mountainman

In 1894 G. Ficker, supported by O. Hirschfeld, strove to prove that Abercius was a priest of Cybele. In 1895 A. Harnack offered an explanation based upon religious syncretism. And in 1896, Dieterich made Abercius a priest of Attis. Is it a therefore a fact that most people in the 1890's who knew about the Abercius inscription couldn't imagine themselves engaging someone like Ficker, Hirschfeld, Harnack and Dieterich, none of whom argue for a Christian Abercius.

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I also very strongly agree that the study of the historical context of events is fundamental in their attempted, albeit imperfect, reconstruction.

Best wishes,



Pete

stephan huller

Pete

Some of the opinions you cite were established before the domestic application of the discovery of electricity. The scholarship has progressed from that point and Margherita Guarducci addresses all the errors of previous generations and has effectively dismantled the pagan argument as Tabbernee acknowledges. It is a pity that her work hasn't been translated into English but luckily those of interested in learning from experience can use Google translator. It's a little bit of work but it is invaluable for those of us seeking the truth.

Oh I forgot. You're a propagandist. Never mind ...

stephan huller

I was writing the post and then I remembered who I was writing it for.

mountainman

Yeah. It's a real pity. Being old didn't stop Einstein citing Pythagoras in his theories of relativity.


I seek the truth of history, but history is not propaganda, yet you seem to think it is.

You have never addressed one of my most important historical sources, for whom I have a great deal of respect, the Jewish-Italian multi-lingual Arnaldo Momigliano. If there is a creed that I have to swear by in my research into ancient history it is amongst his writings. This one is particularly foremost in my mind at all times ....

mountainman

What makes you say that?



I am ignorant of the historical reality of the nation of the New testament wielding Chrestians in the first century. My ignorance is deeper than most, in that this ignorance extends to the year 312 CE, at which time the nation of christians miraculously appears in the service of Constantine.

I have been trying to educate myself in the archaeological evidence for the Eusebian reported nation of new testament canon preserving Chrestians before the wonderful "Peace of Constantine" but alas, everywhere I have looked I do not see "Clear Physical Evidence".

I see no "Clear Physical Evidence". What I see is an absolutely consistent signature and presence of ambiguity in the physical evidence itself. What do you want me to do, ignore it? Why? Because of a Russian to English Google translation of Margherita Guarducci addresses all the errors of previous generations and has effectively dismantled the pagan Abercius argument as Tabbernee? I dont think so. That is not clear evidence. Its a convolution.



Examination of the evidence is compulsory. Realistic skepticism is at least just as valuable as received tradition.


Next stone please.

Toto

[staffwarn]Please avoid personal comments or insults. Thank you.[/staffwarn]

GakuseiDon

Not Mt Kosciuszko, but Falls Creek, a lovely alpine resort area in Australia. I guess that's why he calls himself "mountainman". The man on the mountain is typically the one people seek out to find wisdom. I don't know about mountainman's theory, but he has picked a nice part of the world to pronounce it from.

If we learn anything from Pete's theory, it is that there is very little physical evidence for Christianity from the first four centuries or so.

Transient

Nicely said - couldn't agree more
My wife and I had our honeymoon there 40 years ago.
Falls Creek are is beautiful.
Bright, the Ovens and Kiewa Valleys are also very nice

Toto

I split off some posts here that went a little too far.

We already knew this. There is no physical evidence of Christianity from the first two centuries, and very little physical evidence of Christianity from the 3rd. That's why the James Ossuary was such a big deal - if it had been genuine, it would have been the first possible evidence of Christianity from the first century.

But there is very little that has survived from the society of that time in general. The question is whether Pete's theory of massive forgery makes any sense. I think it doesn't, based on how religions develop and how political systems work. No one is willing to defend the theory except Pete, although there are posters who seem adamant that Pete should be allowed to present his theory.

If I were to make a full time career of managing the discussion here, I might move all of Pete's threads to E and just clear the forum of any discussion of this baseless theory. But that sounds like too much work, and there are people who claim to have gotten some benefit from the issues that Pete brings up.

It just gets tiresome reading the same text over and over again.