Join the Conversation

15 Comments

  1. Hamilton is being unfair to Vines in claiming that his treatment of Jude 7 involves an etymological fallacy and a red herring. Vines’s interpretation is backed up by Richard Hays in “The Moral Vision of the New Testament”. Hays states that the phrase “went after other flesh” (apelqousai opisw sarkos heteras) refers to their pursuit of non-human (i.e. angelic) flesh. The expression sarkos heteras means “flesh of another kind”. Thus, it is impossible to construe this passage as a condemnation of homosexual desire, which entails precisely the pursuit of the same kind. (p. 404). Further, just as verses 6 and 8 are both talking about angels, so verse 7 is also talking about angels.

    1. Genesis refers to the angels as “men” (Genesis 18:22), and the inhabitants of Sodom use the same term (19:5).
      The word “angel” can hold at least 13 meanings, the most usual being “messenger.”
      Vines has Hays, but Hamilton has Scripture; which authority shall we choose?

  2. This blog is an example of the “fallacy fallacy.” Some of what you list may in fact be fallacies, though they’re mostly nit-picking. (Others are ridiculous, such as the whole “ad hominem” paragraph). But even assuming you’re right about all of these, and pretending they’re all far more important and central to Vines’ arguments than they really are, you haven’t actually refuted Vines’ arguments – just pointed to what you see as fallacies in them. The existence of fallacies doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is wrong, or that everything they say is fallacious.

          1. Do you mean on the other blog? I’m racking my brains to remember what could have been objectionable. Unfortunately I didn’t save the comment in case it was deleted. Do you still have it in your archives? If so, could you e-mail it to me so I can edit it? My e-mail address is elcalebo@gmail.com.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply to Richardrmc Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *