Freethought & Rationalism Archive

la70119 · 03-05-2012, 03:33 AM

Quote:

What was significant, and was doubtless seen to be significant, was that mighty Rome had been forced to change its ways by a mere carpenter from Galilee.

Except mighty Rome did not change its ways.

la70119 · 03-05-2012, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Yet people grew to see the 'sense' of agreeing with the imperial court.

Well, they had to. Otherwise they found themselves losing their head, ripped apart by wild animals, burnt to a crisp, or hanging impaled on a cruciform gallows. Which only superficially resembled the "new cross" (which was the same old tropaeum) hanging in Constantine the Criminal's brand-spanking-new basilicae.

Iskander · 03-05-2012, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I have long wondered why there are so many writings concerning the heretics and that it was so hard for the "orthodox" faction to eliminate them if the "orthodox" were the predominant and eventually the official faction.

One would assume that the entire eventual power of the Empire's legal and coercive abilities would have been unleashed and able to extinguish these apparently small and insignificant groups, some of whom were presumably different from the "orthodox" in only abstract and intangible doctrines and it should have been relatively easy to finish them all off.

If the empire's political, legal and enforcement power was unleashed on behalf of this official church from the days of Constantine until the days of Justinian, what was going on such that these groups continued existing or popping up all the time.

These difficulties make more sense if:

a) the powers of the empire were NOT available to destroy competing groups as alleged. Evidence of this is the continued existence of Nestorian sects and other sects;

b) the "orthodox" faction was NOT the predominant one during much of that period, because if it were, they could have eliminated their enemies relatively easily;

c) opponents such as Arians who were identified soley on the basis of obscure and abstract ideas must have also been identifiable on a geographic or other identifying basis, because otherwise how could one know who believes what among the masses of clergy or the population at large?

Do you expect no disagreement in matters of religion?

Sometimes disagreement becomes ‘septic’ and stern corrective measures are applied by the stronger party against the heretics, enemy of the people, communists, anarchists, republicans, rebels ... and sometimes the disagreement is perceived as benign and then scholars and idle posters have a field day

mountainman · 03-05-2012, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Where does the imperial army figure in all this?

There were persecutions sporadically until Constantine, with torture and body mutilation common, though they tended to do more harm to the imperial cause than good, as Tertullian noted.

...[trimmed] ...

I suspect that the story of the persecutions (of early christians) are themselves part of the fabrication of the orthodox heresiological regime, and that Tertullian is also a later fabrication. Many people in this forum have me on ignore because of this idea - if you are not aware of this already.

Aside from this quibble, I am in reasonable agreement with everything else you have written here (and elsewhere), particularly the following ....

Quote:

After Constantine's 'vision', soldiery was often there only as a threat, because the emperors were then, ostensibly, in opposition to paganism, but the court wished to persuade pagans rather than force them to become 'Christians', because they were still pagan themselves.

I agree with this seemingly paradoxical summary.

Constantine had to legislate against rich pagans trying to buy their way into the lucrative positions of tax-exempt bishops that Constantine was appointing - hand over fist - all over the dioceses of the eastern and western empire. He was of course the "Bishop of Bishops".

I suspect that he may have given the loyal barbarian chieftains who had accompanied him on his campaign trail the choice of being the bishop of their own dioceses. I have reason to think that Ossius, for example, who presided over many so-called "Christian councils", is to be more appropriately seen as a military agent than a religious agent

Quote:

The existence of some "Universal Christian monotheistic heresiology" before Nicaea is is a hypothesis in chronology that may not be true. We have very little first hand evidence if any for what actually happened during the rule of Constantine.

That's true, but what we do know is that the NT church was modelled on the synagogues, that were modelled on an Israel that could well have been the model for Greek democracy. And we know that the 'church' whom Constantine summoned was structured ideally for the purposes of Rome, unrecognisable as the NT church. It may be that there was the official church, and the real one was 'underground', still meeting in houses, though secretly.

The underground nature of any extant "Early Christian church" (or house church) is supported by the Sahara Desert of evidence.

Quote:

It was the real church that had ensured that. The number of favoured 'bishops' was greater than the number of disfavoured ones.

Quote:

But for Christ's sake Constantine personally appointed hundreds of bishops.

Not for Christ's sake, that's for sure.

Probably not Crispus either.

Quote:

Of course he wanted total control, and 'diocesan' bishops were his means, as they were for James I. A real bishop was one of several, if not many, all of whom had very limited jurisdiction, over only one congregation, of which they were part; and they were elected by that congregation. The Roman 'bishop', a placeman, an absentee, had nothing in common.

I suspect they had appointed also certain "readers" who were acquainted with not only Greek, but also the special "nomina sacra" that appear to be universally employed in the earliest greek codices. The bishops themselves (in the early days under Constantine) may not have needed to read.

In fact if they were appointed in part from his army then this immediately explains why there were no female bishops.

Quote:

To the ordinary guy in the street in Alexandria, Constantine's prohibition of pagan temple practice had radically altered the traditional daily business as usual in the pagan world.

Yet people grew to see the 'sense' of agreeing with the imperial court.

The torture of the upper classes is described in Ammianus. It is no wonder that many thousands of people fled to the deserts of the empire between the years 325 and 360 CE.

mountainman · 03-05-2012, 04:31 AM

Could you be more specific. Can you cite Epiphanius? You are aware that Epiphanius's heresies included Platonism, Hellenism and Pythagoreanism? Epiphanius is not regarded as an historian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Would a falsification of history by someone like Epiphanius include his description of the judaizing sects that would have had to have escaped the state apparatus for a long time, meaning they never actually existed but were invented to magnify the official church's power at eliminating heretics?

Meaning that nothing significant was going on after Constantine, and that the oppressions of Justinian 200 years later are a myth?
If so then Epiphanius was more important for the propaganda machinery then was Eusebius.

But we see that the sects of Nag Hammadi did exist. Plus the Nestorians managed to escape the long arm of the imperial church.

On the road to China.

Duvduv · 03-05-2012, 04:51 AM

What was the advantage that the Nestorians had to survive which the Arians didn't have a century earlier?
It appears that despite all the writings and councils including Chalcedon the empire was still dealing with heresies and pagans under Justinian. The regime was always pushing the Trinity etc.but still didn't manage to eliminate their enemies for a long time. Or they didn't really care about it.

Doug Shaver · 03-05-2012, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I have long wondered why there are so many writings concerning the heretics

Because those were the writings that the orthodox church made some effort to preserve after it triumphed over its rivals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

and that it was so hard for the "orthodox" faction to eliminate them if the "orthodox" were the predominant and eventually the official faction.

Because orthodoxy's competitors were popular. It's harder than some people think it is to eliminate any popular religion, no matter how much power you have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

One would assume that the entire eventual power of the Empire's legal and coercive abilities would have been unleashed and able to extinguish these apparently small and insignificant groups, some of whom were presumably different from the "orthodox" in only abstract and intangible doctrines and it should have been relatively easy to finish them all off.

In the first place, you might assume that, but not everybody does. In the second place, at the time orthodoxy became the empire's official religion, many of its competitors were neither small nor insignificant. In the third place, it often happens that the most vicious sectarian conflicts are over the smallest sectarian differences. Some Christians hate other Christians more than they hate us atheists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

These difficulties make more sense if:

a) the powers of the empire were NOT available to destroy competing groups as alleged. Evidence of this is the continued existence of Nestorian sects and other sects;

Alternatively, it could have been available but just not used for that purpose. Or, not consistently used. Just because some Christians sometimes wage war on their adversaries doesn't mean all Christians have always done it every time they've had the opportunity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

b) the "orthodox" faction was NOT the predominant one during much of that period, because if it were, they could have eliminated their enemies relatively easily;

Maybe they could have. It doesn't follow that they would have.

Duvduv · 03-05-2012, 05:10 AM

The ongoing battle also suggests that there were still many elements believing in the Christ who still rejected the Pauline teachings and perhaps the so-called canonical gospels as well, and not just isolated pockets of gnostics or judaizers.

sotto voce · 03-05-2012, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What was the advantage that the Nestorians had to survive which the Arians didn't have a century earlier?

They were a sight closer to the truth than the 'orthodox'. It was 'theotokos', a teaching both absurd and humanist, that Rome was naturally attracted to, that presumably repelled many, both intellectually and morally, and they attempted to find better answers.

Of course, there was non-Arian opposition to trinitarianism, also. The defining characteristics of medieval orthodoxy were to a significant extent controverted at their origins.

Toto · 03-05-2012, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What was the advantage that the Nestorians had to survive which the Arians didn't have a century earlier?
...

Geography

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2012, 04:51 AM	#26
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	What was the advantage that the Nestorians had to survive which the Arians didn't have a century earlier? It appears that despite all the writings and councils including Chalcedon the empire was still dealing with heresies and pagans under Justinian. The regime was always pushing the Trinity etc.but still didn't manage to eliminate their enemies for a long time. Or they didn't really care about it.

03-05-2012, 05:10 AM	#28
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The ongoing battle also suggests that there were still many elements believing in the Christ who still rejected the Pauline teachings and perhaps the so-called canonical gospels as well, and not just isolated pockets of gnostics or judaizers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.