tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post949849840372043686..comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Irenaeus, Tertullian and 1 Cor. 15:50Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-65987242684715956082012-08-05T11:01:47.452-07:002012-08-05T11:01:47.452-07:00Hi Matt13weedhacker,
You make some interesting po...Hi Matt13weedhacker,<br /><br />You make some interesting points about Praxeas. But I'm more inclined to view him as one who believed along the lines of Noetus than to pinpoint him as a rival of the New Prophecy. My understanding of Praxeas (regarding whom we know nothing for certain) stems from Adv Prax 1 where Tertullian wrote (in part): prophetiam expulit et haresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit. Hoow do you construe these words?<br /><br />Thanks and all the best,<br /><br />EdgarEdgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-47071568947907746172012-08-02T16:22:32.205-07:002012-08-02T16:22:32.205-07:00Hi Edgar.
In regard to Paican's comment about...Hi Edgar.<br /><br />In regard to Paican's comment about Praxeas being a "...Phrygia[n] of some celebrity..."<br /><br />Here's a possible hypothesis.<br /><br />Just a conjecture.<br /><br />Adv. Prax. 1:1(D) Ltn., ( haeresim faciat )<br /><br />Adv. Prax 1:5(C) Ltn., ( haeresim intulit )<br /><br />1:1(D) could be translated:<br /><br />"...fabricated ( a sect )..."<br /><br />And 1:5(C) could also be translated:<br /><br />"...introduced ( a sect )..."<br /><br />Ltn., ( haeresim ) can be translated as:<br /><br />A.) "...a heresy..."<br />B.) "...a sect..." <br />C.) "...a school of thought..."<br /><br />Either "...heresy..." or "...a sect..." would fit the context in both verses.<br /><br />Hipolytus (Refutation Books 8 and 10) also, indicated that there were different offshoots of the Montantist's that believed the doctrine of "...Noetus..."<br /><br />So it is plausible that Praxeas might have been a prominent teacher of one of these, and perhaps he was competing with Tertullian's party for acceptance and recognition in Rome or Carthage, and perhaps also, he was proposing a rival interpretation of the "...New Prophecy..."<br /><br />I'm not set on this, but it's interesting.<br /><br />I think they were both trying to re-interpret the Orthodox "...Monarchy..." (rule by One Person), that is the Father.<br /><br />And that both their doctrines, of course, were wrong, and originate from demonic sources.<br /><br />Anyway, I would be interested in your perspective.<br /><br />Enjoy your day.Matt13weedhackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16643587467702969643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-82313579159397800622012-07-25T09:59:16.682-07:002012-07-25T09:59:16.682-07:00Dear Mike,
I'm going to close the thread afte...Dear Mike,<br /><br />I'm going to close the thread after these remarks. I'll post a separate link that deals with 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. <br /><br />1) I used John 3:13 to show that the patriarchs did not ascend to heaven prior to the earthly sojourn of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do believe that some will inherit the heavens, and there seem to be verses that support the notion of heavenly life.<br /><br />2. It's difficult for me to see how you can read "these" apart from the entire Greek construct in which the pronoun appears. The word "these" goes with hENI TOUTWN TWN ADELFWN MOU TWN ELAXISTWN. Other commentatators have noted this point as well.<br /><br />3. Other texts in the NT indicate that anointed Christians are brothers and joint-heirs of Christ. Now we can debate the identity and meaning of terms like "anointed" or "born again" and what the eternal destiny of these persons is. But it seems fairly obvious that the brothers of Christ are Christians.<br /><br />The parable deals with how the brothers of Christ are treated. It does not address the issue of other Christians, although Christians are bound to work good to all, but especially to the household of faith (Gal 6:10). <br /><br />There are times when the anointed have been/are all of the things described. See Mt 10:40-42; Heb 10:32-34; 13:1-3. <br /><br />First century Christians were anointed with the spirit of God.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-11635171862679884082012-07-25T03:37:36.075-07:002012-07-25T03:37:36.075-07:00Edgar,
Just to be clear on this; Ivan and myself ...Edgar,<br /><br />Just to be clear on this; Ivan and myself do not believe that any Christian will spend eternity in heaven. Therefore, I don't find that John 3:13 would necessarily present a problem for my theology. <br /><br />Second, there is no exegetical basis for viewing the brothers as anything other than the sheep. For the sake of argument, i'm ok with your point about "these" being cataphorical or anaphorical. However, it just doesn't make any sense for Christ to use this pronoun after he just mentioned the sheep as referents. <br /><br />Third, the conclusion of "brothers" being in reference to another class of Christians brings about some odd conclusions:<br /><br />1. Our treatment of the anointed class determines our salvation? What about how well we treat other Christians? Or more to the point, how well we treat the poor?<br /><br />2. Are the anointed class "strangers?" Are they naked, sick, imprisoned, or hungry?<br /><br />MikeMike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-12530427815753557912012-07-24T20:37:11.520-07:002012-07-24T20:37:11.520-07:00Ivan,
I am not denying that the rule could be exe...Ivan,<br /><br />I am not denying that the rule could be exercised from earth and over the earth simultaneously. But even governments on earth make a distinction between a ruler exercising authority and his/her domain. The President of the USA resides in Washington D.C. from where he exercises authority. But the President's domain extends well beyond the district's borders. While the rule could be exercised on earth, however, it seems that the scriptural evidence suggests otherwise.<br /><br />The operative words in Phil 3:20-21 are hHMWN GAR TO POLITEUMA EN OURANOIS hUPARXEI . . .<br /><br />Those words can be interpreted differtent ways. But I'd be glad to defend the explanation that I'm proposing. As for 1 Thess 4:13-17, we are told that those in Christ will be "caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord" (NWT).<br /><br />The pronoun is part of a larger construct which identifies "these" as the brothers of Christ. Pronouns can function anaphorically or cataphorically. There is no need to make the aforesaid "sheep" referents of "these." It applies to the brothers.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-45612029389129704142012-07-24T14:29:20.256-07:002012-07-24T14:29:20.256-07:00Edgar:
Regarding kingdom in Matthew 25, why there...Edgar:<br /><br />Regarding kingdom in Matthew 25, why there should be a strong differentiation from the exercising of authority and the domain over which that authority will be extended? The rule can be exercised from earth (Matt 25:34) over the earth. (Matthew 5:5; Rev 5:10) <br /><br />As for Philippians 3 and 1 Thess, I don't see how these support the kingdom being in heaven. Philippians 3 makes explicit mention of Christians awaiting for Jesus to come "from heaven," while 1 Thess speaks of Jesus descending. All these texts speak of Jesus leaving heaven at the Parousia. (see especially Acts 3:21)<br /><br />I do not wish to construe "these" apart from and in isolation to its original phrase. The ordinary usage of "these" would suggest that Jesus is referring to a group of people who are either with him or whom he has just identified. What purpose does the pronoun serve if not the point I and The Apologetic Front have been arguing for? If it does not necessitate such, it seems to be suggestive.Ivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-32593104395259111632012-07-24T11:38:17.839-07:002012-07-24T11:38:17.839-07:00Ivan,
Whether "kingdom" refers to the r...Ivan,<br /><br />Whether "kingdom" refers to the royal exercise of authority or to the domain over which such authority is extended cannot be established by semantics or by exegesis alone. Theology will play a role in determining what kingdom means at Mt 25:34.<br /><br />There are scriptures which indicate that some will inherit the kingdom of God in heaven. For example, 2 Cor 5:1-2; John 14:1-3; Phil 3:20-21. See also 1 Thess 4:13-18. <br /><br />As I mentioned earlier, according to Jn 3:13, the patriarchs were not in heaven when John recorded those fateful words at in his gospel.<br /><br />We should not construe "these" in isolation from the words hENI TOUTWN TWN ADELFWN MOU TWN ELAXISTWN. The pronoun does not necessitate that we look for some previously identified group in the parable.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-18435150952788785172012-07-24T09:58:30.249-07:002012-07-24T09:58:30.249-07:00Edgar:
My question would be, what exegetical basi...Edgar:<br /><br />My question would be, what exegetical basis is there for viewing kingdom as referring to the earth in Matthew 25 but heaven in 1 Corinthians 15, apart from an already presupposed and assumed theology?<br /><br />With respect to Matthew 8:11, I would agree that this does not refer to "heavenly life," as such but to the "kingdom of heaven." This text should suffice in showing that to be in the kingdom does not mean to be or go to heaven. For if this was the case, then one would have to say the Patriarchs are.<br /><br />Further, it should suffice to show that the kingdom is not a government in heaven (otherwise the Patriarchs would find themselves there) but a government FROM heaven. <br /><br />To comment on another topic which was mentioned here. The Apologetic Front's point in regards to the pronoun "these," is that one should exegetically identified Christ's brothers as part of an already identified party in Matthew 25. Otherwise, "these" seems superfluous.Ivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-44676077889077673502012-07-24T08:28:30.542-07:002012-07-24T08:28:30.542-07:00Hi Apologetic Front:
I don't see how the word...Hi Apologetic Front:<br /><br />I don't see how the word "these" helps your case. After all, the sheep of the parable do good to Jesus' brothers. So could you explain how the sheep constitute part of that same group?<br /><br />Secondly, my view of how Matthew possibly uses kingdom in 25:34 is based partly on the semantic range of BASILEIA and theology also will be a determining factor. Admittedly, we're not going to read the parable in the same way because we have differing exegetical starting points. But I see the Witness explanation as utterly plausible in the light of lexical semantics and biblical theology.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-15811317228652643592012-07-24T08:22:16.083-07:002012-07-24T08:22:16.083-07:00Ivan: I don't see it as equivocation because (...Ivan: I don't see it as equivocation because (as we know) words can have different senses in differentiated contexts. Although BDAG does not view Mt 25:34 as an example of the Greek word BASILEIA meaning "a realm over which a ruler exercises authority," that is part of the word's semantic range. Context and theology (as suggested by Rolf Furuli) is going to determine how one understands the sense of a Greek or Hebrew word in context.<br /><br />Regarding the ancient patriarchs, there are a number of reasons why the passage might not be a literal reference to heavenly life. Or if the reference is literal, we might ask what sense that kingdom has within the context of Mt 8:12ff. One thing seems to be for certain: no man ascended to heaven prior to Jesus' death (John 3:13). Furthermore, the scripture state that one must be born again to see God's kingdom. That is, born from water and spirit.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-33579943209756303172012-07-23T17:21:41.293-07:002012-07-23T17:21:41.293-07:00Hi Edgar,
Thanks for your response. I take it yo...Hi Edgar,<br /><br />Thanks for your response. I take it you hold to the traditional WT perspective on Christ's "brothers" in Matt. 25. But how can it be contextually established that these are <i>not</i> of the sheep just mentioned? Would not the qualifier "these" (25:40) preclude this?<br /><br />Also, i'm not following your explanation in distinguishing the definition of "kingdom" in Matt. 25:34 from 1 Cor. 15:50. Its not that I don't think that "Kingdom" has a semantic range; its that I don't see any exegetical grounds for the differentiation.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-31174186874635234632012-07-23T09:06:51.327-07:002012-07-23T09:06:51.327-07:00Hey Brother MAtt13,
I have not read the quote bef...Hey Brother MAtt13,<br /><br />I have not read the quote before, and don't know enough about Pacian to make an informed judgment. It's an interesting quote, but my initial reaction is not to place much credence in the quote. My present judgment--which is open to adjustment--is based on reading Adv Praxean and the scholarly literature about that document. I'm also trying to recall if Eusebius might help in this matter.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />EdgarEdgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-72348097787729271212012-07-23T09:01:55.054-07:002012-07-23T09:01:55.054-07:00Dear Apologetic Front,
I do believe that one can ...Dear Apologetic Front,<br /><br />I do believe that one can establish the case exegetically and contextually. Firstly, we must ask ourselves how the word "kingdom" is used in the NT and OT. Moreover, what does the synchronic evidence suggests about the meaning of kingdom in Mt 25:34. The context may also come to our aid. Who do the sheep and goats represent? What about the brothers of Christ? I'm not saying that it would be easy to make an ironclad case. But I do not doubt that a good case could be made for the Witness understanding. Finally, logically or semantically speaking, the word "kingdom" has more than one denotation. Context ultimately determines how a word is used in a particular setting.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-65658551389487306222012-07-23T07:37:49.809-07:002012-07-23T07:37:49.809-07:00Is It not an equivocation to say that humans don&#...Is It not an equivocation to say that humans don't inherit the kingdom because if their humanity 1 Cor 15:50) but actually do inherit it in Matthew 25:34? I just don't see the legitimacy in alternating definitions. <br /><br />According to Jesus, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be in the heavenly kingdom. This should call in question any strict definition of a dualist view and the eternal state of the redeemed.Ivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-67721310459539513282012-07-22T19:25:55.971-07:002012-07-22T19:25:55.971-07:00Hello Brother Foster.
Stumbled accross a quote yo...Hello Brother Foster.<br /><br />Stumbled accross a quote you might find interesting:<br /><br />PACIAN OF BARCELONA (circa. 310-391 C.E.): “...you declare your agreement with the Phrygians. But, most illustrious Lord, so manifold and so diverse is the error of these very men, that in them we have not only to overthrow their peculiar fancies against penance, but to cut off the heads, as it were, of some Lernaean monster. And, in the first place, they rely on more founders than one, for I suppose Blastus the Greek is of them; Theodotus also AND --- ( PRAXEAS ) --- WERE ONCE TEACHERS OF YOUR PARTY, THEMSELVES ALSO PHRYGIANS OF SOME CELEBRITY, who falsely say they are inspired of Leucius, boast that they are instructed by Proculus. Following Montanus, and Maximilla, and Priscilla, howmanifold controversies have they raised concerning the day of Easter, the Paraclete, Apostles, Prophets, and many other disputes, as this also concerning the Catholic name, the pardon of penance...” - (Pages 317-327, Chapter 2, Epistle I. On the Catholic Name. The Extant Works of S. Pacian, Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church 17, Translated by the Rev. C. H. Collyns, M.A., Student of Christ Church 1842.)<br /><br />I was just interested in knowing if you had come across this before?<br /><br />It says "...Praxaes..." was a Montantist himself.<br /><br />What do you think?Matt13weedhackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16643587467702969643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-60652161707929519532012-07-22T16:26:40.326-07:002012-07-22T16:26:40.326-07:00Edgar,
Can this position be established contextua...Edgar,<br /><br />Can this position be established contextually and exegetically in Matt. 25:34?Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-54339155307738841892012-07-22T10:11:22.347-07:002012-07-22T10:11:22.347-07:00As you probably know well, Jehovah's Witnesses...As you probably know well, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Mt 25:34 applies to those who will live forever on earth. The Bible refers to God's kingdom with the adjective "heavenly" in the Pastoral epistle of 2 Timothy (4:18). Isa 9:6 calls the kingdom a "government" (KJV). So we think that when Mt 25:34 speaks of the kingdom, it's referring to the earthly domain of God's heavenly government. Humans will inherit that domain, but not the heavenly sphere of things per 1 Cor 15:50.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-67948959636503379612012-07-22T08:57:22.611-07:002012-07-22T08:57:22.611-07:00Do humans inherit the Kingdom of God according to ...Do humans inherit the Kingdom of God according to Matthew 25:34?Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.com