Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-18-2009, 08:55 PM

Mountainman's latest hobbyhorse, the gopsel of Peter, has been split off here. If you want any other subthreads split (hobbyhorse or not), PM me.

Roger Pearse · 05-19-2009, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

This kind of argument will not stand. First of all there is the question why Eusebius would appeal to Plato.

True.

Eusebius does tell us this; in this book he's going through the pagan writers indicating how their work is a preparation for the gospel (preparatio evangelicae).

Now this is the point of his book (which makes it an incredibly valuable source of now lost pagan literature; much of books 11-15 is a primer of Greek philosophy from now lost sources). But surely it ought to make us think, when we discover that a web page talks about a book, quotes it to smear the author, yet doesn't even tell us what the book is about? How much do we trust a site that does that to us?

(I'm not calling YOU responsible, you realise? What I'm saying is that this whole line of argument is very dodgy, and people like you and I are liable to be misled by it.)

Quote:

Eusebius is not calling the bible a fraud ...

Agreed. Yet, if pseudos means "falsehood", that is precisely what we are being invited to believe the passage means. That's the point; it *cannot* mean that.

Why not have a look again at the passage, in the context of book 12? It is online, and if you print out the first 35 chapters of book 12 and read them, you'll get acres of context. It's not hard reading, although a bit hard to read onscreen.

I think the problem is that people are generally invited by polemicists to object to it, torn out of context as it is, before they have really looked at it. <sad>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle · 05-19-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is an underlying theological argument on indulgencies in all three reformers (actually Huss dutifully copied his from Wycliffe) one which touches on the issue of harm in white lies. It was not the business of the church to sell comfort, but to guard the truth. Wycliffe, Huss and Luther all denied that clergy, the episcopate and the church doctors are the whole church. The indulgencies represented the usurpation of the sacred trust between Christ and his church which included all believers.

The first two theses nailed on the door of the church in Wittenberg, said exactly that:

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

IIUC we both agree that the Reformers held that the supporters of indulgences were harming ordinary simple believers by their erroneous teachings.

However, you seem to be saying that the Reformers regarded the official teaching on indulgences as not only error but deliberate falsehood. But I can't see any evidence in your post supporting this position.

(If I claim that some useless remedy will cure cancer, then I am harming people by teaching error. But I am only lying if I know or believe that my claims are false. )

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 05-19-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Did Origen or Eusebius think that the Scriptures were directly written by God? or by humans doing their best to get the God idea across, even if it involved fables? I would think the latter, with the possible exception of the Decalogue.

I'm not familiar with any detailed discussion of this by Eusebius, however Origen does seem to have regarded the Scriptures as more or less dictated by God.

From the philocalia

Quote:

If the words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace, approved of the whole earth, purified seven times; it is just as true that the Holy Spirit has dictated them, through the ministers of the Word, with the most scrupulous accuracy, lest the parallel meaning which the wisdom of God had constantly in view over the whole range of inspired Scripture, even to the mere letter, should escape us. And perhaps this is why the Saviour says, "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." For if we study Creation we see that the Divine skill is shown not only in heaven, in the sun, moon, and stars, being everywhere evidenced in those bodies, but also upon earth no less in commoner matter: so that the bodies of the smallest living creatures are not scornfully treated by the Creator, much less the souls existing in them, each having some peculiar gift, something to ensure the safety of the irrational creature. And as for plants, neither are they overlooked, for the Creator is immanent in every one, as regards roots, and leaves, appropriate fruits, and varying qualities. So, too, we conceive of all that has been recorded by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, believing that the sacred foreknowledge has through the Scriptures supplied superhuman wisdom to the race of man, having, so to speak, sown the seeds of saving truths, traces of the wisdom of God, in every letter as far as possible.

Quote:

And it is fitting to believe that not a single tittle of the sacred Scriptures is without something of the wisdom of God; for He Who gave me a mere man the command, "Thou shalt not appear before me empty," how much more will He not speak anything "empty." When the Prophets speak, it is after receiving of His fulness; and so everything breathes what comes of His fulness; and there is nothing in Prophecy, or Law, or Gospel, or Apostle, which is not of His fulness. And just because it is of His fulness, it breathes His fulness to those who have eyes to see the things of that fulness, and ears to hear the things of that fulness, and a faculty to perceive the sweet odour of the things of that fulness. But if in reading the Scripture thou shouldest sometime stumble at a meaning which is a fair stone of stumbling and rock of offence, blame thyself. Do not despair of finding meanings in the stone of stumbling and rock of offence, so that the saying may be fulfilled, "He that believeth shall not be ashamed." First believe, and thou shalt find beneath what is counted a stumbling-block much gain in godliness.

Quote:

If at anytime in reading the Scripture you stumble at something which is a fair stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, blame yourself; for you must not despair of finding in this stone of stumbling and rock of offence thoughts to justify the saying, "He that believeth shall not be ashamed." First believe, and thou shalt find beneath what is deemed a stumbling-stone much gain in godliness. For if we really received a commandment to speak no idle word, because we shall give account of it in the day of judgment; and if we must with all our might endeavour to make every word proceeding out of our mouths a working word both in ourselves who speak and in those who hear, must we not conclude that every word spoken through the Prophets was fit for work? and it is no wonder if every word spoken by the Prophets had a work adapted to it. Nay, I suppose that every letter, no matter how strange, which is written in the oracles of God, does its work. And there is not one jot or tittle written in the Scripture, which, when men know how to extract the virtue does not work its own work.

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 05-19-2009, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is an underlying theological argument on indulgencies in all three reformers (actually Huss dutifully copied his from Wycliffe) one which touches on the issue of harm in white lies. It was not the business of the church to sell comfort, but to guard the truth. Wycliffe, Huss and Luther all denied that clergy, the episcopate and the church doctors are the whole church. The indulgencies represented the usurpation of the sacred trust between Christ and his church which included all believers.

The first two theses nailed on the door of the church in Wittenberg, said exactly that:

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

IIUC we both agree that the Reformers held that the supporters of indulgences were harming ordinary simple believers by their erroneous teachings.

Hi Andrew,
yes, I think all three agreed that there was harm not only on the level of practice but with the concept itself, i.e. even if the money collected were to be used for a good purpose, there was still an issue.

Quote:

However, you seem to be saying that the Reformers regarded the official teaching on indulgences as not only error but deliberate falsehood. But I can't see any evidence in your post supporting this position.

Yes, in their view and on Pauline terms, the Church was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel. It was that basic. Wycliffe called the indulgencies "blasphemy against Christ". Huss denounced the issue of indulgencies by pope John XXIII. and declared him "Antichrist". . Luther, knowing the fate of his predecessors was more guarded, but in no way conciliatory.

Quote:

Wittenberg theses:

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

He makes sure that he does not condemn the pope explicitly but he roundly ridicules him:

Quote:

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

But he does send to hell the indulgence buyers and the theologians who support the practice:

Quote:

31.Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon

Back to the Eusebius connection: I was actually quite shocked by the PE admission when I first read it. Probably Eusebius did not realize the enormous difference between the frankness of Plato in lowering the absolute standard of truth in dealing with practical matters of state and a bishop declaring the lapse being of absolutely perfect, divine provenance. I am puzzled that you and Roger do not grasp the essence of Eusebius' hubris and his folly.

'I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, who mind you being God himself, may be at times wishy-washy about the 'whole' and 'nothing but' parts. I can tell you this because I am appointed to speak for God. '

Sounds ok to you ?

Quote:

(If I claim that some useless remedy will cure cancer, then I am harming people by teaching error. But I am only lying if I know or believe that my claims are false. )

Andrew Criddle

If I claim to be a doctor and do not know medicine I would be a fraud, would I not ? So, for the Reformers, it was the scripture that was the medicine, and the church of their day lied about the gospel.

Best regards,
Jiri

Roger Pearse · 05-19-2009, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Back to the Eusebius connection: I was actually quite shocked by the PE admission when I first read it. Probably Eusebius did not realize the enormous difference between the frankness of Plato in lowering the absolute standard of truth in dealing with practical matters of state and a bishop declaring the lapse being of absolutely perfect, divine provenance. I am puzzled that you and Roger do not grasp the essence of Eusebius' hubris and his folly.

I don't think you have read what Eusebius says, as opposed to what some people want it to say.

Solo · 05-20-2009, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Back to the Eusebius connection: I was actually quite shocked by the PE admission when I first read it. Probably Eusebius did not realize the enormous difference between the frankness of Plato in lowering the absolute standard of truth in dealing with practical matters of state and a bishop declaring the lapse being of absolutely perfect, divine provenance. I am puzzled that you and Roger do not grasp the essence of Eusebius' hubris and his folly.

I don't think you have read what Eusebius says, as opposed to what some people want it to say.

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio Evangelica, 12.32

Here is what some people want to say about that:

Deu 32:4 [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Best,
Jiri

Roger Pearse · 05-20-2009, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't think you have read what Eusebius says, as opposed to what some people want it to say.

(reiteration)

See my earlier comments.

andrewcriddle · 05-20-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Back to the Eusebius connection: I was actually quite shocked by the PE admission when I first read it. Probably Eusebius did not realize the enormous difference between the frankness of Plato in lowering the absolute standard of truth in dealing with practical matters of state and a bishop declaring the lapse being of absolutely perfect, divine provenance. I am puzzled that you and Roger do not grasp the essence of Eusebius' hubris and his folly.

'I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, who mind you being God himself, may be at times wishy-washy about the 'whole' and 'nothing but' parts. I can tell you this because I am appointed to speak for God. '

Sounds ok to you ?

I agree that Eusebius (along with other readers of Plato of his day) interpreted passages that originally dealt with issues of practical politics as being about more general and permanent issues. Given that the politics of independent city states were not of current concern this (mis)reading preserved Plato's continued relevance.

I also agree that (like almost everyone Pagan or Christian before Augustine) Eusebius was not an absolutist about truth telling, in the sense of holding that the duty to tell the truth can never be overriden by other considerations.

How far one is shocked by Eusebius having shared some of the dubious ideas common among intellectuals of his day will vary from individual to individual.

However I think you are wrong to suggest that Eusebius is claiming as a Bishop to have some special ability to determine when it is justified to mislead people. Eusebius is seeking to show the agreement of Plato with Scripture, claims about dodgy practices by church leaders are beside the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

(If I claim that some useless remedy will cure cancer, then I am harming people by teaching error. But I am only lying if I know or believe that my claims are false. )

Andrew Criddle

If I claim to be a doctor and do not know medicine I would be a fraud, would I not ? So, for the Reformers, it was the scripture that was the medicine, and the church of their day lied about the gospel.

Best regards,
Jiri

The argument about indulgences is maybe off-topic and a distraction from the main issues. I'll just say that to accuse someone of gross and culpable error is not the same as accusing them of deliberate deceit.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 05-20-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

must we not conclude that every word spoken through the Prophets was fit for work? and it is no wonder if every word spoken by the Prophets had a work adapted to it. Nay, I suppose that every letter, no matter how strange, which is written in the oracles of God, does its work. And there is not one jot or tittle written in the Scripture, which, when men know how to extract the virtue does not work its own work.

There are of course different views about how God spoke his word. This was the root of the debates between the different Jewish groups - the Pharisees in fact understanding the need to reinterpret with each generation - something the Library at alexandria had been doing for centuries with Homer.

Quote:

Umberto Eco writes in Baudolino:

in the Acts of the Apostles it says that God from one man devised our humankind to inhabit the entire face of the earth, its face - not the other side, which doesn't exist.

"I don't know if you have ever studied the measurements of the Temple, well don't, because it is enough to drive you crazy. In Kings it says... In chronicles it says...

The problem however arises when you read the vision of Ezekiel. Not one measurement holds up, and so a number of pious men have admitted that Ezekiel had indeed had a vision, which is a bit like saying he had drunk too much and was seeing double. Nothing wrong with that , poor Ezekiel (he also had a right to his fun), but then Richard of St Victoire reasoned as follows: if everything, every number, every straw in the Bible has a spiritual meaning, we must clearly understand what it says literally, because it is one thing to say , for the spiritual meaning, that something is three long and another's length is nine, since these two numbers have different mystical meanings.

"The most alert commentators have not succeeded in establishing the exact structure of the Temple. You Christians do not understand that the sacred text is born from a Voice. The Lord, haqadoch baruch hu, that the holy one, may his name always be blessed , when he speaks to his prophets, allows them to hear sounds, but does not show figures, as you people do, with your illuminated pages. The voice surely provokes images in the heart of the prophet, but these images are not immobile; they liquefy, change shape according to the melody of that voice, and if you want to reduce to images the voice of the Lord, blessed always be his name, you freeze that voice, as if it were fresh water turning to ice that no longer quenches thirst, but numbs the limbs in the chill of death,"

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=165153

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

05-18-2009, 08:55 PM	#101
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Mountainman's latest hobbyhorse, the gopsel of Peter, has been split off here. If you want any other subthreads split (hobbyhorse or not), PM me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.