Empathy

Hans Blaster said:

I would never read Dune that way, or Beowulf at all. I've read Dune a few times and did so for pleasure. I have no interest in "literary" or "critical? analysis. I worked hard to minimize my contact with literary analysis in college and that was a long time ago.

Click to expand...

I can very well understand the desire to merely read a work of literature for pure, personal pleasure. However, occasionally, some authors actually intend to imply various types, motifs or other semiotic ideas within the body of their work, and if we 'miss' those devices and homages, we might be missing some deeper aspect of their intention for having written that work in the 1st place. This essential hermeneutical principle---one which our public high school teachers tried to drill into us---has a role to play when reading various portions of the Biblical literature, and each of the Gospels is a point in case. Each writer had a different audience and overall literary goal to express in attempting to convey their common appraisal that "Jesus is the Messiah."

Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed Dune. But I'm sure Herbert was making a few insinuated homages along the way, for both positive and negative meaning, even if he wasn't really expressing sentiments for Judaism, Christianity or Islam in doing so.

Hans Blaster said:

Sounds more like he was challenging Paul's theology as too dismissive of tradition.

Click to expand...

Nope. Not at all. Matthew was accentuating the typological role that Jesus had in "fulfilling" the Law and the Prophets. In fact, he mentions multiple occasions of Jesus' "fulfillment" more than any of the other Gospel writers. And, of course, many folks who read Matthew miss this point altogether and then move straight on ahead in pitting Matthew's writing straight up and against Paul, which to my interpretive position as both a hermeneutically and historically minded person, is an gross literary and theological error.

Hans Blaster said:

I might consider reading it...

Click to expand...

Ok. Here. I'll help you out a little so you know what to look for in comparison..................

Hans Blaster said:

Is this what happens when you do "literary analysis"? It has the structural strength of a hill of beans.

Click to expand...

Very funny, Hans. No, if you study Hermeneutics (or in this case, part of which is Literary Analysis), I think any intelligent person will see that the coherency of the given narrative comes together more firmly. Whether or not the overall narrative becomes believable when taken as a whole is between you and God.

Hans Blaster said:

I still haven't figured out if the "abominatino" is a person or an event or what.

Click to expand...

It's an "event," but a fairly long term event. Here, I know you hate videos, but here's one that represents the short form of the historical sources that I draw upon and by which I begin to evaluate and value the 'meaning' of the Abomination of Desolation, particularly where it invokes The Synoptic Gospels, The Arch of Titus and the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd Temple, all interlaced as historical and theological evidences which can then be eased into a theological connection with Paul's writing (and the book of Hebrews, which may have been written by Paul):

(What? Did he just say "empathize" in that video? ................Goodness gracious!)

Reminder: I don't offer sources as 'end point' arguments. They're simply meant to be a beginning point for further study. I have to make this clear since I keep running into folks who tell me point blank, "That's not convincing!!!" To which I say in academic form, it's not supposed to be, any more than jumping on a springboard all by itself is the actual act of diving into a pool.

Jesus' teachings, and what he embodies in the Gospel narratives, about what fulfilling Torah means, are actually closer in some ways to some Hasidic Jewish ideas- devekut as orientation towards God over strict externalities, Torah as encounter with Hokmah, divine Wisdom, analogous to Logos. Not as instrumental rationality, but living, relational pattern. They don't fit neatly with exoteric religion focused on social order and clear boundaries, which is why certain forms of Catholicism might struggle to understand what "fulfilling the Law" means. It's not a strictly forensic accounting of rule-keeping.

2PhiloVoid said:

It's an "event," but a fairly long term event.

Click to expand...

Oh Kay, then. I guess Matt needs better translators or something.

2PhiloVoid said:

Here, I know you hate videos,

Click to expand...

I don't hate videos. I was literally had to pause on I was listening to in the background to start this one.

2PhiloVoid said:

but here's one that represents the short form of the historical sources that I draw upon

Click to expand...

Perhaps it does get there, but the insufferable preacher-bro thing was too much to take.

2PhiloVoid said:

and by which I begin to evaluate and value the 'meaning' of the Abomination of Desolation, particularly where it invokes The Synoptic Gospels, The Arch of Titus and the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd Temple, all interlaced as historical and theological evidences which can then be eased into a theological connection with Paul's writing (and the book of Hebrews, which may have been written by Paul):

Click to expand...

I don't care what is in "Hebrews". We are discussing "Matthew". I also don't care what is in the other gospels other than how Matthew differs from Mark.

2PhiloVoid said:

This video is unavailable. (What? Did he just say "empathize" in that video? ................Goodness gracious!)

Click to expand...

It played just fine. It was clearly designed to be shared with your "bros" from bible study. That was never me. If it is some sort of history at the end, a framing like an actual documentary airing on PBS or basic cable (History, Disco, etc.). The Jesus signs the the garage is *way* too much. A preacher or religious teacher should stay in whatever place they are stored until it is time for church or RE.

I've got other things to do, so I will likely come back to the rest of this tonight.

Hans Blaster said:

Oh Kay, then. I guess Matt needs better translators or something.

Click to expand...

Yes, something.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't hate videos. I was literally had to pause on I was listening to in the background to start this one.

Click to expand...

My apologies for the inconvenience.

Hans Blaster said:

Perhaps it does get there, but the insufferable preacher-bro thing was too much to take.

Click to expand...

Sure, the presentation of "preacher-bro's" content is a little cheesy, but that doesn't undercut whatever coherent veracity there may be present (or 'is present' in my view) in that historical and theological content.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't care what is in "Hebrews". We are discussing "Matthew". I also don't care what is in the other gospels other than how Matthew differs from Mark.

Click to expand...

Well, you should care if you're going to handle interpreting and valuing the potential evidence for Christianity that is available, because where doing the work of the historian is concerned, some things, whether they're narratives, artifacts or testimonies, do tie together and that's one of the things we're looking for in our Abductive approach to the Bible. While I can engage critical study of the Bible fairly well myself, I'm not going to simply hand over the reigns to folks like Bart Ehrman simply because he has a voluminous reputation as a skeptical scholar of the Bible.

As for Matthew specifically, as can be seen from the list I linked in my previous post, Matthew apparently may not have been happy with how little Mark demonstrated any "fulfillment" that Jesus' ministry represents, all of which in turn affects the extent to which we understand the meaning of "every jot and tittle of the Law" and the end thereof that Matthew cites in his own Gospel. But despite what a large number of people attempt to proffer otherwise, there's little reason to think that Matthew on the whole was flat out contradicting Paul, or anyone else in the New Testament.

And of course, all of these considerations become complicated and even convoluted at times, but that's just the price of trying to approach the past through our modern disciplines of Historiography and Hermeneutics.

Hans Blaster said:

It played just fine. It was clearly designed to be shared with your "bros" from bible study. That was never me. If it is some sort of history at the end, a framing like an actual documentary airing on PBS or basic cable (History, Disco, etc.). The Jesus signs the the garage is *way* too much. A preacher or religious teacher should stay in whatever place they are stored until it is time for church or RE.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it was 'designed for the 'bros'. .... if he's right on some things, then he's right. And I think he is, even if obviously much more could be said.

Hans Blaster said:

I've got other things to do, so I will likely come back to the rest of this tonight.

Click to expand...

That's fair. At your leisure, and only if you want to. I'm just trying to be academically helpful.

At the end of the day, it's still all about Empathy and Truth-----Jesus' Empathy and Truth.

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, something.

My apologies for the inconvenience.

Click to expand...

It was no problem. I was only saying that I do listen/watch many videos including ones posted here. It is not the inclusion of video content that I have objected to. The only real problems with videos are that i can't watch them while watching TV [which I am doing right now] and they are hard to skim through to find the interesting parts.

2PhiloVoid said:

Sure, the presentation of "preacher-bro's" content is a little cheesy, but that doesn't undercut whatever coherent veracity there may be present (or 'is present' in my view) in that historical and theological content.

Click to expand...

I guess I should say that it was the the "preacher" more so than the "bro" part that I objected to. I have zero interest in being preached to. That's why I contrasted it with things you might see on basic cable.

2PhiloVoid said:

Well, you should care if you're going to handle interpreting and valuing the potential evidence for Christianity that is available, because where doing the work of the historian is concerned, some things, whether they're narratives, artifacts or testimonies, do tie together and that's one of the things we're looking for in our Abductive approach to the Bible.

Click to expand...

I'm not looking for evidence for Christianity. Never have been. The question was about one particular claim about Matthew.

2PhiloVoid said:

While I can engage critical study of the Bible fairly well myself, I'm not going to simply hand over the reigns to folks like Bart Ehrman simply because he has a voluminous reputation as a skeptical scholar of the Bible.

Click to expand...

I rarely use his content.

2PhiloVoid said:

As for Matthew specifically, as can be seen from the list I linked in my previous post, Matthew apparently may not have been happy with how little Mark demonstrated any "fulfillment" that Jesus' ministry represents, all of which in turn affects the extent to which we understand the meaning of "every jot and tittle of the Law" and the end thereof that Matthew cites in his own Gospel. But despite what a large number of people attempt to proffer otherwise, there's little reason to think that Matthew on the whole was flat out contradicting Paul, or anyone else in the New Testament.

And of course, all of these considerations become complicated and even convoluted at times, but that's just the price of trying to approach the past through our modern disciplines of Historiography and Hermeneutics.

Click to expand...

This was the item and I'll get to it responding to the other post.

2PhiloVoid said:

It doesn't matter if it was 'designed for the 'bros'. .... if he's right on some things, then he's right. And I think he is, even if obviously much more could be said.

Click to expand...

As I said, I have zero use for preachers and preaching.

2PhiloVoid said:

That's fair. At your leisure, and only if you want to. I'm just trying to be academically helpful.

At the end of the day, it's still all about Empathy and Truth-----Jesus' Empathy and Truth.

Click to expand...

I'll have to read it again to see if the empathy is there. It's been a long time.

I'm not sure what the point is being made here... some kind of "gotcha" moment? Christian religion is not necessarily dependent on any modernist notion of biblical inerrancy or exacting historical accuracy in every detail. The Gospels are portraits of an individual through communal memory, they contain compressions of narrative and dialogue, and don't need to be exactly uninform in every biographical detail.

A good example of compression in our own time: Most people remember Darth Vader saying "Luke, I am your father" in the film The Empire Strikes Back, but in fact the character never says this exactly in this manner. He says to Luke, "No, I am your father". But the two phrases are roughly analogous, one just compresses the entire scene into a simple mnemonic.

Seen in that light, Matthew isn't contradicting Paul. Matthew is working in the realm of historical memory, whereas Paul is dealing with mystical theology and ethics. The Matthaean community rembers Jesus as one who honored and fulfilled Torah, there is no inherent contradiction with Paul's theology.

2PhiloVoid said:

I can very well understand the desire to merely read a work of literature for pure, personal pleasure. However, occasionally, some authors actually intend to imply various types, motifs or other semiotic ideas within the body of their work, and if we 'miss' those devices and homages, we might be missing some deeper aspect of their intention for having written that work in the 1st place.

Click to expand...

Some times I get 'em. Some times I don't.

2PhiloVoid said:

This essential hermeneutical principle---one which our public high school teachers tried to drill into us-

Click to expand...

My HS teachers did what?

2PhiloVoid said:

--has a role to play when reading various portions of the Biblical literature, and each of the Gospels is a point in case. Each writer had a different audience and overall literary goal to express in attempting to convey their common appraisal that "Jesus is the Messiah."

Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed Dune. But I'm sure Herbert was making a few insinuated homages along the way, for both positive and negative meaning, even if he wasn't really expressing sentiments for Judaism, Christianity or Islam in doing so.

Click to expand...

As it says in the OCB: "Thou shalt not make a machine in the image of man."

2PhiloVoid said:

Nope. Not at all. Matthew was accentuating the typological role that Jesus had in "fulfilling" the Law and the Prophets. In fact, he mentions multiple occasions of Jesus' "fulfillment" more than any of the other Gospel writers. And, of course, many folks who read Matthew miss this point altogether and then move straight on ahead in pitting Matthew's writing straight up and against Paul, which to my interpretive position as both a hermeneutically and historically minded person, is an gross literary and theological error.

Click to expand...

In my experience all theology is error, but I don't think that was your point. Oh, yes, you want to talk about how hard "Matthew" works to jam Jesus in to a particular slot. Since you haven't gone to the extreme of "Strong's Concordance" but have some examples, let's see how those go...

2PhiloVoid said:

Ok. Here. I'll help you out a little so you know what to look for in comparison..................

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: fulfill

www.biblegateway.com

Click to expand...

Ooh boy. That was quite a list. We start with a prophecy that was "fulfilled" in the days of the prophet and turns a prenant woman into one that will get pregnant. (The linked NIV back ports the "error" into the OT hoping we don't know better. SMH.) We can't blame that one on errors he makes because uses the Greek text, nor the later ones where he manufactures prophecies that weren't in the original text. (Then there is the double-donkey ride caused by not understanding poetic forms.) This is the author I should take seriously?

2PhiloVoid said:

Very funny, Hans. No, if you study Hermeneutics (or in this case, part of which is Literary Analysis),

Click to expand...

Part of me wants to open ramen place called "Herman's Noodles" to see if anyone gets the joke.

2PhiloVoid said:

I think any intelligent person will see that the coherency of the given narrative comes together more firmly. Whether or not the overall narrative becomes believable when taken as a whole is between you and God.

Click to expand...

It was better knowledge about the writing o the bible that destroyed my faith. I don't think better understanding of text is going to pull me back. (The last couple years illustrate that clearly to me.)