To
the Architect Original Intent is Important
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario
Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog on November 22, 2015
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
On
December 17, 2007 Becky Garrison published an interview titled, The
Wittenburg Door Interview: N.T. “Tom” Wright. He taught New
Testament studies for twenty years at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford
universities. He is now Research Professor of New Testament and Early
Christianity at St Mary’s College in the University of St Andrews
in Scotland.
In
the interview, Wright uses these examples to explain how Jesus and
Paul relate to each other still today, 2000 years later:
Composer:
writes the music
Conductor:
uses the original music
Musician:
plays the original music
Musicians
must be united and must know the implicit structure
Medical
researcher: finds
Doctor:
applies to the patient what is found
Architect:
designs
Builder:
builds what has been designed
Hermeneutic
used (to interpret, to explain, the theory and method of
interpretation )
My
point for quoting N.T. Wright and his original intent comments as
related to Jesus, the Architect, and Paul, the Builder, is to apply
the original intent of the 1787 architects of the U.S. Constitution
to the 1787-2015 builders of the American union.
In
the context of John Jay underlining the word "born" in
"natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George
Washington, the "original genesis" meaning of a "natural
born Citizen" was and still is ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was the "original intent" of
John Jay, the founder "architect" of "born," so
to speak, and of George Washington who passed the architectual
suggestion to the framers, the original "architects" of the
Constitution, and ultimately the ratifiers (including New York
ratifier John Jay), the original "builders" of the "union"
of America.
Here
are the 7th, 8th and 9th questions and answers in which Wright
articulates, in the context of Jesus and Paul, why origins and
original intent are important for contemporary cultures.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Question
7
DOOR:
That
means that there are the inherent dangers in viewing, say, the
Letters of Paul through the lens of contemporary culture.
Answer
7
WRIGHT:
There
are massive anachronisms when one makes assumptions about the things
going on in this world that weren’t in his world. This requires
that we read Paul faithfully and go between these two worlds. As I
hinted earlier, the fifth act, in which the Church is called to live
and work, is characterized by two things. First, it has firm and
fixed foundations, including a definite closing scene which is
already sketched in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, Colossians 1 and
Revelation 21 and 22.
Second,
it has the command, under the spirit, to improvise through the
unscripted period between the opening scenes and the closing one. No
musician would ever suppose that improvising means playing out of
tune or time. On the contrary, it means knowing extremely well
whether one is in the implicit structure, and listening intently to
the other players so that what we all do together, however,
spontaneously, makes sense as a whole. That is the kind of
hermeneutic I envisage as I read, and preach from, Paul’s letters
today.
Question
8
DOOR:
Is
that why you once described relationship between Jesus and Paul as
that of composer and conductor, medical researcher and doctor, and
architect and builder?
Answer
8
WRIGHT:
The
composer writers the music. If the conductor decides to write some on
his own account, that would be a way of saying he didn’t want to
play that composer’s music, but some of his own instead. His job is
to play the music the original composer has written. The doctor takes
the results of the research and applies them to the patient. Her job
is not to do more research on the topic, or, if she thinks it is, it
isn’t because she’s is being loyal to the original researcher but
because she is being disloyal. The builder takes the plans drawn up
by the architect and builds to that design. It isn’t his task to
draw a new building; or, if he does, it’s not because he is filled
with the admiration for the original design but because he isn’t.
Question
9
DOOR:
Got
it. On the other extreme, how can stuff like The Gospel of Judas and
The Da Vinci Code inform the Christian faith?
Answer
9
WRIGHT:
What
we can see in this current passion for Gnosticism is a hunger for
spirituality and purpose. We have to ask why our culture is so hungry
for different kinds of spirituality.
Also,
the appeal of second century Gnosticism is that people in our culture
are eager to find anything to rebuke or replace traditional
Christianity. This myth—what I call “the new myth of Christian
origins,” according to which Jesus was just an ordinary person who
taught a new type of spirituality, that He didn’t die for our sins
or rise again—is what’s lurking behind the Jesus Seminar. Many
people in our culture don’t like traditional Christianity and are
eager to find anything else at all to go with instead.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The
gnostic “new myth of Christian origins” relates to the gnostic
"new myth" of "natural born Citizen" as
understood by "nbC" new meaning "gnostic"
neobirthers.
Mario,
similar to the way that Wright exposes the fallacy of the "builders"
changing the original plans of the "architect," to cite
only one of Wright's examples of original intent, it looks like the
original intent of architect John Jay has been usurped by "natural
born Citizen" new meaning gnostic neobirthers, aka the gnostic
"myth builders" of 2000s America, who promote the
incoherent theory that birth on either U.S. --OR-- foreign soil was
Jay's 1787 "original genesis original intent" for underling
the word "born", and that birth to either two OR one OR
zero U.S. citizen parents was Jay's and Washington's and the framers'
1787 original intent prior to the absurdity of the 1898 United States
v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court "ctizen" by fiat holding,
and, anyway, the ratifiers were the real architects of the "building"
known as the United States of America, so that implies that future
generations could also redefine "nbC" however they wanted.
>>
"The builder takes the plans drawn up by the architect and
builds to that design.
>>
"It isn’t his task to draw a new building;
>>
"or, if he does,
>>
"it’s not because he is filled with the admiration for the
original design but because he isn’t."
It
seems that the current "builders" of the "union"
of America (Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian and
Anarchist) have changed the "original genesis original
intent" of the 1787 founders, framers and ratifiers, the
original architects and builders of the "union" of America
as President Abraham Lincoln articulated it in his 1861 first
inaugural address. See Bartleby.com - paragraph #14 (
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
)
Wright
says in answer #9, "...the appeal of second
century Gnosticism...people in our culture are eager to
find anything to rebuke or replace traditional Christianity. This
myth—what I call “the new myth of Christian origins,”...."
The
"new myth of Christian origins" that ignores tradition and
the "new myth" of "natural born Citizen" that
ignores commonsense original intent are gnostic myths pushed
by those who "know" what the framers did not know.
The new myth of the "nbC" gnostic
neobirthers is
inspired by the desire to
replace John Jay's traditional 1787 "original genesis
original intent" of
singular U.S. citizenship with dual U.S./foreign citizenship. This
is a 2000s myth that
appeals to 21st century
"gnostics" who "know" what John Jay, George
Washington and the framers and ratifiers did NOT
know, dual U.S./foreign
citizenship with, for example, ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, was John
Jay's "traditional" meaning.
If
the "nbC" new meaning "gnostic"
neobirthers say that they do
NOT "know"
that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY
to two U.S. citizen married parents was Jay's "traditional"
meaning that was inspired by
Emer de Vattel in Vattel's
Law of Nations and was
applied by the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court,
well, how do they "know"
that dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to ONLY one U.S. citizen
parent, married OR not, was Jay's "traditional" meaning
that the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court was defending? They
don't "know"
and they don't care.
That
applies to my Texas Federal senator Ted Cruz who, as a constitutional
scholar (and,
as a young man, memorized the entire U.S. Constitution),
does "know"
the original intent of
"natural born Citizen." That is why he parses his words by
saying that he has never breathed a breath when he was not a U.S.
citizen. Sen. Cruz does
"know" that
the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act,
a statute passed
by Congress, the positive
law that he was born under, does NOT grant because it can NOT "grant"
"natural born Citizen" status to a "citizen" born
on foreign soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.
Sen.
Cruz knows that a "citizen" can NOT be declared to be a
"natural born Citizen" by an Act of Congress, and
he knows that Article II Section 1 clause 5 identifies a "natural
born Citizen" as "...eligible to the Office of President"
ONLY by birth as a result of
an act of congress by two U.S. citizen married parents.
Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com
