Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 09-26-2011, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Yes, yes, Don, we all know about how you twist and turn the Minucius Felix passage to make it say what it doesn’t say. We’ve been over that in debate many times before, especially on this board a few years ago. Like I said, this is not a legitimate prima facie reading, it is your imposed reading after you’ve subjected it to your contortions, your reading into the text of alleged meanings and totally unstated qualifications and implications behind certain words and phrases.

Earl, you wrote above "Minucius Felix heaps scorn on the idea of worshiping a crucified and mortal criminal, and your prima facie reading is to claim that he means the direct opposite?"

I responded that I agree completely with you that this is the prima facie reading. The text makes it clear that the charge is that Christians are wicked because they worship a wicked man.

How much sense would it make for the charge to be that Christians are wicked because they worship a man unfairly crucified? None. To repeat: the text is clear on this point: Christians are wicked because they worship a wicked man.

So I would use this as a clear example of your inability to avoid reading your own conclusions into the text.

Obviously one of us is incorrect. Latin is not my strong point; in fact, it isn't even strong enough to be considered among my weak points! But I did have it checked. I'm sure you will be happy to inform me if I am wrong.

The Latin for the key sentence is this:

"Et qui hominem summo supplicio pro facinore punitum et crucis ligna feralia eorum caerimonias fabulatur, congruentia perditis sceleratisque tribuit altaria, ut id colant quod merentur".

The key word here is "facinore". In Latin, "facina -oris" has the meaning of "bad deed, crime, villainy". So the sense being expressed is that the man was punished "for bad deeds" or "for villiany". Octavius' response is clear: The charge is obviously wrong, since no man who is a criminal -- no man who has actually been evil -- can be thought to be a god.

Maybe someone with Latin skills can weigh in here: is the charge that Christians worship a man punished for "villainy"? And that Christians must be wicked men for worshipping such a person?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

By the way, I like this paragraph in my Appendix “Minucius Felix’s Rejection of the Crucified Man”:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JNGNM

Modern scholarship has taken [Felix’s] powerful justification for regarding the worship of a man and his cross as foolish and unthinkable—just as the other accusations are foolish and unthinkable—and turned it 180 degrees to mean the opposite. Since Felix declares it is foolish because no criminal deserves to be worshiped, this means he meant that the man was not a criminal! Since Felix declares it is foolish because a mortal could never get himself to be thought of as a god, this means he meant that the man was not a mortal! He meant all this, even though he makes no statements to that effect—something he could easily have done—and has in fact created quite the opposite impression.

I like it too, because if you are wrong -- if he "could easily have" made statements to that effect BUT HE DIDN'T -- then this would need to be taken into consideration where you use the same reasoning in all the other places you use it. Which is basically everywhere.

Most of the rest of your points we have argued over many, many times, so I won't rehash them (which we will both be thankful for, I suspect!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

And let me take the opportunity to make one comment regarding something that others have said before you. You urge me to “Give Ehrman the treatment!” It seems to be assumed that I will address someone like Bart Ehrman the same way that I have often addressed people like yourself or ApostateAbe or Archie on this board. The context of these discussions with people like yourselves is quite different from responding to a respected mainstream scholar. I’ve put up with years of antics like yours, of refusals like yours to even address rebuttals I’ve put forward to your constantly repeated arguments and fallacies, of closed-minded (and proud of it) ignorance of any decent understanding of the mythicist case by people like Archie and Abe and Judge and several others, years of veiled and not-so-veiled personal attacks on my knowledge and integrity, most totally unjustified, years of rabid hostility by the likes of know-nothings of the Tim O’Neill sort. My “treatment” as you and others call it, has been determined and honed by that experience and has been tailored, both consciously and unconsciously, for this situation.

Yes, you and Acharya S have had such bad luck with the critics who have been negative towards your theories. What are the chances that even atheist detractors like Tim O'Neill, Gibson, Muller and others have been so rabidly hostile to you? :constern01: Terrible, terrible luck.

Fortunately both you (the Modern Day Galileo) and Acharya S (a Great Mind of Our Times) have critics who are generally supportive of your theories. So there are open-minded people out there, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I can assure you that I am hardly going to bring the same reactions and rebuttal style to any response to a Bart Ehrman, despite the faults and fallacies which I know I am going to find in him as well.

Yes, at first. After that: we shall see.

Who is your mini-rant above for? Me? You know I think you are a crank, and couldn't care two hoots for your opinion of me. As long as your critics stick to evidence over speculation, you aren't going to have a good time. Asking for evidence is kryptonite for bad ideas.

No, I think a large part of yours and Acharya S's bluster is for your audience, to make them feel they are 'in on something' (though they are comforted by the thought that they "don't agree with you on everything" which shows they are being open-minded. They just agree with you on the important points that they don't have the knowledge to critique).

The 'villianization' of your detractors is the next obvious step. They are the closed-minded ones! I'm fairly sure that you will soon be including Ehrman in the list in your little rant above should he directly address your work. But we shall see.

J-D · 09-26-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...Plutarch says that it is possible for parts of a mythological story to be historically true. ('This narrative for the most part given by Fabius and Diocles of Peparethus, who seem to be the earliest historians of the foundation of Rome, is suspected by some, because of its dramatic and fictitious appearance; but it would not wholly be disbelieved, if men would remember what a poet fortune sometimes shows herself, and consider that the Roman power would hardly have reached so high a pitch without a divinely ordered origin, attended with great and extraordinary circumstances.') Is that what you are saying?

I am saying that ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY is relevant to ANCIENT HISTORY.

I really don't know what you are saying because it does NOT make much sense.

I am asking you a question.

This is the question: HOW is ancient mythology relevant to ancient history?

I really don't know whether you are having trouble understanding what the word 'HOW' means.

You will have to EDUCATE yourself.

I told you to read Plutarch's "Romulus" to get a BASIC understanding how ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY is relevant to ANCIENT HISTORY.

Just read the book and stop asking silly questions.

See http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

YOU will have to EDUCATE yourself.

I READ Plutarch's 'Romulus' and there is NO ANSWER in it to the QUESTION I asked you.

Just ANSWER my QUESTION and STOP being SILLY.

Sheshbazzar · 09-26-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The key thing is understanding that everything in the NT is about peoples BELIEFS, claimed VISIONS, and SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES and their resulting CONVICTIONS......

I think the key to understand the Canonised NT is to realize that that the Roman Church FABRICATED the history of the Church using INVENTIONS called Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings as historical sources when they were NOT.

Just out of curiosity aa, do you think that the Christian religion was wholly invented and started by the Roman Church?
Or simply that the Roman Church took over and dominated a religious movement that had originally been started by others?
How do you explain the origins of the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Church's?

aa5874 · 09-26-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the Pauline writings IT was a LIE that Jesus was a man.

You want to return to the purity of early Christianity and I admire your noble religious zeal.

Paul made a mess of it all; Bernard Shaw and Nietzsche thought that too, I think.

Perhaps one day the simple original massage you hanker after will return to illuminate your mind and comfort your heart.:love: :love:

What nonsense!!!

You are just spreading propaganda, logical fallacies, absurdities, non-sequiturs, circular arguments and speculation.

I am dealing with the WRITTEN statements found in the Pauline writings.

What sources of antiquity have you provided for YOUR "historical Jesus of Nazareth"?.

The Pauline writers have DESTROYED all claims to an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth.

The Pauline Jesus was a resurrected God Incarnate.

1. Galatians 1.1--The Pauline writer was NOT the apostle of a man.

2. Galatians 1.11-12--The Pauline writer did NOT get his gospel from man.

3. Romans 1.25---The Pauline writer did NOT worship man as God.

4. 1 Cor.15---The Pauline writer claimed he SAW a non-historical resurrected Jesus.

5. Philipiians 2.---The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was in the FORM of God and was EQUAL to God.

6. Thessalonians 4---The Pauline writer claimed Jesus would descend from heaven and meet the resurrected dead in the AIR.

7. Romans 8.3, 8.32 and Galatians 4.4---The Pauline Jesus was God's OWN Son.

HJ of Nazareth is just a big joke.

archibald · 09-26-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is your habit to take one phrase out of context and misinterpret it? And then continually resist any effort to understand the meaning?

Your comment that Jesus was not thought of as being historical before the 'Quests' is pure nonsense. How much clearer can I be? :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why is it irrelevant? If they believed that Jesus was a spiritual entity who appeared on earth an did magical things (not exactly Doherty's view) why should that be evidence that they believed Jesus was a real person in history?

Ah yes. The 'real person' strawman. I almost didn't spot the switch.

It's irrelevant.

Oh hang on, have you moved the goalposts from 'pre-quest' to 'docetics'? I think you have.

All this obfuscation is making me quite giddy.

Iskander · 09-26-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

You want to return to the purity of early Christianity and I admire your noble religious zeal.

Paul made a mess of it all; Bernard Shaw and Nietzsche thought that too, I think.

Perhaps one day the simple original massage you hanker after will return to illuminate your mind and comfort your heart.:love: :love:

What nonsense!!!

You are just spreading propaganda, logical fallacies, absurdities, non-sequiturs, fallacies and speculation.

I am dealing with the WRITTEN statements found in the Pauline writings.

What sources of antiquity have you provided for YOUR "historical Jesus of Nazareth"?.

The Pauline writers have DESTROYED all claims to an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth.

The Pauline Jesus was a resurrected God Incarnate.

1. Galatians 1.1--The Pauline writer was NOT the apostle of a man.

2. Galatians 1.11-12--The Pauline writer did NOT get his gospel from man.

3. Romans 1.25---The Pauline writer did NOT worship man as God.

4. 1 Cor.15---The Pauline writer claimed he SAW a non-historical resurrected Jesus.

5. Philipiians 2.---The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was in the FORM of God and was EQUAL to God.

6. Thessalonians 4---The Pauline writer claimed Jesus would descend from heaven and meet the resurrected dead in the AIR.

7. Romans 8.3, 8.32 and Galatians 4.4---The Pauline Jesus was God's OWN Son.

HJ of Nazareth is just a big joke.

Don’t be embarrassed; let your feelings come out for once. You are not alone

This is what atheist Bernard Shaw says:.

PREFACE TO ANDROCLES AND THE LION:
George Bernard Shaw

Quote:

I am no more a Christian than Pilate was, or you, gentle reader; and yet, like Pilate, I greatly prefer Jesus to Annas and Caiaphas; and I am ready to admit that after contemplating the world and human nature for nearly sixty years, I see no way out of the world's misery but the way which would have been found by Christ's will if he had undertaken the work of a modern practical statesman.

Pray do not at this early point lose patience with me and shut the book. I assure you I am as sceptical and scientific and modern a thinker as you will find anywhere.

Pray do not at this early point lose patience with me and shut the computer. I assure you I am as sceptical and scientific and modern a thinker as you will find anywhere

aa5874 · 09-26-2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...Pray do not at this early point lose patience with me and shut the computer. I assure you I am as sceptical and scientific and modern a thinker as you will find anywhere

I am NOT really interested in how you describe yourself.

Once you make a claim about HJ of Nazareth I EXPECT to SEE the source of antiquity from which the claim was derived.

In the NT, Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

The source which state Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and born in Bethlehem cannot be the same source which claimed Jesus was an ordinary man and was NOT born in Bethlehem.

If you have NO source for HJ of Nazareth then you are ONLY wasting time.

aa5874 · 09-26-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[

See http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

YOU will have to EDUCATE yourself.

I READ Plutarch's 'Romulus' and there is NO ANSWER in it to the QUESTION I asked you.

Just ANSWER my QUESTION and STOP being SILLY.

Well, read it again and again until you get the answer!!!

Plutarch "Romulus"

Quote:

... From whom, and for what reason, the city of Rome, a name so great in glory, and famous in the mouths of all men, was so first called, authors do not agree....

Just read the book and you will get a BASIC understanding how ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY is relevant to ANCIENT HISTORY.

Iskander · 09-26-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...Pray do not at this early point lose patience with me and shut the computer. I assure you I am as sceptical and scientific and modern a thinker as you will find anywhere

I am NOT really interested in how you describe yourself.

Once you make a claim about HJ of Nazareth I EXPECT to SEE the source of antiquity from which the claim was derived.

In the NT, Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

The source which state Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and born in Bethlehem cannot be the same source which claimed Jesus was an ordinary man and was NOT born in Bethlehem.

If you have NO source for HJ of Nazareth then you are ONLY wasting time.

Bernard Shaw has no sympathy for internet talkers who try to reform society by making men and women vagabonds and making them talkers too.

Quote:

I have no sympathy with vagabonds and talkers who try to reform society by taking men away from their regular productive work and making vagabonds and talkers of them too;

He explains the necessity for suppressing attacks on the existing order, however corrupt, by people with nothing helpful to offer.

Quote:

and if I had been Pilate I should have recognized as plainly as he the necessity for suppressing attacks on the existing social order, however corrupt that order might be, by people with no knowledge of government and no power to construct political machinery to carry out their views

He makes no defence for the likes of Savonarola and Leyden who were scuttling the ship in deadly ignorance of the outcome.

Do you think the Western Society is tolerating the Savonarolas that will drown us all?

Quote:

. I make no defence of such Christians as Savonarola and John of Leyden: they were scuttling the ship before they had learned how to build a raft; and it became necessary to throw them overboard to save the crew.

aa5874 · 09-26-2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

..Bernard Shaw has no sympathy for internet talkers who try to reform society by making men and women vagabonds and making them talkers too....

The OP is NOT about Bernard Shaw. I am tired of your diversions. Every post is some off-topic matter.

Do you have a SOURCE for HJ of Nazareth?

You have a SOURCE for BERNARD SHAW.

Well, give me the source of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth and stop wasting time.

I HAVE sources for MYTH JESUS.

Mt 1:18 -

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise..... his mother ...... was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

FORGET about Bernard Shaw and SHOW ME SOURCES of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.