FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

View Poll Results: How close to the historical truth was Eusebius' Christian "Church History"?
(1) 100% authentic - absolute "historical truth" 1 9.09%
(2) 75% authentic - 25% fabricated 3 27.27%
(3) 50% authentic - 50% fabricated 2 18.18%
(4) 25% authentic - 75% fabricated 4 36.36%
(5) 0% authentic - 100% fabricated 1 9.09%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-20-2010, 06:46 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
It would be great to confine ourselves to the common ground of the evidence itself.
Some of us actually try to do that.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 01-20-2010, 02:28 PM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
It would be great to confine ourselves to the common ground of the evidence itself.
Some of us actually try to do that.
Well keep up the good work and try not to allow "Christian parsimoniousness" effect the balance of the scales in weighing the evidence, since the roots of Christian parsimony, persecution and intolerance are evidenced to have appeared after Constantine trotted out his codex in the 4th century, and no earlier.
mountainman is offline  
Old 01-20-2010, 11:24 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
try not to allow "Christian parsimoniousness" effect the balance
Since there is no such thing, I would not expect that to be a problem.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 11:40 AM   #34
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Reading the account about Diocletian, I would propose Eusebius was not closer to the truth, but for a different reason.

This non sacrificing cult of atheists - they did not believe in the true gods - were understood as being anti social and causing real problems in the body politic. The entrails and muses can be understood as expressions of this real disquiet about people not sacrificing.

As a social order issue it is therefore then logical to do something - expulsion from your job - well they are corrupting the empire aren't they - or major surgery against this cancer.

Eusebius's problem is that he is taking his propaganda as true - he is on a mission to impose his new god, and therefore interprets a logical reaction by a threatened empire as persecution when it is a control move.

Which raises an interesting question - maybe xianity saved the religious mind set - the pagans were slowly becoming secular and sacrificing was dying out as old fashioned. Rationality was growing.

We moved from the superstitio of many gods to the more dangerous superstitio of one god with a clear hierarchy and empire behind it.
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 02:35 PM   #35
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Reading the account about Diocletian, I would propose Eusebius was not closer to the truth, but for a different reason.

This non sacrificing cult of atheists - they did not believe in the true gods - were understood as being anti social and causing real problems in the body politic. The entrails and muses can be understood as expressions of this real disquiet about people not sacrificing.
But this non sacrificing cult was Greek and very much Pythagorean (perhaps Buddhist) since Apollonius of Tyana wrote authoritatively upon this very subject in books authored in the 1st century as cited by Eusebius himself. We do not need a christian non sacrificing cult since the cult following Apollonius and the lineage of the Pythagoreans and Platonic sages / philosophers clearly were regarded as an authority in this area. Apollonius of Tyana is cited by Eusebius as an authority on the abstinence from sacrifice.

Quote:
As a social order issue it is therefore then logical to do something - expulsion from your job - well they are corrupting the empire aren't they - or major surgery against this cancer.
The Greek priesthood and the august consular advice of the "College of the Greek pontifices [priests]" was made redundant at Nicaea --- almost overnight --- after being in service to all the Roman emperors between Julius Caesar (55 BCE) and Diocletian (305 CE). Why?

Quote:
Eusebius's problem is that he is taking his propaganda as true - he is on a mission to impose his new god, and therefore interprets a logical reaction by a threatened empire as persecution when it is a control move.
Eusebius was ordered to present Constantine's propaganda in the highest technology of the age - the second sophistic and the codex. The key text in this is the Eusebian authored and Constantine sponsored polemic "AGAINST THE LIFE OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA". For what reason did Constantine utterly destroy the temples (of Asclepius - the Greek god of Healing) which Apollonius had sponsored?

Quote:
Which raises an interesting question - maybe xianity saved the religious mind set - the pagans were slowly becoming secular and sacrificing was dying out as old fashioned. Rationality was growing.
"Christian Glasses"? The rationality which is now recognised to have been cultured in the Greek civilisation by its collegiate priesthoods and academies was being surplanted by the "Plain and Simple Religion of Constantine's Christians". There is no rationality in apologetics whatsoever. Thank Christ that people had the sense to take the literature of the Greek civilisation away from the totally irrational christian pyromaniacs and hand it over to the Arabs for its preservation.

Quote:
We moved from the superstitio of many gods to the more dangerous superstitio of one god with a clear hierarchy and empire behind it.
The 21st century ON/OFF LOGIC GATE of monotheism is a fairy story.
We need to examine the trinity of Plotinus as it was espoused by the Greek civilisation in the 4th century:
The CHRESTOS (the all) and the SPIRIT and the SOUL.
In order to understand this we need to understand the notion of Nondualism


The literature of Porphyry, one of the twelve disciples of Plotinus, and who preserved Plotinus and Euclid, was BURNT!
The literature of Arius was BURNT!
The literature of Emperor Julian was BURNT!
The literature of "christian dissent" was BURNT!
The literature of Alexandria was BURNT!
It was very dangerous to oppose the bright and burning christian majesty of the emperor!

There were heretics who asserted shortly after the council of Nicaea that the father and the son and the holy ghost were three separate gods. Not only that but between Nicaea and the end of the 5th century these was an explosion of (quite obviously fraudulent) "Christian Hagiography" and highly revered Christian Saints and Martrys crawled out of every pile of bones in the empire. These new many many many Saints attracted basilicas.

Quote:
Henotheism

Henotheism (Greek εἷς θεός heis theos "one god") is a term coined by Max Müller, to mean worshipping a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.[1] Müller made the term central to his criticism of Western theological and religious exceptionalism (relative to Eastern religions), focusing on a cultural dogma which held "monotheism" to be both fundamentally well-defined and inherently superior to differing conceptions of God.

Variations on the term have been "inclusive monotheism" and "monarchical polytheism", designed to differentiate differing forms of the phenomenon. Related terms are monolatrism and kathenotheism, which are typically understood as sub-types of henotheism. The latter term is an extension of "henotheism", from καθ' ἕνα θεόν (kath' hena theon) —"one god at a time".[2] Henotheism is similar but less exclusive than monolatry because a monolator worships only one god (denying that other gods are worthy of worship), while the henotheist may worship any within the pantheon, depending on circumstances, although he usually will worship only one throughout his life (barring some sort of conversion). In some belief systems, the choice of the supreme deity within a henotheistic framework may be determined by cultural, geographical, historical or political reasons.

Henotheism is based on the belief that a god may take any form at any time and still have the same essential nature. The central idea is that one name for a god may be used in a circumstance where a particular aspect of this god is being represented or worshiped while a different name may be given to or used to describe or worship a different aspect of the god in a different circumstance. This example does not imply the superiority of one over another, but simply that a god can exist in many forms at once and offering worship or praise using different names does not have to imply polytheism. Henotheism is sometimes considered a sophisticated version of monotheism in that it allows the worshiper to believe in essentially one Supreme Being and still appreciate and not limit the names, expressions, or manifestations used to describe it
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:35 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.