mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

It was not my claim. My claim was that this claim was made by (at least)Julian Morgan, and appears to be also made by many other authors.


This is the claim of Julian Morgan, and many other authors.

This is the claim of Julian Morgan, and many other authors.

Are you actually claiming all these authors are wrong? Perhaps the claim has been made in the field of political assessment (rather than textual assessment).


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Newfie,

Certainly one of the more famous modes of Jesus travelling by water was on foot. If Jesus could walk on water, what's he doing driving a water-taxi?

Humor (of various forms) is a very personal and critical area within each person and, as we all know, some people do not have any sense of humor. You appear to be describing the cannibals reference as a form of irony, and if you have the time I'd like to explore exactly what you mean.

It appears that there was a "heresey" associated with the belief that because the NT canon (ie: the holy writ of the 4th century state monotheistic religion) is being interpretted as Jesus bringing in the practice of cannibalism. This appears to have been a literal belief back then. Here is the source:

Is this irony? Or clever pagans dreaming up satirical polemic by purposefully, and willfully, (seditiously,) interpreting the NT Canon in a completely disrespective manner? SOmeone was making a joke on it. There appears to be humor in this puzzle, but what type, and what's the angle, what's the joke?

What is Crossans's radically different light? What is James' blatant self-exclusion trigger? Is it that the NT Apochrypha are texts taking the holy Mickey out of the new testament canon? We might certainly conjecture that such texts could be associated with the term "hidden writings" or "apochrypha" -- they would have been anti-state propaganda for any resistance against the changes made to the ROman state in the years that christianity rose to supremacy. Was there no resistance by the pagans? They took it lying down? Up with Jesus, Down with the Logos. I dont think so. I think that the evidence tells us that there were herecies of various forms springing up all over the empire. That Jesus was "bringing in cannibalism" was one such heresey. Was it just a joke on the authority of the NT canon by a clever anti-christian author?

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm yes it was. It was only subsequently that you revealed that you were "following Pohlsander".

No it wasn't. At least not until yesterday or so.

Are any of them classicists?

[QUOTE]I know. But what is it grounded upon? What is it that has led these authors to make this claim?

For (at least) the third time, I'm asking you to tell me what this oft repeated claim is based upon. What is the primary evidence not only that Constantine "often" referred to himself "Bishop of Bishops", but that he used the expression ὁ ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἐπισκόπων episkopos twn episkopwn to do so?

I'm also asking you that if Constantine did not use ὁ ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἐπισκόπων of himself, what then becomes of the claim you made "following Pohlsander" that Constantine was claiming to be "spy of spies"?

What is so difficult in your saying that you don't know?

Umm ... what???

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

I dont know. Illuminate me if you have the time and are so inclined. What is the ultimate source(s) correctly and/or incorrectly used by many academic authors in the claim that Constantine considered himself as "The Bishop of Bishops"?

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Ummm ... who are these "academic authors you speak of? Certainly none of the ones you "cite". And is a posting a link to what comes up in a google search really a "citing" authors of any kind, let alone "academic ones"?

Since none of the ones you indiscriminately and wholly indirectly "cite" ever say, it's impossible to tell.

But unless you can provide any evidence to the contrary, there is one thing it seems certain that it cannot be -- and that's the use by Constantine of the expression ὁ ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἐπισκόπων of himself.

And if that is the case, what becomes of your parroted claim -- and all that you build upon it -- that Constantine referred to himself as "spy of spies"?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

If that is the case then the fall-back defence option is to claim that the term is directly related to military intelligence, and to the ultimate administration of any and all spy networks operative and/or associated with the running of the army, which Constantine successfully commanded for a long period of time.


Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

You have the same obligations as I do to support *your* claims. It is your claim that the Vesica Pisces as used by the Pythagoreans was only depicted horizontally. You have claimed the orientation is important. I do not see that as relevant at all, and have made no claim that the orientation is important.

Exactly. You can ignore these if you wish, and you certainly do seem to wish it. I'm sure have an apologetic response to the 153 fish in John as well.

andrewcriddle

Could you give evidence that 153 was a significant number for the Pythagoreans ?

Prima facie it might well have been but IIUC there is little primary evidence that it was.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

To my knowledge there is no primary evidence of this at all. It comes only through secondary sources.

Jeffrey Gibson

Assuming the accuracy of my search of the TLG, there is indeed nothing in extant Greek literature that suggests that 153 was a significant number for anyone other than the author of John , let alone any Pythagoraean. The expression ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα τριῶν· can only be found in Jn. 21:11 and some later Christian texts referring to it. There is not a single instance of it it -- or variants of it -- being used, let alone being pointed out as number of significance to Pythagoreans, in any text by, or describing the views of, Pythagoreans.

Interstingly Jerome, referring in his commentary on Ezekiel 47:9-12 to the works of Greco Roman biologists and naturalists and one poet (whose mentioned works, unfortunately have not survived), says that if the number is symbolic of anything it is Jesus' Lordhip over all of creation, since these writers had noted that the total number of species of fish was 153.


Perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell us what these "secondary sources" are -- or even better if you'd quote them -- so that all here would be able to see what they say about this and whether what they say is worth considering.

Jeffrey