Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 10-21-2010, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi
Judaism had spread to a number of cities in provinces outside Jerusalem in the First century. The fight to control Israel/Jerusalem/Palestine, had to be fought in those cities. The gospels of Mark, Matthew and John represent indigenous efforts to control Judaism.

The publication of the gospel of Luke and the Publication of the Four-fold gospel (which I believe happens nearly simultaneously) represents something quite different. It is much more an effort to make the new religion acceptable to the Roman Empire.

The publication of the Fourfold Gospel is a refashioning of the religion to fit into Roman society.

Hi Jay, as I read the Gospels they are not synoptic but contradictory even as Matthew and Mark sends one to hell and Luke and John will get one into heaven. This of course is shown in the end where 'back to Galilee' Jesus goes in Matthew and Mark for another 40 years of 'purification' and in the end "still die nonetheless" (as suggested in Jn.6:58), while in Luke and John he goes to heaven.

Now he word 'hell' here may sound a bit course here but in the larger scope of comparative mythology it does not seem so wrong because so called Christianity is the only religion where something good can happen to you after you die and that, at least to me, seems a bit rought too.

So then I say that heaven is a place on earth and if that it is true hell must also be a place on earth and use the four gospels to show how we can get there, which then is why they were composed the way they are and placed in the order as they are (I actually think they have one author or at least are redacted to make that point known to the most intricate detail, and therefore, YES, is inerrant).

mountainman · 10-21-2010, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

But then we all know that Eusebius was just a propagandist, don't we?

No, we don't all know it. I know that he could have been. I do not know that he was.

<edit>

mountainman · 10-22-2010, 06:52 PM

An objective, profane and non-ecclesiastical focussed ancient history of the 4th century discloses that Constantine the Great Fascist started these precedents of (Imperial) Christian persecution and intolerance.

Chili · 10-22-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yep, stuff Christian decrees, creeds, and doctrines down the throats of the citizenry with the point of the Imperial swords. And lop off the heads of any who would dare question or dissent.
Nice group of peaceful neighbor loving Christians that was unleashed upon the world.
No?

Catholicism is a peaceful religion with Cathechism class only up to grade 6, I think, and after that we go to church on Sunday and do what Catholics do, which is go to church on Sunday and listen to the priests and kind of believe whatever he says for at least as long as we are there. The rest of the mass is/was always in Latin so there is no argument there and that is about it for religion in the life of a Catholic.

They call 'us' the flock and hither and thither we go because the priest (or pastor in chief) says that that is what Catholics do. I am not sure if anyone knows exactly why they do what they do or if even the priests knows why we have to do what we do, but he, too, says 'hither and thither' they go.

But then, Catholics are not Christian in the same way as Jews are not Christian and once a Jew becomes a Christian he is no longer a Jew and so will a Catholic no longer be a Catholic when he/she becomes a Christian and is not even welcome in Church . . . where, among other things, he really does not or no longer wants to be.

So really, Catholicism is as far removed from Christianity as water from fire, while yet water and fire are needed to make a Christian and that is where the Church is the water we need.

stephan huller · 10-22-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

An objective, profane and non-ecclesiastical focussed ancient history of the 4th century discloses that Constantine the Great Fascist started these precedents of (Imperial) Christian persecution and intolerance.

One of the most laughable things I have ever read at this site. You mountainman, are 'OBJECTIVE'? LOL

The evidence from the second and third centuries of Christianity, if viewed 'objectively,' makes it 'self-evident' that it is all a forgery and the claims of Imperial persecutions in Alexandrian - even the fucking Coptic tradition of starting their calendar from 284 CE - are all 'easily dismissed' so as to make way for your enlightened claims about Constantine.

How do you propose that the Copts were 'misled' into thinking that they lost hundreds of thousands of souls during the Diocletian persecutions? And what of the martyrdom of Pope Peter of Alexandria in 311 CE? It's all pushed aside because 'Pete whoever-you-are' had some 'idea' pop into his head while sitting on the toilet about Constantine.

I know I shouldn't even be addressing the constant flow of nonsense that flows from your fingertips but its worse that watching someone try to play electric guitar in the bathtub. You keep misrepresenting history all for that potty idea that came into your head. Some uninformed reader might actually believe that Arius claimed that Jesus was a fiction or that the Christian persecutions only began with Constantine.

There is enough religious misinformation out there. Why start skeptical dysinformation. We're supposed to be better than that.

Watching you is more akin to someone with AIDS try and infect as many people with his disease as possible. One has an unquestioned moral imperative to STOP such a deranged individual. What you engage in is the butchering of history. I've never so much as heard you once admit you might be wrong about something, that you'd reconsider the evidence. You're just keep going and going and going with the same nonsense more sure than the day before that everyone else doesn't know what they are talking about. JUST STOP IT!!!! It's grating and distracting.

Don't you ever wonder why other people don't share you ideosyncratic take on history? Take for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He happens to be one of the world's leading authorities on Arius. Here's a book a wrote:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vaO...ed=0CBwQ6AEwAA

Why don't you read it???????

If ten people saw the same motor vehicle accident you would expect them to share the same understanding of what happened. You know, car was making a turn and the truck tried to slow down and slammed into the car.

You'd be the guy bringing in space aliens to explain the accident. Why don't you join a Da Vinci Code group to bring up this nonsense. I can't believe anyone wants to hear any more from you.

mountainman · 10-22-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Don't you ever wonder why other people don't share you ideosyncratic take on history? Take for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He happens to be one of the world's leading authorities on Arius. Here's a book a wrote:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vaO...ed=0CBwQ6AEwAA

Why don't you read it???????

I have and here are my notes.
Is Arius a follower of Jesus or Plotinus?

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism."

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOTES on ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition by Rowan Williams

ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition
Rowan Williams
Revised Edition (2002)

Arius before Arianism

p.31

"Although he is described as a skilled dialectician [23],
we cannot with certainty reconstruct a philosophical education"

[23] Socrates HE I.5, PG 67, 41A, Sozomen HE I.15, 33.2-3

p.32

Epiphanius' portrait [27]:

"He was very tall in stature [28], with downcast countenance [29],
counterfeited like a guileful serpent, and well able to deceive
any unsuspecting heart through its cleverly designed appearance.
For he was always garbed in a short cloak (hemiphorion) and sleeveless
tunic (kolobion); he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive
and flattering."

The sleeveless tunic is reminiscent of the "exomis" worn by both the
philosophers and asdcetics: Philo [30] mentions that the contemplative
Therapeutae of his day were dressed thus. Arius' costume would have
identified him easily as a teacher of the way of salvation - a guru,
we might almost say... Epiphanius also notes [31] that he had the care
of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached
to his church.

[27] Haer 69.3, 154.12-16
[28] Or possibly "advanced in years".
[29] Or possibly "with a stooping figure"
[30] Vita Cont. 38
[31] Haer 69.3.154.17ff

INTELLECT and BEYOND

199-209

Is spent searching for any precedents in the beliefs expressed by Arius.

p.209

".... It should be fairly clear by now that these views were unusual
in the church of his day, if not completely without precedent of some
sort in Origen. Kannengeisser suggests [63] that we should look directly
at the fifth Ennead [of Plotinus] for the background to Arius's ideas,
and for the heresiarch's 'break with Origen and his peculiarity with
respect to all the masters of Middle-Platonism with whom he has been
compared. [64]

For Kannengiesser .... only the radical disjunction between first and
second principles for which Plotinus argues can fully account for Arius'
novel teaching in this area.

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism." [66]

[63-66] Charles Kannengeisser

ANALOGY and PARTICIPATION

p.227

Arius is tempting a bold and delicate task, simultaneously
stressing the total disjunction between monad and dyad, in
strongly Neoplatonist and Neopythagorean style, and asserting
real knowledge of the monad as a gracious will.

He is walking exactly the same tightrope as the Cappodocians
later in the century. [75]"

Conclusion

p.230

"In so far as we can catch a glimpse of Arius; metaphysics
and cosmology, it is of a markedly different kind from the
philosophical assumptions of Eusebius of Caesarea or, for
that matter, Athanasius himself in his apologetic works.

....[...]...

"In his insistence on the utter independence and separateness
of the source of all, he unquestionably stands closer to
Plotinus and his successors.

"... It is tempting to think that Anatolius of Laodicaea is
the 'missing link' connecting Arius with the Neoplatonic world."

p.231

"If the analysis in the foregoing pages is accurate,
what finally sets him [Arius] apart as a theologian
is the attempt to incorporate such a metaphysic within
an account of God's creating and revealing work
drawn largely from Scripture and retaining
a strong personalist element in its view of God.

Post-Plotinian cosmology and logic are what make Arius a 'heresiarch'"

(3.4) Anatolius of Laodicea the Christian, (c.210 - 283 CE)
(3.4) Anatolius of Laodicea the Neoplatonist and teacher of Iamblichus, (c.210 - 283 CE)

"The suggestion that Anatolius, Iamblichus' teacher, is to identified
with the Christian Bishop Anatolius of Laodicaea ... is a conjecture
regarded very skeptically indeed by several well qualified judges.

p.262 Rowan Williams, "Arius: Heresy & Tradition" (Revised Ed 2002

Toto · 10-22-2010, 08:35 PM

You see, Stephan, Pete can take any source and read just what he wants to in it. Constantine was Hitler, the heretics were really nice pagans and hippies carrying on an underground resistance . . .

stephan huller · 10-22-2010, 08:46 PM

But it is utterly bizarre, Pete. Do you really believe that Williams would support any of your theories? If you acknowledge that he would want to avoid even so much as meeting you on the street how do you account for the fact that he knows so much more than you but doesn't share your views? This is the part that I don't get.

My mother isn't a scholar. But if she ran across Pete's webpage and heard that Arius believed that Jesus was a fiction she might believe it. But if I said 'hey read this book by the Archbishop of Canterbury which shows how stupid all of this is' she'd go - 'well I will probably side with guy who went to school and became an expert rather than a guy on his computer in a shed somewhere.

But I don't get why you think you know more than Rowan Williams? Seriously please explain.

mountainman · 10-23-2010, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Some uninformed reader might actually believe that ....... the Christian persecutions only began with Constantine.

Under Constantine the Christians became the aggressors.
See Vlasis Rassias or Momigliano (below) for example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.

--- ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO (1959/60)

On 28 October 312 the Christians
suddenly and unexpectedly
found themselves victorious.
The victory was

a miracle -

though opinions differed
as to the nature of the sign
vouchsafed to Constantine.

The winners became conscious of their victory
in a mood of resentment and vengeance.
A voice shrill with implacable hatred
announced to the world
the victory of the Milvian Bridge:
Lactatius' De mortibus persecutorum.

In this horrible pamphlet by the author of De ira dei
there is something of the violence of the
prophets without the redeeming sense of tragedy
that inspired Nahum's song for the the fall of
Nineveh.

...[...]...

If there were men who recommended
tolerance and peaceful coexistence
of Christians and pagans,
they were rapidly crowded out.

The Christians were ready
to take over the Roman empire,
as Eusebius made clear
in the introduction of the Preparatio evangelica
where he emphasises the correlation
between pax romana and the Christian message:
the thought indeed was not even new.

The Christians were also determined
to make impossible a return to the conditions
of inferiority and persecution for the Church.
The problems and conflicts inside the Church
which all this implied
may be left aside for the moment.

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians appreciated and exploited

the miracle

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector, and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

One fact is eloquent enough. All the pioneer works
in the field of Christian historiography are earlier
than what we may call their opposite numbers in
pagan historiography."

Toto · 10-23-2010, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You see, Stephan, Pete can take any source and read just what he wants to in it. ....

How amiable. How pleasant. How silly.

So, when it comes to mountainman, Toto supposes that he exhibits myopic vision, selectively choosing particular quotes, favorable to his perspective, and interpreting them in a political manner....

This is my problem with mountainman. He is beyond myopic. He has committed himself to a particular theory of Christian origins, and ignores or raises specious objections to all contrary evidence. And his theory that Christianity was invented in the 4th century does not make sense - why would anyone invent a contradictory, illogical religion that was both based on Jewish scriptures and anti-Semitic?

At this point, a number of our serious posters have put Pete on ignore. Pete is unable to convince anyone but avi that he can make a serious argument; but he is unwilling to modify his theory to conform to the evidence. So he keeps posting the same material over and over again, making the same mistakes of interpretation. When no one responds, he adds sarcasm and mockery - these annoying references to Harry Potter and Bilbo Baggins and Hitler. But there is no discussion, no interaction, no growth in understanding. What's the point? This has been going on for years.

It is quite subversive enough to say that Christianity was invented in the second century, and it fits the available evidence much better. Why has Pete staked everything on a theory that requires complex, extensive forgery in the 4th century?

Quote:

But, when it comes to examining the SOURCES of actual data regarding "Irenaeus", whose polemic against Gnosticism, "Adversus Haeresies", has been thoroughly discredited by documents uncovered at Nag Hammadi, do you, Toto, not engage in precisely the same "picking and choosing"?

What has been discredited by the documents from Nag Hammadi? Is there anything there that would indicate that the author of works under the name of Irenaeus, whoever he was, did not exist until the 4th century?

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

10-22-2010, 06:52 PM	#3
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	An objective, profane and non-ecclesiastical focussed ancient history of the 4th century discloses that Constantine the Great Fascist started these precedents of (Imperial) Christian persecution and intolerance.

10-22-2010, 08:35 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You see, Stephan, Pete can take any source and read just what he wants to in it. Constantine was Hitler, the heretics were really nice pagans and hippies carrying on an underground resistance . . .

10-22-2010, 08:46 PM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But it is utterly bizarre, Pete. Do you really believe that Williams would support any of your theories? If you acknowledge that he would want to avoid even so much as meeting you on the street how do you account for the fact that he knows so much more than you but doesn't share your views? This is the part that I don't get. My mother isn't a scholar. But if she ran across Pete's webpage and heard that Arius believed that Jesus was a fiction she might believe it. But if I said 'hey read this book by the Archbishop of Canterbury which shows how stupid all of this is' she'd go - 'well I will probably side with guy who went to school and became an expert rather than a guy on his computer in a shed somewhere. But I don't get why you think you know more than Rowan Williams? Seriously please explain.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.