aa5874

Well, if you think Jesus of Nazareth was just a chap, the SENSIBLE people like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius would consider this an heresy or a message of evil.

Irenaeus "Against Heresy" book 1 The Church is sensible, they claim Jesus was not a chap but a God born of the Holy Ghost and Mary

And disputes between Christians who hated other Christians have been documented as early as the 2nd century.

• The Christian Justin Martyr hated the Christian Marcion and his followers.

• The Christian Irenaeus hated the Christian Marcion and his followers.

• The Christians Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius hated the Christian Marcion and his followers.

• The Christian Church hated Marcion and his followers.

This is the Christian Irenaeus catergorising other Christians as liars and deceivers in Against Heresies 1 Sensible Christians in the 2nd century claimed Jesus was a God, not just a chap, born of the Holy Ghost and Mary.

Solitary Man

Is this in itself a fact or is it speculation?

Roger Pearse

I bet all those people teaching ancient history would have something pretty trenchant to say about it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jules?

I accept that 'facts' are scarce in ancient history, in fact my Egyptologist prof at Uni made it very clear on day one that most of the subject was enlightened speculation. Facts will change, [carbon14 is an example of such changes] and beyond 'this building or that pot was found or is located here or there' we had little to rely upon. I hope I have not contradicted myself in presenting speculation as fact and if I have have then my apologies. I am open minded [I hope] to accept any argument as a possibility although i draw the line when it comes to the impossible.

But perhaps with regards to this current thread you could offer some facts that could be futher discussed rather than just be 'blunt'

Solitary Man

As would the real archaeologists who realize that much of their conclusions are indeed speculation.

jules?

I suggest you two stop scoffing and do a little research on Processual archaeology, Behavoral archaeology, Post-processual archaeology, post modernism and ideology.

Sorry to whoever for the derail.

Solitary Man

I'm not quite sure what you mean, nor how ideology by itself is relevant. Post-modernism has different meanings for different subjects, and can at once have the standard anthropological definition and something bizarre.

"[Post-modernism] refers to the blurring and breakdown of established canons (rules or standards), categories, distinctions, and boundaries." - This was from my textbook of anthropology years ago.

Pray tell, how is that relevant?

And isn't post-processural archaeology a critique and evaluation of the methodology employed by processual archaeology? And quite frankly, I'm a bit off-put by all the "feminist", "Marxist", "post-feminist vertical quantum" readings of texts or remains. It's what allows theism to thrive.

You might also be into the Annales school of archaeology, and in particular research Braudel's The Mediterranean.

PS - Where do you go to school?

patcleaver

There is no shortage of ad hominem here.

In response to your ignorant ad hominem remarks:

The gospels are fiction not history. The so-called history of the early church as taught by orthodox Christianity is just religious propaganda - it's fiction not history. Christianity is just ignorant superstition.

Any historian who thinks that his religious superstitions are history is just an ignorant quack.

Any archeologist who thinks that his religious superstitions are archeology is just an ignorant quack.

The consensus of science is only important because it is usually based on the evidence. The evidence that science presents that can be verified is the only thing that is really authoritive in science.

The less educated someone is, the less intelligent someone is, the more likely that they are to be religious. Religion is a mental disease of the stupid and the ignorant. Religion is the inability to distinguish between truth from fiction and the ability to dishonestly rationalize any crazy belief without evidence.

The brainwashed children of religious people tend to have retarded moral values. The more religious the parents, the more likely the children are to have mental problems, early sexual activity, teen pregnancy, teen venereal diseases, teen smoking and chewing tobacco, teen alcohol abuse, juvenile delinquency and eventually to be convicted of a felony. The more religious a married couple is the more likely that he husband physically and emotionally abuses the wife. The more religious a person is the more likely they are to be a compulsive gambler. The more religious a person is the more likely they are to be an alcoholic and to be convicted of drunk driving. The more religious a person is the more likely they are to have children out of wedlock and the more likely they are to get divorced - leaving the children in a broken home. Religion reduces morality e.g. Christians are 5 to 15 times more likely to be convicted of crimes and sent to prison than atheists.

Every deeply religious person I know is, deep down, just a dishonest lying hypocrite. The most likely people in the community to be pedophiles are priests and pastors. The most religious people I know are redneck trailer trash living down by the river. They go to church on Sunday and talk about family values and they say they hate queers and niggers. They get drunk on Saturdays, physically and emotionally abuse their wives, and they screw their children.

Solitary Man

Will someone please tell patcleaver it's ad hominem not homonym!?

Toto

This thread seems to have degenerated into people calling each other ignorant. Does anyone have anything substantive to say on Tacitus?