FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-22-2012, 07:04 PM   #281
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

The theme seems to be that increasingly the new Byzantine Empire needed to draw so many diverse peoples and groups, and the Chi-Rho/Jesus sect provided that opportunity with its growing authority and propaganda machine through its official heresiologists and apologists, which created its myths and history.

But this really wasn't in place until after Chalcedon in the days of Justinian after weak attempts in the 4th century under the Constantinians and Theodosius.
Such that Christianity as we know it finally took form only in the 6th century.

Without the heresiology industry the gospels and epistles would have been lost to history. We can talk about Paul and the gospels until we're blue in the face, but the fact is that it was the power of the propaganda machinery of all the alleged historians who served the empire's interests so well.

Someone named Procopius is said to have written a book called the Secret History in the 6th century and wrote:

"You see, it was not possible, during the life of certain persons, to write the truth of what they did, as a historian should. If I had, their hordes of spies would have found out about it, and they would have put me to a most horrible death. I could not even trust my nearest relatives. That is why I was compelled to hide the real explanation of many matters glossed over in my previous books."
(http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!A0!...d/RLJUSTINIAN/)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The Creed of 325 CE takes its importance from the fact that it laid the foundation for church 'authority' to hunt down, penalize, force into conformity, persecute, or have anyone resisting its authority or its religious decrees executed, Arians being the first target, until eventually any group or individual who was not a proclaimed 'orthodox' Christian' lived in constant in danger of being deprived of property or life.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 02-23-2012, 05:31 AM   #282
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Thanks Duvduv. Your link (http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!A0!...d/RLJUSTINIAN/) gives a great window on the subject of the stories of horrible 'Christian persecution' that we have always been spoon fed.
Thing is, it was the Christians who were the persecutors, torturers, and murderers, it was the Christian Imperial religious machinery that was feeding people to wild beasts in the arenas for the entertainment of Christians.




.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 02-23-2012, 07:12 AM   #283
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bordeaux France
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Thanks, but I am asking specifically about the words used in that sentence in the creed of 325 in Greek.
You can get the greek text if you google "nicene creed greek". earlychurchtexts
Huon is offline  
Old 02-23-2012, 07:25 AM   #284
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bordeaux France
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
I am handicapped because of my lack of knowledge of Greek and Latin. Do the Greek and Latin versions of this sentence below claimed to have been part of the original Nicene Creed of 325 imply a PHYSICAL incarnation, or do they leave room for an incarnation that looks like a man but is not actually a human?

And what is the difference between the term "was incarnate" and "was made man"? Doesn't being made a man automatically imply an incarnation?

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
You ask the question of the difference between Monophysites and Dyophysites (Catholics).

Monophysites : JC has one nature (God).
Dyophysites : JC has two natures (God and man). He "was made man" of the Nicene Creed.
Huon is offline  
Old 02-23-2012, 07:35 AM   #285
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Huon unfortunately I don't know Greek to be able to understand the linguistic subtleties. And I wasn't asking about the monophysites. I was observing that these events established Christianity as we know it with its dogmas, doctrines and culture.

What are the linguistic implications of "incarnate" AND "made man" in Greek, and does it definitively mean that the person took a physical human body?
Duvduv is offline  
Old 02-23-2012, 07:48 AM   #286
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Huon unfortunately I don't know Greek to be able to understand the linguistic subtleties. And I wasn't asking about the monophysites. I was observing that these events established Christianity as we know it with its dogmas, doctrines and culture.
Or as some people wish it to be known.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 02-23-2012, 08:02 AM   #287
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

My citation from what is called the Secret History by Procopius is interesting Huon because it sheds light on how historians served the regime and cannot enjoy the status of a reliable source of information.
I grant that the fact that it was discovered by a priest in the Vatican archives named Niccolo Alamanni in 1623 doesn't guarantee that it is authentic of course.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 02-23-2012, 10:37 AM   #288
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bordeaux France
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Huon unfortunately I don't know Greek to be able to understand the linguistic subtleties. And I wasn't asking about the monophysites. I was observing that these events established Christianity as we know it with its dogmas, doctrines and culture.
Or as some people wish it to be known.
Exact. The theology of the Arians has been transmitted to us by their enemies.
Huon is offline  
Old 02-23-2012, 10:44 AM   #289
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Huon unfortunately I don't know Greek to be able to understand the linguistic subtleties. And I wasn't asking about the monophysites. I was observing that these events established Christianity as we know it with its dogmas, doctrines and culture.
Or as some people wish it to be known.
Exact. The theology of the Arians has been transmitted to us by their enemies.
Who were also the enemies of Christianity?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 02-23-2012, 10:49 AM   #290
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

In the so-called Justinian Codes the Arians were singled out with pagans and Jews for certain discriminatory laws. But how would anyone be able to identify someone only based on his belief about the nature of Jesus? Did they go around with signs on their heads saying "I am an Arian"??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Or as some people wish it to be known.
Exact. The theology of the Arians has been transmitted to us by their enemies.
Duvduv is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.