“The Sower” (1889) by Vincent Van Gogh.
In Mark 4:12, aka Mark iv. 12, Jesus tells his disciples why he speaks in parables, having just told the Parable of the Sower:
“That seeing they [who are not my disciples] may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.”
What?!! It sounds like Jesus is saying he wants to keep the truth from some people so that do not convert, so that their sins are not forgiven! That he will not even give them a fair chance.
It gets worse: Jesus is paraphrasing Isaiah 6:9-10, where Yahweh, the Hebrew god, says to the prophet Isaiah, circa -740:
“9. Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.”
Jesus (or Mark) left out the beginning of verse 10:
“Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes;”
Yahweh is not predicting that they will be wilfully blind to his message, like you might expect (like Matthew, Acts and the Septuagint version of Isaiah have it) – but that Yahweh wants to cause that blindness! Just as Jesus likewise wants to keep certain people in the dark so that they do not convert!
What is going on?!!
And it gets even worse: Many public-facing preachers and Bibles try to paper over these verses. For example, when I last read Mark 4:12 it was in the “Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament” (2010). I was troubled by this verse then too, but Ignatius fobbed me off with this explanation:
“A paraphrase of Is 6:9-10. … As a result of persistent rebellion, Israel [in Isaiah’s time] became blind and deaf to the warnings of the prophets. Isaiah’s mission was a dreadful one of preaching judgment upon his wayward generation until destruction and exile would overtake all but a holy remnant of the people (Is 6:13). Jesus likewise addresses a crooked generation and preaches a message that reaches a remnant of Israel but leaves the rest hardened and unresponsive (Jn 12:37-43; Acts 28:23-28).
Completely sidestepping the issue, blaming Israel not Yahweh or Jesus. Wow, sarcastic wow. And to think I gave them five stars on Goodreads. What a dope.
Actual Bible scholars do take these verses seriously. At least someone still cares for the truth. There is at least one little ray of sunshine out there. They are troubled by these verses too. It is not just me and my crazy ideas. But even after going on and on for hundreds of pages, they have no good answers either.
Like me, they bend over backwards to avoid the plain, harsh reading of the verses: that Yahweh and Jesus have already pick winners and losers, that the game is rigged and its name is predestination.
– Abagond, 2021.
See also:
- Bible
- Jesus Christ
- God – aka Yahweh or Allah
- Why the Septuagint matters
521
You’re beginning with the twelfth verse. Begin at the first verse and listen to what He is saying. Keep in mind who he is talking to.
He is telling them why he teaches in parables within a parable. Jesus is the sower. The seeds fall where they may but do not “take” in “infertile” soil. Many that day might have heard what he taught and not understand. There would be those in verse 8: And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.
And there’s this: 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
It’s easy to understand but not out of context. Do you remember “Those who have ears to hear . . .”
Remember the admonishment not to cast pearls before swine?
I like how you pay attention.
LikeLike
Abagond, don’t be a fool. You are trying to judge God. It doesn’t work that way. It’s like a 5 year old saying his dad is being unfair. He can’t understand that his dad knows what’s best for him, even though it’s beyond his comprehension.
In the Old Testament, it is both said that Pharaoh hardened his heart and that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Both are true at the same time. Man still has responsibility, but God is in control.
Or check out Romans:
8:
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
and more clearly in 9:
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
But let’s be honest, Abagond. You don’t take the Word of God literally. You think you know better. You think God didn’t mean what he said about homosexuality or the genders for instance.
Be honest with yourself. You are not following that God. You sympathize with the giver of light to mankind, the giver of knowledge of good and evil. That would be lucifer..
There’s still time to repent, but you need to get rid of your pride and hard heart. You don’t know better than God. Don’t try to put yourself, and your own conception of right and wrong (which happens to be the one generally accepted by the world), above or on the same level as God. That’s the sin of the devil.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
What a strange coincidence. I was reading up on Calvinism just a couple days ago.
This is a difficult one to wrestle with. If our individual salvation or damnation is already decided, we have no free will. Why bother to repent if God’s already made an irrevocable decision?
There are other biblical verses that support Arminianism instead. (Please excuse the Protestant terminology; it’s what I know).
But then you have to still wrestle with why the Bible contradicts itself, leading to issues of scriptural fallibility.
I don’t have any easy answers; just want to say that the struggle is real and to validate your experience. I hope you find a way to resolve this conundrum that gives you peace in your heart.
For what it’s worth, An Observer reads a lot to me like Record Straightener/Breaker, and as I said on the Daunte Wright thread, that commenter sounded like Biff to me. Nothing I can prove, but a very similar writing style, down to the same punctuation errors.
You may remember last summer Biff maintained that God had purposely made the Black race more innately sinful than the White race. Talk about predestination!
And when you challenged Biff on that take, he lectured you about not questioning God in very similar terms to what An Observer has written here.
If I’m right about the sock puppets, it’s not surprising that Biff would quote those verses in Romans which are integral to predestination theology.
LikeLike
Solitaire:
“Sock puppets” imply intentionally bringing in multiple SNs to have a lot of different people agreeing to the same thing. However, when I’m just putting a comment in here and have to use an e-mail address, I’m not using a real one. It’s hard to remember the throw away e-mail address and that results in a different avatar for the same name. You’ll probably complain about that too. But fine, going forward, you can see “record straightener” with different avatars from time to time.
I’ve noticed you don’t touch much on the substance of the issues brought up. You just try to disqualify them on some technicality whenever possible. That’s a victory to you.
The answer to your question is the one provided above. “Calvinism” is just a faithful reading of the scriptures. And yet the scriptures which tell about man’s responsibility and the command to spread the Word to the ends of the earth are true as well. You can’t pick and choose. Otherwise, you wind up putting yourself in God’s shoes and deciding which verse is right and which is wrong and deciding that the scriptures aren’t really inspired by God.
But yeah, accusing God (using His ineffable name no less) of “rigging the game” ain’t a wise thing to do.
LikeLike
@ record straightener
https://abagond.wordpress.com/comment-policy/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/comment-policy/#comment-400477
You either haven’t familiarized yourself with the rules here, or you don’t have any compunction about breaking them — yet another commonality you have with Biff.
LikeLike
As a Muslim, I might be out of line….If so, I apologize…..
Judaism (like Islam) does not have the concept of “original sin”—which means humanity does not automatically go to hell if they are not Christian…..would such a nuance change the interpretation?
LikeLike
Hope this short video by an ex-Calvinist may help :
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHz-NaEA9RI)
LikeLike
@ anon
Interesting question! The concept of original sin actually was not part of early Christianity and wasn’t codified as church doctrine until about 300 years into Christianity’s existence, mostly thanks to Augustine:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism
If the theological philosophy of Pelagianism had won out, Christianity would not have the concept of original sin, and no one would believe a baby who dies unbaptized goes to hell because of Adam’s sin. There would definitely be more emphasis on human agency and free will when it comes to sinfulness.
However, I don’t think the concept of original sin is the only path to believing in predestination. There’s also the conundrum of: If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, how can he not know already the fate of each person on earth? Does he not control everything, including whether we end up in heaven or hell? If he doesn’t, then how can he be all-powerful?
Predestination theology answers that question by saying yes, God knows and controls everything, including our fate in the afterlife. Some believe that God determines only who will be saved. Others believe in double predestination, which means God also decides who is damned.
I was raised in the Methodist church, which comes out of the Arminiaism tradition and therefore does not teach predestination, but rather that God gave humans free will, so that we freely choose whether or not to believe and to accept Christ.
However, the Methodists do believe in original sin. I was actually surprised when I found this out, because the concept of original sin was not taught to us as children, at least not under that name. I first heard about original sin from my Catholic cousins, and for a long time I was under the mistaken impression that the doctrine of original sin was only a Catholic thing. With Methodists and some of the other Protestant denominations, original sin is basically the acknowledgement that humans are born with a sinful nature and a propensity to sin, that we can’t be redeemed without God’s grace, love, and forgiveness. But not taken to the extreme of believing even newborns are mired in sin and will go to hell if they die unbaptized.
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
Thanks for the info.
Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew—so it is possible he did not have “original sin” in mind?
If so, ignorance/restriction of knowledge, would not automatically condemn people/person?—it could very well turn out to be a mitigating factor in Divine Judgement? (Grace? mercy?) Is such an interpretation a possibility under this premise?
Free-will cannot be exercised in ignorance—it requires knowledge because with knowledge can come choices….?…..
LikeLike
@ anon
“Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew—so it is possible he did not have ‘original sin’ in mind?”
Yes, I think that is almost definitely the case. I think in this passage Jesus isn’t talking about original sin but rather the various sins that all adults commit (because no matter how hard humans try, we are none of us perfect).
Again, the early Christian church didn’t even have the concept of original sin. It appears to be a much later development, long after the Gospel of Mark was written.
The real key to why Christians believe non-Christians “automatically go to hell” is not original sin but unbelief. Christians think non-Christians go to hell because non-Christians don’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ in Greek) and God incarnate, who forgives the wrongdoings of only those people who believe in him.
Technically a Christian could not believe in original sin and still believe that non-Christians automatically go to hell. For example, I mentioned Pelagianism earlier. That philosophy was named for the 4th-century Christian theologian Pelagius, who did not believe in original sin and argued against that concept in his writings. But Pelagius still believed that the only way to get into heaven was to accept Jesus as the savior of humanity.
That appears to be what Jesus is talking about in Mark 4:12. He’s saying those people who do not convert and accept him as the Christ will not be forgiven for the wrongdoings they have committed during their lives.
“If so, ignorance/restriction of knowledge, would not automatically condemn people/person?—it could very well turn out to be a mitigating factor in Divine Judgement? (Grace? mercy?) Is such an interpretation a possibility under this premise?”
And this is where things get even more confusing ☺. The thought you’ve expressed here has bothered many Christians over the centuries, including some of the well-known theologians. It’s typically referred to as the question of the “virtuous pagan.”
I think you’re right that the historical Jesus, as a Jew, would not have believed in original sin. But I want to stress again that original sin is not really the central point around which this question revolves.
Christianity teaches that good works alone cannot earn a place in heaven — and this was part of the very earliest doctrine, before the concept of original sin was added. Christianity has always maintained that it’s not enough to be good; one must be a follower of Christ.
But if someone has never heard about Christianity, is that fair?
The early Christians did ask themselves that question of how God can condemn a person to hell if that person never had the opportunity to learn about Christianity. What if that person otherwise lived a good and righteous life? How would it be fair and just for God to send a virtuous person to hell when he or she had never heard of Christ? Because, just as you said, free will cannot be exercised in ignorance.
And what about all the millions of souls who lived and died before Jesus ever walked the earth? What about Noah and Abraham and Moses and all the early prophets? Would God damn them, too, who never had any chance at all in their lifetime to know about Christ?
These questions have definitely been asked over and over again, and different answers have been proposed. Some of those answers do allow for divine mercy at the time of Judgment. Maybe at the gates of heaven God grants to virtuous pagans the opportunity to hear about and accept Christianity that they never had in life. Or maybe God assigns them to purgatory where they have the chance to be purified over time and eventually ascend to heaven.
And some Christians would say that God in his mercy grants this opportunity to all unbelievers who never had any chance in their lifetime to hear about Christ, regardless of whether they lived a particularly virtuous life or not.
The reason I say things get really confusing here is that Christianity hasn’t come up with one single answer to the question of the virtuous pagan. Christians don’t even agree on whether purgatory exists, much less who goes there. Different Christians from different historical eras and from different denominations (sects) would all have different answers about what happens to “virtuous pagans” on Judgment Day.
And going back to Abagond’s conundrum, Christians don’t agree on whether or not humans have free will. For those Christians who believe God predetermines who will be saved and who will be damned, none of the above carries much significance. My best guess is they would argue something along the lines of: “God has already decided what to do about virtuous pagans, and it’s beyond our ability as mere humans to understand God’s reasons for whatever decision he has made.”
I have no idea how Islam approaches these same questions. I know Muslims believe Jesus was not divine but an ordinary human and one of the prophets. But I don’t know if Muslims consider Christians to be irrevocably damned for the heresy of believing Jesus was divine. I don’t know how Islam handles the question of virtuous pagans. What makes a person worthy of paradise in Islam?
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
very interesting….
If I understand correctly—even without original sin — if one is simply born into a Christian family/society—one goes to heaven regardless of character? and good non-Christian people go to hell simply because they are born outside of Christianity?….The premise does create interesting dilemma—particularly when one considers that of the 7 billion people on earth today—only 2 billion or so are Christian—which means a vast majority of humanity (about 5 billion people) are going to hell. But…it might be that this dilemma is a struggle only for compassionate/humane Christians?….There may be some Christians who might be comfortable with the notion that they are the “chosen” of God therefore “superior”, thus entitled to heaven—and all others are undeserving?…and maybe such struggle is the whole purpose of the OT and might apply to some parts of the NT as well?
One way to acquire knowledge is to use our intellect to think and reason—and if a sacred text compels one to question—perhaps it has served the intended purpose?
Islam is very simple—only God gets to decide who goes to hell/heaven, humans do not have the right.
The general premise is that self-assigned labels are not a guarantee — Good people may have a chance to go to heaven, unrepentant bad people might go to hell, and bad people who repent / ask for forgiveness may be forgiven and could go to heaven.
The purpose of belief in One God is to affirm that ALL humanity is a creation of God therefore ALL humanity is of equivalent value—none superior/inferior to the other. (Tawheed/Unity) …the opposite of this is Shirk (Division)—in which God/Divine is divided—a premise that can then lead to justifying entitlements …which then leads to excusing injustice….etc….etc….
There are nuances and complexities in Islam….if we go more in-depth…..
LikeLike
@ anon
“If I understand correctly—even without original sin — if one is simply born into a Christian family/society—one goes to heaven regardless of character? and good non-Christian people go to hell simply because they are born outside of Christianity?”
That’s really close, but not quite.
“if one is simply born into a Christian family/society—one goes to heaven regardless of character?”
It’s not sufficient to simply be born into a Christian family/society. Each person needs to truly believe and to sincerely repent of their wrongdoings. It’s not enough to perform the outward rituals of Christianity (such as going to church or giving alms) if there is no real faith inside one’s heart.
When people truly believe, their faith should show itself in the goodness of their character. If someone professes to be a Christian but continues to act badly, then the general opinion is that person doesn’t truly believe and is going to go to hell if they don’t repent and change their ways.
Virtuous behavior and good works are not enough alone to get into heaven. But true believers strive to be good. A sincere belief in Christ should always be accompanied by good works and virtuous behavior. Character is important, but faith is essential.
“bad people who repent / ask for forgiveness may be forgiven and could go to heaven”
Many (not all) Christians believe that a bad person who repents and asks for forgiveness will be forgiven immediately, even at the point of death. But if that repenter doesn’t die and instead recovers from the illness, and then continues to act badly, most Christians would say that person is still in great danger of going to hell.
“and good non-Christian people go to hell simply because they are born outside of Christianity?”
Basically, yes. And this is why Christians put so much emphasis on missionary work, preaching to non-Christians. They want to give as many people as possible the chance to convert to Christianity so they won’t go to hell.
I think the original idea was that people go to hell not for being born outside of Christianity but for the refusal to convert. The first Christians were Jews. At the start, they still thought of themselves as Jews, only they believed the prophesied Messiah had come. They first preached to other Jews, and I think they hoped that all Judaism would recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
“But…it might be that this dilemma is a struggle only for compassionate/humane Christians?….There may be some Christians who might be comfortable with the notion that they are the “chosen” of God therefore “superior”, thus entitled to heaven—and all others are undeserving?”
There are Christians of both types, yes. It could be argued that the second type (who believe they are superior) are committing the sin of pride.
“…and maybe such struggle is the whole purpose of the OT and might apply to some parts of the NT as well?”
Could you explain this more, please? I’m not sure I’m following your meaning. Are you talking about how Judaism in the Old Testament is a very exclusionary religion?
“One way to acquire knowledge is to use our intellect to think and reason—and if a sacred text compels one to question—perhaps it has served the intended purpose?”
That is certainly one way to look at it. Is the same true of the Quran? Is its purpose to compel one to question? Or is the Quran seen as answering questions? Or maybe both?
“Islam is very simple—only God gets to decide who goes to hell/heaven, humans do not have the right.
The general premise is that self-assigned labels are not a guarantee — Good people may have a chance to go to heaven, unrepentant bad people might go to hell, and bad people who repent / ask for forgiveness may be forgiven and could go to heaven.”
If anyone who is good may have a chance to go to heaven, why does it matter whether they are a Muslim or a Christian or a Buddhist? What is it that makes Islam preferable among all other religions?
“The purpose of belief in One God is to affirm that ALL humanity is a creation of God therefore ALL humanity is of equivalent value—none superior/inferior to the other.”
I know this will seem odd since I’ve been talking very forthrightly and honestly about the internal differences within Christianity. But at the core, Christianity does have a similar belief: God created everyone, God loves all of humanity, and we are equal in his sight.
“the opposite of this is Shirk (Division)—in which God/Divine is divided—a premise that can then lead to justifying entitlements …which then leads to excusing injustice….etc….etc….”
I’m not quite sure I’m following you here, either. Does “in which God/Divine is divided” refer to polytheism? Or does it mean division and strife among humans who should instead be united in their religious beliefs? Or…?
“There are nuances and complexities in Islam….if we go more in-depth…..”
I’m interested in hearing whatever you may want to share about those complexities.
I hope that none of my questions about Islam are worded in such a way as to give offense. I’m not trying to challenge you but to understand better what Islam teaches about such things as forgiveness, the afterlife, the purpose of sacred texts, etc.
I also hope it’s clear that I’m not in any way trying to convert you but just attempting to answer your questions and explain how Christians think as best as I can.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
to convert —Yes I understand, my intention is the same. I also do not wish to offend…
Thankyou for your interesting clarifications. It is my understanding that the RC Church is more expansive in its understanding of who might merit “salvation” ? such as Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium, and CCC 841 (see—CCC 839–843).
Faith/works—So, as a general concept, “works” is an essential expression of Faith?—would this be correct?
Hell—the premise of “original sin” says all humanity is bad/only (sincere) Christians can be good because of faith—and bad people go to hell, with the exception of the virtuous Pagan whose fate might be undecided….correct?
In Islam, Humanity is created “in goodness”—that is, it is a work-in-progress but with an “inherent nature” (Fitra) that inclines towards goodness. That is why—to be “bad” is to rebel against one’s own nature. Therefore a good person is “muslim” (spiritual category) as in, one who submits to God—(the inherent natural inclination given by God). It seems this concept has some similarities to the Christianity you wrote—except perhaps it is more universal and without original sin….?….The category of “muslim” (spiritual) can apply to all creation —such as planets, sun, plants…etc (creation without free-will) because they automatically submit to God’s laws (natural laws)
In Christianity, I think St. Aquinas had something to say about “natural law”?
struggle—Abagond mentioned Isiah and I looked up what Jews had to say about it. The article I read expressed more concern over how Prophet Isiah did not argue with God the way that other prophets in the OT argued with God.
I have read a small portion of the OT with a Jewish Guide—and find it is a book that one needs to struggle with a lot. Indeed the rabbinical writings, Midrash …etc, are full of such struggle….?…..Since Jews also do not have original sin—I presume that this struggle with their sacred texts might be their path towards Divine Guidance?…and perhaps Jesus (pbuh) might have had such a path in mind in the parable in Mark?….
Quran—Islamic premise is that God has given Guidance to all humanity throughout time. (We are ALL God’s creation and God shows compassion and mercy to all creation) So Islam is not a “new” message/Guidance. It is the last message Guidance that corrects any previous ones that may have been damaged over time. In my opinion, the primary damage might be that of Shirk (Division). For example, Jews worship One God—but some have “tribalized” God so that it has become God of the Jews who has conferred entitlements (land/nation) to the “chosen people” thus justifying oppression to “others”. This would be an example of “shirk” —worship that must belong to God alone is divided by elevating the “worship” of something else (ex–Land) to an equal level.
Polytheism also “tribalizes” God so that there is the God you worship and the God I worship…and it ends up with everyone “owning” God. The purpose of Tawheed(Unity) is to universalize God in order to affirm that no one “owns” God but God “owns” all creation. It is this premise that creates the foundation for understanding Equality (Equivalent value) which is essential for Justice–and also has implication for Divine Justice —because in Divine Justice the power dynamics are the opposite. (God is superior—all humanity is equally inferior to God)
The reason why (ehtico-moral) Justice is important in Islamic paradigm is because the purpose of religion (ethcio-moral way of life) is to create Peace. Oppression is understood as a failure of justice. Oppression cannot lead to Peace.(Salaam). It is only in a just society that humanity can have inner and outer peace and it is in this environment that one can fully pursue knowledge with which to exercise free-will to worship God.
Thankyou for such an interesting conversation—there is much in Christianity that seems familiar to me and yet much that is unique. I would not mind exploring more.
LikeLike
@ anon
Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. Yes, this is an interesting conversation! I want to reply to several points, and to ask a couple more questions of my own. But today is a busy day for me, and I just don’t have enough time. It may be another day or two before I can answer your latest post.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Anon wrote:
“Abagond mentioned Isiah and I looked up what Jews had to say about it. The article I read expressed more concern over how Prophet Isiah did not argue with God the way that other prophets in the OT argued with God.”
Have you tried researching along these lines, to try to find out how Jews interpret the pasage from Isaiah as it relates to free will? This is one of those topics where you might have more luck with books than online.
Or…it also dawns on me that you’re in New York, with rabbinical schools nearby. Maybe if you contact them, someone might be willing to discuss those verses with you?
Apologies if you’ve already been down these paths. Just wanted to throw the suggestion out there in case it might help.
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
I have not looked at the Jewish commentary on Isaiah 6:9-10. But what I did notice is that there are two versions of these verses: one found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which the King James translates, and another in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which is found in Eastern Orthodox Bibles and is what Matthew and Acts quote. Matthew 13:14-15 is almost identical to it:
This one is not predestinarian. I referenced this parenthetically in the post.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have a complete copy of Isaiah and, with only slight differences, has the Masoretic version of the verses.
The Septuagint is a Greek translation, but it is also based on older texts than what we have now. Also, Matthew was based in part on Mark and yet altered this part of the narrative.
BUT Mark is older and is therefore closer to whatever Jesus said. In fact, his quote of Isaiah brings in some of the wording of the Targums, the Aramaic translation that Jews in Galilee would have been most familiar with and is likely how Jesus would have put it: he taught in Aramaic, not Greek or Hebrew.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Yikes, what a mess! It certainly sounds like there was an error in translation somewhere, or a mistake made when transcribing from older scrolls. But an error in which direction? That’s the rub.
I saw the part you wrote about the Septuagint and Isaiah. Any idea how Mark 4:12 reads in the Eastern Orthodox Bibles?
Am I understanding correctly that the Targums have the predestinarian version of Isaiah 6:9-10?
LikeLike
@ anon
My apologies for the delay in responding.
“It is my understanding that the RC Church is more expansive in its understanding of who might merit “salvation” ? such as Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium, and CCC 841 (see—CCC 839–843).”
Not being Catholic, I was not familiar with these writings and therefore needed to read up on them. I may not be the best person to address this. If something I say here is glaringly wrong, I hope Abagond or another Catholic commenter will step in and help us out.
I don’t think that the Roman Catholic Church is necessarily more expansive than all other Christians across the board in its understanding of who may merit salvation. It would depend on which branch of Protestants you compare the Catholics to. (And I’m not sure at all what stance the Orthodox and other Eastern Churches take.)
From what reading I have done, it appears that these Catholic writings you’ve referred to are mostly dealing with the “virtuous pagan” question again, except not so much pagans as those who come out of a similar religious tradition: Jews, Muslims, and non-Catholic Christians.
I think what the Catholic Church is saying here is that some non-Catholics may find salvation, but only if those non-Catholics don’t ever really have a chance to know the truth about the Catholic Church being the unique and sole pathway to salvation (as affirmed in 2000 by the Vatican in Dominus Iesus).
If my understanding is correct, the Catholic Church would consider someone like myself to have had ample opportunity to hear the message that it is the one true church through which salvation can be received. And the Roman Catholic Church would consider my rejection of that message to be a grievous sin and error, one that would preclude me from salvation.
I think Nostra Aetate in particular is more concerned with trying to repair relations here on earth with Jews, Muslims, and non-Catholic Christians. In this document it appears the Catholic Church is acknowledging that all of these faiths are related, all have much in common, and should be treated with respect instead of, for example, the anti-Semitism that for centuries was promulgated by the Catholic Church.
“Faith/works—So, as a general concept, “works” is an essential expression of Faith?—would this be correct?”
Yes, although instead of essential, I might use the word indispensable. “Good works are an indispensable part of expressing Faith and living a Christian life.” But the two words are admittedly very close in meaning, and the distinction might not come across in translation.
Someone can do a good thing for a bad reason, which the New Testament warns about. Jesus tells his followers: “When you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
In other words, God cares about why a person does a good thing. We should do good because it is pleasing to God, not to show off or to try to buy our way into heaven.
“Hell—the premise of “original sin” says all humanity is bad/only (sincere) Christians can be good because of faith—and bad people go to hell, with the exception of the virtuous Pagan whose fate might be undecided….correct?”
In general, yes. There are nuances, but that’s the basic idea. It would be more accurate to say: “Only sincere Christians can be forgiven for their badness through faith.” No one can ever be 100% good except for God.
“In Islam, Humanity is created “in goodness”—that is, it is a work-in-progress but with an “inherent nature” (Fitra) that inclines towards goodness. That is why—to be “bad” is to rebel against one’s own nature. Therefore a good person is “muslim” (spiritual category) as in, one who submits to God—(the inherent natural inclination given by God). It seems this concept has some similarities to the Christianity you wrote—except perhaps it is more universal and without original sin….?”
I agree. It seems like a good concept, too. I have to admit, I always had some trouble with the idea of original sin. I didn’t think it was particularly fair that I should be punished for something Adam and Eve did! And when I found out that early Christianity didn’t even have the concept of original sin, I was rather sorry things didn’t stay that way.
But the early Christians did stress the sinfulness of humanity even though they didn’t believe in original sin. They believed we humans are not capable of being good all by ourselves — we need God to forgive us and to help us do better, the same way a parent guides a child towards the right way to behave.
Christians talk about “obeying God” rather than “submitting to God” but perhaps the idea is similar?
“The category of “muslim” (spiritual) can apply to all creation —such as planets, sun, plants…etc (creation without free-will) because they automatically submit to God’s laws (natural laws)”
That’s interesting; I didn’t know that. So when all things are in submission to God, might that be similar to saying that all creation is in harmony with God’s will? That’s how a Christian would express it.
“I have read a small portion of the OT with a Jewish Guide—and find it is a book that one needs to struggle with a lot. Indeed the rabbinical writings, Midrash …etc, are full of such struggle….?…..Since Jews also do not have original sin—I presume that this struggle with their sacred texts might be their path towards Divine Guidance?…and perhaps Jesus (pbuh) might have had such a path in mind in the parable in Mark?….”
So perhaps the Jews struggle and argue too much with God instead of submitting? Is that the path you mean?
It still doesn’t help with Abagond’s conundrum, I don’t think. Those passages from Isaiah and Mark both seem to be saying that humans don’t have any free will, that God decides before each person is even born whether that person will be saved or damned, and nothing we do or believe during our earthly life can change our ultimate fate. We don’t have any free will to choose to submit or not. Everything is already set in stone.
Yes, there’s some stuff in those verses about not arguing with God or questioning God, but that’s not the part that’s the problem.
“Quran—Islamic premise is that God has given Guidance to all humanity throughout time. (We are ALL God’s creation and God shows compassion and mercy to all creation) So Islam is not a “new” message/Guidance. It is the last message Guidance that corrects any previous ones that may have been damaged over time. In my opinion, the primary damage might be that of Shirk (Division). For example, Jews worship One God—but some have “tribalized” God so that it has become God of the Jews who has conferred entitlements (land/nation) to the “chosen people” thus justifying oppression to “others”. This would be an example of “shirk” —worship that must belong to God alone is divided by elevating the “worship” of something else (ex–Land) to an equal level.”
I see the concept better now, thank you. This also sheds light on some of what you’ve written about unity and division on other threads.
The first question that comes to my mind is, there are also divisions within Islam — the most obvious being between Sunni and Shia. Would this also be considered shirk?
“The purpose of Tawheed(Unity) is to universalize God in order to affirm that no one “owns” God but God “owns” all creation. It is this premise that creates the foundation for understanding Equality (Equivalent value) which is essential for Justice–and also has implication for Divine Justice —because in Divine Justice the power dynamics are the opposite. (God is superior—all humanity is equally inferior to God)
“The reason why (ehtico-moral) Justice is important in Islamic paradigm is because the purpose of religion (ethcio-moral way of life) is to create Peace. Oppression is understood as a failure of justice. Oppression cannot lead to Peace.(Salaam). It is only in a just society that humanity can have inner and outer peace and it is in this environment that one can fully pursue knowledge with which to exercise free-will to worship God.”
That’s a very beautiful thought. Is this “just society” attainable on earth, according to Islam? Or will it only be realized in heaven?
LikeLike
Made a mistake when I wrote:
“Yes, there’s some stuff in those verses about not arguing with God or questioning God”
I should have scrolled back up. I had the verse in my head: “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” But that’s a different verse in a different book of the Bible. Mark 4:12 and Isaiah 6:9-10 don’t address it.
LikeLike
Virtuous Pagan/Free-will—In the Quran, there is a verse that points out that God, most powerful, could have made all humanity exactly the same…but instead created us with diversity. This is so as to increase in us compassion and mercy. It is easy to like a person similar to us—more difficult when the “other” is strange/different. Maybe Jesus (pbuh) also expressed a similar sentiment? Diversity of thought is necessary in order to have intellectual humility—without this trait, knowledge cannot progress….When different ways of looking at the world, different patterns of thought, find expression,….that is when human creativity flourishes.
….and it is with this creativity that we can find solutions to our human problems…..maybe there is a reason why I am a Muslim and you are a Christian…perhaps this diversity is needed to accomplish God’s will?….
Good/humans—Is all creation also bad or just humans? I think genesis says something about God created and it was good?…or something?….
The Quran has the story of the 2 sons of Adam (Christian—Abel/Cain), who fought each other, and one of them died. So, even though God created human nature (Fitra) that leans towards goodness—humans can make mistakes in anger, ignorance,…etc. That is why God gave the “Law” (rules of ethico-moral Justice) so that dispute resolution can occur fairly and peacefully.
Therefore—like Christians, Muslims also say that God gives Guidance—and the Quran is like a letter of guidance from God to each individual person.
Free-will (Quran)—From Surah 2
2:6 Indeed, those who disbelieve – it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them – they will not believe.
2:7 Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.
—would a Christian interpret this the same way as Mark 4:12—that there is no free-will?
Diversity/Shirk—There is a difference between diversity and Shirk—humanity is created in diversity (for a purpose) –but God is One. Worship that belongs to One God alone should not be divided because this leads to harm for humanity and for God’s creations. So…God most compassionate, most merciful, created all of creation—including humanity—and all belongs to God. Such an idea can encourage humility and gratefulness that can lead us to respect and care for all of God’s creation. (non-zero-sum game theory) On the other hand–arrogance and pride can lead to appropriating one (or more) of God’s creation for exploitation and injury…leading away from God’s will. (zero-sum game theory)
Just society—Yes, striving for a Just society that leads to Peace is Jihad (struggle/striving). This is because humanity is a work-in-progress….and each generation must go through its own struggles. (Peace = Balance and harmony)
why are we here on earth?—previously I explained that the purpose of humanity was to worship God—In the Quran, there is a conversation in which the angels ask God why humanity is created when they are right there worshipping God all the time. The Quran then explains that humanity are (God’s) Trustees on earth. We (humanity), have a mandate/obligation to care for all of God’s creation on earth. This is the reason worship/remembrance of God becomes important—so that we do not forget our obligation/duty of Trusteeship. (God’s will=Trusteeship)
LikeLike