FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-05-2008, 02:10 PM   #171
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
This passage is quite obviously comparing the funeral ceremonies of Julian with the funeral ceremonies of Constantius the son of Constantine who was overthrown by Julian.

Constantius' father Constantine laid the foundations of the Christian Roman Empire. Constantius was a committed Christian and sought (from a Christian point of view) to reign righteously make a good end and support the church.

However Constantius' sympathy with the Arian theological position was regarded by pro-Nicene Christians as shaking the foundations of the true faith. Gregory excuses Constantius by representing him as well meaning but gullible and led astray by his advisers.
Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your contribution with which I agree. The author is describing Constatius' father Constantine as the person who who had laid the foundation of the imperial power and the Christian religion. This seems to suggest if we sent a current affairs news reporting crew back to the mid fourth century, and asked this author, when was the foundation of the christian religion established, and by whom, he would not have said the prenicene apostolic church and the prenicene Eusebian apostles, but Constantine's church structure of basilicas and Constantine's three hundred and eighteen fathers of the Nicaean council.


Best wishes,


Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 02:17 PM   #172
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
If you're asking me for my opinion about dating the first origins of the Christian religion, my answer would be in the first century, but that's another matter.
Dear J-D,

What evidence would you suggest we examine in order to support your opinion that the dating of the origins of the christian religion might be actually in the first century? Are you able to support your own opinion with any evidence whatsoever? Over.

Best wishes,


Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 02:48 PM   #173
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
This passage is quite obviously comparing the funeral ceremonies of Julian with the funeral ceremonies of Constantius the son of Constantine who was overthrown by Julian.

Constantius' father Constantine laid the foundations of the Christian Roman Empire. Constantius was a committed Christian and sought (from a Christian point of view) to reign righteously make a good end and support the church.

However Constantius' sympathy with the Arian theological position was regarded by pro-Nicene Christians as shaking the foundations of the true faith. Gregory excuses Constantius by representing him as well meaning but gullible and led astray by his advisers.
Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your contribution with which I agree. The author is describing Constatius' father Constantine as the person who who had laid the foundation of the imperial power and the Christian religion. This seems to suggest if we sent a current affairs news reporting crew back to the mid fourth century, and asked this author, when was the foundation of the christian religion established, and by whom, he would not have said the prenicene apostolic church and the prenicene Eusebian apostles, but Constantine's church structure of basilicas and Constantine's three hundred and eighteen fathers of the Nicaean council.


Best wishes,


Pete
Whatever Nazianzus meant by 'laid the foundation of', it isn't 'was the first originator of', since it's quite clear that Constantine was not the first originator of the imperial power.
J-D is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 02:59 PM   #174
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
If you're asking me for my opinion about dating the first origins of the Christian religion, my answer would be in the first century, but that's another matter.
Dear J-D,

What evidence would you suggest we examine in order to support your opinion that the dating of the origins of the christian religion might be actually in the first century? Are you able to support your own opinion with any evidence whatsoever? Over.

Best wishes,


Pete
Every religion whose historical origin is well recorded began as a group of followers gathered around an original preacher of doctrine. Nobody has ever given a definite coherent account of how Christianity could have originated in any other way. The canonical Christian Gospels do not give a coherent and consistent account and therefore cannot be considered generally historically reliable, but they agree (as indeed do non-canonical reports) on placing this original preacher and his followers in first-century Palestine. They also include incidental references to a number of individuals whose existence is historically verifiable (Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Annas, Caiaphas, and Pontius Pilate--also the parable of the pounds probably refers indirectly to Archelaus, although he is not named). There is no explanation for a hypothetical later originator of these stories to insert these references--they are survivals from contemporary first-century accounts, despite the later manipulations of the record. (There are also references to historical first-century individuals like Gamaliel in Acts, which again make no sense as later fabrications.)

Now, why won't you produce any evidence? Don't you have any?
J-D is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:24 PM   #175
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
The first thing we could not do, obviously, is to produce 4 identical texts. What would the use be of that?
Nobody is asking for four identical texts. Four consistent texts, though, would have been extremely useful.
Dear Doug,

They would have been useful if they were true. If the narrative itself is a christian fabrication of a late century, their utility would not extend into the domain of ancient history prior to their fabrication/authorship.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
We need an 80% spread of variation to make it realistic.
Variation OK. Blatant contradictions not OK.
The heretics abounded (alas!) during the primaeval period of christian origins, and we cannot be sure who is writing what, about whom, and whether what they said about each other, or not, as the case may be, has any integrity. The history of christian origins, written by Euesebius between 312 and 324 CE perhaps under the sponsorship of the supreme being himself, suffers from the same problems. Birds of a feather?

Best wishes,


Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:32 PM   #176
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
What evidence would you suggest we examine in order to support your opinion that the dating of the origins of the christian religion might be actually in the first century? Are you able to support your own opinion with any evidence whatsoever?
Every religion whose historical origin is well recorded began as a group of followers gathered around an original preacher of doctrine. Nobody has ever given a definite coherent account of how Christianity could have originated in any other way.
Is this evidence?

Quote:
The canonical Christian Gospels do not give a coherent and consistent account and therefore cannot be considered generally historically reliable, but they agree (as indeed do non-canonical reports) on placing this original preacher and his followers in first-century Palestine.
Is this evidence?

Quote:
They also include incidental references to a number of individuals whose existence is historically verifiable (Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Annas, Caiaphas, and Pontius Pilate--also the parable of the pounds probably refers indirectly to Archelaus, although he is not named).
Is this evidence?

Quote:
There is no explanation for a hypothetical later originator of these stories to insert these references--they are survivals from contemporary first-century accounts, despite the later manipulations of the record. (There are also references to historical first-century individuals like Gamaliel in Acts, which again make no sense as later fabrications.)
What sort of evidence is this? Now, why won't you produce any evidence? Don't you have any? Do you call the above "evidence" in support of an opinion that the dating of the origins of the christian religion might be actually in the first century? How long have you been posting here? This is a rather unsatisfactory response.

I will ask you once more. Would you please provide one single piece of evidence by which you are convinced that we have christianity happening, as disclosed by Eusebius, in the first century.



Best wishes,


Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:40 PM   #177
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your contribution with which I agree. The author is describing Constatius' father Constantine as the person who who had laid the foundation of the imperial power and the Christian religion. This seems to suggest if we sent a current affairs news reporting crew back to the mid fourth century, and asked this author, when was the foundation of the christian religion established, and by whom, he would not have said the prenicene apostolic church and the prenicene Eusebian apostles, but Constantine's church structure of basilicas and Constantine's three hundred and eighteen fathers of the Nicaean council.


Best wishes,


Pete
Whatever Nazianzus meant by 'laid the foundation of', it isn't 'was the first originator of', since it's quite clear that Constantine was not the first originator of the imperial power.
Dear J-D,

The capital city of the empire, Constantinople, or the "City of Constantine" was established by Constantine where Byzantium once stood. Perhaps this is what is being referred to. By the mid fourth century it had eclipsed Rome as the capital of the empire, and the imperial power, in accordance to Constantine's original designs.

Best wishes,'


Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 04:01 PM   #178
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
Challenging MountainMan's thesis that Lord Constantine created the New Testament, de novo, three questions were raised in response to Pete's suggestion that the Council of Nicea in 325 represented a military conference of trusted associates, all of whom entered as confidants of Constantine, and exited as "Bishops", each in charge of a diocese.
Dear avi,

Firstly a couple of points. I am not presenting the council of Nicaea as being attended by "trusted associates" of Constantine. On the contrary he had a small number of trusted associates. Howeve the bulk of the attendees, to whom he wrote requesting their attendance, were let us say the three hundred most influential people in the eastern empire c.324/325 CE who had not yet been executed by Contantine.

Secondly, the "diocese" was a political and military initiative of Diocletian, which was established during the Tetrarchy before Constantine, and the word was taken over by the christians. Please check this out.

Quote:
First: Is there a reference supporting Pete's notion, showing that one or more of these "bishops" attending Nicea, was previously a military lieutenant of Constantine? Is Eusebius a reliable source of information?
Have you read Robin Lane-Fox on the Council of Nicea?
Here are my notes onPagans and Christians, in the Mediterranean World from the second century AD to the conversion of Constantine",.

Quote:
The Council of Nicaea
p.655: "Among his other innovations, it was Constantine who first mastered
the art of holding, and corrupting, an international conference."

On entering, recalled Eusebius
"units of the bodyguard and other troops
surrounded the palace with drawn swords,
and through them the men of God proceeded
without fear into the innermost rooms of the Emperor,
in which some were companions at table,
while others reclined on couches either side."
It was "like a dream", he said,
an anticipatory picture
of the kingdom of Christ.


Osius first announced the creed and signed it.

[Editor: Ossius was Constantine's trusted agent; and presider over councils.]

The creed was taken around to each individual by Constantine's notaries,
led by Philumenus, the "master of offices" ---
"the signatures (of the Arians)
were thus given under pressure

Constantine imposed criminal sentences of exile on the "bishops" who refused to sign.


"In the Oration we hear the 'first crowned Christian apologist."

"At Antioch in those months, a fine gold coinage circulated,
showing the emperor receiving a figure of victory
from the pagan Sun god. The legend declared:
"To the Sun, Companion of Our Emperor".

p.662: "The Oration is thus our best public statement of the way
in which the new Christian Emperor wished history to be seen.
It included touches which have to be the Emperor's own:

the lessons of Memphis and Babylon

the proofs of God's anger

the favor of God for his new servant, Constantine himself.


"To Marcus, it had seemed wholly mistaken to attribute anger to a god."


CH.13 - From Pagan to Christian

p.661: "The public statements and circular letters of 324/5 mark the start
of a new chapter in the life of the Greek-speaking city culture [of earlier centuries].
Christian letters and speeches were distributed throughout the empire, and christian business
became public business, visible in the great synods, buildings and privileges of the new era.



"This involvement [of Constantine] was felt in two areas:

the internal life of the church and
the relations between christians and non-christians.

"The Emperor's criminal sentences against christians at Nicaea
were followed by Church councils at which his own court advisers presided.
As "servant of Christ", the Emperor wished only to bring about christian unity."


p.664: Octagonal plan Golden Church in Antioch - "Church of Concorde"

p.667: "Constantine allowed the parties in a civil or criminal suit
to appeal to a bishop's final "judgement" and "testimony".
The bishop's decision was then binding on any other judge.
Perhaps this law only covered disputes between christians,
but it was a remarkable recognition of the christian "state within a state."


"The many who benefited from the new circulation of funds
will have found little to challenge in the prominence of the new religion.
Pagan shrines, meanwhile, lost funds and treasures which were melted down
to pay for the christians' publicity."


[Editor: You were either with Constantine or against Constantine"
Many people were forewarned in dreams to take the former option.
There was great profit to be had doing business with "The Boss".]



p.668: "We learn from Gregory of Nazianzus how his father, a great landowner, was converted to christianity by an opportune dream in the year 325: he had a christian wife already and ended his days a the powerful bishop of the family's home town. [FN:14]

[Editor: Rich landowners saw the signs of the times, if they wanted to survive.]


p.587: "In 324/5 the Phrygian settlement of Orcistus petitoned Constantine, referring to its totally christian population."


[Editor: Progressive town councils saw the signs of the times, if they wanted to survive.]



p.669: "In 325 Constantine legislated against gladiatorial games and withdrew
imperial support: eventually, they dies in every province of the empire. [FN:17]

[FN:17] Codex Theod. 15.12.1

[Editor: Our thesis does not paint an absolutely black painting of Constantine]

Note that the above is quoted from Robin Lane-Fox [Editor: except for editorial comments which are mine.]

Best wishes,


Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 04:10 PM   #179
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post

Every religion whose historical origin is well recorded began as a group of followers gathered around an original preacher of doctrine. Nobody has ever given a definite coherent account of how Christianity could have originated in any other way.
Is this evidence?



Is this evidence?



Is this evidence?

Quote:
There is no explanation for a hypothetical later originator of these stories to insert these references--they are survivals from contemporary first-century accounts, despite the later manipulations of the record. (There are also references to historical first-century individuals like Gamaliel in Acts, which again make no sense as later fabrications.)
What sort of evidence is this? Now, why won't you produce any evidence? Don't you have any? Do you call the above "evidence" in support of an opinion that the dating of the origins of the christian religion might be actually in the first century? How long have you been posting here? This is a rather unsatisfactory response.

I will ask you once more. Would you please provide one single piece of evidence by which you are convinced that we have christianity happening, as disclosed by Eusebius, in the first century.



Best wishes,


Pete
I just gave you my evidence {'things useful for forming a conclusion'; 'grounds for belief or disbelief'). If you're not satisfied by it, that's another matter.

Incidentally, it's not evidence that Christianity happened as disclosed by Eusebius. I said that it probably originated in the first century, and I still think so. I never endorsed Eusebius's account.
J-D is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 04:14 PM   #180
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Whatever Nazianzus meant by 'laid the foundation of', it isn't 'was the first originator of', since it's quite clear that Constantine was not the first originator of the imperial power.
Dear J-D,

The capital city of the empire, Constantinople, or the "City of Constantine" was established by Constantine where Byzantium once stood. Perhaps this is what is being referred to. By the mid fourth century it had eclipsed Rome as the capital of the empire, and the imperial power, in accordance to Constantine's original designs.

Best wishes,'


Pete
Maybe when Nazianzus said that Constantine 'laid the foundation' of the imperial power, he didn't mean that Constantine was the first originator of the imperial power, but that he had established it at Constantinople. I agree that that's a possible interpretation of his meaning. But if what he meant by 'laid the foundation of' is not 'was the first originator of', then when he said that Constantine 'laid the foundation of' the Christian religion', it doesn't have to mean that he was saying Constantine was the first originator of the Christian religion. He could have meant that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire and organised for it to be given canonical form--something which is not, as far as I know, in dispute.
J-D is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:25 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.