Learning Genesis
- Thread starter TubbyTubby
- Start date
- Status
I meant that Brother Paul believes the word of man (Thallus) but will not believe the word of man about new scientific theory. He selects who he wants to believe depending whether it aligns with his original belief or contradicts it. That is his only selection criteria on which man is speaking the truth.
Brother Paul was talking about facts, not theories. And his point was that the darkness did occur, as written in scripture. As far as scientific theories go, most are unproven. And the facts they have deciphered do not conflict with the existence of God.
There are no words from men of 2014 on this subject matter. I have not dismissed any. The old skeptics empty accusations have been proven to be a replacement myth...it was not just a literary device at all but a historically witnessed phenomena. Just because the witnesses lived along time ago does not address their intelligence only their scholastic knowledge (we do have more in our time). The point was, here is a phenomena that certainly did occur that cannot be accounted for with a materialistic world view. In fact, your lack of comprehension even regarding the simple question reflects the degree to which it is outside your box. IT really happened just as recorded in the Bible, was testified to by other disinterested observers in a place far away, and there is no scientific explanation that can account for it. That's all...
What I mean is that, several times on this forum when I have mentioned accepted theories I have been told basically that the word of man cannot be trusted, or words to that effect.
I don't mean men in 2014 talking about the darkness that Thallus mentions.
You are eager to accept Thallus as writing fact because he writes what you want to hear. You will reject modern theory, saying it is not fact. You have no more reason to believe Thallus than you do Richard Dawkings yet you choose the former and reject the latter only because it is what you want to hear.
I don't see how you can argue that point, there is no argument.
Why is Thallus' work fact and Darwins is not fact? How is Thallus proven and Darwin not proven?
I'm not questioning Thallus (although I might) but simply your biased acceptance of what you eagerly take as fact and what you quickly dismiss.
Thallus was writing history and Darwin is writing theory. Darwin is not writing fact or history. And there are many major problems in his theory. It is said that many giants bones have been discovered in North America and are now "rumored" to be at the bottom of the ocean because the guy who ran the Smithsonian at the time was all for Darwin and felt these anomalies disproved it.
And did you mean this Richard Dawkins?
And did you mean this Richard Dawkins?
And Thallus also has many critics, this is from a quick read through wiki;
In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote.
In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote.
"We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all."
If that is true then your basis for accepting Thallus as proof of the darkness of resurrection is weak.
I don't even know why you feel the need to bring Thallus into your replies, you have faith so don't need facts right? Why put the risk of someone questioning your whole belief just because you felt the need to insert some tenuous writings as evidence.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all."
If that is true then your basis for accepting Thallus as proof of the darkness of resurrection is weak.
I don't even know why you feel the need to bring Thallus into your replies, you have faith so don't need facts right? Why put the risk of someone questioning your whole belief just because you felt the need to insert some tenuous writings as evidence.
He mentioned that George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion and that all of the works of Africanus are lost?
Sorry I sometimes miss things when skimming through posts.
He mentioned most of it but I am going on memory. But skimming doesn't explain the fact that the Thallus reference was made simply in support of what is in scripture, several times. Paul did explain that Africanus called it an eclipse but was wrong because the date showed it was on a full moon, which excludes an eclipse. And the Thallus reference, while it supports what is in scripture, had nothing to do with scripture but was recorded as an historical fact. Something like "strange (unexplained) darkness" is not usually considered to be twisted like "the victors write the history" because there would be little reason to re-arrange, say, the weather report. And you say, as Christians, supposedly, all we need is faith, not facts. That's a wee bit like us saying all you need is unproven theories to discredit God.
Thallus is unknown today because his work is lost. That does not mean (even by the weakest of argument) that he never was or that his writings were unknown to the persons either quoting him or referring to him centuries ago. In fact it is highly unlikely that any historian would quote a fictitious person knowing that his work would be critiqued by his peers. That is why people are honest enough to table the fact that Thallus' work is now lost to us, and not presenting him as being a well known 'household' name.
In the same way, what about Winston Churchill? How do we know he said what it is alleged that he said? He is not here to speak for himself, is he. He is lost to us, we must accept the testimony of those who were privy to his words. Why then should it be so hard to accept the testimony of those who were privy to writings that are now lost to us?
In the same way, what about Winston Churchill? How do we know he said what it is alleged that he said? He is not here to speak for himself, is he. He is lost to us, we must accept the testimony of those who were privy to his words. Why then should it be so hard to accept the testimony of those who were privy to writings that are now lost to us?
As for that Dawkins video Silk, I have to say that it has very little value in my scheme of review. I recall watching a video of Ahmed Deedats and Jimmy Swaggart debating the Bible. During that video, the muslamaniacs who produced it were running printed commentary over Swaggart's speech effectively heckling from the back of the auditorium so to speak. I don't care which camp does this sort of thing, I am hard put to find any honour in it.
Oh my! I've finally reached the end so far of reading this whole thread. I skimmed some pages towards the end mind. Why? Caught my attention at the beginning with the gentleman's interest in Genesis which i find worthof expressing a genuine interest in the studying the bible and trying to get to grips with all that it offers. Bearing in mind it is very difficult to understand. I personally think, how is there not a God- How? I hope this journey reaches a wonderful conclusion for Mr. TubbyTubby and that his life is greatly blessed as a result of having a personal encounter with our loving saviour the Lord Jesus Christ.
Good stuff!
- Status