Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-28-2012, 03:41 PM | #111 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 692
|
The question is why. Mead begins his explanation with an incorrect understanding of the use of the greek article (here to, the masculine dative). He states "Notice the article, "as to the abortion not "as to an abortion.""
However, there is a reason we don't refer to indefinite and definite articles when it comes to greek grammar, but merely "the article." First because, strictly speaking, there is no indefinite article. Second, the use of the article does not parallel that of english. Hence, in Robert Funk's edited and translated A Greek Grammar of the New Testament we find (sec. 433.3) "...in 1 C 15: ὥσπερ τῷ ἐκτρώματι= τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὥ. ὄντι 'to me who am, so to speak, one untimely born.' The article here does not correspond to the english "the" in that it is not definite. Nor does Mead point to the use of this term in Gnostic texts. In fact, as the texts which relate to this date to centuries after Paul, the fact that you favor Mead's explanation is peculiar, as Mead's explanation is based on either misusing or misunderstanding the grammatical use of the article and then applying it to a theological concept for which we have no documentation until long after Paul. Of course, in Mead's day virtually everything we knew about the "gnostics" was based on the writings of christians such as Irenaeus. Quote:
Quote:
|
||
02-28-2012, 08:29 PM | #112 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
There is an alternative beta code in which C represents Chi and X represents Ksee, which is how many fonts transliterate ASCII characters. For the other letters this alternate scheme is identical. I prefer this to the system in the Wiki article.
As for the scholarly acceptance of my preferred transliteration scheme, see here, which at the end of the page describes the transliteration scheme used by Crosstalk2 (Xtalk) and B-Greek e-lists. After a while you get used to it, after all it is just an alternate alphabet. A lot of us type the transluterated letters in caps to represent uncial letters (as written) which did not have punctuation, accents or breathing marks. If you want to add these, some use the lower case "h" for tough breathing, lower case "(i)" for iota subscript, "/" for acute accent, etc. Others may use the transliteration letters in lower case without diacriticals. The transliterations found in many scholarly publications do not distinguish between omega (Ω/ω) and omicron (Ο/ο), representing both as "o", or eta (Η/η) and epsilon (Ε/ε), representing both as "e", or may distinguish between them with a "long" vowel symbol above the English "Ō/ō" (for Ω/ω) or "Ē/ē" (for Η/η). Hmmm, saying Ω/ω = Ō/ō, Ο/ο = O/o, Η/η = Ēē, Ε/ε = E/e sounds like the Chimpansee at the zoo, doesn't it? I'm kind of surprised that LegionOnomaMoi was not aware of this. DCH Quote:
|
||||
02-28-2012, 08:52 PM | #113 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 692
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
02-28-2012, 09:54 PM | #114 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
|
Quote:
All right then, that demolishes my Post #96. Now how about someone dealing with my #97? Even Shesh is silent. |
|||
02-28-2012, 10:59 PM | #115 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
|
Quote:
There is historical coorboration for Joseph Smith, and the history of the Mormons. There are records of the events. The Mormon myth is the apearrance of a Christian angel and the discovery of a set of tablets from god, a modern Moses story of a sort. The rise of Mormonism is a good example of how Christianity likely evolved. In contrast there is no corboragtion for the JC 0f the gosples. There is little hard evidence for the exploits of the Jews depicted in the Old Testament. |
||
02-28-2012, 11:46 PM | #116 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
|
:Cheeky:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
02-28-2012, 11:59 PM | #117 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Quote:
But just read the last 3 pages of posts, and the comments and opinions of the other posters there, and decide for yourself whom it was that bested whom. The thread that finally died of terminal idiocy. |
|||||
02-29-2012, 12:32 AM | #118 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
|
No one refuted anything I said, except for minor points I already amended that were in my links to my earlier articles.
Still waiting for anyone to deal with my #97 by reading Proto-Luke and the Passion Narrative in the source to John. Thanks for your link to my Post #576 there, with my points made quickly. |
02-29-2012, 12:38 AM | #119 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
|
Quote:
Longer or shorter posts does not change the fact there is no coorboration of an historical Jesus let alone the supernatural aspects. There are vents regarding the Jews of the times and leaders who appear elsewher, such as the Jewish rebelion. There is archealogical evidence of the Jewish defense and Roman assualt on Masada. There are records of Jews who clainmed the mantle of messiah. Nothing about the JC depicted in the NT. The gosples are not consistent in message. In one JC is a wise ass gadfly in the face of the Jewish establishment. In another he is the spiritual guru preaching meekness. The JC depicted across the NT collection as it was picked appears more of a composite character. When i say coorboration of an actual JC and the events i mean other that that written by believers of unknown origins and intent. 'Eyewitnesses'n the gosples are not proof of anything. |
|||
02-29-2012, 12:41 AM | #120 | |||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
But I'm not wedded to Mead's theory. It just makes the most sense of the term, which is otherwise out of place. If Mead is not correct, I think the most likely theory is that Paul (or the later interpolator) referred to himself as a wretch or a mess. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|