Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-11-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

If Eusebius constructed gnosticism and then their history they were truly f'ed in the Albigensian Crusades! Set up an enemy and then destroy them!

I believe it is possible to argue that Eusebius constructed gnosticism
as a means to bridge the lineage of succession of the ancient recognised
wisdom of the neo-platonists and neo-pythagoreans to his literary (fiction!)
development of the evolution of his "tribe of christians".

Such wisdom existed in antiquity, and was recognised by all.
But it did not serve Constantine. I believe that it can be argued that
that the Eusebian literary device was obviously used (as outlined by
Eusebius above) to calumnify this "tribe of wisdom" and so leave the
sole remaining "tribe of christians" the exclusive holders of a tradition
that was "just as great as the ancient wisdom".

Additionally, there is the issue of Apollonius of Tyana, and the physical
destruction of his literature and memory, and the calumny of his wisdom
as a result of the Eusebian treatise and subsequent "creeds".

The possibility remains that:
Apollonius was DELETED from
and Jesus was ADDED to history
by a massive literary campaign under Constantine.

You see, when we read history today, the link between Apollonius
and the neo-platonic/neo-pythagorean school (purported to be
initiated by Ammonius Saccas) is calumnified (an important word).
Nevertheless, it is clear by a study of the remnant writings of (and
biographies, letters and references) Apollonius, that this historical
figure was the founder of the NEO part of the neo-pythagoreans.

You say people were "truly f'ed in the Albigensian Crusades" and I say
that it happened first at Nicaea under Constantine. From that time we
have grounds to understand the (almost) immediate birth of the Roman
christian terms "pagan", "heathen" and "gentile" --- and not before that
time (325CE).

This exclusivity of view (us and them) expressed in the meaning and
usage of these three terms indicate a strong alignment to a Roman
imperial centered world-view.

The greatest of the "them" were the neo-pythagorean and neo-platonists
and they were destined to be made heretics within a generation of Nicea.
Eusebian literature was used to justify this in the 4th century.

Quote:

(See my post on gnosticism in GT thread).

An interesting thread which I have been following.

Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

Peter Kirby · 05-11-2006, 07:49 PM

Pete Brown,

If you can't explicate and define these categories drawing on the data, we can't have a discussion of possible differences. It's like debating whether 'Qumranians' and 'Essenes' are the same without defining what is meant by either, and without identifying the assumptions made by creating such categories (e.g., that the Dead Sea Scrolls originally come from Qumran?).

Create the categories before comparing them. If you want to fall back on existing research as you intimate at one point, then do so. Cite your sources for defining gnosticism, and defining neopythagoreanism.

Otherwise we are talking about nothing.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Clivedurdle · 05-12-2006, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Pete Brown,

If you can't explicate and define these categories drawing on the data, we can't have a discussion of possible differences. It's like debating whether 'Qumranians' and 'Essenes' are the same without defining what is meant by either, and without identifying the assumptions made by creating such categories (e.g., that the Dead Sea Scrolls originally come from Qumran?).

Create the categories before comparing them. If you want to fall back on existing research as you intimate at one point, then do so. Cite your sources for defining gnosticism, and defining neopythagoreanism.

Otherwise we are talking about nothing.

regards,
Peter Kirby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ophical_topics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

Clivedurdle · 05-12-2006, 02:20 AM

Quote:

As the churches throughout the world were now shining like the most brilliant stars, and faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was flourishing among the whole human race,12 the demon who hates everything that is good, and is always hostile to the truth, and most bitterly opposed to the salvation of man,turned all his arts against the Church.13 In the beginning he armed himself against it with external persecutions.

2 But now, being shut off from the use of such means,14 he devised all sorts of plans, and employed other methods in his conflict with the Church, using base and deceitful men as instruments for the ruin of souls and as ministers of destruction. Instigated by him, impostors and deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, brought to the depth of ruin such of the believers as they could win over, and at the same time, by means of the deeds which they practiced, turned away from the path which leads to the word of salvation those who were ignorant of the faith.

3 Accordingly there proceeded from that Menander, whom we have already mentioned as the successor of Simon,15 a certain serpent-like power, double-tongued and two-headed, which produced the leaders of two different heresies, Saturninus, an Antiochian by birth,16 and Basilides, an Alexandrian.17 The former of these established schools of godless heresy in Syria, the latter in Alexandria.

The above is an incredible propaganda statement - equivalent to Nazi stuff about Jews - that led directly to a horrific crusade in Languedoc.

Why is Eusebius not treated as equivalent to Mein Kampf or the Protocols?

Gnosticism was not invented by Basilides! That is a direct lie!

And Church History is based on this guy's writing?

Clivedurdle · 05-12-2006, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Zoroastrian teachings

The teachings of Zoroaster are presented in seventeen liturgical, texts, or "hymns", the yasna which is divided into groups called Gāthās.
If basic precepts of Zoroastrianism are to be distilled into a single maxim, the maxim is Humata, Hukhta, Huvarshta (Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds).
A cosmic struggle between Aša "The Truth" (Pahlavi Ahlāyīh) and Druj "The Lie" (Pahlavi Druz) is presented as the foundation of our existence. This is often related to a struggle between good and evil in a Western paradigm. This may also be conceptualized as a battle between Darkness and Light. The two opposing forces in this battle are Ahura Mazdā (Ohrmazd) (God) and Ahriman (The Devil). In the yasnas, Zoroaster refers to these forces as "the Better and the Bad."

I thought gnosticism developed this concept in that Satan created the world. Eusebius is using the classic zoroastrian distinction of good and evil but claiming his god (actually the gnostic devil) is the real one!

Darius in 522 BCE - the usurper - did the same tricks of claiming black is white!

Clivedurdle · 05-12-2006, 02:35 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

Umm - guess when the Inquisition was invented!

Quote:

The human condition
The Cathars proclaimed there existed within humankind a spark of divine light. This light, or spirit, had fallen into captivity within a realm of corruption — identified with the material world. This was a distinct feature of classical Gnosticism, of Manichaeism and of the theology of the Bogomils. This concept of the human condition within Catharism most probably was due to direct and indirect historical influences from these older (and sometimes also violently suppressed) Gnostic movements. According to the Cathars, the world had been created by a lesser deity, much like the figure known in classical Gnostic myth as the Demiurge. This creative force was not the "True God", though he made pretense of being the "one and only God" before whom was no other. The Cathars identified this lesser deity, the Demiurge, with Satan. (Most forms of classical Gnosticism had not made this explicit link between the Demiurge and Satan). Essentially, the Cathars proclaimed that the God worshipped by orthodox Christianity was an imposter, and his church was a corrupt abomination deeply infused by the failings of the material realm. Spirit — the vital essence of humanity — was thus trapped in a flawed physical realm created by a usurper and ruled by his corrupt minions.

Clivedurdle · 05-12-2006, 02:52 AM

The relationships between Eusebius and Constantine does seem to parallel that of Goebels and Hitler!

Toto · 05-12-2006, 09:45 AM

NOoooo.... not Godwin's law this early in the morning.... except no one is arguing with you ... I need some coffee or something....

Clivedurdle · 05-12-2006, 10:11 AM

Seriously though, Darius played this black is white game, and the stuff about Eusebius and the "gnostics" looks like a classic power game move - demean the real royal family line and pretend our lot are the original!

andrewcriddle · 05-12-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Gnosticism was not invented by Basilides! That is a direct lie!

And Church History is based on this guy's writing?

As far as I can see Eusebius is not claiming Basilides invented Gnosticism.

Basilides is presented as a disciple of Menander who was a disciple of Simon Magus who is the original creator of Gnosticism.

(This is probably untrue but it is what Eusebius seems to be saying.)

Andrew Criddle

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

05-11-2006, 07:49 PM	#12
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Pete Brown, If you can't explicate and define these categories drawing on the data, we can't have a discussion of possible differences. It's like debating whether 'Qumranians' and 'Essenes' are the same without defining what is meant by either, and without identifying the assumptions made by creating such categories (e.g., that the Dead Sea Scrolls originally come from Qumran?). Create the categories before comparing them. If you want to fall back on existing research as you intimate at one point, then do so. Cite your sources for defining gnosticism, and defining neopythagoreanism. Otherwise we are talking about nothing. regards, Peter Kirby

05-12-2006, 02:52 AM	#17
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The relationships between Eusebius and Constantine does seem to parallel that of Goebels and Hitler!

05-12-2006, 09:45 AM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	NOoooo.... not Godwin's law this early in the morning.... except no one is arguing with you ... I need some coffee or something....

05-12-2006, 10:11 AM	#19
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Seriously though, Darius played this black is white game, and the stuff about Eusebius and the "gnostics" looks like a classic power game move - demean the real royal family line and pretend our lot are the original!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.