stephan huller

Hold on a second Shesh

Up until 10 am this morning you were arguing that the arrest warrant brought forward by spin was for a guy being identified as 'the good one.' Now that it's 10 pm you have decided that everyone should acknowledge that there was a religious tradition called the Chrestiani.

Let's start at the beginning and remember that all the things being argued here are just some theory that someone on the internet came up with. There were no Chrestiani independent of Christianity. We can argue the merits of this guys thesis if you want in a separate thread but for the moment the question is still whether or not it is more likely that the guy being arrested was an Egyptian Christian (who as we have noted from the evidence of Clement frequently identified themselves as Chrestians) or whether he was a member of some 'low level magic sect' first proposed by an anonymous guy on the internet last month.

I think that the identification of the individual as a Christian would be universal - save among the terminally demented.

Sheshbazzar

Guess that means I'll have to remain classified as 'terminally demented' by 'Dr. Stephan Huller'.
My conscience can easily live with that. But not with ......

As far as interpreting the 'chrestian' word in POxy_3035 as 'a good man', it is not intended to be a precise translation but only indicative of that range of similar translations extant for the underlying Χρη root word.
I do not believe 'chrestian' was being employed here as any religious denominating title.

There are numerous Internet sites that present virtually identical information regarding the terms chrestos and chrestian and their origins, and all of these were not 'proposed by an anonymous guy on the Internet last month'.
Do you have an equal 'problem' with, and disrespect for spin's continuing anonymity?

My choice of this particular site over others was based upon the fact that it presented a view on POxy_3035 that clearly illustrated, opposed, and refuted spin's 'traditional' line,
And provided a plethora of additional supporting evidence for the position being tendered

I could have as easily employed any of a dozen or more other unconnected sources.
You are still far from convincing me of the correctness of your received 'traditional' interpretation, and it appears that the more you continue to argue for it, the more convinced you'll force me to become, that you and your beloved 'church tradition' are wrong.


.

mountainman

Greetings Sheshbazzar and avi and All,

I see that you have dealt with another one of spin's collection of "silver bullets". My thanks for pointing out the error in spin's (and other's) logic systems in this specific instance of p.Oxy 3035.



an order from February 256 to arrest a certain “Petosorapis, son of Horus, Chrestian” (P.Oxy. 3035).





Chrestian can be 'christian' for those who so 'believe'. I do not subscribe to the hypothesis myself.


This "controversy" of P.Oxy.3035 would make an interesting poll question.


Best wishes,


Pete



PS: to Toto

Some of the recent discussion of this thread not addressed at the OP, but instead at another separate issue, as DISCLAIMED earlier, might be more appropriate in the current thread The NT canon and the whole constantine thing. Spin might have me on ignore, but how am I supposed to argue the OP here about the non canonical gospels, if I have to constantly defend myself against spin's serving up of evidence in respect of the Constantine invention hypothesis?

I would like to try and keep the OP on topic.
Yet the issues spin and others raise still need to be addressed.
Thanks for any consideration.

spin

You failed to show any relevance of the material you linked to again. Debate by internet link is no debate at all. Until you can present some argument here that needs response, you say nothing. Neither you nor the article make any connection with "chrestian" that points away from "christian". There is no argument in the material you cite that points to an etymology other than a christian one. Endemic of the problem of the material you cited is the fact that throughout the writer has used Χρηςμολογιa with a final sigma in a medial position. See the difference in the two sigmas in Ἰησοῦς? Your writer should have known better.

We are left with the only people wearing the title "chrestian" in history are the christians.

Another smoke and mirrors post, Shesh. If you don't have anything to say, don't hide it behind some pretentious link that sheds no light nor gives hope of shedding any.

stephan huller

Really? You sounded pretty convinced of the translation initially. What changed?

There is as far as I can tell no mention of POXY_3035 in the article.

The authors ALWAYS connect their tradition with Christian documents and Christian references. Look carefully at ALL of the pages.

These people seem to have a very good knowledge of new archaeological information (which is useful) and an utterly superficial knowledge of Christianity outside of the standard model.

Given that we are discussing Pete's theories about the origins of the non-canonical gospels, the work of these people will certainly not help Pete's case. They seem to accept the existence of a Jesus cult alongside and with some relation to the Chrestian tradition. If anything they would probably argue that the Chrestian tradition influenced the shape of first century Christianity.

Their evidence does not seem to go into third century Egypt. Given that there was a documented Roman persecution of Christians at the time of the POXY_3035 I would be very surprised if these people would argue that someone other than Christians were being singled out in the document.

The bottom line again is that these guys would reject Pete's theories that Christianity was wholly invented from scratch in the fourth century by an Imperial conspiracy.

Sheshbazzar

As you both willfully ignore any evidences supplied, This thread is no longer worth time taken to compose any further replies to.
You have already 'diagnosed' me as being 'terminally demented'.
And you can be certain I have no better opinion of your sorry excuses for 'scholarship'.
You think you have all of the 'right' answers.
I do not.

And I will wait for as long as I must wait, but I am not going to get on board your wagon.
See you down the road when your wheels fall off and your horse drops dead.

stephan huller

Just for the record Shesh I wasn't talking about you being terminally demented. You obviously have the capacity to change your opinion as you did today from 10 am to 10 pm. I was actually saying in the post that since you are capable of holding more than one opinion you might one day arrive at the right one. This isn't intended as a slap in the face. I mean that sincerely.

What I have against Pete and avi is their certainty. I might be certain about what opinions definitively don't work. I might have the odd opinion about what has to be correct in particular instances based on the evidence. Yet I certainly wouldn't feel entitled to completely overturn every principle of scholarship especially if I hadn't familiarized myself with the arguments for those accepted positions.

Pete's opinions are just so 'out there' - if he just couched them with the word 'maybe' or 'I just had an idea' and if he actually listened to what other people more knowledgeable than himself had to say I don't think they would be so offensive to many here.

spin

Wow, perhaps it was better with the smoke and mirrors.

Just for the record there are three silver bullets that have killed the mountainman conspiracy theory:

1. the gospel fragment from Dura Europos,
2. the Dura christian chapel, and
3. Oxy 3035.

Each is sufficient to falsify the theory.

What supports the Constantine/Eusebius backed conspiracy to foist the newfangled christianity onto the unsuspecting Roman empire? mountainman. Evidence? None. There is no positive evidence for it whatsoever. Julian doesn't help. Arius doesn't help. Mani doesn't help. Weird use of C14 doesn't help. Wouldn't it be nice if mountainman had something to show for his years wasted trying to find something to actually support the initial conjecture?


spin

Transient

Probably the best thing to do.
It doesn't pay to argue against the dominant theories on forums - you just get pulped and mutilated.
In a church you just get pulped until you either conform to whatever crazy doctrines they hold or you leave. Same thing here.
Evidence to support any of the current theories is pretty shaky at best so bashing and pulping seems to be the name of the game.

spin

Sorry, I don't understand this. The mountainman theory has plainly been shown to be unproductive and evidenceless. You seem to suggest supporting a dead theory because it's not one of the prevalent ones. Do you normally support one you know to be wrong purely because you don't like the alternatives? If you don't think it's wrong, you might like to defend it against the three pieces of evidence I mentioned in my previous psot that show that it is. You've seen avi and Sheshbazzar hum and ha and get nowhere trying to cover up the basic problems. Is it better to act petulant and run away because people are being called for the rot factor or to deal with reality?

Surely it's better to start with material, with theories that have the possibility of being productive. Supporting no theory is preferable to supporting a dead one.


spin