Kreeft was actually at that cute little Catholic school at the end of the MBTA Green Line: Boston College. 
I stayed mostly in the city at its eponymous University (right next to Fenway Park!).
1 Like
- Because they’d heard one was available and wanted it, but didn’t know how to get it.
You should start by saying that they have been indoctrinated to think that they need anything at all.
You can then explain the redemption of Christ as the Christian answer to the Christian disease.
In truth, the life-changing answer is to realise that there is not a life-changing problem.
The Christian way of life is simply a life with the right ideals and intentions, based on Love. The change is to align yourself with those ideals and stop being selfish, and or treating others with diisrespect. You might even suggest a baptism as a symbol of this change of drection and intent.
Sin , Heaven, Hell, are all just distractions. Forgiveness is more to remove guilt than to remove sin. SIn again and you are back to square one if you do not understand what forgivenss is. (And don’t try telling me you cannot sin once you turn to Christ, it just is not true.) There is no miracle internal adjustment to make you not sin. The ability to sin is neither pandemic, nor curable
Richard
Ah, thanks! Sorry about that! I bet you had a great area to study philosophy in Boston.
- I hope all those “Hidden Replies” that I can’t see are to you, because if they are to me, I’m not seeing them, probably because the sender is somebody on my “Ignore” List.
How can H2O wash away sin seems like a valid science/faith topic to me. We have a firm grip on things like blood and water. So how do we understand metaphors and terms ancient Christians and Jews used bow that we know there is nothing magical in these things?
I am very happy for you, but as you may have gathered, I believe Jesus as well, and I also believe Paul, who, it seems, went back on Zohama by declaring that Gentile believers did not need to become Jews, undergo circumcision, or follow the entire Jewish law (Torah) to be considered followers of Jesus Christ. He believed that faith in Christ and grace were sufficient for salvation., but said (Eph.1:3-6):
The teaching you seem to be referencing is found in the Talmud: "We learn that the snake came upon Eve and imparted zuhama [spiritual dirt] to her."1 (Avoda Zara 22b). In Jewish thought, there is generally not a strong emphasis on the idea of “original sin” as it exists in some Christian traditions. In the Kabbalah under “Gate of Reincarnations” there is mention that all people die "because of the bite of the snake, since all were affected by the zuhama. Nevertheless, not all souls are equal, because every soul was blemished according to its proximity to the sin. Some limbs were more directly involved in the sin than others, and so were damaged more. E.g., the hands actually took the fruit, the mouth ate it, whereas the chest only derived nourishment.” I’m sure you don’t mean to bring this into the debate.
Instead, Jewish theology tends to focus more on personal responsibility for one’s actions and the idea of individual accountability for sin. However, the Apostle Paul’s teachings included discussions about the relationship between Gentile believers and the Jewish law, particularly circumcision and is often referred to as the “Gentile question” or the “Gentile controversy.” In the early Christian community, there was a debate about whether Gentile converts to Christianity needed to observe Jewish customs and laws, including circumcision. In the book of Galatians, for example, Paul strongly opposes the idea that Gentile converts should be circumcised and observe the Jewish law, and he emphasizes that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, not through adherence to Jewish customs.
Being “in Christ” is quasi a new covenant, but Paul says that it was made “before the foundation of the world” and a clear intention of God. For some reason, the drama had to play out, we had to leave Eden, and return to the Father via the door that Christ opens – faith. Faith in Aramaic, which is the language of Jesus, is a confidence, firmness, or integrity of being. The word haimanuta is rooted in a connection with the sacred life force and sacred Unity, constantly renewing and healing.
It is faith, although not always stated, that allows the blessed to “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matth. 25:31-4) Jesus explains, “For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me … Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.”
It seems to be a clear that faith is not something you have but an expression of love, of upright posture, of outstretched hands, of integrity. It heals and renews rather than leaving the destitute on the wayside, and is therefore a way of life, as we have seen in Jesus, rather than a dogmatic position.
3 Likes
Great!
- Thanks, but you’re telling me what I already know and believe.
- Now, my turn: the Paul that you’re describing is the post-“Damascus revelation” Paul. The same fellow before his encounter with the resurrected Jesus was the Pharisee Saul, on his way to Damascus to seize Jewish followers of Jesus. Same physical person, different mind-sets brought about by Jesus. Before the encounter with Jesus, he wasn’t on his way to Damascus to round up non-Jewish anti-Jews.
- Before the encounter with Jesus, seizing non-Jews could have gotten him into serious trouble with the non-Jewish Romans, who were “unclean” by nature. After the encounter, “clean” and “unclean” became radically redefined, by Jesus indirectly if not directly. As a consequence of the encounter and further instruction by Jewish Christians and, presumably, by the Holy Spirit, Paul was “transformed by the renewing of his mind.”
- It is.
- Again, I agree. But, I have to point out that:
- the Talmud–to my knowledge–does not say that Zohama was removed upon the circumcision of Abraham and his household, but it was removed when Moses and Israel “stood at Sinai” and received the Torah from God.
- After the Sinai event, new rules applied. Just because the Jews no longer carried the inherited ancestral sin, didn’t mean that they were immune to contamination by personal, individual sins.
- Non-Jews, on the other hand, had Zohamma inherited from Adam and Eve and accumulated their own additional sins
- When Jesus was crucified and resurrected, as Paul understood and preached, trust in Jesus replaced and did away withe the Law of Moses. That was “a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles” (1 Cor. 1:23).
- Once more, I agree; BUT I point out and emphasize that the focus on personal responsibility was a post-Sinai change and, among devout Jews only applied to Jews, not to Gentiles. Gentiles were still “unclean”.
- At this point, I have to tell you that I have read the remainder of your post, and agree wholeheartedly with what you’ve written. So I’m gonna stop here rather than affirm my agreement with each and every statemen that you write. But I’m pretty sure that that will confuse you, because I don’t think you’ve understood my position. If you had, you wouldn’t have put as much time and effort in telling me what I already know.
I apologise for the effrontery of addressing such an enlightened person …
I’m pleased that you “agree wholeheartedly” but perhaps rather than I not having understood your position, you haven’t grasped the nuance that I added. That may be due to a lack of clarity on my part, but I will explain.
What you are describing is a dogmatic position based on mythology, which may be quite profound, but all the same it is literature, and not flesh and blood. Jesus, on the other hand, made it about an expression of love, of upright bearing, of outstretched hands, of integrity, a way of life that heals, renews, and helps rather than leaving the destitute on the wayside like the Priests did in the parable of the good Samaritan.
His position towards dogmatic and moral posturing was rather critical, and is where I see the biggest difference, and the affront against the pious of his time.
Just as an aside …
The goddess Asherah was a significant deity in the ancient Canaanite pantheon. She was a goddess associated with fertility, motherhood, and nature. Asherah was often depicted as a mother goddess and was believed to have the power to bestow fertility and blessings upon the land and its people. Her worship was widespread in the ancient Near East, including among the Canaanites and neighbouring cultures. She was often depicted as a tree or a stylized wooden pole, which symbolized her role as a fertility goddess. Asherah poles were erected as symbols of her presence in sacred places.
Some representations of Asherah show her holding serpents, which might symbolize her connection to the cycle of life and fertility in nature. In some Canaanite contexts, serpents were associated with healing and protection. Serpent imagery was used in amulets and artifacts believed to ward off evil spirits or illnesses. The serpent’s ability to shed its skin was seen as a symbol of renewal and transformation, which could be linked to healing.
This is of course interesting when Joseph Campbell points to a reason for Eve being lured into eating the fruit:
1 Like
LOL! At least you have what so many Pelagians lack, even if it is a little distracting: a sense of humor.
- Hmmm, you may be correct that I missed your subtle nuance. No harm, no foul, especially since missing it isn’t a sin. right? Let’s see if, despite my advanced years and fading attention span, I can put my finger on the nuance which you claim to have added…
- For the record, initially what I described was my conjecture on how the Doctrine of Original Sin entered “the fold” of earliest Christianity.
- As clever as I think I am, I realize that my conjecture is nothing more than my personal speculation.
- You may have noticed, there are a couple of folks around here who disagree with my conjecture and do so quite vehemently.
- Now this is where your “nuance” gets tricky, IMO. You’re not saying that my conjecture is wrong; you’re saying that it’s irrelevant and that Jesus criticized folks, in general, who judge others in terms of “clean” and “unclean”, right?
- As interesting as I thought Joseph Campbell’s books were when I was a Classics Major at San Francisco State University in the early 1970s, that interest faded as my theology changed later. I’m certainly not a fan now.
What I’m saying is that the difference between the “sheep” and the “goats” was based on behaviour, not some dogmatic exegesis of mythology, as many of his parables reveal. Therefore I see the “original sin” equally sceptically, and the cause of much brutality towards and suffering among women over the span of church history. In fact, it often transpired as the opposite to what Jesus taught.
1 Like
The first part of my post is common knowledge amongst the historically and culturally interested, the comment by Campbell seems to indicate that ulterior motives had the story of mankind’s awakening become an accusation against women and serpents. I can’t see why Campbell should take the brunt for this, it sounds like attacking the messenger.
2 Likes
I agree the drives are not sinful. That was never the argument. That doesn’t change the fact that billions of years of evolution have given us these drives which give us the inclination to sin. That I the argument. As you said, the flesh is strong. We also have the drive of reciprocal altruism. But the fact that we have to overcome these physical instincts means there is something to overcome (an inclination or propensity to sin).
When the mind and heart is weak then our biological drives can be described as an inclination to pursue biological interests contrary to love and justice. But… that is like saying we have an inclination to do evil when we dismiss all the reasons for doing good. It is quite true but I don’t think the idea that all have a weak heart and mind as a result of the fall is correct. That we have a community of bad examples as a result of the fall, is a different matter.
But I will concede that people who make their physical drives an excuse for sin do indeed suffer from a weak mind or heart.
- Ahhh, … so you’re still not saying that my conjecture is wrong. You’re just saying that the Doctrine of Original Sin has been harmful. Is that closer to your nuance?
- Then perhaps you’ll be pleased to hear that, whatever the origin of “Original Sin” may have been, Jews pretty much as a whole, as far as I can tell, reject the notion of any inherited ancestral sin and Jesus, affirming instead that the Tanakh tells everybody how to please God: by taking up “the Yoke of Heaven”, which Jews can do by obeying the Law of Moses and non-Jews can do by obeying the Noahide Laws. No need for Jesus. Neat, huh?
- Trivial Note: As a rule, Noahidism involves a formal commitment acknowledged by a Rabbi.
As an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information your conjecture is acceptable. And yes, the doctrine of the original sin has been harmful.
2 Likes
- LOL! Thanks, I appreciate your concession that my conjecture “is acceptable”.
- Not that you’re interested, here’s the first presentation of my conjecture in this forum:
Notes on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. - And here’s the first presentation of my conjecture on-line: [Post #60 and thereafter|
To Hebrew experts: did Eve sleep with the Serpent?.- I was particularly pleased with this “debut” of my conjecture because it was shared with a very diverse crowd, including an ultra-Orthodox and a Conservative Jew, neither of whom objected.
- To date, in this thread, I’ve not mentioned the inspiration for my conjecture: i.e. The Protoevangelium of James, Chapter 13., which is especially fascinating because:
- “The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James) is a second-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the couple to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and events immediately following.”
- At the risk of dulling the point of my conjecture, take a quick look at this Wikipedia Page, which discusses: The Serpent Seed Doctrine.
- Neat, huh?
1 Like