Evolution a new revelation?

Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Evolution a new revelation?

 

Nowadays it seems the theory of evolution is used by some atheists to give meaning to their worldview, it has to be understood that the theory of evolution does not go as far as these atheists oftentimes take it. They attempt to use it as some kind of justification for metaphysical claims such as: ‘’God is superfluous to requirement’’, ‘’the universe is meaningless and blind’’ As such, the theory of evolution does not provide rigorous basis for these claims. Yet the atheist persists, this is why Darwin’s theory is so precious to him, because he uses it to bridge some gaps in his ideology, its gives him a robust scientific basis on which to launch unjustified assumptions. Just look at all of the atheist forums, all of these have sections about evolution, sometimes large sections are devoted to this. As for myself, I take a different path. To me evolution is a mechanism created by God to which the life matter of this world is bound; it is a natural law of this world, of the same type as gravity etc.  As a catholic I see no problem accepting the theory of evolution as fact, as the great John Paul II said: if the body comes from pre-existing matter the soul is of God. Just as the body matured from infant without reasoning capacity or strength so did the human race, and along with this maturity comes responsibility. Our responsibility to turn ourselves towards God and to search for him with all of our heart, only then will him who dwells within us be revealed. Know that if the universe was meaningless we should have never found out it was meaningless, just as if we were in total darkness at all times we should of never found out about light. So I invite you to reflect, where does this idea we have that the universe is meaningless come from? And where can we find ultimate meaning?


 

 


 

In a truly beautifull prayer, the aging SAugustine of Hippo laments: Late have I loved you,
O Beauty ever ancient and so new,
Too late have I loved you!

You were within me, but I was outside to seek you. Unlovely myself, I fell heedlessly upon all those lovely things which you created.

And always You were with me, but I was not with you.
Created things kept me from you;
yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all.

You called, you cried,you broke through my deafness.
You blazed, you gleamed, and you drove away my blindness.
You breathed your fragrance on me;
I drew in breath and now I long for you.

I have tasted, now I hunger and thirst for more.
You touched me, and now I burn with desire for your peace.

Amen


 

 


 

In a sense our journey to God isn’t as different as Augustine‘s whose words are as actual today as they were thousands of years ago.

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Damasius

Jabberwocky wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Quote:

‘’The fact you do not recognise the fundamental truth that the bible is not a literal history does you no credit.’’

And one of the assertions you need to put substance around.

I somewhat understand how Christians can believe (hey, I once did!). However, it baffles me how anybody in the world that is not insane can believe that the bible is the entire literal truth. 

1. Contradictions: Without even examining anything outside of the book itself, it has so many internal contradictions that you must absolutely assert that only one of the conflicting verses are true. That makes the book impossible to be taken literally from start to finish. 

2. Science: There are many claims of a scientific nature in the bible that are very incredible, and likely false. There are others that we know are absolutely wrong.

3. History: There are many claims in the narrative that we know historically to not be true.

It really takes very little time to identify problems in all 3 categories. Let's do one each for now. 

1. Was Joseph Jesus' father? 2 Timothy 2:8: Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David

So yes, but Luke 1:34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Bonus: While we're on genealogy, who was Joseph's father? Heli, or Jacob?

2. The entire Genesis narrative on the creation of the earth is obviously wrong. The moon is not a light. "He made the stars also"....all hundreds of trillions (perhaps quadrillions of stars) just at the end of one day?? But spent most of the 6 days on the earth and surrounding area? Nowhere does it indicate that the sun has more in common with "the stars" than it does with the moon, and that the moon has more in common with the Earth than it does with the sun.

3. In several gospels, it tells of all sorts of phenomena that occurred during the crucifixion. Earthquakes, unscheduled 3 hour periods of darkness (by unscheduled, I mean the daytime). Nowhere outside of the gospels are these things documented.

Bonus: History was being documented in other parts of the world at the estimated time of the alleged world-wide flood. No such catastrophe was record. Care to say why?

 

 

WEll there ar esome important problems straight out of the gate, namely that I never said that the Bible was entire litteral truth, see my posts about interpretations. How can we take you seriously when you dont even extend the basic courtesy to actually READ whats postulated instead of the hollow simulacre thereof invented by you??


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Well there

Damasius wrote:

Well there are some important problems straight out of the gate, namely that I never said that the Bible was entire literal truth, see my posts about interpretations. How can we take you seriously when you dont even extend the basic courtesy to actually READ whats postulated instead of the hollow simulacre there of invented by you??

Why do you not respond to my posts?  They're quite short and don't require much time or research to answer.

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

 So I invite you to reflect, where does this idea we have that the universe is meaningless come from? And where can we find ultimate meaning?


 

Question begging on a false premise.

 

 

This is another instance where you have it ass backwards.

 

Look, I know its fun to try to sound smart because you trow around terms like '' question begging'' ''false premise'' etc etc, however I can assure you that I can show with relative ease that the claim that ''the universe is meaningless'' exists. Nihilists for example hold that view. With respect to this claim that ''the universe is meaningless'', I invited you to relfect: where does this come from?  You see? no question begging, so you crashed pretty badly here. 

Now as for your ''false premise'' thing.... well what premise are you talking about? I invited to relfection, I didn't make any statements. I asked 1: WHERE DOES THIS IDEA THAT THE UNIVERSE IS MEANINGLESS ( NIHILISTS) COME FROM  and 2: WHERE CAN WE FIND ULTIMATE MEANING, by ultimate meaning here I grant that I should of perhaps led you trough the baby steps... When I mean ultimate meaning, I mean  meaning that does not end with death or the destruction of the physical world, a meaning that transcends it. For example, my meaning in life could be to becomes the worlds best hot dog cook, however thats not real meaning in the sense we are talking about.

best regards.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Damasius

blacklight915 wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Well there are some important problems straight out of the gate, namely that I never said that the Bible was entire literal truth, see my posts about interpretations. How can we take you seriously when you dont even extend the basic courtesy to actually READ whats postulated instead of the hollow simulacre there of invented by you??

Why do you not respond to my posts?  They're quite short and don't require much time or research to answer.

 

 

Hello there,

 

I didn't answer your post as I was in the middle of doing my readings and had little time to parse trough all of the posts. but hey il try to manage something. First your post contains somre rather naive contradiction. You  claim that: ''After all, his dislike of Saint Augustine stems from the Saint's condemnation of humanity as inherently evil.''  I had clearly explained to the poster that his understanding of augustine was mistaken, superficial, and downright wrong.

Then you say: ''While I don't know enough about Saint Augustine to whether he made such a...''

 

It seems to me that all you did in your post was reiterate the wrong lecture and indeologically motivated conprehension of the other poster and then said you didn't know squat about augustine yourself, so correct me if Im wrong but you seem to agree with the other poster while in a burst of candour admitting you don't know squat about augustine. Does your position strike you as intellectually honest??

 

Heres what we can do, you could read some selected oeuvres of augustine, I encourage you first to read the confessions of the saint, then you may form your own oppinion as to whether he was a human hating Bigot, or like I said someone who devoted his life to his fellow man and to search of the truth, a search that ofthen caused him great sorrow and pain.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Au contraire...

 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

I own Harrelson's New Interpreter's Study Bible, Birch's Theological Introduction to the Old Testament and Powell's Introduction to the NT. Alongside these I have an extensive library that includes the Nag Hammadi texts, Arberry, Simeon, Bowker, Pelikan and god knows what else. Lots. As well as access to to the bookshelves of my family.

 

Damasius wrote:

So ? that does not mean you actually read them intelligently let alone understood them.

 

It's true. I have my burden of biases, I admit it. But I’ve nevertheless read them.   

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Given my father is a minister and my mother is a missionary, both having theology degrees, 2 of my brothers have theology degrees, one being a lay preacher, and one brother in law is a minister and both my sister in laws parents are ministers, and I have been in and around bible debate since I could speak, I am perfectly able to make my own observations of the arguments and divisions I've seen in the church. 

They are legion. Even in my own family there is intense debate over what is literal and what is metaphor, what is historical and what is allegory, what is true and what is hagiography. Even what is wrong and what is right in the eyes of god. That's just how intelligent people approach the bible. There are 40,000 recognised christians sects. I'll let you work out why that might be.’’

 

Damasius wrote:

I dont give a shit what your background is. Once again wheres the substance? Il take these as weasel words given your past shortcomings. 

 

My point here is that I probably know more preachers and missionaries and church moderators than you do. And I can attest to the fact they spend all their time arguing voluminously about points of scripture. This should not be something I have to convince you of. It's the same in every religion. Read some Chaim Potok. It’s just the plain fact of the matter. Theology is often about searching the scriptures to find points that support your chosen position in light of some current disagreement. Personally, I think theological dispute is fun. 

 

Damasius wrote:

Your calling Augustine a ‘human hater’ being one of the most hilarious to date.

 

Well, here's a little more humour for you, Damasius. 

 

Orthodox scholar Friar. Michael Azkoul condemns Augustine’s: 

"...predestination and irresistible grace and...original sin; ...also his theory of Ideas and suspicious doctrine of creation; his crypto-Nestorian christology; his false mystagogy and understanding of Old Testament theophanies; his unorthodox ecclesiology; his philosophical conceptions of the soul; ...his speculations on purgatory, the beatific vision, his questionable view of deification; his anthropology and peculiar teaching on sex."

Azkoul: 

"How is God good, how merciful and just, if His decision to save or reprobate is based on His secret Council wholly insensitive to human choices?"

Elaine Pagels professor of religion at Princeton:

"...a story of human freedom became, in his hands, a story of human bondage. Instead of being a story about the gift of moral freedom, as St. John Chrysostom proclaimed, Augustine taught that "Adam's sin not only caused our mortality but cost us our moral freedom, irreversibly corrupted our experience of sexuality...and made us incapable of genuine political freedom."

"Augustine insists that through an act of will Adam and Eve bend the structure of the universe; that their single, willful act permanently corrupted human nature as well as nature in general. Once harmonious, perfect, and free, now, through Adam's choice, it is ravaged by mortality and desire, while all suffering, from crop failure, miscarriage, fever, and insanity to paralysis and cancer, is evidence of the moral and spiritual deterioration that Eve and Adam introduced..."

Bertrand Russell:

"St. Augustine enumerate the sins committed by infants at the breast, and does not shrink from the conclusion that infants who died unbaptized go to hell. The elect go to heaven because God chooses to make them the objects of His mercy: they are virtuous because they are elect, not elect because they are virtuous. 

“Therefore, Augustine insists that all of the church's members may enjoy the Mysteries of the Sacraments, but only a few actually receive their benefit. Election is absolutely gratuitous, indifferent to foreseen merits, preceding any good action and wholly subordinated to God's arbitrary Will. With no respect to context, he extracted passages from Romans and other epistles in order to prove his contention."

Palegius challenged Augustine, argued freewill was still operative for the human race. He was excommunicated. 

John R Mabry

“Augustine insisted that his theology did not contradict free will. He claimed that even in Christ a person is not delivered from Adam's curse. He might be relieved of Original Sin, but not its consequence, guilt; a burden inherited by infants upon their entry into the world regardless of their baptism.”

Augustine on sexual arousal: 

"After Adam and Eve disobeyed...they felt for the first time a movement of disobedience in their flesh, as punishment in kind for their own disobedience to God... The soul, which had taken a perverse delight in its own liberty and disdain to serve God, was now deprived of its original mastery over the body." 

More on sex:

"this diabolical excitement of the genitals" - were it not for the "easy out" of marriage "people would have intercourse like dogs."

Contemporary critic Jovinian objected, attempted to prove by biblical authority that celibates were no holier than married folk. 

Augustine replied: "the fecundity of a married woman was not comparable in value to the fecundity of the virgin, who produced souls for Christ." 

Jovinian was excommunicated.

Augustine again:

"I feel that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its heavenly heights as the fondling of woman and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state."

Christians should love a woman's personality, yet: 

"hate in her the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection, sexual intercourse and all that pertains to her as a wife."

More from Augustine:

(A woman) "must surrender her body to her husband on command, receiving from such use no personal pleasure, but allowing herself to be used solely as an instrument of procreation." 

Reuther on Augustine:

"Even in paradise the male would have 'used' the woman without sensual feeling, just as he moves his hand or foot, dispassionately, and totally under control of the rational will. There would have been no uncontrolled rush of disordered affection and spontaneous tumescence of the male sexual organ. But the male would have sewed his seed in the woman with the same objectivity as a farmer sows seed in field."

Augustine on evil babies: 

“You must explain why such great innocence is sometimes born blind or deaf. If nothing deserving punishment passes from parents to infants, who could bear to see the image of God sometimes born retarded, since this afflicts the soul itself? Consider the plain facts; consider why some infants suffer from a demon."

"If infants are not sinners," Augustine asked Palegius during an argument before Palegius’ excommunication, "Why then are they baptized?"

Matthew Fox: 

"Too much guilt, too much introspection, too much preoccupation with law, sin, and grace rendered Augustine, and the theology that was to prevail in his name for sixteen centuries in the West, oblivious of what the Eastern Christian church celebrates as theosis, the divinization of the cosmos."

Pagels again and this is my core issue with Augustine: 

"What Augustine says, in simplest terms, is this: human beings cannot be trusted to govern themselves, because our very nature - indeed, all of nature - has become corrupt as the result of Adam's sin. In the late fourth and the fifth century...Augustine's theory of human depravity - and correspondingly, the political means to control it - replaced the previous ideology of human freedom."

"By insisting that humanity, ravaged by sin, now lies helplessly in need of outside intervention, Augustine's theory could not only validate secular power but justify as well the imposition of church authority - by force if necessary - as essential for human salvation."

Azkoul quotes an Orthodox saint:

"We can only thank God that the doctrine of the Eastern Church was formulated outside the sphere of Augustinianism, which we must consider as alien to us.”

Julian:

(Augustine’s inventions are) "false, many foolish, and many are sacrilegious."

 

Damasius, I can cherry pick some more, if you like. 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein and

 

Damasius wrote:

Oh and you think we wont notice that all these are partisans of a view called biblical minimalism? ( a view that is very far from being concensus) Heres a fine quote from Wikipedia: ‘’most scholars stayed in the middle ground between minimalists and maximalists evaluating the arguments of both schools critically’’

I thought you were supposed to bring mainstream unbiased people to support your claims? Looks like you failed badly, try again next time.

 

The point here is that there is ongoing conjecture about many of the bible’s claims. I argue there is no absolute proof of the nature, the size, the scope of Judah and Israel as kingdoms, or proof as to whether or not Jerusalem ruled the entire Levant or was no more than a hilltop town or small city state. You claim the bible as the literal truth, remember, and I demur. 

Where is your proof the fabulously wealthy empire of King Solomon actually existed as brute fact? The archaeology does not support you. Personally, I think Judah and Israel probably did exist as provincial ‘kingdoms’ but that they were relatively insignificant. But the bible does not argue for insignificance.

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 porcupines. His kingdom stretched from the Euphrates to the Nile, was vastly wealthy in gold and silver, invited the very glory of god to Earth, was so renowned all the nations of Earth came to visit, etc, etc. All this is fabrication. I won’t even get into the creation story or Noah’s Ark. 

 

Damasius wrote:

As for the rest of your post and your quote mine of Eusebius you are still looking at one simple side of the medal, see? I predicted you would be biased, It didn’t take long for this prediction to come true.

lets take Eusebius's quote in its full context and an explanation of your blatant quote mine; etc, etc...

 

My criticism of Eusebius is based on the so-called Testimonium Flavianum which was first found inside Eusebius’ copy of Josephus’ epic history, The Jewish Wars which sits on the bookshelf behind me. Now, Josephus was a pedant and a practising Jew, so it’s a surprise to find him breaking the flow of his vaunted history quite randomly and launching into apostasy thus:

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

What do critics and scholars say about the Testimonium Flavianum and more importantly, what don’t some early church fathers say?

 

Dr. Gordon Stein:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

Arthur Drews in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not."

Bishop Warburton said the Testamonium was "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." 

Remsburg quotes Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject...."

Rev. S. Baring-Gould:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. I, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. 

“The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. I)."

Remsburg again:

"Cannon Farrar, who has written an ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious' (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

Dr. Farrar: 

“That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe."

Secular critic Earl Doherty:

"In the absence of any other supporting evidence from the first century that in fact the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels clearly existed, Josephus becomes the slender thread by which such an assumption hangs. And the sound and fury and desperate manoeuverings which surround the dissection of those two little passages becomes a din of astonishing proportions. 

The obsessive focus on this one uncertain record is necessitated by the fact that the rest of the evidence is so dismal, so contrary to the orthodox picture. If almost everything outside Josephus points in a different direction, to the essential fiction of the Gospel picture and its central figure, how can Josephus be made to bear on his shoulders, through two passages whose reliability has thus far remained unsettled, the counterweight to all this other negative evidence?"

ben Yehoshua:

"Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in sometime between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief."

Freke and Gandy in Jesus Mysteries:

"Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed to shore up their Literalist interpretation of the gospels. This, as we would see repeatedly, was a common practice." 

Historian Jakob Burckhardt writing in the 17th century calls Eusebius: 

"The first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." 

Drews again: 

“Eusebius's motives were to empower the Catholic Church, and he did not fail to use "falsifications, suppressions, and fictions"

More from Remsburg:

"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned....”

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. 

“Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed (by Josephus) with a dozen lines...."

Early Christian fathers, scholars and authors who quoted Josephus but missed the Jesus passage:

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165)

Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch

Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), Greek theologian, Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school

Origen (c. 185-c. 254), writes that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."

Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr

The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus not Jesus text

Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert

Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)

Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate

Methodius, saint of the 9th century – even this late fails to see it

Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople. Fails to quote Jesus text when quoting Josephus.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Ad hominem, ad hom, ad hom, &c &c, appeal to force with trollishness, appeal to consequence on a bed of bald assertion...

 

Damasius wrote:

Il pour any scorn and contempt as you are guilty of discoursive criminality, cherry picking data, citing only authors that agree with your preconcieved atheist narrative and also blatlantly quote mining.

 

That’s your decision, Damasius. Personally, I’m not much fussed. I'm not offended when I'm insulted by people I don't know. But I would argue that there’s a point at which what you say is fallacious cherry-picking becomes a weight of evidence. Again, I say, Augustine hated his humanity. He felt imprisoned by it, polluted by it. Like a true Platonist he divided humanity into souls and bodies. 

Nor could he deal with the idea jesus actually inhabited a vile body. No, jesus inhabited the soul of a human body. Augustine taught that the material world and all in it are corrupt, to the detriment of us all and that this was best reflected in instinctual and reflexive elements of sexual desire. Creepy. 

Worse still, Augustine argued babies that die in childbirth deserve to burn in hell and that disabilities and deformities are a form of punishment for ‘sin’. On reflection, I’m right to loathe this man’s teachings. 

Finally, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that Eusebius fabricated proof of the jesus story. Secular critics and respected bible scholars all agree that this is so.  

 

Damasius wrote:

The only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave, and the unextinguished flames of hell.

 

For the record, Damasius, I don’t believe you deserve to be burned in the fires of hell, to be tortured eternally. And I would never, ever, worship an undefined and invisible being who, on the basis of arbitrary justice enforced without precedent, planned to torture and kill you.

    

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

 

In addition to mistaking assertions for facts, the human-hating bishop of hippo To me, Augustine's words attest to his bizarre and unsupportable delusions. But the fact this repulsive religious bigot found beauty in the material world supports my argument that there is subjective meaning on Earth aplenty.

 

How exactly is someone who devotes his life to his fellow humans ''human hating''?helping the poor, teatching, doing good works, here I would say that the reason you find Augustine's words Bizzare and unssuportable delusions is because I suspect you havent read augustines work, nor do you have any idea about the man himself, other that things cribbed from bad atheistct websites.

 

 

Augustine taught that all humans were debased and vile, a mass of perdition, suffering from 'a privation of righteousness which every man ought to possess'. He embraced predestination, believed women were to be blamed for being 'stimulating', claimed women were beneath men, maintained the serpent spoke to eve because she was weak and that adam ate the fruit out of a sense of companionship with eve, nothing more. "Flesh stands for the woman, spirit for the man," he wrote. 

He claimed hell was 'made for the inquisitive' that curiosity was lust. 

He wrote:

 "How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!"

He wrote:

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”

And.. "Nothing is so much to be shunned as sex relations." And... "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to ttry and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."

 

And...

“But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression.”

All these assertions with no material proof. Augustine's writings drove the wicked and baseless concept of original sin for well over 1000 years. Such was his bleak influence Fox wrote in 1600: “The abysmal, theologically one-sided dominance of Augustine over Jesus and the prophets must cease.”

 

 

 

 

 

The restof what you wrote is unsupported waffle, but il answer your quote mines of augustine.

 

 

He wrote:

"How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!"

Its understandable augustine would react as such when back then the enemies of scriptures weren't a bunch of uneducated forum atheists but REAL MEN REPRESENTING REAL DANGERS, sending christians to grisly death in the arenas, cruely murdering christians because they were not sacrificing to the pagan God's, exiling, beating to death men whose only crime was to share the christian faith. So spare us all the pharisiaic posturing.

 

He wrote:

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”   Understandable he would write such when we understand that ''mathematician'' did not mean what it means today, and that these individuals Augustine was reffering to was heretics and pagans who would use the science of the time to introduce all kinds of heresies in the christian faith, but don't let facts prevent you from engaging in these duplicitous quote mines...

 

"Nothing is so much to be shunned as sex relations." 

So fucking what?  whats so hard to understand in the fact that conspucience is BAD FOR CHRISTIANS?? DON't TWELL ME THIS CAME AS A SHOCK TO YOU?? Relations outside of marriage are wrong according to christians, and with all of the std etc a kid in kindergarten could understand why.

 

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to ttry and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."  Still show us the whole context of that sentence will you, I can't wait to see yet another blatant quote mine revealed.

Heh, I would if rathered atomic fusion to remain nature's secret, at least we wouldnt have all the shit we have now in the middle east.

 

“But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression.” Funny how atheists get angry when told their going to a place they don't even believe in!


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

I own Harrelson's New Interpreter's Study Bible, Birch's Theological Introduction to the Old Testament and Powell's Introduction to the NT. Alongside these I have an extensive library that includes the Nag Hammadi texts, Arberry, Simeon, Bowker, Pelikan and god knows what else. Lots. As well as access to to the bookshelves of my family.

 

Damasius wrote:

So ? that does not mean you actually read them intelligently let alone understood them.

 

It's true. I have my burden of biases, I admit it. But I’ve nevertheless read them.   

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Given my father is a minister and my mother is a missionary, both having theology degrees, 2 of my brothers have theology degrees, one being a lay preacher, and one brother in law is a minister and both my sister in laws parents are ministers, and I have been in and around bible debate since I could speak, I am perfectly able to make my own observations of the arguments and divisions I've seen in the church. 

They are legion. Even in my own family there is intense debate over what is literal and what is metaphor, what is historical and what is allegory, what is true and what is hagiography. Even what is wrong and what is right in the eyes of god. That's just how intelligent people approach the bible. There are 40,000 recognised christians sects. I'll let you work out why that might be.’’

 

Damasius wrote:

I dont give a shit what your background is. Once again wheres the substance? Il take these as weasel words given your past shortcomings. 

 

My point here is that I probably know more preachers and missionaries and church moderators than you do. And I can attest to the fact they spend all their time arguing voluminously about points of scripture. This should not be something I have to convince you of. It's the same in every religion. Read some Chaim Potok. It’s just the plain fact of the matter. Theology is often about searching the scriptures to find points that support your chosen position in light of some current disagreement. Personally, I think theological dispute is fun. 

 

Damasius wrote:

Your calling Augustine a ‘human hater’ being one of the most hilarious to date.

 

Well, here's a little more humour for you, Damasius. 

 

Orthodox scholar Friar. Michael Azkoul condemns Augustine’s: 

"...predestination and irresistible grace and...original sin; ...also his theory of Ideas and suspicious doctrine of creation; his crypto-Nestorian christology; his false mystagogy and understanding of Old Testament theophanies; his unorthodox ecclesiology; his philosophical conceptions of the soul; ...his speculations on purgatory, the beatific vision, his questionable view of deification; his anthropology and peculiar teaching on sex."

Azkoul: 

"How is God good, how merciful and just, if His decision to save or reprobate is based on His secret Council wholly insensitive to human choices?"

Elaine Pagels professor of religion at Princeton:

"...a story of human freedom became, in his hands, a story of human bondage. Instead of being a story about the gift of moral freedom, as St. John Chrysostom proclaimed, Augustine taught that "Adam's sin not only caused our mortality but cost us our moral freedom, irreversibly corrupted our experience of sexuality...and made us incapable of genuine political freedom."

"Augustine insists that through an act of will Adam and Eve bend the structure of the universe; that their single, willful act permanently corrupted human nature as well as nature in general. Once harmonious, perfect, and free, now, through Adam's choice, it is ravaged by mortality and desire, while all suffering, from crop failure, miscarriage, fever, and insanity to paralysis and cancer, is evidence of the moral and spiritual deterioration that Eve and Adam introduced..."

Bertrand Russell:

"St. Augustine enumerate the sins committed by infants at the breast, and does not shrink from the conclusion that infants who died unbaptized go to hell. The elect go to heaven because God chooses to make them the objects of His mercy: they are virtuous because they are elect, not elect because they are virtuous. 

“Therefore, Augustine insists that all of the church's members may enjoy the Mysteries of the Sacraments, but only a few actually receive their benefit. Election is absolutely gratuitous, indifferent to foreseen merits, preceding any good action and wholly subordinated to God's arbitrary Will. With no respect to context, he extracted passages from Romans and other epistles in order to prove his contention."

Palegius challenged Augustine, argued freewill was still operative for the human race. He was excommunicated. 

John R Mabry

“Augustine insisted that his theology did not contradict free will. He claimed that even in Christ a person is not delivered from Adam's curse. He might be relieved of Original Sin, but not its consequence, guilt; a burden inherited by infants upon their entry into the world regardless of their baptism.”

Augustine on sexual arousal: 

"After Adam and Eve disobeyed...they felt for the first time a movement of disobedience in their flesh, as punishment in kind for their own disobedience to God... The soul, which had taken a perverse delight in its own liberty and disdain to serve God, was now deprived of its original mastery over the body." 

More on sex:

"this diabolical excitement of the genitals" - were it not for the "easy out" of marriage "people would have intercourse like dogs."

Contemporary critic Jovinian objected, attempted to prove by biblical authority that celibates were no holier than married folk. 

Augustine replied: "the fecundity of a married woman was not comparable in value to the fecundity of the virgin, who produced souls for Christ." 

Jovinian was excommunicated.

Augustine again:

"I feel that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its heavenly heights as the fondling of woman and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state."

Christians should love a woman's personality, yet: 

"hate in her the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection, sexual intercourse and all that pertains to her as a wife."

More from Augustine:

(A woman) "must surrender her body to her husband on command, receiving from such use no personal pleasure, but allowing herself to be used solely as an instrument of procreation." 

Reuther on Augustine:

"Even in paradise the male would have 'used' the woman without sensual feeling, just as he moves his hand or foot, dispassionately, and totally under control of the rational will. There would have been no uncontrolled rush of disordered affection and spontaneous tumescence of the male sexual organ. But the male would have sewed his seed in the woman with the same objectivity as a farmer sows seed in field."

Augustine on evil babies: 

“You must explain why such great innocence is sometimes born blind or deaf. If nothing deserving punishment passes from parents to infants, who could bear to see the image of God sometimes born retarded, since this afflicts the soul itself? Consider the plain facts; consider why some infants suffer from a demon."

"If infants are not sinners," Augustine asked Palegius during an argument before Palegius’ excommunication, "Why then are they baptized?"

Matthew Fox: 

"Too much guilt, too much introspection, too much preoccupation with law, sin, and grace rendered Augustine, and the theology that was to prevail in his name for sixteen centuries in the West, oblivious of what the Eastern Christian church celebrates as theosis, the divinization of the cosmos."

Pagels again and this is my core issue with Augustine: 

"What Augustine says, in simplest terms, is this: human beings cannot be trusted to govern themselves, because our very nature - indeed, all of nature - has become corrupt as the result of Adam's sin. In the late fourth and the fifth century...Augustine's theory of human depravity - and correspondingly, the political means to control it - replaced the previous ideology of human freedom."

"By insisting that humanity, ravaged by sin, now lies helplessly in need of outside intervention, Augustine's theory could not only validate secular power but justify as well the imposition of church authority - by force if necessary - as essential for human salvation."

Azkoul quotes an Orthodox saint:

"We can only thank God that the doctrine of the Eastern Church was formulated outside the sphere of Augustinianism, which we must consider as alien to us.”

Julian:

(Augustine’s inventions are) "false, many foolish, and many are sacrilegious."

 

Damasius, I can cherry pick some more, if you like. 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein and

 

Damasius wrote:

Oh and you think we wont notice that all these are partisans of a view called biblical minimalism? ( a view that is very far from being concensus) Heres a fine quote from Wikipedia: ‘’most scholars stayed in the middle ground between minimalists and maximalists evaluating the arguments of both schools critically’’

I thought you were supposed to bring mainstream unbiased people to support your claims? Looks like you failed badly, try again next time.

 

The point here is that there is ongoing conjecture about many of the bible’s claims. I argue there is no absolute proof of the nature, the size, the scope of Judah and Israel as kingdoms, or proof as to whether or not Jerusalem ruled the entire Levant or was no more than a hilltop town or small city state. You claim the bible as the literal truth, remember, and I demur. 

Where is your proof the fabulously wealthy empire of King Solomon actually existed as brute fact? The archaeology does not support you. Personally, I think Judah and Israel probably did exist as provincial ‘kingdoms’ but that they were relatively insignificant. But the bible does not argue for insignificance.

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 porcupines. His kingdom stretched from the Euphrates to the Nile, was vastly wealthy in gold and silver, invited the very glory of god to Earth, was so renowned all the nations of Earth came to visit, etc, etc. All this is fabrication. I won’t even get into the creation story or Noah’s Ark. 

 

Damasius wrote:

As for the rest of your post and your quote mine of Eusebius you are still looking at one simple side of the medal, see? I predicted you would be biased, It didn’t take long for this prediction to come true.

lets take Eusebius's quote in its full context and an explanation of your blatant quote mine; etc, etc...

 

My criticism of Eusebius is based on the so-called Testimonium Flavianum which was first found inside Eusebius’ copy of Josephus’ epic history, The Jewish Wars which sits on the bookshelf behind me. Now, Josephus was a pedant and a practising Jew, so it’s a surprise to find him breaking the flow of his vaunted history quite randomly and launching into apostasy thus:

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

What do critics and scholars say about the Testimonium Flavianum and more importantly, what don’t some early church fathers say?

 

Dr. Gordon Stein:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

Arthur Drews in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not."

Bishop Warburton said the Testamonium was "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." 

Remsburg quotes Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject...."

Rev. S. Baring-Gould:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. I, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. 

“The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. I)."

Remsburg again:

"Cannon Farrar, who has written an ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious' (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

Dr. Farrar: 

“That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe."

Secular critic Earl Doherty:

"In the absence of any other supporting evidence from the first century that in fact the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels clearly existed, Josephus becomes the slender thread by which such an assumption hangs. And the sound and fury and desperate manoeuverings which surround the dissection of those two little passages becomes a din of astonishing proportions. 

The obsessive focus on this one uncertain record is necessitated by the fact that the rest of the evidence is so dismal, so contrary to the orthodox picture. If almost everything outside Josephus points in a different direction, to the essential fiction of the Gospel picture and its central figure, how can Josephus be made to bear on his shoulders, through two passages whose reliability has thus far remained unsettled, the counterweight to all this other negative evidence?"

ben Yehoshua:

"Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in sometime between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief."

Freke and Gandy in Jesus Mysteries:

"Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed to shore up their Literalist interpretation of the gospels. This, as we would see repeatedly, was a common practice." 

Historian Jakob Burckhardt writing in the 17th century calls Eusebius: 

"The first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." 

Drews again: 

“Eusebius's motives were to empower the Catholic Church, and he did not fail to use "falsifications, suppressions, and fictions"

More from Remsburg:

"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned....”

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. 

“Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed (by Josephus) with a dozen lines...."

Early Christian fathers, scholars and authors who quoted Josephus but missed the Jesus passage:

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165)

Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch

Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), Greek theologian, Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school

Origen (c. 185-c. 254), writes that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."

Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr

The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus not Jesus text

Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert

Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)

Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate

Methodius, saint of the 9th century – even this late fails to see it

Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople. Fails to quote Jesus text when quoting Josephus.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Ad hominem, ad hom, ad hom, &c &c, appeal to force with trollishness, appeal to consequence on a bed of bald assertion...

 

Damasius wrote:

Il pour any scorn and contempt as you are guilty of discoursive criminality, cherry picking data, citing only authors that agree with your preconcieved atheist narrative and also blatlantly quote mining.

 

That’s your decision, Damasius. Personally, I’m not much fussed. I'm not offended when I'm insulted by people I don't know. But I would argue that there’s a point at which what you say is fallacious cherry-picking becomes a weight of evidence. Again, I say, Augustine hated his humanity. He felt imprisoned by it, polluted by it. Like a true Platonist he divided humanity into souls and bodies. 

Nor could he deal with the idea jesus actually inhabited a vile body. No, jesus inhabited the soul of a human body. Augustine taught that the material world and all in it are corrupt, to the detriment of us all and that this was best reflected in instinctual and reflexive elements of sexual desire. Creepy. 

Worse still, Augustine argued babies that die in childbirth deserve to burn in hell and that disabilities and deformities are a form of punishment for ‘sin’. On reflection, I’m right to loathe this man’s teachings. 

Finally, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that Eusebius fabricated proof of the jesus story. Secular critics and respected bible scholars all agree that this is so.  

 

Damasius wrote:

The only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave, and the unextinguished flames of hell.

 

For the record, Damasius, I don’t believe you deserve to be burned in the fires of hell, to be tortured eternally. And I would never, ever, worship an undefined and invisible being who, on the basis of arbitrary justice enforced without precedent, planned to torture and kill you.

    

 

 

 

Listen, you can collect quotes that support your viewpoint all you want, the point is you are seeing only what you want to see, the stuff that supports your bias. I could make a list of quotes from scholars praising eusebius twice as long as the one you presented me here. This is not the pount, the point was that the Bible is historically relevant, meaning that a concensus of acholars agree that it is more that a book of myth, for example it is different from a harry potter book. ( a comparaison so beloved by atheists. YPOu have to understand that I am not arguing that everything is to be taken litterally true in the bible.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

 

Damasius wrote:

Listen, you can collect quotes that support your viewpoint all you want, the point is you are seeing only what you want to see, the stuff that supports your bias. I could make a list of quotes from scholars praising eusebius twice as long as the one you presented me here. This is not the pount, the point was that the Bible is historically relevant, meaning that a concensus of acholars agree that it is more that a book of myth, for example it is different from a harry potter book. ( a comparaison so beloved by atheists. YPOu have to understand that I am not arguing that everything is to be taken litterally true in the bible.

 

Don't do that - just come up with a list of quotes from scholars that argue the TF was not a forgery but was written by Josephus...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sure, Damasius

 

Damasius wrote:

 

The restof what you wrote is unsupported waffle, but il answer your quote mines of augustine.

 

He wrote:

"How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!"

Its understandable augustine would react as such when back then the enemies of scriptures weren't a bunch of uneducated forum atheists but REAL MEN REPRESENTING REAL DANGERS, sending christians to grisly death in the arenas, cruely murdering christians because they were not sacrificing to the pagan God's, exiling, beating to death men whose only crime was to share the christian faith. So spare us all the pharisiaic posturing.

 

He wrote:

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”   Understandable he would write such when we understand that ''mathematician'' did not mean what it means today, and that these individuals Augustine was reffering to was heretics and pagans who would use the science of the time to introduce all kinds of heresies in the christian faith, but don't let facts prevent you from engaging in these duplicitous quote mines...

 

"Nothing is so much to be shunned as sex relations." 

So fucking what?  whats so hard to understand in the fact that conspucience is BAD FOR CHRISTIANS?? DON't TWELL ME THIS CAME AS A SHOCK TO YOU?? Relations outside of marriage are wrong according to christians, and with all of the std etc a kid in kindergarten could understand why.

 

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to ttry and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."  Still show us the whole context of that sentence will you, I can't wait to see yet another blatant quote mine revealed.

Heh, I would if rathered atomic fusion to remain nature's secret, at least we wouldnt have all the shit we have now in the middle east.

 

“But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression.” Funny how atheists get angry when told their going to a place they don't even believe in!

 

It's all just unsupported waffle, all of it is out of context. None of any of this should encourage you to question the true character of your hero. 

Personally, I think Augustine might have been in the sway of the Roman emperor but that really is raw conjecture. He actually politicised christianity on the basis of original sin. Why?  

Anyway. We are not going to agree so discussing this further with any real effort on my part is obviously fruitless. 

I do have to concede that I've made an error in my last post in suggesting you claimed the bible was the literal truth. You did not do this but referred to a process of interpretation. Apologies for that.  

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Damasius

Damasius wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

I own Harrelson's New Interpreter's Study Bible, Birch's Theological Introduction to the Old Testament and Powell's Introduction to the NT. Alongside these I have an extensive library that includes the Nag Hammadi texts, Arberry, Simeon, Bowker, Pelikan and god knows what else. Lots. As well as access to to the bookshelves of my family.

 

Damasius wrote:

So ? that does not mean you actually read them intelligently let alone understood them.

 

It's true. I have my burden of biases, I admit it. But I’ve nevertheless read them.   

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Given my father is a minister and my mother is a missionary, both having theology degrees, 2 of my brothers have theology degrees, one being a lay preacher, and one brother in law is a minister and both my sister in laws parents are ministers, and I have been in and around bible debate since I could speak, I am perfectly able to make my own observations of the arguments and divisions I've seen in the church. 

They are legion. Even in my own family there is intense debate over what is literal and what is metaphor, what is historical and what is allegory, what is true and what is hagiography. Even what is wrong and what is right in the eyes of god. That's just how intelligent people approach the bible. There are 40,000 recognised christians sects. I'll let you work out why that might be.’’

 

Damasius wrote:

I dont give a shit what your background is. Once again wheres the substance? Il take these as weasel words given your past shortcomings. 

 

My point here is that I probably know more preachers and missionaries and church moderators than you do. And I can attest to the fact they spend all their time arguing voluminously about points of scripture. This should not be something I have to convince you of. It's the same in every religion. Read some Chaim Potok. It’s just the plain fact of the matter. Theology is often about searching the scriptures to find points that support your chosen position in light of some current disagreement. Personally, I think theological dispute is fun. 

 

Damasius wrote:

Your calling Augustine a ‘human hater’ being one of the most hilarious to date.

 

Well, here's a little more humour for you, Damasius. 

 

Orthodox scholar Friar. Michael Azkoul condemns Augustine’s: 

"...predestination and irresistible grace and...original sin; ...also his theory of Ideas and suspicious doctrine of creation; his crypto-Nestorian christology; his false mystagogy and understanding of Old Testament theophanies; his unorthodox ecclesiology; his philosophical conceptions of the soul; ...his speculations on purgatory, the beatific vision, his questionable view of deification; his anthropology and peculiar teaching on sex."

Azkoul: 

"How is God good, how merciful and just, if His decision to save or reprobate is based on His secret Council wholly insensitive to human choices?"

Elaine Pagels professor of religion at Princeton:

"...a story of human freedom became, in his hands, a story of human bondage. Instead of being a story about the gift of moral freedom, as St. John Chrysostom proclaimed, Augustine taught that "Adam's sin not only caused our mortality but cost us our moral freedom, irreversibly corrupted our experience of sexuality...and made us incapable of genuine political freedom."

"Augustine insists that through an act of will Adam and Eve bend the structure of the universe; that their single, willful act permanently corrupted human nature as well as nature in general. Once harmonious, perfect, and free, now, through Adam's choice, it is ravaged by mortality and desire, while all suffering, from crop failure, miscarriage, fever, and insanity to paralysis and cancer, is evidence of the moral and spiritual deterioration that Eve and Adam introduced..."

Bertrand Russell:

"St. Augustine enumerate the sins committed by infants at the breast, and does not shrink from the conclusion that infants who died unbaptized go to hell. The elect go to heaven because God chooses to make them the objects of His mercy: they are virtuous because they are elect, not elect because they are virtuous. 

“Therefore, Augustine insists that all of the church's members may enjoy the Mysteries of the Sacraments, but only a few actually receive their benefit. Election is absolutely gratuitous, indifferent to foreseen merits, preceding any good action and wholly subordinated to God's arbitrary Will. With no respect to context, he extracted passages from Romans and other epistles in order to prove his contention."

Palegius challenged Augustine, argued freewill was still operative for the human race. He was excommunicated. 

John R Mabry

“Augustine insisted that his theology did not contradict free will. He claimed that even in Christ a person is not delivered from Adam's curse. He might be relieved of Original Sin, but not its consequence, guilt; a burden inherited by infants upon their entry into the world regardless of their baptism.”

Augustine on sexual arousal: 

"After Adam and Eve disobeyed...they felt for the first time a movement of disobedience in their flesh, as punishment in kind for their own disobedience to God... The soul, which had taken a perverse delight in its own liberty and disdain to serve God, was now deprived of its original mastery over the body." 

More on sex:

"this diabolical excitement of the genitals" - were it not for the "easy out" of marriage "people would have intercourse like dogs."

Contemporary critic Jovinian objected, attempted to prove by biblical authority that celibates were no holier than married folk. 

Augustine replied: "the fecundity of a married woman was not comparable in value to the fecundity of the virgin, who produced souls for Christ." 

Jovinian was excommunicated.

Augustine again:

"I feel that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its heavenly heights as the fondling of woman and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state."

Christians should love a woman's personality, yet: 

"hate in her the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection, sexual intercourse and all that pertains to her as a wife."

More from Augustine:

(A woman) "must surrender her body to her husband on command, receiving from such use no personal pleasure, but allowing herself to be used solely as an instrument of procreation." 

Reuther on Augustine:

"Even in paradise the male would have 'used' the woman without sensual feeling, just as he moves his hand or foot, dispassionately, and totally under control of the rational will. There would have been no uncontrolled rush of disordered affection and spontaneous tumescence of the male sexual organ. But the male would have sewed his seed in the woman with the same objectivity as a farmer sows seed in field."

Augustine on evil babies: 

“You must explain why such great innocence is sometimes born blind or deaf. If nothing deserving punishment passes from parents to infants, who could bear to see the image of God sometimes born retarded, since this afflicts the soul itself? Consider the plain facts; consider why some infants suffer from a demon."

"If infants are not sinners," Augustine asked Palegius during an argument before Palegius’ excommunication, "Why then are they baptized?"

Matthew Fox: 

"Too much guilt, too much introspection, too much preoccupation with law, sin, and grace rendered Augustine, and the theology that was to prevail in his name for sixteen centuries in the West, oblivious of what the Eastern Christian church celebrates as theosis, the divinization of the cosmos."

Pagels again and this is my core issue with Augustine: 

"What Augustine says, in simplest terms, is this: human beings cannot be trusted to govern themselves, because our very nature - indeed, all of nature - has become corrupt as the result of Adam's sin. In the late fourth and the fifth century...Augustine's theory of human depravity - and correspondingly, the political means to control it - replaced the previous ideology of human freedom."

"By insisting that humanity, ravaged by sin, now lies helplessly in need of outside intervention, Augustine's theory could not only validate secular power but justify as well the imposition of church authority - by force if necessary - as essential for human salvation."

Azkoul quotes an Orthodox saint:

"We can only thank God that the doctrine of the Eastern Church was formulated outside the sphere of Augustinianism, which we must consider as alien to us.”

Julian:

(Augustine’s inventions are) "false, many foolish, and many are sacrilegious."

 

Damasius, I can cherry pick some more, if you like. 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein and

 

Damasius wrote:

Oh and you think we wont notice that all these are partisans of a view called biblical minimalism? ( a view that is very far from being concensus) Heres a fine quote from Wikipedia: ‘’most scholars stayed in the middle ground between minimalists and maximalists evaluating the arguments of both schools critically’’

I thought you were supposed to bring mainstream unbiased people to support your claims? Looks like you failed badly, try again next time.

 

The point here is that there is ongoing conjecture about many of the bible’s claims. I argue there is no absolute proof of the nature, the size, the scope of Judah and Israel as kingdoms, or proof as to whether or not Jerusalem ruled the entire Levant or was no more than a hilltop town or small city state. You claim the bible as the literal truth, remember, and I demur. 

Where is your proof the fabulously wealthy empire of King Solomon actually existed as brute fact? The archaeology does not support you. Personally, I think Judah and Israel probably did exist as provincial ‘kingdoms’ but that they were relatively insignificant. But the bible does not argue for insignificance.

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 porcupines. His kingdom stretched from the Euphrates to the Nile, was vastly wealthy in gold and silver, invited the very glory of god to Earth, was so renowned all the nations of Earth came to visit, etc, etc. All this is fabrication. I won’t even get into the creation story or Noah’s Ark. 

 

Damasius wrote:

As for the rest of your post and your quote mine of Eusebius you are still looking at one simple side of the medal, see? I predicted you would be biased, It didn’t take long for this prediction to come true.

lets take Eusebius's quote in its full context and an explanation of your blatant quote mine; etc, etc...

 

My criticism of Eusebius is based on the so-called Testimonium Flavianum which was first found inside Eusebius’ copy of Josephus’ epic history, The Jewish Wars which sits on the bookshelf behind me. Now, Josephus was a pedant and a practising Jew, so it’s a surprise to find him breaking the flow of his vaunted history quite randomly and launching into apostasy thus:

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

What do critics and scholars say about the Testimonium Flavianum and more importantly, what don’t some early church fathers say?

 

Dr. Gordon Stein:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

Arthur Drews in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not."

Bishop Warburton said the Testamonium was "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." 

Remsburg quotes Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject...."

Rev. S. Baring-Gould:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. I, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. 

“The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. I)."

Remsburg again:

"Cannon Farrar, who has written an ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious' (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

Dr. Farrar: 

“That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe."

Secular critic Earl Doherty:

"In the absence of any other supporting evidence from the first century that in fact the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels clearly existed, Josephus becomes the slender thread by which such an assumption hangs. And the sound and fury and desperate manoeuverings which surround the dissection of those two little passages becomes a din of astonishing proportions. 

The obsessive focus on this one uncertain record is necessitated by the fact that the rest of the evidence is so dismal, so contrary to the orthodox picture. If almost everything outside Josephus points in a different direction, to the essential fiction of the Gospel picture and its central figure, how can Josephus be made to bear on his shoulders, through two passages whose reliability has thus far remained unsettled, the counterweight to all this other negative evidence?"

ben Yehoshua:

"Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in sometime between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief."

Freke and Gandy in Jesus Mysteries:

"Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed to shore up their Literalist interpretation of the gospels. This, as we would see repeatedly, was a common practice." 

Historian Jakob Burckhardt writing in the 17th century calls Eusebius: 

"The first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." 

Drews again: 

“Eusebius's motives were to empower the Catholic Church, and he did not fail to use "falsifications, suppressions, and fictions"

More from Remsburg:

"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned....”

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. 

“Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed (by Josephus) with a dozen lines...."

Early Christian fathers, scholars and authors who quoted Josephus but missed the Jesus passage:

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165)

Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch

Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), Greek theologian, Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school

Origen (c. 185-c. 254), writes that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."

Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr

The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus not Jesus text

Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert

Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)

Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate

Methodius, saint of the 9th century – even this late fails to see it

Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople. Fails to quote Jesus text when quoting Josephus.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Ad hominem, ad hom, ad hom, &c &c, appeal to force with trollishness, appeal to consequence on a bed of bald assertion...

 

Damasius wrote:

Il pour any scorn and contempt as you are guilty of discoursive criminality, cherry picking data, citing only authors that agree with your preconcieved atheist narrative and also blatlantly quote mining.

 

That’s your decision, Damasius. Personally, I’m not much fussed. I'm not offended when I'm insulted by people I don't know. But I would argue that there’s a point at which what you say is fallacious cherry-picking becomes a weight of evidence. Again, I say, Augustine hated his humanity. He felt imprisoned by it, polluted by it. Like a true Platonist he divided humanity into souls and bodies. 

Nor could he deal with the idea jesus actually inhabited a vile body. No, jesus inhabited the soul of a human body. Augustine taught that the material world and all in it are corrupt, to the detriment of us all and that this was best reflected in instinctual and reflexive elements of sexual desire. Creepy. 

Worse still, Augustine argued babies that die in childbirth deserve to burn in hell and that disabilities and deformities are a form of punishment for ‘sin’. On reflection, I’m right to loathe this man’s teachings. 

Finally, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that Eusebius fabricated proof of the jesus story. Secular critics and respected bible scholars all agree that this is so.  

 

Damasius wrote:

The only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave, and the unextinguished flames of hell.

 

For the record, Damasius, I don’t believe you deserve to be burned in the fires of hell, to be tortured eternally. And I would never, ever, worship an undefined and invisible being who, on the basis of arbitrary justice enforced without precedent, planned to torture and kill you.

    

 

 

 

Listen, you can collect quotes that support your viewpoint all you want, the point is you are seeing only what you want to see, the stuff that supports your bias. I could make a list of quotes from scholars praising eusebius twice as long as the one you presented me here. This is not the pount, the point was that the Bible is historically relevant, meaning that a concensus of acholars agree that it is more that a book of myth, for example it is different from a harry potter book. ( a comparaison so beloved by atheists. YPOu have to understand that I am not arguing that everything is to be taken litterally true in the bible.

 

 

 

 

''That’s your decision, Damasius. Personally, I’m not much fussed. I'm not offended when I'm insulted by people I don't know. But I would argue that there’s a point at which what you say is fallacious cherry-picking becomes a weight of evidence. Again, I say, Augustine hated his humanity. He felt imprisoned by it, polluted by it. Like a true Platonist he divided humanity into souls and bodies.

Nor could he deal with the idea jesus actually inhabited a vile body. No, jesus inhabited the soul of a human body. Augustine taught that the material world and all in it are corrupt, to the detriment of us all and that this was best reflected in instinctual and reflexive elements of sexual desire. Creepy.

Worse still, Augustine argued babies that die in childbirth deserve to burn in hell and that disabilities and deformities are a form of punishment for ‘sin’. On reflection, I’m right to loathe this man’s teachings.

Finally, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that Eusebius fabricated proof of the jesus story. Secular critics and respected bible scholars all agree that this is so.'' 

 

Continue to robotically parrot the same assertions in a hope that they will magically turn into facts.

This quote is rather revealing and shows that you don't understand augustine's theology at all, theirs a huge ammount of work to be done here, I don't think I would be up to the task of education you and correcting the ammount of fail present in the mentionned passage. Tell you what, I noticed we are straying off topic, when I find the time il create a topic about the historicity of the bible, we can argue all you want then. Is it possible to come back to the original claims of this topic?


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

Listen, you can collect quotes that support your viewpoint all you want, the point is you are seeing only what you want to see, the stuff that supports your bias. I could make a list of quotes from scholars praising eusebius twice as long as the one you presented me here. This is not the pount, the point was that the Bible is historically relevant, meaning that a concensus of acholars agree that it is more that a book of myth, for example it is different from a harry potter book. ( a comparaison so beloved by atheists. YPOu have to understand that I am not arguing that everything is to be taken litterally true in the bible.

 

Don't do that - just come up with a list of quotes from scholars that argue the TF was not a forgery but was written by Josephus...

 

I wont come up with quotes, as I can't be arsed and im about to go to bed, however il just leave you with a simple resumé of the arguments in favor of authenticity as can be found on wikipedia. ( the wiki entry contains quotes)

 

 

Arguments in favor of authenticity

[edit] The James Passage

Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged"[115] Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.[116] Feldman states that it would make no sense for Origen to show amazement that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Christ (Book X, Chapter 17), if Josephus had not referred to Jesus at all.[89] Paul L. Maier states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage"[2] Zvi Baras also states that most modern scholars consider the James passage to be authentic.[117]

A 13th century icon of James, Kosovo

According to Robert E. Van Voorst the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic.[4][107] Van Voorst states that the James passage fits well in the context in the Antiquities and an indication for its authenticity is the lack of the laudatory language that a Christian interpolator would have used to refer to Jesus as "the Lord", or a similar term.[118] Van Voorst also states that the use of a neutral term "called Christ" which neither denies nor affirms Jesus as the Messiah points to authenticity, and indicates that Josephus used it to distinguish Jesus from the many other people called Jesus at the time, in the same way that James is distinguished, given that it was also a common name.[118]

Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic", and that among the several accounts of the death of James the account in Josephus is generally considered to be historically the most reliable.[119] Bauckham states that the method of killing James by stoning, and the description provided by Josephus via the assembly of the Sanhedrin of judges are consistent with the policies of the Temple authorities towards the early Christian Church at the time.(Bauckham page 231)

Andreas Köstenberger considers the James passage to be authentic and states that the James passage attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person, and that his followers considered him the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104-105) Köstenberger states that the statement by Josephus that some people recognized Jesus as the Messiah is consistent with the grammar of Josephus elsewhere but does not imply that Josephus himself considered Jesus the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104-105) Köstenberger concurs with John Meier that it is highly unlikely for the passage to be a Christian interpolation given that in New Testament texts James is referred to as the "brother of the Lord" rather than the "brother of Jesus", and that a Christian interpolator would have provided a more detailed account at that point.(Köstenberger pages 104-105)

Claudia Setzer states that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage, partly based on the observation that a Chrisian interpolator would have provided more praise for James.[120] Setzer states that the passage indicates that Josephus, a Jewish historian writing towards the end of the first century, could use a neutral tone towards Christians, with some tones of sympathy, implying that they may be worthy of Roman protection.[120]

John Painter states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.(Painter pages 139-142). Painter discusses the role of Ananus and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by Jesus the son of Damnaeus, Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.(Painter page 136) Painter points out that as described in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 2) Ananus was bribing both Albinus and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some of whom then starved to death.(Painter pages 139-142). Philip Carrington states that there is no reason to question the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James, and elaborates the background by stating that Ananus continued to remain a power within the Jewish circles at the time even after being deposed, and that it is likely that the charges brought against James by Ananus were not only because of his Christian association but because he objected to the oppressive policies against the poor; hence explaining the later indignation of the more moderate Jewish leaders.[121]

[edit] John the Baptist

John the Baptist in prison, by Hafner, 1750.

Craig Evans states that almost all modern scholars consider the Josephus passage on John to be authentic in its entirety, and that what Josephus states about John fits well both with the general depiction of John in the New Testament and within the historical context of the activities of other men, their preachings and their promises during that period.[8]

Louis Feldman, who believes the Josephus passage on John is authentic, states that Christian interpolators would have been very unlikely to have devoted almost twice as much space to John (163 words) as to Jesus (89 words).[122] Feldman also states that a Christian interpolator would have likely altered Josephus' passage about John the Baptist to make the circumstances of the death of John become similar to the New Testament, and to indicate that John was a forerunner of Jesus. [123]

James Dunn states that the accounts of Josephus and the New Testament regarding John the Baptist are closer than they may appear at a first reading.[124] Dunn states that Josephus positions John as a righteous preacher (dikaiosyne) who encourages his followers to practice "righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God" and that Mark 6:20 similarly calls John "a righteous (dikaios) and holy man".[124] Dunn states that Antipas likely saw John as a figure whose asceic lifestyle and calls for moral reform could give rise to a poplar uprising on moral grounds, as both Josephus and the New Testament suggest.[124]

Justin Meggitt states that there are fundamental similarities between the Josephus' portrayal of John the Baptist and the New Testament narrative in that in both accounts John is positioned as a preacher of morality, not as someone who had challenged the political authority of Herod Antipas.[125] W. E. Nunnally states that the John passage is considered authentic and that Josephus' emphasis on the egalitarian nature of John's teachings fit well into the biblical and historical traditions.[126]

[edit] Testimonium Flavianum

[edit] The three perspectives
The complete works of Josephus, 1582

Paul L. Maier, and separately Zvi Baras state that scholars generally fall into three camps over the authenticity of the Testimonium: 1. It is entirely authentic, 2. It is entirely a Christian forgery and 3. It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus.[68][127]

Paul Maier states that the first case is generally seen as hopeless, given that a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the reference in all Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept the third alternative, i.e. partial authenticity.[68] Baras adds that the third position is more plausible because it accepts parts of the passage as genuine, but discounts other parts as interpolations.[127] Craig Evans (and separately Robert Van Voorst) state that most modern scholars accept the position that the Testimonium is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.[128][109]

While before the advent of literary criticism most scholars considered the Testimonium entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.[129] However, most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and scholars such as Geza Vermes have argued that the overall characterizations of Jesus in the Testimonium are in accord with the style and approach of Josephus.[129] [130][131][132][133]

[edit] Origen and Eusebius

The writings of Origen make no reference to the Testimonium. However, Louis Feldman has presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium (in a different form than quoted by Esebeius) and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone.[53] Feldman states that "The most likely assumption is, then, that the 'Testimonium' as read by Origen contained historical data in a neutral form."[53]

Zvi Baras also believes that Origen had seen the Testimonium, and that at the time of Origen the Testimoniumincluded no interpolations.[54] Baras believes that the Testimonium seen by Origen had a neutral tone, and included no negative tone towards Christians, and hence required no reaction from Origen.[54] Baras states that the neutral tone of the Testimonium seen by Origen was then modified between the time of Origen and Eusebius.[54]

[edit] Arguments in favor of partial authenticity
A copy of Josephus' Antiquities c. 1200

Some arguments in favor of partial authenticity rely on the language used in the Testimonim, e.g. that the passage calls Jesus "a wise man" which is not laudatory enough for an interpolator, neither is the reference to "amazing deeds".[129] According to Van Voorst, the statement "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him" has the characteristics of Josephus' writing and points to the continuation of Christianity. Van Voorst states that this sentence argues for the continuation of Christianity based on the love for its leader, not the reported appearances after his death.[129] Van Voorst states that it is hard to imagine that the phrase "receive the truth with pleasure" used in the Testimonium is the work of a Christian interpolator, for Christian writers generally avoid the use of the word "pleasure (ηδονή in Greek) in a positive sense due to its association with hedonism.[134]

Andreas Köstenberger states that there is strong evidence that parts of the Testimonium are authentic, and that the comparison of the Greek versions with the Arabic version (discovered by Shlomo Pines in the 1970s) provides an indication of the original Josephan text.[12] Köstenberger states that many modern scholars believe that the Arabic version reflects the state of Josephus' original text before it was subject to Christian interpolation.[12] Köstenberger adds that the passage includes vocabulary that is typically Josephan and the style is consistent with that of Josephus.[12] Köstenberger (and separately Van Voorst) state that the Josephus' reference to the large number of followers of Jesus during his public ministry is unlikely to have been due to a Christian scribe familiar with the New Testamant accounts, and is hence unlikely to be an interpolation.[12][134]

Regarding the arguments from silence about the scarcity of references to Josephus prior to Origen and Eusebius, Louis Feldman states that Josephus was ignored by early Christian writers before Origen because they were not sufficiently learned, and not sophisticated enough in historical matters.[135]

Chilton and Evans state that the general acceptance of the authenticity of the James passage lends support to the partial authenticity of the Testimonium in that the brief reference to "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities XX, 9, 1 "clearly implies a prior reference" and that "in all probability the Testimnium is that prior reference".[39] Louis Feldman views the reference to Jesus in the death of James passage as "the aforementioned Christ", thus relating that passage to the Testimonium, which he views as the first reference to Jesus in the works on Josephus.[95] Paul L. Maier concurs with the analysis of Feldman and states that Josephus' first reference was the Testimonium.[2] Geza Vermes also considers the "who was called Christ" reference in the James passage as the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities and states that the first reference is likely to be the Testimonium.[132][136]

Claudia Setzer, who believes in the authenticity of a kernel in the Testimonium, states that while "tribe is an odd way to describe Christians" it does not necessarily have negative connotations.[137] Setzer argues for the existence of an authentic kernel because "the style and vocabulary are Josephan" and specific parts (e.g. the use of "wise man&quotEye-wink are not what one would expect from a Christian forger.[137] Setzer argues that the Testimonium indicates that Josephus had heard of Jesus and the basic elements surrounding his death, and that he saw Jesus as primarily a miracle worker.[137] Van Voorst also states that calling Christians a "tribe" would have been very out of character for a Christian scribe, while Josephus has used it to refer both to Jewish and Christian groups.[129]

Alice Whealy, who supports the partial authenticity of the Testimonium, has rejected the arguments by Kenneth Olson regarding the total fabrication of the Testimonium by Eusebius, stating that Olson's analysis includes inaccurate readings of both the works of Josephus and Eusebius, as well as logical flaws in his argument.[138]

Craig Evans states that an argument in favor of the partial authenticity of the Testimonium is that the passage does not exaggerate the role played by the Jewish leaders in the death of Jesus.[128] According to Evans, if the passage had been an interpolation after the emergence of conflicts between Jews and Christians, it would have had a more accusative tone, but in its current form reads as one would expect it to read for a passage composed by Josephus towards the end of the first century.[128]

Geza Vermes believes in the partial authenticity of the Testimonium and the existence of a reference to Jesus within it.[130][132] Vermes states that if the Testimonium had been the work of a Christian forger, it would have placed blame on the Jewish leaders, but as is it is "perfectly in line" with the atitude of Josephus towards Pilate.[132] Vermes also states that the detached depiction of the followers of Jesus is not the work of a Christian interpolator.[132] Vermes calls the Jesus notice in the Testimonium a "veritable tour de force" in which Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness.[132]

[edit] Reconstruction of an authentic kernel
The Works of Josephus, 1879

Robert Van Voorst states that most modern scholars believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus.[107] However, he states that scholars are divided on the tone of the original reference and while some scholars believe that it had a negative tone which was softened by Christian interpolators, others believe that it had a neutral tone, in keeping with the style and approach of Josephus regarding the issue.[107] According to Van Voorst, scholars who support the negative reconstruction contend that the reference read something like "source of further trouble in Jesus a wise man" and that it stated "he was the so-called Christ".[107] Van Voorst states that most scholars support a neutral reconstruction which states "Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man" and includes no reference to "he was the Christ".[107] Van Voorst states that if the original references to Jesus had had a negative tone, the Christian scribes would have likely deleted it entirely.[107] Van Voorst also states that the neutral reconstruction fits better with the Arabic Testimonium discovered by Pines in the 1970s.[70] Van Voorst states that the neutral reconstruction is supported by the majority of scholars because it involves far less conjectural wording and fits better with the style of Josephus.[107]

Craig Blomberg states that if the three elements "lawful to call him a man", "he was the Christ" and the reference to the resurrection are removed from the Testimonium the rest of the passage flows smoothly within the context, fits the style of Josephus and is likely to be authentic.[139] Blomberg adds that after the removal of these three elements (which are likely interpolations) from the Greek versions the remaining passage fits well with the Arabic version and supports the authenticity of the reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.[139] Joel B. Green also states that the removal of some elements from the Testimonium produces a passage that is likely to be an authentic reference to the death of Jesus.[140]

James Dunn states that the works of Josephus include two separate references to Jesus and although there are some interpolations in the Testomonium, there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[15] Based on the reconstruction, the original passage would have read like:[15][140]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

In this passage, which is based on Meier's reconstruction, Jesus is called a "wise man" but "lawful to call him a man" and "he was the Christ" are removed, as is the reference to the resurrection.[15][140]

Geza Vermes has performed a detailed analysis of the Testomonium and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.[130][132] In Vermes' reconstruction "there was Jesus a wise man" is retained, but the reference to "he was the Christ" is changed to "he was called the Christ" and the resurrection reference is omitted.[132] Vermes states that the Testomonium provides Josephus' authentic portrayal of Jesus, depicting him as a wise teacher and miracle worker with an enthusiastic group of followers who remained faithful to him after his crucifixion by Pilate, up to the time of Josephus.[132]

[edit] Relationship to the Jewish Wars

A 15th century copy the Jewish War in Italian

Louis Feldman states that it is significant that the passages on James, John and the Testimonium are found in the Antiquities and not in the Jewish Wars, but provides three explanations for their absence from the Jewish Wars.[17] One explanation is that the Antiquities covers the time period involved at a greater length than the Jewish Wars.[17] The second explanation is that during the gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars (c. 70 AD) and Antiquities (after 90 AD) Christians had become more important in Rome and were hence given attention in the Antiquities.[17] Another explanation is that the passages were added to the Antiquities to highlight the power of the Pharisees, but he considers the last explanation less likely than the others.[17]

One of the arguments against the authenticity of the James passage has been that in the Jewish Wars Josephus portrays the High Priest Ananus in a positive manner, while in the Antiquities he writes of Ananus in a negative tone.[89] Louis Feldman rejects these arguments against the authenticity of the James passage and states that in several other unrelated cases the Jewish War also differs from the Antiquities, and that an interpolator would have made the two accounts correspond more closely to each other, not make them differ.[89]

The twenty year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities has also been used to explain some of the differences in tone between them.[141] Clemens Thoma provides an explanation for this based on the observation that Josephus may have learned of the details of the actions of Annanus in the twenty year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities, and thus avoided a positive tone when writing of Ananus in the Antiquities.[141]

John Painter states that the difference in the context for the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities may also account for some of the differences in tone between them, e.g. when writing of Ananus in a positive tone in the Jewish Wars the context was Ananus' prudence in avoiding a war and hence Josephus considered that a positive aspect.[142] However, when writing in the Antiquities about the actions of Ananus which resulted in his demotion from the High Priesthood, the context required the manifestation of a negative aspect of Ananus' character.[142]


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
More chuckles

 

Damasius wrote:

Continue to robotically parrot the same assertions in a hope that they will magically turn into facts.

 

I think this puts your arguments rather well...

 

Damasius wrote:

This quote is rather revealing and shows that you don't understand augustine's theology at all, theirs a huge ammount of work to be done here, I don't think I would be up to the task of education you and correcting the ammount of fail present in the mentionned passage.

 

Augustine believed humans were corrupt from birth. This concept of original sin from which no ultimate atonement could be found was his primary contribution to western theology. Original sin is a fallacious ad hominem. Original sin does not exist. It is a vile and reprehensible doctrine. 

 

Damasius wrote:

Tell you what, I noticed we are straying off topic, when I find the time il create a topic about the historicity of the bible, we can argue all you want then. Is it possible to come back to the original claims of this topic?

 

Sure, I agree. We are off topic. But not that far. You first argued Augustine's mawkish missive to god somehow highlighted the profound beauty that could only be found in the lord. In unbelief you suggested, whose doctrine was evolution, there was no meaning. I argued that Augustine's life's work was to destroy native human beauty and to replace it with his own self loathing. I'm not convinced in the slightest that Augustine's version of irredeemable original sin can be erased from a value judgement about him.  

Again I say, we are not in the position to make statements about ultimate meanings of existence. We might offer our subjective opinions but the frailties of our conceptions ensure these are without broader value in the universal context. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If partial interpolation of the TF is true explain this....

 

 

Damasius wrote:

 

[edit] Testimonium Flavianum

[edit] The three perspectives
The complete works of Josephus, 1582

Paul L. Maier, and separately Zvi Baras state that scholars generally fall into three camps over the authenticity of the Testimonium: 1. It is entirely authentic, 2. It is entirely a Christian forgery and 3. It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus.[68][127]

Paul Maier states that the first case is generally seen as hopeless, given that a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the reference in all Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept the third alternative, i.e. partial authenticity.[68] Baras adds that the third position is more plausible because it accepts parts of the passage as genuine, but discounts other parts as interpolations.[127] Craig Evans (and separately Robert Van Voorst) state that most modern scholars accept the position that the Testimonium is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.[128][109]

While before the advent of literary criticism most scholars considered the Testimonium entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.[129] However, most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and scholars such as Geza Vermes have argued that the overall characterizations of Jesus in the Testimonium are in accord with the style and approach of Josephus.[129] [130][131][132][133]

[edit] Origen and Eusebius

The writings of Origen make no reference to the Testimonium. However, Louis Feldman has presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium (in a different form than quoted by Esebeius) and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone.[53] Feldman states that "The most likely assumption is, then, that the 'Testimonium' as read by Origen contained historical data in a neutral form."[53]

Zvi Baras also believes that Origen had seen the Testimonium, and that at the time of Origen the Testimoniumincluded no interpolations.[54] Baras believes that the Testimonium seen by Origen had a neutral tone, and included no negative tone towards Christians, and hence required no reaction from Origen.[54] Baras states that the neutral tone of the Testimonium seen by Origen was then modified between the time of Origen and Eusebius.[54]

[edit] Arguments in favor of partial authenticity
A copy of Josephus' Antiquities c. 1200

Some arguments in favor of partial authenticity rely on the language used in the Testimonim, e.g. that the passage calls Jesus "a wise man" which is not laudatory enough for an interpolator, neither is the reference to "amazing deeds".[129] According to Van Voorst, the statement "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him" has the characteristics of Josephus' writing and points to the continuation of Christianity. Van Voorst states that this sentence argues for the continuation of Christianity based on the love for its leader, not the reported appearances after his death.[129] Van Voorst states that it is hard to imagine that the phrase "receive the truth with pleasure" used in the Testimonium is the work of a Christian interpolator, for Christian writers generally avoid the use of the word "pleasure (ηδονή in Greek) in a positive sense due to its association with hedonism.[134]

Andreas Köstenberger states that there is strong evidence that parts of the Testimonium are authentic, and that the comparison of the Greek versions with the Arabic version (discovered by Shlomo Pines in the 1970s) provides an indication of the original Josephan text.[12] Köstenberger states that many modern scholars believe that the Arabic version reflects the state of Josephus' original text before it was subject to Christian interpolation.[12] Köstenberger adds that the passage includes vocabulary that is typically Josephan and the style is consistent with that of Josephus.[12] Köstenberger (and separately Van Voorst) state that the Josephus' reference to the large number of followers of Jesus during his public ministry is unlikely to have been due to a Christian scribe familiar with the New Testamant accounts, and is hence unlikely to be an interpolation.[12][134]

Regarding the arguments from silence about the scarcity of references to Josephus prior to Origen and Eusebius, Louis Feldman states that Josephus was ignored by early Christian writers before Origen because they were not sufficiently learned, and not sophisticated enough in historical matters.[135]

Chilton and Evans state that the general acceptance of the authenticity of the James passage lends support to the partial authenticity of the Testimonium in that the brief reference to "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities XX, 9, 1 "clearly implies a prior reference" and that "in all probability the Testimnium is that prior reference".[39] Louis Feldman views the reference to Jesus in the death of James passage as "the aforementioned Christ", thus relating that passage to the Testimonium, which he views as the first reference to Jesus in the works on Josephus.[95] Paul L. Maier concurs with the analysis of Feldman and states that Josephus' first reference was the Testimonium.[2] Geza Vermes also considers the "who was called Christ" reference in the James passage as the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities and states that the first reference is likely to be the Testimonium.[132][136]

Claudia Setzer, who believes in the authenticity of a kernel in the Testimonium, states that while "tribe is an odd way to describe Christians" it does not necessarily have negative connotations.[137] Setzer argues for the existence of an authentic kernel because "the style and vocabulary are Josephan" and specific parts (e.g. the use of "wise man&quotEye-wink are not what one would expect from a Christian forger.[137] Setzer argues that the Testimonium indicates that Josephus had heard of Jesus and the basic elements surrounding his death, and that he saw Jesus as primarily a miracle worker.[137] Van Voorst also states that calling Christians a "tribe" would have been very out of character for a Christian scribe, while Josephus has used it to refer both to Jewish and Christian groups.[129]

Alice Whealy, who supports the partial authenticity of the Testimonium, has rejected the arguments by Kenneth Olson regarding the total fabrication of the Testimonium by Eusebius, stating that Olson's analysis includes inaccurate readings of both the works of Josephus and Eusebius, as well as logical flaws in his argument.[138]

Craig Evans states that an argument in favor of the partial authenticity of the Testimonium is that the passage does not exaggerate the role played by the Jewish leaders in the death of Jesus.[128] According to Evans, if the passage had been an interpolation after the emergence of conflicts between Jews and Christians, it would have had a more accusative tone, but in its current form reads as one would expect it to read for a passage composed by Josephus towards the end of the first century.[128]

Geza Vermes believes in the partial authenticity of the Testimonium and the existence of a reference to Jesus within it.[130][132] Vermes states that if the Testimonium had been the work of a Christian forger, it would have placed blame on the Jewish leaders, but as is it is "perfectly in line" with the atitude of Josephus towards Pilate.[132] Vermes also states that the detached depiction of the followers of Jesus is not the work of a Christian interpolator.[132] Vermes calls the Jesus notice in the Testimonium a "veritable tour de force" in which Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness.[132]

[edit] Reconstruction of an authentic kernel
The Works of Josephus, 1879

Robert Van Voorst states that most modern scholars believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus.[107] However, he states that scholars are divided on the tone of the original reference and while some scholars believe that it had a negative tone which was softened by Christian interpolators, others believe that it had a neutral tone, in keeping with the style and approach of Josephus regarding the issue.[107] According to Van Voorst, scholars who support the negative reconstruction contend that the reference read something like "source of further trouble in Jesus a wise man" and that it stated "he was the so-called Christ".[107] Van Voorst states that most scholars support a neutral reconstruction which states "Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man" and includes no reference to "he was the Christ".[107] Van Voorst states that if the original references to Jesus had had a negative tone, the Christian scribes would have likely deleted it entirely.[107] Van Voorst also states that the neutral reconstruction fits better with the Arabic Testimonium discovered by Pines in the 1970s.[70] Van Voorst states that the neutral reconstruction is supported by the majority of scholars because it involves far less conjectural wording and fits better with the style of Josephus.[107]

Craig Blomberg states that if the three elements "lawful to call him a man", "he was the Christ" and the reference to the resurrection are removed from the Testimonium the rest of the passage flows smoothly within the context, fits the style of Josephus and is likely to be authentic.[139] Blomberg adds that after the removal of these three elements (which are likely interpolations) from the Greek versions the remaining passage fits well with the Arabic version and supports the authenticity of the reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.[139] Joel B. Green also states that the removal of some elements from the Testimonium produces a passage that is likely to be an authentic reference to the death of Jesus.[140]

James Dunn states that the works of Josephus include two separate references to Jesus and although there are some interpolations in the Testomonium, there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[15] Based on the reconstruction, the original passage would have read like:[15][140]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

In this passage, which is based on Meier's reconstruction, Jesus is called a "wise man" but "lawful to call him a man" and "he was the Christ" are removed, as is the reference to the resurrection.[15][140]

Geza Vermes has performed a detailed analysis of the Testomonium and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.[130][132] In Vermes' reconstruction "there was Jesus a wise man" is retained, but the reference to "he was the Christ" is changed to "he was called the Christ" and the resurrection reference is omitted.[132] Vermes states that the Testomonium provides Josephus' authentic portrayal of Jesus, depicting him as a wise teacher and miracle worker with an enthusiastic group of followers who remained faithful to him after his crucifixion by Pilate, up to the time of Josephus.[132]

[edit] Relationship to the Jewish Wars

A 15th century copy the Jewish War in Italian

Louis Feldman states that it is significant that the passages on James, John and the Testimonium are found in the Antiquities and not in the Jewish Wars, but provides three explanations for their absence from the Jewish Wars.[17] One explanation is that the Antiquities covers the time period involved at a greater length than the Jewish Wars.[17] The second explanation is that during the gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars (c. 70 AD) and Antiquities (after 90 AD) Christians had become more important in Rome and were hence given attention in the Antiquities.[17] Another explanation is that the passages were added to the Antiquities to highlight the power of the Pharisees, but he considers the last explanation less likely than the others.[17]

One of the arguments against the authenticity of the James passage has been that in the Jewish Wars Josephus portrays the High Priest Ananus in a positive manner, while in the Antiquities he writes of Ananus in a negative tone.[89] Louis Feldman rejects these arguments against the authenticity of the James passage and states that in several other unrelated cases the Jewish War also differs from the Antiquities, and that an interpolator would have made the two accounts correspond more closely to each other, not make them differ.[89]

The twenty year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities has also been used to explain some of the differences in tone between them.[141] Clemens Thoma provides an explanation for this based on the observation that Josephus may have learned of the details of the actions of Annanus in the twenty year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities, and thus avoided a positive tone when writing of Ananus in the Antiquities.[141]

John Painter states that the difference in the context for the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities may also account for some of the differences in tone between them, e.g. when writing of Ananus in a positive tone in the Jewish Wars the context was Ananus' prudence in avoiding a war and hence Josephus considered that a positive aspect.[142] However, when writing in the Antiquities about the actions of Ananus which resulted in his demotion from the High Priesthood, the context required the manifestation of a negative aspect of Ananus' character.[142]

 

Let's stick with the TF. I'm not arguing about the mentions of James or John but the Jesus passage. Why is it that early Christian fathers, scholars and authors who quoted Josephus widely in defense of their arguments with pagan critics, mysteriously missed the TF Jesus passage? Even if the passage had been a less extravagant version of the current TF they would have quoted it first. Those who failed to quote it number early christian luminaries including:

 

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165)

 

Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch

 

Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament

 

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), Greek theologian, Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school

 

Origen (c. 185-c. 254), writes that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."

 

Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr

 

The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus not Jesus text

 

Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert

 

Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)

 

Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate

 

Methodius, saint of the 9th century – even this late fails to see it

 

Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople. Fails to quote Jesus text when quoting Josephus.

 

ED:  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Funny how all the theists

Funny how all the theists with big arguments and words and demands for evidence are all relegated to circular logic when forced to prove their own claims, or any realism to the bible (which was written by superstitious, ignorant primitives, like those who still believe in talking snakes and zombies today).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:so correct me

Damasius wrote:

so correct me if Im wrong but you seem to agree with the other poster while in a burst of candour admitting you don't know squat about augustine. Does your position strike you as intellectually honest?

You're wrong; I never claimed to agree that Augustine hated humanity. I meant it is plausible he condemned humans as inherently evil, as I've spoken with several Christians that do.

 

Damasius wrote:

Heres what we can do, you could read some selected oeuvres of augustine, I encourage you first to read the confessions of the saint, then you may form your own oppinion as to whether he was a human hating Bigot, or like I said someone who devoted his life to his fellow man and to search of the truth, a search that ofthen caused him great sorrow and pain.

Well, he was one of the first to come up with the doctrine of original sin. Also, he did state that men represent spirit, while women represent flesh.

 

Also, if you get the time, could you respond to my question about "deserving the unextinguishable flames of hell"?

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:  Look, I

Damasius wrote:

 

 

Look, I know its fun to try to sound smart because you trow around terms like '' question begging'' ''false premise'' etc etc, however I can assure you that I can show with relative ease that the claim that ''the universe is meaningless'' exists. Nihilists for example hold that view. With respect to this claim that ''the universe is meaningless'', I invited you to relfect: where does this come from?  You see? no question begging, so you crashed pretty badly here. 

A. I never said that I was a nihilist. B. I explained that in another post. C. Since you ignored my response to that post ( you do love to cherry pick and accuse others of it don't you ? I'll repost it here. I'll even put it into bold print for your benefit, English being a third language and all:

Why does life have to have an "ultimate" meaning ? Why is it so hard to grasp that I was born, I will die, 100 years from now no one will remember me ? So where do I find meaning ? Well, to quote Neil Armstrong : " We all have a finite number of heartbeats. I don't want to waste any of mine."

I have got one shot at life and only one, that is where I find my meanings.

I knew next to nothing about evolution until I started reading Dawkins and Gould. I had stopped believing in god before I knew anything about science. But, the more I read and understood about science, the more that it made sense.

I could turn this argument around and say that I find the life of theists and the worldview of theists to be a depressing existence. To live in the belief that some dictator in the sky wants you to praise it, thank it and worship it, your whole entire life for the sole purpose of living forever is depressing.

How pointless would it be to live your whole life on a whim that your going to live forever somewhere else ?

And even if my former faith were true, how could Paradise be any place of Paradise after 100 years ? 200 years ? 1,000 years  ? It would be futile and it would be pointless. Who would want that ? An eternity of existence ? Whether that eternity of existence was suffering (hell) or bliss (heaven) it would be a futile place.

(My suggestion would be to read up a bit more about the Nihilism, Naturalism, Humanism, Existentialism and all the other world views, rather than throwing Nihilism around. Also, philosophy is pretty much dead in the face of raw empirical evidence). We know where empathy, sympathy, compassion and all other emotions come from. We know about the disorders of sociopaths, psychopaths and other things. There is no philosophical question to human behavior. Science is a lot more sensible to follow when trying to find meaning to life).

Damsius wrote:

Now as for your ''false premise'' thing.... well what premise are you talking about? I invited to relfection, I didn't make any statements. I asked 1: WHERE DOES THIS IDEA THAT THE UNIVERSE IS MEANINGLESS ( NIHILISTS) COME FROM  and 2: WHERE CAN WE FIND ULTIMATE MEANING, by ultimate meaning here I grant that I should of perhaps led you trough the baby steps... When I mean ultimate meaning, I mean  meaning that does not end with death or the destruction of the physical world, a meaning that transcends it. For example, my meaning in life could be to becomes the worlds best hot dog cook, however thats not real meaning in the sense we are talking about.

best regards.

Several people have already replied to this. You ignored them all and simply keep question begging.  For a moment, let's just say that your right and there is meaning to the universe. How is it that it only is for the Catholics ( I notice you conveniently ignored my response about attacking Protestants, and you accuse me of not answering directly) and what about the Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, Islamics, Wiccans and all of the other religions of the world ? Where does there meaning come from ? (I know, I know, that you are probably going to accuse me of question begging, but let's take a look at your argument a little more closely). You came on here and stated that most Atheists derive meaning from evolution (false ) and you put forth the notion that if the universe was meaningless, where does the meaning come from ? THEN you go on to answer your own question with some assertions and a quote from Augustine, conveniently ignoring all of the other theists out there who are not Catholic.

THEREFORE. You are making the false dichotomy that the universe has to have meaning, and if that is true, it has to come from your viewpoint (you demonstrated that by attacking Protestanism).

Now you can feel free to not address these points all you want and get your feathers ruffled over it. But it doesn't change anything.

Best regards Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:    this

Damasius wrote:

  

 

 

this is yout appeal to emotions: ''So in other words, that is like having three or four children, abandoning them at birth, and saying that I love those three or four children very much. But, I only will reveal myself to the ones that are honestly looking for me ? BTW, I ferverently prayed on my knees every morning, attended early morning mass everyday, had Bible readings at the family dinner table, and was a good altar boy. I spent hours in the bell tower of my church on my knees ( I would not put my knees on the comfortable places to kneel, I wanted them on the concrete floor to cause discomfort while I prayed to venerate my love of god) praying to Mary and Jesus. I walked barefoot in the snow one time and never touched any meat on Fridays during Lent, I even considered the Franciscans at one time, because I thought there could be no greater glory than poverty, chastity, and denying oneself all of life's pleasures for god. Well, no god ever revealed itself to me. It was all a lie and a deception. And the Catholic Church loved keeping the guilt about my feelings of wanting sex with women heavy on my head, guilt for a white lie, guilt over stupid things. So, please explain that one to me since you have IGNORED my previous posts. Why no miracles, stigmata and revelations for me ?''

 

Well, I was sharing my own personal experiences with this (something that you do not have the courage to do) and drawing the analogy of a god that remains hidden from his followers. I was addressing a previous point of yours (read the last part of my above paragraph where I mentioned that you had ignored all of my previous posts) and saying that my personal experiences had lead me to Atheism. I was driving home the fact, that Augustine and I had nothing in common. Your OP stated and I am quoting you here : "In a sense our journey to God isn’t as different as Augustine‘s whose words are as actual today as they were thousands of years ago?" Where I responded that my experiences were quite different than Augustine's. I asked you to provide EVIDENCE to my responses ( a part that you ignored) and you responded with (I am quoting here) :

 

Let us think about the saints who were steadfast and lived for their beliefs, who were not affraid of entering the arena to be fed to the wild beast, and whom did not see this as somehow a sing of their being forasken by God, but rather they were animated by this hope,and were kept alive by it, until they were grind under the theeth of the wild beasts so that they may be found the true bread of christ! 

 

That is not evidence. That is just sermonizing. You cherry picked again.  You also stated :

what were you expecting? My advice to you would be not to give up, God has not forsaken anyone, and outside of him no peace can be found. I think your longing for the truth is what made you do all of these things, you thirsted and hungered for God. how does it follows that after all of this all of what you done that God was a ''Lie and a deception'' ? Yes their is prayer, but their is also  a life lived by the values of the Gospels. And yes their is doubt, sometimes a profound doubt a genuine doubt, but as the scriptures say, he who will hang on to the end, who amongst the sorrows of this life, amongst all of the pain, the doubt, will keep faith in God, in a crumbling world, who will keep this HOPE, only he will be saved, as it is said, faith is to believe what you do not see, the reward of this faith is to see what you believe. Therefore let us not lose hope, let us exit tis world, not as demoralized and doubting men, but as those who in spite of everything will have kept hope alive and burning, and it is this burning hope that will indeed save us.

Again, that is not evidence that counters my own personal experiences.

I am not asking for some sort of medal for those personal experiences, I asked for evidence to debunk the fact that god was listening to me during those times.

I'll give you a reason for why I shared those experiences. I shared them because every catholic that I have ever encountered always falls back on the "You didn't pray or try hard enough argument" until I bring up my past. Then they fall back on what you did : "You probably never believed. You gave up too easily. etc. etc." But they have no hard evidence to fall back on. Instead, they resort to that "god is wonderful and such". Which is exactly what you did.  That was my own anecdotal experiences. You failed to debunk that any of them were true. Instead, you did what everyone else does when I bring that up, you dodged the question by saying that you had to call into question my honesty on those experiences. You tried to switch and bait trick by emotional sermonizing. And you have the nerve to talk to me about dishonesty.

You asked for specifics about "wanting service to god". I told you that I wanted to become a Franciscan at one point. The Order of the Friars Minor, if you want the technical name. You ignored that part and simply reiterated the tired old argument of " not to give up and how you prayed for the same courage as the saints." Again. No evidence for anything.

 

 

Damasius wrote:

Now, when I answered with a heartfelt answer of my own why did you accuse me of ''appealing to emotions'' and then dismissed al of my answer based on this while not realizing this is precisly what you had done in the aformentionned paragraph? This is what is at core here and I think we have our finger on the problem. So once again answer the question, or Il view your double standarts as reprehensible and any credibility you might of had you will have lost.

I put out my own personal experiences for scrutiny and asked for specific evidence to debunk me. Again, you dodged the question by stating that you had to call into question whether or not I ever did any of those things. Which is what all Catholics do. So, I am challenging you once again to debunk the fact that there is no god and that he was never present.

Something  you can not do.

And you'll be interested to know that I had intellectual reasons for walking away from the faith.

Now, whether you are going to pick and choose what to respond to, or whether you'll bait and switch and then call me dishonest and cry off or not, remains to be seen.

I'm willing to bet that you'll do what every other catholic does, you'll make some accusations, declare victory and then say that you won't respond anymore.

Prove me wrong. Because I am more than happy to keep this going.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 323
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is onlineOnline
Damasius wrote:Jabberwocky

Damasius wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I somewhat understand how Christians can believe (hey, I once did!). However, it baffles me how anybody in the world that is not insane can believe that the bible is the entire literal truth. 

1. Contradictions: Without even examining anything outside of the book itself, it has so many internal contradictions that you must absolutely assert that only one of the conflicting verses are true. That makes the book impossible to be taken literally from start to finish. 

2. Science: There are many claims of a scientific nature in the bible that are very incredible, and likely false. There are others that we know are absolutely wrong.

3. History: There are many claims in the narrative that we know historically to not be true.

It really takes very little time to identify problems in all 3 categories. Let's do one each for now. 

1. Was Joseph Jesus' father? 2 Timothy 2:8: Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David

So yes, but Luke 1:34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Bonus: While we're on genealogy, who was Joseph's father? Heli, or Jacob?

2. The entire Genesis narrative on the creation of the earth is obviously wrong. The moon is not a light. "He made the stars also"....all hundreds of trillions (perhaps quadrillions of stars) just at the end of one day?? But spent most of the 6 days on the earth and surrounding area? Nowhere does it indicate that the sun has more in common with "the stars" than it does with the moon, and that the moon has more in common with the Earth than it does with the sun.

3. In several gospels, it tells of all sorts of phenomena that occurred during the crucifixion. Earthquakes, unscheduled 3 hour periods of darkness (by unscheduled, I mean the daytime). Nowhere outside of the gospels are these things documented.

Bonus: History was being documented in other parts of the world at the estimated time of the alleged world-wide flood. No such catastrophe was record. Care to say why?

 

 

WEll there ar esome important problems straight out of the gate, namely that I never said that the Bible was entire litteral truth, see my posts about interpretations. How can we take you seriously when you dont even extend the basic courtesy to actually READ whats postulated instead of the hollow simulacre thereof invented by you??

Ahh damn, may have posted this in the wrong thread as I had several open at the time (fallible as I am). Either way, I'll attempt to salvage this to the best of my abilities. 

Let's go simple then. Just answer who was Joseph's father. Heli or Jacob. Then, answer why there is a discrepancy in the genealogies. Then, answer why such obvious incompatible claims about the same thing, the genealogy of Joseph, don't count as a strike against the bible as an authority on anything.

Also, don't give me the "it's not meant to be taken literally" on this one. Both gospels specifically name names down one path of a family tree. Why are there only 3 names in common (with one in the wrong order)? Now if you say we should just ignore that part then I will agree with you, however that then gives me no reason not to ignore the rest of the whole damn book. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:This is where I

Vastet wrote:
This is where I disagree with you. Indisputable evidence of gods existence might require us to believe he exists, but not that he is good or worthy of worship. Not to have faith in him. That choice would still be ours. By denying us that choice, he denies us free will.

As no theist in multiple years has even had a response to this, let alone an argument, I'm going to use it more often.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Free will

Vastet wrote:
Vastet wrote:
This is where I disagree with you. Indisputable evidence of gods existence might require us to believe he exists, but not that he is good or worthy of worship. Not to have faith in him. That choice would still be ours. By denying us that choice, he denies us free will.
As no theist in multiple years has even had a response to this, let alone an argument, I'm going to use it more often.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtSM2oVy_E

 

Hey Vast, skip to 1.40...you'll laugh...

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
These are your refutations?

  

Damasius wrote:

The restof what you wrote is unsupported waffle, but il answer your quote mines of augustine.

Augustine wrote:

"How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!"

 

Dama wrote:

Its understandable augustine would react as such when back then the enemies of scriptures weren't a bunch of uneducated forum atheists but REAL MEN REPRESENTING REAL DANGERS, sending christians to grisly death in the arenas, cruely murdering christians because they were not sacrificing to the pagan God's, exiling, beating to death men whose only crime was to share the christian faith. So spare us all the pharisiaic posturing.

 

Augustine's words and yours directly conflict with the words of Jesus Christ. They prove both of you are morally inconsistent.

 

 

Damasius wrote:

Augustine wrote:

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”  

Dama wrote:

Understandable he would write such when we understand that ''mathematician'' did not mean what it means today, and that these individuals Augustine was reffering to was heretics and pagans who would use the science of the time to introduce all kinds of heresies in the christian faith, but don't let facts prevent you from engaging in these duplicitous quote mines...

 

This quote shows that Augustine, on the basis of no proof, demonised his opponents and claimed, laughably, that such people had made convenant with the devil.

 

Damasius wrote:

 

Augustine wrote:

"Nothing is so much to be shunned as sex relations." 

Dama wrote:

So fucking what?  whats so hard to understand in the fact that conspucience is BAD FOR CHRISTIANS?? DON't TWELL ME THIS CAME AS A SHOCK TO YOU?? Relations outside of marriage are wrong according to christians, and with all of the std etc a kid in kindergarten could understand why.

 

He's not talking about sex outside of marriage. He's talking about sex, full stop. 

 

Damasius wrote:

 

Augustine wrote:

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to ttry and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."  Still show us the whole context of that sentence will you, I can't wait to see yet another blatant quote mine revealed.

Dama wrote:

Heh, I would if rathered atomic fusion to remain nature's secret, at least we wouldnt have all the shit we have now in the middle east.

 

This is a curious piece of logic. The current shit in the middle east is largely caused by the teachings of a violent monotheistic cult that cannot allow its vapid assertions to be questioned without dissolving into toddler tantrums. 

 

Damasius wrote:

 

Augustine wrote:

“But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression.”

Dama wrote:

Funny how atheists get angry when told their going to a place they don't even believe in!

 

We get angry because believers swallow this violent immoral baloney on the basis of no proof. We you know that you, Damasius, in your secret heart, believe that all atheists deserve eternal immolation. Just because it says so in a book written by some one you don't even know, the words in which are open to endless conjecture. Perhaps I should write a book threatening christians with death if they don't worship Darwin and Hypatia. How would you like that? 

 

  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

  

 

We get angry because believers swallow this violent immoral baloney on the basis of no proof. We you know that you, Damasius, in your secret heart, believe that all atheists deserve eternal immolation. Just because it says so in a book written by some one you don't even know, the words in which are open to endless conjecture. Perhaps I should write a book threatening christians with death if they don't worship Darwin and Hypatia. How would you like that? 

 

 

Funny how when all else fails, they threaten you with eternal hell over a disagreement. Funny, they find the idea of a universe that is not tailored around them with all who do not think like them getting eternal punishment and have the nerve to ask us how we can cope with a "meaningless" universe ?

Far more compassionate to live in a "meaningless" universe than a sociopathic wet dream of an insane entity that wants things to praise it, thank it, fear it and love it, for their whole existence and despise everyone that is not a blind sychophant to their doggerel. But it gets better, those that are not sychophants, are going to be torured forever.

Sounds like a sick and twisted religion that all of these monotheists have.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Vastet wrote:
This is where I disagree with you. Indisputable evidence of gods existence might require us to believe he exists, but not that he is good or worthy of worship. Not to have faith in him. That choice would still be ours. By denying us that choice, he denies us free will.
As no theist in multiple years has even had a response to this, let alone an argument, I'm going to use it more often.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtSM2oVy_E

 

Hey Vast, skip to 1.40...you'll laugh...

 

I click the link, and...

You Tube
Beautifully redesigned for the big screen and your PS3.
Download the New App

Apparently I can't watch Youtube anymore without using the app. Pain in the ass. Now I'll have to message myself a link or some shit every time I want to watch something.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Bugger

Vastet wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Vastet wrote:
This is where I disagree with you. Indisputable evidence of gods existence might require us to believe he exists, but not that he is good or worthy of worship. Not to have faith in him. That choice would still be ours. By denying us that choice, he denies us free will.
As no theist in multiple years has even had a response to this, let alone an argument, I'm going to use it more often.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtSM2oVy_E

 

Hey Vast, skip to 1.40...you'll laugh...

 

I click the link, and... You Tube Beautifully redesigned for the big screen and your PS3. Download the New App Apparently I can't watch Youtube anymore without using the app. Pain in the ass. Now I'll have to message myself a link or some shit every time I want to watch something.

 

It's NonStampCollector's skit on free will.

Sufjan Jesus, with Kombi hair and leather jandals knocks at the door of a heart enmeshed in a creeping rose and announces he has arrived to save the occupant.

"What are you here to save me from," asks the occupant, querulously.

"From what I am going to do to you if you don't agree to let me save you," replies Sufjan Jesus, mildly.

"But there's no pressure. This freewill choice is entirely up to you..."

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

Straying a bit from the first object of the topic, I would like to add that the best argument for the existence of the christian God, is the resurrection of Jesus, who was not ressucitated as a corpse, or revived and then would die at a latter date, but is infact transformed by this miracle, he has entered a new life. Wether Jesus merely '' was'' or ''is'' depends on the ressurection. They are many historical facts that testify to the truth of the resurrection.

That is not an argument. That is a unevidenced belief. You may discuss whether or not it is a good or bad belief only. It was not a new idea at the time, rather one of the oldest actually. 

Quote:
One of reasons ( and they are many) why i think the resurrection is true is the fact that the disciples believed hard as iron that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and had appeared to them, whereas before they had been cowardly and scared: now they were rady to die for this beleif ( and indeed some did) Just think about it, what kind of transformative event would be required to create such a change in the disciples attitude? Nothing in jewish beliefs would of gave them the slightest idea that Jesus would indeed be risen from the dead by God.

Are you now going to claim Joseph Smith did not believe in his golden plates? Hubbard not in his Xenu? Even if you could establish their beliefs, if they existed as they passed without historical notice, what would the beliefs of people you never met matter? For all you know in their time they may have been considered drunks and crackpots.

Quote:
To quote scholar William Lane Craig on this:

1. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal.

But the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians and folks all the way to Persia did and that is well documented. What is your point?

Quote:
2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23). The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!

You are way behind the times. The Jews have been exonerated. He was executed by Rome for violating Roman law. Even your gospels say that. Heretic had nothing to do with it. I really dislike it when Christians don't know their own dogma but rather post just any old convenient crap.

Quote:
3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection at the end of the world. All the disciples could do was to preserve their Master’s tomb as a shrine where his bones could reside until that day when all of Israel’s righteous dead would be raised by God to glory.

Judean beliefs in an afterlife were not universal. In fact the Pharisees were agin it or maybe the Sadducees. I always get them backwards. Also apparently the Essenses did not have an afterlife.

As to burial customs, tombs were places where bodies were left for about a year for the flesh to rot away and then the bones were put into a bone box, ossuary, and that was disposed of in varied ways. That is what the passage about lending the tomb is all about. Don't you believers know anything?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Damasius wrote:
I for one think that God does not make available the kind of evidence that could be sufficient to establish his existence without a shadow of a doubt, scripture is very clear on this issue.

Hold on there. The subject was evolution. What you THINK is meaningless. You may have a testable hypothesis. Please describe the manner in which you tested and confirmed that hypothesis.

Quote:
If everyone were able to see God just like that, then we would not have any choice but to believe, and God does not work like that, he wants our love and out belief yes, but he wants it from a free choice, and I strongly believe that he who seeks him will find him, just as I did.

More of the same. You now claim to know a lot of fundamental things about this god of yours but you have yet to tell us how you confirmed the truth of those statements.

Lets stick with your opening positions. You need to explain in detail how you tested and confirmed those positions.

Its not rocket science and is agreed amongst many serious scientists that evolution does not make any claims about the nature of reality, questions like : ''why do I exist instead of not'' or ''what is the purpose of life'' are questions evolution does not and cannot answer, since it is not the purpose of science in general to answer these questions,

What kind of crap is that supposed to be? EVERYONE including rocket scientists agree in no case was evolution ever intended to address such issues.

Quote:
what I deplore is the attempts of some individuals to use the theory of evolution to answer such or similar questions.

I have never read a word by any evolutionist or any kind of scientist no matter how out of the field make such a claim. And I have been reading on the subject out of scientific interest since the 1950s. I sincerely doubt you have ever read such a thing but surprise me. CITE EXACTLY those who have. If you choose not to then please have the courtesy to admit you are bullshitting us.

Quote:
As for my knowledge about God, I have had a staunch catholic education,

No one is perfect. I, too, was so cursed. It took me until I was 13 to realize it was internally inconsistent to the point of being hopeless. What is taking you so long?

Quote:
I am still young ( 22 years old) and still have much to learn, everyday in my program of physical anthropology I learn  new and beautifull things about the world we live in, however I would be unsatisfied with my search for the truth

What is truth asked the doubting Pilate and turned before he could get an answer.

Quote:
if I would of only stopped there. I have come to the conclusion that humans need God as much as much as they need water & air and that inevitably a search for truth will lead to the truth of the gospels and to christ, in wich are all things.

You are either declaring a very large fraction of homo sapiens are not human or you are wrong. Scratch billions of polytheists who don't need your version of god. By best religion neutral estimates that is over 4 billion. Then if we get to your Jesus character scratch another 1.5 billion who don't need your idea of god.

Now before you get into the "need but don't know they need" riff you said like water and air but of which one immediately notices the absence of. At least go for a better analogy before replying.

Quote:
This is something that was recognized troughout history, this is why christianity has gone from the smallest mustard seed to what it is today.

Even Catholic ecclesiatical history says it happened because it became the official religion of the Roman Empire along with outlawing temples to other gods. It is all recorded as being political. That you believers ascribe political success to other factors is also a common political claim which you can see even today in US politics.

Quote:
Hence Aristides the philosopher, a greek philosopher says of the christians:

''Henceforth let the tongues of those who utter vanity and harass the Christians be silent; and hereafter let them speak the truth. For it is of serious consequence to them that they should worship the true God rather than worship a senseless sound. And verily whatever is spoken in the mouth of the Christians is of God; and their doctrine is the gateway of light. Wherefore let all who are without the knowledge of God draw near thereto; and they will receive incorruptible words, which are from all time and from eternity. So shall they appear before the awful judgment which through Jesus the Messiah is destined to come upon the whole human race.''

Considering he was a Christian himself (regardless of the origin century debate) one would hardly expect him to be criticizing himself. As to philosopher that is hardly of the Platonic school unless he was a drop out. It is premised upon nothing. It is all mere assertion and therefore indistinguishable from any other raving lunatic's ravings.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

...

And...  Where do you get all this info? ahh, the bible,  which was written by people with a vested interest in assuming christ was a superhuman...  Got any sources from around the time of christ for these events outside the bible?  I read this book the other day about a wizard who goes to a school called hogwarts and fights evil and i know it's true because it says so in the book i read about the wizard so it must be true... 

Your point rests on the premise that the Bible is not a historical source, however critics and a consensus of scholars disagree: the Bible historically relevant.

You should know by now, being in college and all, that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. It you can't make the argument move on to something else. As for the over use of "scholar" listen up. In the US I am a nationally recognized scholar. My name was published in the newspapers and everything. That it was as a National Merit Scholar back in High School is immaterial to the fact that I do qualify as a nationally recognized scholar in the US.

It is also true that when you refer to scholars you are also referring to me.

It is also true that all such claims are stupid and ridiculous as well as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. Make a case yourself or move on.

Quote:
If Harry Potter was purported as being a book of history then you might have a point,

Are you in a community college? Please, if you are going to post bullshit as least try to do a better job of it. The New Testament is of historical interest. Not a single thing in it claims to be a work of history. History was invented by Herodotus and first produced in our form by Thucydides. Nothing in the NT satisfies the meaning of a work of history. They are all significantly lacking in the requisite content. That some points of historical interest may be extracted from it makes it at best a resource not histories in themselves.

Quote:
however this is not not so, so the whole edifice of your claims fall appart. AS for a ''superhuman'' Jesus was not a ''superhuman'' he was fully God and fully human, this is one of the mysteries of God,

What you are actually talking about is something humans cannot possibly understand but can be used to fob off a political resolution to the competing views of the early Christians. It is very simple really. If you cannot know it is true how do you know it is true? Because some poorly educated religious fundies 1600 years ago said so? How did they know? You never met them nor the people who vouched for them. You have no idea what they were like. We can only judge them by their output which is gibberish. That it is gibberish is why the "mystery" thing is invoked. You have to be an idiot to fall for that.

Quote:
his reversal of proportions, the israelites were expectings a ''superhuman'' messiah instead they got a prophet who rides into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, in a way the kingdom of God is so depicted in our world, it is the smallest seed of mustard, yet who beleives will get a huge reward and life everlasting.

A prophet? Are you a secret Muslim? Why is it believers are so convinced they are right that they post just about any ad hoc gibberish and think they can get away with it. And please get your Catholic theology straight. EVERYONE gets life everlasting. The good guys by the lights of the times in which they die get it in the sight of god. Those that do not do not get to see god. Hell is theologically optional if you have not noticed. Dante was not a theologian.

As to the Judean messiah, they had several. They keep writing them off after the fact when they fail to deliver such a Bar Kochbah. They have had dozens. If there was a Jesus of the gospels then he was also are write off for his failure to deliver.

BTW, you do know the Galileans were conquered by the Judeans and forced to convert to Judaism do you not? And you do know Jesus was a Galilean. So tell me why the Judeans would have ever accepted a conquered and converted Galilean as the Messiah of the Judeans? There are very obvious reasons for such a rejections if in fact it was historical fact.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
The simplicity, the absence of embellishement in all of the ressurection accounts all attest to their veracity, also the accounts of the appearence of Jesus to the disciples are elaborated with such maladresse that this reinforces the point that they must have been true. No embellishment and special forms of style that are indicative of myth are present, it is the simple truth revealed.

You claim to have a Catholic education and you do not know the four resurrection accounts are mutually exclusive and cannot reconciled. What kind of crap are you trying to pull?

Atheists tend to know much more about religion than those who believe in them. You proving that with your every post.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

...

 

Your post demonstrate serious problems with your understanding of the Bible. I suggest you should try to do carte blanche and start over as this is painfull to read. First off I think it would be important for you to understand that the Bible apart from being the word of God, is also a reflection of the scientific knowledge of ITS time, so you miss the point when you talk about the science in  the Bible that was accepted by all scholars of the time, pagan etc.

That shitcans the whole infallible part. But please define EXACTLY how we can tell when the word lets off and local ignorance begins. Be sure to include how we can exclude the god's word parts from local ignorance. Science is not opinion. Science is fact. There was erronius fact. Largely there was lots of nonsense passing as fact and that mostly because no one gave a damn for lack of established worth.

Quote:
Secondly, what is all this babble about tectonic plates, lightning and God punishment,you have either never read the bible, or have all of your information from the bad sources. As for the discoveries that point towards '' God is not here'' thats just your idea, many scientists and many of us see the hand of God behind the natutral world,

You are free to name the scientists who do and cite the sources for your claims. That you choose to REPEAT BS you have been told is not of interest. Your faith is that there is not a gap small enough for your god of the gaps cannot hide in.

Quote:
if you dont see it as such then, dont waste another day dont waste another minute, open up your heart.

And close your mind? Opening a heart is major surgery. Heart is a Victorian metaphor. Your early Christians would have advised opening your liver.

Quote:
When we understand that the Bible is not a Book of science, but rather by course of its historicity, would reflect the scientific tought of the time, all of these ''contradictions'' dissolve, and we are left with a testimony of ancient humans whom already had their idea of science, changing and innacurate, such as science is today, they gave us another kind of knowledge, one that is forever, that does not change and that is pure truth.

Not only the primitive ideas of science but also the primitive ideas of a gods such as the ancient one, 4000 years old in the 1st c. AD of died and resurrected god.

Your attempted save sucks. Please come up with a better one. You cannot have infallible word and primitive ideas of only one aspect at the same time.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

Let us think about the saints who were steadfast and lived for their beliefs, who were not affraid of entering the arena to be fed to the wild beast,

These days even the RC admits that fed to the lions stuff is BS.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
Your point rests on the premise that the Bible is not a historical source, however critics and a consensus of scholars disagree: the Bible historically relevant.
Your point rests on the premise that the Bible is a historical source, however a fast growing number of critics and a consensus of scholars who aren't biased, to support the very religion they serve, disagree: the Bible is historically and scientifically irrelevant.

And it rests on the deliberate confusion between source and resource. A source, no. A resource, yes. But then Gilgamesh is a historical resource.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
Its your choice to reject God, In your other post you tried to say that he rejected you, I asked you ''what did you expect'' you never answered this question and instead said I was appealing to emotions etc.. funny how you feel justified appealing to your own emotions for rejecting God tough. I sure do hope you find peace.

You reject thousands of gods for no valid reason. What makes you think you are any different?

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
As I have said, a majority of scholars, amongst these some that are not even religious agree on the question of the historicity of the Bible, I could go on but this is not the topic of this thread, you diplay a poor understanding of how history is conducted tough.

Mere asserion is meaningless.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

It has nothing to do with the strawman you are constructing here. Look, I have things to do, by the look of it i would be wasting my time talking with you about such things as source material and about the general work of historians etc etc etc By the light of what you have written you are extremely ignorant of the topic at hand and not really worth anyones time of day, come back when your answers at least make some sense. '' assuming its true because you want it to be true'' '' the story doesnt make sense'' sigh.... I figured I was helping you by linking an easy read as you are most definately in need of it.

Your account name '' beyond saving'' is true and accurate, had I noticed it earlier i would not have wasted my time futher.

You CHOSE to be here. Stop griping about wasting your time. No one owes you a damn thing for your time. And your posts are rehashing crap dismissed centuries ago as facile BS. At least come up with something new.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
Ah, well its true that their is some dispute, however, a concensus of scholars agree that the Bible is historical in nature and not only a ''book of myth'' Back in the 70's the trend amongst certain scholars was to say that Jesus never even existed! however , views changed,and nowadays I can safely say that a consensus of scholars bith secular and religious view the bible as historical.

Cite the physical evidence for the existence of Jesus and STOP with the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. If you do not have physical evidence then stop making a claim YOU cannot support.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

Harley, there is a fundamental question you need to answer here, any failure to do so will have me regard you as dishonest namely: WHY DO YOU FEEL JUSTIFIED TO APPEAL TO YOUR EMOTIONS FOR YOUR LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD (THE WALKING IN THE SNOW, THE KNEES ON CONCRETE ETC) AND THEN GO CALL ME OUT FOR PERCIEVED APPEALS TO EMOTION? If you dont provide me with a good answer to this then il dismiss you as an intellectual lightweight and any futher contributions from you will be dismissed by the critical thinkers here.

So far you are alone. Where did that plural thinkerS come from? Do you not realize where you are posting?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
I didn't answer your post as I was in the middle of doing my readings and had little time to parse trough all of the posts. but hey il try to manage something. First your post contains somre rather naive contradiction. You  claim that: ''After all, his dislike of Saint Augustine stems from the Saint's condemnation of humanity as inherently evil.''  I had clearly explained to the poster that his understanding of augustine was mistaken, superficial, and downright wrong.

Since you are unaware of it let me fill you in. Augustine is the idiot who deliberately misrepresented the snake and fruit trees story in Eden story into the "doctrine" of original sin whereby all humans are guilty from birth. The idea did not exist before him. It is clearly unrelated to a full reading of the story. One can only suggest the man was either illiterate or he deliberately misrepresented the story to promote his damnable view of humans as born in sin.

If you have a better explanation AFTER reading the story I am interested in reading it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

The restof what you wrote is unsupported waffle, but il answer your quote mines of augustine.

He wrote:

"How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!"

Its understandable augustine would react as such when back then the enemies of scriptures weren't a bunch of uneducated forum atheists but REAL MEN REPRESENTING REAL DANGERS, sending christians to grisly death in the arenas, cruely murdering christians because they were not sacrificing to the pagan God's, exiling, beating to death men whose only crime was to share the christian faith. So spare us all the pharisiaic posturing.

As even Rome admits these days that it almost all BS why do you raise it? Even the entire Nero thing is largely discredited and at best for the mythology the numbers were in the hundreds.

Quote:
He wrote:

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”   Understandable he would write such when we understand that ''mathematician'' did not mean what it means today, and that these individuals Augustine was reffering to was heretics and pagans who would use the science of the time to introduce all kinds of heresies in the christian faith, but don't let facts prevent you from engaging in these duplicitous quote mines...

Geometer would be more like it and had nothing to do with what you talk about. They were not considered "scientists" nor anything like it. At best it represents his ignorance of the Platonic schools' teachings. The Christian conflict with Greek philosophers is the same as we here have with you. They invoked reason against blind, irrantional and baseless assertions of Christians. They actually had the temerity to demand Christian claims make sense which they did not. So once Christians had the political power they crushed the Platonists. If you don't have reason on your side use a sharper sword or oyster shell if you are cheap.
 

Quote:
"Nothing is so much to be shunned as sex relations." 

So fucking what?  whats so hard to understand in the fact that conspucience is BAD FOR CHRISTIANS?? DON't TWELL ME THIS CAME AS A SHOCK TO YOU?? Relations outside of marriage are wrong according to christians, and with all of the std etc a kid in kindergarten could understand why.

Bad? Without it there would be no Christians. As for the origin of the Christian condemnation we find that in Acts. It is a prohibition against going to brothels because of the risk of incest because they were selling their daughters to make ends meet. A rational person would expect a Christian condemnation against selling children but that is not the Christian way. In fact according to Leviticus it is lawful for Christians to sell their children regardless of to whom and for what purpose.

In fact the dowery, the bride price, the forced marriage as long as forced by the father, are still lawful within your Roman church. But please, just cite when Rome declared it unlawful and please make that citation from the 3rd c. AD or so, so we know it was NEVER lawful.

As to your STD crap, that was a punishment from god at best in Christian theology but not generally recognized as STD back when everyone did it. BUT please be the first to show WHEN it was first declared sinful for MEN not women and hopefully again from the 3rd c. or so. You really do not have to look very far to find priests with mistresses working their way up the chain of command and even to Pope without the least formal condemnation. NO EXCUSES permitted. If it is not damned for the Pope and the Bishops and Priests then it it not damned for layMEN. LAIDwomen yes but not for men.

You do not get to invoke double standards in matters of morality. It is either there or it is not, period.

Quote:
"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to ttry and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."  Still show us the whole context of that sentence will you, I can't wait to see yet another blatant quote mine revealed.

Heh, I would if rathered atomic fusion to remain nature's secret, at least we wouldnt have all the shit we have now in the middle east.

I was thinking more about the secrets of things like the STDs you mentioned and the cures for most of them. I might also suggest you learn the difference between fission and fusion.

Quote:
“But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression.” Funny how atheists get angry when told their going to a place they don't even believe in!

To paraphrase Mark Twain, Who would want to spend eternity with the likes of you? You folks do not know how to party.

The point is you keep lying. First life eternal is only through your Jesus and then you threaten the eternal hell for those who do not. I quote him, you tell me what he really meant, i.e. you BS me about what he really meant. How do you know? How did those who told you really know? How did those who told them who told you ad infinitum really know? They made it up of course.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
Listen, you can collect quotes that support your viewpoint all you want, the point is you are seeing only what you want to see, the stuff that supports your bias. I could make a list of quotes from scholars praising eusebius twice as long as the one you presented me here. This is not the pount, the point was that the Bible is historically relevant, meaning that a concensus of acholars agree that it is more that a book of myth, for example it is different from a harry potter book. ( a comparaison so beloved by atheists. YPOu have to understand that I am not arguing that everything is to be taken litterally true in the bible.

No you cannot. But prove me wrong and show you are not a bullshitter.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The "testimony" of Flavius Josephus

This is getting absurd. Please READ it in the interpolated form.

First off there is no way to get Messiah out of it in any modern sense.

Second, it would have been better to refer to the brother of James as a reputed "wonder worker and teacher" and left it at that because introducing later Christian theology makes no sense.

Third, for us ahistorians it does establish James as a real person (not saying he had a brother Jesus) who does figure in Acts and is therefore presumably a real person. This is a potential gold mine for serious skeptics. I have not had the time yet.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

harleysportster wrote:
Why does life have to have an "ultimate" meaning ? Why is it so hard to grasp that I was born, I will die, 100 years from now no one will remember me ? So where do I find meaning ? Well, to quote Neil Armstrong : " We all have a finite number of heartbeats. I don't want to waste any of mine."
And why is it so hard to grasp that the only reason we hang on to life is the biological survival imperative? Intellectually we try to find all kinds of explanations for this inate compulsion but in fact it is no different from avoiding pain. Avoiding pain is a good thing as it often leads to death. Avoiding death is a very good thing. That is why suicides work out painless deaths. And also why messy deaths like crucifixion are all about production values when mere death satisfies the theology.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Greetings, I have been

Greetings, I have been absent from the topic for a while, I had more important matterst to tend to, Il look at the answers and attempt a reply. to the last poster: first can you limit your responses to fewer posts? theirs no use spamming the topic with these multiple short posts.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
Why does life have to have an "ultimate" meaning ? Why is it so hard to grasp that I was born, I will die, 100 years from now no one will remember me ? So where do I find meaning ? Well, to quote Neil Armstrong : " We all have a finite number of heartbeats. I don't want to waste any of mine."
And why is it so hard to grasp that the only reason we hang on to life is the biological survival imperative? Intellectually we try to find all kinds of explanations for this inate compulsion but in fact it is no different from avoiding pain. Avoiding pain is a good thing as it often leads to death. Avoiding death is a very good thing. That is why suicides work out painless deaths. And also why messy deaths like crucifixion are all about production values when mere death satisfies the theology.

 

 

 

If suicide did not exists you would have a point, if it was a mere biological mechanism or biological law we could never choose freely to end our lives. The fact that this happens and is on the rise in many countries is an idication that their is more here that meets the eye than mere pain aviodance. as for your claim about painless suicide deaths, I had this friend who set himself on fire in his shed, he died 4 days later in the hospital from excruciating pain, so spare me the painless suicide trope. Also I didn't get a word of your last sentence I try to pay attention in my replies to the fact that your conception of religion is often warped but this is indéchiffrable.

 

Avoidance of pain is part of our nature as sensible beings, but it is in no way the driving force for our existences. Here is a question, if you could spend an eternity on a tiny barren planet, ( for never ending eternity) with only yourself, but with the promise you would never suffer physical pain, would you do it? In such a meaningless existence, would the absence of pain matter?

 

As for the rest of your mono sentence posts, they pertain to such things that have alreadybeen explained and answered by me and are not really worth the effort however tiny it may be.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The dishonesty of your

The dishonesty of your double standarts has become apparent troughout the topic, no matter what kind of gymnastics you try to engage in. The simple fact is that you felt justified appealing to your own emotions while trying to deny God, and accused my of ''appeale to emotions'' in my heartfelt response.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
Why does life have to have an "ultimate" meaning ? Why is it so hard to grasp that I was born, I will die, 100 years from now no one will remember me ? So where do I find meaning ? Well, to quote Neil Armstrong : " We all have a finite number of heartbeats. I don't want to waste any of mine."
And why is it so hard to grasp that the only reason we hang on to life is the biological survival imperative? Intellectually we try to find all kinds of explanations for this inate compulsion but in fact it is no different from avoiding pain. Avoiding pain is a good thing as it often leads to death. Avoiding death is a very good thing. That is why suicides work out painless deaths. And also why messy deaths like crucifixion are all about production values when mere death satisfies the theology.

If suicide did not exists you would have a point, if it was a mere biological mechanism or biological law we could never choose freely to end our lives.

Your god is a single parent who sent his son to earth on a suicide mission. Your dogma says that son was completely human yet he chose a suicide mission. Obviously there is such a choice for humans.

Quote:
The fact that this happens and is on the rise in many countries is an idication that their is more here that meets the eye than mere pain aviodance. as for your claim about painless suicide deaths, I had this friend who set himself on fire in his shed, he died 4 days later in the hospital from excruciating pain, so spare me the painless suicide trope. Also I didn't get a word of your last sentence I try to pay attention in my replies to the fact that your conception of religion is often warped but this is indéchiffrable.

One crazy who finally could stand you no longer does not change the vast majority of the cases. It does establish you have an effect on people. But we both know you are lying and it never happened so no point in pursuing it further.

Quote:
Avoidance of pain is part of our nature as sensible beings, but it is in no way the driving force for our existences. Here is a question, if you could spend an eternity on a tiny barren planet, ( for never ending eternity) with only yourself, but with the promise you would never suffer physical pain, would you do it? In such a meaningless existence, would the absence of pain matter?

As for the rest of your mono sentence posts, they pertain to such things that have alreadybeen explained and answered by me and are not really worth the effort however tiny it may be.

What does that have to do with your fantasy of a heavenly or hellish afterlife? Demonstrate they exist with physical evidence. Produce the physical evidence of any afterlife or stop wasting our time with it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
''Your god is a single

''Your god is a single parent who sent his son to earth on a suicide mission. Your dogma says that son was completely human yet he chose a suicide mission. Obviously there is such a choice for humans. '' This is how you see it, i can tell you that it is not how a christian sees it, let alone a catholic. This is what I mean when I say you have a warped view of christianity. Until you acutally do the leg work and actually find out what christians are truly postulating, then the above will be your own little strawman.

 

''One crazy who finally could stand you no longer does not change the vast majority of the cases. It does establish you have an effect on people. But we both know you are lying and it never happened so no point in pursuing it further. '' So in any account, you have concluded I was lying without a shred of evidence? In other words you hold that claim by faith. Aside from calling my friend: a human being who suffered his whole life a ''crazy''. I guess you have  to tinker with both your moral compass and your fact cheking compass.

 

 

''Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel''

I could go ahead and explain why this is an ignorant over simple and bigoted position but this thread is not about this.

 

''What does that have to do with your fantasy of a heavenly or hellish afterlife? Demonstrate they exist with physical evidence. Produce the physical evidence of any afterlife or stop wasting our time with it. '' This made me laugh. didn't you notice you are asking for physical evidence for something supernatural, that is: outside the physical realm?  Let me put this another way: its as If I had asked you : prove to me that all forks and cutelry are made of cheese or stop wasting our time with it.

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 323
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is onlineOnline
Damasius wrote: If suicide

Damasius wrote:

 

If suicide did not exists you would have a point, if it was a mere biological mechanism or biological law we could never choose freely to end our lives. The fact that this happens and is on the rise in many countries is an idication that their is more here that meets the eye than mere pain aviodance.

How does plugging in god help here though? Since there is that closed loop of suicide being a mortal sin, all that killing yourself to end suffering would accomplish, is throw you into worse (and eternal) suffering. Also, as far as why people do, our brains were NOT created, but they evolved. They get things wrong. That's about it. It's tragic, but true. 

Damasius wrote:

as for your claim about painless suicide deaths, I had this friend who set himself on fire in his shed, he died 4 days later in the hospital from excruciating pain, so spare me the painless suicide trope. Also I didn't get a word of your last sentence I try to pay attention in my replies to the fact that your conception of religion is often warped but this is indéchiffrable.

 

Once again, our brains aren't perfect. In fact, my reasoning can over-ride my instincts. Ever grab a hot cup of tea, and halfway to the table realize it's burning your hand? You buckle up, and find the nearest surface to lay it down gently, because you know that dropping it will likely just burn your legs/feet. Extremely tragic about your friend, though. 

Damasius wrote:

Avoidance of pain is part of our nature as sensible beings, but it is in no way the driving force for our existences. Here is a question, if you could spend an eternity on a tiny barren planet, ( for never ending eternity) with only yourself, but with the promise you would never suffer physical pain, would you do it? In such a meaningless existence, would the absence of pain matter?

 

Certainly despair and loneliness can be painful. If you could guarantee the no pain part, then perhaps. We do also seek pleasure on the other hand, so it would be a difficult decision to make, and I would need details on going to live on this planet vs. not. Although I guess only a god could predict the future in such a way, and certainly has the power to change every pleasure vs. pain scenario, but for some reason he doesn't. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
The dishonesty of your double standarts has become apparent troughout the topic, no matter what kind of gymnastics you try to engage in. The simple fact is that you felt justified appealing to your own emotions while trying to deny God, and accused my of ''appeale to emotions'' in my heartfelt response.

Fuck your heart and the pacemaker it rode in on. No one gives a damn about you or your tender emotions. If you don't like it, stay away.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

''Your god is a single parent who sent his son to earth on a suicide mission. Your dogma says that son was completely human yet he chose a suicide mission. Obviously there is such a choice for humans. '' This is how you see it, i can tell you that it is not how a christian sees it, let alone a catholic. This is what I mean when I say you have a warped view of christianity. Until you acutally do the leg work and actually find out what christians are truly postulating, then the above will be your own little strawman.

The average Catholic has no idea what is in Catholic dogma. I recited the dogma. Jesus came to die for "our sins." Therefore it was a suicide mission. For god so loved the world he gave his -- meaning the single parent SENT his son on a suicide mission.

I note you are not making the slightest attempt to present the official dogma. I note you lie in calling it postulating instead of official, eternal truth. Not a postulate but established fact as it is dogma.

Quote:
''One crazy who finally could stand you no longer does not change the vast majority of the cases. It does establish you have an effect on people. But we both know you are lying and it never happened so no point in pursuing it further. '' So in any account, you have concluded I was lying without a shred of evidence? In other words you hold that claim by faith. Aside from calling my friend: a human being who suffered his whole life a ''crazy''. I guess you have  to tinker with both your moral compass and your fact cheking compass.

I conclude it based upon the rarity of self-immolation as a form of suicide and the vanishingly small chance that you would just happen to have a friend who did it as a counter-example to my assertion of the most common choice of painless means. What are the odds? But, got a name, date and place? The local news probably has archives to search. I'll give it a shot.

Cue indignant refusal to sully his name by telling me.

Quote:
''Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel''

I could go ahead and explain why this is an ignorant over simple and bigoted position but this thread is not about this.

I am quite certain you are completely ignorant of the absentee owner laws of 1949 and 1951 and the fact that anyone who tried not to be absent was murdered as an infiltrator or curfew violator. I could also point out the abandoned property stored in a warehouse with a capacity greater than Noah's Ark as when all the property was stored in it, it was still mostly empty.

Quote:
''What does that have to do with your fantasy of a heavenly or hellish afterlife? Demonstrate they exist with physical evidence. Produce the physical evidence of any afterlife or stop wasting our time with it. '' This made me laugh. didn't you notice you are asking for physical evidence for something supernatural, that is: outside the physical realm?  Let me put this another way: its as If I had asked you : prove to me that all forks and cutelry are made of cheese or stop wasting our time with it.

If there is no physical evidence then there can be no knowledge. Knowledge has a meaning and it is not the same as faith. As you are merely expressing your personal belief WHY are you expressing your personal belief when you know it cannot possibly have any meaning to anyone but you?

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Athropologists, historians, mythographers, and a whole host of o

 Re :: Athropologists, historians, mythographers, and a whole host of others . .

Atheistextremist wrote:

Damasius wrote:

I dont give a shit what your background is. Once again wheres the substance? Ill take these as weasel words given your past shortcomings. 

 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Ad hominem, ad hom, ad hom, &c &c, appeal to force with trollishness, appeal to consequence on a bed of bald assertion...

 

Damasius wrote:

Il pour any scorn and contempt as you are guilty of discoursive criminality, cherry picking data, citing only authors that agree with your preconcieved atheist narrative and also blatlantly quote mining.

 

That’s your decision, Damasius. Personally, I’m not much fussed. I'm not offended when I'm insulted by people I don't know. But I would argue that there’s a point at which what you say is fallacious cherry-picking becomes a weight of evidence. Again, I say, Augustine hated his humanity. He felt imprisoned by it, polluted by it. Like a true Platonist he divided humanity into souls and bodies. 

Damasius wrote:

The only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave, and the unextinguished flames of hell.

  Atheistextremist wrote:

For the record, Damasius, I don’t believe you deserve to be burned in the fires of hell, to be tortured eternally. And I would never, ever, worship an undefined and invisible being who, on the basis of arbitrary justice enforced without precedent, planned to torture and kill you.

  
 

 


 Athropologists, historians, mythographers, and a whole host of others (would NEVER EVER) . .

Damasius wrote:


Once all these facts make their appearance one is bound to be brought back to earth with the ideas we entertain about our divine nature. Pressing questions make their appearance: what kind of fall could have caused us then to be visited by Christ? What form would of this fall taken?

  Careful space-cowboy! There is a record of what you write. Wouldnt want you to define yourself into a 'Heretic'.

 

 


 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
would like to demonstrate thanks to this thread that the concept of the fall is actual and true

I am sure you would like to. But you cant.

Damasius wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

First, lest start by brushing a picture of our origins. The first mammal appeared some 70 MYA, in the form of a small nervous rat looking creature.

Damasius wrote:

IM talking about the fist modern mammal that would give rise to the primates etc etc, 70 MYA's ago.

But that is not what you stated at all, you said the first mammal, the first mammal appeared between 220 and 180 MYA, the first primates appeared some time between 80 to 70 MYA, with the primates which humans eventually evolved from some 60 MYA. So yeah you never said anything about modern mammal. Second you completely ignored my other statement about the mistake you make about the fall, if man evolved, then he was not created in the garden of eden and therefore did not have a fall from grace.

 

Answering that question was the point of my whole thread, I did this by explaining the fall. Try to pay attention.

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

Anyone has simply to read the myths of any belief system to realize that the fall is present.

 

 

And I think this sentence best expresses both your arguments and our rejection of them. 

 

Damasius wrote:
In almost every culture there is an account of a certain faII . .

 

  Dana wrote :

  Really ?!?  Unless I am not reading you correctly. You are mistaking either a cataclysm sent to wipe-out people or a myths about mankind missing out on Eternal/perpetual life; Whichever term you use, Please, do not however, try to pass off a Fall as ever associated with each of them. Athropologists, historians, mythographers, and a whole host of others would never (would NEVER EVER) be comfortable in a gross misrepresentation. It indicates a lacking in sort(-ing)  through things with such glaring errors. Worth a much needed consideration for the sake of the credibility and call(-ing,s) into question if a suggestion is correct or trustworthy. What does such a statement suggest ? Within the blatant conflation of either a 'Fall' with a Deluge/cataclysm myth or just missing receiving eternal life from the gods with a 'Fall' in various cultures. Anyone who continues 'to not giving a sh1t' as your words speak, though more your actions. And  you're not  even  rightly representing the actual stories found in most cultures, in this, (implying clearly an impoverished ability to get details straight), one willing to ever distort things, and nothing more. Or thinking you wouldnt get called on it, bub. Like most OP you have allowed too many swiping statements to be correct, consciously or not now that I couldn't say. It does call into question any other suggestion when you conflate things.