Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: Roger Pearse (roger_pearse_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: 21 Oct 2004 04:47:14 -0700

bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message news:<cl731u$ksl$05$1@news.t-online.com>...
> >I quite understand. One reason I am currently interested in the cult
> >is because almost all of what I see online is unattributed, and so,
> >sadly, suspect. I don't know about you but when I find stuff on a
> >matter of controversy rubbishing something else without footnotes,
> >these days I just can't trust it.
>
> Agreed. I try to deliver true statements, but - as I said
> in another reply - I have to rely on the "honesty" of the
> authors. History is a very tough science - many facts are
> known, but their "interpretation" differs from one school
> to the next. I'm not a stubborn one - if you have facts I
> don't know, you're free to quote or give links and I will
> weigh them against my own knowledge. If there's something
> wrong - I'm able to learn...

I quite agree with all this. If one is an ordinary layman, it can be
baffling. I have the good fortune to be interested and to have the
time to investigate things. I have increasingly come to the view
that, on any topic, there is only one way to proceed. This is to
ignore altogether the opinions of people living after the fall of
antiquity and get my hands on the raw data -- all of it -- that
relates to a given topic. The first thing is to read all of this,
(perhaps using modern writers as a guide to where it can be found),
and see what it does, and does not say. At that point we have all the
raw facts at our disposal. Then one can read something like
Halsberghe; and marvel at the statements made which are plainly not
based on the facts, but on imagination.

I recently read an article from the 90's on Sol Invictus, which I
gather is really basic to modern ideas about the cult, which dismissed
all the writing of Cumont etc on this as being skewed by the
imperialist ideas of their age. Now as an old imperialist, I find
this sort of pot-kettle stuff amusing; but if the real scholars are
prepared to dismiss people ad hominem, it seems unreasonable that we
should not be able to either. That the writers of the 19th century
were influenced by the splendid culture of their time is doubtless so;
that their critics of modern America are not influenced by the
depraved ideology of our times seems unlikely. This is why we must
get hold of the raw data.

Another article I read longer ago, by G. Holzberg, "Lucian and the
Germans", in a festschrift (I came across it by accident) shows that
the entire scholarly attitude to Lucian between about 1890 and 1945 in
Germany could be traced back to one scholarly article; and that this
had passages verbally identical to an anti-semitic rant by Houston
Stewart Chamberlain some months earlier in a popular magazine!

This is not an attack on scholarship. The connecting factor is
controversy; what Johnson called 'the clamour of the times'. I have
come to the view that, on matters of controversy, our scholars will
always reflect the prevailing fashion, and objectivity will come a
large second.

Of course technical disciplines such as paleography are not really
affected by this sort of thing, but history...

> >>>>The origin of our Sunday is the Sol Invictus cult - it was a
> >>>>decree of Constantine to rest on the day of his deity. There
> >>>>are documents available.
> >>>>
> >>>Produce them. There are none that state this.
> >
> >Thanks for this set of quotes. I appreciate the effort to back up the
> >idea.
> >
> >>C. decreed in 321 A.D. that all courts shall rest on Sundays,
> >>the "venerable day of the Sun".
> >
> >Perhaps, but where is the reference to the edict? I presume it's in
> >the Theodosian code, or the Pandects, but aren't we entitled to know?
>
> I found these references to real documents:
>
> {Justiniauus Cod.,III., XII, III (Corp.Jur.CIV,II,DXXVII)}

Wonderful! This is Justinian, as cited in the Corpus Juris Civilis.
The latter is online in English complete, as I found the other day. I
will look it up in a bit.

> Constantine to Elpidius. All judges, city-folk and craftsmen shall rest
> on the venerable day of the Sun. But countrymen may without impediment
> attend to agriculture, because it often happens that this is the most
> appropriate day for sowing grain or planting vines, so that the
> opportunity afforded by divine providence may not be lost, for the right
> season is of short duration (March 7, 321 AD).
>
> {Theod. Cod. II,VIII,I}

This is the codex Theodosianus. An English translation does exist,
but is still in copyright. Sadly I don't have a copy of any of it
other than book 16.

> The Emperor Constantine Augustus to Elpidius. Just as we thought it most
> inappropriate that the day of the Sun, with its venerable rites, should
> be given over to the swearing and counter-swearing of the litigants, and
> their inappropriate brawls, so it is a pleasant and joyful thing to
> fulfill petitions of special urgency on that day. Therefore on that
> festal day let all be suffered to perform manumission and emancipation.
> And let nothing that pertains to this be forbidden (July 3, 321 AD).
>
> You think these documents are fakes? If so - why?

No, I don't. They look real, and they sound like stuff from the
edicts I have read. Thank you very much for these.

This is the sort of raw data that we need. It speaks well of your
sincerity that you took the time to go and look.

> If you have a look at this site
> <http://www.coghomeschool.org/site/cog_archives/booklets/truth_about_sunday_observance___.htm>,
>
> you'll see that this isn't "propaganda" of Atheists. It's
> taught by Christian Churches - searching through a lot of
> websites gave more hits from religious pages than others.

Hmm. Well, pamplets can be mistaken on such things, because they tend
to repeat hearsay.

> >>This is the origin of today's Sunday:
> >
> >I do not see this. What about all those references to Sunday
> >observance in the Ante-Nicene Fathers?
>
> I have to search for appropriate passages - may take some
> time.
>
> BTW - I think any published material of the RCC is biased
> and went through many filters before it was published. It
> is material of one party in this game, so it surely isn't
> "value free"...

Unfortunately can't the same be said of everything?

I'm sorry, but I'm out of time here, and I can see from the scrollbar
that there is a huge amount more of this post. I hope you won't mind
if I address it some other time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[snip]

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mark Isaak & John Wilkins are frauds
    ... respected scientist if you had some credentials at hand. ... If you accept facts to originate only from scholarship then you and I ... from scholars via their published writings. ... I consider myself educated in Theology and History ...
    (talk.origins)
  • US military technology spreads Islam
    ... A treasure trove of information about life in the early Islamic world is to ... and to digitise and post online about 200 of the most important ... works so that scholars around the world can study them. ... ordinary Muslims - around the world to learn more about their heritage. ...
    (uk.religion.islam)
  • Re: I proved my point on Humbert & Chambon - Qumran archaeologists
    ... Facts are stubborn things; you'll learn. ... that what it was, was more likely something else, but that no evidence ... scholars, academics, and theologians INCOMPETENT. ... A person with absolutely no credentials in archaeology or ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Last call, Inger E.
    ... urge her to show her facts - like scholars do) or "stalk" Inger E ... The only thing I wanted from IEJ was her maps, ... Inger's talk about stalking - and her innovative definition of the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Vatican documents known by scholars.
    ... Facts are facts. ... several scholars works where the origin is discussed. ... > Phoenicians trading in Cornish tin is a case in point. ... You've been unable to provide evidence, ...
    (sci.archaeology)