Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 01-07-2012, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

I may be a bit naive but did people actually bring their fattest animals to church on Saturday and burn them in those temples? Kind of like and overcooked barbeque and everybody went home hungry?

It is enough to observe that the most massive structure in a city is the Church which is supporting an extensive bureacracy, maintaining a Library, and harnessing the energies of multitudes who pay tithes of one kind or another. If you direct that economic force somewhere else through Christianity, it is revolutionary.

I have often said in traveling through third-world countries that if the people all moved into the Church, or alternatively if the people's houses were erected from church materials, that their standard of living would rise more than anything else you could do for them. This was the original Christian insight: If we remove the obligation to support a Temple bureacracy, we can eat better and house ourselves better, right now in the present. We can thank Christ for that. Look at what motivation people would have in looking for a way to remove the constant demand on them to pay.

That is why Christianity spread like wildfire: it removed obligation. Eat your food yourself. Stay at home and improve your own place instead of building a Temple for corrupt, hypocritical fat cats. The irony is of course that it ended up being co-opted by the fat cats.

In an era of secret cells, they have to be small and power cannot be concentrated. But once they are numerous enough to practice in the open, they can be organized and controlled better, regardless of whether it is an independent chuch heirarchy or the state. And at that point Christianity began to grow into the thing it originally overthrew in the fist place.

Thanks but I do believe in massive structures as a labor of love for the sake of truth. I just have a problem with our interpretation of burned sacrifices in the same way as 'stoning to death' is an allegory wherein 'the argument' are like stones thrown to make truth stand, or set captives free etc., and here then I see 'burned offerings' as confessions made to be shared and so then the fattest lamb is the persona itself. It is, after all, the ultimate sacrifice that requires a deep seated faith, and so burned offerings are more like moral sacrifices made. Just wondering, that's all.

Duvduv · 01-08-2012, 07:44 AM

Presumably it would be quite possible to detect contradiction or linguistic differences etc. that would give away the fact that the History by Eusebius was written by more than one author, and perhaps later than claimed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What kind of textual evidence exists in the history attributed to Eusebius suggesting that the book or parts of it were not written by Eusebius or more importantly that it could not have been written when it is argued it was, I.e. the early fourth century?

Also, what are the implications from the letters of Athenagoras and Theophilus for emerging "Christianity "??

aa5874 · 01-12-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Presumably it would be quite possible to detect contradiction or linguistic differences etc. that would give away the fact that the History by Eusebius was written by more than one author, and perhaps later than claimed....

The forgery called the "Donation of Constantine" is a BIG RED FLAG that writings of the Church that are assumed to be from the 4TH century were NOT written at that time period.

It can be shown that many writings, wholly or in part, that are claimed to be BEFORE the 4th century were fraudulent, manipulated or bogus.

There is really very little credible evidence that writings under the name of Church writers were done withing the time period suggested.

The writings of Josephus were manipulated so it would NOT surprise me that writings under the name of Eusebius are manipulated.

Based on "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian, the writing called "Church History" attributed to Eusebius, wholly or in part, may have been written AFTER Eusebius were dead or AFTER c360 CE.

Julian the Emperor did NOT use the writings of Josephus to argue that Jesus was NOT born of a Ghost and did NOT know of any well-known writer who wrote about Jesus and Paul.

Duvduv · 01-12-2012, 11:22 AM

Therefore we cannot ascribe legitimacy or credibility to either the undocumented Nicene Creed or to the writings of someone called Eusebius whose work may have been a composite written by others later even in the 5th century.....

aa5874 · 01-12-2012, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Therefore we cannot ascribe legitimacy or credibility to either the undocumented Nicene Creed or to the writings of someone called Eusebius whose work may have been a composite written by others later even in the 5th century.....

But, do you understand the difference between credibility and EVIDENCE or Written Statements?

Do you understand that the document called the "Donation of Constantine" was NOT simply discarded but was EXAMINED to EXPOSE that it was a Fraudulent Document?

The very same thing MUST, I repeat MUST, be done for ALL writings that were under the Control of the Church.

So-called EXPERTS, Scholars and Historians, seemed not to be interested in EXPOSING the Fraud of the Roman Church where BILLIONS of people have been DECEIVED into believing that some God called Jesus Christ can FORGIVE the Sin of ALL Mankind.

Universal Salvation through the Son of a Ghost as stated in the BIBLE is WRONG, a Crime AGAINST all humanity, and should be ABANDONED IMMEDIATELY.

A total Pack of Lies have been Canonised.

Duvduv · 01-12-2012, 12:15 PM

I agree.
One major step would be to be able to determine who this guy Eusebius was or was not and what is in his writings that cannot be relied upon. Even non-Christian scholars rely upon his claims of history before the 4th century as if it were the "gospel truth" (along with "Irenaeus" and "Tertullian").

Since even the Nicene Creed can be suspect (although interestingly enough it does not contain any historical information about a Christ or teachings of "Paul") , and presumably his "successor" Socrates of Antioch may or may not have existed, we are stuck with questioning the existence of the canonical gospels, epistles and Acts EVEN well into the 4th century.
Then after them comes the case of JEROME........
All of the first emergence of "Christianity" relies so heavily on these two people (whether they existed or not).

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Therefore we cannot ascribe legitimacy or credibility to either the undocumented Nicene Creed or to the writings of someone called Eusebius whose work may have been a composite written by others later even in the 5th century.....

But, do you understand the difference between credibility and EVIDENCE or Written Statements?

Do you understand that the document called the "Donation of Constantine" was NOT simply discarded but was EXAMINED to EXPOSE that it was a Fraudulent Document?

The very same thing MUST, I repeat MUST, be done for ALL writings that were under the Control of the Church.

So-called EXPERTS, Scholars and Historians, seemed not to be interested in EXPOSING the Fraud of the Roman Church where BILLIONS of people have been DECEIVED into believing that some God called Jesus Christ can FORGIVE the Sin of ALL Mankind.

Universal Salvation through the Son of a Ghost as stated in the BIBLE is WRONG, a Crime AGAINST all humanity, and should be ABANDONED IMMEDIATELY.

A total Pack of Lies have been Canonised.

Toto · 01-12-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

.... Even non-Christian scholars rely upon his claims of history before the 4th century as if it were the "gospel truth" ...

Why do you keep repeating this canard? Are you stuck on the idea that a historical source has to be completely true and reliable before any use can be made of it?

aa5874 · 01-12-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I agree.
One major step would be to be able to determine who this guy Eusebius was or was not and what is in his writings that cannot be relied upon. Even non-Christian scholars rely upon his claims of history before the 4th century as if it were the "gospel truth" (along with "Irenaeus" and "Tertullian").

Since even the Nicene Creed can be suspect (although interestingly enough it does not contain any historical information about a Christ or teachings of "Paul") , and presumably his "successor" Socrates of Antioch may or may not have existed, we are stuck with questioning the existence of the canonical gospels, epistles and Acts EVEN well into the 4th century.
Then after them comes the case of JEROME........
All of the first emergence of "Christianity" relies so heavily on these two people (whether they existed or not)....

The existence of people called Christians do NOT rely on Eusebius, Jerome, Tertullian or Irenaeus.

Once you read and understand "Church History" you should be able to identify some of the writings that are historically and chronologically bogus like those under the name of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and even Eusebius

Duvduv · 01-12-2012, 02:36 PM

Not to mention so much associated with "Constantine" all the way to Constantinople and Theodosius in 381 and beyond into the 5th century. At least we see that in the Creed of 381 there is the code word of "according to the Scriptures" plus a reference to the names of Mary and Pilate (interestingly enough not Herod), signaling something to do with the gospels and possibly 1 Corinthians 15:3.
Now does that mean that people got to hear about epistles and gospels only at the end of the 4th century and perhaps even later if the dating is imprecise.

Duvduv · 01-12-2012, 04:56 PM

What is really known about events of the 4th century leading up to the Constantinople Council of 381 which is purported to provide a clear foundation for the revised Nicene Creed with allegedly a mere 120 bishops in attendance from the "East."

And since records don't exist, reliance is made on the historians following in the path of Eusebius, i.e. Sozomen, Socrates of Constantinople, Theodoret, all of whom were born after the year 381.

But practically speaking, what good are their claims about events up to the end of the 4th century?
Nothing is really known about any of them outside of their own works, and they borrowed information from one another.

Theodoret used Sozomen and Socrates as sources.
Little is known about Socrates, Sozomen dedicated his history to the emperor Theodosius II ("flattery gets you nowhere"). Theodoret's work is deemed not to be as good as others.

So from all of that comes information to the 5th century and appears to be the same as Eusebius in terms of reliability, bias, etc. even for modern scholars. Theodoret wrote about scriptures but evidently preferred the Old Testament to the "New" by far, writing in the mid 5th century. Like others he was preoccupied with the nature of the divinity, which sounds like not an unnusual philosophical occupation.

"Christianity" seemed to continue to be working itself out at least until the Chalcedon Council in 451, where it is said that 400-500 participants attended.

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

01-12-2012, 11:22 AM	#54
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Therefore we cannot ascribe legitimacy or credibility to either the undocumented Nicene Creed or to the writings of someone called Eusebius whose work may have been a composite written by others later even in the 5th century.....

01-12-2012, 02:36 PM	#59
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Not to mention so much associated with "Constantine" all the way to Constantinople and Theodosius in 381 and beyond into the 5th century. At least we see that in the Creed of 381 there is the code word of "according to the Scriptures" plus a reference to the names of Mary and Pilate (interestingly enough not Herod), signaling something to do with the gospels and possibly 1 Corinthians 15:3. Now does that mean that people got to hear about epistles and gospels only at the end of the 4th century and perhaps even later if the dating is imprecise.

01-12-2012, 04:56 PM	#60
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	What is really known about events of the 4th century leading up to the Constantinople Council of 381 which is purported to provide a clear foundation for the revised Nicene Creed with allegedly a mere 120 bishops in attendance from the "East." And since records don't exist, reliance is made on the historians following in the path of Eusebius, i.e. Sozomen, Socrates of Constantinople, Theodoret, all of whom were born after the year 381. But practically speaking, what good are their claims about events up to the end of the 4th century? Nothing is really known about any of them outside of their own works, and they borrowed information from one another. Theodoret used Sozomen and Socrates as sources. Little is known about Socrates, Sozomen dedicated his history to the emperor Theodosius II ("flattery gets you nowhere"). Theodoret's work is deemed not to be as good as others. So from all of that comes information to the 5th century and appears to be the same as Eusebius in terms of reliability, bias, etc. even for modern scholars. Theodoret wrote about scriptures but evidently preferred the Old Testament to the "New" by far, writing in the mid 5th century. Like others he was preoccupied with the nature of the divinity, which sounds like not an unnusual philosophical occupation. "Christianity" seemed to continue to be working itself out at least until the Chalcedon Council in 451, where it is said that 400-500 participants attended.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.