mountainman

INVECTIVES against JulianIt seems that the art of parody was understood in this age.


Best wishes



Pete

J-D

I don't see how that's relevant, either.

mountainman

Extracted from here:

It seems as though the greek academics aligned themselves to the emperor who legislated that the adherants of the new religion be called galilaeans.


Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

From GREGORY NAZIANZEN'S SECOND INVECTIVE AGAINST JULIAN THE EMPEROR:

Here it appears that Gregory Nazianzen is referring to the father of Julian, Julius Constantius, a younger half-brother of Roman Emperor Constantine the Great.

It is not clear how Julian's father can be perceived as having laid the foundation of the Christian religion, can anyone suggest an alternative? WHo is Gregory Nazianzen asserting to have laid the foundation of the Christian religion?

Best wishes,



Pete

J-D

Again, the relevance is not apparent.

J-D

Paragraph 17 appears to me to be describing the reception of the death of a Christian Emperor, being contrasted with the reception of the death of Julian as described in paragraph 18, so I don't think any reference to Julius Constantius is intended.

mountainman

Dear J-D,

The earlier paragraph 16 commencing This is describing the impious corpse of Julian, and para 16 then concludes with
This seems to ascribe Julian's impiety to the greek academics of the Academy, etc, the pagans.

So then we immediately have in para 16:
This appears also to continuously describe the corpse of the impious Julian. Therefore the phrase, out of regard for his father (who had laid the foundation of ... the Christian religion) I am still at a loss to whom the author refers to unless it was Julian's father, who had been appointed by Constantine a few years before Constantine's death, to consulship, and perhaps also some christian designation was associated thereto.

Perhaps Nazianzen believed Julian's father to have been one of the three hundred and eighteen fathers whom Constantine assembled at Nicaea? Perhaps Nazianzen was unaware that Constantine had kept his half-brother a political prisoner for most of his life (305-336)? This may be possible. We need not assume everyone was in possession of this fact at that time.

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

Paragraph 16 refers to 'the corpse of the impious one'. Paragraph 17 begins 'We, however ...', the word 'however' implying a contrast, and then goes on to refer to 'the earthly Tabernacle [in other words, corpse] of him that had spent his life in reigning righteously'. I think 'him that had spent his life in reigning righteously' must be a different person from 'the impious one'. Paragraph 18 then begins 'But as for the other ...', implying a contrast with the subject of paragraph 17, presumably returning to the 'impious one' referred to in paragraph 16. This interpretation seems to me to be supported by the fact that paragraphs 16 and 18 both contemn somebody, while paragraph 17 praises somebody.

avi

In response to my unlearned question about the selection process for attendees at Nicea in 325, Pete suggested:
1. Is there a source for this conclusion?

2. Why would Constantine/Eusebius create such a hierarchy, given the ostensible recruitment, according to Pete, of pagan priests: i.e. if the pagan temples and rituals were run satisfactorily by priests without bishops, why introduce this new bureaucratic structure on a nascent religion? In other words, is it typical, for a military general, like Constantine, to recruit into his new "army", hundreds of Colonels, rather than hundreds of Sergeants? Is it not more reasonable to assume, if we must assume absent evidence, that these "Bishops" were already present, and working, before Constantine came to power?

3. If only five of the 300 signatories of the original Nicene Council's condemnation of Arius resided in Western countries, i.e. Europe, would that not ostensibly reflect the distribution of existing Christian churches and diocese'? In other words, if Constantine, Emperor of the whole Roman Empire, were creating this state regulated enterprise, the new religion of the empire, why would he not bring to Nicea a more balanced distribution of "bishops" or priests, representing the population as a whole? Such a skewed distribution favoring the region where the Christian Church was thought, by the conventional argument, to have originated, would seem to argue against the hypothesis that Constantine created the New Testament. If we think of disease spread, for example, it grows outward from a central point of contagion. So too, one imagines, that the Christian tradition spread outward from Jerusalem, and during three centuries had only begun to penetrate Europe. At least that would be my interpretation of this "fact" that only five of the attendees at Nicea came from Europe.

mountainman

Dear avi,

This represents the conclusion of my thesis in ancient history: Eusebius tells us that the attendees walked through a wall of swords. The author Robin Lane-Fox in "Pagans and Christians" supports my contention that we are dealing -- in the councils of Antioch and Nicaea -- with military supremacy councils at which people were pushed around, interrogated and executed by the command of Constantine. The Nicaean creed at the heart of formalised christianity, between the three hundred and eighteen fathers of the new Roman church and Constantine, was no more than an oath to Constantine by three hundred and eighteen people who had a sword placed against their throat. Do you understand what military coercion implies?


Constantine at once destroyed the ancient temples, homes literally for thousands of temple assistants and priest of various administrative levels, and he executed the leading priests. The temples lay in ruins. Constantine then probited their use for "business as usual". The Greek civilisation was thus brought to its knees. Where could these people go? What could they do? Constantine gave them no option. He created new structures called basilicas - the first christian churches, and with this new architecture, which was an absolutely huge building project across the empire, he set the foundation for a new class of people which he called his bishops on the basis that they called him the bishop of bishops.

Constantine personally appointed his Bishops in the new Roman religion. Each Bishop was responsible for a small region called a diocese, and enjoyed the local control of the area in all matters of Roman religion. The more important administration responsibilities was work involving financial and administration duties. In total it has been estimated that the empire hosted in this fashion as many as 1800 of Constantine's new bishops. Constantine often referred to himself as "Bishop of bishops", the reference having twofold significance in that the Greek "episkopos" (bishop) also means "spy.


He executed the Hellenic bishops - the Hellenic pythagorean and platonic lineage priests, academics, logicians, mathematicians, astronomers and astrologers, etc -- highly related to the network of temples to Apollo and to the Healing god Ascelpius, the son of Apollo. These Constantine utterly destroyed, as a Hitler and a malevolent military supremacist despot.

He got rid of the old and brought it, one by one, systematically interviewing the people of the eastern empire, a new lineage of his three hundred and eighteen fathers who had signed an oath against the words of Arius of Alexandria. What were thos words, preserved on the Oath to Constantine?


My answer is that he brought with him a handful of trained people who were already in his army, and whom he had previously installed - particularly in Rome, during the period 312 to 324 CE (while he was on the way to becomeing supreme in 324). The western bishops were created by the Boss in the lead in period, and he brought them with him to Nicaea. His minister for propaganda was Eusebius of Caesarea, and we can imagine that the new testament canon, and the new christian history (by Eusebius) at least were on display to the attendees.

Think of this as a new Software Release, Eusebius is the IT Manager. The greek priests (captive and beaten into submission) get to test out the software. Is it any good? Does it have authenticity? Constantine tells everyone to see Eusebius for any technical issues in the history. The council of Nicaea was a floor show and IMO it was the first time in planetary history that anyone had publically seen the new testament other during its fabrication in, or near Rome, 312 to 324 CE.

Arius says his words and is expelled.
The others with swords at their throats sign on the dotted line.
Business progresses past 337 CE to 360 CE and Julian.

Julian makes the following bassessment:

"The fabrication of the christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness".

See also Burning Nestorius' history of 5th CE beliefs in the Fiction of Jesus


Best wishes,



Pete