aa5874

Please, please, please!!! Why can't you just write what I have POSTED. I did not ever claim I am a famous Biblical scholar.

aa5874

Now, I ACTUALLY gave you sources for the CODES then people accuse me of something else.

Read "Church History" 3 chapters 3,4,and 5 for more CODES.

Gurugeorge has NOT ever given a source of antiquity for his claim that Simon Magus the magician and occultist was Paul and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos".

stephan huller

I was joking, ding dong. I think I know that you're not a famous Biblical scholar.

aa5874

You are a JOKER?

avi

Unlike Jake, I am very slow, in everything.

I acknowledge having not even a vague notion of why this specific passage should prove illuminating, in any way, particularly as a mechanism to unlock a mysterious code that would offer clues to the origin of modification of text of various patristic authors, including, presumably, Origen himself.....

avi

DCHindley

Mr (Ms?) aa sure can be an enigma. I have wondered myself whether he knows more than he lets on, or is what he says he is (an atheist). I know he is from the Caribbean somewhere, and from posts on other boards seems to be from an area where French is spoken. Maybe some place like Haiti or Guyane (French Guiana). My theory is that he is from an evangelical background, and posts as a means to parodize Atheists as baseless speculators without any grounding. He uses odd translations (like the one that mis-spells Galatians as Galations) and makes wild claims that he usually capitalizes and sometimes formats in colors and a variety of fonts sizes. Even so, he does manage to make a few valid observations.

Having unsuccessfully tried to dialogue with the guy/gal, I have finally placed him on my ignore list. For any who wish to avoid frustration, I recommend you do the same.

DCH (who is, I am sure, on several people's ignore list as well - damn facts constantly getting in the way of pointless arguing an all)

stephan huller

DCH

I always have a soft spot for the mashuganahs. But yes, the evangelical background is there from time to time. But so what. Live and let live is my motto

mountainman

See below for Maximinus. And Toto's comment.

Finally at least stephan can actually articulate an approximation of my argument, because essentially I am at least arguing a, b and c above.

However lets get back to how the Acts of Pilate fits in.
I have already stated there are in fact 3 acts of Pilate.
The early one - a report, and two 4th century narratives.
About this 4th century narrative ....

After examining a great deal of evidence my assessment is that
Eusebius simply lies when he said it appeared under Maximinus.

It is far more likely that the blasphemous Acts of Pilate appeared IMO only during the rule of Constantine, and immediately after Nicaea. It was authored as a political reaction to the appearance of Constantine's Bible in the East particularly Alexandria. Eusebius tells us that it was taken around to schools so that the Panhellenic children could learn greek by reading "The Acts of Pilate". Eusebius is our earliest witness for the known 4th century document called the "Acts of Pilate" that is also called the Gospel of Nicodemus.

I dont trust Big E for chronology, not even over a few decades, let alone a few centuries. Remember, we are dealing with Big E here not as a witness for the books of the canon, but as a witness for the books of the heretics. There is a vast difference here because Big E is a Big H, that is, a Big Heresiologist - in fact, the Chief Heresy Hunter.

Thus the way I see it, is that Big C and Big E wheeled the books of the canon into Alexandria c.324/325 CE and they met with reaction from the local Greek academics, who commenced to author their own gospels and acts in reaction. Perhaps this "Acts of Pilate" was one of the first, but it can be seen that there is evidence from Big E, that the document was causing a great deal of embarrassment to the orthodox christians and of course, the Boss was not pleased.

His will was supreme. He called any resistance to his agenda heretical, and he called anyone who disagreed with him, either dead or if still living - a heretic. Out of respect for the christian traditon we now call these people Christian heretics. But in historical reality, they were just PanHellenic people who were in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Obviously Constantine had been miraculously converted to the Codex Publishing business, and if we may rely on the contents of the Constantine Bible for a guide, aside from a bad choice with "The Shepherd of Hermas" etc, Constantine was representing orthodoxy. The problem was that some of the Greeks at that time opened up a competing Codex publication buisness. They chose their targets well. They performed massive identity theft from the new testament canonical stories to fabricate the acts of Pilate. Eusebius is correct in pointing out that the author was a forger. He was an artist! But he was a heretic!


As an addendum we may note that the first entry into the Christian "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" may have been this blasphemous acts of pilate. Eusebius adds a few more forbidden heretical books to the list himself as he earliest witness. Athanasius provides Bible codices for Constantius and then Pope Damasius's list of forbidden books becomes the basis the later Decretum Gelasianum. Readers should have no problems seeing how the Decretum Gelasianum survived in the Vatican until the Index Librorum Prohibitorum appears after Guttenburg.

aa5874

I did not even know that you existed when I started to post here and don't even know if you can even see my post or if you can even reply to my post or when you can post.

My position on any matter has ZERO or very little to do with anyone's opinion. I only DEAL with evidence from antiquity.

stephan huller

You see I am going to be the world's authority on AA and Pete's scholarship. Maybe I will teach a course at a university one day.