Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 08-01-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

What Paul is convincing his converts of is that a certain crucified man is the risen Lord. He does this, at least in part, by showing signs of some kind.

What is it that is tripping you up here? I am not tracking you.

Had he answered my questions*, we wouldn't have to speculate but Earl's argument from personal incredulity appears to be based solely on the assumption that Paul could not possibly have preached the above without consistently and repeatedly referring to events or actions of the living Jesus every time he argues for or talks about his "gospel".

*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Does your "argument" have any basis other than your subjective opinion about the credulity of 1st century citizens?...Why should anyone consider your subjective opinion about what would constitute a sufficiently dramatic miracle to be a valid argument?

EarlDoherty · 08-01-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

What Paul is convincing his converts of is that a certain crucified man is the risen Lord. He does this, at least in part, by showing signs of some kind.

What is it that is tripping you up here? I am not tracking you.

First of all, Paul never says that “a certain crucified man” in the sense of it being a recent human being who had lived on earth, is the risen Lord. So right there, that’s a ‘trip.’ The second is that “showing signs of some kind” as a means of convincing some stranger that Paul is according everything he says about his risen Lord to a recent crucified man, does not commend itself to me as reasonable. If I can’t convince you of, or at least give you some doubt about, that, then we have run our course and can simply agree to disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq

Does your "argument" have any basis other than your subjective opinion about the credulity of 1st century citizens?...Why should anyone consider your subjective opinion about what would constitute a sufficiently dramatic miracle to be a valid argument?

And why should I accept your subjective opinion—your argument from personal credulity—that a few mild ‘miracles’ (which Ben acknowledged they probably were) would be sufficient to convert someone to the idea that a recently crucified man was the Son of God, savior of the world, agent of creation and and sustainer of the universe, etc., etc.? If all you can come up with is “People were gullible,” I think this exchange can end here, and I will let the onlookers judge for themselves which appeal to reason is the most persuasive.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 08-01-2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

So, Earl's question "How could Paul fail to conceive and express the idea that Jesus himself was the primary revealer of 'all that may be known of God'?" is easily answered given the context of the passage: He isn't simply talking about ALL that may be known about God. He is talking about guilt before God since the creation of the world. Jesus' revelations were unnecessary for man to know enough to be declared guilty, and they came too late to apply to ALL of mankind that Paul is writing about.

I'm stopping at this issue. I hope I have made my points clearer now. If Jesus' revelations about God are a "silence" in Paul's work, Doherty needs to find a different passage to illustrate that.

Let's see if we can cut through all this verbiage with an analogy...

The topic being discussed is the heroism of American Presidents. Someone speaks of the heroism of John F. Kennedy in his brinkmanship handling of the Cuban missile crisis. Or perhaps his foolhardy heroism in riding down the streets of Dallas in an open car. Then he says, "All that may be known about the heroism of John F. Kennedy can be found in the record of his Presidency."

I come along and object: "How can you say that? JFK showed remarkable heroism in the Second World War as commander of PT Boat 109."

He counters, "Well, we were talking about his heroism as President. Don't expect me to mention his exploits before he became President."

I say, "But you made a blanket statement. You said, 'All that may be known about the heroism of JFK was to be found in his presidential record.' That's false. It doesn't matter what the context of our discussion was, you made a statement that should have struck you as deficient, given your knowledge of his actions in the war...In fact, your statement would give anyone the impression that you had no knowledge of his wartime record."

Regardless of the alleged context, Paul made the statement that "All that may be known of God (by men) lies plain to them. God himself has revealed it to them." This statement per se is false, given an historical Jesus who could not fail to be regarded as having taught about and revealed things about God.

Moreover, the statement comes before Paul's specific focus on creation, so it cannot in any event be regarded as governed entirely by it. And if you'll look only a verse before it, you'll find it opens with this thought: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven." Not only does it seem that Paul's concept of revelation about God is confined to a heavenly source (scripture and the Holy Spirit), which again ignores Jesus as a source of revelation, it shows that his thought leading into verse 19 has nothing to do with creation.

Earl Doherty

TedM · 08-02-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

....

He counters, "Well, we were talking about his heroism as President. Don't expect me to mention his exploits before he became President."

I say, "But you made a blanket statement. You said, 'All that may be known about the heroism of JFK was to be found in his presidential record.' That's false. It doesn't matter what the context of our discussion was, you made a statement that should have struck you as deficient, given your knowledge of his actions in the war...In fact, your statement would give anyone the impression that you had no knowledge of his wartime record."

First, as I pointed out, the word "ALL" perhaps wasn't even in the text. It isn't in the NASB, the version I consistently use and prefer. EDIT: The blue letter bible doesn't have the word "ALL" in Greek either here.

Second, if ALL was really said, just as in your example above a real possibility is that it was "false" in that it was not complete. To say however that "It doesn't matter what the context of our discussion was" is laughable. Context matters, and is what is used to determine unintended literal interpretations such as you have derived from the passage.

Third, we KNOW that "ALL" wasn't the intention because just as JFK did have a wartime record, so too did Paul have much more than just nature to discuss what is known about God. As I said, just as he COULD HAVE mentioned a historical Jesus' teachings, so too he COULD HAVE mentioned your mythical cosmic Christ's Last Supper words, and of course his sacrifice as a source of revelation. He also COULD HAVE mentioned the OT scriptures and all of the prophets as further source of revelation. The fact that he DIDN'T is proof that he wasn't intending to discusss "ALL" that is known about God. The only way Paul's statement helps your case is if it was intended to be all-inclusive. Obviously it was not. Concluding that Paul's statement is "false" only hurts your case.

Fourth, you have not addressed the WHO part of the discussion. Jesus' arrival was not applicable to those who preceded him or never heard of him, and to mention it would also undermine the point that nature was sufficent evidence for those people. His arrival was both irrelevant and unnecessary for establishing the guilt of those that preceded it. As I said, mentioning it would have muddled the context.

Here is another passage that supports this thought, from the next chapter:

Quote:

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Why would Paul be expected to mention Jesus' ministry on earth when he is pointing out the guilt of Gentiles who don't follow their conscience and instinct? Because he used the word "ALL"? If your answer is still yes, then you are still not appreciating the need to take into consideration the context of passages to determine the intent of the author--here it was to establish the guilt of all men since the creation of the world who failed to honor God through faith in what is "written on their hearts" and made evident through the things one sees in nature.

ted

Amaleq13 · 08-02-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

And why should I accept your subjective opinion...?

I note that you still haven't answered my questions but, to address yours, you really shouldn't need my opinion. All you really need to do is pay attention to the world around you. We have ample examples throughout history of people believing absolutely idiotic things for absolutely no good reason. The general credulity of humans is firmly established, Earl. You don't have to be a psychologist to know this, do you?

Quote:

If all you can come up with is “People were gullible,”...

People are gullible and I have done more than simply say it. I provided several specific examples though it is bizarre that I needed to do so. It is simply absurd to balk at any belief being accepted in ancient times given the truly idiotic things folks readily embrace in our "modern age". John Edward, Heaven's Gate, and Scientology are only the tip of the stupid iceberg, Earl.

You might want to peruse Carrier's Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire if you are truly skeptical about ancient credulity.

"Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers."

"From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the Gospels do not seem very remarkable. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by many people, who at the time had little in the way of education or critical thinking skills....After all, the wise learn from history. The fool ignores it." (emphasis mine)

EarlDoherty · 08-02-2008, 12:19 PM

Amaleq, for all your disdain, there is one distinction between my personal incredulity and your personal credulity. The evidence in the documents in question is on my side. There is no mention in the epistles of people responding to Paul's message of a recent crucified man, because there is no mention of that recent crucified man. So your position is that, not only people are gullible, but they were gullible enough to believe something which is not even mentioned and which the overwhelming evidence in the epistles themselves suggests was not even offered.

That's pretty gullible.

On the other hand, I take the position that it would be impossible for people, even gullible people, to believe in something that outlandish without evidence, without argument concerning the man himself about whom all these claims are allegedly being made. So I am able to use an evidence which is present (namely that no historical man is being offered) as a support for my position.

All the examples of gullibility in the world do not lend support if the object of the alleged gullibility is not missing. Scientology believes certain things about L. Ron Hubbard, but at least L. Ron Hubbard is mentioned; his existence is not called into question by other evidence. There is nothing missing in Josephus' account of the Egyptian who promised to knock down the wall of Jerusalem.

The wise learn from careful consideration of argument and past exchanges, and what is central to a given issue. The fool ignores them. (emphasis mine)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 08-02-2008, 12:21 PM

Ted, I don’t know why I keep trying, but I guess it’s in my nature.

There is no difference in meaning between:
1) All that may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
2) What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

The second is hardly meant to be referring to less than “all.” There is no word for “all” in the Greek, but I took the translation from the NEB which uses “all” since that is the translation I tend to look at first. The NEB used “all” no doubt because they realized that the meaning of the thought was one of “all”. Which it is.

Here is your preferred NASB: “because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them.”

In verse 20, Paul then goes on to talk about creation. Your “context”, as I pointed out, does not kick in until that verse, not before. And your plea that context matters is fine as far as it goes, but it does not change my objection that regardless of the context, a speaker cannot make a statement which is patently false per se when applied outside the context (or even within it). An astronomer in a lecture can be discussing the properties of the outer planets from Jupiter to Pluto, but if in the context of that discussion he makes a statement about “the five (or six, or seven) planets of the solar system”, that is false, and someone pointing that out cannot be dismissed with “oh, but the context of the discussion was only the five outer planets.”

Surely, surely, you can see the logic of that.

As for your contention that Paul, if he meant “all” then he left out other aspects of the “all”. Well, in fact, he didn’t. The only one you brought up which is reasonable (he is hardly going to mention the mythical Lord’s Supper words, or some esoteric meaning to be derived from his sacrifice, that’s expecting too much), is the revelation of God in scripture. But that is included in the thought that “God has made it plain to them.” Scripture is the word of God and the prophets speak God’s revelatory word. Omitting mentioning that is not going to strike Paul, or his listeners, as having overlooked some other source of revelation about God. Whereas, omitting mentioning a preaching Jesus on earth cannot be included in anything Paul has said, and should strike him and his listeners—and of course us as well—as a puzzling silence.

Now let’s look at your “WHO” argument. For one thing, all of it comes from verse 20 on, so Paul may have gone off on his tangent about what men in the past have known only from that point. (Again, though, such a ‘context’ does not allow him to have preceded it with a statement which is per se false, as I’ve shown.) Does that context exist in the passage leading to verse 19? I have said that it does not, but let’s look more closely at it (using your preferred NASB):

Quote:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written ‘But the righteous man shall live by faith.’
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Where is there anything here about the men of the past? Nowhere. That is a subject Paul gets into only from verse 20 on. In fact, prior to verse 19, everything is cast in the present. Paul is talking about the salvation available to “those who believe.” And, lo and behold, how has that salvation been made available? Through Paul’s gospel, a gospel which “is the power of God.” Where is Jesus in all this? Did he not have something to do with making salvation available? Verse 17 has the righteousness of God revealed in (Paul’s gospel? Wasn’t it revealed in and by Jesus on earth? He is no more present here than he is in verse 19. He no less stands out as missing here than in verse 19. We get the same silent exclusion of anyone or any event existing between or outside of God and Paul. This is the consistent picture presented throughout the epistles, of which there are dozens of examples which I have pointed out in my Sounds of Silence feature, and which you have done your best to counter by coming up with a different ad hoc excuse for each one, most of them not working any better than this one does.

Similarly, look at the discussion from verse 20 on, in which Paul focuses on how men of the past should have had the ability to know God through nature. Paul claims that through nature, they “knew God” yet allowed themselves to become fools in their sins and false worship. And in an echo of predestinarianism, Paul has God deliberately ‘giving them over’ to even greater depravity. Now, what has been the remedy for this woeful situation of the past, a situation which, as Paul winds up in 1:32, continues even into the present? (He continues his diatribe in ch. 2 against his very readers, whom he accuses of following in those past footsteps.) And on and on he goes, until we reach 3:21. Here is the remedy, here is the solution to all this past depravity and failure to acknowledge God, although he has been alluding to it throughout the interim. That solution is—wait for it—his gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NASB

But now apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe…

It is Paul who has taught about the Law and its suspension, it is God through Paul who has manifested his own righteousness, it is scripture which has given evidence of it, it is salvation that is available through faith in Jesus Christ,” not through Jesus Christ’s own actions or recent life on earth; and verse 25 goes on to say: “(Jesus Christ) whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith…” Thank you, NASB, because their translation of “proetheto” is bang on, using its meaning of ‘to reveal’ to bring into public view. Here we have the quintessential picture of Jesus mythicism. Salvation comes about through the preaching of apostles like Paul, prompted solely by God, who has ‘revealed’ (the epistles are loaded with such revelation verbs, but never a ‘living a life on earth’ verb or one specifying incarnation) Jesus and his sacrifice, unspecified as to time and place or even on earth, Paul inviting faith in the spiritual sacrificial Son he preaches. That picture, which the early non-Gospel documents universally present, is the central evidence for Jesus mythicism, and it is supported by all sorts of ancillary other material, silence, and background of the times.

No doubt Ted will try to come up with another ad hoc argument against this reading of Romans 3:21f, but I will not be responding any further to him. It is always simply more of the same, and I will never get any productive work done if I allow myself to be sucked into responding to everything that is thrown at me on this board.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle · 08-02-2008, 01:19 PM

The use of GAR at the beginning of Romans 1:20 strongly supports taking the verse as an explanation/justification of 1:19 rather than a new thought or idea.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 08-02-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge, emphasis added

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You did not take me up on this.

To be fair to Earl, I don't think he's talking about a psychological impossibility, but something like an extraordinary unlikeliness, given that, if something like the gospel stories were true, there would have beeen so much material in Jesus' doings and sayings that would have been fuel for Paul's positions....

Hi, gurugeorge. I think you have exchanged views with me enough on this board to recognize that the if statement above does not necessarily describe my own views very well. I am more of a minimalist than that.

I think GDon is correct when he notes that Earl seems to use the gospel Jesus to find haunting silences in the Pauline (and other) epistles. But, once suppose that some of those gospel events did not really happen, and those events are no longer probative of anything with regard to what Paul should or should not have written.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-02-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

because their translation of “proetheto” is bang on, using its meaning of ‘to reveal’ to bring into public view.

Where ever did you get the notion that προ�*θετο (from προτίθημι) means "reveal"?

Here's Danker:

Quote:

προτίθημι 2 aor. subj. προθῶ; 2 aor. mid. προεθ�*μην (Hom.+; inscr., pap., LXX, Joseph.).

1. act. set before τινί someone as a task or duty (Soph., Ant. 216; Hdt. 3, 38; 9, 27) ἐὰν σὺ σεαυτῷ προθῇς ὅτι Hm 12, 3, 5.

2. mid.—a. display publicly (Appian, Bell. Civ. 3, 26 §101) of Christ ὃν προ�*θετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον Ro 3:25 (s. ἱλαστήριον).
But the act., at least, seems to have had the mng. offer as well (cf. Dit., Syll.3 708, 15 w. the editor’s note 5; 714, 16-18, and M-M.; also ZPE 3, ’68, 166 n. 9).
b. plan, propose, intend τὶ someth. (Pla., Phaedr. 259d; Polyb. 6, 12, 8; Jos., Vi. 290) Eph 1:9. W. inf. foll. (Pla., Rep. 1 p. 352d, Leg. 1 p. 638c; Polyb. 8, 13, 3; 11, 7, 3; Jos., Ant. 18, 286; 19, 37) Ro 1:13 (Bl-D. §392, 1a). ὁ καιρὸς ὃν θεὸς προ�*θετο φανερῶσαι. . . the time that God had appointed to reveal. . . Dg 9:2. M-M.*

And below is LSJ. I see nothing there that supports your understanding of the word.

Jeffrey

****

Quote:

προτίθημι (also thematic forms, 3 sg. προτιθεῖ Hdt.1.133, 3 pl. προτιθεῖσι Id.7.197), fut. -θήσω Th.3.67: aor. προὔθηκα Il.24.409, etc. (for προθ�*ουσι v. προθ�*ω (b)):—Med. (v. infr.):—Pass., aor. 1 προὐτ�*θην E.Ph.803, Pl.Phd.90b, etc.; but pres. and impf. Pass. are usu. supplied by πρόκειμαι:

—set before, set out, esp. of meals, τραπ�*ζας νίζον καὶ πρότιθεν (Ep. for προὐτίθεσαν) Od.1.112; βοῦν Hes.Th.537; τούτοισι προθεῖναι δαῖτα Hdt.1.207, cf. S.Aj.1294, Ant.775, Ph.274, etc.; ξείνια στρατῷ Hdt.7.29:

—Med., set before oneself, have set before one, δαῖτα Id.1.133, 4.26; κλίνας καὶ τραπ�*ζας Plu.2.99e; also προτίθεσθαί τισι ἄριστον cause it to be set before them, Chionid.7.

b. π. τινὰ κυσίν throw him to the dogs, Il.24.409; τινὰ θηρσὶν ἀρπαγὴν π. E.El.896.

c. hand over for burial, τινά τινι S.El.1198, cf. 1487.

2. expose a child, Hdt.1.112; π. τινὰ ἔρημον S.Ph.268:—Pass., ὁ θανάτῳ προτεθείς E.Ph.803 (lyr.).

3. set up, institute, propose, esp. of contests, ἅμιλλαν λόγων E.Med.546; λόγων τοὺς ἀγῶνας Th.3.67; εἰ πονηρίας ἀγὼν προτεθείη Pl.Phd.90b; ἄπορον αἵρεσιν offer a choice, Id.Tht.196c (but also προτίθεσθαί τινι αἵρεσιν Id.Lg.858a); π. νόμον E.Hipp.1046.

b. set up as a mark or prize, στ�*φανόν τισι τῶν ἀγώνων Th.2.46; σκοπὸν κάλλιστον ἐν τῷ ζῆν Plb.7.8.9:—Pass., προὐτ�*θην ἐγὼ ἆθλον .. δορός E.Hel.42.

c. set a penalty, θάνατον ζημίαν π. Th.3.44; τιμωρίας ἔτι μείζους οὐ μ�*χρι τοῦ δικαίου ib. 82; τῶν νόμων τὰ ἔσχατα ἐπιτίμια προτεθηκότων D.34.37; τοῖσι ἐκείνου ἀπογόνοισι ἀ�*θλους τοιούσδε Hdt.7.197.

4. fix, set, ἐς ἐβδομήκοντα ἔτεα οὖρον τῆς ζόης ἀνθρώπῳ π. Id.1.32:—Med., οὖρον π. ἐνιαυτόν ib. 74.

5. appoint as a task or duty, τινί τι S.Tr.1049; νεωτ�*ρῳ τοῦτο βαστάζειν πρόθες Id.Ant.216; δμῳαῖς π. π�*νθος οἰκεῖον στ�*νειν ib. 1249, cf. Hdt.9.94:—Med., propose to oneself as a task or object, ὅπερ προὐθ�*μεθα σκ�*ψασθαι Pl.Phdr.259e, R.352d, cf. Sph.221a, Tht.169c; π. ψ�*γειν αὐτὸ ἢ ἐπαινεῖν Id.Lg.638c, cf. Arist.EN1142b19 (dub.), Hipparch.1.1.6, Luc.Nec.19.
b. Med., c. fut. inf., propose to oneself, intend, προτεθειμ�*νου κατοικήσειν ἐνταῦθα Syria13.256 (Seleucia in Pieria, ii b.c.).

6. Med., also, put forth one one’s own part, display, show, εὐλάβειαν S.El.1334; ἀνδραγαθίαν Th.3.64; ἔχθραν Id.8.85.

7. Med., θνητοὺς ἐν οἴκτῳ προθ�*μενος setting before oneself in pity, feeling compassion for, A.Pr.241.

8. advance money, IPE12.32 B 30, 63 (Olbia, iii b.c.); τὸ διδόμενον ἆθλον ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου αὐτὸς προ�*θηκεν ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου IG12(9).234.18 (Eretria, i b.c.); τισὶν τῶν πολιτῶν εἰς λύτρα προτιθείς SIG708.15 (Istropolis, ii b.c.).

II. π. νεκρόν lay out a dead body, let it lie in state, Hdt.5.8:—Med., E.Alc.664, Supp.53 (lyr.), Ar.Lys.611, Th.2.34, Lys.12.18, etc.; ποτήρια χρύσεσ προθεῖτο Hdt.3.148.

2. set out wares for show or sale, Luc.Nigr.25, al.

3. display a public notice, τὸ λεύκωμα πρὸ τοῦ ναοῦ IG9(2).1109.35 (Coropa, ii b.c.); ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς οἰκίας π. ἐν λευκώματι UPZ106.20 (ii b.c.); τὸ ὑπογεγραμμ�*νον ἔκθεμα OGI664.4 (Egypt., i a.d.), cf. POxy.2108.8 (Pass., iii a.d.); notify publicly, τοὺς [προ�*δρους] προτιθ�*ναι περὶ ὧν δεῖ βουλεύεσθαι IG42.(1).68.80 (Epid., iv b.c.); περὶ ὧν .. οἱ ἄρχοντες προτίθεισι Ἀρχ.Δελτ.9 παρ.53 (Eresus), cf. IG12(2).526a21 (ibid., iv b.c.), 645b35 (Nesus, iv b.c.); τὰς πράξεις (exactions) .. τῶν προτιθεμ�*νων (Pass.) κατὰ τὰς ἐγγραφάς Arist.Pol.1321b42; call a case for trial by means of a public notice, τῷν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς προτεθ�*ντων UPZ118.18 (ii b.c.); οἱ προτεθ�*ντες ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ καὶ μὴ ὑπακούσαντες ἴστωσαν ὅτι .. PHamb.29.6 (i a.d.); advertise for sale or other purpose, BGU992 i 7 (Pass., ii b.c.), PLips.64.44 (iv a.d.), etc.; τοῖς συλλημψομ�*νοις ὑμῖν γ�*ρα προτιθ�*ντα advertising rewards to those of you who apprehend (robbers), POxy.1408.16 (iii a.d.), imper., introducing text of edict, πρόθες IEphes.3217 (i a.d.).

4. propose, bring forward a thing to be examined and debated, also give an opportunity for debate, voting, ἐς μ�*σον σφι π. πρῆγμα Hdt.1.206; π. τὸν λόγον Id.8.59; γνώμας σφίσιν αὐτοῖς Th.1.139; π. λόγον (sc. εἰς ἐκκλησίαν) Aeschin.2.65; λόγον περί τινος X.Mem.4.2.3; γνώμας π. αὖθις Ἀθηναίοις, of the Prytanes, Th.6.14, cf. 3.36; π. τὴν διαγνωμην αὖθις περὶ Μυτιληναίων ib. 42, cf. Isoc.8.15; π. βουλὴν εἴτε .. εἴτε .. D.H.6.15; τὸν ἐπιμήνιον, ἢν μὴ προθῇ, ἐκατὸν στατῆρας ὀφείλειν SIG58.10 (Milet, v b.c.), cf. 141.12 (Corc. Nigra., iv b.c.), 167.13 (Mylasa, iv b.c.), al.; προθεῖναι αὖθις περὶ Μυτιληναίων λ�*γειν propose a discussion about .., Th.3.38; τὸ συμφ�*ρον ἡ πόλις προὐτίθει σκοπεῖν D.18.273, etc.; π. αὐτοῖς κρίσιν appoint a trial for them, Lys.27.8; π. αὐτοῖς ἀγορὰν δικῶν Luc.Bis Acc.4; προ�*θηκε .. λ�*γειν τὰ ἑκατ�*ροισι .. κατ�*ργασται has proposed (or initiated) a recital of what each has done, Hdt.9.27: c. dat. pers. et inf., Id.3.38: c. acc. et inf., π. γνώμην ἀποφαίνεσθαι τὸν βουλόμενον Id.8.49:—Med., ἤν τις προθῆται ψῆφον, ὥστε μὴ εἶναι τὸν νόμον τοῦτον SIG45.33 (Halic., v b.c.):—Pass., οὐ προὐτ�*θη σφίσι λόγος speech was not allowed them, X.HG1.7.5; ψῆφος περὶ ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ ἀνδραποδισμοῦ προτεθεῖσα D.19.65.

5. convene a meeting, προὔθεσαν οἱ πρυτάνεις ἐκκλησίαν Luc.Nec.19:—Med., σύγκλητον τήνδε γερόντων προὔθετο λ�*σχην S.Ant.161 (anap.).

III. put forward, as one foot before the other, βραδύπουν ἤλυσιν ἄρθρων E.Hec.67 (anap.).

2. hold out as a pretext, αἰτίαν S.Aj.1051:—Med., τὴν συγγ�*νειαν Plb.2.19.1, etc.
IV. put before or first, προτιθ�*ντι ἀνάγκη .. λ�*γειν, opp. ἐπιλ�*γοντι, Arist.Rh.1394a15, cf.b28; π. τοῦ λόγου προοίμιον Pl.Lg.723c; set down first in writing, προθεὶς ἄρχοντα Νικόμαχόν φησιν οὕτως· “ἐπὶ τούτου κτλ.” Did.inD;1.19, cf. 8.17, al., Gal.19.183:—Med., put in front, τοὺς γροσφομάχους Plb.1.33.9; premise, λόγον Id.3.118.11; τὰς προειρημ�*νας αἰτίας Id.4.25.6:—Pass., τὸ μὴ καὶ τὸ οὒ προτιθ�*μενα τῶν ἐπιόντων ὀνομάτων Pl.Sph.257c: metaph., Th.2.42.

2. put before or over, πρόσθεν ὀμμάτων π�*πλον π. E.IA1550:—Med., E.IT1218, etc.

3. prefer one to another, τί τινος Hdt.3.53, E.Med.963; ἡδονὴν ἀντὶ τοῦ καλοῦ Id.Hipp.382:—Med., πάρος τοὐμοῦ πόθου προὔθεντο τὴν τυραννίδα S.OC419.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-02-2008, 12:19 PM	#96
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	Amaleq, for all your disdain, there is one distinction between my personal incredulity and your personal credulity. The evidence in the documents in question is on my side. There is no mention in the epistles of people responding to Paul's message of a recent crucified man, because there is no mention of that recent crucified man. So your position is that, not only people are gullible, but they were gullible enough to believe something which is not even mentioned and which the overwhelming evidence in the epistles themselves suggests was not even offered. That's pretty gullible. On the other hand, I take the position that it would be impossible for people, even gullible people, to believe in something that outlandish without evidence, without argument concerning the man himself about whom all these claims are allegedly being made. So I am able to use an evidence which is present (namely that no historical man is being offered) as a support for my position. All the examples of gullibility in the world do not lend support if the object of the alleged gullibility is not missing. Scientology believes certain things about L. Ron Hubbard, but at least L. Ron Hubbard is mentioned; his existence is not called into question by other evidence. There is nothing missing in Josephus' account of the Egyptian who promised to knock down the wall of Jerusalem. The wise learn from careful consideration of argument and past exchanges, and what is central to a given issue. The fool ignores them. (emphasis mine) Earl Doherty

08-02-2008, 01:19 PM	#98
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	The use of GAR at the beginning of Romans 1:20 strongly supports taking the verse as an explanation/justification of 1:19 rather than a new thought or idea. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.