Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Arguing Against Terms

Post by billd89 »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:03 pmPhilo is espousing monotheism and what could be viewed as the foundation of Christianity
I have repeatedly demonstrated the fact that Philo Judaeus presents 2-, 3- even 4-hypostases of 'God' ; while most scholars have focused upon the dyohypostatic "Two-Power" concept, a few have realized that Philo is NOT even consistent there. Furthermore, the trihypostatic concept ("God-in-Three-Persons" -- hypothetically, the triune god of Christianity) is not original to Philo either, though some Church Fathers might lead us to that misapprehension. Beyond such popular misconceptions, I can agree that Philo was '(profoundly?) influential' -- however, I dispute the notion he (i.e. his own philosophy or teaching) was a "foundation" of Christianity. Regardless of my own (positive) fixation on Philo, that's unproven: sorry.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:11 pmHow is having more than one god monotheism?
Right. I'm comfortable with a nebulous category like "Gnosticism", but I reject (by definition) any so-called "Monotheism" that is actually polytheistic and multiform w/ deities. "Monotheism" cannot allow multiple forms of God(s), and Saints and Angels (plus deified Prophets, in some sects, and/or Holy Objects in others) in a jumble however rationalized. That's simply a contradiction in terms. But here we are. Look at actual practices and beliefs.

For example: venerating "Our Lady of Guadalupe" is worshipping what: a Saint? An Angel? A God? (Don't ask, Because.) I was raised Roman Catholic, I'm reasonably intelligent (i.e. I can read & think for myself) and I haven't a fukken clue!!! A statue of the Black Madonna is an ikon, and that magical Object is worshipped. If you go to the shrine, you'll see that with your own eyes.

No -- practice whatever faith you fancy, as you wish, it's a free country and all that, etc. etc. -- but polytheism (worshipping gods and saints and angels and deified prophets and divine ikons) cannot legitimately be called "monotheism". It's abuse of language, to pretend otherwise.

Btw, the color of this statue is wrong! According to myth, St. Luke the Evangelist carved the Black Madonna statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe in the Monastery of Guadalupe, in Cáceres, Extremadura, Spain. European reproductions make her White, because Racism.
Image

p.s. How is this not blatant idolatry, anyway?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:41 pm If the Church Fathers are our only source of information about early Christianity why do so many here arguing for another understanding of Christianity which is TOTALLY DIVORCED from the Church Fathers?
The "memoirs" of the church fathers are like Joseph Smith's "Golden Plates" and his Book of Mormon except they have been in the making for almost 1700 years within the utterly corrupt church industry. It started with the "history of the early church" by Eusebius which was expanded generation after generation, forgery after forgery of additional material. By the 20th century it had become the 10 volumes of the Ante Nicene Fathers, the 14 volumes of the Nicene Fathers and the 14 volumes of the Post Nicene Fathers.

If you think this literature contains any history you will be mistaken. The church industry has simply fabricated a history. It's called propaganda, fraud and forgery.

Is that even likely?
Are any of the Christian hagiographies true historical accounts?
Are any of the Christian martyrologies true historical accounts?
Was the cult of the saints and martyrs based on historical figures?
Was the Holy Relic Trade based on genuine archaeological relics?
Is any of the heresiological literature based on true historical accounts?

Or is it forgery all the way down?
My money is on Joseph Wheless' Forgery In Christianity
https://infidels.org/library/historical ... istianity/
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Post by Secret Alias »

It's a little different than Mormonism. The early sects and the variation within the Church Fathers. It's madness what you suggest.

Papias arguing that Matthew is an improvement over Mark because of the addition of Old Testament "logia."
Marcion who has Paul take up what sounds like a defense of Mark (in this Matthew improvement scenario) except our earliest sources identify "his gospel" as Luke.
Irenaeus who puts forward a fourfold gospel employing ideas from Papias (who prefers Matthew)
Tatian putting forward a gospel harmony.
Clement preferring secretly a secret gospel of Mark or no discernable gospel preference.

How could all these points of view have been "invented" in the 4th century for the 2nd century? Why plant a Diatessaron at Dura Europos? It's madness. And that's not to mention the theological differences between the 2nd century Church Fathers.

Clearly the variation in the 2nd century was a natural consequence of random variation.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Post by MrMacSon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:14 pm If you think this literature contains any history you will be mistaken. The church industry has simply fabricated a history. It's called propaganda, fraud and forgery.
While the texts attributed to the Church Fathers hardly contain accurate 'orthodox history',* they do reveal history of the side-lined early sects

* Markus Vinzent and Matthisas Klinghardt, and perhaps others, such as John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, 1942, and Joseph B Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle, 2006, have determined that commentary by the likes of Tertullian suggest an orthodox history that is different to what has been traditionally presented
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:19 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:14 pm If you think this literature contains any history you will be mistaken. The church industry has simply fabricated a history. It's called propaganda, fraud and forgery.
While the texts attributed to the Church Fathers hardly contain accurate 'orthodox history',* they do reveal history of the side-lined early sects

* Markus Vinzent and Matthisas Klinghardt, and perhaps others, such as John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, 1942, and Joseph B Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle, 2006, have determined that commentary by the likes of Tertullian suggest an orthodox history that is different to what has been traditionally presented
Exactly Mac, we can use their writings for reading between the lines, and the literally used words and letters contain clues as well.
These are "genuine" writings in the sense that it is (un)official propaganda from the Churchian institute, no matter their dates
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:17 pm It's a little different than Mormonism.
It's a 4th century Mormonism on imperial steroids with almost 1,700 years of development.
The early sects and the variation within the Church Fathers. It's madness what you suggest.
The 4th century "Historia Augusta" has the same modus operandi.
Livius org wrote: "Among the many games that are played in the Historia Augusta is the invention of no less than 130 fake documents, most charmingly introduced in the introduction of the Life of Aurelian. Fake sources were not a new practice (cf. the invented letters in Plutarch's Life of Alexander). What is new, however, is that the author the Historia Augusta invents sources to disagree with them."

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/ ... a-augusta/
The early sects and the variation within the Church Fathers could be explained in much the same way: fake sources and more fake sources to disagree with them. So its not madness to suggest the Historia Augusta and the Historia Ecclesiastica could be employing the same modus operandi of outright forgery.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Post by Leucius Charinus »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:19 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:14 pm If you think this literature contains any history you will be mistaken. The church industry has simply fabricated a history. It's called propaganda, fraud and forgery.
While the texts attributed to the Church Fathers hardly contain accurate 'orthodox history',* they do reveal history of the side-lined early sects

* Markus Vinzent and Matthisas Klinghardt, and perhaps others, such as John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, 1942, and Joseph B Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle, 2006, have determined that commentary by the likes of Tertullian suggest an orthodox history that is different to what has been traditionally presented
See my comment above about the type of forgery identifiable in the "Historia Augusta". I have no doubt that the Church Fathers present an account of the side-lined sects. How can you have side-lined sects before the emergence of a strong orthodoxy? OTOH it is quite natural to explain an explosion of sidelined sects with Nicene orthodoxy when the emperor got involved. Not before. Commentary by the heresiologists such as Tertullian and Irenaeus is not found in extant manuscripts until many centuries after the controversy ended.

Are we extending the benefit of the doubt to the church industry?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:43 pm Exactly Mac, we can use their writings for reading between the lines, and the literally used words and letters contain clues as well.
And they know that. You may be looking for clues and the "Fathers", knowing that, are feeding us certain clues. The dominant clue is the chronology of the conflict.
These are "genuine" writings in the sense that it is (un)official propaganda from the Churchian institute, no matter their dates
But what if the dominant and relentless propaganda exercise of the church industry is to control the chronology - that is to induce posterity to think that there were literary exchanges between the orthodox and the heretics prior to the appearance of any orthodoxy? The actual dates of authorship of all the "Fathers" is thus critical. We do no have any copies of the "Fathers" until anywhere between the 9th and the 16th century. Centuries after the events being "reported".
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Post by MrMacSon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:08 pm How can you have side-lined sects before the emergence of a strong orthodoxy?
  • You're mischaracterising the situation. There were sects before the emergence of orthodoxy (it wasn't 'strong orthodoxy' until a long time after). Those sects were misrepresented and mischaracterised as heretical 'doctoring' orthodox texts

Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:08 pm OTOH it is quite natural to explain an explosion of sidelined sects with Nicene orthodoxy when the emperor got involved.
  • That dosen't make sense. At all. It's a shit collection of almost-propositions that make shit sense collectively

Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:08 pm Commentary by the heresiologists such as Tertullian and Irenaeus is not found in extant manuscripts until many centuries after the controversy ended.
  • Get over yourself and your shit attempted conflation of manuscript dating and/= idea/doctrine genesis

Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:08 pm Are we extending the benefit of the doubt to the church industry?
  • What a puerile, shit question
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:24 pm
mlinssen wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:43 pm Exactly Mac, we can use their writings for reading between the lines, and the literally used words and letters contain clues as well.
And they know that. You may be looking for clues and the "Fathers", knowing that, are feeding us certain clues. The dominant clue is the chronology of the conflict.
LOL. No they most certainly don't Pete, what you are trying to do here is pretty clear: you want to justify why we all should ignore all the texts and just worship your dumb and unsubstantiated theory.
Everything always leaves traces, and if you read just a few chapters of any FF you will be very certain that they were arrogant liars who were convinced that they could say anything and claim anything as long as they would establish their authority
These are "genuine" writings in the sense that it is (un)official propaganda from the Churchian institute, no matter their dates
But what if the dominant and relentless propaganda exercise of the church industry is to control the chronology - that is to induce posterity to think that there were literary exchanges between the orthodox and the heretics prior to the appearance of any orthodoxy? The actual dates of authorship of all the "Fathers" is thus critical. We do no have any copies of the "Fathers" until anywhere between the 9th and the 16th century. Centuries after the events being "reported".
(...)
The actual dates of authorship of all the "Fathers" is thus critical. We do no have any copies of the "Fathers" until anywhere between the 9th and the 16th century
These two aspects only have one relation to one another Pete, as they establish only an ante quem

If we want to establish a post quem, however, we have to dive into the texts

Yet doing so would be an actual attempt to falsify your theory, something which in all factuality is a scientific requirement yet one which you have entirely neglected because you don't want your theory to be wrong.
Your theory sucks Pete, it sucks really really hard - not because it is a crazy idea, because crazy ideas actually drive the best and most revolutionary theories; your theory sucks hard because you have never made any attempt to verify and falsify it.
And it would now seem that you also don't want others to pursue due diligence
Post Reply