Difference between revisions of "Idiocy of the academy"

Revision as of 12:56, 3 February 2023

Idiocy of the academy

The self-proclaimed expert on everything Biblical, Dick Harfield from Australia is an excellent source of Academic comedy as he illustrates the worst ability at reason in his sophistic approach to prove that Christianity is a fraud under the guide of scientific study.

In his "Hidden Meaning in Mark's Gospel" he sets his foundation in the opinion of David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie that "Mark's story about Jesus was to a substantial extent a work of fiction."

This violates the rule Rule - Self-contained.

Dick surmises "The questions I asked myself are: why would Mark’s author write this story about Jesus instead of narrating actual events in the life of Jesus, and why was this story the one used to go out and seek converts? "

The proper question is what OT prophesies did Mark/Peter see Jesus fulfilling in the events shared. Dick's error is presuming that the sequence of the narrative is important rather than the Remez, Drash and Sod commentary on the OT in light of the light of Christ.

Unlimited omniscience objection mark seems to know what happens everywhere. He depicts private scenes. Dick determines that this is evidence of a fictional nature. Dick ignores the fact that after the resurrection of Christ. there was a great fellowship and sharing of events that happened in Jerusalem. Only the most ignorant and willful skeptic would insist that the book was written in isolation of such a grand fellowship.

Use of literary devices objection Dick asserts that Mark's use of literary devices common to Hebrew writing is evidence that it is fictional. "Real events do not occur in such a precise order." Dick is over-exercising his innate anachronistic biases as he imposes a structure on Mark that it should be sequential, then tears down the straw-man he has created. Why would someone impose the need for a sequential telling of the life of Christ, when it is obvious that he is commenting on the OT in light of the revelation of Christ and using common literary devices.

Improbable events and locations objection. Dick insists that Baigent is more reliable than Mark and so the account of John the Baptist is fictional.

Dick insists that Mk 5:1 is an error because Gerasa is "several kilometers from the shore and across a river". Mark simply says that he entered the region or country (χώρα). Dick is sloppy in his academic dialog since he did not reference many authors who defend against there being a contradiction between Mark and Matthew. I am not attempting an academic dialog, merely taking notes for future reference. Welcome to my brain dump.

Dick claims that the name of the possessed man isn't given, therefore the account is false. The name of the demons is given as "Legion" and the name of the man is given as Bartimaeus. He also claims the name of Barabas is fictional because there is word play. Dick is ignorant of the word-play of all the names in the OT, and the Sod layer of meaning. Again this is simple straw-man error where he sets Barabas as fictional then links Bartimaeus to it.

Dick is only worth reading for seeing to what extents the one who has been given over will go to in order to deny God..

▸ ± Ro 1:21-24