Freethought & Rationalism Archive

la70119 · 03-10-2012, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

How Christians got rid of the pagans (in Greek) (in English -- abridged), selected from Vlasis Rassias' book DEMOLISH THEM.., published in Greek, Athens 2000 (2nd edition), Anichti Poli Editions, ISBN 960-7748-20-4

Thanks la70119.

I can recognise some of Vlasis Rassias's sources in Vita Constantini, the Theodosian Codex and Ammianus, but the source for this following claim has so far evaded my research. Do you - or anyone else - know Vlasis Rassias's source for this .... ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlasis Rassias

359 CE

In Skythopolis, Syria, christians organise the first death camps for the torture and execution of arrested Gentiles from all around the Empire.

Unfortunately, mountainman, I have not found anything to confirm this. But it has a certain truthiness to it, considering how Constantinian Christianity has behaved through the ages.

And it would behoove you to translate the Greek for youself. It has more horror stories!

PS I like that Stak vs. Stats graph, although I'd add a third element: a rise of pre-Constantinian Christianity and its extermination after the birth of Constantine's version in 325 CE.

Toto · 03-10-2012, 06:13 PM

Do a search on Skythopolis in the archives. The subject has been discussed before, but the information has bounced off mountainman's protective headgear.

The last thread:Christian death camps

la70119 · 03-10-2012, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Do a search on Skythopolis in the archives. The subject has been discussed before, but the information has bounced off mountainman's protective headgear.

The last thread:Christian death camps

Thanks, Toto. Obviously, one has to endlessly research everything nowadays. Especially the items that sound "truthy".

Iskander · 03-10-2012, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Been my persuasion for decades. The transition and replacement religion began in Antioch the day that men first began to call themselves 'Christians', (Acts 11:26) and thereby establish the beginning of a separatist, no longer Jewish, no longer Jerusalem centered, fraudulent replacement religious hierarchy and form of doctrine.

There may be a certain element of truth to the claim that Christians were first known by that name at Antioch. Prior to the Council of Nicaea, after becoming the supreme military commander of the Eastern empire, convened a special council at Antioch, in order to make a very important, and perhaps very novel, oration.

After this "council" he issued orders for the torture of leading magistrates of Antioch so that they admitted that pagansim was a religious fraud.

Lane Fox writes about Constantine's persecution of pagans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LANE FOX

Persecution of the Old Religions

p.666:

"The postscript to his Oration at Antioch was to be rather more robust: torture of pagans "in authority in the city" so that they admitted religious fraud."

Further notes from Robin Lane no hyphen Fox (and a list of other executions) here

The pagans appear to have been intimidated by torture and execution by the orders of Bullneck to admit that their religion was false. The True Religion had arrived in town behind the legions, and it had been codified.

Lane Fox page 666 says:

“As Emperor, Constantine still fulfilled the public role of a pagan pontifex maximum and allowed the public cults to continue: he had begun as the patron of a small Christian minority, and he moved cautiously. In political affairs he had to accept an army and a ruling class who were overwhelmingly pagan, and remained so through his reign... The postscript to his Oration at Antioch was to be rather more robust: torture of pagans "in authority in the city" so that they admitted religious fraud. Constantine himself is not cited as responsible and here, perhaps, his Christian hearers outrun his intentions”

Lane fox is saying that Constantine did not organize a regime of terror, but that Constantine pursued a policy of toleration as pontifex maximums and acted cautiously in his patronizing of Christianity.

When Lane Fox writes,"The postscript to his Oration at Antioch was to be rather more robust: torture of pagans "in authority in the city" so that they admitted religious fraud." He probably means that the confrontation between the old and the new resulted in isolated incidents or perhaps that eventually the zeal of the possessed did eventually result in a bloody struggle during the reign of Theodosius.

Iskander · 03-10-2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

There are two aspects of this problem :
1 - How did paganism disappear ?
2 - How did christianity appear, and what sort(s) of christianity ?

There are a range of demographic models for the rise of Christianity, and by default, the disappearance of the pagans. We are all familiar with Stark's model.

The worst case alternative scenario is a mass forced conversion of pagans in the 4th century. The following diagram despicts both of these best and worst case scenarios, and it is suggested that the truth is therefore bound somewhere in between these two possibilities.

At least two kingdoms became Christian before Constantine.

Armenia: was the ﬁrst nation-state to become officially Christian, and this set a precedent for the adoption of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine. As a buffer state between the more powerful empires of Rome and Persia, Armenia endured many shifts of policy, as ﬁrst one and then the other empire took it “under protection.”

Caucasian Iberia: King Mirian II and leading nobles converted to Christianity around 317. The event is related with the mission of a Cappadocian woman, Saint Nino, who since 303 had preached Christianity in the Georgian kingdom of Iberia (Eastern Georgia).

Iskander · 03-10-2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

There are two aspects of this problem :
1 - How did paganism disappear ?
2 - How did christianity appear, and what sort(s) of christianity ?

And there is another question :
3 - What did the new christianity absorb from local paganism ?

The problem is vast, and has only local solutions. And we are speaking only of the Roman empire, east and west. Roughly speaking, north of the Danube and east of the Rhine, paganism did not disappear during centuries. The Saxons, the Vikings were still pagans during the IXth century.

For the region I know well, Aquitaine (south-west of Garonne and north of Pyrénées) I have a book of 750 pages, by Michel Rouche (1976) which says what we know of the developement of this region between 418 and 781...

The Baths of Zeuxippus were decorated under Constantine with the statues of the heroes of the pagan civilization and the statues of some of the gods.

"The Baths of Zeuxippus were popular public baths in the city of Constantinople

The original baths, which were founded and built by Septimius Severus,[3] and decorated under Constantine I[4] were adorned with numerous mosaics and over eighty statues,[1] mostly those of historical figures, with Homer, Hesiod, Plato, Aristotle, Julius Caesar, Demosthenes, Aeschines and Virgil all among them,[3] as well as the figures of gods and mythological heroes;[5]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baths_of_Zeuxippus

Sheshbazzar · 03-10-2012, 09:52 PM

One of the items on the agenda of the First Council of Nicaea was the subject of what constituted a valid Christian baptism. With the result that baptisms performed by Paulinian heretics were declared to be invalid.

Thus, no person claiming to be a Christian, could any longer be taken at their own testimony, it would become a necessity that the individual could document or be documented to have had their baptismal rite performed by an Imperial officially 'authorized' catholic and orthodox practitioner.
'Paulinian heretics' were especially singled out, quite obviously however, with an attendant requirement for ones baptismal rite to be performed by authorized catholic and orthodox priests, baptisms performed any individual or sect that was accounted by the Imperially sanctioned and authorized catholic and orthodox clergy as being heretical would constitute invalid baptisms if so deemed by these authorities.

That freedom for anyone to baptize as was displayed by Philip ( Acts 8:26-39) was now officially a thing of the past
(along with anyone's unofficially corroborated claim to be a member of the Christian faith.)
Only Constantinian lackeys could hold the privilege of baptizing and deciding whom was a Christian, or whom was actually a member of a heretical sect with an invalid baptism. Baptisims were performed. Names were taken.

And if one was not accounted as Christian....there were increasingly draconian measures instituted to make one fall into line with the requirements of the Imperially authorized orthodox Christian clergy, or suffer the fate of being accounted a heretic.
The 'Authorized' catholic religion grew its fangs early.

andrewcriddle · 03-11-2012, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

One of the items on the agenda of the First Council of Nicaea was the subject of what constituted a valid Christian baptism. With the result that baptisms performed by Paulinian heretics were declared to be invalid.

Thus, no person claiming to be a Christian, could any longer be taken at their own testimony, it would become a necessity that the individual could document or be documented to have had their baptismal rite performed by an Imperial officially 'authorized' catholic and orthodox practitioner.
'Paulinian heretics' were especially singled out, quite obviously however, with an attendant requirement for ones baptismal rite to be performed by authorized catholic and orthodox priests, baptisms performed any individual or sect that was accounted by the Imperially sanctioned and authorized catholic and orthodox clergy as being heretical would constitute invalid baptisms if so deemed by these authorities.

That freedom for anyone to baptize as was displayed by Philip ( Acts 8:26-39) was now officially a thing of the past
(along with anyone's unofficially corroborated claim to be a member of the Christian faith.)
Only Constantinian lackeys could hold the privilege of baptizing and deciding whom was a Christian, or whom was actually a member of a heretical sect with an invalid baptism. Baptisims were performed. Names were taken.

And if one was not accounted as Christian....there were increasingly draconian measures instituted to make one fall into line with the requirements of the Imperially authorized orthodox Christian clergy, or suffer the fate of being accounted a heretic.
The 'Authorized' catholic religion grew its fangs early.

canon_xix_concerning_the_paulianists is online with commentary. It appears to establish the conditions for accepting Paulianists wishing to join the main-stream church.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 03-11-2012, 07:34 AM

Andrew, I assume that if this group was believed to be singled out at Nicea they must have been a formidable group vis a vis the orthodox to deserve a statement about accepting them into the orthodox sect much like today's Church would do in regard to Protestants.

On the other hand, assuming the orthodox were just a competing sect, what's to say that this canon 19 is not something written much later to give the impression of a large and powerful orthodox sect so early? It is rather unlikely that the orthodox were in a position so early of dictating who has to do what from among competing sects.

As I was asking about in another thread, is anything actually documented (i.e. in the Theodosian Code) about the actual fate of competing "heretical" sects over the centuries leading up to Justinian besides condemnations and apologetics?

Antioch seems to be a pretty important place for important names, including Paul of Samosata, John Chrysostom, Jerome, etc. So vis a vis the "Catholic church" out of Rome or Constantinople are we talking of an immigrant population from Antioch who affiliated with the orthodox but who were as different from them as Protestants are from Catholics today?

Good old Eusebius has nothing but "kind" words for Paul of Samosata that seem to reinforce a view of Eusebius as a professional propagandist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata
Receiving money for his religious services,[6] as well as paying others to preach his doctrines.[7]
Preferring to be called an imperial procurator of queen Zenobia, rather than bishop.[8]
He stopped the production of psalms to Christ, and trained women to sing psalms to himself[9] as an angel come down from heaven.[10]
Likewise, Eusebius hints to the fact that Paul was "too familiar" with his women followers,[11] whom he called "subintroductae".[7]

Sheshbazzar · 03-11-2012, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

One of the items on the agenda of the First Council of Nicaea was the subject of what constituted a valid Christian baptism. With the result that baptisms performed by Paulinian heretics were declared to be invalid.

Thus, no person claiming to be a Christian, could any longer be taken at their own testimony, it would become a necessity that the individual could document or be documented to have had their baptismal rite performed by an Imperial officially 'authorized' catholic and orthodox practitioner.
'Paulinian heretics' were especially singled out, quite obviously however, with an attendant requirement for ones baptismal rite to be performed by authorized catholic and orthodox priests, baptisms performed any individual or sect that was accounted by the Imperially sanctioned and authorized catholic and orthodox clergy as being heretical would constitute invalid baptisms if so deemed by these authorities.

That freedom for anyone to baptize as was displayed by Philip ( Acts 8:26-39) was now officially a thing of the past
(along with anyone's unofficially corroborated claim to be a member of the Christian faith.)
Only Constantinian lackeys could hold the privilege of baptizing and deciding whom was a Christian, or whom was actually a member of a heretical sect with an invalid baptism. Baptisims were performed. Names were taken.

And if one was not accounted as Christian....there were increasingly draconian measures instituted to make one fall into line with the requirements of the Imperially authorized orthodox Christian clergy, or suffer the fate of being accounted a heretic.
The 'Authorized' catholic religion grew its fangs early.

canon_xix_concerning_the_paulianists is online with commentary. It appears to establish the conditions for accepting Paulianists wishing to join the main-stream church.

Andrew Criddle

If anyone would yet think that this Impierally 'authorised' organization might have been lax about setting enforcement of exclusively orthodox catholic 'authorised' baptisims, Let them consider the following Canon 20,
regarding a believers posture in prayer.

Quote:

THE CANONS OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED IN THE CITY OF NICEAE

CANON XX.

Quote:

FORASMUCH as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the Holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX.

On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.

HAMMOND.

Although kneeling was the common posture for prayer in the primitive Church, yet the custom had prevailed, even from the earliest times, of standing at prayer on the Lord's day, and during the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost. Tertullian, in a passage in his treatise De Corona Militis, which is often quoted, mentions it amongst other ohservances which, though not expressly commanded in Scripture, yet were universally practised upon the authority of tradition. "We consider it unlawful," he says, "to fast, or to pray kneeling, upon the Lord's day; we enjoy the same liberty from Easter-day to that of Pentecost." De Cor. Mil. s. 3, 4. Many other of the Fathers notice the same practice, the reason of which, as given by Augustine; and others, was to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord, and to signify the rest and joy of our own resurrection, which that of our Lord assured.
This canon, as Beveridge observes, is a proof of the importance formerly attached to an uniformity of sacred rites throughout the Church, which made the Nicene Fathers thus sanction and enforce by their authority a practice which in itself is indifferent, and not commanded directly or indirectly in Scripture, and assign this as their reason for doing so: "In order that all things may be observed in like manner in every parish" or diocese.

HEFELE.

All the churches did not, however, adopt this practice; for we see in the Acts of the Apostles(xx. 36 and xxi. 5) that St. Paul prayed kneeling during the time between Pentecost and Easter.
This canon is found in the Decretum, De Con. D.3. c.10.

Note the introductory; "to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere" Indicating the Imperial demand for uniformity of practice even right down to the fine details of what position a believer was required to pray in on certain days.

You may be certain that when the subject was something as big as the question of what constituted a valid 'authorised' catholic and orthodox baptism, which defined one as being a member of the one true 'Christian' faith, rather than a pretender from a un-authorised heritical sect,
The details of when, where and by WHOM, one had been baptised would become of paramount importance.

And thus was included the demand laid out in Canon 19, for anyone who had formerly recieved baptisim from any source not specifically approved by the Imperial officially 'authorized' catholic and orthodox church clergy, to report for their re-baptisim, and confession to submission to all of the Doctrines and rules and to the authorised leadership of the One and only 'authorised' Catholic and Orthodox Church.
This establised that precedent of Church enrollment and record keeping as a requirement of the ordained clergy, which practice of taking Names and recording them in a book, has been continued henceforth right down to this present day.

That final comment by HEFELE is a bit wacky

Quote:

HEFELE.
All the churches did not, however, adopt this practice; for we see in the Acts of the Apostles(xx. 36 and xxi. 5) that St. Paul prayed kneeling during the time between Pentecost and Easter.

Did he really intend to indicte that this section of NT text was written after the Synod made its decision???

Or rather is it an admission that the decisions and decrees of The Nicaen Synod disallowed the recorded prayer practices of even St Paul himself ???

Funny thing, religion, .....except when they are killing people to establish their 'authority' to enforce their paticular perversions.

03-10-2012, 09:52 PM	#57
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Religious privileges are reserved for Christians One of the items on the agenda of the First Council of Nicaea was the subject of what constituted a valid Christian baptism. With the result that baptisms performed by Paulinian heretics were declared to be invalid. Thus, no person claiming to be a Christian, could any longer be taken at their own testimony, it would become a necessity that the individual could document or be documented to have had their baptismal rite performed by an Imperial officially 'authorized' catholic and orthodox practitioner. 'Paulinian heretics' were especially singled out, quite obviously however, with an attendant requirement for ones baptismal rite to be performed by authorized catholic and orthodox priests, baptisms performed any individual or sect that was accounted by the Imperially sanctioned and authorized catholic and orthodox clergy as being heretical would constitute invalid baptisms if so deemed by these authorities. That freedom for anyone to baptize as was displayed by Philip ( Acts 8:26-39) was now officially a thing of the past (along with anyone's unofficially corroborated claim to be a member of the Christian faith.) Only Constantinian lackeys could hold the privilege of baptizing and deciding whom was a Christian, or whom was actually a member of a heretical sect with an invalid baptism. Baptisims were performed. Names were taken. And if one was not accounted as Christian....there were increasingly draconian measures instituted to make one fall into line with the requirements of the Imperially authorized orthodox Christian clergy, or suffer the fate of being accounted a heretic. The 'Authorized' catholic religion grew its fangs early.

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

03-10-2012, 06:13 PM	#52
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Do a search on Skythopolis in the archives. The subject has been discussed before, but the information has bounced off mountainman's protective headgear. The last thread:Christian death camps

03-11-2012, 07:34 AM	#59
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Andrew, I assume that if this group was believed to be singled out at Nicea they must have been a formidable group vis a vis the orthodox to deserve a statement about accepting them into the orthodox sect much like today's Church would do in regard to Protestants. On the other hand, assuming the orthodox were just a competing sect, what's to say that this canon 19 is not something written much later to give the impression of a large and powerful orthodox sect so early? It is rather unlikely that the orthodox were in a position so early of dictating who has to do what from among competing sects. As I was asking about in another thread, is anything actually documented (i.e. in the Theodosian Code) about the actual fate of competing "heretical" sects over the centuries leading up to Justinian besides condemnations and apologetics? Antioch seems to be a pretty important place for important names, including Paul of Samosata, John Chrysostom, Jerome, etc. So vis a vis the "Catholic church" out of Rome or Constantinople are we talking of an immigrant population from Antioch who affiliated with the orthodox but who were as different from them as Protestants are from Catholics today? Good old Eusebius has nothing but "kind" words for Paul of Samosata that seem to reinforce a view of Eusebius as a professional propagandist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata Receiving money for his religious services,[6] as well as paying others to preach his doctrines.[7] Preferring to be called an imperial procurator of queen Zenobia, rather than bishop.[8] He stopped the production of psalms to Christ, and trained women to sing psalms to himself[9] as an angel come down from heaven.[10] Likewise, Eusebius hints to the fact that Paul was "too familiar" with his women followers,[11] whom he called "subintroductae".[7]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.