Assisting John Bugay - part 2: helping John keep track of his falsehoods (or, perhaps, acute memory loss)

John Bugay's ongoing campaign/obsession (7 new threads over 12 days 7th; 6th; 5th; 4th;3rd; 2nd; 1st) to misrepresent, slander and smear yours truly (in his attempt defend his use of Peter Lampe for his much larger anti-Catholic campaign/obsession), has taken a darker side: the use of falsehoods. In this thread I will document two recent examples.


FALSEHOOD #1: John Bugay posted/wrote the following on April 2, 2001 - 4:25 AM:

I’ll say in response to this, other than David having called Lampe a “liberal,” (and having loosely associated him with Harnack), David himself doesn’t state what Lampe’s “presuppositions” are. Assigning “guilt-by-association” is not the same thing as stating what someone’s presupposition is. As I’ve said, he is more than welcome to point these out so that I may then reject them, but no such thing is forthcoming. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/ever-seeing-but-never-perceiving.html)


John had to of known that his charge was utterly false, because just the day before (April 01, 2011 - 3:21 AM) he posted/wrote:

Into this mix, David Waltz wants to inject the illegitimate method of “smear by association” and suggest that “Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.” And in an effort to try to somehow to “prove” this, Waltz, in his most recent post, takes a long selection from the writings of the most well-known of the German liberals, Adolph von Harnack, and says, “Lampe and Von Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.” Here is his “analysis”:

Enter Dr. Peter Lampe and John Bugay: A careful reading of Dr. Lampe demonstrates that he sides with Dr. Aland and the modern higher critical school in accepting the following presuppositions: first, the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date; second, the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices"; third the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development. John accepts the last of these presuppositions, seemingly ignoring the fact that it is built upon the foundation of the other presuppositions, which John rejects. I have gone on record as maintaining that John is being inconsistent, and none of my continuing research into this important issue suggests otherwise.

“Take my word for it,” he says. This is the sum total of David Waltz’s analysis.

He doesn’t prove that Lampe has these presuppositions. He doesn’t describe how and why these alleged presuppositions exist within Lampe’s work. He doesn’t describe the historical situation and say, “this begins here, that begins there”. David Waltz simply makes some loose assumptions, he declares “guilt by association,” and then he wants to go and take a nap or something. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/bauer-thesis.html) [Bold emphasis mine.]


And on March 30, 2001 - 5:45 AM, he posted/wrote:


After providing a series of links to my various blog posts responding to him (and which I have supplemented here), here, unvarnished, is his devastating criticism:


I do not believe that John has adequately addressed the most pressing issue—which I have mentioned on more than one occasion—here it is again:


The premise/presuppostion [sic] that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity.


This is the method that is foundational for Lampe (and so many other liberal scholars), and he applies it not only to Biblical historicity, but also to the history provided in the writings of early “Catholic” bishops and authors. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/03/closer-look-at-david-waltzs-objections.html)

So, as one can clearly see, John provided in two prior posts the very presuppositions he spoke of being absent in his charge that, David himself doesn’t state what Lampe’s “presuppositions” are. My oh my!!!


FALSEHOOD #2: In the body of John's April 01, 2011 - 3:21 AM post we read:

Into this mix, David Waltz wants to inject the illegitimate method of “smear by association” and suggest that “Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.” And in an effort to try to somehow to “prove” this, Waltz, in his most recent post, takes a long selection from the writings of the most well-known of the German liberals, Adolph von Harnack, and says, “Lampe and Von[sic] Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”


Notice that John attributes to me ("David Waltz...says"), using quotation marks, the following:

“Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.”

“Lampe and Von[sic] Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”

The above "quotes" are not my words at all. John is trying to 'pull a fast one' on his readers, via a falsehood: he is attributing to me what are actually his own personal assessments—assessments that miss the mark by a 'country mile.'

IMO, this post has given us an important glimpse into the mind and character of John Bugay; I shall let the readers discern for themselves the implications therein.



Grace and peace,

David



P.S. I noticed the following at the end of John's latest (7th) post directed at me:

This is going to be my last response to David Waltz at Beggars All.

Given John's obsessive behavior, it will be interesting to see if the above holds true.