tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.comments2024-02-14T11:24:47.692-08:00Just and SinnerAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comBlogger1853125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-43789943284288640642014-09-23T10:16:51.416-07:002014-09-23T10:16:51.416-07:00This stuff about questioning the _physical_ resurr...This stuff about questioning the _physical_ resurrection is nonsense. The idea that someone might confess believe in "resurrection," but secretly mean that the spirit lives on with God, or that the man "lives on" in some figurative sense in the lives of his followers, comes from modern liberalism, not from the ancient world.<br /><br />The Greek word for resurrection is anastasis. It literally means, "standing again." When someone dies, their body falls down. When the anastasis happens, it stands up again. Similarly, the Latin word "resurrectio" means "rising again." There was no confusion among the ancients what the word meant. When St. Paul was preaching to the philosophers at Athens, it was his claim that God would judge the world through a man (Jesus) that He had raised from the dead (ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν) that led many of them to mock and ignore him. But the idea that the soul would go on after the body was dead was a familiar idea in Greek philosophy. In fact, the idea that the souls of particularly wise and just men (Minos, Rhadaminthus, and Aiakos) would judge the dead was a tenet of Greek paganism. So if that was a possible meaning of "anastasis" to Paul's contemporaries, why did they assume instead that he was teaching something ignorant and philosophically ludicrous, like that a dead body might stand up again?<br /><br />It's from 19th and 20th century liberals, not from 1st century thinkers, that we get this strange insistence that it's possible to believe in "resurrection" without believing in PHYSICAL resurrection. That kind of doubletalk requires a distance from the original languages and their thought-worlds, and--more importantly--a deep-seated need to convince onself that one is affirming an ancient and beloved religion when actually one is doing the opposite. "Physical resurrection" is a redundancy. In some cases it may be a redundancy that promotes clarity, like "free gift" sometimes is, but it's ridiculous for people to argue, as above, "Sure, it affirms _resurrection_ but not explicitly _physical_ resurrection."Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974330522508437147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-91812316090099449762014-06-19T05:23:46.145-07:002014-06-19T05:23:46.145-07:00Maybe a bit lat to this discussion, but I am glad ...Maybe a bit lat to this discussion, but I am glad I found it. I work with a non-North American Lutheran church body. An influential application of the 2 Kingdoms here goes like this: Only the hidden (invisible) church is the Right Hand Kingdom. Grace is applied there. All work that deals with worldly things (e.g., paying bills, employment issues, disputes) are the work of the Left Hand Kingdom in the church. As a result there is no room for the Gospel in this 'Left Hand Kingdom work'. There appears to be some Antinomianism at work, some denial of the authority of the Word, and lots of human 'wisdom'. Very frustrating to deal with.Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-85365304971956112452014-06-16T10:18:09.493-07:002014-06-16T10:18:09.493-07:00Jordan,
Sadly, you are correct in dropping intera...Jordan,<br /><br />Sadly, you are correct in dropping interaction with Gary. He is not listening and does not want to expend any effort in clinging to (or even being impartial to) the faith he once proclaimed. He is actively a scoffer. Upon reading your comment above on his site, he has implied strongly that you are a flat earther.<br /><br />He also for some reason has accused the Church for 1500 years teaching the earth was flat (in "flat" contradiction to the facts easily obtained.) <br /><br />Though he cuts and pastes everything he finds against the faith, he has not even spent five minutes searching the web to verify his accusation. In five seconds I could find <a rel="nofollow">this</a>, and <a rel="nofollow">this</a>. Nor can he be bothered to read a thorough book on the Resurrection such as N. T. Wright since "it doesn't take 1,000 pages to prove a historical fact." Well, one hotly debated probably would.<br /><br />But Gary wants none of it. As you said, his mind is made up. He mocks those that try to help and wars against the faith. <br /><br />He reminds me of Hebrews describing those who fell in the desert (something he also denies historically) and those who have made a shipwreck of their faith.<br /><br />It has made me cling more to Christ in fear. Warning. Taken. <br /><br />Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00409665559099325949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-30413381289450802612014-06-06T18:27:10.490-07:002014-06-06T18:27:10.490-07:00I'll make sure to get it fixed. I will let you...I'll make sure to get it fixed. I will let you know.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-61378247878958119082014-06-06T15:17:01.427-07:002014-06-06T15:17:01.427-07:00The RSS feed on the new site doesn't seem oper...The RSS feed on the new site doesn't seem operational.David Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11966977894876326659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-8924953141982010032014-06-05T08:53:37.812-07:002014-06-05T08:53:37.812-07:00Gary,
It does appear that you have already abando...Gary,<br /><br />It does appear that you have already abandoned the Christian faith at this point. I don't feel like getting into a long heated debate with DagoodS regarding his assertions, especially since it does not appear that you are actually looking for answers. From your blog posts, it has become clear that you have rejected the orthodox faith.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-76289194926749408782014-06-04T18:36:05.980-07:002014-06-04T18:36:05.980-07:00Gary's new comment:
GaryJune 4, 2014 at 6:...Gary's new comment:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />GaryJune 4, 2014 at 6:18 PM<br /><br />Thank you for sharing this information, sgl.<br /><br />A liberal Christian sent me an email yesterday that said this: If your theology does not cause you to be more loving and kind to other people, then there is something wrong with your theology.<br /><br />I challenge any of you to go onto two of the most popular LCMS Lutheran blogs (Brothers of John the Steadfast and Cranach, the blog of Veith) and see how much "love your neighbor as yourself" you will see. Not much. Instead you will see a lot of judgmental, really nasty, mean-spirited people who want to tear down and destroy anyone who isn't exactly like them.<br /><br />It's really disgusting.<br /><br /><br />He is now calling his blog: Escaping Christian Fundamentalism<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-19917378698967730372014-06-04T17:34:27.592-07:002014-06-04T17:34:27.592-07:00Dear Pastor Cooper, Use your discretion whether y...Dear Pastor Cooper, Use your discretion whether you want to post this or not. It is for your info. I would prefer that you keep it to yourself. If you want to post it, delete this first paragraph.<br /><br />I don't know if "Gary" has been playing us or not. Here is a comment he just made on his blog yesterday:<br /><br />GaryJune 3, 2014 at 9:20 PM<br /><br />"No, my friend, I am very aware of how close I am to abandoning orthodox Christianity...I'm already there:<br /><br />1. I believe that the Old Testament god was an invention of ancient superstitious, barbaric, nomadic people looking for an excuse to slaughter men, women, and children to take the land they coveted. I do not believe that this god is my God. That god would be a sick monster...but he never actually existed, except in the minds of an ancient, superstitious, war-mongering Mediterranean people.<br /><br />2. I do not accept the authority of Churchmen in the first five centuries AD to tell me what are and are not the very Words of God. Jesus never gave a list of which books would contain his words and teachings. This decision was made by men. The men who chose the books of your Bible were NOT under inspiration to choose the canon of the NT.<br /><br />3. Therefore, since I do not believe we can know what are or are not God's Word in the 27 books of the NT, I do not accept the teachings of anyone other than Jesus...including Paul. Therefore my previously held positions on gender roles in the Church, sexuality, and others issues not covered by Jesus, have now been tossed out the window.<br /><br />4. I am still waiting for Pastor Bombaro or someone else to convince me of the evidence for the PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. So for now I am a "Red-Letter" Christian: I only hold to the teachings of a risen Jesus, minus any Greek/Hebrew superstitions regarding the after-life."<br /><br />Take a look at these sites and some of the comments:<br /><br />http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/06/does-anyone-have-evidence-for.html#comment-form<br /><br />http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/06/the-emperor-has-no-clothes.html#comment-form<br /><br />http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/06/hell-is-invention-of-ancient-greeks.html#comment-form<br /><br />"Gary" is listening to his atheist friends. From following him, I think he has wanted to flip a long time ago.<br /><br />I know you're busy -- but in case he tries to appeal to you again, you can use your judgment.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-88316404357106211282014-06-03T10:48:27.497-07:002014-06-03T10:48:27.497-07:00Good podcast.
One minor correction: In his epist...Good podcast.<br /><br />One minor correction: In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul wrote that he confirred with Peter and James in Jerusalem THREE years after his conversion (Gal 1:18) and then went to Jerusalem AGAIN fourteen years later (Gal 2:1).<br /><br />One can also look at the early apostolic sermons of Peter and Paul, recorded in Acts 2 and 13 respectively--which both quote Psalm 16 ("You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption") and then contrast King David 'seeing corruption' to Jesus 'NOT seeing corruption'--as evidence that from the earliest times they were preaching a PHYSICAL resurrection (with the implied empty tomb).<br /><br />Doubting ThomasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-60582151737930408282014-05-30T19:56:42.685-07:002014-05-30T19:56:42.685-07:003.) Notice his insertion of liberal higher critici...3.) Notice his insertion of liberal higher criticism in an attempt to force at least a tacit acceptance of a wholly unproven theory ("Additionally, as Luke and Matthew rely upon Q, Matthew must be before or at Luke"). What he's doing is playing a little trick used in political arguments to paint the opponent into the corner by making them accept a false premise which suits their argument ("Since global warming exists..."). It's insidious for two reasons: 1.) there has NEVER been proof of a Q document; the Q document is a theory invented in order to destroy the inspiration of Scripture which has never been proven, and 2.) this fellow, in doing so, has ceased to take the high road in his argument, and is resorting to devious tactics in order to make his point.<br /><br />4.) His final two paragraphs are an absurd and irrelevant conclusion. Again he makes a non-sequitur premise followed by an unreasonable argument. Paul was writing to believers, and was reinforcing what they had already learned. He was not there to re-teach them the gospel and the life of Jesus. <br /><br />And frankly, this is an absurd point. This is like me teaching a trigonometry class and somebody coming in and criticizing me about my math knowledge because I did not re-teach the class that 2+2=4. It's not necessary for the course, because it's assumed prior knowledge. The Corinthians were ALREADY Christians. They were already given the gospel, and logic dictates that they already knew something of the person and work of Christ. That was not a necessary thing to talk about in this letter, especially when the crux of the letter was to take care of ethical problems in the church concerning other matters. I mean, really-does this guy even understand the irrelevance of this pseudo-intellectual talk?<br /><br />I'm sorry, but in the end, I'm forced to go back to my previous premise: I don't think this guy wants to believe in God, because a person who truly wants to believe will look at things through a far less jaundiced eye and not nitpick anything and everything in a desperate attempt to hide behind denial of God's existence. <br /><br />Funny thing related to this: Lee Strobel was on the radio one time talking about his conversion, and the question came up as to how Christians should deal with their doubts. After answering the question, he added (and I am paraphrasing) that atheists don't like to talk about the fact that a great many of them doubt their position more than they are willing to admit. That was a very revealing thought.<br /><br />So I pray for atheists, even for people like DagoodS who seem to try to argue their way out of belief. But arguing with a man about the existence of the sun when he refuses to open his eyes is a problem that only the Holy Spirit can fix.J. Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250871982508579712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-56517768463025414642014-05-30T19:56:15.517-07:002014-05-30T19:56:15.517-07:00Gary,
Let's take his argument apart:
1.)"...Gary,<br />Let's take his argument apart:<br /><br />1.)"Pastor Cooper takes issue with my statement the actual evidence regarding an empty tomb is a written account in Mark, dated from 70 CE – 113 CE. He disagrees both with the fact it was the earliest AND the dating of Mark."<br /><br />False assertion. The evidence regarding an empty tomb is based on history, not just Mark. Furthermore, his statement that Mark's earliest dating is 70 AD is non-sequitur, since I Corinthians has been dated as early as 50 AD (see http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence)<br /><br />2.) His second section regarding I Cor 15 is nothing more than loose assumptions fitted to philosophical jargon. For starters, he is forgetting that by the time of Christ, the Jews had many theological misgivings that can be easily corrected by a proper reading of the Old Testament texts regarding Christ. He's falsely equating what the Jews believed with what is to be completely true according to the Scriptures. This is slipshod arguing: anyone with a decent sense of reading comprehension who looks at the New Testament will see that the Pharisees and Sadducees were rebuked by Jesus for bad doctrine and practice. It's basically using overgeneralizations as a starting point in order to set up a straw man argument.<br /><br />To be continued...J. Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250871982508579712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-30156581754532550082014-05-30T14:16:52.496-07:002014-05-30T14:16:52.496-07:00Hi,
I just listened to this program after someone...Hi,<br /><br />I just listened to this program after someone posting on Darryl Hart's blog mentioned it. I am a Reformed layman with an intense interest in the current controversy. I do appreciate the law-gospel antithesis as emphasized by a number of contemporary Reformed Theologians such as Michael Horton, but I also think Jones and others provide a helpful corrective against a tendency among some to shortchange the doctrine of sanctification. I wanted to mention a couple of things.<br /><br />1. Regarding the necessity of good works, Calvin, who affirmed their necessity (as you do in your program), was clear that this does not properly speaking imply causality, since the cause of our salvation is always and ever God's grace alone (the Father being the efficient cause, Christ's work being the material cause, and the instrumental cause being faith). Yet Calvin was willing to speak in terms of the "inferior causality" of good works, which for him simply meant that they preceded eternal life in the order of God's administration. (His discussion of this is in Institutes 3.14.17 and then 3.14.21.) This idea is reflected in Westminster Larger Catechism 32, which says that "holy obedience" is "the way which [God] hath appointed [the elect] to salvation." I don't believe Jones or the Puritans he cites are really saying anything more than this, so I believe you are mistaken to identify this notion with Romanism (which as I understand it views good works as meritorious).<br /><br />2. Also, toward the end of the program when you provided some quotes from the kindle edition of Jones's book, I don't believe you were clear that the very first quote was not actually from Jones himself but rather a citation from the Reformed theologian, Petrus Van Mastricht.<br /><br />I enjoyed listening.David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-90574541675465220522014-05-30T14:15:36.084-07:002014-05-30T14:15:36.084-07:00Hi,
I just listened to this program after someone...Hi,<br /><br />I just listened to this program after someone posting on Darryl Hart's blog mentioned it. I am a Reformed layman with an intense interest in the current controversy. I do appreciate the law-gospel antithesis as emphasized by a number of contemporary Reformed Theologians such as Michael Horton, but I also think Jones and others provide a helpful corrective against a tendency among some to shortchange the doctrine of sanctification. I wanted to mention a couple of things.<br /><br />1. Regarding the necessity of good works, Calvin, who affirmed their necessity (as you do in your program), was clear that this does not properly speaking imply causality, since the cause of our salvation is always and ever God's grace alone (the Father being the efficient cause, Christ's work being the material cause, and the instrumental cause being faith). Yet Calvin was willing to speak in terms of the "inferior causality" of good works, which for him simply meant that they preceded eternal life in the order of God's administration. (His discussion of this is in Institutes 3.14.17 and then 3.14.21.) This idea is reflected in Westminster Larger Catechism 32, which says that "holy obedience" is "the way which [God] hath appointed [the elect] to salvation." I don't believe Jones or the Puritans he cites are really saying anything more than this, so I believe you are mistaken to identify this notion with Romanism (which as I understand it views good works as meritorious).<br /><br />2. Also, toward the end of the program when you provided some quotes from the kindle edition of Jones's book, I don't believe you were clear that the very first quote was not actually from Jones himself but rather a citation from the Reformed theologian, Petrus Van Mastricht.<br /><br />I enjoyed listening.David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-29202064104598868462014-05-29T10:57:14.855-07:002014-05-29T10:57:14.855-07:00With all due respect, I think you have misrepresen...With all due respect, I think you have misrepresented Hyde's essay here, especially with this statement: "First, he falsely argues that obedience to the Law does indeed become easy for the believer apart from the reality of Christ’s fulfillment of it." He clearly does not argue this. Since you did not, I will link to his essay so your readers can confirm my point for themselves and also see how Hyde makes use of Luther's exposition of this text. This statement from Hyde's piece may suffice for some: "So, are we 'unburdened' from the curse of the law by the wonderful work of Jesus Christ? Praise God, yes! This is right doctrine" (Hyde). Now the link: http://www.meetthepuritans.com/2014/05/16/his-commandments-are-not-burdensome/John H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-28964885742021856802014-05-28T21:12:14.499-07:002014-05-28T21:12:14.499-07:00Personally, I wouldn't waste too much time on ...Personally, I wouldn't waste too much time on atheists.<br /><br />I mean, after all, they saw Jesus raise the dead, and yet they did not believe.<br /><br />the Old Adamhttp://theoldadam.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-19084162707925644782014-05-28T20:26:43.326-07:002014-05-28T20:26:43.326-07:00This gets back to another problem in your posting....This gets back to another problem in your posting. This is primarily because of different definitions of what the law is and does. I need not point out that in the three uses of the law, there is not one mention of sanctifying sinners. Perhaps that is a reductio ad absurdum use of your argument. Yet, that is how it sounds.<br /><br />I honestly do not see your thrust here and most children of the Reformation probably wouldn't either. Forde doesn't destroy sanctification, he places it within its proper paradigm. Not just Paul, but Christ himself, spoke of good works being inseparable from a heart turned upon God.<br /><br />Perhaps I am reading your posting wrong, but I find it to waffle between aquiesence to Forde's statements, ("As the knowledge of one's own sin increases, so does one's understanding of the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, our sanctification involves "getting used to justification."" or "It has to be said that Forde does allow for progress in sanctification in some sense."), but then you turn around and make an argument against a very contrived reading of Forde.<br /><br />Here is the main reason for challenging you. I admire your work. I may disagree with you, but I really do admire what you do. (I enjoyed the piece where you countered the contemporary re-baptizers.) I also admire how many people in the Missouri Synod and like-minded Lutheran bodies are at the forefront of reengaging the Church Fathers. However, such a reengagement is usually too much reliant on the Catholic notions of justification by faith and works. I believe you have honest questions about Forde, but you ascribe to him certain motivations that would be alien to him. Forde was an ALC Lutheran (where some of the most stalwart orthodox Lutherans left of the Missouri Synod and far to the right of the fruitcakes originated). I believe there is an error of paranoia in insinuating that Forde was secretly of their ilk or at least could cause people to stray into their fold. <br /><br />This leads to my real reason for the comment, I worry that the conservative Lutherans sometimes are reactionary for the sake of being reactionary. I am a member of the LCMC and NALC. I have fought back against the excesses of the ELCA. I have the battle scars. But lets not fight battles that do not need to be fought. Let us not let works' righteousness sneak in the back door when we are fighting antinomian disestablishment legalism at the front door. That is my concern.Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14575487473362849333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-6334965655481657782014-05-28T20:25:59.401-07:002014-05-28T20:25:59.401-07:00Jordan, I think Jesus' "High Priestly Pra...Jordan, I think Jesus' "High Priestly Prayer" is a good exegetical text for Forde's understanding of sanctification:<br /><br />13 νῦν δὲ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι, καὶ ταῦτα λαλῶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἵνα ἔχωσιν τὴν χαρὰν τὴν ἐμὴν πεπληρωμένην ἐν ⸀ἑαυτοῖς. 14 ἐγὼ δέδωκα αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον σου, καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτούς, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. 15 οὐκ ἐρωτῶ ἵνα ἄρῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἀλλ’ ἵνα τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. 16 ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ εἰσὶν καθὼς ἐγὼ ⸂οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου⸃. 17 ἁγίασον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ⸀ἀληθείᾳ· ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν. 18 καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὸν κόσμον, κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον· 19 καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ⸂ὦσιν καὶ αὐτοὶ⸃ ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 20 Οὐ περὶ τούτων δὲ ἐρωτῶ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν πιστευόντων διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ, 21 ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, ⸀πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ⸀ἡμῖν ὦσιν, ἵνα ὁ κόσμος ⸀πιστεύῃ ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας. <br /><br />13 But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them [d]from [e]the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.<br /><br />20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.<br /><br />John 17:13 - 21. (NASB is the English Translation)<br /><br />Just looking at 17:17 we see this notion of sanctification as alien righteousness. Now when I say alien righteousness I am not using the Barthian paradigm. (Pannenberg and Bonhoeffer sorted that out very nicely in their own ways.) What I refer to is the fact that the sensus divinitatis must propel people to understanding and makes sense of the world.<br /><br />Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14575487473362849333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-44667850372042517512014-05-27T20:07:46.743-07:002014-05-27T20:07:46.743-07:00DagoodS left this comment on my blog in response t...DagoodS left this comment on my blog in response to your podcast about him:<br /><br />Well…I listened to the podcast. Twice. Nothing really surprising or new here. My biggest question after listening would be this—why the inconsistent methodology? Why is the very same argument utilized to bolster one claim but then considered illogical, non-sensical or silly when the opposing person uses it?<br /><br />Pastor Cooper takes issue with my statement the actual evidence regarding an empty tomb is a written account in Mark, dated from 70 CE – 113 CE. He disagrees both with the fact it was the earliest AND the dating of Mark.<br /><br />Fair enough. Pastor Cooper relies upon 1 Cor. 15 to claim Paul implied (although did not directly state) there was an empty tomb by stating Jesus was dead, buried and then raised on the third day. I think it correct—if Paul believed Jesus was physically raised with a slightly modified but same basic body Jesus had before death, then 1 Cor. 15 more likely means an empty tomb.<br /><br />Did Paul believe Jesus was physically resurrected, or taken to heaven by God? Pastor Cooper recommends reading N.T. Wright, and makes the sole argument Jewish belief was in a physical resurrection, and would not be a spiritual one. (Pastor Cooper does not deal with the remaining part of 1 Cor. 15 which would appear to be referring to spiritual—not physical—resurrection, although he does indicate it would take too long to go into all the issues.)<br /><br />So the method is this: Since Jews did not claim a spiritual resurrection, then Paul would never claim a spiritual resurrection, therefore Paul would never have come up with the belief in a spiritual resurrection. But wait…aren’t we also told Jews would never come up with a dying Messiah, and therefore the disciples would never make it up, so therefore it must be…true?<br /><br />Which is it? If it was something the Jews would never have come up with (spiritual resurrection or dying messiah) and the someone is claiming it occurred (spiritual resurrection or dying messiah) must it therefore be false (spiritual resurrection) or true (dying messiah)?<br /><br />Do you see how the method changed to conveniently fit the apologist’s desired outcome? <br /><br />Secondly Pastor Cooper takes issue with my dating of Mark, recommending (but not providing the arguments of) J.A.T. Robinson. The crux of Robinson’s argument is that Acts does not list the Destruction of Jerusalem and Paul’s death. Therefore the author does not know the events. Therefore the events have not occurred yet—i.e. prior to 70 CE. (Robinson then states Luke is before Acts, and as Luke relies upon Mark, then Mark must be before Luke. Additionally, as Luke and Matthew rely upon Q, Matthew must be before or at Luke. Yet Pastor Cooper specifically rejects this synoptic solution. Pastor Cooper apparently relies upon the dating provided by Robinson while rejecting the entire premise used to demonstrate the dating! I couldn’t figure it out.)<br /><br />O.K., so the method in place is—if the author doesn’t list it and it would naturally be within the genre, then the author doesn’t know it. In the case of Acts—because it hasn’t happened yet. [I should note--I have discussed this dating at length. Two significant problems—Acts DOES know Paul is dead, and Luke DOES mention Jerusalem’s fall.]<br /><br />But..when I claim Paul doesn’t list any events in Jesus’ life (other than the Eucharist and 1 Cor. 15 tradition), and it would naturally bolster his doctrinal arguments (such as love, divorce, eating food, resurrection, giving, etc.), it is because he doesn’t know the Jesus legend as developed in the gospels, because it hasn’t been created it—Pastor Cooper says this is an illogical argument?<br /><br />Huh? Acts not listing means it hasn’t happened yet; Paul’s not listing means he is conveniently not using it as it doesn’t suit him. <br /><br />This is what I mean by inconsistent methodology.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-31114319777635937492014-05-27T16:29:02.518-07:002014-05-27T16:29:02.518-07:00Gary,
I sincerely hope that you're right abou...Gary,<br /><br />I sincerely hope that you're right about his attitude, because to be honest, most atheists maintain their position of denying God's existence because of desire rather than intellectual reason.<br /><br />R.C. Sproul once remarked about a lecture he was giving to many atheists, and he told them point-blank that "many of you, if you are honest, do not WANT God to exist." Of course, this angered some of the students, but Dr. Sproul's point concurs with both Scripture (Romans 1) and my own personal experience. It's interesting to see their reactions if you ask them how they would react if it were proven beyond doubt to them that God did exist. <br /><br />Good podcast, Jordan, and I'm pretty much the same with atheists that you are: if the topic comes up, I'll state my position as a Christian, but beyond that I generally don't get into debates about it, usually because the atheist conceives whatever excuse he can to deny the existence of God. And as Jesus said, "Let them alone, they are blind leaders of the blind."J. Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250871982508579712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-56931184973065043402014-05-27T05:14:22.263-07:002014-05-27T05:14:22.263-07:00Jordan,
Yes, this is why I thought the "Cele...Jordan,<br /><br />Yes, this is why I thought the "Celebratory Failurism" post on the Gospel Coalition was quite insightful. I touted it on my blog, while also noting that I did not think that Tullian himself taught such a thing.<br /><br />+Nathan Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-15019832826777784082014-05-25T15:33:55.139-07:002014-05-25T15:33:55.139-07:00Hello Jordan, I dont mean to pester you, but would...Hello Jordan, I dont mean to pester you, but would you mind telling me whether you consider Rome still part of the visible church catholic or apostate?Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17686738325565738419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-11411506737513819152014-05-25T15:32:53.331-07:002014-05-25T15:32:53.331-07:00Hello Jordan, I dont mean to pester you, but would...Hello Jordan, I dont mean to pester you, but would you mind telling me whether you consider Rome still part of the visible church catholic or apostate? Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17686738325565738419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-39009755036599238042014-05-23T15:08:42.324-07:002014-05-23T15:08:42.324-07:00Disillusionment with ones denomination is not, by ...Disillusionment with ones denomination is not, by itself, a good reason to become Orthodox. Sometimes we quite resemble the Church at Corinth. Oh, wait - Corinth IS an Orthodox Church. 1036Anastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-47614271820177015222014-05-22T21:31:33.965-07:002014-05-22T21:31:33.965-07:00Excellent presentation, Pastor Cooper. Thank you ...Excellent presentation, Pastor Cooper. Thank you very much.<br /><br />I would like your readers to have some background about "DagoodS", the atheist whom you spoke of in this podcast.<br /><br />DagoodS grew up in a devout Christian family. He and his wife were Sunday school teachers and very involved in their evangelical Christian church. However, DagoodS made the same mistake that I did: he was surfing the internet one day and happened onto an atheist blog. He felt confidant enough in his knowledge of the Bible, that he made the fateful decision that he was going to "blow those atheists out of the water". He started to debate them.<br /><br />Instead of blowing the atheists out of the water, his belief in an inerrant Bible was shattered by the information provided by the atheists. "The genie was out of the bottle" and as hard as DagoodS tried, he couldn't get it back into the bottle. <br /><br />He prayed and prayed, begging God to take away his doubts and to restore his faith. He was absolutely heart broken. <br /><br />However, one morning, he woke up, looked into the bathroom mirror, and realized he no longer believed in God. He had become an atheist.<br /><br />DagoodS is not a God-hater. He is not a Christian-hater. I personally believe that DagoodS is still sad about his loss of faith. He describes being "resigned" to the facts.<br /><br />I believe that DagoodS has done so much research on atheism and the "discrepancies" of Christianity, not for the purpose of attacking Christians, but because he is seeking that ONE piece of evidence that will convince him that Christianity IS true after all. <br /><br />DagoodS is an attorney. He is very smart and very well studied. He is looking for evidence of the Resurrection that would convince a neutral jury that Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead.<br /><br />I very much hope that DagoodS will come onto your blog and discuss the Resurrection evidence further with you, Pastor.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-6085843282113426362014-05-22T09:24:18.723-07:002014-05-22T09:24:18.723-07:00Nathan,
I did read that, and I believe Tullian wh...Nathan,<br /><br />I did read that, and I believe Tullian when he says that. I think he just hasn't spent enough time in Lutheran circles, because as you know, there are certainly people who brag about their sin and failure.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.com