Didn't Jesus also tell his followers that some of them would not die before they saw the son of man coming (accompanied by his angels) in his kingdom?
I've occasionally wondered if there is someone out there, actually. Certainly there are legends of the occasional immortal. But I think He could have meant something we're misinterpreting, of course.
Okay, I think I understand where you’re coming from, and I would agree if the second coming was something Christians had extrapolated or somehow made up, because yeah, in that case to be believable you’d expect it to be in keeping with the rest of the universe. But that’s not why Christians believe it, is it? We believe it because Christ told us so. And that’s a completely different situation. In THIS case the author of the play has already explicitly told us that he intends to interrupt the play by walking on stage at a time we can’t predict. Now that we’ve been told, it’s not senseless to expect it—in fact we’d be silly to be caught completely by surprise, since after all, we were warned! It’s about the only surety we do have is his warning that the play will not reach the end of Act V without interruption. So I’m going to make my plans with a double awareness—that things will be interrupted, but that I don’t and can’t know when.
Didn't Jesus also tell his followers that some of them would not die before they saw the son of man coming (accompanied by his angels) in his kingdom? Did Jesus himself not get that wrong? If he did (which seems pretty clear), how can parousia be counted on in any aspect from an author who misreads his own play so glaringly?
That was immediately before the transfiguration. Which fulfilled it.
Okay, I thought it might be this! The big question is what does it mean, to see the Son of Man coming in power/in his kingdom. As I understand it, this is fulfilled either at the cross, the resurrection, or at Pentecost--or if you consider this complex of events as a single whole, well, there you go. The only passage which might seem to militate against that reading is this one in Matthew 16:
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
The problem here is that verse 27 and verse 28 lie side by side, and the natural reading would be to take 28 as a reference to the end of the world, just as 27 is. This would be impossible to get over if we didn't already know Jesus has a habit of mixing up near future and super distant future in the same discourse (see Matthew 24 through 25 for an example, though to be fair the disciples' question basically invited that sort of mix up: "“Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) So he answers both parts of their question, but doesn't mark the divisions between the parts clearly enough that someone standing pre-fall of Jerusalem would likely understand that there are centuries in between the two events. Why doesn't he? Who knows? Maybe he didn't see future history that way, from his unique perspective; maybe he knew it wasn't necessary for them to have the distinction clear, as long as they knew the signs that would tell them to get the hell out of Jerusalem. But in any case, he's following in the tracks of a long line of prophets who also telescoped history, and he does it in Matthew 24-25, and all of that makes it sensible to suggest he's also doing it in Matthew 16.
So yeah, I'd say it was fulfilled by the events of Christ's death/resurrection/ascension/pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Okay, I think I understand where you’re coming from, and I would agree if the second coming was something Christians had extrapolated or somehow made up, because yeah, in that case to be believable you’d expect it to be in keeping with the rest of the universe. But that’s not why Christians believe it, is it? We believe it because Christ told us so. And that’s a completely different situation. In THIS case the author of the play has already explicitly told us that he intends to interrupt the play by walking on stage at a time we can’t predict. Now that we’ve been told, it’s not senseless to expect it—in fact we’d be silly to be caught completely by surprise, since after all, we were warned! It’s about the only surety we do have is his warning that the play will not reach the end of Act V without interruption. So I’m going to make my plans with a double awareness—that things will be interrupted, but that I don’t and can’t know when.
Didn't Jesus also tell his followers that some of them would not die before they saw the son of man coming (accompanied by his angels) in his kingdom? Did Jesus himself not get that wrong? If he did (which seems pretty clear), how can parousia be counted on in any aspect from an author who misreads his own play so glaringly?
That was immediately before the transfiguration. Which fulfilled it.
I've seen it that way too, but as @Lamb Chopped says and as we've both observed in discussions about biblical prophecy, @MPaul these things can be multi-layered.
I've heard it preached that 'this generation' refers to the Christian Church as a whole rather than the immediate first generation of believers. I can't say whether that is an example of an good hermeneutic or otherwise.
The first Christians were certainly expecting an imminent Parousia.
I suppose the best we can say is the Kingdom of God is here among us but awaits its final fulfilment.
So yeah, I'd say it was fulfilled by the events of Christ's death/resurrection/ascension/pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
I am afraid that I don't buy that. First of all, it has to be presumed that this means that the Kingdom of God HAS come in all its power and fulness. I am not sure that this is a position that can be properly defended. So this is it? There is no more?
Secondly, it is clear from the rest of the New Testament that the early Christians WERE anticipating something more.
Thirdly, adopting this position makes the words of Jesus rather baffling. "There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." But actually EVERYONE standing there would see the Kingdom of God - excepting Judas. So why would Jesus say something that gave the impression that some of those hearing his words WOULD have already died. And even if you interpret these words of Jesus as meaning "all of you bar Judas" (quite a stretch in my opinion), you still have to then assume that Jesus knew not only that Judas was going to betray him but that he would also have committed suicide. And once again, we are in the place where Jesus HAS to know so much about future events that he pretty much ceases to be fully human and is simply the Divine assuming a human shell.
It seems to me that you can only take the position that this was fulfilled by the death/resurrection/ascension of Christ and Pentecost if you have already presumed that Jesus cannot be wrong about anything: "Jesus must be right - therefore we must find a way to make his all sayings true, without a single error."
Something that has always intrigued me about Jesus is how he developed his theology. Was it innate==pre existing--or was it something he learned at the feet of his parents.and local faith communities. I think it is in John where we are told he stayed behind in Jerusalem to interact with the temple scholars of his day, and they were amazed at his knowledge. He is said to be around 12 at the time. (Of course, pre teens and teenagers know it all now).
So yeah, I'd say it was fulfilled by the events of Christ's death/resurrection/ascension/pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
I am afraid that I don't buy that. First of all, it has to be presumed that this means that the Kingdom of God HAS come in all its power and fulness. I am not sure that this is a position that can be properly defended. So this is it? There is no more?
I can't find the "in its fulness" anywhere, could you supply me the citation? I can only find "in power." God knows, if we can't take Pentecost and its results as power, well... yikes.
Secondly, it is clear from the rest of the New Testament that the early Christians WERE anticipating something more.
Yes, of course they were. But nobody said the early Christians were infallible. If anything, this belief points up their fallibility--because they knew, they had been told, that the Gospel would have to be preached worldwide, and though they didn't know about the Americas etc. at that time, they certainly knew this was a helluva big job, and could have been a bit more cautious in their personal forecasting... Still, it's a bit rich for me with all my faults to criticize them, so I'll shut up now.
Thirdly, adopting this position makes the words of Jesus rather baffling. "There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." But actually EVERYONE standing there would see the Kingdom of God - excepting Judas. So why would Jesus say something that gave the impression that some of those hearing his words WOULD have already died. And even if you interpret these words of Jesus as meaning "all of you bar Judas" (quite a stretch in my opinion), you still have to then assume that Jesus knew not only that Judas was going to betray him but that he would also have committed suicide.
Whoa! Aren't you forgetting the death rates of the pre-modern world? Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people, not just the Twelve. This is how the paragraph immediately before the prediction starts in Mark: "And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, ..." (Mark 8:34). The very same paragraph AS the prediction in Luke has this: "And he said to all, ..." (Luke 8:28). The only way you could possibly confine this to the Twelve is by looking only at Matthew, "24 Then Jesus told his disciples,..." and then ALSO assuming that "his disciples" refers only to the Twelve--when it's clear from the whole New Testament that "disciples" are anyone who follows Christ, and even "apostles" (which is a narrower term) can be applied to well over a hundred people.
No. He's clearly talking to a large group of people, and given the conditions of the pre-modern world, some of those folks are bound to be dead by the time his Passion starts. Disease, childbirth and accident guarantee it.
So I'm going to let the whole Judas thing go. It isn't necessary to argue about that one at all.
And once again, we are in the place where Jesus HAS to know so much about future events that he pretty much ceases to be fully human and is simply the Divine assuming a human shell.
It seems to me that you can only take the position that this was fulfilled by the death/resurrection/ascension of Christ and Pentecost if you have already presumed that Jesus cannot be wrong about anything: "Jesus must be right - therefore we must find a way to make his all sayings true, without a single error."
There are some pretty big assumptions here. I know from my own experience that it's entirely possible to come as a messenger bearing a particular message which you know very, very well and are equipped to discuss in detail. And yet, if someone questions you on a subject out of that bailiwick, you can't do it, and if you're sensible, you'll refuse the challenge.
Here Jesus is that messenger, sent from the Father, and he knows what he's supposed to communicate. He says so in John 14:10, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works." Look also at John 7:16-18, "So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood."
Jesus clearly sees himself as having a particular message to communicate, and he's absolutely set on getting it across, and he is fully competent to do that. The coming of the Kingdom is central to that message, so of course he can speak to it. Jesus declines meddling in other areas which he has NOT been sent to deal with: in Luke 12:14, he declines to get involved in an inheritance question (But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”) and in Matthew 24:36, also Mark 13:32, he explicitly says that he doesn't know the date of his own second coming: “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." This does not make Jesus unusual, except in the sense that any human being who recognizes his own limits and keeps within them is unusual. And you can't tell me you've never met one of those...
As for your second paragraph, that anyone who thinks his prophecy was fulfilled by the Passion/Resurrection/Pentecost events must be starting with the preconceived idea that Jesus is always right:
Certainly that could be the case. But it could also be the case (as it was for me) that I came to know Jesus without any preconceived ideas about him, having been raised in almost complete isolation from even basic information about Christianity. I formed my sense of his trustworthiness the way you evaluate any person's character: by listening, watching, etc. and seeing how they come off to you. (In my case, of course, this is mediated by text--but we do it all the time with regard to historical characters.) I reached my conclusions the same way you might reach a conclusion about a new neighbor, or a boss, or a person you're planning to do business with. And having reached those conclusions (that Jesus is trustworthy. That he knows what he's talking about. That he knows his own limits. That he is a sensible human being ), I was then open to the more fully worked out theology found in the Epistles, which I never read till I had gone through all four Gospels.
So for me, the cause-and-effect arrow runs the other way. I got to know him as (unusually!) trustworthy and sensible, I therefore became comfortable trusting him, I saw the multitude of other words and actions which suggest very strongly that we're dealing with someone who is more than an ordinary man, I came to agree with the Gospel writers that yes, this man is also God--and only at some point after that (probably years after that, I wasn't doing systematic theology!) did I come to the derivative conclusions such as this one--that Jesus must be right even when I don't understand him.
So yeah, I'd say it was fulfilled by the events of Christ's death/resurrection/ascension/pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
I also can't shake the feeling of reverse engineering on this. Plus, there were no accompanying angels at all of the events listed. There were supposed to be angels(!) and evidence of the glory of God the Father. Those things seem to have been missed. I mean, when Moses came down from the mountain, his face was radiant & people were afraid to approach him, and that was the glory of God once removed. Whither the glowing faces? Not a word about angels by anyone. Not a word about the glory of God the Father by anyone. Take any one of the events, or all three as one (novel idea, that). I dunno, and then we're left with the idea that what we have is it -- the Kingdom -- nearly 2000 years old. This is it?!
So yeah, I'd say it was fulfilled by the events of Christ's death/resurrection/ascension/pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
I also can't shake the feeling of reverse engineering on this. Plus, there were no accompanying angels at all of the events listed. There were supposed to be angels(!) and evidence of the glory of God the Father. Those things seem to have been missed. I mean, when Moses came down from the mountain, his face was radiant & people were afraid to approach him, and that was the glory of God once removed. Whither the glowing faces? Not a word about angels by anyone. Not a word about the glory of God the Father by anyone. Take any one of the events, or all three as one (novel idea, that). I dunno, and then we're left with the idea that what we have is it -- the Kingdom -- nearly 2000 years old. This is it?!
Did you miss the angels at the resurrection?
Not that they were the important part...
And your definition of glory seems a tad ... limited? I mean, this is the man who warned James and John off applying to sit "at your right hand and your life, in your glory" because those positions were reserved already--for the two thieves crucified with him! If Jesus considers the cross his glory, it might be worth reconsidering our own definitions.
Seriously, you can suspect reverse engineering if you like. But if you think that there's a hollow spot in the faith of those who hold this when you tap us, you might look at what we're betting on it. I've put my life on it--39 years of work among refugees. Plenty of people have done much more. Reverse engineering stuff to shore up weak spaces in the faith would be the kind of thing you'd expect to see among those for whom it didn't matter much.
Interesting. As an aside, I'd not come across the idea of the two thieves being those Christ had in mind in the exchange with James and John about who would get the best seats in 'glory'. I know Luther had a particular thing about the glory of God revealed in the Cross. Is this a particularly Lutheran emphasis?
I'd always assumed it was a reference to heaven.
I've even heard on priest suggest that the place was reserved for Mary as the Theotokos.
Interesting. As an aside, I'd not come across the idea of the two thieves being those Christ had in mind in the exchange with James and John about who would get the best seats in 'glory'. I know Luther had a particular thing about the glory of God revealed in the Cross. Is this a particularly Lutheran emphasis?
I don't think so necessarily? It's something I've heard before in non-Lutheran circles, and from a textual perspective it follows on from Jesus describing his crucifixion, and Jesus seems to refer back to it in Mark 10:38 (“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”) in response to the request.
As an aside, I'd not come across the idea of the two thieves being those Christ had in mind in the exchange with James and John about who would get the best seats in 'glory'.
I have said it before, and will say it again: The first chapter of Genesis is am explanation of why there are seven days in the Jewish week, ending on the Sabbath.
And the explanation of seven is sun, moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn. In that order, dominant throughout Eurasia from late antiquity, the connection back through the Babylonian seven day week to the Sumerian sa-bat (mid rest), four to eight thousand years ago, is clear.
I thought my tone here was open, non-confrontational, to @Nick Tamen and the generality.
I also thought that I was clearly making a point that I'd never encountered before. On SoF or elsewhere else.
That there is no way to reconcile the progressively revealed God of the Bible, culminating in God in (prophesied) Christ (who returns yet like Paul Atreides in Dune) revealing the Father and the Spirit, to God as Love. Because of the barbarism of the atonement, from blaming us to including the consequences of not accepting it.
It's a false prospectus, a huge adventure in missing the point of human suffering.
Wait, you’d never heard that before? I’m not being mean—unless I’m misunderstanding you drastically, I thought that was a fairly well-known position.
You couldn't be mean to save your life @ChastMastr.
I need to get out more obviously:
Many loving Christians create the God of the Bible in their own image. Even the OT g/God(s). And especially the NT God in Christ. I'm saying it cannot be done, and any attempt to do so is not being true, authentic, exercising good will, to the text.
So yeah, I'd say it was fulfilled by the events of Christ's death/resurrection/ascension/pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
I also can't shake the feeling of reverse engineering on this. Plus, there were no accompanying angels at all of the events listed. There were supposed to be angels(!) and evidence of the glory of God the Father. Those things seem to have been missed. I mean, when Moses came down from the mountain, his face was radiant & people were afraid to approach him, and that was the glory of God once removed. Whither the glowing faces? Not a word about angels by anyone. Not a word about the glory of God the Father by anyone. Take any one of the events, or all three as one (novel idea, that). I dunno, and then we're left with the idea that what we have is it -- the Kingdom -- nearly 2000 years old. This is it?!
Did you miss the angels at the resurrection?
Not that they were the important part...
And your definition of glory seems a tad ... limited? I mean, this is the man who warned James and John off applying to sit "at your right hand and your life, in your glory" because those positions were reserved already--for the two thieves crucified with him! If Jesus considers the cross his glory, it might be worth reconsidering our own definitions.
Seriously, you can suspect reverse engineering if you like. But if you think that there's a hollow spot in the faith of those who hold this when you tap us, you might look at what we're betting on it. I've put my life on it--39 years of work among refugees. Plenty of people have done much more. Reverse engineering stuff to shore up weak spaces in the faith would be the kind of thing you'd expect to see among those for whom it didn't matter much.
I remember an angel or two just after the alleged resurrection, but it depends on which gospel you read. And what I said was that I didn’t remember angels being a part of all three of those events. We’re there angels at Pentecost? I think if any scenario was going to match description given, it would’ve been the announcement of his birth to the shepherds outside of Bethlehem, but that is outside of the timescale, even if it is the most colorful reverse-engineering case we have in scripture.
Seriously, the tap dances around getting the story communicated effectively this far removed are impressive. The angels were supposed to come with the glory of god, and I’m missing that. I’m also not familiar with the story of the two thieves sitting on either hand of Jesus in heaven. To my memory, only one of the thieves seemed to qualify for that honor.
I’m also not familiar with the story of the two thieves sitting on either hand of Jesus in heaven. To my memory, only one of the thieves seemed to qualify for that honor.
It seems to me beyond argument that in Mark 10 or Matthew 20, Jesus takes James and John's request that they sit at his right and left hand when he comes into his glory (in Mark; "kingdom" in Matthew, but not "heaven" in either) as talking about the crucifixion; it seems to me to be a typical piece of the Gospel writers'/Jesus's (delete according to your best judgement) irony.
The fact that the phrasing of one on the right and one on the left is reused of the two thieves is only the most blatant indication.
I thought Jesus refered to his coming crucifixion as 'baptism' rather than 'glory'.
Both.
I guess you are referring in particular to John 12:23 'The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.'
I had assumed this referred to his whole work at the culmination of His earthly ministry ie death, resurrection and ascension?
Well, it is pretty much a single event, if you're looking at the meaning of it. But it certainly doesn't leave out the crucifixion!
But I think this was what was in the back of my mind:
“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (John 17:1-3)
and also
27 Then after [Judas] had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. 30 So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.
31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’ " (John 13:27-34)
While the ordinary meaning of "glorify" cannot and should not be ruled out here, what I'm seeing is the strong, strong connection Jesus makes between glory and his immediate suffering--because both of these quotes come just hours before his death. One is tied up with the actual betrayal, as close as close can be. Jesus isn't skipping over the suffering and death part to look ahead to the resurrection; he seems focused on what is closest, what is coming in the next minutes (betrayal) and hours (suffering and crucifixion, and then death itself). He does this sort of thing a lot, as people have noted upthread.
And then, of course, there's that whole theme in his teaching about the last being first, and whoever would be greatest must be the servant of all, and how the Son of Man came to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. It seems clear to me that Jesus sees the cross as his glory, and this is just one more example of his theology of reversal.
I thought Jesus refered to his coming crucifixion as 'baptism' rather than 'glory'.
I thought I'd pick this up again, if you don't mind. Here's the Mark 10:35-40 passage:
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.”
And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?”
And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
And they said to him, “We are able.”
And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
Jesus is naturally suspicious of their first ask (which makes me laugh!) and with good reason; "You do not know what you are asking" STRONGLY suggests that they wouldn't ask for it, if they knew what it meant. Now if sitting at his side in glory refers to heaven and his position as the Son of God and all that, there's no reason at all why they shouldn't ask for this, except maybe modesty. In fact, that's exactly what they think they are asking for, a position of public honor and power, though they are probably thinking of something earthly. Nevertheless, it's still something totally desirable and sensible to ask for.
But Jesus says, "You don't know what you're asking for" and immediately brings up the cup (of suffering, see Gethsemane in Luke 22:42) and the baptism into death (Luke 12:50; See also Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12) that he will undergo. Are they ready for that?
Clearly they haven't a clue what he's talking about, so they say yes. And Jesus tells them, speaking prophetically, that they will indeed suffer as he will, and they do: James is the first of the apostles to die, being martyred by Herod (Acts 12:2) and John is the very last, having lived to see all the rest killed, or so early church tradition tells us. And I'm not sure John had the better part of that deal, seriously. Imagine the grief.
But they still don't get what they think they want, and a good thing too--because that is even worse. That's the death of the two thieves, crucified one on the left and one on the right of Jesus, in his paradoxical glory--his death that gives life, his shame that is the highest honor. And indeed that spot IS prepared for them (by the Father, says Matthew 20:23), because Old Testament prophecy has the Messiah included among criminals:
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:12
When I was at school in the late 1960's, we didn't know that the visible universe contains an estimated 2 trillion galaxies, and that it's only a tiny part of the universe. Yet we already knew it was pretty vast. Contemplating the vastness of space, made me think, with David, "what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?"(Psalm 8:4). Along with the realisation that we are more risen apes than fallen angels, it totally destroyed the simple faith of my childhood.
The Fall can be seen in various ways. When a pride of lions tear a zebra apart for food, they don't worry that a zebra is a fairly defenceless creature who has no chance. When they're forced to hunt buffalo, the challenges are much greater! As far of we're aware, animals have no knowledge of right and wrong. At some point in human evolution, we metaphorically ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and everything became a moral issue. Or it could be said that the human mind fell into the duality of separation between ourselves and God, and between ourselves and our fellow creatures.
The idea that the Fall is cosmic in scope and pre dates the big bang is something quite plausible, but the earth is a very insignificant place in the cosmic scheme of things. The idea that a cosmic redemption can be wrought on this speck of dust by an execution has always been heavy work for me.
There are actually two Falls, if you want to put it that way--the Fall of the angels, which takes place God-only-knows-when, but after their creation and before humanity gets going; and the secondary and much smaller Fall of humanity, which is dependent on the Fall of the angels (because the tempter is one of the fallen angels, and motivated by a desire to strike back at God through his beloved new creation). Me, I think the angelic Fall is to blame for the cosmic mess, and not us. Our second, human Fall is a lot more local in its effects--we have no reason to think it applies off-planet, for example--because human beings are themselves localized to one planet, and the damage they create is limited to what they were originally intended to take care of.
Now Christ chooses (within the Trinity) to deal with both Falls and their consequences at once; he makes one incarnation, death-and-resurrection handle all of it. What he does on earth benefits everybody and everything--not just us, the half-betrayed but-not-innocent victims of the first batch of evildoers. When we get rescued, the whole cosmos gets rescued.
We don't know the details of what happens to fallen angels--is there hope for them, as there is for us? We aren't told, probably because God usually doesn't give us information only to satisfy curiosity--though me, I wouldn't be surprised. Still, that's their business, and God seems to keep privacy within species, if you know what I mean. We aren't told a great deal about the animals either. We get told what we need to know for us.
@Lamb Chopped I also have issues with the Fall of the angels. Angels are messengers, without free will. Even Satan, in the Book of Job, which you say you are reading, is a member of the heavenly court who can only act within the parameters set by God. The role Satan plays in the story of Jesus' temptations in the wilderness is exactly his role.
There is an old rabbinic story about an old king who wanted to pass the kingdom to his son, but he wants to know that his son is morally upright. So he hires a temptress to seduce the son. He passes the test and is given the kingdom. So the seductress was acting on the authority of the king. That's the role Satan plays in Job and in the gospels. Satan is probably a metaphor for the evil urge we all have within us. This absurd idea of Satan as a being of power, trying to drag humanity into hell has had so many baneful consequences in history.
Whoa! What makes you think angels--or any messengers--don't have free will? As for acting within parameters set by God, that's true of everybody, us included.
We could argue about Satan's role in the book of Job, but if I were looking for the most dependable information on him and his ... actions? ... I'd prefer the Gospels. Job is a great book, and certainly inspired, but how can I put it? It carries the marks of being a particular genre--a story within a story, and the outer one is somewhat artificial? scripted? conforms to certain literary expectations? to the point that I wouldn't rely on it for my primary data about Satan. It's not quite like relying on the medieval miracle plays, but it's close.
If you think Satan is a metaphor in the Gospels, what do you make of the way Jesus speaks of him? Sounds like a person to me. In fact, it sounds like a bunch of persons (demons) with perhaps one main agitator.
@Lamb Chopped I make no attempt to portray myself as an orthodox Christian, so I don't buy into the eternal dualism of Christianity. I see Satan, and God in some respects, in a more Hebraic way. In Judaism, Satan is an agent of God whose function is to tempt humans into sinning so he can accuse them in the heavenly court. In the intertestamental period, some groups, influenced by the very dualistic Zoroastrian religion, began to see Satan as a malevolent entity in dualistic opposition to God, but that isn't how he started out.
The Jewish sages of the Middle Ages regarded him as a metaphor for the selfish evil urge which all of us have, and is forever trying to pull us away from what we know is right. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is indeed weak.
There are actually two Falls, if you want to put it that way--the Fall of the angels, which takes place God-only-knows-when, but after their creation and before humanity gets going; and the secondary and much smaller Fall of humanity, which is dependent on the Fall of the angels (because the tempter is one of the fallen angels, and motivated by a desire to strike back at God through his beloved new creation).
I think there's something going on that's obviously different in parts of the OT from the NT, but I'm not sure that there's much evidence of a singular 'Fall of the angels' in that sense, but this may be getting off topic
The man was nuts. You can't justify the ways of God to man, because nobody who doubts him is going to give a hoot, and God himself doesn't need defenders. Yikes.
I think it is likely that Milton was 'on the spectrum' as we'd say these days but if he was 'nuts' he was pretty bright with it. I'd like to see some of us here compose line after line of perfect iambic pentameter overnight and then dictate it word perfectly to his long suffering daughter first thing in the morning.
Of course we can't achieve what Milton claimed he was setting out to achieve but surely we have to admire his chutzpah?
Besides, he was also trying to elevate the English language to epic status alongside classical Latin and Greek.
I'd say he was rather more successful in that endeavour than he was in the first.
But leave the poor guy alone.
Sure, he was more Binitarian than Trinitarian and his Puritan vision was thwarted within his own lifetime and those nasty bishops were restored. But you've got to give him credit for having a go.
Milton was a unitarian.
The modernists, at the start of the twentieth century, following TS Eliot, thought that Milton was a bad influence on English poetry due to his adherence to high style at the expense of idiomatic English.
Rowan Williams, who is a poetic follower of Eliot and Auden, wrote that there are two ways writers can try to deal with the inadequacy of human language to grasp God: you can use irony as George Herbert, where you draw attention to how language goes wrong, or mystery as Henry Vaughan, where you draw attention to how language falls short; Milton just goes inadequacy? what inadequacy?
Satan as the urge to evil: Victor Gollancz, in 'A New Year of Grace' (a useful resource book) quotes a rabbbinic saying: 'The evil impulse has no greater triumph that to make a man forget that he is the son of a king.'
Milton was certainly idiosyncratic in his theology. I'd suggest he was more 'binitarian' than 'unitarian'.
I'd go for Arian; he believed that the Son was created by God rather than co-eternal.
As for his poetry ... it can certainly be over-elaborate and 'Latinate' but it has its moments.
He is an exceptional poet; his influence wouldn't have been quite so problematic if he were less able. Although Doctor Johnson did say of Paradise Lost that nobody ever put it down and wished it were longer.
Sorry to quibble but some have suggested that Milton wasn't quite Arian. The Christ of Paradise Lost is an odd figure in many ways but there does seem to be more 'there' there than there is in his depiction of the Holy Spirit.
Whatever the case, he wasn't fully Trinitarian that's for sure. Something like Arian and a Half perhaps? 😉
Although whether someone is Unitarian or Trinitarian or whatever else doesn't in and of itself stop them behaving like an arse towards their family or anyone else for that matter, of course.
@Cameron Well Housman certainly did it for me. When I had blown my mind on the vastness of the cosmos, and our insignificance as intelligent apes. When I had been consigned to eternal damnation by the Elders of an Evangelical church, I discovered ale in my late teens. It works for people for whom it hurts to think!!! My love affair with it lasted for 20 years. Eventually I realised I had to start thinking again. It wasn't any easier though!!!
Comments
I've occasionally wondered if there is someone out there, actually. Certainly there are legends of the occasional immortal. But I think He could have meant something we're misinterpreting, of course.
Okay, I thought it might be this! The big question is what does it mean, to see the Son of Man coming in power/in his kingdom. As I understand it, this is fulfilled either at the cross, the resurrection, or at Pentecost--or if you consider this complex of events as a single whole, well, there you go. The only passage which might seem to militate against that reading is this one in Matthew 16:
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
The problem here is that verse 27 and verse 28 lie side by side, and the natural reading would be to take 28 as a reference to the end of the world, just as 27 is. This would be impossible to get over if we didn't already know Jesus has a habit of mixing up near future and super distant future in the same discourse (see Matthew 24 through 25 for an example, though to be fair the disciples' question basically invited that sort of mix up: "“Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) So he answers both parts of their question, but doesn't mark the divisions between the parts clearly enough that someone standing pre-fall of Jerusalem would likely understand that there are centuries in between the two events. Why doesn't he? Who knows? Maybe he didn't see future history that way, from his unique perspective; maybe he knew it wasn't necessary for them to have the distinction clear, as long as they knew the signs that would tell them to get the hell out of Jerusalem. But in any case, he's following in the tracks of a long line of prophets who also telescoped history, and he does it in Matthew 24-25, and all of that makes it sensible to suggest he's also doing it in Matthew 16.
So yeah, I'd say it was fulfilled by the events of Christ's death/resurrection/ascension/pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
No, I hadn’t—thank you!
The transfiguration describes a glorified Christ witnessed by Peter James and John..QED.
I've heard it preached that 'this generation' refers to the Christian Church as a whole rather than the immediate first generation of believers. I can't say whether that is an example of an good hermeneutic or otherwise.
The first Christians were certainly expecting an imminent Parousia.
I suppose the best we can say is the Kingdom of God is here among us but awaits its final fulfilment.
Secondly, it is clear from the rest of the New Testament that the early Christians WERE anticipating something more.
Thirdly, adopting this position makes the words of Jesus rather baffling. "There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." But actually EVERYONE standing there would see the Kingdom of God - excepting Judas. So why would Jesus say something that gave the impression that some of those hearing his words WOULD have already died. And even if you interpret these words of Jesus as meaning "all of you bar Judas" (quite a stretch in my opinion), you still have to then assume that Jesus knew not only that Judas was going to betray him but that he would also have committed suicide. And once again, we are in the place where Jesus HAS to know so much about future events that he pretty much ceases to be fully human and is simply the Divine assuming a human shell.
It seems to me that you can only take the position that this was fulfilled by the death/resurrection/ascension of Christ and Pentecost if you have already presumed that Jesus cannot be wrong about anything: "Jesus must be right - therefore we must find a way to make his all sayings true, without a single error."
I can't find the "in its fulness" anywhere, could you supply me the citation? I can only find "in power." God knows, if we can't take Pentecost and its results as power, well... yikes.
Yes, of course they were. But nobody said the early Christians were infallible. If anything, this belief points up their fallibility--because they knew, they had been told, that the Gospel would have to be preached worldwide, and though they didn't know about the Americas etc. at that time, they certainly knew this was a helluva big job, and could have been a bit more cautious in their personal forecasting... Still, it's a bit rich for me with all my faults to criticize them, so I'll shut up now.
Whoa! Aren't you forgetting the death rates of the pre-modern world? Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people, not just the Twelve. This is how the paragraph immediately before the prediction starts in Mark: "And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, ..." (Mark 8:34). The very same paragraph AS the prediction in Luke has this: "And he said to all, ..." (Luke 8:28). The only way you could possibly confine this to the Twelve is by looking only at Matthew, "24 Then Jesus told his disciples,..." and then ALSO assuming that "his disciples" refers only to the Twelve--when it's clear from the whole New Testament that "disciples" are anyone who follows Christ, and even "apostles" (which is a narrower term) can be applied to well over a hundred people.
No. He's clearly talking to a large group of people, and given the conditions of the pre-modern world, some of those folks are bound to be dead by the time his Passion starts. Disease, childbirth and accident guarantee it.
So I'm going to let the whole Judas thing go. It isn't necessary to argue about that one at all.
There are some pretty big assumptions here. I know from my own experience that it's entirely possible to come as a messenger bearing a particular message which you know very, very well and are equipped to discuss in detail. And yet, if someone questions you on a subject out of that bailiwick, you can't do it, and if you're sensible, you'll refuse the challenge.
Here Jesus is that messenger, sent from the Father, and he knows what he's supposed to communicate. He says so in John 14:10, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works." Look also at John 7:16-18, "So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood."
Jesus clearly sees himself as having a particular message to communicate, and he's absolutely set on getting it across, and he is fully competent to do that. The coming of the Kingdom is central to that message, so of course he can speak to it. Jesus declines meddling in other areas which he has NOT been sent to deal with: in Luke 12:14, he declines to get involved in an inheritance question (But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”) and in Matthew 24:36, also Mark 13:32, he explicitly says that he doesn't know the date of his own second coming: “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." This does not make Jesus unusual, except in the sense that any human being who recognizes his own limits and keeps within them is unusual. And you can't tell me you've never met one of those...
As for your second paragraph, that anyone who thinks his prophecy was fulfilled by the Passion/Resurrection/Pentecost events must be starting with the preconceived idea that Jesus is always right:
Certainly that could be the case. But it could also be the case (as it was for me) that I came to know Jesus without any preconceived ideas about him, having been raised in almost complete isolation from even basic information about Christianity. I formed my sense of his trustworthiness the way you evaluate any person's character: by listening, watching, etc. and seeing how they come off to you. (In my case, of course, this is mediated by text--but we do it all the time with regard to historical characters.) I reached my conclusions the same way you might reach a conclusion about a new neighbor, or a boss, or a person you're planning to do business with. And having reached those conclusions (that Jesus is trustworthy. That he knows what he's talking about. That he knows his own limits. That he is a sensible human being
So for me, the cause-and-effect arrow runs the other way. I got to know him as (unusually!) trustworthy and sensible, I therefore became comfortable trusting him, I saw the multitude of other words and actions which suggest very strongly that we're dealing with someone who is more than an ordinary man, I came to agree with the Gospel writers that yes, this man is also God--and only at some point after that (probably years after that, I wasn't doing systematic theology!) did I come to the derivative conclusions such as this one--that Jesus must be right even when I don't understand him.
I also can't shake the feeling of reverse engineering on this. Plus, there were no accompanying angels at all of the events listed. There were supposed to be angels(!) and evidence of the glory of God the Father. Those things seem to have been missed. I mean, when Moses came down from the mountain, his face was radiant & people were afraid to approach him, and that was the glory of God once removed. Whither the glowing faces? Not a word about angels by anyone. Not a word about the glory of God the Father by anyone. Take any one of the events, or all three as one (novel idea, that). I dunno, and then we're left with the idea that what we have is it -- the Kingdom -- nearly 2000 years old. This is it?!
Did you miss the angels at the resurrection?
Not that they were the important part...
And your definition of glory seems a tad ... limited? I mean, this is the man who warned James and John off applying to sit "at your right hand and your life, in your glory" because those positions were reserved already--for the two thieves crucified with him! If Jesus considers the cross his glory, it might be worth reconsidering our own definitions.
Seriously, you can suspect reverse engineering if you like. But if you think that there's a hollow spot in the faith of those who hold this when you tap us, you might look at what we're betting on it. I've put my life on it--39 years of work among refugees. Plenty of people have done much more. Reverse engineering stuff to shore up weak spaces in the faith would be the kind of thing you'd expect to see among those for whom it didn't matter much.
I'd always assumed it was a reference to heaven.
I've even heard on priest suggest that the place was reserved for Mary as the Theotokos.
But I'm going off topic.
I don't think so necessarily? It's something I've heard before in non-Lutheran circles, and from a textual perspective it follows on from Jesus describing his crucifixion, and Jesus seems to refer back to it in Mark 10:38 (“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”) in response to the request.
Aye @MPaul. One must have good will to the text. Steelman it.
Miscellaneous tangent:
And the explanation of seven is sun, moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn. In that order, dominant throughout Eurasia from late antiquity, the connection back through the Babylonian seven day week to the Sumerian sa-bat (mid rest), four to eight thousand years ago, is clear.
Back to textual integrity:
You couldn't be mean to save your life @ChastMastr.
I need to get out more obviously:
Many loving Christians create the God of the Bible in their own image. Even the OT g/God(s). And especially the NT God in Christ. I'm saying it cannot be done, and any attempt to do so is not being true, authentic, exercising good will, to the text.
Is that well known?
I remember an angel or two just after the alleged resurrection, but it depends on which gospel you read. And what I said was that I didn’t remember angels being a part of all three of those events. We’re there angels at Pentecost? I think if any scenario was going to match description given, it would’ve been the announcement of his birth to the shepherds outside of Bethlehem, but that is outside of the timescale, even if it is the most colorful reverse-engineering case we have in scripture.
Seriously, the tap dances around getting the story communicated effectively this far removed are impressive. The angels were supposed to come with the glory of god, and I’m missing that. I’m also not familiar with the story of the two thieves sitting on either hand of Jesus in heaven. To my memory, only one of the thieves seemed to qualify for that honor.
The fact that the phrasing of one on the right and one on the left is reused of the two thieves is only the most blatant indication.
Both.
I guess you are referring in particular to John 12:23 'The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.'
I had assumed this referred to his whole work at the culmination of His earthly ministry ie death, resurrection and ascension?
But I think this was what was in the back of my mind:
While the ordinary meaning of "glorify" cannot and should not be ruled out here, what I'm seeing is the strong, strong connection Jesus makes between glory and his immediate suffering--because both of these quotes come just hours before his death. One is tied up with the actual betrayal, as close as close can be. Jesus isn't skipping over the suffering and death part to look ahead to the resurrection; he seems focused on what is closest, what is coming in the next minutes (betrayal) and hours (suffering and crucifixion, and then death itself). He does this sort of thing a lot, as people have noted upthread.
And then, of course, there's that whole theme in his teaching about the last being first, and whoever would be greatest must be the servant of all, and how the Son of Man came to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. It seems clear to me that Jesus sees the cross as his glory, and this is just one more example of his theology of reversal.
I thought I'd pick this up again, if you don't mind. Here's the Mark 10:35-40 passage:
Jesus is naturally suspicious of their first ask (which makes me laugh!) and with good reason; "You do not know what you are asking" STRONGLY suggests that they wouldn't ask for it, if they knew what it meant. Now if sitting at his side in glory refers to heaven and his position as the Son of God and all that, there's no reason at all why they shouldn't ask for this, except maybe modesty. In fact, that's exactly what they think they are asking for, a position of public honor and power, though they are probably thinking of something earthly. Nevertheless, it's still something totally desirable and sensible to ask for.
But Jesus says, "You don't know what you're asking for" and immediately brings up the cup (of suffering, see Gethsemane in Luke 22:42) and the baptism into death (Luke 12:50; See also Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12) that he will undergo. Are they ready for that?
Clearly they haven't a clue what he's talking about, so they say yes. And Jesus tells them, speaking prophetically, that they will indeed suffer as he will, and they do: James is the first of the apostles to die, being martyred by Herod (Acts 12:2) and John is the very last, having lived to see all the rest killed, or so early church tradition tells us. And I'm not sure John had the better part of that deal, seriously. Imagine the grief.
But they still don't get what they think they want, and a good thing too--because that is even worse. That's the death of the two thieves, crucified one on the left and one on the right of Jesus, in his paradoxical glory--his death that gives life, his shame that is the highest honor. And indeed that spot IS prepared for them (by the Father, says Matthew 20:23), because Old Testament prophecy has the Messiah included among criminals:
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:12
The Fall can be seen in various ways. When a pride of lions tear a zebra apart for food, they don't worry that a zebra is a fairly defenceless creature who has no chance. When they're forced to hunt buffalo, the challenges are much greater! As far of we're aware, animals have no knowledge of right and wrong. At some point in human evolution, we metaphorically ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and everything became a moral issue. Or it could be said that the human mind fell into the duality of separation between ourselves and God, and between ourselves and our fellow creatures.
The idea that the Fall is cosmic in scope and pre dates the big bang is something quite plausible, but the earth is a very insignificant place in the cosmic scheme of things. The idea that a cosmic redemption can be wrought on this speck of dust by an execution has always been heavy work for me.
Now Christ chooses (within the Trinity) to deal with both Falls and their consequences at once; he makes one incarnation, death-and-resurrection handle all of it. What he does on earth benefits everybody and everything--not just us, the half-betrayed but-not-innocent victims of the first batch of evildoers. When we get rescued, the whole cosmos gets rescued.
We don't know the details of what happens to fallen angels--is there hope for them, as there is for us? We aren't told, probably because God usually doesn't give us information only to satisfy curiosity--though me, I wouldn't be surprised. Still, that's their business, and God seems to keep privacy within species, if you know what I mean. We aren't told a great deal about the animals either. We get told what we need to know for us.
There is an old rabbinic story about an old king who wanted to pass the kingdom to his son, but he wants to know that his son is morally upright. So he hires a temptress to seduce the son. He passes the test and is given the kingdom. So the seductress was acting on the authority of the king. That's the role Satan plays in Job and in the gospels. Satan is probably a metaphor for the evil urge we all have within us. This absurd idea of Satan as a being of power, trying to drag humanity into hell has had so many baneful consequences in history.
We could argue about Satan's role in the book of Job, but if I were looking for the most dependable information on him and his ... actions? ... I'd prefer the Gospels. Job is a great book, and certainly inspired, but how can I put it? It carries the marks of being a particular genre--a story within a story, and the outer one is somewhat artificial? scripted? conforms to certain literary expectations? to the point that I wouldn't rely on it for my primary data about Satan. It's not quite like relying on the medieval miracle plays, but it's close.
If you think Satan is a metaphor in the Gospels, what do you make of the way Jesus speaks of him? Sounds like a person to me. In fact, it sounds like a bunch of persons (demons) with perhaps one main agitator.
The Jewish sages of the Middle Ages regarded him as a metaphor for the selfish evil urge which all of us have, and is forever trying to pull us away from what we know is right. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is indeed weak.
I think there's something going on that's obviously different in parts of the OT from the NT, but I'm not sure that there's much evidence of a singular 'Fall of the angels' in that sense, but this may be getting off topic
If for no other reason that it sounds great and Milton's Satan invents cannon for the battle in Heaven that precedes the Fall of the rebel angels.
Good old Milton. Anyone trying to 'justify the ways of God to man' certainly isn't lacking in ambition.
Of course we can't achieve what Milton claimed he was setting out to achieve but surely we have to admire his chutzpah?
Besides, he was also trying to elevate the English language to epic status alongside classical Latin and Greek.
I'd say he was rather more successful in that endeavour than he was in the first.
But leave the poor guy alone.
Sure, he was more Binitarian than Trinitarian and his Puritan vision was thwarted within his own lifetime and those nasty bishops were restored. But you've got to give him credit for having a go.
As heroic failures go it was pretty impressive.
Yes, the man is a magnificent poet, but man, there are times when I'd like to smack him. (His poor daughters...)
The modernists, at the start of the twentieth century, following TS Eliot, thought that Milton was a bad influence on English poetry due to his adherence to high style at the expense of idiomatic English.
Rowan Williams, who is a poetic follower of Eliot and Auden, wrote that there are two ways writers can try to deal with the inadequacy of human language to grasp God: you can use irony as George Herbert, where you draw attention to how language goes wrong, or mystery as Henry Vaughan, where you draw attention to how language falls short; Milton just goes inadequacy? what inadequacy?
[…]
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.
Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think
[…]
From A Shropshire Lad LXII
In not unrelated news, I’m stopping by a friend’s house this afternoon to pick up some whiskey she says will help with the insomnia…
Milton was certainly idiosyncratic in his theology. I'd suggest he was more 'binitarian' than 'unitarian'.
Two out of three is better than one out of three but still not close enough ... 😉
As for his poetry ... it can certainly be over-elaborate and 'Latinate' but it has its moments.
He is an exceptional poet; his influence wouldn't have been quite so problematic if he were less able. Although Doctor Johnson did say of Paradise Lost that nobody ever put it down and wished it were longer.
Sorry to quibble but some have suggested that Milton wasn't quite Arian. The Christ of Paradise Lost is an odd figure in many ways but there does seem to be more 'there' there than there is in his depiction of the Holy Spirit.
Whatever the case, he wasn't fully Trinitarian that's for sure. Something like Arian and a Half perhaps? 😉
Arian and Three Quarters?
Any advance on Arian and a Bit?
Going once, going twice ...
😉
Although whether someone is Unitarian or Trinitarian or whatever else doesn't in and of itself stop them behaving like an arse towards their family or anyone else for that matter, of course.
But I'm happy with both/and ... 😉
Mind you, it's still the Orthodox Lent so there's yet some abstinence to come.
He wrote so often about young soldiers laying down their life for the country that this parody was written (I don’t remember who penned it, sadly):
What! Still alive at twenty-two,
A stout, upstanding man like you?
Anyway, I digress. Housman has nothing to add to the present debate, since he was in the atheist camp.
/end tangent
(and @pablito1954 - I agree that ale is not a permanent solution, it wasn’t for me either…)