Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-29-2008, 01:09 PM

I am starting to see a pattern. aa5874 does not comprehend the words "only" or "except" and possibly other key concepts in English.

Own up, aa5874, and we'll try to help you out.

GakuseiDon · 12-29-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I quoted Contra Celsus just like you, why is not your quote from Contra Celsus a dribble?

Now it is completely illogical and false to claim Origen was not a literalist when he clearly showed that he was.

I will quote more passages from Contra Celsus to show that Origen believed Jesus, conceived by the Holy Ghost, was the Logos who literally created the world.

Origen was a literalist.

Usually I ignore you, but your response was so contra reality, I didn't have the strength. :blush: If you had written "Origen took some passages literally", or similar, that would have been fine. Perhaps we can agree that Origen believed that SOME passages weren't supposed to have been taken literally.

aa5874 · 12-29-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am starting to see a pattern. aa5874 does not comprehend the words "only" or "except" and possibly other key concepts in English.

Own up, aa5874, and we'll try to help you out.

Just show me where Origen stated that God of the Jews did not literally created the world as stated in Genesis.

Origen called the God of the Jews the Creator.

Just show me where Origen stated that Jesus was not literally born of a virgin, or was not literally conceived by the Holy Ghost, was not literally tempted by the devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, did not literally walk on water, or did not literally raise a man dead for four days, did not literally transfigure, did not literally resurrect, or did not literally ascend through the clouds.

Please, stop wasting time. Just produce the information. You cannot.

Origen was a literalist.

Toto · 12-29-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.

Just show me where Origen stated that Jesus was not literally ... [/b]tempted by the devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, ....

Shortly after the quote that GDon gave you, Origen states:

Quote:

. . those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place.

Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g. the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain in order to show him from thence the kingdomes of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounds carelessly, that would nto condemn those who think that with the eye of the body -- whcih requires a lofty height ord order that the parts lying (immediatelyP under and adjacent may be seem -- the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted . . .

quoted from Readings in the History of Christian Theology Volume 1: From Its Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation (or via: amazon.co.uk) By William Carl Placher, available on Google books.

You lose. Stop wasting our time.

thedistillers · 12-29-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

A literalist believes the Bible is literally true.

True. A literalist believes the whole Bible is literally true. A literalist cannot consider any part to be figurative or not literal.

No, I don't agree... A biblical literalist takes the Bible literally when the context, writing style, etc suggest it should be taken literally, and takes it figuratively when the context, writing style, etc suggest it should be taken figuratively. I don't know any literalist who believes every line of the Bible is literally true. That's too absurd even for the craziest fundies.

For example, a lot of literalists think that Genesis should be taken literally, but after analysis of the text; they don't take as axiomatic that Genesis should be taken literally.

Toto · 12-29-2008, 02:15 PM

Biblical_literalism

Quote:

According to the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, literalism "seeks to discover the author's intent by focusing upon his words in their plain, most obvious sense". Literalism does not exclude allegory, metaphor, and parable, but accepts the teaching of the Bible as the author intended it, whether literal or figurative, at face value.

But as the quotes show, Origen said that anything he did not believe really happened was not literally true, including events that modern Biblical literalists claim to have actually happened. What use is this term then?

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am starting to see a pattern. aa5874 does not comprehend the words "only" or "except" and possibly other key concepts in English.

Own up, aa5874, and we'll try to help you out.

Just show me where Origen stated that God of the Jews did not literally created the world as stated in Genesis.

Origen called the God of the Jews the Creator.

Just show me where Origen stated that Jesus was not literally born of a virgin, or was not literally conceived by the Holy Ghost, was not literally tempted by the devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, did not literally walk on water, or did not literally raise a man dead for four days, did not literally transfigure, did not literally resurrect, or did not literally ascend through the clouds.

Since it's obvious that you know not only how but where Origen discusses these things in a literal fashion (otherwise you would have no grounds for making your claim that he is a literalist on these matters, would you?), would you please " stop wasting time" with empty and undemonstrated assertions and "Just produce the information" that shows he thinks that Jesus was literally born of a virgin, was literally tested by the devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, etc., etc.

Where specifically (i.e. in which of his works and in which chapter/book and line of those works) can we find Origen's discussion of the Gospel reports of Jesus' wilderness testing and of his conception and of his walking on water?

Instead of simply asserting that Origen was a literalist, at least on these on these things, please provide the data that shows that he was.

Where within Origen's writings can we find his "literalist" discussion of them?

Do you know?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith · 12-29-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am starting to see a pattern. aa5874 does not comprehend the words "only" or "except" and possibly other key concepts in English.

This is probably the best aa5874 moment since Jesus leapt into the womb.

:rolling:

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am starting to see a pattern. aa5874 does not comprehend the words "only" or "except" and possibly other key concepts in English.

Own up, aa5874, and we'll try to help you out.

Just show me where Origen stated that God of the Jews did not literally created the world as stated in Genesis.

He states this in a book of his which you have obviously not read -- On First Principles:

Quote:

For who that has understanding will suppose that [as is stated in the first creation account in Genesis] the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree?

Now since I answered your question (oh look -- a contribution!), perhaps you will answer the ones about Origen that I've asked you (but which you've dodged) here and here and here, as well as a new one -- namely, where does Origen speak of Jesus' conception, and where when he does so, does he use the Greek word for "ghost", as you claim he does?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am starting to see a pattern. aa5874 does not comprehend the words "only" or "except" and possibly other key concepts in English.

This is probably the best aa5874 moment since Jesus leapt into the womb.

:rolling:

Ben.

Right up there with his "ghost" stuff.

But note that he never answered the question that I posed here in the light of his admission -- after a lot of time wasting on his part -- that you were right about the fact that the text of Luke 1:41 does not speak about any baby leaping into anybody's womb, as he had claimed it did (over and over again).

I wonder why?

Jeffrey

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

12-29-2008, 01:09 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I am starting to see a pattern. aa5874 does not comprehend the words "only" or "except" and possibly other key concepts in English. Own up, aa5874, and we'll try to help you out.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.