Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 12-21-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why should I make that assumption "for the point of argument?" You haven't been able to produce any evidence for it, and it does not help in the interpretation of the texts or of history.

Dear Toto,

In addition to my earlier response do I need to point out to you that an hypothesis may be introduced without evidence, so long as it is not inconsistent with the available (ancient historical) evidence.

Best wishes,

Pete

What good reason is there to be interested in a hypothesis which is wholly unsupported by evidence?

J-D · 12-21-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Conspiracy Theory: Constantine conspires with his ego to fabricate a new national story

* GPS DATA: 28th October 312 CE, Rome:

* Constantine to Chief-Lieutenant Ossius: Bring in another one of those scribes.

* ENTER Eusebius with Chief-Lieutenant Ossius, Eusebius prostrating, prostrating, prostrating ...:

* Constantine to Eusebius: I have a new testament to the gods to be published.

* Eusebius to Constantine(while Prostrating): Yes Boss.

* Constantine to Chief-Lieutenant Ossius: At last a scribe who understands his position.

* Constantine to the scribe: Name scribe!

* Eusebius to Constantine (while Prostrating): Hans Eusebius Anderson, my Caesar and my God !!!! May I call you Boss, Boss?

* Constantine to Chief-Lieutenant Ossius: An unusual middle name. For the moment, get rid of the scribe.

* EXIT Eusebius (looking very concerned over that last comment from the boss) with Chief-Lieutenant Ossius.

You do love your little fantasies, don't you?

mountainman · 12-21-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is irrelevant. The christ tradition already existed in 256 CE. The theory is falsified.

Perhaps you just don't understand either what the topic is or what is necessary to show that it doesn't fit reality.

Host: Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim. First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?
Voles: That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.
Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?
Voles: 43.
Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?
Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.
Host: Ah! Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!
Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.
Voles: My pleasure.

spin

Dear spin and others,

The thesis exploits the absence of secure archaeological corroboration to the "historical jesus story" of the canon. Search for "New Testament Archaeology" and you will find only holy shrouds and forged relics. It argues that the non canonical corpus are additional unauthorised writings made in the fourth century in restistance to the implementation of the little or unknown basis of the new state monotheism. It argues that Bishop Cyril of Alexandria censored the political and historical truth associated with the authenticity or otherwise of the NT canon and its history.

I happen to have a recorded a slightly different version of the Stake Your Claim program, so I dont know why there is a difference. Here is my transcript:

Host: Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim.
First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims
he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim
that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?
Voles: That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.
Host: Is this correct Mrs Voles? Did you help Mr Voles write the sonnets?
Mrs Voles: Yes, that's correct. We wrote them in the garden.
Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?
Voles: 43.
Host: Is this correct Mrs Voles? Is Mr Voles 43 years old?
Mrs Voles: No.
Host: Ummm, Mrs Voles, what do you mean, no?
Mrs Voles: Are you an idiot Mr Host? I said no. Didn't you hear me? Mr.Voles is not 43.
Host: I beg your pardon, Mrs Voles, How old is Mr. Voles?
Mrs Voles: Mr.Voles is 548 years old.
Host: That's impossible Mrs Voles, Are you joking?
Mrs Coles: No, I have had his teeth carbon dated. Is this Stake you Claim Mr Host?
Host: Are you an idiot Mrs Voles? I said yes it was. Didn't you hear me?
Mrs Voles: I beg your pardon Mr. Host. It's your show.
Host: Well, Mr Vole, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?
Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground. I cant find any witnesses alive and no one believes my Birth Certificate.
Host: Ah! Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me! Please show me this birth certificate.
Voles: Here it is Mr Host!
Host: But this is dated 26 April 1564, the day William Shakespeare was baptised, and it is signed by the Bishop of Canterbury!
Voles: Yes Mr Host. It's an official early church document.
Host: Of course Mr Voles, certainly authentic. But of course, it cannot be *your* Birth Certificate.
Mrs Voles: Now just a minute Mr. Host. Is this Stake you Claim or not? We have a signed early church document.
Host: Mrs Voles, I cannot accept an early church document without any further corroboration.
Mrs Voles: Mr. Host. Here are two hundred and fifty-seven attestations of handwriting experts stating Mr Voles is from the 14th century.
Host: My God Mrs Voles! You two have gone to extraordinary lengths to prove your claim.
Mrs Voles: Yes, and now we want our money Mr. Host.
Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.
Voles: My pleasure
Host: Mrs Voles, thank you very much for coming along.
Mrs Voles: Your welcome.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 12-21-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is irrelevant. The christ tradition already existed in 256 CE. The theory is falsified.

Perhaps you just don't understand either what the topic is or what is necessary to show that it doesn't fit reality.

Host: Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim. First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?
Voles: That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.
Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?
Voles: 43.
Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?
Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.
Host: Ah! Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!
Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.
Voles: My pleasure.

spin

Dear spin and others,

The thesis exploits the absence of secure archaeological corroboration to the "historical jesus story" of the canon. Search for "New Testament Archaeology" and you will find only holy shrouds and forged relics. It argues that the non canonical corpus are additional unauthorised writings made in the fourth century in restistance to the implementation of the little or unknown basis of the new state monotheism. It argues that Bishop Cyril of Alexandria censored the political and historical truth associated with the authenticity or otherwise of the NT canon and its history.

I happen to have a recorded a slightly different version of the Stake Your Claim program, so I dont know why there is a difference. Here is my transcript:

Host: Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim.
First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims
he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim
that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?
Voles: That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.
Host: Is this correct Mrs Voles? Did you help Mr Voles write the sonnets?
Mrs Voles: Yes, that's correct. We wrote them in the garden.
Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?
Voles: 43.
Host: Is this correct Mrs Voles? Is Mr Voles 43 years old?
Mrs Voles: No.
Host: Ummm, Mrs Voles, what do you mean, no?
Mrs Voles: Are you an idiot Mr Host? I said no. Didn't you hear me? Mr.Voles is not 43.
Host: I beg your pardon, Mrs Voles, How old is Mr. Voles?
Mrs Voles: Mr.Voles is 548 years old.
Host: That's impossible Mrs Voles, Are you joking?
Mrs Coles: No, I have had his teeth carbon dated. Is this Stake you Claim Mr Host?
Host: Are you an idiot Mrs Voles? I said yes it was. Didn't you hear me?
Mrs Voles: I beg your pardon Mr. Host. It's your show.
Host: Well, Mr Vole, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?
Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground. I cant find any witnesses alive and no one believes my Birth Certificate.
Host: Ah! Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me! Please show me this birth certificate.
Voles: Here it is Mr Host!
Host: But this is dated 26 April 1564, the day William Shakespeare was baptised, and it is signed by the Bishop of Canterbury!
Voles: Yes Mr Host. It's an official early church document.
Host: Of course Mr Voles, certainly authentic. But of course, it cannot be *your* Birth Certificate.
Mrs Voles: Now just a minute Mr. Host. Is this Stake you Claim or not? We have a signed early church document.
Host: Mrs Voles, I cannot accept an early church document without any further corroboration.
Mrs Voles: Mr. Host. Here are two hundred and fifty-seven attestations of handwriting experts stating Mr Voles is from the 14th century.
Host: My God Mrs Voles! You two have gone to extraordinary lengths to prove your claim.
Mrs Voles: Yes, and now we want our money Mr. Host.
Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.
Voles: My pleasure
Host: Mrs Voles, thank you very much for coming along.
Mrs Voles: Your welcome.

Best wishes,

Pete

You do love your little fantasies, don't you?

mountainman · 12-21-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In addition to my earlier response do I need to point out to you that an hypothesis may be introduced without evidence, so long as it is not inconsistent with the available (ancient historical) evidence.

What good reason is there to be interested in a hypothesis which is wholly unsupported by evidence?

Dear J-D,

Where is the evidence to support the Historical Jesus hypothesis - asserted by Eusebius - outside of Eusebius? What good reason is there to be interested in the HJ hypothesis if it is unsupported and uncorroborated by evidence? Did you actually read and understand what I wrote above - that hypotheses do not implicitly require evidence, only consistency thereto.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-21-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why should I make that assumption "for the point of argument?" You haven't been able to produce any evidence for it, and it does not help in the interpretation of the texts or of history.

Dear Toto,

In addition to my earlier response do I need to point out to you that an hypothesis may be introduced without evidence, so long as it is not inconsistent with the available (ancient historical) evidence.

You mean "not inconsistent with the way that I [Pete] read (and eisegete) the available evidence"!

It certainly is inconsistent with (and made nonsense by) what, for example, Arius and Julian actually said about the Logs/Son and Jesus respectively.

Then there's that little admission on your part both of how absolutely under-informed you about the Arian controversy, and how under acquainted you are with the primary literature on Arius and his views that was written by his his supporters as well as his enemies.

What makes you think you are competent to evaluate the "avaiable" evidence and to say with any degree of authority what is and is not inconsistent with it is beyond me.

I wonder if, in the spirit of the season, you'd give all here a gift of leaving off riding your hobby horse until the holidays are over.

Jeffrey

Toto · 12-21-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...
???? "Intelligent Design" is the "silver bullet" that repudiates Pete's theory that Constantine ordered creation and publication of the "new Testament"???

No - the silver bullet is the house church at Dura Europa. The rest of this thread has been further comment on Pete's theory

Quote:

What? Pete's misspelling of "orthodoxy" is the "silver bullet" that disproves his theory?

Pete is not misspelling orthodoxy. He has invented that spelling for his own idiosyncratic purposes.

Quote:

...

Ooops. How does posing a question re: Jesus' hypothetical gnosticity relate to the "silver bullet", i.e. the one piece of genuine evidence which can be used to refute Pete's theory that Constantine fabricated the "New Testament"? Wasn't Transient the starter of this thread? Why wasn't his non-sequitur, offtopic gibberish split away?. . .

You are asked not to comment on moderator actions in thread.

If you disagree with any moderator action, you can raise the issue in a PM, in a reported post, or by starting a thread in the complaints department.

J-D · 12-21-2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What good reason is there to be interested in a hypothesis which is wholly unsupported by evidence?

Dear J-D,

Where is the evidence to support the Historical Jesus hypothesis - asserted by Eusebius - outside of Eusebius? What good reason is there to be interested in the HJ hypothesis if it is unsupported and uncorroborated by evidence? Did you actually read and understand what I wrote above - that hypotheses do not implicitly require evidence, only consistency thereto.

Best wishes,

Pete

I don't know what you mean by 'the historical Jesus hypothesis'. It is your hypothesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine and that Arius was a non-Christian opponent of Constantine. The logical alternative hypothesis is that Christianity did exist before Constantine and that Arius was a Christian opponent of Constantine. Your hypothesis is not supported by evidence. The alternative hypothesis, on the other hand, does have some evidence to support it, as has previously been pointed out to you. Your only response is to point to the shortcomings of that evidence. But all historical evidence has shortcomings. The fact remains that there is some evidence, no matter how limited, against you, and no evidence for you.

mountainman · 12-22-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In addition to my earlier response do I need to point out to you that an hypothesis may be introduced without evidence, so long as it is not inconsistent with the available (ancient historical) evidence.

[...]

It certainly is inconsistent with (and made nonsense by) what, for example, Arius and Julian actually said about the Logs/Son and Jesus respectively.

Dear Jeffrey,

You are mindful I trust that whatever it was that Arius and Julian actually said (and wrote) about the Logs/Son and Jesus respectively the christian authodoxy in both cases burnt. In the case of Arius, whatever he said appears to have been chanted for generations, and whatever Julian said was causing great tribulations for the very holy and pure canonical authodoxy.

Quote:

Then there's that little admission on your part both of how absolutely under-informed you about the Arian controversy, and how under acquainted you are with the primary literature on Arius and his views that was written by his his supporters as well as his enemies.

I am reasonably confident that none of these authors postulate that the new testament canon was a fabrication from the scriptoria of Constantine and his editor-in-chief Eusebius - a fiction of men composed by wickedness". There is little to inform oneself of in regard to the mainstream view. We have christans stacked on the mill, Arius was one such, and Julian was a christian apostate. Mainstream authors all agree we are dealing with "christians" of one variety or another. They accept Eusebius as a non-fiction writer and as a reliable source of history. I accept Eusebius as a fiction writer and as the reliable source of a pseudo-history sponsored and then published by Constantine as the unified Roman answer to the Sassanian Persian state monotheistic religion.

The political situation is that the christian fairy story hit the streets of the Roman empire along with the Arian controversy, and was backed with the army and with the emperors as a top-down cult. Opposition was destroyed and burnt: I am following Barnes that in 324 CE with Constantine's military supremacy his version of "christianity" became the state religion and that the use of the vast network of collegiate temples was prohibited.

IMO the Arian controversy was a fourth century political issue caused by Constantine's creating a new Roman state monotheistic religion -- it was the simple consequence of resistance to change (social, religious and political).

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 12-22-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Where is the evidence to support the Historical Jesus hypothesis - asserted by Eusebius - outside of Eusebius? What good reason is there to be interested in the HJ hypothesis if it is unsupported and uncorroborated by evidence? Did you actually read and understand what I wrote above - that hypotheses do not implicitly require evidence, only consistency thereto.

I don't know what you mean by 'the historical Jesus hypothesis'.

Dear J-D,

The hypothesis - that an historical jesus existed.

Quote:

It is your hypothesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine and that Arius was a non-Christian opponent of Constantine.

The hypothesis is that Eusebius wrote fiction when he cites "christians". The implication of that hypothesis is that we should not find any evidence of Eusebian fictive "christians" prior to the fourth century. Another implication is that Arius and Constantine and Eusebius were not christians. We may call Eusebius a "Constantinian employee".

Quote:

Your hypothesis is not supported by evidence.

There is no archaeological evidence which supports and corroborates the existence of canonical christianity before Eusebius introduces. I reject the notion that the Dura-Europa "house-church", now deported to Yale, is representative of an unambiguous citation to the existence of "canonical christianity" before Constantine.

Quote:

The alternative hypothesis, on the other hand, does have some evidence to support it, as has previously been pointed out to you.

The HJ hypothesis has been thrashed to death for centuries. The only evidence that it has accumulated in its defence -- since it was introduced, starting with Helena finding the One True Cross and Six Inch Nails - are rank forgeries. Every century more forgeries are commissioned.

Best wishes

Pete

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.