stephan huller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscription_of_Abercius

mountainman

Inscription of Abercius

There are a number of alternative interpretations here.

Firstly it must be noted that the inscription speaks of "The Shepherd" not "The Christian".

That this allegorical text refers to anything christian is only by way of assumption. For example, there have been a number of different interpretations of Abercius.

* In 1894 G. Ficker, supported by O. Hirschfeld, strove to prove that Abercius was a priest of Cybele.
* In 1895 A. Harnack offered an explanation based upon religious syncretism.
* in 1896, Dieterich made Abercius a priest of Attis.

It is considered moreover that "The Shepherd" referred to above at the time in history around 216 CE, has a greater likelihood of being associated with the "The Shepherd" and the "Teacher" referred to in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. The figure of Thrice-great Hermes mentioned on a number of Nag Hammadi texts has often been associated with Apollonius of Tyana.

For example, refer to a separate article entitled Hermes Trismegistus & Apollonius of Tyana in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Keben Brown, 1997. Additionally, the abbreviated form of Apollonius is Pol and the greek name Apollonius is written in the Codex Bezae.


As such, the inscription of Abercius is refuted to be unambiguously associated with early christianity.

spamandham

To me, this seems to predate ideas found in the gospels rather than being derived from them. The reason I say this, is that the fish symbolism is central here, where it seems to be downplayed in the gospels - and we can see the direct connection from astrotheology to the Eucharist.

It's more stretched to say that a giant fish drawn by a virgin from a fountain is derived from Jesus and his mother, than to posit the reverse. Here we can see the clear astrotheology of Pisces and Virgo in plain sight, where they seem barely discernable in the gospels.

mountainman

See also Inscription of Pectorius

Again, further alternative interpretations are naturally feasible
There is nothing unambiguously "christian" with these verses.

stephan huller

So your saying it's definitely not Christian?

spamandham

mountainman is arguing that it is plausibly not Christian, rather than definitely not. I agree with him on that point.

How is this odd Pisces/Virgo fish bread wine stuff related to Christianity? The symbols are familiar, as is the name Paul, but the message is difficult to reconcile with the gospels for the time period. But he's right that many religions of the time were using this same symbolism. Christianity didn't invent this stuff, it simply innovated the milieu, right?

mountainman

The claim is that there is nothing unambiguously "christian" with these citations of evidence. Why? Because other alternative explanations do exist.

Since you yourself somewhere provided a definition of "delusion", I'd like to mention an example .... that were someone to treat and pronounce and to authoritatively declare a "pious belief" that these citations of evidence are exemplars of things which are unambiguously "christian", then this might represent a sign of delusion on the part of the "believer".

stephan huller

The evidence is being presented as part of a series because it is all connected. The fish imagery is inevitably used to provide an ante-Nicaean date. The next in the series is the Inscription of Pectorius - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16066b.htm

To show my unconventionality I do not think that the fish imagery derives from Peter and the disciples being fishermen. I think it is rather a symbol of the messianic Jubilee (nun = 'fish' = 50). But that is only my attempt to distinguish my motives from conservatives who would use this same evidence as proof for the antiquity of the Catholic tradition.

stephan huller

I am absolutely certain that this one piece of evidence completely demolishes the idiotic notion that Christianity was invented in the fourth century. Abercius was certainly a Christian because we know of him through the great and reliable Eusebius of Caesarea. This is why people who aren't familiar with the literary evidence shouldn't be asked to evaluate the physical evidence. From Tabbernee's Polluted Sacraments:

Quote:

It takes but little imagination to identify 'St Abercius' of the vita as the Avircius Marcellus to whom the Anonymous sent a copy of his anti-Montanist treatise (ap. Eusebius Church History 5.16.3 - Tabernee provides a list of big guns to support his claims in the footnote). Abercius, from now on referred to as Avircius, was seventy-two years old when he commissioned the epitaph (lines 28 - 30). The tombstone must have been set up by some time before 216 (when the text was utilized for Alexander's epitaph). Therefore, Avircius would, minimally, have been in his early fifties when he received the Anonymous' treatise around 193. Ramsay saw in Avircius “the chief figure in the resistance to Montanism in the latter part of the second century," but this description is overly enthusiastic. There is no doubt that Avircius opposed the New Prophecy. Avircius' urging the Anonymous for a long time to write against the movement demonstrates opposition but also shows that he lacked confidence regarding his own ability to refute the adherents of the sect adequately."

(p. 11)

The point is that the evidence is rock solid. In fact, it ultimately ends up vindicating Eusebius as a source. There was indeed a figure named Abercius who was well known enough to have been mentioned in the Church History. The inscription makes it absolutely certain that Eusebius is providing us with historical information when he writes:

I don't need to quote too much from Eusebius other than to say that the material demonstrates absolutely certainly that this is the same Abercius. The reference to "our fellow-presbyter Zoticus of Otrous" is critical because Otrous (or Otrys, as it is sometimes written) was a small Phrygian town about two miles from Hieropolis. Abericius to whom the work was addressed, was from Hieropolis (see note 6), and that the anonymous companion Zoticus was from Otrous, would lead us to look in that neighborhood for the home of our author, though hardly to either of those towns (the mention of the name of the town in connection with Zoticus' name would seem to shut out the latter, and the opening sentences of the treatise would seem to exclude the former). The bishop of Hieropolis was present at the Council of Chalcedon, and also at the second Council of Nicaea, the geography mentioned in the letter reflects Abercius as presiding over a region in Phrygia (notice the topography). It is a dead match and has been established by Zahn and so many others the connection is iron clad.

This inscription with the literary evidence provided by the great and reliable Eusebius of Caesarea once and for demolishes the idiotic claim that Christianity was invented by a fourth century conspiracy.

avi

Reminds me of cold fusion
hahaha.
what nonsense.

avi