Elijah

Gal 3:10 is about relying on works of the law being a mistake and Romans 7 is about why the law was a mistake but how they benefited from that mistake. Are you interpreting it as something different than that? What do you consider particularly Roman about this type of lawless ideology?

According to Pauline thought how do you think Christ’s sacrifice is supposed to redeem/save us?

How did you come to the conclusion that Roman’s invented it? What do you consider the Jewish contribution to the story and what is the Roman? Is there a Roman Christ story that lacks the Jewish overlay that you are aware of?

dog-on

Looks like he is saying that people living under the law are living under a curse.

He is saying that the creator cursed us with the law.

Quite clear, really.

(BTW, 14 is an interpolation).

What is particularly Jewish about this lawless ideology?

This is like saying that Moses cursed the Jews with the law given to him by Yahweh.


Paul writes as if normal Jewish culture/customs beliefs and traditions are foreign to him. He dismisses pretty much everything that it means to be Jewish.

In my view, Paul was not a born Jew.

This is Roman mystery religion, pure and simple.

dog-on

The sacrifice was a ransom paid to the creator to free us from the law.

The idea is still there, just obscured a bit.

Elijah

Ok but what does that mean? Are you considering the real ideological problems with basing an ideology around obedience to a set of laws as explained in his letters or are you just imagining a magical curse from a magical sky genie like you would see in a cartoon?

It wasn’t me who presented this idea to support an origin it was you. It’s you who need be showing that Christianity is a Roman creation and I thought the lawlessness aspect was part of your argument. But now that you mention it the lawless aspect would be an indication of Jewish origins since it’s going to be something that is an offshoot of a belief system that emphasizes obedience to a set of Laws which describes the Jews.
I think he’s saying they didn’t follow the Laws properly, they “did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.” Rom 9:32 Again the point he is trying to make is that it’s a beneficial mistake that helped engraft the gentiles in. Rom 11:11 by showing that Abraham was justified by faith not works. Rom 4
He doesn’t write as if they are foreign to him, he writes as if he’s reforming the religion from what he considers to be currently flawed. To me it sounds like a Jew trying to reform Judaism not a non Jew commenting abut something he is unfamiliar with.
And what exactly makes Christianity a mystery religion and what are the comparable Roman examples of mystery religious texts that compare with the Christian narrative?
This is more magical god taking a gift or something going on, just total nonsense right? And you don’t have the text in hand to support this idea? How does “free us from the Law” save us and how exactly were we imprisoned by it before so that we could be freed?

dog-on

I think Paul would side with the sky genie. Of coure, I didn't write the stuff.

Christianity actually does not emphasize the Jewish laws, it discards them in favor of faith in an unknown god.

Do not confuse my saying that Christianity was a Roman creation with me saying that the Roman Government created Christianity.

None has seen the father, save the son, etc...


No, he is saying that one can never be justified by following the law, since it is a curse. Abe is a late addition.

He completely discards Judaism and rejects the Jewish deity as a cruel demiurge. A bit more then the reformation of a religion, imo.

The Christian narrative in Paul!!?? What?
You should really read what Paul wrote.

You can find the text in the Paulines themselves, as well as in the works of the early apologists.

The good and unknown god sent his son to ransom us from the just, but tyrannical creator.

It really is that simple.

Elijah

You seem to be assuming he did but what evidence do you have of that?
This much is correct but do you know why they thought it was necessary to emphasize faith over the Jewish laws? And do you know the difference between an unknown god and a sky daddy?
I don’t know what you’re saying here. You haven’t been very clear on what you consider roman within Christianity much less supported it.
This sounds moronic. Define curse.
Citation please. And that would be an expected reformation with the philosophical movement making god constant.
??? The question is what makes Christianity a mystery religion and do you have a textual Roman example of a mystery religion to compare to Christianity.
Yea this is just ridicules cartoon crap. Suitable for kids in a Sunday school class but not an educated person who is familiar with the different ideologies of the time. This type of thinking only comes from the assumption that everyone back then believed in the same superstitious understanding of the spiritual as children and the uneducated do today. I personally feel it’s incorrect to make that assumption but realize that there are people here who base their whole atheistic belief system on the assumption that everyone is talking about the same type of superstitious god when they just can’t recognize the differences or ideological history.

It’s not me who needs to read what Paul wrote if you are the one who is completely unaware of what type of salvation is being offered up here and have to resort to juvenile interpretations that explain nothing.

Oh yea then maybe you could explain why you think it’s a roman story again and maybe some examples of what you’re talking about.

dog-on

I have provided enough examples.

Do you know the difference between a sky genie and a sky daddy?

If your position is that Paul was simply waxing philosophical, that is your perogative, though I disagree.

If you cannot understand the benefit of eliminating specific cultural traditions in favor of a more universal system, you really need to think a bit more about the concept of empire.

Read Suetonius and get back to me...

Elijah

I'm not following the above but if your done with providing evidence to support your position (whatever that may actually be) then I guess you're done.

Elijah

Sorry totally missed this post.

Where does Constantine complain about Plato? What we are looking for is when and why they banned the philosophers works if you believe that Constantine was going after them with his making Christianity the favored religion.
???
Them going at pagan sacrifice is coming from the list you are referencing for evidence of them going at philosophy. What’s your main reason for thinking they are targeting the philosophers and not the pagans based on the evidence you’ve presented?
So the reason the Constantine was establishing a central religion was because of the success of Persia doing the same with Zoroastrianism? I can buy that.
Isn’t the Arian controversy an argument within Christianity about the nature of Christ? That doesn’t really address how an emperor was able to get the people to accept a state religion they had never heard of without being exposed as manufactured by himself.

mountainman

The "revolution" of Ardashir's was anti-Hellenistic.
The Persians were "throwing off" Alexander's Greek influence.
In the process they became extremely vigorous.
Constantine was well aware of this.


This is my main point. We are told by the christians that the Arian controversy was an "internal argument" within christianity, however I am rejecting this as false. It is far more resonable to suspect that the Arian controversy was an absolutely huge and widespread political controversy over the words of Arius who opposed and resisted Constantine's initiative about rebadging The Greek Logos.

There was time when He was not. (ie: before Constantine)
Before He was born He was not. (ie: before Constantine)
He was made out of nothing existing. (ie: he is fictitious)
He is/was from another subsistence/substance. (ie: he is fictitious)
He is subject to alteration or change. (ie: he is fictitious)

That the emperor Constantine was not able to get the people to accept a state religion they had never heard of without being exposed as manufactured by himself, and there was a major controversy over this which lasted over 200 years. The real nature of the controversy was not reported by the christians who found themselves supreme all during the fourth century. However if we examine the threads of the Arian controversy during the fourth and fifth century we find that it is consistently highly related to various heretical sects who used one or another of the new testament apocyrphal gospels and/or acts. It appears the Arians favored the gnostic non canonical books over and above the canonical books of Constantine's publication.

An analysis of the letter from Constantine to Arius c.333 CE reveals a great deal about what Constantine thought about Arius. Arius does not sound like a "christian":

(1) What Constantine tells us about what Arius thinks about Jesus and the Church

He brought state orthodoxy into the light;
He hurled his wretched self into darkness.
He ended his labors with this

He wrote that he did not wish God to appear to be the subject of suffering of outrage
He wrote that (on the above account) he suggested and fabricated wondrous things indeed in respect to faith.
He wrote books that collected and gathered terrible and lawless impieties
He wrote books that agitated tongues [Editor: Very popular books]
He wrote books which deceived and destroyed

He introduced a belief of unbelief.
He introduced a belief of unbelief that is completely new.
He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He did not adapt, he did not adapt (it was said twice) to God [Editor: the "new" orthodox God]
He was twice wretched

He reproached the church
He grieved the church
He wounded he church
He pained the church
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He undermined the (orthodox) truth
He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He did not conclude that God is present in Christ
He had no faith in Christ
He did not follow the law that God's law is Christ
He had little piety toward Christ
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church
He was barred publicly from God’s church


(2) Arius in terms of the Political Support of the Hellenistic Masses

He talked of one God.
He said "Either let us hold that, of which already we have been made possessors, or let it be done, just as we ourselves desire."
He said "We have the masses."
He was a warrior of insanity.
He was an Ares
He fashioned the finest things for the masses
He asked to celebrate services to God in Alexandria
He asked to celebrate the lawful and indispensable services to God in Alexandria
He hastened to destroy his friends
He claimed the masses acted with him.
He never admited where in the world he was
He claimed all the Libyan populace was supporting him
He was a source of aid for people
He had august consuls
He hastened to disturb the whole world by his impieties.
He claimed there were a multitude of persons wandering about him
He had supporters that were asserted to have given themselves to be eaten by wolves and by lions.
He had supporters that were each oppressed by additional payment of ten capitation taxes and by the expenses of these
He had supporters that sweated unless they ran as speedily as possible to the salvation-bringing Church,
He had supporters that were condemned for wicked complicity
He had associates that were threatened by local and state authorities
He had associates that were threatened to speedily flee his association
He had associates that were to accept in exchange the uncorrupted faith [of the church]

(3) Arius and his Modus Operandi of the Authorship of BOOKS

He wrote with a pen distilling poison
He went further and opened the whole treasury of madness

He added things further to orthodox doctrines
He added certain things somehow swaggeringly
He added certain things quite accurately elaborated

He constructed a disease of savage thought
He constructed a discord against the church
He joined things to an impous separation of orthodox doctrines
He substituted a foreign hypostasis
He paved the way for the marks of addition
He sang evil songs of unbelief
He was not ashamed to disparage (state orthodox) doctrine
He refuted (state orthodox) doctrine
He admonished (state orthodox) doctrine
He was the author of rotten words and meters
He performed investigations that were called abominable

He wrote sophisms that were clear
He wrote sophisms that were known to all persons, at all events for the future.

He struggled to accomplish something.
He was an artificer.

(4) Constantine's unwitting positive descriptions of Arius' character and nature

He donned externally a mask of simplicity
He counterfeited fairness of discourse
He counterfeited gentleness of discourse
He was perhaps healthy in respect to spiritual matters
He was an "iron-hearted man"
He appeared to take thought from his own self
He seemed superior in faith
He seemed superior in discourse
He was known for his wits - they were not dull
He did not perish even when surrounded by great horror
He pretended piety.
He had marvellous faith
He did invoke some God for aid
He was a fool in respect to his soul
He was a wordy one in respect to his tongue,
He was an infidel in respect to his wits.
He was a witty and sweet-voiced fellow
He had a mask of modesty
He has terrible shamelessness
He used the artifice of pretence;
He pretended silence
He showed himself to be tame and submissive
He had the audacity worthy to be destroyed by thunderbolts!
He considered holy only what was in him.


(5) Constantine's purposeful derogatory descriptions of Arius' character and nature

He was (be well assured) lost
He engaged in folly.
He did not listen to Constantine.
He did not lend his ears to Constantine.
He did not understand his folly
He wrote letters to Constantine with a pen of madness

He was a gallows rogue
He was not to be associated with
He was not to be addressed
He was notorious - "It was mistake to be around him"


He told Constantine to go away
He caused Constantine to speak against him
He needed to be captured in order to keep an imperial appointment at the public gallows
He was very hasty
He was the contraversial subject of imperial discourses against him
He was asked to grant a field for discussion
He made Constantine exited writing compositions against him
He was abrogated
He needes to be refuted and thoroughly
He brought punishment upon himself
He did not understand that Constantine, the man of God, already knew all things
He and his flame were quenched with the rain of divine power
He received an invitation from Constantine saying: "Come to me, come, I say, to a man of God"
He is described c.333 CE in Constantine's "Dear Arius Letter
He was a fellow full of absurd insensibility
He talked disgracefully
He was described as mad and clearly raving
He was a patricide of equity
He was truly an adviser of evil
He was a villain
He was a mediator of wild beasts. (See Plato)
He answered to "foolish one"
He was involved in evil.
He was within full of countless evils and plots.
He was made by the desire of the Devil
He was made as a manufactory of iniquity for us.
He possessed a perverted mouth
He possessed a nature quickly roused to wickedness!
He undoubtedly believed badly
He engaged in silly transgression of the law
He was quite fittingly subverted by the Devil
He was a wicked person
He had fallen in matters.
He had fallen dead in matters
He needed to be cured.
He was trusty for evil

He proffered profusely the poisons of his own effrontery
He was a wicked interpreter
He was an image and a statue of the Devil
He had a nature absolutely most base
He offered error
He had lost the grace of taking advice.
He vomited pernicious words
He produced pernicious words his writings
He did not coexist with the Eternal Father of his origin
He was a truly dissembling person.
He was a truly profane and base.
He was a worthless person
He progressed to the height of lawlessness
He was a shamless and useless fellow
He progressed to the height of wickedness
He had a bitter tongue
He was a profane person
He was a sick and helpless soul
He was not really blameless
He was clearly mad
He was a knave
He was a destructive evil.

This makes me suspect that Arius was not a "christian bishop"
but rather just one of your usual Greeks in the streets of the
city of Alexander -- who followed Plato and Ammonias Saccas.