Re: Grondin: Re: [GTh] Skinner's Interview with Davies
- Hi Bob,
Thanks for giving me something to think about late at night (here).
> You can't say Thomas is [contrary] to something that wasI can and do. I take it you haven't looked up the word 'contrary', or
> not yet an issue.
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.
> Besides, as Steve pointed out, what you call "opposing" is not soWitty, of course, but somewhat irrelevant, since the text DOES mention
> 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.
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)?