Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 12-08-2002, 11:10 AM

Quote:

David
BTW, here's a list of the logic books in my personal library:

1) Handbook of Logic by Joseph Gerard Brennan (Harper & Row, 1961)
2) Intro. to Logic by Andrew H. Bachhuber (A Jesuit) Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957)
3) Readingsin Logic by Copi and Gould (1964)
4) Elementary Modern logic by Brown and Stuermann (1965)
5) Intro. to Logic by Copi (1978)
6) Better Reasoning: Techniques for Handling Arguments, Evidence and Abstraction by Wright (1982)

Great!
Someday you ought to read at least one.

Sorry, I could not resist.

David Conklin · 12-08-2002, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
You did not get the sarcasm in my comment -- it was inspired by Bill Clinton's famous denial that he had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

I got it and dismissed as a cheap shot that was unworthy of reply.

Quote:

...of it is that even if JC's virgin-birth conception was done without sex, it was still a divine impregnation -- much like all those pagan ones.

The point that Leeming, Vranfield and Boslooper made was that the Christian story of the virgin birth was NOT "like all those pagan ones." See <a href="http://members.tcq.net/dconklin/Isa714/betulah.html" target="_blank">http://members.tcq.net/dconklin/Isa714/betulah.html</a>

David Conklin · 12-08-2002, 11:14 AM

Quote:

I found this jewel burried in your post. Excellent point, David!

Thank you for the compliment Sojourner.

David Conklin · 12-08-2002, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:
Great!
Someday you ought to read at least one.

Sorry, I could not resist.

I have. I bought them to use as sources because I was planning on creating a logic program that could analyze paragraphs of material to see if the author's conculsion(s) were true or not--or, at least if his argument was logically valid!

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: David Conklin ]

David Conklin · 12-08-2002, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:
John was perhaps aware of the other Gospels but we have no evidence of this.

On the other hand, J. A. T. Robinson wrote a book saying that John wrote his gospel account first. Of course, this would still not eliminate the oral traditions and notes that were floating around.

Quote:

You seemed to totally miss my point so here it is again. John writes that John the Baptist identified Jesus as the Son of God when he saw the Spirit of God descend upon him.

You seem to be assuming that for John the Baptist and for John the Gospel writer that Jesus was not the Son of God _till_ then--this is a variant form of the adoption heresy. That John the Gosple writer did not share this view can be seen by reading the first few verses of his Gospel.

You are also assuming that if John did know about the virgin birth that he then should have written about it. If you'll think about that for a bit you'll realize that you have at least one other assumption in there that you didn't write down (it really, really helps to do that!).

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: David Conklin ]

NOGO · 12-08-2002, 11:53 AM

Quote:

You seem to be assuming that for John the Baptist and for John the Gospel writer that Jesus was not the Son of God _till_ then--this is a variant form of the adoption heresy. That John the Gosple writer did not share this view can be seen by reading the first few verses of his Gospel.

Whether Jesus was the Son of God before his baptism or not is debatable. What I am saying is that John identifies him as such at that point and a connection to the Spirit of God descending upon him is clearly stated. Also clearly stated is the fact that Jesus says that the words and works are not his but are God's who abides in him.

The complete gospel of John therefore is a view of Jesus which is contrary to a virgin birth or if you prefer I can put it this way. John's view of Jesus does not need a virgin birth. It stands very well without it.

Quote:

You are also assuming that if John did know about the virgin birth that he then should have written about it. If you'll think about that for a bit you'll realize that you have at least one other assumption in there that you didn't write down (it really, really helps to do that!).

My view as stated above is that John's view of the nature of Jesus makes a virgin birth superfluous if not contradictory.

Enlighten me. What assumption is that?

On the contrary I believe that you do not read John on its owm merit but rather have already assumed that he says the same thing as the rest.

lpetrich · 12-08-2002, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Conklin:

... Vranfield and Boslooper made was that the Christian story of the virgin birth was NOT "like all those pagan ones." See <a href="http://members.tcq.net/dconklin/Isa714/betulah.html" target="_blank">http://members.tcq.net/dconklin/Isa714/betulah.html</a>

Pure hairsplitting, just like then-President Clinton's famous remark.

Sojourner553 · 12-08-2002, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Conklin:


Thank you for the compliment Sojourner.

It was a genuine compliment because it was a good logical comment, plus looked at the issue from an interesting angle.

I did expect to see some commentary that you read and understood the rest of what I wrote though -- either pro or con.

Silence though (ie just ignoring it) was not what I had in mind as a viable option.

I am sure you are aware of the scientific method: It calls on one to use rationality to explain ALL the data to the best of our abilities-- not just pick and choose what we want.

Sojourner

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Sojourner553 · 12-08-2002, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Conklin:


From James D. G. Dunn, "Jesus Tradition in Paul," Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (E. J. Brill, 1994): 155-178.

On page 177 Dunn starts to answer the question he raised at the beginning of his study.

"Why was Jesus not cited explicitly as authority for the exhortations which drew on the Jesus tradition?" The answer is that to force, as it were, the web of allusion and echo into the open may strengthen the explicit authority of a particular exhortation*, but it also weakens the bonding effect of the web of shared discourse. In communities of shared discourse allusions can be all the more effective because they trigger off wider associations and communal memories whose emotive resonance gives added motivation to the looked for response."

*[the footnote here notes that in "the two most cited case (1 Cor 7:10-11; 9:14-15) Paul quotes a word from the Lord in order to _qualify_ it!"] emphasis in the original

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: David Conklin ]

David,

Can you tell us what this means. So sorry to see you are into professors who care more to obfuscate (and thus give the "ILLUSION" of importance) than to enlighten.

Also, you appear to be falling for the trap of authority hero worship:

The older I get the more amazed I see such imcompetence: programmers who can't program, doctors who are quacks, and yes history professors that are more concerned with impressing with words what sounds important -- but is really such apologetic garbage.

Again, you haven't responded to this: If I find very learned authorities who say Hinduism is all true, is that enough to satisfy you. How about if they put out gobbly gook like the above which really explains ... nothing.

P.S. It would also be helpful to explain where your stance is:

Many Christians think the virgin birth is a myth.
Even ol' Bede has conceded it might or might not have happened... I'm not sure how much of this happened after an exchange on this board (possibly none.)

Bede also says he isn't sure demons exist either (probably since ALL the miracles of the NT where Jesus cures madness is stated to be due to the CAUSE of demons, not natural causes.)

I read above you are a Seventh Day Adventist. So you are a step ahead in knowing that many pagan beliefs/customs entered into Christianity -- the question for you I guess is exactly when that happened.

Regards,

Sojourner
Sojourner

Sojourner

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

David Conklin · 12-08-2002, 01:50 PM

Quote:

the question for you I guess is exactly when that happened.

It appears to have started in Rome and Alexandria around 135-150 A.D. and accelerated under Constantine.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.