The Kookaburra Jack collection of historical hypotheses [Archive]

Kookaburra Jack

12th December 2009, 06:48 PM

Three New Ideas in the Field of Ancient History

Thesis (1) The New Testament Apocrypha (NTA) were authored as Greek satires after Nicaea 325 CE

Thesis (2) The NTA were largely authored by the satirist Arius of Alexandria (a non-christian)

Thesis (3) The New Testament Canon (NTC) was fabricated by Constantine between 312 and 324 CE

NOTE:

These ideas need to be approached sequentially and this means getting a handle on the New Testament Apocrypha - the "Other Books" of the NT - the ones which were buried for their preservations sake in the 4th century.

I am happy to try and answer any questions anyone may have on these subjects. Obviously the 3rd idea has been met (over the last few years of development) with a great deal of resistance from christians who follow the history of "Early Christianity: which was prepared also in the fourth century.

ABSTRACT

Here is a combined abstract for the first two theses:

The books of the New Testament Apocrypha (NTA) are currently postulated to have been authored continuously by Christians ‘out of love for the authors and/or books’ of the New Testament Canon (NTC) across the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and perhaps 5th centuries. It is argued that the core series of books of the NTA was largely authored as a political reaction to the “Constantine Codex” between the years of 325 and 336 CE by a non-Christian - Arius of Alexandria. Constantine is sketched as a supreme imperial fascist. Arius is sketched as a Greek Gnostic priest, perhaps one of the therapeutae of Asclepius, whose temples and shrines Constantine had utterly destroyed c.324 CE. Arius as an anti-Christian satirist was so good at his business that the preservation of his books was not only prohibited by the death penalty but was reinforced by Constantine’s pronouncement of “damnatio memoriae” both upon his name and his living memory. Later Christian heresiologists harmonized Arius’ utterly controversial satirical literary reception to Constantine’s NTC and fabricated a “twisted” Hollywood history in which the academic Greek priest appears as one of the cast of “Constantine’s many readily available Christian Bishops”. Arius’ dogmatic sophisms such as “Jesus was made from nothing existing” suggest that the 4th century Arian controversy was not over the theology of Jesus but over the historicity of Jesus.

robertkd

12th December 2009, 07:12 PM

Interesting, also I understand a lot of the books and documents from the middle east where bought back to Rome during the expansion of the Roman Empire and subsequently destroyed during the 3rd and 4th centuries to strengthen xian views.

Archimedes

12th December 2009, 10:08 PM

The site you linked to has a million different links that would take forever to read through. If you summarise your arguments succintly on this forum I'd be interested in discussing your views.

eccles

12th December 2009, 11:16 PM

I like that Site. I shall be able to add to my ammunition in my fight against Christian Bullshit.

atheist_angel

13th December 2009, 01:49 AM

Lovely, I've been looking to find something that was nonAtwill, thx for the link! :)

Godless Ray

13th December 2009, 03:07 AM

Tons of interesting holiday reading. Thank you!

Godless Ray

Kookaburra Jack

13th December 2009, 09:32 AM

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/icons/icon6.gif Monty Python, shameful ridicule of the Bible, theatrical satire, Arius and Nicaea

Apparently the New Testament was exposed to the most shameful ridicule of the Greeks at its reception in the Roman Empire at that very time it was firstly widely and "Officially Circulated" around the time of the Council of Nicaea. Apparently it was not just ridiculed by public comment, but was subject to utterly astute academic discernment by famous personalities in the theatres of the Greeks.
“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]
This evidence suggests a few things ....

(1) The public shameful ridicule of the new testament commenced on the day it was first widely published in the early 4th century ... it did not have to wait until the 20th and 21st century.

(2) It suggests that the Greeks were getting stuck into Constantine’s New Testament Canon and Constantine’s Jesus by popular ridicule via Greek satire, as a sort of grass-roots political thrashing. This exposure to most shameful ridicule in the eyes of both the actors in the theatres and the public theatre patrons, must have appeared to be thoroughly deserved. I wonder why? ;)

(3) It suggests that Constantine (and thus Eusebius) thought this was a most shameful thing to do. Modern apologists can either agree with Constantine (and thus Eusebius) or ignore the historical reason for this shameful satirization by the Greeks c.325 CE at their peril.

(4) It suggests that, as a result Greek entertainment of this kind the Greek texts associated with the performances were strictly forbidden. Or is the word verboten!. Did Constantine send Christian Soldiers in jackboots down to the local theatres to make a mess of things when he heard about this?

(5) It suggests that Monty Python may have been well paid by the Greeks had the team been around in the early 4th century. However it suggests that their job would have been associated with an unusually high risk factor - the death penalty no less by immediate beheading. Were people actually executed over the satirization of the new testament? What was the Arian Controversy about anyway? Who won that battle over the war of words from the Ares Arius if not the Christian Heresiologists -- amongst whom were all of the "Authodox Christian Ecclesiatical Historians"?

(6) It suggests that one should be looking for texts which were preserved by burial, which are either Greek, or have Greek roots (such as Coptic and Syriac), and which involve really strange, dispersive, textual-critic-nightmare type themes dealing in the subject matter of the Constantine Codex. That is, stories which make no sense whatsoever, which involve the characters of Jesus the Wizard of Nazarethobethelehem and/or the Twelve Boneheads. And we should check to see whether the faint signals of Greek satire can be detected in these texts. Texts which have been anathemetized or forbidden to be read or rejected or branded as heretical works might be a good place to start.

[I]Our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive …
he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church. [NHC 11.1]

mmurray

13th December 2009, 10:43 PM

For those who haven't read it I recommend 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman. Well worth a read to get the view from an eminent biblical scholar of how much we don't know. Many of the famous bits in the bible scholars are confident were not there at the beginning.

Ehrman is now an agnostic. Not because of the unreliability of the bible but because of the problem of evil.

Michael

Kookaburra Jack

16th December 2009, 09:44 AM

The site you linked to has a million different links that would take forever to read through. If you summarise your arguments succintly on this forum I'd be interested in discussing your views.

The Books of the New Testament Canon

In the 4th century Constantine published the bound-together Bible (composed of OT + NT) for the first time. He instructs his minister for Religious Information, one Eusebius, possibly a man of Jewish descent according to the historian Arnaldo Momigliano, to order 50 copies of the bible for the increasing business.

Firstly it must be noted that this Eusebius is known to have written the only extant history of christians during the period between 312 and 325 CE. When we go to see what corroborating evidence exists outside of Eusebius for the existence of the christian religion before the appearance of Constantine there is really nothing available. One needs only to read any modern account of the forgeries that are now known to have been undertaken in the imperial 4th century christian scriptoria to understand that the 4th century Greek civilisation was fed bullshit by the chariot load.

This bullshit was supported by Constantine's sword. He was leader of an Anti-Hellenistic revolution which commenced with his obtaining military supremacy over the entire east and west Roman empire, and then a systematic program of destruction, targetting the most ancient and highly revered temples which housed the Greek medical knowledge and practices in the temples of Asclepius -- the son of Apollo, the son of Zeus -- for whom modern archaeologists have evidence by the chariot load.

The question needs to be therefore asked --- Did Constantine order the fabrication of a new Non Greek monotheistic Roman state religion as a pretence for pillaging the Greek religious temples of their gold and treasures, and to extend the imperial command of the empire into the control of its religious beliefs.

The New Testament Apocryphal Books

So much for the new testament canon (ie: the books of the NT bound in the bible). On the "Far Side" of the coinage of the Christian Revolution of the 4th century is the appearance of another class of "new testament books" which are today called the NT Apocrypha. These are the "Other Gospels" and "Other Acts" - the non canonical books of the NT. WHo wrote these and when?

Ask the academics and the standard answer is UNKNOWN AUTHORS in UNKNOWN CENTURIES. The reason that the academics say this is because they are using data furnished by Eusebius to answer the question. Eusebius is to be regarded as an "Heresiologist" --- one who classifies and lists "Christian Heresies" which were in many cases punishable by death.

I have read through, very closely, most of these books of the New Testament Apocrypha (NTA). I appear to be the first person to argue that there appears to be a tell-tale signature of anti-Christian Greek satire in all the major narrative-account NTA Gospels and Acts. Some academics have noticed the partial existence of parody and satire, for example, April Deconnick.

“Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ...
making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"

It therefore seems quite reasonable to suggest that the books of the NTA were all authored as a political reaction to the appearance of the New Testament Canon under Constantine.

To summarise ...

(1) 312-324 CE: In advance of his supremacy Constantine instructs that a new Holy Writ is to be fabricated via a collage of extant literary sources and traditions, and a new history is to be assembled for this "Mighty Nation of Christians" who do not yet exist.

(2) 324 CE: Constantine becomes sole military ruler and turns fascist, destroying the ancient greek heretiages and literatire. He promotes the New Testament as "The Divine Law". As the rightful "Pontifex Maximus" he can do this, but the Greeks like their own "LOGOS". Constantine calls a council of "his" priests in the city of Antioch. Constantine promotes the NT at the Council of Antioch. His actions and citations from surving documents stronly suggest that Constantine is not averse to use of common fraud. He orders that unbelievers should be tortured.

(3) 325 CE: Constantine calls a council of his Alexandrian and Eastern priests. Christians are not yet deployed by his personal appointment. As Pontifex Maximus he was supposed to be the esteemed centre and head of the ancient and sacred college of pontifices. This was the college of Greek or Graeco-Roman priests based in Rome and in Alexandria and other major cities of the empire. At this council he attempted to have the New Testament ratified by the authority of the sacred council, but they gave it only with their hands and not their heart --- since they were the subject of military duress.

(4) 325 CE: The Words of Arius are appeanded to the Nicaean Creed. The greeks rally around the resistance of the Greek priest Arius of Alexandria, who presents the reasons of his utter dissatisfaction with the new testament is five Gnostic sophisms (See footer). The attendees could either agree with Constantine or Arius -- have a look at the earliest Nicaean Creed. Obviously, since Arius was exiled, they chose to run with the "Boss" -- they valued their lives.

(5) 325 for centuries - "The Great Arian Controversy" raged through the empire echoing the words of Arius in the Nicaean Council. The books of the NT Apocrypha appear in the empire. They are immediately prohibited and Constantine pronounces "damnatio memoriae" on the memory of Arius, and that all of his books (and of the Greek academic Porphyry, who presrrved Euclid, etc) to be burnt. The penalty for possession of these books (and not immediately burning them) was death.

(6) The imperially sponsored Christian historians from whom the history of the 4th century is reconstructed must be by all people today be perceived as the accounts of christian "heresiologists". The histories we have in the names of Eusebius and his continuators (See Momigliano) have been "twisted" in order to present false accounts:

a) Christians existed before Constantine found them in the scriptoria.
This is false.

b) The Councils of Antioch and Nicaea 324/325 CE were "Christian".
This is false. Constantine summoned the existent Greek priesthood. He was about to "do an Ardashir" --- See my article about Ardashir, the Persian warlord who created Zoroastrianism with the army and a canonised "Holy Writ" 100 years before Nicaea.

(c) Arius of Alexandria was a "Christian Bishop".
This is false. Arius was a Greek Platonist/Pythagorean priest.

(d) The "Arian Controversy" was about theology of Harry Jesus Potter.
This is false. The Arian congtroversy was over the fabrication of the christian religion and its new testament by Constantine and Eusebius and the political reality that it had been foistered on the Roman empire by military duress. Its authenticity had not been agreed to whatsoever. But the Christian Hersiologists of the later 4th and 5th century "stamped out" all forms of heresy against the "very pure Christian religion". The end-game included the censorship of the Emperor Julian (see footer).

The name(s) of the vile dispicable gnostic heretics who authored the books of the NT apocryrpha are not provided by Eusebius. Later 4th century imperial correctors and hersiologists start using the name of "leucius" as "the son of the devil" and author of the "Leucian Acts" (considered to be some of the earliest authored NT Apocrypha). A surname "Leucius Charinus" is added to the 4 dimensional jig saw puzzle of ancient christian literature origins in the 8th century by Photius, who reads the Leucian Acts out of a book --- outside the empire perhaps in Babylon.

My take is that Arius of Alexandria and "Leucius Charinus" are one and the same person. At present we think that no books of Arius has survived Constantine imperial destruction. However I think that Arius is actually the "Father of the Books of the NT Apocrypha". And that these books are academic Greek satirizations of the new testament.

Sorry for not being brief at this stage. This subject matter may not interest all people. I am attempting to restrict this to the field of ancient history. If you have specific questions I will do my best to provide an answer which I think is consistent with the evidence available.

PS: Sorry about the typos and grammatical errors.
I typed this up on the fly.
I am not going to fix them.

wearestardust

16th December 2009, 12:24 PM

Only had time to skim so far but looks very interesting.

It would of course suit Constantine that in supporting xianity as a unifying force (as opposed to Diocletian trying to get the same result through the opposite means) would try to organise the xian texts as he did xian doctrine via the Council of Nicea.

Kookaburra Jack

18th December 2009, 03:43 PM

It is reasonable to at least suspect that Jesus may have been conceived in a fourth century imperial scriptorium in or around the city of Rome, between the years of 312 and 324 CE, as a new non Greek and non Jewish God to be deployed by the Rightful Pontifex Maximus as He saw fit and when he had total and absolute military control/supremacy. Of course if this is the case then Eusebius (the earliest and ONLY Christian History researcher), possibly a man of Jewish descent, was Jesus' midwife. The entry that appeared at that same period of time in the local Eastern Greek newspapers under births and deaths concerning Jesus was the following:
There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change.
This reception of Jesus by the Greeks was "utterly contraversial!.

Why doesn't someone actually read the Nicaean Creed for Christ's sake.
There is a massive black disclaimer clause written in bold anathemas.
But the Pontifex Maximus couldnt give a hoot.
He was the one with the sword!
He was the one pronouncing anathemas and orthodoxy.
Black and white at that epoch was with the sword.
War is an attrocity.
And "War is a Racket". [Smedley Butler]

The Greek civilisation was to be plundered from one end to the other.
Under the sword of Christian Soldiers the empire lined up to become Christian with effect from 324 CE.
Sociologically throw-back Draconian Laws swiftly followed with bloodshed, torture and executions.

The Greek academics fled Constantine's stange new fabrication of the Christians and its brand new Christo-Platonic Guardian Class and travelled hundreds of miles up the Nile from the library of Alexandria. One of the texts in the 4th century Nag Hammadi codices declared:
Our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive … he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church. [NHC 11.1]
When was Bilbo Baggins actually born?

Kookaburra Jack

19th December 2009, 12:15 PM

For anyone interested in the hard evidence in this subject ---which at first appears to be counter-intuitive to our whole "western (christian) belief system" - I have collated all known evidence outside the literary sources by which christian apologists have sought to defend the case that christianity existed before the rise of Constantine c.312 CE.

Here is a review of Inscriptions and Papryi

Notably not one christian church has been found to date before the 4th century.
Churches have in fact therefore been classified into three forms of decreasing size and importance:

a) churches
b) church-houses, and
c) house-churches.

Nothing in category (a) has been found.
Nothing in category (b) has been found.
One citation in category (c) is being touted by apologists and christian academics.
(It is all that exists ---- how flaming strange is that!)

It is known in the field as the "Dura-Europos House-Church".
It was discovered in the early 20th century and shipped in a container
back to Yale Divinity College. It is as suspect as all hell.

The bottom line is NO EVIDENCE.
Pure belief is via traditional authority.
Is it not time to actually question this authority?

Therefore for the last few years I have sought to explain this sad and unhappy state of affairs by the simple hypothesis that Constantine fabricated the new testament. He was a warlord. He was aware of what the Persian Warlord Ardashir had done one century earlier to the PARTHIAN Civilisation. He wanted 4 obituaries to a dead God hence the gospels. Constantine needs to be perceived as both a malevolent despot and fascist and an Al Capone. “And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get
control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” [Acton]Read Smedley Butler's "War is a racket". Constantine was at war. He 1st published the bibles which are still being fed as edifying BULLSHIT to our school children. Why? Tradition.

The only way to stop this is to expose the fraudulent origins of the new testament and for this purpose I have been researching this field for the last few years. Unless we know our own history we are doomed to repeat it.

eccles

19th December 2009, 01:05 PM

mmurray

19th December 2009, 04:17 PM

For more mad micks try

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/

Michael

kencooke

19th December 2009, 09:21 PM

Notably not one christian church has been found to date before the 4th century.

Some archeologists might not agree...
World's 'oldest Christian church' discovered in Jordan (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/jordan/2106752/Worlds-oldest-Christian-church-discovered-in-Jordan.html)

eccles

20th December 2009, 10:47 PM

For more mad micks try

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/

Michael

I've just finished puking at that. Oh, Shit, the poor Scots. But I though most Christian Scots belonged to the Pressbutton Church.

It looks as though the CCL (Catholic Church Ltd) is in deep shit all around the World. The sooner it is put out of it's misery the better.

Garage sale at the Vatican? There are some good Pipe organs I would offer two bob for.

Kookaburra Jack

25th December 2009, 08:39 AM

Some archeologists might not agree...
World's 'oldest Christian church' discovered in Jordan (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/jordan/2106752/Worlds-oldest-Christian-church-discovered-in-Jordan.html)

Readers should be very much aware that no evidence was cited.
When the evidence is examined things become entirely ambiguous.

http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicism/Archives/2008_06.html

The recent discovery of the world’s first Christian church by a Jordanian archaeologist has been dismissed by critics as ridiculous.

A team of archaeologists in Jordan led by Abdel-Qader al-Housan, director of the Rihab Center for Archaeological Studies had announced the discovery of the worlds oldest church dating from 33 AD to 70 AD.

The church was found underneath the ancient Saint Georgeous Church, which itself dates back to 230 AD, in Rihab, northern Jordan near the Syrian border.

Al-Housan also said that the cave showed evidence of early Christian rituals.

However, Ghazi Bisheh, former director general of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities dubbed the claims as “ridiculous,” saying the archaeologist behind them “has a tendency to sensationalize discoveries” and offered no evidence to back his recent assertion.

The team had found a mosaic in church that described these Christians as “the 70 beloved by God and Divine”.

According to Al-Housan it referred to 70 disciples who fled Roman persecution in Jerusalem during the first century A.D., after the death of Jesus Christ.

But Bisheh says the identity of the disciples mentioned in the mosaic is not clear.

The experts widely believe that organized churches didn’t exist until at least the third century A.D.

After the death of Jesus Christ, Christian worship used to be in homes and other domestic buildings or, less commonly, by rivers outside city walls during the first century A.D. The organized churches did not emerge until the Byzantine period, in the fifth century A.D.

“It sounds rather anachronistic,” National Geographic quoted Biblical scholar Stephen Pfann, president of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, as saying.

He said that during the first century, the term “church” or “ekklesia” was used for the assembled body of believers and not the building or catacombs where they were assembling.

“If they are talking about a cave, it could have been a hiding place. In timeif there were martyrs there or something significant that took place there or a well-known individual who was among the disciples of Jesus then you would have had reason to commemorate the site, which could later be used by the church’s monks, he said.

“But the cave that’s there is one that doesn’t necessarily commemorate anything I don’t know how you can take an underground cave and say it could present itself as a first-century church,” he added.

AWarGuy

25th December 2009, 09:45 AM

He wouldn't have been happy to know that in Nazi Germany the Old Testament was banned due to containing Jewish stories and references etc etc.

Kookaburra Jack

25th December 2009, 12:55 PM

He wouldn't have been happy to know that in Nazi Germany the Old Testament was banned due to containing Jewish stories and references etc etc.

Some Quotes of Hitler from the twentieth century that may fairly
be placed directly into the mouth of Constantine in the fourth century

And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
History has proven that. Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Acton

Kookaburra Jack

12th January 2010, 08:17 AM

I have joined "Catholic Answers" after seeing reference to it on the Atheist Ireland Group to which I also belong. If you want to see "Mad Micks" at work, brain dead Roman Catholics that is where to look. I have to be careful what I say. They have an Office of the Inquisition there and I don't want to be the first Atheist Martyr.

I mentioned this about Constantine and got castigated over it. They all believe the Bible was given to the Catholic Church by "God'.

The tradition by which our fathers and theirs before them were often seriously conditioned is based on the books of the new testament and the assumed postulate that they were written in "Good Faith" in the 1st century. A simple objective re-evaluation of all the available evidence indicates that the entire "Early Christian Tradition" is based exclusively on the historical and literary "packaging" which was produced in the fourth century by the very first "Christian History Researcher" who went by the name of Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea.

Constantine instructed Eusebius (as Editor-In-Chief of the New Testament) to have all his "historical research" completed and the books of the new testament written in Greek into the 4th centuries high technology of the codex.

The question whether Constantine "found" a pre-existing series of the books of the new testament (canon) as is asserted by Eusebius or whether Constantine ordered Eusebius to fabricate the new testament between the years of 312 and 324 CE is not as trivially answered as most people expect.

Imagine you were given a task of researching events going back almost 300 years. In 2010 this is equivalent to researching the history of the epoch from about the year 1700 onwards. Such historical research today of course is well known to be fraught with all sorts of problems -- what would these problems have been like in the early 4th century? Obviously in all objectivity the researched "History of Eusebius" which was packaged with the earliest bibles under the rule of Constantine needs to be examined and assessed as a "Theory of History", which is emminently questionable by archaeologists and ancient historians.

Eusebius' "history" has never been questioned with critical skepticism!

However at present the research of Eusebius is accepted as "Gospel Truth", because there is no alternative history available for the christian religion and the books of the new testament before the 4th century. Eusebius' account is the only one that exists for the presumption that christians existed before the appearance of Constantine.

The evidence of course is critical to such an ancient historical enquiry. Particularly relevant is brand new evidence which has been only recently added to all the evidence previously studied. One classic example is the rise of C14 dating technology.

As far as I am aware there are currently only two C14 citations in the field of ancient history which relate to the earliest epoch of christianity and the body of new testament related literature. Both of these are C14 citations relating to non canonical literature:

1) Nag Hammadi Codices dated to 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years).
2) Ahkim Codex (gJudas, etc) dated to 290 CE (plus or minus 60 years).

These suggest a 4th century origin is quite feasible.

Kookaburra Jack

10th February 2010, 07:25 PM

The military supremacist Constantine founded the state religion of christianity in the 4th century at the point of the sword and sought the execution of the satirist Arius of Alexandria, for the authorship of anti-christian literature. Arius was reportedly poisoned in the City of Constantine.

Two centuries afterwards, capitalising on the success of Constantine's formula for domination of the Roman empire by the widespread publication of the christian bible and his personal appointment of christian bishops, the military supremacist Muhammad founded the state religion of Islam and the first thing he did was arrange for the public execution of two satirists.

Why were satirists singled out? Let's ask Mel Brooks:Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because
Hitler and Mussolini are just as good at rhetoric.
But if you can bring these people down with comedy,
they stand no chance.

-- Mel Brooks

Military supremacists and fascists (like Constantine) cannot stand being laughed at.
They take things very seriously. If they catch someone laughing at them or their
agendas, ideas and plans, then they dont like it one little bit. They seek out the
authors of the satire against their agenda, and they arrange their execution.

When will the mentality of people see though this official book business? We are dealing with two instances where military supremacists enforced the canonisation of a Holy Writ by the sword, and then ruled their respective empires by the book.

When will scientists and historians stand up and re-examine in an objective and NON MYOPIC MANNER the evidence for the existence of the new testament prior to the arrival of the warlord Constantine in Rome c.312 CE? The C14 citations suggest 4th century texts.

The blueprint used by Constantine was the precedent set by the Persian warlord and military supremacist Ardashir in the 3rd century. "According to the Zoroastrian tradition Ardashir I
caused a high cleric official Tansar, his chief helper
in the task of organising the Mazdean church,
to have the scattered texts of the Parthian "Avesta" collected
and to produce a new edition of it
which was authorised and made canonical."

Cambridge Ancient History
Volume XII
The Imperial Crisis and Recovery (193 to 324 CE)
Chapter 5: SASSANID PERSIA
The Sassanian Empire: Political History

rainbowings15

10th February 2010, 11:39 PM

Thanks KJ. Fascinating when put that way. :)

common pirate

11th February 2010, 07:37 AM

Man 1: "God Says A!"

Man 2: "Dont be Daft."

Man 1: "God and My Sword says A!!"

Man 2: (Silence)

Man 3: "God Says A!"

Kookaburra Jack

11th February 2010, 01:35 PM

Man 1: "God Says A!"

Man 2: "Dont be Daft."

Man 1: "God and My Sword says A!!"

Man 2: (Silence)

Man 3: "God Says A!"

It appears to be an arguable fact that Christianity was implemented by Constantine as the state religion
of the Roman Empire c.324 CE at the point of a very bloody sword. At the Council of Antioch in that same
year it appears to be a fact that people were tortured to confess alliegance to Constantine's New and
Strange official religious cult. And the Council of Nicaea, in the following year is a war-summit.

In the following quote, Eusebius is Constantine's Chief Minister for Religious Propaganda.
The ... ahem ... "History" of Eusebius of Caesarea is the primary source of all Christian
related events between the year dot and the Council of Nicaea.

"Detachments of the body- guard and other troops surrounded the entrance of the palace with drawn swords, and through the midst of these the men of God proceeded without fear into the innermost of the imperial apartments, in which some were the emperor's own companions at table, while others reclined on couches arranged on either side. One might have thought that a picture of Christ's kingdom was thus shadowed forth, and a dream rather than reality.

[Eusebius, The Life of the Thrice-Blessed Emperor Constantine, CH 15]

gruber

11th February 2010, 05:21 PM

one of the main reasons christianityibem spread so well was because they had the backing of Roman military might. When Rome fell and the major european player out of the game, the Vatican held most of the power and influence and with alot of dfear mongering and propagande they even had kings kneeing before the pope and doing his dirty work, even the Genocide of the pagans, in poland (I think it was poland somewhere around that are)

Kookaburra Jack

12th February 2010, 09:19 AM

one of the main reasons christianityibem spread so well was because they had the backing of Roman military might.

I put it to this discussion that the ONLY REASON that the state religion of christianity spread at all is because the direct involvment of the warlord, military supremacist and malevolent (to the Greek civilisation and culture) fascist Constantine with effect from 312 (ROME) and particularly 324 CE (absolute and supreme military commander of the entire Roman empire). When the evidence is objectively, skeptically and critically examine for the existence of this cult prior to the appearance of Constantine, it is clearly seen that the bulk of it relies upon the assertions contained within the "history" assembled by the author Eusebus of Caesarea, who by all accounts was sponsored by Constantine to do this work.

This should make us stand still for a moment and ask the simple and reasonable question --- even if it contradicts the foundation of all things "christian" in our world on our planet Earth --- did this warlord in fact sponsor and commission the fabrication of his own NON-GREEK emperor cult and religion.

His motivations may have been to justify the disbandoning and wholesale robbery and pillage of the Greek temples (ie: "churches") and its priesthood which all other Roman emperors since Julius Caeasar in the epoch BCE had actively supported. He may have been reluctant to kow-tow to the Greek priests, academics, philosophers and other writers who had steered the Greek civilisation under the leadership of the { ideas / philosophy / religion / metaphysics } of people like Plato and Pythagoras.

These { ideas / philosophy / religion / metaphysics } and principles of the Greek civilisation were buried by the implementation of christianity for well over a thousand years, and the technological "success" of the 21st century relied IMPLICITLY on their rediscovery 300-400 years ago --- once the pioneers in the Age of Enlightenment broke the hold over the despotic regimes of the "christian" church over mankind.

Seamus

12th February 2010, 10:47 AM

And the Council of Nicaea, in the following year is a war-summit.

Indeed it was about power, especially to consolidate the position of Rome as supreme Church power ,over three other contenders.

one of the main reasons christianityibem spread so well was because they had the backing of Roman military might

Becoming the official religion was probably what caused the eventual extent of world Christian affliction.

BUT Constantine adopted Christianity only after it had become politically advantageous , nearly 300 years after it's founding. Before that time, equally important factors included: The Pax Romana,which lasted for 200 years from the time of Caesar Augustus,Roman roads and the common languages of Greek and Latin throughout the Roman Empire.

It's worth noting that the last Roman emperor, Augustus Romulus, died less than 100 years after Constantine and that there is some argument over which form of Christianity Constantine adopted.

Kookaburra Jack

13th February 2010, 09:48 AM

BUT Constantine adopted Christianity only after it had become politically advantageous , nearly 300 years after it's founding.

But, this is ONLY what Constantine and those who wrote on behalf of Constantine told us. The question as to whether Christianity existed before the Constantinian propaganda was published (eg: Eusebius' Church "History") has not been sufficiantly explored.

Before that time, equally important factors included: The Pax Romana,which lasted for 200 years from the time of Caesar Augustus,With respect to the one million Gallic celts killed under Julius Caesar and another million Gallic celts brought into the Roman empire as slaves, what meaning did "Pax Romana" have?

Trajan crucified 2000 Jews in the town of Emmaus. What peace was this?

Roman roads Stone Roman roads were constructed over timber roads of the Celts. See Terry Jones' Barbarians....

"The thesis is that
we've all been told
a false history of Rome that has twisted
our entire understanding
of our own history -
glorifying (and glossing over)
a long era of ruthless imperial power ...

and the common languages of Greek and Latin throughout the Roman Empire.
Greek was the language of the intellectuals.
The Roman empire was not Italian.
The ROman empire was Greek.
The emperors from Julius Caesar (55 BCE) to Diocletian (305 CE) sponsored the Greek cultural heritage and its temples and literature.

Until Constantine destroyed the Greek temples.
And disbanded the ancient "College of the Greek Pontifices".

The New Testament was IN.
Euclid, Pythagoras and Plato was OUT.
With effect from 325 CE.

It took over a thousand years for the world to recover the Greek heritage.

Seamus

13th February 2010, 10:59 AM

With respect to the one million Gallic celts killed under Julius Caesar and another million Gallic celts brought into the Roman empire as slaves, what meaning did "Pax Romana" have?
Look it up.EG the Pax Romana was begun by the first emperor, Caesar Augustus. IE AFTER Julius Caesar. (Julius Caesar was NOT the first emperor)

Perhaps begin here:

Pax Romana (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) for "Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome) peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace)") was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) in the first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_century) and second centuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_century) AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini). Since it was established by Caesar Augustus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Augustus) it is sometimes called Pax Augusta. Its span was approximately 200 years (27 BC to 180 AD). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana

The Roman empire was not Italian.
The ROman empire was Greek.

The Roman empire was based on the Etrustcan civilisation, which it destroyed.. Although it had many major Greek influences, it was never Greek. BOTH Latin and Greek were widespread,with the literate using either or both languages.

At that time neither 'Italy' nor 'Greece' existed. Rome was a city state ,and Greece a group of often warring city states,with distinct cultures. The most influential was that of Athens.

The dominant European culture became known as 'Greco-Roman' due to the influence of both civilisations

Kookaburra Jack

14th February 2010, 08:12 PM

The Roman empire was based on the Etrustcan civilisation, which it destroyed.. Although it had many major Greek influences, it was never Greek. BOTH Latin and Greek were widespread,with the literate using either or both languages.

Greek was the language of the academics.
The Greek civilisation was preserved in the Greek language.
Until Constantine destroyed the Greek civilisation,
commencing c.324 CE with the destruction of its
most ancient and highly revered temples to Asclepius,
Apollo, Diana and a host of others; the burning of the
writings of the most highly revered Greek academic of
that age (ie: Porphyry, who also preseved Euclid, Plotinus, etc).

In the Greek language were preserved the following disciplines:
mathematics, geometry, medicine, astronomy, philosophy,
metaphysics, to name a few.

The Romans were simply "professional militant rulers".
To them, everyone else were "barbarians".
Compared to the above disciplines they contributed next to nothing.
Except the regimes of warfare, slavery and taxation.

All prior Roman emperors tolerated the Greek civilisation
and they praised the Greek language and they sponsored
the greek temples and undertook their maintenance.

Constantine flattened them and got rid of the academic Greek priesthood
and replaced them by personally appointing his own "Christian Bishops".
The old "Guardian Class" (a la Plato) was replaced with a new "Guardian Class".

Constantine then foisted the Bible on the populace as its "HOLY WRIT".
Along with Draconian laws such as

"Religious privileges are reserved for Christians"

The dominant European culture became known as 'Greco-Roman' due to the influence of both civilisations

The dominant European culture became known as "Christian"
due to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, and
civilisation is general has very fortunately managed to crawl out of its
despotic influence.

The rise of modern civilisation is clearly marked by the loss
of power of this despotic church mentality - implemented
by the emperor Constantine - and by the "rediscovery" of
the knowledge of the Greek civilisation which Constantine's
intolerant and persecutory christian regime destroyed during
the progress of the 4th century.

Kookaburra Jack

15th February 2010, 09:57 AM

Arius of Alexandria as an anti-Christian Satirist

“And ever since [the Council of Nicaea] has Arius' error been reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger of Antichrist.” [The Orthodox "Father" Athanasius, Athanasius' "Discourses"]

Political satire is a significant part of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics; it has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden. Historically, the public opinion in the Athenian democracy was remarkably influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theaters.

It is suggested that the Greek satire of the fourth century was a reaction against the appearance of Constantine and his new Christian ideas by which an entire class of the Greek priesthood – the “Pontifices” – was disbanded by Constantine’s destruction of temples and his widespread prohibition of use. Many of this class were academics, and many may have been made “homeless” by this prohibition of practice. The political reality was that Constantine was successfully imposing his will on the empire in a fascist manner. Satire, as a last ditch effort to hit back, was strongly invoked after Nicaea.

Of course the parties who were the object of that Greek satire were often horrified, and such a reaction is clearly evident in Athanasius’ refutation of Arius. In the following extract the satire of Arius is cited (in bold) and is to the effect that the sun turned away from Jesus’ passion and “recalling his rays make that day sunless.”
“Who is there that hears all this, nay, the tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counseling the woman? who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? who at such blasphemies is not transported?
‘The heaven,’ as the Prophet says, ‘was astonished, and the earth shuddered’ at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless.
And shall not all human kind at Arius’ blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author? [Athanasius' Four Discourses ... Chapter II.—Extracts from the Thalia of Arius]
http://www.wallpapers-free.org/wallpapers/19/Hear_No_Evil,_See_No_Evil,_Speak_No_Evil.jpg

In this text Athanasius effectively tells us that Arius was a satirist since three times Athanasius compares the writing of Arius to that of Sotades - a famous Greek political satirist.
(i) But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he consider the man who dared to say it sane in his understanding. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees Manichus; and for Moses and the other saints they have made the discovery of one Sotades. (ii) Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival. (iii) And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language, but is on all sides recognized as godless Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures [Ibid]
Sotades was the chief representative of the writers of obscene satirical poems, called Kinaidoi, composed in the Ionic dialect and in the "sotadic" metre named after him. The sotadic metre or sotadic verse has also been called palindromic.

Kookaburra Jack

19th February 2010, 01:40 PM

The 1945 discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codices has provided a first hand account of the writings which people were consigning to the earth in the fourth century. It has been generally argued that this series of books were manufactured and published in the nearby monastery --- the figure of Pachomius is variously suggested as the editor. Many hold to the position that these books were buried because they were not in accord to the orthodox christians, who were actively seeking out "prohibited books". Thus it might be successfully argued that the NHC represent a time capsule. They have been C14 dated to 348 CE (Plus or minus 60 years).

However the planet's "Biblical commentators" in their wisdom cluster around a common conjecture (without evidence) that some of the constituent texts (such as the gThomas c.200 CE) are copies of older material originally authored perhaps in the 1st, or the 2nd or thr 3rd centuries.

However what does each generation physically place inside a time capsule? Is it material that is centuries old? Does stuff which is quite old ever get physically placed into time capsules by the "preparing editor"? Surely it appears quite reasonable to argue the case that the contents of this time capsule represents very current authorship, associated with the political and social and religious and philosophical environment (chronology) of the 4th century.

At that epoch, according to the historian Ammianus
"The highways were covered with galloping [Christian] bishops"
The NHC represent the highest scientific technology of that epoch.
They were manufactured by people who knew how to make codices.
Do people put old things in expensive high tech time capsules?
Or do they put new things in them?

Which space probe was sent outside the solar system in the 20th century?
What percentage of the information in that "Space Time Capsule" was not from the 20th century?
Do local government and civic time capsule burial practices consign old material to the earth?

What do people suggest?

atheist_angel

19th February 2010, 03:29 PM

Gotta Link or Two?

Kookaburra Jack

19th February 2010, 06:52 PM

Gotta Link or Two?

Nag Hammadi Library (WIKI) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) - as an Introduction

NHL Texts and Details (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html) - as the data itself.

The Gospel of Thomas (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm) - C14 dates to 348 CE +/- 60 years but scholars conjecture otherwise

atheist_angel

19th February 2010, 06:57 PM

Nag Hammadi Library (WIKI) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) - as an Introduction

NHL Texts and Details (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html) - as the data itself.
Thank You for the Links, KJ.

I look forward to looking them over. :)

Kookaburra Jack

22nd February 2010, 02:46 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_capsule

According to time capsule historian William Jarvis, most intentional time capsules usually do not provide much useful historical information: they are typically filled with "useless junk", new and pristine in condition, that tells little about the people of the time.[2] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-jarvis-1) Many time capsules today contain only artifacts (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Artifacts) of limited value to future historians. Historians suggest that items which describe the daily lives of the people who created them, such as personal notes, pictures, and documents, would greatly increase the value of the time capsule to future historians.
If time capsules have a museum (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Museum)-like goal of preserving the culture of a particular time and place for study, they fulfill this goal very poorly in that they, by definition, are kept sealed for a particular length of time. Subsequent generations between the launch date and the target date will have no direct access to the artifacts and therefore these generations are prevented from learning from the contents directly. Therefore, time capsules can be seen, in respect to their usefulness to historians, as poorly implemented museums. [2] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-jarvis-1)
Historians also concede that there are many preservation (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Historic_preservation) issues surrounding the selection of the media (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Media) to transmit this information to the future. [2] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-jarvis-1) Some of these issues include the obsolescence of technology and the deterioration of electronic and magnetic storage media, and possible language problems if the capsule is dug up in the distant future. Many buried time capsules are lost, as interest in them fades and the exact location is forgotten, or are destroyed within a few years by groundwater. A proposed deep time capsule, The Ozymandias Project (http://www.aetherambler.net/Ozymns.htm) addresses many of these issues.

Loki

22nd February 2010, 03:02 PM

Kookaburra Jack

23rd February 2010, 06:40 AM

Does burying something to protect it from rampaging hordes really count as a "time capsule". I see a time capsule as a somewhat egotistical attempt to send a message "to the future" which doesn't really correlate with a desperate attempt to conceal something valuable in order to keep it out of the hands of someone else.

Well, possibly not in the same sense that individuals or groups can prepare a "time capsule" in the modern sense. I guess we are talking about "preservation of literature" and that the editors of this series of books made the decision that the book would be preserved by burial in the earth itself, much like the notion of a time capsule.

The NHC series of books took a bit of technology to put together - some of them have expensive covers, etc. However the main question is whether the stories contained in the NHC are "new" or "old".

The "Biblical and New Testament Scholars" --- without any great evidence --- are all insisting that the books contained in this series of codices were in fact authored centuries earlier. My position is that these stories were authored in the 4th century as a response to the new state religion.

Kookaburra Jack

10th March 2010, 11:33 AM

http://www.caslon.com.au/forgeryprofile4.htm

This page considers forgery and fraud relating to religious texts and artifacts.
Here is a section about relics ....
The Shroud is merely the most prominent of Western relics, which prior to the French Revolution included
* around 14 versions of the Holy Prepuce (at Antwerp, Coulombs, Chartres, Charroux, Metz, Conques, Langres, Anvers, Fécamp, Puy-en-Velay, Auvergne, Hildesheim, Santiago de Compostela and Calcata)
* three Holy Umbilical Cords,
* four Spears of Longinus,
* three Crowns of Thorns,
* a large number of Holy Toenail clippings,
* the rods used by Moses and Aaron,
* leftovers from the feeding of the 5,000,
* three arms of St Francis Xavier,
* the shirt of John the Baptist (and a mere three of his heads),
* phials of milk from the Virgin Mary,
* quantities of Christ's blood,
* His milk teeth
* some 204 bits of babies massacred by Herod

Darwinsbulldog

10th March 2010, 02:59 PM

Darwinsbulldog

10th March 2010, 07:21 PM

@The Irreverent Mr Black

Indeed! Just like to put in a little detail here and there to make sure that the dishonest, inane, puerile, mind-pus of "goddidit" blossoms into full awareness in every mind! :)

Kookaburra Jack

11th March 2010, 06:31 AM

Not only religious forgery, but consistent religious plagiarism also. When some pilot does a brilliant crash-landing, who do the the god brigade [and some media] credit with the successful saving of lives? The pilot? Probably not! It's a miracle! God saves! Or god saves though the pilot. etc, etc.....

The beauty of nature [they are quite silent about when nature is "nasty"] is a gift from god, not evolution or nature itself.

That is plagiarism, pure and simple. Facts, evidence, reason, REALITY is tossed aside like an old, oily rag! :mad:

It would be hilarious if it were not so tragic and wrong.

GDay DB,

I do not see this as "plagiarism" but as straightforward delusion. Plagiarism is usually some form of unattributed copying. These people are certain copying the "handed-down-delusion" in misprepresenting the activities of this world's nature as the activities of "this god" or "that god" as did the ancient superstitions, but in the long run the continued consideration of the activities of humans and nature itself as "acts of god" is simply a delusion.

atheist_angel

11th March 2010, 06:51 AM

http://rynosseros.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/museum.jpg
See, there's an easy explanation for those three heads...Holy Nephilim, Batman!

Stubborn are the victims of 'creative' translating.:rolleyes:

KeithW

12th March 2010, 06:57 AM

Two of the most famous relics, The Shroud of Turin and the Spear of Destiny have both been scientifically proven as fakes. Of course there are other experts that doubt the testing techniques.

Kookaburra Jack

12th March 2010, 07:13 AM

Two of the most famous relics, The Shroud of Turin and the Spear of Destiny have both been scientifically proven as fakes. Of course there are other experts that doubt the testing techniques.

Do you (or anyone else) happen to know of any index of these forgeries in the name of the most pure "christian traditions" by which we can, as analysis and statisticians get any handle on the approximate relative numbers of these manifest forgeries which have been thrust upon the populace of the ancient and modern world? Certainly they must number in the hundreds --- if not thousands.

As objective analysts we would them be able to tabulate a balance sheet of items of evidence which have been produced in support of the "christian traditions" which would clearly demonstrate, on the one side manifest forgeries and on the other side, cited evidence which is still being recognised as integrous evidence for the "Christian traditions". An example on the integrous side of such a balance sheet, we might be inclined to cite evidence such as the Dura-Europos "house church". I do not know of any further "semi-respectable" evidence that is capable of being added to this side of the balance sheet. Does anyone know of any "semi-respectable" evidence?

At the conclusion of this exercise, it would on the surface appear that we would have thousands of manifest forgeries being balanced against one (or perhaps a handful??) of citations which are still capable of "being believed as possibly integrous". Quite an absolutely manifestly huge imbalance.

Sanity personified

14th March 2010, 12:08 PM

Kookaburra Jack

15th March 2010, 08:41 AM

Is there any possibility that Crispus was crucified?
What do the sources say?

There is definitely some sort of "Black Hole" of History concerning the history of things done during the rule of Constantine. We are getting very faint "Christianized Light" from the event horizon of his rule. I am not aware of any historian writing during the rule of Constantine other than Christian Ecclesiastical Historians.
Photius EPITOME OF BOOK II of PHILOSTORGIUS
CHAP. 4.
Philostorgius asserts that Constantine was induced by the fraudulent artifices of his step-mother to put his son Crispus to death; and afterwards, upon detecting her in the act of adultery with one of his Cursores, ordered the former to be suffocated in a hot bath. He adds, that long afterwards Constantine was poisoned by his brothers during his stay at Nicomedia, by way of atonement for the violent death of Crispus
How violent was the execution of his son Crispus by "father Constantine", the first publisher of the Christian Bible?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispus#Execution)

Constantine's reaction suggests that he suspected Crispus of a crime so terrible that death was not enough. Crispus also suffered damnatio memoriae, meaning his name was never mentioned again and was deleted from all official documents and monuments. Crispus, his wife Helena and their son were never to be mentioned again in historical records. The eventual fate of Helena and her son is a mystery.

Constantine's rule is described by one of his praetorian prefects as "Neronian" which to me suggests the epoch was a "throw back" of several centuries. For example, according to various sources Constantine -- the very first widespread publisher of the "Christian Bible" -- seems to have introduced laws by which people could be burt alive in various metalic devices. This is not what I would call the rule of an enlightened man.

The question is not "if there was a black hole". There is a black hole. Zero evidence of any non christian historian's account has been leaked out of this black hole, which covers the years at least from 312 to 337 CE. The reason for this state of affairs may very well be that the evidence has been deliberately obscured by people with vested interests in "Christian Origins".

The clean sweep of evidence from the epoch suggests very very strongly that later generations of people (such as Vatican officials) have also very purposefully secured the area of the black hole. These later generations of people obviously had vested interests in the authenticity of christian origins and very little vested interested in Constantine's family. This deliberate obscuration of the evidence could have been a process which has been active since that epoch until quite recent times when the power of the church waned. Perhaps the vaticans interest in the dead sea scrolls represents the last attempt. Had the vatican and the power of the church been strong enough in the last half of the 20th century, it is reasonable to think that we would not be reading the texts of the Nag Hammadi library today on the internet, for example.

It is therefore IMO quite reasonable to suspect that the "Black Hole" of historical events inside the rule of Constantine is directly related to what Constantine did with the Christian movement itself. The wholesale fabrication of the new testament and the imperial "emperor cult" of "christianity" cannot be ruled out, much to the displeasure of all those poor souls who profess the "Christian Bible" is a divinely inspired "Holy Writ".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Solidus-Crispus-sirmium_RIC_-.jpg/300px-Solidus-Crispus-sirmium_RIC_-.jpg (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/File:Solidus-Crispus-sirmium_RIC_-.jpg)

Crispus on a coin issued to celebrate Constantine I (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Constantine_I) victory over Goths (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Goths) in 323.

Kookaburra Jack

15th March 2010, 07:58 PM

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/ancient-forgeries-by-lawful-decree/

Ancient forgeries — by lawful decree (http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/ancient-forgeries-by-lawful-decree/)

“The commissioners were forced to either cite anonymous precedents, or to put words in the mouths of predecessors that were not previously there. Thus, perversely, the respect that the commission gave to historical precedent trumped their respect — if, indeed, they had such — for scholarly honesty. . . .

“. . . . the Digest needed not to compile, but to legitimate, the laws. When they did not agree, they were made to agree.” (p.128)

Does anyone here know anything about the Law Codes which preceeded the Justinian Codes --- the Theodosian Codes --- encompassing the period from the rule of Constantine to the early 5th century?

Seamus

16th March 2010, 08:49 AM

@Kookaburra Jack

I've been watching an ABC documentary on the history of Christianity.

Last episode it was claimed that Christianity did not become the State religion under Constantine. That the empire remained religiously tolerant,and Constantine religiously ambiguous.Eg minting coins and having statues showing himself as Deus Sol Invictus.

The claim was that [Nicene] Christianity became the sole,intolerant state religion under Theodosius (347-395 CE)..

Be interested in your views.

(Sorry, I simply don't have the knowledge to comment on your post about Crispus)

Kookaburra Jack

16th March 2010, 01:24 PM

@Kookaburra Jack

I've been watching an ABC documentary on the history of Christianity.

Last episode it was claimed that Christianity did not become the State religion under Constantine. That the empire remained religiously tolerant,

This is what the "christian ecclesiatical historian" SOURCES of the 4th and 5th century purposefully say. They reported harmonius acceptance. "It was a glorius victory". These victors wrote and preserved our history, but they twisted it to suit their own agenda. The 4th century has been recognised by some authors as the age of christian persecution and intolerance - see below for example. Constantine converted the empire to his new religion by the sword, and by means of power networks in which he was the spider in the web of power --- "Bishop of Bishops" and the 13th Apostle. He persinally appointed his "bishops", and the bishops assumed power of the magistrates. Sound familiar?

In 324 CE immediately Constantine became the supreme military warlord of the entire Roman empire, he turned his army loose on primary religious architectural targets, namely most ancient and highly revered Hellenistic temples to Asclepius, Apollo, Diana, and had their priests tortured. We may presume that the "Sacred College of the Pontifices" (ie: the Graeco-Roman priesthood) thought they had just become redundant. Constantine prohibited "business as usual" in the Greek temples --- note that the Asclepian temples also served as "public hospitals" for the common people all throughout the empire at that time. Constantine wanted to destroy this snake "Asclepius", and he did!

The religious intolerence and persecution of this epoch (324 to 337 CE) and the epoch of the "Christiuan emperors" which followed has been well documented in the following articles:325-590 CE: Knowledge Burning by the (new) Christian regime

Christian persecution of Non-Christians: A summary by Vlasis Rassias (Demolish Them!)
The source material for much of this is Book 16, Codex Theodosius.

Knowledge Burning in the 4th Century: A tabulation of citations evidencing the destruction of libraries, or the destruction of temples (within which many non-christian libraries were associated), or the destruction of specific books, and works of authors and/or groups, some of which were sought out to be burnt. The Nag Hammadi codices discovered 1948 are in fact conjectured to be books which were hidden in order to enhance their preservation.

Did the Index Librorum Prohibitorum commence in the fourth century?: Most sources maintain that the "List of Forbidden Books" were published by the Papacy from the fifteenth century, however there are a number of documentary sources which themselves suggest that Constantine and Eusebius already had a catalogue of books which were "forbidden under punishment of death". We find out in the next century that some of these books had been authored by the son of the devil. These needed special treatment by the orthodoxy.
Hellenism as a Fourth Century Heresy: According the Panarion ("Against Heresies") of Epiphanius of Salamis, bishop of the later fourth century, the first seven heresies (in a compendium of eighty) were as follows: (1) Barbarism, (2) Scythianism, (3) Hellenism, (4) Judaism, (5) Stoicism, (6) Platonism, and (7) Pythagoreanism.

and Constantine religiously ambiguous.Eg minting coins and having statues showing himself as Deus Sol Invictus.Constantine distanced himself from the Hellenistic (Graeco-Roman) traditions because he was about to make them redundant. They had plenty of gold, land, temple foundations, gold, silver, brass, statues, gold, art works, literature, frescoes, gold, and other treasures. He ordered his army to do three things during his rule:

1) destroy specified Hellenistic temples (architecture) and torture priests.
2) pillage, rob, loot all valuables and transport them to the City of Constantine.
3) perform search and destroy missions for "prohibited books"

The claim was that [Nicene] Christianity became the sole,intolerant state religion under Theodosius (347-395 CE)..

Be interested in your views.
The following citations are to two modern scholarly views / opinions on this specific subject matter, and my position follows the second, on the basis of the lock-down military offensive against the traditional Hellenistic culture, its temples, its academics and its priesthood.

In the second article it has been argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

By the time the emperor Theodosius commenced his own "pagan" mop up operations later in the 4th century, the damage had been done. It had already been done when Julian ruled briefly (360-363 CE).
Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28199404%2989%3A2%3C120%3ACATPOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P)

Scott Bradbury, Classical Philology, Vol. 89, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 120-139

Scholars have been unduly hesitant to accept the idea of a Constantinian ban on sacrifice for two reasons. First, the debate has focused too much on the evidence of Eusebius' Vita Constantini and has become a referendum on Eusebius' reliability. In the process other important evidence has not been given the prominence it deserves. Second, many skeptics have doubted the general ban on sacrifices because it would have been, in their view, provocative and politically unfeasible.

Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9475%28198421%29105%3A1%3C69%3ACPOPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P)

T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

As a final body of evidence, you may like to have a look at some of the Draconian Laws enacted by Constantine as preserved in the Codex Theodosianus, such as

326 CE 16.5.1 Religious privileges are reserved for Christians.

smartymarty66

18th March 2010, 05:22 PM

Kookaburra Jack

18th March 2010, 06:15 PM

if I were on a religious prilgrimage I would feelso ripped off if all I got to see were the holy toenail clippings. as for the leftovers for the feeding of the five thousands, now i know who invented twinkies.

But do you know who were the very first and earliest pilgrims to the "Holy Land"... three guesses ....

The First Official Christian Pilgrim

Contrary to popular opinion, Flavia Iulia Helena,
Constantine's mother, was not the first christian pilgrim.
Someone beat her to this most prestigous of claims.
There was an earlier pilgrim, in fact,
Constantine's mother-in-law, Eutropia.

"Among the places visited by Eutropia was Mamre (nr Hebron),a holy place to Jews and Christians because here, according toGenesis 18, Abraham had hospitably entertained three divinemessengers in the shade of an oak tree or terebinth. The lady found that this holy place was defiled by pagan rites as well as by secular activities. She reported to Constantine, who at once ordered the place to be purified and a church to be built there. The church was completed by 333. Remnants of the outer walls exist to this day, and we know that the atrium contained Abraham's altar, the well and the tree. Remnants of that tree were still seen by St. Jerome.Constantine's building activities in Palestine gave to thatcountry a central place in Christian sentiments which it hadnever had before; they in fact made it the "Holy Land."--- H. Pohlsander (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/105-3553192-6646866?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=H.%20Pohlsander), The Emperor Constantine, 1996

http://www.mountainman.com.au/GIF/treeline.gif
The Second Official Christian Pilgrim

Flavia Iulia Helena, Constantine's mother,
was the second official christian pilgrim.

She found a number of holy relics, including

the one true cross (selected from a trinity of crosses)
the very nails by which the Romans crucified god.

Noone bothered about Pilgrimages until the time
of Constantine's rise to (malevolent) supremacy.

I wonder why?

(http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_061.htm)

Kookaburra Jack

3rd May 2010, 02:14 PM

Did you know that?

As far as I am aware the full name of Jesus given in the Greek as Ἰησοῦς does in no place anywhere appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New testament (ie: Vaticanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_vaticanus), Sinaiticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus), Alexandrinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus), etc). What appears to physically exist in these earliest Greek manuscripts are the two variant nomina sacra symbols ΙΣ and ΙΥ. The full name of Jesus does not appear in the Earliest Greek New Testament manuscript evidence -- only these two codes.

How about that?
Was this Divine or Imperial encryption?

Nobody published the Legend (or correspondence) between the code and the name.
What are the implications of this?
Was it a gross oversight or was it purposeful?

If someone today published a large and detailed production using codes
why would they not also publish the "Legend" for these codes?
Who was ΙΣ ?

SPECIAL QUESTION FOLLOWS ......

And the corollary question of course becomes ...
who in history first wrote down the fullname of Ἰησοῦς ?

NB: Bookmakers are not permitted to tout in this thread
otherwise all opinions are welcomed.

Biblical Historian

3rd May 2010, 07:30 PM

two dogs

3rd May 2010, 08:00 PM

...
The fact Jesus was a nomina sacra shows what early Christians thought of him.
Thanks for your insight. Can you put a date on "early Christians"?

Biblical Historian

3rd May 2010, 08:09 PM

Thanks for your insight. Can you put a date on "early Christians"?

Our earliest surviving manuscripts from the second century include nomina sacra. So it happened very early. For example, Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV, of which I am more familiar with, is dated between 175-225 and has Jesus as a nomina sacra.

edit: out of interest Papyrus Bodmer XIV contains Luke chapters 3 to 24, Papyrus Bodmer XV contains the first 15 chapters of John. Both of these are from the same manuscript known as P75. Missing parts of these gospels were either damaged or lost.

Kookaburra Jack

4th May 2010, 11:16 AM

Nomina Sacra is common knowledge among scholars.

Yes of course but they cannot agree why, how and when their use arose

There were several of these. Not just for Jesus, but also Holy Spirit, Lord, Christ, saviour, cross, Son of God/Man, Israel, Jerusalem, David, Mother, heaven, at least 15 words regarded holy by believers, at least by the Byzantine period. There were also more than one way to write a nomina sacra. There were shortened and longer forms. In fact nomina sacra are important identification markers if one is unsure if a manuscript is of Jewish or Christin origin.

Yes of course there are more than one but I am interested in the name of the supposedly "Historical Jesus", and it is evident that the actual full name of this character does not appear in all the earliest available manuscripts of the books of the new testament, both canonical and non canonical. All this evidence presents a code "J_S" for the supposed translation of "JesuS". It is clearly one level of abstraction distant from a common name which is to be sought amidst the ancient historical records by historians. Playing devils advocate, it could have represented someone called "JeeveS".

It was very much purposeful, as the term suggests, it was used for sacred names. They are easily identifiable with a line above the letters. The purpose was most likely an expression of piety. The fact Jesus was a nomina sacra shows what early Christians thought of him.

Well the fullname was hidden consistently and almost universally behind a coded form, of which the meaning or the "LEGEND" (as one would expect to explicate the code) does not appear anywhere in the manuscripts. It is very similar to a "Poetic Licence".

Furthermore, the second question explores the implications of this fact. Who was the first person and/or earliest manuscript in which the full (Greek) name was used and not the coded "nomina sacra" abbreviated form?

The problem is that as an historian, it is not the name of "Jesus" which is explicated in the manuscripts, but a character who bears a coded name "J_S" (where the underscore is an over-bar). Who actually knows what this coded form was the abbreviation of, and whether it actually represented someone, for example, known as "JeeveS"?

To know who "J_S" was we need to see who was the first to explicate the equation between the coded form "J_S" found in the most ancient greek manuscripts (including the papyri fragments) and the full name of "Jesus". Who was this first person to write the name in full, and in which manuscript?

Kookaburra Jack

4th May 2010, 11:20 AM

the Coptic Nomina Sacra (for "Jesus") at Nag Hammadi

The situation is repeated - no full name appears.
instead of the Greek code "ΙΣ" we find
but the Coptic code "IS".

The Coptic Code however could also represent a valid abbreviation for the title of "The Healer". The Coptic "Healer" IMO might be identified as the Graeco-Roman Healing God (and his temple network destroyed by Constantine) of "Asclepius".

Here is an interesting article on the subject of the Coptic nomina sacra symbols which are being translated as represnting the "Historical Jesus".

"ΙΣ"

Fabulating Jesus, the Coptic Nomina Sacra, and intriguing questions

Fabulating Jesus: Why Gnostic "Codes" Do Not Name the Historical Jesus (http://www.metahistory.org/gnostique/tarbabyjesus/FabulatingJesus.php)

Quote:
"Jesus," considered as the proper name
of an assumed-to-be historical person,
does not appear in the Gnostic Coptic writings.
The same applies for the term "Christ"
understood as the Incarnation or Son of God
celebrated in the theology of Saint Paul and Saint John.

In my book "Not in His Image" I wrote:

In the Coptic Gnostic material
the names Jesus and Christ
are never written in full,
but indicated by code such as
the letters IS with a bar over them.
Scholars routinely fill in the blanks,

JESUS from IS making IS into I(eseo)S,
the Greek form of the Hebrew name Yeshua.

They do so with considerable poetic license,
for there is no textual evidence to support
the assumption that in Gnostic usage
IS indicated a historical person
named Ieseos, Jesus.

IS could as well be translated in another way:
I(asiu)S, giving the name Iasius, “the healer,”
a title rather than a common name.

But translators assume that IS
indicates Jesus of the New Testament. In short, scholars do not allow us
the chance to consider that IS might indicate
anything else but a literal person
whose identity is predetermined.

Kookaburra Jack

4th May 2010, 11:28 AM

Our earliest surviving manuscripts from the second century include nomina sacra. So it happened very early. For example, Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV, of which I am more familiar with, is dated between 175-225 and has Jesus as a nomina sacra.

It needs to be pointed out that the dating methodology whereby academics and scholars so assert the existence of manuscripts in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd century is reliant upon handwriting analysis, also known as paleography, an artform which cannot be relied upon to detect a common forgery. There are no dated manuscripts or even secure inscriptions in this epoch, and the single source of historical information for this "Early Christian Epoch" is the very influential "Church Historian" Eusebius of Caesarea, whom most scholars understand to have authored the "History of the Church" between the years 312 and 324 CE just in time for the all important "Council of Nicaea".

The C14 radio carbon dating citations pertinent to "Early Christian Literature" are both saying the 4th century.

The C14 radiocarbon dating results are generally depicted with a mean estimate date and an error range which varies according to the age of the mean estimated date. In respect of the New Testament related manuscripts there have been two and two only C14 dating results that I am aware of, and they are both in respect of "Gnostic Gosepls" which fall on the Non Canonical side of the table of "Early Christian Literature" and NOT the Canonical side.
C14 Citation (1) of (2) for the Gospel of Judas = 290 CE +/- 60 years
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs453.ash1/24943_1434050097565_1422305298_31144211_2793916_n. jpg

C14 Citation (2) of (2) for the Gospel of Thomas [NHC 2.2] = 348 CE +/- 60 years
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs453.ash1/24943_1434050137566_1422305298_31144212_2761604_n. jpg

Precisely, according to the Bell Curve distribution it is quite reasonable
for us to take an average of these two separate and independent C14 citations.
The result looks like the following ....

C14 Citation (1) and (2) COMBINED = 319 CE +/- 42 years
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs433.snc3/24943_1434050177567_1422305298_31144213_5081519_n. jpg

Biblical Historian

4th May 2010, 01:25 PM

Yes of course but they cannot agree why, how and when their use arose

No one knows exactly why or even when they arose. It may have been created by Jewish Christians in Antioch or Alexandria who were use to the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH? The first nomina sacra were from Christian Greek OT texts. In regards to the NT some believe it may have been introduced by the NT writers themselves.

Also, there are 3 types of nomina sacra
1. suspension - IH (first 2 letters of Jesus' name)
2. contraction - IC (first and last letter of Jesus' name)
3. longer contraction - IHC (first 2 and last letter)

Yes of course there are more than one but I am interested in the name of the supposedly "Historical Jesus", and it is evident that the actual full name of this character does not appear in all the earliest available manuscripts of the books of the new testament, both canonical and non canonical.

The name Jesus does appear though in other early christian writers. So Jesus is meant.

So what we have for the name to be Jesus is the following evidence:
1. IH _ _ _ C (JE_ _ S)
2. Early Christian writings such as the Epistle of BARNABAS 9.7 (written sometime at the turn of the first century) shows that IH means Jesus (also Clement of Alexandria, but can't tell you exact spot just yet, somewhere in stromata)
3. Oral tradition (I believe it was at least strong enough to pass the name down literally)

Furthermore, the second question explores the implications of this fact. Who was the first person and/or earliest manuscript in which the full (Greek) name was used and not the coded "nomina sacra" abbreviated form?

Not sure when the first form of the full name came to being in the Greek manuscripts, but it was later. Will try to track down when I get time.

I agree that the dating method in paleography is not sound proof. Possibly most of the early papyri are dated too early. Many might be of a century or so later. But overall thesis that the name was not Jesus does not stand according to the information we have. Epistle of Barnabas, even Clement of Alexandria, identify IH as Jesus

Kookaburra Jack

6th May 2010, 11:25 AM

No one knows exactly why or even when they arose. It may have been created by Jewish Christians in Antioch or Alexandria who were use to the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH? The first nomina sacra were from Christian Greek OT texts. In regards to the NT some believe it may have been introduced by the NT writers themselves.

The nomina sacra employed by "Early Christian Scribes" for the name of Joshua, the successor of Moses in the LXX, strangely enough is identical to the same code "ΙΣ" which is "translated" in the new testament for the full name of "Jesus". There is no difference between the codes. This fact is quite remarkable.

The name Jesus does appear though in other early christian writers. So Jesus is meant.That may as well be called "poetic licence of the translators", as described in an above post in reference to the Coptic code which is being translated as "Jesus" although it could just as easily be translated as the title "The Healer". The Greeks imported medical knowledge from Egypt and you will find that the modern medical "Hypocratic Oath" is sworn before Apollo, the son of Zeus and the father of Asclepius - the dude with the snake on the staff.

The archaeological evidence for Asclepius is abundant
The archaeological evidence for Jesus to date are a long succession of pious and imperial forgeries.

3. Oral tradition (I believe it was at least strong enough to pass the name down literally)There is no doubt that in fact IF the new testament manuscripts all preserve ONLY the code, then it follows that the full name can only have been preserved by an oral tradition between the time of the earliest (coded) manuscripts and until the time of the earliest (explicitly uncoded) manuscripts).

I agree that the dating method in paleography is not sound proof. Possibly most of the early papyri are dated too early. Many might be of a century or so later. But overall thesis that the name was not Jesus does not stand according to the information we have. Epistle of Barnabas, even Clement of Alexandria, identify IH as JesusThat the code "ΙΣ" was first explicated to actually refer to someone called "Jesus" (and not "Joshua", who shares this code in the "Christian LXX") by these two textual sources does not guarantee that we may be absolutely sure when these texts were written. In this matter, all roads lead us back to the author of the first "History of the Nation of Christians" -- Eusebius of Caesarea, busily writing away between the years of 312 and 324 CE just as Constantine was rising to supreme military power. Were these sources forged?

(1) CLEMENT
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: (c. 153-c. 215). Ex-Pagan; head of
the catechetical school of Alexandria; tutor of Origen. He wrote an
Exhortation to the Heathen, the Poedagogus, or Instructor, and
eight books called Stromata, or Miscellanies. From the latter a few
random assays are taken which fully accredit him among the simple-
minded and credulous Fathers of Christianity.

Clement devotes ample chapters to showing the 'Plagiarism by
the Greeks of the Miracles related in the Sacred Books of the
Hebrews"; he quotes as inspired the forged book "Peter's
Preaching," and the heathen Sibyls and Hystaspes; he assures us,
with his reason therefor, that "The Apostles, following the Lord,
preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my
opinion, that as here, so also there, the rest of the disciples
should be imitators of the Master." Abraham was a great scientist:
"As thin in astronomy we have Abraham as an instance, so also in
arithmetic we have the same Abraham," the latter diploma being
founded on the feat that Abraham, "hearing that Lot had been taken
captive, numbered his own. servants, 318"; this mystic number,
expressed in Greek letters T I E, used as numerals: "the character
representing 300 (T) is the Lord's sign (Cross), and I and E
indicate the Savior's name," et cetera, of cabalistic twaddle.
(Strom. VI, xi; ANF. ii, 499.) Clement believes the heathen gods
and the Sibyls, and all the demigods and myths of Greece: "We have
also demonstrated Moses to be more ancient, not only than those
called, poets and wise men, but than most of their deities. Not
alone he, but the Sibyl, is more ancient than Orpheus. ... On her
arrival at Delphi she sang:

'O Delphians, ministers of far-darting Apollo,
I come to declare the mind of AEgis-bearing Zeus,
Enraged as I am at my own brother Apollo.'"

(Strom. ii, 325.)

-- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
"FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930(2) Epistle of Barnabas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas (Greek (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Greek_language): Επιστολή Βαρνάβα, Hebrew (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Hebrew_language): איגרת בארנבס‎) is a Greek treatise with some features of an epistle (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Epistle) containing twenty-one chapters, preserved complete in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus) where it appears at the end of the New Testament (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/New_Testament). It is traditionally ascribed to Barnabas (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Barnabas) who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles), though some ascribe it to another Apostolic Father (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Apostolic_Father) of the same name, a "Barnabas of Alexandria (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Pseudo-Barnabas)", or simply attribute it to an unknown early Christian teacher.This is an extremely aggressive anti-Jewish text.
One of the earliest witnesses to the use of the full name and not the code?
It is most likely to have been published by Constantine in the fifty Bibles that he ordered Eusebius to instruct his trained scribes to produce. This follows from the general assessment that that Codex Sinaiticus is generally thought to be one of those 50 "Constantine Little Red Books" or a copy made from one.

A single Overseeing redactor

The presence of the codified forms of Jesus (and other nomina sacra) is generally perceived as the effect of a "very early overseeing redactor" of the texts. We have been assuming that this very early redaction (of the nomina sacra) in the NT had occurred in the 1st century, and that the redaction of the new testament texts themselves in either the 1st or 2nd centuries.

Another alternative is that Eusebius himself, whom we know acted as the editor-in-chief of the first Constantine Bibles was that single overseeing redactor, and the "History" tendered by Eusebius in respect of the "Nation of Tribe of Christians" found in Josephus' Histories is false, and the paleographers are a few centuries too early.

At least this second alternative is consistent with the C14 citations, and the appearance of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" of the 4th century as a reaction to the Constantine Bible hitting the streets of the Eastern Empire.

That is, the name of "Jesus" and the books of the NT came very suddenly to the Eastern Roman Empire, along with the fascist militaristic actions of the warlord Constantine, who gutted the old Hellenic religions, and temples and shrines, and set up a new religious business of his own and which the trustworthy 4th century historian Ammianus Marcellenus called "The plain and simple religion of the Christians". It was an epoch, according to this reliable historian, in which "the highways were covered with galloping bishops".

INDEX
Part (1): Constantine the Great ... Fascist ... and the Quotes of Hitler (Not Funny!)
Part (2) How Constantine severed the Platonic Guardian Class from civilisation 325 CE (Not Funny!)
Part (3): Some light relief via humor to contrast this (Funny!)
Constantine appears as the first emperor to turn his (largely barbarian) army loose against the Graeco-Roman priesthood and temple architecture, etc.
Because of His role as "Pontifex Maximus" the Graeco-Roman priesthood was bound by law to follow him.
Every Roman Emperor had the right to sponsor the divinity (or cult) of their choosing.
Did Constantine order for the fabrication of his own cult c.312 CE?

And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands,
all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
History has proven that. Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

--- Acton

What does the evidence suggest?
In the end we need to follow the evidence.
What does the C14 say?

Biblical Historian

6th May 2010, 07:06 PM

The nomina sacra employed by "Early Christian Scribes" for the name of Joshua, the successor of Moses in the LXX, strangely enough is identical to the same code "ΙΣ" which is "translated" in the new testament for the full name of "Jesus". There is no difference between the codes. This fact is quite remarkable.

Not that remarkable considering Joshua and Jesus are the same name. Both are from the Hebrew Yeshua. Jesus real name would have been Yeshua. Jesus is just an English translation from the Greek form Iesous.

There is no doubt that in fact IF the new testament manuscripts all preserve ONLY the code, then it follows that the full name can only have been preserved by an oral tradition between the time of the earliest (coded) manuscripts and until the time of the earliest (explicitly uncoded) manuscripts).

In relation to oral tradition, considering the diversity amongs the early Christians, (and we are talking diversity in who Jesus was, his relationship to god, was he born of a virgin, etc.) we would expect to see a different name other than Jesus/Yeshua in at least one tradition if it was in dispute. Early Christians were willing to disagree on more important issues, it's saying abit that his name was not an issue.

That the code "ΙΣ" was first explicated to actually refer to someone called "Jesus" (and not "Joshua", who shares this code in the "Christian LXX") by these two textual sources does not guarantee that we may be absolutely sure when these texts were written. In this matter, all roads lead us back to the author of the first "History of the Nation of Christians" -- Eusebius of Caesarea, busily writing away between the years of 312 and 324 CE just as Constantine was rising to supreme military power. Were these sources forged?

You are making it too much out of the code. You are making it the "smoking-gun." Too much conspiracy theory in it.

My point with the Epistle of Barnabas is that this epistle identifies the nominen sacrum IH as Jesus. The passage reads
"For it says, "And Abraham circumcised from his household eighteen men and three hundred." What then was the knowledge that was given to him? Notice that he first mentions the eighteen, and after a pause the three hundred. The eighteen is I (=ten) and H (=8) -- you have Jesus -- and because the cross was destined to have grace in the T he says "and three hundred." So he indicates Jesus in the two letters and the cross in the other."

Here we have an early witness that the nominen sacrum IH is Jesus. For Constantine to think so highly of this epistle, and that Clement (150-215) endorsed it is as scripture, as did Origen (185-234) suggests it was well known and circulating well before the 3rd century. I know that scholars who have done considerable work on Barnabas would date this epistle sometime between 70-150 C.E. It is not just the letter format of the epistle, which is typical of a late first century format, but the content also gives clues to the date. For example, the letter contains an allusion to the Temple's reconstruction (suggesting a date between 70-135), the period suggests that it was composed near the reign of Nerva (96-98), some of the contents are also similar to what we read in the book of Revelation which was possibly written late first century. The style suggests an earlier date.

I say again, nomina sacra is not the smoking-gun, especially how little we know of its origin. One needs to be very careful in rewriting history based on nomina sacra. One gospel manuscript I am researching now has at least two forms of nomina sacra for Jesus. There is only so much I can say about it definitely without falling upon non-substantiated speculation.

If you are really interested in scholarly research based on nomina sacra, I suggest as a start...
"The Earliest Christian Artefacts" (pp. 95-134) by Larry W. Hutado
also his "The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal" Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 655-673.
"Encountering the Manuscripts" (pp. 199-254) by Philip Comfort
These chapters will give heaps of other sources to pursue, then you can test your hypothesis to see if it has any solid ground to stand on, then build from there.

Kookaburra Jack

6th May 2010, 11:48 PM

My point with the Epistle of Barnabas is that this epistle identifies the nominen sacrum IH as Jesus. The passage reads
"For it says, "And Abraham circumcised from his household eighteen men and three hundred." What then was the knowledge that was given to him? Notice that he first mentions the eighteen, and after a pause the three hundred. The eighteen is I (=ten) and H (=8) -- you have Jesus -- and because the cross was destined to have grace in the T he says "and three hundred." So he indicates Jesus in the two letters and the cross in the other."

How does this differ from numerology? A numerologist can find correspondence in everything. I dont buy this explanation at all. This is really not what anyone would call an explicit reference to the name "Jesus" except for those who are willing to believe anything for the sake of the preservation of their faith. It's handwaving for the converted.

If you are really interested in scholarly research based on nomina sacra, I suggest as a start...
"The Earliest Christian Artefacts" (pp. 95-134) by Larry W. Hutado
also his "The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal" Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 655-673.
"Encountering the Manuscripts" (pp. 199-254) by Philip Comfort
These chapters will give heaps of other sources to pursue, then you can test your hypothesis to see if it has any solid ground to stand on, then build from there.

I have read some time ago the relevant chapter on Google Books (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=m-q8xpqveREC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=%22Encountering+the+Manuscripts%22+nomina+sacra&source=bl&ots=W-nfaDBQHR&sig=jsn813ciPNTFjEbbrAAIDa7BlW4&hl=en&ei=pt3iS_qdOYGksgP5k7G6DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false).

The bottom line of the above chapter on "Nomina Sacra" is that mainstream apologetics is required to postulate that the books of the new testament were redacted at some early point with a specific code "ΙΣ" which the "Readers in Church" spoke orally for one, perhaps more, centuries, to their "flocks". The problem with this explanation is the archaeological evidence. There are three different types of hypothetically existent "Christian Churches":
(1) The Christian "Churches" --- none of which have been found.
(2) The Christian "Church-Houses" --- none of which have been found, and
(3) The Christian "House-Churches" --- one suspect "House-Church" is presumed to have been located at Dura-Europos in the early 20th century, and promptly packed up and shipped back to Yale Divinity College for a "makeover" and restoration.
The archaeologists cannot find any Christian churches of any form before Constantine started to build them over the top of the Graeco-Roman temples and shrines which he ordered his soldiers to destroy. This simple fact flies in the face of the assertions made by the mainstream that the "Name of Jesus" (as distinct from the CODE in the earliest texts) was preserved by the oral tradition for centuries in "Christian Churches"

It appears to be arguable that the mention of the name of ["Our"] Jesus is not to be found anywhere in the first century. The Testimonium Flavianum is generally treated with great circumspect, and some scholars have named Constantine's Editor-In-Chief Eusebius as the forger of this reference. Eusebius even claims to have in front of him a letter written by Jesus which he conveniently found "in the archives". This does not augur well for the historical integrity of "Early Christian Origins" or Eusebius's standing as any sort of "historian".

Emperor Julian c.361 CE went so far as to say ....

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians
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.

The fact remains that the totality of the evidence does not preclude the possibility that the "Constantine Bible" is of the same literary genre as "Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings". If you have a favorite archaeological citation external to Eusebius which seems to be an unambiguous testimony that "The Tribe of Christians" existed before the 4th century, I'd be interested to hear of it.

Seamus

7th May 2010, 08:10 AM

Nomina Sacra is common knowledge among scholars. There were several of these. Not just for Jesus, but also Holy Spirit, Lord, Christ, saviour, cross, Son of God/Man, Israel, Jerusalem, David, Mother, heaven, at least 15 words regarded holy by believers, at least by the Byzantine period. There were also more than one way to write a nomina sacra. There were shortened and longer forms. In fact nomina sacra are important identification markers if one is unsure if a manuscript is of Jewish or Christin origin.

It was very much purposeful, as the term suggests, it was used for sacred names. They are easily identifiable with a line above the letters. The purpose was most likely an expression of piety. The fact Jesus was a nomina sacra shows what early Christians thought of him.

Fascinating, I didn't know that.Thank you.

Disclaimer:I don't read Hebrew so repeat only what I've read. Happy to be corrected by a scholar.

It's only a few years ago that I discovered that 'Jesus' is a Latinised version of the Greek 'Iesous'.That his Hebrew name would probably have been ''Yeshua' or 'Yoshua'

THAT there is no letter 'j' in written Hebrew.'

THAT the actual name of Jesus is not known with any certainty.This is because vowels are not written in Hebrew,but implied by context.
Hence Jesus name would be written something like y'sh . (I'm assuming the final 's' is an addition in the Greek translation.)

His full name may have been Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yosef.

TRIVIA:

(1) The name Barabbas has always intrigued me. Could it come from 'Bar' (son of) 'abba' ('father' or 'daddy') ?

(2) Is Hitler the most written about person in [Western] history after Jesus?

wearestardust

7th May 2010, 11:12 AM

(2) Is Hitler the most written about person in [Western] history after Jesus?

I think Napoleon gets the gurnsey on that one. As well as having been around for a lot longer and still being well thought of (or at least not being thought of as quite the monster he was) in some places, Napoleon, unlike Hitler, was an actual field commander which seems to provide much more scope for writing.

Seamus

7th May 2010, 02:35 PM

I think Napoleon gets the gurnsey on that one. As well as having been around for a lot longer and still being well thought of (or at least not being thought of as quite the monster he was) in some places, Napoleon, unlike Hitler, was an actual field commander which seems to provide much more scope for writing.

Of course, I overlooked him.

Unlike Hitler who left the autobahn and the Volkswagen,Napoleon made some important reforms.

I'm thinking of the Code Napoleon and weights and measures,but I'm sure there are a lot more. I'll Google.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Did that. Yep,he made a LOT of reforms in many different areas.

Napoleon controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals. He set up a system of public schools under strict government control to ensure well-trained officials and military officers. At the same time, Napoleon backed off from some of the revolution's social reforms. He made peace with the Catholic Church in the Concordat of 1801. The Concordat kept the Church under state control but recognized religious freedom for Catholics. R
He encouraged émigrés to return, provided they take an oath of loyalty. Peasants were relieved when he recognized their right to lands they had bought from the Church and nobles during the revolution. Napoleon also opened jobs to all, based on talent, a popular policy among those who remembered the old aristocratic monopoly of power.
His most lasting reforms was the new code of laws, popularly called the Napoleonic Code. It embodied Enlightenment principles such as the

http://en.site1.answers.com/templates/images/improve_this_answer.gif?v=67802 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:editA%28%29;) http://en.site1.answers.com/templates/images/disscuss_this_question.png?v=67802 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Discuss:What_were_some_napoleonic_reforms) http://en.site1.answers.com/templates/icons/blue-getupdates-quest.gif?v=67802 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:watchQ%28%29;) http://en.site1.answers.com/templates/icons/sharebtn-white.gif?v=67802 http://en.site1.answers.com/templates/icons/icon-facebook.gif?v=67802 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_some_napoleonic_reforms) http://en.site1.answers.com/templates/icons/icon-twitter.gif?v=67802 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_some_napoleonic_reforms)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_some_napoleonic_reforms

Plus see:

http://www.historywiz.com/reforms.htm

Kookaburra Jack

7th May 2010, 08:27 PM

The historicity of Hitler in the 20th century and Napoleon in the 18th/19th century are both reasonably secure because of the objectively assessible historical evidence. The historicity of Jesus on the other hand is far from reasonably secure because of the manifest lack of objectively assessible ancient historical evidence.

Anyone who wishes to study the contributory evidence to the field of ancient history surrounding the question of the historical existence of Jesus will soon come across the name of Eusebius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius) of Caesarea, who was Constantine's "Minister for Religious Propaganda". Working furiously away through the years between 312 and 324 CE, Eusebius compiled the only known extant history of the "Early Christians" for the first three centuries.

From the perspective of an ancient historian, it is not so much a matter of trusting in the existence of Jesus, but a matter of trusting the historical integrity of this Eusebius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius). All Biblical Historians have a motto which is either explicit or implicit in their field, and that motto is "In Eusebius we trust". This situation arises simply because the history of Eusebius is the ONLY AVAILABLE HISTORY of Christianity before the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.

Here is a sample title of one of Eusebius's "chapters" of history ....

How far it may be proper to use falsehood
as a medium for the benefit of those
who require to be deceived;"

--- Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324)
PE: Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel,
The title of Chapter 31 of Book 12.

Personally, I would not buy a used chariot off this bloke Eusebius. He was looked after and well renumerated in GOLD by Constantine for his efforts in the field of Christian Theology. He was the Editor-In-Chief of the first massive widespread publication of the Christian "New Testament". And he has been called "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity."

Here is a modern assessment of Eusebius .....

Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as

a political propagandist [1],
a good courtier [2],
the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine [3],
the great publicist of the first Christian emperor,[4]
the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, [5]
the herald of Byzantinism, [6]
a political theologian, [7]
a political metaphysician [8], and
a caesaropapist. [9]
[1] Erik Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Munich, 1951 ), p. 91;
[2] Henri Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée ê Eusèbe de Césarée," Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 39 ( 1953 ): 462-479, quoted in T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981 ), p. 401;
[3] Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century," in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963 ), p. 85;
[4] Robert Markus, "The Roman Empire in Early Christian Historiography," The Downside Review 81 ( 1963 ): 343;
[5] Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940; reprint, Oxford, 1966 ), p. 183;
[6] Hendrik Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939 ), pp. 21-22;
[7] Hans Eger, "Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea", Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38 ( 1939 ): 115;
[8] Per Beskow, Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Uppsala, 1962 ), p. 318;
[9] J. M. Sansterre, "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie 'césaropapiste,'" Byzantion 42 ( 1972 ): 593

It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely sup- pressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment. Scholars have often observed, for example, that his literary works in defense of the new order depict Constantine and his reign in eschatological terms that rival and even supplant the Incarnation and Parousia in salvation history.

To be sure, this assessment relies on abundant documentation: in the Life of Constantine and in the Tricennial Oration, delivered on the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's reign, as well as in other books, Eusebius gave an enthusiastic Christian endorsement

. Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius:
Reassessing the First "Court Theologian"
--- MICHAEL J. HOLLERICH (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97803621)
Assistant professor of religious studies
in Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California.

Biblical Historian

7th May 2010, 09:23 PM

How does this differ from numerology? A numerologist can find correspondence in everything. I dont buy this explanation at all. This is really not what anyone would call an explicit reference to the name "Jesus" except for those who are willing to believe anything for the sake of the preservation of their faith. It's handwaving for the converted.

It matters little if it does or doesn't differ to numerology. What we have in the quote of the epistle of Barnabas is an early witness where Jesus is identified with the first two letters of IH. This in a passage where editorial revision/redaction is not likely as the passage is based upon a system of thought. It's an early passage from the turn of the first century which indicates that IH = Jesus. A nonsense passage if the nominem sacrum was not in use at the time.

Also, I have found that nomina sacra does not appear in a 3rd century Christian prayer text P.Oxy 3.407. Jesus is mentioned by name.

In relation to the other point you made, you may be interested in a book that was released last year that deals with archaeological findings, including at Dura-Europos that is relevant. It's called "The Second Church: Popular Christianity A.D. 200-400" by Ramsay Macmullen. You can find it on Amazon, but it is fairly expensive. The Society of Biblical literature sell it for about a third of its price.

It appears to be arguable that the mention of the name of ["Our"] Jesus is not to be found anywhere in the first century...If you have a favorite archaeological citation external to Eusebius which seems to be an unambiguous testimony that "The Tribe of Christians" existed before the 4th century, I'd be interested to hear of it.

There are no survinig manuscripts of the first century. No significant known places of worship. Then maybe Christianity or the messianic movement that came to be called Christianity didn't exist until some time in the third/fourth century. It was created by Eusebius maybe? or Constantine? That is what you are really getting at, correct? Nomina sacra was just a lead in to the idea that there was no Christianity until the fourth century? Everything that happened in the first three centuries didn't happen. It was created by Constantine and his mate Eusebius. Weren't they busy. The topic on nomina sacra was just to soften us up.

I know this hypothesis has been around for some time. The arguments are essentially the same as those theists who argue that God exists unless you prove otherwise. The forgery you are proposing has no evidence what so ever. It's conspiracy theory at best. Your ask for C14 dating doesn't hold as carbon dating can't pinpoint the exact date as your theory requires. Your theory requires that carbon dating must get the date correct date by a matter of several years. But it can't, that is why paleography, though not fool-proof, is required to fill in the gaps. Good luck at convincing the scholars, you'll need it.

By the way, I'd like to apply this logic to other ancient historical figures. I wonder how Julius Ceaser would fair, for example?

Kookaburra Jack

7th May 2010, 10:33 PM

It matters little if it does or doesn't differ to numerology. What we have in the quote of the epistle of Barnabas is an early witness where Jesus is identified with the first two letters of IH. This in a passage where editorial revision/redaction is not likely as the passage is based upon a system of thought. It's an early passage from the turn of the first century which indicates that IH = Jesus.

The 1st century dating requires trust in Eusebius's histry of the 4th century, and I do not trust Eusebius.

A nonsense passage if the nominem sacrum was not in use at the time.

Precisely.

Also, I have found that nomina sacra does not appear in a 3rd century Christian prayer text P.Oxy 3.407. Jesus is mentioned by name.

All the pre-4th century Oxyrhynchus papyri fragments have been dated by the process of paleography.
I would be arguing for a 4th century date for a number of reasons:

1) they are all from codex technology (which boomed in the 4th century after Constantine) and not scrolls
2) Oxyrhynchus had a massive population explosion in the mid 4th century.
3) many fragments are non canonical. This implies the unlikely event that the orthodox christians AND the "Gnostic Heretics" were using the same rubbish dumps at this city.
4) the handwriting is 4th century.

In relation to the other point you made, you may be interested in a book that was released last year that deals with archaeological findings, including at Dura-Europos that is relevant. It's called "The Second Church: Popular Christianity A.D. 200-400" by Ramsay Macmullen. You can find it on Amazon, but it is fairly expensive. The Society of Biblical literature sell it for about a third of its price.

I have examined much data about this Dura-Europos "house church" and there are arguments to the contrary to suggest that this "find" of the early 20th century is not what its made out to be. The "house church" was shipped back to Yale Divinity College in containers -- nothing remains at the site. The critical evidence cited, which can be found on the net, are the mural frescoes on the wall -- paintings "which suggest" but do not securely establish a "Christian theme". Have you seen this critical evidence? It is far from convincing.

There are no survinig manuscripts of the first century. No significant known places of worship. Then maybe Christianity or the messianic movement that came to be called Christianity didn't exist until some time in the third/fourth century. It was created by Eusebius maybe? or Constantine? That is what you are really getting at, correct? Nomina sacra was just a lead in to the idea that there was no Christianity until the fourth century? Everything that happened in the first three centuries didn't happen. It was created by Constantine and his mate Eusebius. Weren't they busy.

Constantine's large barbarian driven army was busy destroying the temples and shrines of all other competing Graeco-Roman religions, and in cases executing the chief priests. They were busy alright.

Once the destruction and executions were over, and laws were enacted to prohibit the "business as usual" within the ancient established temple networks across the empire - enforced by the army -- Constantine inbstructed the army to loot and plunder the temples for gold, silver, brass, treasure, art works, statues and other items which he would need to decorate the new City of Constantine.

And then after that, Constantine ordered the army to conduct search and destroy missions for certain "forbidden books".
Yes it was a busy epoch.
An epoch of mercaneries.
And forgers.
See the Historia Augusta

The topic on nomina sacra was just to soften us up.

The use of codification for select special names in the new testament, and particularly the name of "Jesus" is in the evidence available to us, and needs to be dealt with by any theory which attempts to explain the ancient history of this epoch.

I know this hypothesis has been around for some time. The arguments are essentially the same as those theists who argue that God exists unless you prove otherwise.

The hypothesis has been framed within the field of ancient history and is bound by the evidence admissible to this field. It has absolutely nothing -- i repeat nothing - to do with the theology. Essentially it may be classified as a theory of the Historical Revisionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

Within historiography (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Historiography), that is part of the academic field of history (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/History), historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. The revisionist assumes the interpretation of a historical event or period, as accepted by the majority of scholars, needs significant change.

The theory is based on all the available evidence, both new and ancient, related to the question of "Early Christian Origins".

The forgery you are proposing has no evidence what so ever. It's conspiracy theory at best.

Eusebius has been cited as the forger of the Testimonium Flavianum, the entry into the 1st century Jewish history of Josephus.
See the article entitled Eusebius Forged the TF (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_008.htm) by Ken Olsen.
Eusebius is also often cited as the forger of the letter exchange between Jesus himself and the Edessan King Agbar.

"[the fourth century was] the great age of literary forgery,
the extent of which has yet to be exposed"

...[and]...

"not until the mass of inventions
labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians
in Pagan writers of the first three centuries
be recognized for the forgeries they are."

Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins"

Your ask for C14 dating doesn't hold as carbon dating can't pinpoint the exact date as your theory requires.

Have a look at the three graphs in the earlier post. These are centered very close to the Council of Nicaea, centered on 319 CE plus or minus 42 years. This is what the physics analysis tells us about the two new testament related manuscripts which have been C14 dated

Your theory requires that carbon dating must get the date correct date by a matter of several years. But it can't,

The date range tolerance for C14 dates from the 4th century have an error band of plus or minus 60 years. This is sufficient for the theory to use. You cannot successfully argue against the C14 radio carbon dating analyses. Well, you can, but you are going to have an uphill battle.

that is why paleography, though not fool-proof, is required to fill in the gaps.

But the paleographers are simply following the traditional dating which has been assumed on the basis
that the church historian Eusebius is telling us the historical truth. This is far from certain.

Good luck at convincing the scholars, you'll need it.

Thank you. But someone has to be the first to stand up and say that the Emperor Constantine is wearing no clothes on the basis of the evidence. Of course the theory cuts across the grain of long standing tradition, however just because it is a new perspective does not automatically imply that it is wrong. See above - "Historical Revisionism".

By the way, I'd like to apply this logic to other ancient historical figures. I wonder how Julius Ceaser would fair, for example?

See for example The Rubicon Analogy (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/rubicon.html) by Richard Carrier.

Kookaburra Jack

7th May 2010, 10:47 PM

Thesis (1): The "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" were authored after Nicaea (325 CE)
Thesis (2): Arius of Alexandria may have been the author of these.

Thesis (3): Constantine ordered for the fabrication the New Testament in 312 CE
(in preparation for his absolute military supremacy in the Roman Empire )

For what its worth, I have revised the theory somewhat in order to approach the ancient history of the orthodox christians last by firstly examining the history of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" (these have the C14 citations attached to them), and arguing from first principles that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were all authored after the Council of Nicaea as a reaction to the publication and Constantinian support of the new testament canon.

The article is entitled - Arius Satirized Constantine's Jesus.
Here is the abstract:

The books of the New Testament Apocrypha (NTA) -- also referred to as "The Gnostic Gospels and Acts" -- are currently postulated to have been authored continuously by Christians ‘out of love for the authors and/or books’ of the New Testament Canon (NTC) across the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and perhaps 5th centuries. It is argued that the core series of books of the NTA was largely authored as a political reaction to the “Constantine Codex” between the years of 325 and 336 CE by a non-Christian - Arius of Alexandria. Constantine is sketched as a supreme imperial fascist. Arius is sketched as a Greek Gnostic priest, perhaps one of the therapeutae of Asclepius, whose temples and shrines Constantine had utterly destroyed c.324 CE. Arius as an anti-Christian satirist was so good at his business that the preservation of his books was not only prohibited by the death penalty but was reinforced by Constantine’s pronouncement of “damnatio memoriae” both upon his name and his living memory. Later Christian heresiologists harmonized Arius’ utterly controversial satirical literary reception to Constantine’s NTC and fabricated a “twisted” Hollywood history in which the academic Greek priest appears as one of the cast of “Constantine’s many readily available Christian Bishops”. Arius’ dogmatic sophisms such as “Jesus was made from nothing existing” suggest that the 4th century Arian controversy was not over the theology of Jesus but over the historicity of Jesus.

If you (or anyone else in this forum is interested in browsing this article) please feel free to contact me via email.

It is not a "Conspiracy Theory" since Constantine had ABSOLUTE MILITARY POWER

Constantine had absolute and supreme power over the empire, and held the role of Pontifex Maximus. This theory therefore, in respect of the forgery by Constantine, does not require any conspirators. Constantine was "The Boss". Its really quite simple. The conspiracy came later in the 4th and 5th century when the Christian Orthodoxy successfully destroyed all evidence that Constantine had done a number on the empire.

A Conjectural Revisionist History of the "Gnostics"
as non christian Greeks c.324/325 CE in the Eastern Empire

IMO the evidence suggests that the only thing standing between the Gnostics simply being the last voice of the ancient non christian Greek "Academy of Plato" and the lineage of Greek "Religious slash Philosophical slash Metaphysical slash Mathematical slash Medical Knowledge" is the asserted indisputable authority of the first Christian historian Eusebius, in whom we trust with "historical matters" relating to both the pious and holy faithful and the vile and unbelieving heretics.

The authority behind the encoding of the name of the imperially favored god of the Roman Empire sounds like something which would fall under the role of the Pontifex Maximus. If the Emperor was within his rights to sponsor any god of his own personal choosing in the Roman empire, then the empire was bound by law to go along with the emperor.

We may still allow Eusebius to be an authority
of the history of the pious and holy faithful
while at the same time rejecting Eusebius as an authority
of the history of the vile and unbelieving heretics.

I conjecture that the non christian Greeks particularly of the Eastern empire were thus lawfully bound to the "Pontifex Maximus" and to recast their wisdom in the name of the new and lawful imperially sponsored god, and they did, by authoring the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" in which an "Historical Jesus_Code" is featured in various books devoted to the "Travels of the Apostles of the Historical Jesus Code".

The Gnostics as non christian educated Greeks authored the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels" in the 4th century as a reaction to the Nicaean manifesto of Constantine by which the newly sponsored and codified textual god was to be granted "the same essence status" (and not just a "similar essence status") as the Greek conception of divinity, which at its highest expression in Plotinus via Porphyry was nondual and which had been sponsored (via temples & coinage) in turn by all the Roman Emperors until Constantine suddenly appeared.

The above conjecture is reasonably successful in attempts to account for all the evidence available in the first 4 or 5 centuries, and particularly the newly entered evidence in the field of "Early Christian Literature", namely the C14 radio carbon dating citations discussed above.

This revisionist theory of history also provides a very simple profane political explanation for the cause and the nature of the following four 4th and 5th century "controversies" ....

1) The Arian controversy
2) The Origenist controversy
3) The Nestorian Controversy
4) The Controversy over Emperor Julian's "INVECTIVES Against the Christians".

Biblical Historian

7th May 2010, 11:57 PM

Barnabas' epistle was created after the 3rd century. Someone was so clever to forge a letter that states that IH is in reference to Jesus so as to trick people in believing that IH means Jesus when it doesn't?

Every manuscript that survives is dated after the time of Constantine but paleographers don't know their stuff! Paleographers are so blinded that they got the date of every survivng manuscript wrong, and they still don't get it!

1) they are all from codex technology (which boomed in the 4th century after Constantine) and not scrolls

Christians did not invent the codex. It existed before Christians made use of it. Christians popularised it.
2) Oxyrhynchus had a massive population explosion in the mid 4th century.

So what! No one disagrees. Christianity still existed before this time.

3) many fragments are non canonical. This implies the unlikely event that the orthodox christians AND the "Gnostic Heretics" were using the same rubbish dumps at this city.

and....

4) the handwriting is 4th century.

This is so simplistic it is laughable. What about content, language, grammar? What about margins, lines, writing in verso, recto, understanding the difference between scripts such Hadrianic script which is strongly second century and that of P52. You do realise there were Christian scrolls also, eventhough a small amount. Check the Leuven database.

So the original gospels of Matt, Mark, Luke and John were dated when? What about Paul's letters? Possible date of originals please?
If Christianity was united under Constantine how does one account for variants and hundreds of different sects?

Who was Marcion? What was the Diatessaron? The list goes on.

Thank you. But someone has to be the first to stand up and say that the Emperor Constantine is wearing no clothes on the basis of the evidence. Of course the theory cuts across the grain of long standing tradition, however just because it is a new perspective does not automatically imply that it is wrong. See above - "Historical Revisionism".

Such ground breaking news and scholars don't want to accept. Scholars I know would love to get the big story and make a name for themselves. If you have something so profound to say, don't tell it to us, submit a thesis proposal, get your phd on this subect matter and tell the world.

Request to move this thread to Fantasy Island

Biblical Historian

8th May 2010, 07:45 AM

This is so simplistic it is laughable. What about content, language, grammar? What about margins, lines, writing in verso, recto, understanding the difference between scripts such Hadrianic script which is strongly second century and that of P52. You do realise there were Christian scrolls also, eventhough a small amount. Check the Leuven database.

So the original gospels of Matt, Mark, Luke and John were dated when? What about Paul's letters? Possible date of originals please?
If Christianity was united under Constantine how does one account for variants and hundreds of different sects?

Who was Marcion? What was the Diatessaron? The list goes on.

Oh yes, did I also forget to mention papyri written in koine Greek, as well as the use of papyri, not parchment, all after the fourth century!!! Incredible!!!

Those unreliable paleographers blinded by beleiving in Eusebius' testimony! I'd say that's an insult to those paleographical scholars integrity.

Kookaburra Jack

8th May 2010, 09:18 AM

Barnabas' epistle was created after the 3rd century. Someone was so clever to forge a letter that states that IH is in reference to Jesus so as to trick people in believing that IH means Jesus when it doesn't?

Forgery is manifest liberally in Historia Augusta (http://www.livius.org/hi-hn/ha/hist_aug.html) which is described as "something like an ancient mockumentary". It has oodles of false dates, fabricated letters and false historical references. Scholars state that this forgery was accomplished by a collegiate group of "scriptores" possibly in the time of Constantine. We know that Eusebius had control of his own scriptorium, in which he produced his Historia Ecclesiastica and also the 50 copies of the Constantine Bible. Did this same scriptorium of Eusebius also produce the "Historia Augusta"?

Christians did not invent the codex. It existed before Christians made use of it. Christians popularised it.

The evidence in our possession suggests very strongly that Constantine popularised it. He who controls the technology of the epoch controls the dreams of the future generations.

2) Oxyrhynchus had a massive population explosion in the mid 4th century

So what! No one disagrees.

The rubbish dumps of Oxyrynchus will therefore obviously be reflected by a massive influx in the mid 4th century. The likelihood of finding rubbish (ie: papyri fragments) prior to the 4th century is wishful thinking. The fact that both "Orthodox Christians" and "Gnostic Heretics" used the same rubbish dumpts at Oxyrynchus has not yet been explained. Can you explain this?

This is so simplistic it is laughable. What about content, language, grammar? What about margins, lines, writing in verso, recto, understanding the difference between scripts such Hadrianic script which is strongly second century and that of P52.

My argument is that the forgery undertaken by Constantine was performed -- naturally enough -- in the Hadrian script in order to provide the superficial appearance of "ancient documents" from the time of Hadrian, who was known to have collected the letters and books of a great number of philosophers, such as those of Apollonius of Tyana.

So the original gospels of Matt, Mark, Luke and John were dated when? What about Paul's letters? Possible date of originals please?

IMO these were produced under the sponsorship of Constantine in the scriptorium of Eusebius between the years of 312 and 324 CE.

If Christianity was united under Constantine how does one account for variants and hundreds of different sects?

Constantine invented a new cult which was his right as "Pontifex Maximus" and the empire was then left to come to terms with this fabrication. He personally appointed his own "Bishops". He considered himself to be "The Bishop of Bishops". Constantine also saw himself as the 13th Apostle.

Who was Marcion?

Another invention of Eusebius.

What was the Diatessaron? The list goes on.

Supreme and absolute military power corrupts ABSOLUTELY (See Lord Acton's comments please).
Constantine was trying to get rid of the Graeco-Roman religions.
He wanted their gold to pay his mercanery barbarian army.
He therefore fabricated a non Greek God in the form of Jesus.
He was then justified in plundering the Hellenic temples.
Which he did with great gusto from 324 CE onwards.
The Christian emperors of the 4th and 5th century followed his lead.
Business was business and power was power.
He invented the "Christian Church Business" which was very very lucrative.
Tax exempt Bishops were attractive in an age of massive taxation.
Constantine had to legislate against clever pagans flooding the ranks of his bishops.
See Extracts from the Codex Theodosianus (313 to 453 CE) (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/codex_theodosianus.htm): English translations of much of Book 16

Such ground breaking news and scholars don't want to accept. Scholars I know would love to get the big story and make a name for themselves. If you have something so profound to say, don't tell it to us, submit a thesis proposal, get your phd on this subect matter and tell the world.

You have not mentioned anything about "The Gnostic Gospels and Acts".
What do we find at Nag Hammadi?

The Interpretation of Knowledge (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/intpr.html): NHC 11.1

Text commences ... (13 lines missing) ...

they came to believe by means of signs and wonders and fabrications. The likeness that came to be through them followed him, but through reproaches and humiliations before they received the apprehension of a vision they fled without having heard that the Christ had been crucified. But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive. .

Further section is cited ...

And he was crucified and he died - not his own death,
for he did not at all deserve to die because of the church of mortals.
And he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church.

Why was the generation of the Pachomian monastery fleeing?
Why did they think that the Christ was not alive?
Why did they state Jesus was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church

Request to move this thread to Fantasy Island

The New Testament was first lavishly and widely published by Constantine in the 4th century at which time he created the State Roman Church from his position as a supreme imperial militaristic despot. This state of affairs is relatively undisputed. Precedents existed in history for the creation of centralised state monotheistic religions by military supremacists. See for example an artilc entitled Ardashir and Constantine (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_009.htm): Creation of centralised State Monotheistic Religions in antiquity.

But at no time then -- or since -- has any opportunity been given to the objective (historical) assessment of the authenticity of his "publication". The Church has been in control up until the late 20th century. The "history" of the church established by Constantine has not been adequately questioned. This is all I am doing - questioning the ancient historical evidence of the "Roman State Church" and whether it is in fact authentic. Am I permitted to do this? Is this illegal?

Did the Index Librorum Prohibitorum commence in the fourth century? (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Librorum_Prohibitorum.htm): Most sources maintain that the "List of Forbidden Books" were published by the Papacy from the fifteenth century, however there are a number of documentary sources which themselves suggest that Constantine and Eusebius already had a catalogue of books which were "forbidden under punishment of death". We find out in the next century that some of these books had been authored by the son of the devil. These needed special treatment by the orthodoxy.

Biblical Historian

8th May 2010, 03:04 PM

Forgery is manifest liberally in Historia Augusta (http://www.livius.org/hi-hn/ha/hist_aug.html) which is described as "something like an ancient mockumentary".

Your use of the idea of forgery is not based upon analysis of the manuscript themselves but based upon a theory that there was no Christianity therefore all must be forgery. Poor use. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Constantine legalised Christianity, he didn't create it.

The rubbish dumps of Oxyrynchus will therefore obviously be reflected by a massive influx in the mid 4th century. The likelihood of finding rubbish (ie: papyri fragments) prior to the 4th century is wishful thinking. The fact that both "Orthodox Christians" and "Gnostic Heretics" used the same rubbish dumpts at Oxyrynchus has not yet been explained. Can you explain this?"

Oxyrynchus does not tell us the date of when the manuscripts within the find were written or written by whom. Non-Christian literature was also found in the finds. Christians kept literature that were diverse, especially by groups that were open to various ideas. There were two types of churches in Egypt, the one controlled by Bishops, the other by the remaining lay community, who were even more so superstitious.

My argument is that the forgery undertaken by Constantine was performed -- naturally enough -- in the Hadrian script in order to provide the superficial appearance of "ancient documents" from the time of Hadrian, who was known to have collected the letters and books of a great number of philosophers, such as those of Apollonius of Tyana."

And Constantine created names like Marcion, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc, events, even heresies against his ideas to show the growth of Christianity in the first 3 centuries, even competing beliefs. The absurdity of this is overwhelming!

Re: Eusebius.

Again, as you do with your misuse of forgery, you do with Eusebius. You don't like Eusebius, so you say he created everything that doesn’t sit with your theory. A more interaction with the principles of textual criticism is needed.

You have not mentioned anything about "The Gnostic Gospels and Acts".
What do we find at Nag Hammadi?

The Interpretation of Knowledge (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/intpr.html): NHC 11.1
Why was the generation of the Pachomian monastery fleeing?
Why did they think that the Christ was not alive?
Why did they state Jesus was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church

Diversity of Christian beliefs existed within the first three centuries. The Interpretation of knowledge was likely written for both “orthodox” and “Gnostic” Christians who possibly were a part of the same community. This was normal. It was only with the hierarchical class, that church led by bishops which wanted a divide, likely a power thing. The letter tells us about a tension regarding spiritual gifts, similar to what we find in 1 Cor. Many of the Nag Hammadi literature is about how the “orthodox” can live side by side with the “Gnostics.” By the way, don’t get too caught up in distinctions between Gnostic and orthodox. These are more modern distinctions. ALL within the Christian congregations thought themselves as Christians. Gnostics didn’t think of themselves as gnostics, they thought they were “orthodox” (with the right belief).

The literature in the Pachmonian library is suggested to have been given to the monastery as a gift by wealthy people entering the order. This explains the non-Christian texts. The more excellent type of biblical texts, such as P66 and P75 alongside the other literature indicate that the texts came from various different locations. Also, style, grammar, content, etc, indicates that the texts were originally written in different periods. The hiding of the texts suggests that the community, a Monophysite order, after Chalcedon, were threatened.

The literature, tells us the diversity of the Christian community. The passages you quote need to be understood within the community’s perceived theology.

The biggest flaw I see is no signs in your argument that deals with textual criticism. In other words, it is one thing to say a passage is forged, but it is poor to say that it is forged because it does not fit my theory. Rather, signs of forgery should be seen within the text. Principles of textual criticism should be applied. At the moment much of it is theory, then getting facts to fit that theory. Just because forgery existed, does not mean all is forged. It doesn’t work that way.

Anyhow, your total disregard of paleography and its principles, with no treatment of text on text-critical grounds so as to prove forgery within (must be proven on text-critical grounds), will never get this discussion going forward. Sorry, but I'm sticking with the paeleographers. There were Christians in the first 3 centuries, prior to Constantine and regardless what Eusebius said, and yes there was a man, only a man, Jesus (IHS).

Kookaburra Jack

9th May 2010, 10:49 AM

Your use of the idea of forgery is not based upon analysis of the manuscript themselves but based upon a theory that there was no Christianity therefore all must be forgery. Poor use. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

The hypothesis that there may not have been a "Nation of Christians" (to use the term which Eusebius may have interpolated into the Jewish Histories of the 1st century historian Josephus) prior to the rise of the warlord Constantine is based upon the scientific and reasonable analysis of the evidence itself.

On the one hand we have the assertions of the "History" presented by Eusebius, which may well have been sponsored by the "Pontifex Maximus" himself. On the other hand we have the manscript traditions, the archaeological field traditions and the support traditions such as paleography and C14 radio carbon dating.

Constantine legalised Christianity, he didn't create it.

From a perspective somewhere in the field of ancient history it may be successfully argued that Constantine created the centralised state monotheistic religion called Christinianity in almost the same manner that 100 years before the Persian Warlord Ardashir created the centralised monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism.

Here is the Cambridge Ancient History
Volume XII
The Imperial Crisis and Recovery (193 to 324 CE)
Chapter 5: SASSANID PERSIA
The Sassanian Empire: Political History

p.109
Ardashir creates Zoroastrianism (c.224 CE)
In the third century the Persian "King of Kings"
Ardashir created a new State monotheistic religion
which he actively promoted, organized, supported and
protected, by legislation. He guaranteed its orthodoxy
by the sword. It was characterised by a strong
centralised power structure, centered on the King and
his appointed Magi (ie: academic temple priests, and
their chiefs)

A gifted researcher and high cleric of this religion
in the tradition named Tansar was ordered to gather
the scattered "Avesta" of the Mazdeans from ancient
sources, and to edit these in order to reproduce an
authorised and canonical version of the "Avesta",
the holy writ of Zoroastrianism. Finally the Sassanid
state monotheistic church was characterised by widespread
architectural replication of square fire-temples for
the official religion throughout the major cities and
provinces of the Sassanid Persian empire. This was a
novel step.

Epigraphic and monumental evidence suggests the pre-
existence of the earlier religion of the Mazdeans in
the epoch of the Parthian civilisation.
We may paraphrase this entire section above to describe the actions of the warlord Constantine one hundred years later ....
Constantine creates Christianity (c.325 CE)

In the fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine
created a State monotheistic religion which he
actively promoted, organized, supported and protected,
by legislation and by the army. He guaranteed its
orthodoxy by the sword. It was characterised by a
strong centralised power structure, centered on the
emperor (, his army) and his appointed bishops.

A gifted researcher and high cleric of this religion
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea was ordered to gather
the scattered books of both the Hebrews and the
Christians from ancient sources, and to edit these in
order to reproduce an authorised and canonical
version. A history of the new state religion prior to
the age of Constantine is now known to have been
assembled by Eusebius during the years 312 to 324 CE.

Finally the state church was characterised by the
widespread architectural replication of basilicas
throughout the major cities and provinces of the
empire. All these were by no means novel steps
as should be clear from the above.

However .... epigraphic and monumental evidence
has as yet NOT BEEN DISCOVERED which suggests the
pre-existence of the earlier religion of the Christians
the epoch of the Pre-Nicaean civilisation.[/b]
On the basis of this reason suggests we should keep
an open mind about things ... [/b]

I am sorry about the bold formatting below.
I do not seem to be able to switch it off ...

Oxyrynchus does not tell us the date of when the manuscripts within the find were written or written by whom.

The common sense archaeological approach is to follow the dating suggested by the population demographics of that Egyptian city,[/b]
which exploded to a peak in the mid 4th century. The christian
paleographic approach however would like to find in these rubbish
tips some evidence which is older than the 4th century, because
there is a manifest absence of epigraphic and monumental evidence
to support the traditional notion about "Early Christians".

And Constantine created names like Marcion, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc, events, even heresies against his ideas to show the growth of Christianity in the first 3 centuries, even competing beliefs. The absurdity of this is overwhelming!

You must have missed this bit in reading about the Historia Augusta (http://www.livius.org/hi-hn/ha/hist_aug.html)

Among the many games that are played in the Historia Augusta is the invention of no less than 130 fake documents, most charmingly introduced in the introduction of the Life of Aurelian. Fake sources were not a new practice (cf. the invented letters in Plutarch's Life of Alexander). What is new, however, is that the author the Historia Augusta invents sources to disagree with them.

The author of the "Historia Augusta" is thus perceived by historians to be inventing fake sources to disagree with fake sources. This modus operandi has also been mooted for Eusebius's authorship of the "Historia Ecclesiastica" -- the only history of the Christian Church before 325 CE.

Again, as you do with your misuse of forgery, you do with Eusebius. You don't like Eusebius, so you say he created everything that doesn’t sit with your theory. A more interaction with the principles of textual criticism is needed.

The large part of history is pretty ugly and alot of people dont want to face that. I have given you a text of the emperor Julian in which he plainly states that he is about to outline "the reasons by which he was convinced that the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness". Try criticising that text.

Diversity of Christian beliefs existed within the first three centuries.

So the history of Eusebius asserts.
And so our historical traditions have been framed.
But the evidence does not seem to be playing the same game.

The literature in the Pachmonian library is suggested to have been given to the monastery as a gift by wealthy people entering the order. This explains the non-Christian texts. ...... The literature, tells us the diversity of the Christian community. The passages you quote need to be understood within the community’s perceived theology.

The literature has been hitherto assumed to be written by "Christians" because some of the almost 50 distinct stories contained within the 12 or 13 books found at Nag Hammadi make reference to the apostles mentioned in the new testament, and use a standard coptic nomina sacra which is being translated as "Jesus", but alternatively may be translated as "The Healer" - a title rather than a name.

Just because forgery existed, does not mean all is forged. It doesn’t work that way.

As far as ancient historians are concerned, as referenced above, the "Historia Augusta" is a lavish forgery. My question would be "Was it actually produced under sponsorship of Constantine by Eusebius?" And what if the "Historia Ecclesiastica" is the same genre?

There were Christians in the first 3 centuries, prior to Constantine and regardless what Eusebius said, and yes there was a man, only a man, Jesus (IHS).

But did he actually exist or was he some kind of literary fiction?
Constantine published his story and created his state church but did he exist?
The propaganda published under Constantine asserts he did exist.
But can we reasonably believe this propaganda and dogma without questioning it?

Moreover because, at this very precise point in history, when the story of Jesus and the New Testament is first widely published to the Greeks, and the Greek temples are torn down, and the Greek priests are harrassed and in some cases executed, what was the reaction of the populace to the story of Jesus?

What is recorded about the press reception when all was revealed at Nicaea?

[B]AN UTTERLY CONTRAVERSIAL RECEPTION

These are the words recorded in the earliest Nicean creeds:
There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change.

Kookaburra Jack

9th May 2010, 11:27 AM

Science and reason and not "Textual Criticism" it is suggested should be our guides in the interpretation of the ancient historical evidence as to whether "Harry Potter", "Bilbo Baggins" and/or "The Historical Jesus" actually existed on earth.

The 4th century "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" as a reaction to the
publication of the New Testament Gospels and Acts c.325 CE

The "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" were still being authored in the 4th century after the Council of Nicaea. It is only because of the story of Eusebius, in his role as Chief Heresiologist that we think some of the Gnostic Gospels of Acts (of which some are represented at Nag Hammadi) were authored before the council of Nicaea.

Here is list of "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" which are known to have been authored in the 4th century (or even later possibly) after Nicaea. "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" authored after the year 325 CE

The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of the Martyrs
The Death of Pilate
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Acts of Polyeuctes
The Gospel of Gamaliel
The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles
The Acts of Pilate
The Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The Acts of Philip
The Acts of Simon and Jude
The Acts of Luke
The History of John
The Acts of Mark
The Act of Peter
The Acts of Bartholomew
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
The Gospel of Thomas - A 5th Century Compilation
The Acts of Barnabas
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Acts of Timothy
The Acts of Titus
The Acts of Matthew
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Apocryphon of James
The Apocryphon of John
The Revelation of Peter
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of James - First
The Apocalypse of James - Second
The Apocalypse of Paul - and fragments
The Apocalypse of Peter - and fragments (*R)
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
Community Rule
John the Evangelist
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Consummation of Thomas
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Report of Pilate to the emperor Claudius
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Sophia of Jesus Christ

SOURCE:

These stories were forbidden to be read. Why?
They were the subject of searches by the army. Why?
They were described as being authored by the disciples of the devil. Why?
They were hot property. Why?
They got buried. Why?

What are they politically if not a chronological literary reaction
to the Constantine publication of the Canonical New Testament Gospels and Acts?

Here is a collation (modern and historical) academic comment upon the nature of these stories as a group."Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"[April Deconick]

"insipid and puerile amplifications" [Ernest Renan]

"excluded by their later and radical light" [John Dominic Crossan]

"severely conditoned responses to Jesus ... usually these authors deny his humanity" [Robert M. Grant]

"they exclude themselves" [M.R. James]

"The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history" [Bart Ehrman]

"The Leucian Acts are Hellenistic romances, which were written to appeal to the masses" [Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard]

"The key point ... [NT Apocrypha] have all been long ago considered and rejected by the Church.

"The names of apostles ... were used by obscure writers to palm off their productions; partly to embellish and add to ... partly to invent ... partly to support false doctrines; decidedly pernicious, ... nevertheless contain much that is interesting and curious ... they were given a place which they did not deserve." [Tischendorf]

"Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"[April Deconick]

"heretics ... who were chiefly Gnostics ... imitated the books of the New Testament" [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

"enterprising spirits ... pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity." "the heretical apocryphists, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

"the fabrication of spurious Acts of the Apostles was, in general, to give Apostolic support to heretical systems, especially those of the many sects which are comprised under the term Gnosticism. The Gnostic Acts of Peter, Andrew, John, Thomas, and perhaps Matthew, abound in extravagant and highly coloured marvels, and were interspersed by long pretended discourses of the Apostles which served as vehicles for the Gnostic predications. The originally Gnostic apocryphal Acts were gathered into collections which bore the name of the periodoi (Circuits) or praxeis (Acts) of the Apostles, and to which was attached the name of a Leucius Charinus, who may have formed the compilation." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

Biblical Historian

9th May 2010, 05:51 PM

Science and reason and not "Textual Criticism" it is suggested should be our guides in the interpretation of the ancient historical evidence as to whether "Harry Potter", "Bilbo Baggins" and/or "The Historical Jesus" actually existed on earth.

I think that says it all. You obviously have no idea and appreciation as to what textual criticism is. If you do not think it is a science, then your approach is even less than that.

I'm now betting your hypothesis was made without the consultation of the manuscripts you cite in their original language. You probably used someone else's translation. On top of that I'm wondering if you even consulted photocopies of the manuscripts themselves, including the work of the editors. It is understandable that the originals would have been next to impossible to consult, it is reserved for the scholars, but as your hypothesis is so profound, it would require a consultation of the originals. Lacking this, then, your approach would be less than scientific. A scientific theory about the manuscripts without consulting the manuscripts themselves? Please tell me I'm wrong!!!

Kookaburra Jack

10th May 2010, 10:19 AM

I think that says it all. You obviously have no idea and appreciation as to what textual criticism is. If you do not think it is a science, then your approach is even less than that.

Textual Criticism (http://www.bible-researcher.com/causes.html) has already identified many categories of intentional alteration
to the text of the New Testament in its transmission from an as yet unknown century.

Forgery of manuscripts and the study of the identification of forgeries,
and the implication of pious forgeries are all issues that are quite capably
addressable within the doman of the field of ancient history.

In my approach I am attempting to follow an ancient historian
who is arguably regarded as the foremost of the ancient historians
of the 20th century. He has some pretty straightforward
and simple advice for the general public at large.

Momigliano used irony quite heavily.

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method

p.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

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'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

Biblical Historian

10th May 2010, 12:48 PM

I know exactly what textual criticism has claimed. I do not disagree. Your position goes further than what any textual critic will say. That is not surprising since you show no signs of being able to deal with the manuscripts themselves. You show no signs of understanding the language of the documents and you show no signs of being able to apply principles of textual and even paleography which one would expect be essential for your position.

You seem to not realise that leading scholars do not take Eusebius at face value. In that regards your argument is a straw man argument. Rather than spending time creating an elaborate website to promote your theory and developing a theory that comes from a misuse of data, you would have done better to actually learn how to analyse the documents themselves and learn the principles of textual criticism and paleography and how to apply them.

Your use of data shows you are of the same school as Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code) and Michael Baigent (The Jesus Papers).

And for the record, my current research is on the editorial revision of Papyrus Bodmer XIV and XV. Yes, that is right, I am analysing and working out what is forgery in these manuscripts and how the forgery within have made their way into our current biblical editions. And yes, I am currently using photographs of the manuscript I am analysing and hope to to be sent to Rome in a couple of years to look at the originals.

So rather than picking and choosing what suits you and explaining away what doesn't I suggest you learn how real historical research is done.

Kookaburra Jack

10th May 2010, 09:10 PM

I know exactly what textual criticism has claimed. I do not disagree. Your position goes further than what any textual critic will say.

That is because I have not framed my position with respect to the field of textual criticism but with respect to the wider field of ancient history.

That is not surprising since you show no signs of being able to deal with the manuscripts themselves.

(1) Who authored the new testament canon and in which century?
(2) Who authored the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and in which century?
What do the mainstream theories offer for an answer to these questions?

(1) unknown authors in an unknown century, most likely not the first.
(2) unknown authors during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th, perhaps 5th centuries.

This does not represent an illuminating position.
At least I am offering alternative theoretical answers to these questions.

You show no signs of understanding the language of the documents

The Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Latin and Arabic sources have been translated to English by various competent translators and I reject your continued assertion that one must be able to read fluently all these original languages in order to study these documents in the context of the field of ancient history. It helps, I wont argue with that. But your insinuation that these pre-existent English translations of all the source documents are inadequate for the study of their ancient history is misguided.

and you show no signs of being able to apply principles of textual and even paleography which one would expect be essential for your position.

The logic of the situation is that textual criticism and paleography
are subsets of the field of ancient history and not the other way around.

You seem to not realise that leading scholars do not take Eusebius at face value. In that regards your argument is a straw man argument.

Leading scholars step very lightly around Eusebius since Eusebius is the only source any scholar has ever had, and has today, and will ever have in regard to the hypothetical history of the "Tribe of Christians" prior to the rise of "The Boss" Constantine. No other account exists. Its Eusebius or nothing. I am simply exploring the nothing option, firstly with respect to the noncanonical texts.

On the one Eusebius as the orthodox "historical researcher" is used to define the chronology of the history of the books of the new testament canon. On the other hand Eusebius as the Chief Christian Heresiologist is also being used to define the chronology of the history of the books of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

This state of affairs is ludicrous.
Its like a massive conflict of interests.

Rather than spending time creating an elaborate website to promote your theory and developing a theory that comes from a misuse of data, you would have done better to actually learn how to analyse the documents themselves and learn the principles of textual criticism and paleography and how to apply them.

The website is just gathered-together research notes.

Your use of data shows you are of the same school as Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code) and Michael Baigent (The Jesus Papers).

What about Monty Python?
What did you think of "Life of Brian"?

Some questions about very strange events in the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"

Do you realise Jesus drove a water taxi with two angels in the back, to and from the Land of the Cannibals in "The Acts of Andrew and Matthew"?
Do you understand how Peter fitted a camel through the eye of a needle in "The Acts of Peter and Andrew"?
Why did a Christian Angel tie the Jew Annanias by his big toes to the mast-head of a boat in a gale in the Syriac "Acts of Philip"?
Why did Jesus sell the disciple Thomas as a slave in the markets to an Indian merchant in "The Acts of Thomas"?
Why does Pilate tells the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of the Graeco-Roman Healing God Asclepius (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Therapeutae_of_Asclepius.htm) in the "Acts of Pilate"?
How peeved was Peter in getting passed over for Mary in "The Gospel of Mary"?
Why does the Syriac "History of John" commence with the declaration --- "This history was composed by Eusebius of Cæsarea"
How was the Cross able to walk and talk in "The Gospel of Peter"?
What type of malevolent trickster wizard was Jesus in the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas"?
Does the author of "The Acts of Paul (and Thecla)" used Aesop's Fables to compare Paul to a mouse who saves a talking lion?
How is it that Jesus does not leave any footprints in the sand, and cant be touched by his disciple in "The Acts of John"?
Exactly where did Jesus often kiss Mary in "The Gospel of Philip"?

How does one answer these questions using textual criticism?
Be my guest .....................

And for the record, my current research is on the editorial revision of Papyrus Bodmer XIV and XV. Yes, that is right, I am analysing and working out what is forgery in these manuscripts and how the forgery within have made their way into our current biblical editions. And yes, I am currently using photographs of the manuscript I am analysing and hope to to be sent to Rome in a couple of years to look at the originals.

Ask Ratzinger why, if the Vatican publicised in 1966 that it was to discontinue publication of that horribly offensive list of "Forbidden Books" (Index Librorum Prohibitorum) then why has it now been continued from 1966 to 2010 via internet publications?

So rather than picking and choosing what suits you and explaining away what doesn't I suggest you learn how real historical research is done.

You have still not actually offered to bring to this discussion any evidence other than paleographical assessments which supports the currently assumed historical account that the christian religion existed prior to the rise of the Emperor Constantine. What evidence will you cite to justify your position. I suggest you learn how real historical research is done with respect to citable evidence.

Kookaburra Jack

11th May 2010, 10:38 AM

If someone offers a very different revisionist interpretation that is contrary from the learned majority, should we not expect this person to show evidence of working with the relevant data, so as to show evidence of a scientific approach, following the generally approved methodology established within the field.

See .... The Evidential Bearing Fields of Ancient History

I have meticulously examined the available ancient historical evidence. This article documents the epigraphic and papyri "relevant data" in question.

I do not claim, nor have ever claimed infallibility. I did not expect my research would last this long because I expected there to be at least a few unambiguous scientifically verifiable and authentic ancient historical citations by which the existence of either "Jesus" or "the New testament" or "The Christians" might be reasonably established. When I looked at the evidential citations being mentioned in the mainstream "Christian academic publications" -- one by one, one after the other -- it became slowly apparent that there are no concrete citations in the field of ancient history to support this "Pre-Nicaean (ie: before 325 CE) existence". If you (or anyone reading this) can cite something not covered, please post a reference.

So for example, if someone has something to say about ancient manuscripts that is radically contrary to the established scholarly opinion, should they at least show that they have dealt with the manuscripts (the data) itself? For if we don't, it will be easy for people to pick and choose so-called evidence that supports their position, while ignoring or explaining away the opinions of the majority of scholars, without a first-hand dealing of relevant data and therefore giving the impression of what they are saying is "science." I see many of the fields of "Science" as very contributory to the field of "Ancient History". C14 radio carbon dating, multi-spectral imaging, etc - there are many advances. I have in the past contributed to discussions in science and physics forums but here I have restricted myself to the field of ancient history of the first four or five centuries of the common era.

I say this to protect the integrity of science and reason.But I am not questioning or compromising the integrity of science and reason, I am simply from first principles using the tools of science and reason to question the integrity and authenticity of our current mainstream theories concerning the ancient history of the 4th century.

See for example, Vlas Rassias's Demolish Them!
Published in Greek, Athens 1994

Kookaburra Jack

12th May 2010, 12:25 PM

QUESTION: Why did non-Jewish men writing in Greek decide to create a story about a new god-man, a Jewish one at that, when clearly another god-man was not needed in Rome.?

ANSWER: GOLD and ABSOLUTE POWER

All the other god-men and god-women of the Graeco Roman Empire were decidedly Hellenistic. These god-men and god-women of the Graeco Roman Empire had attracted the sponsorship of all the Roman Emperors, under their role of "Pontifex Maximus" from the beginning of the Roman Empire. These god-men and god-women of the Graeco Roman Empire at the time of Constantine's rise to supreme and absolute military supremacy boasted most ancient and most highly revered temples and shrines which were ubiquitously scattered throughout the entire Roman empire.
Constantine decided to sponsor a Jewish God so that the god-men and god-women of the Graeco Roman Empire would be rightlfully perceived as redundant. With a Jewish god man, the god-men and god-women of the Graeco Roman Empire would not longer rightfully require their temples and shrines, they would no longer need their gold and silver and treasure and scupture and art works and all the associated literature associated with the god-men and god-women of the Graeco Roman Empire (See Nag Hammadi).
Cambridge Ancient History Volume 12
OFFICIAL RELIGION
p.412
Religion in the Roman Empire was governed by the princeps, as "Pontifex Maximus"
a member of all priestly colleges and responsible for all public morals and well being.

The following is evidenced by coins and temple foundations:

Roman Imperial Sponsorship of Graeco-Roman Religions until BULLNECK (ie: "The Boss" Constantine)

Claudius: magnified the cult of Cybele.
Gauis: in Rome introduced Osiris (and other Egyptian deities accepted in Italy)
Vespasian: favored Isis and Sarapis.
Domitian: was a benefactor of Isis, Minerva and Jupiter
Hadrian: built the temple of Venus and restored many temples in Rome.
Severan Dynasty: sponsored Bacchus, Hercules and Sarapis.
Illyrian Dynasty: were devoted to Vesta.
Aurelian: built the temple of Sol Invictus, celebrated 25th December and established priestly colleges.
Diocletian: supported Sol Invictus, Isis, Sarapis, Jupiter and Hercules.

The Jewish god man was a valuable asset to a Pontifex Maximus with the mentality of a gangster who was looking to make as much gold as possible in the shortest amount of time. It also guaranteed that Pontifex Maximus absolute control of the religious market in the Roman Empire. All that would be required was some sort of fabricated documents by which the semblance of authenticity might be mooted. The army could take care of any dissent and controversy over the fine details. See the Council of Nicaea.

Seamus

12th May 2010, 01:28 PM

Podo

12th May 2010, 03:12 PM

@Biblical Historian and Kookaburra Jack.

Thanks guys

Ive been following this thread with great interest. I'm learning a lot.

I appreciate your erudition,and am learning a lot. Please continue as long as you can.

I'm too far out of my depth to add anything useful.

What he said

I do have a question though, and I hope its not off topic.

If none of the gospels where actually written during the lifetime of jesus ( I could be wrong on that one as well) when was the first one written.. how long after his supposed death ?

Also, I thought the original texts where in hebrew,, not greek ?

Sorry, but Im out of my depth here. Im just trying to get a clear picture about when and where the main man first appears in any written form.. thus establishing the credentials of the whole story,, which is currently pretty low for me btw

RealityRules

12th May 2010, 04:54 PM

Kookaburra Jack

13th May 2010, 09:21 AM

What he said

I do have a question though, and I hope its not off topic.

If none of the gospels where actually written during the lifetime of jesus ( I could be wrong on that one as well) when was the first one written.. how long after his supposed death ?

This question has been debated since at least the 4th century and although there are exceptions with the "already converted" nobody seems satisfied with any of the conclusions. In my years of research I have found a number of external websites to have provided very valuable assistance, and have decided to collate these resources for the purpose of assisting others who may wish to check for themselves upon the relational nature of "What we think we know":

Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html): (Edited by Peter Kirby)
Provides estimated (mainstream) chronologies, English translations and academic commentary for most texts.

Development of the Canon (http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml): (Edited by Glenn Davis)
Provides useful index and inter-relationships between most texts, English translations and academic commentary.

The Blue Letter Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.org/): (English, Greek, Hebrew)
Provides useful search facilities within the text of the New Testament Canonical texts with Greek and Hebrew Lexicon

Christian Classics Etherial Library (http://www.ccel.org/): (CCEL)
Provides a vast collection of classical Christian writings, with search facilities and other references.

Early Church Fathers - Texts (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm): Edited by Roger Pearse
Provides a vast collection of Christian and Non Christian texts from antiquity, with search facilities and other references.

Biblical Criticism & History (http://www.freeratio.org/forumdisplay.php?f=60): BC&H (Freethought & Rationalism)
Provides one of the highest rated discussion forums for issues related to BC&H.

Also, I thought the original texts where in hebrew,, not greek ?

The "Hebrew Bible" was translated to Greek at some stage, the exact epoch again is debated. The Greek "Old Textament" is known as the LXX or Septuagint. Its history of transmission passes through a figure of the 3rd century called Origen.

The original texts of the New Testament (Canon) however have only ever been found in the earliest instances as preserved in Greek. See for example the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaticus, the Codex Alexandrinus, etc.

To complete the picture, many of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" which did not become "canonical" but rather "heretical" are found in the source languages of Coptic (a Greek Egyptian) and Syriac, as well as Greek and later Latin.

Sorry, but Im out of my depth here. Im just trying to get a clear picture about when and where the main man first appears in any written form.. thus establishing the credentials of the whole story,, which is currently pretty low for me btw

If you have a look at the standard mainstream chronologies at WIKI or in the resources above (the 1st in particular) you will see that the estimates range between the early first century to as late as the early second century. All these estimates are estimates only, based on centuries of following the received "Ecclesiastical History" of Eusebius of Caesarea.

Some think Paul wrote in the 1st century, while others such as the Dutch Radicals think that "Paul" was authored in the 2nd century. The range of nuanced opinions is quite diverse for all the various combinations of authorship for --- on the one hand the books of the NT canon, and on the other hand the books of the non canonical NT related "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

Hope this helps.

Kookaburra Jack

13th May 2010, 09:31 AM

Hi. This is my first post. I have lurked a bit, but this takes my fancy.

I am of the impression - due to reading in recent months - that there were many diverse beliefs in early Chrisitianity (first 3 centuries CE), as alluded to by Biblical Historian (#22, 8th May 2010, 05:04 PM), and many were centred on ghostly figures.

There were many gospel stories doing the rounds in early days, and , it is proposed what got selected as the synoptic gospels and the rest of the canon was what was most popular in the various communities, especially as they aligned to Olde Testament prophecies. McDonald, Lee M.*The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.
Patzia, Arthur.*The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP, 1995
According to Daniel Boyarin, in*A Radical Jew, Paul of Tarsus combined the stories of the life of Jesus with Greek philosophy to reinterpret the Hebrew Bible in terms of the Platonic theory of distinction between the ideal (which is real) and the material (which is false).

There are hundreds and thousands of opinions about these issues. No consensus appears to have been reached.
At an earlier post I made reference to a handful of resource websites which I have found useful in the exploration
of all these opinions. These resources include English translations of many of the source documents and ancient
histories by which certain theories of ancient history have been formulated.

It is important to separate out the history of the "Old Testament" and "New Testament",
and also within the New testament literature, to separate out the history of the NT canon
and the history of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". I wish anyone who contemplates the
review of all this data and opinions the best of luck in their research.

Moreover, the concept of the Trinity seems to be post-gospel due to Tertullian in late 3rd Century or early 4th C (say 280-310CE). This was timely fresh for the Council of Nicea, and used to suppress Arianism and the various other more-ghostly spiritual concepts that denied a real human messiah (as was probably the case).

I'd be keen on feed-back and elaboration.The concept of the trinity was not mentioned at the Council of Nicaea and becomes an issue after this momentous event. It is my opinion that the notion of the trinity was a Platonic notion which was popularised as recently as Plotinus, who deals with this in his Enneads (end of the 3rd century) as published by one of his twleve disciples, the academic Porphyry (wrote last in the very early 4th century).

See my notes on Plotinus. The following is sourced from the History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell - 1945

p.289

Chapter 30 - PLOTINUS (204-270 CE)
Plotinus (204-270 CE), the founder of Neoplatonism, is the last of the great philosophers of antiquity.
The metaphysics of Plotinus begins with a Holy Trinity: The One, Spirit and Soul.

These three are not equal, like the Persons of the Holy Trinity; the One is supreme, Spirit comes next, and Soul last.[2]

THE ONE is somewhat shadowy. It is sometimes called God, sometimes called the Good; it transcends Being.

THE NOUS "SPIRIT" - offspring/reflection of the ONE. includes mind - the intellect.

SOUL - offspring of the Divine Intellect. It is double: there is an inner soul, intent on NOUS, and another, which faces the external.My position is that the concepts relating to a "Holy Christian Trinity" were borrowed from the Greek Neoplatonic (including the Neopythagorean) authors such as Plotinus and Porphyry by the mid-fourth century "Christian Regime", and well after the Council of Nicaea. Your mention of Arius and the Arian controversy is very appropriate. Arius of Alexandria is a much maligned figure from the time of this Council and onwards.

At present I am reading "Arius: Heresy and Tradition" by Rowan Williams.
Arius appears to be heavily influenced by the philosophy of Plotinus.

RealityRules

13th May 2010, 02:27 PM

Podo

13th May 2010, 04:44 PM

Kookaburra Jack

14th May 2010, 12:17 PM

Cheers, Kookaburra Jack.

I might have been a century out for Tertullian[us] - he may have lived around 200CE, not 300CE.

I have found this""His most important work is the Apologeticum, in defense of the Christians. Running it close must be Adversus Praxean, in which the doctrine of the Trinity comes into clear focus for the first time, in response to a heretic who was twisting the biblical balance between the persons of the Godhead. In this work, he created most of the terminology with which this doctrine was to be referred (and is still), such as*Trinitas, etc14.* His discussion of how heretical arguments are in general to be handled in*De praescriptio haereticorum*also deserves wider recognition.

"Churchmen have not liked him - he is not easy reading for those who prefer compromise and ambiguity to truth, and of ecclesiasticism there is no trace in his works19. The rhetoric that impressed his contemporaries has been often laid hold of and twisted in misquotations by enemies of the Church20. He is often misquoted21*- and as a subtle and ironical writer, is easy to misquote.""
http://www.tertullian.org/readfirst.htm

I have made some notes on this supposed "historical figure and author" Tertullian, who is presented in the "packaging of Eusebius" as a Latin language author in Carthage, Africa.

Again, we need to be aware of the precedents being set in the academic evaluation of the 4th century compendium called "The Historia Augusta".

The dicussion of the idea of the "Trinity" does not become public, or is not debated in Greek - the language of the supposed "Church Fathers" as presented by Eusebius.

The WIKI article on the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity)

The New Testament (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/New_Testament) does not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. However, Southern Baptist (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Southern_Baptist) theologian Frank Stagg (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Frank_Stagg_%28theologian%29) emphasizes that the New Testament does repeatedly speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to "compel a trinitarian understanding of God."[7] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-Stagg-6) The doctrine developed from the biblical language used in New Testament passages such as the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Matthew%2028:19;&version=NIV;) and took substantially its present form by the end of the 4th century (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Christianity_in_the_4th_century) as a result of controversies in which some theologians, when speaking of God, used terms such as "person", "nature", "essence", "substance", terms that had never been used by the Apostolic Fathers (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers), in a way that the Church authorities considered to be erroneous.[6] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-ODCC-5)[8] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-7)[9] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-8)[10] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-9)

Some deny that the doctrine that developed in the fourth century was based on Christian ideas, and hold instead that it was a deviation from Early Christian (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Early_Christian) teaching on the nature of God[11] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-10) or even that it was borrowed from a pre-Christian conception of a divine trinity held by Plato (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Plato).[12] (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/#cite_note-11)

So again, there are a variety of opinions on this issue, and no conclusions. It is also perhaps expedient to state that there are a collection of documents purprted to have been authored by Tertullian which have been identified as forgeries. Hence caution in the drawing of early conclusions is warranted by those who have some semblance of skepticism.

I like the Arianus quotes in your footer (?signature) ;) . I understand the apocryphyl gospels and other early writings make lots of references to a mystical/ghostly messiah, so much that it seems that is the real story.My opinion on the chronology and the genre of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" is not the mainstream one. My hypothesis is that these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" were a reaction to the publication of the Constantine Codex --- that is the New Testament Canon. My arguments are directed towards the evidence and suggest that these manuscripts were authored after the Council of Nicaea by academic Greeks as a seditious back-lash against the authority of the new testament canon.

These "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" mimicked and copied the events in the NT canon, and are recombined in different permutations to be mixed with the platforming of Gnostic philosophy -- which is just Greek. The city of Alexandria was essentially ordered to become "Christian" in the year 324/325 CE and their temples were destroyed and their temple practices forbidden - prohibited - by order of Constantine.

I think we are looking at --- in the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" --- the use of academic Greek satire directed against the literary figures of the NT canonical literature widely published by Constantine. In common terms, someone did a "Monty Python" on the New Testament in the 4th century when the bible was first published. The "Monty Python" rendition of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" may have been entitled "The Travels of the Apostles" - a monumental work which covered many of the so-called "christian apostles" (See a list of these works above).

Consequently, these writings "wounded and pained" the authority of the church who held securely the documents of the NT Canon. These "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" were immediately sought out for destruction, and were forbidden to be read in congregations. Eventually the orthodoxy became so strong that the resistance against the state christian religion was futile and the preservation of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" was given up .... these books were buried in the eart itself. They were "too hot" for the politicals of that epoch --- the 4th century.

The name of Arius of Alexandria is not mentioned in connection with the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts", however the Arian controversy of the 4th and 5th century is continually intermingled with different cults and sects preserving different "Uncanonical Books". Instead a pseudonymous name of "Leucius " (as author of some of the key "Gnostic Acts") is first mentioned in the 4th century, and is soundly thrashed by orthodox bigwigs and Christian emperors as a vile heretic.

Photius in a much later century adds the surname to "Leucius" of "Charinus". All this may sound pretty droll. At any rate, I have made a conjecture that we should investigate the possible equation of identity between Arius of Alexandria to "Leucius Charinus".

At the present moment, nobody can give a name to the author of any of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" because mainstream still thinks that at least some of these manuscripts were authored before the Council of Nicae, and the widespread publication of the NT canon.

Kookaburra Jack

14th May 2010, 12:27 PM

Thanks Jack

Seems I have a bit of reading to do.

One is very clear,, the story of jesus is not written by eye witnesses, and without supporting evidence or other mentions outside the bible. Doesnt do much for credibility.

You're wecome Podo. The story of Jesus was supposed to be authored by a tetrarchy of witnesses. The term tetrarchy means "the leadership of four people" and was politically established under Diocletian in the late 3rd century. The story of Jesus was first widely and lavishly published by a warlord, at that precise moment when he became the supreme military ruler of the Roman Empire. A large "historical work" was also authored to "package" the bible at that same epoch by Eusebius, and which has been used extensively to "authenticate" the history of all things "Christian" prior to "The Boss Constantine".

Nowhere, ever yet, has anyone been able to question the authenticity of this "history", since it has been supported by the might of the army and the might of the church ever since there have been "Christian Emperors" ---- a duration of over 16 centuries.

So there we have it at the moment.
An interesting state of affairs.
Best wishes with all your researches.

RealityRules

14th May 2010, 05:18 PM

My opinion on the chronology and the genre of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" is not the mainstream one. My hypothesis is that these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" were a reaction to the publication of the Constantine Codex --- that is the New Testament Canon. My arguments are directed towards the evidence and suggest that these manuscripts were authored after the Council of Nicaea by academic Greeks as a seditious back-lash against the authority of the new testament canon.

These "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" mimicked and copied the events in the NT canon, and are recombined in different permutations to be mixed with the platforming of Gnostic philosophy -- which is just Greek. The city of Alexandria was essentially ordered to become "Christian" in the year 324/325 CE and their temples were destroyed and their temple practices forbidden - prohibited - by order of Constantine.

... [snip] ... In common terms, someone did a "Monty Python" on the New Testament in the 4th century when the bible was first published.

... [snip] ...

The name of Arius of Alexandria is not mentioned in connection with the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts", however the Arian controversy of the 4th and 5th century is continually intermingled with different cults and sects preserving different "Uncanonical Books". Instead a pseudonymous name of "Leucius " (as author of some of the key "Gnostic Acts") is first mentioned in the 4th century, and is soundly thrashed by orthodox bigwigs and Christian emperors as a vile heretic.

Photius in a much later century adds the surname to "Leucius" of "Charinus".

... [snip] ...

At the present moment, nobody can give a name to the author of any of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" because mainstream still thinks that at least some of these manuscripts were authored before the Council of Nicae, and the widespread publication of the NT canon.

My understanding was there was a plethora of "Gospels" from which the synoptic three (and John) were selected from on the basis of their popularity which in turn was related to the way they fulfilled OT prophecies.

And, the Council of Nicea had to put Arius out of the picture to support their doctrine.

Other belief systems that I have seen referred to before Nicea that did not support a physical body, besides Gnosticism, include Docetism ( the belief that*Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his*crucifixion), Marcionism, Zoroatrianism, etc

Docetism is reported as quite a common form of early Christianity, from around 70 AD for about 100 years, yet died out during the first millennium AD. Gnostic movements that survived past that time, such as*Catharism, incorporated Docetism into their beliefs, but such movements were destroyed by the*Albigensian Crusade*(1209-1229).

Ignatius of Antioch reportedly wrote very harshly against Docetism around 110 AD in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. In 7:1, he said,

"They [the docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes".

The word Docetae, which is best rendered by "Illusionists", is reported to first occur in a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190-203) to the Church at Rhossos, where troubles had arisen about the public reading of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.

The name further occurs in Clement of Alexandria (d.216), Stromata III.13 and VII.17, where these sectaries are mentioned together with the Haematites as instances of 'heretics' being named after their own special error. Clement mentions a certain Julius Cassianus as ho tes dokeseos exarchon, "the founder of Illusionism". This name is known also to St. Jerome and Theodoret; and Cassianus is said to be a disciple of Valentinian, but nothing more is known of him. The idea of the unreality of Christ's human nature was held by the oldest Gnostic sects.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm

Non-canonical Christian texts that refer to Docetism include

§ Gospel of Phillip
§ Second Treatise of the Great Seth
§ Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
§ Gospel of Judas
§ Latin Infancy Gospel in the Arundel Manuscript
§ In the Contra epistulam fundamenti, Augustine of Hippo makes reference to the Manichaeans believing that Jesus was Docetic.
§ Gospel of Peter
§ Acts of John

[Another] Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, who came to Rome under Pope Hyginus (137) and became the master of Marcion, taught that "Christ, the Son of the Highest God, appeared without birth from the Virgin, yea without any birth on earth as man".

The passages you cite for Tertullian are interesting - especially the references to "legions of pseudomous names invented by Eusebius."

Kookaburra Jack

15th May 2010, 09:39 AM

My understanding was there was a plethora of "Gospels" from which the synoptic three (and John) were selected from on the basis of their popularity ...

That is the current conjectural theory for the "history of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts". It presupposes the following chronology:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/chron_2_canon_hidden.JPG

That is, it implies continuous 2nd, 3rd and 4th (perhaps 5th) century authorship since these books appear to have been authored in these centuries as some form of "continuum".

Alternative Proposed: Authorship follows the momentous "Council of Nicaea"

Here is the corresponding schematic

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/chron_7_canon_hidden_ALTERNATIVE.JPG

And, the Council of Nicea had to put Arius out of the picture to support their doctrine.
Essentially yes. Moreover (IMO) Arius represented the resistance of the academic Greeks, the academy of Plato and the "Sacred College of Pontifices" (ie: Greek priesthood) who had previously served in a collegiate manner the statutes of the Pontifex Maximus, the "Lord God Cesar" --- the Roman Emperor.

Other belief systems that I have seen referred to before Nicea that did not support a physical body, besides Gnosticism, include Docetism ( the belief that*Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his*crucifixion), Marcionism, Zoroatrianism, etc

Docetism is reported as quite a common form of early Christianity, from around 70 AD for about 100 years, yet died out during the first millennium AD. Gnostic movements that survived past that time, such as*Catharism, incorporated Docetism into their beliefs, but such movements were destroyed by the*Albigensian Crusade*(1209-1229).

Ignatius of Antioch reportedly wrote very harshly against Docetism around 110 AD in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. In 7:1, he said,"They [the docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes".
The word Docetae, which is best rendered by "Illusionists", is reported to first occur in a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190-203) to the Church at Rhossos, where troubles had arisen about the public reading of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.

The name further occurs in Clement of Alexandria (d.216), Stromata III.13 and VII.17, where these sectaries are mentioned together with the Haematites as instances of 'heretics' being named after their own special error. Clement mentions a certain Julius Cassianus as ho tes dokeseos exarchon, "the founder of Illusionism". This name is known also to St. Jerome and Theodoret; and Cassianus is said to be a disciple of Valentinian, but nothing more is known of him. The idea of the unreality of Christ's human nature was held by the oldest Gnostic sects.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm

Non-canonical Christian texts that refer to Docetism include§ Gospel of Phillip
§ Second Treatise of the Great Seth
§ Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
§ Gospel of Judas
§ Latin Infancy Gospel in the Arundel Manuscript
§ In the Contra epistulam fundamenti, Augustine of Hippo makes reference to the Manichaeans believing that Jesus was Docetic.
§ Gospel of Peter
§ Acts of John
[Another] Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, who came to Rome under Pope Hyginus (137) and became the master of Marcion, taught that "Christ, the Son of the Highest God, appeared without birth from the Virgin, yea without any birth on earth as man".
My argument is that key references to the existence of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" have been fraudulently inserted into the "Early Christian [Patristic] Literature" preserved under the names of Eusebius and Tertullian. These insertions, such as for example, that for "The Gospel of Judas" in Irenaeus, whould have the readers infer that the Gnostic book "The Gospel of Judas" was around at the time Irenaeus was "supposed to be around according to Eusebius". This is the current (mainstream ) opinion --- read any article on the recently published gJudas.

The C14 date on gJudas is 290 CE (plus or minus 60 years) although most members of the research team prefer a 4th centur date for the codex in which the gJudas was found. Mainstream have to conjecture that the gJudas within the codex (C14 dated as cited) must have been faithfully copied for hundreds of years. IMO there is very good reason to suspect Eusebius (or those who preserved Eusebius after Nicaea) of having retrojected the reference to the existence of gJudas into the past to "an unknown Irenaeus". The reason was to take the heat off the appearance of these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" as a reaction to the Nicaean enforcement of Constantine's orthodox books of the new testament canon.

DOCETIC OPINION

IMO may also represent a "Christian reporters' euphemism" for people
who had no belief in the figure of Jesus as "existing in the flesh" or to
put it another way "existing in history".

If you have some time on your hands check this:
Anathemas of Church Councils as representative of public opinion:
A collation of the anathemas and heresies registered by the christian ecclesiastical councils from Nicaea through to the Decretum Gelasianum of c.491 CE. We have been provided a lavish history by the christian victors in which the pagan side of the story has not been presented. An examination of the anathemas and heresies which were variously registered by the christian bishops allows an objective assessment of how the opinion of the pagan populace concerning the new god Jesus, and his new religion christianity, were being received in the empire.

The passages you cite for Tertullian are interesting - especially the references to "legions of pseudomous names invented by Eusebius."We must understand that when the new testament was first widely and lavishly published in the 4th century it did not get published in isolation. It is highly debateable whether anyone could walk into a Greek bookshop in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd century and buy a copy of the bible. When the bible was high profile at and after Nicaea, it was heavily packaged. Who was the "packager"? Eusebius of Caesarea. The first "Historian of the Church" and the "Editor-In-Chief" of the Books of the New testament (about to be "canonised").

The Eusebian packaging included geographical almanacs, ready reference tables for Who Said What and Who didnt say what between the Apostles Gospels, Preparation Manuals, Horror Stories of the Martrys, and Entertaining Church Histories to edify the faithful converts. The Christian state religion was spread by the sword of Constantine's army. "then shall my servants fight" was a fortuitous prediction by Bilbo Jesus Baggins.The Eightfold Path of "Partial Asceticism" in the New testament

(1) "Noble Silence": fundamental to all other ancient (and modern) ascetic practices is passed over in silence.
(2) Eating meat: not the promotion of vegetarian practices
(3) Drinking Wine: not the avoidance of alcohol.
(4) Hanging out in the Pub after work: Consorting
(5) Fasting not necessary! Direct link to God through "Prayer" alone.
(6) Healing practices: fasting not required for doctor! "Prayer power"!
(7) Monastic Customs: The Politics of Tax policy statements - eg: "Render unto Caesar ..."
(8) Nonviolence: "Then would my servants fight" --- is both conditioned and disclaimed.

roger_pearse

16th May 2010, 02:10 AM

I happened to see this thread by accident, and a mention of my own name. I hope people won't mind if I add a quick note?

I hope people know, but the posts by "Kookaburra Jack" suggest various things, as being "mainstream" which do not seem so to me. The general outlook is an intellectual position which is not academically respectable. Some of the ideas offered were made up by amateur posters online very recently, in fact. Please ... be wary. Just because someone sounds as if they know what they are talking about, it does not mean they do. It may merely mean they hang out in a forum where people who DO know hang out, and are cribbing bits.

It is important on these subjects to seek reliable sources, and to be sceptical of whatever we would find convenient.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

wolty

16th May 2010, 06:42 AM

I happened to see this thread by accident, and a mention of my own name. I hope people won't mind if I add a quick note?

Not at all.

I hope people know, but the posts by "Kookaburra Jack" suggest various things, as being "mainstream" which do not seem so to me. The general outlook is an intellectual position which is not academically respectable. Some of the ideas offered were made up by amateur posters online very recently, in fact. Please ... be wary. Just because someone sounds as if they know what they are talking about, it does not mean they do. It may merely mean they hang out in a forum where people who DO know hang out, and are cribbing bits.

It is important on these subjects to seek reliable sources, and to be sceptical of whatever we would find convenient.

This is the home of the sceptics. We critically analyse everything. :)

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Thank you, same to you.

Lion IRC

20th May 2010, 09:26 PM

I came across this thread by accident too.

I agree, you have to be careful hanging out in fora where there are people who know what they are talking about. One thing leads to another and pretty soon you have a whole bunch of people who know what they are talking about....as opposed to just "sounding like" they know.

Lion (IRC)
PS - I suppose I should add something about the actual topic so I dont "sound like" I am being insipid. Does it really matter if koine Greek changed the literation of a word which of Hebrew origin? What of the fact that so many other indicative words were used - Lord, Christ, Rabbi, Master, (of) Nazareth. What is the "full name" of Jesus anyway? Ἰησοῦς doesnt appear in the Greek bibles? I ask - so what?

Goldenmane

20th May 2010, 09:47 PM

Praxis

21st May 2010, 05:27 AM

PS - I suppose I should add something about the actual topic so I dont "sound like" I am being insipid. Does it really matter if koine Greek changed the literation of a word which of Hebrew origin? What of the fact that so many other indicative words were used - Lord, Christ, Rabbi, Master, (of) Nazareth. What is the "full name" of Jesus anyway? Ἰησοῦς doesnt appear in the Greek bibles? I ask - so what?

Well quite frankly it lends even more credence to the already shedloads of evidence that it's all just a great big load of bollox. That people still believe it and waste lives studying it and discussing it beggars belief. Evolution in reverse AFAIC ;)

Kookaburra Jack

28th May 2010, 10:26 AM

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=80682#post80682)
The nomina sacra employed by "Early Christian Scribes" for the name of Joshua, the successor of Moses in the LXX, strangely enough is identical to the same code "ΙΣ" which is "translated" in the new testament for the full name of "Jesus". There is no difference between the codes. This fact is quite remarkable.

Not that remarkable considering Joshua and Jesus are the same name. Both are from the Hebrew Yeshua. Jesus real name would have been Yeshua. Jesus is just an English translation from the Greek form Iesous.

But that's the remarkable thing you see - we dont have the Greek form of Iesous in the earliest manuscript evidence. It is by some "poetic licence" that the code "ΙΣ" is being "translated" as the Greek form of Iesous. Exactly the same process is seen in the Gnostic Coptic manuscripts.

Its like producing two [politically] separate complex sets of engineering diagrams (the books of the canon; the books of the "Gnostics") and purposefully not producing an explicating legend for the important abbreviated codes that are almost universally employed therein. What use would the "orthodox (canon) Bible" (or a "Gnostic Bible") be to any educated greek reader stumbling over one in a Greek bookshop without the meaning of these abbreviations?

In the Roman empire of antiquity the "Lord God Caesar" (ie: the Boss) also held the role of "Pontifex Maximus" - the head of "divine law and technology". Perhaps the meaning of the abbreviations (like that used on the imperial coinage - these guys had their own mints) was just an imperial decision and everyone (sooner or later) knew what it meant.

Kookaburra Jack

1st June 2010, 12:19 PM

Greetings to Sydney and The Bush,

I have had an interesting career (see below) and presently find myself
researching the field of ancient history with a view to present a
revisionist history of the 4th century of our "common era".

My position can be most appropriately summarised by quoting the
opening lines from the three books which Emperor Julian authored
c.361 CE "Against the Christians".
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians
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.

I have researched this material now for over five years
and am happy to attempt the answer of any questions
any skeptical people may ask here, or elsewhere, on this
material.

I notice that no specific forum exists for issues of History
or Ancient History, so my few earlier posts were made to
the forum of "Science & Reason", since I feel that I am
guided by principles common to these fields.

My message that Jesus did not exist but was a 4th century
literary invention may at first sound impossible and counter-
intuitive, however if people are interested and willing to ask
critical and skeptical questions about the reasons why I
believe that the historical truth is best explained in this manner,
then I will be happy to do my best to answer these questions.

Finally, I wish to state that I feel that I am acting and researching
this material out of a desire to establish the ancient historical truth
of "christian origins" -- what really happened in the 4th century?

Best wishes to one and all.

Kookaburra Jack

(http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/)

Spud Henley

1st June 2010, 10:54 PM

heresy

2nd June 2010, 10:19 AM

Do you dispute the evidence that the Gospels were written in the first century, from papyri of the second century ?

Gnostic texts.... do they offer collaboration, give Nag Hammadi finds probably dating back to the second century?

Kookaburra Jack

2nd June 2010, 02:05 PM

G'day and welcome Kookaburra.

Intresting post, I've heard read too that the new testament was written atleast 300years afte it was suposse to happen. I guess that means it's all bullshit and made up.

G'Day Spud,

There is no dispute between anyone precisely when the "history" of the transmission of the new testament was assembled, revised a few times and first packaged for widespread publication by codex. Everyone appears to agree that this "history" was authored by a bloke by the name of Eusebius of Caesarea between the years between c.312 and 324 CE and in respect of the events of the preceeding three hundred years.

The question "whether that means it's all bullshit and made up" was apparently not well received with the publisher, who effectively eliminated the pre-existent "Gnostic" Graeco-Roman religions. Using the army the publisher of the Bible plundered the ancient Graeco-Roman temples and shrines for gold and silver and treasure (to pay the army), and statues and artworks etc (to adorn the "City of the Publisher").

The "Christian" army (after Nicaea) was also employed on search and destroy missions for heretical "Gnostic Books". I am looking at the story of "christian origins" from a perspective which has two political sides at a very specific epoch in ancient history c.324 CE - when Constantine became the supreme military commander of the entire Roman Empire.

On the one hand we have the publisher of the bible (The Lord God Caesar Constantine) and on the other hand we have the Graeco-Roman civilisation, the Greek Gnostics, the Academy of Plato, etc, etc, etc and the milieu of Graeco-Roman priesthoods who were bound to serve the "Pontifex Maximus" -- the Lord God Caesar ________ .

I have reason to think that most if not all of the "Gnostic Books" were written after the Council of Nicaea and after the Constantine Codex (ie: the Bible itself) was widely published as the "Holy Writ" of the Greek civilisation. I have reason to suspect that the "Gnostic Books" were thus a literary reaction to the appearance of the bible, particularly the new testament and the figure of Jesus, whom the Gnostics paint as "docetic".

The C14 dating tests on two independent Gnostic books fits very reasonably with a 4th century authorship. None of the Orthodox Books of the bible have yet been subject of C14 analysis, however it is generally well known that the oldest manuscripts (ie: physical books used as primary evidence) of the bibles in the Greek language are generally dated to the later 4th century.

My bet is that the bible was fabricated by Constantine as a method to obtain as much gold as possible out of the Eastern Roman empire in the shortest amount of time. As "Pontifex Maximus" he could sponsor any religious cult of his choosing. And he did. He sponsored a cult called "The Chrestian Cult". The Good Guys. So successful was business that it has been running ever since. (Success was guaranteed by eliminating the opposition religions)

The legitimacy of the "History" written by Eusebius has never been satisfactorily questioned despite the fact that his integrity as an historian has been called into question many times by the academics and scholars. I reckon its about time to do this.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd June 2010, 02:21 PM

Do you dispute the evidence that the Gospels were written in the first century, from papyri of the second century ?

There is no doubt a large group of paleographers (hand writing experts) who have managed to convince themselves and others that the handwriting on papyri fragments from rubbish dumps such as Oxyrhynchus is most similar to 2nd century handwriting. But I do not consider this as primary evidence. I have also compiled a list of other reasons why this evidence from Oxyrhynchus may in fact be of 4th century origin.

Gnostic texts.... do they offer collaboration, give Nag Hammadi finds probably dating back to the second century?The Nag Hammadi finds have been C14 dated to the mid fourth century in alignment with their cartonage - the paper and packaging which was used to physically bind these books together then.

It is my opinion that our current crop of "Biblical Historians" suspect in error that some of the stories contained in the Nag Hammadi books may have been authored centuries earlier. My opinion is that the books were authored following the huge political and religious upheavels which were associated with the imperial implementation of the "State Christian religion" around the Council of Nicaea 325 CE.

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

kanook

2nd June 2010, 03:42 PM

Kookaburra Jack

3rd June 2010, 08:59 AM

Gidday Jack, Thanks for the info. I am fascinated in the true history of this piece of fiction.

I am very interested in Documentaries about the true beginings of the bible, in your travels have you come across anything worthy of searching for in a documentary?

G'Day kanook,

In a word no. We have been playing "follow the History Leader" since the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 CE, and the leader is being presumed to be -- either directly or indirectly -- the "church historian" Eusebius who has left us the only history of "christian origins" prior to the year 325 CE.

The documentaries of the ancient historical truth of the rule of Constantine have yet to be researched and written. The rule of Constantine might be described as a "Black Hole" of non christian evidence. All reports about this epoch have been ratfied by the following 4th and 5th century imperially sponsored "Ecclesiastical Historians" who have gone to a great deal of trouble to harmonise the reception of the christian cult into the Roman Empire, and to present an "orthodox christian history" from the Council of Nicaea onwards.

My opinion is that this history has beentwisted - like a moebius strip - and presents the natural two sides as the one orthodox account. The history of the implementation of christianity has not yet been reconstructed from the perspective of the losers - the "Gnostics". The orthodox have maintained registers and indexes of "Forbidden Books" since that epoch, which we now see still being maintained by the vatican as an extemtion to the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" -- banned books. This first banned books appear to have been the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". The victors - the orthodox christians - present these gnostics as vile heretics against the orthodoxy established by COnstantine "The Boss".

Or even any books that cover this subject?

I like to be pre-armed with knowledge when i am confronted by christians :D
I would recommend reading at least one (ONLINE) book as an introduction to the subject matter and the "evidence" which is being touted by apologists and christians in support of the historical existence of the cult prior to the rise of the fascist emperor Constantine in the 4th century. It is called The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Witnesses_to_the_Historicity_of_Jesus) - by Arthur Drews (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Author:Arthur_Drews), translated by Joseph McCabe (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Author:Joseph_McCabe). Although it is almost a century old, it comprehensively addresses all the elements of literary evidence for the existence of Jesus in the first century. It does not necessarily support my rather extremely and critically skeptical position, but it will assist as the first step towards following the evidence, citation by citation, out of the 1st century and towards the 4th century.

I have listed some other books which deal with Theories of the History Christianity involving Fraud & Fiction.

Kookaburra Jack

3rd June 2010, 01:44 PM

Another introduction to the field can be obtained by having a look through an article entitled "Jesus Myth" (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_followup.htm) by R.G Price. In this article the following graduated spectrum of belief is discussed:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/jesusspectrum.jpg

The author describes the final view as "Pious Forgery" and summarises it in the following terms:

The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

RealityRules

4th June 2010, 05:57 AM

Around 1st century - give or take a few centuries - seems to have been deemed the time when a lot of oral history and oral tradition was starting to be committed to text, particularly by the Greeks. If that is so, is it possible a lot of the stories had been around for a while - in oral and some written forms - before these texts were found?

I understand the oldest bible texts are Codex Sinaiticus (online now) and Codex Vaticanus (in the vatican).

Seamus

4th June 2010, 08:52 AM

@Kookaburra Jack

Once again I'm overwhelmed by your erudition.

Completely out of my depth in terms of knowledge,I have no basis on which to challenge your evidence.

Pedantic perhaps,but I'm a little concerned about how you have interpreted your evidence. For me,history is a speculative discipline, not an exact one. At best,all an historian may say is "'X is probably or most likely the case,based on available evidence'. It is a brave historian (or scientist for that matter) who claims "X IS the case",presenting a definitive version of events.'

It's not my intention to piss in your porridge. I think the work you've done is outstanding. Were I sufficiently interested to spend scholarly time, I would look at your sources. Instead, I'm fascinated with what tantalising glimpses you've given here. Please keep doing so.

My position:I don't know. I think it's possible,even likely that there was wondering rabbi called something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yosef in C1st Judea.(there were a lot of 'em) That he had a small band of followers,a common practice even today amongst hasidim. That he was executed by the Romans for sedition.

My understanding is that what became Christianty was a strictly Jewish sect for at least two generations,without any of the extra woo added by Saul and others.

There is little doubt in my mind that the Jesus of the New Testament is pure myth.I also think (along with some theologians) that the historicity of Jesus is irrelevant to Christianity today.

Oh, I do not accept 'myth as history' as a principle. It is the exception rather than the rule.

RealityRules

4th June 2010, 09:42 AM

My understanding is that what became Christianty was a strictly Jewish sect for at least two generations,without any of the extra woo added by Saul and others.

That has been my impression too, from reading around the edges.

There are those who also assert that Saul/Paul of Tarsus was a legend.

There is some indication that Paul Epistles can be interpreted as Gnostic-like.

I think that history can be reasoned, and there are techniques for that such as "The Historical Method" and "Literary Interpretation [Method(s)]", and people like Joseph McCabe and Bruno Bauer continued critical analysis started a while ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Seamus

4th June 2010, 11:35 AM

I think that history can be reasoned, and there are techniques for that such as "The Historical Method" and "Literary Interpretation [Method(s)]", and people like Joseph McCabe and Bruno Bauer continued critical analysis started a while ago.

Agreed,I accept that a good historian can give a pretty accurate explanation of what [most likely happened],especially of relatively recent events, such as say World War 2, Victorian or Tudor England. EG I have a stultifyingly thorough biography of Henry V111.

Ancient history is another matter entirely.Not only has relatively little evidence survived,there was no such thing as an historian as we use the term until Gibbon.

Ancient writers need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Some such as say Suetonius and Josephus are especially suspect. Others such as some ancient Egyptian records,can be unintentionally hilarious.Even Julius Caesar can be a little cavalier with the truth.

However,I agree with KJ about 'following the leader', although I might have used the more formal 'dominant power paradigm'. ( which exist in virtually ally disciplines to some degree)

RealityRules

4th June 2010, 12:21 PM

Ancient history is another matter entirely. Not only has relatively little evidence survived,there was no such thing as an historian as we use the term until Gibbon.

Ancient writers need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Some such as say Suetonius and Josephus are especially suspect. Others such as some ancient Egyptian records,can be unintentionally hilarious. Even Julius Caesar can be a little cavalier with the truth.

However,I agree with KJ about 'following the leader', although I might have used the more formal 'dominant power paradigm'. ( which exist in virtually ally disciplines to some degree)

I agree - most think the references to Jesus or Christ or both in the writings of Josephus were later additions. It is those things that can be put together to challenge the long-standing & current Christian dogma.

There is reasonable amount of evidence that Eusebius and his team put it all together, including the idea of the Trinity which is not in the canonical gospels, after the Council of Nicea.

this what one wikipedia section has to say (which is why I wonder if the gnostic gospels were aroud sooner than KJ suggests) -

In the first 3 centuries of early Christianity, there were numerous writings giving accounts of Jesus & his teachings, the nature of God, or the teachings of his apostles and of their lives - indicative of the wide range of responses that were engendered in the interpretation of the message of Jesus of Nazareth. Many were alternate edited versions of accounts, including works that were presented as "authentic". Some were vigorously suppressed and survive only as fragments (especially those "not divinely inspired" eg. the apocryphal gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocryphal_gospels)). Non-canonical gospels, such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews, were widely read. Discussion and debate lasted three hundred years ... even within "orthodox" circles there was considerable debate concerning which books to include
The New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic church council meetings, but rather developed over a few centuries from books that enjoyed a special status and prominence among the various early Christian communities ie. were utilized both frequently and universally; were relevant to the situations in which they lived; followed the apostolic tradition; were consonant with the Old Testament, and thus considered authoritative in worship and teaching.

McDonald, Lee M. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. pp.116.
Patzia, Arthur. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP, 1995. pp.104.

That is, the gospels were decided on popularity as stories, and their relevance to the Old testament prophecies, not as factual accounts. Hence the synoptic problem.

Moreover, the earliest biblical description of the resurrection appearances of Jesus (Paul's account in Corinthians 15: 3-7; 1Cor) seems to represent a pre-Pauline creedal statement derived from the first Christian community. According to prevalent Jewish beliefs, Jesus' failure to establish the Kingdom of God, and his death at the hands of the Romans, invalidated any messianic claims. Paula Fredriksen, in From Jesus to Christ, has suggested that Jesus' impact on his followers was so great that they could not accept this failure. ... some Christians believed that they encountered Jesus after his crucifixion; they argued that he had been resurrected (the belief in the resurrection of the dead in the messianic age was a core Pharisaic doctrine).

According to Daniel Boyarin, in A Radical Jew, Paul of Tarsus combined the stories of the life of Jesus with Greek philosophy to reinterpret the Hebrew Bible in terms of the Platonic theory of distinction between the ideal (which is real) and the material (which is false).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

RealityRules

4th June 2010, 03:43 PM

Also, there are a couple of good articles on this site, in the articles section

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/desperately-seeking-jesus (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/../articles/desperately-seeking-jesus) -
"The early historian Josephus refers to many Jesus' in his Antiquities, not least, Jesus son of Phiabi, Jesus son of Dumnew, Jesus son of Sec and Jesus son of Gamaliel, just to name a few. In other words, it was a most common name of the era. "http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/historicity-jesus-christ (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/../articles/historicity-jesus-christ) -
"The Christ of Paul constitutes a fatal blow to the historicity of Jesus Christ. All the elements exposed above in brief, prove that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels as well as any obscured Christ was unknown to Paul. But then, if we accept that Paul is historical person in the alleged times that he lived, acted and wrote his Epistles, then we must necessarily admit that Jesus Christ, at least as presented in the Gospels, was not a historical person but a mythological fabrication!"

Kookaburra Jack

5th June 2010, 04:53 PM

Ancient history is another matter entirely.Not only has relatively little evidence survived,there was no such thing as an historian as we use the term until Gibbon.

Perhaps the greatest ancient historian of the 20th century was a Arnaldo Momigliano.
He wrote in a very ironic style ....
“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited

"the miracle"

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

— Arnaldo Momigliano (1908-1987),
Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D; (1960)

Kookaburra Jack

5th June 2010, 05:05 PM

(which is why I wonder if the gnostic gospels were around sooner than KJ suggests)

Here is the Bell Curve for two independent C14 dating citations.
The Bell Curve is centered at 319 CE plus or minus 42 years.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs433.snc3/24943_1434050177567_1422305298_31144213_5081519_n. jpg

This is the primary evidence by which I would argue that the gnostic gospels and acts ect were not authored until after the Council of Nicaea.
I have exhaustively examined the contrary evidence by which the mainstream opinion is that there may have been earlier authorship.

A Summary of the Mainstream Evidence for Pre-Nicaean "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"
Here is the summary of opinion and evidence.
If I have made any critical errors or omissions let me know ...

Why does everyone think that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and much of the new testament apocryphal literature was authored "early" --- before the Council of Nicaea? In the following I have outlined the evidence at the basis of this commonly accepted "belief". Note that in the following the abbreviation NTC represents the "New Testament Canon" while thre abbreviation NTA represents the "New Testament Apocrypha" (ie: the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc)

Defining the literary evidence supporting the Mainstream chronology

A process of categorization is employed to focus on the key literary evidence supporting generally accepted mainstream theory of “Pre-Nicaean” authorship. The twenty-odd books which are presumed to have been authored “Early” (i.e. before Nicaea 325 CE) have been classified according to six Category Codes.

Category (1) consists of books for which Eusebius presents literary sources that would have us infer that these books were cited by authors in the 2nd or 3rd century. These key citations will be briefly examined further below.

For books in Category (2) Eusebius himself is the earliest witness. (The Acts of Andrew and John, The Acts of Andrew and Matthew, The Acts of Peter and Andrew, The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of John, The Teaching of the Apostles)

Category (3) lists books cited but for which there are no extant texts. (The Gospel of the Lord , The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans)

Category (4) lists books for which there is no “early” mention. (The Acts of Thomas, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John the Theologian, The Pistis Sophia [nb: this is misnamed and is actually entitled "A Portion of the Books of the Savior"], The Didache [Teaching of the Apostles], The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]

Category (5) is reserved for the books of the Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC). The publication of the NHC has been C14 dated to 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years). This C14 dating "superficially" supports 4th century authorship.

Finally in the last Category (6)The Acts of Pilate heads a large list of over 30 books of the NTA currently conjectured to have been authored after the Council of Nicaea. Fourth century (or later) authorship of this large group of NTA books is of course very much in line with the arguments presented here.

Summary of Literary Citation Evidence for Mainstream chronology

It should therefore be clear from the above categorization that the historical evidence concerning some early authorship of the books of the NTA arises only in the first two categories. Books listed in Categories 3, 4, 5 and 6 are either already known to have been authored after Nicaea, or there are no early witnesses to suggest this postulate. Books listed in Category 2 are first evidenced by Eusebius himself, but there is no guarantee that these did not appear during the period Eusebius was writing.

This just leaves the literary evidence associated with books listed in Category 1 as the basis of the mainstream postulate for early authorship. This literary evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:The Gospel of Peter:
Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text.

The Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text, and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas. Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is certainly some ambiguity here.

The Gospel of Judas:
Eusebius cites a mention of this text in Irenaeus’ “Adversus Haereses” however some integrity issues have been noted with it. For example, the text is described by Irenaeus as being linked with such villainous persons as Cain, Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites, rather than with the traditionally respected person of Seth. One commentator writes “Perhaps Irenaeus was simply misinformed or deliberately confused the two as a rhetorical strategy. At any rate, it is a strange divergence that demands clarification.” [Review of Deconick, Arie Zwiep] There is further ambiguity here

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius preserves a citation from Irenaeus who quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about the childhood of Jesus. Many but not all scholars consider that it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. There is room for doubt

The Infancy Gospel of James:
Early knowledge of the “Protevangelium of James” is inferred from the preservation in Eusebius of mention by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. An inference is not the same thing as unambiguous evidence.

The Acts of Paul:
The chief and final literary citation is from Eusebius’ often cited Latin author Tertullian, in his De baptismo 17.5. This appears as the only “early” instance in which information is provided concerning an author of apocryphal writings. Note that the manuscripts which preserve Tertullian's De baptismo are quite late, the earliest being the 12th century Codex Trecensis.[I]As for those (women) who appeal to the falsely written Acts of Paul in order to defend the right of women to teach and to baptize, let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul, was removed from his office after he had been convicted and [B]had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul.
The 4th century interpolation into Josephus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum”, is regarded by many as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the NTC. Likewise the “Testimonium Tertullianum”, it is suggested, should be regarded as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the NTA.
Rejection of the “conclusive evidence” via the “Church preserved literature”

Jerome’s novel addition to the Christian tradition - that the author of the Acts of Paul wrote in the presence of the apostle John in the 1st century - is a plainly fraudulent misrepresentation, and has been soundly rejected by many academics.

It is suggested that all the above “literary evidence” in the writings of the “Fathers” may be either ambiguous or false interpolations either by Eusebius, or his orthodox continuators who preserved both Eusebius and Tertullian.

Rejection of the “conclusive evidence” of Greek NTA papyri fragments

A number of Greek papyri fragments related to the NTA are postulated to be dated earlier than the 4th century, but the evidence is not conclusive.

For the Gospel of Peter P.Oxy.2949, P.Oxy.4008 and P.Vinbob G 2325 are often cited as “early”, whereas P.Oxy.849 is dated to 325 CE. “They are possibly but not conclusively from the Gospel of Peter.” [p,258, FN:11; "Fabricating Jesus" - Craig A Evans].

Likewise P.Oxy.654, P.Oxy.655 and P.Oxy.1 cited for the Gospel of Thomas,
P.Oxy 2525, P.Oxy 3525 and P.Rylands cited for the Gospel of Mary,
and P.Oxy 3524 and p.Bodmer cited in respect of the Infancy Gospel of James cannot be regarded as conclusively certain.

Additionally, there exists a great preponderance of Greek papyri fragments of the NTA which have been dated to the 4th or 5th centuries. Finally it is worth noting in passing that few commentators note that the population demographics for the city of Oxyrhynchus is known to have hit a massive peak in the mid 4th century. The analysis of coins found at the fifteen Oxyrhynchus tip sites also suggests the same thing. (See Milne, J.G.)

Kookaburra Jack

5th June 2010, 05:11 PM

One other point about the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" ...

The corroboration of the 4th century evidence via the Manuscript Tradition

The collective dating of all available earliest manuscript copies of the NTA produce a profile which itself suggests a fourth century origin. A glance down the column marked “Earliest Manuscript” in Appendix (C) shows dates no earlier that the 4th century. Thus the manuscript tradition itself supports the postulate that the books of the NTA were authored in the 4th century. The source manuscripts are invariably Coptic and Syriac translations, and not Greek as intimated by Eusebius.

SUMMARY

The above evidence is far from conclusive in establishing that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored before the epoch of Nicaea and Eusebius. In addition it has not yet been argued that Eusebius himself cannot be regarded as a fair and accurate witness, since he himself must be classified as an Heresiologist with respect to the Gnostics, and is thus a hostile witness.

People may trust Eusebius as an integrous witness for the orthodox history of the canon following Christians, but they should not expect Eusebius to be an integrous witness for the opposing Gnostic history. Retrojection of material in the Eusebian "Ecclesiatical History" and other sources has had the effect that we are compelled to believe that ***some** of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored -- following Eusebius alone -- before Nicaea. I have dealt with the details above, and the evidence is far from conclusive.

The conjecture that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts and the NT Apocryphal literature in general were all actually authored after Nicaea, as a reaction to the NT canon has therefore been put forward as an alternative. As I have attempted to outline in the above, it may be argued that this conjecture is not contrary to the available evidence in our possession

Here is a list of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts etc" in question here.
It is sorted according to what is currenly believed to be true.

ie: some of these were authored before Nicaea.
I am arguing that it makes far better sense to see them as a REACTION.

The big reaction did not happen in the earlier epoch.
The really big reaction happened when the Bible got lobbed as the "Holy Writ".

The C14 suggests that these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts etc" are some form of "Homerisation" and "Base Popularisation" of the Canon set by Constantine in the Constantine Bibles.

Here is a page providing a collation of academic comments on the nature of these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts etc"

"Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"[April Deconick]
"heretics ... who were chiefly Gnostics ... imitated the books of the New Testament" [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

Seamus

5th June 2010, 05:28 PM

Kookaburra Jack

6th June 2010, 09:21 AM

Thanks Jack,I had not heard of that historian. Ancient history is not my main area of interest,but I'll see what I can find at he State Library or perhaps Barr Smith.

Yeah,the Church has played fast and loose [and still does] with the truth about Constantine and his alleged conversion,to the point of bald faced lying and criminality. At least that's my perception.

The last serious work I read was was 'CALIGULA: The Corruption Of Power' by Anthony Barrett.

Be interested in any suggestions about the early history of Christianity.

G'Day Seamus,

Ancient history was not my area either until about 5 years ago - I did Geography instead of History in High School. But for 5 years I have attempted to seek for unambiguous evidence for the existence of "anything Christian" in the epoch prior to the arrival of Constantine, and as yet have not found one such ancient historical citation.

I see the "Gnostics" as the indigenous Alexandrian Greeks who witnessed the implementation of the "State Christian Religion" under the rule of Constantine and his efforts to have the "Sacred College of Pontifices" pronounce a binding "canonisation" on his "New Testament" and Bible.

I think the Gnostics started writing their own "New Testaments".
These were the Gnostics Gospels and Acts etc.
They may have been published in a large compendium series
and bound together as "The Travels of the Apostles".

All fiction of course.

In regard to Arnoldo Momigliano, there is an index of articles authored by him that I have assembled in my travels which may be of service in introducing this ancient historian, and at the same time be of service in gathering a background to the history and the traditions which are associated with the "Saga of Christian Origins".

Momigliano was a Jewish-Italian refugee from Mussolini and was fluent in many languages. He had the reputation of being heavily ironic, but was widely recognised as the leading, if not one of the foremost of ancient historians of the last century.

Google Search for "Arnaldo Momigliano" (http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=ARNALDO+MOMIGLIANO+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images) or to the WIKI entry[/URL]
Arnaldo Momigliano and the human sources of history (http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/10/mar92/kagan.htm) - newcriterion article by Donald Kagan
Review of T.D.Barnes' Tertullian by Arnaldo Momigliano (http://www.tertullian.org/articles/momigliano_on_barnes.htm) - Journal of Roman Studies 66 (1976), pp.273-276
The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (http://) - A Brief Review and notes
Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century (http://) - A Brief Review and notes
Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire (http://) - A Brief Review and notes
On Pagans, Jews and Christians (http://) - A Brief Review and notes
AM on AM ("") - Commentary by Arnaldo Momigliano on Ammianus Marcellinus The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography.htm

Kid

6th June 2010, 10:59 AM

KJ said: My position can be most appropriately summarised by quoting the
opening lines from the three books which Emperor Julian authored
c.361 CE "Against the Christians". It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians
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 doesn't really summarize your position at all; it's just a repeat of what someone else said, without clarification. KJ, I haven't got the time to read through all of the data you've provided here, so can I ask for a real summary? What is it exactly that you're saying in this thread...the title says, yes, Jesus was a Fourth century literary invention...

so my question is this:
what was the motivation of Constantine and or others to fabricate, out of nowhere, a fictional literary Jesus? Why did they do this? Why did Constantine court the Christians and favour them in the end?

If Jesus was a fourth century literary invention, why did people preach of him BEFORE the fourth century? in other words, who were 'The Christians' that Tacitus, Second century, spoke of?

I'm trying to understand the motivation of fabricating, in the Fourth century AD, a literary Jesus. Are you saying that Constantine himself wrote the NT? or part of it? and if so, why? And a quick summary of exactly what it is you're claiming in regards to this literary fictional Jesus...
I'm not at all embarrassed to say I'm confused by what you've posted here.

Also, you might be interested in this discussion going on now on Atheist Nexus:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/mark-the-evangelist-was-a-king

Kid

Seamus

6th June 2010, 01:03 PM

@KB

I've been thinking a lot about what you've written.

My understanding that the current canon was put to together pretty much by one man, Athanasius of of Alexandria.That the first Nicene council ratified his choices,which were only a few of many texts available.

Also the council had several purposes; to address the Arian heresy, to homogenise official Christian belief and consolidate the position of Rome and the Bishop of Rome the central power in the Church. (probably in reverse order)

Are you saying that is at least partly incorrect? That Athanasius did no such thing and/or virtually all non canonical works were written after that time?

I'm not doubting you.The Church as an organisation has always been morally bankrupt and criminally dishonest. Of course it cooked the books. The problem seems to be proving to what degree.

I'll be fascinated to see peer reviews of your work

Kid

6th June 2010, 02:03 PM

ps - KJ, in regard to my post, sorry if it sounded too combative; it's not, I'm just a blunt person.
Also, I just read the Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire link you provided and I agree with it almost entirely. thanks for the links.

Kookaburra Jack

6th June 2010, 03:01 PM

what was the motivation of Constantine and or others
to fabricate, out of nowhere, a fictional literary Jesus?
Why did they do this?

GOLD and ABSOLUTE religious power in that order.
The Pontifex Maximus got to select the cult of his preference.
If he backed it alone, the rest of the cults were out of business.
They would not need their ancient and highly reverred temples.
They would not need their gold and silver and treasure, etc, etc

Why did Constantine court the Christians
and favour them in the end?

Because the cult was his invention.

If Jesus was a fourth century literary invention,
why did people preach of him BEFORE the fourth century?
in other words, who were 'The Christians' that Tacitus,
Second century, spoke of?

In two words - forgery and interpolation.

"The Fabrication of the Christians" spoken about by Emperor Julian
included massive interpolation and corruption of the literature
that was available in Rome c.312 CE. See for example, the
"Testimonium Flavianum" - the classic Eusebian retrojection
of literary references into the Jewish historian Josephus.

I'm trying to understand the motivation of fabricating,
in the Fourth century AD, a literary Jesus. Are you saying
that Constantine himself wrote the NT? or part of it?
and if so, why?

Constantine sponsored the fabrication of the new testament and
the related New History of Eusebius. Eusebius was the editor-in-chief
of the earliest "Constantine Bibles". Eusebius was also sponsored to "research"
the history of this "nation of christians". Modern academics and scholars
are agreed that Eusebius did all this work largely between the years
312 and 324 CE at which time Constantine was moving closer and closer
to his target - the eastern city of Alexandria. With its gold reserves,
in the hands of Lucinius.

And a quick summary of exactly what it is you're claiming
in regards to this literary fictional Jesus...

Step (1): c.325 CE Constantine published the fictional new testament (canon).

Step (2): Immediately the Alexandrian Greek academics - Gnostics -
started to publish the Gnostic version of the New Stories about Jesus
and the Apostles. The Gnostics took bits and pieces out of Constantine's
New Testament and interwove them while embellishing the narrative
with absolutely wild and romantically impossible events: Greek satire,
and something like a "Homerization" of the new testament narratives
and events and figures.

Step (3): These books were banned, and prohibited. Performances of these texts
were banned from the Greek theatres of Alexandria - they were sought out by
the army for destruction by fire. It was death by beheading if you had any of
these books in your possession.

Step (4): Later Christian historians twisted the violent history of Constantine's conversion of the Eastern Empire to his new cult by the sword. Opposition to the emperor was removed from the records so that a harmonious Nicaean Council was presented, etc, etc, etc

Kookaburra Jack

6th June 2010, 03:16 PM

My understanding that the current canon was put to together pretty much by one man, Athanasius of of Alexandria.That the first Nicene council ratified his choices,which were only a few of many texts available.

There is no evidence that the Nicaean council discussed the books of the canon, or for that matter the trinity. Sometime at or around this time, Eusebius himself is instructed by Constantine to act as the editor-in-chief of the 50 Constantine Bibles, which were being prepared in special scriptoria that Eusebius apparently oversighted.

Thus I see that Eusebius himself must have selected a specific canon for this specific publication. It included the Shepherd of Hermas for example.

Also the council had several purposes; to address the Arian heresy, to homogenise official Christian belief and consolidate the position of Rome and the Bishop of Rome the central power in the Church. (probably in reverse order)A number of primary source accounts state that the council was called by Constantine "On Account of Arius". I see the Council as a War Summit where Constantine was about to dictate how business was going to be run from now on.

Are you saying that is at least partly incorrect? That Athanasius did no such thing and/or virtually all non canonical works were written after that time? Athanasius witnesses the "closure" of the new testament canon.
Changes were made between Constantine's Bible and our list of books.
Athanasius' list is the first to match the modern held list.
Athanasius is the author of the story "The Life of Anthony"
Isaac Newton wrote against the morals of Athanasius and his followers.
Isaac was good at analysis --- see the Newton Project for details.

As for the non canonical works, IMO these were authored after 325 CE
as a REACTION to Constantine's new testament. They were promply
forbidden to be read. I see them as anti-christian Greek satire given
the political context of the conversion of the greeks to Christinaity
by the sword of Constantine's army.

I have written more about the non canonical books
- more than 20 of the Gnostic texts are discussed
in an attempt to illuminate the signature of satire
directed against the orthodox new testament books.

eccles

6th June 2010, 08:10 PM

RealityRules

8th June 2010, 07:43 AM

@ eccles
there might have been a man named jeshua bar Joseph around whom the legend of Jesus of Nazareth, "Son of God" was cooked up .... It is doubtful if "St" Peter ever existed.

Yes, St Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) was probably an invention, too.

I like this

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm -

In interests of full disclosure....:

The personal hunch of B.A. Robinson, this website's main author, is that there were many Jewish teachers wandering in Galilee during the interval 20 to 30 CE. At least one may have been called Yeshua (Hebrew for Joshua).

Possible source of material about Jesus' life:

Robert M Price(4) ... asserts that there are a number of historical and mythical figures whose life stories contain these elements, including Jesus. But just as we do not regard Hercules as a historical figure, a case can be made that Jesus was also a mythical character.

Some theologians and historians believe that many of the details of Jesus' life were "borrowed" from a competing, contemporary religion, Mithraism. The religion was founded in Persia before the birth of Christianity.

@ Kookaburra Jack
... the Bell Curve for two independent C14 dating citations .... is centered at 319 CE plus or minus 42 years.

....This is the primary evidence by which I would argue that the gnostic gospels and acts ect were not authored until after the Council of Nicaea.

Can you be sure there were not older Gospel documents either not found yet or not surviving?

Kookaburra Jack

8th June 2010, 10:24 AM

@ Kookaburra Jack

Can you be sure there were not older Gospel documents either not found yet or not surviving?

Thanks for the question RealityRules,

The following is directed at the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" and not at this stage directed
at the canonical gospels and acts. Please keep this is mind when reading further.

I am considering two different types of publications and although I cannot be sure, the evidence at hand at the moment, and common sense logic, suggests that the manuscripts in our possession represent original 4th century authorship and not, as is commonly accepted today, republished copies of centuries earlier originals.

Consider the categories of publications as follows ...

Type (1) - The ORIGINAL PUBLICATION of a literary work in antiquity

By "original publication" I like you above credit an original author who, having authored a literary work, either copies it himself x number of times, or sends it out to commercial scribal copyists to make the additional x copies. He then distributes these x copies to x different clients (some of which for arguments sake might be peers or libraries of antiquity, such as that at Alexandria or Pergamum, or smaller provincial libraries, commensurate with the scale (x) of distribition. All these copies, up to x, constitute here my definition of the "original publication" of the literary work.

Is everyone with me so far? Chrestos!

Type (2) - The Subsequent Republication of the same literary work one or two or three centuries afterwards

A century or two later, one of these "original publications" for some reason comes to the attention of another publisher, and at that time, one or two hundred years after the original publication a second publication is manufactured. This reason for this second publication may include the possibility that copies of the original publication are being lost or are deteriorating towards extinction, and if the work is to be preserved, it needs to be copied by a patron publisher. However, this possible reason for the second publication may not arise for many centuries if the original publication is kept in a secure environment. The question how long would a 1st or 2nd or 3rd or 4th century codex or scroll last in the technological environment of those epochs is a separate, but possibly related question.

Clarification

The point I am making is that, with specific correspondence to the manuscripts today known as the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc", then we have the following mainstream assertion. Some of these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" were first published in the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd centuries of the common era (see 1 above). One or two (or according to some academics' dating of the earliest "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc", three) centuries afterwards a second republication is manufactured by a patron publisher for the sake of posterity. (see 2 above).

Argument

My argument is that statistically the more numerous publications will be represented in the (1) original publication and distribution perhaps while the author is still alive, perhaps shortly after. And that the statistically less numerous publications will be these (2) republications after a century or two or three. Thus the logic of statistical probability suggests the manuscripts that we have are originals of the 4th century, and not copies of originals from centuries in the past.

Lets look at a specific example ...

Specific example - the Gospel of Judas

Firstly, the evidence in our possession is a codex which was manufactured probably in the 4th century, according to both the C14 dating and to the opinions of the research team working on the archaeological find.
My idea is that, contrary to the assertion of the world's academic opinion, the manuscript in our possession represents a type (1) Original publication and not, as mainstream currently believes, a type (2) republication from centuries earlier.

Mainstream sees gJudas as a Type (2) Republication

Have a look at the range of conjectural dates discussed and asserted by many academics for the "Original Authorship Publication Type (1) that is believed to exist for the gJudas. (Early 2nd century - 200 years before the securely identified 4th century evidence).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas#The_uniqueness_of_the_codex
DATING
The Gospel of Judas is probably from no earlier than the second century.

The uniqueness of the [gJudas] codex

The president of the Maecenas Foundation, Mario Roberty, suggested the possibility that the Maecenas Foundation had acquired not the only extant copy of the Gospel, but rather the only known copy. Roberty went on to make the suggestion that the Vatican probably had another copy locked away, saying:
In those days the Church decided for political reasons to include the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the Bible. The other gospels were banned. It is highly logical that the Catholic Church would have kept a copy of the forbidden gospels. Sadly, the Vatican does not want to clarify further. Their policy has been the same for years – 'No further comment'.

It appears to me common sense to argue that Original authorship is far more prolific. Nothing has changed in this regard. Fortunately type (1) publications are highly productive and organic in all ages - dependent upon technology and freedom of speech.

Every budding poet, storywriter, technical documentor, mathematician, philosopher, judge of law, farmer, priest, sailor, bishop, historian, astronomer, geometer, logician, medical students and teachers, compiler of anthologies, bridge builders, General, soldier, playwright, newspaper reporter, town mayor, town fool, etc, etc, etc --- each seek to express their original authorship, and is far less likely to republish material and to patronise an UNKNOWN author of centuries past with a patronising republication.

Example of Type (2) - Republication in the 21st century of publications originally authored in the 19th century

Here is a list of 19th (http://http://www.literaryhistory.com/19thC/Outline.htm) century published authors such as Wordsworth, William (1770-1850). What percentage of 21st century publications are republications of these 19th century published authors as compared to the percentage of original 21st century publications? Common sense suggests a very small percentage of these type (2) republications.

Homer

Sure many people republished Homer, a known author, but the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" at the present moment, and for the last 16 centuries at least were authored by an author whose name is not known. Eusebius explicitly states that his history will declare and reveal the names of the Gnostic authors, but his history fails to do so, and/or the names of the Gnostic authors - those "vile heretics" - have been removed by the preservers of Eusebius.

Summary

Which brings us back to the main argument here that it is reasonable to conjecture, given the above argument and the C14 citations together, and despite the chronographic assertions within "Eusebius and Tertullian", that we are in fact in possession of the (Publication Type (1)) originally authored manuscripts of the author(s) of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" and that the authorship of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" is a post-Nicaean literary phenomenom. The political reality suggested is simply that these manuscripts represent a political and religious literary reaction (perhaps perceived by the orthodox as seditious!) by the 4th century Greek (probably Alexandrian) "Gnostic authors" against the elevation of the "New Testament Canon" by Constantine c.324 CE to the status of "Holy Writ" of the Graeco-Roman civilisation of c.324 CE.

Kookaburra Jack

8th June 2010, 10:50 AM

This is all excellent. it corroborates everytning I have read and comfirms my conclusions, that there might have been a man named jeshua bar Joseph around whom the legend of Jesus of Nazareth, "Son of God" was cooked up and formalised at the Council of Nicea by Constantine I who was the founder of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church as the official Religion of the Roman Empire for political purposes. He named "St." Sylvester I as Pope, the FIRST pope of the Roman Catholic Church. It is doubtful if "St" Peter ever existed.

Thanks Eccles. Immediately after the threat of Emperor Julian was removed, Pope Damasius c.365 CE promoted "Peter in Rome" and renovated the Vatican catacombs for the 4th century tourist trade. My opinion is that the earliest "Christian relics" and sarcohagi and inscriptions in these catacombs are from the renovations of Dear Damasius. Damasius's soldiers fought openly in the streets of Rome against the soldiers of other "Prospective Popes", and won. He was the first person to assume the ancient role of "Pontifex Maximus" while not being a Roman Emperor. He was your usual mafia thug and recognised good business opportunities when he saw them. Damasius then tutored Jerome.

On the other side, in Alexandria, the despotic militaristic thug "Uncle Theophilus" tutored his nephew Cyril, Doctor of the Church, how to be a thug, murderer, terrorist boss and imperial censor. Thugs ruled the 4th century "Christian State Church" and this is no surprise since it was raised to state political prominence by Constantine who is best regarded not just as a supreme imperial mafia thug and fascist military supremacist but also as a common gangster. Robber and brigand, where brigand means a pirate on land.
“Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands,
all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
History has proven that. All power corrupts;
Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

[Lord Acton]

As a matter of interest there were other figures in antiquity upon whom Jesus could have been fabricated, such as:

(1) Apollonius of Tyana - mentioned in Acts as "Apollos" but in Codex Bezae as "Apollonius". This author and Pythagorean sage was an historical figure - see the archaeological inscription in the link provided. To do justice to understanding Apollonius, one needs to read Philostratus' account "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" published c.220 CE and then the POLEMICAL REFUTATION against Apollonius which was probably sponsored by Constantine and authored by Eusebius in the work entitled

THE TREATISE OF EUSEBIUS, THE SON OF PAMPHILUS,
AGAINST THE LIFE OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA
WRITTEN BY PHILOSTRATUS,
OCCASIONED BY THE PARALLEL
DRAWN BY HIEROCLES
BETWEEN HIM AND CHRIST.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/GIF/Apollonius_Inscription.JPG

(2) Mani - the Persian "Buddha-like" prophet and author sponsored by Persian King Shapur II in the mid 3rd century. When Shapur II dies, following a political reshuffle in Sassanid Persia, Mani was crucified and his followers persecuted. But by then followers of Mani - the Manichaeans - were already present scattered through the Roman empire, having monasteries - much like the Buddhists. In the Eastern empire the Manichaeans were severely persecuted by Diocletian, but evidence suggests the western empire did not conduct such purges (until Constantine) and that there were Manichaean monasteries in Rome c.312 CE. The story of the crucified "Holy Man" and his persecuted followers was thus contemporary political news when Constantine took over the management of the preservation of books in Rome c.312 CE.

Typically, as acts of political censorship of the historical truth, the original books of the Manichaeans are collected and burnt before the study doors of Christian basilicas through the 4th and 5th centuries. The orthodox christian historians of the 4th and 5th century fabricate the Buddhist-like Mani as a "Christian heretic".

eccles

8th June 2010, 12:33 PM

Two excellent works on this topic:

Fables of Ancient Israel Now Being Dissected

http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/fablesofancientisraelbeingdissected.html

The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Witnesses_to_the_Historicity_of_Jesus

Anyone who still believes the bible is suffering from severe poisoning of the mind by Religion.

RealityRules

8th June 2010, 04:32 PM

Cheers, Kookaburra Jack.

By"Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etcare you referring to Apocryphal Gospels per se or as a subset (eg Gospel of the Hebrews, a popular early Gospel)

Kookaburra Jack

8th June 2010, 07:26 PM

Cheers, Kookaburra Jack.

Byare you referring to Apocryphal Gospels per se or as a subset (eg Gospel of the Hebrews, a popular early Gospel)

I consider that the set of "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" and the set of "Canonical Books" as complimentary sets. That is, when you add together the set of books which are considered as the canonical books of the new testament to the set of books which are considered as the new testament apocrypha (ie: non canonical texts aka "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"), then you have the complete set of the "Early Christian literature".

At the present moment the mainstream theories for these two sets of books can be summarised as this:

1) The canonical books were authored in the 1st or 2nd century by unknown authors (and certainly not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul)
2) The "Gnostic" books were authored semi-continuously in the 2nd AND 3rd AND 4th centuries by unknown authors.

As you will appreciate, the mainstream thinking is totally "in the dark", and I seek to illuminate this situation.

My idea is that the entire set of this "Early Christian literature" can be explained by a profane political theory, namely:

1) The canonical books were authored between 312 and 324 CE by Eusebius oversighting unknown scriptores under sponsorship of Constantine.
2) The "Gnostic" books were authored between 325 and 336 CE by non christian academic Alexandrian Greeks as a seditious reaction to 1)

Further, that the author of many of the core "Gnostic Books" was Arius of Alexandria, upon whose name and books and memory
Constantine pronounced damnatio memoriae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae) and for which reason a pseudonym was created (for Arius) in the name of "Leucius Charinus"
which begins to appear in the later 4th century, and is soundly cussed and cursed by Christian Emperors and Bishops for centuries.

See the article Comparing Arius of Alexander and Leucius Charinus for the references to the actual sources
in antiquity by which I attempt to support this conjecture..

Damnatio memoriae is the Latin phrase (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Latin_language) literally meaning "damnation of memory" in the sense of removal from remembrance. It was a form of dishonor that could be passed by the Roman Senate (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Roman_Senate) upon traitors (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Treason) or others who brought discredit to the Roman State (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Roman_State).

Seamus

9th June 2010, 07:26 AM

Jack,when do you say the Nag Hamadi texts were written? My understanding is no later than about 140CE,and possibly as early as 60CE.

Or is this irrelevant to your position?

I'm really sorry,but when reading your ideas the name Immanuel Velikovsky popped unbidden into my head. (I've read a couple of his books)

Please don't think I'm dismissing your views,I'm not, I simply do not yet have enough informatiion for an informed opinion.

RealityRules

9th June 2010, 09:56 AM

... when you add together the set of books which are considered as the canonical books of the new testament to the set of books which are considered as the new testament apocrypha (ie: non canonical texts aka "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"), then you have the complete set of the "Early Christian literature".

Cheers, like Seamus I am trying to be on the same page with a view to understanding and discussion. I understand the Canon is the bible - all 27(?) books, yet the canonical gospels are the 3 synoptic (Mark, Luke & Matthew) plus John

At the present moment the mainstream theories for these two sets of books can be summarised as this:

1) The canonical books were authored in the 1st or 2nd century by unknown authors (and certainly not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul)

2) The "Gnostic" books were authored semi-continuously in the 2nd AND 3rd AND 4th centuries by unknown authors.

As you will appreciate, the mainstream thinking is totally "in the dark", and I seek to illuminate this situation.

My idea is that the entire set of this "Early Christian literature" can be explained by a profane political theory, namely:

1) The canonical books were authored between 312 and 324 CE by Eusebius oversighting unknown scriptores under sponsorship of Constantine.
2) The "Gnostic" books were authored between 325 and 336 CE by non christian academic Alexandrian Greeks as a seditious reaction to 1)
Cheers. Is there any previous "mainstream" information about any works being long-standing oral traditions that were being committed to paper in the 1st to 3rd centurues CE? What about Gospel of the Hebrews, considered an early popular early-Christian "book"?

Kookaburra Jack

9th June 2010, 10:31 AM

Jack,when do you say the Nag Hamadi texts were written?

The 12 or 13 books that constitute the Nag Hammadi Codices (http:/) were physically published sometime around the mid 4th century. This cannot be disputed owing to analysis of the cartonage (ie: the paper used to make the bindings) and the radio carbon 14 citation published as 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years).

http://www.gnosis.org/images/codices.jpg

My understanding is no later than about 140CE,and possibly as early as 60CE.

Or is this irrelevant to your position? Well it is very relevant to my position in that I would argue against such an early dating. Let me firstly say that your understanding is shared by most academics in the field. The idea is that everyone is presuming the existence of earlier texts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, which were simply republished in the 4th century within the Nag Hammadi codices.

My idea is contrary to this. I do not make this presumption and am claiming that the known 4th century publication was not a republication of earlier texts from centuries before, but was in fact authored in the 4th century and that we will find no earlier manuscripts.

I'm really sorry,but when reading your ideas the name Immanuel Velikovsky popped unbidden into my head. (I've read a couple of his books)I can see certain parallels but not others ;)

Please don't think I'm dismissing your views,I'm not, I simply do not yet have enough informatiion for an informed opinion.Thanks man. I appreciate the questions and dialogue.

Kookaburra Jack

9th June 2010, 10:47 AM

Cheers. Is there any previous "mainstream" information about any works being long-standing oral traditions that were being committed to paper in the 1st to 3rd centurues CE?

Thanks for the questions Realityrules.

I know of no long-standing oral traditions outside of the "history" assembled by Eusebius in the epoch of Constantine. The libraries of Alexandria and Pergamum indicate that people were really getting into scrolls and then books (codices) for the preservation of knowledge. This of course does not preclude the possibility that various oral traditions were still then extant, such as the key meanings in the "Mystery Religions". Also certain key teachers and leaders of pholosophical schools did not write. Examples BCE include Pythagoras, and in the 3rd century the founder of Neoplatonism Ammonias Saccas, a dock worker on the wharves of Alexandria.

What about Gospel of the Hebrews, considered an early popular early-Christian "book"?

So it is asserted in the "history of Eusebius". We have no text for this book so its rather academic. A better exampole might be the Gospel of Judas which came to light only recently and was published in the National Geographic.

The C14 dating for the gJudas is 290 CE (Plus or minus 60years). This book is mentioned in Eusebius history however, when Eusebius cites an author called Irenaeus, who mentions this book. Both Eusebius and Irenaeius are both to be perceived as "heresiologists". That is they wrote ingignantky about and denounced "the vile Gnostic heretics" who had authored these "other" books. (ie: the non canonical books of the new testament).

My position is that Irenaeus represents a false and retrojected reference by the orthodox heresiologists of the 4th century, to paint a history in whcih the history to the opposition against the Christian religion began before Constsntine founded the church.

My position is that the Gospel of Judas and all the other "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" were authored after Nicaea, according to the C14 dating and that there were no earlier publications before this time.

Freyja

11th June 2010, 08:38 PM

I've been curious about the historical existence of Jesus (the man), especially since I have a small-time interest in ancient and Roman history of the time.

Kookaburra Jack, what do you make of Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum? Not being a dedicated scholar of ancient history or of the languages which would have been in use, I don't quite appreciate the nuances of the different translations, or what terms would have been in use etc.

It seems that (most/all?) references to Jesus by pagan writers have been called into question either because of mistranslations or suspected subsequent insertions by Christians, and Pliny the Younger does not mention him directly either, though I've seen his general references to the existence of Christians at the time being used as "evidence".

Kookaburra Jack

14th June 2010, 01:05 AM

I've been curious about the historical existence of Jesus (the man), especially since I have a small-time interest in ancient and Roman history of the time.

Chronology is all important. Everyone assumes the new testament was assembled in the 1st century and then then widely published in the 4th century, three hundred years after the events it purports to describe. Enjoy your research of the entire epoch.

Kookaburra Jack, what do you make of Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum? Not being a dedicated scholar of ancient history or of the languages which would have been in use, I don't quite appreciate the nuances of the different translations, or what terms would have been in use etc.You might like to browse the following articles:

The Testimonium Flavianum (http://): A chronological summary of Censure
Eusebius Forged the TF (http://): An article by Ken Olsen
Making Fruit Salad of the Testimonium Flavianum (http://): "Is the TF the genuine sweet apple or a sour lemon or in fact something else - an orange?"

It seems that (most/all?) references to Jesus by pagan writers have been called into question either because of mistranslations or suspected subsequent insertions by Christians, and Pliny the Younger does not mention him directly either, though I've seen his general references to the existence of Christians at the time being used as "evidence".Of course. They have been used as "evidence" since the 4th century but it does not make the evidence integrous. It was not until the age of enlightenment that academic assessment started to seriously question the integrity of the one and only "Christian historian" who gives the planet the only history of "The Nation of Christians" for the epoch from 000 to 325 CE -- Mr. Eusebius of Caesarea. The first article above lists a chronological summary of censure of Eusebius from the 17th century.

The despotic power of the church has waned, and people are now able to ask questions of the historical truth of the major players in the saga of christian origins. One might also run across mention of the "Chrestians" and the question concerning the relationship between "Christos" and "Chrestos" (which means "Good") in all this early material.

Best wishes in your research.

Kookaburra Jack

17th June 2010, 03:12 PM

In his book Ante pacem: archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865548951/freeratidiscb-20) (via: amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865548951/freeratidiscb-20)) the author, Graydon F. Snyder, presents what others (here and elsewhere) have termed an exhaustive collection of the archaeological footprint of Christianity prior to the 4th century.

As many of you are aware, I have attempted to refute this evidence over the last few years in norder to explore the hypothesis that the Roman Emperor Constantine in fact was responsible for the sponsorship of the fabrication of the New Testament and the "Church History" which wa assembled by Eusebius of Caesarea between the years of 312 and 324 CE.

Having obtained a copy of this work a few weeks ago, I have gone through this book in a meticulous manner to examine and review the detailed elements of the evidence assembled by Graydon Snyder with the view in mind to either find that I have been mistaken in exploring this hypothesis or to vindicate (at least to myself) the integrity of this hypothesis.

The result of my critical review of the evidence presented by Graydon Snyder is that, as far as I am able to determine, it is quite reasonable to dismiss each and every citation therein presented, on a common sense basis. I have presented my findings, and the reasons by which I am unable to accept the view of Snyder and the mainstream "Early Christian History" tradition, that this evidence actually supports the tradition. The review I have conducted is quite exhaustive and runs to many pages and is thus not conducive to posing en masse in this forum.

However I have collated all the references and citations presented by Snyder's monumental work in a web article entitled A Critical Review of Ante pacem: Archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine (http://) which I invite any interested parties to peruse at their leisure. I further invite anyone who may be interested in this issue to re-present any arguments that I have brought to bear in the assessment of this evidence, which I consider insufficient for the purpose of proving the historical existence of the Pre-Nicaean Christian church, alluded to in the writings of Eusebius and his subsequent continuators in the 4th and 5th century State Catholic Christian church.

I will conclude this notice with one and one only example, and that is the claim by Graydon Snyder that in the archaeology of this "Early Epoch" there indeed are relics which depict the figure of Jesus. This example and image is as follows:

http://smarthistory.org/assets/images/images/sta_maria_antiqua.jpg
Plate 13 -- "The sarcophagus located in Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome

It is summarily described by the author as being "Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art", and a full description is given is as follows:"The Teaching of the Law stands in the center, with a Good Shepherd immediately to the right and an Orante (http://www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/orante.htm) immediately to the left. Continuing left is a Jonah cycle, first Jonah resting, then Jonah cast out of the ketos, and finally Jonah in the boat. To the extreme left side stands a river god. To the right of the Good Shepherd there is a baptism of Jesus with a dove descending. Jesus is young, nude, and quite small next to the older, bearded John the Baptist. A pastoral scene concludes the right end"The Image of the Young Nude Jesus

In a concluding section of his book Snyder remarks:"In fresco and plastic art Jesus is depicted as a youth, often nearly nude, who performed remarkable acts -- events described artistically in a New Testament context. This had appeared by 200 CE ........

"It is remarkable that the Constantinian era kept that picture of Jesus"

"It was only after Constantine, about the time of Damasius, that the picture of Jesus was changed to from the youthful wonder-worker to the royal or majestic Lord. At that time, Jesus shifted more to a bearded, elderly, dominant figure"http://www.britishmuseum.org/images/ps148532_l.jpg (Thanks Clive!)

I find it extremely difficult to see this "young nude figure of Jesus standing beside John the Baptist, who wears the garb of the Greek philosophers". To my mind this image is simply of a man and his son, and the conjecture that we are looking at Jesus and John the Baptist is simply some utterly misdirected poetic licence. ("Christian Glasses")

Anyway, I have been asked many times to recant this hypothesis that we have no pre-Nicaean evidence on the basis of the contents of Graydon Snyder's "ANTE PACEM" and have finally managed to locate the book and to conduct a critical and skeptical review of it. This task I have now competed, with the result that I can find no element of the archaeological evidence which does not rely upon such "Christian poetic licence".

The "Orante" and the "Good Shepherd" occuring everywhere in "Early Christian art, etc" are non-christian!

At the end of the day, I can find no evidence here (or elswhere) by which the hypothesis --- that there were no Christians before Constantine --- can be reasonably refuted. However, I welcome constructive criticism of my criticism, and hope to be proved wrong, so I can forget all about this ancient historical material, put my thesis down forever, and return to the present century, and live my life in blissful ignorance and peace. Both I and my surfboard have been missing routine workouts on the dawn patrol.

Kookaburra Jack

4th January 2011, 05:55 AM

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Gnostic%20Codices.JPG

"Everything which has come down to us
from heathendom is wrapped in a thick fog;
it belongs to a space of time we cannot measure.
We know that it is older than Christendom, but
whether by a couple of years
or a couple of centuries,
or even by more than a millenium,
we can do no more than guess."
[Rasmus Nyerup, (Danish antiquarian), 1802 CE
(in Trigger, 1989:71) - from www.C14dating.com (http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html)]

INTRODUCTION

This article examines the results of two comparitively recent radiocarbon dating tests performed on fragments sourced from two ancient books or codices containing "Gnostic Gospels". The source manuscripts are discussed, along with the general theory of C14 dating. Two distinct process steps are presented in the C14 analysis, described respectively as the "radiocarbon age estimate", and the "radiocarbon calibration estimates". The presentation of the former results is explored by means of standard distribution graphs, while the presentation of the latter is explored by means of the radiocarbon calibration curves generated by the OxCal C14 calibration software. Finally it is noted that the generally released publication of the results in the media (eg: National Geographic) are not the final "radiocarbon calibration estimates", but the penultimate "radiocarbon age estimates".

What do the C14 results say about Gnostic Codex manufacture in antiquity?

The surprising result of this review article is that, contrary to the published opinions expressed by National Geographic and the UA Press Releases, the Gnostic Gospel of Judas was not manufactured before the Council of Nicaea of 325 CE, but it is just as likley to have been published after this event.

By considering the two available C14 results (uncalibrated) as the first two tips of an as yet unrevealed iceburg of C14 results (for manuscripts containing "Gnostic Gospels"), a composite graph is presented with a median value of 314 CE and an error bound of plus or minus 42 years, clearly very close to the Council of Nicaea. Furthermore, the effect of radiocarbon calibration moves this date forward substantially into the later 4th century.

It is postulated that a "Gnostic Attractor" will slowly become defined by future C14 results on these types of manuscripts, and will be centered over an epoch that commences very shortly after, and not before, the Council of Nicaea. The manufacture of codices containing "Gnostic Gospels" in antiquity may thus be, perhaps unexpectedly, a post Nicaean phenomenom. An appropriate time period in years still needs to be established between the time the papyrus was harvested, and when it was finally used by the scribe. It is therefore suggested that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" were a post Nicaean literary reaction to the NT Canon published by Constantine c.324/325 CE

simonecuttlefish

4th January 2011, 08:28 AM

Thanks for this. I had read that the books of the Nag Hammadi library were hidden as a 'result' of the council of Nicea, as they were ordered to be destroyed and/or at least rejected from the 'new' accepted christian holy texts. The suggestion they were composed as a reaction 'to' the council of Nicea is quite interesting. Hopefully this will get clearer with more research.

For anyone interested in the Nag Hammadi Library try here:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Kookaburra Jack

10th January 2011, 08:55 AM

Thanks for this.

You're welcome.

I had read that the books of the Nag Hammadi library were hidden as a 'result' of the council of Nicea, as they were ordered to be destroyed and/or at least rejected from the 'new' accepted christian holy texts.

The "history" of the Gnostic authors of these books is as yet not known in any detail, since the voluminous accounts of the orthodox, while accusing the gnostic authors of heresy and gross error, these orthodox fail to mention any names and dates. The 4th century "orthodox heresiologists" declare that these books (ie" the Gnostic Gospels and Acts") were authored in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and all mainstream opinion (almost without exception) has so far followed these accounts (perhaps erroneously).

Constantine failed in his bid to have the books that he published in the Constantine Bible "canonized". It was not until c.367 CE (Athanasius Letter) that the closure of the new testament canon was finalised. This is after Emperor Julian's death.

Most cite this letter as the "reason" the Nag Hammadi codices were buried, and suggest they were created/manufactured in the nearby Pachomian monastery. Pachomius headed out of Alexandria following "a vision" c.324 CE and started a network of remote monasteries, which were not necessarily "christian" at all. The vision Pachomius saw may have been Constantine's destruction of temples and obelisks around Alexandria. Thousands flocked to his remote refuges during the rule of Constantine, and later his son Constantius. They fled the cities for the wilderness. Why did they choose to do this?

The suggestion they were composed as a reaction 'to' the council of Nicea is quite interesting.

The suggestion arises from the C14 results. There is sufficient time for the entire series of "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" to have been authored after the Council of Nicaea, during the rule of Constantine, by Alexandrian Greeks who thought they could write better stories than Constantine. Because these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" became very popular (far more popular than their "official competition") the orthodox banned them, and prohibited them, and searched for and destroyed them, and burnt them and proscribed the death penalty for anyone preserving (keeping) them. They became "hot property". They became so hot they had to be buried. They were not safe to keep.

The Gnostic authors were branded by the orthodox (and the Christian Emperors) as vile and despicable heretics, and as the sons of the devil. The Gnostics got very bad press from the orthodox hersiologists, so we know that these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" really upset the orthodox circles of power. The question as to why these books were seen as "heretical" can thus be reduced to straightforward politics. The Gnostics just mimicked the Constantine codex with a compendium of their own inventions, later called "The Travels of the Apostles".

Hopefully this will get clearer with more research.

Precisely. However just to warn you - it appears to be an entirely new idea, since the academics in this area believe otherwise. That is for example, they think that some of the texts in the Nag Hammadi Codices (C14 and cartonage dated to c.348 CE) were originally authored as early as the 2nd century. The Nag Hammadi scribes were desmodromically copying centuries old sources in the political revolution of the 4th century.

For anyone interested in the Nag Hammadi Library try here: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Kookaburra Jack

17th January 2011, 01:16 AM

Can we estimate a probability that both the Gnostic codices
were manufactured after the year 325 CE [ie: Nicaea]?

YES as follows .... (a) using the uncalibrated results

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/c14_Composite3.JPG

Conjecturing the Four Possible Outcomes

Where J is the date of the Gospel of Judas and T the date of Thomas, then there are only 4 possible arrangments as follows ...

(1) Both J and T >= 325 (15%)
(2) Both J and T < 325 (27%)
(3) J < 325 and T >= 325 (50%)
(4) T < 325 and J >= 325 (8%)
If this analysis is true and complete, and no other outcomes are possible,

then p(1) + p(2) + p(3) + p(4) should sum to one, and that:

P(both J and T >= 325) = 1 - [P(J < 325 and T>= 325) + P(T < 325 and J>= 325) + P(both J and T < 325)]
The computed results are shown above.
Based on the given uncalibrated C14 results, the probability that both codices were manufactured after Nicaea is 15%.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Possible_Outcomes_Nicaea.JPG

Kookaburra Jack

17th February 2011, 04:31 PM

INTRODUCTION

An independent analyst is reviewing the mainstream theory for the chronology of the manufacture of gnostic codices prior to the event of the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The mainstream theory for this chronology is based on the expectation that the gnostic manufacture of their manuscripts commenced as early as the first century and continued sporadically through until Nicaea.

The analysts expects that this manufacturing process was confined to a relatively brief epoch some time after the Council of Nicaea,
and in keeping with the date of the Nag Hammadi Codices. (348 CE), with an average date of manufacture about 341 CE, and a small
standard deviation of 10.1

A sample of some 38 of the gnostic manuscripts presumed to have been originally authored before Nicaea is reviewed. According to the mainstream theory the average manufacturing date for these 38 samples is 190 CE. Given that they are randomly selected, and alpha = 0.05, test to see if the analyst has any sort of a case.

DRAFT Statistical Hypothesis Test - One Tailed (Upper Tailed)

Solution

Step 1: Set the null and alternative hypotheses

H0 : Mu <= 190
H1 : Mu > 190

Step 2: Calculate the test statistic

Z = x_bar - Mu0 / rho / sqrt(n) =
= 341 - 190 / 10.1 / sqrt(38)
= 2.4

Step 3: Set Rejection Region

Looking at the the picture in example, we need to put all of alpha in the right tail.

Thus, R : Z > 1:96

Step 4: Conclude

Z = 2.4 > 1.96

The test statistic Z is in the rejection region and the null hypothesis is rejected.
This seems to imply that the analyst has a case.

I have taken data samples from the manuscript tradition, some of which are listed

Data can be furnished on request and a graph of the results of all this is shown below.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Gnostic_Codex_Manufacturing_to_the_4th_Century.JPG

Note: By "Gnostics" I mean whoever it was that authored books like "The Gospel of Judas" (See the National Geo Articles), and Nag Hammadi Codices, etc.

Feedback, suggestions, corrections, questions, ideas - all welcomed.

Best wishes,

Kookaburra Jack

Kookaburra Jack

3rd March 2011, 12:42 PM

Good Day,

My story started over 5 years ago with a question - was the christian bible fabricated by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century?

Could the books of the new testament, the figure of Jesus Christ and his Twelve Apostles, and the history of the epoch of "Early Christianity" have been fabricated in the 4th century during the epoch between 312 and 324 CE during which Constantine, having secured Rome, rose to absolute military supremacy in the ancient Eastern Roman empire?

My professional life had included being an IT Manager in a large organisation, and the intensive use of databases, which I continued with in the running of my own database consultancy. I had never done history at school or uni, but had obtained 100% in Geography in the HSC of 1970 at NSBHS. Nevertheless, my reading and research commenced towards the answering of this question.

Six months into it, I came across the writings of the Emperor Julian, who had essentially ruled the Roman Empire in the 4th century - briefly, between 360 and 363 CE - immediately after the rule of Constantine (305-337) and his son Constantius II (337-360). This emperor Julian had taken the time to write three books about the Christians (whom Julian always called "Galilaeans", and legally named them that in the empire while he ruled). In the opening of these three books, Julian writes:

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.

At any rate, this inspired me to think that although I felt like the contrary child in Hans Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes", who pointed out that the Emperor wore no clothes, at least someone at that time was thinking the same sort of thing.

I could go on and on about what my research in the ancient history of the first 4 or 5 centuries of our common era has revealed to my study, and I would be happy to answer any questions on this issue in an appropriate forum (which may not be this one).

Despite my professional career, I am not a graduate of any university, having dropped out of Engineering at Sydney Uni 1972. And although I have engaged in many fruitful discussions relating to these new ideas in ancient history, I have not had too many opportunities to present my ideas to those in the ancient history faculties of any Australian universities.

It appears as though I may have to try and write a book. Any ideas or assistance in representing these new ideas in ancient history for review by contemporary academics in the field would be greatly appreciated and welcomed.

At any rate, the basis for my faithlessness in the authenticity of the books of the bible, espcially the books of the new testament, is the fact that, like Emperor Julian, I am convinced that the fabrication of the christians (and their history prior to 324/325 CE) is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

When the door to door evangelists ask me the question "Who do you think created this book", and they point to the bible they are carrying, my reply has been "the Emperor Constantine, in the 4th century".

A study of ancient history makes me faithless.

My best wishes to all the students of life!

Kookaburra Jack.
Falls Creek
Australia

(http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/)

Emmy

3rd March 2011, 12:49 PM

Hey Kookaburra Jack!

Welcome!

I cant offer much advice other than what you have certainly looks interesting, and that its very difficult to get books published, so perseverance is the key!

Again, welcome, I myself have only been on for a couple of days and am not yet sure how to get off.

Em

Jaar-Gilon

3rd March 2011, 12:54 PM

Hi KJ, thought you were already a member here from ages ago?
It's great to see people growing through study. Good luck with the book.

Praxis

3rd March 2011, 12:58 PM

Nice to see you again KJ - fascinating post!

Emmy, every now and then someone who has been a member for a while will suddenly make a post about how they came to atheism. It's not exclusive to newbies :)

Emmy

3rd March 2011, 01:13 PM

Darwinsbulldog

3rd March 2011, 01:48 PM

Hi again Jack.

wolty

3rd March 2011, 02:24 PM

Yup, welcome back. Nice to see you.

Goldenmane

3rd March 2011, 02:31 PM

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.

G'day KJ.

The quoted text doesn't strike me as indicating that the author thought Constantine fabricated the whole of early Christianity, merely that he thought that their religion was bollocks, and all the magical stories associated with it (magical picnics, strolls on roiling seas, and the dead returning from the grave, etc) were similarly bollocks - probably, I would suggest, because he had his own religion which he thought was The One True Religion, and therefore by necessity this rival one must be wrong and evil.

"Though it has in it nothing divine" would seem to indicate that he did believe in the divine, but the Christian religion didn't in any way fit his notion of the divine, therefore their claimed miracles and god must be false - but I see no reason to think that he is claiming that Constantine just made the whole thing up.

Besides, if Constantine was going to make the whole thing up, why would he create a fucking idiotic story based on a god manifesting itself to a bunch of backward hicks in the arse-end of Palestine? And then write a bunch of books that are not only self-refuting but also consist largely of petty fucking bickering amongst the members of the small sect which rose up? Pretty bloody silly way to establish a religion.

Coryate

7th March 2011, 06:25 AM

I always thought this book had a good explanation of Jesus, basically you rip off the miracles of those from 400 yrs ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Mysteries

Kookaburra Jack

7th March 2011, 08:16 AM

Goldenmane

7th March 2011, 09:33 AM

But what about Jesus's Public Relations Statement
about paying tax to Caesar?

Wasn't this really really fortuitous for Caesar .....Jesus to the Mob

"In the very first place render unto Caesar the things which he really owns that you have,
and come back next week and I will brief you all on the unessential messages
from my Father who is an Artist in the Heavenly Mint.

Show me a coin. So who's image and likeness is this? What do you see with your eyes?
Verily, verily, I say unto thee that if you render unto Caesar these trinkets of maya
then he, and his authorities over the rulers, of this and many ages,
will look after your tax returns until I come back down the track. "

Cited from the Outback Shearer's Bible
(aka "Jesus and the Golden Fleece") (not on Amazon),
Oodnadatta, 1909.

What?

First off, I can't find any instance of the whole "render unto Caesar" incident which comes out as "In the first place" or "my Father who is an artist in the Heavenly mint". Beside the point though, really.

Secondly: Really? That's the basis for your whole "Constantine invented an entire fucking religion from scratch, including contradictory texts and early schisms, based in a primitive backwards desert culture of a conquered people"? To convince people to pay their fucking taxes? "Oh, a magic Jew said you should pay your taxes."

Dude, the bloke was a fucking Roman Emperor. If people weren't paying their fucking taxes, he sent some of his massive goddamn army to suggest they mend their ways.

robertkd

7th March 2011, 10:07 AM

@KJ

I have always been of the opinion that the NT was simply a collection of stories and as I understand it most were written by people years and sometimes even generations after the "time" of Jesus.

I also understand in the early after period time AD the Romans actually did not approve of the early Christians in fact the Romans actually discouraged the Christians and the Christians would overtly hold their rituals at times coinciding with pagan and other rituals so as not to be discovered.

There was also a period when when I believe the Constantine ordered the destruction of many documents both in the Italy and the East (now middle east) and allegedly a great many manuscripts of the period where lost.

I wouldn't consider Constantine to have fabricated the NT as such but that doesn't mean it wasn't fabricated or at least embellished constructed to fit an agenda.

Robert

Kookaburra Jack

8th March 2011, 07:19 PM

Examination of the evidence before the 4th century

The major evidence in support of the idea that the new testament, the christian church and the "nation of Christians" was a 4th century invention of the Emperor Constantine follows from a critical examination of the evidence for these three things prior to the 4th century.

For a start it needs to be understood that the ONLY history of the christian chuch, the ONLY history of the nation of christians, and the ONLY history of the new testament prior to the Council of Nicaea was actually authored between the years of 312 and 324 CE (with later revisions c.337 CE etc) by one Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, who sat at Constantine's right hand at the Council of Nicaea.

My argument is that Constantine sponsored this "researcher" to write a history of the "new and strange religion" which was to become Christianity.

Why was the fabricated imperial god Jewish?

Besides, if Constantine was going to make the whole thing up, why would he create a fucking idiotic story based on a god manifesting itself to a bunch of backward hicks in the arse-end of Palestine?

Constantine probably dismissed the praetorian guard c.305 CE, and from that time onward instead surrounded himself with a tight knit group of high profile barbarian chieftains. With the gold that he got out of Briton and the NW empire, he staked his barbarian army for a successful assault on Rome, which he took 312 CE. He then looked east towards the eastern empire, burininbg with ambition.

With the gold that he secured as a result of being the Emperor of Rome, and pontifex maximus, and with a number of clever taxation wroughts (in gold bullion) against the Roman aristocracy, Constantine could afford to take his barbarian army to a new level, and stake a bid for the "jackpot". The "jackpot" was the relatively rich and opulent eastern empire, centered on the city of Alexandria. If he took the east, he would have enough gold to pay the army for the rest of his life. Paying the army was the primary preoccupation of Roman Emperors. If you dont think this is the case, take the time to have a read through Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire (http://mises.org/story/3663)
by Professor Joseph Peden.

As good generals generally do, Constantine was continually planning ahead and gathering intelligence. He planned for the day he would become the supreme military ruler of the Roman Empire. Because he had the gold, he owned the army. Because he had the army and his position, he literally owned all the civilian taxpayers - from the senators and the rich land owners to the small merchants and common people, and of course the great populace of slaves. All these people he oppressivley taxed in gold to the extent he was called a "brigand".

However there was one remnant class of the populace in the ROman Empire at that time which he did not have control over. This class of people were the great milieu of diverse priesthoods of the Graeco-Roman religions, from the small cults to the large and well represented cults that boasted great, ancient and highly revered temples in throiughout the empire, such as the cult of Asclepius, the healing god, whom students of medicine hear about when they study the 2nd century Galen, and the BCE figure of Hippocrates.

How to deal with the Greaco-Roman religious priesthoods in the empire? This was the question in Constantine's mind between 312 and 324 CE while he edged closer to supremacy. He may have been reminded of two things:

(1) Because he started his career in Briton, he would have heard the modus operandi of how the Romans conquered Briton and its peoples. While the Druids lived, theere was resistance from the people. Once the Druids were dragged out of the wooks and executed, the people fell into line.

(2) One hunder years earlier, the Persian warlord Ardashir had obtained military supremacy and with it, he arranged for the preparation of a "Holy Writ" which was to become the official state religion of Sassanid Persia, and so created a state monotheistic religion. With these changes, the Persian army had marched "To the One True Song" with great vigor against the Romans.

Therefore, as soon as Constantine became supreme ruler of the Empire he did two things:

(1) He ordered his army to destroy the ancient and highly revered temples to Asclepius, and in certain cases dragged the priests out of the temples (not the woods) and had them executed. Haveing set appriproate high level examples, he then order a general prohibition of temple services, which was overseen by the army, at least in the major cities. As a result of this action, he unchained the Graeco-Roman priesthoods from the Greek civilisation, and effectively made them redundant. As Pontifex Maximus, they previously reported to him by means of the "Sacred College of the Graeco-Roman priesthoods". He no longer required their services.

Also at this time, he gave an oration at the Council of Antioch, prior to Nicaea, in which Robin Lane-Fox comments he made a number of completely fraudulent historical claims about the appearance of Bilbo Jesus Baggins, berated the philosophers. and warned that Plato's critical questioning was a "menace to the state". Rescripts from Constantine ordered that philosophers and leading citizens of Antioch who would not confess the truth of the new Bilbo Jesus Baggins were to be tortured.

(2) At the Council of Nicaea, Constantine put forward the new testament as the "Holy Writ" of the Greek civilisation and ROman Empire, and insisted that the attendees vote on this issue under military duress. The reason that the new god was Jewish was because Jewish was not Greek, and Constantine was about to totally make the milieu Greek religious priesthoods utterly redundant. Jewish antiquity was asserted to be greated than Greek. Jewish philosophers were asserted to be superior to the Greek philosophers.

Immediately after the Council of Nicaea, Constantine issue orders to start burning the books of Porphyryr (who preserved Euclid), the greatest academic of the epoch. Constantine is depicted as a malevolent despot.
His rule can be broken onto three decades described as "The Good" (from 305 to 314 CE), "The Bad" (from 315 to 324 CE) and "The Ugly" (from 325 to 337 CE, when he may have been finally poisoned by his brothers).

NICAEA: The notion of "Christians" and "Pagans"
are created like the particle and its antiparticle.

The conversion to Christianity was associated with the army. Christianity defined itself by its heresies. All who would not subscribe to the new religion were "heretics". But the biggest heretic was Arius of Alexandria.
The most recent academic commentary on Arius, by Rowan Williams, indicated that:

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism."

The Gnostic Gospels and Acts -
the new testament apocyrpha

I see the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" as beinbg authored in Greek as a direct reaction to Constantine widespread support and publication of the "Constantine Bible" c.325 CE. I have made a study of these texts, which include the Nag Hammadi Codices (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Author_Nag_Hammadi_Scribes_Index.htm)

These "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" are very very tall stories, wild romantic fiction which consist of the "unauthorised" stories about Bilbo Jesus Baggins and the Twelve Apostles. Peter resurrects smoked fish and passes a camel through the eye of a needle. Jesus often kisses Mary. Paul baptises a talking lion in the wilderness, and is saved by the same lion in the Colleseum --- here is Aesop's "The Lion and the Mouse". The apostles fast and call on God, and the Greek temples collapse. These things are quite akin to Monty Python's "Life of Brian", and to my way of thinking can be easily seen to be Greek satire, directed at the christian story as presented in the NT.

Of course, these books were prohibited and banned and burnt and destroyed. The penaly for preserving (ie: having) any of these probihibited books was immediate death by beheading, and special laws were cast such that the army conducted search and destroy missions for such anti-Christian books. They became very hot property. They had to be buried and hidden. The name "apocyrpha" was is given to all the books of "early christians" outside of Constantine's canonical set, because they had to be hidden.

SOme of these books were taken south from Alexandria hundreds of miles up the Nile to Nag Hammadi, where at a Pachomonian monastery, they were translated to Coptic, and new codices manufactured, and carefully covered with leather bindings and then buried. These are the NHC.

The 4th and 5th century christian church created an index of prohibited books which has been mainted by the Vatican since that time, and is known as "the Index Librorum Prohibitorum". The books to be destroyed.

Kookaburra Jack

8th March 2011, 07:26 PM

Dude, the bloke was a fucking Roman Emperor. If people weren't paying their fucking taxes, he sent some of his massive goddamn army to suggest they mend their ways.

Some Quotes of Hitler from the twentieth century that may fairly be placed directly into the mouth of Constantine in the fourth century (http://)

DanDare

8th March 2011, 09:50 PM

Hiya Kookaburra,

hows the old gum tree?

The authenticity of the babble means little, as its content is patent fiction anyway, and rather pathetic. I hear all these people that talk about the great poetry of the damn thing, but there is little I can find to enjoy. Perhaps in its original language it has some clever nuances but who cares? Its an attempt at codifying authoritarian morals and using archaic ideas of bloodlines to demonstrate the authority. Yuck.

Kookaburra Jack

8th March 2011, 11:19 PM

Hiya Kookaburra,

hows the old gum tree?

Hey DD.

It's still standing.

The authenticity of the babble means little, as its content is patent fiction anyway, and rather pathetic. I hear all these people that talk about the great poetry of the damn thing, but there is little I can find to enjoy. Perhaps in its original language it has some clever nuances but who cares? Its an attempt at codifying authoritarian morals and using archaic ideas of bloodlines to demonstrate the authority. Yuck.The mystery remains to be solved as to when this patent fiction was fabricated and thrust upon the unsuspecting souls of planet Earth. There is no mystery in the way that authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers have used the product to their own deviant ends.

The two available C14 results seem to point to the 4th century.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/c14_Composite3.JPG

The New & Strange Nation

"Eusebius knew that the Christians were a nation, and a victorious nation at that; and that their history could not be told except within the framework of the Church in which they lived. Furthermore, he was well aware that the Christian nation was what it was by virtue of its being both the oldest and the newest nation of the world."

-- The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Arnaldo Momigliano (http://) Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62), Volume Fifty-Four, University of California Press, 1990; p. 138

Kookaburra Jack

8th March 2011, 11:42 PM

I have always been of the opinion that the NT was simply a collection of stories and as I understand it most were written by people years and sometimes even generations after the "time" of Jesus.

Hey Rob,

I think these stories were actually written centuries after the supposed time of the supposed "historical jesus" for whom we have no evidence. I think that there was no historical jesus, and that we are dealing with some sort of "Bilbo Jesus Baggins", a fiction character who was invented for political purposes in the 4th century.

I also understand in the early after period time AD the Romans actually did not approve of the early Christians in fact the Romans actually discouraged the Christians and the Christians would overtly hold their rituals at times coinciding with pagan and other rituals so as not to be discovered.

The "history of the christians" was assembled in the 4th century. What is currently "believed" and "understood" and "passed off as historical truth" in regard to the epoch of "early christian origins" prior to the arrival of the emperor Constantine, I think was just a fabricated story without any basis whatsoever.

The stories of the Christian persecutions, initially popularised by the author of "Church History before the Boss Arrived", Eusebius, with his "Martyrs of Palestine" and other gruesome fantasy fictions, are further fabrications. When the Christians arrived on planet Earth along with Emperor COnstantine, they were weilding swords and wearing jack boots. The 4th century is renown as a century characterised by imperial Christian persecution and intolerance, and of the destruction of knowledge. It took the planet a thousand years to recover. If the knowledge of the Greek civilisation had not been smuggled out of the empire to the Arabs and Persians, the 4th century Christians would have succeeded in burning it. If Constantine had not converted the empire to Christianity (by the sword), we might be out passed Alpha Centauri by now.

Goldenmane

8th March 2011, 11:59 PM

Praxis

9th March 2011, 07:20 AM

Kookaburra Jack

9th March 2011, 10:13 AM

And right there I stop you and ask: evidence?

The first issue is the absence of evidence prior to the 4th century. The second issue is the nature of the explosion of the evidence in the 4th century. Here are some articles that I have written on the first issue.

030-324 CE: Where is the archeological evidence for pre-Nicene christianity?

Exception Register (http://_070.htm): Discussion of historical "evidence" raised against the theory.
Paleography & Oxyrhynchus (http://_071.htm): dating fragments from the many Oxyrhynchus tips.
Dura Europa (http://_072.htm): Is there indeed a "pre-nicene christian church"?
Inscription of Abercius (http://_073.htm): The shepherd in the incription.
Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia (http://_074.htm): Review of Elsa Gibson's data.
The Catacombs of Rome (http://_075.htm): especially the Catacombs of St.Callixtus.
Megiddo Prison Dig (http://_076.htm): The recent archeological diggings at Megiddo, Israel.
Robert Lane-Fox Exceptions (http://RLF_exceptions.htm): A critical review (Part 2) of the evidence in "Pagans and Christians" (1996)
Inscriptions and Papyri (http://epigraphic_habit.htm): A critical review of contempory evidence: papyri and the epigraphic habit
Critical Review of Ante pacem (http://Ante%20pacem%20Review.htm): Archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine -- by Graydon F. Snyder
Radiocarbon Dating the Gnostic Gospels (http://C14%20Radiocarbon%20Dating%20the%20Gnostic%20Gospe ls.htm): The C14 results suggest Post Nicaean manufacture.

Furthermore, exactly how does the evidence you're about to cite support your assertions that this is how it was? If it can be established that we have no unambiguous and credible for the existence of either the new testament, the figure of the Jewish Jesus Potter Harry Christ (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Potter-Harry-Christ-Fascinating/dp/0615430937) or the "church and nation of the christians" prior to the 4th century, then obviously the question must at some point arise, well, were these things invented in the 4th century. For example, who was the 4th century publisher responsible for the very first widespread and lavish publication of the books of the new testament in Greek to the entire Roman Empire?

The entire tract you've produced, spelling errors included, just looks like a fucking diatribe without any evidential support.
Looks can be fucking deceiving man.
You better do some fucking homework.
Ancient history is the fucking field.

Sorry mate. I'm a little busy with naked-women-wrangling right now, but I'll try to get the time to bother with this in the next couple of days.Cool bud. Try not to fuck ur brains out, since chances are you might need them at some stage.

Kookaburra Jack

9th March 2011, 10:25 AM

I'm thinking this thread is not actually a new member intro thread and has now moved into a full discussion on the topic, therefore I am moving it to General Chit Chat so the discussion can continue. :)

Thanks Praxis,

I was not sure where to make another post in these forums. For your information, and for the information of any others who may entertain provisionally an open mind on the subject matters I am bringing to this discussion, I have spent some years discussing all these, and many other related issues, on a forum called Biblical Criticism and History (http://www.freeratio.org/forumdisplay.php?f=60), now operated as FRDB but previously established as IIDB (Internet Infidels), under the handle of mountainman.

With laughter, :)

Kookaburra Jack

Kookaburra Jack

9th March 2011, 10:34 AM

For a start it needs to be understood that the ONLY history of the christian chuch, the ONLY history of the nation of christians, and the ONLY history of the new testament prior to the Council of Nicaea was actually authored between the years of 312 and 324 CE (with later revisions c.337 CE etc) by one Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, who sat at Constantine's right hand at the Council of Nicaea.

And right there I stop you and ask: evidence?

Start with the WIKI article on the "Church History of Eusebius (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_History_(Eusebius)[/url)

Kookaburra Jack

10th March 2011, 01:38 PM

Alternatively, have a look at this.

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity (http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2011/03/06/the-vacuum-of-evidence-for-pre-4th-century-christianity/)

at

historyhuntersinternational.org

Not a single artefact of any medium – including textual – and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian. This is the most notable result of our archaeological survey of sites, inscriptions, libraries, collections and so on from the Indus River to the Nile and north to Britain.

Taking into account the vast volume of scholarly works claiming expert opinion for the exact opposite point of view, let me clarify terms.
There is, of course, much archaeology interpreted commonly as Christian. This does not contradict the bald statement above. The difference lies between data that spells out Christian clearly and unambiguously, and that which expert opinion claims to look as though it is Christian.
There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term ‘Christian’.

Kookaburra Jack

20th March 2011, 12:11 PM

Alternatively we could look at the humorous side - the "Far Side" - of the New Testament literature, and ask this question:

Have we been digging up the heretical buried jesus jokes of the gnostics? (http://)

In the docetic Acts of John, Jesus does not leave footprints in the sand. John cannot seem to touch Jesus' physical body. John commands a legion of bed bugs. He is a strange and powerful dude.

In the Gospel of Peter Jesus is lead from the tomb and his head is higher than the sky; The cross follows along behind Jesus at a walk. The cross speaks its own talk. It says "YEAH!".

In The Acts of Paul, the author uses Aesops Fables in the Baptised Lion Affair- Paul baptises a talking lion in the wilderness. When thrown to the lions at the conclusion Paul is saved from death by the christian lion in the arena. (One good turn deserves another!)

In The Gospel of Philip, Jesus came to crucify the world but exactly where did Jesus often kiss Mary? On her forehead? on her cheek? on her lips? The manuscript has been damaged at that precise spot. Jesus could have often kissed Mary anywhere.

In the Acts of John the Theologian, The Emperor Domitian receives complaints about a new and strange nation of Christians. The author of this text had read Eusebius, who is the only one that uses these terms in the whole saga of "Early Christianity".

In the Gospel of Judas, Judas is presented as one of twelve "daimons". None of the twelve "daimons" can look at Jesus in the eyes. Jesus is presented as a "Head Daimion" or sorceror.

In The Gospel of Mary , Mary is presented in having exclusive knowledge not given to Peter. As a result, Peter is peeved. "Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?"

In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Child Jesus as a malevolent trickster wizard. Death and destruction follow the child jesus.

In the Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC 8.2) after a melodramatic and pyrotechnic display of light upon the Mount of Olives, in a big booming voice from the clouds, Jesus asks the apostles "Why [TF] are you asking me"?

In the Acts of Thomas: Judas refuses Jesus' direct commands to go to India, so Jesus sells him into slavery.Thomas misrepresents himself as a master builder and the king gives him money to build a new palace. Thomas gives the money away to the poor, and builds nothing. Eventually, when the Indian King realises that Thomas is not a master builder, "he rubbed his face with his hands, and shook his head for a long space."

In Acts of Pilate, Pilate tells the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of the Graeco-Roman healing god Asclepius.

In the Acts of Peter and Andrew, the apostles call on a Christian angel to suspend a woman by her hair at the city gates while they pass out of town. Peter successfully passes a camel through the eye of a needle, twice.

In The Acts of Andrew and Matthew, the apostles Cast lots for world dominion (just like the Roman soldiers in the story of the crucifixion). Jesus drives a water taxi to the "Land of the Cannibals" in order to rescue the apostle Matthew, despite the fact that many are being eaten daily. Matthew closes his eyes to everything going on around him, and prays.

In the (Syriac) Act of Peter, Peter heals the multitudes on his front porch, but forgets to heal his own daughter (because it is expedient not to heal her)

In The Gospel of Nicodemus: two zombies are wandering around Jerusalem after the mass resurrection following Jesus's resurrection, and are apprehended by the authorities, and are given pens and paper. The two resurrected scribes, known as Leucius & Karinus, independently record the Descent and Ascension. The accounts are examined and found identical and word-for-word. One account is given to Pilate, the other to the Jews. The "zombie scribes" disappear with a flash at the end.

In the Acts of Titus, Paul fasts for seven days and causes the Temple of Apollo to be destroyed.

In the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, are there 11, 12 or 13 apostles? The text discloses that eleven apostles PROSTRATED themselves (twice) on the ground in front of Lithargoel, in the oriental fashion of worship, made popular in Constantine's era. If Lithargoel is taken to be Jesus (an indentification made by every single academic commentator (I think erroneously)) then Jesus cites the Bagavad Gita, in making reference to the "City of Nine Gates". Also if Jesus carries a codex in his hand, that is similar to (not the same) as the codex carried by Peter, what in fact is the codex that Jesus carries?

Summary = Signature of Satire and Polemic

In my book, all these things (and many more that I have not noted here) are the signature of anti-christian satire, similar to the 20th century humor found in Monty Python's "Life of Brian". The Gnostics were taking pot shots at the canonical stories of Jesus and the apostles. Eusebius himself, in his "Life of the Thrice-Blessed Constantine", confirms this fact:
""… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers."

[Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]"The Eusebian Theaters of the unbelievers"

The presence of multiple voices, or narrator voices, noted by many scholars in some key non canonical works, may be explored by seeing the texts as theatrical scripts, designed to have different narrators.

Short Answer

These jokes are a reaction to Nicaea's decision to run wih the new testament.
Someone cashed in on Jesus and the apostles jokes when jesus and the A's became political.

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.
~ Woody Allen

Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because
Hitler and Mussolini are just as good at rhetoric.
But if you can bring these people down with comedy,
they stand no chance.

~ Mel Brooks

Humor is just another defense against the universe.

Kookaburra Jack

24th March 2011, 06:18 PM

@KJack: Daimon/Daemon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_%28classical_mythology%29) is

The word could also have been used in a "lesser powers" way, to denote close disciples, or an inner circle.

Thanks.

The major contributor to the "daemon" terminology in the Gospel of Judas is April Deconick:

http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/12/02/deconicks-judas-gospel-op-ed-in-the-new-york-times/

She pointed out that the National Geographic translation of "spirit" instead of "daemon" was faulty, and has since been largely followed.

Here's an extract:

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the “Thirteenth.” In certain Gnostic traditions, this is the given name of the king of demons – an entity known as Ialdabaoth who lives in the 13th realm above the earth. Judas is his human alter ego, his undercover agent in the world. These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals

This substantiates my earlier argument that many of the gnostic gospels and acts can be seen to exhibit "Monty Pythonish" satirizations and/or parodies of mainstream (canonical) christianity.

The simple explanation IMO is that the "gnostic literature" was a literary reaction to the appearance of "Constantine's Bible" in the eastern empire c.324 CE. The Gnostics ridiculed the 300 year old dead Jesus. I dont think they bought the "official story" at all.

"… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers."

robertkd

24th March 2011, 06:54 PM

Alternatively we could look at the humorous side - the "Far Side" - of the New Testament literature, and ask this question:

In The Acts of Paul, the author uses Aesops Fables in the Baptised Lion Affair- Paul baptises a talking lion in the wilderness. When thrown to the lions at the conclusion Paul is saved from death by the christian lion in the arena. (One good turn deserves another!)

Actually that's funny when you think of the throw another xtian to the lions aspect of Roman history.

Kookaburra Jack

25th March 2011, 03:51 PM

The following is an analogy drawn between gaming and religion presented to explore the relevance of the analogy in understanding "Early Christian Origins and History". Someone coined the phrase "God does not play dice".

I would like to coin the phrase "God does not play poker".

We therefore present on the one hand the history of the "Christian Poker Association" and its sacred playing cards, before moving on to investigate the hitherto unknown history of the "Gnostic Poker Systems Inc", a known competitor in the casinos of antiquity, and a known fabricator of their own "sacred playing cards".
.
Comments are welcomed.

A Very Tame History of the Christian Poker Association (CPA)

A Trinity of Historical Phases in Three Segments

Segment One - The Transcendental Logos Phase
Chistianity is like a legendary poker game using an unknown deck of ancient playing cards. Once upon a time a game of poker was played in the 1st century. The Good God who was the Chrestos God Christos was really a Hebrew King of the World won a Big Win The Christian God won with Four Aces and the King of the Acts of the Ace Holders . The Big Win saved all Poker Players' souls forever. The Big Win was preserved as the Legend of the Four Gospels and the King of Acts. The Early Christian Poker Association (CPA) accreted about the gravitas of the Legend of the Four Aces Many centuries passed - the Good News went underground on loney and untrodden paths

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/4_Aces_CPA.JPG

Segment Two - The Constantinian Imperial Support Phase

Constantine who was on route to Rome was handed a CPA pamphlet in the streets of Trier. Constantine took time out to learn all about the Big Win of the King of the World Constantine became a Believer in the Big Win and actively supported the CPA Eusebius researches the lonely and untrodden path of the Christian Poker Association Constantine decrees that CPA Members shall not be persecuted any more. Constantine placed the Four Aces on public display Constantine ratified the correct results with the CPA The ratification was unanimous but three: Arius and two others were expelled from the CPA A creed was drawn up and signed by the 318 Attendees all of whom were CPA Members Constantine lavishly published the Four Aces Big Win via new technology - the codex Constantine legislates "All gaming privileges are reserved for CPA Members" Constantine constructs many extravagant CPA Casinos in the major cities and provinces.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/card_CPA_Ace_Matt.jpg

Segment Three - The Aftermath Phase

The Four Aces Big Win is Canonised by later CPA councils despite the Arian Controversy
The rest is history: The Four Aces Big Win is employed as "Western Religious Dogma".

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/82106/82106,1171397766,8/stock-photo-poker-hand-four-of-a-kind-four-aces-and-a-king-2677352.jpg

The Official CPA 1st Century "Big Win"

The ACE of Matt, the ACE of Mark,
the ACE of John and the ACE of Luke,
with the KING of the Acts of the Aceholders.

That's been the "Official Story" of the "History of the CPA" for a long time.
Until that is, the playing cards of the "Gnostic Poker Systems Inc."
started turning up in archaeological discoveries.

Introducing the "Gnostic Poker Systems Inc" (GPS)

We know that Constantine shut down the Gnostic Poker Systems Inc. who were operating from their own casinos. There were a great collection of sub-groups within the Gnostics, including the Platonists, Pythagoreans, Stoics, Jewish, even Manichaeans and Buddhists -- we are dealing with a "milieu" - a large mix of poker playing cults in the ROman EMpire, many of which had been imported within the slave class.

In the analogy, Constantine obviously wanted to take complete and supreme control of the Poker Business. To this end, he ordered the army to thoroughly destroy the GPS Casinos (ie: the temples) and in some cases has the casino operators (ie: gnostioc priests) executed. He conducted a purposeful and thorough purge of gaming. The only Poker Business in all cities was only to the the official and registered CPA (Christian Poker Association).

But how legitimate was it?

In this analogy, it is a fact that the GPS started to also fabricate their own playing cards.
The manuscript evidence has exploded in the last few decades - NHC and gJudas etc, etc
Some of the cards have been C14 dated.

The Playing Cards fabricated by the GPS
The At Least Twenty "Hidden Aces" {{{ Gospels }}}
An Arabic Infancy Ace, The Ace of Bartholomew, The Ace of Gamaliel, The Infancy Ace of James, The Ace of Judas, The Ace of Mary [Magdalene] The Ace of Nicodemus, The Ace of Peter, The Ace of Philip, The Ace of Pseudo-Matthew, The Ace of the Ebionites, The Ace of the Egyptians, The Ace of the Hebrews, The Ace of the Lord , The Ace of the Nativity of Mary, The Ace of the Nazoreans, The Ace of the Twelve Apostles, The Ace of Thomas, The Ace of Thomas - A 5th Century Compilation, The Infancy Ace of Thomas [Greek Text A].

[B]The At Least Thirty "Hidden Kings" {{{ Acts }}}
The King of Peter, The King of Andrew, The King of Andrew and John , The King of Andrew and Matthew , The King of Barnabas, The King of Bartholomew, The King of John the Theologian, The King of Luke, The King of Mark, The King of Matthew, The King of Paul and Thecla, The King of Peter and Andrew, The King of Peter and Paul, The King of Philip, The King of Pilate, The King of Polyeuctes, The King of Simon and Jude, The King of Thaddaeus, The King of the Martrys, The King of Timothy, The King of Titus, The King of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca, The Death of Pilate, The History of John, The History of Joseph the Carpenter, The King of Andrew, The King of John, The King of Paul, The King of Peter, The King of Thomas, The King of Peter and the Twelve Apostles.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/4_Aces_GPS.JPG

DRAFT SUMMARY

We have had experts standing up for 1600 years telling us all about the official story of the Christian Poker Association, and the Big Win of the 1st century, magnified by Constantine.

What we have not yet had happen is get some experts on the official story of the Gnostic Poker Systems Inc. This history has been fabricated and suppressed and searched out and destroyed and prohibited and illegalised by the orthodox heresiologists. In the end these playing cards were hot property and there was no other alternative but to bury them. We have not had this happen because the hidden story of what happened between the Gnostic and the Christian Poker Players during Constantine's rule and throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, has been purposefully obscured and "harmonised" by the eventual orthodox Christian Poker Association.

I apologise if this analogy is as yet incomplete. I think an analogy is helpful if it can shed light on issues.

Best wishes,

Kookaburra Jack

Kookaburra Jack

27th March 2011, 02:33 PM

Some people feel more comfortable talking about poker than religion so I thought the analogy was appropriate.

We have the Christian Poker Association (CPA) being imperially REGISTERED at Nicaea by Constantine, and we have a registered CPA Player Eusebius standing up and giving us a history of the CPA before Nicaea.

The Gnostic Poker Association System (GPS) at the time of Nicaea was hammered by Constantine, and had to go underground. All GPS Casino's in the empire were ordered shut down, and new CPA Casino's were constructed, much like McDonalds.

The EVIDENCE is in the ancient text and manuscripts. The ANALOGY is that these texts were the individual cards in a set of cards for playing poker religiously.

The CPA had their own set (the books we find in the bible today) - but how old were they at the time of Nicaea?

The GPS certainly manufactured their own set based on the CPA set of cards, as a reaction to the "game".

It's just an analogy.

AAAAK is a powerful poker hand.
Constantine and all the Popes that follow him to Ratzinger have been playing it since at least Nicaea
But I think it can be beaten.

Kookaburra Jack

28th March 2011, 07:04 PM

Playing Poker with Constantine and the "Christian Poker Association"

nibble

22nd April 2011, 07:44 AM

Hey Kookaburra Jack this research you're doing is quite fascinating. It would be no surprise to any of us that the whole story is fabricated. But by a few individuals would make it truly remarkable.

What is your motivation for this research? Just curious.

If you do crack this one, I urge you to do the same thing with the Koran :D

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 12:34 AM

@Kookaburra Jack: I understand the site in the original post (http://essenes/) is actually your own.

That's correct.

I've been looking for peer-reviewed, published papers to bear out your Constantine substitution hypothesis, and so far can find none.

Any pointers to such papers?In response to a thesis "Constantine Invented Christianity in the Fourth Century." sent to the JHS in Sept 2007, I received the following
Referee Report from Journal of Hellenic Studies (http://essenes/thesis_referee_reports.htm): JHS (Oct 2007).

You will find few related ideas at this page:

Theories of Fiction (http://essenes/article_006.htm): Other emergent theories relating to fraud and fiction.

One of the closer models is an online book:

Dr. R. W. Bernard's Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene (http://Apollonius_the_Nazarene.htm) (1964)

But as I note at my site, this is one of three new ideas in ancient history.
The first two ideas relate to the Gnostic side of the coin. I see these strange stories as a reaction to Constantine's bible around Nicaea.

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 01:00 AM

Hey Kookaburra Jack this research you're doing is quite fascinating. It would be no surprise to any of us that the whole story is fabricated. But by a few individuals would make it truly remarkable.

Hey nibble,

Thankyou for your interest and support. I have recently completed a new article that looks at what seems to me to represent evidence that the "Church Historian" (who wrote all there is to know about "church life" before the Boss turned up) is guilty of "identity theft" and "identity fraud". I would appreciate any feedback on this.

Here is the recent article.
A Pageant of Christian Identity Frauds masquerade in the Academy of Plato (http://essenes/Nicaean_academies_of_Plato_Chrest_and_Jesus_Christ .htm)

A systematic pattern of evidence discloses that the 3rd century apostolic lineage of the academy of Plato was the victim of numerous indentify thefs which were subsequently used to bolster the 3rd century apostolic lineage of the academy of the Christians.

What is your motivation for this research? Just curious.
I am intrigued by the ancient historical truth of antiquity.

If you do crack this one, I urge you to do the same thing with the Koran :D
Constantine and Muhammad were both military supremacists.
They imposed their respective "Holy Flaming Writs" by the sword.
They both executed dissidents --- satirists were the first.

Muhammad may simply have seen how successful the Bible was in the ROman EMpire, that he just cloned the idea. We may even say that Constantine himself had a precedent for the creation of monotheistic state religions in antiquity --- see this article about Ardashir:

Ardashir and Constantine (http://essenes/article_009.htm):
Creation of centralised State Monotheistic Religions in antiquity

Thanks again for the questions,

Best wishes,

KJ

Mister Pervert

26th April 2011, 08:09 AM

Jack, I have seen many documents on your site. There's a strange sort of syncretic air to the whole thing, with Tao Te Ching cheek-by-jowl with "emergent modern theories of the ancient aether (http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm)".

This, and quotes like:

It all makes me wonder... what's your view of the "spirituality" thing?

A unity of science and metaphysics is my guess. It's all fascinating stuff nonetheless.

Mister Pervert

26th April 2011, 08:55 AM

Aye, but peer-reviewed, or academically-accepted it ain't.

No, but my interests in this kind of thinking relate to the philosophy of science as it existed in the early 20th century. In particular, music and metaphysics have been comfortable bedfellows since antiquity but science has only intermittently been embraced. The modernists of the early 20th century rejected the Platonic "music is inspired by god" notion and set out to apply scientific method to the creation of music. Ironically, many of these self-professed "men of science" came from backgrounds of Jewish mysticism and their work, while probably not consciously so, reflects this. Subsequently, their theories about music creation were dismissed as pseudo-science in the mid-late 1940s and they were forgotten.

In recent years music and arts research generally has moved into what's being called "practice based research" (it has a few other labels as well) which is to say it's not based on empirical methods as used in the hard sciences or on the qualitative methods such as used in soft sciences like psychology. In practice based research the "knowledge" is embodied in the phenomenon itself and not strictly in observations (measurements) or descriptions (language). It has its roots in speech act theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act_theory) - a fascinating field in itself.

Anyway, I've witnessed for myself a growing trend this past decade in the academy to be more open-minded to metaphysical concepts than was the case in the mid-late 20th century. I stress here I'm talking about research into ephemeral subjects such as music. I also reveal I have somewhat of an anti-postmodernist bias.

What do we call this new post-post modernist period, anyway? I'd like to call it "ultra-modernism" but alas, that's what the aforementioned "pseudo-scientists" called their movement - to differentiate themselves from "modernists" who were, in the early 20th century, fighting for the high intellectual ground in the academy (ultra-modernists tended to be both polymaths and artisans rather than purely theoretical-minded academics). It should be pointed out that the "pseudo-science" label was invented by the modernists and was intended to be derogatory toward the ultra-modernists. Ultra-modernists in turn quite likely adopted the variation of the modernist label to distance themselves from people who they believed were just as much a tyranny to the (music) academy as were the traditionalists (romantacists) who preceded them.

It must also be pointed out that it shouldn't surprise anybody that "woo" is creeping back into tertiary education. Many of those now "in power" are from the baby-boomer generation and, as such, carry with them the Eastern-mystic baggage of their own youthful days at universities. Being of the punk generation, I can be interested in mysticism without subscribing to any of its practices (Buddhism being the most rampant among academics who otherwise would call themselves atheists).

Bugger - this is beginning to sound like a rant: it isn't. :D

It probably doesn't belong in this thread nonetheless. Mr B - A new thread! My kingdom for a new thread!

Mister Pervert

26th April 2011, 09:09 AM

@Mr P: A new thread ye shall have, as soon as the whorls of leaping pixels clear from my visual cortex. There's deep, and there's fucking Marianas Trench...

I may confer with some wiser heads on the future of this particular thread. It may be that KJ's assertions belong in the "I Believe That <thing>" box, rather than the "It Has Been Proven That <thing>" one.

Understood :)

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 09:18 AM

Jack, I have seen many documents on your site. There's a strange sort of syncretic air to the whole thing, with Tao Te Ching

I quite like the poetry.

cheek-by-jowl with "emergent modern theories of the ancient aether (http://)".

This concept has been discussed here in the science forum.
See the thread .... "Is the aether hypothesis dead Jim"?

This, and quotes like:

It all makes me wonder... what's your view of the "spirituality" thing?In matters of philosophy and metaphysics you might say that I follow Plato, whose "spirituality thing" I discuss directly in my recent article linked above (about the evidence of identify frauds in the academy of Plato).

In matters of ancient history, however, I follow Arnaldo Momigliano.

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 09:32 AM

Actually is was in another forum - here is the thread:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=581361#post581361
Is the aether hypothesis dead Jim?

B: To say one follows X is easy: what's your take on it?

On what? "Spirituality"? It's a rather broad concept, that I have not studied much. My take is that for questions like this one we first have to sort out what consciousness is. And even assuming there are answers to these question, this is not really the thread for it. Or are you really interested in undestanding how i think about things in general?

If so just ask.

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 09:37 AM

A unity of science and metaphysics is my guess. It's all fascinating stuff nonetheless.

Yeah Mister Pervert,

I could live with that assessment. Particularly the fascination stuff.
One of my favorite quotes in that specific line, from "What is Life"?
is as follows.

Best wishes

KJ

"Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in
the singular. How does the idea of plurality (emphatically
opposed by the Upanishad writers arise at all? .... the
only possible alternative is simply to keep the immediate
experience that consciousness is a singular of which the
plural is unkown; that there *is* only one thing and that
what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different
aspects of this one thing produced by deception (the Indian
maya) - in much the same way Gaurisankar and Mt Everest turn
out to be the same peak seen from different valleys."

- E. Schrodinger, "What is Life"

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 09:50 AM

I may confer with some wiser heads on the future of this particular thread. It may be that KJ's assertions belong in the "I Believe That <thing>" box, rather than the "It Has Been Proven That <thing>" one.

The assertions are restricted to the field of ancient history, and any and all evidence that is admissable to this field. I should not have to restate that these are three new ideas.

Also I dont see that history is a science that can be proven.
It is all about a matrix of possibilities, probabilities, historicities
and both - the entire body and each element of - the evidence.

The question at the end of the day is which theory of history
best explains all the evidence that we have in the simplest fashion.

Specifically, these ideas relate to the history of the 4th century
for which it is commonly acknowledged that, although we have a
number of "Ecclesiastical Histories" of the orthodox christian victors,
we have very little in the way of a profane political history of the
4th century where the bulk of the PanHellenic civilisation and populace
is discussed on equal terms with the heresiologists. (ie: the newly
emergent ruling class of Christian Bishops, personally appointed
by the Boss).

A despotic fascist is first to publish the bible.
And people think he may have been legit? Fuck.
Such is the power of belief and conditioning
(and the sword).

Fearless

26th April 2011, 09:56 AM

After reviewing content it is apparent that this thread is in the wrong section (General Chit Chat about Atheism).

Has now been relocated to Fantasy Island.

Thank you.

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 10:23 AM

Kookaburra Jack: Your profile is now a Fantasy Islander.

This is not calling you a liar, or saying any of your claims are disproven.

Others, such as Bart Ehrman (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1110), claim that many parts of the bible are forgeries.

Ehrman believes in the historical jesus. Alot of tenured scholars in that field follow the traditional party line. I deal with Ehrman's position on the gnostics at Idea (1).

The methodology you use, and the reliance on speculation, with no regard to proof-by-criticism, are the reasons your posts are confined to the area where belief is discussed.

History is that field where evidence and belief of evidence, such as radiocarbon datings etc,
is openly discussed. You have no place or time for the discussion of history,

Without the mechanism of proof, the best one could say for your claims is that they are hypothetical.

But I have already said that myself. All histories are hypothetical.

Perhaps one day the Constantine Hypothesis will be academically accepted. Till then, doubt must apply.

So I am being censored at the Australian atheistfoundation discussion forums? This is an interesting development.

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 10:27 AM

After reviewing content it is apparent that this thread is in the wrong section (General Chit Chat about Atheism).

Has now been relocated to Fantasy Island.

Thank you.

Dear Fearless,

This thread was not placed in the wrong section (General Chit Chat about Atheism) by me, seeing it was relocated there by another mod. I originally posted this in an introduction to a new member section, because I'd only made a few posts.

Anyway, I get the drift.

Some people are obviously uncomfortable in discussing these hypothetical things openly.

Here in the bush, but perhaps not in Sydney, we call this censorship.

So be it.

The Australian Atheists censor the discussion of Christian forgery.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

KJ

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

KJ

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 10:46 AM

If you were censored, nobody would be able to read your output.

Nobody can read my output in any forum except this one.
I have been apparently censored from posting in any other forums.
I dont knoiw what you call that, but as far as I am concerned it is a direct form of censorship

You have been assigned "hypothetical/untested" status.

well thanks.

What's the next step?

If you want me to swear something on the bible you can go take a running jump.

Mister Pervert

26th April 2011, 10:57 AM

Nobody can read my output in any forum except this one.
I have been apparently censored from posting in any other forums.
I dont knoiw what you call that, but as far as I am concerned it is a direct form of censorship

I'd say it's more like simple filing, just as you find in the Dewey Decimal system. There are some authors who can write eloquently in both the realms of fiction and non-fiction and plenty more who, in years past, wrote great fiction that scientific writers have later converted into non-fiction.

Don't take it too personally. I actually enjoy your writing (when you're not whinging about "censorship") and will continue to read quite a bit more regardless of whether it's fiction or non-fiction in its embryonic stage. As has been mentioned, what your work lacks at this stage is any peer-reviewed support for your sources.

Soldier on...

Mister Pervert

26th April 2011, 11:00 AM

I'd say it's more like simple filing, just as you find in the Dewey Decimal system. There are some authors who can write eloquently in both the realms of fiction and non-fiction and plenty more who, in years past, wrote great fiction that scientific writers have later converted into non-fiction.

Don't take it too personally. I actually enjoy your writing (when you're not whinging about "censorship") and will continue to read quite a bit more regardless of whether it's fiction or non-fiction in its embryonic stage. As has been mentioned, what your work lacks at this stage is any peer-reviewed support for your sources.

Soldier on...

Additional thought (and I'm serious) - have you considered turning your work into a fictional novel? It would make a cracking story and no doubt would find comparisons with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code books. If I were you, that's what I'd be doing. There's no money to be made from writing academic papers.

Fearless

26th April 2011, 11:15 AM

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 03:24 PM

Kookaburra Jack, I didn't actually state that you had put the thread there. It was just out of place for its section. After reviewing the content it was moved to the most logical section.

I am sorry you feel like you have been censored. As with others, I disagree... you are more than free to continue writing as you have been.

If I had edited your writings or banned you to keep you quiet then you probably would have a valid argument.

I cannot respond to any discussion in the science forum for example.
Kookaburra Jack, you do not have permission to access this page.
I disagree with you and the others that this is not censorship.

For example are you aware of the science related articles I have accumulated?
I cannot discuss any of these because of my ideas about history - Specifically christian forgery in the 4th century.
Do I understand the modus operandi of the forum correctly?

Try not to take it to heart too much.

Cheers.
The Australian Atheists censor the discussion of Christian forgery.

Dont take it to heart too much yourself. I am sorry that the discussion of history is inappropriate to your dewy system of threads.

I appreciate your conciliatory comments and constructive ideas and thank you for them.

I would have expected Australian atheists to be interested in these three new ideas that I have researched, since I myself am an Australian. I would have expected critical questions about why i believe the pattern of evidence permits such an interpretation to be placed on the history of the 4th century. I would have expected questions, I would have expected many questions.

As has been mentioned, what your work lacks at this stage is any peer-reviewed support for your sources.
I have assembled and cited all the original sources.
Did you read the JHS Referee Report of 2007?

Soldier on...

Thanks digger

Fearless

26th April 2011, 04:02 PM

I cannot respond to any discussion in the science forum for example.
At this stage no. On this point see my next comment.

For example are you aware of the science related articles I have accumulated?
I cannot discuss any of these because of my ideas about history - Specifically christian forgery in the 4th century.
Do I understand the modus operandi of the forum correctly?
No, but you are free to make threads in Fantasy Island if you wish, I wont stop you. I am sure if you want to discuss science here on the island, others will join in.

The Australian Atheists censor the discussion of Christian forgery.
What are you hoping to achieve with this?

Dont take it to heart too much yourself. I am sorry that the discussion of history is inappropriate to your dewy system of threads.
Do you feel that the thread was general chit chat about Atheism? I moved it to Fantasy Island for reasons already covered in this thread. I know you didn't put it in the general section but as I said based on the context, Fantasy Island was the logical destination.

I appreciate your conciliatory comments and constructive ideas and thank you for them.
You're welcome.

I would have expected Australian atheists to be interested in these three new ideas that I have researched, since I myself am an Australian. I would have expected critical questions about why i believe the pattern of evidence permits such an interpretation to be placed on the history of the 4th century. I would have expected questions, I would have expected many questions.
I'm sorry I cannot help with this point... maybe you should consider the reasons why this might be the case.

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Kookaburra Jack http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=191258#post191258)
The Australian Atheists censor the discussion of Christian forgery.

What are you hoping to achieve with this?

Dont you think its funny?

To you I'm an atheist;
to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition"

(Woody Allen)

Fearless

26th April 2011, 05:10 PM

Dont you think its funny?

Actually no, but I was curious.

The mind boggles.

If it's nothing then so be it.

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 08:20 PM

Do you or any readers find anything obviously humourous in the following list of extracts taken from the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc".

We do not need peer review to laugh.
Is this stuff funny or not.
How funny out of 10 is it?

How about an assessment?
This stuff contains humour 8/10
This stuff does not contain humour 2/10
Undecided 5/10

Anyway, the following is extracted straight from the
gnostic gospels and acts as available in English translations.

Post # 1 of 2

In the Gnostic Gospels .....

"To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition" (Woody Allen)

.
In the Gospel of Peter, Jesus is lead from the tomb by two giant figures whose heads reach to the sky. Jesus's head is described as being higher than the sky; while the cross , not content with immobility and silence, follows along behind Jesus at a walk, and speaks its own talk. It says "Yeah !"

In the Gospel of Philip, "Jesus came to crucify the world", but exactly where did Jesus often kiss Mary? On her forehead? on her cheek? on her lips? The manuscript has been damaged at that precise spot. Jesus could have often kissed Mary anywhere.

In the Gospel of Judas, Judas is presented as one of twelve "daimons". None of the twelve "daimons" can look at Jesus in the eyes. Jesus is presented as a "Head Daimion" or sorceror.

In The Gospel of Mary , Mary is presented in having exclusive knowledge not given to Peter. As a result, Peter is peeved. "Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?"

In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Child Jesus as a malevolent trickster wizard. Death and destruction follow the child jesus. A child disperses water that Jesus has collected, Jesus then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse, found in the Greek text A, and Latin versions. The Greek text B doesn't mention Jesus cursing the boy, and simply says that the child "went on, and after a little he fell and gave up the ghost," Another child dies when Jesus curses him when he apparently accidentally bumps into him When Joseph and Mary's neighbors complain, they are miraculously struck blind by Jesus. Jesus then starts receiving lessons, but arrogantly tries to teach the teacher instead.
In the Infancy Gospel of James, the Child Jesus is born in a cave with its Mithraic overtones.

In The Gospel of Nicodemus, the story is presented as being authored by two zombies who, while wandering around Jerusalem after the mass resurrection following Jesus's resurrection, are apprehended by the authorities, and are given pens and paper. The two resurrected scribes, known as Leucius & Karinus, independently record the Descent and Ascension, Jesus meets Adam. At the end, after finding that the accounts were word for word identical they provide a copy for Pilate, and a copy for the Jews, the two scribes disappear with a flash of light.

In the Gospel of Gamaliel Pilate weeps over the shroud.

The Gospel of Bartholomew "deliberately imitates the Lucan Acts"
. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/18/Lifeofbrianfilmposter.jpg/220px-Lifeofbrianfilmposter.jpg
In the Gnostic Acts of the Apostles .....

"Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because Hitler and Mussolini [ed. and Constantine] are just as good at rhetoric.
......... but if you can bring these people down with comedy, they stand no chance." (Mel Brooks)

.
In the Acts of Andrew, Andrew prays and there is an earthquake. Andrew mentions banishing the demons from Nicaea. "At the gate of Nicomedia he met a dead man borne on a bier, and his old father supported by slaves, hardly able to walk, and his old mother with hair torn, bewailing. 'How has it happened ?' he asked. 'He was alone in his chamber and seven dogs rushed on him and killed him.' Andrew sighed and said: 'This is an ambush of the demons I banished from Nicaea.'" Who was banished from Nicaea?

In the Acts of Andrew and Matthew, the apostles Cast lots for world dominion (just like the Roman soldiers in the story of the crucifixion). Jesus is the captain of a water taxi to the "Land of the Cannibals" in order to rescue the apostle Matthew. Welcome aboard! Meanwhile, trapped in the "Land of the Cannibals" after drinking certain substances, Matthew, despite the fact that many are being eaten daily, closes his eyes to everything going on around him. Help was on the way.

The Acts of John is seen as docetic. Jesus does not leave footprints in the sand. John cannot seem to touch Jesus' physical body. John commands a legion of bed bugs. Jesus was constantly changing shape, appearing sometimes as a small boy, sometimes as a beautiful man; sometimes bald-headed with a long beard, sometimes as a youth with a pubescent beard. .... Sometimes when I meant to touch him [Jesus], I met with a material and solid body; but at other times when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, as if it did not exist at all ... And I often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth), and I never saw it.

In the Acts of John the Theologian, the Jews write a book to the Emperor Domitian, comlaining about a "new and strange nation". As a result, Domitian flies into a rage an persecutes the "New and Strange Nation of Christians. This term "new and strange nation" is a recognised Eusebian trope. The author of this text thus wrote after Eusebius had coined the phrase.

In The Acts of Paul, the author uses Aesops Fables in the Baptised Lion Affair. Paul baptises a talking lion in the wilderness. When thrown to the lions at the conclusion Paul is saved from certain death by the christian lion in the arena. (One good turn deserves another!)

In the Acts of Peter, Peter resurrects smoked fish, makes dogs talk, and wins a very exiting miracle contest with Simon Magus.

In the (Syriac) Act of Peter, Peter heals the multitudes on his front porch, but forgets to heal his own daughter (because it is expedient not to heal her).

In the Acts of Peter and Andrew, the apostles travel hither and tither by means of a "bright cloud". (Beam me up Scotty!) The apostles call on a powerful Christian Arch-Angel to suspend a woman by her hair at the city gates while they pass unmolested out of town. Peter successfully passes a camel through the eye of a needle, twice. Thousands are baptised because they want to have the power of being able to pass a camel through the eye of a needle.

In the Acts of Peter and Paul, the Jews hear that Paul plans to come to Rome and petition Nero to prevent this. Another version of Peter vs Simon Magus miracle contest is recounted, this time with Paul present, and enacted in front of the Roman Emperor Nero. Paul is presented as "bald", and attracts his bald shipmaster, Dioscorus, as a follower after delivering his son from death. Nero kills the bald Dioscorus instead of Paul. The Jews rejoice.

In the (Syriac) Acts of Philip, is Philip literate, not knowing either Greek or Aramaic? Philip commands a Christian angel to bind the Jew Ananias to the top of the mast by his big toes in a raging storm on account of his blaspheming in a sotto voice. "And the 495 men on the ship feared". Philip is a man of power and action, who battles armies with the cross: "When Philip crossed himself the ruler fell backward and all his troops." Ananias sets out presumeably to convert the Jews, as coerced by Philip. Impatient at his angelic qualities, the Jews kick Ananias to death and bury him in their synogogue. Philip resurrects Ananias, and commandeers a sick ox to assist retrieving the dead Jew from the synogogue. The commandeered sick ox runs on his mission, dragging his owner through the streets of Carthage. The ox and Ananias prostrate themselves before Philip. The city worshipped Philip. "Three thousand Gentiles and fifteen hundred Jews believed; the unbelievers left the city, and before sunset an angel slew forty of the Jewish priests for shedding innocent blood: and all who saw it confessed and worshipped. " People were impressed with the aggressive Christian angel slaying of forty priests. On the basis of this aggressive blood-thirsty revenge killings by the christian angel, people were converted to christianity.

....
continued to post # 2

Kookaburra Jack

26th April 2011, 08:21 PM

Post # 2 of 2 (continued)

In Acts of Pilate, when the Jews complain that Jesus healed people on Sunday, Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus "healed the lame and the bent, the withered and the blind and the paralytic, the dumb and them that were possessed, by the power of Asclepius", the 4th century Graeco-Roman healing god, whose most ancient and highly revered temples (and libraries) Constantine had just destroyed.

In the Acts of Thomas, the apostles are again "casting lots for the clothes of the nations", but Thomas refuses to abide by the lot he drew.for the journey to Indian. He does not want to go to India. He says: "'I am an Hebrew man; how can I go amongst the Indians and preach the truth?'" Jesus appears and directly commands Thomas to go to India, but Thomas directly refuses to obey. The next day, at the local markets, Jesus sells Thomas as a slave to an Indian merchant. The price for Thomas paid to Jesus was three litrae of silver unstamped. Jesus actually writes a deed of sale, saying: "I, Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter, acknowledge that I have sold my slave, Judas by name, unto thee Abbanes, a merchant of Gundaphorus, king of the Indians." Once in India, Thomas mispresents himself to the Indian King as a master builder. The Indian king gives Thomas a great deal of money to build a new palace. Thomas gives the money to the poor. Eventually, when the Indian King realises that Thomas is not a master builder and has lost all his money, "he rubbed his face with his hands, and shook his head for a long space. "

In the Acts of Titus, Paul fasts for seven days and causes the Temple of Apollo to be destroyed. (This matter of temple destruction by the Christians becomes a political reality immediately Constantine became supreme c.324 CE)

In the NHC 6.1 Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, are there 11, 12 or 13 apostles? The text discloses that eleven apostles prostrated themselves (twice) on the ground in front of Lithargoel, in the oriental fashion of worship, made popular in Constantine's era. If Lithargoel is taken to be Jesus, an indentification made by every single academic commentator to date (alternatively, Lithargoel may be identified as a physician/priest of Asclepius) then Jesus cites the Bagavad Gita, in making reference to the "City of Nine Gates". Also if Jesus carries a codex in his left hand, that is similar to (not the same) as the codex carried by Peter, what is the codex that Jesus carried, and did the Christians instruct Martial on codex technology?

External link removed by moderator

If any of this stuff raised a laugh
I'd like to hear from you.

You dont need a PhD
to appreciate a joke.

Fearless

26th April 2011, 09:06 PM

Kookaburra Jack,

Cut/paste dumping doesn't really impress people too much. I notice you have posted this same piece of yours on other forums, one of which didn't receive it as well as you might have hoped.

By all means make a post outlining your thoughts, ideas and visions etc but please ease up a bit on cut pasting masses of text and owner site links which seems more like an attempt to boost your own websites' SEO results than expressing your own ideas.

Kookaburra Jack

27th April 2011, 11:06 AM

What you refer to as a massive cut/paste dump has not been addressed aside from a reference made to the Nag Hammadi Library. Allow me to clarify what it contains.

If you draw a circle around the entire body of "Early Christian literature" and its manuscript evidence, the collection can be divided into two parts - the canonical books (which we know as the Bible) and the non canonical books (which are loosely and commonly known as the "Gnostic Books".

Ignoring for the moment the canonical books, I have made an exhuastive collection of all the gnostic works which total in excess of 100 now. In the cut/paste above I have presented a series of Gnostic works in which -- it is my argument - that one can identify a signature of parody and/or satire directed by the gnostic authors and aimed at the orthodox canonical books. Monty Python's "Life of Brian" is a modern example of what I mean, in which the canonical story has been purposefully varied.

I have ammased this stuff so as to present it for inspection of other people in order to ask the question whether they also can see these ancient Gnostic texts as anything similar to a "Monty Pythonish" treatment of the orthodox books.

The only way I can think to do this is to post the list of my analysis and to ask people whether they thought any of these descriptions and events and stories is humourous - in a "Monty Pythonish" type of way.

Obviously I am just seeking feedback - on a very specific issue which may not interest many people. In some forums I get feedback, in other forums, inhabited by other phyla, I dont get the same feedback because the subject matter is not of any real interest to those contributory to discussions.

So there you have it.

Are there any questions at all on any of the material I have summarised and presented?

But more importantly, is there anyone willing to state that they either did or did not
find these extracts from ancient gnostic texts slightly "funny" or "humourous" or
"Monty Pythonish"? 2/10 or 5/10 How funny or not funny at all?

Has anyone ever tried to resurrect a smoked fish for example?

Fearless

27th April 2011, 11:23 AM

Are you working on a comedy routine?

No, I didn't fund it funny sorry. Try a video skit might convey your brand of humour.

As a general comment, I think I am a good driver but I don't compare myself to Peter Brock.

Trying to be on par with Python is a tall order.

Mister Pervert

27th April 2011, 12:39 PM

Ignoring for the moment the canonical books, I have made an exhuastive collection of all the gnostic works which total in excess of 100 now. In the cut/paste above I have presented a series of Gnostic works in which -- it is my argument - that one can identify a signature of parody and/or satire directed by the gnostic authors and aimed at the orthodox canonical books. Monty Python's "Life of Brian" is a modern example of what I mean, in which the canonical story has been purposefully varied.

I agree with you on the fact "Life Of Brian", after now having got up to speed what some of the gnostic literature, is indeed in the realms of mockumentary and have just said as much in a reply to another thread on a similar subject elsewhere. However, I don't see the gnostic authors as writers of "parody and/or satire". I can see your point but to say so is entirely speculative and thus not a solid foundation on which to build any critical arguments. I think you said yourself somewhere in an early post that, historically, those first few centuries CE were incredibly harsh times. To draw an inference that "comedy" is a strong weapon in the defense of oppression is a very, very long bow to draw without much more knowledge about the gnostic authors. Alas, all we know of them comes from secondary sources and hearsay passed down the centuries - and there isn't really much of that either as well. Furthermore, when you do contextualize them using the modern knowledge about the various scripts in use at the time and the purposes for which they were used, the differences in various papyrus qualities used, and the scholarly claims that many of these texts were "popular" albeit differing in many aspects because of the "Chinese Whispers" inherent in the oral tradition of the passing of the stories over great distances and periods of time, etc. - I just don't see how you can arrive at the parody/satire conclusion.

Kookaburra Jack

27th April 2011, 03:02 PM

I agree with you on the fact "Life Of Brian", after now having got up to speed what some of the gnostic literature, is indeed in the realms of mockumentary and have just said as much in a reply to another thread on a similar subject elsewhere. However, I don't see the gnostic authors as writers of "parody and/or satire". I can see your point but to say so is entirely speculative and thus not a solid foundation on which to build any critical arguments. I think you said yourself somewhere in an early post that, historically, those first few centuries CE were incredibly harsh times.

I may have been quoting Bart Ehrman on the generally accepted theory of the history of the "gnostics". BTW thanks for your thoughtful response.

To draw an inference that "comedy" is a strong weapon in the defense of oppression is a very, very long bow to draw without much more knowledge about the gnostic authors. Alas, all we know of them comes from secondary sources and hearsay passed down the centuries - and there isn't really much of that either as well. Moreso because our sources are the very "heresiologists" who were the victorious party and wrote the history of the gnostic heretics.

Furthermore, when you do contextualize them using the modern knowledge about the various scripts in use at the time and the purposes for which they were used, the differences in various papyrus qualities used, and the scholarly claims that many of these texts were "popular" albeit differing in many aspects because of the "Chinese Whispers" inherent in the oral tradition of the passing of the stories over great distances and periods of time, etc. - I just don't see how you can arrive at the parody/satire conclusion.
To cut a long story short, I reject the "early gnostic history" (which was authored by the heresiologists) and examine an alternative and revisionist theory of history in which the Gnostics (as the authors of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc) only started writing after Nicaea and as a direct reaction to the Constantine Bible.

I have written an essay on this subject here (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Debunking_PreNicaean_Gnostic_Manuscript_production .htm).

It commences with a comparison between the mainstream theory as stated by Bart Ehrman, and an alternative idea paraphrased by me.

My argument is that there were no gnostic gospels until Constantine wheeled the Constantine Bible into the Eastern empire with the army, at which time it was ridiculed by the Alexandrian Greeks. Yes it was sent up or mocked. Parody and satire are a form of mockery also used in a poliical struggle especially when an oppressed group cannot fight back.

The Gnostic texts were more popular than Constantine's Bible.
The boss did not like that, and the rest is history is the short version.

Thanks for the Q's. I hope to have answered some of them.

Best wishes,

KJ

Mister Pervert

27th April 2011, 03:29 PM

I may have been quoting Bart Ehrman on the generally accepted theory of the history of the "gnostics". BTW thanks for your thoughtful response.

You're welcome. As I've said a few times elsewhere, I enjoy reading this kind of stuff purely for the pleasure the reading gives me. I'll leave others to apply the new criticism literary theory fine tooth comb to the texts and your interpretations of them.

To cut a long story short, I reject the "early gnostic history" (which was authored by the heresiologists) and examine an alternative and revisionist theory of history in which the Gnostics (as the authors of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc) only started writing after Nicaea and as a direct reaction to the Constantine Bible.Surely, if some of the gnostic writings ("early gnostic history" by my reasoning) can be dated to the centuries prior to Constantine, how is it possible for these to be forgeries - if that's what you're saying?

I have written an essay on this subject here (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Debunking_PreNicaean_Gnostic_Manuscript_production .htm).Noted for later reading.

It commences with a comparison between the mainstream theory as stated by Bart Ehrman, and an alternative idea paraphrased by me.

My argument is that there were no gnostic gospels until Constantine wheeled the Constantine Bible into the Eastern empire with the army, at which time it was ridiculed by the Alexandrian Greeks. Yes it was sent up or mocked. Parody and satire are a form of mockery also used in a poliical struggle especially when an oppressed group cannot fight back.See above re: the dating of some of the papyrus. Surely this immediately puts a hole in your argument.

The Gnostic texts were more popular than Constantine's Bible.
The boss did not like that, and the rest is history is the short version.This part is easier to understand and agree with. Moreover, the burning of the Library of Alexandria obliterated the vast sum of all European knowledge amassed to that time and could be said to have directly paved the way for the "dark ages" that followed.

Cheers!

Kookaburra Jack

27th April 2011, 07:23 PM

Surely, if some of the gnostic writings ("early gnostic history" by my reasoning) can be dated to the centuries prior to Constantine, how is it possible for these to be forgeries - if that's what you're saying?

My argument, in the essay, is that none of the gnostic writings can be securely dated to the centuries prior to Constantine.

See above re: the dating of some of the papyrus. Surely this immediately puts a hole in your argument.

I cover the dating of the papyri fragments in the essay, in a separate section.
Again, the argument is that we do not possess unambiguous evidence for the
existence of any of these gnostic texts prior to the 4th century, at which time
the evidence in a myriad of separate fields explodes into the record.

This part is easier to understand and agree with. Moreover, the burning of the Library of Alexandria obliterated the vast sum of all European knowledge amassed to that time and could be said to have directly paved the way for the "dark ages" that followed.

Thanks. My comment would be that the malevolent despotism and the burning of books commenced with Constantine, during and immediately after the council of Nicaea. The burning of the library of Alexandria is part of the end-game when the state religion has become supreme at the end of the 4th century. In between that event and Nicaea, with the brief exception of the rule of Emperor Julian, the epoch is characterised by the persecution and intolerence of imperial state christian regime.

And yes, the idea is that the burning of Plato and Euclid by Constantine brought forward the dark ages.
I think it is reasonable to think of the Plato and Euclid et al to be "the light" of the Panhellenic civilisation.
Constantine effectively switched the lights out on "civilisation" with the "bible".

Thanks again for the questions.
Best wishes,

KJ

Mister Pervert

27th April 2011, 09:35 PM

Thanks. My comment would be that the malevolent despotism and the burning of books commenced with Constantine, during and immediately after the council of Nicaea. The burning of the library of Alexandria is part of the end-game when the state religion has become supreme at the end of the 4th century. In between that event and Nicaea, with the brief exception of the rule of Emperor Julian, the epoch is characterised by the persecution and intolerence of imperial state christian regime.

Again, re: book burners of any persuasion, you'll not find any combative argument from me.

Kookaburra Jack

28th April 2011, 01:38 PM

Again, re: book burners of any persuasion, you'll not find any combative argument from me.

FYI, it is expedient to remind the faithful that the very first inter-office memo out the door of the Council of Nicaea, written by Constantine,was the following. The result of this of course was that while the books of Plato burned in the streets, the books of the Constantine Bible were replicated fifty-fold in imperial scriptoria.

The following copy/paste represents evidence of my position.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked, it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected.
As therefore Porphyry, who was an enemy of the fear of God, and wrote wicked and unlawful writings against
the religion of Christians, found the reward which befitted him, that he might be a reproach to all generations after,
because he fully and insatiably used base fame; so that on this account his writings were righteously destroyed;
thus also now it seems good that Arius and the holders of his opinion should all be called Porphyrians,
that he may be named by the name of those whose evil ways he imitates: And not only this, but also that

all the writings of Arius, wherever they be found, shall be delivered to be burned
with fire, in order that not only his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means remain to him remembrance in the world.

Now this also I ordain, that if any one shall be found secreting any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up and burn it with fire, his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this he shall suffer capital punishment by beheading without delay.

(Preserved in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9. A translation of a Syriac
translation of this, written in 501, is in B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies, Extracts
From The Syriac Ms. No. 14528 In The British Museum, Lond. 1861, p. 6–7)

Mister Pervert

28th April 2011, 01:52 PM

FYI, it is expedient to remind the faithful that the very first inter-office memo out the door of the Council of Nicaea, written by Constantine,was the following. The result of this of course was that while the books of Plato burned in the streets, the books of the Constantine Bible were replicated fifty-fold in imperial scriptoria.

A very quick revealing of personal bias here: Plato was a moron and a hypocrite. While he was out and about championing "democracy" his household was kept humming and running graciously by his eleven slaves. All that crap he wrote about "music is the language of the soul" stuff too - rankles...

IMO, Plato is the godfather of the whole German Canon of classical music. "Leck mich im Arsch", Plato!

Kookaburra Jack

29th April 2011, 04:54 PM

Are you working on a comedy routine?

You do understand, do you, that the material I presented was mined verbatim from English translations of an extended collection of "Gnostic Gospels and Acts? That the material I am presenting is freely available at the NHL for example. I did not make the material up.

Kookaburra Jack

29th April 2011, 05:03 PM

A very quick revealing of personal bias here: Plato was a moron and a hypocrite. While he was out and about championing "democracy" his household was kept humming and running graciously by his eleven slaves. All that crap he wrote about "music is the language of the soul" stuff too - rankles...

IMO, Plato is the godfather of the whole German Canon of classical music. "Leck mich im Arsch", Plato!

Sounds like a bad Plato experience. I think we may be able to forgive Plato for being born into an age of slavery and savagery.

What is not fogiveable is fascism, despotism, book-burning, murder, whole-sale destruction of the cultural architecture, all of which abound in Constantine's later rule, when the corruption of the absolute power took hold. During this epoch he published the Constantine Bible.

Constantine was a moron and a hypocrite.
And a fraud according to Robin Lane-Fox.

Kookaburra Jack

1st May 2011, 04:17 PM

I'm waiting for your take on "great souls" and "aether" as presented on your site: it has the tang of woo about it.

I treat "soul" as a synonym for "being", and a great soul translates as a great being, for example, from my site: http://www.mountainman.com.au/the_duke.html ali'i nobility: concern for others, humility in victory, courage in adversity, sportsmanship. The Duke was a "great soul" Dig man?

My take on the "aether hypothesis" is outlined here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
What questions would you have?

What's your overall take on souls and the supernatural, Jack?As I said above, I just see the word "soul" to be a synonym of "living being" in the sense that while you are alive you are a living soul or a living being or a living creature - call us what you want. I have no belief in the transmigration and afterlife stuff, and understand that we have this one life to live and learn and mature our conceptions of the universe around us, and the living being within us.

Having said all of the above, my interests have recently been in the field of ancient history, which is often dry boring totally dull and brutally laborious. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, it is all about the evidence. A year ago, I had few supporters, because everyone naturally assumes there is a mass of evidence for the existence of the christian presence before the Emperor Constantine turned up in 312 CE.

However in recent times, as I have stated, a number of archaeologists have been grouping together and saying precisely the same thing. So its interesting times IMO for the future of ancient history.

Constantine 3 decades of Rule: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

My most recent article concerns the nature of the three decade rule of Emperor Constantine. At present it is just a stub to be expanded, but it is something that is generally not appreciated. He started out good, but absolue power corrupted him. Things got ugly from Nicaea onwards.

Any comments and/or feedback is appreciated:
http://tinyurl.com/bullneck

Best wishes

KJ

Kookaburra Jack

1st May 2011, 10:52 PM

Your take on "Soul" is misleading, considering this writing of yours (http://preview.tinyurl.com/4394a4o):
Is this still current Kookaburra thought?

Over 14 years ago I wrote that "I cannot tell you what the soul is but to say it shares a relationship with the heart and the mind of a living being in a specific manner". Nothing much has changed. As I said earlier, the soul is another name for the beingness, which results from the harmony or balance between the heart and mind - left and right hemispheres. I see the two questions "What is the nature of the soul" and "What is the nature of being" as being more or less the same. In that article, I tried to draw an analogy which encompassed a number of simple natural parts, to answer the question. The result was that I didn't know what the answer is and I still dont.

I dont think "beingness" - "shines on - like the moon and the stars and the sun".
It arrives with birth and departs with death and that's the end of it.

But maybe someone here knows all the answers ?

Fearless

1st May 2011, 11:20 PM

But maybe someone here knows all the answers ?

I don't think I have seen anyone boast as much.

Are you insinuating this gives credence to other ways of thinking. Even if it isn't provable?

Burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) will most likely apply if this is the case.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 12:03 PM

Miracles: Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Chapter 15 Part 3 (http://historybooksreview.blogspot.com/2011/05/miracles-gibbons-decline-and-fall-of.html).

The blog publication includes a podcast. Anyone really interested in an analysis of Gibbon's most welcome attack on the history of the christian religion should take the time to digest this. A most welcome review.All of it is worth reading and/or listening to IMO. Here are some extracts. It commences as follows.

Gibbon has an issue with miracles.

By the eighteenth century miracles were off the agenda. Galileo and Newton had provided detailed descriptions of the laws underlying what was making the world go round. European sailors had sailed around the globe and while they revealed new lands that hadn't been known before, none of them turned out to be magic.
Gibbon has an issue with miracles.

By the eighteenth century miracles were off the agenda. Galileo and Newton had provided detailed descriptions of the laws underlying what was making the world go round. European sailors had sailed around the globe and while they revealed new lands that hadn't been known before, none of them turned out to be magic.
Vespasian is famous for joking that he was becoming a God on his deathbed. Religion was strictly for show and was only taken seriously by the people who lacked learning. In what I think must be the most quoted lines from Decline and Fall he notes that pagan superstitions were regarded by the educated as equally false, by the ignorant as equally true and by the administrator as equally useful. That quote is almost always taken out of context and applied to religion in general. It isn't hard to imagine Gibbon doing the same
Vespasian is famous for joking that he was becoming a God on his deathbed. Religion was strictly for show and was only taken seriously by the people who lacked learning. In what I think must be the most quoted lines from Decline and Fall he notes that pagan superstitions were regarded by the educated as equally false, by the ignorant as equally true and by the administrator as equally useful. That quote is almost always taken out of context and applied to religion in general. It isn't hard to imagine Gibbon doing the same.
How many of the early Church fathers
colluded in this pious fabrication?

How many of the early Church fathers
colluded in this pious fabrication?

There are many gems in this blog review of Gibbon's issue with miracles.
Enjoy!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pX6jHbF9P8Q/TaiTPDy8o8I/AAAAAAAABaY/8qDi9OiD9wg/s200/gibbon+miracle.png
Jesus turns water into wine

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 12:17 PM

I don't think I have seen anyone boast as much.

Are you insinuating this gives credence to other ways of thinking. Even if it isn't provable?

Burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) will most likely apply if this is the case.

I am not here to either promote or defend my own personal observations on any issue other than those related to a discussion of the issues related to the field of ancient history, and particularly the so-called "Early History" of the "Christian Church" prior to the 4th century.

In an effort to introduce you to the field I have made a post pointing at an excellent blog and podcast on the subject of Edward Gibbon's attack on the Christian Church history. Readers may already be aware of this material, but on the other hand, some readers may not be aware of just what has been written against the history of the church.

Since this is fantasy island, here is a statement of belief.

Was this Jesus in the Bible an historical person

My opinion is that he was not - that he was fabricated in the 4th century.
We are dealing with a "Bilbo Jesus Baggins" literary character.
We have no archaeology before the Basilicas went up over pagan foundations.

The burden of proof? I am working on this.
Anyone care to discuss my belief in a "Fictional" Jesus?

Best wishes,

KJ.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 12:26 PM

Why do moderators here censor as a separate the discussion Edward Gibbon's opinion on the Christian Church and its history? I would really like to know the answer to this question.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 12:33 PM

@KJack: While a fictional Jesus is a very large possibility, that does not necessarily lend credence to the Constantine hypothesis you have been putting forward so far.

Constantine was the one to "find and embrace" the religion.
The archaeologists assure us he had plenty to choose from.
He promoted and published and legislated for the religion.
He used his army to support his ideology.

If we follow the very large possibility that Big J was fictional
then obviously we must suspect the first widespread publisher.
Constantine was the 1st widespred publisher of at least 50
so-called "Constantine Bibles" around Nicaea 325 CE.

As we have no archaeological evidence before Constantine
and and explosition of it with him --- such as the early art
renditions of Jesus looking like the Emperor --- then
Constantine by default becomes the main suspect.

Lest we forget. He was, for three decades, the Boss.
They were the good, the bad and the ugly.
http://tinyurl.com/bullneck

Christianity and Nicaea start in the ugly phase of his rule.

Here is a quote from a recent academic about the military aspect
and Constantine as a "Christian in a Christian crusade".

Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9475%28198421%29105%3A1%3C69%3ACPOPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P)
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 12:56 PM

That would be akin to putting a goddidit into an incomplete fossil record, KJack.

Please explain yourself Mr. Black.
Bullneck was deified but he was not god.

Early art was often idealised and rarely tended to "photographic realism".

Compare the coin with the archaeological data

http://www.reformation.org/enhanced-roman-coin.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Roundel_mosaic_christ_hinton_st_mary_british_museu m_edit.JPG/220px-Roundel_mosaic_christ_hinton_st_mary_british_museu m_edit.JPG (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/File:Roundel_mosaic_christ_hinton_st_mary_british_ museum_edit.JPG)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinton_St_Mary_Mosaic

Christian panel
http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/File:Roundel_mosaic_christ_hinton_st_mary_british_ museum_edit.JPG)
Detail of central roundel mosaic

The panel in the larger room is 17 feet by 15 feet. A central circle surrounds a portrait bust of a man in a white pallium (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Pallium) standing before a Christian (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Christian) Chi Rho (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Labarum) symbol flanked by two pomegranates (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Pomegranate). He is generally identified as Christ, although the Emperor Constantine (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Constantine_I) has also been suggested.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 01:04 PM

?? What has been censored?

A separate discussion of what Gibbon thought about the history of the church as very recently summarised by a well respected scholar and academic in the field.

It would appear that Gibbon's beliefs cannot be separately aired and discussed without reference to my own ideas. So be it.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 01:07 PM

KJack: two badly-depicted men, in straight-ahead view, do NOT a likeness make.

The coin doesn't have a cleft chin/forked beard, for a start.

Come on man.
So he shaved.
Check WIKI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Rome-Capitole-StatueConstantin.jpg/250px-Rome-Capitole-StatueConstantin.jpg (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/File:Rome-Capitole-StatueConstantin.jpg)

wearestardust

2nd May 2011, 06:16 PM

Constantine. Jesus. Both men. Both have two eyes, a nose and a mouth. Never seen in the same room at the same time. Y'know ... just sayin'

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 06:46 PM

The coin still doesn't have a cleft chin/forked beard.

We know who owned the mint. The owner of the mints in the ROman Empire was the first to publish the new testament bible. If there is in fact a vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century christianity, and then suddenly Constantine publishes the Constantine Bible for his personally appointed bishops, who is the prime suspect for those who consider Jesus to be a fiction character?

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 06:57 PM

Constantine. Jesus. Both men.

Constantine minted coins. We can look at them. He created Draconian laws like the one of 326 CE which read like this - "religious privileges are reserved for christians". We can look at them online.

Where is the evidence for Jesus before Constantine fought for him? In the Constantine Bible that he published, and in the "Church History" which was prepared by Eusebius, just in time for the main event at Nicaea.

Both have two eyes, a nose and a mouth. Never seen in the same room at the same time. Y'know ... just sayin'

Harry Potter has two eyes, a nose and a mouth.
We know Harry is a wonderful story but totally fictional.
We know who published Harry.
We know who published Big J.
Hmmm ....

Go figure.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 07:02 PM

Vague, tenuous, fact-free. Velociraptors might have been in the frame for all you've proven.

We know who owned the mint.

FACT: Constanine owned the mint.

The owner of the mints in the ROman Empire was the first to publish the new testament bible.

FACT: Constantine was the 1st to widely publish the bible.

If there is in fact a vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century christianity, and then suddenly Constantine publishes the Constantine Bible for his personally appointed bishops, who is the prime suspect for those who consider Jesus to be a fiction character?

QUESTION, which you might like to address after you watch your reruns of "Walking with Dinosaurs"

Fearless

2nd May 2011, 07:10 PM

Kookaburra Jack, can you please respond to Protium's post from earlier about the censorship claim. Cheers.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 07:12 PM

None. Actually, KJack would have done the bloggist a bit more credit if he'd quotemarked the large chunks he cut/pasted wholesale, or merely gave a link to the blog. Still, it's part of the KJack collection of historical hypotheses, since even if he didn't write this one, he's promoting it.

It belongs here.

That's a form of censorship. But I suppose your protecting your readers. Who needs a separate thread?

What has been censored?

Umm, the separateness of the thread about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon
Dig.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 07:33 PM

Sources?

If there is in fact a vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century christianity,

This is what the archseologists are saying.

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity (http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2011/03/06/the-vacuum-of-evidence-for-pre-4th-century-christianity/)

and then suddenly Constantine publishes the Constantine Bible

This is an historical FACT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibles_of_Constantine

for his personally appointed bishops,

This is an historical FACT.

Personal Appointment of his Bishops

Constantine personally appointed his Bishops in the new Roman religion. Each Bishop was responsible for a small region called a diocese, and enjoyed the local control of the area in all matters of Roman religion. The more important administration responsibilities was work involving financial and administration duties. In total it has been estimated that the empire hosted in this fashion as many as 1800 of Constantine's new bishops. Constantine often referred to himself as "Bishop of bishops", the reference having twofold significance in that the Greek "episkopos" (bishop) also means "spy".
That he was perceived to be involved in their activities, was also associated with the extremely desireable tax-free status that this new Roman religious order enjoyed. Promotions to the positions available in the new Roman religious order were thus advantageous for the wealthy.

who is the prime suspect for those who consider Jesus to be a fiction character?

A simple question.

What's your answer?

It's rather obvious is'nt it?

If we have no evidence before the 4th century
this would suggest a 4th century invention
with the Emperor Constantine as the main suspect.

Kookaburra Jack

2nd May 2011, 07:40 PM

I posted a separate thread for discussion about the historian Gibbon on the church, from a very credible and recent source. That separate thread is no longer available as a separate subject for discussion. I consider such censorship to be objectionable, harmful, insensitive, and inconvenient.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Please show me were your words have been suppressed, deleted or changed!

Sir Patrick Crocodile

2nd May 2011, 08:10 PM

Who likes a song?

MC Spammer - U Can't Move This
(Doooo-doo-doo-doo, pah pah, doo-doo, pah pah, doo-doo)
Can't move this
(Doooo-doo-doo-doo, pah pah, doo-doo, pah pah, doo-doo)
Can't move this
(Doooo-doo-doo-doo, pah pah, doo-doo, pah pah, doo-doo)
Can't move this
(Doooo-doo-doo-doo, pah pah, doo-doo, pah pah, doo-doo)
Mah mah mah mah forums hit meh, so hard!
Makes meh say "Oh mah board!"
Thank you! For lettin' me troll around like dat
And-ah-post-a-lot-o'-krap...

Kookaburra Jack

15th May 2011, 10:12 AM

Would anyone like to discuss an alternative population model for "Early Christian Origins"?

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/population_graph.JPG

Loki

15th May 2011, 10:18 AM

Where does this graph come from? Correct me if I'm wrong but the stats don't seem to match the graph.

Xeno

15th May 2011, 10:26 AM

OK. In what respect did you not make up that graph?

What is there to discuss about something someone made up?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

15th May 2011, 10:57 AM

Protium: if what he is saying on the site is not true, the AFA can take legal action against him for defamation.

Also to add to what Xeno said: that spike there is quite suspicious; what does the red mean, and what does the green mean?

Seamus

15th May 2011, 11:10 AM

Jack pops up all over the place,but I have yet to see a a scholar take him seriously.Currently people on Historum are being kind to him.

Jack does not respond well to criticism,so take care what you say,or he will get cross.

I have no idea if he's right, and am unconvinced his arguments can be proved conclusively. At best, I think he might manage to show some level of probability.

I may be wrong,but my impression is of an obsessive autodidact,whose work few if any trained scholars will accept.

In my opinion, threatening to sue people on some internet forum does not enhance credibility nor speak well of one's mental well being.:cool:

RealityRules

15th May 2011, 12:07 PM

Kookaburra Jack

15th May 2011, 01:33 PM

Where does this graph come from? Correct me if I'm wrong but the stats don't seem to match the graph.

OK. In what respect did you not make up that graph?

Also to add to what Xeno said: that spike there is quite suspicious; what does the red mean, and what does the green mean?

See the legend. Google Stark

The RED is from an estimate produced by Rodney Stark, and his figures are quoted. The graph examines the population estimate provided by Stark (RED) for the period from 300 to 350 CE.

The GREEN graph is an alternative model, showing zero population before Constantine, and a massive peak as soon as he assumes supreme imperial power,summons the Council of Nicaea, and creates laws for the empire, such as the one of 326 CE "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians".

The problem is to find the evidence to decide which graph is better. It is a real problem, because there is little - and I argue no evidence - by which to judge the answer to this question.

Kookaburra Jack

15th May 2011, 01:54 PM

Jack pops up all over the place,but I have yet to see a a scholar take him seriously. Currently people on Historum are being kind to him.

Some people, Seamus, not all.

Jack does not respond well to criticism,so take care what you say,or he will get cross.

I dont mind criticism if it is informed and researched.

I have no idea if he's right, and am unconvinced his arguments can be proved conclusively. At best, I think he might manage to show some level of probability.

When the field is ancient history, we are never dealing in certainties.
I am not arguing for the certitude of these new ideas.
All I am arguing for is that they are consistent with the evdience.
That they provide a simpler explanation for all the available evidence.

I may be wrong, but my impression is of an obsessive autodidact, whose work few if any trained scholars will accept.

I am exporing three new ideas in the field of ancient history.
I dont expect the road to examination and acceptance to be a freeway.

In my opinion, threatening to sue people on some internet forum does not enhance credibility nor speak well of one's mental well being.:cool:

But Seamus, this is a ludicrously hilarious situation. Atheists censoring and banning someone for discussing fraudulent Christian history LOL!. That's very funny as far as I am concerned. If you dont see the joke dont worry about it man.

Kookaburra Jack

15th May 2011, 02:01 PM

I think some of the things K-J posts are though- provoking, but they need to be assessed and packaged in light of other information.

The post linking to a site that claims there is no archaeological evidence for Xtianity before the 4th Century CE/AD is interesting

That same site also provides a number of pages related to what they are calling "The Archaeology of Chrest".
See for example .... Archaeology of ‘Chrest’ (http://historyhuntersinternational.org/archives-2/catalogue-of-chrest/)

It is fascinating stuff. We have no evidence for the appearance of "Christ" but there is a growing selection of evidence which, previously assumed to have been "Christian", related to the term "Chrest" (ie: with an "E",which in the Greek language means "The Good").

Even the CHI-RHO symbol itself, may be seen as abbreviation of the term "Chrest" rather than "Christ".
The CHI-RHO symbol appears in the antquity of BCE. It is not a "Christian symbol" until innovations of the 4th century.

RealityRules

15th May 2011, 02:42 PM

We have no evidence for the appearance of "Christ"

I agree - the only narrative for Jesus Christ is the Bible. The mentions in other literature of or after the times - Josephus, Tacitus, and a few others - are just repeats of narratives from the early chrestian [sic] communities.

An important issue is when the apocryphal [gnostic] gospel stories appeared and how views about that are packaged & presented. Were a lot of the stories around for ages as some authors assert?

e.g.
In the first 3 centuries of early Christianity, it has been claimed there were numerous writings giving accounts of Jesus & his teachings, the nature of God, or the teachings of his apostles and of their lives - indicative of the wide range of responses that were engendered in the interpretation of the message of Jesus of Nazareth.

It has been claimed many were alternate edited versions of accounts, including works that were presented as "authentic". Some were vigorously suppressed and survive only as fragments (especially those "not divinely inspired" eg. the*apocryphal gospels). Non-canonical gospels, such as*the Gospel according to the Hebrews, were widely read. Discussion and debate lasted three hundred years ... even within "orthodox" circles there was considerable debate concerning which books to include.

The New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic church council meetings, but rather developed over a few centuries from books that enjoyed a special status and prominence among the various early Christian communities ie.

were utilized both frequently and universally;
were relevant to the situations in which they lived;
followed the apostolic tradition;
were consonant with the Old Testament, thus
considered authoritative in worship and teaching.

That is, the gospels were decided on popularity as stories, and their relevance to the Old testament prophecies ..

McDonald, Lee M.*The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. pp.116.

Patzia, Arthur.*The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP, 1995. pp.104.

or, did the stories develop along-side the canonical gospels (the 3 synoptic gospels + John) ??
.

Xeno

15th May 2011, 03:31 PM

See the legend. Google Stark

The RED is from an estimate produced by Rodney Stark, and his figures are quoted. The graph examines the population estimate provided by Stark (RED) for the period from 300 to 350 CE.

The GREEN graph is an alternative model, showing zero population before Constantine, and a massive peak as soon as he assumes supreme imperial power,summons the Council of Nicaea, and creates laws for the empire, such as the one of 326 CE "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians".

The problem is to find the evidence to decide which graph is better. It is a real problem, because there is little - and I argue no evidence - by which to judge the answer to this question.

Well, you got the very last sentence nearly right. There is no evidence.

After checking the data as requested I discover that Stark proposed a simple log-exponential model for growth of christianity through social circles rather than through evangelism. He has no evidence for it but asserts it as a plausible explanation for his particular believer's take on growth of christianity. The "graph" you have presented shows exactly two of Stark's eight generated data points and hence is utterly and completely meaningless with regard to his data, which was only a model in the first place. Had you included all of the data points then the mathematical rather than historical nature of Stark's model would have been obvious immediately.

Against this, you draw some lines which fit your wish instead of Stark's. Hooray fuck.

I understand that you wish to show that your model is also plausible but your arbitrarily drawn graph merely repeats your prior contention. It fits no other facts and is completely made up.

Kookaburra Jack

15th May 2011, 03:53 PM

Please provide the evidence of you being censored or retract this constant drone of censorship. You were banned for 3 days to look for the evidence of your claim. Not because of what you were discussing.

Why are you making shit up?

So far this is the best you've come up with...

Originally Posted by Kookaburra Jack http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=193421#post193421)
What has been censored? Umm, the separateness of the thread about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon
Dig.

?

So now before anything else, can the farmer who is thinking about legal action based on his misinterpretation, distorted definition and modifed "evidence", please explain how you have been censored.. which words and where have been deleted or changed.

HiProtium,

Firstly, I find that I have been restricted to this subforum and cannot post or respond to any discussions occurring outside this forum. This is a form of censorship as far as I am concerned - no reasons were provided.

Secondly I was then told I could make separate posts in this sub-forum, so I made a separate post which made reference to a very recent review of Edward Gibbon's ideas about the ancient history of the christian church, and included a podcast. The site was not my site.

Subsequently, this post was removed as a separate thread for discussion, and merged with my ideas. Technically, a specific field in the database associated with that discussion thread as a separate discussion, was changed by the moderator. Why? This is a form of moderated censorship.

When I complained about this censorship you demanded to know what was changed. Many times I replied to the effect that the "separateness of the thread" was changed. You obviously either did not understand what I was saying, or purposefully misunderstood what I was saying. Which is it? My guess is the latter.

Best wishes,

KJ

Kookaburra Jack

15th May 2011, 04:02 PM

I agree - the only narrative for Jesus Christ is the Bible.

Hi RealityRules,

In fact this is not correct, since the name of "Jesus Christ" does not in fact appear in the earliest Greek bibles. All that appears - as an abbreviation - are the two coded forms of "J_S" and "C_T". The earliest evidence does not expand the J_S to "Jesus" or "Jesse jameS", and the expansion of "ChrisT" and "ChresT" are identical.

The mentions in other literature of or after the times - Josephus, Tacitus, and a few others - are just repeats of narratives from the early chrestian [sic] communities.

Josephus mention is thought by many to have been forged by the 4th century church historian Eusebius, in the employ of Constantine. See what has been called the "Testimonium Flavianum".

Tacitus appears as evidence very late, and mentions "Chrestians" according to the ultra-violet image of the Medici manuscript. So when the archaeologists say a vacuum of evidence, they mean it.

An important issue is when the apocryphal [gnostic] gospel stories appeared and how views about that are packaged & presented. Were a lot of the stories around for ages as some authors assert?

I have authored an essay on this question.
My idea is that the gnostic material appeared as a reaction to the appearance of the Constantine Bible after 325 CE.
Here is the essay:
http://tinyurl.com/3hrjbc9 (http://tinyurl.com/3hrjbc9)

Best wishes,

KJ

Kookaburra Jack

15th May 2011, 04:17 PM

Well, you got the very last sentence nearly right. There is no evidence.

After checking the data as requested I discover that Stark proposed a simple log-exponential model for growth of christianity through social circles rather than through evangelism. He has no evidence for it but asserts it as a plausible explanation for his particular believer's take on growth of christianity. The "graph" you have presented shows exactly two of Stark's eight generated data points and hence is utterly and completely meaningless with regard to his data, which was only a model in the first place. Had you included all of the data points then the mathematical rather than historical nature of Stark's model would have been obvious immediately.

Hi Xeno,

The graph has an inset box in which the eight points of Starks data are listed. The graph shows the region of Stark's conjectural distribution between the years of 300 and 350. If you look at the title on the graph you will be able to read this for yourself. Maybe.

Against this, you draw some lines which fit your wish instead of Stark's. Hooray fuck.

I understand that you wish to show that your model is also plausible but your arbitrarily drawn graph merely repeats your prior contention.

It is designed to paint a picture. The picture may be bad. But there's no need to spit on it.

It fits no other facts and is completely made up.

The facts are that we have a vacuum of evidence for the existence of christianity prior to the 4th century, and an absolute explosion of all types of Christian evidence from the early to mid 4th century.

Stark and those who follow him model their idea of history according to Starks idea of the gradual rise of the christian population following those miraculous events in downtown Jerusalem in the 1st century. All I am doing is putting forward an alternative model for the % christian population growth, which by the mid 4th century, was known to be 50% of the total population.

Best wishes,

KJ

Xeno

15th May 2011, 05:24 PM

The graph has an inset box in which the eight points of Starks data are listed. The graph shows the region of Stark's conjectural distribution between the years of 300 and 350. If you look at the title on the graph you will be able to read this for yourself. Maybe.Yes, I graphed the data from the inset box to determine the log equation and googled Stark to find out why this neat picture appeared.

In rational science or statistics there is no such thing as a credible graph comprising two data points. Stating you are using two data points does not polish the turd.

It is designed to paint a picture. The picture may be bad. But there's no need to spit on it.Well, actually there are very good reasons to spit on it. Firstly, the Stark component is nonsense as discussed above. Secondly, your component amounts to a random drawing which repeats your existing proposal, adding no information or evidence but simply representing in drawn lines what you have already said in text. Thirdly, you seek to use this pair of nonsense items as a basis for a discussion, as if the chart were meaningful.

The facts are that we have a vacuum of evidence for the existence of christianity prior to the 4th century, and an absolute explosion of all types of Christian evidence from the early to mid 4th century.Your chart adds nothing whatsoever to this claim, which needs evidence from the records of the time, not random lines with colours.

I know you are putting forward a different model. Please argue it on its merits and provide what evidence you have. The chart is so bad that it might induce people to think you are merely making shit up in other areas as well.

I am making no comment on your general claims.

youngmoigle

15th May 2011, 07:24 PM

Hi Xeno,
The facts are that we have a vacuum of evidence for the existence of christianity prior to the 4th century, and an absolute explosion of all types of Christian evidence from the early to mid 4th century.

There was certainly an "explosion" of Christianity in the 4th Century AD, but it didn't start there. It had been around for a lot longer than that.

For the first 300 years Christianity was just one of dozens of pagan religions and it had very few followers. Then, with Constantine's help, the Christian leaders gained political power and by 400AD they had enough clout to discriminate against other religions. Jobs and political favours were given mainly to Christians and not surprisingly there was an upsurge in conversions.

Eventually, the Christians had enough power to discriminate against other religions and later ban them altogether. No wonder Christianity "exploded".

Kookaburra Jack

15th May 2011, 08:18 PM

Yes, I graphed the data from the inset box to determine the log equation and googled Stark to find out why this neat picture appeared.

In rational science or statistics there is no such thing as a credible graph comprising two data points. Stating you are using two data points does not polish the turd.

Well, actually there are very good reasons to spit on it. Firstly, the Stark component is nonsense as discussed above.

Hi Xeno,

Well I am glad we agree on something.

Secondly, your component amounts to a random drawing which repeats your existing proposal, adding no information or evidence but simply representing in drawn lines what you have already said in text.I dont see a problem with that. If a picture can tell the story of a 1000 words then why not use a pictur to augment the idea. In this case the 1000 words happened first, and the pic ran second. Tough luck.

Thirdly, you seek to use this pair of nonsense items as a basis for a discussion, as if the chart were meaningful.

Your chart adds nothing whatsoever to this claim, which needs evidence from the records of the time, not random lines with colours.You may have noticed on the chart, legal records from the law codes of the year 326 CE taken from Extracts from the Codex Theodosianus (313 to 453 CE): English translations of much of Book 16, under Constantine's rule, "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians". This and other evidence has been presented here and elsewhere. I cant put it all on one graph. Just the general idea.

I know you are putting forward a different model. Please argue it on its merits and provide what evidence you have. The evidence as I see it has been presented on my website, a non commercial site, here: http://tinyurl.com/ldkkpq

The chart is so bad that it might induce people to think you are merely making shit up in other areas as well. Let's go back to Stark's bad chart. It is being more or less accepted (among a certain class of "Biblical scholar") as a possible scenario for the population growth of early christians prior to the 4th century. I think it is rubbish. You think it is rubbish. So what's the first step? The idea was to highlight Stark's model - which is an accepted model - with an alternative in which it is plainly seen that we have zero christians before 312 CE.

One must start somewhere. Even if I think Stark's model is rubbish, the point is to present another model and show how it differs from the model that is being used of Stark's. That was the entire intention of the graph, and why the graph focussed only on the epoch between 300 and 350 CE.

I am making no comment on your general claims.I noticed.

Best wishes,

KJ