mountainman

Dear Spin,

For the second time, please be advised that we know that when Lactantius wrote of persecutions during the reign of Diocletian and on to the time of the arrival of Constantine on the imperial throne, he was writing while in the direct employment of Constantine.



You might be talking about the transcendental public structures of canonical christianity conjectured to occupy antiquity space before the boss floated into the big picture, already established, from the west, but the evidence involves architecture. Public structures serviceable to all, including the public hospital system itself of that time.

Constantine destroyed the ancient highly revered temples and palaces, the temples and shrines to Apollo, the temples and shrines to Ascelpius which are today everywhere evident and ubiquitous in the ground beneath the fourth century (which is silent on the canon of Constantine). Constantine, Ammianus tells us commanded that the single standing giant remnant of three obelisks at the ancient Egyptian temple at Karnack, to be ripped from its foundations. (Think of it perhaps as a type of Statue of Liberty)

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Here is some further evidence in support of my position that Arius of Alexandria was not a christian bishop as is asserted by Eusebius and his continuators (of "christian ecclesiatical history") but in fact a "pagan" priest. My position is that Arius of Alexandria was a neopythagoraean academic greek speaking priest perhaps of the Asclepius cult, and its ubiquitous network of temples and shrines, which had formed the basis of the public hospital system of antiquity for the thousand year period from 500BCE to 500 CE. Constantine calls Arius a Porphyrian. Porphyry was the empires greatest neopythagorean/neoplatonic academic at the time (preserving Euclid and all that we in modern civilisation value). Constantine burns this knowlege.

Would anyone like to make any comment on this?

Best wishes,


Pete

andrewcriddle

AFAIK nobody claims Arius was a bishop.
He was a senior Alexandrian clergyman, but a priest not a bishop.

Andrew Criddle

J-D

Constantine may have called Arius a 'Porphyrian', but I don't see why we should take what Constantine said about Arius at face value, particularly where it appears to be intended as abuse. Also, many Christian philosophers and theologians have been influenced by various schools of classical philosophy, including Aristotelianism, Platonism, and neo-Platonism, without thereby becoming non-Christian.

avi

Question:
If Nicea represented a council of "all the Bishops" {plus one priest}, then, logically, wouldn't that imply the pre-existence of a group of Christian churches, requiring both priests and bishops, i.e. an administrative apparatus of some sort? In other words, if Constantine invented Christianity, from where did these approximately 300 "Bishops" originate? How did he {or Eusebius} know WHICH persons to invite to Nicea, if there were no Christian church already in full operation?

If Arius' views, that there must have been a time when Jesus did not exist, caused such a commotion that Constantine felt obliged to act upon, and rule against Arius, then, does that not imply the existence of a rather wide spread following of Arius' ideas?

Roger's excellent web site lists extant sources available, including works by authors other than Eusebius: among many others, Athanasius.
There may, or may not have been, at the Nicea Council, discussion of which books to include, or exclude, but since texts written by both Eusebius, and Athanasius describe the "proper" books to include, in guiding daily life for adherents of the official religion, Christianity, it seems reasonable to conclude that these various tracts existed, at least in some form, prior to Nicea. In the alternative, if Constantine or his surrogates, created, de novo, the various books cited by Athanasius as proper to include in the New Testament, then, one supposes Athanasius, in reviewing merits of the several books still today regarded as legitimate, would have acknowledged both their relative novelty and their royal patronage.

mountainman

Dear avi,

Good question the answer to which of course is yes. We would be naturally expecting archaeologists to find the empire littered with the remains of pre-constantinian testaments to some form of canonical "christianity" but the archaeologists tell us that the place it littered with temples and shrines to the Hellenic pantheon of gods, the most popular of which statistically is proven to be The Healing God Asclepius, whom Eusebius callumnifies, whose architecture Constantine destroys, and whose power, according to the author of "The Acts of Pilate", enabled Jesus to heal.

We have a solitary "house-church" at Yale Divinity College, but no churches appear to waving little flags before the Nicaean Boundary Event. (NBE).


We are told that Constantine summoned attendees to the military supremacy council of Nicaea after the preliminary military supremacy council of Antioch had been concluded. We must be cognisant of the reality that these councils were councils of war called by Constantine who was in the supreme position at that time, since he had recently defeated Lucinius and the forces of the snake (and against his word had Lucinius strangled).

My thesis has it that three hundred and twenty odd of the remaining ** leading academic priests of Alexandria and the eastern empire, and the major land-holders and all important notaries and aristocracy, etc. Constantine had gathered information systematically (using his military personnel) on who was who, and what assets they had, and who were the key figures in the eastern empire. [***] Constantine executed some chief priests, so those who attended Nicaea were survivors.

My thesis has it that these three hundred and twenty odd entered Nicaea not knowing the slightest thing about the new testament (except perhaps what was made available from the preliminary council of Antioch). To cut a long story short, three hundred and eighteen of these people voted to support Constantine, on the basis of the sword he held at their throats, to become part of a new spy network of Constantininan "bishops", for whom he would build basilicas, etc, etc, etc, etc. They were specifically asked to vote against the words of Arius, who was summarily ejected from the council (thus probably saving his life for 10 years --- and I will wager Constantine later regretted letting him live, and walk away from Nicaea).

My thesis has it that these three hundred and eighteen signatories (under duress) walked out of the Council of Nicaea as bishops, but they did not walk into that council as bishops. Many were pythagorean and platonic priests from the archaeologically verified network of the temples of Asclepius, Apollo, etc, etc -- especially in and around the ancient capital of Alexandria, with its direct Egyptian lineage.



YES, and we know that such was the case. Arius had a great deal of popular support despite the new ideas of Constantine. But what could anyone do about Constantine? Constantine's letter to Arius confirms Arius has much support, especially in Syria. And the fact that the words of Arius were the foremost of heresies for hundreds of years and many generations after Arius was poisoned (c.336 CE) implies they were very potent.



Roger's excellent web site lists extant sources available, including works by authors other than Eusebius: among many others, Athanasius.
There is evidence to suggest Constantine called for written opinions from the attendees during the council. The physical documents which were then as a result tendered by the attendees could have included other books of literature of any form whatsoever. We were not given the details of what was there and then prepared by the attendees. Whay we are told though is that Constantine gathered the documents all together and, after he had chastised the attendees on remaining in a state of harmoniusness, be publically set fire to these written documents in the presence of their authors.


We cannot say since all reports are "christian". We can be sure the executions of Hellenic priests was continued by COnstantine (See Sopater) and that he continued on a program to systematically destroy the temples and shrines of the Hellenic civilisation and replace them, like a make-over, with the trade mark fourth century christian basilicas.

Arius was sought out by Constantine for many years so that he might be killed. Arius was a master logician and he wrote bitter and stinging tractates against the very pure Constantinian christian religion. Constantine finally somehow got to Arius c.336 CE and had him poisoned.


My thesis has it that the new testament canon and all its Eusebian underpinnings (ie: Historia Augusta, In Preparation for the Gospels, the Martyrologies ad nauseum, etc, etc were all written under consignment during the lead in period from 312 to 324 CE, in or near the city of Rome, from the time it became Constantine's, and he became the Pontifex Maximus. With this role he probably already had a big say on how to dot the I's and cross the T's in the preservation of ancient literature in all the libraries in the western empire c.312 CE and the eastern empire with effect from 324 CE. He probably had a right to support any literature of his choosing. He thought he would fabricate his own. And he did. It is called the Canonical New Testament, which he lavishly published at least by c.331 CE.


Athanasius was just another Constantinian lackey who is famous for his continuation in the tradition of Eusebius of Constantinian fictions, the most famous of course being "The Life of Antony". During the period immediately following Constantine's despotic destruction of the ancient temples, palaces and shrines many people, having nowhere no to live, left civilisation so to speak, and headed out into remote locations. Pachomius had his vision about the year 324 CE, and left for remote places to start the monsastic tradition in far larger numbers that had previously been recorded. These desert "fathers" were non-christians.

Are the Nage Hammadi Codices purely christian? I dont think so. Hermes and Asclepius take a central role. What was Pachomius thinking when he bound these stories together? Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians makes interesting comment on this.

My position is that Arius and Leutius Charinus are the same person. Arius of Alexandria wrote many of the new testament apochryphal tractates during the period c.324 to 336 CE. They are in front of our eyes. The new testament non canonical Acts of the Apostles are satirical tractates against the Constaninian Canon. These were to be burnt. They survived, but the context of the satire, parody, burlesque contained therein awaits recognition and identification.


Best wishes,



Pete

J-D

I disagree. I see no reason to expect that. I have no idea what your expectations are based on.Arianism (the Nicene churches considered it a heresy, but the Arians presumably regarded the Nicene churches as heretical) is indeed confirmed to have continued to exist in the centuries after Arius, and after Constantine--and the evidence from those centuries is that it was a form of Christianity, as later historians have accepted, and as is incompatible with your views.I think we all know what your position is by now, Pete. You've repeated it often enough. It gains no merit from repetition. It would gain some merit if you did what you have never done and produced some evidence for it.

mountainman

"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men
composed by wickedness"

... Emperor Julian (362 CE)


Dear Readers,

On the basis that Julian never referred to "christians" as such, but always as "galilaeans" and in fact legislated that this was to be the new legan name, it is only reasonable to translate Julian in the above as saying that he was convinced that the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Anyone wish to make a comment on this?

As a separate issue those who wish to understand the reasons by which Emperor Julian obstinately selected this name of Galilaeans to be reserved for his historical assessment of this class of the empire in the mid fourth century, my recommendation is to read Gibbon on the two different types of Galilaeans, and ask who before Julian mentions this term.


Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

Sure. The same comment I've made when you've pointed to this before. As between your theory and more generally accepted ones, this is not evidence one way or the other. It does fit with your theory that the story of Christianity did not exist before Constantine's time, but it fits equally well with the theory that the story had existed before Constantine's time but Julian did not believe it was a true story.

mountainman

Dear Readers,

It should be noted that Julian is highly regarded for his tolerance towards all other religions of the time, and the question needs to be asked as to why he selected to legislate the name change. The passage quoted above is from what remains of a refutation of Julian via Cyril the next century. However the reading of more of the source indicates Julian had a tolerance for religions.

The exact nature of emperor Julian's invectives against the christians in the Roman empire in the mid fourth century remains to be explained in common terms because Julian is invariably dressed down as an apostate. In actual fact he was a great academic, and a person who was known for his tolerance of other religions. We must understand that when he came to power many of the ancient temples lay in ruins, and the basilica cult was in full swing. The tide had surged since Constantine, and Julian could not prevail against it. But he left his opinion. And he legislated that this cult be called by the name of Galilaeans.


Best wishes,


Pete