Post Reply
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View apollonius of tyana
2 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 9:36PM #31
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,084

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:32PM, Ed.W wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:20PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Unless Ed.W has something worthwhile to contribute to the dispute, why doesn't he quickly crawl back under his (rock)?


I did. [where?] I don't recommend attracting any more attention to post #10 than necessary.  If I were you.


Not only post #10 dispels some delusionary distinctions on "embarrassment" as "emotion" and as "scholarly test of authenticity", but post #23 puts in question, on a key example, the very soundness of the applications of the "criterion of embarrassment".


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 11:43PM #32
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Apr 28, 2012 -- 9:36PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:32PM, Ed.W wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:20PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Unless Ed.W has something worthwhile to contribute to the dispute, why doesn't he quickly crawl back under his (rock)?


I did. [where?] I don't recommend attracting any more attention to post #10 than necessary.  If I were you.


Not only post #10 dispels some delusionary distinctions on "embarrassment" as "emotion" and as "scholarly test of authenticity", but post #23 puts in question, on a key example, the very soundness of the applications of the "criterion of embarrassment".


MdS




A better example would be: the Gentile church accepts Gospels that say don't preach to to the Gentiles. Its preserved because its authentic and early. The principle is sound; its application that needs to be questioned.

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 3:21AM #33
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,084

Dave


Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:43PM, davelaw40 wrote:

A better example would be: the Gentile church accepts Gospels that say don't preach to to the Gentiles. Its preserved because its authentic and early.


Yeah, that's a good one.


[Dave] The principle is sound; its application that needs to be questioned.


Hear, hear.


MdS


P.S. Oh, BTW, would you concur that ...


the inconsistency between ones declared principles and one's behavior;


the discrepancy between the high claims for one's leader and his humble origins;


... cause ... embarrassment, which is an emotion very close to shame, and that this is why the "criterion of embarrassment" is so called?

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 3:38AM #34
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Apr 29, 2012 -- 3:21AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:



P.S. Oh, BTW, would you concur that ...


the inconsistency between ones declared principles and one's behavior;


the discrepancy between the high claims for one's leader and his humble origins;


... cause ... embarrassment, which is an emotion very close to shame, and that this is why the "criterion of embarrassment" is so called?




No, I would not



it would be more fitting to call it the criterion of anachronism

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 5:26AM #35
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,084

Dave


Apr 29, 2012 -- 3:38AM, davelaw40 wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 3:21AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

... would you concur that ...


the inconsistency between ones declared principles and one's behavior;


the discrepancy between the high claims for one's leader and his humble origins;


... cause ... embarrassment, which is an emotion very close to shame, and that this is why the "criterion of embarrassment" is so called?


No, I would not


Well, your bad ... Embarassed


[Dave] it would be more fitting to call it the criterion of anachronism

Uh? It's also called criterion of dissimilarity, and that makes perfect sense. Anachronism ("[t]he representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.") has got nothing whatsoever to do with it.


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 8:22AM #36
Adelphe
Posts: 28,736

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:00AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


...Of course all this line of reasoning stands and falls on the essential assumption that the Gospel of the Ebionites, and in particular the tradition about the Baptism of Jesus reported in it, predates the tradition reported in the Canonical Gospels.


Is there ANY evidence to suppost this assumption? NONE ... ZILCH ...


... in fact it stands to reason that E1 and E2 were artful and deliberately distorting additions by the heretical Ebionites.


And with this the "baptismal embarrassment" has been reduced to smithereens ...


MdS




The "baptismal embarrassment" stands whether or not one includes the "Gospel of the Ebionites/Hebrews" for the simple reason that the sinless Jesus allows Himself to be baptized by John who is baptizing for the remission of sins.


I would think even you could capsice that, yes?


In fact, there's an entire thread on that on this very board here which proves the point.


Q.E.D.




Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 1:21PM #37
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,084

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:00AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

The ONLY bits that we find in Epiphanius' quotation [Wikipedia quotation at fn [124] appended to Wikipedia > Gospel of the Hebrews, actually from the Gospel of the Ebionites, see Epiphanius, Panarion, Volume 1, Against Ebionites, section 13,6-8, page 130] that have no correspondence in any of the Canonical Gospels, are: 


[E1]  [He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and] enter into him.


[E2] ‘Today I have begotten you.’


IF [E1] and [E2] were part of a more ancient tradition than that of the Canonical Gospels, then, undoubtedly, they would be "embarrassing" (in the scholarly sense of the word), because ...


[E1] would imply that Jesus was an ordinary man, conceived naturally, and that he became the "son" of God ONLY because and after "the Holy Spirit ... enter into him".


[E2] with its aptly placed quotation of Psalm 2:7, would underline that ONLY on the day of his Baptism the (merely natural) man Jesus became the "son" of God.


... and would be such that their absence form the Canonical Gospels could be interpreted along the lines of the Wikipedia comment [#]


Of course all this line of reasoning stands and falls on the essential assumption that the Gospel of the Ebionites, and in particular the tradition about the Baptism of Jesus reported in it, predates the tradition reported in the Canonical Gospels.


Is there ANY evidence to support this assumption? NONE ... ZILCH ...


... in fact it stands to reason that E1 and E2 were artful and deliberately distorting additions by the heretical Ebionites.


And with this the "baptismal embarrassment" has been reduced to smithereens ...


Perhaps the lady has realized, after all, what a boomerang was for her her integral quotation of Wikipedia > Biblical criticism >> Embarrassment ...


... and that is why she has carefully avoided commenting on the absence of E1 and E2 from the Canonical Gospels, which would indeed be "embarrassing" IF E1 and E2 were part of a more ancient tradition than that of the Canonical Gospels ...


Apr 29, 2012 -- 8:22AM, Adelphe wrote:

The "baptismal embarrassment" stands whether or not one includes the "Gospel of the Ebionites/Hebrews" for the simple reason that the sinless Jesus allows Himself to be baptized by John who is baptizing for the remission of sins.


And whence, exactly, would the lady infer that alleged sort of "baptismal embarrassment", as BOTH the "Gospel of the Ebionites/Hebrews" AND the Gospel of Matthew pre-empt and void it with ...


“Then John, falling down before Him, said, ‘I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!’ But Jesus forbade him saying, ‘Let it be so as it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.’” -- Epiphanius, Panarion 30:13 [Epiphanius, Panarion, Volume 1, Against Ebionites, section 13,8, page 130]


14 But John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?” 15 So Jesus replied to him, “Let it happen now, for it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John yielded to him. (Matt 3:14-15)


... near-identical sentences?


I would think even you could capice that, yes?


It is the lady who evidently has serious understanding problems ...


In fact, there's an entire thread on that on this very board here which proves the point.


The lady links generically to thread "John the Baptist and the forgiveness of sins" —with its 74 posts and 13 contributors ...— so God only knows what she thinks she means by "proves the point" ...


... what can be confidently affirmed and confirmed is that ...


[c1] Jesus recognized that John had the authority of preparing people, with his baptism of repentance, for the forgiveness that the Messiah would bestow upon them / earn for them [MdS, post #36]


Does this mean that Jesus recognized John's authority to forgive sins? NOPE!


Does this mean that there could be any "embarrassing" doubt that Jesus needed to repent of anything? NOPE!


Q.E.D.


LOL! guffaw! puleeze!


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 4:07PM #38
Adelphe
Posts: 28,736

Apr 29, 2012 -- 1:21PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:00AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

The ONLY bits that we find in Epiphanius' quotation [Wikipedia quotation at fn [124] appended to Wikipedia > Gospel of the Hebrews, actually from the Gospel of the Ebionites, see Epiphanius, Panarion, Volume 1, Against Ebionites, section 13,6-8, page 130] that have no correspondence in any of the Canonical Gospels, are: 


[E1]  [He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and] enter into him.


[E2] ‘Today I have begotten you.’


IF [E1] and [E2] were part of a more ancient tradition than that of the Canonical Gospels, then, undoubtedly, they would be "embarrassing" (in the scholarly sense of the word), because ...


[E1] would imply that Jesus was an ordinary man, conceived naturally, and that he became the "son" of God ONLY because and after "the Holy Spirit ... enter into him".


[E2] with its aptly placed quotation of Psalm 2:7, would underline that ONLY on the day of his Baptism the (merely natural) man Jesus became the "son" of God.


... and would be such that their absence form the Canonical Gospels could be interpreted along the lines of the Wikipedia comment [#]


Of course all this line of reasoning stands and falls on the essential assumption that the Gospel of the Ebionites, and in particular the tradition about the Baptism of Jesus reported in it, predates the tradition reported in the Canonical Gospels.


Is there ANY evidence to support this assumption? NONE ... ZILCH ...


... in fact it stands to reason that E1 and E2 were artful and deliberately distorting additions by the heretical Ebionites.


And with this the "baptismal embarrassment" has been reduced to smithereens ...


Perhaps the lady has realized, after all, what a boomerang was for her her integral quotation of Wikipedia > Biblical criticism >> Embarrassment ...


... and that is why she has carefully avoided commenting on the absence of E1 and E2 from the Canonical Gospels, which would indeed be "embarrassing" IF E1 and E2 were part of a more ancient tradition than that of the Canonical Gospels ...


Apr 29, 2012 -- 8:22AM, Adelphe wrote:

The "baptismal embarrassment" stands whether or not one includes the "Gospel of the Ebionites/Hebrews" for the simple reason that the sinless Jesus allows Himself to be baptized by John who is baptizing for the remission of sins.


And whence, exactly, would the lady infer that alleged sort of "baptismal embarrassment", as BOTH the "Gospel of the Ebionites/Hebrews" AND the Gospel of Matthew pre-empt and void it with ...


“Then John, falling down before Him, said, ‘I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!’ But Jesus forbade him saying, ‘Let it be so as it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.’” -- Epiphanius, Panarion 30:13 [Epiphanius, Panarion, Volume 1, Against Ebionites, section 13,8, page 130]


14 But John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?” 15 So Jesus replied to him, “Let it happen now, for it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John yielded to him. (Matt 3:14-15)


... near-identical sentences?


I would think even you could capice that, yes?


It is the lady who evidently has serious understanding problems ...


In fact, there's an entire thread on that on this very board here which proves the point.


The lady links generically to thread "John the Baptist and the forgiveness of sins" —with its 74 posts and 13 contributors ...— so God only knows what she thinks she means by "proves the point" ...


... what can be confidently affirmed and confirmed is that ...


[c1] Jesus recognized that John had the authority of preparing people, with his baptism of repentance, for the forgiveness that the Messiah would bestow upon them / earn for them [MdS, post #36]


Does this mean that Jesus recognized John's authority to forgive sins? NOPE!


Does this mean that there could be any "embarrassing" doubt that Jesus needed to repent of anything? NOPE!


Q.E.D.


LOL! guffaw! puleeze!


MdS




Truly astounding.


I've tried to educate you on this topic in about 10 posts, Ed a couple, and Dave a couple.


Do some outside reading on the topic and then come back on it--should you need to (and one would certainly hope you didn't.)


Start with Meier's A Marginal Jew:  Rethinking the Historical Jesus if you're (still) at a loss as to how Biblical Criticism works.




Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 4:12PM #39
Adelphe
Posts: 28,736

John Meier, "A prime example is the baptism of the supposedly superior and sinless Jesus by his supposed inferior, John the Baptist, who proclaimed ‘a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."


Michael Grant, "...renowned classicist Michael Grant reaches the same conclusion about Jesus’ baptism:


But the forgiveness of Jesus' own sins, when he was baptized by John, has set the theologians of subsequent centuries a conundrum. For how could Jesus have been baptized for the forgiveness of his own sins when, according to the Christology which developed after his death, he was divine and therefore sinless?


The embarrassment caused by this dilemma is enough to refute modern denials that the Baptist ever baptized Jesus at all. For, once again, the evangelists would have been only too glad to omit this perplexing event; but they could not."


christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/03/crit...


Embarassed


Best of luck.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 6:09PM #40
howiedds
Posts: 2,687

Adelphe:


Don't be distracted with a discussion of your example of embarrassment/dissimilarity as tool of Bible criticism. His attack on your baptism example was a red herring as you described. It redirected the discussion as he intended.


His focus on the emotion of embarrassment as the reason the technique is so named has little to do with the way the phrase is now used in Bible study. He knew full well that you did not mean the writers were literally embarrassed by the circumstances but only that they would not have recorded that which would have contradicted their message or complicated their account unless they could not avoid including them.


"Dissimilarity" has the advantage of not being misunderstood the way that "embarrassment" is misunderstood by the neophytes of Bible study. Since Miguel is not a neophyte, but quite experienced, I assume that he was saying "day" because you had said "night."


Give yourself a rest. Everyone knew what you meant.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook