tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115945772323706986..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Beyond unbeliefRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159542698842269362006-09-29T11:11:00.000-04:002006-09-29T11:11:00.000-04:00Steven wrote:---CARRThere is no such thing as the ...Steven wrote:<BR/>---<BR/>CARR<BR/>There is no such thing as the dead?<BR/><BR/><BR/>'Let us remember the dead of Vietnam. Lost on the battlefield. Remembered in our hearts and homes'.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>As if we needed more proof, but here Steven has admitted that he has reified the term "Dead." (Those who need a brush-up on the definition of Reification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification )<BR/><BR/>But to answer him in a way to point this out:<BR/><BR/>You remember the dead of Vietnam. So what? Why should I care that you remember the rocks, the twigs, the rivers, the dead leaves, the concrete bunkers, the sand, the pavement, the new buildings, the bullets, the M16's & AK47s, the tanks? What difference does that make?<BR/><BR/>Oh wait. You mean the dead <I>SOLDIERS</I>. The <I>people</I>. So it's not "the dead" in general whom you remember in your heart--it's the dead <I>people</I>.<BR/><BR/>The above illustration proves that the term "dead" <I>is not an object</I>. It is a <I>description</I> of a particular state of an object; it is the <I>attribute</I> of an object.<BR/><BR/>If I ask Steven to point out the dead of Vietnam, he's going to have to point to <I>some particular object</I>. He cannot point to "dead" because it is not a thing.<BR/><BR/>Now, of course, Steven engages is equivocation here:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>Clearly I mean that their corpses are brought from the battlefield to our hearts and homes , so they can be remembered. <BR/>---<BR/><BR/>But he began by pointing out that we are to <I>remember</I> the dead; and remembering something is most certainly not the same thing as going out and taking hold of that object and inserting it into our hearts and homes.<BR/><BR/>What, exactly, do people remember when they remember "the dead"? They remember <I>the people</I>; they do not remember some nebulous idea of "deadness" that's floating around out there. They remember the <I>other attributes</I> of that object that is now dead.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, this is so obvious I'm tempted to believe Steven is really a theist in disguise to make up stupid arguments for atheists so that atheists look bad. Seriously, Steven, you don't need to do that. Atheistic arguments are irrational enough without you making them worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159511504306436482006-09-29T02:31:00.000-04:002006-09-29T02:31:00.000-04:00CALVINDUDEBut there is no such thing as an indefin...CALVINDUDE<BR/>But there is no such thing as an indefinite "dead." "Dead" describes an attribute of a thing; it is not a thing itself.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>There is no such thing as the dead?<BR/><BR/><BR/>'Let us remember the dead of Vietnam. Lost on the battlefield. Remembered in our hearts and homes'.<BR/><BR/>Clearly I mean that their corpses are brought from the battlefield to our hearts and homes , so they can be remembered.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159488442111765592006-09-28T20:07:00.000-04:002006-09-28T20:07:00.000-04:00• whether Jesus ever existed;• whether Jesus died ...<I>• whether Jesus ever existed;<BR/>• whether Jesus died on the cross;<BR/>• whether Joseph of Arimathea existed;<BR/>• whether Jesus was buried (by anybody);<BR/>• whether the theft-of-the-body thesis is plausible;<BR/>• whether the disciples were convinced that Jesus had risen;<BR/>• whether Paul learned anything about Christianity from other Christians;<BR/>• whether the evangelists ere even trying to record actual events, and<BR/>• whether any parts of the Gospel accounts of the burial and resurrection of Jesus are either true or were meant to be taken as true</I><BR/><BR/>This hearkens back to that discussion we had a while back. Is it irrational to have mutually exclusive alternative hypothesis?<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/slithering-down-mt-improbable.html<BR/><BR/>Does this reasoning apply to Christians when they offer multiple mutually exclusive hypothesis to bible contradictions?<BR/><BR/>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2335.htmlJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159481167869631052006-09-28T18:06:00.000-04:002006-09-28T18:06:00.000-04:00By the way, using the interpretation of Steven, he...By the way, using the interpretation of Steven, here's what Paul must have said:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>So is it with the resurrection of the dead. Sown perishable; raised imperishable. Sown in dishonor; raised in glory. Sown in weakness; raised in power. Sown a natural body; raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Now, lest Steven forget, "Sown in dishonor" is <I>an incomplete sentence that lacks a subject</I>. Thus, Steven is simply asserting that Paul speaks in a bunch of sentence fragments without any particular subject in view.<BR/><BR/>But no one speaks that way. Even if we say that these sentences are ellipses, they require an implicit subject in order to be understood.<BR/><BR/>Again, to interpret the passage as Steven is doing is to make it completely incomprehensible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159480797698029042006-09-28T17:59:00.000-04:002006-09-28T17:59:00.000-04:00Steven wrote:---And Calvindude doesn't even preten...Steven wrote:<BR/>---<BR/>And Calvindude doesn't even pretend that there is a pronoun in those verses.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>That's because, unlike you, I don't try to pretend what a passage means. Example:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>But 'the dead' are not the same as 'the dead bodies'.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>But there is no such thing as an indefinite "dead." "Dead" describes an attribute <I>of a thing</I>; it is not a thing itself.<BR/><BR/>You cannot hold "dead" in your hand.<BR/><BR/>You can hold a dead body, but not "dead."<BR/><BR/>What is put in the ground is not "dead" itself; it is a dead <I>something</I>.<BR/><BR/>This is elementary logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159479787019648862006-09-28T17:43:00.000-04:002006-09-28T17:43:00.000-04:00I liked Davis comment about the seed and the plant...I liked Davis comment about the seed and the plant ' But they are numerically the same because there is material continuity between them…'<BR/><BR/>Gosh, perhaps Adam and Eve were the same person, because the material of the rib of Adam was turned into Eve. There was material continuity between them :-)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps though, we should not take claims of material continity too literally (unlike Davis), especially bearing in mind the words of Davis's Lord and Saviour who seemed to doubt the assertions of Davis that there is a numerical similarity betweeen the seed and a plant. <BR/><BR/>John 12:24 'I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.'<BR/><BR/>And , rather more importantly, Paul uses the analogy to tell his converted Jesus-worshippers in Corinth, who still scoffed at the idea that a corpse could rise, that they were idiots for thinking that the resurrection of mortals involved the raising of a corpse. Paul tells them that the corpse is just a seed which dies. Paul tells the Corinthians that the seed is dead. <BR/><BR/>1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. <BR/><BR/>This is the same Peter who tells people that 'all flesh is grass', presumably to persuade them that flesh will be made eternal.<BR/><BR/>All ignored by Davis, of course, who cannot bear to think that people are idiots for imagining that resurrection is about a decayed corpse being restored into something amazing.<BR/><BR/>--------------------------<BR/>And , of course, there is no word for 'it' in speireita, which just means 'sown'.<BR/><BR/>'Sown in dishonour' is a perfectly acceptable translation. <BR/><BR/>Meaning that the dead are sown in dishonour.<BR/><BR/>And this is what Carrier says in his chapter. The dead are sown in dishonour, the dead are raised in glory. (Or to be more precise, 'one of the dead' ,as it is singular)<BR/><BR/>But Paul simply never says that dead bodies are sown in dishonour and the same bodies are raised in glory. That is a fact.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>There is no word which means 'it', in verses 43-44. There is no word 'it' , which has a referent, let alone the same referent. <BR/><BR/>There is no prounoun in those 2 verses.<BR/><BR/>This is a plain fact that no amount of rewriting of the Bible can change.<BR/><BR/>And Calvindude doesn't even pretend that there is a pronoun in those verses.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In short, even Calvin had to concede that Paul was referring to 'the dead', rather than 'dead bodies'.<BR/><BR/>Just look at what Calvindude wrote 'Thus, the context of the passage starting with "So is it with the resurrection of the dead"...'<BR/><BR/>But 'the dead' are not the same as 'the dead bodies'. Not even Calvindude can hide the fact that Paul makes a distinction here.<BR/><BR/>(Unlessn Calvindude believes that somebody is not dead after his corpse has been cremated and ceases to exist, because a dead person is the same thing as a corpse, so when there is no corpse there is no dead person!)<BR/><BR/>Why did Paul write that way? Why did Paul carefully distinguish between 'the dead' and 'dead bodies'?<BR/><BR/>Read 'The Empty Tomb' to find out.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159478483929236252006-09-28T17:21:00.000-04:002006-09-28T17:21:00.000-04:00Steven,By the way, I'd also point out that even if...Steven,<BR/><BR/>By the way, I'd also point out that even if your Greek skills were existent, your logic skills are still woefully inadequate. Steve was quoting someone (Stephen T. Davis) in that passage. (And am I the only one who's noticed we've got Steve, Steven, and Stephen here?)<BR/><BR/>Thus, it is not accurate to say that it is the Triabloguers who are "rewriting" the Bible; if it was "rewritten" it would have been by Davis (although in this case, it's really by you).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159478260262872982006-09-28T17:17:00.000-04:002006-09-28T17:17:00.000-04:00Steven,If you want the Greek:http://www.biblegatew...Steven,<BR/><BR/>If you want the Greek:<BR/><BR/>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2015:43-44&version=68<BR/><BR/>For the browsers that can read it: <BR/>---<BR/>43 σπειρεται εν ατιμια εγειρεται εν δοξη σπειρεται εν ασθενεια εγειρεται εν δυναμει<BR/><BR/>44 σπειρεται σωμα ψυχικον εγειρεται σωμα πνευματικον ει εστιν σωμα ψυχικον εστιν και πνευματικον<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>As to where "it" is found, you do realize that Greek is an inflected language, right? Thus, the "it" is included in the words "σπειρεται" ("speiretai") and "εγειρεται" ("egeiretai").<BR/><BR/>And if you look at verse 42, you'll see the same construct:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>ουτως και η αναστασις των νεκρων σπειρεται εν φθορα εγειρεται εν αφθαρσια<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Verse 42 is translated in the ESV as "So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable." Personally, I would have no problem replacing "it" with "what is" as the ESV does in this passage. The "what is" obviously contextually relates back to the subject: "So is it with the resurrection of the dead." When Paul writes, "What is sown" (σπειρεται ("speiretai")) the only thing that is "planted" in this sense is the dead body.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the context of the passage starting with "So is it with the resurrection of the dead" shows that "what is/it" is refering to the dead body. Otherwise, Paul's statements in verses 43-44 have no object at all, in which case he was saying absolutely nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159477602884797212006-09-28T17:06:00.000-04:002006-09-28T17:06:00.000-04:00In fact, just to save you all the bother of findin...In fact, just to save you all the bother of finding out what the Greek for 'it' is, here is a link to the Greek http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr015.html so that people can see that there is no word 'it' in the Greek.<BR/><BR/>Triablogue - where the Bible is rewritten on a daily basis, and then thrown in the face of sceptics who had only read yesterday's version.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159477199454058912006-09-28T16:59:00.000-04:002006-09-28T16:59:00.000-04:00' Three times Paul says, “It is sown…it is raised…...' Three times Paul says, “It is sown…it is raised…” Now what is the intended referent of this word “It”?'<BR/><BR/>What is the Greek word for 'it'? <BR/><BR/>And where does that Greek word for 'it' appear 3 times in verses 43-44?<BR/><BR/>Please post the Greek for verses 43-44 and underline the Greek word for 'it'.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1159466576885758952006-09-28T14:02:00.000-04:002006-09-28T14:02:00.000-04:00Thanks for bringing up the point about Roman allow...Thanks for bringing up the point about Roman allowances for burial in the case of crucifixion. I had heard someone telling me one that the Romans typically burned all of the corpses of crucufixion victims, and no remains had ever been found, so therefore, it was extremely likely that they wouldn't make an exception in Jesus' case.<BR/><BR/>However, it seems that at least one such case has been found:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Archeological_evidence_for_ancient_crucifixion<BR/><BR/>And while wikipedia isn't always a reliable reference, the sources seem to check out. Coupled with the case made in the pdf you linked to, it speaks a lot towards the gospels portaying an accurate picture of crucifixion practices at the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com