StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Diocletian's Neoplatonism predates Julian's, does it not? Anyhows, he's kind of handwaving away Christianity and talking about what Neoplatonism-Gnosticism-astral piety would do in its stead. (That he chose that instead of Mithraism or Zoroastrianism is probably a reflection of his Spengler/Toynbee beliefs re: "Second Religiousness.") It's a pretty murky range of ideologies- then again, what major religion isn't. I think you might be getting hung up over loose use of "monotheism", though. I mean, consider Hinduism- certainly it's a polytheistic, but there are also schools within it that are monotheist, or monist, or perhaps pantheist. Certainly Christianity is monotheist- but then you have the Trinity, the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the Saints, and belief in the existence of angels and demons. What exactly is a god? Where does henotheism end and monotheism end? Or monism and monotheism?

Battlehymn Republic wrote:Diocletian's Neoplatonism predates Julian's, does it not?

I am not sure what your point is here. Could you elaborate?

Anyhows, he's kind of handwaving away Christianity and talking about what Neoplatonism-Gnosticism-astral piety would do in its stead. (That he chose that instead of Mithraism or Zoroastrianism is probably a reflection of his Spengler/Toynbee beliefs re: "Second Religiousness.") It's a pretty murky range of ideologies- then again, what major religion isn't. I think you might be getting hung up over loose use of "monotheism", though.

I do expect anybody who discusses these things to use correct terminology. If you do not, then why should I bother? If he is actually making up new definitions, just why should I bother? Unprofessionalism does not lend credence to an argument. And it is not only a pretty murky range of ideologies, it is just plain wrong.

You might be surprised, but you actually cannot use monotheism loosely. Either someone is a monotheist or he is not.

I mean, consider Hinduism- certainly it's a polytheistic, but there are also schools within it that are monotheist, or monist, or perhaps pantheist. Certainly Christianity is monotheist- but then you have the Trinity, the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the Saints, and belief in the existence of angels and demons. What exactly is a god? Where does henotheism end and monotheism end? Or monism and monotheism?

Quite simple - if you believe there is one god and all the others are false, you are monotheistic. Christianity has one god, who empowers certain helpers to do his work. It is monotheistic, although it has taken on certain elements. Yet those still are far removed from henotheism, because they derive their power from god. They are his agents or his confidantes.

Henotheism is the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods. Julian, Diocletian are prime examples of this, with neither of them being henotheists in the purest sense of the word, for both sacrificed to numerous gods. I suggest you read some of Julian's writings on the subject, they are fairly illuminating to the differences. Heck, Jupiter Maximus or Jupiter Invictus is a perfect example of a henotheistic god - and yet no follower of him would deny the existence of Minerva or Mars.

And a monotheistic derivative of neo-platonism might pop up, but it's not at all certain that it will play a similar role like Christianity in becoming the dominant religion of Europe. Polytheism had been around for thousands of years. I don't see why it would collapse all of a sudden.

despite having a 400 years headstart to christianity - twice the time it took christianity to play a role in politics

Christianity's "role in politics" comes about only because of the spectacularly hard to predict event of Constantine's vision. What evidence is there that, prior to Constantine, Christianity was making substantial headway among the Roman government at various levels (and no, I don't think Severus really counts)? All it takes is one emperor to have a similar Jewish vision, and the status of being a state religion would allow Judaism to take off.

Zoroastrianism is of course intimately tied to the Persian state, but its not totally outside the realm of possibility for the Persians to conqueror (as they did in the early 7th century) large portions of the Roman Near East, and introduce it via that route. Especially without Christianity present, who knows what would happen?

All of this ignores the fact that Judaism was successful in making new converts, especially among women, and were hardly "ethnocentric" and closed off from the Roman world. *cough*Septuagint*cough*

Cecelia5578 wrote:

despite having a 400 years headstart to christianity - twice the time it took christianity to play a role in politics

Christianity's "role in politics" comes about only because of the spectacularly hard to predict event of Constantine's vision. What evidence is there that, prior to Constantine, Christianity was making substantial headway among the Roman government at various levels (and no, I don't think Severus really counts)? All it takes is one emperor to have a similar Jewish vision, and the status of being a state religion would allow Judaism to take off.

You have got to be kidding me. I suggest you read up on the african church and their dealings in government. Christianity was a phenomenon that was almost (with the exception of Gaul, Germany and Britannia) empire - wide. It was rooted in all levels of society and had a broad population base. Unlike Judaism, which was always centered in the middle east, the center of the christian church was in africa, asia and Italy itself. Also, Judaism....especially considering the isolaionist movement, would most likely never have achieved the same status.

Oh, and there is the "small" problem that according to the roman perception, a emperor had to be whole in body. Mutulation (which the romans thought circumcision to be) was not only outlawed, it would have immediately disqualified an emperor in the eyes of the soldiers. Heck, there is no evidence of Jews even being simple cohort commanders.

Zoroastrianism is of course intimately tied to the Persian state, but its not totally outside the realm of possibility for the Persians to conqueror (as they did in the early 7th century) large portions of the Roman Near East, and introduce it via that route. Especially without Christianity present, who knows what would happen?

The same thing that happened during any persian incursion - as soon as they were gone, the temples were destroyed. And the persians never conquered territory long enough to influence a whole generation, what makes you think they will manage to do the same when coming up against an empire that is not embroiled in religious infighting?

All of this ignores the fact that Judaism was successful in making new converts, especially among women, and were hardly "ethnocentric" and closed off from the Roman world. *cough*Septuagint*cough*

Judaism never played a large role in the empire's politics. If anything, they are a second-tier player, taking a backseat to manichaeism, mithraism, the various heliocentric cults or the pagan gods. Heck, show me a roman aristocrat or army commander who was jewish.

Also, the Septuagint was long before any roman ever set foot in the middle east. During the time period we are talking about, there was no largescale succesful judaic conversion.