Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 07-03-2006, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

How do you know the author of GMatthew didn't intend for his gospel to replace GMark?

I think the author did intend for the gospel of Matthew to replace the gospel of Mark.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 07-03-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

So if I go to Evolution/Creation forum and conduct a search and find that Dembski's name appears more than Dawkin's name, I can validly conclude that, perhaps Bill Dembski is king, and Richard Dawkins is crown prince in that forum?
Many people mention George Bush in political discussions yet they hate his guts.

Yes, Bill Dembski would be king on that forum... in the context in which I used the term, namely that it would be difficult to post on that forum without eventually having to deal with Dembski (on Evolution/Creation) or Doherty (on IIDB).

Quote:

The reason why awareness of the cosmology of middle platonism comes in as a criteria is based on the idea that, when a writer is aware of that cosmology, then they know, per texts like Ascencion of Isaiah and even Tatian's writings, that there were beings who existed on other layers in the universe other than the earth (like archotons). Based on this, we have no reason to assume the earthly plane as the default location for god-like beings mentioned by that writer.

We are now touching on primary texts, but not actually using them as evidence (with quotes, paraphrases, references, and such). What I would like to see is evidence of how someone (middle Platonist or otherwise, your pick) would understand the phrase born of a woman as referring to a purely divine, nonhuman figure.

Quote:

At this point, the specific expression used by the writer regarding incarnation etc is not our focal point. At this point, we are addressing the larger issues, not the narrow, and more specific linguistic arguments, which I can see, Doherty has addressed.

Doherty bowed out before he dealt with the Josephus quotes, which do use his preferred term for being born.

Quote:

We know about Marcion from heresiologists like Tertullian in Adversus Marcionem that Marcion believed in a Docetic Christ: a manifestation of God and not an incarnation of God. Per Docetism, the presence of Christ on earth was an illusion and therefore, according to Marcion, the Jesus that was seen was not a flesh and blood man and was therefore not a historical man (Marcion rejected infancy narratives).

I agree with all of this.

Quote:

Augustus is irrelevant as an example here. We can clearly discern apotheosization when we see it.

Yes, we can. And I see it all over the story of Jesus.

Quote:

Lemche and other minimalists have shown that Moses never existed. You believe that Moses was a historical person?

This is sudden. How did we get to this question?

I do not know if Moses or any inspiration for his story ever existed. And I have no idea how that relates to Jesus.

Quote:

We must not forget about the logos. The logos was transformed by some Christians into Jesus of Nazareth (The gospel of John says that the “the word became flesh.”) In cases where we find both the logos and a historical Jesus in the same presentation, the logos (the word) is an antecedent of the historical Jesus. In Athenagoras’ A Plea for the Christians, we find the logos and “a son” but they are both treated as abstract forces coalesced together in God.
Texts like Epistle to Diognetus and those by Theophilus and Athenagoras talk of the word being revealed or shown (as opposed to having come to earth) – this means a spiritual revelation. The verbs used vary between deiknumi (to show, present, to make known or to announce) and phaneroō which means to bring to light, become visible or to make known. Or the “birth” / appearance is placed in a mythical realm.

The logos is born in the hearts or minds of believers, not on earth. That is, there is no mention of an incarnational birth on earth in the texts I mention above.

Again, we are here flirting with the primary texts, but not actually using them to show what born of a woman means.

Quote:

Paul believed that Jesus was a pre-existent being and therefore regarded him as a god, not a flesh and blood man.

Well, we know that this kind of statement will not work. Instead of Paul, plug in Irenaeus or Tertullian or Eusebius or Ignatius or Jerome. The second half of the statement then becomes false. How do you know, then, that the statement will work for Paul?

Quote:

If you can place Paul's Christ somewhere on Earth, please feel free to do so.

If his Christ was born of a woman, then presumably he was born on earth. If you think that someone could, in ancient thinking (middle Platonic, for instance), be born of a woman somewhere other than earth, I would like to see the (primary) evidence.

Quote:

The point is that, if there was controversy regarding the nature of the character in question, then we are not obligated to presume that that character had a nature consistent with the orthodox understanding regarding his nature.

The debate was, as you say, over the nature of Jesus. Here is how you described the docetic side of the debate (underlining mine):

Quote:

Per Docetism, the presence of Christ on earth was an illusion and therefore, according to Marcion, the Jesus that was seen was not a flesh and blood man and was therefore not a historical man (Marcion rejected infancy narratives).

The proto-orthodox side of the debate, you will agree, saw Christ as a real man of flesh and blood.

The question is, on whose side is Paul? The answer is that Paul sided with those who thought that Christ was a real man. How do we know this? We read Galatians 4.4 (among others).

Quote:

This means that, IMO, all the examples you have cited about whose nature there is no controversy are irrelevant to the Pauline case.

Paul uses a recognizable and traceable expression that has a recognizable and traceable meaning... yet recognizing and tracing that expression through the ancient texts is irrelevant? You mean I wasted my time looking for other instances of the expression when I could have just taken your word for what it means?

Let me ask you this. If I told you that I had found a text which twice uses the phrase born of a woman of a figure known in ancient cosmology to be a daemon from an ethereal plane, would posting that text be irrelevant?

If you want to save time answering this post, you can just copy and paste the next sentence and respond to it: Show me the evidence that born of a woman can refer to nonhuman entities.

Ben.

dog-on · 07-03-2006, 07:49 AM

Ben, this is off topic per our specific discussion, but regarding 4:4, I would like to hear your views on the following passage from Detering's - THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

http://www.radikalkritik.de/DetGalExpl.pdf

The textual critique on offer, is far beyond my lowly abilities. Please excuse me if my word processor screwed up the Greek text.

Quote:

25. Gal 4,4
#43) Gal 4,4 – geno,menon evk gunaiko,j( geno,menon u`po. no,mon cor

Marc 5.4.2

Textual Evidence

Tertullian 5.4.2: »Cum autem evenit impleri tempus misit deus filium suum«.

The Reconstruction of the Marcionite Text

is relatively simple for Gal 4,4. There is a consensus of all scholars that the words geno,menon evk gunaiko,j, geno,menon u`po. no,mon were missing in Marcion’s edition. The fact is unambiguously confirmed by Tertullian. He surely would not have omitted the words that showed Christ’s genuine human nature to be true and that therefore could be used as an excellent argument against Marcion’s docetism, if then he had found them in Marcion. HILGENFELD, 442: »This omission allows us to draw with absolute certainty the conclusion that those words were missing in Marcion«. — More difficult than the question for the content of the Marcionite text is the question:

Which of the two Texts is the Original one?

A great majority of scholars generally contented themselves in this context with a reference to Marcion’s docetism and antinomism. Marcion was a docetist, consequently it was in his interest to shorten the Catholic text and to delete the being born of woman and likewise Christ being under the Law, which to him as an antinomist wasn’t convenient either. That it might have been in the equally great interest of a 2nd century Catholic Christian to »catholisize« controversial and disputed Paul by modifications of texts and doctrinal additions or corrections and in so doing to take him away from the grasp of the detested heretics, was generally completely left out of consideration. Not so, however, VAN MANEN, who –as we have seen time and again– in his thoroughgoing work on Marcion’s Galatians, made quite a number of observations that give good reasons for a revision of the conventional opinion. According to VAN MANEN, the following speak for Marcion as the one having conserved the original text:

1) the doctrinal aspect of these statements which by no means intended to accidentally mention some historical facts, but were used to refute two widely spread opinions: 1. that Jesus had not really been a human being 2. that he had not been under the Law as a Jew by birth. Since -so VAN MANEN- one can hardly assume Paul having fought heresies — e.g. docetism — which came up only much later, geno,menon evk gunaiko,j needs must have been inserted later, and at that by a 2nd century Catholic editor;

2) for reasons of content it is, according to VAN MANEN, equally hardly possible that after 3,10–14 the author still could have considered Christ as
geno,menon u`po. no,mon, for: »There he had stated: to be under the Law is to be under the curse, v.10; Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us which did not occur by his being born under the Law but by hanging from a tree, v.15 [sic! but here v.14 will have been intended] I.o.w., Christ, when dying on the cross, was not under the Law. Had he then still been under the Law, he –already under the curse or cursed himself before becoming a curse on the cross– wouldn’t have been able to redeem others from the curse of the Law«. Finally, according to VAN MANEN, the editor gives himself away

3) by the form of his statement. Already Theodoretos remarked to 4,4: ouvk ei=pen\ avpe,steilen auvton ge,nesqai evk gunaiko,j( avlla\ geno,menon evk gunaiko,j avpe,steilen) Referring to the aorist of geno,menon, VAN MANEN asks to the point: »Was Christ then there, in heaven, ‘born of woman, born under the law’? That’s how it reads there,..«.. And that’s why for VAN MANEN, the form is explicable only if one assumes it to be a later insertion.

Among VAN MANEN’S observations, especially the last one mentioned is worth to be taken into account, since 1) — because of today’s general early dating of Gnosis —, and 2) — because of the problems with Pauline Christology and with his interpretation of the Law — will hardly be acknowledged generally. 3), on the other hand, clearly shows how the later interpolater gives himself away by a clumsy construction in respect of language: by the addition of geno,menon evk gunaiko,j geno,menon u`po. no,mon
(participle aor.; added for practical reasons with the intention of doctrinal clarification), he gives the impression (surely not intended) as if Christ had been born before he was sent on his mission by God. One can keep to this nonsense if, a priori excluding the possibility of an interpolation, one states against grammar rule, »that part. aor. does not here designate occurrences that precede the main action but concomitant ones, follows from the meaning of evxape,steilen, which forbids to understand it as a mission or task given only after the entrance into the world and the subordination under the Law «
(RIENECKER, 201).

Ted Hoffman · 07-03-2006, 08:20 AM

This is your main argument:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Smith

What I would like to see is evidence of how someone (middle Platonist or otherwise, your pick) would understand the phrase born of a woman as referring to a purely divine, nonhuman figure.

Now, why would we be discussing here in the first place if we knew of such "evidence"?
You want easy? you are at the wrong place. We are looking at a cumulative case.

Clivedurdle · 07-03-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

You see, I don’t have Paul speaking about a purely human Jesus, whose birth was just like any old human birth. I called Jesus an earthly/divine creature, which is what he seems to be for Paul: not an ordinary human being by any stretch. For that reason I used the word “incarnation”. Christ’s birth was not like yours or mine, or like Paul’s own birth, or even the birth of Moses (which is one of your examples from Hebrews). It’s an incarnation. A birth into flesh. A sending of God’s own Son into flesh and into the world.

Isn't this a description of a mythical beastie? You and me were not incarnated!

jgibson000 · 07-03-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Isn't this a description of a mythical beastie? You and me were not incarnated!

According to Plato, middle platonism, and gnosticism, we most certainly were.

JG

Clivedurdle · 07-03-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Christ’s birth was not like yours or mine, or like Paul’s own birth, or even the birth of Moses (which is one of your examples from Hebrews). It’s an incarnation. A birth into flesh. A sending of God’s own Son into flesh and into the world.

Quote:

According to Plato, middle platonism, and gnosticism, we most certainly were.

JG

If we are all incarnated, what is the purpose of this Jesus story?

Are you agreeing that "born of a woman" is mystical language?

jgibson000 · 07-03-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

If we are all incarnated, what is the purpose of this Jesus story?

Since it is not Platonic, Middle Patonist, or Gnostic, something entirely different. Something --at least in the case of Jn 1 -- that draws upon traditions about pre-existent Wisdom/Torah as set out in the Book of Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon and the Jewish understandings of these traditions, and is part of an intramural dialogue with other Jews about where the God of Israel and his will and purpose is most bindingly and completely known.

Quote:

Are you agreeing that "born of a woman" is mystical language?

Good gawd, no. But I am asking that anyone who asserts, as Ted and Earl have been doing, that there Middle PLatonists thought and believed that there can be -- and more importantly ever was -- a birth of any being from a woman in the "heavenly realm", to provide us, as it is incumbent upon them to do since they are the ones who claim that that this is what middle Platonits believed, with an actual middle Platonist text shows GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS was ever used as part of the diescription of this event.

Can you do so?

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith · 07-03-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Now, why would we be discussing here in the first place if we knew of such "evidence" [of how someone would understand the phrase born of a woman as referring to a purely divine, nonhuman figure]?

It sounds to me as if, given actual evidence of a nonhuman understanding of this phrase, you would use it to help you read Galatians 4.4. Yet, when I compiled evidence for a very human understanding of the phrase so as to use it to read Galatians 4.4, you called it all irrelevant.

Quote:

You want easy?

Not at all, but that is what I am getting here.

Quote:

We are looking at a cumulative case.

We certainly are.

Ben.

Clivedurdle · 07-03-2006, 10:52 AM

wiki logos (your ref to John 1)

Quote:

The Greek word λόγος or logos is a word with various meanings. It is often translated into English as "Word" but can also mean thought, speech, reason, proportion, principle, standard, or logic, among other things. It has varied use in the fields of philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion.
Contents
[hide]
1 Use in ancient philosophy
2 Use in rhetoric
3 Use in Christianity
4 Similar concepts
5 See also
6 References
[edit]
Use in ancient philosophy

In ancient philosophy, Logos was used by Heraclitus, one of the more eminent Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, to describe human knowledge and the inherent order in The Absolute universe, a background to the essential change which characterizes day-to-day life. Logos as the inherent rationality of the universe is also something of a precursor to the concept of the collective unconscious, described by Carl Jung, as these two fragments from Heraclitus suggest:
One must follow what is common; but, even though the Logos is common, most people live as though they possessed their own private wisdom. (Fr.2) The common is what is open to all, what can be seen and heard by all. To see is to let in with open eyes what is open to view, i.e. what is lit up and revealed to all. The dead (the completely private ones) neither see nor hear; they are closed. No light (fire) shines in them; no speech sounds in them. And yet, even they participate in the cosmos. The extinguished ones also belong to the continuum of lighting and extinguishing that is the common cosmos. The dead touch upon the living sleeping, who in turn touch upon the living waking. (Fr. 26)
By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term used to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the world and of each other. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues. The development of the Academy with hypomnemata brought logos closer to the literal text. Aristotle, who studied under Plato and who was much more of a practical thinker, first developed the concept of logic as a depiction of the rules of human rationality.

Quote:

what is the purpose of this Jesus story?

Since it is not Platonic, Middle Patonist, or Gnostic, something entirely different

So Pagels for example is wrong?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.