Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 03-23-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Even if it was an illegal and/or persecuted sect?

Yes, even if it was illegal.

What makes you think so? Known examples of "hard archaeological evidence" from illegal and/or persecuted sects?

Quote:

After all, we have alleged texts supposedly from this period of persecution do we not?

Isn't there a rather significant difference between the creation of texts and "hard archaeological evidence"? Why should the former make the latter more likely even when the text-producers are part of a relatively small but, apparently, widely-despised sect?

Quote:

Why nothing we can carbon date?

What once-living evidence do you imagine we should find?

Quote:

That said, are you implying that Christianity was universally illegal for ~200 years?

No, nothing I've written suggests such an extreme position.

I'm suggesting that a relatively small religious sect that, at best, obtained substantial disrespect from the majority and, at worst, persecution as an illegal organization wouldn't be expected to leave behind very much "hard archaeological evidence" of its existence.

MarkA · 03-23-2008, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is often stated in various ways that pre-Constantinian Christianity was "a minority religion and a persecuted sect." yet very little actual evidence of any kind exists to support such an assertion, and then, on the other hand, If we are to believe the record of the NT and the early church writers, the religion of Christianity was spread like wild-fire, with literally thousands of converts within "Christ's" lifetime, tens of thousands more within a decade of the resurrection, and through Paul's preaching, in a few years, new "Gentile" Christian "Churches" becoming established in cities throughout the Roman Empire, and far beyond, even into India.

So on one hand, we have this small "minority persecuted sect" boasting of being about the fastest spreading and most convincing religion the world had ever experienced, often persuading thousands to convert in a day, and going on spreading for a period of over three centuries before Constantine.
While on the other hand, all we have as archaeological evidence for all of this claimed explosive growth in "christianity" is just one single disputable "church house" from the third century? and a dozen also disputable inscriptions, that may or may not have been of any christian origin?

Over THREE CENTURIES of this alleged "christian" propagation of its unique set of beliefs, and of the alleged reciting of the NT parables and miracles, with supposedly tens of thousands of converts having heard and believed these stories, but virtually none of them left any evidence that they had ever practiced any such belief, or had even heard of these parables and miracles, and they left virtually nothing behind to indicate that such beliefs had ever even existed, other than those "claims" that are recorded within the writings of the so-called "Church Fathers"?

There is something seriously bad wrong with this scenario.
Even the pagans upon the hearing of such parables, miracles, and wonders would have been inspired to produced art and artifacts illustrative of that knowledge, had it at all existed.

The Christian Church's claimed "history" has FRAUD stamped all over it.

History is full of inflated claims made by various groups. The point of historical analysis is separate the truth from propaganda.

Sheshbazzar · 03-23-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

History is full of inflated claims made by various groups. The point of historical analysis is separate the truth from propaganda.

So the purveyors of "The Gospel Truth" made "inflated claims" in their "propaganda".
Then the question remains, Just how inflated are the claims?
In this case it seems to be more towards a 95% inflation and outright fabrication attaching to 5% historical fact.
If so, and so it certainly seems, then mountainman is well justified in his presentation of "The Eusebian Fiction Postulate" as one means to separate true history from those wildly inflated propaganda claims of Eusebius and Co.
Certainly his claims are less fantastic than those being presented by, and accepted as being "Christian history" by its apologists and defenders.

MarkA · 03-23-2008, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

History is full of inflated claims made by various groups. The point of historical analysis is separate the truth from propaganda.

So the purveyors of "The Gospel Truth" made "inflated claims" in their "propaganda".
Then the question remains, Just how inflated are the claims?
In this case it seems to be more towards a 95% inflation and outright fabrication attaching to 5% historical fact.
If so, and so it certainly seems, then mountainman is well justified in his presentation of "The Eusebian Fiction Postulate" as one means to separate true history from those wildly inflated propaganda claims of Eusebius and Co.
Certainly his claims are less fantastic than those being presented by, and accepted as being "Christian history" by its apologists and defenders.

I am not sure his theory is less fantastic but as mountainman says his postulate will be validated or will fail on the basis of the archaeological evidence.

Sheshbazzar · 03-24-2008, 12:33 AM

I myself have in the past argued against mountainman's "all or nothing approach" to some form of "christianity" having existed prior to Constantine's terroristc impositions upon all religion.
I believe that there is sufficient evidence that some form of the Christian religion did exist long before Constantine, indeed even long before the myth "Christ" had even been invented.
But that aside, The "Christ" and the "Christianity" that was fabricated by Constantine, Eusebius, and the latter "Church Fathers" had very little in common with any beliefs actually held by anyone prior to the 2nd century.
What is missing from the archaeological evidence, indicates that any evidence of "The Gospel stories", and claimed history of "The Christian Church" is in the main, entirely missing. Thus reinforcing that what we now have, was "fabricated" and when I say "fabricated", I mean put together in a new form, from old, previously existing materials. In other words Constantine and his lackey Eusebius did not start out with a clean sheet of paper and invent all of "Christian history" and "Christianity" out of "whole cloth", they did however, greatly plagiarise ideas from other beliefe systems to expand its scope, and interpolated and invented a lot of new "epistles" to support their new "authorised orthodox version" of what they wanted "Christ" and "Christianity" to be.
And quite possibly in the process of the enforcing of their orthodoxy, succeeded in the "converting" exterminating, or the "driving away" of every "christian" who had held unto the original tenets of that faith, whatever they may have previously been, prior to Constantine's "reforms".

mountainman · 03-24-2008, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Is there any other archaeological evidence that can be tested other than the above examples?

I have gathered together a review of epigraphic and papyri fragments cited in contemporary discussion and/or support of christianity.

Quote:

Has there been no C 14 dating on any of the papyrus fragments discovered in Egypt apart from the Gospel of Judas? I find this astonishing.

There is a second, associated with the binding of one of the Nag Hammadi codices (gThomas) to 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years). But apart from that, all the papyri fragments discovered in Egypt have been dated by the scientific process of a paleographer's certification.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 03-24-2008, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

So on one hand, we have this small "minority persecuted sect" boasting of being about the fastest spreading and most convincing religion the world had ever experienced, often persuading thousands to convert in a day, and going on spreading for a period of over three centuries before Constantine.
While on the other hand, all we have as archaeological evidence for all of this claimed explosive growth in "christianity" is just one single disputable "church house" from the third century?

I think they term it a house church.

Quote:

and a dozen also disputable inscriptions, that may or may not have been of any christian origin?

Over THREE CENTURIES of this alleged "christian" propagation of its unique set of beliefs, and of the alleged reciting of the NT parables and miracles, with supposedly tens of thousands of converts having heard and believed these stories, but virtually none of them left any evidence that they had ever practiced any such belief, or had even heard of these parables and miracles, and they left virtually nothing behind to indicate that such beliefs had ever even existed, other than those "claims" that are recorded within the writings of the so-called "Church Fathers"?

There is something seriously bad wrong with this scenario.
Even the pagans upon the hearing of such parables, miracles, and wonders would have been inspired to produced art and artifacts illustrative of that knowledge, had it at all existed.

They did do precisely this. The pagans writing after Nicaea IMO authored the apocryphal literature and were inspired to write clearly in the genre of romantic fiction using the figures of the NT.

Quote:

The Christian Church's claimed "history" has FRAUD stamped all over it.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-24-2008, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And once again, Pete runs away from substantiating a claim he has made.

Come on Pete. You did say that "Coneybeare's translation of Philostratus' "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana"
uses the word "priest" (with regard to Asclepius) at least nine times in the first book", didn't you?

So where in the first book can I find these instances? Surely you know -- or you wouldn't have made the claim you did, right?

So let's have them?

After that we can then talk about where it was that I made any claims whatsoever about the quality of Coneybeare's translation, let alone that I had made one myself.

Jeffrey

And who has the Hobby Horse Mr. Gibson, Greek expert on the non-cited pagan priesthood of Ascelpius?

Let me put it this way. If you were given the opportunity of writing a footnote every time Coneybeare mentions "priest" in Book One, what would you actually write?

I'd first have to know where he does this. So where does he do it, Pete? And where are the eight times he does this in regard to Asclepius?

Quote:

In fact, I happen to know the editor of one of the Australian Coneybeare "Apollonius of Tyana" publishers, and your footnote might be valuable, and educational for many, not just myself.

What would you write as this footnote?

So .. you cannot support your claim. I thought as much.

Thanks for confirming this.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-24-2008, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

So please produce the evidence I asked you to produce
that shows your historical claims

(1) about Asclepius having priests

Fathers, therapeutae, sons of monks, temple head-honcho, elders, bishops, priests, devotee, guru, head monk, top dog, big wig, Mr. or Mrs. Big at this temple, temple and gymnasia attendants, conducting healing process, receiving votive offerings, making sacrifices to the gods on behalf of others, keeping written records. I have asked you this before and you have avoided answering the question. This question is critical to future communication on the matter of Asclepius. The question is this: Do you think there was a pagan priesthood active during the first four centuries of the CE? A simple YES or NO will suffice.

This was standard procedure for Constantine at most other temples, such as those of Apollo. Why assume Aegae was any different in the first place? You dont seem to appreciate that Constantine's modus operandi in this department was to publically execute the head priests. It was good for Constantinian public relations with the pagans.

In the beginning ... Oh never mind.

The fourth and fifth century Vatican had its own mafia. Cyril was a key man. It is not beyond reason to conjecture that the search and destroy missions of Athanasius et al, with respect to heretical texts were continued after Julian's death, and Julian's literature was included. Cyril is writing from a place of supreme securement and power. He is a hostile censor. He is also a hostile censor to Nestorius. But since the independent writings of Nestorius have appeared Cyril's polemic has been at least identified and commented upon.

Think of Cyril as being in charge of the Librorum Prohibitorum project of the
early fifth century. It was his job to refute the heathen Roman emperor Julian.
His people - the christian regime - regulated literature and the legal system.
It was all PRO-CHRISTIAN POLEMIC. Where is the pagan voice of Julian? Censored IMO.

Make a start with Constantine's Dear Arius Where Are you Letter of c.333CE. Here we have Constantine saying:

Quote:

[Arius] introduces a belief of unbelief – new and never yet at any time seen since men have been born.

Arius is associated with "a belief of unbelief"
What do we know Arius to have said at Nicaea?
Just these things alone and dogmatically.
Just these five assertions - he was quiet and dogmatic.

Arius' introduced a belief of unbelief against the propaganda of Constantine. It is a viable to present Arius as a pagan ascetic who had no belief in "New Testament Authenticity". He did not believe the Canonical texts were divine. He authored biting anti-christian polemic. Constantine was pissed off at Arius for publishing his unbelief. Arius unbelief, I believe, was focused on the Constantine Bible. The words of Arius above, are historical commentary on Jesus.

Before Constantine - There was time when He was not.
Before Constantine - Before He was born He was not.
He is fictitious - was made out of nothing existing.
He is a fiction - from another subsistence/substance.
The fiction - is subject to alteration or change."

We are very much aware of who wrote the history of
a) early christian origins, and
b) the council of Nicaea
c) the political history in Constantine's era

These were written by the victors. The christian victors. Christian ecclesiastical historians. Where is the pagan side of the coin? The pagan side of the coin is that the words of Arius, at the basis of the Arian controversy, related to unbelief in the HJ Son. The Eusebian fiction postulate that I am here defending implies someone will call "BULLSHIT! This HJ is FICTION". I am simply citing Arius with this polemic, since it is consistent with the postulate of Eusebian fiction.

In this letter Constantine reveals that Arius
"reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church".

In other words, you haven't a scap of actual evidence -- just suppositions of what had to be the case that are grounded in more suppositions that are based on misreadings of texts and conspiracy theories..

I thought as much. Thanks for confirming this.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-24-2008, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is often stated in various ways that pre-Constantinian Christianity was "a minority religion and a persecuted sect." yet very little actual evidence of any kind exists to support such an assertion, and then, on the other hand, If we are to believe the record of the NT and the early church writers, the religion of Christianity was spread like wild-fire, with literally thousands of converts within "Christ's" lifetime, tens of thousands more within a decade of the resurrection, and through Paul's preaching, in a few years, new "Gentile" Christian "Churches" becoming established in cities throughout the Roman Empire, and far beyond, even into India.

So on one hand, we have this small "minority persecuted sect" boasting of being about the fastest spreading and most convincing religion the world had ever experienced, often persuading thousands to convert in a day, and going on spreading for a period of over three centuries before Constantine.
While on the other hand, all we have as archaeological evidence for all of this claimed explosive growth in "christianity" is just one single disputable "church house" from the third century? and a dozen also disputable inscriptions, that may or may not have been of any christian origin?

Over THREE CENTURIES of this alleged "christian" propagation of its unique set of beliefs, and of the alleged reciting of the NT parables and miracles, with supposedly tens of thousands of converts having heard and believed these stories, but virtually none of them left any evidence that they had ever practiced any such belief, or had even heard of these parables and miracles, and they left virtually nothing behind to indicate that such beliefs had ever even existed, other than those "claims" that are recorded within the writings of the so-called "Church Fathers"?

There is something seriously bad wrong with this scenario.
Even the pagans upon the hearing of such parables, miracles, and wonders would have been inspired to produced art and artifacts illustrative of that knowledge, had it at all existed.

The Christian Church's claimed "history" has FRAUD stamped all over it.

History is full of inflated claims made by various groups. The point of historical analysis is separate the truth from propaganda.

Even more importantly, since history is also full of people who've made exaggerated claims about how much others have made exaggerated claims and engaged in fraud, I'd like to see "Sheshbazzar" document with hard and primary evidence the claims he's made about what the early church claimed.

So ... "Sheshbazzar": Where exactly do we find early Christians making the particular claims that you assert they made?

Jeffrey

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

03-24-2008, 12:33 AM	#185
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I myself have in the past argued against mountainman's "all or nothing approach" to some form of "christianity" having existed prior to Constantine's terroristc impositions upon all religion. I believe that there is sufficient evidence that some form of the Christian religion did exist long before Constantine, indeed even long before the myth "Christ" had even been invented. But that aside, The "Christ" and the "Christianity" that was fabricated by Constantine, Eusebius, and the latter "Church Fathers" had very little in common with any beliefs actually held by anyone prior to the 2nd century. What is missing from the archaeological evidence, indicates that any evidence of "The Gospel stories", and claimed history of "The Christian Church" is in the main, entirely missing. Thus reinforcing that what we now have, was "fabricated" and when I say "fabricated", I mean put together in a new form, from old, previously existing materials. In other words Constantine and his lackey Eusebius did not start out with a clean sheet of paper and invent all of "Christian history" and "Christianity" out of "whole cloth", they did however, greatly plagiarise ideas from other beliefe systems to expand its scope, and interpolated and invented a lot of new "epistles" to support their new "authorised orthodox version" of what they wanted "Christ" and "Christianity" to be. And quite possibly in the process of the enforcing of their orthodoxy, succeeded in the "converting" exterminating, or the "driving away" of every "christian" who had held unto the original tenets of that faith, whatever they may have previously been, prior to Constantine's "reforms".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.