ty tribbs

Mystical Magical Moun’ain Mormon

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

RIP Norm

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@TeeplesCY 😂

[Frank Turek @DrFrankTurek]

What if Mormonism's view of God undermines its entire claim to be true Christianity? @dr_owenanderson unpacks a philosophical problem that strikes at the heart of LDS theology.
#LDS #Mormons
👉📱 https://t.co/xm4FDWqiwt

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@DrFrankTurek @dr_owenanderson The Philosophy of Frank and Owen: “Mormonism is impossible because it contradicts classical theism. Classical theism is true because it contradicts Mormonism.”

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@AGBroadBunny @earlyvotedata Yep!

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@gaptoothdummy What do you think is meant by Great Apostasy?

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

I agree coherence matters. My pushback is that coherence alone doesn’t establish truth per se. I would also pushback on the idea of authorial consensus among the biblical authors. Two theological systems can be internally consistent yet contradict each other. I’m also not convinced the biblical authors or God expected every mystery to fit within a single theological framework. Harmonization can be useful but it’s not the be all and end all for me

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

I think that’s a fair historical question. I don’t think independent attestation is the standard Christians use for accepting revelation. The resurrection, Paul’s apostleship, prophetic claims, and numerous fulfillment readings ultimately depend on trusting witnesses who claim divine authority or via personal revelation. JS certainly invites historical scrutiny. it seems the decisive factor isn’t whether every claim can be verified but whether the witness is called. In both cases we’re being asked to decide whether God acted through particular people and whether their testimonies should be trusted

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

I think this reinforces my point. The same interpretive freedoms Christians grant to biblical authors are going to be granted to JS by LDS audiences. You may reject JS’ claim to revelation, but that is ultimately a question of authority. The method itself doesn’t seem fundamentally different from what we see in the NT. While I find your hermeneutic internally consistent, I’m not convinced it makes the best sense of either the Bible or JS. Once you acknowledge that inspired authors can identify meanings that go beyond the original historical context, the debate shifts from hermeneutics to authority and who is authorized to do that

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

I appreciate the thoughtful responses. My pushback is that the NT authors don’t appear to operate with modern exegesis as their sole interpretive method. Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 is a good example. In its original context Hosea is referring to Israel’s past, yet Matthew applies it to Jesus. Christians typically justify this as typology, but that’s already an interpretive framework that goes beyond straightforward exegesis. Why does Matthew repurpose the text? If the answer is inspiration or apostolic authority, then we’re already operating with something more than exegesis alone. I’m not convinced the line between “exegesis” and “reinterpretation” is as clean as it is often presented. Similarly doctrines such as creation ex nihilo are often presented as the obvious meaning of the text, when historically they emerged through theological reflection on the text

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@NMarbletoe @BereanHouse These are some of the doctrines that Christians insist are critical identity markers. I agrees these aren’t as important as the greatest commandments (mitzvah)

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@abrasive_noodle For similar reasons the NT authors repurposed the OT to fit its own narrative. Also, the anarthrous theos is distinct from ho theos. Completely in bounds for John’s Christology

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

To be fair, Scripture doesn’t explicitly teach creation ex nihilo, consubstantiality, a closed canon, cessationism, or eternal conscious torment. These doctrines were developed through interpretation and reflection. Whether one agrees with those conclusions or not, they illustrate that important doctrines can later emerge rather than being stated explicitly by the NT authors themselves

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@dttpeople Yeah… no.

https://t.co/uT66glX5wc

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

Scholar of Gospel of John on Human Deification

Hugo Mendez on CJ Cornthwaite’s podcast

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@ryanswalters73

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@NateSilver538

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

You haven’t even acknowledged the tensions within the NT much less resolved them. Romans 2, James 2, Matthew 25, and Hebrews haven’t been addressed. So far you’ve treated reformed conclusions as inspired rather than demonstrating them from the text. I’ll be happy to compare theologies when you don’t ignore other parts of the NT

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

Oops indeed. Paul’s complaint wasn’t that Christians have covenant obligations. It was that Gentiles didn’t have to become Jews through circumcision and Torah observance to belong to God’s covenant people. Yet Paul affirms baptism, the Lord’s Supper, laying on of hands, church offices, marriage, obedience, perseverance, and final judgment according to works. James says faith without works is dead. Peter says baptism now saves. John ties eternal life to abiding and obedience. Hebrews emphasizes covenant faithfulness, ordinances, priesthood. So the NT clearly contains covenant ordinances, covenant obligations, and judgment according to works. You can choose to ignore the big picture

[ty tribbs @tytrib]

@MikeSMillerArt Are you thinking of 2 Tim 3:16?