biblical scripture and scholars
mountain man
news:1126115395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Surfer Bob wrote:
>> Any biblical scholars with more time on their hands than I have care to
>> step up and interpret scripture for us on this point?
>
> You don't have to be a "scholar" to interpret scripture.
> Read Acts 11.
I disagree. The "scripture" as you see it today was
basically "assembled" under command of the Roman
Emperor Constantine, controlled securely by his storm
troopers from the outside, and his puppet bishop
Eusebius on the inside, at the Council of Nicea in 325.
The hippies were getting out of control, and something
needed to be done to bring the empire together. Look
at any large and powerful government, and its actions
in regard to conquest and power.
Ppl who read the bible should also study how it was
assembled, and by whom, and for what reason. Scholars
have in the past and present examined these questions,
and while I am not suggesting their answers to these
questions are to be treated as gospel, I am suggesting
that their answers should be examined and reviewed
by independent thought processes.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
doc
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:YFMTe.26024$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Well said, Pete. As the cliche goes, 'history is written by the winners' -
those who came out on top in various disputes.
Factors that figure in include economic,agricultural, geographic, climatic
( consider the prohibition on shellfish and the regular red tides in the
Western Med and Red Sea, something that'd make shellfish toxic ) , military
and just plain accidental. Let alone mnemonic ( such works, after all,
descend from an oral tradition) and punching up a story a little so it'd
sell better.
One of my more thoughtful instructors put forth the proposition that the
Mideastern religious prohibition on pork derived not from endemic
trichinosis but from economic/agricultural factors: the pig eats food that,
in the main and in an arid climate, can also be consumed by humans. This
isn't true in other climates, where hogs can forage for food in the forests,
without having to be fed food such as grains, corn, etc.
Then you have languages. Consider the christian bible, King James
version..... originally Aramaic and Hebrew, translated to Greek, from that
to Latin, from that to English, the latter translation done by a somewhat
miliant group sponsored by an English king under political and religious
pressures from all sides. Working from hand copied scrolls and books of
perhaps questionable quality. And imperfect scholarship , imperfect
understanding of other languages involved, the list goes on.
Me, I am something of a skeptic on the 'perfect revelations' that the
fundamentalists come up with.
For good reason....
doc...
shaft®
> I disagree.
Of course you do. What's new?
>The "scripture" as you see it today was
> basically "assembled" under command of the Roman
> Emperor Constantine, controlled securely by his storm
> troopers from the outside, and his puppet bishop
> Eusebius on the inside, at the Council of Nicea in 325.
>
> The hippies were getting out of control, and something
> needed to be done to bring the empire together. Look
> at any large and powerful government, and its actions
> in regard to conquest and power.
>
> Ppl who read the bible should also study how it was
> assembled, and by whom, and for what reason. Scholars
> have in the past and present examined these questions,
> and while I am not suggesting their answers to these
> questions are to be treated as gospel, I am suggesting
> that their answers should be examined and reviewed
> by independent thought processes.
Basically you are asserting you have to be an academic
to understand spiritual truth. God doesn't work that
way, my friend. A lay person can understand the scriptures
b/c it's a spiritual book guarded by a spirit that can
pull rank on governments, puppets, hippies, bishops,
and stink buggin newage longboarders, if need be.
shaft®
> Me, I am something of a skeptic on the 'perfect revelations' that the
> fundamentalists come up with.
Why, in the world, would you look to politicians for spiritual
revelation?
Feigel
<hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> magnanimously proffered:
>"shaft®" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well put. Especially in view of today's tendency towards using
scripture to justify personal agendas and extremism.
---
"The only difference between shaft and an asshole is
that an asshole knows it's full of shit." - b
Wax-up & drop-in on surfing's Golden Years: http://www.surfwriter.net
spo...@iav.com
sponge
spo...@iav.com
Turby
wrote:
>One of my more thoughtful instructors put forth the proposition that the
>Mideastern religious prohibition on pork derived not from endemic
>trichinosis but from economic/agricultural factors: the pig eats food that,
>in the main and in an arid climate, can also be consumed by humans. This
>isn't true in other climates, where hogs can forage for food in the forests,
>without having to be fed food such as grains, corn, etc.
Maybe, but I don't buy it. I've been an ovo-lacto-pisco vegetarian for
over 30 years. When I got out of the army, I stopped eating crap. That
meant no greasy food, no fast food, no over-processed food. I still
ate meat, but not much of it. After working on the chicken ranch in
Israel (and killing >50,000 chickens,) I stopped eating meat
alltogether, except for seafood and dairy stuff. Every once in a
while, someone would feed me some meat. You know, like when you've
been invited to a Morroccan wedding feast and they offer you bastilla,
the traditional pigeon dish. It's kinda hard to turn that down. No big
deal. I'd stopped eating meat for only about 6 months when someone
gave me some pork. I used to love ham, hotdogs, and good German
sausage. But it only took 6 months for my body to rebel against all
pork. Now, if I eat pork, it makes me ridiculously ill. I tend to
think the ancients must have seen too many cases of bad porkitis and
just said no.
Same with shellfish. A _lot_ of people are allergic to shellfish. Then
again, there's the old adage about months with R's in them. It
wouldn't take a lot of shellfish poisonings to scare the elders into
making a law, I'd think.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
td
wrote:
>
>"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
>news:YFMTe.26024$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "shaft®" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126115395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Surfer Bob wrote:
>>
>>>> Any biblical scholars with more time on their hands than I have care to
>>>> step up and interpret scripture for us on this point?
>>>
>>> You don't have to be a "scholar" to interpret scripture.
>>> Read Acts 11.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. The "scripture" as you see it today was
>> basically "assembled" under command of the Roman
>> Emperor Constantine, controlled securely by his storm
>> troopers from the outside, and his puppet bishop
>> Eusebius on the inside, at the Council of Nicea in 325.
>>
>>
>
>Then you have languages. Consider the christian bible, King James
>version..... originally Aramaic and Hebrew, translated to Greek, from that
>to Latin, from that to English, the latter translation done by a somewhat
>miliant group sponsored by an English king under political and religious
>pressures from all sides. Working from hand copied scrolls and books of
>perhaps questionable quality. And imperfect scholarship , imperfect
>understanding of other languages involved, the list goes on.
>
I can't understand these comments. There are thousands of manuscripts
from virtually every book of the Bible in existence, pre-325, from all
over the globe. The number of descrepencies number less than minutae.
Over a thousand years later it's discovered that King James
translation is one of the most accurate, though not exactly
contemporary English.
As far as any "assemblage" issues, you are being extremely vague. Is
there a book that should or shouldn't have been included? You imply
the the scriptures were somehow 'meddled' with. How specifically?
td
Billy the Krik
of winners there would be a lot of discrepencies and contradictions in
it. A man can hardly go a full day without contradicting himself, let
alone a load o men trying to put together a book. Scripture is the
result of divine inspiration it is infathonable. Xtremely powerful
stuff. Worth another read.
mountain man
> Basically you are asserting you have to be an academic
> to understand spiritual truth.
Nothing of the sort, obviously.
Basically I am asserting using every flaming resource
under the sun to contemplate the D&M FAQ, and
this does not preclude examining the sedimentary
deposists of commentary upon commentary layed
down by the academics.
> God doesn't work that
> way, my friend.
Its a Great Mystery sandman.
Your native people had it right.
> A lay person can understand the scriptures
> b/c it's a spiritual book guarded by a spirit that can
> pull rank on governments, puppets, hippies, bishops,
> and stink buggin newage longboarders, if need be.
There are many "the scriptures" on this planet.
All are insights into the D&M FAQ.
mountain man
news:1126159430.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Intriguing. Petey, you must've loved "The Da Vinci Code." I did.
I've still to read this sponge, so I
guess I should have a look around.
Thanks,
mountain man
news:4c90i1p1mgj7ndo0u...@4ax.com...
> As far as any "assemblage" issues, you are being extremely vague. Is
> there a book that should or shouldn't have been included?
There are in fact an entire series of books and writings.
Do a search under "apocrypha", or click this:
http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=apocrypha&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images
>You imply
> the the scriptures were somehow 'meddled' with. How specifically?
Start outside the scriptures, and do a search with the two
keywords "Eusebius" and "interpolation".
Eusubius was the Emporor Constantine's head honcho bishop,
who was in charge of the Nicea Council, and the whole
"source document archive" (see above).
As to the meaning of the word "interpolation" I will leave
that as an exercise for the reader.
mountain man
news:1126186693....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So is the Gospel of Buddha.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/buddha/
shaft®
> Its a Great Mystery sandman.
> Your native people had it right.
Some do, some don't. No one culture has
exclusive rights to God.
> There are many "the scriptures" on this planet.
> All are insights into the D&M FAQ.
Except the one (according to you) that was
doc
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> <spo...@iav.com> wrote in message
> news:1126159430.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Intriguing. Petey, you must've loved "The Da Vinci Code." I did.
>
> I've still to read this sponge, so I
> guess I should have a look around.
>
> Thanks,
>
Actually ( sorry, Neal) I hated it. Just about every conspiracy theory under
the sun hung together in one book. Annoying, it was. It was from the
library, that copy, otherwise it woulda bounced off the wall a few times on
it's way to the fireplace.
Foucault's Pendulum ( Umberto Eco ) was better, and better at raising the
hackles with the feeling that somebody was closing in.
doc...... what was that great Gertrude Stein quote, 'Some books should be
set aside, some should be thrown with great force' ? ....
doc
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
Ahmmm- considering the Old and New testaments and their innate
contradictions - ya might kinda wonder, no?
now, as for me, I find the Parable of the Giddy Fish to be apropos.....
http://www.mountainman.com.au/buddha/carus_66.htm
doc.... headed for the net...
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> Its a Great Mystery sandman.
>> Your native people had it right.
>
> Some do, some don't. No one culture has
> exclusive rights to God.
That's one way of looking at the Great Mystery.
>> There are many "the scriptures" on this planet.
>> All are insights into the D&M FAQ.
>
> Except the one (according to you) that was
> basically assembled under command of the Roman
> Emperor Constantine, controlled securely by his storm
> troopers from the outside, and his puppet bishop
> Eusebius on the inside, at the Council of Nicea in 325.
It is not in the words of any scripture, but in how ppl
live their lives on a daily basis, in their actions and in their
words, that will result in insight (or lack thereof).
mountain man
> now, as for me, I find the Parable of the Giddy Fish to be apropos.....
>
> http://www.mountainman.com.au/buddha/carus_66.htm
>
> doc.... headed for the net...
She must be a good sort ;-)
mountain man
> library, that copy, otherwise it woulda bounced off the wall a few times
> on it's way to the fireplace.
Hey, there's a novel book review.
> Foucault's Pendulum ( Umberto Eco ) was better, and better at raising the
> hackles with the feeling that somebody was closing in.
Well doc, its on the booklist for the incoming tide.
Foucault's life story is an interesting read -- or so
I have been told. Reading books is definitely a tidal
thing with me, so its good to have a starting point.
shaft®
> That's one way of looking at the Great Mystery.
It's the only way. Saying that native americans have
the exclusive lock on God is kinda prejudicial. Not
to mention extreeeemely trendy.
> It is not in the words of any scripture, but in how ppl
> live their lives on a daily basis, in their actions and in their
> words, that will result in insight (or lack thereof).
Sow now you are changing your tune? Well it's always
good to be adaptable...
Words less so than deeds. Anybody can talk a good game.
doc
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> "doc" <jfm...@comcastrati.net> wrote:
>
>> library, that copy, otherwise it woulda bounced off the wall a few times
>> on it's way to the fireplace.
>
> Hey, there's a novel book review.
Oh, it was bad. The only bunch they didn't drag in as co-conspirators was
maybe the Knights of Columbus, possibly the Boy Scouts.
>
>> Foucault's Pendulum ( Umberto Eco ) was better, and better at raising the
>> hackles with the feeling that somebody was closing in.
>
> Well doc, its on the booklist for the incoming tide.
> Foucault's life story is an interesting read -- or so
> I have been told. Reading books is definitely a tidal
> thing with me, so its good to have a starting point.
Whoops, sorry, should have been more specific - Eco wrote something that was
more along the lines of a better-written, better researched novel concerning
conspiracy theories, secest societies and such, better than 'davinci code'
by far. Not really a whole lot to do with Foucault, who is interesting in
his own right.
'Course, I will confess to being an oddity, somebody who enjoyed his 'Name
of the Rose'.
One of these days I may take a winter and read more about the period, oh,
say post-Roman through maybe Cromwellian England, mebbe get around to
reading Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples. In the
un-condensed six-volume version.
Reading...well, summer and winter for me, and any time I can steal . Summer
is slow-ish in some ways, winter definitely so. Spring is planting and
repairs and boats going in the water, fall is harvest and more planting and
putting things away. But I do my best to get a couple hours with a book.
Keeps me on an even keel....
doc...or as even as it gets....
doc
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> "doc" <jfm...@comcastrati.net> wrote:
>
>
>> now, as for me, I find the Parable of the Giddy Fish to be apropos.....
>>
>> http://www.mountainman.com.au/buddha/carus_66.htm
>>
>> doc.... headed for the net...
>
>
> She must be a good sort ;-)
They are...... ;-]
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> mountain man wrote:
> > There are many "the scriptures" on this planet.
> > All are insights into the D&M FAQ.
>
> Except the one (according to you) that was
> basically assembled under command of the Roman
> Emperor Constantine, controlled securely by his storm
> troopers from the outside, and his puppet bishop
> Eusebius on the inside, at the Council of Nicea in 325.
Which Eusebius?
The Christian bible certainly was not composed at Nicaea, despite a
myth to this effect that goes around.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> That's one way of looking at the Great Mystery.
>
> It's the only way.
For some, it may be the only way.
For others, there are other paths.
Let's leave things there.
>Saying that native americans have
> the exclusive lock on God is kinda prejudicial.
Exclusive locks are prejudicial, by definition.
> Not
> to mention extreeeemely trendy.
I'll take your word on that.
>> It is not in the words of any scripture, but in how ppl
>> live their lives on a daily basis, in their actions and in their
>> words, that will result in insight (or lack thereof).
>
> Sow now you are changing your tune? Well it's always
> good to be adaptable...
No, I'm not changing any tune.
> Words less so than deeds. Anybody can talk a good game.
That's true.
mountain man
> Which Eusebius?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius
> The Christian bible certainly was not composed at Nicaea, despite a
> myth to this effect that goes around.
See above.
mountain man
news:j9-dndMP-5S...@comcast.com...
> Keeps me on an even keel....
>
> doc...or as even as it gets....
Balancing the load is a handy skill
especially if you've 7 women on ya
mind, doc.
Surfer Bob
> 'Course, I will confess to being an oddity, somebody who enjoyed his 'Name
> of the Rose'.
I loved Name of the Rose! is that odd?
SB
Surfer Bob
> 'Course, I will confess to being an oddity, somebody who enjoyed his 'Name
> of the Rose'.
I loved Name of the Rose! is that odd?
SB
shaft®
> No, I'm not changing any tune.
I know it hurts you every time someone mentions
the biblical scriptures on this NG. Thats why you
feel compelled to post EVERY TIME in a negative
light.
My advice to you would be to stop trying to
control ppl's spiritual beliefs. Your journey
on this earth will be longer and better.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Which Eusebius?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius
Was there a reason why you didn't simply say 'Eusebius of Caesarea'?
But what a curious assertion. The ancient texts specify Eusebius of
Nicomedia.
> > The Christian bible certainly was not composed at Nicaea, despite a
> > myth to this effect that goes around.
>
> See above.
You are not, I hope, offering a wiki page as some form of authority.
For a table of and links to all the ancient evidence about Nicaea, see
the following:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Whether or not some ignorant teenager has chosen to repeat the myth on
Wikipedia, it remains a myth. Anyone asserting it must produce some
ancient testimony to it, or accept that it is a myth. One or the
other, surely?
doc
"Surfer Bob" <surfe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126282395.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lets say that it's one of those books that acts as a litmus test for ones
tastes in literature......
doc
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> "doc" <jfm...@comcastrati.net> wrote in message
> news:j9-dndMP-5S...@comcast.com...
>
>> Keeps me on an even keel....
>>
>> doc...or as even as it gets....
>
> Balancing the load is a handy skill
> especially if you've 7 women on ya
> mind, doc.
While balance in one's life is good, no doubt about it, still, like Crosby,
Stills and whoever said,
'love the one you're with'.....
lp
strictly speaking there are many myths about the makings of the bible.
none of which were dispelled or proven by the link you provided either.
since we don't have access to primary sources, imho the
scholars/researchers/theologeans make either somewhat educated guesses
or leaps of faith when determining authenticity, dates, strict
translations, etc. issues of inerrancy are even harder to prove one way
or another.
as far as wiki, i thought their lengthy discourse on biblical inerrancy
was interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
lp
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > mountain man wrote:
> >
> >><roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Which Eusebius?
> >>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius
> >
> >
> > Was there a reason why you didn't simply say 'Eusebius of Caesarea'?
> > But what a curious assertion. The ancient texts specify Eusebius of
> > Nicomedia.
> >
> >
> >>>The Christian bible certainly was not composed at Nicaea, despite a
> >>>myth to this effect that goes around.
> >>
> >>See above.
> >
> > You are not, I hope, offering a wiki page as some form of authority.
> >
> > For a table of and links to all the ancient evidence about Nicaea, see
> > the following:
> >
> > http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
> >
> > Whether or not some ignorant teenager has chosen to repeat the myth on
> > Wikipedia, it remains a myth. Anyone asserting it must produce some
> > ancient testimony to it, or accept that it is a myth. One or the
> > other, surely?
>
> strictly speaking there are many myths about the makings of the bible.
> none of which were dispelled or proven by the link you provided either.
The link I gave you deals specifically with the question of whether or
not the First Council of Nicaea decided the content of the canon. As
you say, there are no doubt many other myths that might be addressed;
that page is only concerned with that specific question about that
council. I think it contains quite enough data all by itself!
> since we don't have access to primary sources, imho the
> scholars/researchers/theologeans make either somewhat educated guesses
> or leaps of faith when determining authenticity, dates, strict
> translations, etc.
I am not certain I understand you here. All our knowledge of the past
is based on the contents of the historical record. If you mean to say
that you and I have no access to primary sources, well, in these days
of the internet there is more available than ever. If you mean that
scholars do not, I disagree.
By primary sources, we mean, I take it, the contents of the historical
record -- texts, archaeology, inscriptions from antiquity -- as opposed
to modern discussion about them (secondary sources -- note that the
usage of these terms is different in modern history than in ancient
history).
I admit to being deeply uninterested in the leaps of faith of people
1500 years after the events. Give me the primary sources, I'd say.
> issues of inerrancy are even harder to prove one way or another.
This sounds like a theological point, not a historical one, and can't
have any connection with whether or not Constantine the Great is
attested in the ancient sources as ordering soldiers into the Council
or not. (He didn't -- Constantine was a genuine enthusiast for
Christianity, and didn't need to).
> as far as wiki, i thought their lengthy discourse on biblical inerrancy
> was interesting:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
I've not read it, so can't comment. What I have found, tho, is that
most articles on matters which are the subject of political or
religious controversy have some pimply bigot sat on top of them,
preventing the input of any point of view other than their own, often
ill-educated or crank, point of view, and reverting any change they do
not like. Wikipedia is not written by people familiar with their
subject, on the whole.
This, of course, undermines the value of all such articles.
Surfer Bob
> > I loved Name of the Rose! is that odd?
doc wrote:
> Lets say that it's one of those books that acts as a litmus test for ones
> tastes in literature......
Gee... So what did you think of "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by
Gabriel Garcia Marquez?
SB
doc
Started it, never got far. Probably a helluva sight better in the original,
but unfortunately my Spanish isn't what it might be.
Now, another interesting set might be which Conrad works ya like and which
ya find impenetrable.....
Rico
Ahhhhhhh , Conrad .
"Pass the bottle"
lp
> lp wrote:
>
>>roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
>>>
>>>Whether or not some ignorant teenager has chosen to repeat the myth on
>>>Wikipedia, it remains a myth. Anyone asserting it must produce some
>>>ancient testimony to it, or accept that it is a myth. One or the
>>>other, surely?
>>
>>strictly speaking there are many myths about the makings of the bible.
>>none of which were dispelled or proven by the link you provided either.
>
>
> The link I gave you deals specifically with the question of whether or
> not the First Council of Nicaea decided the content of the canon.
ok
>
>>since we don't have access to primary sources, imho the
>>scholars/researchers/theologeans make either somewhat educated guesses
>>or leaps of faith when determining authenticity, dates, strict
>>translations, etc.
>
>
> I am not certain I understand you here. All our knowledge of the past
> is based on the contents of the historical record. If you mean to say
> that you and I have no access to primary sources, well, in these days
> of the internet there is more available than ever. If you mean that
> scholars do not, I disagree.
>
> By primary sources, we mean, I take it, the contents of the historical
> record -- texts, archaeology, inscriptions from antiquity -- as opposed
> to modern discussion about them (secondary sources -- note that the
> usage of these terms is different in modern history than in ancient
> history).
>
> I admit to being deeply uninterested in the leaps of faith of people
> 1500 years after the events. Give me the primary sources, I'd say.
>
by primary sources, i meant the original (authentic) letters by paul,
john, luke matthew, etc.. without those we are at least dealing with
second, third, fourth-hand accounts and so fourth. that is my point.
even second-hand sources can color an event or embellish a story.
that said, i agree that the closer the account is to an event, the more
likely it is to provide a clearer picture, although the authors point of
view or bias can still be a point of contention. the more sources around
the time of the event, the better to valididate as factual.
based on your website, i assume you are a researcher in this area and
don't mean to trivialize your work. i'm just a skeptic when it comes to
research that is presented as authoritative.
>
>>issues of inerrancy are even harder to prove one way or another.
>
>
> This sounds like a theological point, not a historical one, and can't
> have any connection with whether or not Constantine the Great is
> attested in the ancient sources as ordering soldiers into the Council
> or not. (He didn't -- Constantine was a genuine enthusiast for
> Christianity, and didn't need to).
>
true. by it's nature the point is theological.
i can't respond to your point about constantine w/o doing more research
of my own.
>
>>as far as wiki, i thought their lengthy discourse on biblical inerrancy
>>was interesting:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
>
>
> I've not read it, so can't comment. What I have found, tho, is that
> most articles on matters which are the subject of political or
> religious controversy have some pimply bigot sat on top of them,
> preventing the input of any point of view other than their own, often
> ill-educated or crank, point of view, and reverting any change they do
> not like. Wikipedia is not written by people familiar with their
> subject, on the whole.
>
> This, of course, undermines the value of all such articles.
>
had you read it you might have found that it presented a variety of
viewpoints, citing sources that you may or may find valid. however, imho
inerrancy is relevant, as its one of the main reasons that many people
are interested in the history of the bible.
i understand your point regarding wiki, that it doesn't take much
background or thought to add something to the site. however, since wiki
is widely used, you might consider updating the areas you have done the
research on and disagree with what they have.
imo, one of the nice things about an open source encyclopedia is that it
is open for review and criticism. more so than say a religious council
that canonized a document over a millenia ago.
btw - it is also interesting that both you and pete, the person whose
citation you found lacking, are both (or have been) oracle consultants.
i've also spent some time out at bracknell developing oracle training.
i wish i had some latin background, your translator looks interesting.
maybe, if and when you do the converse translator, i'll have a go.
spoken latin has such a musical quality to it.
you have a good day as well.
by the way, do you surf?
i mention it as this is a surfing newsgroup, though it has recently been
barraged by theological discussions by some cross-posters. not that
there's anything wrong with the subject, but it really is not relevant
to surfing. unless we're at the part of Yeshua's water walk or the
hellacious drop the egyptians took when the parted red sea closed out.
have a good one.
lp
george_of_the_bush
I found this ref. on the trinity from your web pages enlightening:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Athenagoras the Athenian, Philosopher and Christian (176 - 180);
"That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one
God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible,
illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the
reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power
ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos,
and set in order, and is kept in being-I have sufficiently
demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of
God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son.
For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no
better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs,
concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is
the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the
pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the
Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the
Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason
(nou=j kai\ lo/goj) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your
surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by
the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the
Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the
beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nou=j], had the Logos in
Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logiko/j]; ..."
(Ch.10)
_g
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > lp wrote:
> >>since we don't have access to primary sources, imho the
> >>scholars/researchers/theologeans make either somewhat educated guesses
> >>or leaps of faith when determining authenticity, dates, strict
> >>translations, etc.
> >
>
> by primary sources, i meant the original (authentic) letters by paul,
> john, luke matthew, etc.. without those we are at least dealing with
> second, third, fourth-hand accounts and so fourth. that is my point.
Ah. You mean that, unless we have the autograph copies of a text from
antiquity -- any text -- that it must be unreliable. This is a common
view, and not daft on the face of it.
This is not a point about the bible, so I think we should descope that.
It's a question as to whether or not ancient litterature has reached
us. (Most people probably do not know that we have no autograph texts
from antiquity at all; the earliest are 13th century, I am told).
Any text has to be copied to disseminate. This is just as true in the
era of printing as in the manuscript era. For instance, there are
differences in texts of the Lord of the Rings! Some of those changes
are by Tolkien (he altered the text between the first and second
editions in at least one place, to my personal knowledge); some are
printer's mistakes; some were brought in deliberately at the proofing
stage by the proof-reader (Tolkien complains about the changes made by
this "highly-educated pedant" somewhere).
These sorts of things do not mean the text did not reach us. I don't
want to write an essay here: but human error is just part of life, and
something we all have to live with. But ever since the renaissance, it
is accepted that texts do reach us. The alternative, after all, is to
discard the classical heritage. Of course copying errors do occur, and
it is the task of textual scholars to try to heal these in some fairly
objective way.
But by "second/third/fourth hand" accounts, usually people do not mean
the process of copying. They mean accounts composed at second, third,
fourth hand.
Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, but people are generally not clear
on these points, and so it all gets confused.
> based on your website, i assume you are a researcher in this area and
> don't mean to trivialize your work.
Thank you for the kind words, but I am purely an amateur who knows how
to use a research library, and is good at getting access to things like
medieval and ancient manuscripts. I think that we can all use better
access to the facts, and fewer opinions, so that's what I do.
> i'm just a skeptic when it comes to research that is presented
> as authoritative.
Me too. I got tired of hearing that story about Nicaea some years ago,
when I happened to be working close to a major research library. (You
notice that, with the story, no quotation from an ancient author or
reference is ever given?) So I thought I'd look up every ancient
source that could possibly mention the event, and see if it supported
the story. It didn't. But I tabulated the sources online, for future
reference.
> >>issues of inerrancy are even harder to prove one way or another.
> >
> > This sounds like a theological point, not a historical one, and can't
> > have any connection with whether or not Constantine the Great is
> > attested in the ancient sources as ordering soldiers into the Council
> > or not. (He didn't -- Constantine was a genuine enthusiast for
> > Christianity, and didn't need to).
> >
> true. by it's nature the point is theological.
I was only really interested in the historical point. Whether or not
God inspired a text requires a lot of agreed foundation before any
discussion can take place. I know that some atheists imagine that if
they can show something in the bible that disagrees with something in
the historical record, that proves it cannot be inerrant; but since the
fathers did not take that view (Eusebius of Caesarea, for instance,
describes Adam in Eden as a parable for the human race in a different
spiritual condition: in the first book of his Chronicle -- I can do a
better reference if you need it), it usually only proves that these
atheists are not-very-capable amateur theologians.
> i can't respond to your point about constantine w/o doing more research
> of my own.
I quite understand. In our day more and more of the texts are online,
fortunately, which makes it easier than ever to do so. But one can
only research so much. I concentrate on a limited area, for just that
reason.
> i understand your point regarding wiki, that it doesn't take much
> background or thought to add something to the site. however, since wiki
> is widely used, you might consider updating the areas you have done the
> research on and disagree with what they have.
I've tried! This is how I come to know that corrections will not be
accepted, however accurate, because some monkey will prevent it.
> btw - it is also interesting that both you and pete, the person whose
> citation you found lacking, are both (or have been) oracle consultants.
> i've also spent some time out at bracknell developing oracle training.
You really have looked around my site! Yes, I was down at Reading
doing a Financials course recently. What sort of training were you
doing?
> i wish i had some latin background, your translator looks interesting.
I was lucky -- I did some at school. When I got interested in ancient
texts, about 8 years ago, I found I had to try to read some to get at
the facts. So I lashed up a program to help me. I'm currently working
on one for ancient Greek, for the same reasons. But I never did any
Greek, so its hard.
> by the way, do you surf?
No, I merely picked up the comments about Nicaea through a search
engine of discussions online. I've been trying to combat a few myths
by posting corrections around the web.
In view of the untreated sewage off UK beaches, no-one surfs -- they
merely go through the motions...
> i mention it as this is a surfing newsgroup, though it has recently been
> barraged by theological discussions by some cross-posters.
I never understand why people do this. It's a nuisance to everyone.
Thanks for the temperate response. Have a good day! (It's been
raining here solidly for 11 hours, but I'll have to go out some time).
Billy the Krik
let this one pass without a comment.
"It is not in the words of any scripture, but in how ppl
live their lives on a daily basis, in their actions and in their
words, that will result in insight (or lack thereof). "
My actions and words were/are changed by reading scripture (Holy
Bible). It serves as inspiration, correction, direction, edification.
I identified mostly with it when I read Paul, in his letter to the
Romans, stating - "wretched man that I am - what I want to do I don´t
do and what I don´t want to do I end up doing! " Thats me all over...
when I was an alcoholic I used to want to stop drinking and just could
not. On the days when I would say - "today I stop drinking" these were
the days when I got worse drunk.
May I suggest you have alook at Galatians 5:16 (the struggle between
flesh and spirit). Surely we would all like to walk in the Spirit.
This is not possible by human endeavour but only as a result of the
work of the Spirit acting within. If we are to feed the Spirit with
spiritual food (Holy Bible) the Sprit shall prevail against the flesh
and we can then live in love and peace. Human endeavour just results
in hipocrasy. The action of the Holy Spirit, however, is a complete
job. Makes life a lot easier. Constant struggle against the ego though
and it starts not by words or actions but by a supernatural belief.
(John 3:16 and Efesians 2:8).
As to the Buddha Bible bit... I definitely have not read it and most
prolly wont - although tempted by the giddy fish idea... Although I
confess my ignorance I understand from general commentary that Buddha
would profess reincarnation as opposed to resurection. If that be
correct then my argument is that the Buddha scripture is not divinely
inspired but demonically inspired. Why? Well... lets say that John
3:16 is the truth and that we have only this one life and then comes
judgment. If that be the case anybody that tries to convince you to the
contrary shall be intent on dragging your soul down together with him
to hadies. And - basically that is what its all about - a big old
battle for souls. God gave us Jesus and Scripture and the Holy Spirit
to give us a chance at SOS - the enemy of our souls shall use
everything possible to take us down.
My thoughts, actions and words are definitely not worthy. The more the
light shines the more dirt I see. But I am confident that my sins have
been foresaken and that I am redeemed and that my Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ lives.
Servo David
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> No, I'm not changing any tune.
>
> I know it hurts you every time someone mentions
> the biblical scriptures on this NG. Thats why you
> feel compelled to post EVERY TIME in a negative
> light.
Dont take things personally.
mountain man
news:1126299371.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> mountain man wrote:
>> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Which Eusebius?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius
>
> Was there a reason why you didn't simply say 'Eusebius of Caesarea'?
I happened to have the page open.
> But what a curious assertion. The ancient texts specify Eusebius of
> Nicomedia.
The ancient texts obviously reference both. The main one, to
which I was referring earlier in:
> assembled under command of the Roman
> Emperor Constantine, controlled securely by his storm
> troopers from the outside, and his puppet bishop
> Eusebius on the inside, at the Council of Nicea in 325
was the archivalist, the one regarded as the "father" of the
documentation of the church.
>> > The Christian bible certainly was not composed at Nicaea, despite a
>> > myth to this effect that goes around.
>>
>> See above.
>
> You are not, I hope, offering a wiki page as some form of authority.
1)
It is no myth that the formalisation of the christian religion
was kicked off at Nicaea, a council assembled under
command of the Roman Emperor Constantine.
2)
It is no myth that his puppet bishop Eusebius on the inside
had access to - one might say - a considerable archive of
documents from the ancient world.
3)
It is also no myth that quite a reasonable percentage of
biblical scholars, when examining critically the earliest
external reference to Jesus outside of the bible (The
12 volume work of Josephus Flavius) comment that
these references would appear to be interpolations
(ie: someone added the lines to the book, when the
next copy was hand-written for posterity)
4)
It is also no myth that many of these scholars suggest
that the interpolator was Eusebius.
> For a table of and links to all the ancient evidence about Nicaea, see
> the following:
>
> http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Well, that's a fair bit of work, bit it is missing IMO a critical
review of one of the ancient texts that you have listed, first
published about 220 at the request of Julia Domna, wife of
the (then) emperor: "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana".
http://www.mountainman.com.au/a_tyana0.html
Have you read any of the translations
of this book Roger?
> Whether or not some ignorant teenager has chosen to repeat the myth on
> Wikipedia, it remains a myth. Anyone asserting it must produce some
> ancient testimony to it, or accept that it is a myth. One or the
> other, surely?
Your reference to ignorant teenagers on wankopaedia is spurious.
Feel free to address the myths 1 to 4 above.
Best wishes,
shaft®
> Dont take things personally.
I won't. But can you explain your rabid negativity
to the the christian sciptures on this newsgroup?
shaft®
> Your reference to ignorant teenagers on wankopaedia is spurious.
Ya I'm sure there are a lot of middle aged ppl
on their w/an axe to grind and very little life
outside of the internet...
> Feel free to address the myths 1 to 4 above.
Who put a bug up your ass that compells you to
attempt to prove the christian sciptures as myth?
mountain man
Sorry if my style of asking questions about
the world interferes with your sensibilities.
Dennis
thing with him talking to god was in his imagination. Being that his
empirical wisdom was the foundation of the desert religions, that would
make the entire structure at fault. You would get equal insight on the
meaning of life from Alice in Wonderland.
Fun waves on Saturday!
lp
> lp wrote:
>
>>roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>lp wrote:
>>>
>>>>since we don't have access to primary sources, imho the
>>>>scholars/researchers/theologeans make either somewhat educated guesses
>>>>or leaps of faith when determining authenticity, dates, strict
>>>>translations, etc.
>>>
>>>I am not certain I understand you here...
>>
>>by primary sources, i meant the original (authentic) letters by paul,
>>john, luke matthew, etc.. without those we are at least dealing with
>>second, third, fourth-hand accounts and so fourth. that is my point.
>
>
> Ah. You mean that, unless we have the autograph copies of a text from
> antiquity -- any text -- that it must be unreliable. This is a common
> view, and not daft on the face of it.
>
> This is not a point about the bible, so I think we should descope that.
> It's a question as to whether or not ancient litterature has reached
> us. (Most people probably do not know that we have no autograph texts
> from antiquity at all; the earliest are 13th century, I am told).
it depends on your interest. if your interest is accuracy of the
ancient source text translation, you will have a different litmus than
someone looking for accuracy in the message itself.
since we don't have many 1st hand accounts, multiple sources are
important (if they can be found). also, the background biases of the
individuals that are doing the transcribing in the historical documents.
>
> Any text has to be copied to disseminate. This is just as true in the
> era of printing as in the manuscript era. For instance, there are
> differences in texts of the Lord of the Rings! Some of those changes
> are by Tolkien (he altered the text between the first and second
> editions in at least one place, to my personal knowledge); some are
> printer's mistakes; some were brought in deliberately at the proofing
> stage by the proof-reader (Tolkien complains about the changes made by
> this "highly-educated pedant" somewhere).
>
there is a difference if the text is purporting an event, such as what
an apostle may have written, as opposed to a fictional story.
> These sorts of things do not mean the text did not reach us. I don't
> want to write an essay here: but human error is just part of life, and
> something we all have to live with. But ever since the renaissance, it
> is accepted that texts do reach us. The alternative, after all, is to
> discard the classical heritage. Of course copying errors do occur, and
> it is the task of textual scholars to try to heal these in some fairly
> objective way.
>
> But by "second/third/fourth hand" accounts, usually people do not mean
> the process of copying. They mean accounts composed at second, third,
> fourth hand.
>
> Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, but people are generally not clear
> on these points, and so it all gets confused.
>
i understand what you are saying and appreciate that you are looking at
sources as early as you can obtain them. an understanding of the
languages of the day comes in handy for that (which i do not have). i
rely on individuals, such as yourself, who are dedicated to accuracy in
translating original sources and compiling multiple sources to get a
clearer view of the historical basis for biblical doctrine.
also in a general sense, recent discoveries such as the dead sea scrolls
help to provide a litmus for accuracy of later documents. the more of
those that are unearthed, the better understanding of the sources and
the more is know about the original writings and tampering in subsequent
centuries.
> I think that we can all use better
> access to the facts, and fewer opinions, so that's what I do.
>
a noble cause for sure.
>
>>i'm just a skeptic when it comes to research that is presented
>>as authoritative.
>
>
> Me too. I got tired of hearing that story about Nicaea some years ago,
> when I happened to be working close to a major research library. (You
> notice that, with the story, no quotation from an ancient author or
> reference is ever given?) So I thought I'd look up every ancient
> source that could possibly mention the event, and see if it supported
> the story. It didn't. But I tabulated the sources online, for future
> reference.
>
>
> I was only really interested in the historical point. Whether or not
> God inspired a text requires a lot of agreed foundation before any
> discussion can take place. I know that some atheists imagine that if
> they can show something in the bible that disagrees with something in
> the historical record, that proves it cannot be inerrant; but since the
> fathers did not take that view (Eusebius of Caesarea, for instance,
> describes Adam in Eden as a parable for the human race in a different
> spiritual condition: in the first book of his Chronicle -- I can do a
> better reference if you need it), it usually only proves that these
> atheists are not-very-capable amateur theologians.
>
are you saying that the fathers didn't beleive the bible inerrant or
that they didn't take the adam in eden writings literally? since i don't
think we are discussing the inerrant question, are you saying that
adam/eden was not viewed by eusebius C as literal. that contradicts
various places in the bible for instance Luke 3:28 which traces jesus'
geneology back to adam (may's family). in genesis they place the
historic eden between the tigress and euphretis rivers.
i don't want to open the big can o' worms here as i know there are
many contradictory and/or vague areas in this area of study (such as the
inconsistencies of generations with the actual timespan that people have
walking the planet based on scientific methods such as carbon dating).
it's just that on one hand, the authors of the bible provide specific
literal history and on the other the framers of the documents, as it
were, view it as a parable. perhaps you could expand.
>
>>i can't respond to your point about constantine w/o doing more research
>>of my own.
>
>
> I quite understand. In our day more and more of the texts are online,
> fortunately, which makes it easier than ever to do so. But one can
> only research so much. I concentrate on a limited area, for just that
> reason.
>
ah, but as you pointed out there are also many rumors floating around
that claim factual basis. seperating the wheat from the chaf can take
some effort.
>
>>i understand your point regarding wiki, that it doesn't take much
>>background or thought to add something to the site. however, since wiki
>>is widely used, you might consider updating the areas you have done the
>>research on and disagree with what they have.
>
>
> I've tried! This is how I come to know that corrections will not be
> accepted, however accurate, because some monkey will prevent it.
>
this i don't understand. even if you can't change something that's
written there, you should be able to augment the information with
corrections. (this is an assumption as i haven't done it myself.)
>
>>btw - it is also interesting that both you and pete, the person whose
>>citation you found lacking, are both (or have been) oracle consultants.
>>i've also spent some time out at bracknell developing oracle training.
>
>
> You really have looked around my site! Yes, I was down at Reading
> doing a Financials course recently. What sort of training were you
> doing?
>
ah, finapps. with the addition of peoplesoft and now with seibel,
oraapps should get even more interesting.
in bracknell, i was development a parallel query cbt. i used to work for
oracle education, managing development of cbts and wbts in the
server/languages realm. i also developed the oracle simulator product
line (a scenario-driven expert system to provide experiential training
for dbas). i'm not a dba myself, but worked with the product groups,
consultants, ora-press authors and instructors to develop the products.
i've been doing my own thing for the past 7 years or so.
>
>>i wish i had some latin background, your translator looks interesting.
>
>
> I was lucky -- I did some at school. When I got interested in ancient
> texts, about 8 years ago, I found I had to try to read some to get at
> the facts. So I lashed up a program to help me. I'm currently working
> on one for ancient Greek, for the same reasons. But I never did any
> Greek, so its hard.
>
well, you've certainly taken the extra steps to accomplish your
interest. kudos.
>
>>by the way, do you surf?
>
>
> In view of the untreated sewage off UK beaches, no-one surfs -- they
> merely go through the motions...
>
well, don't let the folks in cornwall in on this. they seem to be having
a good time of it.
http://tinyurl.com/bw24l
as far as sewage, yes the surfers there (as well as many other places)
are spending considerable effort trying to change the status quo:
http://www.sas.org.uk/papers/dirty.asp
>
>>i mention it as this is a surfing newsgroup, though it has recently been
>>barraged by theological discussions by some cross-posters.
>
>
> I never understand why people do this. It's a nuisance to everyone.
yes, just another form of spam.
>
> Thanks for the temperate response. Have a good day! (It's been
> raining here solidly for 11 hours, but I'll have to go out some time).
no problem.
hope you get some sunshine in your day.
lp
Mike Sullivan
> mountain man wrote:
>> Your reference to ignorant teenagers on wankopaedia is spurious.
snip
>> Feel free to address the myths 1 to 4 above.
>
> Who put a bug up your ass that compells you to
> attempt to prove the christian sciptures as myth?
>
chortle. blow your nose, sweetheart.
I used to be defensive that way about you
christo-religionists calling our beer can a 'false god',
but then I came across evidence that our beer can
is one of many lesser gods that worship a greater god
than they:
Here are MANY beer cans worshiping at the church of
the open trash barrel (gasp):
http://www.uslitter.org/sandiegoCA/00_BeerCanBeach.jpg
evidence like this is almost enough to get me to deny
my faith, but I'll stand resolute! Must be photoshop!
Mike
shaft®
> Sorry if my style of asking questions about
> the world interferes with your sensibilities.
Isn't that cute. You want to play coy...
It's not your questions about the world that
I'm asking about. It's your negative comments
about the christian scriptures that you have
to invariably interject. Every time.
And it's not that I want you to quit. I just
find it interesting that it's only about a
certain segment of spirituality that you do
this with and the fact that you are loath to
even admit it. Interesting.
Surfer Bob
> Joseph Conrad...
Heart of Darkness rules!
The Secret Agent was a little opaque. It might strike me diffferently
if I reread it in these days of bombers.
Oh the horror, the *horror*...
SB
doc
I kinda liked 'Youth' - took me back to my early days in some ways, starting
out on new boats, fits and starts as things got going and all.
Just finished something called
Oak : the frame of civilization by William Bryant Logan
first rate.
doc....now, for a new chainsaw.....
Rico
Typhoon
Outcast of the Islands
Falk
The Rescue
Victory
Conrad , yes !
These days it's history , Eastern studies , and arms books such as Elgood's
Hindu Arms and Ritual , Weiner's Visible and Invisible Realms and on and on
.
I'll be needing to eat some fiction soon .
Turby
wrote:
>Now, another interesting set might be which Conrad works ya like and which
>ya find impenetrable.....
Never read anything by him I didn't like. Perhaps my all time favorite
writer in English. (Along with Twain Somewhere on the list is
Steinbeck, Hemingway, Robert Service, Kipling and a bunch of other
classics.) What's amazing about Conrad is that he didn't learn English
until he was an adult.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
Mike Sullivan
"Turby" <turbo...@beach.comber> wrote in message
news:garci19i28ng6qq4j...@4ax.com...
snip
> classics.) What's amazing about Conrad is that he didn't learn English
> until he was an adult.
geez, if he'd held off a few years he woulda been qualified
to be a Repube president.
Some of them avoid the English language well into
their dotage!
mountain man
news:1126351950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Fahmah Man. Didn´t get back to you on the Buddha Bible bit but can´t
> let this one pass without a comment.
...[trim]...
> And - basically that is what its all about - a big old
> battle for souls.
If you really believe this,
I have two questions:
1) Explain to me as best you can - what is the soul?
2) Have you read the Gita (set on a battlefield)?
> God gave us Jesus and Scripture and the Holy Spirit
> to give us a chance at SOS - the enemy of our souls shall use
> everything possible to take us down.
And if you believe this,
why such exclusiveness?
If indeed you believe that Holy People and
corresponding holy scriptures were provided
to one tribe of man, is it not also reasonable to
consider that such People visited all the tribes
of the planet, across the succession of the ages?
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
QUOTE for the DAY:
"At the top of the mountain you find it very cool.
There will be none of the dissimilarity
that you can see at the bottom of the path.
The fundamental principles of all religions are one.
- Yogaswami, Sri Lankar
chenowit...@yahoo.com
shaft® wrote:
> Basically you are asserting you have to be an academic
> to understand spiritual truth. God doesn't work that
> way, my friend. A lay person can understand the scriptures
> b/c it's a spiritual book guarded by a spirit that can
> pull rank on governments, puppets, hippies, bishops,
> and stink buggin newage longboarders, if need be.
What a load of wank. Homo sapiens is facing imminent extinction
because of you brainless nimrods with your idiotic fairy tales. Just
do everyone else a favor and die already.
td
<hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
>"td" <t...@NOwavecamSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:4c90i1p1mgj7ndo0u...@4ax.com...
>
>> As far as any "assemblage" issues, you are being extremely vague. Is
>> there a book that should or shouldn't have been included?
>
>There are in fact an entire series of books and writings.
>Do a search under "apocrypha", or click this:
>http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=apocrypha&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images
Am I to understand that you believe the apocrypha should be canon? (I
doubt you do) Mountain Man, I just don't understand what it is you
are trying to say. Except that you are trying to cast doubt on the
origin of biblical scripture without knowing what you are talking
about.
>>You imply
>> the the scriptures were somehow 'meddled' with. How specifically?
>
>
>Start outside the scriptures, and do a search with the two
>keywords "Eusebius" and "interpolation".
>
>Eusubius was the Emporor Constantine's head honcho bishop,
>who was in charge of the Nicea Council, and the whole
>"source document archive" (see above).
>
>As to the meaning of the word "interpolation" I will leave
>that as an exercise for the reader.
more of the same. worthless,
td
mountain man
...[snip]...
> more of the same. worthless,
"To discuss Christianity without mentioning
other religions would be like discussing the
greatness of the Atlantic Ocean without the
slightest mention of the many tributaries
that keep it flowing."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
-- Papers Project
NeoN D. SuRFeR
basis.
Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown
without help.
But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money
on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
Source:Lazarus Long in The Notebooks of Lazarus Long (Illuminated by
D.F.Vassallo)
Quote: Thou art God. Know that and the Way is opened.
God damn it, let's stop this taking the Name of the Lord in vain, Come on,
men! Let's finish him! The mob surged forward, led by one bold with a club;
they were on him with rocks and fists, and then with feet as he went down.
He went on talking while they kicked his ribs in and smashed his golden
body, broke his bones and tore an ear loose. At last someone called out,
Back away a little so we can get the gasoline on him!
The mob opened up a little at that warning and the camera zoomed to pick up
his face and shoulders. The Man from Mars smiled at his brothers, said once
more, softly and clearly, I love you. An incautious grasshopper came
whirring to a landing on the grass a few inches from his face, Mike turned
his head, looked at it as it stared back at him. Thou art God, he said
happily and discorporated.
Source:Stranger in a Strange Land
Quote:I've never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the
one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a
universe. Source:Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land
Quote:We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get
to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man
thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum.
He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use
two-valued, 'either-or' logic to arrive at his wrong anwers. If he is
hungry, hurt, or personaly interested in the answer, he can't use any sort
of logic and will discard an observed fact as blithely as he will stake his
life on a piece of wishful thinking. He
uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor
surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher
reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his
own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein.
Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.
For explanations of a universe that confuses him, he seizes onto numerology,
astrology, hysterical religions, and other fancy ways to go crazy. Having
accepted such glorified nonsense, facts make no impression on him, even if
at the cost of his own life. Joe, one of the hardest things to believe is
the abysmal depth of human stupidity. Source:Kettle Belly Baldwin in Gulf
from Assignment in Eternity
Quote:It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate
its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will
follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early
the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground
all heretics. Source:Robert A. Heinlein in Postscript to Revolt in 2100
Quote:What are the marks of a sick culture?
It is a bad sign when the people of a country stop identifying themselves
with the country and start identifying with a group. A racial group. Or a
religion. Or a language. Anything, as long as it isn't the whole population.
A very bad sign. Particularism. It was once considered a Spanish vice but
any country can fall sick with it. Dominance of males over females seems to
be one of the symptoms.
Before a revolution can take place, the population must loose faith in both
the police and the courts.
High taxation is important and so is inflation of the currency and the ratio
of the productive to those on the public payroll. But that's old hat;
everybody knows that a country is on the skids when its income and outgo get
out of balance and stay that way - even though there are always endless
attempts to wish it way by legislation. But I started looking for little
signs and what some call silly-season symptoms.
I want to mention one of the obvious symptoms: Violence. Muggings. Sniping.
Arson. Bombing. Terrorism of any sort. Riots of course - but I suspect that
little incidents of violence, pecking way at people day after day, damage a
culture even more than riots that flare up and then die down. Oh,
conscription and slavery and arbitrary compulsion of all sorts and
imprisonment without bail and without speedy trial - but those things are
obvious; all the histories list them.
I think you have missed the most alarming symptom of all. This one I shall
tell you. But go back and search for it. Examine it. Sick cultures show a
complex of symptoms as you have named... But a dying culture invariably
exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in
minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant
than a riot.
This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never
thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength. Look
for it. Study it. It is too late to save this culture - this worldwide
culture, not just the freak show here in California. Therefore we must now
prepare the monasteries for the coming Dark Age. Electronic records are too
fragile; we must again have books, of stable inks and resistant paper.
Source:Friday and Dr. Baldwin in Friday
Quote:If you read it correctly it,s all in the Bible. In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Could anyone ask
for a plainer statement of the self-evident fact that nothing exists until
someone imagines it and thereby gives it being, reality? Source:Speaker in
the Panel in Number of the Beast
Quote:Men rarely (if ever) dream up a God superior to themselves. Most gods
have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. Source:Lazarus Long in Time
Enough For Love
Quote:The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has up dreamed up is that
the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the
saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and
becomes petulant if He does not recieve this flattery. Yet this absurd
fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of
the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
Source:Lazarus Long in Time Enough For Love
Quote:The ways of God and government and girls are all mysterious, and it is
not given to mortal man to understand them. Source:Lazarus Long in Time
Enough for Love
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh. -RAH
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op>