FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-25-2010, 06:45 PM   #481
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Ever like Proteus you want to keep shifting the complexion of this argument. The question of how Mani died is irrelevant. What matters is acknowledging that all the evidence points to Mani defining himself in terms of a pre-existent Christian paradigm. Most people define that original paradigm as Marcionite. But you want to argue against what the evidence seems to point to by developing a lot of open ended theories which have nothing going for them. Until we establish at least one substantive reason to reject ALL of the early evidence (to within a generation or two of Mani's death), the rest of your theory is worthless. In order to earn the right to make ANY statement about a fourth century conspiracy inventing Christianity out of thin air you have to explain Mani and you haven't done that. Therefore we can't move on. As it stands your whole theory is disproven.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 07:12 PM   #482
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Ever like Proteus you want to keep shifting the complexion of this argument. The question of how Mani died is irrelevant. What matters is acknowledging that all the evidence points to Mani defining himself in terms of a pre-existent Christian paradigm. Most people define that original paradigm as Marcionite. But you want to argue against what the evidence seems to point to by developing a lot of open ended theories which have nothing going for them. Until we establish at least one substantive reason to reject ALL of the early evidence (to within a generation or two of Mani's death), the rest of your theory is worthless. In order to earn the right to make ANY statement about a fourth century conspiracy inventing Christianity out of thin air you have to explain Mani and you haven't done that. Therefore we can't move on. As it stands your whole theory is disproven.
For someone who thinks he is some sort of scholar you do talk a lot of twaddle mate.
His theory is not disproven at all until concrete evidence turns up to refute it lol.
If this is an example of your deductive powers then I wouldn't want to waste my time evaluating your pet theories.
Transient is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 07:38 PM   #483
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
His theory is not disproven at all until concrete evidence turns up to refute it lol.
Already done. Christian frescoes at Dura Europos date to before 267 CE.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 07:54 PM   #484
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
His theory is not disproven at all until concrete evidence turns up to refute it lol.
Already done. Christian frescoes at Dura Europos date to before 267 CE.


spin
267 is not very long before Nicea at all - they would have to be very very accurate dating Bit too close for my liking.
Transient is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 07:59 PM   #485
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Already done. Christian frescoes at Dura Europos date to before 267 CE.
267 is not very long before Nicea at all - they would have to be very very accurate dating Bit too close for my liking.
Rubbish. The dating is the latest possible date, ie when Dura was destroyed by the Persians, so it is obviously some time before 267. There is no avoiding the dating, so we get "well, how can we be sure that Jesus and Peter walking on water was really christian," and crap like that.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 09:15 PM   #486
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
267 is not very long before Nicea at all - they would have to be very very accurate dating Bit too close for my liking.
Rubbish. The dating is the latest possible date, ie when Dura was destroyed by the Persians, so it is obviously some time before 267. There is no avoiding the dating, so we get "well, how can we be sure that Jesus and Peter walking on water was really christian," and crap like that.


spin
What has Jesus and peter walking on water got to do with it?
Transient is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 09:31 PM   #487
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Rubbish. The dating is the latest possible date, ie when Dura was destroyed by the Persians, so it is obviously some time before 267. There is no avoiding the dating, so we get "well, how can we be sure that Jesus and Peter walking on water was really christian," and crap like that.


spin
What has Jesus and peter walking on water got to do with it?
Pete claims that the paintings at Dura Europas are not really Christian, in spite of the theme of Jesus and Peter walking on water.
Toto is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 09:48 PM   #488
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I didn't know that he denied that the painting was Christian. :Cheeky: This get's better by the minute.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 10:55 PM   #489
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
I didn't know that he denied that the painting was Christian. :Cheeky: This get's better by the minute.
As the dating is so specific, there's no other way to play it.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 11:04 PM   #490
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
His theory is not disproven at all until concrete evidence turns up to refute it lol.
Already done. Christian frescoes at Dura Europos date to before 267 CE.

The OP is about Mani, not the suspected "Christian frescoes", formerly at Dura Europos, but now at Yale Divinity College. If anything more needs to be said in the arguments for and against the Dura evidence, the thread Has mountainman's theory re Constantine's invention of christianity been falsified? can be booted.

mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:02 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.