[geocentrism] Re: Reincarnation?
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:50:15 -0500
Neville,
It's intrinsically fruitless to argue across presuppositional
systems: neither protagonist will arrive at any conclusion other than
those already predetermined by their starting presuppositions. Your
denigration of Paul, I see as the denigration of God's own words,
delivered via plenary inspiration through His chosen amanuenses. My
veneration of Paul's writings, you see as the false labeling of
faulty human opinions as divinely inspired. There's no point in
common between these two points of view. None. This antithesis
shouldn't be papered over, it should have the most glaring light
possible directed onto it.
The form of your argument concerning Paul is a fairly clear example
of the logical fallacy known as argumentum non causa pro causa.
Placed into formal syntax, your argument would look something like this:
(A) Paul's writing were divinely inspired
(B) Divinely inspired writings don't omit details of fact
however,
(C) There are examples of omitted details in Paul
(D) Therefore, his writings aren't inspired, and are not the Word of
God.
Using this same fallacy, we could show every single Gospel is
worthless. Only two mention the birth of Christ, St. John omits any
reference to the destruction of Jerusalem or the sermon on the mount,
the synoptics omit references to being born again, and more. They're
all misleading, and pathologically so, by this standard. The cause of
this illicit approach to evaluating Scripture is the following
implicit requirement:
(E) All accounts should be coterminous in regard to content and
details.
But that extremist view is absurd: it's placing God's Word in a box
of human construction that is self-contradictory in the extreme. Men
don't set the parameters for what's "permissible" in something
proclaiming itself to be God's Word. God's Word sits in judgment on
man, not the other way around. If Paul's purposive emphasis entailed
omitting the women visiting the tomb, or the two disciples on the
road to Emmaus, because they don't add to his argument concerning the
resurrection of the body (funny that this is the actual topic of 1
Cor. 15, meaning it bears on our original discussion), so what? You
move too fast to the argumentative kill in alleging that this
emphasis of his undermines the canonicity of his writings. As Satan
asked Eve, "Yea, hath God said?"
Moreover, God's own word makes clear, as Jesus quoted it to the
Devil, that "Man must live by EVERY word that proceedeth from the
mouth of God." In other words, Christianity, and the Bible, are
defended as a SYSTEM, never piecemeal. Ever. The old aphorism puts it
this way: A text out of context is a pretext. The context for any
given text is the rest of the entirety of the Scriptures, whereby the
principle of interpretation by the analogy of Scripture is grounded.
I must express surprise that after I cite Matt. 10:28 and Matt.
5:29-30, you quote them back to me. I'm surprised on a different
level that you quote from Matt. 5:29-30 but apparently have little
use for Matt. 5:17-20, spoken just a minute earlier by Christ -- a
passage where Christ canonizes the entirety of the Law of Moses as
having perpetual abiding force. Matt. 5:19 indicates that anyone
loosening even the least commandment in the Law, and teaching men so,
shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Those who do and
teach the least of the commandments shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven. As Jesus said later to the Jews concerning the
Pharisees, "They sit in Moses seat; therefore, whatsoever they bid
you to do, do. But do not do as they do, for they say, but do not."
Sitting in Moses seat = reading and teaching from the Pentateuch.
As has been well-said, theology is a seamless garment. You can't snip
away at one point without everything falling apart.
In Luke 16:17 we read that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass
away than for one jot or tittle to pass from the Law. I'm pretty sure
you've not met the required LOE (Level Of Effort), in light of this
verse, to have debunked any portion of the Pentateuch. If you had
been successful, then it follows that you're able to cause the heaven
and earth to pass away, since that's the easier task.
Martin
Other related posts:
