Doug Shaver has reviewed this website at http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/ahistor/Silences/ResponseTedM.html
I may get around to reading the entire review someday, but have more pressing issues at the moment. I have however read his review of the first "silence". I found his response there to be deficient in a number of ways. Herein is my response to his review of #1 Godly Attributes, Knowledge. My original review of Doherty's #1 is here: http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrika/dohertystop20/id4.html, and Dougs review of my review of #1 is found here:
http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/ahistor/Silences/Silences01.html
DOUG: "1. Jesus' godly attributes
Doherty begins with a comment on Romans 1:19-20, where Paul assures his readers that God has himself revealed everything about himself that humanity needs to know about him. Doherty remarks: "Paul here shows no conception that Jesus on earth had been a reflection of God himself, the Son demonstrating the Fathers invisible attributes in his own incarnated person." Such a conception of Jesus' earthly ministry is supposed to central to Christianity's entire message, so why does Paul seem unaware of it?"
Ted suggests that Doherty is quoting Paul out of context. To remedy that, he quotes Romans 1:18-23, which includes Doherty's excerpt:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. [Ted's emphasis]
Ted begins his response by noting: "Paul is writing to believers in Rome (1:7)." Very well. An author's intended readership is usually relevant to an understanding of his writing, but the relevance needs to be explicated, especially when it is offered as a solution to an apparent puzzle. What does their being in Rome have to do with how much Paul is going to tell anybody about Jesus? Ted doesn't say but he does go on:
Paul states that "14I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish." He states in 1:16 that his gospel is to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
So what? Yes, we would expect Paul to tailor his teaching differently for Jews and Greeks, but what is that tailoring going to do to what he says about Jesus' ministry? In particular, how does it account for his completely ignoring that ministry? Ted doesn't say.
He finally gets to a point of sorts when he says that Paul here is asserting "the guilt of all men for not recognizing since the creation of the world God's power and authority over them." Apparently, Jesus' ministry is supposed to be irrelevant because it did not begin until long after the creation of the world, and so, in Ted's words, "This is NOT the place to discuss the arrival of Jesus on earth only recently.""
RESPONSE: Doug questions my purpose in saying who Paul is writing to and who Paul's gospel is addressing, adding in his "what's the point" type of questions. He completely ignores my description in the SAME PARAGRAPH of the context of the passage Doherty quotes in relation to the bulk of the entire book of Romans!
He then says I "finally" get to "a point of sorts". That "point of sorts" was in the very next paragraph, as a conclusion to the information in the previous paragraph. He conveniently left out the beginning of the sentence: "So clearly, the verses Doherty quotes are the beginning of this entire discussion, and they are focusing on the guilt of all men...".
For the current reader, here is the background paragraph which shows the importance of the context being examined, found in my original review for #1:
"Paul is writing to believers in Rome (1:7). Paul states that "14I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish." He states in 1:16 that his gospel is to the Jew first and also to the Greek. The above passage follows these opening statements and represents the beginning of a long message from Paul regarding guilt of all men before God, then more specifically that of the Jews. This portion of his message is from 1:18 to 3:20. The next portion is his message of salvation through faith in chapters 3:21-8:39. Then there is more discussion along these lines and the future in 9:1-11:36. "
I was describing the CONTEXT being examined. His failure to recognize this shows the same lack of appreciation of context that Doherty showed. It does not bode well for the accuracy of the rest of his review of the other 19 silences.
Next, Doug comments on my conclusion that "This is NOT the place to disuss the arrival of Jesus on earth only recently."
DOUG: Well, this strikes me as like saying that a prosecutor won't bother calling eyewitnesses to testify to a crime if he is confident of getting a conviction without their testimony. Paul may well have believed, since he said so plainly enough, that all of creation itself is the only evidence any right-thinking person needs to be convinced of God's "power and authority." Even so, surely the actual physical presence among men of God's own son would have added something to that argument? Could Paul not have supposed that the incarnation ought to have convinced some people who would otherwise not believe?"
RESPONSE: Doug is apparantly oblivious to the nature of Paul's epistle. Why would Paul mention Jesus as God's revelation to men who were dead before Jesus arrived, or who hadn't seen Jesus when he was on earth, or hadn't even heard of him? Since Paul's gospel is about salvation for ALL men through faith, he speaks of how that salvation was possible SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD--the very words Doherty intentionally extracted from his quotation of Romans 1:19-20, and that Doug equally sees as irrelevant!And the source of revelation that Paul says was available to ALL men was and is that that EVERYONE can experience--nature itself.
There is also a CHRONOLOGICAL theme in Romans: He speaks of the guilt of ALL men prior to the Law in chapters 1 and 2, and the guilt of ALL Jews under the law in chapters 2,3, and 4.
He then clearly says that Jesus came to SAVE through faith ALL men when he says in 5:18 "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men". This was the "man" who "was to come" after Adam (verse 14).
Doug then has a paragraph about how Jesus COULD HAVE been mentioned as evidence of God's attributes since some people use the Shroud of Turin as supporting evidence of the resurrection. I agree, but not all people mention the shroud, nor need Paul mention Jesus where Doherty or Doug or anyone else thinks he should have, especially when it detracts from the essential message he was making: ALL men failed to see God's revelation.
DOUG: Ted also points out: "Paul states elsewhere of knowledge through scriptures, the prophets, visions, and personal revelation -- not just on the world around us." Indeed, according to Paul, there are many sources of knowledge about God. He mentions the scriptures quite often -- his epistles are loaded with references to them -- and from time to time he cites prophets, visions, and personal revelation. Now, it would have surprised no one if he did not always mention Jesus' ministry as a source of knowledge about God. But, he never does. Not once. The omission of Jesus from Romans 1:19-20 is simply the most conspicuous example of this. If Paul had routinely mentioned the ministry elsewhere in his writings, this would simply be an oddity. But it is not odd, except on the assumption that Paul is talking about a man who had recently lived in this world and who founded the religion that Paul was now promoting."
RESPONSE:
1. Paul DIDN'T mention the scriptures or prophets or visions or personal revelation in Romans 1:19-20, yet Doherty thinks it inconceivable for him to have ommitted mentioning Jesus. Poppycock! It completely misses the point--Jesus' message/arrival was UNNECESSARY because all men were guilty without NEED of anything other than nature itself! Second, mentioning Jesus would only have confused the issue since many men lived and died or were still living who never heard of Jesus.
2. Note how Doug has now shifted the argument from Jesus as a reflection of God's attributes and knowledge about God's nature to a teaching ministry. He is turning this into an argument against the existence of a teacher as in the Gospels. Jesus well could have had a small or insignificant teaching role yet still existed, been crucified, and inspired Christianity.
3. If Romans 1:19-20 is the "most conspicous example" of the omission of discussing Jesus' role in revealing God's nature to all men--including those since the creation of the world, as Doug says, then we certainly should not expect Paul to have mentioned Jesus or a ministry revealing God's nature anywhere else!
Finally it seems Doug glimpses the fallacy of including Jesus in verse 20 when he writes:
DOUG: Granted, few men ever saw Jesus, but many Jews did. And, Paul does suggest that the Jews are especially guilty, but why? Not because they rejected the son of God while he lived in their very midst. Paul never hints that they did anything of the sort. Rather, it was because it was their scriptures through whom God revealed himself.
RESPONSE: Doug is now introducing another silence to the mix. It is irrelevant to the fact that the so-called silence of 1:19-20 doesn't fit the context. Period. To answer his new objection, I refer the reader to 9:32-33. One might also consider that Paul himself didn't believe as a result of Jesus' life on earth, but faith came later upon revelation/reflection regarding the meaning of his resurrection and how it tied in to scriptures.
Now that I have thoroughly discredited the claim that the #1 "Silence" was legitimate and inconceivable, let's look at what Doug says regarding the passages I referenced under the section titled "Related information in other early writings":
DOUG: Next, Ted tries to claim that Paul did in fact attribute godly attributes to Jesus. Here are his references (I've bracketed a correction to an apparent typo)...(11 verses quoted)
For every one of these, I ask: Where are the words indicating that Paul could not plausibly have been referring to any being other than a man who had lived in this world just a few years previously to when Paul was writing? Just where, in this world, did Paul think this man had lived and taught? Galilee? Judea? He never says. Just when did Paul think this man was in this world? A year before? Ten years? A century? He never says.
Nothing in these passages is the least bit inconsistent with Doherty's proposal that in Paul's mind, Jesus was never a man of this world, but rather was a spiritual being inhabiting a spirit world. To be sure, Paul is never quite explicit about that. But neither does he ever explicitly put Jesus in this world, talking face to face with ordinary people, either.
RESPONSE: Paul is not only "never quite explicit" about Jesus having lived his life in some "spirit world" where he was crucified and resurrected, he never even comes close to suggesting such a thing! Not once. But, Doug seems to want to overlook the references Paul makes to Jesus as having been a man, born of a woman, in the flesh, and of the Jewish race. He begs for more details--ie "where", "when", "what about this?" etc., and those would be great to have, but we have to deal with what we have. The detail we have from Paul most reasonably is describing a Jewish man on earth who was recently crucified, and who Paul believes enable ALL men to be saved--the essence of Paul's gospel. Paul got Jesus' attributes from somewhere--did he just make them up? Did he make up the Lord's supper and the words of Jesus that night?
In any case, I think we can conclude from Paul's writings that Jesus in fact DID have some kind of ministry which Paul believed reflected attributes of God, and most reasonably that it all occurred on planet earth.
DOUG: Jesus has no earthly ministry in Paul's or anyone else's epistles. Outside the gospels, Jesus is crucified and raised back to life, and by some unspecified means he somehow communicates a few ideas to Paul and other people not identified. That is all.
RESPONSE: Once again, Doug is misinformed. Using the same materials Doherty appeals to Jesus is said to give "commands" in the Didache and as having "imparted the gospel" to the Apostles and having given "commandments" (specific ones stated) in 1 Clement. 1 Clement was even so explicit to say that Jesus gave his life from "earth". Until these can be proved to be non-credible or too late, they need to be considered as including "related information in other early writings".
CONCLUSION: The first of Doherty's Top 20 "silences" is a very poor example because of the context. Additionally, there are quite a few related writings, including from Paul, that reference the attributes of God found in Jesus. Paul certainly doesn't give any clear references to Jesus as having had a recent ministry on earth, but Doherty needs to come up with a better example of where he would expect such information, while simultaneosly explaining where Paul DID get the information he provides us about his Jesus--his godly attributes as well as the claim that he was a Jewish man, lived and crucified in the flesh.
UPDATE: Doug responded to this at length, further questioning my claim that the "silence" is not in keeping with the context. I chose to respond to this aspect of his response. That, along with my response is here:
DOUG, quoting my response:
"Doug questions my purpose in saying who Paul is writing to and who Paul's gospel is addressing, adding in his "what's the point" type of questions. He completely ignores my description in the SAME PARAGRAPH of the context of the passage Doherty quotes in relation to the bulk of the entire book of Romans! "
DOUG: It was your assertion that the context explains Paul's silence in Rom. 1:19-20 about the alleged incarnation of God. I claimed that you failed to provide the explanation. Merely repeating the words of the context does not explain the silence. Doherty's question was: "[H]ow could Paul fail to conceive and express the idea that Jesus himself was the primary revealer of 'all that may be known of God'?" [Emphasis added.] You referred to some context, and you quoted some context, but you did not explain how that context answers the question. And you still have not explained it. You have only repeated your assertion that the context does answer it.
MY RESPONSE: First we have to ask what Paul means when he refers to "ALL that may be known of God". Does he REALLY mean "ALL"? And, WHO is he talking about--mankind in general or specific people at specific points in time?
For the first question, the wording is a bit different in the translation I prefer, the NASB:
"19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them."
"that which is known" could refer to less than "ALL that which is known.". I submit that the context helps clarify whether that is the case or not. Let's see..
Lets be realistic. If Paul REALLY meant "ALL" then would he not have referred to the OT scriptures and all of the prophets, for what was their purpose if not to provide necessary knowledge of God and his workings, of all the laws he thought should be followed and rules about human behavior? About the nature of sin, etc. Paul doesn't do that. That very fact suggests that Paul didn't really mean "ALL".
What does Paul say WAS revealed about God?
"19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
That's it. Paul seems to be using nature as evidence for an invisible creator with attributes of power and divinity.
Is that ALL? For his purposes here (ie, the context), it appears to be. Now, this is very important for understanding the context: Note that what IMMEDIATELY follows the list of what Paul says is known about God through nature is a CONCLUSION by Paul that mankind was GUILTY when he writes
"have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"
It looks to me like Paul is saying that Nature was enough to give man direction to know what kind of God made him, and Paul says they were GUILTY of not honoring God. One obvious way they did this was by making idols, a practice that the monotheistic God of the Old Testament damned over and over again. Paul refers to this in the next verses:
"21For even though they knew God, they DID NOT HONOR HIM as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and EXCHANGED THE GLORY OF THE INCORREUPTIBLE GOD FOR AN IMAGE in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. "
I submit that when Paul refers to "ALL" that may be known of God, he is referring to that which was sufficient to properly honor God through faith. He isnt' talking about God's plan for mankind and how Jesus was a part of that. If that were the case Paul could easily have talked about a cosmic Christ as part of the revealing of knowledge about God here. Or he could have talked about a historical Jesus' teachings about God's nature. But, it appears that neither of those had to do with what Paul was really talking about. "ALL" doesn't appear to have meant what Earl and you think.
The second question is WHO Paul means when he refers to "all that may be known of God". What may be known, BY WHOM? Again I believe the context reveals the answer. When Paul writes "since the creation of the world" (the passage Earl intentionally extracted from his quotation) and those who "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image" he is clearly referring to people who lived and died before Jesus came along. How could those people have been "without excuse" if Jesus' appearance was necessary for them to know about God? The answer is obvious--Jesus' appearance was not necessary. It would have confused the main point that all of mankind since the creation of the world had enough information through nature to have faith in an invisible God, yet since they turned away from him they were "without excuse", guilty of sin.
So, Earl's question "How could Paul fail to conceive and express the idea that Jesus himself was the primary revealer of 'all that may be known of God'?" is easily answered given the context of the passage: He isn't simply talking about ALL that may be known about God. He is talking about guilt before God since the creation of the world. Jesus' revelations were unnecessary for man to know enough to be declared guilty, and they came too late to apply to ALL of mankind that Paul is writing about.
I'm stopping at this issue. I hope I have made my points clearer now. If Jesus' revelations about God are a "silence" in Paul's work, Doherty needs to find a different passage to illustrate that.
|
