Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-16-2012, 07:26 PM

Isn't that the same book where Paul kills a guy for not forking over all his money to the church? That sounds a little authoritarian to me.

arnoldo · 03-16-2012, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The world is compelled to either follow what evidence Big E. tenders in regard to "the church" or else to invent their own private historical fiction. Dear Jesus, please help me to find a commentator on Acts before the 5th century.

Until the 4th century, comment on any part of the Bible was risky. It's highly significant that there is not a single extra-biblical theological document extant before the Renaissance that is not heretical. Heresy survived; orthodoxy did not. The Acts of the Apostles was red hot, because it demonstrated both absence of the authoritarianism that Rome sought, and democracy of the apostolic church. A commentary on it in the 5th century is a early an occurrence as one might expect.

Additionally, negative commentary on the NT was most likely destroyed or failed to be re-copied. Some of the negative commentary on the NT only survived by being quoted by those arguing against it. For example, the following commentary is regarding a portion of Acts.

Quote:

25. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 21:

"This Peter is convicted of doing wrong in other cases also. For in the case of a certain man called Ananias, and his wife Sapphira, because they did not deposit the whole price of their land, but kept back a little for their own necessary use, Peter put them to death, although they had done no wrong. For how did they do wrong, if they did not wish to make a present of all that was their own? But even if he did consider their act to be one of wrongdoing, he ought to have remembered the commands of Jesus, who had taught him to endure as many as four hundred and ninety sins against him ; he would then at least have pardoned one, if indeed what had occurred could really in any sense be called a sin. And there is another thing which he ought to have borne in mind in dealing with others---namely, how he himself, by swearing that he did not know Jesus, had not only told a lie, but had foresworn himself, in contempt of the judgment and resurrection to come.

Jerome, Epistle 130:14:

In fact the apostle Peter by no means called down death upon them as Porphyry foolishly says.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/po..._fragments.htm

Sheshbazzar · 03-16-2012, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Isn't that the same book where Paul kills a guy for not forking over all his money to the church? That sounds a little authoritarian to me.

Yep. Not a tithe mind you, not 50-50, or even 90-10. Not a 'free will' offering. But a 'you turn over every last penny to us or else' demand.

And following a private consultation with Paul and his 'young men' the dead bodies of the man and and his wife are carried out and quickly buried, And 'and great fear came on all them that heard these things' (Acts 5)
I bet.

And although the text doesn't say, -it goes without saying- Paul and his crew of 'young men' ended up with every last cent.

Now imagine today, if a man were to enter into a closed office for a 'consultation' on money matters, and just up and died during said consultation, and the Don's ..er... the ministers "young assistants" took the dead body out and quickly buried it without reporting the incident to the civil authorities.
Then the ..ah...er.. minister invites the wife of the victim into his office to discuss the same money matter... and oops! another person just happens to drop dead in his office the same afternoon!
And of course his "young men" are ready and standing by to remove and bury the victim.

Do you think that any judge or jury in its right mind would buy a defense consisting of; 'God did it'

mountainman · 03-16-2012, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The world is compelled to either follow what evidence Big E. tenders in regard to "the church" or else to invent their own private historical fiction. Dear Jesus, please help me to find a commentator on Acts before the 5th century.

Until the 4th century, comment on any part of the Bible was risky.

Was Josephus's comments in the "TF" risky or forged?

Doug Shaver · 03-16-2012, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am not sure how this responds to my observation, Sotto Voce.

Rome was not built on amity and freedom of expression. The church was.

You can't be serous.

You have to keep in mind that what sotto means by "the church" has little connection with what the rest of the world means by "the church."

Falsehood.

Let's see the evidence.

You made a claim, you either substantiate, or it will be assumed retracted.

I will retract it when someone proves it wrong, not before.

Until then, what we have is two unsubstantiated claims, one by you and one by me. If you can provide evidence for yours, that will constitute evidence against mine. If you cannot be bothered to provide that evidence, then as far as the lurkers are concerned, it's your word against mine. I'm OK with that.

Doug Shaver · 03-17-2012, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Isn't that the same book where Paul kills a guy for not forking over all his money to the church? That sounds a little authoritarian to me.

If you're referring to Acts, it was Peter, not Paul, and the book does not say Peter killed him. Nor does it say that he was killed, no matter by whom, for not giving all his money to the church.

Granted, if we assume that there is some real history behind the story, then certain inferences quite unfavorable to Peter and other church officials become plausible. But we have no reason to assume that anything like it actually happened, and in that case, we cannot justifiably infer anything at all about the goings-on in the early church.

sotto voce · 03-17-2012, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am not sure how this responds to my observation, Sotto Voce.

Rome was not built on amity and freedom of expression. The church was.

You can't be serous.

You have to keep in mind that what sotto means by "the church" has little connection with what the rest of the world means by "the church."

Falsehood.

Let's see the evidence.

You made a claim, you either substantiate, or it will be assumed retracted.

I will retract it when someone proves it wrong, not before.

Until then, what we have is two unsubstantiated claims, one by you and one by me. If you can provide evidence for yours, that will constitute evidence against mine. If you cannot be bothered to provide that evidence, then as far as the lurkers are concerned, it's your word against mine. I'm OK with that.

sotto voce · 03-17-2012, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The world is compelled to either follow what evidence Big E. tenders in regard to "the church" or else to invent their own private historical fiction. Dear Jesus, please help me to find a commentator on Acts before the 5th century.

Until the 4th century, comment on any part of the Bible was risky.

Was Josephus's comments in the "TF" risky or forged?

Yes.

Sheshbazzar · 03-17-2012, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Until the 4th century, comment on any part of the Bible was risky.

So in other words, you are claiming that until the 4th century, the reason Christians didn't write commentaries is because they really didn't much know what, or even give a damn what it was that their Bibles (allegedly) said?

Or if they did understand their Bibles content, that all of them before the 4th century, were just so scared shitless of the big bad world that they didn't have enough guts to write even any anonymous commentaries on any part of their Bibles?
Some great testimony as to the quality of this (alleged) early 'christian' 'faith' that is.

Such an asinine view makes even mountainman's theory look plausible.

.

mountainman · 03-17-2012, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The world is compelled to either follow what evidence Big E. tenders in regard to "the church" or else to invent their own private historical fiction. Dear Jesus, please help me to find a commentator on Acts before the 5th century.

Until the 4th century, comment on any part of the Bible was risky.

Was Josephus's comments in the "TF" risky or forged?

Yes.

Christians in the time of Diocletian were engaged in the extremely risky business of intercepting the communications between the priests of Apollo and Apollo. Diocletian found out that a special class of powerful men (the Christians) were hacking into his Apollo feed, and causing the oracle of Apollo to fall silent.

I find it difficult to think that the Christians risked hacking the Emperor's Apollo feed, but could not risk commenting on their own "Holy Writ"?

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

03-16-2012, 07:26 PM	#31
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Isn't that the same book where Paul kills a guy for not forking over all his money to the church? That sounds a little authoritarian to me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.