Announcement

Collapse

Church History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to Church History 201.

Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.

This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

More secular proof of Jesus' existence?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    The counter argument to that would be that Caiaphas felt he needed a more direct approach to scripture as an authority in defense of his actions.
    If you want to believe you can always create an excuse. It took me two minutes of skimming to just find that glaring error. I am sure there are tons more but I don't find the need to read any further. The introduction reads like a novel. Chance meetings with people, secret guardians, blah blah. There is nothing to back anything up in this book. The people he invents (Freelinhusen, Whydaman) don't show up anywhere else. And why are they all German? Especially the "guardian of the Vatican" Freelinhusen, wouldn't he be more likely to be Italian? Why don't these people show up anywhere but in his book?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      If you want to believe you can always create an excuse. It took me two minutes of skimming to just find that glaring error. I am sure there are tons more but I don't find the need to read any further. The introduction reads like a novel. Chance meetings with people, secret guardians, blah blah. There is nothing to back anything up in this book. The people he invents (Freelinhusen, Whydaman) don't show up anywhere else. And why are they all German? Especially the "guardian of the Vatican" Freelinhusen, wouldn't he be more likely to be Italian? Why don't these people show up anywhere but in his book?
      Like I said, it wasn't an error though, and you'd know that if you read the whole letter. Caiaphas' many references to "sections" of scripture makes no sense, which means either they had a way of segmenting it we don't know of, or Mahan made up a nonsense reference system just to deceive.

      And it doesn't sound to me like he made the story up in the beginning because Whydaman doesn't play any pivotal role in his obtaining the works of the book. It sounds like Whydaman probably played on Mahan's ignorance and swindled him. $62 would have been quite a bit of money back then. Which, again, leaves me skeptical of Mahan's competence in all this. He doesn't seem like someone capable and historically savvy enough to craft all the material in the book himself (hence the reason he had to plagiarize Ben Hur practically word for word).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seanD View Post
        Like I said, it wasn't an error though, and you'd know that if you read the whole letter. Caiaphas' many references to "sections" of scripture makes no sense, which means either they had a way of segmenting it we don't know of, or Mahan made up a nonsense reference system just to deceive.

        And it doesn't sound to me like he made the story up in the beginning because Whydaman doesn't play any pivotal role in his obtaining the works of the book. It sounds like Whydaman probably played on Mahan's ignorance and swindled him. $62 would have been quite a bit of money back then. Which, again, leaves me skeptical of Mahan's competence in all this. He doesn't seem like someone capable and historically savvy enough to craft all the material in the book himself (hence the reason he had to plagiarize Ben Hur practically word for word).
        Hey you can be as gullible as you want. It's your head.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Hey you can be as gullible as you want. It's your head.
          Why you got to go there about gullibility, bro?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seanD View Post
            Why you got to go there about gullibility, bro?
            Because you seem to want to believe in this despite all evidence to the contrary. That's gullibility. I can't argue against it because you come up with some rationalization to excuse any evidence. It's like trying to convince a flat earther that the world is round. If he wants to believe it is flat, he will find some way to rationalize it.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Because you seem to want to believe in this despite all evidence to the contrary. That's gullibility. I can't argue against it because you come up with some rationalization to excuse any evidence. It's like trying to convince a flat earther that the world is round. If he wants to believe it is flat, he will find some way to rationalize it.
              Your evidence was Mahan made an "error" by having Caiaphas reference chapter and verse in Leviticus like we do. But you're wrong. He wasn't referencing it the way we do. It makes no sense how Caiaphas is referencing scripture throughout the work. What else you got?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                Your evidence was Mahan made an "error" by having Caiaphas reference chapter and verse in Leviticus like we do. But you're wrong. He wasn't referencing it the way we do. It makes no sense how Caiaphas is referencing scripture throughout the work. What else you got?
                What else? I already mentioned other things which you ignored. So did Juvenal. You also dismiss that the Church made him stop publishing it and he complied. And that he plagiarized things like Ben Hur. The chapter verse was just the first thing I noticed just by glancing through it. I don't feel any need to do any deep research into a known fraudulent piece of work.

                What actual evidence do YOU have that it is genuine? Where's the original? Who else has quoted it before Mahan? Show me that this Freelinhusen even existed. How did Mahan get into the Vatican's secret library? Records show he didn't even travel to the Vatican when he claimed he did.

                Just "feeling" that it is genuine isn't actually evidence, Sean. That's how Joseph Smith got people to believe his fake book. They still use that technique, read the book of Mormon and you can know it is real by the "burning in your bosom"

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  What else? I already mentioned other things which you ignored. So did Juvenal. You also dismiss that the Church made him stop publishing it and he complied. And that he plagiarized things like Ben Hur. The chapter verse was just the first thing I noticed just by glancing through it. I don't feel any need to do any deep research into a known fraudulent piece of work.

                  What actual evidence do YOU have that it is genuine? Where's the original? Who else has quoted it before Mahan? Show me that this Freelinhusen even existed. How did Mahan get into the Vatican's secret library? Records show he didn't even travel to the Vatican when he claimed he did.

                  Just "feeling" that it is genuine isn't actually evidence, Sean. That's how Joseph Smith got people to believe his fake book. They still use that technique, read the book of Mormon and you can know it is real by the "burning in your bosom"
                  I never said it "feels" legit, so stop lying. I never once argued that Mahan wasn't a forger. You're making up my arguments, bro. Stop.

                  On one hand Mahan was so ignorant that he didn't know The Gospel of Nicodemus had been published prior to the story he gives in the beginning. He's a forger no doubt but he had to plagiarize Ben Hur because he lacked creative talent. On the other hand you want me to believe Mahan forged the first letter of Caiaphas. It doesn't gel in the logic category.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                    The very first Christian writings, from Paul, are filled with admonitions against counterfeits being passed off as Paul's writings.
                    AFAICS Paul was concerned about what people were being told (speaking was, after all, the primary means of communication back then). IIRC the first concern with writings comes from 2 Peter, which warns of people misinterpreting Paul's words, not forgery.

                    The early church went to great lengths to thresh out their scriptures from the far more abundant chaff.
                    Sorta. The stuff they thought was useful got quoted (generally from memory) and copied. The rest wasn't; the worst was actively suppressed (where the church was able to do so). Diocletian probably had a significant impact on that when he actively tried to suppress all Christian writings; people tended to give up what they felt was less valuable to be destroyed. There was eventual general consensus on what belonged in the canon, but there never was a formal declaration of what it included.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post
                      I never said it "feels" legit, so stop lying. I never once argued that Mahan wasn't a forger. You're making up my arguments, bro. Stop.

                      On one hand Mahan was so ignorant that he didn't know The Gospel of Nicodemus had been published prior to the story he gives in the beginning. He's a forger no doubt but he had to plagiarize Ben Hur because he lacked creative talent. On the other hand you want me to believe Mahan forged the first letter of Caiaphas. It doesn't gel in the logic category.
                      I put "feel" in quotes for a reason. Because so far, that's all you got. Like your reasoning above. You don't think he was good enough to have forged the letter. Why not? I read it. It doesn't look all that genuine to me. It reads like a 19th century man telling a story. Whether you think the chapter/verse things line up or not, the fact that he is even referring to any such divisions is anachronistic. There is even one place where he uses the word "alma" and then in parenthesis mentions it's the hebrew word for virgin. If he was translating a genuine letter why would he not just translate that word along with all the other words? Why would you leave that in Hebrew and then explain it?

                      Nothing I can say will change your mind at this point. You seem invested in believing it for some odd reason. Why?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        AFAICS Paul was concerned about what people were being told (speaking was, after all, the primary means of communication back then). IIRC the first concern with writings comes from 2 Peter, which warns of people misinterpreting Paul's words, not forgery.
                        And there is of course Rev. 22:18-19 which is an admonishment against altering the text of that particular book

                        I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I put "feel" in quotes for a reason. Because so far, that's all you got. Like your reasoning above. You don't think he was good enough to have forged the letter. Why not? I read it. It doesn't look all that genuine to me. It reads like a 19th century man telling a story. Whether you think the chapter/verse things line up or not, the fact that he is even referring to any such divisions is anachronistic. There is even one place where he uses the word "alma" and then in parenthesis mentions it's the hebrew word for virgin. If he was translating a genuine letter why would he not just translate that word along with all the other words? Why would you leave that in Hebrew and then explain it?

                          Nothing I can say will change your mind at this point. You seem invested in believing it for some odd reason. Why?
                          I'm not sure that the parenthesis throughout wasn't added by the translator of the letter. But if not, then yeah, Caiaphas most likely would not have added that.

                          I just think it's neat to find extrabiblical sources that historically align with the gospels. No other particular reason other than that.
                          Last edited by seanD; 02-25-2020, 12:57 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            I'm not sure that the parenthesis throughout wasn't added by the translator of the letter. But if not, then yeah, Caiaphas most likely would not have added that.

                            I just think it's neat to find extrabiblical sources that historically align with the gospels. No other particular reason other than that.
                            I meant the translator. Why didn't he just translate it like he did all the rest of the document?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              I meant the translator. Why didn't he just translate it like he did all the rest of the document?
                              The parenthesis is an oddity for sure.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                I just think it's neat to find extrabiblical sources that historically align with the gospels. No other particular reason other than that.
                                It's not an "extrabiblical source"; it's a forgery intended to historically align with the gospels.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X