Where Did "We" Go, Pt. 2 (Here we are)
WHERE DID ‘WE’ GO?
Part II. The Political Split Gets The-o-logical
Obama meets w/ Roger Ailles (Fox News; Ed Rollins?- CNN..) 10.06.09
:-)’s agends: How to spin “no troops for Afghanistan” without looking like you’re loosing. How to play “Will Israel bomb Iran?” stories
Chronicles of Nibiru ’09 (tales of the Black Sun’s return)
I. Logicomics – just published . Reducing the narrative of early 20th cent. intellectual history to existential interaction between comic book characters.
Today, in re this particular subject matter, logic: the effect of this publication is to ground the false anima complex* of emerging killer-mommy young males (ages 6-8; re-cathected at 12-14 with puberty), who read far out comic books like this, on skewed, Bruno-style framing of what logic is about.
Corrected parallel rewrite (narrated by true anima): …. turn of century setting --
Russell rescues soured-on-life genius in symbolic/mathematical logic, from East Germany, from total obscurity. He also corrects a contradiction latent in Cantor’s loose notion of infinity by introducing the theory of logical types; also modifying Frege’s formal apparatus.
Befriends logico-mathematical precocious young homosexual Jewish male from Austria
-subtext while reading: Beatles Rock Band, Guitar Hero 5
II. Feminist critique of Gottlieb Frege for anti-semitism. Something about logic itself, as ‘foreclosing’ the enlightenment search for truth. This goes with emergence of an animus (anima, actually) against Kant. Too ‘rigorist‘ ethics there; New Age-friendly virtue ethics is the more open, less ‘foreclosed’ way to go. (Old males “foreclose”)
III. “Perpetual Revelations”,
Review of The Case For God, by Karen Armstrong, by Ross Douthat “How ideas and practices from the past might guide believers in a modern approach to God.” (<= exit to Dan Brown, The Lost Symbol) (NYTimes Book Review 10.4.09)
subtext: how to thread the “God” token to psychohistorical infinity. (cf. “the feeling of satisfaction from leading others astray”).
When, originally, “God’s” psychosemiotic function was to bring text, rational definition. (token-carrying-text =>* the primitive psychosemiotic relation constituent of sign-use per se) Thus, the world that “God created”, as thought, is bounded, distinct from The Unbounded – just by use of “God”. (All synonymous tokens from other languages translated through “completing totality*”, the most rationalized single form of sign-use.)
Douthat’s theological grammar bases “the sturdy appeal of Western monotheism” on two “scandalously literal claims—that the Jews really are God’s chosen people; that Christ really did rise from the dead”. Wrong on both counts, taken together that way: The idea of Jews as “God’s chosen people” is fulfilled in, and can only be sustained historically through the incarnation. The Sumerian Marduk was also proclaimed God of Gods by a legacy far exceeding Moses’. And the Egyptian Pharoas were custodians of superior objective knowledge. This is part of the continuing attempt to use entry of The Word into the world as Flesh – Jesus in the womb of Mary, from the lineage of Jesse, and David – to retroactively redeem that DNA line which crucified him. This is the theological link “as above”, required “so below” to link America (as “Christian nation”) with Israel (Zion; the “monotheistic” Father God’s Chosen People promised land).
The work of Bart Ehrman, attacking I John 5.7-8 (unambiguous statement of the trinity) is of the same genre.
(**add ffnt.)
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/shue_johannine_comma.htm )
Lastly, we will look at some of the internal evidence for 1 John 5:7. It is commonly asserted that the Johannine Comma is a Trinitarian interpolation. It is supposed that someone trying to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity added the phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost". However, this doesn’t seem highly likely at all. It would seem much more likely that if one wanted to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity they would have no doubt used the time honored formula "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". It would be very unlikely that someone would invent an entirely new formula that is not found anywhere else in scripture. The fact is the use of the word "Word" is consistent with the writings of John. Another internal proof that 1 John 5:7 is authentic is the gross grammatical problem that arises with its omission. For this explanation I quote Dr. Thomas Holland --
"But what is most compelling is the Greek text itself. The phrase in verse 8, "to pneuma, kai to udor, kai to aima (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood)" are all neuter nouns. They are, however, contiguous with the phrase, "oi marturountes (who bare witness)" which stands in the masculine (as does the Greek word for three, treis). The proper grammatical explanation for this, mixing the neuter and the masculine, is that the parallel is introduced in verse 7. There we find the phrase, "o pater, o logos, kai to agion pneuma (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost)" which are masculine nouns (with the exception of the Holy Ghost, which stands in the neuter). This would allow for the masculine "oi marturountes" since the clause contains two masculine nouns. If, on the other hand, the masculine nouns of verse 7 are removed we are at a loss as to why the masculine is used in verse 8. Therefore, the inclusion of the Comma is not only proper theology, it is proper Greek." (Dr. Holland, A Verse by Verse Commentary on the Epistle of 1 John, as found on his website)
In closing, I would suggest that the internal and external evidence is more than sufficient to prove that 1 John 5:7 is genuine. Yet despite this, and other evidence that wasn’t mentioned, the modern versions have again taken out their textual scythe and have cut this passage right out of their text. And once again it has been shown that God has preserved His words (all of them) in the Authorized Version
“The Gospel of Judas” of ‘07. - same vein; merging the Jesus-martyr with the archetypal betrayer in flat earth tokenspace.
IV Tom. L. Friedman “Where Did ‘We’ GO/ (9.30.09 A27)
Compares the mentality and mood of “extreme right wing” settlers behind* the shooting of Israel’s PM Rabine, to the “extremist right wing racist” rage he sees boiling up to threaten the Obama administration.
However, this comparison is itself by way of theological reversal. The “(We) under God” of America is not the “(We) under YHWH’ in Jerusalem. And we (the rational Americans) can use a version of G.E. Moore’s naturalistic fallacy … to refute the equivalence of “One True God” referred to in 1 John 5.7,8, and the Old Testament one, whatever it was. One isn’t compelled by text, but by subjective token association, to equate “God the Father” in both. (“God” can’t be tautologicaly defined by the Old Testament monotheism, but vice versa.)
If this reversal is allowed, it will be impossible to properly correct wrong predications through the anima all the way down through the predicate hierarchy. Thus, “God is just”, connecting the theological (S*7) and moral (S*4) levels of token types, carries two different conceptions of ‘law’ into common judgmental discourse. When two positions disagree on issues or right or wrong, but these are defined through different theological stipulations, rational recourse for arbitrating ultimate conflict under the conception of one law “under God” is removed. That is why the stratification of tokens according to the logical theory of types is of ultimate importance in the theory of textual representation. A predicate cannot substitute as an instance of its application; the “F” and “x” of “Fx” are metaphysically ordered. “FF” lacks ‘sense’, in logical grammar. Yet, in ordinary grammar, this doubling of words on themselves often makes quite good, even logically compelling sense, as if completing the use. What is “what”? Thought of thought, awareness of awareness, consciousness of consciousness, idea of idea, concept of concept, remembering remembering, predicate of predicates …how far does it go? And what is the point? Hereness of here (where), nowness of now (presence, ever) The here and now (WherEver), You-ness of you and Me-ness of I. Such is ordinary grammar. Virtually unrestrictive. However, if negation is thrown into the mix, as in “predicates that are not predicates of themselves”, allowing names with such ‘internal negation’ to be predicated on in other sentences, Russell’s paradox breaks out (“Normal is Normal iff Normal is not Normal”, if “Normal” names predicates not predicable of themselves.) In order to avoid it in all similar cases, Russell introduced the formal requirement that predicates be stratified by type.
The best double straddling both grammars is the ‘the’. Before Russell contributed the theory of types to linearize thought, he was THE man to go to for analysis of the indispensable logical function of this definite article. (cf. “On Denoting”, 1905, Mind) The grammatical intent of “the”-use in common discourse, importing uniqueness, (‘the’ => ‘that one’) formalizes reference to individuals through predicates, without using proper names. This was crucial to his, and all later metaphysical thought in formal logical terms, because it freed logic from any theory of individuals presupposed by discourse. Logical relations are purely formal, expressed through individually specified tokens (like letters of the alphabet). Holding of “everything”, they are specific to nothing. Thus, the 7 propositions of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus contain not one name or reference to any actual object -- unless one counts “the world”, its first two words, denied to have literal referential sense. (Russell never pointed this out, but should have, since Wittgenstein flat-earthed his Logical type theory.)
The project of textualist metaphysics, the logical half of Plato’s soul in the Tiamus, is completed in Principia Mathematica,, followed by Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. The Tractatus is a purely abstract split-off, refinement of the original adequate, if notationally clumsy, work of Russell and Whitehead.
The other side of Plato’s soul, philosophy, is self talking about itself, doubled as talk about talk. Here names appear, and, with them, the metaphysical category of individuals correlated 1-1 with primitives (undefined descriptive constants in L; Kripke’s ‘rigid designators’). Selection of a category of names as primitive for the ideal language L*, for example, momentary phenomenal qualitative constellations or ‘sense data’, as opposed to names of 3-dimensional physical objects, is the ideal language reconstruction “materialiam” vrs. “phenomenalism” as ‘ultimately real”. Russell’s selde-datum theory holds that primitives of the ideal language refer to phenomenal objects, with names of physical objects constructs from sing-use over the field of given qualitative experience. This fits the pattern of analysis of C.D. Broad, G.E. Moore, A,J. Ayer, and physicists Eddington and Jeans, and is confluent with 19th century German idealism (heavily influenced by Hegelian logic), the schools of German psychology, and the assumptions of Jung’s analytical psychology. (Freud’s not so much, since his work was originally grounded on neuro-psychology, including trauma, remaining non-metaphysical in content.)
The two (then three: the soul itself) major metaphysical issues from classical Greek thought reconstructed in ideal language philosophy are 1. the theory of general objects of knowledge, “Forms”, vrs. the theory of knowledge of particular objects, in experience. And 2. the theory of material constitution of external objects, physis, vrs. the theory of the origin and neuro-dependency of qualitaties psyche. The fusion of these is given through 1’. the theory of logical types as a stratified hierarchy distinguishing predicates from individuals, at successive type-levels. without contradiction; and 2’. the interpretation of undefined descriptive predicates to those given in experience as repeatable content of consciousness (that is, phenomenal vrs. noumena, in Kant’s sense).
The third in this order of exposition is the mediating link between the pair of doubles: what is called “the soul”. Not just an “idea”, or something corresponding to a name through an ‘idea’ (not: Hume’s “idea of the soul”), but a functional totality linking the polarities. In a “squared” metaphysical order, then, the soul is second, after 1/1’ (formal hierarchy interpreted into experience) to bring it to 2/2’ (the 7-step S* hierarchy interpreted into content of consciousness). Creating these links is the work of the soul, and completes its work, through experience as qualitative content.
***
Psychosemiotics introduces a new theory of doubling* sign-uses, called “text-token squaring”. It gives formal credence to what ordinary grammar allows, but avoids the unending gyrations of flatlanders in Tokenspace; meanwhile, coopting its inner driving.
What are there doubles of? (a, the) body of bodies? mind of mind?
V. Paul Krugman The Politics of Spite (NYTimes 10/5/’09)
“The modern conservative movement which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old. …venomous over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama…will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration. It’s an ugly picture, but it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.”
****
-The split-off “TV parallel reality” is threaded entirely by the unconscious group-fantasy of poisoned blood. *
*It is the metaphysical metaphor used as a religious token for the perceived effect of Jewishness on Aryan blood: disrupting the literal flow of blood by desire (or lust: ‘smirking Jewess’ archetype as object cathexis); corrupting the very sounds and thought forms communicated in the German language itself, eloquently immortalized by Fichte (1800); intractable obstacles to flow of group process in Germany’s Fueher-geist post WWI resurgence of nationalism. What accounts for “the holocaust”, and even why this term became the token of Nazi persecution of the Jews, is the group fantasy of cleansing the flow of blood circulating through all, their “We’-ness, of Jewish presence poisoning the blood stream. ‘Burning out the poison”, as funeral pyres for wicked witches, is one association. “Pouring the blood of the sacrificed animal into the ground” is another echo of the same theme, as is blood sacrifice to purge the results of sin (in Old Testament history, corruption of the flow of YHWH’s victorious spirit given to the Israelittes by Aiken, who took booty for himself – rare garments and gold -- all had fought for. He and all of his kin are killed in retribution.
Part II. The Political Split Gets The-o-logical
Obama meets w/ Roger Ailles (Fox News; Ed Rollins?- CNN..) 10.06.09
:-)’s agends: How to spin “no troops for Afghanistan” without looking like you’re loosing. How to play “Will Israel bomb Iran?” stories
Chronicles of Nibiru ’09 (tales of the Black Sun’s return)
I. Logicomics – just published . Reducing the narrative of early 20th cent. intellectual history to existential interaction between comic book characters.
Today, in re this particular subject matter, logic: the effect of this publication is to ground the false anima complex* of emerging killer-mommy young males (ages 6-8; re-cathected at 12-14 with puberty), who read far out comic books like this, on skewed, Bruno-style framing of what logic is about.
Corrected parallel rewrite (narrated by true anima): …. turn of century setting --
Russell rescues soured-on-life genius in symbolic/mathematical logic, from East Germany, from total obscurity. He also corrects a contradiction latent in Cantor’s loose notion of infinity by introducing the theory of logical types; also modifying Frege’s formal apparatus.
Befriends logico-mathematical precocious young homosexual Jewish male from Austria
-subtext while reading: Beatles Rock Band, Guitar Hero 5
II. Feminist critique of Gottlieb Frege for anti-semitism. Something about logic itself, as ‘foreclosing’ the enlightenment search for truth. This goes with emergence of an animus (anima, actually) against Kant. Too ‘rigorist‘ ethics there; New Age-friendly virtue ethics is the more open, less ‘foreclosed’ way to go. (Old males “foreclose”)
III. “Perpetual Revelations”,
Review of The Case For God, by Karen Armstrong, by Ross Douthat “How ideas and practices from the past might guide believers in a modern approach to God.” (<= exit to Dan Brown, The Lost Symbol) (NYTimes Book Review 10.4.09)
subtext: how to thread the “God” token to psychohistorical infinity. (cf. “the feeling of satisfaction from leading others astray”).
When, originally, “God’s” psychosemiotic function was to bring text, rational definition. (token-carrying-text =>* the primitive psychosemiotic relation constituent of sign-use per se) Thus, the world that “God created”, as thought, is bounded, distinct from The Unbounded – just by use of “God”. (All synonymous tokens from other languages translated through “completing totality*”, the most rationalized single form of sign-use.)
Douthat’s theological grammar bases “the sturdy appeal of Western monotheism” on two “scandalously literal claims—that the Jews really are God’s chosen people; that Christ really did rise from the dead”. Wrong on both counts, taken together that way: The idea of Jews as “God’s chosen people” is fulfilled in, and can only be sustained historically through the incarnation. The Sumerian Marduk was also proclaimed God of Gods by a legacy far exceeding Moses’. And the Egyptian Pharoas were custodians of superior objective knowledge. This is part of the continuing attempt to use entry of The Word into the world as Flesh – Jesus in the womb of Mary, from the lineage of Jesse, and David – to retroactively redeem that DNA line which crucified him. This is the theological link “as above”, required “so below” to link America (as “Christian nation”) with Israel (Zion; the “monotheistic” Father God’s Chosen People promised land).
The work of Bart Ehrman, attacking I John 5.7-8 (unambiguous statement of the trinity) is of the same genre.
(**add ffnt.)
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/shue_johannine_comma.htm )
Lastly, we will look at some of the internal evidence for 1 John 5:7. It is commonly asserted that the Johannine Comma is a Trinitarian interpolation. It is supposed that someone trying to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity added the phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost". However, this doesn’t seem highly likely at all. It would seem much more likely that if one wanted to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity they would have no doubt used the time honored formula "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". It would be very unlikely that someone would invent an entirely new formula that is not found anywhere else in scripture. The fact is the use of the word "Word" is consistent with the writings of John. Another internal proof that 1 John 5:7 is authentic is the gross grammatical problem that arises with its omission. For this explanation I quote Dr. Thomas Holland --
"But what is most compelling is the Greek text itself. The phrase in verse 8, "to pneuma, kai to udor, kai to aima (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood)" are all neuter nouns. They are, however, contiguous with the phrase, "oi marturountes (who bare witness)" which stands in the masculine (as does the Greek word for three, treis). The proper grammatical explanation for this, mixing the neuter and the masculine, is that the parallel is introduced in verse 7. There we find the phrase, "o pater, o logos, kai to agion pneuma (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost)" which are masculine nouns (with the exception of the Holy Ghost, which stands in the neuter). This would allow for the masculine "oi marturountes" since the clause contains two masculine nouns. If, on the other hand, the masculine nouns of verse 7 are removed we are at a loss as to why the masculine is used in verse 8. Therefore, the inclusion of the Comma is not only proper theology, it is proper Greek." (Dr. Holland, A Verse by Verse Commentary on the Epistle of 1 John, as found on his website)
In closing, I would suggest that the internal and external evidence is more than sufficient to prove that 1 John 5:7 is genuine. Yet despite this, and other evidence that wasn’t mentioned, the modern versions have again taken out their textual scythe and have cut this passage right out of their text. And once again it has been shown that God has preserved His words (all of them) in the Authorized Version
“The Gospel of Judas” of ‘07. - same vein; merging the Jesus-martyr with the archetypal betrayer in flat earth tokenspace.
IV Tom. L. Friedman “Where Did ‘We’ GO/ (9.30.09 A27)
Compares the mentality and mood of “extreme right wing” settlers behind* the shooting of Israel’s PM Rabine, to the “extremist right wing racist” rage he sees boiling up to threaten the Obama administration.
However, this comparison is itself by way of theological reversal. The “(We) under God” of America is not the “(We) under YHWH’ in Jerusalem. And we (the rational Americans) can use a version of G.E. Moore’s naturalistic fallacy … to refute the equivalence of “One True God” referred to in 1 John 5.7,8, and the Old Testament one, whatever it was. One isn’t compelled by text, but by subjective token association, to equate “God the Father” in both. (“God” can’t be tautologicaly defined by the Old Testament monotheism, but vice versa.)
If this reversal is allowed, it will be impossible to properly correct wrong predications through the anima all the way down through the predicate hierarchy. Thus, “God is just”, connecting the theological (S*7) and moral (S*4) levels of token types, carries two different conceptions of ‘law’ into common judgmental discourse. When two positions disagree on issues or right or wrong, but these are defined through different theological stipulations, rational recourse for arbitrating ultimate conflict under the conception of one law “under God” is removed. That is why the stratification of tokens according to the logical theory of types is of ultimate importance in the theory of textual representation. A predicate cannot substitute as an instance of its application; the “F” and “x” of “Fx” are metaphysically ordered. “FF” lacks ‘sense’, in logical grammar. Yet, in ordinary grammar, this doubling of words on themselves often makes quite good, even logically compelling sense, as if completing the use. What is “what”? Thought of thought, awareness of awareness, consciousness of consciousness, idea of idea, concept of concept, remembering remembering, predicate of predicates …how far does it go? And what is the point? Hereness of here (where), nowness of now (presence, ever) The here and now (WherEver), You-ness of you and Me-ness of I. Such is ordinary grammar. Virtually unrestrictive. However, if negation is thrown into the mix, as in “predicates that are not predicates of themselves”, allowing names with such ‘internal negation’ to be predicated on in other sentences, Russell’s paradox breaks out (“Normal is Normal iff Normal is not Normal”, if “Normal” names predicates not predicable of themselves.) In order to avoid it in all similar cases, Russell introduced the formal requirement that predicates be stratified by type.
The best double straddling both grammars is the ‘the’. Before Russell contributed the theory of types to linearize thought, he was THE man to go to for analysis of the indispensable logical function of this definite article. (cf. “On Denoting”, 1905, Mind) The grammatical intent of “the”-use in common discourse, importing uniqueness, (‘the’ => ‘that one’) formalizes reference to individuals through predicates, without using proper names. This was crucial to his, and all later metaphysical thought in formal logical terms, because it freed logic from any theory of individuals presupposed by discourse. Logical relations are purely formal, expressed through individually specified tokens (like letters of the alphabet). Holding of “everything”, they are specific to nothing. Thus, the 7 propositions of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus contain not one name or reference to any actual object -- unless one counts “the world”, its first two words, denied to have literal referential sense. (Russell never pointed this out, but should have, since Wittgenstein flat-earthed his Logical type theory.)
The project of textualist metaphysics, the logical half of Plato’s soul in the Tiamus, is completed in Principia Mathematica,, followed by Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. The Tractatus is a purely abstract split-off, refinement of the original adequate, if notationally clumsy, work of Russell and Whitehead.
The other side of Plato’s soul, philosophy, is self talking about itself, doubled as talk about talk. Here names appear, and, with them, the metaphysical category of individuals correlated 1-1 with primitives (undefined descriptive constants in L; Kripke’s ‘rigid designators’). Selection of a category of names as primitive for the ideal language L*, for example, momentary phenomenal qualitative constellations or ‘sense data’, as opposed to names of 3-dimensional physical objects, is the ideal language reconstruction “materialiam” vrs. “phenomenalism” as ‘ultimately real”. Russell’s selde-datum theory holds that primitives of the ideal language refer to phenomenal objects, with names of physical objects constructs from sing-use over the field of given qualitative experience. This fits the pattern of analysis of C.D. Broad, G.E. Moore, A,J. Ayer, and physicists Eddington and Jeans, and is confluent with 19th century German idealism (heavily influenced by Hegelian logic), the schools of German psychology, and the assumptions of Jung’s analytical psychology. (Freud’s not so much, since his work was originally grounded on neuro-psychology, including trauma, remaining non-metaphysical in content.)
The two (then three: the soul itself) major metaphysical issues from classical Greek thought reconstructed in ideal language philosophy are 1. the theory of general objects of knowledge, “Forms”, vrs. the theory of knowledge of particular objects, in experience. And 2. the theory of material constitution of external objects, physis, vrs. the theory of the origin and neuro-dependency of qualitaties psyche. The fusion of these is given through 1’. the theory of logical types as a stratified hierarchy distinguishing predicates from individuals, at successive type-levels. without contradiction; and 2’. the interpretation of undefined descriptive predicates to those given in experience as repeatable content of consciousness (that is, phenomenal vrs. noumena, in Kant’s sense).
The third in this order of exposition is the mediating link between the pair of doubles: what is called “the soul”. Not just an “idea”, or something corresponding to a name through an ‘idea’ (not: Hume’s “idea of the soul”), but a functional totality linking the polarities. In a “squared” metaphysical order, then, the soul is second, after 1/1’ (formal hierarchy interpreted into experience) to bring it to 2/2’ (the 7-step S* hierarchy interpreted into content of consciousness). Creating these links is the work of the soul, and completes its work, through experience as qualitative content.
***
Psychosemiotics introduces a new theory of doubling* sign-uses, called “text-token squaring”. It gives formal credence to what ordinary grammar allows, but avoids the unending gyrations of flatlanders in Tokenspace; meanwhile, coopting its inner driving.
What are there doubles of? (a, the) body of bodies? mind of mind?
V. Paul Krugman The Politics of Spite (NYTimes 10/5/’09)
“The modern conservative movement which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old. …venomous over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama…will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration. It’s an ugly picture, but it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.”
****
-The split-off “TV parallel reality” is threaded entirely by the unconscious group-fantasy of poisoned blood. *
*It is the metaphysical metaphor used as a religious token for the perceived effect of Jewishness on Aryan blood: disrupting the literal flow of blood by desire (or lust: ‘smirking Jewess’ archetype as object cathexis); corrupting the very sounds and thought forms communicated in the German language itself, eloquently immortalized by Fichte (1800); intractable obstacles to flow of group process in Germany’s Fueher-geist post WWI resurgence of nationalism. What accounts for “the holocaust”, and even why this term became the token of Nazi persecution of the Jews, is the group fantasy of cleansing the flow of blood circulating through all, their “We’-ness, of Jewish presence poisoning the blood stream. ‘Burning out the poison”, as funeral pyres for wicked witches, is one association. “Pouring the blood of the sacrificed animal into the ground” is another echo of the same theme, as is blood sacrifice to purge the results of sin (in Old Testament history, corruption of the flow of YHWH’s victorious spirit given to the Israelittes by Aiken, who took booty for himself – rare garments and gold -- all had fought for. He and all of his kin are killed in retribution.
posted by Sid Thomas | 2:09 PM
1 Comments:
Why do you say that the non-grammatical-gender-agreement with multiple nouns in 1 John 5:8 is a "gross grammatical problem?" It implies that grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns is what always happens everywhere else in the New Testament. Can you provide even one example of this from the rest of the New Testament (not the Comma, because that is the passage that is in question). I've never seen anyone provide such an example. I don't think there is one. In contrast, there are numerous examples of the same kind of non-grammatical-gender-agreement with multiple nouns that occurs in 1 John 5:8. I know of nine: Matthew 15:19-20 and Matthew 23:23 and John 6:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Corinthians 13:13 and Galatians 5:19-21 and Galatians 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:5-7 and Colossians 5:12-14. If non-grammatical-gender-agreement with multiple nouns occurs nine other times in the New Testament and grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never occurs in the New Testament, then why do you say that the non-grammatical-gender-agreement with multiple nouns in 1 John 5:8 is a "gross grammatical problem?" Based on these examples, it looks to me like normal grammar. Based on these examples, the gender argument presented in favor of the Comma looks to me like a hoax. Have you consider the possiblity that "the ones bearing witness" in 1 John 5:8 is masculine because it refers to "the men" in "the witness of the men" in verse 5:9, to whom John is comparing (this is like that) "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" in verse 5:8? Who are "the men" in "the witness of the men" in verse 5:9? They are "the ones bearing witness" in verse 5:8, hence the masculine gender. Maybe that's all John is saying. Maybe he's saying that "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" are comparable to "the ones bearing witness / the witness of the men." Compare John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 and Hebrews 10:28-29, which likewise compare two or three witnesses to the two or three men prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15.
Post a Comment
<< Home