⬅ Back to diary page
Sunday, October 2nd, 2022
22:11
Doing some random googling regarding the concept of Christ as the redeemer, Salvation, Atonement, and the like. Substitutionary atonement is the main idea surrounding Christ, the notion that, in his dying, we, the people, are all saved; this is the Pauline interpretation of Christ, and is the position that the majority of churches hold. The Kerygma, or 'Proclamation' Paul makes in regards to this matter is found within 1 Corinthians 15:3–8:
[3] For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, [4] and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
It should be noted that Paul's mention of a 'third day' is very likely in reference to Hosea 6:1-2, in which the Israelites, while suffering the destruction of their Kingdom, receive prophecy denouncing the worship of gods other than Yahweh, and that only repentance can save Israel:
[1] Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, that he may heal us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up. [2] After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. [3] Let us know, let us press on to know the Lord; his going forth is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.
The motif of 'three days' is used again later, in Exodus 19:10-11 (Exodus was first committed to scripture around 120 years after that of Hosea):
[10] And the LORD said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes [11] and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
We can gather that Paul was using the metaphors of Israel the nation as justification for Christ as a figure of prophecy, despite there being no actual link between the two concepts; see also Paul's mention of Christ 'dying for our sins' itself, this is likely in reference to Christ as the Suffering Servant—which I've gone over in a past entry, again, there being no link between Christ as the Messiah and Jewish scripture on that matter—but also the concept of the korbanot, or Jewish ritual sacrifice in exchange for atonement in general, the root of our current understanding of Christ's substitutionary atonement. Most important to note, however, is that all of of these korbanot sacrifices are a means of temporary forgiveness, with Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) being the most important, with full fasting and ascetic behaviour accompanied by intensive prayer, as well as the systematical confession of sins—this is where the Christian tradition of Confession originated. The Paschal Lamb is also pertinent to the subject, though it was not considered a sin offering, but rather one for apotropaic salvation, the sparing from God's wrath. In this sense, the characterization of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes the sin away from the world can be considered, again, merely an erroneous extension of a pre-existing scriptural concept; this was not the scriptural understanding or intention of the Israelites, so it can not be considered related.
With all of this in mind, the actual content of Paul's Kerygma devoid of retroactive re-interpretation can be considered. Paul believed in the power of sacrifice to atone for sin, definitely, and he considered Jesus to be such a sacrifice, but it was certainly not one that would erase some omnipresent Original Sin, as that concept wouldn't come to be written on for over 150 years until the times of the Greek Fathers, though they did use Paul's words in Romans 5:12-19 as justification for such an idea—and even so, it seems that Augustine's Latin translation mixes up some terms that make even the notion of Original Sin as supported by such a quote quite muddy, even if it had been supported by Jewish scripture in the first place (spoiler: it hadn't, the Jews had no, and do not have a conception of Original Sin). No, for Paul, the sins that Christ was redeeming in his death were that of all men, Israelite or not. There is an interesting interpretation regarding the notion that Paul was in fact most concerned with the status of Gentiles in the post-Christ world, and that 'Dying for our sins' refers to the problem of Gentile Torah-observers, who, despite their faithfulness, cannot fully observe commandments, including circumcision, and are therefore 'sinners', excluded from God's covenant. You see this too within the aforementioned passages found within Romans, where Paul espouses the belief that faith in Christ is what, first and foremost, allows Gentiles salvation, based primarily on what Jesus said during his lifetime. No commentary on Original Sin, no prophecy (as the scriptural basis is moot), just an understanding of what Jesus said, and what it might mean going forward if faith in such words was true to God's will.
Wednesday, October 5th, 2022
12:27
Acquired copies of Werner Keller's The Bible As History, Karen Armstrong's A History Of God, as well as Julian of Norwich's Revelations of Divine Love.
Saturday, October 8th, 2022
02:26
Okay, returning to Greek Philosophy for a moment. Want to get through these relatively quickly. So, Classical Greek philosophy. First, Socrates:
Socrates can be best described as being among the first of the Moral and Political philosophers. He is best known for his Socratic method, a form or argumentation that seeks to suss out the actual definition of any given concept through a series of back-and-forth questions and answers that then prove or disprove the initial assertion; in so doing, one hopes to approach the truth—more often, one continues to reveal their ignorance. Socrates' emphasis on discovering the 'true' definition of concepts is termed the Socratic priority of definition, as the pursuit of solid definitions first and foremost would clear the philosophical atmosphere of radical skepticism; a definition that could be considered 'true' would be one that is devoid of contradiction, and would be thus untouchable by the word-games of the sophists (see prior entry on the Pre-Socratics). Socrates applies this method liberally, even to his own beliefs, he is therefore not espousing a fixed philosophical doctrine, but rather, an acknowledgement of ubiquitous ignorance that he hoped to remedy by such a process. Such ignorance, Socrates thought, permeated all minds, and that he especially believed that he himself knew 'nothing'. There is much debate regarding this concept, so-named Socratic Ignorance, and what Socrates specifically meant by it, but it is largely accepted to be a form of commentary on the extent of our ability to truly grasp knowledge itself. The issue of Socrates' definitions of knowledge and ignorance is compounded by his wit and use of Irony; the main sources we have on Socrates—Plato's Socratic Dialogues—are peppered with contemporary allusions and puns, and often terminate in a state of aporia, or 'puzzlement', where Socrates himself has no firm conclusion, only pointing out the resultant paradox. So what Socrates means when he discusses or speaks on anything can always be considered as being shadowed by his own recognition of his very human limitations, despite the firmness by which he states his opinion. This is known as the Socratic inconsistency, and there is much debate regarding any and all of Socrates' determinations when this is kept in mind. All of this is to say that primarily, Socrates was attempting to systematize the pursuit of knowledge, and the reason for this lay not just in the metaphysical dimension, but also the moral one. Socrates believed that the ultimate goal of one's life necessarily (as in, naturally) is, and should be, to achieve a state of intrinsic good, or eudaimonia; the act of flourishing as a human. For Socrates, the pursuit of eudaimonia thus motivates all human action, but that it is a lack of knowledge that inhibits one from achieving this state, as all virtue, or arete (that is, 'excellence', predominantly morally speaking), is ultimately based on knowledge. It is the cultivation of such virtue through the acquisition of knowledge (itself gathered through the Socratic method) that Socrates considered the moral imperative of man, and this would go on to become the basis of Virtue Ethics which would be later explored by Aristotle. Virtue Ethics supposes that some parts of the innate human character can be considered as being inherently morally desireable, and that we should thus aspire to such traits through our actions so that we might ourselves become virtuous (so that we might reach eudaimonia). The main philosophical problem Virtue Ethics faces is how one defines and selects the virtues worth aspiring to, but there is a lot written on such a subject that I can not go into here. Key to Socrates' understanding of virtue in this sense is the idea that 'no one errs willingly', or that if one knows what was right, one would do what was right, so that if one acts wrongly, one simply did not have the requisite knowledge to have made the right choice. This assertion applies too to those that superficially seem to acknowledge a moral wrong but still act in alignment with it, that is to say, if one acted wrongly despite acknowledging the moral wrong (for example, a supporter of vegan ethics choosing to eat meat despite their recognition of the wrong), one could say that such an individual hadn't truly grasped the wrongness, and that their irrationality is still based in a lack of knowledge.
I see once more that I underestimated my ability to go into needless detail, at least this time I limited the entry to one figure. Plato is next.
Saturday, October 15th, 2022
15:08
I cried today, the first time in a while. I think it was the culmination of a couple days' worth of mounting emotional pressure. I'm still feeling it now, it's not good. I keep thinking about the person I was in the past, and I find that, despite the years in time that separate me from him, that's all it is, separation; I don't think I've grown. All the negative traits I can ascribe to the mode of thinking I was vested in at the time, all the negativity and anger, I've not outgrown any of that, it's only been obfuscated. I don't think I'm a very good person, and in some ways I'm as alone now as I was then. I don't know how to handle this fact. Every memory I have of myself seems to be but a snapshot of an unhappy person, and they stretch back a long, long time. Some things are better, much better, Kali is the most positive force in my life and I can never disregard or forget that fact, and it's only because she is not present at this moment that I think I feel this way, but it's the issues that lie within myself that eat at me.
I try to be conscious of the virtues I want to aspire to, the aspects of the self I can mend, demonstrate, but it's these moments that make it all seem a facade, that such effort in the face of adversity, internal and external, is a fool's errand. I pity who I was, it makes me sad to think on, how lost and full of hate, but the admission of a lack of progress makes this anything but a retrospective exercise. I have lived enough years of adulthood to acknowledge that who I was when I thought I was better, was in actuality no better at all, and that speaks ill of me presently, and above all things, this is upsetting to me. I am upset.
I want to return to my reading and writing, but the energy isn't there. I'll try my best.
Sunday, October 2nd, 2022
22:11
Doing some random googling regarding the concept of Christ as the redeemer, Salvation, Atonement, and the like. Substitutionary atonement is the main idea surrounding Christ, the notion that, in his dying, we, the people, are all saved; this is the Pauline interpretation of Christ, and is the position that the majority of churches hold. The Kerygma, or 'Proclamation' Paul makes in regards to this matter is found within 1 Corinthians 15:3–8:
[3] For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, [4] and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
It should be noted that Paul's mention of a 'third day' is very likely in reference to Hosea 6:1-2, in which the Israelites, while suffering the destruction of their Kingdom, receive prophecy denouncing the worship of gods other than Yahweh, and that only repentance can save Israel:
[1] Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, that he may heal us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up. [2] After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. [3] Let us know, let us press on to know the Lord; his going forth is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.
The motif of 'three days' is used again later, in Exodus 19:10-11 (Exodus was first committed to scripture around 120 years after that of Hosea):
[10] And the LORD said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes [11] and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
We can gather that Paul was using the metaphors of Israel the nation as justification for Christ as a figure of prophecy, despite there being no actual link between the two concepts; see also Paul's mention of Christ 'dying for our sins' itself, this is likely in reference to Christ as the Suffering Servant—which I've gone over in a past entry, again, there being no link between Christ as the Messiah and Jewish scripture on that matter—but also the concept of the korbanot, or Jewish ritual sacrifice in exchange for atonement in general, the root of our current understanding of Christ's substitutionary atonement. Most important to note, however, is that all of of these korbanot sacrifices are a means of temporary forgiveness, with Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) being the most important, with full fasting and ascetic behaviour accompanied by intensive prayer, as well as the systematical confession of sins—this is where the Christian tradition of Confession originated. The Paschal Lamb is also pertinent to the subject, though it was not considered a sin offering, but rather one for apotropaic salvation, the sparing from God's wrath. In this sense, the characterization of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes the sin away from the world can be considered, again, merely an erroneous extension of a pre-existing scriptural concept; this was not the scriptural understanding or intention of the Israelites, so it can not be considered related.
With all of this in mind, the actual content of Paul's Kerygma devoid of retroactive re-interpretation can be considered. Paul believed in the power of sacrifice to atone for sin, definitely, and he considered Jesus to be such a sacrifice, but it was certainly not one that would erase some omnipresent Original Sin, as that concept wouldn't come to be written on for over 150 years until the times of the Greek Fathers, though they did use Paul's words in Romans 5:12-19 as justification for such an idea—and even so, it seems that Augustine's Latin translation mixes up some terms that make even the notion of Original Sin as supported by such a quote quite muddy, even if it had been supported by Jewish scripture in the first place (spoiler: it hadn't, the Jews had no, and do not have a conception of Original Sin). No, for Paul, the sins that Christ was redeeming in his death were that of all men, Israelite or not. There is an interesting interpretation regarding the notion that Paul was in fact most concerned with the status of Gentiles in the post-Christ world, and that 'Dying for our sins' refers to the problem of Gentile Torah-observers, who, despite their faithfulness, cannot fully observe commandments, including circumcision, and are therefore 'sinners', excluded from God's covenant. You see this too within the aforementioned passages found within Romans, where Paul espouses the belief that faith in Christ is what, first and foremost, allows Gentiles salvation, based primarily on what Jesus said during his lifetime. No commentary on Original Sin, no prophecy (as the scriptural basis is moot), just an understanding of what Jesus said, and what it might mean going forward if faith in such words was true to God's will.
Wednesday, October 5th, 2022
12:27
Acquired copies of Werner Keller's The Bible As History, Karen Armstrong's A History Of God, as well as Julian of Norwich's Revelations of Divine Love.
Saturday, October 8th, 2022
02:26
Okay, returning to Greek Philosophy for a moment. Want to get through these relatively quickly. So, Classical Greek philosophy. First, Socrates:
Socrates can be best described as being among the first of the Moral and Political philosophers. He is best known for his Socratic method, a form or argumentation that seeks to suss out the actual definition of any given concept through a series of back-and-forth questions and answers that then prove or disprove the initial assertion; in so doing, one hopes to approach the truth—more often, one continues to reveal their ignorance. Socrates' emphasis on discovering the 'true' definition of concepts is termed the Socratic priority of definition, as the pursuit of solid definitions first and foremost would clear the philosophical atmosphere of radical skepticism; a definition that could be considered 'true' would be one that is devoid of contradiction, and would be thus untouchable by the word-games of the sophists (see prior entry on the Pre-Socratics). Socrates applies this method liberally, even to his own beliefs, he is therefore not espousing a fixed philosophical doctrine, but rather, an acknowledgement of ubiquitous ignorance that he hoped to remedy by such a process. Such ignorance, Socrates thought, permeated all minds, and that he especially believed that he himself knew 'nothing'. There is much debate regarding this concept, so-named Socratic Ignorance, and what Socrates specifically meant by it, but it is largely accepted to be a form of commentary on the extent of our ability to truly grasp knowledge itself. The issue of Socrates' definitions of knowledge and ignorance is compounded by his wit and use of Irony; the main sources we have on Socrates—Plato's Socratic Dialogues—are peppered with contemporary allusions and puns, and often terminate in a state of aporia, or 'puzzlement', where Socrates himself has no firm conclusion, only pointing out the resultant paradox. So what Socrates means when he discusses or speaks on anything can always be considered as being shadowed by his own recognition of his very human limitations, despite the firmness by which he states his opinion. This is known as the Socratic inconsistency, and there is much debate regarding any and all of Socrates' determinations when this is kept in mind. All of this is to say that primarily, Socrates was attempting to systematize the pursuit of knowledge, and the reason for this lay not just in the metaphysical dimension, but also the moral one. Socrates believed that the ultimate goal of one's life necessarily (as in, naturally) is, and should be, to achieve a state of intrinsic good, or eudaimonia; the act of flourishing as a human. For Socrates, the pursuit of eudaimonia thus motivates all human action, but that it is a lack of knowledge that inhibits one from achieving this state, as all virtue, or arete (that is, 'excellence', predominantly morally speaking), is ultimately based on knowledge. It is the cultivation of such virtue through the acquisition of knowledge (itself gathered through the Socratic method) that Socrates considered the moral imperative of man, and this would go on to become the basis of Virtue Ethics which would be later explored by Aristotle. Virtue Ethics supposes that some parts of the innate human character can be considered as being inherently morally desireable, and that we should thus aspire to such traits through our actions so that we might ourselves become virtuous (so that we might reach eudaimonia). The main philosophical problem Virtue Ethics faces is how one defines and selects the virtues worth aspiring to, but there is a lot written on such a subject that I can not go into here. Key to Socrates' understanding of virtue in this sense is the idea that 'no one errs willingly', or that if one knows what was right, one would do what was right, so that if one acts wrongly, one simply did not have the requisite knowledge to have made the right choice. This assertion applies too to those that superficially seem to acknowledge a moral wrong but still act in alignment with it, that is to say, if one acted wrongly despite acknowledging the moral wrong (for example, a supporter of vegan ethics choosing to eat meat despite their recognition of the wrong), one could say that such an individual hadn't truly grasped the wrongness, and that their irrationality is still based in a lack of knowledge.
I see once more that I underestimated my ability to go into needless detail, at least this time I limited the entry to one figure. Plato is next.
Saturday, October 15th, 2022
15:08
I cried today, the first time in a while. I think it was the culmination of a couple days' worth of mounting emotional pressure. I'm still feeling it now, it's not good. I keep thinking about the person I was in the past, and I find that, despite the years in time that separate me from him, that's all it is, separation; I don't think I've grown. All the negative traits I can ascribe to the mode of thinking I was vested in at the time, all the negativity and anger, I've not outgrown any of that, it's only been obfuscated. I don't think I'm a very good person, and in some ways I'm as alone now as I was then. I don't know how to handle this fact. Every memory I have of myself seems to be but a snapshot of an unhappy person, and they stretch back a long, long time. Some things are better, much better, Kali is the most positive force in my life and I can never disregard or forget that fact, and it's only because she is not present at this moment that I think I feel this way, but it's the issues that lie within myself that eat at me.
I try to be conscious of the virtues I want to aspire to, the aspects of the self I can mend, demonstrate, but it's these moments that make it all seem a facade, that such effort in the face of adversity, internal and external, is a fool's errand. I pity who I was, it makes me sad to think on, how lost and full of hate, but the admission of a lack of progress makes this anything but a retrospective exercise. I have lived enough years of adulthood to acknowledge that who I was when I thought I was better, was in actuality no better at all, and that speaks ill of me presently, and above all things, this is upsetting to me. I am upset.
I want to return to my reading and writing, but the energy isn't there. I'll try my best.