show_no_mercy

The answer is simple.

Constantine was a super-genius. He was created by Eusebius via a birthing matrix that had the DNA of all of the great leaders like Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hitler, and Serpentor. What makes it even more dastardly is that Serpentor himself was already created with the DNA of various genius-level political/military leaders, except Constantine retained his stability due to having Sun Tzu's DNA, which Serpentor lacked.

This allowed Constantine to singlehandedly create an entire Christian corpus that appeared to span 300 years and hundreds of manuscripts with frenzied variety within his lifetime.

Eusebius recounts how he managed to get Hitler's DNA even though Hitler wouldn't be born for another 1600 years. He laid all of this out - along with his creation of Constantine - in the lost apocryphal tract "On Daemons, Emerors, and the Sophia of Helen". He makes a passing reference to this work in his "Church History" 3.45.11. Of course, this part of Church History was erased by Valentinian I upon his return from Exile.

spin

There is a better solution: click on the username of the poster in one of his responses (username on the left of each post) and select the option to add to your ignore list. I wasted lots of time on way-out positions before I started building my ignore list. This particular forum member can't even see the obvious when his conspiracy theory has been falsified by archaeology. He creates a modern conspiracy theory to claim that the Dura Europos frescos and gospel fragment are plants of a christian conspiracy. Yale University and such names as Michael Rostovsteff conspired to falsify the material. Ignore is the most efficacious approach to such willful waywardness. The posts of people on your ignore list become place markers and their stuff is not visible unless you click to unveil their pearls. I find it really helps.


spin

stephan huller

I know. It's so insane. I wonder if MM was married and he got it into his head his wife was cheating on him how she could convince him she was being faithful. 'I haven't left the house in ten years.' 'Yes, but you could have hidden the fact that you had a twin sister from me when we got married and she just acted as your stand in while you were out with your boyfriend.' I'm serious, at what point do we start thinking that there is something not quite kosher about this guy.

Anyway Spin, I am going to click that button right now.

jakejonesiv

No, not speculation. You wrote "Celsus was not hostile to the Catholic tradition" and "Celsus never has anything bad to say about the Catholic tradition." OK, to keep from splitting hairs, let's say for sake of argument that Origen didn't consider himself a "Catholic."

So what was there about the Alexandrian tradition that Celsus didn't like, and thus Origen wrote that the charges brought by Celsus were false? (In his opinion of course. I think the character of Celsus makes some good points.)

And that Celsus' accusations were "against the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the Churches in his treatise..."? It is quite obvious that Origen is defending his own Alexandrian faith against Celsus.

From the preface:
And I know not, my pious Ambrosius,1 why you wished me to write a reply to the false charges brought by Celsus against the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing, seeing it both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to the accusations any credibility or validity.

So what had Celsus written that Origen disagreed with?

Jake Jones IV

stephan huller

Jake,

Well, you are asking me to speculate - not that I am against that sort of thing. It's just I can't criticize MM for putting forward crazy things and then engage in that sort of behavior myself.

Yes, I think there is something specifically aimed at the Alexandrian Church. My guess would be that Origen isn't telling us something. He identifies with the Catholic tradition whenever it is expedient to do so but like you said Ambrose must have had a reason for commissioning this work.

Again that whole discussion about the diagram in Book Six - why does Origen know so much about it? These details aren't found in any other written source. There is a passage in Clement which can be argued to reflect knowledge of this scheme, too. Was the diagram a specifically Alexandrian tradition? I think so.

The prayers in this section seem to superficially resemble the prayers of the Marcosians who in turn can be connected to Clement of Alexandria.

There is a deep enigma with Celsus. As I said, the Roman Church is apparently acceptable to him (other than the fact as he says its members are mostly stupid). Who was Celsus? From which city did he write? Who was his original audience?

Who knows?

stephan huller

Here is the original reference to 'the diagram' in Celsus:

It seems to me, however, that it is from some statements of a very insignificant sect called Ophites, which he has misunderstood, that, in my opinion, he has partly borrowed what he says about the diagram. Now, as we have always been animated by a love of learning, we have fallen in with this diagram, and we have found in it the representations of men who, as Paul says, creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with various lusts; ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The diagram was, however, so destitute of all credibility, that neither these easily deceived women, nor the most rustic class of men, nor those who were ready to be led away by any plausible pretender whatever, ever gave their assent to the diagram. Nor, indeed, have we ever met any individual, although we have visited many parts of the earth, and have sought out all those who anywhere made profession of knowledge, that placed any faith in this diagram.[CC 6.24]

The fact that such a diagram was in the possession of the Alexandrian Church is quite interesting. Why would Origen admit to being in possession of something connected with 'heresy'? My guess again is that Celsus must have identified the object as Alexandrian which in turn means that Celsus was either borrowing from a source which had familiarity with Alexandrian practices or that Celsus was himself writing from Alexandria.

I suspect the former.

stephan huller

Origen says that this sect he describes are the Ophites but it is worth noting that he identifies the sect as being described by 2 Tim 3:6. For whatever it is worth Irenaeus (or a source) develops an account of where 'Mark' of the Marcosians is so described. It seems also to behind the account of Ignatius in his letter to the Philadelphians "Wherefore, as children of light and truth, flee from division and wicked doctrines; but where the shepherd is, there follow as sheep. For there are many wolves that appear worthy of credit, who, by means of a pernicious pleasure, carry captive (Timothy 3:6) those that are running towards God; but in your unity they shall have no place."

My guess is that the Alexandrian 'Mark' is being described throughout.

mountainman

The best evidence in my defence is the existence of the lavish imperial forgery known as the Historia Augusta, so I have suggested we start with this, on at least 3 occassions, but noone is prepared to discuss this evidence. Why is evidence of 4th century imperial forgery being ignored?

(1) You are sweeping under the carpet the FACT of the difficulty of disambiguating two separate Origen's in antiquity, the student of two different Ammonias Saccas's.

(2) You are sweeping under the carpet the FACT that there were massive controversies in the 4th and 5th centuries concerning the "Original Writings of Origen".

It is not insane to be skeptical of a 2nd century pagan well versed in christian orthodoxy and heretics before there was any orthodoxy. It is not insane to be skeptical of anything touched by the interpolative hand of Eusebius, who has been referred to as the "most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity."



Despite at least three responses, you have utterly failed to address the question of the known evidence in that why would a forger go to such lengths to create such a bizzare known 4th century imperially sponsored and dedicated forgery as that of the Historia Augusta, the imperial biographies of the ROman Emperors for the approximate period of "early christian origins" quite possibly assembled in a Constantinian scriptiorium. One hundred and sixty invented fake sources, with the creation of bizzare hostile sources arguing against the invented fake sources. This is the same modus operandi that we find in the presentation of the "Books of Celsus" by Eusebius.

Its purpose was to popularise history by fiction. The Classical history scholars know this. The Biblical history scholars - such as yourself and others - myopically ignore this. Your silence on this issue is a signal that you do not appreciate the logic or the evidence in our possession.


Are you serious? How much gold does an imperial scriptorium, with some slave labor, need to operate?

The precise and exact crazy, crazy, crazy modus operandi of the author of the Historia Augusta.

And you are conveniently forgetting or overlooking the fact that the class of Greek scribes employed in the imperial scriptoria may have included slaves. What is a big literary fabrication to someone who operates many scriptoria staffed in certain instances with educated slave labour?




Your refusal to discuss the "Historia Augusta" is your weak point and your point of departure from this discussion. It is a known lavish imperial 4th century forgery with all the underpinnings you rant and rave about above, as though such things could not exist and yet be forgeries. You are not dealing with the evidence and you are avoiding any discussion of this evidence. Why is that? Have you learnt how to put specific evidence on ignore?

jakejonesiv

Stephan,

Thanks for the reply. Those are indeed interesting questions. No, I am not asking you to speculate, but to identify what portions of Origen's dogmatics were unacceptable to Celsus. Origen wrote that Celsus' "arguments have no power to shake the faith of any believer. ". Since you have claimed the Catholics were acceptable to Celsus, then we should be able to go through Celsus' objections to Christianity line by line and distinguish between Catholic and Alexandrian doctrine. Is that a fair statement of the issue? I think it is a promising line of inquiry, and want to see where you go with it. I have supposed that Celsus had not distinquished between proto-orthodox and heretical groups and thus painted all those who claimed to be Christians with the same brush.

So, to start:
Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law. Book 1, chapter 1.

Judaism, upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous in its origin. Book 1, chapter 2.

Christians teach and practice their favorite doctrines in secret to avoid the death penalty. Book 1, chapter 3.

Christian morals are nothing new, being common with other philosophers. Book 1 chapter 4.

Christians derive miraculous power from calling upon demons and the use of incantations. In other words, they were magicians. Book 1, chapter 6.

etc.

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

stephan huller

Well thanks Jake but as I have a demanding job, mistress and wife I don't know if I have time to go through eight books with about sixty four chapters each to see whether or not the argument is bulletproof. I have been reading Against Celsus since I was twenty. I actually remember taking a typewriter back in the day and actually trying to assemble a list of what I thought Celsus's original book looked like. I can only say that there are those two statements which imply at least that the Catholic Church was OK. I can also candidly admit that I used to think that Origen had the right dating for Celsus (c. 150 CE) and that this proved that the Marcionite sect - which Origen says gets the brunt of Celsus's assault - was the dominant orthodoxy in the period.

Now I think that the reference to the two emperors in Celsus points to the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (175 - 180 CE). I also think that Celsus knew and used Hegesippus's Hypomnemata which can be dated to a similar period. All of which raises the question who was this hypomnemata written for? Indeed who was the New Testament written for, for that matter?

The reason I ask that is that the reference you cite 'the secret associations' sounds remarkably similar to Irenaeus's statement around the section he is almost universally acknowledged to be citing from the hypomnemata again, that is:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul[AH iii.3.2]

There are about a half dozen of these references in the writings of Irenaeus - i.e. which can be construed to mean that the members of the heretical Church were an unlawful and punishable assembly. I can cite the references later if you want.

The point is that when you hear Irenaeus making reference to (a) the Catholic Church as the only true Church (b) the other traditions as 'unlawful' and subject to (official) punishments (c) doing so in the context of citing the hypomnemata referenced by Celsus in the very same age (and moreover Celsus's arguments being adopted by Christian writers against the Marcionites) and (d) Celsus's argument against the Christians boiling down (especially in the conclusion - i.e. book eight) that they must show loyalty to the Emperor and remove any suspicion that they are seditious - THEN it seems to me at least that Celsus's toleration of Christianity seems to be not merely some ideosyncratic 'opinion' he came to but reflective of the 'official position of the Roman government' (Celsus just being some ass-kisser who knew what the 'powers that be' wanted to hear.

You see I have nothing against mountainman's general point that there had to be official favor granted to Christianity by the Empire. I just think that identifying the age of Constantine as the period that this occurred is utterly implausible. Constantine represented just the finishing touches placed on an original endeavor initiated in the time of Commodus and carried out to completion ultimately during the Severan Emperors - namely a 'straightening' of the original Alexandrian tradition and placing its headquarters within arm's reach of the Imperial government.

What strengthens this argument immensely is the fact that the exact same process can be demonstrated to have occurred within Samaritanism and Judaism. I will forgo the arguments relating to Samaritanism because it really will be like talking to the wind here. The rabbinic literature is full of references to the 'friendship' between R. Judah and the Emperor 'Antoninus' (whoever that was). I can make reference to the manner in which Antoninus bent over to help Judah in to bed. There is even halakhah and haggadah written in the name of Antoninus.

The point is that when you really think about it (again this is a thought from the highest altitudes) the Mishnah and the fourfold gospel can be argued to have been developed from the same principle. What is the Mishnah really other than a collection of acceptable interpretations of the Torah? The fourfold gospel really is only a collection of acceptable 'gospel readings' (the gospel as a whole might well have been regarded by some sects as a commentary on the Torah). The four gospel were not written by a guy named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John any more than all the opinions ascribed to R. Akiba or R. Ishmael really belonged to those guys.

It was just a way of the government having the ability to regulate acceptable thought. All I ask is that people just think about it.

Within Judaism it was easy to 'take care' of heretics - there were precedents within this 'ethnos' for dealing with the 'rebellious elder' http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=129&letter=E. Anyone who has ever read any of the historical references in the Talmud knows that the government was always looking over the shoulders of the Jewish elders.

While Judaism was self-regulating, one can see from the writings of Irenaeus that the 'heresies' in Christianity were dealt with differently (because they weren't an ethnos). Irenaeus's ecclesiastical structure - the 'bishop' in particular - had as its function to regulate the presbytery. Where Books 1 and 2 deal with unlawful interpretations of the gospel, Book 3 introduces the only lawful 'gospel' - the gospel of four. Notice how the texts of the heresies are a focus of this section. I suspect that anyone caught having any other text than the officially sanctioned canon was reported by the bishop to the authorities.

Look for example at ALL the martyrdoms which are recorded for the Commodian period - http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/scillitan.html

Scillitan martyrs for example make reference to their crime - a canon of exclusive canon of Pauline (i.e. Marcionite materials). The list goes on and on.

Got to put my kids to bed ...