Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Methinx · 03-31-2012, 08:02 AM

Would you guys just glance over this article and post your opinion?

I apologize for picking your brains and thanks in advance for your response.

http://rprivitera.newsvine.com/_news...-new-testament

Toto · 03-31-2012, 08:54 AM

I stop at the first sentence:

Quote:

While Judaism and Islam as religions have a modicum of historical foundation, Muhammad really existed, the Jews were and are a reality, instead one can safely say that Christianity was invented.

There is a serious scholarly challenge to the existence of Mohammed. The Jews, like most national groups, invented their own history. And I doubt that there is anything one can safely say about early Christianity. Christianity might look like it was invented, but perhaps it evolved. We certainly don't know who invented it, if it was invented.

ApostateAbe · 03-31-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Methinx

Would you guys just glance over this article and post your opinion?

I apologize for picking your brains and thanks in advance for your response.

http://rprivitera.newsvine.com/_news...-new-testament

The author seems to argue that Christianity was invented by Constantine (or the community of Constantine) in the 4th century. It is an exceptionally extraordinary claim, because we have a large set of physical New Testament manuscripts that are carbon dated to the second and third centuries (see Wikipedia). Jesus-mythicists are already on the fringe of the secular scholarly community as it stands, but this guy would be in the fringe of the Jesus-mythicists. You may as well claim that the evidence pertaining to Julius Caesar was an invention by William Shakespeare and his merry men.

The two members here who I expect would most agree with the article are mountainman and aa5874. This theory is especially mountainman's hobby horse, so you may want to consult with him about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is a serious scholarly challenge to the existence of Mohammed.

No, there isn't--that's only you being refreshingly consistent with your solipsistic perspective of ancient history.

aa5874 · 03-31-2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I stop at the first sentence:

Quote:

While Judaism and Islam as religions have a modicum of historical foundation, Muhammad really existed, the Jews were and are a reality, instead one can safely say that Christianity was invented.

There is a serious scholarly challenge to the existence of Mohammed. The Jews, like most national groups, invented their own history. And I doubt that there is anything one can safely say about early Christianity. Christianity might look like it was invented, but perhaps it evolved. We certainly don't know who invented it, if it was invented.

Your response is like those who claimed that in the time of Galileo the sun revolved around the earth.

There is evidence to suggest the time peroid when the Jesus cult was started.

The time period for the start of the Jesus cult is NOT before the Fall of the Temple based on the Abundance of Evidence.

It is odd that some people think that if they do not know when Christianity was started that no-one else does or will ever know.

We have the Short-ending gMark, the Long ending gMark, the writings of Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Lucian, and Justin Martyr so the time period when Christianity was developed can be resonably re-constructed.

Bernard Muller · 03-31-2012, 10:38 AM

to ApostateAbe,

Quote:

we have a large set of physical New Testament manuscripts that are carbon dated to the second and third centuries

(emphasis mine)
Really?

aa5874 · 03-31-2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...The two members here who I expect would most agree with the article are mountainman and aa5874...

You Constantly EXPOSE your desperation by repeating False claims. You very well know that I do not claim that the Jesus cult was invented in the 4th century.

You have done serious harm to yourself.

Toto · 03-31-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... we have a large set of physical New Testament manuscripts that are carbon dated to the second and third centuries ...

I wish this were true, because it would shut mountainman up. But the datings described at that link are based on paleography. And that article appears to have been written by a Christian apologist who pushes the limit on dating manuscripts as early as possible, while describing radiocarbon dating as less accurate than paleography. :constern02:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is a serious scholarly challenge to the existence of Mohammed.

No, there isn't--that's only you being refreshingly consistent with your solipsistic perspective of ancient history.

That's you again being dismissive of subjects you haven't researched. Latest thread on the historical Mohammed. Mohammed does not qualify as ancient history in any case.

outhouse · 03-31-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Methinx

Would you guys just glance over this article and post your opinion?

I apologize for picking your brains and thanks in advance for your response.

http://rprivitera.newsvine.com/_news...-new-testament

articles like this do more damge then good. its best unread.

when one deals with articles written on uneducation opinions, it taints the mind.

tanya · 03-31-2012, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate Abe

It is an exceptionally extraordinary claim, because we have a large set of physical New Testament manuscripts that are carbon dated to the second and third centuries (see Wikipedia).

We have ONLY fragments of papyrus dated to the second and third centuries. Our oldest extant, relatively complete Bible, is Codex Sinaiticus, dating from the middle of the 4th century....

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Dating of manuscript material by a radiocarbon dating test requires that a small part of the material be destroyed in the process; it is less accurate than dating from paleography

I have no idea how this statement can be defended. I disagree with it, profoundly.

Accuracy implies a standard, against which, results from some other technique can be compared....

How do we know with certainty, dates established by palaeography?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate Abe

The author seems to argue that Christianity was invented by Constantine (or the community of Constantine) in the 4th century.

1. no artifacts prior to 4th century; (yeah, I know, Dura eglise...??)
2. no coherence to the many sects which existed before then;
3. persecution by Jews, other sects, and the Roman government, prevented elaboration of Christianity, prior to Constantine.
4. written explanation by Eusebius of the many different, contradictory manuscripts, in his possession--> elaboration of the canon only in 4th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate Abe

The two members here who I expect would most agree with the article are mountainman and aa5874.

I am of the opinion that you err in lumping these two forum members together. They are both brilliant, true, and they both offer terrific inspiration to other forum members. They are both intense. They are both learned. They are both skillful in explaining obtuse concepts.

But, aa5874 is not in mountainman's camp, so far as I can determine. They defend one another, against scurrilous attacks by folks like you Abe, but, I doubt that either one accepts uncritically, the position of the other.

In other words, I don't see the kind of relationship between them, that I observe between you and honest Bart, for example.

Bart can write, as he has:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman

It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.

How did you reply to that utter falsehood, Abe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo, Embassy to Gaius

In the next place, like an actor in a theatre, he was continually wearing different dresses at different times, taking at one time a lion's skin and a club, both gilded over; being then dressed in the character of Hercules...
...
Hercules purified both the earth and the sea, performing labours of the greatest possible importance and of the highest benefit to all mankind, in order to eradicate all that was mischievous and calculated to injure the nature of each of the elements....
...
But I suppose you imitated Hercules in your unwearied labours and your incessant displays of valour and virtue; ...
...
XXX ...
And they replied, "You know the principal and primary cause of all; for that indeed is universally known to all men. He desires to be considered a god; and he conceives that the Jews alone are likely to be disobedient; and that therefore he cannot possibly inflict a greater evil or injury upon them than by defacing and insulting the holy dignity of their temple; for report prevails that it is the most beautiful of all the temples in the world, inasmuch as it is continually receiving fresh accessions of ornament and has been for an infinite period of time, a never-ending and boundless expense being lavished on it. And as he is a very contentious and quarrelsome man, he thinks of appropriating this edifice wholly to himself. (199) And he is excited now on this subject to a much greater degree than before by a letter which Capito has sent to him. "Capito is the collector of the imperial revenues in Judaea, and on some account or other he is very hostile to the nations of the country; for having come thither a poor man, and having amassed enormous riches of every imaginable description by plunder and extortion, he has now become afraid lest some accusation may be brought against him, and on this account he has contrived a design by which he may repel any such impeachment, namely, by calumniating those whom he has injured; (200) and a circumstance which we will now mention, has given him some pretext for carrying out his design...
...
XXXI....Petronius, the lieutenant and governor of all Syria....
Accordingly Petronius, when he had read what he was commanded to do in this letter, was in great perplexity, not being able to resist the orders sent to him out of fear, for he heard that the emperor's wrath was implacable not only against those who did not do what they were commanded to do, but who did not do it in a moment; and on the other hand, he did not see how it was easy to perform them, for he knew that the Jews would willingly, if it were possible, endure ten thousand deaths instead of one, rather than submit to see any forbidden thing perpetrated with respect to their religion;
...
XXXII...Vitellius at that time being in our city, from whom you received the government as his successor,...
...
XXXVI...And I am, as you know, a Jew; and Jerusalem is my country, in which there is erected the holy temple of the most high God. And I have kings for my grandfathers and for my ancestors, the greater part of whom have been called high priests, looking upon their royal power as inferior to their office as priests; and thinking that the high priesthood is as much superior to the power of a king, as God is superior to man;...
...
XXXVII...Marcus Agrippa, your own grandfather on the mother's side, the moment that he arrived in Judaea, when Herod, my grandfather, was king of the country, thought fit to go up from the sea-coast to the metropolis, which was inland. ...
...
XXXVIII....Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea.....

Sad day for the Irish, Abe. Bart is repudiated, and so are you, buddy. This would be a good occasion for your epiphany. Just let it all hang out, fella....

Toto · 03-31-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Methinx

Would you guys just glance over this article and post your opinion?

I apologize for picking your brains and thanks in advance for your response.

http://rprivitera.newsvine.com/_news...-new-testament

articles like this do more damge then good. its best unread.

when one deals with articles written on uneducation opinions, it taints the mind.

It's not uneducated. People should read it and critique it. It is sourced - some of the sources are more reliable than others. There are some assertions that appear questionable - as there are in most writings.

This assertion is widely made on the internet, but I have my doubts:

Quote:

: From the Greek Soter, savior literally means “one who sows the seed”

Savior derives from the Latin salvare, to save, and is a translation of the Greek soter, but I do not see a connection to "sowing the seed."

03-31-2012, 08:02 AM	#1
Methinx Regular Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Occitania Posts: 196	Forged origins. Would you guys just glance over this article and post your opinion? I apologize for picking your brains and thanks in advance for your response. http://rprivitera.newsvine.com/_news...-new-testament

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.