mountainman

Hey Gdon,

No it does not man! It starts to become incredible when you add a third name to the first two - the name of Anatolius. The incredible nature of the evidence suggests a systematic cause for these three DUPLICATIONS.

The evidence suggests that we have a duplication of three eminent Platonist theologians from the 3rd century. The evidence of the Christian theologians alone is sourced from Eusebius -- as I have already stated it is well known that he literally inherited the library of Origen (I think the Platinist).


A FOURTH duplication is found in the writings of the Platonist Porphyry, whom Eusebius presents as a "Christian writer".

The identity theft and forgery by Eusebius of the Platonist theologians of the 3rd century may not necessarily be the only explanation of this massive duplication of identities, but it is the simplest option I can see at the moment for discussion purposes.


The systematic fabrication of 3rd century christians from the 3rd century apostolic succession of the Platonist theologians appears clearly evidenced. How do we explain this massive integrity issue without involving Eusebius?

The stats should speak for themselves. While the penny has not yet dropped with stephan, other people have acknowledged that the existence of 2 duplications is something which needs a good explanation. The argument is tightened by appreciating that the duplication can be extended to 4 figures: Ammonias, Origen, Anatolius and Porphyry.

As far as I am concerned the simplest explanation is criminal activity by the 4th century Christian regime who sought to fabricate a history of their own lineage by indulging in identity theft from the lineage of important Platonist theologians. Eusebius must be the prime suspect.

Best wishes


Pete

mountainman

That's right stephan - just like the name of Jesus and/or Joshua.


Why dont you email M. J. Edwards, who also also disambiguates the "Pagan Origen" and the "Christian Origen"?

And why do you refuse to either acknowledge, or do some reading on, the scholarship of the duplication of Origen's teacher Ammonius in the 3rd century? The claim is MULTIPLE DUPLICATION.

I should ask you whether you can count beyond one.
You have failed to acknowledge the duplicate Ammonii.
Is there a reason for this ?

mountainman

Thanks Toto.
It was a bad HTML.
The paper is located here:


Porphyry's Egyptian 'de Abstinentia' II.47
M. J. Edwards
Hermes
123. Bd., H. 1 (1995), pp. 126-128
(article consists of 3 pages)
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4477065

stephan huller

No not like Jesus actually. Here's the result for Jesus:

That's the point here. On its own the idea that there might have been more than one Origen is quite possible. What you want to do with that evidence is unfortunately quite twisted and unwarranted. We should be led to our conclusions by the strength of evidence rather than impose our will upon it.

mountainman

Most people would agree that if we just had a duplicated Origen in the 3rd century then this may be possibly within the tolerance of possibility, but my argument is not about the duplication of one figure, but four in this order:

1) Ammonius
2) Origen

These first two are both KNOWN and unexplained.
We may also then add

3) Anatolius

(See Rowan Williams or my essay).

4) Porphyry



I am simply presenting multiple part evidence, part of which you have not yet addressed. What do you conclude if the evidence (and more importantly the scholarship on the evidence) itself exhibits not just a duplicate Origen, but a much earlier dupicate Ammonius, his teacher, and other Platonists of the 3rd century.

My claim was and is multiple duplication, not a single isolated duplicate Origen. You have not responded to this claimed evidence of multiple duplication.

stephan huller

If you made one silly argument like this it would be one thing. Indeed if you made the argument in isolation people might pay attention to it just to see if there is any logic behind it. Yet all of these tentacles are only developed to clear the way for your ridiculous meta-theory that ALL ancient witnesses before Nicaea were invented by a conspiracy in the fourth century. So it is that you line up a series of what one might generously call 'silly' theories (desperate is probably another nice way of referencing them) in order to promote a thoroughly crazed idea that some master mind 'must' be responsible for all these 'inconsistencies.'

I just showed that Origen was a common name in the period, much more common than names we'd think were common 'Maria,' 'Simon,' 'Justus' etc. To argue that because there MIGHT have been another Origen who wasn't a Christian in 260 CE that this necessarily PROVES that Origen the Christian didn't exist is like saying that because I got away with racing through a red light without getting pulled over THIS TIME means that it will happen every time I do it.

It's just a foolishly desperate way of developing arguments.

There were undoubtedly many Origen's living at the time of Origen the Christian. The fact that you might have discovered one of them proves nothing.

stephan huller

And another way to test theories is to try to sum them up in a sentence. This is essentially what mathematicians and other scientific researchers do when you think about it. Your tendency is to just throw a jumbled and confuse set of facts at people and hope you attract some followers owing to the simplicity of your theory. Yet you have to take each component part and break it down into a simply formula and see if each pillar to your meta-theory has any support. Unfortunately for you, your theory depends on the non-existence of Christians before Nicaea so you literally have to disprove every single witness before the fourth century.

I suggest if you break down your attempt to negate Origen into a single sentence you will see how ridiculous what you are saying is. I would sum up your argument as:

"Because I found a work of a Platonist named Origen from 260 CE all the works attributed to Origen the Christian are forgeries. "

I am sure you mightn't like my formulation. Yet I dare you to sum up your ridiculous theory about Origen in a single sentence. Don't cite me papers here and there with links, links, links. In a single sentence tell me why the discovery of Origen the Platonist from 260 CE disproves the existence of a Christian named Origen from a slightly earlier period.

mountainman

For the sake of the OP I will allow the inference from the evidence that the New Testament was authored in the late 2nd century.

My claims would then be modified to be that although Eusebius was working from legitimate new testament manuscripts, he could not find any real history for the transmission and commentary about the NT, and indulged in some fabrication of sources.

Based on this restatement, please pay attention to the argument in isolation that we are not just dealing with a duplicate Origen, but also a duplicate teacher of Origen Ammonias, and a duplicate of the Alexandrian mathematician Anatolius.

Why does an examination of supposedly historical figures of the 3rd century
reveal the following (and EXTENDABLE) series of duplicate identities, same name, same DOB, same DOD:

* Ammonias the Platonist theologian (Father of Neoplatonism) and Ammonias the Christian (See the Ammonian Canon Tables, etc or my essay)
* Origen the Platonist theologian and Origen the Christian Theologian (See Eusebius's #1,100 references, or may essay)
* Anatolius the Platonist theologian and Anatolius the Christian BISHOP (See Eusebius, Rowan Williams or my essay)


I would like to find a feasible explanation for this AMAZING COINCIDENCE.




For the sake of discussion of the OP - as stated above - I can allow the NT to have been authored in the late 2nd century.

If you would now return to the matter of addressing the evidence of the existence of at least three duplicate identities above ...

mountainman

Hey Toto,

Maybe stephan cannot entertain more than Origen at once even though my argument has consistently been we are not dealing with one duplicate identity but at least three.

Could you change the title of the OP

from

Were there two Origens? split from conspiracy theories

to

Were there two Ammonii, Origens, Anatolii, etc ? split from conspiracy theories .

I would like to find a feasible explanation for this AMAZING COINCIDENCE.


Thanks and best wishes


Pete

PS: For the sake of discussion of the OP I can allow the NT to have been authored in the later 2nd century.

stephan huller

I asked you to formulate a sentence to explain why finding 'Origen the Platonist' in 260 CE should raise any suspicions about Origen the Christian? Obvious you are only capable of shotgun scholarship - i.e. just shoot blindly at your target and hope you take something down. I ask again, IN A SINGLE SENTENCE why should finding a document attributed to Origen the Platonist of 260 CE have any bearing on whether or not there was another Origen the Christian a few years earlier given the fact that Origen was an extremely common name in Egypt. A single sentence please, no links and other distractions.

Why should historians thousand of years from now finding records of 'Pete' the American baseball player have any bearing on the existence of Pete the mountainman Australian internet conspiracy theorist? I can never follow your logic. A single sentence please.