Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-20-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Concerning the destruction of the temples and the executions of the priests Robin Lane-Fox writes the following:

Leaving aside the fact that Lane Fox is not Eusebius (I asked where in Eusebius' VC we could find Eusebius speaking of executions of "chief priests" as you claimed we would if we looked there), Lane Fox says nothing about priests, let alone "chief priests" in this quote of his, or of anyone's execution.

You are reading into his text what you want to see.

Dear Jeffrey,

I am sorry for confusing Constantine's torture and death of the "chief priests" with Constantine's torture and death of the "oracles" or "prophets" and/or "magistrates of the city of Antioch" . I should have of course written that Constantine cruelly tortured the "oracles" or "prophets" - the term used in RLF - and/or "magistrates of the city of Antioch" . Eusebius does not actually report anyone died at the hands of Constantine's cruel public tortures.

The source in PE below states recently in our own day, under cruel tortures before the Roman courts declared ... indicates that the tortures by Constantine may have been conducted prior to 324/325 CE in the western empire, possibly in the courts of Rome itself.

[quote]

Quote:

For on p. 785 he specifically cites Eusebius P.E. 4:135C-136A.

Thankyou. Here is the translation:

Quote:

By adding one circumstance to those which have been mentioned, such man would have clearly seen the main sum and substance of the matter, that ere now, many of the most highly inspired even of their chief hierophants, and theologians, and prophets, who were celebrated for this kind of theosophy, not only in former times but also recently in our own day, under cruel tortures before the Roman courts declared that the whole delusion was produced by human frauds, and confessed that it was all an artfully contrived imposture; and they had the whole character of the system and the methods of their evil practices registered in the words uttered by them in public records. Therefore they paid the just penalty of their pernicious deception, and revealed every word, and certified by actual facts the proof of the things which we have mentioned.

But, you ask, what sort of persons were these? Think not that they were any of the outcast and obscure. Some came to them from, this wonderful and noble philosophy, from the tribe who wear the long cloak and otherwise look so supercilious; and some were taken from the magistrates of the city of Antioch, who indeed in the time of our persecution prided themselves especially on their outrages against us. We know also the philosopher and prophet who suffered at Miletus the like punishments to those which we have mentioned.

These arguments then, and yet more than these, one might bring together to assert that the authors of the oracles are not gods nor yet daemons, but the delusion and deceit of human impostors.

And there were among the Greeks themselves whole sects distinguished in philosophy who defended this opinion; as the school of Aristotle, and all the successors of the Peripatetic school; Cynics too and Epicureans, in whom what I most admire is, how, after being brought up in the customs of the Greeks, and been taught even from the cradle, son from father, that those of whom we speak are gods, they have not been easily caught, but proved with all their might that even the renowned oracles, and the seats of divination which were sought after among all, had no truth, and declared that they were useless, nay gather mischievous.

I made two claims. One for the destruction of temples (Eusebius - cites provided and snipped). One for the execution of chief priests. We are quibbling here, and I will accept your quibble that the documents at the source of Fox's citations actually say that Constantine cruelly tortured "prophets/oracles". These people are also described as including respected magistrates of Antioch, and other "oracles" and/or "prophets". All this action was after Constantitne had won the battle against Lucinius, but before Nicaea, and the executions of his family members. Nice bloke Constantine, the dear political father of christianity and thirteenth apostle.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-20-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the fact that Lane Fox is not Eusebius (I asked where in Eusebius' VC we could find Eusebius speaking of executions of "chief priests" as you claimed we would if we looked there), Lane Fox says nothing about priests, let alone "chief priests" in this quote of his, or of anyone's execution.

You are reading into his text what you want to see.

Dear Jeffrey,

I am sorry for confusing Constantine's torture and death of the "chief priests" with Constantine's torture and death of the "oracles" or "prophets" and/or "magistrates of the city of Antioch" .

Confusing? You out and out got it wrong and you showed that you didn't know what you were taking about or that you have read Lane Fox closely.

Quote:

I should have of course written that Constantine tortured (to death?) the "oracles" or "prophets" - the term used in RLF - and/or "magistrates of the city of Antioch" .

No you shouldn't have, since there is absolutely no mention of the death of those spoken of as tortured in Lane Fox or in any of the texts you adduced., let alone "priests", as you claimed there were.

Quote:

Thankyou. Here is the translation:

Quote:

I made two claims. One for the destruction of temples (Eusebius - cites provided and snipped). One for the execution of chief priests.

Which was absolutely false.

Quote:

We are quibbling here

The one one here who is quibbling is you. And that's to cover up the fact that the texts you adduce do not say what you have claimed they say. Neither Lane-Fox nor Eusebius speak of priests, let alone "chief priests" or that the torture they speak of resulted in death.

Sloppy sloppy sloppy. Not to mention that your idea that the (5 or so) Temples destoyed ny Constantine had priests or an established priesthood.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 12-20-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Neither Lane-Fox nor Eusebius speak of priests, let alone "chief priests" or that the torture they speak of resulted in death.

Dear Jeffrey,

You would make a good defence lawyer, but the case for the prosecution has been prepared in earnest by Emperor Julian. Just as a matter of interest, at the opening of PE Eusebius states:

Quote:

what is established in the several cities and countries, and which they call political, or state-religion, which also is especially enforced by the laws, as both ancient and ancestral, and as in itself indicating the excellence of the power of those whom they deify.

It appears Eusebius acknowledges there was a pagan state religion.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 12-20-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Arianism is NOT gnosticism.

Umm, he didn't say it was. In fact he was ridiculing the idea, wasn't he?

Dear Jeffrey and Toto,

In order to understand Arianism, one must first understand gnosticism, since the latter preceeded the former. The hypothetical issues connecting "early christianity" and "gnosticism as examined in the fourth century texts within the Nag Hammadi Codices have not produced any real concensus, and many new issues have been raised.

Quote:

C14 DATED to 348 CE (+/- 60 years)
NAG HAMMADI, GNOSTICISM
AND NEW TESTAMENT
INTERPRETATION
WILLIAM W. COMBS

The Gnostic heresy alluded to in the NT and widely repudiated
by Christian writers in the second century and after has been in-
creasingly studied in the last forty years. The discovery in upper
Egypt of an extensive collection of Gnostic writings on papyri trans-
formed a poorly known movement in early Christianity into a well
documented heresy of diverse beliefs and practices.

The relationship of Gnosticism and the NT is an issue that has
not been resolved by the new documents. Attempts to explain the
theology of the NT as dependent on Gnostic teachings rest on ques-
tionable hypotheses. The Gnostic redeemer-myth cannot be docu-
mented before the second century: Thus, though the Gnostic writings
provide helpful insight into the heresies growing out of Christianity, it
cannot be assumed that the NT grew out of Gnostic teachings.

Here we have the observation that is does not appear that the NT was dependent on the "Gnostic Heresy". I would like you to consider the very simple option that:

1) The "christian gnostics" were a fictional conflation of Eusebius, fabricated by mixing the pythagorean/platonic philosophical literature with a consistent reference to "christianity". There were no christian gnostics until after Nicaea.

2) the historical "Gnostics" were simply the Hellenistic academics which have been studied by Classicists as the authors and preservers of the pythagorean/platonic philosophical literature - for example, the lineage from Pythagoras via Apollonius to Arius and Porphyry. The term "gnostics" has been used by Eusebius to describe an "earlier heresy" for which we have no evidence. The major recent evidential link is the Nag Hammadi texts.

We have been conditioned by Eusebius to look for "christianity" in "gnosticism" and it is my opinion that this is like being trained to perceive the young woman in the picture presented in the above posts. Once conditioned to look for "early christianity" all images will appear with this paradigm in mind.

I am asking you to accept the possibility (for discussion purposes of course) that there is a second paradigm evidenced with the Nag Hammadi codices that is suggested in the image of the old woman in the same picture. In this paradigm, the old woman is the pagan (non-christian) perspective. From this perspective the Nag Hammadi texts were written by non-christians, and the christian references therein are actually forbidden and apochryphal tractates, with politically sensitive material to the new official state montheistic religion imposed during the time of Constantine.

Finally, as I understand it, the name of Jesus is not presented in the Nag Hammadi codices. What appears, which has been interpretted by the translators, is the replication of one nomina sacra, which in the coptic may also be translated as "The Healer". (ie: no reference to "the Jesus"). The citation for this claim is found referenced at Fabulating Jesus, the Coptic Nomina Sacra - Why Gnostic "Codes" Do Not Name the Historical Jesus.

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto · 12-20-2008, 07:59 PM

Why should I make that assumption "for the point of argument?" You haven't been able to produce any evidence for it, and it does not help in the interpretation of the texts or of history.

J-D · 12-20-2008, 08:02 PM

Even if it is true that there was an official Roman state religion before Constantine;

and even if it is true that Constantine suppressed that official state religion in favour of Christianity;

and even if it is true that Constantine employed violence in that suppression, having temples destroyed and recalcitrant priest tortured and executed;

none of that, Pete, provides a jot of evidence for your specific theory, because all of it is equally compatible with the opposing conventional accounts. So you've still got nothing.

mountainman · 12-20-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Even if it is true that there was an official Roman state religion before Constantine;

and even if it is true that Constantine suppressed that official state religion in favour of Christianity;

and even if it is true that Constantine employed violence in that suppression, having temples destroyed and recalcitrant priest tortured and executed;

none of that, Pete, provides a jot of evidence for your specific theory, because all of it is equally compatible with the opposing conventional accounts. So you've still got nothing.

Dear J-D,

My position is that since it is that the archaeologists have still got nothing to authenticate the existence of the new testament canon before the fourth century, it not unreasonable to examine the possibility that the new testament canon entered the world in the fourth century, sponsored by Constantine. What problem(s) do you see with this position?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 12-20-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why should I make that assumption "for the point of argument?"

Dear Toto,

For the purposes of discussing the hypotheses (associated with gnosticism, christianity and then Arianism). My claim is not unreasonable: that there is more to these things (ie: gnosticism, christianity and then Arianism) than is available in the the "victorious christian canon interpretation" of this epoch in history. (Hence the image" new and old and a 3rd?)

Quote:

You haven't been able to produce any evidence for it, and it does not help in the interpretation of the texts or of history.

I have not been able to discuss the hypothesis, so how can you be so sure it will not help in the interpetation of the texts or of the history. Can we be objective enough to discuss the notion that on the assumption that the NT canon was fabricated 312-324 CE, would this be sufficient to explain "The Arian Controversy"?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 12-20-2008, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Even if it is true that there was an official Roman state religion before Constantine;

and even if it is true that Constantine suppressed that official state religion in favour of Christianity;

and even if it is true that Constantine employed violence in that suppression, having temples destroyed and recalcitrant priest tortured and executed;

none of that, Pete, provides a jot of evidence for your specific theory, because all of it is equally compatible with the opposing conventional accounts. So you've still got nothing.

Dear J-D,

My position is that since it is that the archaeologists have still got nothing to authenticate the existence of the new testament canon before the fourth century, it not unreasonable to examine the possibility that the new testament canon entered the world in the fourth century, sponsored by Constantine. What problem(s) do you see with this position?

Best wishes,

Pete

That there isn't a speck of evidence for it, as I have told you repeatedly.

J-D · 12-20-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why should I make that assumption "for the point of argument?"

Dear Toto,

For the purposes of discussing the hypotheses (associated with gnosticism, christianity and then Arianism). My claim is not unreasonable: that there is more to these things (ie: gnosticism, christianity and then Arianism) than is available in the the "victorious christian canon interpretation" of this epoch in history. (Hence the image" new and old and a 3rd?)

Quote:

You haven't been able to produce any evidence for it, and it does not help in the interpretation of the texts or of history.

I have not been able to discuss the hypothesis, so how can you be so sure it will not help in the interpetation of the texts or of the history. Can we be objective enough to discuss the notion that on the assumption that the NT canon was fabricated 312-324 CE, would this be sufficient to explain "The Arian Controversy"?

Best wishes,

Pete

Yes, we can discuss it. We have discussed it. And the answer to the question is 'No, it is not a sufficient explanation'.

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

12-20-2008, 07:59 PM	#145
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Why should I make that assumption "for the point of argument?" You haven't been able to produce any evidence for it, and it does not help in the interpretation of the texts or of history.

12-20-2008, 08:02 PM	#146
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	Even if it is true that there was an official Roman state religion before Constantine; and even if it is true that Constantine suppressed that official state religion in favour of Christianity; and even if it is true that Constantine employed violence in that suppression, having temples destroyed and recalcitrant priest tortured and executed; none of that, Pete, provides a jot of evidence for your specific theory, because all of it is equally compatible with the opposing conventional accounts. So you've still got nothing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.