Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 11-11-2003, 04:36 PM

Yes, the bible was a political product and there were various councils that cannonized what we ultimately have today. We can't be sloppy though. I believe Nicea was mainly about the trinity and not selecting books. There is another thread on the various councils.

Thomas is just a collection of sayings. I'm not sure that it fits your thesis exactly there. I'm not challenging you, I just think there are several political motives operating simultaneously. One of the things they would not like about Thomas is that it does not support a centralized church view. So for that reason alone it would be viewed unfavorably.

I'm not familiar with Jesus, the war God - do you have some info you'd share with me via link or citation? Much abliged.

Radcliffe Emerson · 11-12-2003, 12:38 PM

That falls right in line with most of the beliefs and traditions of the earliest followers of Jesus being declared heretical. How can the earliest followers not know more about their subject?
Which always leads me more and more to believe Jesus himself was a myth, or several different people rolled up into one.

Llyricist · 11-12-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
or several different people rolled up into one.

One of which may well have been Simon, son of Judas the Gallilean, check this thread and the link therein:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=55098

Radcliffe Emerson · 11-13-2003, 10:14 AM

That is a very interesting theory.

Biff the unclean · 11-13-2003, 12:58 PM

Thomas is just a collection of sayings. I'm not sure that it fits your thesis exactly there.
Pretty much because it is not a group of sayings that resembles those of Mithric or Dionysian cults. Rather it's a dead ringer for Mayhayana Buddhist sayings.
But if you look at the Gnostic Gospels from the Nag-Hamadi find there the stories resemble the "Pagan" pre-Christian Gnostic cults of north Africa.
Apparently based on popularity the Gnostic Gospels were the most widely spread but were discarded in favor of ones closer to the beliefs of the Emperor

I'm not familiar with Jesus, the war God - do you have some info you'd share with me via link or citation? Much abliged.
Sure you could try the Catholic Encyclopedia. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm) They of course don't call Jesus a war God but you'll get the idea

Quote:

So far Constantine, who was at this time defending his own frontier against the Germans, had taken no part in the quarrels of the other claimants to the throne. But when, in 311, Galerius, the eldest Augustus and the most violent persecutor of the Christians, had died a miserable death, after cancelling his edicts against the Christians, and when Maxentius, after throwing down Constantine's statues, proclaimed him a tyrant, the latter saw that war was inevitable. Though his army was far inferior to that of Maxentius, numbering according to various statements from 25,000 to 100,000 men, while Maxentius disposed of fully 190,000, he did not hesitate to march rapidly into Italy (spring of 312). After storming Susa and almost annihilating a powerful army near Turin, he continued his march southward. At Verona he met a hostile army under the prefect of Maxentius' guard, Ruricius, who shut himself up in the fortress. While besieging the city Constantine, with a detachment of his army, boldly assailed a fresh force of the enemy coming to the relief of the besieged fortress and completely defeated it. The surrender of Verona was the consequence. In spite of the overwhelming numbers of his enemy (an estimated 100,000 in Maxentius' army against 20,000 in Constantine's army) the emperor confidently marched forward to Rome. A vision had assured him that he should conquer in the sign of the Christ, and his warriors carried Christ's monogram on their shields, though the majority of them were pagans. The opposing forces met near the bridge over the Tiber called the Milvian Bridge, and here Maxentius' troops suffered a complete defeat, the tyrant himself losing his life in the Tiber (28 October, 312). Of his gratitude to the God of the Christians the victor immediately gave convincing proof; the Christian worship was henceforth tolerated throughout the empire (Edict of Milan, early in 313).

The vision they are talking about was recorded by Constantine's friend Eusebius (the same guy credited with the Josephus forgery)
Back to the CE

Quote:

Labarum (Chi-Rho)

Labarum is the name by which the military standard adopted by Constantine the Great after his celebrated vision (Lactantius, "De mortibus persecutorum", 44), was known in antiquity. The original labarum, designed under the emperor's direction on the day subsequent to the appearance of the "cross of light", is described by Eusebius (Vita Constant., I:26) as "a long spear, overlaid with gold", which with a transverse bar formed the figure of a cross. "On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones, and within this the symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of the initial letters, the letter X intersection P at the centre." These two letters formed what is known as the monogram of Constantine, so called -- not because it was the invention of this emperor, for it had been a familiar Christian symbol prior to his conversion -- but because of the great popularity it enjoyed from the date of its appearance on the imperial standards. From the cross-bar of the spear, was suspended a purple banner with the Greek inscription TOUTO NIKA -- i. e. conquer by this (sign), usually rendered in Latin "In hoc signo vinces" (in this sign thou shalt conquer). This banner, square in form, covered with a rich embroidery of precious stones, and "being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder". The part of the staff immediately above the embroidered banner was adorned with medallions of the emperor and his children. Fifty soldiers of the imperial guard, distinguished for bravery and piety, were entrusted with the care and defense of the new sacred standard (Vita Constant., II:8). Standards, similar to the original labarum in its essential features were supplied to all the legions, and the monogram was also engraved on the soldiers' shields. An idea of some of the deviations in form of the standards furnished to different divisions of the army may be obtained from several coins of Constantine's reign still preserved. On one coin, for instance, the portrait of the emperor and his sons are represented on the banner instead of on the staff; on a second the banner is inscribed with the monogram and surmounted by the equal-armed cross, while the royal portraits, though on the shaft, are below instead of above the banner. In form, the labarum of Constantine was an adaptation of the already existing cavalry standard of the Roman army; the pagan emblems were merely replaced by Christian symbols. The term labarum, which is of uncertain derivation, was probably familiar in the Roman army from the reign of Hadrian.

The Chi-Rho, and not a Jesus fish, was the symbol of the early Christians.
"In hoc signo vinces" announce Jesus stint as a war God.

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

11-11-2003, 04:36 PM	#41
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Yes, the bible was a political product and there were various councils that cannonized what we ultimately have today. We can't be sloppy though. I believe Nicea was mainly about the trinity and not selecting books. There is another thread on the various councils. Thomas is just a collection of sayings. I'm not sure that it fits your thesis exactly there. I'm not challenging you, I just think there are several political motives operating simultaneously. One of the things they would not like about Thomas is that it does not support a centralized church view. So for that reason alone it would be viewed unfavorably. I'm not familiar with Jesus, the war God - do you have some info you'd share with me via link or citation? Much abliged.

11-12-2003, 12:38 PM	#42
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	That falls right in line with most of the beliefs and traditions of the earliest followers of Jesus being declared heretical. How can the earliest followers not know more about their subject? Which always leads me more and more to believe Jesus himself was a myth, or several different people rolled up into one.

11-13-2003, 10:14 AM	#44
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	That is a very interesting theory.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.