tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30312228.post116201229170528757..comments2023-11-03T06:26:00.486-07:00Comments on Ms. Kitty's Saloon and Road Show: Interfaith lectionary studyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30312228.post-1162139194063043222006-10-29T08:26:00.000-08:002006-10-29T08:26:00.000-08:00Good point, Fausto, thanks for your insights. I w...Good point, Fausto, thanks for your insights. I will hang onto that thought and possibly use it another time.Lilylouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02328027965155428624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30312228.post-1162089879909076612006-10-28T19:44:00.000-07:002006-10-28T19:44:00.000-07:00Oh, I'm not saying you should be confrontational, ...Oh, I'm not saying you should be confrontational, nor scornful toward others' cherished beliefs, but it might add some leaven and breadth to the discussion to say, "You know, it's in verses like this that the founders of my denomination found Scriptural support for a heterodox, non-Trinitarian Christology."<BR/><BR/>As to Oneness, which I understand is a distinct branch of Pentecostalism, it's a different form of anti-Trinitarianism than our own Unitarian version. Whereas we Unitarians resemble the ancient Ebionites or Arians in our Christology, the Oneness Pentecostals resemble the ancient Sabellians. We say (or, at least, our denominational founders said) Jesus could not have been God, because God is infinite, but a human being, even an exalted one like Jesus, is necessarily limited by the condition of being human in a way that is impossible for an infinite God. They say that, since the Bible says God is One, and calls Jesus things like "Son of God" and "Word made flesh", there can be no division of persons between God and Jesus, and therefore Jesus must have been an indistinguishable and inseparable physical manifestation of God, rather than either a different divine entity or a common human being.faustohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08858053354116695746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30312228.post-1162065801269531002006-10-28T13:03:00.000-07:002006-10-28T13:03:00.000-07:00Actually, our Methodist pastor pointed out that th...Actually, our Methodist pastor pointed out that this is a direct quote from the Shema and that Jesus added the second part from Leviticus, creating a stepping stone between Judaism and what became Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your thoughts, both of you.Lilylouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02328027965155428624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30312228.post-1162056596050816992006-10-28T10:29:00.000-07:002006-10-28T10:29:00.000-07:00I do not believe in arguing such matters as Unitar...I do not believe in arguing such matters as Unitarian Christology in such a company (actually, I hardly ever have tne opportunity); in that Ms. Kitty is wise, I think. But I do believe in seeing where the text comes from and where it goes, which is usually much more powerful than such argumentation. In this case, the main issue, I feel, is not Unitarian Christology but continuity with Judaism. Mark 12:28-34 on the response to the question of "Which commandment is the first of all?" is based on Deuteronymy 6:4-5 and constitutes part of the Sh'ma, i.e. one of the three texts which every adult Jew is supposed to say every day in the morning and evening; Jesus adds part of Leviticus 19:18. The text of Deut 6:4 cited in Mark (NRSV "The Lord our God, the Lord is one", with which I would quibble in terms of Greek syntax; Jerome and I agree) is in verbatim agreement with the usual Septuagint text (Rahlfs). Thus Jesus emphasizes his own place as a Jewish teacher. There is good discussion in the "New Jerome Biblical Commentary", and also in E.Klostermann and Vincent Taylor's commentaries on Mk. In the synoptic parallels Mt. 22:34-40 and L 10:25-28 it is interesting that the quasi-unitarian passage from Deut 6:4 is omitted; that might be a christological issue.<BR/>I do not deny the relevance of the christological issue, but I think that it is secondary here for the Markan text. One problem is that one can go one forever with such things; in group study one can't check things, so one has to prepare, which takes time. <BR/> LinguistFriendLinguistFriendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02695715246663202212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30312228.post-1162047259800216892006-10-28T07:54:00.000-07:002006-10-28T07:54:00.000-07:00Ah, Fausto, I'm less an arguer than an observer. ...Ah, Fausto, I'm less an arguer than an observer. I didn't feel a need to argue and it's not really my style. <BR/><BR/>Actually, though I seem to have forgotten this in my initial post, Rev. HOP noted the Oneness issue, mentioned it, and dropped it. So I was chewing on that interesting tidbit and wondering what it meant, rather than thinking of an argument.<BR/><BR/>As I get better acquainted with my colleagues and feel more embedded in the group, I may argue more. It's not really something I like to do though. What's the point, after all? I'm not going to change their minds. And I don't need to prove anything to them.Lilylouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02328027965155428624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30312228.post-1162040206094694152006-10-28T05:56:00.000-07:002006-10-28T05:56:00.000-07:00You shouldn't resist arguing Unitarian Christology...You shouldn't resist arguing Unitarian Christology from Scripture, if the holy Spirit leads your mind there, especially in a forum like that. After all, that's exactly how our own tradition stumbled upon it in the first place, lo these many centuries ago.faustohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08858053354116695746noreply@blogger.com