avi

???? "Intelligent Design" is the "silver bullet" that repudiates Pete's theory that Constantine ordered creation and publication of the "new Testament"???
What? Pete's misspelling of "orthodoxy" is the "silver bullet" that disproves his theory?

And this palaver relates to the "silver bullet" how?

Which, may or may not be true, but relates to the "silver bullet" how?
Ooops. How does posing a question re: Jesus' hypothetical gnosticity relate to the "silver bullet", i.e. the one piece of genuine evidence which can be used to refute Pete's theory that Constantine fabricated the "New Testament"? Wasn't Transient the starter of this thread? Why wasn't his non-sequitur, offtopic gibberish split away?

More absurdity, completely off topic.
and spin's rule is that spin decides what is simple, and what constitutes "oversimplification". To my mind, one of the merits of Pete's theory is precisely, its simplicity. Nevertheless, regardless of what one thinks about either simplicity, or Pete's theory, or Einstein's maxim for that matter, what has any of this to do with elaborating the "silver bullet"? It is all offtopic blather.
Thus, the issue of coin significance, in regard to Constantine's religious persuasions, arises. Is this pertinant to the original topic, finding a "silver bullet" to refute Pete's theory? I would argue that it is very relevant, unlike spin's next comment:
I agree with his sentiment, though it is completely offtopic. Let's begin with fewer sly comments from spin, regarding other poster's comments. Since spin is "not that interested in Constantine", perhaps he can refrain from belittling those who are, particularly, when the comments are relevant to the original topic of the thread.
And this relates, how, to the "silver bullet"?
And this comment relates how to the main topic, the "silver bullet"?
If the subsequent discussion on the stupidity of misusing this word, "retrojection", (which possesses a legitimate medical definition,) inappropriately in the context of assessing whether or not the coins issued during the reign of Constantine represent valid evidence suggesting a potential "silver bullet", then, how has thread progression benefited?
I suggest the reintegration of my comments, into the main thread, where they belong. Those who, like Jeffrey, find my analysis irritating or annoying, or who perhaps lack proper medical credentials, can simply read someone else's commentary, and ignore my own, medically oriented focus. I dislike having my comments removed from the thread, in arbitrary fashion, without justification, and I don't consider Jeffrey's whining to represent that justification. Avi Cenna

Jeffrey Gibson

You misread and misrepresent me. What "I find" your "analysis" (???) vis a vis the word "retrojection" to be is wrong. Moreover, it is "falsified" -- shown to be wrong -- by the very source you say you couldn't find it in, i.e., the OED.

How a medical emphasis is relevant to the OP is beyond me.

Hardly arbirary or without justification since a "discussion" of the meaning of "retrojection" has nothing to do with the OP, not have you shown that it has.

.

So it was whining, was it?

In any case, we are again off topic. So I ask the moderators to split out both this post and the one from Avi that I am presently responding to.

I also ask them to tell Avi that if he can't stay on topic in this thread, that he not post to it.

And as to Pete's "explanation" being "simple -- any view that it is such doesn't understand the complexity and the absurdity of the conspiracy theory that it entails vis a vis NT and EC writings, how under informed it is on matters Constantinian and on the history of the canon and on the origin of the NT apocryphal writings, how much bad evidence Pete has adduced in support of it (the ravings of a 19th century spiritualist !!??), how much contrary data Pete has to ignore to make the claims he does, and how many question begging assumptions about, and misreadings of, the primary evidence Pete appeals to, it is grounded in.

Jeffrey

spin

The evidence from Dura Europos falsifies mountainman's theory. It shows that Jesus already existed.

Eusebius the heretic was in no position to create a religion.

Julian disagrees with mountainman about the existence of Jesus and Paul and the age of the religion. All mountainman can do is ignore Julian's acceptance of Jesus and Paul:



Eusebian Christogenesis has long ago been shown to be full of holes. The only person really unaware is mountainman, who has been doing a headless chicken routine on the matter for several years.


spin

avi

It is not. A "medical emphasis" is relevant however, to the refutation of spin's silly misuse of the medical term, "retrojection", regarding an explanation of ancient coin features, features which in spin's view, suggest the presence of a "silver bullet", i.e. the original post. The claim that the oxford english dictionary contains a definition of "retrojection" consistent with spin's misuse, is irrelevant to anyone with a copy of Dorland's Medical Dictionary. "Retrojection" is a medical term, very familiar in meaning to anyone with medical credentials. The word is not intended for use by children. At least the online version of oed does not include the word. The proper word, which spin should have employed, is "projection", a mental process, hence, in the domain again, of medicine. Projection consists of envisioning an image which does not exist in the visual cortex, i.e. a virtual image, not a retinal image. Projection is the proper term to use, with regard to the visualization of a virtual image, regardless of whether or not the imaginary image exists in the present, the past, or the future. "Retrojection" is a medical term with no application to neurophysiology at all, hence absolutely incorrect, in discussing mental activities.

"Falsify", always signifies fraud. It is not synonomous with refute.

I believe that spin errs here.
1. I do not accept the evidence from Dura Europos as valid;
2. If someone wishes to consider the excavations valid, then the evidence still does not prove the existence of Jesus, but rather the purported existence of some kind of believers in Jesus' supposed divinity. Such "believers" need not have been Christian, in the Roman, Trinitarian flavor. For all we know, the paintings represent art, not devotion to religious faith, just as a painting of the Buddha sitting under a lotus tree, in the home of a Chinese does not indicate that person's faith in the divinity of Buddha.
3. The existence of Santa's elves is not proven by uncovering paintings of them.
4. Mountainman's theory embraces the notion that Lord Constantine commanded Eusebius to create the "new testament". The mural paintings uncovered in the excavations at Dura Europos do not address the gospels per se, nor any of the other "accepted" writings included in the "new testament", as defined by Athanasius.

J-D

Both 'retrojection' and 'falsify' have other meanings in addition to the ones you recognise. 'Falsify' does sometimes mean 'refute'. 'Retrojection' does sometimes mean 'projection backwards'. You don't have to use them that way if you don't want to, but you can't stop other people using them that way, no matter how hard you try. You lack the power. Learn a lesson from the apocryphal King Canute.

mountainman

Dear Transient,

In the fourth century when christianity became the official state monotheistic religion of the Roman empire, the new testament canon became the holy writ of the new state religion by default. The publishers of the official state version of christianity made a number of claims with respect to the canonical stuff and the "non canonical stuff", of which some is deemed to be "gnostic".

The basis of these claims form the foundation for subsequent mainstrean authorised and orthodox beliefs, subscribed to until this very day, that the history associated with both the canonical (ie: bound into the NT) and the non canonical literature (ie: the apochrypha) originated in earlier centuries,
perhaps the first or second centuries of the common era.

During the fourth and fifth centuries while the literature of the canon was held up as holy writ, the literature of the NT apochrypha was considered anathema. It was banned and actively sought out for destruction. Lists were kept of the offending tractates. One defining document is the Decretum Gelasianum.

The earliest NT apochryphal tractates are considered to be a series of acts (containing the Acts of Thomas) written by a shadowy author perhaps in the second or the third century, whom is later given the name Leucius Charinus, two names from the fourth century "Acts of Pilate". This author is described in the Decretum Gelasianum, as Leucius the disciple of the devil.

Hence your "of the devil" comment actually has substantiation in the document tradition.


The author(s) of the apochrypha were "gnostic". See the Nag Hammadi codices, which preserve NT apochryphal tractates, and check the opinions of those who have studied these texts from the middle of the fourth century. These texts suggest a strong connection between "the gnostics" and subject matter pertaining to Asclepius and Hermes - non christians.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Avi,

I was interested to read that you have some form of medical background and am therefore making this post to inform you of the existence of prior discussions related to Parallels between Jesus and Asclepius with a brief review od data presented in the book Asclepius: The God of Medicine .

An increasing number of medical history books are being published recently providing a great wealth of citations from ancient history in respect of evidence for Asclepius in the document and the archaeological record. It is as if retiring doctors are seeking the origins of heir profession. Their unanimous conclusion is the healing god Ascelpius.

For example - Parallels between Asclepius and Jesus

I hope you find this information intersting.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

spin

Here are a few other people who seem to use the term "retrojection" (or "retrojected") as I have.

1. James Clauss and Mary Depew (edd.), Syllecta Classica Vol. 6. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1996. Pp. 104.
   Reviewed by Benjamin Hughes
   Legitimizing a Hellenistic realm through the past is also, Richard Hunter argues in "The Divine and Human Map of the Argonautica", one of constant undercurrents of this epic poem. Taking as his point of departure recent studies in Vergil's Aeneid which emphasize the retrojection of the Augustan present into the epic past, H. proposes the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius as one, and a very important, model for such a strategy of retrojection.
   
2. Anthony Woodiwiss, The Visual in Social Theory, p.97
   The conclusion that I will seek to justify below, therefore, is that whenever the terms modernity and, by extension, postmodernity are used in general sociological discourse their effect is an unwarranted historical retrojection and/or global projection of the Social Modernist concetion of American society in the 1950s.
   
3. Italian translation of the English word "retrojection"
   

   proiezione f. nel passato.

   ie projection in the past. (proiezione is a feminine noun)
   
4. synoptic-l mailing list
   
   >> Karel Hanhart wrote:
   >>
   >> > I cannot go into detail. But the motif of the "boat" and of "sea crossings"
   >> > seem to be a retrojection of the later mission of the apostles who crossed
   >> > the Mediterranean Sea.
   
5. POMPEY'S COMMANDS IN THE 50's: HOW CUMULATIVE?* p.8 (pdf)
   
   Furthermore, Meyer admitted the heavy Greek inspiration of the treatise, notably Plato's Politikos. Meyer's theory was, in short, a blatant case of retrojection.
   
6. Glenn W. Most, Doubting Thomas.
   Reviewed by Philipp Brandenburg
   
   One of Most's list of the hermeneutic strategies of Christian exegesis:
   
   (b) Retrojection: The text is seen as to answer the current questions of the interpreter.
   
   Jesus' discussions with the Pharisees are commonly thought to be instances of 'retrojection'.
   
7. Narrative and Ontology
   
   Nevertheless, in both cases there is a core written tradition which is reinterpreted and extended, in which later historical perspectives are retrojected, and which requires critical reconstruction in order to disengage the levels.
   
8. Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology
   
   The debate whether the historical Jesus used this title of himself or whether it is a product of early church reflection retrojected into Jesus' ministry has raged throughout the last hundred years. If one takes the latter view. one faces two major difficulties: Why was this title so massively retrojected, being placed on Jesus' lips on a scale far outdistancing the retrojection of "the Messiah,"the son of God" and "the Lord"?
   
9. Peter's Primacy In Scripture, by Fr. William Most
   
   Some have tried to suppose verses 17-19 are retrojection, something spoken after Easter, retrojected to this spot.

avi on the scholarly use of "falsification:
As christ has been shown to exist prior to the time of Eusebius, then obviously Eusebian Christogenesis has been falsified. You can believe what you want, but it has nothing to do with evidence. Just look at your linguistic beliefs.

Trinitarianism has nothing directly to do with Christogenesis. (Out of curiosity does your brain switch into refusal mode with the neologism "Christogenesis", or are you able to work with the semantic content along similar lines to cosmogenesis?)

Christ already existed before 256/7. Hence the mountainman claim has been falsified.

What they were functionally doesn't change the fact that Christ was already a developed tradition.

This is a non seuitur. The existence of the notion of Santa's elves would be proven, just as the notion of the christian traditions existed.

This is irrelevant. The christ tradition already existed in 256 CE. The theory is falsified.

The frescoes don't have to "address the gospel per se". They show that the christ traditions and various gospel traditions existed prior to Constantine and Eusebius.

Perhaps you just don't understand either what the topic is or what is necessary to show that it doesn't fit reality.

Host: Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim. First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?
Voles: That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.
Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?
Voles: 43.
Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?
Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.
Host: Ah! Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!
Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.
Voles: My pleasure.

spin

mountainman

Dear Toto,

In addition to my earlier response do I need to point out to you that an hypothesis may be introduced without evidence, so long as it is not inconsistent with the available (ancient historical) evidence.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Will you please cease playing the "conspiracy card"? Are you not aware that the will of the Roman emperor was supreme? That it is by no means impossible that the fabrication known as the Historia Augusta was authored by a collaborative enterprise of academics in the same epoch as the new testament and Historia Ecclesiastica should give you good reason to pause.

Conspiracy Theory: Constantine conspires with his ego to fabricate a new national story

* GPS DATA: 28th October 312 CE, Rome:

* Constantine to Chief-Lieutenant Ossius: Bring in another one of those scribes.

* ENTER Eusebius with Chief-Lieutenant Ossius, Eusebius prostrating, prostrating, prostrating ...:

* Constantine to Eusebius: I have a new testament to the gods to be published.

* Eusebius to Constantine(while Prostrating): Yes Boss.

* Constantine to Chief-Lieutenant Ossius: At last a scribe who understands his position.

* Constantine to the scribe: Name scribe!

* Eusebius to Constantine (while Prostrating): Hans Eusebius Anderson, my Caesar and my God !!!! May I call you Boss, Boss?

* Constantine to Chief-Lieutenant Ossius: An unusual middle name. For the moment, get rid of the scribe.

* EXIT Eusebius (looking very concerned over that last comment from the boss) with Chief-Lieutenant Ossius.

We are not dealing with a conspiracy theory. It can be summarised without reference to conspiracy as follows:

0) A review of the archaeological citations for the period 000 to 312 CE.
1) Constantine creates Christianity (ie: the NT canon). (312-324)
2) Constantine becomes supreme: Antioch and Nicaea. (324/325)
3) Arius of Alexandria authors the Apochryphal NT tractates (325-336)
4) Cyril of Alexandria censors and refutes all controversies over the illegitimacies of the history of the church. (c.444 CE)


Best wishes,


Pete