tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post5433795738193168698..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Another Response to David, Part 4: Paul, Q and Groping TraditionsBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-12248625883321874292008-08-30T17:10:00.000-04:002008-08-30T17:10:00.000-04:00Dawson said: t comes as no surprise to find Christ...Dawson said: <I>t comes as no surprise to find Christians confused on this matter. In fact, it is no “silly quibble.” The absence of the objective theory of concepts is one of chief problems with any mystical worldview.</I><BR/><BR/>As a philosopher, do you find it intellectually honest to make such ambiguous statements in an attempt to buttress your usual "oh its no surprise that Christians do that.." rhetoric?<BR/><BR/>At least could you provide this?<BR/><BR/>1) Define a mystical worldview<BR/>2) Give one reason why Christianity lacks an objective theory of concepts <BR/>3) Provide at least a sentence explaining your worldview's objective basis for conceptsdavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-61548857982524376762008-08-29T11:13:00.000-04:002008-08-29T11:13:00.000-04:00Running low on content and high on rhetoric.1. Daw...Running low on content and high on rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>1. Dawson said <I>Though he most likely does not realize it, Ramm is propounding a falsehood.</I><BR/><BR/>No I think he’s talking about literary analysis (words are the building block of literary thought). Could it be that "word" has more than one simple meaning? Do you claim to have an objectivist epistemology? I would like to see how that works out in a naturalistic system.<BR/><BR/>2. Dawson: <I>" Besides, as far as I'm concerned, this point has been settled: it's a church title, not intended to denote a sibling relationship.</I><BR/><BR/>You wish it was settled, but I will be happy to continue demonstrating that this ad-hoc position about James is completely without merit. Of course seeing how stubborn you are when admitting error, I don’t see how that would do any good.<BR/><BR/>3. Dawson: <I>Comparing manuscripts is not the only way to know that something has been interpolated. Especially if there's a substantial interval between the time when the original is believed to have been penned and the date of our earliest extant copies. In the case of Paul's letters (including I Corinthians), the earliest copy we have Papyrus 46, which Griffin dates to AD 175-225, at the earliest AD 150, or at least if not more than 100 years after Paul originally wrote the letter. This interval provides more than ample opportunity for tampering with the text. Also, certain indicators within the text itself can give this away. For instance, in I Cor. 15 we find reference to "the twelve," which Paul never mentions elsewhere in his several letters. </I><BR/><BR/>If we argue from silence and assume “the twelve” was contextually unknown the audience yes. But I reject both of those assertions. At any rate, what other documents in ancient history do we have manuscripts dating within 100 years? Seems like an ad-hoc standard to me.<BR/><BR/>4. <I>Yes, Wells is now inclined to suppose that a real human being (not an incarnation of a divine being, mind you) was behind many of the stories and sayings which informed the primitive basis of the Christ cult. But if true, this is still totally damning to Christianity. Indeed, even if one does not accept Wells' overall conclusion, he still makes massive blows to the literalist interpretation of the New Testament, sufficiently so that I don't think it can recover. But confessionally invested believers will keep trying, I'm sure.</I><BR/><BR/>Ok my turn. Indeed, even if one does accept [some scholar’s] overall conclusion, he still makes massive blows to the hyper-skeptical interpretation of the New Testament, sufficiently so that I don’t think it can recover. But confessionally invested deconvertees will keep trying, I’m sure. :Pdavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36904794335030287592008-08-28T16:31:00.000-04:002008-08-28T16:31:00.000-04:00English Reconstruction and Translation ofMarcion's...<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/3827/EGalatians.PDF" REL="nofollow">English Reconstruction and Translation of<BR/>Marcion's version of To The Galatians</A><BR/><BR/>According to By Brooke Foss Westcott in "A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament" "Marcion preserved without alteration the text which he found in his Manuscript." p.320Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77463434223846295112008-08-28T13:51:00.000-04:002008-08-28T13:51:00.000-04:00Did Paul write Galatians ? by Frank R. McGuire<A HREF="http://www.hermann-detering.de/did_paul_write_galatians.htm" REL="nofollow">Did Paul write Galatians ? by Frank R. McGuire</A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-12883745388750441762008-08-28T13:35:00.000-04:002008-08-28T13:35:00.000-04:00Galatians chapter 1 at Perseus.tufts.eduadelphos r...<A HREF="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0155&query=head%3D%2317" REL="nofollow">Galatians chapter 1 at Perseus.tufts.edu</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?layout.reflang=greek;layout.refembed=2;layout.refwordcount=1;layout.refdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0155;layout.reflookup=a)delfo%2Fn;layout.refcit=book%3DGalatians%3Achapter%3D1%3Averse%3D19;doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%231212;layout.refabo=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C0031%2C009" REL="nofollow">adelphos reference from Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2353600" REL="nofollow">Kasignêtoio reference from Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon</A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-92039956044517299482008-08-28T13:27:00.000-04:002008-08-28T13:27:00.000-04:00Dawson correctly points out: *I have considered th...Dawson correctly points out: *I have considered the context of the passage in question in determining the meaning of “brother of the Lord,” for as I (and many others) have pointed out, Paul says “brother of the Lord, not “brother of Jesus.”*<BR/><BR/>An interesting thing about the use of adelphos is that the word has multiple meanings. It can mean son of the same mother, kinsman, colleague, a term of address used by kings in letters, a term of affection between spouses, a fellow member of a religious community, a term referring to related things like Leviathan's scales, a general reference to things brotherly or sisterly, or generally of anything double or twin in pairs.<BR/><BR/>If the author of Gal. 1:19 (Marcion's version of Galatians did not have verses 1:18-24.) had meant to infer a sibling relation between James and Jesus, why did he not say James kasignêtoio tou Jesus?<BR/><BR/>Kasignêtoio only has the meaning of a sibling or family relationship, a brother esp. of those born from the same mother, or in later usage of sisters of the same mother.<BR/><BR/>If the Gal. 1:19 interpolater had meant to infer James as son of the same mother, he would have used Kasignêtoio. But he did not. Thus Galatians 1:19 falls and cannot be used as an excuse for faith a historical Jesus existed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40443943859940786432008-08-28T11:42:00.000-04:002008-08-28T11:42:00.000-04:00Greetings and best wishes to all.Dawson acutely re...Greetings and best wishes to all.<BR/><BR/>Dawson acutely reasoned: "So Wells has come to see that the sayings source derives from an actually existing personage, whose name is not known (that name could have been Jesus, or the sayings could easily been posthumously credited to the Jesus of the new Christ cult), but “who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.” So if you want the person behind the history here, look to Q."<BR/><BR/>If there was a historical "Jesus" (a very common name amongst ancient Jews) associated with the Q1 sayings, he was a Cynic Sage. The origins of <A HREF="http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme04.htm#Cynicism" REL="nofollow">Hellenistic Cynicism</A> lie with its founder, Diogenes of Sinope. <BR/><BR/>Great men are not remembered for quoting others. However, fantasies are often represented as mouthing the sayings of the great ones. It seems to me that the most likely reason Hellenistic Cynic sayings were grafted into an early Jewish messiah cult was that Hellenistic Jews or Judaised Greeks who happened to be Cynics joined the cult. Subsequently, Diogenes' teachings were adopted. There is no need to multiply complexity by positing a Nazorite who just happened to has a similar set of teachings to that of Diogenes or some other Cynic philosopher. There is no problem here. Cynic sayings ascribed to a mythical individual have the character of a whole philosophical movement rather than of a single person.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset16.htm#Hugo" REL="nofollow">Doherty responded to a comment along these same lines thusly:</A> <BR/><BR/>As for the Gospel teachings, we have direct evidence that they are based wholly or in part on a pagan precursor, namely that of the Greek Cynics, an itinerant preaching movement in many respects like that of the Kingdom of God sect we see in Q and the Galilean element of the Synoptics. In my book, The Jesus Puzzle (p.159-161), I make a close comparison of the Q1 sayings with the teachings of the Cynic movement. Robert Price, in his Deconstructing Jesus (p.150-162) provides an exhaustive catalogue of the close correspondences between the sayings placed in Jesus' mouth and those of the Cynics. Since Cynicism long predated the Christian movement, or even the Kingdom preachers of Q, the direction of borrowing is evident. But to whom were those Cynic sayings attributed? I can do no better than to quote from Price's wide-ranging and fascinating book (p.150):<BR/><BR/> "First, do we receive from the Q1 sayings and anecdotes a striking and consistent picture of a historical individual? Mack thinks we do. There is a sly sense of humor coupled with common sense and prophetic anger. There is a definite outlook on life. And thus, one might think, a definite personality, a real character! But no. The problem is that once we discern the pronounced Cynic character of the sayings, we have an alternate explanation for the salty, striking, and controversial "personality" of the material. It conveys not the personality of an individual but that of a movement, the sharp and humorous Cynic outlook on life. What we detect so strongly in the texts is their Cynicism. The fact that so many Q1 sayings so strongly parallel so many Cynic maxims and anecdotes proves the point for the simple reason that the Cynic materials used for comparison stem from many different Cynic philosophers over several centuries! If they do not need to have come from a single person, neither do those now attributed to Jesus which parallel them."<BR/><BR/>(For more on Robert Price's Deconstructing Jesus, see my book review under "The Case For the Jesus Myth": BkrvPric.htm.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-2248622968550976072008-08-28T10:56:00.000-04:002008-08-28T10:56:00.000-04:00Greetings Dawson and David: I hope all who read th...Greetings Dawson and David: I hope all who read this comment are well and feeling good.<BR/><BR/>Dawson observed: "As Bahnsen says, the bible is supposed to be unquestionable."<BR/><BR/>This is very interesting and is a result of the Protestant reformation. Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers rejected the notion that Church Tradition was as source of authoritative governing instruction in favor of the view that canonical scripture instead was the sole authority. However, it is amusing to note that the same Church Traditions rejected by the Reformers were responsible for selecting and probably composing the documents deemed canonical. While Bahnsen and friends would recoil in horror at the thought of submitting to Papal authority, they willingly embrace an anthology of texts selected by vote of the Catholic Church. Ha-ha. How funny.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.com