People,

People,

I know that most atheists hold Acharya S and her book in contempt, as
being representative of the nasty and ignorant side that most
intelligent atheists consider beneath them. So I thought that people
might be interested in a post of mine, asking some questions about a
post of hers, which she is now reposting under various names in usenet.

This post originally appeared in the google group "Christian
Atrocities". Most of the thread, including all my questions (for I
made no statements other than to reference my website as evidence that
I was not completely uneducated) have disappeared overnight.

I attach the questions I asked, which, it seems proved too much for
her. Profound they are not; but answer them she could not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
-----
May I ask a question or two?

Acharya S wrote:
IT has constantly been assumed by church
chronologists that the Jewish sect of Galileans,
who afterwards took the old Pagan appellation of
Christian,

Which "church chronologists"?

Where specifically is the word 'Christian' found in ancient texts
before 50 AD?

had writings of their own as early as the first
century; but this is mere gratuitous assumption,
and rests only on the authority of
men entirely undeserving of credit.

In what way?

As for the history of this new Christian Theogony, ...
we know nothing about the matter, except what
we have on the authority of Eusebius (see
preceding lecture), Bishop of Caesarea, a man who
was confessedly the most notorious of all the church
historians for forgery and every other
species of pious falsehood.

Which modern scholars hold this opinion of Eusebius?
Where does Eusebius confess this?

In getting up his history, he confesses that he
entered upon "a solitary and untrodden way;" that
he could nowhere find as much as the bare steps
of those who had passed the same path before him;
that he had "not found any ecclesiastical writer
which unto this day hath in this behalf employed
any diligence." These confessions from such a man
are ample proof that he had no authentic
matter to found his "history," upon; but he could
call to his aid, legends, fables, and traditions, all
very plastic and convertible materials,

Who is being quoted here? These comments were not written by any
modern writer, as the style makes clear.

Why does the fact that a man is a pioneer mean that he has no sources?

Does the same argument mean that his Chronicle -- the basis of all
modern knowledge of ancient chronography -- is likewise all invention?

The rest of that class of men who are generally
denominated the "Fathers of the Church," some of
whom lived before, and others after the time of
Eusebius, were persons equally addicted to
holy frauds and forgeries

Who precisely are we talking about, and on what evidence is this
sweeping statement based?

As habitual lying and deception were charged upon
most of them by the learned of their pagan
contemporaries,

Who, specifically, and where?

... Origen..., as is well known, to abandon
Christianity, recur to Paganism, and sacrifice to
idols, publicly denying his Lord and master, Jesus
Christ. This appears in his own writings, but more
fully in his life, written in Greek by Suidas.

Where in Origen does it say this?

Where is this life by 'Suidas' to be found?

Episcopius says ...

Who?

Why are we interested in the opinions of this pre-scientific
renaissance writer?

which is corroborated by another author, who
relates, that at the second Synod
of Ephesus, Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria,
"knocked and kicked Flavianus, Patriarch of
Constantinople, with such fury, that within three
days after he died."

Which author says this?
What sources is this based on?
Why are the political disputes in theological form of the Byzantine
empire relevant to a discussion of Christian origins?

Please clarify.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

As for the history of this new Christian Theogony, ...
we know nothing about the matter, except what
we have on the authority of Eusebius (see
preceding lecture), Bishop of Caesarea, a man who
was confessedly the most notorious of all the church
historians for forgery and every other
species of pious falsehood.

Which modern scholars hold this opinion of Eusebius?
Where does Eusebius confess this?

In getting up his history, he confesses that he
entered upon "a solitary and untrodden way;" that
he could nowhere find as much as the bare steps
of those who had passed the same path before him;
that he had "not found any ecclesiastical writer
which unto this day hath in this behalf employed
any diligence." These confessions from such a man
are ample proof that he had no authentic
matter to found his "history," upon; but he could
call to his aid, legends, fables, and traditions, all
very plastic and convertible materials,

Who is being quoted here?  These comments were not written by any
modern writer, as the style makes clear.