Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-16-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

My persuasion is that the Constantinian form of "Christianity" drew heavily upon urban myth type stories and "sayings" collections, editing, reworking and reconfiguring these old documents as necessary to provide a set of more or less cohesive story-lines, these finally sequentially organized so as to be easily read and memorised, thus "standardizing" a diverse assortment of old texts, and creating an "orthodox" cannon, one which could be resorted to to settle any and all religious controversies and disputes.

This is not the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Of course as PONTIFIX MAXIMUS, his interpretations were the final word and definition of what was to be accepted as being "orthodox" and what was to be rejected as being "heretical".
So I agree with mountainman that Constantine and Eusebius did "invent" the religion of Christianity as it is now recognised, with the caveat that they did NOT start from scratch with a blank piece of parchment, but freely adapted previous ideas and compositions into their new theology and its distinctive and definitive texts.
As a sceptic, I think that some are much too quick in the drawing of unwarranted conclusions regarding the Dura Europos finds.
For example there is a jump to the conclusion that the excavated structure is (was) a "church" a term which automatically associates with latter "christian" practice.
Are the words "church" or "christan" actually found to be engraved anywhere on the structure?
"The Good Shepherd" was a well known pre-christian motif, how is one to establish with any certainty that this particular "Good Shepherd" was originally intended to be a representation of a certain obscure Jewish Rabbi?
I see a fresco of two women in proximity to a tomb, however I cannot discern any name-tags that identify them as being "two Mary's".
It appears to me that this unwarranted yet precise "identification" is being caged from an uncritical assumption of the validity of the fully developed "christian" mythos.
Could it not just as well be the "two Sarah's" or "two Beulah's"? Or the simple FACT that we do not KNOW what name or names the original artist(s) may have assigned to these two women.
It is only an unsupportable christian influenced assumption that causes these figures to be designated as being the now well known "two Mary's".
Same with the "identification" of "Jesus and Peter", there is nothing in the actual frescoes that make any such identification. Perhaps the original story really pertained to "John and Jacob" until Constantine & Co. got around to ripping it off and rewriting it so as to include the names of their favorite characters.

For your benefit let's call them

The good shepherd
The man carrying his bed after being healed
The two men walking on water
The two women walking to the tomb

Have you got any other religion which uses the trope of the women going to the tomb? How about another religion which you know that uses the trope of the figures walking on water? Obviously, nothing for the paralytic picking up the bed. Are you waiting for the conjunction of the four motifs, all well-known stories from christian literature, to crop up in some other religion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Finding some Greek religious writings in proximity does not constitute "proof" of the buildings usages by any particular religious sect, the area , apparently a hotbed of religion, might have been literally awash in religious writings as various cults vied for adherents. It remains quite possible that other than a few similar artistic motifs, the religion practiced at the site had no actual connections to christianity, and if fully known, might even have been utterly opposed to that faction which terrorised, plundered and murdered its way to the establishing of its "christian" supremacy.

What has this got to do with the plainly christian text fragment (check the links in the op and in Ben C's first post here) that was found at Dura with a terminus ad quem of 257? This is more secure than a C14 dating. The overtly christian document dated prior to 257 is what you are supposed to be dealing with.

spin

Vampyroteuthis · 10-16-2008, 09:12 PM

Spin, why do you have to rain on mountain's parade! I love his ideas!!

I know, ideas aren't facts. To be honest I haven't read all of what he has written but damn, the man has spent a lot of time on this. You have to give him credit for that at least.

Personally I think he should write a book or a script or something.

I know though, you are only interested in the facts of the matter and I can't dispute anything you have said because I haven't done the work.

Sheshbazzar · 10-16-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

My persuasion is that the Constantinian form of "Christianity" drew heavily upon urban myth type stories and "sayings" collections, editing, reworking and reconfiguring these old documents as necessary to provide a set of more or less cohesive story-lines, these finally sequentially organized so as to be easily read and memorised, thus "standardizing" a diverse assortment of old texts, and creating an "orthodox" cannon, one which could be resorted to to settle any and all religious controversies and disputes.

This is not the issue.

For your benefit let's call them

The good shepherd
The man carrying his bed after being healed
The two men walking on water
The two women walking to the tomb

Better, with a paradigm shift there is no longer any need to look at everything through a "Christ" tinted lens

Quote:

Have you got any other religion which uses the trope of the women going to the tomb? How about another religion which you know that uses the trope of the figures walking on water? Obviously, nothing for the paralytic picking up the bed. Are you waiting for the conjunction of the four motifs, all well-known stories from christian literature, to crop up in some other religion?

No, no "other religion" as the premise is that "Orthodox Christianity" co-opted and assimilated, or failing that, exterminated these "heretical" religions, thus assuring that there would be no surviving similar religions.
Not "waiting FOR", as I'm convinced that it already happened, these were all PRE-"Christian" tropes and motifs which "Christianity" took over early on. And then forced either assimilation to the absolute dictates of The Orthodoxy, or extermination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Finding some Greek religious writings in proximity does not constitute "proof" of the buildings usages by any particular religious sect, the area , apparently a hotbed of religion, might have been literally awash in religious writings as various cults vied for adherents. It remains quite possible that other than a few similar artistic motifs, the religion practiced at the site had no actual connections to christianity, and if fully known, might even have been utterly opposed to that faction which terrorised, plundered and murdered its way to the establishing of its "christian" supremacy.

Quote:

What has this got to do with the plainly christian text fragment (check the links in the op and in Ben C's first post here) that was found at Dura with a terminus ad quem of 257? This is more secure than a C14 dating. The overtly christian document dated prior to 257 is what you are supposed to be dealing with.

spin

As I said, with various cults vying for adherents, not strange that proto-christian cultists would be at work disseminating those themes and ideas that eventually became the stock and trade of The Orthodoxy.
Example, the "Trinity Doctrine", nothing new, an old idea co-opted and forced with the edge of Roman swords.

spin · 10-16-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

As I said, with various cults vying for adherents, not strange that proto-christian cultists would be at work disseminating those themes and ideas that eventually became the stock and trade of The Orthodoxy.

So you agree about the falsification. Thank you.

spin

J-D · 10-16-2008, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

So I agree with mountainman that Constantine and Eusebius did "invent" the religion of Christianity as it is now recognised, with the caveat that they did NOT start from scratch with a blank piece of parchment, but freely adapted previous ideas and compositions into their new theology and its distinctive and definitive texts.

When you say 'the religion of Christianity as it is now recognised', what do you mean? Do you mean Roman Catholic Christianity? Or Greek Orthodox Christianity? Or Anglican Christianity? Or Lutheran Christianity? Or Coptic Christianity? Or Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity? Or Maronite Christianity? Or Reformed Christianity? Or Baptist Christianity? Or Armenian Christianity? Or Pentecostalist Christianity? Or what?

spin · 10-16-2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyroteuthis

damn, the man has spent a lot of time on this. You have to give him credit for that at least.

:huh: Stamp collecting is less obtrusive, allows for more variety and doesn't foster the parading of errors. But then, time can be better spent than either.

spin

mountainman · 10-17-2008, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

So I agree with mountainman that Constantine and Eusebius did "invent" the religion of Christianity as it is now recognised, with the caveat that they did NOT start from scratch with a blank piece of parchment, but freely adapted previous ideas and compositions into their new theology and its distinctive and definitive texts.

When you say 'the religion of Christianity as it is now recognised', what do you mean? Do you mean Roman Catholic Christianity? Or Greek Orthodox Christianity? Or Anglican Christianity? Or Lutheran Christianity? Or Coptic Christianity? Or Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity? Or Maronite Christianity? Or Reformed Christianity? Or Baptist Christianity? Or Armenian Christianity? Or Pentecostalist Christianity? Or what?

Constantinian Nicaean christianity chronologically fostered the rest. (IMO)

And I wish to thank Sheshbazzar for clearly articulating the bit about the caveat that they did NOT start from scratch with a blank piece of parchment, but freely adapted previous ideas and compositions into their new theology and its distinctive and definitive texts. I have previously used the term "created out of the whole cloth" before, to indicate a fiction, a fabrication. By this I did not mean to impy everything was dreamt up afresh. These guys had access to the city of Rome's best technology (of codex preservation, etc) and the literature at that specific time in history. That they freely adapted extant texts is to be expected, since Constantine liberated the libraries of Rome from its senate 312 CE.

Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 10-17-2008, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

the plainly christian text fragment... that was found at Dura with a terminus ad quem of 257? This is more secure than a C14 dating.

Dear Spin,

More secure than a C14? This is a serious misrepresentation of facts. Please explain how the credentials of a Yale 1928 archaeological assessment report is more secure than a carbon dating test. The two C14 citations related to christian origins focus on the early fourth century: gJudas at 290 CE (plus or minus 60 years) and gThomas (Nag Hammadi) at 348 CE plus or minus 60 years).

Dont you trust the C14 dating?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 10-17-2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

When you say 'the religion of Christianity as it is now recognised', what do you mean? Do you mean Roman Catholic Christianity? Or Greek Orthodox Christianity? Or Anglican Christianity? Or Lutheran Christianity? Or Coptic Christianity? Or Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity? Or Maronite Christianity? Or Reformed Christianity? Or Baptist Christianity? Or Armenian Christianity? Or Pentecostalist Christianity? Or what?

Constantinian Nicaean christianity chronologically fostered the rest. (IMO)

And I wish to thank Sheshbazzar for clearly articulating the bit about the caveat that they did NOT start from scratch with a blank piece of parchment, but freely adapted previous ideas and compositions into their new theology and its distinctive and definitive texts. I have previously used the term "created out of the whole cloth" before, to indicate a fiction, a fabrication. By this I did not mean to impy everything was dreamt up afresh. These guys had access to the city of Rome's best technology (of codex preservation, etc) and the literature at that specific time in history. That they freely adapted extant texts is to be expected, since Constantine liberated the libraries of Rome from its senate 312 CE.

Best wishes

Pete

I know what you think, Pete. I was asking what Sheshbazzar thinks, and I still want to know.

However, what you say (whether it is what Sheshbazzar thinks or not) does move the discussion forward. All the kinds of Christianity I mentioned (and all the rest) have borrowed from (or been 'fostered by') earlier ideas and traditions. Now you say that Constantinian Christianity did the same. So why do you deny that the earlier ideas and traditions which Constantinian Christianity borrowed from (or were 'fostered by') were Christian? What's the difference between Christian and non-Christian?

Sheshbazzar · 10-17-2008, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

When you say 'the religion of Christianity as it is now recognised', what do you mean? Do you mean Roman Catholic Christianity? Or Greek Orthodox Christianity? Or Anglican Christianity? Or Lutheran Christianity? Or Coptic Christianity? Or Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity? Or Maronite Christianity? Or Reformed Christianity? Or Baptist Christianity? Or Armenian Christianity? Or Pentecostalist Christianity? Or what?

Constantinian Nicaean christianity chronologically fostered the rest. (IMO)

And I wish to thank Sheshbazzar for clearly articulating the bit about the caveat that they did NOT start from scratch with a blank piece of parchment, but freely adapted previous ideas and compositions into their new theology and its distinctive and definitive texts. I have previously used the term "created out of the whole cloth" before, to indicate a fiction, a fabrication. By this I did not mean to impy everything was dreamt up afresh. These guys had access to the city of Rome's best technology (of codex preservation, etc) and the literature at that specific time in history. That they freely adapted extant texts is to be expected, since Constantine liberated the libraries of Rome from its senate 312 CE.

Best wishes

Pete

Eusebius's version of Christian History was a fabrication easily achieved by the simple expedient of "editing" and interpolating earlier non-christian philosophical and religious texts, and then making up new "histories" for these now claimed to be "Christian Church Fathers", and "Christian Saints".
This of course required the destruction and burning of the actual earlier manuscripts as being non-conforming, non-orthodox and "heretical", leaving only Eusebius's "version" of their beliefs, words, and actions.
It is amazing the amount of early "Christian" writers and "testimony" that we have no non-Eusebian sources for, only Eusebius's patently biased political propaganda versions of what he says that they believed, taught, and died for.
Oh yes, many of the NTs stories and tropes existed and were circulated, just were NOT originally exclusively "Christian".
The Constantinian achievement was in the stringing them all together into a more-or-less cohesive narrative fashion, to create the appearance of them having been the product of a real and monolithic (X-ian) religious movement, one that in actuality never existed, until it was fabricated and enforced by Constantine's goon squads.

View Poll Results: Has mountainman's theory been falsified by the Dura evidence?
Yes	34	57.63%
No	9	15.25%
Don't know/don't care/don't understand/want another option	16	27.12%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

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

10-16-2008, 09:12 PM	#12
Vampyroteuthis Contributor Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 14,915	Spin, why do you have to rain on mountain's parade! I love his ideas!! I know, ideas aren't facts. To be honest I haven't read all of what he has written but damn, the man has spent a lot of time on this. You have to give him credit for that at least. Personally I think he should write a book or a script or something. I know though, you are only interested in the facts of the matter and I can't dispute anything you have said because I haven't done the work.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.