mountainman

Split from elsewhere
Arius is implicit in the Council of Nicaea. From the rule of Constantine
the historical nature of christianity is totaly accepted, because he
constructed hundreds of basilicas throughout the roman empire, art
of a christian nature flourished, literature flourished, all indexes for
the historicity (coins, inscriptions, relics, etc, etc, etc) --- all these
things are manifest.

Arius and the Arian controversy and the Arian heresy are the subject
of historical discussions for hundreds --- soon thousands --- of years.

Some people in this world have principles, and believe they
should stand up for them against malevolent suppression.
That is what I believe Arius did, as a neopythagorean priest.


There were only non-christians living at Mt Athos.
Alternatively I could have said, he evicted all the pagans.
There is no contradiction in my mind.

Julian's first reference is from "Against the Galilaeans"

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.

His reference to Constantine and Jesus, and the
manner in which Julian perceived their relationship
is expressed in Julian's The Caesares:

Concluding proclamations ...

The silence was proclaimed and the gods cast a
secret ballot. It turned out that Marcus had most
of the votes. After conferring apart with his father, [95]
Zeus bade Hermes make a proclamation as follows:

"Know all ye mortals who have entered this contest,
that according to our laws and decrees the victor is
allowed to exult but the vanquished must not complain.
Depart then wherever you please, and in future live
every one of you under the guidance of the gods.
Let every man choose his own guardian and guide."

After this announcement, Alexander hastened to Heracles,
and Octavian to Apollo, but Marcus attached himself
closely to Zeus and Kronos. Caesar wandered about
for a long time and ran hother and thither, till mighty
Ares and Aphrodite took pity on him and summoned him
to them. Trajan hastened to Alexander and sat down near
him.

As for Constantine, he could not discover among the gods
the model of his own career, but when he caught sight of
Pleasure, who was not far off, he ran to her. She received
him tenderly and embraced him, then after dressing him in
raiment of many colours and otherwise making him beautiful,
she led him away to Incontinence.

There too he found Jesus, who had taken up his abode with
her and cried aloud to all comers:

"He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer,
he that is sacrilegious and infamous,
let him approach without fear!
For with this water will I wash him
and will straightway make him clean.

And though he should be guilty
of those same sins a second time,
let him but smite his breast and beat his head
and I will make him clean again."

To him Constantine came gladly, when he had conducted his
sons forth from the assembly of the gods. But the avenging
deities none the less punished both him and them for their
impiety, and extracted the penalty for the shedding of the
blood of their kindred, [96] until Zeus granted them a respite
for the sake of Claudius and Constantius. [97]

"As for thee", Hermes said to me, "I have granted
you the knowledge of thy father Mithras. Do thou keep
his commandments, and thus secure for thyself a cable
and sure anchorage throughout thy life, and when thou
must depart from the world that canst with good hopes
adopt him as thy guardian god."

J-D

I don't see what that means, and it doesn't seem to be an answer to my question.Why do you accept having been discussed for hundreds of years as evidence of historicity in this case, when you won't in other cases?But according to you he wasn't brave enough to stand up for his principles. He was too afraid to say plainly what he thought, according to you. It looks as if you're trying to have it both ways.

And what grounds do you have for supposing that Arius was a neo-Pythagorean priest?On your assumption, there were no Christians before the Council of Nicaea. Therefore, on your assumption, there was no distinction between Christians and non-Christians (or Christians and pagans) before the Council of Nicaeas. Therefore, on your assumption, it's not possible that Constantine evicted people from Mount Athos before the Council of Nicaea for not being Christians.I don't see there a plain statement that Constantine fabricated Christianity, and I can't imagine any reason why Julian wouldn't have said that plainly if that is what he thought.

mountainman

Historicity as far as I can determine is some form of
measure of the authenticity (perhaps integrity) of a
purported historical person and/or event -- and yes,
with respect to "the science of history".

The "science of history" I take to include study of
"evidentiary material" from the following "fields"....

* certain personages (authors or otherwise)
* the texts of (purported) authors.
* fragments of texts, and of papyrii
* inscriptions of various categories
* coins
* architecture and buildings
* art
* sculpture & statues
* weapons and tools
* technological innovations
* archeological relics
* carbon dating citations

[NB: Not intended to be comprehensive]
[Feel free to add via thread tangentiation]

Consequently IMO we are left examining a structure
which is multi-dimensional -- with a dimension for
each one of the above strands of scientific and/or
archeological evidence -- and one further dimension
formalised as time, or the chronology, which should
be logically common and consistent between strands.

I hope you agree to this point. This is the theory.

In application of this (theory) my research has shown
that the only strand of evidence which presents some
evidence for the historicity of JC (in the period 0-300;
ie: the first 3 centuries) is the "christian literary tradition",
being a small subset of the available texts of antiquity,
for the appropriate chronology.

All other strands of evidence yield "null results" for
the first three centuries as far as I can determine.

During the fourth century, the history of "christianity"
actually has greater wealth, almost an explosive wealth
of evidentiary material. In the 4th century we have
texts, perhaps even late 4th century manuscripts,
certainly fragments, certainly inscriptions of various
categories, certainly coins and architecture and the
buildings (Constantine's basilicas). We have christian
art, sculpture , statues, perhaps weapons and tools
used by phanero-christians, we have archeological
relics, and we have 2 carbon dating citations that
establish the new testament in the fourth century.

This is in total contrast to the void of evidence prior
to the rise of Constantine, in all these "fields" used
by the scientific approach to historical analysis.

This leaves open the possibility that the christian
literature is associated with a false chronology, and
was actually written in the fourth century.

Re: Arius ...

It is possible that Arius knew that Constantine would murder and
torture him is he were to be overtly opposed to Constantine's
initiatives. Put yourself in Arius' position, face to face with a
supreme imperial mafia thug and war-lord, who'se army had just
been victorious in the military supremacy of the Eastern Roman
Empire (as Constantine already held the western empire, this
was his supremacy).

What would you do? It is possible that Arius wishes to preserve
his life, and yet --- being wise and clever in disputation --- left
a record of his overt sayings in a cryptic manner, because there
were simply no other channels open to him at that time.

In the end he was probably poisoned (by Athanasius perhaps)
some 5 years later.

A number of grounds, the chief evidentiary material being an extant
letter written by COnstantine, just after Nicaea, as follows:

Constantine the King
to the Bishops and nations everywhere.


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)

Porphyry was perhaps the leading academic of the empire.
Constantine edicts for the destruction of his writings.
He calls Arius a "Porphyrian" and edicts for the
destruction of the writings of Arius, and etc, etc ..

We know that Porphyry was associated with "the tribe of
neopythagoreans" (here to be inclusive of neo-platonics)
for he succeeded Plotinus, and edited his "enneads", and
a host of other writings of vast scope.

Constantine shut down ancient temples before Nicaea.
He shut down temples and philosophers after Nicea.

He also went down to Egypt, to the biggest of the ancient obelisks
which had remained standing in the temple complex at Karnak, for
well over 1800 years, and ripped it out of its foundations.

Constantine shut down the Hellenic temples and constructed
christian basilicas. We have been tendered from the times of
Constantine, a chronological account of the rise of christianity
(and thus presumably "the tribe of christians") by which we
assume that "christians existed prior to Constantine". But did
they?

This is the historical question that I am exploring at present.

re: bull-burner (Julian) ...

Do you really expect to see such a statement?
Are you that credulous? See note below.

Are you aware of the relationship between the writings of Julian
in 3 books (Against the Galilaeans) and what is today preserved
of these writings, via a refutation in the fifth century by one
Bishop Cyril of Alexandria?

NOTE BELOW:

See above notes on some form of provisional specification
for the notion of historicity. Historicity in my opinion is not
something which is black or white, but cast in thousands of
shades of grey.

We have perhaps thousands of "atomic evidentiary material"
arranged into various strands or fields of scientific analysis
(listed above).

Based on this evidence, we need to ascertain our best explanation
for the history of the times from which this evidence is derived.

At present I am examining the possibility that christianity was
actually invented in the fourth century, and by means of supreme
imperial power, a very clever and monstrously complex pseudo-
history was created as literature, by many pseudo-authors, and
by altering the texts of existent authors, and by the perversion
of other texts, and by the destruction of competitive texts, by
fire and by non-action.

Apollonius of Tyana, and the tribe of neopythagoreans IMO probably
existed in the 300 year prenicene epoch, but the tribe of christians
were a fourth century literary invention.

Feel free to address any of the above issues, or any of the issues
addressed on this page.

Larsguy47

Well, in general, just as a background reference, the "apostasy" of the Church was already starting even during the time of the apostles. The Mysteries and paganism use camouflage as much as possible. That is, they are like hermit crabs, who look to dwell in the shells and houses of others. So by the time the pagan Pontifax Maximum Constantine decided to "become Christian" it is presumed the Catholic Church, as it were, was already sufficiently infiltrated by ancient "illuminati" paganists who then completely corrupted the church.

Therefore, only the very, very earch Christians, say up until the fall of Jerusalem in 70-73CE would be of true "Christian" historicity. By the time of Constantine, the Church was considered a blend of paganism and Christianity. Thus anything in the Christian agenda would have to be checked against a purely paganism agenda, since at that point they were publically, at least, one in the same.

LG47

mountainman

You dont quite perceive the case that I am arguing at present.
The case can be stated as follows ...

Before Constantine, the new testament writings (forget the old
just for the moment) did not exist. Hundreds of thousands of
innocent men had been crucified by the Roman imperial order,
but none of those men were our "Jesus Christ".

Jesus Christ was the key figure in a monstrous imperially inspired
fiction, which was later referred to by bullburner as "the fabrication
of the Galilaeans". It was a massive fourth century literary scam,
associated with the massive destruction of contemporary and
ancient academic material, which continued after Constantine.

Essentially the case is that, it is not impossible that bullneck
invented "christianity" during his rise to absolute power, and
then sponsored the creation of the appropriate literature, and
a pseudo-history for the preceeding 300 years in which it was
purported that "the tribe of christians" evolved even down
to this very day.

J-D

Although you have posted at great length, your ‘response’ seems to me to be largely non-responsive. What you’ve mainly done is haver.

You still haven’t explained what you meant by: ‘Arius is implicit in the Council of Nicaea’.

You haven’t explained why you regard ‘having been discussed for hundreds of years’ as evidence of historicity in the case of Arius, when you won't in other cases.

You have described additional examples of Constantine shutting down ancient temples before the Council of Nicaea, but you haven’t confronted the fact that if, as you assume, Christianity did not exist before the Council of Nicaea, it is not possible that Constantine shut down these temples for not being Christian. The question, which you are avoiding, is: why do you suppose Constantine shut down these temples?

You haven’t explained why, if Julian believed that Constantine had fabricated Christianity, he wouldn’t have said so plainly. You’ve only expressed (unexplained) incredulity at my asking the question. Possibly you were cryptically hinting at an answer when you asked me: ‘Are you aware of the relationship between the writings of Julian in 3 books (Against the Galilaeans) and what is today preserved of these writings, via a refutation in the fifth century by one Bishop Cyril of Alexandria?’ That doesn’t help me, because I’m not aware of the relationship.

On a couple of points you have given some sort of answers. Just not very good ones.

When I asked you what made you say that Arius was a neo-Pythagorean priest, you relied on the testimony of Constantine as your evidence. Why would you do that? Why would you believe a word Constantine said, particularly about one of his religious opponents? I would expect what Constantine had to say about Arius to be libel, and hence unreliable as a guide to Arius’s real position.

I understand the idea that Arius might have been afraid of what Constantine would do if he opposed Constantine’s ideas. But that’s not a good explanation of what happened, because what happened is that Arius did oppose Constantine’s ideas. If Arius had pretended to agree with Constantine, a well-founded and prudent fear of Constantine would have been a good explanation. But Arius did not pretend to agree with Constantine. If Arius had openly declared that Constantine had had the whole story of Jesus fabricated, a courageous determination to stand up for his principles would have been a good explanation. But Arius did not openly declare that Constantine had had the whole story of Jesus fabricated. You have offered, alternately, two contradictory explanations, neither one of which is actually an explanation of what actually happened, and you have tried to avoid confronting the inadequacy of your position by dodging back and forth from one to the other as each is challenged. What you have to explain is that Arius neither went along with (or pretended to go along with) what Constantine wanted, nor declared plainly that Constantine’s story was a complete fabrication. Neither of your explanations will do the job. (The conventional account does not have this problem. It would depict Arius as a courageous and sincerely religious man, who openly opposed Constantine’s views out of conviction, but who never said that the whole story of Jesus had been fabricated because that’s not what he believed.)

J-D

Well, that's hardly surprising, considering the evasive manner in which you duck back and forth between presenting the 'Constantinian invention' idea as a possibility and presenting it as the most likely possibility.

I bet I could state your case more clearly than you can yourself.

Larsguy47

Oh, I see. Well, my only comment would be that that may or may not be what really happened, but according to strict Biblical reference: "Matthew 16:28 Truly I say to YOU that there are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

If that's the case, then it is reasonable to conclude that some of the original Christian writings were kept hidden and private down through the generations and thus we may have a confirmation regarding authentic Christian writings. That is, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, if some extant Early Christian writings came into the public domain, it would shape speculation and the extent of it.

LG47

mountainman

Be my guest ... it might save alot of discussion.

J-D

OK.

Your position, as I understand it, is this.

Not only was there never such a person as Jesus, nobody before the time of the Emperor Constantine believed that there was, and there were no Christians of any kind then, either. Constantine decided to fabricate an entirely new religion, and he implemented this decision at the Council of Nicaea in 325. All documentary references purporting to describe the existence of Christianity in any form before that date, including both the texts which make up what Christians now regard as the New Testament and all purported pre-325 church history, were fabricated at that time on the orders of Constantine, primarily or exclusively by Eusebius. There is no evidence of any kind, material or documentary, to confirm the existence of Christianity in any form before 325, and the reason for this absence of evidence is that Christianity did not exist in any form before that date, but was fabricated then on Constantine’s orders.

I don’t say I agree with this, by the way. I’m just saying that that is a plainer, more definite, and more succinct statement of your position than you appear to be capable of, yourself.

My judgement, for whatever it may be worth, is that you have never given any grounds to justify the conclusion that your account is a more likely explanation than the alternatives. So I regard it as a provocative but unsubstantiated speculation. I’m not opposed to discussing it, but when you won’t attempt to justify the views that you are putting forward it cripples discussion at the outset. We know what you think: the question is, why do you think what you think? Even if it is a possibility (which I’m not now disputing), what makes you think it is more than a mere possibility?