Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 01-04-2012, 08:56 PM

What could be detected in the canonical texts and apologies under the names of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc.?

Doug Shaver · 01-04-2012, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

One of the core principles of historical methodology is that any given source may be forged or corrupted

Yes, a core principle allows for the possibility, but that says nothing more than that real historians do not accept any inerrantist presuppositions.

Another core principle says you do not infer anything about likelihood from mere possibility.

rlogan · 01-05-2012, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

It is good scholarship to investigate the scope and degree of forgery in early Christianity. Because the entire Bible is pious fraud.

So you look at who came up with which literature and what their motives were. Who they were competing against. You try to vector in a timeline by anchoring to real historical events.

Carrier's piece is unassailable in the main that canon developled over more than a century, and separate canon, not radically different, existed for centuries beyond the most pivotal events under Constantine.

Carrier unassailably outlines and summarizes the church history as found in Eusebius, but then makes the point that "Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous". One of the core principles of historical methodology is that any given source may be forged or corrupted, and this includes Eusebius's "History of the Church". This "Church history" was researched and produced substantially during a massive civil war in the Roman Empire between the Christian commander of the Western forces and the Pagan commander of the eastern forces.

Eusebius is a pious fraud. His interest is in establishing a first-century historicity for Christianity in order to fabricate a direct lineage from Jesus to Peter, the "first pope", and to co-opt competing texts.

It is pretty clear he did the Testimonium Flavianum because he is the first to make mention of it, and it is over the top stupid. So then look at the Pliny-Trajan correspondence and see how radically different the portrayal of Christianity is. How reasonable. It doesn't come to us through the hand of Eusebius, so there's no ten thousand miracles. Eusebius is no master forger. He's drunk with power and acting brazenly with silly embellishments.

This is not something a fourth-century forger is going to create. This is something that escaped their attention. And there are a lot of other examples & evidence of pre-300's Christianity. I do not agree with what I think Carrier's dating paradigm is, but there is no question this was centuries-long development, not "poofed" into existence in the 300's which is your hobby horse obviously and I don't want to ride on it.

mountainman · 01-06-2012, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

....look at the Pliny-Trajan correspondence and see how radically different the portrayal of Christianity is. How reasonable. It doesn't come to us through the hand of Eusebius, so there's no ten thousand miracles. Eusebius is no master forger. He's drunk with power and acting brazenly with silly embellishments.

This is not something a fourth-century forger is going to create.

This christian forgery was most likely created in the 15th century.

Toto · 01-06-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

....look at the Pliny-Trajan correspondence and see how radically different the portrayal of Christianity is. How reasonable. It doesn't come to us through the hand of Eusebius, so there's no ten thousand miracles. Eusebius is no master forger. He's drunk with power and acting brazenly with silly embellishments.

This is not something a fourth-century forger is going to create.

This christian forgery was most likely created in the 15th century.

But Tertullian knows about it?

aa5874 · 01-06-2012, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

....look at the Pliny-Trajan correspondence and see how radically different the portrayal of Christianity is. How reasonable. It doesn't come to us through the hand of Eusebius, so there's no ten thousand miracles. Eusebius is no master forger. He's drunk with power and acting brazenly with silly embellishments.

This is not something a fourth-century forger is going to create.

This christian forgery was most likely created in the 15th century.

But Tertullian knows about it?

No apologetic source even up to the 4th century claimed "Tertullian" wrote "Against Marcion".

Did Josephus know about the TF in "Antiquities of the Jews"?

Did the Emperor Constantine know about the document called the "Donation of Constantine"?

It is virtually certain that the "history" of the Church and its writings are fundamentally fraudulent. There are too many MASSIVE holes in the "history of the Church" for any person to suggest that writings under the name Tertullian are credible when other apologetic sources contradict those same writings.

mountainman · 01-06-2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

....look at the Pliny-Trajan correspondence and see how radically different the portrayal of Christianity is. How reasonable. It doesn't come to us through the hand of Eusebius, so there's no ten thousand miracles. Eusebius is no master forger. He's drunk with power and acting brazenly with silly embellishments.

This is not something a fourth-century forger is going to create.

This christian forgery was most likely created in the 15th century.

But Tertullian knows about it?

Tertullian knows about a great many [FORGED] letters to and from Roman Emperors, in relation to "Early Christian missives", such as the "Acts of Pilate".

Duvduv · 01-08-2012, 08:15 AM

It sounds like a rather premeditated conspiracy for which there was no guarantee at all that it would have any effect in the future. They had no way of knowing which way their Christianity would go or not go. It sounds like they were going to a great extent to produce something that they didn't even know would be accepted for very long..

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Who were the personnel of the forgering factory during those years?

All the imperially connected heresiologists between Eusebius (325 CE) and Cyril of Alexandria (444 CE).

"When Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 CE one person suggested that
a heavy stone be placed on his grave to prevent his soul returning
to the world when it was thrown out of hell as being evil even for there."

Quote:

Is it possible to detect evidence in the NT texts?

IMHO it is possible that some (but certainly not all) of the non canonical NT texts (especially the Gnostic Acts and some Gospels) exhibit the signature of parody and satire against the canonical NT texts and the 4th century imperial version of the monotheistic christian state religious cult.

I think the NEGATIVE evidence of the non canonical texts is being overlooked because scholars and academics of the past did not possess a conceptual framework in which the Christians were the subject of serious academic ridicule. But when some of the Gnostic texts are examined, they are found to contain serious (Greek) academic ridicule of the canon.

Toto · 01-10-2012, 07:29 PM

Acts of Pilate discussion split off

Duvduv · 05-19-2012, 07:42 PM

The writers and later redacters of what became the canonical texts were being written at a time when OTHER writers were also writing/composing/redacting original texts or integrating texts from other sources that either joined the ranks of the apocryphal Christian texts or the Nag Hammadi variety, with the canonical texts not really becoming canonical under the Empire until the 4th and 5th centuries.

So assuming that NONE of the writers knew that their texts would eventually be canonical bible texts, WHAT was the purpose of their compositions if not merely for didactic/sermonic purposes? It's hard to assume that so many non-canonical texts could have been written under the shadow of the Orthodox Imperial Hammer of oppression. But if that be the case, varieties of "Christians" were using various texts at various times in various places.

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

01-04-2012, 08:56 PM	#31
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	What could be detected in the canonical texts and apologies under the names of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc.?

01-10-2012, 07:29 PM	#39
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Acts of Pilate discussion split off

05-19-2012, 07:42 PM	#40
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The writers and later redacters of what became the canonical texts were being written at a time when OTHER writers were also writing/composing/redacting original texts or integrating texts from other sources that either joined the ranks of the apocryphal Christian texts or the Nag Hammadi variety, with the canonical texts not really becoming canonical under the Empire until the 4th and 5th centuries. So assuming that NONE of the writers knew that their texts would eventually be canonical bible texts, WHAT was the purpose of their compositions if not merely for didactic/sermonic purposes? It's hard to assume that so many non-canonical texts could have been written under the shadow of the Orthodox Imperial Hammer of oppression. But if that be the case, varieties of "Christians" were using various texts at various times in various places.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.