Author Topic: Luther on Prager U  (Read 6700 times)

gan ainm

  • Guest
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #90 on: December 31, 2018, 04:52:40 PM »
This discussion exemplifies Ďwhy Seminex?í.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42408
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #91 on: December 31, 2018, 04:57:52 PM »
So here we have it. The fact that the four Gospel writers don't name their authors is proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write them since that is the best place to look for the author.

But the Pastorals identify Paul as the author. But he can't be the author, because...church offices. And David didn't write the Psalms attributed to him. And Solomon didn't write the Song attributed to him.

So, its a "heads I win; tails you lose" thing here.


Nope, it's a method of looking to the text first of all to determine the authorship. However, just because it claims to be written by someone doesn't make it so. It was quite common in the ancient times to try and fool people into believing that one could write as well as a famous author. (They didn't have copyright laws.)


Quote
Oh Brian, those other books you identify. None of them were ever accepted by the Church as Scripture. Don't know if you knew that or not. Otherwise, why point to them?


Because they illustrate my point that just because a writing claims to be written by someone doesn't make it so. The church fathers had to use something besides just an author's claim to be Paul or Peter, etc. to determine the authorship of a writing.


If you conclude that the pastorals must be written by Paul because they say they were written by Paul, then you would have to accept all of these other writings as authentic because they claim to be written by Paul, Peter, etc.
"The church Ö 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]

aletheist

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
  • Greek aletheia = truth
    • View Profile
    • Catechism Devotional
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #92 on: December 31, 2018, 05:42:16 PM »
If you conclude that the pastorals must be written by Paul because they say they were written by Paul, then you would have to accept all of these other writings as authentic because they claim to be written by Paul, Peter, etc.
My point was to highlight the inconsistency of your approach.  The Gospels were supposedly not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, because the texts themselves do not identify their authors (except, at least arguably, John).  The Pastoral Epistles were supposedly not written by Paul, even though the texts themselves identify him as their author.

We do not conclude that the pastorals were written by Paul because they say they were written by Paul, but because the early Church affirmed that they were written by Paul.  The same is true regarding the authorship of the Gospels.

Did Jesus have "beliefs"?  Including false "beliefs" about the authorship of the Torah?
Yup. He was a product of the culture and beliefs he was living in.
Just to be completely clear--you hold that Jesus Christ had false beliefs, including His belief that Moses wrote the Torah?
Jon Alan Schmidt, LCMS Layman

"We believe, teach and confess that by conserving the distinction between Law and Gospel as an especially glorious light
with great diligence in the Church, the Word of God is rightly divided according to the admonition of St. Paul." (FC Ep V.2)

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12134
    • View Profile
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #93 on: December 31, 2018, 09:23:07 PM »
From Brianís contributions to this discussion I conclude that whether or not a document identifies its author is irrelevant to the question of authorship.  Since identification of authorship within a document doesnít count as evidence of that authorship, how can lack of such identification count as evidence?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 10:23:37 PM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Pr. Don Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11232
    • View Profile
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #94 on: January 01, 2019, 08:40:35 AM »
From Brianís contributions to this discussion I conclude that whether or not a document identifies its author is irrelevant to the question of authorship.  Since identification of authorship within a document doesnít count as evidence of that authorship, how can lack of such identification count as evidence?

It doesn't. It's Brian logic, and y'all spent a page going down another rabbit hole. Sounds like there will be even more in 2019.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 09:45:25 AM by Pr. Don Kirchner »
Pr. Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but itís not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

RandyBosch

  • Guest
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #95 on: January 01, 2019, 10:18:33 AM »
From Brianís contributions to this discussion I conclude that whether or not a document identifies its author is irrelevant to the question of authorship.  Since identification of authorship within a document doesnít count as evidence of that authorship, how can lack of such identification count as evidence?

It doesn't. It's Brian logic, and y'all spent a page going down another rabbit hole. Sounds like there will be even more in 2019.

I understand that "rabbit hole" is a correct identifier for this problem.
However, since it pops up with regularity all over the field of the Forum, I prefer to think of it as a
              "Mole Hole",
...and down the tunnel goes another thread. 

Remembering the groundskeeper's obsession in "Caddyshack", these pop-up might better be ignored.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42408
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #96 on: January 01, 2019, 12:20:33 PM »

And yet, Jesus spoke about the Pentateuch on multiple occasions as if Moses actually wrote it.




The belief that a book was written by Moses, Paul, David, or Solomon doesn't make it so.


Did Jesus have "beliefs"?  Including false "beliefs" about the authorship of the Torah?

Tom Pearson


Are you calling God a liar?


Writers of scriptures used the knowledge that they had at the time. Sometimes it was inaccurate, like the earth being covered with a big blue bowl (or firmament). Sometimes they were using illustrations, like "God's right arm," when God doesn't really have arms. Lying, as I recall someone else pointing out, involves the intention to make false statements. Biblical writers do not intend to make false statements (except for writers who intentionally put another's name on their writings).


We also read in scriptures about God changing his mind. Would we say that his original statement, e.g., the destruction of Ninevah was a lie when their repentance caused God to repent of the evil he planned to do?
"The church Ö 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: 42408
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #97 on: January 01, 2019, 12:35:09 PM »
From Brianís contributions to this discussion I conclude that whether or not a document identifies its author is irrelevant to the question of authorship.  Since identification of authorship within a document doesnít count as evidence of that authorship, how can lack of such identification count as evidence?


I believe that it's pretty well established that what a person says about himself needs to be checked out by other sources. I can state that I am the greatest piano player in Arizona. I could even write it down in a letter or a book. Would you believe it? If you really wanted to know if it was a true statement, you would check other reliable and trustworthy sources to confirm or deny what I said about myself. Muhammed Ali proclaimed, "I am the greatest." Should we believe him? Should we hear with other boxing experts say about his abilities?


What a writer says about himself is both a source of evidence and something to be challenged. Additional evidence should be looked at the confirm or deny what they say.


I presume that you do not accept the NT Apocrypha as authentic writings from the first century apostles even though the authors claim to be folks from the first century?


The same kind of judgment is made when others make a claim. When my mother tells you that I'm the greatest piano player in the state; you might consider her assessment to be biased. The comments of a recognized music critic would hold more weight. Thus we evaluate the claims of the 2nd & 3rd century writers who talk about the authors of the gospels. Do they have a hidden agenda? Are they biased? What is their judgment based on? We know that Papias judgment that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is a false assessment.


Critical thinkers don't just accept what someone says. We evaluate both the speaker and the evidence that they present.


Of course critical thinking is discouraged among some Christians: "God said it. I believe it; and that's that." (I have had people say that to me.)
"The church Ö 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]

readselerttoo

  • Guest
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #98 on: January 01, 2019, 01:20:25 PM »

And yet, Jesus spoke about the Pentateuch on multiple occasions as if Moses actually wrote it.




The belief that a book was written by Moses, Paul, David, or Solomon doesn't make it so.


Did Jesus have "beliefs"?  Including false "beliefs" about the authorship of the Torah?

Tom Pearson


Are you calling God a liar?


Writers of scriptures used the knowledge that they had at the time. Sometimes it was inaccurate, like the earth being covered with a big blue bowl (or firmament). Sometimes they were using illustrations, like "God's right arm," when God doesn't really have arms. Lying, as I recall someone else pointing out, involves the intention to make false statements. Biblical writers do not intend to make false statements (except for writers who intentionally put another's name on their writings).


We also read in scriptures about God changing his mind. Would we say that his original statement, e.g., the destruction of Ninevah was a lie when their repentance caused God to repent of the evil he planned to do?

Actually I mis-read the original referred to post.  Yes, God (ie. Jesus) can be addressed by a deceiver and was addressed so at one point in the Gospels.   But one who plants the idea or wonderment of whether Jesus could be deceived is walking the way of God's wrath.  Jesus conquers everything...even falsely laid accusations that God could be deceived.

BTW, the issue of God changing God's mind was a historical observation and a resultant conclusion drawn by the historian of the writing in the Hebrew Scriptures. 

When Jesus is the one being accused, that is a different "animal" altogether.  Then the one who is making such a statement is standing before God himself and must make answer for his accusation.  Just sayin'
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 01:38:42 PM by George Rahn »

readselerttoo

  • Guest
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #99 on: January 01, 2019, 01:32:40 PM »
Did Jesus have "beliefs"?  Including false "beliefs" about the authorship of the Torah?


Yup. He was a product of the culture and beliefs he was living in. I doubt that he wore Levi jeans and Nike shoes or even knew about them. We just read how 12-year-old Jesus increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52). He wasn't born knowing everything. He was taught by his parents and teachers in the temple.

See my comment above about false accusations made toward God.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 01:39:13 PM by George Rahn »

gan ainm

  • Guest
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #100 on: January 01, 2019, 03:01:55 PM »
From Brianís contributions to this discussion I conclude that whether or not a document identifies its author is irrelevant to the question of authorship.  Since identification of authorship within a document doesnít count as evidence of that authorship, how can lack of such identification count as evidence?


I believe that it's pretty well established that what a person says about himself needs to be checked out by other sources. I can state that I am the greatest piano player in Arizona. I could even write it down in a letter or a book. Would you believe it? If you really wanted to know if it was a true statement, you would check other reliable and trustworthy sources to confirm or deny what I said about myself. Muhammed Ali proclaimed, "I am the greatest." Should we believe him? Should we hear with other boxing experts say about his abilities?


What a writer says about himself is both a source of evidence and something to be challenged. Additional evidence should be looked at the confirm or deny what they say.


I presume that you do not accept the NT Apocrypha as authentic writings from the first century apostles even though the authors claim to be folks from the first century?


The same kind of judgment is made when others make a claim. When my mother tells you that I'm the greatest piano player in the state; you might consider her assessment to be biased. The comments of a recognized music critic would hold more weight. Thus we evaluate the claims of the 2nd & 3rd century writers who talk about the authors of the gospels. Do they have a hidden agenda? Are they biased? What is their judgment based on? We know that Papias judgment that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is a false assessment.


Critical thinkers don't just accept what someone says. We evaluate both the speaker and the evidence that they present.


Of course critical thinking is discouraged among some Christians: "God said it. I believe it; and that's that." (I have had people say that to me.)

I thought you may enjoy Luther's perspective, below, since you have apparently rejected confessional Lutheranism and 'progressed' on to human relativism.

In 1537 he [Luther] told the Wittenberg congregation that he believed in the Trinity even though he could not comprehend how God could be three persons in one God because "Holy Scripture, which is God's Word, says so; and I abide by what it states."  from "Sermons on John 1 and 2, 1537", LW 22:6; WA 46:542.5-6.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12134
    • View Profile
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #101 on: January 01, 2019, 03:22:01 PM »
From Brianís contributions to this discussion I conclude that whether or not a document identifies its author is irrelevant to the question of authorship.  Since identification of authorship within a document doesnít count as evidence of that authorship, how can lack of such identification count as evidence?


I believe that it's pretty well established that what a person says about himself needs to be checked out by other sources. I can state that I am the greatest piano player in Arizona. I could even write it down in a letter or a book. Would you believe it? If you really wanted to know if it was a true statement, you would check other reliable and trustworthy sources to confirm or deny what I said about myself. Muhammed Ali proclaimed, "I am the greatest." Should we believe him? Should we hear with other boxing experts say about his abilities?


What a writer says about himself is both a source of evidence and something to be challenged. Additional evidence should be looked at the confirm or deny what they say.


I presume that you do not accept the NT Apocrypha as authentic writings from the first century apostles even though the authors claim to be folks from the first century?


The same kind of judgment is made when others make a claim. When my mother tells you that I'm the greatest piano player in the state; you might consider her assessment to be biased. The comments of a recognized music critic would hold more weight. Thus we evaluate the claims of the 2nd & 3rd century writers who talk about the authors of the gospels. Do they have a hidden agenda? Are they biased? What is their judgment based on? We know that Papias judgment that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is a false assessment.


Critical thinkers don't just accept what someone says. We evaluate both the speaker and the evidence that they present.


Of course critical thinking is discouraged among some Christians: "God said it. I believe it; and that's that." (I have had people say that to me.)
The point I was making was actually a more modest one than youíre disputing.  You stated as one bit of evidence against Matthean, Lucan, etc. authorship that the authors are not specifically identified in the text.  My point was that should not count as evidence against the traditional attribution since if they were attributed in the text by your reasoning that should not count as evidence in favor of traditional attribution.  What the text itself says about authorship in your estimation is irrelevant. 
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #102 on: January 01, 2019, 03:38:17 PM »

I found nothing inaccurate in Cornils's presentation. There were generalized statements that would be nuanced further in a detailed study of Luther's legacy in the world.

On this I agree with Brian.  (Isn't that a nice way to end one year and begin another?)  Pr. Cornils' 5-minute presentation fits fine with most of the recent presentations of Luther and his place/legacy in history, particularly those produced with scholarly assistance for the general public around the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, which were viewed rather favorably here.

While I likely would have had a different tone from Pr. Cornils' had I been doing a Prager University video on Luther as a key foundational source of what would became important themes for American republicanism, frankly I'm rather puzzled by the largely negative responses here to this video's content -- particularly from those I wouldn't expect to be predisposed to reject anything coming from Prager U simply because its from Prager.

Happy New Year!  Steven+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42408
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #103 on: January 02, 2019, 12:19:04 AM »

And yet, Jesus spoke about the Pentateuch on multiple occasions as if Moses actually wrote it.




The belief that a book was written by Moses, Paul, David, or Solomon doesn't make it so.


Did Jesus have "beliefs"?  Including false "beliefs" about the authorship of the Torah?

Tom Pearson


Are you calling God a liar?


Writers of scriptures used the knowledge that they had at the time. Sometimes it was inaccurate, like the earth being covered with a big blue bowl (or firmament). Sometimes they were using illustrations, like "God's right arm," when God doesn't really have arms. Lying, as I recall someone else pointing out, involves the intention to make false statements. Biblical writers do not intend to make false statements (except for writers who intentionally put another's name on their writings).


We also read in scriptures about God changing his mind. Would we say that his original statement, e.g., the destruction of Ninevah was a lie when their repentance caused God to repent of the evil he planned to do?

Actually I mis-read the original referred to post.  Yes, God (ie. Jesus) can be addressed by a deceiver and was addressed so at one point in the Gospels.   But one who plants the idea or wonderment of whether Jesus could be deceived is walking the way of God's wrath.  Jesus conquers everything...even falsely laid accusations that God could be deceived.

BTW, the issue of God changing God's mind was a historical observation and a resultant conclusion drawn by the historian of the writing in the Hebrew Scriptures. 

When Jesus is the one being accused, that is a different "animal" altogether.  Then the one who is making such a statement is standing before God himself and must make answer for his accusation. Just sayin'


And the words we have in scriptures are, at best, a Greek translation of Jesus' Aramaic words - and thus, the interpretation of the translator. We often have the words of the narrator: the Gospel writer whoever that might be. They, like those writing about God changing his mind, are writing their historical observations and conclusions. Jesus did not write the Gospels. According to this article, 12 Aramaic phrases have been passed on to us in the Gospels. The rest of the words in red come from an ancient writer's translation into Greek and then modern translators into English.
"The church Ö 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]

readselerttoo

  • Guest
Re: Luther on Prager U
« Reply #104 on: January 02, 2019, 05:10:04 AM »

And yet, Jesus spoke about the Pentateuch on multiple occasions as if Moses actually wrote it.




The belief that a book was written by Moses, Paul, David, or Solomon doesn't make it so.


Did Jesus have "beliefs"?  Including false "beliefs" about the authorship of the Torah?

Tom Pearson


Are you calling God a liar?


Writers of scriptures used the knowledge that they had at the time. Sometimes it was inaccurate, like the earth being covered with a big blue bowl (or firmament). Sometimes they were using illustrations, like "God's right arm," when God doesn't really have arms. Lying, as I recall someone else pointing out, involves the intention to make false statements. Biblical writers do not intend to make false statements (except for writers who intentionally put another's name on their writings).


We also read in scriptures about God changing his mind. Would we say that his original statement, e.g., the destruction of Ninevah was a lie when their repentance caused God to repent of the evil he planned to do?

Actually I mis-read the original referred to post.  Yes, God (ie. Jesus) can be addressed by a deceiver and was addressed so at one point in the Gospels.   But one who plants the idea or wonderment of whether Jesus could be deceived is walking the way of God's wrath.  Jesus conquers everything...even falsely laid accusations that God could be deceived.

BTW, the issue of God changing God's mind was a historical observation and a resultant conclusion drawn by the historian of the writing in the Hebrew Scriptures. 

When Jesus is the one being accused, that is a different "animal" altogether.  Then the one who is making such a statement is standing before God himself and must make answer for his accusation. Just sayin'


And the words we have in scriptures are, at best, a Greek translation of Jesus' Aramaic words - and thus, the interpretation of the translator. We often have the words of the narrator: the Gospel writer whoever that might be. They, like those writing about God changing his mind, are writing their historical observations and conclusions. Jesus did not write the Gospels. According to this article, 12 Aramaic phrases have been passed on to us in the Gospels. The rest of the words in red come from an ancient writer's translation into Greek and then modern translators into English.


I believe and confess that Jesus is alive and that his word does not fail, ie. is infallible.  He is beyond the boundary of sin and death.  Therefore his words are effective not relegated to someone's translation issue(s) nor hidden from us but are living witnesses and testimony about himself (ie. about God).