Keep in mind seed warfare and the God of this world ie Lucifer vs the Kingdom of Heaven and the separation and santification and battle the Christian faces vs the atheist, bc that's the dogma you intertwine obviously, to not mold and make yourself in the image of Christ was at play here. I'm still processing.
The unknown God is ultimately what Julian worshiped and if true re rights and such then which unknown God was worshiped? A good general wins wars with rivers of blood, but pushing martyrdom and sacrifice involved in paganism does not say what Paul was saying regarding the unknown God. Based on early church politics and the time needed and that you have a skewed vision as Christian has always been more tolerant to the point of weaponized empathy against the Christian that the pagan does not deal with is observable throughout the ages.
Thanks for taking the time to read and reflect on this so deeply. I know there's a lot here. I can only say I didn't intend to attack Christianity in this piece, though I understand that the ending may land that way. I was wrestling sincerely here with some of its mysteries through Julian and his story. Julian as I've written him is a man who feels deeply, who strives toward goodness and justice, but who struggles with how those things are expressed in the story of Christ. The section I think you're referring to here where they talk about the crucifixion was meant to show a man wresting with the cost of redemption. For me he wasn't rejecting Christ really, not in a Luciferian way. He was more saying "I can't accept such a sacrifice because I don't feel worthy of it," that was the subtext, anyway. On the unknown God, well, I think God is unknowable to Julian. What he was saying in this piece was that the known god is not the real god because god cannot be known, God *must* be unknown. So there is no question of *which* unknown god. God is unknown. To claim to know him is a sin in itself. That's his larger critique of Christianity, that it commits a sin by claiming to know God when that is impossible.
Even though I am still processing this as the early church and Constantines rule is something that can be poured over in the end I'm left with Paul's discourse on Mars hill and the unknown God when he was in the agora speaking with Christian,Jew and pagan as Islam wasn't a religion then and almost how without Paul's study of the classics and the scriptures as a pharisee first before he was on that road to Damascus and how would Basil or Gregory not have brought that up but all in all well done with the discourse aspect and for the historical fiction. Thank you for posting this.
Thank you for reading it! For Basil and Gregory I mainly drew on their own writings. For Gregory it was almost entirely his invective, which is why he's so fiery. And Basil, his letters and Address to young men, etc... I wanted it to be a "gloves off" conversation, so it ended up being far more personal than theological. But on the Mars Hill thing, I take your point; that would have made sense as an approach for Basil. I had trouble with it because I find Gregory and Basil hard to understand, on a deep level, so it was challenging for me to write their positions. Paul's discourse on Mars Hill, the unknown God thing, would have been difficult for me to formulate for the same reason. But based on what I understand, I don't think such an argument would have worked with Julian. He already believed in a most high God in the neoplatonic or stoic sense, and Basil would have known that. So saying to him "a high God exists" and then from there arguing that "Christians are right about him," would not have landed. It does make sense as an approach, though, especially for Basil. If I ever decide to expand the discussion, and I can figure out how to make it work, I'll consider adding that in.
Keep in mind seed warfare and the God of this world ie Lucifer vs the Kingdom of Heaven and the separation and santification and battle the Christian faces vs the atheist, bc that's the dogma you intertwine obviously, to not mold and make yourself in the image of Christ was at play here. I'm still processing.
The unknown God is ultimately what Julian worshiped and if true re rights and such then which unknown God was worshiped? A good general wins wars with rivers of blood, but pushing martyrdom and sacrifice involved in paganism does not say what Paul was saying regarding the unknown God. Based on early church politics and the time needed and that you have a skewed vision as Christian has always been more tolerant to the point of weaponized empathy against the Christian that the pagan does not deal with is observable throughout the ages.
Thanks for taking the time to read and reflect on this so deeply. I know there's a lot here. I can only say I didn't intend to attack Christianity in this piece, though I understand that the ending may land that way. I was wrestling sincerely here with some of its mysteries through Julian and his story. Julian as I've written him is a man who feels deeply, who strives toward goodness and justice, but who struggles with how those things are expressed in the story of Christ. The section I think you're referring to here where they talk about the crucifixion was meant to show a man wresting with the cost of redemption. For me he wasn't rejecting Christ really, not in a Luciferian way. He was more saying "I can't accept such a sacrifice because I don't feel worthy of it," that was the subtext, anyway. On the unknown God, well, I think God is unknowable to Julian. What he was saying in this piece was that the known god is not the real god because god cannot be known, God *must* be unknown. So there is no question of *which* unknown god. God is unknown. To claim to know him is a sin in itself. That's his larger critique of Christianity, that it commits a sin by claiming to know God when that is impossible.
Even though I am still processing this as the early church and Constantines rule is something that can be poured over in the end I'm left with Paul's discourse on Mars hill and the unknown God when he was in the agora speaking with Christian,Jew and pagan as Islam wasn't a religion then and almost how without Paul's study of the classics and the scriptures as a pharisee first before he was on that road to Damascus and how would Basil or Gregory not have brought that up but all in all well done with the discourse aspect and for the historical fiction. Thank you for posting this.
Thank you for reading it! For Basil and Gregory I mainly drew on their own writings. For Gregory it was almost entirely his invective, which is why he's so fiery. And Basil, his letters and Address to young men, etc... I wanted it to be a "gloves off" conversation, so it ended up being far more personal than theological. But on the Mars Hill thing, I take your point; that would have made sense as an approach for Basil. I had trouble with it because I find Gregory and Basil hard to understand, on a deep level, so it was challenging for me to write their positions. Paul's discourse on Mars Hill, the unknown God thing, would have been difficult for me to formulate for the same reason. But based on what I understand, I don't think such an argument would have worked with Julian. He already believed in a most high God in the neoplatonic or stoic sense, and Basil would have known that. So saying to him "a high God exists" and then from there arguing that "Christians are right about him," would not have landed. It does make sense as an approach, though, especially for Basil. If I ever decide to expand the discussion, and I can figure out how to make it work, I'll consider adding that in.