Religions > Atheism > Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2006 08:20:12 PM |
| Object: |
Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_markshea_archive.html#114167439815207585
The Increasing Deterioration of Andrew Sullivan
I haven't been following Sullivan very closely for the past several
months. Increasingly, the guy appears to be bucking for Press Secretary
of the To-Be-Elected-in-the-Next-Decade-or-So-Post-Christian-Regime of
Angry Lefties. For years, the Pole Star of his Journalism has been the
sole non-negotiable. And as that has come to dominate, everything else
is employed in the service of it. When Radical Islam was the biggest
threat to it, Bush was the Great Hero. When Bush became the biggest
threat to it, his journalism became more and more about finding ways to
undercut Bush. Sometimes Bush has handed him swords to do that (most
notably, the Administration's wretched record with respect to torture
and human rights abuses in Defense of the Fatherland). But Sullivan has
also pursued a remarkable career of increasingly distorted and
dishonest attacks on anybody he perceives as a threat to the Great
Polestar.
One of his biggest bugaboos has been the great bogeyman he labels the
"Theocrat". This refers to anybody who a) thinks that faith has a place
in the Public Square and b) thinks homosexual behavior to be what the
Christian Tradition has always said it is: a sin. He has repeatedly
smeared Benedict as everything from a Jew-hater to a closet queen in
pursuit of that particular agenda, as well as, of course, telling lies
about anybody in the American political or media landscape if he could
get away with it. Most recently, he went after Ramesh Ponnuru and
Robert George, with the vile suggestion that they were somehow vaguely
in favor or shooting abortionists. It was classic Sullivan.
Sullivan is a tribal Catholic, like many of his generation. He's been
raised to regard his religion as something more like an ethnicity than
a creed. The problem with this way of relating to the faith is becoming
more and more evident as he grapples with the adamant fact that the
Church is *never* going to changes its teachings on the immorality of
homosexual acts. He, like many Catholics who are inflexibly loyal the
teachings of the Third Vatican Council, lived in hope of JPII's death,
only to be crushed by the election of Benedict XVI. As the awareness is
slowly dawning on them that their most cherished "developments" are
never going to come, they are casting around for some way to avoid the
fact that the Magisterium is what it is an says what it says.
Sullivan, has opted for the "Call it Fundamentalism" route and is
increasingly inclined to credit the loopiest crap in support of his
growing rejection, not simply of the Church's sexual teaching, but of
the inspiration of Scripture and even of the deity of Christ. One habit
he has fallen into is to constantly liken the Church's moral teaching
to that of Radical Islam. "Both condemn homosexual activity, so the
Church is the same as Taliban." This cheap smear has consequences
though. As C.S. Lewis says, "The trouble about trying to make yourself
stupider than you really are is that you often succeed." Sullivan's
labors to de-legitimate the Church are bearing fruit, not in successful
argument, but in successful self-delusion. Most recently, Sullivan got
all enthused about Thomas Jefferson's alleged "re-discovery" of Jesus
(it turns out Jesus was an Enlightenment sage who very much agreed with
Jefferson once you edited out all the things the New Testament added).
Jefferson wrote: I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wanted
anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all
others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he
never claimed any other."
Sullivan, being a tribal Catholic, knows at some level that a flat
denial of the deity of Christ is rather incompatible with what is known
"Christianity" quote Jefferson with approval, but then pulls back and
starts chattering about a "Third Way" between rejection of his faith
and this sort of straight up apostasy. He cites some ex-Fundy apostate
named Bart Ehrman with approval:
"In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace of Jesus being divine,"
he says, his voice urgent. "In John, you do."
....thereby proving again that turning cradle Catholic loose with the
Bible is indeed a dangerous proposition since they often tend to credit
every ignorant pronouncement made about it by somebody with a couple of
letters behind their names, particularly when they are in the process
of trying to escape the Magisterium.
News for Sullivan and Ehrman: the Jesus of the Synoptics does indeed
make claims of deity. It is Mark's Jesus who responds to the question
of Caiaphas "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" with "I AM"
which is both a direct answer to the question and a claim of deity
since "I AM" is the name of God in Hebrew." Likewise, the synoptic
gospels contain the account of Peters' confession, "You are the Christ,
the son of the living God" and Jesus' approving words, "Flesh and blood
have not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven has revealed
it." Plus, of course, there are lots of implicit claims such as his
habit of forgiving sins, which the Pharisees quite rightly questioned
by saying. "Who has power to forgive sins but God alone?"
Sullivan is not, however, interested in facts. He's interested in
protecting the further adventures of his groin. He lays down as an
axiom of faith the following:
One thing I do know: nothing that comes genuinely from Jesus sounds
anything like the dictates of contemporary fundamentalism.
Since he has already made abundantly clear that "fundamentalism" means
"anything that challenges my commitment to homosexual acts" that can
only mean that orthodox Christianity has anything to do with "the real
Jesus."
So it is becoming increasingly obvious to him that, in order to call
himself a Christian, he is going to have to pull a Jefferson and
reconstruct Jesus in his own image and likeness. This project he calls
the "Third Way". Others will call it, more accurately, full-fledged
apostasy. Essentially it will consist of doing what Dan Brown did:
saying "Jesus was alright, but his followers have totally bollixed
things up. I will now give you The Truth about Jesus, which is that he
agreed with me about the Thing that Matters to Me Most. And never mind
that crap in the gospels where Jesus says to his apostles, "He who
listens to you, listens to me. And he who listens to me, listens to him
who sent me." That was all added later by the Corrupt Church.
The moral: Almost nobody attacks Jesus directly (yet, though that day
will come). Mostly, people attack Jesus through his Body. Jesus meant
well, they say, but the Church screwed everything up. Protestantism
consisted of the attempt to say that screwup happened in the Dark Ages
sometime and that Catholics were the problem. The Enlightenment
consisted of the attempt to say Christians were the problem. Mormonism
and some Baptist theologies consist of the attempt to say the problem
happened right after the apostles. Neo-paganism (probably where
Sullivan will end up if he follows his current trajectory) consists of
the attempt to say that the screwup happened at the hands of His own
apostles.
Eventually, the claim will be made that Jesus himself was the problem.
But our culture hasn't gotten there yet. Nonetheless, guys like Brown
and Sullivan are wielding their little tridents in the effort to get us
there.
.
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 12:16:33 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are
fallable and
will fail. But the word of God will never fail.
But we have to trust that what fallible men wrote down as the "word
of god."
No, you don't "have to" trust it. But you do have that "opportunity".
Here is the key to understanding what we consider to be God's word.
As your god lied in three of the four gospel accounts of visiting
the tomb how can you trust it?
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still
disciples in the Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
My feeling is that apostleship came first. An apostle need not have
been an apostle of a historical person, while disciples would have to
be. This would dispose of the old saw that Polycarp knew Papias (or
someone) knew John and so on.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 11:08:10 PM |
|
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
You discredit only men and not Christ or the gospel. Men are
fallable and
will fail. But the word of God will never fail.
But we have to trust that what fallible men wrote down as the "word
of god."
No, you don't "have to" trust it. But you do have that "opportunity".
Here is the key to understanding what we consider to be God's word.
As your god lied in three of the four gospel accounts of visiting
the tomb how can you trust it?
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still
disciples in the Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
My feeling is that apostleship came first. An apostle need not have
been an apostle of a historical person, while disciples would have to
be. This would dispose of the old saw that Polycarp knew Papias (or
someone) knew John and so on.
The question is what did apostle mean before it was used by Christians.
Of course we know they called themselves apostles first as the gospels are
backfill storylines for the peasants who wanted such material. There is no
reason to believe they in fact describe or recount the life of a real person or
that a real person was the start of the cult. In fact what we know of the early
history argues against there being a single start to the cult.
--
There may be unforeseeable consequences but all foreseeable consequences are
intentional.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3599
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
20 Mar 2006 08:42:52 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All the
evidence is to the contrary.
Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
"that which Matt wishes to believe."
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "IE J" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
20 Mar 2006 08:46:26 AM |
|
|
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:1142865772.225000.258240@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples
in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All
the
evidence is to the contrary.
Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
"that which Matt wishes to believe."
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Hi Roger,
as usual you write good lines. BUT is it worth discussing with Matt G? He is
as far from a believer as can be and apart from that his 'evidence' criteria
is his own :-)
Inger E
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 10:18:33 PM |
|
|
IE J wrote:
Hi Roger,
as usual you write good lines. BUT is it worth discussing with Matt G? He is
as far from a believer as can be and apart from that his 'evidence' criteria
is his own :-)
Would it not be more reasonable to reply with evidence rather than arguments
from faith?
--
Hodie decimo tertio Kalendas Apriles MMVI est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
.
|
|
|
| User: "IE J" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
21 Mar 2006 07:51:58 AM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:t8LTf.85588$Fw6.10935@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
IE J wrote:
Hi Roger,
as usual you write good lines. BUT is it worth discussing with Matt G?
He is
as far from a believer as can be and apart from that his 'evidence'
criteria
is his own :-)
Would it not be more reasonable to reply with evidence rather than
arguments
from faith?
Had it been arguments from faith without arguments from written
documentation, then you would have been right.
Now it happens to be one of the occasions where your arguments are the one
from faith and not from written documentation.
Inger E
--
Hodie decimo tertio Kalendas Apriles MMVI est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml
a12
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
21 Mar 2006 08:14:18 PM |
|
|
IE J wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:t8LTf.85588$Fw6.10935@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
IE J wrote:
Hi Roger,
as usual you write good lines. BUT is it worth discussing with Matt G? He is
as far from a believer as can be and apart from that his 'evidence' criteria
is his own :-)
Would it not be more reasonable to reply with evidence rather than arguments
from faith?
Had it been arguments from faith without arguments from written
documentation, then you would have been right.
I have always insisted upon physical evidence even though I do not always write
physical.
Traditional beliefs are beliefs not evidence.
Now it happens to be one of the occasions where your arguments are the one
from faith and not from written documentation.
Should you ever notice me doing that be certain to post to me about it. Should
you in fact discover me doing such a thing you will then be able to honestly say
I do it.
--
After a US attack on Iran, Iran will be accused of not playing fair when it
counterattacks. For example when it sets off bombs in the US.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3577
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
20 Mar 2006 11:47:27 AM |
|
|
IE J wrote:
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Hi Roger,
as usual you write good lines. BUT is it worth discussing with Matt G? He is
as far from a believer as can be and apart from that his 'evidence' criteria
is his own :-)
Hi Inger,
Well, Cyclotron was making valid, rational points, and I wanted to
express some support for him and help any lurkers.
I do get irritated by Matt's habit of claiming that whatever looney
idea he fancies is proven by the 'evidence' or whatever, without
actually knowing (or caring) what the evidence may be. As for not
being a believer; well, I think he *is* a believer. He believes that
the purely temporary values of our age are a valid way to live, so much
so that he never discusses this belief and spends all his time throwing
stones at Christians. Such faith in what you cannot examine is beyond
me.
But remember that he gets abused quite unnecessarily online a lot, so I
don't want to add to that; merely to correct the statement. Most of us
online are strange people; let's be kind to each other.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 10:21:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
IE J wrote:
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Hi Roger,
as usual you write good lines. BUT is it worth discussing with Matt G? He is
as far from a believer as can be and apart from that his 'evidence' criteria
is his own :-)
Hi Inger,
Well, Cyclotron was making valid, rational points, and I wanted to
express some support for him and help any lurkers.
I do get irritated by Matt's habit of claiming that whatever looney
idea he fancies is proven by the 'evidence' or whatever, without
actually knowing (or caring) what the evidence may be. As for not
being a believer; well, I think he *is* a believer. He believes that
the purely temporary values of our age are a valid way to live, so much
so that he never discusses this belief and spends all his time throwing
stones at Christians. Such faith in what you cannot examine is beyond
me.
Christianity follows the temporary values of our age by condemning slavery.
What is your point?
But remember that he gets abused quite unnecessarily online a lot, so I
don't want to add to that; merely to correct the statement.
Not that it bothers me. Attacking in all directions usually results in that.
Most of us online are strange people; let's be kind to each other.
That takes all the fun out of it.
--
It is incorrect to compare Bush to Hitler. Hitler served in combat.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3575
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 12:19:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All the
evidence is to the contrary.
Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
"that which Matt wishes to believe."
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
All the best,
Roger Pearse
He may have said it, but there is no evidence that it was true. There
are Manchester United fans all over the world, but in many places the
numbers are tiny. There is a second century temple of Serapis in
Bergama (Pergamon) but the Serapians don't seem to have bothered with
written records.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
20 Mar 2006 05:33:43 PM |
|
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All the
evidence is to the contrary.
Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
"that which Matt wishes to believe."
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
He may have said it, but there is no evidence that it was true.
If we propose to controvert an ancient statement -- made to an enemy,
no less --, it is necessary to do so with some actual *evidence* that
he was mistaken. Just to say "well he might have been wrong" does not
advance matters, surely?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 11:01:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All the
evidence is to the contrary.
Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
"that which Matt wishes to believe."
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
He may have said it, but there is no evidence that it was true.
If we propose to controvert an ancient statement -- made to an enemy,
no less --, it is necessary to do so with some actual *evidence* that
he was mistaken. Just to say "well he might have been wrong" does not
advance matters, surely?
And you think that is hard to do?
The WHOLE world includes the western hemisphere. He was wrong.
But he could not have known of that so lets limit to the known world in his
time. They were not in China or India.
But he really meant the Roman world. There is no sign of them outside of Asia
Minor and Italy at that time.
But he really meant all of the Roman world that mattered. But North Africa
mattered.
But he really meant the message had gotten out to all the Roman world that
mattered regardless of the number of adherents.
So if you narrow it down enough you can make it a poetic statement appear to be
factually correct IF you know WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.
--
The holocaust is a very strange kind of history. It is the only kind of
history that will disappear when the witnesses die.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3585
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
21 Mar 2006 09:01:24 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All the
evidence is to the contrary.
Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
"that which Matt wishes to believe."
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
He may have said it, but there is no evidence that it was true.
If we propose to controvert an ancient statement -- made to an enemy,
no less --, it is necessary to do so with some actual *evidence* that
he was mistaken. Just to say "well he might have been wrong" does not
advance matters, surely?
And you think that is hard to do?
The WHOLE world includes the western hemisphere. He was wrong. [etc]
What a truly silly response.
But he really meant the Roman world.
Indeed.
There is no sign of them outside of Asia Minor and Italy at that time.
His testimony is otherwise.
So if you narrow it down enough you can make it a poetic statement appear to be
factually correct IF you know WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.
Such comments are notable only for the lack of evidence. Stick to
statements based on facts, hey?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
21 Mar 2006 08:16:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All the
evidence is to the contrary.
Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
"that which Matt wishes to believe."
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
He may have said it, but there is no evidence that it was true.
If we propose to controvert an ancient statement -- made to an enemy,
no less --, it is necessary to do so with some actual *evidence* that
he was mistaken. Just to say "well he might have been wrong" does not
advance matters, surely?
And you think that is hard to do?
The WHOLE world includes the western hemisphere. He was wrong. [etc]
What a truly silly response.
I was showing why it was clearly a poetical statement. Perhaps it should be
called a political statement so it is clear that he was lying.
But he really meant the Roman world.
Indeed.
There is no sign of them outside of Asia Minor and Italy at that time.
His testimony is otherwise.
Words are not evidence.
So if you narrow it down enough you can make it a poetic statement appear to be
factually correct IF you know WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.
Such comments are notable only for the lack of evidence. Stick to
statements based on facts, hey?
Then produce the FACTS which support his statement being correct.
--
If the Nazis had persecuted the Palestinians they would get at least some
sympathy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3589
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
21 Mar 2006 11:57:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
There is no sign of them outside of Asia Minor and Italy at that time.
His testimony is otherwise.
On the side, you have picked up the unfortunate Christian habit of calling
statements testimony because testimony is assumed to be under oath with penalty
of perjury. In fact when it comes to early Christian writers their words are
often raised to infallible and inspired. Granted there is so little it is mined
for all it is worth but that does not mean there was any conscious attempt to be
literally true and correct.
--
Reread The Fountainhead with Ellsworth Toohey as Abe Foxman.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3603
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
20 Mar 2006 05:40:11 PM |
|
|
roger_pearse wrote
: Martin Edwards wrote:
: > roger_pearse wrote:
: > > Matt Giwer wrote:
: > >
: > >>cyclotron wrote:
: > >>
: > >>>There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
: > >>>have its origin with the apostles.
: > >>
: > >> Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still
disciples in the
: > >>Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
: > >
: > >
: > > Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
: > >
: > >
: > >> That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles.
All the
: > >>evidence is to the contrary.
: > >
: > >
: > > Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
: > > "that which Matt wishes to believe."
: > >
: > >
: > >>>For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
: > >>>even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
: > >>>into the rest of the world.
: > >>
: > >> It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea.
A
: > >>minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
: > >
: > > Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
: > > "We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
: > >
: > He may have said it, but there is no evidence that it was true.
:
: If we propose to controvert an ancient statement -- made to an enemy,
: no less --, it is necessary to do so with some actual *evidence* that
: he was mistaken. Just to say "well he might have been wrong" does not
: advance matters, surely?
Nor does your assertion that he said it without support.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." -Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." -Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." -Shawnee
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many
regrets." -Arthur C. Clarke
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 10:17:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
There is no claim in any of the four gospels that the resurrection was witnessed.
As to atheist, unless you are supporting Roman Catholicism, most christians
have it wrong. Just ask one.
That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All the
evidence is to the contrary.
Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
"that which Matt wishes to believe."
It denotes a word frequency analysis of the original Greek manuscripts
conducted in the early 1980s. The four longest had the same distribution of words.
For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
into the rest of the world.
It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Which is poetic statement at best. But at Milan persecution was prohibited and
it is very difficult to persecute a majority. They tend to tell you to stop it
with long, pointy swords.
--
If the Nazis had persecuted the Palestinians they would get at least some
sympathy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3589
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
20 Mar 2006 11:38:59 PM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s7LTf.85581$Fw6.77154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
....[trim]...
Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Which is poetic statement at best.
Which is really Eusebius of Caesarea, talking through
his literary strawman Tertullian, one of the 70 odd authors
of the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius uses to report the
evidence of things "christian" in antiquity.
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes
"[the fourth century was] the great age of literary forgery,
the extent of which has yet to be exposed"
....[and]...
"not until the mass of inventions
labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians
in Pagan writers of the first three centuries
be recognized for the forgeries they are."
--- Edwin Johnson,
"Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
21 Mar 2006 02:17:10 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s7LTf.85581$Fw6.77154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
....[trim]...
Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Which is poetic statement at best.
Which is really Eusebius of Caesarea, talking through
his literary strawman Tertullian, one of the 70 odd authors
of the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius uses to report the
evidence of things "christian" in antiquity.
And your evidence of this is what?
Mere assertion is not evidence. Please do better than that.
Not impossible is not an argument. Please do better than that.
--
If Catholics had been holocausted it could be used to excuse pedophile
priests.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3583
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: eusebian fiction postulate (was Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church) |
21 Mar 2006 06:01:23 AM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aEOTf.85617$Fw6.23146@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s7LTf.85581$Fw6.77154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
....[trim]...
Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Which is poetic statement at best.
Which is really Eusebius of Caesarea, talking through
his literary strawman Tertullian, one of the 70 odd authors
of the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius uses to report the
evidence of things "christian" in antiquity.
And your evidence of this is what?
Would you believe I have in my possession a signed
confession of Eusebius, written in Greek with a Syriac
translation, taken from my archives just the other day.
Seriously, however, the best evidence available is the
fact that the logical implications of Eusebian fiction (ie:
including the works of Tertullion) are found to be
present and consistent with real historical events during
the life of Eusebius.
On a side-issue, you must have read about writers
pointing their finger at Eusebius over the Josephus
interpolation? If you are aware of this issue, and
think it reasonable that Eusebius could have inserted
(and in fact did insert) the christian reference into
Josephus' "Antiquities", why do you think he did it?
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: eusebian fiction postulate (was Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack JesusDirectly - They Attack Instead His Church) |
22 Mar 2006 12:18:47 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aEOTf.85617$Fw6.23146@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s7LTf.85581$Fw6.77154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
....[trim]...
Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Which is poetic statement at best.
Which is really Eusebius of Caesarea, talking through
his literary strawman Tertullian, one of the 70 odd authors
of the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius uses to report the
evidence of things "christian" in antiquity.
And your evidence of this is what?
Would you believe I have in my possession a signed
confession of Eusebius, written in Greek with a Syriac
translation, taken from my archives just the other day.
Is it notarized?
Seriously, however, the best evidence available is the
fact that the logical implications of Eusebian fiction (ie:
including the works of Tertullion) are found to be
present and consistent with real historical events during
the life of Eusebius.
And my point is you appear to have a conclusion. Rather than showing how the
evidence points to it, you simply say everything happened according to your
conclusion.
On a side-issue, you must have read about writers
pointing their finger at Eusebius over the Josephus
interpolation? If you are aware of this issue, and
think it reasonable that Eusebius could have inserted
(and in fact did insert) the christian reference into
Josephus' "Antiquities", why do you think he did it?
I was unaware the insertion can be dated. How is it dated?
--
At one time I thought the worse charge against Hussein was the use of
excessive force. The more I see of Iraq without him the more I think I may
have judged him too harshly.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3586
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: eusebian fiction postulate (was Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church) |
22 Mar 2006 05:23:08 AM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b%5Uf.88119$Fw6.64597@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aEOTf.85617$Fw6.23146@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s7LTf.85581$Fw6.77154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
....[trim]...
Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Which is poetic statement at best.
Which is really Eusebius of Caesarea, talking through
his literary strawman Tertullian, one of the 70 odd authors
of the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius uses to report the
evidence of things "christian" in antiquity.
And your evidence of this is what?
Would you believe I have in my possession a signed
confession of Eusebius, written in Greek with a Syriac
translation, taken from my archives just the other day.
Is it notarized?
In a holy triplicate.
Seriously, however, the best evidence available is the
fact that the logical implications of Eusebian fiction (ie:
including the works of Tertullion) are found to be
present and consistent with real historical events during
the life of Eusebius.
And my point is you appear to have a conclusion. Rather than showing how
the evidence points to it, you simply say everything happened according to
your conclusion.
It appears I have a conclusion, but in fact I have a hypothesis,
or a postulate. The postulate is simple: all the Eusebian literature
represents a massive coordinated and networked pyramid of fiction
with its pinnacle being the NT and the historical descent of the
"tribe of christians" and their squabbles over the last 200 years.
Some of these fictions have been exposed, do I need examples?
The postulate of Eusebian fiction is the antithesis of the postulate
that the history of christianity as presented by Eusebius in true
and correct. We dont know which of these postulates are true,
it would appear. But they can be tested by logic in this way.
I'd like you for a moment to contemplate not the Eusbian
fiction postulate, but the series of its logical implications.
These are NOT conclusions, they are implications:
1) There is an alternative (theory of) history of christianity which
is to be called reality, and which is amenable to historical
definition.
2) That this reality and this fiction must have CONJOINED.
That is, the fiction was implemented at some stage in history.
Before that stage, the fiction did not exist.
After that stage, this alternate reality did not exist.
3) That this CONJOIN would have been characterised by a
extremely turbulent controversy, new language, new ideas,
violent opposition, breaking of societal traditions, new
formalities.
4) That the date of this conjoin necessarily must be, at the earliest,
during the life of the author of the fiction (Eusebius), and before
this time, the fiction did not exist.
5) That the sponsorship of such widely implemented change needed
to have great power over the empire at the time of conjoin (ie:
implementation of the Eusebian fiction).
Do we have historical evidence of a major controversy in the time
of Eusebius which became extremely turbulent, invoking new language,
new ideas, violent opposition, breaking of societal traditions, new
formalities and which is sourced over NOTHING which can be
understood in todays sensibilities, and about which
controversy the Roman emperor took personal interest, and in
fact had a creed drawn up with an exclusion clause?
There appears to be historical events which correspond to the
above series of logical implications, and this strengthens the
Eusebian fiction postulate
The conclusion of the exercise is the implication that christianity
was implemented at Nicea out of whole cloth, with Eusebius running
fictional diversion tactics in his network of literature, by which the
emperor Constantine is removed from suspicion.
The tribe of christians is not new! It is descended from the
apostic succession theory of history a la Eusebius, and at
this point the massive fictions of Eusebius are examined.
Constantine is supporting an existent tribe, not a new one.
It has a glorious history, and is linked to the ancient Hebrew
sages by a sure process of prophecy.
His (C) presence, and his support would only be required, and he
would not have to coerce or force people to sign up, because
they would do it voluntarily, being convinced by the mass and
tangle of literary fiction called Eusbius.
I'd like to think that the Eusebian fiction postulate is consistent with
a valid theory of history, or at least a theory of history that has some
integrity.
On a side-issue, you must have read about writers
pointing their finger at Eusebius over the Josephus
interpolation? If you are aware of this issue, and
think it reasonable that Eusebius could have inserted
(and in fact did insert) the christian reference into
Josephus' "Antiquities", why do you think he did it?
I was unaware the insertion can be dated. How is it dated?
Writers who have dated the insertion and who have pointed
their pen at Eusebius have done so for a number of reasons.
Do you want me to list them?
Given that this opinion does exist (amidst others obviously)
my question to you remains the following: "Why would
someone (E) have performed the interpolation in Josephus"?
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: eusebian fiction postulate (was Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack JesusDirectly - They Attack Instead His Church) |
22 Mar 2006 07:35:31 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b%5Uf.88119$Fw6.64597@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aEOTf.85617$Fw6.23146@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s7LTf.85581$Fw6.77154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
....[trim]...
Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Which is poetic statement at best.
Which is really Eusebius of Caesarea, talking through
his literary strawman Tertullian, one of the 70 odd authors
of the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius uses to report the
evidence of things "christian" in antiquity.
And your evidence of this is what?
Would you believe I have in my possession a signed
confession of Eusebius, written in Greek with a Syriac
translation, taken from my archives just the other day.
Is it notarized?
In a holy triplicate.
Seriously, however, the best evidence available is the
fact that the logical implications of Eusebian fiction (ie:
including the works of Tertullion) are found to be
present and consistent with real historical events during
the life of Eusebius.
And my point is you appear to have a conclusion. Rather than showing how
the evidence points to it, you simply say everything happened according to
your conclusion.
It appears I have a conclusion, but in fact I have a hypothesis,
or a postulate. The postulate is simple: all the Eusebian literature
represents a massive coordinated and networked pyramid of fiction
with its pinnacle being the NT and the historical descent of the
"tribe of christians" and their squabbles over the last 200 years.
Some of these fictions have been exposed, do I need examples?
There are requirements for hypotheses. They must explain facts which are either
otherwise unexplainable or offer a simpler explanation.
What you are doing appears to make things more complicated and require facts
not in evidence.
The postulate of Eusebian fiction is the antithesis of the postulate
that the history of christianity as presented by Eusebius in true
and correct. We dont know which of these postulates are true,
it would appear. But they can be tested by logic in this way.
I do not think anyone would assume everything he wrote was fact. The required
magnitude and scope of this fiction along with its prescience of centuries to
come is what is at issue.
I'd like you for a moment to contemplate not the Eusbian
fiction postulate, but the series of its logical implications.
These are NOT conclusions, they are implications:
And if I introduce Alien Space Bats to guide his actions there are equally
fanciful implications. However one needs establish the premise before touting
the implications.
1) There is an alternative (theory of) history of christianity which
is to be called reality, and which is amenable to historical definition.
2) That this reality and this fiction must have CONJOINED.
That is, the fiction was implemented at some stage in history.
Before that stage, the fiction did not exist.
After that stage, this alternate reality did not exist.
3) That this CONJOIN would have been characterised by a
extremely turbulent controversy, new language, new ideas,
violent opposition, breaking of societal traditions, new
formalities.
4) That the date of this conjoin necessarily must be, at the earliest,
during the life of the author of the fiction (Eusebius), and before
this time, the fiction did not exist.
5) That the sponsorship of such widely implemented change needed
to have great power over the empire at the time of conjoin (ie:
implementation of the Eusebian fiction).
All of which are things which do not need additional explanation.
Do we have historical evidence of a major controversy in the time
of Eusebius which became extremely turbulent, invoking new language,
new ideas, violent opposition, breaking of societal traditions, new
formalities and which is sourced over NOTHING which can be
understood in todays sensibilities, and about which
controversy the Roman emperor took personal interest, and in
fact had a creed drawn up with an exclusion clause?
There appears to be historical events which correspond to the
above series of logical implications, and this strengthens the
Eusebian fiction postulate
The conclusion of the exercise is the implication that christianity
was implemented at Nicea out of whole cloth, with Eusebius running
fictional diversion tactics in his network of literature, by which the
emperor Constantine is removed from suspicion.
The tribe of christians is not new! It is descended from the
apostic succession theory of history a la Eusebius, and at
this point the massive fictions of Eusebius are examined.
Constantine is supporting an existent tribe, not a new one.
It has a glorious history, and is linked to the ancient Hebrew
sages by a sure process of prophecy.
His (C) presence, and his support would only be required, and he
would not have to coerce or force people to sign up, because
they would do it voluntarily, being convinced by the mass and
tangle of literary fiction called Eusbius.
I'd like to think that the Eusebian fiction postulate is consistent with
a valid theory of history, or at least a theory of history that has some
integrity.
A theory must explain facts and not be unnecessarily complicated. There is
either the more traditional view of events or this theory which has the same
results but requires a massive conspiracy which left no evidence on top of
everything else. This conspiracy is an unnecessary complication and a huge one.
On a side-issue, you must have read about writers
pointing their finger at Eusebius over the Josephus
interpolation? If you are aware of this issue, and
think it reasonable that Eusebius could have inserted
(and in fact did insert) the christian reference into
Josephus' "Antiquities", why do you think he did it?
I was unaware the insertion can be dated. How is it dated?
Writers who have dated the insertion and who have pointed
their pen at Eusebius have done so for a number of reasons.
Do you want me to list them?
I am interested in the ones which permit dating the insertion. That is not
simply during or after the time of Eusebius but indication it was not there
before and a way to bracket its earliest appearance.
Given that this opinion does exist (amidst others obviously)
my question to you remains the following: "Why would
someone (E) have performed the interpolation in Josephus"?
Why would not any of dozens of people have done it? How is this particular
person identified?
Ex. No one mentioned Nero persecuting Christians until after the story first
appeared in the 6th c. Don't have the name off hand but the author is known and
it appears among mentions of other things which clearly did not happen.
Therefore this is taken as the origin of the story.
--
At one time I thought the worse charge against Hussein was the use of
excessive force. The more I see of Iraq without him the more I think I may
have judged him too harshly.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3586
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: eusebian fiction postulate (was Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church) |
27 Mar 2006 11:58:36 PM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:DXmUf.70342$_c.16068@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b%5Uf.88119$Fw6.64597@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aEOTf.85617$Fw6.23146@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
mountain man wrote:
....[trimmed]...
On a side-issue, you must have read about writers
pointing their finger at Eusebius over the Josephus
interpolation? If you are aware of this issue, and
think it reasonable that Eusebius could have inserted
(and in fact did insert) the christian reference into
Josephus' "Antiquities", why do you think he did it?
I was unaware the insertion can be dated. How is it dated?
Writers who have dated the insertion and who have pointed
their pen at Eusebius have done so for a number of reasons.
Do you want me to list them?
I am interested in the ones which permit dating the insertion. That is not
simply during or after the time of Eusebius but indication it was not
there before and a way to bracket its earliest appearance.
Here are the reasons presented by Dr. Lardner,
who wrote about 1760 CE:
1. It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.
2. Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in
any of his works, except the testimony above mentioned,
3 and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.
4 It interrupts the narrative.
5 The language is quite Christian.
6. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus,
and could not have omitted quoting it, had it been then, in the text.
7. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning
Josephus.
8. Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly
states that
this historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice
of Christ.
10. Neither Justin, in his dialogue with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens
Alexandrinus,
who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against
Celsus,
have even mentioned this testimony.
11. But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against
Celsus),
that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge
Christ.
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
21 Mar 2006 05:09:48 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s7LTf.85581$Fw6.77154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
....[trim]...
Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Which is poetic statement at best.
Which is really Eusebius of Caesarea, talking through
his literary strawman Tertullian, one of the 70 odd authors
of the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius uses to report the
evidence of things "christian" in antiquity.
And your evidence of this is what?
Mere assertion is not evidence. Please do better than that.
Not impossible is not an argument. Please do better than that.
He can't. That's why I don't waste time on him.
If Catholics had been holocausted it could be used to excuse pedophile
priests.
And would be.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
21 Mar 2006 08:18:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
mountain man wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s7LTf.85581$Fw6.77154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
wrote:
....[trim]...
Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Which is poetic statement at best.
Which is really Eusebius of Caesarea, talking through
his literary strawman Tertullian, one of the 70 odd authors
of the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius uses to report the
evidence of things "christian" in antiquity.
And your evidence of this is what?
Mere assertion is not evidence. Please do better than that.
Not impossible is not an argument. Please do better than that.
He can't. That's why I don't waste time on him.
As I did not have the truth revealed to me by baptism I am willing to examine
any new idea.
--
Pax Americana relies upon two principles. That democracy blossoms from the
barrel of a gun. That the US has the right to bomb the crap out of
democracies that vote against American insterests. Israel has even rejected
a fair peace offer from Hamas.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3593
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
21 Mar 2006 05:15:18 AM |
|
|
roger_pearse wrote
: Matt Giwer wrote:
: > mountain man wrote:
: > > "Matt Giwer" wrote
: > >>roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
: > >
: > >
: > > ....[trim]...
: > >
: > >
: > >> Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
: > >>
: > >>>"We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
: > >>
: > >>Which is poetic statement at best.
: >
: > > Which is really Eusebius of Caesarea, talking through
: > > his literary strawman Tertullian, one of the 70 odd authors
: > > of the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius uses to report the
: > > evidence of things "christian" in antiquity.
: >
: > And your evidence of this is what?
: >
: > Mere assertion is not evidence. Please do better than that.
: >
: > Not impossible is not an argument. Please do better than that.
:
: He can't.
Says you who believes Tertullian. LOL!!!
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." -Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." -Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." -Shawnee
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many
regrets." -Arthur C. Clarke
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
20 Mar 2006 08:56:45 AM |
|
|
On 20 Mar 2006 06:42:52 -0800, wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
Pearse is not just a liar, but deliberately nasty.
All the best,
And a sanctimonious hypocrite.
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack InsteadHis Church |
20 Mar 2006 12:23:10 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 20 Mar 2006 06:42:52 -0800, wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
cyclotron wrote:
There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
have its origin with the apostles.
Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples in the
Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
Pearse is not just a liar, but deliberately nasty.
All the best,
And a sanctimonious hypocrite.
Roger Pearse
Nastiness I can take, hypocrisy is with us always, it's the
/de haut en bas/ tone that gets up my nose.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Nobody Yet Dares Attack Jesus Directly - They Attack Instead His Church |
20 Mar 2006 08:50:18 AM |
|
|
pearse wrote
: Matt Giwer wrote:
: > cyclotron wrote:
: > > There is nothing we hold to be true in the New Testament that did not
: > > have its origin with the apostles.
: >
: > Which apostle discovered an empty tomb? BTW: They were still disciples
in the
: > Gospels. They did not become apostles until Acts.
:
: Atheist logic indeed. "La la, I'm not listening" they cry...
Theist childishness indeed.
: > That falsely assumes the Paul of Acts is the Paul of the epistles. All
the
: > evidence is to the contrary.
:
: Ah, 'evidence' being a word used in a special meaning here, to denote
: "that which Matt wishes to believe."
Ah, pearse demonstrating that he is afraid of the evidence.
: > > For this reason, not because they were great leaders or speakers, or
: > > even educated, the gospel spread rapidly across the Roman empire and
: > > into the rest of the world.
: >
: > It was still a minority religion at the time of the council of Nicea. A
: > minority after nearly three centuries is hardly rapid.
:
: Non sequitur noted. Tertullian, a century earlier than that, remarks
: "We are of yesterday, yet we have filled all the world."
Tetullian wasn't anymore honest than you are pearse.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." -Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." -Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." -Shawnee
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many
regrets." -Arthur C. Clarke
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
