Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:25:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
328 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Since they cannot be verified as independent sources and can instead be shown
> to borrow heavily from one another (in a manner quite similar to the process
> of editorial revisions of a single work), they cannot, to my satisfaction, be
> regarded as anything other than a single source (at least in terms of
> "proving" a historical account of Jesus).
I didn't say that I thought they were right, or wrong, just that I was amazed at
your example.
>
> And where the heck would I get a clue to give to myself in the first place?!?
Freudian equivalent of a banana peel?
> > The Gospel of
> > Matthew has less crediblity, but what about John, Mark and Luke (gosh, the
> > same number as in your example)? I can understand citing the differences in
> > those various gospels, but I'm confused by your example that basically
> > proves the exact opposite of your conclusion. And yes, The Gospels of
> > Dave!, Tim, Todd, and Jake are all fom the wHolly single source of Lugnet
>
> Well, that's not quite how I meant it. Granted, to the world outside of
> LUGNET, the various contributors to LUGNET are all subsumed into LUGNET as a
> source. But within the universe of LUGNET, (and in my example, at least)
> Dave, Todd, Tim, and Jake are sufficiently separate entities to qualify as
> different sources.
So, within the universe of the Bible, Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are
sufficiently separate entities to qualify as different sources...so...where are
you going with this analysis? One step forward, two steps back again...
--
:-O (dang, "formatted text" is messing with my Edvard Munch emoticon)
--
>
> Additionally, although Todd's, Jake's, and Tim's sudden conversion to
> MEGABLOKS-fandom would indeed be miraculous, it strikes me that the whole
> rising-from-the-dead thing is even miraculouser and would, accordingly,
> require even more definitively independent corroboration.
>
> Dave!
I think you got that backwards. Heck, I think Nixon rising from the dead is
more likely than some mass Megablocks conversion by the Faithful, ;-)
-->Bruce<--
Still a card-carrying member of the League of Green-Eyed Devil's Advocates
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) That's my amazing prose, of course. (...) I don't know that it's two steps back. I can accept that Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are separate authors of the Gospels, just as I accept that, say, HP Lovecraft and August Derleth are separate (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Since they cannot be verified as independent sources and can instead be shown to borrow heavily from one another (in a manner quite similar to the process of editorial revisions of a single work), they cannot, to my satisfaction, be regarded (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
