Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-04-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Pete, you've asked me before, in an old thread, what I think about your evidence, and I answered your question. Here is my answer again:

All the evidence you have presented is consistent with your hypothesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine; but it is also all consistent with the alternative hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of the evidence you offer falsifies the hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of it gets us any closer to deciding between the two hypotheses.

This reminds me of the approach of a defence lawyer. I have worked with a number of the largest attorney firms in Australia and I know there are two parties: both the defence and the prosecution.

The prosecution in this instance is simply the charge against Constantine and his successors of the fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history. My understanding is that there does not yet exist any firm scholarly consensus of opinion concerning the nature of Julian's invectives.

Julian IMO was a barrister for the above prosecution who was then censored by subsequent generations of the christian regime - specifically Cyril of Alexandria.

Best wishes,

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by JULIAN

As for Constantine, he could not discover among the gods
the model of his own career, but when he caught sight of
Pleasure, who was not far off, he ran to her. She received
him tenderly and embraced him, then after dressing him in
raiment of many colours and otherwise making him beautiful,
she led him away to Incontinence.

There too he found Jesus, who had taken up his abode with
her and cried aloud to all comers:

"He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer,
he that is sacrilegious and infamous,
let him approach without fear!
For with this water will I wash him
and will straightway make him clean.

And though he should be guilty
of those same sins a second time,
let him but smite his breast and beat his head
and I will make him clean again."

To him Constantine came gladly, when he had conducted his
sons forth from the assembly of the gods. But the avenging
deities none the less punished both him and them for their
impiety, and extracted the penalty for the shedding of the
blood of their kindred, [96] until Zeus granted them a respite
for the sake of Claudius and Constantius. [97]

"As for thee", Hermes said to me, "I have granted
you the knowledge of thy father Mithras. Do thou keep
his commandments, and thus secure for thyself a cable
and sure anchorage throughout thy life, and when thou
must depart from the world that canst with good hopes
adopt him as thy guardian god."

The concluding verses of Julian's THE CAESARS

J-D · 07-05-2008, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Pete, you've asked me before, in an old thread, what I think about your evidence, and I answered your question. Here is my answer again:

All the evidence you have presented is consistent with your hypothesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine; but it is also all consistent with the alternative hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of the evidence you offer falsifies the hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of it gets us any closer to deciding between the two hypotheses.

This reminds me of the approach of a defence lawyer. I have worked with a number of the largest attorney firms in Australia and I know there are two parties: both the defence and the prosecution.

In the criminal law there are two parties, the defence and the prosecution. But importing the standards of the criminal law into a historical investigation is wholly inappropriate. I am not recommending either a defence or a prosecution stance; I am recommending an open-minded investigation of the evidence in an attempt to determine which hypothesis best fits with it. That is the approach of the historian, and also of the scientist. It contrasts with the approach of the crank with a barrow to push, who adopts a position (from whatever motives) and from then on is concerned only to defend i by whatever means possible, no matter how contrived or sophistical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The prosecution in this instance is simply the charge against Constantine and his successors of the fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history.

No, that is not the essence of the issue. Even if Constantine did have earlier history falsified, that does not prove your thesis of the non-existence of Christianity before Constantine.

Roger Pearse · 07-05-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Roger forgot to mention that he has fathomed the real reason for my research to be MALICE. It appears that Roger cannot conceive of any person thinking the origins of christianity involved FRAUD. On the other hand, I have consistently provided substantiated my claims

No you haven't. You have never done so. You have in fact denied that there is any need for you to do so, on the grounds ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

and have asked for evidence to be presented for the existence of christianity prior to the rise of BULLNECK.

... that you think this is a sufficient substitute.

But it isn't.

For the sincerity of the poster, we need merely read this, posted before he started posting his stuff all over this forum:

--start--
From: "mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: Re: Do we have non Eusebian evidence that there were Christian Churches prior to 312?
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:08:39 GMT

Next time you'll leave me alone in alt.surfing and
cease and desist with your evangelical

"Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1131133978.910974.278680@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> It seems that you haven't tried to find out whether
> any of this is true: instead you claim that the rest of
> us must prove you wrong, whatever you choose
> to assert.

If you had not descended on the alt.surfing newsgroup
where I was obliviously minding my own business, and
made some scathing evangelical diatribe, I would not
indeed have followed all this though to the above conclusion.
--end--

In other words, he made up the story out of malice and spite towards myself (I don't post "evangelical diatribes", as posters here know). And, when the obvious falsity is pointed out, demands "prove me wrong."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 07-05-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I know that most posters know, this, but as a newcomer CG, you need to be aware that MountainMan is a crank poster. His 'erudition' is all borrowed, and his presentation intentionally deceptive. He intends to deceive *you*, I'm sorry to say.

Roger forgot to mention that he has fathomed the real reason for my research to be MALICE.

Indeed; for MM said as much himself in an incautious post in 2005.

Quote:

Here we see Roger citing Sozomen ... Roger has not done the sufficient research or is being himself deliberately deceptive. We have more than Sozomen telling us about the Council of Nicaea. What we know of the Council of Nicaea is derived from a small number of sources. The histories of Philostorgius (fragments via Photius), Rufinius of Aqueila, Socrates Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen and Theodoret of Cyrus survive.

A few years ago various falsehoods about the council of Nicaea were commonplace online. Growing suspicious about it, I took the time to compile apage on the sources for the Council of Nicaea, which lists all the sources and links to as many as possible of them. This disposed of most of the wilder stories, although the "Da Vinci Code" has reintroduced some.

Whether MM has done his own research, or merely cribbed mine without acknowledgement is for others to determine.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 07-05-2008, 10:44 PM

In response to Roger and J-D
I quote an ancient historian.
Is Momigliano also a crank?
I dont think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries.

Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

---- On Pagans, Jews and Christians:
Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 07-06-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In response to Roger and J-D
I quote an ancient historian.
Is Momigliano also a crank?
I dont think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries.

Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

---- On Pagans, Jews and Christians:
Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Best wishes,

Pete

What Momigliano says there is perfectly reasonable. I have no reason to think Momigliano is a crank. If it comes to that, I never said that you were a crank. I have said in the past that you are methodologically bankrupt, and I stand by that. Your quote from Momigliano provides you with no justification for your methodology. You say that your post is in response to me, but in fact it fails to respond to what I have actually said.

mountainman · 07-07-2008, 09:07 PM

Other threads relevant to the emperor Julian ....

Are political issues important to textual criticism in the case of Julians Galilaeans

Did Emperor Julian "LIE" when he said FICTION (of wicked men)?

J-D · 07-08-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Other threads relevant to the emperor Julian ....

Are political issues important to textual criticism in the case of Julians Galilaeans

Did Emperor Julian "LIE" when he said FICTION (of wicked men)?

I'd forgotten that (in the second of those two threads) I'd realised that your whole position is a variation of Last Thursdayism.

mountainman · 07-08-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Other threads relevant to the emperor Julian ....

Are political issues important to textual criticism in the case of Julians Galilaeans

Did Emperor Julian "LIE" when he said FICTION (of wicked men)?

I'd forgotten that (in the second of those two threads) I'd realised that your whole position is a variation of Last Thursdayism.

Where abouts in your "realisation" did my insistent references to carbon dating fit? We have Nag Hammadi with a C14 date of 348 CE (See Fox) and we have gJudas with a C14 date of 290 CE (both + or - 60 years). Everywhere I have written I have accepted the principles of Popperian falsifiability and it will be up to you to demonstrate this is not the case. The argument is simple and emminently falsifiable via a variety of evidential pathways, with C14 squarely the first discriminator.

Surely the position of Last Thursdayism is being accepted by those who believe without any evidence that there were christians on the planet because the literature published under Constantine said that there were, and that this belief was supported by the emperors who followed bullneck.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 07-08-2008, 06:39 PM

Here are some of the things I have said about Pete's methodological bankruptcy in past threads.

Quote:

Here we have two hypotheses.

1. Christianity did not exist before Constantine.
2. Christianity did exist before Constantine.

A balanced methodology would gather available data and look at whether, taking all the data together, they fit better with hypothesis 1 or with hypothesis 2.

But you, because of your own bias, adopt a biassed methodology instead.

When the discussion turns to hypothesis 1, you insist that the methodological onus is to produce evidence that falsifies it. All you undertake to do is to show how any bit of evidence might possibly fit with hypothesis 1. You make no attempt to produce any evidence that positively supports hypothesis 1 as against hypothesis 2, by showing not merely that it can possibly fit with hypothesis 1 but also that it fits with hypothesis 1 better than with hypothesis 2.

When the discussion turns to hypothesis 2, however, you apply a biassed double standard and insist that the methodological onus is to produce evidence that positively supports it. All you undertake to do is to show how any bit of evidence that fits with hypothesis 2 might also possibly fit with hypothesis 1.

Quote:

you refuse to be methodologically even-handed because doing so won't give you the results you want. You have a predetermined result and then select your line of approach in order to support it. Ergo, you are methodologically bankrupt. I explained in my previous post what a balanced methodology might look like: you have not given any reason for rejecting this approach or for regarding an alternative methodology as superior.

Quote:

What you are not entitled to do, by any sound methodology, is to reject a line of approach solely because it leads to rejecting your theory. That is not an intellectually valid procedure in history, in science, or anywhere else.

Quote:

OK, that's two different threads now, and still nobody will defend Pete's methodology.

Conclusion:

Give it up, Pete! You're not fooling anybody!

Quote:

You think you know how history is done, but you don't.

I've set out the methodological point in the previous thread to which you've linked, and anybody (including you) who thinks they can see a flaw in my argument is free to explain it. So far nobody's stepping up.

Quote:

In practice, it turns out that what you mean by this is that you are justified in dreaming up whatever fantasy you like and that you are absolved from providing any case in favour of it or engaging in any examination of its merits so long as nobody can categorically disprove it.

That is not a satisfactory historical methodology.

Quote:

I expect people who make a historical assertion to be prepared to produce some sort of evidence for it. You feel entitled to manufacture historical assertions without feeling any obligation to have any kind of evidence for them. That's what you are doing in this case. That is why I say you are methodologically bankrupt. And when I have raised this point on more than one thread, nobody has been prepared to defend your methodology. As I said before: Give it up, Pete! You're not fooling anybody!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2008, 09:07 PM	#27
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Other threads relevant to the emperor Julian .... Are political issues important to textual criticism in the case of Julians Galilaeans Did Emperor Julian "LIE" when he said FICTION (of wicked men)?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.