Spinning Green, or Perhaps Green Spinning
Filed Under (Uncategorized) by Paul on 12-12-2010
Print This Post
Clearly still looking for a way to downplay his concession last week that hyperpreterism advocates a goal of God’s plan of redemption similar to that of the Gnostics in the second century RINO (Reformed In Name Only) extraordinaire Dave Green showed up at CARM today postulating this ill formed argument.
1. The Egyptians believed in a bodily afterlife.
2. PaulT believes in a bodily afterlife.
3. Therefore, PaulT’s view of the purpose of God’s plan of redemption is “Pagan-Like.”PaulT: Hoisted by his own petard.
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?33717-quot-House-Divided-quot-Author-Admits-His-View-is-Similar-to-Gnosticism&p=1026968&viewfull=1#post1026968
As the reader will recall when Green recognized his faux pas of last week in an effort to justify his pagan viewpoint postulated these two arguments both of which were fundamentally wrong.
1. The Roman Catholic Church formulated and believed in the doctrine of the Trinity.
2. You believe in the doctrine of the Trinity (I assume).
3. Therefore, you “advocate a form of” Roman Catholicism.
Which we dealt with here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5057 and then offered another argument which frankly didn’t even need to be dealt with other than to point out the JW’s don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Green attempted to hide behind this bogus argument,
PaulT sees “similarity” and rushes to assume “identity.”
1. PaulT believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
2. Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
3. Therefore, PaulT is advocating a form of Jehovah’s Witness-ism.
The logic of PaulT.
So, in an effort to continue to spin his way out of his admission he borrows an argument from liberals and atheists who liken the funerary practices of ancient Egyptians to the Christian concept of Resurrection of the Dead. Frankly Green’s beharvior in seeking support among the liberals isn’t surprising, we’ve already documented that his understanding of Christian views comes from that school of thought here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4916 and here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4874 many of the concepts the RINO’s foist upon their audience are rooted in Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy. But even this is a bit much. Green really has demonstrated his ignorance of the issues. For even the questionable Murray Harris reports on the Egyptian view of “hope”,
How are we to describe this hope? Not as a physical resurrection, for the embalmed body remained in the tomb, the “house of ka,” although the afterlife was thought of in concrete, physical terms. Moreover, since Osiris was always represented as a mummified god, ritual identification with him in death cannot properly be deemed resurrection from the dead. The realm of the dead was always the dead man’s home, even if his soul able to move freely and assume appropriate forms. Perhaps we might describe the Egyptian hope as the return of the ka into the mummified body, or the transformation of the person, or even the resurrection of the spirit…(From Grave to Glory, Murray J. Harris, Zondervan Academic, pg 36)
No Dave, the Christian view of resurrection is NOT the continued existence in the mummified body. Try again.
The syllogism is absurd. The syllogism would be valid only if the terms “bodily afterlife” in proposition #1 meant the same thing as the terms “bodily afterlife” in proposition #2. Since they do not mean the same thing the conclusion does not follow and, therefore, the syllogism is invalid.
Pretty basic logic.
1. The Egyptians believed in a bodily afterlife.
2. PaulT believes in a bodily afterlife.
3. Therefore, PaulT is an Egyptian.
That would be the more “valid” form of the premises in the form the argument as presented. The Bangles want to know, “Does Paul T. “walk like an Egyptian?”
Hi William,
Yes, of course you’re correct. “The syllogism is invalid.” I wasn’t trying to use a valid syllogism. I was illustrating the lunacy of PaulT’s illogic by using the same illogic in response to him. He altogether misunderstood my point, even though I carefully reiterated the reductio ad absurdum argument for him no less than three (3) times. But alas, it was to no avail.
PaulT is a remarkable and notable logician.
Dave
Dave,
This as with your attempt at demonstrating my argument was invalid claiming the RCC formulated the doctrine of the Trinity and and the JW’s believed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God this point of yours is just as bogus.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is a comparison between an apple and an orange, as William has pointed out, however, I’m not doing that. You like the Gnostics both hold the body is forever held in bondage to the grave.
Now, don’t post here again.
Larry,
Good to hear from you. However I must point out, your post isn’t accurate. The Egyptians believed in an afterlife encased in a mummified body.
Let the Bangles know they will get the answer at your next Toga party.
God Bless, and if we don’t talk before have a very Merry Christmas Larry
I know the Egyptians had a “mummy” but did they also have a “daddy” too?
Larry,
I think the answer to your question would be different depending upon if you avow Covenant Creationism. For if you did the 1st Egyptian may not have had a daddy unless you consider an ape the daddy.
God Bless,