Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Whether humans can be righteous and meet God's standards

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I find it interesting that you can simultaneously champion the NPP and castigate one of its leading proponents as so wrong they're not worth reading.
    Eh, he's so ridiculously biased that he wouldn't know good scholarship if it slapped him upside the head. Besides Wright, Gathercole was a student of Dunn's, so he's got as intimate an understanding of the topic as any. There are plenty of NT scholars, both conservative and not so conservative who've added plenty to our knowledge of Paul that both accord with and contradict the New Perspective. And contrary to Starlight's genetic fallacy on a book he's likely never even heard of till I mentioned it here, Barclay's work is being championed among a wide variety of scholars on the topic. From Starlight's own list, Douglas Campbell called it a "brilliant book" that "is a substantial and methodological tour de force", and that "Pauline scholars are now significantly indebted to Barclay for this superabundant scholarly gift."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      I find it interesting that you can simultaneously champion the NPP and castigate one of its leading proponents as so wrong they're not worth reading.
      Do all Republicans like Trump? Why should all NPP proponents like Wright?
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Paul is quoting the Psalms, and is writing from the same culture that produced both Psalms and Ecclesiastes.

        Again, this can be understood as prophetic hyperbole. While we should, in all humility, apply it to ourselves, this is hardly an affirmative condemnation of everyone, ever. You can't just read verses in the Bible strictly literally, outside the context of which they were written; you have to pay attention to the surrounding scripture, its genre, its immediate audience, and the mileiu in which they lived.
        " . . . no not one " does not read to me like hyperbole regardless of where it was quoted from. It reads like emphasis.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #34
          Adrift's seriously promoting in this thread a new book he hasn't read as being the last word on the subject disproving my views... ...that's such a next-level-stupid typically-Adrift thing to do.

          Anyway, it's worth talking briefly about "grace" since that's what Barclay's new book is about (there's some thorough and fairly detailed reviews of exactly what Barclay's book covers, which I've now read, so I'll comment a little bit about where it looks like Barclay goes right and wrong on the subject of 'grace'). First and foremost let me note that IMO the English word "grace" is simply a complete mistranslation, and the correct translation is "favor" and I view that as being pretty much indisputable if you look at how the word is used in Greek (see below, especially Harrison's work). Grace is an old and obscure theological term in English that doesn't mean much to most modern English speakers, whereas we all know what "doing a favor" means and it's a common term that accurately translates the meaning of the greek word charis.

          Barclay's book apparently begins by assessing the topic of gift-giving in ancient society, which thus pretty much parallels the territory covered by Harrison in Paul's Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context. Both authors conclude much the same thing: People did and repaid favors for each other. In ancient society, gift-exchange acted as a kind of parallel economic system where favors were done and repaid, and this had a big role in the powerful mafia-like patron-client family structures that governed Roman society, but even in small villages (and often because there was not a lot of literal coinage in circulation) favors done and repaid acted as an alternative currency where the farmers "gifted" the carpenter some of their harvest grain and the carpenters later "gifted" the farmer back with some carpentry work and the community kept track of who owed who what amount of favors. Barclay titles the reciprocal nature of this gift-giving process "circularity" because he seems to like inventing terms for the sake of it.

          Barclay notes that many ancient Jewish writings use the common Greek word "favor" (Barclay apparently continues to translate it "grace", apparently not recognizing the silliness of such a translation?) but by analyzing them he finds that they do not have any united and consistent theology behind this term when they use it, or that they have a variety of theological views. So the word "favor" (charis) isn't any sort of standardized widespread and uniform Jewish theological term. It's just a common Greek word used for the doing and repaying of favors, which sometimes gets used by religious writers as a matter of course.

          So how does this tie back to Paul? Well in Paul's writings, Paul says that God did us a big favor by sending Jesus. In my personal opinion any theologian or scholar who tries to deeply analyse and psychoanalyse and overanalyse the use of the word favor in Paul's thought is thus barking up entirely the wrong tree - the "did us a big favor" part for the previous sentence isn't the key part and trying to analyse it as if it were and trying to read all of Paul's theology through the lens of the word "favor" is both silly and fruitless. And, following in the tracks of the Reformation era theologians in barking up the wrong tree on the subject of 'grace', that is exactly what Barclay proceeds to do. He invents 6 new BS terms as ways of categorizing grace, and then proceeds to do his best to spend the rest of the book rereading all of Paul's theology through the lends of his categories of grace. IMO: Wrong translation, entirely missing the point, fruitless and stupid project, barking up the wrong tree. He doesn't seem to have even crossed the start line of getting the word translated right, and from the reviews I've read, the only thing I am convinced he actually gets right in the book is that he accurately notes that gift-giving in the ancient world was reciprocal and so God doing us a favor by sending Jesus places on us an obligation to respond and it's not a "free gift" in the sense of being "free of obligation", though it might well have been an unexpected or unanticipated or undeserved gift.

          This is supposedly the way Barclay blazes out a new third path between the New and Old perspectives, by acknowledging the obvious that gift-giving in the ancient world was reciprocal so God's favor to humanity puts an obligation on humanity to respond (gee what an amazing breakthrough... ... oh, no, wait that's something scholars have known for decades). And this is then marketed as a stellar breakthrough that allows conservative Protestants to continue to believing all their Reformation-era theologicalized BS about "grace" while tacking on a new tiny footnote that says "we have a moral obligation to respond to God's grace towards us" as if that were some sort of thoroughly new idea.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Adrift's seriously promoting in this thread a new book he hasn't read as being the last word on the subject disproving my views... ...that's such a next-level-stupid typically-Adrift thing to do.
            Eh, I never said it was the last word on the subject, nor that it necessarily disproved your views. What I said is that it's considered groundbreaking, and that numerous scholars (even those from different sides of the debate) have been raving about it. Which they have. I honestly don't see how briefly mentioning a recent book on the topic that I haven't read, but that I know is getting a lot of academic attention, is worse than your knee-jerk reaction, which was to slam the book and author before you knew anything about them, and then go into a six paragraph screed after reading a few reviews. It's a very childish reaction to having one's views challenged, and the funny thing is, I didn't even really challenge them. All it took was mentioning that there was some legit mainstream criticism to put your undies in a twist. Sort of the reaction one would expect from a hardcore fundie really.

            Last edited by Adrift; 04-17-2017, 10:47 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Do all Republicans like Trump? Why should all NPP proponents like Wright?
              This is SO apples and oranges.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #37
                2014-05-22-romans-6-1-2b.jpg
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Explain it then, how it is to be understood? Weighing genre, the Hebrew culture, present the hermeneutic method to be used.

                  Ecclesiastes 7:20,
                  "For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."
                  Generally, that people have a tendency toward sin.
                  How does that literal understanding explain your dismissing the citing of the reference on the grounds of the verse being strictly literal?

                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  Considering the genre and cultural background of Ecclesiastes (which tends to the hyperbolic), it's probably not a good idea to take the verse strictly literally. It is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, that a man can be without sin. Jesus was without sin, after all, and not because His mother was immaculately conceived (and not because His human will was subsumed to His divine will).
                  Jesus is one person fully human and fully God being the Son of God. He was fully human as a descendant of His human mother a descendant from Adam (Luke 3:38) He was sinless for no other reason then that He was also fully God.

                  Mark 10:18,
                  . . . And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. . . .


                  Being He was fully human He was tempted, but did not sin because He was fully God being the Son of God. (Hebrews 4:15.)
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    How does that literal understanding explain your dismissing the citing of the reference on the grounds of the verse being strictly literal?
                    Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to ask here. I do not think a strictly literal interpretation is legitimate, for reasons already given.
                    Jesus is one person fully human and fully God being the Son of God. He was fully human as a descendant of His human mother a descendant from Adam (Luke 3:38) He was sinless for no other reason then that He was also fully God.

                    Mark 10:18,
                    . . . And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. . . .


                    Being He was fully human He was tempted, but did not sin because He was fully God being the Son of God. (Hebrews 4:15.)
                    So you're denying that Jesus had an independent human will? That would tend to rather go against the natural reading of, e.g., Luke 22:42.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      How does that literal understanding explain your dismissing the citing of the reference on the grounds of the verse being strictly literal?
                      Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to ask here. I do not think a strictly literal interpretation is legitimate, for reasons already given.
                      First off, you have to start with the literal reading. Second, your reasons given made no sense as to what you mean.




                      Jesus is one person fully human and fully God being the Son of God. He was fully human as a descendant of His human mother a descendant from Adam (Luke 3:38) He was sinless for no other reason then that He was also fully God.

                      Mark 10:18,
                      . . . And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. . . .


                      Being He was fully human He was tempted, but did not sin because He was fully God being the Son of God. (Hebrews 4:15.)
                      So you're denying that Jesus had an independent human will? That would tend to rather go against the natural reading of, e.g., Luke 22:42.
                      You are wrong. I am affirming Jesus was a different person from the Father having His own will having two natures one fully human and the other fully God being the Son of God.
                      Luke 22:42,
                      . . . Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. . . ."

                      Jesus in His incarnation being one Person with two natures being fully human as well as being fully God had His own will being a different Person from God the Father. He being truly human even as before His incarnation was not human.

                      Hebrews 5:7-9.
                      . . . Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; . . .


                      The Biblical position is Jesus has His will, and He did the Father's will. Jesus had one will being one Person two natures being fully human and fully God, sharing the divine nature with His Father who sent Him.

                      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/monotheletism
                      Last edited by 37818; 04-19-2017, 10:21 PM.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        First off, you have to start with the literal reading.
                        No, you don't. If the literal reading is hyperbole or sarcasm, then the literal reading is a mis-reading. You have to pay attention to context.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          No, you don't. If the literal reading is hyperbole or sarcasm, then the literal reading is a mis-reading. You have to pay attention to context.
                          A real literal reading must take into account all language usage, not just what the words are at dictionary definition level.
                          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            No, you don't. If the literal reading is hyperbole or sarcasm, then the literal reading is a mis-reading. You have to pay attention to context.
                            Words have meaning. You have to start with the words used. Otherwise meaningless.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Words have meaning. You have to start with the words used. Otherwise meaningless.
                              Naturally. However, since words often have more than one meaning, you also have to look at how they're used.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Naturally. However, since words often have more than one meaning, you also have to look at how they're used.
                                Understood.
                                The New Living Translation renders that verse as a paragraph translating it:
                                Not a single person on earth is always good and never sins.
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                137 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                425 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X