Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Did Adam have a navel?

This is an interesting question, I think, which was proposed by one of the readers of this blog. My answer, which is of course, my own personal reflection, would be that he did not. To have a navel or belly button, would imply that one was born from a woman. Adam wasn't so therefore the implications are that he didn't have one.

"A navel is a scar on the abdomen, caused when the umbilical cord is removed from a newborn baby."- Wikipedia

My argument against Adam having one would be as follows:

1. Adam was never "born"
2. Adam was never "born" and thus never a baby or newborn.
3. Therefore, he couldn't have had a naval.

What do you guys think?

Sunday, November 28, 2010

NIV Letter on the Divine Name


You can click image to enlarge it.

A Rabbi on Pluralism

Q: In Genesis 1:26, God said ..."let us make man on our image". Yet in Genesis 1:27, G-d is referred to as a singularity. However again in Gen.11:5 and 7, God is referred to in the singular and plural respectively. Again in Deut. 6:4 both singular and plural references to God are used in the this verse. How do modern day Rabbis view the word Elohim which appears over 500 times from Genesis to Malachi?


A: Elohim does not denote the notion of plurality of "Persons" as many Christian thinkers have advocated for centuries. English and Hebrew are two distinctive languages, and they do not operate by the same laws of syntax. It is characteristic of the Hebrew language to express' extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as anything in the abstract by the plural form.


Ibn Ezra observed that in other Semitic languages, an inferior speaks to his superior in the plural. Such a form of address is what is known as "plural of majesty.'"This custom still persists even in modern countries like Britain, where the royal "we" is still commonly used which originates from the Bible! The significance of the plural form in the Hebrew usage suggests a plentitude of power and majesty (a pluralis excellentice) or of intensification, i.e., the superlative "God of gods," "the absolute highest God," "quintessence of all divine powers." Therefore we must say that the plural form of Elohim connotes the plural of fullness; God is truly is in the fullest sense of the word, God Almighty.


Elohim' when used, also represents God as he relates to all the creatures of the world at large. Elohim describes God as the Creator and Providential Ruler in the affairs of humankind, and controlling every movement of nature in accordance with the laws He established in nature


Now, let us examine the second part of your question: What is the meaning of "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen.1:26)


For the past 2000 years, commentaries wondered: "Why does God speak in the plural (us/our)? Why did he not say, "Let me make man in my image? Who was God speaking to? There are many answers to consider:


(a) "Let us" may convey a plural of majesty (Saadia), i.e., the English royal "we" see notes on Gen. 1:10.


(b) Some see in this expression, the plural of self-deliberation. God did not say, "Let the earth bring forth," as He did with other creatures; instead, Man was brought into being with careful planning. (Abarbanel)


(c) Others see it as a plural of the fullness of attributes and powers. (Keil & Delitsch)
(d) Philo of Alexandria, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Midrash, and Rashi were all of the view, God was speaking to His angelic host. By involving these beings in humankind's creation, God sought so to minimize any envy the angels might feel regarding humankind. Some modern scholars concur, for there are ample Biblical passages that would suggest that ancient Israelites were familiar with the notion that God took counsel with the heavenly host even though there is no clear-cut mention their creation in the early chapters of the Genesis creation narratives. Some of the ancient commentators see an allusion to the heavenly host"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts" (Gen. 2:1).


(e) Ramban and Kimchi were of the opinion that God was soliciting creation itself to participate in giving a part of themselves in the creation of man. Some modern scholars concur


(f) Those who argue a Trinitarian view of the Deity, are as nearly all modern Christian scholars reject this old polemical interpretation. One of today's finest Christian scholars, Victor Hamilton bluntly said that Christians who wish to read in this verse the presence of Trinity are in effect, "reading more into the text than was originally the intention and understanding of the Biblical writers."


With regard to your last question concerning So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God he created them (Gen. 1:27) Kimchi and Rashi both note that the plural of majesty is never said with verbs or pronouns, but only with nouns. Nothing you cited from the Zohar would indicate the contrary.


Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

'In Principio Erat Verbum': Sacred Texts in an Oral Culture

Ben Witherington wrote a helpful paper about intertexuality in oral culture and tradition. Read the paper here.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

A Case for the Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation

In this article, Andy Woods argues and successfully in my opinion, that Revelation has future fulfillment and not a past one as Preterists and Partial Preterists believe and argue. For instance, preterists generally argue that Revelation's use of "quickly," "at hand," "soon," "near," and "about to" surely indicate that John believed that the things described would occur immediately. That is why most preterists and partial preterists believe the book of Revelation was written in the 60's describing the fall of Jerusalem. However, Woods rightfully points out that the words translated as "quickly," "at hand," and other similar words can have a qualitative meaning as opposed to a chronological one. "In other words, when the action comes, it will come suddenly or with great rapidity." (p. 5)

For those interested in eschatology and the book of Revelation in general, see the article here.

Luke 23:43


From Codex B

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Third & Final Response

After citing the January, 1, 2011 Watchtower on page 14 where it states,
Still, someone may object, ‘But how could an all-wise God not have known?’ Granted, a facet of Jehovah’s great wisdom is his capability to know “from the beginning the finale.” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) However, he does not have to use this capability, just as he does not always have to use his immense power to the full. Jehovah wisely uses his ability of foreknowledge selectively. He uses it when it makes sense to do so and fits the circumstances
Keith says,
“Now here’s my question. If Jehovah God can wisely use his foreknowledge selectively, regarding Adam & Eve, then isn’t it also possible that Jesus could wisely use his foreknowledge selectively regarding the time of the end?” 

This is the question Keith asks in his video starting at 2:00.

I feel I’ve already addressed this question but apparently others feel I’ve “missed the point.” In turn, I feel they have ‘missed my point.’ I’ll point out what I’ve pointed out before: In order for Jesus to “use his foreknowledge selectively regarding the time of the end,” you have assume he has this capability in the first place. In order to assume he has this capability in the first place, you have to assume he is God.


Because of these two assumptions that are contingent on one another, and because the question assumes those two assumptions in its phrasing, that is why I pointed out it was circular reasoning, i.e., the conclusion is read back into the phrasing of the question.




Let the readers make of it what they will.

Friday, November 19, 2010

"We Are Star Dust"



Debate includes Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig and others.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Response to Keith Part 2


My response will be in blue, Keith's in Red and my new reply in black.


Ivan: Then by Trinitarian standards, one person of the Godhead has knowledge that the other two members don't. How is that even remotely compatible with the notion of the creeds that affirm that all persons of the polypersonal God are "co-equal" and "all knowing"?
Further, one must assume Trinitarianism in order to even suggest the question that Jesus has selective foreknowledge, or at least assume two natures. It's circular reasoning.
Keith: Of course I am assuming the Trinity is true. It is the only way to counter arguments AGAINST the Trinity. Plus, you are missing the point. If Jehovah can use His foreknowledge selectively, then why can't the Son? If Jehovah can do that and still be considered all knowing, then that refutes the argument that Jesus cannot be Deity because He doesn't know certain future events.
Ivan:  You admit circle reasoning in your argument ("assuming the Trinity is true), I'm curious as to why that doesn't give you reason to pause and re-evaluate your argument?
Keith: Circular reasoning is assuming the conclusion within a premise. I have not done that. You need to brush up on your logical fallacies. My argument is a RESPONSE to a bad argument which I will sum up in my next post.
Ivan: Sure you have. You even said "of course, I am assuming the Trinity is true," thus your premise that Jesus even has the capability of selective foreknowledge is based on circular reasoning and assumptions.

In order to say Jesus used selective foreknowledge you have to assume he is God.
Keith: I think the best way to get you to see that I am not using circular reasoning is to get you to look at the argument from my perspective. The basic argument is- Only God knows all things. Jesus does not know all things, therefore Jesus is not God.

How would you answer the argument if it was directed at Jehovah?
Only God knows all things. Jehovah does not know all things, therefore Jehovah is not God.
Try to answer that argument without assuming that Jehovah is God.
My Response: Is it not true that you assume Jesus has selective foreknowledge? Is it not also true that you assume he has this selective foreknowledge because he is God? I think you would answer in the affirmative to the 2 questions. If so, how is that not circular reasoning? You begin by assuming Jesus has this selective foreknowledge then proceed to ask if Jesus could use it. Of course he could use it if he were God. But we should not start with that assumption given that it assumes too much, that is, it assumes he's God from the outset without proof. 
You would have to prove that he is God first, then you can make your selective foreknowledge argument. 
"Petitio princippii [begging the question, aka, circular reasoning] is, therefore, committed when a proposition which requires proof is assume without proof." - James Welton, A Manual of Logic, page 279.
Here's what's going on Keith: You "assume without proof" that Jesus has this capability of selective foreknowledge. 
My argument: Jesus can't use "selective foreknowledge" because he doesn't have that ability.
You asked how I would answer the question or argument "Only God knows all things. Jehovah does not know all things, therefore Jehovah is not God" and I'm suppose to answer that argument without assuming Jehovah is God. 
Firstly, the statement that "Jehovah does not know all things" is not necessarily accurate. If it were true that Jehovah does not know all things, this would only be due to his use of choosing not to know. If he choose not to know a specific event and thus did not know all things as a result of that voluntary choosing, then it still does not follow that he is not God. It does not follow because the question or statement does not take into account that he can choose not to know. 
In other words, the premise of the question doesn't even get off the ground.

When Looking at the Evidence

"The evidence is what it is. If it is in your favor overwhelmingly, hold strongly. But if it is divided fairly evenly, hold your position in a non dogmatic way. If the evidence favors the other side, do not bend it until it leans your way."


I consider that quote to be true.

Discussion From a Video on YouTube

There's a video on YouTube that essentially asks the question: If Jehovah has selective foreknowledge, then why can't Jesus chose not to know the time of the end in Mark 13:32?

After considering to do a video response, because I had seen that argument advanced too often as of late, I opted for a comment and see how that would go:


I responded: Then by Trinitarian standards, one person of the Godhead has knowledge that the other two members don't. How is that even remotely compatible with the notion of the creeds that affirm that all persons of the polypersonal God are "co-equal" and all knowing? (see Athanasian Creed, #26)

Further, one must assume Trinitarianism in order to even suggest the question that Jesus has selective foreknowledge, or at least assume two natures. It's circular reasoning.

He respondedOf course I am assuming the Trinity is true. It is the only way to counter arguments AGAINST the Trinity. Plus, you are missing the point. If Jehovah can use His foreknowledge selectively, then why can't the Son? If Jehovah can do that and still be considered all knowing, then that refutes the argument that Jesus cannot be Deity because He doesn't know certain future events.

He admitted that he is assuming the Trinity is true in his argument trying to counter argue against a non-Trinitarian argument.
Begging the question-  Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as "being circular" or "circular reasoning"), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. (See the University of North Carolina's page on Logical Fallacies)
 Clearly, the question is applying circular reasoning. What is more, however, is that he is also basing his question on several faulty assumptions, namely:

1. He assumes Jesus has the ability or capability of selective foreknowledge without showing an ounce of evidence.
2. He assumes Jesus is God from the outset.
3. By his own admission, he assumes the Trinity is true and is the "only way" to argue for the Trinity.

We see then, the question and argument is not only faulty because it applies circular reasoning but also because it is based on several faulty assumptions.




Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Oral Tradition & The Gospels

In the previous post I listed reasons why the Jesus tradition wouldn't have been so corrupted to the point to where we couldn't prove fact from fiction, myth from history. However, with that said, there are still some issues with regards oral tradition.

Oral tradition has affect the gospels in many respects. Below I will list one example (with underline added):

(Mark 10:17-18) . . .And as he was going out on his way, a certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” 18 Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God. . .

(Luke 18:18-19) . . .And a certain ruler questioned him, saying: “Good Teacher, by doing what shall I inherit everlasting life?” 19 Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God. 

(Matthew 19:16-17) . . .Now, look! a certain one came up to him and said: “Teacher, what good must I do in order to get everlasting life?” 17 He said to him: “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is that is good. If, though, you want to enter into life, observe the commandments continually.” 

These are clearly parallel accounts, I don't think anyone would deny that. In Mark we see the man call Jesus, "Good Teacher," and the same is found in Luke. However in Matthew, the man doesn't call Jesus "Good Teacher" as he does in Mark and Luke. Jesus in Matthew doesn't ask, "Why do you call me good?" Rather, he asks, "Why do you ask me about what is good?"

Logic and common sense tells us that Jesus didn't say both things and that the man didn't call Jesus both things, though all three evangelists are portraying the same event. What truly did the Jesus of history say? 

I'm not suggesting this is a contradiction but I am suggesting this is due to the affects of oral tradition, oral tradition that we should accept for the good reasons we have to believe in its reliability. In a study by A. B. Lord, a fairly well known anthropologist, he conducted several important studies relevant to oral tradition. He studied Yugoslavian folk singers who would memorize stories of up to 100,000 words in length. Every time the folk singer would retell the story, the characters, the plot, the main events and most of the details to a large extent, stayed the same. There was only a 10% to a 40% variation in wording (which is 1000 to 4000 words) every time the story was told. 

Lord said the variations were due to (1) "saying the same things in fewer or more lines," (2) "adding details to the description," (3) "changes in order of sequence," (4) "addition of material found in texts of other singers," (5) and "omission of material."  Many of these variations is exactly what happens with the gospels. Not to mention, that if a folk singer got part of the story wrong, the community of listeners could have easily corrected the singer. In a similar manner, eyewitnesses and disciples could have corrected any fictitious story floating around. (see also Kenneth E. Bailey in "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels")

In comparison to the 100,000 word stories of the Yugoslavian folk singer, the New Testament has roughly 138,000 words in it. (see New Testament Statistics) We can see, then, that the New Testament but especially the Gospels, could have been memorized fairly accurately and not just by one person but by communities of individuals including the disciples themselves, as well as eyewitnesses

We can confidently conclude, then, that there may be variations within the gospels' wording of certain key events and that we may not know what the Historical Jesus said down to the exact letter, but those aren't reasons to reject the reliability of the Gospels. And chances are that one of the 4 Gospels does indeed have the Historical Jesus' original saying down to the letter or close to that. But we shouldn't worry if we have Jesus' words down to the letter, it is the overall central message of the event being described that matters.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Transience of Memory & the Gospels

A classic experiment on fast forgetting was carried out by Peterson and Peterson (1959). They asked participants to memorise a three-letter sequence, then count backwards in sets of threes. Participants were then asked to try and recall the three-letter sequence after different lengths of time counting backwards.
Participants did surprisingly poorly on this test. After only six seconds of counting backwards in threes, on average half of the original three letters had disappeared from memory. By the time participants had been counting backwards for 12 seconds, less than 15% of the original memory remained. Finally after 18 seconds it was all but gone.["How Quickly We Forget: The Transience of Memory," January, 2008]
Concerning the "classic experiment" by Lloyd Peterson, he stated "The evidence linked short-term retention with the acquisition process." [This Week's Citation Classic, September, 1982]

Many critics of the Bible have used similar arguments to suggest or imply that the Jesus tradition (that is, the oral tradition about Jesus before Matthew, Mark, and Luke penned their Gospels) was already severely distorted by the time the Evangelists set out to write their Gospels, which are really Graeco-Roman biographies. (see Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John & also The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.) 


In other words they are suggesting the Gospels are both, in some sense, history and myth to a certain extent. We are suppose to dig out the fact from fiction. (This has, over time, developed into the Historical Jesus studies, for which see Darrell Bock in Studying the Historical Jesus & also Craig Keener in The Historical Jesus of the Gospels). But there are several problems with this understanding of short-term memory and distortion of the Gospels. Of most importance, we need not forget that first century Palestine was an oral culture. That is, they were already accustomed for many centuries to recount history by means of oral tradition. They were quite capable of reproducing stories and histories fairly accurately.

Consider for example the 1959 study of Harald Riesenfeld entitled, "The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings."  In this study, Riesenfeld concluded that the passing and memorizing of oral tradition was much more rigid and complex than what critics had often alleged. He stated that Jesus probably made his disciples remember Jesus' most important sayings and teachings, a practice that was common in Rabbinic circles.

Riesenfeld's thesis was, of course, challenged given that Jesus was not like other Rabbi's so Riesenfeld's proposal was a bit off in that he compared Jesus to other Rabbis' form of teaching. It was simply an invalid comparison in some respects. However, a few years later came another scholar by the name of Rainer Riesner who, instead of proposing that Jesus adopted Rabbinic practices, focused on the educational methods used in Ancient Israel. He gave at least 6 good reasons how accurate information could be kept without having to memorize every single detail verbatim:

1. Jesus followed the practice of the Old Testament prophets by proclaiming the word of the Lord with the kind of authority that would have commanded respect and concern to safeguard that which was perceived as revelation from God.
2. The fact that Jesus presented himself as Messiah, even if in a sometimes veiled way, would reinforce his followers' concern to preserve his word, since one fairly consistent feature in an otherwise diverse body of first-century expectations was that the Messiah would be a teacher of wisdom.
3. The Gospels depict Jesus as just such a teacher of wisdom and phrase over 80% of his sayings in forms that would have been easy to rmember using memorable imagery and figures of speech much like those found in Hebrew poetry and in carefully preserved Middle-Eastern tradition more generally.
4. Elementary education for boys until at least the age of twelve was widely practised in Israel in Jesus' day, so texts like Acts 4:13 cannot mean that the disciples had no competence in reading, writing and memorization.
5. There is widespread evidence in the Gospels of Jesus commanding the Twelve to 'learn' specific lessons and to transmit what they learned to others, even before the end of his earthly ministry. In additioin to teh obvious missions of Mark 6:7-13 and parallels and Luke 10:1-17.
6. Almost all teachers in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman worlds gathered disciples around them in order to perpetuate their teachings and lifestyles. Thus, however different he was from the rabbis in other ways, Jesus probably resembled them in this respect.(see Craig Blomberg in The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, pp. 56-57)

Monday, November 15, 2010

Hebrews 1:1-3

I think Hebrews 1:1-3 is one of the more ignored passages in Christology. Not "ignored" in the sense that they don't receive attention in New Testament theologies and deity of Christ books, but "ignored" in the sense that they are often not addressed adequately. 

Below I will quote the verses from the Darby Translation:
God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;  who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having made by himself the purification of sins, set himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high,  
This text teaches us several things. Firstly, "God" is the one who has "spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets." Who is the "God" in verse 1? It is clearly the Father because later in verse 2 it continues on saying that this same "God" has "spoken to us in the person of the Son." Clearly, then, this "God" is the Father since he has a "Son." 

The obvious implication is critical: It is the Father who speaks in the Hebrew Scriptures. Whenever there's dialog between Moses and God, Abraham and God, Isaiah and God, and any other personage from the Hebrew Scriptures, it is always the Father. Never a Trinity, never the Son, never the Holy Spirit. But always the "God" who has a "Son." 

Continuing to verse 3, Darby translates the Greek term χαρακτὴρ as "expression" which more literally means "a mark or impression placed on an object" (see BDAG, Page 1077). At other times, and probably the most common usage of 'karacter' in early Greek literature outside the Bible, is used in reference to the imprints made to coins of images of emperors or rulers. Clearly, then, Jesus is the imprint or mark of God's "substance." I don't pretend to know what the author of Hebrews meant by "substance" but it is possible he was speaking ontologically. It is also possible he was speaking qualitatively. Whatever the case may be, what is clear is that there is a division or separation of "substance" between "God" and God's "imprint," in other words, His Son. 

If one is the "imprint" of another's "substance" it is clear that one had to come before the other, in this case, the  Father existed before the Son. Not only does the usage of χαρακτὴρ make this clear, but so do the terms "Father" and "Son." That is the most obvious and reasonable implication of the terms so used, though the most ignored.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Documentary

Documentary entitled, "Oh My God" is about  "worlds view of God, a man ventures around the globe asking people "what is god?" in their personal oppinion, the outcome is astonishing. "

Partial Book Review

Hello!

I've reviewed chapters 2 and 3 of Witherington's New Testament Theology and Ethics Volume 1:

http://ivanmonroy.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/the-indelible-image-the-theological-and-ethical-thought-world-of-the-new-testament-volume-1/

I may revise it later since I left out a lot of information but I just thought the review was too long and so I needed to shorten it up. (The book is massive!)

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Death of the Twelve Apostles

According to Christian tradition (not to be confused with "myth," for this same tradition gives us the name of our Gospels and the authorship of other anonymous documents in the NT):

  • Peter, crucified upside-down in Rome circa AD 64.
  • James, son of Zebedee was beheaded in AD 44, first of the twelve to die (since the addition of Matthias)
  • John, son of Zebedee, no biblical record of death, he is believed to have died of natural causes due to old age.
  • Andrew, Peter's brother, was crucified upon a diagonal or X-shaped cross.
  • Philip was crucified in AD 54.
  • Bartholomew (also known as Nathaniel) was flayed alive (skinned) and then beheaded; some sources locate his death at Derbend on the Caspian Sea.
  • Matthew killed by a halberd in AD 60.
  • Thomas was killed by a spear in Mylapore, Madras, India in AD 72.
  • James, son of Alphaeus, beaten to death with a club after being crucified and stoned.
  • Jude was crucified.
  • Simon the Zealot was crucified in AD 74.
  • Judas Iscariot, according to the gospels, hanged himself after betraying Jesus.
Replacement picked by the surviving eleven:
  • Matthias, Judas' replacement, was stoned and beheaded.
____________________________________________________________

Obviously, we can't always take Early Church tradition at face value but we should recall that tradition (again, not "myth") almost always comes from elements of truth (if not true its very self). I think Bartholomew got it worst of all the 12 (13). 

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

In my Western Civilization class

So, it's midnight and I'm working on finishing up my Western Civ. test and question number 36 reads as follows:

36. The Arian heresy asserted the concept

A. of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome
B. That Christ's nature lay between God and Humanity
C. That God and Christ were co-equals
D that the church was subordinate to the emperor

I find it odd and to a certain extant, offensive that either our professor or publishers of the test would straight out call Arians 'heretics.' Instead of being neutral or as unbiased as one could be, they call Arianism a "heresy" rather than state something such as, "the so called heresy..." or "considered a heresy by orthodox Christianity..."

Nope, they're not having none of that! Take that Arians!

I wonder, though, if the publishers of the test were Arians how this question would have been rephrased. Would they have worded the question differently? Like, "The truthfulness of Arianism teaches..." ?

Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable?

Dr. Mark Roberts in 2007 published a book entitled, Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and has recently published a blog series related to the same subject, " Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable?" I have not read it, but I'm sure it will make for a good read.

Matthew 24:3 and it's Parallels

(Matthew 24:3) . . .While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your Parousia and of the end of the age?”

(Luke 21:7) . . .Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are destined to occur?”

(Mark 13:4) . . .Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are destined to come to a conclusion?”

The phrases highlighted in red are exact parallels and specific questions related to the temple (in context). The word highlighted in purple, refers to a sign that would occur before the destruction of the temple in Luke and Mark. The same cannot be said for Matthew for he adds "Parousia" to his material that Luke and Mark don't. Could it be that Luke and Mark are interested in the Temple's destruction but Matthew interested in more than that? I can't say for sure, but that would be my opinion. 

Further, in Luke and Mark they specifically ask again when "these things" (highlighted in orange) would happen. Matthew doesn't add this second, "these things." Rather, he adds instead "the end of the age." I don't believe "the end of the age" is a different way of asking when "these things" would happen. For it if does, then the end of the age happened in 70CE and we are left with unresurrected loved ones and without a restored earth. 

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Friendship in Antiquity

"The ancient concept of friendship [philia] meant far more than just a feeling of being well disposed toward someone or, in this case [alluding to James 4:4], something. The ancient ideal of friendship waas close to what we today would say about a genuine marriage. Friendship involved sharing all things in a unity that involved both the spiritual and the physical. It is even said that true friends are mia pysche ("one soul") with each other (see Euripides, Orestes 1046; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1168B)."- Ben Witherington, The Indelible Image- The Theological Thought World of the New Testament (Downer's Grover: InterVarsity Press, 2009) Vol 1, page 324.

Matthew 24:34 and Preterism

Preterism is an eschatological framework that views most, if not all, of the Bible's prophecies as being complete in the year 70 CE. It is a very complex and difficult issue which i won't even attempt to deal with here. But I do want to bring to the attention of all the readers of this blog to a fairly controversial text:
(Matthew 24:34) . . .Truly I say to YOU that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur. 
Many preterists believe the phrase "this generation" must have been a reference to the disciples exclusively, since it was them that Jesus was addressing. Granted, this appears to be the most logical and rational interpretation of this text. However, the text says "this generation" wouldn't pass away or fade out "until all these things occur." All these things involves the whole Olivet discourse. In order to avoid Jesus from looking like a false prophet, they interpret this to, in essence, say 'You disciples will see all these signs leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and then I will come back.' So, in essence, Preterists view all Bible prophecies as fulfilled in 70, including the entire book of revelation. In fact, they believe the whole book of Revelation was written prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem. 

This sort of interpretation could in fact be convincing (if one were to analyzing the arguments they set forth). It has explanatory power. It works beautifully in interpreting these texts. It places the great tribulation as something past and not future. The "great crowd" of Revelation that walks out of the "great tribulation" are the Jews themselves that didn't die in 70 CE. Like I said, this framework has great explanatory power. But so much so in fact, that it literally explains you out of the Christian faith. That is, it skips over the resurrection of the dead and over Jehovah's plan for the earth. 

But in this entry I will contend that "this generation" need not be exclusively a first century generation that would witness the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.  We have to remember that Jesus was a Jew. We have to keep in mind Hebraisms. In Hebraic thought, many times they would 'totalitize' a concept, saying or audience. 

See for example Matt 23:35 where Jesus accuses the religious leaders of his day of murdering Abel and Zechariah. He even referred to them as "YOU," clearly indicating them as the audience, though we know it was not 'them' who killed them. This is the same sort of "YOU" Jesus uses in the Matt 24 discourse.

We also have many scriptures written to, by and for David that we later apply to Christ.The audience of the passages was David---always. However, we later apply them to Christ. In a similar manner, why can't Christ speak to the apostles in 33 CE of the things that must occur but be referring to something other than just a first century application? We do this with OT passages dealing with Christ all the time.



We have good reasons for believing that "this generation" isn't contingent on its first century context. That is, we have good reasons for believing that "this generation" wasn't only including the disciples of Jesus in 33 CE. Jesus could have easily 'totalitized' what he meant by "this generation" as he did in Matthew 23:35 in regards to the religious leaders of his day, though the religious leaders of his day didn't do what he said they did.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Is Jesus a True God or a False God?

I heard this fallacious argument from Trinitarians more than I can count. When will they realize that that question falls trap to the false dichotomy fallacy?

From the most authoritative encyclopedia ever created, the Mighty Wikipedia, says:
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options
And that's exactly what takes place. There are "in fact" "other options." For example, the text of Exodus 7:1 is fairly well known because in it Jehovah tells Moses that he has made him God. Trinitarians and others argue, 'yeah, but that's not to his nature.' You see, so they add or change the original point, and in fact this is another fallacy called Moving the Goalposts. Be that as it may, however, even if Moses isn't God as to "his nature," he is still God in another sense. In fact, this text demonstrates that Jehovah can make anyone whom he wants "God," in a Biblical sense, indeed, including Jesus!

Others have argued that Moses is a false God in this text, which in my opinion, is simply absurd. Exegetically, where do they get off on saying that aside from their preconceived notions?

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Inerrancy

*** it-1 p. 1206 Inspiration ***
"Absolute inerrancy is therefore to be attributed to the written Word of God. This is true of the original writings, none of which are known to exist today. The copies of those original writings and the translations made in many languages cannot lay claim to absolute accuracy. There is solid evidence and sound reason for believing, however, that the available manuscripts of the Sacred Scriptures do provide copies of the written Word of God in nearly exact form, the points in question having little bearing on the sense of the message conveyed. God’s own purpose in preparing the Sacred Scriptures and the inspired declaration that “the saying of Jehovah endures forever” give assurance that Jehovah God has preserved the internal integrity of the Scriptures through the centuries."

While Christians should claim "absolute inerrancy" in regards the "Word of God," it is also true that for the copies that we have of the Bible, we "cannot lay claim to absolute accuracy."

The question is: How can we claim absolute inerrancy for documents we have never seen? At best, all we have ever seen is copies with many errors in them. True, these copies through the science of textual criticism, can be shown to be fairly reliable, even extremely close to the original, however they're still not "inerrant." So it seems to me that we only assume there is such a thing as "inerrancy." It is somewhat of a hypothesis.

On the other side, however, we can claim inerrancy to the Bible given it was inspired by God. But even here, what do we mean by "inspired" ? Does it mean it is flawless?

On the other hand, is it necessary to claim something is "inerrant" because it is inspired? That is, does inerrancy demand inspiration? I think it does not.

Humans can be inerrant. While it is true that humans often fail and are wrong in many things, they are also "inerrant," that is, without error in many things. For example, I received a bank statement in the mail yesterday. The address and name on the envelope were "inerrant," that is, without flaw or error.

This is obviously a controversial subject and something that Christians have been dealing with for many decades, centuries even. More on this later.

(For books on the study of inerrancy see The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority Can I Trust the Bible? - Formally Explaining Inerrancy (Crucial Questions)Inerrancy and HermeneuticInerrancy)

Voices of Reason -- Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape

Is "Some of God" God?

Is "Some of God" God?

If it is the case that God is composed of three distinct but equal persons, that would mean that God "equals"
 all that makes each of the persons distinct from each other, the sum total of the persons. None of the persons in this model have the distinctions of the other persons. If they did, they would not be distinct. Since God would be all that makes each of the persons distinct but none of the persons shares this capacity or characteristic of God, then none of the persons could claim to be God. Each could claim to be an "aspect" of God but that would be different from being God. If God equals three distinct persons but each of the persons does not equal three distinct persons, then none of the persons could be God.


(Argument from Hal Flemings in "The Difficulties With The Trinity - From The Philosophical Side")