jgibson000

Thank you for showing me the paucity of your argument against my claims. That you resort to the use the circumstantial adhominem -- which is all that the above is -- to make your case and to dismiss what I have been saying, shows just how weak it is and (presumably) how unable you are to engage the points that I have been making on their own terms.

But even if the ploy you use were logically valid, let me note why it does not apply in this instance: I do not make my living in the way you (apparently) think I do, and moreover, when I did, my employers expected me to be absolutely honest.

Now if you have something of actual substance and relevance to say about my critiques of Ted and Earl's claims about the interpretation of GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, please do. Otherwise I -- and I'm sure others here -- would be grateful if you's spare us your snarky impugning of my (or anyone's) academic intergrity

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Yes, as ususal, it is spot on!

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Well, certainly Ignatius, for one, if you think that he does not hold to the belief that when demonic powers acted as (presumably) they are said to act in 1 Cor 2:9, they did so wholly apart from and not through human agents. In the very epistle of his you cited he specifically says that the crucifixion of Jesus took place under the direction of Pontius Pliate (see too Mag. 11 and Trall. 9).

So too C.K. Barrett and Ellingworth.

BTW, you might want to note not only (1) that the author of what appears on p. 782 of the new JBC is Fitzmyer alone, not Fitzmyer, Brown, and Murphy (they are the editors of the whole work, not the authors of the entry cited), but (2) that p. 782 is part of the JBC commentary on Galatians, not 1 Cor, and (3) that there is no discussion of ARCONTES on that page.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, in the actual notes on 1 Cor. 2:6-8 that appear on p. 801 in the new JBC, the author of that entry, Jerome Murphy O'Connor, states that "of the three current interpretations [of "the leaders of this age"] -- human rulers, demonic powers, and human rulers as instruments of demonic powers -- the first [emphasis mine] is the most probable".

Fess up, Ted. You haven't actually read any of the works you cited above, have you? And you don't really know what's in them, do you?

You are relying, are you not, for your claims about who says what on what ARCONTES signifies not on direct familiarity with, and personal perusal of, the particular works you cite, but on a crib by someone else that you found elsewhere.

How else to explain

(a) your lack of knowledge about what is (and isn't) really said in the works you cite,

(b) your mis-citing of the page on which the discussion of ARCONTES appears in the New JBC,

(c) your lack of knowledge of what does appear on p. 782 in the New JBC,

(d) your lack of bibliographical specificity in your citations of Delling, Conzelmann, Charlesworth, etc., and

(e) the strange reference note that appears within your citation of the New JBC (e.g., "R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer and R. Murphy in The New Jerome Critical Commentary, 1990, p.782 (see [7] below)")?

The issue isn't what they have (or haven't) been able to show, but what they've attempted to do and the tactic they employed in that attemp.

Do you deny that in their attempt to discredit evolution, Creationists have pointed to the disagreements that evolutionists have over whether or not evolution is punctilliar?

Yes. The question begging assumption that you are making that in Gal. 4:4 Paul was engaged in an argument about incarnation. On this, see (as I mentioned before), Dunn, Christology in the Making).

Jeffrey Gibson

Clivedurdle

http://www.ucc.ie/opa/honconfer/jerome.html

As he is an ordained priest in the Roman Catholic Church I assume he agrees with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Are his views on archons of any value when he would seem to be a teeny weeny bit biased?

jgibson000

Unlike you, of course.

Jeffrey Gibson

Clivedurdle

May we be clear - do you accept the doctrine of transubstantiation?

What about the doctrine of the holy spirit - openly acknowledged to be irrational?

jakejonesiv

Why do you assume the Upton Sinclair quote was about you?

I need some additional information in order to answer your question.
Did you miss page 239 of OCS? Ehrman mentions K -Manuscript Kap (018)- which dates paleographically to the ninth century. http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Man...cials.html#uKp

So what was Ehrman’s point? You never explained.

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

Actually, K reads GENNOMENON, a misspelling for either GENOMENON or GENNWMENON. Ehrman apparently takes K's spelling in favor of the latter option, but Jeffrey is technically more correct than Ehrman here--K does not unambiguously support the variant reading.

Stephen

jgibson000

May we first be clear on how, if I did, my doing so

(1) would, let alone, as you seem to think, have to, bias me (or anyone) in any way, towards a particular view of the referent of ARCONTES in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 and/or, more importatly,

(2) actually invalidate my (or anyone else's) claim that no one in the ancient world ever envisaged demonic powers, when they were said to carry out the type of activity that they are purportedly described in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 as having enaged in, as so acting apart from human agency?

While you are preparing your answer, perhaps you'd like to pause for a moment to first take in not only what is said on the circumstantal ad hominem in the source that you seem to think is the definitive arbiter of truth (Wiki) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homi...circumstantial], but also to try to comprehend what is set out peri sou in Justin Kruger and David Dunning, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments," JPSP 77 (1999): 1121-34, on-line at:
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html

Jeffrey Gibson

jjramsey

That mirror has been removed. Try http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf