mountainman

But what kind of guarantee are you about to offer that the 14th century manuscript known as the PHILOSOPHUMENA, discovered in the mid 19th century, now attributed to Hippolytus but formerly to Origen is early? The introduction to the PHILOSOPHUMENA states that two researchers regarded is as a forgery.

But perhaps more importantly, whoever it was that authored the PHILOSOPHUMENA accuses Callistus of leaning towards the heresy of Noetus who refused to admit any difference between the First and Second Persons of the
Trinity. This appears to be a tell-tale signal that whoever invented this narrative wrote on this side of the Nicaean boundary event. The trinity did not really get any airplay until after Nicaea.

On the basis of these points, as well as others, I don't see how people can continue to utterly and completely UNCRITICALLY accept the hypothesis that the PHILOSOPHUMENA is a product of the pre-Nicaean epoch.

Toto

Only because Christianity did not get much air play until then. But it was a point of controversy before Nicaea.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...fs/trinity.htm

stephan huller

But not in the sense that you mean by 'forgery.' No one means what you mean by 'forgery' because it's absurd.

mountainman

Well thanks for acknowledging this.

Perhaps we might ask Huller why he thinks it's "common knowledge"?


What does this mean? A lot of people appear to be interested in the mention of Christians by non Christians in antiquity.



The text in question appears to have been edited by Christina A. Salowey, Hollins University. The Faculty Page tells us that her qualifications are as follows:

I will take the liberty to email Professor Salowey (her homepage is here) and enquire what prompted her to make the statement that Cassius Dio never mentions the Christians. I just read her article on Herakles and Healing Cult in the Peloponnesos. It makes an excellent read.


Well there certainly were Christians in the 11th century when the epitome was assembled.

stephan huller

For God's sake, there's nothing written about the "question" because its taken for granted its authentic. There's been nothing written on the "question" of what will happen if someone decides to dry their hair with a hair drier while standing in the shower. If only you would make it your life mission to disprove that "myth" ... We wouldn't have to endure this relentless onslaught of feigned "curiosity" about ancient texts

Stuart

Taking for granted is to ASS-U-ME if you know what I mean.

It is simply laziness of traditional Christian scholarship to not challenge their assumptions of material, its true source of origin and its date. These are precisely the same type of "truths" in the witnesses that were proven so false by Israeli archeologists looking at the physical evidence of the Bar Kokhba revolt.

One of the reasons that mainstream "scholarship" has not rigorously examined texts for later interpolations, such as Irenaeus and Justin, is that the current "accepted" form of the documents do not cause a problem for traditionalists. But this selective approach processing of data, a practice that would not hold water in any other field, leaves all finding which rely on the witnesses at risk of being dust binned in the near future

Name calling as you have done Stephen, only besmirches your image.

stephan huller

Oh give me a break. Mountainman is only engaged in 'scholarly research' in order to pull statements out of context from authors who have no otherwise give no support to his insane belief. This is an endlessly circular discussion. The 'questions' are only Trojan horses for the most idiotic theory in the history of ideas. He's a mirror image of the very scholars he criticizes only they have training, intelligence, exposure to other points of view, the ability to have more than one thought in their head etc.

Watching paint dry is has more nuances and unexpected twists and turns than a thread started by Pete.

Roger Pearse

I don't quite know what you mean by "traditional Christian scholarship". I don't know of anything corresponding to this in the modern world. The statements that texts and their origins and dates are not challenged by scholars are mistaken, I'm afraid.

You should be careful with that Jewish material, by the way; finding a crank article and then treating it as the only source of reliable information is a certain way to mess oneself up. I don't know that the Mor paper is such an item - I haven't read up on th subject -, but it smelled a bit revisionist and possibly a bit nationalist when I skimmed it. I'd want to know what other, non-Jewish, scholars had to say on the subject before I took on board the suggestions made.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

The New Testament states that 1. there is only one God, the Father. 2. Jesus is God (worshipped, prayed to). 3. Jesus is not the Father. From this, something like the Trinity was more or less inevitable, I would have thought. Tertullian in Adversus Praxean states that he is merely restating apostolic teaching, although the terminology is new.

aa5874

You have not read up on the subject but have smelled it!! Please, Roger.

It most fascinating that you would expose such blatant absurdity.

Please read up on the subject because there is nothing to smell.

You may come across as a crank or may mess yourself up if you continue to "smell" things before you read.