Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-04-2013, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Traversed? Nonsense. He marched his troops down the left bank, taking Cercusium (Carchemish) and crossing the river Abora (Khabur). Perhaps you imagine that he had his army cross the river for a tourist visit
...
We assume that it was captured, sacked, the occupants sold as slaves in Ctesiphon. Dura remained in Sassanian hands from then on with a notable passage of the zone by Julian and his army off down the other side of the Euphrates to Ctesiphon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Circesium was founded under the Roman Emperor Diocletian at the confluence of the Khabur River with the Euphrates, where the river was commonly crossed. Circesium replaced a still older city, called Sirhi in Assyrian texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter M. Edwell

There was clearly a considerable connection between Dura Europos and fortifications and villages on the lower Khabur. This is demonstrated in more detail in the military papyri of the third century, but earlier papyri of a civil nature from the Roman and Parthian periods show the importance of Dura as an administrative and legal centre for the Euphrates and the lower Khabur. This was the case from at least the early decades of the second cnetury when the Parthians controlled the city, and it continued into the Roman period

page 79 "Between Rome and Persia: The Middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Palmyra Under Roman Control", Routledge 2007.

Quote:

Julian set out on his fateful campaign on 5 March 363. Using his trademark strategy of striking quickly and where least expected, he moved his army through Heirapolis and from there speedily across the Euphrates and into the province of Mesopotamia, where he stopped at the town of Batnae. His plan was to eventually return through Armenia and winter in Tarsus.[[100]] Once in Mesopotamia, Julian was faced with the decision of whether to travel south through the province of Babylonia or cross the Tigris into Assyria, and he eventually decided to move south through Babylonia and turn west into Assyria at a later date. By 27 March,[[101]] he had the bulk of his army across the Euphrates, and had also arranged a flotilla to guard his supply line along the mighty river.[[102]] He then left his generals Procopius and Sebastianus to help Arsacius, the king of Armenia and a Roman client, to guard the northern Tigris line. It was also during this time that he received the surrender of many prominent local leaders who had nominally supported the Persians. These men supplied Julian with money and troops for further military action against their former masters.[[103]] Julian decided to turn south into Babylonia and proceeded along the Euphrates, coming to the fortress of Cercusium at the junction of the Abora and Euphrates Rivers around the first of April,[[104]] and from there he took his army west to a region called Zaitha[[105]] near the abandoned town of Dura where they visited the tomb of the emperor Gordian which was in the area. On April 7 he set out from there into the heart of Babylonia and towards Assyria

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors by Walter E. Roberts and Michael DiMaio, Jr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speculations based on coins

It is taken for granted that Gordian died and his tomb erected between Sircesium and Dura, presumably near Zaitha.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas.../syria_map.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl..._wall_2004.jpg

Conclusion: Evidence demonstrates that Julian and some of his army were visiting the tomb of Emperor Gordon,...

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::h ysterical:

Khartoum anyone!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...but, though they lingered in the area for ten days, from 28 March to 07 April, they never stepped foot in Dura Europos.

It's on the other side of the river. On a campaign to attack Sassanid Persia you want to have a touristic visit to a ruined city. You must be joking.

So would you like to propose that specifically christian soldiers crossed the river set the paste against the wall of the particular building, let it dry, applied the painting and then just left them there. As I said, you must be joking.

:hysterical:

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

We attain this logical conclusion, because, obviously, no Roman Emperor would be at all curious to learn first hand, the nature of the destruction, of his principal outpost on the frontier. Clearly there there would have been no military value in examining the ruins. Which General in charge of 30,000 soldiers, advancing into hostile territory, would have had the slightest interest to learn precisely how his troops had been slaughtered?

aa5874 · 06-04-2013, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

....For most people, whose information on these matters comes mainly from church sources, the conflict between the myth and the reality is highly surprising if they find out the systematic distortion of history by the church. Sure, some small pieces of evidence have survived from Before Constantine, and I would disagree with Mountainman on that. But Pete is alerting us to how very thin the actual “BC” records are, and how much potential there was for mischievous skulduggery in tampering with the records....

That is precisely the significance of mountainman's argument. Pete has exposed that the evidence for early Christianity in the 1st century and before c 70 CE is completely without any corroborative support from antiquity and that the present available evidence is extremely weak or manipulated.

Based on my research, the Jesus cult most likely originated in the 2nd century and was Hijacked by the Romans sometime in the 4th century or later who introduced a bogus chronology and history.

Tristan Scott · 06-04-2013, 08:36 AM

It seems to me that nearly all of these religions were re-inventions based on earlier mythologies. I don't see why Christianity would be any different. Once it's re-invented it then becomes the task to shore up the re-invention by either eliminating evidence supporting older mythology or manipulating the evidence to back up the re-invention.

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-04-2013, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

It seems to me that nearly all of these religions were re-inventions based on earlier mythologies. I don't see why Christianity would be any different. Once it's re-invented it then becomes the task to shore up the re-invention by either eliminating evidence supporting older mythology or manipulating the evidence to back up the re-invention.

And what informs your view of the history of "all these religions" religions, let alone what the task of religion is "once it's re-invented".

Why should anyone here think that you speak on these matters with knowledge and authority?

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 06-04-2013, 08:43 AM

Quote:

That is precisely the significance of mountainman's argument. Pete has exposed that the evidence for early Christianity in the 1st century and before c 70 CE is completely without any corroborative support from antiquity and that the present available evidence is extremely weak or manipulated.Based on my research, the Jesus cult most likely originated in the 2nd century and was Hijacked by the Romans sometime in the 4th century or later who introduced a bogus chronology and history.

Forget the content of the argument for a moment. Is this aa? He sounds so ... lucid?

steve_bnk · 06-04-2013, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

It seems to me that nearly all of these religions were re-inventions based on earlier mythologies. I don't see why Christianity would be any different. Once it's re-invented it then becomes the task to shore up the re-invention by either eliminating evidence supporting older mythology or manipulating the evidence to back up the re-invention.

I think some try to treat the rise of Christianity as an exception or aberration rather than just looking at it as you say as one of many human mythologies.

The historical details are thin but Christianity arose like any other myth/religion/movement.

The OT stories likely served a purpose of providing a cohesive background for Jews, a blend of myth and oral history.

The Romans considered religion a necessary state function for social stability. The idea that a Constantine would have facilitated a unity of various Christian sects for his political needs should not be surprising.

aa5874 · 06-04-2013, 09:11 AM

I must publicly admit that mountainman's argument the Jesus cult originated in the 4th century is far more provocative than Doherty's argument that the Jesus cult believed their crucified Jesus was never on earth.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of texts of antiquity from the Jesus cult writers that show the Jesus cult believed their Jesus was crucified or caused to be crucified because of the Jews after a trial under Pilate.

There is very little actual physical evidence outside of apologetics to show when the Jesus cult started.

It is clear that many apologetic sources have been manipulated and once they are rejected as historically worthless then there is virtually nothing to show when the Jesus cult was started.

It would appear that mountainman does not accept apologetic sources as historically credible which is reasonable.

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-04-2013, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I must publicly admit that mountainman's argument the Jesus cult originated in the 4th century is far more provocative than Doherty's argument that the Jesus cult believed their crucified Jesus was never on earth.

Leaving aside the question of why you feel declaring what you declare is a necessity (You "must" publicly admit? Really? Must?), please note that the issue is not whether Pete's view is "provocative", let alone more provocative than any of Earl's claims. It's whether it's true.

Quote:

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of texts of antiquity from the Jesus cult writers that show the Jesus cult believed their Jesus was crucified or caused to be crucified because of the Jews after a trial under Pilate.

There is very little actual physical evidence outside of apologetics to show when the Jesus cult started.

It is clear that many apologetic sources have been manipulated and once they are rejected as historically worthless then there is virtually nothing to show when the Jesus cult was started.

It would appear that mountainman does not accept apologetic sources as historically credible which is reasonable.

Rejecting apologetic sources as not historically credible is reasonable? Really? Then why, if apologetic sources are not historically credible, do you continually appeal to them, as you do when you use Justin or Ireneaus -- which are indisputably apologetic and non corroborated sources, as proof of the historical claims you frequently make?

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 06-04-2013, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Rejecting apologetic sources as not historically credible is reasonable? Really? Then why, if apologetic sources are not historically credible, do you continually appeal to them, as you do when you use Justin or Ireneaus -- which are indisputably apologetic and non corroborated sources, as proof of the historical claims you frequently make?

Because he's kuku (which in ki-Swahili means 'chicken' interestingly enough).

Mimi ni kula kuku = I am eating chicken

Tristan Scott · 06-04-2013, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

It seems to me that nearly all of these religions were re-inventions based on earlier mythologies. I don't see why Christianity would be any different. Once it's re-invented it then becomes the task to shore up the re-invention by either eliminating evidence supporting older mythology or manipulating the evidence to back up the re-invention.

I think some try to treat the rise of Christianity as an exception or aberration rather than just looking at it as you say as one of many human mythologies.

The historical details are thin but Christianity arose like any other myth/religion/movement.

The OT stories likely served a purpose of providing a cohesive background for Jews, a blend of myth and oral history.

The Romans considered religion a necessary state function for social stability. The idea that a Constantine would have facilitated a unity of various Christian sects for his political needs should not be surprising.

Sure, and the key, IMO was in all cases the strong oral tradition that had to be accounted for.

The adoption of religion by any state has always been for the purpose of control, not just the ordinary citizens of the state, but in many cases, probably initially in Constantine's case, the armies as well.

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

06-04-2013, 08:36 AM	#93
Tristan Scott Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southwest USA Posts: 4,093	It seems to me that nearly all of these religions were re-inventions based on earlier mythologies. I don't see why Christianity would be any different. Once it's re-invented it then becomes the task to shore up the re-invention by either eliminating evidence supporting older mythology or manipulating the evidence to back up the re-invention.

06-04-2013, 09:11 AM	#97
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	I must publicly admit that mountainman's argument the Jesus cult originated in the 4th century is far more provocative than Doherty's argument that the Jesus cult believed their crucified Jesus was never on earth. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of texts of antiquity from the Jesus cult writers that show the Jesus cult believed their Jesus was crucified or caused to be crucified because of the Jews after a trial under Pilate. There is very little actual physical evidence outside of apologetics to show when the Jesus cult started. It is clear that many apologetic sources have been manipulated and once they are rejected as historically worthless then there is virtually nothing to show when the Jesus cult was started. It would appear that mountainman does not accept apologetic sources as historically credible which is reasonable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.