tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post61122148072795428..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: What did Jesus (not) say about... the remaining 23 NT books? (full post)Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-715725210734377462011-02-27T08:20:55.633-08:002011-02-27T08:20:55.633-08:00Anonymous MCC, you're simply incorrect. You wa...Anonymous MCC, you're simply incorrect. You want to say that is a popular option, fine. You want to say it is the one and only permissible option, wrong.<br /><br />One of the things that makes Greek cooler than English is that the names of the letters of the alphabet all begin with the letters themselves. For instance, the name our "L," as pronounced, actually starts with a short "e" (i.e. "ell").<br /><br />So HSAT, I really doubt you'll find many grammars transliterating the name of υ as "ypsilon."<br /><br />Finally, as examples see explanations in Machen (1923), or David Alan Black (2009).DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87285295921685103622011-02-24T10:09:40.791-08:002011-02-24T10:09:40.791-08:00The earlier comment is correct that your tongue-in...The earlier comment is correct that your tongue-in-cheek term should be erythro- not eruthro-.<br /><br />Standard practice transliterizes words of Greek origin through Latin, and as a result upsilon is represented by y, and omicron upsilon standardly corresponds to u. Machen has nothing to do with this.<br /><br />Also part of Acts 20:35 is also generally printed in red, as are much of Rev. 2 and 3. So maybe the title should refer to the other 21 books. <br /><br />This has been your pedantic moment for the day. We now return you to your normally scheduled comment stream.<br /><br />Anyway, erythro- is a well-established element in technical terms, such as erythrocyte for red blood cells.MCChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15202950060130973586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29517817872242516422011-02-23T13:25:49.688-08:002011-02-23T13:25:49.688-08:00Odd that you write as if you feel you know this b...Odd that you write as if you feel you know this blog so well, yet you seem not actually to know anything about it.<br /><br />If you were to begin reading the posts all the way through, you'd find that every post contains facts and evidence. As this one did. That's what I meant.<br /><br />Who is disputing the centrality of love? I didn't. Perhaps it is the definition of love that you have problems with.<br /><br />As to the rest, I didn't know that you had issues with Jesus' view of the OT as well. <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-did-jesus-not-say-about-god-full.html" rel="nofollow">This post</a> will help you concerning that. As to your other problem-area, perhaps the discussion under <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-did-jesus-not-say-about-truth-and.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> will help you.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25006490227202082792011-02-23T13:07:58.122-08:002011-02-23T13:07:58.122-08:00You also failed to refute, or even acknowledge my ...You also failed to refute, or even acknowledge my claims about the centrality of love in the NT. Instead of attacking my ideology (as I did yours) you've attacked me personally for being judgmental of you. Well yes, I am judgmental of you, and I've supported that judgment with an scripturally-based argument that acknowledges the importance of love and forgiveness in Jesus's teachings.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618990203288279656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9698776830069448992011-02-23T13:05:02.827-08:002011-02-23T13:05:02.827-08:00You didn't include any facts or evidence, you ...You didn't include any facts or evidence, you just said "Loving God necessarily involves us in affirming, as well, the full authority of the Old Testament, as Jesus did." That's an assertion, not an argument. An argument (or "mentalist judgmentalism" as you call it) would lay out support for your assertion based on either Scripture or reason, and you've utilized neither. Why does loving god necessarily involve affirming the full authority of the Old and New Testaments? If you've arbitrarily decided that it's just a matter of faith, then fine, but you can't claim that your faith is an "argument".Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618990203288279656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57014292888130077022011-02-23T12:39:48.096-08:002011-02-23T12:39:48.096-08:00...and then more of that mentalist judgmentalism o......and then more of that mentalist judgmentalism of which you seem so fond. Well, I leave you to that, and am more than content with folks to deal with the facts and evidence I put out in plain daylight for all to see.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44735658537070281712011-02-23T12:37:43.100-08:002011-02-23T12:37:43.100-08:00Ah, we've changed subjects. Okey doke; so you ...Ah, we've changed subjects. Okey doke; so you abandon your point and affirm the authority of the whole NT. Terrific!<br /><br />All of us who write here affirm the full authority of all the New Testament. Loving God necessarily involves us in affirming, as well, the full authority of the Old Testament, as Jesus did.<br /><br />It's a package deal.<br /><br />As to the judgments you level at us (about being judgmental), it sounds as if you read us as selectively as you accuse us of reading the NT.<br /><br />Which... isn't it ironic?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86022428798619796372011-02-23T12:36:47.423-08:002011-02-23T12:36:47.423-08:00It seems to me that sola scriptura must mean SOLA ...It seems to me that sola scriptura must mean SOLA scriptura. Anything accepted beyond that (including the truth of the Bible itself) requires either acceptance of a theological argument or faith in the Tradition, which assembled and affirms the books of the Bible. Otherwise you're making arbitrary assertions based on your own motives and then insisting upon their truth because YOU have faith (unlike all of those other people who also claim faith, but disagree with you). This requires a very insincere and un-selfreflective brand of Christianity, and it's no better than anyone else's take on it.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618990203288279656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29560047433806392522011-02-23T12:29:22.194-08:002011-02-23T12:29:22.194-08:00I suspect that your disdain for "Red Letter C...I suspect that your disdain for "Red Letter Christians" has mainly to do with their focus on Christ's teachings on love and the social gospel. Since this blog primarily instrumentalizes the Bible as a tool for judgment and condemnation, it has little use for Jesus's teachings about love, forgivness and charity. <br /><br />I agree that there is more to the story than what's included in the Canonical Gospels, but they are certainly an important part of that story. If you wish to present Christianity in its fullness, you must acknowledge that the New Testament has at least as much to say about HOW to live as HOW NOT to live. I understand that the former is less useful to those whose gaze is trained on others in judgment rather than on God in love, but that doesn't meant they are less important. Christ said that "love God and love your neighbor" are the two most improtant commandments. It's worth noting that both are positive affirmations, not prohibitions.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618990203288279656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45197634449433882112011-02-23T12:22:52.468-08:002011-02-23T12:22:52.468-08:00I think that is about as weighty as observing tha...I think that is about as weighty as observing that Jesus never said Bibles would be printed on gold-edged pages, so modern Bibles don't count. Which is to say, not so much.<br /><br />However, Jesus did say that His words would outlast heaven and earth (Matthew 24:35), and He most certainly did expect His disciples to keep His teaching (John 8:31-32). Couple that with the rest of the post, and the problem you thought you had isn't a problem anymore.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27614664611856717432011-02-23T12:13:13.463-08:002011-02-23T12:13:13.463-08:00Jesus also never said that anyone would document o...Jesus also never said that anyone would document or collect his teachings or the teachings of his disciples. Your claim that we should accept the NT as in its current form as infallible is as arbitrary (and not scripturally supported) as RLC's claim that only Jesus's words count.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618990203288279656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51933631788960088492011-02-23T02:09:23.228-08:002011-02-23T02:09:23.228-08:00Of course, by the above argument, Jesus also "...Of course, by the above argument, Jesus also "says" in Timothy that "all scripture is God-breathed". Jesus is God, and thus all scripture is "breathed" by him. <br /><br />Overall though, I am mostly annoyed because you put on paper what I've been saying pretty much since I heard the term, but didn't write down yet! When people talk about "red-letter" I tell them that I'm a "black-letter" Christian...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32048711314765620952011-02-22T23:43:10.947-08:002011-02-22T23:43:10.947-08:00Mike.
Taking another person’s thoughts and putting...Mike.<br />Taking another person’s thoughts and putting it in your own words aint nice :)Thomas Louwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08406486510590654502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53834303250168286562011-02-22T23:36:47.218-08:002011-02-22T23:36:47.218-08:00I really like the "I can't believe it'...I really like the "I can't believe it's not biblical picture.". LOLCRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36839221900841189622011-02-22T21:40:15.055-08:002011-02-22T21:40:15.055-08:00Questioning the benefit of this, cuz it's like...Questioning the benefit of this, cuz it's likely there's not much net-disagreement. But here goes.<br /><br /><b>Dan</b> (not DJP): <i>Doesn't Luke 24 say all of the OT is about Jesus?</i><br /><br />Actually, no it doesn't. It says that Jesus explained those things in OT which were about Him. <br /><br />Is it true that all of the OT as a whole points to Jesus? Yes. But that's different than saying every single text is about Jesus. And even if that were true that's not what Luke 24 is saying.<br /><br /><i>So couldn't you expand your last statement to Genesis to Revelation are the words of Jesus?</i><br /><br />Even if Luke 24 did teach us that every sentence in the OT was about Jesus, it still wouldn't necessarily follow that He spoke all those words. Speaking about Jesus is different than Jesus speaking.<br /><br />What makes the NT different is that Jesus Himself says that <i>He</i> will be the One who gives revelation to the Apostles through the Holy Spirit, as Dan pointed out so ably.<br /><br />Now, does that mean that Genesis to Malachi is any less inspired than, or is inferior in any way to, the NT? Absolutely not. Does it nullify that Jesus is the Eternal Word of God, highlighting an intimate relationship with all revelation, OT and NT alike? No way.<br /><br />Just sayin. Know what I'm sayin?Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18363797278202147812011-02-22T20:44:37.913-08:002011-02-22T20:44:37.913-08:00‘But then I would hasten to say that those words a...‘But then I would hasten to say that those words and teachings are found from Matthew to Revelation”<br />Dan. <br />Hmm. So the OT books aren’t also the word of Christ? Christ is fully God and the revelation of God too man, Christ is the word so I believe you should say “Genesis to Revelation.’<br />@David: 1 Cor 7 10:12<br /><br />First: I have read somewhere “I not the Lord” is not in the original, but that is a whole debate its own and “I don’t have my tools here.”<br /><br />Second: Some are of the opinion that Jesus actually did say all the rest that Paul is mentioning here but that these words are not “actual words of Christ” quoted in other words but inspired by the Holy Spirit thus authoritiveThomas Louwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08406486510590654502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7008889029313750992011-02-22T19:02:11.303-08:002011-02-22T19:02:11.303-08:00BTW, I think it was an inspired bit of timing that...BTW, I think it was an inspired bit of timing that you published this post of the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter.naturgesetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15268507379933286863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61060973026355211342011-02-22T15:33:58.099-08:002011-02-22T15:33:58.099-08:00...Of course, the Jesus Seminar elevated this to a......Of course, the Jesus Seminar elevated this to a science, by constructing hypothetical source documents and voting on which words of Jesus are more or less historically "plausible," meaning more or less acceptable to modern sensibilities.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45810659106600995962011-02-22T15:22:18.665-08:002011-02-22T15:22:18.665-08:00That was my problem for years: liking the words of...That was my problem for years: liking the words of Jesus (well, liking <i>some</i> of His words), and disliking the words of the Apostles...<i>especially</i> Paul.<br /><br />Of course, you still have to deal with the fact that many of Jesus' <i>own</i> words are on such unpalatable subjects as hell and damnation. The response is to isolate those out as Apostolic accretions.<br /><br />Basically, you end up filtering everything through the sieve of, "Would a god with 21st-century humanistic values say about this or that...and how does it affirm and validate me?"Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71596930669630966122011-02-22T11:51:27.483-08:002011-02-22T11:51:27.483-08:00Doesn't Luke 24 say all of the OT is about Jes...Doesn't Luke 24 say all of the OT is about Jesus? So couldn't you expand your last statement to Genesis to Revelation are the words of Jesus? Will that keep us from having a subset of holy words (Red letters) in a subset of holy words(NT) in the whole Bible?<br /><br />Overall, good post.Whozep68https://www.blogger.com/profile/12842801070474345515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53688445859170454182011-02-22T09:33:13.569-08:002011-02-22T09:33:13.569-08:00Great post!
As for a name for the red-letterites,...Great post!<br /><br />As for a name for the red-letterites, how about <i>Jeffersonians</i>? He liked to cut things out too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59932712833179397902011-02-22T09:15:37.768-08:002011-02-22T09:15:37.768-08:00Yes rot or in the older orthography roth is red; a...Yes <i>rot</i> or in the older orthography <i>roth</i> is red; and <i>Buchstab</i> is letter.naturgesetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15268507379933286863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11866567614148978692011-02-22T08:38:07.413-08:002011-02-22T08:38:07.413-08:00David, the short answer is that this distinguishes...David, the short answer is that this distinguishes areas where we have recorded words of Jesus (i.e. in the Gospels), and those where we don't. So Jesus did not speak specifically to spiritually mixed marriage. In Paul, "the Lord" virtually always means Jesus. It is the difference between positions where he can appeal to specific dominical words, and those where he can't (but still can speak as an inspired apostle).DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36245117883107673012011-02-22T08:35:42.990-08:002011-02-22T08:35:42.990-08:00David,
Just offering my two cents...when Paul say...David,<br /><br />Just offering my two cents...when Paul says I, not the Lord, he is saying that Jesus did not say this in his earthly ministry, but that he is saying it as instruction from an apostle who is representing the Lord. this is meant to be taken as a measure of freedom in Christ, but rather a more focused teaching on certain subjects that still maintains the authority of Christ. For surely the instruction given in verse 12 goes hand in hand with those in verses 10 and 11. otherwise, we are back to trying to determine what parts of the Bible have authority, when we should accept that <b><i>ALL</i></b> of the Bible is authoritative...and we have to take all of Scripture in order to work everything out.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71271071267231614612011-02-22T08:22:38.533-08:002011-02-22T08:22:38.533-08:00I have a question as to what we do with I Cor 7:10...I have a question as to what we do with I Cor 7:10-12. Is Paul saying, under inspiration, "I, not the Lord," in order to point directly to a measure of freedom in Christ?<br /><br />That's how I'd handle it, but I'd also like your thoughts.David Regierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09766862583586784668noreply@blogger.com