mountainman

I see many who strongly insist on these (theories of fiction)
as something (based) on the truth and ancient opinion.

---- The ex-Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius,c.450 CE
---- extracted from The Bazaar of Heracleides.
---- PS: It was admissions like this that Bishop Cyril of Alexandria
---- seriously did not want to have laying around.
---- Who's got the matches?



In other papers related to the thesis that Constantine
invented christianity in the fourth century, and implemented it in
the Roman Empire with effect from his military supremacist council of
Nicaea, we have emphasised that the field of this thesis is ancient history.

An alternative theory of the history of antiquity is being explored
in which the christian "Biblical History" was
Against the Galilaeans. Our position is that the christian regime
wished to seek out and destroy any and all mention of this "plot of
the Greeks" (to use the phrase of
Bishop Cyril of Alexandria).

Nestorius' Tome of Heracleides was sought out and burnt because
it evidenced the existence of the belief, shared by the Hellenes and
their elder Greek academics (following Julian), that the New Testament
was believed to be fiction.




The Catholic Encycopaedia informs us about
Nestorius:

The source details from Roger's site are as

follows:

NESTORIUS - The Bazaar of Heracleides
Newly translated from the Syriac
by G. R. DRIVER, M.A. & LEONARD HODGSON, M.A.
Fellows of Magdalen College., Oxford, 1925


But Why Onn Earth would he have
to deny that Jesus is fictitious?
if the belief was not "out there already"?


Here is the text ....

I have taken the liberyy to underline relevant bits..

Best wishes,


Pete Brown


PS: Sorry about the formatting.
Dont have time to make it look pretty.
Comments should be directed to the
evidence being admitted by Nestorius.



THE BOOK OF MY LORD NESTORIUS
PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE
AND THE CANON OF ORTHODOXY
BOOK I. PART I.14


Preface.

Now in my opinion whoever is about to investigate the truth in all seriousness ought not to compose his discourse with

preconceived ideas, but should bring forward and explain everything which is opposed to the truth. As those who have a

knowledge of gold show the distinction between good gold and that which is poor by a comparison of the one with the other in

the sight of those who wish to accept what is alloyed as though it were pure, and even in preference to the pure (for many

choose evil instead of good and falsehood instead of truth, in that both are equal to them, and their readiness is the

greater to dispute and to defeat one another [in argument] than to establish the truth); so, since different people

confess different opinions about Christ and hold fast / only to the name, we ought to set out the fictions of each one of

these heresies concerning Christ, in order that the true faith may be known by comparison with [these] heresies, and

that we may not be shaken, falling into the one or the other like men who do not see.


1. Wherefore the Heathen do not call Christ God ....

The heathen indeed are not content to name Christ God because of the suffering of the body and the cross and the death, and

they consider that the miracles were [accepted] in error. And they are not differentiated in name, because there is indeed no

distinction between them, in that all of them are heathen.

2. Wherefore the Jews do not admit that he is Christ.

But the Jews do not confess that he is Christ because of the Cross and the death,
in that they look for the advent of Christ in all great glory and dominion.

3. Wherefore the Manichaeans do not admit that Christ is also man by nature, but only God.

The Manichaeans also, and those who have sprung up from them and among them,
declare that he is not man but only God because of the miracles;
but as touching his human [qualities], they place them
in schema and illusion and not in nature.

4. Wherefore the Paulinians 16 and the Photinians profess that our Lord Christ himself is only a man and that he is not

also God.

But the Paulinians say that he is not God but only man because of the birth and death;
but they attribute to him miracles as to any of the saints.

5. Wherefore the Arians profess that Christ is neither God whole and without needs, nor yet a man, but half God and half

man.

The Arians confess that he is half God and half man of soulless body and of created divinity; deeming him inferior to

men in saying that there is not a soul in him and again deeming him inferior also to God in saying that he is not uncreate

and without needs. But because of the incarnation and the birth of a woman and the death they consider that in his human

[qualities] he became God, and they confuse his divine with his human [qualities], attributing his incarnation not to [his

own] authority, but to an overruling command, saying that the union with the flesh resulted in one nature and not /

according to the use of the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf, but even as the soul and the body are bound

[together] in one nature and [the soul] suffers sensibly the sufferings of the body whether it will or not, even though it

has not of itself [the means] to accept them in that it has not a body in which to suffer. So also they say that God has only

one nature in the body, suffering of necessity, whether he will or not, the sufferings of that nature which he took upon

himself, as though he was not of the nature of the Father impassible and without needs. And this they say in order that they

may not show him alone to be endowed with authority and command, so that even the command which he accepted is a punishment,

and from a punishment which lies in his nature there is no escape; and, while he wished it not, he suffered the sufferings of

the body by virtue of the sensibility of the nature: he hungered and thirsted and grew weary and feared and fled and died,

and he rose not by his nature but by the authority and the might of the Father; and in short they say that he naturally

endured whatsoever appertained to the sensible nature which he assumed.

6. Which the sects are which agree with the Manichaeans.

In the midst of these there sprang up heresies, some of the Manichaeans
and others of them from the Paulinians.

7. And which those are which agree with the Arians.

NB: Footnote ... Marginal Gloss. There was not an answer to the seventh question
in the original, nor was there even a place for it.

8. And wherein they are far removed from them, and in what again they adhere to them.

They are far removed from them ....

9. Wherefore he has not written [the names of] the chiefs of these sects but only their dogmas.

But we wish to decline to [give] the names of their chiefs,
so as not to prolong our discussion nor to be found to have omitted
any point in the inquiry by first becoming entangled in [questions of] names.

10. What the statements are of those who say that by nature God the Word became flesh without having taken a body.

So they accused the Manichaeans of saying
that the body of our Lord Christ was not truly
a nature but a fiction and an illusion;
but they tolerate miracles for the most part only of God,
either as though it were impossible or even as though it were not decent that they should come about through the

body.

...[...]...

13. How they take the [words] 'truly and not in nature', and in how many ways 'truly' is said.

Nestorius. Truly then they say that God became flesh?

Sophronius says: We confess / that he became flesh truly but not by his nature,
in that he who became, became [so] in truth, and he is the nature but not in the nature.
Indeed the flesh has not always existed, but, as flowing water
when frozen has the nature of ice though it is not so in its nature but has become [so],
thus also has God truly become flesh, and he is the nature of the flesh and not in his nature,
in that he is not it always but he became [so] afterwards.
For this is truly the Incarnation, in his nature to become flesh and man
and not in illusion nor in schema nor in fiction without hypostasis,
which truly would be no incarnation.
He therefore who wants to suppose that it came about in fiction
flees from the truth.

14. Wherein those who say [this] agree with the Manichaeans and wherein they are supposed to be distinct from them.

Has it then been revealed to thee wherein they are imagined [to be] the same
and wherein they are supposed to have differences and abide by the same?
And we ought to leave out the things which follow these, in order that
we may not vainly suppress the truth in what is confessed.

Nestorius says: I for my part say: Let us not entirely neglect this point,
although thou dost wish to run over it as one which is confessed.
Since it has been so unscrupulously said as to / be accounted absurd by the hearers,
I suppose that it is so also to thee. I will now explain this inquiry
to any one who wishes in order that that which surely is supposed may come to explanation;
for I do not see in it anything like or akin to anything [else].

For they are quite as far removed from one another as fiction is far from truth
and [as] the body of fiction [is] from the body [of truth].

I see many who strongly insist on these [theories]
as something [based] on the truth and ancient opinion.

And for this reason I wish thee to examine them not cursorily but with all care,
in order that the words of the faith may not be [treated] without investigation and lightly,
but may be clear and known to all men, as things which are somehow defined
by definitions and natural likenesses, and not like things which are represented
by their shadows [and] resemble this or that so long as they are figured in the same likeness.
In what then dost thou say that they say the same thing, in that they are
like the Manichaeans even in the things wherein they reprimand them?

Sophronius. Those who say this are not repudiated by them
as though they hold our body in contempt,
for both of them deny that the body was taken,
but because they do not say 'in truth',
but that the nature of the flesh is illusion.
We see then also their readiness in these things, [in bringing forward]
what plea is justly theirs, lest their blasphemies should extend
beyond what is right.

judge

This is not what you think it is. There is no question about whether Jesus existed or not in the Nestorian controversy just about the relationship between the god part and the man part.

Think about it. What would it mean if someone were calling the godhood of christ ficticious? Would it mean they were calling the existence of jesus ficticious?

mountainman

Hi Judge,

What would it mean if someone were calling
the existence of jesus fictitious? Would it mean
they were calling the godhood of christ fictitious?

I think it would.
Think about it.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

judge

If someone were calling rectangles ficticious would that include squares?

What about the other way around?

mountainman

I am not looking at this from an ecclesiastical persective
but a political one. The writings of Nestorius were
edicted for destruction by fire - for some reason
which at the moment is conjectural.

This analysis relates not to any "mainstream
opinion/conjecture or understanding of the
Nestorian Controversy".

We are looking at the writings of Nestorius.
What do they tell us?

My opinion on the matter at this stage is that
Nestorius was too tolerant, nowhere near
as intolerant as Cyril for example. He took the
time to systematically catalogue all the various
herecies which the rapidly risen christian regime
was trying to control and stamp out.

And I believe that it was at the least the beginning
of this "Tome of Nestorius" which attempts to set
out all the different herecies (at that time), and
what each of them believed in, or not, as the
case may be.

I dont think this approach was pleasing to other
"christain groups" who were far less tolerant.
Their course of action was not literary, but by
force and fire and persecution.

Nestorius wanted his opinion recorded, and by
some means -- probably the pseudonym, and
the fact of the Syriac translation -- his words
actually survived to the present.

Thus my argument is that the writings of Nestorius
disclose the fact that there were substantial groups
of (not necessarily "christian") "heretics", and amidst
there there were those who consider:


In other words, theories of a fictitious Jesus were
alive and well in the world in the mid-fifth century.


Hopefully this clarifies the claims.
Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Let's go through this again, seeing no one appears
to understand the implications.

If you do not understand what I am attempting to
say or, if you think you understand me, but think
I am mistaken with the reading of this text, please
let me know.

I am going to try and do this slowly.

By the early-to-mid fifth century, irrespective when
christianity actually commenced in the empire, it had
now become, through Constantine, 100 years before,
the state religion.

The preface of Nestorius reveals that at that time there
were numerous various "herecies surrounding Christ".
He then proceeds to list and mention each of these,
making comments as he goes.

The Manichaeans are mentioned at point 2, and again
at point 10, as being accused of saying that
the body of our Lord Christ was not truly
a nature but a fiction and an illusion;

Then at point 13, the mainstream canonical view
is presented in sharp contrast to these heretical
views which involve fiction:


Here then is the essence of the argument.
We are told that there are heretics around
who suppose Jesus came about in fiction.

However it appears there are a number of
various types and classifications of those
who suppose Jesus came about in fiction.

The Manichaeans were discussed early in
the piece. We are now to hear about others:


Nestorius appears to be a tolerant christian
investigator, who is willing to sit down and
examine the situation around him. He can
see many other christians around him (eg: Cyril)
who treat these claims as "absurd" and thus
with contempt. But Nestorius counsels the
practice of further analysis ...



This is perhaps the central witness in the text
of Nestorius with respect to the existence at
the time, of theories (beliefs) in the fiction
of Jesus. The translator has supplied [these]
square brackets.

Because the entire lead-up to this sentence
is the consideration of "beliefs in the fiction"
of Jesus, being discussed by Nestorius, it is fair
to render the above quote as:

Here Nestorius is admitting that this belief
and/or theories in the fictional nature of
Jesus is not merely idle retorts and the
gossip of the market stalls, but is in fact
as something [based] on the truth and
ancient opinion.

Nestorius emphasises this in the
continuation ...


Theories of the Fictitious Jesus are thus
documented by Nestorius as extant in the
mid-fifth century, and as Nestorius admits,
many who strongly insisted on these theories
of fiction, did so as something based
on the truth and based on ancient opinion.[/b]

It is to be noted that these years coincide with
the publication by Bishop Cyril Contra Julian,
in which Cyril attempts to refute the lies of the
Roman emperor who, 40-50 years earlier (c.363 CE)
stated in writing the reasons by which he became
convinced that the new testament was fiction of
men composed by wickedness.


Consequently, when Nestorius admits, many
who strongly insisted on these theories
of fiction, did so as something based
on the truth and based on ancient opinion,
this ancient opinion would most certainly
have included Emperor Julian's.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown
NESTORIUS' Index of Fiction Herecies

judge

But does this mean they thought Jesus did not exist or merely that he did not exist in the nature of orthodox christology?

GakuseiDon

What would you do then? Carefully consider the evidence and come to a conclusion based on a careful reading and Occam's razor?

These heresies appear to do with the nature of Christ's BODY, not his existence. E.g. the heresy of docetism. Are you able to rule that reading out?

mountainman

I think that the Nestorius' text indicates that
it is quite likely that there were people around
who believed that the historical jesus did not
actually exist, but instead he was a fiction.

I think that this is reiterated a number of times,
and actually includes a number of different groups
who shared this view.

Of course such a position was "unthinkable" and "grossly
heretical" with respect to the orthodox christology
of the mid-fifth century. People who held such
a position were persecuted from on high. The
writings of Nestorius were probably edicted for
burning because of their mention of this.

Nestorius appears quite influential and level-headed
when compared to Cyril, his protagonist.

He understood there was more in the world than the
phenomenom of christianity, even though he appears
to have been very dedicated to the church. His view
was thus not orthodox-centric, as was perhaps Cyrils.

His view was more of a cataloguer of problems that
were happening, and he did not have to resort on
every occassion to rigid apologetic analogies, but
simply stated the conditions of the heretics as he
saw them from his perspective.

So yes, Nestorius appears to witness people at that
time who did not believe in any historical Jesus, and
preferred to use the term "fiction" instead. At least
that's what Nestorius appears to be saying - in a
number of places - to me.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

It appears from the following that docetism also
incorporates various "heresies", and in any complete
definition would also have to cover heresies in
which Jesus was treated as a non historic and
ficitious figure.

.

From the orthodoxwiki:

And finally, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Does anyone know what this fragment might be?

So Docetism seems to be close enough to 'ahistoric' or 'fictional'
to serve as their definition in terms of selecting an available
christological herecy equivalent.



I would carefully consider anything that anyone states
in response to my questions, and be thankful for the
meaningful dialogue committed to a common cause.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown