Ask a Theologian

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't hear about that. I'm amazed that someone as eminent as Chalmers should be trying to edit Wikipedia pages, which can only be a good thing for Wikipedia, at least. Why on earth wasn't he allowed to do so?

What happened was that there was some discussion going on in the discussion page, and someone cited Chalmers twice as a way to back up their bogus arguments. Chalmers comes, and says:

Chalmers said:
"since you’ve invoked my name twice (here and on the history page) in support of your claims, I thought I should register my judgment here. I appreciate all that you and others have done to build up this entry. But your discussion in the article and above shows fairly basic misunderstandings of supervenience (the Derrida quote has no bearing on supervenience), direct realism (it’s not true that direct realists see the explanatory gap in terms of access consciousness), functionalism (it’s not true that “experience of” is a functionalist or eliminativist locution), and so on. "

To that he was told that wiki was not a place for him to wave his "pompous hand of authority" :lol:

Plotinus said:
Everyone links to it in arguments here. Worse, I've had undergraduate students citing it in their essays!

You think undergrads using it is bad? That's just the beginning! A recent study by law professor Paul Caron found that 545 articles of legal scholarship cite wikipedia!!! And it has also been cited in over 100 US judicial opinions, with 13 of those being at the circuit courts of appeals level (one level below the federal supreme court).

And just so I'm not derailing the coversation: what's your favorite sub-topic within theology?
 
Plotinus:
I'm doing a research essay on Just War Theory for a writing class that I'm taking this semester. As I understand it, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas were both very important in formulating the idea of just warfare. (Although I believe the basic idea predated them.) Since you seem to know a lot about Christian theologians, I was wondering: Do you know where their ideas were laid out? What they said, and where? Even just what the title of the books that have their opinions on Just War theory, as right now I'm not sure which ones they are. (And unsurprisingly, the idea of paging through a stack of philosophy and theology books knee-high isn't a very exciting one, even for someone who finds this stuff interesting.) If you don't remember, then that's OK, I'll try and find the information elsewhere.
 
:hatsoff: Plotinus. While I've been lost in NESing, your magnificent thread appears and goes over 300 posts. Well, I'm only half way through reading it and have been enthralled all the way. I even have some favorite posts. Kudos to you! :)
 
Well, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic, and it ought to be translated directly into English, not via Latin, so there's only one step of translation, not three as you suggest. It does make a difference which version you read because, although you are right to say that no translation is perfect, some are certainly more imperfect than others. I already pointed out that whatever version Quasar was quoting from before was wildly inaccurate. I think that most of the time it's possible to get a fairly comprehensible translation, even if it's not precise.

Plotinus said:
Also, I don't know what translation of the Bible you are using, but it is inaccurate. The Mark quotation should not be "I am... and..."; it should be "So you say... but...".
I used the NIV, but checked the King James version, as well as the Living Bible. All 3 version have "I am". I then checked the 1909 Reina-Valera Spanish language Bible, and it has "Yo soy" in Mark 14:62, which translates as "I am." I then checked the original Greek, and it has "ego eimi" in that passage- which again translates as "I am". None of them are even close to "so you say". And since your chosen version changes the meaning of the passage, your bias is showing. :p What, 5 versions of that verse in 3 languages spanning 2,000 years are wrong, and you are right?
 
What do you think of the Gospel of the Nazerenes? Or The Gospel of the Twelve? Do you think it's a fake, or that it should indeed be ignored?

In other words this book.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/ght_table_of_contents.htm

I don't really know much about it, but it looks pretty unlikely to me. Tibet?? There is no way the canonical Gospels are based on Aramaic originals.

Plotinus:
Thought I might ask a question or two (after a short descriptor);

I guess you'd call me a budding theologian according to the other definition of the word you provided, beginning my Master of Theology this year. I completed undergraduate degrees in Arts(History) and Theology(Honours - Biblical studies) last year, and am for my Masters focusing on practical theology as I explore modern paradigm shifts in faith and religious understanding from 'more conservative' to 'more progressive' viewpoints.

So my first question is 'Any recommended reading?' :D Seriously, I only took a few church history subjects, and while I've got plenty of contemporary authors lined up to plow through ahead, I was wondering if there's any particularly convincing ancient/medieval folk whose 'pre-modern' concepts of faith might offer an alternative faith model to modernism (in other words, Christians who were happy to sit and rest with ambiguities in their faith, not needing 'all the answers', whose theology/concept of God was committed to evolving, adapting and changing, rather than stagnating.)? In particular, I'm interested in their ideas surrounding faith and the nature of God, rather than their understanding of religious practice or ecclessiology. Feel free to say 'no' - but the name of an individual or sect or two would be handy nonetheless.

Well, I think Origen is always worth reading (even in that outdated translation). He had many interesting things to say about the nature of God and faith. You might also like Gregory of Nyssa. I think that from what you'd say you'd be most interested in Orthodox theologians, so the big man to read there is Gregory Palamas.

Secondly, not sure if it has been asked, but do you believe in a god/gods/God/Gods/Goddesses or other form of deity yourself? What has/has not influenced your viewpoints?

I don't believe in anything like that, although I'm not completely closed to the idea (mostly because of my girlfriend's influence...). I don't think there's any good reason to believe in a deity and I think there are pretty good reasons not to. He'd be horrified to hear it, but reading Leibniz has really confirmed this for me: I think he is right to argue that God would create the best of all possible worlds. Since Leibniz thought that God's existence could be proven on other grounds, he concluded that this really is the best of all possible worlds. Since I think this is obviously not the best of all possible worlds, I conclude that the original hypothesis was false.

Thirdly, as subcategories within theology, would you define yourself as more of theological historian (as opposed to, say, a systematic theologian) or something else?

Definitely a theological historian. I'm the same in philosophy - my PhD is on historical philosophy, not that nasty modern analytic stuff.

Finally, just a note that on reading back through this thread, I think you've done a fine job of representing theology as a discipline... Thanks ;)

Thank you!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173531&page=19&highlight=Religion

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol2/Primate.html

I think it shows were the roots of the golden rule lie though, before it was codified it was probably understood anyway.

You're making some pretty big leaps there. It's one thing to behave well to others; it's another to do to others as you would have them do to you. The former is simply a pattern of behaviour, the latter is a principle to follow. Moreover, performing an action because it benefits yourself is not the same thing as doing it because you think it's the "right" thing to do. You may well be right to see these experiments as showing the "roots" of the "Golden Rule", but I don't there's any justification for saying that they show "understanding" of it.

To that he was told that wiki was not a place for him to wave his "pompous hand of authority" :lol:

That's astonishing!

You think undergrads using it is bad? That's just the beginning! A recent study by law professor Paul Caron found that 545 articles of legal scholarship cite wikipedia!!! And it has also been cited in over 100 US judicial opinions, with 13 of those being at the circuit courts of appeals level (one level below the federal supreme court).

That's terrifying!

And just so I'm not derailing the coversation: what's your favorite sub-topic within theology?

I suppose the history of doctrine, which is pretty vague, I know, but there you go. I like patristics in particular.

Plotinus:
I'm doing a research essay on Just War Theory for a writing class that I'm taking this semester. As I understand it, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas were both very important in formulating the idea of just warfare. (Although I believe the basic idea predated them.) Since you seem to know a lot about Christian theologians, I was wondering: Do you know where their ideas were laid out? What they said, and where? Even just what the title of the books that have their opinions on Just War theory, as right now I'm not sure which ones they are. (And unsurprisingly, the idea of paging through a stack of philosophy and theology books knee-high isn't a very exciting one, even for someone who finds this stuff interesting.) If you don't remember, then that's OK, I'll try and find the information elsewhere.

I don't know where Augustine formulated his theories of war, but I suppose that The City of God would be the place to look, since it's got most of his important ideas in there and focuses on politics in particular. As for Aquinas, it looks like ST IIii 40 is the place to look.

:hatsoff: Plotinus. While I've been lost in NESing, your magnificent thread appears and goes over 300 posts. Well, I'm only half way through reading it and have been enthralled all the way. I even have some favorite posts. Kudos to you! :)

Thanks!

I used the NIV, but checked the King James version, as well as the Living Bible. All 3 version have "I am". I then checked the 1909 Reina-Valera Spanish language Bible, and it has "Yo soy" in Mark 14:62, which translates as "I am." I then checked the original Greek, and it has "ego eimi" in that passage- which again translates as "I am". None of them are even close to "so you say". And since your chosen version changes the meaning of the passage, your bias is showing. :p What, 5 versions of that verse in 3 languages spanning 2,000 years are wrong, and you are right?

I must apologise here: yes, you are right. I was actually thinking of the parallel verse in Matthew. In Mark, Jesus says he is the Messiah, and in Matthew, he denies it. The reason I made the mistake is that you would think it would be the other way around: you would expect Matthew to alter Mark's text in such a way as to make Jesus say the sort of thing a Christian would want him to say, rather than to make it more problematic. This is what happens when you cite texts from memory instead of checking!

Ironically, though, my point does still stand (sort of), because the NIV does mistranslate the Matthew verse: it renders it "Yes, it is as you say," while the RSV is closer to the Greek with "You have said so." The Greek is actually "Su eipas," (literally, "you say") making it hard to see where the NIV translators found a "yes".
 
Well, I think Origen is always worth reading (even in that outdated translation). He had many interesting things to say about the nature of God and faith. You might also like Gregory of Nyssa. I think that from what you'd say you'd be most interested in Orthodox theologians, so the big man to read there is Gregory Palamas.

Cheers for that. Time to get back to the classics, by the looks of things!

I'm certainly not closed to those who deviate a little from Orthodoxy though... I'm really curoius, actually, in what I've heard about Pelagius. Where's a good place to go with him?
 
I don't really know much about it, but it looks pretty unlikely to me. Tibet?? There is no way the canonical Gospels are based on Aramaic originals.

It does pre-date the Gospels by years though, and in fact is the same story? Do you not think that it has as much right to be taken seriously as any other book, since it confirms the four gospels so precisiely? Not only that it is not subject to the eliders like all the other gospels were, by both the early church and the Nicene council.

The text has been dated to circa 70 AD +/- 30 years error on radio carbon dating.

The only significant differences between it and the Gospels are

a) Jesus was a vegetarian
b) Jesus spoke out against the over consumption of wine

We know they elided b) from the Bible to appease Constantine. So again another consistency. And a) wouldn't have gone down too well either.

It's perhaps interesting that a Catholic priest was the first to publish it as he thought he couldn't not in all good conscience, he asked a higher member of his order about his beliefs and they said they saw no reason they were in conflict, but there certainly was a bit after he published it.

If nothing else it's an interesting story.

I take it as more than apocryphal though IMHO, as it's pretty consistent.
 
I don't know where Augustine formulated his theories of war, but I suppose that The City of God would be the place to look, since it's got most of his important ideas in there and focuses on politics in particular. As for Aquinas, it looks like ST IIii 40 is the place to look.
Thanks!

I must apologise here: yes, you are right. I was actually thinking of the parallel verse in Matthew. In Mark, Jesus says he is the Messiah, and in Matthew, he denies it. The reason I made the mistake is that you would think it would be the other way around: you would expect Matthew to alter Mark's text in such a way as to make Jesus say the sort of thing a Christian would want him to say, rather than to make it more problematic. This is what happens when you cite texts from memory instead of checking!

Ironically, though, my point does still stand (sort of), because the NIV does mistranslate the Matthew verse: it renders it "Yes, it is as you say," while the RSV is closer to the Greek with "You have said so." The Greek is actually "Su eipas," (literally, "you say") making it hard to see where the NIV translators found a "yes".
Wait, how do you go from "So you say" to "no"?
 
It does pre-date the Gospels by years though, and in fact is the same story? Do you not think that it has as much right to be taken seriously as any other book, since it confirms the four gospels so precisiely?

No, I don't. The only sites I can find to discuss this text critically are here and here, and it certainly looks like the thing is a complete fraud, to be honest. I was a bit confused when I commented on it in my last reply: I thought it was the same thing as the Gospel of the Nazoreans, which is genuinely ancient, though fragmentary. It looks like Ouseley's text is supposed to be the "complete text" of that Gospel. In fact it looks like either he wrote it himself or, more probably, he received it from dubious mystics (including Emmanuel Swedenborg, which ought to tell you everything you need to know about this whole business!) who had "channelled" it. That is, they believed themselves to be writing under divine inspiration, and simply composed it themselves. I don't find the slightest evidence that this text is ancient, let alone predates any other Gospels.

Note that the text is accompanied by other texts so obviously spurious that it seems impossible that anyone could have taken them seriously, such as a letter by Pontius Pilate to the emperor talking about how wonderful Jesus was!

Even if this text were genuinely ancient, it wouldn't "confirm" anything in the canonical Gospels, because it would clearly have been copied from them. As I said before, the canonical Gospels were written in Greek and were not based on Aramaic "originals".

Not only that it is not subject to the eliders like all the other gospels were, by both the early church and the Nicene council.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the eliders". I notice that, in one of the prefaces to the text on the site you link to, the editors repeat those old lies about the Council of Nicaea altering the text of the Gospels or deciding which ones to put in. That in itself is enough to prove that there is no scholarly value whatsoever to that edition, since anyone with the slightest knowledge of the period will know that there is not the slightest evidence to back up such a claim. So at the risk of repeating myself yet again, let me point out that the Council of Nicaea had nothing whatsoever to do with determining which books would be in the Bible. Why do people persist in claiming that it did? The canons of Nicaea are readily available online, so those who claim this obviously don't bother to do even minimal research to back it up. In fact, here is the complete text of the canons of Nicaea, so you can see for yourself that this council issued no decrees about the New Testament whatsoever:

The Council of Nicaea said:
Canon I.

If any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated himself, it behoves that such an one, if [already] enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who wilfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men the Canon admits to the clergy.
Canon II.

Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the spiritual layer, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, "Not a novice; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil." But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod.

Canon III.

The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.

Canon IV.

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

Canon V.

Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.

Canon VI.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Canon VII.

Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.

Canon VIII.

Concerning those who call themselves Cathari [that is, the Novatians], if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the city.

Canon IX.

If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them, notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that [only] which is blameless.

Canon X.

If any who have lapsed have been ordained through the ignorance, or even with the previous knowledge of the ordainers, this shall not prejudice the canon of the Church for when they are discovered they shall be deposed.

Canon XI.

Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.

Canon XII.

As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time.

Canon XIII.

Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him.

Canon XIV.

Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great Synod has decreed that, after they have passed three years only as hearers, they shall pray with the catechumens.

Canon XV.

On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.

Canon XVI.

Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shah dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void.

Canon XVII.

Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, "He hath not given his money upon usury," and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum [as monthly interest], the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre's sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.

Canon XVIII.

IT has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate.

Canon XIX.

Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.

Canon XX.

Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

The text has been dated to circa 70 AD +/- 30 years error on radio carbon dating.

I can't find any reference to this claim. In fact it seems there is no manuscript of this gospel which even claims to be ancient, since it is a "channelled" work.

The only significant differences between it and the Gospels are

a) Jesus was a vegetarian
b) Jesus spoke out against the over consumption of wine

We know they elided b) from the Bible to appease Constantine. So again another consistency. And a) wouldn't have gone down too well either.

We don't know anything of the kind. Once again, the canonical Gospels were effectively chosen by almost all mainstream churches at least a century before Constantine was even born. If you can find any real evidence for your claims here I'll be very interested to hear it...

It's perhaps interesting that a Catholic priest was the first to publish it as he thought he couldn't not in all good conscience, he asked a higher member of his order about his beliefs and they said they saw no reason they were in conflict, but there certainly was a bit after he published it.

If nothing else it's an interesting story.

In fact Ouseley had left the Catholic Church, because of his devotion to vegetarianism, a couple of decades before publishing this gospel. Even in the absence of any other evidence either way, we ought to be wary of someone who leaves the church because of very strongly held personal views and then some years later produces some amazing "ancient" text that confirms those views...

I agree that it's an interesting story, though. And certainly one typical of its times. It often seems to me that the late nineteenth century was a time of almost non-stop fraud and gullibility; this was the time of Theosophy, ectoplasm, and photographs of fairies.

I take it as more than apocryphal though IMHO, as it's pretty consistent.

Consistency is no evidence of truth, especially when you've got already-existing texts to base yours on. Anyone can copy the Gospels and add their own touches if they want to.

Wait, how do you go from "So you say" to "no"?

Because of the next word, "plen", "yet". In Greek, this formulation means something like "but on the contrary...". Jesus is saying something like "That's what you say, but on the contrary, I say this:". Note that the "su" in "su eipas" is there purely for emphasis: in Greek you don't need to include the word for "you" because the verb is inflected. That is, "you say" would normally be "eipas". To say "su eipas" is to emphasise "you" - in other words, that's what you think!
 
Here's a fun one: What can you tell me about the following quote from St Augustine's City of God:

"[men who] have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at will, so as to produce the effect of singing" (The City of God Against the Pagans, ed and trans Philip Levine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), XIV.24)

Do you know anything about the context of this passage? Why the crap would augustine put something in about farting? Were these real people? Are there any early chrisitan fart-hyms? Any info you could provide would be much appreciated. :D

PS: I think that you could really stand-out among your colleagues if you could re-learn this lost art of fart-singing, Plotinus! Just imagine going to a conference and before presenting your paper, busting out a fart version of some old hymn!
 
Oh, yes, that's a famous passage! It's from City of God XIV 24. Augustine is arguing that, before the Fall, Adam had much greater command of his body than we do today. In particular, Augustine thinks that Adam could control his naughty parts perfectly; they were subject to his will. In other words, no embarrassing failures to stand to attention when required. Augustine supports this view by pointing out that even today, some people retain remarkable control over their bodies, more so than others; so it is not so implausible to claim that Adam had similar abilities, though to an even greater degree.

The point of the argument, of course, is that lust, as we know it, is not an original part of human nature but an effect of sin. Adam did not feel lust, but he didn't need it, because of his perfect physical self-control. Thus, lust is something bad, an effect of the Fall and a sign of original sin.
 
Not at all: follow the link and read what Augustine says in chapter 23. He thinks that, in fact, Adam and Eve did not have sex, but they would have been going to. It just would have occurred without lust.

The traditional Christian belief - and certainly the assumption of pretty much all the church fathers - has been that Adam and Eve did not sleep together until after the Fall (as is implied in the Genesis account). Augustine is actually arguing against those who concluded from this that sex is intrinsically evil. His point is that, in itself, it is perfectly good and part of God's plan, but it has been messed up by original sin, and now involves lust, which is indeed wicked. So we're in a terrible mess as a result.
 
Reading that only made me more confused as to what in the world he's trying to say. The way he attempts to separate certain emotions as 'unreasonable' is beyond me.

Like this sentence:

For when the soul conquers itself to a due subordination, so that its unreasonable motions are controlled by reason, while it again is subject to God, this is a conquest virtuous and praiseworthy. Yet there is less shame when the soul is resisted by its own vicious parts than when its will and order are resisted by the body, which is distinct from and inferior to it, and dependent on it for life itself.

How are people going to enjoy making love if they're not allowed to enjoy making love? That's what it seems to me that he's really saying in chapter 23.

It reminds me of certain christian puritans (or that school of thought I guess) who think of procreation as a necessary evil that one has to 'get over with' in order to create children, but by golly we sure shouldn't enjoy it! It's more like a chore to them, apparently.
 
I think Augustine would distinguish between lower, somatic "pleasures" and higher, intellectual or spiritual pleasures. To order the soul properly, so that the rational part controls the irrational, and the rational itself is ordered by God, is the secret to true happiness. This is standard Neoplatonic stuff. I think that Augustine would disagree with the puritans you mention; he would say that sex should be enjoyed, but in the right way, as it were. The problem is that our current state is such that it is virtually impossible for us to do that.

I'll admit, though, that Augustine isn't well served by that stodgy nineteenth-century translation. The Ante-Nicene and Nicene Library is an amazingly useful resource, but the attempts by the translators to make the Fathers all sound like Victorian Anglican bishops make it less than readable these days.
 
I think Augustine would distinguish between lower, somatic "pleasures" and higher, intellectual or spiritual pleasures. To order the soul properly, so that the rational part controls the irrational, and the rational itself is ordered by God, is the secret to true happiness.

So in his view, what exactly distinguishes the spiritual pleasures related to sex compared to other mutual spiritual pleasures in a romantic relationship? I still haven't found out what he specifically thinks is acceptable to feel and what is sinful in that context. Is sexual arousal considered a sin? What specific words describe the virtuous pleasures in a sexual context?

Also, what orders the soul? How does one order one's soul? I've never heard of that before.
 
He'd be horrified to hear it, but reading Leibniz has really confirmed this for me: I think he is right to argue that God would create the best of all possible worlds.
Surely this idea is older than Leibniz? It was one of the arguments that sunk the God debate for me.
 
Plotinus, at what point (date) do you think Martin Luther "knew" that he could not stay within the Catholic church and still be true to his revelation?
 
Because of the next word, "plen", "yet". In Greek, this formulation means something like "but on the contrary...". Jesus is saying something like "That's what you say, but on the contrary, I say this:". Note that the "su" in "su eipas" is there purely for emphasis: in Greek you don't need to include the word for "you" because the verb is inflected. That is, "you say" would normally be "eipas". To say "su eipas" is to emphasise "you" - in other words, that's what you think!
Which verse is this? I'd like to look it up in the Greek, myself.

Not at all: follow the link and read what Augustine says in chapter 23. He thinks that, in fact, Adam and Eve did not have sex, but they would have been going to. It just would have occurred without lust.

The traditional Christian belief - and certainly the assumption of pretty much all the church fathers - has been that Adam and Eve did not sleep together until after the Fall (as is implied in the Genesis account). Augustine is actually arguing against those who concluded from this that sex is intrinsically evil. His point is that, in itself, it is perfectly good and part of God's plan, but it has been messed up by original sin, and now involves lust, which is indeed wicked. So we're in a terrible mess as a result.
So you can sleep with your wife, so long as you don't enjoy it? :lol: Why did the idea that Adam and Eve didn't sleep together before the Fall take root? Just because it isn't mentioned until after the Fall doesn't mean it didn't happen. Is that the only reason, or am I missing something obscure in the Hebrew?
 
What is your opinion in the New Testiment Apocryphas?
Examples are:
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Phillip
Gospel of Judas
and other Gnostic Gospels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom