Doug Shaver

Christians come to one's mind.

Sheshbazzar

Actually Pete spends very little time opposing 'Christians' or 'Christianity'.
What Pete does do, is not buy into the Christian version of church 'history'.

What Pete opposes is the all too common practice of accepting, without a reasonable and healthy degree of skepticism, Christianities demonstrably contrived, questionable, uncorroborated, and archaeologically unsupported version of Christian church 'history'.
One that is principally derived from, and dependent upon the writings and claims of one Eusebius,
A 4th century 'church writer' of very dubious integrity employed as a hatchet man by a megalomaniac Emperor.
While I may not agree with everything that mountainman presents, his strong degree of skepticism regarding the wholesale swallowing of Eusebian claims is justified and rational.
Thank you Pete.

stephan huller

It is because you buy into the theory that Christianity is a false form of religion a priori to your encounter with the divine teachings of mountainman that you can't see how hostility drives the original opinion. You think its a 'fact' that Christianity could be capable of this massive conspiracy because they are an inherently false religion. People who think that 'Asians are bad drivers' for instance see nothing wrong with saying that 'Chinese people can't drive' in a public setting because they honestly believe that they are merely 'reporting the facts.' The same goes with anyone who hates a group of people. The Jews were ugly according to the Nazis and according to Hitler's aesthetic their ugliness 'caused' their evils to be manifest. I don't believe that those who buy into Pete's theories would want to harm Christians. My point was merely illustrative of the clear hostility to Christianity which is present.

The reason most of us who study the origins of Christianity don't buy into Pete's theories - aside from the fact that these ideas can't be supported without a massive rejection of the manuscript evidence from Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, paganism and Manichaeanism, indeed the whole of ancient literature - is the fact that we don't have an inherited and utterly irrational hatred of all things Christian. It should be noted that there would be dangerous consequences for suggesting a similar theory about Jewish origins - viz. it would be deemed anti-Semitic for instance if we were to argue that the rabbinic literature was invented by a Jewish conspiracy.

As a Jew (and with the traditional hostility of my culture towards Christianity not withstanding) I have to admit that I see very little difference between positing a group of swarthy big nosed people gathered in a room (the classic anti-Semitic portrait) plotting to take over the world (or banks or some other such nonsense) and this idea that Christianity was invented by an Imperial conspiracy, that Arius wasn't sincere in his position as head of the Martyrium of St. Mark, that Athanasius wasn't sincere in his position on the throne of St. Mark, that Eusebius really didn't visit Pantanaeus in prison and share his sufferings nor did he actually posess a sincere belief in Origen and worked to preserve the memory of a man who he believed was a divinely appointed teacher of the truth SHOULD make Christians similarly offended.

If you were to admit that your willingness to accept an irrational position was motivated by an irrational hatred of a dying religious form (Christianity) I would leave it at that. But your insistance that Pete's theories (and your acceptance of those beliefs) somehow spring from 'an objective view of history' I find entirely disingenous. No one would embrace the idea that the only way that Christianity can be explained is by destroying its earliest literature unless they were possessed by an irrational hatred of the tradition they claim to 'study.'

Sheshbazzar

A lot of words to put things in my mouth that I never stated or even implied.
What irrational hatred?
I don't 'hate' either Christians or the claims of Christianity, I just find them to be contradictory, irrational, and without merit.

You jump to a lot of unwarranted conclusions about my positions.
For example; Sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about?

You don't know what I think. And in this case you are dead wrong.
I Do NOT 'think its a 'fact' that Christianity could be capable of this massive conspiracy...." And have previously engaged in long arguments with mountainman in this forum against the flaws in his theory.

As for all of these 'sincere' individuals, if some or all of them even actually existed, I have little doubt that most of them sincerely believed in the truth of what they were relating.
However most of it consisted only of the repetition of church gossip, hearsay, and handed down tradition, often embellished and expanded repeatedly (to supplement and confirm sectarian biases and views) in the chain of transmission. This still goes on.
And I find your objection to be disingenuous.
It is a strawman argument. I DO NOT believe those things you are attempting to falsely attribute to me.

I have no 'insistence' that Pete's theories 'spring from an objective view of history', and I do NOT have an uncritical 'acceptance of those beliefs' as you here falsely accuse me of.

I do however applaud Pete's well warranted and healthy skepticim, which, as I pointed out to you in a different thread;
It is NOT enough for a 'scholar' to simply toss some moldy old book on the table, and say; "Here it is, written in black and white.....and this settles the matter", especially when none of these books can be shown to be the original text as it was originally penned by the original author. And most of them composed of 'information' derived from church gossip, hearsay, and unproven ancient 'traditions', along with identifiable latter interpolations, editing, and revisions.
Eusebius, with his 'supplied' texts and quotations, is perhaps the most untrustworthy source that one could possibly employ.
There needs to be more tangible, -read archaeological, and external, and non-Christian sourced contemporary cobberating evidence.

Christian writings cannot be trusted as an unbiased source to confirm or to validate the contents of other Christian writings...
No matter how many Christian books you toss on the table.

I have no 'hatred of' or desire to 'destroy' any of Christianities literature, not its earliest, nor even today's.
Indeed these writings through their internal contradictions, obvious sectarian interpolations, and in their biased misrepresentations of history (although they may have sincerely believed what they wrote ) are the very best evidence against the validity of their claims.
I cherish all of these documents as remaining evidences of those theological battles that were fought along the way to Christianity as we now know and experience it.
As oft has been observed, it is the victors who write the history. With what that entails.

Sheshbazzar

mountainman

The desire to uncover the historical truth of "Christian Origins", firmly centered in the field of ancient history, is what drives the research concerning the skeptical hypothesis of its fabrication.

Political regimes that are supported by a supreme measure of military power are certainly capable of darstedly acts against humanity. I do not think of it as "a fact", but I am certainly suspicious of that epoch in the Roman Empire when the brand new high technology of the codex fell into the hands of a single Roman Emperor, and "Pontifex Maximus", whose rule was compared to that of Nero.



My hypothesis is specific and directed to the field of ancient history.



You and other readers need to understand that the motivation of my research is simply to seek the historical truth. I look at "Christian Origins" as a mystery to be solved. Who wrote the books of the canonical "Gospels and Acts"? Oh, we dont know. When were they authored. Oh, we dont know. Who wrote the books of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts"? Oh, we dont know. When were they authored. Oh, we dont know. I want to investigate some alternative questions and answers.

Look, they are just a few new ideas.


I am offering an alternative explanation for the current state of the evidence, and one which is put forward, not to destroy anything but what may be our own false communal ideas, about ancient history. Unless we know our history we are doomed to repeat it. I want to know the historical truth of the evidence in our possession.

Now the evidence has two sides. Everyone is ceremoniously glued to the Canonical Gospels and Acts, as if they were deserving of merit. I am skeptical of this claim. But I have also examined "the Other Far Side" of the evidence in depth.

On the other side of the equation we have the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". Independent of the arguments for the authenticity of the canon, I have also argued for consideration of two novel ideas. (1) that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" are a post Nicaean phenomenom (Eusebius made some false assertions about the vile heretics). And (2) the idea that Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus may in fact be the one and the same historical author of the key series of "Gnostic Acts and Gospels".

It should be obvious to even an inexperienced student of ancient history that this sort of analysis is not driven by the base emotions, but by a desire to seek a great simplification to the entire historical saga of the two-sided story involving Christian/Gnostic Origins where the "parsimonious and traditional answer has always been "We dont really know". It is put forward as a proactive sketch, and is sensitive to evidence and very much falsifiable.

Doug Shaver

He might not spend much time doing it, but his anti-Christian presuppositions are clear enough.

I don't believe everything in the Christian version, either, but from the fact that Christians got some of their own history wrong, I don't infer that it's all a pack of lies.

There is skepticism, and then there is cynicism. I know the difference. Pete apparently does not.

bacht

It is in fact politically correct to denounce all things Western, including the inherited Biblical religions. In that sense mountainman is riding the wave of cynicism and anti-traditionalism prevalent in our culture. This seems to have developed in earnest after the disgrace and resignation of President Nixon, and continued into the pseudo-skepticism of The X-Files, Oliver Stone's JFK, and Dan Brown.

Add the scandal of child abuse by clergy to the pre-scientific ignorance of scripture and the picture is complete: the Bible is evil, or at least archaic, in the mind of the average person [I don't think this way but this seems to be the kind of logic involved]

There may be more people who believe in conspiracy theories than not.

Sheshbazzar

There is the difference. Pete as an actual practicing skeptic, searches the ancient evidence and presents it to us to examine and question and comment on.
Providing this service, he is certainly within rights to present his own speculations and views.

It is my observation, that consistently, week after week, year in and year out, that it has been the Skeptic mountainman (Pete) who has provided the majority of citations to ancient and often forgotten and obscure writings that appear in this Forum.
Writings that I know that I likely would not have otherwise encountered in the limited time left for me. And without Pete's efforts, most of the rest of us would forever remain blissfully unaware of.

Pete has put these writings before us, and cross examined their claims, pointing out the contradictions, and errors of historical fact, all the while enduring a virtual barrage of insult and ridicule from 'skeptical' 'cynics' who having bought into the 'churches' / 'mainstream' version of 'history', would rather take the easy way out by simply heckling, deriding, and marginalising mountainman rather than engaging in objective examination of the evidence being presented.

You claim you are 'skeptical'?
Yet you don't infer that (Christian version of 'history') is all a pack of lies?

Being so 'skeptical', you have never noticed that Christianity tends to write its 'history' the way it wants it? and use government to enforce its versions and views?

As a "skeptic" you never noticed that Christianity has never had any qualms, in whatever places or periods it has infiltrated and taken over whole governments, to employ that power, and has repeatedly used it as a means to eliminate all of its critics and all of their writings, branding all opposition, or alternate historical explanations, as being 'heretical' while imposing a whitewashed and revised history with the point of the sword?

No, I suppose that being so "skeptical", you never did notice anything at all like that.

After all our 'recieved' Christian history simply could not be all a pack of lies.
And you have every reason to believe and accept that history presented by church, government, and 'history'.

Yes, there is 'skepticism' and there is 'cynicism', and the two are not mutually exclusive.


Sheshbazzar

avi

Quite simply, BRILLIANT, well done! And, thanks for accurately painting a much more balanced picture of Pete's excellent travail on this forum...

Well, Doug, and maybe Pete also doesn't think everything is a pack of lies, either, but, the question is: How does one ascertain WHICH part of "their own history" has been misrepresented?

To me, Pete's MAIN contribution to this forum, has been to challenge us, all of us, to explain to ourselves, if to no one else, why we should accept ANY component of the early history of the church, given that we encounter yet another falsehood, under every rock turned over.

When you write, "Christians got some of their own history wrong,..." are you not sitting in a judge's chambers somewhere, draped in black robes, thinking magisterial thoughts, as if in a Rodin statue. Point is: Doug, neither you, nor Pete, nor anyone else really knows anything at all about the real history of the Christian church, for all the appropriate documents have been destroyed.....

Accordingly, then, how do you know WHICH part of the history is erroneous, and which credible? How can you write "some", when you know not which component is accurate, and which utter fabrication?

avi

Sheshbazzar

And the remaining Christian documents fudged.....