Comments on: How to Explain the Religions of Abraham to the Hollywood Generation http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/ fides quaerens intellectum Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:17:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Polycarp http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11304 Polycarp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:47:10 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11304 No, no, Fr. Robert, please, join in. No, no, Fr. Robert, please, join in.

]]> By: Polycarp http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11303 Polycarp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:46:44 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11303 Actually, it was understand that way long before Nicea, and that is the only interpretation which is merited. You like literalism - and you have it: God was manifested in the incarnated. Actually, it was understand that way long before Nicea, and that is the only interpretation which is merited. You like literalism – and you have it: God was manifested in the incarnated.

]]> By: Fr. Robert http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11302 Fr. Robert Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:45:29 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11302 Amen, to that Joel...Incarnation always! Fr. R. PS..Got to run, back later maybe Amen, to that Joel…Incarnation always!
Fr. R.
PS..Got to run, back later maybe

]]> By: Fr. Robert http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11301 Fr. Robert Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:41:15 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11301 Sorry, I will let ya's both roll and chat. Sorry, I will let ya’s both roll and chat.

]]> By: Susan http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11300 Susan Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:40:12 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11300 I'm using it in the graduate course I'm teaching on the Reformation right now. I’m using it in the graduate course I’m teaching on the Reformation right now.

]]> By: Fr. Robert http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11299 Fr. Robert Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:39:06 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11299 That is Fitsmeyer (not sure on the spelling?) That is Fitsmeyer (not sure on the spelling?)

]]> By: Fr. Robert http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11293 Fr. Robert Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:36:50 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11293 Oh yes, now I remember that bio of Luther, very good as I remember too?  I have RC priest friends, I count Fr. Fritzmeyer as one. But they are a mess with their presuppositions!  I am 59, so I have read much in the 20th century theology. Fr. R. Oh yes, now I remember that bio of Luther, very good as I remember too?  I have RC priest friends, I count Fr. Fritzmeyer as one. But they are a mess with their presuppositions!  I am 59, so I have read much in the 20th century theology.
Fr. R.

]]> By: Susan http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11298 Susan Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:36:20 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11298 Fair enough. I think I addressed the issue of the verse itself. It does not have to be understood in the way Christians have typically interpreted it since Nicea. Fair enough. I think I addressed the issue of the verse itself. It does not have to be understood in the way Christians have typically interpreted it since Nicea.

]]> By: Polycarp http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11297 Polycarp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:33:47 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11297 We can match scholar of scholar - each resting on our own foundation, but in the end Susan, we are discussing Timothy because it is you who thought to use it as a defense. Before we sidetrack our discussion on Pauline authorship,we should really focus on the verse itself. We can match scholar of scholar – each resting on our own foundation, but in the end Susan, we are discussing Timothy because it is you who thought to use it as a defense. Before we sidetrack our discussion on Pauline authorship,we should really focus on the verse itself.

]]> By: Polycarp http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11296 Polycarp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:32:32 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11296 Susan, Church History is fine, but theological speaking, you are grave error. The Incarnation, as you should know from Church History, is the paramount theological concept, and he or she who misses it misses all of it. Susan, Church History is fine, but theological speaking, you are grave error. The Incarnation, as you should know from Church History, is the paramount theological concept, and he or she who misses it misses all of it.

]]> By: Susan http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11262 Susan Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:30:24 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11262 Actually, he is Dutch Reform but he wrote a famous biography of Luther. And no, as a firm believer in Predestination he did not share my theology. But I doubt if he thought that Paul wrote the pastoral letters.  I studied the letters of Paul with a Catholic priest who taught at the same university. He didn't think Paul wrote Timothy either. Actually, he is Dutch Reform but he wrote a famous biography of Luther.
And no, as a firm believer in Predestination he did not share my theology. But I doubt if he thought that Paul wrote the pastoral letters.  I studied the letters of Paul with a Catholic priest who taught at the same university. He didn’t think Paul wrote Timothy either.

]]> By: Fr. Robert http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11261 Fr. Robert Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:24:50 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11261 I have read Oberman, Lutheran yes? I am glad too, that he does not hold "your" theology! Fr. R. I have read Oberman, Lutheran yes? I am glad too, that he does not hold “your” theology!
Fr. R.

]]> By: Fr. Robert http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11260 Fr. Robert Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:22:47 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11260 And there are many "scholars" who hold the Pauline authorship, but some now are enjoying the presence of their Lord!  Fr. R. And there are many “scholars” who hold the Pauline authorship, but some now are enjoying the presence of their Lord! 
Fr. R.

]]> By: Susan http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11264 Susan Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:20:11 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11264 LOL. I studied church history under Heiko Oberman though he certainly bares no responsibility for my theology. :-) LOL. I studied church history under Heiko Oberman though he certainly bares no responsibility for my theology. :-)

]]> By: Fr. Robert http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11268 Fr. Robert Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:16:45 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11268 Whew, good...did not think so. Whew, good…did not think so.

]]> By: Polycarp http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11267 Polycarp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:14:40 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11267 No, Fr. Robert, absolutely not. No, Fr. Robert, absolutely not.

]]> By: Fr. Robert http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11294 Fr. Robert Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:58:10 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11294 Sounds like "this" Susan needs a bit of better conservative and biblical theology? Is this our American Irish Sue? Fr. R. Sounds like “this” Susan needs a bit of better conservative and biblical theology? Is this our American Irish Sue?
Fr. R.

]]> By: Polycarp http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11295 Polycarp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:49:39 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11295 No, Susan, for later theologians, Philo serves a purpose, but we can better draw a line between John and the Wisdom tradition - not Philo's Logos. John's gospel is not all that late, as a matter of fact (Revelation is) - many scholars even date John earlier. Your 'safety net' depends upon the facts which you choose to believe. Sorry, you are debating from another faulty standpoint. Further, after showing that the Bible clearly connects manifestation, God, Christ, and incarnation, you deny the biblical stance? Somehow, I see that no matter what, you have your preconceived notions and what the bible says, and if shown wrong, you simply ignore it based on what? Human logic? 1st Timothy 3.16 - which you brought up as your defense - has been shown to mean something completely different than what you had hoped. Now, you deny Pauline authorship and the actual reading of the words. That makes sense how? No, Susan, for later theologians, Philo serves a purpose, but we can better draw a line between John and the Wisdom tradition – not Philo’s Logos. John’s gospel is not all that late, as a matter of fact (Revelation is) – many scholars even date John earlier. Your ’safety net’ depends upon the facts which you choose to believe.

Sorry, you are debating from another faulty standpoint. Further, after showing that the Bible clearly connects manifestation, God, Christ, and incarnation, you deny the biblical stance? Somehow, I see that no matter what, you have your preconceived notions and what the bible says, and if shown wrong, you simply ignore it based on what? Human logic?

1st Timothy 3.16 – which you brought up as your defense – has been shown to mean something completely different than what you had hoped. Now, you deny Pauline authorship and the actual reading of the words. That makes sense how?

]]> By: Susan http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11266 Susan Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:24:20 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11266 I wrote: "It is Philo who connects the Greek Logos with the Hebrew Wisdom, without that it is not at all clear that is what he is doing." Let me clarify that. It is not clear what John is connecting the Logos to the Hebrew Sophia without reference to what Philo had previously written. I wrote:
“It is Philo who connects the Greek Logos with the Hebrew Wisdom, without that it is not at all clear that is what he is doing.”
Let me clarify that. It is not clear what John is connecting the Logos to the Hebrew Sophia without reference to what Philo had previously written.

]]> By: Susan http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11265 Susan Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:22:08 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11265 Just because Philo isn't mentioned in the Bible does not mean he did not influence writers like John. He died twenty years after Christ but his writings would have naturally been earlier. It is Philo who connects the Greek Logos with the Hebrew Wisdom, without that it is not at all clear that is what he is doing. John's Gospel is pretty late, written towards the very end of the first century. I think it is safe to say that John's Gospel would have been written about fifty years after Philo wrote his works. Most scholars would reject Paul's authorship of Timothy, though I realzie that is not the position of inerrantists.  Timothy is written in an entirely different style than the works which we know were penned by Paul. Also, Timothy describes a church organization which did not exist in the first century. It is most likely a second century work.  But I would not agree that 'manifest in the flesh' is the same as incarnated. The sun is manifest in the mirror but not incarnated. Just because Philo isn’t mentioned in the Bible does not mean he did not influence writers like John. He died twenty years after Christ but his writings would have naturally been earlier. It is Philo who connects the Greek Logos with the Hebrew Wisdom, without that it is not at all clear that is what he is doing. John’s Gospel is pretty late, written towards the very end of the first century. I think it is safe to say that John’s Gospel would have been written about fifty years after Philo wrote his works.
Most scholars would reject Paul’s authorship of Timothy, though I realzie that is not the position of inerrantists.  Timothy is written in an entirely different style than the works which we know were penned by Paul. Also, Timothy describes a church organization which did not exist in the first century. It is most likely a second century work.  But I would not agree that ‘manifest in the flesh’ is the same as incarnated. The sun is manifest in the mirror but not incarnated.

]]> By: Polycarp http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11263 Polycarp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:53:11 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11263 But, Philo - contrary to later Christian development, does not have a place in the Bible. We can trace John's Logos back through Hebrew Wisdom (including Sirach and Wisdom) much easier, much more biblically speaking, than we can Philo. Further, Philo would have written 20 years after the death of Christ, and only a few years before the the Gospel of John - making it rather difficult for John to mimic Philo. Greek philosophy did, no doubt, help to influence segments of Christian thought - yet, not everyone holds to that production. You are further wrong with your facts about Tertullian. He used biblical words to describe the nature of the Godhead against those what would dismiss the Son as a mere figment, a nickname, or a manifestation. Considering that Paul wrote Timothy that God was manifested in the flesh (In Latin, it would be <em>manifestatum est in carne</em>, hence, Incarnation) you argument is faulty. God was Incarnated, in the flesh, Christ. But, Philo – contrary to later Christian development, does not have a place in the Bible. We can trace John’s Logos back through Hebrew Wisdom (including Sirach and Wisdom) much easier, much more biblically speaking, than we can Philo. Further, Philo would have written 20 years after the death of Christ, and only a few years before the the Gospel of John – making it rather difficult for John to mimic Philo.

Greek philosophy did, no doubt, help to influence segments of Christian thought – yet, not everyone holds to that production.

You are further wrong with your facts about Tertullian. He used biblical words to describe the nature of the Godhead against those what would dismiss the Son as a mere figment, a nickname, or a manifestation.

Considering that Paul wrote Timothy that God was manifested in the flesh (In Latin, it would be manifestatum est in carne, hence, Incarnation) you argument is faulty. God was Incarnated, in the flesh, Christ.

]]> By: Susan http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11259 Susan Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:35:21 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11259 I've never paid much attention to the NIV either. I prefer the New English Bible, but since I don't have an online version of that I stick to the Standard Revised or the KJV. As for the Word made flesh hearkening back to the Hebrew Wisdom rather than Platonic notions of the Logos, Philo of Alexandria had brought those two things together when he conceived of the Logos s as God's thought, as His eternally generated first-born son. Whatever Tertullian may have said Greek thought influenced Christianity from the beginning and that influence only grew over time. In fact the Trinity which I believe Tertullian himself first articulated was an attempt to explain Jesus relationship with God in terms that were intelligible in Greek philosophical terms. As for the difference between manifestation and incarnation, the light of the sun is reflected, and therefore manifest in a clear mirror, but it cannot be incarnated in that mirror without destroying it.     I’ve never paid much attention to the NIV either. I prefer the New English Bible, but since I don’t have an online version of that I stick to the Standard Revised or the KJV.
As for the Word made flesh hearkening back to the Hebrew Wisdom rather than Platonic notions of the Logos, Philo of Alexandria had brought those two things together when he conceived of the Logos s as God’s thought, as His eternally generated first-born son.
Whatever Tertullian may have said Greek thought influenced Christianity from the beginning and that influence only grew over time. In fact the Trinity which I believe Tertullian himself first articulated was an attempt to explain Jesus relationship with God in terms that were intelligible in Greek philosophical terms.
As for the difference between manifestation and incarnation, the light of the sun is reflected, and therefore manifest in a clear mirror, but it cannot be incarnated in that mirror without destroying it.
 
 

]]> By: Polycarp http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11292 Polycarp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 04:11:15 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11292 Uh, Susan, the NLT1 came out in 1996, the NIV much earlier (1984) and did not have 'form of God.' Actually, Plato has nothing to do with the Word made Flesh, as this hearkens back to the Hebrew Wisdom as an attribute of God. While you may seek to understand this in the Platonic fashion, as Tertullian, said, 'What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?' What did John mean? He said that the Word was God and was tabernacled in flesh. Pretty easy. You do know what 'manifest' means, right? Simply revealed, as the NLT has it. Considering what 1st Timothy 3.16 says, that God was revealed in the Flesh - Who? God. Yes, again, another sign of the deity of Christ. Further, we have Romans 9.5 - clearly pointing out that Christ is indeed God. Again, if you miss this, then nothing else matters. Uh, Susan, the NLT1 came out in 1996, the NIV much earlier (1984) and did not have ‘form of God.’

Actually, Plato has nothing to do with the Word made Flesh, as this hearkens back to the Hebrew Wisdom as an attribute of God. While you may seek to understand this in the Platonic fashion, as Tertullian, said, ‘What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?’ What did John mean? He said that the Word was God and was tabernacled in flesh. Pretty easy.

You do know what ‘manifest’ means, right? Simply revealed, as the NLT has it. Considering what 1st Timothy 3.16 says, that God was revealed in the Flesh – Who? God. Yes, again, another sign of the deity of Christ.

Further, we have Romans 9.5 – clearly pointing out that Christ is indeed God.

Again, if you miss this, then nothing else matters.

]]> By: Susan http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11291 Susan Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:54:28 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11291 Before the NLT came along it was always translated as the 'form of God" and you just provided the Greek which confirms this is the correct translation. As for John 1:14 it says the Word was made flesh.  As I'm sure you must know the conception of the Word as the first born of God is very Platonic conception. Usually the word 'manifest' is found in the NT in relationship to Jesus' relationship to God, not incarnate. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (King James Bible, 1 Peter) 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (King James Bible, 1 Timothy) I can find more if you like.     Before the NLT came along it was always translated as the ‘form of God” and you just provided the Greek which confirms this is the correct translation. As for John 1:14 it says the Word was made flesh.  As I’m sure you must know the conception of the Word as the first born of God is very Platonic conception. Usually the word ‘manifest’ is found in the NT in relationship to Jesus’ relationship to God, not incarnate.

1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
(King James Bible, 1 Peter)

3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory
(King James Bible, 1 Timothy)
I can find more if you like.

 

 

]]> By: Polycarp http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation/#comment-11290 Polycarp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:38:33 +0000 http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/?p=11899#comment-11290 The Baha'i are wrong, and clearly missing the meaning of the text. Literalism presents a problem for many who cannot understand the original languages. Tell me, Susan, on what are you basing your idea that the NLT has somehow mistranslated it? Further, Incarnation is biblical (John 1.14, etc...) and essential to the correct faith, Christian. The Baha’i are wrong, and clearly missing the meaning of the text. Literalism presents a problem for many who cannot understand the original languages.

Tell me, Susan, on what are you basing your idea that the NLT has somehow mistranslated it? Further, Incarnation is biblical (John 1.14, etc…) and essential to the correct faith, Christian.

]]>