Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lucretius · 12-10-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

As the title Pontifex Maximus had become an integral part of the Emperor's titles then by definition any Emperor was de facto Pontifex Maximis and this would normally be included in any official documents,including Julian's own letters .

As he specifically wrote some letters on the running of his new Neo Paganist Church ,he would undoubtedly have included the title P.M to affirm his right to do this.

Don't disagree, but wondered whether any ancient source so describes him.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

What difference does it make though ?
If there is nothing in writing that specifically states that Lady Jane Grey was "Defender of the Faith" does that actually mean she wasn't ?
As much has been lost from this period the absence of anything would not necessarily mean that it was never written down.
I admit that it is extemely unlikely that any contemporary or even later "Christian writer" would have ever used that term for Julian,given that the title was later usurped by Popes ,but that would still not deny the fact that it was part of Julian's title as Emperor .
As the letters of Libanius ,the most likely source ,were originally written in Greek I have not been able to find any direct references (as yet).
Still it has encouraged me to finally read Adrian Murdoch's "The Last Pagan ,Julian The Apostate "that I have had for a few months now.

blackrayne · 12-10-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

I might as well lay it out. Once you ignore what Eusebius forged then everything makes sense.
I believe that this is the most likely scenario:

Christianity is in fact the continuation of Mithraism.

In ancient Rome, a pontiff is the head of a religious group and all the pontiffs would meet (called the College of Pontiffs) and resolve disputes and agree to rules that applied to all the religions. The head of the collage was called the Pontifex Maximus. When Julius Caesar became the first emperor (60 BCE), he took over the collage and became the Pontifex Maximus. The Roman emperors regularly used the title Pontifex Maximus until the 5th century CE. There is only one example of the bishop of Rome ever using that title in ancient times (that was in 377 CE) and lots of examples of emperors using the title until well into the 5th century.

Emperor Aurelian (as Pontifex Maximus) in 274 CE combined all the "son of god" cults (Mithraism, Apollo, Osiris/Horus) into a single cult that he called the Catholic Church also known as Sol Invictus. They worshiped a crucified son of god they called Jesus Christ, but there was disagreement about where he was born - Persia, Greece, Egypt or somewhere else. They worshiped the crucifixion on Christmas and the resurrection on Easter. they practiced all the sacraments. They believed in salvation through faith. The counsel of Nicaea was attended by bishops of the Sol Invictus cult. There was no such thing at that time as "Christian bishops" separate from the Sol Invictus bishops. The attendees including Arius who claimed that the son of god was made by god the father. The counsel disagreed and decided that the son of god was "begotten and not made" which was a minor difference. The original Nicene Creed that was a adopted did not even refer to anyone from Judea or say anything that any Sol Invictus follower could not agree with.

Between 325 and 381 an "urban myth" probably developed that the son of god, that everyone in the Sol Invictus cult already worshiped, was born in Judea and that his crucifixion was ordered by Pontius Pilot. It may have been during this time that people started believing that the gospels were non-fiction.

It was not until the Counsel of Constantinople in 381, that the second Nicean Creed was adopted that first mentions Pontius Pilate. It was in 381 that Jesus Christ of the Sol Invictus cult was renamed Jesus of Nazareth the Jewish messiah. The followers of Sol Invictus simply accepted that the son of god that they worshiped had been born in Judea.

The Catholic Church is the same Church taken over by Julius Caesar, the same Church that Emperor Aurelia reformed, the same Church that Constantine ran, the same Church of the Nicean and Constantinople counsels. Prior to the 5th century all the heads of the Catholic Church (the Pontifex Maximus) were the Roman Emperors.

The conversion of Rome from (Mithraism/ Apollo, Osiris/Horus, Sol Invictus) worship to Christianity is a myth. All that happened was that in 381 the counsel of the Sol Invictus (aka Catholic Church) declared that the virgin born, crucified and resurrected son of god, that they already worshiped, was born in Judea and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and resurrected in Judea.

well written m8 thanks

Roger Pearse · 12-10-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Don't disagree, but wondered whether any ancient source so describes him.

What difference does it make though?

If there is nothing in writing that specifically states that Lady Jane Grey was "Defender of the Faith" does that actually mean she wasn't ?

No, indeed. But I don't see why we shouldn't ask, particularly if it's a key bit of someone's argument. I suspect we are talking past each other here.

Quote:

As much has been lost from this period the absence of anything would not necessarily mean that it was never written down.

True.

Quote:

As the letters of Libanius ,the most likely source ,were originally written in Greek I have not been able to find any direct references (as yet).

Isn't it strange that Libanius' works still remain extensively untranslated? There's a Loeb of some of them, at long last. I don't recall if it includes any of his correspondence. I came across stray English translations of some and uploaded these.

I've been looking at commercial translation of some Arabic stuff lately, and 10,000 words -- an average-sized book of an ancient work -- comes out at a paltry $1,000. A lot to you or I, but peanuts to a dot-com millionaire. If I had that sort of money I'd probably get the whole PG translated!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 12-10-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This is true, but I wonder if this is quite thought through. Won't the same apply, surely, to all ancient texts? Thus this argument, if taken seriously, amounts to throwing away the classical heritage. That seems like an extreme position to take, merely as a reason to ignore the content of the bible.

I've seen this statement often.

It's not that the bible should be ignored. It's that it should be considered in the same context as all the other ancient documents.

I agree. Any questions of theological inspiration come well after this. Although I think the theological arguments mostly boil down to "can any book be inspired in an imperfect world."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Solitary Man · 12-10-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackrayne

well written m8 thanks

Well written but chock full of crap.

Solitary Man · 12-10-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

If it weren't for the cacophony of religionists claiming inerrancy, inspiration, and threatening eternal torment, the textual variant issue would not rise to a level of such importance.

But making it such a level of importance feeds the cacophony. It will never be euphonious if you always permit the off-key.

Yellum Notnef · 12-10-2007, 10:49 AM

How did my name get assigned to the quote in post #5021264?

(I never said any such thing although I do think the premise is more plausible than much of the apologetics I've heard against it. )

andrewcriddle · 12-10-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by REVROSWELL

the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D.[b] and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D.

Textual dating (paleontological dating) is only used by historians to establish the earliest date that a work may have been written. When an historian says that some work is textually dated to 120 CE, he just means that it was written after 120 CE. It could have been written anytime later than that date - even hundreds of years later. Forgery of ancient documents has always been rampant. For aesthetic reasons, copiers often copied documents in ancient textual styles, so all you can really say is that the document was written after that style was first introduced.

For example, textual dating determined that the Khaburis Codex was from 120 CE. Later it was carbon dated to between 1040 and 1090 CE.

BTW, the oldest carbon dated copy of the Gospels is the Khaburis Codex dated 1040 and 1090 CE, and there is no reasonable evidence of what the gospels said before that date.

There may be some fragments that were carbon dated earlier. Do you know of any earlier carbon dated fragments of the Gospels?

There is a brief article about the Khaburis Codex (A Syriac Peshitta NT) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaboris_Codex
the claims of its early date appear to have been made by biased and unreliable parties. There does not appear to be a dispute between the date assigned on paleographic grounds by objective academics and the results of carbon dating.

Andrew Criddle

patcleaver · 12-10-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

sources?

When Constantine became Emperor, his mother (St. Helena) traveled to Judea to look for relics, so I would assume that people thought at that time that Jesus was from Judea.

First, the only record we have of that is Eusebius, and he is completely untrustworthy and should be discounted.

Second, I do not discount that there could have been an urban legends about Jesus based on his fictional gospels. Just like there have been roomers about vampires ever since Brams Stokes invented them.

It is interested that in Eusebius's chronicle of the trip to Judea, they can not find anyone who has ever heard about any local savior being crucified or buried until they start flashing money for information.

Toto · 12-10-2007, 05:57 PM

patcleaver: what are your sources? who is trustworthy here?

Please answer this before we go on.

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

12-10-2007, 10:49 AM	#47
Yellum Notnef Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Gone Posts: 4,676	How did my name get assigned to the quote in post #5021264? (I never said any such thing although I do think the premise is more plausible than much of the apologetics I've heard against it. )

12-10-2007, 05:57 PM	#50
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	patcleaver: what are your sources? who is trustworthy here? Please answer this before we go on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.