A shame that these most of works by ancient philosophers and writers are lost to us. I could just imagine a polemic against the Christian religion being more than a thousand pages
Quite true - so much was lost during the 4th and 5th century . Perhaps there might be another Nag Hammadi type discovery - except this time for pagan works. That would really be exciting.
@@FlaviusClaudiusJulianus361 It looks to me like alot of Porphyry's works made it, after searching one of my fav online bookstores. It makes me wonder if special care was taken to erase this specific work from existence. I think the same about Celsus' work. I doubt the Christians could allow these to survive the centuries with their incisive criticism.
It has always fascinated me that, contrary to the theories of 'Zeitgeist', the great Philhellenes of the Later Roman Empire perceived the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation as not only incorrect, but deeply disturbing and unfitting to the divine. Celsus famously stated that the Highest God, also known as the ‘Unutterable Principle’, could never enter into the midst of human misery, since this would entail that it must undergo change “from happiness to misfortune, and from what is best to what is most wicked”(Origen, Contra Celsum 4.14). Curiously Porphyry referred to the Highest God as "the Begetter and the King before all things, at whom heaven trembles, and earth and sea and the hidden depths of the underworld and the very divinities shudder in dread”. Furthermore Julian himself, possibly the greatest synthesizer of the wildly disorganised Pagan Cults of late Antiquity, proclaimed in his letter to the heretic Priest Photinus that "he whom one holds to be a god can by no means be brought into the womb". Indeed Julian would in 'Against the Galileans' even criticise the ancient Christian practise of venerating Our Lady St Mary; "why do you say that the virgin is the Mother of God? For how could she bear a God since she is, according to you, a human being?". The Christian faith, from the Incarnation to the final Resurrection and Judgment of the Dead at the end of time, was anathema to the educated Pagans of the later Empire, particularly the Neo-platonists.
Thanks for watching! Agreed. Not only was the Christian faith anathema to the pagan but also to the Jews of the time. For none of the main constructs of the religion tally with what the Jews practiced and believed. And this became increasingly apparent as Christianity moved further and further away from the judaism that Jesus himself practiced.
So what might the Greek and Roman Philosophers, who held this conception of the divine, had made of the belief among the Indians in figures such as Rama and Krishna, who were (are) God incarnate upon the earth?
Modern day Muslims share the same disgust with the ancient Philhellenes in that they reject that Jesus was a preexisting god and that the incarnation occurred the way Luke has Gabriel prophesied it would, by God Himself conjugating with Mary: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, and that which is to be born shall be called the Son of God." Muslims prefer, "God said, 'Be!', and it is!" I'm sure the ancient Philhellenes also figured out that the Christians chose to believe a connexion between God and Mary, a carnal union they no longer included in their conception legends of their demigods even by the First Century CE.
This excellent video raises several points and questions that need to be answered. Particularly why no discourse with Pontius pilot or return to challenge him after resurrection
Thanks for watching! Yes I think that was Porphyry's greatest point regarding the 'resurrection'. Appearing before Pilate would have saved thousands of innocent Christians from being martyred.So was he any better than their pagan persecutors?
@@FlaviusClaudiusJulianus361 I learnt of Julianus recently, and had to see everything, searched his name and found this channel, he will be pleased with your work. I have nearly watched every video.
That’s nice of you my friend! Best complement I’ve received on the channel - that Julian himself would be pleased with the work. Appreciate you taking time to watch the videos! Just about to release one on the Northern Baltic Crusades if that’s if interest as well. Will be doing more videos on Julian’s life in the next couple of months 🙂
Thank you! I love your channel. Do you have a patreon btw? I've loved the classics of ancient Rome, as well as Greece before, but I've mostly been exposed to Augustine and Tertullian when it comes to the Christian-Pagan polemics - and I was wondering if you'd ever consider doing a video on them, countering their points? I'm very glad people like Celsus and Porphyry are getting the attention they well deserve especially after the tragedy which is called the "Holy Roman Empire" and the loss of so many pagan texts.
Appreciate your interest and thanks for watching Jake. I didn't have a Patreon account but I've take your (great) advice and set one up (www.patreon.com/FlaviusClaudiusJulianus). Making videos takes a fair amount of time and effort so any help in supporting the channel would be well appreciated. In fact I have a video on Augustine in the pipeline - on his attitude to slavery in the Roman Empire and that should be coming up in a few weeks. Would love to cover Tertullians's thoughts - that's definitely on the to-do list. I'll also be covering Germanic paganism on the channel and there will be a video coming up on St. Boniface cutting down the Tree of Thor in a couple of weeks if not earlier.
Have you thought that Jesus was apparently ALONE in the desert when "tempted by Satan"? How then do we have Jesus' and Satan's discussion quoted in the scriptural text. For this account to be accepted as true, then Jesus would have had to report the incident to whoever wrote this text....I find thhis difficult to believe. No 3rd party witness to the incident creates doubt as to its authenticity, surely.
Have any of you considered that all of the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote what God told them to write? All of the prophets had visions and heard God and wrote it down. The apostle Paul was caught up to the 3rd heaven and seen things he said is unlawful to say. Some things God allowed to be written the prophets saw and some they were told not to write it down. Daniel was told not to write things down he heard and saw so did John. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, but he wasn’t alive then. Who do you think told him what to write and what happened and when it happened? In the garden Jesus prayed and wept, you don’t think God saw that and Jesus did confront His disciples about sleeping when He asked them to stay awake and pray with Him. Luke who wrote one of the Gospels wasn’t there at all but he knew. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
@@Leokat334 *Have any of you considered that all of the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote what God told them to write* No. Because if a loving god inspired men to write his word, he would have immediately condemned war, genocide, slavery, the oppression of women, the abuse of children. Instead, he bans eating lobster. Obviously men wrote the bible, not any loving god. Because men were doing those things and wanted to keep doing those things.
As a Christian, it would've been nice to have more of his works extant today. But much of his arguments are misunderstandings of the dual nature of Christ and His humility. Christ said "not my will, but yours." In his humanity, he feared death like most would. But submitted to the Father to set an example of self-denial. I don't think some of the Christian apologists did the best job in refuting his claims. But then again, I would need to do more reading on their rebuttals. This was a great video, and I value the effort of this channel.
This is a fantastic video. I'm curious if history ultimately ended up vindicating the gospel writers' decision to have Jesus appearing to poor, common people. Christianity ended up becoming an elite religion later on, but it seems like initially Christianity took off particularly well in the lower classes of ancient Rome, catching populations the existing religions and philosophies left behind. Maybe having Jesus appear to a person of high status would have compromised that (or maybe made it easier to assimilate into existing religions?). I don't know that this historical vindication would make Christianity true, but it could have changed the trajectory and success of the movement.
Thx for watching. Difficult to say. Scholars estimate the total Christian population inn the Roman Empire was only 5-10% by the time of Constantine. And as you say it appealed to the lower classes. Unfortunately we simply didn't have more detailed breakdown on the kind of people attracted to it.
So one would think although the idea of a physical resurrection of the body - including for everyone (!!) after the 'second coming' for judgment purposes - is almost the DNA of Christianity and cannot be altered. Thx for watching.
@@FlaviusClaudiusJulianus361 the spirit doesn't die like the flesh. i am not in the flesh suit. nor do i own it. there ideologies of the flesh are inaccurate. ive never lived how can i die. i very much agree with the Pythagoreans. the laws of the one seem to be forgotten in the eye of Christ follower's. just believe not live the life. the only reason we have tech at the level we do is because its meant for its creator and those who love life. not the masses or any tool that can afford it. common sense and comprehension are not equal for a reason. the church is designed to make those who can. do for those who can't well dont want too. just be lazy and have more then they need. there very definition of 666 is "excessive"
@@FlaviusClaudiusJulianus361 looking at this video,It makes me astounded and depressed as to how such a culture which gave birth to porphyry was annhilated.
If any of this is even an accurate representation as to the arguments of Porphyry, it goes to show that ancient non believers were just as ignorant about Christianity as modern opponents are.
Mmm.. Porphyry being born in that time and milieu and intermingling with both Christians and Jews of that time would arguably have a far greater understanding of Christianity than modern Christian apologists. In fact there are sources that claim that he was a Christian apostate.
I was talking with on of friends of mine and i started to tell her about goddesses of Europe and how they are interesting What was her reaction you think? She said i think HOLY virgin Mary was stronger and more interesting than all of those goddesses... Any massage to my friend?🙂💫🖋️
The most mysterious untold story of Jesus is the story of his sanitary habits,,Not once in the new testament does he go the toilet, so another mystery...
Well his teaching about eating with unwashed hands (which also seemingly declared all animals' flesh clean or 'kosher') indicates that he never washed after relieving himself, whether it was by the no. 1 or the no. 2, and neither did his disciples!
Why Jesus was human not God! Oh! This letter proves he as a person, cool!. he was real and did live! This destroys all dought that that Jesus was a real true living man. Good start, now, if we just had proof he was resurrected, O but wait. We do all kinds including the bible.
Sadly there's no proof that he resurrected apart from the say no of some of his followers. The resurrection was the time for Jesus to show himself to the general public which he curiously failed to do. Matthew 27 on Zombies walking around Jerusalem was perhaps an attempt to big up the 'miracle' even more but again no independent witness noticed any zombies sauntering around.
Why you lie for It says he escaped, not ran in fear and hide Like your trying to subject So you mislead in your first point right off the bat why would anyone believe anything you say after that. You cant trust a thief or a lier. but you can make sure the thief does not stell by keeping a eye on him . but a lier no nothing he says you can trust . Joh 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, Joh 10:40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
Thx for your response. 'Escaped out of their hands' would surely suggest a speedy exit would it not? You would not be able to escape from a group of people by simply walking away. And there is no suggestion that he performed a miracle either to help his escape. John 8:59 also specifically says he hid himself. To hide one must first escape and gain a considerable distance between oneself and any pursuers.
@@FlaviusClaudiusJulianus361 escape not run in fear. Paul did many miracles Just because he escaped does not mean he should have done some vanishing act silly.
Running across the River Jordan and making his abode there indicates that he knew he broke the Jewish Law against blasphemy listed in Leviticus 24, and so was on the lam. He doesn't return to Judea until it was time to raise his boyfriend Lazarus (from Eleazar: "God helps") and makes him his beloved disciple and renames him John (Yehohanan: "God is gracious").
@@FlaviusClaudiusJulianus361 No it would not. it would suggest, that the father translated him out of harm's way. He was God you know. No, you dont know, but now you are without excuse
@@user-uo7fw5bo1o i dont know what you're talking about. Leviticus 24 has nothing to do with crossing the Jordan. you said "was on the lam." you mean Jesus is the I am ? Then you said " Lazarus (from Eleazar: "God helps") and makes him his beloved disciple and renames him John (Yehohanan: "God is gracious"). You said " renames him John (Yehohanan: "God is gracious"). Have you ever read the New Testament? What chapter and verse says anything about Jesus changing the name of Lazcarus to John? Son you must be a Muslim. Muhammad only knew bits and pieces of the bible, he thought the Virgin Mary was Moses's sister. How stupid is Allah? Why would anyone listen to you when you know less than Allah?
@@xiuhcoatl4830 why is it a lie. He that believes not is condemned already. God's standard for heaven is moral perfection. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Whoever keeps ths whole law yet offends in one point is guilty of all.
@@xiuhcoatl4830 he who knew no sin became sin in our place. He is the atoning sacrifice not for only our sins but the sins of the whole world. Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
Alot of this criticism at least at the middle seem to me to be confirmations of the nature of the trinity as explained by trinitarians and repudations of modern "scholars" like Erhman. Yes, Jesus isn't just faking it, Magnes is wrong and heretical, Jesus actually became human, a normal human(aside from the peculiarities he needed to be the saviour). And as he said, his followers would do greater things than he which is why among his followers, the cream of the crop of humanity, you find people more stoic. And I won't call be so scared you sweat blood evidence of cowardice, they're evidence of fear, great fear but upon that great fear still following with his mission rather than running shows great courage. Anyways, Trinitarians are correct and modern revisionist histories of the NT and early church are wrong.
Why didn't Porphyry just say Jesus had never existed as nowadays atheists like to argue. So Jesus existed but He was just too human? Well Matthew never said he was writing the Gospel of the divine Son of God and the second person of Trinity, but that his writing was to prove Jesus to be the Messiah(Christ) foretold in the Torah Of Moses. "I will send them the Messiah(Christ), a Prophet(Messenger) like you Moses, Him they must listen..." Deut.18:15-19, Acts 3:22-24; 7:1-48; John 4:24-25, etc...
@@americaeaustraliaepius4338 Or Porphyrry believed that Jesus was a historical figure and arguing otherwise would make him appear foolish and unprincipled... There is no benefit of doubt when it comes to digging for truth...
@@Pax-Africana No, that's just christian wishful thinking. Porphyry is simply arguing against christianity by validating it's myths, which prove it's false even if it was historically accurate, which it isn't, making it even more of a lie. Ineed truth is truth, and turth doesn't care for yout religion nor the religion of the majority of people. Christianity remains a lie, no matter how many still blindly believe it.
*So in other words, there are no serious objections to the Gospel stories* There were no serious objections to the stories of Hercules or Romulus and Remus, either.😎
It's really impossible to say this when all we have are fragments of Porphyry's texts preserved in Christian apologetics. Of course, once the Church took over preservation of literature, it tended to censor everything that might call its beliefs in practice.
@@julianhermanubis6800 you’re only presupposing that it’s been censored but all the evidence from comparing different fragments from differing writers shows they honestly critiqued his work and it wasn’t a threat to them😭there were much worse heresy at the time that the church had to deal with
@@julianhermanubis6800 Quite true. Very little of his work survives and I'm guessing the various Church theologians only addressed the issues they felt they could comfortably counter. Certainly a fifteen volume work would have required something equally hefty is response.
@@drench2134 The first Christian emperor, Constantine I, felt strongly enough about "Adversus Christianos" that he wanted every copy destroyed and this order was repeated one hundred years later by Theodosius II. Over THIRTY Christian apologists responded to Porphyry, which indicates they took his critiques as a serious threat. And, as our host here pointed out, there were 15 volumes in all, and what we have left is only what the Christian apologists responded to. What you're saying is complete nonsense. It was rank censorship, on the order of what a Stalin or Hitler would have done, that the Church fathers indulged in, which indicates fear of an opponent, not strength.
Could be argued as there are no accounts contemporary to Jesus of his activities and 'miraculous' works which is very suspicious indeed. Even the gospels were written much later. My personal opinion though is that he did exist.
@@FlaviusClaudiusJulianus361 Not really, plenty of historical figures have few contemporary reports on them and troves of later documentation. Alexander the Great is a good example, there are no contemporary documents of him, most of what we know about him comes after his reign and from his successors. Although we don't have anything before his execution, we do at least have some evidence of people meeting other people who were actually there. Paul claims to have met James and Peter in his letters. Of course, this is also Paul... Not exactly the most stable person...
@@FlaviusClaudiusJulianus361 Historians have discussed this, he did exist. Even if we don't have contemporary writings for him, not only the same can be said for many other historical figures, we have people talking about him only 40 years or so after his death.
Pretty sure this is called the "Monday morning quarterback" fallacy. It goes like this... "If I were Jesus, I would have done it this way." Then concluding Jesus was a fraud because He didn't do it the way you would have. And this guy was a philosopher?
