Author Topic: Digging Deeper  (Read 13794 times)

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3479
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #210 on: November 15, 2010, 05:47:27 PM »
And yet, when I've used "I" in this forum, I'm criticized for being too subjective, too self-centered, etc. There's almost nothing Charles or I can post without it being deemed wrong by someone.
Pastor Johnson is probably the best to comment further on this (as he has in the past), but I'd say criticism comes not so much from using "I", but because of what follows it, particularly when you implicitly cite yourself as authoritative.  I'd contrast this with Pr. Yakimow, who obviously shares his own thoughts as well, but usually is doing so by referencing several/numerous respected academic sources or Church Fathers in support of his position.  But then, he's one of those ivory tower professional grad students... ::)

Many of my posts are referencing scriptures. They rank above academic sources or Church Fathers.
Um, I would have thought I wouldn't have to says this, but...the academic sources or Church Fathers to which I referred previously also reference scriptures.  That's what would make them authoritative, for starters.  Just like our Confessions.  In a nutshell, a basic problem with your posts referencing scripture is that you claim to find things, meaning of words and all, that countless preceding generations apparently missed.  The recent discussion near the beginning of this thread about Isaiah and the Virgin birth being but one example.

I believe that I'm in good company with my translation of "young woman" and "is with child" and the promise that the two enemies of Ahaz will be defeated while the child is still a toddler.  [snip]
In fairness both to you and my previous point, I respond again.  Yes, the translation you offer, and provide other similar examples, is within the realm of possibility.  I acknowledge that, as have others.  But that was not the point of my previous.  The translations are not simply offered in a vacuum.  They are put forward (not necessarily by you) as reasons to undermine the Virgin birth narrative, the "gynecology" which was the genesis of this discussion.  "A" leads to "B" leads to "C".  If one can discount that Isaiah was prophesying in such a way, that is one more thread to pull out of the tapestry.  Others have since responded on this thread that while, as a matter of simple English, using "young girl" is an adequate translation into modern English, there is something missing and the Church, and apparently even ancient Jewish translators definitely intended that the young girl was also a virgin.  As you have been quick to remind me, ancient Hebrew did not really have a separate word for "wife", apart from possessive casting of "woman".  (At least I hope I've said that correctly.)   I'm of an opinion that something similar is at work here, that implicitly a "young girl" is presumed to be a virgin.  Certainly the church through the ages has adopted that position, hence my point about you "discovering" something no one else seemed to ever notice.  But since I am not an ancient language expert, I withdraw from further discussion (hopefully). YMMV.  I can only go on the teachings I receive from the Church catholic.

Sterling Spatz
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3479
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #211 on: November 15, 2010, 05:55:48 PM »
Sterling Spatz writes:
Unless they are testifying to particular facts which who they really are would allow others to judge the veracity of their claims, a person's exact identity has no bearing on the ideas they express.
I comment:
No. Of course not. A member of the LCMS sees things exactly as a member of the ELCA or the WELS sees them. Someone who has left the ELCA or the LCMS has a real stake in what happens internally in those church bodies. A pastor of a church pressuring him to take it out of the ELCA or the LCMS doesn't have a certain shading to his comments. An isolated lay person, unaccustomed to certain types of dialogue, might have another coloring to his or her comments.
I have interviewed thousands of people on hundreds of issues and in every single case, if those comments are to be for public consumption (with very rare exceptions) I and my readers need to know who they are.
I'll be brief, since Pr. Y (congrats to him on the baby, BTW!) is correct that this is a distraction.  First, as far as I can tell, this forum is not strictly a journalism endeavor, though I'm open to correction on that by the moderators.  Therefore the application of your journalism standard regarding public consumption would seem misplaced.  Second, in the course of dialog, a person's background, and what is motivating them, should invariably come out.  Otherwise, there's not much dialoging.  I don't recall any participant here who has been coy about such background.  In fact, most seem willing to spill their guts as therapy.  What their actual names add, I'm not sure.  And in fact, if someone were determined to pretend to be someone they were not, it's unlikely a "real name" would be a giveaway, for a layman, anyway.

Sterling Spatz
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Maryland Brian

  • Guest
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #212 on: November 15, 2010, 06:29:12 PM »

I comment:
For fear of me? Then we really are in trouble here.

Respecting the moderator's wishes this will be my last post aimed in your direction, but I feel compelled to respond to the above sentence. A little over four years ago you posted a series of comments claiming I was well into the process of leaving and trying to take my congregation with me. I repeatedly asked you to stop posting that false information.  You did not cease until I threatened to get my lawyer wife involved.   We were in the middle of a nasty congregation conflict at the time and one of the ring leaders printed out your posts and took them to my Bishop. That resulted in several phone calls and a sit down with the Bishop. Said antagonist is now gone from my congregation and we are recovering.  That time was not pleasant, but we survived it and have expanded in wonderful ways since.

So yes Richard, it is clear I do not like Pastor Charles.  Please pray for me and the anger I allow to be tagged within me.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 06:40:42 PM by BHHughes »

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #213 on: November 15, 2010, 07:57:55 PM »
I've been around online communications for a long long time, long enough to know what mischief can be worked.


And yet you continue to argue against an old, settled convention of online communications as if it were a nefarious new idea...
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #214 on: November 15, 2010, 08:19:28 PM »
Pastor Hughes writes:
I repeatedly asked you to stop posting that false information.  You did not cease until I threatened to get my lawyer wife involved. 

I comment:
Give us a break. If I stopped posting anything was was most definitely absolutely certainly assuredly positively dang-sure not for fear of your "lawyer wife."
Smart people here know the flaw in post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. That is what we have here. In platinum.
So what did you do with the "antagonist" who suggested a sit-down with your bishop and is now "gone"?
Good grief.

amos

  • Guest
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #215 on: November 15, 2010, 09:14:07 PM »
Based on the cacophony of negative comments posted, the following verse came to mind.

I will constantly attack with sarcastic glee,
No one “by golly” is smarter than “ME.”
Surely my opinions are pure and whole,
Can’t accuse me of being a mole.
So I’ll make my points with style and flair,
But my biggest fear --- is no one will care.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #216 on: November 15, 2010, 09:39:40 PM »
Charles helped the discussion by citing the notes below from the ELCA Web site.

The first sentence of the second block of text shows where the ELCA's theology of language used to speak to God goes awry. It begins with "The image of father." When Jesus tells his followers, and all of us who overhear him, how to pray, he gives us the name to use, not an image to use. Thus "Father" is the proper name of the first person of the Trinity, not an image used to suggest qualities of the first person of the Trinity. As Dr. Jenson pointed out in his lecture in Columbus in August, giving us the name "Father" is the one new thing in the prayer. The rest is simply a compilation of what faithful Jews had always prayed.

"Father" is used of God in the OT. It is not new with Jesus. Consider Isaiah 64:8; Psalm 89:26-27 for a couple of examples.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #217 on: November 15, 2010, 09:48:53 PM »
It has always been fascinating to me that when the men working on the Greek translation of the Old Testament, well before Christ came on the scene, came to Is. 7:14, they chose to use the Greek word that means "virgin," "parthenos," rather than another word for the Hebrew word "Almah."

Because as the latest Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich edition states: the Greek word "gener. of a young woman of marriageable age." While such a young woman is usually a virgin, that is not necessarily part of the word's definition. Loew and Nida point out that the word is used of widows and widowers who are no longer married, but who are most likely not virgins. Thus, the primary meaning of the word is "unmarried" -- and usually used of young girls.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #218 on: November 15, 2010, 09:51:48 PM »
Someone notes that I have reservations about Facebook and then says:
There are those of us who, while enjoying the discussion, see no reason why you would need to know who we are.  What we have to say stands, regardless of what our username is on this site..

I comment:
No, it does not "stand," no matter what your username is. You could be an Opus Dei Roman Catholic, a Utah survivalist, a 13-year old geek, a nerdy troublemaker, a woman in her 90s still nursing a grudge because her Lutheran pastor husband had a fling with the church secretary back in 1952, an atheist, a universalist, or a Russian spy.
I ask again: someone give me a good reason for not participating here under their own name. (I was given a good reason by one participant and I respect that, but it is a highly-unusual situation.)
I was all set to ignore this, because Esteemed Moderator Johnson previously dealt with this issue (again), but I cannot let your above pass, as it's just plain obnoxious.  Let me ask you a question:  why do YOU need to know the real name of all participants in this forum?  Why don't you justify your need to know first?  

For the same reason that anonymous complaints should not be allowed in congregations.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3479
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #219 on: November 15, 2010, 09:56:39 PM »
Someone notes that I have reservations about Facebook and then says:
There are those of us who, while enjoying the discussion, see no reason why you would need to know who we are.  What we have to say stands, regardless of what our username is on this site..

I comment:
No, it does not "stand," no matter what your username is. You could be an Opus Dei Roman Catholic, a Utah survivalist, a 13-year old geek, a nerdy troublemaker, a woman in her 90s still nursing a grudge because her Lutheran pastor husband had a fling with the church secretary back in 1952, an atheist, a universalist, or a Russian spy.
I ask again: someone give me a good reason for not participating here under their own name. (I was given a good reason by one participant and I respect that, but it is a highly-unusual situation.)
I was all set to ignore this, because Esteemed Moderator Johnson previously dealt with this issue (again), but I cannot let your above pass, as it's just plain obnoxious.  Let me ask you a question:  why do YOU need to know the real name of all participants in this forum?  Why don't you justify your need to know first?  

For the same reason that anonymous complaints should not be allowed in congregations.
This isn't a congregation.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5282
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #220 on: November 15, 2010, 10:06:49 PM »
On the anonymity/moniker issue:

As you know, I use my own name. If I Google myself, pretty soon I get my ALPB Forum posts. I'm easy with that--retired, careful in what I say, few enemies and those unknown. But on an open Forum like this, accessible all over the internet, many people have good reason not to let their name lie out there for the world to know. (I admired the device used by Scott Yak imow--you'd get him if you Googled Yak--or imow; what are the chances?).

And if you want to know someone's name, e.g. J&S, you can send a personal message!! What's the Schmalkaldic problem, folks?

Peace,
Michael
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

David M. Frye, OblSB

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
    • WideSky.biz
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #221 on: November 16, 2010, 11:12:39 AM »
A good point, which led me to refresh my memory.

What Jenson said was that the new thing was that we are invited by Jesus to pray with him, the Son, in addressing the Father, within the context of their paternal/filial relationship.

In any case, the terms are not images, but names. This is a real difference.

An image referring to something does not uniquely identify that something. I am a "Friend of Labradoodles," because I love my dog. But "Friend of Labradoodles" does not identify me in the way that David M. Frye does, because there are many people who like Labradoodles. Granted, there are probably many David M. Fryes in the world; this can lead to confusion. But that's why Jenson also points out that God eliminates the confusion about his identity by telling us his history as well. "I'm God the Father, the one who brought Israel out of Egypt and raised my Son from the dead by the power of our Spirit." Now we know both the name and the history of God, who is uniquely identified in those two ways.

Charles helped the discussion by citing the notes below from the ELCA Web site.

The first sentence of the second block of text shows where the ELCA's theology of language used to speak to God goes awry. It begins with "The image of father." When Jesus tells his followers, and all of us who overhear him, how to pray, he gives us the name to use, not an image to use. Thus "Father" is the proper name of the first person of the Trinity, not an image used to suggest qualities of the first person of the Trinity. As Dr. Jenson pointed out in his lecture in Columbus in August, giving us the name "Father" is the one new thing in the prayer. The rest is simply a compilation of what faithful Jews had always prayed.

"Father" is used of God in the OT. It is not new with Jesus. Consider Isaiah 64:8; Psalm 89:26-27 for a couple of examples.
David M. Frye, OblSB

+ Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.
+ That God may be glorified in all things.

A Catholic Lutheran

  • Guest
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #222 on: November 16, 2010, 11:24:11 AM »
Charles helped the discussion by citing the notes below from the ELCA Web site.

The first sentence of the second block of text shows where the ELCA's theology of language used to speak to God goes awry. It begins with "The image of father." When Jesus tells his followers, and all of us who overhear him, how to pray, he gives us the name to use, not an image to use. Thus "Father" is the proper name of the first person of the Trinity, not an image used to suggest qualities of the first person of the Trinity. As Dr. Jenson pointed out in his lecture in Columbus in August, giving us the name "Father" is the one new thing in the prayer. The rest is simply a compilation of what faithful Jews had always prayed.

"Father" is used of God in the OT. It is not new with Jesus. Consider Isaiah 64:8; Psalm 89:26-27 for a couple of examples.

All the more reason why your logic that "Father" is only a term of relationship rather than a proper noun falls flat... 

You would think that the continuity with the Old Testament would strengthen the resolve to use the name Father by the Church.  It did for the Church Fathers.  But instead the ELW makes it completely "optional" (you can, using the book itself, avoid the Name altogether...) and you have repeatedly gone on record saying that, because it is not a propper noun but a term of "relationship," that Father can be disposed of in favor of other adjectives.

But, as the Old Testament uses the Name, Jesus uses the name, and the Church uses the name, how is it that we can see it as just one more "option"?

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Coach-Rev

  • Guest
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #223 on: November 16, 2010, 02:22:06 PM »
Because as the latest Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich edition states: the Greek word "gener. of a young woman of marriageable age." While such a young woman is usually a virgin, that is not necessarily part of the word's definition. Loew and Nida point out that the word is used of widows and widowers who are no longer married, but who are most likely not virgins. Thus, the primary meaning of the word is "unmarried" -- and usually used of young girls.
...Thereby ignoring ALL previous editions of BAGD, which I quoted previously, by the way, to which I do not recall a response from you on.  Its a simple question:  Do you have the faith to accept 2000 years of interpretation and history, or not?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #224 on: November 16, 2010, 02:47:08 PM »
Charles helped the discussion by citing the notes below from the ELCA Web site.

The first sentence of the second block of text shows where the ELCA's theology of language used to speak to God goes awry. It begins with "The image of father." When Jesus tells his followers, and all of us who overhear him, how to pray, he gives us the name to use, not an image to use. Thus "Father" is the proper name of the first person of the Trinity, not an image used to suggest qualities of the first person of the Trinity. As Dr. Jenson pointed out in his lecture in Columbus in August, giving us the name "Father" is the one new thing in the prayer. The rest is simply a compilation of what faithful Jews had always prayed.

"Father" is used of God in the OT. It is not new with Jesus. Consider Isaiah 64:8; Psalm 89:26-27 for a couple of examples.

All the more reason why your logic that "Father" is only a term of relationship rather than a proper noun falls flat... 


I see its use in the OT as a metaphor for the one who brought forth Israel. God's proper name is YHWH or I AM in the OT.

Quote
You would think that the continuity with the Old Testament would strengthen the resolve to use the name Father by the Church.  It did for the Church Fathers.  But instead the ELW makes it completely "optional" (you can, using the book itself, avoid the Name altogether...) and you have repeatedly gone on record saying that, because it is not a propper noun but a term of "relationship," that Father can be disposed of in favor of other adjectives.

The use of the Lord's Prayer with "Father" is not optional. The use of "God, the Father, …" in baptisms is not optional. Where texts are quoting the scriptures, there are no options for "Father".

Quote
But, as the Old Testament uses the Name, Jesus uses the name, and the Church uses the name, how is it that we can see it as just one more "option"?

Because it is not a name. It is a term of relationship that corresponds with Son. Paul even uses the term, father, in a relational way that is not biological.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]