Comments for Labarum http://labarum.net All Christian, All Historic, All the Time Fri, 18 May 2012 18:03:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on The Ehrman-Carrier Controversy 4: Beaten by a Nose by Ehrman & Carrier: the historical Jesus (2) « Christian Studies http://labarum.net/2012/05/04/the-ehrman-carrier-controversy-4-beaten-by-a-nose/comment-page-1/#comment-67772 Ehrman & Carrier: the historical Jesus (2) « Christian Studies Fri, 18 May 2012 18:03:30 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2767#comment-67772 [...] further commentary, see this article at Labarum. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...] [...] further commentary, see this article at Labarum. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

]]> Comment on The Ehrman-Carrier Controversy 1: General Remarks by Ehrman & Carrier: the historical Jesus (1) « Christian Studies http://labarum.net/2012/04/30/a-closer-look-at-the-ehrman-carrier-controversy-1-general-remarks/comment-page-1/#comment-67771 Ehrman & Carrier: the historical Jesus (1) « Christian Studies Fri, 18 May 2012 17:57:28 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2735#comment-67771 [...] his case), and are a mere distraction from the real issues involved. For further commentary, see this article at Labarum. Like this:LikeOne blogger likes this [...] [...] his case), and are a mere distraction from the real issues involved. For further commentary, see this article at Labarum. Like this:LikeOne blogger likes this [...]

]]> Comment on James as “Brother of the Lord” by jlk http://labarum.net/2012/04/26/james-as-brother-of-the-lord/comment-page-1/#comment-67740 jlk Thu, 17 May 2012 06:58:16 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2720#comment-67740 I had never thought about the fact that Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. How did they ignore the not one, but several references to the brother of Jesus? I guess (a) how did they ignore it back in early Christianity, and (2) how do modern Catholic scholars who believe in perpetual virginity deal with it? If the Catholics have a serious scholarly response as to why brother doesn't mean brother, then the mythicists could I think justifiably cite it...but do the Catholics have this, or do they just sweep the brother passages under the rug? I had never thought about the fact that Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. How did they ignore the not one, but several references to the brother of Jesus? I guess (a) how did they ignore it back in early Christianity, and (2) how do modern Catholic scholars who believe in perpetual virginity deal with it?

If the Catholics have a serious scholarly response as to why brother doesn’t mean brother, then the mythicists could I think justifiably cite it…but do the Catholics have this, or do they just sweep the brother passages under the rug?

]]> Comment on A Primer on the Doctrine of the Trinity by Ian Wragg http://labarum.net/2012/05/10/a-primer-on-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-67705 Ian Wragg Mon, 14 May 2012 05:15:56 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2833#comment-67705 Hi Albert, I will be interested in this subject. I have no settled opinions on this topic. I used to, but I have gone from being sure for near 3 decades to finding that no one argument is completely convincing. For instance, what exactly does the writer of the 4th gospel mean when he says the the logos was theos in 1:1 or the use of monogenes theos in 1:18. I have often heard various people say that john 1:1 should read that "the word was a god". O.K. but I would like them to explain what they, or the author of the 4th gospel means by that terminology. And I would like to see a good argument mounted for the reasons that "theos" should be understood in it's various contexts. So. does it mean that the logos was "a god" whatever that means. Or that the logos somehow shared the same nature as the theos that the logos was with. I'm sure that there are other alternatives. I look forward to how you deal with the topic. Hi Albert,
I will be interested in this subject. I have no settled opinions on this topic. I used to, but I have gone from being sure for near 3 decades to finding that no one argument is completely convincing. For instance, what exactly does the writer of the 4th gospel mean when he says the the logos was theos in 1:1 or the use of monogenes theos in 1:18.

I have often heard various people say that john 1:1 should read that “the word was a god”. O.K. but I would like them to explain what they, or the author of the 4th gospel means by that terminology. And I would like to see a good argument mounted for the reasons that “theos” should be understood in it’s various contexts.

So. does it mean that the logos was “a god” whatever that means. Or that the logos somehow shared the same nature as the theos that the logos was with. I’m sure that there are other alternatives. I look forward to how you deal with the topic.

]]> Comment on What’s a William Lane Craig? by Albert McIlhenny http://labarum.net/2012/05/08/2815/comment-page-1/#comment-67669 Albert McIlhenny Fri, 11 May 2012 09:43:28 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2815#comment-67669 Carolyn, I have completed a response to the article and it is located here: http://labarum.net/2012/05/11/answering-a-request-concerning-an-anti-trinitarian-article/ Carolyn,

I have completed a response to the article and it is located here:

http://labarum.net/2012/05/11/answering-a-request-concerning-an-anti-trinitarian-article/

]]> Comment on A Primer on the Doctrine of the Trinity by Answering a Request concerning an Anti-Trinitarian Article - Labarum http://labarum.net/2012/05/10/a-primer-on-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-67668 Answering a Request concerning an Anti-Trinitarian Article - Labarum Fri, 11 May 2012 09:36:50 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2833#comment-67668 [...] in her own ignorance of the doctrine. I have already given a brief exposition of the doctrine here and it is quite clear she is completely ignorant of what the doctrine teaches and seems to confuse [...] [...] in her own ignorance of the doctrine. I have already given a brief exposition of the doctrine here and it is quite clear she is completely ignorant of what the doctrine teaches and seems to confuse [...]

]]> Comment on A Primer on the Doctrine of the Trinity by Albert McIlhenny http://labarum.net/2012/05/10/a-primer-on-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-67663 Albert McIlhenny Thu, 10 May 2012 20:16:09 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2833#comment-67663 Wonderweiss, I might but that will likely happen when I discuss issues relating to KJV Onlyism. The Trinity was certainly defined and defended without recourse to the Comma Johannieum. Wonderweiss,

I might but that will likely happen when I discuss issues relating to KJV Onlyism. The Trinity was certainly defined and defended without recourse to the Comma Johannieum.

]]> Comment on A Primer on the Doctrine of the Trinity by Nicholas http://labarum.net/2012/05/10/a-primer-on-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-67662 Nicholas Thu, 10 May 2012 19:29:23 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2833#comment-67662 Thanks for the clarification, Albert. I have, in fact, read certain perspectives, even from supposed Thomists, that do claim the divine essence is prior to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So I'm a bit wary. Thanks for the clarification, Albert.

I have, in fact, read certain perspectives, even from supposed Thomists, that do claim the divine essence is prior to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So I’m a bit wary.

]]> Comment on A Primer on the Doctrine of the Trinity by Wonderweiss http://labarum.net/2012/05/10/a-primer-on-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-67661 Wonderweiss Thu, 10 May 2012 19:09:12 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2833#comment-67661 Do you have any plans to address things like 1 John 5:7? Do you have any plans to address things like 1 John 5:7?

]]> Comment on A Primer on the Doctrine of the Trinity by Albert McIlhenny http://labarum.net/2012/05/10/a-primer-on-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/comment-page-1/#comment-67660 Albert McIlhenny Thu, 10 May 2012 18:14:21 +0000 http://labarum.net/?p=2833#comment-67660 I would certainly not consider Photius and the Cappadocians to be on the "dark side." :) On "the Father is God, etc." The point I was making is that some expressions like this have an entirely different connotation in Greek or Latin than it appears in English. In classical languages, it is far clearer when I am using the predicate nominative form than it does in English. For example, if I own both a Buick and a Subaru, I can say "that Buick is my car" and "that Subaru is my car" but one cannot assume "is" means "equals" and then say "that Buick is that Subaru." Here is a case of the predicate nominative. Similarly, the expression "the Word was God" in John 1:1 is in predicate nominative form and hence the Word is not being defined with all of the Trinity. This is much clearer in the Greek. I agree I could have been clearer on the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but there is a tradeoff between precision and comprehensibility. I was aiming this at an audience who might not have any idea what all of this means but just repeats things out of rote learning. As we move along, I could add some finer points. I certainly do not believe the essence precedes the Father. As I defined essence in terms of a thing, one cannot have the essence without the thing. Since Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coeternal, the essence of God cannot be prior to God and the essence of Son and Spirit derive from their relation to the Father. I think we believe the same thing but are aiming at different audiences. it is the battle between exactness and pedagogy. I would certainly not consider Photius and the Cappadocians to be on the “dark side.” :)

On “the Father is God, etc.”

The point I was making is that some expressions like this have an entirely different connotation in Greek or Latin than it appears in English. In classical languages, it is far clearer when I am using the predicate nominative form than it does in English. For example, if I own both a Buick and a Subaru, I can say “that Buick is my car” and “that Subaru is my car” but one cannot assume “is” means “equals” and then say “that Buick is that Subaru.” Here is a case of the predicate nominative. Similarly, the expression “the Word was God” in John 1:1 is in predicate nominative form and hence the Word is not being defined with all of the Trinity. This is much clearer in the Greek.

I agree I could have been clearer on the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but there is a tradeoff between precision and comprehensibility. I was aiming this at an audience who might not have any idea what all of this means but just repeats things out of rote learning. As we move along, I could add some finer points.

I certainly do not believe the essence precedes the Father. As I defined essence in terms of a thing, one cannot have the essence without the thing. Since Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coeternal, the essence of God cannot be prior to God and the essence of Son and Spirit derive from their relation to the Father. I think we believe the same thing but are aiming at different audiences. it is the battle between exactness and pedagogy.

]]>