Jeffrey Gibson

But Pete said that Coneybeare's translation of Philostratus' "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" uses the word "priest" (with regard to Asclepius) at least nine times in the first book.

Where are the other 8 (or more) instances?

And this still doesn't tell me what Greek word stands behind the "priest" of 6.6 and in the translation of the VC that Pete adduced.

In any case, why are you doing Pete's homework for him?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Eusebian hearsay (I say fiction) must be secondary to the evidence. What evidence?. The Manichaeans were a religious sect that commenced at least two centuries after christianity if we are to accept the HJ. We know it was definitely a historical illegal and/or persecuted sect. We also know that the christians were still persecuting the manichaeans in the fifth century, by burning the Manicaean texts before the doors of big basilicas.

We have evidence of the Manichaean influence before Nicaea. Christianity having a two hundred year head start on Mani et al would be expected to have produced some UNAMBIGUOUS CITATIONS. I find that the only citations for christianity outside of the literature are exceedingly conjectural.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Your rhetoric is not my homework. Also you need to support your own claims just as you tells others to do. You need to deal with Coneybeare's evil ways in his identification of the pagan priesthood. He not I translated the greek. Why is the Gibson translation superior to the Coneybeare translation?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

And once again, Pete runs away from substantiating a claim he has made.


Come on Pete. You did say that "Coneybeare's translation of Philostratus' "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana"
uses the word "priest" (with regard to Asclepius) at least nine times in the first book", didn't you?

So where in the first book can I find these instances? Surely you know -- or you wouldn't have made the claim you did, right?

So let's have them?

After that we can then talk about where it was that I made any claims whatsoever about the quality of Coneybeare's translation, let alone that I had made one myself.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Where and when was it persecuted? In the land of its origin?

And where exactly have the "footprints" of Manichaeism been found? In the same place(s) where it was persecuted?

Jeffrey

mountainman

And who has the Hobby Horse Mr. Gibson, Greek expert on the non-cited pagan priesthood of Ascelpius?

Let me put it this way. If you were given the opportunity of writing a footnote every time Coneybeare mentions "priest" in Book One, what would you actually write? In fact, I happen to know the editor of one of the Australian Coneybeare "Apollonius of Tyana" publishers, and your footnote might be valuable, and educational for many, not just myself.

What would you write as this footnote?



Best wishes



Pete Brown

mountainman

Fathers, therapeutae, sons of monks, temple head-honcho, elders, bishops, priests, devotee, guru, head monk, top dog, big wig, Mr. or Mrs. Big at this temple, temple and gymnasia attendants, conducting healing process, receiving votive offerings, making sacrifices to the gods on behalf of others, keeping written records. I have asked you this before and you have avoided answering the question. This question is critical to future communication on the matter of Asclepius. The question is this: Do you think there was a pagan priesthood active during the first four centuries of the CE? A simple YES or NO will suffice.



This was standard procedure for Constantine at most other temples, such as those of Apollo. Why assume Aegae was any different in the first place? You dont seem to appreciate that Constantine's modus operandi in this department was to publically execute the head priests. It was good for Constantinian public relations with the pagans.

In the beginning ... Oh never mind.

The fourth and fifth century Vatican had its own mafia. Cyril was a key man. It is not beyond reason to conjecture that the search and destroy missions of Athanasius et al, with respect to heretical texts were continued after Julian's death, and Julian's literature was included. Cyril is writing from a place of supreme securement and power. He is a hostile censor. He is also a hostile censor to Nestorius. But since the independent writings of Nestorius have appeared Cyril's polemic has been at least identified and commented upon.

Think of Cyril as being in charge of the Librorum Prohibitorum project of the
early fifth century. It was his job to refute the heathen Roman emperor Julian.
His people - the christian regime - regulated literature and the legal system.
It was all PRO-CHRISTIAN POLEMIC. Where is the pagan voice of Julian? Censored IMO.





Make a start with Constantine's Dear Arius Where Are you Letter of c.333CE. Here we have Constantine saying:


Arius is associated with "a belief of unbelief"
What do we know Arius to have said at Nicaea?
Just these things alone and dogmatically.
Just these five assertions - he was quiet and dogmatic.

Arius' introduced a belief of unbelief against the propaganda of Constantine. It is a viable to present Arius as a pagan ascetic who had no belief in "New Testament Authenticity". He did not believe the Canonical texts were divine. He authored biting anti-christian polemic. Constantine was pissed off at Arius for publishing his unbelief. Arius unbelief, I believe, was focused on the Constantine Bible. The words of Arius above, are historical commentary on Jesus.

Before Constantine - There was time when He was not.
Before Constantine - Before He was born He was not.
He is fictitious - was made out of nothing existing.
He is a fiction - from another subsistence/substance.
The fiction - is subject to alteration or change."


We are very much aware of who wrote the history of
a) early christian origins, and
b) the council of Nicaea
c) the political history in Constantine's era

These were written by the victors. The christian victors. Christian ecclesiastical historians. Where is the pagan side of the coin? The pagan side of the coin is that the words of Arius, at the basis of the Arian controversy, related to unbelief in the HJ Son. The Eusebian fiction postulate that I am here defending implies someone will call "BULLSHIT! This HJ is FICTION". I am simply citing Arius with this polemic, since it is consistent with the postulate of Eusebian fiction.

In this letter Constantine reveals that Arius
"reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church".

What does this tell us Jeffrey?
What do you know about politics?





Best wishes,


Pete Brown

TedM

No it isn't.

It's just that as I understand it, your "posulate" says that Eusebius invented all of the following people, and wrote any works that mention them or are alleged to have been written by them, correct?

From your post:

Do you really think that even comes close to making any sense?

The problem is that it doesn't have ANY place in your postulate.

ted

TedM

What should we expect to find, and why?

thanks,

ted

mountainman

No, but it is a simple numbers racket which attempts to baffle and mock by its sheer volume of representation. Constantine fielded armies on the battlefield against the snake, and he fielded legions of fictitious authors in the 4th century technology of literature for his pseudo-history.

Edwin Johnson appears to support this approach:

The postulate is falsifiable. It may contain uncommon sense.



Best wishes



Pete Brown