Indeed, it is futile to criticise Christianity by philosophical arguments, which
the Church fathers seem to have loved to resort to. As far as historical
arguments are concerned, the Church made Jesus-Christ an historical figure. No
one else did, except K. Marx and a few other lovers of 'superstructures'.
Judeo-Christianity is criticised by us from a racial standpoint.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Joel Dietz <jdietz@...> wrote:
>
> I fail to see what "esoteric Catholicism" or "integral traditionalism"
> necessarily have to do with the figure of Jesus Christ. That various aspects
> of the Christian milieu preceded their Christian statement is indubitable
> and establishes little, except to rebut the statements of ignoramuses. As
> Eliade said:
>
> Christianity does not consist in its contradictions or incoherencies, just
> as it is not threatened with disappearing because of them. Christianity
> exists and subsists by the mythos, the symbols ,the longings that answer a
> deep need in western man. It is futile to criticize Christianity by
> philosophical or historical arguments, just as it is equally futile for
> modern apologists to defend it (claiming, in the first place, that if
> Christianity hasn't saved the world, it is the fault of Christians, etc.)
> "True" Christianity has roots that are too deep for it to be shaken or
> abolished.
>
> Again, even if Christianity was a syncretic movement or in some ways a
> restatement, that does not probe its origins or address its value at the
> deepest level.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Tony Ciapo <hyperborean@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Absolutely. In "Maschera e volto dello spiritualismo contemporaneo", Evola
> > devoted a chapter to "esoteric Catholicism" and "integral traditionalism",
> > though it may not be what you think.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> > evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Joel Dietz
> > *Sent:* Sunday, January 09, 2011 2:54 PM
> >
> > *To:* evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> > *Subject:* Re: [evola_as_he_is] Xmas, a (not too much) solsticial feast
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am unaware of any explicit statement of Evola's on Christianity or the
> > figure of Jesus Christ from the post- Heathen Imperialism part of his
> > writings, although I do remember several quotations from the gnostic
> > gospels. Is anyone aware of a more explicit evaluation of the work of Jesus
> > Christ, including any accompanying "esoteric" elements both in canonical and
> > extra-canonical texts?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:58 AM, vandermok <vandermok@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Three days ago I sent this but did not appear on the forum. I send it
> > again, if lost.
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > I do not know how much Wikipedia is reliable, but anyway this matter makes
> > my head spin. As far as I have understood, Aurelianus and not Caesar
> > established that feast of 25 December, only in 274 AD (foundation of the
> > temple of the Sol Invictus). Before, as far as I know, Saturnalia never
> > considered the day 25 as a true solsticial feast.
> >
> > On the web, man insists also that the astronomical winter solstice was, in
> > the Julian calendar, the 13 December; a popular relic of which would be
> > today the feast of Saint Lucy (in Italy there is lullabay about: Santa
> > Lucia č la notte pił lunga che ci sia). You read Italian and can understand.
> > According to the fine freeware program 'Riyal' of Juan Revilla
> > http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/ and also according to Asterix, Solar
> > Fire, etc. the ingress of the sun into Capricorn fell between 2 and 3
> > December in Julian calendar. The day 25 December of 274 A. D. the sun was
> > about 4° Capricorn in Gregorian calendar, that means the real solstice was
> > regularly 4 days before. So it seems to me that the sentence of Julianus
> > would look correct.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since the problem is not related to Evola, if I'm capable to understand
> > more, I will let you know privately.
> >
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
----------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tony Ciapo
> >
> >
> > Obviously, by Julian's time the date for the Winter Solstice no longer fell
> > on 25 December due to the inaccuracy in the Julian calendar. Do you have a
> > reliable source that denies the Julian calendar originally assigned 25
> > December to the Winter Solstice?
> > This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice explains the 3
> > day discrepancy noted by Julian.
> >
> > From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> > evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of vandermok
> >
> > It seems that the difference between the solstice and the Natalis Solis
> > Invicti has not to do with the calendar reformations, but as the emperor
> > Julianus said:
> >
> > "They fixed that feast not just in the exact day of the solar conversion,
> > but in the one in which the return of the sun, from south to north, does
> > appear before the eyes of everybody" ( from
> > http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/saturnalia.html )< o>
> > The same thing happens with the crescent of the new moon that becoms
> > visible only 3 day about after the astronomical phenomenon.
> > ----------
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tony Ciapo
> >
> > Well, Julius Caesar must have had the same lapse, when he established
> > December 25 as the date of the winter solstice in 46 BCE.
> > Unfortunately, the date would have gradually drifted due to the inaccuracy
> > in the Julian Calendar. When Pope Gregory reformed the calendar, he did not
> > start at 46 BCE, but a few hundred years later. Thus the 4 day difference
> > now between Christmas and the winter solstice .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>