spin

??

Here I respond to aa5874 who argues from mountainman's erroneous analysis of Julian. This is to mountainman. This is in the archives.


spin

Roger Pearse

The text of the fragments of Julian Against the Galileans (extracted from Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian) is online:

http://www.tertullian.org//fathers/j...ans_1_text.htm

The quotation is from the first sentence.

Spin is right to say that the mention is misleading because it is being quoted to suggest that Julian endorsed MountainMan's claims that Christianity was invented in the 4th century. But just do a search on the text for 'Jesus' to see what sort of things Julian says -- "he did not exist" is not one of them.

The following might be of use to those who wonder just why anyone would attempt to peddle such obvious nonsense:

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Its "exactness" in accessing forgery.


I have listed these multiple times in other threads.


There is in this the element of "Maxwell Smart's Cone of Silence",
which descended upon Dura Europa 256 CE along with the twentieth
century desert sands, despite the known fact the entire Roman
army camped there for some days a little over a century later.


You give me way too much credit spin.
It is an historian's question, nothing more:
"Did Constantine create christianity?"

Our response is simple: Constantine drove the project.
Eusebius had little to do but generate propaganda as directed.
His interpolation into Josephus is supported by Occam.

It too, was as directed, to get a PRIORITY DATE, like any
collection of intellectual property and its literature.
Constantine wanted to create an older (pseudo-) antiquity
that the existent Roman/Graeco/Egyptian (perhaps also /Buddhist)
so that he could plunder and then surplant the latter.


I believe it is possible that Arius only assumed the existence
of Jesus as late as 317 CE, when the Arian controversy is
said to have commenced; further, that he did not reject the
notion that Constantine was before him at the Council of Nicaea,
presenting a "fiction/fable/monstrous tale".

It is possible that he had to select his words
very carefully, unlike some.

Our dialogue has evidenced disagreement.
Read into that what you will.


Did Constantine create christianity?

The question does not imply an answer of any grand conspiracy.

It basically questions whether it is possible that the supreme
imperial mafia thug COnstantine was inspired by boundless
ambition for more and more power, and sponsored an army
of literature to be assembled over and against the contemporary
late Second Spohistic indigenous army, standing in readiness
for his eventual supremacy in the empire.

He then implemented the package at Nicaea.

Julian has the final pagan word before Theodosius et al
convert by the sword and the flame, and Cyril mops
up after the event.

Another religion enters the world: what are the current stats for
the creation of new religions on this planet? Its been unusually
high over the last few centuries.




Pete Brown
HISTORY is (eventually) RELATIONAL not HIERARCHICAL

mountainman

Julian's claims below, preceed mine.
Endorsement does not work in such a fashion.
I am essentially endorsing a new interpretation
for Julian's invectives against the galilaeans,
and not the other way around.

"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced
that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth."

--- Emperor (360-363 CE) Flavius Claudius Julianus (the Apostate)
"Against the Galileans" remains of the 3 books,
excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum (1923)"

If the opening paragraph is not enough, the second paragraph
is basically a very heavy legal disclaimer, to a certain effect
that what follows should be treated in a specific manner.

A barrister may still argue through myriad details of a fiction story
without having for one moment entertain the truth of the fiction
story, because his opening address states his case, quite plainly
in my opinion. He does not mince his words, as does our
disembling and wretched Eusebius over the thrice blessed King.

And we have a sentimental account the day Roger
turned up in the alt.surfing newsgroup ....

Calumny at its finest still clearly exists in all walks of life.
However I value above all things peace and quiet.

I have stated that Julian never names names of the "wicked men"
whom he was convinced made the fabrication of the galilaeans,
or if he did, Cyril selected not to transmit this bit, as he admits
he was practiced at doing, for fear of "contaminating the minds
of christians".


Pete Brown

spin

How would you know?

Please supply a link or two for these multiple times.

The archaeology of Dura-Europos shows that the particular part of the city where the synagogue and the church were found was filled in because the wall in the area was considered not solid enough.

You have already answered the question (as I have).

See what I mean? You wouldn't have a clue on the matter. You are merely guessing and you have no evidence to support your case. You abuse Julian. Still, you have answered that "historian's question" -- though without the tools for doing so.

Utter rubbish.

How would you know? The answer is, you have no way of knowing.



No need. You misunderstand the text as you have shown by your use of it.

You are forgetting that you frequently answer the question to the affirmative, with no evidence to back it up. You are wedded to this grand conspiracy, which you have force-fed this forum for quite a long laborous time.

You use this stultifying rhetoric about Constantine continually, "imperial mafia thug". You are simply unable to take a scholarly approach to your task. You just fall over your own language which shows the assumptions you make.

When did the docetists enter this world? Why does Eusebius invent a fictitious heresy called Ebionism, whose name has earmarks of being derived from the Hebrew "ebion"? Why did he invent a fictitious eponymous founder to put into the mouth of the fictitious Latin writer Tertullian? Why did Epiphanius show signs of the development of the fictitious Ebion if it is in fact all fictitious?

Why did the grand conspiracy need Gnosticism, Ebionism, Docetism, Montanism, Marcionism, Valentinism, Manichaeism, Sabellianism, and Patripassianism? If there was such a grand conspiracy at the time under the constrol of the "imperial mafia thug", why did we get Arianism or Donatism? If the religion came from a central theological institution why did Pelagianism and Apollinarianism develop that century?

How do you imagine the gospels were written? one at a time or in tandem? Remember that both Matt and Luke evince dependence on Mark, yet all the gospels were supposed at the beginning of this period to have been acceptable. Why do the gospels evince a pericope structure if they were written all at once? Why does the gospel tradition evince a piecemeal development, with confused references such as Peter, Simon, Cephas, bar Jona, Simon Peter with one gospel preferring one over another?

All of these questions can be answered simply: the noted manifestations represent traditions developing over time and place (we need of course to account for Greek, Latin and Syriac christian texts). Occam finds that far, far, far simpler than the pirouettes your grand conspiracy must go through to justify these "aberrations".


spin

mountainman

In fact it was a scholarly approach enabled me to arrive at such
an apt description of the emperor Constantine. What is unscholarly
about the compound term "imperial mafia thug"? (In your opinion,
of course) I thought it was better than "brigand".


Big Bang in 312 CE; new prospects in the East looked good.
Time to work on a plan for that golden promotion 325 CE.


Momigliano once remarked about
Eusebius "possibly a man of Jewish descent".

Constantine never lost a battle. This was the marshalling
of fabrications on a scale never before undertaken, an army
of literature to do his bidding. He mocked. He did not flatter.

All this can be answered simply by the one postulate:
that the fabrication of the galilaeans is a fiction of men
composed by wickedness.

The gospels, the histories, the holy fathers and the apologists,
including Celsus, and NT-Origen, histories, service books,
operational guidelines, blood-thirst-horrow-stories-of-gore
to make people wake up (typical propaganda tactic), all
of this was created between 312 and 324.

Many were called, but few (gospels) were chosen
(by Constantine), before he bound them to the LXX
circa 330 CE. Clearly, he saw himself as "THE KING".

(See the coin he issued 327-330 called the Dafne)



Pete Brown

spin

post tenebras lux

Good morning Spin, am I to understand from the above that you claim that there are 'christian' frescoes that have been discovered at Dura-Europos but which are not available on the internet?

The only 'christian' fresco at Dura-Europos I remember having seen is one of 'The Good Shepherd' (which, obviously, could have been a reference to a different religion).

So, am I right in understanding that you claim there are more 'christian' (and 'more christian') frescoes at Dura-Europos? But that you have no linky to images of said frescoes?

Given the glee that certain apologetic websites give to the alleged findings at Dura-Europos (including posting photos of 'The Good Shepherd' and the reconstruction of the room it was found in), many people might think that they'd be falling over themselves to publish images (or artistic drawings) of all 'christian' frescoes found at Dura-Europos. Do you know any reason why they don't display images of these other frescoes?

Do you have copies of these other frescoes? Can you scan them?

spin

You understand correctly. I cited the source when I first mentioned it. It was a book about a campaign at Dura-Europos by the exceptionally well-known Roman Scholar, Michael Rostovtzeff.

Rostovtzeff claims. He describes a number of frescoes.

They'd have to know about the book, an Oxford publication from about 70 years ago. Just find where I first mentioned it on the forum.

No.


spin

post tenebras lux

Lovely spin. Thanks. That's enough of a red flag for me for now.