Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrMacSon · 10-02-2013, 01:30 AM

Against_the_Galilaeans was, according to that Wikipedia-proper page (dunno what wikisource is), written by Julianus - a nephew of Constantine - during his short reign of 361-3.

aa5874 · 10-02-2013, 08:46 AM

The history of the Jesus cult is EXTREMELY easy to reconstruct--a Piece OF CAKE.

The abundance evidence was given to us in a platter.

It is claimed in the Pauline Corpus that Paul PERSECUTED the Jesus cult. See 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1

Paul could have only PERSECUTED the Jesus cult AFTER it started.

The Jesus cult started sometime in the 2nd century based on the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Paul could have ONLY Persecuted the Jesus cult in the 2nd century or later.

It is admitted in writings attributed to Origen that Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul up to c 175-180 CE.

It is admitted or implied in writings attributed to Julian the Emperor that no well known writer mentioned Jesus and Paul.

Ephraem wrote three books "Against Marcion" and did NOT mention that Marcion used or manipulated the Pauline Corpus. There is not a single verse from the Pauline Corpus in Ephraem's "Against Marcion" which is attributed to Marcion.

Hippolytus CORROBORATES Ephraem when he [Hippolytus] claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Corpus but instead the writings of Empedocles.

Irenaeus shows that the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus when he PUBLICLY argued for YEARS as presbyter of the Church that Jesus was crucified at around c 49 CE.

The earliest non-apologetic writers to write AGAINST Paul are around the 4th century.

It is ONLY around the 4th century that virtually ALL Jesus cult writers mention passages from the Pauline Corpus which is what we would expect in the 2nd century if the Corpus was already documented and circulated in the Jesus cult Churches around the Empire for at least 100 years.

Duvduv · 10-02-2013, 12:20 PM

Why would Julian, who followed "Christian" emperors who had a canon of NT texts in hand have referred Christians as Galilaeans when the Romans who affiliated with the religion rejected by Julian were called Christians, and the term was used allegedly since the "old days" back in earlier centuries?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Against_the_Galilaeans was, according to that Wikipedia-proper page (dunno what wikisource is), written by Julianus - a nephew of Constantine - during his short reign of 361-3.

Toto · 10-02-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why would Julian, who followed "Christian" emperors who had a canon of NT texts in hand have referred Christians as Galilaeans when the Romans who affiliated with the religion rejected by Julian were called Christians, and the term was used allegedly since the "old days" back in earlier centuries?!

I gather it was a term of opprobrium. Galileans were country hicks.

Duvduv · 10-02-2013, 01:08 PM

Still doesn't make sense. One would assume the term Christian to be innocuous especially since Romans wouldn't care about the distinctions on the names of this group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why would Julian, who followed "Christian" emperors who had a canon of NT texts in hand have referred Christians as Galilaeans when the Romans who affiliated with the religion rejected by Julian were called Christians, and the term was used allegedly since the "old days" back in earlier centuries?!

I gather it was a term of opprobrium. Galileans were country hicks.

Toto · 10-02-2013, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I gather it was a term of opprobrium. Galileans were country hicks.

Still doesn't make sense. One would assume the term Christian to be innocuous especially since Romans wouldn't care about the distinctions on the names of this group.

What sense are you trying to make of it? "Christian" was a neutral or positive term to some people, "Galileans" was insulting or mocking, especially to a pagan who had been raised by Christians, as Julian had been.

MrMacSon · 10-02-2013, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why would Julian, who followed "Christian" emperors who had a canon of NT texts in hand, have referred Christians as Galilaeans when the Romans, who affiliated with the religion rejected by Julian, were called Christians, and the term was used allegedly since the "old days" back in earlier centuries?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Against_the_Galilaeans was, according to that Wikipedia-proper page (dunno what wikisource is), written by Julianus - a nephew of Constantine - during his short reign of 361-3.

I'd say, for the

reasons given by aa5874 in post #32 above - Christianity was still coalescing in the 4th C; and
different competing ['Gnostic'] versions were present all over the region

They all 'knew' different things at that stage.
.

arnoldo · 10-02-2013, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I gather it was a term of opprobrium. Galileans were country hicks.

Still doesn't make sense. One would assume the term Christian to be innocuous especially since Romans wouldn't care about the distinctions on the names of this group.

What sense are you trying to make of it? "Christian" was a neutral or positive term to some people, "Galileans" was insulting or mocking, especially to a pagan who had been raised by Christians, as Julian had been.

FWIW, Epictetus (AD 55–135) allegedly uses the term Galileans to describe a particular group of peculiar people.

Quote:

WHAT makes a tyrant formidable? His guards, say you, and their swords; they who belong to the bedchamber, and they who shut out those who would go in. What is the reason, then, that, if you bring a child to him when he is surrounded by his guards, it is not afraid? Is it because the child doth not know what they mean? Suppose, then, that any one doth know what is meant by guards, and that they are armed with swords, and, for that very reason, comes in the tyrant's way, being desirous, on account of some misfortune, to die, and seeking to die easily by the hand of another; doth such a man fear the guards? No; for he wants the very thing that renders them formidable. Well, then, if any one without an absolute desire to live or die, but, as it may happen, comes in the way of a tyrant, what restrains his approaching him without fear? Nothing. If, then, another should think concerning his estate or wife or children as this man doth concerning his body, and, in short, from some madness or folly, should be of such a dis- position as not to care whether he hath them or hath them not; but, as children playing with shells make a difference indeed in the play, but do not trouble themselves about the shells, so he should pay no regard to the materials [of action], but apply himself to the playing with, and management of, them; what tyrant, what guards, or their swords are any longer formidable to such a man? 2. And is it possible that any one should be thus disposed towards these things from madness, and the Galileans from mere habit; yet that no one should be able to learn, from reason and demonstration, that God made all things in the world, and the whole world itself, unrestrained and perfect, and all its parts for the use of the whole?

http://archive.org/details/moraldiscourseso017352mbp

aa5874 · 10-02-2013, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

....... "Christian" was a neutral or positive term to some people, "Galileans" was insulting or mocking, especially to a pagan who had been raised by Christians, as Julian had been.

Galileans are those of the region of Galilee and the term is used multiple times in the writings of Josephus. There is no hint that the term Galileans was insulting or mocking.

See The Life of Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and 'Wars of the Jews'.

The characters in the Jesus story--Jesus and the disciples were supposedly from or lived in the region of Galilee.

It was the term Christian that was an odious and hated name in the Roman Empire. Christians were abused, persecuted, even killed merely based on the name 'Christian'.

Athenagoras' "Plea for the Christians"

Quote:

But for us who are called Christians you have not in like manner cared; but although we commit no wrong--nay, as will appear in the sequel of this discourse, are of all men most piously and righteously disposed towards the Deity and towards your government--you allow us to be harassed, plundered, and persecuted, the multitude making war upon us for our name alone.

Justin's First Apology

Quote:

For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment.

Duvduv · 10-02-2013, 06:00 PM

Aa, what is your take on a supposed text by Julian referring specifically to "Galileans" as it describes "Christians"??
Of course describing them as "Galileans" is easy, but as you suggest there is no history of the term used to refer to the Christians in any of their own writings.

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

10-02-2013, 01:30 AM	#31
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	Against_the_Galilaeans was, according to that Wikipedia-proper page (dunno what wikisource is), written by Julianus - a nephew of Constantine - during his short reign of 361-3.

10-02-2013, 08:46 AM	#32
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The history of the Jesus cult is EXTREMELY easy to reconstruct--a Piece OF CAKE. The abundance evidence was given to us in a platter. It is claimed in the Pauline Corpus that Paul PERSECUTED the Jesus cult. See 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 Paul could have only PERSECUTED the Jesus cult AFTER it started. The Jesus cult started sometime in the 2nd century based on the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius. Paul could have ONLY Persecuted the Jesus cult in the 2nd century or later. It is admitted in writings attributed to Origen that Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul up to c 175-180 CE. It is admitted or implied in writings attributed to Julian the Emperor that no well known writer mentioned Jesus and Paul. Ephraem wrote three books "Against Marcion" and did NOT mention that Marcion used or manipulated the Pauline Corpus. There is not a single verse from the Pauline Corpus in Ephraem's "Against Marcion" which is attributed to Marcion. Hippolytus CORROBORATES Ephraem when he [Hippolytus] claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Corpus but instead the writings of Empedocles. Irenaeus shows that the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus when he PUBLICLY argued for YEARS as presbyter of the Church that Jesus was crucified at around c 49 CE. The earliest non-apologetic writers to write AGAINST Paul are around the 4th century. It is ONLY around the 4th century that virtually ALL Jesus cult writers mention passages from the Pauline Corpus which is what we would expect in the 2nd century if the Corpus was already documented and circulated in the Jesus cult Churches around the Empire for at least 100 years.

10-02-2013, 06:00 PM	#40
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Aa, what is your take on a supposed text by Julian referring specifically to "Galileans" as it describes "Christians"?? Of course describing them as "Galileans" is easy, but as you suggest there is no history of the term used to refer to the Christians in any of their own writings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.