In the beginning ...

Wenceslas Hollar: Chaos

Here is how the very beginning is presented in the Bible:

₁ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ₂ Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. (Genesis 1:1-2 NET) 

So what do we learn from these often neglected verses? That however "without shape and empty" [the Hebrew words are tohu and bohu], and before God started putting some order into it by creating light and separating light from darkness, what was there was NOT some pre-existing chaotic "stuff" that God found there (as we read in Plato), BUT the very first step of God's creation.

Only starting with the creation of light, creation is subdivided in "days" and the result of each "day" is called "good".

Has creation retained some of that original aspect, "without shape and empty"? I believe it has. It shows, in particular, in the lack of order of natural catastrophes (which are NOT the result of the "original sin"). Why did God create the universe "without shape and empty" in the first place? Why these aspects are still present? Essentially because if everything was in perfect order, even freedom would be impossible.

Genesis 1:1-2, we may say, suggests that "God left significant work 'unfinished'". While we often perceive this as apparent "incompleteness" of creation as "indifference of nature", even "cruelty of nature", even, occasionally, catastrophes, I contend that God chose this way "for a good cause": freedom.

Is this too high a price for freedom? All I can say is that, without freedom, we would be robots, or, to use another image, mere actors constrained by an unchangeable script.

Other posts about Creation and Freedom:

• Catastrophic Stairway to Freedom
• Then whence cometh evil?

Is Jesus a myth?

What most people (scholars), participating in the historical vs mythical debate about Jesus, do not say is that, if one considers Jesus to be a historical person, then the gospels are by far the most ample account of his life. But there is a catch. The supernatural is hardly separable from the gospels, or rather, if one removes the supernatural from them, they become senseless. (#)

If, on the other hand, one opts for the myth hypothesis, there are, as far as I can see, two distinct ways to approach it:

1. Either resort to the "Christ myth theory", pure and simple. With it, of course, every claim about Jesus becomes possible.

2. Or resort to the same theory, with the further assumption that the Christ myth is not some sort of spontaneously concocted and gradually established myth: no, it is the fruit of a deliberate conspiracy. This, for instance, is the central thesis of American author Dorothy M. Murdock bka "Acharya S", especially in her book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999).

While option no.1 may seem more soberly "scholarly", I find option no.2 more credible, once one chooses to renounce the pure and simple "truth hypothesis" of the gospels, and realises that the historical Jesus, expunged from the supernatural, creates more problems than it solves. (Of course, unlike Acharya S, one does not need to believe that Jesus is nothing but an Egyptian Horus in Jewish sauce.)

(#) I know that Bart Ehrmann - see, in particular his How Jesus became God, 2014 - thinks he has a sound story, but I think all the problems he thinks to have sorted out are still there. See also the review of his book by Larry Hurtado.

What Does The Good Samaritan Parable Mean?

The Good Samaritan, Vincent Van Gogh (after Eugène Delacroix), 1890, Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo, Netherlands

This is the text of the well known parable.

25 Now an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus, saying, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you understand it?” 27 The expert answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” 28 Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

29 But the expert, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him up, and went off, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, but when he saw the injured man he passed by on the other side. 32 So too a Levite, when he came up to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan who was traveling came to where the injured man was, and when he saw him, he felt compassion for him. 34 He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever else you spend, I will repay you when I come back this way.’ 36 Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 37 The expert in religious law said, “The one who showed mercy to him.” So Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.” (Luke 10:25-37)

The parable proper (Luke 10:29-37) is Jesus' reply to the "lawyer", who "stood up to test Jesus, saying, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”", and not satisfied with Jesus' approval of his summing up of the Law in Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18, insists - "wanting to justify himself" - by asking, “And who is my neighbor?”

What escapes most people - who otherwise fully understand the significance of  choosing the Samaritan as a paradigma deliberately  "scandalous" for any Jew, and, even more so, for a "lawyer" - is that Jesus does NOT give a definition of neighbor [Greek: plesion; Hebrew: rea`], BUT reverses the question of the "lawyer", suggesting, through the parable, what it means to be/become neighbor: to help, without calculation of personal cost, any fellow human in distress.

What Is The "Good News"?

Apart from Prov 25:25 and Prov 15:30, the expression "good news" ONLY appears in the New Testament. It is the literal translation of the Greek composite word euaggelion (Strong's G2098) usually translated in English with "gospel". It appears in the NT more than 70 times, in various expressions, first and foremost "gospel of the kingdom", but also "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24), "gospel of peace" (Eph. 6:15) etc.

But what is the "gospel", what are the "good news" proclaimed and brought definitively by Jesus with his life, words, works, passion, death and resurrection?

I believe the essence is best expressed by these two verses:

He [Jesus] said, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel!” (Mark 1:15)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Rom 1:16)

The Kingdom of God is near, and all it takes to be part of it is repent and accept God's salvation.

Trinitarian Appropriation

In the course of a debate , looking at the * footnote relative to 1 Cor 12:4-6 (USCCB-NAB) I encountered the word “appropriation”, used in a rather criptic, evasive way.

So that got me curious. A google-search with the string "appropriation person trinity" gave as first hit Appropriation (@ newadvent.org/cathen). Here is the incipit of the article:

Appropriation [@ Catholic Encyclopedia]

In general, consists in the attribution to a person or thing of a character or quality which determines in a special way this person or thing. In theology, appropriation is used in speaking of the different Persons of the Trinity. It consists in attributing certain names, qualities, or operations to one of the Persons, not, however, to the exclusion of the others, but in preference to the others. The qualities and names thus appropriated belong essentially to all the Persons; yet, according to our understanding of the data of revelation and our theological concepts, we consider some of these characteristics or names as belonging to one Person rather than to another, or as determining more clearly this particular Person. (...) Appropriation is not merely arbitrary; it is based on our knowledge of the Trinity, which knowledge has its sources and rules in Revelation (Scripture and tradition) and in the analogies which our reason discovers between created things and persons and the Persons of the Trinity as those persons are represented in Revelation. Of necessity, we understand the data of Revelation only under human concepts, that is, in an analogical way (see ANALOGY. It is, therefore, by their analogy with creatures and created relations that we conceive the different Persons of the Trinity and their relations. Each Person of the Trinity is presented to us with a proper characteristic which is the constitutive element of the personality. Remarking, as we do naturally, that among creatures certain attributes, qualities, or operations are the properties of the person possessing such a characteristic, we conceive the Trinity after this remote suggestion, though in an analogical and supereminent way, and we appropriate to each Person of the Trinity the names, qualities, or operations which, in creatures, are the consequences or properties of this characteristic. (...) [bolding by MdS]

I will let the readers enjoy for themselves the rest of the verbiage with which the entire article is steeped, but, with reference to the above ample excerpt, I would like to ask these questions:

• Do you believe that "our knowledge of the Trinity ... has its sources and rules in Revelation (Scripture and tradition)"?

• What do you think of this mouthful: "Remarking, as we do naturally, that among creatures certain attributes, qualities, or operations are the properties of the person possessing such a characteristic, we conceive the Trinity after this remote suggestion, though in an analogical and supereminent way, and we appropriate to each Person of the Trinity the names, qualities, or operations which, in creatures, are the consequences or properties of this characteristic."?

Comments welcome ...

Does the Catholic Church believe in the "immortality of the soul"?

This is an old, nay ancient question, but I believe that it is worth taking up again.

I think the situation is perfectly expressed in this Letter by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 1979.

Some passages, in particular, reveal the purely instrumental nature of the affirmation of the "soul", compared to the faith in the resurrection, which is the only genuinely scriptural belief. 

N.B. I have interspersed the text of the letter with [my comments].

Letter on certain questions regarding Eschatology

(by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith @ vatican.va - you can read the letter in its entirety clicking on the title above)

(...)  The element in question is the article of the Creed concerning life  everlasting and so everything in general after death. When setting forth  this teaching, it is not permissible to remove any point, nor can a defective or uncertain outlook be adopted without endangering the faith and salvation of Christians. (...)

The  importance of this final article of the baptismal Creed is obvious: it  expresses the goal and purpose of God's plan, the unfolding of which is  described in the Creed. If there is no resurrection,  the whole structure of faith collapses, as St. Paul states so  forcefully (cf. 1 Cor. 15). If the content of the words "life  everlasting" is uncertain for Christians, the promises contained in the  Gospel and the meaning of creation and Redemption disappear, and even  earthly life itself must be said to be deprived of all hope (cf. Heb.  11:1).

(...) One encounters discussions about the existence of the soul and the meaning of life after death, and the question is put of what  happens between the death of the Christian and the general resurrection. All this disturbs the faithful, since they no longer find the vocabulary they are used to and their familiar ideas. (...)

The  Sacred Congregation, whose task it is to advance and protect the  doctrine of the faith, here wishes to recall what the Church teaches in  the name of Christ, especially concerning what happens between the death  of the Christian and the general resurrection.

1. The Church believes (cf. the Creed) in the resurrection of the dead.

2. The Church understands this resurrection as referring to the whole person; for the elect it is nothing other than the extension to human beings of the resurrection of Christ itself.

3.  The Church affirms that a spiritual element survives and subsists after  death, an element endowed with consciousness and will, so that the  "human self" subsists. To designate this element, the Church uses the  word "soul," the accepted term in the usage of Scripture and Tradition. Although not unaware that this term has various meanings in the Bible, the Church thinks that there is no valid reason for rejecting it; moreover, she considers that the use of some word as a vehicle is absolutely indispensable in order to support the faith of Christians. [which is an elegant way of saying that "soul", regardless of the reality of its "immortality after death" is a useful practical tool ...]

4. The  Church excludes every way of thinking or speaking that would render  meaningless or unintelligible her prayers, her funeral rites and the  religious acts offered for the dead. [this is rather cynical: we need the "immortality after death" for pastoral and liturgical reasons, therefore we affirm it!] All these are, in their substance, loci theologici. [Loci theologici or loci communes, are the common topics of discussion in theology]

5. In accordance with the Scriptures, the Church looks for "the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ" (Dei verbum, 1,4), believing it to be distinct and deferred with respect to the situation of people immediately after death.

6.  In teaching her doctrine about man's destiny after death, the Church  excludes any explanation that would deprive the assumption of the Virgin  Mary of its unique meaning, namely the fact that the bodily  glorification of the Virgin is an anticipation of the glorification that is the destiny of all the other elect. [ehm ...]

7.  In fidelity to the New Testament and Tradition, the Church believes in  the happiness of the just who will one day be with Christ. [so, implicitly the CDF affirms that they are NOT with Christ immediately after death ...]  She believes that there will be eternal punishment for the sinner, who  will be deprived of the sight of God, and that this punishment will have  a repercussion on the whole being of the sinner. She believes in the  possibility of a purification for the elect before they see God, a  purification altogether different from the punishment of the damned.  This is what the Church means when speaking of Hell and Purgatory. [note  how the "Purgatory" is no more a "place" or "state" for some "souls"  after death, BUT a process of "purification for the elect "]

When  dealing with man's situation after death, one must especially beware of  arbitrary imaginative representations; excess of this kind is a major  cause of the difficulties that Christian faith often encounters. Respect  must, however, be given to the images employed in the Scriptures. Their  profound meaning must be discerned, while avoiding the risk of  over-attenuating them, since this often empties of substance the  realities designated by the images.

Neither Scripture nor theology provides sufficient light for a proper picture of life after death. Christians  must firmly hold the two following essential points: on the one hand  they must believe in the fundamental continuity, thanks to the power of  the Holy Spirit, between our present life in Christ and the future life  (charity is the law of the kingdom of God and our charity on earth will  be the measure of our sharing in God's glory in heaven); on the other  hand, they must be clearly aware of the radical break between the  present life and the future one, due to the fact that the economy of  faith will be replaced by the economy of the fullness of life: we shall  be with Christ and "we shall see God" (cf. 1 Jn. 3:2), and it is in  these promises and marvellous mysteries that our hope essentially  consists. Our imagination may be incapable of reaching these heights,  but our heart does so instinctively and completely.

Having  recalled these points of doctrine, we would now like to clarify the  principal features of the pastoral responsibility to be exercised in the  present circumstances in accordance with Christian prudence.

The  difficulties connected with these questions impose serious obligations  on theologians, whose function is indispensable. Accordingly they have  every right to encouragement from us and to the margin of freedom  lawfully demanded by their methodology. We must, however, unceasingly  remind Christians of the Church's teaching, which is the basis both of  Christian life and of scholarly research. Efforts must also be made to  ensure that theologians share in our pastoral concern, so that their  studies and research may not be thoughtlessly set before the faithful,  who today more than ever are exposed to dangers to their faith.

The  last Synod highlighted the attention given by the bishops to the  essential points of catechesis with a view to the good of the faithful.  All who are commissioned to transmit these points must have a clear view  of them. We must therefore provide them with the means to be firm with  regard to the essence of the doctrine and at the same time careful not  to allow childish or arbitrary images to be considered truths of faith.

A  Diocesan or National Doctrinal Commission should exercise constant and  painstaking vigilance with regard to publications, not only to give  timely warning to the faithful about writings that are unreliable in  doctrine but also and especially to acquaint them with works that can  nourish and support their faith. This is a difficult and important task,  but it is made urgent both by the wide circulation of printed  publications and by the decentralization of responsibilities demanded by  circumstances and desired by the Ecumenical Council.

At an  audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme  Pontiff John Paul II approved the present Letter, decided upon at an  Ordinary Meeting of this Sacred Congregation, and ordered its  publication.

In Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on May 17, 1979.

Franjo Cardinal Seper,   Prefect

BTW, in the above document, the "score" is: 

Resurrection: 6 - Soul: 2

BBTW the expression "immortality of the soul", or "immortal soul", is never used throughout the whole document ...

Jews and Christians diverge, first of all, on the Messiah: can they converge again on the Messiah?

JDG Dunn: The Parting of the Ways

Very schematically, this is what happened to the notion of Messiah, during and after the 2^nd half of the 1^st century CE:

• The few (Jewish) followers of Yeshua of Nazareth proclaimed that he was the Messiah => then their Christian heirs overdid it, and, by the end of the 4th century they ended up with "god-the-son", the "second person of the trinity" => now fewer and fewer Christians believe that Jesus was God, or son of God, or, literally the awaited Messiah.

• The overwhelming majority of the Jews refused to recognize Yeshua of Nazareth as the Messiah  => then after the destruction of the temple, for centuries and nearly two millennia they held on to the expectation of the Messiah (Moschiach) as a future event => now fewer and fewer Jews believe in the literal coming of the Messiah as some future event relative to a real individual human being.

Can anyone see them converge again precisely where they parted their ways: on the Messiah?