Enigmas and inconsistencies

[canadyjd]

And I didn't say what Peter said was the same as what Jesus said.



In spurring discussion-- and only that-- I asked how answering "Not so...." to a command is not speaking against. If your old man ever told you to take out the garbage and you replied "Not so, dad," that wouldn't be speaking against him?

If your old man had forbidden you from taking out the trash your entire life, under threat of it polluting you to the point of separating you from your dad, you might respond the same way.

 

[Alcott]

Not when Jesus rebuked peter with "get thee behind me satan?"

That's not the case presented in the OP either. But admittedly I have had a few colorful discussions with Catholics about that one.

 

[Alcott]

If your old man had forbidden you from taking out the trash your entire life, under threat of it polluting you to the point of separating you from your dad, you might respond the same way.

"Respond the same way?" What does that mean? That I'd say, "Not so, dad, I'm not gonna not take out the garbage"?

 

[canadyjd]

"Respond the same way?" What does that mean? That I'd say, "Not so, dad, I'm not gonna not take out the garbage"?

How about,

"Not so dad, I've always obeyed your command to never take out the trash my whole life. I've never polluted my body by taking out the trash. I don't want to pollute myself and separate myself from you"

That would be the comparison between the "old man" telling you to take out the trash and how Peter responded to being told to eat "unclean" food.

 

[Alcott]

Alright, if we've worn those out, let's try this one...

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell [Matthew 5:22].

Alright, who is that guilty?

You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? [Jesus; Matthew 23:17].

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies [Paul; I Corinthians 15:35-36].

Are Jesus and Paul "guilty enough to go into the fiery hell?"

 

[Alcott]

Peter did not use the term "unclean" for the works of the Holy Spirit, but simply for food. And the word "unclean" does not appear at all in the passage about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

For the record, the word "unclean" does appear in this incident in Mark 3:29-30. So was Peter being steered toward something unclean?

 

[Yeshua1]

Alright, if we've worn those out, let's try this one...

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell [Matthew 5:22].

Alright, who is that guilty?

You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? [Jesus; Matthew 23:17].

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies [Paul; I Corinthians 15:35-36].

Are Jesus and Paul "guilty enough to go into the fiery hell?"

No, as they rightly discen both of them that the Pharisees were indeed fools worthy of condemnation!

 

[John of Japan]

For the record, the word "unclean" does appear in this incident in Mark 3:29-30. So was Peter being steered toward something unclean?

You really need to learn the English language. "Unclean spirit" and "unclean food" are completely different concepts.

Quit trying on that one. You're only digging your hole deeper.

 

[Alcott]

You really need to learn the English language. "Unclean spirit" and "unclean food" are completely different concepts.

Quit trying on that one. You're only digging your hole deeper.

It's you, bud, that needs to learn the English language, as you said, and I paste, "And the word "unclean" does not appear at all in the passage about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." I showed it does, and I did not say the word applied to a spirit and to food are the same concept.

If you fail to read what's there and do read what ain't, then who needs to learn the language?

 

[Alcott]

No, as they rightly discen both of them that the Pharisees were indeed fools worthy of condemnation!

I don't think ALL the Corinthians Paul addressed that way were Pharisees. In fact Pharisees did believe the dead are raised, although there may have not been a consensus among them as to 'How...?'"

 

[John of Japan]

It's you, bud, that needs to learn the English language, as you said, and I paste, "And the word "unclean" does not appear at all in the passage about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." I showed it does, and I did not say the word applied to a spirit and to food are the same concept.

And now you are changing the narrative. The term "unclean" does not appear in the Matthew passage which you started with. Now you are doing a "bait and switch" by using the Mark parallel passage where the term "unclean" does actually appear. If you had started out with the Mark passage, you might have a case. You did not.

If you fail to read what's there and do read what ain't, then who needs to learn the language?

The context in which I facetiously said you need to learn the English language is where you tried to make us think that "unclean spirit" and "unclean" food are the same thing, or at least have the same import in the two different passages. Perhaps I should have said that what you need to learn is logic.

 

[Alcott]

And now you are changing the narrative. The term "unclean" does not appear in the Matthew passage which you started with. Now you are doing a "bait and switch" by using the Mark parallel passage where the term "unclean" does actually appear. If you had started out with the Mark passage, you might have a case. You did not.

I thought the gospels were fair, per se, where the point in question is related in more than one. If not, then in a lot of cases we can just pick one-- such as the divorce and remarriage question. Matthew contains the exception clause for fornication/immorality, but Mark does not. I think the inclusion of a certain word or phrase in either of them does establish its validity.

The context in which I facetiously said you need to learn the English language is where you tried to make us think that "unclean spirit" and "unclean" food are the same thing, or at least have the same import in the two different passages. Perhaps I should have said that what you need to learn is logic.

I need to learn logic? I haven't played chess online in years, but do you know means by which we could do it [supposing we can't do it in person]? Nevertheless, it was a question I asked when I said "Was Peter being steered toward something unclean; and the answer, which you didn't care to attempt, was inherently No.

 

[John of Japan]

I thought the gospels were fair, per se, where the point in question is related in more than one. If not, then in a lot of cases we can just pick one-- such as the divorce and remarriage question. Matthew contains the exception clause for fornication/immorality, but Mark does not. I think the inclusion of a certain word or phrase in either of them does establish its validity.

That's not how we do NT studies in the academic world. The actual incident in the life of Christ is technically called a pericope (per-ih-koh-peh), and it may be recorded in up to all four of the Gospels. The places where the pericope is recorded are different passages in each Gospel. You yourself tried to make the two passages of the pericope into one passage, and that's confusing.

Also, in this case we are dealing with the synoptic Gospels. Each of the synoptics has a different viewpoint (taught in freshman NT Survey if you've been to Bible college), and those viewpoints are important in exegesis. So, we just don't study and discuss the NT the way you are trying to.

I need to learn logic? I haven't played chess online in years, but do you know means by which we could do it [supposing we can't do it in person]?

I was 3rd board on our champion chess team in HS my own self. But chess is not where you learn logic, at least not formally. Find an online course on formal logic. Or, there's a great little book on it, Logic, by theologian Gordon H. Clark.

Nevertheless, it was a question I asked when I said "Was Peter being steered toward something unclean; and the answer, which you didn't care to attempt, was inherently No.

Yeah, then you tried to make Peter's unclean food (following OT revelation) somehow equal to calling the Holy Spirit an unclean spirit. Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

[Alcott]

That's not how we do NT studies in the academic world.

That may be how it's done on this board3

The actual incident in the life of Christ is technically called a pericope (per-ih-koh-peh), and it may be recorded in up to all four of the Gospels. The places where the pericope is recorded are different passages in each Gospel. You yourself tried to make the two passages of the pericope into one passage, and that's confusing.

By doing it that way, then one who says Jesus says remarriage after divorce is adultery, and one who says it may not be under certain circumstances, are both equally right. If it's out-of-bounds to point out to the Mark-preferred guy the Matthew passage, then we should rule out 3 of the gospels and go with one only. But it was you who started this conflict about one particular word not being in the first-referenced passage, and that's not the essence.

Also, in this case we are dealing with the synoptic Gospels. Each of the synoptics has a different viewpoint (taught in freshman NT Survey if you've been to Bible college), and those viewpoints are important in exegesis. So, we just don't study and discuss the NT the way you are trying to.

You don't have to have Bible college to know those things. But frankly, we have been considering and discussing NT in such a way, whether you like it or not. But it's also true-- in my viewpoint-- that neither of us want this part of the argument, but we're conforming to the worldly element of 'stand your ground.'

I was 3rd board on our champion chess team in HS my own self.

I don't think I've played 3-handed chess before.

But chess is not where you learn logic, at least not formally. Find an online course on formal logic. Or, there's a great little book on it, Logic, by theologian Gordon H. Clark.

I made my A in Mathematical Logic a long time ago, and I'm not going over all that again.

Yeah, then you tried to make Peter's unclean food (following OT revelation) somehow equal to calling the Holy Spirit an unclean spirit. Sorry, I don't buy that.

It ain't for sale, and I did not.

 

[John of Japan]

That may be how it's done on this board3

No, that's how it is done across the board in evangelical, conservative New Testament studies. It was true when I taught 4 credits of Synoptic Gospels in a fundamentalist Bible school in Tokyo in the 1980s, and it's true at the Bible college where I now teach.

Are you actually telling me that you can't see a difference between "passage" and "pericope" meaning "incident"? That somehow your way of doing things is better than that of all the evangelical NT scholars combined??

By doing it that way, then one who says Jesus says remarriage after divorce is adultery, and one who says it may not be under certain circumstances, are both equally right. If it's out-of-bounds to point out to the Mark-preferred guy the Matthew passage, then we should rule out 3 of the gospels and go with one only. But it was you who started this conflict about one particular word not being in the first-referenced passage, and that's not the essence.

You have totally misunderstood. I did not say this and did not mean it. The very meaning of the term "synoptics" has apparently escaped you.

And I haven't been discussing divorce.

I didn't start the "conflict." I simply tried to get clarity from you. If you wanted to talk about uncleanliness in the blasphemy pericope, why did you not use the Mark passage from the start? Then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You don't have to have Bible college to know those things. But frankly, we have been considering and discussing NT in such a way, whether you like it or not. But it's also true-- in my viewpoint-- that neither of us want this part of the argument, but we're conforming to the worldly element of 'stand your ground.'

I've been trying to get clarity here, but apparently you don't want it. You'd rather do things your own way. Fine. Go ahead and "stand your ground." No concern of mine.

I don't think I've played 3-handed chess before.

In a chess team there are usually 5 "boards," meaning 5 players on the team, best to worst. I wasn't the best, but wasn't the worst.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think ALL the Corinthians Paul addressed that way were Pharisees. In fact Pharisees did believe the dead are raised, although there may have not been a consensus among them as to 'How...?'"

The ones that Jesus thundered down judgement upon were a group really led by Satan!

 

[Yeshua1]

That's not how we do NT studies in the academic world. The actual incident in the life of Christ is technically called a pericope (per-ih-koh-peh), and it may be recorded in up to all four of the Gospels. The places where the pericope is recorded are different passages in each Gospel. You yourself tried to make the two passages of the pericope into one passage, and that's confusing.

Also, in this case we are dealing with the synoptic Gospels. Each of the synoptics has a different viewpoint (taught in freshman NT Survey if you've been to Bible college), and those viewpoints are important in exegesis. So, we just don't study and discuss the NT the way you are trying to.

I was 3rd board on our champion chess team in HS my own self. But chess is not where you learn logic, at least not formally. Find an online course on formal logic. Or, there's a great little book on it, Logic, by theologian Gordon H. Clark.
Yeah, then you tried to make Peter's unclean food (following OT revelation) somehow equal to calling the Holy Spirit an unclean spirit. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Peter was arguing against God, but was not like the Pharisees engaging jesus, as they were active agents of the devil...

 

[Alcott]

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell [Matthew 5:22].

No, as they rightly discen both of them that the Pharisees were indeed fools worthy of condemnation!

How is that the point when the scripture says "...whoever says 'You fool..." not whether the person(s) is worthy of being called that. Are the scriptures just looser than we tend to think?

 

[canadyjd]

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell [Matthew 5:22].



How is that the point when the scripture says "...whoever says 'You fool..." not whether the person(s) is worthy of being called that. Are the scriptures just looser than we tend to think?

What do you think? Are Jesus and Paul in danger of condemnation to a fiery hell?

 

[John of Japan]

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell [Matthew 5:22].



How is that the point when the scripture says "...whoever says 'You fool..." not whether the person(s) is worthy of being called that. Are the scriptures just looser than we tend to think?

This is actual a quite simple problem--not even a problem, really. In Matt. 5 Jesus clearly says that calling your brother a fool makes one to be "in danger" of Gehenna. (By the way, note that Alcott has pulled a switch on us. He is not quoting from the KJV, and does not tell us what translation this is, contra normal rules of sourcing.)

Now, in the Matt. 23 passage where Jesus calls the Pharisees fools, He is not rebuking His brothers, but His enemies! So very obviously, he is not in danger of Gehenna. He even notes in v. 9 of that chapter that there is a Father in Heaven, but to Jesus, the father of the Pharisees was the Devil (John 4:44).

A lot more could be said, but this easily puts to rest Alcott's apparent belief that this passage shows there are errors in the Bible.