Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrMacSon · 10-19-2012, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

... Again how do we explain the sudden appearance of Christianity and Christian converts in the world, the early incorporation of Latin terminology in the gospel of Mark, the tradition that the gospel first developed at Rome and most importantly the central concept of 'redemption' in the religion which - according to all the heretics and all the Church Fathers is based on the concept of a slave purchase from a bad (or not so good) god to a lord called chrestos?

It was the 'Messianic Age'.

Constantine politicized a version of early Christianity, and suppressed another version - Arianism)

stephan huller · 10-19-2012, 11:40 AM

Constantine could only change so much as was already established as authoritative somewhere. He couldn't invent something out of thin air. He merely showed favor to one established opinion. Much like the way colonists favor one tribe or clan among their subjects in order to subvert the rest of the populace. The Alawites in Syria being only the most prominent contemporary example.

sotto voce · 10-19-2012, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Constantine could only change so much as was already established as authoritative somewhere.

Yes, and no. True, he resisted the folly of adding to, or subtracting from, the NT known to and loved by the real church, which must still have been in existence, or he would not have had to alter the whole religious superstructure of the empire. But, while the new religion appeared to be a change from the old religion, it was not. There were still imperially controlled priests making oblations in temples on behalf of the people, just as before. Jews who wanted circumcision got water baptism instead, and Pharisaic legalism; so Jews and pagans were content.

MrMacSon · 10-19-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Constantine .. He couldn't invent something out of thin air.

I didn't say he did. I said - "Constantine politicized a version of early Christianity, (and suppressed another version - Arianism)"

as you then acknowledge when you said

Quote:

He merely showed favor to one established opinion.

MrMacSon · 10-19-2012, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

[Constantine] resisted the folly of adding to, or subtracting from, the NT known to and loved by the real church ...

the "real church" ???

Quote:

But, while the new religion appeared to be a change from the old religion, it was not.

So, there was a "new religion"??

Net2004 · 10-19-2012, 12:26 PM

Quote:

yet try very hard to convince every reader that an infamous, authoritarian, stinking pile of filth, the RCC, represents the gospel.

The rcc believe that god has a mother and daughter called mary. the boy is a god , but the mum who bore him is not a god? how is that possible? if what came from her womb is a god then she has every right to be called the mother of your god and the rcc are right. don't hate the rcc for telling you the truth.

stephan huller · 10-19-2012, 12:34 PM

With respect to Constantine, these sorts of things happen all the time in the monotheistic religions. In Samaritanism we see Dositheanism (whatever that was) incorporated into what is now orthodoxy (there are still the 'Dustan' section of prayers in the common prayer book). Rabbinic Judaism does not simply = Phariseeism. The opinions of the Sadducees (or whatever the opposition was called then) are included in the Mishnah. Imperial regimes have 'favorites' not just then but always. That is why the favored party always refers to its predecessors as 'flatterers.' Amazing myopia.

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

10-19-2012, 11:40 AM	#22
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Constantine could only change so much as was already established as authoritative somewhere. He couldn't invent something out of thin air. He merely showed favor to one established opinion. Much like the way colonists favor one tribe or clan among their subjects in order to subvert the rest of the populace. The Alawites in Syria being only the most prominent contemporary example.

10-19-2012, 12:34 PM	#27
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	With respect to Constantine, these sorts of things happen all the time in the monotheistic religions. In Samaritanism we see Dositheanism (whatever that was) incorporated into what is now orthodoxy (there are still the 'Dustan' section of prayers in the common prayer book). Rabbinic Judaism does not simply = Phariseeism. The opinions of the Sadducees (or whatever the opposition was called then) are included in the Mishnah. Imperial regimes have 'favorites' not just then but always. That is why the favored party always refers to its predecessors as 'flatterers.' Amazing myopia.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.