Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Littlejohn · 08-14-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Making the claim that Arius 'is' the 'original Antichrist' is crazy.
.

In the same way as Christ was no 'mere man' so can the anti-christ be no 'mere man' but if Christ is the illumination of our mind so will the anit-christ be the perversion of our mind.
.

It is very likely that first to speak of 'Antichrist' were the Jews of the diaspora, to stigmatize the fact that Catholic Christians had created a new Christ, in place of that one of Judeo-Christians: almost certainly John of Gamala (or 'John son of Judah'). However, one can not rule out to priors the possibility that may have been of the heathens well informed of the facts.

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Davka · 08-14-2010, 03:41 PM

Why did I know before even looking that it was going to be Obama?

This idiot can't even phoneticise properly using Hebrew letters. But that won't matter to the faithful paranoid, who eagerly slurp up every rumor that feeds their hatred of the left, and their certainty that God is going to come kick all those commie fascist pinko faggot n*gg3r's butts.

Chili · 08-14-2010, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

In the same way as Christ was no 'mere man' so can the anti-christ be no 'mere man' but if Christ is the illumination of our mind so will the anit-christ be the perversion of our mind.
.

It is very likely that first to speak of 'Antichrist' were the Jews of the diaspora, to stigmatize the fact that Catholic Christians had created a new Christ, in place of that one of Judeo-Christians: almost certainly John of Gamala (or 'John son of Judah'). However, one can not rule out to priors the possibility that may have been of the heathens well informed of the facts.

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

I am certainly not a theologian John nor a student of the bible and agree that the Jews knew what they were doing but let me remind you here that Joseph was a Jew and that someone saw the need to to write a New Testament werein the new religion becomes a grafted branch on the trunk of Judaism. I see nothing wrong with that and will always admire Judaism as founder of the Western world, and no, a heathen could never fit the bill and not until after well into the dark ages that gave rise to the golden age of Catholicism.

What I find tragic is that the anti-christ is so powerful in persuasion and that they will go to war and die for their cause while in fact they have nothing to show for except dissention and worn-out warfare with an empty wallet to boot and still they won't quit.

mountainman · 08-14-2010, 09:12 PM

Stephan huller please read my claim carefully.
It was this ....

The first person in ancient history to have been specifically attributed with this specific term [ie: the AntiChrist]
- from more than one independent source -
is Arius of Alexandria..

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

mountainman

Marcion was identified as the Antichrist long before Arius.

But by one single author - was it not this profile Tertullian?

Quote:

Was sex invented in the fourth century too?

Gnostic Gospels and Acts featuring encratitic practices
are known to have been authored in the 4th century.

Quote:

What about running water? This obsession with the fourth century is not healthy.

Time will tell. The bible was lavishly published by an extremely influential despotic militaristic Lord God Caesar and Pontifex Maximus. Other lavish publications manufactured at that precise time include the one and only history of the christian bible followers, and the Historia Augusta.

Allow me my hypotheses so long as they are not falsified by any evidence that you can cite, and I will allow you your hypotheses about the same evidence.

Quote:

Christianity was not invented in the fourth century, only one specific formulation of Christianity was.

Time will tell.

Quote:

Seriously, claiming the first Antichrist comes from that period is deranged. The glee associated with naming Arius - wow.

The first instance of multiple corroborated sources agreeing that a specific
author and historical identity was worthy of being deemed the antichrist
appear in the 4th century, and are being thrown at Arius of Alexandria
by the orthodox card-carrying Constantinian Roman Christian Church.

The "Surprise ! Surprise ! Surprise !" was actually a tribute to Gomer Pyle.
Sorry if this offended anyone.

It was to remind people that this period witnessed a massive "Civil War" within the empire so to speak.
The Commannder of the Western Roman legions was supremely victorious over the Commander of the Eastern Roman legions.
It was WAR - and the Eastern Roman Empire had been INVADED by Constantine.
There were casualties.
The victor dictated the terms.
See the Nicaean Oath (legally it is not a Creed)
See particularly the Anti-Arius disclaimer clauses which echo the five sophisims of Arius against Constantine's Jesus.

Quote:

It's like claiming that you've uncovered the first person in the world to ever be called an 'asshole' by someone or that you can prove that your barber was the guy who made up the story about Rod Stewart going to the hospital and having twenty ounces of sperm taken from his stomach.

Making the claim that Arius 'is' the 'original Antichrist' is crazy.

This is not my claim. My claim is this:

The first person in ancient history to have been specifically attributed with this specific term [ie: the AntiChrist]
- from more than one independent source -
is Arius of Alexandria..

Quote:

The heretic Marcus is identified by Irenaeus as a precursor of the Antichrist (AH i.13.1).

Again, nobody else takes any notice of this claim by Irenaeus. It is uncorroborated. It is therefore precluded according to the specifications of my claim. We are looking for multiple attestations. We are looking for the histirical epoch at which time more than one christian author indignantly plays the antichrist card against another historical author or identity. This situation does not occur until the appearance of Arius of Alexandria in ancient history.

Quote:

Nero.

You need to deal with the counter arguments against Nero.
See for example the arguments from Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus: Arthur Drews (1912)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DREWS on Nero

Nero as the ANTICHRIST

Finally, there is the complete silence of profane writers and the vagueness of the Christian writers on the matter; the latter only gradually come to make a definite statement of a general persecution of the Christians under Nero, whereas at first they make Nero put to death only Peter and Paul. The first unequivocal mention of the Neronian persecution in connection with the burning of Rome is found in the forged correspondence of Seneca and the apostle Paul, which belongs to the fourth century. A fuller account is then given in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died 403 A.D.), but it is mixed with the most transparent Christian legends, such as the story of the death of Simon Magus, the bishopric and sojourn of Peter at Rome, etc. The expressions of Sulpicius agree, in part, almost word for word with those of Tacitus. It is, however, very doubtful, in view of the silence of the other Christian authors who used Tacitus, if the manuscript of Tacitus which Sulpicius used contained the passage in question. We are therefore strongly disposed to suspect that the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness.[67]

But how could the legend arise that Nero was the first to persecute the Christians? It arose, says Hochart, under a threefold influence. The first is the apocalyptic idea, which saw in Nero the Antichrist, the embodiment of all evil, the terrible adversary of the Messiah and his followers. As such he was bound, by a kind of natural enmity, to have been the first to persecute the Christians; as Sulpicius puts it, “because vice is always the enemy of the good.”[68] The second is the political interest of the Christians in representing themselves as Nero's victims, in order to win the favour and protection of his successors on that account. The third is the special interest of the Roman Church in the death of the two chief apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome. Then the author of the letters of Seneca to Paul enlarged the legend in its primitive form, brought it into agreement with the ideas of this time, and gave it a political turn. The vague charges of incendiarism assumed a more definite form, and were associated with the character of Antichrist, which the Church was accustomed to ascribe to Nero on account of his supposed diabolical cruelty. He was accused of inflicting horrible martyrdoms on the Christians, and thus the legend in its latest form reached the Chronicle of Sulpicius. Finally a clever forger (Poggio?) smuggled the dramatic account of this persecution into the Annals of Tacitus, and thus secured the acceptance as historical fact of a purely imaginary story.

The stories concerning Nero's involvement with Christians, outside the mentions in perhaps some "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" are extremely late. Nobody at the time wrote about Nero as an antichrist.

Quote:

Marcion.

Tertullian's hissy fit that Marcion was the antichrist is a singular claim. There are no multiple attestations. Tertullian could have been having a bad day. We do not see multiple writers saying this specific thing: "Marcion is the antichrist".

Quote:

The list goes on and on. I think there are other texts from memory too like the Apocalypse of Elijah.

Please feel free to present additional evidence.
My ideas are emminently falsifiable via the presentation and interpretation of evidence.
That is the name of the business of ancient history.

But keep in mind that in this instance the claim specifies multiple attestations:

The first person in ancient history to have been specifically attributed with this specific term [ie: the AntiChrist]
- from more than one independent source -
is Arius of Alexandria.

Much of this stuff has already been cited already in an earlier thread entitled The Quest for the Historical Anti-Christ

stephan huller · 08-15-2010, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Again, nobody else takes any notice of this claim by Irenaeus. It is uncorroborated.

I don't know what to say to this. A 'corroborated' reference for a particular historical personage being the Antichrist.

Really?

Corroborate the existence of the antichrist?

Corroborate - "to support with evidence or authority : make more certain"

What's next will you be looking to solve the mystery of the Yeti or the Loch Ness monster.

Arius wasn't the Antichrist he was probably a nice guy. He just happen to be a part of a tradition that was getting an eviction notice handed to them by Hosius of Cordoba.

And this nonsense -

Quote:

nobody else takes any notice of this claim by Irenaeus

No you don't because he comes from over two hundred years before your date for the beginning of Christianity.

"Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist." [Irenaeus AH i.13.1]

"he has truly been shown to be the forerunner of the Antichrist." [Epiphanius, Panarion 34]

and

"Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents, Skill'd in consulting the stars, and deep in the black arts of magic, Ever by tricks such as these confirming the doctrines of error, Furnishing signs unto those involved by thee in deception, Wonders of power that is utterly severed from God and apostate, Which Satan, thy true father, enables thee still to accomplish, By means of Azazel, that fallen and yet mighty angel,-- Thus making thee the precursor of his own impious actions." [AH i.15.6]

Littlejohn · 08-15-2010, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Why did I know before even looking that it was going to be Obama?

This idiot can't even phoneticise properly using Hebrew letters. But that won't matter to the faithful paranoid, who eagerly slurp up every rumor that feeds their hatred of the left, and their certainty that God is going to come kick all those commie fascist pinko faggot n*gg3r's butts.
.

I did not well understand what you mean .... However I think it must be something very important ..

Littlejohn

.

mountainman · 08-15-2010, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

It is thanks to the work of a Hebrew writer-journalist, namely Abelard Reuchlin (a nickname), that I was able to confirm what I had imagined, about the emperor of which above. You deals of the book "The true authorship of the New Testament"

The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin

Quote:

The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso)1 family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it--Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Maws, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist--are all fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc.

But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!) characters.

mountainman · 08-15-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Again, nobody else takes any notice of this claim by Irenaeus. It is uncorroborated.

I don't know what to say to this. A 'corroborated' reference for a particular historical personage being the Antichrist.

Which other author in antiquity agrees with Irenaeus about his claim that some "Marcus" was antichrist? None that I can find.

Quote:

Arius wasn't the Antichrist he was probably a nice guy. He just happen to be a part of a tradition that was getting an eviction notice handed to them by Hosius of Cordoba.

Arius of Alexandria was the subject of a big antichrist call from Anthony (Vita), Alexander of Alexandria (via Socrates) and Athanasius, the father of orthodoxy. Three separate powerful people decide that Arius's docetic opinions about Constantine's Jesus were deserving of the charge of antichrist. You'll note that these are three independent authors.

Quote:

And this nonsense -

Quote:

nobody else takes any notice of this claim by Irenaeus

No you don't because he comes from over two hundred years before your date for the beginning of Christianity.

"Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist." [Irenaeus AH i.13.1]

So Irenaeus calls "Marcus" antichrist is one count, and I am seeking multiple counts. Does any other author of that period also agree with Irenaeus?

Quote:

"he has truly been shown to be the forerunner of the Antichrist." [Epiphanius, Panarion 34]

Epiphanius is well after Nicaea and Arius. Are you sure you're not citing Irenaeus: Against Heresies - BOOK I, CHAP. XIII.--THE DECEITFUL ARTS AND NEFARIOUS PRACTICES OF MARCUS.

Arius attracted three counts of being called antichrist (by the three most orthodox christians of his time of course). Did anyone before Arius attract two or more counts of being called antichrist? I cant find any evidence of an open Antichrist Witch-hunt before Arius of Alexandria attracted the attention of the orthodox.

Chili · 08-15-2010, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

[

Arius attracted three counts of being called antichrist (by the three most orthodox christians of his time of course). Did anyone before Arius attract two or more counts of being called antichrist? I cant find any evidence of an open Antichrist Witch-hunt before Arius of Alexandria attracted the attention of the orthodox.

Yes Pete but called anti-christ does not make you anti-christ.

Anti-christ is claiming salvation and been given a scorpoin instead of a fish that keeps biting you in the ass so you keep feeding it and it keeps biting you.

Toto · 08-15-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Why did I know before even looking that it was going to be Obama?

This idiot can't even phoneticise properly using Hebrew letters. But that won't matter to the faithful paranoid, who eagerly slurp up every rumor that feeds their hatred of the left, and their certainty that God is going to come kick all those commie fascist pinko faggot n*gg3r's butts.
.

I did not well understand what you mean .... However I think it must be something very important ..

Littlejohn

.

Davka was the first to mention Obama. I think there is some mistake here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2010, 03:41 PM	#12
Davka Contributor Join Date: May 2010 Location: Babble Belt Posts: 20,748	Why did I know before even looking that it was going to be Obama? This idiot can't even phoneticise properly using Hebrew letters. But that won't matter to the faithful paranoid, who eagerly slurp up every rumor that feeds their hatred of the left, and their certainty that God is going to come kick all those commie fascist pinko faggot n*gg3r's butts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.