Mike S wrote:Leucius Charinus wrote:With an emphasis on the prospect that the Christian references in Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny and Trajan are plain and simple literary interpolations (or forgeries) of the Middle Age church
"industry".
I seem to have read about the Christian references of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, not forgetting Josephus, forever and a day. Other than that of Pliny’s I don’t doubt for a moment that they’re spurious.
What's so special about the Pliny-Trajan letter exchange? The Middle Age church industry "suddenly and unexpectedly" found the Pliny-Trajan manuscript in their ARCHIVES, and it was used as the basis for an Aldus Book (Printing press) run. Immediately after the Aldus publication the original manuscript (upon which the Aldus publication relied) was "suddenly and unexpectedly" LOST.
Anyway, ignoring Josephus, and as others have pointed out, even if these mentions were somehow authentic, they still wouldn’t substantiate the existence of a historical Jesus.
I agree with this assessment, however I think there is another level to which the questioning
may be directed. This is basically the critical examination and evaluation of the evidence substantiating the existence of an historical nation of Christians (and their Bishops and Churches) prior to the appearance of "Church History" by Eusebius c.325 CE.
You can’t really believe that Eusebius, whether inspired or not by the Manichaean one, somehow conjured the Christian persecutions out of thin air - grossly exaggerate, sure.
I do believe in the power of literary propaganda in the hands of an all-powerful, very rich monopoly INDUSTRY over a succession of generations. I do believe that the church organisation was concerned with CONTROLLING opinion - or in other words controlling "heresy". I also happen to believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that this church organisation (from the 4th century and throught the Middle Ages) is best viewed as "utterly corrupt" in the full political sense of the term "utterly corrupt".
Therefore IMO one is entitled to seriously, critically and skeptically question any dogmatic claims contained in the literary evidence so-called preserved in the archives of this organisation and transmitted from antiquity to the present.
Anyhow, you’d no doubt agree that the Christians later went on to inflict far worse atrocity on the pagans than had ever been levied against them.
YES. Definitely.
But more importantly, when looked at retrospectively, the Greek NT may just as well have been a political manifesto for the conversion of the gentiles (the "Hellenes" and thus the "pagans") to the Christian NT-Worshipping religion. Because that is precisely what happened in the saga of the political history of the 4th century, between 325-381 CE.
Eusebius is undoubtedly guilty of numerous falsehoods, forgeries of the vilest kind in fact, but, as you variously seem to suggest, hardly invented the Christian religion suddenly in the fourth century off his own bat.
The development the modern attributes of the Christian religion were accomplished in bits and pieces since the 4th century. They include the appropriation of the pagan calendar and festivals. The earliest political appearance of the Christian festival of Christmas is attested c.330 CE when in the rule of Constantine the Christian state appropriated the pagan festival of the midwinter and Saturnalia. The earliest political appearance of the Christian festival of Easter is attested c.325 - as business in the Council of Nicaea - when Constantine and the Christian state Nicene Church appropriated the pagan festival of the Vernal Equinox.
The development of the notion of the Christian Theological Trinity is also from the 4th century. It is derived from Plotinus' treatment of Plato. The Christians only had to change a few words and phrases in Plato in order for the trinity referered to in the Enneads (the "ONE SPIRIT SOUL") to be "Christian".
This first history of the "Nation of Christians" and their "Churches" was prepared by Eusebius in the early 4th century, based upon his laborious and meticulous historical research covering the preceding centuries. Was it peer reviewed?
War is a racket. Constantine was at war. Centralised monotheistic state religions are spin-off rackets from the victors in war. Ardashir implemented a centralised monotheistic state religion in Sassanid Persia c.222 CE based on a canonised holy writ. The Persians became very troublesome to the Romans when they marched with the "One True Song". Constantine followed suit and took the time to implement a centralised monotheistic state religion. It was politically expedient.
Notions of truth demand that Eusebius should simply not be relied upon, except where he’s supported by earlier, or at least contemporary writers, or by strong circumstantial evidence, if only in that he constantly strives to create the impression, at times skillfully so, that the canonical gospels existed far earlier than actually the case.
When we learn to put down our "Eusebius" and pay more attention to the archaeology, the C14 and the extra-biblical evidence then we will IMHO begin to understand just how late the canonical gospels may have been fabricated.
I’ve always fancied these words of Faustus, replying to Augustine:
“Besides as we have proved, again and again, the writings are not the production of Christ or of his apostles, but a compilation of rumors and beliefs, made long after their departure, by some obscure semi-Jews, not in harmony even with one another, and published by them under the name of the apostles, or of those considered the followers of the apostles, so as to give the appearance of apostolic authority, to all these blunders and falsehoods.”
Damasus makes a good case study on the appearance of apostolic authority, and the business opportunities inherent in the claim "PETER WAS HERE IN ROME" for the Church Tourism Industry. Damasus was the first Christian Bishop to hold the ancient pagan title of "Pontifex Maximus"
You say: “My claim is that Ammianus attests to a religious inquisition. And I reject your assessment of this as nonsense. The tribunal was established by the Emperor of the centralised Christian monotheistic state to TRY those pagans who's names were mentioned in documents (containing references to the Divinity) in a pagan temple. Also you seem to dismiss the notion of the law of "majestas" to which the Christian Emperors were accustomed. To hold a different opinion that the Emperor was deemed as a crime against the majesty of the emperor, and it was dealt with as if the crime had been treason. The opinions of Constantine and Constantius were first and foremost Christian. Both pumped NT Bible codices out of their imperial scriptoria for the Nicene Church INDUSTRY.”
Ammianus does naught of the kind! Neither was the empire at that time a ‘Christian monotheistic state’. Injecting ‘majestas’ into the event, something not even remotely mooted by the author, merely strikes me as far-fetched, unsubstantiated and somewhat self-serving speculation on your part.
But Ammianus is not necessarily holding all the evidence in the matter of the use of the law of "majestas" by the Christian emperors. For example, Constantine issues rescripts following the council of Antioch for the torture of members of the upper classes on account of their religious errors. His letter following Nicaea introduces the death penalty (by beheading) of any person preserving the writings of Arius of Alexandria, and not BURNING these writings. Ammianus only starts talking to us from c.353 CE. As you are aware his earlier books are lost. I expect he did write an obituary to Constantine, just as he did for the other emperors - Constantius and Julian etc. I would love to know what he may have written in this obituary.
So Ammianus cuts in late. What happened between 325-353 CE is what I am interested in the most, and the only evidence (outside of the ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIES of the Christian Church organisation) that I can find for this period is the relatively recent discovery of the Nag Hammadi library. Enter Pachomius into the spotlight. Was he really a Christian?
Extrapolating from the latter part of your logic, the emperors would seemingly be obliged to eliminate all the pagans in the empire, if only to safeguard their precious majestas!
Both pagans and non-"Orthodox". That's precisely what happened in the cities and towns at least. The country people still just grew crops and followed their ancient traditions, oblivious for some time to the Christianisation of the Roman Empire. Theodosius makes a solid case 381 CE. Cyril (d.444 CE) cleaned up the end game by anathematising his opponents and trying his best to censor the three books written by Emperor Julian "Against the Christians".
You say: “If the persecution of Christians by the pagan Emperor was just a propaganda exercise during the establishment of the Nicene Church (which I suspect and argue that it was), then we are left with the emergence of the Christian state and the persecution of the pagans and any other heretics the Nicene Church cared to define. At the minimalist position, persecution and intolerance are the two most foremost characteristics of the 4th century Nicene Church organisation. Do you wish to deny this?”
Who asserts that Christian persecution was just a propaganda exercise?
I think that there is a good chance that it was just a propaganda exercise. Others, reject some or many of the instances of persecution during the rule of this or that emperor. The thread in this forum covers the nine possible instances.
You say: “I think it important to point out that the Nicene version of Christianity started in the cities and only later expanded to the provincial regions. It followed the dioceses which had previously been established as military divisions of the empire by Diocletian. Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch.”
Please substantiate.
Whatever Christianity was before the Nicene Council, from 325 CE it became politically corrupted in the hands of the Emperor Constantine who, according to one source, appointed over 1800 bishops during his rule throughout the empire. Constantine refered to himself as the "Bishop of Bishops" and also as "The Thirteenth Apostle". I have mentioned changes to the pagan civil calendar during his rule for Easter and Christmas.
My point is that the Nicene version of the Christian Church Organisation was totally revamped by Constantine, and I have little doubt that some of his most trusted "Bishops" were appointed out of the upper levels of his army. This possibility immediately explains why the Christian church has always been a male dominated bunch of misogynists.
In any event, the spread of the Nicene Church started with the Councils of Antioch and Nicaea and took hold first in the major cities of the empire which Constantine could easily control with the army. He brought far more of the army from the provinces and borders and had them stationed in the cities.
Robin Lane Fox, "Pagans and Christians, in the Mediterranean World from the second century AD to the conversion of Constantine",
p.31:
the word "pagani: in everyday use meant "civilian" and/or "rustic".
"pagani: first appears in christian inscriptions from early 4th century.
"pagani: earliest use in the Law Codes in Codex Theodosius 16.2.18 (c.370)
"pagani: is a word coined by christians -- of the towns and cities.
In reply to my comment that it was ‘a mistake to speak of a single Christian Church’, you say that whatever happened before the Nicene Church established by Constantine in 325 ‘is anyone’s guess’.
What Nicene Church? And you surely don’t think that the Council of Nicea somehow transformed all at once all the different Christian groups into one united harmonious whole!
Wikipedia: “During Constantine's reign, approximately half of those who identified themselves as Christian did not subscribe to the mainstream version of the faith.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... lic_Church
Yes its a complex nexus 325 CE.
Other evidence indicates that Constantine had to legislate c.320 CE against rich pagans who were showing a fascinating ingenuity and were claiming exemptions as alleged Christian priests.
Also from Robin Lane Fox - people had "opportune dreams about converting to Christianity" once Constantine took the initiative ...
p.668:
"We learn from Gregory of Nazianzus how his father, a great landowner,
was converted to christianity by an opportune dream in the year 325:
he had a christian wife already and ended his days
a the powerful bishop of the family's home town.
Also its commonly admitted that Constantine was paid lip service at the Nicene Council.
No one wanted to openly oppose his doctrines. He was a military dictator.
As to who at that time subscribe to the mainstream version of the faith I don't think there were many. However I think that everyone realised that the mainstream version of the faith was being hammered out by the political activities of the Emperor, and these included legislation, prohibitions, military orders, book burning and Bible production.
Out of this seething military turmoil the Nicene Church was inaugurated and passed (eventually) through the hands of Theodosius and the Utterly Corrupt Middle Age church organisation to the 21st century.
FWIW IMO this controversial political situation of 325 CE spawned the "Other Gospels and Acts". IOW the gnostic gospels and Nag Hammadi texts (etc) are a literary reaction to the political appearance of the Greek NT Bible codex and its use as a political instrument of state at that time by Constantine. The Arian controversy and the controversy over these non canonical books (especially those deemed to be heretical or blasphemous or docetic etc) are highly related. Arius may have authored some of these "Gnostic Gospels of Acts" and this explains why Constantine wanted him dead.
SEE:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 49509.html
by 
