Gold Plates vs. the Resurrection: Which Has the Better Witnesses?
I will also note that none of the witnesses were told to engage in self-mutilation, nor were any of the defenders of the 3 and 8 witnesses were morbidly obese, obsessed with prepubescent children, or until recently, had no friends.
* “But,” he said, “The Lord is
also called ‘the New Adam.’ How could he be called this, if he had not borne
the body of the first man? The first man was incorruptible before the fall;
therefore the body of the Lord, too, was incorruptible, for it always remained
sinless.”
+ “Whether the body of the first
man,” I said, “happened to be incorruptible or not, I for one will not say, as long
as they feel no shame in not attributing the immortality of the first man (εως αν μη το αθανατον αυτους καταιδει του πρωτοπλαστου). (Leontius of
Byzantium, “A Dialogue against those of our Party who Adhere to the Corrupt
Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetists (Book II. Contra Aphthartodecetas),”
in Leontius of Byzantium: Complete Works, ed. Brian E. Daley [Oxford
Early Christian Texts; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017], 377; note “+”
indicates the perspective of Leontius while “*” denotes that of his interlocutor)
The following is taken from Photius, Ad Amphilochium, Question 194, in Migne, PG 101:932-33:
Ὥσπερ Νεστόριος τῶν θολερῶν
ναμάτων σπάσας τοῦ Σαμωσατέως Παύλου, εἰς μέθην ἀσεβείας ἐξέπεσεν· οὕτως Εὔτυχης
τῆς οἰκείας θρησκείας τὰ σπέρματα ἐκ τῆς Μανοῦ πικρᾶς παραφύαδος δρεψάμενος, ὀδύνης
ἄρτον καὶ ἀπωλείας ἑαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς πειθομένοις, κατειργάσατο· ὁ δὲ τῶν ὀρθοδόξων
χορὸς, τὸν κορυφαῖον Πέτρον, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν κοινὸν Δεσπότην καὶ
Ποιητὴν, διδάσκαλον προστησάμενοι (· Ὑμεῖς γάρ, φησί, μὴ καλέσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Ῥαββί·
εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν ὁ Χριστός), τῶν δύο φύσεων ἐν τῇ μιᾷ ὑποστάσει
τοῦ Λόγου, τῆς τε θεότητος καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, λαμπρῶς ὁμολογοῦσι τὸ ἀσύγχυτον.
Τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐδίδαξεν ἡ Ἀλήθεια· Υἱὸν γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἑαυτὸν ἀνειπών, καὶ παρὰ
τοῦ κορυφαίου Πέτρου, Υἱὸς τοῦ ζῶντος Θεοῦ ἀναρρηθείς· τὸ μὲν, οἷς αὐτὸς εἶπε·
τὸ δέ, οἷς ἀπεδέξατο, ἐβεβαίωσε· διὸ καὶ μισθὸν τῷ Πέτρῳ τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁμολογίας,
τάς τε κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας ἐνεχείρισε, καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ αὐτοῦ ὁμολογίᾳ ἐστηρίχθαι τὴν
Ἐκκλησίαν· καὶ κατὰ πυλῶν ᾅδου καὶ πάσης αἱρετικῆς ἀθυροστομίας, λαμπρὰ φέρειν
τὰ νικητήρια ἐκραταίωσεν.
Just as Nestorius, after drawing from the muddy waters
of Paul of Samosata, fell into the drunkenness of impiety, so Eutyches, having
plucked the seeds of his own religion from Mani’s bitter offshoot, prepared for
himself and for those persuaded by him a bread of sorrow and destruction. But
the choir of the orthodox, taking as teacher Peter the chief apostle — rather,
the common Lord and Maker of us as well — plainly confess the unconfused
character of the two natures in the one hypostasis of the Word, namely of deity
and humanity. For Truth herself taught this: by calling himself Son of Man, and
by being proclaimed by the chief Peter as Son of the living God, he confirmed
both what he himself had said and what he had accepted; and therefore he
entrusted to Peter, as a reward for his right confession, both the keys of the
kingdom and the task of establishing the Church upon his confession, and he
strengthened it to bear splendid victory against the gates of Hades and every
heretical outburst.
Tobias took to guard the woman
Sara and to bring light to the blindness of Tobias; by the insides of the same
fish the demon Asmodeus was driven away from the girl Sara, who is understood
as the church, and blindness was expelled from Tobias. This is the fish, which
in baptism is introduced into the waves of the font, so that what was water may
also be called a fishpool because of the fish. The name of this fish according
to its Greek appellation IKHTHUS contains a host of holy names in its
individual letters, being in Latin Jesus Christ son of God Saviour. This
fishpool, which in the whole catholic church throughout the world abounded with
saving waters for the life of the human race, you translated to serve your own
will, and you dissolved the single baptism, by which the walls are made to
guard human beings, and you made, as it were, other walls, but no good building.
(Optatus of Milevis, Third Book Against the Donatists, in Optatus: Against
the Donatists [trans. Mark Edwards; Translated texts for Historians 27; Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 1997], 58-59)
. . . through Ezekiel the Holy Spirit
reproaches the Prince of Tyre, and is the prince of Carthage, when he speaks
through his prophet in these words: Son of man, say against the Prince of
Tyre, Thus says the Lord God: Because your heart is lifted up and you have
said, I am God. The first proof that Tyre is Carthage is given by Isaiah,
in whom we read, A vision about Tyre, then follows, Wail, ships of
Carthage. Then secular literature also asserts that Tyre is Carthage; and
if there is another city which is called by his name, no such deed has been
observed in any other as is well known to have been committed in Carthage. Speak,
says God, against the Prince of Tyre. He did not say that he was to
speak against some temporal king, nor to many, but to the one, that is Bishop
Donatus. For it was not right for the prophet Ezekiel, whom I have lately named,
to compare to anyone but a prince the bishop who, as I have said, was claiming
for himself the principal place in Carthage, who lifted up his heart, who
seemed to himself superior to the human race, and who wanted to have everybody,
even his associates, under him. He would never accept any of the offerings, though
his involved faith, and Christ his God, as well as the complaints of many whom
he injured in his very association with them, by doing something or other in
secret and afterwards perfunctorily mingling with the rest. In this way his
heart was elated, so that he seemed to himself no longer a human being but God.
In the people’s mouths, indeed,
he was rarely called Bishop, but Donatus of Carthage. And he fully deserved to
be named and reproached as the prince of Tyre, that is of Carthage, because he
was first of bishops, as though he himself were more than the rest; and since
he wished to have no human traits, he lifted up his heart, not like the heart
of a human being, but like the heart of God, as he craved to be something more
than other humans. God’s speech to him follows on, You have said, I am God.
Thus, although he did not use this expression, he either did or suffered all
that fulfils the sense of this expression. He raised up his heart, so that he
judged no human comparable with himself, and he seemed higher to himself
because of his inflated thoughts, since whatever is above humanity is virtually
God. Then, whereas bishops ought to serve God, he exalted so much for himself
from his bishops that they all revered him with no less fear than God; that is
to say, since he thought himself God, and since humans should swearby God
alone, he suffered humans to wsear by himself in the same was as by God. if
anyone had made this error, he ought to have prevented it; as he did not
prevent him, he thought himself God. (Optatus of Milevis, Third Book Against
the Donatists, in Optatus: Against the Donatists [trans. Mark Edwards; Translated
texts for Historians 27; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997], 64-65)
Oh, what a way to take care for
the wretched, to look after the poor, to come to the sinner’s aid—so God cries,
saying, I am he who has made the poor and the rich, not because he was
unable to give to the poor as well, but, if he gave to both, the sinner would
not be able to find any means to aid himself. It is written indeed, Just as
water extinguishes fire, so alms extinguish sin. Surely both are in God’s
presence, both the one who gives and the one who opposes the gift. What if God
should now say to Donatus, “Bishop, what would you have Constans be? If an
innocent man, why did you refuse to receive from the innocent? If a sinner, why
did you not allow him to give, when I made the poor for his sake?” Under this
interrogation, how will he turn out? Why did he take pains in his irresponsible
folly to stand in the way of so many of the poor? He had come to believe that
he held the principal place in Carthage; and since there is no-one higher than
the Emperor save God himself who made the Emperor, when Donatus raised himself
above the Emperor, he had already, as it were exceeded human limits, so that he
almost deemed himself God rather than man, because of his lack of reference for
the one whom humans feared next after God. (Optatus of Milevis, Third Book
against the Donatists, in Optatus: Against the Donatists [trans. Mark
Edwards; Translated texts for Historians 27; Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press, 1997], 63-64)
Today, chili pepper seeds and
fruits are used by the Maya as a treatment for an impressive array of diseases
including tuberculosis, delayed parturition, diarrhea, blood in the stool or
urine, earache, hemorrhoids, skin sores, arthritis, and asthma [58–61]. Faust
and Lopez [62] record that Yucatec Maya healers bury chili pepper fruits in a
hole dug into the floor of a home to ward off illness and to expel “bad winds”
that may be the cause of disease. In addition to the dietary and medicinal
uses, the Maya have employed chilis in a broad range of religious ceremonies
such as the ritual of the Bacabs (Maya deities) by the Yucatec Maya [61] and
the god pot renewal, first fruit and u horɂor ik ceremonies by the Lacandon
Maya [63]. Chili peppers are often incorporated into Yucatec food bundles for
ceremonies and festivals [64]. These pungent fruits also are added to the mix
when the Lacandon brew their balche, an essential beverage in almost all of
their rituals [63]. Similar to the Faust and Lopez observations [62], Maya
shamans and sorcerers use chilis to prevent future illnesses and negative
outcomes caused by a disharmony with one’s surroundings or for protection
against malevolent witchcraft [58,65]. In addition, chili peppers are listed in
the Dresden Codex as part of a “shamanic divination” ritual. (David L. Lentz et
al., “ Psychoactive and other ceremonial plants from a 2,000-year-old Maya
ritual deposit at Yaxnohcah, Mexico,” PLoS ONE 19, no. 4 [2024]: 10)
Commenting on the presence of chili peppers from a cache
dating 2,000 years ago:
The presence of chili peppers
indicates that the deposit may have been part of a healing ceremony, a
food offering, a component in balche, or as part of a divination ceremony.
According to Maya cosmological tradition, houses and other structures are
animate entities that require adequate sustenance. (David L. Lentz et al., “ Psychoactive
and other ceremonial plants from a 2,000-year-old Maya ritual deposit at Yaxnohcah,
Mexico,” PLoS ONE 19, no. 4 [2024]: 11, emphasis in bold added)