tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post5037884987468612045..comments2024-03-17T03:12:26.931-04:00Comments on Reformed Reasons: The History of HeresyEd Dingesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-90805256108417880482015-04-20T14:12:01.287-04:002015-04-20T14:12:01.287-04:00I have repeated accused you of not allowing the Bi...I have repeated accused you of not allowing the Bible to be what it claims itself to be. You treat the Bible like it is just like any other book from the ANE and then impose your philosophical presuppositions on it, throwing out what you don't like and keeping what you do.Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-40036593731767849702015-04-20T14:07:09.343-04:002015-04-20T14:07:09.343-04:00No Dan, you don't say those things outright be...No Dan, you don't say those things outright because you are a liar and liars lie. You spin it. Luke included Adam and Seth in a literal genealogy. That means Luke thought Adam and Seth were as real as David and the others. YOU think Luke was wrong. YOU say we have no idea what God's opinion was of including Luke in his genealogy. If genealogies are not intended to be taken as literal birth records, they are useless.<br /><br />I wonder what no literal fall means. No literal redemption? No literal eternal life? No literal sin? <br /><br />Your spin is nonsense Dan. Your treatment of OT history is philosophically and biblically unjustified and unjustifiable. I have said that repeatedly. Your belief that the Old Testament is written with the same intent Greek mythology is arbitrary and unjustified. Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-13148642851313642102015-04-20T11:28:08.552-04:002015-04-20T11:28:08.552-04:00One further thing to consider about Luke's &qu...One further thing to consider about Luke's "reliability" (and again, I think that Luke's stories ARE reliable, rightly understood)...<br /><br />Luke reports Jesus saying in Luke 24...<br /><br /><i>Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."<br /></i><br /><br />Now, do you believe in ghosts?<br /><br />I will assume you do not. And if so, good for you.<br /><br />Now, Jesus speaking to his disciples after his death, assures him that he's not a ghost (or disembodied spirit, if you prefer). Why would Jesus do that if there are no such things as ghosts/disembodied spirits?<br /><br />Does Jesus mentioning something that doesn't exist mean that Jesus' words (or Luke's) are unreliable? Or was he simply speaking to the people of the day in the context of that day.<br /><br />I'd argue the latter.<br /><br />Luke, in Luke 1, is offering the known genealogy of Jesus, as best as it was known. He had no reasons to guess it may not be entirely factual, and its exact factually accurate nature is not the point. In the same way, in that culture, it appears that a belief in disembodied spirits existed. Luke has Jesus speaking to that belief, as it was the belief common to the day?<br /><br />Why wouldn't Jesus use the notion of ghosts, even if there are no such thing as ghosts? Why wouldn't Luke offer the best known genealogy, even if it isn't perfectly accurate? Does either of them operating out of the context of the day indicate that the text is unreliable?<br /><br />Absolutely not. And so, I don't think Luke - or any biblical texts - are unreliable and this is directly contrary to your claim of fact...<br /><br /><i>You deny that Luke's writings are reliable <br />(he was wrong to include Adam and Seth in his genealogy).</i> <br /><br />I do NOT deny Luke's writings are reliable.<br />I do NOT say he was wrong to include Adam in his genalogy.<br /><br />Mistake and mistake.<br /><br />I think your difficulty is that you must imagine that I am treating the Bible as a history book, told in a more modern sense of history. I don't.<br /><br />I think the Bible is a glorious book of Truths, not factual history.<br /><br />Now, IF I were making the claim "I think that the Bible is a factual history book with no historical factual inconsistencies" THEN, for me to say that Adam is a mythic character might be considered unreliable.<br /><br />But I don't make that claim. You may, but I don't. Not at all.<br /><br />I think to treat the Bible as a history or science book is disrespectful and degrades the nature of the Bible as a great book of Truth.<br /><br />So, perhaps that's where your blind spot is: In presuming that I'm starting with the same human presumptions that you hold.<br /><br />Regardless, again, it has been clearly demonstrated that your claims are factually mistaken.<br /><br />Will you man up and admit your error and move on?<br /><br />Or will you double down on the error and cling to factual errors in spite of reality?<br /><br />Ball's in your court.<br /><br />DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-53923129531127473642015-04-20T08:26:31.510-04:002015-04-20T08:26:31.510-04:00Look, Ed, I'll help you out. What you COULD sa...Look, Ed, I'll help you out. What you COULD say with some confidence:<br /><br />I, Ed Dingess, don't see how one could consider Luke's books to be anything less than 100% factual history without making the whole thing invalid and unreliable. That is how it seems to me, Ed Dingess.<br /><br />You COULD say that, if that's what you believe. But just because you, Ed Dingess, might see it that way doesn't mean that Dan Trabue does. Dan Trabue, as a point of fact, DOES consider Luke's books to be reliable, as long as you don't treat it like a modern history book, because it is not a modern history book and to treat it like that is a modernist bias, presuming that ancient people should tell stories the way that we do.<br /><br />Look, there are histories of Julius Caesar, right? <br /><br /><i>"The historian Suetonius reported that Julius saw a divine messenger who urged him to cross."</i><br /><br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/09/historians-reject-the-bible-story/#ixzz3Xqqrv2vf<br /><br />Some of those histories of Julius Caesar contain miraculous events. Does that mean that historians treat those histories as "unreliable?" OR, do they recognize that the record is reliable, but that we need to recognize that it isn't written like a modern history would be, that we need to recognize that there may be fantastic elements mixed in with more literal history, because that was the style of the day. Is Suetonius then "unreliable" and ignored by historians? Not at all! Historians just read with the realization of the context of the text.<br /><br />Perfect literal historical accuracy of facts is not necessary for something to be reliable. The problem is not in the text, it is in how you treat it. If you treat it as a text of its day, then you get reliable information/stories. IF you treat it as a modern history or science book, not so much. But that does not make the text unreliable, only the reader.<br /><br />I hope now you can see the claim that Dan thinks Luke is unreliable is a literal false claim and then repent of that false claim. It's an error, you made a mistake. There's no problem in that, it happens all the time. The error would be in refusing to see reality for what it is and admit the error.<br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-82632092691297164912015-04-20T07:32:07.210-04:002015-04-20T07:32:07.210-04:00What then does it make it? Naive?
It makes it Luk...<i>What then does it make it? Naive?</i><br /><br />It makes it Luke's attempt to record Jesus' story as accurately as he could. Thus, it only becomes unreliable when you try to make it into something it's not.<br /><br />The fct remains, I do not consider Luke's history's unreliable. I only consider YOUR spin on Luke unreliable.<br /><br />Do you truly not see the difference? Are you so blinded by your emotional cultural biases that you can't sort out fact from falsehood?<br /><br />Regardless, my point stands: your claims are riddled with falsehoods and half-truths, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. May God open your eyes and soften your hard heart, dear Ed.<br /><br />DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-76676521376703275182015-04-20T06:00:52.975-04:002015-04-20T06:00:52.975-04:00So the fact that Luke's reporting was WRONG, r...So the fact that Luke's reporting was WRONG, regardless of what the nature of that reporting was, does not make Luke's reporting unreliable? What then does it make it? Naive? <br /><br />Your spin proves my point Dan. Only you and your mommy can't see that your spin is nothing more than a rhetorical rescuing device employed so well by politicians and emergent church pseudo-Christians. <br /><br />You are essentially saying that your philosophical presupposition about myth in the OT is right and that must mean Luke was wrong. You also disagreed with Paul as well. In fact, anywhere a writer writes with authority, you reduce their writing to mere opinion, using your own philosophical presupposition as the criteria for doing so. And your presuppositions about Scripture are sheer poppycock aimed at giving you a god you can like and a version of Christianity you can embrace. In other words, your mind is made up a priori and anything that threatens your worldview, you engineer some literary rescuing device so that you can continue with your delusional club of immoral, God-hating, commandment-breaking chaps.Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-22546253678533254322015-04-19T21:56:12.608-04:002015-04-19T21:56:12.608-04:00I've already done that, Ed. You ignored the co...I've already done that, Ed. You ignored the correction.<br /><br />But here's one more, just to throw you a bone that you can then ignore again. Or, better yet, that you can recognize as a mistake and correct it.<br /><br />I do NOT deny that Luke's writings are reliable. I REJECT the notion that Luke's writings are not reliable. I further reject your modernist imposition of modern standards on his writings, insisting that Luke should have written in the way that you would have written it.<br /><br />Just because Luke reported a genealogy as best he knew to report it does not make it unreliable, even if it turned out it was a mistaken genealogy. <br /><br />So, as a point of fact in the real world, I have never said that Luke's writings are unreliable and I do not believe them to be unreliable.<br /><br />You, sir, are factually mistaken. You are conflating your opinion (that Luke would not have written a genealogy with a possible mistake or undocumented data in it and to do so would make Luke's book unreliable) with fact (none of that is a fact).<br /><br />Will you admit your mistake?<br /><br />Humble yourself, brother. Demonstrate that you are capable of admitting errors and that you do not conflate Ed's opinion with God's Word.<br /><br />~DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-75028503584829950622015-04-19T16:59:36.787-04:002015-04-19T16:59:36.787-04:00Dan, you could provide one conclusion about you th...Dan, you could provide one conclusion about you that I am wrong about. For your edification, I will state the most basic ones again:<br /><br />1. You deny that Scripture is authoritative and binding.<br />2. You deny that the Bible is the Word of God.<br />3. You deny that Luke's writings are reliable (he was wrong to include Adam and Seth in his genealogy).<br />4. Paul's writings are simply reflective of Paul's own personal opinions; they are not binding nor authoritative.<br />5. The creation account is a myth rather than an actually historical record of what actually took place.<br />6. The Stories of God ordering the genocide of the people of Canaan in the OT are myths, not to be take as actual history.<br />7. Any God that would damn a 16 year old to eternal hell is unjust.<br />8. Gay sex is as holy as heterosexual sex.<br />9. Gay marriage is ordained of God.<br />10. People can practice gay sex and love God both at the same time with no condemnation whatsoever.<br />11. You attend, or endorse a group that calls itself a Baptist community that receives practicing homosexuals as bonafide Christians.<br /><br />There...pick those that are a lie or merely based off a hunch.Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-2302209902539965552015-04-19T09:54:51.676-04:002015-04-19T09:54:51.676-04:00And for the last time, Ed: That I disagree and rej...And for the last time, Ed: That I disagree and reject YOUR HUMAN HUNCHES is not the same as disagreeing with God. I do not conflate Ed with God, you really should repent of doing the same.<br /><br />And yes, as a matter of fact, people CAN read my words and see that you are extrapolating meaning out of them that I have not said nor do I believe. And how do I, Dan Trabue, KNOW that you have assigned meaning to my words that I don't believe? Because I AM Dan Trabue and I am in a better position to know what Dan believes than Ed is, Ed being a complete stranger to me.<br /><br />That Ed thinks he knows better than Dan what Dan means is indicative of Ed's problem with Scripture. It appears that, in Ed's World, if Ed believes it, then it is "true" and a "fact," regardless of reality.<br /><br />Humble yourself, brother,<br /><br />In the deep and abiding love of Christ,<br /><br />DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-91122797398785062252015-04-19T06:55:28.184-04:002015-04-19T06:55:28.184-04:00Additionally, your claim that the Scriptures are n...Additionally, your claim that the Scriptures are not authoritative, not binding, is sheer poppycock and born out of a spirit of antichrist. You do NOT know Him because you reject His words and even dare to call gay sex holy sex, pure sex, the kind of sex God had in mind from the beginning.Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-17099469814584085632015-04-19T06:52:46.903-04:002015-04-19T06:52:46.903-04:00People can go read the com box Dan and see that yo...People can go read the com box Dan and see that you are using Rob Bell tactics...saying it while saying you are not saying it.<br /><br />The blog averages between 15-30 thousand reads a month for your information.<br /><br />I not only understand your words Dan, I understand their logical end which is where I drive your statements and this is what you object to more than anything. Your rejection of Paul's authority, Luke's reliability, God's design for marriage, and the historicity of the creation account, along with the God of the OT is enough to dismiss you as a modern Marcionite seeking to resurrect ancient heresies. You emergent types are good at that sort of thing.Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4201628496305035793.post-48955951942089496292015-04-18T17:49:02.320-04:002015-04-18T17:49:02.320-04:00Just popping in to make the one clarifying comment...Just popping in to make the one clarifying comment for any readers (if you have any readers) who may happen through here:<br /><br />Suffice to say that anytime that Ed says, "Dan (or Ted) claims..." he is factually mistaken. Ed has consistently not correctly stated what I believe. And those few times he has correctly repeated what I've actually believe, he misunderstands or misstates other points. Like, for instance, the claim in the last post that my opinions ARE my opinions, and that I'm not speaking authoritatively for God. THAT is a correct fact. But what he leaves out is that ED's opinions are, likewise, Ed's opinions and that he is not speaking authoritatively for God.<br /><br />So, the mistake there is in his mistake of arrogance, to presume that he is speaking for God, not offering his own opinions.<br /><br />Anyway, it may be helpful if anyone actually reads this to, when you find Ed saying "Dan believes..." to simply change it to read, "Dan almost certainly does not believe..." and then, we'll be closer to the facts.<br /><br />Ed, again, if you can't understand my words, written in your own language in your own culture and century, on what basis should we trust your personal human opinions about what Paul or Jesus thought, written 2,000 years ago in a language and culture not your own? Your own words undermine you, buddy.<br /><br />Be a man. Repent, or at least stop making false claims.<br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.com