Christianity without God?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Well, to me anyway, to really forgive, you need to resolve/dismiss your anger and/or any hard feelings. Otherwise you aren't really forgiving them, are you? And to start to heal/rebuild a relationship, if you resolve any anger, or negative emotion/thoughts, and forgive that person, the relationship will improve much, much faster then otherwise it would.

Well, exactly. And that takes works, and I would think on the part more of the person who asks for forgiveness more so, than on the person being asked. Yes, I would see that. And it makes sense.

I would think, you cannot guarantee even if that resolves the situation, heal the person, and repair the relationship. If one cannot resolve it, they hurt beyond repair, I do not think there will be a relationship after that.

I do not say, there should be violence and rage, I just think, if it can't repair a relationship, the person who hurts has every right to cut off the relationship if they need to. Honesty is better, than just lying to one's self and to others.

Same with forgiving yourself. If you hate/angry/negative with yourself in some way, you'll never really be happy in the long term. Forgiving yourself goes a long way to improving ones quality of life.

Well, yes, same thing. If one is really honestly feels bad for what they have done, that could be hard too. ( and I would think the one who they hurt would start to respect ) if they honestly feel bad for the person they hurt was hurt.

If one says they forgive someone else, but are still angry/negative to that person, that isn't really forgiveness, that is an Apology.

And an apology is not helpful as it seems to be indicated as. Well to me at least.

I'd only repeat that apologizing is when you say you are sorry, or forgive, when you still are angry. But to truly forgive one has to get past anger and other negative influences in a relationship.

Apology = Saying, "I'm sorry"

Forgiveness = Getting past negative emotions/thoughts.

Well, yes, that's the meat of this. Getting past it.

But! And this is where I get in with a very big but. Getting past it.

I have found that some are being 'encouraged', 'forced', 'looked down upon' to get past it, whether it's on their own terms or not.

Like the one being hurt has to adhere to terms for 'their healing'. I don't think that's healing the proper way, mostly so when everyone heals differently.

I see so much where you're instructed to 'forgive' like you have no choice. Or you're praised for instantly 'forgiving' the other person, despite you still feel horrible for the pain you cannot escape on behalf of the other person. And that it's suppose to be great that you can give the other person a 'get out of jail card' when you are suppose to 'forgive' them.

I see things here that might actually have the negative effect.

One, does it really seem beneficial to tell the other person, that they are released from the responsibility of what they did to you?

I don't. I feel they need to be responsible for their actions. I think it would be proper that they are reminded of their actions, if they really need forgiveness from you. If I feel that the other person has done wrong, they need to be responsible for it. I think they have realize the lack of forgiveness, is the beginning of their punishment. ( If they really care of the damage done to someone )

I often wonder, if there have been situations, ( in a sense, I have been aware there have been ) where those who were encouraged to 'forgive' for their benefit, and forgave vocally and in the end, got worse in bitterness, and things got worse. I have felt that I want to research this on the web. I wonder if there are those here, where this has happened to them, after being encouraged to 'forgive' for their own benefit, but it made it worse for them.

I can understand the benefit of not getting revenge, not wanting revenge, and even feeling free of even thinking or planning for revenge. I don't think that is beneficial to the 'victim'. I also think, not even thinking about the one who hurts them, is probably beneficial to the hurt person. ( yes, sometimes, or more, cutting off the relationship is probably best. ) I do believe one can free themselves from violent and vile feelings toward the other, without 'forgiving' ( I do believe, bitterness, anger, and such can fester in a person who was 'forced' to forgive, and if the other is not doing their part to heal from their damage, then I think the 'victim' will lash out. I think that needs to be prevented )

I also think, one can help themselves in being honest with their pain and help themselves. Even feeling a sense of independent feeling from the other and that will lead to a sense of peace. I don't think one can get there through forced forgiveness.

I have found this site just now: http://http://www.net-burst.net/christian-help/forgive-heal.htm and even though it seems to be a religious site, I do see how it seems to agree with me, and how faking the forgiveness can lead to more problems.

Going with the flow of the OP, I think I have been led to these point of views of forgiveness, from my secular raised ways. Seeing how just doing an action, is not the way in reality. I can see following the thought process of the site I just linked, so for a secular person, there might be things to follow to heal. I think it can be more honest, if then a secular more thought process can go further, to really get to the heart of the matter.

If one, just looks deeply to their actions, and their well being, without lectures from something that doesn't necessarily work for them, then I do believe healing can help because it's honest. But like 'scars', it's there for life.

And one thing I think gets ignored big time, is trust. Does trust follow the instant 'forgiveness'? If some say yes, than that's a fake trust. You're lying to yourself just as much as faking the forgiveness. If someone wants you to let it go, if the one who hurts you, then you really hadn't healed and you honestly don't trust the other person. ( for one, the one that hurt is in no position to lecture ) and trust is earned and I think the one that hurt lost their change to have total trust.

There is so much more to relationships and to the healing from pain, than it seems that various religions seem to taut. It seems that gets ignored, the true honest situations and feelings, by some 'pat yourself on the back feeling for saying how wonderful instant forgiveness gets you' And then something worse happens, because it does gets ignored, the victim is the bad person. And I think there have been examples, where the victim has lashed out in later situations, right?

So, what I usually see in situations when the victim is 'encouraged' highly to 'forgive' just like that, is how it will help... realistically. I just see what will happen, that doesn't make sense, because it comes across as magically happening, and that doesn't make sense, when you still have a lack of trust and pain that goes too deep.

Why is that? The lack of description of how forgiveness gives you these magical results.

I do think a deeper look to the various levels that religious and secular look at forgiveness and what to really see about it, should happen.

But, that could also be just me...................... maybe.

I didn't forgive my sister for 15 years; I was a not at a place I was able to forgive her.

So I didn't. I will honestly share with you it did not affect my personal happiness to not forgive her. I chose this as it was the best solution at the time.

What would have affected my personal happiness is if I tried to do what was right by her, or forced myself to have compassion when I didn't or to look past her behavior and the constant issues I had with her. Had I have done any of these things I would have been angry, resentful, and mistrustful constantly, because I had invalidated and dishonored my feelings, my good sense. What was best for me is what was best, period.

For me, there is a lot of gray with forgiveness and for me putting others needs before my own doesn't work; I stand with Sharon on this it's not forgiveness, for me this is being a doormat.

I am not suggesting you are advocating this .

And, this is just my two cents.

At my mother's funeral, before I could progress one step forward with my sister, I told her the damage she had done, and also told her that fortunately I was able to pick up the pieces and what harm she had done I salvaged. She apologized immediately and it was genuine. I could hear it in her voice this in turn then led to my wanting to give her my forgiveness. Then the next thing I did was lay out my boundaries, giving her the choice to accept them or not and she accepted the new terms and has honored them going on 3 years now and we are still in the process of healing and we are doing good, and I will tell you I am proud of her courage and humility in this situation.

First off { (((((HUGS)))) } on my thoughts of what you went through.

And yes, this is what I'm talking about. And yes, the laying down of boundaries and the pointing out how one perceives the other, because of their actions. That, I feel, is being honest with yourself while telling the other that they are not letting the off taking responsibility for their actions.

I'm glad you were able to still get your peace and happiness. ( I do feel also, that it's a awful how the relationship was strained, I don't think anything is wonderful when relationships are strained, but things like this happen. ) And I know, that peace and happiness can be achieved.

Like I said, I don't think this gives the victim the right to go on a mad rampage of deep seething terror, but they have a right to instill the other to take responsibility for their actions, and no matter what it takes ( reasonably ) so they do not escape their responsibilities. I think when there have been cheating in a romantic relationship, or years of abuse or neglect, that has to be focused on, because that has brought one it's results no matter how you try to escape it. I think, permanent separations are probably the best way for the victim to heal too. Forgiving is not the trick, dealing with the ramifications is, from my observation.

I can only say that to forgive someone does not mean to Forget. It also does not mean to be a Sucker. It does mean not to let that relationship with that person fester, but clean out the wound, and move on.

You see, I often see this being describe after someone else debates it. Why isn't it explained when people told to forgive? Why is the 'how' hard to find?

And here's something that gets me. Yeah, it doesn't mean to forget, but sometimes it does mean that. And here's what makes me feels it doesn't rub. If told to 'forget' the bad that is done to you, couldn't it also mean, forget the good? Yeah, you don't want to, but having to pay attention to what to forget and what not to, is more pain for the victim. What if that causes a change in a person's psyche?

No, the victim, shouldn't have to do most of the work, the one causing the pain should.

[+DieChecker]

I do not say, there should be violence and rage, I just think, if it can't repair a relationship, the person who hurts has every right to cut off the relationship if they need to. Honesty is better, than just lying to one's self and to others.

I do suppose that forgiving someone doesn't necessarily mean that you reengage in a relationship with the person, it could very well mean that you forgive them and then wish to not have anything to do with them again.

But! And this is where I get in with a very big but. Getting past it.

I have found that some are being 'encouraged', 'forced', 'looked down upon' to get past it, whether it's on their own terms or not.

Like the one being hurt has to adhere to terms for 'their healing'. I don't think that's healing the proper way, mostly so when everyone heals differently.

I see so much where you're instructed to 'forgive' like you have no choice. Or you're praised for instantly 'forgiving' the other person, despite you still feel horrible for the pain you cannot escape on behalf of the other person. And that it's suppose to be great that you can give the other person a 'get out of jail card' when you are suppose to 'forgive' them.

I see things here that might actually have the negative effect.

That really strikes me as part of our modern world. We are taught we must forgive and we must forgive others. Even if it has to be enforced by a parent, partner or loved one. I think that probably came out of the Christian tradition, but it is a mockery of real forgiveness, which has to come from the heart of the individual where they honestly repent of their negative feelings and actions.

One, does it really seem beneficial to tell the other person, that they are released from the responsibility of what they did to you?

But it is not for the person being forgiven, it is for the forgiver. One can't force someone to forgive them.

I don't. I feel they need to be responsible for their actions. I think it would be proper that they are reminded of their actions, if they really need forgiveness from you. If I feel that the other person has done wrong, they need to be responsible for it. I think they have realize the lack of forgiveness, is the beginning of their punishment. ( If they really care of the damage done to someone )

I don't think responsibility needs to come into it. I can forgive someone who murdered my wife, but at the same time demand they be punished to the extent of the law. Forgiveness is the release of the negative.

It is kind of like "Love thy neighbor". It doesn't say, "Love only the neighbors you are friends with". It says to love all your neighbors, even the a-holes and son-of-a-b****es. It doesn't mean you have to give your neighbor stuff for free, or let him rob you, or anything. Only that you love the neighbor.

I often wonder, if there have been situations, ( in a sense, I have been aware there have been ) where those who were encouraged to 'forgive' for their benefit, and forgave vocally and in the end, got worse in bitterness, and things got worse. I have felt that I want to research this on the web. I wonder if there are those here, where this has happened to them, after being encouraged to 'forgive' for their own benefit, but it made it worse for them.

That would be interesting to see.

I can understand the benefit of not getting revenge, not wanting revenge, and even feeling free of even thinking or planning for revenge. I don't think that is beneficial to the 'victim'. I also think, not even thinking about the one who hurts them, is probably beneficial to the hurt person. ( yes, sometimes, or more, cutting off the relationship is probably best. ) I do believe one can free themselves from violent and vile feelings toward the other, without 'forgiving' ( I do believe, bitterness, anger, and such can fester in a person who was 'forced' to forgive, and if the other is not doing their part to heal from their damage, then I think the 'victim' will lash out. I think that needs to be prevented )

I don't think cutting off is ever the best, but many times it is the quickest and easiest thing to do.

I also think, one can help themselves in being honest with their pain and help themselves. Even feeling a sense of independent feeling from the other and that will lead to a sense of peace. I don't think one can get there through forced forgiveness.

I have found this site just now: http://http://www.ne...orgive-heal.htm and even though it seems to be a religious site, I do see how it seems to agree with me, and how faking the forgiveness can lead to more problems.

If some is forced to forgive, then is it really forgiveness? I don't think so. It is just an appeasement to whatever authority is demanding the forgiveness.

And one thing I think gets ignored big time, is trust. Does trust follow the instant 'forgiveness'? If some say yes, than that's a fake trust. You're lying to yourself just as much as faking the forgiveness. If someone wants you to let it go, if the one who hurts you, then you really hadn't healed and you honestly don't trust the other person. ( for one, the one that hurt is in no position to lecture ) and trust is earned and I think the one that hurt lost their change to have total trust.

I'd say No. Trust does not automatically follow. That would be naive and stupid. You don't have to trust someone to forgive them. You only have to let go of your inner hurt/negative emotions. Even if the other person accepts the forgiveness and says they are changed. That does not mean there need be trust. Trust has to be earned.

There is so much more to relationships and to the healing from pain, than it seems that various religions seem to taut. It seems that gets ignored, the true honest situations and feelings, by some 'pat yourself on the back feeling for saying how wonderful instant forgiveness gets you' And then something worse happens, because it does gets ignored, the victim is the bad person. And I think there have been examples, where the victim has lashed out in later situations, right?

So, what I usually see in situations when the victim is 'encouraged' highly to 'forgive' just like that, is how it will help... realistically. I just see what will happen, that doesn't make sense, because it comes across as magically happening, and that doesn't make sense, when you still have a lack of trust and pain that goes too deep.

Why is that? The lack of description of how forgiveness gives you these magical results.

I do think a deeper look to the various levels that religious and secular look at forgiveness and what to really see about it, should happen.

But, that could also be just me...................... maybe.

I would agree. Seeking to give, or receive, forgiveness before you are ready can be a real problem that can expand a problem, rather then fix it. A person has to be able to honestly let go before they can forgive someone else, and the need to have some level of trust before they can accept forgiveness from someone else, IMHO. Forcing the issue will never fix anything.

You see, I often see this being describe after someone else debates it. Why isn't it explained when people told to forgive? Why is the 'how' hard to find?

And here's something that gets me. Yeah, it doesn't mean to forget, but sometimes it does mean that. And here's what makes me feels it doesn't rub. If told to 'forget' the bad that is done to you, couldn't it also mean, forget the good? Yeah, you don't want to, but having to pay attention to what to forget and what not to, is more pain for the victim. What if that causes a change in a person's psyche?

No, the victim, shouldn't have to do most of the work, the one causing the pain should.

Sometimes it is only the victim who wishes to be healed though. I'd recommend that whatever does cause a need for forgiveness shouldn't be forgotten, otherwise it might be repeated. I can loan someone money and forgive that they don't pay it back, but I don't need to loan them money again. And I don't need to forget that they didn't pay me back in order to forgive them.

[HalfAnIdiot]

Can this be backed by a source that is not bias? I have no comment on the NT stuff, but I think the bit on the Torah is...well, simply not true.

Yes, of course it can be backed by other sources:

Friedman, Richard Elliott, Who Wrote the Bible?, HarperSanFrancisco, 1997

Welhausen, Julius, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, Scholars Press, 1994 (reprint of 1885)

Kantor, Mattis, The Jewish time line encyclopedia: A year-by-year history from Creation to the present, Jason Aronson Inc., London, 1992

Wheeler, Brannon M., Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis, Routledge, 2002

DeSilva, David Arthur, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry, InterVarsity Press, 2004

Alcalay, Reuben., The Complete Hebrew – English dictionary, vol 2, Hemed Books, New York, 1996 ISBN 978-965-448-179-3

Scherman, Nosson, (ed.), Tanakh, Vol. I, The Torah, (Stone edition), Mesorah Publications, Ltd., New York, 2001

Heschel, Abraham Joshua, Tucker, Gordon & Levin, Leonard, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations, London, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005

Hubbard, David "The Literary Sources of the Kebra Nagast" Ph.D. dissertation St Andrews University, Scotland, 1959

How do you know it isn't "simply true?" Can you prove that aish.com is biased? The Aish.com contributors are expert scholars.

Edited April 16, 2016 by HalfAnIdiot

[+Sherapy]

I can only say that to forgive someone does not mean to Forget. It also does not mean to be a Sucker. It does mean not to let that relationship with that person fester, but clean out the wound, and move on.

You say it did not affect your happiness, but what did you feel when someone brought up the subject of your sister during that time... Negative, Indifferent, or Positive? If bringing her up made you have negative feelings, that you did not want to deal with, then it did affect your happiness. So you just put that part of your life away, rather then deal with it. I'm not saying that is what you did, but I know I've felt that way about people before, and I pushed them away and sealed them off rather then deal with the issue, and everything seems fine till that person comes into your life again.

And after that event of forgiveness, did you feel better, or worse? Had something healed, or not? Sounds like you two had a powerful reunion that day.

Of course DC, that is an excellent question one I have asked and explored too. Thank you for asking and giving me the gift of looking at this in the big picture. For me, the change came when I figured out by looking deeply into my anger that the torment and festering aspect of it was as a result of a tug of war from the external pressure I felt by myself and others to forgive, or extend compassion, or say something didn't bother me when it did, to give chances when I knew damn well it wouldn't matter, it didn't feel better to go right back into problems that were not going to change, or to be a part of relationships that were only dysfunctional, when I sought functional ones. I simply just told the truth of where I was with the problem. I would say I am not at a place to move forward; I am working on myself.

This got rid of the need to justify or defend my position or make myself right and them wrong. I came to understand that sometimes the most peaceful solution is to let go, to give issues space, and that time leads to objectivity and in this I have gotten a clearer picture of what will be better, for me, things I didn't see before will come into being and often I see where I have contributed, in my sisters case, my part in the problem was I was giving chances knowing things would not change. I was going against my better judgement. I now remind myself to accept/see things clearly: I can trust myself, I put more thought into the things I want, I honor my feelings about things, and I respect when I need the space to work things out, it takes what it takes. For me, this gives incredible personal peace; regardless, of the situation. And, I stopped judging myself or allowing others to influence me by saying: I was wrong, less than, and not a good person for concluding with a different understanding of forgiveness, one that actually works best for me.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Sherapy

[Grimmie]

Yes, of course it can be backed by other sources:

Friedman, Richard Elliott, Who Wrote the Bible?, HarperSanFrancisco, 1997

Welhausen, Julius, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, Scholars Press, 1994 (reprint of 1885)

Kantor, Mattis, The Jewish time line encyclopedia: A year-by-year history from Creation to the present, Jason Aronson Inc., London, 1992

Wheeler, Brannon M., Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis, Routledge, 2002

DeSilva, David Arthur, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry, InterVarsity Press, 2004

Alcalay, Reuben., The Complete Hebrew – English dictionary, vol 2, Hemed Books, New York, 1996 ISBN 978-965-448-179-3

Scherman, Nosson, (ed.), Tanakh, Vol. I, The Torah, (Stone edition), Mesorah Publications, Ltd., New York, 2001

Heschel, Abraham Joshua, Tucker, Gordon & Levin, Leonard, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations, London, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005

Hubbard, David "The Literary Sources of the Kebra Nagast" Ph.D. dissertation St Andrews University, Scotland, 1959

How do you know it isn't "simply true?" Can you prove that aish.com is biased? The Aish.com contributors are expert scholars.

While I took several classes in Ancient Israel, early Judaism, and the Hebrew Bible, one of the things we studied were the earliest Jewish texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and others. One of our required books was Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times by Sidnie White Crawford

Here is a link to the book...

http://www.eerdmans....mple-times.aspx

I will paste what it says from there...

DESCRIPTION

Series: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (SDSS)

The biblical manuscripts found at Qumran, contends Sidnie White Crawford, reflect a spectrum of text movement from authoritative scriptural traditions to completely new compositions. Treating six major groups of texts, she shows how differences in the texts result from a particular understanding of the work of the scribe -- not merely to copy but also to interpret, update, and make relevant the Scripture for the contemporary Jewish community of the time. Thisáscribal practice led to texts that were "rewritten" or "reworked" and considered no less important or accurate than the originals.

Propounding a new theory of how these texts cohere as a group, Crawford offers an original and provocative work for readers interested in the Second Temple period.

Anchor

REVIEWS

Benjamin G. Wright

— Lehigh University

"In this book Sidnie White Crawford illuminates the variety of creative ways that Jews told and retold their scriptural stories. A leading scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls, she brings erudition and clarity to the issue of how the Jewish scriptures were ‘rewritten,' from harmonization and expansion at one end of the spectrum to brand-new compositions, some of which claim scriptural authority for themselves, at the other end. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times offers new and fresh insights that are sure to change the shape of the debate. Specialists and nonspecialists alike will want to read this engaging study."

Emanuel Tov

— Hebrew University, Jerusalem

"This monograph contains a creative combination of instructive, innovative background material on the rewriting procedures and thorough text analyses. Very well written, the book is a must for all those interested in the history of Scripture exegesis, Qumran studies, and textual criticism."

Eugene Ulrich

— University of Notre Dame

"The Scriptures were still developing and their boundaries shifting until the early Christian era. Sidnie White Crawford, having edited scrolls of both biblical and debatably parabiblical status, is uniquely qualified as a guide to the compositions along that newly illumined but ill-defined border. She provides a balanced, judicious, and eminently readable account of how a spectrum of recently discovered ancient authors developed their traditional Scriptures."

Bibliotheca Orientalis

"An instructive and very stimulating discussion of procedures of `rewriting' Scripture at Qumran."

Reviews in Religion & Theology

"This book would certainly appeal to students interested in literary and exegetical studies of the Hebrew Bible, as well as Qumran studies and the Second Temple Period. . . . A very interesting read!"

Society for Old Testament Study Booklist

"The format of the book, a well-written account, is consistently argued with a bibliography for each chapter, making this book a welcome addition to the series."

Interpretation

"This is a highly readable book that presents complicated textual observations of Dead Sea Scrolls study in impressively lucid terms."

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

"This volume is characterized by clarity in its presentation and judiciousness in engaging with the scholarly issues. . . . An indispensable resource for students and scholars interested in the history of the Hebrew Bible and ancient scriptural interpretation."

When I say it's "simply not true" I mean that we have mounds and mounds of evidence of scriptural texts being edited, changed, and rewritten, with detailed explanations as to how and why. So the suggestion that there was a strict process to "weed out" any scribal errors or changes, and that there were virtually no changes in the original text, is blatantly false.

I say aish.com is bias because they are completely contradicting what is said by experts all over the world, and what is taught in Jewish Studies departments at universities.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Grimmie

[+Sherapy]

Habitat

There are between one and two billion living Muslims, and so there will inevitably be many opinions. There are very few miracle stories about Mohammed (splitting the moon being probably the best known, or telling his night journey vision as a physical journey). I think you'll find far more common is the idea that the revelation itself is a miracle.

It is a peculiarity of Jesus' miracles that although they are numerous, few are different from the miracles attributed to secondary figures: Jesus' mother, Peter, or Paul, or even tertiary figures like Deacon Philip in Acts 8. Even non-Christians get miracle credit (the exorcist who uses Jesus' name without permission in Mark). The best example of an "only Jesus" miracle is the water into wine, and that was apparently a common pagan liturgical act.

It is possible that some Christians do believe the miracle stories, and this is a foundation of their faith. I think it is easy to find Christians who believe despite the miracle tales in our age when you can easily arrange to see more impressive feats every day in hospitals.

Mr W

That's difficult to establish.

Take a simple example: the Q hypothesis. It proposes that once upon a time, there was a collection of sayings of Jesus, translated into Greek, which was incorporated into Matthew and Luke, and after that, the collection was not preserved separately from those Gospels.

Cool story, except what did the translators do with the Aramaic original after they had translated it? Throw it away? "I don't need the actual words of God as he spoke them; I've got pretty much the general idea in Greek now."

This is not how people are observed to treat sacred material, or sacred objects of any kind. It "raises more questions than the hypothesis answers," as the historicist-apologists are so fond of saying.

Xeno

As a general rule, Carl Jung quotes without a source are suspect. The Collected Works are a bookshelf, and they aren't, despite the name, even close to a complete collection. "Synthetic" Jung is also common, fusing bits and pieces of what he did write into a new saying. The results may be interesting, but they are not Jung.

Jung or not, without context, it is very difficult to understand what any isolated pair of sentences mean. The first one here could fit easily enough in Jung, but "I am what I choose to become" would need a lot of explaining. Jung might have written it, some place, some time, but ...

Anyway, if you have a source, then I'd be interested.

Sheri

Cause and effect are difficult to sort out in the mind. The rituals related to forgiveness which have been discussed in the thread (whether as magic or as pscyhology) may not foster forgiveness so much as express an authentic readiness, already achieved and now awaiting implementation, to let go of something hurtful.

We cannot keep our grievances indefinitely, because they will eat us up. We cannot really dismiss them prematurely, either, because they must be learned from, and healed from. To everything there is a season, and maybe when the time comes to forgive, "ritual" is the symbol that gets the whole mind onto the same page, that now it is better to let go.

I don't know, of course. This goes hand in hand with my comment to Xeno about the second sentence of his Jung quote. We don't and shouldn't do a lot of pushing in a Jungian mental economy; there's a lot of waiting for things to align and being ready to move forward when they do.

Indeed Paul, thank you for your insightful post. And when things align, or can, ( namely, those involved are all open to the process, to contributing their part the moving forward is effortless and the healing nature of forgiveness is a wonder to behold.

A little story, I think you will appreciate. My step-dad abandoned his daughter at birth, by choice, he has had a recent opportunity to make things right with her and he has jumped at it, which is in part honoring and respecting the anger and hurt she has suffered as a result of his decision. My new sister has been rough on him, she has been honest, brave, and candid about holding him accountable and I have asked him quietly on occasion how he is holding up, and he says these are things she needs to say and things He needs to hear. He says he has a lot of work to do and he feels so blessed to have the chance to earn her trust and forgiveness, and over the last 3 years I have watched my sister and him find their way to each other and how committed each are to their part. My sister must honor what comes up in order to let it go and my Dad must do the work and the healing nature of forgiveness is doing the rest. Update: they are doing really well, I am so proud of them both.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Sherapy

[eight bits]

Sheri

Yes, that's a very powerful story. What a grievous injury, with no possibility of "undoing" the damage. And somehow, with the perverse logic of the human condition, that's when forgiveness is most transforming, when it can be achieved.

It's a goal, and there can be a lot of work involved to achieve it. It sounds like progress is being made in this situation. Best wishes for a successful conclusion.

[Mr Walker]

Habitat

There are between one and two billion living Muslims, and so there will inevitably be many opinions. There are very few miracle stories about Mohammed (splitting the moon being probably the best known, or telling his night journey vision as a physical journey). I think you'll find far more common is the idea that the revelation itself is a miracle.

It is a peculiarity of Jesus' miracles that although they are numerous, few are different from the miracles attributed to secondary figures: Jesus' mother, Peter, or Paul, or even tertiary figures like Deacon Philip in Acts 8. Even non-Christians get miracle credit (the exorcist who uses Jesus' name without permission in Mark). The best example of an "only Jesus" miracle is the water into wine, and that was apparently a common pagan liturgical act.

It is possible that some Christians do believe the miracle stories, and this is a foundation of their faith. I think it is easy to find Christians who believe despite the miracle tales in our age when you can easily arrange to see more impressive feats every day in hospitals.

Mr W

That's difficult to establish.

Take a simple example: the Q hypothesis. It proposes that once upon a time, there was a collection of sayings of Jesus, translated into Greek, which was incorporated into Matthew and Luke, and after that, the collection was not preserved separately from those Gospels.

Cool story, except what did the translators do with the Aramaic original after they had translated it? Throw it away? "I don't need the actual words of God as he spoke them; I've got pretty much the general idea in Greek now."

This is not how people are observed to treat sacred material, or sacred objects of any kind. It "raises more questions than the hypothesis answers," as the historicist-apologists are so fond of saying.

Xeno

As a general rule, Carl Jung quotes without a source are suspect. The Collected Works are a bookshelf, and they aren't, despite the name, even close to a complete collection. "Synthetic" Jung is also common, fusing bits and pieces of what he did write into a new saying. The results may be interesting, but they are not Jung.

Jung or not, without context, it is very difficult to understand what any isolated pair of sentences mean. The first one here could fit easily enough in Jung, but "I am what I choose to become" would need a lot of explaining. Jung might have written it, some place, some time, but ...

Anyway, if you have a source, then I'd be interested.

Sheri

Cause and effect are difficult to sort out in the mind. The rituals related to forgiveness which have been discussed in the thread (whether as magic or as pscyhology) may not foster forgiveness so much as express an authentic readiness, already achieved and now awaiting implementation, to let go of something hurtful.

We cannot keep our grievances indefinitely, because they will eat us up. We cannot really dismiss them prematurely, either, because they must be learned from, and healed from. To everything there is a season, and maybe when the time comes to forgive, "ritual" is the symbol that gets the whole mind onto the same page, that now it is better to let go.

I don't know, of course. This goes hand in hand with my comment to Xeno about the second sentence of his Jung quote. We don't and shouldn't do a lot of pushing in a Jungian mental economy; there's a lot of waiting for things to align and being ready to move forward when they do.

The didache fromm the first century speaks of the nature of ealry Jewish Christians and of Christianity before it was really altered by pauline influence.

Clealry then the writer(s) either had first /second hand knowledge of such people and had spoken with them, OR they had access to their written thoughts and beliefs .

It matters not how precious something is. If it is written on perishable material it is likley to perish in 2000 years. I am not saying there WERE earlier writings, only that surrounding contextual evidences suggest that there were

For example, there are known references in existing texts to other earlier texts which no longer exist. (From the next century or two)

[Mr Walker]

The resurrection story is the centrepiece, of course. Take that away, and people go streaming out the door like the crowd at a one-sided football match.

I am not so sure. Since the "social gospel" became popular in the 60s and combined with modern secular eduction and knowledge, many Christians don't believe either the resurrection OR the miracles of christ but the y do like the social doctrine of the new testament and chose to try and live as christ lived, eg WWJD, as a way of living which works to benefit them and their society. In other words, they are Christians not to get immortality, but to make their lives on earth better/healthier, more empowered, and to improve their communities.

[Mr Walker]

Habitat

True, but for about 2/3 of Christians now, and almost all of them from the Fourth through Fifteenth Centuries, Jesus' mother did that one, too. Some in the western church think that she did Jesus one better, and didn't ever die.

Could be. But take what away? Nobody living for the last nineteen centuries has seen Jesus alive. It's a story, not an experience. How do you "take away" a story? Does it really make any difference whether the story of Jesus' resurrection is a "spiritual" resurrection or a "physical" one?

If you were half flayed, nailed up, and then stabbed in the chest, would you want to spend forever hauling that body around? I wouldn't. Give me one of those newfangled flying bodies that goes through walls and locked doors. But what's the difference between having that body and being a ghost?

Recall also that Islam, which does have a future general resurrection doctrine, has no "historical" resurrection story at all. Jesus wasn't even really crucified. Islam has got huge numbers, and plenty of growth.

I really do understand the importance of the story to the Christian faith, but I don't see that the faithful recognizing it as a story about a spiritual circumstance would make any difference at this point in history. Maybe the churches are going to empty anyway. We'll see.

The bolded piece is an opinion. An opinion based on logic and rational thinking and eminently reasonable, but an opinion none the less.

It assumes christ did not rise and does not manifest to humans over the ages, including to the present day That contradicts the personal experiences and testimonies of many human beings.

Despite this quibble i agree with the main thrust of your argument. it isn't necessary to believe in a physical resurrection, or even the miracles of christ., to be a christian

Edited April 17, 2016 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

Sheri

Yes, that's a very powerful story. What a grievous injury, with no possibility of "undoing" the damage. And somehow, with the perverse logic of the human condition, that's when forgiveness is most transforming, when it can be achieved.

It's a goal, and there can be a lot of work involved to achieve it. It sounds like progress is being made in this situation. Best wishes for a successful conclusion.

Thank you, for your kind words my friend.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

DieChecker:

I do suppose that forgiving someone doesn't necessarily mean that you reengage in a relationship with the person, it could very well mean that you forgive them and then wish to not have anything to do with them again.

Well, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about not forgiving honestly separating themselves from the person. Frankly, I think it's the least one can do to make sure the other person takes responsibility for their actions, if they choose to.

That really strikes me as part of our modern world. We are taught we must forgive and we must forgive others. Even if it has to be enforced by a parent, partner or loved one. I think that probably came out of the Christian tradition, but it is a mockery of real forgiveness, which has to come from the heart of the individual where they honestly repent of their negative feelings and actions.

I agree, it's does seem like a mockery, since you can't force emotions and feelings, like forgiveness, if you don't feel it.

But it is not for the person being forgiven, it is for the forgiver. One can't force someone to forgive them.

I think that is irrational. The forgiver, like you said that they cannot be forced to forgive, cannot be told it's going to give them peace, if they just force themselves to forgive. No, they need to face the feelings they have from the damage done to them. And that means, making sure those who have done the damage does not escape responsiblity from it.

I don't think responsibility needs to come into it. I can forgive someone who murdered my wife, but at the same time demand they be punished to the extent of the law. Forgiveness is the release of the negative.

Is it, if it's honest forgiveness? What if you think you forgive, but you don't?

It is kind of like "Love thy neighbor". It doesn't say, "Love only the neighbors you are friends with". It says to love all your neighbors, even the a-holes and son-of-a-b****es. It doesn't mean you have to give your neighbor stuff for free, or let him rob you, or anything. Only that you love the neighbor.

I think that is not what I meant.

That would be interesting to see.

That's why, I was interested in started a thread about forgiveness to see if there were results like that.

I don't think cutting off is ever the best, but many times it is the quickest and easiest thing to do.

I do, mostly so if their appearance just reminds them of the pain. And if they don't make amends, deinitely.

If some is forced to forgive, then is it really forgiveness? I don't think so. It is just an appeasement to whatever authority is demanding the forgiveness.

That is what I'm talking about. And that's what I see all of the time. Saying how wonderful to forgive, without considering the damage done, the healing needed, and the responsibility of the perp (shrugs) and it seems to come off as some magical thing that will happen if you do it. I'm saying, no, it won't, because in various cases, myself, and others have not had the 'magic' thing happen to us, and ended up dealing with it better, when we are honest with our feelings and say we can't because it hasn't been earned.

I'd say No. Trust does not automatically follow. That would be naive and stupid. You don't have to trust someone to forgive them. You only have to let go of your inner hurt/negative emotions. Even if the other person accepts the forgiveness and says they are changed. That does not mean there need be trust. Trust has to be earned.

Well, good, that is what I'm hoping. But, let go of your inner hurt'negative emotions? Easy said than done. It's like scraping off the top part of a scap. There's still scarring underneath. It will come back. No, one has to deal with it, be honest with it, makes sure it doesn't come up to wreck your life. Honesty and handling your pain, and making sure others who caused it take responsiblity, is the best way. You can't let go, you have to know it's there, and heal yourself to ease it.

I would agree. Seeking to give, or receive, forgiveness before you are ready can be a real problem that can expand a problem, rather then fix it. A person has to be able to honestly let go before they can forgive someone else, and the need to have some level of trust before they can accept forgiveness from someone else, IMHO. Forcing the issue will never fix anything.

Yup, exactly.

Sometimes it is only the victim who wishes to be healed though. I'd recommend that whatever does cause a need for forgiveness shouldn't be forgotten, otherwise it might be repeated. I can loan someone money and forgive that they don't pay it back, but I don't need to loan them money again. And I don't need to forget that they didn't pay me back in order to forgive them.

Well, that I can agree.

I have to say, DieChecker, I find this very stimulating to the brain discussing your points and my points.

[+Sherapy]

DieChecker:

Well, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about not forgiving honestly separating themselves from the person. Frankly, I think it's the least one can do to make sure the other person takes responsibility for their actions, if they choose to.

I agree, it's does seem like a mockery, since you can't force emotions and feelings, like forgiveness, if you don't feel it.

I think that is irrational. The forgiver, like you said that they cannot be forced to forgive, cannot be told it's going to give them peace, if they just force themselves to forgive. No, they need to face the feelings they have from the damage done to them. And that means, making sure those who have done the damage does not escape responsiblity from it.

Is it, if it's honest forgiveness? What if you think you forgive, but you don't?

I think that is not what I meant.

That's why, I was interested in started a thread about forgiveness to see if there were results like that.

I do, mostly so if their appearance just reminds them of the pain. And if they don't make amends, deinitely.

That is what I'm talking about. And that's what I see all of the time. Saying how wonderful to forgive, without considering the damage done, the healing needed, and the responsibility of the perp (shrugs) and it seems to come off as some magical thing that will happen if you do it. I'm saying, no, it won't, because in various cases, myself, and others have not had the 'magic' thing happen to us, and ended up dealing with it better, when we are honest with our feelings and say we can't because it hasn't been earned.

Well, good, that is what I'm hoping. But, let go of your inner hurt'negative emotions? Easy said than done. It's like scraping off the top part of a scap. There's still scarring underneath. It will come back. No, one has to deal with it, be honest with it, makes sure it doesn't come up to wreck your life. Honesty and handling your pain, and making sure others who caused it take responsiblity, is the best way. You can't let go, you have to know it's there, and heal yourself to ease it.

Yup, exactly.

Well, that I can agree.

I have to say, DieChecker, I find this very stimulating to the brain discussing your points and my points.

Great points, this would be a great thread.

[eight bits]

Mr W

The didache fromm the first century speaks of the nature of ealry Jewish Christians and of Christianity before it was really altered by pauline influence.

The Didache is an interesting document, but its date of composition isn't narrowly estimated. Early Christian Writings, a "neutral source" often cited by both sides in debates, gives a wide date range, 50-120 CE.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

That is, the range of plausible dates goes from contemporary with Paul's mission and authentic letters through to about two generations after Paul and well into the estimated range of the Pastorals (100-150 CE) falsely attributed to him. Either way, the Didache could be a "reaction" to Paul in its own right. Tricky business, then.

There really is no evidence that Mark had access to any earlier "biographical" writing or to eyewitnesses' oral testimony. Later Gospels mine Mark heavily, which is an odd thing to do if you have eyewitness sources of your own (unless the author's point is that Mark got something wrong, which parts of John may be saying politely).

I think you missed the point of the Torah and Koran examples. The key to indefinite survival of the source text is continuous faithful copying. The oldest physical copies do indeed succumb to entropy, all the faster if the copies are used regularly. Sacred objects are in some sense "precious," but sacred is a distinct category from precious, characterized by different kinds of observed behavior.

"Historical Jesus" does not stand or fall with the Q hypothesis. Q is, however, an example of how little direct effect Jesus' life, if there was such a life, had on the world around him. What effect there was resided entirely in other people's later recollections and imaginings about him. That is the context in which his actual words would have somehow been overlooked as worthy of being preserved intact. Q goes a step further and contemplates that his words were recognized as worthy of collection and then the originals were left to rot. That's odd, IMO.

On the other post you mentioned, you and I seem to be close to agreement on the major points. You apparently would have phrased the portion you emphasized differently than I did. I'm OK with that, and since I am always happy to acknowledge that my opinion is an opinion, I think we're all set on that exchange.

Edited April 17, 2016 by eight bits

[HalfAnIdiot]

While I took several classes in Ancient Israel, early Judaism, and the Hebrew Bible, one of the things we studied were the earliest Jewish texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and others. One of our required books was Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times by Sidnie White Crawford

Here is a link to the book...

http://www.eerdmans....mple-times.aspx

I will paste what it says from there...

DESCRIPTION

Series: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (SDSS)

The biblical manuscripts found at Qumran, contends Sidnie White Crawford, reflect a spectrum of text movement from authoritative scriptural traditions to completely new compositions. Treating six major groups of texts, she shows how differences in the texts result from a particular understanding of the work of the scribe -- not merely to copy but also to interpret, update, and make relevant the Scripture for the contemporary Jewish community of the time. Thisáscribal practice led to texts that were "rewritten" or "reworked" and considered no less important or accurate than the originals.

Propounding a new theory of how these texts cohere as a group, Crawford offers an original and provocative work for readers interested in the Second Temple period.

Anchor

REVIEWS

Benjamin G. Wright

— Lehigh University

"In this book Sidnie White Crawford illuminates the variety of creative ways that Jews told and retold their scriptural stories. A leading scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls, she brings erudition and clarity to the issue of how the Jewish scriptures were ‘rewritten,' from harmonization and expansion at one end of the spectrum to brand-new compositions, some of which claim scriptural authority for themselves, at the other end. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times offers new and fresh insights that are sure to change the shape of the debate. Specialists and nonspecialists alike will want to read this engaging study."

Emanuel Tov

— Hebrew University, Jerusalem

"This monograph contains a creative combination of instructive, innovative background material on the rewriting procedures and thorough text analyses. Very well written, the book is a must for all those interested in the history of Scripture exegesis, Qumran studies, and textual criticism."

Eugene Ulrich

— University of Notre Dame

"The Scriptures were still developing and their boundaries shifting until the early Christian era. Sidnie White Crawford, having edited scrolls of both biblical and debatably parabiblical status, is uniquely qualified as a guide to the compositions along that newly illumined but ill-defined border. She provides a balanced, judicious, and eminently readable account of how a spectrum of recently discovered ancient authors developed their traditional Scriptures."

Bibliotheca Orientalis

"An instructive and very stimulating discussion of procedures of `rewriting' Scripture at Qumran."

Reviews in Religion & Theology

"This book would certainly appeal to students interested in literary and exegetical studies of the Hebrew Bible, as well as Qumran studies and the Second Temple Period. . . . A very interesting read!"

Society for Old Testament Study Booklist

"The format of the book, a well-written account, is consistently argued with a bibliography for each chapter, making this book a welcome addition to the series."

Interpretation

"This is a highly readable book that presents complicated textual observations of Dead Sea Scrolls study in impressively lucid terms."

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

"This volume is characterized by clarity in its presentation and judiciousness in engaging with the scholarly issues. . . . An indispensable resource for students and scholars interested in the history of the Hebrew Bible and ancient scriptural interpretation."

When I say it's "simply not true" I mean that we have mounds and mounds of evidence of scriptural texts being edited, changed, and rewritten, with detailed explanations as to how and why. So the suggestion that there was a strict process to "weed out" any scribal errors or changes, and that there were virtually no changes in the original text, is blatantly false.

I say aish.com is bias because they are completely contradicting what is said by experts all over the world, and what is taught in Jewish Studies departments at universities.

I humbly stand corrected! Thank you, Grimmie.

[Mr Walker]

Mr W

The Didache is an interesting document, but its date of composition isn't narrowly estimated. Early Christian Writings, a "neutral source" often cited by both sides in debates, gives a wide date range, 50-120 CE.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

That is, the range of plausible dates goes from contemporary with Paul's mission and authentic letters through to about two generations after Paul and well into the estimated range of the Pastorals (100-150 CE) falsely attributed to him. Either way, the Didache could be a "reaction" to Paul in its own right. Tricky business, then.

There really is no evidence that Mark had access to any earlier "biographical" writing or to eyewitnesses' oral testimony. Later Gospels mine Mark heavily, which is an odd thing to do if you have eyewitness sources of your own (unless the author's point is that Mark got something wrong, which parts of John may be saying politely).

I think you missed the point of the Torah and Koran examples. The key to indefinite survival of the source text is continuous faithful copying. The oldest physical copies do indeed succumb to entropy, all the faster if the copies are used regularly. Sacred objects are in some sense "precious," but sacred is a distinct category from precious, characterized by different kinds of observed behavior.

"Historical Jesus" does not stand or fall with the Q hypothesis. Q is, however, an example of how little direct effect Jesus' life, if there was such a life, had on the world around him. What effect there was resided entirely in other people's later recollections and imaginings about him. That is the context in which his actual words would have somehow been overlooked as worthy of being preserved intact. Q goes a step further and contemplates that his words were recognized as worthy of collection and then the originals were left to rot. That's odd, IMO.

On the other post you mentioned, you and I seem to be close to agreement on the major points. You apparently would have phrased the portion you emphasized differently than I did. I'm OK with that, and since I am always happy to acknowledge that my opinion is an opinion, I think we're all set on that exchange.

Modern scholarship puts the didache at the end of the first century .I know the importance of modern scholarship to you.

I didn't really miss the point as it wasn't relevant to my own There MIGHT have been ealry continuous faithful copying of christ's words at the time. However, the times and the nature of the evolution of Christianity in the first couple of centuries could easily explain why those too were lost. It is hard to find even symbolic representation of Christianity such as a cross or a fish inscribed carved or left in any artefact from the period. if such hypothetical writings had survived, we would have them and wouldn't be debating the point The lack of them means we cannot know. In different circumstances this could also have happened to jewish or Islamic texts.

What do we know of the religion practised in the ancient temple gobekli tepe found in turkey, from 10000 years ago? Only what we can decipher from the artefacts left there and on the architecture.

To me the Didache is interesting because, first it describes a jewish christ, and second, because it describes a human preacher rather than a divine being. It gives us a look at how Christ was seen before Paul went to work reinventing him.

It thus reinforces the possibility/probability of an historical, non divine, Jesus in the context of his contemporary society, before the addition of Pauline influence, and helps us disconnect the mythology of christ from the man.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

Mr W

The range I quoted and sourced for the Didache was 50-120 CE. The mid-point of that falls at 85, which is late in the First Century. We must be in some kind of agreement here.

I understand that you would prefer the earlier part of the range to support the Didache offering a "pre-Paul" version of the Christ concept. On the other hand, Mark offers a Jewish Christ and a human preacher, too, and it's typically dated after Paul is thought to have died.

Regardless, I can only agree that an unsuccessful program of transmission of Jesus' saying can scarcely be distinguished from no program of transmission at all. We don't have sayings of Jesus in the language he plausibly spoke while saying them. Whether there was any attempt to preserve them as originally spoken, I simply couldn't say.

[Mr Walker]

Mr W

The range I quoted and sourced for the Didache was 50-120 CE. The mid-point of that falls at 85, which is late in the First Century. We must be in some kind of agreement here.

I understand that you would prefer the earlier part of the range to support the Didache offering a "pre-Paul" version of the Christ concept. On the other hand, Mark offers a Jewish Christ and a human preacher, too, and it's typically dated after Paul is thought to have died.

Regardless, I can only agree that an unsuccessful program of transmission of Jesus' saying can scarcely be distinguished from no program of transmission at all. We don't have sayings of Jesus in the language he plausibly spoke while saying them. Whether there was any attempt to preserve them as originally spoken, I simply couldn't say.

Fair enough I would just add that my opinion on the Didache's version of Christ was gleaned from recent reading/academic opinion, rather than from my own interpretation of it.

Geza Vermes presents the late first century C.E. Jewish Christian Didache as an important text for understanding the Jewish Jesus movement. The Christian document focuses on Mosaic Law and the love of God and the neighbor, and describes the observance of Jewish traditions alongside baptism and the recitation of “Our Father.” The Didache treats Jesus as a charismatic prophet, referring to Jesus with the term pais, a word for servant or child that is also used for King David, rather than the “Son of God.”

By contrast, the early second century Epistle of Barnabas shows a distinctly gentile Christianity in its presentation of the Hebrew Bible as allegory instead of covenantal fact. The clearly divinized Jesus in this document is distanced from the Jewish Christians and the divide between the Christian communities continued to widen over time. Geza Vermes writes that after Hadrian’s suppression of the Second Jewish Revolt, the Jewish Christians quickly became a minority group in the newly established church. At this point we can see the origin of Christianity as a distinctly non-Jewish religion; late in the second century, the Jewish Christians either rejoined their Jewish peers or become part of the newly gentile Christian church.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-origin-of-christianity/

Edited April 18, 2016 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

Mr W

Professor Vermes was a fascinating figure, a scholar of great achievements with a cinematic life story. He was also very brave, and brave you must be to reach strong conclusions about the finer points of Jewish Christianity.

[Mr Walker]

Mr W

Professor Vermes was a fascinating figure, a scholar of great achievements with a cinematic life story. He was also very brave, and brave you must be to reach strong conclusions about the finer points of Jewish Christianity.

Yes i didn't know much about him when I used the source, so i thought I'd better Google him and check if he was credible. Having done so, I was going to add a PS, humorously explaining that I had researched him and found his academic credentials "adequate"

However my wife called me to more mundane things. (Taking her shopping)

Edited April 20, 2016 by Mr Walker