mountainman

Dear LightCC,

What do you know about the ancient historical precedents known to have occurred in the creation of monotheistic State Religions? Here are two examples from antiquity, only a century apart -- both are authoritarian in the fullest sense of the word becuase both involved full use of the military.

(1) Ardashir creates Zoroastrianism (c.225 CE)

In the third century the Persian "King of Kings"
Ardashir created a new State monotheistic religion
which he actively promoted, organized, supported and
protected, by legislation. He guaranteed its orthodoxy
by the sword. It was characterised by a strong
centralised power structure, centered on the King and
his appointed Magi (ie: academic temple priests, and
their chiefs)

A gifted researcher and high cleric of this religion
in the tradition named Tansar was ordered to gather
the scattered "Avesta" of the Mazdeans from ancient
sources, and to edit these in order to reproduce an
authorised and canonical version of the "Avesta",
the holy writ of Zoroastrianism. Finally the Sassanid
state monotheistic church was characterised by widespread
architectural replication of square fire-temples for
the official religion throughout the major cities and
provinces of the Sassanid Persian empire. This was a
novel step.

Epigraphic and monumental evidence suggests the pre-
existence of the earlier religion of the Mazdeans in
the epoch of the Parthian civilisation.


(2) Constantine creates Christianity (c.325 CE)

In the fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine
created a State monotheistic religion which he
actively promoted, organized, supported and protected,
by legislation and by the army. He guaranteed its
orthodoxy by the sword. It was characterised by a
strong centralised power structure, centered on the
emperor (, his army) and his appointed bishops.

A gifted researcher and high cleric of this religion
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea was ordered to gather
the scattered books of both the Hebrews and the
Christians from ancient sources, and to edit these in
order to reproduce an authorised and canonical
version. A history of the new state religion prior to
the age of Constantine is now known to have been
assembled by Eusebius during the years 312 to 324 CE.

Finally the state church was characterised by the
widespread architectural replication of basilicas
throughout the major cities and provinces of the
empire. All these were by no means novel steps
as should be clear from the above.

With apologies to the author of volume XII of the
Cambridge Ancient History (The Imperial Crisis and
Recovery AD 193 to 324 **) --- particularly
Chapter IV: Sassanid Persia: Political History, pp.109.

So there you have it. If you think there was no authoritarianism involved in the support and canonisation of Official Monotheistic Holy Writs of monotheistic state religions in the full and extreme military sense then you are totally mistaken.

That the Bible is the true literal word of god -- the Holy Writ -- is an assertion which was enforced by the army. The army was used to destroy the temples of the opposition religions for christ's sake learn some history.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Toto,

You do understand I hope that the section above on Ardashir was taken from volume XII of the Cambridge Ancient History (The Imperial Crisis and
Recovery AD 193 to 324 **) --- particularly Chapter IV: Sassanid Persia: Political History, pp.109.

I took the paragraph on Ardashir and cloned it for Constantine.
Ardashir created a persian monotheistic religion.
This is what the Cambridge History tells us.
In the same manner, Constantine created a Roman monotheistic religion.
What is the problem?
The word "create"?

I am not claiming Constantine invented the religion, I am claiming --- along with the rest of the people on this planet --- that he was responsible for the creation of the state monotheism which was associated with christianity.

The OP was questioning that these ancient monotheistic state religions (both equipped with "canons of Holy Writ", and backed by the army, were not delivered with authority as one explanation that everyone believed in the "True word" of God, or the Emperor, or the King of Kings.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Is this post not the same as post 21 in this thread?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=258442

And what does it have to do with sola scriptura?

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Is there any difference at all between sola scriptura and the concept of a canonised "Holy Writ"?


If there is a difference, I do not see it.


Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Well, yes. The Roman Catholic church, which formulated the canon, does not endorse Sola Scriptura; it claims equal (or possibly greater) authority for church tradition. And then there are Christians who rely on inspiration from the Holy Spirit either directly, or as a means of reading and understanding the Scriptures.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Christian authoritarianism is invested in numerous things. The ultimate authority for the summary and detail structures of this universal Roman church tradition -- perhaps better termed "apostolic lineage" --- was assembled as described above: by the high cleric Tansar in the case of the Persians, and by the high ecclesiastic Eusebius in the case of the Romans (and the Roman empire).

That the Bible is the true literal word of god -- the Holy Writ -- that there was manifest reasons to believe in the church tradition embraced by Constantine --- all these things represent an assertion which was enforced by the army. The army was used to destroy the temples of the opposition religions for christ's sake.

There are Christians like that today. But go back to the fourth century when the shit hit the fan and what do we find? We find Constantine, like Ardashir before him, an autocrat, dictating the terms of harmony and resolution in the folds of his universal Roman church by authoritatively citing obvious forgeries in the name of Roman BCE poets citing the prophecy of the coming of the historical Jesus. (See Lane-Fox on the "Oration at Antioch").

All this is totally independent of the status of the historicity (or otherwise) of the figure of Jesus, the Apostles and the Historical Universal Church Tradition for one primary reason. The military was used to enforce the authority.. You dont seem to have acknowledged this simple historical fact in presenting other various flavors of "authoritarianism".

Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

Dear Roger,

This is only true in those instances where the opinion of corrupt churchman is not being presented as history. If the corrupt churchman were to present a history in which he knowingly uses false evidence, then that corrupt churchman (eg: Eusebius) is guilty of fraud, according to Momigliano.

Since Eusebius is the only "historian" of "early christian myth"
it is reasonable to think that if Eusebius is shown to be
guilty of forging evidence then this would reflect on the
falsity of christianity, inasmuch as it is essentially Eusebian.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Information about an issue can sometimes be found by examining the exceptions to the rule.
In your OP, I can think of two such exceptions:

Acts of Pilate has a date ... 425 CE - the 100th Anniversary Of Nicaea

The date is quite specific - the year 425 CE - the 100th anniversary
of the Council of Nicaea - how coincidental.


The History of John has a named author and composer = Eusebius of Caesarea

In this text, the author appears to name himself ....

mountainman

A slight correction is required.

The aim of socialised theology is to show that everything the theologian believes about God
was also considered true by Jesus but not realized by anyone else until Eusebius and Constantine came along
but that socialised christian theology has absolutely nothing whatseoever to do at all with Eusebius and Constantine
since it "clearly existed" before the intrepid steps of Eusebius down that lonely and untrodden path.

Roger Pearse

Can we have Mountain Man's derail split off? thanks.