Sheshbazzar

" 'Vandalism' is a judgemental term and graffiti writing must be seen in the contemporary context."
There are those who in judging any ancient inscription that was inscribed or added at a latter date, to any structure, monument, or artistic work, incorrectly interpret the term "graffiti" only in the pejorative sense, as an act of "vandalism".
However, within a archaeological/historical context, a graffito does not always necessarily constitute, nor qualify for all of those negative connotations which have became associated with the modern application of the term graffiti.
Not every inscription which is or has been added latter to a work, can be deemed to be "graffiti" in the pejorative sense of vandalism.
Many times the original artist will choose to make a latter addition to their original composition, sometimes even decades latter.

There also is that "contemporary context" where as a form of protest, or to make a "statement" a person other than the original compositor(s), will undertake to modify or alter the work of others, when this "vandalism" remains it serves posterity as a window upon those contemporary sociological conflicts.

In respect of the mural and the inscription here under consideration, there is no proof that the inscription was not added by the very same hand that created the mural. Perhaps the artist had became a "convert".
Or even given that the inscription may well have been added latter by another, as a deliberate act of vandalism and defacement, (doubtful, more likely intended as being an "improvement") it must certainly have occurred at a time before the entire work was infilled and thereby preserved for posterity.


I do not believe in nor accept XN IN, regardless of when or where the inscription was made, or may be found. I wouldn't believe it even if he came down out of the sky and wrote it right in front of me with his own hand.

youngalexander

I'm a slow thinker!

Gamera

Even a cursory review of the text demonstrates that Julian means that the doctrines of Christianity are "fabrications", not the Christianity itself was invented by an overzealous emperor.

That's why he spends all his time attacking Christian doctrines, not the authenticity of the texts that contain the doctrines.

mountainman

In his introduction to the English translation
of the work, 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 occurred for similar reasons.

--- Wilmer Cave WRIGHT

This to summarise what we have of the text:

1) We have only Cyril's refutation
2) One third only survives.
3) The "christians" burnt the originals.
4) It contained other invectives which Cyril omits.


Totally superficial analysis Gamera. In other works
which survive he attacks not only Constantine, but
Jesus Christ ....

As for Constantine, he could not discover among the gods
the model of his own career, but when he caught sight of
Pleasure, who was not far off, he ran to her. She received
him tenderly and embraced him, then after dressing him in
raiment of many colours and otherwise making him beautiful,
she led him away to Incontinence.

There too he found Jesus, who had taken up his abode with
her and cried aloud to all comers:

"He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer,
he that is sacrilegious and infamous,
let him approach without fear!
For with this water will I wash him
and will straightway make him clean.

And though he should be guilty
of those same sins a second time,
let him but smite his breast and beat his head
and I will make him clean again."

To him Constantine came gladly, when he had conducted his
sons forth from the assembly of the gods. But the avenging
deities none the less punished both him and them for their
impiety, and extracted the penalty for the shedding of the
blood of their kindred, [96] until Zeus granted them a respite
for the sake of Claudius and Constantius.

-- The Caesares, by Julian

mountainman

Could you expand on the term XN IN?
(I am not familiar with the greek)

Nazaroo

Well, having read through this windy thread, I am disappointed.

What should have been a worthy and defensible claim, namely that Constantine did indeed corrupt Christianity and impose his own brand of it for a while at least, has been eroded and finally ridiculed by exaggeration and the leaven of unconvincing and implausible side-claims.

Your star witness Julian says this much:

With hostile witnesses like this, who needs friendly witnesses?

This is a shame, since Constantine surely was a prick who corrupted Christianity, appointing stick-men for bishops the same way Herod appointed priests in Jesus' time.

Sheshbazzar

The reference relates back to post #41 and the link that andrewcridlle posted on "hypotyposeis", and the translation of the Dura graffiti.
Obviously, the title "Christ" and the "name" -"Jesus" are not actually spelled out within the inscription, rather iconograpic "Christograms" are employed;
The "X" standing for "christ" and "I" for "Iesus"
Think of the ever popular "X-mas" and the "X-ian" iconograph "INRI".
They say, it stands for, and is translated as "Christ Jesus".

Men of my faith reject all such icons, monograms and false names and titles created by Gentile "X-ianity" that promote that "name" of naught, that has supplanted The ONE Name above every name, which was actually proclaimed of old, written within The Torah and within The Prophets, and recorded as named upon The Nazarene.

But something happened very early on in the Faith, The Name which was at birth bestowed upon The Son, was soon replaced and supplanted by a Gentile name masquerading as a "translation" of that original given name, but it was not, and is NOT a "translation" by any stretch, only a "different" and "substitute" name, even as we were forewarned would come.
"Shibboleth" and "Sibboleth" are NOT the same, one delivers, and any other brings death;
He with His Sword stands at The Passage, and no man passes, except he frames his lips to pronounce the ONE, and the ONLY, acceptable password.

If I say unto you; "Say now, "Shibboleth" it is nothing if you will not so do.
But when that Day comes upon you, and Another asks of you to speak The Password, then you had best know It, and speak it faithfully.
"For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shalt be condemned."


There is a Messiah, and there is a Anti-Messiah, the Messiah that is THE Messiah, bears His Fathers Name.
The ANTI-Messiah, as was prophesied, came in another name, and his deceiving name "X" is his "mark" upon the children of disobedience who have perverted the truth for gain, and who forged their bloody religion by lies and mass murders, and whom now in this age prevail.
There is no "X" to the true Messiah, and He has nothing to do with the children of "X"

Pardon if this appears to be preaching, however such matters cannot be expressed nor explained without the pointing out of the differences and the ramifications, some must be offended, that some might be delivered.

Sheshbazzar

We believe for the simplest reason of all, the early believers in The Messiah did not at all identify themselves by the term "christian", nor accept or employ any of those popular icons and totems that eventually became the stock and trade of the newly invented "Christian" religion.
This being so, there would be no "X-ian" iconography or "name" employed by which to identify the tombs and graves of the earliest of the disciples and converts to the Messianic faith.

The NT claim is that the believers were first -called- "Christians" in Antioch, that is to say by the pagans of a foreign land, this alone ought to serve as a red flag that all of those who had previously accepted and been gathered into the Messianic faith, were NOT known as "christians", and it is likely that the far greater majority of these lived out their lives, and went to their graves without so much as hearing of the word "christian".

Constantinian "Christianity" was a far different creature, both in name, and in conduct, from that which was known to, and practiced by the earliest adherents of The Faith.

But the so called "X-ian" converts soon outnumbered and overwhelmed the voices of the original faithful, and altered their words, and "cooked" the books to conform to "X-ian" words, ideas and doctrines.
Then those who remained faithful to the original teachings, and would not submit to the "X-ian" lies, and "names" became condemed as apostates, hunted down and put to death by these so called "Christians"
Yet not all, for there have always been those who have survived by the subterfuge of being like unto Gileadite fugitives, hidden amongst the multitudes of the "Ephraimites" and the "Manassites", awaiting The Day when the sword shall be upon the neck of proud and arrogant upsurpers.

You don't believe in "Christianity", and likewise, we that recieve and believe His Word, do NOT believe in, nor accept "X-ianity."

mountainman

You are aware of course that the testimony of the star
witness was prepared and censored by Bishop Cyril; that
we have Cyril's statements that he regarded the treatise
as peculiarly dangerous, and said that it had shaken many
believers; that he says that he omitted invectives
against Christ; and he says he omitted such matter
as might contaminate the minds of Christians.

Additionally, we have seen that a similar mutilation of the
letters of the emperor Julian occurred for similar reasons.

The case is nowhere near as black and white as you'd no
doubt like it to be. Julian could well have implicated both
Constantine and "the wretched Eusebius" in the interpolation
of Josephus, for all know at the present day.

Constantine was supreme imperial mafia thug and malevolent
despot, with the mind of "an eminent christian theologican of
his day", and the boundless ambition and ruthlessness known
to accompany the abuse of absolute power, a mega-scale
"christian prosetytiser" and the constructor of hundreds of
basilicas, in many cases over the top of the Hellenic temples.

We need to be very careful with such an historical figure such
as "bullneck". The planet still thinks - like yourself - that the
new and strange "tribe of christians" must have existed in the
prenicene epoch because the literature publications under
Constantine inform us that this was so.

However, we need not infer this to be factual and in fact, it
is preferable to isolate the distinct possibility that Constantine
invented the new and strange Universal ROman religious order.
And to test this possibility against what we know of history
external to the "ecclesiatical history" published by Constantine.

I see the above as an objective approach. It may not appeal to
what many people might see as "tradition", but there you have
it anyway, for the sake of historical exploration.

And never mind the "bishops of Herod" -- Constantine had a far
greater and far more contemporary blueprint to work with. Namely
the creation of the theocrasy of Iran by the (absolute supremacist)
Ardashir, c.224 CE (100 years before Nicaea) out of the military
and the Zoroastrian religious order, itself invented and expanded
from a few lines of the ancient literature known as "the Avesta".

Warlords of nations who need armies fostered monotheism.
Notably Ardashir burnt practically all literature and nearly
every single trace of his earliest civilisation - "Parthian".

Constantine tried to do the same with the Hellenic, and
failed in his lifetime, but by the enjd of the fourth century,
despite the Julian interlude, the job was done.

mountainman

Thanks Sheshbazzar for your response. I find it very interesting
these purported abbrieviations referred to above, and your
introduction very useful.

Thanks also for your further response above. You introduce new
material which deserves separate contemplation, and for which I am
grateful.