Sunday, November 22, 2015

To the Architect Original Intent is Important

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

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
That means that there are the inherent dangers in viewing, say, the Letters of Paul through the lens of contemporary culture.

Answer 7
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
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
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
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
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 - paragraph #14 ( )

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.