Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 10-27-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

I have mentioned this before: The main demonstration that mountainman's "theory" is baseless, lies in there being no Jewish record of Constantine inventing a Jewish based religion from scratch. Are we to believe that Jews would not have found it perplexing and worthy of notice that a Roman emperor had invented a religion where a Jew was god and where the Jewish scriptures constituted the basis for the mythology??

Dear figure,

You fail to perceive that my thesis has it that the entire eastern empire full of Greek speaking academic priests, ascetics, mathematicians, logicians, etc INDEED found it perplexing and worthy of notice that a Roman emperor had invented a religion where a Jew was god and where the Jewish scriptures constituted the basis for the mythology.

As a result of this completely fraudulent fabrication, which they knew to be fiction, they authored the new testament apochryphal literature. However it was the very last thing that the great and ancient Hellenic civilisation ever did, before it was snuffed out by Roman christendom at the end of the fourth century. My claim, if you read the thesis, is that the tax-exempt Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, in the fifth century politically censored the common knowledge, much publicised by Julian in his work "Against the Galilaeans", that the new testament was a fiction of Constantine and Eusebius.

Consequently, if the record of the academic Greek speaking eastern empire about Constantine inventing a Jewish based religion from scratch could be censored by Cyril, the censorship of any Jewish record of Constantine inventing a Jewish based religion from scratch might be seen as a much smaller task at that time, in the fourth and fifth centuries of the CE. Having said that however, I remain hopeful that such evidence, indicating just this (ie: the fiction) will turn up in archaeological finds in the future on this planet.

Quote:

Should we give credence to the idea that no Jew was to record this event in order to demonstrate the falsity of Christianity??

We certainly do not have any one unambiguous citation from the Jewish writings before Constantine, mentioning the new testament and/or its famous cast of characters. Certainly many conjectures have been made, but this is not the same thing as evidence.

Whether or not the purges of Jewish literature by the christian regimes in later centuries is relevant, I will leave for others to comment upon.

Best wishes,

Pete

It strikes me that you imagine the people you're talking about as resembling you in their avoidance of making a clear statement of their views. In my experience, many people are willing to make the sort of clear statements that you consistently evade, and I can't imagine why things would have been any different in the fourth century.

J-D · 10-27-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Logically, there are only two possibilities.

Either there were other frescoes similar to the Dura fresco at the same period but none of them have survived, or else there were no other similar frescoes at the same period. (I am taking your word for it that there are no other similar frescoes of similar date surviving.)

If the first possibility is the correct one, then the conclusion that can be drawn is that surviving frescoes from that period are only a small fraction of the ones that existed at the time, and the survival of the Dura fresco was the result of unusual circumstances. I see no problem with that.

If the second possibility is the correct one, then the Dura fresco was a unique specimen. I see no problem with that, either--some things are unique--although it feels less likely to me than the first.

In either case, I still can't see what conclusion you think should be drawn. Why you indulge in cryptic hints instead of just saying what you have to say I don't know.

Dear J-D,

There exists at least a third logical possibility, namely that the Dura fresco is pagan (ie: non-christian) and for the moment, that is the conclusion that I am drawing for the sake of the exercise at hand.

Best wishes,

Pete

That is not a third possibility. If the Dura fresco was pagan/non-Christian, it is still the case that either similar frescoes have been destroyed or never existed, if what you said about its uniqueness is accepted. The only third possibility is that there are similar frescoes of similar date still surviving and hence that the Dura fresco is not unique. If that is the third possibility you are now suggesting, it makes no sense that you previously asked for an explanation of its uniqueness.

Sheshbazzar · 10-27-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D
What do you mean by 'Pauline created "Christianity" ', and what do you suppose to have been its 'innovations'?
Different in what ways?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I note that you did not answer these questions.

A long thread, and a lot just gets forgotten, I did write about this earlier.

What do I mean by "Pauline created "Christianity"?
The entire bogus tale of a claimed crucifixion, resurrection, and ascent into heaven, and of an embodied multi-personality god "dying in place of the guilty" to "save us from our sins" religious doctrine that was fraudulently fabricated by Gentile authors under the assumed pen names of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and "Paul" and called "Christianity".

"What do I suppose to have been its innovations?"
All of that crap "theology" listed above, additionally, an agenda to overthrow The Law, and replace the worship of the One ancient Supreme Being of the Jews, with a syncretized "triune" Gentile "god" of another name.

"Different in what ways?"
Certainly not consistent with the beliefs and practices of the Jews traditional religion, in that it;
Rejects The Law (Ps. 19:7-11)
Rejects the ancient practice of circumcision. (Gen. 17:9-14)
Rejects the authority of the Jews religious leaders. (Deut. 17:8-14)
Refuses to distinguish between that which is Scripturally unclean,
and between that which is clean. (Lev 10:9-11, & Eze 22:24-26)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
I've not said that it did, in fact, it is my belief is, that there were paganistic "christians" in the ancient world long before the time "Jesus Christ" (sic) was even invented or, allegedly, "born". (this would also be prior to the birth of any similar actual Jewish messiah figure, if such one every really ever existed in the form of human flesh.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It is not clear what you mean, in this context, by 'Christians'. (It is also not clear why you put the word in scare quotes.)

In this context, the "christians", (note that I did not capitalize) were the gentile promoters and adherents of a 'christ' BEFORE there was even any such person born.

Quote:

It appears to me that I have failed to make myself clear to me.

As I tried to make clear in the post you're quoting, the statement 'Jesus existed' is not equivalent to the statement 'all the things mainstream Christianity says about Jesus are true'

Ah, but you fail to apprehend that I'm saying that this "Jesus" never existed outside of Gentile writers imaginations.

And that 'all things that mainstream Christianity says about Jesus' are FALSE.

I am NOT saying the tales are "inaccurate", I am saying they were fabricated in their entirety, and hence are NO reflection of anything that ever actually transpired within the so-called "first century".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

To me it is immaterial whether "he", "Yahshua" or "Jesus" ever actually existed as a living, breathing, flesh and blood human being.
What is material to me is that "they" represent two opposing powers.

Quote:

I get the impression that what is important to you is the falsehood of mainstream Christian religious doctrine and that you're not interested in taking a position on the historical question of the origin of Christianity, which is fair enough.

I take a strong "position on the "historical question" of the origin of Christiaity"......which so-called "history" is nothing more than outright fabrication, and a pack of lies.

Quote:

But Pete is taking a position on "the historical question" of the origin of Christianity, and we're discussing that on this thread.

And I agree with him, that the entire subject is founded upon fabrications and outright lies, and was so from its very beginnings.
It dosen't need Constantine to be its "creator", as these lies existed before he was even born. He only became a Patron to the lies.

J-D · 10-27-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You have reported at that page what a number of other people have had to say about the so-called New Testament apocrypha. None of those people support your interpretation, and some say things which flatly contradict it.

Dear J-D,

I made a comparitive review of the field of whatever I could find available of current scholarship and opinion on a large set of the apochryphal texts, mainly the Apocyrphal Acts. I am fully aware that these gathered opinions do not support my position and that all of them contradict it with respect to the chronology of the entire new testamant corpus. This is not news. This has been the case since day one. However the task of understanding what the comparitive views of a number of authors looked like side by side I undertook so that I might know what the mainstream commentators are saying about all these very strange narratives called the apochrypha.

I must maintain my position that the mainstream has no evidence to support its own position before the fourth century, on the basis of evidence admissable to the field of ancient hstory. We are left at the moment with no critical evidence by which to refute either the one or the other.

Best wishes,

Pete

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that you have no evidence to support your position?

J-D · 10-27-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You contend that the Arian controversy was not a theological dispute, but you have given no evidence to support this.

Dear J-D,

As evidence I have tendered the following to support my contention that the Arian controversy was a political dispute over the genuineness and authenticity of the new testament canon, and the question about the very historical existence of your man Jesus of Rome:

He's not my man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

1) a treatment of the words of Arius of Alexandria (NT is political fiction)
2) a treatment of the words of Emperor Julian (NT is political fiction)
3) a treatment of the words of Nestorius of Constantinople (theories of political fiction abounded in the empire)
4) a treatment of the Origenist controversy (Eusebius forged Origen's NT contributions)
5) a treatment of the anathemas and heresies mentioned in 4th century ecclesiatical councils (words of Arius).

You have given no reason to think that your interpretations of those words is to be preferred to more generally accepted ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Would people stand around on street corners in downtown Alexandria discussing the nuances of the philosphical theology of the trinity?

I see no reason why not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Or is it more reasonable to think that people would stand around on street corners in downtown Alexandria talking about the fraud being perpetuated by the blow-in Emperor Constantine, who had just trashed all the ancient architecture which had been held in high esteem for generations, executed a few of the high priests so as to set an example, and then prohibited these same people, who were standing around on street corners in downtown Alexandria, from continuing with the public hospital system?

I see no reason to think so.

In any case, I have seen no evidence of what people were talking about on street corners in downtown Alexandria. The closest I've seen is the quotation I cited earlier from Gregory of Nyssa, who said that people were talking about theology all the time everywhere, although that was in Constantinople and not in Alexandria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If someone were to go to to a mythical city of Old York today and start a contraversial theological discussion group that would be a total backwater and of utterly no consequence in the larger picture.

That is not necessarily so. It would depend on whether theological issues had sociopolitical importance in the hypothetical city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

However if someone were to go to Old York with a large army, and secure the city with that army, and then pull down the old statue of liberty and other monuments in the city, execute some of the leaders, shut down the public hospital system and then attempt to replace the entire legal system with a clearly fabricated set of laws embedded in an outlandish fairy-tale, I would expect that the survivors in this city of Old York, would be standing around talking about this despot, his brigandry, his irresponsible actions, and most of all, seeing that had to mythically endure under this corrupt, military supremacist regime, they would be talking about his fraud - which was ever with them, since they could not escape.

That's not what I would expect in that hypothetical circumstance. On the contrary, I would expect survivors to be guarding their tongues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I hope this analogy does not offend anyone.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 10-27-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear J-D,

I made a comparitive review of the field of whatever I could find available of current scholarship and opinion on a large set of the apochryphal texts, mainly the Apocyrphal Acts. I am fully aware that these gathered opinions do not support my position and that all of them contradict it with respect to the chronology of the entire new testamant corpus. This is not news. This has been the case since day one. However the task of understanding what the comparitive views of a number of authors looked like side by side I undertook so that I might know what the mainstream commentators are saying about all these very strange narratives called the apochrypha.

I must maintain my position that the mainstream has no evidence to support its own position before the fourth century, on the basis of evidence admissable to the field of ancient hstory. We are left at the moment with no critical evidence by which to refute either the one or the other.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that you have no evidence to support your position?

Dear J-D,

Does the word refute have the same meaning as the word support?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 10-27-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I do hope you have not overlooked the key obstacle faced by any attempt to bring charges against either Constantine or Eusebius. They're dead. You're never going to get them to trial.

Dear J-D,

Dont under-estimate Scotland Yard, Hawaii Five O, the Canadian mounties or the Pink Panther.

Thinking them incapable of getting dead men put on trial does not constitute an underestimate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

While Constantine and Eusebius lived and died, the same cannot be said with any degree of certainty about the historical and canonical Jesus. Moreover the thesis in the field of ancient history that the historical jesus was made out of nothing existing by Constantine and Eusebius in the fourth century, and no earlier, and that before the historical jesus was born he was not, (etc, just add the words of Arius) is emminently prosecutable.

Best wishes,

Pete

I don't know what you mean by 'prosecutable', but I do know that no prosecution has a chance without evidence.

mountainman · 10-27-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

However if someone were to go to Old York with a large army, and secure the city with that army, and then pull down the old statue of liberty and other monuments in the city, execute some of the leaders, shut down the public hospital system and then attempt to replace the entire legal system with a clearly fabricated set of laws embedded in an outlandish fairy-tale, I would expect that the survivors in this city of Old York, would be standing around talking about this despot, his brigandry, his irresponsible actions, and most of all, seeing that had to mythically endure under this corrupt, military supremacist regime, they would be talking about his fraud - which was ever with them, since they could not escape.

That's not what I would expect in that hypothetical circumstance. On the contrary, I would expect survivors to be guarding their tongues.

Dear J-D,

Thanks for your guarded opinion. Would anyone else care to make a comment about this appropriateness (or otherwise) of this hypothetical analogy between Old York city and (for example) Alexandria 324 CE?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 10-27-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D
What do you mean by 'Pauline created "Christianity" ', and what do you suppose to have been its 'innovations'?
Different in what ways?

A long thread, and a lot just gets forgotten, I did write about this earlier.

What do I mean by "Pauline created "Christianity"?
The entire bogus tale of a claimed crucifixion, resurrection, and ascent into heaven, and of an embodied multi-personality god "dying in place of the guilty" to "save us from our sins" religious doctrine that was fraudulently fabricated by Gentile authors under the assumed pen names of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and "Paul" and called "Christianity".

Why do you use the term 'Pauline created' to describe that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

"What do I suppose to have been its innovations?"
All of that crap "theology" listed above, additionally, an agenda to overthrow The Law, and replace the worship of the One ancient Supreme Being of the Jews, with a syncretized "triune" Gentile "god" of another name.

"Different in what ways?"
Certainly not consistent with the beliefs and practices of the Jews traditional religion, in that it;
Rejects The Law (Ps. 19:7-11)
Rejects the ancient practice of circumcision. (Gen. 17:9-14)
Rejects the authority of the Jews religious leaders. (Deut. 17:8-14)
Refuses to distinguish between that which is Scripturally unclean,
and between that which is clean. (Lev 10:9-11, & Eze 22:24-26)

In this context, the "christians", (note that I did not capitalize) were the gentile promoters and adherents of a 'christ' BEFORE there was even any such person born.

How could they be his promoters and adherents before he was born?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Ah, but you fail to apprehend that I'm saying that this "Jesus" never existed outside of Gentile writers imaginations.

And that 'all things that mainstream Christianity says about Jesus' are FALSE.

I am NOT saying the tales are "inaccurate", I am saying they were fabricated in their entirety, and hence are NO reflection of anything that ever actually transpired within the so-called "first century".

Yes, I did understand that was what you were saying. I don't think you understood what I was saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I take a strong "position on the "historical question" of the origin of Christiaity"......which so-called "history" is nothing more than outright fabrication, and a pack of lies.

But if that is your position, then it is material whether there ever was a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood human Jesus. Perhaps you deny that there was, but it makes no sense to say the question is immaterial.

When you say that the 'so-called history' is nothing more than outright fabrication and a pack of lies, I presume you are not saying that it is an outright fabrication and a pack of lies to say that Christianity ever did originate. I presume that you are saying that the story Christianity tells about its origins is an outright fabrication and a pack of lies. If that is so, however, there still must be a historical answer to the question of how Christianity originated. Pete has one, for example--that Constantine had it all made up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

But Pete is taking a position on "the historical question" of the origin of Christianity, and we're discussing that on this thread.

And I agree with him, that the entire subject is founded upon fabrications and outright lies, and was so from its very beginnings.
It dosen't need Constantine to be its "creator", as these lies existed before he was even born. He only became a Patron to the lies.

Now it appears again that you disagree with Pete's answer to the question 'How did Christianity originate?'

J-D · 10-27-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that you have no evidence to support your position?

Dear J-D,

Does the word refute have the same meaning as the word support?

Best wishes,

Pete

Why are you asking me? Don't you know the answer? And what is your answer to my question?

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.