-
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.You’ve got Michael’s stance right: he’s not pushing divine authorship and he keeps repeating “divine inspiration hasn’t been disproven.”... -
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Micheal, Here are the three non-evasive commitments that decide this: Yes or no: when Paul says his message is “not from man… not...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Micheal, Here is the exact, unavoidable version of the analogy you keep sidestepping. Imagine a heartfelt company-wide email from a...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Calling the analogy “terrible” is not an answer; it just avoids the test. You say to treat Galatians as a “love letter.” Fine. Make the...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Calling the analogy “ridiculous” isn’t an argument; it’s a dodge. Genre labels don’t defeat observable functions. A document can be a...
-
When you “discipline” claims “by restricting” them such that they do not take account of author subjectivity, you ignore all emotive...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Nothing in my method “ignores” emotion. Emotion is itself publicly checkable when it leaves marks in a text: vocatives (“O foolish...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Micheal, A company-wide email goes out: “This policy is not from HR; it is from the Board. Any manager who teaches otherwise is out of...
-
We have nothing to be found in Paul's work that stands out as possibly divinely inspired, that it is not the work of man. We have many...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.What you call “purposefully ignorant” is simply the only defensible way to make public claims: restrict yourself to what the artifact...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.No, Michael. Restricting claims to what can be publicly checked in the document is not “ignoring the person,” it is refusing to invent...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.No, Michael. I acknowledged the emotion explicitly—“O foolish Galatians…,” the rebukes, the urgency—and I treated it correctly: as tone...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.I have taken the emotive register into account; Galatians contains obvious emotion (“O foolish Galatians…”, sharp rebukes, urgency)...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Bare assertion is not an argument. The question is whether the text exhibits operations that define polemic. Galatians names rivals...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.No, it’s a direct summary of your repeated move. You concede the text exhibits the operations that define a polemic—named rivals...
-
-
Loading…
-
Loading…
