mountainman

Apparently the New Testament was exposed to the most shameful ridicule of the Greeks at its reception in the Roman Empire at that very time it was firstly widely and "Officially Circulated" around the time of the Council of Nicaea. Apparently it was not just ridiculed by public comment, but was subject to utterly astute academic discernment by famous personalities in the theatres of the Greeks.

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

This evidence suggests a few things ....

(1) The public shameful ridicule of the new testament commenced on the day it was first widely published in the early 4th century ... it did not have to wait until the 20th and 21st century.

(2) It suggests that the Greeks were getting stuck into Constantine’s New Testament Canon and Constantine’s Jesus by popular ridicule via Greek satire, as a sort of grass-roots political thrashing. This exposure to most shameful ridicule in the eyes of both the actors in the theatres and the public theatre patrons, must have appeared to be thoroughly deserved. I wonder why?

(3) It suggests that Constantine (and thus Eusebius) thought this was a most shameful thing to do. Modern apologists can either agree with Constantine (and thus Eusebius) or ignore the historical reason for this shameful satirization by the Greeks c.325 CE at their peril.

(4) It suggests that, as a result Greek entertainment of this kind the Greek texts associated with the performances were strictly forbidden. Or is the word verboten!. Did Constantine send Christian Soldiers in jackboots down to the local theatres to make a mess of things when he heard about this? [I think other evidence suggests that this is precisely what he did.]

(5) It suggests that Monty Python may have been well paid by the Greeks had the team been around in the early 4th century. However it suggests that their job would have been associated with an unusually high risk factor - the death penalty no less by immediate beheading. Were people actually executed over the satirization of the new testament? What was the Arian Controversy about anyway? Who won that battle over the war of words from the Ares Arius if not the Christian Heresiologists -- amongst whom were all of the "Authodox Christian Ecclesiatical Historians"?

(6) It suggests that one should be looking for texts which were preserved by burial, which are either Greek, or have Greek roots (such as Coptic and Syriac), and which involve really strange, dispersive, textual-critic-nightmare type themes dealing in the subject matter of the Constantine Codex. That is, stories which make no sense whatsoever, which involve the characters of Jesus the Wizard of Nazarethobethelehem and/or the Twelve Boneheads. And we should check to see whether the faint signals of Greek satire can be detected in these texts. Texts which have been anathemetized or forbidden to be read or rejected or branded as heretical works might be a good place to start.

Our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive …
he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church. [NHC 11.1]

Clivedurdle

Mark written as an anti xian satire?

Hmmm....

2-J

Well, were they?

arnoldo

And before the writings were ridiculed the believers would put on a show in the late first century!

The full text of The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is available here; Kirby, Peter. "First Clement." Early Christian Writings

Zeluvia

I dont get it, what does jealousy have to do with the Christian women tying themselves to bulls?


And I guess the Noble reward is death? As in the goal in the "race of faith"?

I however always like the first part of this letter, which seems to imply that WORKS matter more than GRACE.

mountainman

Mark was very much included as one of the Tetrarchy of Gospels in the Constantine Codex Clivedurdle. Mark was one of the books Eusebius above describes as "the sacred matters of inspired teaching ".

According to Eusebius Mark was exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers. Who were these unbelievers?
They were the ancient Eastern Greek civilisation itself!!!!
What happened to the ancient Eastern Greek civilisation?
The Constantine Codex happened. Pythagoras and Euclid were no longer in favour with the New Guardian Class. A massive revolution was happening which is as yet only faintly understood. Christianity won the revolution, but the Greeks went down writing satire against it bigtime.

They were obviously out there performing satires aimed at Christianity in the Greek theatres. The texts of these satires I think are what we now call the non canonical acts and gospels of the NT. The canon came first, then it was satired --- as Eusebius discloses above.


The later Christian heresiological historians simply attempted to bury the controversy Christianity (ie: the Constantine Canon) had caused. This of course, also included the censorship of Julian's after words.

mountainman

Arnaldo,

You appear to be saying that because the 4th century Eusebius reports in various stories including Clement that not only were there male, but also female "Early Christian MArtyrs" that anyone who satirises Christianity needs to be reminded of the martyrs poor poor terrible terrible fictitious fictitious lives and deaths. You are dealing in pathos and hearsay.

Have you read Billy Connolly's Crown of Thorns (PDF) where you will read a fine sermon by Pastor Jack Glass. Bible Reading: Mark 15 :1720. 17 :And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, ... published 1980, Zion Baptist Church (Glasgow).

I dont believe any of this stuff below was historical before Eusebius took up the pen. Believe in this pathos at your own peril. Clement has forgeries coming out of his ****

andrewcriddle

The women were denounced to the authorities as Christians out of jealousy. The authorities put the women to death in lurid recreations of ancient myths, such as the killing of Dirce by tying her to a wild bull.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Modern apologists appear to ignore the historical reason for this shameful satirization on the NT by the Greeks c.325 CE. They appear to ignore it because they have been conditioned to focus on the grand Eusebian heritage of christian martydom.

Instead of discussing the Greek satire in the theatres of 325 CE we get referral to these obviously forged 1st century Clementine fables on the basis that everyone should know the literary tradition in which the christians appear as the underdogs who were denounced and martyred. Where is the history for any of this Eusebian pathos? We dont have any history for any christians outside of Eusebius in the 1st three centuries --- other than recreated myths.

The message appears to be, from Christian supporters, that who cares why the Greeks statirised the NT in the year 325 CE since they are obviously the villains in the story of the reception of the NT.

Cite an "Early Christian" martyr myth and one may justifiably forget the satire of 325 CE. This apologetic reaction is an extremely childish and conditioned attitude that follows the guiles of Eusebius, and of course ignores the evidence that the Greeks satirised the new testament in their theatres. If one ignores the fact that the Greek civilisation trashed Constantine's "Holy Writ", one does not have to understand the non-christian Greek mind or the history of the 4th century. This is simply more conditioned apologetics --- it is not history.

The question as to why the unbelieving Greeks exposed “the sacred matters of inspired teaching to the most shameful ridicule in the their theaters" needs to be addressed.

arnoldo

How do you know that Clement wasn't satirizing christianity by writing that some would be martyred whilst tied to a bull? Perhaps Clement was alluding that christianity was bull****. . .