Dunn's Christology

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:36 am

darinhouston wrote:
Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:16 pm
dwight92070 wrote:
Thu Dec 29, 2022 8:33 pm
Sarcasm - definition: 1. A sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2. A mode of satirical wit depending for it's effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an
individual
Sarcastic - definition: 1. Mean, marked by bitterness and a power or will to cut or sting. Sarcastic implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding,
taunting, or ridiculing
2. Implies scorn, mockery, or derision that is manifested by either verbal or facial expression

So you acknowledge using this type of language and even stand by it. All the more reason for the moderator to give you a public warning, because I thought the Bible Forum does not tolerate bitter, cutting, stinging, caustic remarks, designed to inflict pain, deride, taunt, ridicule, scorn or mock an individual.
If the moderator takes no action against your admitted behavior, then we will all know that there is no equal treatment of participants in the Bible Forum.
Yes, and I choose this definition... though expanded slightly since that dictionary is a bit narrow in its semantic range.

2. A mode of satirical wit depending for it's effect on ... ironic language that is usually directed against an individual['s positions, actions or attitude]



This article may interest you... it's a time honored rhetorical tradition and can be quite appropriate and useful at times.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... f-sarcasm/


So I see you added to(or expanded - actually, made up) a dictionary meaning to make it appear that your sarcasm was directed at my {positions, my actions, or my attitude} , not directed against me as an individual, as the actual definition states. This is your first attempt at covering up the real meaning. Then your second attempt is by presenting an article that very poorly endeavors to put a positive spin on sarcasm, even though it admits that sarcasm is almost always like a poison. As I stated previously, here is a perfect example of your attempt to disguise your cutting remarks as something that is actually positive and creative and (here comes your flowery words) "a time honored rhetorical tradition (that) can be quite appropriate and useful at times." What? Where does the dictionary say that?? Cutting, derisive, caustic, bitter, scornful, ridiculing, mocking language designed to sting an individual (in this case, me) "can be quite appropriate and useful at times"??? So was this one of those times??? The extent that you will go to, to disavow any wrongdoing, is really shameful. We'll see if the moderator fulfills his duty and publicly warns you, or if he allows you to be treated as if you are someone special, who is above the rest of us, who doesn't need to abide by the Bible Forum standards.
Sarcasm is not your only violation. You also falsely accused me by stating what you thought my opinion of Dunn was. According to you, I think Dunn is Biblically ignorant (he's never seen those verses before) and an idiot. Totally false! I never said that or thought that. Will you also try to put a positive spin on this false accusation??

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by darinhouston » Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:14 am

Sarcasm frequently includes elements of falsity to make a point - and is often intended to be biting and elicit a response and/or change but is not always intended to hurt. In your case, I was hoping you would see how frustrating your posts can be and change your behavior. Dictionary definitions are snapshots in semantic range by a single authority and your attempt to use a particular one to tell me what I meant by use of a term is consistent with your assault with lists of scriptures intending to limit discussion and govern a particular effort by others to expand and understand issues more broadly than a particular English translation might do out of context. Your offense is misplaced and I would suggest more self reflection.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:56 pm

darinhouston wrote:
Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:14 am
Sarcasm frequently includes elements of falsity to make a point - and is often intended to be biting and elicit a response and/or change but is not always intended to hurt. In your case, I was hoping you would see how frustrating your posts can be and change your behavior. Dictionary definitions are snapshots in semantic range by a single authority and your attempt to use a particular one to tell me what I meant by use of a term is consistent with your assault with lists of scriptures intending to limit discussion and govern a particular effort by others to expand and understand issues more broadly than a particular English translation might do out of context. Your offense is misplaced and I would suggest more self reflection.
It's quite telling that a list of verses from the Bible would frustrate you, and that you actually consider my listing them as an assault. Anyone who loves truth will welcome Bible verses, whether the verses agree with their theology or not. Tell me, which of the verses I listed was taken out of context? All of them were in the context of worshiping Jesus, which Dunn claims the early Christians did not do, or that they did not worship Him as God. If what Dunn says about some early Christians is correct, then they were simply wrong - some to the point of idolatry. But these verses show that the earliest Christians (the disciples and the New Testament authors) did worship Him - and we also know from the Bible that worship is reserved only for God. If anyone in history or anyone in the Bible worshiped a human, who is not God, they were simply wrong and they were committing idolatry. Apparently you prefer speculation, or even historical narratives, from a Bible scholar which doesn't line up with those verses. That is to say, possibly some early Christians were deceived by not worshiping Jesus, or they were deceived by thinking they could worship Jesus, but not as God. The presentation by Dunn seems to portray his "conversion" from believing in the Deity of Jesus and His preexistence, to no longer believing either of those - strictly because of what he says the early Christians believed. If some early Christians were drawn away from those two doctrines, or even never believed them, that doesn't make their beliefs correct. You need to be willing to accept someone (me) whose posts aren't done exactly the way you want them done. Dictionaries have almost always been the standard by which we can know the true meaning of words, just as the Bible is the standard of truth. It's not a good thing to add to a dictionary definition a meaning that you want a particular word to have - sarcasm, for example. You were being sarcastic and you were mocking. There's no excuse for that. You were wrong. You were not displaying the character of Christ there. It's that simple and it's that plain. Why not just admit it and turn from such behavior and attempts to deny it?

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by darinhouston » Fri Dec 30, 2022 3:51 pm

Suffice it to say that the author starts with the entire premise of his book with those verses in mind but doesn't just take them at face value in English but then takes each of those (and more) uses of the underlying terms which are often translated as "worship" and digs into them to understand the nuances (and sometimes clear distinctions) between them (incidentally, those differences often not found in dictionaries), and so forth and so on...

Beyond that, I do not wish to continue this discussion or else I probably will have something to apologize for.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:12 pm

You crossed that line 3 days ago and I'm still waiting.
Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Matthew 5:23-24

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:40 pm

It sounds like you have a lot of pent-up anger. I'm praying for you that you can find relief from that.

Otherness
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by Otherness » Sun Jan 01, 2023 6:42 pm

The New Testament (e.g., Matthew 10: 37-40; Luke 14: 26) makes it quite clear that disciples are to be (at least) as Christ-centered as the Old Testament had (through the Law) commanded Israel to be God-centered. This total (complete, absolute, perfect) abandonment of the self to “THE OTHER” is the very ontology of worship. This, inevitably, led to the development of the high Christology of the trinitarian formulation as Christian theological understanding matured under the disciplined thought of God's word.

A “word” is an expressed thought, and the Word (of John 1) is the Expression of the Thought that God has of Himself : this Word (the “HIM” of John 1:3) was God (God was the Word) and the Word was WITH God (John 1:2). This DYNAMIC of the Being of God is (in His Eternal Being) His Creative State : the Alpha/Omega of Creation. This is not an “act of creation,” rather, it is, in His own Eternal Being, His own Expression of Himself. This “reification” of Himself, in Himself, is a “choice” He freely (Sovereignly) makes in His desire to create that which He desires to create : the Body of Christ. NOW creation begins on this (Alpha/Omega) Rock that His Being IS, and the created beings He has in mind are necessarily the predestined fruit of this creative dynamic. Predestined...because what the Expression (off-spring) of God IS...already exists with Him in His own (Uncreated) Being.

This “HIM” (this “I” : this Person-al Being of John 1:3) incarnated (John 1:14). That is, this (simple) “I” clothed (fully identified) Himself (His Person-al Being) with the reality of being a created being. In doing this, and living the Life He lived (suffering, dying, rising), He “became” all things for (to) all men so that all men might be saved. We worship (cling to) Him because of Who He IS for each of us, our Lord and Savior.

The more we think rightly of Him, and even more importantly, the more we take Him (completely) to heart, the more (the better) we love each other. And it is in our loving each other that we are truly demonstrating our thankfulness to (for) Him. We owe it to Him to be as patient with each other as we (so easily) are with ourselves as we work out, in communion with the Holy Spirit, our own understanding of Him within ourselves.

dizerner

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by dizerner » Mon Jan 02, 2023 12:43 am

You know they hate your "flowery" language!

In plainer words, the Son is the spitting image of the Father given as the bread of life by bearing our sins and resurrecting us through death.

Otherness
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by Otherness » Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:23 am

dizerner>>>You know they hate your "flowery" language!<<<

I don't know about that...hate is kinda a strong word. In any case, these "conversations" shouldn't matter more than we matter to each other. We are (to be a) peculiar people...we, the Body of Christ. Love is the first principle of this Kingdom we have been translated into, so all these "issues" we bring with us will eventually be subjected by (to) Him (1 Corinthians 15:28, Philippians (3:21).

dizerner

Re: Dunn's Christology

Post by dizerner » Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:08 am

I'm aware that hate is a "kinda strong word," lol.

Guess lucky you hasn't slogged through all the posts... I recommend you don't.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”