Toto

From this GRD thread

Priscillian

Some interesting historical background, which the poster there has turned into a novel,

mountainman

Pope Damasius was pontifex maximus and pope of Rome at the time of the execution. We know that he had his own troops and executioners and that Damasius was certainly christian. What type of christian was Priscillian? Last I heard he was associated with the long lasting words of Arius of Alexandria, and arianism. Vegetarianism gets a mention.

So if Damasius was the christian pope during the period of attrocities cited by Vlassas Rassias, can we be really sure that Priscillian was the same kind of "christian"?

Best wishes,


Pete

Chili

You mean different as between 'reborn from above' and 'reborn from below' according to John 1:13? ". . . who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it, but by God?

mountainman

Christians may have been borne from above in the sense that the religion was inspired by an emperor and had attendance in the courts of Roman emperors from its inception at that place in the days of Constantine.

Christians of the fourth century were strongly associated with the basilicas and other structures, including the literature structures formally and lavishly published by Constantine and Eusebius. It was a tax-exempt status, unassociated with those below who were subject to the Chrysargyron.

But the question is of course when was John 1:13 first published? Everyone makes the assumption it was published in perhaps the second century whereas in actual historical reality it may have first been forged in the fourth century "from above" -- an emperor cult.




Or the Emperor who had backed a new and strange Galilaean God?
And whose regime executed Priscillian for what political purpose?




Best wishes,



Pete

Chili

But this is not what above means here Pete. Above is from God and that is why the Roman courts accepted them and actually wanted to be part of it. John's writing is just a reflection of that reality and not the other way around. Who cares when John was written if the passage must be prior to us by nature for it to make sense.Basillicas are better than aircraft carriers to be proud of.

mountainman

However this is not the way it happened according to what we know of ancient history. The Roman courts accepted them and actually wanted to be part of it because of Constantine he emperor, who was bishop of bishops and the supreme judge of all Roman courts. Indeed Chili, Constantine was "Pontifex Maximus", a role with a lineage predating the presumed rise of christianity by almost a millenium.

As to what the verse from John means, IMO its explication cannot be disassociated with its real life author in a specific century in ancient history [b]which CENTURY no "biblical" scholar presumes to know for sure. The meaning of the text cannot be disassociated with its historical and political authorship. For you to pronounce a "final meaning" is premature.


[quote]
John's writing is just a reflection of that reality and not the other way around. Who cares when John was written if the passage must be prior to us by nature for it to make sense.[quote]

The ancient historian cares very much when John was written. To the ancient historian the dating of the writing of John is instrumental in its explication. I am approaching this from the perspective of an ancient historian chili. Do you understand this approach?


Life is not an either or choice.
I prefer the open sky.

Best wishes,



Pete

Chili

But the rise of so called Christianity was the fruition of the Ideal that the founding fathers faught for and in that ideal there was no room for scatter brains like Priscillian. The essence of that line predated its writing becasue the line only bears witness to the 'above-below' truth that is expressed in John 1:13. This may have been be too bad for Prescillian but his execution sure is confirmation of this as fact. Don't forget here that it is not easy for the Church to do this but they must do it to confirm the reality behind the line wherein he is the wolf in sheeps clothing and a [potential] fore-runner of Billy Graham in fact.

I probably do not, but I understand what it means to be behind the eight-ball and if John 1:13 means anything it holds an eternal truth that convicts Billy Graham to this very day -- and I use his name only to make my point because he is still famous in America today. I am a cathedral man all the way.You too,

Bert

priscillian

Quote: "But the rise of so called Christianity was the fruition of the Ideal that the founding fathers faught for and in that ideal there was no room for scatter brains like Priscillian."
&
"The essence of that line predated its writing becasue the line only bears witness to the 'above-below' truth that is expressed in John 1:13. This may have been be too bad for Prescillian but his execution sure is confirmation of this as fact. Don't forget here that it is not easy for the Church to do this but they must do it to confirm the reality behind the line wherein he is the wolf in sheeps clothing and a [potential] fore-runner of Billy Graham in fact."
Both of the above are quotes from Chilli

Aha! I see that I have been away too long! (Have been on research/promo trip to Greece and Italy).
Chilli, as you know, Pilgrimage to Heresy is a novel and as such I have taken certain liberties with Priscillian the man (if you will excuse the expression). There is so little extant material (the Catholic church saw to that, just as they did with the Gnostic material which only resurfaced in Nag Hammadi in the 40´s, and wjhat is the "Authorised Version" anyway but an abridgement of the truth which we should all have access to - but I digress...) that all we really have (apart from the Canons and the Wurzburg Tractates) is conjecture. I am the first to admit that the person I present in a fictional/biographical context may not have been the person he truly was.
But,
and it is a BIG BUT...
"Scatterbrain?"
Nowhere in my research have I found anything which would lead me to associate Priscillian´s message with that of Billy Graham, nor Priscillian the man with Billy Graham himself! Priscillian had an enormous following of nobles and ordinary citizens, men and women alike, not only in Spain but into the Aquitaine and other regions of southern Gaul, even reaching into parts of northern Italy. As such, he was dangerous. He managed to rub a number of bishops up the wrong way, and why: because he claimed no power of intermediacy. i.e. a lot of "noble" churchmen on the unemployment register. His message was decidedly Gnostic in tone. His followers had no hierarchy, no "church"; they met in conventicles (much like the modern day "House Church" movement); women were valued equally with men; they were vegetarians and abstainers, and those called to minister practised voluntary poverty and celibacy (none of which exactly put BG to mind either, come to think of it). In fact, if you swing forward to the 12th century it is all but impossible not to see traces of "Priscillianism" in the Cathars of the Languedoc. This, along with the various political machinations surrounding the building of the cathedral in Compostela form very much a part of my current research and hopefully my next book.
So, I make no claims to have found the definitive Priscillian, so, ergo, I don´t really think you should either!
Have you read Henry Chadwick for example? (Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church). He certainly doesn´t present Priscillian as a "scatterbrain" and as Regius Professor of both Oxford and Cambridge we have to assume that he wasn´t exacly lacking in the intellectual department either. (And neither am I.)
As to the Joahannine Comma, yes, there are some experts in Early Church History who attribute it to Priscillian, but since the writings themselves (published by "Pelegrinus" many years after Priscillian´s execution...which you seem to approve of?) are subject to much discussion, it seems that making any connection only takes us away from the essence of Priscillianism itself. Instantius, one of the Spanish bishops who helped Priscillian and who was subsequently banished, most likely to the Scilly Isles has been mentioned as a possible "Peregrinus" but there are discrepancies in the styles and it is just as likely that Priscillian himself wrote some of them. The message is gentle but erudite. Priscillian was no fool. He was a noble Roman of likely Senatorial standing who received a message which changed his life. That is fact, not fiction.
I was recently interviewed for Supreme Master Television. I was contacted by them to talk about Priscillian and vegetarianism. I had never heard of Ching Hai and even now know little about her, but what I have discovered is that her own followers are vegetarians/vegans and have a healthy (and I do not use that word facetiously) respect for all forms of life. With the current state of our poor beleaguered planet, I don´t think we should write off such "messengers" too easily, whether they be 4th century or present day. Perhaps it is time for Priscillian´s message to reach us across the centuries. I wonder sometimes (and no disprespect to anyone here, just ponderings): If Jesus were alive today, would he have a website?
Yours, Most Sincerely,
Tracy Saunders
http://pilgrimagetoheresy.com
P.S. Mountainman says: "And whose regime executed Priscillian for what political purpose?"
I take it you are speaking rhetorically as I think you already know the story, but, for those who don´t...
Priscillian was executed because he made the wrong decision. Having trusted in one emperor (Gratian) he thought that Maximus was of the same kettle of fish. He wasn´t. Priscillian, not accepting the decision of the Synod of Burdigala (i.e. to shut up) took his case to the emperor thus exposing himself to charges of not just "heresy" (hairesis = "choice" by the way) but "witchcraft" which was a capital crime. Maximus needed money and many of the Priscillianists owned vast estates while practising poverty. Instant cash from those subsequently persecuted. Even St. Martin of Tours and Ambrosius were scandalised at the treatment meted out to the Priscillianists, one of whom, let´s not forget was a Roman matron Euchrotia, also executed. Not exactly Christian behaviour, is it? Or perhaps, historically, that too is a rhetorical question. TS

priscillian

What´s a "Cathedral Man"? I ask in all seriousness as I have been in cathedrals that have seemed very dark and threatening, and those which have remained forever in my memory. Some admittedly were "Basilicas": most recently the basilica in Ravenna of San Vitale and its mosaics (part of one of which is on the back cover of my book - what a joy to see "my girls", even if they were 80 years or so after Priscillian. Another would be Notre Dame in Montreal. And Santiago Cathedral always welcomes me back and beckons me to visits all the "rincones" that I love so much. But I am not unaware of the virtual "slave labour" that created them. Pilgrims were instructed in Triacastela to take with them a stone to build the cathedral in Compostela. Having jetisoned things out of my own pack as a pilgrim to get it down to a manageable 7 kilos (including my camera) I have some sympathy!

So, how does one become a "Cathedral Man" and does one have to actually accept the Church that had them built before appreciating their beauty and power?

Toto

Welcome back, priscillian. But I see we forgot to warn you about the difficulties of conversing with Chili.