mountainman

If the Hebrew Bible had remained in the Hebrew language for the edification of the Hebrew centralised monotheistic state cult this question might have legs. History reveals that the Romans dominated the Hebrews (and everyone else except the Persians) and that in turn the nation of the Christians dominated the Romans (and everyone else).

The Christians published their theology of domination not in Hebrew but in Greek, by using a Greek LXX and then copy/pasting their way to fabricate their own new testament in Greek. The centralised monotheistic state Christian cult were no amateurs at domination, persecution and intolerance and it is my thesis that the real extent of their success, involving forced conversion to the Christian state cult by the sword from its inception at Nicaea.

In the Christian holy writ we find that Luke is telling us that not only was The Good News of God's Kingdom being Proclaimed far and wide (by a flood of [imperial?] correspondence), but that Everyone Is Forced into it.

The Council of Antioch preceded Nicaea and at this earlier council Constantine took the stand and addressed the Antiochians. After sprouting a great deal of bullshit and outright fraudulent misrepresentation of literary sources, Constantine issued rescripts which resulted in leading people of that city, magistrates and philosophers, to be tortured so that they might confess the errors of their non Christian ways.

Immediately great landholders in the eastern empire had opportune dreams of marrying Christian wives and becoming Christian, and entire cities petitioned Constantine attesting that they were 100% Christian. Legislation was enacted that "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians", while Constantine deployed his army against the pagans, destroying major pagan temples and executing some of their head pagan priests.

In terms of the Jews Constantine legislated that "Any Jew who stones a Jewish convert to Christianity shall be burned, and no one is allowed to join Judaism"




The spirit of Moses' lieutenant Joshua burned brightly in the new heart of the sacred name of Jesus.

Jesus cried out that he was bringing a sword to the pagan satsang.

Jesus was not bringing peace to the pagan satsang.

He was bringing in forced conversions.










εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

The OP suggests there were forced conversions to the centralised monotheistic state Christian
cult under Roman Emperors during the 4th century, and that the Christian holy writ supports such an agenda.

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses a person, group or organization
of having caused or covered up an event or phenomenon of great social, political, or economic impact.

Christian origins is an as yet unspecified chronological historical event of great social, political, economic and religious impact.

You and your mainstream buddies have your theories and I have mine.

You stay with Marcion and I'll stay with Constantine and Eusebius.








εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander

Forcing people to convert is the hobby of the powerful. Jesus was a suffering man who understood the problems of a peaceful solution.

As Geza Vermes points out, Jesus made the listeners aware of the dangers that lay ahead and emphasised the need to turn the other cheek and love one’s enemies.


As late as 489 the Arian Christian Theodoric made Ravenna the joy and pride of Europe.

Byzantium
Judith Herrin
Penguin Books, 2008. Pg 64-66
ISBN 9780141031026

Chili

What I do not understand that all so called Christians, either on fire, dormant, burned-out or otherwise associate Christianity with Catholicism as being one and the same.

The fact is that Catholics are not Christian and Christians are not Catholic in the same way that Jews are not Christians and Christians are not Jews.

The short answer here is to ask a Baptist and he will tell you point blank that they are not Christians because Catholics proper do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, nor does Catholicism offer a salvation message to swallow for them to be called Christian.

Please note here that Catholics are sinners with confessionals to prove that they are sinners and never are saved sinners as such and will be shunned when they become one of those. We actually call them (saved-sinners here) "The Church Suffering" and pray for them in the very church that Catholics attend while sinners and not saved for as long as they are Catholic.

These would be our purgatorians as a single individual called to work out his own salvation on his own and not inside the flock as Catholic. Then let me add that this is for males only (sic), simply because females are not crucified in the Church that I know.

Now I can see the confusion in this regard in America where every neighbor is a Christian ready willing to preach salvation to his neighbor and as an auto-defense mechanism the Catholic will say: "Yes I am already saved" please try your other neighbor to get rid of him. The fact is that Catholics are not Christian and once they become Christian they will no longer be Catholic in that for him Christian is the end of religion (and will have his own Luther style temple ruckus event that sets him apart as ex-Catholic after his metanoia event that send him in the opposite direction = back to Eden again).*

Your problem Pete is that you think that everybody will be saved or should be saved, but in Catholicism it is not theirs to say and for them cold is OK, and they are happy as cold and just right as cold and very much OK as cold and never lukewarm after swallowing the famous protestant salvation line of John 3:16 that you here now associate with Luke 16:16, but fail to realize that Luke's John is not Matthew's or Mark's John. Instead it is very much opposite where now John 21:18 is in order for him with no if's, but's or maybe's about it for him.

In short, you do not have a clue what salvation is all about and all you can identify with is head-banging holy rollers at best.

*Do you not understand this word? and should not every called and chosen Christian necessarily become follower of Jesus in this kind of way? = anti-flock on his own to leave religion behind?

Bottom line: It is totally absurd to call Christian-ity a religion if it is the end of religion.

And Pete, it does not help to say that Christians are a billion strong with millions and and millions of books written on it.

Bottom line? Christians are nuts to follow a religion that demands you must die before good things can happen to you. Remember "basically evil" here? Sick, sick, sick!

mountainman

G'day Chili,

You have repeated this so often that I feel I have to make a statement of what I understand about the relationship between all so-called Christians and all so-called Catholics, because I think many people are discussing different things.

Firstly I am talking about and addressing and attempting to find the most adequate answer to be drawn from all the available ancient historical evidence that explains best the questions surrounding the origins of the Christian and Catholic religions. Therefore I am continually addressing the ancient historical epoch between when many people expect to find the origins of these things (i.e. the 1st century of the common era) and when there appeared the final canonisation of the books of the canonical bible (i.e somewhere after the mid 4th century, perhaps even the 5th century).

Therefore when I am discussing these "Christians" I am discussing two political groups of people:
(1) those who existed before Nicaea, and
(2) those who existed after Nicaea (and until closure of the canon).

Now Eusebius and most people who follow Eusebius here make a reference to this CHRONOLOGICALLY first group of Christians as the "Universal Church" or as the "Catholic Church" with its lists of Bishops who, it is claimed, may trace their lineage to the Apostles mentioned in the new testament canonical books. They may be called the "early Christians" or even perhaps the "early Catholic Christians". I personally don't think they existed, although I am quite convinced that a "Universal Pagan Church" existed during this epoch.


To many people the second group of people, commencing with the 318 Nicaean Fathers of the Nicaean Church, represent a continuation of this universal church, however other people perceive the Nicaean Church to be an abrupt departure from this earlier "universal church", on the basis that the political structure of the Nicaean Church may be validly described as a centralised monotheistic state religious cult, focussed on the Emperor and the Bishops who were at that time personally appointed by that Emperor Constantine.

Christianity and Catholicism as perceived from the above statements are therefore one and the same thing for this specific epoch under discussion. One singular event is common to all variants of Christianity and Catholicism and that event is the council of Nicaea. It represents a nexus that is focussed on the bible and its service as a holy writ.

I am completely aware that a huge number of variants of this Nicaean church split off during the sixteen (almost seventeen) centuries that separate the year 325 CE with the present day. I am aware of the splits during the reformation and of new Christian and catholic religions appearing daily on the register of official religions in the USA and other countries.

But I am not here to discuss modern history.

I am confining my investigation to the epoch 000 to 444 CE.

During this epoch Christianity and Catholicism are validly viewed as being one and the same. The Vatican at Rome commenced its tourism business for example under Pope Damasus c.367 CE.

I trust you and others can perceive why I am therefore claiming Christianity and Catholicism are (000-444 CE) one and the same thing.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili

Right, and I agree that 'so called' Christians are self proclaimed Christians and Catholics are only called Catholics to be excluded them from.

My point here is that these two are opposites wherein now the so-called Christians are in fact the anti-christ with no tradition-based-intuition to nurse the child after rebirth as is shown by the manger in Luke that is missing in Matthew.

So I am not talking a historical Jesus here but a reborn Joseph in who's mind this conversion took place. Accordingly then the now second Adam was called Jesus also in the mind of Joseph here now after his conversion experience that caused him to do this 180 degree turn that is known as his metanoia event. Iow, just as the first Adam took charge over the faculty of reason, so did the second Adam in the reversal of role-play in the TOK (lymbic system) of Joseph the Jew, now no longer looking for more worldly riches (Gen.2:10-13) but in seeing the third river flow in the East (from where he came) made U turn and went back toward Eden again. So the mind journey is real and in this sense was Jesus very real to write this story in the example he set.

Let me add here that he was not the first, but was the first in the basis for the NT.

Now for this to be possible a tradition based Gospel is needed just as a tradition based Torah is needed so that intuition can feed the lymbic system to do what is right without religion keeping the saved sinner bound in the concept of sin (Gal.5:4 in particular here). So religion must go at least during the first year after this rebirth event as shown in Rev. 12:14, for example, which then is why saved sinners are shunned by Catholics in the proper tradition and hence is called Church Suffering instead where 'another' will take him away (Jn. 21:18 again).

Not critically important here, but this is the reason why Limbo is for non-baptized Catholics, also known as lost brethren, simply because Mary is needed here to get this job done, now feeding direct in the absence of pleasure (= no temple tramp in the TOK) , which now means that a love affair with Mary is inevitable here (= the seraph next to the fiery revolving sword stationed at the gate of Eden still today).

And please keep in mind the Herodian massacre is inevitable with no [intuit] manger in place to nurse the child born within the believer and hence no hypostatic union to follow.Let me first point out here that Matthew and Mark's Jesus went back to Galilee that spells hell on earth in the Catholic tradition that they tried to elevate in these four Gospels, and actually is why they are there. And yes, these two groups were real if for no other reason than to convince Eusebius that [your] "Universal Pagan Church" was the right one since 400 years of burned-out self proclaimed Christians going nowhere except wolving about should be enough to convince anyone how wrong they really are. So that was an easy sell when the time was right and let's not forget that the pagans were already philosophical then (no doubt putting these crazy holy roller Christians to shame).

Very expressive to this end is the kundalini effect that for all born-again Christians is raised from the crotch to the heart. I have no trouble with that and write this with respect to them all. The problem is that in the Ideal it must be raised once more from the heart to the head and this they never seem to achieve and hence must die first. Iow they never seem to be able to occupy the upper room or TOL* (and no doubt will will sing patient endurance song towards that glorious day when they do). For this read Rev.13 where this difference is made known between the first and second beast (and watch out for lexischemy here too wherein tragedy and comedy are mixed to befuddle the reader again).

There is no such thing as a Catholic Christian because Catholics are sinners as Catholic and Christians are set free from the bondage of slavery and sin in the mind of Christ . . . or they would not be Christian from their point of view = their Church Triumphant as Elysium in opposite to Elysian Field as Freeman on their own. This so is where a distinction made in the size of their mansion, we can say, so that poor people can enter as well in the 'much has been given' scenario here.They always were opposite and always will be opposite. It probably is true that with no official state religion they were mixed as they are today. But yes, it goes without saying that if tradition is needed to get this manger in place Catholicism cannot function as Catholic until it is in place, and that would take 400 years or about half of the Thousand Year Reign so it can serve as their 'little big city of God' where Mary was from (the equivalent of Nazareth here).



*This is where Plato called them deprived from the privation they see, and are consciously aware that it is real like a fire fed by an unending source from within. He applies the word syn-ousia to this but not syzen as in seeing but not being part of what they see.

gurugeorge

It's often the case that a scholar may argue a conclusion that supports their own point of view that also support another point of view or interest. I don't see any problem with quoting a scholar's work when some analytical finding of theirs supports one's point of view, even if that contradicts the scholars own point of view. Those little chunks of argument stand on their own.

Case in point: Robert M. Price has noticed that amongst orthodox scholars, there are scattered around sufficient arguments to debunk almost every claim about a historical Jesus, it's just that each scholar tends their own area and doesn't think their bit alone disproves HJ - which it doesn't. But all taken together ...?

I think that's the sort of thing MM is doing, and I don't see any objection to it. There's no reason to treat the bond between a scholar's arguments and their overall opinion as sacrosanct (as if the arguments are valid only if you respect the scholar's overall opinion).

mountainman

Thanks gurugeorge.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

The author of the OP cites the parable concluding in Luke 14:23 to substantiate his case that people are being forced into a situation, in this case the parable about the man who had prepared a banquet, and nobody fronted. The solution was to force people to attend the banquet.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander

You have chosen to discuss the parable of the “Great Banquet” in Luke 14:15-24.


Parables are not easy to interpret because they are a tool for presenting complex ideas. The great Jewish Sage Maimonides wrote that the method of truly great thinkers is "to employ the style of riddle and parable" (Introduction to Chelek).
http://ravkooktorah.org/PSALM_49.htm


The following is a summary of the translated text in Luke 14:15-24:

Important man invites worthy persons to a banquet at his mansion.

The invited do not want to come

The important man invites less worthy persons to the banquet and even
compels totally unknown people to come to the banquet.

End of summary


What does it mean to the listener? The parable is a presentation that invites the listener (reader) to do some independent thinking and his conclusion will always be validated by the parable.

The parable allows freedom of legitimate interpretation and therefore flexibility in the application to society of the various conclusions reached at different times in human history –unless there is a pope or a mohamed or a Moses, who wishes to impose on others his unique and eternal interpretation

In Viridiana, Luis Buñuel interprets Luke as follows:

Important woman invites her worthy uncle

The invited does not come

The important woman considers that the rejection of the worthy persons make them no longer deserving respect and tolerance. She will fill the banquet hall with the same people who have now been degraded by her treatment and compulsion.



Luis Buñuel: Viridian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/1999/...m.derekmalcolm