stephan huller

But what is there to analyze? All you do is ignore shelves of MSS from the second, third and early fourth centuries in order to prove that there wasn't a church before the fourth century. How does one respond to that? When I demonstrated that Irenaeus had disciples and is witnessed by second, third and fourth century Church Fathers no one responds.

It would be like if someone said 'everyone in Hollywood is gay.'

Well what about George Clooney?

He doesn't exist.

What do you mean he doesn't exist?

Have you met him?

No.

Well there you go - everyone in Hollywood is gay.

This is the kind of argument I am forced to take seriously? There are texts from the period before Nicaea. Every serious scholar accepts the idea that there was a Christian Church before Nicaea. Nicaea itself seems to suggest that there were pre-existent traditions (otherwise how did Arius et al fall away so quickly from the new sheet music) It all boils down to the question of whether Arius can be used to defend your views and I say he can't.

avi

1. Since it seems so important to you, I will acknowledge, that in my opinion, (though I deny that my opinion is of any relevance to the question of the origins of the canon) there exists evidence of a Christian church of one sort or another before Constantine.

2. I believe (but again, I think my beliefs are irrelevant to the issues) that Arius was indeed an influential leader of the Christian movement in Alexandria, long before Constantine became emperor.

3. I also believe, that Arius has nothing to do with this thread, and serves only as a distraction from the focus, which is the canon, and the power needed to implement it.

4. In that regard, I disagree, profoundly, with your assertion that
Arius is a non-sequitur, having nothing whatsoever to do with the canon.
Please return to the topic of this thread.

Well, you are the one parading about your experience with "peer reviewed publications", please use that self-acknowledged expertise, to respond in a more meaningful way to the issues of this thread.

1. ignore shelves of MSS from 2nd-4th centuries:
Yup. I ignore shelves of MSS from 7th-14 th centuries, too.
The question is very simple:
WHERE'S the evidence that these shelves of MSS are legitimate?

Your MSS, really date, not from the 2nd to 4th centuries, but rather, from the 7th to 14th centuries, together with Eusebius' claim that they date from 2nd-4th century. There's a big difference between claiming something, and demonstrating it.

2. You have not demonstrated, at least not that I am aware, that "Irenaeus had disciples".
Where's your evidence of that? What, Epiphanius????? haha.

what a joke.

3. "no one responds", well, that is patently false.

I respond, and you change the subject, or misrepresent my opinion, or simply ignore what I have written.

avi

Toto

Please cool things down, or I can close this thread.

It appears that neither avi nor Transient actually agree with mountainman's Eusebian forgery hypothesis, but both think that he is being treated unfairly, with ridicule and insults to his personality. If this is the problem, please report the post (mountainman has not reported any posts.)

Otherwise, mountainman has had years on this board to support his thesis, and has failed utterly. But he keeps repeating it, as if he were repeating an advertising slogan whose purpose is to drum some idea into our heads. This board is based on the idea that open, civil discussion will lead to greater understanding and knowledge, but mountainman is putting that to the test.

mountainman is engaged in an exercise of pseudo-skepticism. He asks for proof of Christianity before Constantine. When manuscripts that have been dated by palaeography are proposed, he rejects them because they have not been dated by Carbon 14. When the ruins at Dura Europos are proposed, he rejects them but has no coherent reason. Then he recycles one of his bag of quotes taken out of context and asks if we do not appreciate the fact that Constantine was a truly vicious thug of a ruler?

Sometimes I wonder if mountainman is a secret Christian trying to make the skeptical study of early Christianity look bad.

And mountainman is always very polite. So when people who take ideas seriously attack him, it just invites sympathy for him - poor guy. But I think he is abusing this forum.

Transient

You are dead right.
I don't like seeing people get attacked whilst avoiding direct simple questions.
If Stephan is good at his this stuff then he should be able to examine my style and see that it is entirely different to that of Mountainman's
I mean - very very different.
If he can't even see that then how can he analyze stuff written thousands of years ago?????
Ok lets get back on track - Stephan said he evidence about something to do with some Alexandrian dig - what is it?

Transient

Look I just wanted to add that I appreciate the stuff that Stephan puts into this forum too - it all adds to the base of info here that we can work thru.
I know virtually nothing compared to you guys - I merely use logic to analyze what is being touted here.
That is why I like to see a proper question clearly answered and not dodged.
Dodging an answer creates a lot of doubt in my mind as to the reliability or truthfulness of the dodger. Please answer question concisely as possible without a whole lot of rubbish padding.

And to balance things up a bit - that applies to Mountainman just as much because at times he rambles on and tends to avoid a direct answer.
Anyway lets just lighten up a bit and treat things honestly and as straight forward as possible.

avi

How strange.
That was your response to my post.

I am amazed.

You seem to imagine that it is I, who has hurled insults, and misrepresented another forum member's position. You act as though I am the one who introduced meaninglessness into a perfectly reasonable thread.

I hope you will reply, showing me, where I have transgressed, in these, or any other manners which would suggest a need to "cool off".

So, what?

Now you have joined with huller? Now you too, seek to identify our individual thought process, and convictions, rather than addressing the issues?

What is your problem, Toto?
Whether person x, or person y or person z believes or disbelieves ANY subject, is irrelevant to the argument. Please, address the argument, not the personalities.

Pete is a gentleman, he would not engage in such activity. I am not a gentleman, and have no desire to be one. I hereby wish to report stephan huller's posts as insulting. I can document his behaviour on NUMEROUS threads, going back at least to interchanges and insults he has heaped on aa5874, Pete, and MaryHelena, for MONTHS.

and let us hope that both he and the board continue in such interesting and important exchanges of ideas....

Really? how would you define success? I don't think Pete has failed utterly. I think that most folks who join this board are skeptical. I think many folks disagree with Pete's theory. I happen to find many of Pete's ideas remarkably refreshing, and inspirational. That does not mean that I accept every single idea he puts out, as valid, but it does mean, that I have learned far more from reading Pete, than from reading the submissions of many other members of this forum.....

, yeah, and I suppose I err that way also. Sorry. Apologies for being a "sub-moron". Perhaps this endless repetition is a trait acquired or learned, by those not yet able to display peer reviewed documents.

How strange. I find that by substituting the word "stephan huller" for "mountainman", I am in complete agreement with what you have written.

I agree with Pete 100% on this point.
I don't even require Carbon 14 testing to reject "palaeography" as invalid. I am looking forward, Toto, to your providing a reference which explains, in detail, WHY anyone should accept as legitimate, this notion that one can identify, accurately, the date of authorship, based upon handwriting analysis.

Let us suppose that I report to you, an arterial blood gas measurement, that is surprising to you. Are you not then, entitled, to ask me, to produce evidence that the method I am employing, the equipment, and the technique, and so on, have been checked against external standards?

Where is the external check on these handwriting documents?

I have read, today, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography, by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson.

How many absurd claims in his text, shall I identify for you? This method is utterly nonsensical.

Hmm. Well, I guess my reasons must also be incoherent, for I too am not buying the Dura Europos House Church fable by Clark Hopkins.

Maybe that is why you did not respond to my last post on that thread.
Certainly, why waste your time, responding to someone incoherent.

I am sorry, but, are you attempting to convey here, the notion that Constantine was NOT a "truly vicious thug"?
I think you are mistaken, if so.
What was the crime committed by Constantine's wife, that was so heinous, that she deserved to be murdered by him, in retribution?

I object, strenuously to this statement by you, and urge you to retract it. Your statement is impolite, incorrect, inappropriate on this thread, and quite frankly, out of character, Toto. You are not that kind of person.
And, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that does not make it a FACT.
As an opinion, I am sure that an overwhelming majority of forum participants may agree with you. I do not.

avi

stephan huller

avi

If I suggested that Jesus was a cat and Pilate was a dog and disciples were all mice that lived in Judea and I kept saying at every opportunity things like:

'Jesus was a cat you know and cats can't be trusted.'

and:

'I bet you that right after the crucifixion Pilate must have chomped down on a big juicy steak because there's nothing a dog likes better.'

and some point, at the 1,000,000 post of referencing amazingly insightful comments like this day after day after day wouldn't someone be entitled to tell me to shut up? Is that what it's going to come down to? That everyone has a right to be heard no matter how implausible what they're saying is?

There is no evidence for what mountainman is suggesting. None whatsoever. We have textual evidence from the second, third and fourth centuries. We have archaeological evidence from the third and fourth centuries. We have pagan eyewitnesses - some of which claim that Church Fathers were masturbating in public in Alexandria - and against all of this evidence Peter continues to argue that some massive conspiracy was responsible for everything.

How does Pete explain Mani the prophet? Mani appeared in the third century in the East far away from the Roman Empire. There is textual evidence for Manichaeans stretching all the way to China. Did the fourth century Roman conspiracy plant all this evidence?

He claims that Arius was in on the plot to invent this religion of Constantine even though he was already sitting in the episcopal chair of the Martyrium of St. Mark long before Constantine could have possibly had the authority to 'invent' the existence of a church devoted to the Evangelist.

It just doesn't make sense. Day after day after day of the same points. And when I demonstrate how sloppy his methodology is, there isn't even a shadow of doubt that this might be indicative of a greater problem with his unreasonable theory.

It's just a matter of finding more bits and pieces of evidence and twist them into something unrecognizable.

Someone had to stand up against this tyranny. It's a relentless drone. No matter what the topic. No matter the context the cry is the same:

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

If I get booted off this forum, I will consider it a small sacrifice for the many, many people who email me encouraging me and congratulating me for standing up to this tyranny. You say:

But I know otherwise. If I am not thrown out of this forum I will start a thread posting eleven correspondances with people from this site who are sick and tired of the irrational tyranny of mountainman. We'll see if I get the chance.

Toto

No, this was a general comment on the temperature of the thread.

It's not all about you.

If you want to report a post, use the little triangular thingy to the left of the post. It is a rules violation to discuss moderation in thread.

The purpose of this board is discussion. Endless repetition is an indication that one is not engaged in a dialogue or discussion. It is the "broken record" technique of wearing your opposition down (for those of you who remember what records were.)

It's available here - published in 1912. Thompson died in 1929. Is this the latest work on the subject that you have read?

I would not want to rely on palaeography, but I can't see dismissing it wholesale. Please feel free to start a thread on the question.

I don't recall any new arguments. All discussions have to end at some point.

No, just that this claim has no demonstrated relationship to inventing a new religion or forging massive numbers of documents.

You don't know what kind of person I am, but you should know that I have been pushed to the limits of my patience. I will not retract it.

Transient

"irrational tyranny"???
Can't you just drop it?
If you want to you know you could just ignore him - it is not that hard to do.
I find your obsession with Mountainman somewhat disturbing to say the least.
It affects my trust in your statements - it would be much better to state the facts as you know it and leave it at that.
By the sounds of it you are convinced that some evidence will turn up your site but that is in the future.
I am glad that people like Mountainman are researching way out ideas because it is often from such investigations that new insights are gained even if the original theory does not hold up.
It is a pity that you cannot be so generous.

stephan huller

I am glad that you are glad that people like Mountainman are researching way out ideas.