Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
12-10-2007, 05:00 AM | #31 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 1,014
|
Quote:
While I agree that it wold not be correct to call Julian the Apostate a "Pope" he was in fact the Pontifex Maximus. From the Catholic Encyclopedia Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
12-10-2007, 05:11 AM | #32 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
|
I'm sure that he *was* Pontifex maximus. What I wondered was whether any ancient source so described him. He was, after all, in power a very short time.
All the best, Roger Pearse |
12-10-2007, 05:18 AM | #33 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 1,014
|
Quote:
As he specifically wrote some letters on the running of his new Neo Paganist Church ,he would undoubtedly have included the title P.M to affirm his right to do this. |
|
12-10-2007, 07:02 AM | #34 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 16,498
|
Quote:
The only evidence I have studied is that of textual analysts, in particular Pagels and Ehrman. By the act of psuedographia, attribution to an authority, the authors imply, since they could have signed their name, means something. To me it means that the authors doing so intended it as non-fiction. By attributing the Pentateuch to Moses via God, it acquires authority. If Harry Potter were claimed by the author to be written by God, and accepted as such, it becomes a religious text. I expect you are right about the campfire stories. I wonder if the first scribe that put pen to parchment and attributed what he was writing to Moses via God thought he was writing a campfire story. I rather suspect not. By the time it was written down it had the kind of truth expressed in "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' when caught in act of vandalism." (Which would be one hell of an affliction.) Don't forget the silver dollar and Potomac incident. I put together that kind of thinking in this: The following document was unearthed in 4007. |
||
12-10-2007, 07:14 AM | #35 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
|
Quote:
All the best, Roger Pearse |
||
12-10-2007, 07:39 AM | #36 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Crystal Lake, Illinois
Posts: 865
|
Quote:
Thus, if you're trying to masturbate the idea that the Bible is reliable/credible because there's so many copies, then you have definitely contradicted yourself. |
|
12-10-2007, 07:51 AM | #37 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
|
Quote:
And we have a copy of the New Testament that dates to 130 C.E.? I would be very interested to learn more about this, Rev. You sound very well informed. |
|
12-10-2007, 08:01 AM | #38 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
|
And I wasn't aware, either of the NT writings that originated as early as 40 C.E., Rev.
You must have access to sources I haven't seen before. Please enlighten us. |
12-10-2007, 08:07 AM | #39 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
|
Quote:
All the best, Roger Pearse |
||
12-10-2007, 08:26 AM | #40 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
|
Quote:
It's not that the bible should be ignored. It's that it should be considered in the same context as all the other ancient documents. When you grow up thinking that Jesus took his finger and wrote something in the sand and then said "he who is without sin, cast the first stone", and then find out that it's (in all likelihood) inauthentic, it tends to create a pause in one's thinking. If it weren't for the cacophony of religionists claiming inerrancy, inspiration, and threatening eternal torment, the textual variant issue would not rise to a level of such importance. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|