Amaleq13

For what purpose? From what is it supposed to distract the reader?

So the authors had Pythagorean asceticism in mind because they were opposing it with their depiction of Jesus?

Why would John be portrayed positively, then? Jesus doesn't condemn his asceticism, he just explains why his disciples don't engage in the same behavior.

Yes but not any more credible, I'm afraid.

mountainman

To radically diminish the ancient historical
priority of Egypto-Graeco-Roman heritage.

Constantine was about to replace the
foundations of civilisation, and steal
the old gold and treasure for himself.

At that time it was very diverse - many cults.
The Persians (on the border) were monotheistic.
Their army marched to one song. COnstantine
would have been very concerned about this distinct
advantage. So he unified things by fraud.

Out with the old, and in with the new.
He used the military supremacy to effect what he wanted.

The use of the LXX (Hebrew Scriptures) and the Jewish
references in the fabricated NT texts were used in
conjection with the fraudulent claims (Eusebius) that
the Hebrews had a more ancient chronology than the
extant Pythagorean (and its Egyptian precursors), the
very stuff upon which the Hellenic culture was based.

Constantine's believers would have no qualms about
detroying the ancient temples, and carrying the loot,
and the gold, and treasure, and statues and art, back
to the City of Constantine. The boss condoned it.


Pythagorean asceticism was part of nature. It existed.
We know that from the earliest commentary about Pythagoras.
Jesus was Constantine's fourth century fiction.
Jesus, like superman, did not eat or drink.
He only consumed ink in the literature.


Jesus is Constantine's "special god-like dude".
He had a military style mission
to live and die in the ink well.

Analysis of a fiction inspired by a supreme imperial mafia
thug and his scriptoriums of writers is not one my list
of priorities.


Yes but not any more credible, I'm afraid.[/QUOTE]

In that case, time for a small detour.
I have created a page here.

It is entitled "What is historical revisionism" - which at the moment
is simply taken from WIKI, but is also includes a short extract from
Arnaldo Momigliano's book ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS
Chapter 1: Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

I bring this up in order that you may see the nature of the
position which I am defending in terms of ancient history.

I perceive this in one sense, as a form of the Hippocratic Oath
but with respect to the oath of an historian. It seems to me
to represent a statement of the integrity of the historian,
and I would voluntarily abide by its tennants.

I produce it here because you we have argued for some time
and you might be wondering what is the basis for my position.
If so, I present the following, written by Momigliano, as a form
of integrity, which I would like to think and know, that I am
subscribing to in any discussions.

Here is it ....


To this extent, my thesis is 'not proven'.
But in a reciprocal fashion, the mainstream
theory of "Biblical Historians" with respect
to the historical life of this figure Jesus, and
the historical life of these unknown disciples,
and these unknown authors, writing in an
unknown century, and the entire "history"
of pre-nicene "christianity" is equally 'not proven'.

All parties in this epoch await further evidence.

The literature tendered by Eusebius to Constantine,
was published by Constantine. It asserted the
existence of "the history of the Nation of Christians".

Unfortunately, the monumental evidence (non-literary)
gathered in various fields at the moment does not
unambiguously support Eusebius.

There we have it.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Amaleq13

A rather subtle way to accomplish such a dramatic goal, to say the least.

You would think such an amazingly powerful man such as you depict Constantine would have been able to be much more explicit.

So you have no explanation for what seems to be contrary to your position.

This has clearly never actually been true. Why bother with the pretense?

IMO, you have succeed in making your position more clear but you have done absolutely nothing for its credibility except diminish it.

It is clearly specious. :wave:

mountainman

Well, he was in his Oration to the Saints.
Have you studied what Robert Lane Fox has to
say about this text, perhaps authored and orated
by The Boss himself, c.324/325?

Have a good look


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

mountainman

What makes you think I am uninterested in the
history of the invention of the new testament?

It has stood up to a comparison with the evidence.
It is still in the running for an explanation of the way
things happened in antiquity.



So people like to say. But when I ask them for
any evidence from the non-Eusebian fields of
history they dont know what I mean.

To them Eusebius cannot be questioned.
Are you like that?

Do the gospel authors have an ascetic Jesus
who drinks wine and eats meat because that's
what Constantine, the meat eating lush who
made Christianity the state religion in 325 CE
wanted?

Do the gospel authors have an ascetic Jesus
who drinks wine and eats meat because the
authority of the traditional ascetics was to be
undermined?




Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Amaleq13

No, because the Gospels don't have "an ascetic Jesus".

No, because the Gospels don't have "an ascetic Jesus".

They might have depicted Jesus as avoiding the ascetic lifestyle of John for that reason but I've seen no evidence that this is true.

schilling.klaus

yes, it was

neopythagorean exegesis of the Septuagint was not unusual:
Numenius of Apamea and the Poimandres are eclantantly neopythagorean
with strong references to topics found in the Septuagint.
Philo of Alexandria was Neopythagorean to some degree.

the Catholic church just had to rework this esoteric exegetical work
of the gnostics and hermetics, dedicated to a spiritual elite,
into an exoteric work for manipulating the masses.
This required of course a carnivorous alcoholic wedding freak.

Klaus Schilling

mountainman

Each of the authors of the gospels makes the textual
reference to fasting, and in some instances, the author
makes more than one reference to fasting.

1) the relative fasting practices of John and JC's disciples.
2) the 40 days in the wilderness prior to "christian enlightenment"
3) the inter-dependence between fasting and healing.
(Reference already provided)


If Jesus was not to be presented as an ascetic, then why do
the authors make any reference whatsoever to the practice
of fasting in excess of one day a year, for example.

It is clear that the authority of the ascetics in antiquity is
being appealed to by the story written by the authors of
the gospels. The picture is that JC is reported to have a
specific teaching in regard to the practice of fasting.

If this is not an ascetic practice, what is?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Amaleq13

None of which state or even imply that Jesus is an ascetic and some of which explicitly deny it.

This continues to be a misrepresentation of the text. Jesus explains that a certain type of demon can only be sent out if one prays and fasts.

With 3) corrected, we have the reasons the authors made the references.

It is a religious practice (ie Jewish). Reference to the fact that Jesus did not fast as other Jews did appears to be used to differentiate him from friends and enemies, alike, and to again emphasize his unique identity.

mountainman

So fasting is a Jewish religious practice?
Fasting is not a Hellenic religious practice?
Fasting is not a Egyptian religious practice?
Fasting is not an Indian religious practice?
And fasting is not an ascetic practice.

Give us a break.



But fasting was and is not unique to nation or religion.
Fasting was and is regarded as an ascetic practice.

Jesus is portrayed as a partial ascetic master in regard
to fasting. John the Locust Man is presented as the more
complete ascetic -- living outside of civilisation, eating
little but insects and wild honey, fasting, etc, etc.
What happened to the full ascetic John?

The gospels authors have his head served upon a plate.
Doesn't this say something?


And what about the issue of vegetarianism?
Why does Jesus eat meat? Why does he spurn
the Pythaorean precept of being a vegetarian?

How come the God of the Observable Cosmos
inside the Hubble Limit eats his creatures?
What's with the sparrow falling business?
See Porphyry's "On Abstinence from Animal Foods"
from c.300 CE in which he outlines that the ancient
principles of vegetarianism are based upon the
concept of justice.

Why do the gospel authors present this God
as gnawing on the bones of dead animals?


Best wishes,