mountainman

Index Librorum Prohibitorum

The claims above in WIKI that the first version appeared c.1559 are specific only to the appearance of the modern book via the printing press, and it is quite reasonable to argue that precursors to the List of Prohibited Books in hand written codices were manufactured continuously from Eusebius in the 4th century - around about the time of the Council of Nicaea. The original lists are contained in Eusebius' "Church History" and represent the blasphemous books of the gnostic heretics.

Also, as I mentioned earlier the promulgation of the Index was not formally abolished on 14 June 1966. It may have stopped paper printing, but the thing was migrated to the internet by Ratzinger in recent times.

andrewcriddle

Even today Committees sometimes produce various minority reports.

In this particular case the 1st and 2nd creeds seem to represent the views of the two major groups at the council. The 3rd creed was produced by Theophronius of Tyana to defend himself against herery charges. The 4th creed was produced either by a splinter group of bishops or by a new council of bishops at Antioch in late 341 or maybe 342.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

In all four cases there is no real historical context, no names mentioned, no Pilate or Mary. And no one bothered to add those names until the Constantinople Creed of 381, though even then without any real historical or geographic context from the gospels.
What happened to information from the four gospels of Irenaeus even as late as 381?
In any event, one can't help but wonder to what extent Justin's First Apology was linked to the 381 events since he pointedly mentions Pilate and Mary, scriptures and prophets.

mountainman

These shall we say "personalities of the church" were all active after Emperor Julian's brief rule 361-363 CE, at which time precedents had been set for:

(1) Destruction of the Pagan (Egypto-Graeco-Roman) temples and libraries;
(2) Construction of Christian basilicas on their foundations;
(3) Replication of the Bible (Eusebius for Constantine; Athanasius for Constantius)
(4) Burning of non-christian literature (Porphyry, Arius, Mani, Gnostics)
(5) Execution of anyone caught preserving "Unofficial (heretical) Books"
(6) Torture of the upper classes (see Ammianus).
(7) Anathemas formulated at "Church Councils" by the Christian heresiologists against non-christians
(8) Arianism: the ultimate heresy named after the identity known as Arius of Alexandria.

It is generally admitted that the damage had already been done by this time, and that it was only a matter of time before the "mopping up of paganism and Arianism" was achieved during the END-GAME. Damasius, Jerome and Theodosius are part of the END-GAME players, who must include the despotic Doctor of the Church Cyril of Alexandria, murderer of Hypatia, terrorist boss, pyromaniac, master heresiologist, master anathemetizer and official censor of Julian and Nestorius.


The true creators of what became what we call Christianity lived before the Emperor Julian wrote his three books "Against the Christians", and before he legislated that the Christians were no longer to be known as such within the Roman Empire, but instead were to be referred to as "Galilaeans".


Athanasius was the inventor of Christian hagiography with his c.360 CE masterpiece entitled "The Life of Anthony", a piece of fiction written in order that the Christians might have a presence in the desert monastic phenomenom of the epoch between 324-360 CE. The "Holy Spirit" was literally lifted from Platonic philosophy and theology, since the academy of the Christians saw themselves as the rightful successors to the academy of the Platonists.

Pachomius left Alexandria c.324 CE and travelled hundreds of miles up the Nile in reaction to the appearance of Constantine, the Constantine Bible and the Official True Blue Centralized Monotheistic State cult in Alexandria. Tens of thousands followed him. I am not joking (!)

mountainman

I remember reading somewhere that throughout the 4th century and until the time of Cyril of Alexandria, the cited authority for all church matters were the Three Hundred and Eighteen Nicaean Fathers, and very few christian heresiologists (Epiphanius might be an exception) made any appeals to the "Earlier Fathers" (referred to in Eusebius's thesis concerning the history of christian origins) as authorities - Cyril of Alexandria was the first to commence this practice of citing the "Early Fathers".

Duvduv

It would appear that the the FIRST CREED did not get the idea of "taking flesh from the virgin" from the gospels simply because that creed makes no mention of Mary or even the crucifixion.

The SECOND CREED introduces the phrase from 1 Corinthians 15 "according to the scriptures" but this does not automatically mean it took it from Corinthians, but rather that it was added to Corinthians.

Mention of the Great Commission is no proof that it was taken from Matthew since it would appear that the Great Commission was a late addition to Matthew, especially given the absence of the name of Mary who is also mentioned in the gospels.

The THIRD CREED also mentions an unnamed virgin and the holy scriptures, but as before, no historical context at all.

The FOURTH CREED introduces the crucifixion and mentions an unnamed virgin with no mention of the holy scriptures. What immediately stands out is if these four creeds all were produced around the same time, why are essentials about the Christ the same? Presumably the crucifixion should be mentioned in all four Creeds, as should the "scriptures" and Mary IF THEY HAD ACCESS to the gospels.

mountainman

In addition to the CREEDS as evidence of what may have been discussed or agreed by the participants, a study of the ANATHEMAS listed by successive monotheistic state church councils represents evidence of what the ADVERSE public opinion was at that time.

The two chief anathemas c.351 CE were against the two opinions:

01: The Son is sprung from things non-existent,
or from another substance and not from God,
and that there was a time or age
when He was not.

02: The Father and the Son are two Gods.

What was going on with this "plain and simple religion of the Christians" in the mid 4th century under Constantius (the mass execution man)? Ammianus thought it was being OBSCURED by a dotard's (Constantius's) superstition. Another list reveals that c.353 Hilary of Poitiers violently denounced people who held that Mary had not remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth, and maintained that Jesus’ brothers were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage.

Where was Hilary getting his information from? Constantine c.325 CE thought that Mary was visited by Noah's dove.

Duvduv

If the Antioch (and even Nicaea) creeds do not mention a specific name for the virgin when the gospels specifically give the name as Mary, and if they do not specify the essential element of a crucifixion (except in the 4th Creed), what does this mean in terms of the texts and beliefs of the 4th century given the fact that none of creeds provide a historical context at all for the birth of Jesus?

Why of all the teachings of the epistles do the creeds mention only "according to the scriptures"? Or was the term "according to the scriptures" added to Corinthians later?

mountainman

What is the Corinthians reading in the oldest greek codices (i.e. Vaticanus et al)? It is presumed by some that these physical codices were either one of the original 50 Constantine Bibles, or a copy of one of these 50.

It seems that the details of the scripture may have been of little concern when compared to the massive controversy between the orthodox and the heretics between 325 and 381 CE, known as the Arian controversy. What was the Arian controversy again? Who do we believe or disbelieve?

It also seems very important, if not mandatory, to understand what the controversy over the words of Arius was all about, since these words explicitly appear appended to the earliest Nicaean creeds as the anathema clause.

Duvduv

My point was simply questioning what texts and beliefs existed in 341.
Was there a gospel story involving a woman named Mary?
Or one that specified that Jesus was crucified under Piate in Judea?
Did the Christ dwell in the believer and vice versa?
It is not clear that the answer is in the positive.
Even if the Fourth Creed actually was produced then.