jgibson000

Perhaps instead of being cryptic you'll be kind enough to let me know what it is you are claiming I understand. Frankly, what you are taking about just isn't clear.

And even if I were taking "this Thread" (what's with your penchant for capitalizing words that are not abstractions?), rather than matters discussed within it, as "Solid Evidence" (there are those capitals again!) that Doherty's analyisis of Gal. 4:4, and therefore one of the major prongs in his MJ position, should not be taken seriously, what's wrong with that? It is whether anyone should take what Earl states about GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS that is the point under discussion. Do you deny this?

Moreover, why shouldn't I take what is set out in the thread by myself and others and even by Ted as "Solid Evidence" that what Earl has said on this matter should not be taken seriously? Are you actually claiming that there's been nothing put forward in the thread that calls Earl's analysis and the conclusion he bases upon it into question?

Can't or won'?

I have no reason or inclination or obligation to answer this question since it is irrelvant to the matter at hand -- namely, what GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS meant.

If you have actually have something to contribute to this topic, such an actual evidence based critique of claims made here, please do so. But please spare me -- and the rest of us -- your snipes and your off topic remarks.

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
God, I wonder what the above looked like before you Edited it. Am I starting to bother you Jeff?


JW:
Asking:

"When was that man Born of a woman?"

is "off topic" to a Thread titled Born of a woman?

My point (again) is that your Conclusions here are Overstated. I'll Type it again, but slower so you can understand:

My point (again) is that your Conclusions here are Overstated.

"So much for Burton supporting Ted's claims. And so much for the scholarship of a mythicist being worth much or worth paying attention to"

Did you write this or was it a different Jeffrey Gibson? Maybe one who's not a Doctor? You seem to think that this Thread, or at least the portion of it you want to emphasize is "one of the major prongs in his MJ position". Mr. Doherty doesn't seem to think so. Maybe it's just me but as far as what the most Significant parts of his MJ argument are, I think he'd be a better source than you.

Personally I think the questions you are refusing to answer like:

1) What was that man's name?

2) When was that man Born of a woman?

or a new one:

3) How old was that man when he died?

are much more Significant to the MJ argument than the Greek of "Born of a woman". Maybe I should leave you alone now as the alarming rate of deterioration of your ability to write in English may render your next response illegible.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Clivedurdle

I must not go to the British Museum when I get a chance!

There is a fascinating dichotomy in the bookshop - huge section on greek, roman and other myths and cultures, huge religious section, but nothing on xianity as myth, except hidden deep in the anthropology texts!

Has anyone done a direct comparison of Heracles and Jesus?

Is there something different about Jewish mythology, was it a different genre to the Greek and Roman stuff? Are they considered to be excellent good average or poor story tellers? Was it encourage or discouraged? Who has compared the mythological genres of the Greeks and the Jews?

How does Mark compare as literature with Greek stuff?

Couple of books

Karen King What is Gnosticism Harvard University Press, clearly delineates the roots back to Zarathustra and gives a very different picture to the basically apologist one above.

Barnard /Spencer Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology Routledge

Quotes Geertz that ritual has the role of making the worldview seem real
and Bloch that Ritual legitimises gender heirarchy and state domination through the use of violence.

Think of the main rituals - circumcision - child abuse.
Baptism - drowning
Eucharist - eating the hero's flesh and blood - cannibalism and classic war magic behaviour of eating bits of someone to get their powers.

Maybe there is not much academic comment on xianity as myth because they assume case is closed and ignore apologists!

The encyclopedia had a very interesting discussion of the problems caused by missionary translators importing mindsets and ideas! The discussions above of the meanings of words is probably missing the woods for the trees and is in fact a historical result of the missionary translators!

There is an argument that getting into that level of detail about the meaning of words - (does Tolkien receive that type of treatment?) is in fact xian apologetics!

We need to stop arguing from their "wordy" perspective and get apologists to answer the anthropological, classical and mythological critiques! We are giving up too much ground unneccessarily here!

Clivedurdle

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=165153

jgibson000

Yes, it most certainly is, because, as is clear from what is noted at the outset of the discussion under the heading "Born of a Woman", the only issue to be considered in the thread so titled was whether there is any lexical and lingustic evidence/evidence from usage that supports Earl's claim about the meaning of GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS and what Paul was saying with that expression in Gal. 4:4.

Actually the phrase is "but more slowly".

Are you actually saying -- it's hard to know from the sentence above -- that Earl does not think that a great deal of his claim about Paul being a proponent of an MJ hangs upon the validity of his interpretation of the meaning that GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS has in Gal. 4:4? Have you actually read Earl?

And I agree. The question, though, is whether Earl would agree with your assertion that his claim about the meaning of GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS in Gal. 4:4 is not one of the major planks in his argument that Paul was an MJ proponent.


Then you do not understand what the argument - so far as Gal 4:4 is a component of it -- actually is.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

By all means, show me who I have misread below:

1. Paul Ellingworth, A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians, p.46
2. W. J. P. Boyd, '1 Corinthians ii.8,' Expository Times 68. p.158.
3. C. K. Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.72
4. Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, p.56
5. Jean Hering, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.16-17
6. S. G. F. Brandon., Time History and Deity, p.167
7. Buttrick G.A. (ed.), The Interpreter's Bible, Vol X, 1953, p.37-38,
8. R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer and R. Murphy in The New Jerome Critical
Commentary, 1990, p.782 (see [7] below)
9. Others: Delling, Conzelmann, Thackeray, Schmiedel, J. H.
Charlesworth, Ignatius letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:1

Creationists have never been able to show that ther is controversy among scientists regarding evolution. Michael Behe, a Biochemist, is the only person that can be called a "scientist", that supports ID. And even then, it has been shown that he was out of touch with latest scholarship and Ken Miller made mincemeat of his conjectures.
Well, most of the responses are glib dismissals.
Heh heh heh. You are funny, Professor.
You are cracking me up. The mythicist case best explains the silence regarding a HJ in the documentary record and accounts for peculiar expressions Paul used.
What is your explanation regarding why Paul switched from ginomai to gennaw, and why the gospels all use gennaw and never ginomai (except in John - to refer to incarnation)? Any discernible peculiarity there?
You can say that. The only problem is you have examined the case on your own terms. This means that whereas you disagree, the internal consistency of the MJ hypothesis is intact.

jakejonesiv

"It's difficult to get someone to understand something
when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
--- Upton Sinclair

Jake Jones IV

jjramsey

There has certainly been debate among scientists about the details of evolution, and creationists have mined quotes from participants in this debate to give the misleading impression that the broad outline of evolutionary theory is in question. See here for examples of quote mining:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html

Ted Hoffman

So much for Jeffrey's scholarship.

Solo

Thanks for the tip, Jeffrey. My sarcasm relates to the use of past conditional in 1 Cor 2:8 in reference to demons. How can they be demons if Paul imputes the origin of their action to privation - to their being denied God's hidden wisdom ? I am not much of a biblical scholar but I have read a lot of sacred texts and mystical treatises, mythology, and fairytales from all over the world. In all of them demons are fixed as demons. They are malevolent by definition; it's their nature and the nature of things.

I see.....The traffic police would certianly know that in the statement "alcohol was the cause of the accident", "alcohol" means "the driver under the influence".

Jiri Severa