Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 04-03-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am interested in the psychology of Constantine, the first emperor to embrace a religion complete with heretics and schisms and all sorts of hoo-har. Did he know what he was getting himself into? As the commander of the army he wanted uniformity.

Constantine was an anti-christ type figure mixing State and Religion.

But how does the literature of Constantine describe an anti-christ?

CANON Anti-christians

1 John 4:1, ‘spirits’ termed Antichrist deny that ‘Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,’ also see 2 John 7 (condemns a similar denial). This description suggests that the heretics who were viewed as docetic and those whom were termed antichristian were possibly related in the nature of their reaction and response to their assimilation of the new testament literature.

NON CANON Anti-christians?

Aside from the entire nation of the Jewish people, are such reports forthcoming from the history of Eusebius, or his continuators? I am still looking. We have the following from Ecclesiastical_History_Socrates_Book_01

Quote:

The Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria.

To our beloved and most honored fellow-Ministers of the Catholic Church everywhere, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord.

Inasmuch as the Catholic Church is one body, and we are commanded in the holy Scriptures to maintain ' the bond of unity and peace,' it becomes us to write, and mutually acquaint one another with the condition of things among each of us, in order that ' if one member suffers or rejoices, we may either sympathize with each other, or rejoice together.

Know therefore that there have recently arisen in our diocese lawless and anti-christian men, teaching apostasy such as one may justly consider and denominate the forerunner of Antichrist. I wished indeed to consign this disorder to silence, that if possible the evil might be confined to the apostates alone, and not go forth into other districts and contaminate the ears of some of the simple.

This is tendered by the later christians as the historical preparatory to the Arian controversy, which resolves to the words of Arius, and raged for a century after the "Council" of Nicaea. An "antichristian" was some sort of super-doceticist in the realm of literary heresy.

Was there in fact no person during the time when the new testament was widely published who ever once may have suggested that the new testament was simply a Constantinian fiction? The answer to this question is that we dont know for sure, since we have no independent non-christian histories surviving (at the moment) written from the time of Constantine's rule.

I would certain expect there to be opposition to the implementation of a new and strange top-down-emperor cult which is being implemented from a position of military supremacy and in association with strongly enforced prohibitions of temple services related to the ancient traditions.

That "docetic" (and "anti-christian") be a christian euphemism for "fictional" (ie: utter disbelief in the historical claims of the new testament) is to be balanced against considerations such as the above. Our reports from the fourth century have been vetted by the victors on that day.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 04-03-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

In fact, what Hart says here (p. 178) is that

Asclepius "became identified as Imhotep Asclepius in Egypt, Eshmun Asclepius in Phoenicia, Zeus Asclepius at Pergamum and Jupiter Aesculapius in Rome. [47,48] One might have justifiably hailed him as Aesculapius Optimus Maximus" in the second century AD!

So we may reasonably conclude that his following was quite strong and popular in the epoch concerned with NT history. Thank you for this clarification. The epoch of Pythagoras is related but unessential to the investigations of the ground of the first four centuries CE.

The therapeutae of Asclepius were ubiquitous at this epoch, and there may be sufficient grounds to consider that when Philo was writing about the therapeutae of Egypt, and of Greece, and "everywhere" that he was speaking about the one and the same collegiate structure, which at least included Asclepius. Philo describes the importance of Egypt to this "community".

Coneybeare tells us that Philostratus writes about the "priest of Asclepius" in his "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana", but you insist on making the claim that Coneybeare is mistranslating "priest", without providing any explanation for your position. What does Jeffrey know that Coneybeare did not? Perhaps we will never know.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-03-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

In fact, what Hart says here (p. 178) is that

Asclepius "became identified as Imhotep Asclepius in Egypt, Eshmun Asclepius in Phoenicia, Zeus Asclepius at Pergamum and Jupiter Aesculapius in Rome. [47,48] One might have justifiably hailed him as Aesculapius Optimus Maximus" in the second century AD!

So we may reasonably conclude that his following was quite strong and popular in the epoch concerned with NT history. Thank you for this clarification.

What we may reasonably conclude is that you misrepresented Hart. He does not say what you claimed he said.

Quote:

Coneybeare tells us that Philostratus writes about the "priest of Asclepius" in his "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana", but you insist on making the claim that Coneybeare is mistranslating "priest", without providing any explanation for your position.

I'd be grateful if you could point to any post of mine where I have at any time done what you say I've done, let alone done it over and over, or ever spoken of anything in Coneynbeare's translation of "The Life" as a "mistranslation".

The only issue I've spoken of is not the adequacy of C's translation, but the validity of your claim about what one finds within it.

If I've been insisting on anything, it's that you back up your claim, made "]here, that "there are at least nine times" in his translation of the first book of "The Life" that Coneybeare "uses the word "priest" (with regard to Asclepius)" by pointing us to/citing all nine places in book one of C's translation where C does what you say he does.

And as the record shows, you've never done so because your claim is rubbish.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey

at least nine times in the first book" of that work (see here)
k" of that work (see here)eight th or more places in C's translation of book one of C usescdone have made no such claim, let alone insieted upon it.
What does Jeffrey know that Coneybeare did not? Perhaps we will never know.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown[/QUOTE]

aChristian · 04-03-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Docetic belief was heretical.
To the docetic, Jesus was not real.
He only "seemed to exist"
but did not in fact do so.

Could this be a euphemism
equivalent to the belief
that Jesus was a fiction?

No. This theory ignores the recorded history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

And finally, I hope that there are none
silly enough to think for one moment
that there would not have been people
on the planet in antiquity who, when
hearing all this ********* about your man,
Jesus, did not immediately think the
text may well have been fiction.

A Big question for smart minds:

Why dont we hear of such belief?
Wouldn't it be expected?

We do hear of unbelief many times in the New Testament (eg., Paul on Mars' Hill or many of the Jews who saw Jesus but refused to believe) and in the church father's writings. It is hard to miss if you read it. You can certainly see it if you have a smart mind (and are honest), but even if you just have an average mind it is hard to miss the references to unbelievers.

mountainman · 04-04-2008, 06:01 AM

Coneybeare's Priest of Asclepius Count

SOURCE: http://www.chrestos.com/apollonius1-5

There are five references in this section alone.
What is your point Jeffrey?

Quote:

10. One day he saw a flood of blood upon the altar, and there were victims laid out upon it, Egyptian bulls that had been sacrificed and great hogs, and some of them were being flayed and others were being cut up; and two gold vases had been dedicated set with jewels, the rarest and most beautiful that India can provide. So he went to the priest and said: "What is all this; for someone is making a very handsome gift to the god?"

And the priest replied: "You may rather be surprised at a man's offering all this without having first put up a prayer in our fane, and without having stayed with us as long as other people do, and without having gained his health from the god, and without obtaining all the things he came to ask for. For he appears to have come only yesterday, yet he is sacrificing on this lavish scale. And he declares that he will sacrifice more victims, and dedicate more gifts, if Asclepius will hearken to him. And he is one of the richest men in existence; at any rate he owns in Cilicia an estate bigger than all the Cilicians together possess. And he is supplicating the god to restore to him one of his eyes that has fallen out."

But Apollonius fixed his eyes upon the ground, as he was accustomed to do in later life, and asked: "What is his name?"

And when he heard it, he said: "It seems to me, O priest, that we ought not to welcome this fellow in the Temple: for he is some ruffian who has come here, and that he is afflicted in this way is due to some sinister reason: nay, his very conduct in sacrificing on such a magnificent scale before he has gained anything from the god is not that of a genuine votary, but rather of a man who is begging himself off for the penalty of some horrible and cruel deed."

This was what Apollonius said: and Asclepius appeared to the priest by night, and said: "Send away so and so at once with all his possessions, and let him keep them, for he deserves to lose the other eye as well."

The priest accordingly made inquiries about the Cilician and learned that his wife by a former marriage had borne a daughter, and he had fallen in love with the maiden and had seduced her, and was living with her in open sin. For the mother had surprised the two in bed, and had put out both her eyes and one of his by stabbing them with her brooch-pin.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-04-2008, 07:12 AM

[QUOTE=Jeffrey Gibson;5251362]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Coneybeare's Priest of Asclepius Count

SOURCE: http://www.chrestos.com/apollonius1-5

There are five references in this section alone.
What is your point Jeffrey?

Five is not "at least" nine.

Moreover, you might want to take into account the fact that in the context of section 11 of Book One (and in the light of the description of the Asclepeum at Aegae in section 7 and section 11 as a "shrine", not a temple) the term that C. translates as "priest" (i.e., ἱερεύς) is actually being used by Philostratus with the sense of "sacrificer, diviner".

Jeffrey

mountainman · 04-04-2008, 07:25 PM

[QUOTE=Jeffrey Gibson;5251420]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Five is not "at least" nine.

http://www.chrestos.com/apollonius1-1

Reference in general to "prophets and priests"

Quote:

For Empedocles and Pythagoras himself and Democritus consorted with wizards and uttered many supernatural truths, yet never stooped to the black art; and Plato went to Egypt and mingled with his own discourses much of what he heard from the prophets and priests there; and though, like a painter, he laid his own colours on to their rough sketches, yet he never passed for a wizard, although envied above all mankind for his wisdom.

Cumulative Count = 0

http://www.chrestos.com/apollonius1-4

Quote:

After then having thus purged his interior, he took to walking without shoes by way of adornment and clad himself in linen raiment, declining to wear any animal product; and he let his hair grow long and lived in the Temple. And the people round about the Temple were struck with admiration for him, and the god Asclepius one day said to the priest that he was delighted to have Apollonius as witness of his cures of the sick; and such was his reputation that the Cilicians themselves and the people all around flocked to Aegae to visit him. Hence the Cilician proverb: "Whither runnest thou? Is it to see the stripling?"

Such was the saying that arose about him, and it gained the distinction of becoming a proverb.

Cumulative Count = 1

http://www.chrestos.com/apollonius1-5

Previously remitted to the Gibson inquisition.
Five citations to Coneybeare's "priest":

Cumulative Count = 6

http://www.chrestos.com/apollonius1-6

Quote:

11. Again he inculcated the wise rule that in our sacrifices or dedications we should not go beyond the just mean, in the following way. On one occasion several people had flocked to the Temple, not long after the expulsion of the Cilician, and he took the occasion to ask the priest the following questions: "Are then," he said, "the gods just?" "Why, of course, most just," answered the priest.

"Well, and are they wise?"

"And what," said the other, "can be wiser than the godhead?"

"But do they know the affairs of men, or are they without experience of them?"

"Why," said the other, "this is just the point in which the gods excel mankind, for the latter, because of their frailty, do not understand their own concerns, whereas the gods have the privilege of understanding the affairs both of men and of themselves."

"All your answers," said Apollonius, "are excellent, O priest, and very true. Since then, they know everything, it appears to me that a person who comes to the house of God and has a good conscience, should put up the following prayer:

'O ye gods, grant unto me that which I deserve.'

For," he went on, "the holy, O priest, surely deserve to receive blessings, and the wicked the contrary. Therefore the gods, as they are beneficent, if they find anyone who is healthy and whole and unscarred by vice, will send him on his way, surely, after crowning him, not with golden crowns, but with all sorts of blessings; but if they find a man branded with sin and utterly corrupt, they will hand him over and leave him to justice, after inflicting their wrath upon him all the more, because he dared to invade their Temple without being pure."

And at the same moment he looked towards Asclepius, and said: "O Asclepius, the philosophy you teach is secret and congenial to yourself, in that you suffer not the wicked to come hither, not even if they pour into your lap all the wealth of India and Sardes. For it is not out of reverence for the divinity that they sacrifice these victims and suspend these offerings, but in order to purchase a verdict, which you will not concede to them in your perfect justice."

A further four instances.

Cumulative Count = 10 without having to go any further.

Quote:

Moreover, you might want to take into account the fact that in the context of section 11 of Book One (and in the light of the description of the Asclepeum at Aegae in section 7 and section 11 as a "shrine", not a temple) the term that C. translates as "priest" (i.e., ἱερεύς) is actually being used by Philostratus with the sense of "sacrificer, diviner".

I will generously take into account the matter, as footnote material, when you address the profusion of references in Coneybeare to the priesthood of Ascelpius - Coneybeare selects to use the term priest.

What actually separates the pagan priesthood and the "christian priesthood" but a slight misunderstanding at the council of Nicaea over the words of Arius of Alexandria. The sedition, the parodies, the polemic, the songs, the words of Arius are the words from the pagan priesthood, perhaps, but not necessarily, of Asclepius.

How DOCETIC was the report of Arius' unbelief? If Arius was a pagan priest then we are not dealing docetic theology. If Arius was a pagan priest then we are dealing with political sedition against Constantine.

Quote:

A political analysis of a letter composed about 333 CE by Constantine, addressed to Arius and the Arians. Constantine would very much like to publically execute Arius, but he does not know exactly where Arius is - perhaps Syria. Arius is revealed as someone who had previously been conspicuous by his silence and unobtrusive character. He is described in the manner of an ascetic priest. Constantine is stung by the anti-christian polemic in the writings of Arius; Arius is the focus of belief in unbelief of Constantine's new political and religious initiatives.

Constantine reveals that Arius "reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church". A very nasty letter by a very nasty despot. Eventually Constantine manages to poison Arius, but before that time when Arius was no longer, he had composed a number of texts against the Pontifex Maximus' preferred and sponsored cult. These heretical writings were sought out by the orthodox.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-04-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I will generously take into account the matter, as footnote material, when you address the profusion of references in Coneybeare to the priesthood of Ascelpius - Coneybeare selects to use the term priest.

For one person who was overseeing the offering up of an extremely unusual gift at the shrine of Asclepius at Aegae --hardly proof that there was a "priesthood" of Asclepius, especially since the term is not used anywhere else apart from, let alone earlier than, Philostratus for a devotes of Asclepius.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 04-05-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Docetic belief was heretical.
To the docetic, Jesus was not real.
He only "seemed to exist"
but did not in fact do so.

Could this be a euphemism
equivalent to the belief
that Jesus was a fiction?

No. This theory ignores the recorded history.

Please select your preferred citation to "recorded history" before 312 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

And finally, I hope that there are none
silly enough to think for one moment
that there would not have been people
on the planet in antiquity who, when
hearing all this ********* about your man,
Jesus, did not immediately think the
text may well have been fiction.

A Big question for smart minds:

Why dont we hear of such belief?
Wouldn't it be expected?

We do hear of unbelief many times in the New Testament (eg., Paul on Mars' Hill or many of the Jews who saw Jesus but refused to believe) and in the church father's writings. It is hard to miss if you read it. You can certainly see it if you have a smart mind (and are honest), but even if you just have an average mind it is hard to miss the references to unbelievers.

Eusebius tenders the new testament, he tenders his Ecclesiatical Church Fathers' Histories and associated letters from the archives in Edessa, he tenders the Martyr accounts, the geographical discurses, he tendered an entire package which was lavishly appointed in all areas of fiction. The Constantinian inspired scriptoria of that epoch probably also had their hand in the Historia Augusta at some stage in the preceedings.

Evidence and not rhetoric is required at this stage.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.