Toto

Why? Julian would classify himself as an explicit pagan and an apostate from the Christian religion (if he used those terms.)



How does this support you? The prohibition of pagan sacrifice was aimed at pagans, not gnostics. Do you have any attacks on heretics for sacrificing animals? Or any evidence that they did?

Elijah

Oops sorry. I’m American. Over here these ideas don’t first reach us by serious philosophical students of eastern philosophy but new age religious movements and celebrities so they have little credibility with the average citizen. It’s not that most people here don’t see the benefit of meditation, just the idea that it’s a solution to the world’s problems or offers any long-term salvation doesn’t seem plausible to most and is generally thrown in the category of crackpot by many.
Don’t know what would qualify him as one by the reified nothing concept being the basis of everything he’s pushing in the video. Makes you realize why they called the Christian message the “good news”; that’s depressing there.
The fig tree is a known symbol for Greek wisdom?

Ooooops again. The link was to the abstract, not the links to the chapters. I didn’t see a link moving it forward but just cut some of the url to go back and found it. Sorry I should have tried harder to find what you were talking about and it sure would have been helpful for me to read that first. Doh.

The author is using a fairly new sect called Sant Mat as an example of the type of Mysticism he thinks the Gnostics were practicing. It’s actually not about the platonic or philosophical influence at all.

Thought it was a good paper the author made the point I was trying to make about the Gnostics earlier.

“Although each Gnostic sect may emphasize one philosophical point over another, the fundamental aspiration always remains the same: the pursuit of gnosis [2]; this is the common thread among all the sects.”

The Gnostics base their salvation on knowledge somehow. The author is pushing the idea that salvation via knowledge is received via mystic experience with the Gnostics not just handed out knowledge which I would agree that was the case the majority of the time. But that’s just speculating because casual knowledge being sold as having some type of benefit being sold to the masses.
Yea but what are they doing with those texts and what are the benefits? Is it just a simple school or a form of philosophical mysticism you are suggesting like the article?

I think we should be able to examine the nature of the religion in comparison’s to the Gnostics and the philosophers without getting tooooo wrapped up in when the religion started or the exact details of its formation.

Regardless if Christ spoke it or Constantine wrote it what you need to keep in mind when trying to understanding the ideology is that what is being pushed is a faith based initiative to bring about the resurrection of the dead. Unlike the Gnostics and the philosophers salvation wasn’t found in connecting or knowing about the eternal elements of the universe and the reward wasn’t a better reincarnation. Salvation for Christianity/Constantine is about getting your name called when they start to resurrect people which apparently some Jewish or Zoroastrian prophets had suggested God would be resurrecting the dead as an alternative to reincarnation. Getting on the call up list requires you having faith in Jesus to help spread his message to expedite his second coming at which time he promised to call up those who helped spread the Jesus for king concept. This idea gets attached to a specific empire which means spreading Rome across the world can now be justified to Christians as spreading Christ and helping bring about the new day.

mountainman

The gnostics were deemed heretics on account of their greek writings
(including the coptic and syriac versions) about "the Jesus Figure".
The literature which we have in our possession (the NT apocrypha)
is the literature authored by these heretics against the state religion.

Julian studied and wrote a great deal - all very Hellenistic, taking particular care to outlines the merits of the Hellenistic pantheon of wisdom including Asclepius and Plato. We may see Julian as a pagan for his habit of burning bulls and other animals, but this was the baggage of anitiquity. It also fitted in to the social structure of the period, since the temples which were almost gone when Julian arrived -- were also the centers of sacrificial food. This food was used by the processes in the public hospital systems which the archaeologists tell us were quite ubiquitous under Asclepius from the period early BCE until they were destroyed in the fourth century.
Constantine took the meat trade away from the temples by prohibiting temple useage.

But the libraries and places of study and learning were also associated with the temples, and the prohibition thus effected the culture - especially of the eastern empire c.324 CE. Closing the temples was equivaent to a lock-down. In today's terms it would have to be the equivalent of closing all state and local and federal government buildings. Therefore it is reasonable to suspect that alternative "libraries" were established out of town by the resistance, such as at Nag Hammadi and other monastic locations like Oxyrhynchus.


The writings of Julian have been burnt and censored by the fourth and fifth century christians and have suffered mutilation in transmission. It is safe to say Julian did not consider himself a christian - or rather "Galilaean" - which term he legislated christians be henceforth called.

If we accept the evidence available - that "gnostics" were Greek authors who wrote unlawfully and depreciatively against the "Jesus Figure", and whose works were sought out for destruction, then this definition would fit Juian down to the ground. Julian describes the Eulesian mysteries, and writes aboiut the "Sovereign Sun". He praised Marcus Aurelius, who might also in a certain set of regards be perceived to be a pre-christian gnostic on the basis of his literature "Meditations".

When we try and define the gnostics according to the heresiologists (Eusebius et al) then we run into all sorts of problems, the first being names. Eusebius makes an aweful attempt at trying to ignore, or confuse Marcus Aurelius in his history. The heresiologists were trying to raise up the figure of Jesus and to depreciate the traditional Hellenistic - Platonic - Pythagorean - Greek values and culture. Eusebius gives us no names of any contemporary gnostics whose books were being sought out. Constantine on the other hand rages all about Arius' books against Jesus in his letter of c.333 CE.


The Gnostic Mystery

The mystery is understanding the question who were the gnostics?
On the one hand we have the history of the heresiologists.
On the other hand we have the NT Apocrypha and Nag Hammadi.

Who were the gnostic authors of the NTA and NHC?
Why did they write fiction about the "Jesus Figure"?
Why was the gnostic fiction "banned"?
When did all this happen - when to when?
Why was it bound together (NHC) with "Greek Wisdom"?
Was Pachomius [suspected editor of the NHC] a gnostic?
We have a puzzle and a mystery awaiting a solution.

These questions need to be addressed.
\

I am suggesting that the gnostics represented the educated pagans - meaning those who could read and write in the greek language. Those who "knew how to read and two write" were highly regarded in antiquities. There were academies.


The attacks were in relation to the writings - the texts - the books.
The heretics were attacked on account of their greek literature.
The heretics whom we now perceive as "very gnostic" were "pagan" - Hellenistic - Greek - "Gentiles".

In this epoch the high technology was the codex.
The attacks of the orthodox were against non-christian codices.
The attacks of the orthodox were against "Greek gnostic" codices.
(Aside from the architecture of the temples and shrines)

Toto

This is very confused. There were heretics before there was a state religion. The heretics did not write about civil liberties AFAIK.

There is no evidence that the gnostics deprecated Jesus - they seem to have written positively about him, but had a different idea of his essense. Julian did deprecate Jesus.

What exactly are these claims based on?

mountainman

That there were heretics before there was a state religion
is what the state religion heresiologists have written for
posterity in their history of the heretics. It is a critical
linch-pin for the logical waggon of "early christian history".

You recently admitted that you thought that Eusebius was
quite capable of lying about oppositonal "Heretics". In this
instance, by way of the evidence external to Eusebius,
in the matter of the appearance of the NTA, I think that
it is reasonable to argue that Eusebius was lying, and
that the political reality of kick-starting a brand new
state religion was the process which created the heretics.

Civil liberties were severely detained by the army under Constantine.
Some sections of the NHC describe the (heretic?) priests/philosophers
of the temples being rolled around in the dust by the aggressors.
The "heretics" were the indigenous Alexandrian Hellenes - academics.

It was a political move to unify the empire.
Become christian or perish.
Heretics and controversy is thus
to be expected in the political sense.
of mass movements and ideologies.



1) The sophisms of Arius can be viewed as politically deprecating for state Jesus. ("There was a time when he was not, etc")
2) An anlysis of the letter of Constantine to Arius c.333 CE

3) Deconnick's (and others) identification of parody and satire in the NHC and other NTA.

4) An analysis of global assessments by academics and scholars on the nature of the literature known as the NT apocrypha, when compared to the NT canon reveals some interesting facts related to this issue.


We are all very much aware that Eusebius has provided us with the only Road Map
we will ever possess for the epoch prior to Constantine when it comes to the question
of christian origins. I insist in discussing the very real possibility that we can reject
Eusebius --- not for the purposes of "history of christians" but for the purposes of
trying to perceive a "history of the gnostic heretics".

If we explore this possibility then I would immediately put forward a revolutionary
short-cut in the mystery of the Road Map. That being the identification between
the above mentioned "Leucius Charinus" writing after Nicaea, with Arius of Alexandria
who suffered Constantinian "memorae damnatio" --- a very heavy, and heavily
enforced political action of censorship.

mountainman

People who see the benefit of meditation need not be
relegated by any crackpot patrol to the rubbish bin.
And those who discourse on its benefits include a
distinguished list of commentators. The ascetic
practices of eastern and western philosophical schools
make an interesting study, and they are referenced
in the article. Pythagoras was an ascetic (eg).


You asked me what I thought was the purpose behind the
authors of the NT including a reference that the key player
Jesus Gandalf The Grey casts a curse on a fig tree.

Which national fig tree was plucked out and destroyed of the earth
of civilisation as a direct result of the new testament being
published in the fourth century? It was the Greek civilisation
which was utterly overthrown and cursed by the "christians".
It took the planet over a thousand years to recover from this.


Much like the followers of Pythagoras. Writing was probably
one of their skills, which distinguished them as gnostics. The
knowledge being preserved covered large areas of mathematics
and science and astronomy and medicine etc, etc, etc. The
knowledge was preserved by the Greek civilisation by its
"guardian class" - according to Plato's terminology in The Republic.

IMO the gnostics were philosophers, mathemeticians, logicians and
skilled medical practitioners in addition to any religious inclinations
which they may have supported out of tradition at that time,
such as for example, the Gnostic Healing God Asclepius.


The masses could not at that time read or write.
Slavery was par for the course. The Roman empire
was being taxed by a succession of supreme imperial
mafia thugs, and an education was hard to come by.


Chronology is all important to historical context.
Mainstream "Early Christian chronology" is an utter embarrassment.
They are playing with no fixed authors and no fixed century.
The century in which the NT Canon was authored they say
is unlikely to be the 1st, propbably the 2nd.


What do the mainstream say about the history of the
"Early Gnostic heretics"? Again, they are playing with
no fixed authors and no fixed century. The century in
which the NT Non Canonical texts was authored they say
is unlikely to be the 1st, propably the 2nd, and the 3rd
and the 4th, and perhaps later. Here we have a 300 year
window with no specifics. This is vague chronology.



The pushing of the cult was with great authority.
Constantine converted the gentiles by the sword.
How ideological do you think that would have been?


The call-up list and the Domesday Book of Constantine were
used to determine who were the richest people in the empire
and thus who could afford to pay more imperial taxation.

The new day and the new technology of the codex belonged to the new emperor.
The old day had belonged to the Greeks and The Second Sophistic.
The Roman empire until then was not "Italian", it was Greek.
The new day belonged to the new testament of Constantine.

Toto

The Greek nation had been conquered long before this, and Greek civilization lasted some time after it, in some form or another.

The fig tree is an established symbol of Israel. Are you just making things up as you go along?

mountainman

Greek civilisation lasted through Diocletian until the year 324 CE.
It had never before that date been the subject of widespread
Roman imperial destruction. The Romans adopted Greek.

The new testament was published in Greek for Greeks by Romans.
The NT apocrypha was published in Coptic and buried for preservation by Greek gnostics.

The mystery is "Who were the Gnostics"?

I am exploring the possibility that the gnostics were the Greeks.
Those custodians (as at 324 CE) of the Greek civilisation which
we must understand was under military attack from Constantine.

Elijah

Seeing a benefit in meditation/ascetics isn’t the problem; it’s seeing it as a solution to any real world problems. Yes there are benefits to meditation/fasting but those benefits need to be understood and explored rationally not as part of a dogmatic ideology that is supposed to save the individual/world.
As was pointed out by Toto it would be senseless for it to be a prediction of the downfall of the Greek civilization. I was just wondering if there was some actual correlation between the fig tree and Greek wisdom. I could see it as a knock on the tree that gave Buddha his wisdom as not producing any fruits.
You can use the word however you want but you are going to be using it in your own way and in a way that is much broader and therefore less explanatory then how it is normally used. You should reconsider your word choices here.
That’s why I consider it likely that the Gnostics are selling ideologies based off platonic philosophy for the uneducated masses, not the product of philosophical schools for philosophically minded people.
Naa the ideas and their evolution are more important to me. The specific dates and names are insignificant facts, mainly argued about by people trying to prove or disprove Christianity, which I see as a waste of time.

If you want to understand the Gnostic vs Orthodoxy debate, you need to understand the ideas, not know the names and the dates of the people involved.
I think most of what the empire did, it did with great authority. The question of if Constantine was pushing the Christian ideology with the Roman Empire or was using the Christian ideology to help push the Roman Empire is debatable. Odds are in favor of him being your standard politician using the people’s beliefs for his own political gain but there is the small possibility I guess that an emperor happened to be a true believer in Rome’s history.

Once Rome accepts Christianity as its national religion a threat against it ideologically is going to be a threat against Rome and that’s only after you get some conformity to the religion because you can’t make a state religion out of collection of beliefs that contradict each other. The question isn’t why Rome was so forceful with protecting its version of Christianity, it’s why it choose a Jewish messiah cult to be the state religion of Rome.
So you’re suggesting he was trying to combat Greek intellectualism by promoting a Jewish (whatever you consider the Christian aspect to be) religion?

The new day had nothing to do with Constantine’s lifetime. It was an event prophesized for the future. Getting to that new day in the Christian faith isn’t determined by how much tax you pay but if you have faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus actually tells his followers to renounce their wealth which would mean no more taxes for Caesar to go against your it was done for tax incentives.
How certain are you of this? I’ve heard this a bunch and wouldn’t think anything of it, if it wasn’t for the fruitless aspect of the story, since he himself is a fruit of Israel. It being something he is a part of doesn’t make sense but the tree that the Buddha supposedly gained his wisdom under being told it bared no fruit could be seen as a slam on the Buddhists, but I don’t know how much culture interaction there was at that point and area.

When I goggled it there were a few things that came back going against this idea of the fig tree representing Israel but you know how the internet is.

mountainman

What's this thing called political and historical context?

When reading a political and/or religious transcript from the year 2009
between two opposing parties it really helps if you know what the
background historical and political context is between the authors.


There is also a possibility that the emperor fabricated a monotheism because he found that he had the power to do so.

The threat would not be against Rome but against the Emperor of Rome.

If the emperor and "Pontifex Maximus" had the power to sponsor an religious cult of his choosing, even if he fabricated a totally outrageously plain and simple cult which believed in the resurrection of a dead man 300 years ago, and supported this claim with a collection of beliefs that contradict each other, the emperor had the power to "canonise" this religion as being the way to go. The chances for this to have occurred under Constantine increase when we consider that the dominant alliegances in the army were not via the praetorian guard (which Constantine dismissed) but with a troop of key Barbarian (gallic and Germanic) chieftains who continually surrounded the commander. Neither Constantine or his key military chiefs held any alliegance to the old traditions of the Greek empire.


The choice was not some vague undated "Roman choice". The choice was made by the grandson of a Danube goatherder called Constantine, around about the year 312 CE, when he and his large barbarian army liberated Rome from its senate.


Precisely.

Have a look at the legal loopholes which were opening up and closing
as a result of people joining and leaving the Jewish religion in the
early fourth century as recorded in the Codex Theodosianus.

At that time Greek intellectualism was not an option.
More to point, neither was any Greek religion an option.
Hellenism was viewed as a heresy. This becomes explicit
by the time of Epiphanius.