tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00TriablogueRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger93692125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66900603185247371622024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:002024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Already addressed here.Already addressed <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-response-to-bart-ehrmans-webinar.html?showComment=1702323126237#c5513625060839261822" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46077348023866651432024-03-14T12:16:05.171-04:002024-03-14T12:16:05.171-04:00Jesus' childhood accounts come from eyewitness...Jesus' childhood accounts come from eyewitnesses Luke tells us. I wonder who could have been the only eyewitness to the material in Luke 1-3?Alex Krausehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906958553755021247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87633638150434004612024-03-09T13:57:05.974-05:002024-03-09T13:57:05.974-05:00I am not a blog Matt. 11:11
Verily I...I am not a blog Matt. 11:11 <br />Verily I say unto you, among them that are born to a woman there has not risen a greater than John the baptist: ........ Jesus proclaimed that John was greater than Mary. He slams shut the door on any form of veneration of Mary. I am not a bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01866674549480354572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70958599933615417912024-02-28T22:36:37.884-05:002024-02-28T22:36:37.884-05:00Pt. 3:
And contrary to the Catholic model, the ch...Pt. 3:<br /><br />And contrary to the Catholic model, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8;Ex. 19:5;Lv. 10:11;Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13;Ps, 11:4,9;Is. 41:10,Ps. 89:33, 34;Jer. 7:23)<br /><br />And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. <br /><br /> Yet which does not negate church authority, which is affirmed sola scriptura , as Westminster states, "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience;determine the same..." - The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) <br /><br />But not as possessing the novel and unscriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) of office, under which she asserts she is and will be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And also presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals. <br /><br />Instead, the veracity of a Bible Christian rests upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which is how the NT church began, though it be but a remnant. PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61222879035120238302024-02-28T22:36:21.613-05:002024-02-28T22:36:21.613-05:00Pt. 2: As expressed, the basic issue here is one o...Pt. 2: As expressed, the basic issue here is one of authority.<br /><br />The premise in Catholicism is that it is the sure, supreme, sufficient authority on Divine Truth, with Manning stating the RC presumption quite brashly in asserting:<br /><br /> " I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.... " "The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, pp. 227-228)<br /> <br />However, the question should be asked, "how were men and writings established as being of God before there arose a church which presumed that she was essential for souls to assuredly know what is of God, and exclude those which she decrees are not. <br /><br />For as said before, the latter is indeed the Catholic premise, and thus her apologists illogically argue that since we hold to the Bible (due to her being historical discerners and stewards of the sacred writings) then we must concur with sall the other judgments of Rome. <br /><br />However, as stated before, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture," which, as with prophets such as John the baptizer, were established as being of God essentially due to their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation.<br /><br />Thus, when the Lord's own authority was challenged by those who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) then then they were faced with the problem of the people overall recognizing John as being "a prophet indeed." (Mark 11:27-32) <br />PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80243540400228786352024-02-28T21:40:27.825-05:002024-02-28T21:40:27.825-05:00Catholic apologists make the establishment of a ca... Catholic apologists make the establishment of a canon an issue is due to the RC premise that their One True Church (RC or EO, or other cults) is the sure supreme sufficient standard for Truth, with the express Word of God only consisting of and authoritatively meaning what she says. <br /><br />Under which premise she asserts just that,<br /><br /> "The “believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium) "People cannot discover the contents of revelation…They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."(Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72) <br /><br />Thus, to avoid circularity, in RC theology, she states, "when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources... - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility" <br /><br />Meaning that it is presumed that one cannot discern what Scripture consists of, but such can discern that the church of Rome (or the EO) is of God, and thereby know what God's word consists of. Which as in the case of the Assumption, can mean whatever developed much later. <br /><br />Thus, the real issue behind the establishment of the canon is just what is the sure, supreme sufficient standard of Truth in faith and morals. <br /><br />And which is clearly Scripture, for long before there was a church, as a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, (Christ Himself referred to, "all the Scriptures") <br /><br />And which body provided the epistemological prophetic and doctrinal foundation for the NT, which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to. (Luke 24:27.44,45)<br /><br />For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;<br /><br />And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa. <br /><br />Moreover, contrary to Catholic pretensions of oral apostolic oral tradition, while men such as the apostles who could speak as well as write as wholly inspired-of-God, Catholic theology does not consider that popes and Catholic ecumenical councils do so in declaring oral tradition to be the Deposit of faith/the word of God.<br /><br />And distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (http://peacebyjesus.net/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html) (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24081308416715909342024-02-22T20:11:56.130-05:002024-02-22T20:11:56.130-05:00Roger,
Some of those issues are ones I haven'...Roger,<br /><br />Some of those issues are ones I haven't thought about in a lot of depth. As soon as you combine infant baptism and one or more other issues (infant baptism and church practice, infant baptism and marriage, etc.), you're no longer addressing infant baptism alone, and the situation gets more complicated. There are all kinds of hypotheticals that can be brought up, and the more complicated the situation gets, the more easily one or more of the issues involved can be overlooked or misjudged.<br /><br />You mentioned historical merit. I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting dual practice (a church trying to accommodate both credobaptists and paedobaptists in how they baptize) among any Christians of the earliest generations. I don't know when the dual-practice view originated, I don't know much about the history of the movement, and I don't know much about how they handle some of the issues involved in having a dual-practice church. <br /><br />There can be unity between credobaptists and paedobaptists in the large majority of contexts. They can attend the same church, work together in organizations outside the local church, pray together, work together in evangelism, etc. But my view at this point is that the local church (and some other organizations) and the leaders there should teach and practice credobaptism alone. The evidence justifies taking the credobaptist position, and the differences between it and the paedobaptist view are significant. Whether the paedobaptist thinks things like faith, repentance, and newness of life <i>may</i> become present in the baptizand's life after infancy, thinks they <i>will</i> become present after infancy, or thinks they're already present in a form for which we have as little evidence as we have with infants, any of those positions is significantly different than baptizing people for whom we have much more evidence that those things are already present. I don't think the disunity that exists when paedobaptists can't have their infants baptized in a credobaptist church, etc. carries as much weight. The paedobaptist can still have a lot of unity with the credobaptist outside the local church and inside the local church in some contexts (Bible studies, prayer meetings, etc.). More could be said about these and other issues involved, but I'll stop here.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13694329712444799602024-02-22T20:10:57.007-05:002024-02-22T20:10:57.007-05:00Jim,
Thanks!
The book by Stander and Louw has a ...Jim,<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />The book by Stander and Louw has a lot of valuable information about the earliest centuries of church history.<br /><br />I don't know much about the effects of church/state relationships on paedobaptism during the Reformation era. It's a significant factor, but one I haven't studied much. State influence does lessen the evidential force of the popularity of infant baptism in later centuries.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84756781006441892732024-02-22T13:32:32.252-05:002024-02-22T13:32:32.252-05:00Jason,
I once heard a lecture by John Gerstner whe...Jason,<br />I once heard a lecture by John Gerstner where he told the story of trying to persuade a pastor of the Reformed view of infant baptism. This pastor was apparently planning to leave his church because of his credobaptist convictions. As I recall, Gerstner was able to persuade him but also noted that he saw no biblical reason for a church not to allow both positions to coexist. “Why couldn’t the church allow for both?” “Why divide a church over this?” I found this strange coming from a Reformed theologian but I found no biblical reason to disagree. As a paedobaptist, I personally find the credobaptist position to be underdeveloped. Most credobaptists, however, would likely say (i.e. snort) that paedobaptism is ‘overdeveloped’ and just plain wrong through its various misapplications and strained texts. <br /><br />That said, if I were to one day become a credobaptist, I don’t think I would be able to find enough evidence to determine that the Reformed view was altogether wrongheaded and had no doctrinal basis. The so-called misapplications aren’t so far-fetched, and the so-called strained renderings aren’t without reasonable possibility. On the other hand, as a paedobaptist, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to conclude that the credobaptist position is completely unreasonable and without merit. Despite my objections, I can see how a Christian could arrive at this position. As far as this particular doctrine, I tend to agree with John Gerstner. If I had to err, I would rather do it on the side of Christian charity. Just curious, what are your thoughts on these two coexisting within the same church? Do you think this has historical merit?Roger Ballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07081209000380867330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36732162746166935732024-02-22T09:56:22.380-05:002024-02-22T09:56:22.380-05:00First of all, I appreciate your work on this. I ge...First of all, I appreciate your work on this. I get into discussions on baptism occasionally at the Reformed Pub and the belief among the Presbyterians there seems to be that there was no credobaptism until the English Reformation. Their argument is that paedobaptism was the reigning view prior to then, that only paedobaptism was practiced in the Early Church, that Rome practiced it during the Middle Ages, and that all of the Reformers practiced it. As you demonstrate here, this isn’t the case. Certainly, they practiced credobaptism with new believers who hadn’t been baptized as infants, but there were certainly cases even among the Apostolic Fathers and other Patristics that credobaptism was not only practiced, but that there seems to be a general principle for doing so.<br /><br />I get some of my observations from a now hard-to-find book called commonly enough Baptism in the Early Church by Hennie Stander and J. P. Louw published in 2004 by Carey Press, Reformation Today Trust (ISBN 0952791315, 9780952791317). Stander has a book by himself of the same name and the same length printed the same year by Evangelical Press. I haven’t seen that book for comparison. Stander and Louw are paedobaptists, but their book makes a good case for credobaptism in the Early Church, though paedobaptism was certainly practiced.<br /><br />What’s interesting in all of this is that all of these groups supposedly unified on the practice of paedobaptism have very different reasons for practicing it. What’s important to them seems to be THAT it’s practiced rather than WHY it’s practiced. Credobaptism is practiced, even by paedobaptists, for the same reason: someone professes to have come to faith. Now the English Reformation came to the conclusion that this should be the sole reason for baptism on the basis of a reformation of covenant theology that was shared even by some of the paedobaptistic Puritans like John Owen. However, even without that development, it’s sufficient to recognize that we’re supposed to baptize someone who comes to faith.<br /><br />Many are also not aware of the debates over baptism in the early church and how odd they seem compared to the debates today. One such debate was not so odd, but there were some heretical Christian sects in the Early Church that practiced baptism. This debate was over whether to re-baptize when members eventually came to an orthodox church. More odd was the debate between baptismal regeneration and the permanence of regeneration, namely whether to baptize babies so they are regenerate considering that they will always be regenerate or to wait until a believer was on their deathbed to baptize them so they didn’t have a chance to sin and lose their salvation. The Early Church should be considered in fundamental doctrinal development guided by apostolic writing, but it’s interesting the machinations people were going through.<br /><br />It seems to me, and I wish I had more direct evidence of this, that paedobaptism among the Reformers was largely a function of the sacralism of the Middle Ages. It also informed their theology on civil magistrates. They baptized babies because they were born in the place where Christianity is the only legal religion and is enforced by the Civil Government. This, I believe, is why credobaptists were persecuted so strongly prior to and during the Reformation. However, when the sacral relationship broke apart, the credobaptists simply updated the theology to babies born to members of the church rather than to citizens of the state. If you have any resources on this, I’d love to either reinforce or revise my thinking with something more tangible.<br /><br />By the way, congratulations on Triablogue’s upcoming 20th anniversary.<br />Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26506168158548528322024-02-22T02:12:13.612-05:002024-02-22T02:12:13.612-05:00Many scholars point out that the Gospel of Matthew...Many scholars point out that the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the New Moses. F.F. Bruce wrote in chapter 4 of his classic book, "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?" regarding the Gospel of Matthew:<br /><br />QUOTE: The sayings of Jesus are arranged so as to form five great discourses, dealing respectively with (a) the law of the kingdom of God (chapters v to vii), (b) the preaching of the kingdom (x. 5-42), (c) the growth of the kingdom (xiii. 3-52), (d) the fellowship of the kingdom (chapter xviii), and (e) the consummation of the kingdom (chapter xxivxxv). The narrative of the ministry of Jesus is so arranged that each section leads on naturally to the discourse which follows it. The whole is prefaced by a prologue describing the nativity of the King (chapters iii) and concluded by an epilogue relating the passion and triumph of the King (chapters xxvi-xxviii).<br /><br /><b>The fivefold structure of this Gospel is probably modelled on the fivefold structure of the Old Testament law; it is presented as the Christian Torah (which means 'direction or 'instruction' rather than 'law' in the more restricted sense). The Evangelist is also at pains to show how the story of Jesus represents the fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures, and in places he even implies that the experiences of Jesus recapitulate the experiences of the people of Israel in Old Testament times.</b> [bold by me-AP]<br />END QUOTE<br /><br />This might imply that the author of Matthew believed his gospel to be Scripture, or one day would possibly be considered as Scripture. <br /><br />In the Great Commission of Matthew 28, Jesus' statement about "teaching them to obey all things I [Jesus] commanded you" and that He would be with the church always (v. 20) parallels what Yahweh said to Joshua about meditating on and obeying the <b>BOOK OF THE LAW</b> and how He would be with and never leave Joshua (Josh. 1:8-9). Just as Yahweh told this to Joshua and all Israel as they were about to enter INWARD and conquer the Promised Land; so Jesus [Yahweh incarnate] commissioned the church in a similar way as they were about to start with Jerusalem and ever increasingly expand OUTWARD "in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8) to conquer [i.e. convert] the whole world [suggesting postmillennialism].<br /><br />As I said in my comments <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/in-nomine-patris-et-filii-et-spiritus.html?showComment=1520224670846#c4376251414990865633" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>:<br /><br />//It's interesting that the last chapter of the last book of the Torah [i.e. Deuteronomy 34] ends with Moses on mount Nebo surveying the Promised Land and then dying. With Joshua ready to succeed and conquer the Promised Land. Matthew ends with Jesus (the anti-type of both Moses the Lawgiver [cf. the Sermon on the Mount] and Joshua who shares the same name) who died (like Moses) but rose again standing on a mountain in Galilee to give His last instructions.//<br /><br /><b>If these parallels are real, then it stands to reason that just as the Old Covenant had its Scriptures, so the New Covenant would also have a collections of writings that would be <i>its</i> Scriptures.</b> As Israel would have the book of the Law to conquer <i>inward</i>, so the Church [Remnant Israel] would also additionally have the Book of the Gospel to conquer <i>outward</i>.<br /><br />If Jesus is the one prophesied to be a prophet like unto Moses [cf. Deut. 18:15], then one would expect this New Moses to be a Law Giver and Scripture Giver too [through His apostles and their close colleagues]. ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78878290709780662282024-01-30T09:56:40.497-05:002024-01-30T09:56:40.497-05:00If we understand demonic activity involved here, w...If we understand demonic activity involved here, we should expect deception that is culturally relevant. Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17450700948504630782024-01-16T13:38:57.627-05:002024-01-16T13:38:57.627-05:00I certainly didn't want to imply that my own r...I certainly didn't want to imply that my own reasonings were not instrumental with what God was showing me in my disobedience. I reasoned He was true and in control by the circumstances in which he put me. Of course I try to reason with outsiders but have also the view that it is not my clever arguments ultimately that will convince. Sometimes the interlocutor will double down even when the arguments are compelling and try to find other ideas of why to reject the gospel. It becomes a game. Sometimes also, your own conduct will speaks volumes more than what you might actually say and will give reason to the person to turn. Alex Krausehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906958553755021247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56246536840025402222024-01-16T12:27:10.914-05:002024-01-16T12:27:10.914-05:00The anonymity of some Old Testament works doesn...The anonymity of some Old Testament works doesn't tell us whether the gospels were anonymous. I've explained why we shouldn't think they were.<br /><br />Regarding the other issues you brought up, I've addressed the significance of apologetics in many other posts, like <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/03/how-important-is-apologetics.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, but that isn't the focus of this thread. God doesn't need us for anything. Just as he can convert people, increase the confidence of people already converted, etc. independent of apologetics, he can also provide for us in contexts like finances and food independent of our efforts. We work a job and buy groceries anyway. Similarly, the fact that God can do things like convert people and increase their confidence independent of apologetics doesn't justify not doing apologetics. If he's going to intervene in people's lives, that's his decision. We can't be presumptuous about it. Our responsibility is to reason with people with the mind God has given us, as we should in other contexts in life. You've cited your conversion "apart from human reasonings", but others have been converted through reasoning (Acts 17:2-4, 18:4, 19:8, the modern examples discussed <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/12/yes-apologetics-makes-difference.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, etc.). The default position is to reason. To make <i>not</i> reasoning the default position is perverse. It's a sin.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85259345696529298912024-01-16T10:17:36.261-05:002024-01-16T10:17:36.261-05:00Looking at how the O.T. saints took their revelati...Looking at how the O.T. saints took their revelation, I believe, can guide us on how to take N.T. writings. Yes, I know we live in a quasi-enlightenment society where man is the measure of all evidence. Any hint of supernaturalism is dismissed as not worthy of consideration. That is their problem, not mine. If God didn't prepare their heart He isn't going to have me interact with them. I want to do what He desires, not my own idea of ministry-folks will get in trouble if it's just a man-driven recruitment drive to what we think is right in our own formulation.<br /><br />We know next to nothing of several O.T. authors, yet we see that God spoke through them. At least some the N.T. authors, I believe, recognized the Spirit's superintendence of their writings and thus didn't pen their name to the work just like many of the O.T. prophets. We have a plethora of reasons why the bible is accurate and the Spirit teaches us His word. Our business is to please Him, and not skeptics. Many times in scripture we are told to "leave them alone" (Hos. 4.17, Mt. 5.14). We don't know fully how God works in hearts but it's always better to trust Him and be faithful. I am a prime example of such that no one thought I would ever turn to Him. God did a work in my heart apart from human reasonings and pleadings that those on the outside had no way of knowing.Alex Krausehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906958553755021247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67670126970588616092024-01-10T11:19:07.833-05:002024-01-10T11:19:07.833-05:00What about the influence and guidance of Mary the ...What about the influence and guidance of Mary the Mother of Jesus. John took Mary to live at his home after the crucifixion. How long was she there and surely they shared insights, notes, or diaries of daily events. Another example is Luke, the physician, who was not there yet has the most detailed account of the birth of Jesus. Who but Mary could have provided such an accurate account since Joseph was much older and died. kensmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10559614671248726555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69020025225479722062024-01-09T17:43:34.479-05:002024-01-09T17:43:34.479-05:00There are a lot of problems with the skeptical app...There are a lot of problems with the skeptical appeal to Acts 4:13. In addition to what you mentioned, the comments in the passage were made probably a few decades before the time when John likely wrote his gospel, which allows for a lot of development in his (and others') interests, abilities, and such. And the comments in the passage are just about Peter and John, not other individuals who could have helped them in whatever ways were needed (an amanuensis, people who provided John with ideas to incorporate into his gospel, people who influenced his vocabulary, etc.). Acts 4:13 doesn't tell us as much as skeptics often suggest about John's abilities at the time, his abilities aren't the only relevant ones, since other people would have influenced him before he wrote his gospel and could have assisted him in composing it, and the passage is about a timeframe much earlier than when the gospel was written.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68756803386400001402024-01-09T09:24:10.084-05:002024-01-09T09:24:10.084-05:00Yes, I think we should be open to the idea that Jo...Yes, I think we should be open to the idea that John and Matthew had amanuenses. I would say it's less likely with Mark, since Papias indicates that Mark was, in a sense, an amanuensis to Peter. So it would be creating an unnecessary chain to have an amenuensis of an amanuensis. And in the case of Luke I'm of the opinion that he was a fairly well-educated Gentile. One argument against this in the case of John is the very simple nature of the Greek. Normally one would expect an amenuensis to exercise his influence *particularly* on the style, yet John's Greek over-uses kai, eschews subordinating conjunctions, and has quite a Semitic flavor to it. If he did have an amanuensis, it was an unusual type who apparently tried to preserve the style of John's oral tellings. I suppose this is possible. Of course, the skeptical claim of strict illiteracy is based on fairly flimsy evidence anyway. One bad argument is the use of agrammatoi in Acts 4:13, which in itself can just mean that they hadn't received a formal rabbinic education. And how much could the priests tell from just hearing Peter and John speak? They seem to have made a major inference based upon their Galilean accent! (Galilee was a particularly despised region by the Jerusalem elite.) Since there was Greek signage in Israel at the time, apparently someone expected at least some part of the population to be able to read! So the whole question of how literate Jesus and/or some of the apostles were is very much up in the air. I do *not* think that the Gospel authors, with the possible exception of Luke, show any signs of having read and being familiar with secular Greek literature. A Palestinian Jewish boy's education for literacy in Greek could easily have been based on the Septuagint, and a statement in the Talmud attributes to a 1st-century BC rabbi a sharp distinction between a father's having his son educated in the Greek *language* and in Greek literature, philosophy, etc., with the latter being forbidden. It does behove us to know that, unfortunately, there's a theory floating around out there that the amanuenses would have suggested factual changes in the narrative itself, based on (alleged) ancient Greek fact-changing literary devices,. Thus far I have seen only Mike Licona suggest this theory. It appears to have been an ad hoc retreat on his part, after I pointed out the tension between traditional authorship and his notion of the use of highly specialized Greek literary devices. (I also question whether those devices even existed, but this is a further question.) Previously he stated outright that Matthew himself "would have" learned in school to use such devices. But more recently he has said that the amanuensis would have inserted them, changing the narrative, presumably (?) with Matthew's and John's approval. I probably don't need to say more about how implausible this is. It's particularly ridiculous in the case of John, due to the simplicity of the Greek that I mentioned above. We are presumably to imagine an amanuensis suggesting *factual* changes based on complex literary devices but leaving the *style* (which is preeminantly what he would be hired for) very simple! Anyway, I just thought I would mention that weird theory that is being spun off of the idea of an amanuensis or ghost writer of the Gospels. Of course I know that isn't what you're suggesting at all.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42644375762316736862024-01-02T20:38:00.960-05:002024-01-02T20:38:00.960-05:00According to Anthony Rogers, GMark likely uses the...According to Anthony Rogers, GMark likely uses the phrase "<b>SEA</b> of Galilee" for the theological purpose of presenting Jesus as bringing about the New Exodus prophesied in the OT (passim, e.g. in Isaiah) and therefore portraying Him to be Yahweh. GMark has Jesus re-enacting the events of the first Exodus. Just as Yahweh parted the Red/Reed <b>Sea</b>, so Jesus rebuked the Sea of Galilee causing them to be still so that His disciples could safely cross over into the <b>wilderness</b> similar to what happened in the first Exodus (cf. Ps. 106:9ff.; 89:9). Just as God drowned Pharoah's host, so Jesus drowned the devil's host of unclean spirits possessed swine in the sea. Then just as Yahweh fed the Israelites in the wilderness with manna "bread" and meat, so Jesus multiplied bread and fish in the wilderness to feed the multitudes. Rogers briefly surveys this in his opening statement in his debate with Unitarian Dale Tuggy <a rel="nofollow">HERE</a>. Rogers goes into fuller depth in his 3 part video series totaling over 4 1/2 hours in this Playlist on "The New Exodus" <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAaZRs0O6ok&list=PLnLlymBIRkYbAmzxO3WnJUn7TDtNn23og" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21927750153328502772024-01-02T19:57:52.443-05:002024-01-02T19:57:52.443-05:00Craig Evans says similar things in this video (alr...Craig Evans says similar things in this video (already cued) <a href="https://youtu.be/UleQthr_t00?t=633" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>. At 13:14 <a href="https://youtu.be/UleQthr_t00?t=794" rel="nofollow">[HERE]</a> Evans talks about how at Herculaneum the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD "cooked" books there into carbon and through x-ray tech we can read the books well enough to date them through the hand writing styles and some of them were ~200 and ~300 years old according to paleographic methods. At 12:08<a href="https://youtu.be/UleQthr_t00?t=728" rel="nofollow">[HERE]</a> Craig says pagan authors talked the autographs of the writings of Aristotle that were 250 years old, as well as references to preserved books that were 300, 400 and in some cases 500 years old.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53811797825822640782024-01-02T12:13:03.885-05:002024-01-02T12:13:03.885-05:00I don't know of any place where Tertullian add...I don't know of any place where Tertullian addresses the subject. He may not have thought much about it. The issue here isn't the correctness of Tertullian's principles. (I don't agree with them.) The issue is what his comments suggest about ancient gospel manuscripts.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-575893408785814122024-01-02T11:02:34.257-05:002024-01-02T11:02:34.257-05:00What does Tertullian do with the O.T. books withou...What does Tertullian do with the O.T. books without a title? The scribes of the Hebrew Bible did not title their books if it didn't appear in the text. The reason is obvious. These were the words of God, not man. Of course I side with Tertullian against Marcion and think that Marcion may have styled his work to imply that it was inspired by not titling it. <br /><br />Unlike later Christian practice of adding titles to God's word, the Jewish practice takes the first word of the books of the Torah as a designator. The presence or absence of titles signals a greater issue: formatting the text. Formatting, and especially section titling, can influence readers to make assumptions that may obscure other aspects in the text. Some "helpful notes" hinder instead of help the reader by offering an "official" interpretation. I am not totally against study bibles and formatting but crafting such should be done very judiciously. Alex Krausehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906958553755021247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26146293042918281702023-12-31T14:15:06.693-05:002023-12-31T14:15:06.693-05:00Bodies of water can be named after a region they&#...Bodies of water can be named after a region they're in, like Galilee, but they can also be named in other ways. The evidence suggests that the body of water under consideration was referred to by something other than Galilee the large majority of the time. The body of water is sometimes referred to as a sea, but seems to have been referred to as a lake more often. The issue isn't whether something like naming a body of water after its surrounding region or referring to it as a sea can <i>possibly</i> happen without intending anything like an allusion to Isaiah 9. Rather, the issue is how we best explain the terminology chosen in the contexts in question. When two unusual terms are chosen ("sea" and "Galilee"), and those terms line up so well with Isaiah 9, the terms are introduced by three of the gospels in a context that's highly relevant to Isaiah 9, and the authors show interest in Isaiah 9 elsewhere, those characteristics make more sense if the Sea of Galilee language was influenced by Isaiah 9 than if it wasn't. As I said before, there's a way we can further test what I'm saying. Look at how non-Christian sources use the language. How often do you see them accidentally falling into the pattern we see in Matthew, Mark, and John? I'm not aware of a single example, much less something comparable to three out of four gospels. Maybe there is an example (or more) of that happening among non-Christian sources, but, if so, I'm not aware of it, and I doubt that it happened as often as we see it with the gospels.<br /><br />You keep making dismissive comments about John's use of Isaiah 9. I've argued at length for my view of John's material, and you haven't interacted with any of that argumentation. Instead, you just vaguely object that the allusions to Isaiah 9 are only "alleged", that they aren't "explicit", etc.<br /><br />Concerning the issue you raised related to Josephus, I addressed that earlier. When somebody like Josephus explains how the body of water is typically referred to, it would be unlikely that he'd use a less popular qualifying phrase, such as "lake" (if the body of water was referred to that way less often), in the surrounding context. In other words, his concern for addressing how the body of water is most often referred to suggests that he'd use the more common of the lake/sea terms in that context, not the less common one. Neither of the terms in the Josephus passage you cited, "lake" or "Gennesar", taken individually or together, is what we see in Matthew, Mark, and John. If you're going to bring up the scenario of referring to the body of water as "the Gennesar", then that just shifts the question to why "sea" was brought up by the gospel authors rather than raising the question of why "lake" was replaced by "sea". Either way, all three gospels seem to be departing from normal usage. They're doing it in the same way, which aligns with Isaiah 9, and in the same kind of context that's highly relevant to Isaiah 9.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23507146011067846902023-12-31T08:46:12.563-05:002023-12-31T08:46:12.563-05:00But the region *was* known as Galilee. So the atte...But the region *was* known as Galilee. So the attempt to attach theological meaning to "of Galilee" is *itself* dubious. Since John himself uses "sea" in a context where (as you agree) he isn't making any theological point, you have to dismiss this as "for consistency." I would say that when we put together three points the evidence is actually strong *against* any theological intention: 1) The region really was known as "Galilee," and the body of water really was located there, so "of Galilee" requires no special explanation. 2) Both the Septuagint writers and John (and also one non-Christian writer cited by Notley) have been preserved to us using "Sea" for that very body of water in contexts where there is no theological reference intended by that use. 3) John gives no explicit reference to Isaiah 9, so his alleged intention to allude to it is quite conjectural. I really don't know what more one could want to conclude that this is just one of the ways to refer to the body of water. I think that Notley has a higher prior for theological *invention* than you do and hence ascribes it here, as well as the critical scholar's regrettable tendency to over-read trivial wording differences between the Synoptics. *You* do not share Notley's high prior for theological invention, so I think you should be more able to recognize the weakness of his argument.<br /><br />One other point: I think his argument gains specious appearance of strength from Josephus's reference to "the inhabitants" and what they called the body of water. But Josephus doesn't actually say that the inhabitants call it the lake of Genesserat. He says it is "the lake, which the inhabitants call Gennesar." As Notley admits, there are other instances of just calling it "the Gennesar." <br /><br />Notley even seems to think that John's two-fold reference to it as "the Sea of Galilee" and "Tiberias" in John 6:1 supports his point, but I think that's completely wrong. The immediate juxtaposition in John of two different names for the body of water, one of which you acknowledge has no theological intention, is best explained by a mere desire to designate the body of water explicitly and clearly, for narrative purposes. In this sense John's "the Sea of Galilee, of Tiberias" is very much like Josephus's "the lake, which the inhabitants call Gennesar." Neither of them is making any theological point. They are both just narrating and calling to mind names for a particular body of water in a particular region. Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38450386740898076992023-12-31T07:39:47.094-05:002023-12-31T07:39:47.094-05:00The issue isn't literalness. The issue is the ...The issue isn't literalness. The issue is the choice of terminology for a body of water that was referred to in a variety of ways. Three Christian authors chose "sea" and "Galilee", both of which line up better with Isaiah 9 than the alternative terms, and all three did so in a context that's highly relevant to Isaiah 9. The many references we have to that body of water from ancient non-Christian sources don't follow that pattern. The influence of Isaiah 9 is a better explanation than dismissing all of those characteristics as coincidental.<br /><br />Regarding John 21, as I said earlier, I don't hold the view that "sea" is an inaccurate term for referring to that body of water. Since that term was used earlier by John, continuing to use it for the sake of consistency would make sense. He goes out of his way to use "Galilee" at the opening of chapter 6, even though he'll clarify it with "Tiberias" just after and will use Tiberias without referring to Galilee later. That makes sense under my view. Given the nature of John's material in John 6-9 (as discussed earlier), he had reason to highlight Galilee in that context (and the term "sea").Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com