Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rizdek · 12-07-2011, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

What became legal, supported and tightly controlled by the imperial power was not Christianity, and could not possibly be Christianity, by simple virtue of the fact that it was controlled by a worldly power.

History bears this out this theological truth, as well as do newsreaders on TV currently. People who have recited creeds, nay, created 'God' with their bare hands, have through the centuries committed every sort of crime known to mankind, and without shame.

That may be, but I am of the opinion that if it had not been "supported...by the imperial power," neither you nor I would have even heard about it today.

sotto voce · 12-07-2011, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizdek

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

What became legal, supported and tightly controlled by the imperial power was not Christianity, and could not possibly be Christianity, by simple virtue of the fact that it was controlled by a worldly power.

History bears this out this theological truth, as well as do newsreaders on TV currently. People who have recited creeds, nay, created 'God' with their bare hands, have through the centuries committed every sort of crime known to mankind, and without shame.

That may be, but I am of the opinion that if it had not been "supported...by the imperial power," neither you nor I would have even heard about it today.

If the imperial version of Christianity was the true one, would that be a bad thing?

Doug Shaver · 12-07-2011, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What objections do you have to critical thinking?

Critical thinking may always challenge some orthodoxy. It does not follow, as many seem to suppose, that any challenge to some orthodoxy constitutes critical thinking.

Roger Pearse · 12-07-2011, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You make it sound as if that entails committing some kind of sin. I do not think there is anything sinful about asking questions, either regular ones or rhetorical ones.

Come, sir: surely we all know the game of couching assertions as questions in order to avoid the necessity of providing evidence for them?

I'm afraid we can ask all the questions you like, but if we behave like a jerk, it will not save us from suitable punishment * if we whine "but I was only asking questions".

All the best,

Roger Pearse
* Those with thinking difficulties should try the "pester with questions" approach on a local mobster. The gentleman in question will certainly assist in your education!

Duvduv · 12-07-2011, 07:56 AM

I honestly cannot figure out what your grudge(s) is. If you don't like questions i'll make a statement.
1) Indeed, the baptism of the spirit did not take place because the Savior did not baptize anyone in either water or anything else. In fact he was baptized by someone whose baptism was INFERIOR to the baptism offered in Acts.

2) Baptism as remission of sins, either in water or anything else does not in fact exist among Christians as meant in the case of the Baptist, and as in Acts a ritual of inclusion or identification with the Christ and the Church.

3) Note of course that the Paul of the epistles was not interested in baptism of any kind at all.
So the Savior himself received an inferior baptism.

4) In any event, the first Creed lacked a definitive understanding of the Christ as a historical worldly figure, which was changed in 381.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You make it sound as if that entails committing some kind of sin. I do not think there is anything sinful about asking questions, either regular ones or rhetorical ones.

Come, sir: surely we all know the game of couching assertions as questions in order to avoid the necessity of providing evidence for them?

I'm afraid we can ask all the questions you like, but if we behave like a jerk, it will not save us from suitable punishment * if we whine "but I was only asking questions".

All the best,

Roger Pearse
* Those with thinking difficulties should try the "pester with questions" approach on a local mobster. The gentleman in question will certainly assist in your education!

Duvduv · 12-07-2011, 01:34 PM

And to top it all off, the all-important first Council of Nicaea convened by the Emperor himself and his friends, according to their own reports, managed to only draw less that 20% of all so-called Christian bishops in Christendom, or what was considered the "Christian" communities.

Let's not forget good old Athanasius of Alexandria........perhaps one of those places and men responsible for putting together the Judeophile Orthodox church movement more than the authors of the gospels and epistles themselves.....

aa5874 · 12-07-2011, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And to top it all off, the all-important first Council of Nicaea convened by the Emperor himself and his friends, according to their own reports, managed to only draw less that 20% of all so-called Christian bishops in Christendom, or what was considered the "Christian" communities.

Let's not forget good old Athanasius of Alexandria........perhaps one of those places and men responsible for putting together the Judeophile Orthodox church movement more than the authors of the gospels and epistles themselves.....

If what you say is true then those who declared their doctrine as orthodox were actually the Heretics.

Based on the writings attributed to Origen, up to the mid 3rd century there were many DIVERSE beliefs f about Jesus.

"The Preface to De Principiis"

Quote:

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points...

The mere fact that apologetic sources wrote many books against Heresies and claimed that there were many Heretics indicate that there was no such thing as orthodoxy or unviversal beliefs about Jesus before the Roman Empire was Christianized.

mountainman · 12-07-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Isn't it more likely that in the second and third centuries there were assorted small groups of believers in the Christ spread in a number of areas such as Alexandria, Rome and Ephesus?

Archaeologically there is a vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity. If you estimate likelihoods according to archaeology and all the field traditions, you have a massive scarcity of data. I have listed exceptions above.

OTOH if you estimate likelihoods according to the church history of Eusebius, then on the surface of things you might conjecture a high likelihood that the nation of christians dwelt in the major cities of the Roman Empire during the 3rd, and 2nd and perhaps 1st centuries of the common era, because that it precisely what Eusebius tells us.

However investigators need to understand what some of the greatest contemporary historians have had to say about Eusebius and his "RESEARCH into history" .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert M Grant

Eusebius and the Life of Origen

Nearly everything that is recorded about the early history of Alexandrian Christianity lies in the Church History of Eusebius. Many Alexandrian theological writings are preserved, but as might be expected they cast little light on historical events. Now the basic difficulty with Eusebius' work is that it has to be classified as "official history."

It therefore contains a judicious mixture of authentic record with a good deal of suppression of fact and occasional outright lies. He wrote it in defence of himself and his friends and their outlook toward the nascent imperial church establishment under God's messenger Constantine.

extracted from Early Alexandrian Christianity by Robert M. Grant (my bolding)

Robert M. Grant is professor of New Testament and Early Christianity in the Divinity School of the University of Chicago.

This paper was first delivered as the Presidential Address at the dinner meeting of The American Society of Church History on December 29, 1970 in Boston.

FULL TEXT - Grant mentions Eusbeius over 30 times and has nothing nice to say about him on every occassion. When will Biblical History investigators understand Grant's invectives against Eusebius for what they are? What does Carrier have to say about Eusebius? ............... "Eusebius is a liar, or hopelessly credulous".

Quote:

When you refer to the Nicaean Creed are you referring to the original form of 325 or its changed version in 381??

I am referring to it's original form in 325 CE according to the oldest sources. It was the culmination of Constantine's WAR EFFORT against the Eastern States. All attendees were required to walk through a wall of swords. Paperwork was produced for the Pontifex Maximus and his history, and attendees were encouraged to SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE. The key aspect of the original form is the ANATHEMA CLAUSE in the contract that was reportedly taken around by Constantine's staff to be signed by each of the attendees.

Does everyone understand what an anathema clause means? It essentially means ...
"or else".

The Nicaean "Creed" of 325 CE was not a "creed". Robin Lane-Fox's account of the council mentions military duress. The Nicaean agreement was just a formalization - by an "Oath to Constantine's agenda".

BTW duvduv have you read the book "AD 381" by Freeman?

mountainman · 12-07-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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....

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".

At the Council of Antioch, immediately prior to Nicaea, the supreme military commander of the entire Roman Empire, and rightful "Pontifex Maximus", Constantine himself declared that the coming of Jesus was predicted by an ancient Pagan Sibyl, and this prophecy was RETWEETED by two famous Roman poets (Cicero and Virgil) in the first century BCE. (For the deatils see Robin Lane-Fox's "Pagans and Christians")

Is this evidence positive or negative evidence?
This should not be a difficult question to answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin Lane Fox in PAGANS and CHRISTIANS

But Constantine was alive to the arguments of skeptics ...

"They suspect that "someone of our religion,
not without the gifts of the prophetic muse,
had inserted false lines and forged the Sibyl's moral tone.
These skeptics were already known to Origen ... (Constantine continues)

"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."

"Our people" --- my bolding --- refers to the Christians of 325 CE.

mountainman · 12-07-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

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.

We are not talking about the year 2011 CE in America but the year 325 CE in Alexandria. Platonic concepts were freely adopted freely misapproriated after Nicaea by the new regime the foundational one being the concept of Plato's Holy Trinity.

Quote:

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

The political enviroment of the early 4th century was dominated by the idea of the tetrarchy. the "leadership of four [people]")

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

The term Tetrarchy (Greek: "leadership of four [people]") describes any system of government where power is divided among four individuals, but usually refers to the tetrarchy instituted by Roman Emperor Diocletian in 293, marking the end of the Crisis of the Third Century and the recovery of the Roman Empire. This Tetrarchy lasted until c.313, when internecine conflict eliminated most of the claimants to power, leaving Constantine in the West and Licinius in the East.

Could the tetrarchy ever agree with each other?

Quote:

....
What objections do you have to critical thinking?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What objections do you have to critical thinking?

Critical thinking may always challenge some orthodoxy. It does not follow, as many seem to suppose, that any challenge to some orthodoxy constitutes critical thinking.

What if Eusebius was instructed by the incoming regime to openly lie about the pre-existence of the nation of orthodox christian heresiologists and their vocal literary opponents - the gnostic heretics? Answering this question requires critical thinking because it allegedly involves the unsuperstitious and unprejudiced assessment of (a great deal of) negative evidence.

Negative Evidence
Richard Levin
Studies in Philology
Vol. 92, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995) (pp. 383-410)
Page Count: 28

Quote:

p.383

"The first point is that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it, and the second point is that many of us ignore the first point, because of the tendancy of our minds (not, of course, of "human nature") to look only for positive evidence that confirms a proposition we want to prove. This tendancy explains the remarkable tenacity of superstitions ... and of prejudices ....

p.389

The third basic point ... We must recognise, not only that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it and that we have a tendency to look only for positive evidence, but also that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless this negative evidence could exist. The principle is well known to scientists and philosophers of science, who call it disconfirmability. They insist that if a proposition does not invite disconfirmation, if there is no conceivable evidence the existence of which would contradict it, then is cannot be tested and so cannot be taken seriously. If it is not disprovable, it is not provable.

p.409

When combatants encounter an argument, they do not ask about the evidence for or against it; they just ask if the argument is for or against their side, since they believe ... that "the only real question ... is: Which side are you on".

... we not only tend to overlook or forget negative evidence that contradicts our beliefs, but when others point such evidence out to us, instead of thanking them for this chance to correct our beliefs, we tend to get angry with them, and this anger increases in direct proportion to our commitment to the beliefs.

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

12-07-2011, 01:34 PM	#36
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And to top it all off, the all-important first Council of Nicaea convened by the Emperor himself and his friends, according to their own reports, managed to only draw less that 20% of all so-called Christian bishops in Christendom, or what was considered the "Christian" communities. Let's not forget good old Athanasius of Alexandria........perhaps one of those places and men responsible for putting together the Judeophile Orthodox church movement more than the authors of the gospels and epistles themselves.....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.