Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)

Bernie said: That's for sure. I care more about truth than trying to worry
about what people think.

I respond: But what you're not appreciating is that at least some of these
theological issues are questions of "truth" as well. If you come to the
Biblical text with the assumption that "logic" of the sort you're trying to
use can tame it, you're not going to get its "truth." So, the question is
not then determining the "truth" of what the text is saying, it becomes one
of what you want to impose on the text.

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> David O: "Here's the bottom line: you don't know what you're talking
> about. You haven't studied this in any depth; you don't have any real feel
> for the scholarly debate around the sayings of Jesus about his return or
> otherwise.."
>
>
>
> Ok- your goading me into more research. I'll try to look into it more and
> give feedback. It is forcing me to look into something more which already
> feels painfully obvious.
>
>
>
> David O: "… and you don't seem to have any sensitivity to the theological
> issues surrounding your arguments"
>
>
>
> That's for sure. I care more about truth than trying to worry about what
> people think. If I wasn't that way, I'd still be rejecting evolution and/or
> be afraid to talk about it, because evolution is so massively rejected by
> the Christian community I'm in. This issue, to me, seems to be along the
> same lines.
>
>
>
> And I don't write-off Edward simply because he's a non-believer. I still
> evaluate everyone's opinion based on logic. I learn from any source that
> has valid information. Their faith system means nothing, unless it clouds
> their judgment. Otherwise, there'd be no point in atheists vs. Christian
> debates if one's belief system determined whether they could reason
> correctly.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:18 PM
>
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* ASA
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>
>
>
> Bernie, here are the problems I have with your statement:
>
>
>
> Proposition 1 is probably a massive error. The Gospels likely record the
> substance of Jesus' major teachings on the Kingdom of God, including on his
> return. The community had a strong incentive to preserve these teachings.
> As Murray noted, the so-called "lost gospels" contain (false) variants of
> the Jesus tradition, which are generally gnostic, and which further
> demonstrate the motivation to preserve in writing teachings attributed to
> Jesus. In light of this practice of preserving the tradition in writing, it
> seems highly unlikely that there would be no written record at all of 99% of
> Jesus' teaching. John 21:25 doesn't address this; it concerns the things
> Jesus "did", not the things he "taught."
>
>
>
> Proposition 2 is clearly wrong as a general statement. The disciples often
> completely misunderstood Jesus, such as their complete failure to appreciate
> his teaching about his death and resurrection until after the event.
>
>
>
> Proposition 3 is at least debateable. No doubt there was an early sense of
> surprise in the first century Christian community that Jesus hadn't returned
> right away -- I don't think anyone debates that. But much of the thrust of
> the epistolary literature on this is to remain strong and keep waiting. In
> fact, the whole point of 2 Peter is that the community should keep patiently
> waiting (Richard Bauckham's commentary on 2 Peter is helpful here).
>
>
>
> In this regard, the supposed proof texts offered by Edward Babinksi are all
> over the place. There is a huge amount of theological baggage in a term
> like "the last days," for example; the sense of "already-not-yet" that we
> now recognize in this phrase is sometimes latent, sometimes more
> explicit. You may not realize this, but Babinski has rejected the faith
> entirely and is simply out to discredit any sense of coherence at all in
> scripture. This kind of string-verse-together-out-of-context prooftexting
> is simply not a useful way to read the Bible.
>
> Proposition 4 is utter speculation aside from what we have recorded in the
> Gospels, which is inconclusive.
>
>
>
> Proposition 5 borders on various Christological heresies that deny the full
> deity of Jesus.
>
> It further misuses the term "imminent," which means "at any time," not
> necessarily "immediately."
>
>
>
> Here's the bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about. You
> haven't studied this in any depth; you don't have any real feel for the
> scholarly debate around the sayings of Jesus about his return or otherwise;
> and you don't seem to have any sensitivity to the theological issues
> surrounding your arguments.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> David Opderbeck said: ", can you cite any scholarly sources for your strong
> conclusion about the content of Jesus' unrecorded verbal teachings about his
> return"
>
>
>
> I would just ask why Edwards long email, with all the backup Scriptures,
> doesn't make it obvious. It is obvious to people like me and Edward. I
> guess if it isn't obvious to you and others, that's your opinion. Here's my
> logic- where did I error (where would "competent scholars disagree")?
>
>
>
> 1. Jesus taught the disciples at least 99% more content than what is
> written down in Scripture (John 21:25). The same goes for the works of
> Jesus; the vast majority of which was not written down.
> 2. The disciples, as a group, correctly understood the teaching of
> their Master.
> 3. The disciples, as a group, expected the immediate return of Christ
> in their day (backup Scripures from Edwards long email sent prior).
> 4. The disciples received this understanding from the teaching of their
> Master.
> 5. Therefore, the disciples were wrong, as was Jesus, about the
> imminent return of Jesus.
>
>
>
> I think the above is obvious, but there isn't an obvious conclusion. A
> conclusion could be that Jesus was not God, or that He didn't know, or that
> He was wrong, etc., etc., etc. Don't get hung-up on the conclusion… I was
> just trying to deal with the implication that Jesus and the disciples were
> wrong about something very important.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:29 PM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* ASA
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>
>
>
> Bernie said: I think less than 1% of what Jesus told these disciples is
> written down (much, much less). Therefore, if they thought He was coming in
> their day, which should be obvious from Scripture, then I think it would be
> obvious they got the teaching from Jesus directly.
>
>
>
> I respond: Bernie, can you cite any scholarly sources for your strong
> conclusion about the content of Jesus' unrecorded verbal teachings about his
> return -- particularly as they seem to contradict at least some of the
> teachings recorded in the gospels? To which school of thought concerning
> the relationships among the verbal sayings of Jesus, the oral Jesus
> traditions after his death, and the compilation and redaction of the sayings
> recorded in the Gospels do you subscribe?
>
>
>
> What seems clear to me is that you're wandering into highly complex
> territory concerning the Gospels, the historical Jesus, and the early
> church, concerning which you haven't invested any real study time, and about
> which competent scholars strongly disagree.
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Pastor Murray said:
> "First, it seems to me that your position is that the disciples were
> motivated primarily by a huge emphasis on Christ returning in their
> lifetime."
>
> I guess we'll just have to disagree about that. To me, it is very obvious.
> Ed's post with all the scriptures seem to go overboard in proving the
> point, and I'm (kind of) surprised you still don't see it. But I know other
> Pastors who also don't see it the way I do.
>
> Again, your emphasis is so much on what is written, as if what Jesus
> verbally told them is irrelevant. I think less than 1% of what Jesus told
> these disciples is written down (much, much less). Therefore, if they
> thought He was coming in their day, which should be obvious from Scripture,
> then I think it would be obvious they got the teaching from Jesus directly.
> Especially considering that Jesus appeared to them and taught them over a
> 40 day period after His resurrection (Acts 1:3). We'll never know exactly
> what He taught them after His resurrection, but I'd think they'd be smart
> enough to live their lives accordingly, and admonish others to do the same.
> And the way they lived was in fervent expectation of the immediate return
> of Christ in their day.
>
> We're probably done, because I think we are repeating ourselves at this
> point. Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate the other viewpoints.
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:50 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> If I may say, I think the supposition you describe in the below is quite
> unjustified and possibly one of your major problems!
>
> One simply CAN'T work backward from "the disciples believed X" to
> "therefore Jesus taught X".
>
> This is particularly so given there seems to be three major reasons for
> thinking the logic is flawed in the specific case;
>
> First, it seems to me that your position is that the disciples were
> motivated primarily by a huge emphasis on Christ returning in their
> lifetime. But we simply don't find that sort of emphasis in their theology -
> the NT discusses a great many other issues besides. It seems to me
> inconsistent to claim that their overriding ethical category would be a
> return of Jesus in their lifetime (i.e. "Jesus is coming soon so we should
> do such-and-such") whilst it only seems to sneak in as a minor theological
> theme.
>
> Second, in Acts 1:6 the disciples, clearly thinking in terms of Jesus
> establishing the Kingdom of God on earth NOW, put the question of chronology
> to Christ whose response is simply to tell them it's none of their business.
> That the only recorded comment by Christ after his resurrection should AVOID
> specific reference to a return within the disciples lifetime ought to temper
> claims that his unrecorded teaching specifically affirmed the point.
>
> Third, even in the apocryphal gospels there is NO record of Christ having
> taught "secretly" of a return within the disciples lifetime. Given such
> gospels often pick up on minor themes in Christian thought and recklessly
> expand them out of all recognition, I personally think it pretty significant
> that no early Christian "fringe groups" were engaged in eschatological
> speculation based on a supposed unrecorded teaching of Jesus.
>
> To this I'd probably add the observation that, even prior to his death,
> Christ often spoke of eschatology without giving any definite time
> reference. Here, I have to say, it is simply to overstate the case in
> regards to early Christian eschatology if one takes remarks about a return
> which is "sudden and without warning" as being the same thing as a return
> which is "in the next few years."
>
> My view is that their near as certain wasn't, in the teaching of Jesus, a
> specific claim about the date of the eschaton even if claims of a "sudden"
> return were quite naturally interpreted in this way (by us, as well as by
> them). And, even in the disciple's own eschatological musings, I consider
> the emphasis to be on "sudden" with the idea of "in our lifetime" to be a
> marginal theme at best.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> > Hi Schwarzwald-
> >
> >
> >
> > I think one of the disagreements I have with you is that you are only
> > considering Christ's words from the Bible. I'm considering the 10x to
> > 1000x more He taught them verbally. We can't get in the same mindset as
> > the early disciples by simply reading some tidbits of Christ's teaching,
> > as recorded in Scripture. They would have been saturated in Christ's
> > verbal teaching; so if they expected Christ's return in their day, I'm
> > supposing Christ taught.
> >
> >
> >
> > ,,,BernieTheology
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.