Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 06-29-2006, 02:15 AM

Quote:

With the brief but notable exception of Julian, a pagan who thought "no wild beasts are as dangerous to man as Christians are to one another" every emperor from Constantine to Valens subscribed to Arius' theology.

Barbarians p 206.

Quote:

Ambrose was a new sort of Christian, a Trinitarian. The doctrine of the trinity is a development of the anti - Arian argument that had been aired in the Council of Nicea in 325...The concept is essentially mystical, not rational...Aquinas.It is impossible to arrive at knowledge of the Trinity of the Divine Persons by natural reason.

Quote:

That would be a later Ebionite legend (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16). Nobody AFAIK takes any of that seriously.(Ben)

Quote:

We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians, and as we judge that all others are extravagent madmen, we brand them with the infamous name of Heretics..

How and why do we decide what to take seriously and what not, especially if one side is calling the other mad and heretical, and saying this 350 years plus after the alleged life of the founder?

There is a "New Model Jesus" invented in the 300 to 400's who is like an emperor in heaven. Might have the same name but is it actually the same species? This one is incredibly mythical - actually denying it is rational means an explicit denial of historicity!

This one survived well until the protestant heresies, that reintroduced a rational and therefore historical Jesus.

But I am very unclear about what model Jesus it was before the Catholic Revolution of the 300's. All the leads look like a classic gnostic mystical godman, but the rational historic features feel as if they might be the result of Arian thinking - not catholic, catholicism does feel as if is not interested in historicity!

It feels like we are at the end of several transformations, and ideas from all of them have got in the mix.

To conclude, I see it all starting as a classic mystery religion that gets written up as a play, arguments evolve about this Christ, some saying begotten, others unbegotten, it all gets settled forcibly on the MJ until it unravels with the enlightenment when an HJ is reintroduced.

No Historical Jesus, but at least two historical periods when HJ given priority - Arianism and Protestantism. Catholicism has always been mythical Jesus but has picked up the HJ heresy unconsciously.

Clivedurdle · 06-29-2006, 03:38 AM

Wiki clearly shows the process of argument, negotiation and impostion of views that occurred!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Quote:

Comparison between creed of 325 and creed of 381
Often the Creed of 381 is regarded as a simple extension of the creed of 325 - in an exact comparison though, there are some omissions (omission) and additions (addition) which are difficult to explain, if a direct relation is supposed. Additionally, there are in Greek several insignificant changes in the position of words, which do not alter the meaning

Ommissions and additions do not copy and paste - look at wiki - it is fascinating what might be later additions and ommissions!

The 381 creed is by a different group - Catholics!

Fascinating that wiki does not discuss the politicking that was going on - as if creed writing was a rational process and not equivalent to writing a constitution in Iraq!

mountainman · 06-30-2006, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But I am very unclear about what model Jesus it was before the Catholic Revolution of the 300's. All the leads look like a classic gnostic mystical godman, but the rational historic features feel as if they might be the result of Arian thinking - not catholic, catholicism does feel as if is not interested in historicity!

Arian thinking is a denial of something.
"There was a time when he was not"
"He was made out of nothing existing".

Quote:

With the brief but notable exception of Julian, a pagan who thought "no wild beasts are as dangerous to man as Christians are to one another" every emperor from Constantine to Valens subscribed to Arius' theology. ... Barbarians p 206.

Can you say why the author thought Julian was
not a subscriber to Arius?

Pete Brown

Clivedurdle · 06-30-2006, 04:12 AM

Because he was not a xian? He was returning to rational paganism.

Can you expand your thinking?

Was not Arianism a denial of Christ's equality with god? As a son he cannot be equal. But in accepting the concept of being a son, cannot Arianism be seen as falling into the historicist trap? If you attempt to use logic in the irrational world, you are heretical because you are doing something that cannot work.

Is this a struugle between rational and irrational world views, with the pagans and arians being on the same side, and leading to the false but logical conclusion of a historical jesus?

Is there an assumption in other discussions that interpolations were made by one side? Maybe someone thought - that is close enough, we can leave that, it won't matter. iterations, co-evolution of ideas.

Clivedurdle · 06-30-2006, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Arian thinking is a denial of something

Is it?

What if it is the earlier idea, then this new fangled Trinitarianism comes along and Arianism reacts?

Because Trinitarianism won - by force - it has made arianism look aas if it is denying.

Is it a denial to state the son is not equal to the father or is that logically correct?

Haran · 06-30-2006, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is this a struugle between rational and irrational world views, with the pagans and arians being on the same side, and leading to the false but logical conclusion of a historical jesus?

No. It was a struggle between biblical interpretations. Pagans were no more rational in their beliefs than Christians are seen to have been. Read more about temple cults.

Clivedurdle · 06-30-2006, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

No. It was a struggle between biblical interpretations. Pagans were no more rational in their beliefs than Christians are seen to have been. Read more about temple cults.

Grade 1 Assertion!

That is the whole point of the book Barbarian, that in fact there was a huge amount of rationality admixed with seeking the views of the gods in various ways!

We must not just react "no" like this and assume the xians were somehow equally rational to the pagans. Xianity can be understood as the "victory" of mystical religions over the beginnings of rationality, look at the quote above about the trinity and irrationality - they were proud of it! They centralised irrationality with the emperor - a very powerful political move.

It was not just a struggle between biblical interpretations, but betweeen irrational and partly rational views of christ. The struggle to rationality lost.

A son not being equal to the father is a logical argument. It was countered with mumbo jumbo!

Haran · 06-30-2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Grade 1 Assertion!

It is an assertion because knowledge of it is common place. Read the early accounts of the council of Nicea. It was about biblical interpretation. Athanasius won others over through what was perceived to be better tradition and biblical support.

Quote:

That is the whole point of the book Barbarian, that in fact there was a huge amount of rationality admixed with seeking the views of the gods in various ways!

book Barbarian? What in the world are you talking about?

Quote:

We must not just react "no" like this and assume the xians were somehow equally rational to the pagans.

I answer "no" like this not because I assume but because I know better from written accounts.

Quote:

It was not just a struggle between biblical interpretations, but betweeen irrational and partly rational views of christ. The struggle to rationality lost.

As I mentioned, read more about paganism and the temple cults. There was no such struggle between so-called "irrational religion" and so-called "rational paganism".

In fact, a case could be made for early Christians being more rational than the Pagans. Whereas the Pagans believed in many Gods and prayed to inanimate objects and held fertility orgies in temples, Christians were viewed as atheists because they did not believe in these other Gods or in worshipping man-made objects.

You are way out in left field on this one and should really try to reign yourself in a bit and be a bit more rational and logical about the issues at hand.

Clivedurdle · 06-30-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

book Barbarian? What in the world are you talking about

Quote:

Renowned as a member of Monty Python, Terry Jones also proved himself to be an unorthodox connoisseur of history with Terry Jones’ Medieval Lives. Now, Professor Jones shows us once again that history can be fun.
Terry Jones’ Barbarians takes a completely fresh approach to Roman history. No one nowadays would try to tell the story of the British Empire from the point of view of the British, but the story of the Roman Empire is still always told from the perspective of Rome. Well, not any more! This is the story of the Roman Empire as seen by the Britons, Gauls, Germans, Hellenes, Persians, and Africans. And suddenly, the Romans don’t look all that familiar. In place of the propaganda pushed on us by the Romans, we’ll see these people as they really were. The Vandals didn’t vandalize—the Romans did. The Goths didn’t sack Rome—the Romans did. Traversing the landscape of the Roman Empire, Terry Jones brings wit, irreverence, and the very latest scholarship to transform a history that seemed well past its sell-date. Terry Jones is most famous as a member of Monty Python; he has also directed a number of feature films, including Monty Python and the Holy Grail and The Life of Brian. Alan Ereira is an award-winning television producer and writer.

Terry Jones' Barbarians (or via: amazon.co.uk)

And it ain't left field, it has been cogently argued and checked by other historians.

There is a huge bias that the xians were the rational ones - were they? What mathematic or scientific advance can be directly shown to be a xian advance? What did Cyril do?

Clivedurdle · 06-30-2006, 09:39 AM

And I know plenty about temple cults - I posted somewhere on here a link to reader in anthropology of religion.

Quote:

Magical thinking is ubiquitous in all societies and to all humanity!

Quote:
Noting the great similarity of magical thinking in all types of human societies and eras of recorded history, some cognitive scientists suggest that these ways of thinking are intrinsic to humanity. Many articles in neuroscience have shown that the human brain excels at pattern matching, but that humans do not have a good filter for distinguishing between perceived patterns and actual patterns. Thus, people often are led to see "relationships" between actions that don't actually exist, creating a magical belief.

What was all that sitting in volcanic fumes the Greeks got up to about? The druids, when they sacrificed a human, would watch the death throes and use them as signs and portents.

What happened according to the gospels at the death of Christ?

Quote:
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
[52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
[54] Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

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

06-30-2006, 04:12 AM	#4
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Because he was not a xian? He was returning to rational paganism. Can you expand your thinking? Was not Arianism a denial of Christ's equality with god? As a son he cannot be equal. But in accepting the concept of being a son, cannot Arianism be seen as falling into the historicist trap? If you attempt to use logic in the irrational world, you are heretical because you are doing something that cannot work. Is this a struugle between rational and irrational world views, with the pagans and arians being on the same side, and leading to the false but logical conclusion of a historical jesus? Is there an assumption in other discussions that interpolations were made by one side? Maybe someone thought - that is close enough, we can leave that, it won't matter. iterations, co-evolution of ideas.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.