Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rick Sumner · 07-12-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Actually, he says "Origen took this to refer to the demonic powers behind world rulers [emphasis mine]".

He's also done saying it by the end of p.53, his comments on Origen's interpretation begin and end with that sentence, which serves as a precursor to a discussion of modern disagreement on the passage (p.53 ends with discussion of the contrast between "the wisdom of God and the wisdom of this world," with "world" appearing as the first word on p.54).

If Ted had the reference, he'd know that. It's painfully obvious that what he's done is garner is information from this post from Peter Kirby on the Corpus Paul list.

Cut and paste scholarship is, at best, a specious methodology.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

ETA "garner is"? Why do I suddenly feel like a pre-Higgins Eliza Doolittle?

Jes you wait 'Enry 'Iggins, jes you wait.

jgibson000 · 07-12-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

He's also done saying it by the end of p.53, his comments on Origen's interpretation begin and end with that sentence, which serves as a precursor to a discussion of modern disagreement on the passage (p.53 ends with discussion of the contrast between "the wisdom of God and the wisdom of this world," with "world" appearing as the first word on p.54).

If Ted had the reference, he'd know that. It's painfully obvious that what he's done is garner is information from this post from Peter Kirby on the Corpus Paul list.

Cut and paste scholarship is, at best, a specious methodology.

Yes it certainly is. And so is the proof texting, especially from the KJV, that we see has recently been resorted to in this thread to "prove" a point about Paul's purported belief in the "pre-existence" of Jesus.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack · 07-12-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibson

a. whether some of the people you call experts (i.e., Earl) really deserve the title, and

JW:
You were able to go 3 days and 3 nights before raising (this). I'll Save whether Mr. Doherty should be considered an Expert on MJ for later, if need be.

Normally when someone Fails to answer my central/major/main Point (actually my only one here at this Point in time) I just assume they realize they are wrong and move on. Unless, as Otter and Boone pointed out, that person's brother was named "Fred". So here it is Again Jeff. Maybe you can answer this time:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallack

You characterize Mr. Doherty as making an Offensive (do with this what you will) argument as if he makes a straight forward claim that the wording indicates Jesus was born in a Heavenly realm which is therefore Significant evidence that Paul believed in MJ. Talk about misrepresentation of an opponent! His related web site argument is correspondingly all Defensive as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibson

Umm, Joe, if you actually look at the beginning of this thread you'll see that what the starting point of it was -- and what has been the point of contention from the beginning, at least as far as I'm concerned, is not this relatively new claim of Earl's based on Ehrman (and only made for the first time here and only after the present debate, a continuation of "Doherty, Gibson and Barrett, oh my", was underway). Rather it was/is an older one, (mis) based on Burton's comments on Gal. 4:4, that appears on Earl's Jesus Puzzle web page where he states that Gal. 4:4 is central to his case, and argues, appealing to Burton, that the "plain meaning" of Gal. 4:4 does not, as is usually thought, support the HJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallack

So you Confess that Mr. Doherty's discussion of 4.4 in this Thread has been Totally Defensive. That's great Jeff, I feel like we are making progress.

From Doherty, Gibson and Barrett, oh my...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doherty
Burton first. I said in TJP, p.123-4, that Burton “points out that the way the verb and participle tenses are used in the Greek, the birth and subjection to the Law are presented as simple facts, with no necessary temporal relation to the main verb “sent.�? (By the way, in quoting that passage, Jeffrey Gibson left out my word “necessary�?. Why he did so, I will not speculate on, but it is not wise in a quoted phrase to leave out any words of an ‘opponent’ which lend nuance to the statement and which softens the meaning of what one is trying to rebut; it looks possibly deceptive.)

JW:
Doesn't look like you ever responded to Mr. Doherty's complaint Jeff. For someone who is accusing Doherty of Lying don't you feel some/any Professional responsibility of responding to observations of your possible Bias?

Originally Posted by Doherty
I love this guy. Why? Because here Burton is further allowing (though of course he is not intending it) for a mythicist interpretation. He is saying that the “born of woman, subject to law�? is not intended “so much to express the accompaniments of the sending…�? In other words, these characteristics of the Son don’t necessarily accompany the action of him being “sent forth�?. But wouldn’t this be odd if Paul were in fact referring to a human birth, since is the Son not “born of woman�? at the time of his sending (birth) into the world? Whereas, if the “sending forth�? is not referring to a historical birth, but a spiritual sending—identical to the “God sent forth [exactly the same verb] the spirit of the Son�? two verses later—then the “born of woman, subject to the law�? could be mythical features, independent characteristics not tied to the “sending�?. Burton as much as says so (again, not intentionally) when he goes on: “…as directly to characterize the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law…�? Again in other words, these are characteristics of the Son, and can be seen in Paul’s mind as certain spiritual/mythical features that define his relationship to humanity, not tied to any human birth which Paul was unaware of.

JW:
This is at the Start of the Thread. Again, Doherty is Defensive towards 4.4. To Save time I'll just assume your Confession that Doherty is also Defensive in the Doherty, Gibson and Barrett, oh my... Thread.

By The Way, you wrote:

"I mean I have pointed to the fact that, as Earl himself has noted, a major plank in his case for an MJ is the alleged fact that Paul believed in an MJ rather than an HJ, haven't I.

I have also noted that the main piece of evidence he cites in support of this "fact" as a fact is that at Gal. 4:4, in the expression GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, Paul speaks (so Earl says) of Jesus as having been born in a heavenly realm and not on earth, yes?"

So you are also misrepresenting the Type of Significance Mr. Doherty claims here. It's Time and not Location. And "the main piece of evidence he cites in support of this "fact"? Now you're just making things up. Not the Type of representations one likes to see in the writing of someone claiming that someone esle is Lying ([sarcasm]yea, I know Jeff, If you are Lying than "How is that relevant to Doherty Lying?"[/sarcasm]).

This leaves us than with the Significance of 4.4 to TJP. If 4.4 was central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's case for MJ than you would have already quoted Where he indicates this rather than quoted where you indicated it.

Looking through TJP I Am puzzled as to Where Mr. Doherty indicates that 4.4 is central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's case for MJ:

So Where is it Jeff?

JW:
I'll even repeat the central/major/main Question I have for you Jeff:

Looking through TJP I Am puzzled as to Where Mr. Doherty indicates that 4.4 is central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's case for MJ:

So Where is it Jeff?

Joseph

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

jgibson000 · 07-12-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

You had marginal success. You are yet to deal with the following:

7. ... those mentioned by Doherty and others like Delling, Jean Hering, Conzelmann, Thackeray, Schmiedel, J. H. Charlesworth.

Quote:

As an amateur, I am right to rely on experts. If you disagree with these experts. Just prove them wrong. Now.

Well, here's the quote from Earl of Charlesworth (with some contextualizng remarks) that seems to be the basis of your claim that Charlesworth is someone who states that the ARCONTES Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are "demons".

A great amount of scholarly ink has been spilled over the meaning of "the rulers of this age" (ton archonton tou aionos toutou, verses 6 and 8). In both pagan and Jewish parlance, the word archontes could be used to refer to earthly rulers and those in authority (as in Romans 13:3). But it is also, along with several others like it, a technical term for the spirit forces, the "powers and authorities" who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate (usually cruel) of the earth, its nations and individuals. That invisible powers, mostly evil, were at work behind earthly phenomena was a widely held belief in Hellenistic times, including among Jews, and it was shared by Christianity. J. H. Charlesworth (Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p.66) puts it this way:

"Earth is full of demons. Humanity is plagued by them. Almost all misfortunes are because of demons: sickness, drought, death and especially humanity's weaknesses about remaining faithful to the covenant (with God). The region between heaven and earth seems to be almost cluttered by demons and angels; humanity is often seen as a pawn, helpless in the face of such cosmic forces."

Note two things:

First, Charlesworth here is not commenting upon any aspect of 1 Cor 2:6-8. Nor does he say anything in the material that Earl quotes about the meaning with which the term ARCONTES was used by any ancient author, let alone by Paul. What's more (and what's most interesting given your claim that what Earl says Charllesworth says is the basis of your claim about Charleworth and ARCONTES) Earl never says he does.

Second, Earl states that the words of Charlesworth that he quotes are words that are to be found on p. 66 in Charlesworth's OT Pseudepigrapha.

But when one turns to that page in that volume, not only can nothing resembling what Earl says is there be found on that page; what is found there (a translation, and some notes on the text, of Jubilees 5:26-6:8) does not come from Charlesworth's hand.

You asked above if it was right for you, as an amateur, to rely on and use what "experts" say scholars have said as the source for the material from scholars that you employ for the basis of your claims and the ground upon which you build your arguments.

I replied that it might be, but only if (1) the "experts" you relied on were worthy of that title, and (2) we could assume that you were capable of reading, understanding, and representing accurately what they say.

Well, here we see that vis a vis your claims about safe reliance on Earl for your claims about Charlesworth, neither condition has been met.

And so the question is raised once again about how much we should trust anything you say, especially when this involves claims about who said/supports what.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000 · 07-12-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

You were able to go 3 days and 3 nights before raising (this). I'll Save whether Mr. Doherty should be considered an Expert on MJ for later, if need be.

Normally when someone Fails to answer my central/major/main Point (actually my only one here at this Point in time) I just assume they realize they are wrong and move on.

Assume what you want. But I suggest that you look up the logical fallacy known as "bifurcation" (and the "black/white" fallacy or "the fallacy of the excluded middle") to see whether or not your "normal" assumption is either warranted or valid.

JG

jgibson000 · 07-12-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I'll even repeat the central/major/main Question I have for you Jeff:

Looking through TJP I Am puzzled as to Where Mr. Doherty indicates that 4.4 is central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's case for MJ:

So Where is it Jeff?

Overlooking the rhetorical excess above, it's here:

http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp08.htm

Now, may I ask a favour from you?

As I have indicated consistently in the way I sign my posts (save when I have used instead "JG"), and as I have specifically and directly noted on more than one occasion in the body of messages I have sent to several others here, my name is Jeffrey, not Jeff.

I would be grateful, then, if you'd do me the courtesy of addressing me with that name, and not with one that is not mine.

Jeffrey Gibson

Rick Sumner · 07-12-2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

He's also done saying it by the end of p.53, his comments on Origen's interpretation begin and end with that sentence, which serves as a precursor to a discussion of modern disagreement on the passage (p.53 ends with discussion of the contrast between "the wisdom of God and the wisdom of this world," with "world" appearing as the first word on p.54).

With apologies, I'd missed an elipsis after "God" in the quote of Morris. It should be "wisdom of God. . .and the. . ."

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman · 07-12-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

He's also done saying it by the end of p.53, his comments on Origen's interpretation begin and end with that sentence, which serves as a precursor to a discussion of modern disagreement on the passage (p.53 ends with discussion of the contrast between "the wisdom of God and the wisdom of this world," with "world" appearing as the first word on p.54).

If Ted had the reference, he'd know that. It's painfully obvious that what he's done is garner is information from this post from Peter Kirby on the Corpus Paul list.

Cut and paste scholarship is, at best, a specious methodology.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

ETA "garner is"? Why do I suddenly feel like a pre-Higgins Eliza Doolittle?

Jes you wait 'Enry 'Iggins, jes you wait.

Common sense dictates that if I cut and pasted, I would have reproduced what Kirby has. So to fault me for not reproducing what Kirby wrote and at the same time accuse me of cut and paste scholarship, is contradictory.

It is interesting to note that Bede's substitution, like Jeffrey, would have us believe that the mechanism archotons used to execute their deeds is more important than what archotons actually were.
This is interesting because most authors, including Kirby (Who titles his thread "Rulers") regard the expression "princes of this world" to refer to beings - whether earthly, or otherwise - and not the way their powers were used - which is secondary to the question.
Even Origen, who talks of demonic powers, has in mind first of all, demonic beings, not their working mechanism, and not their agents, if any. It is therefore suprising to see otherwise intelligent people quibbling stridently over whether "Origen took this to refer to the demonic powers behind worldly rulers" is more accurate than "Origen took the 'princes of this world' to mean demons. Thackeray for example, writes "Origen (Hom IV in Matt) understood 'the rulers of this age' to mean the angels". Yet nobody picks that passage out of context to fault Thackeray for not writing "Origen (Hom IV in Matt) understood 'the rulers of this age' to mean the angelic powers behind the worldly rulers"

This is simply nonsense. One might assume that Jeffrey is trying to remind us that these demons, per Origen, were behind world rulers. But this is even sillier because I start my post by specifically emphasizing that the question of whether the phrase referred to earthly rulers, demons, or demons that were behind earthly rulers, is important. Jeffrey and Rick ignore my emphatic reminder and assume that I am not aware of the distinction.
That argument simply has nuisance value.

You will notice that Jeffrey completely ignores S.G.F Brandon, still quibbles over whether it is archotons or archons, or even archontes and so on.

It is also important to remember that several scholars treat the phrase to refer to earthly rulers. Period.
Bearing that in mind, even authors that take the phrase to refer to demonic powers behind the earthly rulers are closer to the mythicist interpretation. Thus Ignatius is still relevant to this question. By the time we reach demonic powers, per Marcion and SGF Brandon, we are deep into JM hypothesis.
What persuades one to favour the idea that these demonic powers did not kill Jesus themselves, but used earthly rulers, is influenced by whether one believes in a HJ or not.

I think we are done here. It can only go downhill from here, now that Bede has got a substitute and Jeffrey still adamantly refuses to address the references comprehensively. Thanks for the Thackeray passage. Adieu.

07-13-2006, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I think we are done here. It can only go downhill from here, now that Bede has got a substitute and Jeffrey still adamantly refuses to address the references comprehensively. Thanks for the Thackeray passage. Adieu.

Off he runs. I am flattered to be substituted for Rick. It is a bit like being taken off to make way for Totti or Del Piero.

The lesson that we need to draw from this thread is:

a) Don't cheat. You will be caught out by someone who knows more than you.
b) If you are caught cheating, admit it. Don't keep digging by lying.
c) Credentials really do matter because they give a reasonable guide to how much we can trust someone's posts.
d) The 'princes of this world' doesn't help the JM case.

Best wishes

Bede

jakejonesiv · 07-13-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Off he runs. I am flattered to be substituted for Rick. It is a bit like being taken off to make way for Totti or Del Piero.

The lesson that we need to draw from this thread is:

a) Don't cheat. You will be caught out by someone who knows more than you.
b) If you are caught cheating, admit it. Don't keep digging by lying.
c) Credentials really do matter because they give a reasonable guide to how much we can trust someone's posts.
d) The 'princes of this world' doesn't help the JM case.

Best wishes

Bede

Hi Bede,

I have recently disagreed with Mr. Gibson the subject of the "pre-existence" of Jesus,

According to the Pauline authors, Jesus pre-existed in heaven

Dr. Gibson has dismissed this as "proof texting."

I am assuming by your silence that you agree with Mr. Gibson, that Paul didn't believe Jesus existed from creation. But how can you? Doesn't the very passgae you have been discussing, 1 Cor. 2:8 which refers to Jesus as the "Lord of Glory" clinch the case for pre-existence? I don't mind being made to look foolish in the least if I am wrong on this. Please set me straight Bede. (Or Jeffrey if you are reading this).

Bede, I would also like your opinion on one other issue. In discussions like this, should the KJV be utterly despised? In your opinion. What about the NIV or NASB?

Thanks in advance for your reply,
Jake Jones IV

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.