BE> Here's the original exchange:
FR:
-Some clues are in the Mithra rituals paralleled in the Christian
-bible.  The "rebirth" of Lazarus -- Jesus's homosexual lover --
-could very well be the Mithratic ritual of "rebirthing" a man by
-placing him into the belly of an animal and "rebirthing" him.
...
>   Bob,  look  at Rice's sentence above which reads: "The "rebirth
>of Lasarus -- Jesus's [sic] homosexual lover...."
>
>   Rice does not qualify that statement in any way as  you  surely
>would have to admit.  HE STATES IT AS A FACT - A GIVEN.
Yes, he does, and without supporting argument.
>   It is true that I brought up Morton Smith as the source because
>that  is  really  where this speculation was first dealt with in a
>historical enterprise as far as I know.  But  getting  into  Smith
>and the rest is NOT the central point.  If the above does not show
>Rice  setting  forth  something  as  a fact when it really IS only
>speculation then I'm missing SOMETHING would you not agree.  There
Yes,  you  are  missing  from him some semblance of argument.  But
such argument might be forthcoming by posing a question.   If  one
simply  assumes  that  Rice  has  no argument, one is in danger of
adopting a dogmatic view of his opinion.
>is not sufficient evidence for ANYBODY to assert that Lazarus  was
>Jesus'  homosexual  lover.   He might well have been but then I go
>further in my skepticism than Rice even thinks  of  going.   I  do
>not,  as  he  does,  take  the fundamentalist position that things
>written in the "bible" are LITERALLY TRUE and if I wanted to study
>any part of it I'd go to the  genuine  bible  scholars  who  spend
>lifetimes   doing   so.    "Proof-texting"   the   "bible"   is  a
>fundamentalist ploy.
>
>I hope this is clear enough.
Yes.
BE:
-The  Secret  Gospel  of  Mark  therefore really did exist.  And it
-really did contain sentences about Jesus which  suggest  that  the
-author of Mark thought that Jesus was a homosexual.
>   I know that but note the word SUGGEST.  Read my  previous  post
>in  which I show you the quote in which Rice DID NOT SAY "Lazarus,
>Jesus' SUGGESTED lover.  He did not qualify it in any way.  He set
>it forth as INDUBITABLE TRUTH.
Welll, he merely  adduced  Lazarus  as  Jesus'  homosexual  lover.
True,  he didn't use my word "suggest"; but, I don't think he went
so far as to describe such an allegation as indubitable truth.  It
is one thing to state  something  as  a  fact  without  supporting
argument, and quite another to characterise it as indubitable.
The  mere  fact  that someone does not provide supporting argument
for a certain statement does not show that the statement is viewed
by him as incorrigible or as a dogma.  He may be assuming that you
know  what  the  argument  is;  maybe  he just forgot to state the
argument; he may have stated something so outrageous as to inspire
the reader to view it as a dogma (when  in  fact  it  was  only  a
mistake)  and  thus  reveal  himself  to  be  uncritical (a common
Holysmoke ploy); or maybe he really didn't have  an  argument  and
merely  sent off a message in first draft, not really committed to
the statement on subsequent examination.
There   are  all  sorts  of  explanations  of  the  occurrence  of
undefended claims; but it goes beyond the  facts  to  assume  tout
court  that  the  author  intended  them to be undubitable, unless
something he says in context implies such a description.
I'm hardly immune from the sin of exaggeration myself;  but  I  do
think  it  is  worth  stating that we should at least try to avoid
it.  Exaggeration obscures the point of  arguments,  and  misleads
readers  into  reacting to irrelevant issues.  Our own exchange in
the current thread may be an illustration of this, as  I  was  led
off on a tangent about your evidence on Morton Smith.  (I may say,
however,  that  my  reply  was  a  learning  experience FOR ME, as
writing about the Smith fragments of Clement fixed in my own  mind
for  the  first time the significance of the Secret Mark; prior to
our little exchange, the Secret Mark was merely a  unread  chapter
in a book on my desk shelf.)
Even Rice can learn something, as can we all.
Anyway, there it is.
Bob
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------