October 2017 – Page 31 – TrueFreeThinker

Are atheist activists gaining ground on college campuses?, Part 2 of 9

We now continue considering the article Atheism Groups Grow on College Campuses, from which we are gleaning certain issue of interest. Find this whole series here.

The article states:
Many stress that their lives are guided not by anti-religiousness, but belief in science, logic and reason.

There is nothing like zeal without knowledge and baseless proclamations of self-appointed superiority. Oh, it is they, the atheists, who have a belief in science, logic and reason. They will likely never learn this within the secular institutions of higher re-education wherein they learn the atheist catechism but not only are the science, logic and reason premised upon theism, specifically Judeo-Christian theology, but the greatest champions of science, logic and reason have held to the Judeo-Christian worldview. The fact that young and excitable atheists do not know this and are thus, erroneously, attempting to commandeer science, logic and reason as somehow pertaining to, or leading to, atheism is the stuff of which anti-historical elitism is made.

“The goal,” said Andrew Severin…”should be to obtain inner peace for yourself and do random acts of kindness for strangers.”

There it is again: taking moral stances without having a moral premise upon which to take the stance. Who made Severin the authoritative proclaimer of dogmatheism? Atheism has a goal, really? The goal “should be…”, really? Says who and according to whom? Personal preference and nothing more.
Moreover, why should the goal be the obtaining of inner peace for yourself and do random acts of kindness for strangers? As far as the atheist worldviews goes, this is merely an option based only on personal preference which are themselves based on personal preference. Conquering, oppressing and mass murdering the less fit is also an atheist option.

motivational20poster2c20secular2c20atheism2c20new20atheists-8022668
You can purchase this design on a shirt, sticker, etc. at this link

Severin calls himself a “spiritual atheist.” He doesn’t believe in God or the supernatural but thinks experiences like meditation or brushes with nature can produce biochemical reactions that feel spiritual.

Thus, Severin is of the Harrisian school of atheism. Sam Harris is an atheist Buddhist mystic who does not like the terms atheist, Buddhist or mystic. Just as Sam Harris, Andrew Severin dogmatheistically declares that experiences like meditation or brushes with nature can produce biochemical reactions that feel spiritual—whatever spiritual may mean. Nonetheless, two points are noteworthy:
1) Indeed, meditation or brushes with nature can produce biochemical reactions that feel spiritual.
2) Meditation or brushes with nature can produce biochemical reactions that feel spiritual but are not.

Since spiritual can mean virtually anything then yes indeed, meditation or brushes with nature can produce biochemical reactions that feel spiritual. Yet, he is assuming that these biochemical reactions are merely brain stuff and have no connection to a spiritual reality beyond mere bio-chemical neural reactions.
Also, since meditation or brushes with nature can produce biochemical reactions that feel spiritual this would show that what appears to be spiritual is really not. What Sam Harris, Andrew Severin, et al, are proposing is circular illogic. Their argument is, essentially: 1) Biochemical reactions produce feels of spirituality. 2) Biochemical reactions are not transcendentally spiritual but are mere bio-chemical neural reactions.

3) Therefore, there is no such thing as a true transcendent spiritual but what is thought to be so is merely caused by brain stuff.

Now, if there is no such thing as a true transcendent spiritual experiences because what is thought to be so is merely caused by brain stuff then, there is no such thing as a true transcendent spiritual experiences. However, we can only know that there is no such thing as a true transcendent spiritual because what is thought to be so is merely caused by brain stuff if we presuppose that there is no such thing as a true transcendent spiritual but what is thought to be so is merely caused by brain stuff.

They have not investigated every claim of a truly transcendental spiritual experience and determine that they are all merely caused by brain stuff. Rather, they merely dogmatically proclaimed that they are brain stuff. On the other hand, if even one spiritual experience was a truly transcendental spiritual experience then their dogmatheism fails.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Lucifer in Philo, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Eusebius & Gildas

Philo of Alexandria aka Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD) offers an interesting point which we can place on a line plotting the identification of heylel transliterated into a compound Latin term Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12, the day or morning star. I will follow by providing some examples of how the term came to be understood as referring to Satan.

Philo wrote the following in The Cherubim, part I, VII (21), “the periods of the seven planets have received their exact measure of time, moving on in an equal course, as the Sun, and Lucifer, and what is called Stilbon. For these three planets are of equal speed.”

In The Decalogue, VII, Philo wrote:

…some nations have made divinities of the…sun and moon, and of the other planets and fixed stars…The air they call Juno; fire, Vulcan; and the sun, Apollo; the moon, Diana; and the evening star, Venus; Lucifer, they call Mercury; and to every one of the stars they have affixed names and given them to the inventors of fables, who have woven together cleverly-contrived imaginations to deceive the ear, and have appeared to have been themselves the ingenious inventors of these names thus given.

Origen Adamantius (182-254 AD) noted the following in Commentary on John, book I, chap 13 The Angels Also Are Evangelists, “the Earth, that seat of war, on which Lucifer, star of the morning, fell from heaven, to be warred against and destroyed by Jesus.”

In De Principiis, book I, chap V On Rational Natures, Origen wrote:

Again, we are taught as follows by the prophet Isaiah regarding another opposing power. The prophet says, “How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen from heaven…”

Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, “Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.” For at one time he was light. Moreover our Lord, who is the truth, compared the power of His own glorious advent to lightning, in the words, “For as the lightning shineth from the height of heaven even to its height again, so will the coming of the Son of man be.”

And notwithstanding He compares him to lightning, and says that he fell from heaven, that He might show by this that he had been at one time in heaven, and had had a place among the saints, and had enjoyed a share in that light in which all the saints participate, by which they are made Angels of light, and by which the apostles are termed by the Lord the light of the world. In this manner, then, did that being once exist as light before he went astray, and fell to this place, and had his glory turned into dust, which is peculiarly the mark of the wicked, as the prophet also says; whence, too, he was called the prince of this world, i.e., of an Earthly habitation: for he exercised power over those who were obedient to his wickedness, since “the whole of this world”—for I term this place of Earth, world—”lieth in the wicked one,” and in this apostate.
That he is an apostate, i.e., a fugitive, even the Lord in the book of Job says, “Thou wilt take with a hook the apostate dragon,” i.e., a fugitive. Now it is certain that by the dragon is understood the devil himself.

Gregory Nazianzus or Nazianzen aka Gregory the Theologian (325-389 AD) noted the following in Five Discourses on Theology, “The nature of the divine essence is then above all conception by human intelligence. It is, moreover, well that it is so. For…We should, perhaps, lose ourselves through pride, like Lucifer, if it were given us too soon…”

Gregory also compiled a text known as Origen’s Philocalia or Philocalia of Origen which states the following in chap I:

…what is said about the ruler of Tyre cannot be understood of some future human ruler of Tyre. And the many passages relating to Nabuchadnosor, particularly in Isaiah, how can we possibly take them to refer to the man of that name? For the man Nabuchadnosor did not fall from heaven, nor was he Lucifer, nor did he rise early on the Earth. And the sayings in Ezekiel concerning Egypt, to the effect that it would be desolate for forty years, [Ezek. xxix. 11 f.] so that the foot of man should not be found there, and that war should be so fiercely waged at some time or other that throughout the whole land blood should reach to the knees, what sensible person will understand them of Egypt that borders on the Ethiopians with their sunburnt bodies?…he who in Ezekiel is said to have walked blameless in all his ways, until iniquity was found in him, fell from heaven, viz., as Isaiah tells us, Lucifer, once a morning star, afterwards, undone and cast clown to Earth. For not only of the sons of men is it true that if a man be perfect and have not the wisdom of God, he is accounted but a thing of nought; but it is true even in the order of Angels, and of sovereign Powers, and in every rank of being that is Divine so far as God is with it.

Eusebius of Caesarea or Pamphili (263-339 AD) wrote the following in Demonstratio Evangelica, book IV, chap 9:

…those on the side of the opposing rebel power were either daemons, or vile spirits immersed more or less in wickedness, with the cunning ruler of them all the mighty daemon, who first failed of their reverence of the Divinity and fell from their own portion…It is this godless and unholy scheme of the great Daemon… prophecy speak about him again, how he thought about himself and (b) how he bragged: “How has Lucifer that rose at morn fallen from heaven: He is crushed to Earth that sent to all the nations. But thou saidst in thy heart, ‘I will go up to heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven. … I will ascend above the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’ But now thou shalt go down to hell, and to the foundations of the Earth.”

Truly Scripture shews many things at once in this, the madness of the said spirit, his fall from the better to the worse, and the end of his fall.

In book X, chap 8 he comments thusly on Psalm 21:

And when with divine eyes He saw His body being suspended on the tree, the unembodied and invisible powers without in the air hovering around Him like voracious birds and wild beasts, and knew that almost at once His body would be a corpse, and fell the powers and rulers of the air surging around Him on every side, the spirit which now worketh in the children of disobedience, and the (d) daemons flying over the Earth wherever men inhabit, and perhaps also the wild and dreadful beasts of Tartarus, of which Isaiah said, addressing Lucifer that had fallen from heaven: “Hades beneath was disturbed to meet thee, all the giants rose before thee.”

St. Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae / The Ruin of Britain (6th century AD), part IV:

Disperse, I pray, the dark black mist of your heart’s slothfulness, so that ye may be able to see the beaming light of truth and humility. A no common Christian but a perfect one, a no mean but most excellent priest, a martyr not sluggish but distinguished, says: Now am I beginning to be a disciple of Christ. And you, just like that Lucifer, cast down from heaven, are puffed up with words, not power, and ruminate under your teeth, and allege by gestures the things which your advocate had formerly pictured, saying: I will ascend unto heaven, and will be like to the Most High; and again: I have digged and drunk water, and with the print of my feet have dried up all the rivers of the banks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Origen Adamantius

Aquila

Honi Hama'gel

Talmud

Honi the circle maker

Codex Alexandrinus

Nephilim – Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6

In view is Robert C. Newman’s article “The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4,” Grace Theological Journal, 5, 1 (1984 AD), pp. 13-36.

Newman notes that the “interpretation of ‘sons of God’ as angels and ‘Nephilim’ as giants dominates” the ancient interpretations and is thus the older view of both Jewish and Christian commentators. He surveyed “the ancient interpretation of Gen 6:2, 4 in Jewish literature, in Christian literature and in the NT in particular:

The earliest extant view is the supernatural one, that the “sons of God” were angels…The sin in this case was the unnatural union between angels and humans…The nonsupernatural interpretations are not extant until later…

genesis206-2832063

The Septuagint aka LXX “was probably produced in the middle of the 3rd century B.C.” for which Newman cites “Extant MSS of Genesis” which:

…render [Hebrew for sons of God] variously as [Greek for sons of God] and [Greek for Angels of God]…The variant [Greek for Angel] is the minority reading among extant MSS and versions, but it is supported by many witnesses, including Codex Alexandrinus (4th century A.D.), as well as Philo and Josephus, both writing in the 1st century A.D. though extant only in much later MSS. These latter comment on the passage in such a way that their reading cannot be dismissed as a scribal error from later Christian copyists. [Greek for sons] is the majority reading, for which the most important witnesses are papyrus 911 (3rd century A.D.) and Codex Coislinianus (7th century). The Gottingen LXX favors the latter reading since it is supported by all the MS groups, though none are as early as Philo and Josephus. Yet the influence of the MT [Masoretic Text] on the transmission of the LXX might well explain [Greek for sons], even if [Greek for Angel] were the original translation.

It is therefore impossible to be certain whether [Greek for Angel] was the original translation or an early midrashic [homiletic interpretation] corruption.

Robert Newman notes that the sons of God versus Angels of God “variant is already cited and discussed by Philo [in On the Giants 6, see my Philo of Alexandria on the Nephilim.], so apparently predates the 1st century A.D.”
He also notes that “In Gen 6:4 [Hebrew for Nephilim] is translated [Greek for giants]; without textual variation. The Greek word, usually rendered ‘giant,’ indicates a warrior of large stature and translates [Hebrew spelling of gibbor: generally “mighty” in English trans.] in Gen 10:8, 9.”

Aquila’s Greek Old Testament dating to circa 130 AD has sons of God, “which looks more like an attempt to avoid the problem of the one true God having sons than it does a preference for either of the interpretations we are considering…‘those who fall upon,’ which might be either supernatural ‘those who fall upon (earth)’ or nonsupernatural ‘those who attack.’” Symmachus’ Greek Old Testament dating to late in the 100s AD employs terms “meaning either ‘sons of the powerful’ or ‘sons of the rulers,’ rather like the targumic views…‘violent ones.’”

Theodotion (died circa 200 AD) “of whom little is known” also produced a Greek Old Testament which reads a normative Genesis 6.

The “Babylonian Talmud…6th century A.D….Yoma 67b refers to the scapegoat being called Azazel because it atones for the ‘affair of Uza and Aza’el,’ probably a reference to the Shamhazai and Azael of 1 Enoch and Tg. PS.-J. Nid. 61a speaks of an Ahijah, son of Shamhazai”:

Our Rabbis taught: Azazel — it should be hard and rough [“Az and el mean strong, irresistible, impudent”]. One might have assumed that it is to be in inhabited land, therefore the text reads: “In the wilderness”. But whence do we know that it [is to be in] a Zok? [“Zok means a mountain peak; it may be the special name of the mountain whence the he-goat was flung down”] —
Therefore the text reads: “Cut off’. Another [Baraitha] taught: Azazel, i.e., the hardest of mountains, thus also does it say: And the mighty of the land he took away. The School of R. Ishmael taught: Azazel — [it was so called] because it obtains atonement for the affair of Uza and Aza’el [“This is a reference to the legend of fallen angels, based partly on Gen. VI, 4 and also on foreign lore. V. Jung, L. “Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan literature’” see my Apocryphal Texts on Paranormal Entities and Islam’s magickian fallen angels Harut and Marut].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.