Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cesc · 07-24-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Thanks for link. For sure I shall read Eusebius, but in due time. Look, all I'm saying is that - nevermind the nuances here - at some point the Christians were persecuted by the Roman empire. And at another point the empire embraced their religion as the state religion for the whole empire. Something happened in between.

At the time of the Nicaean Council there were bishops from practically all over the Roman world, some 318 or something?

That the 318 attendees at Nicaea were "pre-existing christian bishops" is an assertion found in the record of the christian historians. Do we need to immediately accept this as fact? Can we question this belief? Yes, we can. See my articles on The Council of Antioch and The Council of Nicaea. These councils were not religious but in fact military supremacist councils established by Constantine to make secure the government (and taxation) of the very rich eastern Roman empire following his military securement of the zone. In fact the Nicaean assemble also cooincided with hsi 30 year long service party: 30 years at the top of the scap-heap of imperial mafia thugs (with big armies).

Quote:

Clearly, those numbers indicate a staggering development from the beginnings of the first scattered Christian sects. Especially if they were continuously persecuted, as you say, but they still managed to grow in numbers despite that.

Nomatter what, the question remains: what was it about pre-Constantine Christianity that made it grow in numbers like that? And that was the original subject of my post.

Everone must obviously understand it was an explosion in numbers but the question of "How long was the fuse" has not been carefully enough articulated without preconceived notions. Constantine was the Pontifex Maximus in a legitimate fashion, since he was the military ruler of Rome. He had commanded the Roman army of the western empire to a victory over the commander of the Roman army of the eastern empire (Lucinius) and Constantine had won. He owned eveything from the year 324 CE. Constantine first published the christian bible as an integral whole (with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas) which was later removed.

We need to ask the legitimate question did Constantine fabricate the new testament in advance of his military supremacy during the years 312 to 324 CE, at which time contemporary scholarship informs us that Eusebius of Caesarea was intensely occupied with the writing and the rewriting of the very first assemblage of genuine "christian history".

Finally, we need to ask was Constantine a fraud?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BULLNECK

"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy,
and the 'age' of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

- Constantine's Oration, Antioch, 325 CE,
- to the (captive and non-christian) Saints

See Robin Lane Fox's opinion that here was a fraud twice over.

Old addage.
Buyer beware.
Best wishes

Pete

Interesting, thx.

The 318 was perhaps an allusion to Abraham's 318 trained servants that smote by night his enemies (Gen 14:14)? In turn perhaps itself from the number of moonlit nights considered to be in the ancient 354-day lunar calendar, considering the various lunar connections with Abraham of course.

Cesc · 07-24-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

I dunno if it was "widespread" or not. But didnt they hide in catacombs and such?

There are modern claims to that effect, but nothing to support it in the ancient evidence that I'm aware of.

Aren't there Christian symbolism found in the catacombs, such as the fish and stuff?

andrewcriddle · 07-24-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I wonder what the Roman view was of membership in secret associations?

The Romans were hostile to private associations in general.
See Trajan's letter to Pliny on why a volunteer fire-brigade was a bad idea.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr...trs1_intro.htm

Quote:

Book X letter XLIII

Trajan to Pliny

You are of opinion it would be proper to establish a company of firemen in Nicomedia, agreeably to what has been practised in several other cities. But it is to be remembered that societies of this sort have greatly disturbed the peace of the province in general, and of those cities in particular. Whatever name we give them, and for whatever purposes them may be founded, they will not fail to form themselves into factious, assemblies, however short their meetings may be. It will therefore be safer to provide such machines as are of service in extinguishing fires, enjoining the owners of houses to assist in preventing the mischief from spreading, and, if it should be necessary, to call in the aid of the populace.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 07-24-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Romans were hostile to private associations in general.

Indeed they were and "disturbing the peace" was not something they took lightly.

Reason · 07-24-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

The challenge is a quick description of theories, personal or favs, that I could pass on [without sounding like a complete dickhead] that explain why Judaism morphed into Christianity and why non Jews switched teams, abandoned their pagan past and awaited the new kingdom.

I do not think Judaism ever morphed into Christianity. But it did (at least help to) produce Christianity.

Ben.

I think "splintered into" is an apt description--or in IIDB parlance, "split thread."

jules? · 07-25-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reason

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I do not think Judaism ever morphed into Christianity. But it did (at least help to) produce Christianity.

Ben.

I think "splintered into" is an apt description--or in IIDB parlance, "split thread."

Thats the term

So far I am surprised at the lack of cohesive theories on a site dedicated to some serious detail on the subject. 4th century invention is a neat theory [not perfect and not what I believe but neat, rounded]. I like the other neat ideas, end time, Temple collapse, and the notion of prophesy being locked in scripture. Secrets locked away in text is and was trendy and popular now then and in medeval times. I like this [currently] for it's neatness and appeal.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.