Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 03-18-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Sorry, but in practice it is what spin is saying, because for all my effort to try to point out a semantic range for given words, none of my arguments are accepted as legitimate, and he appeals to the examples which he prefers and refuses to acknowledge my own. So in effect he is denying that there is anything to be considered other than hismeaning.

Earl Doherty

This is a logical fallacy and not the first we've seen.

Toto · 03-18-2011, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

...
This is a logical fallacy and not the first we've seen.

Could you identify the logical fallacy?

judge · 03-18-2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

...
This is a logical fallacy and not the first we've seen.

Could you identify the logical fallacy?

I couldn't be bothered to wade through the umpteen different fallacy's and "give it a name".
If you think Earls conclusion is logical then good luck to you.

Toto · 03-18-2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Could you identify the logical fallacy?

I couldn't be bothered to wade through the umpteen different fallacy's and "give it a name".
If you think Earls conclusion is logical then good luck to you.

Earl made one statement which seemed like a simple description of the state of the argument, and you called it a logical fallacy. I asked where the fallacy was to see if you actually knew what you were saying.

This whole thread is an abomination, and part of the reason is that you in particular have pronounced judgment on things you don't like - but you don't seem to be able to explain why. How is the discussion supposed to get anywhere if people just exchange "you're wrong!"

A logical fallacy has a specific meaning. It is not just a term to apply to an argument you can't understand or don't agree with.

EarlDoherty · 03-18-2011, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Sorry, but would everyone who is not talking about the actual topics in this thread shut the fuck up? Please. Everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodgrey

It is not spin's "style" that I find offensive, but his belligerent tone that will allow not one single point by Earl to have an ounce of validity or credibility, and that resorts to the same sort of pedantry that some of the most visceral opponents of Earl have stooped to. Spin and you come across like someone with more of a pathological vendetta than anyone seriously interesting in understanding another point of view and exploring it with any real integrity.

Pathological vendetta. Great phrase, and exactly my point. And when one perceives that this sort of thing is going on in a debate, then I’m afraid that it becomes one of the “actual topics in this thread,” and spin can't demand that no one is allowed to talk about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

PS: Earl, even though I don't necessarily agree with you on many points, I'd be willing to help you sharpen your arguments, off list, if you'd like. I think that if you do this and really try to publish a monograph, it would help you distinguish what evidence is wheat and what is chaff.

Not sure whether I should regard this as an insult. However, I’ve seen the error of my ways and I’m simply not going to let myself get sucked into that any longer. When I can spot something that deserves a response or clarification, including Neil’s “pathological vendetta” stuff, I’ll make a comment, as sharply as I can.

To which I will now proceed in regard to spin’s last response to me, as sharply as I can.

Earl Doherty

judge · 03-18-2011, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I couldn't be bothered to wade through the umpteen different fallacy's and "give it a name".
If you think Earls conclusion is logical then good luck to you.

Earl made one statement which seemed like a simple description of the state of the argument, .

If it seems that way to you, then Im not going to argue. It seems illogical to me.

GakuseiDon · 03-18-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

[S]omething very interesting is happening here with regards to the implications of Doherty's "inferior form" view of Christ, and how -- or even whether -- it fits into the 1 Cor 15 passages.

First, let's note the obvious: there are passages that describe Christ as being "in the flesh" and "according to the flesh". Doherty believes that this can also include non-earthly beings so doesn't necessarily mean an earthly Christ. Still, I would say that a prima facie view would suggest an earthly being, but I'm wondering if Doherty believes that the following passages could relate to the "inferior form" of Christ, or even to the spiritual Christ? Could anyone take a guess? I'm not saying they do, only if it is possible.

Here is an example of "flesh". Could this relate to Christ in his "inferior form" only, or also in his spiritual form?

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

I won't go through the other examples, but I'll note the same issue: when Christ is "in the days of his flesh" in Hebrews, was he in his "inferior form"?

And what about the other parts in 1 Cor 15? Could it relate to Christ's "inferior form" or just to men?

[36] Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened [zōopoieō], except it die:

Could this apply to Christ? I would say yes: for Paul Christ died, was buried (sown?) and then became a "quickening spirit". And this seems to be in common with what will happen to all men, as in this example:

Rom 4:17 ... [even] God, who quickeneth [zōopoieō] the dead...

1 Cor 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory...

Does this apply to Christ in his "inferior form"? I don't think anyone doubts the "raised in glory" part. For "sown in dishonour", I couldn't find anything that fits exactly. There is Gal 3:13:

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree

And also perhaps Rom 6:5, which suggests a commonality with Christ with regards to death and resurrection:

Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:

I think the evidence is stronger for the next part:

1 Cor 15:43 ... it is sown in weakness [astheneia]; it is raised in power [dynamis]:

Could the following apply to Christ? I would say "yes":

2 Cor 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness [astheneia], yet he liveth by the power [dynamis] of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

This depends on how you view "according to the flesh" and "in the flesh". From that perspective Christ had a "natural" body. But was Christ's "inferior form" a natural body? Paul writes in a number of places that Christ was "raised". One example, from Rom 8:11, seems to suggest that the same process used to raise Christ will also "quicken your mortal bodies":

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

My final point, on the "Heavenly Man" or "Primal Man":

[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
[46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
[47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

I don't see how [46] and [47] is consistent with the "Heavenly Man". The FIRST man is natural? The SECOND man is the "Heavenly Man"? It doesn't appear to square with Philo, probably even contradicts him. It certainly needs to be gone into more thoroughly.

Anyway, not surprisingly, I see problems with how Doherty reads this section.

Still, my question to Doherty is: Could the passages above be applied to Christ when he is in his "inferior form"? I'm not asking whether Paul means them to apply or not, just simply: would it be consistent with what Paul writes elsewhere?

I further thing I should add, which is a quote from Earl on the previous page in this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

In the picture I have presented of a descending spiritual entity, the Son, who does have a spiritual body, descends to a lower heaven where he takes on an inferior form which is capable of suffering and dying. That inferior form is not “physical” in the sense of human beings on earth, though it shares certain characteristics, since both inhabit the realm of corruptibility. After death, the Son is resurrected to return to heaven and his original pure spirit form.

With that in mind, read through 1 Cor 15 again. The question is: could Doherty's "inferior form" apply to all these passages? Is there any passage that it COULDN'T apply (other than when Christ ascends back into heaven).

Again, I'm not asking whether Paul meant this or not, just whether it is consistent with Paul's language. Note that my point in this examination isn't that Doherty is wrong, but assuming he is right, what are the implications? (ETA) I've added implications in black below:

[12]1 Cor 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
[13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen... No resurrection of the dead means that the Heavenly Man is buried in sublunar realm in inferior form
...
[20] But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. Spiritual form is firstfruits of men
[21] For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. By "Inferior form" came resurrection of the dead? Or by spiritual form?
[22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
[23] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. "Every man" includes inferior form or spiritual form? What form took on the characteristics of a man? The original "Heavenly Man" or the sublunar inferior form?
...
[35] But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
[36] Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: Inferior form died
...
[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: Inferior form is sown in corruption?
[43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: See my earlier point: Inferior form sown in weakness, raised in power?
[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Inferior form takes on characteristics of a natural body?
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
[46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. Inferior form was first, or "Heavenly Man" was first?
[47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. Sublunar heaven or upper heaven? Paul doesn't distinguish
[48] As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. Sublunar heaven or upper heaven? Paul doesn't distinguish
[49] And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
[50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. According to Earl, the Son returns to heaven in "his original pure spirit form". If he wasn't in his "pure spirit form", what other options are there according to the thinking of the time?

judge · 03-18-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This whole thread is an abomination, and part of the reason is that you in particular have pronounced judgment on things you don't like

"things I dont like" ? er ..ok.

Quote:

- but you don't seem to be able to explain why.

What would you like an exaplantion of ?

Is it only the logical fallacy...is that all is it Toto?

Quote:

How is the discussion supposed to get anywhere if people just exchange "you're wrong!"

I haven't said "you're wrong" or anything like that.

What would you like explained Toto?
Just outline the points you want explained.

stephan huller · 03-18-2011, 07:15 PM

I have tried to stay out of this mess for a while now but I will try and intervene. I have already made my case to spin that he has to consider the original Marcionite interpretation of the material. He points out that we don't know what the original material exactly looked like - and he's right. We don't know as much as we'd like.

Yet we do know enough that the Marcionite held that Jesus was something like what Earl is suggesting.

It has to be acknowledged that you can't completelly get to the original Marcionite truth from the Catholic scriptures. If you could it would imply that the texts were pristine, which they certainly are not.

I think that everyone has to stop pretending that the texts we have reflect Paul's original writing. It is very frustrating to hear very smart people engage in such petty bickering.

If you think that the Letter to the Corinthians retains what was laid down in the original autograph of the apostle then please - continue this nonsense. As it stands this is like fighting over the shadow of an ass.

Toto · 03-18-2011, 07:15 PM

I apologize. I should have nipped some things in the bud, but I didn't, and things got out of hand.

This thread will probably be deep sixed into E. If you think there is anythng of value here, let me know and it will be split out and saved.

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

03-18-2011, 07:15 PM	#229
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have tried to stay out of this mess for a while now but I will try and intervene. I have already made my case to spin that he has to consider the original Marcionite interpretation of the material. He points out that we don't know what the original material exactly looked like - and he's right. We don't know as much as we'd like. Yet we do know enough that the Marcionite held that Jesus was something like what Earl is suggesting. It has to be acknowledged that you can't completelly get to the original Marcionite truth from the Catholic scriptures. If you could it would imply that the texts were pristine, which they certainly are not. I think that everyone has to stop pretending that the texts we have reflect Paul's original writing. It is very frustrating to hear very smart people engage in such petty bickering. If you think that the Letter to the Corinthians retains what was laid down in the original autograph of the apostle then please - continue this nonsense. As it stands this is like fighting over the shadow of an ass.

03-18-2011, 07:15 PM	#230
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I apologize. I should have nipped some things in the bud, but I didn't, and things got out of hand. This thread will probably be deep sixed into E. If you think there is anythng of value here, let me know and it will be split out and saved.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.