SCOTT WINDSOR SAID:
I appreciate seeing one who is labeled "a devout Catholic" being given a video presence here.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
CathApol Blog
STEVE SAID:
SCOTT WINDSOR SAID:
"I appreciate seeing one who is labeled "a devout Catholic" being given a video presence here."
I appreciate Scott's candid admission of what it means to be "a devout Catholic." As one news outlet explains:
"Andrea Bocelli... lives with his girlfriend, Veronica Berti, and has two children, Amos, 12, and Matteo, 10, from his estranged wife, Enrica."
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3040086.ece
6/13/2010 10:42 AM
SCOTT WINDSOR SAID:
Steve,
We don't know the relationship he has with Veronica, nor what the estrangement is all about between he and Enrica. I will agree that "living with her" is scandalous, but if they are living as brother and sister until Enrica passes, then there is no sin. If you have proof to the contrary, I would look at it, but all else would be gossip - and sinful.
Ah, the mighty power of "if" in the mind of the wishful thinker!
ReplyDeleteYeah, but what about the appearance of evil?
ReplyDeleteApparently the devout Catholic religion doesn't accept that admonition?
off-topic:
ReplyDeletea provocative post by Randy Alcorn cited over at Doug Wilson's blog:
http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/15/what-your-view-limited-atonement/
Doug Wilson thinks postmillennialism is the answer. Any thoughts?
BTW, they're just having an innocent pajama party here (source).
ReplyDeleteThat's right, Patrick, is a brotherly/sisterly thing.
ReplyDeleteMr. B. doesn't have the funds to put his gal pal up in a separate house to avoid scandal?
ReplyDelete-Steve Jackson
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That being said, unless you have proof of something more than a guy in his underwear, you're still just gossiping. I don't know what they do behind closed doors, and I venture to guess none of you do either.
ReplyDeleteOK, let's spin it the way YOU folks seem to want to now, I'll rephrase my original statement...
I find it ironic that to see a scandalous person being prominently displayed in a video on this blog.
There, does that make y'all feel better about yourselves now?
I'm sorry I tried to pay a compliment. It SEEMED like y'all were willing to demonstrate acceptance on matters where we AGREE (like abortion). Evidently I was wrong. I apologize for my naivety.
Scott<<<
Why would any of that be ironic, Scott? Ignoring the misuse of the term, do you assume that unless someone agrees with you 100% that they can never make any true statement? Do you assume that's what we believe?
ReplyDeleteI mean, seriously, how is this in any way surprising, unusual, perplexing, odd, or in any other way striking, that we would point to a famous person's truthful statement without endorsing all the falsehoods that person also has?
Scott Windsor said:
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic that to see a scandalous person being prominently displayed in a video on this blog.
Well, Mr. Windsor, Peter already succinctly and cogently pointed out the problem with your comment. Still, I'll just put in my two cents' worth which merely elaborates on his fine point.
First of all, the video I posted was about Bocelli, a world-famous musician with congenital glaucoma, relating a little story about how he is happy to be alive because his mother didn't listen to doctors who advised her to terminate him.
However, the fact that Bocelli is happy to be alive rather than aborted doesn't necessarily have anyhing to do with Bocelli's status as "a devout Catholic" (as you claim he is) or religious or whatever. He could be an atheist for all I care, and it still could've made the same point.
In fact, you're the one trying to make some sort of connection between Bocelli being "a devout Catholic" and being against abortion. And you claim you're somehow "complimenting" us by doing so.
But let's take another example. Let's say I'd have no problem calling a large swath of Muslims "Islamofascists." Christopher Hitchens is in print making vociferous remarks against "Islamofascists." So I might agree with Hitchens on this point. However, Hitchens is also a huge critic of religion and proponent of atheism. Obviously I'd entirely disagree with Hitchens on this point. Now, say I post a YouTube video of Hitchens blasting "Islamofascists" because he has made remarks which I think are useful or insightful or something. Would it be ironic for a Christian like me to post a video of an atheist like Hitchens making insightful remarks against "Islamofascist" terrorists and their supporters? No, not necessarily.
So I don't see why it's "ironic" for me to do something similar with Bocelli.
In any case, it sounds like you're the one trying to play spin doctor here. But anyone who cares can refer back to the original thread for the proper picture.
SCOTT WINDSOR SAID:
ReplyDelete"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
i) Since that's a scribal interpolation, who cares?
ii) You were the one who make this a personal issue about Bocelli's character. I responded on your own terms. It's duplicitous for you to suddenly act as if that's out of bounds.
"That being said, unless you have proof of something more than a guy in his underwear, you're still just gossiping. I don't know what they do behind closed doors, and I venture to guess none of you do either."
In the real world (unlike The Flying Nun), if a man has a live-in girlfriend, there's no presumption that their relationship is platonic, unless proven otherwise. To the contrary, if a man has a live-in girlfriend, the standing presumption is that he and she are sexual partners. That's why they cohabit in the first place. That's the way a fallen world works, Scott.
If you want to make yourself artificially stupid by feigning ignorance about what such a domestic relationship implies, go right ahead. That doesn't help your cause.
If you had half a brain, you'd cut your losses by admitting that when made your comment about Bocelli's Catholic piety, you didn't know about the separation or the hanky-panky with his girlfriend.
But, no, you persist in stubborn denials which reflect badly on yourself. And that's fine with me.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou are comfortable judging what goes on inside Bocelli's apartment. You may be right - but you don't KNOW that. You BELIEVE it, but that BELIEF does not make it FACT.
IF Bocelli is doing more than what he should be doing behind closed doors, then he's fooling himself - but certainly not God.
I do not say he's living in innocence, I only said I do not KNOW and asserted that NEITHER DO YOU! And without such KNOWLEDGE what you're passing on is GOSSIP. I am not as comfortable with passing on gossip as you seem to be. You also seem to be so affected by "the world" that you do not even see what you're doing as gossip.
Now, one last thing:
>> sw: "Let he who is without sin
>> cast the first stone."
>
> SH: i) Since that's a scribal
> interpolation, who cares?
sw: Wow! Are you saying that is not or should not be part of Scripture? If you're not, how can you so easily dismiss what is recorded as Jesus' own words?
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
CathApol Blog
The following is from the NET Bible:
ReplyDeleteThis entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187).
External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.)
In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance.
(Cont.)
ReplyDeleteBut before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11):
(1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem.
(2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2.
(3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21).
Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11):
(1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee.
(2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians.
(3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here.
(4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).
1. Of course, I wonder whether Scott Windsor will accept the evidence against the pericope adulterae's inclusion in Scripture. After all, CNN wasn't there to video tape and record every single event in Jesus' life. They weren't present to interview the apostle John looking directly into the camera and telling us he didn't record the incident in his gospel. A film crew wasn't live on the scene to film footage proving someone else added it in rather than the apostle John.
ReplyDeleteInstead I suspect Windsor will say something like:
"You may be right - but you don't KNOW that. You BELIEVE it, but that BELIEF does not make it FACT.
"I do not say the pericope adulterae is Scripture, I only said I do not KNOW and asserted that NEITHER DO YOU! And without such KNOWLEDGE what you're passing on is GOSSIP. I am not as comfortable with passing on gossip as you seem to be. You also seem to be so affected by 'worldly scholarship' that you do not even see what you're doing as gossip."
2. In light of his epistemic standards, Windsor's faith in and appeal to Catholic tradition to support Catholicism in his apologetics is rather "ironic."
3. It sounds like Windsor isn't familiar with the debate. If so, then, whether he agrees or disagrees with NT scholarship on the pericope adulterae, it does make one wonder what sort of an "apologist" Windsor is. It'd be like telling people you're a huge L.A. Lakers fan without being aware of the fact that the Lakers used to play at the Forum but now play at the Staples Center.