Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 03-27-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

The heretics were not pagans, they were other Christians with doctrinal differences to the Roman church.

Yes, that is what happens when someone has enough power to declare one particular version of a belief as "orthodoxy". The others become "heretics".

Why do you think this is relevant?

It's relevant, because Constantine did not end Christian persecution. What he did was change the persecution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No, you just haven't been paying attention.

Illegal under Pliny.

Illegal under Constantine.

...huh!? Didn't you just finish arguing Constantine ended Christian persecution?

:banghead:

Maybe you should read what you write yourself before accusing me of failure to do so.

mountainman · 03-27-2008, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

To be fair, the theory of the HJ has no evidence whatsoever either

Actually, it has some evidence. It is your assertion that the evidence is all forged that has no evidence going for it.

I don't accept Jesus' historicity because I believe that the evidence against it outweighs the evidence for it, but I don't deny that there is evidence for both sides.

Thanks, and I can appreciate this positionality. However I find that if were to invoke some form of integrated accumulation of citations which have been forthcoming to substantiate and authenticate in a historical sense, the history of the new testament and the "early christian story" then at the end of this mammoth exercise would be an extremely large collection of utterly blatant forgeries, and very very few ancient historical citations to epigraphy, papyri, and other archaeological data that are sound. Even then, I find that when the mass of known forged relics are ignored, and one starts to focus on the remnant citation, these citations are grossly ambiguous with respect to the question of "christians".

For these reasons (and others, such as the massive Eusebian integrity problems, and assessments on the integrity of Eusebius as an historian, for example), I have adoped to approach the whole question from the extreme position of postulating that in fact, perhaps the whole thing known as NT christian literature and the "nation of christians" and "anything christian" did not in fact exist prior to the rise of Constantine. This postulate is either consistent with the evidence or inconsistent, and I am happy to have the postulate judged on the basis of the assessment of the evidence in our possession.

I hope this explains my positionality at the moment.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 03-27-2008, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The heretics were not pagans, they were other Christians
with doctrinal differences to the Roman church.

Hang on just one minute! How do we really know this assumption is true?

I am prepared to argue that we have pagans until 324 CE, after which time we have christians and christian heretics. Where did the pagans go? At the detailed end of the postulate I am defending the ascetic priest Arius of Alexandria was a pagan. Arius is written up as a christian heretic by the ecclesiatical historians from whom we read about the history of that epoch.

We have two terms: "christian heretic" and "pagan seditionist". I would like to know how these two terms are differentiated (if at all) in the literature preserved from the fourth century, for example.

My argument is that Arius of Alexandria is better understood with repect to ancient history as an anti-Constantinian "pagan seditionist". Read the political letter composed by Constantine to Arius c.333 CE. Dear Arius, Where are you Arius. Why are you writing this trash against my man Jesus Arius? Are you in Syria Arius? Why dont you catch a chariot to my place, in the city of Constantine? I'll pay the driver at the other end. Why do you reproach, grieve, wound and pain my wonderful Church Arius?".

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Toto · 03-27-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Actually, it has some evidence. It is your assertion that the evidence is all forged that has no evidence going for it.

I don't accept Jesus' historicity because I believe that the evidence against it outweighs the evidence for it, but I don't deny that there is evidence for both sides.

Thanks, and I can appreciate this positionality. However I find that if were to invoke some form of integrated accumulation of citations which have been forthcoming to substantiate and authenticate in a historical sense, the history of the new testament and the "early christian story" then at the end of this mammoth exercise would be an extremely large collection of utterly blatant forgeries, and very very few ancient historical citations to epigraphy, papyri, and other archaeological data that are sound. Even then, I find that when the mass of known forged relics are ignored, and one starts to focus on the remnant citation, these citations are grossly ambiguous with respect to the question of "christians".

For these reasons (and others, such as the massive Eusebian integrity problems, and assessments on the integrity of Eusebius as an historian, for example), I have adoped to approach the whole question from the extreme position of postulating that in fact, perhaps the whole thing known as NT christian literature and the "nation of christians" and "anything christian" did not in fact exist prior to the rise of Constantine. This postulate is either consistent with the evidence or inconsistent, and I am happy to have the postulate judged on the basis of the assessment of the evidence in our possession.

I hope this explains my positionality at the moment.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

No, this does not explain your refusal to modify your position in the face of evidence. You have set up a hypothesis that can be falsified by any small about of evidence, such as the "very very few ancient historical citations to epigraphy, papyri, and other archaeological data that are sound." But, when confronted with this evidence, you refuse to admit defeat.

mountainman · 03-27-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thanks, and I can appreciate this positionality. However I find that if were to invoke some form of integrated accumulation of citations which have been forthcoming to substantiate and authenticate in a historical sense, the history of the new testament and the "early christian story" then at the end of this mammoth exercise would be an extremely large collection of utterly blatant forgeries, and very very few ancient historical citations to epigraphy, papyri, and other archaeological data that are sound. Even then, I find that when the mass of known forged relics are ignored, and one starts to focus on the remnant citation, these citations are grossly ambiguous with respect to the question of "christians".

For these reasons (and others, such as the massive Eusebian integrity problems, and assessments on the integrity of Eusebius as an historian, for example), I have adoped to approach the whole question from the extreme position of postulating that in fact, perhaps the whole thing known as NT christian literature and the "nation of christians" and "anything christian" did not in fact exist prior to the rise of Constantine. This postulate is either consistent with the evidence or inconsistent, and I am happy to have the postulate judged on the basis of the assessment of the evidence in our possession.

I hope this explains my positionality at the moment.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

No, this does not explain your refusal to modify your position in the face of evidence. You have set up a hypothesis that can be falsified by any small about of evidence, such as the "very very few ancient historical citations to epigraphy, papyri, and other archaeological data that are sound." But, when confronted with this evidence, you refuse to admit defeat.

While I appreciate these references (below) Toto please give me some time to have a look at these citations. I dont seem immediately to be able to find a statement as to how they were dated, or their provenance.

Thanks and best wishes,

Pete Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Does anyone know the prenicene amulet?

...

I was starting to think I had imagined this, but here it is:

Late Antique, Early Christian and Jewish gems: 3rd and 4th centuries - inscriptions

Pagan symbols transformed into Christian symbols

Quote:

Another popular motif found on Christian gems of the later 3rd century is a pair of fish flanking an anchor or a cross-like object. Although the symbol is of pagan origin, attested first in the late Hellenistic period, its sudden appearance on gems in the 3rd century, as well as its occurrence in the Roman catacombs, demonstrates that Christians adopted the image, reinterpreting it as an allusion to Jesus (IXQYC). Some examples are labelled with explicitly Christian phrases.

Also appearing on gems of the later 3rd and 4th centuries is the image of the Good Shepherd. The shepherd is always shown carrying a sheep on his shoulders (the pose being that of the classical Greek kriophoros, but also a literal rendering of Luke 15:5), sometimes in a bucolic setting before a tree and with other sheep at his feet. Many of these gems have additional, explicitly Christian references, either inscriptions ("Jesus Christ", the chi-rho monogram, IXQYC, or some variant) or symbols, such as fish or anchors.

At this point, I would like to rescue the forum from this continual discussion of Pete's proposition, which no one believes in except for Pete.

It is radical enough to say that Christianity originated in the second century, as a reaction to the Jewish War or the Bar Kochba rebellion. It would be even more radical to date it to the mid-third century, when there is clear archeological evidence of a Christian church (Dura Europa) and Christian artifacts.

But trying to date Christianity to a 4th century invention by Eusebius under Constantine's direction is a proposition that has been tried and found wanting. It can't even be described as a theory - there is no theory of why the forgeries were written in the form that they were written, just a bald assertion that anything that does not fit must have been forged. There are lots of forged documents floating around, but they can usually be identified as fitting someone's interest, while not all of the early references to Christianity fit into anyone's interest.

It makes much more sense, based on what we know of how religions develop and evolve, to see Christianity as a religious movement drawing its doctrine and practices from a variety of sources, which was adopted and changed by the actions of Constantine. After all, you don't usually find Mafia thugs or warriors who have the sort of intellectual sophistication to even think about inventing a new religion, complete with heresies.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-28-2008, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, this does not explain your refusal to modify your position in the face of evidence. You have set up a hypothesis that can be falsified by any small about of evidence, such as the "very very few ancient historical citations to epigraphy, papyri, and other archaeological data that are sound." But, when confronted with this evidence, you refuse to admit defeat.

While I appreciate these references (below) Toto please give me some time to have a look at these citations. I dont seem immediately to be able to find a statement as to how they were dated, or their provenance.

You mean "I can find nothing on the internet". My I suggest that you change your "research" methodology" and go to a library?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13 · 03-28-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

It's relevant, because Constantine did not end Christian persecution. What he did was change the persecution.

Whether you characterize what he did as changing the specific nature of the persecution or ending it for what came to identified as "orthodox" Christianity, the point remains that it requires that Christians were being persecuted at the time. So, no, it is neither relevant nor supportive of your position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No, you just haven't been paying attention.

Illegal under Pliny.

Illegal under Constantine.

Quote:

...huh!? Didn't you just finish arguing Constantine ended Christian persecution?

Yes. You need to actually think about what that means with regard to the existence of ongoing persecution. How could he have ended it or changed it if it wasn't going on while he was in power?

Keep this for yourself:

:banghead:

Quote:

Maybe you should read what you write yourself before accusing me of failure to do so.

An "open mouth, insert foot" smilie would be great here.

Toto · 03-28-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...
According to W.J. Durant, in regard to Constantine, "He became the most persistent preacher in his realm, persecuted heretics faithfully, and took God into partnership at every step.", Christ and Caesar: The Story of Civilization (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 664.

...

I have found errors in Durant's work before, and I would not take this at face value.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-28-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And there is no external extant credible non-apologetic source that can corroborate Jesus died in any fashion in any century, as stated in any epistle.

I think it should be noted that this mantra of yours contains an extremely question begging assumption (along with the fallacy of bifurcation) -- namely, that by their very nature "apologies" cannot and do not contain anything historically reliable and cannot/should not be regarded/used by historians as evidence of the historicity of the figure whose reputation a given Apology defends (that's what Apologetic literature does) or as sources for determining what that figure did and said.

I wonder, then, what you have to say to Classical historians who think that The Apology of Plato and The Apology of Xenophon stand not only as excellent testimony to the historicity of Socrates (and who think would do so even in the absence of any non apologetic contemporary corroborative evidence), but also as extremely good sources for determining what went on at the trial of Socrates (the historicity of which is, to my knowledge, attested only in apologetic and non contemporaneous sources) and for what Socrates taught about the duties of a philosopher.

What do you know about ancient Apologetic literature that they don't? Why should we accept your view about the worth of Apologetic literature over theirs?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 03-28-2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And there is no external extant credible non-apologetic source that can corroborate Jesus died in any fashion in any century, as stated in any epistle.

... this mantra

See my full response on one of Jeffrey's mantras elsewhere.

The historicity of "christian apologists" and the historicity of their literature is utterly and completely reliant and fully and totally dependent upon Eusebius.

We have only the one (perhaps true?) side of the christian vs nonchristian (ie: "pagan") coin of history well recorded by the church christian historians after the cult was sponsored by an emperor in the fourth century.

If we are wise in our assessments as historians, we will expect there to be undercurrents of polemics visible between the christian authors and the pagan authors which change after Nicaea 325 CE, before which time the history that is available to us regarding the NT is descendant only from the christian "ecclesiastical historian" Eusebius.

There has been a unhealthy reluctance to face the real political implications of forgery in this discussion. Surely there should be no stretch of imagination required in understanding that there is ample evidence that forgery has occurred inside and outside of the history of the christian church during the centuries spanning the fourth to the twenty-first?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.