Originally posted by seanD
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIf 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?
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
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostLike 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
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostWhy you got to go there about gullibility, bro?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBecause 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
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostYour 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 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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhat 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"
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
-
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostThe very first Christian writings, from Paul, are filled with admonitions against counterfeits being passed off as Paul's writings.
The early church went to great lengths to thresh out their scriptures from the far more abundant chaff.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
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI 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.
Nothing I can say will change your mind at this point. You seem invested in believing it for some odd reason. Why?
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostAFAICS 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI 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 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
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI just think it's neat to find extrabiblical sources that historically align with the gospels. No other particular reason other than that.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.
Comment