FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-10-2001, 09:16 PM   #91
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Apikorus = heretic (more or less)

Polycarp, I know you'll enjoy hearing this. I got another email from the author, and you were absolutely right. The poor guy really thought that Paul wrote Ephesians, and finally admitted that p66 really did have chapters, so the whole point was wrong.

Next time we meet, you may serve me a helping of corvus followed by dessert of humble pie.

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-10-2001, 10:30 PM   #92
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Polycarp:
<STRONG>"Save us from the bad Christians who criticize our sacred relics"
</STRONG>
I don't have a rabbi handy, but I do have google. Apikorus is Hebrew, usually translated "heretic" or "atheist". It derives from Epicureus, the Greek philosopher.

There seem to be a number of stories along the lines of this, which gives a clue as to why Apikoros took his screen name:

Quote:
There once was a fellow who had a very interesting quest in life. There are some people who want to be ordained as a Rabbi and get "Semicha". This fellow wanted to be called an "Apikorus" - "Atheist". He started on his quest by trying to transgress every "Aveiro in the Book".

Anyway, this fellow did every sin he could think of but he didn't realize his aspiration. Nobody called him Apikorus. They called him other names, which are not fit to print, (maybe they are, in "The New York Times" but not in the "Neveh Website"). What really bothered him, was that he heard that there was a fellow in a far away town known as "Moshe the Apikorus". He saw that it was possible to reach that "great height", but it constantly escaped his grasp. Finally, he decided to visit his "idol" Moshe the Apikorus. Whenever he would ask people for directions to the home of "Moshe the Apikorus" they would correct him and say, "You mean "Reb" Moshe the Apikorus." This certainly made no sense to him. To make a long story short, he arrived after a long journey at "Moshe's" house.

His idol opened the door and, sure enough, he was everything the fellow thought he would be. He was eating a ham sandwich and writing on Shabbos.

He asked Moshe, "What's the secret, how do you obtain the honor of being called an "Apikorus"?

Moshe then asked him, "Well, do you know Shas Bavli and Yerushalmi (the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud)?

"Of course not."

"That's not good. How about Mishnayos and Chumash?"

"No."

"What about Kuzari (by Rabbi Yehudah Halevi), Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to the Perplexed by the Rambam), or the Dialogue between the Ramban and Pablo Christiani (an apostate)?

"Wait a minute, I want to be an Apikorus. I don't believe in any of those things. Why should I learn them?"

"My dear friend," concluded Moshe, "If you learned all of those things, that I mentioned, as I did, and you still don't believe, then you can be called an Apikorus. However, if you haven't learned anything, then you're not an Apikorus. I'm sorry to tell you, but you're just one big "Am Haaretz - Ignoramus."
Toto is offline  
Old 08-11-2001, 06:44 AM   #93
penatis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Weslaco, TX,, USA
Posts: 10
Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
You are much better at sarcasm than you are at backing up your assertions. Deal with SingleDad's posting.
Polycarp: Irreparable harm !?! I'm sure Apikorus had no idea of the power he wields.

Apikorus' commentary has caused problems for SecWeb atheists. One of them remains unevident.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Polycarp: "Go Turton!! Go SingleDad!! Save us from the bad Christians who criticize our sacred relics"

Yes, I generally side with those who offer the most and best evidence. You still haven't dealt with the points SingleDad made. If it would make you feel better, I could present a similar compilation of your commentary to show your initial comment was unwarranted. (You could have admitted it long ago, but you didn't.)

Polycarp: This room is full of cheerleaders, but none of you are very good-looking; nothing like how the cheerleaders at my high school looked. Yeah, baby...

Think what you wish. You certainly have a penchant for sarcasm and overstatement, especially if you think it furthers your absurd belief system.

Polycarp: I have a lot of respect for Turton and SingleDad, but it's funny to see some others hiding behind them.

I have seen you hiding behind quite a few Christians over the past few months, but have not said a word. But, then again, I don't have to justify an absurd belief system.

Polycarp: I have a question for penatis... If I say that Kurt Warner is the quarterback of the Minnesota Vikings, am I making an error? If so, then I imagine it would only be a minor, semantic error, right? After all, Kurt Warner is a quarterback. Quarterbacks play football, and the Minnesota Vikings are a football team. Yeah, now it all makes sense.

If you read in a sports magazine that Troy Aikman plays for the Dallas Cowboys, would you throw the magazine away because it contains the word "plays" instead of "played"?

Polycarp: Michael was the one who recommended the site.

Yes, he did. At this point, I wish he hadn't. Still, no one has shown it to contain "gross misrepresentations."

Polycarp: Yes, I may have overstated my case in my opening comments (but I didn't inhale). The use of overstatement is perhaps one of my lesser faults as a person.

Yes, and you could have admitted this early on, but you didn't.


Polycarp: However, as Michael and Bede have said, it's time to move on.

Bede, the wonderful Christian that he is, apparently feels there is no problem in calling others a "fool." I am not too impressed with his commentary.

Polycarp: If, after reading the critiques of the site from myself, Apikorus, and Meta, a person wishes to believe the site to be of great value, then that's fine.

I think the website timeline contains about the same amount of accurate material as just about every other website timeline, and more in many cases. This is shown by how few legitimate errors you actually could find.

Polycarp: Since Michael was the one who first recommended the site, and has listened to criticism, acknowledged it, and moved on, I'm more than willing to do likewise.

I am not Michael and you won't hear anymore cheerleading from me.

Polycarp: I could have saved everyone a lot of energy if I'd not "lobbed the hand grenade" at the beginning of this whole ordeal. (That was a good line. Thanks to whoever said it.)

And, last but not least, I call a motion that Apikorus change his moniker and be forever dubbed, "Bringer of Irreparable Harm to Atheism".


I followed your lead, Polycarp, and made an absurd statement. I will have to watch it from now on. I wonder if you will.

penatis
penatis is offline  
Old 08-11-2001, 09:44 AM   #94
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

For the record, as systematic misreading is a habit around here, I didn't call Ron a fool and don't think he his. I said he was making a fool of himself, which is different. Had he been a close friend I would have told him he was acting like a jerk, but this wouldn't be calling him a jerk or mean I thought he was one.

Any other help needed with English idiom, then just let me know.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 08-11-2001, 10:08 AM   #95
Polycarp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 228
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:
Polycarp, I know you'll enjoy hearing this. I got another email from the author, and you were absolutely right. The poor guy really thought that Paul wrote Ephesians, and finally admitted that p66 really did have chapters, so the whole point was wrong.

Next time we meet, you may serve me a helping of corvus followed by dessert of humble pie.
Well... Pauline authorship of Ephesians is not impossible. However, he'd be siding with conservative Christians if he did believe it. I didn't suppose he'd want to be guilty of such a thing.

Anyhoo... This has been an adventure. Next time I peek in here to see what's going on, I'll try not to cause such a ruckus.

Peace,

Polycarp
Polycarp is offline  
Old 08-12-2001, 06:18 AM   #96
penatis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Weslaco, TX,, USA
Posts: 10
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Bede:
<STRONG>For the record, as systematic misreading is a habit around here, I didn't call Ron a fool and don't think he his. I said he was making a fool of himself, which is different. Had he been a close friend I would have told him he was acting like a jerk, but this wouldn't be calling him a jerk or mean I thought he was one.

Any other help needed with English idiom, then just let me know.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason</STRONG>
I am aware of at least ONE person other than myself who doesn't think I was making a fool of myself. That person knows who he is and he knows I appreciate his support. Based on what I know about him and based on what I know about you, I will go with what he thinks.

I have been teaching English for about 15 years, so I don't think I need any help with "reading" English or "English idiom." (I apologize to all for misspelling several usages of the word "nit-pick." It won't happen again.)

For the record, I have grown just as tired of this thread as everyone else. May it die a peaceful death.

penatis
penatis is offline  
Old 08-19-2001, 09:55 AM   #97
Metacrock
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 1,734
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by rodahi:
<STRONG>Apikorus: rodahi, I am an atheist.

So you say.

I agree with EVERYTHING SingleDad said. You have no idea how much irreparable harm you have done here. IN MY OPINION, you are an arrogant, know-it-all. You have advanced the cause of theism and hurt SecWeb atheists with your commentary.

This is my last posting.

rodahi</STRONG>
O no! Troulbe in anti-paradise. The cause of the Sec Web is hurt by showing the truth! Dissention in the ranks. The anti-faithful get out of line the ideology suffers! Hmmm Need more effective parapaganda.
Metacrock is offline  
Old 08-19-2001, 10:00 AM   #98
Metacrock
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 1,734
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto:
<STRONG>

If you read that exchange and saw a party line, your reading skills are even worse than I thought.</STRONG>
Hmmm he says tht irreprable harm comes to the cause if you find that this site attacking the Gospels has flaws in it, and there's no party line??? That's odd. When the Reagan white house circled the wagons like that it was becasue they were defedning the party line.
Metacrock is offline  
Old 08-19-2001, 10:30 AM   #99
Metacrock
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 1,734
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SingleDad:
[QB]I've tried to compile a summary of the alleged errors. I am not in any way an NT scholar, so I am relying on the comments of the authors here with a bit of logic common sense thrown in.

Error: The names of Evangelists are not given to the Gospels until late 2nd century.

Meta =&gt; The Wallace stuff that I quoted showed that there are very early copies with the names on them, from the early 2nd century.

Status: Not an error. Papias gives the names of some of the evangelists. However, Papias does not actually give the names to the gospels.

Error: No-one quotes the Gospels, or refer (sic) to them in the first century.


Meta =&gt; Helmut Koester shows about 15 references in Paul to passages in the Gospels and speculates that Paul had a copy of a saying source, maybe related to Q

It's also not true because 1 Clement quotes from the Gospel of Matthew and Mark. Maybe others.I'd have to look at it again.



Status: Not an error. I understand this statement to mean that no quotations exist in the first century that refer to the gospels. This statement does not in itself claim that the gospels did not exist in the first century, but rather that quotational evidence from the first century does not exist. Indeed, no actual evidence is shown to refute this statement.


Meta -=&gt; What just said disproves it openly. Also the evidence from the diatesseron proves the pre Makran redaction existed in the frist century, quite early. So how could Mathew have gotten to Rome, and the Markan redaction gotten around by end of the first century if it did'nt exist in the first century?

Error: The key other papyri are a few pages dated c.200 with only 2 whole chapters known before the manuscripts of c.300 and later.

Meta =&gt; Man that is just blanently not ture. I listed that Wallace stuff with a whole passel of known ms existing before 200. And John Ryalands fragment. The diatesseron is before 200 and it has to allow for time to travel to Syria.

Status: Substantive error. The author of the website has acknowleged that this statement understates the quality and quantity of third century manuscripts and appears to be in the process of correcting this error.

Error: Ignatius wrote eight letters showing no knowledge of the Gospels, but mentioning some of the Gospel events.


Blatently false. I quoted stuff showing that he quotes form the Gospels and alludes to them several times. From John anyway.

Status: Minor Error. We have [i]seven letters from Ignatius, not eight. Minor semantic error. In a document listing the quality of the evidence, it is poorly phrased to refer to Ignatius' knowledge (which is a conclusion). However the evidentiary substance of this conclusion appears valid: Ignatius does not appear to quote any texts, but rather refers to specific events without context or attribution.

Meta -&gt; yes he does!


Here from the footnotes where he lines up the quotations. Quotations of Ignatius drawing upon the 4G..


quote:
Comp. such expressions as "I desire bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ ... and I desire as drink His blood, which is love imperishable," Ad Rom., ch. 7, with John 6:47 sqq.; "living water," Ad Rom. 7, with John 4:10, 11; "being Himself the Door of the Father," Ad Philad., 9, with John 10:9; [the Spirit] "knows whence it cometh and whither it goeth," Ad Philad., 7, with John 3:8. I quoted from the text of Zahn. See the able art. of Lightfoot in "Contemp. Rev." for February, 1875, and his S. Ignatius, 1885.

[now granted these are more like phrases, but they are clealry direct barrowings from the text word for word, not mere allusion to events.]


[here quotes Polycarp]
31 Polyc., Ad Phil., ch. 7: "Every one that doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is Antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the mystery of the cross is of the devil." Comp. 1 John 4:3. On the testimony of Polycarp see Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for May, 1875. Westcott, p. xxx, says: "A testimony to one" (the Gospel or the first Ep.) "is necessarily by inference a testimony to the other."Eusebius32 According to Eusebius, III. 39. See Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for August and October, 1875.


Error: there are no extrabiblical references to Jesus in the first century CE, but this must be wrong because Jesus is mentioned by Josephus.

MEta =&gt; Julias Africanus tells us that Celsus did refurr to him, and the Mishna stuff on him goes back to first century sources. It agrees with what Celsus had so obviously the two coming form earlier source.

Status: Minor semantic error. The statement that "No historical evidence for Jesus exists [emphasis added]," slightly overstates the case. This statement should probably read no reliable or uncontroversial evidence exists. However, the author does explicitly mention Josephus, so one cannot term this error a misrepresentation.


Meta =&gt; If he doesn't point out that no credible historian doubts Jesus' existence based upon that tissue of inaccurate propaganda than he is creating a false imporession.

Error: Well for openers they start by saying that the oldest texts are gnostic.

Status: Not an error. The side does not claim that the oldest texts are gnostic.

Meta =&gt; ONe of the first things it says

Error: The writer seemingly believes Paul wrote Ephesians.

Status: Uncertain but trivial. The substance of this objection rests on a single cryptic parenthetical aside in the website.

Error: P45 and P75 are the only two manuscripts before 300 CE with even one entire Gospel chapter.

Status: Already addressed.

Error: No historical evidence for the Evangelists or Jesus' followers exists. (in the first century)

MEta =&gt; Just blatontly false. 1 Clement recognizes Peter as historical person whom eye witnesses knew, cira AD 95. And there are no counter examples! No one single little extra biblical document anywhere in any century that has the disciples being named anything other than names of the 12. That has to be some sort of proof. Why would they never add any ohter names? If the names weren't known and set in stone why would they always reamin consistant?

Note: the qualifier "in the first century" is obviously meant as a qualifier to the evidence (i.e. there is no first-century historical evidence for the Evangelists), not to the events.

Status: Possibly a minor semantic error. However it is not obvious to me whether Paul qualifies as historical evidence. Also, without a more detailed examination of Corinthians and Galatians, it is not substantiated that this statement is actually in error.

Meta -=&gt; most scholars take Paul as historical evidence.

Since the author does explicitly mention both Corinthians and Galatians, we cannot term this statement either as a misrepresentation or misinformation unless it can be shown that the author is exluding specific material that would strongly undermine his claim.

Error: No historical evidence for the events in the Gospel (sic) exists. (in the first century)

Meta =&gt; Except 1 Clement

Status: Possibly a minor semantic error. See above.

Error: In this period Jesus Christos is seen as a spiritual being or Principle. (in the first century)

Status: Unsubstantiated. It is not clear that this is an error, merely an interpretation with which the critic disagrees.

Meta =&gt; 1 John is first century and it ceratinly says "in the flesh." Also I bet you could find it in 1 Clment if you looked. he certainly supports the Virgin bith, that sort of backs up the notion of being in the flesh.

turtonm, I think that your admission, "You have found a plethora of errors," is not yet warranted. Given that the author was attempting to survey a large amount of material in a short amount of space, a few semantic quibbles does not seem to justify Polycarps intial allegations of "gross misrepresentations and outright misinformation

Meta =&gt; Sure if you count innacuratcy and missimpressions as accurate and if you want to excuse a whole bunch of things.

[ August 19, 2001: Message edited by: Metacrock ]
Metacrock is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:16 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.