Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 05:50 AM

As I mentioned elsewhere, the original Nicaean Creed is unusual given how late it was in 325. It is worth noting that it mentioned neither Mary nor the crucifixion! But only "begotten" and having "suffered".
This stands in total contrast to the gospels.
Salvation is not described even in pauline terms and stands in contrast to man himself.
The original creed had no historical context at all, not even as far as Justin Martyr who was said to have written about the historical context almost 200 years earlier!
And yes, it does sound peculiar that he rose *again * since he rose in resurrection only the first time, not "again."
All this lack of clarity as late as 325!
Then what changed between then and the reformulated creed of 381with its doctrinal additions ??!
Note that in 381 he was begotten by God BEFORE the ages, but became incarnate from Mary which is a different stage!
The idea that the whole world was created through him echoes the Pauline epistle.

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 06:04 AM

We have in that creed a sense of a non human Christ and gnosticism together with the passing reference about him being made man (again no Mary or virgin birth ).

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:17 AM

Could I go so far as to argue that what we know as the basic forms of "Christianity" did not develop until sometime in the fourth century? Is the Justin reference to Mary an insertion from the fourth century? Was Irenaeus's writing concerning the 4 gospels from later in the 4th century??
If so, WHAT was "Christianity" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries? Assorted societies and associations of believers in a divine being with assorted oral traditions and practices scattered from Alexandria to Rome to Turkey? Meaning, "Paulist" sects, gnostic ("Marcionist") sects, Judeophile sects, Valentinians, docetists, etc.??

aa5874 · 12-06-2011, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Could I go so far as to argue that what we know as the basic forms of "Christianity" did not develop until sometime in the fourth century?

Is the Justin reference to Mary an insertion from the fourth century?

Was Irenaeus's writing concerning the 4 gospels from later in the 4th century??

If so, WHAT was "Christianity" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

Assorted societies and associations of believers in a divine being with assorted oral traditions and practices scattered from Alexandria to Rome to Turkey?

Meaning, "Paulist" sects, gnostic ("Marcionist") sects, Judeophile sects, Valentinians, docetists, etc.??

Your are NOT making any arguments but have asked SIX questions.

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:26 AM

You make it sound as if that entails committing some kind of sin. I do not think there is anything sinful about asking questions, either regular ones or rhetorical ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Could I go so far as to argue that what we know as the basic forms of "Christianity" did not develop until sometime in the fourth century?

Is the Justin reference to Mary an insertion from the fourth century?

Was Irenaeus's writing concerning the 4 gospels from later in the 4th century??

If so, WHAT was "Christianity" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

Assorted societies and associations of believers in a divine being with assorted oral traditions and practices scattered from Alexandria to Rome to Turkey?

Meaning, "Paulist" sects, gnostic ("Marcionist") sects, Judeophile sects, Valentinians, docetists, etc.??

Your are NOT making any arguments but have asked SIX questions.

Toto · 12-06-2011, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Could I go so far as to argue that what we know as the basic forms of "Christianity" did not develop until sometime in the fourth century?

Christianity evolved over time. There were definite developments in the fourth century, once it became a legal, supported religion in the Roman Empire.

Quote:

Is the Justin reference to Mary an insertion from the fourth century?

You would have to make that case. It seems unlikely...

Quote:

Was Irenaeus's writing concerning the 4 gospels from later in the 4th century??

The idea has been floated before.

Quote:

If so, WHAT was "Christianity" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries? Assorted societies and associations of believers in a divine being with assorted oral traditions and practices scattered from Alexandria to Rome to Turkey? Meaning, "Paulist" sects, gnostic ("Marcionist") sects, Judeophile sects, Valentinians, docetists, etc.??

The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bart Ehrman

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 01:27 PM

If I am not mistaken, Bart Ehrman accepts the Church's narrative of the emergence of Christianity going back to historical events in the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Could I go so far as to argue that what we know as the basic forms of "Christianity" did not develop until sometime in the fourth century?

Christianity evolved over time. There were definite developments in the fourth century, once it became a legal, supported religion in the Roman Empire.

You would have to make that case. It seems unlikely...

The idea has been floated before.

Quote:

If so, WHAT was "Christianity" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries? Assorted societies and associations of believers in a divine being with assorted oral traditions and practices scattered from Alexandria to Rome to Turkey? Meaning, "Paulist" sects, gnostic ("Marcionist") sects, Judeophile sects, Valentinians, docetists, etc.??

The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bart Ehrman

sotto voce · 12-06-2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Christianity evolved over time. There were definite developments in the fourth century, once it became a legal, supported religion in the Roman Empire.

What became legal, supported and tightly controlled by the imperial power was not Christianity, and could not possibly be Christianity, by simple virtue of the fact that it was controlled by a worldly power.

History bears this out this theological truth, as well as do newsreaders on TV currently. People who have recited creeds, nay, created 'God' with their bare hands, have through the centuries committed every sort of crime known to mankind, and without shame.

mountainman · 12-06-2011, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Could I go so far as to argue that what we know as the basic forms of "Christianity" did not develop until sometime in the fourth century?

Christianity evolved over time.

The only source at the basis of this claim is Eusebius, who sat at the right hand of the Emperor Constantine during the Council of Nicaea. What if Eusebius simply lied about the earlier history of Constantine's centralised empire-wide monotheistic basilica-cult?

Quote:

There were definite developments in the fourth century, once it became a legal, supported religion in the Roman Empire.

One of these was the Nicaean Creed, the earliest copies of which make it clear that it was purposefully structured with a massive disclaimer clause for those who had no belief in the monotheistic state religious cult or its authenticity. The disclaimer clause quotes the words of Arius of Alexandria. The disclaimer is that if anyone thinks like Arius there were to be anathematized. The disclaimer clause runs like this:

Rufinus of Aquileia, Book 10, Part 6 - Creed of Nicaea

Quote:

But those who say

that there was a time when he was not,
and before he was born he was not,
and that he was made out of nothing existing
or who say that God’s Son is from another subsistence or substance
or is subject to alteration or change,

the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

Quote:

Is the Justin reference to Mary an insertion from the fourth century?

You would have to make that case. It seems unlikely...

Unlikely based on what? Was Justin a Eusebian mouthpiece?

Quote:

Was Irenaeus's writing concerning the 4 gospels from later in the 4th century??

The idea has been floated before.

Was Irenaeus a Eusebian mouthpiece?.

Quote:

If so, WHAT was "Christianity" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

Perhaps "Christianity" (and the books of the NT) simply did not exist until Nicaea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bart Ehrman

Bart is married to the HJ. But in another book he writes that

Quote:

"The victors in the struggles
to establish Christian Orthodoxy
not only won their theological battles,
they also rewrote the history of the conflict.

"later readers then naturally assumed
that the victorious views had been embraced
by the vast majority of Christians
from the very beginning ...

"The practice of Christian forgery
has a long and distinguished history ...
the debate lasted three hundred years."

However the debate may have instead lasted only 300 days once Constantine and his army turned up in the year 324 CE. The victors rewrote the history of the conflict. They may have LIED through their teeth. Times were utterly ruthless and barbaric.

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 03:56 PM

Isn't it unlikely that the whole Christ belief movement was unilaterally cooked up over night in the days of Constantine and Eusebius by a handful of writers, especially when some claim that the whole association of Constantine to Christianity itself is false?? Isn't it more likely that in the second and third centuries there were assorted small groups of believers in the Christ spread in a number of areas such as Alexandria, Rome and Ephesus?
When you refer to the Nicaean Creed are you referring to the original form of 325 or its changed version in 381??

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Christianity evolved over time.

The only source at the basis of this claim is Eusebius, who sat at the right hand of the Emperor Constantine during the Council of Nicaea. What if Eusebius simply lied about the earlier history of Constantine's centralised empire-wide monotheistic basilica-cult?

One of these was the Nicaean Creed, the earliest copies of which make it clear that it was purposefully structured with a massive disclaimer clause for those who had no belief in the monotheistic state religious cult or its authenticity. The disclaimer clause quotes the words of Arius of Alexandria. The disclaimer is that if anyone thinks like Arius there were to be anathematized. The disclaimer clause runs like this:

Rufinus of Aquileia, Book 10, Part 6 - Creed of Nicaea

Unlikely based on what? Was Justin a Eusebian mouthpiece?

Was Irenaeus a Eusebian mouthpiece?.

Perhaps "Christianity" (and the books of the NT) simply did not exist until Nicaea?

Bart is married to the HJ. But in another book he writes that

Quote:

"The victors in the struggles
to establish Christian Orthodoxy
not only won their theological battles,
they also rewrote the history of the conflict.

"later readers then naturally assumed
that the victorious views had been embraced
by the vast majority of Christians
from the very beginning ...

"The practice of Christian forgery
has a long and distinguished history ...
the debate lasted three hundred years."

However the debate may have instead lasted only 300 days once Constantine and his army turned up in the year 324 CE. The victors rewrote the history of the conflict. They may have LIED through their teeth. Times were utterly ruthless and barbaric.

12-06-2011, 05:50 AM	#1
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Original Nicaean Creed As I mentioned elsewhere, the original Nicaean Creed is unusual given how late it was in 325. It is worth noting that it mentioned neither Mary nor the crucifixion! But only "begotten" and having "suffered". This stands in total contrast to the gospels. Salvation is not described even in pauline terms and stands in contrast to man himself. The original creed had no historical context at all, not even as far as Justin Martyr who was said to have written about the historical context almost 200 years earlier! And yes, it does sound peculiar that he rose again since he rose in resurrection only the first time, not "again." All this lack of clarity as late as 325! Then what changed between then and the reformulated creed of 381with its doctrinal additions ??! Note that in 381 he was begotten by God BEFORE the ages, but became incarnate from Mary which is a different stage! The idea that the whole world was created through him echoes the Pauline epistle.

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

12-06-2011, 06:04 AM	#2
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	We have in that creed a sense of a non human Christ and gnosticism together with the passing reference about him being made man (again no Mary or virgin birth ).

12-06-2011, 10:17 AM	#3
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Could I go so far as to argue that what we know as the basic forms of "Christianity" did not develop until sometime in the fourth century? Is the Justin reference to Mary an insertion from the fourth century? Was Irenaeus's writing concerning the 4 gospels from later in the 4th century?? If so, WHAT was "Christianity" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries? Assorted societies and associations of believers in a divine being with assorted oral traditions and practices scattered from Alexandria to Rome to Turkey? Meaning, "Paulist" sects, gnostic ("Marcionist") sects, Judeophile sects, Valentinians, docetists, etc.??

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.