mountainman

It leaves the Nag Hammadi Codices as representative of the last dying swan-song of the Egypto-Graeco-Roman theological traditions, which included the Greek intellectual traditon of Plato. Arnaldo Momigliano is happy enough to call these people the pagans, mindful that they included Euclid, Galen and Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Sopater and the Emperor Julian.

Toto

It is a myth, but it goes the other way. Scholars now think that Constantine was raised a Christian.

sotto voce

One cannot be raised a Christian.

Duvduv

If we go section by section we see that in 381 they firmly wanted to eliminate the possibility of a demiurge involved in creation, whereas this was of no significance in 325.
1) We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

2) Establishing the pre-existence of the Christ, that he was not a created being and was the ONLY one of his kind. However, he is of one substance with the Father, and therefore POSSIBLY a non-physical being:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

3) Then we have the introduction of Mary and the Holy Spirit's involvement in the incarnation which did not exist in 325 and emphasize that he came from heaven (as opposed to somewhere else):
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

4) In 381 we are told he was CRUCIFIED at a place and time, which corresponds by the way to Justin's style and 1 Corinthians 15.
he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father

5) Then his glorious future and the specified involvement of the Holy Ghost, who in 325 was probably just understood apparently as the Jewish concept of Ruach Hakodesh - Divine Inspiration.

Toto

That's not a hypothesis, and it does not support your case.

We all know war is hell and a racket, and repeating how bad war is does not support your case.

It is not credible that Eusebius would invent a new religion from scratch. If he wanted to invent a new religion, he would probably have made one more sensible than Christianity.

There is some evidence of the existence of Christianity before Constantine, which you have to stand on your head to deny.

Really, Pete, you have committed the ultimate sin for this forum. You are boring. You keep repeating the same list of unpersuasive talking points, and you don't engage with contrary arguments. You're like the street preacher who thinks that reciting Bible verses will somehow persuade people.

mountainman

Ammianus tells us that Constantius (ruled 337-360 CE) "obscured the plain and simple religion of the christians with a dotard's superstition".

Ammianus also tells us that "the highways were covered with galloping bishops".

What type of Christianity had Constantius really inherited from his father Constantine
(after Constantius's successful mafia style execution of family members)?

I'd like to know the answers to these questions too ...


Are there really? See 325-590 CE: Knowledge Burning by the (new) Christian regime



Have a read about the pagan healing god Asclepius, whom Pilate declares to the Jews (in the Acts of Pilate), is the power behind the healing powers of JEsus.

Asclepius resurrects!


See Asclepius: The God of Medicine by Gerald D. Hart

Duvduv

I remember reading somewhere that Eusebius once received a letter from someone, an Arian, who referred to the Orthodox as "heretics." It's rather amazing because I cannot even imagine the average Joe understanding much less caring about the obscure details of theological disputes about the nature of the Christ. Any written teachings and the councils were for the literate elite anyway, including books on heresy attributed to venerated names who were back in the 2nd century.

In any event, perhaps we'd have to give Eusebius and his commissioned team credit for putting the disorganized pieces all together with his books of history and theology, and for creating a history based on bits and pieces that they thought existed all the way back to the second (or first) century.

mountainman

I see it as an hypothesis held to be true, rather than a fact, and it supports my case because the Council of Nicaea is essentially presided over by the new supreme warlord Constantine. New agreements and oaths were sworn to the victor. Some dissidents were politically banished. Orders were shortly issued for the burning of books, death and destruction, etc.


Constantine was at war for Christ's sake.
Dont you understand what that implies?



My hypothesis is that he was instructed to invent a new religion from scratch which could be perceived to have antiquity on the surface. It was to oppose the traditional "pagan" Egypto-Graeco-Roman religions, philosophies and culture. It was to oppose the Persian Manichaeanism. It was to oppose everything ever before conceived by the Greek intellectual tradition. From the Greek LXX found in the library of the Platonist Origen, they fabricated the Greek new testament, and claimed that Moses was greater than Plato.



(1) Eusebius and the New testament
(2) Christian-like murals on the walls of the Dura-Eropos-Yale Church House
(3) palaeographical dating of undated papyri fragments from Egypt.


What objections do you have to critical thinking?

aa5874

It is fascinating that you should say such a thing. Justin Martyr claimed it was Twelve ILLITERATE men from Jerusalem that preached the gospel to EVERY race of man and produced the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

Toto

In other words, business as usual for a Roman Emperor. You have not connected this conduct with forging an entirely new religion.

I do not understand this to be any sort of indication that he forged an entirely new religion.

That is a hypothesis, and there is no evidence or logic to support it.

Christianity does not oppose everything from the Greek intellectual tradition. Platonic concepts were freely adopted.

And you still have not explained why there are four contradictory gospels, loosely based on the Septuagint.

I haven't seen any critical thinking on your part.