J-D

The absence of refutation does not make something more than a mere possibility.

Have you refuted any alternative (to yours) explanation of the origins of Christianity?

jgibson000

It doesn't do even that if the proposed alternative is absurd.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Our take is that Constantine orders Eusebius to write a new genre
of literature called "christian", and Eusebius complies during the
years 312 to 324 CE. Then Constantine finally acquired the
military supremacy of the eastern empire in addition to his well
held west, and implemented the fiction of christianity at the
council of Nicaea.

Eusebius, in the back seat, at the Supremacy Party, also
Constantine's Long Service Party, did not assist Arius in
formulating the words that Arius is purported to have said.

What did Arius say? See the disclaimer clause
on the Nicaean Oath, c.325 CE.

What do his words mean?
Are they historical comments relating to Constantine's
new Roman god? or are they, as Eusebius would advise,
to be interpretted "theologically"?


So Eusebius could afford to appear generous and conciliatory
to the people of the E. empire over their complaints of the
possibility that the new god of Constantine was an invention.

Constantine and Eusebius could afford to be generous because
they were the implementors of a new state religion. Those who
did not come to the party, were simply banished, or worse.

They knew there was going to be oppositon, but they also knew
that they were going to be the victors on the field of the
military supremacy, and once they held that sort of power
it would make the task easier.

Council of Nicaea.


It is not impossible that the word "Arian" and the word "christian"
first appeared together in the world, the latter an invention of
the to-be-despot Constantine, and the former an Hellenic
opposition to "the fiction of wicked men" ... culminating in 325
at the Council of Nicaea.

For further info see here.


The position paid well. Peace.

Constantine ordered the fiction and the state religion.
Only he and Eusebius need have known it was a fiction.
How many Greek speaking academics in the empire in
the early fourth century could have detected if the
literature published by C&E was historical and truthful?

Why did Constantine edict for the burning of the writings
of the leading early fourth century academic Porphyry?
Why did Constantine call Arius a Porphyrian?
Why did Constantine edict for the destruction of the
writings of Arius after Nicaea? Why did he edict for
the immediate execution by beheading of anyone
found secreting the writings of Arius?

What did Arius really say?

Perhaps he was just throwing his weight around.

Our take is that at the council of Nicaea Constantine
stated the conditions attached to his newly acquired
military supremacy of the eastern empire. The people
at that Council did not enter the doors of the council
as "bishops of christianity", but all but a few, who were
banished, walked out the doors of the meeting, alive,
having voted by signature to agree with Constantine
over Arius.

Whatever was set in place at Nicaea perpetuated itself
under the rule of Constantine until 337 CE, then by
his son (essentially) for another 2 decades. It was
a long standing regime for generations.

Our question is whether anything "christian" was set
in place before the rise of Constantine.

jgibson000

I am unaware that Constantine did any such thing. Can you please provide me with your source for this claim?

JG

mountainman

The integrity of this "literary evidence" is questioned, understandably.
In fact, in the time I have been in this forum I have seen it thrashed
around a few times in the case of Pliny.

What evidence indeed before the fourth century?

See this sample:


The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia:
a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson, in search of unambiguous
evidence for the existence of "christianity" before the Council
of Nicaea.

3DJay

Pliny the Younger (63-113 C.E.)
"Of especial significance is X.96, which is the earliest external account of Christian worship and reasons for the execution of Christians."

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." ~ Suetonius (69/75-130 C.E.)

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." ~ Cornelius Tacitus (56-117 C.E.)

"What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show." ~ Marcus Aurelius (121-180 C.E.)

And, what of the other pre-Constantine writers? Are they all later forgeries?

Why did they allow them to return, later? Why did he later banish Trinitarians? Why was he baptized by an Arian Christian? Why were semi-Arians called Eusebians? Why did Constantius II and Valens, support Arian Christianity over Constantine's Christianity?
I don't read into that, that Arius was literally a Porphyrian. I read that he's being called such, because he too is writing, what is considered, "wicked and unlawful writings against the religion of Christians". Which is what his non-Trinitarian view was considered, in the West.
What if it was as simple as weak Bishops, not wanting to openly vote against a wording put forward by the Emperor, himself?
His other son, Constantius II, who eventually ruled the entire Empire, supported Arianism.


Peace

jgibson000

Pete,

I asked:

Quote:

What specific criteria do you use to determine that something like Pliny's correspondence or Celsus or Fronto or any other piece of literary evidence for the existence of Christianity that is accepted by critical historians as coming from the 2nd century CE is not to be accepted?

You replied:

Could you please tell me how this is an answer to my question?

Note: I did not ask whether the "integrity" of the "literary evidence" has ever been questioned . Nor did I ask whether or not the question of the authenticity of Pliny's correspondence has been dealt with here, let alone whether you have seen any such dealing occur.

I asked you to tell me what specific criteria you use to determine that something like Pliny's correspondence or the writings of Celsus or Fronto or any other piece of literary evidence for the existence of Christianity that is accepted by critical historians as coming from the 2nd century CE is not to be accepted.

So once again (how many times is it now?), you've dodged.

You really don't have any criteria, do you?

JG

mountainman

Why did Constantine edict for the burning
of the writings of the leading early fourth
century academic Porphyry?

Constantine the King
to the Bishops and nations everywhere.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked,
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected.

As therefore Porphyry,
who was an enemy of the fear of God,
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings
against the religion of Christians,
found the reward which befitted him,
that he might be a reproach to all generations after,
because he fully and insatiably used base fame;
so that on this account his writings
were righteously destroyed;

thus also now it seems good that Arius
and the holders of his opinion
should all be called Porphyrians,
that he may be named by the name
of those whose evil ways he imitates:

And not only this, but also
that all the writings of Arius,
wherever they be found,
shall be delivered to be burned with fire,
in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means
remain to him remembrance in the world.

Now this also I ordain,
that if any one shall be found secreting
any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up
and burn it with fire,
his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this
he shall suffer capital punishment
by beheading without delay.


(Preserved in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9.
A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501,
is in B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies,
Extracts From The Syriac Ms. No. 14528
In The British Museum, Lond. 1861, p. 6–7)

mountainman

Interpolation, quite late.

"Chrestus".

Interpolated, rather late.


Interpolation is currently often cited. See the thread:
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus' reference to "christian obstinacy" (circa 167 CE)


Totally, with possible exceptions, for example, Origen
may have existed and written about the Hebrew Bible,
and prepared the Hexapla, however it is being considered
here that all Origen's NT-related texts have been forged.


Constantine did what he pleased, and was probably implicated
in the death of Arius, c.330 CE. As long as his new religion
continued operations, they could argue endlessly about the
dogma. Constantius, according to his obituary by Ammianus,
was much the same ...

18. The plain [16] and simple religion of the Christians
he obscured by a dotard's superstition, and by subtle
and involved discussions about dogma, rather than by
seriously trying to make them agree, he roused many
controversies; and as these spread more and more,
he fed them with contentious words. And since
throngs of bishops hastened hither and thither on the
public post-horses to the various synods, as they call
them, while he sought to make the whole ritual
conform to his own will, he cut the sinews of the
courier service.

For my perspective on Porphyry, see this page

I believe it is not impossible that there were no bishops
before Constantine created them, in ROme from 312 CE,
and in the eastern empire, with effect from 325 CE, as
a method of engineering his military supremacy.

15. Now, although this emperor in foreign wars
met with loss and disaster, yet he was elated by his
success in civil conflicts and drenched with aweful
gore from the internal wounds of the state. It was
on this unworthy rather thatn just or usual ground [13]
that in Gaul and Pannonia he erected triumphal
arches [14] at great expense commemorating the ruin
of the provinces [15], and added records of his deeds,
that men might read of him so long as those
monuments could last.

16. He was to an excessive degree
under the influence of his wives, and the shrill-voiced
eunuchs, and certain of the court officials, who
applauded his every word, and listened for his "yes"
or "no", in order to be able to agree with him.

17. The bitterness of the times were increased by the
insatiate extortion of the tax-collectors, who brought
him more hatred than money; and to many this
seemed more intolerable, for the reason that he
never investgated a dispute, nor had regard for the
welfare of the provinces, although they were
oppressed by the multiplication of taxes and tributes.
And besides this, he found it easy to take away
exemptions which he had once given.

--- Res Gestae, Obituary for Constantius.

jgibson000

Hmm. I note with interest not only that what you cited is a translation of a translation, but that the edict that Socrates "preserves" actually does not say anything about Constantine ordering that the works of Porphyry be burnt.

On top of this, how do we explain the fact that if there were such an edict as you claim there was, no such burning during Constantine's time seems to have actually occurred -- since we still have a number of Porphyry's works in whole or in part, and, more importantly, Against Christians was still in circulation and was being read up to and beyond 448 CE?

In any case, the irony is that the very source you cite for your claim disproves your larger case, since Socrates here and in book 3 of his H.E. confirms that there was literary evidence for the existence of Christianity before Constantine.

JG