mountainman

Dear Respondents,

The Creation of Monotheistic State Religions

(1) Ardashir creates Zoroastrianism (c.225 CE)

In the third century the Persian "King of Kings"
Ardashir created a new State monotheistic religion
which he actively promoted, organized, supported and
protected, by legislation. He guaranteed its orthodoxy
by the sword. It was characterised by a strong
centralised power structure, centered on the King and
his appointed Magi (ie: academic temple priests, and
their chiefs)

A gifted researcher and high cleric of this religion
in the tradition named Tansar was ordered to gather
the scattered "Avesta" of the Mazdeans from ancient
sources, and to edit these in order to reproduce an
authorised and canonical version of the "Avesta",
the holy writ of Zoroastrianism. Finally the Sassanid
state monotheistic church was characterised by widespread
architectural replication of square fire-temples for
the official religion throughout the major cities and
provinces of the Sassanid Persian empire. This was a
novel step.

Epigraphic and monumental evidence suggests the pre-
existence of the earlier religion of the Mazdeans in
the epoch of the Parthian civilisation.



(2) Constantine creates Christianity (c.325 CE)

In the fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine
created a State monotheistic religion which he
actively promoted, organized, supported and protected,
by legislation and by the army. He guaranteed its
orthodoxy by the sword. It was characterised by a
strong centralised power structure, centered on the
emperor (, his army) and his appointed bishops.

A gifted researcher and high cleric of this religion
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea was ordered to gather
the scattered books of both the Hebrews and the
Christians from ancient sources, and to edit these in
order to reproduce an authorised and canonical
version. A history of the new state religion prior to
the age of Constantine is now known to have been
assembled by Eusebius during the years 312 to 324 CE.

Finally the state church was characterised by the
widespread architectural replication of basilicas
throughout the major cities and provinces of the
empire. All these were by no means novel steps
as should be clear from the above.

With apologies to the author of volume XII of the
Cambridge Ancient History (The Imperial Crisis and
Recovery AD 193 to 324 **) --- particularly
Chapter IV: Sassanid Persia: Political History, pp.109.

A comparable review of the epigraphic, papyri,
monumental, and other archaeological sources
with respect to the pre-existence of the earlier
religion of the Christians in the epoch of the Pre-Nicene
Roman empire has been conducted here.
The results are uninspiring.

In the case of Christianity, the "early christianity of Eusebius"
remains a list of totally ambiguous citations, and quite
possibly inauthentic. In many cases pagan references
to the mention of the word "God" in an inscription is
being interpretted to be "christian god". (This is like
wearing "christian spectacles").


SUMMARY

There was no novelty in Constantine's creating a new
monotheistic state religion, as is shown above.

The question is whether the NT canon was ligitimate.
The issue relates to the historical authenticity of the NT canon
(and the Eusebian history) which was tendered in the
epoch of Constantine. Emperor Julian does mention that the
fabrication of the christians was a fiction of men.

It is not that I feel that Christianity could not have evolved,
so it must have been created, its that I know a monotheistic
state religion was certainly created (following the lead of the
Persians in Ardashir). The archaeological evidence itself is
suggesting this possibility -- and particularly the C14 -- that
the new testament canon (and its history) did not appear
on the planet until the fourth century.

If Occams's razor has been fashioned into a silver bullet
then the silver bullet, Transient, is IMO certainly C14.
(Did the new testament canon exist before 312 CE?)


Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Pete - no one is going to take you seriously as long as you use words that you made up, like "authodoxy."

J-D

Do you think he did make it up? I asked him about this a couple of times, but he never answered.

mountainman

Dear Toto and J-D,

I apologise and am sorry I did not just withdraw the word immediately. At any rate I have changed it to "orthodoxy" in the above and will leave it at that. But let me say thanks to both of you for pointing it out more than once.

Best wishes,


Pete

Sheshbazzar

What is this sect?
The Jewish religion during the centuries preceeding the so-called New Testement times was comprised of many different factions, holding a wide variety of views, different factions adopted various terms drawn from the TaNaKa as names to be associated with their particular views.
Examples of this are the "Sadducees" (Tza'doo'keem="Righteous ones") The "Pharisees" (Pha'roo'sheem="Separatists ones"/"Particularist ones") and of course the "Nazarenes" (Netz'ar'eem= "branches" "heads of grain ones", "watchmen")-forget the NTs "creative" derivations,- the name was drawn from Scripture and was in use long before NT times or the alleged "birth" or invention of JC )

As you wrote "or", I'm going to leave it at this point, and pick up on the last question.

What is the evidence for it?
Primary information consists of information culled from the NTs unintended disclosures, ie The Jerusalem Pillars consisted of "the Circumcision", they observed Torah and resisted the theology of "Paul", And the latter Chreistian Church Father's reactionary writings against the beliefs and practices of The Nazarenes.
There also remain Jewish Rabbinical reactionary writings indicative that this sects teachings were controversial, and at odds with the Jewish authorities.
So the evidence indicates that The Sect of The Nazarene's beliefs did not sit well with either the Chreistian's, nor with the orthodox Jews of the time.
What they believed is a matter that bears further investigation.

J-D

You say 'of course' the Nazarenes, but why 'of course'? Most accounts of this period of Jewish history refer to the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Essenes are also often mentioned. However, I have never come across any account which describes the Nazarenes as another faction (or sect, or party, or school of thought) at the same time. Also these accounts describe what the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes were like, what sort of people generally belonged to each group, what sort of things they typically thought, said, and did, what differentiated them from each other, and how they regarded and related to each other. If somebody talks about the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or the Essenes, I know generally what they mean, and if I don't I can easily look them up. When I look up 'Nazarenes', what I find seems to be something different from what you're talking about.Being circumcised, observing Torah, and resisting Pauline theology wouldn't differentiate people from the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or the Essenes. If the references to the 'Jerusalem pillars' refer to a real historical group, what distinguished that group? What reason is there to suppose that it was already centuries old at that point?What are these Christian and Jewish writings? What do they say about the 'Nazarenes'? How do you use them to reconstruct a historical account of the Nazarenes and what is that account? In particular, how do they support your views about dating?By itself, however, that is compatible with the possibility that they did not predate Jesus.Do you have any views on this subject?

spamandham

It's funny that those who start with the fewest assumptions and rationally derive their positions, are referred to as 'radicals'.

Is there any other branch of science that has it bass-akwards?

gentleexit

I think the Parthian example shows "editing", not creating. A move to uniformity which is in keeping with similar sentiments in Rome. Diocletian was a stickler for uniformity, including renewing the gods of Rome. I don't think Occam would have ventured outside Rome to find precedents for Constantine's actions.

Ok, apply Occam to these documents. To the proposition that Eusebius was told to write a "life of Jesus". Why write four? Four with evident contradictions, both in detail and tone. And look at them. On one end, Mark has a demon expeller, a faith healer, maybe divine. On the other, John has a god killed by "Jews". You think they are by the same author?

Now take out the razor again. This time to the letters and oration of Constantine "quoted" by Eusebius (and others). "Quoted" in quotes, allow for doubt. Contrast their tone with the historian's. Is this the same man? The most striking thing (to me) is that Eusebius uses Christian convention (savior, Christ, Church etc) while "Constantine" is all about "the god of all" and is clearly a here-and-now man. Benefits accrue right here, right now and thanks not to some complex trinity but a highest deity. The letter writer knew little of what he was purported to believe.

He did a few in Palestine, started Holy Apostles, Antioch's, possibly rebuilt something in Nicomedia. When he rebuilt "Constantia", there was one. Despite later claims otherwise, his sons made Sophia, St Peters, Aquiliea etc. Widespread is relative. Like his adoption of a highest deity, this was far from unprecedented. Emperors built and rebuilt temples (Heliopolis, ...) as well as towns (Apamea's impressive main street, ...)

I think your skepticism about claims of Christian extent, particularly outside its bastions in the east, is justified but the notion of creator Eusebius flies in the face of Occam.

Sheshbazzar

1,Do you know the names and differentiating beliefs of all of the different -factions, sects, parties and schools of thought- that existed from say 200 BC forward?
If so, perhaps you can list all of their names with a summary of each groups beliefs?
Can you provide well reasoned grounds for denying any possible existence of a small segment of the Jewish population identifying themselves with the term
"ha' cath' Netz'oor'eem"?

2. But holding to, and teaching certain -very- peculiar, unorthodox, distinctive, and disturbing ideas about The name of the Messiah, would.

3.Mainly, Messianic beliefs, sayings and teachings that are identifiably different from the majority of orthodox Jewish opinion and teaching.

4. What reason is there to suppose that it wasn't? Jews had been debating the subject for generations; They divided into cliques over a lot smaller things.

5. Suggest reading The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, on the beliefs of the Nazerenes, also St. Jerome Epistle 79, to Augustine.
In the Jewish documents you might want to investigate -The 19th blessing of the Ameda-, and who were accounted the the minum

6. Guess you will have to investigate to know. It being one of those things, that if you are told, you will not believe it.

7.Well enough, Thank you, that I have no doubt, your views about dating are your own problem.

8.If that's what you want to believe. Who is this Jesus?

Certainly.

But then they are my views, and even without going into them in detail it is evident that they would not be your views.
Like the Nazerenes of old, of whom you confess you know nothing about, I'll just likewise keep them under my hat, out of sight of those who would be my adversaries, secrets to be revealed to friends.

Transient

Do you think that the Nazarenes were slightly gnostic maybe?
Some of the sayings of Jesus seemed to tend that way - secret knowledge, revealed only to the chosen ones etc.
Would that explain both those sayings of Jesus and the gnostic following that appeared later on.

I have never been free enuf of christianity in the past to be able to look at the gnostic stuff - sort of seemed "of the devil" if you know what I mean.
Now I am wondering where all the gnostic stuff came from - maybe Jesus was a bit gnostic?