For Pete and the Rest of the Nuts

[stephan happy huller]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/histor ... eks,18209/

So there is hope ...

[Peter Kirby]

Just put this in the late 1400s, involve Leonardo da Vinci and mention the Masons, Illuminati, etc., and you have another bestseller. Nobody knows shit about what happened in the 1400s except that everyone believed in a flat earth until Columbus set out to prove them wrong... and it sounds so much cooler than the 1970s.

Actually somebody's done that. Some Russian guy. I read one of his books. I don't know what I was expecting.

This is why Constantine is such a great hook, actually, for anything and everything dirty that went down in the early church. Christianity stuff forged in 225 AD? Yawn. 250 AD? Boring. CONSTANTINE??!!? OHHH SEXY I SAW THAT MOVIE. Pretty sure people know the name Nero too, so that name shows up even when the conspiracy is supposed to be Flavian. You need a juicy hook. (Jesus is the best of all, naturally... most popular myth of all these myths.)

[Peter Kirby]

I think we need a "Bob Principle" here: nine times out of ten, if some ancient religious text gets forged, the forger is some random guy who might as well be named Bob, not whatever sounds cooler than that. Then we can add the "Adam Principle" too: If everything's taking place in some ahistorical Garden of Eden without context or antecedent, whether that's the Flavian or Constantinian court, then the complexity of the product must be commensurate. If not, try starting over and properly stratifying the layers in your sources.

Lots of people are attracted to violating the Adam and Bob principles because that allows everything to be explained in a 90 minute documentary or 200 page book. Also, most people are credulous and do little more than pay lip service to the idea of reason. So let's call that the Cunt principle: until proven otherwise, anyone opening their mouth on a historical (or scientific, etc.) subject must be assumed to be an ignorant Cunt.

There you have it. ABCs to live by.

[Duvduv]

Why does the self-righteous Mr. Huller take it upon himself to call people names and engage in argumentum ad hominem because some people challenge some precious traditional theories about the origins of Christianity??

[stephan happy huller]

I thought the article was quite funny. You do recognize of course that your theories are very similar don't you duvduv? What would you say distinguishes your view of the origins of Christianity and the professors claims about the invention of ancient Greek culture in the article?

[Peter Kirby]

some people challenge some precious traditional theories about the origins of Christianity??

Refusing to lick dog poop is not the same as defending tradition, even if tradition is on the same side of the fence in that regard.

[Duvduv]

The article seemed to have been written by some high school senior, and did not seem very funny at all. Rather dumb. The comparison with the view of 4th century emergence of Christianity is equally dumb.

I thought the article was quite funny. You do recognize of course that your theories are very similar don't you duvduv? What would you say distinguishes your view of the origins of Christianity and the professors claims about the invention of ancient Greek culture in the article?

[Blood]

According to Haddlebury, the idea of inventing a wholly fraudulent ancient culture came about when he and other scholars realized they had no idea what had actually happened in Europe during the 800-year period before the Christian era.

Ah, the spirit of Biblical writing lives on!

[outhouse]

Why does the self-righteous Mr. Huller take it upon himself to call people names and engage in argumentum ad hominem because some people challenge some precious traditional theories about the origins of Christianity??

because they are absurd


they detract from anything useful

[Leucius Charinus]

Why does the self-righteous Mr. Huller take it upon himself to call people names and engage in argumentum ad hominem because some people challenge some precious traditional theories about the origins of Christianity??

I thought the article was quite funny. You do recognize of course that your theories are very similar don't you duvduv? What would you say distinguishes your view of the origins of Christianity and the professors claims about the invention of ancient Greek culture in the article?

C14 dating.