Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 09-13-2013, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Fascinating review on Amazon

Quote:

N.B - the author makes no mention of Nietzsche and so the connection of these two books is mine alone, however read them both and you will see the link.

I agree Nietzsche is a rollicking good ride of a diatribe.

Why don't you offer a thread to "Nietzsche and Christianity" ?
I don't know too much about Nietzsche's religious writing.

What is the "link" referred to above?

Quote:

Better than Freeman's book, IMO.

Freeman sounds to me like a closet apologist.

I am not so sure about that Horatio. He's saying the Christian State
suppressed the Greek intellectual tradition (which I have defined above).
Effectively sending us spinning into the darkness of serfdom to the church and state.

Quote:

It's been a while, so the details are hazy, but my recollection is that he presents Xtianity as an improvement or progression from paganism.

I don't see that presentation, but I may have missed bits and pieces.

Also 381 AD is the more recent book. The earlier book (TCOTWM) was weightly.

Quote:

It's the evil Constantine and his crew that are to blame, not Jesus. (Fwiw I think the collapse of Rome had more to do with the closing mind than Constantine or Theodosius)

Don't underestimate the power behind the "majesty" of the Christian Dictators Emperors.

And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands,
all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
History has proven that. Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

--- Acton

outhouse · 09-13-2013, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

Constantine probably just saw no point in ignoring Christianity and realized that it was not going away, so he might as well use it for his benefit.

But he really didn't know anything about it, and never really bothered to learn.

SLD

Don't kid yourself that Constantine was ignorant to Christianity.

Its not the case. It is still debated if his mom raised him Christian from birth.

Even if this wasn't the case, Constantine was a brilliant smart man of the times who was not ignorant too much.

5 years before Nicea he instructed Christians on sun worship

3 years before this he acted as judge after being requested for a Donatists Christian dispute.

4 years before that he was involved with the Edict of Milan

I don't know to many people that knew about Christianity as well as he actually did.

mountainman · 09-13-2013, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

I'm reading a great book on the rise of Christianity and its impact on creating the Dark Ages. It is interesting to see how Constantine just up and decided to make Christianity the normal state religion.

Certainly he didn't have a dream at the Milvian Bridge one evening and poof the empire was christian! No his father had been a co-emporer during the Diocletian persecutions but had refused to really enforce the decrees.

There is far more evidence that Diocletian persecuted the Manichaeans in the eastern empire than there is for the hypothesis (following Eusebius's assertions) that he persecuted the Christians. Were the Christian persecutions a historical reality? The incoming party (Christians) simply issues stories and propaganda to the effect that the outgoing party (pagans) were persecutors. But this is another thread altogether.

Quote:

Constantine probably just saw no point in ignoring Christianity and realized that it was not going away, so he might as well use it for his benefit. But he really didn't know anything about it, and never really bothered to learn. He thought he might by Christ's favors in battle if he paid homage to it, but he also paid homage to Pagan deities. According to this book, Constantine probably just didn't realize that Christianity required all or nothing belief. You couldn't believe in other gods. But note that his famous arch still in Rome contains no Christain imagery. But once in, Constantine couldn't go back. So he decided to make it the official state religion, but appease traditional pagans. A lot of his art work and statements are ambiguous. Then to his horror he found out that there was no real Christian core set of beliefs. The Christians were constantly arguing over the whole meaning of Christ and what books were authoritative.

So he demanded conformity, and thus the Council of Nicea. At the council, which he helped to preside over, he is the one who claimed that Jesus and God were one and the same.

It is also possible that Constantine was reacting to the claim of Arius and the Philosophers that Jesus was SIMILAR to but not the SAME as the standard conception of divinity that they were prepared to CANONISE. Constantine declared that the position of Arius and others was Bullshit and that Jesus was not just SIMILAR to the True Registered Incorporated State Monotheistic Divine Being, but he was the SAME thing. Later scribes would add "very very the same". This decision was written up as the decision of the 318 Nicaean Fathers, which Freeman demonstrates was ratified by the Emperor Theodosius in 381 CE. All other opinions were deemed "heretical".

Don't forget Constantine sought the Canonisation of the Bible at Nicaea but this did not really happen until much later in the 4th century. Constantine failed to contain a harmonius canonisation process and the Arian controversy erupted for many centuries. The Arians also preserved the "Other Gospels".

mountainman · 09-13-2013, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

Constantine probably just saw no point in ignoring Christianity and realized that it was not going away, so he might as well use it for his benefit.

But he really didn't know anything about it, and never really bothered to learn.

SLD

I don't know to many people that knew about Christianity as well as he actually did.

If the literary sources (letters, speeches) attributed to Constantine are genuine (and not later forgeries) then it follows that Constantine was very well up on Christian theology.

Nero loved the stage. Constantine loved the books.

Constantine disgraced himself by so many murders, that his consul Ablavius qualified these times as Neronian.

"Who would regret the golden centuries of Saturn ? Ours [our centuries] are of gems, but Neronian".

Was Constantine a [malevolent] dictator?

I think there is sufficient evidence in Ammianus to make the case that his son Constantius certainly was a malevolent dictator.

Chip off the old block?

I still hold out hope that Ammianus' obituary to Constantine will one day turn up in a new manuscript discovery.

mountainman · 09-13-2013, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

Actually a lot of Christians at this time waited to be baptized on their death bed. This was not uncommon, but became more so as the 4th century took hold.

SLD

Please name the Christians who were baptized on their death beds.

According to the sources the opposite was the case.

Constantine publically executed chief priests of Apollo and physically destroyed pagan temples.

Who in their right mind wanted to be a pagan priest at that time?

On the other hand there were new openings for Christian Bishops.

Everyone was trying to jump aboard Constantine's Christian Band-Wagon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox

By 320 Constantine already had to legislate against rich pagans who were showing a fascinating ingenuity and were claiming exemptions as alleged Christian priests." [FN:47 - Codex Theodosius 16.2.3 and 6]

p.668: "We learn from Gregory of Nazianzus how his father, a great landowner, was converted to christianity by an opportune dream in the year 325: he had a christian wife already and ended his days a the powerful bishop of the family's home town.

p.587: "In 324/5 the Phrygian settlement of Orcistus petitoned Constantine, referring to its totally christian population."

--- "Pagans and Christians, in the Mediterranean World, Robin Lane-Fox

It was a (top down) revolution.

aa5874 · 09-14-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

I'm reading a great book on the rise of Christianity and its impact on creating the Dark Ages. It is interesting to see how Constantine just up and decided to make Christianity the normal state religion.

Certainly he didn't have a dream at the Milvian Bridge one evening and poof the empire was christian! No his father had been a co-emporer during the Diocletian persecutions but had refused to really enforce the decrees. Constantine probably just saw no point in ignoring Christianity and realized that it was not going away, so he might as well use it for his benefit. But he really didn't know anything about it, and never really bothered to learn. He thought he might by Christ's favors in battle if he paid homage to it, but he also paid homage to Pagan deities. According to this book, Constantine probably just didn't realize that Christianity required all or nothing belief. You couldn't believe in other gods. But note that his famous arch still in Rome contains no Christain imagery. But once in, Constantine couldn't go back. So he decided to make it the official state religion, but appease traditional pagans. A lot of his art work and statements are ambiguous. Then to his horror he found out that there was no real Christian core set of beliefs. The Christians were constantly arguing over the whole meaning of Christ and what books were authoritative.

So he demanded conformity, and thus the Council of Nicea. At the council, which he helped to preside over, he is the one who claimed that Jesus and God were one and the same. This author goes on to argue that Constantine's original ignorance of Christianity came back to bite him. He suddenly didn't like the idea that God was a rebel against Rome who suffered the ultmate Roman penalty. So the way to avoid that embarassment was simply to make Jesus of one being with the father. A concept which many noted at the time had no basis in scripture - especially the Synoptics. Jesus praying at Gesthamane, his pathetic cry on the cross, and even Paul's Epistles suggest Jesus as at least a lesser deity if not completely human. Greeks were used to their children of gods as lesser gods. But hey, that's what the emperor wanted, that's what he gets. So the whole trinity is effctively born. not really though. Very few Christians at the time bought into it. It took quite a few years for this to become the truly orthodox view. The actual fully explained trinity came about later by a Greek bishop who had been steeped in classical neo platonic philosophy. And again he got the backing of the latest emperor to have this view declared orthodox and all others heresy.

It's amazing that so many Christians don't bother to learn their own history.

SLD

Any claims made about Constantine, Eusebius and the Council of Nicaea may be fiction, manipulated or forged.

The "Donation of Constantine" is undeniable evidence that claims made about Constantine were Fabricated hundreds of years AFTER Constantine was dead.

The admitted fact that claims about Constantine in the "Donation of Constantine" was accepted as history for hundreds of years in the VERY CHURCH must mean that Eusebius' "Church History" was either unknown or was NOT accepted as historically accurate in the Church itself.

The implications of the "Isidorian False Decretals" are extremely massive when an unknown never existing character with a name never heard of in The Church was able to write Fiction and the Fiction was accepted as history in the very Church for hundreds of years.

Up to the time of the "Donation of Constantine" there could have been NO known history of Constantine and the Nicaean creed or else it would have been IMMEDIATELY detected that the "Donation of Constantine" was Fiction.

It was NOT detected as Fiction in the very Church for HUNDREDS of years.

Without non-apologetic corroboration of Eusebius' Church History" then it cannot be accepted as a source of the history of the Jesus cult and Constantine.

Horatio Parker · 09-14-2013, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Why don't you offer a thread to "Nietzsche and Christianity" ?
I don't know too much about Nietzsche's religious writing.

I don't know enough. "The Antichrist" was free with ibooks, so I read it on the subway.

Quote:

What is the "link" referred to above?

The "link" between Nietzsche and Freeman.

Quote:

I am not so sure about that Horatio. He's saying the Christian State
suppressed the Greek intellectual tradition (which I have defined above).
Effectively sending us spinning into the darkness of serfdom to the church and state.

Yes, I realize that. I don't know of anyone who says otherwise. Doesn't the dating of the beginning of the Dark Ages to the closing of the Academy suggest that?

But it doesn't necessarily follow that that is an anti-Xtian view. Certainly anti-church or anti-Catholic.

Quote:

I don't see that presentation, but I may have missed bits and pieces.

Also 381 AD is the more recent book. The earlier book (TCOTWM) was weightly.

Quote:

It's the evil Constantine and his crew that are to blame, not Jesus. (Fwiw I think the collapse of Rome had more to do with the closing mind than Constantine or Theodosius)

Quote:

Don't underestimate the power behind the "majesty" of the Christian Dictators Emperors.

Don't overestimate them either.

aa5874 · 09-14-2013, 11:21 AM

Based on the 'Donation of Constantine' and the 'Isidorian False Decretals' then the Church itself had NO established history of the Jesus cult, Constantine, the Nicene Creed and the writings attributed to Eusebius.

As soon as it is understood that the Church itself accepted the Fiction of a never known writer [Isidore Mercator] as history for hundreds of years then the bogus 'history' of the Church up to at least the 8th century will be exposed.

How is it possible for a writer with NO history and who wrote Fiction to go UNDETECTED by the very Church for hundreds of years from since the 8th century??

The answer is EXTREMELY easy--a piece of cake.

The Church had NO established history up to the 8th century about Constantine, Eusebius and the Council of Nicaea.

Roger Pearse · 09-14-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

I'm reading a great book on the rise of Christianity and its impact on creating the Dark Ages. It is interesting to see how Constantine just up and decided to make Christianity the normal state religion.

Certainly he didn't have a dream at the Milvian Bridge one evening and poof the empire was christian! No his father had been a co-emporer during the Diocletian persecutions but had refused to really enforce the decrees. Constantine probably just saw no point in ignoring Christianity and realized that it was not going away, so he might as well use it for his benefit. But he really didn't know anything about it, and never really bothered to learn. He thought he might by Christ's favors in battle if he paid homage to it, but he also paid homage to Pagan deities. According to this book, Constantine probably just didn't realize that Christianity required all or nothing belief. You couldn't believe in other gods. But note that his famous arch still in Rome contains no Christain imagery. But once in, Constantine couldn't go back. So he decided to make it the official state religion, but appease traditional pagans. A lot of his art work and statements are ambiguous. Then to his horror he found out that there was no real Christian core set of beliefs. The Christians were constantly arguing over the whole meaning of Christ and what books were authoritative.

So he demanded conformity, and thus the Council of Nicea. At the council, which he helped to preside over, he is the one who claimed that Jesus and God were one and the same. This author goes on to argue that Constantine's original ignorance of Christianity came back to bite him. He suddenly didn't like the idea that God was a rebel against Rome who suffered the ultmate Roman penalty. So the way to avoid that embarassment was simply to make Jesus of one being with the father. A concept which many noted at the time had no basis in scripture - especially the Synoptics. Jesus praying at Gesthamane, his pathetic cry on the cross, and even Paul's Epistles suggest Jesus as at least a lesser deity if not completely human. Greeks were used to their children of gods as lesser gods. But hey, that's what the emperor wanted, that's what he gets. So the whole trinity is effctively born. not really though. Very few Christians at the time bought into it. It took quite a few years for this to become the truly orthodox view. The actual fully explained trinity came about later by a Greek bishop who had been steeped in classical neo platonic philosophy. And again he got the backing of the latest emperor to have this view declared orthodox and all others heresy.

It's amazing that so many Christians don't bother to learn their own history.

SLD

Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion; that was Theodosius I, 50 years later. Constantine legalised it. Likewise the definition of the Trinity may be found in Tertullian's Adversus Praxean, ca. 215 AD. Likewise the idea that Christians were arguing at Nicaea about the bible is a terrible old turkey (which I admit I had thought we had finally stuffed). Nor did Constantine attempt to determine Christian doctrine. These are elementary errors.

If your summary correctly represents the author, then he is really, terribly ignorant.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

outhouse · 09-14-2013, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion; that was Theodosius I, 50 years later. Constantine legalised it. Likewise the definition of the Trinity may be found in Tertullian's Adversus Praxean, ca. 215 AD. Likewise the idea that Christians were arguing at Nicaea about the bible is a terrible old turkey (which I admit I had thought we had finally stuffed). Nor did Constantine attempt to determine Christian doctrine. These are elementary errors.

If your summary correctly represents the author, then he is really, terribly ignorant.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

He did however want a unified church, and he did force the vote for unification.

Tertullian onlyu had a rough draft of the trinity and it was no where near anything but a primitive view in his time. Since there was no real orthodox view, it was just how some sects looked at it.

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

09-14-2013, 11:21 AM	#18
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Based on the 'Donation of Constantine' and the 'Isidorian False Decretals' then the Church itself had NO established history of the Jesus cult, Constantine, the Nicene Creed and the writings attributed to Eusebius. As soon as it is understood that the Church itself accepted the Fiction of a never known writer [Isidore Mercator] as history for hundreds of years then the bogus 'history' of the Church up to at least the 8th century will be exposed. How is it possible for a writer with NO history and who wrote Fiction to go UNDETECTED by the very Church for hundreds of years from since the 8th century?? The answer is EXTREMELY easy--a piece of cake. The Church had NO established history up to the 8th century about Constantine, Eusebius and the Council of Nicaea.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.