Why arguments from silence are okay

[Magdalenbrother]

Argument from silence? Invalid.'Argument from silence' has become something of an insult, something like 'conspiracy theory' or 'fascist'. As soon as they see or hear the phrase, people stop thinking and laugh. But are arguments from silence invalid?

Logically speaking it is incorrect to say that an argument from silence is invalid. For an invalid argument is invalid because there is something wrong in the structure of the argument itself. A 'beautiful' example of invalid argument is the divine exclusivity argument handled by Trinitarians, which is but a variant of the following invalid argument:

All men are mortal
And pigs are mortal
Therefore men are pigs.

An argument from silence is at worst weak. Let us take as an example the fact that Jesus didn't say a thing about homosexuality. Is that a valid argument for saying that he condoned homosexuality? Obviously not. But the fact that he didn't speak about homosexuality at all is still significant for homosexual behavior was widespread among the Gentiles and Gentiles lived in great numbers in the Galilee and around it. Obviously homosexuality didn't bother Jesus enormously as it does contemporary Evangelical preachers and believers. So what I infer from Jesus' silence on homosexuality is that homosexuality is not the sin par excellence, and its eradication not the priority of any evangelisation campaign.

But if in some circumstances silence does not support a theory adequately, there are other cases where silence is highly suspicious, almost inexplicable. At that point something can be inferred from silence. A good case in point is the virginal birth. Such a birth is a miracle that does not occur every day. It is true that countless myths around the globe speak of viginal births but for a Jew who does not recognize the validity of myths like Paul or "John", surely a virginal birth would be a most wondrous and telling sign of God's design.

But the fact is that neither Mark nor John nor Paul nor any other Gospel writer (except Matthew and Luke of course) speaks of the virginal birth. Not only does Paul not speak of virginal birth but on several occasions, when mentioning it would have made a significant difference, he chooses the 'wrong' wording. Gal 4,4 is a perfect example: why say born of a 'woman' instead of born of a 'virgin'? True, a virgin is a woman. Linguistically, there is no big difference but religiously speaking the difference is HUUUGE. So why say "woman" instead of "virgin"? Hadn't Paul read Isaiah 7,14? Or had he read the manuscripts that have neanis instead of parthenos?

For me, the explanation is very simple: he didn't believe that such a thing had occurred ! In fact a virginal birth would have completely unsettled his theology which is based entirely on Jesus' becoming the son of God on account of his resurrection from the dead (see romans 1,4).

Another good argument from silence is "John" 7. Here we see the Sanhedrin discussing the possibility that Jesus be the Messiah.

Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet!

For me it is highly significant that "John" did not add any comment à la os enomizeto (in Luke 'as was supposed' precedes Joseph's genealogy), that he did not remind his readers of Jesus' real lineage and real place of birth. In fact, the accusation is a frequent one and Jesus, when faced with it, never corrected his hearers by poiting out that he was born in Bethlehem from a mother of Davidic descent ( it would have been a ludicrous assertion anyway since Jews didn't trace their lineage through their mother !).

I say that this silence of Jesus is telling.

Conclusion: arguments from silence are good when the thing left unmentioned is of great theological or other import. At worst an argument from silence is weak. It is never inherently invalid.

[themuzicman]

:lmbo: It's this kind of logic that just shreds your credibility, MB.

[VFarris01]

Try these MB.

You may learn something. :blush:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ArgumentFromSilence

http://www.christian-truth.org/hermeneutics/methods1.html#_Toc526055612

[Rob Bowman]

Magdalenbrother,

You wrote:


Logically speaking it is incorrect to say that an argument from silence is invalid. For an invalid argument is invalid because there is something wrong in the structure of the argument itself. A 'beautiful' example of invalid argument is the divine exclusivity argument handled by Trinitarians, which is but a variant of the following invalid argument:

All men are mortal
And pigs are mortal
Therefore men are pigs.
I'm sorry, what is this "divine exclusivity argument handled by Trinitarians" and what does your "men are pigs" example have to do with that?

You wrote:


An argument from silence is at worst weak. Let us take as an example the fact that Jesus didn't say a thing about homosexuality. Is that a valid argument for saying that he condoned homosexuality? Obviously not. But the fact that he didn't speak about homosexuality at all is still significant for homosexual behavior was widespread among the Gentiles and Gentiles lived in great numbers in the Galilee and around it. Obviously homosexuality didn't bother Jesus enormously as it does contemporary Evangelical preachers and believers. So what I infer from Jesus' silence on homosexuality is that homosexuality is not the sin par excellence, and its eradication not the priority of any evangelisation campaign.
First of all, I don't view homosexuality as "the sin par excellence"; the Bible doesn't exactly rank sins in any thorough or formal way, but blasphemy would seem to be even worse than homosexual conduct. But this doesn't stop me from viewing homosexual behavior as sin. I'm guessing that a lot of Gentile men beat their wives, but Jesus never spoke specifically about that behavior, either. May I conclude that modern campaigns to combat spousal abuse are at odds with the views or priorities of Jesus? No. This isn't good reasoning.

Jesus didn't need to address every moral issue in the book, precisely because the whole gamut of moral issues was already addressed in the Book, that is, in the Scriptures, what we would today call the Old Testament. Leviticus is painfully clear in its condemnation of homosexual conduct (and, may I add, a long list of other sexual sins that would be classified as "heterosexual"). And Jesus unequivocally endorsed the moral teachings of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-20). So, I understand Matthew 5:17-20 as expressing tacitly Jesus' endorsement of the Levitical condemnation of homosexual conduct.

In Jesus' own culture of first-century Judaism, there was no controversy or dispute about homosexual conduct. His moral teachings and disputes with others focused almost exclusively on hypocrisy within his own Jewish community. Therefore, there is no reason to expect Jesus to have addressed the issue of homosexual behavior, as it was not a matter of any significant debate among the Jews, and Jesus evidently agreed with the Jewish consensus view of the matter, based on Leviticus.

It is true that there were Gentiles living among the Jews in the area where Jesus lived and taught. However, the Gospels report very little in the way of comments by Jesus about matters specific to Gentile culture. Jesus himself stated that his mission was to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," and while he was happy to talk to Gentiles when the occasion presented itself, his own public teachings were directed essentially to the Jews.

You wrote:


But if in some circumstances silence does not support a theory adequately, there are other cases where silence is highly suspicious, almost inexplicable. At that point something can be inferred from silence. A good case in point is the virginal birth. Such a birth is a miracle that does not occur every day. It is true that countless myths around the globe speak of viginal births but for a Jew who does not recognize the validity of myths like Paul or "John", surely a virginal birth would be a most wondrous and telling sign of God's design.

But the fact is that neither Mark nor John nor Paul nor any other Gospel writer (except Matthew and Luke of course) speaks of the virginal birth.
This is another poor argument from silence. From the silence of Mark, John, and Paul, you wish to infer not only that they did not know about it (a tenuous enough argument from silence) but that it didn't happen. That is simply fallacious, pure and simple.

I suppose it's possible that Mark or Paul didn't know about the virgin birth, but that wouldn't prove it didn't happen. Paul's knowledge about Jesus came primarily from his own encounter with the risen Jesus; he did get some basic information from the other apostles (Gal. 1), but it's possible he didn't hear about the virgin birth. As stunning a miracle as it is, the virgin birth did not redeem us from our sins--that was done by Christ's death and resurrection. So one could know the most important elements of the gospel and not know about the virgin birth. This is not the same thing as saying, please note, that a person may know about the virgin birth and reject it; such a rejection would appear to be a symptom of a bigger problem (say, antipathy toward the supernatural).

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that Mark or Paul knew about the virgin birth but simply chose not to say anything about it, for reasons perhaps unknown to us. Mark's Gospel is by far the shortest; it is based, according to fairly strong tradition, on the preaching of Peter, and focused largely on Jesus' ministry and death. The lack of any mention of the virgin birth in Mark leaves no holes; it really doesn't fit with the narrative as Mark chose to write it. Paul's writings focus on false teachings in the churches over which he had some charge, or on immediate pastoral concerns; again, there's no reason to expect him to talk about the virgin birth.

Many biblical scholars, perhaps most, think John knew about Matthew or Luke or both, and that he chose not to repeat most of the material found in those Gospels. That would explain a lot of things that are not in John, including events that virtually all biblical scholars (even those who are quite skeptical) agree took place. For example, John makes no direct reference to Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, even though he knows about John the Baptist (John 1).

You wrote:


Not only does Paul not speak of virginal birth but on several occasions, when mentioning it would have made a significant difference, he chooses the 'wrong' wording. Gal 4,4 is a perfect example: why say born of a 'woman' instead of born of a 'virgin'? True, a virgin is a woman. Linguistically, there is no big difference but religiously speaking the difference is HUUUGE. So why say "woman" instead of "virgin"?
Because his focus was not on the virgin birth but on the fact that Jesus had lived a fully human life under the Jewish Law in order to pave the way for us to become God's children. Again, arguments from silence are invalid unless you have some solid reason to expect an author to address the point directly.

You wrote:


In fact a virginal birth would have completely unsettled his theology which is based entirely on Jesus' becoming the son of God on account of his resurrection from the dead (see romans 1,4).
No, in Romans, as in Galatians 4:4 itself, Paul speaks of Jesus as the Son of God who came into the world, who was sent here by God the Father, to save us (e.g., Rom. 8:3; see also Col. 1:13-17). Romans 1:4 is saying that God marked out or officially presented Jesus to the world as his Son by raising him from the dead.

You wrote:


Another good argument from silence is "John" 7. Here we see the Sanhedrin discussing the possibility that Jesus be the Messiah.

Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet!

For me it is highly significant that "John" did not add any comment à la os enomizeto (in Luke 'as was supposed' precedes Joseph's genealogy), that he did not remind his readers of Jesus' real lineage and real place of birth. In fact, the accusation is a frequent one and Jesus, when faced with it, never corrected his hearers by poiting out that he was born in Bethlehem from a mother of Davidic descent ( it would have been a ludicrous assertion anyway since Jews didn't trace their lineage through their mother !).

I say that this silence of Jesus is telling.
I say that you don't understand what John is doing in his Gospel. As I pointed out above, there are good reasons to think that John knew the Synoptics. Throughout his Gospel he quotes critics of Jesus and often allows their criticisms to go unchallenged--not because he didn't know any answer, but precisely because he did know (and his readers probably did, too).

The two verses you have quoted are John 7:42 and 7:52; you have omitted the intervening text. John does not report Jesus responding to these criticisms because they were not directed to Jesus for comment; these are things that people were saying about Jesus, at least in this context. Given that John is writing the Gospel to persuade people to believe in Jesus, and could leave anything out that he wished, it is unlikely that he would include something that would "embarrass" him by posing a supposedly unanswerable objection to Jesus being the Messiah. John himself reports the comment of Nicodemus that it would be improper procedure to judge Jesus without first hearing what he had to say for himself (John 7:50-51). There is something ironic here, since you are basically agreeing with Jesus' Jerusalem critics on the grounds that we don't have an answer to their criticisms in this particular passage or book.

You wrote:


Conclusion: arguments from silence are good when the thing left unmentioned is of great theological or other import. At worst an argument from silence is weak. It is never inherently invalid.
Arguments from silence are invalid, even when the thing left unmentioned is very important, unless the speaker or writer has claimed to address everything of importance in that particular area of concern. For example, if I said, "Here is everything you need to do in order to become a Christian," and did not include anything about needing to join the Republican Party, you would be justified in concluding that I don't think you need to join the Republican Party to become a Christian. (And I don't!) But if I said, "In order to become a Christian, you need to believe in Christ," you could not infer from that statement that I didn't think you needed to repent of your sins.

An argument from silence is logically invalid because it really amounts to a variation of the deductive fallacy known as denying the antecedent:

1. If A, then B.
2. Not A.
3. Therefore, not B.

For example:

1. If it rained, then the driveway is wet.
2. It did not rain.
3. Therefore, the driveway is not wet.

The above argument is deductively invalid because the driveway might become wet in some other way (e.g., by my washing the car).

The same problem attends arguments from silence:

1. If Jones said it rained, he believed it rained.
2. Jones did not say it rained.
3. Therefore, he did not believe it rained.

The above argument is deductively invalid because Jones might have had a reason not to mention the rain even if he knew about it.

In order to fix the argument, you must show that if it rained Jones would certainly have said something about it (to form a deductively valid argument) or that if it rained Jones would most probably have said something about it (to form a good inductive argument).

[Magdalenbrother]

Paul did not know about the virgin birth and Luke, who wrote about it, was his secretary! You must be kiddin' !



"Arguments from silence are invalid, even when the thing left unmentioned is very important, unless the speaker or writer has claimed to address everything of importance in that particular area of concern."
Many writers will tell their readers everything that is important without warning them beforehand: "Listen, I am not going to leave any important point of doctrine unmentioned." That such is the case is tacitly implied.

Your addition to my definition makes it sound as if the virgin birth has no importance in the area of soteriology. That would explain why Paul didn't mention it. But the fact is that it is important, so how come Paul does not mention it? If I were you I would settle for the hypothesis that he talked about it in a letter which we have lost, for having Luke at his side, it is simply not plausible that he could have ignored it.

Anyway, the virgin birth does not fit with Paul's theology at all. But I will not insist on that point here.


And Jesus unequivocally endorsed the moral teachings of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-20). So, I understand Matthew 5:17-20 as expressing tacitly Jesus' endorsement of the Levitical condemnation of homosexual conduct.
Jesus was soooo committed to the OT teachings that he let the adulteress go unharmed. He also relativized the sabbath, abolished the food impurity taboos, declared that marriage would cease altogether in tthe world to come, etc., etc.

Read Matthew 5, 17 attentively: Jesus says Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.

1. If his teachings had been absolutely conventional, he would not have said "Do not think..." If he said that, it is because people were shocked (and the Gospels say several times that people were astonished by his teachings!).

2. When referring to the Bible, the Jews said : the Law and the Prophets. Here Jesus says the Law or the Prophets. Fo me (and I am indebted to Count Tolstoï for this brilliant exegesis) that means that the Law he is talking about is not the letter of the Jewish Torah but the Moral Law of the universe, of which the Torah is but one particular time-bound, race-bound, culture-bound expression.

3. Jesus said two times in the fourth Gospel: it is written in your law. Your law and not 'our law'. Jesus obviously didn't endorse the OT.


The two verses you have quoted are John 7:42 and 7:52; you have omitted the intervening text. John does not report Jesus responding to these criticisms because they were not directed to Jesus for comment; these are things that people were saying about Jesus, at least in this context. Given that John is writing the Gospel to persuade people to believe in Jesus, and could leave anything out that he wished, it is unlikely that he would include something that would "embarrass" him by posing a supposedly unanswerable objection to Jesus being the Messiah. John himself reports the comment of Nicodemus that it would be improper procedure to judge Jesus without first hearing what he had to say for himself (John 7:50-51). There is something ironic here, since you are basically agreeing with Jesus' Jerusalem critics on the grounds that we don't have an answer to their criticisms in this particular passage or book.
But, agapetos, "John" often inserts his own comments in the narrative. He did it for example when he reflected on Caiphas' saying that 'it is expedient for one man to die rather than the whole people'. He also intervened when reporting Jesus' sayings about the 'temple of his body' and when Jesus hinted that he would be betrayed by one of the Twelve.


I say that you don't understand what John is doing in his Gospel. As I pointed out above, there are good reasons to think that John knew the Synoptics. Throughout his Gospel he quotes critics of Jesus and often allows their criticisms to go unchallenged--not because he didn't know any answer, but precisely because he did know (and his readers probably did, too).First of all, I think that you haven't read the Gospel of "John" very attentively. If you had, you would know that the son of Zebedee didn't write a single line of it. The author of the fourth Gospel, who is always very precise when "he" introduces new characters in "his" story, describes the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' as 'one of the disciples', and not as 'one of the Twelve' (the phrase "he" used to describe Judas and Thomas). I wouldn't have said it if you had not made a rash judgment on my understanding of the fourth Gospel but since you presume to know lots of things, let me at least point out your ignorance on this point.

That "John" had the other Gospels before him is a gratuitous assumption. In fact, such a theory is contradicted by the numerous contradictions (no pun intended!) between his Gospel and that of the other Evangelists. Just check the location of the Ascension in Luke and Matthew. Observe that "John" 's chronology of the Passion is significantly different. The location of the first apparitions after the Resurrection is different too. John's Jesus speaks openly about his messiahship while the synoptic Jesus forbids people to speak about it. Mark's Jesus goes to Jerusalem only once. "John" 's Jesus went to Jerusalem at least four times, etc., etc.


So your premise is that Jesus spoke on every issues that was important. And that, conversely, his silence on an issue indicated it was not important (you can define "important" any way you wish). Now this may have very well have been true, in which case your argument by silence is valid. However, you are left with problem of proving your premise correct. Can you do that? In fact Jesus said that only one unmistakable sign of his divine mission would be given to his generation and that is the sign of Jonas, the resurrection. One sign only. But if you add the virgin birth, which is certainly a sign of God's special design, one supposedly announced by Isaiah (see my posts on this subject), you have two signs given to the adulterous and perverse generation living at the time of Jesus.

So choose: either Jesus was mistaken or Luke (and Matthew) was mistaken.

To address your question specifically, I would say that it is clear that Jesus did not say everything. That is the role of the second Comforter. So yes, you are right when you say that Jesus was not supposed to tell everything to his disciples, there were many things they could not bear to hear considering their immature spiritual state.

The question really is this: is the virgin birth important or not?

If it is very important, Jesus should have mentioned it since he is supposed to have told the disciples all the doctrines that lead to salvation (do I need to prove that?).

Now since he did not mention it at all (and even said something that contradicts it, the sign of Jonas), I am forced to believe that the virgin birth is a minor point of doctrine, one anyway that is not salvific.

Did Jesus speak on every issue that was important ?

Obviously he did. The reason for saying that is that he came to proclaim the Gospel and save mankind. His failing to say anything that is important for salvation would automatically mean a loss of salvation for us Christians. And don't forget that according to orthodox doctrine the mission of the holy Spirit is one of reminding the disciples of what Jesus had said. The Holy Spirit is not supposed to teach new things (or is it? ).

Did Jesus speak on every issue that was important ?

Suppose for one instant that he didn't. Who then would teach us those important things?

[Sheepdog]

actually, an argument from silence is quite invalid. if we are speaking in terms of categorical syllogisms, basically here is how it would look:
All Jesus said is right. (I know this isn't standard form, please bear with me.)
Nothing Jesus said supports the eating of fudge pudding.
Therefore eating fudge pudding is not right.

Likewise:
Nothing Jesus said is wrong.
Nothing Jesus said is against eating fudge pudding.
Therefore eating fudge pudding is not wrong.

The above arguments reduce to the following forms, respectively:
All M are P
No M are S
Therefore no S are P

No M are P
No M are S
Therefore no S are P

The problem? If you remember your intro to logic class, in the first argument both S and P are distributed in the conclusion (Universals distribute the subject, Negatives distribute the predicate... almost remembered it by heart). This means that they both must be distributed in the premises. "No M are S" distributes "S", since it is a negative. However, the first premise is affirmative and thus does not distribute "P," the conclusion's predicate. Ergo, the first syllogism commits the fallacy of an illicit major.

The second syllogism, however, commits the fallacy of exclusive premises, since two negative premises pretty much can't prove anything.

I recommend Copi and Cohen's Introduction to Logic (if you have 11th edition handy, see 188, 233-4). Or, see: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illmajor.html and http://www.fallacyfiles.org/exclprem.html

[Magdalenbrother]

All Jesus said is right. (I know this isn't standard form, please bear with me.)
Nothing Jesus said supports the eating of fudge pudding.
Therefore eating fudge pudding is not right.

The form of the argument seems correct to me but premise two is simply not true. Jesus said that all food was pure and fudge pudding is food. If he had said sweet things are impure (is fudge pudding sweet?) or if he had said that people should fast perpetually and only eat eucharistic bread, that would be different.

All Jesus said is right.
Nothing Jesus said contradicts the eating of fudge pudding.
Therefore eating fudge pudding is right.
=
Nothing Jesus said is wrong.
Nothing Jesus said is against eating fudge pudding.
Therefore eating fudge pudding is not wrong.

[Sheepdog]

The form of the argument seems correct to me but premise two is simply not true.

well the form is invalid... look at the pages i linked to and you will find counter examples which are similar in form yet obviously invalid.


Jesus said that all food was pure.

but He didn't explicitely say anything about pudding specifically.


If he had said sweet things are impure (is fudge pudding sweet?) or if he had said that people should fast perpetually and only eat the eucharistic bread, that would be different.


actually, read the post again, if you don't mind. i've edited it a few times since i originally posted it.



All Jesus said is right.
Nothing Jesus said contradicts the eating of fudge pudding.
Therefore eating fudge pudding is right.

but is that why it is alright to eat fudge pudding? because Jesus actually said something about food, of which pudding is a category in; it is not because of your argument above. You are still commiting the fallacy of illicit major-- that the conclusion is true has nothing to do with your phoney logic.

[Magdalenbrother]

that the conclusion is true has nothing to do with your phoney logic.
Refrain from abusive terms if you want a reply, dear. Season your posts with grace. It helps to treat your interlocutor as a worthy human being even if he disagrees with you or is mistaken.



but is that why it is alright to eat fudge pudding? because Jesus actually said something about food, of which pudding is a category in?
Yes it is. I see your point though: it is because Jesus said something that eating fudge pudding is all right. But if he had not spoken about food and diet at all, would you infer that fudge pudding is wrong? Would you infer that eating is wrong? You wouldn't. So if Jesus didn't speak about virgin birth, I shouldn't say that virgin birth is a mere figment of the imagination of Matthew and Luke. Silence does not imply non-existence.

But while silence does not imply non-existence, it still does imply something.

The trouble here is that eating fudge pudding and virgin birth are not the same in terms of soteriological importance. Virgin birth is essential for the belief in the Trinity. Jesus' failing to mention it is like a French teacher failing to mention the difference between feminine and masculine. How can you learn french without knowing this particular point of grammar? Of course we do know that French has gender but we didn't know that Jesus was born from a virgin. Only Jesus could have revealed such a mystery. But the fact is that he didn't speak about it at all. He even said that only one sign would be given to the men of his generation.

Jesus did not speak about his virgin birth
Jesus said that the only sign of his divine mission would be the sign of Jonas

What am I to think then?

Everything Jesus taught is necessary for our salvation
Jesus did not teach his virgin birth
Therefore the virgin birth is not necessary for our salvation

Look, arguments from silence are used widely in the field of history. If something is not mentioned by any author, then we assume that it didn't exist at the time. That is not an absolute truth and it could be overturned by the discovery of a new manuscript. But in the meantime one would be foolish to think that electric batteries existed at the time of Homer.

Does the Bible mention ETs ? No it doesn't. So most Christians are happy to believe that human beings are the only intelligent beings in the universe.

Jesus taught everything that is real
Jesus did not teach the existence of extraterrestrials
Therefore extraterrestrials don't exist

Some Christians would accept the above. But the argument is flawed because Jesus did not speak about everything that exists. He only spoke about the things that are necessary for our salvation. Since he didn't mention ETs, it is clear that belief in ET's is not necessary to be saved. Neither is belief in virgin birth.

[Sheepdog]

[edit to add] I see you edited you post since i started this one. i really don't see anything in what you added that really affects the strength of my argument, but if you disagree, we can talk about it later. i need to get to bed :zzz:


Refrain from abusive terms if you want a reply, dear. Season your posts with grace.

what? i'm abusive for calling phoney logic what it is? Salt stings when it gets in your wounds.



Yes it is.

no no no! your logic is invalid. pudding is alright because Jesus acutally said something positive about food in general. hence we have valid argument handy:

all food is clean.
pudding is a food.
therefore pudding is clean.

your argument from silence is still invalid... you may have a true conclusion, but it is inspite of the argument from silence, not because of it. disagree? why don't you actually explain why my analysis of the logic is wrong, instead of hand waiving?


I wonder whether your pudding argument is comparable to the virginal birth thing.

Everything Jesus taught is necessary for our salvation
Jesus did not teach his virgin birth
Therefore the virgin birth is not necessary for our salvation

the logic is invalid, regardless of what terms you replace the middle, major, and middle terms with. even if you use true premises (the first premise is false, by the way), and have a conclusion which is true, the logic is still invalid. If the conclusion is true above (and i believe it is), it has nothing to do with the above argument.

by counter example, consider this argument:
Abraham Lincoln was the President of the United States.
Baseball is a sport that was popular in America.
Therefore, the processor in my computer is a 1.2GHz Athlon.

Both premises are true, the conclusion is true. What's wrong? There is no real logical relationship here. Hence, just having a true conclusion doesn't make logic sound.


Look, arguments from silence are used widely in the field of history.

look, that doesn't make it any less invalid, even if it were true. i am skeptical that it is so widely used, or if it is, it is used beyond conjecture or coming up with a posible hypothesis.


If something is not mentioned by any author, then we assume that it didn't exist at the time.

not so. the Earth's core has existed since the earth existed. yet, you don't see it written about as we know it in any ancient texts.

as a matter of fact, there have been several times in the past where scholarship has had to rethink how we understood history because of some new discovery. how much of what is written in the Bible was in doubt by liberal scholarship, until some amazing find independantly verified what the Bible said?


Does the Bible mention ETs ? No it doesn't. So most Christians are happy to believe that human beings are the only ontelligent beings in the universe.

first off, not all Christians believe space aliens don't exist. some do for odd reasons, many like myself are agnostic about the issue.

second and more importantly, you are committing the bandwagon fallacy: even if most Christians disbelieve in aliens because the Bible doesn't mention them, it doesn't mean that that reasoning is valid. i'll stop there, as i'm sure Minnesota et. al would have a field day with my opinion of the average Joe Christian.


Jesus taught everything that is real
Jesus did not teach the existence of extraterrestrials
Therefore extraterrestrails don't exist

Some Christians would accept the above. But the argument is flawed because Jesus did not speak about everything that exists.

this argument seems to neither support your point nor defend it from mine. what's the point? if you can't actually show the logic behind either form of the argument from silence as valid, you have no case. non at all.


He only spoke about the things that are necessary for our salvation.

assertion. what makes you think that everything Jesus spoke of is necessary for salvation? and what about the contributions of the epistle writers? (not to say Paul et. al conflicted with Jesus or went beyond Him; they do seem to compliment Jesus' gospel really well with their own perspectives.)

[Sheepdog]

Actually, Minn, i didn't see where Mag presented any logic argument for the form Argument from Silence. granted, you presented a form, but it isn't the only one possible. my argument was not a strawman because it presents a form of Argument from Silence which is invalid... the the Opening Post would lead us to believe that Mag believes any form of the Argument from Silence is at best "weak," but not invalid. (that itself seems to confuse deductive with inductive logic, but i didn't notice it until now).

granted, you are right that your form is valid. however, note the conclusion of Mag's post,


arguments from silence are good when the thing left unmentioned is of great theological or other import. At worst an argument from silence is weak. It is never inherently invalid.

i did make a mistake by not taking your presentation into account. however, it is not true that all forms of the Argument from Silence are valid, correct?


but, going back to his opening post again, there are some errors which render his presentation lame. for instance, he uses the example of a virgin birth:


But the fact is that neither Mark nor John nor Paul nor any other Gospel writer (except Matthew and Luke of course) speaks of the virginal birth.

oops. Matthew and Luke did mention a virgin birth, so there isn't too big of a silence here, if we consider the Net Testament as a whole. (other Gospels? don't tell me Mag thinks GoT, et. al are legit??? oh well, that's another topic). Also, Mark, John, and Paul don't really deal with Jesus' childhood, and correct me if i'm wrong-- Luke doesn't either. Shall we posit from this that Jesus had no childhood? So by counter-example, we do see that there is something wrong with the logic. as a matter of fact, the silence of Mark, John, and Paul can be accounted for by their relative apathy towards the subjects of Jesus' birth and childhood. Mark is more interested in covering Jesus' ministry, and so he quickly jumps to with Jesus' baptism. John is more interested in Jesus' spiritual origins than His "earthly" origins. Paul doesn't go into detail about very much of Jesus' life.

Now, if Mag was content to show that the writers weren't to interested in the virgin birth narative, he's got a case. (though not just from silence, but also from what the writers actually showed positive interest in.) However, Mag did go on to assert about Paul:


For me, the explanation is very simple: he didn't believe that such a thing had occurred ! In fact a virginal birth would have completely unsettled his theology which is based entirely on Jesus' becoming the son of God on account of his resurrection from the dead (see romans 1,4).

Setting aside the fact i don't see why a virgin birth would unsettle his theology, we see this conclusion is unwarrented. Does Paul not talk about Jesus' childhood because Paul didn't believe He was ever a child at one point!? An alternative explanation would be that Paul may have believed the doctrine but had little concern for it and it wasn't important at all to the context he was writing in. So, Minn, Mag, why should i accept Mag's conclusion over my own? (editted to add: note that if you actually answer this question, you are going beyond the argument of silence to support the conclusion, and thus implicitly provide evidence that silence by itself is too weak a grounds for any such conclusion)

The second example is about as bad: John was simply reporting what the people were saying. What significance shall we find here? If John wrote his Gospel as a suppliment to one of the other Gospels (which is possible, but is only scholarly conjecture), or to critique a specific set of misunderstadings of a certain group who had knowledge about Jesus (who may have already accepted that Jesus was born from Bethlehem and thus didn't need to be reminded), then the fact that John didn't correct what the people were saying is moot. We can come up with virtually any possible alternative explanation of why John was silent here.

Thus, even if we are using inductive reasoning, an argument from silence is pathetically weak. You could use an argument from silence to support any reasonable explanation; Mag just wasn't very creative about it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

If Minn or Rob would like to have their posts restored to post elsewhere let me know, but this forum is restricted to theists (Minn is atheist). Edited posts are not lost as I am more than happy to return the text to the authors as I know time and effort is spend in responding but we have to keep the forums for their intended restrictions - thanks for your understanding

[Rob Bowman]

Magdalenbrother,

You wrote:


Paul did not know about the virgin birth and Luke, who wrote about it, was his secretary! You must be kiddin' !
Luke was Paul's secretary? Wherever did you get that idea?

You wrote:


Jesus was soooo committed to the OT teachings that he let the adulteress go unharmed. He also relativized the sabbath, abolished the food impurity taboos, declared that marriage would cease altogether in tthe world to come, etc., etc.
Some quick replies:

* The passage about the adulteress (John 7:53-8:11) is regarded by most NT scholars as a later insertion and not part of the Gospel of John.

* Jesus disputed the Pharisees' interpretation of the Sabbath law; he did not challenge the Sabbath law itself.

* I agree that Jesus did set forth the basis for the annulling of the food laws; this shows that he viewed such matters as belonging in a different category than such moral matters as adultery, murder, and theft.

* In saying that marriage would not be a feature of life in the resurrection, he was not disputing any teaching of the OT Law. The OT Law does not say that marriage would be an eternal institution.

You wrote:


Read Matthew 5, 17 attentively: Jesus says Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.

1. If his teachings had been absolutely conventional, he would not have said "Do not think..." If he said that, it is because people were shocked (and the Gospels say several times that people were astonished by his teachings!).
I didn't say that his teaching was "absolutely conventional." I said that although he disputed many things with the Pharisees, he didn't dispute the prevailing Jewish opinion of homosexuality. Perhaps you need to read my posts more "attentively."

You wrote:


2. When referring to the Bible, the Jews said : the Law and the Prophets. Here Jesus says the Law or the Prophets. Fo me (and I am indebted to Count Tolstoï for this brilliant exegesis) that means that the Law he is talking about is not the letter of the Jewish Torah but the Moral Law of the universe, of which the Torah is but one particular time-bound, race-bound, culture-bound expression.
This is a brilliant speculation, but not a particularly stellar exegesis. Jesus said "or" instead of "and" because of the controlling negation he was expressing: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets." Had he said "the Law and the Prophets," I suppose someone might have come up with the "brilliant exegesis" that he was only abolishing the Law! The word "or" serves to make it clear that Jesus was abolishing neither part of the Jewish Scriptures. When Jesus goes on in the very next sentence to say that "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished" (v. 18), "the Law" here must be the written Law, the OT Law. (The "Moral Law of the universe" as such does not have letters and strokes.) And it must be the same Law as the one to which he has just referred in verse 17.

You wrote:


3. Jesus said two times in the fourth Gospel: it is written in your law. Your law and not 'our law'. Jesus obviously didn't endorse the OT.
Nothing obvious about it. In both cases Jesus is simply saying that the Law, which the Jewish leaders profess to revere, supports what Jesus is saying and shows their criticisms of him to be unfounded. His argument is, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me" (John 5:46). After saying this, Jesus scolds them for not believing Moses: "But if you don't believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (v. 47).

You wrote:


First of all, I think that you haven't read the Gospel of "John" very attentively. If you had, you would know that the son of Zebedee didn't write a single line of it. The author of the fourth Gospel, who is always very precise when "he" introduces new characters in "his" story, describes the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' as 'one of the disciples', and not as 'one of the Twelve' (the phrase "he" used to describe Judas and Thomas).
Apparently, you need to read John more attentively. You apparently rushed to judgment with this argument and missed a number of texts in the Gospel. Take this one, for example:

"One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him" (John 6:8).

Here Andrew, who is one of the Twelve, is called "one of his disciples"--the very phrase you claim excludes the beloved disciple from the Twelve!

Thomas, whom you said was called "one of the Twelve," is also called one of the disciples:

"Thomas, who was called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples" (John 11:16).

So is Judas, about whom you said the same thing; again, using the very phrase you quoted as applying to the writer of the Gospel:

"But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples" (John 12:4).

Thomas is also mentioned along with "the other disciples":

"So the other disciples were saying to him" (John 20:25).

When the Gospel refers to its author as "one of his disciples," this is in the context of the Last Supper, where Jesus ate with the Twelve:

"There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23).

Peter is repeatedly spoken of alongside the unnamed disciple, who is called "another" or "the other" disciple, identifying Peter as a disciple in the same sense as well:

"Simon Peter was following Jesus, and another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest.... but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest" (John 18:15).

"So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved.... So Peter and the other disciple left, and they were going toward the tomb. The two were running together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first.... So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed" (John 20:2-4, 8).

Another text refers to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee (which of course includes John the son of Zebedee), and two others, as Jesus' "disciples":

"Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together" (John 21:2; see also v. 8).

You wrote:


I wouldn't have said it if you had not made a rash judgment on my understanding of the fourth Gospel but since you presume to know lots of things, let me at least point out your ignorance on this point.
Sorry, but this looks like a lot of bluster to me. I'm not sure there's any value in discussing these things if you're going to make such arrogant statements in the course of such awful mistakes of your own.

[Dee Dee Warren]

In the thread split, Ron Macy's post suffered the consequences of me stinking at thread splits... here is his post, so sorry Ron


Sheepdog and Magdalenbrother,

My favorite excursion into arguments from silence is the story about Jesus being both quarterback and wide receiver for the Bethleham Stars football team. Jesus led the league in quarterback ratings because He could always throw the ball to where no defenders were on the field and instantly transport Himself to that spot to catch the ball.

I know this is true because the Bible doesn’t say it isn’t true. Argument from silence.

I agree with those who say arguments from silence are invalid.


As a side light, I concluded (my own bit of philosophizing) years ago that there are no other intelligent beings in the universe. This was difficult for me because I am very much a science fiction fan.

The Bible is very clear that God has communicated who and what He is through creation (Romans 1:18-20). Don Richardson’s book, Eternity In Their Hearts, gives many illustrations of how this has worked out in cultures all over the world.

The Bible is also clear that Jesus died for all creation (my interpretation of Romans 8:18-22). This creation is not limited to our world, but includes the stars and any planets which might be revolving around those stars.

Since God has communicated certain essentials through creation itself, I have to ask the question, “How would the other worlds, other intelligences, know of the salvation God provided through Jesus?”

It isn’t likely God would provide other “saviors” for those other worlds because Romans tells us (IMO) Jesus died for the whole creation. God would have to provide us with some means to reach those other intelligences with the hope for eternal life through Jesus which He had given to us.

Certainly it is possible God has done exactly this, communicate salvation to the other worlds, (This brings us full circle to arguing from silence.) and we simply don’t know about it. It just seems unlikely to me. Again, I philosophize and don’t find it necessary for any one to agree with me. I just thought I would mention this as a side thought and not as an interuption to the thread.

Ron

[Dee Dee Warren]

here is the split thread link

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27724

that is where Minn's posts and responses to him went as Christology is for theists only

[Magdalenbrother]

First of all, I invite everybody to find and read Minn's posts in the above post posted by our gracious Moderator. Minn (contrary to me) knows a lot about logic and knows how to say it with the proper jargon and formulas.

Let me say and repeat that everything Jesus said is necessary for our salvation. There is no such thing as a non salvific truth. All truth makes man free and thus saves him. And Jesus is truth as the messenger of the Logos, who is the creative mind of God.


Had he said "the Law and the Prophets," I suppose someone might have come up with the "brilliant exegesis" that he was only abolishing the Law!False and no comment.


When Jesus goes on in the very next sentence to say that "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished" (v. 18), "the Law" here must be the written Law, the OT Law. (The "Moral Law of the universe" as such does not have letters and strokes.) And it must be the same Law as the one to which he has just referred in verse 17.Why didn't you read further, agapetos? Verse 19 says that "whoever shall break one of these least commandments of the Law and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven."

I say that Paul who taught that circumcision is useless is "the least in the Kingdom of Heaven", he and all the Christians.

Tolstoi saw the difficulty and that is why he read and reread Matthew 5,17 until he realized that "the Law or the prophets" means something different from "the Law and the Prophets".

The universal Law can have jots and tittles. This is obviously a metaphor. Aren't there any metaphors in the Bible? No symbolical language? No "my God is a fortress"? No "my God is a rock"? No "I take refuge under the wings of my God" ? No "being reborn" ? No "living waters" ?


The passage about the adulteress (John 7:53-8:11) is regarded by most NT scholars as a later insertion and not part of the Gospel of John.So what? It is in the infallible word of God and there are certainly lots of scholars who don't share the opinion of the scholars you have in mind.

By the way, the oldest manuscripts for 1 Tim 3, 16 have os instead of theos.
And there are many manuscripts which have

Is not this the son of the carpenter/ the son of Joseph, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

instead of the pc version

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

The reference is Mar 6,3.


Nothing obvious about it. In both cases Jesus is simply saying that the Law, which the Jewish leaders profess to revere, supports what Jesus is saying and shows their criticisms of him to be unfounded. His argument is, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me" (John 5:46). After saying this, Jesus scolds them for not believing Moses: "But if you don't believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" Note the "simply" which is designed to put aside the plain if unorthodox interpretation. I don't say that your interpretation is obviously wrong but I don't see any compelling reason for accepting it. For me "Your law" means what it says and says what it means: the Torah is not Jesus' Law. Just as "If he[David] calls him Lord, how can he be his son?" means for me that Jesus refuted the idea that the Messiah must be a descendant of David. Ockham's cardboard cutter might be of help here, don't you think?



In saying that marriage would not be a feature of life in the resurrection, he was not disputing any teaching of the OT Law. The OT Law does not say that marriage would be an eternal institution.
The Book of Genesis says: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother..." Come on, don't you know that verse? And what about all the prescriptions of the Torah regarding ritual purity? And Paul's "Jewish fables" and "endless genealogies" to which we ought to pay no heed? Could Paul have said such things if Jesus had been an orthodox Jew?

Yeah, you are arguing so vehemently for Jesus' absolute orthodoxy that one really begins to wonder why the Jews were so angry at him and eventually killed him. :ahem:

Interestingly enough, the sign of Jonas argument was not broached by anyone. And it is not an argument from silence...I don't understand.


I have kept the best wine for the end. Look at this:


I didn't say that his teaching was "absolutely conventional." I said that although he disputed many things with the Pharisees, he didn't dispute the prevailing Jewish opinion of homosexuality. Perhaps you need to read my posts more "attentively."
-"Hey Laurel, isn't that a...doesnt' that look like...
-...An argument from silence, Hardy?
-By Jove, it is!
- Robert is arguing that since Jesus didn't dispute Leviticus...
-...he must have endorsed it ! That is the anti-gay argument from silence !
-Right ! The pro-gay argument from silence says that since Jesus didn't say a thing about homos, he must have condoned gay saunas...!
-So arguments from silence are okay after all!
-Yes, but only if you are defending the Evangelical Orthodoxy, Laurel !"
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[stargazers]

Jesus told his disciples everything concerning himself
Jesus didn't mention his virgin birth
Therefore virginal birth has nothing to do with Jesus

This syllogism says nothing about the existence in general of the virgin birth. It just states the truth that even if virgin births may occur they are not a part of Jesus' biography.

The only objection I can think of is to the second proposition. One could argue that Jesus did tell his closest disciples about his virginal conception but refrained from mentioning it in public, for fear of ridicule perhaps. That is why we have Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the virgin birth. The problem with this explanation is that it leaves unanswered the question as to why considering the doctrinal importance of the virgin birth Mark, John and Paul all fail to mention it.

It seems to me that the virginal conception of the Christ is certainly as important as his resurrection. All evangelists and Paul mention the fact of the resurrection without any fear of sounding repetitive. Why then didn't they mention the equally important virgin birth of the Savior?

[Magdalenbrother]

Trinitarians use arguments from silence to justify their belief that Jesus was single.

[Rob Bowman]

Magdalenbrother,



I had a reply to your post of June 6 finished many days ago and the Internet ate it.

Regarding Matthew 5:17-18, you wrote:


Why didn't you read further, agapetos? Verse 19 says that "whoever shall break one of these least commandments of the Law and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven."

The NT does not teach that the commandments of the written Law should be broken. It teaches that certain aspects of the written Law are observed by faith in Christ, who is the reality that those aspects of the written Law foreshadowed (e.g., Col. 2:16-17).

In Matthew 5:19, Jesus is warning against people taking it upon themselves to circumvent God’s Law and to teach others how to do so. This was in context directed against the scribes and Pharisees (see v. 20), who were devising “loopholes” to circumvent the requirements of the (written) Law.

You wrote:


The universal Law can have jots and tittles. This is obviously a metaphor. Aren't there any metaphors in the Bible? No symbolical language? No "my God is a fortress"? No "my God is a rock"? No "I take refuge under the wings of my God" ? No "being reborn" ? No "living waters" ?

Of course the Bible contains a lot of metaphor. But (a) the term “Law” in Jewish usage and in the NT routinely refers to the written Law, (b) “Law” in conjunction with “Prophets” was consistently used as a reference to the body of Jewish Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament), (c) “jot and tittle” are terms referring to the letters and strokes of the Hebrew text of that written Law, and (d) in the immediate context Jesus is speaking about matters of controversy regarding the interpretation and application of the written Law (Matt. 5:21-48). The convergence of these facts proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the text is referring literally to the written Law.

I was and am unclear as to what point you were making in citing 1 Timothy 3:16 and Mark 6:3. I have no problems with the best-attested readings for both of these texts.

You wrote:


For me "Your law" means what it says and says what it means: the Torah is not Jesus' Law. Just as "If he[David] calls him Lord, how can he be his son?" means for me that Jesus refuted the idea that the Messiah must be a descendant of David. Ockham's cardboard cutter might be of help here, don't you think?

By this reasoning, when Jesus talked to people and referred to “your Father” (e.g., Matt. 5:48; 6:8, 14-15, 26, 32, etc.), he was denying that this one was his Father. Right? May we say, “‘your Father’ means what it says and says what it means: the Jews’ Father is not Jesus’ Father”?

Jesus’ question about David’s son is not a denial that the Messiah would be David’s descendant. It is a question to challenge the Jewish establishment’s view of the Messiah as merely another human king in the line of David. Jesus is more than the son of David. Why would Matthew, for example, include this passage after presenting a genealogy emphasizing Jesus’ lineage from David in Matthew 1?

I had written:

“In saying that marriage would not be a feature of life in the resurrection, he was not disputing any teaching of the OT Law. The OT Law does not say that marriage would be an eternal institution.”

You replied:


The Book of Genesis says: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother..." Come on, don't you know that verse?

That’s abusive. If you can’t engage in civil dialogue, I will report your offending comments and cease all discussion with you.

Genesis is talking about an age in which human beings are given life by fathers and mothers, grow up in their homes, and then leave their homes after reaching maturity to marry and start the cycle over again. It says nothing about this going on forever.

You wrote:


And what about all the prescriptions of the Torah regarding ritual purity? And Paul's "Jewish fables" and "endless genealogies" to which we ought to pay no heed? Could Paul have said such things if Jesus had been an orthodox Jew?

Yeah, you are arguing so vehemently for Jesus' absolute orthodoxy that one really begins to wonder why the Jews were so angry at him and eventually killed him.

I didn’t argue that Jesus was absolutely orthodox by first-century Jewish standards. I don’t think any such thing. I was simply observing that Jesus affirmed the divine authority of the written Law and in this respect evidently had no disagreement with the prevailing Jewish culture of his day. You even quoted me making this point (see below).

You wrote:


Interestingly enough, the sign of Jonas argument was not broached by anyone. And it is not an argument from silence...I don't understand.

I’m sorry, I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

I had written:


I didn't say that his teaching was ‘absolutely conventional.’ I said that although he disputed many things with the Pharisees, he didn’t dispute the prevailing Jewish opinion of homosexuality. Perhaps you need to read my posts more ‘attentively.’”

You replied:


-"Hey Laurel, isn't that a...doesnt' that look like...
-...An argument from silence, Hardy?

-By Jove, it is!

- Robert is arguing that since Jesus didn't dispute Leviticus...

-...he must have endorsed it ! That is the anti-gay argument from silence !...

-So arguments from silence are okay after all!

-Yes, but only if you are defending the Evangelical Orthodoxy, Laurel !"

Cute, but totally off base. I did not argue that because Jesus didn’t dispute Leviticus he must have endorsed it. That is a straw-man argument (another fallacy!) of your own creation. What I argued is that since Jesus endorsed Leviticus because he affirmed that the Jewish Scriptures in their entirety were the word of God.

[Magdalenbrother]

The NT does not teach that the commandments of the written Law should be broken. It teaches that certain aspects of the written Law are observed by faith in Christ, who is the reality that those aspects of the written Law foreshadowed (e.g., Col. 2:16-17).

In Matthew 5:19, Jesus is warning against people taking it upon themselves to circumvent God’s Law and to teach others how to do so. This was in context directed against the scribes and Pharisees (see v. 20), who were devising “loopholes” to circumvent the requirements of the (written) Law.

Devising loopholes is precisely what Paul and you are doing: " Through faith in Jesus, I no longer need to abstain from pork."

That is as fine a pretext/loophole as one can imagine. :wink:


Of course the Bible contains a lot of metaphor. But (a) the term “Law” in Jewish usage and in the NT routinely refers to the written Law, (b) “Law” in conjunction with “Prophets” was consistently used as a reference to the body of Jewish Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament), (c) “jot and tittle” are terms referring to the letters and strokes of the Hebrew text of that written Law, and (d) in the immediate context Jesus is speaking about matters of controversy regarding the interpretation and application of the written Law (Matt. 5:21-48). The convergence of these facts proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the text is referring literally to the written Law.

Matthew hadn't expected Paul to ditch most of the OT precepts. Maybe even Jesus hadn't expected it. Maybe he really meant that pagans are dogs and din't think of saving the goim. At any rate that's what Matthew's Jesus seems to be saying.

Concerning the term Torah:

Klein's Etymological Hebrew Dictionary states Torah as:

BH = Biblical Hebrew
PH = Post Biblical Hebrew
NH = New Hebrew

BH - instruction, teaching.
BH - the Book of Laws, the Torah.
PH - the Five Books of the Torah, the Pentateuch.
NH - copy of a book of the Torah.
NH - theory, system.
NH - a book containing the principles of any branch of science.
Torah literally means instruction, and does not mean law. For the word law, the Hebrew word khoq(lit. law or decree) is used. Literarilly, Torah can also refer to the first five books of the Bible, among other things.

A modern example of the usage of the word Torah, is used in reference to the study of a particular field science. What is called Computer Science in America, would be called Computer Torah in Hebrew. Physics Torah, Biochemistry Torah, etc.

Much like a father that sets house rules, boundaries, etc. for his children and household, so does God do through His Torah for instruction and teaching, and the ultimate goal of love and holiness. The khoqiym(plural for laws) of God, like the house rules of a father, are just a small portion/subset of the Torah, or divine instruction.

NB: To designate the Bible, the Jews said the Torah and the Prophets. Not or the Prophets.

Even the word God and terms like "father", "son" and "beget" can be used metaphorically. So why are you restricting the usage of metaphors to special terms ?



By this reasoning, when Jesus talked to people and referred to “your Father” (e.g., Matt. 5:48; 6:8, 14-15, 26, 32, etc.), he was denying that this one was his Father. Right? May we say, “‘your Father’ means what it says and says what it means: the Jews’ Father is not Jesus’ Father”?
Good point. The father of Jesus' hearers is the same as his but the relationship between Jesus and the father and the relationship of his audience with the father are very different. That is why he didn't say "our" father.

Your father really means what it says and says what it means: Jesus is the son of God in a special sense: He is the obedient son of God while they, the hearers and the disciples, are His rebellious offspring.


Jesus’ question about David’s son is not a denial that the Messiah would be David’s descendant. It is a question to challenge the Jewish establishment’s view of the Messiah as merely another human king in the line of David. Jesus is more than the son of David. Why would Matthew, for example, include this passage after presenting a genealogy emphasizing Jesus’ lineage from David in Matthew 1?
"Come on" is abusive ? I've checked my English dictionary and there is no offensive slang meaning for the verb "to come on". What are you talking about? Or are you offended by a harmless colloquialism ?


Genesis is talking about an age in which human beings are given life by fathers and mothers, grow up in their homes, and then leave their homes after reaching maturity to marry and start the cycle over again. It says nothing about this going on forever.

I have heard Christians use this verse to claim the contrary.


Cute, but totally off base. I did not argue that because Jesus didn’t dispute Leviticus he must have endorsed it. That is a straw-man argument (another fallacy!) of your own creation. What I argued is that since Jesus endorsed Leviticus because he affirmed that the Jewish Scriptures in their entirety were the word of God.

What I argued is that since Jesus endorsed Leviticus because he affirmed that the Jewish Scriptures in their entirety were the word of God

The grammar of this sentence leaves much to be desired but I guess your meaning is that since Jesus affirmed that the Jewish Scriptures were the word of God in their entirety, he must have endorsed the prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus.

While I think that it would be wrong to say that Jesus didn't uphold the Scriptures, I don't think that it would be right to simply say that He embraced them unreservedly. What He seems to have had in mind is a more humane and intelligent interpretation of the Word of God. That is why He spared the adulteress and broke the sabbath laws. And declared all food to be ritually clean.

He also relativized the Scriptures when in His discussion with the Pharisees about divorce He said that the Mosaic law didn't reflect God's real intent.

And Paul spoke of the old letter of the Law (Rom 7:6) and even said that "the letter kills".

And what about Jesus' saying about the new wine that has to be put into new wineskins (Mark 2:22) ? Isn't the "new wine" a clear reference to a new teaching?

Your original argument was an argument from silence:

I didn't say that his teaching was "absolutely conventional." I said that although he disputed many things with the Pharisees, he didn't dispute the prevailing Jewish opinion of homosexuality. Perhaps you need to read my posts more "attentively."

Since he didn't dispute the prevailing views of the Jews on homosexuality
Jesus must have endorsed it.

Greetings, :wink:

Magdalenbrother

[Rob Bowman]

Magdalenbrother,

Your excursus on the meaning of "Torah" had absolutely no relevance to anything I had written. The Greek word nomos, translated "Law" in English, was used in ancient Judaism to translate the Hebrew Torah. This is because the bulk of the Pentateuch was indeed about the Law that God gave to Israel through Moses. The fact that the word Torah can have a broader meaning of "instruction" is true but irrelevant to the exegesis of Matthew 5:17-20.

I agree that God the Father is Jesus' "Father" in a unique way. However, you are changing your own interpretive assumption. You took "your Law" on the lips of Jesus to imply "not my Law." To be consistent, you should take "your Father" on the lips of Jesus to imply "not my Father." Instead, you are claiming that "your Law" implies "not my Law" while "your Father" implies "your Father in a somewhat different way than he is my Father." I, on the other hand, interpret both phrases consistently. I take "your Law" to mean "your Law in a somewhat different way than it is my Law" because Jesus, as the divine Son of God, stands in a different relation to the Law than other people do. And I take "your Father" to mean "your Father in a somewhat different way than he is my Father" because Jesus, as the divine Son of God, stands in a different relation to God the Father than other people do.

You wrote:


"Come on" is abusive ? I've checked my English dictionary and there is no offensive slang meaning for the verb "to come on". What are you talking about? Or are you offended by a harmless colloquialism ?

What was offensive was you writing, "Come on, don't you know that verse?" It is the whole question and the way it was worded, in context, that was offensive.

I had written:

"What I argued is that since Jesus endorsed Leviticus because he affirmed that the Jewish Scriptures in their entirety were the word of God."

You replied:


The grammar of this sentence leaves much to be desired but I guess your meaning is that since Jesus affirmed that the Jewish Scriptures were the word of God in their entirety, he must have endorsed the prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus.

That is exactly what I meant; just omit the word "since" from my sentence and you'll have what I intended to write.

If you got that, there is really no excuse for you continuing to claim that my argument was an argument from silence. My argument was this: we have positive evidence that Jesus endorsed Leviticus (his endorsement of the entirety of the OT as God's word) and no evidence to the contrary with regard to homosexual conduct; therefore, we should conclude that Jesus endorsed the condemnation of homosexual conduct expressed in Leviticus. This simply is not an argument from silence.

To set the record straight, here is the entirety of what I said in my earlier post (June 3) on this subject:


Jesus didn't need to address every moral issue in the book, precisely because the whole gamut of moral issues was already addressed in the Book, that is, in the Scriptures, what we would today call the Old Testament. Leviticus is painfully clear in its condemnation of homosexual conduct (and, may I add, a long list of other sexual sins that would be classified as "heterosexual"). And Jesus unequivocally endorsed the moral teachings of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-20). So, I understand Matthew 5:17-20 as expressing tacitly Jesus' endorsement of the Levitical condemnation of homosexual conduct.

In Jesus' own culture of first-century Judaism, there was no controversy or dispute about homosexual conduct. His moral teachings and disputes with others focused almost exclusively on hypocrisy within his own Jewish community. Therefore, there is no reason to expect Jesus to have addressed the issue of homosexual behavior, as it was not a matter of any significant debate among the Jews, and Jesus evidently agreed with the Jewish consensus view of the matter, based on Leviticus.

I sincerely hope I've cleared up this misconception about my argument.

[Magdalenbrother]

Your excursus on the meaning of "Torah" had absolutely no relevance to anything I had written. The Greek word nomos, translated "Law" in English, was used in ancient Judaism to translate the Hebrew Torah. This is because the bulk of the Pentateuch was indeed about the Law that God gave to Israel through Moses. The fact that the word Torah can have a broader meaning of "instruction" is true but irrelevant to the exegesis of Matthew 5:17-20.

The fact that the word Torah can have a broader meaning of "instruction" is true but irrelevant to the exegesis of Matthew 5:17-20.

Why?




I agree that God the Father is Jesus' "Father" in a unique way. However, you are changing your own interpretive assumption. You took "your Law" on the lips of Jesus to imply "not my Law." To be consistent, you should take "your Father" on the lips of Jesus to imply "not my Father." Instead, you are claiming that "your Law" implies "not my Law" while "your Father" implies "your Father in a somewhat different way than he is my Father." I, on the other hand, interpret both phrases consistently. I take "your Law" to mean "your Law in a somewhat different way than it is my Law" because Jesus, as the divine Son of God, stands in a different relation to the Law than other people do. And I take "your Father" to mean "your Father in a somewhat different way than he is my Father" because Jesus, as the divine Son of God, stands in a different relation to God the Father than other people do.
Consider the following excerpt from an imaginary dialogue between two Christians:

-Mark, Jesus said that he was God.
-Philip, Your Jesus is an idol !

What does this statement tell us?

a) Both Mark and Philip believe in Jesus.
b) Mark disagrees with Philip's view of who Jesus is.
c) Mark considers Philip's image of Jesus to be inferior, yeah even blasphemous.

In the fourth Gospel, Jesus distanced himself three times from the Jewish Law as interpreted by the Judeans, the Law that condemned him to an unjust death :

But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.' (15:25)

It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. (8:17)

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (10:34)


Jesus had a law but his was a living law written in his heart: the will of God as revealed to him from moment to moment by the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. He was free to follow the written law of the Jews and free to dispense with it. The Son of Man, as embodying the living Law of God, is the Master of the written law.

The Jews had a law written on scrolls of paper which they interpreted according to their own whims and prejudices. Most of the time, they applied the letter of the Law mechanically, but sometimes they took liberties with the Law too. Jesus condemned their blind exegesis in both cases. They had made the law a tool of their own passions. He would have nothing to do with such a law. Hence "your law". This doesn't mean that Jesus considered the whole written law to be rubbish. Obviously not, since he upheld the two commandments to love God and one's neighbor. But he felt free to "pick and choose" and contrary to his hearers he didn't do that randomly or wantonly but according to the eternal, living Law of God written in his own heart.

Now is what is true for Jesus also true for us ? Are we free of the Law? We are certainly free to observe or not to observe the multitudinous precepts of the Jewish Law (it is their law for us too !)but we have to observe the basic rule of loving God and our neighbor and Jesus' minor commandments and precepts as set forth by him in the sermon on the Mount: refrain from all judgments, never divorce, avoid all oaths, abstain from all forms of resistance to evil, avoid anger in all circumstances, etc.


What was offensive was you writing, "Come on, don't you know that verse?" It is the whole question and the way it was worded, in context, that was offensive.

The problem with mainstream Christians is that not only do they think that they know everything but that they also consider anybody who disagrees with them as inherently vicious, yeah even devilish. There is no room in their understanding of man for purely human negligence, ignorance our cultural prejudice. One is either absolutely true and godly or one is absolutely wrong and devilish. Could that be the reason of all the paranoia and hate ? I wonder...



If you got that, there is really no excuse for you continuing to claim that my argument was an argument from silence. My argument was this: we have positive evidence that Jesus endorsed Leviticus (his endorsement of the entirety of the OT as God's word) and no evidence to the contrary with regard to homosexual conduct; therefore, we should conclude that Jesus endorsed the condemnation of homosexual conduct expressed in Leviticus. This simply is not an argument from silence.

Your first argument arguably wasn't an argument from silence, but the very fact that you refuse to analyse the argument you used later in the discussion shows that you did slip into an argument from silence (inadvertently, I suppose):

Since he didn't dispute the prevailing views of the Jews on homosexuality
Jesus must have endorsed it.

Which for me is just fine since I don't share your dogged opposition to such arguments. :teeth:


As Minnesota said:


And, the argument of silence can very well be valid.

Issues not addressed by Rob are unimportant
issue X was not an issue addressed by Rob
_____________________________________
issue X is unimportant

OR

All S are P
M is S
________
M is P

Your original argument wasn't an argument from silence, I tend to agree with that:

Since Jesus upheld the Law and the Prophets
He also upheld the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus

But this argument can be formulated into an argument from silence

Since Jesus didn't explicitely annul the ordinances of Leviticus concerning homosexuality
He obviously upheld them.

And this is what you did later.Yes sir. :teeth:


I didn't say that his teaching was "absolutely conventional." I said that although he disputed many things with the Pharisees, he didn't dispute the prevailing Jewish opinion of homosexuality. Perhaps you need to read my posts more "attentively."


Anyway, the first argument is not valid for the premise is false. Jesus explicitly abolished the death penalty contained in Leviticus when he spared the adulterous woman. If, against the whole tradition of your church, you don't recognize the passage in "John" about the adulteress as genuine, I would be extremely gratified to read a defence of Jesus as ordering the Jews to stone a hypothetical adulteress to death. I really would...:teeth:



Let us tackle the question again from Mathew 5 and ask :


DID JESUS UPHOLD THE WHOLE JEWISH LAW IN ITS MINUTEST DETAILS ?

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5)

About this controversial passage, I want to make a preliminary remark, one that I think is very important for this discussion:

If Jesus had been an absolutely conventional interpreter of the Law (the divine Law of which the Jewish Law is but a subset) he wouldn't have needed the vehement disclaimer that opens the passage:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets

Obviously there was something revolutionary in his message that led some people to suspect him of outright heresy. Jesus wanted to rectify this impression, to 'set the record straight'.

I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

At this crucial juncture (at least if they are arguing for the condemnation of homosexuality or adultery; circumcision and eating pork elicit arguments which are altogether different!), most Christians fall into the error of interpreting this statement as meaning something like:

I have come to confirm the validity of the Jewish Scriptures (what they call the 'Old Testament' ) and uphold their multitudinous precepts in all their minutest details.

Now, of course, there are a number of very serious problems with such an interpretation:

a) The practice of the Church flatly contradicts it. Christians don't circumcise their male infants and they eat pork routinely. They of course have a stellar excuse but this is precisely the kind of subterfuge Jesus would have condemned as pure hypocrisy.

Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For I said, Keep all the commandments of the Torah, even the least of them ! But ye say: if I have faith in Jesus Christ, I can dispense with all the precepts of the Torah !
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

(fictitious Mat 7:9 ff)

b) Jesus' contemporaries didn't need any confirmation of the validity of their Scriptures. First century Jews were not plagued by skepticism or atheism.

c) If Jesus came to uphold the precepts of the Jewish law in their entirety, he was nothing more than a scribe or a Pharisee. Scribes and Pharisees did precisely this: to observe all the rules set forth in the Torah.

This means that to 'fulfill the law' is different from just 'upholding the Law', and this is made absolutely clear by the last verse in this passage:

20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Now consider the preceding sentence:

19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Suppose for the sake of the discussion that the commandments Jesus is talking about are the precepts and ordinances of the 'Old Testament':

Anyone who breaks the rules of the Torah will be the least in the Kingdom of God, but anyone who observes them will be reckoned among the greatest in the Kingdom of God.

Ask yourself: who most zealously observed and taught others to observe the commandments of the Torah in their entirety?

The answer is: the scribes and the Pharisees! So they should be the greatest in the kingdom of God, right? (Am I being overly familiar and abusive? ) But Jesus said that their righteousness was nothing. And more than just nothing, it was a fatal impediment !

Therefore, verse 19 cannot refer to the Jewish law and its multitudinous rules and precepts.

What verse 19 refers to, I think, is the new commandments Jesus is about to set forth in his 'sermon': no oaths, no judgments, no anger, no resistance to evil, etc., etc. The least of this commandments is important and failure to observe it will mean a lesser degree of glory (not exclusion from !) in the Kingdom.


So what did Jesus say about the Law and the relationship between the Jewish law and the new Law of the Gospel?

The New Law, while containing the core of the Jewish law, goes beyond it. Some parts are definitively abandoned: for example the New Covenant no longer requires bloody animal sacrifices, which means that a huge portion of the Torah is now obsolete. Others need to be reinterpreted in the light of the overruling principle of Love and Mercy (adultery/ divorce/anger). Or of the primacy of the living Man over the written law (sabbath). Or of inner truthfulness (oaths).

The fulfilment of the Law through love and obedience to the will of God here and now (and not according to what is written on paper) is the equivalent of the most zealous observance of all the rules of the written law, for the rules of the written law cannot be discarded wantonly. (In fact it is not just the equivalent of the rules, it is infinitely better)

In other words, the fulfilment of the Law entails a creative, constructive destruction of the Jewish law. This destruction is not wanton, but guided from inside by the Holy Spirit. This is the negative aspect of fulfilment, something mainstream Christians practice to a large extent but don't aknowledge (because they also want to condemn homosexuals, make war, take oaths and make judgments and all the rest of the crude, primitive things condoned by the 'Old Testament' !).

This was implied in the parable of the old wine-skins.

And of course, the Jews were infuriated. They hated Jesus and killed him. They saw his revolutionary interpretation of the Scriptures as a threat to the cultural and religious integrity of the Jewish people.

Today Christian 'Jews' are no different...


PS: I want to point out something which is extremely important, yeah even crucial here:

THE LAW OF LOVE AND MERCY IS NOT SOMETHING MECHANICAL. THERE MIGHT BE CASES IN WHICH A DIFFERENT COURSE IS REQUIRED.

Jesus didn't come to replace one dead law of hate by another dead law of love.

It is GOD, the living God in us who decides. Not the book.

So the question is: do you have God in you ? Here and now?

Or do you only have a book? Or some knowledge about God ?