Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 11-01-2003, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr

------------------------------------
I shall, of course, publish his reply.

And , so I did, complete with the capital letters, and complaints that Peter Kirby's website earlychristianwritings.com is inaccurate and should be corrected.

Vinnie · 11-01-2003, 07:39 AM

Received no email. Have to go to work now. wILL respond to this later.

Haran · 11-01-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Vinnie
Received no email. Have to go to work now. wILL respond to this later.

Hmm... I'm not sure I got your email address right. If you are interested and didn't get it you can email me at the address at the bottom of my website.

Metacrock · 11-01-2003, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
John Warwick Montgomery writes in
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar1.htm

'How good are these New Testament records? They handsomely fulfill the historian's requirements of transmissional reliability (their texts have been transmitted accurately from the time of writing to our own day), internal reliability (they claim to be primary-source documents and ring true as such), and external reliability (their authorships and dates are backed up by such solid extrinsic testimony as that of the early second-century writer Papias, a student of John the Evangelist, who was told by him that the first three Gospels were indeed written by their traditional authors). '

DO any Christians want to try to support the claim that Papias was told by John the Evangelist that the first three Gospels were written by their traditional authors?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html is the writings of Papias , so people can check that the word 'Lukel' does not even occur, so how can the authorship of Luke be confirmed?

Will Christians denounce lies told by Christian scholars , when these scholars make up facts supposedly trying to defend the authorship of the Gospels?

[color=blue]Meta:[/font] I don't see how you get that it's made up. I see how it's not as cut and dried as the fundies would like it to be. Where does it say it's "made up?" In the passage I see he's confirming all the Gospels but Luke, so how many do you need? Believe those three then!

Quote:

Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. Our notice of these circumstances may not be without its use. It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in Hierapolis has been mentioned above. We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord. The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]

Steven Carr · 11-01-2003, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock
I don't see how you get that it's made up. I see how it's not as cut and dried as the fundies would like it to be. Where does it say it's "made up?" In the passage I see he's confirming all the Gospels but Luke, so how many do you need? Believe those three then!

Where is the word Gospel written, or anything that allows us to equate these writings with our Gospels?

And Eusebius makes clear that Papias' PRESBYTER (not EVANGELIST) John) was only talking about Mark , and not Matthew or anything else. Gospels of Luke and John are not mentioned.'

'And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]:'

Perhaps you mean this
'He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord�s sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. '

So Papias wrote John's Gospel?

Why would Eusebius treat the presbyter Aristion as of no more importance than John the Evangelist?

Possibly because Eusebius knew that John the Evangelist, John the Baptist and John the Presbyter were 3 different people? John was a common name.

Spirit Branded · 11-01-2003, 01:59 PM

Hello Vinnie

You appear to have some new found freedom

May I inquire what are the beliefs you hold and the principles by which you see your life being guided?

With Best Wishes

An Old Acquaintance

Metacrock · 11-01-2003, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie

At any rate, Orthodoxy bailed on me long before I abandoned it. No amount of apologetix will overturn that fact. It was too difficult trying to tread water alone and the wounds of abandonement are still fresh.

Meta: Yea, in a way it did. But hey, nice to know you remember your friends, the one's stuck up for you? No? I didn't think so.

Quote:

So your expectations will not be met if you expect me to show intellectual charity to my former belief system. Its fair game now. I'm locked, loaded, pissed off and ready to fill my house with trophees.

Vinnie

Meta:
We get trophies for this sutff???

ok man that's the way you want it! Prepare to defend your intellectual position.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Metacrock · 11-01-2003, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Layman, I have no ill will towards you. I'm more pissed at orthodoxy in general than anyone specific.

Yes I am, now. Happily too since the cognitive dissonance is all gone!

Don't flatter yourself. I don't go trolling for little fish and modernity is doing a good enough job anyways.

Meta: O so like you are going after Plantina? I'll tell him you are coming, I'm sure he'll be worried.

Quote:

Of course it doesn't since you believe the facts support Orthodoxy.

Vinnie

Meta: You know I think this revenge thing just might be the wrong attitude for you. You something in more of a mellow sort of understatement.

Metacrock · 11-01-2003, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Where is the word Gospel written, or anything that allows us to equate these writings with our Gospels?

Meta: Talk about lame! I'm sure he brought it up becasue it had nothing to do with the gospels. Obviously he's saying that the stand behind those renditions.

Ok pull your head out of fundie land and think about reality for a minute. If the sayings in Matt are really complied by Matt, and come from the saying source he wrote, they are still authorative even if someone else put in the narration. That's what he's saying apparently (if the word "logia" tells us anything). So what' the the problem there? Not exactly what the fundies would like, but it's ok.

Quote:

And Eusebius makes clear that Papias' PRESBYTER (not EVANGELIST) John) was only talking about Mark , and not Matthew or anything else. Gospels of Luke and John are not mentioned.'

Meta: But so what? First, so what if it's not the Apostle John but "elder John?"He was still a disciple, still saw Jesus, and probably wrote the Gospel of John.

Secondly, Papias gives us Matt as distilled from Matt's actual Logia, through other authority, so what if Elder John wasn't talking about it? Besides why do we need more than Mark to be saved?

Thridly, it's the authority of the communies themselves that stand behind each Gospel not any one individual.

Quote:

'And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]:'

Perhaps you mean this
'He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord�s sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. '

So Papias wrote John's Gospel?

Meta: No Elder John wrote it.

Quote:

Why would Eusebius treat the presbyter Aristion as of no more importance than John the Evangelist?

Possibly because Eusebius knew that John the Evangelist, John the Baptist and John the Presbyter were 3 different people? John was a common name.

Meta: well so what if they were three different people? Because I think they were. I think doesnt' make any difference.

Vinnie · 11-01-2003, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Meta: Yea, in a way it did. But hey, nice to know you remember your friends, the one's stuck up for you? No? I didn't think so.

Yes, they were quick to stick up for me. But some (I said SOME -- not all) of them were quick to throw me overboard as well. From that I realized many of them never like me, just my belief system which cohered with their own.

I always liked you and still do though. You never judged me and you tried valiantly to help me with my issues--even if to no avail. I give you mad props for that.

Quote:

ok man that's the way you want it! Prepare to defend your intellectual position.

Joe, I'm a practicing panentheist. Last time I checked you were pretty much a Christian penentheist yourself. How are you going to refute my position when you agree with some of my most basic beleifs regarding God?

Quote:

Meta: O so like you are going after Plantina? I'll tell him you are coming, I'm sure he'll be worried.

He's a little fishy too! Take a poll and see how many common people have actually heard of him.

Philosphers are great in one respect. In another a lot of the uni variety just simply suck when it comes to everyday religion and spirituality.

Religion has little to with such specialized fields and esoteric philosophy. Taking religion to that level defies its whole purpose. Is Jesus for a few people with doctorates of for every man? Your target audience is so extremely small that its just ridiculous.

I assume you've read C.S. Lewis' Till We Have Faces? It is hands-down, his very best work out of all of them that I've read and I always loved a statement at the end. Note the text in bold:

"I ended my first book with the words no answer I know now, Lord, why you utter no answer. You are yourself the asnwer. Before your face questions die away. What other answer would suffice? Only words, words; to be led out to battle against other words."

Whbat ion earth makes you think your buddy is a big fish them????

If I wanted to challenge orthodoxy I would simply ask you to demonstrate evidence for the veracity of the Nicene Creed. You'd get smoked quick if you tried to use historical apologetics to demonstrate 1) Jesus literally rose from the dead, 2) Jesus was God 3) The gospels are extremely reliable. 4) The Cross actually meant something and so on.

Orthodoxy has no historical leg to stand on. When I pointed out reservations with this before you pointed out that the creed is not to be accepted as a proposition of fact.

Why have a creed of beliefs to begin with if you don't believe them to be true?

Further if I wasn't merely "lacking belief in Orthodoxy" I would proceed to point out a bunch of historical problems that would need be addressed.

I might be inclined to start with Q, GThom and 1 Cor 1-4. Right there we have three groups in the 1st century who did not place the fulcrum of faith on the death of Jesus.

Of course my use of Q, Thomas and Corinthians could all be challenged. Thatss only one argument and one which I think can be defended--THomas and the Corinthian folk in 1-4 more so than Q which I do have some reservations on.

Then again I may start with gospel problems, textual problems with ECW's, problems with reconstructing the HJ or any number of other arguments. You really want to go there?

Vinnie

11-01-2003, 01:59 PM	#36
Spirit Branded Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 36	Guiding Principles Hello Vinnie You appear to have some new found freedom May I inquire what are the beliefs you hold and the principles by which you see your life being guided? With Best Wishes An Old Acquaintance

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

11-01-2003, 07:39 AM	#32
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Received no email. Have to go to work now. wILL respond to this later.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.