mountainman

Thanks for the moderation Toto.
But to clarify an issue:

This is not entirely accurate. I am asking for archeological
and/or scientific citations supporting the claim that "christianity"
actually existed before the rise of Constantine.

I am not obliged to accept any old evidence. For example,
perhaps one fundamental example are the paleographically
dated papryii fragments, which are dated to the second
and third centuries ---- by handwriting experts. There are
sufficient it would appear to sacrifice a corner of a fragment
and have it carbon dated.

I do not indiscriminately accept and preclude evidence, and
I have from the beginning been responsible enough to at least
engineer an exception register, of citations which appear on
the surface to provide a prenicene date to something "christian".

I treat atheists, theist, skeptics and infidels alike because as
far as I am concerned the field of endeavour is ancient history.

You'll note that I said ancient history
and not biblical history.

J-D

Thank you. I now understand your position on this point. But you still need to work harder on explaining yourself crisply. All you needed to say was: 'The Council of Nicaea was called in direct response to Arius's propagation of his doctrine [you shouldn't assume the reader knows this in advance; I didn't] and this is good evidence that Arius really existed.'Some of the time you talk as if you think Christianity was not invented until the Council of Nicaea. That was what made me think there was an inconsistency in your references to non-Christian temples being closed down before the Council.

The apparent inconsistency disappears following your belated clarification that you consider that Christianity was invented over a period of time in Constantine's reign, culminating with the Council of Nicaea. Once again, if you had consistently stated this directly the confusion would never have arisen.I looked. Doesn't answer my question.I don't know what 'Porphyrian' means either. But it doesn't change my point, that whatever Constantine said about Arius cannot be considered a reliable guide to Arius's real beliefs.Then let me attempt the same trick for what you are now saying about Arius. Is this your position: 'Arius wanted to stand up for his principles by opposing Constantine's religious inventions, but he feared Constantine's anger if he did so too openly. So he tried to conceal his views in a coded message, so that his opposition would be clear to the discerning, but hidden from Constantine.'

And if that is what you are saying, would you accept that it follows that Arius failed abjectly, since he clearly was detected as an opponent by Constantine, while the coded meaning you attribute to him has not been generally recognised?I still don't see that you have explained why you think your account is a better one than any alternative.

Clivedurdle

What if Constantine called Nicea because he was asked to to sort out the pre existing dispute? And he enjoyed watching blood sports?

How does his proclamation of freedom of religion fit with him allegedly closing down temples?

I'm sorry, I actually see a classic worshipper of sol invitus who was persuaded that he was really worshipping Jesus, and was so uncertain about this that on his death bed he commented you bishops had better be right!

I see someone unleashing forces he was not aware of - opening pandora's box.

One of the consequences was fanatical xians causing the closure - and take over - of temples. And the accidental burning of the temple of Apollo blamed on xians under Julian.

mountainman

Re: Julian's "Against the Galilaeans"

Have a look at the explanation in this thread

Here's a copy ....

One needs to understand how the text we now read as Julian's has
arrived. In his introduction to the English translation of the
work referecned above, Wilmer Cave WRIGHT informs us:

It was written in three Books [circa 362 CE.], but the fragments preserved are almost entirely from Book I. In the fifth century Cyril of Alexandria regarded the treatise as peculiarly dangerous, and said that it had shaken many believers. He undertook to refute it in a polemic of which about half survives, and from the quotations of Julian in Cyril's work Neumann has skilfully reconstructed considerable portions of the treatise. Cyril had rearranged Julian's hurriedly written polemic, in order to avoid repetitions and to bring similar subjects together. Moreover, he says that he omitted invectives against Christ and such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians. We have seen that a similar mutilation of the letters [of the emperor Julian] occurred for similar reasons.

The text we read has been reconcontructed from a censored refutation.
The original books were burned -- perhaps they may one day surface.
The censorship of the work is vital to our understanding of Julian.

We cannot assume the text at face value as Cyril would have us do.
There can be none of this "of course Julian assumes this", or
"Julian assumes that" ....

We must look to the opening of the treatise to understand
what Julian may have been trying to say. The treatise was
evidently called "Against the Galilaeans". The opening of
the treatise has the following structure:

1) Opening statement of conviction.
2) Legal disclaimer.
3) Opening of more detailed treatments.

1) Opening statement of conviction.

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

2) Legal disclaimer.

Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges.

3) Opening of more detailed treatments.

It is worth while to recall in a few words
whence and how we first arrived at a conception of God;
next to compare what is said about the divine among
the Hellenes and Hebrews; and finally to enquire of
those who are neither Hellenes nor Jews, but belong to
the sect of the Galilaeans, why they preferred the belief
of the Jews to ours; and what, further, can be the
reason why they do not even adhere to the Jewish beliefs
but have abandoned them also and followed a way of
their own................. etc

This should be reasonably clear.

It is necessary to perceive also that Julian was perhaps
one of, if not the greatest of acadmic minds of his time.
He is not to be seen simply as an orator for his conviction,
but as the worlds greatest barrister of the time.

He plainly states his conviction - that the fabrication
(ie: the New Testament) is a fiction. He then presents
his legal disclaimer. He then launches into the detail.

Now, I'd like you to consider the modus operandi incumbent
upon a barrister in the presentation of his case, when that
case is the prosecution for fraudulent misrepresentation
contained in a recent publication --- a fiction book.

He will state his conviction - that the book is fiction.
After that point, because he is actually in a court of law,
everyone in that courtroom knows he is talking about a fiction,
with fictitious characters, fictitious events, etc, etc.

When a barrister, after summing up the charge, commences
to talk about the characters in the fiction book, the judge
and the jury and everyone in the courtroom (except spin)
understands that the barrister is talking about fictitious
characters in the fiction book.

Julian may talk about Paul and Jesus, but that does not mean
that he thinks they are in any sense historical, because in
his summary charge, at the head of his arraignment, he has
revealed to the court-room the conviction that he thinks
the fabrication in which they are referenced, is a fiction.


Additionally, in another work, Julian makes reference at
the same time to Constantine and Jesus. See Julian's
Kronia, linked off the above mentioned page.

mountainman

Re: The words of Arius ...

Yes, something like this.


Firstly, he failed bacause he was up against Constantine.
Constantine was a supreme thug who never lost a battle.

Secondly, the Arian controversy is considered by mainstream
to represent a "dispute in theology", but there is very little
consensus as to the what Arian controversy really was all
about, seeing that it was not culminated by the supremacy
party at Nicaea, when the despot Constantine finally moved
his army into the eastern empire and had the commander
of the eastern Roman forces strangled.

The Arian controversy -- whatever mainstream think it is --
carried on for generations, as if everyone had lost their
bearings.



Simpler and more powerful. It is based on one hypothesis;
namely Eusebius invented fiction. As a theory of history for
the period of antiquity, from 000-325 CE, it agrees with the
evidence, and is put forward as the best explanation for the
appearance of christainity, as an imperially inspired and
imperially implemented religious order, with effect from Nicaea.

mountainman

Nicaea in 325 followed closely his military victory of the eastern
empire in 324 CE. Nicea was the first opportunity the captive
leaders, patricians, landholders, administrators, and heads of the
eastern empire would meet "the fear of god and Constantine".

Arius was the main disputant (perhaps strawman).
He was saying things like:
* There was time when he was not.
* He was made out of nothing existing.

His proclamation of 311 (Milan) was just the opening gambit
to introduce christianity to the empire. There was no religious
freedom evident before or after Nicea. He was a despot.

He wanted a religion for the masses, for the army and for the empire.
I agree he personally continued to openly favour sol invictus.

IMO not while he was alive. He controlled the empire with the army.
He created a few bishops while at Rome (311-324 CE).
He created a few (hundred?) bishops at Nicaea, and then personally
appointed others after that time.

Ted Hoffman

Mountainman,
Its been close to a year since you started asking others, challenging them and debating on this thesis about Eusebius and Constantine conspiracy.
Several people have engaged you. Some meaningfully, some otherwise. Some never did.
What I would like to ask you is the following:
Please list in point form the things you have learnt and accepted from the posters that have engaged you in discussions regarding your theory. What have you learnt from spin for example? Have he helped you rethink and redefine your thesis? If so, how? I'd really appreciate a response from you.

Clivedurdle

Thank you!

And what might the implications of that be for your theory? Sol invitus, via Mithras and personal worship of the emperor is just as good as a unifying concept.

An Emperor putting Christ as more important than him is ridiculous!

It is as if xianity swallowed the true gods - why do churches face the rising sun again?

J-D

Once again way more words than necessary to deal with the point actually under discussion.

And I'm still guessing at what your actual answer might be.

But I suspect it is: 'Julian's attacks on Christianity are only known through the version preserved by Cyril of Alexandria, who admitted that he censored the parts that were most offensive (that is, to Christians)'. (See how few words it takes to say it?)

If that is your explanation, I don't think it's good enough.

Why not? Because it doesn't deal with the point I actually brought up, which is why Cyril would retain the part where Julian says, in effect, 'Christianity was made up' but take out any part where Julian says 'Christianity was made up by Constantine'. There's no reason why Cyril would regard an attack on Constantine as more offensive than an attack on Christianity. You mentioned, I believe, that Cyril was fifth-century, which means Constantine was long-dead by his time. The more likely explanation, to me, is that Julian never said at all 'Christianity was made up by Constantine', and the most likely explanation for that is that he did not think it. And if he did not think it, the most likely explanation, I think, is that it was not true (since Julian would probably have known if it was, and would have had no reason to hold back from the accusation).

J-D

Perhaps I used too few words.

'Arius failed in his attempt to spark a successful resistance to Constantine because Constantine was too big a thug'--possible, but not relevant to what I meant.

'Arius failed in his attempt to conceal his opposition from Constantine because Constantine was too big a thug'--no, makes no sense.

And also ...'Arius failed in his attempt to convey his true meaning to the discerning through his coded statements because Constantine was too big a thug'--again, no, sorry, makes no sense. And apart from that, what you say just underlines the point that if Arius's concealed meaning really was the one you attribute to him, then it clearly didn't get succesfully conveyed the way he wanted.To my mind, it doesn't fit. The hypothesis that every purportedly pre-Constantinian reference to Christianity was created in Constantine's time as part of a deliberate fabricatory effort under his direction does not fit with the character of the material in question. Just for starters (and there's a lot more than this), why would four inconsistent Gospels be invented in that way at that time? It's more plausible that they were separately compiled.