Comments for Novum Miscellanium

Comment on Edwards on Revelation (and sounding like Barth, or vice versa) by J.R. Diener

J.R. Diener — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:01:15 +0000

“that those that are holy shall hereafter be made perfectly holy, that they shall enjoy a happiness that is holy and spiritual, that they shall see God”

This sentence really made me wonder how Edwards viewed the concept “holiness”. I was hoping you would comment on it but then I got to the end of your post where you said you’d like to see further definition as well.

Comment on Colbert’s Original Interview… by J.R. Diener

J.R. Diener — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:11:09 +0000

When Jesus read from Isaiah he wasn’t reading from the original manuscript penned by Isaiah, he was reading from a copy. If Jesus had confidence in reading from a copy shouldn’t we?

Comment on Colbert’s Original Interview… by Wyatt Houtz

Wyatt Houtz — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:44:30 +0000

N.T. Wright says that many modern scholars look for jesus at the bottom of a deep dark well and only see vague reflections of their own faces.

Comment on Colbert’s Original Interview… by Phil

Phil — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:19:10 +0000

Ya, I totally agree with you. All one needs to do to get an idea of the “differences” (which are usually only word order) of the oldest relative to the newest manuscripts is get a Nestle Aland Greek NT. But this guy already knows that and thus he’s being absolutely disingenuous and even nefarious the way he’s presenting it. That crap wouldn’t go over at Princeton–and that’s where he from!!! Bruce Metzger is rolling over in his grave:-)

There are no substantive debatable variants which dispute any area of Orthodox Christian doctrine (e.g., the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, etc.). If they did, then we’d hear about it in the early church. Rather, it was people just not wanting to believe that Jesus is the Christ that drove them to deny that he actually was; thus, they came up with a heretical and anti-historical view of Jesus. People do it today as well–look at Elton John! haha. He said Jesus was gay… hmmmm… Can we say “messianic projectionism?” See my sermon on John the Baptist, hehe.

Thanks for the comments

Comment on Colbert’s Original Interview… by Wyatt Houtz

Wyatt Houtz — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:03:58 +0000

A scribal mistake and intentionally changing the manuscripts is a significant different situation. If he studied underneath metzger it is a blatant lie to present these copies as this flawed and this altered. Variants have ratings, and i’d like to see some examples of these variations that completely change the gospel. Whether the johannie or markan pericopes were part of the original manuscripts do not even matter, because in our bibles they say… these are probably not part of the originals, and even within those extra texts, like cobert said, they really arent that radically different… especially to say that the present any significant change to doctrine. combining those two stories at the worst case has caused a few people to dance with snakes, but no one ever took that serious.

Comment on Colbert as Apologist by J.R. Diener

J.R. Diener — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:41:06 +0000

Here is the link to the first time that Ehrman was on Colbert. This first segment really puts the second one into context.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/70912/june-20-2006/bart-ehrman

Comment on Feuerbach’s Fallacy by Geoff

Geoff — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:42:15 +0000

Yeah, it’s most likely human nature in general, but I think it makes sense that in a nation like the US, where there are a greater number of distractions due to wealth and leisure, people are able to rationalize their actions so that they don’t have to love God and love their neighbors. I mean, it’s just easy here. People in Haiti, for example, are willing to turn to God because they don’t have any other options. But it’s amazing how quickly we turn away when we have other options. And that’s pretty much the story of Scripture as well. Yikes. Guess that makes God’s grace even more amazing!

Comment on Colbert as Apologist by philhigley

philhigley — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:16:16 +0000

Pretty much, and a terrible example of what might come out of Princeton Seminary…

Petty is a great way to put it. I mean, “been there responded to that” is what I was thinking.

Comment on Colbert as Apologist by Wyatt Houtz

Wyatt Houtz — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:14:58 +0000

Jesus, interrupted … by a petty scholar who is riding off the heels of bruce metzger without any credible ideas himself.

Comment on Feuerbach’s Fallacy by philhigley

philhigley — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:53:23 +0000

Ya, I noticed in your blog write up the point about always ‘becoming a Christian.’ That’s a very precise perspective and a great way to say it. I hope to always become a Christian in my being and being a Christian in my becoming (paradox? perhaps…). In any case, and since I don’t believe there’s any such thing as Wesleyan ’sanctification’ here and now, I suppose that’s why I/we always have to go back to the cross over and over.

Thanks for the comments, Geoff. They definitely get me thinking, and hopefully doing.

On another note, do you think it’s only American churches, or just human nature in general throughout the church. Just a thought… I agree with what you’re saying but was just thinking about that.