified - it was in
three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin - all the important languages
- "King of the Jews" - and it says, some among the people complained
about this, that Jesus said he was their king, but was not. But Pilate
said, "What I have written - is written." Anyway, Jesus is proclaimed
in many languages, even from the beginning.) A Biblical scholar of
Christian tradition has to study far more than Biblical Hebrew - PhD
students often have to study 5 ancient languages (incl. Biblical Hebrew)
and their literatures and historical linguistics, as well at least 2
modern European languages besides English with significant  scholarly
literatures.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic