History of Christianity

[juantoo3]

Remember also that all the written material we have was in place before the close of the first century: The Johannine writings are the last, and they can be reliably dates around 125AD.

That is not my understanding. What we have *complete* dates to somewhere in the fifth century as I recall, certainly the manuscripts used for the KJV date around 425, a full hundred years or so *after* Nicaea. You may be referring to some of the spurious texts, and Vermes relates to several various endings of the Gospel of Mark, for instance, among variant texts for the other synoptic Gospels as well. So it is not entirely accurate to suggest that everything is hunky-dory ever since John dotted the last punctuation mark. That is just not accurate information.

I'm not talking about Scripture, I was talking about such documents as the Letters of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, etc., which are evidence of the faith of the community, Christian faith as it is believed.

It sure looked to me like you were talking about scripture, "The Johannine writings are the last, and they can be reliably dates around 125AD." Not sure how I got that one wrong, but OK if you say so.

 

[juantoo3]

At this point Vermes has left Paul mostly alone, other than a backhanded mention that Paul wasn’t the author of the book of Hebrews, but I doubt that is anything new to those who look at these things. Since the focus of this book was on Jesus, the emphasis was on the Gospels and Acts.

You mean a scholar completely ignores the testimony of a well-educated and contemporary Jew, to reconstruct a biography at some 2,000 years distance?

Dear Thomas, please don't start this again. What part of "(s)ince the focus of this book was on Jesus, the emphasis was on the Gospels and Acts," is so difficult to understand? Suggesting the absolute dismissal of Paul is uncalled for, on so many levels. Vermes did not and does not dismiss Paul, but the subject at hand didn't require Paul, so Paul was *largely* glossed over.

I suggest a read for yourself. I also suggest references to support your position, preferably *also* from outside the Church blinkers. It is well and good you present the Church fathers (on those rare occasions you actually do), but it would serve intellectual honesty to grow a little bit beyond such a narrow focus...

As for wiki on Mithraism...where do you think I got the pointers for the references I already cited?

 

[juantoo3]

One last point before I leave you to support your thesis:

The liturgical practices were proto-Jewish only for so long…Nicaea sealed the fate, at which time all semblance of Judaism was erased.

Well I think the semblance to Judaism was gone long before.

Early Christians attended the Temple on the Jewish sabbath, and then celebrated their own rites on their own sabbath. By 100AD Christians were forbidden access to the Temples and synagogues, so from then on the practice of the Jewish cultus would have started to fall away, only the Christian cultus remaining. As the Gentile numbers grew, so the distance gets even greater.

As the Christian cultus is seen as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy, and as the Christians are baptised into a New Covenant in Christ, there is no need to continue the Jewish cult.

-emphasis mine, -jt3

By 100AD there was no Jewish Temple for any peoples, let alone Jews or "proto-Jews."

What you say here is misleading, to wit: one of your favorite go-to guys Polycarp (a disciple of John);

According to Irenaeus, during the time his fellow Syrian, Anicetus, was Bishop of Rome, in the 150s or 160, Polycarp visited Rome to discuss the differences that existed between Asia and Rome "with regard to certain things" and especially about the time of the Easter festivals. Irenaeus said that on certain things the two bishops speedily came to an understanding, while as to the time of Easter, each adhered to his own custom, without breaking off communion with the other. Anicetus— the Roman sources offering it as a mark of special honor— allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his own church.[14] They might have found their customs for observing the Christian Passover differed, Polycarp following the eastern practice of celebrating Passover on the 14th of Nisan, the day of the Jewish Passover, regardless of what day of the week it fell.

Polycarp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's somewhere in the 150's to as late as 160AD, up to 60 years *after* the date you suggest. But there's more...let's go to the Council of Nicaea (yet again), 325 AD:

The agenda of the synod included:

1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being
2. The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
3. The Meletian schism
4. The validity of baptism by heretics
5. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius

As we can see from this alone, "Jewishness" still pervaded the Church even at Nicaea. It was at Nicaea, as I have already presented *with references, most of which from duly authorized Catholic scholarship;* including the separation of Easter from Passover, Sunday from Saturday observance of Sabbath, *and* excommunication of those practicing "Jewish ablutions," which is a fancy word for baptism. These are three *explicit* doctrines that were officially changed from the "proto-Jewish" to the Pagan model at Nicaea. I am not making this up, a casual read through the history of Nicaea (I recommend the Fordham University site for its detail) will make this emphatically clear.

In short, it is misleading at best to continue suggesting that Jewish practices were not pervasive (or at least present in sufficient amount to cause concern) in fledgling Christianity, even as late as 325 AD. It is also apparent that the Pagan ways of doing things won out in the end by democratic vote...rather easy since there were few or none invited to defend and uphold the "proto-Jewish" doctrinal way of doing things.

Now, if you can *show* otherwise, I'm willing to see. Until then, I must view your opinion that Jewishness ceased around AD100 to be just that...opinion.

 

[Thomas]

Ji Juantoo —

I sense you're getting steamed up again!

By 100AD there was no Jewish Temple for any peoples, let alone Jews or "proto-Jews."

I did say 'Temples' ... I was referring to the Council of Jamnia (perhaps itself apocryphal).

What you say here is misleading, to wit: one of your favorite go-to guys Polycarp (a disciple of John);

"... Polycarp visited Rome to discuss the differences that existed between Asia and Rome "with regard to certain things" and especially about the time of the Easter festivals."
So the differences were in place at least 150 years before Nicea.
"Irenaeus said that on certain things the two bishops speedily came to an understanding, while as to the time of Easter, each adhered to his own custom, without breaking off communion with the other."
So the date of Easter was not an issue for either of them
"They might have found their customs for observing the Christian Passover differed, Polycarp following the eastern practice of celebrating Passover on the 14th of Nisan, the day of the Jewish Passover, regardless of what day of the week it fell."
But again, this difference was not a problem for them

But there's more...let's go to the Council of Nicaea (yet again), 325 AD ... As we can see from this alone, "Jewishness" still pervaded the Church even at Nicaea.

Sorry pal, but I see no such thing ... let me take the points you list:
1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being
This is a Christian theological debate, not a Jewish debate. Arius was a Christian, too fixed in Platonism and the teachings of Origen.

2. The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
The Passover discussed is the Christian Passover, not the Jewish one, and what is celebrated is the Passion of Christ, not the passing of the angel.

3. The Meletian schism
Meletius was nothing to do with the Jews. The schism was he refused to recognise those who, under torture or threat thereof, renounced Christianity, especially those in orders.

4. The validity of baptism by heretics
Which canon of Nicea is this? There is reference to those who are baptised without due instruction, and the need to ensure correct and ongoing instruction ... there's also the question of whether those who renounced Christianity could confer baptism after returning to the fold ...

5. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius
Again ... I don't see how the Jews figure in this?

It was at Nicaea, as I have already presented *with references, most of which from duly authorized Catholic scholarship;* including the separation of Easter from Passover, Sunday from Saturday observance of Sabbath, *and* excommunication of those practicing "Jewish ablutions," which is a fancy word for baptism.

Which Canon is this?

These are three *explicit* doctrines that were officially changed from the "proto-Jewish" to the Pagan model at Nicaea.

Well they weren't were they ... you have yourself observed that the date of the celebration of Easter was separated long before Nicea, because it is not the celebration of the Jewish feast, it's a Christian one. And Gentile Christians were, from day 1, not obliged to follow Jewish ritual observance.

Gentile Christians in the Apostolic Age never went into the temple in Jerusalem. Look what happened when Paul tried to take one in.

The Christian sabbath, celebrated on their own day, supersedes the Jewish Sabbath, and again, I suggest first generation gentile Christians could not observe the Jewish sabbath.

Noe were the models pagan, they originated within a Christian context and refer to a Christian reference for their orthodoxy.

So I'm suggesting that everything you're laying at Nicea's door was already over 100 years old by then, perhaps 200, and the main ones, Sabbath, Baptism, Eucharist, date back to at least 50AD, because Paul mentions them, in his early and unchallenged epistles.

Juantoo — you claimed earlier that Christianity did not evolve in a vacuum, but you seem to assume that Christianity is essentially a Judaism that was swept away by pagan practice — I see no allowance for the position and importance of its own doctrines — you seem to assume that everything that is not Jewish is an invention.

There is this, from the Greek text of Nicea:
"We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves (Egyptians) and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you... "

In short, it is misleading at best to continue suggesting that Jewish practices were not pervasive (or at least present in sufficient amount to cause concern) in fledgling Christianity, even as late as 325 AD.

I think it's not misleading at all — I think you're assuming way too much. I think your 'pervasive' Jewishness had evaporated long, long since.

Thomas

 

[Dream]

Regarding this discussion between the two of you Juantoo3 and Thomas, I tend to think that Christianity developed from Judaism and was informed by but not by altered by pagan religions. It probably was altered by politicians, since it submits to them.

In the time of John the Baptist Judaism already contained and still does contain the property that it can organize new knowledge and find how it fits in with previous knowledge, much like a librarian. Because of this, if Christianity has been altered then I'm of the opinion it is due to political pressures and executions not paganism. It makes sense to me that Paganism would most certainly have been examined for similarities to known knowledge and sorted as either a greater or lesser part of an idealized tree-like structure called 'Torah' that leads people to understanding.

'Torah' signifies all learning but also the idea that there is a sort of fractal arrangement to this learning. A twig is a miniature tree, as is a seed; and who can say which is the finished product? An example: Parts of the Bible are referred to as 'The Torah' but only in the sense that many people feel it contains all learning encrypted within its pages. (That is why some people choose to study the Tanach and Talmud exclusively without even taking Math or Science.) The written Torah, then, is considered as a root in which one can see all learning mirrored. This explains why Christians so eagerly adopted the language and ideas of Plato, because they saw another tree or branch representation of Torah. Similarly they should have examined and incorporated celtic, and other pagan representations. Extending the idea, I'm guessing the written Torah may also be considered a branch of a greater Torah which humankind cannot even read. It is possible to say that, for the right person, all learning is potentially available within just a single letter. This is where we get the idea of the truth as a seed. It is a seed that is sown and grows within the person, and Christianity has this teaching as part of itself from its beginning, and you can see it in Jesus parable but also in other Jewish reference.

 

[Amergin]

Assuming that there was a real historical Jesus, what we know is only found in the gospels in or excluded from the Bible.

I speculate that Jesus was a Jew, a devout one, who wanted to rid the abuse he saw in the religious hierarchy. This was the major feud between the Jesus followers and the Priesthood. These Jesus followers were true Jews. They rejected apotheosis, the deification of any human being. They regarded Jesus as a messiah, a prophesied King, or a prophet. Likely Jesus himself would have condemned his deification as blasphemy and contrary to the First Commandment.

Over the first Century, many branches of Jesus Cults began to differ. Should circumcision be required or not required? One thing the early Jesusites would have rejected was the concept of the Trinity. Judaism had no Holy Spirit. The Mithraic Cult has a Holy Spirit, Spenta Maingu. They had a semi-divine Son of Ahura Mazda who was slain and resurrected. That was not Judaic.

I am sure Mithraists and Christians shared beliefs by either mere cultural diffusion or pagan converts actually bringing their beliefs with them. This 3-year gradual merger of Mithra and Jesus was not deliberate. However, people found Christianity's ideas on charity, social responsibility, giving to the poor, and sharing food and housing on a near Marxist commune model. Mithraism was a largely military oriented cult open only to males. Christianity in its early years was quite pacifist.

The merger led by the 5th century into a Mithraic-Christianity that abandoned pacifism and invoked a stricter moral code.

Things that could have come from either Mithraism or Christianity are Saving Grace, Eucharistic meal with solar disk wafers, salvation, and a Trinity God with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarian Christianity was no longer pacific and high-minded. Their emperors Constantine, Theodosius I, and Theodosius II initiated brutal and bloody persecution of rival Christians (Arians, Gnostics) and Pagans. The numbers of people killed by the Church are hard to assess since the records were censored many times.

I am not picking on Athanasian Christianity. All religions that are successful tend to borrow ideas and names from other religions. Whether you accept Mithraic influence or not, the truth is that Indo-European Paganism tended to have a plethora of Trinities (which is absent from Judaism.)

I advise people to look at Christianity more closely and its first 4 centuries. Islam is more clearly derived from Judaism. Christianity is really a variant of Indo-European Paganism with only a few Hebrew names.

Amergin

 

[juantoo3]

So the differences were in place at least 150 years before Nicea.

The differences were still in place at the time of Nicaea.

So the date of Easter was not an issue for either of them

Polycarp and Anicetus found agreement on several points, but on the issue of Passover vs Easter they agreed to disagree.

But again, this difference was not a problem for them

Not for them, but apparently it was a problem at Nicaea...enough so that one of the main reasons for assembling the Council was to delineate which one to observe...the Jewish or the Pagan spring equinox observance, complete I might add with all the ritual accoutrements. It was decided at Nicaea that the "Jewish" Passover would no longer be acceptable and that all from that time forward would observe the Pagan version of the observance, complete with worship of the dawning sun.

I presented the agenda of the synod, not to claim that every point was about distancing from Judaism, but to show that there were still *some points* (specifically Easter) that the Council was called to address to distance from Judaism. At the Council, this was expanded to take in the Sabbath observance as well. Another point of contention dealt with a group that was still performing baptism in the Jewish manner (the Meletian Schism)...and the Council's response was excommunication.

Let's see...two points out of five on the agenda, and no one was invited to defend the traditional Apostolic "proto-Jewish" POV. Looks to me like a forgone conclusion, which is pretty evident by references already submitted, that the Council was determined to distance itself from any remaining semblence of Judaism.

Which Canon is this?

Why use such diversionary tactics? You asked which doctrines, specifically. I responded, specifically. Now you wish to divert to the Canon? We were not speaking of the Canon, unless you are referring to my comments regarding the book of Revelation, and that was in response to your comment on the GoT.

The specific doctrines that were universally "approved" along with the associated Pagan rituals at Nicaea were that of: Easter, Sunday Sabbath, and baptism; and from that time forward any who still opted to observe the former Jewish rituals surrounding those same doctrines were seriously frowned upon. If Polycarp had lived to see the Council at Nicaea, he would have been excommunicated for observing the 14th of Nisan.

you seem to assume that Christianity is essentially a Judaism that was swept away by pagan practice — I see no allowance for the position and importance of its own doctrines — you seem to assume that everything that is not Jewish is an invention.

And you seem to be able to recognize that Paganism had an influence, yet still attempt to deny the import of that influence. Conversely, you seem to want to lay claim to a Jewish precedent that is simply no longer there, and hasn't been since Nicaea. Like I said before, here and the other thread...about how the Church since Nicaea has the form of Judaism but the ritual and superstition of Paganism.

"All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves (Egyptians) and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you... "

This only serves to illustrate what I just said. "(W)ho from ancient times have kept Easter,"... do you realize how old Easter is??? MUCH older than Christianity, reaching back into antiquity.

I think your 'pervasive' Jewishness had evaporated long, long since.

Then why the need to address it at Nicaea? Why was the matter even on the docket?

 

[juantoo3]

Thanks for your input, Dream!

I tend to think that Christianity ...was altered by politicians, since it submits to them.

While in a general sense I agree, but Thomas has previously made a valid argument that Constantine had no direct say in what went on at Nicaea. Frankly, I am not so certain, and I still think royal decorum suggests he did not have to have direct say...a subtle hint would be sufficient. The literature from Nicaea states explicitly that Constantine held a hatred for the Jews, and I believe that translated into the doctrine that was agreed upon...although Thomas does try to spin the matter a bit differently.

In the time of John the Baptist Judaism already contained and still does contain the property that it can organize new knowledge and find how it fits in with previous knowledge, much like a librarian.

Well, that's part of the problem that I think is being overlooked...two completely different memes, two completely different ways of looking at the world. There is a...mystical?...frame of mind that lies behind Jewish thinking, that frankly is missing from Platonic Pagan pragmatism. I am no fan of Gnosticism, but to their credit I think they did attempt in their own way a kind of mystical frame of mind to their reasoning about the time of Nicaea. As I am sure Thomas will rebutt, Gnostics were also soundly refuted and excommunicated at Nicaea.

This explains why Christians so eagerly adopted the language and ideas of Plato, because they saw another tree or branch representation of Torah.

I disagree. I think as the population of Christians became more and more Pagan, the notion of Torah really fell by the wayside, and did so because they were already indoctrinated in Plato. Two completely different memes. Torah and Plato were in conflict...this much I believe Thomas agrees to, but I don't think there is consideration of the implications.

Similarly they should have examined and incorporated celtic, and other pagan representations.

I see it the other way around...they were Celtic (in the case of the Dumnonii) or Pagan (in the case of Mediterranean Romans) first, and Christianity was layered onto that...whereas when Christianity began in Palestine, for the most part, Christian ideals were layered onto a Jewish base. The cultural paradigms were so very different between Palestine and the major metro areas of the Roman Empire, and the underlying ways of viewing the world were completely different...consequently the Christianity that resulted from each was quite different. When the political balance reached the tipping point, the one side officially "offed" the other.

 

[juantoo3]

Assuming that there was a real historical Jesus, what we know is only found in the gospels in or excluded from the Bible.

Of the two mentions of Jesus in Josephus, one is agreed to be legitimate. Josephus also speaks at length of John the Baptist and Salome.

They rejected apotheosis, the deification of any human being. They regarded Jesus as a messiah, a prophesied King, or a prophet.

Geza Vermes touches on these things.

Indo-European Paganism tended to have a plethora of Trinities (which is absent from Judaism.)

Would you care to make a list?

 

[juantoo3]

1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being
This is a Christian theological debate, not a Jewish debate. Arius was a Christian, too fixed in Platonism and the teachings of Origen.

-emphasis mine, -jt3

After some thought I realized this is a fallacious reasoning, akin to false dilemma or false conclusion. Particularly since, to anyone familiar with the matter from the Jewish perspective (including Geza Vermes), the Arian position is quite similar to the Jewish position. For those Jews who do esteem Jesus as a teacher and healer, they would comfortably agree with the Arian position.

That makes 3 out of 5 points on the agenda...

BTW, still waiting for cited references.

 

[wil]

Of the two mentions of Jesus in Josephus, one is agreed to be legitimate. Josephus also speaks at length of John the Baptist and Salome.

Does the existence of John the Baptist or Salome prove Jesus's existence?

Can you site the mention of Jesus in Josephus that is agreed to be legitimate? I remember it being quite weak.

 

[Thomas]

The differences were still in place at the time of Nicaea.

So it wasn't Nicea that instituted them. Nicea just affirmed an already established practice.

Polycarp and Anicetus found agreement on several points, but on the issue of Passover vs Easter they agreed to disagree.

No, the Christians never agreed to disagree ... where there is disagreement, there is schism. I suggest they both agreed it didn't matter.

It was decided at Nicaea that the "Jewish" Passover would no longer be acceptable and that all from that time forward would observe the Pagan version of the observance, complete with worship of the dawning sun.

The Christian Church has never celebrated the Jewish passover. It celebrates the Passion of Christ at Easter, and indeed in every liturgy.

I do see praying to the East, which I think is a tradition with the Jews, it is with the Moslems, and something that I do ... churches were built on an east West axis? Pagan? The 'natural' symbolism is obvious — why did the pagans come up with it — Christ is Risen!

If you could point out to me what aspects of the Easter Liturgy you think are pagan imports, I'll be glad to discuss them.

I presented the agenda of the synod, not to claim that every point was about distancing from Judaism, but to show that there were still *some points* (specifically Easter) that the Council was called to address to distance from Judaism.

Not the distance from Judaism, the harmonisation of the Liturgical calendar across the empire. The Christian observes a liturgical cycle to the year, it makes sense to try and keep everyone 'in step' so that wherever a Christian goes across the empire, he's in step with the calendar and the liturgy.

At the Council, this was expanded to take in the Sabbath observance as well. Another point of contention dealt with a group that was still performing baptism in the Jewish manner (the Meletian Schism)...and the Council's response was excommunication.

The Melitian schism is nothing at all to do with Jews, nor with baptism. It arose because of abuses of clerical authority. Meletius refused to accepted those who had denied their faith under persecution, and when bishops in neighbouring sees were taken into custody, he declared them heretic, and appointed his own choices to replace them.

There is a case, Canon 19, requiring the re-baptism of the Paulists, but this was because Paul of Samosata did not preach baptism in the name of the Trinity, but in the name of God the Father only, teaching that Christ was just a man upon whom the spirit descended. So this was a Christian heresy, not a Jewish one.

Let's see...two points out of five on the agenda, and no one was invited to defend the traditional Apostolic "proto-Jewish" POV.

Nope, You've got your data wrong, unless I have. Seems like you've yet to score ...

Why use such diversionary tactics? You asked which doctrines, specifically. I responded, specifically.

You misunderstand.

The doctrines are the propositions of the Christian Creed, which you have never addressed, and which form the foundation of the Christian faith.

The canons I am referring to is not the Canon of the Bible, but the laws passed in Council, and to which you are referring re Melitius etc., and to which I have argued the decisions are nothing at all to do with distancing the Church from judaism at Nicea, on the basis that the Church was distanced from the very day of its founding, when Peter preached in Jerusalem, and for which the Sanhedrin wanted to execute him, forbidding him to preach in the Temple, something he ignored, and as James was more often in the Temple than out of it, it was James who was killed by Herod Agrippa for the witness of his faith.

It was acts such as this, I suggest — the martyrdom of James and Stephen, the attempts on the life of Paul — that estranged Christian and Jew.

The specific doctrines that were universally "approved" along with the associated Pagan rituals at Nicaea were that of: Easter, Sunday Sabbath, and baptism;

OK. What element of the lirutgical rites are pagan, specifically?

and from that time forward any who still opted to observe the former Jewish rituals surrounding those same doctrines were seriously frowned upon.

No, that's wrong. The Baptism of John was never recognised as an authentic Christian baptism, and there's evidence for that in Acts. The Easter Liturgy and the Sabbath Liturgy are Christian, and not Jewish, and never were Jewish, but Jews were able, if they wished, to practice both, until forbidden to engage in Jewish liturgical practice by the Jews.

If Polycarp had lived to see the Council at Nicaea, he would have been excommunicated for observing the 14th of Nisan.

Unlikely. The harmonising of the Easter Liturgy didn't cause a schism then, did it? So you're projecting. I suggest he would have accepted the council's decision.

Catholics and Orthodox celebrate Easter on different dates today ... which is a shame in my book ... But the point is, as a Christian, I am not celebrating the Passover, I'm celebrating the Passion of Christ.

And you seem to be able to recognize that Paganism had an influence, yet still attempt to deny the import of that influence.

Philosophy is the handmaid of theology ... that's the relation.

The argument between Christian Hellenism, and Hellenised Christianity, goes on in the Orthodox Church more than here (the Eastern Emperors had a much greater say in the running of the Eastern Church than Western emperors did over the pope) ... but that's nothing to do with Judaism, that's all to do with philosophy.

Conversely, you seem to want to lay claim to a Jewish precedent that is simply no longer there, and hasn't been since Nicaea. Like I said before, here and the other thread...about how the Church since Nicaea has the form of Judaism but the ritual and superstition of Paganism.

You say that, but have been unable to demonstrate it on any one point, just a long list of accusations and assumptions with no real evidence other than "it must be, because that's the way I think of it".

The only hard evidence from Nicea you've offered, has nothing to do with Judaism or paganism, but the Christian Church establishing its own liturgical calendar, according to events witnessed in its own tradition.

Nicea established the Creed, which is the basic statement and tenets of the Christian faith. Now what in the Creed is pagan?

This only serves to illustrate what I just said. "(W)ho from ancient times have kept Easter,"... do you realize how old Easter is??? MUCH older than Christianity, reaching back into antiquity.

Oh, come on, and you're suggesting that this is what the author meant?

And again and again, I have explained that the supernatural events of the Passion of Christ are prefigured in nature and nature religions, because Christ is the source of their truth too ...

Then why the need to address it at Nicaea? Why was the matter even on the docket?

Cos the Emperor wanted everyone singing from the same songsheet.

As I do today.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Cos the Emperor wanted everyone singing from the same songsheet.

As I do today.

Thomas

Be a darned boring song... no harmonies...no variety...don't ask any questions, just do what your told...

 

[juantoo3]

Does the existence of John the Baptist or Salome prove Jesus's existence?

Can you site the mention of Jesus in Josephus that is agreed to be legitimate? I remember it being quite weak.

BobX referred here:

One paragraph (in Josephus, regarding Jesus) has obviously been reworked by a Christian hand, but it is unlikely it was a blank in the original text of Josephus. The other mention is clearly genuine, and hardly anyone even tries to argue otherwise.

In the other thread I have references that lead to the works of Josephus, they are not at hand and I don't have the passage committed to memory...

There seem to be issues with the site tonight, I can't seem to access the main board of the forum, let me see what else I can do...

wiki:

Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, although most modern scholars agree that it is partially authentic.[1] The second passage mentions Jesus as the brother of a James, possibly James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

1) J.P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 76-103.
2) a b Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.

Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, (I believe this is the disputed text)

"The other reference in the works of Josephus often cited to support the historicity of Jesus is also in the Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just."

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[59]

No, the mention of John Baptist or Salome does not of itself imply anything about Jesus, but it does lend a degree of credence outside of the Bible only...a second witness, and a secular one at that. If Josephus mentions John, Salome, Jesus and James, and lends a second secular witness to a bit of the Bible narrative, then for those things at least there is a little bit more credibility than mere faith alone.

 

[juantoo3]

Oh, come on, and you're suggesting that this is what the author meant?

Either that, or the author had no idea what the meaning of the word "ancient" was. It still does not negate the fact that Easter is an ancient Pagan observance of the equinox, far predating Christianity.

 

[juantoo3]

And again and again, I have explained that the supernatural events of the Passion of Christ are prefigured in nature and nature religions, because Christ is the source of their truth too ...

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc?

 

[juantoo3]

Be a darned boring song... no harmonies...no variety...don't ask any questions, just do what your told...

Actually, on that point I am inclined to agree with Thomas. But that's just Platonic pragmatism from a Roman Emperor's point of view...an Emperor who assumed the world was meant to be molded to a "one-size-fits-all" Roman cultural meme for the benefit of logistical command of the empire. No different than those Emperors that came before or after.

 

[Thomas]

Actually, on that point I am inclined to agree with Thomas.

And I'm inclined to agree with Juantoo!

Whilst I will continue to dispute the paganisation of Christian doctrine and, essentially, the Christian Faith ...

... I will readily agree that after becoming the state religion, those entrusted with the administrative office of the Church modelled itself as an institution on the Roman model, and so incorporated its goods and its ills.

Some thoughts on that topic:
The primacy of the Office of Peter was accepted throughout Christendom from very early on, although, for example, Rome wasn't present at Nicea in anything other than a representative manner, and whilst it was looked at to ratify Counciliar decisions, the thinking invariably came from the East.

The issue arose with the emergence of Constantinople which regarded itself as the New Rome, and muscled its way up through the patriarchal hierarchy to 'challenge' Rome. The Patriarchy of Jerusalem was always regarded as a 'special case' for obvious reasons; those of Alexandria and Antioch because they rank as old as Rome, and were certainly the furnace in which Christian doctrine was formed. Constantinople was the new boy on the block, but very vigorous in its aquisition of power.

On the other hand Rome, maintaining its independence probably on its perceived authority, never succumbed to imperial pressure as the Church did in Constantinople, and thus many in the West hold that the East gave up its freedom of theological speculation, whilst many in the East hold the West is too inclined to theological juridical caste (a Roman trait) evident in the need to define dogmatically what should rightly be left a Mystery. Nevertheless, easterners often called on Rome to endorse their freedom of theological speculation.

I tend to think the failure of Rome to offer any significant environmental/ecological contribution to the current debate is a sign of the removal of natural and therefore a perceived pagan influence, and the insights of natural religion, upon Christianity.

The Reformation went much further and was much more damaging in this regard — whilst it stripped the mystical and symbolic from nature, it also stripped the mystical and symbolic from religion — this paved the way for witch-hunts etc. across Protestant Europe, and led to the Romance Movement, arising in the 19th century, to largely invent the pagan religions of antiquity according to their own notions.

The comparison between Latin and 'Celtic Christianity' highlights the difference in attitude towards the environment, the Celtic Church is suffused with nature stories and has a much healthier and holistic relationship to the environment, whereas all the Latins can offer is, I think, St Francis.

I might also add the easy transition of Celtic mythological figures into the Celtic Christian canon. St Brigid, for example, a pre-Christian Celtic deity, was supposedly present at the Nativity, as midwife ... she simply stepped out of Ireland into the Holy Land ... a fantastical notion, but one which indicates the Celtic relationship to the supernatural.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

And I'm inclined to agree with Juantoo!

Whilst I will continue to dispute the paganisation of Christian doctrine ...

I don't have any serious rebuttal to offer regarding your latest submission, but you must agree it sure looks like an attempt to change the subject at hand.

In an effort to not derail, allow me to offer this to consider; it is based on Geza Vermes' book but I have heard it referred elsewhere:

Messiahship...what does that mean? What does it mean to be the Messiah in a Jewish context (again, Jesus was a Jew!), and what does it mean to be a Messiah in a Pagan context? Compare and contrast.

Now, once you have done that, consider...is the Christian concept of Jesus as Messiah more in line with the Jewish or the Pagan ideation of what constitutes "Messiah?" Final consideration...did Jesus fulfill the role of Messiah for the Jews, why or why not?

Then tell me whether or not there was an influential role of Paganism on the formulation of Christianity... I do think if one approaches this honestly and with an eye towards understanding the reality of what *actually* took place, a lot of questions will solve themselves.

I may or may not return to some of your previous posting, I have already gone over most of it *with repeated references,* references you seem to choose to ignore while not providing any yourself. You have yet to offer any references to support your position...

 

[Thomas]

Messiahship...what does that mean? What does it mean to be the Messiah in a Jewish context (again, Jesus was a Jew!), and what does it mean to be a Messiah in a Pagan context? Compare and contrast.

I would say that who the Messiah turned out to be was not what people were expecting ... but what God had in mind ... as the Revelation in Christ is considered just that — a divine disclosure — it can be the subject of speculation, but no reasoned or logical determination could arrive at it, with any certainty, beforehand.

Now, once you have done that, consider...is the Christian concept of Jesus as Messiah more in line with the Jewish or the Pagan ideation of what constitutes "Messiah?"

Jewish. Christ presented Himself entirely within the context of the message and the covenant to the Jews. Whether the Jews saw that, or not, is another matter.

Final consideration...did Jesus fulfill the role of Messiah for the Jews, why or why not?

Well He did for those who followed Him, and He didn't for those who turned away. He also came to call everyone, so the same holds for Gentiles. St Paul preached on the Areopagus, and the Athenians didn't take to it at all ... but as Scripture says, the message of Christ is such that transcends the reason and logic of Jew and Gentile alike.

Then tell me whether or not there was an influential role of Paganism on the formulation of Christianity... I do think if one approaches this honestly and with an eye towards understanding the reality of what *actually* took place, a lot of questions will solve themselves.

None. If you can point to it in the Gospels and Acts, please do so. I have continually asked for this, and you have consistently failed to supply.

I may or may not return to some of your previous posting, I have already gone over most of it *with repeated references,* references you seem to choose to ignore while not providing any yourself. You have yet to offer any references to support your position...

I have consistently offered early Christian written sources evidencing the content of Christian belief to be established well before Nicea — Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius.

I have also consistently asked for what, if any, of the propositions of the Creed promulgated by Nicea you consider to be pagan, as the Creed is what Christians believe — it is the 'symbol of faith'.

The canons, regarding admission to the church, and the administration of the church, are not the core of Christian beliefs, but draw from them.

Remember the Catholic and Orthodox celebrates that Christian Pasch every time s/he attends mass, the Easter observance is part of a liturgical cycle, but the realities it celebrates, the establishment of the Eucharist, the life, death and resurrection of Christ, we celebrate every Sunday, and every other day of the week, too.

Thomas