Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Christian Gnostics and the error of Pre Hoc – Propter Hoc.

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Mueller
    With special thanks to Darrell Bock for directing my attention to erroneous logic on my part; I have expanded the repertoire of my logical mistakes to include:
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 18, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      With special thanks to Darrell Bock for directing my attention to
      erroneous logic on my part; I have expanded the repertoire of my
      logical mistakes to include: Pre Hoc – Propter Hoc.

      The fact a platonic `demiurgical tradition' had a pre-Christian
      existence, does not ipso fact prove that the Christian platonic
      `demiurgical tradition' had pre-Christian Jewish or even pre-
      Christian ancestry.

      Pre-Christian Jewish ancestry of Christian "Gnostic" tradition may in
      fact be correct. Scholars are divided on the question begging
      absence of evidence.

      Horace Jeffery Hodges & Bob Schacht both suggest that Nag Hammadi and
      related texts cannot be demonstrated to show a pre-Christian Gnostic
      tradition.

      I am grateful to both of you in directing my attention to this
      argument. It appears very cogent.

      The best review I have come across so far is by Edwin M. Yamauchi
      http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html#111

      I would be grateful if others would care to comment or to refer me to
      other reviews (perhaps more recent).

      Thanking you in advance

      Thomas Mueller
    • Mike Grondin
      ... Your logic may well be erroneous, but there is no such fallacy as pre hoc [ergo] propter hoc , simply because no one would ever argue that way ( before
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 18, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Thomas Mueller wrote:
        >
        > With special thanks to Darrell Bock for directing my attention to
        > erroneous logic on my part; I have expanded the repertoire of my
        > logical mistakes to include: Pre Hoc – Propter Hoc.

        Your logic may well be erroneous, but there is no such fallacy
        as 'pre hoc [ergo] propter hoc', simply because no one would
        ever argue that way ('before this, therefore because of this').
        There is a 'post hoc [ergo] propter hoc' fallacy ('after this,
        therefore because of this'), and that may be what Darrell was
        indicating (though I can't find his note - perhaps offlist?)

        Mike Grondin
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.