|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2002 : 14:23:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Were you there when the NT was written by whoever...whenever?I doubt it.Then how is it you claim ANY information about it?One way or another you have to trust[ie 'faith'] your sources.Wether your Faith is "blind"is how reliable your source is and how "reasonable" your theory.AS far as calling My friend Lenord Nemoy oops I mean Slater "a liar" I don't agree.However, just in case something I said could be taken that way let me set the record straight i don't accuse Slater of lying(maybe taking one to tokes on that 1960's hash pipe he still has and staring into that crystal ball to long,but lying never).
Too bad you missed the last line of Garrette's post above 
Your attack of Slater's character rather than actually coming up with an argument is rather sad. I should have just deleted the post but I think leaving it is punishment enough.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 15:21:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary.
Pay attention all. A finer instance of pot-kettle-black, we may never see.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 16:16:38 [Permalink]
|
I don't think that I can add abything usefull to the debate regarding Darwin's point. To be honest I am not really sure what his point is.
About Slaters theory I can say something even if I am still have to look a lot up.
What irritates me is that there appears to have already been somthing there to disagree about. People came from all over with preconcived notions what christianity was. That would suggest that something was already there at that point.
I agree that Christianity had not exiseted Constantine would have to invent someting like it. But that does not mean that it did not. Instead of creating something out of thin air, he could aswell have taken a minor already existing cult and reformed it to suit his wishes.
The pre-christianity did not necssearily have to be a lot like what he was trying to create or be imensly popular among the people.
A minor very diverse cult could have been exactly what one would choose in such a situation to build a state religion on.
300 years of missing documents? Just because it evolved naturally before 325 does not mean that it really was 300 years old. One of it's many roots could have been in something from 300 years ago.
A small and sufficient obscure cult would ho some way to explain why it did not leave much traces.
There also is the point that after Niceae, older material that did not agree with the decision would have been destroyed. If they killed people because they had the wrong ideas about what christianity was, they surely would not think twice about destroying any other sources that disagreed with them.
Hard to say what was there of christianity before constantine, but nothing feels a bit extreme to me.
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 20:52:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary. quote:
That's just plain silly.
Surely I don't need to explain the difference between a reasonable theory based on evidence, and blind faith?!
You're claiming that Slater is a liar. What is your reasoning for this?
(And the Bible doesn't "show" anything.)
Were you there when the NT was written by whoever...whenever?I doubt it.Then how is it you claim ANY information about it?One way or another you have to trust[ie 'faith'] your sources.Wether your Faith is "blind"is how reliable your source is and how "reasonable" your theory.AS far as calling My friend Lenord Nemoy oops I mean Slater "a liar" I don't agree.However, just in case something I said could be taken that way let me set the record straight i don't accuse Slater of lying(maybe taking one to tokes on that 1960's hash pipe he still has and staring into that crystal ball to long,but lying never). 
quote:
To Slater and anyone else who was offended by my comment about the"hash pipe"ect... I'm very sorry.Ihad joked before about the "crystal ball" and the
IN SEARCH OFtype of speculation concerning XIAN"S origins but it mostly tounge and cheek and I did mean to disparge Doc by it.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 23:03:06 [Permalink]
|
People came from all over with preconcived notions what christianity was. That would suggest that something was already there at that point.
That's an excellent point. I'm a little iffy on my dates but it looks like around four years passed between the battle with Maxentius where Constantine announced Christianity and Nicaea where he defined what Christianity was. Plenty of time to get your story together. Remember although the losers wound up face down in their desert, the winners became unbelievably rich and powerful. There was plenty of positive (and negative) incentive to please the new Emperor.
Instead of creating something out of thin air, he could as well have taken a minor already existing cult and reformed it to suit his wishes.
The pre-christianity did not necssearily have to be a lot like what he was trying to create or be imensly popular among the people.
Very true. Your argument, though, still leaves him as the creator of Christianity as my argument does. The only thing that changes is what he created it out of. It still goes back to Mithraism becoming Christianity and one must assume that, Mithraism being so popular, whoever did it knew he was doing it. In your version someone else brings it part way there, and Constantine finishes the job. My version, Constantine has his people do it completely.
An interesting distinction.
The problem with finding out which one of us is correct is that all the evidence has been destroyed.
But we can agree, I take it, that he created Christianity as we know it, even if he didn't personally create the original Christianity.
An interesting, but sticky, point. There already was another (Pagan) religion called Christianity. Popular in the first century, it had faded by the fourth.
300 years of missing documents? Just because it evolved naturally before 325 does not mean that it really was 300 years old. One of it's many roots could have been in something from 300 years ago.
That's making the assumption that there was somebody named Jesus in 35CE that it is based on. Since there is no historical record of Jesus and since the story of "Jesus" was 700 years old in 35CE we can't make that assumption. We have no way of telling when it started.
In my version there would be no missing documents, because there never would have been any documents. Your version would require the documents to have been destroyed. The Romans would have had no trouble doing that. That gives us two scenarios that would lead to the same facts that we possess.
There also is the point that after Niceae, older material that did not agree with the decision would have been destroyed. If they killed people because they had the wrong ideas about what christianity was, they surely would not think twice about destroying any other sources that disagreed with them.
That's my whole point with Bishop Eusebius. His official job was to "correct" the history of Christianity. You have to look this guy up in the library, he'll chill your bones. He had destroyed all the "Gnostic" and other "heretical" bibles, rewrote a number of secular works. Every book, letter and note that the early church fathers wrote comes from his workshops. We have no way of telling if they are copies of earlier originals or are themselves originals.
Even if it were a smaller obscure cult you would expect to find a scrap of something.
And remember the "wrong idea about what Christianity was" was not wrong because it wasn't historically correct. It was wrong because it did not fit in with the Emperor's desires. And the Emperor didn't believe it anyway, as shown by his never converting.
Hard to say what was there of christianity before constantine, but nothing feels a bit extreme to me.
Only because you've been told all your life that it dates from the resurrection of Christ.
But there wasn't any Christ. With no Christ somebody had to make this thing up. It claims to have evolved from Judaism but it has almost nothing at all to do with the Jewish religion. Not the same ceremonies, not the same Sabbath, not even the same God. The Christian God is triune, exactly like the Emperors of Rome at the time I am talking about. Three Caesars in the West and three in the East. Each of the three was Caesar separately. Together they were Caesar. Being three kept "absolute power from corrupting absolutely" for Caesar and for God.
The Jews are monotheists, their God is nothing like this one in personality or in form.
All I am doing is tracing the physical evidence back, and that's very easy to do because from 325 on they create a tremendous amount of documentation and artifacts.
Before 325 there is nothing.
There are lots of things they claim date from earlier but none of them pan out. They are all "copies"--I put that word in quotes because we have no way of knowing if they are copies or fabrications.
But would they lie? Don't they venerate "truth." Look at the story they are feeding you. A magic Jew, kingdom in the clouds, devils in the pit of Hell, frogs that turn into princes when a beautiful princess kisses them.
Okay, not that last one, I was checking to see if you were paying attention. But you'll admit it's not very different from the stories they do tell. Walking on water, reanimated corpses (yech).
So, yeah, those guys have no trouble lying. Eusebius even gloated about his lying in print.
Then you have the 80 year old "Augusta" (Saint) Helena. When she traveled to what was left of Israel to tour the sacred sites nobody who lived there had ever heard of them. An Angel had to appear to her each night and bring her messages from Jesus telling her where everything she wanted to see was. Lucky thing for the tour director.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 23:06:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ihad joked before about the "crystal ball" and the IN SEARCH OFtype of speculation concerning XIAN"S origins but it mostly tounge and cheek and I did mean to disparge Doc by it.
I see, you're telling us that you can prove that there is a God, then?
Go ahead, prove it.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Edited by - slater on 02/21/2002 23:07:43 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 23:11:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary. quote:
That's just plain silly.
Surely I don't need to explain the difference between a reasonable theory based on evidence, and blind faith?!
You're claiming that Slater is a liar. What is your reasoning for this?
(And the Bible doesn't "show" anything.)
Were you there when the NT was written by whoever...whenever?I doubt it.Then how is it you claim ANY information about it?One way or another you have to trust[ie 'faith'] your sources.Wether your Faith is "blind"is how reliable your source is and how "reasonable" your theory.AS far as calling My friend Lenord Nemoy oops I mean Slater "a liar" I don't agree.However, just in case something I said could be taken that way let me set the record straight i don't accuse Slater of lying(maybe taking one to tokes on that 1960's hash pipe he still has and staring into that crystal ball to long,but lying never).
quote:
To Slater and anyone else who was offended by my comment about the"hash pipe"ect... I'm very sorry.Ihad joked before about the "crystal ball" and the
IN SEARCH OFtype of speculation concerning XIAN"S origins but it mostly tounge and cheek and I did mean to disparge Doc by it.
quote:
To Garrette,I know it will suprise you but I dispute in your first set of 9 #'s 2,3,4,6?,7,9?.Also as far as folks who insist on denying the Reality of our own existence I usuly stick we Aristotle and refuse to argue with myself
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 04:55:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Garrette,I know it will suprise you but I dispute in your first set of 9 #'s 2,3,4,6?,7,9?.
Well, it doesn't really surprise me, but it does puzzle me. Let's take them one by one:
2. The earliest extant version of the NT post-dates 300 CE
Simply saying "I dispute this" is insufficient. Provide a counter-example that is not a copy from 300 CE or later.
3. The extant version of the NT coincides with the Ecumenical Council of Niceae
See my response to #2.
4. The verifiable proliferation of christianity throughout the roman empire postdates the EC of N.
Again, this ties in with the documentation. Show me something from before the EC of N that demonstrates christianity's popularity, or at least 'fame' prior to the EC, preferably from the 1st century.
6. All major religious events, miracles, prayers, personages and speeches have specific antecedents in other cult religions, most notably Mithraism and the beliefs of Galacia.
Have you checked out any of the sources given in this thread, and especially in the other religion thread that was linked to? Either you have not or you are saying they are all mistaken or dishonest. Is that what you're saying about Joseph Campbell's works?
7. Many significant, crucial, and pivotal political/social events described in the NT have no external corroboration; at least one major political figure is not positively identifiable.
Show me something besides the NT that corroborates:
a. The census that brought Mary and
Joseph to Bethlehem.
b. That Nazareth exists.
c. That Herod existed.
d. That there was a governmentally-
sponsored slaughter of male infants.
e. That there were earthquakes that
coincided with the resurrection.
9. The crux of the NT is a series of miraculous occurrences, loosely defined as events inconsistent with nature and science as known today.
This is the part that really puzzles me. Are you saying that there are no miracles in the NT? If so, why are you defending your christian belief, and how? If not, then what's your problem with my statement?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 06:17:44 [Permalink]
|
I wish I had more time to find the sources, but bedtime awaits. Anyway, I was under the impression that Nazareth existed after the 1st Century, but perhaps not during the supposed time of the Messiah.
Also, didn't Josephus mention the Herodian monarchs? I don't want to seem like I am nitpicking, but I am really very interested in this one. I have always taken the last monarchs of Judea as a given, even in extra-biblical circles.
Thanks, I'd appreciate any info here.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 06:39:48 [Permalink]
|
Wait a minute! I've been pretty much ignoring this thread because I don't have the time or patience to read the entire list of posts. I did, however, just catch a snippet of Darwin's arguments. Of course none of us were there two thousand years ago, but the lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence for anything. So, why use history as a way of finding the truth here, when the Bible is its' own worst enemy.
Therefore, I would like to chalenge Darwin to read the books of Matthew and Luke while taking detailed notes of persons, places, sequences, and events, and then come up with a single coherent story of the life of Christ wthout leaving any events out, or adding speculation. If he can then give a reasonable case for the "Divine Truth" of just these two gospels, then even I may consider being 'born again in Jesus.'
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 10:05:11 [Permalink]
|
Anyway, I was under the impression that Nazareth existed after the 1st Century, but perhaps not during the supposed time of the Messiah.
Technically Nazareth doesn't exist at all. There is a town now called Nazareth but it is modern and only named for the one in the bible.
I've heard of four different archeologists who make separate claims to have found Nazareth (in 4 separate locations). A web search will yield photos of different piles of rock.
Also, didn't Josephus mention the Herodian monarchs? Yes, but Joe's work was a big part of the "correcting" that Eusebius did of church history.
What's in contention is Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents."
It never happened. Though the story itself dates from almost 1000 BCE.
Of course none of us were there two thousand years ago,
None of us, including Darwin. A fine point he seems to miss. His own argument disqualifies him from saying what happened then.
I would like to chalenge Darwin to read the books of Matthew and Luke while taking detailed notes of persons, places, sequences, and events, and then come up with a single coherent story of the life of Christ wthout leaving any events out, or adding speculation.
Oh you mean things like one book putting Jesus in the middle of a devil infested desert three days after he began his ministry and another having him cater a wedding reception?
This is one of my arguments in favor of the NT being the result of a competition rather than evolving over time. In these 2 stories "both the Canadians and the Russians won the gold". The changing the water into wine and boozing it up at a wedding is one of the miracles of Dionysus (a.k.a. Bacchus) while the battling with desert devils is Mithrain. However the renunciation of the devil's temptations of worldly wealth and acclaim is a carbon copy of what the Buddha went through with the Creator of the World Illusion, Kama-Mara,(the name means "Life-Desire and Fear of Death.") When the rest of the Buddha based Christianity went into the trash with The Gospel of Thomas that single part was kept. Note how nothing remotely like it happens again in the Bible. If they had kept "Thomas" it would have fit right in with it's stories.
The NT was put together by committee (Nicaea) and it shows.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 18:49:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary.
Funny, I was just reading an article on www.positiveatheism.org, and came to this:
quote:
(8) Equivocation.
"You know sometimes words have two meanings," as the song goes. [77] Equivocation occurs when a person changes the meaning of a word during the course of the discussion. This is commonly done with religious terms.
Theist: "I have faith in the lord Jesus Christ, and because I have this faith he will take me to Heaven when I die."
Atheist: I do not have such faith, and don't even understand the concept. Can you give me a reason [78] for your faith?"
Theist: "Of course you have faith. You have faith that this building we're in will not fall down on you. You have faith that your spouse is not cheating on you. Why, you even have faith in evolution!"
The theist (aside from dodging the question) is trying to convince the atheist that "faith" is nothing unusual, that even atheists have faith. However, according to mainstream Christian teaching, the "faith unto salvation" that one has in Jesus is entirely different than simply trusting a situation or a person, or believing that a certain event occurred in history.
Another classic example of equivocation is when God (allegedly) told Adam and Eve, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17). Because (according to the story) Adam and Eve lived many hundreds of years after they ate, it became necessary for Christian apologists to change the meaning of the word die from the obvious meaning, and give it a new meaning, unique to Christian apologetics! Stuff like this happens when you are called to defend a presupposition such as the notion of biblical inerrancy.
Note my emphasis...
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 18:56:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary. quote:
That's just plain silly.
Surely I don't need to explain the difference between a reasonable theory based on evidence, and blind faith?!
You're claiming that Slater is a liar. What is your reasoning for this?
(And the Bible doesn't "show" anything.)
Were you there when the NT was written by whoever...whenever?I doubt it.Then how is it you claim ANY information about it?One way or another you have to trust[ie 'faith'] your sources.Wether your Faith is "blind"is how reliable your source is and how "reasonable" your theory.AS far as calling My friend Lenord Nemoy oops I mean Slater "a liar" I don't agree.However, just in case something I said could be taken that way let me set the record straight i don't accuse Slater of lying(maybe taking one to tokes on that 1960's hash pipe he still has and staring into that crystal ball to long,but lying never).
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 19:13:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary. quote:
That's just plain silly.
Surely I don't need to explain the difference between a reasonable theory based on evidence, and blind faith?!
You're claiming that Slater is a liar. What is your reasoning for this?
(And the Bible doesn't "show" anything.)
Were you there when the NT was written by whoever...whenever?I doubt it.Then how is it you claim ANY information about it?One way or another you have to trust[ie 'faith'] your sources.Wether your Faith is "blind"is how reliable your source is and how "reasonable" your theory.AS far as calling My friend Lenord Nemoy oops I mean Slater "a liar" I don't agree.However, just in case something I said could be taken that way let me set the record straight i don't accuse Slater of lying(maybe taking one to tokes on that 1960's hash pipe he still has and staring into that crystal ball to long,but lying never).
[quote]
First, we'll establish what is known:
1. The NT exists
To Garrette,The reason I brought up the fact of "disputed facts" was because you claimed(in your above quote) that the following 9 items are "KNOWN" now from my perspective the only one I'm sure about is #1 (although I 'll grant ,I think it's #7 about the Romans record keeping).However,in my original proposal I believe I stated that we come up with an ageeable working defnition on how we "KNOW" anything hitorically then appliy it to the NT and the events around Nicea. Sorry I got to go I'm at work and breaks overuote]
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 21:01:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary. quote:
That's just plain silly.
Surely I don't need to explain the difference between a reasonable theory based on evidence, and blind faith?!
You're claiming that Slater is a liar. What is your reasoning for this?
(And the Bible doesn't "show" anything.)
Were you there when the NT was written by whoever...whenever?I doubt it.Then how is it you claim ANY information about it?One way or another you have to trust[ie 'faith'] your sources.Wether your Faith is "blind"is how reliable your source is and how "reasonable" your theory.AS far as calling My friend Lenord Nemoy oops I mean Slater "a liar" I don't agree.However, just in case something I said could be taken that way let me set the record straight i don't accuse Slater of lying(maybe taking one to tokes on that 1960's hash pipe he still has and staring into that crystal ball to long,but lying never).
quote:
First, we'll establish what is known:
1. The NT exists
To Garrette,The reason I brought up the fact of "disputed facts" was because you claimed(in your above quote) that the following 9 items are "KNOWN" now from my perspective the only one I'm sure about is #1 (although I 'll grant ,I think it's #7 about the Romans record keeping).However,in my original proposal I believe I stated that we come up with an ageeable working defnition on how we "KNOW" anything hitorically then appliy it to the NT and the events around Nicea. Sorry I got to go I'm at work and breaks overuote]
quote:
8) Equivocation.
"You know sometimes words have two meanings," as the song goes. [77] Equivocation occurs when a person changes the meaning of a word during the course of the discussion. This is commonly done with religious terms.
Theist: "I have faith in the lord Jesus Christ, and because I have this faith he will take me to Heaven when I die."
Atheist: I do not have such faith, and don't even understand the concept. Can you give me a reason [78] for your faith?"
Theist: "Of course you have faith. You have faith that this building we're in will not fall down on you. You have faith that your spouse is not cheating on you. Why, you even have faith in evolution!"
To Tokyo,I believe it was you who brought up the "blind faith" subject(p.12).But your "quite right bloody well right"that words in general and the biblical word faith in particular(in Greek I believe it's
pistes), [quote]it has meaning as noun such as THE FAITH ,a body doctrine,but also as a verb which means simply to have confidence in or to place your confidence in someone or something.In latin I believe it's
fides [quote]from which we get fidcuary trust which I'm sure if you ever and any dealings with legal matters or loans you understand quite well "the concept".Now as it pertains to the subject at hand,namely how can "KNOW" anything that happend in the past in in general and more particulary about the origins of the NT and the events of Nicea,I'm not bringing in any other meaning than what I just stated.Namely ,How can we have confidence as to what "REALLY" happened.Gotta go[quote]
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
