Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-29-2009, 11:14 PM

Dear Philosopher Jay and arnaldo,

To my knowledge it is the once-reported author
Leucius Charinus in The Acts of Paul who
must assume the priority date as the source for
these details of the "Travels of the Apostles",

The source is a heretical author, definitely gnostic,
on all accounts some form of docetist, promoting
the power of women to preach and baptise, and
the traditonal Hellenistic medical practices over
the christian miraculous cure, and no compulsion
to Aesop Paul as a mouse to boot.

Heretical or not, the source of the tradition of the
deaths of Paul and Peter belong to the "Hidden Books"
or in any other name, the new testament apocrypha.

Interweaves of tradition interplayed between the
canon and the heretical books ... one key
issue is this:

That the author was an orthodox Christian
as claimed by M.R. James (Translator) in 1924
can no longer be maintained ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Arnoldo,

The text you quoted from Clement of Alexandria says nothing about Peter or Paul ever being in Rome, let alone dying there.

...[trimmed]...

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I see. Still in the field of archaelogy when examining artifats it is relevant to examine all the available texts (if any). For an example see: Archaeology and Roman Society: Integrating Textual and Archaeological Data

With respect to the topic of this OP examining the texts may help to determine the date the belief that these artificats were in a certain place. As you pointed out Eusebius is a fourth century souce so we have a clue it possibly began from him or he is repeating a tradition from an earlier time. Fortunately we have a possible second century text which indicates that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome.

Joan of Bark · 06-29-2009, 11:31 PM

To repeat myself ...

Quote:

Results indicate that they belong to someone who lived between the 1st and 2nd century A.D.

If they came from the 2nd century, Paul would have been one extremely old man.

mountainman · 06-29-2009, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

This is as bogus as the shameful St.Peter's bones 'confirmation' thing (on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter's_tomb )

The best we can ever do is trace such remains to the 3rd-4th centuries. The possibility for fraud at that point in history was immense.

With St.Peter's bones, there is a good argument that Constantine and the early church did indeed believe (or it was convenient for them to say) that St Peter was buried at that spot (half of vatican hill was levelled to build the original basillica over that spot) and a 1st century cemetary and graves are located beneath St.Peter's.

Pontifex Maximus Damasius, the very first Christian Bishop
slash Pontifex Maximus of Rome after Julian bit the dust
was the greatest supporter of the Peter and Paul in Rome
tourist tradition, and explicitly renovated the catacombs
for this very purpose. Of course, this was accomplished
by Damasius after his soldiers had defeated the soldiers
of competing christian bishops in the streets of Rome,
leaving hundreds dead.

Damasius the thug bishop c.365 CE renovated the catacombs.
Read all about it via his "pupil" Jerome.

Quote:

But there is no real evidence against the tradition itself, respected by Constantine, being a fraud.

Without the "Christian Glasses" in a profane historical sense
Constantine is emminently classified as a fascist dictator.
Fraud was his second name. Along with robber and brigand.
His life had three phases described by Aurelius Victor.
Today we may see them as:

(1) The Good (306 to 315 CE)
(2) The Bad (316 to 325 CE)
(3) The Ugly (326 to 337 CE)

mountainman · 06-29-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

To repeat myself ...

Quote:

Results indicate that they belong to someone who lived between the 1st and 2nd century A.D.

If they came from the 2nd century, Paul would have been one extremely old man.

Just like that other extremely old man of Hellenistic tradition,
the wandering sage, the man of letters and books, whose
accounts were gathered up by rulers after his death, the
subject of imperially sponsored inscriptions, the philosopher
and author Apollonius of Tyana, who reportedly trecked
to India to converse with the Brahmins.

Roger Pearse · 06-29-2009, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benedict

“In the last few decades the expression ‘grown-up faith’ has spread,” Benedict XVI said. “It is often used in relation to the attitudes of those who no longer pay attention to what the Church and its Pastors say—which is to say, those who choose on their own what to believe or not believe in a sort of ‘do-it-yourself’ faith. Expressing oneself against the Magisterium of the Church is presented as a sort of ‘courage’, whereas in fact not much courage is needed because one can be certain that it will get public applause.

So you can think for yourself only if you reach the conclusion that the Magisterium is absolutely correct.

Most people who praise "thinking for oneself" mean only that they intend to live by whatever seems convenient, and think no more.

I don't see anything wrong with what Benedict said. It means only that he doesn't think choices should be made by value-loading language, or by making up your own beliefs about things as you go along (i.e. picking them up from society based on convenience). Sounds sensible to me.

Quote:

The Holy Father also noted:

Quote:

“We must become new men,” the Holy Father said, “transformed in a new way of existence. The world is always looking for new things because it is rightly unhappy of reality as it is. Paul told us that without new men the world cannot be renewed. Only if there are new men will there be a new world, a renewed and better world.”

When you quote someone who died roughly 2000 years ago on the need for a "new man," you have to wonder why the last 2000 years of believing in the Magisterium has failed to produce this new man. Could there be a mistake in the original analysis?

Could it be that few people are 2,000 years old?

These kind of arguments seem a bit discreditable to me. Anything could be rubbished in this way. We're all too familiar with the tricks of the debunkers these days.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 06-29-2009, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

. . . For an explanation of that title see the following; Eusebius the Liar?

arnoldo Did you just raise this topic just so you can try to defend Eusebius ? There is no need to rehash the whole debate over Eusebius. For reference, here is the 2004 thread: Eusebius the Liar, which links to a previous thread, in which a number of participants failed to convince each other.

I think Arnoldo was responding to an irrelevant slur, not initiating the subject?

Quote:

The best that Eusebius' defenders can say is that he repeated sources uncritically. No one seriously contends that there is any verifiable history about Paul available in Eusebius.

No video footage, no. But he's a good source on most things he talks about.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

squiz · 06-30-2009, 01:06 AM

I hate to be playing devil's advocate here, but didn't the ancient Romans of this era mainly cremate their dead?
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/d...urial.htm?rd=1

squiz · 06-30-2009, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aileron

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Who is to say that he was not rich? After all, he was a Jewish Roman citizen from Tarsus. I wonder how common that was. A tent maker? I read somewhere that it was probably quite a lucrative business.

Well, it's more than just the expense. I'd like to do more research (maybe someone can suggest a source), but the little I've started to read indicates that purple was worn only by senators and equestrians (lower nobles). Paul would have been neither. What I don't know is if wearing purple by others would have been like a civilian dressing up in a military or police uniform today, but purple seems to have been reserved for only certain classes of people.

Good point. I would also like to see more info on how strict such rules were at that time (later I believe it became quite strict).

Toto · 06-30-2009, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think Arnoldo was responding to an irrelevant slur, not initiating the subject?

arnoldo did introduce Eusebius into the thread. Questions as to the value of Eusebius' historical work are not irrelevant if he is quoted as an authority.

mountainman · 06-30-2009, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

"Plato's critical questioning
is a menace to the state"

--- Oration at Antioch, c.324 CE

I think he meant selfishness, not thinking by oneself.

I dont know about you, but it seems to me that
perhaps the "Historical Paul" and the "Historical Jesus"
manifest to the Pope in some sort of parallel universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE POPE

The crucified Christ embraces the whole universe in all its dimensions. He takes the world in his hands and raises it towards God . . . . In the Cross Christ’s love has embraced the lowest depth—the darkness of death—and the supreme height—God’s own nobility. He has taken in his arms the breadth and the vastness of humanity and the world in all their distances. He always embraces the universe—for all of us.”

This statement seems to presume to think - for all of us.
Count me out fellahs. The bones of dead saints have
supported a vibrant tourist trade since Hellena's dig.

I am amazed the Pope did not refer to the Hubble Limit.
Who prepares the papal press releases?

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

06-30-2009, 01:06 AM	#47
squiz Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Munich Germany Posts: 434	I hate to be playing devil's advocate here, but didn't the ancient Romans of this era mainly cremate their dead? http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/d...urial.htm?rd=1

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.