Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-01-2013, 11:17 PM

I don't know why I continue to debate with you. You seem to have such hatred toward me. I don't understand. I want to be your friend. I really do. But every time I try to put out my hand you attack and insult me. I've prayed about it for some time and my pastor says that I just have to turn the other cheek. I guess it's my cross to bear. But if it makes you feel any better I've just been asked to write a paper on this for the Journal of Higher Criticism via Bob Price. I do appreciate all this interest. It will make for a much better paper.

stephan huller · 04-01-2013, 11:19 PM

And as I really don't want your personal animosity against me to stand in the way of your development as a thinker, I highly recommend this article by Drijvers. He feels very comfortable using Ephrem and Eznik as the basis to his reconstruction of Marcion and Marcionitism. He does so because he isn't restricted by a fear of Syriac. The article is here http://books.google.com/books?id=ecs...mid%22&f=false

stephan huller · 04-01-2013, 11:28 PM

Oh, it is worth pointing out WHY Drijvers wasn't afraid of Syriac sources. He could actually fucking read them:

Quote:

Prof. Dr. Han J.W. Drijvers passed away on 11 February 2002 at the age of 67. He was a retired professor of Semitic Languages and Literature and Archaeology of the Near East at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands.

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Even your snippet from Salmon's summary of Eznik above is selective and unreferenced, i.e. where is the rest of it? You could at least have pointed the readers to G.R.S. Mead's summary of Salmon's summary.

http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/f...tten/fff38.htm

We can read the text for ourselves.

No, unlike you I corrected the citation with the original German translation into English by Drijvers. You put this:

Quote:

We can read the text for ourselves.

We can see how interested you are in getting to the bottom of things.

You know full well that you modified your message after I quoted you in full. http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...6&postcount=47

stephan huller · 04-01-2013, 11:44 PM

Of course I modified my message. I did long before you posted these comments. What's with this constant need to attack me? It's like I am a bad person for denying your inherited beliefs about Marcion. I actually posted the new information before you posted anything in this thread tonight.

You posted your 'cross out' (= where you took the time to cross out everything I had posted) at Today, 10:56 PM. I posted my last edit to that page at Last edited by stephan huller; Today at 10:44 PM.

Again I ask you to look inside of yourself and see whether it is possible that we might be able to get along as colleagues in this search for knowledge and truth. I know it is a hard road. One that has a lot of hills and valleys. We all try to do our best and we come up short. That's why I always recommend meditation for those moments when we feel anger is going to come up and consume us. It might not take a lot. Just a few minutes away from the computer or what ever you're doing. Just close your eyes and take deep breaths. And maybe we can get over this rough patch in our friendship.

stephan huller · 04-01-2013, 11:56 PM

So for those who are actually interested in making sense of Marcion rather than maintaining as some sort of religious dogma, here is the surviving Masoretic account of the creation of man were the Marcionites took issue with 'the Lord' on several occasions. I don't know if the Marcionites used this Hebrew text or some other. But let's leave this for argument's sake for the moment. If - as Irenaeus notes - the Marcionites 'divided the Lord and God' into two powers of judgment and mercy in keeping with contemporary (Jewish) practice - how can it be insignificant that (a) Isaiah chapter 45 is consistently changed to show 'the Lord' claiming to be 'God' and (b) why does Marcion only attack 'the Lord' when he clearly identified 'God' as a merciful power? If 'God' was actually involved in creation according to the Marcionites you'd expect them to condemn TWO powers not just one:

Quote:

Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
20 Adam[c] named his wife Eve,[d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

jakejonesiv · 04-02-2013, 12:20 AM

Hey, it took me a few minutes to check your sources.
Here is your original quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

So Hyle gave him his body and the Creative Power the breath of hfe [sic], his spirit. And Adam and Eve lived in innocence in Paradise, and did not beget children. And the' God of the Law desired to take Adam from Hyle and make him serve him alone. So taking him aside, he said: "Adam, I am God and beside me there is no other; if thou worshippest any other God thou shalt die the death." And Adam on hearing of death was afraid, and withdrew himself from Hyle [Salmon's summary of Eznik]

This is what is we read on Fragments of a Faith Forgotten by G.R.S. Mead
http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/f...tten/fff38.htm

Quote:

So Hylē gave him his body and the Creative Power the breath of life, his spirit. And Adam and Eve lived in innocence in Paradise, and did not beget children. And the God of the Law desired to take Adam from Hylē and make him serve him alone. So taking him aside, he said: "Adam, I am God and beside me there is no other; if thou worshippest any other God thou shalt die the death." And Adam on hearing of death was afraid, and withdrew himself from Hylē.

It is the same identical thing except for your typo's. (BTW I make more than you).

I don't see any problem with my post. It is accurate and follows up on a source you introduced. You are the one that changed horses in mid-stream. And you still haven't supplied the text of Eznik or a link to it. What do you have to hide? Please supply whatever you think is the best text of Eznik so the readers of the forum can read for themselves.

P.S. Please refrain from making any personal remarks.

stephan huller · 04-02-2013, 12:26 AM

My dear friend. I really wish we could get over this rough patch in our relationship. I can remember when we used to talk for hours on the phone. Now we are at each others throats. Fight, fight, fight. What happened to our friendship? Where did it all go?

The facts remain that I changed that passage BEFORE you called attention to it. The record plainly shows that. I did so only because I found Drijvers' article and was reading it and thought it was best to strive for accuracy.

I don't know how long you want to keep going on about this but in my books 10:44 pm is before 10:56 pm.

jakejonesiv · 04-02-2013, 12:33 AM

We have never met or spoken on the phone. Please refrain from making personal comments.

There is nothing wrong with you making changes to your original post as long as the board mechanism allows it. There is also nothing wrong with me responding to an earlier iteration of your post as I found it, and pursuing the discussion down that path.

Thank you,
Jake Jones

stephan huller · 04-02-2013, 12:36 AM

Quote:

We have never met or spoken on the phone. Please refrain from making personal comments.

I still consider you a good friend. I can remember when I went through a rough patch you were there for me. And I will never forget that. Thanks Jake.

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

04-01-2013, 11:17 PM	#51
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't know why I continue to debate with you. You seem to have such hatred toward me. I don't understand. I want to be your friend. I really do. But every time I try to put out my hand you attack and insult me. I've prayed about it for some time and my pastor says that I just have to turn the other cheek. I guess it's my cross to bear. But if it makes you feel any better I've just been asked to write a paper on this for the Journal of Higher Criticism via Bob Price. I do appreciate all this interest. It will make for a much better paper.

04-01-2013, 11:19 PM	#52
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And as I really don't want your personal animosity against me to stand in the way of your development as a thinker, I highly recommend this article by Drijvers. He feels very comfortable using Ephrem and Eznik as the basis to his reconstruction of Marcion and Marcionitism. He does so because he isn't restricted by a fear of Syriac. The article is here http://books.google.com/books?id=ecs...mid%22&f=false

04-01-2013, 11:44 PM	#55
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Of course I modified my message. I did long before you posted these comments. What's with this constant need to attack me? It's like I am a bad person for denying your inherited beliefs about Marcion. I actually posted the new information before you posted anything in this thread tonight. You posted your 'cross out' (= where you took the time to cross out everything I had posted) at Today, 10:56 PM. I posted my last edit to that page at Last edited by stephan huller; Today at 10:44 PM. Again I ask you to look inside of yourself and see whether it is possible that we might be able to get along as colleagues in this search for knowledge and truth. I know it is a hard road. One that has a lot of hills and valleys. We all try to do our best and we come up short. That's why I always recommend meditation for those moments when we feel anger is going to come up and consume us. It might not take a lot. Just a few minutes away from the computer or what ever you're doing. Just close your eyes and take deep breaths. And maybe we can get over this rough patch in our friendship.

04-02-2013, 12:26 AM	#58
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	My dear friend. I really wish we could get over this rough patch in our relationship. I can remember when we used to talk for hours on the phone. Now we are at each others throats. Fight, fight, fight. What happened to our friendship? Where did it all go? The facts remain that I changed that passage BEFORE you called attention to it. The record plainly shows that. I did so only because I found Drijvers' article and was reading it and thought it was best to strive for accuracy. I don't know how long you want to keep going on about this but in my books 10:44 pm is before 10:56 pm.

04-02-2013, 12:33 AM	#59
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	We have never met or spoken on the phone. Please refrain from making personal comments. There is nothing wrong with you making changes to your original post as long as the board mechanism allows it. There is also nothing wrong with me responding to an earlier iteration of your post as I found it, and pursuing the discussion down that path. Thank you, Jake Jones

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.