Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 10-25-2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Jake, quit conflating the issue so much. There is nothing contentious about some people thinking some of the material may have been this sort of thing (though whether they are right or not in relation to the original writer's intentions is another matter). But what you should surely be showing us, in order to begin to advance the idea that anyone was knowingly writing such wholesale fiction, is evidence that they were doing this from either their own hand or from anybody else's. Otherwize, you may just be doing post-mod lit-crit, beloved of text-fetish scholars and the like. :]

When the text clearly says that it is not fiction and/or presents itself as such, and when there is no indication that it was ever treated as entirely fiction, I think it is up to anyone who says it was intended as fiction to, er, present some better evidence. Unusualities should normally be asked for unusually good evidence, I think.

I hear the echo of a myther chorus, 'ahh, but how do you tell the difference...!'

That is indeed something to consider, but it is slightly separate.

Hi archibald,

I am driving a tractor trailer through downtown Atlanta right now while eating a cheesburger and texting my wife, but In Stromateis, Bk. 1, Ch. 28, Clement wrote, "Thus the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being molded according to them. But secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God.
But the Mysteries are delivered mystically, that which is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker; rather not in his voice, but in his understanding.... The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear. But it will be an image to recall the archetype to him who was struck by the Thyrsus." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

archibald · 10-25-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi archibald,

I am driving a tractor trailer through downtown Atlanta right now while eating a cheesburger and texting my wife, but In Stromateis, Bk. 1, Ch. 28, Clement wrote, "Thus the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being molded according to them. But secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God.
But the Mysteries are delivered mystically, that which is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker; rather not in his voice, but in his understanding.... The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear. But it will be an image to recall the archetype to him who was struck by the Thyrsus." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

Could you decode. This appears to be something written by yet another bloke who thought Jesus had actually existed? :]

Chili · 10-25-2011, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

//

[What about those who believed that the stories were allegory or parables? Figurative language, not literal history?

To think is to infer and forsee movement, and to criticically observe also the evidence at hand and then finally induce knowledge as critic with logic in place so that the argument will stand.

My reaction here is that Luke introduced what was 'said to be believed' and did this to make his point known, and so what was believed just serves as an alert to the reader and get ready to read what Luke wants us to know.

Now note please that Mark does not even have and infancy and neither does John who had his Jesus just fall out of a fig tree, which may not have been known to Luke at that time but it is known to us and just by that fact alone must we treat the infancy with suspicion like a snake talking except here a little better conceiled.

aa5874 · 10-25-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even ORIGEN BELIEVED the most fictitious feeding of the thousands.

AA, you know alot of stuff :notworthy:, but you are not always consistent. How do you even know that Origen existed?...

How do you even know Marcion existed and that he did the things you claimed which is Not supported by ANY source of antiquity?

jakejonesiv · 10-26-2011, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

How do you even know Marcion existed and that he did the things you claimed which is Not supported by ANY source of antiquity?

AA,

You are inconsistent.

How do you know that Eusebius existed? I will tell you right now that I doubt the existence of historical Eusebius (HE), at least as a single individual. Where is your proof?

Jake

dog-on · 10-26-2011, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi archibald,

I am driving a tractor trailer through downtown Atlanta right now while eating a cheesburger and texting my wife, but In Stromateis, Bk. 1, Ch. 28, Clement wrote, "Thus the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being molded according to them. But secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God.
But the Mysteries are delivered mystically, that which is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker; rather not in his voice, but in his understanding.... The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear. But it will be an image to recall the archetype to him who was struck by the Thyrsus." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

Could you decode. This appears to be something written by yet another bloke who thought Jesus had actually existed? :]

Actually that bloke probably believed that Jesus still existed...

jakejonesiv · 10-26-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi archibald,

I am driving a tractor trailer through downtown Atlanta right now while eating a cheesburger and texting my wife, but In Stromateis, Bk. 1, Ch. 28, Clement wrote, "Thus the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being molded according to them. But secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God.
But the Mysteries are delivered mystically, that which is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker; rather not in his voice, but in his understanding.... The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear. But it will be an image to recall the archetype to him who was struck by the Thyrsus." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

Could you decode. This appears to be something written by yet another bloke who thought Jesus had actually existed? :]

Which as fine as long as you argue for the Historical Dionysus too.

Oh, and don't read the passage above to carefully or you might come to the uncomfortable conclusion that Christianity really was a mystery cult in Alexandria.

archibald · 10-26-2011, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Which as fine as long as you argue for the Historical Dionysus too.

You lost me. Are you still driving that tractor?

I would need dates, for starters. When did Dionysus die?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Oh, and don't read the passage above to carefully or you might come to the uncomfortable conclusion that Christianity really was a mystery cult in Alexandria.

and that would make me uncomfortable, because.................................

jakejonesiv · 10-27-2011, 05:33 AM

:banghead: Archibald, to whom who do you think "to him who was struck by the Thyrsus" refers?

andrewcriddle · 10-27-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

:banghead: Archibald, to whom who do you think "to him who was struck by the Thyrsus" refers?

Being struck by the Thyrsus of Dionysus is a metaphor for receiving poetic and other inspiration.

Andrew Criddle

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

10-27-2011, 05:33 AM	#149
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	:banghead: Archibald, to whom who do you think "to him who was struck by the Thyrsus" refers?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.