sotto voce

Pagans must rule!

Chili

Philosophy is king for sure and logos is inherent to them as pagan. But Paul was calling religion to order and that would certainly have to be without the logos among them, as they would be, and always will be the antichrist in person if they as much dare to speak.

In other words, religon is like milk for babies with no meat offered by the preacher except in the allegory that he presents to them.

Duvduv

It's OK. I am interested in Mountainman's thoughts on this. I don't understand yours.

Duvduv

Leucius Charinus. The name of one fellow who apparently had a hand in writing the entertainment literature opposed by the establishment Church. There must have been more like him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucius_Charinus

Mountainman ha alot of interesting stuff to read. Like this:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene..._Summaries.htm
Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently.
This is found, for instance, in the Testimony of Truth,
the Apocalypse of Peter, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth,
the Acts of John, which take aim at apostolic Christians
and their practices and beliefs.

The Sethians were particularly good at making fun of
traditional biblical beliefs, especially when it came
to the Genesis story and their use of traditional verses like
"Besides me there is no god" by applying it to Ialdabaoth
and implying that this is the god that other Christians
ignorantly are worshiping.

I do not think of the Gospel of Judas as a parody in terms
of a modern comic skit or genre. I have never used it this
way, nor would I.

-- April Deconnick

Duke Leto

Thinking about the problem in detail, it was obviously Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey traveling back in time.

No one knows what it's like to be the bad man, to be the sad man...

sotto voce

YOU did!

Duvduv

It is more than worthwhile examining why it is that everyone can accept the idea that Justinian created a new civil code in the 6th century, but that the imperial regime could not create a new religion in the 4th century. Go ahead and explain how it is that Constantine would "favor" an obscure persecuted underground sect with such privileges (which he did not make the official religion) rather than that he was favoring a NEW SECT that was starting to be created to replace the old system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
Under Constantine, Christianity did not become the exclusive religion of the state, but enjoyed imperial preference, because the emperor supported it with generous privileges. Constantine established the principle that emperors could not settle questions of doctrine on their own, but should summon instead general ecclesiastical councils for that purpose. His convening of both the Synod of Arles and the First Council of Nicaea indicated his interest in the unity of the Church, and showcased his claim to be its head.[24]

Why were there "theological disputes" as late as under Theodosius II involving "Nestorians" just as there had been with "Arians."?? Obviously because the regime had not yet worked out all aspects of its theology and religion based on its official books, and worked with known "philosophers/theologians" to do so. The ball apparently started rolling under Theodosius with the "Edict of Thessalonica" which "canonized" doctrines and ideologies (which obviously had not yet been fully fleshed out) and striking out against "heretics" (where was "Irenaeus"
when they needed him?!) such as the Apollonarians following the struggles with the Arian ideology.

sotto voce

Constantine, or, more likely, the Greeks and Jews who actually understood matters more complex than what mere soldiers could readily understand, favoured the false leaders that had been present, corrupting the church with liberal Greek ideas and legalistic Judaisms, for a long time, probably since before the end of the 1st century. So the religion that was eventually recognised by the empire as Christian, with its (ludicrous) imposition of a pontiff, was actually antichrist. This was exactly what the empire wanted; and just what European totalitarian tyrants wanted, after the collapse of Rome. These rulers of course had the means to ensure that those were soon silenced who rightly found the whole idea absurd. Without murder or its threat, the scheme would never have even got off the ground, because of the laughter.

There are of course many today, including people of criminal tendency, who find it far easier to assault Christianity by insisting that only papism is Christian, refusing to debate this issue. That Christianity (i.e. Protestantism) is or contains divinely inspired truth is evinced by their inevitable circularities and evasions, frequently to be seen on the internet, for example. Intellectually, it really is only the appeal to precedent, known as 'tradition', that prevents papism from being subjected to ridicule and rejection, like medieval superstition. Through centuries of 'osmosis', minds that lay claim to be modern, rational and scientific have been genuinely inured to actually idiotic notions. There are, in addition, emotional 'reasons' for preference of a humanly controlled religion over a divinely controlled one.

Toto

That's easy. Constantine's mother was a Christian, and he was probably raised as a Christian. The Christian church had an organizational structure that he could use.

But you and mountainman have yet to explain why Constantine would invent a religion with such contradictions that you see in the NT. Surely if one were to invent a religion, it would be simple and straightforward, with one coherent narrative.

sotto voce

Nobody was ever raised as a Christian. That's basic.

Nonsense, also. The church had been infiltrated long before Constantine, and in his day there were probably very few, if any Christians who had tolerated the ludicrous mockery that resulted, even if they survived. What the empire recognised was certainly no more recognisable as the real church than cardboard painted blue resembles the sky.

Rubbish. What has to be shown is that the empire could have devised a religion that totally contradicted the NT, in both principle and practice, if not in the letter, as the Tridentine RCC in due course provided.