LSM’s Ignorance of the Synoptic Problem - Nigel Tomes

[zeek]

According to UntoHim's own criteria, it seems to me that Nigel Tomes' essays should be confined to Alternative Views as they raise insoluble problems with the Bible that may well undermine the faith of the simple. Yes, there's a synoptic problem. Thus, the verbal inspiration of two synoptic Gospels is thrown into question.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

It seems to me that Nigel Tomes' essays should be confined to Alternative Views as they raise insoluble problems with the Bible that may well undermine the faith of the simple. Right, there's a synoptic problem-- oops, there goes the notion of a couple of verbally inspired Gospels.

zeek makes a good argument for keeping this discussion in alternative views. If we stated something like that our posts would immediately be moved here. I guess because Nigel is undermining Nee and Lee and rightly so I might add it can be kept on the open forum but his arguments could shake the faith of those who are newly coming out of the LC. All of a sudden he lists the "Q" document in addition to the synoptic gospels and he doesn't just undermine Lee and Nee. He seems to undermine many scholars of the early 20th century who believed the same way. Once you start unraveling the faith of the faithful how far should one unravel in the open forum? I guess until such time that UntoHim thinks you have done too much unraveling---then you are whisked over to "alternative views".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It seems to me that Nigel Tomes' essays should be confined to Alternative Views as they raise insoluble problems with the Bible that may well undermine the faith of the simple. Right, there's a synoptic problem-- oops, there goes the notion of a couple of verbally inspired Gospels.

But Nigel is an elder standing on the ground of locality. How could UntoHim toss him into this locked dungeon? And Nigel is a higher caliber believer than UntoHim, and by comparison a scholar.

But you are right. UntoHim has a pair to even put Nigel's synoptic problem on the open forum. Why? Because it disagrees with his belief that the gospels were all written while Paul was alive (before the close of the 60s).

Why is it important to consider early dates for the gospels? I posit it's because it fits into preconceived theology. It puts the gospels closer to the historical Jesus.

If Matthew was written in 37ad it puts the book only 7 years after Jesus, when memory was much fresher than if written 30 or 40 yrs after Jesus.

But this preconceived theologically based necessity reveals a doubt as to the idea that the gospels were inspired of God. If they were inspired of God the dates don't matter at all.

So devout Bible believers need the gospels to be written early. Revealing perchance their doubt about the gospels being inspired ... tho they would never admit to such a doubt.

But your are right. Nigel's thesis on the synoptic problem can stumble those coming out of the local church. It reveals unsolvable problems with the gospels, which can engender doubts about them. And they may leave their evangelical standing.

It would be better in that regard if they remained a Lee follower ... like UntoHim ... who holds to Lee's early dates of the gospels.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Nigel is an elder standing on the ground of locality. How could UntoHim toss him into this locked dungeon? And Nigel is a higher caliber believer than UntoHim, and by comparison a scholar

So now you're calibrating people. Nice. That would make Jesus puke.

But you are right. UntoHim has a pair to even put Nigel's synoptic problem on the open forum. Why? Because it disagrees with his belief that the gospels were all written while Paul was alive (before the close of the 60s).

Maybe he has an open-mindedness toward elders. See appeal to authority fallacy.

Why is it important to consider early dates for the gospels? I posit it's because it fits into preconceived theology. It puts the gospels closer to the historical Jesus.

What did you eat for breakfast on 03/ 07/14?

If Matthew was written in 37ad it puts the book only 7 years after Jesus, when memory was much fresher than if written 30 or 40 yrs after Jesus.

How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?

But this preconceived theologically based necessity reveals a doubt as to the idea that the gospels were inspired of God. If they were inspired of God the dates don't matter at all.

Right. It negates the possibility of word by word inspiration.

So devout Bible believers need the gospels to be written early. Revealing perchance their doubt about the gospels being inspired ... tho they would never admit to such a doubt. But your are right. Nigel's thesis on the synoptic problem can stumble those coming out of the local church. It reveals unsolvable problems with the gospels, which can engender doubts about them. And they may leave their evangelical standing. It would be better in that regard if they remained a Lee follower ... like UntoHim ... who holds to Lee's early dates of the gospels.

Right! Back to Lee! You lead the parade!

[UntoHim]

Wow, so now Alternative Views has basically turned in an ad hominem festival?

I think at one time zeek stated he moderated some sort of Internet forum - zeek, did you allow such personal attacks on your forum? I doubt you did. You guys seem to have a lot of time on your hands, and you spend most of it going on and on about WHAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE. You don't believe the this, you don't believe that! Is this what all "critical thinkers" do....dwell on the unknowable and become doctors of negative theology? What a bunch of Debbie Downers!

Anyway, I've been super busy at work and also with some domestic problems, but I should be able to make a more substantial response a little later today or maybe tomorrow. In the meantime please stop taking these wild stabs in the dark on when you think I believe the written Gospels were produced or "the synoptic problem", as if these extraneous matters were as important as the content of the Gospels themselves.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wow, so now Alternative Views has basically turned in an ad hominem festival?

I think at one time zeek stated he moderated some sort of Internet forum - zeek, did you allow such personal attacks on your forum? I doubt you did. You guys seem to have a lot of time on your hands, and you spend most of it going on and on about WHAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE. You don't believe the this, you don't believe that! Is this what all "critical thinkers" do....dwell on the unknowable and become doctors of negative theology? What a bunch of Debbie Downers!

Anyway, I've been super busy at work and also with some domestic problems, but I should be able to make a more substantial response a little later today or maybe tomorrow. In the meantime please stop taking these wild stabs in the dark on when you think I believe the written Gospels were produced or "the synoptic problem", as if these extraneous matters were as important as the content of the Gospels themselves.

Sarcasm:

UntoHim you ignorant slut.

Inside joke ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wow, so now Alternative Views has basically turned in an ad hominem festival?

I think at one time zeek stated he moderated some sort of Internet forum - zeek, did you allow such personal attacks on your forum? I doubt you did. You guys seem to have a lot of time on your hands, and you spend most of it going on and on about WHAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE. You don't believe the this, you don't believe that! Is this what all "critical thinkers" do....dwell on the unknowable and become doctors of negative theology? What a bunch of Debbie Downers!

Anyway, I've been super busy at work and also with some domestic problems, but I should be able to make a more substantial response a little later today or maybe tomorrow. In the meantime please stop taking these wild stabs in the dark on when you think I believe the written Gospels were produced or "the synoptic problem", as if these extraneous matters were as important as the content of the Gospels themselves.

Can you be more specific about the alleged ad hominems or is this just another unsupportable proposition? The synoptic problem is not extraneous to the proposition that every word of the Bible is God-inspired unless in your Bible 2 Timothy 3:16 says "all scripture is God-breathed except for those that are borrowed from another text."

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wow, so now Alternative Views has basically turned in an ad hominem festival?

I think at one time zeek stated he moderated some sort of Internet forum - zeek, did you allow such personal attacks on your forum? I doubt you did. You guys seem to have a lot of time on your hands, and you spend most of it going on and on about WHAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE. You don't believe the this, you don't believe that! Is this what all "critical thinkers" do....dwell on the unknowable and become doctors of negative theology? What a bunch of Debbie Downers!

Anyway, I've been super busy at work and also with some domestic problems, but I should be able to make a more substantial response a little later today or maybe tomorrow. In the meantime please stop taking these wild stabs in the dark on when you think I believe the written Gospels were produced or "the synoptic problem", as if these extraneous matters were as important as the content of the Gospels themselves.

I hope that you can appreciate the fact that we (I can't speak for the others) are not exactly waiting with bated breath for your answers but they will be fodder for discussion. What we believe? Belief---it's not all that it's cracked up to be....over hyped.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I hope that you can appreciate the fact that we (I can't speak for the others) are not exactly waiting with bated breath for your answers but they will be fodder for discussion. What we believe? Belief---it's not all that it's cracked up to be....over hyped.

I sure wish that believing in something made it rock solid real. But alas, there's "lie" in "belief." Belief means I don't know.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wow, so now Alternative Views has basically turned in an ad hominem festival?

I think at one time zeek stated he moderated some sort of Internet forum - zeek, did you allow such personal attacks on your forum? I doubt you did. You guys seem to have a lot of time on your hands, and you spend most of it going on and on about WHAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE. You don't believe the this, you don't believe that! Is this what all "critical thinkers" do....dwell on the unknowable and become doctors of negative theology? What a bunch of Debbie Downers!

What? Do you think negative theology is evil? Negative theology postulates that God is infinitely great beyond human comprehension. Do you think God is less? Whatever we imagine God to be falls short of what God is as the Unconditioned Absolute.

Anyway, I've been super busy at work and also with some domestic problems, but I should be able to make a more substantial response a little later today or maybe tomorrow. In the meantime please stop taking these wild stabs in the dark on when you think I believe the written Gospels were produced or "the synoptic problem", as if these extraneous matters were as important as the content of the Gospels themselves.

Aye Aye Captain,


[We were taught to accept God's discipline now in order to avoid outer darkness for a millennium. Right?]

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What? Do you think negative theology is evil? Negative theology postulates that God is infinitely great beyond human comprehension. Do you think God is less? Whatever we imagine God to be falls short of what God is as the Unconditioned Absolute.

Apophasis is just another innocent attempt to define God by what He is not. No big deal.

Except to Christian traditionalists. Negative theology negates much of Christian tradition, as "not-God."

Maybe UntoHim is holding dear in his heart some of the Christian traditions, that apophasis obliterates.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

What? Do you think negative theology is evil? Negative theology postulates that God is infinitely great beyond human comprehension. Do you think God is less? Whatever we imagine God to be falls short of what God is as the Unconditioned Absolute.

Where did I say it was evil? Not like you to jump the gun mr. zeek.

Here's the wiki definition of "Negative Theology"....the one I had in mind, by the way...

Negative theology, also known as Apophatic theology, is a theological approach that describes God by negation, speaking of God only in terms of what He is not (apophasis) rather than presuming to describe what God is. In negative theology, it is maintained that we can never truly define God in words.

Sorry to nitpick my friend, but "beyond human comprehension" is not the same as "never truly define God in words"..really not even close. God is indeed defined in words in the Bible. And NO, you don't have to be an "inerrant" or "Bible thumper" to see my point. But of course, if you are one who is insistent on "describing God by negation, speaking of God only in terms of what He is not" then we will be spinning our wheels forever...but that's ok because this is what Alternative Views is all about....going round and round about what obscure and esoteric terms such as negative theology really mean!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Where did I say it was evil? Not like you to jump the gun mr. zeek.

Here's the wiki definition of "Negative Theology"....the one I had in mind, by the way...

Negative theology, also known as Apophatic theology, is a theological approach that describes God by negation, speaking of God only in terms of what He is not (apophasis) rather than presuming to describe what God is. In negative theology, it is maintained that we can never truly define God in words.

Sorry to nitpick my friend, but "beyond human comprehension" is not the same as "never truly define God in words"..really not even close. God is indeed defined in words in the Bible. And NO, you don't have to be an "inerrant" or "Bible thumper" to see my point. But of course, if you are one who is insistent on "describing God by negation, speaking of God only in terms of what He is not" then we will be spinning our wheels forever...but that's ok because this is what Alternative Views is all about....going round and round about what obscure and esoteric terms such as negative theology really mean!

If something can be comprehended without being defined, please explain how. I don't think you can. I rest my case until you do.

As far as the Bible defining God, again you make a claim and fail to back it up. The Bible does say God is spirit. But what is spirit so much as that which is not physical? So spirit is primarily negation. The Bible also says that God is love, and perhaps, love is God in the most positive sense. And divine love is excessive. It exceed itself. It overflows the beloved. So, given that quality, it cannot be negated except for the symbol of the abyss which eternally swallows even that which overflows for eternally so that it is as if it never was. Just one instance of the paradoxical nature of God to the human mind. Paradoxes violate the fundamental principle of logic--the law of non-contradiction. The defining essences of God if taken to be absolute all result in paradox. And admission of "paradox" is another way of saying "beyond human comprehension". So, my original p i.e. God is beyond comprehension, is confirmed.

As far as negative theology being what alternative views is all about, I would be OK with that it it were the case, but the others here haven't proposed that so it is more than a little presumptuous of you to pronounce it so.

There is much to be said about positive theology and there is the quite rational scientific study of history to say nothing of science in general which may be viewed as the public revelation of God in our time. I'm on board with all that as far as it goes which is much farther than the tiny horizon of your fundamentalist tradition as far as you have usually presented it on this website.

So I once again challenge you to try to get past your mocking little ripostes to the affront you perceive our discourse to be to your worldview and present a coherent viable Christianity that is more than the sentimental Christmas card variety that I have come to expect from you.

Now you may think that's an ad hominem, but, I haven't said a word about your person, in fact I admit I barely know you as a person. I'm talking about a good bit of what you have attempted to pass off as thought on this website, with the exception of your Nigel Tomes cut- and- paste projects.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Negative theology negates much of Christian tradition, as "not-God."

There is a long and venerable tradition of negative theology in the Christian church. Judaism too. Every inquiring Christian should read Jewish philosopher, Maimonides on the subject, in my opinion. Negative theology doesn't deny the content of the sacred Christian symbols as pointing beyond themselves to the Unfathomable. The sacramental quality of the Christian religion including the Bible is just that. Nor does it scoff at a life which gives it's "utmost for his highest" as Oswald Chambers put it. What negative theology does, for starters [in my opinion], is put the hubris of the human intellect in its proper place with respect to the Eternal.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

If something can be comprehended without being defined, please explain how. I don't think you can. I rest my case until you do.

I am beginning to see a form of equivocation here. Not in the sense of intentionally shifting meanings to defraud an argument, but in talking past each other.

The Bible does describe and define God. So UntoHim is right. But not in all aspects and in all ways. So zeek is right (or possibly it is better to say that what Unto thinks zeek is saying is right).

Within considering only what is defined is the tendency to act as if it is entirely defined. But the problem with considering only the lacks in definition is to despair that there is no definition.

Neither is right. But neither is entirely wrong. There is definition. But not complete definition. What is revealed is according to our need for living.

The things that God does reveal are not negated by what he does not reveal. Yet the fact that there is revelation does not provide the basis for filling in the blanks. What is revealed is what is needed. What is withheld is not needed.

And that last part is where we go wrong. We too often feel the need to fill in those blanks. Or alternately determine that the blanks — the lack of knowledge — deny what is revealed.

While I generally subscribe to the mainstream definition of the Trinity, at some level it is an attempt to fill in the blanks. It may be a decent attempt. But its purpose was more to prove and exclude diversity from the silence of scripture than to provide useful instruction. It does not unify as much as it divides. And it is useless in terms of seeking God, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, or in being merciful.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am beginning to see a form of equivocation here. Not in the sense of intentionally shifting meanings to defraud an argument, but in talking past each other.

That's a disagreement not equivocation.

The Bible does describe and define God.

Now both you and UntoHim have made that claim. But, neither of you has backed it up with citations.

So UntoHim is right. But not in all aspects and in all ways. So zeek is right (or possibly it is better to say that what Unto thinks zeek is saying is right).

That assumes that you have access to what UntoHim thinks and not just what he types on the page. Mind reading?

Within considering only what is defined is the tendency to act as if it is entirely defined. But the problem with considering only the lacks in definition is to despair that there is no definition.

So far it's a claim of a definition. No definition has been supplied. The lack of a definition from you and UntoHim is complete at the moment.

Neither is right. But neither is entirely wrong. There is definition. But not complete definition. What is revealed is according to our need for living.

Another claim, also unsupported.

The things that God does reveal are not negated by what he does not reveal. Yet the fact that there is revelation does not provide the basis for filling in the blanks. What is revealed is what is needed. What is withheld is not needed.

Another unsupported claim.

And that last part is where we go wrong. We too often feel the need to fill in those blanks. Or alternately determine that the blanks — the lack of knowledge — deny what is revealed.

It's seems that you are describing your own experience.

While I generally subscribe to the mainstream definition of the Trinity, at some level it is an attempt to fill in the blanks. It may be a decent attempt. But its purpose was more to prove and exclude diversity from the silence of scripture than to provide useful instruction. It does not unify as much as it divides. And it is useless in terms of seeking God, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, or in being merciful.

What you claimed is that there is a Bible definition not just a "mainstream definition. " That's the crux of UntoHim's claim and now yours. All of which is somewhat afield from the OP, but UntoHim raised it and you have taken a position on it, so let's go with it.

[zeek]

The synoptic gospels: another miracle for the supernaturalist:

http://ehrmanblog.org/similarities-d...optic-problem/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am beginning to see a form of equivocation here. Not in the sense of intentionally shifting meanings to defraud an argument, but in talking past each other.

I don't know but talking past each other may be a product of being so opposite from each other. That may also be the reason UntoHim started this dungeon. To give way for the opposition.

Originally Posted by OBW

The Bible does describe and define God.

I feel like we're chasing a ghost. If UntoHim is right, that I've fallen into negative theology, I came by it precisely because I got it from the Bible (not by reading Maimonides).

Yes the Bible defines God but it's not pretty. And if the book of Revelation is not Preteristically interpreted even the incarnation of Jesus in the end does not paint God as very pretty.

And so, I'm painted into, kicking and screaming, negative theology, or negating the negatives of God as merely human anthropomorphisms.

Why? Because I can't love God as defined in the Bible. Not with an uncompromised conscience.

But oddly maybe, I still love God. Just not the God defined in the Bible.

And that means I go crosswise with UntoHim, and many other Bible thumpers. I'm sorry about that. Please forgive me as I'm sure Jesus would.

But hey. Back to Tomes. I win. UntoHim loses. Ohio too. Tomes' thesis supports a later date for Matthew. So Paul couldn't have quoted Matthew.

Ha ...

[UntoHim]

To all,

I do think that there is some major "talking past" one another going on here, but the solution will be hard to come by because the reason we are talking past each other is because, while we are all speaking English, we have a different definition for the most basic of words and terms.

The irony of this is that this is one of the major problems with the teachings and practices of Witness Lee as they relate to the teachings of the historical evangelical Christian Church - While Lee and his followers use all the typical biblical and spiritual words and terms, many times they actually mean something totally different than how some other Christian understands the very same word or term.

Now it seems to me that you fellows (the main participants in AV), while using the English language, have some vastly different definitions of some of the most basic words and terms, starting with the most basic of all: God. The Bible starts with the most basic of basic descriptions - "In the beginning God". Eventually He was "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". When Moses sought out a more "personal" name to give to the children of Israel, he was only given "I AM WHO I AM". What if God had told him "I am the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, tell them that the Triune God has sent you!". Moses would not have been able to understand or comprehend such a title, and neither would any of the children of Israel. The biblical term for God for Moses and the CofI was "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" or simply "I AM". By the time Jesus came on the scene, the Jews were used to referring to the one and true God as "Father", so Jesus used this term quite frequently. Then Paul and the other scripture writing apostles related to us further revelation regarding Christ's humanity and divinity and of course the nature and function of the Holy Spirit. So the revelation (definition and description if you will) of God has been one of progression over a period of thousands of years. For the vast majority of Christians (Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) the written revelation of God was culminated with the canon we now use (with exception of the deuterocanonical books and passages that Catholics use).

So when I use a term such as "God" it is always within the bounds of what is revealed to us in the Judeo-Christian Bible. My understanding of zeek's theology is that it is formed and guided by mostly extra-biblical sources, especially when such extra biblical sources conflict or contradict what is clearly stated in the Bible. Even when he cites a so called "Christian" theologian or philosopher they are mostly those who are of the most liberal stripes, and these folks in turn form their theology largely from extra biblical sources. (I may be thinking more of Dave in stating this). Nevertheless, it seems to me that zeek does get his theological worldview from mostly extra-biblical sources.

As far as this so-called "Synoptic Problem" is concerned, I have not pursued this phenomenon with any depth, and even after reading through Nigel's article, I'm not very convinced this is one of the major errs in the teachings of Witness Lee. But apparently Nigel does, and this is a very scholarly and well-documented treatment of the subject to be sure.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The Bible starts with the most basic of basic descriptions - "In the beginning God".

So, according to that quote, "God" is the putative creator of the universe. Apart from that, nothing more is directly revealed including what or who resulted in the universe.

Eventually He was "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".

Which tells us nothing in the way of a definition. Inferences can be made though. I have a tool that was borrowed from me by Tom , Dick and Harry. That doesn't define for anyone what the tool was. But, if I tell you that they used it to fix the water pipes in their houses, you can begin to make inferences about what the tool was. So, a thinking person, might be able to draw inferences from the stories of Abraham,Isaac, and Jacob. Those inferences will be "extra-biblical", human and fallible though. So, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" a frame of reference from which inferences can be drawn not a definition.

When Moses sought out a more "personal" name to give to the children of Israel, he was only given "I AM WHO I AM".

If the cops stop you and ask for ID and you answer "I am who I am" you are likely to get at least a citation for it. That statement is redundant, and circular. We can all say that about ourselves in complete truthfulness and yet, disclose nothing objective about ourselves. It is not a definition.

What if God had told him "I am the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, tell them that the Triune God has sent you!". Moses would not have been able to understand or comprehend such a title, and neither would any of the children of Israel.

Titles are not definitions. They require definitions. "King" is not a definition. A definition of "king" tells you what a king is. So, even if God had said that to Moses, he wouldn't have given him a definition of Himself. You're still beating around the burning bush.

The biblical term for God for Moses and the CofI was "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" or simply "I AM".

You set out to show me how negative theology is extra-Biblical and instead, you have shown that when Moses asked God, God gave him a circular answer that does not define God. Thus, God did not define Himself in words to Moses and/or the Children of Israel. The God with whom Moses had a relationship was undefined and possibly unknowable. You have unintentionally confirmed that indeed negative theology has a Biblical basis.

By the time Jesus came on the scene, the Jews were used to referring to the one and true God as "Father", so Jesus used this term quite frequently. Then Paul and the other scripture writing apostles related to us further revelation regarding Christ's humanity and divinity and of course the nature and function of the Holy Spirit. So the revelation (definition and description if you will) of God has been one of progression over a period of thousands of years. For the vast majority of Christians (Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) the written revelation of God was culminated with the canon we now use (with exception of the deuterocanonical books and passages that Catholics use).

And what definition is that? "Father" is another title not a definition. You are talking around the issue again.

So when I use a term such as "God" it is always within the bounds of what is revealed to us in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Does that mean that you never make "extra-Biblical" statements about God? Doesn't that limit you from even talking about anything that God might be doing in the present? If not, please explain to me how it works. So far, it seems to me, that you are making extra-biblical inferences based on Bible stories and claiming that they are Biblical. I don't recall that any Biblical author even uses the term "definition." So your proposition that the Bible defines things is itself extra-Biblical. "Systematic theology" is not Biblical.

My understanding of zeek's theology is that it is formed and guided by mostly extra-biblical sources, especially when such extra biblical sources conflict or contradict what is clearly stated in the Bible.

It may be clearly stated somewhere in the Bible what the definition of God is, but you haven't clearly stated it here yet.

Even when he cites a so called "Christian" theologian or philosopher they are mostly those who are of the most liberal stripes, and these folks in turn form their theology largely from extra biblical sources. (I may be thinking more of Dave in stating this). Nevertheless, it seems to me that zeek does get his theological worldview from mostly extra-biblical sources.

How about logic? I know using logic to read the Bible violates Witness Lee's basic principle of not using the mind. But it is reasonable. In fact, nothing but using logic to read the Bible is reasonable. So I recommend that you at least try it for a change. So far, you have demonstrated that, even when directly requested, you have been unable or unwilling to produce from the Bible a definition of God. Instead, you danced around the issue and throw in yet another jab at me. If you know what the Biblical definition of God is you're certainly keeping it a secret.

As far as this so-called "Synoptic Problem" is concerned, I have not pursued this phenomenon with any depth, and even after reading through Nigel's article, I'm not very convinced this is one of the major errs in the teachings of Witness Lee. But apparently Nigel does, and this is a very scholarly and well-documented treatment of the subject to be sure.

The way Nigel's articles are going, I wouldn't be surprised if the next one were entitled, "LSM's Ignorance of Well Reasoned Arguments Against the Existence of God" by Nigel Tomes. But, because Nigel has a title that you respect, he gets a pass. It's like being in the Local Church all over again except without the free food.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But hey. Back to Tomes. I win. UntoHim loses. Ohio too. Tomes' thesis supports a later date for Matthew. So Paul couldn't have quoted Matthew.

And the link I posted in #17 shows that the well-respected Nigel Tomes and the evil Bart Ehrmen agree about the synoptic problem.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, according to that quote, "God" is the putative creator of the universe. Apart from that, nothing more is directly revealed including what or who resulted in the universe.

Oh well, I had to start somewhere, and I just thought "In the beginning" would be a good start....silly me!

...Those inferences will be "extra-biblical", human and fallible though. So, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" a frame of reference from which inferences can be drawn not a definition.

As you are aware, I'm sure, many (most?) people groups from the beginning of recorded human history (most specifically during the time of the Exodus) had multiple gods, some had dozens and even hundreds or thousands. So, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" is indeed descriptive, if only for the fact of differentiating himself from among the many gods, even if you can't understand or accept it as such.

If the cops stop you and ask for ID and you answer "I am who I am" you are likely to get at least a citation for it. That statement is redundant, and circular. We can all say that about ourselves in complete truthfulness and yet, disclose nothing objective about ourselves. It is not a definition.
Titles are not definitions.

Wow, so you think you are in a position to call the only true God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, "redundant, and circular?" So let's think about this....some cosmic cop pulls God over for going too fast in his chariot of fire rambling through the milky way....cop says "license and registration please"....God says "I am who I am"....cop say's "what in God's name does that mean?" God says "exactly!"....cop gives him a warning and goes away scratching his head...about an hour later he pulls over somebody else with some special plates with the name "LUCIFER"....How's that for circular for ya?

You set out to show me how negative theology is extra-Biblical and instead, you have confirmed that when Moses asked God, God gave him a circular answer which was roughly the equivalent of "mind your own business, I don't answer stupid questions." All of which, in a metaphorical way, confirms that, if Moses and/or the Children of Israel thought about about it [like subsequent Jewish and Christian and Islamic theologians did], they would have seen that they knew nothing about the ultimate identity of God i.e. they would be thinking in terms of negative theology.

Cool. I actually had no idea that I was setting out to show you how negative theology is extra biblical, I never knew I was capable of such a thing! The rest of your description of negative theology is your own interpretation, but it doesn't match the one I'm familiar with or even the one on wiki that I cited. But again, that's ok because we are in the la la land of Alternative Views where your view is not necessarily right or wrong from anybody else's....it's just Alternative.

And what definition is that? "Father" is another title not a definition. You are talking around the issue again.

So a title cannot be a definition? Of course it can! Especially when it comes to the Bible. God gave himself titles and man gave him titles too. They were all definitions as well as titles. This is part of what makes God God. This is one of the main differences between the Creator and his creation....of course if you believe that everything in the universe sprang from nothing without a Creator...well then we are at an insurmountable impasse from the beginning - the ultimate non sequitur.....unless we are on Alternative Views! But alas, YES! We ARE on Alternative Views so anything is possible....even the impossible.

It may be clearly stated somewhere in the Bible what the definition of God is, but you haven't clearly stated it here yet.

The biblical definition of God is clearly stated in the Bible, which was written over thousands of years and by many authors, and you expect me to give a clear definition here on an Internet forum? How many posts are you going to give me? Why don't you just read the Bible and find out for yourself. There is a problem though....you have to actually believe what is written is a true and accurate description of God, his nature, character and intentions with his creation. It's all there in black and white. (some in red if you have one of those Bibles).

How about logic? I know using logic to read the Bible violates Witness Lee's core principle by using the mind God gave you, but it is at least a reasonable request. So, even when directly requested, you have been unable or unwilling to produce from the Bible a definition of God. Instead you danced around the issue and throw in yet another jab at what you suppose I'm doing.

Opps, I didn't see this until I was almost at the end. No matter, it's pretty much more of the same from you. I assume you are familiar with something called "systematic theology"? By definition (if you'll let me use this term without me defining definition for now) this is a discipline which applies lots of logic in an attempt to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. I AM NOT A SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN (but I play one on an Internet forum), however I have been reading and studying lots of them over the past decade or so (and no I'm not going to list them for you now) and with their help, I have been applying lots of logic to my reading and comprehension of the God of the Bible - his nature, his character, his ways, his purpose and intentions towards his creation, and much, much more. But I'm afraid that no matter how much of this logic I spewed forth for you, you will reject it out of hand. I know this because I've already tried in the past, and you will simply not accept even the most basic of plain descriptions and definitions of God set forth in the Bible. You've shown this kind of reluctance here on this very thread.

The way Nigel's articles are going, I wouldn't be surprised if the next one were entitled, "LSM's Ignorance of Well Reasoned Arguments Against the Existence of God" by Nigel Tomes. But, because Nigel has a title that you respect, he gets a pass. It's like being in the Local Church all over again except without the free food.

To the few of you who have made it this far...(God bless you my son) please read this last little ditty over and over again (maybe even pray-read it) until it sinks in. And then you will have a revelation of revelations....Oh, this is what these guys mean by "Alternative".

Peace. Out.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Oh well, I had to start somewhere, and I just thought "In the beginning" would be a good start....silly me!
...Oh, this is what these guys mean by "Alternative".

While I agree with Nigel and zeek regarding the synoptic problem we seem to be focused on who God is in this discussion----God as I see Him in the Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition---God is a creator but also destroyed as much of his creation as he could even though only man apparently was the sinner --- he still kills all the other life....he is also revengeful, kills women, children, infants, he sends virgins over to Moses' troops for their pleasure---The NT especially Revelation is not much better---I am quoting specific scriptures ---you don't appear to want to answer zeek regarding God but last time I quoted some Bible verses you dismissed them...but these scriptures in part describe God in the Judeo-Christian Bible..they are God's words, actions etc (e.g. "God said" or "the Lord said" or his designated leaders such as Moses or David said etc) ...what are your descriptions other than the Nicene or Apostolic Creed type of material---thanks in advance for your answers:
Genesis 1:1-26….In the Beginning
Heaven and Earth Created
Earth—a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep…a wind from God swept over the face of the waters…
Day 1
Light
Separated Light from Darkness
Called the light Day and the darkness called night
Evening and Morning
Day 2
Made the Dome
Separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome
Evening and Morning
Day 3
Gathered the waters together in one place
Dry land appears
Dry land was called Earth
Waters gathered together called Seas
Earth puts forth vegetation
· Plants yielding seed
· Fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it
Evening and Morning
Day 4
Separate the day from the night
· Signs and Seasons
· Days and Years
Two great lights
· Greater light to rule the day
· Lesser light to rule the night---and the stars
· Set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth
Evening and Morning
Day 5
Waters bring forth swarms of living creatures
Birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky
Created Great Sea Monsters
Every Living Creature that moves, of every kind, with winged bird of every kind
Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas and let the birds multiply on the earth
Evening and Morning
Day 6
Living Creatures of every kind
Cattle
Creeping things
Wild animals of the earth of every kind
Humankind
Evening and Morning

Genesis 6:17 “For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.”

Exodus 1-12 The plagues upon Egypt etc God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 9:12; Romans 9:17-18) so that God could bring all 12 plagues upon the Egyptians even though the Pharaoh would have let the Israelites leave after a couple plagues. (In 1 Sam. 6:6 it indicates that Pharaoh hardened his own heart but it is inconsistent with Exodus and Romans 9:17-18 which indicates clearly that God hardened Pharaoh's heart)

Exodus 32:26-28 “…then Moses stood at the gate of the camp and said, ‘‘Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.’ The sons of Levi did as Moses commanded, and about three thousand of the people fell on that day.”

Deuteronomy 2:31-35 “…the Lord our God gave him (King Sihon) over us and we struck him down, along with his offspring and all of his people. At that time we captured all his towns, and in each town we utterly destroyed men, women and children. We left not a single survivor. Only the livestock we kept as spoil for ourselves, as well as the plunder of the towns we had captured.”

Deuteronomy 3:2-7 “The Lord said to me…Do to him (King Og) as you did to King Sihon of the Amorites…in each city utterly destroying men, women, and children. But all the livestock and the plunder of towns we kept as spoil for ourselves.”

Numbers 31:3-18 “…Arm some of your number for the war, so that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian…killed every male…The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive….All their towns they burned…Moses became angry with the officers of the army….’Have you allowed all the women to live?’….Kill every male among the littles ones and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him…But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Joshua 6:16-21 Joshua said to the people, ‘Shout! For the Lord has given you the city (Jericho). The city and all that is in it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction…Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old…”

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you---Hittites, Girga****es,…Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites…you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy.

II Kings 2:23-24 “…some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him (Elisha), saying ‘Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!’ When he (Elisha) turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the boys…”

I Samuel 15:1-3 “Samuel said to Saul, ‘The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel;…listen to the words of the Lord…Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant…”

1 Samuel 27:8-9 “Now David and his men went up and made raids on the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites; …David struck the land, leaving neither man nor woman alive…”

Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock.”

[UntoHim]

Dave, thanks for all the verses.

I see a lot of cutting and pasting but no question. Ask me a straight forward question and I'll try to give a straight forward answer. I don't mind answering questions but the problem is when I answer one, and you guys don't like the answer, you pretend I didn't answer. That's no fun for anybody, now is it?

I assume your posting of the creation story is your way of asking me if I think the earth and all life was created in six days. If so, why don't you just ask me?

Some pretty smart people have claimed that the 6 days are to be taken literally. Some claim that the days represent ages, epochs or some undefined span of time. I probably lean towards the later. But it is not of a major concern for me, and I'm certainly not going to spend much time debating over the matter with a person who doesn't believe the Bible is the Word of God anyway.

So if you have a question for me, fire away.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As you are aware, I'm sure, many (most?) people groups from the beginning of recorded human history (most specifically during the time of the Exodus) had multiple gods, some had dozens and even hundreds or thousands. So, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" is indeed descriptive, if only for the fact of differentiating himself from among the many gods, even if you can't understand or accept it as such.

A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not essential aspects of God. In fact, they are not aspects of God at all. Therefore, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" is not a definition. Again , your argument inadvertantly supports the presence of negative theology in the Bible.

Wow, so you think you are in a position to call the only true God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, "redundant, and circular?" So let's think about this....some cosmic cop pulls God over for going too fast in his chariot of fire rambling through the milky way....cop says "license and registration please"....God says "I am who I am"....cop say's "what in God's name does that mean?" God says "exactly!"....cop gives him a warning and goes away scratching his head...about an hour later he pulls over somebody else with some special plates with the name "LUCIFER"....How's that for circular for ya?

I said that the statement was redundant and circular not God. It was an objective description of the statement not a criticism. It is redundant because it repeats the predicate "I am". It is circular because there is no new information in the restatement of the predeicate. It is a statement of identity. It suggests the aseity of God. God is Being Itself. Your story is hilarious. It shows how absurd it is to depict God as a finite being.

Cool. I actually had no idea that I was setting out to show you how negative theology is extra biblical, I never knew I was capable of such a thing! The rest of your description of negative theology is your own interpretation, but it doesn't match the one I'm familiar with or even the one on wiki that I cited. But again, that's ok because we are in the la la land of Alternative Views where your view is not necessarily right or wrong from anybody else's....it's just Alternative.

So you are familiar with negative theology. What about my presentation of negative theology is different from what you have read and understood?

So a title cannot be a definition? Of course it can! Especially when it comes to the Bible. God gave himself titles and man gave him titles too. They were all definitions as well as titles. This is part of what makes God God.

Another bald assertion from you without arguments to back it up. A title may suggest essential charactristics but does not confer them or define them. Giving a dog the title of king doesn't make him a king.

This is one of the main differences between the Creator and his creation....of course if you believe that everything in the universe sprang from nothing without a Creator...well then we are at an insurmountable impasse from the beginning - the ultimate non sequitur.....unless we are on Alternative Views! But alas, YES! We ARE on Alternative Views so anything is possible....even the impossible.

I don't claim to know how the universe came to be and I don't see how stating "God did it" constitutes an explanation. The universe springing from nothing is no less fantastical than God existing from eternity. To me the question why there is something and not nothing is a great mystery.

The biblical definition of God is clearly stated in the Bible, which was written over thousands of years and by many authors, and you expect me to give a clear definition here on an Internet forum?

If you knew the definition you would have no propblem. You have persuaded me that not only do you not know how to define God, you don't even know what a definition is.

How many posts are you going to give me? Why don't you just read the Bible and find out for yourself. There is a problem though....you have to actually believe what is written is a true and accurate description of God, his nature, character and intentions with his creation. It's all there in black and white. (some in red if you have one of those Bibles).

I have read the Bible. You are dodging the question. I gave you two possible definitions of God from the Bible and you haven't come up with one. No one doesn't have to believe in order to ascertain a definition. I know that a unicorn is a horse with a single horn on its head even though I don't believe in unicorns.

Opps, I didn't see this until I was almost at the end. No matter, it's pretty much more of the same from you. I assume you are familiar with something called "systematic theology"? By definition (if you'll let me use this term without me defining definition for now) this is a discipline which applies lots of logic in an attempt to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs.

...An attempt that inevitably fails because the Absolute is beyond the human mind. That's what "God" represents. Tillich calls the unconditioned absolute "the God beyond God".

I AM NOT A SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN (but I play one on an Internet forum), however I have been reading and studying lots of them over the past decade or so (and no I'm not going to list them for you now) and with their help, I have been applying lots of logic to my reading and comprehension of the God of the Bible - his nature, his character, his ways, his purpose and intentions towards his creation, and much, much more. But I'm afraid that no matter how much of this logic I spewed forth for you, you will reject it out of hand. I know this because I've already tried in the past, and you will simply not accept even the most basic of plain descriptions and definitions of God set forth in the Bible. You've shown this kind of reluctance here on this very thread.

If you learned anything in your years of study you should be able to present it here without all this prevarication. You say you won't present an argument because you fear I might reject it. I'm sorry you're afraid. Perhaps you are worried that you can't back up your belief. Don't worry, reality will go on being reality whether our arguments fail or not. Why not risk presenting your belief? If it fails, maybe you'll learn something.

To the few of you who have made it this far...(God bless you my son) please read this last little ditty over and over again (maybe even pray-read it) until it sinks in. And then you will have a revelation of revelations....Oh, this is what these guys mean by "Alternative".

All I was doing is pointing out your double standard as a moderator.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Dave, thanks for all the verses.

I see a lot of cutting and pasting but no question. Ask me a straight forward question and I'll try to give a straight forward answer. I don't mind answering questions but the problem is when I answer one, and you guys don't like the answer, you pretend I didn't answer. That's no fun for anybody, now is it?

I assume your posting of the creation story is your way of asking me if I think the earth and all life was created in six days. If so, why don't you just ask me?

Some pretty smart people have claimed that the 6 days are to be taken literally. Some claim that the days represent ages, epochs or some undefined span of time. I probably lean towards the later. But it is not of a major concern for me, and I'm certainly not going to spend much time debating over the matter with a person who doesn't believe the Bible is the Word of God anyway.

So if you have a question for me, fire away.

I'm sorry I forgot to add a question mark ? after my question...I thought it was quite clear anyway if you read what precedes this question ("your descriptions" was in reference to "God")...do I really have to be more descriptive---everything was based on what was to follow so I didn't have to ask questions in the middle of each Biblical quote...? "what are your descriptions other than the Nicene or Apostolic Creed type of material---thanks in advance for your answers:" Please note that God repeatedly shows Himself as a brutal God regarding the verses I have quoted. The book of Revelation doesn't lighten up on that image. I don't think the letters of Paul are any reprieve from that image. Paul talks about turning people over to Satan and makes hateful statements about anyone who disagrees with his view.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Some pretty smart people have claimed that the 6 days are to be taken literally. Some claim that the days represent ages, epochs or some undefined span of time. I probably lean towards the later. But it is not of a major concern for me, and I'm certainly not going to spend much time debating over the matter with a person who doesn't believe the Bible is the Word of God anyway.

Okay, so you don't want to debate the six days with me because I don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible but apparently you would debate with someone who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible...how would that conversation go any differently from the one you and I would have? I have already listed the way the 6 days play out in the Bible and if I list Genesis 2 it plays out again only in a different sequence. What you and apparently others of your beliefs want to do is make sense of the two chapters until the talking snake enters the picture in chapter 3 who apparently changes everything that God has just created. It's all downhill after that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

All I was doing is pointing out your double standard as a moderator.

can we cool it with the cheap shots?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Some pretty smart people have claimed that the 6 days are to be taken literally. Some claim that the days represent ages, epochs or some undefined span of time. I probably lean towards the later.

I'm not one of those "pretty smart" people, but I have always leaned towards 6 literal days because repeatedly the Scripture says, "and God saw that it was good, and there was evening and morning the [fill in the blank] day."

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Dave, thanks for all the verses.

I see a lot of cutting and pasting but no question.

. As I already responded there was a question in that post.

BTW--You didn't see any cutting and pasting other than from an earlier post I made in regards to some of the scriptures which I had previously typed out--there was none. Now maybe that is what you do but generally I don't cut and paste unless I attribute the author.

I went through the Bible and listed this information and the verses. When I initially went through the creation verses in Genesis 1 and made the simple outline I was just curious to see how it matched up with the evolution theory and certainly there are similarities but I used the outline in this recent post to point out how God's creation unfolded in Genesis 1.

The other scriptures I looked up and typed out just so I make it clear---no cutting and pasting. In fact, if you check out the verses you will find that they are from the New Revised Standard Version which I have sitting in front of me. However, I wanted to type out these verses and look at the context of the verses so that I didn't provide verses out of their contextual meaning.

[awareness]

I'm beginning to think we're all wrong ... even, prolly, me, following observational logical conclusion.

But life so far has been a crazy woo-woo experience ... a la la land in its own right. And there's an abundance of la la landers ... that have been and are, wrong wrong wrong.

Lee, for example, was wrong. God wasn't isn't doing what Lee said he was.

And turns out our dear brother UntoHim is wrong too. Or perhaps he's just ill informed. By one of those liberal cosmic reporters surely. The ones that couldn't tell the truth if they tried ... and prolly don't even believe in God ; conspiring atheist's, the lot of 'em.

The more reliable conservative cosmic reporters are professional and honest, Christian, cosmic journalists. They tell the accurate story of the time God got stopped in the milky way galaxy, for speeding in his chariot of fire.

There are no speed limits in the milky way. You can go as fast as possible. The cosmic cop was actually Einstein. Who was at the time examining the milky way and happened to spot God going faster than the speed of light.

So Einstein stopped God to ask him how he was doing it. When he asked God how he was going faster than the speed of light, God didn't answer, "I am that I am." That's liberal nonsense propaganda. We all are: Am What we Am. All God said was, "I work in mysterious ways." Einstein was flummoxed.

And out of the blue Einstein, to find out if he was right (before becoming cosmic), asked God, "Would you like to play a game of dice?" God said, "I don't play dice." Einstein gleefully responded, "I knew it."

God went on: "But I'd be happy to place a wager on my righteous servant Job." Einstein responded: "There are none that are righteous. No not one. I'm not falling for that one." (Revealing that Einstein is smarter than the devil).

And they went their ways. Einstein to harass Truman for using his scientific knowledge to drop atomic weapons of mass destruction on innocent non-combatant civilians in Japan. And God to jump a worm hole, thru a black hole, while harpooning leviathan.

Welcome to la la land.