spin

I don't care what little issue you were on about. It had nothing to do with my comment that Eusebius of Caesarea was excommunicated. If this Euebius was supposed to have been the instigator of Constantine's new religion, he didn't start off in the right place. He was neither Constantine's religious advisor, nor was he even "orthodox". This is just one of the many flaws in this silly theory.


spin

avi

In my opinion, you err in equating a "fact", the purported meeting in 309 CE of Eusebius and Constantine, with an opinion, unsubstantiated, that "...there are no indications that Constantine had more than a passing knowledge of Eusebius' existence. Where is the documentary evidence to support this political assertion? This is just conjecture. One could as easily have written, "Thus, Eusebius is thought to have wielded an undue influence on both Constantine himself, and his children, who succeeded him as Emperor, and who repudiated the rightful Trinitarian doctrine, in favor of the heretical Arian philosophy, after decades of indoctrination by the misguided Eusebius."
It is all simply conjecture. You don't know beans, (nor do I, or anyone else) about Ossius. The guy was supposedly more than 96 years old when he wrote his only extant document, a letter, accepting the necessity of offering communion to the much detested Arians. How do you know that Ossius was influential over Constantine? If Ossius was so influential, why was Constantine so enamored of Arius?
This is silliness.
DATA,
data,
data
Everything else is just hot air.

Constantine's mother had an interest in Christianity, so, why wouldn't "young" Constantine have some interest as well?
Do we underestimate the education of these young emperors? Were they not tutored as youths, by an assembly of the brightest minds money could buy? (Alexander tutored by Aristotle, comes to mind...)

Am I confused, as usual, or did not Constantine travel to York, in Britain, in 306 to be crowned emperor in a Christian cathedral? coronation of Constantine at York Cathedral

spin

Sorry, do you have any indications that Constantine had more than a passing knowledge of Eusebius' existence? Does anyone? If not there is nothing wrong with the statement you are working yourself up about.

On the contrary, it is, as far as I know, a simple summary of the state of our knowledge.

Free association is for creative writing.

Some of the indications:

1. Unlike any other church figure he spent several years at Constantine's court. He was after all a bishop from a the Spanish zone of Cordoba.
2. He carried out religious-related tasks for Constantine.
3. Constantine refers to a list drawn up by Ossius as to how money supplied by C. should be used.
4. He was apparently Constantine's religious representative in dealings with the specific problem of the church at Alexandria.
5. He had the power to lead the Council of Antioch, 325 CE.
6. He presided over the 1st Nicene Council and was responsible for the wording of the Nicene creed.

Uh-huh, fur sure and yeah.

When?

So you believe that there was a christian cathedral in York 300 CE?


spin

gentleexit

Your indignation seems to crave argument. We're saying the same thing - Eusebius was an outsider and there are many details before, during and after Nicea that show that. He was too small, too peripheral for the load Pete gives him.

As for the theory being silly, it does have one merit. Its very simplicity and scope draws out many details of the time. Other simples set earlier - ex/ a "genuine" early Christianity, a "real" Jesus - are set in detail-free times and so discussion just peters out or has to magnify the tiny. And this one stokes indignation! We need more like it.

gentleexit

As a great man said "Where is the documentary evidence?". On this Avi is right. Hosius is a shadowy figure. That he was a messenger for Constantine, yes, his "man to the Church". But that this western bishop had the gravity to sway all those uppity easterners, to force Nicea through, to write its creed?

spin

Not indignation, haste. You didn't start off too convincingly with:

I think you're mixing up Eusebius of Nicomedia (exiled soon after Nicea) and Eusebius the Historian, who went along with the synod.

You're right.

There is a difference between simplicity and oversimplification. The Einstein rule is: make your theory as simple as possible, but no simpler. You haven't seen this theory for the last few years. It's new to you. Enjoy the novelty.


spin

spin

It's his language. See Socrates Schol iii.7.


spin

Didymus

But the conspiracy theory is much sexier. Read all about it: C&E invented Christianity from the ground up!

There was nothing "new and strange" about Christian beliefs in 325, and Pete so much as admits that. But he uses the phrase anyway - what fun is it to say that Eusebius merely gathered and consolidated existing texts, and possibly adapted passages to fit his notion of orthodoxy?

Ddms

avi

I am uncertain that it was Christian.
Apparently there were many religious temples in York, in those days.
I believe that Constantine traveled to York for his coronation, and I am unsure WHY. I don't know what purpose was served by this arduous journey, unless it was his intention to gather fresh troops, to continue his conquest of the Eastern half of the empire.

I believe, but have no data, that Constantine was exposed to Christian doctrine through his mother. I further suppose, also without data, that he was influenced by, and largely accepted the views of Arius. I therefore see the Council of Nicea as something of an anachronism.

I do not accept your position that Ossius participated in writing the Nicene Creed, I am unaware of any documentary, primary evidence to support the notion that Ossius played a significant role at Nicea. I do acknowledge that he was a participant there.

gentleexit

The details of the council are too different from too many places. Was Arius even there? (Sozomen says so). Theodoret (I think) said Eustathius, bishop of Antioch gave the opening speech. Others have Eusebius of Caesarea. Whose creed was used? Eusebius credits Constantine with suggesting "ousia". There's no consistency on the council's proceedings themselves. Your list is much too precise.

A table of claims would be nice (and how they build on each other), see what's in who. Time.