Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-17-2013, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is no reason for mountain---- to twist himself into contortions about this Jewish sect

Is it beyond reason to ask for some external evidence for this Jewish sect outside of the Church-preserved dogma source called Philo ?

The writings of Philo do NOT contain Church dogma.

If you want to find out about Church dogma read the Pauline letters, read "Church History", read the Donation of Constantine, read "Against Heresies".

Philippians 2

Quote:

5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:7But made himself of no reputation , and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Donation of Constantine

Quote:

the pontiff Sylvester - has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and vivifier of the whole creature.

We confess these, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in such way that, in the perfect Trinity, there shall also be a fulness of divinity and a unity of power.

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one in Jesus Christ.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 11:27 PM

Again Pete has a twisted logic here. If he is willing to concede the Eusebius forged everything - a laughable, crazy position - he can't allow Eusebius to have a real source for his claim that St Mark founded this early monastic order in Egypt. Of course Philo doesn't say any of the nonsense Eusebius ascribes to his testimony. Philo does not say that the Therapeutae are Christian which which is odd for this -------- claim - for if Eusebius had the power to make Philo say whatever he wants why can't he get him to say 'St Mark' or 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or gospel or anything related to Christianity? But poor Pete is a victim of his own conspiracy theory. You have to feel sorry for him. And you have to feel sorry about his 'retirement' from this board. He must have been 'plotting his comeback.' Get us to miss him and then come back full throttle with more of this nonsense. Poor Pete

mountainman · 01-18-2013, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Again Pete has a twisted logic here. If he is willing to concede the Eusebius forged everything - a laughable, crazy position ...

You misrepresent my position: I have never maintained Eusebius forged everything.

Quote:

Of course Philo doesn't say any of the nonsense Eusebius ascribes to his testimony. Philo does not say that the Therapeutae are Christian which which is odd for this -------- claim - for if Eusebius had the power to make Philo say whatever he wants why can't he get him to say 'St Mark' or 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or gospel or anything related to Christianity?

I have already cited a detailed analysis of how Eusebius "Christianized" Philo's description of the Therapeutae: Eusebius of Caesarea's Interpretatio Christiana of Philo's De vita contemplative - Harvard Theological Review. Attention aa5874 and all Eusebius Church History fans: Read all about how Eusebius "Christianized" Philo.

The remark is made therein ....

Quote:

Eusebius answers the second objection--that Philo never refers to the Therapeutae as Christians--by remarking that it is not known whether Philo gave them this name or they called themselves Therapeutae.

Not knowing whether Philo gave them this name, or whether these people called themselves therapeutae, is it therefore not all the more reasonable to go out into the classical citations to determine who else referred to themselves or others as therapeutae in antiquity?

The proposition here presumed to be true is that the therapeutae of antiquity were a Jewish sect as described by Philo.

I am questioning the truth of this proposition and have provided a substantial amount of negative evidence that suggests that the greater portion of people in antiquity (who were pagan) would associate the therapeutae with that class of people who "served and attended the [pagan] gods" in the [pagan] temples.

You appear to be ignoring this Negative Evidence against the proposition that the therapeutae were a Jewish sect.

Quote:

Negative Evidence - Richard Levin

Studies in Philology; Vol. 92, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995) (pp. 383-410)

p.383
"The first point is that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it, and the second point is that many of us ignore the first point, because of the tendancy of our minds (not, of course, of "human nature") to look only for positive evidence that confirms a proposition we want to prove. This tendancy explains the remarkable tenacity of superstitions ... and of prejudices ....

p.389

The third basic point ... We must recognise, not only that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it and that we have a tendency to look only for positive evidence, but also that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless this negative evidence could exist. The principle is well known to scientists and philosophers of science, who call it disconfirmability. They insist that if a proposition does not invite disconfirmation, if there is no conceivable evidence the existence of which would contradict it, then is cannot be tested and so cannot be taken seriously. If it is not disprovable, it is not provable.

p.409

When combatants encounter an argument, they do not ask about the evidence for or against it; they just ask if the argument is for or against their side, since they believe ... that "the only real question ... is: Which side are you on".

... we not only tend to overlook or forget negative evidence that contradicts our beliefs, but when others point such evidence out to us, instead of thanking them for this chance to correct our beliefs, we tend to get angry with them, and this anger increases in direct proportion to our commitment to the beliefs.

I have reproduced this here because I am presenting negative evidence against the proposition presumed to be true that the therapeutae of antiquity were a Jewish sect as described by Philo.

stephan huller · 01-18-2013, 12:29 AM

No Philo makes that plain. They were a Jewish sect. No one doubts that. You do for purely self-serving reasons. If this was your one disagreement with a source, it might seem reasonable, but you argue against the plain meaning of almost every text which survives from antiquity that sheds light on early Christianity. It's quite comical. Why someone would want to do that I haven't a clue. Nevertheless it is what you do.

stephan huller · 01-18-2013, 12:33 AM

Quote:

I have never maintained Eusebius forged everything.

Close enough. If someone says the dog shit in the living room and then you find he also did it in the dining room it really doesn't matter. It's still shit.

mountainman · 01-18-2013, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No Philo makes that plain. They were a Jewish sect. No one doubts that. You do for purely self-serving reasons.

Presenting evidence contrary to popular propositions is not self serving.

Quote:

If this was your one disagreement with a source, it might seem reasonable, but you argue against the plain meaning of almost every text which survives from antiquity that sheds light on early Christianity.

Is that against the law if I do it politely and don't trash other peoples' ideas and beliefs?

stephan huller · 01-18-2013, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Presenting evidence contrary to popular propositions is not self serving.

No. That's not what is at stake here. It is about honesty. Philo writes words on a page and you don't see them because it goes against your faith. You operate like an evangelizing Christian but only in reverse.

stephan huller · 01-18-2013, 12:46 AM

The idea that because you have two religious organizations in antiquity who call themselves 'therapeutae' = the same group is simply laughable. And this is the entire premise. But Christians were called Chrestoi as were the nobles of ancient Athens - does that mean that Christians were nobles of Athens?

mountainman · 01-18-2013, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

I have never maintained Eusebius forged everything.

Close enough. If someone says the dog shit in the living room and then you find he also did it in the dining room it really doesn't matter. It's still shit.

Other species of dogs were responsible for the non canonical gnostic heretic shit hidden in the basement.

stephan huller · 01-18-2013, 12:48 AM

Examples of things which have the same name but mean different things:

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

01-17-2013, 11:27 PM	#132
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Again Pete has a twisted logic here. If he is willing to concede the Eusebius forged everything - a laughable, crazy position - he can't allow Eusebius to have a real source for his claim that St Mark founded this early monastic order in Egypt. Of course Philo doesn't say any of the nonsense Eusebius ascribes to his testimony. Philo does not say that the Therapeutae are Christian which which is odd for this -------- claim - for if Eusebius had the power to make Philo say whatever he wants why can't he get him to say 'St Mark' or 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or gospel or anything related to Christianity? But poor Pete is a victim of his own conspiracy theory. You have to feel sorry for him. And you have to feel sorry about his 'retirement' from this board. He must have been 'plotting his comeback.' Get us to miss him and then come back full throttle with more of this nonsense. Poor Pete

01-18-2013, 12:29 AM	#134
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No Philo makes that plain. They were a Jewish sect. No one doubts that. You do for purely self-serving reasons. If this was your one disagreement with a source, it might seem reasonable, but you argue against the plain meaning of almost every text which survives from antiquity that sheds light on early Christianity. It's quite comical. Why someone would want to do that I haven't a clue. Nevertheless it is what you do.

01-18-2013, 12:46 AM	#138
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The idea that because you have two religious organizations in antiquity who call themselves 'therapeutae' = the same group is simply laughable. And this is the entire premise. But Christians were called Chrestoi as were the nobles of ancient Athens - does that mean that Christians were nobles of Athens?

01-18-2013, 12:48 AM	#140
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Examples of things which have the same name but mean different things:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.