Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 09-28-2012, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

What does “regime” mean?-- as in "Constantinian regime"

The regime got up by Constantine to destroy Christianity. It was undoubtedly a regime, because it forced everyone under imperial control to accept the official religion. (This of course is fundamentally at odds with the nature of Christianity, that is inevitably both elective and a minority! 'Christian regime' is at least as much contradiction in terms as 'democratic fascism'.) Constantine tried to replace Christianity with a works salvation system similar to the works salvation belief of Jews who had not accepted Jesus as their Messiah. That itself was similar to the existing pagan beliefs of Rome, so Jews could quite easily describe themselves as Christians while retaining their non-acceptance of the real Jesus. This eventually met the wants of everyone, except Christians, of course, who either fled or were killed.

It was a regime based on ignorance, as well as coercion, so it did not withstand the light of the Renaissance; a light that Adolf Hitler would have extinguished, possibly for ever, had he succeeded. It was the regime that Hitler admired, upon which he said the hierarchic Third Reich was modelled— which does not come as a surprise. Today, those who fear Christianity, yet are unable to counter the claims of Christianity by means of fact and logic, are liable to assert the validity of Constantinianism, in either its Eastern or Western divisions; though the authoritarianism of the Vatican appeals more. If Christians could be forced under that authority they would lose all their dread for those who oppose their faith. Unquestioned assumption of the legitimacy of Catholicism/Orthodoxy, ignoring all scholarly requirements to demonstrate that legitimacy, is not only a sign of the illegitimate status of Constantinianism, it is sure evidence of belief in HJ. It is very common today.

DD is the person to comment on this.

Duvduv · 09-28-2012, 10:17 AM

I honestly don't even know where this is all heading.......

Iskander · 09-28-2012, 11:06 AM

You keep using mysterious words like “Constantinian regime” as if meaning something we should know about

But now you are saying that “constantinian regime” means nothing more than a friendly environment.

Your threads are heading where you take them

Duvduv · 09-28-2012, 11:35 AM

Do you ever use shorthand in discourse, either in writing or in speech? I use the term to refer to the Roman Byzantium regime that emerged with Constantine and thereafter in the 4th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

You keep using mysterious words like “Constantinian regime” as if meaning something we should know about

But now you are saying that “constantinian regime” means nothing more than a friendly environment.

Your threads are heading where you take them

Iskander · 09-28-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Do you ever use shorthand in discourse, either in writing or in speech? I use the term to refer to the Roman Byzantium regime that emerged with Constantine and thereafter in the 4th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

You keep using mysterious words like “Constantinian regime” as if meaning something we should know about

But now you are saying that “constantinian regime” means nothing more than a friendly environment.

Your threads are heading where you take them

There was, and there is, a Latin Roman Church and a Greek Roman Church and some other churches too.

There was, and there is, a Latin Roman church and an Orthodox Catholic Greek Church and some other churches too

There never was a “Roman Byzantium regime that emerged with Constantine” if by that you mean a specific, universal, uniform anything.

Iskander · 09-28-2012, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So the unanswered question still remains - where did an alleged 2nd century writer derive an authoritative set of texts if there was no sanctioned or sponsored synods until the emergence of the Constantinian regime?
If none existed, then it is more than clear that a text attributed to a virtually unknown person named Irenaeus emerged in the 4th or 5th century.

That is how it was done, according to Harnack

“The Church had to collect everything apostolic and declare herself to be its only legal possessor. She was obliged, moreover, to amalgamate the apostolic with the canon of the Old Testament in such a way as to fix the exposition from the very first.

But what writings were apostolic? From the middle of the second century great numbers of writings named after the Apostles had already been in circulation, and there were often different recensions of one and the same writing.[91] Versions which contained docetic elements and exhortations to the most pronounced asceticism had even made their way into the public worship of the Church.

Above all, therefore, it was necessary to determine (1) what writings were really apostolic, (2) what form or recension should be regarded as apostolic. The selection was made by the Church, that is, primarily, by the churches of Rome and Asia Minor, which had still an unbroken history up to the days of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.

In making this choice, the Church limited herself to the writings that were used in public worship, and only admitted what the tradition of the elders justified her in regarding as genuinely apostolic”

HISTORY OF DOGMA
BY
DR. ADOLPH HARNACK
ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF
THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN
_TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION_
BY
NEIL BUCHANAN
VOL. II.
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY
1901

sotto voce · 09-28-2012, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Do you ever use shorthand in discourse, either in writing or in speech? I use the term to refer to the Roman Byzantium regime that emerged with Constantine and thereafter in the 4th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

You keep using mysterious words like “Constantinian regime” as if meaning something we should know about

But now you are saying that “constantinian regime” means nothing more than a friendly environment.

Your threads are heading where you take them

There was, and there is, a Latin Roman Church and a Greek Roman Church and some other churches too.

There was, and there is, a Latin Roman church and an Orthodox Catholic Greek Church and some other churches too.

Not Christian churches, obviously. Just in case anyone supposes they were/are.

Iskander · 09-28-2012, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

There was, and there is, a Latin Roman Church and a Greek Roman Church and some other churches too.

There was, and there is, a Latin Roman church and an Orthodox Catholic Greek Church and some other churches too.

Not Christian churches, obviously. Just in case anyone supposes they were/are.

The Christian Church never had more than one member but this lonely member is, however, more powerful than a multitude and more enduring than the sun. Happy?

Sheshbazzar · 09-28-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Not Christian churches, obviously. Just in case anyone supposes they were/are.

The old "No true™ Christian" shtick yet again.
No known and long recognised Christian Church is a Christian Church unless sotto voce says it is.

And as sotto is the sole member of his version of Christianity, he alone is the one and only TRUE™ Christian.
Therefore, whatever sotto voce decrees is not Christian, is not, because, he and he alone, out of all that are called Christians on earth, is 'the only TRUE™ Christian, and the sole authority on whom or what may be defined as, designated as, or understood as being Christian.

It really gets old after a while.

.

sotto voce · 09-28-2012, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

There was, and there is, a Latin Roman Church and a Greek Roman Church and some other churches too.

There was, and there is, a Latin Roman church and an Orthodox Catholic Greek Church and some other churches too.

Not Christian churches, obviously. Just in case anyone supposes they were/are.

The Christian Church

There can be no such thing. The Christian church cannot be described in terms of civil administration, as above. It cannot even be described as existing in discrete parts. Any describing themselves as Christian, 'in Christ', who separate from each other on anything other than purely geographical criteria, cannot be Christian. If a person self-describes as Christian, he/she must be willing to fully associate with any and all others whom he/she accepts as Christian, without insistence on particular behaviour that is not required by Scripture. One cannot agree that another is Christian but decline to meet with that person, or refuse full association. It is therefore certain that such bodies as those listed above cannot possibly be Christian, because they all act in this hypocritical way. Though of course there are their criminal records to exclude them from consideration anyway.

The real church is invisible, informal, has no front door with a sign over it, yet agrees one every matter of importance. It is ever ignored by officialdom, if it is not actively (if clandestinely, these days) persecuted. This was always true.

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

09-28-2012, 10:17 AM	#122
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I honestly don't even know where this is all heading.......

09-28-2012, 11:06 AM	#123
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	You keep using mysterious words like “Constantinian regime” as if meaning something we should know about But now you are saying that “constantinian regime” means nothing more than a friendly environment. Your threads are heading where you take them

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.