stephan huller

No Transient another possibility is that there should be a separate forum for people who want to contemplate Christian origins WITHOUT making reference to the first, second and third century evidence whether it be literary, archaeological etc. There are clear guidelines for many of the discussion groups here. Pete could be the master of his own domain. People that buy into the idea that NOTHING remains of a pre-Nicene Church would not be subject to ridicule because it would clearly stated that dissenting voices ARE NOT welcomed at the fourth century conspiracy forum. In the same way, another idea might be to amend this current forum to say that the existence of remains from third century Christianity HAVE BEEN established (Dura Europos etc.) and to argue against reason is irrational and thus not in keeping with THIS PARTICULAR FORUM.

We do that anyway with people that have an irrational belief in sanctity of the Bible, God, the historical narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. They are not welcomed here. Their posts get removed to somewhere else because their views are not in keeping with the spirit of the forum.

Pete is promoting an equally irrational and faith-based agenda.

Why wouldn't that be a happy compromise? The way things are going this debate will never end here and it is totally distracting and unproductive. I have seen that a few people (avi, Shesh, Transient) don't like the way I treat Pete's theories. But I can say with certainty from private messages and discussions that there are a lot of people who agree with my low estimation of their worth. The bottom line is that they can't be perpetuated alongside serious scholarship. Why? Because they ask us to deny what makes obvious sense in favor of what doesn't.

My question why the attachment to this forum? Why ask those of us who spend most of our studying the Bible, the origins of religion to sit quiet while someone promotes things that can't be supported by the evidence? This is unfair and oppressive. Why is it wrong for someone that believes that Jesus is going to come down from heaven in a heavenly chariot and judge the livjng and the dead to express their views here but Pete is some treated differently then they are? There's little difference between Pete and the Hare Krishna handing out pamphlets at the airport.

The point I keep hearing is that it's not fair to 'gang up on Pete' and that everyone should get a turn. But this isn't a playground. There is going to be a day when two forums are established - one for people who like the openness to include unsupportable theories like Pete - a kind of 'free for all' where everyone gets heard and no one gets hurt - and then another forum where serious discussion can take place based on a rational interpretation of the evidence.

You'll see this will never end. My question again is why the need for Pete to promote his theories alongside people who actually know what they are talking about? That isn't his style to begin with. He doesn't claim to be an expert. Never. I give him credit. But why not establish some sort of threshold here? Why not say something like the American Declaration of Independence - 'we take these truths to be self-evident ...' under the guidelines of the forum? That would solve everything.

avi

a. I am not sure that the term "conspiracy theory" applies here, any more than it would to explain the illegal, immoral, unjustified, 30 year, USA involvement in the military conflict in Viet Nam. I doubt that a bunch of people sat down somewhere and figured out who would write Mark, and who would adjust "Irenaeus", and who would modify Mani, and so on.....
I think "conspiracy theory" works well, when there is a well scripted plot, with a measurable endpoint, and a goal that is obviously satisfactory for each of the conspirators. In the case of Constantine/Eusebius, I see this as a simple military chain of command structure, maybe that reveals my own inability to "think outside the box".

b. I am not sure that one should apply the descriptor "lazy" to Pete's novel hypothesis. For sure he has performed a very large amount of labor in trying to obtain archaeological support for his thesis. I think of "lazy" as applicable to those who accept the status quo, not to those who challenge it, in a meaningful way, i.e. a way that involves more than simple repudiation. Pete offers not only a rationale for his theory, but also some (negative) support, i.e. absence of significant evidence to the contrary--that is, the orthodox view of a first century creation. He has gathered a significant amount of detail in support of his theory. That doesn't mean that I accept his theory as valid, I do not, for I believe that the Christian tradition began in the mid second century. I just don't think it gathered much steam until Constantine. I certainly accept (maybe because of prejudice and naivete) Pete's main adjunct: that Eusebius doctored much of the extant documentation, and oversaw destruction of large volumes of papyrus with content contradicting the imperial design. I believe that MOST of what many of us understand, today, as "christianity" is derived from Constantine/Eusebius/Nicea.

In terms of human gestation, if christianity required 9 months in utero, I imagine the first trimester as arising before Constantine, the second trimester during Constantine, and the last trimester corresponding to the time since Constantine.

c. "simple force" is another pejorative term, use of which is designed, one supposes, to emphasize a supposed lack of substance in Pete's theory.

Perhaps it was "simple force" that led Napolean to invade Russia?
Was it "simple force" that led to the Japanese invasion of Korea in the latter part of the 19th century?
Was it simple force that led to the Persian invasion of Egypt, before Alexander?

Human history is rather complex I think, and I see our problem as one of trying to disentangle all the contradictory evidence, given a paucity of reliable leads to follow.

Did Constantine employ force to accomplish his goals?
Did Christianity become established, in any community, by virtue of military conquest?
Has the history of the earliest church been muffled, by the sound of the nearby canons and artillery?

avi

stephan huller

Again avi, why not establish a 'Constantine Conspiracy Forum'? Wouldn't that solve everything?

avi

Thank you Toto.

Yes, I nearly changed that sentence, prior to posting, but, in thinking about it, the essence of stephan huller's post was to belittle another forum member, by differentiating his own thinking (wrong as it turns out) with the "childish" view that the sky was NOT blue (the correct response).

Actually, the key word "tricked", as you have correctly pointed out, is problematic for this discussion.

What we are really debating or arguing, or discussing, or analyzing, is whether or not:
the sky is blue,
versus
the sky is not blue.

We know that the sky is not blue. It only appears to be blue. In that sense, the mind has been "tricked", yes, you are correct, the retina did receive blue illumination, the blue cones of the retina were activated, just as if we presented in the laboratory, light of a blue wavelength to the subject seated for the examination.

I agree, completely. "The sky as we see it is blue". YES. As we see it. But that does not translate into the sky possessing the character of "blueness". Our vision in this circumstance has limited our ability to deduce the true nature of the subject of inquiry.

The brain is receiving BLUE light. But that does not invalidate the argument that the brain has been tricked.

The brain has been tricked, because the sky is not blue, irrespective of how it looks to our eyes. Relevance to our many inquiries here on this forum:

Beware of what the brain receives as direct signal from the retina (i.e. the ancient documents, the old papyrus, the codices, the animal skins, so carefully prepared....)

Conclusion: sorry, I disagree with you. I continue to insist: the brain has been tricked, notwithstanding the fact that the retina is a part of the brain, and notwithstanding your valid point, i.e. the arrival of synaptic information to area 17 of primary visual cortex, originating with the blue light sensitive cones, via relay in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus.

Your understanding of retinal physiology was not incorrect, but your conclusion was nevertheless erroneous, because reality (i.e. physics) exceeds the arithmetic sum of the various sensory data paths reaching the brain.

avi

bacht

Actually Pete seems to be decent enough. I'm just tired of all the crazy theories that make the rounds, like the Dan Brown stuff, or JFK, or 2012. At their worst they reinforce irrationality or plain ignorance. I can get that anywhere.

Toto

This is not how things are run here. We do welcome believers, as long as they are willing to operate under common rules. We don't look into the private religious beliefs of any poster. We rely on the discussion to ferret out the best arguments.

We do move "preaching" to an appropriate forum. We move "religious" discussions to the Abrahamic Religions forum.

avi

Does Pete in person, or in his posts on this forum, or by private email, convey an attitude of regarding his theory as "cutting edge"?

If so, I have missed it. It is true, I am not a keen observer. Maybe Pete does write with contempt for others, and I have, through inattention to detail, failed to notice his unnatural egoism. Maybe Pete's replies to the forum demonstate callous disregard for others' opinions. Maybe Pete simply ignores those posts which dispute this or that aspect of his hypothesis? Perhaps Pete exudes, in his writing, an undeserved attitude of brilliance, as though his suggestion that Constantine fabricated the whole of Christianity represents some sort of enormous contribution to the world of biblical studies. A breakthrough. Nobel Prize stuff.

Hmm. gosh, I never recognized those bizarre qualities in reading Pete's posts here. I am genuinely disappointed in myself for failing to recognize these pathological personality traits.

I can, however, attest to one person's entitlement to wear those antisocial, "delusion of grandeur" descriptors, but that person is not Pete.

avi

bacht

This is a bit silly. You're talking about measurable phenomena, radiation of certain wavelengths passing through our atmosphere and registering on our ocular system. Our organs and brains evolved to receive and interpret the emanations from our yellow star Sol.

show_no_mercy

I think you have a rather broad definition of "tricked".

If you were consistent you would say that the "sky" doesn't even exist, since this is also a "trick" of the mind. Not only that, but every single star in the night sky is an optical illusion because we are seeing the position they were at hundreds of years ago.

Grass is not "green" for many of the same reasons that the sky is not blue. It only absorbs every color except for green. Or rather, our brains are "tricked" into thinking that grass is green because we can only see the visual spectrum of light.

If that's the case, then all human beings are infrared (and not "black", "white", etc), inasmuch as our brains are "tricked" into seeing a person's skin color (the wavelengths that the skin doesn't absorb) but in reality our bodies produce electromagnetism in the spectrum of infrared. But our eyes cannot see infrared.

Anyway, the one thing I don't understand about the Constantine-Eusebius Conspiracy Theory is how Eusebius could die as a heretic of the religion he created. You would think that the president of the hairclub would also the client :huh:

Toto

Lazy because Pete give a simple explanation, with no nuance, and because he has been unwilling for the past 5 years to modify his theory in the face of new evidence.

And most people would agree with this. Much of the early history of Christianity has been lost due to natural decay or the destruction under various Roman emperors.

And it is this complexity that Pete refuses to recognize.