Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 12-08-2011, 01:14 PM

But where did the imaginary "apostolic Peter" industry come from even if they had inserted the "on this Rock.." stuff in the name of Jesus?? Or were they simply latching on to a preferred or revered name from the gospels as their key to success? And how was it set up and installed in such a relatively brief time between 325 and 381 (passing through Athansius in 367)??

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Theodosius established his view and intent in the "Edict of Thessalonika" declaring that only the "Faith of Peter" was essentially true Christianity. Where did this undocumented "faith of Peter" come from? Not from the texts of the gospels, not from the epistles and not even from most of Acts. The so-called apostolic tradition appears to have become the monopoly under the Bishop of Rome, Damas and by Peter II, the bishop of Alexandria.

That's correct. And Damasius battled other prospective bishops in the streets of Rome for the right to become bishop. Damasius established the "PETER WAS HERE IN ROME" tourism industry, and renovated he catacombs for this purpose. It was a business racket (the product of Constantine's war) - very very profitable, and tax exempt.

Duvduv · 12-08-2011, 01:15 PM

If it's online, how "prohibited" could it actuall be??

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

When the 'net was young .....

Index Librorum Prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books") seems to have been continuously in use from the time of Nicaea in the 4th century, and according to the Vatican's publicity was supposed to be disbanded in 1966 but we find Ratzinger has "continued" the RCC censorship of authorial works now on the 'net. This represents 1686 continuous years of RCC censorship, book-burning, death penalties, anathemas, etc, etc, etc.

Sooner or later their past history is going to catch up with them.

andrewcriddle · 12-08-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Wasn't the council of 381 the one that also decided on the books of the Christian canon? The first one in 325 was held to find a compromise creed between competing factions (Arians and proto-Orthodox). If so (and since this is off the top of my head I could be wrong), I would not be surprised at all that the 2nd one would include phrases from the newly canonized scriptures as it tweaked the confessional formula.

FWIW, the emperor moderated the debate. Although both he and his advisor Eusebius had Arian leanings, it was Constantine (probably through the advice of Eusebius and maybe others) who suggested the compromise wording which, slightly modified to be acceptable to both most Arians and proto-orthodox, became the Orthodox confession.

DCH

I don't believe that either of these councils played a role in fixing the canon of the New Testament. Nor do I think that Eusebius of Caesarea acted as advisor to Constantine at Nicea. (Hosius probably fulfilled that role.)

Some of the differences between the Nicene creed and the creed of Constantinople arise from the non-controversial parts having independent origins.

Local churches around the Roman Empire had different creeds, not usually contradicting each other, but differing in how much detail they had about specific points.

If you take away the controversial (mainly Anti-Arian) teachings from the Nicene and Constaninople creeds, then even when they are expressing the same teaching they use different words to do so.

There are a number of Eastern creeds before Constantinople that go into more detail about the life of Christ than does Nicea. E.G. the 2nd creed of Antioch 341 (The Dedication Creed).

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 12-08-2011, 01:42 PM

And all of these issues were so well and neatly fixed up in a mere 45 years or more likely a portion thereof??! And with a new Emperor at the top, entrenching 1 Corinthians/Paul/epistles and the official gospels so easily?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Wasn't the council of 381 the one that also decided on the books of the Christian canon? The first one in 325 was held to find a compromise creed between competing factions (Arians and proto-Orthodox). If so (and since this is off the top of my head I could be wrong), I would not be surprised at all that the 2nd one would include phrases from the newly canonized scriptures as it tweaked the confessional formula.

FWIW, the emperor moderated the debate. Although both he and his advisor Eusebius had Arian leanings, it was Constantine (probably through the advice of Eusebius and maybe others) who suggested the compromise wording which, slightly modified to be acceptable to both most Arians and proto-orthodox, became the Orthodox confession.

DCH

I don't believe that either of these councils played a role in fixing the canon of the New Testament. Nor do I think that Eusebius of Caesarea acted as advisor to Constantine at Nicea. (Hosius probably fulfilled that role.)

Some of the differences between the Nicene creed and the creed of Constantinople arise from the non-controversial parts having independent origins.

Local churches around the Roman Empire had different creeds, not usually contradicting each other, but differing in how much detail they had about specific points.

If you take away the controversial (mainly Anti-Arian) teachings from the Nicene and Constaninople creeds, then even when they are expressing the same teaching they use different words to do so.

There are a number of Eastern creeds before Constantinople that go into more detail about the life of Christ than does Nicea. E.G. the 2nd creed of Antioch 341 (The Dedication Creed).

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 12-08-2011, 01:54 PM

Mountainman, the proverbial Bottom Line would seem to be that the TRUE creators of what we call Christianity were the threesome of Damasius, Jerome and Theodosius, with some earlier help from Eusebius.
That would make Theodosius the Father, Damasius the Son, and Jerome the Holy Spirit. Or maybe Athanasius was the Holy Spirit. I am not joking(!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Theodosius established his view and intent in the "Edict of Thessalonika" declaring that only the "Faith of Peter" was essentially true Christianity. Where did this undocumented "faith of Peter" come from? Not from the texts of the gospels, not from the epistles and not even from most of Acts. The so-called apostolic tradition appears to have become the monopoly under the Bishop of Rome, Damas and by Peter II, the bishop of Alexandria.

That's correct. And Damasius battled other prospective bishops in the streets of Rome for the right to become bishop. Damasius established the "PETER WAS HERE IN ROME" tourism industry, and renovated he catacombs for this purpose. It was a business racket (the product of Constantine's war) - very very profitable, and tax exempt.

Duvduv · 12-08-2011, 01:56 PM

Were the Acts of Peter, the Homilies etc. of Clement, and any other references to PETER part of an elaborate landscape one particular name known to very early believers in the Christ??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But where did the imaginary "apostolic Peter" industry come from even if they had inserted the "on this Rock.." stuff in the name of Jesus?? Or were they simply latching on to a preferred or revered name from the gospels as their key to success? And how was it set up and installed in such a relatively brief time between 325 and 381 (passing through Athansius in 367)??

Ironically, among the prohibited books of heretics were the Acts of Peter and the Gospel of Peter, who was the only apostolic link against all those without an Empire-sanctioned apostolic link.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

That's correct. And Damasius battled other prospective bishops in the streets of Rome for the right to become bishop. Damasius established the "PETER WAS HERE IN ROME" tourism industry, and renovated he catacombs for this purpose. It was a business racket (the product of Constantine's war) - very very profitable, and tax exempt.

Keith&Co. · 12-10-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

As I mentioned elsewhere, the original Nicaean Creed is unusual given how late it was in 325. It is worth noting that it mentioned neither Mary nor the crucifixion! But only "begotten" and having "suffered".
This stands in total contrast to the gospels....

No big surprise, really.

The whole thing was put together by committee.

Duvduv · 12-10-2011, 05:51 PM

What do you mean by "whole thing"? And WHO was the committee? Who was then the central body that could exert its authority on so many people? Was it a committee later of Damasius, Theodosius and Jerome??

Does the version of 325 mean that the story of a historical crucifixion had not yet come into existence?! Does it mean that they believed that the Christ was "begotten" in a celestial sphere with no woman involved? Do the changes of 381 indicate that in 325 the importance of the epistles and the gospels had not yet been established at all, or that they had not yet even been written??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

As I mentioned elsewhere, the original Nicaean Creed is unusual given how late it was in 325. It is worth noting that it mentioned neither Mary nor the crucifixion! But only "begotten" and having "suffered".
This stands in total contrast to the gospels....

No big surprise, really.

The whole thing was put together by committee.

Duvduv · 12-10-2011, 06:12 PM

Hi, Andrew. I am sorry, I missed this posting of yours about the Second Creed of Antioch of 341.
Why were there four separate creeds of Antioch all from the same year of 341 if they were?

The Second Creed would suggest that the Constantinople made use of the ideas expressed elsewhere that had emerged since 325. The second creed of 341 says he was born of an unnamed virgin according to the scriptures, again pointing to 1 Corinthians. However even that creed doesn't mention crucifixion, where he was born, or anything else about him.
The FIRST Creed of Antioch mentions taking the flesh of "the virgin" but is similar in its simplicity to Nicaea, especially with that term "rose again" (as opposed to having risen the first time). I see that the term crucified gets into the FOURTH Creed of Antioch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Wasn't the council of 381 the one that also decided on the books of the Christian canon? The first one in 325 was held to find a compromise creed between competing factions (Arians and proto-Orthodox). If so (and since this is off the top of my head I could be wrong), I would not be surprised at all that the 2nd one would include phrases from the newly canonized scriptures as it tweaked the confessional formula.

FWIW, the emperor moderated the debate. Although both he and his advisor Eusebius had Arian leanings, it was Constantine (probably through the advice of Eusebius and maybe others) who suggested the compromise wording which, slightly modified to be acceptable to both most Arians and proto-orthodox, became the Orthodox confession.

DCH

I don't believe that either of these councils played a role in fixing the canon of the New Testament. Nor do I think that Eusebius of Caesarea acted as advisor to Constantine at Nicea. (Hosius probably fulfilled that role.)

Some of the differences between the Nicene creed and the creed of Constantinople arise from the non-controversial parts having independent origins.

Local churches around the Roman Empire had different creeds, not usually contradicting each other, but differing in how much detail they had about specific points.

If you take away the controversial (mainly Anti-Arian) teachings from the Nicene and Constaninople creeds, then even when they are expressing the same teaching they use different words to do so.

There are a number of Eastern creeds before Constantinople that go into more detail about the life of Christ than does Nicea. E.G. the 2nd creed of Antioch 341 (The Dedication Creed).

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 12-10-2011, 06:26 PM

I suppose it could be considered noteworthy that the elements of judging the world and a nameless virgin (1st Creed), , and 1 Corinthians (2nd Creed) and crucifixion (4th Creed - appeared in Milan in 345) emerged specifically in 341 in Antioch but had been missing in Nicaea in 325, and the question would be why this was the case.

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

12-10-2011, 06:26 PM	#70
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I suppose it could be considered noteworthy that the elements of judging the world and a nameless virgin (1st Creed), , and 1 Corinthians (2nd Creed) and crucifixion (4th Creed - appeared in Milan in 345) emerged specifically in 341 in Antioch but had been missing in Nicaea in 325, and the question would be why this was the case.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.