Post Reply
Page 84 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 Next
2 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2012 - 8:36AM #831
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

Jun 25, 2012 -- 3:43PM, jlb32168 wrote:

The text in the first citation says, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”  Then Christ says, “I am the Good Shepherd”.  The text seems pretty clear, Christ says that only God was good and then Christ says He’s good.  The logic goes: “Only God is good.  I am good; therefore, I am God.”  As I said, you change the evidence to comport with your argument when you should be doing vice versa.


As usual, when it comes to quoting, jlb32168 resorts to half truths. 


The adjective translated with the English "good" in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 is agathos, which, in Greek, means "good" in an ethical sense.


The adjective translated with the English "good" in John 10:1-21 (Jesus as the Good Shepherd) is kalos (see John 10:11,14, where the adjective is repeated three times) which, in Greek, and certainly in this context, means something closer to the English "clever": someone who does his job well, to the point of committing his life to it, for the sake of his charges.


BTW, here’s another case I forgot.   Christ said, “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” in Mark 2:28, but the Hebrew Scriptures say that God alone is Lord over his own Sabbath, “For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work; it is a Sabbath to YHWH in all your dwellings.” Leviticus 23:3  The only way that Christ could be Lord over the Sabbath is if he is God, and yet to be God is to be absolutely good.  Your charge of incompatibility is void.


Here is another case of quote mining, where the absence of context (Mark 2:23-28) makes it appear as though Jesus has not argued for his reformation of the apparently absolute command contained in Lev 23:3, and the even sterner command given in Ex 35:2-3.


Here is another case.  Jesus enters a synagogue and a man possessed by an evil spirit shrieks, “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are - the Holy One of God!”  Isaiah/Esaias, which is in the Hebrew Scriptures says, “ "I am the YHWH, your Holy One (Hakadosh)...." Isaiah 43:15”


Here is another case of superficial exegesis. 


The expression "the holy one of God" (Greek: ho hagios tou theou), that we find, identical and in the same context, in Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34 cannot be read pretending that the qualifier/complement "of God" wasn't there.


If the Father is God and the Son is God, which certainly seems to be the belief of many who are writing the NT, and the Spirit is God (you've not addressed the twelve times Spirit of God appears in the NT) then the Trinity seems to be plausibly inferrable.


Yeah, unfortunately this only works if one pretends that Spirit of God is one and the same as (the unscriptural) god-the-spirit ...


BTW, can you please address the fact that Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian are writing about the Trinity hundreds of miles apart, in two different languages, at the same time, and yet Theophilus supposedly created the theology.


Theophilus of Antioch (died c. 181-185 AD) and Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD) are hardly "contemporaries" in the sense of belonging to the same generation.


Besides, while Tertullian explicitly adopts the formula that will later become the hallmark of "orthodoxy", "three Persons, one Substance", Theophilus loosely refers to a "trinity" (more properly, "triad") of "God, and His Word, and His wisdom" in the context of his exegesis of the First Chapter of Genesis (Apologia ad Autolycum, Book II, Chapter 15).


MdS

Moderated by Adelphe on Jun 29, 2012 - 07:58AM
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  ::  Jun 26, 2012 - 10:41AM #832
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,073

Jun 25, 2012 -- 7:21PM, Kwinters wrote:


Jun 25, 2012 -- 6:41PM, tfvespasianus wrote:


Jun 25, 2012 -- 11:20AM, Kwinters wrote:


I think we would all agree that what the historical Jesus said about himself holds far more weight than what an unknown author post 2 CE wrote about him.




Personally, I don't take it as granted in my interpretation that the gospels unamibiguously represent the verbatim words of a historical Jesus. I know that some people belive that they do, but that is really more about belief. Similarly, the Revelation of John does represent an early christian belief about Jesus. In my opinion, a good portion of this is at least as old as the synoptic tradition, if not a bit older.




Nor did I ever.  I identified those passages which are plausibly traced, those that can be considered probable and those that can be discounted.


And I would like to see your evidence that Rev can be dated to early theology on par with Mark.




My apologies, I misunderstood you as the quote above seems to imply taking certain quotes from the gospels and attributing them to Jesus based on a hermenutic ala Jefferson and valuing those over writings which appear to many to be earlier records of ideas about Jesus.


In any case, Revelation is, like many documents in the NT corpus, a composite document. According to many critics, it is a redaction of earlier writings some of which have been theorized to be purely Jewish in origin. This makes sense for reasons several including the wide use of [non-christian] non-canonical and intra-testamental literature (e.g. Enoch). Additonally, 11:1-2 would appear to be an early strata of the document in that it says that the Temple will be spared from a Jerusalem that is trod under the foot of the heathen, implyng a pre-70 date for composition.



However, much of the case for 'early' origin is predicated upon assumptions which I think you are not that ammenable to. That is, if we assume an early date for the epistles (at least pre-Markan), then we can assume a similar early date for Revelation based on a similar (but not the same) concept of Jesus. It has been widely noted that historical and biographical detail of Jesus is missing from the epistles (I know there are exceptions and I am leaving them aside for the sake of brevity). In a similar vein, Rev. contains very little biographical information and, from a critical prespective, the author seems unaware of the same. For example, in 11:11-12 it is 'witnesses' or 'prophets' that are slain in Jerusalem the rise again from the dead in three (and a half) days without comment (i.e. it does not appear to be an allusion to the gospels, but perhaps is a re-worked reference to Hosea). Thus, if we accept that the authors of the epistles and Rev. make extensive, complex use of intra-testamental literature and the OT (as they both undoubtedly do), we next examine the writings of perhaps the oldest of Christian commentators, Clement. This is already both too long, yet not detailed enough to be of use, but it suffices to say that Clement too evinces very little knowledge of the 'gospel story'. It is not simply a matter of 'argument from silence' as is often argued, for it is the case that Clement makes no use of gospel examples when they would clearly be of excellent use in the context, but rather appeals to the OT. As we move on to Igantius and Polycarp (i.e. ascending chronology) we see that 'historical/biograhpical' (i.e. allusions to gospel material) increases uniformly (i.e. Ignatius has more than Clement, Polycarp more than both). So, in the views of some, it takes a peculiar form of apologetics to place the gospels in general (and the post-Markan sayings, nativity and post-Resurrection appearances in particular) as repesenting an earlier stratum of belief than Christ as a transcendental, exalted being.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2012 - 10:58AM #833
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,073

Jun 25, 2012 -- 9:52AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


TFV


Jun 25, 2012 -- 7:58AM, tfvespasianus wrote:

... Davidson's New Bible Commentary raises the important point that in Rev. "the application to Christ of the attributes of God is a constant phenomenon in this book". Thus the author sees one like a son of man, with white hair like the ancient of days, feet that shine like brass, and a voice like rushing waters. The allusions are from Daniel and Ezekiel and imply divinity. Putting aside the validity of the claims of Rev., it surely has to be conceded that the work pre-dates 180. Moreover, to posit that the son of man figure is something other than Jesus is not tenable.


No objection to all the above.


But you omit to say that Jesus, unquestionably represented as the Lamb, throughout Revelation is presented as distinct from "him who is seated on the throne" (Rev 6:16), "God who sits on the throne" (Rev 7:10), "his Father" (Rev 14:1), "Lord God the Almighty" (Rev 21:22) ...


MdS




MdS,


What I am about to write may be of little use to you, but recall that none of this material is a subject of dogmatism for me as I am not a believer. Briefly, I certainly make no claim to have 'figured it out', but I do like thinking on the problem(s).


Yes, I do see that the Lamb and the enthroned Lord are separate, but I think the theology is complex. For example, and I know you are aware of this, The Lamb is by no means ordinary for it posseses seven Horns (a symbol of Power and royal dignity) and seven eyes (interpreted by some as signifying the omniscience of the Lord per Zech 4:10), seven being taken as something like a complete measure (perfection?). Of course, the interpretations of the implications of these symbolic elements has lead to many controversies thorughout the early church (and continuing till now as you, again, are well aware) and I for one am presently unwilling to stake a great deal on any single point-of-view. That is not to say I cannot be persuaded or that I think that all interpretations are equally valid.



Take care,


TFV



p.s. I hope to have a little about the Didache tomorrow, but is honestly fairly pithy.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2012 - 4:53PM #834
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

TFV


Jun 26, 2012 -- 10:58AM, tfvespasianus wrote:

Yes, I do see that the Lamb and the enthroned Lord are separate, but I think the theology is complex. For example, and I know you are aware of this, The Lamb is by no means ordinary for it posseses seven Horns (a symbol of Power and royal dignity) and seven eyes (interpreted by some as signifying the omniscience of the Lord per Zech 4:10), seven being taken as something like a complete measure (perfection?). Of course, the interpretations of the implications of these symbolic elements has lead to many controversies thorughout the early church (and continuing till now as you, again, are well aware) and I for one am presently unwilling to stake a great deal on any single point-of-view. That is not to say I cannot be persuaded or that I think that all interpretations are equally valid.


You are obviously referring to this verse ...


Then I saw standing in the middle of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the middle of the elders, a Lamb that appeared to have been killed. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. (Rev 5:6)


... but I do not see how it would prove anything: of course the Lamb, Jesus, being "the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15) repeats most of God's features (see Rev 4:5).


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  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 9:47AM #835
Blü
Posts: 24,965

tfv


if we are allowing for supernatural entities as part and parcel of the argument are we really going to quibble that the mechanics of a god and a theophany are too abstruse?


The question is what can be plausibly inferred, which (it seems more fair than not to say)  traps the question in a cage of reason, no?


the begged question of believing that any divine entity is "irrational"


Rather, I suggest it points to the question of how close the proposed plausible reading is to the text.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 9:50AM #836
Blü
Posts: 24,965

Mario


You are insisting with your attribution to the Catholic Encyclopedia of some supposed claim that "the Trinity is irrational ie a nonsense".


Indeed I am.  

First, I don't mind the brains of the Vatican explaining something clearly and rationally.  But when they tell us that while it's not clear and it's not rational, it's okay by them so we just better suck it up, I very reasonably reply, Phooey!

Second, with that in mind, what important difference do you find between the following?

it's termed a 'mystery'
because human reason can't derive it
so it can only be known through revelation
and reason can make no cogent demonstration of it after it's revealed.

it's termed a 'nonsense'
because human reason can't derive it
so it can only be known through revelation
and reason can make no cogent demonstration of it after it's revealed.

?


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 10:14AM #837
Blü
Posts: 24,965

jlb


“the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath”


And of the dance, the pleasant little song tells us.

In Mark Jesus calls himself 'Lord' as in your example and 5:19, and arguably 11:3 though it makes equal sense if it refers to Yahweh.

He calls Yahweh 'Lord' 11:9, 12:11, 12:29-30, 12:36-37 and 13:20.

The Greek woman calls him 'Lord' 7:28. likewise the author of the forged ending 16:19.

So κύριος (as regards his own claim about the Sabbath) is a claim literally of ownership, more generally as having power over it; and κύριε (the vocative) 'Lord' is simply a respectful form of address - 'lord, 'master, sir', in classical, koine and modern Greek.  Nothing special about its use,


You can check the other gospels for yourself.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 10:54AM #838
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

Blü


Jun 27, 2012 -- 9:50AM, Blü wrote:

Jun 25, 2012 -- 10:17AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Jun 25, 2012 -- 9:46AM, Blü wrote:

... the Catholic Encyclopedia confirms [see OP], that the Trinity is irrational ie a nonsense.


You are insisting with your attribution to the Catholic Encyclopedia of some supposed claim that "the Trinity is irrational ie a nonsense".


While I have always affirmed that the "trinity" is a late, un-scriptural, heathen-philosophical "retrofit", I have already put straight your abusive claim with MdS' post #620 ...


... and I'm not aware that you've ever replied directly to it: in particular you've never taken issue with my debunking of your abusive claim ...


Indeed I am [insisting].  

First, I don't mind the brains of the Vatican explaining something clearly and rationally.  But when they tell us that while it's not clear and it's not rational, it's okay by them so we just better suck it up, I very reasonably reply, Phooey!

Second, with that in mind, what important difference do you find between the following?

it's termed a 'mystery'
because human reason can't derive it
so it can only be known through revelation
and reason can make no cogent demonstration of it after it's revealed.

it's termed a 'nonsense'
because human reason can't derive it
so it can only be known through revelation
and reason can make no cogent demonstration of it after it's revealed.


First, if you "don't mind the brains of the Vatican explaining something clearly and rationally", then you should stop citing them as though they had said what you attribute to them.


Second, what they said, even if you obviously do not get it (or pretend not to get it ...), is that the office of Reason is NOT to derive all reality from "first principles", BUT to exclude what is contrary to Reason. This they have done with the following sentence ...


As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do. (...) -- Catholic Encyclopedia > The Blessed Trinity > The Trinity as a mystery [bolding by MdS]


... from the very article on whose authority you abusively lean.


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  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:06AM #839
Blü
Posts: 24,965

Mario


As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do. (...) -- Catholic Encyclopedia > The Blessed Trinity > The Trinity as a mystery [bolding by MdS]


But all 'mysteries' are invented by humans.  (With the Trinity, the very human political imperative is particularly transparent.)


And the duty of humans, including humans who purport to speak for gods, is to justify their claims by reasoning from evidence.  Your quote appears to claim that no, it's sufficient to assert Donald Duck is God and when questioned on it, reply, So disprove it.  To such a reply  the correct answer remains, Don't be silly!


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:19AM #840
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

Blü


I see that you have eventually stopped citing the Catholic Encyclopedia as though it affirmed what you attribute to them, on the meaning of the notion of "mystery".


As for your claim that "all 'mysteries' are invented by humans" you are perfectly entitled to ... claiming this ... but it would be a tad far-fetched to insist that it is self evident, nu?


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
Page 84 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook