mountainman

Hey Shesh take an independent look at
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.vi.html

Rufinus's Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen
otherwise
the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.


Addressed to Macarius at Pinetum a.d. 397.

You might first check post #168 above ..... The empirical evidence (and dating) of both Origen and Paul must be resolve via the desk of "Eusebius".

The issue is important because both Eusebius and Pamphilus were supposed to have collaborated on part of this while Pamphilus was alive. It may have been the last thing Pamphilus wrote, perhaps even from jail, where Eusebius visited him during the terrible persecutions under Diocletian who retired to grow cabbages. As well all know Pamphilus bought it, but Eusebius preserved their last collaborative effort about the Christian Origen. FWIW I have made some notes on this here

It's a big area and involves the library of Origen (not forgetting there was a Platonist ORIGEN also around). Origen passed the batton over to Pamphilus, and then Pamphilus to Eusebius, or so the story goes. Another thing it involves is the Origenist controversies of later centuries over the books of Origen.


AFAIK (I could be wrong) Shesh the editorship and translation appearing in Vaticanus for the Greek LXX is originally from this Origen in the 3rd century. The editorship of Vaticanus ms may be reasonably resolved to Eusebius. Thus Origen is probably the most central figure in the 3rd century Christian lineage, but don't forget the Platonist Origen either.


Happy reading!

And εὐδαιμονία eudaimonia

aa5874

Where are the posters who constantly assert that the Pauline writings were composed before c 70 CE??

Are they all dead??

Now, that we have a thread where those who support the "Scholarly" opinion that the Pauline letters were BEFORE c 70 CE can present their assumed strong "EVIDENCE" they have all VANISHED.

For hundreds of years it has been assumed without a shred of corroboration that the Pauline letters were composed before c 68 CE but there was NEVER EVER any evidence at all.

Early Pauline letters are complete PROPAGANDA coming from apologetic sources and those who have no intention of presenting the actual evidence against the history of the Church.

It is clear to me that apologetics must, must, must declare that the Pauline letters were composed Before the death of Nero to maintain the Bogus chronology of the Jesus cult of Christians.

However, we have the recovered dated manuscripts and writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Lucian, Municius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Jerome, Ephrem the Syrian, Julian the Emperor, Arnobius, the short gMark, the long gMark, gMatthew, Revelation, Acts of the Apostles and the Muratorian Canon.

The Pauline letters are historically bogus and were composed NO earlier than the mid/late 2nd century or later.

Effectively, the Pauline letters do NOT represent the history of the Jesus cult of Christians at all.

Sheshbazzar

So, lets say Origen does unfairly represent Celsus. What would or could Origen or the Church gain by bringing up the Pandera incident?
Apparently, by the arguments raised here, it is believed that the Tolodot Yeshu being latter (as assumed), would not have even contained the 'Pandera father of Jesus story' if it had not first came to be known through Origen bringing it up in his work 'Contra Celsum'. Certainly knowledge of, and so openly acknowledging the existence of this Pantera story was not favorable to or beneficial to the Church's claims of a miraculous virgin birth.

mountainman

My answer atm would be that the Pandera incident was just part of a massive avalanche of satire, parody, pulp fiction and other - genuine attempts to preserve Greek (pagan) culture such as gThomas - after the Nicaean Decision to run with the Canonical Books of the Bible and everything else was prohibited or else.

My answer atm would be that the victors of the conflict downplayed the massive controversy of 325 CE (now called Arian) and part of the misinformation was to retroject the controversy into the past. This was achieved by having ancient sources mention the existence of various [heretical] books, such as the Pandera codex.

At the moment I see the Pandera incident as a Greek satire against the canonical account. It happened beyond the control of the authorities. It needed to be covered over for the benefit of peace and harmony and integrity in Canonical Christendom. But I am willing to look at any evidence that is relevant to this entire issue. I wasn't there. Hypotheses about the evidence are mandatory.

To summarise: The (325CE) Church was trying to bury the (325 CE) Pandera incident.

Deeply in the past centuries where no one could resurrect it and live to tell the tale.

The Pandera codex was quite an embarrassing story to those who held the canonical
books for the Christian emperors of the 4th and subsequent centuries.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

jakejonesiv

You might as well give up AA. Jesus is not the son of a Ghost and a Virgin in GMark. Instead he has a regular family.
"Jesus' mother and brothers came and stood outside. Then they sent someone with a message for him to come out to them." Mark 3:31.
A ghost doen't have his mother and his brothers call for him to come outside to talk to them.
You might as well give up AA. How can a ghost be crucified with nails and killed on a cross of wood? That is irrational. You make no sense. Nails cannot hold a ghost to the cross.
AA, you might as well give up. A ghost cannot eat and drink.
"When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?”
You are hopeless and without reasoning. In gMark, Jesus is a regular guy upon whom the spirit descends, and then he performs marvelous deeds. This is adoptionist Christology. Impossible? Of course. Historical? No way. By a ghost? Not in gMark.

jakejonesiv

AA, you are exactly right. Well reasoned indeed.

Jake

mountainman

The first Phantom Sunday strip (May 28, 1939). Art by Ray Moore

Notice the skull in frame 5/8 - here we have Golgotha.


Is it absolutely necessary that the Ghost who walks, and eats, and drinks,
and has all sort of adventures, in a book, has to be a real historical figure?

Duvduv

If they have no empirical evidence for the second century then you and I both know that they accept the Church claim, don't we?

aa5874

What utter nonsense!! I have already shown that Jesus walked on water in the short gMark.

Can't you read the passage?? See Mark 6.48-49

An actual man cannot walk on the sea.

In gMark Jesus was a GHOST. the short gMark is a Myth Fable--NOT history.

That is PRECISELY why I always mention gMatthew 1.18 and Luke 1.26-35. In the Myth Fables called Gospels, Jesus was born AFTER his mother became Pregnant by a Holy Ghost.

Don't you understand what Myth Fables are?? The Son of the Holy Ghost was God's Son.

God's and Sons of God can do anything impossible in Jewish, Greek and Roman Mythology.

short gMark 10
Again, you do NOT understand what Myth Fables are?? You are hopelessly naive. In the Myth Fables called Gospels the Holy Ghost was a figure of history--the Father of the Son of God called Jesus.

The stories in the NT are Myth Fables like those of the Jews, Romans and Greeks and Christians witers of the Jesus cult DECLARED publicly for hundreds of years that Jesus was BORN of a Holy Ghost and Walked on the sea.

1. Ignatius to the Ephesians2. Justin's First Apology3. Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ 4. Origen's De Principiis5. 1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

Sheshbazzar

Don't even try to drag me into this asinine anti-acadamia conclusion of yours.

The empirical evidence of second century and third century CE authenticity of these texts can only be found within the texts. (barring some new archaeological find that would further confirm their authenticity.__one never knows with the advances in todays technology what may yet turn up.)

Avoiding analyzing the content of those texts (the labor performed by academically trained and peer reviewed scholars) does nothing to expose any empirical evidence pro or con.
Secular textual scholars must have sufficient grounds, based upon the material they find within these texts, to continue to assign them to the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries CE.

You display great skepticism and distrust of the dating and views presented in our common reference materials by all manner of mainstream scholars, those to whom to the best of their abilities are entrusted to correctly inform us in these matters.

But you show no willingness to yourself undertake that arduous task which they have undertaken, and so many made their life's work, that of actually deeply diving into these works and giving every statement close examination and comparisons with other supporting or conflicting texts, and submitting their findings to peer review.

I have reason to respect the years these dedicated academics have devoted to the task of examining and comparing these texts, literally word by word and phase by phrase, to reach the conclusions that are presented within secular reference material.

I have no reason to respect uninformed opinions animated by nothing more than animosity and prejudice against academia, rather than being formed upon an an equally intensive examination of these texts, capable of refuting the conclusions of scholarship.

They have shown me theirs, and their methods of scholarship, and if you think to persuade me against their clearly stated views, you are going to have use these same texts to demonstrate that your opinion on them is more valid and is better supported by the content of the text than theirs.

In other words you will need to get off your ass and actually engage the material as they have, and show evidence from the text that it contains material that proves it originated latter than claimed.