Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 04-23-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once you admit you trust nothing in Eusebius' chronology before Nicaea then you need to explain why you trust Eusebius' chronology during and after Nicaea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius gloats about Constantine's destruction of the temples.

Archaeology confirms the destruction of temples at this time.

It's not that I trust him, but that some of his reports in "Vita Constantini" have some semblance to the political reality of the time - Constantine was new Moses leading the faithful flock to the Promised Land of Christendom, for example.

Please, tell us who claimed Constantine was the new Moses and leading the faithful flock to the promised Land of Christendom?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius "VC"

CHAPTER XII: That like Moses, he was reared in the Palaces of Kings.

ANCIENT history relates that a cruel race of tyrants oppressed the Hebrew nation; and that God, who graciously regarded them in their affliction, provided that the prophet Moses, who was then an infant, should be brought up in the very palaces and bosoms of the oppressors, and instructed in all the wisdom they possessed. And when in the course of time he had arrived at manhood, and the time was come for Divine justice to avenge the wrongs of the afflicted people, then the prophet of God, in obedience to the will of a more powerful Lord, forsook the royal household, and, estranging himself in word and deed from the tyrants by whom he had been brought up, openly acknowledging his true brethren and kinsfolk. Then God, exalting him to be the leader of the whole nation, delivered the Hebrews from the bondage of their enemies, and inflicted Divine vengeance through his means on the tyrant race. This ancient story, though rejected by most as fabulous, has. reached the ears of all.

But now the same God has given to us to be eye-witnesses of miracles more wonderful than fables, and, from their recent appearance, more authentic than any report. For the tyrants of our day have ventured to war against the Supreme God, and have sorely afflicted His Church. (1)

And in the midst of these, Constantine, who was shortly to become their destroyer, but at that time of tender age, and blooming with the down of early s youth, dwelt, as that other servant of God had done, in the very home of the tyrants, (2) but t young as he was did not share the manner of life of the ungodly: for from that early period his noble nature, under the leading of the Divine Spirit, inclined him to piety and a life acceptable to God. A desire, moreover, to emulate the example of his father had its influence in stimulating the son to a virtuous course of conduct His father was Constantius (3) (and we ought to revive his memory at this time), the most illustrious emperor of our age; of whose life it is necessary briefly to relate a few particulars, which tell to the honor of his son.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 04-23-2013, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once you admit you trust nothing in Eusebius' chronology before Nicaea then you need to explain why you trust Eusebius' chronology during and after Nicaea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius gloats about Constantine's destruction of the temples.

Archaeology confirms the destruction of temples at this time.

It's not that I trust him, but that some of his reports in "Vita Constantini" have some semblance to the political reality of the time - Constantine was new Moses leading the faithful flock to the Promised Land of Christendom, for example.

Please, tell us who claimed Constantine was the new Moses and leading the faithful flock to the promised Land of Christendom?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius "VC"

CHAPTER XII: That like Moses, he was reared in the Palaces of Kings.

ANCIENT history relates that a cruel race of tyrants oppressed the Hebrew nation; and that God, who graciously regarded them in their affliction, provided that the prophet Moses, who was then an infant, should be brought up in the very palaces and bosoms of the oppressors, and instructed in all the wisdom they possessed. And when in the course of time he had arrived at manhood, and the time was come for Divine justice to avenge the wrongs of the afflicted people, then the prophet of God, in obedience to the will of a more powerful Lord, forsook the royal household, and, estranging himself in word and deed from the tyrants by whom he had been brought up, openly acknowledging his true brethren and kinsfolk. Then God, exalting him to be the leader of the whole nation, delivered the Hebrews from the bondage of their enemies, and inflicted Divine vengeance through his means on the tyrant race. This ancient story, though rejected by most as fabulous, has. reached the ears of all.

But now the same God has given to us to be eye-witnesses of miracles more wonderful than fables, and, from their recent appearance, more authentic than any report. For the tyrants of our day have ventured to war against the Supreme God, and have sorely afflicted His Church. (1)

And in the midst of these, Constantine, who was shortly to become their destroyer, but at that time of tender age, and blooming with the down of early s youth, dwelt, as that other servant of God had done, in the very home of the tyrants, (2) but t young as he was did not share the manner of life of the ungodly: for from that early period his noble nature, under the leading of the Divine Spirit, inclined him to piety and a life acceptable to God. A desire, moreover, to emulate the example of his father had its influence in stimulating the son to a virtuous course of conduct His father was Constantius (3) (and we ought to revive his memory at this time), the most illustrious emperor of our age; of whose life it is necessary briefly to relate a few particulars, which tell to the honor of his son.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Why do you trust what Eusebius wrote about Constantine??

Think about it.

If Eusebius was a notorius liar then why did he not lie about Constantine??

mountainman · 04-23-2013, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What is the history of heresy?

We know why there were Manichaean heretics being chased out of Persia in the later 3rd century, but as far as the Christian heretics went, they cohabited in the ante Nicaean epoch with the orthodox. The evidence for this cohabitation is abundant.

OTOH this political cohabitation ceased with the Council of Nicaea.

Therefore we may say that the history of active political heresy only started with the appearance of the Constantine Bible.

Anyone who did not believe the Constantine Bible was a heretic.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 04-23-2013, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once you admit you trust nothing in Eusebius' chronology before Nicaea then you need to explain why you trust Eusebius' chronology during and after Nicaea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius gloats about Constantine's destruction of the temples.

Archaeology confirms the destruction of temples at this time.

It's not that I trust him, but that some of his reports in "Vita Constantini" have some semblance to the political reality of the time - Constantine was new Moses leading the faithful flock to the Promised Land of Christendom, for example.

Please, tell us who claimed Constantine was the new Moses and leading the faithful flock to the promised Land of Christendom?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius "VC"

CHAPTER XII: That like Moses, he was reared in the Palaces of Kings.

ANCIENT history relates that a cruel race of tyrants oppressed the Hebrew nation; and that God, who graciously regarded them in their affliction, provided that the prophet Moses, who was then an infant, should be brought up in the very palaces and bosoms of the oppressors, and instructed in all the wisdom they possessed. And when in the course of time he had arrived at manhood, and the time was come for Divine justice to avenge the wrongs of the afflicted people, then the prophet of God, in obedience to the will of a more powerful Lord, forsook the royal household, and, estranging himself in word and deed from the tyrants by whom he had been brought up, openly acknowledging his true brethren and kinsfolk. Then God, exalting him to be the leader of the whole nation, delivered the Hebrews from the bondage of their enemies, and inflicted Divine vengeance through his means on the tyrant race. This ancient story, though rejected by most as fabulous, has. reached the ears of all.

But now the same God has given to us to be eye-witnesses of miracles more wonderful than fables, and, from their recent appearance, more authentic than any report. For the tyrants of our day have ventured to war against the Supreme God, and have sorely afflicted His Church. (1)

And in the midst of these, Constantine, who was shortly to become their destroyer, but at that time of tender age, and blooming with the down of early s youth, dwelt, as that other servant of God had done, in the very home of the tyrants, (2) but t young as he was did not share the manner of life of the ungodly: for from that early period his noble nature, under the leading of the Divine Spirit, inclined him to piety and a life acceptable to God. A desire, moreover, to emulate the example of his father had its influence in stimulating the son to a virtuous course of conduct His father was Constantius (3) (and we ought to revive his memory at this time), the most illustrious emperor of our age; of whose life it is necessary briefly to relate a few particulars, which tell to the honor of his son.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Why do you trust what Eusebius wrote about Constantine??

Think about it.

If Eusebius was a notorius liar then why did he not lie about Constantine??

I am running a political investigation here aa5874.

We cannot be sure about anything except one thing: the Chrestian or Christian cult arose from a relative obscurity at best (or worse) under the rule of Constantine to become elevated to the centralised monotheistic state religion of the whole Roman Empire. The archaeology is consistent with this claim, but cannot differentiate between Christian and Chrestian.

We have Constantine's coins and if he ordered fifty bible codices to be manufactured for his expanding church business he would have passed some of these coins to an editor-in-chief of his scriptorium. The name of this editor of the new testament codices and the name of the author of many works including "Church History", "In Preparation for the Bullshit", "The Martyrs of Palestine" and "Life of the Thrice-Blessed Bullneck", is generally given as Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea.

It is reasonable to hypothesise some like Eusebius existed, perhaps very similar in function to a person called "Tansir" who worked for the Persian Warlord Ardashir and who needed a cleric to assemble a holy writ in a hurry so he could get it canonised (agreement with a sword) and made the basis for the Sassanid Persian Zoroastrian centralised monotheistic state religion one hundred years before Nicaea.

The author of "VC", called by the academics "Eusebius", praises Constantine and compares him to the warlord Moses, engineering an escape from the bad kingdom of the pagans and Daimon worshippers, and bringing the people to the promised land of milk and honey and crosses.

Eusebius cannot lie incessantly but must sometimes accidentally tell the truth.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 04-23-2013, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronzeage

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I believe that the official definition of heresy is "believing something different than what the people in power believe".

For instance, when Henry VIII started Anglicanism, he burned a bunch of people at the stake for heresy because they wouldn't renounce Catholocism. Then when his daughter Mary became queen, she burned a bunch of people at the stake for heresy because they wouldn't convert back to Catholicism. So, one shift of power (well, two if you count His Royal Majesty, King Not-Remembered-By-History) and the definition of heresy does a complete flip. The Elizabeth took over and neither of them really met the definition of heresy anymore.

Although there are exceptions such as the killing of Friar Forrest, in general Catholics under Henry VIII were not burnt but killed in other ways such as hanging. They were being executed for the secular offense of denying the King's authority over the church, rather than for heresy as such.

Andrew Criddle

So, the difference in heresy and treason in mainly in how the matter ends.

Generally this depends on who writes the history of the conflict.

In the case of Christian heresy, the orthodox imperially sponsored victors of the 4th and 5th centuries wrote the history of the conflict from Nicaea onwards. For the history of the conflict prior to Nicaea, we have alas only the history of Eusebius. Before Nicaea the heretics and the orthodox cohabitated underground.

Eusebius says that part of his charter was to name the heretics.

But he never named names.

I wonder why.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 04-25-2013, 07:14 PM

Was Satire against Jesus deemed heresy?

Someone wrote a book which stated that John followed Jesus around everywhere but was never able to find any footprint made by Jesus.

Would this have been viewed as heresy?

Did the cross really walk out of the tomb behind Jesus?

Did Jesus really give secret information to Mary, and was Peter peeved?

The first thing Muhammad did when he supposedly came to supreme military power was to execute a number of satirists.

Did Constantine have to deal with satirists?

Athanasius compares Sotades and Arius three times. Was Sotades a Christian?

What are the sources of the now much-dismantled "Blasphemy Laws"?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Duvduv · 04-26-2013, 10:22 AM

I don't know why people don't start pursuing this view more frequently. Maybe they don't have a sense of humor and would debate endlessly a text that said that Paul was born in Buffalo NY and was an apostle to the Mayans. The idea that texts expressed satire against the official Roman state religion. Who knows, maybe authors of the official texts themselves were able to sneak in some satire...... I guess it's not deemed sufficient "scholarly and serious."

lpetrich · 04-26-2013, 01:05 PM

It's evident that heresy was not a big issue in the old-time religion of the classical Greco-Roman world. It was only in Xianity that it became one. Pagan observers of Xianity found Xians' doctrinal disputes baffling and bizarre, as if they had no other experience of such disputes.

Tom Sawyer · 04-26-2013, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I believe that the official definition of heresy is "believing something different than what the people in power believe".

For instance, when Henry VIII started Anglicanism, he burned a bunch of people at the stake for heresy because they wouldn't renounce Catholocism. Then when his daughter Mary became queen, she burned a bunch of people at the stake for heresy because they wouldn't convert back to Catholicism. So, one shift of power (well, two if you count His Royal Majesty, King Not-Remembered-By-History) and the definition of heresy does a complete flip. The Elizabeth took over and neither of them really met the definition of heresy anymore.

Although there are exceptions such as the killing of Friar Forrest, in general Catholics under Henry VIII were not burnt but killed in other ways such as hanging. They were being executed for the secular offense of denying the King's authority over the church, rather than for heresy as such.

Andrew Criddle

Ya, that's kind of the point. Heresy is just another way of saying "I'm in charge and get to tell you what to do and say". Whether you call it heresy for disobeying the Church or treason for disobeying the King in his role as the Head of the Church, that's just an irrelevant argument of semantics.

aa5874 · 04-26-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

It's evident that heresy was not a big issue in the old-time religion of the classical Greco-Roman world. It was only in Xianity that it became one. Pagan observers of Xianity found Xians' doctrinal disputes baffling and bizarre, as if they had no other experience of such disputes.

Who were those pagan observers? What sources of antiquity show pagan observers baffled by Xians' disputes?

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

04-25-2013, 07:14 PM	#26
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Was Satire against Jesus deemed heresy? Someone wrote a book which stated that John followed Jesus around everywhere but was never able to find any footprint made by Jesus. Would this have been viewed as heresy? Did the cross really walk out of the tomb behind Jesus? Did Jesus really give secret information to Mary, and was Peter peeved? The first thing Muhammad did when he supposedly came to supreme military power was to execute a number of satirists. Did Constantine have to deal with satirists? Athanasius compares Sotades and Arius three times. Was Sotades a Christian? What are the sources of the now much-dismantled "Blasphemy Laws"? εὐδαιμονία \| eudaimonia

04-26-2013, 10:22 AM	#27
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I don't know why people don't start pursuing this view more frequently. Maybe they don't have a sense of humor and would debate endlessly a text that said that Paul was born in Buffalo NY and was an apostle to the Mayans. The idea that texts expressed satire against the official Roman state religion. Who knows, maybe authors of the official texts themselves were able to sneak in some satire...... I guess it's not deemed sufficient "scholarly and serious."

04-26-2013, 01:05 PM	#28
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	It's evident that heresy was not a big issue in the old-time religion of the classical Greco-Roman world. It was only in Xianity that it became one. Pagan observers of Xianity found Xians' doctrinal disputes baffling and bizarre, as if they had no other experience of such disputes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.