Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 11-14-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The analogy isn't functional.

If the epigraph proves true then it provides a earliest tangible piece of evidence for christianity. It doesn't matter how many opinions float around as to when a text was written or when events narrated in a text might have happened, when compared to having an artefact in a datable stratum.

"Why bother to look for evidence of Christianity in the second century?"

It pushes the latest date for signs of christianity back into the second century. We have a dude here who has a theory that Eusebius invented christianity for Constantine and has constructed his theory so that he will only consider hard-datable evidence, ie no literary evidence, because it all could have been produced fraudulently (I kid you not).

(He's not adverse to incoherent analyses of texts when it suits him though.)

Archaeological evidence for early 2nd c. christianity is useful.

spin

Yes, I knew that. Thanks

Why bother to look for evidence of Christianity in the second century?

It is like someone looking for Egyptians mummies to prove that humans exist.

As I said the first time, the analogy isn't functional. Try something like:

It is like someone looking for Egyptian mummies in the thirteenth dynasty context in an effort to find the earliest evidence for mummification, rather than assuming they had the process when the society emerged.

What hard evidence do you know about for christianity before the second century?

spin

Iskander · 11-14-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Yes, I knew that. Thanks

Why bother to look for evidence of Christianity in the second century?

It is like someone looking for Egyptians mummies to prove that humans exist.

As I said the first time, the analogy isn't functional. Try something like:

It is like someone looking for Egyptian mummies in the thirteenth dynasty context in an effort to find the earliest evidence for mummification, rather than assuming they had the process when the society emerged.

What hard evidence do you know about for christianity before the second century?

spin

The analogy was used to aid in the evaluation of the value of the effort. It is not meant for use as a tool.

I welcome ‘functional’ knowledge, but absence of evidence changes nothing. . Besides, if evidence of Christianity is found that rules out Eusebio as its author, then someone else could propose that it was Eusebio’s father who invented Christianity.

Good night.

spin · 11-14-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As I said the first time, the analogy isn't functional. Try something like:

It is like someone looking for Egyptian mummies in the thirteenth dynasty context in an effort to find the earliest evidence for mummification, rather than assuming they had the process when the society emerged.

What hard evidence do you know about for christianity before the second century?

spin

The analogy was used to aid in the evaluation of the value of the effort. It is not meant for use as a tool.

An analogy is functional when it illuminates some aspect of something more complex. Your attempt didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

I welcome ‘functional’ knowledge, but absence of evidence changes nothing. . Besides, if evidence of Christianity is found that rules out Eusebio as its author, then someone else could propose that it was Eusebio’s father who invented Christianity.

Good night.

Absence of evidence is often little help, though when information is expected and not found, it becomes functional.

The notion of terminus ad quem is however quite helpful. It eliminates things and reduces date ranges, concentrating focus.

spin

aa5874 · 11-15-2008, 06:29 PM

The word "Christian" is ambiguous when applied to the 1st century. When Tactitus, Suetonius and Justin Martyr are taken into consideration, it would appear that "Christians" may not mean believers in Jesus of the NT.

In Tacitus and Suetonius it would appear that only Jews were called Christians and in Justin Martyr, followers or believers in the magician Simon Magus were called Christians.

And the word 'Christ" predated Jesus by hundreds of years.

Perhaps we should look for evidence of Jesus believers.

Iskander · 11-16-2008, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The word "Christian" is ambiguous when applied to the 1st century. When Tactitus, Suetonius and Justin Martyr are taken into consideration, it would appear that "Christians" may not mean believers in Jesus of the NT.

In Tacitus and Suetonius it would appear that only Jews were called Christians and in Justin Martyr, followers or believers in the magician Simon Magus were called Christians.

And the word 'Christ" predated Jesus by hundreds of years.

Perhaps we should look for evidence of Jesus believers.

This is a step in the right direction, but it is not ‘functional’. The believers could have been tricked into believing something, allegedly, said by a non-existing Jesus. It would only show an earlier ‘Christian mummy’ instead of the living specimens already availably to us, but no hard evidence that would allow us to identify the author.

Someone should be looking for Jesus friends

mountainman · 11-16-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Perhaps we should look for evidence of Jesus believers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Perhaps we should look for evidence of Jesus friends.

Dear aa5874 and Iskander,

The literature record does not in fact state the name "Jesus" but an abbeviated name composed of two initials with a bar over the top of it. The holy name was written in this same form in the epoch BCE by enlightened beings who supposed the abbreviation was in fact the abbreviated form of the name of the (historical and/or mythological and/or fictional) person known as Joshua, the successor of Moses.

The question needs to be asked at what epoch were these two abbreviated names conflated, and by whom?

Best wishes,

Pete

Sheshbazzar · 11-16-2008, 11:37 PM

Most should be aware, that among Jews, it is common and customary not to "read", nor to pronounce certain combinations of actual letters as written.
This still is the custom in all true Nazarene congregations throughout the entire world, where, though dozens of different versions of The Bible be present within a House of Meeting, no man, woman, nor child reads from these books exactly as what may appear to the eyes upon the written page.
HaShem (and its variations) is always kept, "hallowed", sacrosanct, and "Set Apart" from any gentile substitutions, interpretations, "forms", "translations", or "abbreviations".

Toto · 11-17-2008, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Perhaps we should look for evidence of Jesus believers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Perhaps we should look for evidence of Jesus friends.

Dear aa5874 and Iskander,

The literature record does not in fact state the name "Jesus" but an abbeviated name composed of two initials with a bar over the top of it. The holy name was written in this same form in the epoch BCE by enlightened beings who supposed the abbreviation was in fact the abbreviated form of the name of the (historical and/or mythological and/or fictional) person known as Joshua, the successor of Moses.

The question needs to be asked at what epoch were these two abbreviated names conflated, and by whom?

Best wishes,

Pete

We've gone over this before - the Hebrew name Joshua is equivalent to the Greek name Jesus (Iesous). Iesous was used for Joshua in the Septuagint. Are you still confused?

Sheshbazzar · 11-17-2008, 08:17 AM

Is sibboleth the exact equivalent of shibboleth?
The Ephraimites and the Manassites (the majority) thought it was, and writing and pronouncing as they would, would also have been willing to argue the matter;
However, the Gileadites didn't think so, didn't buy it, and neither do faithful Israelites, or true Nazarenes.

Just because a word or a name became corrupted through the means of a Greek translation, and becomes popular, that does not make the error become the "equivalent of", proper, or correct.
"And they shall teach my people to keep a distinction between that Holy and that profane, and cause them to discern between that unclean and that clean. "
The difference and the distinction remains.

Clivedurdle · 11-17-2008, 12:37 PM

Gilead then cut Ephraim off from the fords of the Jordan, and whenever Ephraimite fugitives said, 'Let me cross,' the men of Gilead would ask, 'Are you an Ephraimite?' If he said, 'No,' they then said, 'Very well, say Shibboleth.' If anyone said, 'Sibboleth', because he could not pronounce it, then they would seize him and kill him by the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites fell on this occasion.

– Judges 12:5-6, NJB

11-17-2008, 12:37 PM	#20
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Gilead then cut Ephraim off from the fords of the Jordan, and whenever Ephraimite fugitives said, 'Let me cross,' the men of Gilead would ask, 'Are you an Ephraimite?' If he said, 'No,' they then said, 'Very well, say Shibboleth.' If anyone said, 'Sibboleth', because he could not pronounce it, then they would seize him and kill him by the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites fell on this occasion. – Judges 12:5-6, NJB

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

11-15-2008, 06:29 PM	#14
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The word "Christian" is ambiguous when applied to the 1st century. When Tactitus, Suetonius and Justin Martyr are taken into consideration, it would appear that "Christians" may not mean believers in Jesus of the NT. In Tacitus and Suetonius it would appear that only Jews were called Christians and in Justin Martyr, followers or believers in the magician Simon Magus were called Christians. And the word 'Christ" predated Jesus by hundreds of years. Perhaps we should look for evidence of Jesus believers.

11-16-2008, 11:37 PM	#17
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Most should be aware, that among Jews, it is common and customary not to "read", nor to pronounce certain combinations of actual letters as written. This still is the custom in all true Nazarene congregations throughout the entire world, where, though dozens of different versions of The Bible be present within a House of Meeting, no man, woman, nor child reads from these books exactly as what may appear to the eyes upon the written page. HaShem (and its variations) is always kept, "hallowed", sacrosanct, and "Set Apart" from any gentile substitutions, interpretations, "forms", "translations", or "abbreviations".

11-17-2008, 08:17 AM	#19
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Is sibboleth the exact equivalent of shibboleth? The Ephraimites and the Manassites (the majority) thought it was, and writing and pronouncing as they would, would also have been willing to argue the matter; However, the Gileadites didn't think so, didn't buy it, and neither do faithful Israelites, or true Nazarenes. Just because a word or a name became corrupted through the means of a Greek translation, and becomes popular, that does not make the error become the "equivalent of", proper, or correct. "And they shall teach my people to keep a distinction between that Holy and that profane, and cause them to discern between that unclean and that clean. " The difference and the distinction remains.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.