Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
09-22-2013, 11:55 AM | #21 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Au contraire, the whole scenario involving the fragment and the alleged harmony of Tatian shows how confused, confusing and strange are the traditional claims of the emergence of Christianity before the Byzantine Constantine period.
|
09-22-2013, 12:45 PM | #22 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Both are true. The discovery makes a fourth century conspiracy as proposed by Pete absolutely untenable AND it calls into question traditional assumptions about the four gospels
|
09-22-2013, 12:58 PM | #23 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
The very idea of a "harmonization" of four divinely inspired gospels of the "truth" of the Christ is itself ludicrous, especially if and when a single copy of such a vital document does not exist and nothing is said about it until the fourth century.
Then along comes all the hoopla about one of those scraps to reinforce the traditional belief of the canon of Christianity allegedly stretching back to the first century. |
09-22-2013, 01:15 PM | #24 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
*The discovery makes a fourth century conspiracy as proposed by Pete absolutely untenable AND it calls into question traditional assumptions about the four gospels
|
09-22-2013, 05:47 PM | #25 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
Quote:
I repeat the question about about the 3rd line containing a translation of "the crucified one": Quote:
I take it that the translator thinks that "στα" is the nomina sacra for σταυρος (cross/stauros) ΣΤΣ which otherwise first appears c.200 CE. Would this be correct? |
|||
09-22-2013, 05:57 PM | #26 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
While the dating of the fragment is one issue, another issue is what the fragment represents, how it was written in a non professional hand, how it is claimed to contain the "nomina sacra" codes for "Cross" (being translated as "The Crucified One") and "Jesus". I am quite happy to assume the fragment is from the mid 3rd century as claimed and then discuss Kraeling's reconstruction of it (which is available in full in the pdf linked to in the OP). Thanks for your comments. |
|
09-22-2013, 06:26 PM | #27 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
*The discovery makes a fourth century conspiracy as proposed by Pete absolutely untenable AND it calls into question traditional assumptions about the four gospels
|
09-22-2013, 07:34 PM | #28 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
I'm glad that Pete is abandoning his futile theory on the fourth century origins of Christianity.
To help things along, please stop repeating previous posts. Quote:
Where is this leading? It would also help if you identified the page number for this particular claim in the link from the OP. |
||
09-22-2013, 08:03 PM | #29 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
I didn't hear Pete give up on his theory. I heard "I am quite happy to assume the fragment is from the mid 3rd century as claimed" which in Pete-speak means "for the sake of argument."
|
09-22-2013, 09:15 PM | #30 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Let's just assume that Pete has given up. I still don't see the point of the question.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|