mountainman

There are a number of threads concerning the existence
or otherwise or archeological evidence for the inference
that there was anything "christian" in the pre-Nicaean
Epoch.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=167773
the unutterable inference of mainstream BC&H

and
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168491
archeological evidence for pre-Nicaean christianity?

Some of the items usually cited (eg: Dura-Europos)
have been listed and outlined further here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_070.htm



Pete Brown

Joan of Bark

Did Constantine believe in "turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies"? Judging by his military exploits, I doubt it.

And didn't he wait until he was on his death bed before officially converting, thereby allowing himself the maximum amount of sinning before gaining absolution?

No Robots

He is a most interesting study. Look at arricchio's post above. We have here the first good look at how the Christian impulse plays out in the psyche of a politician. We will see this again and again over the following centuries. Isn't Bush basically the same thing? The point is that all Christians have to measure themselves against a bar set impossibly high. For most it is a private matter. For Augustus, however, it is public.

It was a common practice for Christians to wait until very late in life before undergoing baptism. They hoped thereby to not add new sins to those washed away. It was the Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptised Constantine.

arricchio

Actually, he did not postpone his conversion until his death bed. He postponed his baptism. This became common practice among "Christian" Emperors and other public officials who realized that being in public life always required a certain amount of sinning either regardless of their piety, or due to their lack of it. Also, postponing baptism kept them out from under the direct authority of the Church for as long as possible. As an example, Theodosius I (emperor from 379-395) was the only emperor to reign as a full-fledged member of the church - and that was due to an accident. Theodosius allowed himself to be baptized when he thought he was dying from an illness, which he instead survived. As a result, when Theodosius later ordered the slaughter of innocent civilians in Thessalonica after rioters there killed a few of his soldiers, Bishop Ambrose was able to excommunicate him and make it stick. Ambrose later allowed Theodosius do some nominal penance to lift the excommunication. Nevertheless, it was a humiliating thing for an emperor to have happen. That's why emperors always postponed baptism for as long as possible.

No Robots

Here is a description of Theodosius' "nominal" penance.

mountainman

That's why he hired Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea,
the right man for the right job, as editor-in-chief
of what Julian later refers to as "the fabrication
of the Galilaeans".

He did not need to understand any form of theological
complexity for his Roman fiction, so long as his newly
created church continued to assist his interests.


Constantine commemorated this brilliant victory by the construction
of a monument which still stands upon which, although there are
ample references to the ancient Hellenic traditional "gods and
goddesses", and "sol invictus", there appears to be absolutely
no reference whatsoever to christianity. I wonder why?

He was still planning, as most successful rulers do.
He was wise enough to last another 12 years, which in
those days was not simply an academic exercise.


Constantine in all seriousness was laughing his head off.

Our thesis is that the "Arian controversy" is in fact the
controversy over Constantine's forced implementation of the
new Roman religion called "christianity" upon the empire,
at Nicaea, now that he at last had become the supreme thug.

The Arian controversy arose in the east as a result IMO of
Constantine sending manuscript propaganda to the eastern
side of the Roman empire during the period 317-324 CE.

The Alexandrians were justifiably incensed that the respectable
authors of antiquity, such as Origen, Josephus, and others, had
ever made any reference whatsoever to this newly fabricated set
of manuscripts under Constantine.



In our opinion, the words of Arius are the words of someone who,
being clever in disputation, and not being able to say to the
face of Constantine "this is a work of fiction" instead selected
to say the words that are even unto this very day preserved in
the exclusion clause on the Nicaean Oath (ie: it is not a creed,
in terms of the general non-ecclesiastical definition and valid
distinction between a creed and an oath. See for example, "The
Diggers Oath", Eureka Stockade).

These words are:

"before he was born he was not"

and

"he was made out of nothing existing"

and

"he is from another subsistence or substance"

and

"he/it is subject to alteration or change"


Our thesis is that Arius was saying that the new testament is
a fiction from beginning to end, in other words, a fabrication.
But he did not have Julian's protection at the time of facing
Constantine at Nicaea, for which very reason Constantine
purportedly called the council -- the words of Arius.

He did not want to die.
Instead, he used words that were very clever in disputation.
The above words, or close enough.




Constantine summoned a whole stack of important people to appear before
him at the Council of Nicaea, immediately after becoming supreme. Our
thesis is that, apart from the christian bishops that Constantine had
bred during his beta-site in Rome (312 CE), none of the other attendees
were bishops, but in fact importangt land-holders, importantg and key
administrators under the previous eastern regime of Lucinius, brought
in to the meeting in order to sit down and talk turkey with the new
supreme imperial mafia thug, in control of the ROman empire.

They did not walk in as bishops of the new and strange Roman religious
order, but it is our thesis that most of them walked out of the meeting
as one of COnstantine's new bishops of christianity, for they all became
very very important men (almost) overnight.

Signature were obtained at the request of Constantine to seal the oath
of alliegence to his new ROman religious order, which served primarily
administrative fuctions, and tax collection functions throughout the
new acquired territories riled by Constantine.

Arius was banished as the strawman, whose arguments were written down
by the acadedmics of the newly created Roman church as involving
theology, whereas our thesis is that the statements of Arius, and
the whole Arian controversy, relate to the historical illegitamacy
of the new religion, and the fabrication and perversion of writings.



"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
--- Lord Acton.



Constantine needed no skills as a theologian since he was collecting tithes
from his own new and strange Roman religious order, building churches for
the faithful, and generally trying to convert as many people as possible,
by gross tax-exemption measures, to a new religious order that was clearly
not the same traditional Hellenic religious order that he was plundering
for gold, and ordering the execution of its philosopher/priests, a practice
which continued well after his death.

The new and strange fabrication of the Galilaeans overcame the literature
of the ancient Greeks, and that of the Second Sophistic, and of Apollonius
of Tyana, by supreme imperial oath, at Nicaea, signed by his attendees,
in the presence of the THRICE-BLESSED APOSTLE OF GOD, the thug Constantine.

Agreement had been planned for decades prior to Nicaea, by Constantine.
Of course he was agreeable to his new Roman religion.
Our thesis is that the following staged progression was enacted:


Stage 1: 312-324 CE

Constantine takes Rome and implements a mini-proto-Nicaea (see below)
He consolidates his position, constantly looking east, planning supremacy.
He promotes the new religion in the west, and send literature to the east.
Eventually this results in the Arian controversy.

(NOTE: Our hypothesis sees the Arian controversy
as the reaction of the eastern empire against the new
testament texts, and the new religion. The controversy
is stated by the dogmatic assertion of a series of phrases
by Arius, such as:

* there was time when he was not.
* he was made out of nothing existing)

(See above for full listP

Stage 2: 324-325 CE

Constantine takes the eastern empire, and has Lucinus strangled.
He calls the Council of Nicaea on account of the words of Arius.
(See the above words of Arius).
He summons attendees to the council.

There were no "christian bishops" in the eastern empire, as they did
not then exist. The only "christian bishops" in attendance being those
whom Constantine had "cultivated in Rome". The pope didn't make it,
but sent some juniors in his stead.

Our hypothesis is that the attendees summoned to Nicaea were the
patrician level land-holders, governors, nobility and other important
key people of the eastern empire, whom Constantine had just conquered.

They were summoned to Nicaea to discuss how the new empire was
going to fuction for the maintenance phase under the taxation and
regulation and administrative and new religious regimes, which were
to be implemented by Constantine.

Stage 3: 325 CE

Nicaean Council Meeting: what happened?

Constantine ran the show.
His mercanery barbarian storm troops were milling around outside.
He entered the meeting, not with his troops, but his family.
He berated the attendees for their discord, and quoted chapter & verse.
He pointed out the need for perceived harmony.
He burnt their written petitions in their presence.
He wined and dined them for 4 months.
He gave them presents and promises of civil works (new churches).
He supported those people who supported him.
Who was with Constantine, and who was with Arius?

Constantine sold the package of christianity to the attendees.
The whole package was subscribed to voluntarily.
New churches were going to be built on lands new you.
Signatures were collected to attest comitment to Constantine.
The big DISCLAIMER CLAUSE got rid of the words of Arius.


Stage 4: 326-337 CE

Constantine implements a new and strange ROMAN church.
He wanted to get rid of the Hellenic culture and religions.
He did not to pay tribute to any of the old traditional Roman religions.
These were all Hellenic is nature. (See Julian's summaries).
He wanted their treasure, lands, temples, statues, etc, for himself.
Once the one true religion was implemented, all else became taxable.

Adherance to the words of Arius ceased being controversial.
It became the Arian Heresy, and the downhill slide started.

The attendees at Nicaea became key figures in a power network
that distributed favors from Rome to the eastern empire, and taxation
revenue, lands, etc, etc back to Roman central.

The 22 sub-clauses on the Nicaean creed define the nature of this
administrative network, which was established by agreement at Nicaea,
and which through common interest perpetuated itself throughout the
next 12 years of Constantine's reign, and thereafter.

They knew they were not christian bishops when they set out from
their homes in the eastern empire after being summoned to the council.
But there were some bishops from the western empire present, and
they all acted in complete accord with the new and strange religion,
in a new and strange fashion, and the bishop Eusebius was there,
and he was certainly a christian bishop, because he had just in fact
finished writing a history of "tribe of christians", and of their texts,
and they even had a copy of Josephus, and Josephus mentions the
chritians back then, so they certainly exist somewhere.

But they became the christian bishops of Constantine by signing
the Nicaean creed, and when they returned home, they were full
of food, and had presents, and would represent Constantine to
their local communities and cities, and be a key figure standing
in the (new and strange Roman universal christian) channel of power
between the supreme imperial thug, and his remote subjects.

New church structures would be built by the new civil administration
of Constantine, and every one of those new christian bishops would
get a big cut of the action. They became important men overnight.


It was a complete cold start. When Constantine burnt
their written petitions, things warmed up considerably.
They were reminded of where they were, and who was
in their presence. Constantine was a thug, acting in
some ways benevolently, but why?

All they had to do was to agree with Constantine, and
disagree with the words of Arius, whatever these words meant.
In fact, it was clear that these words meant entirely different things
to different parties. Noone really had to worry about what these
words meant, so long as they disagreed with them. So they signed
the creed, in expectation of future glory of the new Roman church.


Constantine was the supreme imperial mafia thug
who forced the new and strange religion down the
throat of the Hellenic culture until
the highways were full of galloping bishops.

Julian was the young supreme imperial Hellenic philosopher
who wrote, within 40 years of the Nicaean council:

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.

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

mountainman

Hey GakuseiDon,

Ammianus Marcellinus provides sufficient evidence
for the conspiratorial behaviour of the next-in-line
imperial thug Constantius II, and generally views in
a favourable manner the behaviour of Julian.

The only conspiracy involved here was the fabrication
of the Galilaeans, the generation of fictitious histories
and supporting material, and the perversion of ROman
and Jewish historians by insertion of historical priority
dates such that the inference that there were in fact
any christians prior to Constantine might be given
some substance.



Pete Brown

Bede

As Julian's propagandist-in-chief, Ammianus Marcellinus, who was a pagan, obviously invented the portrait of Julian as a good egg while producing a fictional picture of Constantius II. GDon's theory fits the facts so much better than yours.

Best wishes

Bede

mountainman

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~drijvers/amm...tributions.htm

"Ammianus Marcellinus about Constantius II"
Emperor Constantius II is described extensively in the Res Gestae. Michel R. Mulder studies Ammianus' image of Constantius.

"Christianity in Ammianus Marcellinus"
The intriguing matter of fourth-century arising Christianity is dicussed by Bouke A. van Laëthem.

"Julian in the eyes of Ammianus Marcellinus"
Contrary to Christian authors, Ammianus was an admirer of the famous "Apostate" emperor,
as Michel Mulder points out.



Best wishes,


Pete

Bede

I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance of this. The writers you linked to are clearly trapped within the prevailing 'Julianist' paradigm and are reading Amminanus accordingly. But when we realise that Ammianus is simply inventing the history in order to further the ambitions of his imperial master, all becomes clear.

Thus Ammianus's history is essentially a ficticious account of the 4th century that is intended to show the pagan Julian in a good light and deliberately suppresses his mass executions of Christians and wholesale destruction of Christian literature.

That is why so much Tacitus was lost. It contained information on the historical Jesus and early Christians that Julian didn't want to conflict with his own propaganda.

Best wishes

Bede