Jun 25, 2012 -- 7:21PM, Kwinters wrote:

Jun 25, 2012 -- 6:41PM, tfvespasianus wrote:

Jun 25, 2012 -- 11:20AM, Kwinters wrote:

I think we would all agree that what the historical Jesus said about himself holds far more weight than what an unknown author post 2 CE wrote about him.

Personally, I don't take it as granted in my interpretation that the gospels unamibiguously represent the verbatim words of a historical Jesus. I know that some people belive that they do, but that is really more about belief. Similarly, the Revelation of John does represent an early christian belief about Jesus. In my opinion, a good portion of this is at least as old as the synoptic tradition, if not a bit older.

Nor did I ever.  I identified those passages which are plausibly traced, those that can be considered probable and those that can be discounted.

And I would like to see your evidence that Rev can be dated to early theology on par with Mark.

My apologies, I misunderstood you as the quote above seems to imply taking certain quotes from the gospels and attributing them to Jesus based on a hermenutic ala Jefferson and valuing those over writings which appear to many to be earlier records of ideas about Jesus.

In any case, Revelation is, like many documents in the NT corpus, a composite document. According to many critics, it is a redaction of earlier writings some of which have been theorized to be purely Jewish in origin. This makes sense for reasons several including the wide use of [non-christian] non-canonical and intra-testamental literature (e.g. Enoch). Additonally, 11:1-2 would appear to be an early strata of the document in that it says that the Temple will be spared from a Jerusalem that is trod under the foot of the heathen, implyng a pre-70 date for composition.

However, much of the case for 'early' origin is predicated upon assumptions which I think you are not that ammenable to. That is, if we assume an early date for the epistles (at least pre-Markan), then we can assume a similar early date for Revelation based on a similar (but not the same) concept of Jesus. It has been widely noted that historical and biographical detail of Jesus is missing from the epistles (I know there are exceptions and I am leaving them aside for the sake of brevity). In a similar vein, Rev. contains very little biographical information and, from a critical prespective, the author seems unaware of the same. For example, in 11:11-12 it is 'witnesses' or 'prophets' that are slain in Jerusalem the rise again from the dead in three (and a half) days without comment (i.e. it does not appear to be an allusion to the gospels, but perhaps is a re-worked reference to Hosea). Thus, if we accept that the authors of the epistles and Rev. make extensive, complex use of intra-testamental literature and the OT (as they both undoubtedly do), we next examine the writings of perhaps the oldest of Christian commentators, Clement. This is already both too long, yet not detailed enough to be of use, but it suffices to say that Clement too evinces very little knowledge of the 'gospel story'. It is not simply a matter of 'argument from silence' as is often argued, for it is the case that Clement makes no use of gospel examples when they would clearly be of excellent use in the context, but rather appeals to the OT. As we move on to Igantius and Polycarp (i.e. ascending chronology) we see that 'historical/biograhpical' (i.e. allusions to gospel material) increases uniformly (i.e. Ignatius has more than Clement, Polycarp more than both). So, in the views of some, it takes a peculiar form of apologetics to place the gospels in general (and the post-Markan sayings, nativity and post-Resurrection appearances in particular) as repesenting an earlier stratum of belief than Christ as a transcendental, exalted being.

TFV

Jun 26, 2012 -- 10:58AM, tfvespasianus wrote:

Yes, I do see that the Lamb and the enthroned Lord are separate, but I think the theology is complex. For example, and I know you are aware of this, The Lamb is by no means ordinary for it posseses seven Horns (a symbol of Power and royal dignity) and seven eyes (interpreted by some as signifying the omniscience of the Lord per Zech 4:10), seven being taken as something like a complete measure (perfection?). Of course, the interpretations of the implications of these symbolic elements has lead to many controversies thorughout the early church (and continuing till now as you, again, are well aware) and I for one am presently unwilling to stake a great deal on any single point-of-view. That is not to say I cannot be persuaded or that I think that all interpretations are equally valid.

You are obviously referring to this verse ...

Then I saw standing in the middle of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the middle of the elders, a Lamb that appeared to have been killed. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. (Rev 5:6)

... but I do not see how it would prove anything: of course the Lamb, Jesus, being "the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15) repeats most of God's features (see Rev 4:5).

MdS

Mario

You are insisting with your attribution to the Catholic Encyclopedia of some supposed claim that "the Trinity is irrational ie a nonsense".

Indeed I am.  

First, I don't mind the brains of the Vatican explaining something clearly and rationally.  But when they tell us that while it's not clear and it's not rational, it's okay by them so we just better suck it up, I very reasonably reply, Phooey!

Second, with that in mind, what important difference do you find between the following?

it's termed a 'mystery'
because human reason can't derive it
so it can only be known through revelation
and reason can make no cogent demonstration of it after it's revealed.

it's termed a 'nonsense'
because human reason can't derive it
so it can only be known through revelation
and reason can make no cogent demonstration of it after it's revealed.

?

Blü

Jun 27, 2012 -- 9:50AM, Blü wrote:

Jun 25, 2012 -- 10:17AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Jun 25, 2012 -- 9:46AM, Blü wrote:

... the Catholic Encyclopedia confirms [see OP], that the Trinity is irrational ie a nonsense.

You are insisting with your attribution to the Catholic Encyclopedia of some supposed claim that "the Trinity is irrational ie a nonsense".

While I have always affirmed that the "trinity" is a late, un-scriptural, heathen-philosophical "retrofit", I have already put straight your abusive claim with MdS' post #620 ...

... and I'm not aware that you've ever replied directly to it: in particular you've never taken issue with my debunking of your abusive claim ...

Indeed I am [insisting].  

First, I don't mind the brains of the Vatican explaining something clearly and rationally.  But when they tell us that while it's not clear and it's not rational, it's okay by them so we just better suck it up, I very reasonably reply, Phooey!

Second, with that in mind, what important difference do you find between the following?

it's termed a 'mystery'
because human reason can't derive it
so it can only be known through revelation
and reason can make no cogent demonstration of it after it's revealed.

it's termed a 'nonsense'
because human reason can't derive it
so it can only be known through revelation
and reason can make no cogent demonstration of it after it's revealed.

First, if you "don't mind the brains of the Vatican explaining something clearly and rationally", then you should stop citing them as though they had said what you attribute to them.

Second, what they said, even if you obviously do not get it (or pretend not to get it ...), is that the office of Reason is NOT to derive all reality from "first principles", BUT to exclude what is contrary to Reason. This they have done with the following sentence ...

As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do. (...) -- Catholic Encyclopedia > The Blessed Trinity > The Trinity as a mystery [bolding by MdS]

... from the very article on whose authority you abusively lean.

MdS

Blü

I see that you have eventually stopped citing the Catholic Encyclopedia as though it affirmed what you attribute to them, on the meaning of the notion of "mystery".

As for your claim that "all 'mysteries' are invented by humans" you are perfectly entitled to ... claiming this ... but it would be a tad far-fetched to insist that it is self evident, nu?

MdS