Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 08-31-2011, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

LXX Numbers 12

9 So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed. 10 But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. 12 “Oh, do not let her be like one stillborn [εκτρωμα], whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”

(This is a simile, but it shows how the term is used for effect.)

Don't you think that this word [εκτρωμα] (εκ => "from", τρωμα => "a festering", "wound". ) could be a reference to leprosy, the open wounds of exposed flesh or stigmas on Paul's body?

I wonder how much a leprous Paul would have had to pay to allow him to make all of those sea voyages?

In fact, I wonder how a leprous Paul could have been so welcome in all those various communities he visited.

Although, perhaps people just accepted lepers wandering into their communities as a matter of course.

Somehow, I kind of doubt it, but who knows.

archibald · 08-31-2011, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Repeating what has already been said is not making the case any stronger.

Their faith is arguably still needed.

They would only need faith that Paul had presented accurate evidence supporting his testimonial claim.

This is distinctly different from the type of faith that Paul is referring to in his actual argument, both here and everywhere else, for that matter.

Really? Distinctly different?

spin · 08-31-2011, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I understand you're trying to be meaningful here, but you need to try harder. The claim of something that supposedly has witnesses, 500 in one case, is rhetorically a much stronger claim. Paul admits no sign of the claim in his argument in vv.12-19.

Possibly a meaningful clue, possibly not. But it's still not a contradiction, nor does it neuter the argument for the earlier verses. Not even sure why you think it ought to have been referenced in 12-19. Are you suggesting that the 'if' at the start implies that the resurrection is literally not being preached, that Paul is not already himself preaching the resurrection to the Corinthians, based on his own witnessing?

I didn't talk of a contradiction in this. You don't seem to have a grasp of the discussion. Perhaps you should read up on what you're supposed to be trying to talk about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let's say I've got a long way to go to reach your ridiculous limit with "myther". Hypocrisy becomes you.

Just briefly on this (no need to restate my views on the remainder), but, seriously, what is ridiculous about 'myther'? It only refers to someone who favours the myth hypothesis.

What is ridiculous about your usage of "myther" is your propensity to go beyond all limits of decorum to mouth off on the subject, labeling most things you disagree with "myther" or the next best thing. So there is nothing necessarily ridiculous about "myther" anything, just your frequency of badmouthing anyone you deem fits the bill. Then you bleat about me saying "crap" a few times. That's the hypocrisy.

dog-on · 08-31-2011, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

They would only need faith that Paul had presented accurate evidence supporting his testimonial claim.

This is distinctly different from the type of faith that Paul is referring to in his actual argument, both here and everywhere else, for that matter.

Really? Distinctly different?

Are you another one who may think that the 'if' at verse 12 implies no previous testimonials?

Quote:

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Yes, distinctly different.

And the if in v.12 refers to the preaching of Christ's resurrection from the dead and not to the testimonials of eyewitnesses.

Iskander · 08-31-2011, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Don't you think that this word [εκτρωμα] (εκ => "from", τρωμα => "a festering", "wound". ) could be a reference to leprosy, the open wounds of exposed flesh or stigmas on Paul's body?

I wonder how much a leprous Paul would have had to pay to allow him to make all of those sea voyages?

In fact, I wonder how a leprous Paul could have been so welcome in all those various communities he visited.

Although, perhaps people just accepted lepers wandering into their communities as a matter of course.

Somehow, I kind of doubt it, but who knows.

A leprous Paul would explain why he travelled so frequently and spent little time anywhere.

If I were to expand the explanation above, would I get a PhD in rationalism and be allowed to crap all over the forum?

ph2ter · 08-31-2011, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Don't you think that this word [εκτρωμα] (εκ => "from", τρωμα => "a festering", "wound". ) could be a reference to leprosy, the open wounds of exposed flesh or stigmas on Paul's body?

I wonder how much a leprous Paul would have had to pay to allow him to make all of those sea voyages?

In fact, I wonder how a leprous Paul could have been so welcome in all those various communities he visited.

Although, perhaps people just accepted lepers wandering into their communities as a matter of course.

Somehow, I kind of doubt it, but who knows.

Maybe he was cured from leprosy somehow at some point of his life. Maybe this leprosy should be understood allegorically. Maybe he was born of mother who was leprous. In Numbers 12 leprous was Miriam. Miriam, the sister of Moses' was probably a model for making Mary, the mother of Christ.

And you have Galatians 6:17:
From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks [στίγματα] of Jesus.

dog-on · 08-31-2011, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I wonder how much a leprous Paul would have had to pay to allow him to make all of those sea voyages?

In fact, I wonder how a leprous Paul could have been so welcome in all those various communities he visited.

Although, perhaps people just accepted lepers wandering into their communities as a matter of course.

Somehow, I kind of doubt it, but who knows.

Maybe he was cured from leprosy somehow at some point of his life. Maybe this leprosy should be understood allegorically. Maybe he was born of mother who was leprous. In Numbers 12 leprous was Miriam. Miriam, the sister of Moses' was probably a model for making Mary, the mother of Christ.

And you have Galatians 6:17:
From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks [στίγματα] of Jesus.

Maybe, but like I said, I kinda doubt it. In fact, metaphor simply makes much more sense of all the evidence.

archibald · 08-31-2011, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I understand you're trying to be meaningful here, but you need to try harder. The claim of something that supposedly has witnesses, 500 in one case, is rhetorically a much stronger claim. Paul admits no sign of the claim in his argument in vv.12-19.

Possibly a meaningful clue, possibly not. But it's still not a contradiction, nor does it neuter the argument for the earlier verses. Not even sure why you think it ought to have been referenced in 12-19. Are you suggesting that the 'if' at the start implies that the resurrection is literally not being preached, that Paul is not already himself preaching the resurrection to the Corinthians, based on his own witnessing?

I didn't talk of a contradiction in this. You don't seem to have a grasp of the discussion. Perhaps you should read up on what you're supposed to be trying to talk about.

Possibly technically true, at least partially, but you started out saying that vv3-11 neutered the necessity for faith in the subsequent verses, and your 'no sign of the claim in vv12-19' echoes this. And you haven't yet substantiated the 'neutering' statement (or the 'irrelevant' or the 'useless' one you made in the thread about Doherty-Wells) very well yet, IMO.

Further, you also haven't yet addressed my query about why we should expect Paul to reference vv3-11 later on.

Btw, when you do decent analysis you're actually quite good, IMO, if a little too certain-sounding, and leaning in one direction more than the other to be claiming neutrality. Otoh, when you try to do condescending, you just come across as quite funny. :]

dog-on · 08-31-2011, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I wonder how much a leprous Paul would have had to pay to allow him to make all of those sea voyages?

In fact, I wonder how a leprous Paul could have been so welcome in all those various communities he visited.

Although, perhaps people just accepted lepers wandering into their communities as a matter of course.

Somehow, I kind of doubt it, but who knows.

A leprous Paul would explain why he travelled so frequently and spent little time anywhere.

If I were to expand the explanation above, would I get a PhD in rationalism and be allowed to crap all over the forum?

I suppose that you would.

Paul: "Hi everyone, I am Paul and I bring you good news!"

Everyone: "Holy fuck, a leper! Run for the hills!"

archibald · 08-31-2011, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Yes, distinctly different.

If you say so. I'm not seeing it. I mean, I can see that faith in Jesus' resurrection and faith in the reliability of the reports of testimonials aren't the same thing, but I don't see the disjoin that you see, because they are connected, not at odds with one another. Paul could, for example, be speaking of the former in v12 and it still wouldn't mean that he wasn't supporting his exhortation in the preceding digression about testimonials.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.