Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-26-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The poll was whether or not the Dura evidence falsifies MM's hypothesis. Though I don't accept his hypothesis, I don't think the Dura evidence falsifies it, so I voted no. You can add mine back into your tally.

At the time the poll was first presented, I reluctantly voted "YES", after reading Ben's EXCELLENT travail, and rereading, several times, spin's explanations, i.e. Joseph of Arimathea, IE, stavros, Salome appearing on the 14 line fragment of papyrus. Now, having understood that Dura was home to Nazarenes (Thanks Sheshbazzar) and Mandaeans (Thanks Spin), I no longer wish to affirm support for the notion that the archaeological evidence discredits, i.e. repudiates, (n.b. NOT falsifies) Pete's theory that Constantine invented Christianity, as we know it, today. I still believe that some proto-christian sects existed prior to Eusebius, but the main substance, I now believe, until new evidence appears, of Christianity, was formulated, and written on orders of Constantine. I am sure that every effort was expended to destroy 100% of the old documents, and to modify all the existing docs to ensure conformance to the triune monster. Thanks Pete, for opening my eyes. Please change my vote to NO.

Dear Avi,

Thank you. I hope that you understand this is a form of apostasy

Apostasy is an interesting concept and curously enough, is put into the words of Peter the Apostle by the author of the NHC 6.1 tractate called "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles". Here is the relevant quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PETER

"Justly [...] have men named it [Habitation],
because (by) everyone who endures his trials, cities are inhabited,
and a precious kingdom comes from them, because they endure
in the midst of the apostasies and the difficulties of the storms."

It appears that there were many apostasies in the time represented by the author (C14 says 348 CE). I wonder what this means? We all know that a little time later, the most famous of all apostates wrote a whole lot of lies against the very pure christian religion and against the holy gospels and against the historical significance of Jesus Crispus Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYRIL

but none as went far as Julian,
who damaged the prestige of the Empire
by refusing to recognize Christ,
dispenser of royalty and power.

he composed three books against the holy gospels
and against the very pure Christian religion,
he used them to shake many spirits
and to cause them uncommon wrongs.

I wonder why Julian hurled such invectives at the Constantinian literature, and Eusebius?
Do any readers here think he may have thought himself justified in some way?
Would anyone like to explian Julian's invectives?

Best wishes,

Pete

spamandham · 10-26-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

All you were doing was trying to recontextualize the Dura diatessaron for your own theories and failing through not having any evidence whatsoever to make you think that the data fit elsewhere. You can avoid the data as much as you want. But hey, if you really want to be among the nay-sayers...

spin

I don't have a theory. I don't need to argue against your assumptions. You are simply ignoring the Gospel of the Hebrews as if it were irrelevant, while simultaneoulsy taking a fragment of a Gospel which clearly differs from the canonicals and declaring it can only be a Christian document, in spite of our knowledge that nonChristian Jews also used a Gospel.

Spin, which were you aware of first, MM's hypotheis or the Dura finds? If the former, you had your mind made up about it before hearing of the latter, no?

J-D · 10-26-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

To state my position yet another way, The Greco-Roman religion of the Gentiles, fabricated under the pseudonym of "Paul" and called "Christian" was NOT the same religion held by the Jerusalem Apostles.
No, I do not believe that the Dura evidence counts against Pete's theory, as a NAZARENE synagogue is aJEWISH synagogue.
Nazarenes were Jews, and JEWISH, not "Jewish-christians". a misnomer and anachronism.
Their religion, theology and practices remained distinctively Jewish, and they rejected the innovations of Pauline created "christianity".

What do you mean by 'Pauline created "Christianity" ', and what do you suppose to have been its 'innovations'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Pete's theory is great for pointing out that Eusebian "christian History" is a total fraud, and that "christianity did not at all exist as it is described by the christian churches and uncritical secular history.
The weakness of Pete's theory is its total denial of the existence of pre-Constantine, pagan-Gentile "ChrEstians". and "christians", who did exist and practiced a different religion derived from the Jewish Nazarene religion.

Different in what ways?

Quote:

And do you have any evidence to support your position?

Yes, but my time is limited at the, and I cannot particiatehere for the next few days.
Really all you have to do is look up the references to the Jewish "sect of The Nazarenes", and eliminate the inposition of the word "Christian upon them.
They said they were not , and the early Christian commentators said they were not Christian.

My attention has been drawn in a discussion on another thread to the Nazarene sect. However, I don't see how their existence is evidence for your theory or Pete's. Assuming that 'Christianity' is defined to exclude the Nazarenes, the existence of pre-Constantinian Nazarenes is still not evidence for the non-existence of pre-Constantinian Christianity. And to my way of thinking the existence of the Nazarene sect is evidence that Jesus did exist--I don't see how you explain the existence of that sect otherwise. (The existence of the Nazarene sect, to my way of thinking, counts as evidence against the theory that all the things mainstream Christianity says about Jesus are true--but that is different from saying he did not exist.)

J-D · 10-26-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear Sheshbazzar,

Thankyou for this insightful observation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The Pre-Constantinian evidence for "traditional" christian history and archaeology is like standing in a huge and utterly vacant auditorium, that we are told that 100,000+ fans have just vacated, the evidence of the crowd having been there is the two popcorn kernels that were found in the far back corner of the snack stand.

So. just don't look at that utterly empty and spotless auditorium, but focus your attention on, and carefully scrutinize these two old popcorn kernels that prove our position and allegations that 100,000 believers were here.

yeah, riiiight.

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

The indisputable fact that many documents are the product of fraud and forgery is not evidence that any particular document is the product of fraud or forgery. Nor is it evidence that all documents which disagree with your particular theory are the products of fraud and forgery.

mountainman · 10-26-2008, 05:59 PM

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

* GPS DATA: 28th October 312 CE, Rome, in the vast ancient library only that very morning had been adjoined to Rome's major temple of Asclepius. This afternoon, the temple to Asclepius was not to be seen except for its foundations. Only the adjoining library structure still stood. Inside the structure, out of the dust and the sun, the personal interviews continued.

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

* ENTER Eusebius with Chief-Lieutenant, 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: 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: 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.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 10-26-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

My attention has been drawn in a discussion on another thread to the Nazarene sect.

Dear J-D,

On this thread you will find reference to Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene by Dr. R. W. Bernard (1964) where the following is an extract from
Part 3: The Controversy Between Adherents of Apollonius and Jesus:

Quote:

Tredwell pointed out that Christianity forced its way forward by mass executions and at the point of the sword. It was in this way that the "Church Militant" was born and was enabled to develop as a world power. Born in bloodshed (the brutal murder of Hypatia by Christian "monks" soon after the Council of Nicea, by order of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, who was subsequently "sainted," and the ensuing massacres of the Manicheans), it grew by bloodshed (the deaths of tens of millions of true followers of Christ, who refused to accept the false hypocritical teachings of the church, over three million women having been put to death in Europe only a few centuries ago as witches), it shall die in bloodshed (the aftermath of the recent world carnage which is fruit of sixteen centuries of false Christian teachings of peace, carried on with an olive branch in one hand and a sword in the other).

All this resulted from the fraudulent replacement of the original religion of Apollonius by the "new" religion of the Church of Rome which took place at the Council of Nicea in the year 325 B.C.*

(*The word "new" here is significant. It clearly indicates that at the beginning of the fourth century, Christianity, as created by the Council of Nicea, was indeed a new religion, and was preceded by the religion established by Apollonius three centuries previously, which may be more properly called Essenism, a form of Neo-Pythagoreanism in character, the new doctrines which Apollonius brought from India and introduced among the Essenes, which gave rise to the new sect known as the NAZARENES or THERAPEUTS, whose doctrines were essentially Buddhist in nature.)

Since this date humanity has been led astray. It is the purpose of this book to correct this historic error and to bring humanity back to the truth, so that, purged by the recent suffering, mankind once more will return to the true scientific path of natural, healthful and humane living taught by the great Pythagorean philosopher, Apollonius of Tyana, nearly two thousand years ago.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 10-26-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Theology is and has been important to some people.

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

The fact that you personally are not interested in theological controversies has no value as evidence that the Arian controversy was not a theological controversy.

J-D · 10-26-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

In what sense do you consider them to have been forgeries?

Dear J-D,

Here is the position perhaps as early as day one:

Quote:

The letters of the apostle Paul in number fourteen

to the Romans one letter
to the Corinthians two letters
to the Ephesians one letter
to the Thesalonians two letters
to the Galatians one letter
to the Philippians one letter
to the Colossians one letter
to Timothy two letters
to Titus one letter
to the Philemon one letter
to the Hebrews one letter

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

If what you mean by saying that they were forgeries is that they were falsely attributed to Paul (which is widely supposed to be true of a number of them), then you need to consider the fact that publication of a document under a false name does not constitute forgery. When Stephen King published books under the name of

Richard Bachman, that was not forgery, because he was not trying to pass off those books as the work of a real individual other than himself. (For all I know, there is a real person called Richard Bachman, or maybe even more than one, but Stephen King was not trying to pass off his books as the work of any such individual in particular.) If I tried to pass off a book I had written as the work of Stephen King--not just a fictitious individual called Stephen King, but the real Stephen King, the famous horror fiction author--that would constitute an attempt at forgery. (If another individual whose name happened to be Stephen King published books under his own name but without trying to pass himself off as the famous Stephen King, that would not be forgery, just as it was not forgery for two different Winston Churchills, one American and one British, to publish books under their respective names, since neither was trying to pass himself off as the other.) Therefore, to argue that the so-called Pauline letters were forgeries in the sense that they were not written by Paul presupposes that there was a real Paul. If you contend (as I was under the impression you do) that there never was any such person as Paul, then it is not clear in what sense you could contend that the so-called Pauline letters are forgeries.

mountainman · 10-26-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

The fact that you personally are not interested in theological controversies has no value as evidence that the Arian controversy was not a theological controversy.

Dear J-D,

Where did I say I am personally not interested in theological controversies? In point of fact I have been very interested in the ancient historical details surrounding the so-called theological controversies of the fourth (and fifthe)centuries. The Arian controversy, the Nestorian controversy, the Origenist controversy and the utterly contraversial INVECTIVES of Emperor Julian. I repeat, I said that the thesis I defend here is in the field of ancient history in which field the field of theology is of secondary importance. In other words, I am happy to explain the theological controversies in terms of historical socio-political controversies. In the words of Arnaldo Momigliano ....

Quote:

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

Thankyou, and best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 10-26-2008, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

My attention has been drawn in a discussion on another thread to the Nazarene sect.

Dear J-D,

On this thread you will find reference to Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene by Dr. R. W. Bernard (1964) where the following is an extract from
Part 3: The Controversy Between Adherents of Apollonius and Jesus:

You do realize. don't you Pete, that Bernard was the author of The Hollow Earth The Greatest Geographical Discovery in History Made by Admiral Richard E. Byrd in the Mysterious Land Beyond the Poles - The True Origin of the Flying Saucers ?

Why on (excuse the pun) earth you would take this crank as an authority on anything, let alone Apollonius and the religions of the Roman Empire is beyond me. Do you have any reason for doing so beyond the fact that Bernard says what you want to hear? Can you show, for instance, that his knowledge of religions in the Roman Empire is sound and well informed?

Jeffrey

View Poll Results: Has mountainman's theory been falsified by the Dura evidence?
Yes	34	57.63%
No	9	15.25%
Don't know/don't care/don't understand/want another option	16	27.12%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

10-26-2008, 05:59 PM	#295
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Conspiracy Theory: Constantine conspires with his ego to fabricate the NT Conspiracy Theory: Constantine conspires with his ego to fabricate a new national story * GPS DATA: 28th October 312 CE, Rome, in the vast ancient library only that very morning had been adjoined to Rome's major temple of Asclepius. This afternoon, the temple to Asclepius was not to be seen except for its foundations. Only the adjoining library structure still stood. Inside the structure, out of the dust and the sun, the personal interviews continued. * Constantine to Chief-Lieutenant: Bring in another one of those scribes. * ENTER Eusebius with Chief-Lieutenant, 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: 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: 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. Best wishes, Pete

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.