Jeffrey Gibson

I didn't ask you to tell me whether anyone else says so. I asked you to provide me with the evidence upon which they say so.

Where in the primary sources, i.e., Eusebius, Letters of Contantine, letters to Constantine, numismatic and epigraphic data, do we find the term ἐπίσκοπος ("bishop"), let alone (ὁ) ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἐπισκόπων ("[the] bishop of bishops"), used (or said to be used) by Constantine as a self reference? So far as my searches for these terms (with reference to Constantine) in the TLG and in PHI 6&7 show, it never is/was.

What can you show me from the primary evidence to the contrary?

Even if he was, please show me with reference to Lewis and Short and/or to LSJ (which are online) that flamen, let alone that Pontifex (or Maximus!) ever had, or was used with, the meaning of "spy".

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you name any who actually do this?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, the Acts of Andrew and Matthias -- which BTW is hardly a satire on, or a polemic against, the canon. In fact it assumes the historicity of evets narrated within it -- says no such thing about Andrew and Matthias. As the very text you've quoted notes, Matthias is already in the land of the anthropophagi when Jesus tells Andrew to go and deliver Matthias from the death at the man eater's hands that will befall him if Andrew does not rescue him. (cf 1-3).

And Matthias is transported from the land of the anthropophagi by the boat Jesus is there said to captain.

So once again, Pete, you have misread/misrepresented a source you reference.

Good show!

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Consider the complimentary set. New Testament Archaeology for the period described by the Eusebian history offers "New Testament and Biblical Scholars" nothing but discussions about two things: conjecturalism and fraud. We all know that the immense authority which Eusebius gained was well deserved. He had continuators but no rivals." Since New Testament Archaeology offers no foothold to the budding "New Testament and Biblical Scholars" they have no place to set their foot but upon the foothills of the Eusebian history. "New Testament and Biblical Scholars" have no other choice but to either accept Eusebius into their heart, or to keep the wretch at arm's length (and hence the Eusebian fiction postulate)

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

So the answer is no, you can't name them. I thought as much when I asked my question and the dodge above confirms it.

Thanks for clarifying.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

It's a joke on being the master of your own destiny. Welcome aboard Christians! Captain Jesus at your service! We are we going? Oh yeah, that's right ..... etc. I am prepared to see this and many other NT apochryphal texts as a joke on the canon. Sedition against Constantine. Resistance mode. Not much chance of success (we now know there was none, including Julian) in holding out against the new state monotheistic regime with its "holy writ" (canonised like Ardashir's "Avesta"). They took up the pen to create what is known known as the hidden writings --- NT --- apochypha. Which were of course banned! Forbidden! Unlawful! Heretical! To be burnt! Why was the Nag Hammadi Codex so preserved? Why do the only 2 NT (apochypha!!) C14 citations focus on the 4th century?


YES, yes, yes. I forgot Matthias was patiently praying in the land of the cannibals with his eyes closed while hundreds were lead to their deaths. This was a dark satire. Read Ammianus. Times were dark. Jesus was there to allow the apostles to save the apostles. He was the captain! Welcome aboard! It appears nobody was the least concerned for the rest of the captive population (in the Land of Cannibals) being led to their deaths.

The thing is a dark satire Jeffrey. If this were a poker game I'd be all in. External characteristics need to encompass an examination of the five books composed in 429 CE by the orthodox tax-exempt murderer and christian Bishop of Alexandria Cyril, against the "blasphemies and heresies" of Nestorius.
Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

Dear Toto and Jeffrey,

On the principle of the matter I would expect that it is up to you and/or Toto to clearly demonstrate that at least one or more of the claims (I have separated them - there appears to be about 20) made by Julian Morgan which I will cited again below, is either erroneous and/or misleading the youthful students of the world.

Granted that you have already done the following ....
We still have many authors making this claim. I gave you a further two references already. I am interested also in the eventual sources (if any) that these other sources employ. If you are able to assist feel free. Did Constantine consider himself to be "bishop of bishops" --- and upon what basis are we able to determine this, or not determine this, as the case may be?


Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

You gave me reference to authors who assert something. But what I asked you to provide me with was the evidence upon which this assertion was based and to tell me whether it is indeed based upon Constantine actually having used the expression (ὁ) ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἐπισκόπων, as you claimed it was, or on his use some other term/expression.

Are you actually saying that you don't know what these sources are, let alone whether there is any evidence whatsoever that shows that Constantine did indeed use the Greek expression ὁ ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἐπισκόπων of himself as you claimed he did?

Not my job. It was your claim that he often called himself ὁ ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἐπισκόπων and thereby referred to himself as spy of spies, not mine. Besides, I've already stated that there is no such evidence. So if you want to maintain the validity of your claim, you need to produce some. And by "some" I mean texts that stem from the hand of Constantine himself and/or from 4th century Greek writings or inscriptions.

What Constantine considered himself to be is not the issue. The issue is whether he ever did what you claimed he did, namely, actually and often used the particular expression ὁ ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἐπισκόπων of himself. If he did not, then your other clam that through his use of this expression he called himself "the spy of spies" is-- to put it bluntly -- sheer crap.

So did he or didn't he? And if he did, where in the primary sources can we find the record of him doing so?

Jeffrey

Newfie

You know, coming from a maritime culture I can actually appreciate the symbolism of a "Captain Jesus." The gospels are already ripe with "fishers of men" anyway.

So, to save us from the cannibals he eventually offers up his own body for our "consumption?" Anyone else's irony meter hitting the red zone here? I'll tell you one thing; I'll stick to my good captain's fish sticks from now on. They taste a whole lot more heavenly than communion wafers, especially with ketchup.

spamandham

Indeed. The fish symbolism *obviously* derives from the Vesica Pisces of the Pythagoreans. It *is* the Vesica Pisces. Matthew even reveals the secret number of the fish for cripes sake (as you alluded to)!

Mark/Matthew also tell us "Let he who has ears hear" - a subtle code for the Pythagorean akousmatikoi ("listeners"), immediately following a discussion of 30-60-100 - an obvious reference to the first 3 significant "triangle numbers" of the Pythagoreans.

Even the concept of the Trinity derives from Pythagoreanism.



The ichthus acrostic is a later invention by a clever apologist trying to hide the true origins of Christian fish symbolism.