Let us discuss HOLY

by Terry 57 Replies latest watchtower bible

Terry

That sounds a lot like a faith-based presupposition to me. Or can you offer scientific proof that nothing exists beyond that which "can be examined, tested, measured, quanitfied, explored" ( and, of course, your unspoken qualification is that such testing, measuring, etc. must be accomplished by natural, physical means)?
Now you're being silly! Proving a negative? Where are we, High School?
Are you listening to yourself? You have set an arbitratry, essentially faith-based qualification as to what can or cannot exist, then you call ideas that differ from your own as "imaginary," "capricious," "whimsical" and "beyond reach in intelligent conversation." It's hard to fathom such arrogance.
Now you're becoming hysterical. (At least I had to laugh.) Science deals with knowledge. What you are trying to assert is non-knowledge. I don't set the definitions of Reality. Anybody coming to a discussion who cannot produce (and/or REproduce their subject: i.e. supernatural existence) isn't playing with a full deck (or any deck at all.
Set some standards for yourself, for crying out loud! How about this for starters: "I won't argue the existence of things which have no existence."
That's a healthy starting point.
You know, one doesn't have to be a believer or a mystic to agree with my conclusions on this topic. I think that the most hardened atheist/naturalist who thought about the matter for five minutes would quickly conclude that the persecution scenario is a far more likely reason for the disappearance of the autographs than the reason you have proposed in your original post under this topic
How about this one?
1.Before Constantine put the strong arm of the Roman empire behind definitions of ORTHODOXY for Christianity there was a christian on every street corner pointing at his fellow christian saying "You're a heretic--you disagree with what I believe!"
2.Constantine defeated his chief rival, Licinius, (with the help of christians who knew where their bread was buttered!) and immediately sought to end the bickering, name-calling and sectarian divisions in his SUPPORT throghout the empire.
3.Using the Council of Nicea, Constantine had the survival-of-the-fittest bishops decide what ORTHODOXY he would, in trun, enforce by the full might of Rome.
4.Anybody who disagreed with the Trinity, for example, was automatically a heretic. What do you think would happen to any writings that "heretic" had which DID NOT SUPPORT THE TRINITY?
Are you saying it is unreasonable to think original autograph manuscripts of any Apostolic writings which a "heretic" was using to support non-Trinitarian teachings WOULD ACTUALLY SURVIVE??
NeonMadman

Now you're being silly! Proving a negative? Where are we, High School?
I didn't ask you to prove a negative. You are making a positive claim that nothing exists apart from what can be verified by scientific means. It seems to me that you need to offer evidence for that claim. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, especially when the thing being considered is, by definition, outside the scope of physical evidence.
Now you're becoming hysterical. (At least I had to laugh.)
I'm hardly hysterical. Though it is certainly easier for you to call me names than to admit that your presuppositions are no less faith-based than my own.
Set some standards for yourself, for crying out loud! How about this for starters: "I won't argue the existence of things which have no existence."
How about this standard for you: "I won't claim non-existence for things for which I have no scientific evidence, especially if those things are, by definition, beyond the scope of science." There was a time when protons were beyond the scope of science, and the human mind pretty much still is. That doesn't mean those things don't exist.
Are you saying it is unreasonable to think original autograph manuscripts of any Apostolic writings which a "heretic" was using to support non-Trinitarian teachings WOULD ACTUALLY SURVIVE??
So you can envision such a scenario for "heretical" writings being destroyed, but completely dismiss it for the canonical writings? Perhaps the autographs of the heretical writings didn't survive because they were not seen as valuable by those who received them? Interestingly, the writings of Arius are still extant, despite their "heretical" nature.
Beside that, your scenario smacks more of Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code than it does of actual history. The council of Nicea had absolutely nothing to do with the organizing of the Biblical canon - that was established prior to the time of Constantine. It also did not affirm the Trinity, only the deity and eternality of Christ, which (contrary to Dan Brown) was overwhelmingly affirmed by vote of the bishops present.
And, even if Constantine did destroy "heretical" writings (which I suppose is proven by the fact that we don't have them ), it would not in any way affect our discussion of why we don't have the NT autographs; that was centuries prior, and it seems highly likely that they had disappeared well before Constantine's time. Maybe I'm thick, but I don't see what point you are trying to make with this scenario.
Terry

Are you saying it is unreasonable to think original autograph manuscripts of any Apostolic writings which a "heretic" was using to support non-Trinitarian teachings WOULD ACTUALLY SURVIVE??
So you can envision such a scenario for "heretical" writings being destroyed, but completely dismiss it for the canonical writings? Perhaps the autographs of the heretical writings didn't survive because they were not seen as valuable by those who received them? Interestingly, the writings of Arius are still extant, despite their "heretical" nature.
WHOOOOOOSH....right over your head!
I'm saying the ACTUAL canonical writings (which we don't have) were CONSIDERED heretical! That is why we don't have them.
Heretical writings are only "preserved" by quotes in Apologetic screeds by their opponents for the most part. We must rely on the honesty of an opponent's representations of them.
And, by the way...do you believe in the Supernatural? If so, why?
NeonMadman

I'm saying the ACTUAL canonical writings (which we don't have) were CONSIDERED heretical! That is why we don't have them.
You're saying that the actual canonical writings were considered heretical by Constantine and destroyed? Why? The bishops at Nicea derived their understanding of the deity of Christ from the canonical writings. The canonical writings were in harmony with the outcome of Nicea. And do you really believe that the autographs of the NT survived until the time of Constantine only to be destroyed by him as heretical, when in fact he agreed with them? And that he somehow expected those writings to vanish because he destroyed the autographs, even though by that time there were thousands of copies from one end of the Empire to the other?
Or are you trying to assert that there were some other, unknown "canonical" writings that have disappeared completely? If so, why should we believe that they ever existed?
Either way, your scenario implies that at some point there was some authority who was capable of reaching from one end of the Roman Empire to the other and controlling what manuscripts were in existence. That was never the case. Someone could always squirrel away a few manuscripts that could show up later on; it's nearly impossible to eradicate widely circulated writings from history. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts would certainly have been regarded as heretical, but they have nonetheless come down to us.
By the way, if we had no NT manuscripts whatsoever, it would still be possible to reassemble all but 11 verses of the NT from the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers. Did Constantine destroy all of their writings, too?
It isn't a matter of it going over my head; it's that you are making progressively less sense in an effort not to admit that your original premise does not stand up to examination.
And, by the way...do you believe in the Supernatural? If so, why?
Given your attitude and level of argumentation regarding your original premise, I think I'll avoid that particular rabbit trail.
Terry

You're saying that the actual canonical writings were considered heretical by Constantine and destroyed? Why? The bishops at Nicea derived their understanding of the deity of Christ from the canonical writings. The canonical writings were in harmony with the outcome of Nicea.
You ASSUME this to be true.
How do you verify it?
Your turn to cite sources.
You and I live in the present day and look back through time to Constantine.
Our view of what is "canonical" has already been shaped. The only sources available to us have already been dealt with.
The official view already established and defened countless centuries by the Church.
What you and I cannot do is stand in the Present Day of Constantine AS MATTERS WERE SHAPED.
1.Oral stories proliferated for decades until people started writing those stories down.
2.Competing stories contradicted one another.
3.Competing beliefs about Jesus contradicted one another.
4.Views of orthodoxy varied.
5. To the avid believer "MY View" is true and "Your View" is heresy.
6. So called Gospel writers (there were plenty more than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) circulated their redactions and compilations of FILTERED stories which met the standard of THAT particular writer.
7.Competing groups chose which versions appealed to their group and their standards. Other groups were viewed as heretics.
8.Constantine wanted UNITY. The filtering process of Nicea was a shouting match and a bully pulpit.
9.The Catholic Dogma is the result. What did NOT conform was eliminated.
Now, why take the view that Catholic Dogma was the TRUE view and the only documents destroyed were actual heretical writings/
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Terry

Either way, your scenario implies that at some point there was some authority who was capable of reaching from one end of the Roman Empire to the other and controlling what manuscripts were in existence.
Do you know anything about the Roman government as to efficacy of enforcement historically?
Have you read Gibbon?
I'm not being a smart ass. I'm curious.
Terry

I asked:
And, by the way...do you believe in the Supernatural? If so, why?
NeonMadman replied:
Given your attitude and level of argumentation regarding your original premise, I think I'll avoid that particular rabbit trail.
So you are dodging my question?
How is it you can demand from me various responses with impunity while picking and choosing what you will address?
I repeat my question:
Do you or do you not BELIEVE in the supernatural?
Belief in the existence of the Supernatural is everywhere implicit in your arguments.
It isn't a TRICK question.
NeonMadman

You ASSUME this to be true.
How do you verify it?
Your turn to cite sources.
Unfortunately, I'm away on job training all this week and don't have access to my library, so citing sources isn't within my current ability. However, it seems a reasonable enough prima facie conclusion: the canonical Scriptures support the deity of Christ; the Nicean council found in favor of the deity of Christ; the ante-Nicene fathers cited the canonical Scriptures extensively. Am I reaching too far to see a relationship there? If you think I am wrong about that, from where do you think the Nicene bishops got their understanding of the deity of Christ?
Now, why take the view that Catholic Dogma was the TRUE view and the only documents destroyed were actual heretical writings/
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Correct me if I misunderstand you here, but it seems to me that you are asserting that there were some hypothetical writings that have not survived that you are now appealing to in an effort to bolster your original claim regarding how the biblical documents were viewed by their original readers? Even if it were true that such documents existed (and I have no doubt that there may have been SOME "heretical" documents that failed to survive, even as there were very likely SOME "orthodox" documents that failed to survive), it would do little for your case, since the original readers of the NT documents lived centuries by Constantine. Even if your scenario were correct, the documents would certainly have been regarded as "holy" before the time of Constantine. So that offers nothing to explain why the autographs did not survive.
In any event, I think it's quite a stretch to hypothesize documents for whose existence we have no evidence and then use them to bolster your theory, particularly from a guy who is so demanding of evidence for positive claims. If Constantine did undertake to destroy all "heretical" documents, he was wildly unsuccessful, since many, many such documents have survived to come down to us. Read The Other Bible or Ehrman's Lost Scripture and you'll see many such works. I don't think the question is how I know that there were not lost documents, but how you know that there were, and more particularly, what the content of those alleged documents might have been.
Do you know anything about the Roman government as to efficacy of enforcement historically?
Have you read Gibbon?
No, I haven't read Gibbon, though I have no doubt that the Roman enforcers were quite capable. However, we are talking about absolute eradication of work throughout the Empire. That is a pretty tall order for any autocracy. It requires that every single copy of an objectionable work be located and destroyed. All it takes is one person hiding his scrolls in a cave somewhere, and we have the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts to show later generations what was written. The same sort of logic comes into play when one contends that the NT was "changed by the church" - an impossible task, given the early and wide distribution of manuscript copies. Any "change" would have stood out like a sore thumb under the light of textual criticism.
So you are dodging my question?
How is it you can demand from me various responses with impunity while picking and choosing what you will address?
Dodging your question would imply ignoring it or engaging in verbal "dancing" to give a non-answer. I directly indicated that I didn't want to have that discussion. That's not dodging. The questions I have asked you relate directly to the topic at hand. This is not a naturalistic/supernaturalistic or an atheistic/theistic discussion. Your original point, to which I have repeatedly tried to redirect the discussion, related to how the original biblical writings were regarded by their contemporaries. That has nothing to do with whether they actually were of supernatural origin, only whether people regarded them as such. Therefore, for us to start wrangling about whether the supernatural actually exists would be a "rabbit trail" - a diversion that is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
And, bluntly, you have shown such a mocking and dismissive attitude toward belief in the supernatural that I have no desire to give you an excuse for more ad hominems. My intent has been to show that your unspoken presupposition - that nothing exists that is outside the scope and purview of science - is itself unprovable and therefore no less faith-based than any supernaturalistic position I might take.
Terry

Correct me if I misunderstand you here, but it seems to me that you are asserting that there were some hypothetical writings that have not survived that you are now appealing to in an effort to bolster your original claim regarding how the biblical documents were viewed by their original readers?
1.Were writings destroyed supporting so-called heretical views? Yes.
2.If those writings were destroyed they no longer exist. Right? Right.
3.Some of those writings, while they existed, were quoted by apologists publicly refuting them (in their writings.)
4.If some writings were quoted-- others (of which a great many existed) were not.
5.We today can only identify what was mentioned (among the destroyed manuscripts) in quotations by apologists.
Therefore, it is no stretch of the imagination to realize what was not partially preserved through mention can only be inferred.
If Constantine did undertake to destroy all "heretical" documents, he was wildly unsuccessful, since many, many such documents have survived to come down to us.
You are bracketing my point by deliberately refusing to see it! Thousands of writings existed. Some of those were successfully hidden, some were destroyed. Of the ones destroyed, some were quoted. The ones NOT quoted is what you find impossible to allow into existence.
However, it seems a reasonable enough prima facie conclusion: the canonical Scriptures support the deity of Christ; the Nicean council found in favor of the deity of Christ; the ante-Nicene fathers cited the canonical Scriptures extensively.
Oh, Please!
When you start with a presupposition you can get to a conclusion easily enough that proves it.
The Nag Hammadi library contained not only Gnostic documents. It contained Plato as well. Plato was a huge influence throughout the pagan world after Alexander's conquests. Socrates and Plato's writings infiltrated Semitic philosophy, theology and public discourse.
The Greek ideas were viral. Among the Greek ideas was their concept of the DEMI-GOD.
Do you recall a situation in which Paul and his companion were called "gods" after he preached publicly? That was simply the audience superimposing its own susceptibilities influenced by Greek thought upon two people who were obviously human.
So wildly successful was Platonic philosophy that it was not possible for the prevailing listeners to think of Jesus without promoting him to Demi-God.
Are you aware that Constantine was a pagan member of the cult of Sol Invictus?
His predisposition to THINK in terms of Greek characterization thus paganizing christian theology is NOT A STRETCH!
Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis—day of the sun, "Sunday"—as the Roman day of rest [CJ3.12.2]:
On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. [30]
Constantine's triumphal arch was carefully positioned to align with the colossal statue of Sol by the Colosseum, so that Sol formed the dominant backdrop when seen from the direction of the main approach towards the arch. [31]
Terry

The Neoplatonism was the most dominant intellectual movement of the time within the Roman Empire and thinkers from the Neoplatonic school cross-pollinated with the thinkers of other intellectual schools. For instance, certain strands of Neoplatonism influenced Christian thinkers (such as Augustine, Boethius, John Scotus Eriugena, and Bonaventure).

Let us discuss HOLY

Share this