Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 11-28-2010, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

When Lactantius launches into a nasty attack against the persecutions of the christians under Diocletian and Galerius, once again mountainman has to deny that there were any persecutions, otherwise yet again his tomfoolery is shown to be poppycock. You'd think that if Lactantius were fabricating it from Trier, people who were alive those few years ago would know that it was rubbish.

There were those who were with Constantine, and those who were against Constantine. We dont hear very much at all about this second class of 4th century people. (See Arius of Alexandria for example). Lactantius was with Constantine and Eusebius - on Constantine's payroll. Read some of Momigliano's irony on Lactantius's polemics and the political aspects of the persecution. You need to consider that Eusebius and Lactantius were working for the "same side" and the same "Boss".

Eusebius visits his to-be-martyred master Pamphilus in prison. Eusebius does not seem interested in smuggling a file in to the prison with a cake so that his master could escape. The martyrdom and the underground existence of the nation of christians is part and parcel of the fabrication. They are just more tall stories.

The martryrs and he "saints" become "historicized" at the end of the 4th century when the new genre of christian hagiography really took off following the lead of Athanasius's "The Life of Anthony". Momigliano mentions Eusebius as the inventor of "Ecclesiastical History" and Athanasius as the inventor of "Christian Hagiography".

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

On 28 October 312 the Christians suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves victorious (2). The victory was a miracle — though opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed to Constantine. The winners became conscious of their victory in a mood of resentment and vengeance. A voice shrill with implacable hatred announced to the world the victory of the Milvian Bridge: Lactantius’ De mortibus persecutorum (3).

In this horrible pamphlet by the author of de ira dei there is something of the violence of the prophets without the redeeming sense of tragedy that inspires Nahum’s song for the fall of Nineveh. ‘His fury is poured out like fire and the rocks are broken asunder by him. The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble’: this at least has an elementary simplicity which is very remote from the complacent and sophisticated prose of the fourth-century rhetorician.

Lactantius was not alone. More soberly, but no less ruthlessly, Eusebius recounted the divine vengeance against those who had persecuted the Church. To us it naturally appears that there is something in common between the Jews who died in defending the old Jerusalem and the Christians who died in building up the new Jerusalem against the same Roman empire. Modern scholars have found it easy to prove that in form and substance the Jewish martyr is the prototype of the Christian martyr.

Such scholarly discoveries have little relevance to the realities of the fourth century. The pupils hated their masters, and were hated in their turn. With a cry of joy Eusebius, possibly a man of Jewish descent, retells from Josephus the story of the siege and capture of Jerusalem: thus may perish the enemies of Christ.

Perhaps it is no chance that personally neither Lactantius nor Eusebius had suffered much from Diocletian’s persecution. Like Tacitus in relation to Domitian, they voiced the resentment of the majority who had survived in fear rather than in physical pain. Eusebius had been near his master Pamphilus who had carried on his work on the Bible in prison while awaiting death (4).

mountainman · 11-28-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Lucian of Samosata mentions christians in four separate paragraphs of his Passing of Peregrinus in unfriendly light, without giving anything useful to make one think christians put the data there. Lucian was writing circa 165 CE.

There were forgeries in the name of Lucian hand over fist in the 4th century, so immediately my detractors must tread carefully when they start to use Lucian as a source before Constantine.

Quote:

LUCIAN of SAMOSATA
Introduction by A.M. Harmon, 1913,
Published in Loeb Classical Library,
9 volumes, Greek texts and facing English
translation: Harvard University Press.

Among the eighty-two pieces that have come down to us under the name of Lucian, there are not a few of which his authorship has been disputed. Certainly spurious are Halcyon, Nero, Philopatris, and Astrology; and to these, it seems to me, the Consonants at Law should be added. Furthermore. Deinostitenes, Gharidemus, Cynic, Love, Octogenarians, Hippias, Ungrammatical Man, Swiftfoot, amid the epigrams are generally considered spurious, and there are several others (Disowned and My Country in particular) which, to say the least, are of doubtful authenticity.
There are a hundred and fifty manuscripts of Lucian, more or less, which give us a tradition that is none too good.

stephan huller · 11-28-2010, 06:16 PM

This is so utterly demented. We have already had this discussion about Lucian's Peregrinus. I thought I explained to you that Lightfoot and others noticed that Lucian's work seems to have knowledge of the Letters of Ignatius and Polycarp. in other words Peregrinus is a parody of Ignatius or Polycarp or both. At the time I asked why would the same conspiracy have tried on the one hand to successfully dupe the world into believing in a recently created artificial religion and on the other portray this Church Father in such unflattering terms (ie masturbating in public).

Moreover in case you weren't aware of this there are references to Peregrinus in pagan and Christian works. Are you now proposing that all the other references to Peregrinus were forged? What about all of Lucian's works? Peregrinus has been authenticated by experts in Greek literature by comparing the use of language in other of his works. Did the fourth century conspiracy fake Lucian too in order to establish their masturbating Church Father? Why all the effort to create this portrait of a pervert?

This is so stupid

mountainman · 11-28-2010, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

... Science Discussion Forum

I don't see any real support there for combining the two C14 dates.

Perhaps you just dont understand the nature of statistical analysis.

Quote:

.. I object to the charges of "statistical fraud"..

The actual charge was "manipulating data in a fraudulent manner, combining two C14 dates that have nothing to do with each other

This is FALSE.

The two dates are in respect of the same specific category of codex, namely codices which were manufactured by the preservers of the "Gnostic Gospels, etc". They may as well be the bones of two different Australian bunyips, found at two different billabongs out the back of Bourke. It is valid to look at more than one thing at once. The test material is explicitly related by this categorization.

Quote:

in order to cover up the fact that the first is absolutely no help to him and in all probability is a liability."

This is also FALSE.

The first date has an upper bound of 340 CE.
In order that this first date be absolutely no help to me and a liability, this upper bound would have to be less than the date of the Council of Nicaea. For example, had the gJudas been dated at 260 CE (plus of minus 60 years) then the Upper Bound via C14 would be the year 260 + 60 = 320 CE, and the C14 citation would disprove m hypothesis.

The C14 citations say that gJudas was manufactured between 220 and 340 CE and not earlier or later *AND* that the distribution of probability for the test sample is peaked at 280 CE, with something related reasonably closely to a standard (symmetric) distribution about this peak.

This charge of "manipulating data in a fraudulent manner" is unwarranted.
Spin just went out of his depth, that's all. Hope you can swim.

Toto · 11-28-2010, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
It is an historical fact that Constantine pronounced "damnatio memoriae" on the historical figure of Arius of Alexandria. ...

You are repeating yourself. Yes, Constantine said nasty things about Arius. But there is no indication that Arius was a pagan priest, or anything other than a heretical Christian who threatened the unity of Christians.

mountainman · 11-28-2010, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The same post that led you to utter this nonsense, I falsified the mountainman conspiracy theory anew. You were not interested, but here it is again:

[T2="w=90%;b=0;p=5;s=0;bdr=1,solid,#000000"]Let's see what he can do with this text POxy_3035: it's a warrant internally dated in 256 CE to arrest "Petosarapin of Horus a Christian". We can imagine, "it was a fake planted by Eusebius to trick the people of Oxyrhynchus." [/T2]

This is a securely dated text that mentions a christian in 256 from Egypt, the third year of the reign of the Roman emperor Valerius and his son Gallienus.

Another example why the mountainman blunder theory is dead in the water.

You can flap all you want, but when it's dead, it is dead, and all the flapping you want will not breathe life back into it.

ETA: Maybe, it'll be, "well, it can't be 'christian' because it's spelled wrong." :constern01:

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. I think the terms are distinct and were conflated at a late date.

This "controversy" of P.Oxy.3035 would make an interesting poll question, and my prediction is that it will be close to being a split result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

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

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

Related question about "Chrestian" as a derivative of "Chrestos"

How does one say "son of Chrestos" in Greek?

Toto · 11-28-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

There were forgeries in the name of Lucian hand over fist in the 4th century, so immediately my detractors must tread carefully when they start to use Lucian as a source before Constantine.

And your evidence for Peregrinus being a forgery is ???

Toto · 11-28-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't see any real support there for combining the two C14 dates.

Perhaps you just dont understand the nature of statistical analysis.

I don't think that is the problem.

spin · 11-28-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
There were forgeries in the name of Lucian hand over fist in the 4th century, so immediately my detractors must tread carefully when they start to use Lucian as a source before Constantine.

And your evidence for Peregrinus being a forgery is ???

While that's a reasonable question and I too would like to know, I'd be more interested in these "forgeries in the name of Lucian hand over fist in the 4th century."

While a few texts have been incorporated into the Lucianic tradition, which were forgeries? "[H]and over fist" suggests lots and in continuation. How many are lots here? And how does one know when they were produced? It seems to me that none of the phrase is justified.

As to Peregrinus, it mentions "christians" in four paragraphs and there is no witnessing to christianity in these mentions, no reference to christ, no martyrdoms, no revelations, nothing to reflect a christian viewpoint behind them. They seem to represent a befuddled bunch who could be conned by Peregrinus. So we return to Toto's question: "And your evidence for Peregrinus being a forgery is ???"

spin

mountainman · 11-28-2010, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Seems strange to me that we do not have any copies of any of the NT books dated in the first 2 centuries. It is not as if they would not have been looked after - they would have been in the RCC vaults at least because Eusebius would have had copies to work from.

Well we dont have any codices older than the 4th century. The earliest greek new testaments are the three codices here (Sinaiticus , Alexandrinus, Vaticanus). These earliest are conjectured to be copies of, or one of the original fifty bibles Constantine instructed Eusebius to order from the scriptorium.

Quote:

What is the earliest dated copy of any of the books or letters included in the NT?

To my knowledge nothing is dated before at least the 4th century, and somewhere in another thread Roger Pearce provided this summary ....

Quote:

..... if you look at a list of manuscripts of the Greek and Latin classics and see how many are extant only in copies made in the 15th century or later.

Worse yet, very often the manuscripts that reached the age of printing were simply sent to the printer, and then thrown away afterwards.

The oldest surviving text of Macarius Magnes is the printed edition made in the 1890's, the manuscript from which is was made having vanished.

The oldest surviving text of Velleius Paterculus is the 1520 printed edition, the manuscript being last seen in the 18th century, when it was described as being 8th century.

The oldest surviving text of Tertullian's De ieiunio adversus psychicos is the 1545 Paris edition. The two manuscripts that survived the middle ages were both chopped up some time later in the same century.

We might ask, which party ordered and/or performed the destruction?

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

11-28-2010, 06:16 PM	#33
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	This is so utterly demented. We have already had this discussion about Lucian's Peregrinus. I thought I explained to you that Lightfoot and others noticed that Lucian's work seems to have knowledge of the Letters of Ignatius and Polycarp. in other words Peregrinus is a parody of Ignatius or Polycarp or both. At the time I asked why would the same conspiracy have tried on the one hand to successfully dupe the world into believing in a recently created artificial religion and on the other portray this Church Father in such unflattering terms (ie masturbating in public). Moreover in case you weren't aware of this there are references to Peregrinus in pagan and Christian works. Are you now proposing that all the other references to Peregrinus were forged? What about all of Lucian's works? Peregrinus has been authenticated by experts in Greek literature by comparing the use of language in other of his works. Did the fourth century conspiracy fake Lucian too in order to establish their masturbating Church Father? Why all the effort to create this portrait of a pervert? This is so stupid

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.