mountainman

Cyril says that he omitted invectives against Christ
and such matter as might contaminate the minds
of Christians. A similar mutilation of the letters of
Julian occurred for similar reasons.

Here is Cyril's own words:

But, as I said, from his open mouth without reserve he spreads every kind of calumny against our common Saviour Christ, and pours against him ill-sounding remarks

No, I am inclined to think that Cyril censored Julian's assertion
regarding the authors of the fabrication. I think that it is not
impossible that Julian actually named these "wicked men" who
wrote the fiction, and that Cyril could not bring himself to refute
this bit of information and simply censored it.


It was first published in 331 CE in complete context by
a supreme imperial mafia thug, malevolent despot and
oppressor, military supremacist of the empire (324-337),
murderer of son, and wife, and associated innocents,
and described as a "brigand" and "a ward irresponsible
for his own actions".

Let's start with these historical facts.
The bible was first published by a MALEVOLENT DESPOT.
(HINT: an ancient 'Hitler' who never brought to account)
Is that a clear enough reason 'why the bible is a mess'.

Clouseau

Then why did no-one say so?

And what was Julian? Snow White?

It was not published in the modern sense. Most of the books of the Bible were in common use long before the Roman Empire existed, and most of the books of the New Testament for two hundred years even before Constantine drew breath. And was Constantine so much worse than his predecessors who had attempted to destroy the Bible's readership? Are we so naive as to suppose that Constantine actually became a Christian? Pull the other one.

It's good to get atheist confession that the RCcult is antiChristian, anyway!

It's such a pathetic 'reason' that I will now assume that the allegation was spurious and has been withdrawn.

Doug Shaver

Your denial is noted. Until you present evidence to support it, the lurkers can judge accordingly.

Quite so. But what I can do is bring to the lurkers' attention that the question you answered was not the question I asked.

Oh, gee, I dunno. Maybe because you want people to think you know what you're talking about?

I can't speak for others, but when I'm watching a debate, if one person presents evidence and his opponent presents no evidence, then all else being equal, I'm going to think that the person with the evidence has made the better argument for his position.

Clivedurdle

Clouseau, your identity states existentialist and you have in other posts alluded to a true branch of xianity. You seem to like non sequiters and seemingly socratic responses. I am very confused. Where are you coming from, where are you now, where do you wish to go with your arguments and discussion?

mountainman

"Nothing man invents
can last forever, including Christ,
his most mischievous invention."

--- Gore Vidal, JULIAN, writing as Libianus
--- Final pages of the Historical Novel.

mountainman

Clouseau, may I ask if you also possess
a "KATO profile"? For the record, ancient
historians generally agree that the 4th
century's most "integrous historian" was
Ammianus Marcellinus, and his extant
obituaries.

Notably, the obituary to Constantine by AM
has not yet been recovered from antiquity.
What it would actually reveal is open to
some conjecture.

Clouseau

I'm not sure what this has to do with Julian's supposed status as a reliable commentator on the Bible.

mountainman

Ancient sources inform us that the complete bible in all its
modern day context -- the Hebrew texts bound together
with the New Testament texts -- first appeared in the year
c.331 CE, and was known as "the Constantine Bible".

We have no non-christian-ecclesisatical historians found
writing under the rule of Constantine, or none survived.
Under the rule of his son and successor Constantius, the
will of the father was observed until 360 CE.

Julian was the first non-Constantinian to have the opportunity
of making any comment whatsoever since the Council of Nicaea
in the year 325 CE ---- 35 years previously.

Julian was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
was a fiction of men composed by wickedness. He was in
a position to see what was going on better than yourself,
that is, unless you have some inside information ...

Clouseau

How do you know?

Bur Constantine was in an even better position than either of us.

mountainman

Cyril undertook to refute Julian's published conviction
in ten volumes, and succeeded in having his profile
recognised as both as a hostile, and a censor, and
attempts to have us believe that Julian was a liar.

This is sufficient evidence from the persepective of a
student of ancient history to postulate that Julian
was actually very convinced that the fabrication of
the Galilaeans was a fiction of men composed by
wickedness.

Moreover, it strongly suggests, by an analysis of the
writings of Cyril, that Julian - in his original three books -
actually named these wicked men, and this was
the primal reason why Julian's work were turning many
away from the fourth century christian church.

Hence his original writings were ultimately destroyed.
Yet they or fragments thereof may one day reappear.
It will be an interesting time for ancient historians.


Constantine published the first complete bible.
Why the delayed publication in completeness?

If the purported cast of scores of published
pre-Nicene christian authors associated their own
writings with the Hebrew Texts, why have we not
found mention or evidence of a "Marcion Bible", or
an "Irenaeus Bible" or a "Clement Bible", or indeed
an "Rome Bible" or a "Caesarean bible" or an "Alexandrian
Bible", etc, etc? Why the delay in publishing a
complete (Hebrew text plus NT text) bible?


The question that needs to be asked and researched
but which hitherto has been avoided, is whether the
supreme imperial mafia thug and malevolent despot,
so fond of literature, its preservation and its sponsorship,
actually commanded its fabrication, in or near Rome,
between 312 and 317/324 CE, in Greek.

Whether the lonely and untrodden path of his editor
Eusebius, whom Julian describes as wretched
was not in places revealed as a fabrication:

Now if in reality there are no heresies at all (as you
must believe if you assume those who refuted them
invented them), the apostle who predicted them lied.

But if in fact they do exist, they were none other
than those which were examined by these men;
no one can be considered to have enough leisure
to invent material for his pen when he already has
it at hand.