Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 03-29-2004, 08:25 AM

Quote:

GakuseiDon
For Doherty to admit that someone could know about the gospels and still not refer to them potentially weakens his argument about the so-called silence of Paul. Thus his "change of mind" comment.

Paul's silence is backed by the fact that what Paul does says is so contrary to the Gospels. I have tried in the past to get this across to you but you are definitely bent on ignoring the evidence.

Paul's focus is entirely on the OT.
He was probably told about Jesus the same way with quotes and mishrashing of scriptures.

That is how Paul can claim that he got this information from no man.
He got it from scriptures - ie God in is mind.

If Jesus walked the earth Paul's focus would have changed.
He would have wanted to know all that Jesus said and did.
He would have preached on that basis.

If Paul was aware of Gospels why does he contradict them all over the place.
This is more than just silence.

If Jesus resurrected in the flesh and went up to heaven as Luke says why then does Paul say that flesh cannot enter the kingdom of God.

If Jesus was born of a virgin and was therefore the Son of God as Luke tells us why then does Paul state that Jesus got the title of Son of God after his resurrection.

If Jesus' teachings are key to salvation as the gospels state why does Paul tell us that every Christian is connected to the mind of God and receives inspration directly from him.

Paul does not want Christians to follow Jewish dietary laws. The Gospels agrre with him yet he fails to argue that this was part of Jesus' teaching despite the fact that Peter evidently did not get this message from the HJ according to acts anyway.

This and other similar problems do not point to a central authoritative figure of Jesus as described in the Gospels. It points rather to a group of people who get their inspiration from reading scriptures. Each has his own interpretation and beliefs.

The variety of contrary beliefs make Paul's silence not a incidental phenomena but rather a clear indication that Paul did not know anything about any HJ.

UV2003 · 03-29-2004, 10:35 AM

I am currently reading TISSOM by Price. I am a complete layman as to biblical studies, but I like Price's way of making analogies.

Having had some experience with friends and family with mental illness that was attributed to "demon possession", I have had to think long and hard about this issue. When I think about Christian theology there are a few things that come to mind about Satan and demons:

If Satan is God's most highly created angel that fell from favor when he wanted more glory for himself and took his demons with him and he and his demons are capable of performing "demonic miracles", then I think those of us in the lay public have sufficient grounds to expect evidence. I often read from Christian apologsits that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but I think that "presence of evidence is evidence of presence." So, let them step up to courtroom and present the evidence.

I asked a fundamentalist pastor why I should believe in the miraculous portents of the crucifixion in Matthew that are missing from Mark if I am to disbelieve in the miracles of other religions. He told me that "the false religions" have all sorts of demonic activity. He said he had seen this in person in physical manifestations.

This raises a very important question. If satan and demons are real, then why do they not seek maximum glory? Jesus is said to "cast out demons" and put them into a herd of swine. So, I do not accept that a "demon" is just a force or "spirit" of ailment or whatever. If the gospel writers say Jesus transferred demonic possession from a man to a herd of swine, then I must conclude that they viewed demons as some type of independent being.

As to satan seeking maximum glory, I think this would be made clear if he and his demons did something irrefutable on CNN. That is, perhaps he could multiply food in the name of the false god Allah. Or, he could demon-possess a man and make him say that all who commit suicide would immediately reach heaven. He could then physically manifest a wisp of smoke from a dead man to signify his sould "going up" to heaven.

The Christians might say God does not allow this. Then, why does God allow so many demonic miracles in secret? Why do pastors of certain denominations know for certain that the demonic realm exists, while others are not so sure? But, regardless, why is it always something that somebody else saw or heard? Why, if the demons want maximum glory do they not outright demon possess a pastor and make him convert to Islam right there in the pulpit? Maybe I just don't properly understand demon possession as a Christian told me.

Furthermore, why does modern medicine treat symptoms of demon-possession and assuage the affects of it in what doctors might deem a psychiatric schizophrenic state? If demons are supernatural, why do chemical agents have sway over them? It doesn't make sense to me. If I am satan, and I command a legion of demons, there is no reason I cannot overcome a few chemicals within the brain of a mere human being.

I suppose a Christian could say that God only allows Satan to do certain things and that angels and demons are battling each other behind the scenes. This is convenient. So, we can attribute 9/11 to the affects of Satan within the minds of the Islamic terrorists, but we cannot expect a demonstrably irrefutable demonic miracle to be exhibited on national television.

God is carefully orchestrating a tenuous balance between angelic and demonic forces behind the scenes, so carefully in fact that even given our modern of age of digital video reproduction and mass media never have these activities made it to film in an irretuable fashion. http://www.milkmiracle.com not withstanding, of course. Read again, these demonic miracles are taking places, but God insures by devoting sufficient resources to it that an irrefutable one never makes it to film for mass media consumption. That would be too dangerous and would draw too much glory away from Jesus Christ. Because, should a demon manifest physical miracles on TV, then God would be forced to play his hand by unleashing his legions of angels to restore proper glory to Jesus. This would essentially usher in the eschaton and prevent God's chosen messengers, the Christians, from delivering via evangelism the faith needed for eternal salvation.

So, ostensibly, the events of 9/11 can be described as purely physical in nature. Men boarded a flight and flew it into buildings. But, the spiritual nature is that Satan was really behind the scenes.

I'm taking Occam's razor to the book on this one.

I cast my lots for Price.

-UV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Robert Price in The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man uses a simple test that seems so obvious you wonder why no one talked about it before. You look around and see what happens today. You don't see any miracles, you don't see anyone rising from the dead. But you do see a lot of supernatural claims that are always debunked when a skeptic examines them. You see a lot of new religions that start with claims that seem ridiculous to those outside the religion.

So start with the evidence for a resurrection or other miracles. The "evidence" to support it is confined to stories written well after the time. Even if the writing were contemporaneous, you have to ask, what is more likely, that the miracle happened, or that someone made up the story? You have to ask why the resurrection did not make a bigger impression on contemporaries if it happened.

Extraordinary events demand extraordinary proof. Ancient documents just do not constitute the extraordinary proof of those events. They do not even rise to the level of ordinary proof.

the_cave · 03-29-2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

I think it's possible that the historicization process happened so gradually that by the time it became the dominant expression of the faith, those who might have objected to it just weren't around anymore.

I admit it is a mystery religion we are dealing with here. But already by the time of Ignatius and the author of 1 John there is some sort of controversy about the Incarnation. It's unclear what it was (and traditionally the problem as I gather it has been held to be a form of Docetism, I believe). but the thing is, we have plenty of heretical texts--the Gnostic texts. Not one of them insists that Jesus Christ is a purely heavenly figure. I'm not saying it's impossible either that a) such texts were destroyed, or b) the debate was so low-level that no one wrote down the other side of it, but I would have to say that in the absence of any texts, it remains a speculative hypothesis.

Quote:

But the basic fact is, you have a major shift of the faith from East to West. The East now took its cues from the West, not vice versa.

Alright, but again, where is the record of the "spiritual J" Eastern tradition that the "earthly J" Western tradition supposedly replaced?

Quote:

Au contraire, I think they provide very good evidence that a historical Jesus simply was not important to the faith of many Christian thinkers well into the second century.

The details of his history, perhaps. Though that is still not necessarily an argument for a spiritual J.

(And of course, mystery religions work the other way, too...we shouldn't assume that the gospels were available to anyone but the initiated. For that matter, we might also suspect that the initiated were sworn to secrecy about them...)

Quote:

But in the case of Christianity, we KNOW that Christians engaged in wholesale suppression of heretical doctrines, destruction of heretical texts, redaction of other texts to adhere to official doctrine, etc.

And yet many of those traditions have been either recorded, or actually handed down to us. If there was a spiritual J tradition, it appears to be unique in that there remain no pure expressions of it either in secondary or primary sources (so far as I know, as an amateur, anyway.)

Quote:

There may have been very few, if any, writings in the first place that explicitly claimed the gospels were allegories.

Possibly, but why would that have been the case?

Quote:

And since if a writing was not copied, it usually didn't survive, well, all that had to happen was for an abbot at some point during the Middle Ages to decide not to have this or that document copied. Of course, that's assuming that any even survived events like the sackings of Rome or the destruction of the Library at Alexandria.

Yes, very true. But again, many texts did survive. I'm not sure I'm willing to accept a luck-of-the-draw argument that these just didn't happen to be among them.

Quote:

Perhaps providing evidence, a justification for why the Christian incarnation story should be taken as historically true, while the Greek myths and allegories shouldn't?

It seems to me that Taitian is saying that the difference is, the Greek myths are held to be myths, whereas his "narratives" are held to be true. (this is currently being discussed by others, and I don't have much more to comment on it besides what's already being said. Likewise for the next few comments in your reply.)

Quote:

Obviously Tatian had either heard of or even read a gospel or two at the time he wrote his apology.

Ah, but those are two different things.

the_cave · 03-29-2004, 02:18 PM

Oh, I get it--I don't need to use the boldface marks anymore. Sorry, I'll try to leave them out entirely next time.

the_cave · 03-29-2004, 02:24 PM

Quote:

It seems to me that Taitian is saying that the difference is, the Greek myths are held to be myths, whereas his "narratives" are held to be true. (this is currently being discussed by others, and I don't have much more to comment on it besides what's already being said. Likewise for the next few comments in your reply.)

Getting a little further into this, here are some reasons why Taitian might not have gone into detail:

1) He hadn't read any gospels, so he didn't have them.
2) (as others have suggested) why reiterate the very point that's under discussion?
3) He was sworn to secrecy about them as an initiate of a mystery religion.
4) He wasn't a very good debater.

And so forth. What I'm saying is that while Taitian may not be very good evidence for a historical J, he isn't very good evidence for a mythical J, either. At best (or at worst), he is ambiguous. And that's about the most that can be said for him.

On the other hand, he did write the Diatessaron. Perhaps that is his detailed presentation of what he believed to be the evidence!

GakuseiDon · 03-30-2004, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

You seem to base all your argument on the attitude shown in the text which goes something like this.

"your stories are myth and can't be compared to our stories"

You wrongly conclude that this implies that Christians considered their stories to be historically true.

No, no, no. I'm commenting on Doherty's assertion: "Certainly, he (Tatian) does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior or, unlike the Greek ones, factually true."

Tatian definitely DOES rush out to point out that the Christian stories are superior - and this can be seen in the very parts of the quotes that Doherty has left out.

You are right that it doesn't imply that Christians considered their stories to be historically true (though it isn't inconsistent with it either), but that isn't my point here.

Gregg · 03-30-2004, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Tatian definitely DOES rush out to point out that the Christian stories are superior - and this can be seen in the very parts of the quotes that Doherty has left out.

Here is Doherty's response:

Quote:

The translation I used (working with the Greek) was by Molly Whittaker, _Tatian_ (1982). Her passages read as follows, corresponding to your quotes above:

"We are not fools, Men of Greece, nor are we talking nonsense when we declare that God has been born in the form of man. You who abuse us should compare your own stories with our narratives....

So take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories. We are not foolish, but you talk nonsense."

I have the Ante-Nicene Fathers series from which your quoted translation is taken. Keep in mind that this is a 19th century work, and I have found that those translations (and the commentaries attached to them) are full of Gospel-based slants and assumptions. In the Greek, for the phrase in your quote "nor utter idle tales," and in Whittaker "nor are we talking nonsense," the Greek words are "oude lerous apaggellomen"--literally, "neither do we speak idle talk." "Leros" can be in the plural, as here, but this does not make it the equivalent of "stories" or provide straws to be grasped at by those who would like to read into the phrase a defence by Tatian of the Gospels. Bauer's Lexicon gives as the definition of "leros": idle talk, nonsense, humbug. The one use of the word in the NT is Luke 24:11, where it is most commonly translated as "their words seemed to them to be nonsense" or "folly". The King James and the RSV use "idle tale" but this is in the context of the apostles thinking the women were babbling when they reported they had found Jesus' tomb empty.

(I left out that phrase in my quoted translation in the Jesus Puzzle because it seemed peripheral, although I should have put in a lacuna at that point.)

What word(s) does Tatian use when he *does* speak about "stories"? In the first excerpt above, he says "sugkrinate tous mythous humon tois hemeterois diegemasin", which literally is "compare the tales/legends/myths/fables of yours to our narratives/accounts." Then when we get to the following excerpt, he says "kan hos homoios mythologountas hemas apdeksasthe", which literally, is, "and accept in the same way as our told tales/legends/fables." Not only does this choice of word indicate that he doesn't consider them historical, with what does he compare these tales told by the Christians? In the intervening passage of several sentences he throws out a selection of nonsensical and disreputable examples of Greek tales and myths, continuing in much the same vein afterwards. I find it amusing that Whittaker chooses to translate "mythologountas" as simply "stories", while the ANF renders the passage: "...looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own." The latter at least acknowledges that the word refers to legends (literally it's "told fables/legends/tall tales"), but the translator seems to be trying to get around this by intimating some kind of subjunctive sense, such as 'even if you can only see them as legends like your own' which I daresay is taking liberties with the Greek.

Tatian follows this statement up with the final sentence of your quote: "We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales." Whittaker translates: "We are not foolish, but you talk nonsense." Literally, "However, we are not being foolish, but your things (are) nonsense." That's not much of a defence of the literal historicity of the Gospels as opposed to the foolish tales of the Greeks Tatian is in the process of enumerating. I take it as something more like a schoolyard retort. "I'm a dummy? No, you're a dummy!" And note what Tatian immediately says an an apparent example of the Greeks' nonsense: "If you speak of the origin of the gods, you also declare them to be mortal." Whittaker: "If you tell of the birth of gods, you will also represent them as mortal." (I think 'birth' is the more accurate idea than 'origin' for this Greek word, especially as he goes to ridicule the fact that Hera no longer continues to conceive.) This is a poor taunt if Tatian really believed that his divine Logos figure was born, and as a mortal, as the Gospels tell.

GakuseiDon · 03-30-2004, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Gosh Don, the Greeks are already familiar with their own myths. They are FAR MORE familiar with them than with Xtian stories. So why does Tatian dwell on that at length and in numbing detail????

Because he is attacking them, of course. He isn't explaining them! How can he attack them without mentioning them???

Quote:

Why, in a missive meant to compare the two and show the superiority of his philosophy, does he not mention any specific details about the originator of that philosophy?

Vork, can't you see the problem with this question?

Paul at least mentions some things about Jesus in his epistle. But even if Tatian WAS a MJer, in the "Address":
* he doesn't mention the cross
* he doesn't mention the crucifixion
* he doesn't menion the burial
* he doesn't mention the name "Jesus"
* he doesn't mention the word "Christ", for crying out loud!

EVEN IF HE WERE A MJER, WHY DOESN'T HE MENTION ANY OF THESE THINGS? Should we assume that Tatian didn't know about any of those things? How does that fit into Doherty's thesis?

Quote:

The fact is that because Tatian discussed "our narrations" does not mean he is referring to gospels. We don't know what he means. You cannot backread your hoped-for conclusions into Tatian's phrase.

True. We can only go with what we know about the life of Tatian. See my comments at the end of this post. Given with what we know about the life of Tatian, what is your best guess about what "our narrations" refer to? What is the highest probability here?

Quote:

You're completely missing the boat. Doherty is specifically saying THE WAY TATIAN COMPARES THE TWO. He is talking about HOW Tatian makes the comparison shows that Tatian puts them on the same "level." Of course he thinks Christianity is the better philosophy! That is not the point. He compares them in the same way -- by comparing the ethical behavior, antiquity, and other things.

If that is what Doherty thinks, then I have no problems, and I wonder what his point is. Tatian was learned in Greek philosophy, and so is addressing the Greeks in those terms.

Quote:

Yes, putting his philosophy on the same level as theirs. He doesn't go through credibility by saying Xtianity comes from the son of god. And further, if the Greeks are already familiar with the tale, why is it necessary for him to make this demonstration that his philosophy is older? They already know that! Your own questions undermine you.

From Tatian's letter: "But now it seems proper for me to demonstrate that our philosophy is older than the systems of the Greeks." Why Tatian thinks it proper, I'll let you take it up with him. I don't understand what point you're trying to raise here.

Quote:

Don, where in this quote from my post...

Doherty says "he does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior" he does not mean that Tatian does not regard them as superior in some sense.

...did I miss that. It seems you did not even read my post. A pity.

Vork, Doherty leaves out the part where Tatian calls the Greek stories "idle tales", which he cuts from the middle of the quote that he gives from Tatian, and then says "he (Tatian) does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior". Tatian DOES point out that the Christian stories are superior in the parts Doherty left out, doesn't he? That is what I'm pointing out. You've explained that Doherty has expressed himself badly. I have a less charitable view of what Doherty did.

Quote:

Again, you have totally missed out what Doherty is saying. Doherty does not mean that they have "same level" of validity nor does he mean that Tatian does not prefer his philosophy. Rather, he says specifically "THE WAY HE COMPARES THEM" -- his mode of argument -- puts the two on the same level. That's what he means. Had Tatian simply reached for the "son of god told us" argument, that would be a completely different type of comparison. For example, if Tatian had said that "you guys get your stuff from Homer, but we get our from the Son of God," then it would be a whole 'nother ball game. But Tatian instead places the two on the same level and then attempts to prove that according to Greek notions of ssuperiority, his belief (which he never names) kicks butt.

YES! We can agree there. Tatian uses philosophy to try to sway the Greeks - he isn't interested in using faith declarations or doctrine. Do we agree?

Quote:

No, Don, it is not proof at all. All the evidence we now have shows that Tatian was not aware of the gospel narrative history when he wrote the Address to the Greeks. Simply saying that he converted and was a student of an HJer does not tell us anything. The only evidence we have for Tatian's ideas is his own writings. And they do not show that at this point, he knew the gospel stories. Not until a decade after this do we get the Diatesseron and the gospel fictions. If Tatian even wrote that...or this....

...and that is Doherty's point. If you give up your presuppositions and take a careful and conservative view of the evidence, it cannot support the contention that Tatian knew the narrative history outlined in the gospels.

I think that I can support the contention that Tatian knew the gospels. It seems I left out a bit of evidence in my proof. If we look at the time-lines again:
1. Tatian converted around 150 CE.
2. He was a student of the HJer Justin Martyr (martyred around 165 CE). Justin Martyr wrote his famous apologies in the 150s CE.
3. Tatian wrote "Address to the Greeks" around 160 CE to 170 CE.
4. He talks about Justin Martyr in the "Address".

Is it conceivable that Tatian knew Justin Martyr (who knew about the Gospels), and was his student, and DIDN'T know about the Gospels?

Given the above, what is the probability that Tatian knew about the Gospels IYO, Vork? 50-50? 90-10? 10-90?

GakuseiDon · 03-30-2004, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

Here is Doherty's response:

Thanks Gregg, that is interesting. What do you think? Is Doherty's reason for leaving those parts of the quotes out convincing?

Vorkosigan · 03-30-2004, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Because he is attacking them, of course. He isn't explaining them! How can he attack them without mentioning them???

How can he claim his stories are better without mentioning what they are? Did he expect his audience to take it on faith? Merely hacking Greek religion to pieces was not enough; he had to offer a positive alternative. And the alternative he offers, carefully explained, is a Logos-Religion devoid of Jesus. Every time you ask a question it rebounds on you.

Suppose you were a Greek and Tatian convinced you that his way was best. Reading Tatian's address, what way would you follow? Would it include Jesus, Mary and Joseph?

[quote]Vork, can't you see the problem with this question?
Paul at least mentions some things about Jesus in his epistle. But even if Tatian WAS a MJer, in the "Address":
* he doesn't mention the cross
* he doesn't mention the crucifixion
* he doesn't menion the burial
* he doesn't mention the name "Jesus"
* he doesn't mention the word "Christ", for crying out loud![quote]

Precisely! So what does he believe? We don't know! But we have other examples of a Logos-centered Christianity that doesn't know Jesus -- theophilus of antioch, for one. So I have to go by the evidence. There is no evidence from the Address to the Greeks that Tatian knows anything from the narrative.

Quote:

EVEN IF HE WERE A MJER, WHY DOESN'T HE MENTION ANY OF THESE THINGS? Should we assume that Tatian didn't know about any of those things? How does that fit into Doherty's thesis?

Don, have you read the book at that point? Tatian is one among several second century apologists who argue as though they had never heard of Jesus. One is dismissable as an aberration. But three is a pattern.

Quote:

True. We can only go with what we know about the life of Tatian. See my comments at the end of this post. Given with what we know about the life of Tatian, what is your best guess about what "our narrations" refer to? What is the highest probability here?

Don, you can't back-read your assumptions about history into the writings by Tatian. I know that it is difficult to read the Christian writings without those assumptions. But we know that Theophilus of Antioch had possession of a version of John that apparently had no references to Jesus, but was some kind of Logos-Christianity. So the "narratives" might refer to just about anything.

Quote:

If that is what Doherty thinks, then I have no problems, and I wonder what his point is. Tatian was learned in Greek philosophy, and so is addressing the Greeks in those terms.

Yes, so the apologists say. Only Tatian never mentions his own religion, or any of its particulars. It doesn't even have a name!

Quote:

From Tatian's letter: "But now it seems proper for me to demonstrate that our philosophy is older than the systems of the Greeks." Why Tatian thinks it proper, I'll let you take it up with him. I don't understand what point you're trying to raise here.

Now, if Tatian knew that Jesus had begun their religion at some point in the recent past, how can he claim it was older than the Greeks? Every literate person knew the opposite!

Quote:

Vork, Doherty leaves out the part where Tatian calls the Greek stories "idle tales", which he cuts from the middle of the quote that he gives from Tatian, and then says "he (Tatian) does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior". Tatian DOES point out that the Christian stories are superior in the parts Doherty left out, doesn't he? That is what I'm pointing out.

No, Don, all you are doing is demonstrating that you haven't understood Doherty's point. Doherty doesn't deny that Tatian felt Christianity was better than Greek belief. Rather, he is talking about how Tatian worked the comparison. He puts the two on the same level, and then, within those terms, explains why Xtianity is better. Are you seriously claiming that Doherty believes that Tatian thought his religion and the Greek religion were equally preferable? That is obvious cant.

Doherty means as I have said: Tatian does not whip out his big bad son of god and beat the greeks over their heads with him. That's what Doherty means by "not rushing out." You've focused on the wrong words in Doherty's sentence in your haste to condemn Doherty of the crime you in fact are committing.

Quote:

You've explained that Doherty has expressed himself badly. I have a less charitable view of what Doherty did.

As I said, that is because you literally do not understand what Doherty is saying. It is completely clear what he means; you won't grasp it, and I don't know how to teach you. Doherty's words are clear: THE WAY HE COMPARES THE TWO shows he thought of them on the same level. Doherty IS NOT being disingenuous. He is trying to describe Tatian's apologetic approach. He does not do so well!

Quote:

YES! We can agree there. Tatian uses philosophy to try to sway the Greeks - he isn't interested in using faith declarations or doctrine. Do we agree?

No. To say he isn't interested is to make judgments about Tatian's frame of mind. It would better to simply note that he does not make faith declarations about Jesus, since he does make other kinds. You can't make inferences about state of mind. You have to go with what the evidence says.

Quote:

I think that I can support the contention that Tatian knew the gospels. It seems I left out a bit of evidence in my proof. If we look at the time-lines again:
1. Tatian converted around 150 CE.
2. He was a student of the HJer Justin Martyr (martyred around 165 CE). Justin Martyr wrote his famous apologies in the 150s CE.
3. Tatian wrote "Address to the Greeks" around 160 CE to 170 CE.
4. He talks about Justin Martyr in the "Address".
Is it conceivable that Tatian knew Justin Martyr (who knew about the Gospels), and was his student, and DIDN'T know about the Gospels?
Given the above, what is the probability that Tatian knew about the Gospels IYO, Vork? 50-50? 90-10? 10-90?

Nil. For as Tatian himself says, in chapter 13, that the soul acquires eternal life through knowledge of God. Read chapter 13 carefully, it is pure logos-religion. There is no Jesus anywhere. If, writing in Rome at 160, Tatian really believes in Jesus, then how could he write such tripe that ignores the centrality of the Christian story? After his spell in Rome Tatian zoomed off to Syria, where, bcause of the apology of Aristides, we know the gospel legends were already in circulation. There Tatian learned about Christianity Version 2.0 with the Crucified Messiah Plug-in. Tatian was a student of Justin's (he was converted by reading the Septaugint), and probably did not adopt his beliefs, for after he died, Tatian became a heretic and a Logos-nut of some kind, according to Iraneus. Relationships like this are common; my wife was the student of a guru for many years, but adopted none of his beliefs in the supernatural. She just liked his ethics. The fact that X is a student of Y tells you nothing about the beliefs of X.

In other words, both before and after Justin, all the evidence we have indicates that Tatian was never an HJer. For all you know, he composed the Diatesseron at Justin's behest, but didn't have his heart in it. You have no idea of what was in his head. The fact that he knows the stories does not mean that he believes them. You are confusing understanding with approval, two different things. No evidence anywhere would suggest that Tatian believes Christianity Vers. 2.0 with the Crucified Messiah Plug-in. All evidence suggests in fact that Tatian was a Logos-religionist from conversion to death.

Vorkosigan

View Poll Results: I am a Jesus Myther and...
I have read Doherty's arguments, but not Wright's arguments.	23	71.88%
I have read Wright's arguments, but not Doherty's arguments.	1	3.13%
I have read both arguments, and I find Doherty's superior to Wrights	8	25.00%
I have read both documents, and I find them to be equally convincing.	0	0%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

03-29-2004, 02:18 PM	#74
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	boldface Oh, I get it--I don't need to use the boldface marks anymore. Sorry, I'll try to leave them out entirely next time.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.