mountainman

Appearances are deceiving at the best of times.
My question regarding the sources of the details
should not be mistaken for support of one side or
the other. If you are pulling the plug out and getting
stuck into Acharya for scholarship issues, random
pot shots are inappropriate by your own criteria.

Would you care to summarise the thrust of all your
prior collaborations on this issue? I am sure that
there are some who would appreciate such a
balance sheet of opinions.

I have very little doubt left in my mind that Julian
was convinced that the new testament and the
associated "early christian (ahem) history" was
fabricated, and a fiction of men composed by
imperial wickedness.

I also have very little doubt that the tax-exempt
bishop, hit-man, murdered and terrorist boss Cyril
would have lied through his teeth for the sake of
the imperial majesty of christianity.

The facts are that the ex-Archbishop of Constantinople
called Nestorius, was purged of office and his writings
burned for the simple reason that he reported the facts
that:

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

This fragment preserved in the Syriac and not published
before c.1900 vindicates the type of person Nestorius
was -- that he was simply reporting what he saw around
him in the empire.

Namely, there were many who understood that
Constantine had fraudulently misrepresented
the course of ancient history in an attempt to
legitimise an antiquity to his new emperor-cult.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Iasion

Greetings,

The source is John Bale's "The Pageant of Popes" as any regular here would know. Why didn't you look it up? It takes a minute to check this online.


What ?
You don't take sides ?!
(That's like not taking sides on whether the world is flat or round.)

In other words - you believe Leo X COULD have said that. You are UNABLE to admit it's a forged quote. Because you believe Jesus was a fable.


Nonsense.
The subject is Acharya S' theories.
I have made several posts checking her scholarship, her sources, her claims. This is merely one example where I showed her claims unreliable.


I HAVE ALREADY posted here on Acharya S' works - feel free to respond anytime.


Yes, we know you believe that, you have repeated it in almost every post you have made for the last year or more.

But, you overstepped the mark and falsely claimed Julian thought Jesus was a fiction.

He did not.
Julian clearly mentioned Jesus as an actual human.
Do I really have to quote the passage?


Iasion

mountainman

Thanks. There may be a thousand lurkers.
This implies a thousand minutes of checking.
See how easy that was.

Well I am not taking sides on this thread
which concerns an assessment of Acharya's theories.
Name one pope who was not corrupt.
I dont trust anything to do with them.
Have you read any histories of these popes?



You have layed into her with a stick.

I have - in order to check your ardour.


You mean, where Cyril claims that Julian's
Three Books against the Galilaeans started
as its opening two phrases ...

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

This was then followed by a legal disclaimer about
altering he words and refutation, so Cyril could not
change how the books started, because everyone
remembered how the books started.

The author of what survives of Julian is a christian
Bishop, a murderer, a terrorist boss and subservient
to the christian emperor at the time. The Tax-Exempt
Bishop Cyril was ordered to write a refutation of Julian
because Julian's work was causing many people to turn
away from the invented religion.

See my page on Cyril

but none as went far as Julian,
who damaged the prestige of the Empire
by refusing to recognize Christ,
dispenser of royalty and power.

he composed three books against the holy gospels
and against the very pure Christian religion,
he used them to shake many spirits
and to cause them uncommon wrongs.

Before the time of Cyril, people referred to the Nicene "Fathers" as the fathers of the new state church. However, Cyril started the practice of referring to the "fathers of the church" as the Pre-Nicene Eccesiastical writers, whom Eusebius introduces in his Historia Eccesiastica. Cyril is very appropriately called "The Seal of the Fathers". He is also involved with Nestorius.


Cyril writes that he is compelled to refute "the lies of Julian"
and goes about the business in many books.

I dont trust Cyrl as far as I could kick him.
He was after all following the tradition of Eusebius.
See also the assessment of scholarship between
Cyril and Nestorius, and how things have changed
since the Syriac documents, such as the "Bazaar of
Heraclites" (written by Nestorius) surfaced in the
late twentieth century.

Up until this time, not much of Nestorius was extant.
The authodox (ie: Cyril) had burnt the writings of the
heretic Nestorius --- this guy was at one time the
Archbishop of Constantinople. His writings indicate
that Nestorius was a systemic observer of things.

Cyril told him to stop observing there were reports
of the new testament being fiction. But Nestorius
continued to report what he saw with his own eyes:

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

The writings of Nestorius were burnt because
they contained admissions such as the above.
Cyril wanted no admissions of fiction lying around.
This was to be be sought out and burnt.
And we know it was.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Iasion

Greetings all,

What?
It would have taken you a minute or so to check - you didn't. Now you play silly games to pretend it would take hours? wtf?


What on EARTH does this have to do with the forged quote of Leo ?


Check my ardour?
Why didn't you check the FACTS?
Why didn't you check the source of the forgery?
Why didn't you check what Julian said about Jesus?


No,
not the passage which you quote (sometimes more than once in the SAME post) in every post you make, over and over, ad nauseum, time after time, week after week, month after month.

I meant the OTHER various passages further in the book which clearly describe Jesus as a person like Paul.

But it appears you haven't actually READ Julian all the way, have you Pete? Here are some of the things Julian has to say about Jesus :


Why do you IGNORE all those passages which refute your claim?

Do you stand by your claim that Julian thought Jesus was a fiction?


What a laugh!
Your entire "theory" is based one little more than ONE passage of Julian as quoted by Cyril.

But when I point out awkward facts which show your theory to be wrong - suddenly it's the LIES of Julian, and you "don't trust Cyril".

Well,
if Julian is lies, and you don't trust Cyril,
why is it that you post Cyril's quote of Julian to back up your claim in every post you make?

Which is it?
Is Julian lies or not?
Do you trust Cyril's words or not?

Clearly -
when anyone supports your claim, you think it's true,
but
when the SAME person disagree, you call it lies !


Iasion

schilling.klaus

Cyril is not to be trusted either in this life nor in any other.

Klaus Schilling

mountainman

This reference was to the banality of the attack
on Acharya's theories, much in line with the
dismissive comments of a few others here.



I have numerously explained my position.
The text in our possession written by Cyril
is our only representation of Julian's own
personal assessment of the christian religion.
My position is that Cyril censored Julian.
What is so difficult about this to understand?

Perhaps you are of the school of thought that
accepts things at face value?

Political censorship in the 4th/5th centuries
could not possibly have existed according to
your position, since you accept the text of
Cyril without any further analysis of the very
relevant political environment of the time.

It was quite evident to the translator Wright
in the 1920's, that not only had Julian's texts
"Against the Galilaeans" been mutilated by
Cyril, that also Julian's personal letters had
demonstrated a systematic "mutilation".

Your position appears to be that the case
is proven - that Julian supports an HJ. This
position cannot be accepted as such on the
basis that we do not have the writings of
Julian in front of us - we have Cyril's.

Here is how Momigliano describes this state
of affairs:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

See the reference citation in my article that
summarises Historical Revisionism.

Thus neither your position nor my position
can be said to be 'proven' -- and that the
decision 'not proven' either way, allows my
position and your position to await further
evidence to support it.

Reserve pontifications for popes.

The answer to the question "Did Cyril censor Julian"?
is not known at the present moment for sure.

People accepting things at face value from the fourth century
ecclesiastical historians in the courts of christian emperors,
where the "majesty of the emperor" was associated with the
"majesty of the christ", in matters of "christian integrity" do
so at their own risk, and peril, and may be leading people
astray (by your conjecture being accepted proved) from the
actual truth of ancient history.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

Speaking of hijacking threads (not to mention dodging Iason's question about whether you have actually read the entirety of Julian's Against the Galileans) ...

Will you please leave off riding you hobby horse on this thread?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Hello Jeffrey,

Examine my posts. On one account my involvement
on this thread is to stimulate discussion about the
theories of Archarya -- see my contribution on her
article to do with precession of the equinoxes, aka
ayanamsa to the Indians.

Secondly, some of the regulars such as yourself,
behave like renegade school children in your group
jeering across the playground at Archarya's work.
This should cease. It really is not making you,
and a number of others look credible.

Thirdly, of course I have read the entirety of Julian,
and much background. My position differs from the
mainstream assessment, which I claim to be greatly
nieve, and reliant upon taking things at face value.

The moebius strip of Julian has two sides Mr Gibson.
Just because you enjoy running the mainstream
hobby horse around and around and around for
show, does not imply you are actually getting anywhere.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Did Cyril censor Julian is a question.

It is one of many questions that I have.

Can the thread name please reflect this question?

If so, can someone change the "digression"
(which was simply defending my position)
to this: "Did Cyril censor Julian?"

Thankyou.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toto

Pete- it is one of the questions that you keep repeating.

Almost a year ago, you posed that question in this post.

But it appears that you have not even begun to think about how to answer it. What evidence would you look for? How would you evaluate that evidence?

If you can't make any progress in how you think about this question, please stop wasting our time and bandwidth.