Sheshbazzar

There you hit the nail on the head, for he certainly didn't change, or ever begin to conduct himself in accord with any of the teachings of the number one man of that religion. Treating your fellow man with sincere love and respect was not an unknown principal even then, political corruption, extortion, theft, murder, even then, were well known for the evils that they are.
Of course he was never gullible enough to actually become a Christian himself, although as a despot and thug he thought nothing of appointing himself as the supreme head and final authority of the Church, Bishop of bishops, dictating its beliefs and selling its blessings.
The character of Don Corleone appears an angel of peace and light, when contrasted to the actions of this vile old thug. And just the same, there is the HRCC muttering its incantations and blessings upon his evil deeds in the background.
What a great working arrangement, scratching each others backs;
You support our evil deeds towards men, and we in turn will support your evil acts,
and thus we will all profit very nicely at the expense of those whom we pillage and plunder.

gentleexit

Um. I don't get the bile towards this emperor in particular. That he was a mobster! Not even his more ardent foes of the time directed such venom.

Was he different from Augustus? Was he more murderous than Titus? Titus burned the temple of the Jew's while suppressing their rebellion. Believe Josephus (a supporter of the Flavians) and a million died. Who did Constantine wipe out? Kill on mass? BTW, on corruption, like most emperors, Constantine railed against it, upped penalty after penalty but to no avail. Again, a creature of his time. Acting on precedent, building on the creations of others.

The bile towards Constantine seems part of a theory that he perverted some pure Christianity. But I don't see the perversion or see his other actions as atypical, as odious. What did he pervert - specifically? Why was he so odious in particular?

spin

Constantine had a religious advisor, Ossius, who was a staunch anti-Arian. Eusebius of Caesarea is on record as having Arian tendencies, so I wouldn't be too hasty in accepting the close link between Constantine and Eusebius. In fact before the 1st Nicene Council, there are no indications that Constantine had more than a passing knowledge of Eusebius' existence. And, given the fact that Eusebius had been excommunicated by a synod convened by Ossius, it is unlikely that Constantine would have had any connection with Eusebius.

Any close connection between the two prior to Nicaea should be discounted by the evidence. Constantine already had his advisor on religious affairs and it wasn't Eusebius.


spin

avi

hmmm.

J-D

I don't think so. I don't suppose you do, either. I don't see what difference it makes.That's like me asking you whether you can provide any well-reasoned grounds for denying any possible existence of a small segment of the Jewish population identifying themselves with the term 'Humakti'. The real point in that case would be that there is no reason to suppose that there was a small segment of the Jewish population identifying themselves as Humakti. And so far you have produced no reason to suppose that there was a small segment of the Jewish population identifying themselves with the term "ha' cath' Netz'oor'eem".What were these identifiably different (and 'peculiar, unorthodox, distinctive, and disturbing') ideas, beliefs, sayings, and teachings?So far I haven't seen any evidence of this. We are referring here to a period of Jewish history (between the building of the Second Temple and the Hasmonean revolt) of which there is little record. You have not produced any evidence, in particular, that the (so far unspecified) ideas of the group you are referring to as the Nazarenes were current during that period.I am aware of the references by Epiphanius and Jerome to a group or groups whom they describe as 'Nazarenes', but as their description is of people who were followers of Jesus (although, in their view, heretical) it does not appear to tally with your description of the group you refer to as 'Nazarenes'.I am aware of that prayer. It does not identify the 'minim' in a way which tallies with your description of the group you refer to as Nazarenes, or in any specific way at all.I have investigated as I just described, and it does not lead me to your conclusions. I don't see how you can be so sure that if you described your conclusions I would not believe them, and I also don't see why that should be a reason for not telling me what your conclusions are.This is a discussion board. In a discussion, people tell each other what they think. If you don't want to say what you think you don't have to, but then there's no discussion. That's not a problem for me in the sense that I will be able to form conclusions on the basis of your discourtesy. I guess I do find your discourtesy problematic, but I think it's a problem I can deal with.I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this question. However, I can rephrase what I said before as follows 'If the beliefs of the Nazarenes were unacceptable both to Christians and to Orthodox Jews, that is compatible with the possibility that there were no Nazarenes before the Christian Era'.It may be evident to you, but without your explaining your views it cannot be evident to me that they are different from my present views. And even if they are, I don't see how that's a reason not to discuss them, or a reason for your discourtesy.I don't confess ignorance. I admit I am ignorant of what you're talking about, because you won't explain it. I know something of what others (like Epiphanius and Jerome, whom you cited) say about people they refer to as Nazarenes, but what they say does not appear to apply to the people you are apparently talking about.If you were prepared to disclose your views, it is possible that I would disagree with them, but I don't see that that necessarily makes me an 'adversary'. However, as I said before, I can deal with your discourtesy.

Sheshbazzar

wonderful

mountainman

Dear genteleexit,

The scope here exceeds "the four gospels" since I am also prepared to deal with the new testament apochryphal literature (including the NHC).

The face of Occam must one day also be turned equally to meditate upon the provenance of the NT non canonical literature, and to which you make no reference above. Expand your scope to include the NT apochrypha. Eusebius was ordered to be editor of the fabrication of the christians. But Arius was the author of seditious tractates against the official state canon of Constantine, and these were not regarded highly by Constantine (or Eusebius). For your information, my thesis at the moment might be summarised as follows:

1) Constantine creates christianity (ie: NT canon) with a fictitious history.
2) Arius of Alexandria says "fiction" and authors the NT Apochypha (Hellenistic sedition)
3) Cyril of Alexandria censors all controversies over the legitimacy of (1 and 2).

Best wishes,


Pete

gentleexit

I think you're mixing up Eusebius of Nicomedia (exiled soon after Nicea) and Eusebius the Historian, who went along with the synod. BTW, Eusebius of Nicomedia returned with a vengeance. He baptized a dying Constantine and Constantius made him bishop of Constantinople. That was embarrassing to orthodoxy!

Eusebius of Caesaria gets a lot of play because we have his words. Like many ancient writers, he's one of the best known names of his time - think Tacitus or Ovid etc. So much later, for want of any details, people have him opening the synod and writing its creed and now writing every major Christian tome! He was, at best, a tangential figure in the politics of his time.

gentleexit

So Pete, you're saying Eusebius made up the "acceptable stuff" and Arius wrote the "other stuff". Who wrote say "The Shepherd of Hermes"? Which Arius liked and many used. Where does Eusebius of Nicomedia fit in? Or Athanasius? Are they part of one or other posse, trivial minions of these greater men. I think the figures you picked are sadly inadequate to their load.

I'd just (and I have to rush so I'll come back) start with "Constantine creates". Nothing in his round-about life suggests such a clinical mind. He is one of the most enigmatic men you can read of, at his core a crowd pleaser, one who told everyone what they wanted to hear. On this even Eusebius seems to agree with Zosimus and Julian ...

Conor

mountainman

Dear Gerard,

Since we have not yet been able to determine whether or not we are in fact dealing with the NT canon as a totally faked and fabricated series of documents I disagree. As I see it we should be able to simply explore the hypothesis that Eusebius was ordered to write and/or edit a fiction. We may call this the Eusebian fiction postulate. This postulate is a valid postulate to explore since I have independently checked the archaeology to make quite sure, to the best of my ability, that we do not have any archaeological evidence which would otherwise preclude the use and consideration of the "Eusebian Fiction Postulate".

The question then becomes "Is the Eusebian fiction postulate consistent with the evidence after Nicaea"? and this is the second ground of evidence - after the fact of the rise to prominence at Nicaea. Would the forced implementation of an openly recognised series of fictitious literature as the central offical "canon of literature" for a new Constantinian state religion cause any controversy with the citizens and Hellenistic Priests of the eastern empire (such as Arius of Alexandria)? What was the Arian controvery? The Eusebian fiction postule explains the Arian controversy and the public reaction to a fiction. The NT apochrypha compound the fiction, they were not supposed to exist. The canon was all that was needed in 324/325 CE.

Having no sword, Arius authored the NT apochrypha, perhaps starting with "The Acts of Thomas". or "The Acts of Pilate". Constantine and Eusebius were justifiably enraged! How dare Arius add to the canon these simple non Constantinian stories and narratives - new Gospels, new Acts of the Apostles, one by one. But they were popular with the resistance!

They were branded heretical works, and some were (at some point(s)) retrojected into the past (ie: claimed to be from the second and third centuries along with the same claim for the canon material) under the shadowy name of Leucius Charinus. Nag Hammadi preserves the actual codices bound by perhaps Pachomius. What do they tell us? Pachomius saw a vision in the year of 324 CE that advised him to head out of Alexandria and hundred of miles up the Nile, and prepare places for a multitude of refugee priests (as India received the Tibetans under invasion from Mao). My thesis has it that Pachomius was not a christian, which is claimed by Jerome et al, translating Pachomius from the Coptic to Latin at the end of the fourth century, on the basis that he was "confirmed". Rather I have it that Pachomius was just another one of the dispossessed priests and therapeutae of temples to Ascelpius, Apollo, etc, etc which were now "prohibited for use" by Constantine. (if they stood at all). Pachomius as a non christian in the light of the Nag Hammadi Codices should at least be taken as a serious idea to explore. But to summarise on Pachomius, my thesis sees Pachomius preserving the authorship of Arius of Alexandria for example in the tractate NHC 6.1 "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" .... carbon dated to 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years).


Best wishes,


Pete