GenesisNemesis

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

mountainman

Clement is one of the Papal Bulls running under the herd of Eusebius. Constantine wanted to include the Clementine related "Shepherd of Hermas" in the New Testament Canon. Athanasius, the father of orthodoxy reports it to have been axed. The Closure of the canon got rid of the Shepherd. The surviving Greek "Guardian Class" must have had their say in the close of the canon --- hence Revelations et al.

I am looking outside the herd of Eusebius' bull****. The books of the NT apocrypha were the only things Eusebius did not have under his control. These were the chaotic elements of "Christian Literature". The author of the NT Apocyrpha used chaotic bullshit to undermine the authority of the doubtful Jesus and his inept apostles.

This most shameful ridicule of the Greeks at its reception suggests that the Constantine Codex was the fabrication of an emperor with the mentality of a gangster. And that the Greek satire which was presented in Greek theatres 325 CE was preserved as the books of the NT apocryphal acts and gospels.

arnoldo

Well, that is the Eusebian Fiction postulate in a nutshell. According to the Hindu Prank Postulate, "christian literature" was written by hindu masters in an effort to prevent the eastern spread of the Roman Empire into India.

Toto

It seems that everything and anything could be satirized in the Greco-Roman theater.

Nah, those books are not racy enough for the Roman theater.

mountainman

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

Constantine (and thus Eusebius) thought they were far too racey, the reason being of course that the subject matter of the shameful ridicule was "the sacred matters of inspired teaching" to be found somewhere in the new testament which --- AT THAT PRECISE TIME --- Constantine was rabidy promoting as a "Holy Writ".

The books of the New Testament Apocrypha (NTA) may not appear "racey" to you Toto who, like the rest of us here, have lived a complete life since childhood with the presence of the Christian Church. If you have a look at the political context of the statement made by Eusebius above you will quickly determine that it was around the council of Nicaea, at which epoch Constantine was to start creating legal restrictions in the predominantly Greek Roman Empire that "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians" [Codex Theod, 326 CE].

The epoch in which this Greek satire was hurled at "THE VERY PURE CHRISTIAN RELIGION" (citing the thug Bishop Cyril) coincides with its political implementation on planet Earth, in the Roman Empire, which was essentially until that time Greek in its culture - not Italian, nor indeed Australian.

This is to be expected as a mass reaction by the Greeks who had preserved their own understanding of "The Logos" and of the Holy Trinity of Plato, re-expressed by Plotinus and then recently published by Porphyry, one of Plotinus' twelve disciples.

RACINESS BAROMETER

Here are a few lines of Greek satire hurled at the passion of Jesus as preserved in and reported by the "father" of the orthodox purity Athanasius. Arius apparently lampoons that the sun had a fit of passion at the crucifixion of our man on the ground Jesus, and became the active focus. Helios - the sun - is brought into the dominant theme and plot:

The heaven,’ as the Prophet says, ‘was astonished, and the earth shuddered’ at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless.

How racey did Athanasius think this line of Greek satire was from the pen of Arius? We can gauge this by what Athanasius writes immediately after quoting the above verses from Arius ....

And shall not all human kind at Arius’ blasphemies be struck speechless,
and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author?

[Athanasius' Four Discourses ... Chapter II.—Extracts from the Thalia of Arius]

I hope you are not going to try and claim that Athanasius does not think these lines are "racey enough". You are not without intelligence Toto. The raciness of the material is its irreligious and flippant dealings with matters which had suddenly become extremely political. The Boss was backing the Canon. The Greeks were busy satirizing the Christ out of it for laughs during a very depressing time for Greek civilisation. Constantine was successfully turning out the lights of the Greek civilisation by throw-back Draconian and Christian Laws, excessive taxation and the academically unquestioned use of fascist military measures.

As a final point I might comment that contemporary academics do not question the Boss' fascist measures because he was commanding what everyone likes to think of as "The Victorious Christian Army". This delusion that many academics are laboring under might be exposed if the academics read and understood modern books like "War is a Racket" by Smedly Butler who clearly outlines the political modus operandi of modern warfare. Nothing has changed about the attrocities of war. Lord Acton best summarises the problem:

“And remember, where you have a concentration of
power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get
control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts
absolutely.”

The fact of the matter is that the Bible was first widely published by a gangster with absolute power. There was a massive reaction to this event by the Greeks which involved the utter bagging of Bilbo Jesus Baggins and the Twelve Dwarves ---- and which was buried by the Boss' Christian Heresiologist and all their following [4th and 5th century Eusebian] heresiological continuators. The term "Continuators of Eusebius" is from Arnaldo Momigliano. The military and politically victorious Christians twisted their own history at that epoch, for the benefit of the authenticity of Constantine's Jewish Superman.

mountainman

In a nutshell the Eusebian fiction postulate is that Eusebius wrote bullshit for Bullneck. Then Arius took up the pen and wrote even more very funny irreverant bullshit about the Boss' bullshit. The books that Arius wrote became hot property. Arius suffered "damnatio memoriae" or political erasure from history - similar to the Soviet Stalin's rubbing out people from photographs and all official records.

Nobody could afford to get caught with any of Arius' hot books - it was certain death!!! It got so hot that someone in the Pachomian monastery near Nag Hammad finally decided to get certain books out of the monastery. Routine searchers by soldiers commanded by "Christian Emperors" obviously continued right through the epoch which we now call "The Arian Controversy". How coincidental!

mountainman

And the Greeks c.324/325 CE did not expect the anti-Hellenistic fascism of Constantine, nor his burning desire to support a little known Draconian religious cult over the ancient and the highly revered [[[ religion / philosophy / metaphysics ]]] of the Greek civilisation. The Christian inquisition commenced with the destruction of architecture. Immediately after the first "War Council" called the Council of Antioch, and before the second "War" Council of Nicaea 325, Constantine appears to have ordered for Greek unbelievers to be tortured to confess their errors.

The Christian inquisition then continued through the Council of Nicea at which time Constantine used military coercion and duress on the atttendees, and after calling for written petitons, did not read them but gathered them together in a big pile and, in the presence of the petitioners, burnt them. The Christian inquisiton then exploded through the 4th and 5th centuries. You have only to read Vlasis Rassias' account of this epoch of imperial Christian persecution and intolerance.

mountainman

It is reasonable to expect that this was the case. The penalty for the possession of the books of the satirist Arius, for example, was beheading. The absolute power of a ruler like Constantine was not to be sneezed at. If he was capable of executing members of his own family, and the Head of the Academy of Plato, and others at the drop of a hat, Constantine is not going to think twice about the execution of political dissenters.

A few hundred years later Muhammad executed two Islamic satirists when he became supreme. Satire is a last ditch stand against a despot when he has the absolue power of the military machine and is using it against the indigenous civilisation. Despots dont like being laughed at --- they do not like themselves or their "projects" to be the subject of satire. Satirists (against the Revolution) are usually the first to be executed after a political revolution by the victorious (despotic) party. History tells us this much.

Toto

It is not at all reasonable to connect the gnostic materials found at Nag Hammadi or other apocryphal material to the bawdy satire of the Roman theater - which is the object of this thread.

mountainman

Precisely where did Jesus often kiss Mary according to the gPhilip?
Why does Thomas refuse to go to the Indians and why is he sold by Jesus as a slave?
Why does Jesus drive a water taxi with two angels in the back to and from the Land of the Cannibals?
Why does Peter physically put a camel through the eye of a needle?

Why does NHC 11.1 say:

But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive ....

And he was crucified and he died - not his own death,
for he did not at all deserve to die because of the church of mortals.

And he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church.