PDA

View Full Version : articular vs anarthrous - tangent



Dale A. Brueggemann
07-15-2005, 04:35 AM
Here is the query you want.

Scott, I really think you should delete the libelous link from your present signature line. A link to a hate-filled diatribe against fine brothers in Christ is entirely inappropriate for these forums. You quote a single sentence about potential methodology, with no context or even link to find the whole context then launch into an assault on a whole organization, even an entire discipline of biblical studies.

Adelphos
07-15-2005, 04:52 AM
Scott, I really think you should delete the libelous link from your present signature line. A link to a hate-filled diatribe against fine brothers in Christ is entirely inappropriate for these forums. You quote a single sentence about potential methodology, with no context or even link to find the whole context then launch into an assault on a whole organization, even an entire discipline of biblical studies.

Who are YOU?

If you don't like the link, don't go there.

You call people "fine brothers" who accuse Jesus Christ of commiting sin?

And then you have the gall to call it libelous???

The only libel that accrued is the libel your "fine brothers" leveled against the Lord of Glory, the SINLESS Jesus Christ.

I now know YOU by your fruits, just like them.

You save your breath for someone who is of your ilk, and don't take it upon yourself to advise me of anything again. Got it?

Dale A. Brueggemann
07-15-2005, 05:32 AM
Who are YOU? If you don't like the link, don't go there.

Actually, I'm a fellow BibleWorks user on these public forums.



You call people "fine brothers" who accuse Jesus Christ of commiting sin? And then you have the gall to call it libelous???

The point is, the people you describe would never make such an accusation; they're devout believers. You're quoted, or perhaps even misquoted, one statement about potential methodology; you've said nothing about their actual conclusions; then you've made sweeping accusations against them.



The only libel that accrued is the libel your "fine brothers" leveled against the Lord of Glory, the SINLESS Jesus Christ. I now know YOU by your fruits, just like them. You save your breath for someone who is of your ilk, and don't take it upon yourself to advise me of anything again. Got it?

I still hope you will moderate your tone, correct your unjust accusations against some fine conservative Christian scholars, and perhaps even offer us all an apology on this forum.

Adelphos
07-15-2005, 06:17 AM
I still hope you will moderate your tone, correct your unjust accusations against some fine conservative Christian scholars, and perhaps even offer us all an apology on this forum.

Unjust? Prove it!

YOU are responsible for making this issue public on this forum, and YOU are the one who is doing all the accusing; YOU are the one who is committing libel, and, as usual, without a SHRED of evidence.

Were you a member of this group? Did you participate in that paper? Is that what your problem is?

Ask Mike Bushell about the paper, if you don't know about it.

Better yet, ask your "fine conservative Christian scholars." After all, they're the ones who produced the papers, and they're the ones who displayed them on their websites.

In short, your "fine conservative Christian scholars" are the VERY ones who accused Jesus Christ of sin, and who paraded the article as fast and furiously as they could.

And I'll no more moderate my tone with you, especially after your rude and baseless false accusations, than Jesus did with the vipers of his day, than Paul did with hypocrites of his day, and as EVERY ONE who is born of the Spirit does.

Those who moderate their tones, as the Scripture and the Spirit testify, are complete frauds. Your call for more moderate tones doesn't surprise me in the least, especially since YOU are the one who started this in the first place. You started the fire, now you can't take the heat.

And for the record, I happen to have the same problem that Jesus had, that Paul had, and that every truly regenerate Christian has --

"The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." John 2:17

As I said, I now know YOU by your fruits.

Now then, if you care to continue this, take it to email. I'll be happy to educate you on the basics of evidence and the nature of true and false accusations, and the crude and slippery behaviour of frauds who make false accusations without a shred of evidence.

Don't ever falsely accuse me again on a public forum or try to advise me on anything. You're not qualified spiritually or mentally.

Dale A. Brueggemann
07-15-2005, 06:42 AM
Unjust?....

In short, your "fine conservative Christian scholars" are the VERY ones who accused Jesus Christ of sin, and who paraded the article as fast and furiously as they could.

And I'll no more moderate my tone with you, especially after your rude and baseless false accusations, than Jesus did with the vipers of his day, than Paul did with hypocrites of his day, and as EVERY ONE who is born of the Spirit does.

Don't ever falsely accuse me again on a public forum or try to advise me on anything. You're not qualified spiritually or mentally.

The language your piece, which you linked in your signature, said these scholars accused Jesus of sin. That's simply untrue. The language reads as follows:





Mark describes John’s baptism as “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4b), and when people were baptized, they did so “confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5b).... From what did Jesus need to repent?....




We are left with three alternatives at this point. First of all, we could simply take the approach found in early Christian Gospels.... Second, we could make possible inferences about Jesus’ state of mind from what we may know about his background and suggest possible sins of which Jesus may have been guilty.... Third, we could return to the nature of John’s baptism and investigate further the character of repentance and confession of sin.



He says a full discussion will not stop with just that first option; he rejects the third option as speculative and without any textual basis; and then procedes to talk more of the nature of John's baptism to explain how it would be that Jesus took a "baptism of repentance". He states an option that some take (e.g., Hollenbach). Then he rejects it as "highly speculative" because "There is, in fact, no historical evidence of a particular sin for which Jesus needed to repent. The texts are silent."


For those who would like to read the entire paper rathe just the extractions in this discussion see http://www.ibresearch.com/page.asp?page_id=23

Level your accusations against the likes of Hollenbach, certainly; however, the IBR paper rejects that stance.

J Kendall
07-15-2005, 06:54 AM
Scott,

I really hesitate to jump in here, but your claim "your "fine conservative Christian scholars" are the VERY ones who accused Jesus Christ of sin", just doesn't appear to be true.

On your webpage you cite the following sentence as proof of your contention: "Second, we could make possible inferences about Jesus’ state of mind from what we may know about his background and suggest possible sins of which Jesus may have been guilty." This however does not represent Webb's position, but a position he takes issue with. He ends the same paragraph with the conclusion, "There is, in fact, no historical evidence of a particular sin for which Jesus needed to repent. The texts are silent."

Webb's answer to the question of why Jesus partcipated in John's baptism of repentence is that "Jesus was acknowledging Israel’s sin and need to turn around, and he was committing himself to do what he could to bring this about."

Whatever other problems you or I might have with Webb's paper and its methodology, I see no accusation of Christ's sinfulness here.

I see that Dale has replied similarly while I composed this.

John
--
John Kendall
Cardiff
Wales

Adelphos
07-15-2005, 07:15 AM
The language your piece, which you linked in your signature, said these scholars accused Jesus of sin. That's simply untrue.

I thought you didn't know about this paper? You complained in your first harangue that there were no links to the articles.

Your species is now VERY familiar to me.

And, as I'm now going to demonstrate, YOU are the one who is quoting out of context, and YOU are the one who is making false statements and distorting the TRUTH...

Just to give a foretaste of the psyche, here's the beginning of the article --

"The historicity of Jesus’ baptism by John is virtually certain. The historicity of the theophany (the Spirit’s descent and divine voice) is probable, but its timing as contemporaneous with the baptism is open to question. As a prophetic call-vision, the theophany quite possibly happened at a later time. Based on an exploration of John’s baptism and ministry within the context of Second-Temple Judaism, the significance of Jesus’ baptism is explored: it is a significant turning point in Jesus’ life; Jesus is identifying with Israel’s need to repent, and he is in agreement with John’s vision for a reconstituted Israel; since Jesus is a disciple of John, the beginning of his ministry involves baptizing within John’s movement. It is also important to understand Jesus’ later ministry along a trajectory that begins with Jesus’ association with John. This later ministry shows both continuity with and development beyond Jesus’ early involvement with John"

And then --

"To summarize, Jesus was baptized by John and probably remained with him for some time in the role of disciple. Later, in alignment and participation with John and his movement, Jesus also engaged in a baptizing ministry near John. Although he was still a disciple of John, Jesus perhaps should be viewed at this point as John’s right-hand man or protegé."

And then --

"No account, Mark’s included, states that Jesus confessed his sins when he was baptized, nor do the accounts specify from what Jesus needed to repent—from what Jesus needed to “turn.” As addressed above, the later accounts attempt damage control because of the theological problems that this baptism of repentance creates. We must address the historical question that it raises: From what did Jesus need to repent?"

And again --

"Through his baptism by John, Jesus was not only in agreement with John, he was joining John’s movement and becoming a follower of John."

And finally, here's the entire passage IN CONTEXT --

"Prior to being baptized, Jesus had lived the life of a peasant artisan in the Galilean town of Nazareth. We do not know what led Jesus to make the trek south to where John baptized in the Jordan. For Jesus, being baptized was a turning point in his life—he would never return to that former life. The baptism was the point at which Jesus turned from his former peasant artisan life and turned to a life of ministry. Whether this turning began back in Galilee and was culminated in being baptized or whether it began with the baptism and the implications were worked out afterwards is a nuance that we are unable to address for lack of evidence. But whatever the case, the event of Jesus’ baptism is significant as identifying the pinnacle of this turning point.

But the issue of “turning” point has a deeper issue associated with it. Mark describes John’s baptism as “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4b), and when people were baptized, they did so “confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5b). No account, Mark’s included, states that Jesus confessed his sins when he was baptized, nor do the accounts specify from what Jesus needed to repent—from what Jesus needed to “turn.” As addressed above, the later accounts attempt damage control because of the theological problems that this baptism of repentance creates. We must address the historical question that it raises: From what did Jesus need to repent?

In their attempt to mitigate the potential theological damage that the issue raises, as explored above, our sources are not going to be directly helpful. We are left with three alternatives at this point. First of all, we could simply take the approach found in early Christian Gospels. In the first section of this essay we noted the theological concerns about this issue developing in the time period of Matthew through the Gospel according to the Nazareans. However, our historical concerns are different from their theological concerns. From a methodological perspective, a theological presupposition cannot take the place of considering historical questions and their evidence.

Second, we could make possible inferences about Jesus’ state of mind from what we may know about his background and suggest possible sins of which Jesus may have been guilty. This is the approach of Hollenbach. He proposes that, as a carpenter, Jesus was a middle-class artisan upon whom the poor of society depended. Jesus would have seen the abuses that this social stratification would have allowed. “[T]hrough John’s preaching Jesus discovered that he had participated directly or indirectly in the oppression of the weak members of his society.” There are a number of difficulties with Hollenbach’s approach, but the two most telling are that it is highly speculative, and ultimately we would be psychologizing about Jesus’ state of mind. There is, in fact, no historical evidence of a particular sin for which Jesus needed to repent. The texts are silent."



To suggest that the signatories of this article weren't implying that Jesus might have committed sins is refuted on its very face by anyone who understands plain English. It wasn't Hollenback who said --

"Second, we could make possible inferences about Jesus’ state of mind from what we may know about his background and suggest possible sins of which Jesus may have been guilty."


It was the signatories of the article who said that, while giving lip-service to the theoretical problems, but then finishing it off with --

"There is, in fact, no historical evidence of a particular sin for which Jesus needed to repent. The texts are silent."

Clearly implying the possibility for anyone who can read plain English.

Furthermore, to assert that Jesus Christ was a disciple of John is just as great a blasphemy as accusing Jesus Christ of sin, but it doesn't suprise me in the least that you can't comprehend that SIMPLE but INFALLIBLE TRUTH.

Finally, why did you disguise the fact in your first post that you were aware of the content of this paper? Is that how you generally operate?

You will answer me, or I will find out -- Did YOU participate in this paper?

I can see now where you've been coming from.

Why is it that you didn't have the common decency and honesty to admit up front that you were very aware of the content, and that, as I suspect, you in fact participated in it?

As I said, your species is now VERY familiar to me.

You want to dance with me; take it to email. I can't wait.

Dale A. Brueggemann
07-15-2005, 07:33 AM
I thought you didn't know about this paper? You complained in your first harangue that there were no links to the articles....

Why did you disguise the fact in your first post that you were aware of the content of this paper? Is that how you generally operate?.... Why is it that you didn't have the common decency and honesty to admit up front that you were very aware of the content, and that, as I suspect, you in fact participated in it?

I didn't know about it; however, I know the people about whom you talk, and know them to be devout Christians of a conservative conviction. So I "googled" it to find the context you were misusing.



You will answer me, or I will find out -- Did YOU participate in this paper?

No; I'm an OT scholar. And yes, I'm a member of IBR.



You want to dance with me; take it to email. I can't wait.



I'll let it rest, though your accusations against very reliable brothers in Christ grieves me.

Adelphos
07-15-2005, 07:42 AM
I'll let it rest, though your accusations against very reliable brothers in Christ grieves me.

What ought to grieve you more is your ignorance of spiritual matters, and it truly ought to grieve you that you support those who claim Jesus was a disciple of John and who claimed PLAINLY that Jesus might have committed sins.

The fact that the plain English escapes you in your delusional rationalizations ought to grive you as well.

You come on here and start a firefight by making false accusations against me, and then you try to pawn yourself off as innocent?

Don't ever try this with me again, or I'll expose you fully for the deceitful, dissembling, viper you are, and I'll do it publically on my website.

J Kendall
07-15-2005, 08:04 AM
Scott,

Despite your replies to Dale, it still seems to me that your claim "your "fine conservative Christian scholars" are the VERY ones who accused Jesus Christ of sin", just isn't true. It's really not clear to me that you've understood the article on this score, whatever you think about its other statements or methodology. Now that Dale has provided a URL, others can judge for themselves.

Even more sadly, it seems to me that your recent posts on this thread blatantly contravene the regulations for this forum.

>>>>>
1) Posts must be respectful to the other forum visitors. "Flames" directed at subscribers for no other reason than theological affiliation (i.e. Lutheran bashing, Catholic bashing, Reformed bashing, Liberal bashing, etc.) will not be tolerated. Discussion is allowed and encouraged; invective and railing is prohibited.
>>>>>

John
--
John Kendall
Cardiff
Wales

Gontroppo
07-15-2005, 08:07 AM
It was reasonable for Dale to ask Scott to remove his defamatory, misleading sig.

Discussion of such issues should be done in a calm manner on the non BW discussion area, surely.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

Adelphos
07-15-2005, 08:19 AM
Scott, Even more sadly, it seems to me that your recent posts on this thread blatantly contravene the regulations for this forum.

Perhaps you missed the first post by your buddy --

"Scott, I really think you should delete the libelous link from your present signature line. A link to a hate-filled diatribe against fine brothers in Christ is entirely inappropriate for these forums."

Or perhaps you didn't miss it, but your bias just can't be withheld. It's okay to call me libelous and hate-filled, but that's not breaking the rules, huh?

And YOU are claiming that I don't understand the plain English in that article, when you can't even see your own bias? There's an irony.

Fact is, I understand the article perfectly. It's in plain English. And as I said, anyone who asserts that Jesus Christ was a disciple of John commits just as grievous a blasphemy as asserting the Jesus Christ might have committed sin. It doesn't suprise me that that also escapes you.

And who started this in the first place? And why are YOU even involved in it?

Adelphos
07-15-2005, 08:22 AM
Discussion of such issues should be done in a calm manner on the non BW discussion area, surely.

Then why don't you tell that to your buddy. After all, he started the discussion. Or did that escape your notice???

MTan
07-15-2005, 08:55 AM
Okay, guys. This thread has gone far enough. I think eveyone has said enough for us all to understand where they are coming from. Further discussion needs to take place off-line.

This thread is closed. Further attempts to bring up the topic will result in suspension.