Jeffrey Gibson

Umm, he didn't say it was. In fact he was ridiculing the idea, wasn't he?

And you can help by not allowing him to post -- or at least to immediately quash him posting further the minute he hijacks a thread with his hobby horse.
Jeffrey

avi

Referring to Toto's admonition to "help" by not asking Pete further questions, inquiry ostensibly intended to elaborate or refute various aspects of mountainman's theory,
gosh, I fail to see where Pete has "hijacked" a thread devoted to uncovering a "flaw in mountainman's theory". What have I missed? Is he supposed to remain silent, faced with evidence/opinion, contrary to his novel notion? I may not accept at face value everything he, or anyone else on this forum writes, but I find his thoughts provocative, challenging, stimulating, entertaining, and worthy of consideration. I find Jeffrey's contributions also helpful, especially when he answers the questions he raises!!!
:notworthy:

Jeffrey Gibson

Not this one. But there are plenty of others in which he's done (or attempted to do) this.

Why?

And here I was about to be convinced that Earl was right when he said that (at least so far as he could recall, for whatever that's worth) I never make a contribution to any thread!

Jeffrey

Toto

I think Pete is serious. Or pretending to be. Who knows.

This board has its rules, which do not allow me to arbitrary shut people up. But when people start a thread on Pete's theories, it's pretty hard to stop him from posting.

Jeffrey Gibson

By "he" I meant Didymus and I was referring to what Didymus had said in the post you seemed to be responding to (i.e., "Most of the NT apocrypha is gnostic. Arianism = gnosticism?).

[/QUOTE]
But there are rules against hijacking, are there not?

Jeffrey

J-D

It probably doesn't make any difference, but they didn't inherit successively, they inherited jointly, with a three-way territorial partition. Initially, Constantine II, as the eldest, was guardian of Constans, as the youngest, but tension between them grew as Constans matured and ultimately Constantine II, unwilling to lay down his guardianship, instead went to war against Constans. When Constantine II was killed in battle against Constans, his territorial share simply devolved on Constans. Later, Constans was overthrown by a rebel general and killed by the troops. The rebel was then defeated and killed in battle against the forces of Constantius II, who thus became sole emperor.

J-D

I can't find anything in this post which has not been said before. We know what your opinion is, Pete, and we also know that you have no evidence to back it up.

gentleexit

I know this is doing the exact opposite but his name is on the thread! Everyone swats at the particulars of Pete's theory - me too. The various bits - Arius this, Boss that, the secret of Nicea, the busy Eusebius (and maybe Pamphilus before him) - are each leaps of fantasy and together !!! They are so easy to dismiss. However the core facts that led to this creativity are harder to wave away and are, I think, worth consideration.

Christianity and by that I mean the belief honed and polished at Nicea, left no or laughably little pre-Constantine gifts for archeology. If they were as big at this point as conventional history claims, where's all the stuff?

Likewise: There's the gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, Paul's letters with their Jesus stories and accounts of the early Church. Seemingly a fine beginning. But then comes a gap, a big gap before Eusebius' big, persecuted Church. The historian records an "in between" but this was small bore, local. Not proportional to today's claims for Church growth between the first and the end of the third centuries. For one thing, go back to the start. Where did all those Pauline churches go? Wouldn't such blossoming have left a trail?

I may be reading it wrong but I think these are the core observations (I don't say assumptions I think they are more than that) behind Pete's musings and they largely remain out there, lost in the haze of details.

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey, gentleexit and others,

I am using the term "the Boss" in order to project a little realism into the military authority which was let loose by Constantine in the east after his military victory over the forces of Lucinius. He destroys ancient and revered temples at which, in at least some instances, the chief priests are tortured and executed (See Eusebius' Vita Constantini). He prohibits the use of the temples and backs this with the army. Constantine appears as an irreconcilable authority figure, not only in the military department, but also in the environment of politics. Reports from Nicaea (other than Eusebius) were essentially were prepared by the continuators of his Eusebian cabinet almost a century after the event. The actual numbers of christian ecclesiatical histories which were written of that epoch and which do not survive perhaps exceed those which survive. I am dealing with these authors: Philostorgius, Rufinius of Aqueila, Socrates Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen, Theodoret of Cyrus and Marutha of Maiperqat (all for what they say - on the "Council" of Nicaea). Notably we have no profane historian account extant. All historians writing from the time of Constantine are "christians". The history of the pagan Ammianus Marcellinus from 92 CE to 390 CE only survives in Books 14 to 30 odd, starting about the middle of the fourth century, and missing the account of Constantine. The only historians light which shines out of the black hole of Constantine's rule is christian. Where is the pagan account of the same history? We dont have one (at the moment) aside from perhaps the Nag Hammadi codices at 348 CE. (if history can be obtained therefrom -- eg: Pachomius)

At Nicaea we have generated what has always been referred to as "The Creed of Nicaea" but which is more appropriately described as an "oath to Constantine", which was obtained under military duress from the three hundred and eighteen attendees who remained after the dissenters were banished. These 318 Fathers IMO were not christians, but were pagans and probably academics from the extant eastern Hellenistic priesthoods which had serviced the temples in a custodial fashion for centuries. They were Constantine's war captives.

The Oath of Nicaea

By the swords held at our throats
we believe in the NT canon of Constantine and
we subscribe to the universal state monotheistc church

Immediately thereafter there follows a
HEAVY HEAVY LEGAL DISCLAIMER

But for those believe in
<<<< insert the words of Arius >>>
the universal state monotheistc church ....

anathemetises
banishes
considers an alien
etc
etc
<<< insert political punishment here >>>.

So you see, under duress the assembled captives from the eastern empire had two choices. They could agree with Constantine (The Autocratic Boss) or they could agree with Arius (the ascetic academic priest, perhaps of Ascelpius). Two apparently agreed with Arius and were banished, the rest saw the wisdom in complying with Constantine on the day.

The "BUT FOR THOSE WHO THINK OTHERWISE" clause in the oath reduces the document to a multiple choice answer from the signatories:

A) vote for the Boss.
B) vote for Arius.

What would you have done?

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Where exactly in the Life is this attested?

All temples? I'm sure the citizens of Hispellum would be surprised to hear that, and the philosophers Sopater and Nicogoras of Athensas well. So would the translators of VD, Cameron and Hall, whose notes on this subject, it's safe to say, you've never looked at.

.

According to whom? And on what evidence is this asserted?

Which reports were these?

And the reason for this is what?

So what? We lack significant sections of Tacitus' Annals and of Suetonius' Caesars. Or of Dio Cassius' work. Is the only conclusion to be drawn from this that the "boss" who reigned during the periods for which these books described had them eradicated?

And btw where is your C14 evidence that shows that these history of AM is not a late forgery?

More appropriately described by whom?

Evidence, please.

Can you demonstrate that all of these extant Temples had established priesthoods, let alone custodial ones??


What is the source for this?


I see nothing of the sort because you have not produced one whit of evidence showing that the scenario from which this conclusion is derived has any basis in fact.

So it's "perhaps" now, is it?

Really? Where is the evidence for this in the creed itself that you claimed could be found when one reads its Greek text.

Jeffrey