The session is open to all, free of charge.mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 3:59 am The Discussion has been launched today, December 21st 2022
https://www.academia.edu/s/faa7f58532
I invite everyone to participate in what is one of my most important Discussions ever regarding Christian origins
My opening statement:
Dear all,
the timing for this Discussion is not all that fortuitous, as one may have contemplated already
A little over a year ago I stumbled onto the ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ in Philip, and it became clear to me that the 5 occurrences of that and the 2 occurrences of ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ were intentional, and telling a coherent and chronological story about one evolving into the other.
The discovery of that resulted in the immediate release of my "Gospel of Thomas Unicode transcription / Chrestians in the "apocryphal" Gospel of Philip" - possibly the most long-winded title ever, my apologies
What followed was a complete inventory of all variants of ⲭⲥ/ⲭⲣⲥ and their variants, e.g. 'Chrestos-ness', in the entire NHL: "ChrEstian all over the Nag Hammadi Library"
As Thomas doesn't contain any of those words, but merely ⲓⲥ/ⲓⲏⲥ, I decided to include those two as well, and also expanded the inventory with Codex leaf and line number for each entry: that I published under "Jesus the Chrest - Nomina Sacra in the Nag Hammadi Library 2.0"
The picture that arose was a quite vivid one, and one that attested to an abundance of occasions where a Jesus the Chrest was mentioned, addressed, or spoke himself - and in none of the 52 Nah Hammadi texts could a Jesus Christ be found: the word Christ simply doesn't exist in the NHL.
I started to study Traube, and Paap, and related research, and rather quickly and easily found out that the word Christ, or Jesus, doesn't exist in any text: be that Coptic, Greek or Latin.
Chrestianity had become a reality at that point, and I published "The inevitable emergence of Christianity" which is the most tentative paper I have ever published
I came at a total of 95 pages for all those, and still I hadn't delivered on the initial findings.
So now I present these, and they comprise an 38 additional pages which form the culmination of the four papers above.
As always, the sources presented and used by me are freely accessible and openly available, and can be consulted via a mere mouse click - the argumentation to my claims must as always be fully traceable, and objectively verifiable by all
Chrestianity is a fact, and it has been a fact for almost two millennia. How biblical academic has managed to be oblivious to that is something that must be asked and answered by the field itself - yet I question whether that will be addressed in a satisfactory or timely manner without outside aid. The deliberate obfuscation of Philip, demonstrated via the complete and utter absence of even noticing the various distinctions in the text, is fully in line with that of Thomas, and the NHL amply attests to what I call Christification: blind confirmation bias drives the Christian "translators" of these texts, and even Philip Schaff doesn't hesitate to falsify the Latin of Tertullian where and when it serves Schaff. It is not a question whether the manuscripts that we have can be trusted: the very question is whether those that handle them, inspect them, present them and "translate" them for us can be trusted, or relied upon - and the answer to that last question is an unequivocal 'no'
Chrestianity precedes Christianity, such is for sure. Mark started the movement that countered what Thomas, John and then Marcion had set in motion, and as we can see it wasn't until around 500 CE that texts testify to Christianity gaining the upper hand over Chrestianity - and it has also become evident how, well over 500 years after that, the latter still was a legacy that got attested to at will, freely and openly
Will all this upset or even stir research into Christian origins, New Testament studies, or Second Temple Judaism, to name just a few?