sotto voce

Constantine did nothing to formulate a canon. It may be supposed that the Bibles he had issued were whatever his minions decided it should be, which was what real Christians had decided it was, since it was written. And, as far as the NT was concerned, the issue was as cut and dried as can be.

:rolling:

Diogenes the Cynic

The New Testament was "cut and dried?" You have to be kidding me.

Have you ever studied anything about Constantine or Nicea at all.

What is a "real Christian," by the way? Were the Mandeans, for instance, not real Christians? Who is in charge of making that decision?

mountainman

How do we really know this for sure? Legend has it .... ? What evidence do we have outside of these "Christian minions" that corroborates the tall tale? I have been having all sorts of problems finding any unambiguous evidence. Maybe you are able to point to something sure and certain?




Well it certainly was once Constantine ordered the manufacture of 50 bibles, but that's not the issue, is it.



See Ammianus Book 19: Chapter XII. Many are prosecuted for treason, and condemned.

Sheshbazzar

....and what was that again about the oppositions books being banned? Who ordered this? and when?

sotto voce

Yes, I can. Now theological disagreements among alleged Protestants are infamous. 30 000 different flavours, so we are told— though actually, they are far fewer than that. But what is striking is that all of the mainstream denominations are agreed on one thing- the Bible canon. Even the Romans and the EOs, who would presumably love to include their Clements and Ignatiuses, don't dare to raise them to the same status. The modern reader, believer or not, recognises the New Testament immediately, and it does not take a systematic theologian to sort out contemporary also-ran writings. The NT must have been obvious from the start, even without the very obvious advantage that its books must have been written to and received by real people, whose individual concerns were therein addressed, people who would have been recognised as the church, even by its enemies.

Well no, the RCC was still disputing its own canon at the Council of Trent! Admittedly, re the OT.

There's no dispute that Constantine's puppets and their successors did ill. It's presumably a jest to call them Christians, though. Constantinians, they undoubtedly were, though it's a mouthful. Historians may reasonably call many of them Catholics, of course; though Protestants claim catholicity, also. It's a fuzzy word, catholic, as well as cultic and offensive. Better terms to use are perhaps Romanists, papists or papalists, that are both accurately descriptive and distinctive.

Sheshbazzar

Back to that old 'no True™ Christian' shtick again sotto?

Now do tell us again, just which group is it out of all the worlds 'Christians' that are the only True™ Christians?

mountainman

The opinions and agreements of the faithful flock are certainly not self-evident truths, and in fact the opposite is far more likely. Their barbaric dogma was first widely published by a despotic barbarian warlord to a captive empire. Did this propaganda exist before that time, or was it commissioned in order to forcibly subdue and subvert the extant (pagan) greek intellectual tradition?



With respect to "christian origins" the possibility that the Constantinian age witnessed the inaugural appearance of the New and Strange Testament is not without its benefits as an argument of best explanation for the history of the mainstream denominational heresiological and inquisitorial church of the last 16 centuries following Bullneck's Nicaean agreement.


Mass delusion may explain the flock's faith. What is more striking than the fact that all of the mainstream denominations are agreed on one thing- the Bible canon, is the fact that this agreement is faith based, unless unambiguous ancient historical evidence is forthcoming to established that Clark Jesus Kent and the "Daily Christian Planet" did not make their inaugural appearance inside the Constantine Bible, .

What is this ancient historical evidence?
I cannot find any.

OVER.

sotto voce

Then take the opinions of the unfaithful, barbarous flock, that recognises and targets precisely the same NT canon.

mountainman

The docetic opinions of the pagans and/or heretics and/or gnostics were burnt and destroyed by order of the Emperor. His army conducted search and destroy missions for "prohibited books". If you were caught in possession of a "prohibited book" then the emperor's law proscribed immediate execution by beheading. Constantine knew how to create and preserve a monopoly in the Bible codices. In recent centuries, various manuscript discoveries have turned up some of the non canonical new testament manuscripts manufactured in the 4th century (e.g. NHC).

sotto voce

Whose unfaithful, barbarous flock recognises and targets precisely the same NT canon. Docetism was all very fine, but it was of no use to a fat patrician, was it! Ye gods, docetism was as horrifying as an empty goblet, to a fat patrician. Fat patricians realised that they must give as much appearance of orthodox belief as possible if they were going to interpret the Bible in a way that would keep them fat. It was far, far safer to agree with those Christian vermin about their canon, their rule, and twist and invent about how their rule applied, than it was to openly disagree about what was so widely considered holy writ. They weren't that stupid. Agreed, the red-necked, thick-necked, thicko Romans were no great intellects, but low cunning, they were the masters of that. Their gods were their bellies, as the prophet had said. Between grunt and vomit, they knew how to worship and defend them.