|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2002 : 10:15:43 [Permalink]
|
Once again DA you have neglected to credit the author of a piece you have lifted.
Since Josephus was a Jew and not a Christian, many scholars deny that this passage was originally written by him. These scholars believe this text was corrupted by Christians.
This is only one minor quip in a whole litany of offences.
There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine.
This is a strawman. No one is saying that the majority of Josephus isn't authentic. What is said is that one passage has been added.
There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore.
Yes there is. From GA Wells "The Testimonium even breaks the thread of the narrative where it occurs, interrupting the narrative in a style quite unlike that common in the works of Josephus. Elsewhere, when Josephus inserts a parenthetical section, he introduces it as a parenthesis and then announces that he is returning to the original narration. The paragraph into which the Testimonium was inserted is itself a parenthetical section. It deals with disorder ("uproar") and this word connects the passages after the Testimonium with those preceding it, making the Testimonium parenthesis unnatural and unannounced. Also, the parallel passage in The Wars of the Jews, which repeats the surrounding text almost as fully as does Antiquities, omits the Testimonium."
Additionally, leading scholars on the works of Josephus have testified that this portion is written in the style of this Jewish historian.
And other leading scholars say it definitely is not.
Wells again: "None of the Fathers before Eusebius used the word "tribe" in describing the Christians. Neither does it fit Josephus' usage of the word elsewhere: Josephus uses it to describe only national groups. This is further indication that Eusebius probably inserted the Testimonium into Josephus's works."
Thus we conclude that there are good reasons for accepting this version of Josephus' statement about Jesus, with modifications of questionable words.
Only if you ignore Justin Martyr, Origen, and even Jerome all of whom quoted Josephus extensivly, all of whom were desperate for an historic Jesus and all of whom never mention this passage.
Wells: "Indeed, one seldom hears a modern Christian apologist refer to Josephus at all, except to falsely claim the Testimonuim as genuine. The first mention of the Testimonium is Eusebius (who died about C.E. 342), and a full century passes (including, most notably, the era of Augustine [C.E. 354-430]) before it is again mentioned. This suggests that it took that long for most or all of the copies to include this passage. The earliest extant copy containing this passage dates from the eleventh century."
In fact, it is possible that these modifications can even be accurately ascertained. In 1972, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem released the results of a study on an Arabic manuscript containing Josephus' statement about Jesus. It includes a different and briefer rendering of the entire passage, including changes in the key words listed above. . .54
The author neglects to mention the date of this Arabic translation, there by making this passage pointless.
Several things can be learned from this brief survey of ancient non-Christian writings concerning the life of Christ. First, His earliest followers worshipped Him as God.
This does not concern the "life of Christ" at all. This concerns Christian beliefs--which are not at question.
The doctrine of Christ's deity is therefore not a legend or myth developed many years after Christ's death (as was the case with Buddha).
Absolute nonsense. Even you DA must be bright enough to realize that.
And Gautama Shakyamuni is not a deity. The Buddha is not a god.
Second, they claimed to have seen Him alive three days after His death.
Not only are there no claims from the period that people saw him alive after his death, there are no claims from his lifetime that people saw him alive before his death.
Third, Christ's earliest followers faced persecution and martyrdom for their refusal to deny His deity and resurrection. Therefore, the deity and resurrection of Christ were not legends added to the text centuries after its original composition.
Two points. 1) The persecution and martyrdom are part of the legend 2) "A thing is not necessarily true just because someone dies for it"--Oscar Wilde
They claimed to be eyewitnesses of Christ's miraculous life and were willing to die horrible deaths for their testimonies.
The only document that actually claimed to have been written by an "eyewitness of Christ's miraculous life" was the Acts of John. These were deemed apocryphal by the church and banned.
The author of this piece you copied DA is lying through his teeth.
It funny that Christians call lying a sin and then constantly lie about Jesus. Maybe that's why they all brag that they are sinners.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2002 : 14:14:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quoted by darwin alogos: It is highly unlikely that both readings of this controversial passage are corrupt.
 THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS ASSERTION!
quote:
In 1971, Professor Shlomo Pines published a translation of a different version of this passage quoted in - an Arabic manuscript of the tenth century ... written by Agapius, a tenth century Christian Arab and bishop of Hierapolis
Shlomo Pines' translation reads: quote:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.
Pines suggests that this may be a more accurate record of what Josephus wrote, lacking as it does the parts which were widely considered to have been added by Christian copyists.- However, its late date means that it cannot be considered too reliable, even though the source which Agapius quotes may well be much older.
- emphasis added; see Agapius - Josephus
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 09/27/2002 14:23:45 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2002 : 10:10:53 [Permalink]
|
Sorry for the time-lag. I've been busy doing the activist thing in Real Life™. For the next couple months, my online endeavors must suffer. quote:
Slater wrote:
Jesus could not have done what the bible (the surviving books--the original complete text made vastly different claims) said he did and not have been noticed by the Romans and the leaders of the Jews. Since he wasn't you reduce him to a wandering preacher. If Jesus of Nazareth was only that then Jesus the Christ is a fictional character, invented by ordinary humans and sharing the extremely common name of Joshua.
quote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
I don't think the question ever was one of proving the historicity of a virgin-born, miracle-working, resurrected "Jesus Christ". At issue is whether there was a Jesus movement centered in Jerusalem and usurped by Paul.
Indeed so. Also at issue is whether any of the sayings of an actual rabbi founder of this movement made their way into the written record. quote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
That is exactly correct. Hence my agnosticism with regards to historicity. (Anybody see tergiversant?)
I too am (more or less) agnostic with respect to Jesus' historicity. My one-in-three estimate (which is sometimes as high as two-in-three) is merely a wild-assed guess, based partially on my assessment of the parables and sayings found embedded in the synoptic gospels and elsewhere. If someone has persuasive evidence demonstrating that these sayings and parables are clearly original with a Jewish rabbi and faith healer something like the man described in the gospel of Mark, I would be very interested in hearing it. quote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
The only reasonable conclusion would be that (a) your two-in-three bias against historicity is baseless prejudice, or (b) your two-in-three bias against historicity is based on "mildly persuasive evidence" that you choose not to share.
Neither. See above. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2002 : 10:21:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
To be an historical character one has to have been recorded by history.
Is the question here whether Jesus is "an historical character" or whether he really existed? My point was that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, at least not when no evidence ought to be expected. Most Jewish rabbis went unnoticed by Roman history. quote:
Slater wrote:
If they didn't record him then you have no means of knowing anything about him.
Clearly. The question I am asking is whether the authors of the synoptics recorded Jesus' actual sayings or not. You seem to favor the latter view, although I am not entirely sure why. You have stated that Jesus' aphorisms and parables appear to be lifted from other sources, but I have not yet discovered what these sources might be.quote:
Slater wrote:
What was recorded about Jesus was myth, pretty standard myth at that.
This is clearly true of many of the narrative elements found in the synoptic gospels. I am not certain that it is true of all of them. The part about Jesus being crucified by Romans seems like just the sort of thing that would have really happened to a 1st century Jewish rabble-rouser. quote:
Slater wrote:
And some philosophy, which wasn't original either.
Prove it. Show me where the aphorisms of Q and the parables of Mark are to be found in earlier works. I am simply yearning to see this evidence for myself. Once I have seen it, I can become a full-on Jesus-myther and finally relinquish my wishy-washy historical agnosticism on this matter. quote:
Slater wrote:
This information-transmitted from the past- only allows us to know that there was a mythical (read as fictional) person called Jesus.
Myth and fiction are not equivalent. People may create myths (legends) without consciously fictionalizing. Fiction writers, by contrast, are fully aware that they are making stuff up.
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2002 : 10:22:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
One could easily use the same logic you are using for Mark and Q for the Odyssey.
I would not be at all surprised to discover that some of the people, places, and things described in the Odyssey are based upon actual events people, places, and things which existed in ancient times. Would you? quote:
Slater wrote:
People write fiction all the time. There is nothing unusual about a fictional character (a magical fictional character at that) not being based on a living and breathing human.
Unlike fiction, myths contain an admixture of history and imagination. While we can know with great certainty that Clark Kent was utterly fictional, this is not so with William Tell and Jesus of Nazareth.
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2002 : 14:42:41 [Permalink]
|
Is the question here whether Jesus is "an historical character" or whether he really existed? My point was that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, at least not when no evidence ought to be expected. Most Jewish rabbis went unnoticed by Roman history.
This is where I can't follow the thread of your logic T.
The only way that we can know that Jesus existed is if he was recorded by history. The absence of evidence is the absence of knowledge.
But you repeat " that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and then march ahead as if the very absence of evidence was evidence.
The only reason that anyone thinks that Jesus ever lived is that a set of books written generations afterward, in a different country, in a different language said he did. They also say that he caused the streets of Jerusalem to fill with zombies and that he floated into the air like a toy balloon. The books have mostly Greek and Persian philosophy--some of them actually have a little Indian too. Just what you would expect from someone writing in Greek at the time.
The story they tell is of someone impossible to ignore. Thousands of people follow him, he causes a riot in the temple. The story says that he was famous. But nothing in the story checks out.
Unless you can come up with some Rabbi who matches at least a small part of the story you can't say that there was one that Jesus was based on.
It's like saying that Superman was based on a real mild mannered reporter, but not knowing the reporter. The story says Superman was a reporter and that's the only reason to think that. Common sense tells you that Supermen are fairy tales not reporters or rabbis.
And by the bye, how did you turn my general term "philosophy" into specific aphorisms of Q and the parables of Mark? You think the philosophy presented in the "Good Samaritan" was new with Christianity? The parable, a Greek form of teaching, might have been original but the philosophy itself was known to the Neanderthals. Do you have any copies of "Q" lying around the house, 'cause last I heard it's existence was also just speculation.
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2002 : 12:51:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater: The only way that we can know that Jesus existed is if he was recorded by history.
Indeed, and moreover, we cannot begin to guess whether the actual teachings of an actual Jewish rabbi were recorded in the Christian gospels or epistles (whether canonical or not) without evaluating the authenticity of the sayings found therein. quote:
Slater: The only reason that anyone thinks that Jesus ever lived is that a set of books written generations afterward, in a different country, in a different language said he did.
You claim to know when and where the narrative of Mark was originally written? How about the parables of Mark and the sayings of Q? This all seems very highly speculative to me. quote:
Slater: They also say that he caused the streets of Jerusalem to fill with zombies and that he floated into the air like a toy balloon.
Mythical elements must invalidate every historical claim of an ancient work? Is that the hermeneutical principle you are suggesting here? quote:
Slater: The books have mostly Greek and Persian philosophy--some of them actually have a little Indian too.
Again, I would be fascinated to learn where the Markan parables and the Q aphorisms may be found in presaged in Jewish, Greek, Persian, Indian, or any other culture's philosophy. Please provide some references which will allow me to peruse this ancient wisdom for myself and compare it to what I have read in the Christian traditions. Perhaps you will make a full-blown Jesus-Myther of me yet. quote:
Slater: The story they tell is of someone impossible to ignore. Thousands of people follow him, he causes a riot in the temple. The story says that he was famous. But nothing in the story checks out.
It is indeed hard to imagine that a cult consisting of ancient Jews and Greeks would vastly exaggerate the status of one of their local heroes. quote:
Slater: It's like saying that Superman was based on a real mild mannered reporter, but not knowing the reporter.
It is indeed like that, except for the crucial difference I mentioned earlier: we know that Superman was first conceived written as a fictional work rather than evolved as history-made-myth. quote:
Slater: And by the bye, how did you turn my general term "philosophy" into specific aphorisms of Q and the parables of Mark?
Did I? My bad. I thought you knew those were what I was inquiring about. quote:
Slater: Do you have any copies of "Q" lying around the house, 'cause last I heard it's existence was also just speculation.
You know of the set of sayings of which I speak. I ask that you take "Q" as shorthand which refers to that particular set of aphorisms (regardless of their original literary/oral source) and stop beating upon this poor dead horse.
G'day all!
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2002 : 16:09:33 [Permalink]
|
Indeed, and moreover, we cannot begin to guess whether the actual teachings of an actual Jewish rabbi were recorded in the Christian gospels or epistles (whether canonical or not) without evaluating the authenticity of the sayings found therein.
That puts us at a dead end. There is no way to authenticate the epistles without authenticating the Apostles. And we have no evidence with which to do that.
Mythical elements must invalidate every historical claim of an ancient work? Is that the hermeneutical principle you are suggesting here?
Magical elements go a long way towards putting any story in the fiction section.
What are you saying, that we should only take the parts we please? Okay, what do we have if we go for the strictly historic?
Some of the minor characters check out. Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, Jesus Barabbas, Herod and Simon the Magician were all historic. Some of the locations are in the wrong places. We can't find Nazareth. The Sea of Galilee is only a lake. The rulers at the time of JC's birth didn't have overlapping reigns but were actual people.
None of the events in the NT check out. It isn't so much that the magical elements invalidate the historic, it's that we can't find the historic.
Again, I would be fascinated to learn where the Markan parables and the Q aphorisms may be found in presaged in Jewish, Greek, Persian, Indian, or any other culture's philosophy.
Again I don't know why you focus on minutia. I have never held that Christianity evolved from these earlier religions. I claim that it was constructed from them on purpose. Usually the writers worked off of general ideas, sometimes they stole specific scenes, and sometimes even dialogue as I pointed out above with the "kicking at pricks."
This---to my way of thinking---is the explanation of why there were some many different types of Christianity.
This was a creative writing project, some pieces matched perfectly (were stolen outright), some were variations of a theme.
It is indeed hard to imagine that a cult consisting of ancient Jews and Greeks would vastly exaggerate the status of one of their local heroes.
What local hero? You keep bringing this speculation up without ever supporting it.
You can be damned sure that if there was anybody on the ground then who even remotely resembled an historic Jesus the xians would be parading him through the streets. But there wasn't anyone.
Somebody had to have written the parables and the aphorisms, sure---somebody who wrote in Greek, somebody who wasn't very good at geography.
It is indeed like that, except for the crucial difference I mentioned earlier: we know that Superman was first conceived written as a fictional work rather than evolved as history-made-myth.
And if we didn't know that it was fiction we would still have no problem figuring it out. Just as we have no problem with Jesus. Superman left no history outside of the comic book he appears in. Superman has magic abilities and comes from a place that doesn't exist and has adventures with a group of people who also aren't recorded by history. You can't be Superman or Jesus and not get noticed.
The "Amityville Horror" was first published as non-fiction. Spooky ghosts and flies and demons on the South Shore of Long Island. But you didn't have to read more than a chapter to know that it was a fake. The second edition said it was fiction, the first had been a joke.
You have to read less of Mark to spot the fiction.
You know of the set of sayings of which I speak. I ask that you take "Q" as shorthand which refers to that particular set of aphorisms (regardless of their original literary/oral source) and stop beating upon this poor dead horse.
Yes, I know them. But then what are you asking for, complete word per word copies like the prick kicking? I'm assuming that you already know many of the different incarnations of the "Golden Rule" before it reached JC
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2002 : 09:07:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
tergiversant wrote:
I too am (more or less) agnostic with respect to Jesus' historicity. My one-in-three estimate (which is sometimes as high as two-in-three) is merely a wild-assed guess, based partially on my assessment of the parables and sayings found embedded in the synoptic gospels and elsewhere.
What is this "assessment of the parables and sayings" that serves as a basis for "more-or-less-agnosticism"?
Do you actually have a point of view that you would like to share, or do you simply drop by every month or so to stir the pot? 
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/15/2002 09:41:48 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2002 : 10:15:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
tergiversant wrote:quote:
Slater: The books have mostly Greek and Persian philosophy--some of them actually have a little Indian too.
Again, I would be fascinated to learn where the Markan parables and the Q aphorisms may be found in presaged in Jewish, Greek, Persian, Indian, or any other culture's philosophy. Please provide some references which will allow me to peruse this ancient wisdom for myself and compare it to what I have read in the Christian traditions. Perhaps you will make a full-blown Jesus-Myther of me yet.
This seems a bit disingenuous, not to mention snotty. Arguing Pagan roots is hardly the same as claiming plagarized stories and/or aphorisms.
You invoke {Markan parables & Q aphorisms} as if it were a mantra which, if chanted often enough, might disclose the Truth. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2002 : 10:35:16 [Permalink]
|
What is this "assessment of the parables and sayings" that serves as a basis for "more-or-less-agnosticism"?
What I don't understand about "Q" et al is that we have books now (the NT) that credit these sayings to Jesus. If Q existed that would do nothing more to establish an historic JC than what we already have.
But, of course, since we don't have Q we can have no way of knowing if it actually did credit the sayings to Jesus, or to someone else, or to anyone at all.
We do know that if Q ever did exist the early xians dispensed with it, and didn't save a single copy. We also know that all the other books about Jesus that suffered the same fate at their hands they deemed apocryphal.
It isn't too great a stretch, when you consider how careful they were to save religious artifacts, to think that if they got rid of Q they must have done so for a specific reason. And not that it was lost through carelessness. They would not have canned it for being redundant just because it was copied over in the gospels. If they did things like that we wouldn't have the gospels themselves repeating each other.
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2002 : 19:40:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
If Q existed that would do nothing more to establish an historic JC than what we already have.
I agree.
quote:
Slater wrote:
We do know that if Q ever did exist the early xians dispensed with it, and didn't save a single copy. We also know that all the other books about Jesus that suffered the same fate at their hands they deemed apocryphal.
Here, however, I must disagree. We do not know that "the early xians dispensed with it, and didn't save a single copy". We know only that Q is not attested. Given a small but troublesome Jewish sect, with little or no resources, opposed by the Sanhedrin and the Romans alike, and dealing with the tumultuous socio-political decay of the 2nd Temple period, the survival of such texts would be near miraculous.
quote:
Slater wrote:
It isn't too great a stretch, when you consider how careful they were to save religious artifacts, to think that if they got rid of Q they must have done so for a specific reason.
In my opinion, it's a very great stretch.
How careful were they? - Irenaeus notes that Justin Martyr (150-160 CE) wrote a work against Marcion. Where is it?
- One of the most significant contributions of the early church fathers was Origen's Hexapla (3rd century CE). Where is it?
- Constantine presumably mandated 50 codices in the early 4th century? Where are they?
It should be fairly easy to add to such a list.
With all due respect, it seems to me that you sometimes assume a duplicitous conspiracy in order to assume a duplicitous conspiracy.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/16/2002 05:49:48 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2002 : 10:18:44 [Permalink]
|
We do not know that "the early xians dispensed with it, and didn't save a single copy".
True. "Q" is an idea that, I believe, only dates from the nineteenth century. We don't really know if it ever existed.
We know only that Q is not attested. Given a small but troublesome Jewish sect, with little or no resources, opposed by the Sanhedrin and the Romans alike, and dealing with the tumultuous socio-political decay of the 2nd Temple period, the survival of such texts would be near miraculous.
But that leaves out the main contention bible scholars make for "Q" which is that it was used as a reference by the writers of the synoptic bibles in common, in the second century. To do that it would have already had to survive past the 2nd Temple period. And it would have been considered sacred text.
<sum> Irenaeus notes that Justin Martyr (150-160 CE) wrote a work against Marcion. Where is it?
Well we already know my opinion on this period of church history. All our copies of Refutation & Overthrow of what is wrongly called 'Knowledge' (commonly referred to simply as Against Heresies) date from after 325 CE. Irenaeus is credited with idea of the Catholic Church and his writings miraculously agree with all the findings of the Council of Nicaea which took place over 100 years in his future.
* One of the most significant contributions of the early church fathers was Origen's Hexapla (3rd century CE). Where is it?
If I'm not mistaken that is the name that is given to the Jewish Septuagint after it was reworked to fit Catholic purposes. The Catholics replaced it with what they call the Old Testament. You can't have conflicting versions bouncing around.
* Constantine presumably mandated 50 codices in the early 4th century? Where are they?
It should be fairly easy to add to such a list.
The physical books themselves are gone. But like all sacred books they were diligently recopied again and again.
With all due respect, it seems to me that you sometimes assume a duplicitous conspiracy in order to assume a duplicitous conspiracy.
It comes from a youth spent in holy mother church on both sides of the Atlantic. I know that it is standard operating procedure for the church to adjust reality to their liking. We see it in this mornings newspaper with a new sex scandal cover-up, this time in Brooklyn. The scandal is as much the church's "spin-doctoring" as it is the sexual abuse of children.
In Cork we had a parish priest who used to get into fistfights. He "went away" and we were told it never happened. In Manhattan our priest was an alcoholic, his sermons became slurred and abusive. He "went away" and we were given to understand that it never happened.
In Ireland, again, the Sisters of Mercy (not the ones Leonard Cohen sang about) took to occasionally murdering the orphans in their tender care. That went away and never happened. (Until the scandal broke)
Lets look at the Saints. They really want to make Mother Theresa
a saint while her fund raising organization is still operating at full steam. Suddenly some woman dying of a terrible illness gets better all by herself. Miracle!!! The dead Mother Theresa cured her, there can be no other explanation found by science. Reality crafted to fit the needs of the Roman church.
That's how the Roman Catholic Church works, they make things up as they go alone--they change history to suit god's needs (which are the same as their own). They always hail back to the mandate that Jesus gave Peter when he made Peter Pope. Whatever you decree on Earth so shall it be in heaven.
Hell, they made up Jesus, Peter and the decree that gave them almost limitless power.
The word "conspiracy" keeps popping up. The implication being Moon landing hoax, Kennedy assassination, Roswell. To call sometime a conspiracy theory is to discredit it. Conspiracies can't happen.(?) But what we are talking about is the imperial Byzantine government of the Roman Empire at the time of its ultimate corruption and collapse. We are talking about a power struggle that over threw the established form of government of the Empire and the religious and cultural beliefs Europe and North Africa. All the property and all the wealth of all the temples of the classical world were taken by the state run church. Are we supposed to think that this was accomplished by a bunch of pure, high minded, innocents? No Byzantine plots in Constantinople?
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2002 : 20:52:49 [Permalink]
|
Yes, I can't wait for claims that it is absolute evidence to appear. The article has more assumptions than you can shake a stick at.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
