Biblicist
Full Gospel believer
- Mar 27, 2011
- 7,023
- 992
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
So Garland ‘waffles’ does he! You should undoubtedly go back and take a fresh look at his book (maybe with a friend) where you should both be able to observe that he addresses this particular pericope (being vss.8-13) starting on pg.620 and finishing on pg.626 and of course much of pg.622 covers his views on teleion.Garland, after all his waffle, spends just one sentence explaining why he thinks teleios is the parousia. You have quoted it here before and I was easily able to refute it. Thiselton if I recall spends most of his time quoting the views of other authors and doesn't really make a judgement himself although he agrees it should be translated 'completeness' . I haven't read ciampa/rosner.
As a hint, before you state that you have ‘refuted’ something, you should probably first understand the material before you go down this particular track. As I have said to you and a number of other cessationists, the best defence for the cessationist worldview is silence.
As you were the one who raised their names back in post #898 with;Tell me, how exactly does their names not appearing in other commentaries constitute refuting their expositions?
“That is not true. There have been many recent commentaries of this passage that espouse the canon/maturity view . . .”
If you want to point to reputable sources then these sources need to be peer reviewed and from what I have seen in the major contemporary commentaries on First Corinthians the ones that you referred to have been ignored by the Christian academy. I should say that I found two obscure references to M.J. Houghton and R.L. Thomas within Fitzmyer’s 687 page commentary but they were not referred to in the body of his commentary but as obscure footnotes which says that he is aware of them but has not addressed their material.
For any commentator who has ever had material published on First Corinthians (or any book for that matter), when a sizable commentary by a highly respected author comes on the market then the first thing that these people will do is to go to the author’s list to see if their names have been included; in the case of the four that you mentioned they probably stopped doing this years back.
We already have in quite a few posts. If you choose to ignore the evidence simply because it undermines your particular worldview then we cannot be responsible if it upsets your agenda, whatever your agenda may be.As I said instead of slandering them why don't you refute their expositions? I'll tell you why. Resorting to the ad-hominum fallacy is typical of people who cannot refute an argument. Instead they attempt to blacken their opponents' reputation, hoping that enough mud will stick so that others won't want to be associated with it. It is a vile and shameful tactic.
Upvote
0