History of Christianity

[Thomas]

Hi Amergin —

I was going to reply, but BobX beat me to it.

I think an issue of the general perception of your posts is that you appear to be a fundamentalist of the classic sort — you state your dogma, and when challenged you simply ignore the challenge, and go on to repeat the dogma again.

As regards the stuff you post, it's now evident to everyone that:
A: Your sources are utterly unreliable and unscholarly;
B: You believe them wholesale, without question;
C: When a 'fact' you post is shown to be nothing more than fantasy, you nevertheless persist in making the same claim.

Above you have posted:

Humans still cling to magic and superstition and will likely do so for the future.

But you cling to unfounded and perjorative speculation.

Only people with strong reason, analytical skills, and intact sceptical brain circuits will be able to understand why backward humans invent magic and invisible phantasms.

But you demonstrate a lack of reason, analysis and scepticism. You believe in your phantasms wholesale, even in the face of the evidence.

I love being free of ignorance and superstition.

Sorry, but what you actually evidence is the blind faith of the fundamentalist, when challenged you just close your eyes and keep repeating the same stuff over and over ...

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

Please allow me to impart my personal bias into this thread . . .

Kersey Graves reports 16 resurrected saviours prior to the controversial Jesus. Mithra in the Roman branch of the cult was male only, but Mithra was born of a virgin, slain (not crucified, and resurrected in three days. The similarity is unmistakable. There have been other redeemers who were sons of God. Lugh and Baldur were similar. Osiris, Horus, and many others contributed to the story. I believe Jesus was a composite of those older resurrected saviours. The Catholic Church adopted the Mithraic bishop's Titer (hat), the solar disc bread tablet, the eucharistic meal, and baptism all from Mithraism.

The irrational stories of JHWH and the Jesus story simply make no sense. I am reasonable sure they are false. JHWY was simply the image of a Stone Age War Lord or Chief. Jesus was perhaps an attempt to reform the Evil acts of God in the Old Testament.

For me the significance of Christianity is not in its originality. Christianity may well contain many concepts earlier religions and cultures had already explored. But that isn't the point. The point was the God had a message for humanity. God spoke to us. The concepts explored by earlier religions and cultures were like questions and Christianity was the answer.

Originality and plagiarism is irrelevant.

It is a great thing to be able to guess what God wants, but it means so much more to actually know what God wants (or to be sure that what you believe is God's will). How great it would be if God confirmed your beliefs and said, "Yes, my son, you're right!" The purpose of Christianity was not to tell people what they couldn't know, but to confirm that they had the answer.

The conclusions of Christianity are not humanly impossible to reach. A lot of people have the misguided notion that Christianity has to be a concept nobody could have thought of before, that only God could have thought of it. Christianity isn't a masterpiece. That's not the point of it. It's not supposed to be logical. I am human, not a Star Trek Vulcan. I am a follower of Emotion, and my emotions lead me to Christianity.

Two was not magical. They needed Three. So they borrowed from the Persians a god called the Spenta Maingu (Holy Spirit). They added Spenta Maingu to the new Christian Trinity.

But they had to pretend to be monotheists. Then they came up with the rather daft idea of a Trinity that is a Triune. One God who is three persons who are also each other. 3=1, 1=3, 3+1=3, 1+3=1. Twilight Zone math.

Actually, despite disagreeing with the notion of a triune God, I dispute with your reasoning. I believe there's a more plausible explanation of how the idea of Trinity arose.

The development of Christianity was influenced by Hellenism, not theologically, but literally. I believe the emergence of the Trinity was a result of the literary use of the tripartite motto, a threefold argumentation and rhetorical technique. It's like Julius Caesar's "Veni, vidi, vici" or "I came, I saw, I conquered."

"The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit" and "the water, the blood, the baptism" are examples of the tripartite motto. The authors of the New Testament Text used tripartite mottos because they sounded good. Hellenism and Greek culture had so much of an influence on the first-century Jews (and in turn, Christians) that they must have grown fond of it. The development of the Trinity concept was an accidental and subconscious result of the tripartite motto.

Seriously, if the Trinity was essential to Christianity, why didn't Jesus, Peter, James, John and Paul tell us about it? Why didn't they say, "You absolutely have to believe this?" I am convinced that it is merely a literary construct, one that has led to some very unnecessary, legalistic attitudes in theology.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Saltmeister —

The conclusions of Christianity are not humanly impossible to reach.

Actually they are ... or more accurately, they are impossible to define as 'actual' conclusions; they can be posited as ideas or hypotheses, but they remain that. The conclusions of Christianity reflect actualities which cannot be known by human reason alone.

It's not supposed to be logical. I am human, not a Star Trek Vulcan. I am a follower of Emotion, and my emotions lead me to Christianity.

Actually Christianity addresses the whole person, not just one's emotions. The point is that the majority of people are governed by their (disordered) emotions and dysfunctional rationality, so therein lies the 'stumbling block'.

'Logic' and 'reason' in man is limited according to man's nature, but the doctrine of Christianity is neither illogical nor unreasonable.

The development of Christianity was influenced by Hellenism, not theologically, but literally. I believe the emergence of the Trinity was a result of the literary use of the tripartite motto, a threefold argumentation and rhetorical technique. It's like Julius Caesar's "Veni, vidi, vici" or "I came, I saw, I conquered."

I don't think one can say that. The implication of the Trinitarian dogma is too fundamental to be a rhetorical technique ... the Trinity is not a rhetorical statement, it's a reasoned and logical interpretation of Scripture when a monotheist is confronted by the self-declarations of divinity of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the Trinity, like those of the Incarnation, the Eucharist and others, are esoteric doctrines — their interiority is implicitly stated in Scripture, and explicitly stated in veiled fashion.

Seriously, if the Trinity was essential to Christianity, why didn't Jesus, Peter, James, John and Paul tell us about it?

Two reasons I can put forward:
The first is that such stuff was the content of the disciplina arcani of the Early Church — the faithful were sworn to secrecy about it. We have accounts of Pliny the Younger having extracted the details of the Liturgy from two servants he had whom he tortured to find out what they believed and what they did.

The second is they did ... it's just that today we read Scripture and Tradition with a post-modern eye that assumes we know its content purely because we can read — that because 'that is what it means to me', that is its only possible reading.

Why didn't they say, "You absolutely have to believe this?"

They did ... read St Paul on the Resurection — in effect, 'if you don't believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, then there's no point in believing anything' — that's what the Baptismal credal statements are.

It's just that today, more than ever, people rationalise Scripture to fit their own self image, rather that aspire to the image of the self presented in Scripture, which is a much tougher proposition.

Thomas

 

[nativeastral]

The triune is a constant, but the doctrine of The Trinity is totally unique, to such a degree that it actually refutes the common Indo-European triune divinity idea, which is usually an expression of a fertility cult.

Rather than just blindly assume that because Christianity has a triune, it must be the same as all other triunes, there might be more to discover if you look into how that triune is composed. Central to the Doctrine of the Trinity is circumincession ... I don't think you'll find that in Indo-European triune systems.

Thomas

I think you do triune concepts elsewhere a disservice by implying that they are just agrarian fertility or cosmological..the Hindu 'creator destroyer and preserver' or Celtic triunes are human expressions of the Totality or Absolute no less than the Christian Trinity, which the fathers had to incorporate into the doctrines and creeds [to satisfy especially the Egyptian and Greek Christians in their hermeneutics]. Having to look up circumincession myself not having heard the word before this essay cleverly uses the celtic knot to describe the concept, so whats so unique about the Christian Trinity?
perichoresis and trinity and spirit and circumincession

 

[Thomas]

I think you do triune concepts elsewhere a disservice by implying that they are just agrarian fertility or cosmological..the Hindu 'creator destroyer and preserver'...

Is still essentially 'external' and cosmological, is it not, in that it signifies a relation between the deity and the world, which is created, destroyed, preserved ... not that the deity is creating, destroying and preserving itself?

The terms in the Christian doctrine are quite different, and refer, as much as the mind can conceive them, to 'internal' relations within the Godhead.

or Celtic triunes are human expressions of the Totality or Absolute no less than the Christian Trinity,

Not really, although I'm not sure which Celtic triunes you're talking about ... nor is the Celtic Knot the same either, as that too, like the worm Oroborus, can signify either the agrarian notion of the life cycle, or the Platonic idea of exit and return ...

which the fathers had to incorporate into the doctrines and creeds [to satisfy especially the Egyptian and Greek Christians in their hermeneutics].

How can that be, when the doctrine doesn't satisfy Greek or Egyptian hermeneutics?

The Greeks had as much trouble with it as the Jews, and the Egyptians were a spent force, theologically. there's no evidence to support that hypothesis, as there is no pre-existing Greek or Egyptian idea of the Trinity as Christianity expresses it.

The Greek hermeneutic didn't fit until Maximus the Confessor turned it on its head in the 6th century ... prior to that, it was always a problem, Origen and Arius were just two who went too far in trying to explain Christianity via the Platonic hermeneutic.

Having to look up circumincession myself not having heard the word before this essay cleverly uses the celtic knot to describe the concept, so whats so unique about the Christian Trinity?

What is unique is it is a revelation of the interiority of the Godhead ... the Celtic Knot is just one of any number of figures one can use as analogies, as St Patrick famously used the Shamrock. There are no shortage of analogies, St Augustine uses memory, intellect and the will, and in Hindu philosophy we have being, consciousness and bliss.

But those analogies, by themselves, do not convey the Trinity, nor were they in themselves signifiers of the Trinity — they are just things people have taken to try and explain it.

The site you reference, William R. Long, is a bit long-winded and vague, and wanders into error from time to time. It's a good stab at 'explaining' the Trinity, but as he really doesn't get the metaphysics, he makes some rather rash assumptions.

It's a great pity that as he evidently doesn't get it, he assumes that no-one else can get it either, and therefore anyone who says he does must be fudging the issue ... rather than allowing that someone else might have an insight and understanding that escapes him.

From there, he falls into his own trap, in trying to explain something he has a priori admitted he doesn't really understand.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Is still essentially 'external' and cosmological, is it not, in that it signifies a relation between the deity and the world, which is created, destroyed, preserved ... not that the deity is creating, destroying and preserving itself?

A lot of Hindus would profoundly disagree with you there, seeing "creation" and "destruction" as, yes indeed, the manifestation and reabsorption by God of aspects of Godself.

 

[Thomas]

A lot of Hindus would profoundly disagree with you there, seeing "creation" and "destruction" as, yes indeed, the manifestation and reabsorption by God of aspects of Godself.

Hi BobX —

Yes, that did cross my mind as I posted ... and in that sense we are right to read it that way, but the Hindu Tradition also posits the God who is Absolute and Infinite, and subject to no condition, determination or change ... so a 'God' who/which transcends creation.

Christianity however holds to creatio ex nihilo, or rather the idea that the Godhead in Itself transcends all contingent considerations.

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

I don't think one can say that. The implication of the Trinitarian dogma is too fundamental to be a rhetorical technique ... the Trinity is not a rhetorical statement, it's a reasoned and logical interpretation of Scripture when a monotheist is confronted by the self-declarations of divinity of Jesus Christ.

I noticed you said it was an "implication." But what makes you think it was fundamental? What makes you think this was what the authors of the NT documents really meant? I believe you have been deeply influenced by your own experiences to think it is fundamental, while I have been influenced to think not.

The practice of giving different aspects of God different names isn't unique to Christianity among the Abrahamic faiths. Judaism and Islam both have them as well. The chief difference is that in Judaism and Islam the names refer to God alone. The dilemma, conundrum and/or confusion is that of trying to decide how to make two (ie. Binity) or three (ie. Trinity) entities into one entity.

One thing people seem to forget is that first and foremost, "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are names and labels. The meaning of the names are far more important than the entities they identify. The name represents a certain quality more than it actually represents an entity. What I find flawed in the motivation to keep the Trinity doctrine as "essential" and "fundamental" is the insistence on interpreting the names as referring directly to entities.

I don't believe the names of God in Judaism and Islam directly refer to God as an entity. They most likely describe God as playing a certain role or possessing a certain quality. Does Hashem, Adonai, Shalom or Shekinah identify an entity directly or is it a particular role or quality that God possesses?

Are Jesus and God separate entities or are they one? You argue as "fundamental" the Trinitarian position that asserts that Jesus and God are one single entity, but many have found a compelling argument to assert the opposite. They have made their case countless times in this forum over the years. I don't think they will ever go away because I believe they actually have a very strong argument.

Have you considered the possibility that the name "Son" can actually refer to two entities at the same time? What if "Son" could be used to refer to God in the same manner that Jews use the terms, Hashem, Adonai, Shalom or Shekinah? What if it could also refer to Jesus as a way of making sense of how "Son" could describe God? Jesus' name in Greek is Iesous, which means "God rescues," so therefore by saying that "Son" was one of God's names, which is a name that also refers to Jesus, you are implying that "God rescues" is another one of God's many names.

 

[Thomas]

I noticed you said it was an "implication." But what makes you think it was fundamental?

Because the birth of the Christian Church as a public ministry is traditionally founded upon the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). Christ is its founder, and Peter the principle of its foundation (Matthew 16:18), but the disciples were told to wait until that time (Acts 1).

What makes you think this was what the authors of the NT documents really meant?

Because that's what they wrote. Its meaning is inescapable.

I believe you have been deeply influenced by your own experiences to think it is fundamental, while I have been influenced to think not.

I would rather say on this point I have been influenced by Scripture.

The practice of giving different aspects of God different names isn't unique to Christianity among the Abrahamic faiths. Judaism and Islam both have them as well. The chief difference is that in Judaism and Islam the names refer to God alone. The dilemma, conundrum and/or confusion is that of trying to decide how to make two (ie. Binity) or three (ie. Trinity) entities into one entity.

But we are discussing Christianity, not Judaism or Islam. If we believe what Judaism teaches, or Islam, then we are by definition Jews of Moslems. In Christianity the names refer to one God, but in three 'Persons' — the dilemma, conundrum and confusion arises when 'person' is limited to its secular understanding. Person, in reference to the Trinity, nowhere and never implied three distinct and separate people, but a metaphysical order of relation.

One thing people seem to forget is that first and foremost, "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are names and labels.

Well we have to start somewhere — and the names signify relations.

Christ's discourse at the Last Supper affirms his distinction from the Father by affirming His unity with Him. The same applies to the Holy Spirit another Paraclete — so both Son and Spirit intercede with the Father (that is what a paraclete is, an advocate) — quite how the three are one, and the one is three, is central to the Mystery, but that mystery, as indicated by the text, is more 'logical' and 'rational' than the idea of a God who intercedes with Himself.

The meaning of the names are far more important than the entities they identify.

I would say that the importance of the names is that they identify the nature of an entity that is both one and three.

The name represents a certain quality more than it actually represents an entity.

We have to be careful here. The names signify a quality of relation, and that works on multiple levels.

What I find flawed in the motivation to keep the Trinity doctrine as "essential" and "fundamental" is the insistence on interpreting the names as referring directly to entities.

Well surely that's the whole thing about names.

I don't believe the names of God in Judaism and Islam directly refer to God as an entity. They most likely describe God as playing a certain role or possessing a certain quality. Does Hashem, Adonai, Shalom or Shekinah identify an entity directly or is it a particular role or quality that God possesses?

Both. The entity first, the role or quality second, but the divine quality, or divine activity, is general and particular. It is general in the sense that 'God is good' or 'God is a spirit' in the sense that there are a multitude of goods, and spirits, but it is particular in the sense that God is the ontological source of all qualities.

There are Divine Names in all three traditions, and they all refer to the same entity, who is Just, Merciful, etc.

Are Jesus and God separate entities or are they one?

Well Jesus is two natures, according to the hypostatic union. One is God, one is human.

You argue as "fundamental" the Trinitarian position that asserts that Jesus and God are one single entity, but many have found a compelling argument to assert the opposite.

I argue what the Orthodox Tradition argues — that is my faith. Many find the argument against God as such compelling.

They have made their case countless times in this forum over the years. I don't think they will ever go away because I believe they actually have a very strong argument.

They have a very strong argument not to believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity, but they cannot disprove nor invalidate it. Likewise, the doctrine rests entirely on Scripture, it is not, as so many so blithely contend, a 'man made doctrine'.

Have you considered the possibility that the name "Son" can actually refer to two entities at the same time? What if "Son" could be used to refer to God in the same manner that Jews use the terms, Hashem, Adonai, Shalom or Shekinah?

It does. The Son does not refer to another God. Father, Son and Spirit are all one.

What if it could also refer to Jesus as a way of making sense of how "Son" could describe God? Jesus' name in Greek is Iesous, which means "God rescues," so therefore by saying that "Son" was one of God's names, which is a name that also refers to Jesus, you are implying that "God rescues" is another one of God's many names.

Yes it is. All of God's names are designations of Divine Activity. saviour is a Divine Name. Redeemer is a Divine Name. But Jesus Christ is a personal name, and Father and Son designate a more intimate relation than Saviour or Redeemer.

What is God beyond His activities? I have no way of knowing ... nor is there anything that can be known ... but I know God is not defined, encompassed, determined, conditioned nor contained by his Names ... beyond the Name is the Mystery beyond all understanding.

Trinity is the revelation of that which transcends all knowledge: Trinity describes not what is known, but how It knows Itself"

Beyong knowledge, or gnosis, is unknowing, or agnosia, which is not ignorance or nescience as ordinarily understood, but rather the realisation that no finite knowledge can fully know the Infinite One, and that therefore it is only truly to be approached by agnosia, or by that which is beyond and above knowledge. There are two main kinds of darkness: the subdarkness and the super-darkness, between which lies, as it were, an octave of light. But the nether-darkness and the Divine Darkness are not the same darkness, for the former is absence of light, while the latter is excess of light. The one symbolizes mere ignorance, and the other a transcendent unknowing - a superknowledge not obtained by means of the discursive reason.

I think the argument against the Trinity is 'compelling' in that it renders the mystery manageable, by reduction according to discursive reasoning.

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

Because the birth of the Christian Church as a public ministry is traditionally founded upon the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). Christ is its founder, and Peter the principle of its foundation (Matthew 16:18), but the disciples were told to wait until that time (Acts 1).

I don't consider anything "fundamental" to Christianity. The Pentecost was not fundamental. It was simply "compelling." It had great implications. That was its significance. The trouble is, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born then. I could not have experienced the Pentecost first hand. My mind didn't get the experiential stimulation to register the event as "significant."

There will always be concepts in Christianity that people will find foreign, silly or incompatible. You can't blame or stigmatise those people. Their minds simply haven't received the necessary stimulation to accept, appreciate or connect with those concepts.

To say it is fundamental is to stigmatise and condemn these people, to fault them for not being able to appreciate something that is difficult and unlikely for them to appreciate due to lack of mental and emotional stimulation. Human beings come from many different walks of life so it's likely that if they start their journey as walkers of the Christian faith they will have been stimulated by different things.

You can't demand that every Christian appreciate everything in Christianity because appreciation requires a stimulus. It may be easy for you to say that everything that you deem worthy of appreciation also be deemed "fundamental" if you are a student of theology. You would be a bookworm and would be in a position to think and decide on these things.

But we are discussing Christianity, not Judaism or Islam. If we believe what Judaism teaches, or Islam, then we are by definition Jews of Moslems.

Not true. Christianity would not lose its uniqueness. We can still be different, and we can be proud of what makes us different.

Christ's discourse at the Last Supper affirms his distinction from the Father by affirming His unity with Him. The same applies to the Holy Spirit another Paraclete — so both Son and Spirit intercede with the Father (that is what a paraclete is, an advocate) — quite how the three are one, and the one is three, is central to the Mystery, but that mystery, as indicated by the text, is more 'logical' and 'rational' than the idea of a God who intercedes with Himself.

The "unity" Jesus spoke of was not exclusively in relation to God. He also spoke of unity with humanity. Consider what it says in John 17:20-23. Jesus prayed for us all to be one, that he would be in us just as the Father was in him. It seems that there is an alleged "unity" in more than just God. Jesus spoke of "unity" in the same way that he spoke of unity with the Father. It was "to be in someone." Why can't you then advocate an Infinity Unity or Arbitrarily-Many Unity in the same way you would advocate a triune God? That would make God not triune, but a theoretically infinite or arbitrarily-many unity, a many-in-one God. An "arbitrune God."

But that wouldn't make sense to you would it? Your tradition demands that you adhere to a Trinitarian philosophy, not an Infinitarian or Arbitrarian (unity of an arbitrary number) philosophy. Why didn't someone come up with the idea of an Arbitrarian doctrine, that of an "arbitrune God?" Is it because the lack of a fixed number makes the idea ridiculous?

If Jesus was bold, daring and audacious enough to say that he and the Father were one, but equally bold enough to say that he and the Father could be one with humanity, then the idea of an arbitrune God would be just as plausible as a triune one.

But if the idea of an arbitrune God is ridiculous, then that of a triune one is equally ridiculous. The fact that Jesus never said anything about God being triune is reason enough to discard the idea altogether, that what we call "trinue God" is really just tripartite terminology.

Well Jesus is two natures, according to the hypostatic union. One is God, one is human.

We were created in God's image, so we all share God's nature.

What is God beyond His activities? I have no way of knowing ... nor is there anything that can be known ... but I know God is not defined, encompassed, determined, conditioned nor contained by his Names ... beyond the Name is the Mystery beyond all understanding.

Why does it have to be a mystery? Love God with all your heart, soul and mind . . . Love your neighbour as you love yourself . . . Judge not and you will not be judged . . . Blessed are the meek . . . God is Spirit and His people must worship in Spirit and in truth.

Where is the mystery in that? It sounds quite intuitive to me.

I agree that the tripartite terminology shouldn't define God, but by saying that God is triune, you are actually defining God. If the names used in the tripartite terminology have personal and emotional meaning, then simply let it be. It isn't necessary to do anything more than just use the name. There is no need to try to define God or Jesus' composition, whether they are one, two or more entities.

Jesus and his apostles never said it was necessary. They didn't command it. If our spiritual ancestors didn't deem it necessary to regard God as triune then there should be no compulsion for us to do it either. It should be enough that we use the tripartite terminology whenever it suits us. It doesn't mean that God is or isn't triune. It simply doesn't matter. We have a far more important mission than trying to define the composition of God.

We have social, economic and political obligations. But so often, theology has competed with Christianity's social, economic and political obligations. Theology has dictated how we define our reality, rather than our social obligations defining it.

Jesus never said that triune theology (well heck, he never even mentioned it) was an obligation but he did say loving your neighbour was an obligation. Obviously according to Jesus, the social was more important than the theological. Jesus made theology submit to the social rather than the other way round. That is how I see my theology. Reality begins with the social, not the theological. We have direct experience with the social, but not the theological.

 

[juantoo3]

See? I step away for a minute and a great thread like this comes along! Sheesh!

Kudos to BobX and Thomas, and to Amergin for starting this thread.

And if I may remind of the "Rome in transition" thread in the Roman history forum that covers some of this same territory...

Maybe I can get back to this soon, if it is G-d's will.

 

[juantoo3]

First Council of Nicaea-
Regarding Passover / Easter:

The council assumed the task of regulating these differences, in part because some dioceses were determined not to have Christian Passover correspond with the Jewish calendar. "The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord."[27]

[/b]Constantine wrote that: "… it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. … Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."[28] Theodoret recorded the Emperor as saying: "It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. … Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. … avoiding all contact with that evil way. … who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. … a people so utterly depraved. … Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. … no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews."[29][/b]

-emphasis mine
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This first reference seems to have been amended since my visit, and the original material seems to have been moved here:
First Council of Nicaea - Christianity Knowledge Base
Epistle of Constantine regarding the conclusions of the Council of Nicaea, according to Schaff

[29] “Chapter IX.—The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present.
The great emperor also wrote an account of the transactions of the council to those bishops who were unable to attend. And I consider it worth while to insert this epistle in my work, as it clearly evidences the piety of the writer.
“Constantinus Augustus to the Churches.
“Viewing the common public prosperity enjoyed at this moment, as the result of the great power of divine grace, I am desirous above all things that the blessed members of the Catholic Church should be preserved in one faith, in sincere love, and in one form of religion, towards Almighty God. But, since no firmer or more effective measure could be adopted to secure this end, than that of submitting everything relating to our most holy religion to the examination of all, or most of all, the bishops, I convened as many of them as possible, and took my seat among them as one of yourselves; for I would not deny that truth which is the source of my greatest joy, namely, that I am your fellow-servant. Every point obtained its due investigation, until the doctrine pleasing to the all-seeing God, and conducive to unity, was made clear, so that no room should remain for division or controversy concerning the faith.
“The commemoration of the most sacred paschal feast being then debated, it was unanimously decided, that it would be well that it should be everywhere celebrated upon the same day. What can be more fair, or more seemly, than that that festival by which we have received the hope of immortality should be carefully celebrated by all, on plain grounds, with the same order and exactitude? It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. By rejecting their custom, we establish and hand down to succeeding ages one which is more reasonable, and which has been observed ever since the day of our Lord’s sufferings. Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. For we have received from our Saviour another way. A better and more lawful line of conduct is inculcated by our holy religion. Let us with one accord walk therein, my much-honoured brethren, studiously avoiding all contact with that evil way. They boast that without their instructions we should be unable to commemorate the festival properly. This is the highest pitch of absurdity. For how can they entertain right views on any point who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. Hence it follows that they have so far lost sight of truth, wandering as far as possible 48from the correct revisal, that they celebrate a second Passover in the same year. What motive can we have for following those who are thus confessedly unsound and in dire error? For we could never tolerate celebrating the Passover twice in one year. But even if all these facts did not exist, your own sagacity would prompt you to watch with diligence and with prayer, lest your pure minds should appear to share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved. It must also be borne in mind, that upon so important a point as the celebration of a feast of such sanctity, discord is wrong. One day has our Saviour set apart for a commemoration of our deliverance, namely, of His most holy Passion. One hath He wished His Catholic Church to be, whereof the members, though dispersed throughout the most various parts of the world, are yet nourished by one spirit, that is, by the divine will. Let your pious sagacity reflect how evil and improper it is, that days devoted by some to fasting, should be spent by others in convivial feasting; and that after the paschal feast, some are rejoicing in festivals and relaxations, while others give themselves up to the appointed fasts. That this impropriety should be rectified, and that all these diversities of commemoration should be resolved into one form, is the will of divine Providence, as I am convinced you will all perceive. Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. An orderly and excellent form of commemoration is observed in all the churches of the western, of the southern, and of the northern parts of the world, and by some of the eastern; this form being universally commended, I engaged that you would be ready to adopt it likewise, and thus gladly accept the rule unanimously adopted in the city of Rome, throughout Italy, in all Africa, in Egypt, the Spains, the Gauls, the Britains, Libya, Greece, in the dioceses of Asia, and of Pontus, and in Cilicia, taking into your consideration not only that the churches of the places above-mentioned are greater in point of number, but also that it is most pious that all should unanimously agree in that course which accurate reasoning seems to demand, and which has no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews.
“Briefly to summarize the whole of the preceding, the judgment of all is, that the holy Paschal feast should be held on one and the same day; for, in so holy a matter, it is not becoming that any difference of custom should exist, and it is better to follow the opinion which has not the least association with error and sin. This being the case, receive with gladness the heavenly gift and the plainly divine command; for all that is transacted in the holy councils of the bishops is to be referred to the Divine will. Therefore, when you have made known to all our beloved brethren the subject of this epistle, regard yourselves bound to accept what has gone before, and to arrange for the regular observance of this holy day, so that when, according to my long-cherished desire, I shall see you face to face, I may be able to celebrate with you this holy festival upon one and the same day; and may rejoice with you all in witnessing the cruelty of the devil destroyed by our efforts, through Divine grace, while our faith and peace and concord flourish throughout the world. May God preserve you, beloved brethren.”[end of 29]

-emphasis mine, this seems to really solidify Constantine as being anti-semetic.
NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Historical Writings | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The council of Arles in 314 had already decreed, in its first canon, that the Christian Passover be celebrated “uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem,” and that the bishops of Rome should fix the time. But as this order was not universally obeyed, the fathers of Nicaea proposed to settle the matter, and this was the second main object of the first ecumenical council in 325. The result of the transactions on this point, the particulars of which are not known to us, does not appear in the canons (probably out of consideration for the numerous Quartodecimanians), but is doubtless preserved in the two circular letters of the council itself and the emperor Constantine.750750 Socrates: Hist. Eccl. i. 9; Theodoret: H. E. i. 10; Eusebius: Vita Const ii. 17. Comp. Hefele, l.c. i. p. 309 sqq. The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord.” We would,” says the circular letter of Constantine in reference to the council of Nice, “we would have nothing in common with that most hostile people, the Jews; for we have received from the Redeemer another way of honoring God [the order of the days of the week], and harmoniously adopting this method, we would withdraw ourselves from the evil fellowship of the Jews. For what they pompously assert, is really utterly absurd: that we cannot keep this feast at all without their instruction .... It is our duty to have nothing in common with the murderers of our Lord.” This bitter tone against Judaism runs through the whole letter.
At Nicaea, therefore, the Roman and Alexandrian usage with respect to Easter triumphed, and the Judaizing practice of the Quartodecimanians, who always celebrated Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan, became thenceforth a heresy.

History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the Passover by the crucifixion of the Lord… we would have nothing in common with that most horrible people, the Jews… we would withdraw ourselves from the evil fellowship with the Jews… It is our duty to have nothing in common with the murderers of our Lord. (2)

(2) Schaff, P. (1997), History of the Christian Church.
Actscelerate.com :: View topic - The Quartodeciman Controversy

 

[juantoo3]

For example, Polycarp (70-167 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, met with Anicetus, the head of the Roman church, to discuss the “Passover Controversy.” Polycarp informed Roman church that the eastern congregations were celebrating Messiah’s death on Nissan 14 and His resurrection on the Sunday after Passover. People in Rome, however, were remembering His death always on Friday before “Easter,” the spring solstice. Polycarp and Anicetus agreed to disagree, and parted friends. Irenaeus, a church historian, admits that John, the Lord’s disciple, and the other apostles, always observed Passover.
He said: “Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forgo the observance [of his Nisan 14 practice] inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of the Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant.”

After Roman legions destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Jewish rebels in Jerusalem and Masada, Rome levied an exorbitant tax (“Fiscus Judaicus”) against the Jews. How were “Jews” defined? Anyone who rested on the sabbath, studied Torah (Genesis - Deuteronomy), ate kosher, circumcised sons, and celebrated God’s feasts.

Therefore, by the end of that century, the Roman hatred of the Jews crept into the church, causing hatred of anything to do with the Jews, including any obedience to the Torah and observance of the Biblical holy days.

-and-

The final separation occurred in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea under the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine had put an end to Emperor Diocletian’s violent persecution of Christians and adopted Christianity as the state religion. He invited 1,800 bishops from all the churches in the Roman empire (intentionally excluding Jewish Christians). Only one-fifth of the church leaders came to the meeting and decided “church policy” for all of christendom.

One of the major issues discussed at this Council in Nicea was “Quatrodecimanism”....a long Latin term for “Fourteen-ism.” The issue was: When should Christians celebrate the resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah? The eastern churches, led by followers of Polycrates, said “After Passover, Nissan 14.” The western Roman church leaders said “On Easter [or Ashteroth] Sunday after the first full moon in the spring equinox.”

Eusebius records Roman Emperor Constantine’s decision: “Let us have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd.” An official declaration from Constantine “declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival,” and officially put an end to Christians celebrating Passover, for the most part.

Philip Schaff described the effect in History of the Christian Church:
“The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish Passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the Passover by the crucifixion of the Lord. ... At Nicaea, therefore, the Roman and Alexandrian usage with respect to Easter triumphed, and the Judaizing practice of the Quartodecimanians, who always celebrated Easter [the resurrection] on the fourteenth of Nisan, became thenceforth a heresy. Yet that practice continued in many parts of the East, and in the time of Epiphanius, about 400 AD, there were many, Quartodecimanians, who… were orthodox, indeed, in doctrine, but in ritual were addicted to Jewish fables, and built upon the principle: ‘Cursed is every one who does not keep his Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan.’”

-emphasis in the reference
Why Christians Stopped Celebrating Passover

Easter: What Happened to Jesus?
by Walter Wink
CONSIDERING THE WEIGHT THE EARLY CHURCH ATTACHED TO THE resurrection, it is curious that, subsequent to the empty-tomb stories, no two resurrection accounts in the four Gospels are alike. All of these narratives seem to be very late additions to the tradition. They answer a host of questions raised by the gospel of the resurrection. At the core of all these accounts is the simple testimony: we experienced Jesus as alive.
A later generation that did not witness a living Jesus needed more; for them the resurrection narratives answered that need. But what had those early disciples experienced? What does it mean to say that they experienced Jesus alive? The resurrection appearances did not, after all, take place in the temple before thousands of worshipers, but in the privacy of homes or cemeteries. They did not occur before religious authorities, but to the disciples hiding from those authorities. The resurrection was not a worldwide historic event that could have been filmed, but a privileged revelation reserved for the few.
Nevertheless, something "objective" did happen to God, to Jesus, and to the disciples. What happened was every bit as real as any other event, only it was not historically observable. It was an event in the history of the psyche. The ascension was the entry of Jesus into the archetypal realm. Though skeptics might interpret what the disciples experienced as a mass hallucination, the experience itself cannot be denied.

-and-

The ascension was real. Something happened to God, to Jesus, and to the disciples. I am not suggesting that the ascension is nonhistorical, but rather that the historical is the wrong category for understanding ascension. The ascension is not a historical fact to be believed, but an imaginal experience to be undergone. It is not at datum of public record, but divine transformative power overcoming the powers of death. The religious task for us today is not to cling to dogma but to seek a personal experience of the living God in whatever mode is meaningful.
Walter Wink is professor emeritus of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City

originally submitted by Dauer
Tikkun Magazine: Easter: what happened to Jesus?

-My personal “ah-ha” moment:

After tonight's research, I am left puzzling over Constantine's anti-Semetic views permeating the origins of the Roman Catholic (and Greek Orthodox) church. They had to transform Jesus from the Jew he was into something more acceptable to a Pagan audience. It probably was also beneficial to take the heat off of the Roman authorities that executed Jesus by shifting the blame entirely onto the Jews. I suppose it would strain the credibility of the political establishment to admit to wrongful execution of the fellow they were now elevating to the status of a god (just like was commonly done with Emperors). Can't be guilty of executing a god now, , can we? So we end up with a Jewish Rabbi who isn't Jewish, who is executed but doesn't die, executed in Roman fashion but not by Romans...and a criminal threat to the Roman political authority posthumously becomes a unifying religious icon and rallying point for the Roman people, under penalty of law. It's all a mystery, don't you know? You don't have to understand...you just have to believe.

In any other context this would reek of insincerity. No wonder there was such a backlash and outcry among the displaced pagans... Oh my, I think I'm having an "ah ha" moment!

Baptism / ablution:

Meagre references by St. Athanasius were our only source of information until important documents were discovered in the eighteenth century by Scipio Maffei at Verona in a manuscript dealing with the Meletian schism in Egypt.

The suppression of the Meletian schism was one of the three important matters that came before the Council of Nicæa. Its decree has been preserved in the synodical epistle addressed to the Egyptian bishops.

About 325 the Meletians counted in Egypt twenty-nine bishops, Meletius included, and in Alexandria itself, four priests, three deacons, and one army chaplain. Conformably to the Nicene decree, Meletius lived first at Lycopolis in the Thebaid, but after Bishops Alexander's death he took a personal part in the negotiations which united his party to the Arians. The date of his death is not known. He nominated his friend, John, as his successor. Theodoret mentions very superstitious Meletian monks who practised Jewish ablutions. The Meletians died out after the middle of the fifth century

Emphasis mine, -jt3
Ah, the plot thickens…couple of thoughts, an army chaplain! Who’da thunkit? And early Christian Monks practising *Jewish* ablutions? What’s an ablution? More importantly, these monks apparently were ostracized for holding Jewish practices. We formerly noted Constantine’s antisemetic bent, is this an extension of that?
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Meletius of Lycopolis - Wikisource

Ritual washing, or ablution, takes two main forms in Judaism: tevilah, full body immersion in a mikvah, and netilat yadayim, washing the hands with a cup. The first written records for these practices are found in the Hebrew Bible, and are elaborated in the Mishnah and Talmud. They have been codified in various codes of Jewish law and tradition, such as Maimonides's Mishneh Torah (12th century) and Joseph Karo's Shulchan Aruch (16th century.) These customs are most commonly observed within Orthodox Judaism. In Conservative Judaism, the practices are normative with certain leniencies and exceptions. Ritual washing is not generally performed in Reform Judaism.

This is ablution. Those monks were ostracized for performing a Jewish ritual washing. OY!
Ritual washing in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875-8.html

 

[juantoo3]

In sum just from this material alone, I am seeing a laundry list of bizarre and curious contradictions:
Jesus is at one and the same time a Jewish seditious rebel and savior of the Roman race(s).
Easter is Passover, only it is not.
Baptism is a fundamental rite of passage for Christians, yet ritual washing is frowned upon.
Constantine is a Christian, but he is also the Pagan Headmeister as well as the High Priest of the cult of Sol Invictus.
Jesus is a man, and a god. He is called by the term "Son of G-d."
Constantine is a man, and a god. He is called by the term "son of god."
Constantine has a Christian mother and Christian sympathies, yet he is a anti-Semitic Jew hater (Christianity is effectively a fringe cult of the Jewish faith at this point in time).

I am certain there is more that escapes my mind at the moment, but these are sufficient talking points in themselves. There can be no denying that some kind of propaganda machine was at play attempting to reconcile these glaring inconsistencies.

Regarding the dream / vision of Constantine prior to the Battle at Milvian Bridge (Ponte Milvio), nothing in any source I have read, including references of Eusebius, indicate that Constantine saw a Christian cross or any other specifically Christian symbol, nor did Constantine speak with “Jesus,” in contradiction to the prevailing traditional story as I have often heard it repeated through the years. It is noted that Constantine saw the "chi rho" symbol, which is sometimes an "X" with a "P" made of the upper right arm, or alternately an "X" on top of a "P". It is not clear which he saw.

There is a notation on the Arch of Constantine in the city of Rome, but it makes no reference to Jesus or G-d in the Christian sense. It makes reference to “INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS”, translated as “inspired by the divine”.

Regarding Eusebius, I noted Thomas mentioned a monk that counseled Constantine in matters of Christian policy. What our noble friend failed to mention is that Eusebius was the monk who baptized Constantine on his deathbed, as well as having been a confidant of Constantine, having written at least two “books” that reference Constantine’s vision. Since Constantine was baptized in the Arian tradition of the Christian faith, I can conclude that Eusebius was of the Arian persuasion, at least until I find something that refutes this presumption.

The resurrection however is one point that intrigues me, in that I do feel it is central to Christianity, and that without it the reason for being for Christianity becomes essentially null and void. I know Brian and others have pointed to Pagan agricultural resurrection as a possible source, but I don’t feel there is any legitimate association without making a really far stretch.

However, I did see this:

July 6, 2008
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM —
The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

...its authenticity has so far faced no challenge, so its role in helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase.

Much of the text, a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel, draws on the Old Testament, especially the prophets Daniel, Zechariah and Haggai.

...a larger scholarly movement that focuses on the political atmosphere in Jesus’ day as an important explanation of that era’s messianic spirit. ...after the death of Herod, Jewish rebels sought to throw off the yoke of the Rome-supported monarchy, so the rise of a major Jewish independence fighter could take on messianic overtones.

“Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”

Moshe Bar-Asher, president of the Israeli Academy of Hebrew Language and emeritus professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University, said he spent a long time studying the text and considered it authentic, dating from no later than the first century B.C.

“There is one problem,” he said. “In crucial places of the text there is lack of text.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/wo...nt&oref=slogin

I have not heard if the stone inscription was verified, and after the “bonebox” fiasco that happened just prior, I’m a bit gunshy to grab this wholesale. If shown to be legitimate, this may provide a possible clue to the “three days in the tomb” resurrection part of the Jesus mythos.

BTW, the arguments that the days don’t add up for the resurrection should be quite readily apparent to anyone who has followed anything here…if Rome can, would and likely did “adjust” certain precepts to suit their needs, why would the resurrection not be one of them? In short, that particular year Jesus was executed on the day before the “High” Sabbath Passover Holyday, which was not a Friday but a Thursday.* Nisan 14, like any other specific day number of the month, moves from day to day through the week as the years go by, it does not stay on the same day of the week every year. Jesus rose from the tomb on the first day of the week, which happened to be the new *Christian* sabbath we now know as Sunday. Remember, Constantine authorized and promoted a separation and distance from the previous roots in Judaism, so any connections to Judaism that could be modified, were.

*if anyone should care to make the calendrical calculation, don’t forget to account for the ten days added in the time of Pope Gregory…the Gregorian correction to the calendar.

 

[Saltmeister]

Juantoo, nice to see you back! Where were you?

 

[juantoo3]

They were zealous for the Torah, and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, accepting non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21).

Perhaps conditionally, as the rift between Peter and Paul over what constituted clean and unclean meats suggests. A practising Jew could explain better than I.

I think this is a very pivotal point, often brought out regarding those who seek to dismiss Paul and his missionary quest, that without the teachings and accomodations of Paul, one would of necessity be required to first be a Jew *before* becoming a Christian this soon after Jesus. I would also add that things seemed to get a bit rocky some time before 80 AD for Christians, between the sack of Jerusalem and the persecutions of Nero, both occurring at least a decade before 80 AD.

Nazarene comes from the Hebrew word Netzer, drawn from Isa 11:1 and means a Branch—so the Nazarenes were the “Branchites,” or followers of the one they believed to be the Branch.

Possibly. Los Angeles (the name is actually considerably longer) means "City of Angels," but that hardly means everybody that lives there is an angel. Since Jesus was from Nazareth, is it not possible that Nazarene simply means "someone from Nazareth?"

...there are a variety of self-designations used by the Jesus movement, most of which had previously been used by the Essenes. In that sense you might call the Jesus movement a further developed messianic “Essenism,” modified through the powerful, prophetic influence of Jesus as Teacher.

Every football team is number one in September...just ask any of them. I haven't seen anything that more than remotely hints that Jesus or John Baptist were more than acquainted with any practising Essenes. I have little doubt they knew some, I seriously doubt they were involved with the Essene group. Beyond any doubt Jesus was *not* the Teacher of Righteousness.

James is a key and neglected figure in this whole picture. As the blood brother of Jesus, authority and rights of guidance were passed on to him. When he was brutally murder in 62 CE

Absolutely.

... according to the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in 1946 in upper Egypt, this dynastic succession was ordained by Jesus himself who tells his followers who ask him who will lead them when he leaves:

I don't recall anything of the sort in the GoT.

That's all I've got time for tonight.

 

[juantoo3]

Juantoo, nice to see you back! Where were you?

Oh, hey Salty!

Just been away for awhile on sabbatical. I'm part robot now.

 

[juantoo3]

The stone tablet dated to just before the life of Jesus


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

An update on the stone. Seems it is called "Gabriel's Revelation." It is considered a Dead Sea Scroll in stone, it is ink on stone which makes it somewhat unusual, but the weight of the scholars looking at it to this point seems to indicate it is authentic, dated to late in the first century BC.

DSS conference (60 year anniversary):

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture

wiki:
Gabriel's Revelation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead Sea Scroll in stone, Biblical Archeology Review
A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone? | Daily Bible and Archaeology News

The Messiah Son of Joseph - “Gabriel’s Revelation” and the birth of a new messianic model
By Israel Knohl, Biblical Archeology Review
The Messiah Son of Joseph | Biblical Archaeology Review | Bible History Articles

There are more references to chase out, but it seems the dominant consensus is that this stone is real, and what it tells us of a Messianic tradition in pre-Christian Judaism...including and especially in my opinion, a resurrection after three days in the tomb... is not to be dismissed lightly. This may be an important link in filling the gaps between pre- and post-Nicaean Christianity.

I took the liberty of posting this same material in the "Rome in transition" thread so to keep my reference materials in one place.

Now I just need to find the time to read the copies I just bought of Gibbons' "Decline and Fall," vol.'s I and II, at least those chapters that concern the reign of Constantine...

 

[greymare]

Ive started reading Church History in plain language, (Bruce L shelley) . I have found it very easy to read, and understand. The way this book is written is very easy for me to understand. Its exactly what I have been missing. (LOL) ......Just thought I would share.

 

[bob x]

The resurrection however is one point that intrigues me, in that I do feel it is central to Christianity, and that without it the reason for being for Christianity becomes essentially null and void. I know Brian and others have pointed to Pagan agricultural resurrection as a possible source, but I don’t feel there is any legitimate association without making a really far stretch.

I have always favored the straightforward explanation: despite how badly he was tortured, he had the gumption to get up again. Crucifixions usually took days, not hours, to kill. Still, I think I would have responded by lying down and dying, and never getting up again. The disciples can be forgiven for thinking it was the most miraculous event they had ever heard of.

In short, that particular year Jesus was executed on the day before the “High” Sabbath Passover Holyday, which was not a Friday but a Thursday.* Nisan 14, like any other specific day number of the month, moves from day to day through the week as the years go by, it does not stay on the same day of the week every year.

He was crucified on Friday the 13th, in the tomb on the Preparation Day, Saturday the 14th, and stood up again on the feast day itself, Sunday the 15th, the "third day" by the inclusive counting everybody used and understood back then, no matter how strange it sounds to our ears. Passover was on Saturday in 33 or 36.

Jesus rose from the tomb on the first day of the week, which happened to be the new *Christian* sabbath we now know as Sunday. Remember, Constantine authorized and promoted a separation and distance from the previous roots in Judaism, so any connections to Judaism that could be modified, were.

It didn't just "happen" to be the new Sabbath... There were five legal criteria for who was a "Jew" under the Roman laws making them subject to heavy special taxation, and anybody meeting three or four of the tests was in danger of being labelled "Jewish": keeping kosher, circumcising sons, reading the Torah, keeping Sabbath, and observing the Jewish holidays. All the Christians were "guilty" of having the first five books in their Bibles; none except the frankly Jewish Christians circumcised. That left up to best-two-out-of-three on kosher laws, the Sabbath, and having Easter on the same day as Passover. Some did still have Sabbath on Saturday: Milan did, Rome didn't; when Ambrose of Milan was in Rome for a while, he observed Sunday and didn't think it was a big deal either way, which is the source of his saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Saturday people then had to have the postponed Easter (not Passover, but some later Sunday) and not observe any hangups about how to butcher meat. Quartodecimans (keeping Easter right on the Passover) had to postpone Sabbath to Sunday and not observe kosher. Those who didn't eat improperly butchered meat (and there were a lot of those: Pliny in Bithynia observed that meat "could scarcely find a buyer" until he cracked down on the Christians) had to have the postponed Sabbath and Easter both.

Since Jesus was from Nazareth, is it not possible that Nazarene simply means "someone from Nazareth?"

There was a term nazir for those observing special oaths against drinking and, for some odd reason, haircuts (see Samson) which is probably the source of both Nazareth and "Nazarene"; the root netzer "branch" which Amergin likes has a different consonant (tzade as opposed to zayin) and the two would not be confused by a native speaker.

I haven't seen anything that more than remotely hints that Jesus or John Baptist were more than acquainted with any practising Essenes. I have little doubt they knew some, I seriously doubt they were involved with the Essene group.

The Damascus Document mentions a rule of theirs that for no excuse do you break the Sabbath, giving the specific example that you are not to rescue an animal who has fallen into a well until the Sabbath is over. Epiphanius says they would not even handle coins which had the emperor's picture on it. Herod Antipas issued money with nature scenes on it; the line from John the Baptist, "What have you come here to see? A shaking reed?" is interpreted by some (this may be a stretch) to refer to an Antipas coin with reeds by the water (John continues, "A man in fine robes? That is what you find in the palace"; the interpretation is that he is subtly saying "a shaking reed" is also what you find in the palace). Jesus rejected the Essenes on some points, as he rejected the Pharisees on several points; though he took what was good from any source.

I don't recall anything of the sort in the GoT.

The quote is "[When I'm gone] go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth were created."

Ive started reading Church History in plain language, (Bruce L shelley) . I have found it very easy to read, and understand. The way this book is written is very easy for me to understand. Its exactly what I have been missing. (LOL) ......Just thought I would share.

I'm trying to work on my own book, hope you will like it when I'm done.