spamandham

The name Jesus has a literal meaning. I already told you what it literally means. Did you bother to read that?

...are you suggesting that everything in Josephus is also fiction? I don't understand what point you are trying to make at all.

I'm referring to the fact that the name 'jesus' literally means 'YHWH's salvation'. This is a translation, not a symbol. The symbolic link comes when you attach it to the Jesus of the gospels, who was the savior of YHWH, and who's name literally translates as 'YHWH's salvation'. This has nothing to do with any Jesuses in Josephus.


You don't even know what I'm referring to, yet you insist it is best explained by 'fiction'.

mountainman

There is also the element of seeing dragons in the shapes of clouds. We have to be careful here. That such patterns exist, and mandate that the texts have been edited over time is one thing. But show me the scholar who is not totally at sea on the oceanic expanses of new testament chronology? WHich century were they written in? A reasonable question. But not answered!!!

One century seems to be as close as one day. The edited over time business might indicate this, but was that time period actually the centuries which the propaganda proclaims, or was that time period actually over a few critical years in the political situation of the fourth century?

Was the new testament received among christians or pagans? Who were the christian heretics, and do we have a reasonable position when we ask that they be viewed as pagan heretics who had been reclassified by the One True Account of the Christian Ecclesiatical Historicans, as "christian" heretics.

It resolves to Arius. I think he is capable of being assessed an ascetic pagan priest (ie: a non christian), as were the bulk of the "bishops" summoned from the eastern domains to Nicaea by COnstantine. It was a political boundary event at which a new religion was fashioned against the pagan hegemon.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

spamandham

IMHO, it is neither centuries nor a few years, but rather, on the order of decades.

You can certainly propose that Constantine invented Christianity and it's entire history in the 4th century, and that as part of that process, characters became legendary and authoritative in just a few years span as the theology was refined. This seems unrealistic to me. If it was an imperial fabrication, the rather bizarre reversals of theology in the epistles, as well as the numerous places involving long flowery sentence fragments with no discernible meaning make little sense. A fabrication from whole cloth would be expected to have a rather consistent message.

But it seems to me, the simpler explanation is that the redactions are the result of merging pre-existing theologies by modifying pre-existing texts, and then assigning them to pre-existing authority figures, rather than inventing it all from whole cloth.

When did this happen? I find it implausible that the complex and circuitous history that indicates the mid 2nd century could realistically be the result of a 4th century fraud. I'm not saying there was no fraud in the 4th century - there certainly was, but that doesn't mean everything we have was invented in the 4th century.

Why do you believe that the fraud was wholesale, rather than simply modifying things here and there to fold Sol Invictus and Apollonius into pre-existing traditions?

mountainman

312 to 337 is 2.5 decades. Eusebius was busy revising to the end.

But then there were all sorts of seditious writings raised against it. The pagans only knew the ancient Logos and the culture of the Egyptian based antiquity of the greeks, as disclosed by Philo in the first century, and as repeated in some of the "clearly non-christian" fourth century Nam Hammadi codices and their tractates.

Political seditions exploded then and there against COnstantine. Arius wrote works which COnstantine describes as stinging and bitter against the Holy F**KING Universal Chruch. However Arius and his supporters were not called political seditionists, but instead called christian herecies after the event by the centuries of christian victors. Eusebius and the authodox wrote them into the script, not as anti-christian pagan sedition, but as the herecies of christians --- the history was one-sided. My claim is that the chronology of the non canonical christian literature is 325 to c.425 CE.

This explanation avoids consideration of the non canonical christian literature, unless you are going to argue it developed as a parallel stream, which will be difficult for a number of reasons.


Step (1) - Simple logic.

The big question asked here is: "What if the history is fiction?" The answer to this question is explored by means of making a simple postulate, namely suppose the history is in fact fiction. Logically, if the Eusebian history is false, there are at least six very specific implications. These are the following:

An Alternative History

The first implication of the postulate is that there must exist another theory of history with a far greater integrity for the period, and perhaps quite different than the theory of history presented by Eusebius. For the exercise, this is to be called "reality".

Conjoin of Eusebian and Real History

The second implication is that there must exist a point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality". That is, the fictitious theory of history must have been physically inserted into "reality" at some stage, or point in time.

Conjoin of Pseudo-History to History has a Precedent date

The third implication is that this point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality" must necessarily be - at the earliest - either during, or after, the life of the author of the fiction. Eusebius the author completes his work at some time prior to the Council of Nicea, in 325 CE.

Turbulent controversy is to be expected

The fourth implication of the postulate is that this point in "reality" at which the fiction was implemented, would necessarily be associated with possibly massive social turbulence. People would be bound to notice the change in their history books, and possibly overnight. The Arian controversy and heresy is here cited and analysed with a new perspective.

Success of Initiative depended on a party with great power

The fifth implication of the postulate is that because of the possibly massive social turbulence associated with the actual implementation of the fiction, a great degree of power would be needed to be brought to bear, by the party responsible for the implementation of the fiction. The supreme imperial commander of the Roman Empire, Constantine I, is cited and his involvement in the establishment of the Nicean Council, for the express purpose of containing the Arian controversy (heresy) is cited and detailed.


Did anyone object by saying "Bullshit!" ?

We refer to the words of Arius, preserved as a disclaimer.
The words of the Emporor Julian (fiction)
The words revealed by Nestorius on "common belief".(fiction)
The words of the anathemas of 4th/5th century councils.
(ie: what was public opinion against the chruch dogma?)



Step 2 - Asking the question:

Do we see evidence of these six logical implications of Eusebian fiction in the evidence of the fourth century.

These six implications have been explored in detail, and evidence is presented in which such events, as described by these six implications, are documented as happening under the reign of the emperor Constantine (312 to 337 CE).

Now the logic of the situation is this. If the postulate that Eusebius wrote fiction is actually false (as the mainstream presently claim) why do we find ample evidence of the occurrence of the above six implications of the Eusebian fiction postulate being true? In other words, if the Eusebian fiction postulate were not true, we should not expect to find evidence for its implications ... yet, I find such.)

This is the logic I first presented on IIDB years back, which to date has not yet been addressed. Dou you understand the logical construct I have defined above?

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

aa5874

But, when does a crucified blasphemer symbolically become the saviour of YHWH?

andrewcriddle

One obvious question is how much of this (for example the visit of Apollonius to Rome) is part of the life of the historical Apollonius and how much of it was invented by Philostratus (who just possibly was influenced by the accounts of the NT Paul in constructing his novel about Apollonius.)

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

This is a question mentioned by most commentators on Apollonius, including Maria Dzielska, and presumes the currently accepted chronology of the composition of the NT before the year c.216 CE (when we know Philostratus wrote).

However, the chronology I am proposing sees the NT literature fabricated a century after Philostratus, and thus the influence was from the accounts of Apollonius, in the construction of the short stories about of Paul (and Jesus).



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

spamandham

To count as the best theory, it has to not only have positive evidence (which yours does), as well as being testable (which yours is since it would be falsified by any hard dating of Christian artifacts of any kind prior to Eusebius), but it also has to be the simplest explanation of those available.

I don't know if it's simpler than the radical theories (should yours be called the hyper-radical position? :Cheeky.

There is also positive evidence for the radical position, and it is also testable. I agree that the lack of any known hard dated artifacts between 150 CE and 325 CE works against the radicals.

Does the noncanonical evidence undermine the radical position?

Jeffrey Gibson

But why should anyone -- even you -- accept Bernard's (real name Walter Siegmeister) claim as true, especially since it comes from someone who was clearly a crank?

Quote:

In 1964, Raymond W. Bernard published The Hollow Earth - The Greatest Geographical Discovery in History Made by Admiral Richard E. Byrd in the Mysterious Land Beyond the Poles - The True Origin of the Flying Saucers... Bernard also authored Flying Saucers from the Earth's Interior. His real name was Walter Siegmeister. His doctoral dissertation was entitled "Theory and Practice of Dr. Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy" (New York University, 1932). In his Letters from Nowhere, Bernard claims to have been in contact with great mystics in secret ashrams and with Grand Lamas in Tibet. He was, in short, another Gurdjieff. Dr. Bernard "died of pneumonia on September 10, 1965, while searching the tunnel openings to the interior of the Earth, in South America."* Bernard seems to have accepted every legend ever associated with the hollow Earth idea, including the notions that the Eskimos originated within the Earth and an advanced civilization dwells within even now, revving up their UFOs for occasional forays into thin air. Bernard even accepts without question Shaver's claim that he learned the secret of relativity before Einstein from the Hollow Earth people.

See http://www.greatdreams.com/hollow1.htm and http://skepdic.com/hollowearth.html.


What is the hard evidence that supports it?

Jeffrey

Doug Shaver

Horsefeathers!

You disagree with the answers. That doesn't mean the questions haven't been answered.

We have answers. They could be wrong answers, but we do have them. Ergo, the questions have been answered.