The issue isn't that ad hoc arguments are made. I fail to see what motivates your incredulity over this simple fact. Well, if the conclusion of historicity is based on multiple conclusions based on ad-hoc premises (for examples see above), then obviously each of those conclusions has to be addressed. Reaching on one thing, i might follow you. But, how about you just present your historicity apologetics, A/K/A arguments, and we can just discuss the merits rather than slinging mud. Maybe you're just ad-hoc reasoning from your preconceived conclusion. If you have to have an apologetic for each and every claim,Ī/K/A an argument for each and every claim, which is a fundamental requirement of any claim, historicist or mythicists. To conclude it must be biological is ad-hoc. "Brother" in the phrase "brother of the Lord" could refer to biological or fictive kinship. One cannot conclude a biological "born" without assuming it ad-hoc. This fits fine with the allegorical usage. Second, Paul uses the word "genómenon" from "genomai" which most often refers to being made or coming into being as opposed to being born. And, frankly, given that it fits perfectly in an allegorical passage by being more allegory, the least forced explanation is that is exactly what it is. It could be he's switching to history, but you have no evidence that's what's he's doing. It is ad-hoc to insist that Paul is "certainly" switching literary genres - from allegory to history - in the middle of his exposition when the phrase can be effortlessly interpreted either way. What is your evidence that Paul didn't place events surrounding Jesus in the heavens?įirst, this phrase appears in an allegorical passage where the same verb is used allegorically elsewhere in the same passage. He certainly doesn't say this happens in heaven iirc, we can't even construct a complete copy of it today. of course, it's bloody huge, so it's a pretty significant omission. it's basically the only thing we can say was "removed". early church fathers seemed to regard it as "uninspired" but still "useful" for instruction, and so it was actually included many bound bibles (eg: sinaiticus). The major exception to this is the shepherd of hermas. what became the bible was mostly locked in by the late second century, and mostly identical to what we have now. The canon developed a bit gradually, but was a grassroots, bottom-up sort of thing. they likely had some acceptance in their own communities, but didn't get anywhere else. non-canonical gospels that were written after this point basically just failed to gain traction against the texts already widely copied and read across the early "universal" (catholic) church. The canonical gospels were written more or less between about 70 and 120 CE, and gained the widest distribution. for whatever reason, a few texts like the didache fell through the cracks. the earliest set of these that survive, with a few exceptions, form the new testament. Nothing that was ever actually in the bible.Ĭhristians did not stop writing texts, basically ever.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |