Arguing Against the Church Fathers

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Arguing Against Terms

Post by MrMacSon »

billd89 wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:48 am
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.
  • I was saying Philo overall was espousing monotheism. Just in those selected passages.
  • Furthermore, I was saying Philo's "philosophy or teaching" was a "foundation" of Christianity". I was saying those excerpts of his work could be viewed as [potentially] influencing early Christian authors. Moreover, I don't give a fuck what you think you've "repeated demonstrated." I often find your commentary sanctimonious and arrogant and this is another of those times.
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 10:38 pm
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
I am completely aware of the mainstream interpretation of the conflict between the "heretical" sects and the "proto-orthodox". I have read the scholarship. I am questioning the mainstream interpretation. You and everyone else are not questioning it but are assuming it. There's no problem with that.
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
An example of what I am claiming is the Arian sect which was sidelined by the Nicene orthodoxy. The proposition is that a strong orthodoxy engenders the rise of heresy. And conversely heresy is more likely to appear in response to a strong heresy.
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
I would be quite happy to revise my line of questioning the mainstream paradigm when you are able to cite any corroborating evidence - manuscript or otherwise - for the historical existence of the church fathers or the heretics which is external to the church industry. P.Oxy 405 does not cut it.
Are we extending the benefit of the doubt to the church industry?
What a puerile, shit question
1) The material underpinning the mainstream paradigm of the "Fathers" is sourced from the church.

2) If you cannot cite corroborating external evidence in support then it follows that the material is exclusively from the church and no other source.

3) If the evidence is exclusively from the church, and you believe it to be true (as the mainstream paradigm does), then it logically follows that you extend the benefit of the the doubt to the church for this stuff. This logic applies to any historical source.
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 10:41 pm 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
I am very much aware of all this. I am also aware that the FF have established their authority over the chronology of Christian origins.
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.
I have read all the texts. Don't think I haven't. I have relentlessly attempted to falsify my theory (that the church has lied about everything - including the chronology) by seeking out some corroborating historical evidence external to the church sources which supports the church sources as being the historical truth. That is how one would falsify my theory. If you think this is not the scientific requirement of falsification, or you think I have not applied myself to this requirement, then you are in error.
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
Read the above paragraph and respond to that.
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 »

Diving into the texts in this regard unfortunately means reading the original MSS in the original language - I know that's a very high bar, but given the fact that all translations are falsifications, there is no other choice
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: Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:29 am Diving into the texts in this regard unfortunately means reading the original MSS in the original language
That's all well enough for the NHL+ Coptic MSS because they have been buried for 16 centuries or more during which time they could not have been tampered with. These are either the original MSS or one step removed. Example = Coptic Gospel of Thomas MS likely from the 4th century

OTOH the MSS of the Church Fathers are often a thousand years removed from whatever originals may have existed and so this is a completely different card game. These MSS have likely been curated by the church industry during MSS transmission. Some people here appear to assume that the church operated a process of immaculate transmission. A proposition which is sheer lunacy. Example = Latin MSS of the Greek writer Irenaeus "Against Heresies" likely from the 11th century.
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: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:30 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:29 am Diving into the texts in this regard unfortunately means reading the original MSS in the original language
That's all well enough for the NHL+ Coptic MSS because they have been buried for 16 centuries or more during which time they could not have been tampered with. These are either the original MSS or one step removed. Example = Coptic Gospel of Thomas MS likely from the 4th century

OTOH the MSS of the Church Fathers are often a thousand years removed from whatever originals may have existed and so this is a completely different card game. These MSS have likely been curated by the church industry during MSS transmission. Some people here appear to assume that the church operated a process of immaculate transmission. A proposition which is sheer lunacy. Example = Latin MSS of the Greek writer Irenaeus "Against Heresies" likely from the 11th century.
Agreed. And the way to find is not by reading their falsified English translations, but but reading the original texts themselves

But what is your theory about how you'd be able to find out?
How can you prove your theory?
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: Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:05 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:30 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:29 am Diving into the texts in this regard unfortunately means reading the original MSS in the original language
That's all well enough for the NHL+ Coptic MSS because they have been buried for 16 centuries or more during which time they could not have been tampered with. These are either the original MSS or one step removed. Example = Coptic Gospel of Thomas MS likely from the 4th century

OTOH the MSS of the Church Fathers are often a thousand years removed from whatever originals may have existed and so this is a completely different card game. These MSS have likely been curated by the church industry during MSS transmission. Some people here appear to assume that the church operated a process of immaculate transmission. A proposition which is sheer lunacy. Example = Latin MSS of the Greek writer Irenaeus "Against Heresies" likely from the 11th century.
Agreed. And the way to find is not by reading their falsified English translations, but but reading the original texts themselves

But what is your theory about how you'd be able to find out?
I will repeat what I wrote above:
LC wrote:
I have relentlessly attempted to falsify my theory (that the church has lied about everything - including the chronology) by seeking out some corroborating historical evidence external to the church sources which supports the church sources as being the historical truth. That is how one would falsify my theory. If you think this is not the scientific requirement of falsification, or you think I have not applied myself to this requirement, then you are in error.
Theories in ancient history may be falsified quite readily if specific evidence is adduced and brought forward which conflicts with the proposition.

However theories are generally NEVER proven rather they lead to PROVISIONAL conclusions.
How can you prove your theory?
As mentioned above "proving" a theory is not IMO really possible in the field of ancient history because there are so many unknowns and these usually completely outweigh what we think we know. The best result of any theory in ancient history, as I have stated many times, is a provisional conclusion.

The best evidence I have located so far which has the capacity to refute the theory that the church fathers are fabricated are two items from Dura Europos, way out on the Roman-Persian border. These are:

1) The Dura Europos "house-church":

Here Yale Divinity College via Clark Hopkins claim the existence of one "religious room" in a private house adjacent to the Secondary Gate of the city as "Christian" due to the existence of a) murals which (they claim) depict Jesus, and b) Christian nomina sacra etched on the walls. I reject the claim that these graffiti are "nomina sacra" because in the Preliminary report there are no supra-linears AND the fact that Clerk Hopkins writes in the conclusion of that report that in effect "overbars may not be necessary in such short inscriptions",
IOW Hopkins never saw any supralinears and they were added in the Final Report.
This is written up in an article entitled: "The Runes of Christ at Dura Europos"
https://www.academia.edu/38115589/The_R ... ra_Europos

2) Dura Parchment 24

This is a "harmony gospel" and generally dated by archeological stratification to have been buried beneath the rampart build by the defending Roman army when the Persians attacked the city c.256 CE. It is not evidence of canonical Christian literature. Everyone assumes that the canonical gospels precede the harmony gospel and the harmony gospel was formed by combining bits and pieces of the canonical gospels. But there is an alternative proposition that the 4 canonical gospels could have been extracted from a longer single narrative which we refer to as a "harmony gospel". At the moment I know of no physical evidence which would tell us the direction of dependence. Brent Nongbri writes that we have no physical evidence that must be earlier than the 3rd century.

One of the Core principles for determining reliability using the historical method is that "Any given source may be forged or corrupted."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

I view all the manuscripts which are preserved by the church [industry] to be ultimately from one source = the church [industry]. Therefore I think it is reasonable to hold the view that the church has forged and corrupted the MSS of the FF. Of course it is necessary for me to seek out independent evidence (external to the church) which supports the narrative of the FF and I have done this as described above.
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: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:14 pm
mlinssen wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:05 am But what is your theory about how you'd be able to find out?
I will repeat what I wrote above:
LC wrote:
I have relentlessly attempted to falsify my theory (that the church has lied about everything - including the chronology) by seeking out some corroborating historical evidence external to the church sources which supports the church sources as being the historical truth. That is how one would falsify my theory. If you think this is not the scientific requirement of falsification, or you think I have not applied myself to this requirement, then you are in error.
That is not how it works Pete: you can't have a multiple faceted theory and then try to falsify only one aspect of it.
You didn't find any corroborating historical evidence external to the church sources, that's great and already well known for centuries

But the unconventional, or perhaps original, aspect to your theory is that the church has lied about everything

And that, buddy, is precisely what, contrary to what you say yourself,
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:14 pm However theories are generally NEVER proven rather they lead to PROVISIONAL conclusions
can be perfectly proven as there are plenty texts to be read and analysed.
Thomasine Priority demonstrates your theory to be entirely incorrect about the Nag Hammadi Library (and I really don't care which convoluted abbreviation you use to refer to it this time)

So prove me wrong, or adjust your theory
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: Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:25 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:14 pm I will repeat what I wrote above:
LC wrote:
I have relentlessly attempted to falsify my theory (that the church has lied about everything - including the chronology) by seeking out some corroborating historical evidence external to the church sources which supports the church sources as being the historical truth. That is how one would falsify my theory. If you think this is not the scientific requirement of falsification, or you think I have not applied myself to this requirement, then you are in error.
That is not how it works Pete: you can't have a multiple faceted theory and then try to falsify only one aspect of it.
Again I must insist that chronology is the backbone of historical theories. It underpins almost every facet of historical enquiry including the establishment of any textual priority.

You didn't find any corroborating historical evidence external to the church sources, that's great and already well known for centuries
Martijn you are misinformed over this. There are very few people who will admit that there is no corroborating evidence external to the church literary sources. Myself and John Bartram are exceptions. Most academics will cite some archaeology or even non Christian literary sources such as Josephus (yes Josephus), Tacitus, Pliny, Trajan, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Marcus Aurelius, Lucian of Samosata, and others. Armed with this type of evidence most people insist stuff like this:

Consider the OP:
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 reality is that most people here accept as inevitable that there has just got to be some truth to the testimony of the Ante Nicene Fathers in regard to the existence of the canonical writings and (some) apocryphal writings by the 2nd century.
But the unconventional, or perhaps original, aspect to your theory is that the church has lied about everything

And that, buddy, is precisely what, contrary to what you say yourself,
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:14 pm However theories are generally NEVER proven rather they lead to PROVISIONAL conclusions
It's not contrary. It is my PROVISIONAL conclusion that the that the church has lied about everything
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 10:38 pm
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
Knowledge and identification of the earliest extant manuscripts are part of the classical approach to the historical method Mac. It's a basic element of the available evidence. If you can't walk and chew gum at the same time something's wrong.


As a matter of interest then, when you cite the doctrines found in the manuscripts attributed to Tertullian, why don't you also cite this:

Father Tertullian vouches, too, with the other Fathers, for the bogus official Report of Pilate to Caesar, and for Pilate's conversion to Christianity, saying: "All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and even the Caesars would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars."

(Apol. ch. xxi; ANF. iii,. 35.)
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/autho ... rthage.htm

For example you may cite Tertullian for his doctrine that he denounced Marcion as a heretic, but what the fuck are you going to do about Tertullian's doctrine that Pontius Pilate converted to the Christian cult? If you espouse the former yet reject the latter then how is it that you are NOT engaged in special pleading?
Post Reply