Amaleq13

Again, questions of historicity are entirely irrelevant to my position and, as far as I can see, to the discussion as a whole. This is simply what the story says and what Pete has repeatedly failed to address. Ignoring what the story actually says seems to me an incredibly poor way to try to explain what the story means but I suppose this will also be termed "naive".

What an odd way to characterize following the evidence of the texts.

schilling.klaus

difference is that Eusebius tries to trickl people into believing
that his orthodoxy predates the heresies, which of course it doesn't.



Because the Catholic church fathers were antiascetic
and thus faked Jesus into being recklessly carnivorous
and alcoholic, as prescribed by Jewish Law that
the Roman Catholic Church wanted people to believe
to see being perfected by Jesus the perfect Jew.

For this avail, Jesus is participating in the passover
dinner. This is absurd as Jesus is otherwise supposed
to be the sacrificial lamb, thus already dead at that point.
The Catholic promotion of carnivorism and alcoholicism
was thus imposed on the gospels at the cost of
making crucifixion day impossible.

Klaus Schilling

mountainman

Here is some background on my position concerning the
chronology of the Eusebian orthodoxy.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

The mainstream position makes the nieve conjecture that
"we certainly do have textual evidence" in this regard
and in that regard, but in reality all they have is their conjecture
that they have "textual evidence".

They have no history upon which to hang their conjecture.
No historical evidence by which they may be assured that
the authors of the gospels wrote with any one political
motivation or integrity.

You (mainstream) assume integrity prior to all else.
It may have been unstated. But that is past tense.




One reason would be the intent to deceive.

However, of course, you'll say to me that the
authors of the gospels could not have been engaged
in the practice of fraudulent misrepresentation on the
basis that they did not specifically tell us so in the
text.



But so do forgers, and people writing with the
intent to deceive.


It does once you expand your hypotheses at the basis
of your enquiry and research to include the possibility
that the authors of the gospels were instructed to so
write their text with the intent to fraudulently misrepresent
ancient history.

And this is not an unreasonable hypothesis to consider.
We know from other historical events that people in absolute
power attempt to peddle all sorts of fraudulent propaganda
without the slightest concern about "academic integrity".

Thus, when answering the question "Why do the gospel
authors have an ascetic Jesus who drinks wine and eats
meat", there needs to be considered - at some point -
that these authors of Greek writings, with a distinctive
Roman tone, could have been writing total bullshit, in
an unknown century, at an unknown location.

One of the most holy and revered authorities of antiquity
was the practice of asceticism, which in no uncertain
terms, the authors of the gospels cast down.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Amaleq13

This is incomprehensible. I am stating a fact about the available text. There is no conjecture involved. The text clearly and explicitly provides a Jewish context for Jesus' fasting behavior. You are free to offer an argument that this has been interpolated or that you can show a "hidden" context or some other mitigating claim but even that doesn't make the actual text disappear. It is simply absurd to claim that noting what the text actually states is somehow conjectural. :huh:

Please explain why they would want to hide their Pythagorean thinking behind an explicit Jewish context and what evidence suggests this to be the case.

No, I just want evidence supporting the claim.

No, considering possibilities isn't difficult. The tough part is demonstrating that the notion has a credible basis in evidence.

mountainman

You have been around here long enough to know
that "there is no early evidence" in the ancient
historical sense in regard to "Early Christianity"
in the first century. (Some would argue 2nd and 3rd).

We do not have any external evidence.
One may assume the gospels are true.
One may assume the converse.
We have no evidence to decide
which approach is valid.

Unless of course, you wish to cite some evidence
for whatever position it is you subscribe to.

The gospels could be fiction. How do we know?
They dont say they are fiction. Is that enough
"for your idea of evidence" to assume they are not?

At face value, these texts - the gospels - have
traditionally been assumed to have integrity
with respect to history and chronology.

This face value thing is a conjecture.
We have expected to find evidence.
But we have not, and yet mainstream insists
that we turn the spotlight on to the first
century (the literature leads us to this)
and to Palestine and Judaea (the literature
leads us to this).

Could this be Constantine's Big Red Herring?
Who dares ask for example was Constantine honest?



In returning to the subject of "asceticism" I repeat
my claim that the authority of the ascetics in the
ancient world of antiquity was held in high regard.

Asceticism was the time honoured authority.
Why did the gospel authors raise the basis
of polemic against the ancient ascetic authority
by painting Jesus as a partial authority in the
perceived merit of vegetarianism and abstinence
from alcoholic beverages?

Could the authors of the gospels have been
mistaken in their reports on these actions of
the christian god? How reliable are they?



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Amaleq13

Is this your way of acknowledging you have no evidence to support your position?

Why do you pretend that I have not repeatedly made my position in this thread quite clear?

Why do you persist in attributing a position to me that I have explicitly denied?

For the last time:
I am simply observing an apparent significant lack of connection between your OP and the text it purports to explain. I am also noting that your "argument" has, so far, done absolutely nothing to address this glaring problem. Vague accusations of lying or conjecture that the authors might have been thinking about Pythagorean philosophy simply don't cut it. Actually answering my questions might.

Given that I am correct that you have no evidence, I'll drop that from my ignored request.

Please explain why the authors would want to hide their Pythagorean thinking behind an explicit Jewish context.

I'm trying to help you obtain some painfully needed coherence for your position, Pete. :banghead:

mountainman

The Pythagoreans were being set up for a fall.
Their academic lineage and integrity was no match
for the divine lineage of the new christian cult.

Eusebius traces the superiority of the ancient Hebrew
sages over their Pythagorean and Egyptian counterparts.

Constantine wanted a new non Hellenic God.
It was good for the business of robbery of the
Hellenic temples. As Pontifex Maximus, it was
his right to sponsor any god or cult of his choosing.

He decided to invent a non hellenic god.
He was about to take the "Graeco" out
of the ancient Graeco-Roman civilisation.

How about that for an explanation?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Amaleq13

It needs work.

I don't see how that explains why the authors provided a Jewish context to Jesus' fasting behavior when they were really thinking about Pythagorean asceticism.

Are you trying to imply that the stories were originally explicitly Pythagorean and then rewritten to appear Jewish or what?

Could you please make an effort to communicate your explanation clearly?

mountainman

IMO the ancient world was full of Pythagorean asceticism.
It was distributed at least through the most popular of the
(many) Graeco-Roman cults - such as the healer Asclepius

The Jewish context is a red herring.
The Jewish context of ascetic practices coincides
also with war, as is indicated in the DSS.
But the Romans flattened the Jews at Masada.
It was a province of the ROman empire.

Pythagorean asceticism (and its derivatives and relations)
IMO will be found far more prevalent than now understood.
Asceticism was the authority and measure of the ancients.
Christianity was a fourth century fiction composed by
wicked men, in order to undermine these ancient foundations.

(IMO)


The gospel stories IMO were forged between 312-324 CE
by order of the brand spanking new Pontifex Maximus.

At Nicaea, he puts forward his new Jewish stories and
takes a totally rigged vote against the opinion of Arius.
Arius goes down. Constantine publishes the bible.

A whole stack of anti-christian polemic results. The non
canonical "Acts" are anti-christian polemic, parody and
satire. They - the Eastern Greeks - did not have a sword
strong enough to break free from the despot Constantine.

So they used writing - the non canonical acts - as anti-
christian propaganda. These were immediately recognised
as "heretical", and the fourth and fifth centuries track
the eventual supremacy of the imperially inspired top-down
emperor cult as the supreme religion, attendant in the
court of the Roman emperor since its inception 325 CE.

Does this make the position any clearer?

Best wishes,



Pete Brown