Roger Pearse
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 6:22 am Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
 |
|
thedirkhartog@yahoo.com (Dirk Hartog) wrote in message news:<acf48a55.0308251523.6cf7982b@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | There is non religious evidence for the existence of Christ, Josphus,
and others.
No non-Christian alive when Jesus lived ever mentions seeing Jesus or
hearing Jesus -- or even hearing about Jesus!
They don't mention the star that heralded His birth.
They don't mention Herod's slaughter of boy babies.
They don't mention crowds gathered to hear Him preach.
They don't mention His trial.
They don't mention His crucifixion.
They don't mention His resurrection.
They never mention anything He said, or anywhere He went, or anything
He thought, or anything He said, or anything He did.
No non-Christian alive when Jesus lived ever mentions Him
|
I wonder how many literary sources do we have for the reign of
emperors that pass this criterion, never mind obscure religious
figures? If people who ruled the entire civilised world cannot
qualify, just how much of ancient history survives? Does (e.g.)
Basilides pass this test?
Of course the obscurantist will quickly say that he doesn't care if
there is no ancient history. But then that's the point, isn't it.
The criteria are assembled, not to learn but to avoid doing so.
| Quote: | No Christians either. As to the gospels, there is no evidence our
modern picked-by-Catholic- priests-in-the- fourth-century gospels
existed before 150 AD.
|
Apart from physical fragments of them dated to 125, of course. If you
wish to assert that the NT was composed entirely in the second
century, of course, you're welcome to produce evidence. But it's not
true, and mildly incredible. Most of the NT must predate Christianity
becoming illegal.
| Quote: | And if our four modern picked-by-Catholic-
priests-in-the- fourth-century gospels did exist within 120 years of
Jesus' death, there is absolutely zero evidence they contributed to
Christian belief or worship before 150 AD.
|
There is very little information on their early history. But then,
since John the apostle was alive until ca. 100AD, and his disciple
Polycarp was preaching what he heard from John in Rome in 150AD, and
his pupil Irenaeus has left a full set of written statements to this
effect, and treats the gospels as authoritative and handed-down, quite
frankly I don't see the point of this comment.
I look forward to some citations of gospels used as scripture by the
fathers other than the four prior to 350AD.
| Quote: | As to Acts and letters by Paul and other apostles was written after
Jesus died, by people who never met Him.
|
I look forward to your publication of the ancient texts which tell us
this. The idea seems ridiculous.
| Quote: | There is no contemporary record that Jesus existed. None.
|
Contemporary with what? Do you mean, 'written before 33AD?' Most
histories get written afterwards, you know! Even pagan historians do
not usually write before the events have happened...
| Quote: | Jesus is not historical. Jesus is a legend.
|
Only the hate-maddened come out with this tripe today. Sorry to see
you're repeating it.
The idea was invented in the 19th century by a bunch of church-going
Germans who hated Jews, and found the idea that their state religion
was founded by one rather awkward. Hey presto -- no Jesus! They even
made it 'the assured result of modern scholarly investigation.' It is
remarkable what NT scholars have been willing to treat as orthodoxy in
the last 100 years. Pity it all didn't survive 1936, or 1945.
| Quote: | The documentation for the life of Jesus ( not to offend your sensitivity
over the word Christ) still has more material written closer to his
life than any other ancient figure, period.
|
I'm not sure that this is right. Major classical figures like Cicero
are certainly better off than a minor figure such as Jesus.
I think this is probably a confusion with the manuscript tradition for
the New Testament, which is much better than for any other ancient
literary text transmitted to us. The reason, of course, is that it
was used a lot by the people who copied manuscripts. Some of the
church fathers texts have quite good traditions also.
| Quote: | Julius Caesar is was first known by his book "The History of the Gallic
Wars", the oldest copy was made some 600 years after he died.
The rest of the evidence for Caesars existence comes from material that
is no older than 600 to 800 years after he died.
|
Well, since Christian-haters make such a point of saying that a text
must be dated just before the earliest physical manuscript, it's
understandable that such a position should be taken. But this is
wrong in principle. Most texts transmitted by copying have their
earliest manuscript in the 9th century, or later; many from the 15th,
and some from only the first printed edition. That is the attrition
of time. The existence of Caesar can also be shown from archaeology,
remember.
The earliest manuscripts listed in Reynolds, "Texts and Transmissions"
of the De Bello Gallico are 9th century. There might be a papyrus I
don't know of, of course -- the entry is very brief.
| Quote: | # 1 Pious fantasy. Evidence please ? if you can.
|
Rather rude, surely?
| Quote: | "No direct and first-hand information about Jesus survives.
|
Nonsense. What was this guy on when he said this?
| Quote: | Information from outside Christian sources is not available.
|
Nonsense. Ditto.
| Quote: | One must therefore rely exclusively on Christian sources.
|
Can't see why we want to ignore what we have.
| Quote: | The semi
biographical framework of the gospel stories, however, is the result
of the editorial work of the gospel writers and can therefore not be
used for the reconstruction of the ministry of Jesus."
|
Pure speculation, presented apparently as fact. Don't you just hate
people who do that?
| Quote: | [Koester, Helmut. History and Literature of Early Christianity, Volume
2, Introduction to the New Testament, 2d edition. (2000), pg. 78]
amanon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/3110146924/paganoriginofthe
|
I trust the rest of the book contains something resembling facts?
Atheists are so credulous, sometimes. Do you suppose the
establishment of our day make sex and drugs and booze available, and
lots of excuses, and professors to solemnly write books to still
consciences, in order to benefit *you* (or me)? Why not think for
five minutes, just why they want to do such a thing? Sure they aren't
trying to screw us? Dead sure? I'm not!
| Quote: | # 2 You confuse when it was _written_ with when it was _transcribed_.
|
True. But isn't this the thrust of your comments above about the
gospels?
| Quote: | For example, this was written in the second century, and transcribed
in the third ? closer to the events than the transcription of Caesar's
Histories were to his.
"A young baby is covered with flour, the object being to deceive the
unwary. It is then served to the person to be admitted to the rites.
The recruit is urged to inflict blows upon it which appear to be
harmless because of the covering of flour. Thus the baby is killed
with wounds that remain unseen and concealed. It is the blood of the
infant -- I shudder to mention it -- it is this blood that they lick
with thirsty lips; the limbs they distribute eagerly; this is the
victim by which they seal the covenant." [Fronto, para. By Mincius
Felix, Octavius 9.5-6]
? He goes on?
"On a special day they gather in a feast with all their children,
sisters, mothers, all sexes and ages. There, flushed with the banquet
after feasting and drinking, they begin to burn with incestuous
passions. They provoke a dog tied to a lamp stand to leap and bound
toward a scrap of food, which they have tossed outside the reach of
his chair. Bu this means the lamp is overturned and extinguished and
with it common knowledge of their actions; in the shameless dark and
with un
[Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9.5-6 (.), -- which you can find in:
Hoffmann, R. Joseph. Porphyry's Against the Christians; the Literary
Remains (1994), pg. 141]
amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879758899/paganoriginofthe
|
Hoffmann's book is a fake. It's a bad translation of portions of
Macarius Magnes.
Your quotes are from the Octavius of Minucius Felix.
| Quote: | Do you really believe, as your analysis asserts, that this report on
Christians drinking babies' blood is more accurate than Caesars
histories?
|
Are you asserting that Minucius Felix asserts that Christians drink
blood?
Are you committing to the proposition that any statement in any
ancient author is true?
Are you telling us that the earliest manuscript of the Octavius is 3rd
century? (It was only written around 230-ish).
You quote from Hoffmann. Do you realise what the manuscript is from
which his book is translated? Do you realise that there is now NO
manuscript of that work?
| Quote: | # 3 The earliest manuscript dated of the Gnostic and other
non-canonical gospels are the same ? end of the 2d, start of the 3d
centuries.
|
Are these dates right? Surely we have scraps of gnostic texts such as
the coptic gospel of Thomas which are probably mid second century. We
have bits of John and Matthew which are early second. We probably
have bits of gnostic papyrus which are also early second. At the end
of the second we have complete gospels, more or less. We wait until
the coptic manuscripts from Nag Hammadi, from the 4th century, for
gnostic texts.
| Quote: | Do you really believe, as your analysis asserts, that the
Gnostic and non-canonical evidence is equally accurate?
|
Do you, based on this statement about papyrus manuscript survivals?
| Quote: | All the Gospels and all the books of the NT were written and circulating
within 60 years of his death.
|
I agree that they must have been written, but their circulation
immediately afterwards is quite unclear. Not that this is unusual --
we rarely know much about composition and circulation of ancient
texts, except in a few rare cases -- but I don't think we want to base
too much on inference. The only thing we know about circulation is
that Matthew and Luke knew something which must be verbally identical
with large chunks of Mark (from internal comparison); that the Gospel
of Mark went to Alexandria; and that John knew these gospels. All of
this from the historical record, of course, but only fairly slender
stuff.
| Quote: | Extant copies , and many other materials
not in the NT are written within 150 years of his death.
Evidence please -- if you have any.
|
Are you saying you don't know what extant copies of NT there are from
the second century? I think you said that gospels dated to the end of
the second century existed, a few lines ago... <smile>
| Quote: | At the time of the circulation of the NT there must have been thousands
alive, both Jewish and Roman, that were alive during Christ's life.
You would think that once the books of the NT began to circulate, their
would be written responses refuting the books by these people who were
eyewitnesses, who would have known he and his Disciples right at the
time the events were occuring.
There are none, except a wishy washy denial by the Jewish religious
authorities, which is to be expected.
There is NO material to the effect of, "yup I knew Jesus, I went to
carpenter school with him, and believe me, he wasn't a very good guy,
and he got crosswise with the Romans and they crucified him, and he
never came back from the dead".
One wonders why these thousands have left no written material setting
the record straight, IF the record is wrong.
|
This is a weak argument. Only about 1% of ancient literature has
survived (Pietro Bembo's guess, repeated by Nigel Wilson). Such
literature could have been written, and would not have survived the
middle ages (probably), as who would copy it?
However, the argument rightly stated is that pagan authorities would
have some definite evidence to use in anti-Christian polemic, and they
do not seem to. Instead they rely on generalities. I suppose that is
true, up to a point.
| Quote: | "[I]n late antiquity, both secular and ecclesiastical authorities
repeatedly destroyed unedifying texts, in well advertised ceremonies,
most obviously in sectarian disputes where rival claims for orthodoxy
were pitted against each other; whereupon one of them along with its
creeds and treatises would be declared heterodox by the other, and
measures would be taken to insure that no trace of it's existence
remained except, perhaps, what might be embedded in victorious
disproofs and rejoinders. Non-Christian writings came in for this same
treatment, that is, DESTRUCTION IN GREAT BONFIRES at the center of the
town square. COPYISTS WERE DISCOURAGED FROM REPLACING THEM BY THE
THREAT OF HAVING THEIR HANDS CUT OFF.
[MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth
Centuries (1997), pg. 4]
amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300080778/paganoriginofthe
|
This all sounds highly suspect to me; far more positive than any
evidence I know of would justify. Where is the evidence that any such
took place? Edicts prescribing book burnings exist. But there is
little evidence that much occurred. Late imperial edicts were mostly
for show -- a fact that frustrated successive emperors. Every edict
from the time of Diocletian on uses incredibly violent language -- but
nothing much happened (footnote in Cameron & Hall's recent English
translation of the Vita Constantini of Eusebius)
Losses of ancient literature are not due to official action, as far as
anyone can tell. That idea comes in with printing, and the Spanish
Inquisition, when official action could be effective against
centralised printing presses. In the manuscript era, when anyone
could copy a book, it didn't mean much. 99% of ancient literature is
lost because the society that produced it collapsed, and those who
survived were not interested in copying it; or not interested enough.
The works of Julian the Apostate, and of Porphyry (apart from the
works written specifically to libel the people who would have to copy
them) were copied by Greek monks, and many survive. The Byzantine
copyists copied Julian's libel on the founder of their empire,
Constantine. So, frankly, they did a great deal more than anyone
could reasonably ask. They even copied Zosimus.
| Quote: | As a result of OFFICIAL BOOK BURNINGS by Christian emperors in the
fourth and fifth centuries, however, it [Porphyry's Against the
Christians] survives only in the form of quotations from later
writers, usually Christian authors seeking to refute Porphyry's
arguments.
[Porphyry of Tyre, Against the Christians, fragment 97 (270 or c 300
AD), -- which you can find in: Lee, A.D.. Pagans & Christians in Late
Antiquity (2000), pg. section 2.7, page 43]
amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415138922/paganoriginofthe
|
And when, precisely, did these 'official book burnings' of Porphyry's
libel take place?
Constantine ordered it burnt as a malicious libel (which it was) in
326. Nothing happened, as we can tell because in 488, Theodosius II
ordered the same. Again, nothing happened.
The work is lost because no-one wanted to copy it. The reason for
that seems to be that it kept appealing to the cultural presumptions
of the pagan era; and once that era had gone, it just looked silly.
Even Christian admirers of Porphyry's works were too embarassed to
bother with it.
But let's take this a little further. Do you condemn modern book
burnings of bibles and 'racist' literature? If not, if it is
sometimes acceptable to officially burn socially undesirable
literature, then again I don't see the point of these complaints.
I gather Elton John regularly shreds bibles. Do you object?
| Quote: | Tacitus survives on the basis of a _single_ copy.
|
You mean the Annals? (There are several of the minor works, I think).
Two manuscripts exist, one containing books 1-6, the other 11-16. One
is 9th, the other 11th century.
Not sure whether you're arguing here that Tacitus must be wrong about
what he says, because only a late manuscript survives, or that he must
be right, for the same reason. If I read you correctly, I think you
are arguing two mutually incompatible theses.
But of the course the major religion of our day, observed by all
Americans is what might be called modern heathenism (you tell me), the
spirit of the age, the values and attitudes we all know, and which is
what people really base their lives on when they abandon the religion
of their parents. I look forward to your defense of it, which owes
its vogue to being fashionable, and when it ceases to be fashionable
will not be heard of again. Can you even state it in a form that
makes sense, I wonder? (I'm not sure I can). Period values go when
the periods go, and the next age has a different set, likewise based
on fashion rather than reason. Surely only a long-established set can
possibly be correct; and not necessarily all of those?
Until you can establish that your own religion and way of life is
rational, or at least put it forward in some demonstrable fashion, are
you sure it is quite unreasonable to have a go at that of others, on
the grounds of being irrational?
(I expect others will be more interested in whatever you say than I am
-- I merely point out the undiscussed presumption of heathenism as a
default in all this).
All the best,
Roger Pearse |
|
