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

Re: Grondin: Re: [GTh] Skinner's Interview with Davies

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Hi Bob, Thanks for giving me something to think about late at night (here). ... I can and do. I take it you haven t looked up the word contrary , or if you
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Bob,
      Thanks for giving me something to think about late at night (here).
      You wrote:

      > You can't say Thomas is [contrary] to something that was
      > not yet an issue.

      I can and do. I take it you haven't looked up the word 'contrary', or
      if you have, were unable to find a definition to support your position.
      My creaky old 1980 OAD, e.g., has the following:

      "1. Opposite in nature, opposed; 2. Opposite in direction ..."

      No mention of chronological priority there, but let's look at it this way:
      Suppose I claim that text A contains ideas contrary to those in text B.
      According to you, I can't also claim that text B contains ideas contrary
      to those in text A, since one of them had to come first, hence one of
      my two claims has to be false. But of course that's not so. If A is
      contrary to B, then B is also contrary to A, and vice versa. That's just
      the way we use the word in both Logic and ordinary language.

      Other examples may suffice: I think you may agree that Paul's accounts
      of his travels are somewhat contrary to what was written in Acts. Or that
      Mark's report of the final words on the cross is contrary to any of the
      other gospels. But how can that be, according to your argument, since
      the latter texts didn't yet exist? QED, I believe.

      [Bob]:
      > Besides, as Steve pointed out, what you call "opposing" is not so
      > much opposing as indifferent to. As he wrote in the message that you
      > forwarded on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:06:56 -0500,
      >
      >>No... Thomas is [not] AGAINST the resurrection in the flesh, it just
      >>has nothing to do with it. It's not against repeating the Nembutsu
      >>or sacrificing goats to Legba either, it just doesn't mention them.

      Witty, of course, but somewhat irrelevant, since the text DOES mention
      human flesh, and it doesn't much like it. The problem I have with
      responding to Steve on this point is that there seems to be no response
      that he would deem adequate. If I quote some logia, he might accuse me
      of falling victim to what he pointed to as a common tendency to draw a
      general ideology out of a few logia. An end-around might work if he would
      allow consideration of other Thomasine writings (Book and Acts) which
      more clearly denigrate the flesh, hence suggesting that to Thomasines
      a resurrection in the flesh would be an abomination, but I'm afraid he
      wouldn't do that. That pretty much makes his position impregnable.

      Dare I say that Paul's position on resurrection in the flesh was likewise
      contrary to the canonical gospels (leaving aside GosMark, and the
      endless variations of scholastic reasoning employed to show otherwise)?

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