Roger Pearse

I thought that this thread in google groups might interest one or two Acharya S-watchers.

She appears to have certain problems with being questioned...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

There are people who spend their time watching Acharya S? And I thought I didn't have a life. . .

But that's an interesting google group.

mens_sana

Could it be a case of scholarly insecurity, having claimed dynastic descendance, but not having been granted the Eliade-Campbell crown?

mountainman

On the contrary, you sometimes have problems asking questions.
In fact, here is another thread exemplifying the issue:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...1d76957543367b


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

I spoke more truly than I knew. Most of the thread, including all my questions (for I made no statements other than to reference my website as evidence that I was not completely uneducated) have disappeared overnight.

I attach the questions I asked, which, it seems proved too much for her. Profound they are not; but answer them she could not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
-----
May I ask a question or two?

> Acharya S wrote:
> IT has constantly been assumed by church
> chronologists that the Jewish sect of Galileans,
> who afterwards took the old Pagan appellation of
> Christian,

Which "church chronologists"?

Where specifically is the word 'Christian' found in ancient texts before 50 AD?

> had writings of their own as early as the first
> century; but this is mere gratuitous assumption,
> and rests only on the authority of
> men entirely undeserving of credit.

In what way?

> As for the history of this new Christian Theogony, ...
> we know nothing about the matter, except what
> we have on the authority of Eusebius (see
> preceding lecture), Bishop of Caesarea, a man who
> was confessedly the most notorious of all the church
> historians for forgery and every other
> species of pious falsehood.

Which modern scholars hold this opinion of Eusebius?
Where does Eusebius confess this?

> In getting up his history, he confesses that he
> entered upon "a solitary and untrodden way;" that
> he could nowhere find as much as the bare steps
> of those who had passed the same path before him;
> that he had "not found any ecclesiastical writer
> which unto this day hath in this behalf employed
> any diligence." These confessions from such a man
> are ample proof that he had no authentic
> matter to found his "history," upon; but he could
> call to his aid, legends, fables, and traditions, all
> very plastic and convertible materials,

Who is being quoted here? These comments were not written by any modern writer, as the style makes clear.

Why does the fact that a man is a pioneer mean that he has no sources?

Does the same argument mean that his Chronicle -- the basis of all modern knowledge of ancient chronography -- is likewise all invention?

> The rest of that class of men who are generally
> denominated the "Fathers of the Church," some of
> whom lived before, and others after the time of
> Eusebius, were persons equally addicted to
> holy frauds and forgeries

Who precisely are we talking about, and on what evidence is this sweeping statement based?

> As habitual lying and deception were charged upon
> most of them by the learned of their pagan
> contemporaries,

Who, specifically, and where?

> ... Origen..., as is well known, to abandon
> Christianity, recur to Paganism, and sacrifice to
> idols, publicly denying his Lord and master, Jesus
> Christ. This appears in his own writings, but more
> fully in his life, written in Greek by Suidas.

Where in Origen does it say this?

Where is this life by 'Suidas' to be found?

> Episcopius says ...

Who?

Why are we interested in the opinions of this pre-scientific
renaissance writer?

> which is corroborated by another author, who
> relates, that at the second Synod
> of Ephesus, Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria,
> "knocked and kicked Flavianus, Patriarch of
> Constantinople, with such fury, that within three
> days after he died."

Which author says this?
What sources is this based on?
Why are the political disputes in theological form of the Byzantine empire relevant to a discussion of Christian origins?

Please clarify.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

I wonder if the response would have been different if you had only asked "a question or two" rather than the barrage that followed?

I would have been very interested in any substantive replies but I would have been willing to wait for them to come one at a time.