 Posted Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Father-Mother God,
Loving me,--
Guard me when I sleep;
Guide my little feet
Up to Thee. (Mis 400:13-25)
Those of us who grew up in CS likely had this poem by MBE inscribed on a plaque over our beds. Something on the radio this afternoon caught my ear and reminded me of it.
I bring it up because I got to thinking about how this probably earliest memory of CS teaching may differ from or be alike to Father-Son-Holy Ghost, you now, that pesky Trinity thing. Earlier discussions seemed to indicate that CS does not support the concept of the multiple persons of God. Even the idea of the Seven Synonyms being the CS Septinity didn't seem to work. This prayer, however, represents some issues in my clouded thinking and understanding. My apologies if anyone considers me disrespectful. I'm struggling to make clear what once seemed so clear. It's possible that Luke 24:13-35 offers some insight on my altered state of clarity.
MBE says in S&H (332:4) that Father-Mother is the name for Deity. Does she mean that God and Deity are the same? What about what God told Moses in Exodus 3:14? Maybe God has a bunch of names including I AM, LORD, and Jehovah then some he didn't share during Biblical times. Did He give up His Biblical names?
Sorry, I got confused for a moment. Back up. MBE did teach the triune nature of God.
Life, Truth, and Love constitute the triune Person called God,--that is, the triply divine Principle, Love. They represent a trinity in unity, three in one,--the same in essence, though multiform in office: God the Father-Mother; Christ the spiritual idea of sonship; divine Science or the Holy Comforter. These three express in divine Science the threefold, essential nature of the infinite. They also indicate the divine Principle of scientific being, the intelligent relation of God to man and the universe.
S&H 331:26-3
Okay, so. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not the Trinity. Life, Truth, and Love are the triune, triply, trinity, three. But then she seems to backtrack into a bit more familiar territory setting up the threefold nature of the infinite being - God (Father-Mother), Christ (Son), and Science (Holy Comforter). Seems somewhat fuzzy like through one of those glasses darkly, but I do see a three theme.
Guess I should just quit while I'm behind. My head seems to hurt. Oops. Old habits. My head hurts.
Happy Easter to all. He is Risen!
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, March 22, 2008 10:46 PM
|
|
|
|
| I have been trying to figure this out. Christ was to be buried 3 days and 3 nights. He got buried on Friday and stayed buried Friday night and Saturday night. Do the math. What am I missing?
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 23, 2008 3:27 PM
|
|
|
|
| Do Go Be Man, Try as I might, I can see no real correlation between Mrs. Eddy's trinity and the Trinity that I worship (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- all of whom are referred to as God, act like God, and are given Godlike characteristics in the Bible). When trying to think through the circular logic of CS, I find it helpful to remember that circular logic only makes sense when one is standing inside the circle. Anonymous, I have been trying to figure this out. Christ was to be buried 3 days and 3 nights. He got buried on Friday and stayed buried Friday night and Saturday night. Do the math. What am I missing? From what I've read, the math isn't as straightforward as it first appears. Possible complexities arise from the following: -- Jews measured their days from sundown to sundown (Friday started at sundown on Thursday) -- Part of a day could be considered a full day -- The phrases "after three days" and "on the third day" are used interchangeably in several times (eg., compare Mark 8:31 and Matt 16:21). Here's a link to a discussion of the issue at carm.org.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 23, 2008 4:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Linda,
Try as I might, I can see no real correlation between Mrs. Eddy's trinity and the Trinity that I worship...
Yeah, I couldn't either. The more circles I traced, the worse my head hurt.
In spite of appearances, I dislike seeming so sarcastic to certain ears about this stuff. The circularity coupled with three decades of CS memories, however, do flavor my writing I suppose. I used to be one of those CS guys who loved to argue circles around those ignorant fundamentalists. I was pretty good at it. It's hard for me to understand now where I got it.
Thanks for the link to the three days and nights explanation. I had sort of arrived at a similar answer back in my CS days with the help of my Jewish friends who had to explain to me how Shabbat starts and ends. Even though they, of course, did not accept Jesus as Messiah or the Resurrection, they found no issue with the three days and three nights thing. It was a good and timely question though.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 7:51 AM
|
|
|
|
We have two issues going here. I am going to address the matter of "three days."
It's not complicated, really. "On the third day" is the better translation, which means, "the third day following: the event of death by crucifixion. Jesus was probably crucified on the Friday before the Passover (Saturday). He had to be dead and buried well before Sundown, because Jews could not handle a dead body and participate in Passover rituals without becoming ritually cleansed. So the Romans decided to accommodate this local religious requirement by accelerating death, which usually took a few (excruciating) days on a cross.
So the soldiers broke the legs of the condemned, starting with the "thieves" (probably rebels/Zealots). When the got to Jesus, the found that he was already dead ("given up the ghost"). This is a theologically rich point, suggesting that God the Father had mercy on the Son, shortening the time of physical death and depriving evil men (and by extension, Satan) of the satisfaction of actually causing the death of God the Son.
All of which meant that the Lord was dead (not fainted or swooned)* well before Sundown. He was wrapped in buriel linens (not enough time for treating the body) and put into Joseph's freshly hewn tomb before Sundown--so that the handlers could purify themselves before Passover.
And, of course, guards were set to insure the body was not tampered with.
So he's dead on (probably) Friday afternoon, our time. (The first day) Entombed Friday night, there through all of Saturday, (The second day) and still entombed Saturday night and some time into Sunday morning, before Dawn (the Third Day). At this time, something extraordinary happens--the Resurrection--which frightens the guards away. **
And then Mary goes to the tomb to dress the body and, of course, finds it empth, and the guards gone.
And you know the rest!
Do-Go offers the greeting, He is risen!
And I offer the traditional reply, He is risen indeed! Hallelujiah!
*I emphasize this becaue Eddy bought into the liberal/"Higher Criticism"/apostate concept that Jesus was not, probably, really dead, but revived in "the coolness of the tomb." She then ties this in with her spiritualized belief of death being unreal, so she has it both way: he didn't die (only appeared to) physically, and couldn't die metaphysically. This belies the fact that the Romans were very well-trained killers.
**Guard duty is a critical discipline to all soldiers. The Romans were not slackers here, either. A guard who allowed a prisoner to escape, or failed to perform his duties, was subject to death. So only the appearance of a dead man (with possible supernatural phenomena) could explain these guards' abandonment of their post.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 9:43 AM
|
|
|
|
Okay, I can buy that. On the 3rd day is correct. After the 3rd day is just a small mistake by a scribe. However where it says 3 days and 3 nights is just plain wrong, so we won't go there.
I like your point that the body can die physically, but not metaphysically. I haven't thought about that before. This helps clear up another contracdiction I was going to point out.
Thank you,
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 11:53 AM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous March 24, 2008 @ 9:51:38 AM,
Eddy bought into the liberal/"Higher Criticism"/apostate concept that Jesus was not, probably, really dead, but revived in "the coolness of the tomb."
I had a discussion with a CSist last night who said that so many of the "legends" surrounding Jesus' life are irrelevant to understanding and applying CS. According to the CSist, He was a great teacher who brought us the Truth and that we can aspire to do the same things He taught and accomplished without getting caught in supernatural deity myths like Virgin Birth, changing water to wine, healing, a person of the Trinity, Resurrection, and Ascension. That's what I used to believe also.
Right out of the gate, there's a major problem if the "legends" of Jesus life like His death and resurrection are just stories made up by zealous followers. That means the Bible (God's word) is unreliable. Of course, MBE did teach the unreliability of Scriptures so I suppose that represents no more difficulty for current CSists than it once did for me.
What I still struggle to wrap my itty-bitty understanding around is how CS can claim a Biblical basis while ignoring large chunks of the Bible, declaring other large chunks as inaccurate, and asserting the rest requires "Spiritual Interpretation". Been there, done that and cannot resolve my current understanding of the Scriptures with what I held to so strongly for so long.
Are there other possibilities other than Jesus was a mad man, a liar, or exactly who He said is? Are there other possibilities than the Bible is fantasy, fiction, or exactly what it proports to be (God's word)? According to my current understanding, CS denies the accuracy of the Bible as a whole and the Biblical account of Jesus' life in part. As CS claims the fallacy of the Bible, it asserts the weakness of its own foundation.
Maybe Occam had something going with his razor theory - All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. The evidence certainly indicates the simple solution of the Bible being what it claims and Jesus being who He claims. The complexity of the alternative discourages resolution.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 8:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Okay, I can buy that. On the 3rd day is correct. After the 3rd day is just a small mistake by a scribe. However where it says 3 days and 3 nights is just plain wrong, so we won't go there.
As noted in the link I provided in my post, "three days and nights" may be idiomatic and not literal. The people who wrote the Bible used the language and expressions of their day, just as we do in our day.
|
|
|
|