mountainman

Carbon dating

I completely except the philosophy of Popperian falsifiability.

My theory is one of history. The Mainstream theory of history
suffers AFAIK from the same problem, because the mainstream
theory makes the inference that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
(ie: the literature of new and strange testament) existed prior
to the fourth century. This inference is drawn from this literature
which I claim to be foiurth century fiction.

AFAIK, the Mainstream Paradigm of History also cannot be falsified
for the same reason. There is no historical evidence
for the inference of christianity's existence prior to the fourth century.

A number of veteram posters have promised to deliver such items
of archeological historical evidence pre-Nicaea, but this evidence
is not forthcoming. If it exists, what is it?

I predict that in future years more and more ancient manuscripts
will be carbon dated that relate to the NT, and that all of these
without exception will be post-Nicaean.

Get a carbon dating of a NT manuscript which is sufficiently pre-Nicaean
and my theory is not consistent with such scientific evidence, and will
necessarily be refuted thereby.

Is this fair? Is this not sufficiently Popperian?
Best wishes,



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

mountainman

And these archeological citations of manuscripts are?

mountainman

Carbon date a NT manuscript or fragment.
If the result is sufficiently pre-Nicaean the theory is refuted.
Simple. I have posted this before here.
You either overlooked the fact, or ignored it.


The above claims are essentially correct however the reliance on the
phrase "by Eusebius" is somewhat misrepresented. Eusebius was sponsored
by Constantine, worked for Constantine, probably attempted a harmonisation
of other authors also sponsored by Constantine for the same project: the
fabrication of the new and strange testament in the 4th century.

See above, you are incorrect in your assertion.
Carbon dating results will falsify the theory.

Out-of-context Julian quotes have been used to attempt a refutation
that Julian was not convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
was a fiction composed by wicked men. However, because Julian
makes this very claim in the opening sentence of the (recontructed)
treatise, it is not likely that he would refute himself, although Cyril
would be pleased to do so on Julian's behalf, god bless his cotton sox.



Personally, how far can you spit the dummy?




Pete Brown

spin

What, you have to return to old posts now because people are no longer interested in an idea which for it to float requires you to postulate a conspiracy so large and requiring such ability that nothing comparable to it exists in antiquity to compare with it? In your wildest dreams it seems that you have to imagine better writing skills to invent whole illusory church heresies, councils, squabbles, character conflicts, writing styles, not only religious literature, but also fake apologetics. You even imagine these fake texts being used as mummy casing in Tebtunis and Oxyrhinchus for us to find. (Look at this voluminous list of Oxyrhinchus papyri with datings.) Then when you can't explain it this way, when dealing with classical sources, you go for interpollation without even attempting to show how you know in each case why they must be interpollations.

Not content with pre-Eusebian fiction, you are now prepared to rely on your interpretation of an English translation of a reconstruction of Julian in an effort to support your wholly evidenceless theory: Here is part of that reconstruction: "Even Jesus, who was proclaimed among you, was one of Caesar's subjects. And if you do not believe me I will prove it a little later, or rather let me simply assert it now. However, you admit that with his father and mother he registered his name in the governorship of Cyrenius." Julian accepts the veracity of the gospel works in the sense that he doesn't perceive them as recent fabrications but of the imaginings of much earlier writers, Paul, Matthew, John...

This fresh religion, according to the theory (Ockham god rest his soul), immediately spread throughout the whole empire and the mass of the people believed it instantly. All of it was engineered, according to the theory, by a mediocre "bishop" from Caesarea, whose own writings are relatively dull and repetitive, yet produced or oversaw the production of vast fake libraries of literature in both Greek and Latin.

You've shown no reason why you believe this theory to be the case, no evidence that inspired it, just a musing by Ted Hoffman which he himself doesn't support.

Now, what makes you think Eusebius was any more real than Lactantius or Tertullian? I will respond that he is just as imaginary a construct as all those before him who you have persuaded yourself are fictitious. His works were written by a committee

If you don't think you position is ridiculous, don't worry -- everyone else, who has taken the time to try to talk you out of it, does.

I've told you that you will continue to cling to your theory and your theory alone (like Ann Elk). But then, I won't tell you again. :wave:


spin

Clivedurdle

Might Christinity Inc, with the arrival of a Chief Executive of a larger organisation needing a marketing department, have been bought out and a skilled re-engineer put to work?

mountainman

I have dealt with NT related pre-Nicaean manuscripts and fragments here.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_071.htm

Beatty papyri: The major papyri in this collection are p45, p46, p47. The first p45 is dated to 150-250 CE; and contains some (or all) of Mt 20, 21, 25, 26; Mr 4-9, 11-12; Lk 6-7, 9-14; Jn 10-11; Acts 4-17. The second p46 is dated to 90-175 CE; contains some (or all) of Rom 5-6, 8-16; all of I & II Cor, Gal, Eph., Philp., Col, I Thess 1,2,5; all of Hebrews. The last, p47, dated to the third century, contains Revelation 9:10-17.2
The Bodmer papyri: The major papyri in this collection are p66, p72, p75.
p66: 150-200 CE, contains almost all of the Gospel of John
p72: 200's, containing all of I & II Peter, Jude
p75: 175-200 CE, contains most of Luke 3-18, 22-24; John 1-15.

The Rylands papyrus: Asserted to be the earliest surviving new testament fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33, and 37. It has been dated from 130 CE.

Other papyrii: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 658 dated to 250 CE, P. Oxy. 1464 dated to 250 CE, P. Oxy. 2990 dated to the third century.

However I am not aware that any of the above fragments were found
in a mummy case, and dated by a known and cited carbon dating result.
In fact, as far as I know, Nag Hamadi (c. 350 CE) and Gospel of Judas
(c. 280 +/- 60 years CE) are the only two NT related carbon dating results
to be published on the planet to date.

Unless you can prove me wrong in the above assertion, the dating process
used for your citation above:Are paleographical, and not archeological.

So you too are willing to argue the case that Julian
was not convinced that the fabrication was a fiction
of men composed by wickedness.


Listen carefully, I'll say this slowly so you fellahs will understand.
The theory considers not Eusebius, but Constantine to be the engineer.
Eusebius is the name given to the mass of writings sponsored at the time.
Constantine in 324 became supreme. He was not a supreme pizza.
He was a supreme imperial mafia thug. He took what he wanted by force.
He did what he pleased.

What pleased him immediately after becoming the supreme emperor of
the east-west Roman empire was to call the council of Nicaea on
account of the words of Arius.

At Nicea, to use your words, it was not Eusebius who did all the talking
but it was the mafia thug Constantine who in the four months of the
Nicaean Council ensured that "This fresh religion immediately spread
throughout the whole empire and the mass of the people believed it
instantly", except of course for Arius et al.

The inspiration actually arrived in reading about the TF.
The TF is considered as the microcosm of Josephus within
the macrocosm of all pre-Nicaean literature related to the
(Eusebian) tribe of christians.

The inspiration also required an understanding that Eusebius
was being driven by a supreme imperial mafia thug to produce
something nicely packaged up for the time he became supreme,
planned in advance of the Council of Nicaea (ie: 312-324 CE),
and thrust upon the entire empire, but the judicious summons
of attendees to the council by the supreme mafia thug Constantine.

But when spin?

I have no problems with the consideration that
the mass of writings known as Eusebius
are works written by a committe under Constantine.
in the fourth century immediately prior to Nicaea
possibly at the library of Caesarea.

At this stage, one archeological citation is worth a thousand words,
and I appreciate that you provided the one above. You are going
to have to be more specific however. (See above).



Pete Brown

mountainman

The conspiracy or if you'd take the time to be persuaded by the words
used by Julian, the fabrication .... is a LITERARY phenomenom.
These skills are the skills of someone practiced in the art of calumny.

These "heresies, councils, squabbles, character conflicts, writing styles,
religious literature, apologetics, etc, etc, etc" are - yes - all fake.
My hypothesis offers a pathway to explore an alternative explanation for
this mass of literature labelled Eusebius.

It is a falsifiable hypothesis, and if you were to present a generall accepted
archeological and/or scientific citation related to the NT fabrication which
is sufficiently pre-Nicaean, then you will have refuted my hypothesis,
and no theory can thereby be constructed therefrom.

Simple spin.
OVER.





Pete Brown
NAMASTE

mountainman

Might Pythagoraeanism Inc, with the arrival of an extremely intelligent
imperial mafia thug called Constantine, with many private security
contractors and mercaneries, have been put to the sword of calumnic
literature, and deleted like Arius, in a back alley?

Might Pythagoraeanism Inc. have been so deleted at the Council of Nicaea?
And might a new and strange R O M A N . i n c package
been violently, wickedly and chaotically installed into production at Nicaea?


Some aphorisms from Iamblichus ...


Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene..._aphorisms.htm

mountainman

Perhaps the more general term here is Hellenism Inc.

mountainman

The more academic term is The Second Sophistic
defined loosely as a "Greek cultural movement of the second
and third century CE" had been promoted bigtime.

Time for a change in pace ....

OVER AND OUT
www.mountainman.com.au