GeorgeW

Eric,

That is a very good analysis and more descriptive than prescriptive.

George

George, excellent point.

Yvonne, I can't claim credit for the excellent insight - it was Norm.

George

I think our disagreement is just on the agent of healing. What has been called "internal" healing, in my mind translates as mind over matter, or what has been called the placebo effect, as Paul pointed out. Your take on this phenomenon is that it is not the human mind that is doing the healing, but some supernatural being or entity. And, some prefer to call this entity G-d. I'm OK with that.

Norm, good point about agency distinction.

George

It has been some time since I have read it as well. But, I do recall coming away less than persuaded.

George

Hal,

I am not sure that there "had" to be a specific liturgy followed by all synagogues. If so, there should be some evidence of it and apparently there is none or someone, including Bishop Spong, would have cited it.

Also, it is worth noting that synagogue worship did not have a long history at that time. I think the oldest ones discovered were a couple of hundred years BCE. There is no mention in the Hebrew Scriptures of synagogue worship. As I recall synagogue worship took off after destruction of the 2nd Temple (70 CE)) and the beginning of rabbinical Judaism.

George

Update:

I checked to see what Murphy ("Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus") has to say about synagogues. He says that not much is known about them before the 1st century. He says. "Archaeology does not help much since no building predating the first century can clearly claim to a synagogue [...] The synagogue most probably predates the first century, but little is known about it."

Of course they are mentioned in the NT and by Josephus (37-100 CE) and Philo (20 BCE- 50CE).

But, my point is that this was not a well established institution in Judaism at the time the Gospels were written with established clergy, liturgies and the like.

I really enjoying reading Bishop Spong and I think he has provided so much in the way of looking at the bible through different lenses. So it is with the deepest respect for him and not in any sense ridiculing him, that I recall Margus Borg saying words to the effect that Spong is brilliant at pulling things apart, but not neccessarily as accomplished putting them back together again. Perhaps this is one of those areas that he doesn't reassemble quite as adequately.

While Bishop Spong is certainly knowledgeable about the Bible, he is not inerrant. And, he is first and foremost a theologian which, IMO, can influence the objectivity of his scholarship.

Having said this, I absolutely support his campaign against biblical literalism and his advocacy for tolerance on social issues like sexism and gay rights.

George

Dutch,

A good and appropriate link. Thanks.

The following statement at the bottom of the page may explain why I was told what I was:

"Over the years various attempts have been made to show a sequential correlation of Mark or other gospels to one or more forms of Jewish synagogue lectionary or, more loosely, to the Jewish liturgical year.¹ None of these has been generally accepted,² and some scholars have concluded that the whole enterprise is doomed to failure."

George

Vin,

I encourage you to do this and share it here.

George

Vin,

I am not aware of any such matrix. FWIW, after reading his book, I asked an acquaintance who was a professor of religion (at a large state university) whose specialty was 2nd-Temple Judaism and early Christianity what he thought of this theory. He said he was familiar with it, but "it did not have much of an academic following."

George

I would quibble a bit with the "genuine" vs. "fraudulent" distinction. It is possible that some faith healing has a real psychological effect which would be as genuine as that performed by a credentialed psychologist. I suspect that conventional psychological treatments, to be effective, require some degree of trust (or faith).

George

I think that a number of illnesses are psychosomatic and can be helped or 'cured' by psychological means which can include faith healing with a spiritual placebo effect.

FWIW, I think that Jesus was a 'faith healer.'

George

I think the problem is that some of us try to apply reason to this and reason isn't how religious belief works. This is written in what is considered to be divinely inspired and authoritative scriptures; therefore it is accepted.

I think this particular belief has its theological origin in the sacrificial goat (azazel) of Judaism.

George

It doesn't appear that he was too much interested in anything other then bringing the fallen away Jews back to the traditional ways. He sure wasn't seeking the Gentile vote. [...]

 

As to having a strong sense of who he was, again, Matt 10:23, "You will not have gone through all of the towns of Israel before the Son Of Man returns." Now that sounds to me like He was not aware of who he was if he was predicting his return before the disciples had time to finish their preaching. [. . .]

 

I have no doubt that he was brave, courageous, bold, moral and all that good stuff but let's not lose sight of the fact that he was a human being...a very persuasive human being, but still just another Joe...a pretty smart Joe. (There is a difference between smart and intelligent). What I'm trying to politely say is that I don't think I'd be inclined to buy a used car from him!

Yes, I agree that his mission (agenda) was primarily to the Jews.

I disagree with your assertion about his self doubt. There was a wide variety of views about exactly who he was after he was crucified. Bart Ehrman discusses this in great detail in Lost Christianities. However, any lack of clarity by Matthew, or any other Gospel writers, does not mean that Jesus had doubt about who he was.

"Brave, courageous, bold, moral" and you wouldn't buy a used car from him? Hmm.

George

Christianity derives from Christ who was head and shoulders above any of the Elmer Gantry TV evangelists when it came to selling his program. But since we are now aware of the fact that we really don't know who he was or what his true agenda was, why do some many want to go right on crediting him with being all those things in the boy scout oath...you know...brave, clean, reverent, etc? We know that Christ was a man who put his pants on one leg at a time...like me an' you...so?

Richard,

I am pleased to see that you jumped right in.

I would quibble at bit with the "know" statement about Jesus. I think "know" is much too strong. There are of course, different views about him by various scholars. I don't know exactly what you mean by "agenda," but IMO, there is a clear theme that comes through even with editing out what is likely to be later additions to the story.

Also, I suspect that he did have a strong sense of who he was. It is later writers who cloud the picture.

While we all "put our pants on one leg at a time" that doesn't mean that we are all equal in terms of intellect, morality, courage, leadership qualities, etc. I don't think just another Joe would have spawned such a reaction to his death.

George

Some of them are quite hostile to religion, but especially to Christianity, and not completely without good reason, I think.

I think their position is without objectivity and careful analysis. By citing only the bad things that have been done by Christians, the case is clear. But, they often overlook the good things done by Christians. One could 'prove' the counter case by only citing Christian pacifists, abolitionists, Christian charities, etc.

The truth is there have been Christians on both side of many historical events and social movements - slavery, unjust wars, civil rights, gay rights, etc. And, atheists have done both good and bad (see Stalin and Mao) as well.

So, my conclusion is that religion, or the absence of religion, is not the determining factor in human behavior.

As to how to answer, I think Joseph gives a good suggestion. However, as my grandfather often said, "convince a man against their will and they will be of the same opinion still." It takes an open and objective mind.

George

Eldred, welcome. I look forward to your participation here.

It is my impression that the Anglicans in Nigeria are very conservative. Are there progressive congregations there?

George

It also shows something that I think people tend to forget - namely that Jesus preached the gospel, which essentially is the OT. This is the "bible" he knew and preached.

Yes, this is an important fact - NT references to scriptures are references to the OT, principally the Torah (Pentateuch).

George

Here is the question that I have been 'dealing' with for quite some time: If we are to accept homosexuality because they are also Gods children and sexuality is not a choice we are born homosexual or straight, then couldn't pedophiles use this same argument?

I don't think that innateness is itself a good test of moral acceptability. The standard I would apply is harm. If no one is harmed by any behavior, why should anyone object? Hypothetically, what if homosexuality were a conscious choice (which it isn't)? Would that make it immoral? I say no.

So, even if pedophilia is innate (and I don’t pretend to know whether it is or not), that cannot be a moral justification because of the harm that results.

George

WS,

The problem I have with this point of view is that it places psychiatric disorders in the same category as normal variation. The only difference seems to be in whether society decides to tolerate it or not.

George

Jim, Well said.

George

George, actually, no, even those "speech acts" as you call them, do nothing of themselves. It is still only the meaning and authority WE give them that is of any effect.

Jenell, it is not what "I call them," it is what they are called in the field of linguistics. Yes, they can be said capriciously with no effect, but without being said by a person in authority, one cannot become legally married, president, baptized or whatever.

George

FWIW, I don't think that homosexuality is, as is often claimed, an acceptable behavior because it is innate or 'normal.' There are innate behaviors (i.e. genetically based) which cannot be tolerated by society. No one decides to be heterosexual and no one decides to be a pedophile. So, innateness vs. voluntary decidedness is not a good criterion.

Ancient religious texts like the Bible or Qur'an are not, IMO, good arbiters as well. Texts, like these, written thousands of years ago in very different cultures cannot be literally applied to a modern, urban, industrial society.

The morality or acceptability of a behavior should, IMO, be based on other criteria. I propose the no-harm, no-foul rule. A behavior that harms no one should be morally acceptable. If we apply this test to pedophilia, it fails. If we apply the test to homosexuality it passes. Even if someone were to 'decide' to be gay, why should I care: No harm, no foul.

George

I do not beleive any ritual or ceremony or cited words have any power of any kind in themselves, and that to make any such thing an "ordinance" beyond mere human valuation is idolatry.

There is a whole category of actions called 'speech acts' in which the saying of certain words actually does something. Examples: "I pronounce you man and wife," "I do solemnly swear I will faithfully execute the office . . .," " I baptize you in the name of the father . . ."

George

Frankly, I am uncomfortable even discussing rape and pedophilia in the same discussion as homosexuality. This implies some equivalence that does not exist and is demeaning to gay people.

George

Homosexuality used to be considered to be aberrant sexual behavior or orientation. It is no longer considered to be so by many (if not most) behavioral psychologists, sociologists, and geneticists, etc. "What we know" (or what we claim to know) about homosexuality has changed, requiring a change in how we deal with people of that sexual orientation. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing stopping us from seeing a similar paradigm shift with these other sexual orientations (pedophiliacs, rapists, those who commit incest, sadomasicists).

I think there is a huge difference between sexual orientation and psychological pathologies.

Further, homosexuality harms no one while the others do with the possible exception of incest among consenting adults unless it results in child birth. The incest taboo which exists in every culture has a biological basis.

George