mountainman

Here is the post to which you refer:

These 6 issues are outside textual analysis,
and relate to profane political history.

To answer this question properly we have to understand that there
are a number of issues critical to the text, which are not in the text.

1. Julian did not write this. Julian's original 3 books are burnt,
presumed lost.

2. These words from Julian are reconstructed from Cyril's refutation
of only part of the work - was it the first book only, of Julian's.

3. Julian wrote at a very unique time of political history.
It was time immediately after a successive 40 year term
in which christianity had just become the state religion,
and he was the first voice to be able to speak about it.

4. Cyril also wrote at another unique time of political history.
It was a time after which christianity had already re-obtained
its political position as the state religion, and was in power,
and kicking hard against all and sundry, as history will have it.

5. The reasons that Julian wrote, and that Cyril wrote, are different.
They had different things to say. Different sponsors. IMO
Bullburner sponsored himself, Cyril by the basilica-crew.

6. Cyril admits Julians 3 books were causing many people to turn
away from christianity, that they were to be regarded as particularly
dangerous, that they had shaken many believers, that they
contained invectives against Christ and that they originally also
contained such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians.
(All this via W.Wright's intro).



Noone has engaged discussion of these 6 issues.
As I continue to state, the evidence I seek requires
these questions to be addressed.

I dont think that these questions are unreasonable.


The question is simple:
"Did Cyril censor Julian?"

Arguments from authority are trotted out
left right and center, but I am not interested
in these. I want to discuss the possibility
that Cyril censored Julian - a fact that is
admitted since 1920 by Wright, translator.


Toto, can you change the subject to:
Did Cyril censor Julian?

I have contributed to many subjects.
Will you do me the courtesy of naming
your split according to its subject matter.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Thanks for the support Klaus.

It appears many people accept the superficial
text of the early christian authors at face value.

This practice is one of many which distinguishes
the practice of New Testament History, from
the practice of Ancient History - in which the
options are purposefully left open.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Iasion

Greetings,

Pete, back here :
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...03#post5113903
You said, and I quote :
"Julian is convinced Jesus is a fiction."

Do you stand by that claim?
Yes or no?


You conspicuously ignored the passages where Julian spoke of Jesus as a historical person. Which refutes your claim that Julian thought Jesus was fiction.

Can you explain WHY you ignored those passages I quoted which show Julian described Jesus as historical, not fictional?


Very easy to understand. But, what does it have to do with the passages showing Julian described Jesus a historical person? Censoring means REMOVING passages, not inserting them. Or are you now claiming that Cyril inserted his own words in Julians' mouth?


But back to the source:
How do you reconcile these statements of Julians about a historical person Jesus with your claim that Julian was CONVINCED that Jesus is a fiction :


Julian on Jesus :
"But Jesus, who made converts of the worst part of you, has been celebrated by you for little more than three hundred years"
...
"Jesus himself, who is so much celebrated by you, was one of those who were in subjection to Caesar."



Iasion

schilling.klaus

no, it doesn't.
what Julian is reported to say and what Julian thought are two completely different things.

Klaus Schilling

mountainman

This is precisely what I mean.
Censorship by avoidance of subject.
Censorship by blatant forgery and fraud.
Fraudulent misrepresentation of Julian.
"Mutilation" of the text of Julian.


As outlined above.

I insist that it is possible to consider that Cyril simply
fraudulently misrepresented Julian's "conviction of fiction"
in order to ameliorate the charges and effectively thus
disipate the written opinion of Julian for the present
time (ie: early fifth CE) and for the future "integrity"
and respectability of the newly supreme state church.


Klaus understands the distinction below.


Also please see these six salient political issues
surrounding the question "Did Cyril censor Julian"?

Perhaps I have been unclear in this term censorship.
The question might be alternatively stated:

"Did Cyril fraudulently misrepresent Julian"?
(with specific reference to Julian's 3 Books
Against the Galilaeans) since it is upon the
writing of Cyril alone that we learn of Julian.

I hope you can now understand my position.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Hi Toto,

Thanks for adjusting the subject.
On this page on Cyril I have presented
the text of Cyril's "Contra Julian" and have highlighted
the text by which Cyril is seen to be underhanded.

The bolded sections are these:

We will reproduce his text word for word,
and will oppose our own arguments to his lies
in the appropriate order,
because we realize that it is necessary
to firmly neutralize them.

Here Cyril accuses Julian of lying. Why?
Here also Cyril advises that Julian's words
need to be "firmly neutralised". Why?
Could they in fact be true?
The NT is a fiction of men?

Then Cyril goes on about the 3 books:

It also should be known that in his first book
he handles a great mass of ideas
and does not cease turning and turning over
the same arguments in every direction;
some developments which are found at the beginning of his work,
he also advances in the body of the book and at the end:

Julian may be consistently giving the Galilaeans a proverbial
calling out over their fiction and fraud. It is not impossible
that Julian referred to fiction all through the three books.

So what does Cyril do?
How does he handle this?

We will thus divide his text according to an appropriate classification,
we will gather his ideas by categories
and will face each of them
not on several occasions, but only once,
the with appropriate explanations and
following the rules of the art (of speaking).

Thus, at the beginning of his book against us, he says:

So does Cyril in fact "reproduce his text word for word"
and "in the appropriate order" as he claims to be doing?

The answer is clearly no. He disembles.
Why?

He finds an excuse instead to group by subject matter,
and instead of having to face FICTION, FICTION,
FICTION scattered throughout the three books of
the emperor, IMO Cyril censors this, and reports
the mention of fiction only once, at the beginning,
which was he known opening address of the treatise.

My position here is obviously one that cannot be
conclusively "proven", and I will accept that on
the basis that those who subscribe to the nieve
(and largely unexamined) mainstream view that
Julian quotes and believes in the HJ is also a
position which cannot be conclusively "proven"
since we dont have all the data available.


Best wishes


Pete Brown

Iasion

It also refutes Pete's claim that Julian was convinced Jesus was a fiction.

Why don't you mention that, hmm?

Iasion

Iasion

Hi all,

Riiiight...

So -
when Julian refers to the fraudulent machinations of the Galileans, you think that is accurately represented and you quote the passage every chance you get, and you believe it means he was convinced Jesus was a fiction.

But -
when Julian repeatedly refers to Jesus as historical person, THEN you claim Julian's words are mis-represented each time.


In other words -
when Julian agrees with you - it's accurate,
but when he repeatedly disagrees with you - it's mis-represented.


Iasion

mountainman

What I quote is the opening address of Julian
as reported by Cyril. This opening address is
consistent of two paragraphs, and then a legal
disclaimer about the alteration of the text/words.

It is my conjecture that the citizens of the empire
to whom Julian addressed this text would have
remembered the text by its opening two paragraphs,
since that is the manner in which Julian arranged
his original writing. It was undoubtedly orated.
Most people needed to hear it, since few read greek.

Cyril, whom I conjecture is a censor of "anti-christian"
polemic, could not have securely altered this opening
address, however much he wanted to, because the
text was - at the time Cyril wrote - extant and known
and supported by all those who had rallied to Julian.


Unfortunately your simplistic representation of my
argument makes absolutely no reference to the
six issues that I repreated claim my detractors
have to take into account -- which I insist are
quite reasonable from the perspective of an ancient
historian in this specific case.

The first of those issues is that we do not have
the words of Julian in front of us, and thus none
of us have the necessary evidence by which to
say one conjecture or another is "proven".

I can clearly understand the mainstream opinion.
On the superficial level, Cyril's text presents Julian
discussing Jesus and three hundred years. If we
read the text at this level, one is tempted to make
the following two assumptions:

1) Cyril is faithfully presenting Julian, and
2) Julian in fact believed that an HJ existed.

However, for the six issues itemised, I understand
that there are political issues associated with this
by which I am justified in being very wary of the
reports from Cyril's desk. Therefore I cannot make
the first assumption 1) above, and I suggest also,
that neither can the mainstream.

Surely you can understand that the mainstream
assessment is totally face-value, superficial and
totally under-analysed with respect to this very
first independent assessment of the implementation
of the christian religion on the planet Earth.

Julian's is the first voice of the planet to speak in
any independent manner about the thing Constantine
implemented. What does this independent voice in
fact say?

Well it is silent, because this first independent
voice concerning the first appearance of state
christianity on the planet was searched out and
isolated and then destroyed by zealous christian
fire.

Everyone is doing a reconstruction job.
I hope you understand your position in this.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toob Socks

And by what method did you determine this? Do you read the minds of dead people? Or is this another one of the dozens and dozens of assertions you throw out without any confirming evidence?