Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 11-04-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

In response to my unlearned question about the selection process for attendees at Nicea in 325, Pete suggested:

1. Is there a source for this conclusion?

Dear avi,

This represents the conclusion of my thesis in ancient history: Eusebius tells us that the attendees walked through a wall of swords. The author Robin Lane-Fox in "Pagans and Christians" supports my contention that we are dealing -- in the councils of Antioch and Nicaea -- with military supremacy councils

Can you define the term 'military supremacy council'? You are the only person known to Google to have used it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

at which people were pushed around, interrogated and executed by the command of Constantine. The Nicaean creed at the heart of formalised christianity, between the three hundred and eighteen fathers of the new Roman church and Constantine, was no more than an oath to Constantine by three hundred and eighteen people who had a sword placed against their throat. Do you understand what military coercion implies?

Constantine at once destroyed the ancient temples, homes literally for thousands of temple assistants and priest of various administrative levels, and he executed the leading priests. The temples lay in ruins. Constantine then probited their use for "business as usual". The Greek civilisation was thus brought to its knees. Where could these people go? What could they do? Constantine gave them no option. He created new structures called basilicas - the first christian churches, and with this new architecture, which was an absolutely huge building project across the empire, he set the foundation for a new class of people which he called his bishops on the basis that they called him the bishop of bishops.

Constantine personally appointed his Bishops in the new Roman religion. Each Bishop was responsible for a small region called a diocese, and enjoyed the local control of the area in all matters of Roman religion. The more important administration responsibilities was work involving financial and administration duties. In total it has been estimated that the empire hosted in this fashion as many as 1800 of Constantine's new bishops. Constantine often referred to himself as "Bishop of bishops", the reference having twofold significance in that the Greek "episkopos" (bishop) also means "spy.

He executed the Hellenic bishops - the Hellenic pythagorean and platonic lineage priests, academics, logicians, mathematicians, astronomers and astrologers, etc -- highly related to the network of temples to Apollo and to the Healing god Ascelpius, the son of Apollo. These Constantine utterly destroyed, as a Hitler and a malevolent military supremacist despot.

He got rid of the old and brought it, one by one, systematically interviewing the people of the eastern empire, a new lineage of his three hundred and eighteen fathers who had signed an oath against the words of Arius of Alexandria.

avi asked you why you think Constantine would have done this. You have responded by particularising at some length what it is that you think Constantine did, while continuing to evade the question of why he would have done this.

mountainman · 11-04-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear J-D,

The earlier paragraph 16 commencing
This is describing the impious corpse of Julian, and para 16 then concludes with

This seems to ascribe Julian's impiety to the greek academics of the Academy, etc, the pagans.

So then we immediately have in para 16:

This appears also to continuously describe the corpse of the impious Julian. Therefore the phrase, out of regard for his father (who had laid the foundation of ... the Christian religion) I am still at a loss to whom the author refers to unless it was Julian's father, who had been appointed by Constantine a few years before Constantine's death, to consulship, and perhaps also some christian designation was associated thereto.

Perhaps Nazianzen believed Julian's father to have been one of the three hundred and eighteen fathers whom Constantine assembled at Nicaea? Perhaps Nazianzen was unaware that Constantine had kept his half-brother a political prisoner for most of his life (305-336)? This may be possible. We need not assume everyone was in possession of this fact at that time.

Paragraph 16 refers to 'the corpse of the impious one'. Paragraph 17 begins 'We, however ...', the word 'however' implying a contrast, and then goes on to refer to 'the earthly Tabernacle [in other words, corpse] of him that had spent his life in reigning righteously'. I think 'him that had spent his life in reigning righteously' must be a different person from 'the impious one'. Paragraph 18 then begins 'But as for the other ...', implying a contrast with the subject of paragraph 17, presumably returning to the 'impious one' referred to in paragraph 16. This interpretation seems to me to be supported by the fact that paragraphs 16 and 18 both contemn somebody, while paragraph 17 praises somebody.

Dear J-D,

Supposing for the moment that you are correct in your analysis above, who then is the author referring to when he says "out of regard for his father (who had laid the foundation of ... the Christian religion)"?

When were the foundations of the christian religion laid?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 11-04-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Can you define the term 'military supremacy council'? You are the only person known to Google to have used it.

Dear J-D,

Try instead the term "supreme military council".

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 11-04-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

He executed the Hellenic bishops - the Hellenic pythagorean and platonic lineage priests, academics, logicians, mathematicians, astronomers and astrologers, etc -- highly related to the network of temples to Apollo and to the Healing god Ascelpius, the son of Apollo. These Constantine utterly destroyed, as a Hitler and a malevolent military supremacist despot.

He got rid of the old and brought it, one by one, systematically interviewing the people of the eastern empire, a new lineage of his three hundred and eighteen fathers who had signed an oath against the words of Arius of Alexandria.

avi asked you why you think Constantine would have done this. You have responded by particularising at some length what it is that you think Constantine did, while continuing to evade the question of why he would have done this.

Dear J-D,

Why did Hitler attack the Jews? Why did Ardashir in 222 CE attack and destroy the ancient Parthian civilisation and establish a brand new regime? You are asking me why I think Constantine attacked and destroyed the ancient Hellenic civilisation and established a brand new regime for his basilica cult? Perhaps he did not like the Hellenic civilisation? Perhaps he had a bad experience while he was a hostage in the eastern courts of Diocletian during the decade leading up to his escape from the east, and his flight west to his father in Briton? Perhaps he was seeking some revenge against this civilisation of the eastern Roman empire, for something that had occurred while he was held hostage there. He certainly made a serious escape bid from the eastern empire, killing all the horses of each way-station as he took fresh horses, so that he could not be pursued. He obviously at that time c.304 CE felt he was in enemy territory. I hope this response serves to explore this difficult question.

BTW, can you can answer the first two questions above?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 11-04-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Paragraph 16 refers to 'the corpse of the impious one'. Paragraph 17 begins 'We, however ...', the word 'however' implying a contrast, and then goes on to refer to 'the earthly Tabernacle [in other words, corpse] of him that had spent his life in reigning righteously'. I think 'him that had spent his life in reigning righteously' must be a different person from 'the impious one'. Paragraph 18 then begins 'But as for the other ...', implying a contrast with the subject of paragraph 17, presumably returning to the 'impious one' referred to in paragraph 16. This interpretation seems to me to be supported by the fact that paragraphs 16 and 18 both contemn somebody, while paragraph 17 praises somebody.

Dear J-D,

Supposing for the moment that you are correct in your analysis above, who then is the author referring to when he says "out of regard for his father (who had laid the foundation of ... the Christian religion)"?

When were the foundations of the christian religion laid?

Best wishes,

Pete

If I'm right that Gregory is referring to the death of a Christian Emperor, I'm not sure which Christian Emperor he's referring to, so I can't say who the father he's referring to (as 'laying the foundation of ... the Christian religion') is, either. Further, he also refers to that father as 'laying the foundation of the imperial power'. That's a puzzling reference to me, no matter who he's talking about. If you asked me 'who laid the foundation of Roman imperial power', I might think of Augustus, perhaps, or another figure much earlier than the period now under discussion. This makes me uncertain what Gregory means by 'laying the foundation' in this context.

If you're asking me for my opinion about dating the first origins of the Christian religion, my answer would be in the first century, but that's another matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Can you define the term 'military supremacy council'? You are the only person known to Google to have used it.

Dear J-D,

Try instead the term "supreme military council".

Best wishes,

Pete

I've heard of 'Supreme Military Councils' before. You find them in a number of countries (or at any rate did until recently) where a group of army officers have seized political control and then established a 'Supreme Military Council' as the official embodiment of their power. Typical of Africa, I think. The Council of Nicaea doesn't match. If you mean, when you describe the Council of Nicaea as a 'military supremacy council', to suggest that it is similar to the Supreme Military Council of Ghana, or of Niger, or of Nigeria, then you're wrong. If you mean something else, I still don't know what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

avi asked you why you think Constantine would have done this. You have responded by particularising at some length what it is that you think Constantine did, while continuing to evade the question of why he would have done this.

Dear J-D,

Why did Hitler attack the Jews? Why did Ardashir in 222 CE attack and destroy the ancient Parthian civilisation and establish a brand new regime? You are asking me why I think Constantine attacked and destroyed the ancient Hellenic civilisation and established a brand new regime for his basilica cult? Perhaps he did not like the Hellenic civilisation? Perhaps he had a bad experience while he was a hostage in the eastern courts of Diocletian during the decade leading up to his escape from the east, and his flight west to his father in Briton? Perhaps he was seeking some revenge against this civilisation of the eastern Roman empire, for something that had occurred while he was held hostage there. He certainly made a serious escape bid from the eastern empire, killing all the horses of each way-station as he took fresh horses, so that he could not be pursued. He obviously at that time c.304 CE felt he was in enemy territory. I hope this response serves to explore this difficult question.

BTW, can you can answer the first two questions above?

Best wishes,

Pete

I gather then that your answer to avi's question is that you don't know, which I think, in this case, is fair enough. There's no reason why Constantine should not have had such a personal motivating animus. Of course, even if we don't have a fatal objection to your theory on that point, we also still don't have one shred of evidence in favour of it.

mountainman · 11-04-2008, 10:09 PM

As a matter of interest here in this GREGORY NAZIANZEN'S SECOND INVECTIVE AGAINST JULIAN THE EMPEROR we find an explicit mention of that ultimate historiographic mystery called "The Historia Augusta" ...

Quote:

13. Up to this point, such is the universal account; but thenceforward, one and the same story is not told by all, but different accounts are reported and made up by different people, both of those present at the battle, and those not present; for some say that he was hit by a dart |96 from the Persians, when engaged in a disorderly skirmish, as he was running hither and thither in his consternation; and the same fate befell him as it did to Cyrus, son of Parysatis, who went up with the Ten Thousand against his brother Artaxerxes, and by fighting inconsiderately threw away the victory through his rashness.9 Others, however, tell some such story as this respecting his end: that he had gone up upon a lofty hill to take a view of his army and ascertain how much was left him for carrying on the war; and that when he saw the number considerable and superior to his expectation, he exclaimed, "What a dreadful thing if we shall bring back all these fellows to the land of the Eomans!" as though he begrudged them a safe return. Whereupon one of his officers, being indignant and not able to repress his rage, ran him through the bowels, without caring for his own life. Others tell that the deed was done by a barbarian jester, such as follow the camp, "for the purpose of driving away ill humour and for amusing the men when they are drinking." This tale about the jester is borrowed from Lampridius, who gives it as one of the many current respecting the death of Alexander Severus. The "Historia Augusta," a recent compilation, was then in everybody's hands. At any rate, he receives a wound truly seasonable (or mortal) 10 and salutary for the whole world, and by a single cut from his slaughterer he pays the penalty for the many entrails of victims to which he had trusted (to his own destruction); but what surprises me, is how the vain man that fancied he learnt the future from that means, knew nothing of the wound about to be inflicted on his own entrails! The concluding |97 reflection is for once very appropriate: the liver of the victim was the approved means for reading the Future, and it was precisely in that organ that the arch-diviner received the fatal thrust.

Here is what livius.org have to say about this document:

Quote:

Historia Augusta: modern name of a collection of (bogus) biographies of Roman emperors of the second and third centuries.

At first sight, it looks as if during the reign of Constantine the Great, Trebellius Pollio and Flavius Vopiscus continued a project that had been started during the reign of Diocletian by Spartianus, Capitolinus, Lampridius, and Gallicanus.

The biographies of the emperors between 244 and 253 (Philippus Arabs, Decius, Trebonianus Gallus, Aemilianus) are missing, which is a pity, because here, we would have expected some sort of introduction to the second half of the Historia Augusta.

The fact that there seem to be two groups is interesting, because the four first authors lived during the reign of Diocletian, who persecuted the Christians, whereas Pollio and Vopiscus lived during the reign of the first Christian ruler of the Roman empire. Now the work appears to be written by people who shared a common outlook on the past, and agreed to the values of the pagan senatorial aristocracy of Rome. We would love to know whether the two teams knew each other, or whether the second team was working for or against Constantine.

Unfortunately, the prologue to the first part of the work is also missing. Here, the first four authors must have explained something about the aim of their project. It is also sad that the lives of Nerva and Trajan are lost; had they been there, we would have had some sort of bridge between the Lives of the Twelve Caesars by Suetonius and the Historia Augusta.

So we are left with a collection of imperial biographies that is damaged at precisely the two points where its authors might have explained what they were doing. Yet, probably the two lacunas are not coincidental at all, because the Historia Augusta is something like an ancient mockumentary.

As long ago as 1889, it has been suggested that the work was composed by one single author. (This idea was proposed by the great German Altertumswissenschaftler Hermann Dessau in a classic essay "Über Zeit und Persönlichkeit der Scriptor Historiae Augustae", in the journal Hermes.) A more recent stylistic analysis using computer techniques has confirmed this hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. But the six fake authors and the fake division into an earlier and a later phase of composition, are only the beginning of a lovely game of hide and seek.

Isn't this very reminiscent of Eusebius' "Historia Ecclesiastica"?

Quote:

One of the most charming aspects is the introduction of fake information, especially in the second half. At least one ruler has been invented, remarkable omens are introduced, and anecdotes are added. The information in the second half of the life of the decadent emperor Heliogabalus is very entertaining, but completely untrue, and only introduced as a contrast to the biography of his successor Severus Alexander, who is presented as the ideal ruler. Ancient readers must have loved these mirror images, and may have smiled when the author of the Life of Heliogabalus accused other authors of making up charges to discredit the emperor, and used them all the same.

The "minor" biographies (i.e. the lives of co-rulers and usurpers) are usually entirely invented. Of course this means that the Historia Augusta is not reliable as a source for these lives, but it is a very valuable source for those who want to reconstruct the values and ideas of the the senatorial elite of ancient Rome. The pagan senators were obviously credulous people, who preferred a vie romancée and were not interested in real biography. They liked novels and fiction, not history and facts. This literary taste is older than the Historia Augusta: the first example from the Roman world is the vie romancée of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus, which is in turn inspired by the Education of Cyrus by Xenophon.

The final section concerns estaimates as to when this document was assembled:

Quote:

Another aspect of the game is the fake date. It can be shown that the Life of Septimius Severus was written after another series of imperial biographies (either the Caesares by Aurelius Victor or the Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte), which continued to about 360/361. There are also several anachronisms and tacit references to people who lived in the fourth century and events that took place after the reign of Constantine.

It can certainly not be excluded that the Historia Augusta was in fact composed during the reign of Julianus Apostata (361-363), who briefly attempted to revive paganism. The text may have been part of an attempt to deduce from the splendor of Roman history that the pagan traditionalists were right, and Christianity was, from an historical point of view, an unRoman activity.

However, this interpretation is not without serious complications, and dates of publication during the reigns of Theodosius I (379-395) and Honorius (395-423) have been proposed as well. What is certain, is that it was composed before 425, because the Roman author Symmachus has used the Historia Augusta.

So at the end of all this we ask the question, whether it is relevant to ask what is this author nazianzen doing mentioning the work at he time of Julian's death, and whether this implies the work was extant, and known to nazianzen c.363 CE.

Best wishes,

Pete

avi · 11-05-2008, 03:58 AM

Challenging MountainMan's thesis that Lord Constantine created the New Testament, de novo, three questions were raised in response to Pete's suggestion that the Council of Nicea in 325 represented a military conference of trusted associates, all of whom entered as confidants of Constantine, and exited as "Bishops", each in charge of a diocese.

First: Is there a reference supporting Pete's notion, showing that one or more of these "bishops" attending Nicea, was previously a military lieutenant of Constantine? Is Eusebius a reliable source of information?

Second: What is the rationale for imposing this particular bureaucratic structure on the nascent religion? (i.e. given that no comparable system existed among the pagan antecedents, prior to Constantine's ostensible creation of Christianity.) By way of corollary, is there any evidence, prior to Constantine, supporting the contrary notion, i.e. existence of both Bishops and priests in North Africa, Jerusalem, Syria, Turkey, Greece, France or Italy, before 300CE? Wasn't Athanasius as a young man, a participant at Nicea? Was he a military subordinate of Constantine? Wasn't he already a Christian priest or "Bishop", of some notoriety, who received an invitation to participate at Nicea, based upon recommendations of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria? Am I confused about that bit of history?

Third: an explanation for the relative paucity of representation, particularly from Rome, of attendees at Nicea, with only five of 300 members claiming origin from Europe as a whole. 95% of the "Bishops" at Nicea came from the center of the contagion, i.e. Jerusalem, Syria, Egypt, Carthage, Turkey. Doesn't this distribution, skewed away from Constantine's power base (Rome) seem odd, for a military supremacy council?

I sought to express the point of view that it is far easier, logically, to explain these discrepancies if one accepts the "myth" that Christianity already existed more than a couple hundred years before Constantine. It seems, to me, at least, inconsistent with the military life style of any Roman absolute dictator, to run such a sloppy ship. It seems, intuitively, far more reasonable to assume that Constantine simply brought folks to Nicea, who were already "bishops". How can one, in the alternative, as proposed by Pete, accept the notion that there would be even one dissenting voice? History teaches us, unless it has been falsified, that a handful of the 300 "bishops" refused to sign Constantine's obligatory oath of allegiance at Nicea....How is that possible, if these were military commanders, rather than Christian priests/bishops? Christians forfeit their lives, rather than abandon their principles, whereas, military commanders obey the boss, irrespective of their own opinions.

Doug Shaver · 11-05-2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The first thing we could not do, obviously, is to produce 4 identical texts. What would the use be of that?

Nobody is asking for four identical texts. Four consistent texts, though, would have been extremely useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

We need an 80% spread of variation to make it realistic.

Variation OK. Blatant contradictions not OK.

J-D · 11-05-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

As a matter of interest here in this GREGORY NAZIANZEN'S SECOND INVECTIVE AGAINST JULIAN THE EMPEROR we find an explicit mention of that ultimate historiographic mystery called "The Historia Augusta" ...

Quote:

13. Up to this point, such is the universal account; but thenceforward, one and the same story is not told by all, but different accounts are reported and made up by different people, both of those present at the battle, and those not present; for some say that he was hit by a dart |96 from the Persians, when engaged in a disorderly skirmish, as he was running hither and thither in his consternation; and the same fate befell him as it did to Cyrus, son of Parysatis, who went up with the Ten Thousand against his brother Artaxerxes, and by fighting inconsiderately threw away the victory through his rashness.9 Others, however, tell some such story as this respecting his end: that he had gone up upon a lofty hill to take a view of his army and ascertain how much was left him for carrying on the war; and that when he saw the number considerable and superior to his expectation, he exclaimed, "What a dreadful thing if we shall bring back all these fellows to the land of the Eomans!" as though he begrudged them a safe return. Whereupon one of his officers, being indignant and not able to repress his rage, ran him through the bowels, without caring for his own life. Others tell that the deed was done by a barbarian jester, such as follow the camp, "for the purpose of driving away ill humour and for amusing the men when they are drinking." This tale about the jester is borrowed from Lampridius, who gives it as one of the many current respecting the death of Alexander Severus. The "Historia Augusta," a recent compilation, was then in everybody's hands. At any rate, he receives a wound truly seasonable (or mortal) 10 and salutary for the whole world, and by a single cut from his slaughterer he pays the penalty for the many entrails of victims to which he had trusted (to his own destruction); but what surprises me, is how the vain man that fancied he learnt the future from that means, knew nothing of the wound about to be inflicted on his own entrails! The concluding |97 reflection is for once very appropriate: the liver of the victim was the approved means for reading the Future, and it was precisely in that organ that the arch-diviner received the fatal thrust.

Here is what livius.org have to say about this document:

Isn't this very reminiscent of Eusebius' "Historia Ecclesiastica"?

No, it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The final section concerns estaimates as to when this document was assembled:

Quote:

Another aspect of the game is the fake date. It can be shown that the Life of Septimius Severus was written after another series of imperial biographies (either the Caesares by Aurelius Victor or the Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte), which continued to about 360/361. There are also several anachronisms and tacit references to people who lived in the fourth century and events that took place after the reign of Constantine.

It can certainly not be excluded that the Historia Augusta was in fact composed during the reign of Julianus Apostata (361-363), who briefly attempted to revive paganism. The text may have been part of an attempt to deduce from the splendor of Roman history that the pagan traditionalists were right, and Christianity was, from an historical point of view, an unRoman activity.

However, this interpretation is not without serious complications, and dates of publication during the reigns of Theodosius I (379-395) and Honorius (395-423) have been proposed as well. What is certain, is that it was composed before 425, because the Roman author Symmachus has used the Historia Augusta.

So at the end of all this we ask the question, whether it is relevant to ask what is this author nazianzen doing mentioning the work at he time of Julian's death, and whether this implies the work was extant, and known to nazianzen c.363 CE.

No, it's not relevant.

andrewcriddle · 11-05-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear J-D,

The earlier paragraph 16 commencing

Quote:

What then remained but for the corpse of the impious one to be carried home by the Romans, although he had closed his career in this manner?

This is describing the impious corpse of Julian, and para 16 then concludes with

Quote:

For although he had seemed to shake the foundations of the true faith, this, nevertheless, must be laid to the charge of his subordinates' stupidity and unsoundness, who, getting hold of a soul that was unsuspicious and not firmly grounded in religion, nor able to see the pitfalls in its path, led it astray what way they pleased, and under the pretence of correctness of doctrine, converted his zeal into sin.

This seems to ascribe Julian's impiety to the greek academics of the Academy, etc, the pagans.

So then we immediately have in para 16:

Quote:

17. We, however, more commonly out of regard for his father (who had laid the foundation of the imperial power and the Christian religion) as well as for the inheritance of the Faith that had come to him by descent----we reverenced with good reason the earthly Tabernacle of him that had spent his life in reigning righteously, that had finished his course with a holy end, and had left the supremacy to our side. And when the corpse drew near to the great imperial city, what needs it to mention the cortège of the whole army and the escort under arms that attended as upon the living emperor, or the crowd that poured forth from the splendid city, the most splendid that was ever seen, or ever will be? Nay, even that audacious and bold person, decorated with the still new purple, and therefore, as was natural, full of pride, himself forms a part of the funereal honour paid his predecessor, paying and receiving the same obligation, partly out of constraint, partly (they say) of his own free will, for the whole army, even though they submitted to the existing authority, nevertheless paid more respect to the deceased, for the reason that, somehow or other, we are naturally inclined to sympathize more with recent misfortune, mingling regret with our love, and adding compassion to the two. For this reasou they could not endure |101 that the departed one should not be honoured and received like an emperor.

This appears also to continuously describe the corpse of the impious Julian. Therefore the phrase, out of regard for his father (who had laid the foundation of ... the Christian religion) I am still at a loss to whom the author refers to unless it was Julian's father, who had been appointed by Constantine a few years before Constantine's death, to consulship, and perhaps also some christian designation was associated thereto.

Perhaps Nazianzen believed Julian's father to have been one of the three hundred and eighteen fathers whom Constantine assembled at Nicaea? Perhaps Nazianzen was unaware that Constantine had kept his half-brother a political prisoner for most of his life (305-336)? This may be possible. We need not assume everyone was in possession of this fact at that time.

Best wishes,

Pete

This passage is quite obviously comparing the funeral ceremonies of Julian with the funeral ceremonies of Constantius the son of Constantine who was overthrown by Julian.

Constantius' father Constantine laid the foundations of the Christian Roman Empire. Constantius was a committed Christian and sought (from a Christian point of view) to reign righteously make a good end and support the church.

However Constantius' sympathy with the Arian theological position was regarded by pro-Nicene Christians as shaking the foundations of the true faith. Gregory excuses Constantius by representing him as well meaning but gullible and led astray by his advisers.

Andrew Criddle

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

11-05-2008, 03:58 AM	#167
avi Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Location: eastern North America Posts: 1,468	Challenging MountainMan's thesis that Lord Constantine created the New Testament, de novo, three questions were raised in response to Pete's suggestion that the Council of Nicea in 325 represented a military conference of trusted associates, all of whom entered as confidants of Constantine, and exited as "Bishops", each in charge of a diocese. First: Is there a reference supporting Pete's notion, showing that one or more of these "bishops" attending Nicea, was previously a military lieutenant of Constantine? Is Eusebius a reliable source of information? Second: What is the rationale for imposing this particular bureaucratic structure on the nascent religion? (i.e. given that no comparable system existed among the pagan antecedents, prior to Constantine's ostensible creation of Christianity.) By way of corollary, is there any evidence, prior to Constantine, supporting the contrary notion, i.e. existence of both Bishops and priests in North Africa, Jerusalem, Syria, Turkey, Greece, France or Italy, before 300CE? Wasn't Athanasius as a young man, a participant at Nicea? Was he a military subordinate of Constantine? Wasn't he already a Christian priest or "Bishop", of some notoriety, who received an invitation to participate at Nicea, based upon recommendations of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria? Am I confused about that bit of history? Third: an explanation for the relative paucity of representation, particularly from Rome, of attendees at Nicea, with only five of 300 members claiming origin from Europe as a whole. 95% of the "Bishops" at Nicea came from the center of the contagion, i.e. Jerusalem, Syria, Egypt, Carthage, Turkey. Doesn't this distribution, skewed away from Constantine's power base (Rome) seem odd, for a military supremacy council? I sought to express the point of view that it is far easier, logically, to explain these discrepancies if one accepts the "myth" that Christianity already existed more than a couple hundred years before Constantine. It seems, to me, at least, inconsistent with the military life style of any Roman absolute dictator, to run such a sloppy ship. It seems, intuitively, far more reasonable to assume that Constantine simply brought folks to Nicea, who were already "bishops". How can one, in the alternative, as proposed by Pete, accept the notion that there would be even one dissenting voice? History teaches us, unless it has been falsified, that a handful of the 300 "bishops" refused to sign Constantine's obligatory oath of allegiance at Nicea....How is that possible, if these were military commanders, rather than Christian priests/bishops? Christians forfeit their lives, rather than abandon their principles, whereas, military commanders obey the boss, irrespective of their own opinions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.