mountainman

Did you happen to read the post in this thread entitled A Summary of the Mainstream Evidence for Pre-Nicaean "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"? The evidence by which mainstream thinking currently presume the existence of at least some of the NT Gnostic Gospels and Acts prior to the Council of Nicaea is itemised one by one. Have a look at it and see for yourself. This evidence is not sufficient to base such a conclusion on.

The evidence for current "Belief" in "Pre-Nicaean Chronology" for the Gnostic Gospels and Acts is sourced from the authority of the Christian Heresiologists - the political and religious persecutors and literary censors of the Gnostics. Why should we believe in the opinion of the Nicaean Church over the C14 citations?

Were the earliest "Gnostic Gospels and Acts authored befor Nicaea [325 CE]?
the evidence is not sufficient to base a conclusion on.

I agree with the sentiment but you have not done any homework.
I like Sherlock have cataloged quite a bit of data, and have analysed it.
Will you please deal with the data presented.


My bet would be that you have not yet perused the data which I have gradually accumulated at this page. Neither have I anywhere claimed to be in possession of any conclusive "proof".

Do you understand the requirements of an hypothesis? The identity equation between Arius and Leucius will solve at least half of the mystery of "Christian Origins".

I am waiting for some bold person to attempt to explain why this identity equation ["Arius of Alexandria" = "Leucius Charinus"] could not possibly be in the ball park. Someone who has examined the data and evidence which has been presented above.

J-D

I have dealt with it! I just did! I told you, it is not sufficient to base a conclusion on!Do you? What are they?

Huon

We can wait ...

mountainman

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority
is not using intelligence, but memory"

~ Leonardo Da Vinci

(a) The hypothesis must not be ruled out by existing evidence. That is, it must be consistent with all known evidence.

(b) The hypothesis must be subject itself to Popperian "Falsifiability". That is, it must be able to be falsified.

Here are my hypotheses (nb: plural)

(1) The New Testament "Gnostic Literature" was authored by academic Neoplatonic Alexandrian Greeks following the "Council of Nicaea" 325 CE

(2) The New Testament "Gnostic Literature" was written during an epoch of Eastern Greek cultural, philosophical and religious suppression and prohibition. The purpose of the New Testament "Gnostic Literature" at that time (325 CE) was to "mock", "mimic" and "satire"/"parody" the corresponding New Testament Canonical literature being pumped out of Constantine's imperial scriptoria.

(3) The New Testament "Gnostic Literature" was largely authored by the satirist Arius of Alexandria (a non-christian) .

Here is the ABSTRACT of an essay written which explores these three hypotheses:

mountainman

FWIW in the interim here are my operating conditions.

Referential Integrity and the Ancient Historianp.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.



ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS
--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987
Chapter 1:
Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method

Sooner or later it will dawn in the mind of objective analysts of ancient history that we are dealing with the fourth century as an epoch of classicial literary fraud, and that the historical "Nation of Christians" was in fact a pious imperial ("Pontifex Maximus") fraud. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one must show no piety - and no pity

The lynch-pin between the prime mover of the fraudulent Pre-Nicean "Christian Church History" and the entire waggon of Constantinian Christianity and some form of "Gnostic Group" as defined by all available sources (inclusive of the law codes contained in CThed) is the figure of Arius of Alexandria.


The political memory of Arius of Alexandria was erased. Why?
Because Arius was a heretic - he did not follow Constantine.
Because Arius was a satirist - he satirised the authority of the NT canon.

Where did the name of "Leucius Charinus" come from?
It is sourced (in one sense) from the "Acts of Pilate".

Lucius and Karinus are two of a mass of zombies whom the authorities apprehended wandering around Jerusalem after the crucifixion/resurrection event. They are each given pens and they each write an account of the proceedings, including the statement that Pontious Pilate asserted to the Jews that Jesus healed by the "power of Asclepius".

This literary work would have made Constantine furious.

The "Dear Arius" Letter written by The Boss Constantine

Arius! Arius! Where are you Arius?
We need to speak Arius.
Where are you Dear Arius?

You f***** insignificant **** !! I'll hang you.
"Why do you introduce a belief of unbelief ?"

Do you know where My New City of Constantine is?
Catch the nearest chariot to My New City of Constantine!

J-D

The response is irrelevant, since I did not appeal to authority.Not good enough. Falsifiability as Popper defined it is a meaningless criterion. To say that one statement 'falsifies' another tells you only that the two statements cannot both be true, but it doesn't tell you which one to reject.

For that matter, as far as purely logical consistency goes, any hypothesis can be reconciled with any evidence by making auxiliary assumptions.

Purely formal logical criteria get you nowhere. You have to go beyond that.What do you mean by 'explore'? How do you think a hypothesis should be 'explored'?

mountainman

By means of a theory which uses this hypothesis to revisit and possibly recategorise each and every element of the data set that is generally cited and "known" in the field -- in this case the field of ancient history for the epoch covering the rule of Constantine and the 4th and 5th centuries.

For example we could explore the nature of "Emperor Julian's Invectives" against the "Plain and Simple Religion of the Chrestians", and his role as a satirist in his authorship of the Greek work The Caesares aka Symposium aka Kronia. Eusebius, had he been alive to read Julian's above work, may have written once again ... " ...sacred matters ... were exposed to the most shameful ridicule".

One reason that Julian and Arius were considered "heretics" by the church may arise from the fact that Julian and Arius did not believe at all in the "Divine Story" of Jesus Henry and the Twemendous Twelve Boneheads, and they (both - IMO) satirised key elements of Constantine's miraculously "found" new testament canon.

The "Divine Story" (which could have been a pious fraud) was taken down a few notches by public ridicule.
Look up the definition of "political satire".
Emperor Julian authored satire against "The Plain and Simple Religion of the Christians".
What's so difficult to consider in the possibility that Arius of Alexandria did the same?

Toto

Julian deliberately opposed Christianity and explicitly tried to revive the worship of the old gods. It didn't work - they were dead.

Arius, from what we can see, was a Christian who disagreed with some of what became orthodox doctrine about the nature of Christ. There is no hint of any attempt on his part to revive pagan sacrifices or other incidents of the old religion.

There is an article here, an excerpt from Philip Jenkins' "Jesus Wars (or via: amazon.co.uk)," which might help explain what the conflict between Christians was all about.

Huon

Toto, the reader can see that Philip Jenkins quotes principally gJohn, and nothing of the other gospels.

I think also that Philip Jenkins forgets completely the struggle for power between the various christian factions. It was very important to become or remain the bishop of Alexandria (Athanasius or Arius ?), Antioch, Constantinople, or Rome.

The disputes about the nature of Christ went far over the heads of the "ordinary" christians, and they had no consequencies on the daily life of the christian country people, who were exploited by their christian masters. The history of North Africa shows clearly that the muslim conquerors were warmly received by the common people.

Sorry, my remarks have nothing to do with Leukius and Karinus.

J-D

What do you mean by 'recategorise'? And how is 'recategorising', whatever that means, a way of 'exploring' a hypothesis?What is your justification for limiting the period of time under discussion in that way? And what do you have to say about the evidence for the doctrines espoused by the Arian churches of the fifth century?So your approach to the study of history is 'woulda-coulda-shoulda'?