Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-16-2007, 03:27 AM | #1 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Did Eusebius compose the "History of John"?
History of John
The text of this apocryphal act specifically states: "This history was composed by Eusebius of Cæsarea" What could this possibly mean? Does anyone have any ideas? Quote:
Best wishes, Pete Brown |
|
12-16-2007, 05:26 PM | #2 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Translator Wright: "The fact of Eusebius' authorship"
PREFACE:
APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES EDITED FROM SYRIAC MANUSCRIPTS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM AND OTHER LIBRARIES BY W. WRIGHT, LL.D., PH. D.; Quote:
translation of this document? Quote:
Does anyone think that all the apochrypha were written by Christians, and only Christians? Does anyone think, for one moment, some authors - who were not christian - but whom had been dispossessed of their cultural "religion" of the fourth century -- might have deliberately taken up the pen against the very real fourth century sword of the new imperially supported Roman state cult? Was it usual for Eusebius to state he was the author of the acts of the apostles? And if Eusebius did not in fact write this, what purpose is served by the real author in his direct attribution of authorship to our dear friend Eusebius-bubble? What other possibilities exist? Best wishes Pete Brown |
||
12-17-2007, 04:23 PM | #3 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
who is the holy man who was not an apostle?
1) The figure of John is presented as a non-ascetic.
2) The immature anger of the youth in John .... Quote:
And then, a little further on, ... 3) Who was the old "Holy man"? Quote:
Someone was sending up christianity. Does anyone allow themselves to treat such a serious subject as the "Apostles of Christianity" in a non-serious manner? Or is that indeed the true mark of a heretic and infidel? Many of the apochryphia I am becoming convinced were written in opposition to christianity by a series of non-christian ascetic priests, whom mainstream now view as "gnostics". These authors were for certain ascetics also studied in writing and texts, most likely associated with extant temples such as the ubiquitous temples to the Healing God Asclepius. These authors were writings strange "christian acts". The apostles are presented as youthful and inept. The apostles are presented as non-ascetics, continually seeking food, and lodgings. We dont need to have any GREEK SPEAKING GNOSTICS of the early few centuries. The true gnostics were the suppressed fourth century class of traditional ascetics who had continued the cutodianship of many centuries of the "Healing Temples" of Asclepius, and many other gods and goddesses --- in a collegiate and tolerant environment. Constantine hit them hard and destroyed their tradition. Constantine surplanted the ancient religions with a new one. Noone had a chance with the power structure he created. The sword was no option. He sewed things up, as a careful despot and dictator would do. But they had the pen. And they used the pen against christianity. It was originally greek, but they need to use the Coptic in order to avert prying eyes. Anti-Christian writings were to be burnt. Constantine started this precedent. At the "Council" of Nicaea. This continued for centuries. The signature of parody requires a certain discernment to perceive. Can anyone see any humor in the above three points? Best wishes, Pete Brown |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|