Iskander

. What was the cause of the change in attitude of Judaism to the destruction of the second temple?

When the first temple was destroyed the Israelites were desolate .The only solution to their tragic loss was to go back to their primitive earlier ways: temple, priesthood, sacrificial service and the laws of purities.

When the second temple was destroyed the Israelites were desolate. The solution to their tragic loss was to go forward to new ways based on prayer and the expectation of the world to come.

Jewish Christianity brought to the world of the very Old Testament the concept of a redemption already gifted to mankind by Hashem and this unexpected twist in a gloomy and enslaving script must be the explanation for the sudden display of wisdom.

mountainman

Harnack's first century Christian "Gnostic theology" is a pie in the sky. His and mainstream's 2nd century Christian Gnostics are the pseudo-historical machinations of 4th century heresiologists trying to contain the gnostic heretics who became a historical and political reality only after there was any form of orthodoxy.

Listen to the audio file in the OP.

The question was asked Was there an established orthodox church?

The answer was there was no "King" until Constantine.

The claim was made that Bishops and Deacons structure and hierarchy emerged in the 2nd century.

(This relies upon the master heresiologist Eusebius telling us truth about his enemies)

The claim was that the orthodoxy of the 2nd century developed a counter strategy against Gnosticism.


The panel seem to think that the Christian orthodox sect were the Biggest sect. (They are guessing)


Orthodoxy and heresy were created when the centralised monotheistic state orthodoxy was created.

That did not happen until Constantine.

The 2nd century heresiologists and heretics have been retrojected into history from the 4th century.

The orthodox reactions to mythicists are because they are NOT seen as orthodox.

The orthodox are the insiders.

Everyone else are outsiders (and thus are either heretics or prospective converts) to the "Great Orthodox Mystery".





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander

Constantine did it, will soon replace the traditional the ‘butler did it’

mountainman

Means, motive, opportunity.


Bullneck should at least be on the shortlist.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander

No.
Constantine was a desperate emperor trying very hard to save the empire. When he died his religious changes would have died with him if the population had really opposed those changes.

Roman emperors had brought in new religions before him and one Pharaoh had also tried hard to impose a new religion in ancient Egypt.

In England Mary Tudor tried to impose the catholic religion, but failed...

Constantine did it? No, he was a vulnerable emperor likely to be assassinated by any general of a roman army. Look at a list of emperors and the method of accession to the throne.
http://noahide-ancient-path.co.uk/in.../2012/07/4447/
Quote:
In his writings on Christianity, which he calls, “Minut,” Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook explains that it began as a breakaway sect of Judaism which grew in influence and ultimately led the world astray with its doctrines.

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/mb/63mb.htm
Blessing 12 and
Quote:
The inclusion of number 12, the blessing (really it is a kind of curse) regarding the heretics, is an anachronism in this passage since it was not arranged by the 120 elders but was added only much later with the unfortunate schism of Jews who attended synagogue but were really believers in Christianity


http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html
footnote 5

Duvduv

It's worth restating that there is no evidence in the Talmudic sources or commentaries or midrashim that the 18th benediction on the minim had anything whatsoever to do with any Jewish Christians. It had to do with informers and internal saboteurs, and not necessarily from among the Samaritans, but rather among Saduccees and Hellenists of all varieties. The claim that there were "Jewish Christians" in Judea or Galilee is a myth that has no basis in any actual evidence.
Avraham Yitzchak Kook, who died in 1935, was way off base on this issue and many other issues (which are beyond the scope of this thread).

mountainman

No Roman emperor had brought in a new and strange centralised monotheistic state religion, based on the canonisation of a holy writ before Constantine. A Persian King however had done this very thing a century before.

With respect to the OP, Constantine represents the canonical orthodoxy. We may even cite from the sources his reactions to the heretics.

Nobody has addressed the claim that there was in fact no orthodoxy before Nicaea because the hypothetical conflict between earlier orthodoxy and earlier heretics could not have been political since they supposedly borrowed books from each others libraries.



Nobody is paying any attention to this shadowy Leucius Charinus.

The canonical books are represented by the names Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul.

What names do we have for the non canonical books of the gnostic heretics?

Leucius Charinus.


Who is this guy? What did he write? Where did he live? When did he publish?



And if your not at all interested in this gnostic heretic author Leucius Charinus, then see Christ Myth and Holocaust Denial







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

Nobody has addressed the fact that there was NO orthodoxy after the supposed Council of Nicea.

Chili

Catholics have doctrine? That is news to me as they can have Voodoo Catholicism, Native Indian Catholicism, Zen Catholicism and in short you can stuff any minor mythology under its wings, except Christianity and Muslims, but Hindu makes a perfect match too. Theravada in Buddhism is also different as their protestant wing, at least I would see it that way.

And to 'believe in Christianity' is just a dumb thing to say wherein faith is pointing at a prevailing mood with no iconic measure behind it at all.

Catholicism is just more aggressive than Judaism with the HS around also via the Son.

Chili

Orthodoxy in a new religion is a contradiction, is it not? And is that not what the dark ages were all about? I.e, how can that be a new 'thousand year reign' in your midst if it is new?