Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
thuglife

Hilloween is a Pagan Holiday!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 10/29/2019 at 7:41 AM, Moalfas said:

Spreading love and joy to children is in fact part of The teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)

Halloween as we know it now is a cultural celebration that involves quality time with the children and excited kids getting candy. Hardly something Allah would punish for. In fact Allah would reward any person who made a child happy. 

This issue should be directed at their parents who didn't invest in the time to teach their kids the birthdays of the Imams. 

Halloween is a time for the children to have fun and anyone who makes a child happy in Halloween or on any other occasion will be rewarded. I promise :) 

Salam, 

Candy will rot that child's teeth. And if you get children excited about candy, they will become sugar demons in their teens and adulthood. Use food for comfort. I doubt Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would reward someone who encourages the ruining of someone's physical being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thuglife said:

Posting random links with no explanation like a spam bot.

It's called gathering, consolidating, and providing information. It took time and it's super useful to have one post to refer back to. I organized it neatly by author.

What was the purpose of your original post? Did you want rulings or did you want to prove your point? If it is the former, then surely you would be keen to read through some of the links that I provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 5:39 AM, حسين said:

Salam, 

1. Candy will rot that child's teeth.

2. And if you get children excited about candy, they will become sugar demons in their teens and adulthood.

1. No it won't (brush your teeth)

2. No they won't be (probably)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

1. No it won't (brush your teeth)

2. No they won't be (probably)

Ye, I never thought one could do such a thing. Maybe everything is so easy, lets fix world peace too. All we have to do is be nice to one another and the ones with excess money and belongings should simply share with those who don't. So easy. I forgot how reasonable us humans are.

Brushing your teeth will help with a normal diet, but when the majority of most kids diet is sugar, then it is like wearing armour versus a rocket launcher at direct impact from 2 ft away.

Be realistic.

Edited by حسين

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, حسين said:

Brushing your teeth will help with a normal diet, but when the majority of most kids diet is sugar...

Be realistic.

And this is caused [at least in part] by Halloween? Nah, be realistic. By the way, I do not support Halloween--easy for me to say though, I'm a young adult with no kids-- but my reasons certainly have nothing to do with health, diabetes, cavities, etc. Similarly, I do not condone smoking cigarettes (which is much worse for one's health), but it is Halal... so...

8 hours ago, حسين said:

Ye, I never thought one could do such a thing. Maybe everything is so easy, lets fix world peace too. All we have to do is be nice to one another and the ones with excess money and belongings should simply share with those who don't. So easy. I forgot how reasonable us humans are.

This part of the post is irrelevant and incomparable... an appeal to extremes. Brushing your teeth is not comparable to fixing world peace, lol. Parents limit the amount of candy their child can eat... and all the candy gained is usually finished within a month.

..............
The point of my reply was to show that you are assuming that Halloween - a once a year event - will instill sugar addiction tendencies in children and rot their teeth. These are not reasonable assumptions --especially if necessary precautions are put in place by parents... which is almost always the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salams,

Here are two good videos discussing Halloween's pagan connections:

I heavily recommend the other channel, ReligionforBreakfast, as it's a great channel otherwise as well. The videos are made by a PhD student of religious studies and present very good information about the subject.

The problem regardless lies in imitating the infidels (kuffar), something the Shia are forbidden from doing

Funny enough it seems I posted on another Halloween topic regarding its pagan origins (with one of the same videos) last year as well. Spooky. 

wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, notme said:

Halloween is no more pagan than Christmas or Easter. 

That depends on which aspects of them are singled out.

Recognition of a birth is acceptable. In the second, combatting the sick-in-the-heads of an ancient time is historically acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

That depends on which aspects of them are singled out.

Recognition of a birth is acceptable. In the second, combatting the sick-in-the-heads of an ancient time is historically acceptable.

Good point. Then at least most of the modern traditions related to Halloween are no more pagan than most of the modern traditions related to Christmas or Easter. 

We note the passage and acknowledge all three. My children wear costumes and visit the neighbors at Halloween, we give and receive gifts with our Christian family members at Christmas. We buy discount chocolate after Easter, but nothing else. I don't know what to do with Easter that is Islamically acceptable, but everyone likes chocolate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, notme said:

Good point. Then at least most of the modern traditions related to Halloween are no more pagan than most of the modern traditions related to Christmas or Easter. 

We note the passage and acknowledge all three. My children wear costumes and visit the neighbors at Halloween, we give and receive gifts with our Christian family members at Christmas. We buy discount chocolate after Easter, but nothing else. I don't know what to do with Easter that is Islamically acceptable, but everyone likes chocolate. 

Easter was made as we know it so the newly formed Church of the 4th Century C.C. could clearly seperate itself from the similar sounding heretics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Easter was made as we know it so the newly formed Church of the 4th Century C.C. could clearly seperate itself from the similar sounding heretics.

I did not know that. I know the eggs and rabbits come from ancient pagan spring equinox celebrations, and were absorbed into the Passover-timed Christian celebration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Easter was made as we know it so the newly formed Church of the 4th Century C.C. could clearly seperate itself from the similar sounding heretics.

Salams,

Could you perhaps explain this a bit, please?

5 hours ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Christmas is arguably worse. Santa Claus is pure shirk packaged for kids.

This is...an interesting thought I suppose. Could you also explain this, please?

wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

This is...an interesting thought I suppose. Could you also explain this, please?

"He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Salams,

Could you perhaps explain this a bit, please?

This is...an interesting thought I suppose. Could you also explain this, please?

wassalam

Santa Claus derives from St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra. 4th Century C.C.

As Chr!stianity expanded over Europe, the Roman Church would use local paganism to its own advantage. For examples, in one of the Baltic countries, the church's crosses have snakes; in Central Europe, the "wind God" became the winter "rauch engle"[ "wind angel"(German)].

Nicholas became the patron saint (protector and guide) of sailors, brewers, prostitutes, thieves, and little children. As such, there is this magical, mysterious entity that gives good things to children -especially as a reward for believing in him because "he knows". See "Santa Claus is Coming to Town".

lf you want more detail, you can start with Britanica.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ibn Al-Ja'abi  Were you asking me about Easter? 0n second thought, l think you were.

ln short, when the differnt churchs around the Mediterranean decided it was neceassary to form a comprehensive Church to combat the Mani heretics, they had several problems. One was to compile a uniform bible. The other was what doctrines and such did they need to win over the heretical Maniacs. Two of these l offhand forget and would be viewed as small matters now. The third thing they determined that seperated them from the heretics was the crucifiction story. Nearly three hundred years after Isa's -(عليه السلام). time, they had a lot of conflicting documents -like ten versions of the Gospel of Matthew. All of this had to be sorted out, libraries searched, an so on. They came to the conclusion they had no way of knowing if the story was true, but they did know that while 40% of the heretics believed it, 60% of the chr!stians did. So they chose to use the crucifiction story as a fundamental key element in the new, united Church. This is why the gospels go to such elaborate lengths telling this story -and why the style of Greek writing changes within each gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

"He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake"

I suppose one could perhaps see this as shirk, unless the commentator were to say that Allah had given Mar Qilaws these powers.

48 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

the Roman Church would use local paganism to its own advantage.

This tends to overstate the power of the church during the process of Christianization. For one, Christianization would often occur due the the acts of individual missionary priests or sometimes through a Christianized monarch. Nevertheless, as an entity the Church really had very little power in that period of late antiquity when Christianization was occurring. Often as much as the decisions to hold festivals would be a top down phenomenon they'd also be very much a bottom up phenomenon with localities very much being in charge of their Christianity often in spite of the actual church hierarchy. Otherwise discussions of the pagan origins of different elements in Christianity tend to be more on the conspiracy zeitgeist side at times than the serious evaluation of a religious tradition side.

31 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Were you asking me about Easter? 0n second thought, l think you were.

I was, I don't think anyone in North America is in the dark about Santa, at least not anyone who grew up with Christmas specials.

32 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

ln short, when the differnt churchs around the Mediterranean decided it was neceassary to form a comprehensive Church to combat the Mani heretics, they had several problems. One was to compile a uniform bible. The other was what doctrines and such did they need to win over the heretical Maniacs. Two of these l offhand forget and would be viewed as small matters now. The third thing they determined that seperated them from the heretics was the crucifiction story. Nearly three hundred years after Isa's -(عليه السلام). time, they had a lot of conflicting documents -like ten versions of the Gospel of Matthew. All of this had to be sorted out, libraries searched, an so on. They came to the conclusion they had no way of knowing if the story was true, but they did know that while 40% of the heretics believed it, 60% of the chr!stians did. So they chose to use the crucifiction story as a fundamental key element in the new, united Church. This is why the gospels go to such elaborate lengths telling this story -and why the style of Greek writing changes within each gospel.

There are some problems with this. First the Manicheans weren't really a Christian heretical group (if we use insider/normative language), that is to say that they weren't a group descending from the Jesus movement rather another late antique religious group that did have influences from some Gnostic elements of Christianity (e.g. I believe Mani actually references the Gospel of Thomas in his own writings). Additionally the Manicheans were seen as rivals to Christians especially in the east where they were prevalent, I suppose a great case would be St. Augustine and his experience as one of them and later his experience arguing against them. Nevertheless, they were very much a group outside Christianity and didn't conceptualize themselves as growing out of Jesus' teachings. The bigger problem in the fourth century were the Arians, and I presume you're talking about the Council of Nicaea. 

If you are talking about Nicaea then the only thing the council convened to decide was a solution to the problems posited by Arius on an institutional level, whereas before they might have existed but not as something institutionally recognized. Arius stated that the trinity was such that God the Son was not coeternal from God the Father and his substance was not the same. The answer to Arianism was the Nicaean Creed which the council came out with stating that Christ was coequal and cosubstantial God the Father. The Council didn't decide the canon, there were already nearly complete lists of Canon in the third century but it was in the mid fourth century, nearly forty years after the council that Athanasius produces his list of canonical books which is identical to the books in the modern canon. The Gospels, however, were already popular by the end of the first century and while manuscripts present their own problem (and there is a whole epilogue famously added to the end of Mark discussing the resurrection), I think the above is overstating the problem quite a bit.

What it meant to be a Christian prior the the victory of "orthodoxy" over "heresy" meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people, the varieties of Christianities were quite diverse if you read primary documents and secondary scholarly works discussing the subject. Indeed it is clear that there were groups for whom the crucifixion never occurred (we're yet to cover these groups and these texts) but I believe it's in the Coptic Apocryphon of Paul in which Jesus says he's on the cross and not on the cross (that is to say he's not on the cross but someone resembling him is on it). There's another Gnostic text which mentions Jesus laughing at whomever is being crucified on the cross suffering while he's hiding in a tree looking at him. Nevertheless, for a great variety of Christian groups it was a fact, and among scholars of Jesus and early Christianity that Jesus was crucified is seen as one of the few facts we know about his life. Even Josephus mentions it. Paul already states in 1Cor15:14 that his message (or his version of Christianity) hinges on the resurrection of Christ (and so naturally his death), first Corinthians being among the epistles which we can have some certainty in attributing to Paul. The crucifixion is even referenced in Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of Thomas in an allusion to it, possibly by a resurrected Jesus. I'm just not sure where these statistics about which groups did and didn't believe in the crucifixion are being obtained from. Could you also elaborate your point about the Greek, please and thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

I suppose one could perhaps see this as shirk, unless the commentator were to say that Allah had given Mar Qilaws these powers.

It's a contradiction since only Allah is all-knowing. (It is still shirk). It would mean that Santa Claus is independent of God, despite you claiming that he is dependent on God. It's the same thing that idolaters do/say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

It's a contradiction since only Allah is all-knowing. (It is still shirk). It would mean that Santa Claus is independent of God, despite you claiming that he is dependent on God. It's the same thing that idolaters do/say.

This is actually a discussion regarding certain people's conception of Imamah as I'm sure you're aware. While personally I don't subscribe to it, not anymore at least, it isn't saying they are independent of God at all, just that they are given the ability by God to be aware of the actions of the muminiin. Obviously as it relates to Santa this is just silly since he just doesn't exist. But it isn't a logical impossibility at least to say God would allow (a wali). The biggest problem with the idolaters was their Awliya were just incorrect as wasaa'il and ended up creating a shirk in obedience. In any case I sense it sort of gets away from the point of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll answer in two entries.

6 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:
7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

the Roman Church would use local paganism to its own advantage.

This tends to overstate the power of the church during the process of Christianization. For one, Christianization would often occur due the the acts of individual missionary priests or sometimes through a Christianized monarch. Nevertheless, as an entity the Church really had very little power in that period of late antiquity when Christianization was occurring. Often as much as the decisions to hold festivals would be a top down phenomenon they'd also be very much a bottom up phenomenon with localities very much being in charge of their Christianity often in spite of the actual church hierarchy. Otherwise discussions of the pagan origins of different elements in Christianity tend to be more on the conspiracy zeitgeist side at times than the serious evaluation of a religious tradition side.

The methodology for the rise of the Western Church was -and still operates this way- as an infectious agent, proselytizing the Words of the Devil, worming their way into gov't and people's lives. Your assumption that this is "power" is wrong, as the method is persistence. lndividual missionaries worked as you described. Yet, your dismissive use of "pagan origins" is misplaced as some pagan symbols were co-opted and selected pagan precepts affiliated with Roman doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd Response, in bold face inserts:

6 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

There are some problems with this. First the Manicheans weren't really a Christian heretical group -l never said they were chr!stians. As l remember, the first "chr!stian heresey" was the Aryan dissenters.

 Additionally the Manicheans were seen as rivals to Christians especially in the east -Mostly, for this Mediterranean region, it was Egypt and North Africa.

The bigger problem in the fourth century were the Arians, and I presume you're talking about the Council of Nicaea. 

If you are talking about Nicaea then the only thing the council convened to decide was a solution to the problems posited by Arius on an institutional level, whereas before they might have existed but not as something institutionally recognized. Arius stated that the trinity was such that God the Son was not coeternal from God the Father and his substance was not the same. The answer to Arianism was the Nicaean Creed which the council came out with stating that Christ was coequal and cosubstantial God the Father. The Council didn't decide the canon, there were already nearly complete lists of Canon in the third century but it was in the mid fourth century, nearly forty years after the council that Athanasius produces his list of canonical books which is identical to the books in the modern canon. --yeah, okay.

The Gospels, however, were already popular by the end of the first century and while manuscripts present their own problem (and there is a whole epilogue famously added to the end of Mark discussing the resurrection), --also, different regional churchs used different gospels, e.g. one would use Matthew, another Luke, another letters, and so on. Mark was a co-opted and two verses deleted because all the regional churches knew it to be a fraud and an accusation that lsa-(عليه السلام). was homosexual.

 I think the above is overstating the problem quite a bit. No, for an intro to the problem you can start with Eusebius.

What it meant to be a Christian prior the the victory of "orthodoxy" over "heresy" meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people, the varieties of Christianities were quite diverse if you read primary documents and ... --which is why there was an effort to unify against the heretics, everybody on the same sheet of music so to speak.

Even Josephus mentions it. The Church altered a few sections of Josephus' writings to conform with its doctrine. Since copies of the original existed in Moorish lberia, this was one of the reasons mentioned for crusades in that penninsula.

Could you also elaborate your point about the Greek, please and thank you.  Easy, language evolves over time. We do not write academic articles like was done in the 1960's(before the use of computers affected the language) and there was a style change mandated in 1957 before that. Similar with Greek. The last example l saw -on TV- was a fake document was determined as such because a previously unused word appeared in the writing ---in other words, it was as using the word "empathy" before the 1890s or "genocide" before 1945 and such.

OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Yet, your dismissive use of "pagan origins" is misplaced as some pagan symbols were co-opted and selected pagan precepts affiliated with Roman doctrine.

Salams,

I don't know what the other stuff is in reference to and I can't really seriously address it, this was what I was getting at though. Pagan symbols evolved due to the usage of local religious groups is really the point, not that there was an official decree to do this. The crux ansata is an example of this, its origins are in the Egyptian religious symbol the ankh. It was Copts themselves that began to use it as a crucifix rather than this being some ploy by the Church to facilitate conversion. In people's religious practices the Church authorities, whether the Roman Church or even Bishops acting in their own cities and countries, would often be rather powerless in affecting people's religious practice. Case in point is Egyptian Christianity, where you see such symbols being employed popularly not institutionally. Another example is the assumption that the Nag Hammadi codecies were hidden due to orders from the Bishop Athansius. The whole origins and discovery story of these documents is put into question these days, but so is their purpose. Country folk and even city dwellers tended to practice Christianity in their way in spite of people like Athanasius who was even removed several times from power. Refer to Nicola Denzy-Lewis' paper on the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library for further information on this. It might be more helpful to understand local religious expressions changing meaning for local populations and evolving in their purpose and use in response to how people practiced their faith, often in spite of what Church authorities mandated -- indeed this is observed in religious traditions outside Christianity as well. We additionally need to prove that what we're talking about is something falling into one of these instances.

7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

l never said they were chr!stians. As l remember, the first "chr!stian heresey" was the Aryan dissenters.

Arianism is actually pretty late to the game as far as "heresies" are concerned (I once again put this in quotations because this is a value judgement given from a normative perspective by insiders, I'm not an insider), Arius was operating in the fourth century AD. Varieties of Christianity existed already in the first century shortly after the formation of the Jesus movement with disagreements already in place. Paul again references these in his letters. We also find mention of these in heresiologists, their value can be limited in telling us what people believed but here tells us that proto-orthodoxy and heresy clashes were happening from an early date. But to say "Mani heretics" in reference to Christianity implies they viewed themselves as Christians to be viewed as errant Christians by other Christians, they didn't.

7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

-also, different regional churchs used different gospels, e.g. one would use Matthew, another Luke, another letters, and so on. Mark was a co-opted and two verses deleted because all the regional churches knew it to be a fraud and an accusation that lsa-(عليه السلام). was homosexual.

This is definitely the case, these different gospels were definitely going to be more popular in some areas over others and that they were written by people thinking different things. But these four gospels all became very popular quite early on, so much so that we find them together in early manuscripts. What exactly are you referring to with Mark's gospel here and could you point me to some sources on this? Thanks.

7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

No, for an intro to the problem you can start with Eusebius.

It might be more helpful to reference exactly where in his work you want me to go or quote to me the section. In overstating the problem I mean to say that it makes it seem that there were 10 different texts of Matthew floating around rather than variant readings in manuscripts, the latter is true not the former, you didn't have different versions of Matthew in circulation unless you could point me to something showing this isn't the case.

7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

The Church altered a few sections of Josephus' writings to conform with its doctrine. Since copies of the original existed in Moorish lberia, this was one of the reasons mentioned for crusades in that penninsula.

Again you need to demonstrate this was the Church doing it on an institutional level rather than the actions of a scribe copying the work, the explanation generally understood. In any case, I had made a note in my copy of Josephus' works of the research of Alice Whealey -- I believe in her Josephus on Jesus but I very much regret not having written down a reference and more complete notes when I came across this. She compared translations and references to the testimonium and attempted to reconstruct a text based on them and what scholars hypothesize to be alterations to the testimonium. It actually neatly fit into predictions, the alterations would be in the sections saying "if it be lawful to call him a man", "he was the Messiah", and "he appeared to them alive on the third day". The crucifixion fits into the reconstructed text, though. Can I ask where you read that about the reconquista?

7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Easy, language evolves over time. We do not write academic articles like was done in the 1960's(before the use of computers affected the language) and there was a style change mandated in 1957 before that. Similar with Greek. The last example l saw -on TV- was a fake document was determined as such because a previously unused word appeared in the writing ---in other words, it was as using the word "empathy" before the 1890s or "genocide" before 1945 and such.

Sure, and study of word choice is very useful in helping us date documents. It factors in helping us date the different layers of text in the Gospel of Thomas, for example. But in the case of the Gospels what exactly are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the Nag-Hammadi find years ago. A real wacko collection of irrationality as only one or two are coherent. As l remember, they were discovered in 1946. As to what church history refered to could only be speculated about before the discovery.

4 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Arianism is actually pretty late to the game as far as "heresies" are concerned (I once again put this in quotations because this is a value judgement given from a normative perspective by insiders, I'm not an insider), Arius was operating in the fourth century AD. Varieties of Christianity existed already in the first century shortly after the formation of the Jesus movement with disagreements already in place.

The Fourth Century C.C. is when the move to unify a larger church was begun.

4 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

But to say "Mani heretics" in reference to Christianity implies they viewed themselves as Christians to be viewed as errant Christians by other Christians, they didn't.

I never said or infered that Mani was somehow "chr!stian". Not from something with pagan, Babylonian origins.

4 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

But these four gospels all became very popular quite early on,

"Popularity" is not a determinant for right or wrong, much less faith.

4 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Again you need to demonstrate this was the Church doing it on an institutional level rather than the actions of a scribe copying the work, the explanation generally understood.

Scribes -the ancient typists- copied what they were told to copy, under managerial superision of the ecclesiastical kind.

 

5 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

and that they were written by people thinking different things.

This in itself is cause for suspicion!

5 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

It might be more helpful to reference exactly where in his work you want me to go or quote to me the section. In overstating the problem I mean to say that it makes it seem that there were 10 different texts of Matthew floating around rather than variant readings in manuscripts, the latter is true not the former, you didn't have different versions of Matthew in circulation unless you could point me to something showing this isn't the case.

While your paragraph borders on the grammatically incoherent, l think l know you are asking for a citation. L just finished scrounging around for my copy and can't find it as l have over a thousand books in my library. But l did run across a book entitled The Barbarian Conversion, but l didn't re-read it.

You shouldn't more than supect my statement that Eusebius wrote about ten versions -it's a one liner as l remember- but as you should know, hundreds of so-called sacred texts were dismissed as found-to-be-spurious; such as Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Peter 3, Peter 4, and some still suspect Peter 2 because of who is mention in the salutations paragraph.

5 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

But in the case of the Gospels what exactly are you referring to?

All four. Even Catholic cardinals wrote about it during the Middle Ages.

Comment: You are aware of some stuff from whatever theology course you took, but you do need to read and remember more while avoiding confirmational bias. Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

The Fourth Century C.C. is when the move to unify a larger church was begun.

 

Salams,

Church officials had been working on heresiology from the first century. So in that sense, a presentation of a coherent "orthodoxy" had occurred from quite early on in the history of the church, there was also something identifiable as proto-orthodoxy. It's just that there wasn't a mechanism to enforce that vis-a-vis the state. In the fourth century that changed, but that isn't to say that Christians were unconcerned with this before. The career of someone like Iranaeus, flourishing in the second century, demonstrates that isn't the case. And as I've previously mentioned, even afterwards with a state legitimacy of orthodoxy it didn't mean control was always had, a great example asides from Egypt and the Orient was Central Europe, which was largely Arian. 

30 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

I never said or infered that Mani was somehow "chr!stian". Not from something with pagan, Babylonian origins.

 

My apologies then. It was perhaps a bit confusing since "heresy" isn't really applied to Manichaeanism since they aren't really a Christian movement that the Church would've felt it necessary to put forth an official creed to combat them (presuming that's what you meant by "form[ing] a comprehensive Church" -- which existed before).

35 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

"Popularity" is not a determinant for right or wrong, much less faith.

 

No it isn't, the argument for popularity indicating the will of God isn't good at all. But that's besides the point. The point was how and when these became popular enough to begin to be considered canonical by Christians, as opposed to having been mandated canonical by an institution, and popularity did factor into that.

37 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Scribes -the ancient typists- copied what they were told to copy, under managerial superision of the ecclesiastical kind.

Again, this isn't exactly the case either as we're finding. While monasteries being a major center for copying was definitely the case in Egypt and many other parts of the late antique world, secular copyists existed in cities and towns as well for employment. Monasteries and monks would often act independently of ecclesiastical authorities as well as we find in the types of materials they would produce. While the change to Josephus' text must've been made by a pious monk, that he did it under direction from authorities remains to be proven and isn't evident at all, and as it stands there is not really any proof for it. For more on the monastic scribal practices you can refer to Denzy-Lewis' writings.

44 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

But l did run across a book entitled The Barbarian Conversion, but l didn't re-read it.

I'll try to get my hands on it, seems like a good work on the subject of Christianization though I'm not sure what it's value would be in a philological analysis of the Gospels.

45 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

But l did run across a book entitled The Barbarian Conversion, but l didn't re-read it.

Right, but I'm not asking about other texts I was wondering in specific what you were referring to with Matthew.

52 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

All four. Even Catholic cardinals wrote about it during the Middle Ages.

Perhaps my question wasn't clear, I was asking you what the differences in the style of Greek had to do with the crucifixion story. And perhaps if you wish to refer the style of Greek in the Gospels it might be helpful to refer to specific examples or to refer to scholarly works which go into it rather than just stating something else.

 

55 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

While your paragraph borders on the grammatically incoherent

Right, I think you might be taking this a bit more personally than I am. I was just curious about something you said which I've never come across and was interested in discussing it, not taking it there.

55 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

You are aware of some stuff from whatever theology course you took, but you do need to read and remember more while avoiding confirmational bias

I haven't taken a Christian theology course. I've taken courses and done my own readings in NT studies, the study of early Christianity, and the study of religious writing in the period in addition to studying Greek, including looking at the Greek of the NT, and studying paleography and codicology. I'm also attempting to refer to what scholars and academics working on the above subjects say, including those under whom I study this and who are renowned for their expertise on this subject. I'm trying to avoid wild speculation and actually work refer to the scholarship. Again, I think you're making this personal when it isn't at all. This is a forum and you posted something which I followed up on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are being platatudinal, but here goes:

16 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Church officials had been working on heresiology from the first century.

So did lsa-(عليه السلام). Did not he-(عليه السلام). tell the devils, possessed and all to shut their damned mouths when they said "son of g.od" (<--trying to avoid auto-capitalization).

19 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

of someone like Iranaeus, flourishing in the second century, demonstrates that isn't the case

First what "case"? Secondly, lrenaeus working in southern Gaul(France) was mostly known for writing "Against Herasies". From which we can get an understanding of some of the problems back then.

22 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

was Central Europe, which was largely Arian. 

Ain't never heared that before. l find it dubious as the Aryans remained mostly east of Palestine after expulsion from Egypt an "Libya"(West of the Nile).

24 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

The point was how and when these became popular enough to begin to be considered canonical by Christians, as opposed to having been mandated canonical by an institution, and popularity did factor into that.

l dissent from this by considering that there were so many variations in the dispersed 2nd and 3rd Century churches that what was most "popular" could not come into 'play'.

26 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

I'll try to get my hands on it, seems like a good work on the subject of Christianization though I'm not sure what it's value would be in a philological analysis of the Gospels.

lt must be three decades since l read it, but l am confident in writing that this has no linguistical information (except maybe in the use of local words).

30 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

what the differences in the style of Greek had to do with the crucifixion story. And perhaps if you wish to refer the style of Greek in the Gospels it might be helpful to refer to specific examples or to refer to scholarly works which go into it rather than just stating something else.

 

When as l wrote before the crucifixtion story was chosen as a conduit to defeat Mani and have a unifying story, the four gospels needed to be close-to-the-same. Therefore, parts needed to be re-written/edited. To illustrate, many times l heard people say not to study modern greek before ancient greek because you'll have comprehension and pronunciation problems --which l read just last month which is why l remember this. So in rewriting gospels ths becomes evident. There are textbooks on this but l never read one.

37 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Right, I think you might be taking this a bit more personally than I am. I was just curious about something you said which I've never come across and was interested in discussing it, not taking it there.

No, not in anyway personal. Trying to get histories as correct as possible is like jihada.

39 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:
 

Salams,

Church officials had been working on heresiology from the first century. So in that sense, a presentation of a coherent "orthodoxy" had occurred from quite early on in the history of the church, there was also something identifiable as proto-orthodoxy. It's just that there wasn't a mechanism to enforce that vis-a-vis the state. In the fourth century that changed, but that isn't to say that Christians were unconcerned with this before. The career of someone like Iranaeus, flourishing in the second century, demonstrates that isn't the case. And as I've previously mentioned, even afterwards with a state legitimacy of orthodoxy it didn't mean control was always had, a great example asides from Egypt and the Orient was Central Europe, which was largely Arian. 

 

My apologies then. It was perhaps a bit confusing since "heresy" isn't really applied to Manichaeanism since they aren't really a Christian movement that the Church would've felt it necessary to put forth an official creed to combat them (presuming that's what you meant by "form[ing] a comprehensive Church" -- which existed before).

 

No it isn't, the argument for popularity indicating the will of God isn't good at all. But that's besides the point. The point was how and when these became popular enough to begin to be considered canonical by Christians, as opposed to having been mandated canonical by an institution, and popularity did factor into that.

Again, this isn't exactly the case either as we're finding. While monasteries being a major center for copying was definitely the case in Egypt and many other parts of the late antique world, secular copyists existed in cities and towns as well for employment. Monasteries and monks would often act independently of ecclesiastical authorities as well as we find in the types of materials they would produce. While the change to Josephus' text must've been made by a pious monk, that he did it under direction from authorities remains to be proven and isn't evident at all, and as it stands there is not really any proof for it. For more on the monastic scribal practices you can refer to Denzy-Lewis' writings.

I'll try to get my hands on it, seems like a good work on the subject of Christianization though I'm not sure what it's value would be in a philological analysis of the Gospels.

 

Right, but I'm not asking about other texts I was wondering in specific what you were referring to with Matthew.

Perhaps my question wasn't clear, I was asking you what the differences in the style of Greek had to do with the crucifixion story. And perhaps if you wish to refer the style of Greek in the Gospels it might be helpful to refer to specific examples or to refer to scholarly works which go into it rather than just stating something else.

 

Right, I think you might be taking this a bit more personally than I am. I was just curious about something you said which I've never come across and was interested in discussing it, not taking it there.

I haven't taken a Christian theology course. I've taken courses and done my own readings in NT studies, the study of early Christianity, and the study of religious writing in the period in addition to studying Greek, including looking at the Greek of the NT, and studying paleography and codicology. I'm also attempting to refer to what scholars and academics working on the above subjects say, including those under whom I study this and who are renowned for their expertise on this subject. I'm trying to avoid wild speculation and actually work refer to the scholarship. Again, I think you're making this personal when it isn't at all. This is a forum and you posted something which I followed up on.

LIKE. One suggestion, trying rummaging through libraries because anything online and the formula for search engines gives out what the evilgelicals use. Example, l searched Eusebius a while ago, and like the index of my History of the Church copy, the "ten versions" is not listed and l wrote that into the index and several other items l thought important.

What was done in the Fourth Century was a lot like hadith science, but like Qur'an reveals they ignored the uncomfortable and then chose the Words of Shaytan out of what they compiled  --and still do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

So did lsa-(عليه السلام). Did not he-(عليه السلام). tell the devils, possessed and all to shut their damned mouths when they said "son of g.od" (<--trying to avoid auto-capitalization).

Salams,

Pity you've chosen to respond so poorly in your last two posts without provocation. I would've hoped better from a veteran member and someone who mentions so often his venerable age and experience in life.

That's besides the point. Saying that heresioligists were working in the first century was to show why the following you wrote was incorrect: "The Fourth Century C.C. is when the move to unify a larger church was begun."

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

First what "case"? Secondly, lrenaeus working in southern Gaul(France) was mostly known for writing "Against Herasies". From which we can get an understanding of some of the problems back then.

Good on you for noticing a spelling mistake. And the case being the aforementioned untrue claim you made.

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Ain't never heared that before. l find it dubious as the Aryans remained mostly east of Palestine after expulsion from Egypt an "Libya"(West of the Nile).

Then I advise you to read about Arianism among Germanic tribes, the work of the bishop Ulfilas who translated the gospels into Gothic, and rulers like Theoderic the Great. Arianism was more widespread than what you had thought.

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

dissent from this by considering that there were so many variations in the dispersed 2nd and 3rd Century churches that what was most "popular" could not come into 'play'.

Yes that is true and quite a few gospels and other theological writing, but the difference is they would be more localized and restricted in usage. The earliest gospel manuscripts we have are second century, the non canonical gospels are much later. They were obviously written from an earlier period but clearly in less circulation. Scholars agree on their popularity for this reason.

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

When as l wrote before the crucifixtion story was chosen as a conduit to defeat Mani and have a unifying story, the four gospels needed to be close-to-the-same. Therefore, parts needed to be re-written/edited. To illustrate, many times l heard people say not to study modern greek before ancient greek because you'll have comprehension and pronunciation problems --which l read just last month which is why l remember this. So in rewriting gospels ths becomes evident. There are textbooks on this but l never read one.

You haven't proven your point. Beyond the epilogue appended to Mark scholars don't really notice other sections significantly rewritten in the gospels, and they know Greek. You need to bring what a scholar says about particular passages if you don't know Greek sufficiently well yourself.

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

No, not in anyway personal. Trying to get histories as correct as possible is like jihada.

If you've taken jabs at my writing, way of studying, and resorted to being insulting like saying I'm being "platatudinal" (which, good job, you misspelled since you were so concerned with my spelling of Irenaeus — personally I couldn't care less about spelling or grammar mistakes if the writing had substance but you can't very well throw stones if you live in a glass house) rather than quoting scholarship, then yeah, you're being personal. I suppose you can justify your behavior by calling it a jihad (note the spelling). Pity that's how you act when someone wants to discuss these outlandish things you post and can't actually back up with the thousand books you own.

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

One suggestion, trying rummaging through libraries because anything online and the formula for search engines gives out what the evilgelicals use.

No, not really. That's neither how search engines work nor the type of literature I'm referring to. Nicola Denzy-Lewis, Alice Whealey, and Marc Goodacre are all established scholars working within academia not evangelical (note the spelling) nuts, and certainly not my own teacher, Tony Burke. The works I refer to are also published by academic presses or valued by academia as good scholarship whether they are physical books from libraries, mine own books, or PDFs.

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Example, l searched Eusebius a while ago, and like the index of my History of the Church copy, the "ten versions" is not listed and l wrote that into the index and several other items l thought important.

Well, in scholarship when you cute outlandish things you can't cite, they tend to be dismissed.

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

What was done in the Fourth Century was a lot like hadith science

I would've once again asked what you meant but I feel I'd be wasting my time. I'm certainly not speaking to a cake or islamicsalvation that I could expect good information about diraya or rijal.

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 30, 2019 at 11:13 PM, Haji 2003 said:

There may well be issues of legality and illegality, but they are quite separate from cruelty or the lack thereof.

As I understand it in the U.S. the tradition was to have domestic cats declawed. Which is pretty horrific to be honest. And in fact the very idea of having an animal bred, kept captive and denied many instinctive behaviours so that some human can have a warm rug is also pretty cruel.

But it is legal.

Well, I grew up in a rural area. No cats were declawed. Never even heard of a declawed cat until I was an adult. Still have never known but one person who had a declawed cat and I've known lots and lots of people with cats. So I am a bad person to tell you how widespread it was. Now bans are starting to be placed on the practice in many municipalities,so it's not legal in those places. Veterinarians all over won't perform it anymore. Breeders will put anti-declaw stipulations in their sale contracts and refuse to sell a kitten to anyone who would consider it. I never even thought of declawing any of my cats. I provided them with clawing logs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

"The Fourth Century C.C. is when the move to unify a larger church was begun."

After the year 300 C.C. is the 4th Century until 400 C.C.

56 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Arianism was more widespread than what you had thought.

l'II check when l get time.

57 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

earliest gospel manuscripts we have are second century,

Correct as far as l can remember. The Syriac manuscript is the oldest, is it not?

58 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

You haven't proven your point. Beyond the epilogue appended to Mark

l do not have a "point". You know the difference between Mark and the Secret Book of Mark do you not?

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

"platatudinal" (which, good job, you misspelled

With a life-long hearing impediment, l have done some really "outlandish" misspellings.

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

these outlandish things

:book:

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

That's neither how search engines work

A significant part of the search engine algorithm is frequency of clicks.

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

cute outlandish things

:book:

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

but I feel I'd be wasting my time.

When you can't out write me l can understand why you feel defeated. 

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

diraya or rijal.

So how does tradition/transmission and biographies come into this discussion?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Don't know if I'll get to respond to all the notifications tonight. Tired from celebrating All Saints, All Souls, and from Grandma Duty.

Happy to report that my grandson  won his age group costume contest for Scariest Costume! 

He went as a Third Party Voter!

Just kidding.

He won" most creative " for his Panda. :clap:

In other news....without scrolling through all the (I'm sure fascinating) verbage above...was there just a tussle between Muslims regarding Christian holidays with no Christian supervision?! Lol!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

.was there just a tussle between Muslims regarding Christian holidays with no Christian supervision?!

Yeah, kind of. lt was more about whose version of early church history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

So I am a bad person to tell you how widespread it was.

Yes.

Quote

 

Attitudes differ widely across the Atlantic. While many European countries signed a treaty forbidding the practice in the early 1990s, an AP poll in 2011 found that 55% of US cat owners said it was OK to declaw their cats. 

Some studies suggest that between 20% and 25% of pet cats in the US have been declawed.

 

https://www.bbc.co.United Kingdom/news/world-us-Canada-48528968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 2:13 AM, Haji 2003 said:

As I understand it in the U.S. the tradition was to have domestic cats declawed.

This is rare, and the people I know who have had it done, it was because it was a choice between declawing or getting rid of the aggressive or destructive animal. Adult animals, especially ones who are destructive or aggressive, are near impossible to re-home, so it's a life or death of the animal decision, not to be taken lightly. Nobody declaws their pet just as a matter of tradition or as a preventative measure. 

For example, my parents had to have a cat declawed because she kept attacking their grandchildren, and where they lived putting her outside was not an option and caging her for her whole life would have been even more cruel. They've always had cats, and this is the only one to have ever been declawed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

AP poll in 2011 found that 55% of US cat owners said it was OK to declaw their cats. 

Maybe it's because I'm a recluse, but I don't know any of those people.  Everyone I know considers it cruel, and something to be done only as a last resort. 

I don't know, maybe it's a rich people thing. Any rich Americans here on shiachat? Do your cat-people peers declaw as a matter of course? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...