mountainman

Why is the Arian controversy unexplained? Why is the Origenist controversy unexplained? What about the Nestorian controversies? I keep repeating the simple political explanation that Arius represented the political resistance against a momentous fiction, and the controversy was very real, and the controversy is totally explained by the new testament being fiction. In fact all these three listed controversies are so explained in completeness with this simple political model.


This is an ecclesiastical explanation. This is not a political explanation. You need to understand we are not in exactly the same playing field here.



Then why do you have a problem with the take that Arius thought the same, and that his words can be interpretted as related to a gnostic's articulation of fiction?


Arius of Alexandria was the first heretic. He was a political heretic. You can call him a pagan or a non-christian if you insist. What are you thinking Toto? I have spent considerable time explaining that IMO the apochrypha were written by ascetic priests of Ascepius (for example) as a reaction to the publishing of the "canon" by Constantine. The apochrypha were not forged by Constantine. They were authored IMO by the political resistance
to christianity by authors such as Arius, and such as that dug up at Nag Hammadi and dated to c.348 CE.

The heretical writings IMO were in fact political and polemic writings against the new testament. The Acts of Philip, the Acts of Thomas, etc, etc, etc .... parody and satire against the Boss's new testament. The christians of the 4th century were imperially tax-exempt. It was an emperor cult. The indigenous culture of the ancient Hellenic temple services were prohibited and essentially destroyed by Constantine - physically with the army.

He issues the new testament. The greek academic ascetic priests of Asclepius et al issue the non canonical christian literature between 324 CE and the end of the century, during which century the Arian controversy raged unabated. Political explanation? Fiction at the top.

ARIUS WAS AN UNDERGROUND political figurehead in the RESISTANCE against the fiction He was a gnostic and an ascetic priest of some repute who, like the entire empire-wide administration, had to leave the temples and seek refuge in the deserts and in out-of-the-way places. Constantine wanted him executed. His books and writings were deemed heretical, The Boss edicts for his writings to be burned, and also those of the greatest neopythagorean academic Porphyry. Anyone caught concealing said writings of Arius would be beheaded.

It is not impossible that Arius of Alexandira was the author of the Nag Hammadi Codex NHC 6.1 - TAOPATTA.


Best wishes,



Pete

aa5874

Do you know by what means or method some Pauline Epistles were considered genuine?

There are really no known confirmed writings of Paul.

Do you realize that the Epistles considered forged may in fact be genuine and those considered genuine may have been forged or that all are forged?

It is most amusing for scholars to use Paul to corroborate Paul, a most absurd methodology.

From the very moment scholars deduced that the Epistles had more than one author, the entire Epistles MUST be suspect and authorship cannot be be determined. And the character called Paul cannot be identified since there are more than one.

mountainman

I think the method might be described as a process of elimination. I am actually unsure as to the exact figure (ie: number of letters) we are supposed to have started with. Was it as high as fourteen letters of Paul?


Best wishes,


Pete

Transponder

I agree. That has always been the biggest argument against the existence of Jesus. I wondered about a 3rd century effort to expunge a historical Jesus from the record, but I doubt that would have been effective. There ought to be some sign of a Jesus even under another name, and I haven't been able to find one. Could a totally mythical Jesus have been invented and put on a cross, say; because it was the worst death the inventors could think of? I just find that hard to believe. I can't shake the idea that the crucifixion was an unwelcome fact they were stuck with.

(I may reply to other posts by editing in here, if that's ok.)

Mountainman
Thanks. I have just arrived (from the atheist network) and have been looking around here and I think I have some reading to do. It's certainly a new idea to me that Christianity was invented in the way you mention and I'd like to look at the arguments.

aa5874 again No, I don't. As I say there is a lot of material here with which I shall have to become familiar. So I'll be reading rather than posting. If there's a discussion thread on verifying Pauline authenticity it would be useful. There's no better way of seeing what evidence adds up and which doesn't than following an argument.

Thanks for all your responses.

aa5874

So why do you think that all the authors of the NT were stuck with crucifixion of Jesus, when it has been deduced or it would appear the authors of the NT used a single source and wrote many years after the supposed events?

Were the NT authors also stuck with the resurrection story because Jesus actually resurrected and it was an unwelcomed fact?

Is it hard to believe that Joseph Smith could start a religion claiming that he was shown, given or found golden plates through some angel or supernatural being written in some language that he had to decipher? Now, today, less than 200 years, millions of believe Joseph Smith story is true as if it is an unwelcomed fact that they are stuck with.

You appear not to accept evidence but is constantly using your imagination to determine what events in the NT most likely happened.

Why do you imagine an author of the NT claimed Jesus and Peter walked on water because the event happened? Or why would authors claim Jesus brought Moses and Elijah back to life after they may have been dead for hundreds of years, because they were stuck with facts?

The Jesus stories were written and they are fundamentally fiction. That is the unwelcomed truth that many are beginning to realise that they are stuck with and some are TERRIFIED to admit.

Transponder

[QUOTE=aa5874;5532759]The obvious anwer is that it actually happened and it couldn't be denied. Christians and mormons are not 'stuck' with those miracles. They are evidence of the truth of their claims, so there is not the principle of embarrassment about them as there is with crucifixion. That's if we agree that crucifixion was a shameful and degrading form of execution in Roman times. Maybe you think otherwise.

As you pointed out, evidence is lacking. You are making some pretty sweeping assumptions about how I think on limited acquaintance, however, I do tend to let the events run through my head and see how they feel. Do they work as real events or do they not seem to add up? The more a miraculous element is needed to make them work, the more I tend to be suspicious.

When I think of the crucifixion story, I wonder why Jews, if they wrote the story, didn't let the Romans take the blame but argued that the blame go to the Jews. Or, if they were Romans writing it, why invent a crucifixion and then try to blame the Jews for it? Why not have a stoning? So you see, I'm letting my imagination work, true, but I come up against this problem all the time: if it is just invented, why a crucifixion?

Actually Peter did not manage to walk on water. However. As I said above, miraculous events cause my imagination to question. Extraordinary claims, you see. In fact, they are the sort of claims one might expect to be invented in order to prove Jesus had magical powers. The fact that Luke omits this makes me doubt that this is true event, even though three others report it. Matthew adding a Sinking Simon event (not recorded by the other two) makes me even more doubtful. I have seen various explanation of a natural cause for the walking on water (1), but they don't convince. The walking on water is either a miracle or a myth. The omission in Luke makes me go for myth. Evidence - or reasoning - or just my imagination?

Yes. They are fundamentally fiction. I agree. However, I'm still not persuaded that the crucifixion can be discarded as just invention. As I say, it is an embarrassment which needs to be explained away rather than a miracle and proof of divinity like the walking on water, resurrection and the golden plates of Joseph Smith.
If you can come up with a plausible explanation of why those writers (Jews, protoChristians, Romans or Eusebius - take your pick) would have reasoned;

'Ok, let's start a new religion. A god of course. Let's have him a demigod - a man, like Heracles, becomes a god. Gets killed and comes to life again. They'll flock to the Temples, I tell you! Die how...knife, poison, the axe...no...Crucifixion! Master - stroke!"

If you can come up with a plausible reason they should have gone for crucifixion, then I'll be far less inclined to think there is any historical basis at all for the gospels.

(1) walking around the shore and just stepping out from the Capernaum beach. Run it through your head and you'll see it won't fit the story.

bacht

Paul mentions "the cross" in his letters, as does the author of Hebrews. The early epistles allude to a Son who died and resurrected in the spiritual realm.

It's plausible that Mark took this theme and literalized it in the Passion narrative.

aa5874

So, why did the author of Achilles claim he died when shot with an arrow through his heel, is it because it was a fact?

Your notion that a crucifixion makes Jesus appear historical is weak.

Based on your logics, then, if Jesus was beheaded, he was fiction, and if Jesus was crucified he was likely to exist. This is just absurd.

Transponder

Yes. That is plausible, but it appears to shift the question from the gospels to Paul. If Paul invented Jesus (or Eusebius invented Paul) why crucifixion?

Transponder

Achilles being shot in the the heel with an arrow could well be fact. The Homeric war is considered by many to be factual, but the heavy supernatural element leads the modern sceptic to doubt a lot of it. In fact it has the same debate around it as the gospels, except there is no religious sect demanding that it be accepted on Faith.

The story of Achilles being dipped in the Styx strikes me as nonsense. It is possible that there was an Achilles, it is possible that he was killed at Troy. Discussion of the story would show how likely the arrow-tale is.

To take that to Jesus, if he had died in a more admirable or a more spiritual way, I would be more inclined to see it as a made-up tale. Crucifixion does still strike me as a very odd choice for a made up tale about a resurrected god. I agree that beheading would not be very appealing either, and I might wonder whether that could be factual, but even that is a clean death compared to crucifixion. So, it is rather weak, but it is still a point that bothers me as much as the absence of any independent historical reference to Jesus bothers me on the other hand.

I'm just not so willing to dismiss the point out of hand. I may say that I also see the wrangles and self - justification of Paul, notably in Galatians, as covering up an unwelcome fact: that he was in conflict with the disciples that had known Jesus and distrusted Paul, and his mission to the gentiles. That, too is a bit weak, but I'm bothered by it.