J-D

It is not clear what you mean by 'the Father' in this sentence.It is not clear what you mean by 'the Son' in this sentence.There are no gods.It is not clear what you mean by 'All this' in this sentence.Theology is and has been important to some people. The words I quoted from Gregory of Nyssa were one of several illustrations I gave of this point. You have given no reason to think that the Arian dispute could not have been a theological one, as the generally accepted accounts suppose it to be. The post-Constantinan history of Arianism supports the view that it was a theological position. That's how people understood it after Constantine. So if you have a point to make, state it directly, and don't attempt the Socratic method.

spin

Spammers, this waltz of yours as to how you can hide from the implications of, and reinvent a new significance for, the Dura finds is a nice display of sophistry. It involves your willingness to ignore all the data and turn to texts you know next to nothing about, looking to make a different tradition for the diatessaron. This is avoiding the topic of the thread, ie if these finds falsify the mountainman theory of a Eusebian creation of christianity and its theology. The topic was not about the possibility that the religion was called something else or was not as coherently orthodox as modern christians would like it to have been. Like other vocal members who voted "no" in the poll you seem to accept that the material does falsify the mountainman theory, but you like them want to argue your own position rather than deal with the topic of the poll.


spin

spamandham

What else is there to say to such an obnoxious and pointless approach?

mountainman

Dear Sheshbazzar,

Thankyou for this insightful observation.

However I would like to add a most critically important and often unconsciousless forgotten fact to this analogy. You see, right over the road, opposite this auditorium where the people are in the state of philosophical rapture over the act of beholding these two very very christian popcorn kernels, there is an extremely large and extensive auditoria complex.

Over the road, just a few steps away from where we now sit (in rapture), are mulitple auditoriums literally crammed pack the rafters and a user-friendly information booth at which is provided an index of fraud concerning "christian" history by century. We do not like to consciously discuss christian fraud and christian origins at the one time. Segregation necessarily implies that the forgeries need to be removed from the arena.

Over the road, at the auditoria, are thousands of bits of evidence tendered by past generations as being genuine, but which have been rejected as gross profane historical forgeries. The thread above, lists just the tip of an iceburg of evidence which was once accepted but now rejected.

The obvious question is when did this practice start in the historical sense and the answer that I am exploring in this thesis is that christian origins can be tracked back to the fourth century, to be specific the era in which Constantine became, shall we say, Great, and at which time while centuries of posterity of the greek academics were edicted for the flames, the mother of the great one, the very first christian archaeologist, Helena, found the One True Cross, and the One True Set of Four Inch Nails. A circus of fraud, run by someone regarded as a brigand, and later, as a ward irresponsible for his own actions. That is a circus of common fraud -- plain and common fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear S&H,

Perhaps this is just the dance of Shiva?



Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear J-D,

The thesis I defend here is in the field of ancient history in which field the field of theology is of secondary importance. The citations I have been providing need to be examined not from the persepctive of the field of theology, but from the perspective of the field of ancient history.


Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

Thanks for the laugh! I don't buy your hypothesis, but I enjoy your occasional humor.

mountainman

Dear J-D,

Here is the position perhaps as early as day one:

Shall we go through these above fourteen letters one by one and ask which are today considered to be genuine and which are not considered to be genuine, that is literary forgeries of an author (who was not Paul) who was masquerading as this figure of Paul (who may or may not be an historic person)?

Trends. Trends over time. Once there were 14. Now there are ??? If we examine this trend and plot in on a graph per century, it wont be long now before all of these letters will be viewed as being penned in the Constantinian epoch.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Spin and spamandham and others,

My position on the reliance upon the paleographic assessment for establishing the chronology of the christian and origins and the new testament canon is be very extremely cautious. An article which address the issue ofPreConstantinian papyrii fragments and manuscripts, which have been all dated, not by C14, but by handwriting analysis aka paleography.


A very dangerous and irresponsible thing to do for a student of life.

Best wishes,


Pete

spin

If you can't deal with the topic, then I guess this hand-waving is to be expected.


spin