Duvduv

Thanks, Mountainman. I am thinking about your comments. But still, how do you account for an entirely top down process in an environment of different streams that existed for a long time from the so-called councils onward (at least on the pages of the heresiologists, i.e. Arians versus Orthodox, etc.) and canonical texts that contradict each other?

mountainman

Hey Duvduv I added further comments to the earlier post. The top down process was fascist. This process was HARMONIZED by the victors. See for example the parallel between Mussolini (had he been victorious over the allies) and the propaganda term "Big Lie".

Duvduv

What does that have to do with contradictions between gospels or epistles?
Why wouldn't a top down effect produce something smooth and consistent? Assuming of course that texts were promoted under an established hierarchy of authority with coercive powers of the empire, which doesn't seem to have been the case even in the fourth century, where supposedly the elite even switched between Athanasius and Arius.

mountainman

fuck all.




Umm ..... because it was expected of them?



The texts were promoted under the supreme and absolute fascist authority of Constantine. They were the word of the Most High Universal God. It was written, in Greek, that this was the case. Why argue the point? Later generations axed Bullneck's "Shepherd".

Duvduv

I don't really follow the logic of a centralized hierarchy of authority developing texts that contradict each other.

Toto

Yes, that's why it makes no sense to think that the gospels were written in the fourth century. The topic is dead. Stop asking Pete about it. Stop giving him another chance to post his same sound bites.

Duvduv

Toto, you're right only if there WAS a centralized hierarchy in the 4th century. But not if there wasn't.
Especially if there wasn't all those millions of "Christians" in the 4th century who had been previously part of an underground illegal religion that Constantine "legalized." I have pointed out that this scenario for the 4th century doesn't make sense.

Toto

Are you familiar with modern political movements that have a semi-legal status? Think of the Communist Party USA and the various Trotskyite heretical groups. Look at Christianity in China or the various democracy movements in numerous authoritarian countries.

If you are, the picture of Christianity in the fourth century makes a lot of sense, especially the doctrinal disputes and variation in texts. If not, I don't know what to say, except that you need a lot more background research before you can cavalierly decide that something just doesn't make sense.

It would help if you stopped and organized your thoughts before posting, instead of just thinking out loud. This is not a real time conversation. You don't have to keep talking when you run out of things to say.

aa5874

Well, explain the Logic you follow??

Based on the Dated New Testament Papyri it would appear that the Jesus stories were known since the 2nd century or before the 4th century.

Do you follow the DATED Evidence or your imagination.???

Duvduv

Again, Toto. You seem to want to single me out for special recommendations from among all the individuals who post here of all varieties and agendas. In any case, I can say I find it very hard to imagine comparing the Communist Party membership to the status of an underground mass religious movement (of varied beliefs) being legalized on a mass basis in the early fourth century, when some estimates want to suggest between 6 and 30 million people were in the movement (whatever that is supposed to mean).