₦airaland Forum

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
If a volition can have a Will then A Will can have a volition too, abi. I don't know. I thought volition meant will.

That was why I kept asking the same question several times.

Pastor AIO:
So how a volition has a will I don't know, but I suspect that Nwankwo is using the word in a different sense.

Granted - the problem is that where he uses it in a different sense, that same sense is still too abstract to have any substance as yet. That is why we have more questions than answers after several times asking him to elucidate and clarify how he relates them to demons.

Pastor AIO:
I suspect that what he is saying is akin to elementals and thoughtforms that you find in some (not so) occult theories, like the Theosophists. Check this out for instance.

Well, I did not think so - and he has just said so himself above.

However, I was aware of the "elementals"; and even so, I tried to see if that was the sense in which he could have been using that term "volition"; but no - that does not seem to be the case. I might as well have had to ask how he reconciles "volition" with "elementals" if he had so used it, though.

Yet, just to show you that I was aware of these issues from other religions and perspectives, there is an akin idea of the volition in Buddhism known as "cetaná". The cetaná is simply the "volition", or 'will', and is one of the seven mental factors (cetasika). These mental factors are inseparably bound up with all consciousness, some of which are sensorial or mental impression (phassa), feeling (vedaná), perception (saññá), volition (cetaná), concentration (samádhi), vitality (jívita), and advertence (manasikára).

As for the cetasika, they are those mental concomitants which are bound up with the simultaneously arising consciousness (citta = viññána) and conditioned by its presence . Whereas in the suttas all phenomena of existence are summed up under the aspect of 5 groups:

     --  corporeality,
     --  feeling,
     --  perception,
     --  mental formations,
     --  consciousness.

It is said that there are 50 mental formations, and altogether 52 mental concomitants. 25 of these are treated as lofty qualities (either karmically wholesome or neutral), 14 karmically unwholesome, while 13 are as such karmically neutral, their karmical quality depending on whether they are associated with wholesome, unwholesome or neutral consciousness.

One could follow these ideas on and on in connection with all the other terms; but the point is that these "elementals" are very different from what is known as a "demon".

Pastor AIO:
Another Idea that comes pretty close is Richard Dawkins' concept of the Meme.
A meme (pronounced /miːm/)[1] consists of any idea or behavior that can pass from one person to another by learning or imitation. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, gestures, practices, fashions, habits, songs, and dances. Memes propagate themselves and can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Dawkins' meme is not even close. If a meme is like a virus, who has observed this meme apart from its abstract assertions? What correlation does it have with demons?

Cheers.

@m_nwankwo,

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3013076#msg3013076 date=1225304795]Ok

I have defined as clearly as possible what i meant by voilition. The problem seems that you do not accept my definition and the context I use the word "volition".[/quote]Far from it. I could either choose to follow your definition in context; or otherwise question it where it has been inconsistent with the whole body of your argument. It is that second aspect (inconsistency) that brings me asking questions - which up until now I have not found answers to.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3013076#msg3013076 date=1225304795]You have already quoted the meaning of the word "volition" and that is correct in the normal sense. I didnot use voiltion in the normal english language sense and that is why I defined what I meant. Your argument to my definition is that an expression of free will cannot have a  will of its own. I then countered that by saying that a will can create a will that have a will. I used the example of God and his creation, the spirit. Is there anything unclear in that example? If the word voiltion is the problem, replace it with spiritual expressions or exersise of the free will by the spirit or spiritual decisions by the spirit. Stay blessed.[/quote]Not only is it unclear, but also if one were to replace and keep replacing words for terms, the same inconsistency appears every single time. I'm still wondering how you would have assumed that the example you used could fit into your assumptions; whereas if we question even that, we are still left with no answers. Is God a "will" that creates other "wills" which in turn have their own "wills"? We all know these are mere theorizing and still leave huge gaps inbetween.

Even in your riposte, you still have not pointed out a source to clarify this definition of yours. Not that we don't know that a few other worldviews use such expressions (as pastor AIO has obliged); but even when we read these theories, they are just theories that still lack substance - and I could refer to so many instances in those examples and several others besides those.

If one were to define demons as "spirits", such a person has to clarify why they use such definitions - that is what I have done; and if further clarifications are desired for why that is so, I could oblige. If, on the other hand, someone says they are not spirits but rather "volitions", one should not be ambiguous where their ideas are indefensible - such as the example of God and "will".

Demons are described as spirit beings expressing their own wills/volitions - they are not "volitions"  expressing "volitions". Where you have anything to show how "volitions" have "volitions", we would be glad to consider them.

Cheers.

@m_nwankwo,

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3012905#msg3012905 date=1225302009]I never defined demons as spirit beings.[/quote]I actually did; and not in one instance did I say that you gave that definition.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3012905#msg3012905 date=1225302009]I have given you a definition of what I know demons to be. And my definition have been consistent. I also think that I am as simple as possible. I am aware of the definition of voilition in the normal sense but the purpose of me giving it a definition is for you to understand what I mean by using the word. There is nothing incoherent in the statement that a spiritual expression can have a personality and will. Spirit for instance is a creation of God. God has a will and his creation (spirit) also have a will. However the will of God is not the will of man that God created. In a similar way, the spirit has a will and the demon that the spirit "created" also have a will but the free will of man is different from the will of the demon. Thus a will can give rise to an entity with a will.

Yes spiritual voilition have personality. I have stated that before. Read again my brief description of an envy demon and a demon believed by mystics to be "Jesus". Not only personality, demons can kill, "heal", make prophecies, curse illnes etc. Witches and wizards are demons and they do have a personality. Stay blessed.[/quote]The problem here is that you have been using terms which you have yet failed to define or clarify. I asked you pointedly:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=181454.msg3012678#msg3012678 date=1225298978]● A volition is simply a choice one exercises.

Please go check the meaning of a volition - you will see that there's no way
anyone could uphold that idea. It is merely an idea; and so far there doesn't
seem to be any coherent defence of that term as applicable to "demons".[/quote]I did not see where you returned to have checked the meaning of "volition". You only assert this term, keep emphasizing it and yet fail to do the simple thing of verifying your claim. It would be nice if you could calm down and check the meaning of that word "volition" before you try to apply it to "demon". Do you care to do so, please?

@m_nwankwo,

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3012382#msg3012382 date=1225296028]Thanks for asking mean to define the terms I used. I think it is helpful. Voilitions as I already defined are not spirits or what you call "spirit beings" but rather expressions of the spirit or "spirit beings". They are not creations of God but the "creations" of men.[/quote]Just for the sake of simplicity, and having read through yours, we should just keep to the meaning of demons defined as spirit beings. There just is no way anyone is going to redefine them to be "volitions", however one may use that term. This is because, even when you tried to explain volition, it contradicts the basic meaning of beings that have their own will - and by going round this term, one is basically wondering that you're defining the same terms and confusing them at the same time.

         ●  A volition is simply a choice one exercises.

            Please go check the meaning of a volition - you will see that there's no way
            anyone could uphold that idea. It is merely an idea; and so far there doesn't
            seem to be any coherent defence of that term as applicable to "demons".

         ●  A demon has its own volition and will.

            To say that a demon is the result of another person's expression of free will
            is to project the idea that this freewill also has a will of their own. Hence,
            it is incoherent to say that a "will" also has its own "will" - for a volition is not
            a will and not a spirit or being.

These two issues are clear; and like I said, even when you check the references available for any understanding of the term "demons", you will not find any such which defines it the way you have been doing. Not only so, even when you define it as a "volition", it is not clear that you have been consistent. Care to make things as simple yet?

Look again at this assertion:

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3012382#msg3012382 date=1225296028]There is no contradiction. I have never hinted that demons or evil voilitions are spirit beings. I said that demons have a personality, a form and a will of their own.[/quote]Wait. If "demons" have already been defined as "volitions", my question has been this:[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=181454.msg3011993#msg3011993 date=1225292196]Does a "volition" have a personality?[/quote][/list]

If you're telling me that a demon is a "volition", does a volition have a "personality"? How do you defend the idea that a "volition" has a personality?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3011865#msg3011865 date=1225290786]Voilition is an expression of the free will by the spirit, and in this context, it is the expression of the free will by the human spirit.[/quote]I think that is where you have mixed up these matters. Since I did not want to misread you, it was pertinent to seek your definition in plain and simple terms. Here's why I think you've got it all wrong:

1. a volition (defined by you as "an expression of the free will" is not the same thing as a spirit being. The moment one confuses these terms, they enter into very vague ideas.

2. while a volition tends to be a human expression (such as a choice), a spirit being has its own personality and is different from a "volition".

3. volitions are qualities expressed by human beings; whereas, spirit beings are the creation of God.

4. every major reference to demons point to spirit beings, not in any instance would anyone be able to defend the idea that they are "volitions" - not in one instance, regardless what religious perspective they hold.

That said, if one holds the idea that a demon is a "volition", then you have contradicted yourself in your input - because while speaking of an "expression of free will", you also hinted that demons are spirit beings actually, which is quite a different matter altogether from what you posited earlier:

(a) [list][quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3011721#msg3011721 date=1225289312]I am certain that demons are the evil voilitions of men.[/quote][/list]

In other words, if demons are "evil volitions", do these "evil volitions" (ie., evil choices/decisions) have their own personalities and wills? Does a "volition" have a personality? That's what you seem to be saying in (b) below:

(b) [list][quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3011721#msg3011721 date=1225289312]Demons have form, personality and a will of their own.[/quote][/list]

Now, it even more than gets interesting, because you again came back to confirm what I defined earlier, that demons are spirits:

(c) [list][quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3011721#msg3011721 date=1225289312]Sure, demons, spirits, or whatever entity will bow  to the authority and lordship of Jesus Christ.
>snip<
Those who are not given this ability by God and they dabble into these things because they believe that they have the power of God will only end up been possed by the very spirit they are trying to cast out and in many instances become  mad or suffer serious damage both to their physical bodies and their souls. The ability to cast out allien spirits, heal the sick, cure the demon afflicted is a special gift of God.[/quote][/list]

In other words, the idea that demons are "volitions" seem to have been overshadowed by the fact that they are rather "spirits". It is just going to be difficult defending that assumption of equating them as "volitions" - such an assumption does not fit into the definition of demons as spirits.

Cheers.

@m_nwankwo,

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3011721#msg3011721 date=1225289312]I only answered Pastor AIO question on what is a demon. You can agree or disagree with what I defined demon to be. I am certain that demons are the evil voilitions of men. Why? Because I have personally seen demons, and several other entities in their various shapes and forms, demon affliction, spiritual possesion etc. Demons have form, personality and a will of their own. Ofcourse my statement of personal knowledge of these things may be regarded as just claims by some. However, I am certain that anyone who have been permitted to see into the worlds of demons, spiritual possesion, and similar things can easily recognise my descriptions.

Sure, demons, spirits, or whatever entity will bow to the authority and lordship of Jesus Christ. However it is not every person that is gifted with the ability to heal or cast out evil spirits with the power of Jesus Christ. Only a very select few have this ability and that marks such individuals as called ones. Those who are not given this ability by God and they dabble into these things because they believe that they have the power of God will only end up been possed by the very spirit they are trying to cast out and in many instances become mad or suffer serious damage both to their physical bodies and their souls. The ability to cast out allien spirits, heal the sick, cure the demon afflicted is a special gift of God.[/quote]What exactly do you mean by "volition", please?

Perhaps it may have been continued in the relevant thread, as far as it tessellates with the same theme.

Anyhow, there are many things that people assert today which have no basis in reality in your faith as a Christian. One who is born again does not live his or her life based on the mere assertions of some "MOG". My simple test is this: if you know for certain that you are born again and anyone is saying such stuff to you, just ask them if they have the power to effect that "deliverance". Soem may say yes, and then try to subject you to some form of spirito-performance. Before they proceed, ask them what exactly is the possession that they speak of. If they give you excuses without showing the "power" of deliverance that they recommend, don't let it bother you - just be sure you have real fellowship with Christ Himself, and with Christians who know God's Word in reality.

Cheers.

tumfulu:
what a question? All the so called christians on NairaLand, what spirit is controlling and possessing them if not the tons of demons out in this world?

Would it not be unfair to make such bland statements? What spirit is behind such allegations?

[quote author=tonye-t link=topic=189222.msg3011104#msg3011104 date=1225281873]mine is LOVE,[/quote]Well, what else could U want anyone esle to say? Lol.

Perhaps if you could keep it open such as people could suggest other favourite words, maybe it would then help to invite more contributions. What do you think?

Let's try this one: Life.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=181454.msg3001694#msg3001694 date=1225122510]I guess the first question is what is a demon and what is possesion. Demons are forms produced by evil voiltions of men. That is, demons came into existence when a human spirit uses his free will to generate evil.[/quote]If the topic is about the possibility of a Christian being demon-possessed, that is something else you are projecting there. Demons are not "forms" produced by men's volitions - however good or evil such volitions may be. Demons are diabolical spirit beings with their own wills and personalities. Biblically,

        ●   they are diabolical spirits [Matt. 8:16]

        ●   they exercise the will to plead [Matt. 8:31]

        ●   they are diabolical spirits under the authority of the Devil
            [Beelzebub - Matt. 12:24]

        ●   the devil himself and his agents are real spirit beings
            [Matt. 25:41]

        ●   they respond to the authority of the Lordship of Jesus Christ
            [Matt. 17:18]

Demon-possession is best understood when people try not to confuse the nature and real existence of demons.

kanayo74:
The people preaching about tithe do they pay their tithes too.

Would they have been shy to say that they do so if they were not doing so?

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
I assume you are unable to continue growing this thread I can understand why. You see this topic is just too deep and if you get immersed in it as i once did, it could permanently change one's world views and perceptions of reality. I had wanted to start a similar thread months back but i just didn't know how to start it because people would just assume one is nuts. Any way what is your take on the bibleufo and ooparts sites i refered you too?

@KunleOshob,

Lol, how are you doing today? Actually, I admit to being slow. . infact, very slow indeed. . . to growing this thread. I should wake up soon on that. Some of the reasons you outlined are indeed true - for those who may dabble into these orphic phenomena without a very strong foundation may soon find their worldviews quaggy (whatever such a worldview is). Reality? Yes. But perceptions? The answers are varied.

However, what may be said is that no one honest enough to look into those occurences would pass them off as hoaxes - to do so would be d[/b]ishonest with a deliberate 'D'. Like I have often said and still maintain presently:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=178839.msg2963206#msg2963206 date=1224377332]Again, during the course of trying to grow this thread, I was being careful to not alarm readers with all sorts of excitements. That is why I constantly left disclaimers that pilgrim.1 had no answers - [b]we see and observe these "orphic" phenomena and would not be vacant of thought as to make hasty conclusions, even when some of them are unquestionably attested as real.[/quote]Most of the ones gleaned, I have tried to make every effort to go to independent sources to investigate them. Results? One cannot deny them out of hand. There are far too many real occurences for anyone to foolishly dismiss them. Some of those pointers are the stuff I'm trying to put in concise and digestible forms instead of filling the pages with very long posts to bore readers. Where they could not be helped, I shall summarise them and post the links.

Cheers.

It would actually be simplistic for someone to recommend that you relocate - which was the temptation that came to my mind. Doing so in Lagos today is asking for more trouble than you could manage. Where is one going to turn that this is not pandemic?

The manner in which religious institutions conduct their services these days is quite a worrisome trend. This is the kind of thing that many people experience that sadly make them become disaffected.

huxley:
LOL. I have got some experience of her and your characteristion of her is exactly spot-on.

I already sent my thanks for the slobbers, gentlemen. Thank you again.

@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.

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.

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?

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:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=187467.msg3000209#msg3000209 date=1225107116]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.[/quote]

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:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=187467.msg3000209#msg3000209 date=1225107116]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.[/quote]

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:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=187467.msg3000209#msg3000209 date=1225107116]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.[/quote]

hubreality:
Think about it. You must forbid this wicked act of lies in this forum. Do you know that there's a possibility for those people to die before Yaradua. It's pure evil and should not be encouraged!

It may help to simply share truth to counter "this wicked act of lies in this forum" than to fall into the temptation to entertain uncouth retorts.

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:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=187467.msg3000209#msg3000209 date=1225107116]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.[/quote]

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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:
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. 

One day at a time. Cramming the worries of several days all at once will wear you out.

@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.

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.