Huon

Graecum est, non legitur. (Middle Ages saying)
Graecus homo ac levis. (Cicero)

Toto

It's Greek to me

aa5874

Why do you always produce passages that are not in English from Against Heresies, and then ask me questions in English?

I have already suggested you post Against Heresies XXV in English.

Are you just copying copies of Against Heresies and posting them. Did you have them proof-read by an independent source to verify that they are free of errors?

Toto

aa - I gave you a link to Against Heresies in English, and it doesn't say exactly what you claimed.

Do you remember reading "They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect, . . . "

Does the word exception mean anything to you?

aa5874

But, the passage clearly states that Jesus was the SON of Joseph.

Don't you see the words?

The passage clearly states he was just like other men.

Don't you see the words?

Now where does it say that Carpocrates Jesus was not human?

Jeffrey Gibson

I.E. "it is Greek, [therefore] it cannot be read"

To be more precise, the expression is generally attributed to the Italian jurisconsult François Accurse (Accursio,) 1182- 1260. (on this, see P. Boulhol, La connaissance de la langue grecque dans la Francemédiévale VIe-XVe s, Aix-en-Provence 2008, p. 6 and p. 6 note 4.


An with regard to what I posted, the saying is not apt. Of course it' can be read. The irony is that most of those who post on a forum dedicated to rational biblical criticism -- and especially most of those who claim great insight into what Biblical and Biblically related texts say -- don't have the facility to do so

The actual saying is:

Full text in context is:

What Cicero says in De Provinciis Consularibus Section 15 line 12 may very well be the case (even though there is no evidence to think that this is what Cicero thought about Greek per se -- isn't he here referring to a a particular person's [i.e., Albucius'] Greek?). But it's wholly irrelevant, unless you can show that Greek of the passage I posted is indeed "flighty and inconsistent".

Will you be kind enough to do so?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Thankyou for this small concession - it is appreciated.

What about the Jesus in the new testament apochrypha? The non canonical jesus appears and reappears as a child, a small boy, in visions, did not leave footprints, appeared insubstantial, was a slave-master, received and signed contracts (bills) of exchange, was a boat captain with a crew - all these things and many more. What was in the mind of the pre-enlightenment author(s) of the non canonical gospels and acts when it came to this Jesus figure?

I doubt it very much. In order to reach such a position a person would have to be able to take a completely objective stance and say to themselves "I am about to consider the possibility that Jesus did not exist until the fourth century" as a valid hypothesis. The hegemon is with Eusebius' lonely and untrodden road. To discard Eusebius is to literally throw out the baby Jesus with the Eusebian bathwater. Nobody that I can recall is prepared to take this as a working hypothesis.

My claim is that it allows us - perhaps for the first time - to investigate a possible alternative history of antiquity in which christianity is an entirely fourth century literary, religious, social and political phenomenom. In gentle and relaxed discussion I will freely admit that my interpretation could be wrong. When I am pressed to defend it, I feel free not to make such admissions/concessions to attack.

The fact is that we have no New Testament archaeology to support the Eusebian framework despite centuries of conjecture and fraud. Hector Avalos stresses this point. (He also addresses the older Hebrew Bible.) My interpretation is put forward as an alternative to be considered in due course as an option to be explored by the enquiring minds of researchers in the field of ancient history. I will accept arguments of authority (in chronology) only by the C14.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

On the grounds that I myself declared to hold this position.

You mean "in principle"[/quote]

Yes.

My argument is that it was. Arius and Julian "blew the whistle" on the fabrication of the christians, and the fictitious Jesus who was "made out of nothing existing". That the Arian controversy was a political reaction to the authority of the NT and to the fact it was a plain and simple forgery, a fabrication assembled as a collage of pagan literature with a "christian badge".


Julian's statement was intended to be read in context, and at that time the christians were "officially known" as "Galilaeans". Hence from our perspective in the 21st century, Julian's statement is thus an explicit reference to the fiction of the christians.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

My first post to this forum was on the consideration of a Eusebian fiction postulate. This suggests position (b). I have consistently sought evidence to refute this position (b) since that time, and despite Dura-Europa and the Prosenes Inscription in ROME, the hypothesis has not yet met with a silver bullet. I put forward that the NT Canon (and the HJ) was fabricated in the fourth century on the basis that I have no prenice archaeological citation by which we can unambiguously assert the canon of the NT or its followers or its preservers existed prior to the fourth century.

If we have no independent and corroborating evidence from the fields of archaeology that the NT canon (or its preservers and/or followers) existed before Constantine published it, then by implication we may then suspect Eusebius is the inventor of the new testament collage of pagan references and short stories.


My position has remained unchanged from day one.



If the canon was fabricated by Constantine, then HJ was a created creature, a literary fiction, there was a time (and an age) when he was not, and before he was born (Eusebius as midwife) he was not.


YES. The opening lines of Julian's "Against the Christians" must have been well thought out and formed a succinct summary of Julian's intent at that time. It is short and sweet and it would have been known to the public. It is immediately followed by a legal disclaimer. When Cyril refuted Julian Cyril could not find the courage to change it substantially if at all, because he needed to stay "close to the truth" of (what Cyril calls) "Julian's Lies".



The orthodox (at that time) for one reason or another believed in the HJ as asserted in the NT canon. They were the authoritarian followers of the new official Roman state monotheistic church, which came into being with the three hundred and eighteen fathers vs. Arius of Alexandria plus 2

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

My point is that we should take the time to investigate and consider the possibility of fourth century origins, since the evidence itself (specifically the C14 citations) allows us to do so.

All are variants of an HJ. All assuage the 4th century fabricated and fictitious (literary) Jesus.



Well Jeffrey, how many times do I have to make reference to the citations in the sources for the relationship between the son of Zeus called Apollo, and the son of Apollo called Asclepius? Arius was an ascetic Hellenistic philosopher/priest who IMO was not christian as asserted.

The Eusebian Ecclesiatical History leads us on a lonely and untrodden path to the council of Nicaea. It prefaces the council of Nicea, where the words of Arius are made counterpoint to the will of Constantine. The Eusebian continuators were in fact in a position to write the history we now read, all these people above. We are presented a one dimensional christian picture, in which the pagans have suddenly vanished from the field to be replaced by multitudes of christian heretics. Arius was certainly a christian heretic with repect to the state monotheistic religion, but this description is christian. My opinion is that Arius is bettwe viewed as a non-christian, in order to be able to narrate the real (non-theological) political history of the fourth century.

Best wishes,



Pete