Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Biff the unclean · 11-30-2002, 08:58 PM

CE stands for Common Era. It's the politically correct term used these days. You really can't expect scholars to say "After God" with a straight face.
Constantine wanted his empire unified politically. Christianity first shows its face in his bio when he needs to cheer his troops on, on the eve of the decisive battle.
The problem is the troops were from Gaul, Britain and Persia. They weren't Christians. They were of the "Druid faith," Mithrain and Dionysian. Constantine himself remained a Mithrain for the rest of his life. There is, of course, a story of his death bed conversion much like that of Darwin, and just as believable.
True, Christianity can easily be seen as a blending of these three religions. It has all the same myths. And it was Constantine who had the final say so as to what myth stayed and what got banned. (Sorry Gnostics, Marcionites, you're outta here!)
But if we take the Christian side of the story it doesn't make sense.
They say that the Christians were a hated and persecuted small minority. If Constantine was 'tired of multi-theism and wanted unity in his empire' why choose Christianity? He didn't believe in it and if the numbers and attitudes the Christians tell us are correct it should split the Empire, not unite it. When Theodosius the Great bans Hellenism altogether and makes it high treason not to be a Christian, he inaugurated the "Dark Ages." That wasn't fun.

The Christian version of history just doesn't seem to match the facts.

Or are any of us surprised at that?

doodad · 12-01-2002, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:
<strong>CE stands for Common Era. It's the politically correct term used these days. You really can't expect scholars to say "After God" with a straight face.
Constantine wanted his empire unified politically. Christianity first shows its face in his bio when he needs to cheer his troops on, on the eve of the decisive battle.
The problem is the troops were from Gaul, Britain and Persia. They weren't Christians. They were of the "Druid faith," Mithrain and Dionysian. Constantine himself remained a Mithrain for the rest of his life. There is, of course, a story of his death bed conversion much like that of Darwin, and just as believable.
True, Christianity can easily be seen as a blending of these three religions. It has all the same myths. And it was Constantine who had the final say so as to what myth stayed and what got banned. (Sorry Gnostics, Marcionites, you're outta here!)
But if we take the Christian side of the story it doesn't make sense.
They say that the Christians were a hated and persecuted small minority. If Constantine was 'tired of multi-theism and wanted unity in his empire' why choose Christianity? He didn't believe in it and if the numbers and attitudes the Christians tell us are correct it should split the Empire, not unite it. When Theodosius the Great bans Hellenism altogether and makes it high treason not to be a Christian, he inaugurated the "Dark Ages." That wasn't fun.

The Christian version of history just doesn't seem to match the facts.

Or are any of us surprised at that?</strong>

Biff, a monotheistic religion (one God) is by design more unified than a multi-theistic religion. This was a political decision on the part of Constantine. As you have pointed out, there were several belief system in the Roman Empire at the time of his decision, and a good many of them were pagan in nature. Sun gods, war gods, love gods, and on and on. His reasoning was that with so many gods to follow he had a system problem right up front because no one seemed to place their faith on the same supreme faith object. It's like having an army with too many chiefs in that there's no common sense of purpose or mission.

Judaism was also monotheistic, so why didn't he choose it over Christianity? I don't think the ancient Jews and Romans had much love for each other.

NOGO · 12-01-2002, 02:01 PM

NOGO: In Mt24 Jesus is asked by the disciples when the temple will be destroyed. Jesus talks about the tribulations in answer to this question

Offa;
You brought up the date 70 CE. My point is that Jesus was referring to 33 CE. Please explain to me where you got 70 CE from? I mean, which temple?

NOGO: I am talking about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Romans, under Titus, destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. Is this something new?

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Xman · 12-01-2002, 06:09 PM

Not that it will convince skeptics, but there is also some evidence for many New Testament books being written before 325 A.D. found in the form of apparent knowledge and/or quotes of these works in writings by the early church fathers.

Of course, one is also free to debate the datings of the early church fathers, but claiming that every such early work is a fiction of Constantine's propaganda machine requires a great leap. The volume of early Christian material that even many non-Christians date before 325 is significant.

And one can always find a scholar somewhere that takes a different view (on any topic!), which leads me to say that in our haste to attribute ulterior motives to early Christians, let us not forget that modern scholars may have just as many clandestine purposes. Scholars do not build reputations and land endowed chairs by parroting those who have gone before them. Original thinking is required -- unique contributions must be made even to earn a doctorate. This by necessity produces new theories at a signficant rate, some of which have merit, some of which don't, and all of which have a shot at becoming momentary fads.

In our search to date biblical writings, we certainly engage in speculation -- as we do in all historical endeavors. And our conclusions are never absolutely certain; they are educated estimates. But this is not bad. It's the same way we live every aspect of our lives (e.g., "Will I be happy if I marry A?" "Should I risk the surger?" etc.).

It is always possible to maintain skepticism, but I believe the goal should be to look for the most plausible answers. Skepticism does not look for right answers but for wrong ones. It does not ask "What is right about this?" but "How could this idea possibly go wrong?" A skeptic can find reason to reject even the right answer, if only because fallible people collect and process the data.

In short, skepticism has as its goal not the discovery of truth, but the rejection of falsehood. As a result, the more skeptical an approach is, the less useful it is for discovering truth (except "by default"). Moreover, as the old saying goes, "If you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." In other words, if you approach everything skeptically, you will find reason to reject everything.

So, is the most plausible explanation for the data the Constantinian conspiracy? Or is it the actual presence of Christian writings prior to Constantine that Constantine recognized as politically useful?

Biff the unclean · 12-01-2002, 08:54 PM

You don't have to be a Skeptic to doubt the dates of the "early" church fathers. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "None of these writings have come down to us in the original text, though a great many fragments of them are extant as citations in later writers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, etc.)."

Which places them after 325CE.

Xman · 12-01-2002, 09:17 PM

First, one scholarly resource does not a proof make. Plenty of other scholars have different opinions. In any event, I would be interested in reading the context of that quote, as well as the data behind it. Would you please provide a fuller reference?

Second, even if the Catholic Encyclopedia's statement is accurate, your conclusion is still unwarranted. That original texts were not preserved does not imply that they never existed. Moreover, that fragments were preserved is evidence contradicting your position.

Xman · 12-01-2002, 09:29 PM

Oh, wait -- I've found the citation in the article on St. Irenaeus. I hope you did not present this dishonestly as referring to all the early church Fathers while knowing that it pertained only to Irenaeus, and then only to texts in Greek as opposed to Latin. Perhaps you simply found it somewhere else and didn't look it up? If so, you should probably check the source next time. Here's the quote in full:

Quote:

Irenaeus wrote in Greek many works which have secured for him an exceptional place in Christian literature, because in controverted religious questions of capital importance they exhibit the testimony of a contemporary of the heroic age of the Church, of one who had heard St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and who, in a manner, belonged to the Apostolic Age. None of these writings have come down to us in the original text, though a great many fragments of them are extant as citations in later writers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, etc.). Two of these works, however, have reached us in their entirety in a Latin version: [Against Heresies and Proof of the Apostolic Preaching]."

In other words, the Catholic Encyclopedia reports that the Latin translation was handed down rather than the Greek original -- placing these way before 325. Moreover, this pertains only to Irenaeus, not to all the early church Fathers.

Biff the unclean · 12-02-2002, 07:12 AM

(X) First, one scholarly resource does not a proof make.
That's true.
But since the subject is 'the doings of the Roman Catholic Church," and the resource is the Roman Catholic Church one should be sufficient in this case.

Second, even if the Catholic Encyclopedia's statement is accurate, your conclusion is still unwarranted.
I'm not sure that I've actually reached a conclusion yet, other than that the official history doesn't match the evidence. Common practice with the RCC even in today's news.

That original texts were not preserved does not imply that they never existed.
And why is it that we are so sure that we aren't looking at the original texts? We know that for centuries the Roman Catholic Church had an office that "corrected history." We know that all the writings of the early church fathers suddenly appear at exactly the same time that the Bibles suddenly appear, churchs suddenly appear and Christian art suddenly appeared.

In other words, the Catholic Encyclopedia reports that the Latin translation was handed down rather than the Greek original
Exactly. The same with every other early church Father. Only copies made after 325 CE were saved. They didn't start translating texts into Latin until the 380's. I believe that they started with the Chronicle of Eusebius sometime between 379 and 381 CE before they even got to the Bible. St. Irenaeus in Latin would have been later still. As your quote said St. Irenaeus wrote in Greek. Before you shout "Ah Ha!" you should read the quotes more carefully.

Biff the unclean · 12-02-2002, 08:35 AM

(doodad) Biff, a monotheistic religion (one God) is by design more unified than a multi-theistic religion. This was a political decision on the part of Constantine.
In action monotheism was more divisive than polytheism was. The Hellenists tended to respect each other religions. There was nothing odd about a person worshiping Mithra and Apollo at the same time.

As you have pointed out, there were several belief system in the Roman Empire at the time of his decision, and a good many of them were pagan in nature.
Pagan is actually an insulting term. It means something like "country bumpkin," or "hillbilly." It was a nasty name Christians called Hellenists.
Sun gods, war gods, love gods, and on and on.
Except at one time or another Jesus was each of these.
When Constantine had his Christian miracle; "In this sign shall ye conquer;" Jesus was the god of war. Later he was associated as Sol invictus and his worship was moved from Saturn's day to the Sun's day. And these days we have Christians saying "God is love."
His reasoning was that with so many gods to follow he had a system problem right up front because no one seemed to place their faith on the same supreme faith object. It's like having an army with too many chiefs in that there's no common sense of purpose or mission.
This isn't a problem unless you--as he did--combine church and state.
But that still leaves us with the Christian story that they were a hated and persecuted minority. The majority of the populace (in this version of the story) weren't Christian and thought poorly of them. Not something you could rally around.
Also Christianity wasn't one religion at the time but several competing religions whose clergy wrecked constant mayhem on each other. Julian had to pass special laws just to keep Christians from murdering each other en mass.

Judaism was also monotheistic, so why didn't he choose it over Christianity? I don't think the ancient Jews and Romans had much love for each other.
But at this time Israel had been destroyed for almost 250 years and the Jews dispersed to the four corners of the Earth. That maybe why the Jesus stories was set in Israel. The NT is extremely anti Semitic. The Roman destruction of Israel would have been seen as the will of God for the Jews killing Jesus.
Also Christianity isn't strictly monotheistic. You have the father, son, holy ghost and holy mother all the same ingredients as the more popular Roman religions of the period.

NOGO · 12-02-2002, 10:54 AM

Hi Xman,

Welcome to II.

What brings you to this neck of the woods?

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

11-30-2002, 08:58 PM	#31
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	CE stands for Common Era. It's the politically correct term used these days. You really can't expect scholars to say "After God" with a straight face. Constantine wanted his empire unified politically. Christianity first shows its face in his bio when he needs to cheer his troops on, on the eve of the decisive battle. The problem is the troops were from Gaul, Britain and Persia. They weren't Christians. They were of the "Druid faith," Mithrain and Dionysian. Constantine himself remained a Mithrain for the rest of his life. There is, of course, a story of his death bed conversion much like that of Darwin, and just as believable. True, Christianity can easily be seen as a blending of these three religions. It has all the same myths. And it was Constantine who had the final say so as to what myth stayed and what got banned. (Sorry Gnostics, Marcionites, you're outta here!) But if we take the Christian side of the story it doesn't make sense. They say that the Christians were a hated and persecuted small minority. If Constantine was 'tired of multi-theism and wanted unity in his empire' why choose Christianity? He didn't believe in it and if the numbers and attitudes the Christians tell us are correct it should split the Empire, not unite it. When Theodosius the Great bans Hellenism altogether and makes it high treason not to be a Christian, he inaugurated the "Dark Ages." That wasn't fun. The Christian version of history just doesn't seem to match the facts. Or are any of us surprised at that?

12-01-2002, 02:01 PM	#33
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	NOGO: In Mt24 Jesus is asked by the disciples when the temple will be destroyed. Jesus talks about the tribulations in answer to this question Offa; You brought up the date 70 CE. My point is that Jesus was referring to 33 CE. Please explain to me where you got 70 CE from? I mean, which temple? NOGO: I am talking about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Romans, under Titus, destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. Is this something new? [ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

12-01-2002, 06:09 PM	#34
Xman Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Orlando Posts: 30	Not that it will convince skeptics, but there is also some evidence for many New Testament books being written before 325 A.D. found in the form of apparent knowledge and/or quotes of these works in writings by the early church fathers. Of course, one is also free to debate the datings of the early church fathers, but claiming that every such early work is a fiction of Constantine's propaganda machine requires a great leap. The volume of early Christian material that even many non-Christians date before 325 is significant. And one can always find a scholar somewhere that takes a different view (on any topic!), which leads me to say that in our haste to attribute ulterior motives to early Christians, let us not forget that modern scholars may have just as many clandestine purposes. Scholars do not build reputations and land endowed chairs by parroting those who have gone before them. Original thinking is required -- unique contributions must be made even to earn a doctorate. This by necessity produces new theories at a signficant rate, some of which have merit, some of which don't, and all of which have a shot at becoming momentary fads. In our search to date biblical writings, we certainly engage in speculation -- as we do in all historical endeavors. And our conclusions are never absolutely certain; they are educated estimates. But this is not bad. It's the same way we live every aspect of our lives (e.g., "Will I be happy if I marry A?" "Should I risk the surger?" etc.). It is always possible to maintain skepticism, but I believe the goal should be to look for the most plausible answers. Skepticism does not look for right answers but for wrong ones. It does not ask "What is right about this?" but "How could this idea possibly go wrong?" A skeptic can find reason to reject even the right answer, if only because fallible people collect and process the data. In short, skepticism has as its goal not the discovery of truth, but the rejection of falsehood. As a result, the more skeptical an approach is, the less useful it is for discovering truth (except "by default"). Moreover, as the old saying goes, "If you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." In other words, if you approach everything skeptically, you will find reason to reject everything. So, is the most plausible explanation for the data the Constantinian conspiracy? Or is it the actual presence of Christian writings prior to Constantine that Constantine recognized as politically useful?

12-01-2002, 08:54 PM	#35
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	You don't have to be a Skeptic to doubt the dates of the "early" church fathers. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "None of these writings have come down to us in the original text, though a great many fragments of them are extant as citations in later writers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, etc.)." Which places them after 325CE.

12-01-2002, 09:17 PM	#36
Xman Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Orlando Posts: 30	First, one scholarly resource does not a proof make. Plenty of other scholars have different opinions. In any event, I would be interested in reading the context of that quote, as well as the data behind it. Would you please provide a fuller reference? Second, even if the Catholic Encyclopedia's statement is accurate, your conclusion is still unwarranted. That original texts were not preserved does not imply that they never existed. Moreover, that fragments were preserved is evidence contradicting your position.

12-02-2002, 07:12 AM	#38
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	(X) First, one scholarly resource does not a proof make. That's true. But since the subject is 'the doings of the Roman Catholic Church," and the resource is the Roman Catholic Church one should be sufficient in this case. Second, even if the Catholic Encyclopedia's statement is accurate, your conclusion is still unwarranted. I'm not sure that I've actually reached a conclusion yet, other than that the official history doesn't match the evidence. Common practice with the RCC even in today's news. That original texts were not preserved does not imply that they never existed. And why is it that we are so sure that we aren't looking at the original texts? We know that for centuries the Roman Catholic Church had an office that "corrected history." We know that all the writings of the early church fathers suddenly appear at exactly the same time that the Bibles suddenly appear, churchs suddenly appear and Christian art suddenly appeared. In other words, the Catholic Encyclopedia reports that the Latin translation was handed down rather than the Greek original Exactly. The same with every other early church Father. Only copies made after 325 CE were saved. They didn't start translating texts into Latin until the 380's. I believe that they started with the Chronicle of Eusebius sometime between 379 and 381 CE before they even got to the Bible. St. Irenaeus in Latin would have been later still. As your quote said St. Irenaeus wrote in Greek. Before you shout "Ah Ha!" you should read the quotes more carefully.

12-02-2002, 08:35 AM	#39
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	(doodad) Biff, a monotheistic religion (one God) is by design more unified than a multi-theistic religion. This was a political decision on the part of Constantine. In action monotheism was more divisive than polytheism was. The Hellenists tended to respect each other religions. There was nothing odd about a person worshiping Mithra and Apollo at the same time. As you have pointed out, there were several belief system in the Roman Empire at the time of his decision, and a good many of them were pagan in nature. Pagan is actually an insulting term. It means something like "country bumpkin," or "hillbilly." It was a nasty name Christians called Hellenists. Sun gods, war gods, love gods, and on and on. Except at one time or another Jesus was each of these. When Constantine had his Christian miracle; "In this sign shall ye conquer;" Jesus was the god of war. Later he was associated as Sol invictus and his worship was moved from Saturn's day to the Sun's day. And these days we have Christians saying "God is love." His reasoning was that with so many gods to follow he had a system problem right up front because no one seemed to place their faith on the same supreme faith object. It's like having an army with too many chiefs in that there's no common sense of purpose or mission. This isn't a problem unless you--as he did--combine church and state. But that still leaves us with the Christian story that they were a hated and persecuted minority. The majority of the populace (in this version of the story) weren't Christian and thought poorly of them. Not something you could rally around. Also Christianity wasn't one religion at the time but several competing religions whose clergy wrecked constant mayhem on each other. Julian had to pass special laws just to keep Christians from murdering each other en mass. Judaism was also monotheistic, so why didn't he choose it over Christianity? I don't think the ancient Jews and Romans had much love for each other. But at this time Israel had been destroyed for almost 250 years and the Jews dispersed to the four corners of the Earth. That maybe why the Jesus stories was set in Israel. The NT is extremely anti Semitic. The Roman destruction of Israel would have been seen as the will of God for the Jews killing Jesus. Also Christianity isn't strictly monotheistic. You have the father, son, holy ghost and holy mother all the same ingredients as the more popular Roman religions of the period.

12-02-2002, 10:54 AM	#40
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Hi Xman, Welcome to II. What brings you to this neck of the woods?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.