FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-10-2007, 05:00 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 1,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

You may certainly call him 'Pontifex Maximus', although I don't know if any ancient source does! But you cannot on this ground call him 'Pope'. Surely?

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:
Julian advanced in triumph to Constantinople. Hitherto outwardly a Christian, he now let himself be portrayed as under the protection of Zeus, who in his opinion possessed with Helius the same undivided creative power. He commanded all towns to reopen the temples for pagan worship, restored animal sacrifices, and assumed the duties of a Pontifex Maximus.
And

Quote:
Still, he copied the organization of the Christian Church; he created, for example, a form of hierarchy, the head of which was the imperial Pontifex Maximus, and urged pagans to imitate such Christian virtues as charity and mercy.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08558b.htm
Lucretius is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 05:11 AM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

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
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 05:18 AM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 1,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
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
As the title Pontifex Maximus had become an integral part of the Emperor's titles then by definition any Emperor was de facto Pontifex Maximis and this would normally be included in any official documents,including Julian's own letters .
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.
Lucretius is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 07:02 AM   #34
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 16,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patcleaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Hathaway View Post

Forgive me butting in, my friends, but it is neither a reliable historic source, nor fiction.

Fiction is sometimes written with a moral to the story, but, more often than not it is a confabulation of the conflicts in the human condition. But everyone knows it is just a story. Aesop's Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales.

There is another kind of fiction that contains historically accurate data. It is the historical novel. Set in the real past with fictional characters. The places are real, the words, acts and deeds of the protagonists fiction, with cameo appearances by known characters from the time.

The Bible (and Koran) go quite beyond being historical novels, although in many ways they are. They explicitly deny the fictitious nature of the writing and claim all is fact. It was written, not as an historic novel, but as a story with a moral. Its purpose not to entertain or even provide insight but to expose the moral of the story. Learn how to be good and social in a social society: just follow these complex rules to the letter (Pharisees) or take a big picture view and follow the moral principles (Christianity). But in the cases of the Torah, Bible and Koran, the intent is entirely social order through authority at the expense of justice and individual rights.

Those who reject the Bible by labeling it "fiction" are being a little shallow. It has served a noble purpose in providing a sense of unity and belonging, being in a group that shares a common morality and common purpose.

These are a good thing in small groups. When the authority idea is taken to extreme we get Crusades, Inquisitions, Jihads and Zionism. With groups this large unity thinking can be positively dangerous.

What we need is a Bible-like text we can rally round for unity. When that text is a constitution we get patriotic fervor. When that text is religious we get the British Protestant soldiers killing Catholic children without shame.

How can we get the unity that Bible-like texts provide without the drawbacks of religion?
Hi George nice to hear from you.

When goat herders sit around a camp fire and exchange fabulous stories about floods and talking snakes do you really think any of them believe that the stories are true? No they are just good stories.

What is your evidence that the gospels were not developed as fiction for an audience that would know they were fiction just like Aesop's Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales.

I think there is lots of evidence that they were originally intended to be fiction and everyone knew they were fiction when they were originally produced and then at some point people started thinking that they were true.

Do you have any evidence that the gospels were not developed as fiction or that anyone thought they were non-fiction anytime before the 4th century?

Do you have any evidence that the Quran was not developed as fiction or that anyone thought it was non-fiction anytime before the 9th century?
Good questions. Now, students, any others?

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.




At the start of all there Was the Land. Then out of the East there came
our heroes bold. Men and women came they here. To take what was theirs, a
gift of God.



At first we thought the Land was Taken by a native horde. And then God
intervened and brought them small Pox. And by the Will of God but two in
ten lived on. He had prepared an Easy way for us. Amen.



Not all the heathen were beyond redemption. The blessed Pocahontas (small
wonder) became as one of us. Being concubine had brought her to her
Blessed state. She learned her Lesson well.



And it came to pass that we should be peoples apart. Thus thirteen States
with thirteen Stars and thirteen Stripes was born. The Prophetess Betsy
had prepared a Flag, indeed the very token of the Unity to come.



In Philadelphia, so named for manly love of man, housed at that time the
unbroken Liberty Bell unrung. And when first Rung on The Fourth of July it
had completed its ordained duty and by God's will Denied to ring again.



There arose in that day the Wizard Benjamin. Although he never yearned for
formal leadership, there were those who knew the Truth. His Voice
contained in all its incarnations Truth, most dear. His touchstone being
only Truth from anywhere, he dared to tame the lightning in a jar. Known
for his buying short term concubines, sometimes for but one night, he still
in all ways was a moral man. Poor Richard, his nom de plume, back then,
emitted Truth in this Voice, too. Two men or more he was. Wizardry in
Freedom and in Science and in Living life in all its glory now.



At the same time in another State, the one Blessed by the Virgin
Pocahontas, The George was born. And grew to manhood captured by the
burden of no means to tell a lie. Dare we speculate that he was cursed?
If so by Whom we wonder. But The George was Entranced by this affliction
when discovered in a childish prank he could not lie. He could only take
full measure of his Father's wrath. And so he grew to be a man of Whole
integrity. How rare a man He was. He took only his expenses when he
became the leader of an army. Forsooth he made out better than if he had
taken a fair salary, but no matter, he meant it well, we know. He prayed
to God, you see, in all the Winter at the Valley of the Forge. And God in
his Mercy did Bring weather warm enough to melt the ice upon the river.
And so He led his troops to in battle to the Death to Right the wrongful
claim of Kingly rights claimed over We the People.
George S is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 07:14 AM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucretius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
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.
As the title Pontifex Maximus had become an integral part of the Emperor's titles then by definition any Emperor was de facto Pontifex Maximis and this would normally be included in any official documents,including Julian's own letters .

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.
Don't disagree, but wondered whether any ancient source so describes him.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 07:39 AM   #36
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Crystal Lake, Illinois
Posts: 865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rose
By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. It seems the ancients thought the bible was more important because copies were expensive and time consuming endeavors! A book was a treasure like a bar of Gold bullion.So we have 8 (eight) copies of Herodotus work possibility the most important credible writer of the ancient world. Then we have about twenty four thousand copies of the bible of ancient times! Call me Mr obvious, I am suggesting that if we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it is among the most reliable on record compared with others.
Call me Mr. Obvious, but copying something all those times by hand would account for a couple of mistakes, am I right? If the original manuscript gets copied once, can we agree that at least two mistakes (however minor) will be made? Multiply that by a thousand. You have to take into consideration, also, that the mistake the previous hand-copier made will be preserved in the next copy and so forth.

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.
Jayco is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 07:51 AM   #37
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by REVROSWELL View Post
By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D.[b] and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D.
So authorship of the New Testament was completed by 100 C.E.? I didn't know that. How do you know?

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.

Mythra is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 08:01 AM   #38
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

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.
Mythra is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 08:07 AM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayco View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rose
By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. It seems the ancients thought the bible was more important because copies were expensive and time consuming endeavors! A book was a treasure like a bar of Gold bullion.So we have 8 (eight) copies of Herodotus work possibility the most important credible writer of the ancient world. Then we have about twenty four thousand copies of the bible of ancient times! Call me Mr obvious, I am suggesting that if we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it is among the most reliable on record compared with others.
Call me Mr. Obvious, but copying something all those times by hand would account for a couple of mistakes, am I right? If the original manuscript gets copied once, can we agree that at least two mistakes (however minor) will be made? Multiply that by a thousand. You have to take into consideration, also, that the mistake the previous hand-copier made will be preserved in the next copy and so forth.
This is true, but I wonder if this is quite thought through. Won't the same apply, surely, to all ancient texts? Thus this argument, if taken seriously, amounts to throwing away the classical heritage. That seems like an extreme position to take, merely as a reason to ignore the content of the bible.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 08:26 AM   #40
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
This is true, but I wonder if this is quite thought through. Won't the same apply, surely, to all ancient texts? Thus this argument, if taken seriously, amounts to throwing away the classical heritage. That seems like an extreme position to take, merely as a reason to ignore the content of the bible.
I've seen this statement often.

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.
Mythra is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:08 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.