Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-26-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Therefore, to argue that the so-called Pauline letters were forgeries in the sense that they were not written by Paul presupposes that there was a real Paul. If you contend (as I was under the impression you do) that there never was any such person as Paul, then it is not clear in what sense you could contend that the so-called Pauline letters are forgeries.

Dear J-D,

Fair question. The so-called Pauline letters as a set of fourteen are a package which was to be set over and above the historical existence of the collected letters of the first century author, philosopher and neopythagorean sage Apollonius of Tyana. At least some of the collection of letters of Apollonius are extant and are thought to be quite genuine. This article makes some interesting background reading on Apollonius of Tyana: Letters of Apollonius; Ancient Testimonia; Eusebius's Reply to Hierocles. Loeb Classical Library, 458. (Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.07.16)

Paul and his letters are part of a fabrication by Hand Eusebius in the fourth century IMO. In the strict legal sense, Eusebius was creating a huge literary fabrication under the strict orders of the ruling Pontifex Maximus Constantine. but it was Constantine who touted the fabrication as genuine, and as such is liable to be perceived as being charged with the offence of the fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history. Charges relating to the massive destruction of ancient and highly revered architecture, the execution of Hellenic priests, the execution of family members and related innocents, the shutting down of the ancient public hospital system (ie: the temples of the healing god Asclepius), the robbery and pillage of the temples, etc, etc, etc will need to be added to this of course. But for the moment, in an attempt to get specific about the charge, I'd be inclined to go for fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history. Not against Eusebius, the employee, but against Bullneck, the Boss.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 10-26-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

One of my claims is that the tangible evidence is before our eyes in the identification and recognition of satire, parody and burlesque which appears to run through most of the new testament apochryphal corpus (with a few notable exceptions such as he gThomas). I have taken great efforts in the attempt to engage discussion on this aspect of the NT apochryphal acts, and gospels, but to no avail. You refuse to respond to the issue for some obscure reason. But even so, I have put forward this material as tangible evidence from the fourth century. It's not as though I have put nothing forward. If you are talking dismissal, should you not dismiss that which I have tendered as evidence with perhaps a briefly phrased reason or two, and allow me to respond?

Best wishes,

Pete

You have not explained how the existence of these documents favours your theory over the alternative.

J-D · 10-26-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Actuallly, you've done no such thing. A real effort to engender discussion would have entailed you posting to sites where actual experts in ancient history and the genres of ancient literature reside.

Dear Jeffrey,

I have on a number of occassions referred to an article entitled The NON CANONIC as PAGAN POLEMIC. Have you looked at this? I thought not. In that article I have gathered material from a number of sites which provide articles by authors who discuss a number of these apochryphal acts. These authors include the following:

* Article (1): THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA - Richard Bauckham
* Article (2a): The Thirteenth Apostle - the Gospel of Judas as a PARODY - by April DeConick
* Article (2b): Do non-canonical texts make you uneasy? - Tony Chartand-Burke, via April DeConick
* Article (3): NT Apocryphal Acts - notes of Dr. Cranford, Gardner-Webb University - Interpreting the New Testament documents
* Article (4): Apocryphal Acts Homepage - István Czachesz, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies
* Article (5): The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts - by Stevan L. Davies
* Article (6): A selection of brief quotations on the NT Apocrypha
* Article (7): The Shadowy Leucius Charinus and his "Leucian Acts"

At this stage, the article begins to focus on these so-called five "Leucian Acts" and I have then presented a Comparitive review of scholarship on the "Leucian Acts" by going through each of the five texts one by one, and setting beside each other comments from a number of academic commentators on each of the acts. These authors include István Czachesz, Geoff Trowbridge, Glenn Davis, M.R. James, Robert F. Stoops, Philip Sellew, Jean-Marc Prieur, Robert Lamberton, Harold W. Attridge. Consequently Jeffrey, I think you either have not read the article to which I have referred on many occassions, or you will not.

One does not require a degree to be able to laugh at a joke. One does not have to have studied greco Roman rhetoric in order to appreciate the point of satire. I took the time the prepare for the web the text of Julian's "The Caesars" aka "Symposium" aka "Kronia" of c. 361 CE, which is a classic example of satire from the period seeing that Emperor Julian gets stuck right into both Constantine and Jesus. Particular mention should be made of the words, which have been italicised below, which the Emperor Julian puts into the mputh of Jesus:

I hope you are not about to deny this is a satire,
written specifically by the emperor Julian against
Constantine and the religion of the Galilaeans.

Quote:

For instance, it's evident that you have never done the the grunt work that is necessary for anyone to think that your claims about the genre of the writings of the NT apocrypha have any merit whatsoever. That is to say, you have never taken the time to discover, let alone lay out, what forms and themes and topoi and structure ancient satire. parodies, and burlesques actually took and what were regarded by ancient authors of the elements that a writing had to have in order to be recognized or taken as satire, burlesque, and/or parody. You've not read widely either in our extant examples of such works, or in the scholarship on these literary forms, to know.

Why then should any one take you seriously when you claim that the NT apocryphal writings are satires, parodies, burlesques, etc, when you don't know what the elements that ancient burlesques, parodies, satires had to have actually were?

Because contrary to your mis-authoritative and excessively unfair claims in this post, I have actually done a reasonable amount of groundwork to the issues surrounding a large number, if not all of the new testament apochryphal acts. In addition to indexes and references to the source material (mentions of the apochrypha) in Eusebius and elsewhere, where else is a comparitive assessment available on various of these apochryphal acts between various academic commentators available for viewing on the net?

The new testament apochrypha have been described as a textual critics nightmare because noone to date (that I aware of), except perhaps April Deconnick in gJudas, has identified the presence of satire, parody and/or burlesque in the non canonical acts directed fairly and squarely against the characters of the Constantinian canon.

Best wishes,

Pete

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.

J-D · 10-27-2008, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The poll was whether or not the Dura evidence falsifies MM's hypothesis. Though I don't accept his hypothesis, I don't think the Dura evidence falsifies it, so I voted no. You can add mine back into your tally.

You never defined what MM's theory was because:

1) You never defined what Christianity means under MM's theory.

2) You never defined what inventing (of Christianity) means under MM's theory.

You never explained how the evidence of Dura-Europos indicates that MM's theory was proved wrong by the evidence.

Pete hasn't defined what 'Christianity' or 'inventing' mean in his theory, either. And it's his theory. I am suspicious of somebody who won't define the terms in his own theory.

J-D · 10-27-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The poll was whether or not the Dura evidence falsifies MM's hypothesis. Though I don't accept his hypothesis, I don't think the Dura evidence falsifies it, so I voted no. You can add mine back into your tally.

At the time the poll was first presented, I reluctantly voted "YES", after reading Ben's EXCELLENT travail, and rereading, several times, spin's explanations, i.e. Joseph of Arimathea, IE, stavros, Salome appearing on the 14 line fragment of papyrus. Now, having understood that Dura was home to Nazarenes (Thanks Sheshbazzar) and Mandaeans (Thanks Spin), I no longer wish to affirm support for the notion that the archaeological evidence discredits, i.e. repudiates, (n.b. NOT falsifies) Pete's theory that Constantine invented Christianity, as we know it, today. I still believe that some proto-christian sects existed prior to Eusebius, but the main substance, I now believe, until new evidence appears, of Christianity, was formulated, and written on orders of Constantine.

You haven't given any explanation of what makes you think this, or any reason to think it's true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I am sure that every effort was expended to destroy 100% of the old documents, and to modify all the existing docs to ensure conformance to the triune monster. Thanks Pete, for opening my eyes. Please change my vote to NO.

J-D · 10-27-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If there ever was such a person as Moses, women may have visited his grave.

Dear J-D,

Thanks for the sensible response on this question.

Quote:

But the stories about Moses in the Jewish Scriptures do not include stories about women visiting his grave. In fact, the Jewish Scriptures include an explicit statement that Moses was buried in an unknown location (Deuteronomy Chapter 34, verse 6). Although the same is not said of Joshua, the Jewish Scriptures include no stories about people (men, women, or children) visiting Joshua's grave. They also include no stories mentioning Joshua and crucifixion, and no stories mentioning Joshua and Joseph of Arimathea. Any story which mentions crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea, and women visiting a grave does not correspond to any stories about Joshua in the Jewish Scriptures (or any stories in the Jewish Scriptures at all).

Firstly, your reliance upon the presence of the word "crucifixion" in the text is conjectural since the word does not appear in the text. Please have a look at Ben's page.

Secondly, all we can say is that we do not have any stories like the diatesseron fragment extant. This does not rule out the possibility that the stories existed, but were destroyed in the enormous literature destruction campaign by the christian supremacists of the later fourth and early fifth centuries. So, the argument that we dont have any stories about Joshua's grave being visted by women needs to be tempered by the fact that we do not have in our possession all texts and all stories from that epoch.

Best wishes,

Pete

Obviously nobody knows what was written in texts of which no record survives. The unrecorded is unrecorded. What we can say with certainty is that the fragment that we have been discussing does not correspond to any text about Joshua from the extant Jewish Scriptures.

Sheshbazzar · 10-27-2008, 10:26 AM

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 Sheshbazzar

Yes, but my time is limited at the, and I cannot participate here for the next few days.
Really all you have to do is look up the references to the Jewish "sect of The Nazarenes", and eliminate the imposition of the word "Christian upon them.
They said they were not , and the early Christian commentators said they were not Christian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

My attention has been drawn in a discussion on another thread to the Nazarene sect. However, I don't see how their existence is evidence for your theory or Pete's.
Assuming that 'Christianity' is defined to exclude the Nazarenes, the existence of pre-Constantinian Nazarenes is still not evidence for the non-existence of pre-Constantinian Christianity.

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

And to my way of thinking the existence of the Nazarene sect is evidence that Jesus did exist--I don't see how you explain the existence of that sect otherwise. (The existence of the Nazarene sect, to my way of thinking, counts as evidence against the theory that all the things mainstream Christianity says about Jesus are true--but that is different from saying he did not exist.)

From my point of view, you are incorrectly conflating the Nazarene Jewish Messiah figure of "Yahshua" ("Y'shua ha' mesheka")
with the invented Gentile personage of "Jesus the Christ.
The error being that you are assuming that the Gentile fabricated and interpolated documents and "Gospels" concerning "Jesus", are accurate descriptions of the words and actions of Yahshua the Nazerene, and that Yahshua and "Jesus" are same personage, something being popularly and automatically assumed.
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.

figuer · 10-27-2008, 11:31 AM

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

J-D · 10-27-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I have no idea what you mean by 'comparanda', or why you think the point you are making about them (whatever they are) is relevant.

Dear J-D,

When I used the term comparanda with respect to a specific bit of evidence I mean all those other bits of evidence available from the field which are very similar, or comparable to, the bit of evidence being discussed. What the poll should have said about the frescoes (for example - the same can be applied to both the "Diatessaron Fragment" and the "Presumed Baptismal Font".) is this.

We have here three frescoes at this house-church which exhibit clear comparitive similarities to sets of frescoes which have already been determined to be christian from the cities of Rome and Alexandria, for example, because such house-churches have been found in other places.

It needs to be stated that the reason that other comparable evidence is not cited in support of the assertion that we are dealing with christian frescoes is because we have no other comparable frescoes - anywhere - even from the cities of Rome and Alexandria, where is has been presumed (according to other threads here right now) that we have has christian occupancy from the first century. If we have three centuries of christian frescoing why is it that the Dura fresco has not one comparable fresco anywhere else in the empire?

Best wishes,

Pete

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.

J-D · 10-27-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

At the time the poll was first presented, I reluctantly voted "YES", after reading Ben's EXCELLENT travail, and rereading, several times, spin's explanations, i.e. Joseph of Arimathea, IE, stavros, Salome appearing on the 14 line fragment of papyrus. Now, having understood that Dura was home to Nazarenes (Thanks Sheshbazzar) and Mandaeans (Thanks Spin), I no longer wish to affirm support for the notion that the archaeological evidence discredits, i.e. repudiates, (n.b. NOT falsifies) Pete's theory that Constantine invented Christianity, as we know it, today. I still believe that some proto-christian sects existed prior to Eusebius, but the main substance, I now believe, until new evidence appears, of Christianity, was formulated, and written on orders of Constantine. I am sure that every effort was expended to destroy 100% of the old documents, and to modify all the existing docs to ensure conformance to the triune monster. Thanks Pete, for opening my eyes. Please change my vote to NO.

Dear Avi,

Thank you. I hope that you understand this is a form of apostasy

Apostasy is an interesting concept and curously enough, is put into the words of Peter the Apostle by the author of the NHC 6.1 tractate called "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles". Here is the relevant quote:

It appears that there were many apostasies in the time represented by the author (C14 says 348 CE). I wonder what this means? We all know that a little time later, the most famous of all apostates wrote a whole lot of lies against the very pure christian religion and against the holy gospels and against the historical significance of Jesus Crispus Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYRIL

but none as went far as Julian,
who damaged the prestige of the Empire
by refusing to recognize Christ,
dispenser of royalty and power.

he composed three books against the holy gospels
and against the very pure Christian religion,
he used them to shake many spirits
and to cause them uncommon wrongs.

I wonder why Julian hurled such invectives at the Constantinian literature, and Eusebius?
Do any readers here think he may have thought himself justified in some way?
Would anyone like to explian Julian's invectives?

Best wishes,

Pete

It sounds like an absolutely typical religious disagreement to me.

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

10-27-2008, 11:31 AM	#308
figuer Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico Posts: 7,984	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?? Should we give credence to the idea that no Jew was to record this event in order to demonstrate the falsity of Christianity??

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.