Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Crimson Glory · 07-03-2008, 10:20 AM

Great material for study, mountainman! I see most of the destroying of documents deals with Arius and it is very difficult to establish if Constantine destroyed other documents in a steady basis, but it is easy to see that he has no problem whatsoever.
Thanks for the helping hand.

Roger Pearse · 07-03-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Glory

Can you please provide more information?
My interest is to know if there was some specific order to destroy documents and where is it recorded.

I know that most posters know, this, but as a newcomer CG, you need to be aware that MountainMan is a crank poster. His 'erudition' is all borrowed, and his presentation intentionally deceptive. He intends to deceive *you*, I'm sorry to say.

Sozomen book 1, c.17:

When it was found that the event did not answer the expectations of the emperor, but that on the contrary, the contention was too great for reconciliation, so that he who had been sent to make peace returned without having accomplished his mission, Constantine convened a synod at Nicaea, in Bithynia, and wrote to the most eminent men of the churches in every country, directing them to be there on an appointed day....

About three hundred and twenty bishops were present, accompanied by a multitude of presbyters and deacons. There were, likewise, men present who were skilled in dialectics, and ready to assist in the discussions.

And as was usually the case on such occasions, many priests resorted to the council for the purpose of transacting their own private affairs; for they considered this a favorable opportunity for rectifying their grievances, and in what points each found fault with the rest, he presented a document to the emperor, wherein he noted the offenses committed against himself.

As this course was pursued day after day, the emperor set apart one certain day on which all complaints were to be brought before him. When the appointed time arrived, he took the memorials which had been presented to him, and said, "All these accusations will be brought forward in their own season at the great day of judgment, and will there be judged by the Great Judge of all men; as to me, I am but a man, and it would be evil in me to take cognizance of such matters, seeing that the accuser and the accused are priests; and the priests ought so to act as never to become amenable to the judgment of others. Imitate, therefore, the divine love and mercy of God, and be ye reconciled to one another; withdraw your accusations against each other; let us be persuaded, and let us devote our attention to those subjects connected with the faith on account of which we are assembled."

After this address, in order to make the document of each man nugatory, the emperor commanded the memorials to be burnt...

Whether 'The Boss burns petitions in the presence of the attendees whom he had personally summoned to Nicaea, where the air is cool and where "the fear of God" was to be anticipated. This in writing from the Boss, Twice. Not once.' is a fair and reasonable depiction of this event I leave to you to imagine.

The remainder of his post is likewise deceptive. As someone with much else to do, I hope you will pardon me if I don't research it all here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle · 07-03-2008, 01:54 PM

Roger, problem is that some of those grievances were real, for example about differences in beliefs and the effect was to establish the party line - in a similar way to airbrushing Trotsky out of the photos.

It is of note that we do have a record of up to 320 xianities " and people who were ready to assist in the discussions" that were distilled into the one true and holy catholic church. Good thing we know the bath was nice..

mountainman · 07-03-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Glory

Can you please provide more information?
My interest is to know if there was some specific order to destroy documents and where is it recorded.

I know that most posters know, this, but as a newcomer CG, you need to be aware that MountainMan is a crank poster. His 'erudition' is all borrowed, and his presentation intentionally deceptive. He intends to deceive *you*, I'm sorry to say.

Roger forgot to mention that he has fathomed the real reason for my research to be MALICE. It appears that Roger cannot conceive of any person thinking the origins of christianity involved FRAUD. On the other hand, I have consistently provided substantiated my claims and have asked for evidence to be presented for the existence of christianity prior to the rise of BULLNECK.

This forum is relatively strong in the evidence and arguments concerning the textual evidence but relatively weak in the same degree of familiarity with the monumental evidence. Elsewhere, therefore I have gathered a page together on the christian epigraphic habits etc

Here we see Roger citing Sozomen ...

Quote:

Sozomen book 1, c.17:.

When it was found that the event did not answer the expectations of the emperor, but that on the contrary, the contention was too great for reconciliation, so that he who had been sent to make peace returned without having accomplished his mission, Constantine convened a synod at Nicaea, in Bithynia, and wrote to the most eminent men of the churches in every country, directing them to be there on an appointed day....

About three hundred and twenty bishops were present, accompanied by a multitude of presbyters and deacons. There were, likewise, men present who were skilled in dialectics, and ready to assist in the discussions.

And as was usually the case on such occasions, many priests resorted to the council for the purpose of transacting their own private affairs; for they considered this a favorable opportunity for rectifying their grievances, and in what points each found fault with the rest, he presented a document to the emperor, wherein he noted the offenses committed against himself.

As this course was pursued day after day, the emperor set apart one certain day on which all complaints were to be brought before him. When the appointed time arrived, he took the memorials which had been presented to him, and said, "All these accusations will be brought forward in their own season at the great day of judgment, and will there be judged by the Great Judge of all men; as to me, I am but a man, and it would be evil in me to take cognizance of such matters, seeing that the accuser and the accused are priests; and the priests ought so to act as never to become amenable to the judgment of others. Imitate, therefore, the divine love and mercy of God, and be ye reconciled to one another; withdraw your accusations against each other; let us be persuaded, and let us devote our attention to those subjects connected with the faith on account of which we are assembled."

After this address, in order to make the document of each man nugatory, the emperor commanded the memorials to be burnt...

Whether 'The Boss burns petitions in the presence of the attendees whom he had personally summoned to Nicaea, where the air is cool and where "the fear of God" was to be anticipated. This in writing from the Boss, Twice. Not once.' is a fair and reasonable depiction of this event I leave to you to imagine.

The remainder of his post is likewise deceptive. As someone with much else to do, I hope you will pardon me if I don't research it all here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger has not done the sufficient research or is being himself deliberately deceptive.
We have more than Sozomen telling us about the Council of Nicaea.

What we know of the Council of Nicaea is derived from a small number of sources. The histories of Philostorgius (fragments via Photius), Rufinius of Aqueila, Socrates Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen and Theodoret of Cyrus survive. The histories of Hesychius of Jerusalem, Timeotheus of Betrytus, Sabinas of Heraclea and Philippes Sidetes (Philip of Side) are presumed lost. (More than likely they were simply not preserved in favor of other histories written later, when the political turmoil of Constantine's FICTION had settled in the generations of the greek speaking citizens of the Roman empire of the later fourth century --- AFTER JULIAN's INVECTIVES against Constantine). Additionally, in his text Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, written at the death of that emperor in 337 CE, Eusebius Pamphilus of Ceasarea provides some further information about the council proceedings at Nicaea, and also about his lack of integrity as an historian.

Notably all the "surviving histories" are written by the INSIDERS. ie: christian ecclesistical historians.
Sozomen is the only version which attempts to justify the burning of the written petitions of the attendees.
The other histories report the burning of the petitions differently.

I am not going to separately place these histories here and compare them with Sozomens.
Philostorgius (fragments via Photius), Rufinius of Aqueila, Socrates Scholasticus, and Theodoret of Cyrus do not mention any reason whatsoever for the burning by Constantine of the written petitions of the attendees IN THEIR PRESENCE.

But here is the report of Rufinus (the first to write in order of these "ecclesiarical historians".
If you want to read the rest and confirm the point I am making, the rest of the text is available
from the page on the boundary event known as The Council of Nicaea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rufinus of Aquileia

Book 10, Part 1

10.1. Alexander received the episcopal office after Achillas, who had succeeded the martyr Peter in Alexandria, and it was then that since our people were enjoying peace and a respite from persecution, and the glory of the churches was crowned by the merits of the confessors, the favorable state of our affairs was disturbed by strife within.
A presbyter of Alexandria named Arius, a man religious in appearance and aspect rather than in virtue, but shamefully desirous of glory, praise, and novelties, began to propose certain impious doctrines regarding the faith of Christ, things which had never before been talked about.

He tried to sever and divide the Son from the eternal and ineffable substance or nature of God the Father, something which upset very many in the church. Bishop Alexander, by nature gentle and reserved, desired to recall Arius from his impious enterprise and teaching by unceasing admonitions, but did not succeed, because by then the contagion of his pestilential doctrine had infected so many not only in Alexandria, but also in the other cities and provinces to which it had spread.

He therefore, thinking it would be disastrous to ignore the situation, brought it to the notice of very many of his fellow priests. The dispute became widely known. Word of it reached the ears of the religious sovereign, since he was making every effort to look after our affairs.

He then, in accordance with the mind of the priests, summoned a council of bishops to the city of Nicaea, and ordered Arius to present himself there to the 318 bishops in attendance and to be judged on the teachings and questions he had brought forward.

Book 10, Part 2

10.2. Now I do not think it right to omit the marvelous thing which the sovereign did in the council.
For when the bishops had come together from almost everywhere and, as usually happens, were submitting complaints against each other arising from various causes, he was constantly being importuned by each of them, petitions were being offered, wrongdoings were being brought up, and they were giving their attention to these matters rather than to the purpose of their gathering.

But he, seeing that these quarrels were hindering the most important business at hand, set a certain day on which any bishop who thought he had a complaint to make might submit it.

And when he had taken his seat, he accepted the petitions of each. Holding all the petitions together in his lap, and not opening them to see what they contained, he said to the bishops,

“God has appointed you priests
and given you power to judge even concerning us,
and therefore we are rightly judged by you,
while you cannot be judged by men.

For this reason, wait for God alone to judge among you,
and whatever your quarrels may be,
let them be saved for that divine scrutiny.

For you have been given to us by God as gods,
and it is not fitting that a man should judge gods,
but only he of whom it is written:

“God has stood in the assembly of the gods,
in the midst he has judged between gods.
And therefore put aside these matters
and without contention examine those things
which belong to the faith of God.”

Having spoken thus,
he ordered all the petitions
containing complaints
to be burned together,
lest the dissension between priests
become known to anyone.
Now when the issue concerning faith had been discussed in the bishops’ council for many days, and quite a few there put forward different views and vigorously supported Arius’s initiative, there were still more who abhorred the impious enterprise.

And since there were at the council a large number of priest-confessors, they were all opposed to Arius’s novelties. But those who supported him were men clever in disputation and therefore opposed to the simplicity of faith.

IMO and from the perspective of research into ancient history it is quite possible that t here were no christians on the planet Earth before the year 312 CE at which time Constantine paraded the head of Maxentius, the EX-BOSS around the streets of Rome on a pike, and assumed the role of Pontifex Maximus.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 07-03-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I know that most posters know, this, but as a newcomer CG, you need to be aware that MountainMan is a crank poster. His 'erudition' is all borrowed, and his presentation intentionally deceptive. He intends to deceive *you*, I'm sorry to say.

Roger forgot to mention that he has fathomed the real reason for my research to be MALICE. It appears that Roger cannot conceive of any person thinking the origins of christianity involved FRAUD. On the other hand, I have consistently provided substantiated my claims

No you haven't. You have never done so. You have in fact denied that there is any need for you to do so, on the grounds ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

and have asked for evidence to be presented for the existence of christianity prior to the rise of BULLNECK.

... that you think this is a sufficient substitute.

But it isn't.

mountainman · 07-03-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Roger forgot to mention that he has fathomed the real reason for my research to be MALICE. It appears that Roger cannot conceive of any person thinking the origins of christianity involved FRAUD. On the other hand, I have consistently provided substantiated my claims

No you haven't. You have never done so.

The Early Christian "EPIGRAPHIC HABIT"

an index of fraud concerning "christian" history by century

Educate yourself. Deal with the evidence not the messenger.
What is the evidence saying?

What do you actiual think J-D (about the evidence)?
Do you actually have an opinion on anything (about the evidence)?
Where do you see yourself in this landscape (of evidence)?
I have expressed my opinions on the evidence.
Where is your opinion?

I am looking at your side of the table.
It appears devoid of references.

Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 07-03-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

and have asked for evidence to be presented for the existence of christianity prior to the rise of BULLNECK.

... that you think this is a sufficient substitute.

But it isn't.

The logic of the situation is quite simple. It is not about substitutions at all. I have framed an either or gate. Either christianity pre-existed the year 312 CE. Or it did not. This should be simple enough for you and most everybody to actually understand.

Despite any preconceived notions, what does the evidence say? Have you actually looked yet? And have you actually commented on the evidence?

I dont like having to be the one to point out the obvious, but it seems reasonably clear to me that the answer to the question, whether christianity pre-existed the year 312 CE, or whether it did not, is not as simply answered as might be expected.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 07-03-2008, 07:15 PM

Pete, you've asked me before, in an old thread, what I think about your evidence, and I answered your question. Here is my answer again:

All the evidence you have presented is consistent with your hypothesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine; but it is also all consistent with the alternative hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of the evidence you offer falsifies the hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of it gets us any closer to deciding between the two hypotheses.

Crimson Glory · 07-04-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

I know that most posters know, this, but as a newcomer CG, you need to be aware that MountainMan is a crank poster. His 'erudition' is all borrowed, and his presentation intentionally deceptive. He intends to deceive *you*, I'm sorry to say.

As I said, I appreciate the great material for study, and I know much research should be done on my own before taking positions. Anyway, I think considering constant fraud on behalf of Christians is a fact you can count on always. I read Karlheinz Deschner's "Criminal History Of Christianity", specially volume 4, that deals with falsifications, and the evidence looks overwhelming. On the other hand, I see that mountainman defends the hypothesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine. In a way, it is true; at best, Constantine created the monster from a puppy. But what I was looking for is this detail about the emperor destroying documents from s. I c.e. probably as a way of silencing future questions for his monster. For that, my intention is to continue researching and the material provided here is pretty inspiring. Thanks again.

mountainman · 07-04-2008, 09:06 PM

One further note then. Do not omit study of the express opinion of Arnaldo Momigliano, perhaps the foremost of ancient historians last century. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography

Specifically, Chapter 6 - The Origins of Ecclesiastical Historiography.

Quote:

p.138

"Simple and majestic Eusebius of Caesarea claims for himself the merit of
having invented ecclesiastical history. This merit cannot be disputed.

Momigliano appears to be renown for his use of irony.
Have you read Momigliano Littlejohn?
Italian was one of his many languages.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-03-2008, 10:20 AM	#11
Crimson Glory Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Posts: 37	Great material for study, mountainman! I see most of the destroying of documents deals with Arius and it is very difficult to establish if Constantine destroyed other documents in a steady basis, but it is easy to see that he has no problem whatsoever. Thanks for the helping hand.

07-03-2008, 01:54 PM	#13
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Roger, problem is that some of those grievances were real, for example about differences in beliefs and the effect was to establish the party line - in a similar way to airbrushing Trotsky out of the photos. It is of note that we do have a record of up to 320 xianities " and people who were ready to assist in the discussions" that were distilled into the one true and holy catholic church. Good thing we know the bath was nice..

07-03-2008, 07:15 PM	#18
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	Pete, you've asked me before, in an old thread, what I think about your evidence, and I answered your question. Here is my answer again: All the evidence you have presented is consistent with your hypothesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine; but it is also all consistent with the alternative hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of the evidence you offer falsifies the hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of it gets us any closer to deciding between the two hypotheses.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.