Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Options
Replies
-
Here is Liddell and Scott:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ya/rion0 -
Piece Two Continued
Also, I am sitting here with My Against Heresies open to page 395 (Ante-Nicene Fathers) where Irenaeus is giving a list of things related to the number 5:
"Sotor" ("Savior" Greek) contains five letters; Pater ("Father" Latin) too contains 5 letters; Agape ("love" Greek) too consists of five letters; and after blessing the five loaves, fed with them 5,000 men."
Clearly he did not say with 5 loaves and some fish he fed 5,000 men. And again on page 391, "... fed all that multitude with five loaves of bread and twelve baskets of fragments remained over and above."
Irenaeus was quite specific about how the multitude was fed. He was specific about how much was left over. No mention of fish whatsoever.
Now very clearly, Irenaeus read whatever Gospels were available to him. Let's assume all of them were. He wrote about 175 -180 AD. Why no fish? Perhaps all the Gospels available at that time had not yet been modified to include fish.
Yes, he’s making a point about the number “five,” as part of his interpretation of the meaning of that number. “Two” fish didn’t fit in with his point and therefore he left it out. On the other hand, perhaps some ancient Nazarenes or Gnostic Ebionites got ahold of Irenaeus’ text and took out his references to the fish?
0 -
Piece 4
Me
For a scholarly analysis of this issue, see Eisler, "The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist.
MacPatti
Concerning John the Baptist, the context in the Gospels makes the association with Elijah and his eating habits.
Me
From the Slavonic Josephus - Antiquities
8. And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then. 9. And to this he made answer and spake: "I am pure; [for] the Spirit of God hath led me on, and [I live on] cane and roots and tree-food.2 10. But when they threatened to put him to torture if he would not cease from those words and deeds, he nevertheless said: "It is meet for you [rather] to cease from your heinous works and cleave unto the Lord your God."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm0 -
You know I didn't know either of these were on line. I have older versions, and I suggest if you are really that interested, go to a LIBRARY and look this up. The versions I have date from before the INTERNET existed.0 -
Liddel and Scott, although a lexicon that includes all classical Greek literature in its range of usages of terms, identifies “fish” as the first definition of the word and cites John’s Gospel as an example. No support there for “relish,” especially when you consider that the Synoptic narratives of the same event use the indisputable word for fish, “ichthus.”Here is Liddell and Scott
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ya/rion0 -
PIece 6
Me
Head among equals? Surely you are not suggesting that at the time of the Council of Nicea (325 AD) the Bishop of Rome had any special status? If memory serves, he wasn't even at the Council, his assistant was. Surely a conference on faith and morals and true doctrine could not take place without the Vicar of Christ on Earth present?
MacPatti
Take a look at the summary of the data from the early Church found at http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/the-role-of-the-bishop-of-rome-in-the-communion-of-the-church-in-the-first-millennium/
I think the evidence is quite different from your representation of it.
Me
From On Line Britannica :
Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.0 -
Liddel and Scott, although a lexicon that includes all classical Greek literature in its range of usages of terms, identifies “fish” as the first definition of the word and cites John’s Gospel as an example. No support there for “relish,” especially when you consider that the Synoptic narratives of the same event use the indisputable word for fish, “ichthus.”Here is Liddell and Scott
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ya/rion
Do you have an actual hard copy? How old?
Did you look up Strong's as I suggested (the real one not on line.)0 -
Liddel and Scott, although a lexicon that includes all classical Greek literature in its range of usages of terms, identifies “fish” as the first definition of the word and cites John’s Gospel as an example. No support there for “relish,” especially when you consider that the Synoptic narratives of the same event use the indisputable word for fish, “ichthus.”Here is Liddell and Scott
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ya/rion
Do you have an actual hard copy? How old?
Did you look up Strong's as I suggested (the real one not on line.)
What is the difference between the online and text version? I see that it describes relish as something served with bread (specifically fish.).0 -
The Slavonic version of Josephus is well-known to have significant differences (both additions and subtractions) from the standard Greek versions. The general consensus, as far as I can tell, is that these variations are best explained by the conclusion that the Slavonic version is a medieval production. I certainly see no reason to take it as an earlier version that was later corrupted; the opposite appears to be the case.0
-
Yes, and the data there fits my position quite well.Did you look up Strong's as I suggested (the real one not on line.)0 -
Piece 7
QUOTE:
Please understand, it is not my purpose to argue against Catholic dogma, tradition or version of history. That is just too easy. What I want to discuss is what Christ really said and did.
Since I accept the Catholic version of dogma, tradition and history I don’t think the task of arguing against it is nearly as easy as you do.
No, of course not. You also believe that Louis Caroll explains the difference between Mithaism and Christianity.0 -
I found a bunny I think I'd actually eat.
0 -
I found a bunny I think I'd actually eat.
There you go, Kimmy!0 -
Piece 8
Me
Again,I regard this as a side issue. In Acts when Paul has a disagreement with, I think Peter, (I am lying on the couch and don't want to get up to find the exact passage - but I will if you insist) who do they go to to resolve the problem - James, Jesus' brother. And why wouldn't Jesus' brother take over the family business?
MacPatti
Your facts are wrong on the Peter/Paul/James issue. Because Peter was a missionary and traveling about, James had the role of leader in the Jerusalem Church. Paul did confront Peter for his inconsistency. This has no bearing on the issue of papal authority. Popes have frequently been guilty of inconsistency, hypocrisy or whatever. What the Church teaches about the office the pope is not undermined by those facts.
Me
It has plenty of bearing. If the head of the Church had been Peter, they would not have come to James to resolve the issue.
Also, if you read Romans where Paul greets every leader of the Church in Rome, the name of Peter is conspicuously absent. This is not an accident. Paul had no reason to greet a person who was not in Rome and NEVER WAS.0 -
Piece 9
Me
Simply not true. Irenaeus for example predated some Gospels. Again, I am too lazy to get up right now and give you the correct dates. But I am pretty sure I am right.
MacPatti
Irenaeus did not predate any of the biblical Gospels. It is recognized by nearly all nowadays that all the canonical Gospels were written before the end of the first century and Ireaneus is well into the second century. He certainly predated some of the Gnostic Gospels but that is a different story.
Me
Already covered this by explaining that there were multiple authors to each of the Gospels and no one has ANY idea when the last editing took place. Irenaeus very likely referred to the Gospels that were available to him when he wrote, and those Gospels largely support my version.0 -
Piece 8 (?)
Me
For the established Church, i.e. the Church as it existed after 325 AD, people who did not accept Canonical Christianity as defined by the Council of Nicea were considered heretics and were, if they were lucky, exiled, and if they were not lucky, killed. The sects that believed in vegetarianism were heretics. This persisted through most of the history of the Catholic Church, and the last time there was a Papal Crusade against a vegetarian sect was the Albegensian Crusade of the 13th Century. The Albegensians were a Gnostic religion that practiced vegetarianism. To find out if you were secretly an Albegensian, the Priest or his Soldiers would ask you to eat meat. If you refused, you would be killed. The preferred way of killing Albegensians was to pour molten lead down their throats. Over a million Albegensians were murdered, and this is how St Dominic won his sainthood. One of his generals was famously quoted when people took refuge in a Catholic Church and the soldiers did not know whether or not they were heretics, as saying, " Kill them all. God will know his own."
MadPatti
All that is needed to refute much of your version of history is to pay careful attention to Irenaeus. He wrote his long work, “Against Heresies,” in the late second century. It is a detailed response to the countless versions of Gnosticism that had arisen and a defense of the public, orthodox faith of the Catholic Church. He specifically contrasts the esoteric, unhistorical brands of Gnosticism with the consistent, public faith of the Church. This writing was a well over a hundred years before Nicea. The writing you seem to trust disproves your whole theory that the post-Nicene Church was something radically different from what existed before the fourth century.
If you read carefully what I said, it has absolutely nothing to do with your response. Are you getting tired?
I will give you another chance. Is there anything above in my paragraph that you disagree with. Are you again dancing around something you don't want to confront, such as the fact that a Pope ordered the death of over a million people, and made a butcher named Dominic a Saint because he was good at slaughter? That Dear MacPatti is the Catholic Church you love so much.0 -
I referred to C. S. Lewis, not Louis Carroll. I have no knowledge of Louis Carroll’s reflections on Mithraism.No, of course not. You also believe that Louis Caroll explains the difference between Mithaism and Christianity.0 -
The Slavonic version of Josephus is well-known to have significant differences (both additions and subtractions) from the standard Greek versions. The general consensus, as far as I can tell, is that these variations are best explained by the conclusion that the Slavonic version is a medieval production. I certainly see no reason to take it as an earlier version that was later corrupted; the opposite appears to be the case.
The standard Josephus also has many disputed sections, such as Josephus' references to Jesus as a "man, if he be a man.."
The Slovonic version may well have had sections that were deleted in the Western Version, especially sections that relate to vegetarianism, as this one does.0 -
Let’s start with this. Please provide documentation on your claim that a “million Albigensians were murdered.” I’m interested in the primary source material for this claim.
0 -
I referred to C. S. Lewis, not Louis Carroll. I have no knowledge of Louis Carroll’s reflections on Mithraism.No, of course not. You also believe that Louis Caroll explains the difference between Mithaism and Christianity.
C.S. Lewis in any case fails to explain the difference convincingly, nor do you. Mystical Jungian shared subconscious is the last gasp for someone who has no credible explanation. This is a major point and your explanation is incredibly week. Be intellectually honest and admit you cannot explain it.0
