Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-07-2010, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Frankly I'm not able to figure out to which theory was Dan Brown inspired, who also supports him that Christianity was an invention of the Emperor Constantine! ..

Dan Brown concentrates attention upon the books of the Gnostics, and places the books of the canon in the background. His story is developed from texts in the Berlin Codex, chiefly the Gnostic Gospel of Mary, and the Nag Hammadi codices, such as the NHC 2.3 Gnostic Gospel of Philip. The inspiration and success of Dan Brown is to permit the Gnostics to speak with some authority, and have their say after millenia, about the historical truth of "Christian Origins" ....

"According to these unaltered gospels it was not Peter
to whom Christ gave directions with which to establish
the Christian Church. It was Mary Magdalene."

My position is that Dan Brown has uncovered the very tip of an as yet non apperceived iceburg of Gnostic satire and parody against the authority of the orthodox canonical "church" followers (eg: Constantine).

Peter was peeved about Mary having "special knowledge" --- gMary
.
Where did Jesus often kiss Mary? --- gPhilip

The Gnostics' joke is against Peter and the "Canonical Church".
Constantine and Eusebius recognised this vile despicable literature as heretical.
And the Gnostic Gospels and Acts went underground for a millenium.

mountainman · 10-07-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am chuckling to myself again and every time I think of it. I can't even see what the agenda could be.

Two words.

GOLD

POWER

Quote:

It's so crazy it's funny.

Business as usual.

Imagine a fly on the wall of Bullneck's brain .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLY

GOLD and POWER.

ALOT of Gold to pay the ARMY, the barbarian War Chiefs and their barbarian Tribes. Power over the Imperial Taxation Tributes and of course - the Gold and Silver Mints. Alot of power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power over all classes, from the slaves to the senators, except the old priesthoods.

Except the priests? Huh? Why couldn't he be the boss of the existent Graeco-Roman religions and all this Thrice Blessed Hermes mumbo jumbo? Who was afraid of that snake Asclepius? Bullneck was big enough and smart enough. What would it matter if the Jews complained they had been robbed of various -- shall we say -- intellectual property rights?

Bullneck was a malevolent despot, far worse than the Roman Emperor Nero who once INSPIRED WITH HIS OWN POWER brought forward the Olympic Games and entering all the events took home all the gold medals and laurels. Constantine, putting on the honored robes of the "Pontifex Maximus", upon obtaining MILITARY SUPREMACY immediately closed down all the competing Graeco-Roman (Gnostic) religious organisations, and opened up his own Mega Chain Stores selling his One Preferred Religion. He published a Big Lie. He told everyone it was true. But it wasn't. And everyone knew it wasn't. But He got his way. It was very ugly. There were alot of executions. Finally the resistance fled. The resistance later got written up as the "Arian Controversy".

Who controlled the technology of mass communications in the 4th century, and by what means was this controlled? The answer is not funny. I wish it were, but it isn't. Fourth century history is more often black and barbarous than not.

SWAT !!!!

stephan huller · 10-07-2010, 03:44 PM

I think this is becoming more amusing than the original question. So in answer to my inquiry - why would the fourth century Church want to develop a forgery in the name of Lucian portraying their most revered saint as a compulsive public masturbator your answer was:

Quote:

Two words.

GOLD

POWER

which is brilliant. I don't know what to say. I am wondering if you can honestly tell me that you don't see anything incongruous about having this guy

venerated on February 23rd as the first saint of the Catholic Church? How this guy represents 'gold and power' for Constantine's organization is a fascinating question? Please explain ...

http://www.howtostopmasturbating.com/
http://christwire.org/2010/05/how-to...a-masturbator/

mountainman · 10-07-2010, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think this is becoming more amusing than the original question. So in answer to my inquiry - why would the fourth century Church want to develop a forgery in the name of Lucian portraying their most revered saint as a compulsive public masturbator your answer was:

Quote:

Two words.

GOLD

POWER

which is brilliant. I don't know what to say. I am wondering if you can honestly tell me that you don't see anything incongruous about having this guy venerated on February 23rd as the first saint of the Catholic Church? How this guy represents 'gold and power' for Constantine's organization is a fascinating question? Please explain ...

Very well. Are you telling me the business of running the collection trays for all the Saints of the Catholic Church, all the days of our lives, year after year, generation after generation, is not a lucrative business? Admittedly, the saints of the christian church were not invented until later in the 4th century, following the example of Athanasius, in his "Life of Anthony".

But you were the one who brought up "The Bogus Saint". The WIKI disambiguation page for "Lucian" shows:

(1) The Saint Lucian of Antioch , early Christian theologian and saint (c. 240–January 7, 312)

(2) The Saint Lucian of Beauvais, 3rd century saint and martyr (d. ca. 290 )

(3) The Satirist Lucian of Samosata, Roman rhetorician and satirist (c. 120-180 CE),

You tangentiated the kvetching into the black and sordid fraudulent can of worms surrounding the "Bogus Christian Saints" and the "Honorable Tradition of the Greek Satirists".

Your OP Lucian was (3) writing satire. That genre was popular with the Greek speaking audiences until Christianity effectively stamped it out. The manuscript tradition discloses that many ADDITIONAL books were forged in the name of Lucian in the 4th century. He may have been a well known and popular satirist. People borrowed the LXX. People borrowed the books of well known satirists and Jewish historians. With control of all the literature, all the books, one could interpolate the nation of christians into history a book at a time.

Summary

I regard Lucian alongside Josephus and Origen and Porphyry - who were genuine authors in antiquity - and in whose name the imperially sponsored scriptoria of the Christians forged additional books, after 312 CE, which made mention of "the NT and christians". The classic interpolation being the Eusebian "TF". See also the "Historia Augusta".

Eunapius reports it like this ...

Quote:

At any rate he left behind him many speculations
that conflict with the books that he had previously published;
with regard to which we can only suppose
that he changed his opinions as he grew older.

--- Eunapius, about Porphyry.

Chili · 10-08-2010, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think this is becoming more amusing than the original question. So in answer to my inquiry - why would the fourth century Church want to develop a forgery in the name of Lucian portraying their most revered saint as a compulsive public masturbator your answer was:

which is brilliant. I don't know what to say. I am wondering if you can honestly tell me that you don't see anything incongruous about having this guy venerated on February 23rd as the first saint of the Catholic Church? How this guy represents 'gold and power' for Constantine's organization is a fascinating question? Please explain ...

Very well. Are you telling me the business of running the collection trays for all the Saints of the Catholic Church, all the days of our lives, year after year, generation after generation, is not a lucrative business? Admittedly, the saints of the christian church were not invented until later in the 4th century, following the example of Athanasius, in his "Life of Anthony".

]

. . . the rewards are 10 fold Peter so the chance to give must be provided by the Church which is Catholic and not Christian. There is no mandate to give but freely given that we may receive (ie, we are not 10% people).

I think the argument exists that there is a matarial cause to sainthood but I am not quite sure how to articulate it.

Chili · 10-08-2010, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Chili

I agree with you on that. I think the half-shaved head and the mud, points to some sort of outward sign of penance. Perhaps it is linked with some cultural symbolism reflected in 1 Chronicles 19:

//

Thereafter he went away a third time, to Egypt, to visit Agathobulus, where he took that wonderful course of training in asceticism, shaving one half of his head, daubing his face with mud, and demonstrating what they call 'indifference' flagellating his genitals amid a thronging mob of bystanders,18 besides giving and, taking blows on the back-sides with a stalk of fennel, and playing the mountebank even more audaciously in many other ways.[/I][Peregrinus 16,17]

No penance but plain hypocracy. Persona means mask and to take a course in asceticism is to become an expert deceiver by percfecting the masquerade, and that is exactly how the inner man is fonicated . . . or rather, the expertise is used to bust the spiritual hymen in others.

Chili · 10-08-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Chili

I agree with you on that. I think the half-shaved head and the mud, points to some sort of outward sign of penance. Perhaps it is linked with some cultural symbolism reflected in 1 Chronicles 19:

//

Thereafter he went away a third time, to Egypt, to visit Agathobulus, where he took that wonderful course of training in asceticism, shaving one half of his head, daubing his face with mud, and demonstrating what they call 'indifference' flagellating his genitals amid a thronging mob of bystanders,18 besides giving and, taking blows on the back-sides with a stalk of fennel, and playing the mountebank even more audaciously in many other ways.[/I][Peregrinus 16,17]

No penance but plain hypocracy. Persona means mask and to take a course in asceticism is to become an expert deceiver by percfecting the masquerade, and that is exactly how the inner man is fonicated . . . or rather, the expertise is used to bust the spiritual hymen in others.

. . . which is required for a rebirth from above and is what the perpetual virginity of Mary is all about.

DCHindley · 10-09-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

Do you seriously believe that your modern sensibilities are relevant to what sorts of things would be acceptable in the second century in some different culture?

... I guess that I believe that certain acts were ultimately abominable. But even that isn't the issue here. The question again is it reasonable to accept our English translation when it says that this stranger repeatedly masturbated in public to demonstrate adiaphora and more important that the Greek terminology should be interpreted this way when whatever he was doing in public, it was grouped together with acts of self-flagellation?

I just want to hear a reason why the translation 'flagellated his private parts' doesn't work.

Stephen,

I pulled apart the Greek and English translation from that Loeb volume (vol 5 of thr 7 volumes of Lucian of Samosata) and get the following:

TRITH (Third) EPI (upon) TOUTOIS (this one) APODEMIA (going abroad) EIS (into) AIGUPTON (Egypt) PARA (towards) TON (the) AGAQOBOULON (Agathobulus),	Thereafter he went away a third time, to Egypt, to visit Agathobulus,
INAPER (whereupon) THN (the) QUAMASTHN (amazing) ASKHSIN (training) DIHSKEITO (to train through),	where he took that wonderful course of training in asceticism,
XUROMENOS (shaving) MEN (on the one hand) THS (the) KEFALHS (head) TO (the) hHMISU (half),	shaving one half of his head,
CRIOMENOS (annoint) DE (on the other hand) PHLW (by mud) TO (the) PROSWPON (face),	daubing his face with mud,
EV (in) POLLW DE (but) TWN (the) PERIESTWTWN (placing around) DHMW (common people) ANAFLWN (from ANAFLAW, to excite by touching, not ANAFLOW, to bubble up, excite) TO (the) AIDOION (genital)	by erecting his yard amid a thronging mob of bystanders,
KAI (and) TO (the) ADIAFQORON (freedom from corruption, emended to ADIAFORON indifference) DH (but) TOUTO (what) KALOUMENON (calling) EPIDEIKNUMENOS (to demonstrate),	and demonstrating what they call 'indifference'
EITA (therupon) PAIWN (struck) KAI (and) PAIOMENOS (striking) NARQHKI (reed) EIS (onto) PAS (entire) PUGAS (buttocks)	besides giving and taking blows on the back-sides with a stalk of fennel,
KAI (and) ALLA (but then) POLLA (many) NEANIKWTERA (vigorously) QAUMATOPOIWN (he did wonders).	and playing the mountebank even more audaciously in many other ways.

It sure does look as though he "erected his yard" by touching himself.

As for modern interpretation, note how the translator, A H Harmon, treats Lucian's sarcastic "but he also vigorously did many (such) wonders" as "playing the mountebank even more audaciously in many other ways." Harmon took NEANIKWTERA in the negative sense of "overdoing it" and added the element of "like a montebank" (street magician, hawker). The term for a street magician is usually GOHS. Harmon thus adds a value judgement in his choice of words. The striking of Peregrinus' buttocks with a reed may have been at first the action of someone who found him violating some social taboo, but remember that Cynics liked to show the corruption of values that civilization brings, and so he seems to have taken up the idea of striking his own buttocks whenever he did what comes naturally as a means to protest "unnatural" prohibitions of conduct.

Because Peregrinus was a follower of the Cynic way of life, Harmon also follows the emendation of ADIAFQORON (freedom from corruption, which is actually in the mss), to the Cynic technical term ADIAFORON (indifference). The sentence "demonstrating what they call 'freedom from corruption'" makes perfect sense, but "demonstrating what they call 'indifference'" sounds better, doesn't it? Normally an emendation is only justified when the existing text makes no sense. Harmon is thus again introducing a value judgement. Yet, there is a vast difference between being free of corruption, and being indifferent to the comforts and mores of civilized life. Peregrinus may have actually believed that doing what comes naturally was being free of the corruptions introduced by civilized society, as did Diogenes.

Heinie ho!

DCH

stephan huller · 10-09-2010, 09:29 AM

Thank you DCH

Perhaps I should modify my question. I found the information in the various Greek dictionaries but there was only a single entry for anaflaw and in Liddell Scott the reader is directed to the reference in Aristophanes. My question is how certain are we about the context of anaflaw. Are there other examples for the use of anaflaw that I can't find? That's the question.

I often find that with euphemistic terminology that the words that are used don't mean what they are taken to mean. 'Choking the chicken' for instance actually does not involve 'choking' nor a 'chicken.' It seems to me - and the fault may be my own - that anaflaw is ana (up, back, again) + flaw (crush, bruise). It seems to be rooted in almost a description of masturbation as a man 'crushing' his penis with his hand. Am I wrong in this? The root flaw can mean 'masturbate' but it really means to crush.

In all my previous attempts to figure out these term I just followed the construction laid out in Liddell Scott and other books. My question ultimately would be solved if we could find other examples of anaflaw. Do you know of any?

DCHindley · 10-09-2010, 10:49 AM

Like you, I have to rely on the Lexicons I have "to hand" (no "pud" intended!).

Apparently, the word only shows up in those two writers. Jack Lindsay's translation of Aristophanes, Lysistrata line 1099 has "lunging waddies." Lunging waddies? :rolling: There the word is used in a sexual context. "CHORUS The situation swells to greater tension. Something will explode soon" (line 1076-77). While the root forms may refer to beating-again, how it that different from "beat off?" I think self-generated erections are surely meant. You might also see if anyone you know has access to the TLG.

Peregrinus may have had a self destructive side (he did, after all, self immolate himself on a burning pyre), but he was also fairly egotistical and self centered, if there is any truth to Lucian's account. He was an attention addict.

DCH

Aristophanes, Lysistrata, Jack Lindsay, Ed.
SPARTANS
1098 O hinnie darling, what a waefu' thing!
1099 If they had seen us wi' our lunging waddies!

Aristophanes, Lysistrata, F.W. Hall and W.M. Geldart, Ed.
Λάκων
1098 ὦ Πολυχαρείδα δεινά κ᾽ αὖ 'πεπόνθεμες,
1099 αἰ εἶδον ἁμὲ τὤνδρες ἀμπεφλασμένως.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Thank you DCH

Perhaps I should modify my question. I found the information in the various Greek dictionaries but there was only a single entry for anaflaw and in Liddell Scott the reader is directed to the reference in Aristophanes. My question is how certain are we about the context of anaflaw. Are there other examples for the use of anaflaw that I can't find? That's the question.

I often find that with euphemistic terminology that the words that are used don't mean what they are taken to mean. 'Choking the chicken' for instance actually does not involve 'choking' nor a 'chicken.' It seems to me - and the fault may be my own - that anaflaw is ana (up, back, again) + flaw (crush, bruise). It seems to be rooted in almost a description of masturbation as a man 'crushing' his penis with his hand. Am I wrong in this? The root flaw can mean 'masturbate' but it really means to crush.

In all my previous attempts to figure out these term I just followed the construction laid out in Liddell Scott and other books. My question ultimately would be solved if we could find other examples of anaflaw. Do you know of any?

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

10-09-2010, 09:29 AM	#39
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Thank you DCH Perhaps I should modify my question. I found the information in the various Greek dictionaries but there was only a single entry for anaflaw and in Liddell Scott the reader is directed to the reference in Aristophanes. My question is how certain are we about the context of anaflaw. Are there other examples for the use of anaflaw that I can't find? That's the question. I often find that with euphemistic terminology that the words that are used don't mean what they are taken to mean. 'Choking the chicken' for instance actually does not involve 'choking' nor a 'chicken.' It seems to me - and the fault may be my own - that anaflaw is ana (up, back, again) + flaw (crush, bruise). It seems to be rooted in almost a description of masturbation as a man 'crushing' his penis with his hand. Am I wrong in this? The root flaw can mean 'masturbate' but it really means to crush. In all my previous attempts to figure out these term I just followed the construction laid out in Liddell Scott and other books. My question ultimately would be solved if we could find other examples of anaflaw. Do you know of any?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.