Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-03-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juma

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There have been several centuries for the christianity we know today to have gone through its developments.

It is sufficient to have new testament images at Dura to falsify mountainman's claim. However, he will not admit it. He'll talk of such half-assed things as confirmation bias when he looks at the healing of the paralytic or the walking on water scenes. Bias certainly. He's confirming that he will not call a spade is a spade when it is stuck in front of his face. A religion centered on Jesus and the accompanying gospel stories existed before 257 CE.

But these are just images similar to stuff mentioned in NT. Not NT images. To say that these images depicts jesus is at best wishful thinking.

Maybe they were images of Brian of Nazareth??

aa5874 · 06-03-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

If one wants to claim Constantine invented Christianity then the attendees at Nicea and the Christian diversity they represented would have to be explained.

From the link there appears to be corroborating contemporary references to the council.

May I remind you that the Church has provided "corroborative" evidence for the post resurrection visits of Jesus so I don't know if it would have been so difficult to invent "corroborative" evidence for the Council of Nicea.

Recently, did we not have "corroborative" evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Did we not see the "corroborative" evidence on TV?

It has been drawn to my attention that the Council of Nicea during the time of Constantine may have been invented.

It would appear to me that the Roman Church did not invent the Jesus cult of Christians but may have invented events during the time of Constantine.

After all we know that the Roman Church did invent events under Constantine.

We have the "Donation of Constantine"--an admitted product of inventions falsly attributed to Constantine.

Clivedurdle · 06-03-2013, 10:37 AM

Do we need some nuance here? A little oriental cult becomes the state religion of the New Rome, a new city with a new religio as part of the state apparatus, using the new fangled idea of the one god, and copying what other emperors had done.

I would argue that it actually had little lasting effect until later in the 380's, Julian could have reversed trends if he had not been assassinated by his Christian arms bearer.

The major problem is that history has been rewritten by the victors to make a superstitio into a religio by pushing back its founding to around the time of the move from the Republic to the Empire.

There were Christians or Chrestians around but things were changed massively with nationalisation, much like Karl Marx and the Soviet Union.

The key point is the move to Constantinople, not some stories about goings on in Jerusalem.

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It has been drawn to my attention that the Council of Nicea during the time of Constantine may have been invented.

Drawn by whom?

Quote:

It would appear to me that the Roman Church did not invent the Jesus cult of Christians but may have invented events during the time of Constantine.

After all we know that the Roman Church did invent events under Constantine.

The Roman Church? Which of our documents and bits of evidence about Nicea come from the (Latin speaking/Western) Roman Church? And what events under Constantine did the Roman Church "invent" at any time roughly contemporary with his rule?

Jeffrey

Chili · 06-03-2013, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

. . . and Steve, it is totally dumb to say that "born/created" is the same as "begotton" that in itself deny's the essence of Christ and hence the iota as well.

Plato called this a re-emergence that we simply call reborn wherein we encounter God as the source of all species including Man, here now identified by the son (that he called genus) raised to Higher Order outside the Cave (no longer doing penance inside the Cave), where also the interrelations of species is seen and hence bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ.

More impenetrable nonsense. How is this in anyway relvant to -- or an advancement of the discussion begun in -- the OP?

How does this reflect rational discourse?

Jeffrey

Impenetrable? It is Plato!!!!!!!!!!! "Metaphysics," mind you, but simple reading nevertheless.

What is this kindergarden here?

As for the OP, I pointed out that Pete identifies the difference that Constantine made, and called Arians wrong and showed you why they are wrong, in denying the son that the NT is all about.

aa5874 · 06-03-2013, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It has been drawn to my attention that the Council of Nicea during the time of Constantine may have been invented.

Drawn by whom?

Quote:

It would appear to me that the Roman Church did not invent the Jesus cult of Christians but may have invented events during the time of Constantine.

After all we know that the Roman Church did invent events under Constantine.

The Roman Church?

Which of our documents and bits of evidence about Nicea come from the (Latin speaking/Western) Roman Church?

And what events under Constantine did the Roman Church "invent" at any time roughly contemporary with his rule?

Jeffrey

You have only asked questions. You seem to have done little or no actual research on the topic under discussion.

Was there a Roman Church when Constantine was Emperor c 325 CE?

Chili · 06-03-2013, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It would appear to me that the Roman Church did not invent the Jesus cult of Christians but may have invented events during the time of Constantine.

After all we know that the Roman Church did invent events under Constantine.

Catholicism is occult.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult that is beyond the reach of human understanding.

From this follows that Jeffrey can only read shit and then complains that it tastes like it too.

Robert Tulip · 06-03-2013, 01:02 PM

Considering Pete's Constantine hypothesis as a thought experiment is useful to illustrate just how little evidence of Christianity exists Before Constantine.

The catacombs of Rome allegedly contain a second century fresco of the Last Supper, and there are Roman sarcophagi of Christ the Magician from the fourth century and possibly from the late third century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christ the Magician

Graydon Snyder, in Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, lists several dozen pre-Nicene funerary artworks, the vast majority of which are in catacombs. There is some debate about the accuracy of their dating.

The fact that spin must trumpet this late Syrian desert find shows how very sparse the evidence really is. The absence of early archeological evidence helps to cast the texts we have into a very different light. It suggests that they are even more secretive and allegorical than they say, and should be considered as the 'public documents' that a secret organisation circulates to provide a controlled and limited window into its thought. In fact, it seems the early thought was Gnostic, and the historised story in the Gospels is just a children's fable for external consumption. But these external consumers eventually consumed the originators and scattered their memory to the four winds.

Duvduv · 06-03-2013, 01:06 PM

Just imagine the approach of the mainstream if they used the same criteria to favor the existence of the Old Testament figures and events based on a synagogue here or there, a few coins, etc. They would be certain to accept what they reject, namely the historicity of the advent of the OT texts.

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Considering Pete's Constantine hypothesis as a thought experiment is useful to illustrate just how little evidence of Christianity exists Before Constantine.

The catacombs of Rome allegedly contain a second century fresco of the Last Supper, and there are Roman sarcophagi of Christ the Magician from the fourth century and possibly from the late third century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christ the Magician

Graydon Snyder, in Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, lists several dozen pre-Nicene funerary artworks, the vast majority of which are in catacombs. There is some debate about the accuracy of their dating.

The fact that spin must trumpet this late Syrian desert find shows how very sparse the evidence really is. The absence of early archeological evidence helps to cast the texts we have into a very different light. It suggests that they are even more secretive and allegorical than they say, and should be considered as the 'public documents' that a secret organisation circulates to provide a controlled and limited window into its thought. In fact, it seems the early thought was Gnostic, and the historised story in the Gospels is just a children's fable for external consumption. But these external consumers eventually consumed the originators and scattered their memory to the four winds.

How many black swans would it take to falsify the claim all swans are white?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Jeffrey

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

06-03-2013, 10:37 AM	#63
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Do we need some nuance here? A little oriental cult becomes the state religion of the New Rome, a new city with a new religio as part of the state apparatus, using the new fangled idea of the one god, and copying what other emperors had done. I would argue that it actually had little lasting effect until later in the 380's, Julian could have reversed trends if he had not been assassinated by his Christian arms bearer. The major problem is that history has been rewritten by the victors to make a superstitio into a religio by pushing back its founding to around the time of the move from the Republic to the Empire. There were Christians or Chrestians around but things were changed massively with nationalisation, much like Karl Marx and the Soviet Union. The key point is the move to Constantinople, not some stories about goings on in Jerusalem.

06-03-2013, 01:06 PM	#69
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Just imagine the approach of the mainstream if they used the same criteria to favor the existence of the Old Testament figures and events based on a synagogue here or there, a few coins, etc. They would be certain to accept what they reject, namely the historicity of the advent of the OT texts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.