stephan huller

I just got home. Are you citing this book http://books.google.com/books?id=swt...ish%22&f=false as evidence that the fish images I have cited are NOT Christian? Have you even read Snyder's book? You're so crazy. I mean that this crazy.

I'm driving my car. Thinking you have this guy who has at least rejected the fish symbolism as pre-Constantine Christian (because I can't click on the links while driving). So I get I home and start reading this Snyder guy on Abercius and see that he does indeed acknowledge the existence of pre-Constantine relics from antiquity including Abercius:

One of the earliest Chrsitian witnesses for the fish meal would be the Epitaph of Abercius which if considered genuinely pre-Constantinian (and I believe it is), refers to the "food, the Fish from the Fountain, the very great, the pure, which the holy virgin seized" (lines 13- 14). Again, if genuinely Christian this inscription does take Jesus Christ to be the Fish as food from the Fountain. (p. 33)

It is difficult to stay composed dealing with a complete mashugana. This guy has written a whole book arguing that there are pre-Constantine Christian artefacts one of them being the Epitaph of Abercius. Whatever this is so stupid. It's a good thing I am used to dealing with people like you.

stephan huller

avi

Come on. You don't know why the fish is connected with Jesus? Really? Use Wikipedia to find out. This really is embarassing. Christianity 101.

Sheshbazzar

I know why the fish is connected with Jesus.
Just a plain old rip off sycretization of the Hellenic Orpheus / Bacchus /Dionysus ΙΧΘΥΣ -Ichthys 'Fish',
pagan carp cult.
The word and the theme were in place for 500 years before 'christiainty' swiped it.

mountainman

No, of course not. Snyder is on "your side". He presents all the evidence that can be rounded up on the question of evidence of christianity before the "Peace of Constantine".


Yes as a matter of fact I have. I have presented a critical review of the book here. I just cited Synders comments on the beginnings of the discipline which is now today regarded as "Christian Archaeology". I have posted this review in a separate thread somewhere - have a look. O hang on, I forgot, you're driving a semi trailer in a blizzard in the Rocky Mountains, and you've got to read to the children soon, (been there, done that) here it is .... Ante pacem (Graydon Snyder) - an exhaustive and critical review of Snyder's evidence

avi

To me, the single most interesting aspect of Pete's novel, challenging, and stimulating theory, that the whole of christianity was created by Constantine/Eusebius, is the reaction of several forum members, in writing comments ostensibly aimed at elucidating how Pete's theory errs, but actually illustrating, contrarily, their own inability to think creatively, themselves, (i.e. "outside the box".)

Here's an illustration of such a presumptive repudiation of Pete's scholarship:

Of course, the sky isn't blue, at all. It is jet black, but the atmosphere, causes Rayleigh scattering, tricking the mind into thinking that it is blue.

Proper scholarly research requires more than simple linguistic fluency, it also requires honesty, discipline, and organization. But more than these mundane qualities, a genuine scholar seeks to look beyond the obvious. A real investigator asks questions, challenging the prevailing attitudes. Any parrot can repeat the status quo, dogmatically. The essence of a scientific, materialistic, anti-superstitious approach to life, is to inquire, with an open mind, challenging everything, accepting nothing at face value, and demanding proof--> and then once more confronting that evidence, to ensure that it has not been misinterpreted, or misrepresented, or simply misread.

So, no, that was not a whacko proposing that maybe the sky is not blue. It was Pete, doing his job. More of us need to emulate his vigilance and dedication. Above all, in offering criticism of his efforts, we need to focus on offering alternative explanations of his data, rather than contemptuously referring to x quantity of "scholars", with enormous credentials, and huge, heavy tomes on their desks representing decades of rewriting, over and over again: "of course, the sky is blue, you moron."

avi

Transient

Well said.
I think a problem occurs when people are trying to make a name for themselves or are trying to sell a book etc. Sometimes maybe they sacrifice good analysis just to push a case so that they can further their other objectives. Then sometimes they fall into the trap of insulting others who annoy them instead of consistently providing refutations etc.
It probably indicates flaws in their own theories which they would prefer not to be highlighted.

Toto

A conspiracy theory like Pete's is not thinking outside the box. It is lazy thinking. It assumes that there is a simple force creating what we see.

The mind is not "tricked" into thinking that the sky is blue. There are many examples of the mind being tricked into seeing or hearing what is not there, but Rayleigh scattering actually delivers light in the blue spectrum to the eyes. The sky as we see it is blue (during daytime in calm weather, and with all the usual qualifications.)

And every whack job with a poorly sourced conspiracy theory claims to be on the cutting edge, to be challenging the establishment.

bacht

Having an open mind is fine, as long as it's open at both ends, ie being willing to discard unorthodox ideas as well as accept them.

Surely you must know that conspiracy theories are part of pop culture these days. That doesn't mean they can't be true, but being popular or "common sense" is fallacious argumentation.

We all know that tweaking authority can be a buzz, but sometimes they get things right. Thinking outside the box has its place, but eventually even bizarre theories can become mainstream (like quantum physics).

Then there's the guilty pleasure of upsetting Christian believers. I don't think this is the case with mountainman, but being shocking for its own sake is kinda childish imo.

bacht

sorry Toto, didn't mean to cross-post

Transient

blah whats the use.
Why don't we just hang the guy and then quarter him after all he is the devil.