Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 01-19-2005, 10:33 AM

That subsequent authors copied most of the basic plot of an original story does not require that the original story be historically accurate.

The "eleven points" are not consistently reported in independent texts but that is not actually meaningful with regard to establishing or denying historicity. There is ample evidence that authors are perfectly willing to rewrite both history and fiction.

Vorkosigan · 01-19-2005, 02:24 PM

What are the "eleven points?" From what I can see none of them are found in Paul....

funinspace · 01-19-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

Typical atheist fallacy. The atheists take the no true scottsman fallacie and conclude from it there is no such thing as a true anything.

Read Joseph Campbell and Marceia Elliade. they are the experts on the nature of mythology.

LOL...and I don't call myself atheist, I prefer agnostic since I don't think one can prove no god exists. So we are both non-theists then...cool. But ok, you've set up a narrower definition of "myth". Anywho, the point really wasn't about whether the Jesus tales encompased something defined as mythical. I assumed the point was that it contained some real historical truths of a miraculous nature; that the veracity of the historical background is sufficient to demonstrate why one should believe the fantastical to also be truth. Or how would you put it? So things, by your own definition can be still wrong/false, but not be mythical. So the Jesus tale could still be wrong, just not attributed to a narrow definition of myth? You see I don't think Jesus is purely fictional. I suspect he lived/preached in Judea; was probably a heretical Jewish sage; maybe even hung out with JtB for a time; and was probably killed in some manner; and stayed dead. But I consider all of it to be a SWAG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

Right, the flood story is a myth,it is borrowed from the Sumerians and Babylonians. I am a liberal, I am not a Bible thumper. In fact I'm not a theist either.

Ok, the Deluge is myth. Is the Exodus tale a myth as well? Sure sounds similar in construct; has lots of elements that fit the type. How about Joshua's solar object demands, another myth? David and Goliath? Was Solomon so wise; was his temple so amazing; 300 concubines; gazillions of horses....? Or does hyperbole come to mind? When and why does the BS stop in your non-bible thumping view?

Quote:

I dont' know what you think you are saying but it's absurdly childish. The NT is not mytholgoical. You don't know the difference. Mythology is not just any supernatuarl tale. Go read Elliade.

Now Mormonism is copied after KJV. it's a badly done ignorant coutner fit because Smith assumed that any divine writting must sound like the Bible, so he tried to copy the KJV (forgetting the Bible was writtenin hebrew and Greek). He didn't have a true mythology to wokr with, so he used a bunch of bs that sounded holy because it copied the Bible. In his enthusiasm he plagerigzed a new York School teacher and he also said the Indians were the 10 lost tribes, not knowing that anthropologists can tell a genetic difference in the teeth of natrive amerians and the teeth of Jews.

so moromon is just a bad attempt at forging a holy document. The OT is a collection of writtings that come from people who experinced the power of God, and as all power must, they tried to encode that experience into the clutural constructs.

Ok, I'm not going to quibble about the definition of myth or the BS of Mormons. Yes, Mormonism is crap. But is is an excellent example of how people are willing to delude themselves into believing the most upsurd of things. How is the birthing tale of Jesus not reeking of borrowed metaphors of the Moshe tale? Why would Paul not bother mentioning this miraculous birthing tale? It sounds like it would be another great weapon to convince the sceptic. Paul could challange people to go ask others about the Magi, shepards seeing angels, Herod's murder of babies/todlers and so forth. This is only 45ish years later. How could Paul not know of this, and then not bother to report such a fabulous thing. Could it be that it is BS as well, made during the ensuing decades as the Gospels headed towards being written? Why is that not a reasonable understanding?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

I did. I did prove it. The only way you can possibly counter it is to provide another version. let's hear it. But don't forget now, it has to be fore 400 AD.

I showed that all those verwsions are the same and I shoed over 100 documents that all affirm those same 11 points. That's proof enough to meet a prmia facie case. Now you must prove your assertions against it.

Hum, now you later qualify the meaning of proof, calling it "proof enough to meet a prima facia case". You can no more prove (I'll stick to the dictionary definition) that alternate mythos didn't exist 2000 years ago, than I could prove only one thread of mythos grew within Mandeanism. At best you could show that we know of no other alternate mythos outside this "one basic story".

Here's the order of what was said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

(3) Mandeans, you have no proof that they had only one strory, but they were an offshoot of Christianity, so they part of the profussion of multiying Gnsticism that marked heretical christainity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

I'll agree the Mandeans were an offshoot of something, but more like Judaism and a mish mash of others.

Now to your latest comment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

People have researched that you know. There is actually of literature on that subject. I think if you would research it you would find they are usuallky thought of as an offshoot of Gnsoticism.

Not to belabor the point, but Mandeanism is considered Gnostic ( i.e. contained within), not an offshoot of it. Not all Gnosticism is off of xianity by definition.

The below is suggestive of these peoples already getting around before xianity (note that I am not calling this proof, but merely evidence):

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/str...johannite.html

Quote:

"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when [or after] you believed?'
They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.'
So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?'
'John's baptism,' they replied.
Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized into [or in] the name of the Lord Jesus."
- Acts 19:1-5

"In Acts 19:1-7 Luke refers to a group whom Paul met in Ephesus who knew only John's baptism of repentance. But since they are said explicitly to be 'disciples' (a term Luke always uses to refer to followers of Jesus) this passage provides very slender support for the existence in the first century of groups who saw John rather than Jesus as the Messiah."
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 167

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

It's not different. They don't deny any of those 11 points. Now they do combrine mythos with that of the Ot/Nt but they don't screw with the actual story line; Jesus is still from Nazerath, he still crucified in jerusalem, his sides kicks are still matt and Peter, he is stil cricufied at noon on passover and mother named mary and so on. Same 11 ponits, don't contradict them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

I dont' know why it's so hard for you to understand the differnce between story line and criticism. It may be that there are a milliions ways to look at the same facts, but none of them deney the facts--those 11 points, the "story line"! its' the events I said are historical, so that might be your clue. The Events of his life are not changed, only the ideas about what the mean!

Hum, the below jives with what I have read before...another mythos with this Jesus not "dying at noon", but in fact skating off to finish living off elsewhere. Never mind that they view his life in a way diametrically opposed to the Xian view, that certainly wouldn't be a thing to consider when deciding on whether to label fabulous things as historical vice false, mythos, or wrong. Now I cannot say definitively that it was written before 400AD, but I believe the Mandeans think so. We have no reason to decide it wasn't written earlier or part of a previous oral tradition. Or do you have evidence for the otherwise?

http://i-cias.com/e.o/jesus.htm

Quote:

Jesus is with the Mandeans presented as a lying prophet.

The Mandeans have John the Baptist as an important religious figure, and the history of religion suggests John the Baptist could have represented an alternative religious orientation to Jesus. While Christianity presents John to have baptized Jesus, symbolizing that Jesus is his Lord, Mandean religion tells about a messenger of light that was sent to Jerusalem in order to undress the lie of Jesus.

Beyond this, Jesus appears not to play much of a role in the theology of the Mandeans.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/str...johannite.html

Quote:

"The Mandaeans subscribe to the belief that Judas Thomas was Jesus' twin brother-as the Celtic and Egyptian Christians did - it seems, but they also believe that it was this Judas, not Iscariot, who was crucified. Why? Because his resemblance to Jesus was sufficient to fool Pilate-who knew what Jesus looked like and was legally obliged to witness the Roman punishment of crucifixion when meted out by Jews - and because Judas Thomas had been instrumental in a rift among Jesus' followers that ultimately brought down the crucifixion sentence."
Jesus had then posed as Thomas for the rest of his life to avoid the taint of his failure as messiah interfering with his work. He had enacted the drama, played the role: now he wished to get on with his life."
- Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Magi (1995) p. 285
The Mandaeans believe that it was Jesus, not Thomas, who was the source of the Gospel of Thomas.
"Jesus-Thomas had continued to preach wherever he could that was beyond the reach of the Roman-Pauline church, ending up in Madras, where he was finally burned to death by ungrateful Hindu priests. St. Paul was the great villain of the piece, seen by the Mandaeans as a fanatic and a Roman agent."
- Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Magi (1995) p. 285

Here appear to be your 11 points (don't you know that it's supposed to be 12

), with counter points inserted from Peter Kirby (and a many thanks):

Quote:

All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary."

Quote:

Origen quotes the Jewish interlocutor of Celsus in Contra Celsum 1.32: "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera." This is a tradition that denies the Virgin birth.

3) Same principal players: Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdalene.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) He was crucified under Pilate.

Quote:

This is found in the Apocalypse of Peter in the Nag Hammadi Library:

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) At noon.
9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) Several women with Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb.
11) This was in Jerusalem.

And so we have yet more counter mythos surounding this Jesus. I just picked 2 and 6 for the vividness of differences. And 6 now has a second counter tale beyond the Mandeans. And as to dating the Apocalypse of Peter:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ypsepeter.html Detlef G. Müller writes (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 622):

Quote:

Period of origin and circulation: we do not know the original text of the Apocalypse of Peter. The translation below makes it clear that the Greek and Ethiopic texts frequently diverge from one another. The Ethiopic version contains a series of linguistic obscurities which are evidently to be traced back to lacunae and defects in the transmission of the text. In this respect it deserves attention that Clement of Alexandria regards the Apocalypse of Peter as Holy Scriptures (cf. Euseb. HE VI 14.1), which is proof of an origin at least in the first half of the 2nd century.

So in the end, I would say the above does in fact deny many of your 11 points.

Amaleq13 · 01-19-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

What are the "eleven points?" From what I can see none of them are found in Paul....

The relevant links are in this post and, no, they aren't found in anything that can be reliably attributed to Paul.

Intelligitimate · 01-19-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

I am a liberal, I am not a Bible thumper. In fact I'm not a theist either.

Wha?

Metacrock · 01-20-2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intelligitimate

Wha?

You are asking how I can be a beleiver (Christian) and not be a theist? by being a PanENtheist. See Paul Tillich.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-20-2005, 10:03 AM

Panentheism is still theism.

Do you think that the divine revelation is exclusive to Christianity or would you recognize Hindu avatars as being valid incarnations as well?

Also, do you believe that human souls are discrete from the panentheistic deity? And if so, isn't that a contradiction?

Metacrock · 01-20-2005, 10:12 AM

funinspace
Veteran User

Join Date: March 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 907

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
Typical atheist fallacy. The atheists take the no true scottsman fallacie and conclude from it there is no such thing as a true anything.

Read Joseph Campbell and Marceia Elliade. they are the experts on the nature of mythology.

Quote:

LOL...and I don't call myself atheist, I prefer agnostic since I don't think one can prove no god exists. So we are both non-theists then...cool. But ok, you've set up a narrower definition of "myth". Anywho, the point really wasn't about whether the Jesus tales encompased something defined as mythical. I assumed the point was that it contained some real historical truths of a miraculous nature; that the veracity of the historical background is sufficient to demonstrate why one should believe the fantastical to also be truth. Or how would you put it? So things, by your own definition can be still wrong/false, but not be mythical. So the Jesus tale could still be wrong, just not attributed to a narrow definition of myth? You see I don't think Jesus is purely fictional. I suspect he lived/preached in Judea; was probably a heretical Jewish sage; maybe even hung out with JtB for a time; and was probably killed in some manner; and stayed dead. But I consider all of it to be a SWAG.

It's a good indication of probablity. It's certainly not an absolute proof of historicity, but it's a good indication that these 11 points are probably historically factual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
Right, the flood story is a myth,it is borrowed from the Sumerians and Babylonians. I am a liberal, I am not a Bible thumper. In fact I'm not a theist either.

Quote:

Ok, the Deluge is myth. Is the Exodus tale a myth as well? Sure sounds similar in construct; has lots of elements that fit the type. How about Joshua's solar object demands, another myth? David and Goliath? Was Solomon so wise; was his temple so amazing; 300 concubines; gazillions of horses....? Or does hyperbole come to mind? When and why does the BS stop in your non-bible thumping view?

I think you are losing focuss here on the issues. It not important to me if you find myths in the Bible. I argue for mythological content in the Bible all the time. The improtant part is that Jesus life story is not myth and its' probalby historical in those general peramitors.

Quote:
I dont' know what you think you are saying but it's absurdly childish. The NT is not mytholgoical. You don't know the difference. Mythology is not just any supernatuarl tale. Go read Elliade.

Now Mormonism is copied after KJV. it's a badly done ignorant coutner fit because Smith assumed that any divine writting must sound like the Bible, so he tried to copy the KJV (forgetting the Bible was writtenin hebrew and Greek). He didn't have a true mythology to wokr with, so he used a bunch of bs that sounded holy because it copied the Bible. In his enthusiasm he plagerigzed a new York School teacher and he also said the Indians were the 10 lost tribes, not knowing that anthropologists can tell a genetic difference in the teeth of natrive amerians and the teeth of Jews.

so moromon is just a bad attempt at forging a holy document. The OT is a collection of writtings that come from people who experinced the power of God, and as all power must, they tried to encode that experience into the clutural constructs.

Quote:

Ok, I'm not going to quibble about the definition of myth or the BS of Mormons. Yes, Mormonism is crap. But is is an excellent example of how people are willing to delude themselves into believing the most upsurd of things. How is the birthing tale of Jesus not reeking of borrowed metaphors of the Moshe tale? Why would Paul not bother mentioning this miraculous birthing tale? It sounds like it would be another great weapon to convince the sceptic. Paul could challange people to go ask others about the Magi, shepards seeing angels, Herod's murder of babies/todlers and so forth. This is only 45ish years later. How could Paul not know of this, and then not bother to report such a fabulous thing. Could it be that it is BS as well, made during the ensuing decades as the Gospels headed towards being written? Why is that not a reasonable understanding?

What's the deal with Paul? I was talking about the historicity of the Jesus story, not of Paul. Where does that come from? I also see you making two general fallacies: argument from silence and guilt by assocition (story X is a myth in the Bible, therefore, stiroes y and z are mths too becasue they are in the bible).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
I did. I did prove it. The only way you can possibly counter it is to provide another version. let's hear it. But don't forget now, it has to be fore 400 AD.

I showed that all those verwsions are the same and I shoed over 100 documents that all affirm those same 11 points. That's proof enough to meet a prmia facie case. Now you must prove your assertions against it.

Quote:

Hum, now you later qualify the meaning of proof, calling it "proof enough to meet a prima facia case". You can no more prove (I'll stick to the dictionary definition) that alternate mythos didn't exist 2000 years ago, than I could prove only one thread of mythos grew within Mandeanism. At best you could show that we know of no other alternate mythos outside this "one basic story".

I dont' have to! why do you guys (myhers, internet atheists, dinesins of the sec web) not understand that you have to prove the arguments you advance. You dont' get a free pass as making whatever assumption you want to make and then sticking Christians with the burden to prove it false.

I give good primie facie reason to assume historicity of the Jesus story, I dont' have to go and turn over every rock in the middel east to prove there is not another version of the story under it. You have to prove theres is!

Here's the order of what was said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
(3) Mandeans, you have no proof that they had only one strory, but they were an offshoot of Christianity, so they part of the profussion of multiying Gnsticism that marked heretical christainity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by funinspace
I'll agree the Mandeans were an offshoot of something, but more like Judaism and a mish mash of others.

Now to your latest comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
People have researched that you know. There is actually of literature on that subject. I think if you would research it you would find they are usuallky thought of as an offshoot of Gnsoticism.

Not to belabor the point, but Mandeanism is considered Gnostic ( i.e. contained within), not an offshoot of it. Not all Gnosticism is off of xianity by definition.

What are you arging about here? I said they were "offshoot" of Gnstoics, if that's not good enough, we have to say they were Gnostics, well that's just peachy. So they were Gnsotics, big deal? That does't prove had a different version of the story!

The below is suggestive of these peoples already getting around before xianity (note that I am not calling this proof, but merely evidence):

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/st.../johannite.html

Link doesnt' work

Quote:

Quote:

"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when [or after] you believed?'
They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.'
So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?'
'John's baptism,' they replied.
Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized into [or in] the name of the Lord Jesus."
- Acts 19:1-5

again no alternate story! You are just assuming an unrelated group would have a different story, but there is no reason to assume that.

Quote:

"In Acts 19:1-7 Luke refers to a group whom Paul met in Ephesus who knew only John's baptism of repentance. But since they are said explicitly to be 'disciples' (a term Luke always uses to refer to followers of Jesus) this passage provides very slender support for the existence in the first century of groups who saw John rather than Jesus as the Messiah."
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 167

that doesnt' prove anything. It first doesnt' even prove they didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah, it only proves they were still doing John's baptism. That secondly, certianly doesnt' prove they knew a different version of the jesus story, only that they didn't buy the first one, or maybe didnt' know it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
It's not different. They don't deny any of those 11 points. Now they do combrine mythos with that of the Ot/Nt but they don't screw with the actual story line; Jesus is still from Nazerath, he still crucified in jerusalem, his sides kicks are still matt and Peter, he is stil cricufied at noon on passover and mother named mary and so on. Same 11 ponits, don't contradict them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
I dont' know why it's so hard for you to understand the differnce between story line and criticism. It may be that there are a milliions ways to look at the same facts, but none of them deney the facts--those 11 points, the "story line"! its' the events I said are historical, so that might be your clue. The Events of his life are not changed, only the ideas about what the mean!

Quote:

Hum, the below jives with what I have read before...another mythos with this Jesus not "dying at noon", but in fact skating off to finish living off elsewhere. Never mind that they view his life in a way diametrically opposed to the Xian view, that certainly wouldn't be a thing to consider when deciding on whether to label fabulous things as historical vice false, mythos, or wrong. Now I cannot say definitively that it was written before 400AD, but I believe the Mandeans think so. We have no reason to decide it wasn't written earlier or part of a previous oral tradition. Or do you have evidence for the otherwise?

And that's coming from after 400! that's the Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Divinci Code bull shit that has not reall validity for anyone. You can't even prove anyone ever beileved it.

It's beyond the peramiter I gave for a time range.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/jesus.htm

That above link didnt' work, but it did give me a big batch of spy ware. Thanks.

Quote:
Jesus is with the Mandeans presented as a lying prophet.

Quote:

The Mandeans have John the Baptist as an important religious figure, and the history of religion suggests John the Baptist could have represented an alternative religious orientation to Jesus. While Christianity presents John to have baptized Jesus, symbolizing that Jesus is his Lord, Mandean religion tells about a messenger of light that was sent to Jerusalem in order to undress the lie of Jesus.

Beyond this, Jesus appears not to play much of a role in the theology of the Mandeans.

I bet it's not authentically mandean. I bet it's also from beyond 400. I'll check that out.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/st.../johannite.html

Quote:

Quote:
"The Mandaeans subscribe to the belief that Judas Thomas was Jesus' twin brother-as the Celtic and Egyptian Christians did - it seems, but they also believe that it was this Judas, not Iscariot, who was crucified. Why? Because his resemblance to Jesus was sufficient to fool Pilate-who knew what Jesus looked like and was legally obliged to witness the Roman punishment of crucifixion when meted out by Jews - and because Judas Thomas had been instrumental in a rift among Jesus' followers that ultimately brought down the crucifixion sentence."
Jesus had then posed as Thomas for the rest of his life to avoid the taint of his failure as messiah interfering with his work. He had enacted the drama, played the role: now he wished to get on with his life."
- Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Magi (1995) p. 285
The Mandaeans believe that it was Jesus, not Thomas, who was the source of the Gospel of Thomas.
"Jesus-Thomas had continued to preach wherever he could that was beyond the reach of the Roman-Pauline church, ending up in Madras, where he was finally burned to death by ungrateful Hindu priests. St. Paul was the great villain of the piece, seen by the Mandaeans as a fanatic and a Roman agent."
- Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Magi (1995) p. 285

Here appear to be your 11 points (don't you know that it's supposed to be 12 ), with counter points inserted from Peter Kirby (and a many thanks):

Quote:
All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary."

Quote:
Origen quotes the Jewish interlocutor of Celsus in Contra Celsum 1.32: "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera." This is a tradition that denies the Virgin birth.

3) Same principal players: Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdalene.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) He was crucified under Pilate.

Quote:
This is found in the Apocalypse of Peter in the Nag Hammadi Library:

Quote:

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

into to Nagg hamadi library says most of the words date to late 400s. that's after the time frame I give.

In

7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) At noon.
9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) Several women with Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb.
11) This was in Jerusalem.

And so we have yet more counter mythos surounding this Jesus. I just picked 2 and 6 for the vividness of differences. And 6 now has a second counter tale beyond the Mandeans. And as to dating the Apocalypse of Peter:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.c...lypsepeter.html Detlef G. Müller writes (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 622):

Quote:

Quote:
Period of origin and circulation: we do not know the original text of the Apocalypse of Peter. The translation below makes it clear that the Greek and Ethiopic texts frequently diverge from one another. The Ethiopic version contains a series of linguistic obscurities which are evidently to be traced back to lacunae and defects in the transmission of the text. In this respect it deserves attention that Clement of Alexandria regards the Apocalypse of Peter as Holy Scriptures (cf. Euseb. HE VI 14.1), which is proof of an origin at least in the first half of the 2nd century.

So in the end, I would say the above does in fact deny many of your 11 points.

why do you guys continue to ignore the time frame? I said the story starts to proliforate a couple of hundred years latter, but the point is the basic facts are set in stone within the first 20 after the events. That is probably because they were public knowlege. 300 years latter no one remembered that publlic knowledge, heretics felt more free to invent things.

Metacrock · 01-20-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Panentheism is still theism.

Depends upon what you mean by either term. Theism basically is the residue of Aristotelian unmoved mover. PanEnthesm attributes less of a personality to God than does Chrsitain theism.

Quote:

Do you think that the divine revelation is exclusive to Christianity or would you recognize Hindu avatars as being valid incarnations as well?

I dont' recognize Hinu Avators per se, but I do think that God is working in all cultures, that many Hindus experience God, that they may be saved if they follow the moral law on their hearts. (Rom 2)

Quote:

Also, do you believe that human souls are discrete from the panentheistic deity? And if so, isn't that a contradiction?

Yes and no. To me a soul is a symbol or metaphor for the over all live of the person. So we dont' have souls we are souls.

I equate spirit with mind. So we are spirits to the extent that we are our minds, but spirits integrated into an overall corporeal life. My brian is a center of conscoiusness, does that mean it's not connected to God? I think it is in some way.

I do not say that Panenthism is pantheism> Im' not a pantheist. But I'm not a theist either. I see theism as treating God like an object, or a thing alongside other things, I see God as a level of reality.

funinspace · 01-20-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

It's a good indication of probablity. It's certainly not an absolute proof of historicity, but it's a good indication that these 11 points are probably historically factual.

Thank you. I can understand an argument for "good indication of probability". I would disagree, but understand a difference of opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

What are you arging about here? I said they were "offshoot" of Gnstoics, if that's not good enough, we have to say they were Gnostics, well that's just peachy. So they were Gnsotics, big deal? That does't prove had a different version of the story!

Hum, I guess you really didn't see the point...Your not the only one who can be nit picky on meaning and usage of words, I just didn't get snide about it. Why did you even make the one previous response then, if not to be bitchy? And your right, neither of our statements were a "big deal".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

why do you guys continue to ignore the time frame? I said the story starts to proliforate a couple of hundred years latter, but the point is the basic facts are set in stone within the first 20 after the events. That is probably because they were public knowlege. 300 years latter no one remembered that publlic knowledge, heretics felt more free to invent things.

Previous Metarock:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metarock

what I argued was that he failed to show any counter evidence at all because he didni't deal with the 11 points, until after 400 which is what I said to begin with.

Basic facts in stone and 20 years...allot could be said about that, but I really don't see the point anymore.

Hum, is you middle name Lucy? The goal post was 400 years for your 11 points, so I addressed your standards previously stated. Never mind the other shifts I saw. I'm not Charlie Brown, so you can go play with yourself. Enjoy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-19-2005, 10:33 AM	#41
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	That subsequent authors copied most of the basic plot of an original story does not require that the original story be historically accurate. The "eleven points" are not consistently reported in independent texts but that is not actually meaningful with regard to establishing or denying historicity. There is ample evidence that authors are perfectly willing to rewrite both history and fiction.

01-19-2005, 02:24 PM	#42
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	What are the "eleven points?" From what I can see none of them are found in Paul....

01-20-2005, 10:03 AM	#47
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Panentheism is still theism. Do you think that the divine revelation is exclusive to Christianity or would you recognize Hindu avatars as being valid incarnations as well? Also, do you believe that human souls are discrete from the panentheistic deity? And if so, isn't that a contradiction?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.