Christ opposed to lawyers? Briefly: Part 1

Photo: LinkedIn, Civil Engineering Discoveries London, England September 14 2021

Preface

Something different...

I came across these two videos on You Tube, Part 1 below. Mr. Pat Burns (1921-1996) was a controversial, political and somewhat philosophical, talk show host that my elders listened to.

I was at the time, a youth, so my understanding of what was being stated, was more limited than now. But his more philosophical statements interested me as I would overhear them as my elders listened to the radio. 

Radio Discussions 

Cited 

May 13, 2012

Legendary Broadcaster Pat Burns' Hotline Debuts in Vancouver 49 Years Ago Today

By Glen Livingstone

An outspoken defender of freedom of speech and freedom in general, the Runyunesque Burns - with his hard-right conservative views and a voice that suggested he began his morning ablutions by gargling with Drano - was the talk show host who gave Western Canadians a voice. He was fearless, thoughtful, and possessed a great sense of humour to boot.

Cited 

The "dolls" as Burns liked to refer to the female members of his listening audience -loved him - as did the station's advertisers who clamoured for airtime on his show.

Cited 

But in 1963 Pat himself was far too busy sifting through the personal death threats and fighting off the myriad of Board of Broadcast Governors ultimatums against him to pay any attention to the comings and goings of Jack Webster, a.k.a. "The Oatmeal Savage."

Cited 

"And when I say any topic under the sun I mean precisely that. For it doesn't matter to me if what you want to talk about is of a purely local nature, regional, provincial, state wide, national, international, philosophic, outer space or sports."

Sort of like my weekly (tonight for example) Zoom meetings. Saturday (or Sunday) night open topic Zoom meetings.

Cited

Sure, he could sometimes be a little rude to the "dolls" who called in, but along with his impeccable journalistic skills Pat knew that showmanship was also a part of the package and his brusque language and barbed insults added entertainment value to the show.

I am prayerfully not rude to anyone on Zoom. But, yes, I realize Mr. Burns added some drama for effect...

Paraphrased statements and my analysis from the You Tube video

Part 1

Roughly 22: 36 mark

Burns: Truth and integrity come from within, money can be obtained in a corrupt manner.

Reasonably true. Although, biblically, Jesus Christ is the ultimate human source of truth (John 14: 6). In other words, the triune Godhead is the ultimate source of truth, humanly represented in Jesus Christ.

Roughly 24: 20 mark

Burns: Basically lawyers are scum.

I do not agree with statement, as it is too absolute. In my adulthood, for example, I have embraced lawyers and the use of their services for legal protection. Part of the reason I am in a good financial standing at this point is because I received good legal advice from a now retired lawyer, that told me (paraphrased) 'My boy, do not leave my office until you agree to what I have suggested.' He was absolutely right, and my student loans and debt, were eliminated far sooner because of his fine, professional advice.

One has to know when he/she is the teacher, and when he/she is the student. I was the student...

Burns: If you do not believe me (in regards) to lawyers, think about what Christ said about them.

Burns cites Luke 11: 46

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

46 But He said, “Woe to you lawyers as well! For you load people with burdens that are hard to bear, [a]while you yourselves will not even [b]touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 

Footnotes (a) Luke 11:46 Lit and (b) Luke 11:46 I.e., to assist them

The New Testament context is religious, not secular.

In the New Testament context, Jesus Christ, God the Son, God incarnate, was criticizing religious scholars, the Scribes and the Pharisees, for their religious legalism, which missed the central points of serving God through faith credited as righteousness (Romans 4) and not by works righteousness.

Friday, January 11, 2019: Matthew 7: 21-23: The Lord, Lord people trust in works righteousness 

I noted from the article above...

Matthew 7:21-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ 

Biblically, in contrast, one that is saved, performs works in salvation, after being saved by grace through faith, not by works (Ephesians 2.8-10). Those that do the will of the Father in heaven are those that produce works (Ephesians, James) after the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is applied to him/her through regeneration (Titus 3), being born again (John 2). 

Author: Matthew B. Tozer 

Cited

In conclusion, the Scriptures do not appear to specifically comment on the professional, secular attorney at law. Rather, Jesus denounced certain members of the Mosaic Law clergy who, at that time in history, were leading the lay people astray spiritually. The apostle Paul spoke favorably of Zenas the lawyer. But Zenas was, most likely, a former Mosaic law clergyman who converted to Christianity.

Yes...

An example is Jesus Christ commenting in Matthew 21: 28-32... 

Sunday, January 26, 2020 Matthew 21: 28-32 -- Devotional III 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

Courson cited:

'Jesus likened the prostitutes and publicans (tax-collectors, from the ESV) to the first son. They seemed unlikely candidates to receive John's message, but receive it they did.' On the other hand, like the second son, the pseudo-religious scribes and Pharisees gave only lip service to the preaching of John.' Courson (158).

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press. 

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

 

PhD: Twitter quote 101

Photo: You Tube October 8 2018

PhD: Twitter quote 101 

Edited from my PhD

Twitter version I

Erickson also reasons, interestingly, that God cannot undo the past (Erickson (1994: 277), although he may take away the effects and memory of it. Erickson (1994: 277). 

Twitter version II

God cannot logically violate his own nature, Erickson (1994: 277), Thiessen (1956: 126), Weber (1955)(1981: 440), or fail to live up to a promise. Erickson (1994: 277). 

From my PhD

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Twitter version III

The implication being that God could hypothetically change all the results of a past occurrence, but could not logically make the past occurrence to have not occurred, even if only he had any ultimate knowledge of it. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

archive search: omnipotence

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Cherry picking fallacy

Cherry picking fallacy

Photo: Visit Manchester, Manchester Cathedral

Preface

While living in Manchester, I did visit the Cathedral which was architecturally fairly interesting. I was not as impressed by the very liberal theology pamphlets that were on offer. 

The first place I lived in within Greater Manchester, was Crumpsall, and I used to do a very interesting walk from Crumpsall to well past this Cathedral in central Manchester.

One time a kind younger man in Crumpsall walked by me on the street and stated (paraphrased): 'Watch your back here, this is like the Bronx!' Interestingly, I visited the Bronx three years later.

Crumpsall seemed to be a more dangerous place than the Bronx, in my humble opinion, but I was (am) no expert.

Cherry picking fallacy (informal fallacy) 

Informal fallacies were reviewed in the Pirie text. This opposed to formal fallacies that are formal logic errors, that have been reviewed in Langer.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

Facebook Discussion

Citing Dean Hintz 

I do find it somewhat puzzling that so many people who used to follow the advice of authoritative agencies such as these now are inclined to dismiss them out of hand simply based on popular social media feeds.

My Facebook reply 

Cherry picking, may be taking place in some cases. 

Logically fallacious 

Cited

Cherry Picking (also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness) Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

One-sided argument 

Thursday, June 29, 2017 A one-sided argument

I have reviewed a one-sided argument, previously, edited.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

Many decisions persons may weigh in have advantages and disadvantages. The fallacy of one-sided assessment is fallen into when only one side of a case is taken into consideration. (158). 

Pros and cons should be evaluated in order to make judgements based on the balance. (158-159). This fallacy can err on only counting the advantages or disadvantages in regard to an issue. Relevant material is omitted from arguments in order to achieve a one-sided argument. (159). 

Providing two or more sides on an argument and supporting theology and philosophy with methodology was very much emphasized to me within my British academic studies at the University of Wales. Besides this approach providing more potential objectivity, at least, in the evaluation if arguments; it also disciplines the academic mind to reasonably consider alternative views. This is an approach which in theory should make an academic less biased and partisan.

Omitting the benefit

Tuesday, June 27, 2017 That idea would go over like an atomic bomb 

A one-sided argument is quite similar to omitting the benefit in the Pirie text. 

Cited 

When evaluating the benefits of an activity, both the good and bad consequence, should be considered. (157). If each may exist. A surprisingly (157) common fallacy consists of omitting the benefits produced by an activity or proposal and counting only the adverse consequences. (157).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Friendly Zoom debate & discussion

From Facebook 

I just finished hosting my sometimes, Saturday night (possibly Sunday night) open topic Zoom meeting 'World of Domes' (host is an exception). Tonight we mainly discussed the pandemic and vaccines. 

I appreciate Howard James Bartel for his libertarian stance and Dean Hintz for his scientific knowledge, and others. I am thankful we debated as friends. 

--- 

Blogger

I will add in this Blogger context, from last evening, Sir Robin (not on Facebook) was also appreciated for his political science and other contributions. 

It was four of us on extended at the end, but other friends contributed earlier as well.