Toto

This is not the humor forum.

Jeffrey Gibson

O gawd. Another one who is in possession of "the truth" and who takes it upon himself to speak for Jesus.!

Please, spare us your paternalism and your holier than though righteous indignation.

In any case, "Mendlehop", thanks for proving Toto's point.

Jeffrey

Mendelhop

Who are you to denounce me for speaking the truth? Christ has already spoken and speaks everyday.

Toto

This is not the place for preaching. Any more will be edited.

Thank you for reviewing the forum rules.

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm ... what truth did you speak. You certainly spoke no truth when you said that Momigliano was Pete's teacher.

Well I hope that Christ wasn't the one who told you that Momigliano was Pete's teacher (or how one spells Momigliano's name).

If he was, I suggest that you take what he says to you with a grain of salt.

Jeffrey

Adonael

Not exactly. See, I can say you have the burden of proof (evidence) for proposition x and yet also maintain that it is premissible for person S to believe x for pragmatic reasons. There is no inconsistency there. The burden of proof is simply about who holds and to what degree the burden for supporting proposition x. That's it. It's not a principle of justified belief.

Roger Pearse

Come, this is disingenuous.

mountainman

The mutilation of Julian's letters and writings was noted a century again by Wright. I never mentioned interpolation. The term I used was censorship. I have yet to study this mutilation in depth. In any event, Julian's writings are not extant as you are well aware we are dealing with what that tax-exempt murdering terrorist boss, chief christologist and christian bishop Cyril of Alexandria wrote about the lies of Julian.

It is a political document and on a number of occasions now you have avoided discussion of the external characteristics of the text of Cyril. Your strength as I understand it is the internal greek. What about the external?



The thesis stands upon the lack of any unambiguous prenicene evidentiary citations for the existence of christianity in any form whatsoever prior to the rise of Constantine c.312 CE as Pontifex Maximus. If christian origins are unable to be scientifically identified prior to Constantine then we are left with the very real possibility that the Pontifex Maximus invented Jesus for his own ends with effect from 312 CE. The labours of Eusebius 312-324 CE in his momentous long and winding road of ecclesiastical history --- the very first written history of the new christian tribe --- must be noted.

The words of Aroius and the words of Julian I have presented in support of the thesis, as indicative of a public reaction to forgery and fiction by Constantine. However these two are not alone. We need to add the Arian controversy itself, and the Nestorian controversy, and the Origenist controversy, and the history of the exodus of the ruling classes in the fourth century from the empire into the deserts, into solitude, into asceticism (because you did not have much other choice in the desert) away from the emperor cult and the excessive taxation of the mid fourth century.

So as to yes or no -- that if your reading of the object of Julian's assertion about "fiction" and of Arius' assertion about what it was that "was not" are incorrect, your thesis would be seriously damaged? the answer would have to depend upon the argument against my reading. But I will repeat Jeffrey that my reading here is necessary external and political and involves censorship by the ruling class behind Cyril. An internal argument is ill-equipped to examine this political condition. Do you see the point here?



The [Logos] understood or [Jesus] or [the Son] understood? See below.
What I will assert is that any such purportedly authoritative citations of the real and underlying political reality of the Arian controversy, and the words of Arius are premature, and do not resolve the nature of the Arian controversy. For example we only need to consider the public opinions prevalent at that time in the mid fourth century ...

Conspicuous in the primary positions are the words of Arius. A political observer in this epoch might form the opinion that many people thought Jesus Christ was fiction, and sprung from things non-existent.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Arnaldo Momigliano - A collection of research notes, quotations, references.

Google Search for "Arnaldo Momigliano" or to the WIKI entry
Arnaldo Momigliano and the human sources of history - newcriterion article by Donald Kagan
Review of T.D.Barnes' Tertullian by Arnaldo Momigliano - Journal of Roman Studies 66 (1976), pp.273-276
The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography - A Brief Review and notes
Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century - A Brief Review and notes
Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire - A Brief Review and notes
On Pagans, Jews and Christians - A Brief Review and notes
AM on AM - Commentary by Arnaldo Momigliano on Ammianus Marcellinus The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography.htm

The reviews Jeffrey were based on the readings of the works of M which I have to-date collected. My scholarship is self-funded however I spared no expense to obtain this author in the field of ancient history.


Best wishes,


Pete