Originally Posted by stephan huller

If you notice however the intelligent apologists for organized Christianity never attack Pete's posts. The reason is simple - Pete gives sceptics a bad name, or from their point of view perfectly caricature the opposition

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is nothing on this earth - absolutely nothing not even third century documents which testify to the existence of Irenaeus and a bishop in Egypt - which will ever convince Pete that a conspiracy from the time of Constantine was responsible for creating all the surviving documents of Christianity FROM SCRATCH.

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion when such a character inevitably emerges from the darkness to whisper that EVERYTHING before Constantine is a myth.

It is an irrational position. Not even our senile mothers, grandmothers and ret-rded cousins could come up with something so silly, so implausible and which brings to a screetching halt any meaningful discussion.

It's like having a discussion about the evolution of various species and then suddenly an intelligent design proponent (and a few sympathizers) hijack the discussion.

You can't have a meaningful discussion about the first letter to the Corinthians with someone who claims it was made up in the fourth century by an Imperial conspiracy.

You can't have a meaningful discussion about the Gospel of Mark with someone who claims it was made up in the fourth century by an Imperial conspiracy.

You can't have a meaningful discussion about the writings of Irenaeus with someone who claims it was made up in the fourth century by an Imperial conspiracy.

You can't have a meaningful discussion about Jewish and Christian relations in the second century with someone who claims it was made up in the fourth century by an Imperial conspiracy.

In fact, you can't have a meaningful discussion ABOUT ANYTHING to do with early Christianity when people capable only of attributing EVERYTHING to a fourth century conspiracy enter the conversation.

It's like fire and water. It's like trying to playing the national anthem on an instrument capable of only playing one note. It's like trying to make ice cream without a refrigerator. It's like trying to have sex with a rock.

There is no point to these people being here if they continue to advocate what is essentially an irrational, implausible anarchistic position.

Originally Posted by Toto

My intent with this thread was that this would be the last thread on the subject, and hopefully the last mention of the topic.

Originally Posted by Transient

What a heap of provocative garbage you post mate.
You guys just cannot let it go can you - you are like hounds hunting down a prey to kill it and then devour it.
Just remember that what goes around often comes around.
I find Stepi Hollow much more offensive than Pete.

Originally Posted by Transient

Isn't this a little bit personal now?
What is it with people here and their hatred of Pete?
I do not subscribe to his theory but I think he is being victimized now - seems like personal vendettas.
How about letting it drop.

Originally Posted by Toto

There's no hatred. I just want to clear the air of invalid claims that keep popping up.

Originally Posted by spin

Transy, it's not nice to play with others' names in a negative way.

You've got it wrong as well. It's not that we can't let it go. We can happily let it go. There are other things in heaven and earth than are dreamt about in this philosophy. I've let it go for a very long time. But it keeps coming back like a bad smell after a beanfest. Some beanfest.

There is nothing to support the original mountainman conjecture and a vast amount of evidence against it, but it's all been said. Yet here we are again. Hell, we can't let it go? No, matey, if we had our way it would have been let go years ago. It's demonstrably silly and the incessant support of it reflects that on the proponent.


spin

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thanks Transient for your moral support, but I want you to know that I do not take any of this stuff personally - and for a very good reason, which is that I am far more interested in the ancient historical truth than other peoples' opinions of a few new ideas that I am putting forward.

New ideas need to be attacked in order to see that they are defensible with respect to our interpretation of the available evidence, so I suggest you sit back and just review the data about this specific issue, which is the actual historical origins of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc".

So, please accept my word for it that, in this case of people appearing to attack me the messenger, I am far more interested in people attacking the message itself, which I perceive as the only real method that any new ideas will ever struggle up to the light of day.

Underneath the argument, there is data. My wish is that people examine this data, and aim their logic and analysis and criticism at it. I will post my response in defence of the OP in a separate post soon. As far as I can remember,nobody has actually responded to these arguments I am about to present. It represents a new idea, and one not immediately related to the history of the canonical gospels and acts, but their "far side". All I ask is that, sooner or later, people actually examine this data and think it throigh for themselves.

Originally Posted by spin

We've been through the fact that textual relations between gospels don't reflect the Eusebius theory. We've gone through church fathers. We've pulled apart his abuse of Julian. You name it, we've done it.