Rob R (f.k.a. geebob) responded with a series of comments...so if my one other reader is interested, please see the previous entry.
Was the altar to an unknown god ignorant worship of Yahweh?
Well, for Rob, it depends...and it can depend within the same comment.
Rob said: "So the alter isn’t an example of where the Greek religion authentically grasped God. Their philosophers and poets still got something right that is authentically true and basic about God."
but Rob also says...
"It’s more natural and it fits the context better that the alter to the unknown God is a contact point with the real God. Maybe not for everyone".
Sounds nice...but flies in the face of what he had said mere sentences previously...not to mention it rests on pure conjecture. Where does he find context-clues that lead him to these conclusions? There aren't any.
In fact, Rob appealed to C.S. Lewis' work of fiction, the Last Battle to bolster the idea the Athenians were grasping God in an "authentic" way. That might prove convincing for some, but not myself. Neither should it lend any weight to his point of view given the Last Battle was not an exegesis of Paul's sermon. In fact, this is simply adjusting Acts 17 to Lewis' own thoughts about the faith in general. As I said in the comments, this is an example where Rob's comment was irrelevant.
Rob also appealed to the poem Paul quoted from...a poem to Zeus ("for in him we live and move and have our being"). For Rob, this is evidence of a theology for an unknown god (or not, depends on the moment)...you know, that little known godfather of Greek gods: Zeus. That god to which the Athenians erected a temple to in 6 B.C. Apparently whoever made the altar to an unknown god hadn't traveled less than a mile south of where Paul preached his sermon at Mars Hill to learn that the unknown god was well known, and had a theology. In fact, Zeus was the god of Stoicism...a prominent demographic within Athens, and in Paul's immediate audience. Paul also quoted from a poem entitled Phaenomena, by Aratus...a Stoic. A man also writing of Zeus when he said "we are his offspring".
Rob has served to present evidence that goes against his own take this altar. Why appeal to the mythology of Zeus, the king of the Greek god pantheon and the altar to an unknown god? Zeus is neither unknown, nor was that altar dedicated to him. It should be obvious. Paul is telling the Athenians they don't know God...they have perverted partial truths that point to man's innate knowledge, but it was not a validation of the altar to an unknown god. It is noteworthy that Paul turned the Stoic notion of the logos (in him we live and move and have our being) on its head. Whereas the Stoics had an impersonal notion, Paul, with the Apostle John, had a Christological logos. Zeus may be the godfather of gods an man in mythology, but God is Father of His Logos and of every man. Paul is proclaiming the Fatherhood of God and the eternality of His Son! Paul isn't validating the Athenians, he's turning their philosophy and theology on its head. He's supplanting it with the Trinity. He proclaims all idols are false in a city littered with idols. While you couldn't walk through Athens without bumping into a god, you cannot avoid the True God wherever you step...but He is not made of gold or silver.
In fact, it is doubly strange that the same Paul, apostle to the Greeks, would write in Romans 1 that worshiping idols is evidence of...what? Evidence of a relationship with God? No...evidence a man is being turned over to the futility of his mind and God's wrath hangs over him. Elsewhere, idols worship was said to be demonic. Further, that even the food was for demons.
1 Corinthians 10:20
I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.
Besides this, the general truths every man can apprehend about God is not particularly meaningful, according to James...demons know and shudder.
It is obviously more accurate to say Paul made a systematic refutation of all that the Athenians were proud of...so Rob's point that poems to Zeus prove they worshiped God ignorantly...is wrong, and is irrelevant. Zeus was not unknown. The altar was not to an unknown god if it were made for Zeus. Paul took the occasion to use these things as points of contact for preaching the truth where darkness masquerades as light.
What of the altars in Israel?
Rob said: Disparaging the service of hands to the the unknown alter is strange since God requires the Jews to him at the alter.
I'm just taking my cue from Paul, who preached by the Holy Spirit: "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything...
Where Paul saw a connection to the error of the temple and altar worship of Athens and human hands serving there, Rob sees something else. Appealing to God-ordained temple worship in Israel is superficial at best and fails to take into account the fact Paul disparaged the worship the Athenians offered with their hands.
If Rob is correct, one is left wondering why Paul even said those words. You get that sense a lot if you follow Rob's arguments.
The points I made above refutes the idea that this altar was to the true God. I've also explained that Paul was using points of contact for preaching, not proclaiming that the Athenians actually worshiped God, rather, that they were ignorant of Him. As stated previously, that Paul would declare his audience ignorant was a slap in the face. These were the philosophers of the age. Paul was brought before them to be examined and he examined them and said they were ignorant.
LFW is "implied"?
Rob said: "the passage most certainly does imply that ALL men can find God as surely as Paul held that all men were descended from Adam. And to find God IS to accept him."
That's just an assertion...and it fails by Rob's own standard. If the Athenians found God, if the Stoic's theology of Zeus was an ignorant finding of God...then why did nearly everyone reject Paul's God? I thought to find Him was to accept Him? I guess they didn't find Him...but if they didn't find Him, then Rob's wrong. He falls on his own two-edged sword. Also, Paul proclaimed we all descended from one man...something that flew in the face of Greek mythology.
Does having a theology of an unknown god serve to prove Rob's point?
Rob said: "Did you not complain that an unknown God has no theology? Yes, you did, and I pointed out the nature of Paul's citation, not just of that alter but greek thought in philosophy and poetry as a counterexample. (Rob said this during a moment he thought the altar was a point of contact with God and the Athenians)"
And I've already shown above that Zeus was not an unknown god, but the godfather of the pantheon of Greek gods...and he had his own place of worship...not an altar to an unknown god. That Paul would use Zeus as a point of contact along with the altar only serves to demonstrate he wasn't validating false worship but introducing truth to darkness masquerading as light.
Further, if Rob wouldn't selectively read Paul in a wooden way, he would realize that Paul saying what the Athenians worship "in ignorance" would not be ignorance if they had a developed theology. Paul turned the Athenian's theology on it's head and placed it on the altar of ignorance to be burned up so he could present to them God the Father and His resurrected Son who raises men to life.
So was Athenian worship authentic or not?
The best argument one could have for Rob's position is the altar to an unknown god. Rob falters by playing both sides. The religion of the Greeks was wicked, and included beastiality, sodomy, orgies, and more. The gods were prone to sin, vindictive, and unlike God altogether. Besides all this, Rob has already said that to find God is to accept Him, so since most rejected Paul's message we know they didn't actually grasp God in an authentic way.
Perhaps Paul has MPD...and so does Luke.
Rob said: "The other point I missed was the deal you made about Paul being provoked. This, Craig, I don’t take it seriously at all. Of course he was provoked by Idols. I have no clue by what convention of English or normal communication standards you insist that therefore, everything Paul says after this has to be negative about the religion just because Luke doesn’t immeadiately say that there’s going to be some positive comments."
Rob doesn't take it seriously at all? This is another instance where one wonders why the Holy Spirit included such facts...apparently God doesn't get to set up the story. It's just a random disconnected detail for Rob. Paul was provoked and Luke gives us a glimpse of the character of the Athenians (lazy motor-mouths)...but don't let that inform your take of the sermon. In fact, don't let the other facts intrude upon what Rob knows Paul meant! Turning the Athenian thinking on its head and sending it up in flames and calling philosophers ignorant all say positive things.
In short, Rob provided comments that were irrelevant, conjectural, and ignored basic facts. He has yet to make a positive case. He just knows Paul was saying we can all grasp God...in a state of darkness, as Paul put it. All men do grasp God...but they don't all grasp Him "authentically"...that is to say, they don't actually believe in the true God. Rob assumes grasping in the dark is a positive thing...yet it shows man's moral state by being blind. When you grab something in the dark, you can't see what it is that you have.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
craig, I may answer more thoroughly but i can't grasp how you are missing this. This is not an all or nothing situation. I'm not saying that paul is affirming all of athenian religion. I explicitly deny this and I provided Lewis' illustration as to how it is anything but all or nothing. I most certainly do not see Paul as telling the athenians "Yup, you guys got it, you're all right. this unknown God is totally it who is also identical to zeuss". Ergo, when you interpret me as implying this, it fails to critique what it is that I am actually saying is there. And your picture is untenable that it is a complete condemnation of all of their religion. Craig, Paul undeniably without an iota of doubt is identifying Yahweh with the subject of the poetry, but it isn't 100 percent. How can this be? It's exactly as Lewis says. Whatever is true is of Yahweh. Whatever is false is of Zeus. Greek religion has both intertwined. And that is exactly the picture that Paul provides. It is true of God that he is our creator. It is false of him that idolatry is an appropriate response.
"We are his children". Who is Paul talking about here? do you really think that in this quote of the poem (yes, this is the quote from the poet) that he isn't speaking of Yahweh here? Really? Because Paul then concludes from that very very specific quote that the greeks are wrong to think that they can make idols to him of gold or silver. If we are still talking about Zeuss, why does Paul then go on to say from that point, on being his children, that we aren't to make idols to him? Why does Paul care about how the greeks go about worshiping their pagan god? That is profoundly absurd. And if he's talking about Yahweh when describing the inappropriateness of idolatry, then why does he use a point from a poem about Zeuss? For anyone else, it is obvious that paul is saying that the pagan poet writing about zeuss is really grasping a truth about Yahweh.
That earlier point about him being distressed over the idolatry, it makes even less sense to me if they know nothing of the true God. If they are completely ignorant of God and don't practice idolatry or they are completely ignorant of God and do, there is no advantage either way and Paul's task remains the same. But under the inclusivist picture, it makes more sense that the idolatry is distressing since it is an infection in light of the small light that they do have. It makes more sense that Paul is then greatly distressed.
Craig, I'm very confused that you say I am playing both sides. I already said that I am not a pluralist. So why are you acting as if I was one? The inclusivist position is precisely the notion that there is one fully true religion but the others have differing degrees of truth about God and/or his expectations of us and deception to work against. this is not a new adjustment here. this is precisely what I have been saying for years.
Rob,
for the life of me you are not even understanding me. Possibly my fault, but I don't think so.
Rob: "Craig, Paul undeniably without an iota of doubt is identifying Yahweh with the subject of the poetry, but it isn't 100 percent. How can this be? It's exactly as Lewis says. Whatever is true is of Yahweh."
I agree *Paul* is identifying Yahweh with the poem...but not because Yahweh is the subject of the poem. You are free to argue otherwise, I've already made my arguments for this. How do you arrive at your inclusivist position without first assuming your position? It's circular. I've given good reasons why, you've offer no arguments or evidence.
Rob: "Why does Paul care about how the greeks go about worshiping their pagan god?That is profoundly absurd. And if he's talking about Yahweh when describing the inappropriateness of idolatry, then why does he use a point from a poem about Zeuss"
Rob, it's only absurd if Paul's trying to tweak the Athenian's style of worship. I don't think Paul was doing that. Why use the point of a poem about Zeus? I explained that in the post above.
Rob: "But under the inclusivist picture, it makes more sense that the idolatry is distressing since it is an infection in light of the small light that they do have."
Pure assertion. Why does it make "more sense" from your pov?
Rob said: "We are his children". Who is Paul talking about here? do you really think that in this quote of the poem (yes, this is the quote from the poet) that he isn't speaking of Yahweh here? Really?"
Of course Paul's speaking of Yahweh. That's my point. You just happen to think Paul is affirming (in a very qualified sense) the Athenian's theology when Paul's actually turning it on its head.
Rob said: "I'm very confused that you say I am playing both sides. I already said that I am not a pluralist. So why are you acting as if I was one?"
You were playing both sides re: the altar. On the one hand, it was used for genuine (though ignorant) worship of Yahweh...on the other, Paul simply used it as a launching pad.
I agree it was a launching pad. In fact, Paul's use of the altar and Stoic philosophy/theology was a launching pad.
I've provided argument and explanation for my points, so far you offer conjecture, assertion, and circular arguments. I'm not making fun of you, btw...this is just a fact. We all do it, but I'm not going to pretend like you're not doing it and go through a tiring exercise when I've taken the time to engage the Word.
I agree *Paul* is identifying Yahweh with the poem...but not because Yahweh is the subject of the poem.
Craig, If Yaweh isn't the subject of the poem, then what is the point of saying that it isn't appropriate to create idols to the subject of the poem?
As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c]
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.
If Paul isn't saying that that part of the poem, that "we are his offspring" (it is in the both poems on Zeuss from either Cleanthes or Aretas, both are cited as the source) then what follows is a non-sequiter.
Your statement at best doesn't make sense with what is written and at worst, just doesn't make sense.
This really really really just looks nuts. Paul is clearly talking about the true God in the preceding verses. He is talking about the true God immeadiately after. There is no reason to believe he is talking about anyone else when he says "As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’"
"we are his offspring" is the quote, it is the poem. And "his" refers to Yahweh. it can't be any other way.
Of course Paul's speaking of Yahweh. That's my point. You just happen to think Paul is affirming (in a very qualified sense) the Athenian's theology when Paul's actually turning it on its head.
Of COURSE Paul is turning it on its head. Of course this is not a wholesale affirmation of Athenian theology. I'M NOT PROMOTING PLURALISM! He's turning Athenian theology on its head, against what is erroneous of Athenian theology on the basis of what is true in Athenian theology, still answering the question, is Paul promoting a foreign deity with an emphatic "no".
Rob doesn't take it seriously at all? This is another instance where one wonders why the Holy Spirit included such facts...apparently God doesn't get to set up the story.
What I find unbelieveable is the point you are drawing from this. Of course the story is being set up from this. Of course Paul takes a very dim view to much of what he sees of Athenian religion. and what does he do? He fights that disturbing provoking athenian theology with what is true from Athenian theology. God has proceded Paul and the message of the gospel that he brings, he has set up beach heads of truth, a form of grace in a land of deception to prepare the way for the gospel and Paul used these truths that were there amongst the deceptions. he was provoked. He responded. I take that seriously. I don't take the implications you drew from that seriously.
Of course I think it necessary to to integrate what Paul says in one place with what he says in another. As Acts 10:30 claims, the sacrifices of Pagans are offered to Demons. But this is the general truth and not necessarily an absolute as a sacrifice may be offered honorably an may be accepted by God. Most likely the pagan Priest King Melchizedek offered sacrifices, and it isn't the case that this priest whom is cited as one who gives a legitimate blessing to Abraham and who's priesthood has been honored to provide the model for Jesus priesthood was not a servant to demons. Moses' Pagan father in law was even allowed to offer sacrifices to God on the Jewish alter.
It is the general truth that sacrifices to Pagan God's were unto demons, but its not the case that God himself never accepted any of them depending on the heart of the one offering it. Course, clearly in light of the presence of the gospel, it becomes unnecessary and offered to a demon by one who rejects the Holy Spirit's tug towards the gospel on the heart.
And since we are to integrate Paul's writings an assume they are consistent, I would refer to Romans 1 against your claim that searching for and finding God isn't equivalent to accepting God. Romans 1 implies that it is universal that God has made himself plain to the world so that everyone is without excuse. So what is the difference between people who see this and reject this vs. the few who seek and find God. Clearly, Paul is implying that searching for and finding God is not universal, thus to distinguish finding God (not universal) with having God made known (universal) but rejected is that those who seek and find are those who accept.
Rob,
I can't begin to correct you. You misread me at certain points and introduce mere assertions and conjecture...bad conjecture at that. Here's an example:
Rob: "Most likely the pagan Priest King Melchizedek offered sacrifices, and it isn't the case that this priest whom is cited as one who gives a legitimate blessing to Abraham and who's priesthood has been honored to provide the model for Jesus priesthood was not a servant to demons. Moses' Pagan father in law was even allowed to offer sacrifices to God on the Jewish alter."
You assert that Melchizedek was a pagan priest. The Bible doesn't say that.
Genesis 18:18
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of [i]God Most High[/i].
Regarding Moses' father in law...he made a sacrifice according to God's Word. That in no way supports your position. In fact, preceding the sacrifice he acknolwedges Yahweh's superiority:
Exodus 18
9 Jethro rejoiced over all the goodness which the LORD had done to Israel, in delivering them from the hand of the Egyptians. 10 So Jethro said, “Blessed be the LORD who delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of Pharaoh, and who delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 11 Now I know that the LORD is greater than all the gods; indeed, it was proven when they dealt proudly against [d]the people.” 12 Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat a meal with Moses’ father-in-law before God.
Melchizedek: a priest to Yahweh.
Jethro: confesses Yahweh and sacrifices to Him, even eating a meal before the LORD with Moses, the elders, and Aaron...whose lineage was to serve as priests to the LORD.
When someone insists on spouting off conjecture, misreads the other at certain points, and gets basic Bible facts wrong...argument is fruitless. Keep grasping.
Craig, Melchizedek is a pagan priest in as much as the greek philosophers whom the early church fathers cite as speaking of God, our god. Who is he? He's not in the line of those who recieved special revelation, he is not of God's chosen people who were Abraham's children.
That he served El Elyon is not evidence that he wasn't a pagan since the pagan Canaanites did indeed worship El Elyon, God most high, who had 70 sons.
If you want to insist that he wasn't a pagan, okay, it's just word games and it works to my claims that people other than the Jews received revelation.
And Craig, did you know as Jethrow now knew that Yahweh is greater than all the other gods? I don't. I think there is only one God. Jethrow was a midianite priest, aka a pagan. that is what scripture says.
But if you want to insist that God had servants amongst the canaanites and midianites apart from Jews, GREAT that's my point.
Again, Job remains another, the book of whom some believe came from Jethrow.
The amazing thing about Jethrow by the way is that he, after being a pagan priest after one simple confession is allowed to sacrifice on the alter. In other words, his spiritual leadership here is acknowledged even if you could call him a recent convert, whatever that would mean. He was a priest and he's allowed to continue to perform as a priest.
Rob,
you are currently the king of unsubstantiated assertions. You just say things matter of factly, like that carries any weight.
Do you have any reason to think El Elyon whom Melchizedek served was a Canaanite god? I'm asking for evidence, not just loose references with an appearance of plausibility.
Rob said: "The amazing thing about Jethrow by the way is that he, after being a pagan priest after one simple confession is allowed to sacrifice on the alter."
Again, that's what you say. Does the OT give any reason to think a new profession, even if simplistic, prevents a man from offering a sacrifice?
Rob said: "In other words, his spiritual leadership here is acknowledged..."
His spiritual leadership is acknowledged by his admitting Yahweh is greatest and does it all under the authority of Moses, the elders, and Aaron the priest?
(had to delete one more time, after annoying myself with with "Jethro" mispellings)
from the ugaritic text:
Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament.
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
Jethro isn't proof for my claims, yet it isn't insignificant that in spite of his minimal conversion (if it is even that given a claim of superiority doesn't make for a whole lot of theology... minimal also in light of the fact that he returns to his country and remains apart from God's chosen) he MC's a meal to God by sacrifice for the Jewish religious leadership and engineers the Jewish legal structure.
10:57 AM
Rob,
In searching about over the last couple of days, that link re: the Ugarit text you provided is the about the only one that says El Elyon was a Canaanite god. I can't find the Ugarit texts online, not surprisingly...I would be more surprised if the Academy made somthing like that available for all. According to wikipedia (for whatever that is worth), El Elyon rarely appears anywhere outside of Scripture. That says a lot given we know a lot about Canaanite idol worship.
"El" was the godfather of the Canaanite pantheon, whether El Elyon was a god of theirs would need evidence. Even then, you would still need to provide evidence that Genesis 14's record of El Elyon was a reference to a Canaanite god...especially in light Abram saying El Elyon is Yahweh in v22.
Further, there are other references in the OT to God as "Most High", all of which is written by the Holy Spirit, some of which was recorded by the hand of Moses who wrote Genesis 14. Why selectively read "El Elyon" as being a reference to a Canaanite god in Gen 14?
Compounding your task's difficulty, Ugarim was 50 miles away from Salem (Jerusalem)...not a short journey. The texts from Ugarim give a TON of info regarding the worship of the Canaanite gods, including orgies and child sacrifice. So once you show the link between the Ugarim text and Melchizedek, you actually undermine your assertion that Melchizedek worshiped God ignorantly...being a priest in Canaan, and *leading others in the practices* contained in the Ugarim texts would show Melchizedek was quite knowledgable of the perverted polytheism of Canaan, and practiced it. He was a priest, after all.
Did Abram offer a tithe to finance drunken orgies and child sacrifice? Is Jesus a High Priest in the order of such a man?
Rob said: "Jethro isn't proof for my claims, yet it isn't insignificant that in spite of his minimal conversion..."
I didn't realize neophytes were denied the opportunity to make sacrifices to God.
Rob said: "(if it is even that given a claim of superiority doesn't make for a whole lot of theology... minimal also in light of the fact that he returns to his country and remains apart from God's chosen)"
You make much out of nothing. God says throughout the OT that He is greater than other gods. Perhaps God is also weak in His theology?
Why assume Jethro returned and *maintained* a false religion? It is recorded in Judges that Jethro's descendents (the Kenites) joined Judah in the Promised Land...at that point, Israel was faithful and furthering the worship of Yahweh and driving out Canaanites...are we to suppose Jethro departed, fostered idol worship, and that Judah invited the Kenites into the Promised Land just before they went on campaigns against the Canaanites to drive out the idol worshipers?
Your words might sway the ill-informed, or those who don't read the Bible...because on the surface, what you say sounds "reasonable"...even "plausible". But the moment your assertions are confronted with the truth in the Word, they shown to be wrong. W-R-O-N-G...WRONG.
Wrong is a gentle description.
El Elyon rarely appears anywhere outside of Scripture.
The ugarit texts are special because they provide a rare look into Canaanite religion.
This website cites the encyclopedia Judaica as saying that El Elyon is a "well known Canaanite deity". http://www.biblicalheritage.org/People/melchizedek.htm
Even then, you would still need to provide evidence that Genesis 14's record of El Elyon was a reference to a Canaanite god...especially in light Abram saying El Elyon is Yahweh in v22.
it's not strictly an either or proposition. That has always been my point. El Elyon, "God Most High" is a Canaanite God, a Greek God, an Asian God because there is only one God who has been found throughout the world albeit with varying degrees of truth and error.
"El" was the godfather of the Canaanite pantheon, whether
Agreed, furthering my point. And the godfather of the Canaanite pantheon has been used synonomously with "God Most High" in one I've read... just as it is with scripture.
Compounding your task's difficulty, Ugarim was 50 miles away from Salem (Jerusalem)...not a short journey.
And all in the region of the Canaanites prior to Israels take over of the land.
all of which is written by the Holy Spirit,
Inspired by the holy spirit who used the conceptual landscape of the region while molding it which has been the mode of communication for all of scripture and beyond through church history.
you actually undermine your assertion that Melchizedek worshiped God ignorantly
Everyone worships God with a degree of ignorance, really an infinite degree of ignorance given God is infinite and our minds are finite. I know factually more about God than Abraham who wasn't a trinitarian. My claim is not focussed on that Melchizedek worshipped God ignorantly but that he found God outside the scope of God's chosen, God's vessels for his special revelation.
You make much out of nothing. God says throughout the OT that He is greater than other gods. Perhaps God is also weak in His theology?
It's a pretty significant fact but it's a sparse one. I got a heckovalott more out of scripture than that. I gotta heck of a lot out of scripture in the first handful of verses.
Why assume Jethro returned and *maintained* a false religion?
Craig, there is not a whole lot of content there and tons of content he missed by not staying with the Jews and Moses as the law was developed.
Israel was faithful and furthering the worship of Yahweh and driving out Canaanites...are we to suppose Jethro departed, fostered idol worship,
I don't assume anything of the sort. But I certainly don't believe it is safe to say that Jethro went along and held something completely error free with no further influence from his own backgrownd and neighbors nor that what he held previously was without worth. He got a significant chunk of truth and the narrative presents him positively.
Considering that even scripture authors most likely believed false things from their own Jewish Culture, like the author of the book of Jude who quoted the book of Enoch, it's that much more likely that Jethro retained significant aspects of his paganism.
Rob,
Every thing you've said has been mere speculation.
I can't believe I've even labored on about this.
at worst, educated speculation on much better solid ground than what you've been offering.
If you don't want to believe that Melchizedek was a spiritual leader to the canaanites, aka pagans... uh, okay. There's nothing to commend that and everything to commend the opposite view.
If you want to think that Jethro just became an orthodox Jew at the time, nothing of what he was spiritually beforehand was relevant and he was error and pagan free after, okay, its a stretch, but be my guest.
It remains that they are examples of Holy Pagans, people outside of God's chosen who found favor with him and at least Melchizedek was implicitly spiritually pleasing to God prior to an encounter with God's chosen and illustrates the principals in acts 17 and romans 2:13-16 perfectly as does Job. Jethro fits the picture even if he is not as good of an example.
Rob,
thank you for demonstrating the waste of time this has been.
You said: "If you don't want to believe that Melchizedek was a spiritual leader to the canaanites, aka pagans... uh, okay. There's nothing to commend that and everything to commend the opposite view."
i. I did not say Melchizedek was not a spiritual leader to the Canaanites.
ia. Neither am I saying Melchizedek was a spiritual leader to the Canaanites.
We were NOT discussing the extent of his ministry, rather, the nature of his office. That's all the Scripture tells us.
Rob said: "If you want to think that Jethro just became an orthodox Jew at the time, nothing of what he was spiritually beforehand was relevant and he was error and pagan free after, okay, its a stretch, but be my guest."
i. I never said Jethro became an orthodox Jew...that's anachronistic.
ii. I never said what he was before hand was irrelevant. On the other hand, we don't really know what he believed before his profession of faith.
iia. That he confessed Yahweh is very significant, and that he offered a sacrifice upon this confession under the oversight of Aaron, Moses, and the elders is highly relevant.
Rob said: "It remains that they are examples of Holy Pagans, people outside of God's chosen..."
i. Actually, it remains your empty assertion.
ii. If someone were a believer in the true God, even if not of the tribe of Abraham, it remains that they are NOT pagans.
Rob said: "Melchizedek was implicitly spiritually pleasing to God prior to an encounter with God's chosen..."
i. I have no idea why you think this carries any weight. One is not a pagan if he knows Yahweh but not His chosen people by flesh. A Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly.
Rob: "and illustrates the principals in acts 17..."
i. Empty assertion. The only arguments you've offered are speculation, so retreating to your dead assertion is not helping your case.
Rob: "and romans 2:13-16 perfectly as does Job."
i. Prooftexting Romans 2 without offering exegesis or acknolwedging other interpretations is...what do you call that?
A: Unargued assertion.
We all have unargued assertions, and they carry no weight...especially when the one introducing them is wrong and has a history of empty assertions and speculation.
ii.Introducing another unargued assertion re: Job being a pagan doesn't help your case either.
Maybe I've been approaching this all wrong. I think from now on I'll just make a bunch of assertions, employ google to make a superficial case that might appear plausible to someone unfamiliar with the Bible and argumentation and then act as if the one with the opposing view should be on the defensive.
It's a great way to be lazy and watch the other guy run around in circles.
We were NOT discussing the extent of his ministry, rather, the nature of his office. That's all the Scripture tells us.
it is implicit that he was a priest and king to pagans.
iia. That he confessed Yahweh is very significant, and that he offered a sacrifice upon this confession under the oversight of Aaron, Moses, and the elders is highly relevant.
right, a nod and recognition to his spiritual leadership.
i. I have no idea why you think this carries any weight. One is not a pagan if he knows Yahweh but not His chosen people by flesh. A Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly.
Now you're being anachronistic. The outward expression of Judaism was essential under the old covenant.
And this is a word game if you define pagan as one who does not know God. But that pagans can find God is precisely the thing in question.
i. Empty assertion. The only arguments you've offered are speculation, so retreating to your dead assertion is not helping your case.
good grief craig, I was placing this smaller discussion in the greater context of the broader discussion.
i. Prooftexting Romans 2 without offering exegesis or acknolwedging other interpretations is...what do you call that?
Craig, I don't have to support absolutely everything I say which is impossible. One doesn't have to explain all of his explanations indefinitely. Its just not practical. If you want to offer an alternative explanation to Romans 2:13 and on, you are welcome to make an issue of it. I certainly don't think Romans 2 stands on its own. But how it lines up with my interpretation is easy to see.
ii.Introducing another unargued assertion re: Job being a pagan doesn't help your case either.
Job was not a Jew. Job pleased God before being tested and repented for his shortcoming afterword, all AGAIN apart from influence from God's chosen line.
Maybe I've been approaching this all wrong. I think from now on I'll just make a bunch of assertions,
There's no change. no one supports every part of the support for their claims. I'm still reeling from how colossally bad your point was regarding Paul being "provoked" and what allegedly should've been there. The problem wasn't that you didn't support this assertion. If the observation is good, or at least reasonable, often that can be evident or more evident with a little more probing. This was just a crazy assertion about psychology and/or communication standards which come out of no where.
Craig, Melchizedek was a king and priest in the canaanite region. It is not a crazy assertion to suggest that he was therefore a leader in the canaanite religion. The thing that needs support is to suggest that he wasn't just to keep things theologically convenient for rigid exclusivism and restrictivism.
Seriously craig, its a far more sever problem when you go beyond mere assertion to really bad ones that are easily disproven, such as the point you made about the alter being man made and a tool of the service of human hands. It still floors me that you interpret what Paul says to an extent that is contradictory to the old covenant that is from God when it is compleltely unnecessary.
Rob: "Craig, I don't have to support absolutely everything I say..."
Sigh. I didn't say you have to support "everything" you say...but when you make assertions, you ought to have good evidence to back it up. You haven't. At best, you reference a collection of texts 50 miles away from Jerusalem which *may* be contemporaneous with Abram. We don't even know the extent of the practices contained in those texts, nor do we know if they were contemporary with Abram. The dating leaves a window of about 300 years after Abram's death as well...so your claim requires more than just an assertion backed by unbelievers and liberals who would like to see the Biblical God be nothing more than an alternative take on pagan gods. Your insistence for Melchizedek being a pagan are a novelty to those who affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
You haven't. At best, you reference a collection of texts 50 miles away from Jerusalem which *may* be contemporaneous with Abram.
you implicitly assert that 50 miles is significant. It is not. yes, I just asserted that. all you have is unupported assertion to disagree.
Religions even of this area of much larger ranges and they last much longer than 3 centuries.
Regardless, it remains, Melchizedek was NOT a Jew, he was NOT one of the chosen and that goes a long way combined with what we know of the regional religion which involved recognition of El Elyon. And it remains, that apart from God's chosen, Melchizedek found favor with God.
.so your claim requires more than just an assertion backed by unbelievers and liberals
And lets not forget to throw in guilt by association, ya semi-gnostic.
Your insistence for Melchizedek being a pagan are a novelty to those who affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
And a fallacious appeal to antiquity. Probably not even a valid one (as valid as a fallacy can be) considering those Church fathers who valued inspiration viewed the pagan greek philosophers as virtual Christians. I don't know that they wrote of Melchizedek, but issue is the same. They might not have used the term "holy Pagan". That is irrelevent though.
Rob said: “you implicitly assert that 50 miles is significant. It is not. yes, I just asserted that. all you have is unupported assertion to disagree.”
So let me get this straight…you make an unsubstantiated assertion…to reject that assertion, am I supposed to substantiate my rejection? Please.
Rob R: “Religions even of this area of much larger ranges and they last much longer than 3 centuries.”
This is conjectural, on your part. That it “may” be true in some instances doesn’t mean it is so in this situation. That is what you're supposed to be proving.
Rob said: “Regardless, it remains, Melchizedek was NOT a Jew, he was NOT one of the chosen and that goes a long way combined with what we know of the regional religion which involved recognition of El Elyon. And it remains, that apart from God's chosen, Melchizedek found favor with God.”
Remember, retreating to your unsubstantiated assertion re: El Elyon is not helpful. Further, it is immaterial that Melchizedek knew the LORD apart from the Jews…there were no Jews! Abram was still Abram! We don’t know to what extent true worship of God remained throughout the earth at this point. If the Bible says Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God (Who is said to be Yahweh) then that is what a believer accepts.
Rob R said “And lets not forget to throw in guilt by association, ya semi-gnostic.”
Do you have compelling reason for me to accept the studies of these God-haters? If I did accept them, I wouldn't necessarily be accepting your “righteous pagan” theory…you actually want me to accept an unsubstantiated *modified* take on El Elyon.
Unsubstantiated assertions need not be met with valid arguments.
Rob R: “And a fallacious appeal to antiquity.”
Not really. As I stated above, unsubstantiated assertions need not be met with valid arguments. You introduce a novelty with no support. Why would I accept something new when there’s nothing you’ve demonstrated to be wrong with the old?
You’ve committed a decent amount of text to arguing about arguing, but you still haven’t made a case. It's all puff and smoke.
So let me get this straight…you make an unsubstantiated assertion…to reject that assertion, am I supposed to substantiate my rejection? Please.
Your welcome.
Craig, 50 miles is not significant in the scheme of religions, for a religion especially that is known to extend throughought the region. That is the absurd thing to claim. You are making the silly objection. the burdon is on you.
This is conjectural, on your part.
No it isn't. you are asserting the exceptional without support.
Remember, retreating to your unsubstantiated assertion
i substantiated it. You waved your hands.
Further, it is immaterial that Melchizedek knew the LORD apart from the Jews…there were no Jews! Abram was still Abram!
Abram was God's chosen vessel for special revelation. Melchizedek know God apart from him.
Abram was still Abram! We don’t know to what extent true worship of God remained throughout the earth at this point.
Craig, it's been my contention that true worship of God did extend and still does extend throughout the world where the gospel and God's special revelation have not been funneled through his chosen line.
Do you have compelling reason for me to accept the studies of these God-haters?
yes, it's called avoiding ad hominem.
Unsubstantiated assertions need not be met with valid arguments.
I substantiated much to be met with unsubstantiated objection.
Not really.
Yes, really, in light of a religious tradition, including that of the reformers that has always known development.
I accept something new when there’s nothing you’ve demonstrated to be wrong with the old?
It's not an either or deal. And what I say of the old is more faithful to what is old than your mere unsubstantiated claims about the old view. You've cited nothing about what was believed about Melchizedek by ancient authors that is contrary to what I've said and I have noted that what I've said is completely in line with the way the church fathers have said of the pagan philosophers.
While you will not budge on this issue, I observe you have abandoned the rest of the discussion for what you call puff and smoke.
I can see why you say the things you've said here. Your earlier comments? That whole point on Paul being provoked, the implications you drew remain completely odd and contrived. I am still reeling from how thoughtless they were. Very very much puff and smoke.
Rob said: "You've cited nothing about what was believed about Melchizedek by ancient authors that is contrary to what I've said..."
Traditionally, there are at least 3positions, none of which resemble yours:
1) That Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Christ.
2) That Melchizedek was the son of Ham.
3) That Melchizedek was a king and priest who served the One True God, Yahweh.
I'm not opposed to number 1...but I don't agree. I don't think number 2 can be substantiated. And number 3 seems to take the Gen 14 account at face value. You can crossreference me by going to CCEL.org and looking up Matthew Henry and John Calvin. You'll also find other mentions of him in Schaff, and the assumption of the fathers there was that Melchizedek was a priest of Yahweh.
So there are various opinions, but these opinions are NOT that Melchizedek worshiped God according to the Canaanite tradition, rather, that he was a priest of Yahweh.
Rob said: "I have noted that what I've said is completely in line with the way the church fathers have said of the pagan philosophers."
What some Church fathers thought of pagan philosophers in no way sheds light on the meaning of Genesis 14. Your assertions may fall in line with what Church fathers said about pagan philosophers, but that doesn't mean you've presented the correct meaning of the text.
Rob said: "I observe you have abandoned the rest of the discussion for what you call puff and smoke."
Remind me...who introduced Melchizedek and Jethro? I think that would be the one who abandoned the original discussion, right? I am guilty of allowing you to string me along.
Rob said: "That whole point on Paul being provoked, the implications you drew remain completely odd and contrived. I am still reeling from how thoughtless they were. Very very much puff and smoke."
Rob, now I think you're just being insulting. Even here, like before, you are merely being dismissive. You "don't take it seriously", and now consider my comments to be "thoughtless".
The former only tells me of your subjective state. The latter tells me what you think of my subjective state...of which you're not privy to.
Craig, three is of course on the money in as much as El Elyon is a way in which Yahweh has been reffered to. But that he was not a priest of the Canaanite religion is just a denial of the nature of the times and places. And it begs the question to suggest that this is a hard and fast dichotomy, one which I have been denying. Interestingly, there were no priests in the chosen line until Moses.
What some Church fathers thought of pagan philosophers in no way sheds light on the meaning of Genesis 14.
What it demonstrates is that what I am saying is line with orthodoxy, it is quite thinkable.
Your assertions may fall in line with what Church fathers said about pagan philosophers, but that doesn't mean you've presented the correct meaning of the text.
right, I don't depend on this observation. It certainly highlights that what I am suggesting is not purely novel as you have critisized.
Remind me...who introduced Melchizedek and Jethro? I think that would be the one who abandoned the original discussion, right? I am guilty of allowing you to string me along.
They are good examples (more so Melchizedek) of what I am saying is evident from Acts 17. I'm not complaining that you are discussing them, only that you are fixating on them at the expense of the rest of the discussion.
Rob, now I think you're just being insulting. Even here, like before, you are merely being dismissive.
I don't mean to insult, and yeah, there is a degree of dismissiveness here. I really didn't get it and it looked like a chief example of an unsubstantiable claim, that in light of that beginning of the section, it had to say something else additionally for my observations to hold. Sorry, Craig, I just didn't get it at all and it looked completely unfounded. And I brought it up in light of your complaint about unsubstantiated claims, and here's a claim about, I don't know, communication, pscychology, something, that just really comes out of the blue.
Rob, for some reason Blogger didn't want to accept my comment, so I simply posted it as a blog entry:
http://www.antipelagian.com/2011/06/melchizedek-ugaritis-there-connection.html
Post a Comment