Originally posted by lucifershammerI continue to disagree. The two malefactors know death (and the accompanied reckoning) is approaching, as seen by the second's speech when rebuking the scoffing of the first:
The second thief does not clearly acknowledge a need for salvation; indeed, his acceptance of his punishment and the fact that the only thing he asks of Christ is that He "remembers" him shows that the thief thinks he cannot and ought not be saved, and rightly so. Further, he does not actually recognise Jesus as God.
"Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"
The scoffing was on the heels of the soldiers' taunts, as well as in response to the sign that was placed above the Lord Jesus Christ's head. There is no question that the malefactors (at least one of them) is considering the upcoming interview they are about to undergo. In light of that meeting, there is no question that someone has labeled the man between them as the remedy to the failings their life choices have wrought.
The second man recognizes Jesus as Lord (kurios), if not God (theos), but he clearly reconizes Him as the remedy.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou keep asserting that the second man sees Jesus as the "remedy" when there is nothing in the text that says so explicitly. If anything, the text strongly suggests that the second thief did not see any remedy (Christ or otherwise -- if he saw Christ as remedy, why didn't he ask Christ to save him as the other thief did, albeit sarcastically?) to his state. As far as he was concerned, he was getting his just punishment, and he had no intention of avoiding it.
I continue to disagree. The two malefactors know death (and the accompanied reckoning) is approaching, as seen by the second's speech when rebuking the scoffing of the first:
"Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"
The scoffing was on the heels of the soldiers' taunts, as well as in response to the sign that was placed ab ...[text shortened]... zes Jesus as Lord (kurios), if not God (theos), but he clearly reconizes Him as the remedy.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe first man did not ask for Christ's salvific work; he challenged Him to remove Himself and them from the crosses.
You keep asserting that the second man sees Jesus as the "remedy" when there is nothing in the text that says so explicitly. If anything, the text strongly suggests that the second thief did not see any remedy (Christ or otherwise -- if he saw Christ as remedy, why didn't he ask Christ to save him as the other thief did, albeit sarcastically?) to his ...[text shortened]... he was concerned, he was getting his just punishment, and he had no intention of avoiding it.
The second man is asking for rememberance owing to his acknowledgement of both his guilt and Christ's innocence, in light of the charges leveled against Jesus. Both men were keenly aware of their culpability which resulted in their positions on the crosses. Whatever previous understanding they may have had regarding the man in the middle is speculative. However, where this passage picks up, there is abundant information regarding the charges against the man in the middle.
They have the soldiers' taunts. They have the conversation of the people around the crosses. They have the sign above His head. The second man at least knows enough to recognize that Jesus is innocent of any crimes. Whatever poor life choices the second man had made previously, he knew enough doctrine to describe at least one of God's attributes when he used the accusative singluar for God. Further, he evidences his fear of God by rebuking the man without the same.
Nonetheless, putting two and two together, with his eternal ass on the line, so to speak, the second man asks for Jesus to be reminded of him... when? When He comes into His kingdom. Is the man daft? Here they are, all about to die, and somehow he thinks the man in the middle is going to come into a kingdom. Clearly, he thought there was something otherworldly about this man, something beyond the confines of this life.
In light of the man's thinking (he knew he was guilty; was in possession of fear for "the God;" recognized the innocence of Jesus; acknowledged Him as king; and asked for entrance into His kingdom), the man received the AMEN from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn light of the man's thinking (he knew he was guilty; was in possession of fear for "the God;" recognized the innocence of Jesus; acknowledged Him as king; and asked for entrance into His kingdom), the man received the AMEN from the Lord Jesus Christ.
The first man did not ask for Christ's salvific work; he challenged Him to remove Himself and them from the crosses.
The second man is asking for rememberance owing to his acknowledgement of both his guilt and Christ's innocence, in light of the charges leveled against Jesus. Both men were keenly aware of their culpability which resulted in their posit ...[text shortened]... ked for entrance into His kingdom), the man received the AMEN from the Lord Jesus Christ.
That's the point I'm making -- he never asked to enter into Jesus's kingdom. He only asked to be remembered there.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI see the point. He recognizes that he doesn't belong, that he offers nothing which could be considered satisfactory. He has exhibited a change of thinking. Nothing inferred with respect to contrition, however.
[b]In light of the man's thinking (he knew he was guilty; was in possession of fear for "the God;" recognized the innocence of Jesus; acknowledged Him as king; and asked for entrance into His kingdom), the man received the AMEN from the Lord Jesus Christ.
That's the point I'm making -- he never asked to enter into Jesus's kingdom. He only asked to be remembered there.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow does the fact that he chastises his fellow-thief and his acceptance of the punishment (crucifixion) not show contrition??
I see the point. He recognizes that he doesn't belong, that he offers nothing which could be considered satisfactory. He has exhibited a change of thinking. Nothing inferred with respect to contrition, however.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI take it as a sign of his fear of God. I see your point, however. Here he is, at the threshold of death and--- forced to weigh his own life--- finds it wanting. The other man is in the same predicament without the same results. Still, there is nothing within this account which lends itself to contrition as a requirement for salvation.
How does the fact that he chastises his fellow-thief and his acceptance of the punishment (crucifixion) not show contrition??
Certainly, there is a aberrant thought within Christendom which coerces emotion into the equation. This is not biblical.
Good discussion! I’ve been slow to catch up, because the below took a lot of time (more than it’s likely worth--and I also now see that some of what I raise has already been addressed in your own posts; Oh, well). I was intrigued by the following point that LH made—
Both thieves recognize Jesus as Christ (In his Epistle, James makes a similar point about even demons recognizing God). In fact, only one of them explicitly asks Christ to save him -- and that's the one who isn't saved! The other guy (the contrite one) only asks that Jesus remember him in His Kingdom -- and is saved.
—and I thought of the verse: "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46).
> NRS Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!"
Now the Greek word that is translated here as “kept deriding” is actually eblashpemei—was blaspheming or slandering him! How? By calling him the “messiah” ([ho Christos[/i])? (But Luke refers to Jesus as messiah 12 times in his Gospel and another 12 times in Acts, where Jesus is referred to as “Christ” another 12 times.)
This is the same word used in Matthew 27:39,40 and Mark 15:29,30—in the similar context of “accusing” Jesus of being the Christ, and calling on him to save himself.
> NRS Luke 23:40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong."
This seems to be a rebuke vis-à-vis the other’s “blasphemy!”
Luke had other words to choose from to mean “deride” or “insult” or “mock”—and used them elsewhere (see below). I think Luke might be deliberately creating a tension here between:
(1) “blaspheming” Jesus’ messiah-ship by calling on him for salvation with no true metanoia; and
(2) a real metanoia (with contrition, surely)* with or without calling on Jesus for salvation, or without even any faith or hopefulness in Jesus’ salvific power. I think it is unlikely that he really recognized Jesus as messiah.**
* The 2nd thief may have only been able to do this because of his fatalistic attitude. It is hard to crowd more than one emotion into our psyches simultaneously, and the other’s “survival instinct,” with its desperation, likely crowded out all else.
** I wouldn’t try to make a real case here, but the 2nd thief’s reference to Jesus’ “kingdom” is not a particularly strong reference, in terms of recognizing Jesus’ messiah-ship, especially coupled with his fatalistic attitude toward his own—fate; and the fact that Jesus being crucified did not particularly point to his being the Jewish messiah. One can almost imagine him smiling (not in condescension) in faint hopefulness or simple compassion for the innocent man hanging next to him. Although, where he might’ve heard Jesus speak of his kingdom is unclear within the Lucan context. Again, I wouldn’t really try to make much of a case here.
_________________________________
blasphemeo is occasionally, but seldom, translated as anything other than “blaspheme.” The only time that blasphemeo is translated other than “blaspheme” (with fitting context) in the Lucan writings appears to be Acts 18:6, where the context would seem to not fit with that translation. Other words used for deride, insult, ridicule, etc, are (with notes where I could find them in the Lucan writings):
hubrizo: insult or maltreat. (Luke 11:45)
loidoreo: curse, speak evil of, insult. (Acts 23:4)
oveidizo: reproach, insult, abuse, denounce, blame.
ekmukterizo: make fun of, ridicule. (Luke 16:14 and 23:35)
epereazo: mistreat, insult, abuse (Luke 6:28)
empaizo: mock, ridicule, make fun of, deceive. (Luke 14:29, 18:32, 22:63, 23:11, 23:36)
________________________
Lucan Uses of blasphemeo:
NRS Luke 5:21 Then the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, "Who is this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
NRS Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
NRS Acts 6:11 Then they secretly instigated some men to say, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God."
NRS Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy; and blaspheming, they contradicted what was spoken by Paul.
NRS Acts 18:6 When they opposed and reviled him, in protest he shook the dust from his clothes and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."
NRS Acts 19:37 You have brought these men here who are neither temple robbers nor blasphemers of our goddess.
NRS Acts 26:11 By punishing them often in all the synagogues I tried to force them to blaspheme; and since I was so furiously enraged at them, I pursued them even to foreign cities.
LATE EDIT: Or is it possible that blasphemeo did not have any particular "religious" meaning at all in Luke's time, but acquired that later...?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStill, there is nothing within this account which lends itself to contrition as a requirement for salvation.
I take it as a sign of his fear of God. I see your point, however. Here he is, at the threshold of death and--- forced to weigh his own life--- finds it wanting. The other man is in the same predicament without the same results. Still, there is nothing within this account which lends itself to contrition as a requirement for salvation.
Certainly, th ...[text shortened]... rrant thought within Christendom which coerces emotion into the equation. This is not biblical.
But—under what circumstances might a true metanoia not be accompanied by some level of (at least subsequent) contrition? The only one I can imagine is instantaneous death upon the instant of metanoia.
Does contrition lead one to metanoia, or can one experience metanoia as “a” charis prior to any sense of contrition? Or either/both?
Originally posted by vistesdI'll take a closer look at the subject you flush out, but I wanted to explore the use of contrite a bit further, relative to biblical use. There are at least five instances in the Hebrew OT where the English translations generally use the term contrite. However, I think my greatest objection to the same is the current popluar use of the English equivalent.
Good discussion! I’ve been slow to catch up, because the below took a lot of time (more than it’s likely worth--and I also now see that some of what I raise has already been addressed in your own posts; Oh, well). I was intrigued by the following point that LH made—
Both thieves recognize Jesus as Christ (In his Epistle, James makes a similar point abo ticular "religious" meaning at all in Luke's time, but acquired that later...?
While the etymology of the word is consistent, current usage of the word has become somewhat polluted, gaining an emotive element not necessarily present in the original Hebrew. From the American Heritage, Fourth Edition:
ADJECTIVE: 1. Feeling regret and sorrow for one's sins or offenses; penitent. 2. Arising from or expressing contrition: contrite words.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English contrit, from Latin contrtus, past participle of conterere, to crush
Here are the four verses wherein the Hebrew is generally translated as contrite:
Psalms 34:18 "dkai, or ones-crushed-of"
Psalms 51:17 "undke, or and-being-crushed"
Isaiah 57:15 "dka ushphi, or crushed and-lowly-of" and "ndkaim, or ones-being-crushed"
Isaiah 66:2 "unke, or and-smitten-of"
As near as I can tell, these verses are not redemption-minded (for the unbeliever to gain salvation), but deliverance from troubles (for those already saved).
The OT does mention the tears (thus emotions) of some (David, Job and others), but again, not with respect to salvation. As far as I can see, no Greek word or phrase is thusly translated contrite.
EDIT: My ramblings even lost me, as I forgot to add one instance of tears (emotion) in which the same were ineffectual in gaining salvation. In Hebrews 12:17, we are told of Esau, who
"kaiper ekzeteo auto ekzeteo, or though he sought carefully"
for
"metanoia, or repentance "
meta dakru, or with tears,"
"heurisko ou topos metanoia, or he found no place for repentance."
Originally posted by vistesdGood point. Crucial point, actually. I see the modern Christian pollution as an overwhelming desire to bring guilt and emotion into otherwise clear waters. Why? Emotions are easy to manipulate, as seen in the Great Awakenings within our country, a la Jonathan Edwards and other "fiery" itinerant preachers who relied on emotional outpourings of the easily beguiled for supposed spiritual results.
[b]Still, there is nothing within this account which lends itself to contrition as a requirement for salvation.
But—under what circumstances might a true metanoia not be accompanied by some level of (at least subsequent) contrition? The only one I can imagine is instantaneous death upon the instant of metanoia.
Does contrition ...[text shortened]... perience metanoia as “a” charis prior to any sense of contrition? Or either/both?[/b]
This same thinking wreaks its havoc on true spiritual growth, exchanging the truth of God for a lie. It whitewashes the devils world while never being able to offer anything acceptable to God. His truth is not achievable via human means and efforts, regardless of how 'righteous' we attempt to make it appear.
Rid of emotion, sober of thought, man can get about the work that God has ordained: growing in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFrom a Zen point of view, I might agree—but I also would reject an intellectual, as opposed to experiential—metanoia; and if it’s experiential, there are going to be emotions. This is where, if I remember correctly, that Schliermacher got mis-read—because he used the word “feeling” without meaning “emotions.”
Good point. Crucial point, actually. I see the modern Christian pollution as an overwhelming desire to bring guilt and emotion into otherwise clear waters. Why? Emotions are easy to manipulate, as seen in the Great Awakenings within our country, a la Jonathan Edwards and other "fiery" itinerant preachers who relied on emotional outpourings of the easil out the work that God has ordained: growing in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
_____________________
You guys are both probably wondering what I’m doing here with this stuff, and I’ll be honest:
I’m re-exploring the whole Christian paradigm from a “Zen” viewpoint—that is, its stream in the “perennial philosophy” (e.g., Meister Eckhart), without saying that that stream is not different from the Buddhist or Vedantic or Hasidic or Sufic streams; it is, and I’ll try to be careful about too much conflation. However...
Setting that “zen-lens” aside, I tend to be far more “protestant” than LH, and far more “catholic” than you, although here I look more to the Greek “east” than to the Latin “west.” I am definitely not sola scriptura, though at one time I was—the “catholic” side of me looks to the hermeneutics of the patristic tradition; the “protestant” side of me actually takes a more free-wheeling, creative approach (more like a post-modern midrashist; as I really have concluded that reading the text is always a creative act). But that is a subject for another thread.
I am going to go slowly, because I have a lot of reading to do before I get too involved with the arguments here. I am just “dipping my feet” and splashing around a bit, and may not be able to carry any discussion very far... And there, are of course come fundamental theological differences, which I don't necessarily want to take on... 🙂
EDIT: I'm probably also going to throw some "process theology" into my mix--after all, YHVH is a verb... 😉
_____________________
Re your post on contrition—
I think what happened over time is this: both the Hebrew t’shuvah (generally, “return” ) and the Greek metanoia (to turn, turn over, or change the mind) got translated—badly, badly, badly—into English as “repentance.” Repentance, unfortunately, means sorrow, regret, remorse—penitence; from the Latin re-poenitere. Contrition is listed in the dictionary as a synonym.
metanoia is one of those words (like charis, pistis and hamartia) that I am reluctant to translate at all. I treat metanoia as loosely “similar” to the zen concept of satori (another word that I don’t translate), but also I think it has more depth... still playing with that.
Originally posted by Conrau KOnce again, you have failed to answer my question. Your information doesn't change the
He said that violence is contrary to God's nature and incompatible with reason and faith. That is what he drew from the Emperor's quotes. In an age where Islam is responsible for much violence, and where some sects promote "jihads", what is wrong with the Pope's comments? Are you suggesting they are wrong?
careless and insensitive manner in which the Pope provided this information. That is, the
Pope didn't point out all the times the RCC was responsible for violence within its sects, so
there was hardly a balance.
Further, you said it was hard to write an apology. Then you said my apology written in seven
minutes was acceptable.
So, which is it? Asking, again: what harm could come of my apology in Pope Benedict's mouth?
And, again: why should it be hard for someone who leads a religious institution
founded on forgiveness to apologize? Does his political duties outweigh his religious duties?
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou really do like strawmen. Do you think it makes you sound erudite to correct something
Contrition is not an element of salvation.
that wasn't said?
Note I never said that contrition is an element of salvation. I said it is elemental to
Christianity, just like works of charity. There is no such thing as a Christian who doesn't
do works, or doesn't forgive, or sincerely seek forgiveness.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
(1) The Vatican generally has a poor record of translating stuff.
You know, LH, it's a major freaking copout to say that the official translations on the
Vatican website are generally poorly translated. It either means: the Church doesn't
care enough about its faithful to provide an accurate translation (for surely, there can
be no shortage of money to pay for it) or it is seeking to mislead its faithful.
Or, you just don't like the translation and you conveniently turn to your translation that
you expect me to use in lieu of the Vatican's.
(2) If the Emperor were a scholar (particularly in theology and philosophy, as he was), then where's the problem in pointing that out? It's not a "laudatory" term -- all it asks of the listener is to consider his statements carefully as it is an expert view.
If you call someone a scholar, and then turn to his writings which have hateful stuff in them, and
then fail to point out that that scholar's viewpoint was hateful, bigoted, spiteful, or whatever, don't
you think that it sounds like a tacit endorsement?
Generally, if I call someone knowledgeable and then cite them, it's because I feel that the knowledge
I am citing is worthy of examination. You well know that the Pope did very little to present this
citation in a way that expressed his disgust of the position. It is for this that I feel he owes a
sincere, personal apology.
Not particularly. It's hard for political leaders to apologise; when the Pope does things one does not expect from political leaders then at least some commentators can begin to see him in a different light.
When the Pope doesn't apologize, but instead offers a wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed non-apology,
doesn't it make him look more political than religious?
People who do things that require apology are rarely inclined to do so; people who are ready to apologise rarely do things that require it.
Don't you think the leader of the Catholic faith ought to have a better track record than 'rarely' or
'never?' Don't you think the Pope should be different than 'people who do things...?'
Nemesio