OS -
quote:
Let's see how I actually presented dabar and logos from the OT and NT:
No, lets not. Unless you want to include memra in your presentation .
Why should I? It's not what Jesus quoted, it's not what any of the NT writers quoted, and it adds absolutely nothing to this debate.
Isn't it interesting that your sources become further and further removed from the Hebrew OT, the more I press my argument?
quote:
There was no proof, [that the section on Philo was plagiarized] as I've already shown.
Here are the questioned sentences.
Oh, goody! This will be fun!
Note, the four sentences appeared in one brief paragraph in both, your post and the Raddatz article. You claim not to know Raddatz but that is irrelevant, you dont have to know someones name to copy from their website. The sentence order was rearranged in your post.
Not only are the sentences
totally different (both in their construction
and their arrangement), but there is no evidence of plagiarism here. How else am I supposed to refer to Philo, pray tell? You're saying that I'm a plagiarist because I say who he was and where he lived. That's absolutely pathetic.
Moreover, I was not even aware of Raddatz' Website until you spat the dummy.
This may not be proof according to your standards
...or anyone else's, for that matter.
but according to the definition of plagiarism from UC Davis, which is not substantially different in any major college or university, this is plagiarism.
No, the definition from UC Davis does not even come close to convicting me.
A college paper containing this, without citation, would have been thrown out and the student suspended or expelled.
Alas, no.
You claim to have gotten your material from Geisler.
...for which I provided not only a footnote, but also the relevant page numbers. Which you have consistently ignored.
Which means that you're only interested in slandering me.
Whats so hard about, According to Geisler, Philo attempted. . . [/I]
Wasn't the footnote enough? I added it at the bottom of that entire paragraph, including Geisler's own direct quote from Philo. That whole section was clearly referenced. You've been given the page numbers.
But you don't dare to look it up, because that would prove you wrong...
Raddatz: [1]Philo was striving to RECONCILE Judaism and GREEK PHILOSOPHY...
EV: [1]Philo attempted to interpret Scripture in terms of Greek philosophy.
- Raddatz says "reconcile Judaism and Greek philosophy."
- I say "interpret Scripture in terms of Greek philosophy."
The two sentences are clearly not equivalent. Indeed, they don't even say the same thing. Their meaning is entirely disparate. Moreover, that
is what Philo tried to do! (How else am I supposed to say it?)
Raddatz: [2]Philo had a form of the Logos doctrine ready-made for the Trinitarians who were to spring up in his century.
EV: [2]Philo's philosophy was the original source of what later became the logos theology of mainstream Christianity.
- Raddatz says "had a form of the logos doctrine ready made for the Trinitarians."
- I say "Philo's philosohy was the original source' of what later became the logos theology of mainstream Christianity."
Again, the sentences are clearly not equivalent. Indeed, they don't even say the same thing. Their meaning is entirely disparate. As before, we're not even saying the same thing.
Raddatz: [3]Thus a liberal Jewish philosopher of the priestly class in Alexandria was laying the groundwork for the false Trinitarian doctrine even before the Apostle Paul had evangelized the Greek world.
EV: [3]Philo (a well-educated Hellenic Jew from Alexandria) had a considerable influence on Christian leaders of the "Alexandrian School", such as Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr.
- Raddatz says that Philo was "a liberal Jewish philosopher of the priestly class in Alexandria."
- I say that he was "a well-educated Hellenic Jew from Alexandria."
- Raddatz says that Philo "was laying the groundwork for the false Trinitarian doctrine."
- I say that he "had a considerable influence on Christian leaders of the 'Alexandrian School', such as Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr."
Again, the sentences are clearly not equivalent. Indeed, they don't even say the same thing. Their meaning is entirely disparate. As before, we're not even saying the same thing.
Raddatz: [4]But perhaps Philo's greatest contribution to Trinitarians was his fantastic method of allegorization.
EV: [4]His allegorical method for interpreting Scripture also influenced Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, and others.
- Raddatz says that Philo's greatest contribution was "his fantastic method of allegorisation."
- I say that "his allegorical method for interpreting Scripture also influenced Origen, Amgrose, Augustine, and others."
Again, the sentences are clearly not equivalent. Indeed, they don't even say the same thing. We're both talking about Philo's use of allegory, and the fact that it influenced the later Christians. (How else am I expected to mention his use of allegory and its influence on later Christians without being accused of plagiarism?)
So really, when it all boils down to it, I'm being accused of plagiarism because (a) I said that Philo was an Alexandrian Jew, (b) I said that Philo's
logos concept was later reinterpreted by Christian theologians, (c) that Philo's use of allegory was similarly influential, and (d) that Philo attempted to interpret Scripture through Greek philosophy.
Wow, you'd have a field day with history books, wouldn't you? Plagiarism ahoy! ("Look, Marcia - this guy says that Washington was our first president - and
this guy says it too! I'll get those durned plagiarists, you just see if I don't!")
Again - to date, you've pointed to a mere four sentences in which the same topic is discussed, using vaguely similar language.
You have also ignored Geisler and
www.jewishencyclopaedia.com, which discuss the same topic using near-identical language.
I require you to address these two sources. If I am guilty of plagiarism, then so are they.
Im going to love reviewing your book if you ever publish.
Yep, you'll learn a lot, I'm sure.
I hope you know some good solicitors or barristers.
Why?
Youll need them for the copyright lawsuits.
From whom?
You claim to have posted quotes from Philo
...which I then went on to prove.
can you tell us how that supposedly proves, Philo's philosophy was the original source of what later became the logos theology of mainstream Christianity.
Yes. I demonstrated this in my original series of posts. Didn't you see the quotation from Geisler? He supports this argument quite cheerfully.
Even if there are some similarities that in and of itself does not prove Philo was the original source" What is the name of that Australian creature that is similar to a duck, it has webbed feet like a duck, a bill like a duck, swims in water like a duck, even lays eggs like a duck but isnt even a fowl, it is a mammal? Similarity is not proof of derivation!
Oh, it's true that similarity is not proof of derivation. But Philo's influence on the later Christian theologians is well documented - yes, even amongst mainstream Christian authors, such as Geisler.
I suggest that it's time for you to extend the breadth of your reading.
quote:
LOL! Omitted because there was no need to labour the point! Your 98 verses actually bolster my argument!
Your argument consisted of dabar, is only the spoken or written word, nothing more.
No, it's also the purpose of God - whether spoken or conceptualised.
In the 98 vss., I listed, the spoken word, itself, came speaking. Did the spoken word of a king ever speak? Did the spoken word of Moses ever come to Aaron, speaking?
Pffft! Mere literary device.
Where is your evidence that this was a literal divine person,
distinct from the Father? Where is your evidence that this is what the pre-Christian Jews believed?
Why won't you answer my questions? Why do you keep trying to take shelter in irrelevant references to Jewish converts of the post-medieval era? Don't play dumb with me, OS. Just try and squeeze out an answer, OK?
How does that bolster your argument?
Because (a) there is no evidence that a literal divine person
distinct from the Father is here referred to, (b) there is no evidence that this is what the writers (or any other pre-Christian Jew... or any Jewish Christian of the 1st Century) believed any such thing, (c) there is no evidence that this is anything more than a literary device, and (d) your argument is a hopeless anachronism, supported by none but the most subjective of commentators.
( don't hurt me next )...!
