jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

Can you tell me what the codes are, or provide a link where I can read this information?

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

I can tell you WHERE to find the Codes.

First read "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

jakejonesiv

Dear AA,
OK, I read the entire "Church History" last night. You wrote that you I have done my part, now tell me what the codes are.
Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

It took me YEARS to go through PART of "Church History" and you want to tell me you read "Church History" in ONE night.

You probably don't even remember a thing you read.

In any event, you MUST now read the writings attributed to Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen and YOU will see the SAME CODES that you READ last NIGHT.

They are in BLACK and WHITE. You will see them.

jakejonesiv

I read the entire "Church History" last night. Last night I also read all the writings attributed to Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. I have been studying these texts since 2005, so I am familiar with the material.

I have done my part. You write that you know what the codes are. Please share your knowledge and insight without any further delay.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

Are you some kind of JOKER? Please SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE without DELAY, NOW.

avi

Hi aa5874,

I may have misunderstood Jake's argument here, but, I think what he is driving at is this:

Mountainman has offered the (in my view, not outlandish) hypothesis that all the extant patristic evidence had been created de novo, under Eusebius, aka "big E", et al, as part of the military campaign to create a single, unified, NEW, dominant religion for the entire Roman empire.

If I am not mistaken, you, aa5874, have challenged Pete on this point, claiming that SOME of the patristic evidence, in particular the manuscripts attributed to one "Justin Martyr", whoever that was, are legitimate, uncorrupted, unredacted, wholesome pages of text by a genuine second century Christian author....
(If I may insert, here, off topic, I mean off of this off topic comment, I personally have never found on an internet search, a papyrus codex or document, authored by "Justin Martyr", save one copy, written ten centuries ago, eight centuries after the fact, in terrible condition....)

If I have understood your exchange with Pete, aa, then, you are proposing that there is a distinction, readily apparent, at least to you, between BigE's malicious changes to text, or wholesale creations, versus his non-interference with the texts of some of the early christian "fathers". You have identified the basis for this distinction between some patristic evidence (judged contaminated), and other patristic evidence (deemed faithful, honest, non-interpolated) as readily apparent upon learning the code of big E.

Jake has rightly asked you to explain what you mean by this code....Perhaps, code is imprecise, maybe pattern is even more appropriate, but whatever the buzzword, Jake wonders, rightfully, in my opinion, HOW YOU ARE ABLE to distinguish crap from cookies. (I have read Eusebius, no I don't remember it, no, I don't want to remember it, no, I don't believe anything in it, no, I cannot distinguish big E's writing style from that used by any of the other patristic authors, no I don't think such an analysis is possible using English translations--> it MUST BE DONE using only Greek, in my opinion (but which Greek text???).) So, I wish to add my query, to that posed by Jake, and inquire which pattern, or sequence of terms, employed by Eusebius in his Ecclestiacal history can be used to identify which patterns of interpolation inserted into which patristic authors' texts? A single illustration will satisfy my curiosity. Absent such explicit elaboration, of course, you would be instructing us to accept your hypothesis (that one can readily discern which components of patristic evidence have been manufactured by big E,) on faith alone, a commodity in short supply on this forum....

avi

stephan huller

There's nothing like waking up in the morning and reading a sentence like:

You know you're in for an intelligent debate. I was thinking about the college of mountainman with the recent birther controversy in the United States. I am sure someone else has brought this up in the past but how do the 'Eusebiers' here explain Maximinus II's interest in the Acts of Pilate to justify the persecution of Christians. If Eusebius forged the gospel(s) where did the idea that someone who was the Christ being persecuted under the rule of Pontius Pilate come from? You'd have to argue (a) that Diocletian's persecutions were non-existent (b) that the core of the Nicene creed was developed from a fake document under a non-existent persecution and then (c) Constantine and Eusebius decided to develop a religion and a gospel around this hoax.

What kind of a crazy mind could find this sort of multi-layered reverse inference plausible? This is like arguing that Donald Trump is working to help get Barack Obama re-elected.

aa5874

Well, please make sure you FIRST UNDERSTAND Jake's argument or else you will be making an ARGUMENT from Silence.


Please, look in a ENGLISH dictionary for the word "CODE".

How could you NOT see the differences BETWEEN "Church History" and "First Apology" by Justin Martyr or "Octavius" by Municius Felix?

But, at one time, in retrospect, I could NOT.


See Church History 2.10 in English or the language you chose..


No, No, NO!!! You don't have to accept anything from me. I want you to READ the sources of Antiquity yourself.

I had to read "Church History" and many other writings BEFORE I discovered the CODES.

Toto

Pete argues that the persecution of Christians was part of the invention of Christianity, and all references to it were either invented or actually refer to the persecution of the Manichaeans. That's why he is so eager to argue that Mani was not a Christian and knew nothing of Christianity.

That seems like a relatively plausible idea, in comparison.