Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 11-27-2010, 11:06 AM

Then you acknowledge that the document that spin cites references the arrest of an Egyptian member of the Jesus cult. Good. So now we are down to mountainman and his ever confused disciple avi. No chance of making either ever see the light so the thread should now be closed.

spin · 11-27-2010, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Looks like a chi, not like any of the lambdas in the document.

I agree with this, completely,
HOWEVER,
a. none of the four lambdas in lines 5 and 6 look, at least to my eye, like a conventional lambda, however:

b. The chi in κωμάρχαις, line 2, is so convincing, bold, and affirmative, quite distinct from the symbol in question in line 4, which has a TYPICAL, curving, lambda like front limb, (unlike the front limb of the Chi in line 2, which is absolutely straight), so, I inquire again, (in ignorance), are there any Greek words that commence with lambda upsilon?

Don't ignore the script because it doesn't subscribe to your expectations. Look at the writer's lambdas and don't dismiss them. The First letter cannot be the writer's lambda. It looks like a chi and the only difference between it and the chi in κωμάρχαις is that it is word initial, which should explain the hook at the start. If you want to fiddle about contemplating lambdas when the chi is not in doubt, please don't elaborate.

spin

Sheshbazzar · 11-27-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Then you acknowledge that the document that spin cites references the arrest of an Egyptian member of the Jesus cult. Good.

BULLSHIT-SKY! I do NOT acknowledge any such thing!
There is not one damn thing in that document, POxy_3035 that says anything at all about any 'Jesus cult'.
The name 'Jesus' is nowhere present.
And I am still not persuaded that the word under consideration in POxy_3035 is correctly interpreted by the title Christian.
Stop misrepresenting my views.

stephan huller · 11-27-2010, 11:56 AM

Dear Lord, I now know what it's like to be in a looney bin

Transient · 11-27-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Then you acknowledge that the document that spin cites references the arrest of an Egyptian member of the Jesus cult. Good. So now we are down to mountainman and his ever confused disciple avi. No chance of making either ever see the light so the thread should now be closed.

No this thread should not be closed - this is not the Stephan Huller club thread. What should happen is that YOU should leave the thread lol.
Don't bang the door on your way out.
:wave:

stephan huller · 11-27-2010, 01:58 PM

Transi,

I agree that the thread shouldn't be closed merely because of one of the requests of its participants. I didn't expect that the thread would actually be closed. My point was merely to illustrate the futility of continuing the conversation. But perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps Transi has something of substance to add.

Let me remember. If I understand your position correctly YOU DON'T believe that Christianity or the non-canonical gospels were created from scratch by a fourth century conspiracy and in spite of the fact that his arguments make no sense, and that he manipulates data in the most ridiculous ways to support his untenable position BECAUSE PETE IS A NICE GUY and a 'gentleman' you like him better than the people on the other side.

This is why the thread should keep on going. Is that correct? Have I misrepresented your position? Perhaps it might be useful if you added something of substance once and a while rather than merely feeling sorry for the guy with the ludicrous position. Perhaps it would helps us all steer the conversation to some place more meaningful if you could explain what about the current discussion is worth continuing now that spin has provided one more bit of absolutely certain evidence which supports a pre-Nicene origin of Christianity.

Perhaps you could give us the 'magic number' at which point enough evidence has been accumulated to settle the issue.

Sheshbazzar · 11-27-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan Huller

Dear Lord, I now know what it's like to be in a looney bin

This source presents very well the working principals and actions of the Χρηςμολογιa of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. 'Chrestianity' was -not- 'Christianity', and began without a Ἰησοῦς

I find their level of examination of, and presentation of the evidence, and scholarship far more complete, referenced, and persuasive than your barrage of insults and assertions.

Their assessment of papyrus POxy_3035 may be found here
There is so much information that I cannot begin to convey the extent of it in this thread, and would be going beyond reasonable to quote these articles in their entirety.
The information that can put Stephan and spins assertions and unkind insults to rest, can be easily accessed by the provided links.

.

Transient · 11-27-2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Transi,

I agree that the thread shouldn't be closed merely because of one of the requests of its participants. I didn't expect that the thread would actually be closed. My point was merely to illustrate the futility of continuing the conversation. But perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps Transi has something of substance to add.

Let me remember. If I understand your position correctly YOU DON'T believe that Christianity or the non-canonical gospels were created from scratch by a fourth century conspiracy and in spite of the fact that his arguments make no sense, and that he manipulates data in the most ridiculous ways to support his untenable position BECAUSE PETE IS A NICE GUY and a 'gentleman' you like him better than the people on the other side.

This is why the thread should keep on going. Is that correct? Have I misrepresented your position? Perhaps it might be useful if you added something of substance once and a while rather than merely feeling sorry for the guy with the ludicrous position. Perhaps it would helps us all steer the conversation to some place more meaningful if you could explain what about the current discussion is worth continuing now that spin has provided one more bit of absolutely certain evidence which supports a pre-Nicene origin of Christianity.

Perhaps you could give us the 'magic number' at which point enough evidence has been accumulated to settle the issue.

There is no magic number. Just look at the number of people that believe in Mormonism. People have different requirements for "proof". Some need almost none, others need a lot.
It is best to realize that and then leave people to it when you cannot satisfy their need for more evidence. I think it is wise to require quite a bit of evidence - that is what can keep people out of crazy religions like Islam, Hinduism, mormonism etc etc and crazy stuff like aliens are here, USA did the twin towers, ghost stories, AGW etc etc.
It is a sensible thing to require a lot of evidence - it is a sign of weakness not to do so.

stephan huller · 11-27-2010, 03:09 PM

The article is highly speculative piece of internet journalism (the author doesn't even give his name). Even still the author never denies that these 'Chrestians' were a pre-Nicene form of Christianity. In fact he goes to great length to develop a scenario where this 'low-level magic society' were the precursors of Nicene Christianity. If this is the theory you want to hang your hat on, it is worth noting that the author acknowledges the pre-existence of the Jesus cult at various places:

Quote:

It is known that the practice of religion underwent a major revolution during this period: traditionally, history and archaeology imbue the era with the rise of a new high form of monotheism – Christianity. As current history relates the tale, it is heady stuff. A trajectory of development is charted that moves unwavering through the advent of Jesus during the reign of Augustus in the first century, to the crowning moment, literally, when Constantine I makes Christianity the religion of the empire. Let us reflect again for a brief moment on the archaeological evidence for this traditional chronology:

1. We do not yet have first-century papyri discussing Jesus of Nazareth

2. We do have a collection of very important second-century papyri discussing Jesus of Nazareth

3. We have a second-century source in the form of Pliny’s letter to Trajan concerning a secret society engaged in magic, perhaps falling under the general category connotated by the ancient Greek lexeme menteis and more specifically. under the lexeme: chresmologoi.

4. These Chrestians are devoted in some manner to a Christ (not Jesus Christ).

5. These Chrestians adhere to a code of conduct and handle money.

6. Based on the datable evidence, these followers of Christ in this early period are followers or devotees of certain chresmologoi. Othodox Christianity refers to them as apostles; however, in form and function, these individuals, where historical, are more probably xρηστισ (chrestis)

from χραω- to lend). A creditor, lender of money, usurer, a debtor, borrower, a declarer of oracles, prophet. (Source: Rev. John Groves, A Greek and English dictionary,(1828). The connections between lenders of money, debtors, oracles, and prophets, will be developed further in this and later posts.

7. Pliny’s information was obtained through a more rigorous investigation than traditional histories give weight. The governor subjected a large number of inhabitants to examination and test. He also cross-checked this information by extracting testimony through subjecting officers of this secret society to torture.

Not to belabor the point; however, historians of Christianity generally presume that Pliny was outfoxed to some degree by these clever Christains who did not reveal the full scope of their religion to the Emperor’s man in Bithynia. Yet, we see in the Pliny letter plenty of evidence of lukewarm allegiance and even apostasy on the part of those caught up in the Pliny dragnet. We even have the usual anonymous informants. In short, Pliny’s investigation has every appearance of being both thorough as well as accurate in the quality of its report.

The theory is quite outlandish but not nearly as stupid as the one we are currently discussing. The author gives no proof that a separate society calling themselves 'Chrestians' ever existed outside of Christianity. He speculates that this might be possible if this and this and this are assumed. If you want to buy into this theory, that's your business but why would this make more sense than a document specifying an arrest of a Chrestian in Egypt during a time where we know the persecution of Christians was on going? Why would anyone prefer a speculative reconstruction about a magical society in Asia Minor to explain the arrest of an Egyptian Chrestian during a time of Christian persecution when we know from Clement of Alexandria that the terms were interchangeable in Egyptian Christianity at the time?

It all comes down to what is more reasonable. Why is it more reasonable to chose the argument which has no evidence to support it?

Sheshbazzar · 11-27-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan Huller

the author never denies that these 'Chrestians' were a pre-Nicene form of Christianity.

continuing from the same article,

Quote:

For the balance of the first century and the first third of the second, not a single archaeological artifact attests to the existence of Jesus-centered Christianity in the whole of the empire. During this same period, no evidence for any of the higher religious offices dedicated specifically to the Christian church are to be found in either the archaeological, or historical record.
We are therefore justified on the basis of these conclusions to dispense for the moment with both an historical first-century Jesus and his church.

Certainly does not read like any affirmation 'that these 'Chrestians' were a pre-Nicene form of Christianity'.

The Chrestiani magic peddler -'precursors'- of 'Christianity', without even a 'Jesus' figure, or any identifiable 'Christian' theology, are not 'Christians'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan Huller

The author gives no proof that a separate society calling themselves 'Chrestians' ever existed outside of Christianity.

Why would he? The Chrestians existed before the religion of Christianity evolved into a recognizably 'Christian' religion, by the time Christianity became recognizable by its core teachings, the Chrestani had already been fully absorbed and integrated.
As for your statements about Christian persecutions, you are conflating the terms Chrestian and Christian and presenting them as being one and the same, which they most definitely are not.
The writings of Clement of Alexandria only serve to attest that this syncretizing transition was still going on, and the Church had not yet fully succeeded in replacing the old Chrestoi terms that connected them with that the earlier non-Jesus based magical mystery religion.

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

11-27-2010, 11:06 AM	#111
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Then you acknowledge that the document that spin cites references the arrest of an Egyptian member of the Jesus cult. Good. So now we are down to mountainman and his ever confused disciple avi. No chance of making either ever see the light so the thread should now be closed.

11-27-2010, 11:56 AM	#114
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Dear Lord, I now know what it's like to be in a looney bin

11-27-2010, 01:58 PM	#116
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Transi, I agree that the thread shouldn't be closed merely because of one of the requests of its participants. I didn't expect that the thread would actually be closed. My point was merely to illustrate the futility of continuing the conversation. But perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps Transi has something of substance to add. Let me remember. If I understand your position correctly YOU DON'T believe that Christianity or the non-canonical gospels were created from scratch by a fourth century conspiracy and in spite of the fact that his arguments make no sense, and that he manipulates data in the most ridiculous ways to support his untenable position BECAUSE PETE IS A NICE GUY and a 'gentleman' you like him better than the people on the other side. This is why the thread should keep on going. Is that correct? Have I misrepresented your position? Perhaps it might be useful if you added something of substance once and a while rather than merely feeling sorry for the guy with the ludicrous position. Perhaps it would helps us all steer the conversation to some place more meaningful if you could explain what about the current discussion is worth continuing now that spin has provided one more bit of absolutely certain evidence which supports a pre-Nicene origin of Christianity. Perhaps you could give us the 'magic number' at which point enough evidence has been accumulated to settle the issue.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.