St. George’s day.
- This topic has 26 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Gelasius ” also had cordial relations with the Ostrogoths, who were Arians (i.e. Non-trinitarian Christians), and therefore perceived as heretics from the perspective of Nicene Christians.[7]”
Yes, this “could have” happened. Also there “could have” been a real Roman soldier called George who was “martyred” for being a christian. All sorts of things “could have” happened. The job of a historian is to try to work out, on the basis of any available evidence, what is most likely to have happened.
I wouldn’t have thought that there is enough (or any) definitive evidence to say that St George was the historical George of Cappodocia.
https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/george.html
The pork salesman who became a patron saint. This article backs me up and shows how Gelasius fraudulently created another George.
Gelasius canonised George in the late fifth century, barely a century after the bishop’s assassination, whereas George of Lydda had supposedly died a further century before that.
You are not saying that the George that Pope Gelasius made a saint was Bishop George of Cappodocia, are you? It would have been the mythical “George of Lydda”, wouldn’t it ?
Gelasius ” also had cordial relations with the Ostrogoths, who were Arians (i.e. Non-trinitarian Christians), and therefore perceived as heretics from the perspective of Nicene Christians.[7]”
That looks like a quote from Wikipedia! Or did you find it in one of your pile of vellum-bound books?
Anyway, what are you saying? That Pope Gelasius made an Arian bishop a saint just to please the Ostrogoths?
The article you found on the internet (where would you be without it?) about the pork salesman is amusing but it does not actually claim, as you did on your original post, that it was George of Cappodocia who was made a saint but only that the St. George was based on him. Mind you, I wouldn’t put it pass a Pope to create a fictitious person to make a saint. They have done worse things.
This is another misconception: canonisation.
Since the Roman papacy took hold of independence in 1054, the popes have formally made saints. Before then, sainthood was informal and local and came about through local devotion.
I’m saying that George of Cappadocia, championed by the majority of the day which was Arian, was probably already a saint among them, just as Athanasius was among the opposing sect.
A tradition of ol’ George’s holiness would have become too established to openly attack, so Gelasius maybe invented another personality for him, an “orthodox” soldier of a century earlier, supposedly martyred by Diocletian’s men.Gibbon wasn’t a fool. He knew his subject and he knew the difference between Arians and Athanasians. He knew George was an Arian bishop. So why would he identify him as St. George? Especially if the Church already had a St. George of Lydda and claimed that one as their saint?
Constantine is today an orthodox saint on both sides of the 1054 schism, but he was an Arian, and was baptised by the Arian Eusebius.
Good question. Probably to take a potshot at christianty. Nothing wrong with that. It’s easy and it’s fun and they deserve it. But it’s best not to claim something that can’t be solidly backed up.
Apparently in a footnote Gibbon says: “this transformation is not given as absolutely certain, but as extremely probable” if you can check. I have discovered that it’s not a copy of his whole book that I have but only a couple of chapters published by the Rationalist Press Association as “Gibbon on Christianity”.
In a bid to give this rather esoteric thread some contemporary relevance here’s something that suggests pSt George might be a figure to slay the dragon that is Israel:
” But it’s best not to claim something that can’t be solidly backed up.
Apparently in a footnote Gibbon says: “this transformation is not given as absolutely certain, but as extremely probable” if you can check. I have discovered that it’s not a copy of his whole book that I have but only a couple of chapters published by the Rationalist Press Association as “Gibbon on Christianity”.”
****
Which is the very book i have just finished reading today and is in front of me as i type.
I don’t think Gibbon would pop at Christianity in that way, with false statements that would have earned him ridicule in Christian England and abroad.
And i am not aware of any contemporaries refuting him on a figure like St.George, the symbol of that genus of imbecile, the patriot.” In a bid to give this rather esoteric thread some contemporary relevance here’s something that suggests pSt George might be a figure to slay the dragon that is Israel.”
***
Yes, it’s often forgotten that the Palestinians include Orthodox Christians, and indeed JEWS !(native, Palestinian, Jews)The first recorded conscientious objector.
https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-of-the-day/saint-maximilian/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.