Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 03-17-2013, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

N/A

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Julian's orders to execute such people appear just

Hello MM
Those nasty people were found guilty by a tribunal and some of the accused were found not guilty by the same tribunal. It would appear, therefore, that it was not a kangaroo court, but a proper legal tribunal judging on evidence. Julian did not ordain their death.

mountainman · 03-18-2013, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

N/A

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Julian's orders to execute such people appear just

Hello MM
Those nasty people were found guilty by a tribunal and some of the accused were found not guilty by the same tribunal. It would appear, therefore, that it was not a kangaroo court, but a proper legal tribunal judging on evidence. Julian did not ordain their death.

Yes I agree. Thanks for that clarification Iskander.

To further the OP we might justifiably say that Julian was a very well educated pagan.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-18-2013, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

That might explain why the letter to the Jews sounds so friendly and sympathetic.

It is also possible that Julian, because he wanted to try and restore / reconstruct the pagan temples from their state of destruction caused by Constantine and his sons, may have also been sympathetic to the treatment of the Jews. The idea is that the centralised monotheistic state Christian regime screwed everybody, pagans, jews, Platonists, Pythagoreans, Manichaeans etc equally.

It is possible also that Julian knew that the Hebrew Bible, even though a Greek translation thereof was used, was "lifted" by the Christians as their own.

This must have been bad news for the Jews. They were just minding their own business with the Hebrew Bible. And then all of a sudden a Greek version is bundled into a package with the New Greek Testament. Were they consulted? Not likely. It's like the robbery of intellectual property.

Quote:

The censor specifically wanted to portray him this way which by definition meant that he was an enemy of the Christians.

The censorship of Julian's writings by the Christian regime (primarily the 5th century Cyril of Alexandria) is described by the translator of Cyril, Wilmer Cave Wright, as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by introduction to the English translation

Moreover, [Cyril] says that he omitted invectives against Christ
and such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians.

We have seen that a similar mutilation of the letters occurred for similar reasons.

The invectives Julian used against Christ were censored.
We can only imagine what they would have been.

Likewise what sort of "matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians" may Julian have presented in his three books against the Christians, which the official censor, Cyril, choose to omit?

The possibilities are vast. Did Julian originally write about a fictional Jesus?
We can see why Cyril would think that something like this would contaminate the minds of the faithful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilmer Cave Wright

In the fifth century Cyril of Alexandria regarded the treatise
as peculiarly dangerous, and said that it had shaken many believers.

"When Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 CE one person suggested that
a heavy stone be placed on his grave to prevent his soul returning
to the world when it was thrown out of hell as being evil even for there."

~ Quoted by Charles Freeman.

Does anyone know the ancient source?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Clivedurdle · 03-19-2013, 12:31 AM

Umm, the Dome of the Rock wasn't built by Julian was it?

Clivedurdle · 03-19-2013, 12:34 AM

And what is it about Judaism that pagan emperors want to rebuild the Temple, starting with Cyrus?

mountainman · 03-19-2013, 01:03 AM

Wasn't the formula for Empire to first take (a lot) and (only) then to give (a little)?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-19-2013, 01:07 AM

Third Temple

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

There was an aborted project by the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (361–363) to allow the Jews to build a Third Temple, part of Julian's empire-wide program of restoring/strengthening local religious cults. Rabbi Hilkiyah, one of the leading rabbis of the time, spurned Julian's money, arguing that gentiles should play no part in the rebuilding of the temple.[citation needed]

According to various sources of that time, including Sozomen (c. 400–450) in his Historia Ecclesiastica and the pagan historian and close friend of Julian, Ammianus Marcellinus,[12] the project of rebuilding the temple was aborted because each time the workers were trying to build the temple, using the existing substructure, they were burned by terrible flames coming from inside the earth and an earthquake negated what work was made:

Julian thought to rebuild at an extravagant expense the proud Temple once at Jerusalem, and committed this task to Alypius of Antioch. Alypius set vigorously to work, and was seconded by the governor of the province; when fearful balls of fire, breaking out near the foundations, continued their attacks, till the workmen, after repeated scorchings, could approach no more: and he gave up the attempt.

—[13]

The failure to rebuild the Temple has been ascribed to the Galilee earthquake of 363, and to the Jews' ambivalence about the project. Sabotage is a possibility, as is an accidental fire. Divine intervention was the common view among Christian historians of the time.[14] Shortly thereafter, Julian was killed in battle, and the Christians reasserted control over the empire

Toto · 03-19-2013, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

"When Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 CE one person suggested that
a heavy stone be placed on his grave to prevent his soul returning
to the world when it was thrown out of hell as being evil even for there."

~ Quoted by Charles Freeman.

Does anyone know the ancient source?

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/publ...h_of_cyril.htm

Letter of Theodoretus, as Some Suppose, to Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, Written on the Death of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria.

At last and with difficulty the villain has gone. The good and the gentle pass away all too soon; the bad prolong their life for years.

. . .

His survivors are indeed delighted at his departure. The dead, maybe, are sorry. There is some ground of alarm lest they should be so much annoyed at his company as to send him back to us, or that he should run away from his conductors like the tyrant of Cyniscus in Lucian.
Great care must then be taken, and it is especially your holiness's business to undertake this duty, to tell the guild of undertakers to lay a very big and heavy stone upon his grave, for fear he should come back again, and show his changeable mind once more.

...

mountainman · 03-19-2013, 02:56 AM

Thanks for that Toto.

Doctor Cyril was not well liked.

Quote:

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376 – 444) was the Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444. He was enthroned when the city was at the height of its influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the later 4th and 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople.

Cyril is counted among the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, and his reputation within the Christian world has resulted in his titles Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers, but Theodosius II, the Roman Emperor, condemned him for behaving like a "proud pharaoh", and the Nestorian bishops at the Council of Ephesus declared him a heretic, labelling him as a "monster, born and educated for the destruction of the church."[1]

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Duvduv · 03-19-2013, 04:01 AM

Sounds like the expression "seal of the prophets " used to describe Mohammed.......anyway, Theodosius must have changed his mind because eventually he opposed Nestorius, Cyril's enemy, especially since Theodosius's code represented Cyril's Christianity, not Nestorius's.

MM, I should note also that I check the Seder Hadorot and other Jewish sources, and I could find no mention of the Amora, R. Hilkiyah, relating to Julian and a reconstruction of the Temple. The online sites keep siting the statement in Wiki, but provide no source.

And of course, had Jews believed of miracles and opposition preventing construction the story would be told in a midrashic source somewhere. Plus it does not appear to be a widespread story among Christian apologists from separate sources either.

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

03-19-2013, 12:31 AM	#44
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Umm, the Dome of the Rock wasn't built by Julian was it?

03-19-2013, 12:34 AM	#45
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	And what is it about Judaism that pagan emperors want to rebuild the Temple, starting with Cyrus?

03-19-2013, 01:03 AM	#46
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Wasn't the formula for Empire to first take (a lot) and (only) then to give (a little)? εὐδαιμονία \| eudaimonia

03-19-2013, 04:01 AM	#50
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Sounds like the expression "seal of the prophets " used to describe Mohammed.......anyway, Theodosius must have changed his mind because eventually he opposed Nestorius, Cyril's enemy, especially since Theodosius's code represented Cyril's Christianity, not Nestorius's. MM, I should note also that I check the Seder Hadorot and other Jewish sources, and I could find no mention of the Amora, R. Hilkiyah, relating to Julian and a reconstruction of the Temple. The online sites keep siting the statement in Wiki, but provide no source. And of course, had Jews believed of miracles and opposition preventing construction the story would be told in a midrashic source somewhere. Plus it does not appear to be a widespread story among Christian apologists from separate sources either.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.