Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:46:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
321 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> 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.
That's my amazing prose, of course.
> > > 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...
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 authors of the Cthulhu Mythos, but
that doesn't mean that Lovecraft's account verifies Derleth's (of vice versa)
except within the context of the Mythos. In that regard, Luke may validate Mark
within the text of the Gospels, but that doesn't mean that either of them is
validated beyond those contextual confines (i.e., in the real world).
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Er-hem. I know what you are trying to get at, I'm just trying to point out that your examples aren't exactly the best for doing that (and mostly just to give you are hard time for humor's sake). In your example above, all that's true, but it's (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) I didn't say that I thought they were right, or wrong, just that I was amazed at your example. (...) Freudian equivalent of a banana peel? (...) So, within the universe of the Bible, Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are sufficiently separate (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
