Johnny Skeptic

Well sure, his friend said "Why would the story be accepted by SO MANY across all levels of their society as real?" Regarding "all levels of society," it is interesting to note that today, only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal God. That percentage is far from being "so many across all levels of society." Rather, that percentage is "so few among the top scientific organization in the U.S."

May I ask what you are doing? Are you promoting Christianity, or rejecting Christianity? It is difficult to have useful discussions with a person who has not revealed what their intentions are.

Magdlyn

Why does it matter? The orthodox "winners" slammed or destroyed the writings of those you call heretics. So, the fight's not fair. Luckily, in recent yrs, many of these "heretical" writings have been discovered, showing more clearly the climate of the times. I don't supposed you've read Lost Christianities or looked at the Nag Hammadi Library in any depth?

No one is denying varying POVs existed. The literalists got the backing of Constantine b/c they suited his political goals of world domination. A fleshly yet divine Christ and a setup which included a hierarchy of bishops and blind belief and obedience of the laity, won out over a mystical docetic Christ, more freedom of choice for the layman, and Buddhist style salvation (ie: inner knowing and "becoming Christ" oneself). End of story.

Roger Pearse

Surely we'd all prefer that what we write is based on ancient data, not imagination? Thus I was naming a few possible sources of data. None were offered for the statements, you know. Do you know of any?

I wonder if you realise that what you are saying is that you believe that no ancient data exists to justify what was said. I think so too. That's why I asked.

Do we disagree that telling made-up stories as fact is unacceptable? Whatever views we hold, surely the raw *facts* should be correct?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

One would like to think so. But I have seen some pretty convincing evidence to the contrary.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Yes, I think we can both think of one or two examples! The deliberate liar, sadly, is beneath rational discussion. But I think normal people really would rather have their facts right.

Incidentally I've just discovered that Robert Bedrosian has put some of his translations of Armenian historical sources such as Sebeos and Ghevond online here. (I'm reading Hairapetian's History of Armenian Literature this weekend, mainly for what he says about the Mechitarists and the origin of Eusebius' Chronicle. But it's not a very good book, even apart from the clumsy translationese).

I did get the Syriac of Michael the Syrian on Phlegon, and have identified the passage -- 'Phlegon the philosopher' is literally 'Plegon hakīm' in the original -- but have been too full of work to transcribe it. Would you like it for your page, if I can get around to it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Magdlyn

I don't follow what you mean by "none were offered for the statements." Unless you are referring to:

I agree. There were no "given" set of universal rules or dogma, except for those imposed forcibly by Constantine and his lackeys.

And you seem to be ignoring the 2nd part of my paragraph:

Roger Pearse

Sorry if I was unclear.

Anyone can say "Augustus was black". When someone does, what we want to see are the ancient sources that back this up. If none are produced, we need not pay attention to the tale.

Thus I asked for sources for the statements made. None seemed (or seem) to be forthcoming.

Yes, in mercy I snipped it. If I made a fool of myself, I wouldn't want someone kicking me senseless, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

EssEff

Argumentum ad populum, i.e., it must be true because a lot of people believe it. A lot of people also believe that Allah was a prophet, that Elvis faked his death, that your birthdate dictates your personality and that UFOs are intelligent aliens who regularly kidnap farmers and nutters. What people believe isn't a good indication of what is actually true, unfortunately.

This was also a handy way of suppressing serfs and slaves. Give the downtrodden some hope for a good afterlife and you don't have to treat them well in this life.

Except for hope in an afterlife and being rather gullible people. The members of the Guyana cult had no compelling reason beyond Jim Jones' charismatic personality for believing in that cult, either.

It wasn't written during Roman rule - it was oral tradition, and not at all standardized.

It also resulted in gullible followers turning over their money to them. Nice prize if you can get it. They didn't convert anyone through a book, of course. They did it in person. And they didn't publish it - it was all hand-copied, mainly in monasteries. The rulers of their times either supported it or ignored it.

The only compelling reason for believing in Christ, the afterlife, and all the rest is a desire to do so and a wish not to die. As Bush's presidency proves, given a choice between economic promise and a fairy tale, the stupid, the fearful, and the gullible will choose the fairy tale every time.

Toto

Clouseau's posts have been split off here

Toto

There is an alternate explanation, given by Rodney Stark and other sociologists of religion.

Believing in Christ was the key to joining the social group. The early church was a mutual support society. It gave aid and comfort and helped people survive the cruel life of the early Roman Empire. Stark speculates that all religions need some irrational belief as a test for entry, and to keep out the freeloaders.

There have been a plethora of new religions in the US, some of which are spreading to the rest of the world (sorry for that). They often involve some irrational or unproveable belief, or even a belief that can be disproven by readily available evidence. But these irrationally base religions are still attractive to people for other reasons - because the church is a human institution that provides ecomonic, social, and psychic benefits. The historical foundations for Mormonism are unbelieveable by any rational person, but Mormonism is growing. The belief system of Scientology is based on warmed over pop psychology and bizarre science fiction ideas, but it has been cleverly marketed. And on and on.