Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-22-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...
???? "Intelligent Design" is the "silver bullet" that repudiates Pete's theory that Constantine ordered creation and publication of the "new Testament"???

No - the silver bullet is the house church at Dura Europa.

Dear Toto,

We had a thread (and Poll) about that. The poll results show 34:9. What's with this "silver bullet thing"? Had the results ended up as 42:1 then this may have been looked at at the IIDB-BC&H "Silver Bullet". But this did not happen despite an excellent presentation by spin.

Best wishes,

Pete

Didymus · 12-22-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear Jeffrey, gentleexit and others,

I am using the term "the Boss" in order to project a little realism into the military authority which was let loose by Constantine in the east after his military victory over the forces of Lucinius. He destroys ancient and revered temples at which, in at least some instances, the chief priests are tortured and executed (See Eusebius' Vita Constantini). He prohibits the use of the temples and backs this with the army. Constantine appears as an irreconcilable authority figure, not only in the military department, but also in the environment of politics. Reports from Nicaea (other than Eusebius) were essentially were prepared by the continuators of his Eusebian cabinet almost a century after the event. The actual numbers of christian ecclesiatical histories which were written of that epoch and which do not survive perhaps exceed those which survive. I am dealing with these authors: Philostorgius, Rufinius of Aqueila, Socrates Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen, Theodoret of Cyrus and Marutha of Maiperqat (all for what they say - on the "Council" of Nicaea). Notably we have no profane historian account extant. All historians writing from the time of Constantine are "christians". The history of the pagan Ammianus Marcellinus from 92 CE to 390 CE only survives in Books 14 to 30 odd, starting about the middle of the fourth century, and missing the account of Constantine. The only historians light which shines out of the black hole of Constantine's rule is christian. Where is the pagan account of the same history? We dont have one (at the moment) aside from perhaps the Nag Hammadi codices at 348 CE. (if history can be obtained therefrom -- eg: Pachomius)

At Nicaea we have generated what has always been referred to as "The Creed of Nicaea" but which is more appropriately described as an "oath to Constantine", which was obtained under military duress from the three hundred and eighteen attendees who remained after the dissenters were banished. These 318 Fathers IMO were not christians, but were pagans and probably academics from the extant eastern Hellenistic priesthoods which had serviced the temples in a custodial fashion for centuries. They were Constantine's war captives.

The Oath of Nicaea

By the swords held at our throats
we believe in the NT canon of Constantine and
we subscribe to the universal state monotheistc church

Immediately thereafter there follows a
HEAVY HEAVY LEGAL DISCLAIMER

But for those believe in
<<<< insert the words of Arius >>>
the universal state monotheistc church ....

anathemetises
banishes
considers an alien
etc
etc
<<< insert political punishment here >>>.

So you see, under duress the assembled captives from the eastern empire had two choices. They could agree with Constantine (The Autocratic Boss) or they could agree with Arius (the ascetic academic priest, perhaps of Ascelpius). Two apparently agreed with Arius and were banished, the rest saw the wisdom in complying with Constantine on the day.

The "BUT FOR THOSE WHO THINK OTHERWISE" clause in the oath reduces the document to a multiple choice answer from the signatories:

A) vote for the Boss.
B) vote for Arius.

The amazing thing about this rambling post is that, when challenged to cite evidence to support his conjectures, Pete launches into even more fanciful and elaborated conjectures, but still submits not a shred of evidence.

Well, it's the time of year for snow. But in AUSTRALIA????

Ddms

J-D · 12-22-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't know what you mean by 'the historical Jesus hypothesis'.

Dear J-D,

The hypothesis - that an historical jesus existed.

That is an inadequate characterisation. What is meant by 'a historical Jesus'? There have been many people in history called Jesus, but that is presumably not what is supposed to be being discussed here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The hypothesis is that Eusebius wrote fiction when he cites "christians". The implication of that hypothesis is that we should not find any evidence of Eusebian fictive "christians" prior to the fourth century. Another implication is that Arius and Constantine and Eusebius were not christians. We may call Eusebius a "Constantinian employee".

There is no archaeological evidence which supports and corroborates the existence of canonical christianity before Eusebius introduces. I reject the notion that the Dura-Europa "house-church", now deported to Yale, is representative of an unambiguous citation to the existence of "canonical christianity" before Constantine.

You have not defined what you mean by 'canonical Christianity'. Moreover, even if it were true that there was an absence of evidence for an alternative hypothesis, that would not constitute evidence for your hypothesis. There is still no evidence for your hypothesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

The alternative hypothesis, on the other hand, does have some evidence to support it, as has previously been pointed out to you.

The HJ hypothesis has been thrashed to death for centuries. The only evidence that it has accumulated in its defence -- since it was introduced, starting with Helena finding the One True Cross and Six Inch Nails - are rank forgeries. Every century more forgeries are commissioned.

Your hypothesis and the 'HJ hypothesis' (whatever you mean by that) are not the only two possible alternatives. Hence, even if there were an absence of evidence for the 'HJ hypothesis' (whatever you mean by that), that would not mean that was no evidence for theories disagreeing with yours.

I have pointed out to you previously the existence of evidence that Arianism was a form of Christianity. However limited that is, it is evidence against your hypothesis, and it is still true that you have no evidence in favour of your hypothesis.

mountainman · 12-22-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Umm, so far as I can see, there's nothing in the text of Epistles 46 and 32 about Christians having to be referred to as Galileans, let alone Julian "legislating that that they be referred to as Galilaeans".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountainman

In regard to the claim for Julian's legislating that "christians" be legally named by the name of "galilaeans" this is found in Nazanzien Oration 3.

I can find no such reference in Gregory Nazianzen's Oration 3. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310203.htm

The following appears in Sozoman's Ecclesiastical History, Book Five, Chapter 4, entitled "Julian inflicted Evils upon the Inhabitants of Cæsarea. Bold Fidelity of Maris, Bishop of Chalcedon." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26025.htm

He (Julian) further threatened that, unless their temples were speedily re-erected, his wrath would not be appeased, but would be visited on the city, until none of the Galileans remained in existence; for this was the name which, in derision, he was wont to give to the Christians.

Sounds more like name-calling than legislation.

Ddms

Dear Ddms and Jeffrey,

In reference to the citation about Julian legislating that the name of the christians be changed to "Galilaeans" I earlier appear to have written Oration 3 instead of Oration 1. You will find the following reference in Oration 1:

Quote:

He immediately makes a change in our appellation, naming us Galilaeans instead of Christians, and making it law we should so be styled; proving by the act that the being called after Christ is a very great thing to one's glory, [61] and highly honourable, by the very fact that he plotted how to deprive us of the same; being perhaps afraid of that Name, as are the devils, and for that reason changing it to another name, something neither customary nor generally known.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

.... when challenged to cite evidence to support his conjectures, Pete launches into even more fanciful and elaborated conjectures, but still submits not a shred of evidence. Well, it's the time of year for snow.

Ddms

Deal with the evidence! Happy Christmas! Or should I say "Happy Galilaeanmas"!

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 12-22-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The hypothesis - that an historical jesus existed.

That is an inadequate characterisation.

Dear J-D,

Do you find it necessary to cross-examine the HJ postulate?

Quote:

You have not defined what you mean by 'canonical Christianity'.

The authodox state religious monotheism which associated "holy writ" and the NT canon. The same crowd who distinguished the heretical and blasphemous literature and tractates from the pure "canon", who anathemetised the heretics and destroyed all other literature about the subjects mentioned in the "canon" (ie: the apochyphal NT literature and Nag Hammadi).

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 12-22-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That is an inadequate characterisation.

Dear J-D,

Do you find it necessary to cross-examine the HJ postulate?

I still don't know what you mean by 'the HJ postulate', and I don't understand how you imagine somebody would cross-examine a postulate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

You have not defined what you mean by 'canonical Christianity'.

The authodox state religious monotheism which associated "holy writ" and the NT canon. The same crowd who distinguished the heretical and blasphemous literature and tractates from the pure "canon", who anathemetised the heretics and destroyed all other literature about the subjects mentioned in the "canon" (ie: the apochyphal NT literature and Nag Hammadi).

Best wishes,

Pete

You still haven't defined what you mean by 'authodox'.

If you make 'state religion' part of your definition of 'canonical Christianity', then the discussion becomes fatuous. Obviously no state religion of Christianity existed before Christianity was made a state religion, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether the religion existed before that without being a state religion.

I know I've told you this before.

Christianity exists now in places where it is not a state religion, and it doesn't stop being Christianity just because it is not a state religion.

mountainman · 12-22-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Do you find it necessary to cross-examine the HJ postulate?

I still don't know what you mean by 'the HJ postulate',

Dear J-D,

That there was an HJ is a postulate.

Quote:

and I don't understand how you imagine somebody would cross-examine a postulate.

They dont. They either accept it on a provisional basis or they refute it by citing appropriate evidence to the field of enquiry in which the hypothesis is made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The authodox state religious monotheism which associated "holy writ" and the NT canon. The same crowd who distinguished the heretical and blasphemous literature and tractates from the pure "canon", who anathemetised the heretics and destroyed all other literature about the subjects mentioned in the "canon" (ie: the apochyphal NT literature and Nag Hammadi).

You still haven't defined what you mean by 'authodox'.

Orthodox.

Quote:

If you make 'state religion' part of your definition of 'canonical Christianity', then the discussion becomes fatuous. Obviously no state religion of Christianity existed before Christianity was made a state religion, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether the religion existed before that without being a state religion.

What I mean by "early canonical christianity" are the followers and the literary preservers of the literature we know as the new testament canon. By "canonical christianity" I mean this group of people who preserved the canon which was eventually published by Constantine. Their existence is described by Eusebius, but they do not appear in the archaeological citations.

The question has two parts:
1) Did early "canonical christians" actually exist, or were they a Eusebian fiction?
2) Did early "non-canonical christians" (as a separate and distinct group of people) actually exist, or were they a Eusebian fiction?

We have two C14 citations for the second group, suggesting fourth century. Also a large proportion of the non canonical NT literature is already by consensus already perceived, or acknowledged to have been authored in the fourth century (or later). We have no secure dating (as yet) for the first group - the canon followers. (NB: In setting up these 2 groups I do understand that some may argue we are dealing with just one group of preservers. That's fine with me too, so long as they offer some plausible account of the authorship of the NT apochypha in the fourth century. Perhaps they split at Nicaea?)

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 12-23-2008, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I still don't know what you mean by 'the HJ postulate',

That there was an HJ is a postulate.

But you still haven't explained what you mean by 'an HJ'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

They dont.

Then why did you ask me whether they did?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

They either accept it on a provisional basis or they refute it by citing appropriate evidence to the field of enquiry in which the hypothesis is made.

The fact that something has not been refuted is insufficient grounds to accept it, even on a provisional basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Orthodox.

If you mean 'orthodox', why don't you say 'orthodox'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

If you make 'state religion' part of your definition of 'canonical Christianity', then the discussion becomes fatuous. Obviously no state religion of Christianity existed before Christianity was made a state religion, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether the religion existed before that without being a state religion.

What I mean by "early canonical christianity" are the followers and the literary preservers of the literature we know as the new testament canon. By "canonical christianity" I mean this group of people who preserved the canon which was eventually published by Constantine. Their existence is described by Eusebius, but they do not appear in the archaeological citations.

The question has two parts:
1) Did early "canonical christians" actually exist, or were they a Eusebian fiction?
2) Did early "non-canonical christians" (as a separate and distinct group of people) actually exist, or were they a Eusebian fiction?

We have two C14 citations for the second group, suggesting fourth century. Also a large proportion of the non canonical NT literature is already by consensus already perceived, or acknowledged to have been authored in the fourth century (or later). We have no secure dating (as yet) for the first group - the canon followers. (NB: In setting up these 2 groups I do understand that some may argue we are dealing with just one group of preservers. That's fine with me too, so long as they offer some plausible account of the authorship of the NT apochypha in the fourth century. Perhaps they split at Nicaea?)

And you resolutely decline ever to compare how well the two possible answers to your question fit with the evidence. You insist that your postulate has never been refuted, but you have never refuted the alternative. If you've got a question, and you can't refute the answer 'Yes', and you can't refute the answer 'No', where does that leave you?

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-23-2008, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear Ddms and Jeffrey,

In reference to the citation about Julian legislating that the name of the christians be changed to "Galilaeans" I earlier appear to have written Oration 3 instead of Oration 1.

Appear to have written??? You either did or you didn't.

Quote:

You will find the following reference in Oration 1:

We will?? Here's the text of Oration 1, which is entitled In sanctum pascha et in tarditatem.

Quote:

ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ �*ΑΤΡΟΣ ΗΜΩΝ ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΟΥ ΑΡΧΙΕ�*ΙΣΚΟ�*ΟΥ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ�*ΟΛΕΩΣ ΛΟΓΟΙ.

Εἰς τὸ ἅγιον �*άσχα καὶ εἰς τὴν βραδυτῆτα.

35.396.10
Αʹ. Ἀναστάσεως ἡμ�*ρα, καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ, καὶ λαμ-
πρυνθῶμεν τῇ πανηγύρει, καὶ ἀλλήλους περιπτυξώ-
μεθα· εἴπωμεν, ἀδελφοὶ, καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἡμᾶς, μὴ
ὅτι τοῖς δι' ἀγάπην τι πεποιηκόσιν, ἢ πεπονθό-
σι· συγχωρήσωμεν πάντα τῇ ἀναστάσει· δῶμεν συγ-
35.396.15
γνώμην ἀλλήλοις, ἐγώ τε ὁ τυραννηθεὶς τὴν καλὴν
τυραννίδα, τοῦτο γὰρ νῦν προστίθημι, καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ
καλῶς τυραννήσαντες, εἴ τί μοι μ�*μφοισθε τῆς
βραδυτῆτος, ὡς τάχα γε κρείττων αὕτη καὶ τι-
μιωτ�*ρα Θεῷ τῆς ἑτ�*ρων ταχυτῆτος· ἀγαθὸν γὰρ καὶ
35.396.20
ὑποχωρῆσαι Θεῷ τι μικρὸν, ὡς Μωϋσῆς ἐκεῖνος τὸ
παλαιὸν, καὶ Ἱερεμίας ὕστερον, καὶ προσδραμεῖν
ἑτοίμως καλοῦντι, ὡς Ἀαρών τε καὶ Ἡσαΐας, μόνον
εὐσεβῶς ἀμφότερα, τὸ μὲν διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἀσθ�*-
νειαν, τὸ δὲ διὰ τὴν τοῦ καλοῦντος δύναμιν.

Βʹ. Μυστήριον ἔχρισ�* με, μυστηρίῳ μικρὸν ὑπεχώ-
ρησα, ὅσον ἐμαυτὸν ἐπισκ�*ψασθαι· μυστηρίῳ
καὶ συνεισ�*ρχομαι, καλὴν ἐπαγόμενος τῆς ἐμῆς
35.396.30
δειλίας καὶ ἀσθενείας ἐπίκουρον τὴν ἡμ�*ραν, ἵν' ὁ
σήμερον ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστὰς κἀμὲ καινοποιήσῃ τῷ
35.397.1
πνεύματι, καὶ τὸν καινὸν ἐνδύσας ἄνθρωπον, δῷ
τῇ καινῇ κτίσει, τοῖς κατὰ Θεὸν γεννωμ�*νοις,
πλάστην ἀγαθὸν καὶ διδάσκαλον Χριστῷ καὶ συννεκρού-
μενον προθύμως καὶ συνανιστάμενον.
35.397.6
Γʹ. Χθὲς ὁ ἀμνὸς ἐσφάζετο, καὶ ἐχρίοντο αἱ φλιαὶ,
καὶ ἐθρήνησεν Αἴγυπτος τὰ πρωτότοκα, καὶ ἡμᾶς
παρῆλθεν ὁ ὀλοθρεύων, καὶ ἡ σφραγὶς φοβερὰ καὶ αἰ-
δ�*σιμος, καὶ τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι ἐτειχίσθημεν· σή-
35.397.10
μερον καθαρῶς ἐφύγομεν Αἴγυπτον, καὶ Φαραὼ τὸν
πικρὸν δεσπότην, καὶ τοὺς βαρεῖς ἐπιστάτας, καὶ τοῦ
πηλοῦ καὶ τῆς πλινθείας �*λευθερώθημεν·
καὶ οὐδεὶς ὁ κωλύσων ἡμᾶς ἑορτάζειν Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ
ἡμῶν ἑορτὴν τὴν ἐξόδιον, καὶ ἑορτάζειν, οὐκ ἐν ζύ-
35.397.15
μῃ παλαιᾷ κακίας καὶ πονηρίας, ἀλλ' ἐν ἀζύμοις
εἰλικρινείας καὶ ἀληθείας, μηδὲν ἐπιφερομ�*νους
Αἰγυπτιακοῦ καὶ ἀθ�*ου φυράματος.
Δʹ. Χθὲς συνεσταυρούμην Χριστῷ, σήμερον συνδο-
ξάζομαι· χθὲς συνενεκρούμην, συζωοποιοῦμαι σήμε-
35.397.20
ρον· χθὲς συνεθαπτόμην, σήμερον συνεγείρομαι. Ἀλλὰ
καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν παθόντι καὶ
ἀναστάντι. Χρυσόν με ἴσως οἴεσθε λ�*γειν, ἢ ἄργυρον,
ἢ ὑφάσματα, ἢ λίθους τῶν διαφανῶν καὶ τιμίων, γῆς
ῥ�*ουσαν ὕλην, καὶ κάτω μ�*νουσαν, ἧς ἀεὶ τὸ πλεῖον
35.397.25
ἔχουσιν οἱ κακοὶ καὶ δοῦλοι τῶν κάτω καὶ τοῦ κοσμο-
κράτορος. Καρποφορήσωμεν ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς, τὸ τιμιώτατον
Θεῷ κτῆμα καὶ οἰκειότατον· ἀποδῶμεν
τῇ εἰκόνι τὸ κατ' εἰκόνα, γνωρίσωμεν ἡμῶν
τὸ ἀξίωμα, τιμήσωμεν τὸ ἀρχ�*τυπον, γνῶμεν τοῦ
35.397.30
μυστηρίου τὴν δύναμιν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τίνος Χριστὸς ἀπ�*θανε.
35.397.34
Εʹ. Γενώμεθα ὡς Χριστὸς, ἐπεὶ καὶ Χριστὸς ὡς
35.397.35
ἡμεῖς· γενώμεθα θεοὶ δι' αὐτὸν, ἐπειδὴ κἀκεῖνος δι'
ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος. �*ροσ�*λαβε τὸ χεῖρον, ἵνα δῷ τὸ β�*λ-
τιον· ἐπτώχευσεν, ἵν' ἡμεῖς τῇ ἐκείνου πτωχείᾳ
πλουτήσωμεν· δούλου μορφὴν ἔλαβεν, ἵνα τὴν ἐλευ-
35.400.1
θερίαν ἡμεῖς ἀπολάβωμεν· κατῆλθεν, ἵν' ὑψωθῶ-
μεν· ἐπειράσθη, ἵνα νικήσωμεν· �*τιμάσθη, ἵνα δοξά-
σῃ· ἀπ�*θανεν, ἵνα σώσῃ· ἀνῆλθεν, ἵν' ἑλκύσῃ πρὸς
ἑαυτὸν κάτω κειμ�*νους ἐν τῷ τῆς ἁμαρτίας πτώμα-
35.400.5
τι. �*άντα διδότω τις, πάντα καρποφορείτω τῷ δόντι
ἑαυτὸν λυτρὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν καὶ ἀντάλλαγμα·
δώσει δὲ οὐδὲν τοιοῦτον οἷον ἑαυτὸν τοῦ μυστηρίου
συνι�*ντα, καὶ δι' ἐκεῖνον πάντα ὅσα ἐκεῖνος δι' ἡμᾶς
γενόμενον.
35.400.12
*ϛʹ. Καρποφορεῖ μὲν ὑμῖν, ὡς ὁρᾶτε, ποιμ�*να· τοῦ-
το γὰρ ἐλπίζει καὶ εὔχεται, καὶ παρ' ὑμῶν αἰτεῖ τῶν
ὑπὸ χεῖρα ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς, ὁ τιθεὶς τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ
35.400.15
τῶν προβάτων· καὶ διπλοῦν ἀνθ' ἁπλοῦ δίδωσιν
ὑμῖν ἑαυτόν· καὶ ποιεῖται τὴν βακτηρίαν τοῦ γή-
ρως βακτηρίαν τοῦ πνεύματος· καὶ προστίθησι τῷ
ἀψύχῳ ναῷ τὸν ἔμψυχον, τῷ περικαλλεῖ, τῷ δὲ καὶ
οὐρανίῳ, τὸν ὁποιονοῦν καὶ ἡλίκον, ἀλλ' οὖν τὸν ἑαυ-
35.400.20
τῷ τιμιώτατον, καὶ αὐτὸν ἱδρῶσι πολλοῖς συντελε-
σθ�*ντα, καὶ πόνοις, εἴη δὲ εἰπεῖν, ὅτι καὶ τῶν πόνων
ἄξιον· καὶ πάντα προστίθησιν ὑμῖν τὰ ἑαυτοῦ.

Ὢ τῆς μεγαλοψυχίας, ἢ, τό γε ἀληθ�*στερον εἰπεῖν,
τῆς φιλοτεκνίας· τὴν πολιὰν, τὴν νεότητα, τὸν ναὸν,
35.400.25
τὸν ἀρχιερ�*α, τὸν κληροδότην, τὸν κληρονόμον, τοὺς
λόγους, οὓς ἐποθεῖτε· καὶ τούτων οὐ τοὺς εἰκῆ, καὶ
εἰς ἀ�*ρα ῥ�*οντας, καὶ μ�*χρι τῆς ἀκοῆς ἱσταμ�*νους,
ἀλλ' οὓς γράφει τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ πλαξὶν ἐντυποῖ λιθί-
ναις, εἴτουν σαρκίναις, οὐκ ἐξ ἐπιπολῆς χαρασσομ�*-
35.400.30
νους, οὐδὲ ῥᾳδίως ἀπαλειφομ�*νους, ἀλλ' εἰς βάθος
ἐνσημαινομ�*νους, οὐ μ�*λανι, ἀλλὰ χάριτι.
35.400.34
Ζʹ. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὑμῖν ὁ σεμνὸς Ἀβραὰμ οὗ-
35.400.35
τος, ὁ πατριάρχης, ἡ τιμία κεφαλὴ καὶ αἰδ�*σιμος,
τὸ πάντων τῶν καλῶν καταγώγιον, ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς
κανὼν, ἡ τῆς ἱερωσύνης τελείωσις, ὁ τὴν ἑκούσιον
θυσίαν προσάγων τῷ Κυρίῳ σήμερον, τὸν μονο-
γενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. Ὑμεῖς δὲ καρποφορεῖτε
35.400.40
καὶ Θεῷ καὶ ἡμῖν τὸ καλῶς ποιμαίνεσθαι, εἰς τόπον
χλόης κατασκηνούμενοι, καὶ ἐπὶ ὕδατος ἀναπαύ-
σεως ἐκτρεφόμενοι, γινώσκοντες καλῶς τὸν ποιμ�*να,
καὶ γινωσκόμενοι, καὶ ἑπόμενοι καλοῦντι ποιμενικῶς
καὶ ἐλευθερίως διὰ τῆς θύρας· ἀλλοτρίῳ δὲ μὴ ἀκολου-
35.400.45
θοῦντες ὑπερβαίνοντι διὰ τῆς αὐλῆς, λῃστρικῶς τε καὶ
35.401.1
ἐπιβούλως, μηδὲ ξ�*νης φωνῆς ἀκούοντες, ὑποκλεπτούσης
καὶ διασπειρούσης ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας εἰς ὄρη,
καὶ ἐρημίας, καὶ βάραθρα, καὶ τόπους, οὓς οὐκ ἐπι-
σκοπεῖ Κύριος, καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως ἀπ-
35.401.5
αγούσης, τῆς εἰς �*ατ�*ρα, καὶ Υἱὸν, καὶ ἅγιον �*νεῦ-
μα, τὴν μίαν θεότητά τε καὶ δύναμιν, ἧς ἤκουσεν
ἀεὶ φωνῆς, καὶ ἀκούοι τὰ ἐμὰ πρόβατα, λόγοις
δὲ κιβδήλοις καὶ κατεφθαρμ�*νοις συλαγωγού
διασπώσης ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ καὶ πρώτου ποιμ�*νος·
35.401.10
ὧν εἴη πάντας ἡμᾶς, καὶ ποιμ�*νας καὶ ποίμνιον, ὡς
νοσερᾶς πόας καὶ θανασίμου πόῤῥω, καὶ νεμομ�*-
νους καὶ ν�*μοντας, ἓν εἶναι πάντας ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
νῦν τε καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἀνάπαυσιν· ᾧ ἡ δόξα καὶ
τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.

I see no such passage within it as you claim can be found there. But perhaps I'm not reading it correctly. So would you please point me to where the passage appears within this text?

Or have you got it wrong again -- yes or no?

Jeffrey

Toto · 12-23-2008, 09:00 AM

Jeffrey:

Pete's source appears to be here:

Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus/First invective against Julian the Emperor

Is this a valid translation of that invective? If not, please notify the source.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-23-2008, 09:00 AM	#180
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Jeffrey: Pete's source appears to be here: Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus/First invective against Julian the Emperor Is this a valid translation of that invective? If not, please notify the source.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.