If there had been debate board in the 1st Century, what would be their HOT issue?

[William C]

Scott,

Thank you for trying. We have a situation where BB has backed himself into a corner of contradictions and the only way he knows how to get out is by attacking me and avoiding the debate. He has done this by (1) Listing a very general overview of purposes from NIV Study Bible, (2) refusing to provide any of his own interpretations, (3) claiming that I have not provided any support for my priori assumption when I have listed several unrefuted facts that support my views, (4) ignored a verse from Paul's first letter in which he demonstrates this is an pertainate issue that has gone unresolved, (5) failed to recognize that his demands of me to support my prori assumptions could not be met by anyone, even those holding to a Calvinistic rendering of this text.

I expect that someone backed into that kind of a corner might be willing to try and scratch his way out regardless of what damage he does to his own system and the scripture itself.

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
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?

What more evidence do you want BB? Why don't you deal with the evidence I have provided. If my evidence doesn't support my views then it should be real easy for you to refute it.

You demand that I prove that this verse was in response to Paul's thankfulness for the Gentiles being chosen. (1) I have shown that this issue was on the mind of the apostle because it was a major issue of that day. (2) I have shown that Paul specifically has this in mind in the writing of his first letter (to which ol' Leon's purposes didn't address either????), (3) I have shown the contrast between the Israelites as the ones bringing the presecution and recieving the wrath and the Gentiles acceptance of the gospel. (This contrast is seen clearly displayed in Acts 28:25-28.) (4) I have shown how Paul's words in verse 13 could very possibly be in reference to Paul's thankfulness toward the Gentiles being a chosen people, much like the Israelites had been known for generations. All of these points have gone unrefuted.

Calvinists believe that this verse teaches that God choses certain individuals to be saved to the neglect of others. Can you or anyone provide from 2 Thess. (or anywhere in the bible) a verse that shows this was the "prori" concern of the apostle that he would take the time to express this? Can you find a verse that show the Calvinistic belief of God's choosing certain people while neglecting all others was an issue in the first century that would have warranted these words?

Can you show me that this "occasional" letter included within it the occasion to discuss the election of certain individuals to the neglect of the rest of mankind?

You make demands of me that your own interpretation could not meet and you know it. Which is exactly why you won't provide an interpretation. You're willing to throw darts at my target but not provide a target of you own, because you know the same darts your throwing at me could be thrown right back at you. In fact, I would say that I have even more darts to throw because at least I can prove that the Jew/Gentile issue was a major issue and that it was discussed in Paul's first letter. You can't even do that to support the Calvinistic prori assumption that the issue of Calvinistic predestination was an issue worthy of the apostle's discussion in this letter.

This is why I laugh.

 

[William C]

"Inasmuch as the situation in the Thessalonian church has not changed substantially, Paul's purpose in writing is very much the same as in his first letter to them. He writes (1) to encourage persecuted believers (1:4-10), (2) to exhort the Thessalonians to be steadfast and to work for a living (2:13-3:5) and (3) to correct a misunderstanding concerning the Lord's return. "

I couldn't help but point this contradiction out as well. Notice that the study Bible you quoted from says, "Inasmuch as the situation in the Thessalonian church has not changed substantially, Paul's purpose in writing is very much the same as in his first letter to them."

I have established the Jew/Gentile issue in the first letter therefore, by your own source I have provided the grounds for my prori assumption in the second letter. You have not provided any rebuttal eventhough you own source agrees that the two letters have the same purposes.

Plus, the purpose that Leon mentions concerning persecution and standing strong goes right along with my interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 because it talks about the Jews who are causing persecution and don't want and the Gentiles to even be preached to, but Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, obviously disagrees with them by thanking God that he has chosen to reveal the truth to them as well.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
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.

If you have read both of the letters, you would see an interesting parallel. If you list the topics that Paul covers, you will find an uncanny similarity to the subjects in his first letter, including Jesus' second coming, spiritual growth, and idleness among certain workers. So perhaps Bill isn't as far off kilter as you say he is. Of course, all you have to do is provide a different perspective. Can you do that?

 

[Bible-belted]

Bill,

You just don't want to support your own argument do you?

Citing one vese which speaks to the Gentiles being chosen in passing in he letter's salutation does not cut it as evidence.

YOu have to show that the Jew-Gentile issue is promnent enough inthe Thesalonian correspondance to warrant it beung used as the key to interpret the letters. But there is no such evidence. You have not provided it.

Let's look at your supposed evdence in the salutation. How do we see this as being about the Jew-Gentile issue? Dores Paul restrict the choosing only to the Gentiles or only to the Jews? Not in context. It seems to be addressing ALL the believers in Thessalonica. Were the Gentiles the majority? Sure. Is that relevant? No, for Paul makes no distinction.


Let's see if we can find ANY references to any of the items that mark the Jew-Gentile issue...

Hmm... there is a reference to "their" keeping the Apostle from spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles (2:16). But The "their" refers surely the Jews who disbelive. This cannot be about Jew-Gentile relations WITHIN the church... nothing else in the whole letter suggests the jew-Gentile issue...

Now, Bill, I will not repeat the challenge for you to show from the letters the evidence that the issue looms so large as you like to think. You alrady know the challenge is there, and your failure to meet it is plain for all to see.

But let me point something out to you that you may have missed. You seem to think it funny that the only counter-evidence I have cited is a note in the NIV study Bible. The joke however is on you for it is your failure to deal with even that little bit of evidence that shows up your argument to be so weak. Inded, the more you laugh rather than dea wti that little evidence in a substantive way, goes further to undermining your credibility than anything I can say.

Believe me, there is more evidence than that Bill. But until you can even deal with what little I have given you why give more? Why pull out the big guns whn you can't deal with a pop gun?

Wake me when you have something substantive to say.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bible-belted:
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.

If you have read both of the letters, you would see an interesting parallel. If you list the topics that Paul covers, you will find an uncanny similarity to the subjects in his first letter, including Jesus' second coming, spiritual growth, and idleness among certain workers. So perhaps Bill isn't as far off kilter as you say he is. Of course, all you have to do is provide a different perspective. Can you do that? </font>[/QUOTE]Obviously he can't. If he did it would be obvious that even his premise is not contained within the general themes he has applied to this letter in order to attempt to discredit my arguments. He also couldn't meet the burden of proof for his interpretation that he has tried to enforce with mine.

He wrote: Believe me, there is more evidence than that Bill. But until you can even deal with what little I have given you why give more?

He has nothing. He is bluffing and I'm calling his bluff. Bible-Belted if your holding back the "big guns" it should be real easy for you to shoot me out of the water right now, I'm a sitting duck waiting for you to fire away.

Let's see what you got.

(my prediction: He will say something to the effect, "Your arguments aren't worth my time." Or "I've already defeated your arguments with my puny little quote." Thus proving he has absolutely NOTHING, nada, zilch, zip-o.

)

 

[Bible-belted]

Scott,

There is nothing in the first letter that suggests Bill's thesis is correct, and he has not provided any evidence there either.

Bill still seems to think, as you do I guess, that unless I give an alternative, then Bill's hypothesis, hoever lacking in foundation and however disproven by even a cursory presentation of facts from teh Thessalonian correspondance, is correct.

I repeat for those whho are seemingly unable to understand it: Bill's hypothesis must stand on its own apart from any other options. To this point Bill has not supported that hypothesis. The efforts of Bill to goad me into engaging his ideas on another level shows he is either unwilling or unable to understand this simple fact.

I am not prepared to grant his hypothesis even for the sake of argument, until such time as he presents evidence that supports it. I invite you again to do so if you can since you obviously agree with him.

But again, don't expect me to respond to anything until you have given me something to respond to.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
Scott,

There is nothing in the first letter that suggests Bill's thesis is correct, and he has not provided any evidence there either.

Bill still seems to think, as you do I guess, that unless I give an alternative, then Bill's hypothesis, hoever lacking in foundation and however disproven by even a cursory presentation of facts from teh Thessalonian correspondance, is correct.

I repeat for those whho are seemingly unable to understand it: Bill's hypothesis must stand on its own apart from any other options. To this point Bill has not supported that hypothesis. The efforts of Bill to goad me into engaging his ideas on another level shows he is either unwilling or unable to understand this simple fact.

I am not prepared to grant his hypothesis even for the sake of argument, until such time as he presents evidence that supports it. I invite you again to do so if you can since you obviously agree with him.

But again, don't expect me to respond to anything until you have given me something to respond to.

Then why not entertain us with your own interpretation so we can see what sound assumptions truly are. At the least, Bill has shown at least some cursory, if not circumstantial evidence that could lead to the assumption. You've provided scant more than "nuh-uh." And I think you've got your terms mixed up. A hypothesis is, at its basest, an educated guess. A hypothesis must be tested after it is formulated, not before.

By the way, I don't necessarily agree with him on this. But his argument has at least a slight bit of merit to it.

Again, let's see your interpretation of said verses - not to counteract his, but to show us what a "good" argument looks like.

 

[William C]

Where are you "big-guns" BB? Were they shooting blanks? This is just more of the same stuff. I thought you had some BIG stuff you were saving for us. Hmmm.

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
There is nothing in the first letter that suggests Bill's thesis is correct, and he has not provided any evidence there either.

Let's point out what you have ignored once again:
1. At the same point in the first letter and the second letter (chapter 2 verse 13 and following--you know, the part you call a salutation) Paul thanks God for something concerning his audience.

1 Thess. 2 In the first letter he thanks God that his audience, the Gentiles, recieved this new message of redemption which as been revealed through the prophets to Israel for generations. Israel, for the most part, was rejecting this message and persecuting the church. Even many of the Jews who were believers were trying to prevent the Gentiles from hearing the message. But despite this persecution and this major conflict of the day Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was thankful that they, his Gentile flock, had recieved the message.

2 Thess 2 Just like in the first "salutation" Paul once again thanks God for his audiences inclusion in the church by expressing thanks that God had chosen from the very beginning to call the Gentiles through the gospel, though this was a "mystery" until this time in history. This in opposition to the group of people who "did not believe the truth...that they may be saved." And who have persecuted the church. Who are these people? Well, they would have to be people who have heard the truth and who would take enough offense to want to cause those who want to believe it to be persecuted. That would be the Jews.

Bill still seems to think, as you do I guess, that unless I give an alternative, then Bill's hypothesis, hoever lacking in foundation and however disproven by even a cursory presentation of facts from teh Thessalonian correspondance, is correct.

Bible-Belted, honestly I don't care if you give your interpretation. I used to be a Calvinist and I am well aware of how most Calvinists interpret this passage. I only asked for you to give your interpretation to show you that your accusations concerning Leon Morris' themes could be turned onto you as well. I also wanted to show that your demand that I provide a verse of scripture in 2 Thess. that clearly lays out the exact specific purpose of my prori assumption was a demand that your own interpretation couldn't provide for itself. In fact, I have shown with my support from 1 Thess. that I can come a whole lot closer to supporting my prori assumptions than the Calvinist can.

Now, if I could find a Calvinist who wasn't afraid to step out from behind his shield where he thinks he safely hides in order to throw his stones without recourse I could clearly show these inconsistancies. I have done that here, but I had to drag you out from behind your shield before I pegged you down with your contradictions. You are still in denial, but we can all see it.

I repeat for those whho are seemingly unable to understand it: Bill's hypothesis must stand on its own apart from any other options.

Translation: I can't present any other options because then it would be painfully clear that my buckshot attempt to hit Bill's arguments would have destroyed mine.

I am not prepared to grant his hypothesis even for the sake of argument, until such time as he presents evidence that supports it. I invite you again to do so if you can since you obviously agree with him.

I have presented evidence. You have ignored it or provided argumentation that is so broad and general that any interpretation offered wouldn't suffice, which is why you refuse to provide an interpretation.

But again, don't expect me to respond to anything until you have given me something to respond to.

Translation: Don't expect me to give an interpretation of my views because I know that my entire rebuttal of Bill's argumentation is balanced on the pin of misapplied quotes from Leon Morris which would contradict any views I could offer.

 

[Bible-belted]

Scot,

I could of course offer an exegesis of the 2Thess. passage, but that would let Bill off th ehook for actually defending HIS position, which is the point here. He already has trouble understanding that he is the one who must shoulder the burden of proof. I don't want to give him any excuses to ignore that.

As for what a good exegesis looks liek, I have laready mentione that it begins with an understanding of the occasion and purpose of the letter in question. So far Bill has only said that teh jew-Gentile issues was big inthe early church. Now, I don't deny that, but that does not make it a priori true that the Jew-Gentile issue is relevant to interpreting the passgae Bill is cincerned with. It is entirely posible that Paul isaddressing competely unrelated issues. All Bill has to do is draw from the letter itsel evidene that the Jew-Gentile issue is the key to iunderstanding Paul's letter to Thessalonica. To this point he has not done that. Indeed, I have offered only the slenderest evidence of what topics Paul IS addressing, but that eviodence has its origin in the letters themselves, not outside. I have asked Bill for evidence from within the letters that does not rely on his prior asssumption. He has not done that.

So let me just say you may be misunderstanding; I am not even addressing his interpretation as such, only the method he used to arrive at his interpretation, and shown it to be seriously flawed. To coounteract him then I need to present an alternative methodology. This I have done.

Bill,

As I said, I won't give you big gun stuff until you can deal with the pop gun stuff. You have not done that.

To address (again) your so-called evidence:

1Thess 2: Gentile is thankful for the Genbtiles that they have continued in faith in spite fo eprsecution caried out upon them by theri fellows at the instigation of the Jews. How this makes the relationship between Jews and Gentiles WITHIN the church relevant is a mystery, since Paul is clearly referring to UNBELIEVERS.Pul is referring to a conflict that the Gentiles have with unbelieving Jews and Gentiles not one between believing Jews and Gentiles.

2Thess 2: Verses 1-12 has to do with the coming of Chrsit as v1 explicitly says, not the Jew Gentile issue. V. 13-17 say nothign about a mystery, or about the "brothers" being specifically Gentile believers. You can't make that distinction without assuming it first.

So you have not given any real evidence nor have you dealt with how your view actually fits into the true purpose and oasion of the letters.

So, you keep trying to foist fals postulates, yo keep trying to goad and be sub-Christian. If you are Arminian you are self-made, and we both know what that's worth.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
[QB] Scot,

I could of course offer an exegesis of the 2Thess. passage, but that would let Bill off th ehook for actually defending HIS position, which is the point here. He already has trouble understanding that he is the one who must shoulder the burden of proof. I don't want to give him any excuses to ignore that.

As for what a good exegesis looks liek, I have laready mentione that it begins with an understanding of the occasion and purpose of the letter in question. So far Bill has only said that teh jew-Gentile issues was big inthe early church. Now, I don't deny that, but that does not make it a priori true that the Jew-Gentile issue is relevant to interpreting the passgae Bill is cincerned with. It is entirely posible that Paul isaddressing competely unrelated issues. All Bill has to do is draw from the letter itsel evidene that the Jew-Gentile issue is the key to iunderstanding Paul's letter to Thessalonica. To this point he has not done that. Indeed, I have offered only the slenderest evidence of what topics Paul IS addressing, but that eviodence has its origin in the letters themselves, not outside. I have asked Bill for evidence from within the letters that does not rely on his prior asssumption. He has not done that.

So let me just say you may be misunderstanding; I am not even addressing his interpretation as such, only the method he used to arrive at his interpretation, and shown it to be seriously flawed. To coounteract him then I need to present an alternative methodology. This I have done.

There are thousands of instances in textual criticism of all types, whether theological or otherwise, where we have to understand the culture that the author is writing to to understand the nature of his intent. For example, we understand that Paul used to be a Pharisee from the book of Acts, even if it is not mentioned in the book of Romans, yet we see some evidences of that thinking permeating the book. We place the puzzle pieces together, and voila! It makes sense.

In a same manner, we understand by reading Galatians what Paul was doing right after his conversion in Acts. Even though Acts does not mention it, Paul was, in fact, in the wilderness.

We understand the book of Daniel through circumstances that are not mentioned in the book, but are chronicled in other Biblical and extra-Biblical sources.

Understanding history unlocks meaning for extra-theological works, such as the allegory of the War in Heaven in Milton's Paradise Lost or the riddle of the Walrus and the Carpenter in Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

All that to say that all Bill has to prove is that there is a possibility that a Jew-Gentile relationship issue was relevant at the time of the writing. This may be found through other Biblical sources, such as Acts or the first book of Thessalonians, or through extra-Biblical writings, if there are any. As he has shown that the possibility does occur, as it is mentioned in the book of I Thessalonians, he has shown that his assumption can, in fact, be made.

You are asking for internal evidence and saying that any external evidence must be dismissed. That is illogical. It is like saying that since some of the books of our Bible do not explicitly state that they are inspired by God, they must not be. We have proof from outside these books that they are. In the same way, Bill has shown that Jewish-Gentile relations were dicey in that time period, and he has shown that these relations were dicey in Thessalonica. Therefore, he interprets the passage based on this fact. It is now up to you to provide a different argument based on a different assumption. I think we should still like to see it happen.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
If you are Arminian you are self-made, and we both know what that's worth.[/QB]

And what was your methodology at coming up with tha brilliant statement?

 

[William C]

You are asking for internal evidence and saying that any external evidence must be dismissed. That is illogical. It is like saying that since some of the books of our Bible do not explicitly state that they are inspired by God, they must not be. We have proof from outside these books that they are. In the same way, Bill has shown that Jewish-Gentile relations were dicey in that time period, and he has shown that these relations were dicey in Thessalonica. Therefore, he interprets the passage based on this fact. It is now up to you to provide a different argument based on a different assumption. I think we should still like to see it happen.

Well stated.

 

[William C]

As I said, I won't give you big gun stuff until you can deal with the pop gun stuff. You have not done that.

Translation: I don't have any big gun stuff, I was bluffing so I'm going to stick to my same old tired responses that never deal with the text or the historical context.

 

[William C]

Scott, I'm very upset with you!

I think you made Bible-Belted feel uncomfortable and leave. You really should apologize to him.