Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 01-03-2012, 04:15 PM

So HOW did they gain ascendancy under the circumstances you described, although there is no way of knowing if those descriptions are true and accurate at all, as we know in the case of the stories about Nero in the first century and the "Christians"??

And WHEN was the work written using the name of Origen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So to what do you attribute the fact that "suddenly" they became popular (especially if the religion had not existed before Constantine) and everything turned around?? Anyway what EVIDENCE is there for these negative descriptions of "Justin" in those early days prior to Constantine?...

I did NOT make references to Justin alone. Apologetic sources claimed the Jesus cult and so-called Heretics were MARTYRED.

Based on Origen, Celsus wrote a book called "True Discourse" in which it is claimed the Jesus cult of Christians were operating contrary to the law and were essentially cannibals (consuming the flesh of INFANTS).

"Against Celsus" 6.40

Quote:

After these things, Celsus appears to me to act like those who, in their intense hatred of the Christians, maintain, in the presence of those who are utterly ignorant of the Christian faith, that they have actually ascertained that Christians devour the flesh of infants, and give themselves without restraint to sexual intercourse with their women....

It is clear that the Jesus cult of Christians was NOT predicted to gain ascendany any time soon in antiquity.

rlogan · 01-03-2012, 09:24 PM

"Ascendancy" of Christianity is something that happens by virtue of popular support before it becomes something that is harnessed, organized, and controlled by a central authority.

Doherty is pretty good on the observation about Christianity arising in multiple places and merging together, not starting with one historical core.

If you understand the Roman dictatorship, then the distribution of literature for a secret society banned by Imperial Edict, for which the penalty is death - this is not going to happen until the Christians are so numerous that the government has no choice but to tolerate them.

aa5874 · 01-03-2012, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So HOW did they gain ascendancy under the circumstances you described, although there is no way of knowing if those descriptions are true and accurate at all, as we know in the case of the stories about Nero in the first century and the "Christians"??....

You MUST answer your own questions.

How do you know that Christians gained ascendancy? Do you have any way of knowing Christians gained ascendancy? Is there any way of knowing if your sources are true and accurate?

Please, tell us ACCURATELY the Truth about NERO?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuvDuv

....And WHEN was the work written using the name of Origen?...

What source did you present for you claims about the ascendancy of Christians?

How do you know there were even Christians in the 4th and 5th century?

Duvduv · 01-03-2012, 11:15 PM

The ascendancy in the 4th century can only be true if the accounts concerning Comstantine and his successors leading up to Theodosius and his protective code are true as described by Eusebius and others.
And of course there is no empirical way of determining if it is true besides taking Eusebius at his word, which is a leap of faith, including the claims of alleged persecution. What is an alternative view of Christianity's ascendancy?

aa5874 · 01-03-2012, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The ascendancy in the 4th century can only be true if the accounts concerning Comstantine and his successors leading up to Theodosius and his protective code are true as described by Eusebius and others.
And of course there is no empirical way of determining if it is true besides taking Eusebius at his word, which is a leap of faith, including the claims of alleged persecution. What is an alternative view of Christianity's ascendancy?

So, you BELIEVE Eusebius when you have been telling people that Eusebius should not be trusted.

What is the difference between you and Carrier?

You use Eusebius for your historical data of "Ascendancy of Christians".

Duvduv · 01-03-2012, 11:41 PM

No not at all. Eusebius is suspect for veracity. I was just clarifying the position. But what alternative options are there to explain the ascendancy even after the 5th century?

aa5874 · 01-03-2012, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

No not at all. Eusebius is suspect for veracity. I was just clarifying the position. But what alternative options are there to explain the ascendancy even after the 5th century?

You are clarifying the position of EUSEBIUS using a LEAP of FAITH.

Your posts are recorded.

Why do you accept the Claim of Eusebius when you are telling telling people that Eusebius' cedibility is suspect?

Doug Shaver · 01-04-2012, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

As I understand it, the "Christian" literati were able to establish their contacts with the elite of the regime (especially women) by virtue of the Judaic elements of their sect including messianic ones, and of course the force of literacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

On what do you base that understanding? I've been on the lookout for a history of Christian origins written by a competent secular historian. Is there one you can recommend?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I think it was on the basis of reading online and conversations.

Too bad. When it comes to Christian origins, the average Joe who thinks he knows something is nearly always wrong about that.

As rlogan noted, a genuinely critical study of pre-Nicene Christianity doesn't seem to have ever been done. A few Dutch scholars in the late 19th century seem to have gotten a good start on it, but there apparently has been no good followup to their work. That doesn't mean that we lay people cannot have some informed opinions of our own, but an informed opinion cannot be based on any presuppositions about either the honesty or the competence of early Christian writers. For a particular instance, we cannot simply assume that Eusebius either got everything right, got everything wrong, or just lied through his teeth. (Neither can we settle that issue by proof-texting something he wrote.)

Duvduv · 01-04-2012, 04:57 AM

And if he cannot be relied upon because of bias then nothing is clear even about events at Nicea and the first part of the fourth century or an ascendancy of Christianity during that time. And since Socrates of Constantinople took pride in continuing the ostensible work of Eusebius, he too is subject to the Swiss cheese approach ...

mountainman · 01-04-2012, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

As I understand it, the "Christian" literati were able to establish their contacts with the elite of the regime (especially women) by virtue of the Judaic elements of their sect including messianic ones, and of course the force of literacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

On what do you base that understanding? I've been on the lookout for a history of Christian origins written by a competent secular historian. Is there one you can recommend?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I think it was on the basis of reading online and conversations.

Too bad. When it comes to Christian origins, the average Joe who thinks he knows something is nearly always wrong about that.

As rlogan noted, a genuinely critical study of pre-Nicene Christianity doesn't seem to have ever been done. A few Dutch scholars in the late 19th century seem to have gotten a good start on it, but there apparently has been no good followup to their work.

I dont know whether the bolded assertion is necessarily valid. Here is an extract from Momigliano's The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography that seems to indicate that scholars from Luther in the 16th century have made comprehensive studies of Eusebeius. Another statement in the following extract refers to "the enormous, almost pathological, output of ecclesiastical history in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries".. Edward Gibbon certainly did a critical study of it, and summarised his experience as .....The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

p.149/150
"In 1519 Luther made himself familiar with Eusebius in Rufinus' translation.
In 1530 Caspar Hedio published the Chronica der alten christlichen Kirchen
aus Eusebius und der Tripartita. Flacius Illyricus and his team of
centuriators knew their Eusebius by heart, of course - and the same can be
said of all the ecclesiatical historians who worked after them, be it in the
Protestant or the Catholic camp. What both Protestants and Catholics wanted
to prove was that they had the authority of the first centuries of the Church
on their side."

p.150 re:the universal church

"Eusebius dealt with heresies, but he had no suspicion that the very course of
events of the first Christian centuries could be disputed and that there might
be more than one interpretation of basic events. The position of St. Peter,
the development of ecclesiastical hierarchy, the origin and development of at
least certain sacraments were not a matter of controversy for him. They were,
needless to say, at the centre of attention both by Flacius Illyricus and by
Caesare Baronio, who, after attempts by others, at last produced the Catholic
answer to the Protestant ecclesiastical historiography. What characterises the
new historiography of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation is the search
for the true image of Early Christianity to be opposed to the false ones of the
rivals."

p.151

"As long as the notion of a Universal Church was not in dispute, Eusebius remained
the source of inspiration for ecclesiatical historians. The enormous, almost
pathological, output of ecclesiastical history in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries becomes more and more involved in the discussions of details, and more
and more diversified in theological outlook, but it never repudiates the basic
notion that a Universal Church exists beyond the individual Christian comminities."

Quote:

That doesn't mean that we lay people cannot have some informed opinions of our own, but an informed opinion cannot be based on any presuppositions about either the honesty or the competence of early Christian writers. For a particular instance, we cannot simply assume that Eusebius either got everything right, got everything wrong, or just lied through his teeth.

But we are in the age of computers Doug, and in theory we have the ability to muti-task. We are capable of testing each of these hypotheses as if they were provisionally assumed to be true for the sake of the exploration. We dont know which one of these hypothesis about Eusebius is the correct one, but we should be prepared to test each of them.

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

01-03-2012, 09:24 PM	#12
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	"Ascendancy" of Christianity is something that happens by virtue of popular support before it becomes something that is harnessed, organized, and controlled by a central authority. Doherty is pretty good on the observation about Christianity arising in multiple places and merging together, not starting with one historical core. If you understand the Roman dictatorship, then the distribution of literature for a secret society banned by Imperial Edict, for which the penalty is death - this is not going to happen until the Christians are so numerous that the government has no choice but to tolerate them.

01-03-2012, 11:15 PM	#14
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The ascendancy in the 4th century can only be true if the accounts concerning Comstantine and his successors leading up to Theodosius and his protective code are true as described by Eusebius and others. And of course there is no empirical way of determining if it is true besides taking Eusebius at his word, which is a leap of faith, including the claims of alleged persecution. What is an alternative view of Christianity's ascendancy?

01-03-2012, 11:41 PM	#16
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	No not at all. Eusebius is suspect for veracity. I was just clarifying the position. But what alternative options are there to explain the ascendancy even after the 5th century?

01-04-2012, 04:57 AM	#19
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And if he cannot be relied upon because of bias then nothing is clear even about events at Nicea and the first part of the fourth century or an ascendancy of Christianity during that time. And since Socrates of Constantinople took pride in continuing the ostensible work of Eusebius, he too is subject to the Swiss cheese approach ...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.