Comments for Professor Obvious

Comment on Dowry and Bride Price Are Not the Same Thing by bgansel9

bgansel9 — Mon, 14 May 2012 17:00:29 +0000

Did women who were the subject of the dowry have any say in how the dowry was used? The provisions made? The secure storage of said funds? Who would dole it out to her upon the husband’s death?

Comment on “Judge not, lest you be judged”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #3 by Les Burch

Les Burch — Sun, 13 May 2012 22:01:02 +0000

Jason – thanks for this article – it helped me compress the space to explain and you offered some perspecitves I hadn’t run into. One of the best realizations is that Jesus didn’t denounce the judging of another – just the sequence of taking stock of your own house first.

What else did I like – your side trip to lechery. I find curiosity to be a fun trait.

Looking forward to reading other posts.

Comment on “Judge not, lest you be judged”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #3 by Judge Lest Ye Be Admonished (Part 3) | The Way We Think

Judge Lest Ye Be Admonished (Part 3) | The Way We Think — Sun, 13 May 2012 20:29:01 +0000

[...] plentiful on the web, for instance: Provocative Bible Verses: Judge Not Lest You Be Judged or http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2009/misinterpreted-bible-passages-3-judge-not-lest-you-be-judged-2… [...]

Comment on Stick Man Jonah More Unprecedented Than Previously Realized by Allen

Allen — Sun, 13 May 2012 19:33:09 +0000

Even the rock art uses fairly thick lines, much unlike “Jonah.”

Comment on A Bald Man, Two Bears, and Forty-two “Children”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #6 by Nick

Nick — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:06:19 +0000

You can’t prove there is, so what’s your point? There is not a god until you can come up with the compelling evidence for there being one. For all the things that may or may not be, we don’t consider them to exist until we see reason for them to be so.
Funny how indirectly rejecting god can be taken, making fun of a bald man, is somehow to be known as rejecting god just because he was a prophet, so that’s deserving to be mauled by bears? LOL. Nice intellectual gymnastics to protect your psychopath in the sky.

Comment on Stick Man Jonah More Unprecedented Than Previously Realized by Steve Caruso

Steve Caruso — Thu, 10 May 2012 01:46:56 +0000

Mr. Page,

With all due respect, allow me to quote the pertinent wisdom of Robert “Bob” Parr as portrayed by Craig T. Nelson:

“Fly home, Buddy.”

Peace,
-Steve

Comment on My JBL Article on “All Israel will be saved” in Rom 11:25-27 is Now Available by Jason A. Staples

Jason A. Staples — Wed, 09 May 2012 05:02:22 +0000

Thanks for the reply, Gene. My argument is that Paul did speak of the restoration of Israel by identifying the faithful Gentiles as Israelites. That’s the essence of my argument. From what I gathered from your first post, you read “parts” of my article but not all of it. The middle section addresses this part of your question, although I had to leave quite a bit out that will be in my dissertation.

The entire dispute about circumcision is nonsense unless one of the parties was claiming that the Gentiles had full Israelite status without physical circumcision. “Righteous Gentiles” had been a standard feature within Judaism and ancient Israelite theology for centuries, with textual precedent as far back as the Exodus narrative. These Gentiles never needed to be circumcised unless they wanted full Israelite privilege, unless they wanted to be “grafted into” the assembly of Israel, in which case they needed to be circumcised. (That word “assembly” is another key, as it denotes the full body of Israel in the LXX and is used for the Christian community in the NT.) Paul’s claim was that physical circumcision was no longer necessary for Israelite status, since the Spirit had produced a circumcision of the heart that had already marked them out as members of the New Covenant and therefore members of Israel.

As far as the Jerusalem Council, we only have Acts’ version of what was said in that meeting, and even in Acts’ version, they apply scripture about the restoration of a full twelve-tribe Israel to the Gentiles. Take from that what you will.

If Paul does not see the Gentiles coming to faith as a necessary component of the restoration of “all Israel,” Romans 9–11 (11:25–27 in particular) is incoherent, as is the central portion of Romans 2. Likewise Paul’s claim that he is a “minister of the new covenant,” which is a covenant with Israel and Judah but not Gentiles. So, Paul regularly cites scripture about the north with reference to Gentile converts, claims his apostleship “to the Gentiles” is the fulfillment of “the new covenant” (a covenant with Israel and Judah but not the Gentiles), has to defend his claim that these Gentiles are full members of the “assembly” (a term typically used for the full body of Israel in the LXX) without circumcision (which would not be a controversial issue without a claim to Israelite status), and makes the “circumcision of the heart” by means of the Spirit the centerpiece of his defense. Add that data up, and it points rather clearly to Paul believing faithful Gentiles were Israelites and that their ingathering was necessary for God to keep his promise to “all Israel.”