Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Biff the unclean · 04-04-2003, 01:56 PM

Fiach:Have you been to the Mountain of the Three Goddesses at Drumeague, Co. Cavan, Ireland? It is called, "Sliab na dTr� nD�" or Highland of the Gods.
Indeed I have not. Is it worth the trip?
I spent a year studying Celtic (I'm from Munster so I use the soft "C") mythology under Alexi Kondratiev in New York and try to visit sites of the old religion whenever I get back home.
One obscure place is at Croagh Patrick in Mayo. Everybody knows about how Catholic pilgrims climb bare foot to the top and walking three times around sun wise (No they aren't Druids, not much) but in the valley next to it was the Druid center where the snakes of Brig were kept. These snakes were imported of course and were oracles like the python at Delphi. Every February first, Imbolc (O�mealg), the Druids would consult them as to when planting should begin. These were the snakes that Patrick drove out of Ireland. Funny thing, here in the States they have the same thing on February second. It's called Groundhog's Day (a groundhog is a woodchuck) and no one realizes that's it's 7000 years old.

I didn't know that. I thought the Mary came after Christianisation.
Nope she is Brig with a regional name.

Did that enter Christianity through Gospel writers that were raised in a partly Celtic culture (Gaul or Galatia?)
I don't really know. If we knew the date that she entered we could make an informed guess. A later date would indicate Constantine and therefore Gaul. I would guess an earlier date because all three aspect of the Goddess show up at the crucifixion which would suggest that the story was invented specifically to impress the Galatians

Before the Celtic crosses were crosses they were wheels with four spokes of equal length, that represented the sun and therefore Lugh

Tercel · 04-04-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
I think that you refuse to face the intense persecution by Trinitarians of older Christian sects, and all Pagan religions. While pagan persecution of christians was small potatoes. Christians were not exterminated. The Christian persecution of Arian Christians, Druids, Pagans, and other was so extensive it led to their virtual extermination.

Okay it's all well and good for you to believe that. But if you want to convince others of this, it would be nice of you to provide some evidence. Let's put it this way: I'm moderately well read in early Christian history and virtually nothing of what you have asserted in this thread is in any way related to the truth as I, after reading a reasonably amount of the evidence, understand it to be. I'm open to amazing, new, and never-before-seen evidence though.

Quote:

In Mein Kampf Hitler praises the Constantinian Church for being bold and courageous enough to squash its rivals. He admired them.

So your evidence for this is something Hitler wrote?!?

Let me remind you that Hitler was neither a historian nor a man whos opinions should be accepted without serious question.

Biff the unclean · 04-04-2003, 05:19 PM

These writings are generally 2nd to 4th+ century forgeries either containing wildly heretical stuff or a bad rehash of what's already in the Bible books. You're welcome to go and read them and make up your own mind though.
I have been able to look through parts of them. As for the dates they were written the oldest copy we have were from the few dozen different gospels found in the Nag-Hamadi find. These copies were from about 340CE. The oldest dated copies of the NT date from 325CE. Not a real difference. They tell different stories of Jesus, attribute different miracles to him. Some of the stories they tell are the same as those in the NT but show a different philosophy.
There is no accurate way to date them any more than there is the NT. They were widly in use when they were banned.
So how do you know that of the dozens of different gospels that you got the right ones? Matthew says Jesus could walk on water but Acts of John says he floated a little off the ground at all times. Is one so different from the other? What can you check them against?

Radorth · 04-05-2003, 07:42 AM

Quote:

There is no accurate way to date them any more than there is the NT.

Funny the fathers would mention something not written yet. But I'm sure you'll now admit they had supernatural powers.

Oh wait. I know. The fathers' letters were all written after they died as well. We have to go by the date on the latest copy. I forget. Gee. doesn't that method kind of wipe out some JMer theories?

(Rad scratches head, looks confused)

Radorth · 04-05-2003, 08:08 AM

"I didn't know that. I thought the Mary came after Christianisation."

"Nope she is Brig with a regional name."

Something tells me Fiach and Biff don't even believe each other.

"If we knew when she entered, we could make an informed guess."

Well yes, I suppose so. But for now, uninformed guesses will have to do.

Rad

Biff the unclean · 04-05-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
"I didn't know that. I thought the Mary came after Christianisation."

"Nope she is Brig with a regional name."

Something tells me Fiach and Biff don't even believe each other.

No Rad, he didn't say that he didn't believe me. He said that this was a fact that he had not heard before. It's called learning, you should try it some time.
He and I seem to have done the same research on both sidesof the Atlantic. We have found exactly the same things. There are some interesting, but minor, tid bits that we each have missed. I, for one, am delighted to read what he has to say.

Quote:

"If we knew when she entered, we could make an informed guess."

Well yes, I suppose so. But for now, uninformed guesses will have to do.
Rad

The difference between that and what you are doing is the "informed" part.

Biff the unclean · 04-05-2003, 08:49 AM

Oh wait. I know. The fathers' letters were all written after they died as well. We have to go by the date on the latest copy. I forget.

No, we have to go by the date of the EARLIEST copy. Which is 325CE, hundreds of years after it was supposed to be written. But that's the EARLIEST date of any church that has been found, and any Christian art, and any dated Bible. They all date from 325CE. So what became of all their stuff?
I don't doubt the Christianity is much older, but why did people who save everything, including the severed hands of saints, get rid of everything they owned? I can't even speculate on this 325CE cut off date.

Tercel · 04-05-2003, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
No, we have to go by the date of the EARLIEST copy. Which is 325CE, hundreds of years after it was supposed to be written.

I don't get what you're trying to say here Biff. The are several suviving fragments of copies of New Testament books prior to 325. I just had a quick look down a list of early manuscripts and counted about 28 dated before 325, but I'm sure somebody in the BC&A forum can provide you with a more accurate number if you want.

There were also numerous Christian authors ("Fathers") prior to 325 who often quote Bible passages and wrote some commentaries on Bible books. I've got a hefty tome sitting by my bed at the moment containing some (less than half of what survives) of the writings of Origen (c185-254) which I'm currently plowing my way through. Unfortunately many of their writings have been lost, but heaps still suvives too. CCEL has half a ton of it online here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

Quote:

...They all date from 325CE. So what became of all their stuff?

Lots of stuff does date to then or later for the very good reason that Christianity was illegal up to 313 and Christians suffered a very severe persecution, starting in 303 under Diocletian (though mainly instigated by Galarius his vice-emperor), which included the destruction of their churches and writings.

Eusebius, writing in ~310 in his "Church History" (and I strongly recommend Paul L. Maier's brilliant translation of this work), writes thus:
"Having covered the succession from the apostles in seven books, it is most important for future generations that I deal carefully in the eight with the events of my own time....
...I saw with my own eyes the houses of worship demolished to their foundations, the inspired and sacred Scriptures committed to flames in the middle of the public squares, and the pastors of the churches hiding shamefully in one place or another, or arrested and held up to ridicule by their enemies....
In March of the nineteenth year of Diocletian's reign, when [Easter] was approaching, an imperial edict was announceed everywhere ordering that the churches be demolished and the Scriputres destroyed by fire. Any [Christians] who held high places would lose them, while those in households would be imprisioned if they continued to profess Christianity... Soon, however, other edicts appeared ordering that the presidents of the churches everywhere be thrown into prision and then forced by every sort of device to offer sacrifice. Then, then it was that many church leaders endured terrible torments heroically, while countless ofthers succumbed to the firs assault, cowardice having numbed their souls. As to the rest, each was subjected to a series of various tortures: one was scourged mercilessly, another racked and scraped to death....
....words are inadequate to describe the number or the nobility of God's martyrs, as witnessed by people in every city and region. [Eusebius spends the next 10 pages describing various deaths of different Christians throughout the Roman Empire]" -Church History 8:0-3

Radorth · 04-05-2003, 09:44 PM

Quote:

No, we have to go by the date of the EARLIEST copy.

That is what I meant of course.

Quote:

Which is 325CE, hundreds of years after it was supposed to be written. But that's the EARLIEST date of any church that has been found, and any Christian art, and any dated Bible. They all date from 325CE. So what became of all their stuff?

What is "they all"?

We have portions dating earlier, and some copies date from the seventh or eighth century. That's not how scholars date anything. They look at idioms, structure and many other clues to date things. Your assertion is irrelevant to actual date of writing.

What's your point? Even the daffy Doherty dates the NT before 150.

Let me guess what your point is. It's part of another monstrous CHRISTIAN PLOT to hide the truth from future freethinkers.

OK, lets get this in perspective.

IT ONLY TAKES ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO AN EARTHLY JESUS IN ROMAN HISTORY OR THE EPISTLES TO BLOW YOUR PERSONAL "MYTH" THEORY TO HELL. (Where it came from).

You have a lot of references to explain before a real skeptic will listen, so get busy. Hopefully you won't take shortcuts or torture the contrary scriptures as Doherty did.

Let's start with Paul's reference to "James, the Lord's brother."

Rad

Biff the unclean · 04-05-2003, 11:12 PM

Eusebius, writing in ~310 in his "Church History"�
And which Eusebius would that be?
Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote "Other writers of history recorded the fighting of wars waged for the sake of children and country and other possessions. But our narrative of the government of God will record in ineffaceable letters the most peaceful wars waged in behalf of the peace of the soul."
Or is that Eusebius of Nicomedia ,Constantine's overseer of church doctrine and history (his job was to "correct" history), supporter of Arianism, who wrote "It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment." in his book, The Preparation of the Gospel? THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL/necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment. Okay then.

What is "they all"?
All the oldest Bibles with dates in them date only to 325, the oldest church building, the oldest piece of Christian art, the oldest reference to the early church fathers. All to the same time, I think that is passingly strange don't you? Have you no explanation for it?

We have portions dating earlier, and some copies date from the seventh or eighth century.
Some small flakes, a piece or two the size of your hand are claimed to be older. However they don't come with dates attached and "scholars" determine that they are older because the handwriting looks older. For some reason they think that no one wrote is older script in these bibles, although that is common practice now. As for the seventh or eighth centuries why would you even want to mention copies that come hundreds and hundreds of years after the time we are talking about?

That's not how scholars date anything. They look at idioms, structure and many other clues to date things. Your assertion is irrelevant to actual date of writing.
Idioms and structure will tell you the oldest possible date not the actual date. I can write "the cat's pajamas" here and scholars will know that this wasn't written before 1923 but it will not tell them that it was written in 2003.

IT ONLY TAKES ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO AN EARTHLY JESUS IN ROMAN HISTORY OR THE EPISTLES TO BLOW YOUR PERSONAL "MYTH" THEORY TO HELL. (Where it came from).
And if you had that single reference you would have used it.
But you do not. We do have the Hellenistic myths that match the scatter shot life story of Jesus. They are much, much older than Christianity. And they blow your super Jew out of the water.

And there is no such place as Hell. Lucky for you with your total disregard for the truth.

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

04-04-2003, 01:56 PM	#91
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Fiach:Have you been to the Mountain of the Three Goddesses at Drumeague, Co. Cavan, Ireland? It is called, "Sliab na dTr� nD�" or Highland of the Gods. Indeed I have not. Is it worth the trip? I spent a year studying Celtic (I'm from Munster so I use the soft "C") mythology under Alexi Kondratiev in New York and try to visit sites of the old religion whenever I get back home. One obscure place is at Croagh Patrick in Mayo. Everybody knows about how Catholic pilgrims climb bare foot to the top and walking three times around sun wise (No they aren't Druids, not much) but in the valley next to it was the Druid center where the snakes of Brig were kept. These snakes were imported of course and were oracles like the python at Delphi. Every February first, Imbolc (O�mealg), the Druids would consult them as to when planting should begin. These were the snakes that Patrick drove out of Ireland. Funny thing, here in the States they have the same thing on February second. It's called Groundhog's Day (a groundhog is a woodchuck) and no one realizes that's it's 7000 years old. I didn't know that. I thought the Mary came after Christianisation. Nope she is Brig with a regional name. Did that enter Christianity through Gospel writers that were raised in a partly Celtic culture (Gaul or Galatia?) I don't really know. If we knew the date that she entered we could make an informed guess. A later date would indicate Constantine and therefore Gaul. I would guess an earlier date because all three aspect of the Goddess show up at the crucifixion which would suggest that the story was invented specifically to impress the Galatians Before the Celtic crosses were crosses they were wheels with four spokes of equal length, that represented the sun and therefore Lugh

04-04-2003, 05:19 PM	#93
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	These writings are generally 2nd to 4th+ century forgeries either containing wildly heretical stuff or a bad rehash of what's already in the Bible books. You're welcome to go and read them and make up your own mind though. I have been able to look through parts of them. As for the dates they were written the oldest copy we have were from the few dozen different gospels found in the Nag-Hamadi find. These copies were from about 340CE. The oldest dated copies of the NT date from 325CE. Not a real difference. They tell different stories of Jesus, attribute different miracles to him. Some of the stories they tell are the same as those in the NT but show a different philosophy. There is no accurate way to date them any more than there is the NT. They were widly in use when they were banned. So how do you know that of the dozens of different gospels that you got the right ones? Matthew says Jesus could walk on water but Acts of John says he floated a little off the ground at all times. Is one so different from the other? What can you check them against?

04-05-2003, 08:08 AM	#95
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	"I didn't know that. I thought the Mary came after Christianisation." "Nope she is Brig with a regional name." Something tells me Fiach and Biff don't even believe each other. "If we knew when she entered, we could make an informed guess." Well yes, I suppose so. But for now, uninformed guesses will have to do. Rad

04-05-2003, 08:49 AM	#97
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Oh wait. I know. The fathers' letters were all written after they died as well. We have to go by the date on the latest copy. I forget. No, we have to go by the date of the EARLIEST copy. Which is 325CE, hundreds of years after it was supposed to be written. But that's the EARLIEST date of any church that has been found, and any Christian art, and any dated Bible. They all date from 325CE. So what became of all their stuff? I don't doubt the Christianity is much older, but why did people who save everything, including the severed hands of saints, get rid of everything they owned? I can't even speculate on this 325CE cut off date.

04-05-2003, 11:12 PM	#100
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Eusebius, writing in ~310 in his "Church History"� And which Eusebius would that be? Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote "Other writers of history recorded the fighting of wars waged for the sake of children and country and other possessions. But our narrative of the government of God will record in ineffaceable letters the most peaceful wars waged in behalf of the peace of the soul." Or is that Eusebius of Nicomedia ,Constantine's overseer of church doctrine and history (his job was to "correct" history), supporter of Arianism, who wrote "It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment." in his book, The Preparation of the Gospel? THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL/necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment. Okay then. What is "they all"? All the oldest Bibles with dates in them date only to 325, the oldest church building, the oldest piece of Christian art, the oldest reference to the early church fathers. All to the same time, I think that is passingly strange don't you? Have you no explanation for it? We have portions dating earlier, and some copies date from the seventh or eighth century. Some small flakes, a piece or two the size of your hand are claimed to be older. However they don't come with dates attached and "scholars" determine that they are older because the handwriting looks older. For some reason they think that no one wrote is older script in these bibles, although that is common practice now. As for the seventh or eighth centuries why would you even want to mention copies that come hundreds and hundreds of years after the time we are talking about? That's not how scholars date anything. They look at idioms, structure and many other clues to date things. Your assertion is irrelevant to actual date of writing. Idioms and structure will tell you the oldest possible date not the actual date. I can write "the cat's pajamas" here and scholars will know that this wasn't written before 1923 but it will not tell them that it was written in 2003. IT ONLY TAKES ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO AN EARTHLY JESUS IN ROMAN HISTORY OR THE EPISTLES TO BLOW YOUR PERSONAL "MYTH" THEORY TO HELL. (Where it came from). And if you had that single reference you would have used it. But you do not. We do have the Hellenistic myths that match the scatter shot life story of Jesus. They are much, much older than Christianity. And they blow your super Jew out of the water. And there is no such place as Hell. Lucky for you with your total disregard for the truth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.