Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 174

Thread: How true is the Bible?

  1. #101
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genghis Skahn View Post
    Good to know that you still hold onto this venomous belief--a belief that has unironically eradicated entire cultures and religions, on the pretext that they were all "unenlightened savages" who believed in demons. I guess being from the UK, you can actually say that, but for people from the Americas, many regard this belief as dangerous(IMO), as it had a direct involvement in the destruction of the indigenous religions, following the pretext that all other gods or religions or belief systems outside of Christianity were false and thus worthy of eradication. Well, thankfully, humanity came up with secularism and religious tolerance(neither are mentioned explicitly in the bible, to my knowledge--I admit I might be wrong), so that we could stop unjustly persecuting others for simply possessing different religious beliefs than our own.
    I don't see what's venomous about believing that his beliefs are correct. Don't you believe your beliefs are correct? It's not exactly unusual for secularists to kill a few hundred million people for having different beliefs.

  2. #102
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    12,802

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    It's not exactly unusual for secularists to kill a few hundred million people for having different beliefs.
    Or religious believers as well or failing that enforce their belief. Shall we just accept humans are surprisingly good at finding reasons of all types to sustain conquest, enslavement, mass brutality or massacres.
    Last edited by conon394; July 10, 2019 at 12:59 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  3. #103
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    I mean, you're preaching to the choir here.

  4. #104

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Not to mention the fact that Paul was probably not able to speak or write in Latin.
    Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
    You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?

    I know you can do better than this. Put minimal effort at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Your arguments about the interest Paul would have in converting the imperial dynasty to Christianity are not very convincing either.
    But the Roman Emperor converting to Christianity was literally what happened.

    Unless you consider Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Empire a tale based on "forgeries" too?

    For that (Christianism among the Imperial Echelons) to happen would require for Christians to interact with Stoics and vice versa. Austere Stoics had more in common with Austere Christians than hedonists had with Austere Christians.
    Stoicism in some cases is even more Spartan and austere than Christianity. Of course such austere minded people would have more in common with christians, who try to be austere as well, than with the ones doing the infamous roman orgies.

    Possibly some christians turned to stoicism spiritual movement, and some stoics turned to christians, but what history shows in the end of what the Imperial echelons had to say in relations to Christianity as State Religion is extremely clear.


    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    The effort of later Christian apologists to establish a supposed strong relationship between Christianity and Roman-Greek philosophy, in order to legitimise and increase the prestige of the former, are nice rhetorical excercises, but they severely lack in evidence and objectivity.
    The letters are mostly just greetings and acknowledgement of having spent time considering/reading each other's theories. In the end, neither of them converted the other, but they maintained politeness. The letters do not contain "rethoric exercises" or "dialectic" that you speak of, it's mostly just formalities.

    This exchange does not classify as a "rethorical exercise". Did you even read the letters?

    There are are also some in the modernism setting interested in hiding the mutual influences between Stoicism and Christianity.

    It's also sort of needless heavy to consider "forgery" letters of two contemporaries mostly greeting each other, and that's it - a sort of an "using the cannons to try to kill a fly" applying the portuguese proverb.

    Your point in your post does not command much authority.
    Last edited by fkizz; July 10, 2019 at 06:42 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word Fascism is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  5. #105
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    12,802

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
    You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?

    I know you can do better than this. Put minimal effort at least.

    But the Roman Emperor converting to Christianity was literally what happened.

    Unless you consider Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Empire a tale based on "forgeries" too?

    For that (Christianism among the Imperial Echelons) to happen would require for Christians to interact with Stoics and vice versa. Austere Stoics had more in common with Austere Christians than hedonists had with Austere Christians.
    Stoicism in some cases is even more Spartan and austere than Christianity. Of course such austere minded people would have more in common with christians, who try to be austere as well, than with the ones doing the infamous roman orgies.

    Possibly some christians turned to stoicism spiritual movement, and some stoics turned to christians, but what history shows in the end of what the Imperial echelons had to say in relations to Christianity as State Religion is extremely clear.




    The letters are mostly just greetings and acknowledgement of having spent time considering/reading each other's theories. In the end, neither of them converted the other, but they maintained politeness. The letters do not contain "rethoric exercises" or "dialectic" that you speak of, it's mostly just formalities.

    This exchange does not classify as a "rethorical exercise". Did you even read the letters?

    There are are also some in the modernism setting interested in hiding the mutual influences between Stoicism and Christianity.

    It's also sort of needless heavy to consider "forgery" letters of two contemporaries mostly greeting each other, and that's it - a sort of an "using the cannons to try to kill a fly" applying the portuguese proverb.

    Your point in your post does not command much authority.
    The basic problem is the letters don't conform well the valid writing norms of either man. There is a reason they have been deemed The Apocryphal Correspondence between Seneca and Paul for quite a while now. They say a lot more about efforts to link Christianity (now the state religion) with older traditions a than some pen pal fest in Nero's day.

    Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
    You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?
    Probably a Greek speaker with a bit a of Latin. The Koine was still the dominate language in the east.

    This exchange does not classify as a "rethorical exercise". Did you even read the letters?
    Actually a fairly common thing to do write a letter like Plato or Demosthenes or Cicero write a dialogue etc. There a little scarps of them about in papyrus and clear indications it was a teaching method. Beyond that making crap up was not uncommon. Especially when both were likely long dead when the supposed correspondence was written.

    You might find this a good read

    Paul and Seneca in Dialogue edited by Joey Dodson, David Brion

    But point made twice in the intro and first chapter - letters a fraud but they make an interesting compare and contrast.
    Last edited by conon394; July 10, 2019 at 10:34 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  6. #106
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genghis Skahn View Post
    Good to know that you still hold onto this venomous belief--a belief that has unironically eradicated entire cultures and religions, on the pretext that they were all "unenlightened savages" who believed in demons. I guess being from the UK, you can actually say that, but for people from the Americas, many regard this belief as dangerous(IMO), as it had a direct involvement in the destruction of the indigenous religions, following the pretext that all other gods or religions or belief systems outside of Christianity were false and thus worthy of eradication. Well, thankfully, humanity came up with secularism and religious tolerance(neither are mentioned explicitly in the bible, to my knowledge--I admit I might be wrong), so that we could stop unjustly persecuting others for simply possessing different religious beliefs than our own.
    Genghis Skahn,

    What has been done in the name of God in the form you mention was not the teaching of Jesus Christ in Whose name certain systems of religion operated. The New Testament nowhere tells Christians to kill anyone yet we know that the Roman Catholic church in its expanse did exactly what you said. The thing is that those that broke away from it to be called the reformed religion had to endure the same treatment at its hands. Born again Christians do not believe that system is of God and therefore not Christian, certainly not from the Scriptures which we consider to be the words of God. The position of God's word being that one has to hear the Gospel to be saved and able to enter heaven leaves the judgement of any other religion to God. That is why where Christianity has become a nation's belief, no other religion has been outlawed nor its believers persecuted. So, I don't apologise for preaching what God's word says. I do apologise for anyone who has twisted it for their benefit but then these people will have to face God for that.

  7. #107
    Abdlmecid I's Avatar Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,540

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
    You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?
    Conon already explained why the correspondence is obviously fake, as they do not match Seneca's skills, include several inaccuracies and why forged letters like these were a common teaching method in the education of the late empire. Emperors were indeed converted to Christianity, but the context of the early 4th century, when Christianity was considerably more propagated and various usurpers desperately needed supporters, in order to reinforce their fragile position, was completely different to that of the 1st century, when Christianity was nothing but a minor sect that almost nobody had heard of. Paul's knowledge of Latin is a debatable subject, but, as Conon mentioned, the most probable scenario is an elementary comprehension of the language and certainly not a very confident command of it. I'm not sure how his efforts to convert the Romans strengthens your argument, given that the Epistle to the Romans, exactly like the rest of the New Testament, was written in Greek, not in Latin. Greek was the lingua franca of the east and of Rome's educated classes, not Latin.

  8. #108
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    8,649

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    The thing is that those that broke away from it to be called the reformed religion had to endure the same treatment at its hands. Born again Christians do not believe that system is of God and therefore not Christian
    Perhaps at some point in the future there will be another reformation and your currently held beliefs may end up being denounced as un-christian long after your gone.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  9. #109

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Perhaps at some point in the future there will be another reformation and your currently held beliefs may end up being denounced as un-christian long after your gone.
    You say that as if the denunciation of protestants, Anglicans and reformists hasn't already happened. I'm quite sure that Basics' views on Christianity - particularly with respect to baptism - have already been rejected on this board by other believers.

  10. #110
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,110

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
    You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?
    There was a majority of Koine-speakers in the Roman Empire at the time of Paul's mission, and educated Romans learned various forms of Hellenic. Can you show us the source that says learning Latin was a requirement for Roman citizenship?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    I know you can do better than this. Put minimal effort at least.
    Thats a needlessly insulting comment especially considering the poor quality of your own post as demonstrated below.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    But the Roman Emperor converting to Christianity was literally what happened.

    Unless you consider Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Empire a tale based on "forgeries" too?
    Constantine the Great did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman state. You have confused him with Theodosius.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    For that (Christianism among the Imperial Echelons) to happen would require for Christians to interact with Stoics and vice versa. Austere Stoics had more in common with Austere Christians than hedonists had with Austere Christians.
    Stoicism in some cases is even more Spartan and austere than Christianity. Of course such austere minded people would have more in common with christians, who try to be austere as well, than with the ones doing the infamous roman orgies.
    This is a bizarre excursis. Judaism from the period 300 BCE onwards, and Christianity both show the clear imprint of Hellenistic thought as we would expect following Alexander's conquests. I don't know of a single Judaic or Christian element in Hellenistic thought until imposed by Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Possibly some christians turned to stoicism spiritual movement, and some stoics turned to christians, but what history shows in the end of what the Imperial echelons had to say in relations to Christianity as State Religion is extremely clear.
    This point makes no sense. Stoicism is not a spiritual movement, its a philosophical and ethical approach to life, and is generally agnostic about the life and afterlife of the spirit.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    The letters are mostly just greetings and acknowledgement of having spent time considering/reading each other's theories. In the end, neither of them converted the other, but they maintained politeness. The letters do not contain "rethoric exercises" or "dialectic" that you speak of, it's mostly just formalities.
    The OED define "rhetoric" as The art of using language effectively so as to persuade or influence others, esp.the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques to this end; the study of principles and rules to be followed by a speaker or writer striving for eloquence, esp. as formulated by ancient Greek and Roman writers.

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    This exchange does not classify as a "rethorical exercise". Did you even read the letters?
    These letters are by definition rhetorical exercises. Your point here is utterly wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    There are are also some in the modernism setting interested in hiding the mutual influences between Stoicism and Christianity.
    Are you suggesting a conspiracy? Veyr hard to ta=ke this poitn seriously given the garbage mistakes you've made in earlier points.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    It's also sort of needless heavy to consider "forgery" letters of two contemporaries mostly greeting each other, and that's it - a sort of an "using the cannons to try to kill a fly" applying the portuguese proverb.
    If your rubbish theory reminds you of a fly, and the proof against so overwhelming it seems like a cannon maybe is a sign you're completely wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Your point in your post does not command much authority.
    Actually Abdulmecid's posts do command respect among people who have studied the subjects he discusses at a tertiary level. Your spelling errors, ignoance and weird ranting rob your post of any authority.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  11. #111

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    There was a majority of Koine-speakers in the Roman Empire at the time of Paul's mission, and educated Romans learned various forms of Hellenic. Can you show us the source that says learning Latin was a requirement for Roman citizenship?
    Latin was the official language of the empire, and Roman citizenship was a highly desired commodity. It is very likely that knowledge of Latin was a requirement for citizenship. Even centuries after the capital of the empire was transferred to the Greek speaking east, Latin still remained the official language of the imperial government. Do you have any evidence that Roman citizenship did not require knowledge of Latin? At. That time. The vast majority of Roman citizens would have been descendants of Latin speaking Roman citizens. Even if not officially stated, it may have been understood that knowledge of Latin was a requirement for Roman citizenship

    But I agree that the so called letters of Seneca are clear forgeries, no matter whether Paul spoke Latin or not.







    This point makes no sense. Stoicism is not a spiritual movement, its a philosophical and ethical approach to life, and is generally agnostic about the life and afterlife of the spirit.
    The matter is not as simple as you make out. Remember, the main opponents that Christians debated with we're not members of other religions (except Juadiasm) but with the Greek philosophers. It is to them that Christian writers argued with. While not a religion, Stoicism occupiex the same intellectuAl niche, and men who might have become Stoicc philosophers in an earlier age became Christian theologians in a later age. St. Augustine spent a lot of effort in trying to cast Christianity in the garb of the later Greek philosophy, and Christian writers would not have bothered to make such attempt if Stoicism and other Greek philosophies we're not in some sense in competitio

    Christianity often had more in common with Greek philosophy than other pagan religions. Pagan religions were mostly about performing the correct rituals, you don't see philosophical debated among the leaders of pagan religions. In constrast, moral and philosophical debates were very much a part of early Christian, at least after the first couple of generations of Christians, although maybe not the time of Paul


    These letters are by definition rhetorical
    That is correct . The Seneca letters are clearly rhetorical excercises.

  12. #112
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    At Pentecost those who heard the disciples after the Holy Spirit fell on them could hear them all speak in different dialects finding their own among them and they were amazed that Galileans could do such a thing. When it came to Paul he wrote that he was thankful that he could speak in more tongues than anyone else making his job much easier in communicating across the lands he entered. So, Latin, Greek, or anything else was no problem to him. The point was that not only did he start building churches but also consolidated those that were already there. Therefore when he got to places where there were churches these would have been predomiately Jews converted with Gentiles sprinkled in. So, the original writings or letters sent to these would have been originally in Hebrew before translations were made for the benefit of the Gentiles, why? Because the word out of Jerusalem was that Gentiles had to be circumcised to become Christian simply because James the brother of Jesus was himself still a devout Jew under the law and saw this new thing then as to be purely Jewish until Paul going to Jerusalem to confront him and Peter and John because James held dway even over them. Where the old Hebrew letters are now nobody knows but they definitely existed at the beginning.

  13. #113
    Abdlmecid I's Avatar Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,540

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Nice catch on Constantine/Theodosius, Cyclops, I don't know how I managed to miss it. If Constantine had established Christianity as the empire's official religion, he would first need to punish himself.
    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    At Pentecost those who heard the disciples after the Holy Spirit fell on them could hear them all speak in different dialects finding their own among them and they were amazed that Galileans could do such a thing. When it came to Paul he wrote that he was thankful that he could speak in more tongues than anyone else making his job much easier in communicating across the lands he entered.
    Firstly, Paul is claiming that he speaks more language than his audience*, not everyone else, which would be quite heretical. He's referring to the miracle of the Pentecost, which, generally speaking, has no historic value, as the affair violates several of the most principal laws of physics. However, even if someone personally perceives the fiery tongues of the Pentecost as a true fact, the conclusion that Paul spoke Latin is still arbitrary and based on subjective interpretation. According to the Acts of the Apostles, the only biblical chapter describing in detail the events, everyone heard them speak in his own language". This heavily implies that the alleged glossolalia consisted of the Apostolic speech being supernaturally understandable to everyone and not of the Apostles suddenly possessing the knowledge of every language in Earth. Of course, in different passages, like the Gospel of Mark, 1st Corinthians or even the Acts of the Apostles themselves, it is inferred that the Apostles (and Paul) did speak in different languages, which is another testament (to return to the topic) of how the Bible is marked by often irreconciliable contradictions, which will perplex our unfortunate theologians for centuries to come.

    *After all, he definitely spoke Aramaic, Greek and almost certainly Hebrew, so his statement was not necessarily hyperbolic or inaccurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Latin was the official language of the empire, and Roman citizenship was a highly desired commodity. It is very likely that knowledge of Latin was a requirement for citizenship. Even centuries after the capital of the empire was transferred to the Greek speaking east, Latin still remained the official language of the imperial government. Do you have any evidence that Roman citizenship did not require knowledge of Latin? At. That time. The vast majority of Roman citizens would have been descendants of Latin speaking Roman citizens. Even if not officially stated, it may have been understood that knowledge of Latin was a requirement for Roman citizenship.
    Proving a negative is pretty much impossible and the fact that the requirements for citizenship are not officially stated indicates that they were not codified. Especially in the east, the citizenship was casually granted to the members of the elite, in order to strengthen the Roman control of the region and to cement the relationship of the conquering commandder with a subgugated city or people. Knowledge of Latin was irrelevant, as long as the loyalty of the benefited aristocrats was guaranteed. I suppose it was a welcome perk that allowed direct communication, without the interval of interpreters being necessary, but what truly mattered was the establishment of client system between powerful Romans and the "nobility" of, in the case of Paul, recently annexed Anatolia.

  14. #114
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    From Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman

    DID PAUL SPEAK LATIN?
    Stanley E. Porter
    McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Conclusion

    A number of scholars have believed that Paul spoke Latin. The most noteworthy advocates include William Ramsay,80 James Hope Moulton,81 Alexander Souter,82 and F. F. Bruce.83 Whereas this was a topic of some discussion in an earlier period of scholarship, very few contemporary scholars raise the issue of whether Paul spoke Latin. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence to address the problem. However, there is some circumstantial evidence that Paul would have known Latin. This evidence includes his travel itinerary that probably took him to Illyricum, a Latinspeaking province of the Roman Empire; his visiting a number of cities, such as Lydia, Pisidian Antioch, Philipi, Corinth, Caesarea Maritima, and even Rome, where there is some probability of his speaking Latin; and Latinisms, both grammatical and lexical, in both his letters and the book of Acts. Whereas there is some evidence from each of these that Paul may have spoken Latin, the evidence is far from convincing. Most of the evidence suggests that Paul may have spoken Latin, but it is far from requiring it, no matter what the circumstances. In most of the instances, it is just as probable, if not more likely, that Paul may have used Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Empire of the first century.

    80 Besides the notes above, see W. M. Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906), 65, where he simply states: it is as certain that he [Paul] had a Roman name and spoke the Latin language, as it is that he was a Roman citizen.

    81 Moulton, Prolegomena, 20, 233.

    82 A. Souter, Did Paul Speak Latin? The Expositor Series 8 (1911): 33742.

    83 Bruce, Paul, 31516.
    So, there's no smoking gun either way, but it's not really out there to suggest that he spoke Latin. There's evidence for it. Whether it suffices to convince or not, well, that depends on the person.

  15. #115
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdlmecid I View Post
    Nice catch on Constantine/Theodosius, Cyclops, I don't know how I managed to miss it. If Constantine had established Christianity as the empire's official religion, he would first need to punish himself.

    Firstly, Paul is claiming that he speaks more language than his audience*, not everyone else, which would be quite heretical. He's referring to the miracle of the Pentecost, which, generally speaking, has no historic value, as the affair violates several of the most principal laws of physics. However, even if someone personally perceives the fiery tongues of the Pentecost as a true fact, the conclusion that Paul spoke Latin is still arbitrary and based on subjective interpretation. According to the Acts of the Apostles, the only biblical chapter describing in detail the events, everyone heard them speak in his own language". This heavily implies that the alleged glossolalia consisted of the Apostolic speech being supernaturally understandable to everyone and not of the Apostles suddenly possessing the knowledge of every language in Earth. Of course, in different passages, like the Gospel of Mark, 1st Corinthians or even the Acts of the Apostles themselves, it is inferred that the Apostles (and Paul) did speak in different languages, which is another testament (to return to the topic) of how the Bible is marked by often irreconciliable contradictions, which will perplex our unfortunate theologians for centuries to come.

    *After all, he definitely spoke Aramaic, Greek and almost certainly Hebrew, so his statement was not necessarily hyperbolic or inaccurate.

    Proving a negative is pretty much impossible and the fact that the requirements for citizenship are not officially stated indicates that they were not codified. Especially in the east, the citizenship was casually granted to the members of the elite, in order to strengthen the Roman control of the region and to cement the relationship of the conquering commandder with a subgugated city or people. Knowledge of Latin was irrelevant, as long as the loyalty of the benefited aristocrats was guaranteed. I suppose it was a welcome perk that allowed direct communication, without the interval of interpreters being necessary, but what truly mattered was the establishment of client system between powerful Romans and the "nobility" of, in the case of Paul, recently annexed Anatolia.
    Abdulmecid l,

    Not necessarily so as each occurrence depended very much on the situation. At Pentecost the disciples spoke as the Spirit gave them the words to say them now knowing what they hadn't until the Spirit fell on them on that day. Now whether they understood the dialects that they uttered we cannot say for certain but what we can say is those that heard understood resulting in many being converted that day. Concerning Paul's ability to speak in tongues is slightly different because he wasn't restricted to one rather many because Christ had chosen him to establish the Gospel in many lands. We can read from that that he went primarily to the Jews and so would speak Hebrew and then to the Gentiles speaking to them in their dialects or tongues so in all cases he knew exactly what he was saying to them and them him. There are no contradictions if the golden rule on interpreting Scipture is followed, that being context and flow.

  16. #116
    Sogdog's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Posts
    835

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    The FACT that genesis is incorrect, but completely incorrect, sets up the bible to be completely incorrect. Simple.
    If you say the bible is proof of your god then Marvel comics is proof that Spiderman is real. Whatever argument you use to disprove this I will use to disprove your bible. Simple really.

  17. #117

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    The basic problem is the letters don't conform well the valid writing norms of either man. There is a reason they have been deemed The Apocryphal Correspondence between Seneca and Paul for quite a while now. They say a lot more about efforts to link Christianity (now the state religion) with older traditions a than some pen pal fest in Nero's day.
    Actually linking Christianity to Stoicism was and still is problematic - you can't exactly go boldly around claim that Christianity drew a lot of inspiration from "Paganism". This discredits Christianity on idea of purely being exclusive Christ-inspired ideas.
    From how some folks in Rome think, the ones denying links of St. Paul and Seneca, you are doing them a big a favour.

    And later on, Stoic Marcus Aurelius orders persecution on some groups of Christians. Technically speaking, I should be making use of those who want to help denying those links, from a colder calculist point of view. And it's not in my interests to insist much more either.

    But an even bigger problem, is that it reveals that back then Stoicism wasn't a mere "philosophy" but also a spiritual movement, which goes against the modern narrative that reality can be explained via means of rational-materialism.
    Which is troublesome to admit, because Stoicism is very popular among the rational-materialist minded people, so that's a much bigger thorn in culture kampf than St. Paul.

    How will you explain to rational-materialist minded people that their admired philosophy back in the day was way more than a philosophy?
    It's completly against the zeitgeist and more or less counter-culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    From Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman

    So, there's no smoking gun either way, but it's not really out there tosuggest that he spoke Latin. There's evidence for it. Whether it suffices to convince or not, well, that depends on the person.
    Thanks for the sources.

    If St. Paul traveled Roman Empire for Holiday purposes and self enjoyment exclusively, maybe not speaking Latin and only using Koine Greek would've not been an issue.

    But when traveling with the intent of getting in touch the most people possible, and making your message reaching preferably a good amount of people, as to convert them, in an area where Latin would be quite popular, and known to have Roman Citizenship (it does not fall from the sky as some assume, back then Citizenship was much harder to get than in modern days) well, it should be obvious he spoke some Latin at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdlmecid I View Post
    Conon already explained why the correspondence is obviously fake, as they do not match Seneca's skills, include several inaccuracies and why forged letters like these were a common teaching method in the education of the late empire.
    Wouldn't a "forgery" bother to make Senneca's writings seem like that Seneca wrote it at least? What kind of "forgery" gives away that it is a forgery that early on?

    Meanwhile Prodromos post shows that Academia consensus is that St. Paul spoke Latin. Obviously the more you look into it the more obvious it seems that such is the case. Insisting that someone that had Roman Citizenship did not speak one of the most popular languages of Rome, makes little sense and such denial only makes sense from an ideological point of view.

    As for the Letters, I've read them after reading Seneca's "On the Tranquility of the Mind", said book included the Letters at the end, and perhaps because I read them after reading that kinda hard to read book (not your average novel), in contrast they do not even come across as rethorical exercises, but as formalities in greetings, some politeness and possibly we can be also refering to different documents/texts, because I still do not see the rethorical exercise, I see a relatively ordinary (polite) small talk.
    If you consider such letters as forged, "rethorical exercises" makes up for a poor explanation of the suposed forgery purpose.
    In fact, a forgery for such two big names going aproved by scholars by such timeframe raises more questions than it gives answers.

    Even if you theorically proved that all claims of correspondence between those two was actually wrong and that the Scholars of all those previous centuries were wrong, it still does not disprove that St. Paul and Senneca never ever met or never ever exchanged ideas.

    Either way today it is not politically convenient to Church neither to the Modernists to hold such a claim as true, should it become politically convenient likely the letters will be considered as true again for political purposes and if needed false again, and so on in a cyclical fashion;

    So only those invested in digging deeper without being too personally invested in political partisanism at a personal level can reach the end-game answer.
    Last edited by fkizz; July 13, 2019 at 08:16 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word Fascism is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  18. #118
    Edelward's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Foreign student of yoga in India
    Posts
    2,984

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    In Vedas the main question is What is an absolute truth . And they answer it is a Supreme Divine personality . The person solely responsible for the act of Creation .
    About Christianity . I keep to the thing said before God is unfathomable for human mind . But divine and human must meet . God makes forms to worship ,according to inner mood of soul or /and karma of the soul . By soul I don't mean human mind but the eternal part,which leaves body upon body physical death .
    Fitz Salnarville, Duke William's favourite knyghte,
    To noble Edelwarde his life dyd yielde;
    Withe hys tylte launce hee stroke with thilk a myghte,
    The Norman's bowels steemde upon the feeld.
    Old Salnarville beheld hys son lie ded, 235
    Against Erie Edelward his bowe-strynge drewe;
    But Harold at one blowe made tweine his head;
    He dy'd before the poignant arrowe flew.
    So was the hope of all the issue gone,
    And in one battle fell the sire and son
    .

  19. #119
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,024

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Perhaps at some point in the future there will be another reformation and your currently held beliefs may end up being denounced as un-christian long after your gone.
    Muizer,

    That's already happening and I'm still here as the Gospel is being diluted to make it more acceptible to the religious and unbelievers. We can see that anytime one clicks into youtube where entertaiment music and plenty of jokes take over from what is written. That's what Paul calls false Jesus's, false gods and false spirits so it is not really that unexpected.

    Sogdog,

    So, how is Genesis wrong? In six glorious days God made an up and running planet declaring the seventh day to be Holy. In the first chapter the concentration is on God whereas the second chapter puts emphasis on what He created. There's no contradictions there unless one just doesn't want to believe that He did it or is even capable of doing it. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are there from the very beginning.

  20. #120
    Sogdog's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Posts
    835

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Muizer,

    That's already happening and I'm still here as the Gospel is being diluted to make it more acceptible to the religious and unbelievers. We can see that anytime one clicks into youtube where entertaiment music and plenty of jokes take over from what is written. That's what Paul calls false Jesus's, false gods and false spirits so it is not really that unexpected.

    Sogdog,

    So, how is Genesis wrong? In six glorious days God made an up and running planet declaring the seventh day to be Holy. In the first chapter the concentration is on God whereas the second chapter puts emphasis on what He created. There's no contradictions there unless one just doesn't want to believe that He did it or is even capable of doing it. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are there from the very beginning.
    Genesis makes a claim. There is no proof backing it up. Science has shown, with proof, that this is wrong. If you are so desperate for your version to be right what makes other indigenous versions wrong? What's to say your's is the right one? It's not, science shows this. It's unsubstantiated piffle.
    FYI: if your god created the Sun on the the 4th day how the hell had four days passed? Hahahahaha
    FYI: every animal, plant your god created before the Sun would've died in the cold emptiness of space. Hahahahaha
    FYI: Adam and Eve never happened as our genetic diversity show easily. If your god did actually create those two then it would've being Adam and Steve. Clones. Hahahahahaha

    Genesis is so infantile, incorrect and just plain crazy. Again I chose the scientific version. Your religion is too small for my world.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •