Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 11-17-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

In other words, this is the description of a phantom.

Dear Huon,

The question is whether or not the Phantom lived and breathed.

My thesis is in the field of ancient history which will not admit phantoms unless they can be carbon dated. If the phantom visited the planet in the first century or if there were followers of the Phantom living and breathing amidst the ROman empire during the epoch covering the centuries one, two and three of our common era, then the archaeologists would have something far more concrete and far more unambiguous that the evidence we have in our possession.

Quote:

A god can take the aspect of a man, a god can eat, breathe, drink, think, speak, and, true, he never dies, or if his manly appearance dies, he can appear some time later to his disciples.

Ancient history and theology need to be separated. Otherwise the one confuses the other. And with respect to the field of ancient history if jesus did not live or breathe or leave a footprint then he may well be fictional. Similarly if his followers - the underground nation of christians - cannot be located by our best archaeologists in the prenicene epoch, then they too may well be fictional.

The evidence tells us that Christians became solidus with Constantine.

Best wishes,

Pete

The study of what people thought, believed, said, preached, and taught in the past is a branch of history, and any attempt to exclude it is unjustified. In fact, you are not consistent in doing so--you yourself refer to what people thought and said, but when announce this branch of the topic is pursued by your interlocutors in a way which makes your position awkward, you try to escape by a spurious invocation of this invalid principle.

It may well be that it is not possible for incorporeal phantoms with only the illusion of fleshly form and function to exist. But that does not mean that there is no such thing as a believer in the existence of such incorporeal phantoms. We know that there are and have been believers in such, and we know that those who believe that some past individual existed as an incorporeal phantom are not believers in the non-existence of that individual. Specifically, a docetic who believed in the (probably impossible) concept of an incorporeal Jesus with only the seeming of flesh was not a believer in the non-existence of Jesus. I am not saying that what the docetics believed could possibly have been true (it couldn't), only that it is clear what they believed and that their beliefs are not evidence for your thesis.

spin · 11-17-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

By the technical definition, you cannot be a heretic unless you claim to be a Christian.

Ultimately, I think the notion requires merely a religious orthodoxy to have heretics. It is not restricted to christianity.

Once an orthodoxy is established, and that's what the christian councils were set up to achieve, anything that doesn't adhere to it is heretical. This is a development on the notion of heresy as used say by Josephus and even Paul, because for them a heresy was just any party position within a heterodoxy. Orthodoxy excludes other parties -- and their thoughts -- as heretical.

spin

J-D · 11-17-2008, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

By the technical definition, you cannot be a heretic unless you claim to be a Christian.

Dear Toto,

Do we have any evidence by which we may be certain that Arius of Alexandria (for example) claimed -- himself -- to be a christian? I am not disputing the fact that the christian ecclesiaticial historians claimed Arius to be a christian.

Eusebius (and his ecclesiatical historian continuators) claim Arius of Alexandria to be of the prenicene christian religion. I cannot find any evidence to suggest that Arius of Alexandria himself makes the claim he is christian. The political and social turbulence known as the Arian controversy has hitherto only been expored in terms of the claims of the christians of Constantine that Arius was a christian. However if he was not a christian, how much more would this explicate the Arian controversy?

Not much pagan history survives, and what little that does, aside from Ammianus and Libanius and a few others, is often charged with invectives. We believe in the history written by the political victors of the struggle between christianity and paganism in the fourth century. Those christian victors made many assertions concerning the heretics, but we have little primary information from the heretics themselves in order to completely sure that your statement above reflects the ancient historical truth. The controversies over the "christian status" of the Nag Hammadi codices is a good example of this connundrum. They cannot be said to be wholly "christian" or "pagan".

Quote:

It is hard to wrap one's mind around this, because it is not how we think of thinks in modern times, and because the whole idea of heresy is somewhat ridiculous. But it was a serious matter back then.

The historical authority figures had (relatively) bigger sticks back then. My thesis questions the historical authority of Constantine and Eusebius and suggests that they fabricated the new testament canon and the prenicene christian history. It is hard to wrap one's mind around this because we have accepted the premise that the Eusebian testiment (and the NT) is a true and correct account of ancient history of the preceeding three centuries written from the fourth.

We have accepted this premise on good authority, as did our fathers and theirs before them -- all the way back to the historical three hundred and eighteen fathers who signed an oath to Constantine and against Arius of Alexandria. My research suggests that the prenice "history" needs to be finally questioned in a critical and skeptical manner appropriate for this age.

Best wishes,

Pete

I have previously pointed to you to the evidence you're ignoring, but you just ignored it again. It is admittedly fragmentary, but fragmentary evidence is all we have to go on for nearly all of ancient history, and the fragmentary evidence against your theory counts for more than the null evidence in favour of it (again, these are points I have made previously).

mountainman · 11-17-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Do we have any evidence by which we may be certain that Arius of Alexandria (for example) claimed -- himself -- to be a christian? I am not disputing the fact that the christian ecclesiaticial historians claimed Arius to be a christian.

Eusebius (and his ecclesiatical historian continuators) claim Arius of Alexandria to be of the prenicene christian religion. I cannot find any evidence to suggest that Arius of Alexandria himself makes the claim he is christian. The political and social turbulence known as the Arian controversy has hitherto only been expored in terms of the claims of the christians of Constantine that Arius was a christian. However if he was not a christian, how much more would this explicate the Arian controversy?

Not much pagan history survives, and what little that does, aside from Ammianus and Libanius and a few others, is often charged with invectives. We believe in the history written by the political victors of the struggle between christianity and paganism in the fourth century. Those christian victors made many assertions concerning the heretics, but we have little primary information from the heretics themselves in order to completely sure that your statement above reflects the ancient historical truth. The controversies over the "christian status" of the Nag Hammadi codices is a good example of this connundrum. They cannot be said to be wholly "christian" or "pagan".

The historical authority figures had (relatively) bigger sticks back then. My thesis questions the historical authority of Constantine and Eusebius and suggests that they fabricated the new testament canon and the prenicene christian history. It is hard to wrap one's mind around this because we have accepted the premise that the Eusebian testiment (and the NT) is a true and correct account of ancient history of the preceeding three centuries written from the fourth.

We have accepted this premise on good authority, as did our fathers and theirs before them -- all the way back to the historical three hundred and eighteen fathers who signed an oath to Constantine and against Arius of Alexandria. My research suggests that the prenice "history" needs to be finally questioned in a critical and skeptical manner appropriate for this age.

I have previously pointed to you to the evidence you're ignoring, but you just ignored it again. It is admittedly fragmentary, but fragmentary evidence is all we have to go on for nearly all of ancient history, and the fragmentary evidence against your theory counts for more than the null evidence in favour of it (again, these are points I have made previously).

Dear J-D,

I am quite familiar with the distinction between null and fragmentary and I put it to you that while the evidence that I have put forward is admittedly fragmentary, this fragmentary evidence is all we have to go on for nearly all of ancient history (is there any justification in alluding to the fourth century christians as pyromaniacs?), and this fragmentary evidence against your mainstream theory counts for more than the null evidence in favour of it.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 11-17-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Do you hold the converse also to be true, namely that the fact that a person was denounced as a heretic is not evidence that that person was a christian.

Yes. The fact that a person was denounced as a heretic is not evidence that that person was a Christian.

If people are denounced as heretics it is evidence that the denouncers regarded them as Christians (although heretical ones).

Dear J-D,

Does this imply that you will allow Arius of Alexandria to be a non christian?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 11-17-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

By the technical definition, you cannot be a heretic unless you claim to be a Christian.

Ultimately, I think the notion requires merely a religious orthodoxy to have heretics. It is not restricted to christianity.

Once an orthodoxy is established, and that's what the christian councils were set up to achieve, anything that doesn't adhere to it is heretical. This is a development on the notion of heresy as used say by Josephus and even Paul, because for them a heresy was just any party position within a heterodoxy. Orthodoxy excludes other parties -- and their thoughts -- as heretical.

Dear Spin and Toto,

That this is true we need only cite the actions of Ardashir who cannonised the "Avesta" with the help of his chief cleric Tansar(?) in the formation of the new Persian Political State, and the new Sassanian Monothestic religion of Zoroastrianism. They used the "Avesta" as did Constantine use the LXX.

Once the literature was "canonised" as a natural response to it, came the heretics of that canon. These heretics were severely dealt with. Ardashir's creation of the new state religion of Zoroastrianism was all Constantine needed for his own chief cleric Eusebius to use as a blue-print for his new Roman designs for his Greek audience. Right down to the architecture of basilicas set up against the fire-temples of the Sassanian empire, which had taken a number of Roman emperors in battle in the previous century. As an emperor perhaps Constantine thought the empire needed its own form of monotheism in order to compete with the Sassanian Persian empire at his doorstep? In both instances ancient Hellenism suffered. There is a great similarity to the pattern of facts here summarised briefly. Is this not obvious to any readers?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 11-17-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I have previously pointed to you to the evidence you're ignoring, but you just ignored it again. It is admittedly fragmentary, but fragmentary evidence is all we have to go on for nearly all of ancient history, and the fragmentary evidence against your theory counts for more than the null evidence in favour of it (again, these are points I have made previously).

Dear J-D,

I am quite familiar with the distinction between null and fragmentary and I put it to you that while the evidence that I have put forward is admittedly fragmentary, this fragmentary evidence is all we have to go on for nearly all of ancient history (is there any justification in alluding to the fourth century christians as pyromaniacs?), and this fragmentary evidence against your mainstream theory counts for more than the null evidence in favour of it.

Best wishes,

Pete

You have produced no evidence which supports your theory over mainstream theories. Not even fragmentary evidence. Ever.

J-D · 11-17-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Yes. The fact that a person was denounced as a heretic is not evidence that that person was a Christian.

If people are denounced as heretics it is evidence that the denouncers regarded them as Christians (although heretical ones).

Dear J-D,

Does this imply that you will allow Arius of Alexandria to be a non christian?

Best wishes,

Pete

It's not a question of what I will 'allow'. There is no evidence which favours the hypothesis of a non-Christian Arius over the hypothesis of a Christian Arius. There is some evidence which points the other way.

Huon · 11-18-2008, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius (and his ecclesiatical historian continuators) claim Arius of Alexandria to be of the prenicene christian religion. I cannot find any evidence to suggest that Arius of Alexandria himself makes the claim he is christian. The political and social turbulence known as the Arian controversy has hitherto only been explored in terms of the claims of the christians of Constantine that Arius was a christian. However if he was not a christian, how much more would this explicate the Arian controversy?

Arius is said to have been made a deacon in 306 by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, and a presbyter by Achillas, Peter's successor, in 313. Arius appeared in 325 at Nicaea, where the confession of faith which he presented was torn in pieces. He underwent the anathemas subscribed by more than 300 bishops. He was banished into Illyricum. Two prelates shared his fate, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. His books were burnt. The Arians, joined by their old Meletian friends, created troubles in Alexandria. Eusebius of Caesarea persuaded Constantine to recall Arius in 328; and the emperor not only permitted his return to Alexandria in 331, but ordered Athanasius to reconcile him with the Church.

mountainman, you are free to find the evidence that Arius was not a christian. When you have something, be so good as to describe your evidence.

The conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants around 1550 is a good example of what could happen between Christians. But perhaps, the Protestants (or the Catholics) were not Christians?

mountainman · 11-18-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD

Yes. The fact that a person was denounced as a heretic is not evidence that that person was a Christian.

Does this imply that you will allow Arius of Alexandria to be a non christian?

It's not a question of what I will 'allow'. There is no evidence which favours the hypothesis of a non-Christian Arius over the hypothesis of a Christian Arius. There is some evidence which points the other way.

Dear J-D,

You just before wrote "The fact that a person was denounced as a heretic is not evidence that that person was a Christian. And now you wish to argue against the supposed truth of your own statement. What's happening?

Best wishes,

Pete

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.