Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Petergdi · 04-06-2010, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

My appeal is directly to reason by common sense and analogy. You ask for an appeal to authority.

No, your appeal isn't to reason. It is fashionable to bundle up a group of modern prejudices and call them "reason", but that isn't what reason means. I'm not asking for an appeal to authority, but for a reality check on your prejudices. If it is as obvious as you make out, it would be strange if you knew of no ancient historians who agreed with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Saying that Roman emperors would not have listened to these types of discourses is about as obvious as there being no flying carpets and no genies inside magic lamp.

It sure is anything isn't obvious to me. We know the history of the Radical Reformation far better than we know antiquity. Various anabaptists, Quakers, and others who rarely met with friendly governments did in fact send letters to people in authority, and these letters were often a good deal less polite than the second century apololgists. So you can't reasonably argue that people do not send letters that could get them into trouble.

Peter.

aa5874 · 04-06-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Nice thread, thanks.

When considering the Apologies of Aristides and Justin, we have to consider that they were not real apologies actually delivered to any emperor, but represent literary constructions within a fantasy genre.

It is nice to know that Pagan Emperors running massive countries had time to sit back and listen for a half hour or an hour to abstract religious- philosophical speeches. One would have thought that daily life and state decisions would have occupied more of their time. With hundreds of Mystery Cults, I'm sure that the emperors enjoyed inviting representatives of each one to explain their uniqueness.

Since the Emperor was not only the head of state but the head of the Roman State Religion, one can only be amazed at how liberal they were to sit and listen to people denounce their religion and their gods repeatedly as false and stupid, and hear other gods that were totally alien to them praised and adored. One might compare the situation to be as likely as The Pope inviting Anton Levey, the founder of the Church of Satan to the Vatican and allowing him to give a speech denouncing Catholicism and Christianity.

Actually, this would not be a quite appropriate analogy because the Pope does not have the power to put people to death as the Emperor had. We have to imagine Emperors with the power to put not only the speaker to death, but the speakers' relatives, children, friends and all Christians to death. So we have to admire the openness and honesty of the Christians giving long speeches that would be as offensive as possible to Pagan Emperors knowing that those Pagan Emperors could kill them for saying even a single inappropriate or offensive word.

Probably the closest analogy would be imagining a Jew giving a speech to Adolf Hitler, telling him how evil and disgusting the Nazis are and how he should convert and become a Jew. It is a good fantasy, but never happened and it is difficult to imagine circumstances where it could have happened.

One might consider that these were fantasy documents that were written for the emperor, but circulated only in private among Christians. But imagine the hell to pay if the documents had gotten in the hands of Roman officials. In fact, the circulation of such works even 20 or 30 years after the Emperors had died would still have been dangerous. It is hard to imagine that either of these documents were written until the the Emperors in question had been dead for 40 or 50 years at the minimum. Then such works could be enjoyed for their historical absurdity and treated as a funny joke.

Being persecuted for belief in God was not a joke in antiquity.

Now, the writings of Justin Martyr cannot be shown to have been written in the 3rd century or the product of fantasy.

The writings of Justin Martyr appears to be firmly historical or based on sources that did exist at the time of his writing.

It must be that all dialogue as found in writings of antiquity, except where it was already in a written form, was re-constructed since there was NO method to record AUDIO or dialogue directly.

1. Justin Martyr's writings appear to confirm that the Jesus story was originally anonymous or no specific author was known.

2.Justin Martyr's appear to show that there was no NT canon of four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline letters up to the middle of the 2nd century.

3.Justin Martyr's writings appear to confirm that the Jesus story had "Pagan" influences.

4. Justin Martyr's writings appear to confirm the "TF" was a forgery.

5. Justin Martyr's appear to confirm that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are historically and chronologically erroneous.

6. Justin Martyr's writings appear to confirm that there were Christians who did not believe in Jesus.

Justin Martyr's writings have reduced the NT canon to a joke since up to the middle of the 2nd century he only mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles was read in the churches.

Roger Pearse · 04-06-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

...
...
None of this is evidence, except of attempts to argue from what is not said and in contradiction to every author who DOES discuss it and has 100 times more literature to hand than we do.
....
....
But since there is no evidence whatever of anonymity associated with the gospels -- merely arguments from passages where the question is not discussed -- then I can only reply that I prefer evidence.
...

In the second century time period under discussion, we lack evidence of the anonymity of the Gospels. We don't know whether they were anonymous back then. We do know that they are anonymous to us, living today.

You will find the authors at the top of each book, in today's copies.

Quote:

Roger, can you posit any rationale for anyone to purge the authorship of a document ...?

Easily. Girls, guns, gold, power, hate, love, foolishness, resentment... as long as you like.

One can always imagine a motive for anything. That's why the ad hominem argument, as a class of argument, is so useless. But this is why we refrain from this, until we have actual evidence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 04-06-2010, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

My appeal is directly to reason by common sense and analogy. You ask for an appeal to authority.

No, your appeal isn't to reason.

Only to imagination based on wishful thinking. (Sorry Jay)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 04-06-2010, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

When considering the Apologies of Aristides and Justin, we have to consider that they were not real apologies actually delivered to any emperor, but represent literary constructions within a fantasy genre.

It is nice that you can state your beliefs as if they were incontestable.
Who else agrees with you on this?

Anyone with any measure of common sense. Dont you understand the word "consider"? I will take some time to explain this word to you and others (Sorry Roger). The word "consider" means "To think carefully about". That is, we need not reject this possibility out of hand, but rather simply engage in objective assessment of the possibility of the idea representing "historical truth".

Of course if you are able to present any evidence or arguments as to why this possibility should be rejected as "not be considered" or "impossible" then by all means do so. There is no person in this forum to my knowledge who has ever made the assertion that the history of Eusebius (which contains the literary mentions of these apologetic forgeries) is inerrant. I dont know of any other reason why anyone would want to deliberately prevent the objective thought process from considering these documents may in fact be later and common fabrications by the orthodoxy of the church.

Everything else about the later state church appears corrupt.

Petergdi · 04-06-2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman;6341993 The word "consider" means [i

"To think carefully about"[/i]. That is, we need not reject this possibility out of hand, but rather simply engage in objective assessment of the possibility of the idea representing "historical truth".

It is difficult to believe that you could possibly have read Jay's post and think that that he was merely asking us to consider a possibility.

Peter.

avi · 04-06-2010, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

In the second century time period under discussion, we lack evidence of the anonymity of the Gospels. We don't know whether they were anonymous back then. We do know that they are anonymous to us, living today.

You will find the authors at the top of each book, in today's copies.

Hi Roger!
Umm, well, no, you and I are miscommunicating, and it is most likely due to my imperfect writing, for which I apologize.

Missblue asked about the various components of the canon. Then aa5874 offered a cogent and useful summary of several aspects of the earliest writings. One of the earliest authors included in his rejoinder, was Justin Martyr. Martyr refers to the Memoirs of the Apostles, and this text, so far as I am aware, perhaps in error, Roger, please correct me if I am wrong, is the earliest reference we have, in mid second century, to "the gospels". Further, again to the best of my very embryonic knowledge, Memoirs of the Apostles possesses no known author, and there is also no extant copy today. When I wrote, earlier in this thread, about anonymity, I was referring explicitly to Martyr's reference to this mysterious tome: Memoirs of the apostles, which today, is anonymous. Maybe it was anonymous back then, too. Or maybe not. Who knows?

Roger, I guess you are referring, not to Memoirs of the Apostles, as I had been discussing, but rather, to M, M, L and J, and of course, those names are not AUTHORS, are they? They are words, but we have no idea how to assign ownership to those words. We don't know whether MML&J represent pseudonyms or genuine writers. Nor do we know when these supposed authors lived, nor where they resided, nor who published the first edition, etc.... For all practical purposes, these four texts are anonymous. We may be on higher ground with Tatian's Diatessaron, right? But, Roger, is that work part of the canon? I don't think it is, am I incorrect?

avi

mountainman · 04-06-2010, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman;6341993 The word "consider" means [i

"To think carefully about"[/i]. That is, we need not reject this possibility out of hand, but rather simply engage in objective assessment of the possibility of the idea representing "historical truth".

It is difficult to believe that you could possibly have read Jay's post and think that that he was merely asking us to consider a possibility.

Well I did. I think Philosopher Jay was merely asking people to consider the possibility that these "Apologies" represent literary constructions within a fantasy genre. This is a very reasonable thing to consider, and I do not see how considerate and objective people can be so inconsiderate not to consider the notion. People could ask Philosopher Jay to clarify what it is precisely that he suggests might be considered .......

PhilosopherJay · 04-06-2010, 10:51 PM

Hi aa5874,

Because it does give good evidence for the things which you point out, which I tend to agree with, it would be seem that I should just accept the testimony and be happy for it. Unfortunately, I'm more committed to finding the general truth of the development of Early Christianity than making any particular good case, so I have to impeach this witness which is evidently false, albeit it provides excellent testimony for a late dating for the gospels and other things I believe.

I believe it provides no evidence for the gospels because the person who forged it knew that no gospels were in existence in the mid 150's. He was an excellent rhetorician (but no philosopher) and did not want to get caught putting in an archaic fact. He was writing well after Justin and the emperor and his sons died. This was why the address could be so fearless.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Nice thread, thanks.

When considering the Apologies of Aristides and Justin, we have to consider that they were not real apologies actually delivered to any emperor, but represent literary constructions within a fantasy genre.
{snip....}

One might consider that these were fantasy documents that were written for the emperor, but circulated only in private among Christians. But imagine the hell to pay if the documents had gotten in the hands of Roman officials. In fact, the circulation of such works even 20 or 30 years after the Emperors had died would still have been dangerous. It is hard to imagine that either of these documents were written until the the Emperors in question had been dead for 40 or 50 years at the minimum. Then such works could be enjoyed for their historical absurdity and treated as a funny joke.

Being persecuted for belief in God was not a joke in antiquity.

Now, the writings of Justin Martyr cannot be shown to have been written in the 3rd century or the product of fantasy.

The writings of Justin Martyr appears to be firmly historical or based on sources that did exist at the time of his writing.

It must be that all dialogue as found in writings of antiquity, except where it was already in a written form, was re-constructed since there was NO method to record AUDIO or dialogue directly.

1. Justin Martyr's writings appear to confirm that the Jesus story was originally anonymous or no specific author was known.

2.Justin Martyr's appear to show that there was no NT canon of four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline letters up to the middle of the 2nd century.

3.Justin Martyr's writings appear to confirm that the Jesus story had "Pagan" influences.

4. Justin Martyr's writings appear to confirm the "TF" was a forgery.

5. Justin Martyr's appear to confirm that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are historically and chronologically erroneous.

6. Justin Martyr's writings appear to confirm that there were Christians who did not believe in Jesus.

Justin Martyr's writings have reduced the NT canon to a joke since up to the middle of the 2nd century he only mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles was read in the churches.

aa5874 · 04-06-2010, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Because it does give good evidence for the things which you point out, which I tend to agree with, it would be seem that I should just accept the testimony and be happy for it. Unfortunately, I'm more committed to finding the general truth of the development of Early Christianity than making any particular good case, so I have to impeach this witness which is evidently false, albeit it provides excellent testimony for a late dating for the gospels and other things I believe.

I believe it provides no evidence for the gospels because the person who forged it knew that no gospels were in existence in the mid 150's. He was an excellent rhetorician (but no philosopher) and did not want to get caught putting in an archaic fact. He was writing well after Justin and the emperor and his sons died. This was why the address could be so fearless.

But, you are now making an unsubstantiated claim. You need to provide some historical source of antiquity that can support your claim that Justin Martyr's writings were forged. Belief without historical support is usually called speculation.

Who would have benefited from forging the writings of Justin Martyr in such a way that no post ascension history of the apostles including Paul can be found? There is nothing about the day of Pentecost or the bishops of Rome in the writings of Justin Martyr.

There is virtually no indication that the writings of Justin Martyr were forged.

Now, Philo, the Jew from Alexandria, over 100 years before Justin Martyr, was selected by Jews of Alexandria to meet the Emperor Caligula, not in writing but in person, face to face and fearlessly tell the God of Rome, Caligula, that no Jew would worship him as a God, no Jew would would worship his statue and that he should desist from placing emblems at Jewish places of worship.

Some people of antiquity were fearless. They would face down the Gods of Rome.

See "On the Embassy to Gaius" by Philo and the writings of Josephus.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.