Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 11-24-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Temples are typically buildings of no military significance. The destruction of temples is typically ideologically motivated, not militarily motivated. The Taliban blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan for ideological reasons, not for military ones.Executions for religious and other ideological reasons are a common historical phenomenon.

Dear J-D,

What are the possible ideological motivations for destruction and death, aside from some form of anti-Hellenism? And how do you reconcile this to the ideological motivations which are supposed to exist in the Constantine Bible?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 11-24-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Deep-throat. Nixon?

Where did Deep-throat place a fulcrum on Nixon?

mountainman · 11-25-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Empty your head of christianity and then imagine

This is Pete's preferred approach--to empty the head and then imagine.

Dear Clivedurdle and J-D,

Have you ever attempted to fill a full cup?

Cheers!

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 11-25-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The issue here is the time period between Constantine's supreme military over Lucinius and the Council of Nicaea, and what is issuing forth from that period, specifically from the preliminary "war-council" of Antioch from which spin is introducing the citation of documents which are supposed to have some deep theological significance.

My response has been to underline the fact that we had a war going on. Constantine was at war with the eastern forces, and his war did not appear to be satisfied by the strangulation of Lucinius in captivity. The war included the despotic actions of the utter destruction of the ancient eastern architecture (did the eastern empire have a "Status of Liberty"?), the execution of chief priests of the local Hellenic religions, and the prohibition of the standard day-to-day temples practices which had operated in the eastern empire for centuries and centuries, hitherto unimpeded.

Constantine was not a christian. His religion on the surface might be called anti-Hellenism and was outwardly extremely fascist. He was at war during the decade leading up to Antioch and Nicaea. For ten years he was at war. These holy "christian" councils of Antioch and Nicaea are better perceived as "anti-Hellenic" military councils, where the victor dictates the terms of peace to the captives, and everything is at the discretion of the victor. People were being executed. A brand new state religion was being touted by Constantine at Antioch in his most famous "Oration to the Eastern Empire". Most importantly the victors preserve the history of the time (which I am of course questioning).

We are taught to make the presumption that Arius of Alexandria was already enrolled in the new official canonical ROman state monotheistic religion, but the political situation allows us also to question this assumption. Was Arius a pagan? Have the christian historians simply glorified their history by writing out of history any and all political resistance to the new official state monotheistic religion? Of course, the authodox say everyone was joyously happy and overjoyed that Constantine had at last liberated the true religious people from their underground sojourn, and that there was no misery when this happened. Eusebius gloats as he recounts the utter destruction of the pagan temples and their priests by Constantine's army.

Constantine was indeed at war in the period leading up to the Councils. The Councils came after the war ended, and it is therefore wrong to describe them as 'preliminary war councils'. They weren't war councils at all. Nobody holds war councils after the end of the war. Nor does anybody hold councils to dictate terms to the defeated.

Obviously nobody was an adherent of an official state religion in a period when there was no official state religion. That is no reason to think that Christianity did not exist before it became an official state religion. 'Official state religion' is not part of the definition of 'Christianity'.

J-D · 11-25-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I repeat - how does any of this indicate that Constantine invented Christianity, as opposed to co-opting an existing religion?

Dear Toto,

The absence of archaeological evidence for canonical christianity (depite Eusebius) in the period prior to rise of Constantine can give rise to two distinct postulates: (1) That the co-opted existing christian religion had an extemely small archaeological footprint which has yet to be detected by the archaeologist, or (2) There was in fact no canonical christian religion prior to Constantine. If there was no canonical christianity prior to Constantine and yet he implemented a state monotheistic religion and supported it, and protected it, and legislated for it, and actively promoted subscription to it, then it is logical that he must have created it, or fabricated it when he rose to power. (ie: since it did not exist earlier).

While the mainstream position essentially relies upon the former hypothesis being representative of the true and historical account, my position examines the possibility that the second postulate is in fact the true historical account. At present, because there is no evidence, we have no means by which to distinguish whether the first or second hypothesis is the correct one.

Best wishes,

Pete

There is evidence for the first-century origin of Christianity. You choose to dismiss it because it does not fit with your preconceptions on the issue, and also because it does not fit with your preconceptions about what evidence should be like.

mountainman · 11-26-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The absence of archaeological evidence for canonical christianity (depite Eusebius) in the period prior to rise of Constantine can give rise to two distinct postulates: (1) That the co-opted existing christian religion had an extemely small archaeological footprint which has yet to be detected by the archaeologist, or (2) There was in fact no canonical christian religion prior to Constantine. If there was no canonical christianity prior to Constantine and yet he implemented a state monotheistic religion and supported it, and protected it, and legislated for it, and actively promoted subscription to it, then it is logical that he must have created it, or fabricated it when he rose to power. (ie: since it did not exist earlier).

While the mainstream position essentially relies upon the former hypothesis being representative of the true and historical account, my position examines the possibility that the second postulate is in fact the true historical account. At present, because there is no evidence, we have no means by which to distinguish whether the first or second hypothesis is the correct one.

There is evidence for the first-century origin of Christianity.

Dear J-D,

Where is Remsburg wrong about that origin?

Quote:

You choose to dismiss it because it does not fit with your preconceptions on the issue, and also because it does not fit with your preconceptions about what evidence should be like.

You choose to tender for discussion certain preconceived notions which cannot be demonstrated to have any support by citation of the available archaeological evidence, and with which there appears to be a problem in the consistency to the earliest carbon dating citations related to christian documents. The chronology of your preconceived conjectures and the chronology of the carbon dating is only at variance by three or four centuries.

The problem is that you are not alone. We have hangovers like the following still being cited:

Quote:

"[Christianity in Anatolia] had taken an unobtrusive form that refrained from offending heathen neighbours by stressing Christian symbols. A fish or a swastika inserted among the ornamentation of a tomb reveals to the modern (1910) archaeologist that the monument commemorates a Christian who reverenced "Jesus Christ the Son of God' and his Cross, but to his contemporaries it might suggest no esoteric meaning.

p.488 Cambridge Ancient History
Volume XII
The Imperial Crisis and Recovery (193 to 324 CE)

Chapter XIV: The Christian church in the East

First edition 1939

A fish or a swastika in 1939 used to indicate the presence of the Holy Archaeological Ghost AND HIS CROSS for christ's sake !, but such a position can no longer be entertained IMO. We appear to have the early christians showing a great deal of restraint against the pagans when they were underground green and perfectly inconspicuous, but as soon as Constantine appears they are above ground with swords, legal documents, the backing of the army, official tax-exemptions for gods sake, and a perfect measure of intolerance.

Something appears a little out of focus. Could it be the pre-official and transcendental chronology of the "state of early christianity"?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 11-26-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Temples are typically buildings of no military significance. The destruction of temples is typically ideologically motivated, not militarily motivated. The Taliban blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan for ideological reasons, not for military ones.Executions for religious and other ideological reasons are a common historical phenomenon.

What are the possible ideological motivations for destruction and death, aside from some form of anti-Hellenism? And how do you reconcile this to the ideological motivations which are supposed to exist in the Constantine Bible?

If I had to reconcile them, I would point to Luke 19:27. But even if they couldn't be reconciled, that would prove nothing. It is a common phenomenon for people's actions to be inconsistent with their avowed principles.

J-D · 11-26-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There is evidence for the first-century origin of Christianity.

Dear J-D,

Where is Remsburg wrong about that origin?

I don't think he is wrong.

He says: 'Christ and Christianity are partly creations and partly evolutions. While the elements composing them were mostly derived from preexisting and contemporary beliefs, they were not formed as a novelist creates a hero and a convention frames a constitution. Their growth was gradual. Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith.'

That sounds about right to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

You choose to dismiss it because it does not fit with your preconceptions on the issue, and also because it does not fit with your preconceptions about what evidence should be like.

You choose to tender for discussion certain preconceived notions which cannot be demonstrated to have any support by citation of the available archaeological evidence, and with which there appears to be a problem in the consistency to the earliest carbon dating citations related to christian documents. The chronology of your preconceived conjectures and the chronology of the carbon dating is only at variance by three or four centuries.

Best wishes,

Pete

It is not part of the definition of evidence that it must be archaeological. It is not part of the definition of evidence that it must be carbon-datable. Documents are evidence. Specific elements incorporated in documents are evidence. If one explanation fits better than another with the presence of specific elements in a document then to that extent the one explanation fits better than the other with the evidence. You have never even attempted to show how your explanation fits with the specific elements of the documentary record which I have mentioned as significant, you have simply sought spurious reasons to dismiss them.

mountainman · 11-27-2008, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

You choose to tender for discussion certain preconceived notions which cannot be demonstrated to have any support by citation of the available archaeological evidence, and with which there appears to be a problem in the consistency to the earliest carbon dating citations related to christian documents. The chronology of your preconceived conjectures and the chronology of the carbon dating is only at variance by three or four centuries.

It is not part of the definition of evidence that it must be archaeological.

Dear J-D,

In the field of ancient history achaeological evidence is highly regarded, and needs to be assessed in conjuction with all other forms of evidence.

Quote:

It is not part of the definition of evidence that it must be carbon-datable.

Ditto for the C14.

Quote:

Documents are evidence.

Documents are one strand of the evidence.

Quote:

Specific elements incorporated in documents are evidence. If one explanation fits better than another with the presence of specific elements in a document then to that extent the one explanation fits better than the other with the evidence.

The internal characteristics of texts are additional to the external characteristics, such as author, date of authorship, sponsor, date of sponsorship, amounts paid, etc. The documentary evidence is but one strand in a web of evidentiary strands.

Quote:

You have never even attempted to show how your explanation fits with the specific elements of the documentary record which I have mentioned as significant, you have simply sought spurious reasons to dismiss them.

IMO you exhibit a disregard and a lack of knowledge of all other strands of evidence except the internal documentary textual evidence, on the supposition that you are dealing with something authentic and of historical value. The integrity of authenticity does not exist by "authority" but via the measure of how much corroboration exists between the different strands of evidence.

The problem that you either fail to admit or fail to acknowledge is that the entire package of new testament canonical literature, and every single bit of ancient history about the christians before Constantine, went across the desk of one single person - Eusebius of Caesarea. External corroboration of the documents submitted to Constantine by this highly gifted researcher does not exist. The situation is consistent with Eusebius tendering a fiction.

Comments by Arius of Alexander, Emperor Julian, Nestorius formerly of Constantinople, and an in-depth political analysis of the Arian controversy, the Nestorian controversy, the Origenist controversy and the controversy over Julian's invectives -- these things are all easily and simply explained by entertaining the notion that the New Testament was a fiction of Constantine, and the NT apochypha were written as slanderous additional stories to the one already complete NT canon. Pontius Pilate backs Asclepius as the healing power behind the healing of Jesus Henry. Pilate should know. Wasn't he an eyewitness?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 11-27-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

This is Pete's preferred approach--to empty the head and then imagine.

Dear Clivedurdle and J-D,

Have you ever attempted to fill a full cup?

Cheers!

Best wishes,

Pete

Don't play Socrates.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.