Sheshbazzar

Except the inscriptions do not actually contain the words "Jesus" or "christ" only nomina sacra symbols which have commonly been-supposed-, and accepted to be of a "christian" religious origination.

That period was a time of tremendous religious syncretism, any of these so called holy nomina sacra may have been at first the iconography of any of the Hellenic
"Mystery Cult" gods, and "kyrios" and "Theos" are certainly of pre-christian derivation and usage.

If I were to place a bet, it would be that it is only a matter of time till unquestionably pre-christian sites reveal the irrefutable evidence that these same nomina sacra were formerly used in distinctly pre-christian and non-christian religious venues.
Or rather that the word "christian" was not originally used to identify the beliefs of the Nazarene sect, but rather identical in origins and intent to -chrestos- "the good" (but utterly goyim) "shepherd" god, which soon and easily was syncretized with the idea and legends of the Jews long awaited messiah.

Kind of like the decorating of a X-mass tree, it starts with a bare tree (the Jewish messiah hope) that has a lot of green (ready) branches, syncretism then decorates that bare tree with hundreds of glittering, eye catching ornaments, (the popular stories and myths)
Then the decorators stand back and oooh and ahhh at the beauty of their work,
Their children stand in awe, spell-bound by the splendor of their fathers work.
They are warned to stand back, for fear that the fragile ornaments will fall from the branches and be shattered.

Let alone, let alone, Yea, we go forth and celebrate the X-mass day.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
Ho ho ho!

mountainman

Dear Shesh,

Certainly the children of the epoch of the three hundred and eighteen fathers - the plain and simple chrestos (state) religion - were instructed to be in agreement with the work of literature. Indeed the original 318 themselves may have had no choice but to agree with Constantine. Also, a very rough collation of notes on the references to
chrestos and christos in antiquity.

Best wishes,


Pete

Sheshbazzar

Thanks for that link montaiman,
Very enlightening, as all I had previousy of this information was snipets gleaned here and there, nice to have a single source where it is so well collated and arranged.


Shesh
sixth

avi

Thanks very much for the link, Toto, there I read, for the first time, that Here's another photograph of the two fish, a bit clearer, to my eye at least.

Ok, are we to conclude therefore, that this would not then have been a Nazarene site? How about a proto-Arian site? Arius considered himself a pupil of Lucien of Antioch, right? Were there not followers of either Lucien himself, or Paul of Samosata about the same time, latter portion of the third century, who could have built this mosaic--using terminology "God Jesus Christ", (assuming, for sake of argument, that those infernal nomina sacra actually do refer to the words suggested)? Umm. How was the date established for these two mosaics: (from the link above, the "clearer" fish: Apparently??? Seems to be dated from end of the third century???? Dated how?

Sheshbazzar

At this point it is premature to become too firmly fixed upon any particular "conclusions".
What we have to do is to be as objective as possible in examining all the possibilities.

From my perspective the iconography, symbology, and inscriptions are of Hellenic origination.
The Christian church father's accounts tell us that the Jewish Nazerenes remained admantly attached to the use of Hebrew in regards to all of their Scriptural texts.

Nazarenes or "ebee'on'eem" ("Ebionites" sic) living as devout Jews under The Law in Jewish communities, or in indepndent Nazarene settelments, would have shunned the use of goyim religious icons, and the employment of Greek language, particularly in a religious setting.
There is a strong possibility that this was a pre-christian "Chreistan" religious site, which at that point in time would not nesscesarily have had any significant connections to, nor yet accomodated to ideas that were latter adopted from The Sect of The Nazarenes and their Jewish messiah.

IE. There would have been devotees of Theos Iesu Chrestos, but they likely would not have recognized this "god" as being of any Jewish origin.
And the Nazarene Messianic Jews for their part, would shun such a cult as being the "serving the gods of the nations" in violation of the formost of their Laws.

Greco/Roman theology had always been syncristic, easily adapting and incorporating religious ideas and imagery from any cultures they came into contact with.

The Jews however in three hundred or so preceeding years, had underwent situations that had repeatedly threatened their very survival as an identifiable nation and culture.
The result of this was within the borders of Israel, a quite extreme retreat into strict interpretation and maintanace of their distinctive religious texts, beliefs, and practices.
The Rabbi's and the people, in defense of their own cultural traditions, began detesting anything associated with Greek culture, even though they were swamped with it on every side.
This environment put The Sect of The Nazerenes at the extreme opposite of that Gentile "chreistian" freedom to syncretise.
Whereas gentile Chrestian's could incorporate, or make up new stories, based around "borrowed" pagan ideas from here, there, and everywhere,
A Nazarene to remain faithful to the Torah, and remain submissive to the Jewish authorities, had no such flexibility.

Thus the Chrestians were eventually able to incorporate many Nazarene ideas, but the Nazerenes were forbidden by their authorities, and by their convictions, from incorporating or accepting the Gentile Chrestian stories and ideas.
Thus the two groups remained at odds, right up into the 4th or 5th century.

The big mistake in dealing with these matters is the natural tendency to "Christianize", and mistakenly identify and conflate the totally Jewish Nazarene/Ebionite religion, with the greatly different Gentile Chrestian religion of the first through fourth centuries, which ultimately overran and marginalized the fixed and inflexable Nazarene faith.

mountainman

Dear avi,

I dispute the notion of the historical existence of "proto-Arianism" on the basis of the sequence of events by which the words of Arius, Arius himself, and the great and utterly blasphemous controversy over the words of Arius (and/or Arius himself) known as the Arian controversy. Before Arius was there was nobody like him (or his effects).

There was a great battle between the forces of the Snake (Lucinius and Asclepius) and the forces of the CHRESTOS (Constantine's new good / Christian monotheistic "state" religion) and the Snake went down. Constantine then utterly destroys many Snake temples and the den of the "snakes" down in Alexandria and Egypt. This trend is replicated for generations of "christian state emperors".

The christian state religion wrote and preserved our "history" of this wonderful and supreme victory of this epoch. Arius of Alexandria is presented by this history as being the focus of any and all resistance to the aftermath of this military victory and architecture destruction and LEGISLATION. Therefore IMO Arius was a greek academic ascetic of Alexandria, most likely a priest, or high priest of one of the local temples which had been demolished (or use prohibited by law) by Constantine's forces. He is described as a logician in some sources, clever in disputation in others. A letter exant from Constantine confirms he has a great deal of popular support, and that he was an author of tractates against the very pure canon of the new christian state monotheism.

These works were considered heretical. They were hunted down for a spell and collected. Could it be that some of these works today survive as the NT apochrypha (which like the gospels remain unassociated with figures of any great historicity)?

Constantine's orders for the destruction of literature mention two names - Porphyry (who we believe to have lived his last days in Rome) and Arius (whom we believe to be of Alexandria). So I would argue that it is not reasonable to dismiss Arius of Alexandria as "a pupil of Lucien of Antioch".

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

About which you have shown yourself utterly incapable of understanding, not to mention grossly under informed.

Umm ... how then do you explain that Origen was called "the father of Arius" by Epiphanius and later condemned for "subordinationism"

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

You might want to know that, as his link demonstrates, Pete is incapable of determining or adducing correctly what is and is not a reference to, or a usage of, the adjective χρηστός ή, όν in ancient literature. Many of the instances he claims are such are most definitely not -- and he doesn't know, and couldn't tell you if you asked him, which are which.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

The reference was given as "a very rough collation of notes". I refer to such things as "stubs of information" or a first draft attempt at gathering together some related material. You are an expert in this field. I am a student. These things I will admit. However a student must start with a first draft surely you must agree. Look at this as a first draft taking an hour or so. Constantinople was not built in a day.

Best wishes,


Pete

avi

Was Paul of Samosata the bishop of Antioch in Syria? Was Paul supported by Zenobia, until overthrown by Roman Emperor Aurelian? Couldn't a group of his followers have settled at Dura-Europos in Syria?

I don't know the answers.

However, I believe, based on this one citation, above, that Paul's ideas, (at such complete odds with the Trinitarians of the day, (or, later if they emerged in force, under Constantine, half a century after Paul)) believing that Jesus was born a man, and not a god, but became a god, were probably accepted by at least some other people of the era, else, how could he have attained such stature and power? Wasn't the Bishop of Antioch one of the most important leaders of that era? Why couldn't a group of his disciples/followers have established this mosaic, evidently at odds with conventional church thinking: the God, Jesus Christ.

Isn't the prison site where the excavations uncovered these mosaics a bit distant from the center of Jerusalem, not unlike the kind of remote area that a sect would seek, i.e. somewhat off the beaten path?