Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rentier" data-source="post: 73261" data-attributes="member: 306">Going through Wikipedia about Nag Hammadi issue and its discovery reads like a bad anecdote.I propose one thing.Let&#039;s put the tinfoil hat on and assume that &quot;they are lying to us&quot;. That these texts were written not by Coptic monks in the 4th century, but British pranksters, cocained gentlemen with crooked teeth.Firstly, no one bothered to perform radio carbon dating of the texts until 2021 and all interested people took notice of it, in many blogposts.In 2021, a Norwegian scholar, Hugo Lundhaug, was able to convince the Egyptian museum to hand him over a small piece of leather cover and take it to a lab (was he present at the separation of the leather sample? no mention)He is clearly troubled with just relating results to us and goes on many paragraphs tackling the issue from different angles, and concludes that the piece of leather is likely old.So, that&#039;s all.For 75 years all scholarship was assuming that these texts are not a modern forgery, without any material proof, and in just the last 5 years we were handed over a piece of leather that is kinda old.You can base your worldview on that. Or you can wear a tinfoil hat.Same applies to all other texts of course, but I am baffled by Gnosticism entering the conversation from a front door. Even on this forum there&#039;s like 5 people casually dropping &quot;archons&quot; in a convo.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rentier, post: 73261, member: 306"] Going through Wikipedia about Nag Hammadi issue and its discovery reads like a bad anecdote. I propose one thing. Let's put the tinfoil hat on and assume that "they are lying to us". That these texts were written not by Coptic monks in the 4th century, but British pranksters, cocained gentlemen with crooked teeth. Firstly, no one bothered to perform radio carbon dating of the texts until 2021 and all interested people took notice of it, in many blogposts. In 2021, a Norwegian scholar, Hugo Lundhaug, was able to convince the Egyptian museum to hand him over a small piece of leather cover and take it to a lab (was he present at the separation of the leather sample? no mention) He is clearly troubled with just relating results to us and goes on many paragraphs tackling the issue from different angles, and concludes that the piece of leather is likely old. So, that's all. For 75 years all scholarship was assuming that these texts are not a modern forgery, without any material proof, and in just the last 5 years we were handed over a piece of leather that is kinda old. You can base your worldview on that. Or you can wear a tinfoil hat. Same applies to all other texts of course, but I am baffled by Gnosticism entering the conversation from a front door. Even on this forum there's like 5 people casually dropping "archons" in a convo. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread