[GCFL-discuss] Lucifer

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

Dear Lance, 

I will have a better idea of what I think might be the answer to your
question, after I hear back next week from the rabbi who seems willing to
answer a lot of questions from a sometimes skeptical Christian, namely
me. (Cross-reference my P.S. to greenBubble). I think he enjoys the
opportunity to explain what he knows from the Hebrew texts to a non-Jew,
and he has no desire to convert me to his faith, because evangelization
has nothing to do with the G-d given role he pursues.

I would tenatively say, I don't have an explanation for the comment by
Jesus you mention, and I don't believe there is one. What you have been
taught obviously offers A meaning, and I have heard that explanation
taught too. It could be true. For all the actual language of Scripture
tells us, it could be false.

Taken at face value, as you have quoted it, Jesus said that a being named
Lucifer was kicked out of heaven and sent to the grave. This being is not
named Satan -- and Jesus used the name Satan when that was what he meant.
The grave is not hell. And there is nothing to identify Lucifer as an
angel, not in the words you cite, nor in Isaiah 14:12. Luficer MAY have
been an angel, I don't know, and Scripture doesn't say. Human reasoning
is always trying to fill in mysteries, and sometimes that filling in
becomes accepted, but it is not authoritative.

Although I do love argument, I am not saying all this because I know the
correct answer. I believe a lot of supposition, inference, plausible
explanation that might or might not be reliable, and transfer of concepts
from Greek philosophy and pagan customs have permeated Christian
theology. I am not an iconoclast. I don't make a point of denying the
Trinity, or telling people they should NOT believe in angels or devils. I
don't run around smashing Roman Catholic statues of saints and calling
them idols, as some of our Protestant ancestors did. I enjoy putting up
lights at Christmas and decorating trees (and putting creches in the
trees). I have no problem with yule logs. I don't believe any of these
are fundamental to Christian faith. I like to stick to the simplest
instructions to be found in plain and obvious Scripture. Two examples:

He has shown you oh man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of
you but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your
G-d. (Michah 6:8).

Matthew 22: 37-40, I won't type out in full, but Jesus said "all of the
law and the prophets" hangs on two commandments. Even trying to half-way
live up to those two is more than enough for one lifetime, and being that
we are all imperfect, salvation after such an imperfect attempt is indeed
grace.

In short, I believe many of the details that Christians debate and form
denominations and subgroups within denominations over are not especially
relevant, or even knowable, but even to say that is itself a cause of new
debates. (For example, expressing doubt about angels and devils). I
appreciate having lots of denominations, because each person can practice
whatever orthodoxy brings them closer to G-d, and fellowship with those
who find meaning in the same orthodoxy. I don't wish to reduce us all to
one generalized lowest common denominator. Our nation is richer for
having many orthodoxies that are practiced sincerely. We just don't
advance any faith by claiming this or that interpretation as the only
true one. I simply don't believe any of the details define what is and
what is not acceptable to the Creator.

Siarlys
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20051125/3d86b046/attachment.htm