I am an atheist as well, but I really enjoy this video series. It is very informative and illuminating, and I do appreciate the very distinct Orthodox viewpoint on the Bible and Christian spirituality.
Thank you, I do appreciate that. In fact, there are a number of atheists who watch the videos and have input. Sometimes I like their input more that that of Fundamentalists.
I am one of those atheists, and I appreciate your knowledge of the orthodox path. Your videos have helped me understand things that went over my head in back in Catholic school, and I feel wiser because of it.
Greetings again, I am hoping you will find time within your braodcasts to discuss the Caleb narrative. It would be most helpful to me to hear an Orthodox perspective.
I just preached a sermon on Joshua 3. I love the liturgical elements of the crossing of the Jordan. It reminds me of Ion Bria's work on the liturgy after the liturgy.
Thank you for your posts. I enjoy them a great deal.
really? I don't remember roast parsnips being on the sacrifice menu at any point in the bible. It's clearly a blood related thing. There's nothing in genesis that says cain's sacrifice was made in a wrong manner. This is clearly something you have to invent to make it fit or look to other books written later whose writers untimately identified possible problems in the earlier books. They then tried to "fix" them with qualifying statements.
Re-read the account. Gen 4:6-7 - Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
dont you think that line is a bit cloudy to say the least? "If you do what is right?" The king James translation says "if thou doest well.." Still vague and like much of the bible you have to read stuff into it. My view is that it should be fully and properly explained..not open to interpretation. But once again....I still don't remember any vegetables being required at the tabernacle etc. Its all to do with blood.
You're making a special exception for this phrase. It's not vague at all. It's in the context of the sacrifice that was not accepted. Let me clarify. Cain burns some crops. God says "no good." Cain becomes angry at God. God says "why are you mad? if you did it right, I'd have accepted it." Cain gets jealous, kills Abel and then denies responsibility. How is that vague? And for the last point, Cain's sacrifice was vegetables.
Yes...cains sacrifice was vegetables .... and not good enough. Strangely, no one else ever sacrifices vegetables to god (and god specifically gives very detailed info on how to sacrifice animals to him - but never ever does he explain how to sacrifice a carrot). Afterall, if vegetables are allowed...surely he wouldnt want people making the same mistake (that you claim) cain made in sacrificing them wrongly.
This sound like the speculations of some half-baked anthropologist. How could anyone reach such a conclusion from the clear declaration that Cain had the rights of primogentor, and had the rule over his brother. It is quite clear from the Scripture that the problem was one of a disposition of the heart/mind of Cain.
Where on earth do people get the notion that Cain offered "crops" while Able offered "blood" and this was unacceptable to God. This sounds like some sort of philosophical speculation (poor philosophy and poor speculation at that). The verses are clear as day that the issue was Cain's disposition of mind (heart). Cain brought his offereing right-mindedly but did not offer it right-mindedly. There is nothing at all about respective quality of the content of the offerings.
Genesis 4:3 in English versions show that Cain offered "some of the fruits of the soil." This is where the distinction between quality and content of offerings comes from. What I was trying to say is that it wasn't the content or the quality of the offerings themselves, but the way they were offered. Even though the English versions of the texts show that it wasn't the offering, but that Cain wasn't offering right-mindedly.
Ah, but one has to read further to see where the actual distinction is, "your brought right-mindedly, but you did not offer right-mindedly..." There is no actual statement that the difference between the contents of the offerings was the issue. I can see how one might get such a notion on a cursory reading.
People clearly get that notion from this "Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor".
The Hebrew original and the Orthodox Christian rendition of the Hebrew Scripture both have quite a different mode, as I demonstrated above. It is quite clear from both the Hebrew and the Orthodox Christian Bible that the issue was not making the offering right-mindedly, i.e., not from the heart, but only according to "correctness by the law." That does make quite a difference.
It does not say that. In the Hebrew Torah, from which I am reading at the moment, it says, "Adonai said to Cain, why have you become sorrowful and downcast. You brought it right-mindedly, but you did not offer if right-mindedly - is that no a sin? Only be peaceful, for he [Abel] is in sumission to you [because Cain was the eldest], and the rule over him belongs to you." The same content is to be found in the Orthodox Christian rendition of the Hebrew Scripture (the Old Testament).
This is clearly the case because why would you allow people believe for 100's of years that this was so before bothering to get someone to try and clairy it sooooo much later on?? You would make sure this was explained in the same book - not a much later book. The possesion of the serpent by satan is another example. In genesis we are told that the serpent itself is a sneaky cunning creature... only later in revelation or something is satan added to the mix. Why?? To make it more "credible".
Explaining this sooooooooo much later on is of no use at all those who were previously taught that it was the serpent itself that was cunning etc. And that is exaclty what they would have been taught until much later books give a different explanation. I'm sure God could have planned and organised his book in such a fashion that made more sense and explained things as they went along.
That would depend, of course, on whether one uses Western literalism or reads the narrative as a Hebrew Narrative. There are so many problems with Western legalism and literalism. Even in reading Paul, one should remember that he was saying Hebrew things in the Greek language, but the meaning was still to be found in the Hebrew meaning. Perhaps the West just carried anti-Semiticism to far into the literary.
Two points that I should make here. The term "satan" is the hebrew word for adversary. I believe that tempting someone to accept a counterfeit for a gift they already possess is an adversarial action so "satan" is an appropriate term. The second point is that the serpent is a literary device specifically chosen to portray the cunning and conniving nature behind the temptation.
Lets not get into the multiple ways you can translate "satan" thats just politician speak. Lets be straight with this. Satan is satan is satan. And also you say that the serpent is a literary term? Does it say that in the bible? NO its a creature and bible says exactly that. Lets stick with what is written down for once - not what you want it to say. When its legs were removed by god were they literary legs and when it had to eat dust was this literary dust? Don't weave webs - talk straight.
You're wrong. Satan is not satan is not satan. The serpent IS a literary device. The image of the trees IS a literary device. If you understood the scriptures, you'd understand that they are didactic in nature. We are meant to learn something about ourselves and our relationship with God through them. I could only wish that the Bible was an easy read. I'd have mastered it the first time around rather than having to continually study it.
OK...let me see if I understand you correctly - there was NO real serpent in your view and its legs weren't removed by god and it didnt have to eat any dust for the rest of its days. (incidentally I think the entire book is fascinating fiction..just to clarify my position having read it cover to cover). Giving yourself license to re-interpret it how you see fit (even if by agreement and concensus of others) doesn't make you right - It just means you re-interpreted like so many others have.
so your version of a complete picture does not include a real serpent? A real serpent whose legs were removed and had to eat dust? Thats just literary invention? someone needs to tell Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort about this pronto...they think it was a real serpent.
The narrative is, as has been repeated above, a literary device for revealing many condition of egoism, self-love and self-centredness. Classic Hebrew literary devices are used to bring out psychological points. The problem is the Western Fundamentalists understanding. We can accept that there was a literal First Human couple (since genetically it appears that all people no living arose from a single woman), but the literary devices are precisely that, and nothing more.
Oh...and you're right...the bible is not an easy read...well not if you want it to all add up and make sense. For that you have to do continual mental gymnastics and backflips. But then the human brain is superb at that. If you've ever listened to art critics discuss the merits of an "un-made bed" as meaningful modern art - you'll know what I mean.
It doesn't take metal gymnastics to make it make sense. It's alright if you don't understand how it makes sense because you're relying on the scripture apart from the sacred tradition to tell you what's being said.
Correct. The trees may be understood as a foreimage of the Cross, but no-one would think that you could eat an apple or a pomogranite and have everlasting life.
To talk straight: the story of the garden of Eden is a literary narrative of the classical Hebrew type. The error is for the West to read it as if it was English history. We do not accept Fundamentalism. This is a Hebrew moral story pure and simple. You might note that the story of Eden and of Adam/Eve is not mentioned again in the Hebrew Scripture/O.T. anywhere. It was not so significant as history as the West chose to make it. It is foundational in understanding man's problems.
I'm pleased that there is a distinction between the western fundamentalist position and your own. That at least makes for more sensible rational dialogue! Phew! I agree therefore that many of the tales of the old testament are literary devices - although I have to be honest and say that God doesn't show himself in a particularly good light for a great deal of the old testament. To pick an example out of thin air - the killing of King Davids new born son as punishment was a bit ruthless.
In fact, that is quite correct. The term Satan, is, properly speaking, not at all a proper name, but the description of an act. Christ refers to our own conscience as an "adversary" (i.e., satan) when we are in opposition to it, and tells us to "be reconciled with it in the way....." He also calls Peter "satan" when Peter opposes what must be done.
In fact, the meaning has ALWAYS be clear to both Jews and Orthodox Christians. It is in the foggy speculations of the neo-Christianity of the West that the confusion arises. But what could one expect from a society and culture that could accept the doctine of Atonement and the notion that the colour of one's skin means that they are destined to slavery? It is, perhaps, time that the West became less arrogant and looked at what the more ancient Christianity of the East has known and held.
well, I've learned something there - "satan" is the description of an act rather than a name of some entity. Interesting. I'll have to look into that.
That is absolutely clear from the wording of the Hebrew and Orthodox Christians renditions of the Torah. The sacrifices were thanksgiving offerings of the "firstfruits," such as we (Orthodox) still make on the feast of the Transfiguration (Orthodox thanksgiving day), only we offer only crops. In the spring, we bless the new-born animals in a thanksgiving service. We will discuss the sacrifices of the temple when we come to it.
Perhaps a more careful study of the Hebrew might change that opinion. I realise that the English versions of Scripture leave an enormous amount to be desired, but the Torah was not written in English, nor with concepts and imagery that resonate with the Western mode of thinking. I did not find anything in this narrative that specied on or another kind of sacrifice, only an annual thanksgiving offering was made of the "firstfruits" of crops or flocks.
I am an atheist as well, but I really enjoy this video series. It is very informative and illuminating, and I do appreciate the very distinct Orthodox viewpoint on the Bible and Christian spirituality.
cuttlefisch 2 years ago
Despite my views, I do watch your videos with interest.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Thank you, I do appreciate that. In fact, there are a number of atheists who watch the videos and have input. Sometimes I like their input more that that of Fundamentalists.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
I am one of those atheists, and I appreciate your knowledge of the orthodox path. Your videos have helped me understand things that went over my head in back in Catholic school, and I feel wiser because of it.
You are an excellent teacher.
3R3MITE 2 years ago
Greetings again, I am hoping you will find time within your braodcasts to discuss the Caleb narrative. It would be most helpful to me to hear an Orthodox perspective.
missmouse161 2 years ago
I just preached a sermon on Joshua 3. I love the liturgical elements of the crossing of the Jordan. It reminds me of Ion Bria's work on the liturgy after the liturgy.
Thank you for your posts. I enjoy them a great deal.
AngloBaptist 2 years ago
as I recall, God wasn't in the least happy with cains arable farming...but much happier with the meatier offerings of able.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
The difference between Cain and Abel's sacrifices wasn't the content of the sacrifice, but the manner in which the sacrifice was offered.
gambleor 2 years ago
really? I don't remember roast parsnips being on the sacrifice menu at any point in the bible. It's clearly a blood related thing. There's nothing in genesis that says cain's sacrifice was made in a wrong manner. This is clearly something you have to invent to make it fit or look to other books written later whose writers untimately identified possible problems in the earlier books. They then tried to "fix" them with qualifying statements.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Re-read the account. Gen 4:6-7 - Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
gambleor 2 years ago
dont you think that line is a bit cloudy to say the least? "If you do what is right?" The king James translation says "if thou doest well.." Still vague and like much of the bible you have to read stuff into it. My view is that it should be fully and properly explained..not open to interpretation. But once again....I still don't remember any vegetables being required at the tabernacle etc. Its all to do with blood.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
You're making a special exception for this phrase. It's not vague at all. It's in the context of the sacrifice that was not accepted. Let me clarify. Cain burns some crops. God says "no good." Cain becomes angry at God. God says "why are you mad? if you did it right, I'd have accepted it." Cain gets jealous, kills Abel and then denies responsibility. How is that vague? And for the last point, Cain's sacrifice was vegetables.
gambleor 2 years ago
Yes...cains sacrifice was vegetables .... and not good enough. Strangely, no one else ever sacrifices vegetables to god (and god specifically gives very detailed info on how to sacrifice animals to him - but never ever does he explain how to sacrifice a carrot). Afterall, if vegetables are allowed...surely he wouldnt want people making the same mistake (that you claim) cain made in sacrificing them wrongly.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
This sound like the speculations of some half-baked anthropologist. How could anyone reach such a conclusion from the clear declaration that Cain had the rights of primogentor, and had the rule over his brother. It is quite clear from the Scripture that the problem was one of a disposition of the heart/mind of Cain.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Where on earth do people get the notion that Cain offered "crops" while Able offered "blood" and this was unacceptable to God. This sounds like some sort of philosophical speculation (poor philosophy and poor speculation at that). The verses are clear as day that the issue was Cain's disposition of mind (heart). Cain brought his offereing right-mindedly but did not offer it right-mindedly. There is nothing at all about respective quality of the content of the offerings.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Genesis 4:3 in English versions show that Cain offered "some of the fruits of the soil." This is where the distinction between quality and content of offerings comes from. What I was trying to say is that it wasn't the content or the quality of the offerings themselves, but the way they were offered. Even though the English versions of the texts show that it wasn't the offering, but that Cain wasn't offering right-mindedly.
gambleor 2 years ago
Ah, but one has to read further to see where the actual distinction is, "your brought right-mindedly, but you did not offer right-mindedly..." There is no actual statement that the difference between the contents of the offerings was the issue. I can see how one might get such a notion on a cursory reading.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
People clearly get that notion from this "Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor".
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
I did answer your question in a comment on the above question from Gambleor.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
The Hebrew original and the Orthodox Christian rendition of the Hebrew Scripture both have quite a different mode, as I demonstrated above. It is quite clear from both the Hebrew and the Orthodox Christian Bible that the issue was not making the offering right-mindedly, i.e., not from the heart, but only according to "correctness by the law." That does make quite a difference.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
It does not say that. In the Hebrew Torah, from which I am reading at the moment, it says, "Adonai said to Cain, why have you become sorrowful and downcast. You brought it right-mindedly, but you did not offer if right-mindedly - is that no a sin? Only be peaceful, for he [Abel] is in sumission to you [because Cain was the eldest], and the rule over him belongs to you." The same content is to be found in the Orthodox Christian rendition of the Hebrew Scripture (the Old Testament).
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Thank you for the correction. I was pulling from the New International Version of the texts.
gambleor 2 years ago
The problem is in your own mind, then, not in the fact. But then, the neo-Christianity of the West has always had strange ways of understanding.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
This is clearly the case because why would you allow people believe for 100's of years that this was so before bothering to get someone to try and clairy it sooooo much later on?? You would make sure this was explained in the same book - not a much later book. The possesion of the serpent by satan is another example. In genesis we are told that the serpent itself is a sneaky cunning creature... only later in revelation or something is satan added to the mix. Why?? To make it more "credible".
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Explaining this sooooooooo much later on is of no use at all those who were previously taught that it was the serpent itself that was cunning etc. And that is exaclty what they would have been taught until much later books give a different explanation. I'm sure God could have planned and organised his book in such a fashion that made more sense and explained things as they went along.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
That would depend, of course, on whether one uses Western literalism or reads the narrative as a Hebrew Narrative. There are so many problems with Western legalism and literalism. Even in reading Paul, one should remember that he was saying Hebrew things in the Greek language, but the meaning was still to be found in the Hebrew meaning. Perhaps the West just carried anti-Semiticism to far into the literary.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Two points that I should make here. The term "satan" is the hebrew word for adversary. I believe that tempting someone to accept a counterfeit for a gift they already possess is an adversarial action so "satan" is an appropriate term. The second point is that the serpent is a literary device specifically chosen to portray the cunning and conniving nature behind the temptation.
gambleor 2 years ago
Lets not get into the multiple ways you can translate "satan" thats just politician speak. Lets be straight with this. Satan is satan is satan. And also you say that the serpent is a literary term? Does it say that in the bible? NO its a creature and bible says exactly that. Lets stick with what is written down for once - not what you want it to say. When its legs were removed by god were they literary legs and when it had to eat dust was this literary dust? Don't weave webs - talk straight.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
You're wrong. Satan is not satan is not satan. The serpent IS a literary device. The image of the trees IS a literary device. If you understood the scriptures, you'd understand that they are didactic in nature. We are meant to learn something about ourselves and our relationship with God through them. I could only wish that the Bible was an easy read. I'd have mastered it the first time around rather than having to continually study it.
gambleor 2 years ago
OK...let me see if I understand you correctly - there was NO real serpent in your view and its legs weren't removed by god and it didnt have to eat any dust for the rest of its days. (incidentally I think the entire book is fascinating fiction..just to clarify my position having read it cover to cover). Giving yourself license to re-interpret it how you see fit (even if by agreement and concensus of others) doesn't make you right - It just means you re-interpreted like so many others have.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
It's not a matter of re-interpreting. It's about having a complete picture.
gambleor 2 years ago
so your version of a complete picture does not include a real serpent? A real serpent whose legs were removed and had to eat dust? Thats just literary invention? someone needs to tell Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort about this pronto...they think it was a real serpent.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
I agree. Somebody desperately needs to correct those fellows because they're making fools of themselves.
gambleor 2 years ago
The narrative is, as has been repeated above, a literary device for revealing many condition of egoism, self-love and self-centredness. Classic Hebrew literary devices are used to bring out psychological points. The problem is the Western Fundamentalists understanding. We can accept that there was a literal First Human couple (since genetically it appears that all people no living arose from a single woman), but the literary devices are precisely that, and nothing more.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Oh...and you're right...the bible is not an easy read...well not if you want it to all add up and make sense. For that you have to do continual mental gymnastics and backflips. But then the human brain is superb at that. If you've ever listened to art critics discuss the merits of an "un-made bed" as meaningful modern art - you'll know what I mean.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
It doesn't take metal gymnastics to make it make sense. It's alright if you don't understand how it makes sense because you're relying on the scripture apart from the sacred tradition to tell you what's being said.
gambleor 2 years ago
Correct. The trees may be understood as a foreimage of the Cross, but no-one would think that you could eat an apple or a pomogranite and have everlasting life.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
To talk straight: the story of the garden of Eden is a literary narrative of the classical Hebrew type. The error is for the West to read it as if it was English history. We do not accept Fundamentalism. This is a Hebrew moral story pure and simple. You might note that the story of Eden and of Adam/Eve is not mentioned again in the Hebrew Scripture/O.T. anywhere. It was not so significant as history as the West chose to make it. It is foundational in understanding man's problems.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
I'm pleased that there is a distinction between the western fundamentalist position and your own. That at least makes for more sensible rational dialogue! Phew! I agree therefore that many of the tales of the old testament are literary devices - although I have to be honest and say that God doesn't show himself in a particularly good light for a great deal of the old testament. To pick an example out of thin air - the killing of King Davids new born son as punishment was a bit ruthless.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
In fact, that is quite correct. The term Satan, is, properly speaking, not at all a proper name, but the description of an act. Christ refers to our own conscience as an "adversary" (i.e., satan) when we are in opposition to it, and tells us to "be reconciled with it in the way....." He also calls Peter "satan" when Peter opposes what must be done.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
In fact, the meaning has ALWAYS be clear to both Jews and Orthodox Christians. It is in the foggy speculations of the neo-Christianity of the West that the confusion arises. But what could one expect from a society and culture that could accept the doctine of Atonement and the notion that the colour of one's skin means that they are destined to slavery? It is, perhaps, time that the West became less arrogant and looked at what the more ancient Christianity of the East has known and held.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
well, I've learned something there - "satan" is the description of an act rather than a name of some entity. Interesting. I'll have to look into that.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
That is absolutely clear from the wording of the Hebrew and Orthodox Christians renditions of the Torah. The sacrifices were thanksgiving offerings of the "firstfruits," such as we (Orthodox) still make on the feast of the Transfiguration (Orthodox thanksgiving day), only we offer only crops. In the spring, we bless the new-born animals in a thanksgiving service. We will discuss the sacrifices of the temple when we come to it.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Thank you. I eagerly await the lesson.
gambleor 2 years ago
I thought God demanded the sacrifice of animals rather than merely "accepted". Certainly reads that way.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Then you haven't read Hosea 6:6 - For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
gambleor 2 years ago
That is precisely the point. Christ repeats this verse also.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Perhaps a more careful study of the Hebrew might change that opinion. I realise that the English versions of Scripture leave an enormous amount to be desired, but the Torah was not written in English, nor with concepts and imagery that resonate with the Western mode of thinking. I did not find anything in this narrative that specied on or another kind of sacrifice, only an annual thanksgiving offering was made of the "firstfruits" of crops or flocks.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago