Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

The gnostic gospels & acts authored as a literary reaction to the political appearance of the Bible

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

#81  Postby RealityRules » Sep 11, 2016 10:30 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Thanks for these samples from the NHL and the comments relating to their [mainstream] dating.
I know what this dating is, but I think it is based on church dogma.

Some of it is based on church dogma, but not all of it.

Leucius Charinus wrote: I think it is more reasonable to believe that it was a relatively short-lived explosive controversy over literature (books - codices) between 325 - 337 CE.

You have narrow/tunnel vision.

Leucius Charinus wrote:Greek originals were taken from Alexandria and translated to Coptic in the NHL before 350 CE.

Hun??

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Valentinians and Sethians and other Gnostic "flavours" are various philosophical responses from the Alexandria philosophers during this period. Much of the Sethian material seems to have borrowed from Porphyry. This implies that this material was authored by people living at the same time or after Porphyry.

Forget the narrow vision on one sect (the sethians).


Leucius Charinus wrote:I find I reasonable to believe that Irenaeus was fabricated by authors within the church

Sure, but whether it was all "after the middle of the 4th century" is debatable.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
all references to heretics and gnostic authors of gospels and acts before the Nicene orthodoxy was imposed are similarly fabricated.

More tunnel vision.

Leucius Charinus wrote:Dating:

A few fragments of non canonical texts have been dated (again via palaeography) to the 2nd/3rd century but I do not see this as necessarily precluding a date in the 4th century.

You deny your antecedent (a fallacy).

Leucius Charinus wrote: The next earliest physical material is the NHL (and other related codices and fragments) dated in the mid 4th century.

Yes, but, as wikipedia, says, the passages often date earlier.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2815

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

#82  Postby Leucius Charinus » Sep 12, 2016 3:52 am

RealityRules wrote:(a) ... many of these apocryphyl/Gnostic texts were likely to have been around at the same time as, or probably even before, the Gospel texts?

I think the evidence for (a) is strong, especially via the Nag Hammadi scrolls


RealityRules wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Thanks for these samples from the NHL and the comments relating to their [mainstream] dating.
I know what this dating is, but I think it is based on church dogma.


Some of it is based on church dogma, but not all of it.


Let's start by looking at the evidence which is capable of being deemed independent of the church.

Leucius Charinus wrote: I think it is more reasonable to believe that it was a relatively short-lived explosive controversy over literature (books - codices) between 325 - 337 CE.

You have narrow/tunnel vision.



I will refrain from re-stating my conclusions and instead look at your claim ...


Leucius Charinus wrote:Greek originals were taken from Alexandria and translated to Coptic in the NHL before 350 CE.

Hun??


See above.


Leucius Charinus wrote:
Valentinians and Sethians and other Gnostic "flavours" are various philosophical responses from the Alexandria philosophers during this period. Much of the Sethian material seems to have borrowed from Porphyry. This implies that this material was authored by people living at the same time or after Porphyry.

Forget the narrow vision on one sect (the sethians).


Ditto.



Leucius Charinus wrote:I find I reasonable to believe that Irenaeus was fabricated by authors within the church

Sure, but whether it was all "after the middle of the 4th century" is debatable.


Well we can look at that.



Leucius Charinus wrote:
all references to heretics and gnostic authors of gospels and acts before the Nicene orthodoxy was imposed are similarly fabricated.

More tunnel vision.


Ditto. Let's look at your claim ...


Leucius Charinus wrote:Dating:

A few fragments of non canonical texts have been dated (again via palaeography) to the 2nd/3rd century but I do not see this as necessarily precluding a date in the 4th century.

You deny your antecedent (a fallacy).


Let's look at the fragments. I have a list of them if your interested. This will involve palaeographical dating assessments.

See below.


Leucius Charinus wrote: The next earliest physical material is the NHL (and other related codices and fragments) dated in the mid 4th century.

Yes, but, as wikipedia, says, the passages often date earlier.


That is correct. The claim is the same as the claim you are arguing ....


RealityRules wrote:
    a. many of these apocryphyl/Gnostic texts were likely to have been around at the same time as, or probably even before, the Gospel texts?

I think the evidence for (a) is strong, especially via the Nag Hammadi scrolls


Let us then look at the evidence by which this (your and mainstream's) claim regarding the dating of the texts in the NHL prior to the 4th century (I assume we both agree these codices were physically manufactured c.350 CE).

As mentioned above, (1) one category of this evidence-for-dating are the literary references found in the "church fathers". (2) Another category are the Greek papyri fragments of NT Apocrypha texts, a very few number of which have been dated (via palaeography) to the 3rd century.

Let's start here if you agree with the above, and I will refrain from repeating my conclusions until a map has been made of the actual historical evidence - in categories 1 and 2 - underpinning this claim.


ETA:

The New Testament Apocryphal Corpus: What do the Greek Papyri say?
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... papyri.htm
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 806

Print view this post

Re: Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

#83  Postby RealityRules » Sep 13, 2016 12:27 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Let us then look at the evidence by which this (your and mainstream's) claim regarding the dating of the texts in the NHL prior to the 4th century (I assume we both agree these codices were physically manufactured c.350 CE).

As mentioned above

    (1) one category of this evidence-for-dating are the literary references found in the "church fathers".

    (2) Another category are the Greek papyri fragments of NT Apocrypha1 texts, a very few number of which have been dated (via paleography) to the 3rd century.

Let's start here if you agree with the above, and I will refrain from repeating my conclusions until a map has been made of the actual historical evidence - in categories 1 and 2 - underpinning this claim.

ETA:
The New Testament Apocryphal Corpus1: What do the Greek Papyri say?
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... papyri.htm

No, let's not. I don't want to get into a discussion or argument with you over this. For several reasons -

1. My point goes beyond the Nag Hammadi texts. I only used reference to them (and some of them) by way of illustration of my wider point.

2. 1 I object to the terms 'New Testament Apocrypha' or 'New Testament Apocryphal Corpus', as they imply that these 'Apocrypha' are derived from or induced by the NT and it's texts.

3. I don't think either of us have the expertise or time to develop a 'map has been made of the actual historical evidence'.

5. Moreover, I don't want to, and certainly not by criteria set down by you.


There are a whole lot of issues behind texts, phrases, and pericopes in different biblical and non-biblical texts --eg. -


a/ take the so-called “Synoptic Apocalypse” (aka the Olivet Discourse)

Basil Lourié thinks that

    "The so-called “Synoptic Apocalypse” is a reworking of a Second Temple period Jewish apocalypse (best preserved in Matthew), whose structure is recoverable from the con-tents and the order of Jesus’ parables.

    "The “Synoptic Apocalypse” (SA) is a modern title for the apocalyptic material contained in the Synoptic gospels. The title implies that this material goes back to a common source. The same source was used in other early Christian works, namely, the Revelation of John, 1 Thess 4–5, the Apocalypsis Petri, the Epistula Apostolorum, and some others. The latest of these texts are datable to the early second century (most certainly the Epistula Apostolorum). The dates of all others are highly disputable but the same date of the early second century is the latest among those in consideration. Even the eschatological material of the Pauline 1 Thess (ch. 4–5) is discussed as a probably post-Pauline interpolation. Be this as it may, I mention here these problems of dating with the only purpose to show that the similarities between the gospels and other early Christian works are not necessarily to be explained through the dependency of the latter from the former."
See 'The “Synoptic Apocalypse” (Mt 24-25 Par.) and Its Jewish Source' Scrinium, Journal of Patrology & Critical Hagiography, 2015; pp. 87-108.


b/ take the terms and notions of 'abomination of desolation' (or 'desolating sacrilege')

From Wikipedia -


The abomination of desolation (or 'desolating sacrilege') is a term found in the Book of Daniel. It also occurs in 1 Maccabees and in the Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament. The Hebrew term (transliterated) is šiqqǔṣ mišômēm (שִׁקּוּץ מְשׁמֵם); the Greek equivalent is τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως.

Etymology
See also: Abomination (Bible)

In both biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, the word "abomination" is a familiar term for an idol,[1] and therefore may well have the same application in Daniel, which should accordingly be rendered, in agreement with Ezra 9:1-4 "motionless abomination" or, also, "appalling abomination".[2] The suggestion of many scholars—Hoffmann, Nestle, Bevan, and others—that as a designation for Jupiter it is simply an intentional perversion of his usual appellation "Baal Shamem" ("lord of heaven") is quite plausible,[3] as attested by the perversion of Beelzebub into "Βεελζεβούλ" (Greek version) in Mark 3:22, as well as the express injunction found in Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, vi. (vii) and Babli 'Ab. Zarah, 46a that the names of idols may be pronounced only in a distorted or abbreviated form.

Biblical occurrences

Daniel
The phrase "abomination of desolation" is found in three places in the Book of Daniel, all within the literary context of apocalyptic visions.

Daniel 9:27 "And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

Daniel 11:31 "And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate."

Daniel 12:11 "And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand and two hundred and ninety days."

1 Maccabees
According to 1 Maccabees 1:54, the abomination was erected on the altar of burnt offering.[4]

1 Maccabees 1:54 "Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;"

1 Maccabees 6:7 "Also that they had pulled down the abomination, which he had set up upon the altar in Jerusalem, and that they had compassed about the sanctuary with high walls, as before, and his city Bethsura."

Synoptic Gospels
See also: Olivet Discourse
In the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark, the term is used by Jesus in the Olivet discourse. In the Matthean account, Jesus is presented as quoting Daniel explicitly. In the Gospel of Mark, the phrase "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is absent in the Codex Sinaiticus.[5]

Matthew 24:15-16 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Mark 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

In Luke's version of Jesus' warning, the abomination is not mentioned, and the sign that it is time to flee Jerusalem is explicitly said to be that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies.

Luke 21:20-21 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the town depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it"
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2815

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

#84  Postby Leucius Charinus » Sep 13, 2016 9:17 am

RealityRules wrote:

2. 1 I object to the terms 'New Testament Apocrypha' or 'New Testament Apocryphal Corpus', as they imply that these 'Apocrypha' are derived from or induced by the NT and it's texts.


What term would you use?


3. I don't think either of us have the expertise or time to develop a 'map has been made of the actual historical evidence'.



I at least spent the time to tabulate most of the texts.

I used the term "The Gnostic Gospels and Acts"

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... _Index.htm
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 806

Print view this post

Re: Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

#85  Postby Leucius Charinus » Feb 19, 2017 5:05 am

Weighing the material evidence underpinning the mainstream chronology of the Gnostic [heretics!]
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/W ... ostics.htm

Does anyone know how to validate or reject the methodology used in a Chi Squared statistical test?
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 806

Print view this post

Re: Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

#86  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 08, 2017 5:48 am

Many readers of this discussion may already be aware that over the last decade I have investigated a specific proposition. Namely the possibility that the Roman Emperor Constantine commissioned the fabrication of the Christians once he was the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Lets call this proposition A.

If this proposition A is actually true, then it follows by corollary that the proposition B - that Gnostic authors were post Nicene dissidents - is also true.

    COROLLARY

    The use of the term corollary, rather than proposition or theorem, is intrinsically subjective. Proposition B is a corollary of proposition A if B can be readily deduced from A or is self-evident from its proof, but the meaning of readily or self-evident varies depending upon the author and context.


However this discussion in the OP specifically allows the New Testament Canonical books to have been authored in any century of the readers' choosing. The discussion here allows postulate A to be wrong, and independently from first principles argues that proposition B is true.

Whether or not Constantine fabricated the Greek New Testament Bible codex, all the gnostic Gospels and gnostic Acts and Apocalypses were authored as a literary reaction to the appearance of the Bible Codex as a political instrument of the Roman State. When the Bible was first published by Constantine it was met with "Other Jesus and Apostle Story Books".

Sedition. 325-336 CE.

Alexandrian.

"HOT BOOKS"


Transported 400 miles out of town to the Pachomian Hogans Hero team and translated to Coptic.
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 806

Print view this post

Re: Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

#87  Postby jamest » Apr 26, 2019 11:17 pm

Cannot believe I overlooked this thread, though I don't participate much in the religious forums so there ya go.

For me, personally, and I'm not a religious person, The Gospel of Thomas is the singular most significant religious text I've ever come across.

If the OP is still here, gimme a yell.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 17703
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

#88  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 26, 2019 11:52 pm

Greetings. I still persist with this OP here and there. I seek a political explanation of the Gospel of Thomas and the "Other Books" as a reaction to the political appearance of Emperor Constantine "Little Purple Book" (Bible)
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 806

Print view this post

Re: Gnostic authors as post Nicene dissidents

#89  Postby jamest » Apr 27, 2019 12:02 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:Greetings. I still persist with this OP here and there. I seek a political explanation of the Gospel of Thomas and the "Other Books" as a reaction to the political appearance of Emperor Constantine "Little Purple Book" (Bible)

Hello Sir. I just wanted to thank you for your quick response. I'll give your comment some consideration via a serious reading of your posts here. Whilst I'm doing that, you should perhaps consider what it means to be an irreligious theist. Hopefully we'll speak later.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 17703
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest