Comments on: Blogging with Dr. Barry, Part 5

By: MSH

MSH — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:55:05 +0000

@James Raymond: I should also add that idea, though (rightly) freely spoken, do not intrinsically have equal merit – that is called “debate”.

By: MSH

MSH — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:54:30 +0000

@James Raymond: I’m not sure where you come from, but on what planet do the inhabitants merely speak freely and no one every responds (freely)? It’s called “discourse” – I say something, you say something back. Your freedom to say X doesn’t mean you can expect no disagreement from someone who says Y. ??

By: James Raymond

James Raymond — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:12:19 +0000

James Raymond…

Why is it that we execute our free speech, and yet we still get verbally slammed for speaking our mind?…

By: ufosd01

ufosd01 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:36:16 +0000

Thanks Michael, now if I can get you and Barry talking to each other with the same respect I feel I will have really accomplished something good maybe
even constructive.
Thanks again.

By: MSH

MSH — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:02:20 +0000

@ufosd01: I have to say I don’t doubt Barry’s love for Christ — but his theology ends up denying what the NT says about Christ in some significant ways. His thinking is poor, but that isn’t to be equated with his sincerity.

By: MSH

MSH — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:01:07 +0000

@ufosd01: A few slices of your post:

1. “My questions related to three points of reference you answered one, one of the text I was questioning, the one you gave answer to, was where God said he was not going to continue with Israel to the promise land in person, but would send an angel to guide and guard them on the way,,,to me it seems God can leave even being Omnipresent,,,,, which in part challenges our understanding on omnipresence.”

I follow you here. The issue is that, despite omnipresence as a spirit, God did indeed (many times) localize his presence in some way that would be discernible to the human senses (e.g., cloud, fire, the Angel of YHWH, etc.). If he “localized” or manifested specifically, he could still leave and yet be an ever-present spirit. I think we’d agree both are true and work in tandem.

Exod 23:20-23 was a significant focus of my dissertation, actually. This angel “was but wasn’t” Yahweh (basically in the same way Christians understand Jesus to “be and not be” God – i.e., Jesus was God incarnate, but he wasn’t God the Father (he was the “Son” yet still the same essence as the Father. This idea comes straight from the OT (and used to be part of Judaism until the 2nd century AD – see Alan Segal’s great book, Two Powers in Heaven). When God tells Moses that “my name is in” this particular Angel, he speaks of his essence or presence (there’s a lot of good work done on this idea – the “Name theology” of Israelite religion – the “Name” is basically another way of referring to Yahweh). Note that Deut 4:37 says that God’s “presence” led the people out of Egypt, but here in Exod 23:20-23, it’s the Angel. It’s both, and so we have Yahweh embodied here (and a number of other passages). The embodied Yahweh was the precursor to the incarnate Yahweh (Jesus), and in the NT some of the Name and Angel passages are applied to Jesus.

By: MSH

MSH — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:15:07 +0000

@korshi: Dever is probably the majority view. Hoffmeier has spent decades on this topic, and his two books on the subject are excellent. It’s really about presuppositions and the way data are framed in light of those presuppositions.

By: korshi

korshi — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:54:13 +0000

meant *as a text in Baptist seminaries

By: korshi

korshi — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:52:56 +0000

Sorry, this is a bit tangential, but I was researching the historical literature on the Exodus recently for an undergraduate subject, and it seemed to me that Dever represented the mainstream view. I did try to seek out more ‘conservative’ scholars for balance, and read some work by James K Hoffmeier (as well as Old Testament Survey: the Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament by La Sor et al, which I understand is used as seminaries); but these didn’t seem to really contest the basic points he was making regarding the historicity of the Exodus. Which scholars disagree substantially with his work, and what are their opinions?

By: aeneas

aeneas — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:19:28 +0000

Thanks Mike for adding this entry. I know it may be boring for you, but I deal with people every day who demonstrate this kind of sloppy thinking. It is a good exercise in critical thinking for anybody in education to see, especially when there are not too many other people out there addressing these kinds of wild ideas. And I can say with confidence that there are many young people today who are too easily swayed by people who sound credible, even if they don’t have clear thinking and facts to back them up. So, again, thanks for finishing this up.