Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 12-23-2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

I just pointed out that this is just another one of the complaints of Hadrian.

No, it is the same complaint throughout.

Quote:

First he defines who the Christians are.

No, first he offers a specific example of the eclecticism he opposes. It is clearly not restricted to Christians and you go far beyond the text to call this a "definition" of anything.

Quote:

He says that the worshipers of Serapis are called Christians. Then he says that the Bishops of Christ are devoted to Serapis. Then he complains about how the leaders of the Jews and worshipers of Serapis (Christians) engage in fraudulent religious practices (astrology, prophesy, and faith healing).

Yes, all one complaint about eclecticism and not any sort of "definition" of Christianity.

mountainman · 12-23-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No, first he offers a specific example of the eclecticism he opposes. It is clearly not restricted to Christians and you go far beyond the text to call this a "definition" of anything.

Yes, all one complaint about eclecticism and not any sort of "definition" of Christianity.

Why are you arguing over a reference from the Historia Augusta
when that text has the reputation of being an unreliable source,
fully equipped with lavish forgeries of cited documents?

Noone is going to advance any issue by citing this text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Momigliano

"The Historia Augusta is the classic example of historiographic mystery. The work purports to have been written by six authors at various moments of the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. Some at least of the alleged authors claim to have written in collaboration. This very claim of team-work is baffling: cooperative ‘Cambridge histories were not common in antiquity. The writing is sensational and unscrupulous, and the forged documents included in this work serve no obvious purpose. One or two passages may point to a post-Constantinian date either for the whole collection or at least for the passages themselves. But the date and the purpose of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae remain au unsolved problem.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Roger Pearse · 12-25-2007, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

The only reason that Roger thinks that all references to Jesus Christ are references to Jesus of Nazareth, and that all references to Christians are references to followers of Jesus of Nazareth, is his personal bias. He provides no evidence.

Thank you for this assertion. I realise that it saves you having to deal with my actual arguments, but it ends useful discussion. Here's why.

You see, I can simply adopt the same approach in response, and with rather more evidence. I can point out that everything you say is merely a rationalisation of your need to find that Christianity is not true. (Obviously any sane person who happens to believe this is not going to waste valuable drinking time sitting around bitching; he's going down the pub. So the fact that you're wasting what you believe to be the only life you have on this proves obsession).

At that point we are then reduced to shouting names at each other, and we follow that up by shedding blood (or we do if you come close enough to me to get my fist in your face; or vice versa).

As you might appreciate, all this leaves the actual *issue* to one side. Much as I would enjoy thumping you (or vice versa), and much as you need it (or vice versa), it's irrelevant.

This is why this kind of argument -- an ad hominem argument, it is called, because its attacks are to the man rather that to the issue -- is of no use in resolving a dispute.

Please address the issue. You are wrong, and you continue to refuse to read what the text actually says.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 12-25-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This is rather ignorant. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but I am getting a little impatient with the quantity of ignorant hearsay without sources that you are posting in this forum, and I doubt I am alone in this.

Paleography is the technique to date *manuscripts*, not texts. The date of a manuscript has no bearing on the date of the text contained within it, since nearly all ancient literary texts are extant in manuscripts written after the 9th century AD or later (often much later).

Paleography is the standard means to date a manuscript.

So, what is the Paleographic evidence that the gospels were written before the 4th century.

Did you not understand what I just wrote?

PALEOGRAPHY DATES MANUSCRIPTS, NOT TEXTS

Do you understand what the difference is, or what I mean here? (Please concentrate, for everything you write will be rubbish until you grasp this -- common -- confusion).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

For aesthetic reasons, copiers often copied documents in ancient textual styles, so all you can really say is that the document was written after that style was first introduced.

I hate to imagine where you are getting this nonsense from. Before paleography was invented (by Dom Jean de Mabillon in the 18th century) it was impossible to forge old bookhands.

Forgery is an ancient art. e.g. Donation of Constantine.

Yes, I know. What has this to do with the assertion that people were able to write in the bookhand of a prior period? Where does it come from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Carbon dating is not used for dating manuscripts. The text of the NT exists in manuscripts from ca. 200 onwards (if you want to argue about this, go and find a professional).

This is just silly nonsense.

You're welcome to believe anything you like, of course. If you want to find out, tho, ask around.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 12-25-2007, 07:30 AM

An argument from (an aggressive and intolerant) authority
serves absolutely no purpose in skeptical criticism (of history).

Roger Pearse · 12-25-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Apollo was not crucified.

Follow the link to the quote, and you can see that the title of the paragraph is

Chapter XIII.-Of Jesus, God and Man; And the Testimonies of the Prophets Concerning Him.

In that quote, the Milesian Apollo is the oracle of Apollo Didymaeus, and the "he" to which Apollo refers is presumably the person mentioned in the first sentence,

Therefore the Most High God, and Parent of all, when He had purposed to transfer His religion, sent from heaven a teacher of righteousness, that in Him or through Him He might give a new law to new worshippers;

Roger may give a better answer, but I didn't want a new rumor to get started.

No, me neither.

'He' is Jesus, I think. This is from a collection of "pagan sayings about Christ" -- we've been discussing these in the Mithras thread -- and an interesting set that I had not seen before. The quotes are here from Hermes Trismegistus and from the Milesian Apollo.

Note the mention of Hermes Trismegistus -- who is also found all over this genre. Everyone mentions Hermes, even if they differ as to who the other 'sages' quoted are.

All the quotes are probably bogus to a greater or lesser degree. By being taken out of context, slightly edited each time, and gathered in other collections, any old legend can be created.

Testimonies from the prophets of the Jews and from the sages of the pagans are a standard two-fold apologetic basis for Christ (as we saw in John Ibn Saba, who had a chapter for each).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 12-29-2007, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

About the forgeries and the fiction
I do have some questions ...

What do you know about Arnaldo Momigliano?
What do you think was discussed at the Council of Nicaea?
Who first published this fiction book - the New Testament?
When was this NT first published?
Where was this NT first published?
Who paid for - or "sponsored" - the fabrication?
Who was contracted to, or wrote, the text?

Finally, what do you make of the chronology and place
in the whole scheme of things of the three major NT
codices - the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus?

Pete, I owe you answers, but I can not spend much time on this until January. It is likely that Esuebius was also heavely revised. They were still drafting the longer ending of Mark in the 10th century. There are lots of opinions and few facts about this stuff.

Hey Pat,

Best wishes with the research - its virtually endless.
But I think you're heading in the right direction.
Keep going.

Pete Brown

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

12-25-2007, 07:30 AM	#135
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	An argument from (an aggressive and intolerant) authority serves absolutely no purpose in skeptical criticism (of history).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.