Churc fathers

[david]

Hello!

I would like to ask you, do you mybe know how reliable are the writeings of early churc fathers, especyally Origen. Peoples are saying, that Origen and others are not reliable in the part, but some verses were added later.

God bless

David

[rtaylor]

Origen. One of the early church fathers. He was born in that great cradle and nursery of superstition, Eygpt, in the year 184 or 185. Before converting to Christianity he was thought to have been a Pagan studying 'The Profane Arts', under the celebrated philosopher Ammonius Saccus who, in the second century had preached that there was no essential difference between Paganism and Christianity. He was also a eunuch. Perhaps he took Matt 19.12 literally. The Jewish Law which strictly forbad making any cuttings in the flesh, and forbad anyone from even entering the Temple who had done such a thing. Becoming a eunuch for religeous reasons was an ancient Eygptian practice. There are many similarities between the Pagans of Eygpt beliefs and Christianity. Fortunately this practice was not compusory.
Origen was one of the first to try to organise some sort of unity in the belief in the Cult of Jesus. At his time there where many and various manuscripts available concerning Jesus.
Some where quite obviously simply fables or fairy tales. No truth in them whatsoever. The bible as we know it today was not actually compiled in its present form until about 600 AD. The compilers had to decide what was fact and what was false.
Origen was a Catholic. Catholic Christianity borrowed much from ancient Eygpt. The Protestants of today try very hard to distance themselves from the ancient pagan beliefs but cannot quite seem to get away from them. If you look close enough you can see the cracks.
Can you rely on any of the early church fathers? I would'nt. In the search for Truth keep an open mind. Examine all possibilities. Do'nt be fooled by 'faith'. Origen had 'faith'. In Paganism.
before the 'time' of Jesus there where religeous beliefs very similar to what was to become Christianity. Pagans believed that God Almighty had sent his Son down to earth in the form of a man. He had some form of Divine Conception. He lived a human life educating and explaining how man should live his life. The Son of God lived and walked among men. Eventually he is cruelly killed while still young and later goes up to heaven to sit at the right hand side of God, his Father. They also believed in a Holy Trinity. God, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. Of course the believer in all of this had to believe that all this happened a long time ago. Long before they where born. It had to be taken on 'Faith'. Believers have always got to have faith in something that happened so long ago its impossibe to verify fact from fiction.

[merkavah12]

Would it be possible for you to share the sources from whence that information came?

[himself]

He received it by special revelation. To the post-modern "whatever" generation, what happened last year is "so long ago its impossibe to verify fact from fiction."

+ + +

It is impossible to make any sort of statement about "the reliability" of any body of diverse texts. One must always ask "reliability of whom about specifically what?" For example, Dawkins is generally reliable about matters of genetics and evolution but wildly unreliable about matters of philosophy. Sagan wrote reliably about planetary astronomy but made hysterical blunders in matters of history.

[perplexedseeker]

May 19, 2010 22:18:30 GMT himself said:

For example, Dawkins is generally reliable about matters of genetics and evolution

Not wanting to derail the thread or anything, but a fair few philosophers of science and systems biologists would beg to differ on that one.

[david]

Dear rtaylor!
Thanks for your comment, but I am very informed with ancient Egypt myths and also other myths. I'm very informed what scholars are saying about paganism, which are not Christian. So, faith doesn't try to make me fool, biu you do. I hope that you will have more luck, with your LIES in someone else. And got the books of Origen, so all yor claims are false. Stop believing Acharya and Zeitgeist. Read a scholary books and oyu will see the trurh. I don't become a Christian, but you won?t believe Zeitgeist crap eather.

God bless

David

[rtaylor]

I'm not sure what Zeitgeist is or means. Sounds German. But as for faith I see it as being no different to superstition. They are both one thing, neither having any basis in fact. Just believe. The superstitious fear that something will go wrong if they do not perform certain practices and the faithful have a similar mindset or way of thinking. one mans superstition is another mans faith.

Peace. God is Love.

[eastshore4]

Your interpretation of faith reads like a Mark Twain polemic: "ahh shucks Huck, faith is believing what you know ain't true!"

Every worldview (except maybe apathy) requires faith... there's no issue with faith, the key is to have a rational or justified faith. So far you haven't shown us why religion is irrational or unjustified, firing off blanket statements doesn't suffice. I would be curious as to how you reconcile your Jesus Mythicism with your repulsion towards "faith", since, in my opinion, believing that the consensus of nearly all biblical scholars and piles of evidence are wrong seems to take on a whole lot of faith.

[jamierobertson]

Just in case some open-minded individuals are reading...

May 25, 2010 15:10:53 GMT rtaylor said:

I'm not sure what Zeitgeist is or means.

I believe he's referring to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_Movie, a documentary film that claims (amongst other things) that Jesus didn't exist and his life was essentially a compilation of pre-existing myths.

But as for faith I see it as being no different to superstition. They are both one thing, neither having any basis in fact.

Sometimes it is. Often it's not. According to the Bible, it shouldn't be - see www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html. And there are plenty of folk on these boards who very deliberately don't live their lives the way you are describing.

EDIT - curses, Eastshore, ya beat me to it

[acornuser]

That (Jesus Myth) is not all that Zeitgeist claims. It's really just an appetizer in the film to draw you in (because it's so obviously true ?!), which is about how the federal gummint set up 9/11 and about how there is a small and mysterious cabal of bankers running the world.

[Deleted]

May 25, 2010 15:10:53 GMT rtaylor said:

God is Love.

Finally, I thing about which we all agree here.

[rtaylor]

When I say 'God is Love'. I am not refering to the Jewish God. When that God spoke to the Isrealites he told them that he was a Jealous God. Logic tells me that there is no jealousy in love and there is no love in jealousy. There is only tyranny.
How can a God of love punish for non-belief? it does not make sense to me. Love abides, stays forever, immutable, unchanging thru-out eternity. At its simplest, non-belief is just an error. A mistake. man should not be punished for making a mistake. There are so many different faiths out there that most of the human race is in error. There are about 800 different branches of Christianity in the USA. 800 different faiths, all of them in error. If the Catholic Church got back to its position of power that it once held all of these different faiths would be eliminated. Put down.
Saint Augustine himself said,
' Did not Eligah slay with his own hand the prophets of Baal? Did not Hezakiah destroy by force by force idolatry within their domains and where they not expressly commended for their piety?
It was merciful, he contended, to punish heretics, even by death, if this could save them or others from the eternal suffering that awaited the unconverted.
This attitude was one of the main reasons for the Spanish Inquistion, which actually lasted for about 400 years. The number of people horribly tortured and burned to death during this period, in the name of Jesus, is not known.
The Levitical Code was the first code of religeous persecution known to mankind. See Deut.
The early Christians had adopted the intolerence of the Jews.

[merkavah12]

*sigh*

More unsubstantiated nonsense? More inane ranting and raving?