Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A new front likely to open?
” In a bid to give this rather esoteric thread some contemporary relevance hereâs 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)” But itâs best not to claim something that canât be solidly backed up.
Apparently in a footnote Gibbon says: âthis transformation is not given as absolutely certain, but as extremely probableâ if you can check. I have discovered that itâs not a copy of his whole book that I have but only a couple of chapters published by the Rationalist Press Association as âGibbon on Christianityâ.”
****
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.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.
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.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 ” 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]”
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.
And when you say Catholic Church, the R.C. Church as we know it didn’t exist as its own entity until six centuries later. The bishop of Rome was no more than that, and no higher than any other bishop.
George of Cappadocia was, however, real.
And he could have been “sainted” when the Arians were in charge and then that just stuck; with Gibbon’s claim being refuted by them later re-inventing “St. George” as George of Lydda, a mythical person.(Not very William Morris-like are you, with his love of beautiful books and objects? A totally screen-based culture is very bleak to me, if that’s how you see our future. I think Morris would be on my side here.)
I make use of Gutenberg too, to email works to others, but i wouldn’t wish to read a work on it myself when i have books, which i can read at leisure and enjoy the physical object.
32 volumes! … Please, my home library passed that number before i was in long trousers!
Maybe they invented George of Lydda so as to save face over George of Cappadocia?đ I think Gibbon is the best authority, still. (Unless you are saying, with the in-crowd, that we can chuck our books now ‘cos we have Wikipedia?) And let’s face it, Christians hate him.
I’m not under a parish priest because i’m not a Christian.
