Huon

Reccared I (reigned 586—601) was Visigothic King of Hispania, Septimania (Toulouse) and Galicia. His reign marked a shift in history, with the king's renunciation of traditional Arianism in favour of Catholicism in 587.

mountainman

Eusebius as the Chief Christian Heresiologist

The hostility of Eusebius and other Christian heresiologists against the “vile Gnostic heretics” who had dared to author the books of the NTA has only recently been objectively identified and assessed in a critical light.

"Prior to the discovery of the NHL, "gnosticism" typically was considered to be an early and pernicious Christian heresy, and much of our knowledge of gnostic religion was gleaned from the writings of the Christian heresiologists, those authors who attempted to establish orthodoxy and expose heresy in the early church. The Christian heresiologists disagreed vehemently with Christian gnostics on matters of faith and life, and as a result they portrayed gnostic believers as vile heretics."

[Marvin Meyer, The Gnostic Discoveries (or via: amazon.co.uk)]

The suggestion to reject the evidence tendered by Eusebius et al is reinforced by the political considerations of the epoch. For the moment, if Eusebius is permitted to be a reliable witness for the NTC, then he cannot be depended upon as a reliable witness for the NTA, due to his obvious bias. One ancient source even went so far to say that “Eusebius considered the Deity as unintelligible and incomprehensible”. [Philostorgius]


Richard Carrier’s – “Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous”

Academics since the Age of Enlightenment have been suspicious of Eusebius’ integrity as an historian. He has been singled out many times for more than one major forgery. The brevity of this sketch mandates a modern summary. In articles concerning the formation of the New Testament Canon, Richard Carrier writes the following:

Eusebius, the First History of the Church, and the Earliest Complete Bibles

The first Christian scholar to engage in researching and writing a complete history of the Christian church, Eusebius of Caesarea, reveals the embarrassing complexity of the development of the Christian canon, despite his concerted attempt to cover this with a pro-orthodox account. Two things must be known: first, Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous (see note. 6), and either way not a very good historian; second, Eusebius rewrote his History of the Church at least five times (cf. M 202, n. 29), in order to accommodate changing events, including the ever-important Council of Nicaea.” [Online]

If Eusebius was hopelessly credulous then Constantine paid him a lot of gold for nothing. On the other hand if Eusebius was a liar, then he is a very good liar, and was worth every gold solidus he earned as a master forger.


In either event, the step of rejecting Eusebius as an authority with respect to the history of the authorship of NTA (ie: new testament apocryha - also known as "The Gnostic Gospels and Acts") should be perceived as a step in the right direction.

Eusebius with respect to the NTA is to be regarded as a hostile heresiologist, and may be safely ignored as such. This exhortation is strengthened by the following assertion that Eusebius is be regarded as the originator of the papal “Index Librorum Prohibitorum”

ABBREVIATIONS USED NOTE:
NTC = "New Testament Canon",
NTA = "New Testament Non canonical writings"

These are the two "sides" of the phenomenom of "Early Christian Literature".
Everyone for centuries has pursued the "mystery of the history" of the NTC.

This thesis proposes an extremely radical simplification.
It relies on one single hypothesis --- Hypothesis (1): The "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" are literature written in reaction to the "Bible" after Nicaea in protest mode. I have provided in the above posts the two sides of the argument:

(a) why the mainstream opinion follows the idea that the "Gnostic Gospels are early" (ie: before 325 CE)
(b) what the evidence is upon which this mainstream opinion is based, and why it is "rejectable".

It all comes down to Eusebius.
Say we allow ourselves to allow Eusebius to be our "faithful guide" with respect to the history of the Canonical Christians.
Are we prepared to dismiss Eusebius as our "faithful guide" with respect to the history of the Non-Canonical "Christians".
If we are, then we have no guarantee that the Non-Canonical "Christians" were "Christians" at all.
They were just "the Opposition" -- the "NON-CHRISTIAN MAJORITY" of c.324 CE.



A CHALLENGE to perceive the microcosm in the macrocosm is the "Acts of Pilate".

Mainstream opinion is forced to conjecture there are three "Acts of Pilate".
This theory needs only the one "Acts of Pilate" in our possession.
It is a pagan satire for Christ's sake!
Jesus is presented as healing via THE POWER OF ASCLEPIUS!.
Eusebius is shocked at this blasphemy!
This is nothing but simple satire!

The preservers of writings in the temples of Asclepius had been cast out of their temples.
Temple services had been prohibited all across the empire.
Temples had been utterly destroyed and priests and pholosophers tortured under Constantine's orders.
The "New Testament Canon" within the "Bible" issues by Constantine had become "LAW OVERNIGHT".

Jesus was a new healer. Few if any had ever heard of Jesus.
Every man and his dog knew about Asclepius, son of Apollo.
Therefore the assertion "Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius" is an obvious satire! against the Jesus "story".
Jesus of course heals via the power of the Hebrew G-d!
The resistance were having "The Acts of Pilate" read and memorised in schools through out the empire.

Not only might we conjecture that Arius authored "The Acts of Pilate" but also that the pseudonoymous "Leucius Charinus" is in fact "Arius of Alexandria" following Arius' imperial "memoriae damnatio". Another name was needed since the original could no longer be mentioned in the presence of the emperor.

Microcosm and Macrocosm of Theory - The (THREE ???) Acts of Mr Pontius Pilate

A "Trinity" of "The Acts of Pilate"

(1) The document tradition

(2) A collation of scholarly commentary

(3) Examining the "Three Acts of Pilate


(3.1) The very early christian "Acts of Pilate"
(3.2) The early fourth century pagan "Acts of Pilate"

(3.3) The late fourth century christian "Acts of Pilate"


(4) Extracts from the Text (M.R. James)

(5) Are the "Christian" Acts of Pilate in fact "Pagan"?

GOOGLE "Acts of Pilate"


The "christian academics" cannot see the satire in the extant text!
There has to be therefore another text.
They cannot understand the Eusebian concept of blasphemy!

The blasphemy was in the satire!
Jesus heals by Asclepius!
This was heretical at that time to talk like that.
Jesus had assumed an imperial gravitas.

J-D

Which modern academics? Chapter and verse, please.

mountainman

Rowan Williams has made the controversial suggestion that Arius was deeply influenced by Neoplatonic ideas

The idea has been kicked around for some time and you will find a wealth of older citations drawn upon by Rowan Williams.

“Arianism has often been regarded as the archetypal Christian deviation, something aimed at the very heart of the Christian confession…. Arius himself came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics, a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical malice, a desperate enmity to revealed faith. The portrait is already taking place in Epiphanius’ work, well before the end of the fourth century ….

By the early medieval period, we find him represented alongside Judas in ecclesiastical art. (The account of this death in fourth and fifth century writers is already clearly modeled on that of Judas in the Acts of the Apostles.) No other heretic has been through so thoroughgoing a process of ‘demonization’.

Rowan Williams, Arius – Heresy & Tradition

mountainman

From the Amazon Review Page

Toto

This is your title to a blog post from Andrew Criddle. It doesn't seem to reflect the contents of the post - did you pick up the wrong url?

In any case, it is not all that controversial to see early Christianity as influenced by neo-Platonic ideas. Those ideas were in the air. This does not imply that Arius or other heretics were actually pagan priests.

mountainman

Another Amazon Review Page

And another

Toto

Rowan Williams does not seem to support your thesis, Pete.

mountainman

Rowan William's thesis was cited as example of item (6) below,
namely that Modern academic assessment of Arius as a neo-Platonist "of some form".


The support for my thesis that Arius was an anti-Christian satirist
is being drawn from the evidence under the authorship of Athanasius.
The evidence supporting my thesis are presently the items 1 to 5.

(1) An example of Arius' literary satire against the passion of Jesus.
(2) Athanasius' three time reference to Arius as another "Sotades" (Greek satirist).
(3) Eusebius's reference to the "ridicule of the canon in the theatres of the unbelievers".
(4) Constantine's letter of 325 CE: Arius the "Porphyrian" and memoriae damnatio.
(5) Constantine's letter of 333 CE: Arius as an anti-Jesus author.



(6) Modern academic assessment of Arius as a neo-Platonist "of some form".
(He claims his father as "Ammonias" [Saccas] of whom Plotinus was a disciple,
and then Porphryr and perhaps Iamblichus).

I added item (6) to demonstrate that the issues related to the "religious beliefs"
of the author of 4th century anti-Christian literature - Arius of Alexandria - are
far from resolved. And that the latest study in this area or domain indicates
that Arius was closely related to the NeoPlatonic lineage of people - Emperor Julian
also being a "spokesperson".

Early? Those ideas had just been brilliantly recorded and published using the highest technology of the Roman Empire codex,
by Porphyry the disciple of the recent sage Plotinus. Those ideas were in the libraries of Rome c.312 CE when the
Constantinian Christians found themselves directly and victoriously associated with the "Pontifex Maximus" over that city.

Those ideas were from Plotinus, via Porphyry whose writings Constantine also targets for destruction
along with THAT PORPHYRIAN ARIUS. They had been recently re-expressed in the epoch of the
mid to late 3rd century. Plotinus himself apparently found sponsorship or was on speaking terms with
one of the Roman emperors. Constantine's State Christians found all these literature works in the city
of Rome, where Porphyry had last lived and authored. They found the stories of the lineage of the
Neoplatonic and Neopythagorean "philosophers / priests / academics / physicians".

In 341 CE the orthodox bishops of the Dedication Council at Antioch declared:

"We are not followers of Arius; for how could we,
who are bishops, be disciples of a priest?"

Why did they find it necessary to so declare this?


Think about who precisely were the remaining academics (other than Eusebius of course)?
The word "pagan" was not then apparently in the language, since it appears
to have been invented by christians of the cities as a perjoritive for
non-christians in the country (ie: outside of the direct control of the
Emperor's Christian Soldiers). Have a think about it. The term 'pagan'
does not appear in Christian inscriptions until the mid 4th century.

The bulk of the eastern population was not christian.
The bulk of the eastern population was non christian.
The bulk of the eastern temples were rendered "prohibited".
The academics who worked in the temples just bacame "redundant".
The entire class of the Graeco-Roman priesthood and academia
within the space of the one year period 324 to 325 CE had been ostensibly "given the choice"
to become "Constantine's Christians". The fall-back option to Neoplatonism and/or
Neopythagoreanism did not exist as is clearly stated by the Christian
Heresiologists of the mid to late 4th century. The empire was to become "Christian".

Where did all the "Christians" come from 324 to 325 CE?
Where did all the "Non-Christians" go to from 324 to 325 CE?

These questions are not trivially answered.
The evidence suggests Arius of Alexandria resisted Constantine's "Christian Church".
The evidence suggests that Arius was trying to preserve his own ancient churches,
and that Arius was supported by a large mass of the eastern population.

Evidence that Arius was supported by the masses

The following references are taken from Constantine's letter to Arius of c.333 CE;

What Constantine discloses about Arius in terms of
the Political Support for Arius by the Graeco-Roman populace

Arius talked of one God.
Arius said

"Either let us hold that, of which
already we have been made possessors,
or let it be done, just as we ourselves desire."

He said "We have the masses."
He was a warrior of insanity.
He was an Ares
He fashioned the finest things for the masses
He asked to celebrate services to God in Alexandria
He asked to celebrate the lawful and indispensable services to God in Alexandria
He hastened to destroy his friends
He claimed the masses acted with him.
He never admited where in the world he was
He claimed all the Libyan populace was supporting him
He was a source of aid for people
He had august consuls
He hastened to disturb the whole world by his impieties.
He claimed there were a multitude of persons wandering about him
He had supporters that were asserted to have given themselves to be eaten by wolves and by lions.
He had supporters that were each oppressed by additional payment of ten capitation taxes and by the expenses of these
He had supporters that sweated unless they ran as speedily as possible to the salvation-bringing Church,
He had supporters that were condemned for wicked complicity
He had associates that were threatened by local and state authorities
He had associates that were threatened to speedily flee his association
He had associates that were to accept in exchange the uncorrupted faith [of the church]

We can clearly see the gangster in Constantine. He simply applied fascist pressure
to achieve his goals using his well oiled and well renumerated military machine.

On the other hand, Arius seems to be concerned over the loss of the possession of the temples.
Constantine had prohibited their use. The traditional practices of the empire were all
thus brought to their knees overnight, since the prohibitions were enforced.

This situation is simply described by Barnes:

Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology,
Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate,
it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity
as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried
through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in
the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian
in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

Let us not forget that the followers of Plato and Pythagoras
are somehow mixed up with the "last of the persecutor" according
to the dogma being passed off as "Church History".

J-D

I said, 'Chapter and verse, please'. I did say 'please'.