Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 01-11-2011, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan Huller

But there is no reason to think that the documents Luijendijk has found weren't typical Christians who later went on to accept the Nicene Creed. There is nothing Manichaean about the documents. She can connect individuals who produced Christian documents at the time of Nicaea to Christians listed as being disposssed by the Diocletian persecution. How doesn't this show that there were Christians at the time of Diocletian?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan Huller's link

To find the ancient owner of this papyrus Professor Luijendijk engaged in some archaeological detective work. Grenfell and Hunt mentioned in 1899 that “the papyrus was found tied up with a contract dating to 316 AD.”

Unfortunately they {i.e. Grenfell and Hunt in 1899 excavating at Oxyrhynchus} did not specify which document this is.
“They were not particularly interested in the social context of the texts they had unearthed, or perhaps they were too busy editing their enormous find,” writes Luijendijk.

To find this missing document Luijendijk turned to a modern day papyrus database called the Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnis or HGV. She searched for examples from Oxyrhynchus that date to AD 316.
She found 13 examples but only two of them were contracts. One discussed a “lease of a plot of land” while the other was “a contract for the sale of a donkey.”
Luijendijk determined that the donkey sale could not be the missing contract. “Grenfell and Hunt cannot have referred to the latter papyrus, for it did not come from their excavations.”
This left only the land lease document. Further investigation revealed that it was excavated during the same field season as the New Testament papyrus. This meant that it had to be the one. (emphasis by avi)

Well, if the contract was excavated during the same field season as the papyrus containing six lines from Paul's epistle to Romans, then, the unknown, undated, unsigned papyrus must be the missing contract!!!!

It is well known, a fact even, that no one at Oxyrhynchus ever REWROTE on top of old documents, in order to practice spelling and grammar, RIGHT???

Quote:

“There are several mistakes in spelling and part of verse 6 is omitted” wrote site excavators Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt in 1899. They concluded that the papyrus was “no doubt a schoolboy’s exercise.”

yes, but what did those two know about anything? ....They had probably never even visited Heidelberg.

1. "christian" documents. You refer to the schoolboy's Greek language exercise, with errors. That doesn't sound to me like "Christian" documents.

2. Stephan Huller has no idea when these various documents, described in the article, were written. The schoolboy's practice efforts could have been written a century after the contract was first written.

3. "Professor" Luijendijk hasn't a clue when the contract that she found, was written. Not a single clue.

4. Grenfell and Hunt digging through some trash, helter skelter, found some docs, what maybe ten thousand of them? I don't know how many. But, evidently, by careful study, Ms. Luijendijk has been clever enough to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan Huller

at the time of Diocletian

Does this sort of comment pass for scholarship in your neck of the woods? This sort of illogical conclusion warrants eviction from most scholarly conclaves, in my experience. Even the article, twisted as the logic embedded within it manifests, even the author of the fuzzy logic found in this article, acknowledges, that this trash dates from the time of Constantine, not Diocletian.

avi

Roger Pearse · 01-11-2011, 05:18 AM

This thread is an example of why I suspect that it would be a good thing for this forum if Mountainman was banned. It doesn't matter that he is wrong factually; the problem is that his contributions poison any discussion, away from the various interesting issues that this report raises, into the same old dreary old nonsense. In other words, effectively he is preventing any intelligent discussion in the forum, again and again and again and again and ...

Iskander · 01-11-2011, 05:33 AM

Yes, this forum stinks

Toto · 01-11-2011, 08:13 AM

I have tried to contain mountainman's hijacks. Please feel free to report anything that you feel interferes with the flow of a thread.

Juststeve · 01-11-2011, 08:26 AM

Why isn't the solution to merely ignore the posts you don't find interesting or germane? I've done that from almost the outset with a particular frequent poster and am none the worse for it.

Banning people from a freethought forum is not in my opinion the way to go.

Steve

avi · 01-11-2011, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This thread is an example of why I suspect that it would be a good thing for this forum if Mountainman was banned. It doesn't matter that he is wrong factually; the problem is that his contributions poison any discussion, away from the various interesting issues that this report raises, into the same old dreary old nonsense.

Happy New Year, Roger....

Can you please point to any phrase or sentence or idea, contained in Pete's submission to this thread, which you find objectionable, dishonest, or "poisonous"?

Contrarily, I found mountainman's comment an effective remedy against the sophomoric reflections of Stephan Huller.

Writing only for myself, Roger, I would profit, enormously, from your assessment of the issues raised in my response to Stephan Huller's OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Yes, this forum stinks

I am so dumb, I don't know if this is written tongue in cheek, or with some degree of seriousness.....

Obviously, this forum is the best out there, in my opinion. I suspect that you agree with that assessment, and were simply contradicting Roger, but, I have been wrong once or twice before,...... If I am wrong, and you genuinely dislike the forum, I hope you will offer a link to a forum you think superior to this one....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I have tried to contain mountainman's hijacks. Please feel free to report anything that you feel interferes with the flow of a thread.

Thanks Toto, for a job well done. It is not easy to moderate a forum where tempers fly.....

I do disagree, as often noted before, with the idea that Pete's hypothesis, oft presented, serves to disrupt the flow of a thread. Contrarily, I found his rejoinder on this thread, to be absolutely ON TARGET. The link makes clear that the time period under discussion, during which the document representing children's practice of Greek language was authored, has nothing to do with Diocletian. Mountainman's suggestion that the persecution under Diocletian consisted primarily of oppressing followers of Mani, rather than any "christians", or "chrestians", seems to me to be both eminently logical, and entirely reasonable. I see no evidence that Christianity, as we think of that religion today, existed prior to Nicea, prior to Lord Constantine's directive to implement the religion throughout the Roman Empire. I am aware of zero evidence accounting for the quantity of "Christians" murdered by Diocletian. I wonder why Constantine's mother was not among them?

The real question, an answer to which, unfortunately we do not possess, is Where's the evidence, one way or the other, regarding the murder of followers of Mani during the reign of Diocletian. How many did he order killed? More than one source, however, suggests that Mani's group was the largest organized religion in the Roman Empire at the dawn of the fourth century, fifty years after Mani's death, ten years before the ascension to power of Constantine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Why isn't the solution to merely ignore the posts you don't find interesting or germane? I've done that from almost the outset with a particular frequent poster and am none the worse for it.

Banning people from a freethought forum is not in my opinion the way to go.

As one of those who most assuredly lies on your ignore list, permit me to acknowledge the wisdom of your sentiment on this question, a sentiment with which I am in hearty agreement.

avi

Juststeve · 01-11-2011, 11:55 AM

Avi:

You are not now nor have you ever been on my ignore list. There is just one fellow who got there not be disagreeing with me but by being by my lights rude and insufferable. You have been neither.

Steve

mountainman · 01-11-2011, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What part of the evidence rules out the possibility that this represents a reference to the known persecution of the Manichaean church in Egypt under Diocletian?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Evidence for the Great Persecution in Egypt in 304 CE

As far as I see it, the first step in establishing that this perseuction
was against the "Christians in Egypt" is to establish that this persecution
was not against the Manichaeans in Egypt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This thread is an example of why I suspect that it would be a good thing for this forum if Mountainman was banned. It doesn't matter that he is wrong factually;

About historicity?

Quote:

the problem is that his contributions poison any discussion, away from the various interesting issues that this report raises, into the same old dreary old nonsense. In other words, effectively he is preventing any intelligent discussion in the forum, again and again and again and again and ...

How about an intelligent discussion about which has more "historicity" --- the Diocletian persecution of Manichaeans or the Diocletian persecution of the Christians? Would anyone like to step forward and go through Carrier's list of historicity criteria one by one -- for and against these two different Great Persecutions in Egypt c.304 CE?

Sample Historicity Criteria (for an event)

1. Are there inscriptions, coins, statues or other physical archeological
evidence to substantiate their existence?

2. Are they the subject of, or mentioned by extant historians?

3. Are they the subject of, or mentioned by extant writers?

Back to the OP

And dont forget stephan that Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) converted to Christianity from Manichaeism, in the year 387 CE. From your cite:

Quote:

"Ammonius, son of Copres, lector of the former church of the village of Chysis." The job of a lector was to “recite biblical passages during worship.” This is a job that would have required Ammonius to be literate.

Was not Augustine at one time a Manichaean reader in a Manichaean church with the Manichaean Holy Books of Mani? I have seen a number of articles recently where the significance of the Manichaean influence is being perceived in papyri and manuscript finds, where it was previously thought to have referred to the christian church. As I said in the first place, do we have evidence for any Manichaean settlements, monasteries or churches near the village of Chysis? If you dont, you could be in the clear. Where is Chysis?

judge · 01-11-2011, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I see no evidence that Christianity, as we think of that religion today, existed prior to Nicea, prior to Lord Constantine's directive to implement the religion throughout the Roman Empire.[/

Wasn't it Theodosius who did that rather than Constantine?

Iskander · 01-12-2011, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I am so dumb, I don't know if this is written tongue in cheek, or with some degree of seriousness.....

Obviously, this forum is the best out there, in my opinion. I suspect that you agree with that assessment, and were simply contradicting Roger, but, I have been wrong once or twice before,...... If I am wrong, and you genuinely dislike the forum, I hope you will offer a link to a forum you think superior to this one....

avi

This forum is the only one I ever read or have ever read on this subject. My commentary is not based on a comparative study but it is firmly ground on the primitive attitude of some bizarre posters.
The following excellent exchange should explain to you why I dislike what I don’t like:

excellent post
________________________________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Bek

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Now the above example applies to information that is current and first-hand. In history we don't have that opportunity, and the longer in the past the data, the less reliable the information is, if there is any information at all. If there appears to be information, how do we test it, like the rental car? We can't. So, we must be critical of the "information" that we have and be ready to admit that what we have isn't conclusive. We must apply some kind of truth standard to what we have and must separate the speculative from the verifiable. If we don't know, we can't assume that we do.

I see your point about what we can test and what we cannot test, and I get what you mean about being critical of history. At the end of the day we are faced with probabilities. Is it possible that the Buddha never existed? Of course, we lack the extensive archaeological and textual evidence that supports someone like Alexander the Great, whom we both would agree existed. Is it probable that the Buddha never existed? Well, if he didn't, you are faced with trying to reconstruct the history of how the movement started over 2500 years ago.

I think that the simplest solution is the best to go on unless you have a good reason to reject it. What is the good reason to reject the existence of the Buddha as an historical person? Because miracles are attributed to him? Well, if that was the case we would need to reject Alexander the Great, because there are miracle stories attached to his biography.

Please note, I am simply focusing on who was the source of the body of teachings that we label as Buddhism, not was there a guy who REALLY was enlightened. I believe the Buddha was enlightened and that he teaches the way to enlightenment, but that comes from the faith that I have established by applying his teachings in my daily life. My faith proves nothing and is a separate issue from the historical question of did the Buddha exist. You are right in questioning and testing what I believe in regards to my faith. You should question and not just accept what I say. In the historical realm though, it is a different matter. At the end of the day we know there was some sort of human source for Buddhism. Who was it? What would you call that person?

Quote:

Was there a Socrates? I have always thought so until recently when I have looked at the information a little closer. However, my knowledge of ancient Greek history is very superficial, and experts in the field are better qualified to know the odds on his existence. With a lot more study, perhaps I could make a better evaluation of the data, but at present I lack that information. In fact, I can't be sure if William Shakespeare wrote everything attributed to him as that is disputed by many observers. There is a lot of data supporting the existence of William Shakespeare, but there are some areas of doubt about him. Now that applies to someone who lived about 500 years ago, and it applies even more so to those who may have existed 2500 years ago.

Fair enough about Socrates, but I still see you as applying a different standard to him than you do to the Buddha. With Socrates you admit that your knowledge is not deep enough to take a stand on his existence, but with the Buddha you confidently claim that the default position is non-existence. Why will you not say here that you will defer to the historians of India? The claim that the Buddha did not exist at all is a minority opinion, of course that alone does not mean it is the wrong position, but the scholarly consensus is that he probably did.

The difference between Shakespeare (and Homer) as opposed to Socrates or the Buddha is that Shakespeare and Homer have work directly attributed to them and not just the writings of their later disciples. (I remember in college discussing whether Homer really existed and if he did, whether he actually wrote all of the things attributed to him. The consensus opinion is that the Iliad and the Odyssey were, but the so-called Homeric Hymns were not.) This means we can get into textual analysis to see if the writing style is consistent so we can know whether the same author is at work. This is why many Biblical scholars contend that not all of the letters attributed to the apostle Paul were really written by him, they compare the texts and see discrepancies.

Well done! This post is excellent and reads very well. There is little that I can object to in what you say. History is less than a science and is full of gaps and misunderstandings, so what is true and verifiable and what isn't is difficult to differentiate. I am probably more partial to the existence of Socrates than Buddha because I know more about Socrates, and he seems part of the line of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. But perhaps I am not critical enough of what is attributed to Socrates. The fact that there is a consensus one way or another, however, does not relieve one of the responsibility of making an independent judgment.

The only area in which I would disagree with you is the assumption that certain ideas and writing have to be attributed to a single person. You ask the question to whom can the collective ideas of Buddhism be attributed? What makes you think that they must be attributed to someone specific? There could be many contributors and many ideas borrowed from other cultures and traditions. Christianity certainly made heavy borrowings from Egyptian, Greek and Mesopotamian cultures, but is dishonest in not giving due credit to these plagerized sources. Of course, if one's thesis is that god speaks only to certain emmisaries like Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha it isn't surprising that the real sources of ideas would be ignored or denied.

History is problematic. Was Jefferson an atheist? In some of his writing he denies being an atheist but admits that maybe he is. Very confusing. He certainly wasn't partial to Christianity, and many of the other Founding Fathers weren't either. So, even when we have fairly recent records indisputably from the relevant author's own pen, it is almost impossible to know what they were really thinking. Their public utterances may differ from their true privately held ideas for reasons of political expediency or fear.

So, what needs to be done is to establish knowledge standards before we start looking for historical actors. Then we can see if what is available meets those levels of knowledge or if they don't. What we like to think is so, ain't necessary true.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=296750&page=9
#209

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

01-11-2011, 05:18 AM	#12
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	This thread is an example of why I suspect that it would be a good thing for this forum if Mountainman was banned. It doesn't matter that he is wrong factually; the problem is that his contributions poison any discussion, away from the various interesting issues that this report raises, into the same old dreary old nonsense. In other words, effectively he is preventing any intelligent discussion in the forum, again and again and again and again and ...

01-11-2011, 05:33 AM	#13
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Yes, this forum stinks

01-11-2011, 08:13 AM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I have tried to contain mountainman's hijacks. Please feel free to report anything that you feel interferes with the flow of a thread.

01-11-2011, 08:26 AM	#15
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Why isn't the solution to merely ignore the posts you don't find interesting or germane? I've done that from almost the outset with a particular frequent poster and am none the worse for it. Banning people from a freethought forum is not in my opinion the way to go. Steve

01-11-2011, 11:55 AM	#17
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Avi: You are not now nor have you ever been on my ignore list. There is just one fellow who got there not be disagreeing with me but by being by my lights rude and insufferable. You have been neither. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.