(Originally written July 16, 2007 in Book 25)
The Wanderer and His Shadow (1880)
33: Elements of revenge
The word revenge is said too quickly. Men search for a single root and meaning to the word. But words are pockets into which many things have been put. Thus revenge is something very composite.
Revenge (in some cases) is merely an act of self preservation. When a thing harms us we must harm it back. We act without any wish to do harm but only to get away.
A second type of revenge involves time. We think no longer on ourselves but focus on our enemy. In this type of revenge further harm to us is forgotten to the point we almost always harm ourselves more in the act of revenge. This type of revenge is restoration. But in reality only one loss, the loss of honor can actually be restored.
Fear brings about self-preservation revenge. A lack of fear brings about restoration revenge.
One cannot take revenge against those he despises because if one he despises injures him he cannot have his honor injured by him. Those with honor are not concerned with those they see as unhonorably. Those he despises can neither accord him honor nor take it away.
"Everyone will revenge himself unless he is without honor or full of contempt or full of love for the person who has harmed and insulted him" (Nietzsche, 162).
Judicial punishment restores both private honor and the honor of society; thus, punishment is revenge.
Punishment despises to prevent further damage and to deter.
194: Dreams
On rare occasions where dreams achieve perfection they become symbolic chains of imagery in narrative poetic language. "We use up too much artistry in our dreams - and therefore often are impoverished during the day" (Nietzsche, 163).
202: Tourists
Tourists are stupid; they climb mountains like animals because one has forgotten to tell them that there are beautiful views on the way to the top.
203: Too much and too little
"All men now live through too much and think through too little" (Nietzsche, 163).
204: End and goal
Not every end is the goal.
208: How to have all men against you
"If anyone dared to say now, 'whoever is not for me, is against me', he would immediately have all men against him'. This does our time honor." (163). --> Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, Bush policy on terror.
249: Positive and Negative
"This thinker needs nobody to refute him: for that he suffices himself" (163)
Arrogant twit!
263: Way to equality
Exhaustion is the shortest way to equality and fraternity. Liberty is added eventually by sleep.
297: Not to wish to see too soon
One must surrender to the experience in order to acquire wisdom.
298: From the practice of wise men
To become wise one must wish to have certain experiences and run into the gaping jaws of them. Many wise men have been swallowed.
301: A testimony of love
To love someone is not to reflect on them too thoroughly
302: How one tries to improve bad arguments
Many men try to put personality into bad arguments to straighten them out like a man who throws a bowling ball and then makes gestures to straighten it.
That is funny, this is one of my favorites.
307: When taking leave is needed
You must take time away from what you would know, only after leaving can you truly know it.
317: Opinions and Fish
Possessing opinions is like possessing fish, if one has their own fish pond. One must go fishing and have some luck. Others are satisfied with fossils and have convictions in their heads.
322: Death
Death could make life sweet with levity. But apothecary souls have made it poison that makes all of life repulsive.
323: Remorse
Never give way to remorse; giving way to remorse adds a second stupidity to a first. "If you have done harm, see how you can do a good. If you are punished... bear the punishment with the feeling you are doing good - by deterring others from falling prey to the same folly. Every evildoer who is punished may feel that he is a benefactor of humanity" (165).
326: Don't touch!
Some people confuse problems worse with their meddling. Whoever can't hit the nail on the head should not hit it at all.
333: Dying for the "truth"
We should not be burnt for our opinions because we are unsure of them. We should change our opinions.
Showing posts with label Luke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luke. Show all posts
Monday, July 16, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Physical & Moral Evil
(Originally written March 26, 2007 in Book 25)
The Question of Freedom
Plantinga holds that man cannot be caused to have his actions come out in anyway by God's direct or indirect influence.
Plantinga's argument hinges on the belief that humans are significantly free creatures.
The Structure of This Theodicy
Theism acknowledges that God could have chose not to create, that God could have chosen to create a moral world and that God could have created a moral world with free creatures who never chose to sin.
A world with evil is a morally necessary prerequisite to the most perfect world possible.
Theistic Answers to the Problem of Moral Evil
The Theist must prove three things to answer the problem of moral evil:
1) This world is the best way to obtain the best world possible
2) No other possibility is more probable
3) Sufficient reason to believe the best possible world is achievable
The Possibility of a Theistic answer to Evil
If it can be demonstrated that this present world is not the best of al possible ways to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds than this answer to the problem of evil is refuted.
The evil of this world is part of a greater good. If the evil of this world were an end not a means than theism would have a problem.
Disproofs of God from evil are self-defeating because they assume an ultimate (divine) perspective in order to disprove such a perspective
There is no logical contradiction in stating this evil world is a condition for achieving a better one.
The theistic solution to the moral problem of evil is at least possible
The probability of a theistic answer to evil
The probability of the theistic solution to evil (this world is the best way to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds) can be established three ways:
1) Inference from the nature of God as the best Being coupled with the fact that this is not the best possible world leads us to infer that this world must be the best way to achieve the best world
2) By comparing the available alternatives to the theistic God it can be concluded that the morally best world is better than a morally good world or no moral world at all
3) By examining human history one can see the evidence of the probability of this best world to come
The Argument from the Nature of God and this world
1) God is an absolutely perfect Being
2) Producing less than a best possible world would be an evil for God
3) God cannot produce evil
4) God produced this world
5) This world as is, is not the best possible world
6) Therefore, there must be a perfect world to come
The Argument from the alternatives open to God
God had four possibilities in creating a moral world:
1) Not to create a world at all
2) Create an amoral world
3) Create a moral world with free beings who would not choose evil
4) Create a moral world with free beings who would choose evil.
Not to create a world at all cannot be better than choice 4 (the way God created) because nothing cannot be assumed to be better than something
No world could not be metaphysically better than some world because no world would have no metaphysical status
No world could not be morally better than some world because no world is not a moral world at all
There is no way of comparing an amoral world to a moral world. An amoral world is spoken about meaninglessly
The problems for an anti-theist in arguing that a morally perfect world is better than a morally good or morally bad world is that in order to make this judgment the anti-theist must assume a moral objective standard which can only be had by a God
The anti-theist really can only insist that theism is not internally consistent
The theist can reply in two ways:
1) A world with the greater number of virtues is morally better than a world with less virtues and moral viruses like courage, fortitude, mercy and forgiveness are only possible in a sinful/evil world
2) A world with a higher attainment of moral virtues is morally better than a world with a lower attainment and virtues like love and kindness are heightened by the presence of evil
1) God must produce the morally best world he can produce
2) A world where evil serves as a condition for the attainment of higher virtues is a better tone than where less than the highest virtues are attained
3) This world is a world wherein evil serves as such a condition
4) Therefore, this world is better than a world where evil never occurred
A non-evil world versus an evil world
Theists can argue agains this in two ways
1) A world with fully free creatures who chose never to sin may be logically possible, but not actually so
2) Even if such a world occurred it would not be morally better than this one
1) God would not produce a world where free beings will always do evil if it were possible to produce one where they will never more do evil
2) This is a world where free beings do evil
3) Therefore, the world is not God's final production
1) It is morally better for God to create the morally best world possible
2) A world with higher moral virtues is a morally better world
3) A world where humans are permitted to sin as a precondition to a better world is better than one where they are not
4) This present world is one where humans are free and do sin
5) Therefore, this present world is better than a world where humans never sin
God cannot do the impossible and to create a morally perfect world without creating the preconditions for such a world is impossible.
1) God cannot do what is impossible
2) It is impossible to create conditional virtues directly
3) A world with the highest moral virtues is conditioned on the presence of evil
4) Therefore, God cannot create directly a world with the highest moral virtues in it
A world of good and evil is a necessary condition for choosing either good or evil.
It is impossible for God to create directly a world with achieved moral values of the highest nature.
Eschatological verification of this theodicy
A skeptic may challenge this theodicy in claiming that something that is only verifiable in the future is of no assistance to us here and now in deciding what is true
There are two types of obtainable evidence for this theodicy:
1) Human experience is witness to the fact that free beings achieve higher moral perfection through suffering
2) Divine intervention is an evidence that something has ben done to reverse the course of world events for the better
The Attainability of a Theistic Answer to Evil
Is it possible that evil will eventually be totally overcome?
How is it logistically possible to achieve the maximum moral good out of the abuse of moral freedom?
How can we account for the moral evil that never brought about a greater good?
What explanation is offer able for the evils that do not result from an abuse of moral freedom?
How God brings good out of evil is not a serious problem for theism.
William James put it well when he wrote, "The word is all the richer for having a devil in it, so long as we keep our feet upon his neck" (357).
Only an all powerful being is capable of eradicating evil completely. Only an omniscient Being can utilize good and evil for the greatest good. Only an all-loving God would grant creatures the freedom to reject Him.
1) It is logically possible for evil to turn out for a greater good.
2) An all powerful God has the ability to bring the greatest good out of evil.
3) An all-loving God has the desire to bring the greatest good out of evil.
4) An all-knowing God possesses the wisdom to bring out the greatest good from evil
5) Therefore, the greatest good will be brought out of evil.
All moral evil is a necessary condition to achieving a greater good.
But, why does God permit unnecessary suffering or unnecessary moral evil?
Theism is the only solution to the moral problem of evil and the success of it hinges on the guarantee of an infinite God.
A world capable of optimal moral perfection implies a world of optimal moral freedom. The highest moral perfection depends on the presence of evil obstacles. Thus, there must be a permanent heaven (when evil will nevermore be done) and a permanent hell (where evil will evermore be done, but can never spread).
"Demanding that a man consent to love God against his will would be divine rape. It is better that each person be given the free choice to love or not love God" (362).
An optimally perfect moral world should contain four components:
1. The process leading to the final achievement of a world where humans are free but never will do any evil.
2. A world wherein is permitted the full and final uncorked exercise of moral freedom
3. A world in which there is permitted the presence of enough evil to provide both the condition for the achievement of higher moral virtues and a comprehensive lesson of the wrongness of evil for creatures.
4. A world where free creatures learn for themselves why evil is wrong.
The Physical Problem of Evil
The Problem of Physical Evil for Theism
It appears that not all evil results directly or indirectly from the abuse of human freedom.
Posing the problem of physical evil
Albert Camus' Plague is the most widely used problem of physical evil.
1) Either one must join the Doctor and fight the plague or else he must join the priest and not fight the plague.
2) Not to fight the plague is anti humanitarian
3) To fight the plague is to fight against God who sent it
4) Therefore, if humanitarianism is right, theism is wrong
5) Humanitarianism is right
6) Therefore, theism is wrong
The dilemma for the theist is this: if suffering is a condition of the greater good than we ought not to eliminate suffering so as to indirectly work against the greatest good.
Proposed Theistic Solutions to Physical Evil
1. Evil is a necessary contrast to Good
- without pain one cannot fully appreciate pleasure
- problems: it only explains pain, less pain would accomplish the same thing, even if evil depends on good, experience show that one can know the good without participating in evil
2. Evil is a necessary byproduct of laws that bring good results
problems: -only explains some kinds of evil, an omnipotent God could have created a world without evil byproducts. an omnipotent God could intervene and stop evil byproducts
3. Evil is necessary to punish the wicked
problems: - Job suffered innocently, Jesus said sin si not the cause of all suffering (Luke 13:4), babies are born with deformities
4. Evil is a necessary example to others
problems: - accounts for only a tiny portion of suffering
5. Evil is necessary to warn the wicked
problems: physical disasters often turn people away from God, not to God, Natural disasters are inconsistent with a benevolent God
6. Evil is a necessary part of the best possible world
problems: - an all powerful God could make a world without evil, the unjust distribution of evil could be distributed justly
7. Evil is necessary for ultimate harmony
problems: it makes evil only prima facie and eliminates reform, it makes evil illusionary because it is not evil in God's eyes, it gives God a double standard
8. Evil is a necessary condition for achieving the best world
Problems: - it does not explain first order evil, the price for long run goods is too high, some long run consequences are evil, immortal bliss does not justify suffering
9. Evil is a necessary conflict among natural systems
problems: God could have created a world without conflicting systems
10. Evil is necessary to build character
Problems: character building does not apply to all evil, the price is too high to make character building worthwhile
A Theistic Solution to the Problem of Physical Evil
Many of the anti-theistic criticism gain weight only by assuming false pretexts
- an all powerful God is capable of creating the best possible world without suffering
- the greater good does not result from suffering
- evil cannot be explained as necessary to human freedom
- the best world possible is not worth the high price to achieve it
Unnecessary evil of any kind is inconsistent with an absolutely perfect God. Thus, all evil is somehow necessary
One major criticism of the theistic solution to physical evil is that theists try to use a combination of all these tactics. They cannot achieve success because each is like a leaky bucket and no matter how many leaky buckets are used to catch water, water will still seep through. But, in reality each of these is like a bucket that has no leaks, but can only hold so much water. All the buckets together can hold all the water and all the solutions can explain all the evil.
Some physical evils are necessary conditions for moral perfections. There are second order goods that are unachievable without first order evils.
Some physical evils are a necessary consequence of human free choice.
The elimination of pain would eliminate all pleasure. One cannot have a painful experience without knowing the meaning of non-pain and one cannot have a pleasurable experience without knowing a non-pleasurable experience (i.e. pain).
Some physical evil is a necessary consequence of the free choice of demons.
Why doesn't God eliminate demonic powers? The best way to defeat evil is to let it expires itself because it is ultimately self-defeating.
Some physical evil is a necessary moral warning.
C.S. Lewis held that 'God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is his megaphone to rouse the deaf world" (376)
While it is true that not all persons respond positively to pain, it still remains an opportunity to respond positively.
God would be morally accountable if he did not warn us with pain as a doctor would be morally accountable not to warn sexually actively clients of the danger of AIDS.
Some physical evils are necessary components of a physical world. The pain of lower life forms is a necessary condition for the sustaining of higher life forms.
Objections to the Theistic solution to Physical evil
1) This theodicy implies that the ends justify the means.
Response: God has utilitarian goals, but does not use utilitarian means. That is, He allows evil to happen and uses it to create the ultimate good but does not use evil (commit it) to achieve such an end.
2) The theodicy does not account for the vastness of evil or the unequal distribution of it.
Respones:
1) No finite mind can really press this point
2) This theodicy need not measure evil quantitatively
3) This theodicy entails a double standard
Response: God does not commit the evil acts, only permits them. There is only one standard and that is God Himself. God cannot break that standard because he cannot contradict himself
4) This theodicy implies it is wrong to alleviate human suffering
Respones: when man is working against evil he is not frustrating God's effort, but fulfilling them. God does not send human suffering. Man's free choice causes suffering.
5) This theodicy exalts human freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty
Response: Moral acts are self-determined. Human self-determination enhances God's sovereignty and human dignity.
Finished!! Done! Praise God!
My thoughts on Evil:
1) Evil is a privation
2) Evil is only existent in the absence of good
3) God is good
4) The world contains evil.
5) The world is not wholly evil
6) Therefore, God is neither wholly present nor wholly absent from the world
Physical evil and moral evil are subcategories of metaphysical evils
All evil regardless of it being physical or moral is a result of human choice.
Moral evil is a direct result of human choice. But who the vil befalls may not be the direct choice maker, i.e. the Nazis chose to kill the Jews. The Jews suffered a moral evil because of a direct choice of the Nazis. But the Nazis eventually suffered for their choices.
Physical Evil is an indirect result of human choice. The flood (the first natural disaster) was a direct result of human choice to be wicked. Subsequent disasters are a result of the ecosystem being traumatized by the flood. Thus while no wicked acts may be directly responsible for Katrina or the Tsunami of 2004, they are nonetheless a recurring punitive measure for human wickedness.
All evil is inherited. We are all relatives in that we are all descendent of Adam and Eve. Their moral sin had physical and spiritual consequences. We inherit the physical consequences (death) in our DNA, but we also inherit the spiritual consequences (fallenness) via our inherited spiritual DNA.
Yes, I am advocating that souls, like physical bodies are created via reproduction. This is a very plausible explanation of how all men have fallen short of the glory of God and for the sins of the father. Souls are created from father and mother history. The sins of all ancestors are passed down to each generation. This also explains why Jesus Christ did not inherit a sin nature or fallenness because
because he was not born of a man. Thus, he did not inherit the sins of the Father because his father is God and thus, sinless.
The Question of Freedom
Plantinga holds that man cannot be caused to have his actions come out in anyway by God's direct or indirect influence.
Plantinga's argument hinges on the belief that humans are significantly free creatures.
The Structure of This Theodicy
Theism acknowledges that God could have chose not to create, that God could have chosen to create a moral world and that God could have created a moral world with free creatures who never chose to sin.
A world with evil is a morally necessary prerequisite to the most perfect world possible.
Theistic Answers to the Problem of Moral Evil
The Theist must prove three things to answer the problem of moral evil:
1) This world is the best way to obtain the best world possible
2) No other possibility is more probable
3) Sufficient reason to believe the best possible world is achievable
The Possibility of a Theistic answer to Evil
If it can be demonstrated that this present world is not the best of al possible ways to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds than this answer to the problem of evil is refuted.
The evil of this world is part of a greater good. If the evil of this world were an end not a means than theism would have a problem.
Disproofs of God from evil are self-defeating because they assume an ultimate (divine) perspective in order to disprove such a perspective
There is no logical contradiction in stating this evil world is a condition for achieving a better one.
The theistic solution to the moral problem of evil is at least possible
The probability of a theistic answer to evil
The probability of the theistic solution to evil (this world is the best way to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds) can be established three ways:
1) Inference from the nature of God as the best Being coupled with the fact that this is not the best possible world leads us to infer that this world must be the best way to achieve the best world
2) By comparing the available alternatives to the theistic God it can be concluded that the morally best world is better than a morally good world or no moral world at all
3) By examining human history one can see the evidence of the probability of this best world to come
The Argument from the Nature of God and this world
1) God is an absolutely perfect Being
2) Producing less than a best possible world would be an evil for God
3) God cannot produce evil
4) God produced this world
5) This world as is, is not the best possible world
6) Therefore, there must be a perfect world to come
The Argument from the alternatives open to God
God had four possibilities in creating a moral world:
1) Not to create a world at all
2) Create an amoral world
3) Create a moral world with free beings who would not choose evil
4) Create a moral world with free beings who would choose evil.
Not to create a world at all cannot be better than choice 4 (the way God created) because nothing cannot be assumed to be better than something
No world could not be metaphysically better than some world because no world would have no metaphysical status
No world could not be morally better than some world because no world is not a moral world at all
There is no way of comparing an amoral world to a moral world. An amoral world is spoken about meaninglessly
The problems for an anti-theist in arguing that a morally perfect world is better than a morally good or morally bad world is that in order to make this judgment the anti-theist must assume a moral objective standard which can only be had by a God
The anti-theist really can only insist that theism is not internally consistent
The theist can reply in two ways:
1) A world with the greater number of virtues is morally better than a world with less virtues and moral viruses like courage, fortitude, mercy and forgiveness are only possible in a sinful/evil world
2) A world with a higher attainment of moral virtues is morally better than a world with a lower attainment and virtues like love and kindness are heightened by the presence of evil
1) God must produce the morally best world he can produce
2) A world where evil serves as a condition for the attainment of higher virtues is a better tone than where less than the highest virtues are attained
3) This world is a world wherein evil serves as such a condition
4) Therefore, this world is better than a world where evil never occurred
A non-evil world versus an evil world
Theists can argue agains this in two ways
1) A world with fully free creatures who chose never to sin may be logically possible, but not actually so
2) Even if such a world occurred it would not be morally better than this one
1) God would not produce a world where free beings will always do evil if it were possible to produce one where they will never more do evil
2) This is a world where free beings do evil
3) Therefore, the world is not God's final production
1) It is morally better for God to create the morally best world possible
2) A world with higher moral virtues is a morally better world
3) A world where humans are permitted to sin as a precondition to a better world is better than one where they are not
4) This present world is one where humans are free and do sin
5) Therefore, this present world is better than a world where humans never sin
God cannot do the impossible and to create a morally perfect world without creating the preconditions for such a world is impossible.
1) God cannot do what is impossible
2) It is impossible to create conditional virtues directly
3) A world with the highest moral virtues is conditioned on the presence of evil
4) Therefore, God cannot create directly a world with the highest moral virtues in it
A world of good and evil is a necessary condition for choosing either good or evil.
It is impossible for God to create directly a world with achieved moral values of the highest nature.
Eschatological verification of this theodicy
A skeptic may challenge this theodicy in claiming that something that is only verifiable in the future is of no assistance to us here and now in deciding what is true
There are two types of obtainable evidence for this theodicy:
1) Human experience is witness to the fact that free beings achieve higher moral perfection through suffering
2) Divine intervention is an evidence that something has ben done to reverse the course of world events for the better
The Attainability of a Theistic Answer to Evil
Is it possible that evil will eventually be totally overcome?
How is it logistically possible to achieve the maximum moral good out of the abuse of moral freedom?
How can we account for the moral evil that never brought about a greater good?
What explanation is offer able for the evils that do not result from an abuse of moral freedom?
How God brings good out of evil is not a serious problem for theism.
William James put it well when he wrote, "The word is all the richer for having a devil in it, so long as we keep our feet upon his neck" (357).
Only an all powerful being is capable of eradicating evil completely. Only an omniscient Being can utilize good and evil for the greatest good. Only an all-loving God would grant creatures the freedom to reject Him.
1) It is logically possible for evil to turn out for a greater good.
2) An all powerful God has the ability to bring the greatest good out of evil.
3) An all-loving God has the desire to bring the greatest good out of evil.
4) An all-knowing God possesses the wisdom to bring out the greatest good from evil
5) Therefore, the greatest good will be brought out of evil.
All moral evil is a necessary condition to achieving a greater good.
But, why does God permit unnecessary suffering or unnecessary moral evil?
Theism is the only solution to the moral problem of evil and the success of it hinges on the guarantee of an infinite God.
A world capable of optimal moral perfection implies a world of optimal moral freedom. The highest moral perfection depends on the presence of evil obstacles. Thus, there must be a permanent heaven (when evil will nevermore be done) and a permanent hell (where evil will evermore be done, but can never spread).
"Demanding that a man consent to love God against his will would be divine rape. It is better that each person be given the free choice to love or not love God" (362).
An optimally perfect moral world should contain four components:
1. The process leading to the final achievement of a world where humans are free but never will do any evil.
2. A world wherein is permitted the full and final uncorked exercise of moral freedom
3. A world in which there is permitted the presence of enough evil to provide both the condition for the achievement of higher moral virtues and a comprehensive lesson of the wrongness of evil for creatures.
4. A world where free creatures learn for themselves why evil is wrong.
The Physical Problem of Evil
The Problem of Physical Evil for Theism
It appears that not all evil results directly or indirectly from the abuse of human freedom.
Posing the problem of physical evil
Albert Camus' Plague is the most widely used problem of physical evil.
1) Either one must join the Doctor and fight the plague or else he must join the priest and not fight the plague.
2) Not to fight the plague is anti humanitarian
3) To fight the plague is to fight against God who sent it
4) Therefore, if humanitarianism is right, theism is wrong
5) Humanitarianism is right
6) Therefore, theism is wrong
The dilemma for the theist is this: if suffering is a condition of the greater good than we ought not to eliminate suffering so as to indirectly work against the greatest good.
Proposed Theistic Solutions to Physical Evil
1. Evil is a necessary contrast to Good
- without pain one cannot fully appreciate pleasure
- problems: it only explains pain, less pain would accomplish the same thing, even if evil depends on good, experience show that one can know the good without participating in evil
2. Evil is a necessary byproduct of laws that bring good results
problems: -only explains some kinds of evil, an omnipotent God could have created a world without evil byproducts. an omnipotent God could intervene and stop evil byproducts
3. Evil is necessary to punish the wicked
problems: - Job suffered innocently, Jesus said sin si not the cause of all suffering (Luke 13:4), babies are born with deformities
4. Evil is a necessary example to others
problems: - accounts for only a tiny portion of suffering
5. Evil is necessary to warn the wicked
problems: physical disasters often turn people away from God, not to God, Natural disasters are inconsistent with a benevolent God
6. Evil is a necessary part of the best possible world
problems: - an all powerful God could make a world without evil, the unjust distribution of evil could be distributed justly
7. Evil is necessary for ultimate harmony
problems: it makes evil only prima facie and eliminates reform, it makes evil illusionary because it is not evil in God's eyes, it gives God a double standard
8. Evil is a necessary condition for achieving the best world
Problems: - it does not explain first order evil, the price for long run goods is too high, some long run consequences are evil, immortal bliss does not justify suffering
9. Evil is a necessary conflict among natural systems
problems: God could have created a world without conflicting systems
10. Evil is necessary to build character
Problems: character building does not apply to all evil, the price is too high to make character building worthwhile
A Theistic Solution to the Problem of Physical Evil
Many of the anti-theistic criticism gain weight only by assuming false pretexts
- an all powerful God is capable of creating the best possible world without suffering
- the greater good does not result from suffering
- evil cannot be explained as necessary to human freedom
- the best world possible is not worth the high price to achieve it
Unnecessary evil of any kind is inconsistent with an absolutely perfect God. Thus, all evil is somehow necessary
One major criticism of the theistic solution to physical evil is that theists try to use a combination of all these tactics. They cannot achieve success because each is like a leaky bucket and no matter how many leaky buckets are used to catch water, water will still seep through. But, in reality each of these is like a bucket that has no leaks, but can only hold so much water. All the buckets together can hold all the water and all the solutions can explain all the evil.
Some physical evils are necessary conditions for moral perfections. There are second order goods that are unachievable without first order evils.
Some physical evils are a necessary consequence of human free choice.
The elimination of pain would eliminate all pleasure. One cannot have a painful experience without knowing the meaning of non-pain and one cannot have a pleasurable experience without knowing a non-pleasurable experience (i.e. pain).
Some physical evil is a necessary consequence of the free choice of demons.
Why doesn't God eliminate demonic powers? The best way to defeat evil is to let it expires itself because it is ultimately self-defeating.
Some physical evil is a necessary moral warning.
C.S. Lewis held that 'God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is his megaphone to rouse the deaf world" (376)
While it is true that not all persons respond positively to pain, it still remains an opportunity to respond positively.
God would be morally accountable if he did not warn us with pain as a doctor would be morally accountable not to warn sexually actively clients of the danger of AIDS.
Some physical evils are necessary components of a physical world. The pain of lower life forms is a necessary condition for the sustaining of higher life forms.
Objections to the Theistic solution to Physical evil
1) This theodicy implies that the ends justify the means.
Response: God has utilitarian goals, but does not use utilitarian means. That is, He allows evil to happen and uses it to create the ultimate good but does not use evil (commit it) to achieve such an end.
2) The theodicy does not account for the vastness of evil or the unequal distribution of it.
Respones:
1) No finite mind can really press this point
2) This theodicy need not measure evil quantitatively
3) This theodicy entails a double standard
Response: God does not commit the evil acts, only permits them. There is only one standard and that is God Himself. God cannot break that standard because he cannot contradict himself
4) This theodicy implies it is wrong to alleviate human suffering
Respones: when man is working against evil he is not frustrating God's effort, but fulfilling them. God does not send human suffering. Man's free choice causes suffering.
5) This theodicy exalts human freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty
Response: Moral acts are self-determined. Human self-determination enhances God's sovereignty and human dignity.
Finished!! Done! Praise God!
My thoughts on Evil:
1) Evil is a privation
2) Evil is only existent in the absence of good
3) God is good
4) The world contains evil.
5) The world is not wholly evil
6) Therefore, God is neither wholly present nor wholly absent from the world
Physical evil and moral evil are subcategories of metaphysical evils
All evil regardless of it being physical or moral is a result of human choice.
Moral evil is a direct result of human choice. But who the vil befalls may not be the direct choice maker, i.e. the Nazis chose to kill the Jews. The Jews suffered a moral evil because of a direct choice of the Nazis. But the Nazis eventually suffered for their choices.
Physical Evil is an indirect result of human choice. The flood (the first natural disaster) was a direct result of human choice to be wicked. Subsequent disasters are a result of the ecosystem being traumatized by the flood. Thus while no wicked acts may be directly responsible for Katrina or the Tsunami of 2004, they are nonetheless a recurring punitive measure for human wickedness.
All evil is inherited. We are all relatives in that we are all descendent of Adam and Eve. Their moral sin had physical and spiritual consequences. We inherit the physical consequences (death) in our DNA, but we also inherit the spiritual consequences (fallenness) via our inherited spiritual DNA.
Yes, I am advocating that souls, like physical bodies are created via reproduction. This is a very plausible explanation of how all men have fallen short of the glory of God and for the sins of the father. Souls are created from father and mother history. The sins of all ancestors are passed down to each generation. This also explains why Jesus Christ did not inherit a sin nature or fallenness because
because he was not born of a man. Thus, he did not inherit the sins of the Father because his father is God and thus, sinless.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The end times notes
(Originally written May 10, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)
Historic Christian Belief
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
True, Origen
Between Death & Resurrection
Purgatory
-Roman Catholic Doctrine (2 Maccabees 12:45)
Protestant objections
-Luke 16:26
-Hebrews 9:27
Paradise
-Jesus: Luke 23:43
-Paul: 2 Corinthians 12:4, Philippians 1:23
-Revelation 2:7, 6:9-11
The Return of Christ & the millennium
Historic pre-millennialism (2nd century)
-post apostolic fathers
Amillennialism (4th century)
-Augustine of Hippo
Post-Millennialism (16th century)
-Jonathan Edwards
Dispensational Pre-Millennialism (19th century)
-Darby, LaHaye/Jenkins: Left Behind
Historic Christian Belief
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
True, Origen
Between Death & Resurrection
Purgatory
-Roman Catholic Doctrine (2 Maccabees 12:45)
Protestant objections
-Luke 16:26
-Hebrews 9:27
Paradise
-Jesus: Luke 23:43
-Paul: 2 Corinthians 12:4, Philippians 1:23
-Revelation 2:7, 6:9-11
The Return of Christ & the millennium
Historic pre-millennialism (2nd century)
-post apostolic fathers
Amillennialism (4th century)
-Augustine of Hippo
Post-Millennialism (16th century)
-Jonathan Edwards
Dispensational Pre-Millennialism (19th century)
-Darby, LaHaye/Jenkins: Left Behind
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
Biblical backing for animal rights issues
(Originally written May 9, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)
Animal Rights
Rights/Duties
Sentient Rights
Genesis 1:26, 9:1-7 Divine image bearers exercising dominion
Genesis 2:16-17 - Pre-Fall diet, vegetarian??
Deuteronomy 12:15, 20 - Israelites may eat meat
Proverbs 12:10 - ethical treatment of animals
Mark 7:18-19: "Are you so dull? He asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn't go into their heart but their stomach, and then out their body" (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean).
Luke 12:24 - humans are more valuable in God's eyes than animals are
1 Timothy 4:1-5 - humans can eat animals
Isaiah 11:6 - the wolf, the lamb & the child
Animal Rights
Rights/Duties
Sentient Rights
Genesis 1:26, 9:1-7 Divine image bearers exercising dominion
Genesis 2:16-17 - Pre-Fall diet, vegetarian??
Deuteronomy 12:15, 20 - Israelites may eat meat
Proverbs 12:10 - ethical treatment of animals
Mark 7:18-19: "Are you so dull? He asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn't go into their heart but their stomach, and then out their body" (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean).
Luke 12:24 - humans are more valuable in God's eyes than animals are
1 Timothy 4:1-5 - humans can eat animals
Isaiah 11:6 - the wolf, the lamb & the child
Monday, May 8, 2006
Eschatology Notes
(Originally written May 8, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)
Historic Christian Belief
Eschatology
Physical Death
Death - body-soul separation
-not merely 'natural'
-an enemy: sin's penalty
(Genesis 2 & 3, Romans 5:12, 6:23)
For unbelievers: prelude to the final judgment (Revelation 20:6)
For believers: final step in sanctification (1 Corinthians 15:26)
Between Death & Resurrection:
Hades (Hebrew Sheol, Hell)
OT - The Graves
NT - For the wicked dead only
Purgatory
Roman Catholic Doctrine (2 Maccabees 12:45)
Protestant objection to purgatory (Luke 16:26, Hebrews 9:27)
Historic Christian Belief
Eschatology
Physical Death
Death - body-soul separation
-not merely 'natural'
-an enemy: sin's penalty
(Genesis 2 & 3, Romans 5:12, 6:23)
For unbelievers: prelude to the final judgment (Revelation 20:6)
For believers: final step in sanctification (1 Corinthians 15:26)
Between Death & Resurrection:
Hades (Hebrew Sheol, Hell)
OT - The Graves
NT - For the wicked dead only
Purgatory
Roman Catholic Doctrine (2 Maccabees 12:45)
Protestant objection to purgatory (Luke 16:26, Hebrews 9:27)
Discipleship and how to study the Bible
(Originally Written May 8, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)
Introduction to Christian Education
Colossians 1:28 "He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ"
Ephesians 4:11-12 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up."
Disciple - follower, pupil, learner
Disciple is used two ways in the New Testament
1) Broad: meaning a follower
2) Narrow: followed Jesus' teaching and bore fruit
Discipleship is a process of learning theology and practice
Spiritual growth is vertical and horizontal. It has a whole person focus. (Luke 2:52, Acts 2:42-47).
The third generation of Christians focused on making disciple-makers (II Timothy 2:2)
Vocation:
Vocation is where your deepest joy meets the world (the divine call to serve). A job is merely a way to earn money. A career is a life goal. What is a divine call? It is not specific to place or time. It is not a way to make life easy. It is not waiting for a voice.
Theory of Revelation:
Liberal - eliminates the supernatural, a perspective of religions, man is generally good
Contemporary - (neo-orthodoxy) contra to the liberal (Karl Barth)
Conservative (evangelical)
One's view of scripture changes the way you view information and the way you teach.
Inductive Bible Study
Deductive - start with a general principle and move to specific details
Inductive (exegesis) - start with specific details and move to a general principle using hermeneutics
Hermeneutics - methods of interpretation
IBS method
1) Observation - what does it say?
2) Interpretation - what does it mean?
3) Generalization - what's the big idea?
4) Application - what's the difference?
5) Implementation - what must I change?
Description vs. Prescriptive interpretation
The Big idea - the point, the composition, the central theme
Ask:
1) What is the author talking about?
2) What is the author saying about what he is talking about?
Application:
Take a specific principle and apply it to a specific situation and apply a specific action plan.
In a lesson plan there are three objectives to touch:
1) A person's head - engage the mind
2) A person's hand - get them to do something
3) A person's heart - get them to feel something
Introduction to Christian Education
Colossians 1:28 "He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ"
Ephesians 4:11-12 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up."
Disciple - follower, pupil, learner
Disciple is used two ways in the New Testament
1) Broad: meaning a follower
2) Narrow: followed Jesus' teaching and bore fruit
Discipleship is a process of learning theology and practice
Spiritual growth is vertical and horizontal. It has a whole person focus. (Luke 2:52, Acts 2:42-47).
The third generation of Christians focused on making disciple-makers (II Timothy 2:2)
Vocation:
Vocation is where your deepest joy meets the world (the divine call to serve). A job is merely a way to earn money. A career is a life goal. What is a divine call? It is not specific to place or time. It is not a way to make life easy. It is not waiting for a voice.
Theory of Revelation:
Liberal - eliminates the supernatural, a perspective of religions, man is generally good
Contemporary - (neo-orthodoxy) contra to the liberal (Karl Barth)
Conservative (evangelical)
One's view of scripture changes the way you view information and the way you teach.
Inductive Bible Study
Deductive - start with a general principle and move to specific details
Inductive (exegesis) - start with specific details and move to a general principle using hermeneutics
Hermeneutics - methods of interpretation
IBS method
1) Observation - what does it say?
2) Interpretation - what does it mean?
3) Generalization - what's the big idea?
4) Application - what's the difference?
5) Implementation - what must I change?
Description vs. Prescriptive interpretation
The Big idea - the point, the composition, the central theme
Ask:
1) What is the author talking about?
2) What is the author saying about what he is talking about?
Application:
Take a specific principle and apply it to a specific situation and apply a specific action plan.
In a lesson plan there are three objectives to touch:
1) A person's head - engage the mind
2) A person's hand - get them to do something
3) A person's heart - get them to feel something
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Framework on abortion discussion
(Originally Written on March 21, 2006 in 3 Subject)
Contemporary Issues of Philosophy
Topic 7: Abortion
Introduction: The psychology of language
Pro-Choice:
1. Strong
-No restrictions
-an absolute right to have an abortion
2. Weak
-restrictions on pregnancy stage
-restrictions on motive
-restrictions on consent
-restrictions on notification
Pro-Life
1. Strong
-no exceptions
-always morally wrong to have an abortion
2. Weak
-exceptions involving life of the mother
-exceptions involving rape
-exceptions involving incest
Legal Background of Abortion
-Roe v. Wade
-Webster v. Reproductive Services
-Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Biblical Overview
-Exodus 21: 10 Commandments
-Genesis 4
-Job 3:3
-Isaiah
-Psalms
-Luke
Contemporary Issues of Philosophy
Topic 7: Abortion
Introduction: The psychology of language
Pro-Choice:
1. Strong
-No restrictions
-an absolute right to have an abortion
2. Weak
-restrictions on pregnancy stage
-restrictions on motive
-restrictions on consent
-restrictions on notification
Pro-Life
1. Strong
-no exceptions
-always morally wrong to have an abortion
2. Weak
-exceptions involving life of the mother
-exceptions involving rape
-exceptions involving incest
Legal Background of Abortion
-Roe v. Wade
-Webster v. Reproductive Services
-Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Biblical Overview
-Exodus 21: 10 Commandments
-Genesis 4
-Job 3:3
-Isaiah
-Psalms
-Luke
Monday, March 13, 2006
Free Will & Ezra
(Originally Written March 13, 2006 in 3 Subject)
Read Luke 1:10-19 Aloud 5x
Ezra 7:10 "For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the Lord..."
Study, then observe (live it out), then teach it.
Free Will
Is there free will in man? This question is irrelevant. A will is always determined to perform some action. A being is free if it has the power to act according to its determined will. Thus, a relevant question would be is what or who determines the will of a man.
Read Luke 1:10-19 Aloud 5x
Ezra 7:10 "For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the Lord..."
Study, then observe (live it out), then teach it.
Free Will
Is there free will in man? This question is irrelevant. A will is always determined to perform some action. A being is free if it has the power to act according to its determined will. Thus, a relevant question would be is what or who determines the will of a man.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Notes on 1 John and Revelation
(Originally written January 25, 2006)
Roles of God in Salvation
Father = Election
Son = Redemption/forgiveness of sins
Holy Spirit = Secures the believers' future inheritance, blessings = glorified bodies
What can we learn from I John 1:1-4
- we can have fellowship with believers and with God and Jesus
- letter is about the word of life eternal
-note emphasis on sensory perception of the word
1 John 1:5-10 Belief and Practice must be wedded
vv. 5-10 concern what will be true orthodox beliefs
vv. 6, 8, & 10 are directed against the teaching of the heretics
Confession steps
1) call it sin
2) call it forgiven
3) call on God for help
Heretics
- claimed to walk with God but did not
- claimed they had no sin to be cleansed
Why was I John written?
- To expose false teachers who are leading true believers astray (2:26)
- To give true Christians assurance of their salvation
Non-Biblical Gnostic dualism led to five errors:
1) human body is evil, soul is good
2) salvation is escape from body
3) Denied Christ's true humanity in two ways:
-Docetism: Christ only appeared to have a body
-Cerenthianism: the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at baptism and left before he died
4) Asceticism
5) Licentiousness
What is the sin that leads to Death in 1 John 5:16
1) Either referring to physical death that is caused by sin (Old Testament and I Corinthians 11). God ending a life so as the man is brought home rather than damned to hell.
2) A person who stayed in the community but then were heretics and left the community of believers.
Introduction to Revelation
Apokalypsis (Greek) means the uncovering, laying bare, Metaphorically it means a revealing
Revelation = Prophetic Apocalyptic Literature
-Apocalyptic Literature - starts in post-exilic Jewish writing
-Contains dreams, spiritual realm, savior from despair
Prophetic Apocalyptic - incorporates Apocalyptic literature with prophecy of Israel
Symbolic language has real implication
Revelation is a prophetic red book.
Unholy Trinity
Satan - Red Dragon
Antichrist - The Beast
False Prophet - The other beast
Four Interpretive Approaches to the Book of Revelation (or Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)
1) Idealist approach (NIV Study Bible likes this)
-Theological poem depicting between good and evil
-No events will actually happen
-Expressions of basic principles of how God acts
Weaknesses of Idealist approach
-Continues the allegorical approach
-No historical fulfillment
2) Preterist Approach
-Contents are factual/historical
-Everything in it except visions in Chapters 21 and 22 was fulfilled by the time John wrote
Weaknesses of Preterist approach
-the decisive victory never happened
-view cannot fit all the events of Revelation chapters 2-19 into the year AD 64-70 or AD 64-96.
3) Historicist Approach
- Revelation chapters 2-19/20 is a forecast of the course of history down to present day
- Revelation sketches the history of Western Europe from the Popes to Charlemagne to Napoleon to Hitler
Problems with the historicist approach
-Totally subjective
-No significance to first century readers
4) The Futurist Approach
-Major emphasis is on the future final victory of God over evil
-Many believe that from 4:1 on is future
-Letter to 7 churches are something held to represent the predominant types of churches in successive stages of church history
-John being taken up into heaven is symbolic of rapture
Major Weakness
- Most of the book was irrelevant for those whom it was addressed
- Little comfort to the original readers who would have to wait for 7 ages of the Church for Christ to return
Revelation 3:14-22
Church at Laodicea: Self-Satisfied Church
Hot/Cold/Lukewarm: Popular view vs. Correct view
Hot: Believer (popular) Medicinal (correct)
Cold: Unbeliever (popular) Refreshing (correct)
Lukewarm: Indifferent (popular) Miserable (correct)
Laodicea had to import water from other places:
1) was a hot spring that by the time the water got there it was lukewarm
2) was a cold water source [Colosse] but by the time it got to Laodicea it was lukewarm.
The water was no longer medicinal or refreshing, it was miserable.
(John knew his readers!)
Perceived Anti-Christs: George III, Napoleon, Reagan, Roman Popes, Mussolini, Hussein, Hitler, Gorbachev
Central passage for the Millennium: Revelation 20:4-6
Christ speaks of two ages
1) Present age
2) Age to come
Views on Millennialism:
1) Amillennialism: there will be no millennium
- The saints are reigning with Christ now in heaven
- Eternity begins at the second coming
- Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled spiritually in the Church
2) Postmillennialism: Jesus returns after the millennium to reign with the saints
- Satan is bound now
- World won to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel and will experience a "wonderful" period of peace
- Church prepares the world for the second coming of Christ
3) Premillennialism: Christ returns to earth before the millennium
-Millenium is a time when God fulfills the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants with Israel
-Church shares in new covenant promises, but God is not finished with Israel yet.
Premillennialists debate the Rapture
Pre-tribulation Rapture/Seven Year Tribulation (Chapters 6-19)/Post-tribulation rapture
Roles of God in Salvation
Father = Election
Son = Redemption/forgiveness of sins
Holy Spirit = Secures the believers' future inheritance, blessings = glorified bodies
What can we learn from I John 1:1-4
- we can have fellowship with believers and with God and Jesus
- letter is about the word of life eternal
-note emphasis on sensory perception of the word
1 John 1:5-10 Belief and Practice must be wedded
vv. 5-10 concern what will be true orthodox beliefs
vv. 6, 8, & 10 are directed against the teaching of the heretics
Confession steps
1) call it sin
2) call it forgiven
3) call on God for help
Heretics
- claimed to walk with God but did not
- claimed they had no sin to be cleansed
Why was I John written?
- To expose false teachers who are leading true believers astray (2:26)
- To give true Christians assurance of their salvation
Non-Biblical Gnostic dualism led to five errors:
1) human body is evil, soul is good
2) salvation is escape from body
3) Denied Christ's true humanity in two ways:
-Docetism: Christ only appeared to have a body
-Cerenthianism: the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at baptism and left before he died
4) Asceticism
5) Licentiousness
What is the sin that leads to Death in 1 John 5:16
1) Either referring to physical death that is caused by sin (Old Testament and I Corinthians 11). God ending a life so as the man is brought home rather than damned to hell.
2) A person who stayed in the community but then were heretics and left the community of believers.
Introduction to Revelation
Apokalypsis (Greek) means the uncovering, laying bare, Metaphorically it means a revealing
Revelation = Prophetic Apocalyptic Literature
-Apocalyptic Literature - starts in post-exilic Jewish writing
-Contains dreams, spiritual realm, savior from despair
Prophetic Apocalyptic - incorporates Apocalyptic literature with prophecy of Israel
Symbolic language has real implication
Revelation is a prophetic red book.
Unholy Trinity
Satan - Red Dragon
Antichrist - The Beast
False Prophet - The other beast
Four Interpretive Approaches to the Book of Revelation (or Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)
1) Idealist approach (NIV Study Bible likes this)
-Theological poem depicting between good and evil
-No events will actually happen
-Expressions of basic principles of how God acts
Weaknesses of Idealist approach
-Continues the allegorical approach
-No historical fulfillment
2) Preterist Approach
-Contents are factual/historical
-Everything in it except visions in Chapters 21 and 22 was fulfilled by the time John wrote
Weaknesses of Preterist approach
-the decisive victory never happened
-view cannot fit all the events of Revelation chapters 2-19 into the year AD 64-70 or AD 64-96.
3) Historicist Approach
- Revelation chapters 2-19/20 is a forecast of the course of history down to present day
- Revelation sketches the history of Western Europe from the Popes to Charlemagne to Napoleon to Hitler
Problems with the historicist approach
-Totally subjective
-No significance to first century readers
4) The Futurist Approach
-Major emphasis is on the future final victory of God over evil
-Many believe that from 4:1 on is future
-Letter to 7 churches are something held to represent the predominant types of churches in successive stages of church history
-John being taken up into heaven is symbolic of rapture
Major Weakness
- Most of the book was irrelevant for those whom it was addressed
- Little comfort to the original readers who would have to wait for 7 ages of the Church for Christ to return
Revelation 3:14-22
Church at Laodicea: Self-Satisfied Church
Hot/Cold/Lukewarm: Popular view vs. Correct view
Hot: Believer (popular) Medicinal (correct)
Cold: Unbeliever (popular) Refreshing (correct)
Lukewarm: Indifferent (popular) Miserable (correct)
Laodicea had to import water from other places:
1) was a hot spring that by the time the water got there it was lukewarm
2) was a cold water source [Colosse] but by the time it got to Laodicea it was lukewarm.
The water was no longer medicinal or refreshing, it was miserable.
(John knew his readers!)
Perceived Anti-Christs: George III, Napoleon, Reagan, Roman Popes, Mussolini, Hussein, Hitler, Gorbachev
Central passage for the Millennium: Revelation 20:4-6
Christ speaks of two ages
1) Present age
2) Age to come
Views on Millennialism:
1) Amillennialism: there will be no millennium
- The saints are reigning with Christ now in heaven
- Eternity begins at the second coming
- Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled spiritually in the Church
2) Postmillennialism: Jesus returns after the millennium to reign with the saints
- Satan is bound now
- World won to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel and will experience a "wonderful" period of peace
- Church prepares the world for the second coming of Christ
3) Premillennialism: Christ returns to earth before the millennium
-Millenium is a time when God fulfills the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants with Israel
-Church shares in new covenant promises, but God is not finished with Israel yet.
Premillennialists debate the Rapture
Pre-tribulation Rapture/Seven Year Tribulation (Chapters 6-19)/Post-tribulation rapture
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Introduction to the Gospel of John
(Originally written January 10, 2006 in Notebook 20)
Intro to the Gospel of John (Ch. 1-4)
-92% of John is unique.
-Very distinct portrait of Jesus
-Only gospel to record "the Early Judean ministry"
John 1:19 - 4:45
Matthew 4:11-12
Mark 1:13-14
Luke 4:113-14
-No genealogy in John
-No sermon on the Mount
Miracle count:
-Matthew: 20
-Mark: 18
-Luke: 20
-John: 8
Number of Parables:
-Matthew: 16
-Mark: 5
-Luke: 20
-John: 0
The style of speech is very different than the synoptic gospels
John 5:24 - Salvation is a present rather than future reality.
What kind of faith pleases God?
John 4:43-54
Galileans - sign based faith. Sign based faith is not true faith.
The faith of the royal official is true faith:
1) Believed at face value (verse 50b)
2) Believed totally (verse 53b)
Intro to the Gospel of John (Ch. 1-4)
-92% of John is unique.
-Very distinct portrait of Jesus
-Only gospel to record "the Early Judean ministry"
John 1:19 - 4:45
Matthew 4:11-12
Mark 1:13-14
Luke 4:113-14
-No genealogy in John
-No sermon on the Mount
Miracle count:
-Matthew: 20
-Mark: 18
-Luke: 20
-John: 8
Number of Parables:
-Matthew: 16
-Mark: 5
-Luke: 20
-John: 0
The style of speech is very different than the synoptic gospels
John 5:24 - Salvation is a present rather than future reality.
What kind of faith pleases God?
John 4:43-54
Galileans - sign based faith. Sign based faith is not true faith.
The faith of the royal official is true faith:
1) Believed at face value (verse 50b)
2) Believed totally (verse 53b)
Monday, January 9, 2006
Quick notes on Sources for the Synoptic Gospels
(Originally written January 9, 2006 in Notebook 20)
Three Stages of Composition of Luke
1) Eyewitnesses who handed down the words of Jesus
2) The many who had already written accounts of Jesus and the early church
3) Luke himself, who carefully investigated and composed his own orderly account
Study Guide
Two Unique Births
- John the Baptist
- Jesus
Requirements of the Messiah
1) The Genealogical strand from the descendants of Abraham, tribe of Judah, line of David
2) The Prophetic strand: be born in Bethlehem, mother would be a virgin, and would flee to Egypt and be called back by God
3) Physical Evidence: he would have to perform certain acts
Primary Proof of Jesus as the Messiah
- The resurrection
The Synoptic Problem: Why are there so many similarities, yet differences in the three synoptic Gospels?
Marcan Priority: Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source
Matthean Priority: Mark and Luke used Matthew as a source
Q-Source: A Source that Matthew and Luke used alongside of Mark
- Problems with the Q-Source: It no longer exists and doesn't explain for when Matthew and Luke differ
Two-Source Theory: Matthew & Luke used Mark and the Q-Source to write their gospels
Four-Source Theory:
-Matthew and Luke used Mark and the Q-Source
-Matthew used an M-source as well
-Luke used an L-source as well
M-Source vs. L-Source
M-Source is material unique to Matthew
L-Source is material unique to Matthew
Importance of 2 Peter 3:15-16: Peter calls Paul's letters scripture in this passage
Three Stages of Composition of Luke
1) Eyewitnesses who handed down the words of Jesus
2) The many who had already written accounts of Jesus and the early church
3) Luke himself, who carefully investigated and composed his own orderly account
Study Guide
Two Unique Births
- John the Baptist
- Jesus
Requirements of the Messiah
1) The Genealogical strand from the descendants of Abraham, tribe of Judah, line of David
2) The Prophetic strand: be born in Bethlehem, mother would be a virgin, and would flee to Egypt and be called back by God
3) Physical Evidence: he would have to perform certain acts
Primary Proof of Jesus as the Messiah
- The resurrection
The Synoptic Problem: Why are there so many similarities, yet differences in the three synoptic Gospels?
Marcan Priority: Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source
Matthean Priority: Mark and Luke used Matthew as a source
Q-Source: A Source that Matthew and Luke used alongside of Mark
- Problems with the Q-Source: It no longer exists and doesn't explain for when Matthew and Luke differ
Two-Source Theory: Matthew & Luke used Mark and the Q-Source to write their gospels
Four-Source Theory:
-Matthew and Luke used Mark and the Q-Source
-Matthew used an M-source as well
-Luke used an L-source as well
M-Source vs. L-Source
M-Source is material unique to Matthew
L-Source is material unique to Matthew
Importance of 2 Peter 3:15-16: Peter calls Paul's letters scripture in this passage
Friday, January 6, 2006
Class Notes on the Critical Study of the Gospels
(Originally written January 6, 2006 in Notebook 20)
The Critical Study of the Gospels
- Where do scholars begin?
First Question: What are our primary sources and how reliable are they?
Source Criticism
Matthew - Eyewitnesses
Mark - records Peter's eyewitness
Luke - a non-eyewitness who did research of eyewitnesses
The Synoptic Problem
Why are there so many differences in the Gospels?
Two source Hypothesis (Marcan Priority)
Q-Source (written 50 AD) served as a source for Matthew & Luke
Mark (written 65 AD) served as a source for Matthew & Luke
The Griesbach Hypothesis (Matthean Priority)
Matthew was written before Luke, both were written before Mark.
There is no need for a Q-Source
4-Source Hypothesis (Marcan Priority)
M (AD 60-65)
MK (AD 65)
Q (AD 50)
L (AD 60)
There was also a porto-luke
5 Sources for the sayings of Jesus:
1) Gospel of Mark
- written in primitive Greek
- least sophisticated regarding context
- forms basis for other two Synoptic Gospels
2) "Q" Source
- sayings common to Matthew and Luke
- Questionable if this was ever a written source
- Could have found fixed form in oral tradition
3) "M" Source (material unique to Matthew)
4) "L" Source (material unique to Luke)
5) The Gospel of John
- Jesus (A.D. 29-33)
- Oral transmission of tradition (AD 30-100)
- Luke (AD 62)
- Theophilus (Gentile believer AD 62)
Form Criticism asks: How are the words of Jesus passed on by word of mouth before they were written?
I've never been this bored before
Never looked at the clock more
Never tallied up the score
Never thought this could be such a bore
The Critical Study of the Gospels
- Where do scholars begin?
First Question: What are our primary sources and how reliable are they?
Source Criticism
Matthew - Eyewitnesses
Mark - records Peter's eyewitness
Luke - a non-eyewitness who did research of eyewitnesses
The Synoptic Problem
Why are there so many differences in the Gospels?
Two source Hypothesis (Marcan Priority)
Q-Source (written 50 AD) served as a source for Matthew & Luke
Mark (written 65 AD) served as a source for Matthew & Luke
The Griesbach Hypothesis (Matthean Priority)
Matthew was written before Luke, both were written before Mark.
There is no need for a Q-Source
4-Source Hypothesis (Marcan Priority)
M (AD 60-65)
MK (AD 65)
Q (AD 50)
L (AD 60)
There was also a porto-luke
5 Sources for the sayings of Jesus:
1) Gospel of Mark
- written in primitive Greek
- least sophisticated regarding context
- forms basis for other two Synoptic Gospels
2) "Q" Source
- sayings common to Matthew and Luke
- Questionable if this was ever a written source
- Could have found fixed form in oral tradition
3) "M" Source (material unique to Matthew)
4) "L" Source (material unique to Luke)
5) The Gospel of John
- Jesus (A.D. 29-33)
- Oral transmission of tradition (AD 30-100)
- Luke (AD 62)
- Theophilus (Gentile believer AD 62)
Form Criticism asks: How are the words of Jesus passed on by word of mouth before they were written?
I've never been this bored before
Never looked at the clock more
Never tallied up the score
Never thought this could be such a bore
Book notes on the Gospels
(Originally written January 6, 2006 in Notebook 20)
Bible Study: Mark Ch. 1-10
The Promise and The Blessing Pg. 373-383
There were two important births in the New Testament: John the Baptist and Jesus.
400 years after the Old Testament the Jews were oppressed by the Romans but hopeful of the coming Messiah.
Anyone professing to be the Messiah would have to meet three criteria:
1) Genealogical requirement
- be a descendent of Abraham
- be from the tribe of Judah
- be from the line of David
2) Prophetic Strand
- Must be born in Bethlehem
- Mother must be a virgin
- He must flee to Egypt and be called back by God
3) Physical evidences
- his public actions, i.e. healing the sick
The gospels are not a biography of Jesus' life
What is a gospel?
- The word, 'gospel', comes from the Greek word for "good news"
- A gospel is a document that proclaims that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and gives evidence to demonstrate that claim
The primary proof that Jesus was the Messiah is His resurrection
Why are the four gospels so similar and yet at the same time different?
- Marcan priority: Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source
- Matthean priority: Mark and Luke used Matthew as a source
Today it is widely held that Mark is the oldest Gospel. The reason for this belief of Mark being the oldest for:
- The dating of the books (65 A.D.)
- Mark is the shortest Gospel and any gospel written after the first would not omit events
- Matthew and Luke contain things like genealogies and the Sermon on the Mont which are not found in Mark
There is called the two-source theory, meaning Matthew and Luke used Mark and another source for their gospels
The second source is the Q-source.
- Problems with the Q-source is that we have no evidence of it and it does not account for differences in Matthew and Luke
There is a four source theory that uses four sources for Matthew & Luke
1) Mark
2) Q-Source
3) M-Source
4) L-Source
Unfortunately these theories reduce Matthew and Luke to mere copies or redactors (research writers)
The early church began with a few convictions:
1) Eye witness accounts of the resurrection
2) a belief that Jesus would return soon
3) there was a need to spread their beliefs to as many folks as possible
The eye witness accounts were given as oral tradition
Jesus used the oral tradition and his followers would have heard the same message preached at every town they visited.
As well as oral tradition, events in Jesus' life that were important were recorded in the Gospels
- the story of feeding the 5,000 is the only one to be in all four Gospels
- Other events were included in each of the gospels according to the writer's personal interests
The spread of the gospel began on the day of Pentecost. Eye witness accounts were given for years. New Christians memorized these accounts and spread the news throughout the world. This lasted 20-25 years.
The Gospels began to be written after James, the brother of Jesus was executed. The apostles were seeing that they too could be killed.
Then Paul sets out on his missionary visits and starts writing letters. These letters were being collected as the gospels were being written.
Matthew remained in Judea 15 years after James' death (45 A.D.) then traveled east to Syria and Persia. It is stated Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic and it was copied in Greek later.
Luke followed Matthew in the late 50's A.D.
Mark wrote Peter's account around 64 A.D. either just before or just after Peter's death.
John wrote his book in 90 A.D. when the Church was in the third generation and no other eye witness accounts were left.
John's book contains less events but more explanation and is more theological than the other gospels.
Bible Study: Mark Ch. 1-10
The Promise and The Blessing Pg. 373-383
There were two important births in the New Testament: John the Baptist and Jesus.
400 years after the Old Testament the Jews were oppressed by the Romans but hopeful of the coming Messiah.
Anyone professing to be the Messiah would have to meet three criteria:
1) Genealogical requirement
- be a descendent of Abraham
- be from the tribe of Judah
- be from the line of David
2) Prophetic Strand
- Must be born in Bethlehem
- Mother must be a virgin
- He must flee to Egypt and be called back by God
3) Physical evidences
- his public actions, i.e. healing the sick
The gospels are not a biography of Jesus' life
What is a gospel?
- The word, 'gospel', comes from the Greek word for "good news"
- A gospel is a document that proclaims that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and gives evidence to demonstrate that claim
The primary proof that Jesus was the Messiah is His resurrection
Why are the four gospels so similar and yet at the same time different?
- Marcan priority: Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source
- Matthean priority: Mark and Luke used Matthew as a source
Today it is widely held that Mark is the oldest Gospel. The reason for this belief of Mark being the oldest for:
- The dating of the books (65 A.D.)
- Mark is the shortest Gospel and any gospel written after the first would not omit events
- Matthew and Luke contain things like genealogies and the Sermon on the Mont which are not found in Mark
There is called the two-source theory, meaning Matthew and Luke used Mark and another source for their gospels
The second source is the Q-source.
- Problems with the Q-source is that we have no evidence of it and it does not account for differences in Matthew and Luke
There is a four source theory that uses four sources for Matthew & Luke
1) Mark
2) Q-Source
3) M-Source
4) L-Source
Unfortunately these theories reduce Matthew and Luke to mere copies or redactors (research writers)
The early church began with a few convictions:
1) Eye witness accounts of the resurrection
2) a belief that Jesus would return soon
3) there was a need to spread their beliefs to as many folks as possible
The eye witness accounts were given as oral tradition
Jesus used the oral tradition and his followers would have heard the same message preached at every town they visited.
As well as oral tradition, events in Jesus' life that were important were recorded in the Gospels
- the story of feeding the 5,000 is the only one to be in all four Gospels
- Other events were included in each of the gospels according to the writer's personal interests
The spread of the gospel began on the day of Pentecost. Eye witness accounts were given for years. New Christians memorized these accounts and spread the news throughout the world. This lasted 20-25 years.
The Gospels began to be written after James, the brother of Jesus was executed. The apostles were seeing that they too could be killed.
Then Paul sets out on his missionary visits and starts writing letters. These letters were being collected as the gospels were being written.
Matthew remained in Judea 15 years after James' death (45 A.D.) then traveled east to Syria and Persia. It is stated Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic and it was copied in Greek later.
Luke followed Matthew in the late 50's A.D.
Mark wrote Peter's account around 64 A.D. either just before or just after Peter's death.
John wrote his book in 90 A.D. when the Church was in the third generation and no other eye witness accounts were left.
John's book contains less events but more explanation and is more theological than the other gospels.
Thursday, January 5, 2006
Notes on the Canon, Textual Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible
(Originally written January 5, 2006 in Notebook 20)
The Canon & Transmission of the New Testament text
Definition of Canon - originally meant measuring reed
Metaphorical meaning - standard
Applied to the New Testament - refers to those books accepted by the Church as the standard with governs our beliefs.
The Precanonical Period
- Oral tradition (25 years worth)
(The passion narrative was probably memorized)
- Early Christian Preaching:
1) No New Testament books at this time
2) Early Church had the Septuagint
- Logica = Sayings (A collection of Christ's sayings compiled by Matthew)
- Perhaps like the "Q" Source, namely the 250 or so verses common to Matt and Luke, not in others
- Testimonia = Collection of Old Testament Passages
- Agrapha
- Literally means "unwritten"
- they are the unwritten things that Jesus said
- unwritten means not in the Gospel
- An example of this is Acts 20:35
- Direct revelation from God through the prophets (Acts 11:27-28, Acts 13:1, I Corinthians 11:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12-14)
The collection of individual documents
- New Testament authors regarded their messages as authoritative (I Corinthians 7:40, I Corinthians 14:37, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19)
- Internal testimony: the documents were to be read in the public gatherings of the churches (Revelation 1:3, Galatians 1:1-2, I Thessalonians 5:27, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Colossians 4:16)
- Internal testimony: at least two writers cite other New Testament works as "Scripture" (1 Timothy 5:18, 2 Peter 3:15-16)
The influence of that lead to their collection
- Apostles start to die
- A body of truth was needed for teaching new convents
- Influential heretics arise like Marcion of Sinope: Marcion limited the canon to Paul's letters and Luke's gospel. He was anti-semitic and disregarded other books as Old Testament and of the God of wrath.
Formation of the Canon
- The idea: God superintended the collection of the documents via through his spirit in the churches
Tests of canonicity:
1) Apostolic origin (of an apostle or associate)
2) Apostolic doctrine (first oral, then written)
3) Acceptance by the churches
- Canon confirmed the third council of Carthage
Conclusion
- The Holy Spirit superintended the writing, collection and recognition of the canon
- None of the books were accepted by the church because of ecclesiastical compulsion
- Canon wasn't determined by a council or by individuals' judgments. It was the Spirit guidance.
- Church did not determine the canon, it only recognized it
Textual criticism - the study of the copies of any written composition of which the original autograph is unknown
Foundations of Exposition
-Exposition
- Systematic Theology
- Biblical Theology
- Exegesis
- Hermeneutics
How the Bible came to Us
Thoughts in God's mind --> revelation --> Human author's minds --> Inspiration --> Original Manuscripts of the Bible (Collection of 66 Books) --> Textual Criticism --> Modern Greek and Hebrew Bibles -> Translation --> Modern English Versions --> Illumination and Interpretation --> Thoughts in our minds --> Application --> Change in our lives --> Communication --> to others
The Holy Spirit does not help you to interpret the Bible. It prompts you to act on the Biblical passages you read.
Revelation is the wisdom that cannot be known through human methods, it must be revealed by God
Hermeneutics is the science that teaches us the principles, laws and methods of interpretation.
Differing hermeneutical principles and procedures yield different results and is responsible for varying Christian doctrines.
Evangelicals use the grammatical-historical method of interpretation.
Grammatical - considers the meanings of the words in the text
Historical - considers the meaning of the text within historical contexts
Validation - validating your interpretation
Grammatical-historical method seeks to establish the meaning and the intention of the text as it would have been understood by the original readers.
Competent exegesis must be done in the original languages
Interpret literally
Literal - the natural or usual construction and implication of a writing or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words, not allegorical or metaphorical
There are three elements to every word:
1) Symbol - the actual letters
2) Sense - the meaning attached to the symbol (mediator, intercessor, helper)
3) Referent: the actual thing being related to
Interpret the Bible Contextually
Interpret in accordance with the genre of literature
Understand there are figures of speech: metaphors, similes, overstatements, hyperbole, pun, paradox, irony, parables, fables, myths, riddles
Revelation is accommodated.
Revelation is progressive.
The Canon & Transmission of the New Testament text
Definition of Canon - originally meant measuring reed
Metaphorical meaning - standard
Applied to the New Testament - refers to those books accepted by the Church as the standard with governs our beliefs.
The Precanonical Period
- Oral tradition (25 years worth)
(The passion narrative was probably memorized)
- Early Christian Preaching:
1) No New Testament books at this time
2) Early Church had the Septuagint
- Logica = Sayings (A collection of Christ's sayings compiled by Matthew)
- Perhaps like the "Q" Source, namely the 250 or so verses common to Matt and Luke, not in others
- Testimonia = Collection of Old Testament Passages
- Agrapha
- Literally means "unwritten"
- they are the unwritten things that Jesus said
- unwritten means not in the Gospel
- An example of this is Acts 20:35
- Direct revelation from God through the prophets (Acts 11:27-28, Acts 13:1, I Corinthians 11:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12-14)
The collection of individual documents
- New Testament authors regarded their messages as authoritative (I Corinthians 7:40, I Corinthians 14:37, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19)
- Internal testimony: the documents were to be read in the public gatherings of the churches (Revelation 1:3, Galatians 1:1-2, I Thessalonians 5:27, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Colossians 4:16)
- Internal testimony: at least two writers cite other New Testament works as "Scripture" (1 Timothy 5:18, 2 Peter 3:15-16)
The influence of that lead to their collection
- Apostles start to die
- A body of truth was needed for teaching new convents
- Influential heretics arise like Marcion of Sinope: Marcion limited the canon to Paul's letters and Luke's gospel. He was anti-semitic and disregarded other books as Old Testament and of the God of wrath.
Formation of the Canon
- The idea: God superintended the collection of the documents via through his spirit in the churches
Tests of canonicity:
1) Apostolic origin (of an apostle or associate)
2) Apostolic doctrine (first oral, then written)
3) Acceptance by the churches
- Canon confirmed the third council of Carthage
Conclusion
- The Holy Spirit superintended the writing, collection and recognition of the canon
- None of the books were accepted by the church because of ecclesiastical compulsion
- Canon wasn't determined by a council or by individuals' judgments. It was the Spirit guidance.
- Church did not determine the canon, it only recognized it
Textual criticism - the study of the copies of any written composition of which the original autograph is unknown
Foundations of Exposition
-Exposition
- Systematic Theology
- Biblical Theology
- Exegesis
- Hermeneutics
How the Bible came to Us
Thoughts in God's mind --> revelation --> Human author's minds --> Inspiration --> Original Manuscripts of the Bible (Collection of 66 Books) --> Textual Criticism --> Modern Greek and Hebrew Bibles -> Translation --> Modern English Versions --> Illumination and Interpretation --> Thoughts in our minds --> Application --> Change in our lives --> Communication --> to others
The Holy Spirit does not help you to interpret the Bible. It prompts you to act on the Biblical passages you read.
Revelation is the wisdom that cannot be known through human methods, it must be revealed by God
Hermeneutics is the science that teaches us the principles, laws and methods of interpretation.
Differing hermeneutical principles and procedures yield different results and is responsible for varying Christian doctrines.
Evangelicals use the grammatical-historical method of interpretation.
Grammatical - considers the meanings of the words in the text
Historical - considers the meaning of the text within historical contexts
Validation - validating your interpretation
Grammatical-historical method seeks to establish the meaning and the intention of the text as it would have been understood by the original readers.
Competent exegesis must be done in the original languages
Interpret literally
Literal - the natural or usual construction and implication of a writing or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words, not allegorical or metaphorical
There are three elements to every word:
1) Symbol - the actual letters
2) Sense - the meaning attached to the symbol (mediator, intercessor, helper)
3) Referent: the actual thing being related to
Interpret the Bible Contextually
Interpret in accordance with the genre of literature
Understand there are figures of speech: metaphors, similes, overstatements, hyperbole, pun, paradox, irony, parables, fables, myths, riddles
Revelation is accommodated.
Revelation is progressive.
Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Political, Historical and Cultural Context of the OT & NT
(Originally written January 4, 2006 in Notebook 20)
The Promise and The Blessing pg. 349-371
- 400 years in between the Old Testament and New Testament changes occurred in the Jewish culture. The Jews served under Persia an Greece then gained independence only to lose it again to Rome.
- The Apocrypha, Mishnah and the Pseudepigrapha were written
- Three bridges will be used to move from the end of the Old Testament to the New Testament over the 400 years of silence:
1) Literary Bridge
- just because there is a silent 400 years between the Old and New Testaments does not mean the Jews stopped writing
-The books written in this period are divided into three groups:
1) Apocrypha
2) Mishnah
3) Pseudepigrapha
- Apocrypha means, plural, "hidden" or "secret"
- The Apocrypha was not considered canonical by the Jews of the early church. However, the Catholics included it in their Bible
- The Apocrypha included a wide variety of books
- The Mishnah dealt with the Old Testament Law
- The Mishnah was a commentary on the Torah and a record of debate and conclusion among Jewish leaders
- The Gemorah was the completion of the Oral tradition and a commentary on the Mishnah
- The Mishnah and Gemorah together form the Talmud
- Modern Judaism is more based on the Talmud then the Torah
- The Tarsumin & Midrashim were translations written for Jews that did not read Hebrew, they were written in Aramaic and Greek
- The Pseudepigrapha includes many different types of works
- Pseudepigrapha is Greek for "written under a false name"
- These books mark a trend from the Israelites moving away from idolatry to being overly legalistic
2) Religious Bridge
- the major groups were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenses
- These were also political affiliations
- After Ezra and Nehemiah the Jews split into traditionalists and accommodationists
- The traditionalists wanted to get back to their roots, the accommodationists wanted to set up a new culture
- Traditionalists - Hebraists; Accommodationists - Hellenists
The Hebraists:
- Lived in Babylon Or Palestine
- Followers of Ezra and Nehemiah
- Maccabean Revolutionists
- From the oral tradition
The Hellenists:
- Widespread
- Accepted other cultures as well
-The Sadducees were Hellenists
- Sadducees believed in free will, argued agains any resurrection, believed that the soul died with the body and did not believe in Angels or Demons
- The Sadducees were aristocratic
-The Pharisees were Hebraists
- The Pharisees believed in free will, but thought God was ultimately in control
- The Pharisees believed in resurrection, angels and demons and fought for the equality of all human beings
- The Pharisees were middle-class citizens
- The Essenes were much more conservative than the Pharisees
- The Essenes were a minority party and spread out thinly, thus their influence and significance in the New Testament is non-existence
- Scribes are either Pharisees or Sadducees that copied, read and interpreted the Law.
- The Zealots were the extreme nationalists that were determined to rid Judea of all foreign rule
3) The Political Bridge
Persian Rule then Greek Rule then Freedom, then Roman rule
-The Persians ruled the Jews at the end of the Old Testament
- Greece fought off the Persian advances and then were involved in a civil war
- Eventually Philip of Macedonia conquered all of Greece
- His son, Alexander then took over and captured Persia
- Alexander then died and four generals became the rulers of four divided lands
- The four eventually became two, the Kingdom of Egypt and the Syrian Kingdom
- Egypt fell to Rome in 30 B.C. Syria fell in 64-63 B.C.
- The Maccabees gained their independence from the Syrian Empire over a period of time
- They fought many bloody battles and aligned themselves with Rome against Syria
- Rome was originally a republic but Julius Caesar eventually became dictator for life
- After Julius Caesar was killed a civil war took place an Caesar's adopted son Octavian (Augustus) became the ruler
- Augustus ruled over a generally peaceful empire, the only serious problem was Judea.
- In 6 A.D. Rome took control of Judea
- In 70 A.D. Rome destroyed the Temple
- In 135 A.D. Rome exiled all of the Jews in Judea
Review Questions
1) The Old Testament ended with Malachi because none of the books written after were considered to be Canonical or as authoritative as the books in the Hebrew Scriptures
2) The Apocrypha was a collection of books written by Jewish authors between the Old Testament and New Testament times. They are viewed as less authoritative as the included Scriptures.
3) The Mishnah is a commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures and included debates of interpretation and the results of the debates. It is different than the Talmud because the Talmud contains the Mishnah as well as the Gemara. The Talmud is important because it is what modern Judaism bases its religion on.
4) The Pseudepigrapha are books that were written under false names. These books were written both prior to the New Testament and through the first century A.D. and beyond.
5) The Sadducees developed by trying to fit their religious beliefs into the cultural surroundings they were in.
6) The Pharisees developed out of a strong opposition to the Sadducees.
7) The Essenes were a strict, traditionalist sect of the Jews. They were important in that they practiced a strict way of the Law, but were a small minority and spread thin enough not to make an impact on the New Testament.
8) The scribes were the men who copied, read and interpreted the Law for the Jews. They were vital in the formation of Jewish doctrine and law.
9) Alexander's father, Philip, conquered and united much of Greece. After Philip was killed Alexander set out to conquer the world. He conquered the Persian Empire and his empire stretched from Egypt to India. Alexander's troops eventually revolted in India because they were tired of fighting. Alexander eventually died after a huge amount of eating and drinking.
10) After Alexander's death the kingdom was divided into four separate kingdoms.
11) The Ptolemies and the Seleucids were the rulers of Egypt and Syrian empires, respectively. They fought each other until they were both conquered by the Romans.
12) The Maccabees are a rebellious family that fought the Syrian Empire. They eventually gained freedom for Judea.
13) Herod became King of Judea by fleeing to Rome and convincing the Romans to name him King of Judea. They did and he returned to Judea with the Roman Empire.
14) Rome made Judea a part of the empire by revoking its independence and status in 6 A.D.
Jesus was counter-cutlrual, he disregarded some Jewish cultural customs.
The Samaritans came from the leftover Jews in the Northern Kingdom after the Assyrians exiled the majority of the Jews that intermarried with the local gentiles.
Key Dates in the Old Testament History
722 B.C. - Israel taken captive by Assyria
587 B.C. - Judah taken captive by Babylonia
539 B.C. - Persia defeats Babylon, ending Jewish captivity
Persia, 539 - 332 B.C.
Persia deposed Babylon; which, under Cyrus the Great, allowed the Jews to return Home.
Greece or Hellenistic Period, 333 - 63 B.C.
Greece deposed Persia; which, spread Hellenism and a common language throughout the world.
After Alexander the Great died the Empire was split into four kingdoms, two of which are important to New Testament History
1) The Ptolemaic (Egypt) 323 - 198 BC
- Ptolemy Philadelphus translated the Old Testament into the common language of Greek, which was called the Septuagint
2) The Seleucid Empire (198-143 B.C.)
- Antiochus IV, the prototype for the Anti-Christ in the 1st century A.D. Jews. He killed the Jews, destroyed the Torah, denied the Jews the rites of circumcision of their children and eventually desecrated the Temple of the Lord by sacrificing to Zeus on the altar.
The Hasmonean or Maccabean Period (143-63 B.C.)
Matthathias and the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. Judas Maccabaeus (The Hammer) and his men cleansed and rededicated the temple in 163 B.C. and waited for a prophet to come to fully restore it.
The Roman Period (63 B.C. on)
The Pax Romana (Peace of Rome) and the Roman road system aided in the spread of the gospel through the world.
Herod the Great, King of Judea 37 - 4 B.C.
- Ordered the slaughter of the innocents
Archelaus, tetrarch of Judea and Samaria, 4 B.C. - 6 A.D.
- Joseph and Mary fled from him
Herod Philip, tetrarch, 4 B.C. - 34 A.D.
Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, 4 B.C. - A.D. 39
- had John the Baptist beheaded
- was ruler when Jesus was killed
Herod Agrippa I, King of Judea 37 - 44 A.D.
- Had James, the half-brother of Jesus killed
Herod Agrippa II, king of Judea
Titus and the Fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)
The Apocrypha
- Tobit
- Judith
- Additions to Esther
- Wisdom of Solomon
- Ecclesiasticus
- Baruch
- Letters of Jeremiah
- Prayer of Azariah
- The Song of the 3 Jews
- Bel and the Dragon
- I & II Maccabees
- I & II Esdras
- Prayer of Manasseh
Jewish Religious Parties
The Sadducees
- Influenced by power & wealth
- Aristocratic class
Sadducees References in the New Testament: Matthew 22:23, Acts 4:1, Acts 5:17
The Pharisees
- Legalistic
- Rules and Regulations, but little joy
Pharisees References in the New Testament: Matthew 11:9, Mark 2:16, Luke 15:1-2, Luke 19:7. Matthew 5:43-48, Mark 11:25, Luke 19:10, Luke 21:20-24
The Pharisees vs. Jesus
-The Pharisees Separated from unholy sinners, Jesus associated with them
-The Pharisees believed the Messiah would gather and sanctify his people, no evil or unrighteousness allowed; Jesus came to seek and save the Lost
- The Pharisees believed in victory for Israel and Jerusalem based on violent exclusion of the Gentiles; Jesus preached forgiveness to the enemy and the destruction of Jerusalem by the gentiles.
The Essenes
- Abdicated responsibility to confront the culture, as they retreated to the desert where they died, oblivious of the Teacher of Righteousness they sought
Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls
- The Oldest of the Old Testament Documents was the Masoretic Text (A.D. 900).
- The Dead Sea Scrolls come from 150 B.C. - A.D. 68
- We can now check the accuracy of our copying technicians and how accurate the Masoretic Text was
The Scribes
- Teachers of the Law
- Neither a religious sect or political party (but most were Pharisees)
The Zealots
- Revolutionaries dedicated to overthrowing Roman power
- Refused to pay taxes, were not loyal to Caesar, led the Jewish Revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Judaism's response to Hellenism
- Wealthy Jews caved into Hellenism
- Poorer Jews reacted bitterly to Hellenism
- Early Hasmoneans reacted violently
- The Hasideans reacted passively
- The Pharisees expressed a separation by strict adherence to the law of the covenant
- The Essenes withdrew from society and into the desert
Proselytes (Gentiles who worship God and got circumcised) and God Fearers (Gentiles who worshipped God, but didn't snip)
- Syncretism: the combo of different forms of practice and belief
- Pagans were synchronistic
- Jews and Christians were exclusivistic
The Promise and The Blessing pg. 349-371
- 400 years in between the Old Testament and New Testament changes occurred in the Jewish culture. The Jews served under Persia an Greece then gained independence only to lose it again to Rome.
- The Apocrypha, Mishnah and the Pseudepigrapha were written
- Three bridges will be used to move from the end of the Old Testament to the New Testament over the 400 years of silence:
1) Literary Bridge
- just because there is a silent 400 years between the Old and New Testaments does not mean the Jews stopped writing
-The books written in this period are divided into three groups:
1) Apocrypha
2) Mishnah
3) Pseudepigrapha
- Apocrypha means, plural, "hidden" or "secret"
- The Apocrypha was not considered canonical by the Jews of the early church. However, the Catholics included it in their Bible
- The Apocrypha included a wide variety of books
- The Mishnah dealt with the Old Testament Law
- The Mishnah was a commentary on the Torah and a record of debate and conclusion among Jewish leaders
- The Gemorah was the completion of the Oral tradition and a commentary on the Mishnah
- The Mishnah and Gemorah together form the Talmud
- Modern Judaism is more based on the Talmud then the Torah
- The Tarsumin & Midrashim were translations written for Jews that did not read Hebrew, they were written in Aramaic and Greek
- The Pseudepigrapha includes many different types of works
- Pseudepigrapha is Greek for "written under a false name"
- These books mark a trend from the Israelites moving away from idolatry to being overly legalistic
2) Religious Bridge
- the major groups were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenses
- These were also political affiliations
- After Ezra and Nehemiah the Jews split into traditionalists and accommodationists
- The traditionalists wanted to get back to their roots, the accommodationists wanted to set up a new culture
- Traditionalists - Hebraists; Accommodationists - Hellenists
The Hebraists:
- Lived in Babylon Or Palestine
- Followers of Ezra and Nehemiah
- Maccabean Revolutionists
- From the oral tradition
The Hellenists:
- Widespread
- Accepted other cultures as well
-The Sadducees were Hellenists
- Sadducees believed in free will, argued agains any resurrection, believed that the soul died with the body and did not believe in Angels or Demons
- The Sadducees were aristocratic
-The Pharisees were Hebraists
- The Pharisees believed in free will, but thought God was ultimately in control
- The Pharisees believed in resurrection, angels and demons and fought for the equality of all human beings
- The Pharisees were middle-class citizens
- The Essenes were much more conservative than the Pharisees
- The Essenes were a minority party and spread out thinly, thus their influence and significance in the New Testament is non-existence
- Scribes are either Pharisees or Sadducees that copied, read and interpreted the Law.
- The Zealots were the extreme nationalists that were determined to rid Judea of all foreign rule
3) The Political Bridge
Persian Rule then Greek Rule then Freedom, then Roman rule
-The Persians ruled the Jews at the end of the Old Testament
- Greece fought off the Persian advances and then were involved in a civil war
- Eventually Philip of Macedonia conquered all of Greece
- His son, Alexander then took over and captured Persia
- Alexander then died and four generals became the rulers of four divided lands
- The four eventually became two, the Kingdom of Egypt and the Syrian Kingdom
- Egypt fell to Rome in 30 B.C. Syria fell in 64-63 B.C.
- The Maccabees gained their independence from the Syrian Empire over a period of time
- They fought many bloody battles and aligned themselves with Rome against Syria
- Rome was originally a republic but Julius Caesar eventually became dictator for life
- After Julius Caesar was killed a civil war took place an Caesar's adopted son Octavian (Augustus) became the ruler
- Augustus ruled over a generally peaceful empire, the only serious problem was Judea.
- In 6 A.D. Rome took control of Judea
- In 70 A.D. Rome destroyed the Temple
- In 135 A.D. Rome exiled all of the Jews in Judea
Review Questions
1) The Old Testament ended with Malachi because none of the books written after were considered to be Canonical or as authoritative as the books in the Hebrew Scriptures
2) The Apocrypha was a collection of books written by Jewish authors between the Old Testament and New Testament times. They are viewed as less authoritative as the included Scriptures.
3) The Mishnah is a commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures and included debates of interpretation and the results of the debates. It is different than the Talmud because the Talmud contains the Mishnah as well as the Gemara. The Talmud is important because it is what modern Judaism bases its religion on.
4) The Pseudepigrapha are books that were written under false names. These books were written both prior to the New Testament and through the first century A.D. and beyond.
5) The Sadducees developed by trying to fit their religious beliefs into the cultural surroundings they were in.
6) The Pharisees developed out of a strong opposition to the Sadducees.
7) The Essenes were a strict, traditionalist sect of the Jews. They were important in that they practiced a strict way of the Law, but were a small minority and spread thin enough not to make an impact on the New Testament.
8) The scribes were the men who copied, read and interpreted the Law for the Jews. They were vital in the formation of Jewish doctrine and law.
9) Alexander's father, Philip, conquered and united much of Greece. After Philip was killed Alexander set out to conquer the world. He conquered the Persian Empire and his empire stretched from Egypt to India. Alexander's troops eventually revolted in India because they were tired of fighting. Alexander eventually died after a huge amount of eating and drinking.
10) After Alexander's death the kingdom was divided into four separate kingdoms.
11) The Ptolemies and the Seleucids were the rulers of Egypt and Syrian empires, respectively. They fought each other until they were both conquered by the Romans.
12) The Maccabees are a rebellious family that fought the Syrian Empire. They eventually gained freedom for Judea.
13) Herod became King of Judea by fleeing to Rome and convincing the Romans to name him King of Judea. They did and he returned to Judea with the Roman Empire.
14) Rome made Judea a part of the empire by revoking its independence and status in 6 A.D.
Jesus was counter-cutlrual, he disregarded some Jewish cultural customs.
The Samaritans came from the leftover Jews in the Northern Kingdom after the Assyrians exiled the majority of the Jews that intermarried with the local gentiles.
Key Dates in the Old Testament History
722 B.C. - Israel taken captive by Assyria
587 B.C. - Judah taken captive by Babylonia
539 B.C. - Persia defeats Babylon, ending Jewish captivity
Persia, 539 - 332 B.C.
Persia deposed Babylon; which, under Cyrus the Great, allowed the Jews to return Home.
Greece or Hellenistic Period, 333 - 63 B.C.
Greece deposed Persia; which, spread Hellenism and a common language throughout the world.
After Alexander the Great died the Empire was split into four kingdoms, two of which are important to New Testament History
1) The Ptolemaic (Egypt) 323 - 198 BC
- Ptolemy Philadelphus translated the Old Testament into the common language of Greek, which was called the Septuagint
2) The Seleucid Empire (198-143 B.C.)
- Antiochus IV, the prototype for the Anti-Christ in the 1st century A.D. Jews. He killed the Jews, destroyed the Torah, denied the Jews the rites of circumcision of their children and eventually desecrated the Temple of the Lord by sacrificing to Zeus on the altar.
The Hasmonean or Maccabean Period (143-63 B.C.)
Matthathias and the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. Judas Maccabaeus (The Hammer) and his men cleansed and rededicated the temple in 163 B.C. and waited for a prophet to come to fully restore it.
The Roman Period (63 B.C. on)
The Pax Romana (Peace of Rome) and the Roman road system aided in the spread of the gospel through the world.
Herod the Great, King of Judea 37 - 4 B.C.
- Ordered the slaughter of the innocents
Archelaus, tetrarch of Judea and Samaria, 4 B.C. - 6 A.D.
- Joseph and Mary fled from him
Herod Philip, tetrarch, 4 B.C. - 34 A.D.
Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, 4 B.C. - A.D. 39
- had John the Baptist beheaded
- was ruler when Jesus was killed
Herod Agrippa I, King of Judea 37 - 44 A.D.
- Had James, the half-brother of Jesus killed
Herod Agrippa II, king of Judea
Titus and the Fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)
The Apocrypha
- Tobit
- Judith
- Additions to Esther
- Wisdom of Solomon
- Ecclesiasticus
- Baruch
- Letters of Jeremiah
- Prayer of Azariah
- The Song of the 3 Jews
- Bel and the Dragon
- I & II Maccabees
- I & II Esdras
- Prayer of Manasseh
Jewish Religious Parties
The Sadducees
- Influenced by power & wealth
- Aristocratic class
Sadducees References in the New Testament: Matthew 22:23, Acts 4:1, Acts 5:17
The Pharisees
- Legalistic
- Rules and Regulations, but little joy
Pharisees References in the New Testament: Matthew 11:9, Mark 2:16, Luke 15:1-2, Luke 19:7. Matthew 5:43-48, Mark 11:25, Luke 19:10, Luke 21:20-24
The Pharisees vs. Jesus
-The Pharisees Separated from unholy sinners, Jesus associated with them
-The Pharisees believed the Messiah would gather and sanctify his people, no evil or unrighteousness allowed; Jesus came to seek and save the Lost
- The Pharisees believed in victory for Israel and Jerusalem based on violent exclusion of the Gentiles; Jesus preached forgiveness to the enemy and the destruction of Jerusalem by the gentiles.
The Essenes
- Abdicated responsibility to confront the culture, as they retreated to the desert where they died, oblivious of the Teacher of Righteousness they sought
Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls
- The Oldest of the Old Testament Documents was the Masoretic Text (A.D. 900).
- The Dead Sea Scrolls come from 150 B.C. - A.D. 68
- We can now check the accuracy of our copying technicians and how accurate the Masoretic Text was
The Scribes
- Teachers of the Law
- Neither a religious sect or political party (but most were Pharisees)
The Zealots
- Revolutionaries dedicated to overthrowing Roman power
- Refused to pay taxes, were not loyal to Caesar, led the Jewish Revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Judaism's response to Hellenism
- Wealthy Jews caved into Hellenism
- Poorer Jews reacted bitterly to Hellenism
- Early Hasmoneans reacted violently
- The Hasideans reacted passively
- The Pharisees expressed a separation by strict adherence to the law of the covenant
- The Essenes withdrew from society and into the desert
Proselytes (Gentiles who worship God and got circumcised) and God Fearers (Gentiles who worshipped God, but didn't snip)
- Syncretism: the combo of different forms of practice and belief
- Pagans were synchronistic
- Jews and Christians were exclusivistic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)