Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 10-24-2011, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[ Well, after "having traced the course of all things accurately from the first" the author of gLuke MATCHED gMatthew and stated that Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, was ON the Pinnacle of the Temple with Satan, Walked on the Sea, TRANSFIGURED, Resurrected and Appeared to his disciples.

Surely the author of gLuke is making an ACCURATE account of WHAT was BELIEVED and NOT actual historical events.

The Synoptics MATCH BELIEF.

Big difference between perfect understanding and belief and in Matthew Mary got raped and the angles were Lucifer and Michael = big difference.

Oops 'angel of the Lord' is the 'angel of light' called Lucifer and the other was Gabriel of God as first cause (and Michael is of Mary who is our seat of wisdom and therefore queen of angels).

This kind of kills Mohammed's Islam but that is not part of the argument here.

jakejonesiv · 10-25-2011, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Could you be anymore vague? What "people?"
How do you know what "they" believed? All you have is what you assume they believed.

Jake

The Gospels, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn are Version of Myth Fables that people of antiquity BELIEVED just as Plutarch's "Romulus" is a version of the Myth Fable about Romulus and Remus that was BELIEVED.

Examine Plutarch's "Romulus".

Examine Luke 1.1

Quote:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely BELIEVED among us.........It seemed good to me also.......... to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus...

The claim that Jesus fed 5000 and 4000 men which produced 19 BASKETS full of fragments from a few loaves of bread and fishes are stories that were BELIEVED and could NOT be historical accounts.

AA,

Who believed this and when? You are speculating smoke. Name one Christian in antiquity who stated he or she believed that the stories of the miraculous feedings were literally true.

Jake

archibald · 10-25-2011, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Yes. Or stories. Maybe even stories which had been circulating before Mark. Maybe even more than one version of a story about someone feeding a crowd of hungry people. If you're writing an entirely OT-based allegory, why would you repeat that element twice?

Good question. I didn't see any answers.

Perhaps who, exactly, was being fed in each of these scenes may be relevant.

Yes, one on occasion it was a crowd. On the other occasion, however, it was a........whoops.

The symbolism is not actually difficult. Bread is a carbohydrate, a type of food that instantly energizes us, while fish, being protein gives us staying power. Jesus' message is both of these. And one meal is not suficient. Christianity must be adhered to regularly, like the F-Plan and the Atkins. Added to which the original Hebrew meaning of 'Beth' is house, and for 'Sayid' is, literally, 'lunch'. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.

aa5874 · 10-25-2011, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Who believed this and when? You are speculating smoke. Name one Christian in antiquity who stated he or she believed that the stories of the miraculous feedings were literally true.

Jake

What NONSENSE question!!! Name some one in antiquity who BELIEVED what you have claimed about Marcion.

I have SHOWN you gLuke 1.1-4.

I do NOT speculate.

Examine Luke 1.

Quote:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely BELIEVED among us.........It seemed good to me also.......... to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus...

I don't IMAGINE my evidence.

There are MULTIPLE Church writers who claimed to BELIEVE the Jesus stories.

Please CLOSE your eyes. You don't want to see this. Origen BELIEVED that Jesus LITERALLY FED thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish.

Examine "The Commentary on Matthew" XI.2

Quote:

And so long as these five loaves and two fishes were not carried by the disciples of Jesus, they did not increase or multiply, nor were they able to nourish more; but, when the Saviour took them, and in the first placed looked up to heaven, with the rays of His eyes, as it were, drawing down from it power which was to be mingled with the loaves and the fishes which were about to feed the five thousand, and after this blessed the five loaves and the two fishes, increasing and multiplying them by the word and the blessing; and in the third place dividing and breaking He gave to the disciples that they might set them before the multitudes, then the loaves and the fishes were sufficient, so that all ate and were satisfied, and some portions of the loaves which had been blessed they were unable to eat.

For so much remained over to the multitudes, which was not according to the capacity of the multitudes but of the disciples who were able to take up that which remained over of the broken pieces, and to place it in baskets filled with that which remained over, which were in number so many as the tribes of Israel....

I don't IMAGINE my evidence.

The Gospels are about BELIEF not actual historical accounts.

Even ORIGEN BELIEVED the most fictitious feeding of the thousands.

Chili · 10-25-2011, 05:33 AM

Shepherds-on-the-run herding sheep at midnight-midwinter-midlife means he was beyond theology and so the bare naked animal man who's number is 666 (and never mind the number for that "certain man" for now), and since he had converted those shepherds into apostles in effort to make sense of it all here now Jesus is on a 'spiritual high' and coming to understanding (as in bringing 'the sheep' home to man, and illumination is instant).

Understand well that as outsider to our own self we are co-creator with God and so shepherds of sheep that are ours but we are still shepherds.

Chili · 10-25-2011, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[ I have SHOWN you gLuke 1.1-4.

I do NOT speculate.

Examine Luke 1.

Quote:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely[b] BELIEVED among us.........It seemed good to me also.......... to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus...

I don't IMAGINE my evidence.

You may not speculate but you must learn how read as a senior and wonder where the birth of John comes from and why it is missing in Matthew. Luke gives a different account than was believed that likely is true but was only true for Mathew. In other words, Luke had something to say becasue he knew first hand where Matthew went wrong . . . and you can't blame believers for not knowing how it is done or they would not be believers, and somewhere I believe that Theophilus is there to mean something like 'wisdom for all.'

jakejonesiv · 10-25-2011, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I don't IMAGINE my evidence.

The Gospels are about BELIEF not actual historical accounts.

Even ORIGEN BELIEVED the most fictitious feeding of the thousands.

Hi AA,

You are missing the entire point. Forget about Origen, he was writing in the middle of the third century. Too late to help you.

What makes you think you know what everyone believed?

You are assuming that there are only two contradictory options:
1. Historical facts
2. Religous belief

But that is an illogical premise.What about those other groups that believed that Christ was the Mystery of God?

What about those who believed that the stories were allegory or parables? Figurative language, not literal history?

jakejonesiv · 10-25-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What NONSENSE question!!! Name some one in antiquity who BELIEVED what you have claimed about Marcion...

Examine "The Commentary on Matthew" XI.2

Quote:

And so long as these five loaves and two fishes were not carried by the disciples of Jesus, they did not increase or multiply, nor were they able to nourish more; but, when the Saviour took them, and in the first placed looked up to heaven, with the rays of His eyes, as it were, drawing down from it power which was to be mingled with the loaves and the fishes which were about to feed the five thousand, and after this blessed the five loaves and the two fishes, increasing and multiplying them by the word and the blessing; and in the third place dividing and breaking He gave to the disciples that they might set them before the multitudes, then the loaves and the fishes were sufficient, so that all ate and were satisfied, and some portions of the loaves which had been blessed they were unable to eat.

For so much remained over to the multitudes, which was not according to the capacity of the multitudes but of the disciples who were able to take up that which remained over of the broken pieces, and to place it in baskets filled with that which remained over, which were in number so many as the tribes of Israel....

Even ORIGEN BELIEVED the most fictitious feeding of the thousands.

AA, you know alot of stuff :notworthy:, but you are not always consistent. How do you even know that Origen existed? How do you know that sprightly forgers didn’t create Church History up through and including the Dark Ages just to bedevil poor Jean Hardouin ?
The Prolegomena of Jean Hardouin (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Jake

archibald · 10-25-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

What about those who believed that the stories were allegory or parables? Figurative language, not literal history?

Jake, quit conflating the issue so much. There is nothing contentious about some people thinking some of the material may have been this sort of thing (though whether they are right or not in relation to the original writer's intentions is another matter). But what you should surely be showing us, in order to begin to advance the idea that anyone was knowingly writing such wholesale fiction, is evidence that they were doing this from either their own hand or from anybody else's. Otherwize, you may just be doing post-mod lit-crit, beloved of text-fetish scholars and the like. :]

When the text clearly says that it is not fiction and/or presents itself as such, and when there is no indication that it was ever treated as entirely fiction, I think it is up to anyone who says it was intended as fiction to, er, present some better evidence. Unusualities should normally be asked for unusually good evidence, I think.

I hear the echo of a myther chorus, 'ahh, but how do you tell the difference...!'

That is indeed something to consider, but it is slightly separate.

dog-on · 10-25-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Perhaps who, exactly, was being fed in each of these scenes may be relevant.

Yes, one on occasion it was a crowd. On the other occasion, however, it was a........whoops.

The symbolism is not actually difficult. Bread is a carbohydrate, a type of food that instantly energizes us, while fish, being protein gives us staying power. Jesus' message is both of these. And one meal is not suficient. Christianity must be adhered to regularly, like the F-Plan and the Atkins. Added to which the original Hebrew meaning of 'Beth' is house, and for 'Sayid' is, literally, 'lunch'. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Perhaps you should read the stories more carefully.

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

10-25-2011, 05:33 AM	#135
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Shepherds-on-the-run herding sheep at midnight-midwinter-midlife means he was beyond theology and so the bare naked animal man who's number is 666 (and never mind the number for that "certain man" for now), and since he had converted those shepherds into apostles in effort to make sense of it all here now Jesus is on a 'spiritual high' and coming to understanding (as in bringing 'the sheep' home to man, and illumination is instant). Understand well that as outsider to our own self we are co-creator with God and so shepherds of sheep that are ours but we are still shepherds.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.