The event you refer to is commonly known as “The walkout” and in fact featured a very dramatic week-publicized parade of people, well, walking out, but not before they stopped to plant crosses in the quad. With all the media invited. Leaving the seminary to rush recruit emergency professors to support the students whose work was interrupted.
Calling it “The conservatives firing the faculty” is deeply misleading.
In truth it was a very complicated event, and I’d argue that dragging it up here does no good to anybody. A proper presentation would take pages, and what food would it do anybody here?
I have friends on both sides. A huge number of LCMS Lutherans even now have family on both sides. Best to leave it alone, in my opinion, unless someone wants to go do research with original documents etc, as I’ve done. It was nobody’s shining hour—rather a time of deep grief.
And the formation of the ELCA came considerably after the walkout, so no, it didn’t cause the ALC and LCA to join it.
My guess would be that Lutheran synods based in the Mid-West would be more conservative than those on the eastern seaboard or over on the west coast.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which would be considered the more liberal Lutheran denomination in the US, is based in Chicago. I’m not at all sure your assumptions are well-grounded.
I did say it was a 'guess' and I'm more than happy to accept that it wasn't well-grounded.
We do tend to have a rather binary idea over here that the east and west coasts of the US tend to be more liberal both politically and theologically than the Mid-West and the Southern States.
We are aware that this isn't a general pattern. Trump's a New Yorker, for instance, not from Texas or Arkansas. And there chill be variations within individual states too, of course.
Returning to the Trinity. I couldn't cope with the idea of the Son of Man being God the Son (even before I couldn't cope with the Son of Man's belief based words and behaviour not being that of Love incarnate). The meaningless absurdity of the scandal of particularity in the face of infinite nature makes God the Son superfluous, as I've said before. If Love incarnates They have done so infinite times. And are doing so right now. The Trinity is as fundamentalist as YEC.
Ezekiel is also called the son of man. A lot. That's not a title reserved for Jesus of Nazareth.
I’m quote ready to be corrected on this if I’m wrong—I readily admit to not being anything close to a scholar of Hebrew of Greek—but my understanding is there is a difference in the usages here. Ezekiel is addressed by God as “son of Man,” as in “who are you, son of Man.” He is not addressed or referred to as “the son of Man.”
Jesus, on the other hand, is recorded as referring to himself as “the son of Man,” using the definite article.
And in any case, Jesus never claimed it as an exclusive title. Though it has eschatological overtones in some bits of the prophets, primarily it is a reference to the human nature of the one being called by that name—which is why Jesus treasures it for himself, i think.
At any rate, I agree with @Lamb Chopped, Christ didn't use it as an exclusive title but it certainly has eschatological overtones and a bearing on the Incarnation.
I'm not convinced that a belief in the Trinity is as fundamentalist as a belief in YEC.
But then, I believe in the Holy Trinity and not YEC, so I would say that.
At any rate, I agree with @Lamb Chopped, Christ didn't use it as an exclusive title but it certainly has eschatological overtones and a bearing on the Incarnation.
I'm not convinced that a belief in the Trinity is as fundamentalist as a belief in YEC.
But then, I believe in the Holy Trinity and not YEC, so I would say that.
Your honesty does you credit. Where one draws the line in belief as to what is required literally. If one has to believe that Jesus was the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the creator of the one and only universe, now sitting at the Father's right hand, which is orthodox, that's as fundamentalist as it gets. One can fine tune that belief in line with modern cosmology and indeterminacy of course, as most here will. But the fundamentalist literalism remains. Cannot be let go of. It all feels circular:
If we start with the NT claims, we get to the orthodoxy above. Solely science based reasoning says that there are certainly many sapient worlds in our universe and always have been in the infinity of universes. That circle is squared by the Son super-positioned, always incarnating to death and resurrection, always at the Father's right hand, always creating. By metaphorizing the claims of and from the text. Which therefore includes the Son. The Son is a metaphor for that aspect of God that incarnates. Not a necessary Person. This still proliferates entities, and heterodoxy to scandalously peculiar fundamentalism. What happens to the infinity of resurrected saviours? They must each continue in the transcendent. Lords of their species' heavens. Where and what is the Son in all of this?
First of all, there's a difference between "fundamentalist" and "orthodox" or even "foundational." Following the NT claims certainly gets you to the Trinity, with God the Son becoming Incarnate as the man Jesus Christ, who suffered, died, rose again, ascended into heaven, and is currently ruling the cosmos together with the Father and the Son, one God eternally.
Calling this "fundamentalist" is misleading, as in current English that term is normally reserved for people who hold a whole lot of additional positions most of us on the Ship would disagree with--positions which cannot IMHO be adequately defended from the Scripture.
Try "orthodox" (small o). That way you get in 90% of the Christian church, more or less, and avoid the pejorative trap.
Now, as to God the Son and his role as Savior in however many universes there may be: Scripture has no problem with this. Scripture (and thus the many orthodox Christian groups based on it) has nothing to say to how many universes there may be, other than to say that however many exist, God is God of all of them. Christ is Christ of all of them. The details of how exactly this works out are not told us. Why should they be? God rarely if ever tells us things just for curiosity's sake. He tells us what we need to know, as human beings living in this universe. As for whether other sentient intelligent species exist, in this universe or any other, AND whether they have fallen and require a Savior, AND how exactly God has dealt with their putative need (assuming all this...) no--Scripture is silent. It's simply not our business, beyond the assurance that God is God, that God is love, and that he will cope with whatever needs coping with. And then it's time to turn our eyes back to our own situation, and get on with making things better there.
In general, in the Old Testament there is no article in the Greek text (so it is just "(a) son of man"-, but in the New Testament there is (so it is "the Son of Man").
The OT text is normally Hebrew unless you’re thinking of the Septuagint, which is a translation; trying to argue from the Hebrew will land you in difficulties because “son of man” is what they call a construct chain (two nouns in a particular relationship you can spot by the ending) and according to the rules of the language, you have to either have both nouns definite, or both indefinite. This means you could have a son of (indefinite) man, or the son of the (particular, definite) man (for example, John Doe). What you can’t have is The Son of (indefinite) man. Good knows how they got around formations like “a son of King David,” but them’s the rules, that’s how the language works. And as a result you can’t conclude anything from the usage in Ezekiel. The concept you’re going for can’t be expressed that way.
Ezekiel is also called the son of man. A lot. That's not a title reserved for Jesus of Nazareth.
I’m quote ready to be corrected on this if I’m wrong—I readily admit to not being anything close to a scholar of Hebrew of Greek—but my understanding is there is a difference in the usages here. Ezekiel is addressed by God as “son of Man,” as in “who are you, son of Man.” He is not addressed or referred to as “the son of Man.”
Jesus, on the other hand, is recorded as referring to himself as “the son of Man,” using the definite article.
Unfortunately Aramaic doesn't have a definite article, only an emphatic state which doesn't have quite the same force.
Ezekiel is also called the son of man. A lot. That's not a title reserved for Jesus of Nazareth.
I’m quote ready to be corrected on this if I’m wrong—I readily admit to not being anything close to a scholar of Hebrew of Greek—but my understanding is there is a difference in the usages here. Ezekiel is addressed by God as “son of Man,” as in “who are you, son of Man.” He is not addressed or referred to as “the son of Man.”
Jesus, on the other hand, is recorded as referring to himself as “the son of Man,” using the definite article.
Unfortunately Aramaic doesn't have a definite article, only an emphatic state which doesn't have quite the same force.
Fair point, but the Gospels are written in Greek, not Aramaic. We’re left to guess how Jesus might have said in Aramaic what he’s recorded as saying in the Gospels.
Ezekiel is also called the son of man. A lot. That's not a title reserved for Jesus of Nazareth.
I’m quote ready to be corrected on this if I’m wrong—I readily admit to not being anything close to a scholar of Hebrew of Greek—but my understanding is there is a difference in the usages here. Ezekiel is addressed by God as “son of Man,” as in “who are you, son of Man.” He is not addressed or referred to as “the son of Man.”
Jesus, on the other hand, is recorded as referring to himself as “the son of Man,” using the definite article.
Unfortunately Aramaic doesn't have a definite article, only an emphatic state which doesn't have quite the same force.
Fair point, but the Gospels are written in Greek, not Aramaic. We’re left to guess how Jesus might have said in Aramaic what he’s recorded as saying in the Gospels.
Very true, but 'son of ' is a common Aramaic idiom, more common than in Hebrew. It's highly likely that the underlying Aramaic would be bar enasha. In Greek the term sounds quite odd - literally 'the son of the man'. The phrase in Daniel which is in Aramaic is a description rather than a title.
So would I, but on the weight of probability, a common Aramaic idiom which sounds odd in Greek, which appears in the Aramaic portion of the OT and which was referenced by Jesus at his trial is more likely to have been spoken by Jesus in his mother tongue IMO.
Ezekiel is also called the son of man. A lot. That's not a title reserved for Jesus of Nazareth.
I’m quote ready to be corrected on this if I’m wrong—I readily admit to not being anything close to a scholar of Hebrew of Greek—but my understanding is there is a difference in the usages here. Ezekiel is addressed by God as “son of Man,” as in “who are you, son of Man.” He is not addressed or referred to as “the son of Man.”
Jesus, on the other hand, is recorded as referring to himself as “the son of Man,” using the definite article.
Unfortunately Aramaic doesn't have a definite article, only an emphatic state which doesn't have quite the same force.
Fair point, but the Gospels are written in Greek, not Aramaic. We’re left to guess how Jesus might have said in Aramaic what he’s recorded as saying in the Gospels.
Very true, but 'son of ' is a common Aramaic idiom, more common than in Hebrew. It's highly likely that the underlying Aramaic would be bar enasha. In Greek the term sounds quite odd - literally 'the son of the man'. The phrase in Daniel which is in Aramaic is a description rather than a title.
Yes, but the way Jesus is recorded as using does come across more as a title—e.g., Matt. 20:18–19, where Jesus says to the disciples “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and on the third day he will be raised.”
This usage seems different from usages in Ezekiel, where “son of man” is clearly an idiom meaning (male) “mortal” or “human.”
Ezekiel is also called the son of man. A lot. That's not a title reserved for Jesus of Nazareth.
I’m quote ready to be corrected on this if I’m wrong—I readily admit to not being anything close to a scholar of Hebrew of Greek—but my understanding is there is a difference in the usages here. Ezekiel is addressed by God as “son of Man,” as in “who are you, son of Man.” He is not addressed or referred to as “the son of Man.”
Jesus, on the other hand, is recorded as referring to himself as “the son of Man,” using the definite article.
Unfortunately Aramaic doesn't have a definite article, only an emphatic state which doesn't have quite the same force.
Fair point, but the Gospels are written in Greek, not Aramaic. We’re left to guess how Jesus might have said in Aramaic what he’s recorded as saying in the Gospels.
Very true, but 'son of ' is a common Aramaic idiom, more common than in Hebrew. It's highly likely that the underlying Aramaic would be bar enasha. In Greek the term sounds quite odd - literally 'the son of the man'. The phrase in Daniel which is in Aramaic is a description rather than a title.
Yes, but the way Jesus is recorded as using does come across more as a title—e.g., Matt. 20:18–19, where Jesus says to the disciples “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and on the third day he will be raised.”
This usage seems different from usages in Ezekiel, where “son of man” is clearly an idiom meaning (male) “mortal” or “human.”
Geza Vermes argues that the term could be used as a way of saying 'I' and produces examples where this appears to be the case. Barnabas Lindars argues something similar. There are examples where the Gospel writers have the same sayings but one writer says 'son of man' and another says 'I'.
It's clear from the Gospels that Jesus uses "the Son of Man" as a circumlocution for "I." Sometimes we get both in the same sentence, if I recall correctly. As for it being a title, I'm sure there's both a reference to the eschatological figure and to the simple "Human One" meaning--but that latter is also a title when you take it as referring to the Seed promised to Eve in the garden, the human being who would come to redeem the whole race.
As for whether Jesus was sourcing the phrase out of Aramaic or Hebrew, we'll likely never know. He was very well educated in the (Hebrew) Scriptures, and I'd be inclined to take that as his source, especially if we're looking for any shades of meaning beyond the obvious, "human person."
First of all, there's a difference between "fundamentalist" and "orthodox" or even "foundational." Following the NT claims certainly gets you to the Trinity, with God the Son becoming Incarnate as the man Jesus Christ, who suffered, died, rose again, ascended into heaven, and is currently ruling the cosmos together with the Father and the Son, one God eternally.
Calling this "fundamentalist" is misleading, as in current English that term is normally reserved for people who hold a whole lot of additional positions most of us on the Ship would disagree with--positions which cannot IMHO be adequately defended from the Scripture.
Try "orthodox" (small o). That way you get in 90% of the Christian church, more or less, and avoid the pejorative trap.
Now, as to God the Son and his role as Savior in however many universes there may be: Scripture has no problem with this. Scripture (and thus the many orthodox Christian groups based on it) has nothing to say to how many universes there may be, other than to say that however many exist, God is God of all of them. Christ is Christ of all of them. The details of how exactly this works out are not told us. Why should they be? God rarely if ever tells us things just for curiosity's sake. He tells us what we need to know, as human beings living in this universe. As for whether other sentient intelligent species exist, in this universe or any other, AND whether they have fallen and require a Savior, AND how exactly God has dealt with their putative need (assuming all this...) no--Scripture is silent. It's simply not our business, beyond the assurance that God is God, that God is love, and that he will cope with whatever needs coping with. And then it's time to turn our eyes back to our own situation, and get on with making things better there.
OK, no, virtually no one here is a fundamentalist; liberal, modernist, yes. Despite 'a strict literal interpretation to [a minimum set of] scriptures', 'strict adherence to certain theological doctrines'. Orthodox, textist. Most here are fundamentalist only in regard to Jesus' beliefs, assuming he meant what he said. Which I do. As the tip of an iceberg of struggle.
I'm glad that Christians are nearly keeping up with the scientific revolution. Galileo and all that. If God had told us anything at all, even in a still small voice, I'd know. Me and Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
There is no rational doubt whatsoever that the universe seethes with intentional life. Only faith can doubt that. And like mediocre us, none are 'fallen'. None, like me, require a saviour. I require any evidence whatsoever of Love. Of which scripture is silent. To me. And roars to you and nearly all here. Whatever idea, dogma, scripture, orthodoxy helps you love, great.
I have no assurance whatsoever, except of oblivion. I woke recently and easily imagined my final moments. If I'm not completely ga-ga. Or asleep. Although a disproportionate proportion of us wake up queasy and go and die on the toilet. One day I'll be the final grain in the upper hourglass falling. I have to cope with that : ) Like George V I hope to die laughing. Alone on the dunny if need be. A friend died recently, at the end of summer, in his bed, in a gazebo in his back garden, surrounded by friends and family, bravely joking, singing. That would be nice. Incredibly privileged of course. Unfair. A good death.
If Love is, it's got a very funny way of showing it. And it isn't triune. It's a totally different story. And I'm so glad It can cope. Bless It. Poor dear. It's down to us to get on with loving here. Saving each other here.
This has gone the way of the 'For God so loved the world thread.' Which is fine as far as it goes.
If @Martin54 is right then yes, we will all end up in oblivion.
If that is the case then how are we going to spend the rest of what little time we have left?
I'm sure some of it spent with Martin over a cuppa would be time well spent. I'm not sure the same conversation over and over again - 'I no longer believe. Here's why ...' is going to get us anywhere though.
But here we come. Again and again.
But yes, as someone has pointed out, it's not as if I'm not following a ritual pattern myself.
'Again and again in peace, let us pray to the Lord ...'
@Lamb Chopped's OP presupposed a 'relational' view of the Trinity. If we don't believe in the Trinity in the first place, or, like @Telford appear to have an idiosyncratic or 'unorthodox' idea of what it means, as it were, then we ain't going to get very far in answering her question.
That doesn't mean that we won't have anything valid or interesting to say. But we won't be answering the OP.
I'm thinking aloud here, not calling for a Styx discussion on what is or isn't appropriate to discuss on this thread.
@Lamb Chopped's question presupposes both the existence of God the Holy Trinity and of our being able to relate to God in some way that honours and involves the Divine Persons of the Triune God.
It's similar to what Richard Baxter wrote about the poems of George Herbert. There are more polished and perfect poems around but when you read Herbert you get the impression that there is a God and that we can engage with that God.
I'm not saying 'atheists and non-Trinitarians need not apply' but if we don't believe in the Trinity why engage with an OP about it which I framed in terms that put it as a 'given'.
Why not simply say, 'Sorry, I don't believe in that anymore. Have a good discussion'?
Sure, sorry. If an orthogonal view to the ancient polished construct is not appropriate. I relate most to Jesus as he was human. And I still have the projection of a helplessly remote, fully understanding older brother that I never had.
Martin54, I think you must be one of CS Lewis's 'atheists who are very angry with God for not existing.' I think the rest of us have grasped the point. Can't we let it rest? Peace and love, brother.
When I took second year Hebrew at University, the professor said that "son(s) of" meant roughly the same thing as "member of the group of." So when they refer to the "sons of the prophets" they just mean "prophets." So the phrase "son(s) of man" basically means nothing more than "human beings." By using the definite article, the gospel writers are referring to Jesus as "THE human being." (Capital letters being inferred, since what else could "the human being" refer to?) The epitome of human beingness. The Platonic Form of human being.
I don't think it's actually possible to be angry with somebody if you genuinely and truthfully believe they do not exist.
I don't think any human really 100% believes or disbelieves in any hypothetical proposition, from the existence of a God onwards.
Be that as it may, it's also possible to be angry about something - like God - not existing. You can't be angry with it, because it isn't there, but you can be angry that it isn't. Futilely and illogically angry, perhaps, but humans are often given to futile and illogical responses.
Martin54, I think you must be one of CS Lewis's 'atheists who are very angry with God for not existing.' I think the rest of us have grasped the point. Can't we let it rest? Peace and love, brother.
I certainly am and I tell Him so in no uncertain terms. But the Trinity and each of its Persons is eminently critiquable as a proposition even assuming that Love is the ground of infinite natural and supernatural being. If Jesus were a son of Love, Love incarnate, he was almost completely ignorant of it, and didn't correct that in the resurrection.
I don't think it's actually possible to be angry with somebody if you genuinely and truthfully believe they do not exist.
I don't think any human really 100% believes or disbelieves in any hypothetical proposition, from the existence of a God onwards.
Be that as it may, it's also possible to be angry about something - like God - not existing. You can't be angry with it, because it isn't there, but you can be angry that it isn't. Futilely and illogically angry, perhaps, but humans are often given to futile and illogical responses.
Well yes, and very often that anger is fuelled by the apparent 'absence' of something they feel 'ought' to be there - be it love, attraction, the availability of sex, more money ... whatever else.
I'm not talking about a legitimate anger against social injustice and so on of course, but the kind of irrational fixations or frustrations that some people give way to, often to their own or other people's detriment.
But then as I'm not a psychologist this may be wide of the mark.
I don't think it's actually possible to be angry with somebody if you genuinely and truthfully believe they do not exist.
I don't think any human really 100% believes or disbelieves in any hypothetical proposition, from the existence of a God onwards.
Be that as it may, it's also possible to be angry about something - like God - not existing. You can't be angry with it, because it isn't there, but you can be angry that it isn't. Futilely and illogically angry, perhaps, but humans are often given to futile and illogical responses.
Well yes, and very often that anger is fuelled by the apparent 'absence' of something they feel 'ought' to be there - be it love, attraction, the availability of sex, more money ... whatever else.
I'm not talking about a legitimate anger against social injustice and so on of course, but the kind of irrational fixations or frustrations that some people give way to, often to their own or other people's detriment.
But then as I'm not a psychologist this may be wide of the mark.
Spot on.
As far as I'm concerned.
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a God who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd come and stay!
So, I guess we’ve moved from discussing persons of the Trinity we do or don’t relate to or cope with particularly well to yet another detour on why the whole conversation is pointless because God in general and the Trinity in particular are nothing but products of human imagination.
It's similar to what Richard Baxter wrote about the poems of George Herbert. There are more polished and perfect poems around but when you read Herbert you get the impression that there is a God and that we can engage with that God.
Not a little interesting that Christopher Hitchens championed those he called "the devotional poets" in general, and George Herbert specifically.
So, I guess we’ve moved from discussing persons of the Trinity we do or don’t relate to or cope with particularly well to yet another detour on why the whole conversation is pointless because God in general and the Trinity in particular are nothing but products of human imagination.
Sigh.
Just yank it back own the direction you're more interested in. No fault there.
No-no, I wasn't commenting on your post as much as I was just pointing out the irony of an atheist's appreciation of devotional poetry. Hitchens was also a great admirer of the Bible as literature.
It's similar to what Richard Baxter wrote about the poems of George Herbert. There are more polished and perfect poems around but when you read Herbert you get the impression that there is a God and that we can engage with that God.
Not a little interesting that Christopher Hitchens championed those he called "the devotional poets" in general, and George Herbert specifically.
So, I guess we’ve moved from discussing persons of the Trinity we do or don’t relate to or cope with particularly well to yet another detour on why the whole conversation is pointless because God in general and the Trinity in particular are nothing but products of human imagination.
Sigh.
Just yank it back own the direction you're more interested in. No fault there.
I’d actually like to know why Hitchens found Herbert’s writing worthwhile. Because I face very similar challenges in my work as a writer. Why would someone as militantly anti theist as he find value in what must in his views be the deluded thoughts and feelings of someone desperately in love with nothing?
If anyone has a clue, I’d love to know. Seriously.
I’d actually like to know why Hitchens found Herbert’s writing worthwhile. Because I face very similar challenges in my work as a writer. Why would someone as militantly anti theist as he find value in what must in his views be the deluded thoughts and feelings of someone desperately in love with nothing?
If anyone has a clue, I’d love to know. Seriously.
Well, I've known people with no faith who have admired it in others.
I couldn't load the Hitchens interview, but I suspect that people can admire Herbert's sincerity and very evident authenticity without necessarily sharing his faith.
I've often said that Herbert did more to convert me than the ardent young evangelists at university.
I don't care about atheism or Hitchens. I am interested in the original thread topic.
For me, it would be the Holy Spirit. Not because I don't believe in the Spirit - I do - but because the presence and identity of the Spirit are so frustratingly elusive, yet at the same time nearly palpable.
The many descriptions of the Spirit attempt to portray this difficulty, with the New Testament often resorting to comparison. The Spirit is like wind, fire, a dove suddenly landing, breath.
In my experience, the Spirit also sometimes wields a large swinging clue bat, although I prefer the gentle nudge.
Comments
The event you refer to is commonly known as “The walkout” and in fact featured a very dramatic week-publicized parade of people, well, walking out, but not before they stopped to plant crosses in the quad. With all the media invited. Leaving the seminary to rush recruit emergency professors to support the students whose work was interrupted.
Calling it “The conservatives firing the faculty” is deeply misleading.
In truth it was a very complicated event, and I’d argue that dragging it up here does no good to anybody. A proper presentation would take pages, and what food would it do anybody here?
I have friends on both sides. A huge number of LCMS Lutherans even now have family on both sides. Best to leave it alone, in my opinion, unless someone wants to go do research with original documents etc, as I’ve done. It was nobody’s shining hour—rather a time of deep grief.
And the formation of the ELCA came considerably after the walkout, so no, it didn’t cause the ALC and LCA to join it.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
I did say it was a 'guess' and I'm more than happy to accept that it wasn't well-grounded.
We do tend to have a rather binary idea over here that the east and west coasts of the US tend to be more liberal both politically and theologically than the Mid-West and the Southern States.
We are aware that this isn't a general pattern. Trump's a New Yorker, for instance, not from Texas or Arkansas. And there chill be variations within individual states too, of course.
The only saint I ever met seemed to have a devotion to it.
(And, without the "believe this or else part", I might, if I understood it, quite like what my 1662 book calls "At Morning Prayer".)
Jesus, on the other hand, is recorded as referring to himself as “the son of Man,” using the definite article.
At any rate, I agree with @Lamb Chopped, Christ didn't use it as an exclusive title but it certainly has eschatological overtones and a bearing on the Incarnation.
I'm not convinced that a belief in the Trinity is as fundamentalist as a belief in YEC.
But then, I believe in the Holy Trinity and not YEC, so I would say that.
Your honesty does you credit. Where one draws the line in belief as to what is required literally. If one has to believe that Jesus was the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the creator of the one and only universe, now sitting at the Father's right hand, which is orthodox, that's as fundamentalist as it gets. One can fine tune that belief in line with modern cosmology and indeterminacy of course, as most here will. But the fundamentalist literalism remains. Cannot be let go of. It all feels circular:
If we start with the NT claims, we get to the orthodoxy above. Solely science based reasoning says that there are certainly many sapient worlds in our universe and always have been in the infinity of universes. That circle is squared by the Son super-positioned, always incarnating to death and resurrection, always at the Father's right hand, always creating. By metaphorizing the claims of and from the text. Which therefore includes the Son. The Son is a metaphor for that aspect of God that incarnates. Not a necessary Person. This still proliferates entities, and heterodoxy to scandalously peculiar fundamentalism. What happens to the infinity of resurrected saviours? They must each continue in the transcendent. Lords of their species' heavens. Where and what is the Son in all of this?
Calling this "fundamentalist" is misleading, as in current English that term is normally reserved for people who hold a whole lot of additional positions most of us on the Ship would disagree with--positions which cannot IMHO be adequately defended from the Scripture.
Try "orthodox" (small o). That way you get in 90% of the Christian church, more or less, and avoid the pejorative trap.
Now, as to God the Son and his role as Savior in however many universes there may be: Scripture has no problem with this. Scripture (and thus the many orthodox Christian groups based on it) has nothing to say to how many universes there may be, other than to say that however many exist, God is God of all of them. Christ is Christ of all of them. The details of how exactly this works out are not told us. Why should they be? God rarely if ever tells us things just for curiosity's sake. He tells us what we need to know, as human beings living in this universe. As for whether other sentient intelligent species exist, in this universe or any other, AND whether they have fallen and require a Savior, AND how exactly God has dealt with their putative need (assuming all this...) no--Scripture is silent. It's simply not our business, beyond the assurance that God is God, that God is love, and that he will cope with whatever needs coping with. And then it's time to turn our eyes back to our own situation, and get on with making things better there.
In general, in the Old Testament there is no article in the Greek text (so it is just "(a) son of man"-, but in the New Testament there is (so it is "the Son of Man").
The comments about YEC?
If we were discussing the handful of churches who actually claim that name, it’d be another matter.
Unfortunately Aramaic doesn't have a definite article, only an emphatic state which doesn't have quite the same force.
Very true, but 'son of ' is a common Aramaic idiom, more common than in Hebrew. It's highly likely that the underlying Aramaic would be bar enasha. In Greek the term sounds quite odd - literally 'the son of the man'. The phrase in Daniel which is in Aramaic is a description rather than a title.
Ok. Sure. I get that.
Thing is, though, if you are an atheist rather than just agnostic, say, then any form of religious belief is going to look like fundamentalism.
I wonder whether we should start a thread on whether atheism itself is a form of fundamentalism?
Or whether there are shades and nuances within it as there are in other belief systems and ideologies.
This usage seems different from usages in Ezekiel, where “son of man” is clearly an idiom meaning (male) “mortal” or “human.”
Geza Vermes argues that the term could be used as a way of saying 'I' and produces examples where this appears to be the case. Barnabas Lindars argues something similar. There are examples where the Gospel writers have the same sayings but one writer says 'son of man' and another says 'I'.
As for whether Jesus was sourcing the phrase out of Aramaic or Hebrew, we'll likely never know. He was very well educated in the (Hebrew) Scriptures, and I'd be inclined to take that as his source, especially if we're looking for any shades of meaning beyond the obvious, "human person."
OK, no, virtually no one here is a fundamentalist; liberal, modernist, yes. Despite 'a strict literal interpretation to [a minimum set of] scriptures', 'strict adherence to certain theological doctrines'. Orthodox, textist. Most here are fundamentalist only in regard to Jesus' beliefs, assuming he meant what he said. Which I do. As the tip of an iceberg of struggle.
I'm glad that Christians are nearly keeping up with the scientific revolution. Galileo and all that. If God had told us anything at all, even in a still small voice, I'd know. Me and Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
There is no rational doubt whatsoever that the universe seethes with intentional life. Only faith can doubt that. And like mediocre us, none are 'fallen'. None, like me, require a saviour. I require any evidence whatsoever of Love. Of which scripture is silent. To me. And roars to you and nearly all here. Whatever idea, dogma, scripture, orthodoxy helps you love, great.
I have no assurance whatsoever, except of oblivion. I woke recently and easily imagined my final moments. If I'm not completely ga-ga. Or asleep. Although a disproportionate proportion of us wake up queasy and go and die on the toilet. One day I'll be the final grain in the upper hourglass falling. I have to cope with that : ) Like George V I hope to die laughing. Alone on the dunny if need be. A friend died recently, at the end of summer, in his bed, in a gazebo in his back garden, surrounded by friends and family, bravely joking, singing. That would be nice. Incredibly privileged of course. Unfair. A good death.
If Love is, it's got a very funny way of showing it. And it isn't triune. It's a totally different story. And I'm so glad It can cope. Bless It. Poor dear. It's down to us to get on with loving here. Saving each other here.
Which you are doing.
Jesus would approve.
If @Martin54 is right then yes, we will all end up in oblivion.
If that is the case then how are we going to spend the rest of what little time we have left?
I'm sure some of it spent with Martin over a cuppa would be time well spent. I'm not sure the same conversation over and over again - 'I no longer believe. Here's why ...' is going to get us anywhere though.
But here we come. Again and again.
But yes, as someone has pointed out, it's not as if I'm not following a ritual pattern myself.
'Again and again in peace, let us pray to the Lord ...'
@Lamb Chopped's OP presupposed a 'relational' view of the Trinity. If we don't believe in the Trinity in the first place, or, like @Telford appear to have an idiosyncratic or 'unorthodox' idea of what it means, as it were, then we ain't going to get very far in answering her question.
That doesn't mean that we won't have anything valid or interesting to say. But we won't be answering the OP.
I'm thinking aloud here, not calling for a Styx discussion on what is or isn't appropriate to discuss on this thread.
@Lamb Chopped's question presupposes both the existence of God the Holy Trinity and of our being able to relate to God in some way that honours and involves the Divine Persons of the Triune God.
It's similar to what Richard Baxter wrote about the poems of George Herbert. There are more polished and perfect poems around but when you read Herbert you get the impression that there is a God and that we can engage with that God.
I'm not saying 'atheists and non-Trinitarians need not apply' but if we don't believe in the Trinity why engage with an OP about it which I framed in terms that put it as a 'given'.
Why not simply say, 'Sorry, I don't believe in that anymore. Have a good discussion'?
I don't think any human really 100% believes or disbelieves in any hypothetical proposition, from the existence of a God onwards.
Be that as it may, it's also possible to be angry about something - like God - not existing. You can't be angry with it, because it isn't there, but you can be angry that it isn't. Futilely and illogically angry, perhaps, but humans are often given to futile and illogical responses.
I certainly am and I tell Him so in no uncertain terms. But the Trinity and each of its Persons is eminently critiquable as a proposition even assuming that Love is the ground of infinite natural and supernatural being. If Jesus were a son of Love, Love incarnate, he was almost completely ignorant of it, and didn't correct that in the resurrection.
Not in my interiority!
Well yes, and very often that anger is fuelled by the apparent 'absence' of something they feel 'ought' to be there - be it love, attraction, the availability of sex, more money ... whatever else.
I'm not talking about a legitimate anger against social injustice and so on of course, but the kind of irrational fixations or frustrations that some people give way to, often to their own or other people's detriment.
But then as I'm not a psychologist this may be wide of the mark.
Endgame, Samuel Beckett.
Spot on.
As far as I'm concerned.
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a God who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd come and stay!
With apologies to William Hughes Mearns.
Sigh.
Just yank it back own the direction you're more interested in. No fault there.
If anyone has a clue, I’d love to know. Seriously.
I couldn't load the Hitchens interview, but I suspect that people can admire Herbert's sincerity and very evident authenticity without necessarily sharing his faith.
I've often said that Herbert did more to convert me than the ardent young evangelists at university.
For me, it would be the Holy Spirit. Not because I don't believe in the Spirit - I do - but because the presence and identity of the Spirit are so frustratingly elusive, yet at the same time nearly palpable.
The many descriptions of the Spirit attempt to portray this difficulty, with the New Testament often resorting to comparison. The Spirit is like wind, fire, a dove suddenly landing, breath.
In my experience, the Spirit also sometimes wields a large swinging clue bat, although I prefer the gentle nudge.