tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7117575103421360823..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Ugly Duckling of OrthodoxyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8415054211529520272007-08-26T13:31:00.000-04:002007-08-26T13:31:00.000-04:00"Looks like the protestants here, devoid of a good..."Looks like the protestants here, devoid of a good argument are just<BR/>going to censor out everything I write."<BR/><BR/>That's because you've already wrote it. It's nothing new, and it has been answered several times already.<BR/><BR/>Steve has rules for comments on this blog that prohibit using the same stock objections that have been refuted time and again. If you want to keep using those objections, answer the refutations. If not, don't post. Make your case instead of using ipse dixits.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25918037354333183742007-08-26T01:16:00.000-04:002007-08-26T01:16:00.000-04:00I posted a response to Perry here:http://contra-ge...I posted a response to Perry here:<BR/>http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2007/08/response-to-perry-robinson-on-john-6.html <BR/><BR/>Also, I have a lengthy exegesis of John 6:26-66 posted here:<BR/>http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2007/08/exegesis-of-john-626-66.htmlSaint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27859220998008795112007-08-25T13:21:00.000-04:002007-08-25T13:21:00.000-04:00Notice, too, that Orthodox will appeal to historic...Notice, too, that Orthodox will appeal to historical evidence when he thinks it supports his position, yet will object to how difficult it would be for people to think through historical issues when Protestants appeal to historical evidence. If it’s too difficult for people to follow the historical evidence for the canonicity of a book of the Bible or the evidence for a particular interpretation of scripture, then it’s also too difficult for people to follow the historical arguments for Eastern Orthodoxy. Orthodox’s selective fideism doesn’t make sense.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63541369340896368342007-08-25T10:01:00.000-04:002007-08-25T10:01:00.000-04:00orthodox said...“LOL, so what is the point of the ...orthodox said...<BR/><BR/>“LOL, so what is the point of the creed if you feel free to interpret it contrary to intent?”<BR/><BR/>This is a perfect illustration of the childish mentality I was critiquing in my reply to Robinson. Let’s expand on this childish mentality with some comparable examples:<BR/><BR/>1.An errant shepherd defeats the purpose of having a shepherd in the first place. Therefore, all bishops are inerrant.<BR/><BR/>2.A collapsible bridge defeats the purpose of having a bridge in the first place. Therefore, God would not permit us to construct a structurally unsound bridge.<BR/><BR/>3.A plane crash defeats the purpose of having an airplane in the first place. Therefore, God has guaranteed that all airplanes are crash-proof.<BR/><BR/>“But Presbyterians use the Jerusalem council where the whole church got together in council as a lynch pin for Presbyterian polity. So by saying that one Presbytery should have no qualms abandoning part of the Presbyterian creed, they are actually saying that they are not one church with the other Presbyterian churches.”<BR/><BR/>Presbyterians never made infallibility a criterion of the true church. So the inference is palpably fallacious.<BR/><BR/>“Plymouth Brethren being a group with no ministers or pastors. But does Pat put himself at either end of this false dichotomy? Is he either in the plymouth brethren, or does he on the other hand consider the elders in his church as infallible popes?”<BR/><BR/>Notice that Orthodox is punting to Patrick because he (Orthodox) is unable to resolve the fundamental tension in EO polity.<BR/><BR/>“But the delegates at Florence signed off subject to the agreement of the folks back home.”<BR/><BR/>The “folks back home”? If the laity can overrule the hierarchy, then the laity has more authority than the hierarchy, in which case you don’t have a hierarchical chain of command. So why not be consistent and join the Plymouth Brethren?<BR/><BR/>“LOL, do any reformed denominations have the guts to officially rule on this either way?”<BR/><BR/>Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Reformed denominations are “gutless” on this point, how about the gutless behavior of the hierarchs at the council of Florence? If gutless behavior invalidates Reformed ecclesiology, then it equally invalidates Orthodox ecclesiology.<BR/><BR/>“Which all assumes of course that God intends for us to look for the evidence of every book and part of book in the sands of history instead of looking to the pillar of the truth, the organization through whom God said that his wisdom is to be made known (Eph 3:10)”<BR/><BR/>i) The Bible is, itself, a historical revelation.<BR/><BR/>ii) I explicitly said in my reply to Robinson that historical evidence is not the only line of evidence.<BR/><BR/>iii) I’ve corrected Orthodox many times on his abuse of 1 Tim 3:15. And I’ve corrected MG on his misinterpretation of Eph 3:10—a misinterpretation which Orthodox reiterates.<BR/><BR/>“Pat doesn't tell us what his criteria for practical is.”<BR/><BR/>Notice, once more, that Orthodox punts to Patrick because he can’t answer the question in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy. That’s a tacit admission that his own position is indefensible.<BR/><BR/>“One would think that a church having survived for 2000 years and be more united now than it was 1500 years ago…”<BR/><BR/>All assertion, zero argument.<BR/><BR/>“A rule of faith spawning hundreds of denominations as being impractical. Apparently because Pat can't figure it out, it can't be practical. Not a very good criteria.”<BR/><BR/>Sola Scriptura serves the purpose that God assigned it. Indeed, the word of God has more than one purpose.<BR/><BR/>For example, God commanded the preexilic prophets to forewarn Israel of the impending Exile. Yet the mission of the prophets was doomed to “fail” since the Exile was inevitable. Was that practical? <BR/><BR/>“And if someone were to convince me that the Church decending from the apostles…”<BR/><BR/>Begs the question.<BR/><BR/>“I would just as well stick with the Church that at the very least take's Christ's admonition to be One seriously…”<BR/><BR/>Begs the question of where to find the one true church. Also turns on a tendentious interpretation of the Scripture verses to which he alludes.<BR/><BR/>All Orthodox has done from start to finish is to express his groundless opinions.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58859165354358448562007-08-25T09:27:00.000-04:002007-08-25T09:27:00.000-04:00Due to his incorrigible abuse of the combox, the t...Due to his incorrigible abuse of the combox, the team members of T-blog have decided to ban Orthodox from our blog. Subsequent comments by Orthodox will be summarily deleted. For further explanation, see rule #4 of the Rules of Engagement (upper sidebar).stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2918680811317613312007-08-24T21:14:00.000-04:002007-08-24T21:14:00.000-04:00gene,yup, i will contact levenson. we'll have a li...gene,<BR/><BR/>yup, i will contact levenson. we'll have a little discussion.Aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04226017144967122488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46979055827515806532007-08-24T21:04:00.000-04:002007-08-24T21:04:00.000-04:00Apolonio,You said, "I can't say I read the whole t...Apolonio,<BR/><BR/>You said, "I can't say I read the whole thing but..."<BR/><BR/>Here's what you need to do: read the links. That's what footnotes are for. <BR/><BR/>You have a nasty habit of running around the internet and giving people lectures and then, when the chips are cashed in, we find you've not done your homework. <BR/><BR/>I am WELL aware of what you say - but if you'd bother to do your homework, you'd know this is addressed.<BR/><BR/>I've been cozy with the Jewish community for many years. You don't need to lecture me. What you do need to do is read the material. Take it up with Levenson and Rodkinson. You could also take a look at Nolland's footnotes.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32058277720897648252007-08-24T20:56:00.000-04:002007-08-24T20:56:00.000-04:00Apolonio said:---i worked with a jewish scholar on...Apolonio said:<BR/>---<BR/>i worked with a jewish scholar on some aspects of second temple judaism and i can say directly and personally that using rabbinic texts for looking at how, say, the first century Jews looked at the world is anachronistic. <BR/>---<BR/><BR/>A little criticism. I can't say I read the whole thing but something that caught my eye was that Gene referred to some sources for his arguments. I realize that you have your argument from authority and personal testamony in response, but have you looked through the sources to see what they said yet?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56534541476284825442007-08-24T20:53:00.000-04:002007-08-24T20:53:00.000-04:00Patrick,C'mon, I was trying to be charitable since...Patrick,<BR/><BR/>C'mon, I was trying to be charitable since CC thinks I'm too mean and all.<BR/><BR/>Although that brings up a moral dilemma. Is it better to focus on someone's physical handicap (color-blindness) or mental handicap (brain damage) to try to excuse their mistake? Urgh, I just can't figure this PC stuff out anymore....Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-181113638584603912007-08-24T20:49:00.000-04:002007-08-24T20:49:00.000-04:00Hey Gene and Peter,Hm, maybe Orthodox isn't just i...Hey Gene and Peter,<BR/><BR/>Hm, maybe Orthodox isn't just illiterate, but he's color blind, too? :-)<BR/><BR/>Or possibly just lazy?<BR/><BR/>In any case, Orthodox is either illiterate or lazy. So, yeah, it's really hard to take the guy seriously. Not to mention because, if memory serves, this isn't the first time he's mistaken the author of a post.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7130869727751693612007-08-24T20:36:00.001-04:002007-08-24T20:36:00.001-04:00gene,i worked with a jewish scholar on some aspect...gene,<BR/><BR/>i worked with a jewish scholar on some aspects of second temple judaism and i can say directly and personally that using rabbinic texts for looking at how, say, the first century Jews looked at the world is anachronistic. it may have "codified" traditions but we only know that by actually looking at the second temple texts. there are many developments after the temple was destroyed that looking at rabbinic texts is, again, anachronistic. i mean, there is the notion that the rabbis came from the pharisees which could be disputed. there is also the effect of the temple being destroyed that could have changed their eschatology. to simply say, "the rabbis believe this, the pharisses probably believed this" is simply wrong. the whole practice of rabbis is unknown of, except of course, the qumran community who focused on the study of the law. try to write for a peer-reviewed article on second temple judaism while using rabbinic materials and it will either be rejected or they will give you the criticism i have given. that is why looking at rabbinic texts to see the historical Jesus better is a big mistaken, for example. and that is, again, the weakness of Sanders.Aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04226017144967122488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41122366412304421802007-08-24T20:36:00.000-04:002007-08-24T20:36:00.000-04:00Gene,I think it was the whole "Perry Robinson's wo...Gene,<BR/><BR/>I think it was the whole "Perry Robinson's words are in blue and indented. Steve's words are in plain text. And Gene's words are in green." that threw Orthodox there.<BR/><BR/>Give him a break. How was he to know Patrick didn't write this? >:-DPeter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22672286481604361462007-08-24T20:18:00.000-04:002007-08-24T20:18:00.000-04:00Orthodox must be terminally illiterate. Patrick is...Orthodox must be terminally illiterate. Patrick is not the author of this post. Why should we take anything he says here seriously when he can't get that much correct?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86656696124136593892007-08-24T20:16:00.000-04:002007-08-24T20:16:00.000-04:00A little criticism. I can't say I read the whole t...<I>A little criticism. I can't say I read the whole thing but something that caught my eye was using the Talmud to show that the Jews believed that passage referred to the resurrection. I thought the issue at hand was second temple Jews. If that is the case, then the Talmud is definitely not the place where you look. That is the weakness, for example, of E.P. Sander's monumental book on Paul. It may be that the Talmud teaches covenantal monism, but you cannot say that because the Talmud says that, that is how 2nd temple Jews understood it. Now, using 4 Mac. it better because that is a second temple source.</I><BR/><BR/>The Talmud did arise after Christianity.<BR/><BR/>However, it codifies traditions that reach back beyond the time it was codified.<BR/><BR/>Further, if you'll go through the material in the links above, you'll find your concerns are addressed rather fully.<BR/><BR/>In short, the Pharisees made this argument from inference. They also used passages like Daniel and then applied them to the Law. As times changed, and Christianity went further, they moved from argument by inference to argument by grammar, though it seems one can find argument by grammar in the earlier literature as well. Again, this is all covered in the sources noted above.<BR/><BR/>For example, the view of the Patriarchs as containing the seed of all Israel and this text in relation to God's covenantal promises occurs in rabbinic Judaism, but it is also part of 2nd Temple Judaism, for it is to this that the author of Hebrews makes reference in his discussion of Aaron paying tribute to Melchizedek via Abraham.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28971835799465057682007-08-24T19:37:00.000-04:002007-08-24T19:37:00.000-04:00Wonderful response.Would it be too much to ask to ...Wonderful response.<BR/><BR/>Would it be too much to ask to deal with his post against White?<BR/><BR/>http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/these-arent-the-droids-youre-looking-for-james-white-and-john-639/#more-139<BR/><BR/>You guys are doing a great service here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47937141659270545662007-08-24T19:14:00.000-04:002007-08-24T19:14:00.000-04:00oh by the way, if it is not second temple Judaism ...oh by the way, if it is not second temple Judaism that you guys are talking about (which I thought it is because of the Gospel context) then disregard my comment.Aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04226017144967122488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72464424551809036992007-08-24T19:13:00.000-04:002007-08-24T19:13:00.000-04:00A little criticism. I can't say I read the whole t...A little criticism. I can't say I read the whole thing but something that caught my eye was using the Talmud to show that the Jews believed that passage referred to the resurrection. I thought the issue at hand was second temple Jews. If that is the case, then the Talmud is definitely not the place where you look. That is the weakness, for example, of E.P. Sander's monumental book on Paul. It may be that the Talmud teaches covenantal monism, but you cannot say that because the Talmud says that, that is how 2nd temple Jews understood it. Now, using 4 Mac. it better because that is a second temple source.Aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04226017144967122488noreply@blogger.com