aa5874

When the Roman Emperors worshiped the Greek/Roman Myth Gods even the very Roman Church and its writers claimed Christians of the Jesus cult, Jews and Heretics were SLAUGHTERED or Martyred.

I t is most remarkable that all of a sudden people here want me to believe the Roman Emperors suddenly stopped the Slaughter of those who opposed their new God and religion

Julian the Emperor has only confirmed that the slaughter of PEOPLE who opposed the new religion of Rome were treated the very same way they were treated when the Empire was NOT christianized.

arnoldo

There may've been political undertones for the persecution of the pagans. At times, it seems there was a different Roman Emperor every couple of years and always the Emperors had to fight off pretenders for the throne. Once Christianity was declared the official state religion, anyone holding on to paganism may've had political, in addition to religious, motivations in mind.

MM, you may also be interested to know that the christians who lived in the Persian Empire suffered greatly once Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

J-D

Do you believe those claims to be true? Why or why not?Not at all. I don't want you to believe anything.Do you believe him? Why or why not?

mountainman

Thanks for the further reference arnoldo. Obviously the epoch prior to Nicaea needs to be viewed separately from the epoch after Nicaea. The epoch of a century prior to Nicaea certainly saw a great instability of the Emperors until Diocletian c.280 CE introduced the tetrarchy, that was destroyed by Constantine. After Nicaea we only have two Roman Emperors before the Emperor Julian came to power: Constantine to 337 CE and his son Constantius 337-360 CE. This second epoch between 325 and 360 CE in the epoch in which the "Christians" slaughtered the heretics of the monotheistic state cult.

Thanks again arnoldo, but our only source of information for this so-called knowledge is the Constantinian researcher Eusebius, who asserts the existence of Christian bishops in the Persian capital city. There is no doubt that there were Manichaeans in the Persian Empire who suffered greatly once the Persian King of Kings Shapur I died c.272 CE and after the religious leader Mani was executed (possibly by crucifixion) in the Persian capital city c.278 CE. We have no other evidence of any form which corroborates Eusebius's claim that there were Christian Bishops in Sassanid Persia.

Chili

That still is true today of so called Christians who will go to preach the gospel to the end of the world and will wage war to get this done so that their Jesus will come to save them (again). . . . and these are those who "repent and believe" of Matthew and Mark instead of "believe and reform" of Luke and John.

Chili

And don't you see that so called Christianity is totally God-less to make America the most God-less country in the world and would still kill a Christian if the 'saw' one (oops), for which Galatians was written and is made abundantly clear in Galatians 5:4 "any of you who seek your justification in the law [as Christian] have severed yourselves from Christ and fallen from Gods favor!" . . . to say that there can be no such thing as a Christian religion but Chriatian-ity is the end of religion . . . but you can't tell them that because they are 'on fire for the lord.' = hell on earth.

And you can jump as high as you want to while insisting that the monstrous tale is a lie . . . but it is true that Jesus and Paul are not part of it, and then please always remember that fiction has a core of truth in it or it would be nonsense to us all.

. . . and do you not understand the concept: 'repent and believe' as presented in Matthew and Mark so you can get zapped by the evangelist? . . . and that is what Galilee was all about and then note that Jesus of Matthew and Mark was willing to die to get back there . . . and you call that fiction?

mountainman

In addition to Evidence Item (1) from post # 20
I now present Evidence Item (2) in support


Extracts from some of the mid-4th century Nag Hammadi Codices such as:

The Interpretation of Knowledge Translated by John D. Turner


Plato's Republic at Nag Hammadi c.350 CE - Comparing the Gnostic with the Original


Asclepius 21-29

Eusebius tells us that the major temples of Asclepius and Apollo and other Egypto-Graeco-Roman temples in the Roman Empire were utter destroyed to their foundations by the army at the orders of Constantine. In some cases the chief priests were publically executed.

These fragments from the Nag Hammadi Codices (dated mid 4th century) may provide corroboration for Eusebius's information about this destruction and persecution and slaughter of the heretics.

J-D

Do you believe him? Why or why not?

mountainman

Eusebius's literary output can be classified into data he has supplied for the epoch leading up the Council of Nicaea (which his "Church History" prefaces) and the works he wrote c.336/337 in praise of the Constantine and at Constantine's funeral.

In regard to anything and everything that Eusebius claims as true from the period prior to Nicaea I am exceedlingly wary for reasons previously discussed. However for the works he wrote toward the end about Constantine, Eusebius did not have to do much work in the archives, for he discussed contemporary events such as Constantine did this and Constantine did that. The work "Vita Constantini" (Life of Constantine) is essentially a biography of the Roman Emperor whom everyone agrees actually lived and who minted and issued gold solidi and other coins that survive.

There are other sources (i.e. other than Eusebius) to corroborate partly the events Eusebius describes after Nicaea. I can list these if you wish. I can find few if any sources corroborating Eusebius's accounts prior to Nicaea. Therefore, it is largely on the basis of corroboration with other sources and evidence (e.g. the physically destroyed temples etc) that I am prepared to accept part of what Eusebius writes in "Vita Constantini" c.337 CE. Of course it is still highly polemical, and heresiological, and praises Constantine as somebody like Moses who had led the wandering tribes of Graeco-Romans finally into the basilicas of Christendom.

One other reason that I accept some of the statements of Eusebius in "Vita Constantini" is because the precedent has already been set by others in the field of ancient history, such as Robin Lane-Fox, in regard to Constantine's surprisingly savage and coherent attack on the temples of Asclepius.

Lane-Fox conjectures, and I agree with his conjecture, that Constantine selected these temples for destruction for a number of reasons. They were the "tall poppies" and hosted the most ancient and highly revered temples. Many of the preceding Emperors of the earlier centuries had sponsored or patronised these temples, and Diocletian was perhaps one of these. But another primary reason for the destruction of the Asclepian temples was the fact that they had their own libraries (and perhaps scriptoria, certainly gymnasia) and they openly hosted the writings of Apollonius of Tyana.

Eusebius wrote a large polemic against Apollonius, quoting some of his books and treating him as an authority on the NO SACRIFICE WAS REQUIRED idea. (Apollonius wrote a few books). It is conjectured that Constantine wished to destroy the writings of Apollonius and he did so by destroying the Asclepian temple network which hosted his books. (Apollonius was formerly a priest of Asclepius). This destruction and prohibition of pagan literature is repeated in Constantine's burning of the books of Porphyry, the greatest academic books of the age, containing Plato and Euclid. The precedent of burning petitions in the presence of petitioners within the council of Nicaea by Constantine, was formalised in the first memo out the door of Nicaea. The orders were to burn the books of Arius of Alexandria. Therefore J-D I often wonder what were these books that Arius really wrote.

Anyway these are a few of the reasons why I provisionally believe Eusebius in some things and have massive reservations about believing Eusebius in other things (e.g. his thesis project in ancient history about the bishop to king 4 and the bishop to king 5 and the bishop to bishop 8, etc).