tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2411261847789543293..comments2024-03-29T08:19:26.011-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Rubber soulsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57912011735492652482009-09-03T12:04:22.020-07:002009-09-03T12:04:22.020-07:00ROTFLOL!!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle b...<i>ROTFLOL!!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Read Arius & his use of "Tradition" for yourself. Yeh good luck finding where he cites Apostolic Tradition to justfy his claim "that there was a Time when He(Christ) was not" & good luck finding one scholar who makes that claim as well.</i><br /><br />I don't claim either side relied on *cites* of Tradition. Of course, your position all along has been that preserving tradition is about the ideas expressed, no the words used. So, when I read 'Patristic scholars today warn against lumping together as “Arians” all the early theologians who had reservations about granting the Son full equality with the Father. They argue that it was the opponents of Arius who created this persona of Arius as the leader and arch-heretic of this theological tendency. Even his role as originator of the open controversy has been questioned, with men such as Eusebius of Caesarea, Asterius the Sophist and Lucian of Antioch offered as the true instigators' it seems clear that Arius was not arguing sola scriptura.<br /><br /><i>Unless you can show proof "more variance in the understanding of Scripture" </i><br /><br />If yo have no understanding how the variance in words will lead to variance in the ideas passed, I can offer nothing more in that regard.<br /><br /><i>It was never a capital offense but an act that merited death from God. </i><br /><br />If God kills you, you are not dead? Less dead? For that matter, does God kill any other person for spillling seed in the Bible?<br /><br /><i>you declared we couldn't interpret the actions in Gensis with the law in Levitcius ... </i><br /><br />I agree the writing of Genesis was contemporaneous to the writing of Leviticus. I was referring to the supposed historical events they referenced. We can't assume the Law as written in Leviticus was the law for the people of the events in Onan's time. I agree that the Leviticus reference is a good indictation that the writers of Leviticus did not beleive Onan's sin was a failure to uphold Levirate marriage. This is not evidence for the traditional interpretation, because there are so many alternate interpretations.<br /><br /><i>Anyway by that standard there is nothing in Scripture that teaches a man merits death by either the civil law or at the hand of God for failing to sleep with his wife in a natural fashion & of course it's not anywhere in tradition either. You got nothing.</i><br /><br />There is nothing in scripture that teaches a man merits death by either the civil law or at the hand of God for spilling seed, there is only a highly unreliable, non-contemporaneous tradition.<br /><br /><i>Show me where it says people who refuse to sleep with their wives must die?</i><br /><br />It doesn't, of course. So, we agree Tamar had no binding marriage?<br /><br /><i>You have not done this at all. I did & I OTOH cited Kippley's article.</i><br /><br />The strongest argument in Kippleys article is the preservation of the proper Tradition by Holy Spirit. I have little doubt you think this happened, as well. If this was the real reason you think the Tradition was presevered, you lied earlier when you said it was not the reason.<br /><br />Outside of that, Kippley relied on a false dichotomy (disproving the Levirate marriage interpretation was considered proof of the spilling seed interpretation) and completely glossed over the lack of spilling seed in the case of Er. That you consider this to be the heights of exegesis is sad.<br /><br /><i>Bottom line who should I listen too on explaining the meaning of this text? A Professional Biblical Exegete with two Doctorates, who studied hebrew in the Holy Land(Miguens) or some anonymous Math teacher?</i><br /><br />Since you asked that way, the one that has no dog in the fight. I does not matter a whit to me as a person if the traditional interpretation is accurate, it matters a great deal to Kippley.<br /><br /><i>Now I'm off to the lake this discussion is over.</i><br /><br />Enjoy your vacation.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2204224215232239342009-09-02T20:38:06.186-07:002009-09-02T20:38:06.186-07:00>I don't recall that in the text.
I reply...>I don't recall that in the text. <br /><br />I reply: Are you sure you where once Catholic because you sound like a Baptist with all the Sola Scriptura nonsense? Anyway by that standard there is nothing in Scripture that teaches a man merits death by either the civil law or at the hand of God for failing to sleep with his wife in a natural fashion & of course it's not anywhere in tradition either. You got nothing.<br /><br />>Show me where in the Torah it would say Tamar had a binding marriage.<br /><br />I reply: Show me where it says people who refuse to sleep with their wives must die?<br /><br />>there are many different reasonable interpretations.<br /><br />I reply: But they are only reasonable if you can back them up using legitimate exegisis <br />& historical study. You have not done this at all. I did & I OTOH cited Kippley's article. <br /><br />www.nfpandmore.org/2007%20May%20%20SIN%20OF%20ONAN.pdf<br /><br />Which you clearly have no answer too & Kippley cites Manuel Miguens QUOTE"he spilled his seed on the ground” fails to do full justice to the Hebrew expression. The Hebrew verb "shichet" never means “to spill” or “waste.” Rather, it means to act perversely. The text also makes it clear that his perverse action was related toward the ground, not against his brother[OR his Wife if I may interject] . “His perversion or corruption consists in his action itself, not precisely in the result and goal of his act . . . In a strict interpretation the text says that what was evil in the sight of the Lord was what Onan actually did (asher asah); the emphasis in this sentence of verse 10 does not fall on what he intended to achieve, but on what he did.”-Manuel Miguens, “BiblicalThoughts on Human Sexuality,”Human Sexuality in Our Time, ed. George A. Kelly, St. Paul Editions, 1979, 112-15.END<br /><br />Bottom line who should I listen too on explaining the meaning of this text? A Professional Biblical Exegete with two Doctorates, who studied hebrew in the Holy Land(Miguens) or some anonymous Math teacher?<br /><br />>A skeptic feels no need to take sides in these disputes.<br /><br />I reply; Which is why they are bloody useless. Besides you have taken a side in this issue. The wrong one. Tradition, Exegesis, History, Hebrew Marriage Law, Near eastern Trible Law is on my side of the argument. Onan died for spilling his seed(Er likely did too) Your only rebuttles have been a homage to the Monty Python Argument sketch but you sir are no John Cleese.<br /><br />Now I'm off to the lake this discussion is over.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46751115517287840802009-09-02T20:37:35.826-07:002009-09-02T20:37:35.826-07:00Well I'm going off to vacation & I thought...Well I'm going off to vacation & I thought I'd wrap this nonsense up & tie up a few loose ends.<br /><br />>Since you have not even shown a decent ability to read ....<br /><br />ROTFLOL!!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Read Arius & his use of "Tradition" for yourself. Yeh good luck finding where he cites Apostolic Tradition to justfy his claim "that there was a Time when He(Christ) was not" & good luck finding one scholar who makes that claim as well.<br /><br />http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-chart-opitz<br /><br />>Preserving a specific point of dogma is not the same as preserving the resoning for that dogma.<br /><br />I reply: Then all you have to show is the Arians or Arius citing Apostolic Tradition to justify their central dogma. All they do is quote scripture. At least I can show a Universal nterpretation in regards to Onan in Judaism & you can't produce a SINGLE Rabbi or Church Father to back up either the liberal interpretation or your own novel one.<br /><br />>My understand of the oral tradiiton was that it did indeed preserve precise wording later written down.<br /><br />I reply: That is an incorrect understanding of tradition to anyone who has either read Newman or studied Hallakah(one need only read the story of of Moshe Ha Navim being miraculously transported into the school of Rabbi Akiba to get the idea of Tradition). <br /><br />>If it made no claim to do so, that just allowed for even more variance in the understanding of Scripture.<br /><br />I reply: Unless you can show proof "more variance in the understanding of Scripture" <br /><br />equals eliminating specific understandings of scripture this is a useless tangent. <br /><br />Stick to Math.<br /><br />>I am still awaiting evidence that spilling seed was thought to be a capital offense when Genesis was written.<br /><br />I reply: It was never a capital offense but an act that merited death from God. BIG DIFFERENCE The Jews never tried & executed ANY individual in the whole history of Judaism for wanking. You are so ignorance of this topic it is unbelievable. <br />Anyway we know this is not a standard you really hold too since early in this debate you declared we couldn't interpret the actions in Gensis with the law in Levitcius (August 21, 2009 9:22 AM). I hate to break it to ya but Levitcius is a contempory document to to Gensis even if you deny Divine inspiration.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24659969597490566502009-09-02T08:34:03.277-07:002009-09-02T08:34:03.277-07:00What an unbelievably convenient claim on your part...<i>What an unbelievably convenient claim on your part considering the "violating the Levirate law" theory has been the major counter claim against the traditional interpretation ...</i><br /><br />I don't recall signing on to any major counter claim. A skeptic feels no need to take sides in these disputes.<br /><br /><i>Now who is whining?</i><br /><br />That would be you. Your complete failure to misunderstand text is not an issue for me, as I have no expectations of you.<br /><br /><i>Yet you are adverse to drawing the natural conclusions from the text in the cultural setting & favor extreme exegetical agnosticism? That is not convincing.</i><br /><br />I approve of finding natural conclusions. I disapprove of adding facts to the texts to force those conclusions.<br /><br /><i>You have no objective standard for evidence & since you profess ignorance of the subject or disciplines at hand how could you formulate a valid one? You can't. </i><br /><br />Nor have I claimed to be able to. If you care to go back, my initial position, thus far unchanged, is that there are many different reasonable interpretations. This does not change your lack of evidence for your interpretation.<br /><br /><i>>You think saying Onan was even more wicked than his brother would break the connection? If not, your replay is a non sequitur.<br /><br />I reply: Naturally I didn't say that, you are simply reading into my words what you want them to mean. </i><br /><br />That's why I asked for a clarification, rather than issue a condemnation.<br /><br /><i>Your claim here has developed into an partial admission Onan was being condemned for spilling seed while making an argument from special pleading that he was not killed for THAT act but for your unproven assumption he was killed for merely not having sex with his wife. Or you ignore the text & context & claim we don't know why he was killed.</i><br /><br />Er was declared wicked and killed, but without mention of spilling seed. Onan was declared wicked, spilt seed, and killed. "One of these things is not like the other".One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31429473200121162972009-09-02T08:33:32.831-07:002009-09-02T08:33:32.831-07:00The problem I pointed out remains. Er didn't h...<i>The problem I pointed out remains. Er didn't have sex with his wife for 3 days & then God killed him. Onan didn't have sex for a whole year(way past three days) & God only killed him after he spilled his seed. When you can answer the logical inconsistency in your argument let me know. </i><br /><br />When there is a logical inconsistency pointed out, I will be happy to. I could give ten different reasons for time difference, none of them supported by any of the texts, that have nothing to do with spilling seed. You can't give a reason supported by the text, either.<br /><br /><i>I reply: Well he was already married to her according to the Laws of Kitubbah. </i><br /><br />You have evidence of the "Laws of Kitubbah" being active at the time of Genesis? Are they supposed to correspond to the act of kiddushin? Wasn any action taken in the text that would enacted kiddushin? I did a little research, and currently kiddushin requires a gift, a written contract, or an act of sex. Did Tamar receive any of these from Shelah? I don't recall that in the text.<br /><br /><i>Plus the whole story is recounted in the Torah & yet you dismiss even an appeal to the Torah. </i><br /><br />Not at all. Show me where in the Torah it would say Tamar had a binding marriage.<br /><br /><i>I reply: It says "for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife." The text says nothing about her "feelings". Again you are reading twenty-first century marriage custom into a near eastern text. She was complaining she was not sent to his tent so they could consummate their marriage. </i><br /><br />That's not what the text says. It doesn't say Shelah refused to go into Tamar's tent, or any of the usual euphamisms for intercourse. It says she ws not given to him as a wife. Does your scientific exegis process always dispute clear wording?<br /><br />Do you have a way to show Tamar thought she was married?<br /><br />I see no point in responding to more verbiage on your part that Er spilled seed even when the texts don't say he did. All you are doing is convincing me that you read into thetext what is not there.<br /><br /><i>If I may remind you again, you are the one who insists on interpreting this text IN TOTAL isolation from the rest of the Pentatuch </i><br /><br />I would consider any other passage in the Pentateuch to be a strong supporting witness to the traditional interpretation of the account of Onan, if you can provide such a passage.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59199544799881040342009-09-02T08:32:18.667-07:002009-09-02T08:32:18.667-07:00You claimed you would accept a Tradition within 10...<i>You claimed you would accept a Tradition within 100 years of Onan but as you have shown with Muhammend & Arius that is not the case in your different treatment of them. Your rationalizations for this double standard are special pleading.</i><br /><br />I don't believe in treating apples like oranges. You don't even claim Maximillian has the same goal as the followers of Muhammed. If teh goals are different, why should I expect teh results to be similar?<br /><br /><i>You claimed Arius cited tradition to back up his denial of the Deity of Christ based on some obscure thing you read ... </i><br /><br />Technically, based on the account of a variety of historians, including Trnitarian historians.<br /><br /><i>I cited an Arian named Maximillian who clearly taught sola scriptura ...</i><br /><br />Which is not proof that Arian taught sola scriptura, especially in light of the comments by historians who say otherwise.<br /><br /><i>Well since then I poured over Arius' writings & he never cites tradition to defend his claim ... </i><br /><br />Since you have not even shown a decent ability to read what I have written in the past, and you seem to be in the minority, I see no reason to accept your word as accurate here.<br /><br /><i>Do explain how it possible for Maximillian to defend Arian Christology and yet not preserve that same Christology? </i><br /><br />Preserving a specific point of dogma is not the same as preserving the resoning for that dogma.<br /><br /><i>Sorry but I clearly asked "So according to you arguments are not about "preserving precise words" yet Tradition is about that & not about preserving "thoughts & concepts"?" </i><br /><br />My understand of the oral tradiiton was that it did indeed preserve precise wording later written down. If it made no claim to do so, that just allowed for even more variance in the understanding of Scripture.<br /><br /><i>They where also universally condemned by the Rabbis for practicing Onanism. </i><br /><br />I don't dispute that either.<br /><br /><i>This is the same as saying Frank spray painted a swastika on the house of a Jew & we don't know why he did it. </i><br /><br />I am not impressed by argumentum ad nazium. Each text specifically refers to Onan spillling seed, and does not refer to Er doing so.<br /><br /><i>In the end you are just ignoring the evidence becoming more incoherent with each post.</i><br /><br />I am still waiting for evidence that, at the time Genesis was written, the understanding was that Er also spilled seed. I am still awaiting evidence that spilling seed was thought to be a capital offense when Genesis was written. You are still providing evidence 700 years later. Through any claimed incoherence, those facts are unchanged.<br /><br /><i>So now you move the goal posts again & you wish to claim God killed Er & Onan for not having sex with their wife & not for violating the Leviate Law? </i><br /><br />I said that was the better explanation a few days ago, in a comment timestamped August 30, 2009 8:55 AM in this thread. I have repeated that view since. That you are just now seeing this does not speak highly for the possibility of fruitful discussion.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36699545878483153922009-09-01T23:09:20.921-07:002009-09-01T23:09:20.921-07:00>No extant manuscripts =/= no written transmiss...>No extant manuscripts =/= no written transmission, as I acknowledged earlier. I have been saying for a few days ....etc<br /><br />I reply: Now you are repeating yourself & I've already answered this...<br /><br />You have no objective standard for evidence & since you profess ignorance of the subject or disciplines at hand how could you formulate a valid one? You can't. <br /><br />>You are also adding to the scenario an assumption that directly supports your conclusion. The word 'convenient' comes to mind for this process.<br /><br />I reply: My assumptions are rational your assumed tactic of radical skepticism is not, rather it can be used to doubt ANYTHING to the N'th degree. <br /><br />>You have discovered I am not perfect. Oh my! Howver, my imperfections do not provide you with evidence you still don't have.<br /><br />I reply: Rather they show in my fallible judgment you cannot be moved by evidence in THIS particular case for whatever reason.<br /><br />>You think saying Onan was even more wicked than his brother would break the connection? If not, your replay is a non sequitur.<br /><br />I reply: Naturally I didn't say that, you are simply reading into my words what you want them to mean. Your claim here has developed into an partial admission Onan was being condemned for spilling seed while making an argument from special pleading that he was not killed for THAT act but for your unproven assumption he was killed for merely not having sex with his wife. Or you ignore the text & context & claim we don't know why he was killed.<br /><br />You have no reason from either the text, the Hebrew language of the Text, the greater context of Genesis & the Pentatuch or Tradition to have that assumption. In the end you fall back on your radical skepticism. I prefer the scientific study of history.<br /><br />At the end with the evidence piling up solely in favor of the Traditional Interpretation of Onan & without counter evidence to support the liberal one. There can only be one conclusion & your novel theory that God killed Onan & Er for merely not having sex their wife isn't even a consideration since you are the origin & sole advocate of it & you clearly formulated it from merely reading the English text alone.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65481044781426233642009-09-01T22:31:38.841-07:002009-09-01T22:31:38.841-07:00>I've acknowledged all along I don't kn...>I've acknowledged all along I don't know much about the subject. <br />Your attempts to read into the text are just that obvious.<br /><br />I reply: Yet you keep challenging my claims from a position of ignorance & at the same time claim you are open minded to evidence? This is totally incoherent.<br /><br />>No, the evidence does mean something. In this case, the evidence is that there is no reference to Er spilling his seed in any of the traditional writings you have quoted. If all three leave it out, why insist on putting it in?<br /><br />I reply: As Kippley noted by this standard of extreme exegetical agnosticism the text of Scripture doesn't explicitly say Judas killed himself because of remorse over betraying Jesus therefore we don't know why he killed himself.<br /><br />The extra-biblical tradition universally points to Er dying for the same crime of his brother. The internal exegetical evidence backed up by Miguens shows Onan's act of spilling seed is called perverse. How are the perverse not wicked? If you are truly open minded you can read Miguens peer reviewed article for more info. As for Er he is a tangent issue. But in the end there is clearly good evidence to assume Er did what Onan did.<br /><br />>That is the plain reading of the later texts.<br /><br />I reply: Yet you are adverse to drawing the natural conclusions from the text in the cultural setting & favor extreme exegetical agnosticism? That is not convincing.<br /><br />>Any time you use this phrase, you should pull out your hyperbole checker, etc....<br /><br />I reply: I would prefer to use my Kyber Crystal. It's shiny!<br /><br />>Yet, every single text fails to assign 'Onanism' to Er....<br /><br />I reply:Nor does Matthew say Judas was remorseful when he killed himself. He was clearly only upset when he yelled at the priests & threw money into the Temple. But the text doesn't say anything about him being remorseful for betraying Jesus when he killed himself. <br /><br />You objection to Er is not rational & it leads to an irrational understanding of texts when applied consistently.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80629002872306578342009-09-01T22:29:44.128-07:002009-09-01T22:29:44.128-07:00XXXXXX
Anyway here is a link to Kippley's ar...XXXXXX<br /><br /><br />Anyway here is a link to Kippley's article on the subject.<br />www.nfpandmore.org/2007%20May%20%20SIN%20OF%20ONAN.pdf<br /><br />>I'm pretty sure Ietc...<br /><br />I reply; It is clear the "Judah wasn't killed because he was an Israelite" nonsense didn't make any sense at all & now we know from professional exegite Manuel Miguens that the Hebrew word "shichet" means to act perversely toward the ground. Thus taken literally the Bible said Onan acted perversly toward the ground. It does not say he acted perversly because he didn't climax in his wife. Linguistic & textual science trumps the liberal interpretation. What do you think it was for nothing the various writers of the Midrashim refer to onanism as "the crime of Er & Onan"? <br /><br />>Why are you fixated on the Levirate law? I have not once claim the death was for violation of the Levirate law. <br /><br />I reply: What an unbelievably convenient claim on your part considering the "violating the Levirate law" theory has been the major counter claim against the traditional interpretation on this thread and only NOW are you distancing yourself from it. You bait & switch method of argument still doesn't fool me.<br /><br />>Again, your complete failure to understand plain text ...<br /><br />I reply: Now who is whining?<br /><br /><br /><br />>You can't trace it before 200 BCE, apparently.<br /><br />I reply: Which is still not a problem. In fact the cumulative evidence shows how this tradition survived uncorrupted & universally consistently from the 2nd century BC to the fourth century AD when the Talmud was finally redacted. So it's not much of a leap to conclude is the ancient view of the Jews. You have to continue to employ radical skepticism to doubt it. The type of kneejerk Skepticism Fiat Creationists employ to deny the geological age of the Earth.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11413848281451153122009-09-01T21:12:25.337-07:002009-09-01T21:12:25.337-07:00>To repeat for you: the common elements in the ...>To repeat for you: the common elements in the story are that Er and Onan refused to sleed with an Israelite wife,<br /><br />I reply: Rather one is called wicked & God kills him then the other marries his widow spills his seed & is killed by God & called wicked. The linking factor is they are both wicked, killed by God & the later is only called wicked after he spills his seed a tangent fact the writer obviously thinks is important enough to mention even though he uses a crude hebrew metaphor. The factors are wickeness death by god's hand & seed spilling. <br /><br />Biblical scholar Manuel Miguens has pointed out that a close examination of the text shows that God condemned Onan for the specific action he performed, not for his anti-Levirate intentions. He notes that the translation “he spilled his seed on the ground” fails to do full justice to the Hebrew expression. The Hebrew verb "shichet" never means “to spill” or “waste.” Rather, it means to act perversely. The text also makes it clear that his perverse action was related toward the ground, not against his brother. “His perversion or corruption consists in his action itself, not precisely in the result and goal of his act . . . In a strict interpretation the text says that what was evil in the sight of the Lord was what Onan actually did (asher asah); the emphasis in this sentence of verse 10 does not fall on what he intended to achieve, but on what he did.”-Manuel Miguens, “Biblical Thoughts on Human Sexuality,” Human Sexuality in Our Time, ed. George A. Kelly, St. Paul Editions, 1979, 112-15.<br /><br /><br />>while Shelah and Judah made no such refusal (not being married to her). The seems to be the principal thing that Er and Onan have in common, and Judah and Shelah lack. To reach your interpretation, you have to add to the story what is not present. A fine, 'scientific' process of exegesis on display.<br /><br />I reply: If I may remind you again, you are the one who insists on interpreting this text IN TOTAL isolation from the rest of the Pentatuch & from Jewish & Near eastern culture in general. Your interpretation is NOT in any sense a 'scientific' process it is merely radical skepticism & textual agnosticism for it's own sake. As writter John F. Kippley said on this topic in response to a skeptic who like you now says he doesn't know why God killed OnanQUOTE"that by such an application of textual agnosticism, we might say that we just don’t know why Judas hung himself; it could have been despairing remorse for being a traitor, or it could have been an overwhelming migraine headache, or it could have been an unhappy homosexual liaison; we just don’t know. One agnosticism is just as absurd as the other.""END QUOTEBenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81159744201352138332009-09-01T20:37:58.089-07:002009-09-01T20:37:58.089-07:00>I do not dispute that Er and Onan had a Caanan...>I do not dispute that Er and Onan had a Caananite mother. I do not dispute that the Canaanites were seen by the Israelites as being sexually depraved.<br /><br />I reply: They where also universally condemned by the Rabbis for practicing Onanism. It is just so entertaining how you leave out inconvenient facts & refuse to confront their implications.<br /><br />>Those propositions do not add up to Er committing a particular act, which particular act may or may not be considered depraved at the Genesis was written.<br /><br />I reply: This is the same as saying Frank spray painted a swastika on the house of a Jew & we don't know why he did it. But his mother was a Nazi? Well, that is no explanation as to why he did it. It could be but it's not obvious. WTF!<br /><br />In the end you are just ignoring the evidence becoming more incoherent with each post.<br /><br />>I get convinced by people of various propositions regularly. You comment reads much more like a whine than a statement of truth.<br /><br />I reply: So far you have given me no reason to believe this is so. Your comments have been rubbish.<br /><br />>Which would be a different offense from refusing to sleep with his wife.<br /><br />I reply: So now you move the goal posts again & you wish to claim God killed Er & Onan for not having sex with their wife & not for violating the Leviate Law? The problem I pointed out remains. Er didn't have sex with his wife for 3 days & then God killed him. Onan didn't have sex for a whole year(way past three days) & God only killed him after he spilled his seed. When you can answer the logical inconsistency in your argument let me know. <br /><br />>This fits in with Shelah not being married to Tamar.<br /><br />I reply: Well he was already married to her according to the Laws of Kitubbah. All you are doing here is judging the text based on your ideas of Twentieth Century American marriage custom & not ancient Near Eastern tribal laws or custom. So no dice. Plus the whole story is recounted in the Torah & yet you dismiss even an appeal to the Torah. You down played the fact the Torah had no death penalty for violating the Leviate Law & tried to infer they where not connected. What's up with that? Bottom line you have no coherent objections to the Traditional Understanding of Onan. The simplest explanation is God killed Onan for spilling his seed & he likely killed Er for the same reason.<br /><br />>Genesis says specifically that Tamar felt she had not been given to Shelah.<br /><br />I reply: It says "for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife." The text says nothing about her "feelings". Again you are reading twenty-first century marriage custom into a near eastern text. She was complaining she was not sent to his tent so they could consummate their marriage. Anyway Shelah was of age & he did not take the initiative to invite her into his tent to follow the Leviate commandment & consummate their marriage. Yet God doesn't kill him? I'm afraid there is no way you can save the liberal interpretation. Especially since you haven't even tried to offer a counter tradition or exegesis.<br /><br />>Whatever your claims about what the legal distinctions are or are not, Tamar did not consider herself to have been married. <br /><br />I reply: I love how you appeal to the literal words of the text in one breath & then grant yourself the right to read into the text your own ideas & yet you bristle at my use of Tradition to interpret & flesh out this text? This inconsistency of yours is just not convincing.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77648863529238857062009-09-01T20:31:21.855-07:002009-09-01T20:31:21.855-07:00>But, you make no claim this is the purpose of ...>But, you make no claim this is the purpose of Maximillian in particular.<br /><br />I reply: So what?<br /><br />>Who was the person trying to preserve the tradition of Arius?<br /><br />I reply: So far you have argued Muslims within 100 of Muhammed accurately preserved his tradition of prohibition against the drinking of Alcohol but you deny Maximillian preserved Arius' contempt for Apostolic Tradition & tendency to rely on Scripture alone because they are different guys with different thoughts on matters besides I presume their mutual denial of the Deity of Christ. You claimed you would accept a Tradition within 100 years of Onan but as you have shown with Muhammend & Arius that is not the case in your different treatment of them. Your rationalizations for this double standard are special pleading.<br /><br />>The traditions of Arius, or the defense of Aruis by Maximillian? Because you just said they were not the same thing.<br /><br />I reply: Maximillian defended the doctrines advocated by Arius that history named in the honor of the later & the former did so in the same manner Arius did threw an appeal to scripture alone apart from tradition. You claimed Arius cited tradition to back up his denial of the Deity of Christ based on some obscure thing you read & at the same time YOU DECLINED to read or cite any of Arius' writings. I cited an Arian named Maximillian who clearly taught sola scriptura & you dismissed it because "he was not Arius". That is still inconsistent.<br /> Well since then I poured over Arius' writings & he never cites tradition to defend his claim "there was a Time when He(The Son) was not". At best he cites traditions that condemn modalism & eminationism (which also are condemned by Trinitarians) & he says he learned the Faith from his ForeFather Bishop Alexander(the same bishop who excommunicated him for teaching Christ was created & not eternal). But that is it. Big woop! What Arius did is not the same as guys like Athenasius who cited ancient fathers & tradition to BACK UP the universal claim the Son always existed. Athenasius cited the belief of the Christians who came before Arius made up his own novelties in defiance of it. <br /><br />Anyway at this point it seems you are just playing word games & I for one am not fooled.<br /><br />>It would be very helpful if you could make up your mind here. Yes, I dop treat a defense as being different from the preservation of a tradition.<br /><br />I reply: Do explain how it possible for Maximillian to defend Arian Christology and yet not preserve that same Christology? Not only have you contradicted yourself, made arguments from special pleading you have also degenerated into total incoherence. <br /><br />>I do not regard that as special pleading. I find your apparent claim this it is special peading to be odd.<br /><br />I reply: What I don't find odd at this point is your ability to keep coming up with even more & incoherent statements without the slightest shame.<br /><br />>That was a response to a sentence, not a question.<br /><br />I reply: Sorry but I clearly asked "So according to you arguments are not about "preserving precise words" yet Tradition is about that & not about preserving "thoughts & concepts"?" You didn't answer you brought up a tangent about "variance in the words, the variance in concepts" which does not seem relavent to our discussion.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29870439574445948452009-09-01T10:56:13.305-07:002009-09-01T10:56:13.305-07:00Thank you. To bad unthinking ridicule isn't sc...<i>Thank you. To bad unthinking ridicule isn't scientific exegesis or you would be the next Metzer.</i><br /><br />Not one of my goals.<br /><br /><i>As for you lame claim that 700 years is a real barrier that is still refuted by the comparison between Dead Sea Isaiah vs the Masoretic Isaiah. </i><br /><br />No extant manuscripts =/= no written transmission, as I acknowledged earlier. I have been saying for a few days that if you had evidence for a written transmission, it would have significance, and even acknowledged the significance of Jubilees and the Testament of Judah (although they still don't support your interpretation). Anything closer that supports your point?<br /><br /><i>I am making rational inferences based on the text & on the known scholarship. </i><br /><br />You are also adding to the scenario an assumption that directly supports your conclusion. The word 'convenient' comes to mind for this process.<br /><br /><i>I reply:No but your false Claim the Testament of Judah didn't mention Onan spilling his seed was a whopper.</i><br /><br />You have discovered I am not perfect. Oh my! Howver, my imperfections do not provide you with evidence you still don't have.<br /><br /><i><b>The mentioning of the spilling of seed may well be a condemnation of Onan, but that does not make it a lethal condemnation. It could easily be a reference that Onan was even worse than his brother, for example.</b><br /><br />I reply: I don't see how that can be since it is explicitly conected with the killing of Onan. </i><br /><br />You think saying Onan was even more wicked than his brother would break the connection? If not, your replay is a non sequitur.<br /><br /><i>Now you are just grasping at straws. BTW there is even more evidence to throw into this mix. THE MIDRASHIM the collections of Aggadah & exegesis of the Rabbis in the 1st & Second Century AD all refer to the sins of Onanism & Sodomy collectively as "ma'aseh Er ve-Onan" (i.e. the crimes of Er & Onan). So people who read these texts in their original language see the fracking obvious & less than a century after the Dead Sea community with whom they have a hostile releationship. </i><br /><br />Again, their tradition divides about 200 BC.<br /><br /><i>I'm sorry if I was so hard on you </i><br /><br />You were?<br /><br /><i>OTOH if I lost my faith in God tommorow based on the evidence I have re-dug up I would still believe these texts teach it is evil to "spill your seed" </i><br /><br />You mean, like I used to believe?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65077978595483067672009-09-01T10:55:48.222-07:002009-09-01T10:55:48.222-07:00You said God didn't kill Judah because he was ...<i>You said God didn't kill Judah because he was an Israelite. </i><br /><br />I'm pretty sure I did not. I said that based on the reading from the texts, it was one of two possibilities that made more sense than spillinig seed.<br /><br /><i>Then why is Shelah still alive since he was of age & did not follow the Leviate Law? If you have no answer at least be a man & admit it.</i><br /><br />Why are you fixated on the Levirate law? I have not once claim the death was for violation of the Levirate law. Again, your complete failure to understand plain text makes all your denigrations of my reading skills quite laghable.<br /><br /><i>I reply: But they are seperated geographically(there is no Internet back in case you are unaware) </i><br /><br />150 years or so is more than adequate to cover teh geographical distances involved.<br /><br /><i>there is zero evidence one is dependant on the other (because of their radically different literary forms) for info </i><br /><br />Natrually, when you are preseving thoughts only and not words, radically different literary forms will arise rapidly.<br /><br /><i>so that infers they recieved their Tradition from earlier sources which can trace back to a common ancient source.</i><br /><br />You can't trace it before 200 BCE, apparently.<br /><br /><i>I reply: Making rookie mistakes like not realizing your text for Judah comes from the Anti-Nicean Fathers Vol 8 ... you clearly don't know what you are talking about. </i><br /><br />I've acknowledged all along I don't know much about the subject. Your attempts to read into the text are just that obvious.<br /><br /><i>Note that the testament specifically refers to Onan has having laid with Tamar when he <br />spilled his seed, while Er did not. There could be any number of reasons for the time difference. such as Er being more stubborn or hard-hearted in his refusal.<br /><br />I reply: So contrary to your phoney plea's, evidence really means nothing to you? </i><br /><br />No, the evidence does mean something. In this case, the evidence is that there is no reference to Er spilling his seed in any of the traditional writings you have quoted. If all three leave it out, why insist on putting it in?<br /><br /><i>Er was killed AFTER being married for three days & not having sex with tammar(your view) yet Onan didn't have sex with her for a WHOLE YEAR & ONLY DIES after spilling his seed & their Canaanite Mother whose people practice Onanism is at the center of it all. </i><br /><br />That is the plain reading of the later texts.<br /><br /><i>The ONLY rational interpretation </i><br /><br />Any time you use this phrase, you should pull out your hyperbole checker, measure it a couple of times, and make sure. Because it speaks much more to you being a zealot than an interpretive reader.<br /><br /><i>of this text is God killed both Onan & Er for Onanism not for failing to observe the Leviate Law. </i><br /><br />Yet, every single text fails to assign 'Onanism' to Er. According to you, all three writers decided to omit the same very relevant fact from the same person, while assigning this same fact in the same story for its relevance with another person. To you, this in the "ONLY rational interpretation". I am not impressed.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51982380028912070662009-09-01T10:54:47.647-07:002009-09-01T10:54:47.647-07:00No I said the purpose of Tradition in general was ...<i>No I said the purpose of Tradition in general was to "preserve thoughts and concepts" and NOT "recording the exact words". </i><br /><br />But, you make no claim this is the purpose of Maximillian in particular.<br /><br /><i>I said you contradicted yourself in regards to the preservation of tradition of Muhammad Vs Arius which you still did & all your sophistry and special pleading will not cover that fact up.</i><br /><br />Who was the person trying to preserve the tradition of Arius?<br /><br /><i>Either BOTH the traditions of Arius & Muhammed are accurate ... </i><br /><br />The traditions of Arius, or the defense of Aruis by Maximillian? Because you just said they were not the same thing. It would be very helpful if you could make up your mind here. Yes, I dop treat a defense as being different from the preservation of a tradition. I do not regard that as special pleading. I find your apparent claim this it is special peading to be odd.<br /><br /><i><b>When you start to allow greater variance in the words, the variance in concepts is inevitable. </b><br /><br />I reply: I asked you a question. If you don't have the decency to answer it then so be it. </i><br /><br />That was a response to a sentence, not a question.<br /><br /><i>I reply; Translation: You have no answer to the fact Er & brothers had a Canaanite mother whose people practiced Onanism so you will ignore it & not deal with it. </i><br /><br />Well, I would hate to leave that undealt.<br /><br />I do not dispute that Er and Onan had a Caananite mother. I do not dispute that the Canaanites were seen by the Israelites as being sexually depraved. Those propositions do not add up to Er commiting a particular act, which particular act may or may not be considered depraved at the Genesis was written.<br /><br /><i>That does not hide your deficient reading & intellectual comprehension skills BTW.</i><br /><br />*chuckle*.<br /><br /><i>Provide examples please because I am a radical skeptic ... </i><br /><br />I get convinced by people of various propositions regularly. You comment reads much more like a whine than a statement of truth.<br /><br /><i><b>Judah was not married to Tamar, which is a different offense from refusing to sleep with her.</b><br /><br />I reply: Judah by his actions kept the commandment from being fulfilled. </i><br /><br />Which would be a different offense from refusing to sleep with his wife.<br /><br /><i>God still did not kill Shelah who was "of age".</i><br /><br />This fits in with Shelah not being married to Tamar.<br /><br /><i>What does "why" have to do with anything? It is a BRUTE FACT that Judaism makes no legal distinction between betrothal and marriage ... </i><br /><br />Genesis says specifically that Tamar felt she had not been given to Shelah. Whatever your claims about what the legal distinctions are or are not, Tamar did not consider herself to have been married.<br /><br /><i>Well it seems clear from this dodge you have no explanation ...</i><br /><br />This is why I chuckled above. For you to so completely fail to read what I stated very plainly, and then try to denigrate my reading skills, is laughable.<br /><br />To repeat for you: the common elements in the story are that Er and Onan refused to sleed with an Israelite wife, while Shelah and Judah made no such refusal (not being married to her). The seems to be the principal thing that Er and Onan have in common, and Judah and Shelah lack. To reach your interpretation, you have to add to the story what is not present. A fine, 'scientific' process of exegesis on display.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90461955714513162682009-08-31T11:33:12.159-07:002009-08-31T11:33:12.159-07:00>The mentioning of the spilling of seed may wel...>The mentioning of the spilling of seed may well be a condemnation of Onan, but that does not make it a lethal condemnation. It could easily be a reference that Onan was even worse than his brother, for example.<br /><br />I reply: I don't see how that can be since it is explicitly conected with the killing of Onan. Now you are just grasping at straws. BTW there is even more evidence to throw into this mix. THE MIDRASHIM the collections of Aggadah & exegesis of the Rabbis in the 1st & Second Century AD all refer to the sins of Onanism & Sodomy collectively as "ma'aseh Er ve-Onan" (i.e. the crimes of Er & Onan). So people who read these texts in their original language see the fracking obvious & less than a century after the Dead <br />Sea community with whom they have a hostile releationship. Thus there is more than enough reason to believe God killed Er for spilling his seed as well.<br />I'm sorry if I was so hard on you but in the end it is clear from your latest responses that this boat won't float. God killed Er & Onan because they spilled their seed. If you don't believe in either God or the OT that is fine. But for those of us who do the implication is obvious & may God give us the grace to realize it & forgive those who don't know any better. OTOH if I lost my faith in God tommorow based on the evidence I have re-dug up I would still believe these texts teach it is evil to "spill your seed" <br />I just wouldn't care.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10681594037103481782009-08-31T11:32:41.607-07:002009-08-31T11:32:41.607-07:00>Note that the testament specifically refers to...>Note that the testament specifically refers to Onan has having laid with Tamar when he <br />spilled his seed, while Er did not. There could be any number of reasons for the time difference. such as Er being more stubborn or hard-hearted in his refusal.<br /><br />I reply: So contrary to your phoney plea's, evidence really means nothing to you? At this point it has become "make up a senario no matter how implausible to justify the modern interpretation of Onan & ignore the evidence". Er was killed AFTER being married for three days & not having sex with tammar(your view) yet Onan didn't have sex with her for a WHOLE YEAR & ONLY DIES after spilling his seed & their Canaanite Mother whose people practice Onanism is at the center of it all. The ONLY rational interpretation of <br />this text is God killed both Onan & Er for Onanism not for failing to observe the Leviate Law. You don't even have to believe in God to see the frackin obvious. BTW now that I think of it Er wasn't following a Laviate Law at all since he was THE FIRST to marry Tammar. So what law did he violate to earn God's wraith? Nuff said.<br /><br />>Such a scientific example of exegesis.<br /><br />I reply: Thank you. To bad unthinking ridicule isn't scientific exegesis or you would <br />be the next Metzer.<br /><br />>I have read that some think it is a Christian creation, as well. Either way, it is not earlier than the Qumran, and does not improve on the 700 years.<br /><br />I reply: The Anti-Nicean Fathers from the 19th century make that claim but later & more reliable scholarship has shown the Testaments are originally Jewish texts that where later interpolated with a few Christological, Messianic & Incarnational elements. The <br />Encyclopedia Britanica & the Jewish Encylopedia both state Jubilees & the Christian <br /><br />Testaments rely on an early Hebrew Testament of Judah. As for you lame claim that 700 years is a real barrier that is still refuted by the comparison between Dead Sea Isaiah vs the Masoretic Isaiah. You do realize there are NO HEBREW manuscripts from between those eras that have survived and as we see the Jews where Divas in preserving their Traditions. So your argument still falls flat on every level. BTW Charlesworth & <br />Sparks still independently date these works to the 2nd century BC.<br /><br />>There can be no other reason Er was wicked, even though the text explicitly states Er did not do what Onan did (go in to lie with Tamar)? You're a funny poster.<br /><br />I reply: I am making rational inferences based on the text & on the known scholarship. You OTOH are merely making up implausible counter scenarios off the top of your head. That is not funny that is just sad.<br /><br />>I don't consider reading translations of a text, and noting the obvious about them, to <br />be embarrassing.<br /> <br />I reply:No but your false Claim the Testament of Judah didn't mention Onan spilling his seed was a whopper.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39583663833714593642009-08-31T11:31:25.214-07:002009-08-31T11:31:25.214-07:00>Judah was not married to Tamar, which is a dif...>Judah was not married to Tamar, which is a different offense from refusing to sleep with her.<br /><br />I reply: Judah by his actions kept the commandment from being fulfilled. If I a hypothetical Jew am commanded by God to not work on the Sabbath & you (for sake of argument also play the role of a hypothetical Jew) force me to work against my will <br />that is definatly sin on your part. It's not hard & your answer is special pleading. <br /><br />(Of course there is still Shelah.) God did not kill Judah for not allowing the commandment to be observed(your private concept of it anyway) thus it is not rational to conclude God killed either Onan or Er for it but because they spilled their seed. God still did not kill Shelah who was "of age".<br /><br />>Then why is it a separate concept, if there is no distinction? Or, is there a non-legal distinction that may still be important to Yahoweh?<br /><br />I reply: What does "why" have to do with anything? It is a BRUTE FACT that Judaism makes no legal distinction between betrothal and marriage just as Prohibition is a brute fact in Islam. Anyway your misdirection & tangents won't save your meritless case against the Traditional Interpretation.<br /><br />>I don't recall arguing that point. In fact, according to you, refusing to engage in a Levirate marriage is not a serious offense anyhow.<br /><br />I reply: Well it seems clear from this dodge you have no explanation as to why God didn't kill Shelah(who was not an Israelite by your standard) & Judah for violating the Leviate Law but did so for Er & Onan. You have no rational response & I am not <br />interested in your tangents or the misdirection you are channeling from HOW TO WIN ANY ARGUMENT by Prometheus press.<br /><br />>I didn't make that argument. Perhaps you should calm down and read my responses a bit more carefully.<br /> <br />I reply: Stop doging my questions for once & I will "calm down". You said God didn't kill Judah because he was an Israelite. The implication is if Er & Onan where <br />Israelites(you seem to be channeling the post Babylonian Rabbinic Rule that one is only <br />a Jew if one's mother is & we know Bethsula was a Canaanite..so many things wrong with that...) God would not have killed them. Then why is Shelah still alive since he was of age & did not follow the Leviate Law? If you have no answer at least be a man & admit <br />it.<br /><br />>So, his traditional lineage is pretty much the same as the Qumran tradition circa 200 BCE, before the split, correct? Still about 700 years.<br /><br />I reply: But they are seperated geographically(there is no Internet back in case you are <br />unaware) & there is zero evidence one is dependant on the other (because of their radically different literary forms) for info so that infers they recieved their <br />Tradition from earlier sources which can trace back to a common ancient source.<br /><br />>Engaging in juvenile insults is another good sign you need to step back and calm down.<br /><br />I reply: Making rookie mistakes like not realizing your text for Judah comes from the Anti-Nicean Fathers Vol 8 which was published in the 19th century & naturally because of the Victorian morals of the time leaves the phraise "spilled his seed" untranslated in <br />Greek for the sake of puritanical modesty. (It's in footnote 106) this is a good sign YOU NEED to step back because you clearly don't know what you are talking about. But if you want to keep making yourself look foolish hey don't let me stop you.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68648238728808781532009-08-31T11:30:42.000-07:002009-08-31T11:30:42.000-07:00>So, your claim is that Maximillian's goal,...>So, your claim is that Maximillian's goal, as a defender of Arius, was not to support/augment the arguments of Arius, but to merely preserve the thoughts and concepts espoused by Arius?<br /><br />I reply: No I said the purpose of Tradition in general was to "preserve thoughts and concepts" and NOT "recording the exact words". I said you contradicted yourself in regards to the preservation of tradition of Muhammad Vs Arius which you still did & all your sophistry and special pleading will not cover that fact up.<br /><br />>Because that would indeed be the same thing as was being done by the followers of <br /><br />Mohamed, but it doesn't really fit with your initial depiction of him as "Maximillian the Arian defender". However, defending in general is different from preserving.<br /><br />I reply: What does my stylizing him as "the Arian defender" have to do with anything? <br /><br />Never the less you are NOT CONSISTENT. Either BOTH the traditions of Arius & Muhammed <br />are accurate because they are within 100 years of each other or neither are YOU believe that standard only applies to Muhammed but not to Arius & your justification for it is <br />special pleading. In short you have run out of answers.<br /><br />>When you start to allow greater variance in the words, the variance in concepts is inevitable. <br /><br />I reply: I asked you a question. If you don't have the decency to answer it then so be it. <br /><br />>When you start to allow greater variance in the words, the variance in concepts is inevitable. <br /><br />I reply; Translation: You have no answer to the fact Er & brothers had a Canaanite mother whose people practiced Onanism so you will ignore it & not deal with it. That does not hide your deficient reading & intellectual comprehension skills BTW.<br /><br />>Scripture contains no information that has marginal use and no superfluous information? <br /><br />>Your objection is odd.<br /><br />I reply: Provide examples please because I am a radical skeptic & I refuse to believe anything till every concevable proposition is proven to the N'th degree and as that info is provided I will keep demanding more & more.you have run out of answers.<br /><br />>Except that there is no reason to think Er spilled his seed.<br /><br />I reply: wait till you read the end of my post.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72203925015570847142009-08-31T09:20:13.271-07:002009-08-31T09:20:13.271-07:00Sorry, the correct response does not appear in the...Sorry, the correct response does not appear in the above comment.<br /><br /><i>You are ignoring the fact both documents go out of their way to point out their Mother was a Canaanite & that both of them "acted under their mother's commands". Canaanites are universally regarded in all Jewish literature to be the harbingers of Sexual Perversion including the "spilling of seed" this is mention predominately in all rabbinic literature thus it is the natural conclusion & of course as with the Old testament the exegesis of Jubilees clearly indicates Onan was killed for spilling seed since both texts(OT & Jubilee) go out of there way to mention it. </i><br /><br />The mentioning of the spilling of seed may well be a condemnation of Onan, but that does not make it a lethal condemnation. It could easily be a reference that Onan was even worse than his brother, for example.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4242260604725194942009-08-31T09:15:49.308-07:002009-08-31T09:15:49.308-07:00Ooops. One Brow inserted a comment between my last...Ooops. One Brow inserted a comment between my last comment to Benny and my addendum to it.Rodakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077919085157653816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53245935392314804142009-08-31T09:13:48.191-07:002009-08-31T09:13:48.191-07:00That aside, your reading comprehension also leaves...That aside, your reading comprehension also leaves something to be desired. What I said was not that the story of woman taken in adultery was about capital punishment. What I said was that one could just as plausibly claim that it was about capital punishment as one could plausibly claim that Onan is about wanking, and nothing but wanking.<br />It is obvious (to me) that both stories about something larger that only one of their elements.<br />Next time, reading more carefully and think before you respond.Rodakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077919085157653816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64372574207942176032009-08-31T09:13:17.774-07:002009-08-31T09:13:17.774-07:00... since according to you God punishes with Death...<i>... since according to you God punishes with Death Non-Israelite Noachides for failing to follow Israelite Leviarite Law?</i><br /><br />I didn't make that argument. Perhaps you should calm down and read my responses a bit more carefully.<br /><br /><i>Philo was at least 300 years before the Mishnah so he is an example of an early witness to this tradition. He is in Eqypt & represents a difference school of Jewish thought yet he is in universal agreement with the rest of the Jewish world on this matter.</i><br /><br />So, his traditional lineage is pretty much the same as the Qumran tradition circa 200 BCE, before the split, correct? Still about 700 years.<br /><br /><i>BTW I will reproduce the texts here (which Low Brow clearly DID NOT READ carefully).</i><br /><br />Engaging in juvenile insults is another good sign you need to step back and calm down.<br /><br /><i>Onan lived a whole year without having any type of sex with Tammar his wife & yet Er was killed by God for not having sex AFTER ONLY A MERE 3 DAY & not spilling his seed according to LOW BROW's funky special pleading. </i><br /><br />Note that the testament specifically refers to Onan has having laid with Tamar when he spilled his seed, while Er did not. There could be any number of reasons for the time difference. such as Er being more stubborn or hard-hearted in his refusal.<br /><br /><i>Yet it seems clear from the context(even with the translation that is more ambiguous about the seed spilling) that both where killed for spilling seed at the instigation of their Canaanite mother. </i><br /><br />Such a scientific example of exegesis.<br /><br /><i>Now on to Jubilees.<br /><br />BTW Sparks & Charlesworth & other authorities on the Pseudepigrapha date this work in the Second Century BC.</i><br /><br />I have read that some think it is a Christian creation, as well. Either way, it is not earlier than the Qumran, and does not improve on the 700 years.<br /><br /><i>One cannot help but notice in this account Onan "WAS WICKED" only after he "spilt the seed on the ground" the two are explicitly connected in the text. Thus we can reasonablity infer that Er must have spilled his seed as well.</i><br /><br />There can be no other reason Er was wicked, even though the text explicitly states Er did not do what Onan did (go in to lie with Tamar)? You're a funny poster.<br /><br /><i>I don't see how you can possibily embarise yourself further.</i><br /><br />I don't consider reading translations of a text, and noting the obvious about them, to be embarrassing.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84039002635115188382009-08-31T09:12:50.857-07:002009-08-31T09:12:50.857-07:00BenYachov said...
Maximillian was just one man, a...BenYachov said... <br /><i><b>Maximillian was just one man, and may not have been even trying to present the exact argument of Arius. The recorders of the Qu'ran had the aim of recording the exact words.</b><br /><br />Argument from special pleading used to justify a clear contradiction on your part in your interpretive methods. Also as I explained in past posts, Tradition IS NOT ABOUT "recording the exact words" it is about preserving thoughts & concepts. </i><br /><br />So, your claim is that Maximillian's goal, as a defender of Arius, was not to support/augment the arguments of Arius, but to merely preserve the thoughts and concepts espoused by Arius? Because that would indeed be the same thing as was being done by the followers of Mohammed, but it doesn't really fit with your initial depiction of him as "Maximillian the Arian defender". However, defending in general is different from preserving.<br /><br /><i>So according to you arguments are not about "preserving precise words" yet Tradition is about that & not about preserving "thoughts & concepts"? </i><br /><br />When you start to allow greater variance in the words, the variance in concepts is inevitable. <br /><br /><i>You are ignoring the fact both documents go out of their way to point out their Mother was a Canaanite & that both of them "acted under their mother's commands". Canaanites are universally regarded in all Jewish literature to be the harbingers of Sexual Perversion including the "spilling of seed" this is mention predominately in all rabbinic literature thus it is the natural conclusion & of course as with the Old testament the exegesis of Jubilees clearly indicates Onan was killed for spilling seed since both texts(OT & Jubilee) go out of there way to mention it. </i><br /><br />When you start to allow greater variance in the words, the variance in concepts is inevitable. <br /><br /><i>If it was merely because they refused to sleep with Tamar mentioning the spilling of the seed (which is quite graphic) would provide no useful information & would be superfluous.</i><br /><br />Scripture contains no information that has marginal use and no superfluous information? Your objection is odd.<br /><br /><i>Also if you had botheredd to read up on the backround of the Testament of Judah the theme of the text is the condemnation of sexual Licentiousness. So clearly based on it's theme Onan & Er where killed for spilling their seed following the degenerate sexual practices of their Canaanite Mother which makes it consistent with this theme.</i><br /><br />Except that there is no reason to think Er spilled his seed.<br /><br /><i>So you are saying God punished two non-Israelites for failing to follow an Israelite law (Levitate marriage) which they would not be under being Noahides, but God witheld punishment from an Actual Israelite(Judah) who clearly violated an Israelite Law (according to your A-historial interpretation of that anyway)? </i><br /><br />Judah was not married to Tamar, which is a different offense from refusing to sleep with her.<br /><br /><i>Also in Jewish Law there is the concept of a Betrothal. Clearly Shelah was betrothed to Tammar & Judah & Shelah broke it. In Jewish Law there is no legal distinction between a Betrothal & a Marriage. </i><br /><br />Then why is it a separate concept, if there is no distinction? Or, is there a non-legal distinction that may still be important to Yahoweh?<br /><br /><i>Even if there was no marriage what does that matter? The Leviate Law requires a living Brother to sire male children from his Brother's widow. Refusing to allow marriage violates that Law (according to you private a-historic interpret ion of it anyway) as does Shelah (who is of age) choosing to follow his Father will instead of God will.</i><br /><br />I don't recall arguing that point. In fact, according to you, refusing to engage in a Levirate marriage is not a serious offense anyhow.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34143093867909260082009-08-31T08:58:11.169-07:002009-08-31T08:58:11.169-07:00Actually the woman taken in adultery had nothing t...<em>Actually the woman taken in adultery had nothing to do with being anti-capital punishment.</em><br /><br />Sez you.<br /><br /><em>But you would need to know the historic background to see all this instead of reading into the text 21st century sensibilities about a 1st century people.</em><br /><br />If I am to read scripture as history, and not with 21st century sensibilities, then all of the sayings and parables of Jesus, as well as the witness of the Evangelists of the acts of Jesus, are merely anecdotal anachronisms, and of no more use to me in the here-and-now than are stories about Alexander the Great, or Robin Hood, for that matter. <br />I don't need to know about first century Jewish adultery statutes; they don't apply to me. If that's all it's about, then the Gospels are null and void to the last iota.Rodakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077919085157653816noreply@blogger.com