Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 12-29-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Right up there with his "ghost" stuff.

But note that he never answered the question that I posed here in the light of his admission -- after a lot of time wasting on his part -- that you were right about the fact that the text of Luke 1:41 does not speak about any baby leaping into anybody's womb, as he had claimed it did (over and over again).

I wonder why?

I do not wonder why (s)he* did and does not answer your questions, which of course are fitting and apt. After all, his or her admission on that thread was the first — and (to date) the only — time I have seen him admit he was wrong. That single admission is the wonder!

* If the appropriate pronoun to use has been clarified before, I must have missed it.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Right up there with his "ghost" stuff.

But note that he never answered the question that I posed here in the light of his admission -- after a lot of time wasting on his part -- that you were right about the fact that the text of Luke 1:41 does not speak about any baby leaping into anybody's womb, as he had claimed it did (over and over again).

I wonder why?

I do not wonder why (s)he* did and does not answer your questions, which of course are fitting and apt. After all, his or her admission on that thread was the first — and (to date) the only — time I have seen him admit he was wrong. That single admission is the wonder!

* If the appropriate pronoun to use has been clarified before, I must have missed it.

Ben.

Care to wager how despite Origen' statements about how foolish it is to do what the A man claims Origen does vis a vis the first Genesis creation story literally, the A man will still claim that with respect to the story of the creation as stated in Genesis, Origen was a literalist?

My guess is that he will confuse the claim on Origen's part that Genesis is true with respect to its assertion about who made the word with Origen accepting the historicity of Genesis account of how God did so and the facticity of the sequence in which Genesis says it was done.

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith · 12-29-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I do not wonder why (s)he* did and does not answer your questions, which of course are fitting and apt. After all, his or her admission on that thread was the first — and (to date) the only — time I have seen him admit he was wrong. That single admission is the wonder!

* If the appropriate pronoun to use has been clarified before, I must have missed it.

Ben.

Care to wager how despite Origen' statements about how foolish it is to do what the A man claims Origen does vis a vis the first Genesis creation story literally, the A man will still claim that with respect to the story of the creation as stated in Genesis Origen was a literalist?

My guess is that he confuse the claim on Origen's part that Genesis is true with respect to its assertion about who made the word with his acceptance of the historicity of Genesis account of how God did so and the facticity of the sequence in which Genesis says it was done.

If you are asking me to place a bet on aa5874 persisting in foolishness, with what broker do I sign up and what is the upper betting limit?

If, OTOH, you are asking me to place a bet against aa5874 persisting in foolishness, you are milking the wrong cow with me, bub.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Care to wager how despite Origen' statements about how foolish it is to do what the A man claims Origen does vis a vis the first Genesis creation story literally, the A man will still claim that with respect to the story of the creation as stated in Genesis Origen was a literalist?

My guess is that he confuse the claim on Origen's part that Genesis is true with respect to its assertion about who made the word with his acceptance of the historicity of Genesis account of how God did so and the facticity of the sequence in which Genesis says it was done.

If you are asking me to place a bet on aa5874 persisting in foolishness, with what broker do I sign up and what is the upper betting limit?

If, OTOH, you are asking me to place a bet against aa5874 persisting in foolishness, you are milking the wrong cow with me, bub.

Ha!

Quote:

Ben.

I'm presuming -- and with good reason, I think -- that he will indeed persist in his foolishness. My question is how he will do so this time and with respect to the issue of Origen being a literalist vis a vis Gen 1:1-2:3 -- i.e., as one who believed and stated in his exegesis of this text that the creation of the world happened exactly as Gen. 1:1-2:3 depicts it has having been being carried out.

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 12-29-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.

Just show me where Origen stated that Jesus was not literally ... [/b]tempted by the devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, ....

Shortly after the quote that GDon gave you, Origen states:

Quote:

. . those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place.

Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g. the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain in order to show him from thence the kingdomes of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounds carelessly, that would nto condemn those who think that with the eye of the body -- whcih requires a lofty height ord order that the parts lying (immediatelyP under and adjacent may be seem -- the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted . . .

quoted from Readings in the History of Christian Theology Volume 1: From Its Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation (or via: amazon.co.uk) By William Carl Placher, available on Google books.

You lose. Stop wasting our time.

So, did not Origen literally believe or write that Jesus was literally born of a virgin? Yes or No?

Did not Origen believe or write that Jesus was literally resurrected? Yes or No?

Did not Origen believe or write Jesus was literally ascended to heaven? Yes or No?

Now, I have quoted Contra Celsus 2.9 to show that Origen believed that the God of the Jews with the Logos, his Son Jesus, literally created the world.

Did not Origen believe or write that the God of the Jews with his Logos literally created the world? Yes or No?

Origen was a literalist.

Contra Celsus 1.19

Quote:

And after these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but vey much under that...

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Shortly after the quote that GDon gave you, Origen states:

quoted from Readings in the History of Christian Theology Volume 1: From Its Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation (or via: amazon.co.uk) By William Carl Placher, available on Google books.

You lose. Stop wasting our time.

So, did not Origen literally believe or write that Jesus was literally born of a virgin? Yes or No?

You tell us. You are the one who is claiming to know that Origen was a literalist.

And where do you get off asking, let alone expecting answers to, your yes or no questions when you yourself make it your practice to dodge them when they are put to you?

Quote:

Did not Origen believe or write that Jesus was literally resurrected? Yes or No?

Did not Origen believe or write Jesus was literally ascended to heaven? Yes or No?

I note with interest that this list is now absent the claim that Origen was a literalist when it came to the story of Jesus' post baptismal testing.

Why is that?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 12-29-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Biblical_literalism

Quote:

According to the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, literalism "seeks to discover the author's intent by focusing upon his words in their plain, most obvious sense". Literalism does not exclude allegory, metaphor, and parable, but accepts the teaching of the Bible as the author intended it, whether literal or figurative, at face value.

But as the quotes show, Origen said that anything he did not believe really happened was not literally true, including events that modern Biblical literalists claim to have actually happened. What use is this term then?

Are you confused? Why are you confused?

Based on your own post, Origen was a literalist.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Biblical_literalism

But as the quotes show, Origen said that anything he did not believe really happened was not literally true, including events that modern Biblical literalists claim to have actually happened. What use is this term then?

Are you confused? Why are you confused?

Have you read Origen's On First Principles?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 12-29-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you confused? Why are you confused?

Have you read Origen's On First Principles?

Jeffrey

Ask Toto. Toto appears to have some confusion about the meaning of "Biblical Literalism".

Something has gone wrong.

I have always maintained that Origen was a literalist. I am not confused.

Toto · 12-29-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Biblical_literalism

But as the quotes show, Origen said that anything he did not believe really happened was not literally true, including events that modern Biblical literalists claim to have actually happened. What use is this term then?

Are you confused? Why are you confused?

Based on your own post, Origen was a literalist.

First of all, admit that Origen did not think that everything in the Bible was literally true.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.