pilgrim.1:

My concern, however, is WHY?

I just wonder why such authors would attempt to falsify and belie the precise quote and use that as a “scholarly” work, published by reputable publishers? I wonder why people like you would gleefully quote them and constantly make recourse to them without first having ascertained the sources to see if your authors were playing straight by the rules of scholarship? I wonder why we should take these guys seriously if they pass such misrepresentations publicly as if they were saying it as quoted from their sources?

May I make as suggestion as to 'why'.

Me, I think that it is because Huxley's thought process is so pathetically agenda driven. Not just Huxley but many of those that are not prepared to properly research and explore their subject. They are like that because for a totally unrational reason, an emotional reason, they need to arrive at a certain point. That certain point is not the Truth, in fact truth has nothing to do with it. The point is where the itch is. Once they've arrived at something that helps to scratch the itch, the itch being an emotional antagonism against christianity, the feel a sense of satisfaction and their searching stops at that point.

ps. @Pilgrim1 I really liked your last 3 posts. Although I feel that without being able to read or translate the original manuscripts for myself, I am just forced to accept the translations that I'm presented with. What are the actual latin words that can be translated either as :

mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments

or,

vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God.


Has anyone got the original latin?

Of course Christianity copied from other religions!!!

Take Pilgrim's argument that the OT is as relevant to Christianity as the NT.

In that case, how does one explain the story of Noah against the older Epic of Gilgamesh? How does one explain away the Enuma Elish?

Bastage:

Of course Christianity copied from other religions!!!

Take Pilgrim's argument that the OT is as relevant to Christianity as the NT.

In that case, how does one explain the story of Noah against the older Epic of Gilgamesh? How does one explain away the Enuma Elish?

You don't have to be disturbed about pilgrim.1, no really. If anyone has a complaint, they would have raised them; so far, it seems you're the only one shouting about what you are so disinclined to investigate for yourself.

huxley:

If these are Tertulians real words, how does it detract from the charge of "diabolical mimicry"?   Is Tertullian not say here that the devil has copied?

Dear huxley,

There are three issues involved in this kind of scholarship, and I cannot say it any better than Pastor AIO has aptly put it. Without reference to ‘hybris’, I think he leaves a reflection of the mistake you may have been making all along in your critic of issues when he addressed my question as to “why?”

However, if I may just add some comments to Pastor AIO’s summation of the whole matter in the said issues involved:

(a) It is one thing to quote an author, quite a different matter altogether to deliberately misquote that author in “scholarship”. What Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy did in their book is hardly scholarly, seeing that they deliberately misquoted Quintus Tertullian in order to arrive at their “itch” – and that virus has spread far and wide, even to such proportions that their publishers just took their word for it and never made any research to confirm the quotes. Incidentally (though unrelated), pardon me to mention that Richard Dawkins made that same mistake (‘deliberate’? I don’t know) in using such internet verbosity in his critic against Christianity – until he was challenged to produce the source of his quote, which he then reneged. If T. Freke and P. Gandy had presented us with the precise quote from Tertullian’s works, perhaps then we may have had the fortune of perusing the contexts that they sought to address in their critique against Christianity.

(b) Second, that critique is skewed in terms of the fact that what Timothy and Gandy arrived at is totally a different thing from what Tertullian actually discussed in his “De Praescriptione Haereticorum”. This morning, I received an email from a most unhappy reader who was so miffed at my repostes. He had argued hard and long (failing to quote Tertullian as well); but adviced that I ‘educate’ myself on the correlation between the words “vie” and “mimic”. My answer is to simply check the basic meanings of the words in question. At the end, Timothy and Gandy tried to use their misquotes of Tertullian to force the idea that Christianity is recycled and cloned “paganism”; whereas Tertullian’s apologetic was simply to the point that “the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law”.

(c) What then was Tertullian pointing to in his quip of the devil imitating “the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law”? In that same “De Praescriptione Haereticorum”, he already pointed out the elements of the “Numa Pompilius” paganism in alluding to the term “imitated”. Let’s quote Tertullian again in that section -

           Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius,
            and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services,
            too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious
            rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated
            the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law?

Please note carefully what Tertullian was saying about the term “imitated” – and the question is: what exactly did he state the pagans were imitating – “Christianity” or a “morosness of the Jewish law”? Look at the elements again:

     ●  priestly offices
     ●  badges and privileges
     ●  sacrificial services
     ●  instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves
     ●  the curious rites of expiations and vows

Quite often, in their vociferous criticism against Christianity, authors who misquote the Church fathers miss out the details and draw unjuctified inferences. Could you tell if those elements listed above were properly a depiction of Christianity? Do they not belong to the “imitation” by pagans of the “moroseness of the Jewish law?” A casual perusal of the OT will help settle the case for any unbiased reader.

(d) However, for those who desire to see a bit more about these matters, especially as appertaining to “Numa Pompilius”, there’s enough material about such matters that point out these rites which Tertullian refers to as ‘the superstitions of Numa Pompilius’. A quick reference:

[list]In Ancient Rome, the Vestal Virgins (sacerdos Vestalis), were the virgin holy female priests of Vesta, the goddess of the hearth. Their primary task was to maintain the sacred fire of Vesta. The Vestal duty brought great honor and afforded greater privileges to women who served in that role. They were the only female priests within the Roman religious system. Due to the nature of their work the term "vestal" is sometimes used to describe someone who maintains an archaic tradition.
>snip<
Plutarch attributes the founding of the Temple of Vesta to Numa Pompilius, who appointed at first two priestesses to which were added another two with Servius raising the total to six. Ambrose alludes to a seventh towards the end of the pagan era. The second century Roman antiquarian Aulus Gellius writes that the first vestal virgin taken from her parents was led away in hand by Numa Pompilius. Numa also appointed the Pontifex Maximus to preside over rites, prescribe rules for public ceremony, and watch over the Vestals. The first Vestals, according to Varro, were Gegania, Veneneia, Canuleia, and Tarpeia.

Source: Wikipedia on “Vestal Virgins”[/list]


Now huxley, my aim in bringing out all these matters is to remind you of what I said earlier – that I do not settle my thoughts or take my lessons from those who are given to misquoting their sources in order to draw unjustified inferences. This is what Timothy and Gandy have done, and you can see that even when we highlight the word “imitated”, Tertullian was not arguing what the authors of the TJM were forcing others to believe. There really is no need to entertain these authors who were hardly playing to the rules of scholarship.

Regards.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

ps. @Pilgrim1 I really liked your last 3 posts. Although I feel that without being able to read or translate the original manuscripts for myself, I am just forced to accept the translations that I'm presented with.

I understand your concerns - and no, you don't have to take that position of being forced to accept anything. Actually, when I first used these matters against Christians before my conversion, I was staggered to discover that I was perpetuating the misgivings of someone else without having checked the direct sources and quotes - a very humbling matter that taught me unforgettable lessons in life. Many people pander such misquotes and deliberately force unjustified inferences where they do not exist; and it is up to us as careful readers to check them out - especially because the publishers may not help us in these matters, since most often they just take these authors without conducting literary researches of confirmation.

Pastor AIO:

What are the actual latin words that can be translated either as :

mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments

or,

vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God.

Has anyone got the original latin?

As for the latin words so translated, I would not want to offer anything of my own for now - and I already responded to huxley's intimation about the question of "copy" and "imitate" to show what Tertullian was addressing in context of the "moroseness of the Jewish law" by Roman pagans.

However, there are indeed so many translations of the works of the Church fathers – and not all translations bear the same things. Infact, to be honest with you, some translations have used the words “imitate” for unjustified reasons where most scholars agree that it should rather be “vie”. But that is a different matter from someone trying to deliberately misquote Tertullian and pass such misquotes as “scholarly” – that would be quite shameful to the honour of academia.

First, let me point out a few of those translations (some of which I have not read myself, a few others I have), then I shall post you the latin text of Tertullian’s “De Præscriptione Haereticorum”.


Translations of Tertullian’s work:

1. Joseph Betty, Tertullian's Prescription against Heretics. Oxford, 1722.

2. T. Herbert Bindley, On the Testimony of the Soul and On the 'Prescription' of Heretics (SPCK). London-New York, 1914

3. Fr. Oehler, Q.S.F. Tertulliani opera omnia, Leipzig, 1851-1854, 3 vols. and also Leipzig, 1854  (Vol. I & II contain Tertullian’s works).


Latin text of Quintus Tertullian’s “De Præscriptione Haereticorum Haereticorum”, Chapter XL:

[list]Sed quaeritur, a quo intellectus interuertatur eorum
quae ad haereses faciant? A diabolo scilicet, cuius
sunt partes interuertendi ueritatem qui ipsas quoque res
sacramentorum diuinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur.
Tingit et ipse quosdam utique credentes et fideles suos;
expositionem delictorum de lauacro repromittit, et
si adhuc memini Mithrae, signat illic in frontibus milites
suos. Celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis
inducit et sub gladio redimit coronam. Quid,
quod et summum pontificem in unis nuptiis statuit?
Habet et uirgines, habet et continentes. Ceterum si
Numae Pompilii superstitiones reuoluamus, si sacerdotalia
officia et insignia et priuilegia, si sacrificantium ministeria
et instrumenta et uasa, <si> ipsorum sacrificiorum
ac piaculorum et uotorum curiositates consideremus, nonne
manifeste diabolus morositatem illam Iudaicae legis imitatus
est? Qui ergo ipsas res de quibus sacramenta
Christi administrantur, tam aemulanter adfectauit exprimere
in negotiis idololatriae, utique et idem et eodem ingenio
gestiit et potuit instrumenta quoque diuinarum rerum
et sanctorum christianorum, sensum de sensibus, uerba
de uerbis, parabolas de parabolis, profanae et aemulae
fidei attemperare. Et ideo neque a diabolo inmissa esse
spiritalia nequitiae, ex quibus etiam haereses ueniunt,
dubitare quis debet, neque ab idololatria distare haereses
come et auctoris et operis eiusdem sint, cuius et idololatria.
Deum aut fingunt alium aduersus creatorem aut si
unicum creatorem confitentur, aliter eum disserunt quam
in uero est. Itaque omne mendacium quod de Deo
dicunt, quoddammodo genus est idololatriae.[/list]


I hope you would find them helpful to your request.

Warm regards.

You don't have to be disturbed about pilgrim.1, no really. If anyone has a complaint, they would have raised them; so far, it seems you're the only one shouting about what you are so disinclined to investigate for yourself.

Please don't be so arrogant and do give your ego a rest. You don't disturb me. Well, no more than any other brain-washed drone who refuses to seek truth.
I'm merely pointing out that in the two examples I gave, the Bible copied from older sources.

No crackpot theory: it's totally and utterly mainstream. The vast majority of Biblical scholars, both Jewish and Christian also believe the same and the evidence is overwhelming.

I'm not disinclined to investigate the examples I've given. I've already investigated them thoroughly. Again you make assertions based on your own ignorance.

Bastage:

Please don't be so arrogant and do give your ego a rest. You don't disturb me. Well, no more than any other brain-washed drone who refuses to seek truth.

Why have you been so disinclined to seek that "truth"  by simply taking my request to open the texts of Marcion's canon and establish your case? If you are so disinclined to establish your musings, how does that worry anyone?

Bastage:

I'm merely pointing out that in the two examples I gave, the Bible copied from older sources.

Thank you for your worries - I'm helping huxley see the sad premise of skeptic "scholarship".

Bastage:

No crackpot theory: it's totally and utterly mainstream. The vast majority of Biblical scholars, both Jewish and Christian also believe the same and the evidence is overwhelming.

The "evidence" from deliberate misquotes, yes? Thank you - like I said, you may worry about this all day, but I don't settle my thoughts on hypocrisies from authors who belie simple quotes.

Bastage:

I'm not disinclined to investigate the examples I've given. I've already investigated them thoroughly. Again you make assertions based on your own ignorance.

Thank you - the assertions are what I have already pointed out. 

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

The connections between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah and between the Enuma Elish and the creation story are "misquotes"?

OK. That explanation has got me convinced that you're right and all those scholars are wrong.

LMAO. Even the most misguided fundamental Christian apologists very rarely go for the misquote angle. They much prefer the Diabolical Mimicry excuse. But that's just as easily blown out of the water.

Bastage:

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

The connections between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah and between the Enuma Elish and the creation story are "misquotes"?

OK. That explanation has got me convinced that you're right and all those scholars are wrong.

You're such a joke! What happened to your Marcion, Bastage? You often like to dash from one issue hysterically to something else, and I expected that hilarity up there, actually. I noticed how you snake between these lines and dash from one issue to another, and when called to answer to them, your quip is: "Why should I?" Relax, I've heard all these musings and dodging before, and recycled hilarity like yours do not amuse me.

Bastage:

LMAO. Even the most misguided fundamental Christian apologists very rarely go for the misquote angle. They much prefer the Diabolical Mimicry excuse. But that's just as easily blown out of the water.

Awww, I didn't catch that edited part. So, let me ask you the same question: could you show me where Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy quoted Tertullian precisely as that quote of theirs appear in the TJM?

Please, no hyperventilations, eh?  Thank you.

Even huxley would not come back with that "diabolical mimicry excuse" after I pointed out Timothy and Freke's deliberate misquote of Tertullian. If you have another source where you can help those unscholarly chaps, please don't panic - just quote the source directly and refer us to see for ourselves, thank you.

What happened to your Marcion, Bastage?

I got bored of repeating myself and arguing with somebody who either wasn't reading a thing that I wrote or just chose to tell lies about what they read.

But anyway, 

You often like to dash from one issue hysterically to something else

could you show me where Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy quoted Tertullian

You tell me to stick to the subject and then go off on a tangent of your own. Make your mind up - you can't have your cake and eat it.

So, deal with Huxley and then when you're ready, come back and explain to me how the connections between Gilgamesh, Noah, Enuma Elish and the creation story in Genesis are mere figments of my imagination (it's on topic as you've clearly floated over to "mimicry" so no lame accusations of pulling things off course, cheers.)

Ciao for now!!!

Hello Pilgrim,  How are you?

A propos, the quotations from Tertullian regarding "Diabolical Mimicry",  let us accept, arguendo, that the version from Freke and Gandy are incorrect and go with the version you have presented.

I will make no further reference to the Freke & Gandy version and stick with "yours".  Does your version that  refute the charge of mimicry or plagiarism?

Bastage:

I got bored of repeating myself and arguing with somebody who either wasn't reading a thing that I wrote or just chose to tell lies about what they read.

Which one is it - lying or your actual dodging of the simple questions I asked you to answer with your "Why should I?" If you don't want to discuss issues at all, what is this hypocrisy of asking others to do your own work for you?

Bastage:

But anyway,

You tell me to stick to the subject and then go off on a tangent of your own. Make your mind up - you can't have your cake and eat it.

I had initially intended to leave matters for your worries; it seemed you were determined to keep pushing your own tenuous assertions with a disinclination to actually open the text and establish your case for Marcion.

Bastage:

So, deal with Huxley and then when you're ready, come back and explain to me how Gilgamesh, Noah, Enuma Elish and the creation story in Genesis are mere figments of my imagination (it's on topic as you've clearly floated over to "mimicry" so no lame accusations of pulling things off course, cheers.)

Sad. So Bastage, all you could proffer to bail out the duplicity of Timothy and Gandy is this lame complaint? You really don't have an independent source to verify for yourself that those authors quoted the precise words of Tertullian rather than the misquotes published in their book?

Okay, I now understand how you complain reason; and you really don't need to keep mewling about what you have no answers to. Cheers all the same.

@huxley,

huxley:

Hello Pilgrim,  How are you?

I'm alright, thanks. And you? Once again, my thanks for granted me the opportunity to comment on the TJM, seeing that I was initially not wanting to push myself to react to your post in the other thread.

huxley:

A propos, the quotations from Tertullian regarding "Diabolical Mimicry",  let us accept, arguendo, that the version from Freke and Gandy are incorrect and go with the version you have presented.

Actually, there are several versions and translations of Tertullian's works that I have read both in Latin, English, French, German, Spanish and Italian.  I'm informed that there are many, many more translations and versions, and during my search for these quotes, several friends have sent me published works to verify for myself if Timothy and Gandy were actually stating the precise statement of Tertullian - up until now, I am still sending out appeals to see if anyone could locate a version from an independent source where those authors got their precise quotes verbatim, hard luck so far.

huxley:

I will make no further reference to the Freke & Gandy version and stick with "yours".

Thanks for the geniality. Actually, they are not "mine" - I was following the quotes from established sources, as already referenced.

huxley:

Does your version that  refute the charge of mimicry or plagiarism?

There are issues involved here that would warrant another long and unending discussion (another thread, perhaps?), but for simplicity and particular reference on mimicry and plagiarism, I have shown above what Tertullian was pointing to in the use of the term "imitated". It is not a question now as to whether or not he inferred about "vying, mimicry, copying, or plagiarism" - what is far more important are these few issues:

   (a) that Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy would have misquoted Tertullian

   (b) that such misquotes were applied to unjustified inferences

   (c) that such misquotes were taken out of contexts for other pointers

   (d) and up until now those misquotes have not been corrected by others cloning them

As to (c) above, I showed above the contexts of Tertullian arguments with regards to the devil's imitation of the moroseness of the Jewish law in reference to the “Numa Pompilius”.

All the same, whatever inferences one draws, my one simple question is this: could those applauding Timothy and Gandy please point us to the direct source where they got their quotes from?

Cheers.

So Bastage, all you could proffer to bail out the duplicity of Timothy and Gandy is this lame complaint?

Why is it a lame complaint? Personally I couldn't give a crap about Timothy or Gandy and I feel no need to either justify or condemn them as they're not even a part of any argument I'm interested in or involved in. It's like you keep harping on about Marcion - the contents of his version of Galatians were of no relevance whatsoever to my argument. "Oh but you should argue about the contents of Galatians, Bastage!!". Well duh. Not if they don't have anything to do with my proposition whatsoever.

Why do you want me to justify issues that are either totally irrelevant to my argument or which I don't even believe in??!!!

So like I said, deal with Huxley and then come back on the Gilgamesh subject if you can. Be warned though. I don't intend to debate with you as much as I did over the Marcion issue if you resort to the same tactics of smoke-screening, lying and making lame accusations.

Bastage:

Why is it a lame complaint? Personally I couldn't give a crap about Timothy or Gandy and I feel no need to either justify or condemn them as they're not even a part of any argument I'm interested in or involved in. It's like you keep harping on about Marcion - the contents of his version of Galatians were of no relevance whatsoever to my argument. "Oh but you should argue about the contents of Galatians, Bastage!!". Well duh. Not if they don't have anything to do with my proposition whatsoever.

Thank you, Bastage, for your complaints. I think to save you the last dregs of your sanity, please entertain your reluctance and disinclinations elsewhere.

If you had any real substance to your musings, one would not be reading these kinds of dodgy protests from you - new versions of "Why should I?" and "I feel no need to either justify or condemn them" are not demonstrating any serious concerns. If I were using such dodges, we know how you would gloat at that. When you are willing to drop these dodging acrobatics, I may pay you some more attention. For now, it may help to save your drama for some other thread.

Now gentlemen, rather than fill this thread with these diversionary arguments and not seeing anyone provide a direct and independent reference for Timothy and Gandy's misquotes of Tertullian, I would like to get on with the original purpose for this thread by sleekymag.

If anyone has a direct and independent source for the Tertullian quote in the TJM, then I would come back to pay some more attention in the relevant thread. If that simple request cannot be obliged, I would be left with no alternatives than to ignore henceforth any further distractions.

Do you have any independent sources to ascertain that Timothy and Gandy were not misquoting Quintus Tertullian? If so, I'll be glad to see it; if not, I would have to ignore all other complaints.

Thank you for your understanding.

*Takes deep breath*

Why should I?" and "I feel no need to either justify or condemn them" are not demonstrating any serious concerns. If I were using such dodges, we know how you would gloat at that.

Tell you what. Explain to me what relevance the contents of Galatians has to my argument. Explain to me why I need to justify it when I don't even believe Marcion's take on it (as I've repeatedly told you).

And I wouldn't gloat. You've already dodged, ducked and dived the issues repeatedly in this thread. I've been too busy shaking my head in amazement at how you think you're getting away with it to be bothered with gloating.

Bastage:

*Takes deep breath*

Tell you what. Explain to me what relevance the contents of Galatians has to my argument. Explain to me why I need to justify it when I don't even believe Marcion's take on it (as I've repeatedly told you).

Reminder:[list][list]

I wonder why you keep pushing that same logic and then coming back to complain about it. If you paid any close attention yourself, would this argument have dragged on to this time? You and I disagree with Marcion, QED - but no, you would not want to leave it at that and that is why you have been coming back again and again to that same point. My simple premise was for you to settle this issue for yourself by going to the text and defending Marcion's postulations from there, if you can't let the matter be. If you're disinclined thereto, what logic are you then seeking to advance for what you can't defend? How logical is it for you to ask others to do something you're so disinclined to do yourself?

[/list][/list]

Bastage:

And I wouldn't gloat. You've already dodged, ducked and dived the issues repeatedly in this thread.

Thanks. Thanks. .  thanks again. I don't see where huxley has been complaining the way you do; nor has he been disinclined to discuss anything - does it not make sense that he could offer rather to discuss and reconsider than come back accusing me the way you do?

Bastage:

I've been too busy shaking my head in amazement at how you think you're getting away with it to be bothered with gloating.

Thanks again. May I remind you:

pilgrim.1:

Do you have any independent sources to ascertain that Timothy and Gandy were not misquoting Quintus Tertullian? If so, I'll be glad to see it; if not, I would have to ignore all other complaints.

@sleekymag
Bible na novel by Stephen King.
It is also the title of a movie starring George C. Scott.

I wonder why you keep pushing that same logic and then coming back to complain about it. If you paid any close attention yourself, would this argument have dragged on to this time? You and I disagree with Marcion, QED - but no, you would not want to leave it at that and that is why you have been coming back again and again to that same point. My simple premise was for you to settle this issue for yourself by going to the text and defending Marcion's postulations from there, if you can't let the matter be. If you're disinclined thereto, what logic are you then seeking to advance for what you can't defend? How logical is it for you to ask others to do something you're so disinclined to do yourself?

What's that meant to be? It's certainly not a justification that my argument should rest on the contents of Galatians.
All it contains is the assertion that I should defend Marcion's Galatians yet again. It's simple repetition of the kind I've already addressed.

Where is the reasoning behind the idea that I should "go to the text and defend Marcion's postulation's from there"? I see absolutely zero of an explanation in that paragraph you've quoted.  

So I'll ask you again.

Why do I need to use the contents of Galatians in my argument? What relevance do they have to my argument?

Bastage:

What's that meant to be? It's certainly not a justification that my argument should rest on the contents of Galatians.
All it contains is the assertion that I should defend Marcion's Galatians yet again. It's simple repetition of the kind I've already addressed.

Where is the reasoning behind the idea that I should "go to the text and defend Marcion's postulation's from there"? I see absolutely zero of an explanation in that paragraph you've quoted.

So I'll ask you again.

Why do I need to use the contents of Galatians in my argument? What relevance do they have to my argument?

Thanks again. May I remind you:

pilgrim.1:

Do you have any independent sources to ascertain that Timothy and Gandy were not misquoting Quintus Tertullian? If so, I'll be glad to see it; if not, I would have to ignore all other complaints.

All you've done is quoted back my own post. You haven't answered the question. Why not?


And how many times do I have to tell you I'm not interested in Timothy and Gandy? That's between you and Huxley and has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. Why keep repeating it?

Bastage:

All you've done is quoted back my own post. You haven't answered the question. Why not?


And how many times do I have to tell you I'm not interested in Timothy and Gandy? That's between you and Huxley and has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. Why keep repeating it?

Thanks again. May I remind you:

pilgrim.1:

Do you have any independent sources to ascertain that Timothy and Gandy were not misquoting Quintus Tertullian? If so, I'll be glad to see it; if not, I would have to ignore all other complaints.

Heh!!! So you're out of excuses huh?

You know, you remind me a lot of a Yahoo boy. They start out by sending a beautiful format in their first email. It's well written, quite lucid and pretty convincing if you don't know anything about 419. But when you've had that format and start questioning them, they start back-pedalling and reason and logic go out of the window in all their following correspondence. Eventually when you tell them that you know it's a scam, they just repeat "No it's not. Send me the money" over and over again.

OK. I'll wait until you come up with another format.

Bastage:

Heh!!! So you're out of excuses huh?

You know, you remind me a lot of a Yahoo boy. They start out by sending a beautiful format in their first email. It's well written, quite lucid and pretty convincing if you don't know anything about 419. But when you've had that format and start questioning them, they start back-pedalling and reason and logic go out of the window in all their following correspondence. Eventually when you tell them that you know it's a scam, they just repeat "No it's not. Send me the money" over and over again.

OK. I'll wait until you come up with another format.

Thanks again. May I remind you:

pilgrim.1:

Do you have any independent sources to ascertain that Timothy and Gandy were not misquoting Quintus Tertullian? If so, I'll be glad to see it; if not, I would have to ignore all other complaints.

Bastage:

All you've done is quoted back my own post. You haven't answered the question. Why not?

Actually, Bastage, I don't like to treat anyone the auto-response way - those with whom I've discussed and debated issues know me too well for that. If I ask simple questions, and they refuse and constantly decline to oblige, a point comes when I post a terse auto-response notifying them that I would no longer pay them any attention. You have affirmed your unwillingness to engage in a dialogue on these matters, accused me of all sorts, asserted you were "done" with these matters, and yet returned with more slurs; . . and for all that, I would not harangue you thereto.

If you are not willing to discuss on the same premise that you point out the Marcion's case, I don't see where this is going or why I should bend backwards to try and please your ego. That is why you have been receiving the auto-response lately. If I find a willingness to dialogue, I would attend upon it just as I promised; if otherwise, I may have to keep the auto-response botton on for as long as that same situation persists, thanks.

Bastage:

And how many times do I have to tell you I'm not interested in Timothy and Gandy? That's between you and Huxley and has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. Why keep repeating it?

You commented on it and went so far as to say this:

   "LMAO. Even the most misguided fundamental Christian apologists
    very rarely go for the misquote angle. They much prefer the
    Diabolical Mimicry excuse. But that's just as easily blown out of
    the water."

As I do not "prefer" the "Diabolical Mimicry excuse" that others have been sadly led to believe from deliberate misquotes from Timothy and Gandy, I have also -

    ● extensively discussed this matter,

    ● laid out the pointers,

    ● provided the direct references for Tertullian,

    ● shown the misquotes from Timothy and Gandy,

    ● and challenged any who disagrees to proffer
        any independent sources for the misquotes

. . . and on all that, the only person making all the noise and complaints here is you, Bastage.

If you're so passionately disinclined to investigate matters for yourself, is it not a sorry case you make for yourself that you are neither here nor there, making all these noise about not believing this or that, and yet making these same disproportionate remarks to hoot for the same authors whose works you are too withdrawn to discuss? What kind of scholarship feeds this hubris that you have been spouting all this while?

If I ask simple questions, and they refuse and constantly decline to oblige, a point comes when I post a terse auto-response notifying them that I would no longer pay them any attention.

I'm not interested in "obliging" simply because it has no relevance whatsoever to my argument. I haven't propounded Diabolical Mimicry in any way at all other to say that you haven't used it in what little response you gave to my Giglamesh query. I don't know if you've noticed, but that actually doesn't put me on a different side of the fence.

Your problem is that you want people to argue on things that have no relevence to the subject in hand.
As you're the one who brought the subject of Marcion back to the fore, I merely asked you the simple questions.

Why do I need to use the contents of Galatians in my argument? What relevance do they have to my argument?

That's neither irrelevant or dodging the issue is it? I'm returning to the issue that you bought up and addressing the point that you made.

I've explained to you why Timothy and Gandy are of no interest to me, so you now have three choices. You can answer the questions regarding Marcion. Explain to me why Timothy and Gandy are of any relevance to any of my argument and why I should involve them in my argument or you can just repeat your so-called "terse" posts over and over again.

My argument was that there is documented evidence from the past about the charges of plagiarism levelled at early Christians by their critics (such as Celsus) at the 1st and 2nd century.

Was this a source of concern to Christians? You bet it was, to the extend that Christian apologist like Justyn Martyr, Tertullian, etc were compelled to try to counter these claims.

Forgetting about the presentation of Freke&GAndy and using the version of Tertullian your presented, can it be established that there were charges of plagiarism made against the Christian doctrine?

Freke&Gandy, by themselves are NOT the issue we are discussing with respect to diabolical mimicry. The issue are:


1) Was such a charge made?

2) Are the charges justified in the light of the pagan cult practices at the time?



Dwelling on the Freke&Gandy source is a distraction to the core of the debate.

Bastage:

I'm not interested in "obliging" simply because it has no relevance whatsoever to my argument. I haven't propounded Diabolical Mimicry in any way at all other to say that you haven't used it in what little response you gave to my Giglamesh query. I don't know if you've noticed, but that actually doesn't put me on a different side of the fence.

If you are not inclined to reasonably engage in dialogue, what then has been your problem with dashy and shady scuttles here and there? After spending how many pages, you left me with only one assumption - you never stay on one issue and must dash here and there. No worries, if that's what suits you best. But rather than leave things where you have arrived and not given any substance, you haggled on and on about Marcion until I asked that if you believed that Marcion had any substance to his postulations, please follow my invitation to go into his own canon and let's see for ourselves.

What did not surprise me was the way you immediately backed off, backed down and retorted with your disinclination to investigate that matter. If you felt my answers for your assertions about Marcion were incorrect, I invited you to his own canon - and if you were not going there, what then is the substance to your arguments afterall? Such disinclinations only establishes the fact that you really don't hold any reason in your arguments.

Others with whom I have discussed do not scuttle around issues like that and then come back noisily accusing fellow discussants the way you do. Most of them are interested to ascertain issues for themselves, we make simple challenges, ask questions, go into the texts, quote them in precise statements, evaluate the, before drawing any further inferences. Even when huxley and I have discussed issues and not agreed, I can't remember where he has demonstrated this scuttling dishy-dashy attitude. And after all said and done, you are now proposing the Gilgamesh fray - what gaurantee in previous discussions have you offered that you really attend to simple questions offered you? And if you cannot hold a sane discussion, it probably would have to be the same thing I recommend as you have: "why should I?"

Bastage:

Your problem is that you want people to argue on things that have no relevence to the subject in hand.

Oh, by the way, I was minding my business before you guys dribbled your way in here to cause problems for yourself. I already saw the threads where these reactions from such authors as Freke and Gandy were being posted, and I simply did not want to go there. But when the matter was brought over here, I knew that after all said and done, not one of the supporters of such authors would have any substance left to their arguments - because the authors actually had no substance in their books. I didn't bring these matters here - you guys did: and after discussing them, you don't surprise me with your reluctance to look directly into te texts and works of those whom you have brought in here.

Bastage:

As you're the one who brought the subject of Marcion back to the fore, I merely asked you the simple questions.

What? Are you playing a new worn-out gimmick here? Who brought in Marcion here in the first place that has forever been disinclined to look into Marcion's works? Just who? Bastage, why are you too given to this sort of allegations?

Bastage:

Why do I need to use the contents of Galatians in my argument? What relevance do they have to my argument?

I have given you the answer already: we both do not agree with Marcion from different perspective; but if you can't take that as an answer and must hoot all day about him, then please go to his own canon and show that Marcion was not wrong and should not have been barnded wrong as such from within his own canon. Does Marcion's canon even defend his postulations? My answer is no; your answer has not been as definite - and that was why I invited you to go to the text and defend them from there. If you are too reluctant to do so, why should anyone take you seriously with all this endless evasions?

Bastage:

That's neither irrelevant or dodging the issue is it? I'm returning to the issue that you bought up and addressing the point that you made.

Then please come let's go to the text - I want you to directly defend Marcion from there, no? Why is that an anathema to you, Bastage?

Bastage:

I've explained to you why Timothy and Gandy are of no interest to me, so you now have three choices. You can answer the questions regarding Marcion. Explain to me why Timothy and Gandy are of any relevance to any of my argument and why I should involve them in my argument or you can just repeat your so-called "terse" posts over and over again.

If Timothy and Gandy were of least interest to you, I wonder why you had to be so you would hoot about the Diabolic Mimicry excuse - I don't take that approach, others who take it know why they do so; and you could either let it pass or point out that my sources were wrong. I have answered all your musings as requested; and if you have nothing better than your distractions, you will continue to receive the auto-response.

@huxley,

huxley:

My argument was that there is documented evidence from the past about the charges of plagiarism levelled at early Christians by their critics (such as Celsus) at the 1st and 2nd century.

Was this a source of concern to Christians? You bet it was, to the extend that Christian apologist like Justyn Martyr, Tertullian, etc were compelled to try to counter these claims.

Forgetting about the presentation of Freke&GAndy and using the version of Tertullian your presented, can it be established that there were charges of plagiarism made against the Christian doctrine?

I have requested that this matter be taken to the appropriate thread. I am already aware of Celcus, and the very same thing has happened with the misquotes. I know when I raise issues like this, the slur begin until I show them. Since I did for Tertullian, you guys have not come back to show me any independent sources to show that Timothy and gandy were not misquoting Tertullian. I don't see why I should be trailing these matters on and on where you guys have not been able to oblige my single request. This is why I keep repeating myself ad hominem that perhaps I would have to ignore all other distractions henceforth UNTIL you guys provide me with the direct sources for those misquotes from those authors.

huxley:

Freke&Gandy, by themselves are NOT the issue we are discussing with respect to diabolical mimicry.

Excuse me, huxley? What sort of talk and excuse is that? Were YOU not the one who quoted those authors and left them standing for weeks about the same diabolical mimicry? Did Freke and Gandy change their minds on that recently? How come you are given to making such excuses? This is disappointing, really - and I suppose that I may not have to keep this party up any further. My apologies.

But these two more things:

huxley:

The issue are:


1) Was such a charge made?

2) Are the charges justified in the light of the pagan cult practices at the time?

The charges were made: they were not justified: your authors misquoted Tertullian and others: have you found me any independent sources confirming that your authors were not misquoting them?

huxley:

Dwelling on the Freke&Gandy source is a distraction to the core of the debate.

You quoted them, based your thinking on their postulations and misquotes, left them on for weeks, used them as distractions in your critique against Christianity; . . . and now you are telling me they are a "distraction"?

Okay-okay, gentlemen. I should have heeded the warning given by others - I was too heady to take their advice that after I showed the facts against those authors, those who proposed them would have no answers to the simple request I offered.

My warm thanks again - and thanks in advance for any slobbers. I can now leave this matter to rest open for others to see what such authors have done, and your comments about the same authors you once applauded.

Regards.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

I have requested that this matter be taken to the appropriate thread. I am already aware of Celcus, and the very same thing has happened with the misquotes. I know when I raise issues like this, the slur begin until I show them. Since I did for Tertullian, you guys have not come back to show me any independent sources to show that Timothy and gandy were not misquoting Tertullian. I don't see why I should be trailing these matters on and on where you guys have not been able to oblige my single request. This is why I keep repeating myself ad hominem that perhaps I would have to ignore all other distractions henceforth UNTIL you guys provide me with the direct sources for those misquotes from those authors.

Excuse me, huxley? What sort of talk and excuse is that? Were YOU not the one who quoted those authors and left them standing for weeks about the same diabolical mimicry? Did Freke and Gandy change their minds on that recently? How come you are given to making such excuses? This is disappointing, really - and I suppose that I may not have to keep this party up any further. My apologies.

But these two more things:

The charges were made: they were not justified: your authors misquoted Tertullian and others: have you found me any independent sources confirming that your authors were not misquoting them?

You quoted them, based your thinking on their postulations and misquotes, left them on for weeks, used them as distractions in your critique against Christianity; . . . and now you are telling me they are a "distraction"?

Okay-okay, gentlemen. I should have heeded the warning given by others - I was too heady to take their advice that after I showed the facts against those authors, those who proposed them would have no answers to the simple request I offered.

My warm thanks again - and thanks in advance for any slobbers. I can now leave this matter to rest open for others to see what such authors have done, and your comments about the same authors you once applauded.

Regards.

Thanks. I shall respond on the relevant thread.