Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-08-2010, 10:08 PM

For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, once the Pauline writings are moved to a later date then we get the DOMINO effect.

Irenaeus will have to be moved. He could not have been arguing in real time that "Paul" wrote letters one hundred years earlier when no such thing ever happened.

Well, yes he could - he could be mistaken or lying.

Quote:

And then Tertullian's writings that mentioned Paul would have to pushed to a later date this writer also claimed "Paul' wrote Before the Fall of the Temple.

Same here.

Quote:

The picture that emerges after the DOMINO effect is that many of the Church writings that appear to have been publicly circulated were not. These Pauline Epistles, Acts of the Apostles, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen appear to be internal documents of the Church fabricated just for the 4th century historian of the Church.

This is much too strong a conclusion to draw from redating Paul's letters from the first to the second century.

Quote:

This stunning admission by John Chrysostom contradicts any theory that there was a Canon which included Acts of the Apostles since the 2nd century and contradicts the theory that the author called Luke was well known as a writer up to the END of the 4th century.

Since the 2nd century Irenaeus wrote about Acts and that Luke was the author yet 200 years later John claimed people hardly knew the book of Acts did exist and hardly knew its author .

How could people hardly know about Acts when it is the book which contains the DAY of Pentecost when the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost, and the Pauline expeditions with the very author of Acts.

Examine the words of John Chrysostom.

They are shocking.

Acts of the Apostles was hidden and out of sight up to the end of the 4th century.

"Homilies1 of Acts"

Quote:

To many persons [u]this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence.

For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight.....

How could Acts of the Apostles be not known to exist up to the end of the 4th century?

What other books were HIDDEN out of sight that was believed to be ALREADY Canonised since at least the 2nd century?

What other books did people NOT know were in existence but was supposed to be ALREADY Canonised since the at least 200 years before John Chrysostom?

The shocking admission by Chrysostom about Acts of the Apostles has led me to believe that the Pauline writings were likely to be INTERNALLY fabricated documents for the 4th century historian of the Church.

Shocking! That fourth century Christians might not have been aware of all of the books in the Bible? Maybe that just shows that Christianity was not based on Bibliolatry. It hardly shows that the NT was written in the fourth century.

aa5874 · 08-08-2010, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...
I have never, in two years of reading his posts, found that the occasional minor error in his English grammar had any impact at all on the points he endeavored to explain. ..

aa5874 rarely commits a grammatical error, and his or her English is quite fluent, with only occasional laspes in idiomatic English. But the tone of aa5874's posts is not conducive to dialogue. The posts come across as boastful and arrogant - much as "Paul's" letters sometimes do. More than one poster here has tried to get aa to consider a different point of view, but no one has succeeded.

I think the real problem is that aa5874 seems to treat this as some sort of logical exercise, as if the statements in the NT could be treated as if they were parts of syllogisms.

Why are you continuing with these off-topic posts?

Please, split.

Transient · 08-08-2010, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, once the Pauline writings are moved to a later date then we get the DOMINO effect.

Irenaeus will have to be moved. He could not have been arguing in real time that "Paul" wrote letters one hundred years earlier when no such thing ever happened.

Well, yes he could - he could be mistaken or lying.

Same here.

This is much too strong a conclusion to draw from redating Paul's letters from the first to the second century.

Quote:

This stunning admission by John Chrysostom contradicts any theory that there was a Canon which included Acts of the Apostles since the 2nd century and contradicts the theory that the author called Luke was well known as a writer up to the END of the 4th century.

Since the 2nd century Irenaeus wrote about Acts and that Luke was the author yet 200 years later John claimed people hardly knew the book of Acts did exist and hardly knew its author .

How could people hardly know about Acts when it is the book which contains the DAY of Pentecost when the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost, and the Pauline expeditions with the very author of Acts.

Examine the words of John Chrysostom.

They are shocking.

Acts of the Apostles was hidden and out of sight up to the end of the 4th century.

"Homilies1 of Acts"

How could Acts of the Apostles be not known to exist up to the end of the 4th century?

What other books were HIDDEN out of sight that was believed to be ALREADY Canonised since at least the 2nd century?

What other books did people NOT know were in existence but was supposed to be ALREADY Canonised since the at least 200 years before John Chrysostom?

The shocking admission by Chrysostom about Acts of the Apostles has led me to believe that the Pauline writings were likely to be INTERNALLY fabricated documents for the 4th century historian of the Church.

Shocking! That fourth century Christians might not have been aware of all of the books in the Bible? Maybe that just shows that Christianity was not based on Bibliolatry. It hardly shows that the NT was written in the fourth century.

Well I do sort of agree with what you are saying a bit too.
Maybe we just need aa5874 to tone it down a tad.
It is hard tho when dealing with stuff this old and with the trail also bulldozed, covered over and moved like the RCC seems to have done.
Sometimes logic is all we have left in the absence of any more evidence.
Logic seems to be the first casualty when talking with christians - it almost seems with them that logic is bad and "faith" is all important

aa5874 · 08-08-2010, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...This is much too strong a conclusion to draw from redating Paul's letters from the first to the second century.

No. It is NOT.

And I have not redated Paul's letters from the 1st to the 2nd century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This stunning admission by John Chrysostom contradicts any theory that there was a Canon which included Acts of the Apostles since the 2nd century and contradicts the theory that the author called Luke was well known as a writer up to[b] the END of the 4th century.

.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Shocking! That fourth century Christians might not have been aware of all of the books in the Bible? Maybe that just shows that Christianity was not based on Bibliolatry. It hardly shows that the NT was written in the fourth century.

Well, MAYBE it just shows that there was NO Canon and that Acts was just recently written.

In any event what you have suggested is SHOCKING to me.

The notion that Christians did not know that the book called Acts did exist is incredibly SHOCKING.

According to Church writers Acts of the Apostles was written by a very close companion of Paul, a physician named Luke, and they BOTH publicly Traveled and Preached all over the Roman Empire.

It is shocking that up to the end of the 4th century that Christians were NOT aware of Acts of the Apostles when Irenaeus supposedly confronted a bunch of heretics and mentioned Acts.

Tertullian, it is supposed, argued against Marcion and the Marcionites and mentioned Acts.

Origen argued "Against Celsus" and made reference to Acts of the Apostles.

The 4th century historian claimed Acts was UNIVERSALLY accepted as authentic.

Now, John Chrysostom not only claimed that many did not even know Acts existed but that it was HIDDEN OUT OF SIGHT.

Homilies 1 Acts

Quote:

For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight.....

Once the book of Acts was ALREADY Canonised for 200 years then it should NOT have been HIDDEN OUT OF SIGHT.

The post conversion of Saul/Paul is supposed to be in Acts. Jesus believers should have known about Saul/Paul from Acts.

Based on the SHOCKING revelation of John Chrysostom other books may ALSO have been HIDDEN out of sight, including those from a Pauline writer who claimed he was in a basket by the wall in Damascus during the time of a governor under Aretas and that he persecuted the FAITH that he NOW preached.

The FAITH that Paul preached BEFORE the Fall of the Temple cannot be accounted for outside the Church. IT must been HIDDEN out of sight.

avi · 08-09-2010, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But the tone of aa5874's posts is not conducive to dialogue. The posts come across as boastful and arrogant - much as "Paul's" letters sometimes do.

For sake of argument, let us suppose you are correct (I do not share this opinion, by the way, I find his (her) writing to be enthusiastic and highly opinionated, but not particularly boastful), then what? So now, we have concluded that aa's writing is boastful and arrogant, so what?

Should the credibility of a post to the forum be judged by the tone of the author's submission? Isn't the substance of the entry of far greater significance?

Generally speaking, and I think you will agree with me on this point, aa's posts include documentation, references, citations, and quotes from other authors, including patristic texts, to a greater extent than the average member of this forum.

I personally learn something from almost everything aa writes. (Yeah, I agree with you, my comment explains rather more about the abyss of ignorance which I possess, rather than the erudition of aa5874!)

But notwithstanding issues regarding aa's tonality, which you and many others have raised, whether that (excessive enthusiasm) consists of mere bombast, or, alternatively, as learned discourse--voiced however with proletarian ferocity, rather than the more refined, subdued, elegant, Oxford don's method of discourse, shouldn't we focus, rather, on this forum, on evidence which contradicts contemporary notions of biblical explanations?

With regard to "Paul's" boastfulness, again, I do not object to how he writes, but rather, what he writes. He (or they, in my opinion) is (are) clearly deluded, if writing in seriousness. I think all 13 epistles are fiction, and accordingly, it makes little sense, to me, to argue about his "boastfulness".

I think one needs to reconcile the heavy emphasis placed on Paul's writings, in the Christian tradition, with the paucity of information about Paul in the Quran.

Three centuries after Constantine, the Muslims incorporated several of the Christian myths, Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, into Islam, but what about Paul? For a guy who supposedly lived among the people who became the Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Paul enjoys almost complete anonymity in their writings.....

Why? Is it possible that "Paul" was regarded as a fraud, as fiction, even in the 7th century?

avi

avi · 08-09-2010, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto, commenting on aa5874's reference to the notion that John Chrysostom was unaware of Acts of the Apostles:

That fourth century Christians might not have been aware of all of the books in the Bible?

yes, point well made, however, this guy was not just an ordinary joe, walking down the street. He was the top guy at the top city for Christianity, the capital built on orders of Constantine. It would seem, to me at least, peculiar in the extreme, if the ArchBishop of Constantinople possessed neither knowledge of "Acts of the Apostles", nor even a copy of the work in his library.

How do we confirm that John Chrysostom had no knowledge of that particular book?

avi

DCHindley · 08-09-2010, 06:24 AM

I have noticed that sometimes aa lapses into slightly abbreviated speech which suggests English was not his mother tongue, but most of the time he writes fluently. Several members here also are not native English speakers, so what?

Personally, I pass over his posts if they contain lengthy nit picking exegesis of someone else's post or lots of pronouncements of truth (usually in boldface type), but he does occasionally make insightful observations and appears to make use of original sources as much as he is able.

He also has gone beyond some of the crappy resources he was relying on a while back (remember "Galations"?) and found, then mastered, some better ones.

How does this relate to OP? Hell if I know. But if you ignore the categorical statements and pay attention to his analysis of sources, he will often point out inconsistencies in the arguments of others posted here, which ultimately does advance the discussion.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...
I have never, in two years of reading his posts, found that the occasional minor error in his English grammar had any impact at all on the points he endeavored to explain. ..

aa5874 rarely commits a grammatical error, and his or her English is quite fluent, with only occasional laspes in idiomatic English. But the tone of aa5874's posts is not conducive to dialogue. The posts come across as boastful and arrogant - much as "Paul's" letters sometimes do. More than one poster here has tried to get aa to consider a different point of view, but no one has succeeded.

I think the real problem is that aa5874 seems to treat this as some sort of logical exercise, as if the statements in the NT could be treated as if they were parts of syllogisms.

Doug Shaver · 08-09-2010, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

He was the top guy at the top city for Christianity, the capital built on orders of Constantine. It would seem, to me at least, peculiar in the extreme, if the ArchBishop of Constantinople possessed neither knowledge of "Acts of the Apostles", nor even a copy of the work in his library.

Nowadays, it would indeed be peculiar.

But in the fourth century? Maybe, but only if Christian orthodoxy is correct with regard to its historical origins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

How do we confirm that John Chrysostom had no knowledge of that particular book?

Proving that somebody did not know something is usually pretty hard. About the best we can do, given his failure to mention something in a particular context, is ask whether we may reasonably expect him to have mentioned it in that context if he had known about it.

Toto · 08-09-2010, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto, commenting on aa5874's reference to the notion that John Chrysostom was unaware of Acts of the Apostles:

That fourth century Christians might not have been aware of all of the books in the Bible?

yes, point well made, however, this guy was not just an ordinary joe, walking down the street. He was the top guy at the top city for Christianity, the capital built on orders of Constantine. It would seem, to me at least, peculiar in the extreme, if the ArchBishop of Constantinople possessed neither knowledge of "Acts of the Apostles", nor even a copy of the work in his library.

How do we confirm that John Chrysostom had no knowledge of that particular book?

avi

John Chrysostom had knowledge of that book - it was part of the liturgy in Antioch. But his audience - composed of who, exactly? - evidently was not so familiar. From wikipedia it appears that John Chrysostom preached to the common population rather than confining himself to throwing parties for the elite. He converted pagans and talked to the common people, and led a mob to destroy the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. He did not address this homily to Biblical scholars.

Quote:

In 398, John was requested, against his will, to take the position of Archbishop of Constantinople. He deplored the fact that Imperial court protocol would now assign to him access to privileges greater than the highest state officials. During his time as Archbishop he adamantly refused to host lavish social gatherings, which made him popular with the common people, but unpopular with wealthy citizens and the clergy.

From the comments on ccel

Quote:

2 These Sermons were preached at Constantinople, in the second or third year of St. Chrysostom’s archiepiscopate: see Hom. xliv. “Lo, by the grace of God, we also have been by the space of three years, not indeed night and day exhorting you, but often every third, or at least every seventh, day doing this.” It appears from Hom. i. that the course began during the weeks of Easter: at which season the Book of Acts was by long established practice read in other Churches (as at Antioch and in Africa), if not at Constantinople. See St. Chrys. Hom. Cur in Pentecoste Acta legantur, and St. August. Tr. in Joann. vi. 18.

and

Quote:

3 St. Chrys. had made the same complaint at Antioch in the Homilies (a.d. 387) in Principium Actorum, etc. t. iii. p. 54. “We are about to set before you a strange and new dish.…strange, I say, and not strange. Not strange; for it belongs to the order of Holy Scripture: and yet strange; because peradventure your ears are not accustomed to such a subject. Certainly, there are many to whom this Book is not even known (πολλοῖς γοῦν τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο οὐδὲ γνώριμόν ἐστι) and many again think it so plain, that they slight it: thus to some men their knowledge, to some their ignorance, is the cause of their neglect……We are to enquire then who wrote it, and when, and on what subject: and why it is ordered (νενομοθέτηται) to be read at this festival. For peradventure you do not hear this Book read [at other times] from year’s end to year’s end.”

aa5874 · 08-09-2010, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Three centuries after Constantine, the Muslims incorporated several of the Christian myths, Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, into Islam, but what about Paul? For a guy who supposedly lived among the people who became the Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Paul enjoys almost complete anonymity in their writings.....

Why? Is it possible that "Paul" was regarded as a fraud, as fiction, even in the 7th century?

avi

This is a very good point. A Pauline writer claimed he went to Arabia yet there is no account of any thing Pauline.

Ga 1:17 -

Quote:

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

And further there is no account of a NON-FLESH JESUS in any writings of antiquity. The Pauline writers referred to a character called JESUS over 100 times.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.