Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-20-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

No, it is not clear that they are a legal disclaimer clause.

Dear J-D here is the general format. We the 318 undersigned (and Robin Lane-Fox writes that the attendees were coerced to sign by one of Constantine's military chiefs) the the following:

Quote:

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED,
Swear by the swords held at our throat that
the Constantininian new testament is true and correct

BUT FOR THOSE WHO SAY OTHERWISE (this is the disclaimer)

<< insert the words of Arius here>>

We, who are now the Roman Universal (inside the Hubble-Limit) church and basilica network of the Boss Constantine,

utterly anathemetise.

(ie: treat as alien)

Big disclaimer on the words of Arius by the Oath of Nicaea to which the attendees were coerced to sign in favor of Constantine. The meaning of the phrase "But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say things like Arius should be reasonably clear. Constantine had a big stick of authority, and he used it to mock authenticity and the ancient traditions. The first 318 bishops of Constantine did not know which way was up. What could they have done?

Best wishes,

Pete

jeffevnz · 10-20-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

We could replace 'Jesus' with "Jerry Springer" for all I care. You're missing the point. We have clear dependence between the text of the fragment and that of the four Gospels. Furthermore, we have specific words and phrases that appear only in one of the Gospels; at least one such word or phrase from each of Mark, Luke and John (just realized I didn't pinpoint anything appearing only in Matthew). The likelihood of this being an accident is small. The most obvious explanation is that the Dura fragment represents a harmonization of the Gospels. Harmonization means they already existed by the time the fragment was buried, in 257 AD.

Whether or not they include the name 'Jesus' is almost immaterial. If we found a copy of GMark, except with Jesus replaced with the "Bozo the Clown," I think everyone would agree that it was still, more or less, a Christian document.

Unfortunatley, I could almost agree with the last comment if were not for this nagging suspicion that you are unconsciously putting the cart before the horse. You are making the assumption that the canonical gospels existed before a narrative about Joshua existed, whereas IMO it is far more likely that a pre-existing narratives about Joshua, and Apollonius, and the Heraclitaean Logos, and many Bozo's already existed, in the greek, in the libraries of Rome, perfectly preserved in the greek, perfectly placed to be textually mined and become the raw materials for an imperial scale fabrication by the malevolent despot Constantine.

Best wishes,

Pete

Pete -

It doesn't matter what I think, consciously or unconsciously, in reality or just in your suspicions. Does. Not. Matter. The argument stands or falls on its own merit or lack thereof. Don't confuse what I think with what my argument presupposes or concludes.

And another thing, which is very important... There's a difference between a story with ideas and themes similar to the canonical Christian Gospels, and a story with improbably similar text.

If we find a pre-Constantine story with almost the same text as the Gospels, then it would be semantic hair-splitting to say it wasn't Christian just because it had a different name in place of Jesus's. The point is that the stories themselves, not just the themes, already existed before Constantine, in detail and with wording quite close to the Gospels as we know them.

mountainman · 10-20-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

JOSHUA not JESUS

It would make no difference. As I've pointed out before, 'Joshua' and 'Jesus' are the same name. That does not, obviously, tell us which particular individual any particular use of that name refers to, but it does tell us that a decoding of it in a particular instance as 'Joshua' is not, by itself, proof that it is not referring to an individual who might also sometimes be referred to as 'Jesus'.

Dear J-D,

Since we are dealing here with evidence in the first instance, and proof at some further and subsiduary step (I am not claiming to be infallible, but perhaps my detractors are appealing to the authority of infallibity), then the evidence itself tells us that the contrary may also apply. And this is all I need to temporarily defend my thesis.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 10-20-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

None of what you have to say in this post constitutes any reason for thinking that women visiting a tomb was a common pagan theme.

Dear J-D,

Are you able to state with any authority that pagan women were legally prohibited from visiting tombs in antiquity?

No, of course not. I didn't say that, and that is not the point in dispute. Whether women visiting tombs was a common practice in antiquity is not at issue. The discussion referred to whether women visiting a tomb was a common pagan theme; since the point arose in a discussion of frescoes, the reference was to themes in visual art. The point arose because patcleaver said that there was no reason to think that it was not; my point was that there is no more reason to think that it was, and nothing you have said is relevant to this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thank you for the citation.

You're most welcome, I'm sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Examine the ancient greek Law Codes of Gortyn, Crete, and you may find that women had the equal right to own property, and visit tombs, etc. In fact, if we are to be reasonable about it, if a woman in this greek antiquity happened to own property, and that property happened to have a tomb on it, are you claiming for some reason that it would be impossible for that woman, if she were not a christian, to approach the tomb? Or impossible to have an artist in antiquity depicting such a scene?

Of course not. It's possible. That's not the point at issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 10-20-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Why, what do you think? (Please don't try the Socratic method. You're just not right for the part.)

Dear J-D,

There was nothing wrong with the pagan academic academy and its know thyself inscribed on the lintern.

Best wishes,

Pete

I did not suggest that there was. What I was suggesting is that you are poor casting for the role of Socrates.

I note that you continue to be evasive.

mountainman · 10-20-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Unfortunatley, I could almost agree with the last comment if were not for this nagging suspicion that you are unconsciously putting the cart before the horse. You are making the assumption that the canonical gospels existed before a narrative about Joshua existed, whereas IMO it is far more likely that a pre-existing narratives about Joshua, and Apollonius, and the Heraclitaean Logos, and many Bozo's already existed, in the greek, in the libraries of Rome, perfectly preserved in the greek, perfectly placed to be textually mined and become the raw materials for an imperial scale fabrication by the malevolent despot Constantine.

Best wishes,

Pete

Pete -

It doesn't matter what I think, consciously or unconsciously, in reality or just in your suspicions. Does. Not. Matter. The argument stands or falls on its own merit or lack thereof. Don't confuse what I think with what my argument presupposes or concludes.

Dear jeffevnz,

IMO at the end of the day we are all equal, We arrive on the planet, do our busines, and then leave it. Thanks for the discussions. I would like to say this one thing though, here at this point. I have found that there is no one person from whom I have not learnt something from in exchange. You - Everyone - has a unique perspective and as such their contributions should always be welcomed on the basis that we are here to educate ourselves and learn about our common, or uncommon, heritage. I have learnt alot here from many contributors, and am still learning daily.

Quote:

And another thing, which is very important... There's a difference between a story with ideas and themes similar to the canonical Christian Gospels, and a story with improbably similar text.

If we find a pre-Constantine story with almost the same text as the Gospels, then it would be semantic hair-splitting to say it wasn't Christian just because it had a different name in place of Jesus's. The point is that the stories themselves, not just the themes, already existed before Constantine, in detail and with wording quite close to the Gospels as we know them.

With respect to the field of ancient history, as an academic discipline of man, the point is that it is emminently possible that the new testament canonical stories themselves, did not exist before Constantine, but were fabricated from source documents (which may have been more sophisticated) avaliable to Constantine in Rome and elsewhwere, in detail and in Greek, and with themes similar to that used in the Gospels, such as literature concerning the central place of the ancient Logos of Heraclitus for example.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 10-20-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What I was suggesting is that you are poor casting for the role of Socrates.

Dear J-D,

I myself have made the same complaint to the production manager. But what can we do about these inconveniences? Socrates was not available at such short notice on IIDB.

Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 10-20-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You want to explore the possibility that Arius and Leucius what?

I think you forgot to finish that sentence.

Dear J-D,

Thankyou, I did. I want to explore the possibility that Arius of Alexandria and the (pseudonymous?) author Leucius Charinus were the same historical person, since it occurs to me that this is a corollary to the thesis. To restate this another way, Arius of Alexandria needs to be evaluated as the rightful claimant to the title "the Father of the New Testament Apochrypha" (which may be perceived as burlesques, parodies and satires ---- sedition against ---- the fourth century Constantinian Canon).

Best wishes

Pete

patcleaver · 10-20-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

I went ahead and compared the text of the fragment with that of each of the parallel passages in the 4 canonical Gospels. I colored words or phrases that only appear in one or two of the Gospels. If it appears in one: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. And if something appears in two Gospels, I use mixtures: Mark and Matthew, etc.

Looks like you're right, Andrew. There are examples of words or phrases unique to each of the four Gospels. It's Mark-heavy, but they're all in there. Certainly if this is a Gospel harmonization, that's another nail in the coffin for pete. It would definitely mean the Gospels existed before 257.

One question, though. Is a Gospel harmonization the only way to account for this pattern? Suppose the story were incorporated into an early version of Mark, and then was used along with the rest of Mark, as a source for the other three Gospels. Later changes in Mark could account for the missing phrases. I realize this is getting far-fetched. Just thinking through possibilities.

Dura fragment:

[...of Zebed]ee and Salome a[nd] the women
[from among] those who followed him from
[Galil]ee to see the cr{....} And it was
[the da]y of preparation [....] Sabbath was dawn-
[ing.] And as it was becoming [l]ate on the prep-
[aration,] which is before the sabbath, there came
[up] a councilman [who]
[came] from Erinmathaia, a city of
[Jude]a, Jo[seph] by name, good, right-
[eous,] who was a disciple of Je(sus), but in
[hid]ing on account of fear of the
[Jew]s, and this man was awaiting
[the] k[ingdom] of G{o}d. This man was
not [consent]ing to the c[ounsel....]

Mark 15:40-43 (New International Version)

40Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body.

Matthew 27:55-57 (New International Version)

55Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

57As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.

Luke 23:49-51; Luke 23:54 (New International Version)

49But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

50Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God.

John 19:25; John 19:38 (New International Version)

25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

38Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away.

The fact that two documents share the same word is not evidence of anything. The fact that they share the same phrase is only important if you show that the phrase was unusual in religious stories of the time.

The only significant evidence we have that Mark existed before 257 is handwriting analysis that indicates that a few fragments of gospels have handwriting styles that are more similar to styles of earlier periods (e.g. 150 CE) than styles of later periods (e.g. 300 CE), even though handwriting styles vary widely between regions and between people. The fragments were mostly bought from anonyms antiquities dealers and could be modern forgeries.

In order to propose that its a harmony of multiple gospels, you are assuming that the gospels existed before the harmony existed. You're evidence is weak.

Sheshbazzar · 10-20-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hey Shesh,

Better yet, these detractors need to explain why, if christianity was a real hush-hush

wink-wink

secret society that kept underground all those long centuries without any identifiable evidence by which archaeological observers might know that they actually existed, then why would we even expect the Dura outpost to have all these grotesquely blatant and manifestly outwardly christian symbolism plastered all around their living room for anyone to openly interpret and report to the pre-Nicene state Roman christian persecutors? Perhaps we are not dealing with a case of phanero christians, but the OP cannot have it both ways. If the OP is arguing the early christians were non-descript and unassuming, why did they paint the equivalent a big pink (christian) cross in their living room?

Secondly, why have we not found other comparable and far more numerous citations in Rome, Alexandria, Caesarea, on the island of Crete, and in all the cities in which Eusebius informs us, there were, most certainly, long centuries of apostolic lineage, and far larger population centers than this remote backwater on the Persian border could have sustained?

Best wishes,

Pete

My living room is a private place. It is not a public place. Things which people are willing to do or to display in a private place they are often unwilling to do or to display in a public place.

Perhaps your living room in -today's- New South Wales is a "private place".
But it is doubtful that 3rd century Roman officials would have considered the living rooms of residences in Dura Europos private, particularly if any rumor came to their ears of such house serving as a place of christian meeting and worship. (and it likely would have, given the garish decor)
With a Imperial ruling in place barring the practice of christianity, the doors would have been smashed in and trodden under the sandals of Roman soldiers, "Christian" icons and murals would have been destroyed, and likely the entire residence burned or leveled to the ground, the owner and any one else identified as participating in the crime against the Imperium, punished and/or executed in compliance with Roman Law.
Again, to me, the very survival of the Dura Europos site points to it having been known to the Roman authorities, and having been accepted by those authorities as being non-christian.
A contemporary Jewish synagogue found in the same vicinity evidences the presence of an active Jewish diaspora congregation.
It is my theory, that the so-called (mis-identified) "house-church" was, and was considered by Roman government officials to be a Jewish Synagogue, a "Beit Knesset" of The Jewish Sect of The Nazarenes, and thus not found to be in any violation of Roman Law.
I posit that the colorful murals were intended to attract Dispora Jews to a new and vibrant form of Judaism, one whose Saints and Heroes were "up to date" and reflective of contemporary Jewish concerns, rather than just the thousand year old ones that were repetitiously and monotonously eulogised in that "old-time" synagogue just down the street.
Gentiles, Strangers would also be welcomed, and accepted as full and equal members, IF they converted, and were circumcised, as Peter, James and the other Jerusalem Apostles taught and did.

The half-baked, still semi-pagan Gentile "CHRESTians" / "Christians" were still hiding out and engaged in their continual "doctoring" up (under the pseudonym of "Paul") of their composite Pagan/Jewish no-law theology.

Of course being a JEWISH Nazarene home synagogue, a "Beit Knesset", there would be no "big pink cross" in that living room, as these Jews would want nothing to do with such "christian" items and idols, which a display of would most certainly endanger their protected "Jewish" status with the Roman authorities.

View Poll Results: Has mountainman's theory been falsified by the Dura evidence?
Yes	34	57.63%
No	9	15.25%
Don't know/don't care/don't understand/want another option	16	27.12%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.