-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If there had been debate board in the 1st Century, what would be their HOT issue?
- Thread starter William C
- Start date
Bible-belted
New Member
1) I don't have to prove my premise. Since you are the one making the argument, to prove you wrong all I have to do is undermine your premise.Originally posted by Brother Bill:
BB, still having trouble dealing with the text?
You've attacked my arguments by saying my premise doesn't apply, yet you have yet to provide your premise.
If Paul wasn't talking about his thankfulness that the Gentiles were chosen, then the correct way to debate the text is to present your reasons why that is not true and present your views and reasons that your views are true.
Instead, all you have done is virtually said, "Your wrong so na na boo boo." I could get more substance from debating 10 year olds.
2) Youare assuming that I have a particular interpretation, which I have never in fact put forward. All I have said is yours doesn't hold up, and I have shown why. You have failed to defend yor thesis and are now attemting to use the tactic of the defeated: changing the topic.
3) Your childish taunt disqualifies you as a person worth discussing anything with.
You can attempt to undermine my premise all day, but unless you offer a better one, my stands as more likely than yours, because you don't have one.
If I said, "That car is red." And you say, "No its not." The natural response is to ask, "What color do you think it is?" But by saying, "I don't have to prove my premise," it just makes you seem unstable and unsound in your objection.
Yes, I would assume that if you disagree with how someone interprets a text that they have a better interpretation, that is most certainly not unreasonable in a debate forum. To suggest that it is unreasonable is absurd and an obvious diversion ploy.
Plus, I did deal with your accusations, you just didn't like the way I dealt with them. That's your problem, not mine.
This is just an overreaction to a silly comment. That is why we have those cute little faces to show that we are just kidding.
Lighten up, we are just having fun here.
Bible-belted
New Member
It doesn't work that way. If I show that your a priori assumption is wrong, then your argument isn't "unlikely but possible", it's false. False is never possible even if it is the only option in view. In your example, once I have proven that the car is not red, then I don't have to do another thing if my goal is simply to prove it isn't red. Once the proof is offerred, red doesn't remain an option, even if it is the only suggestion. Like I said previously, to be right, your argument has to be able to stand on its own. It can't, as I have demonstrated.
LOL. I see the only one making a diversion is you. You are the one who seeks to make an assertion on this thread, thus it is YOUR interpretation that is the only one under discussion, and rightly so. It is not then unreasonable for me to insist that you actually defend YOUR view. Instead you'd rather discuss someone else's. That's called bait and switch. Sorry guy, if you can't defend your view then fine, but to say that my insistance that you do defend your view, given that this entire thread is about YOUR VIEW, is a diversion, is irrational and laughable.
And that is the ONLY thing you've said here that is remotely funny.
Bible-Belted, or should I call you "Avoid the Bible-belted"
I'm not going to waist my time with you anymore. You have not demonstrated in any way shape or form that my interpretation is not a valid option. Do you really think quoting the general overall purposes of the book of Thess. from the NIV study bible is sufficient to prove that the author could not have been refering to the Gentiles in the passage in question?
That is the most ridiculous and absurd logic I have heard sense I've been on this board.
Then on top of that your not even willing to offer an interpretation of your own.
If you don't want to debate don't get on a debate board. I'm not going to waist my time with you any longer, it's not worth it.
I'm not going to waist my time with you anymore. You have not demonstrated in any way shape or form that my interpretation is not a valid option. Do you really think quoting the general overall purposes of the book of Thess. from the NIV study bible is sufficient to prove that the author could not have been refering to the Gentiles in the passage in question?
Then on top of that your not even willing to offer an interpretation of your own.
Bible-belted
New Member
An example of typical Bro. Bill falacious logic.Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Bible-Belted, or should I call you "Avoid the Bible-belted"
I'm not going to waist my time with you anymore. You have not demonstrated in any way shape or form that my interpretation is not a valid option. Do you really think quoting the general overall purposes of the book of Thess. from the NIV study bible is sufficient to prove that the author could not have been refering to the Gentiles in the passage in question?That is the most ridiculous and absurd logic I have heard sense I've been on this board.
Then on top of that your not even willing to offer an interpretation of your own.If you don't want to debate don't get on a debate board. I'm not going to waist my time with you any longer, it's not worth it.
1) Continues to avoid the fact that his a priori assumption is invalid (meaning he must actually prove that the question of relation of jew and Gentile is the key to interpreting 2Thess and steadfastly refuses to give any evidence to that end) yet claims that his interpretation is still a valid option.
2) Ridicules the evidence that refutes him yet does not actually interact with it, and claims that it is someone other than himself that is being absurdly illogical.
3) Criticises others for actually requiring him to defend HIS thesis, which is the topic of the thread in the first place. Refuses to acccept that if his interpretation it must stand on its own merits, regardless of themerits of any other position. Seems to be more comfortable defeating another's position than defending his own.
4)Claims to be wasting time with me, yet never actually comes up with an answer that refutes me.
Yes, it is to laugh Bill. By all means stop wasting all our time with these silly little things you call "interpretations of Scriopture" which are merely the foisting of theological postulates in violation of context.
Bible-belted
New Member
How do you arrive at the conclusion that 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 is talking about Israel?.
The words "Israel" or "Jews", etc., are not mentioned in the whole chapter. </font>[/QUOTE]He does it by using that a priori assumption I have been refuting. Using it as his interpretive grid he forces the text to reveal things the author never intended. Like that which elicited your question.The evidence is:
1. This was a major issue of that day.
2. Israel is spoken of throughout the scripture as being given a delusion as spoken of in verses 10-12.
3. The fact that most believers in Thessolanica are Gentiles.
4. It was well known that Israel was God's chosen people, but it was news that the Gentiles were also chosen by God, which is why Paul emphasizes this continually.
Your evidence was quoting the general purposes of the author in writing Thess.
These purposes were so general that they wouldn't have included my interpretation of this text or your interpretation if you had bothered to present one. This is why I was asking you to give your interpretation. I wanted you to see that Leon Morris' overview outline didn't support the Calvinistic view either, thus it was NOT RELEVANT and most assuredly didn't refute my premise as you assumed it did.
Why do I need to defend an argument that also would "refute" your interpretation if you ever presented one? In fact, any interpretation offered that didn't fall within Leon Morris' overview would have to be dismissed if we all debated by your standands.
Refute what? No substance is hard to refute. You have only listed purposes that are so general no interpretation would fit and declare that my premise falls because of those purposes, yet the typical Calvinistic interpretaton wouldn't fit under these purposes either, so I guess by your standard there is no right interpretation?????
You say that to me after what you have done on this thread?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 is talking about Israel?.
The words "Israel" or "Jews", etc., are not mentioned in the whole chapter. </font>[/QUOTE]Kinda like the words "faith" and "man's inability" aren't in the verses you use to support man's inability to have faith?
Israel is spoken of as being sent a delusion in other parts of scripture. I use scripture to interpret scripture. You should try it sometime.
Bible-belted
New Member
1) No one denies that the issue was big in the first century church. But it was not the only issue, and not every letter has to speak to it. You can't just assume that this issue is relevant to the interpretation of the Thessalonian correspondance. To do so ignores what is a core feature of an epistle: it is occasional. The key to interpreting an epistle is to discern the occasion to which it speaks. You have assumed the occasion rather than going by the evidence of the occasion that the epistle itself provides. That is eisegesis, not exegesis, and is not a valid interpretation. That is why citing the themes of the letter, which you think is irrelevant (shows what you know about exegesis - nothing) is so pertienent. There is NOTHING in it that causes us to think that the issue you speak of is relevant to interpreting the epistle. Indeed, what is there leads us to see that Paul is writing to address completely different issues.
2) You think that the "those who are perishing" must be resticted to the nonbelievers of Israel??That is not supportable from the context. It is an assmption you read in. Which assumption you have not substantiated as being relevant to the context at all. You just keep piling up assumptions. Its called a house of cards.
3) Hmmm.. so most of the Thessalonian believers are gentiles, but the issue being addressed has nothing to do with them.... hmmmm.....
4) Another assumption you read in.
This isn't evidence Bill. Its a list of things you think are relevant yet you don't show how in light of context.
You still fail to graps that your view is the topic of debate here. Laughing at others for insisting you actually defend your view reflects on no one but yourself Bill. You keep talking as if you have proven your case, but you haven't.
I have insisted that you stick to context and not read in assumptions or at least defend your assumptions, and you fail on all of this. I will continue to hold you accountable though, so long as you presume to think you can teach this nonsense.
I can very easily say you ignore context. I have illustrated it as truth. You keep laughing at that but you do nothing to show it is no true. You are attempting to fgowith style over substance, but no one is biting.
Last chance Bill. Prove to us that the Jew/Gentile issue is relevant to the Thessalonians in particular, and do so from the text of 2Thess itself, apart from the prior assumption that it is relevant. If you can't do that, then your case is lost. Which it is already for you have failed to live up to the burden of proof that is yours to bear.
So don't worry Bill; no pressure on your next post. The debate is lost for you already. You can't lose it with a bad post. You can however recover some credibility and maybe have a hope of winning your point with a truly exceptional post.
Its up to you though. Time will tell if you're up to it.
Y
Yelsew
Guest
The whole of both books of Thessalonians are written to Christians in Thessalonica, Greece. Some of those Christians may be Converted Jews, but the majority are Greeks (gentiles) who are part of the Body of Christ.
The return of Christ is to His body, and for the Conquering of evil on the earth. He will subdue the evil one, reign on earth for a thousand years, loose the evil one for a while then finally conquer and defeat evil for eternity, taking His body to be with him for eternity. Then the final judgement where all will be judged and the unbelievers cast into the lake of fire with Satan and his henchmen.
The destruction of the current heavens and earth, the creation of the New heavens and new earth, and the appearance of the New Jerusalem. Let eternity Roll!
The return of Christ is to His body, and for the Conquering of evil on the earth. He will subdue the evil one, reign on earth for a thousand years, loose the evil one for a while then finally conquer and defeat evil for eternity, taking His body to be with him for eternity. Then the final judgement where all will be judged and the unbelievers cast into the lake of fire with Satan and his henchmen.
The destruction of the current heavens and earth, the creation of the New heavens and new earth, and the appearance of the New Jerusalem. Let eternity Roll!
This letter was written to a predominately Gentile church. And you would have the letter talking about Israel and ignoring the Gentiles.
How silly, and false. </font>[/QUOTE]Ken, you are embarrassing yourself. Go back and actually read my argument please. I never said it was talking about Israel and ignoring the Gentiles. I said that Paul was thanking God for choosing the Gentiles. Until the coming of Christ, Israel was the only group known to be chosen by God. Now the Gentiles were also chosen to which Paul was expressing his thanks.
You don't think the fact that God has just revealed the mystery of his choosing to ingraft the Gentiles in as apart of his covenant people is significant to a letter written to a predominately Gentile church by Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, which says I thank God for choosing you. That's funny.
Again, let me remind you that the "themes" of the letter that you presented are so general that they also would not contain a Calvinistic interpretation of this text either, therefore your point is completely invalid. If you were honest enough to present an interpretation of your own you would see this. (Maybe that's why you won't present an interpretation of your own, because you know that your interpretation wouldn't fall under any of Leon's themes either.
)The verse says "among those who are perishing". And it also tells us specifically why they are perishing and its not because they weren't chosen, it's because they refused to believe the truth that God chose to show them and God sent them a delusion.
Nothing to do with them? The hardening of the Israelites is what allowed for their being ingrafted. Read Romans 11 again. And how does Paul thanking God for their being chosen not have to do with them? You are not making any sense here.
I have provided evidence of my interpretation, you on the other hand have not even provided an interpretation. You simply list some general themes to which no interpretation of this specific text would fall under. You know that, so you continue to avoid presenting your own interpretation. I will continue to hold you accountable on that point, unless of course you can provide an interpretation of this text that clearly is represented by Leon Morris' themes. Good luck, your going to need it.
The reason I laugh is because YOU, the one who won't even participate in providing his own interpretation of this context, is telling me that I ignore the context. That is funny to me. It's kinda like the Hollywood idiots that condemn George W. Bush's plan but don't have a better one, they just condemn it because it's his plan.
Ok, if you can't see how the mystery of the Gentiles being chosen to enter into the Covenant of God, which is revealed for the first time in all of history, is relevant to a letter written by Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, to a group of Gentiles believers thanking God for their being Chosen, then there is no hope for us having any kind of honest or productive discussion.
But if you insist on some more support, you can look at this passage from Paul's first letter to the church in Thessolanica:
1 Thess. 2:13: Also, this is why we constantly thank God, because when you received the message about God that you heard from us, you welcomed it not as a human message, but as it truly is, the message of God, which also works effectively in you believers. 14 For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, since you have also suffered the same things from people of your own country, just as they did from the Jews. 15 They killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and persecuted us; they displease God, and are hostile to everyone, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. As a result, they are always adding to the number of their sins, and wrath has overtaken them completely.
If that doesn't convince you that the issue of Jews/Gentiles was a major issue to this church and a concern expressed in Paul's writings nothing will.
Notice what I hightlighted for you. He is apparently addressing Gentiles while thanking God that they recieved their message as being from the Lord. How do we know because of the quote, "since you have also suffered the same things from people of your own country, just as they did from the Jews"
This passages parallels the passage in 2 Thess. perfectly as Paul thanks God for their being chosen just as he thanks God for their receiving of the message in this letter.
Verse 15-16 seals it: They killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and persecuted us; they displease God, and are hostile to everyone, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. As a result, they are always adding to the number of their sins, and wrath has overtaken them completely.
Who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets? Jews
Who persecuted the apostles? Jews
Who hindered the apostles from preaching to the Gentiles? Jews
Who is always adding to the wrath that has overtaken them? Jews
But in contrast who is Paul thankful to God for recieving their message? The Gentiles, for Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles and is being beaten and imprisoned by his own people the Jews. I think that may have played a role in his choice of words. To ignore that is not only poor hermeneutics, but it is plain stubborn blindness, I know because it once consumed me when I didn't want to face the reality that Calvinism was unfounded.
I pray it won't continue to consume you.
Bible-belted
New Member
Sorry Bill.
You have failed to demonstrate that the issue that Paul was dealing with in the Thessalonian correspondance had anything to do with the Jew/Gentile Issue.
You fail to cite a singel passage in 2Thess specifically that indiocates that the issue was relevant to the Gentuile's concerns at that point.
No surprise.
You have failed to demonstrate that the issue that Paul was dealing with in the Thessalonian correspondance had anything to do with the Jew/Gentile Issue.
You fail to cite a singel passage in 2Thess specifically that indiocates that the issue was relevant to the Gentuile's concerns at that point.
No surprise.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Unless there is evidence that the Jew/Gentile question had been resolved upon the reception of the first letter, I would have to agree with Brother Bill. It was, at least, a minor issue in the Thessalonica church.
Now it really seems that you are just avoiding the debate, honestly.
Bible-belted
New Member
Scott,
The issue need not be resolved in the Thessalonian church for the issue to be irrelvevant to the interpretation of 2Thessalonians.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that letters are occasional?? They are written to address particular issues. What issues they address are discerned by reading the letter itslef. The Jew-Gentile issue could easliy be a live one without it being the issue that is in view in the Thessalonian correspondance.
Bill has to prove, from the letter itself, that the issue was pertinent to the Thessalonians questions to which Paul was responding.
He has not done that.
Really Scott it is Bill who avoids the debate by seeking to skip a step; he wants us to acccet a premise uncritically. He does not want to see his a priori assumption scrutinised.
Failing that Scott, if you agree with Bill, perhaps you could provide the evidence he does not?
The issue need not be resolved in the Thessalonian church for the issue to be irrelvevant to the interpretation of 2Thessalonians.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that letters are occasional?? They are written to address particular issues. What issues they address are discerned by reading the letter itslef. The Jew-Gentile issue could easliy be a live one without it being the issue that is in view in the Thessalonian correspondance.
Bill has to prove, from the letter itself, that the issue was pertinent to the Thessalonians questions to which Paul was responding.
He has not done that.
Really Scott it is Bill who avoids the debate by seeking to skip a step; he wants us to acccet a premise uncritically. He does not want to see his a priori assumption scrutinised.
Failing that Scott, if you agree with Bill, perhaps you could provide the evidence he does not?