 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
They have to take off the veil first.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
That's because they are close to us. We give them the savoir vivre, like we've done with you.
Feta is patented under Greek proprietery rights now. They can only make it illegaly. Best you try their kebab and great green tea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Yep, his house is preserved and is the Turkish consulate there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
I've heard He wanted even to create a Turkish Orthodox church... |
Well he and Venizelos laid the foundations for the co-existance of the collapsed Ottoman Empire and the re-born phoenix Greece. Under those two the two countries made their first "friendship and non aggression pact".
He was very commited to creation of a turkish state. He even changed the turkish "arabic" lines language to alphabet. Unfortunately his recourse to the army to secure the secular state in Turkey has led the country to a dead end in what regards further evolution to democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
But Ataturk also led to the creation of the "Neo-Turk" identity. Not good news for anyone who didn't consider himself a Turk within Turkey. The Armenian genocide is only the most striking example.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:30
|
|
I hate to drag this thread back on topic after this entertaining interlude…
quote:
The general agreement is that John's Gospel was written last, probably around 90 ad. In 90 ad, Christ would have been 96 years old, so John was, what, maybe in his late 80s? And the structure of John's gospel is generally agreed to reflect Greek modes of rhetorical expression ("In the beginning was the word..."), not Aramaic/Judaic modes. So we are to believe that John lived well into his 80s, then recorded his memories in the rhetorical form of a language not his own. Sure, it could have happened; but if you were weilding Occam's Razor, it this what the shave would look like? |
quote:
Curious, Jon M, since the gospel of John is typically given the latest creation date. In fact the beginning chapter of John is a rewriting of the creation story that attempts to be an answer to the gnostic interpretation. Clearly this part, at least, was an add on. |
"In fact" that interpretation is the product of modernist textual critics. The Essene texts found in Qumran show a native (anti-Hellenistic) Jewish root to similar form and symbolism that predated Greek Gnosticism by 2 centuries or more.
Occam's razor is the major problem for proponents of late authorship. The majority of Christians and all but one NT writer were Jewish. The Judean revolt and destruction of the Temple were epochal events that permenantly changed Jewish culture. None of the NT documents make any direct reference to the historical fall of Jerusalem. Not even a "see I told ya so" added to the end.
It would be like three Japanese generals and a Japanese historian writing memoirs of WWII, another Japanese historian writing two dozen treatises on technical and tactical innovations of the war, and one of the generals writing an epilogue on the ramifications of the war and nobody mentioning the use of the A-bombs on Japan. I know nth generation Irish Americans who look upon the reconquest of William of Orange as though it were yesterday. I suppose a hardened cynic might claim the forgers were so clever as to think of that as a validation in the eyes of people reviewing texts from centuries in the future.
 Yeah, sure.
As for the Q hypothesis, I'm sure it tickles the fancy of many an intellectual. Unfortunately textual criticism has failed where tried under far more controlled circumstances (see various debates about Shakespeare and Fletcher's collaborative play).
quote:
What I find more curious is why the news discoveries haven't lead to a sea-change in Protestantism. |
Because they aren't discoveries in any real sense, since almost all were known to the ancients and rejected from the canon. They add nothing germaine to understanding the person and works of Christ. Not even the wackiest revisionists claim that G of Thomas is the work of another eyewitness, rather the advocates lower the canonical Gs to the level of the G of T as later works by non-eyewitnesses.
The G of James is the only real discovery of a genuine ancient Christian document that appears to be little known to the ancient church at large. A few people have even claimed to experience miraculous healings while reading the physical manuscript. But the notion that an inspired document worthy of canon would be neglected by the early church to the extent that it became lost is antithetical to the concept of inspiration of the scriptures.
Edit: quote tags
Last edited by Straybow on 24-08-2003 at 06:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
quote:
Originally posted by Proteus_MST
But the simplest Answer isn´t usualy the correct one.
People believed that Stars are fixed on some kind of hollow Sphere which revolves around earth…
Schiaparelli believed… [Martians] invented a complex System of Canali…
Earlier Biologists believed…
Koprnikus believed… |
All are examples not of simple answers to simple questions (such as who wrote the canonical Gospels). These were presumptive imaginings based on a lack of knowledge rather than a straightforward conclusions based on actual data.
|
Nope, I´ve got to Disagree.
They were Conclusions which were made based upon the Knowledge that was available in those ancient times.
That we now are able to disprove those early Assumptions has only been made possible by advancing knowledge.
But people in earlier times believed that those things (which we now know are incorrect) to be the truth, based upon the knowledge they had.
Same holds true about the Gospels.
According to the knowledge you have to date,
you attribute those Gospels to be the real works of People like Mathäus, Markus, Lukas and Johannes. You are as sure abut it as Schiaparelli was about the Canali to be built by Martians.
But maybe at one tme in Future Scientists can disprove the Assumption that the Gospels are really works of People who have known Jesus personally (op maybe they even are able to do it nowadays), just as Schipapareli Assumption of the Canali to be works of Martians was disproven.
From a standpoint of the future even the people today have a lack of knowledge, because we (people of tody) don´t have the (more advanced) knowledge those people in the future have.
Assuming that there won´t be dark ages like the medieval tzimes again, where knowledge is lost and/or no new knoweledge is gained, this holds true everytime.
Last edited by Proteus_MST on 24-08-2003 at 07:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
Copernicus e facto assumed in his work De Revolutionibus Orbium that the Orbits of the Planets were real Circles.
But, as those perfect circles didn´t fit into the things he obsrved, he (ust as people, who had an geocentric view of the world) had to introduce epicircles into his model of the solar System.
He also had to put the Sun somewhat epicentric into the Solar System.
By doing this did the same thing even todays Scientists do, if they encounter something they didn´t take into consideration while formulating a theory, i.e. they try to isolate these interference Factors and somehow try to incorporate them into their Model of reality, to make their Theorie fit to their Observations.
As for the Canali you are right, it was de facto Percival Lowell, who, after own Observations of Mars, believed that these Canali are real Canals for Irrigation made by intelligent Martians.
As for the knowldge of past being mythical rather than factual, it depends how far into the past you go.
Lowell based his knowledge on his own Observations of Mars (not just on Schiapareli calling them Canali) and Copernicus also tried to describe reality (i.e. the Orbits of the Planets) by his mathematical Model, and just made the mistake of introducing Epicycles into his Model of reality, instead of trying to find another Model (Elipses) which fit better to reality.
So I´d cal the Theoris of Lowell and Copernicus more than just mythical nowledge, but scientific theories, which just were wrong (and were corrected by later scientists)
Even todays knowledge is just an Interpretation of some Values which can be read out by measuring Devices.
he models whixch are created by Scientists based upon these measured values sometimes fit well into te Observations made in reality, but sometimes they don´t fit so well and have to be revised (or anothr theory comes up which describes the Readout made by those Measuring Devices and even is able to cnect these Values to other Values made by other measuring Devices and so the old Theory is abandoned and te new theory is adapted.
To get an example of the recent Science:
Long years Biologists believed, that the Neanderthals and humans mixed and so the modern humans were partially Neanderthals on a genetical Level.
It was only ogic, as Neanderthals and Humans were asumed to be able to produce fertile Offsprings and even lived some time together in the same regions.
Because of modern genetical Examinations we now know, that the Assumption isn´t true and the Homo neanertalensis doesn´t live on in our Genes.
Before we were able to disprove the Theory using more modern Equipment it was corect to assme, that Humans and Neanderthals mixed and so the Scientist who made this Theory isn´t to blame, because he mae he Theory based upon the Facts he had at hand.
He just shouldn´t go on and stil claim that his Theory is true, because we now have other Facts gained by more modern Equipment, which say that, although his Theory sonded logical and rsonable, it isn´t true.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2003 17:52
Same old, same old....
|