Clivedurdle

Youngalexander,

Can you reference this, is the art work on line anywhere with dates?

Jeffrey, you seem to be arguing that GJohn caused a plague of good shepherds, and in fact GJohn may not be representing a Jewish Jesus. Have I understood you correctly?

How do you know GJohn is the starting point and not a literary reflection of pre existing sheperdists?

Jeffrey Gibson

Tell that to the Samaritan Woman. Or to John who has Jesus proclaim that Salvation is "of the Jews" and who declares that the "his own" to which Jesus came were Jews, etc.

As usual, no.

Jeffrey

youngalexander

Try googling 'good shepherd catacombs'!
For a quick intro White and Crossan
An extensive examination of v.late 3rd & 4thC sarcophagi Jesus the Magician

Overall it's still the much referenced Ante Pacem by Snyder from p42 (2003 ed)

The Orante and the Good Shepherd are the only two early Christian independent symbols in human form (neither Jesus nor Mary appear as independent symbols). Both are very early and both are extensively used. After the peace, the Good Shepherd became the most popular representation of Jesus Christ. In contrast to the Orante, as a Christological symbol the Good Shepherd has endured to this day as a sign of Christianity. Like the Orante, the GS (or Buon Pastor) had a long prior history in artistic symbolism. It stems directly from the ancient figure of the good shepherd, the criophorus, ... In the first Christian art it did nor refer to Jesus or to any other Christian person.

Representations of Jesus are very much a dynamic & evolving work highly dependent upon time and context.

mountainman

OPENING WORDS OF POLEMICISTS

The work written by Cyril Contra Julian is admitted polemic designed as a refutation of the claims made by the Roman Emperor Julian in writings in three books Against the Galilaeans which the christians burnt. The polemic of Cyril was necessary to overturn the tide of opinion in the empire which was aligned to whatever Julian had actually written. It must have been quite serious. It was causing Cyril and his superiors all sorts of authenticity problems, and they needed to deal with this since it was not good for business. So they had to refute and burn Julian.

The opening words of a famous author in a famous book that was more often narrated than read would be remembered by many many people. If the author was good at writing (and Julian was one of the best) then he could encapsulate his entire message inside a brief abstract in his opening paragraph, and everyone would remember that opening address.

The first words therefore, cannot be readily altered by a censor and polemicist. The refuter is obliged to take the pains to at least show that an academic job is being conducted, and that they are going to quote
everything and all claims and arguments made. They can hardly misquote the author's opening paragraph. This is particularly relevant if the original works are still extant. Censorship has its limits.

Consequently, although I dont trust Cyril as far as I could kick his sorry tax exempt arse, I can be reasonably sure that, even if nothing else in his refutation of Julian is true, the opening words of Julian will probably be preserved reasonably accurately. Cyril could not afford to get his first quote wrong. He could shuffle problems back in the details, and add whatever he wanted in the details, and have Julian say (or not say) many things, but he did not have much room to move in quoting the opening paragraph, even if he was a no-good lying cheating murdering scumbag tax-exempt terrorist-boss christian Bishop and Bigot, nephew of the nefarious and utterly corrupt Bishop Theophilus (they were all "Nicene Father mafia" etc).


OPENING WORDS:
WORLD's FIRST INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT
OF CHRISTIANITY AS A STATE RELIGION

Guest Speaker: Emperor Julian.
Date: c.362 CE

What does Julian say in his opening assessment?

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/

After this opening paragraph, there comes the legal disclaimer about the alteration of the words. Therefore, my argument is that although we should not trust Cyril's polemic that there are certain conventions to which he needed to adher, such as standards of preservation.

The censorship is far more likely to happen therefore in the details and past the opening paragraph and its own formal disclaimer, and as such, the opening paragraph is far more likely to be the words of the emperor himself.




Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

And your evidence for this is what?

Jeffrey

mountainman

People, in general, start reading a book
at its beginning. Do you do this Jeffrey?
What evidence do you have of anything else?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

I am still in the middle of researching this, but I think it will be reasonable to view the great desert monastic movement of the fourth century as a mass exodus of pagans from christian controlled cities: both priests (who had been disspossessed of their temples) and civilians (who had been dispossessed of their lands and possessions by excessive taxation). At the moment the "story of the desert communities" is typified by the christian "Life of St Anthony" written by Athanasius mid fourth century. It's bullshit.

The real "fathers of the monastic movements" were people like Pachomius, whom the latter christian historians have painted "christian", but who in fact were ascetics having no regard for christianity at all.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Sheshbazzar

I tend to think that more than a few "christians" upon seeing how the Boss commonly dealt with any fellow "christian" whose thoughts or opinion didn't agree -exactly- with his opinion -word for word-, would also have thought it prudent to put as much distance as possible between themselves, and him and his galloping Bishop Mafia.

Christians were being tortured and slaughtered by the thousands, by Constantine's "Orthodox" muscle and murder machine, over matters as trivial as the recitation of a single word that the Boss had decreed must be recited -exactly-, as he decreed it, under penalty of death.
No room for freedom of thought or of conscience allowed. Only three options for a believer, conform, flee, or die.
And most modern Christian's would certainly qualify for an immediate death penalty were they living under Constantine's orthodoxy.

What seems most inexplicable to me, is Why?, any otherwise sane, and civilized person living in the modern world would want to have any association at all with the forms and doctrines of a religion created and imposed through this ancient vile egomaniacs evil, and known, viscious theft and murder campaign.
Yet, it is obvious that they rather just wilfully ignore all this unsavory real History, (and this IS History), and continue to swallow whole hog its lying "fiction of men composed by wickedness".
Its enough to make me wish that there actually was a God, for if there was, He certainly would come down and wipe this profane travesty of a religion from off the face of the earth.

Jeffrey Gibson

Your claim isn't about where people start reading a book, but what was most/best remembered of what was read.

And as to your claim hat people remember openings of the books they read better than something later on? Well -- Do you remember the opening lines of Hamlet at all? Do you remember them better than you do the "to be or not to be" speech? The opening lines of Romeo and Juliet better that the balcony scene? The opening of Julius Caesar better than "Friends Romans Countrymen speech of Mark Anthony? The opening lines of Tarzan of the apes better than the story of Tarzan's fight with a Bolgani or with Kechack or his first rescue of Jane?

So what's your evidence that in the 4 and 5th century people did what you claim they did?

Jeffrey

spamandham

Matthew and Mark both record Jesus as crying out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me", the intent of which is rather obviously to call to mind all of Psalm 22 based on it's opening line.