Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-02-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

the Scriptures say nothing directly about resurrection from the dead

Sure they do.

Daniel 12:1-2
At that time Michael, the great prince who watches over your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress unlike any other from the nation’s beginning up to that time. But at that time your own people, all those whose names are found written in the book, will escape. Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.

I win.

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 08:19 PM

"......all those who are written in this book....."

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-02-2012, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

These are not verses promising collective bodily resurrection in the future messianic age.

Ezekiel 37:12
“Look, I am about to open your graves and will raise you from your graves, my people. I will bring you to the land of Israel.”

Matthew 27:52
“At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.”

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-02-2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

"......all those who are written in this book....."

Listen: If you sing us a show tune I’ll let you win.

Okay?

Is that fair enough?

How about “Bali Hai” from South Pacific?

Please sing “Bali Hai” from South Pacific.

Duvduv · 01-08-2012, 08:25 AM

So one would have to wonder why the Church allowed Athenogoras and Theophilus to survive since they blatantly suggest that "Christian" has nothing to do with the anointed Christ, but rather with the members of the sect who "are anointed." Of course they don't even explain what they are anointed into, or what particular religious teachings they follow in relation to being anointed.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maklelan

No I'm not.

Of course, you are. That is EXACTLY what you are doing right now. The passages that you disagree with are attributed Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian.

You have not pointed out any such thing because you have NOT produced a source of antiquity, A TEXT from antiquity, that show that people were called Christians only because of a character called Christ.

You have not shown that Simon Magus, Menander and their followers were called Christians because they were followers of a character called Christ.

You have NOT shown that Marcion and the Marcionites were called Christians because they followed a character called Christ.

I only deal with SOURCES of antiquity, the written Texts, the statements in the Texts of antiquity. Just sources, sources, texts, texts......of antiquity.

You must produce a text of antiquity that contradicts Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian or else you may be obsolete. I longer entertain unsubstantianted opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maklelan

....No, you've just been misrepresenting the sources. Theophilus' discussion is utterly unique and can't at all be marshaled to support the notion that the term Christian didn't refer to Jesus Christ. It's quite clear from the preponderance of evidence that Christian meant "follower of Christ."

Your claim is not valid at all. It is an argument from BLATANT SILENCE. Theophilus of Antioch did NOT write anything about a character called Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ of Nazareth or that he was a follower of Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ of Nazareth in "To Autolycus".

I don't deal with IMAGINATION and GUESS-WORK.

In "To Autolycus" Theophilus of Antioch wrote NOTHING of a character called Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ of Nazareth. ZERO. NIL, NONE

aa5874 · 01-08-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So one would have to wonder why the Church allowed Athenogoras and Theophilus to survive since they blatantly suggest that "Christian" has nothing to do with the anointed Christ, but rather with the members of the sect who "are anointed." Of course they don't even explain what they are anointed into, or what particular religious teachings they follow in relation to being anointed.....

Athenagoras and Theophilus did state that they BELIEVED in an entity called "God".

"To Autolycus" attributed to Theophilus"

Quote:

..... you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable to God.

For it is not the case, as you suppose, that the name of God is hard to bear; but possibly you entertain this opinion of God, because you are yourself yet unserviceable to Him...

"A Plea to the Christians" attributed to Athenagoras

Quote:

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God.

Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son.

For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son.

But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God...

Athenagoras is clear, the Son is the Logos of God, not a man as the poets claim in their fiction.

Duvduv · 01-08-2012, 01:55 PM

But in neither case, he sure isn't called Jesus and that alone should have been cause for the texts to be destroyed presumably......

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So one would have to wonder why the Church allowed Athenogoras and Theophilus to survive since they blatantly suggest that "Christian" has nothing to do with the anointed Christ, but rather with the members of the sect who "are anointed." Of course they don't even explain what they are anointed into, or what particular religious teachings they follow in relation to being anointed.....

Athenagoras and Theophilus did state that they BELIEVED in an entity called "God".

"To Autolycus" attributed to Theophilus"

"A Plea to the Christians" attributed to Athenagoras

Quote:

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God.

Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son.

For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son.

But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God...

Athenagoras is clear, the Son is the Logos of God, not a man as the poets claim in their fiction.

GakuseiDon · 01-08-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So one would have to wonder why the Church allowed Athenogoras and Theophilus to survive since they blatantly suggest that "Christian" has nothing to do with the anointed Christ, but rather with the members of the sect who "are anointed." Of course they don't even explain what they are anointed into, or what particular religious teachings they follow in relation to being anointed.....

But in neither case, he sure isn't called Jesus and that alone should have been cause for the texts to be destroyed presumably......

Actually, the opposite occurred. According to Richard Carrier's article on the Formation of the NT Canon (my emphasis below):
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

In 177 A.D. Athenagoras of Athens composed a lengthy philosophical Defense of the Christians addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius in which the first articulation of a theory of the Trinity appears. He quotes the OT and NT several times, but does not name his sources from the NT. The quotes or paraphrases that he uses happen to come from a few Epistles of Paul, and from all the Gospels in a mishmash (M 125), suggesting a harmonic source like the Diatessaron. But the respect that this defense, and others like it, earned among orthodox Christians contributed to forming decisions on canonicity based on whether they accorded with works like it.

Theophilus in his writings refers to John and quotes the GJohn Prologue. Also, from Carrier's arcle:

Theophilus is important for a variety of reasons: he was the second, very shortly after Athenagoras (below), to explicitly mention the Trinity (Ad Autolycum 2.15); he may have composed his own harmony and commentary on the four Gospels chosen by Tatian; and he wrote books against Marcion and other heretics. He is also a window into the thinking of converts: he was converted by the predictions concerning Jesus in the OT (ibid. 1.14), perhaps the weakest grounds for conversion. But most of all, he routinely treats Tatian's Gospels as holy scripture, divinely inspired, on par with the Hebrew prophets (M 118). He also refers to John's Revelation as authoritative.

You might be interested in my two articles on Second Century writings as viewed by Earl Doherty, who makes much the same points as yourself. The first one is here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...ndC_Review.htm

It contains links to Doherty's responses.

aa5874 · 01-08-2012, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

[indent]In 177 A.D. Athenagoras of Athens composed a lengthy philosophical Defense of the Christians addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius in which the first articulation of a theory of the Trinity appears. He quotes the OT and NT several times, but does not name his sources from the NT....

In "Plea for the Christians" Athenagoras clearly stated that his Son of God was NOT human like the FICTION of the poets.

Examine the words of Athenagoras in "Plea for the Christians".

Quote:

..For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation....

Athenagoras is not talking about a human being at all and never mentioned a human character called Jesus, Christ or Jesus Christ.

Theophilus of Antioch wrote THREE books and NOT one time claimed he was converted because of prophecy in the OT about a character called Jesus, Christ or Jesus Christ.

Theophilus of Antioch wrote ZERO, NIL, NOTHING about the Jesus story in the THREE Books called "To Autolycus".

Duvduv · 05-03-2012, 12:31 PM

It's worth noting that whereas GJohn 3:16 says that God gave his only begotten son for the sins of man, in Galatians 1 it says that Jesus gave himself up for that purpose in what sounds to be a slightly gnostic sense:

“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

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

01-02-2012, 08:19 PM	#62
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	"......all those who are written in this book....."

05-03-2012, 12:31 PM	#70
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	It's worth noting that whereas GJohn 3:16 says that God gave his only begotten son for the sins of man, in Galatians 1 it says that Jesus gave himself up for that purpose in what sounds to be a slightly gnostic sense: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.