FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-02-2013, 10:18 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 635
Default

This has inspired me to look at some of Pete's work. His useful point is that Christians routinely assume we have early hard evidence of the church, but the paucity of such evidence is astounding, suggesting that conventional myths about Christian origins should be viewed with more doubt.

Even if Pete's hypothesis is exaggerated, it is a starting point to collect the incontrovertible evidence of the existence of Christianity before the fourth century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers lists many pre-Nicaean writers. The idea that their work was fraudulently produced in the fourth century looks like the idea that Shakespeare did not write his plays - perhaps technically possible but highly improbable.

The other important result of Pete's ideas is the Orwellian analysis of imperialism and its reliance on a totalitarian narrative. The continuity between Constantine, the Papacy and modern subverters of historical truth such as Stalin illustrates how central ideas are to power. We routinely underestimate the will and capacity and need of rulers to construct their own fantastic self-serving versions of history. Pete's analysis is a useful corrective for conventional myths about Constantine's charitable Christian motives.
Robert Tulip is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 10:38 PM   #42
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Pete - what do you understand about statistics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
This is not a matter of preference though, is it? The evidence is clearly that christian motifs from Dura Europos date from before 257 CE. Unambiguous evidence. Falsification.
With respect to yourself and Toto (and others) the evidence (as you see it) is as you state however the net result of your poll indicates that, while you may have a majority, you do not have an unambiguous consensus. There are those, including me, who do not accept this mural art as unambiguous evidence of the 3rd century existence of the Jesus Story (Jesus and Peter and Bilbo etc) as claimed.
This is a red herring. You misrepresented yourself. You claimed that you "have repeatedly claimed that if unambiguous evidence can be produced to refute the HYPOTHESIS then I would retire from the field of investigation". This is just another dodge. You basically falsely spoke. You have no intention other than to go back on your promise and stalwartly deny the simple evidence of the frescoes and the inscriptions. And let's go the whole hog and recall the diatessaron type document found under the defensive rubble outside a gate. The evidence is there. It doesn't matter how you try to finesse it, manipulate the situation or stick your head further into the sand. This is evidence that clearly shows that christianity existed at Dura Europos prior to 257 CE. Hence falsification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Had I been alone in this assessment you may have had a case for falsification, but it is clear that I am not alone in my assessment of this case. I suggest that confirmation bias can work two ways, and that the mainstream has accepted this 20th century evidence uncritically. Ditto for the reliance upon palaeographical dating and the source known as Eusebius.
Confirmation bias doesn't change the secure dating of these christian indications. Dodge, dodge, dodge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Other explanations for the Dura-Europos discovery have NOT been explored.
Returning to this dodge now. What other explanations would you like to propose for four gospel narratives represented in the frescoes, for the nomine sacre found in situ and for the diatessaron also found in situ? Would you like to try to old divide and conquer routine, separating these christian items and neglecting the context in order to propose that they don't represent what they blatantly seem to represent, as confirmed by their presence together?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Why not spin? No need to explore any further because we have the answer already?
When you find a spade, there's no need to look for alternative purposes for the device. You should call a spade a spade and leave off with the attempts to call it an early prototype backscratcher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Additionally, the Dura-Europos-Yale structure is not claimed to be either a Christian church or a Christian church house (none of these structures have ever been found), but a "Christian house-church", and it is the SOLE EXEMPLAR of such a structure in the entire field of Christian archaeology.
Did I mention that we were dealing with a church house here?? I asked about the fact that we have christian images and texts. Dodge, dodge, dodge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
What sort of special pleading is happening here?
You are bending over backwards to back out of your claim:
"I have repeatedly claimed that if unambiguous evidence can be produced to refute the HYPOTHESIS then I would retire from the field of investigation."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Does anyone know how dangerous it can be in relying not on a pattern of similar facts, but on a "sole exemplar"?
Frescoes, inscriptions and the diatessaron. Hmmm, dodge, dodge, dodge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
We have been dealing with a massive Belief Industry. I think its bullshit all the way down.


Dodge, dodge, dodge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
I have repeatedly claimed that if unambiguous evidence can be produced to refute the HYPOTHESIS then I would retire from the field of investigation.
It's well past time, mountainman.
spin is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 10:58 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,812
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
First, if you look again, you'll see the reconstruction at Yale with an arched structure on the left with frescoes to the right. Details of those frescoes (see other images) are 1) the scenes of the healing of the paralytic, to their right 2) scenes of walking on the Sea of Galilee with the disciples in the boat and Jesus and Peter in the foreground, and below that 3) the tomb with the women approaching it. The rest of the wall did not survive. In the lunette of the arched structure is an image of the good shepherd and from another wall you'll find a fragment with the Samaritan woman at the well. They are all to be found in that search.
I assume it is the images mountainman was kind enough to link.
I agree that they seem do depict storied from NT. But also that nothing indicates christianity as we know it today.
Juma is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 11:30 PM   #44
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juma View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
First, if you look again, you'll see the reconstruction at Yale with an arched structure on the left with frescoes to the right. Details of those frescoes (see other images) are 1) the scenes of the healing of the paralytic, to their right 2) scenes of walking on the Sea of Galilee with the disciples in the boat and Jesus and Peter in the foreground, and below that 3) the tomb with the women approaching it. The rest of the wall did not survive. In the lunette of the arched structure is an image of the good shepherd and from another wall you'll find a fragment with the Samaritan woman at the well. They are all to be found in that search.
I assume it is the images mountainman was kind enough to link.
I agree that they seem do depict storied from NT. But also that nothing indicates christianity as we know it today.
American Evangelicals come right out of Paul and the gospels.

Laying of hands(healing)
Speaking in tongues and interpreting
Visions
Singing
Reading scriptures
Spreading the word as a mission from Jesus and god


I had the opportunity to attend a private meeting and watched the above in action . Inline with the NT their group had people considered elders, but no actual authorities.

If someone wasn't feeling well, people would lay hands on him or her. Long bouts of singing interupted by someone proclaiming a vision and relating it.

Catholicism and a pope are considered not biblically based.

Going back to the 1800s when Christianity was fading there was The Second Great Awakening. There was a large gathering in the 1700s or 1800s where people started having visions and the like, and it spread.

The roots of the revival movement that led to Billy Graham and today's Evangelicals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_awakening

Circa 1970 when I was in Memphis preachers were out on the street preaching and prophesizing.
steve_bnk is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 12:22 AM   #45
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juma View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
First, if you look again, you'll see the reconstruction at Yale with an arched structure on the left with frescoes to the right. Details of those frescoes (see other images) are 1) the scenes of the healing of the paralytic, to their right 2) scenes of walking on the Sea of Galilee with the disciples in the boat and Jesus and Peter in the foreground, and below that 3) the tomb with the women approaching it. The rest of the wall did not survive. In the lunette of the arched structure is an image of the good shepherd and from another wall you'll find a fragment with the Samaritan woman at the well. They are all to be found in that search.
I assume it is the images mountainman was kind enough to link.
I agree that they seem do depict storied from NT. But also that nothing indicates christianity as we know it today.
There have been several centuries for the christianity we know today to have gone through its developments.

It is sufficient to have new testament images at Dura to falsify mountainman's claim. However, he will not admit it. He'll talk of such half-assed things as confirmation bias when he looks at the healing of the paralytic or the walking on water scenes. Bias certainly. He's confirming that he will not call a spade is a spade when it is stuck in front of his face. A religion centered on Jesus and the accompanying gospel stories existed before 257 CE.
spin is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 12:53 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
... A religion centered on Jesus and the accompanying gospel stories existed before 257 CE.
On what basis do you assert this?

Was that religion different to the religion we now know as Christianity?

Were there variations?
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 01:36 AM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
There were no coherent arguments in support of your position - just the idea that conceivably, there was some story just like the Christian story, of which we have no other evidence, but it wasn't Christianity so Constantine had to 'invent' another religion that was virtually indistinguishable.
I wish someone would address the issues I made in post #9 on this thread that ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
There seems to be a consensus that Constantine & Eusebius1 had a key role in establishing and cementing Christianity as a mainstream religion,
so it may become an issue as to how much emphasis one places on various verbs such as 'inventing' or 'establishing'; and various adverbs & adjectives associated with them or similar words.
1 It seems Eusebius started with the Septuagint and played a key role in development of the Gospel Books

.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebiu...text_criticism
.
ie. Constantine & Co may have cemented an evolving idea.
As I explained in the original thread on Dura Europas and at other times, it is accepted that Constantine made major changes in the status of Christianity, turning it into a support for his army and his state. But he worked with a preexisting religion (his mother was probably a Christian.)

This is not especially controversial. But Pete has a more radical thesis, that Constantine decided to invent a religion that had not existed before, and deliberately forged the gospels and the other parts of the New Testament, along with the second and third century church fathers' commentary.

You might look at Pete's theory as the Intelligent Design theory of Christian origins - it was created ex nihilo by an intelligent designer for a particular purpose.

Others, both Christian and non-Christian scholars, see a process of evolution and growth, but Pete sees only Creation.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 01:43 AM   #48
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
... A religion centered on Jesus and the accompanying gospel stories existed before 257 CE.
On what basis do you assert this?
If you've been reading the thread, you'll know that it is based on the evidence found at Dura Europos in a closed environment dated to a period prior to the destruction of the city in 257 CE and the fact that it was never rebuilt, but left to decay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
Was that religion different to the religion we now know as Christianity?

Were there variations?
I'm just saying no more than the minimum here because it cannot be meaningfully contraverted.
spin is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 04:31 AM   #49
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 219
Default

Hanging around here just to learn something new. Generally write something only when I think I have something new and original to write about.
Contrary to that there are some who are continually repeating the same, probably thinking that quantity can compensate the quality of their arguments.
Of course, the most annoying to me are aa5874's insistence on Paul after the Gospels and mountainman's Christianity after Constantine.
I'm glad to see that Jeffrey and spin finally decided 'to take care' of them.
But I am well aware that nothing in this world can stop them repeating always the same nonsense.
ph2ter is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 05:12 AM   #50
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

As I explained in the original thread on Dura Europas and at other times, it is accepted that Constantine made major changes in the status of Christianity, turning it into a support for his army and his state. But he worked with a preexisting religion (his mother was probably a Christian.)

This is not especially controversial. But Pete has a more radical thesis, that Constantine decided to invent a religion that had not existed before, and deliberately forged the gospels and the other parts of the New Testament, along with the second and third century church fathers' commentary.

You might look at Pete's theory as the Intelligent Design theory of Christian origins - it was created ex nihilo by an intelligent designer for a particular purpose.

Others, both Christian and non-Christian scholars, see a process of evolution and growth, but Pete sees only Creation.
Pete is kind of right, except that it is not an ex-nihilo creation story but instead it was about the annihilation of a religion-on-the-run that was called Christian.

And it is true that behind this early reform movement, as we may call it, Intelligence was prime mover wherein heaven on earth for believers was clearly in sight to make it an inspired religion that they called Catholic and not Christian.

An nothing has changed. Their bold proclamation that heaven is for Catholics only is still true today.

The difference between Catholics and Christians is clearly defined in John 6 where John 6:56 spells heaven-on-earth opposite to which John 6:66 spells hell-on-earth for those who could not accept this and "parted company from Jesus" already then as if they knew better and started flipping pages instead.

And it does not matter one iota what scholars say on this, as 'schoolers' themselves who just do not know the difference between heaven and hell of they would not be scholars themselves, flipping pages again, now to see what happened back then.

So it was not an 'evolving idea' because hell can only get hotter but must be stamped out, and for this Government Support was necessary so its army could be its voice heard with no if's, but's or maybe's about it.

For Eusebius and comrades it was an easy sell to Constantine with all those self proclaimed Christians roaming about who had 'no rest by day or by night' forever on the lookout for another carcass to devour, kind of like 'two by two's' on the prawl already then (who I just noticed have replaced their traditional briefcase with a backpack today).

The real problem is that Christians and non-Christians cannot see beyond their own scope of reference that itself already makes room for inspired from the beyond by way of [neologic] induction, or God-send by angels as they call it (apart from Gabriel as prior to religion), to place them [forever] beyond the voice of critics from down below.

To support this argument just look what happened to higher learning where Port Royal has been replaced by Brittish Analytic that they call philosophy today, while in the height of ignorance refer to Port Royal as Continental that in essence has nothing to do with Continental Europe but only with Rome.
Chili is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:51 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.