Littlejohn

Hi!, and tanks for your welcome!

"Have you read Ellegard who ties Jesus to the Teacher of Righteousness?"

No, I don't...

"Pete does not argue that gnostics did not exist but that they were not xian.

What does it means "did not exist but that they were not xian"?...

The Gnostics existed, but were not Christians, because they were rather "jesuans". There is a profound difference between the two terms, since the gnostic teacher Jesus (from the gnostic school of John the Baptist) NEVER WAS a Christian!. While the Jewish-Christianity was born in Antioch between 85 and 90 AD, therefore almost 20 years after the death of Jesus, Catholicism-Christianity was born around 140-150: approximately 70 years after the death of Jesus!

All this should leave guess that the notorious "Christians" persecuted by Nero, others were not that very normal Jews of the roman Diaspora!... Just as were very normal Jews the "Christians" persecuted by Paul / Saul in Jerusalem and in the rest of Judea. That one "appropriate" of the "martyrs" of others religion, was a disconcerting practice of counterfeiters founders!

"..Have you read Doherty?

Only rewiew. But i found it quite interesting. The truth is that I have again a "sea" of material to vision!

All best

Littlejohn
.

Clivedurdle

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul19...ookreview9.htm

Gnostic Paul I can understand, Gnostic Jesus and JtB - interesting.

I trace gnosticism back to Zoroaster/Zarathustra, via Plato, Pythagorus and myriad oriental cults including some pirates who captured Caesar.

It was such a threat to Catholicism it led to the first Albigensian Crusade.

Clivedurdle

Sorry, I used a that...that... phrase, with a but and a not!

mountainman

How about a citation? Have you heard of the Dura-Europa "house-church"? It is likely, I think, that this "marcionite" churches-synagogue inscription is dated to a century not the 2nd or 3rd. What is the actual citation?



I have elsewhwere argued that there have been many scholars who have argued that there is absolutely no references to the NT characters (including Jesus) in the early Talmudic literature.



Before 312 and 325 CE all the collegiate temple cults were both ascetic and gnostic. I see the entire eastern greek speaking empire as non-christian gnostics. The idea of christianity had not yet been thrust down their throats from ON-HIGH.



Littlejohn, the Nag Hammadi Codices containing NHC 6.1 which is entitled "TAOPATTA" has been carbon dated to 348 CE plus or minus 60 years.. You are using Eusebius for your "chronology of the story" whereas I am sticking to the testiment of C14 dating.

The thesis is that before 312 CE christianity was unheard of in the empire, but that after 325 CE and the Constantine publication of HIS NT stories (which were fiction and fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history to the citizens of the then [4th CE] Roman empire), the empire had no option but to recognise and try and endure and adapt to this brand new and strange imperially inspired and proselyted religion.

Arius was the last of the gnostics.
What did he say and mean?
What was his hidden gnostic message?

Jesus is a Fourth century fiction IMO.

Best wishes,


Pete

Littlejohn

From a previuos post:

No, I'm not referring to the followers of Mani, but to those who today are known as "Mandeans", a word of the ancient Syriac ("manda"), whose meaning is identical to that of the Greek word "gnosis", that is to say knowledge. Practically, Mandeans represent a sort of gnostic "fossil", preserved almost unscathed through the centuries. Their precursors were the "nasurei" ("Nosoraioi" in Epiphanius of Salamina), namely the sect of John the Baptist. Over the centuries, the sect has been persecution, which last occurred under the dictator Saddam, since currently the mandeans community is allocated partly in Iraqi territory and partly in that Iranian.

Still today the word "nasurei" is preserved in their literary and oral traditions. When John the Baptist was killed, his community, which at that time counted around 5000 followers, was dispersed. A portion of these "nasurei" moved towards the northern Galilee, along the upper course of the Jordan river, up, practically, its sources. Subsequently, always behind the need to escape the persecution of the Romans who saw in them of the potential messianistic rebels, they continued to move increasingly towards east, up to beyond the eastern borders of the Empire, then to settle in the territory of the Parthians: particularly along the terminal and east of Shatt el-Arab part, the river formed by the junction of the big rivers Tigris and Euphrates.

During their slow moving eastwards, nasurei were called, from time to time, Hemerobattists, Masbotes, Elxesaites, Sobiai (or Subiai) and finally Mandeans. The Christian missionaries who contacted them during the Crusades (*), called them "Christians of St. John", from which the adjective "johannites." Obviously, they were not at all Christians, and the misunderstanding arose from the fact that counterfeiters founders had made the image of John the Baptist as that of a Christian precursor: nothing further from the truth!...

Since the debate on the diaspora of the John the Baptist's followers is rather long, take up the topic in another post. The same thing for Mani, for his followers, for Cêtari and Templars.

In fact Mani was not a Christian but, on the limit, a "jesuan". Really Mani, who had long lived in the community of Mandeans, at the time allocated to the southeast of Basra (in a location that today is known as "Nasiriyah") after leaving the mandean community, which, surely, belonged his father, built "sincreticamente" his religion (**), assigning an important role to Jesus of Nazareth: a thing that struck (to rage), and not a little, the sentiments of mandeans, who instead detested him and considered a traitor and a deceiver. (surprisingly the same thing that can be found even in the pages of the Talmud!)

The new testament was conceived and assembled (IMO) in the fourth century. The new testament apochrypha (non canonical texts) were THEN written in OPPOSITION to the canon.

Frankly all this seems to me an absurd in terms ... Why should do all this? ... To convince sceptics of 15 centuries later (ie those of our era) that Jesus really existed ?!...

Of course everyone is free to have its opinion about it ...

The evidence we have. Everything stands in the will to take note or not.

A small observation:

of Apollonius of Tyana and Simon Magus (contemporaries of Jesus) tell stories very similar to those of the Nazarene, with particular reference to their alleged "miracles". Now the question that I want address you is this: you believe the existence of these historical characters? ... And if you believe, why? ...

".. especially in the eastern greek speaking Roman empire"

In this part of the Empire, namely that of the provinces of Asia, Jesus earned his first real fame "universal". It was precisely in this area that he was given the nickname "Ihsous" (healer), by analogy with the famous Asclepius (EMBODIE OF FATHER: namely Apollo Belenus), which enjoyed dell'appellativo "Iasous" (corresponding to ionian "Ihsous"), that is "healer" and "soter," that is "saviour". The same term Iasous, with time, ended with the capture also means "savior": this thing that contributed greatly to form the legend of Jesus as a "savior" of men .(***)

Whatever was initial training cultural of Arius, is no doubt that he then converted to Catholicism, he would not otherwise have reached the position of bishop. Ario was a precursor of theological position of Nestorius, who, in turn, was very close to the positions of "Ebionites-Nazarenes", earmarked precisely in the eastern part of the Empire.. However, the discourse on Ebionites is long and is linked closely to that of followers of John the Baptist. We in the near post that argument

There is no written where Giuliano says no historical Jesus! Simply he suggests that the construction of the Christian religion was a fraud: something which had absolutely right! During his forced isolation wanted by his cousin, Emperor Costanzo, closely linked to the major representatives of Catholic worship of those times, Giuliano was also instructed by a Christian monk probably dissident, who, surely, that began him to secret that hid behind the current exteriority of the Catholicism at that time, made of deceit, lies and so on.

"I am only interested in historical truth.",

I still more than you!

Please note that the theory of non-historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth don't nick as well a little the security of clergy institution about the continuity over time of the Catholic Church, since the papal "foxes" know perfectly that this theory is destined to remain confined forever in a circle of a small number of "aficionades", without any possibility of spread outside!

Unlike, instead, the speech one propose with the state, as the story wants, a different story, a different profile of the characters involved in the evangelical affair, especially if you clarify, to the potential target of such an exposure, that faith in God, and in God alone, NOT has nothing to do with faith in religions!

All best

_________________

Notes:

(*) - Probably deliberately sent high clerical hierarchies, to be informed of these "dangerous" Gnostics, custodians of a truth extremely dangerous for counterfeiters Catholics: the same truth known by Cêtari and Templars!

(**) - Something like this did also the founder of religion "Baha'i"

(***) - Even in Palestine Jesus, starting from his first maturity, was known as the "savior", but this is related with the gnostic faith and has nothing to do with the concept of savior that was attributed him in the Ionian Greece.


Littlejohn

PS: a small prayer: the way in which I write, my grammar, my syntax, my style of writing in your language, you think that may be satisfactory for a reader speaking english, or you suggest me any change?...Tanks you in advance!
.

mountainman

Mandaean History, 100 BC TO 400 AD


All this seems to indicate that the roots of the Mandeans were the ancient Parthian civilisation which in 224 CE by Ardashir was utterly destroyed. There is certainly no information about the new testament from the Parthians.



Agreed.

[quote]
How do you say "parody" in Italian?
How do you say "polemic" in Italian?

Please see this research:
325 to 370 CE: Non-Canonical Acts of the Apostles as anti-christian polemic.
Political parodies against the New canonical Constantinian Testament.

Examples:

gThomas: Jesus is presented as a slave master who sells Thomas.
gThomas: Apostles are presented as "casting lots for the nations".
TAOPATTA: "Peter was afraid for how did he know his name was Peter?"
Syriac Acts of Philip: Is Philip annoying?


In summary my thesis has it that the apochrypha are dated 325-425 CE and were written by clever gnostic (Hellenic) greek speaking priests of the pre-christian culture which Constantine destroyed.

The apochrypha are parodies of the Constantinian canon.




The precise chronology is at yet at sea.



Setting aside for the moment the question of Simon Magus, the historicity of the author and sage Apollonius of Tyana seems quite feasible considering the presence of the integrity between the evidence of the literature and the monumental evidence such as this:




See also other threads here comparing the historicity of Jesus and Apollonius.






[quote]
In 324/325 CE Constantine ordered the utter destruction of a number of ancient and highly revered temples to Asclepius, and Eusebius writes his highly political treatise against Philostratus and his "Life of Apollonius of Tyana". The question of chronology is utterly critical. Did Jesus live before Constantine invented him?


We are told he was a christian bishop by the histories written by christian bishops. Shall I say this again? We are told he was a christian bishop by the histories written by christian bishops. For some reason many people may believe the ecclesiatical histories are absolute historical truth, but IMO they are fraudulent misrepresentations of that age. (the fourth century).

My thesis is that 318 people were summoned to Nicaea and 318 bishops left Nicaea, not counting Arius and a few others who were banished. In my opinion only after this council of Nicaea, and not before in the world of all histories, did christianity have its historical origins.

It was a top down emperor cult established by a military supremacist. Arius was the recorded opponent, but he was recorded as a christian heretic not a pagan hellenic priest - perhaps of Ascepius.

Christianity started business on the planet when Constantine released the attendees of Nicaea on their oaths to him. 325 CE and not a day sooner.

IMO.



Best wishes,


Pete

Littlejohn

".....Gnostic Jesus and JtB - interesting."

What Jesus has been a gnostic is confirmed by numerous testimonies about, starting with several tens of gnostic sects who had as their fulcrum the charismatic figure of Jesus. As testimony "antignostic" we have only the Catholic sect: a little bit to tilt the balance on this side! Even the canonical gospels denouncing a certain gnostic "presence" within them. Papia speaks of "sayings" of Jesus as "oracles": a clear reference to the gnostic-mysteric environment.

Dositheus and Simon Magus were themselves gnostics teachers. All three of these characters came from the school of John the Baptist. At the light of this, you seem strange that John the Baptist was in turn a gnostic teacher? John is the charismatic central figure of the mandean cult, which i today recognized as genuinely gnostic! Together with him, Mandeans also celebrate the figure of Mary Magdalene, that they call "Miryai." There is a definite explanation for this...

From the mandean literature we learn that John also performed "beautiful" works, as they did Jesus, Simon Magus, Dositeo, Apollonius of Tyana and others of which the official history has not dealt with them.

Precisely because even Simon Magus was acreditato to do "miracles" (taht is "beautiful works") we also can understand that these miracles (included those of Jesus!), these wonderful works were not more that illusionistic games, tricks from "magician"(*) who affecting especially the imagination of the simplest, who remained submissives. The most educated and more ethically motivated between pagans (see, for example, Celsus, Lucian of Samosata and others) tried to warn the audience easier by the tricks of these magicians adventurers.

Best greetings

Littlejohn

______________

Note:

(*) - The Egyptians were renowned throughout the world then (see Celsus) for their illusionistic art: something that also appears in the Bible, when several priests competed with Moses in the "magic" (Moses, in fact, was estimated in turn be a magician). It is no coincidence that both Jesus, as Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana had visited Egypt. Celsus tells us that Jesus expressly learned in Egypt the arts magic "so the Egyptians were known worldwide." It can not be excluded that the same John the Baptist, gnostic and teacher magician in turn, like his pupils Jesus, Simon Magus and Dositeo, has also visited Egypt and then, when he returned in Palestine, may have been appealed "The Egyptian". This would lead to reconsider some facts narrated in the Acts of the Apostles and Josephus.

.

mountainman

[QUOTE=Littlejohn;5439976]The pagan world existed until the fourth century at which time they were surrounded by Constantine and submitted to christianity after a hundred years. We have been lead to believe that christianity existed prior to its institutionalsation at the hands of Constantine. There appears to be no evidence for this belief except the belief in the historical truth of the literature published in the age of Constantine, and preserved since that time by christian ecclesiatical (ahem) "historians".




The opinion on the chronology of the Megiddo find is inconsistent, but the fourth century is highly represented. The Flavian fish appear to have far more prominence in the ancient historical record than any fish of any known and cited "christian" before the 4th century.

There is another connection between Constantine and pirates.

Constantius (his old man) was the first to be able to re-acquire many of the western territories (including Briton) from self-appointed local caesars, who had decided to become the ruler of the remote west - independent of Rome. Thus immediate before Constantine took control of the army in Briton, the entire infra-structure of these regions had been run by simply piracy.

Constantine used fleets extensively in his military campaigns especially after he had acquired Rome.

Perhaps that is why Victor described him as a brigand?

Best wishes,



Pete

Littlejohn

In memory of a "lemma" disappeared ... ( "desaparecido" in Hispanic)

Anyone with a minimum of curiosity and time to make an easy search, you can see in person that the lemma "Ihsous" (Iasous in Attic-Greek) has disappeared from the vocabulary of ancient greek. What modern, available online (http://www.in.gr/dictionary/lookup.a...lateButton2=Go)

for "Ihsous" says "living bread". But as ever in the lexicons of the ancient greek this lemma is absent?...

The reason should not be difficult to guess. The lemma has been "done away" because the Ihsous word one should "believe" that had been a transliteration of the hebraic "Yehoshuah," whose meaning can be understood as "God save" or "God is salvation". But the things are actually so? ... Absolutely NO!

Jerome, in his Vulgate, always wrote "Jesus" for Jesus. But in the book of Joshua (Yehoshuah in Hebrew) and in other places, he writes ALWAYS "Iosue" to indicate the character of Jewish mythology hero, ie Joshua!

"Iosue" is phonetically different from "Iesus" and it returns almost perfectly the phonetic sound of the hebraic "Yehoshuah" (I'oshuah). Why Jerome did not use for the New Testament the word "Iosue" for Jesus ?.... Or, because Jerome did not use in the Old Testament the word "Jesus" to Joshua ?.... Here the smell of forgery it is strong as the smell of burned for those who are very close to a fire ... It's clear that the Hebrew name of Jesus was not at all "Yehoshuah" or "Yeshuah" as still the counterfeiters are trying to make us believe!..

Who is "within" the issue, knows perfectly well that ALL that which modern scholarship holds, it has been passed on to us through the "docile" Christians scribes hands (in this case the monks of the monasteries), who were ready to carry out any order came from 'high! This also explains why in the current version of Bible LXX one to find for Joshua the "Ihsous " word!!..

Over 15 centuries of maniacal revision of the ancient texts, have left an incredible neglected aspect (in view of its power witnesses!) as that of "Iosue" of the Vulgate of Jerome ... How could this happen? ...

What remains entirely inexplicable is why so many centuries of secular erudition have not revealed an aspect that seems (in my opinion) very striking? ..

For guess what was the real name of Jesus help us Muslims and, especially, Epiphanius!

At this point we only should ask ourselves: what was the original meaning of the lemma "Ihsous", today lost as a result of almost two millennia of hallucinating historical and literary forgery?

Is it possible that even in ancient times the mean of the term has been "living bread "?... Or such term may have been nothing other than the male version (Iasous) of the term "IASO," with which in ancient Greece had indicated the goddess of healing? Asclepius was the god of healing and, as if by chance, had a daughter who was called IASO! All coincidences? ... It seems that for the official erudition world has been the case ...

Asclepius, who was a "pattern" of "father embodies into son" to which Jesus, in a certain period of his life (*), he was inspired, was also called "Soter", ie "Saviour". This explains why the figure of Jesus was associated with that of the "Saviour". However, Jesus was also a gnostic "Soter" and this did not have anything to do with his skills therapeutics, which made he famous in the Greek Ionian world and allowed to join his picture at that of the mythical Asclepius (what that, this later, prompted Jesus to draw up a "personalized" version of the myth)

_____________________

Note:

(*) - From bear in mind that in religion and Judaic traditions was entirely absent such a model, namely that of "Father embodies in the Son": what, this, that it forced Jesus to rely on "pagan" models (particularly greeks). Comprehending those who were truly "Nazarenes" and what was their true origin, is not hard to understand that for Jesus was not at all a embarrassing thing turn himself to the pagan world!


Littlejohn
.
___

Littlejohn

Rereading one of the last posts of mountainman I was "struck" by these statements. So now I get the doubt that maybe I haven't been well understood when I talked about these topics.

For major clarification, I repeat again that the Gnostics were not NEVER Christians, since Jesus himself was never a Christian ...

The title more appropriate for the Gnostics which were referring to the charismatic figure of Jesus of Nazareth is "JESUANS", ie followers of Jesus, who, like John the Baptist, was a master gnostic (and many other things!)

Both Jesus that the Gnostics "jesuans" not had NEVER nothing to do with the Catholic-Christian worship: a late invention of the first half of the second century! (140-150)


Littlejohn
.