History of Christianity

[juantoo3]

BTW, do you happen to have any source that definitively demonstrates Peter as Pope, or that he was ever at Rome...*outside* of Catholic tradition?

 

[juantoo3]

Letter by Pliny the younger to Emperor Trajan
Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113 AD.

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan to Pliny

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

[I was unsure of the origin of this file. Bob Edsall (redsall@voicenet.com) informs me that is originates with James O'Donnell's (jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu) file at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html]

Medieval Sourcebook: Pliny on the Christians

 

[juantoo3]

Fordham University reference source for Midieval Christian writings:

Medieval Sourcebook: End of Classical World

an excellent resource!

 

[Dream]

Possibly. Los Angeles (the name is actually considerably longer) means "City of Angels," but that hardly means everybody that lives there is an angel.

I think it means "City of Lost Angels"

 

[juantoo3]

I think it means "City of Lost Angels"

LOL, good one!

Governor de Neve recorded the date, September 4, 1781, as the official date of establishment of El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles or The Town of the Queen of the Angels.

Looks like I've missed the "Queen" part all these years...

The Settlement of Los Angeles

Can't help it...the place is near and dear to my heart, but I don't wanna live there (anymore).

 

[Thomas]

Oh, but Jesus' trial was very illegal. Even Bananabrain acknowledges that much, he understands better than I!

I agree it was illegal according to Jewish law ... it was also 'invalid' in the sense that the Jews could not convict Him of sedition; they tried and failed. Their conviction was based on blasphemy, in His declaration of His divinity — the term 'son of God' was not perceived in any other sense than a self-declaration of His divinity.

His crucifixion by the order of Rome was not actually 'illegal', although it was morally morally questionable, which Pilate himself asserts. As Jesus was not a citizen of Rome He was not covered by Roman law, and thus Pilate was free to do what he liked, including have Him executed. Paul later used his Roman citizenship to claim immunity from the Jewish legal process.

I stress my point, it was the Jews who sought Jesus' execution, not the Romans, as you assert.

Good, I'd love to see the source.

That'll take me a while ... it's under a pile of papers somewhere. A quick look round the web will show that Luke is considered reliable as a historian ... increasingly so as archaeological evidence proves some of his statements that were considered false. His 'incidental details' are considered a reliable insight into his life and times.

Detracts? Among whom? Other Christians? It created and fuelled a lot of resentment towards Christians among the general populace. I can grant that some of this subsided over time as Christianity spread across the Empire, and as people got more familiar with it, but that is not at all what you are saying.

No, I'm saying that Nero picked on the Christians as an easy target, and that the population of Rome grew sick of his excesses, to the point where they actually began to sympathise with the Christians.

Jesus' teachings, based in Judaism, were over two hundred years old by then, that much I can agree. But the church as such didn't quite exist just yet..

Yes it did. It existed as a diffusion of local congregations across the empire, certainly, but then constrained by the dangers of persecution. Nevertheless the churches saw themselves as One Church, and the centres were in communion and contact with each other, passing letters between them, in which it is evident that the Church in Rome was considered pre-eminent because of its foundation there by Peter and Paul. Clement of Rome wrote letters of instruction to the Church in Corinth, calling them to order when disputes are there before the close of the first century, Polycarp (a disciple of John) wrote of the Universal Catholic Church, and Ignatius of Antioch called it the Catholic Church around the same time. Irenaeus affirmed both the universality of the One True Faith, held by the churches, united under Rome, against the gnostics (Adverus Haereses). All the local churches saw themselves of constituent of the One Church.

And all the fundamental doctrines and dogmas of faith were equally in place: The virgin birth, the Salvation mission of Christ, the Passion, Death and Resurrection, the descent of the Holy Spirit in whom all are united in the One Body of Christ preached by St Paul, bound in fellowship in the practice of prayer and alms giving, entry into which was a rebirth in the Spirit by baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the mysteries of which were celebrated in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Paul founded different ecclesial communities, not different churches.

It was an absolute fundamental belief that the Church is where Christ is preached according to the Gospels and the teaching of the Apostles, and it was on that basis that the Church could refute the erroneous teachings of the Ebionites, etc. And where Christ is preached in fulness and in truth — again according to the Apostles — there Christ is.

The Church was all over the empire by the time Constantine sanctioned it, and it was the single, strongest binding force of the empire, which is why, in my opinion, he sanctioned it — I believe he made a pragmatical political decision that Christianity was emerging as the only viable force which could demonstrate an ability to unify the empire.

and when it finally did get official sanction and blessing, the church had become a far cry from what Jesus taught and demonstrated.

I dispute that, but then I would. I certainly agree that the communal nature of the first community was not sustained, but then I would suggest it could not be, human nature being what it is, and any attempt to say it should be is fanciful for that very reason.

Christians were in *Constantine's army,* an army formed in large part from soldiers that came from Britain, and from where Constantine was put forward by that same army to succeed his father when that man died.

And your evidence for that?

Christians were noticeably absent from all of the other armies of the Empire. By your own admission Diocletion purged Christians from *his* army, an army that Constantine did not have any control over for years to come yet. Each of the tetrarchs had their own army.

Which means they were there before the persecution, and the evidence suggests that the purges were unsuccessful and often ignored, even under Diocletian's direct control. I suggest they were there throughout the empire.

Already touched on this, but this was likely in part because the mother of his son was a Christian.

Which shows the degree of permeation of Christianity in culture. H married a woman whom he knew to be Christian.

Constantine was elevated to imperial office by his *British* army at the death of his father in 306, in York. He was not able to effect any serious repatriation of property or position until after the Edict of Toleration and the Battle of Ponte Milvio some 5 and 7 years later, respectively.

Politics again. Constantine was a virtual hostage of Diocletian (a way of keeping his father in check) and his life was at more immediate risk when Diocletian stepped down. Constantine 'escaped' from Galerius in 306, under who's command, legend has it, he was given a number of suicidal missions in the hope he would be killed. His escape is a matter of record.

Constantine was in Diocletians' household when the persecutions were declared, and later wrote that he resisted the edits, but there is no evidence to suggest he actually opposed Diocletian, more likely he (wisely) stayed quiet, on the other hand he might well have been happy to take part. No Christian challenged his silence nor inactivity during these years. His later writings I can see as attempts at self-justification ... but who knows?

While chiding others for considering other traditions...

No, I chide partisanship. I fully declare my Catholicity, but do not see the need to deny history because of it. You seem to declare Christian history as de facto false, I am saying there's a large element of truth to it, which counter-balances the assumptions you make for Rome regarding the development of Christianity.

You're basically saying that Constantine established the Church. I'm saying he didn't, and he didn't determine its doctrine doctrine.

In short, Constantine saw 'if you can't beat it, join it' and then took the political step of 'join it, then subvert it' ... in which he failed utterly.

Do you not think that perhaps that might be saying something?

Yes, that the politicians aren't bothered about doctrine, just power. Any doctrine will do, if it brings power. But the politicians couldn't get control of making of doctrine, and so couldn't get control of the church, and couldn't come up with a counter to it ... the Church was too big, and too powerful, being too entrenched in its beliefs, by the time Constantine came along.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I am not defending the Church against accusations of anti-semitism, it was there and it was evident ... and it is something we have apologised for ... but that didn't shape fundamental Christian doctrine.

Christians had running street battles with Jews but cherish the Old Testament ... Christians murdered Hypatia but loved philosophy and were Neoplatonists as she was ... St Simon the Stylite is reported as becoming apoplectic if a women dared approach his pillar, yet in the Desert the Fathers and Mothers lived in cenobitic communities ... is that schizophrenic? I don't think so.

Is Christian doctrine schizophrenic? I don't think so.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

BTW, do you happen to have any source that definitively demonstrates Peter as Pope, or that he was ever at Rome...*outside* of Catholic tradition?

Well we have discovered, when excavating the earliest foundations of St Peters in Rome, a tunnel hitherto unknown and which carries the inscription 'Peter below', and at the foot of which was found in a box the skeleton of someone that is virtually complete except for the feet, which would make sense according to the tradition that Peter was crucified upside down, and then to remove the body the simplest method would be to hack off the feet by which it was affixed to the cross.

Definitive? I don't think so ... but the accumulation of evidence suggests ...

The point is that no-one challenged the tradition, attested to by the earliest Christian writings, that Peter died in Rome, until the Reformation. And not on any evidence, but rather to dispute the tradition and authority of the Church and the authority of the Petrine office.

So, as I see it, the death of Peter at Rome is a given challenged only by those who have a polemical reason to do so, without any evidence to support their claim.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Everything I have referenced has said nothing of the sort. Constantine's *mother* Helena was a Christian, but there is some question among scholars as to whether or not Constantius married Helena. Constantius *did* marry the step-daughter of Maximian. Constantius *did* conduct his private and political lives with Christian sympathies.

Yep, my error, sorry.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo3 —

Looking back over some earlier posts, I'm not so sure we're on the same, or single, track ... my error, I think, not yours ... so I thought I'd clarify my position.

It is my contention that Christian doctrine developed from the New Testament and Apostolic Tradition, under two influences.

One the one hand the attempts by those who sought to 'filter' or 'interpret' the data of Scripture according to essentially alien traditions — notably the various gnostic sects who were fundamentally dualist, saw the world/flesh as intrinsically evil, saw divine union as the sole prerogative of a spiritual elite, saw salvation as dependent upon knowledge and not being ... etc.

On the other the errors of those who in attempting to rationalise the same data, effectively reduced its implication, and thereby to conform it to themselves, rather than conform themselves to it.

This is clouded by people often having a foot in both camps, as it were. Valentinius, for example, is of the former camp, Tertullian was of the latter.

Arius (the cause of the council of Nicea) sits between the two. He insisted that Christ was, although in some sense divine, was not God, that is not uncreated, but a created being, intermediate between God and man. He was refuted by his own parishoners, his bishop, and notably his bishop's secretary, called Athanasius.

Arius was a follower of Origen, but his claim that Jesus was created was far more, and in contradiction, to any claim of Origen's.

In their theologies, neither man was infallible ... in fact the Catholic Church declares that no Father is infallible, but that when they all speak in one accord, then the truth they declare can be relied upon infallibly.

In their theologies, both men was profoundly influenced by Plato (as were nearly all the Fathers), but the trick is to see when one is Christianising Plato, or Platonising Christ.

Another point is that Origen's intellect was far superior to Arius', but Origen himself declared that if the Church found him in error on any point, then he retracts, and that his wish is to be seen as nothing other than a loyal servant of the Church. (Known as "The Man of Iron", he was seen as a great and brilliant genius until opinion turned against him — we did him a great disservice by sullying his name – and only in the last century have we really began to recover his reputation)

Arius displayed no such humility, rather he declared himself right, everyone else wrong, and engaged a cousin close to the emperor to engineer a political coup against the Church. This failed, but the politicians by then had got the bit between the teeth, and if there was a chance to get control of the church, then it was worth going for ... they very nearly did it, and at one point, it's reckoned that the geopgraphical coverage of the church was 70% Arian (that is, governed by Arian-orientated politicos).

With Arius on one side ("There was a time when he (Christ) was not") stood Athanasius on the other ("The Fathers begets the Son eternally (not in time)")

The ramifications for spirituality is absolutely fundamental. If Arius is right, then 'Divine Union' in any way, shape or form is not on the table, and God is then 'Father' only in a distant, abstract sense, not an immanent sense of union or knowing of the soul.

Athanasius succeeded (eventually) by convincing the majority of bishops (not all theologians, God bless 'em) that Arius was wrong.

My point in all this is that the theological detail probably went straight over Constantine's head. I really think he didn't care what we believed, as long as we all believed the same thing, for the sake of harmony in the empire. Christianity was the glue that could hold it all together, it was the thing that could tear it apart ...

Since Constantine, emperors East and West have tried to control Church doctrine. In the West they failed. In the East, as the influence of the papacy waned, they succeeded. The Iconoclast dispute, which launched a persecution of Christians by Christians that was worse than Diocletian, was caused by the Emperor's determination to forbid the sacred image as a sop to his Islamic neighbours, whom he saw as a threat.

Inevitably, the various Patriarchies became subject, or at least inextricably involved with, the national interest, and that has always been the risk from the moment the Church became the religion of state, and that risk was never greater than at the moment Constantine declared it so ... but as long as the Church sees itself as One, and Universal, then it finds the power to resist political interference ... when the Church sees itself as an autonomous patriarchy, it surrenders that universality, and inescapably the laity will incorporate nationism into their spiritual aspiration.

The Catholic Church faces a significant test today: The first is whether it can actually clean its own stable, or whether it will act like any human institution and seek to mask its faults ...

The second is whether, as the Church grows outside Europe, it can adhere to this idea of universality as something that transcends the very Eurocentric idea of 'Rome', with a language that is essentially Latin, and a philosophy that's essentially Greek.

Only now are we beginning to recover aspects of a very deep and profound African (I mean central black rather than Arab north) spirituality that the white man assumed never to have existed, indeed, we assumed it couldn't exist among such 'savage' and 'primitive' peoples ...

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Looking back over some earlier posts, I'm not so sure we're on the same, or single, track ... my error, I think, not yours ... so I thought I'd clarify my position.

That's quite alright, I don't think any the less of you for it, I always appreciate your perspective.

It is my contention that Christian doctrine developed from the New Testament and Apostolic Tradition, under two influences.

One the one hand the attempts by those who sought to 'filter' or 'interpret' the data of Scripture according to essentially alien traditions — notably the various gnostic sects ...On the other the errors of those who in attempting to rationalise the same data, effectively reduced its implication, and thereby to conform it to themselves, rather than conform themselves to it.

This is clouded by people often having a foot in both camps, as it were. Valentinius, for example, is of the former camp, Tertullian was of the latter.

Arius (the cause of the council of Nicea) sits between the two.

From a point inside the process this is probably pretty accurate, and I have no serious challenge to offer other than that of stepping back to observe from outside...there was a bit more going on in that respect, and it doesn't hurt to consider the context in which all of this was taking place.

In their theologies, both men was profoundly influenced by Plato (as were nearly all the Fathers), but the trick is to see when one is Christianising Plato, or Platonising Christ.

This is likely an astute observation, one I am sure will dawn on me when I get to a point of taking in more of Plato.

The ramifications for spirituality is absolutely fundamental. If Arius is right, then 'Divine Union' in any way, shape or form is not on the table, and God is then 'Father' only in a distant, abstract sense, not an immanent sense of union or knowing of the soul.

I am not familiar enough with Arius to offer any defense, but I do reserve a contingent doubt regarding your opinion here. I am finding some serious doctrinal differences not only between Arius and Athanasius, but with other branches or camps of Christianity that were then extant, notably the Ebionites. I have made it through 3 chapters of Gibbons so far, and this last chapter (vol.1, chap 15) is devoted to the religions at that time.

A point he notes, and one I *sort of* suspected, is that the view of heaven was entirely different than that we commonly view today. It really makes a great deal of sense when considering how Christianity was grabbed onto, although Gibbons suggests there likely was no more than about 20% of the population at major urban centers like Rome that were Christian prior to Constantine. Paganism didn't really have any focus on an afterlife. Along came Christianity and now people had something to look forward to. It didn't hurt the cause any that Christianity also probably invented the concept of social services; providing for the poor, widows and orphans, and those in prison. These two points in particular seem to be impressive draws that brought in very many converts.

An interesting consideration I have mulled in the past without fuel to feed the fire is the implication of superstition. Gibbons touches on this too, and how such impacted both Paganism *and* Christianity.

Athanasius succeeded (eventually) by convincing the majority of bishops (not all theologians, God bless 'em) that Arius was wrong.

Yes, but can you dare entertain the consideration that both were mistaken? That really is a core component of my position, that Nicaea deliberately bypassed anything to do with those that attempted to hold onto the fundamental principles laid out by Jesus himself. I know you must adhere to the party line, one that attempts to plausibly deny this...but really, Nicaea was all about distinguishing away from anything to do with Judaism, and it really is a profound point that must be stressed that Jesus is a Jew, and he taught Jewish lessons from Jewish sources by Jewish means, living a devout Jewish life and presenting a Jewish praxis.

I do struggle over how Paul fits into the puzzle, I confess that much. But I also think those who dismiss Jesus in favor of Paul, or more properly take the form of Jesus at the expense of the function of Jesus, really do miss the point. It is very easy to connect the dots from here and see how a mythology was constructed around the man Jesus, and it seems to me very easy to see why. He had to be made into an image that was more acceptable to Pagan sensibilities. So the radical Jewish itinerant rabbi suddenly becomes a non-sexual Pagan monk in the hermit tradition, He is a pacifist who consorts with rebels (thank you China Cat), He dies a Roman criminal's death but not by the instigation of the Romans, He is executed but does not die, He dies in obscurity in a backwater of the Roman Empire yet is raised as a Savior of the world in the Pagan Superman tradition by the instigation of a Pagan Emperor...and the list goes on and on...

But this is my burdon to bear, not yours.

My point in all this is that the theological detail probably went straight over Constantine's head. I really think he didn't care what we believed, as long as we all believed the same thing, for the sake of harmony in the empire.

Absolutely, I've been saying that all along.

The Iconoclast dispute, ... was caused by the Emperor's determination to forbid the sacred image as a sop to his Islamic neighbours, whom he saw as a threat.

Oh my...I think we have enough on our plates at the moment. As a Protestant, I think you might see how I interpret this differently...

 

[juantoo3]

a tunnel hitherto unknown and which carries the inscription 'Peter below', and at the foot of which was found in a box the skeleton of someone that is virtually complete except for the feet, which would make sense according to the tradition that Peter was crucified upside down, and then to remove the body the simplest method would be to hack off the feet by which it was affixed to the cross.

Definitive? I don't think so ... but the accumulation of evidence suggests ...

Sounds strikingly familiar...Arthur and Guinevere...

The point is that no-one challenged the tradition, attested to by the earliest Christian writings, that Peter died in Rome, until the Reformation. And not on any evidence, but rather to dispute the tradition and authority of the Church and the authority of the Petrine office.

Two things: it is not encumbant to prove a negative, and more important is that prior to the Reformation any protest was not possible without risk of life or liberty. After it was simply not a matter of import...either one believed, or one didn't care. I am not in either camp. I care, but I must be shown. Thomas the disciple was chastised but not condemned for his disbelief...of course, he disbelieved Jesus, not an institutional tradition.

 

[Quahom1]

Gong, gong, gong

Fencing is done with Foils, not Cutlass and Sabre...

 

[juantoo3]

I stress my point, it was the Jews who sought Jesus' execution, not the Romans, as you assert.

I have never made any such assertion. What I have said is that Jesus died a Roman criminal's death. IOW, he was executed in a Roman manner, with Roman soldiers performing the act. I do not in any way diminish nor absolve the cause of that execution being the Jewish Sanhedrin religious court conducted by the High Priest Caiphus. I *do* find it intriguing that a person executed with the grudging blessing of Roman authority later becomes a religious icon for the benefit of same Roman authority.

No, I'm saying that Nero picked on the Christians as an easy target, and that the population of Rome grew sick of his excesses, to the point where they actually began to sympathise with the Christians.

Nero was insane anyway, it just took the people awhile to figure it out.

But the point was that Christianity, particularly at the beginning, was not as well received as you were attempting to make it sound. In the wake of every persecution there was a public backlash...no surprise, it wasn't limited to Christians. Even today we still suffer from propaganda dispensed by our governments and the general public opinion sways with the political winds...why should it somehow be different then?

Nevertheless the churches saw themselves as One Church, and the centres were in communion and contact with each other, passing letters between them,

Sure.

in which it is evident that the Church in Rome was considered pre-eminent because of its foundation there by Peter and Paul.

Any external non-Church validation? I can assure Gibbons says no such thing, neither to Peter nor Paul. Gibbons *does* say that Rome assumed pre-eminence by virtue of numbers and money; in short, politics.

Polycarp (a disciple of John) wrote of the Universal Catholic Church,

Polycarp (a disciple of John) also kept the Jewish sabbath and the Jewish Passover.

And all the fundamental doctrines and dogmas of faith were equally in place: The virgin birth, the Salvation mission of Christ, the Passion, Death and Resurrection, the descent of the Holy Spirit ...

I'm sorry, but short of the resurrection I just don't see it, and not for lack of trying. These things were indeed extent within the Pagan community, but to place these things on first century Christianity is a stretch.

Now, something Gibbons does highlight that gets poopooed these days, is the impact of miracles. It seems that miracles ranging from exorcisms to healing to the raising of the dead were pretty commonplace throughout the first and well into the second centuries. And then the assorted charletans moved in ... and by the third century miracles (especially exorcism) all but disappeared and no longer held the sway they did previously.

Paul founded different ecclesial communities, not different churches.

In an attempt to soften my tone from my original answer, allow me to ask this: I am expecting an honest answer.

Do you sincerely believe Nicaea consolidated what Paul preached?

It was an absolute fundamental belief that the Church is where Christ is preached according to the Gospels and the teaching of the Apostles, and it was on that basis that the Church could refute the erroneous teachings of the Ebionites, etc. And where Christ is preached in fulness and in truth — again according to the Apostles — there Christ is.

This actually illustrates what I am trying to say above. Who were the Ebionites? You grab onto Polycarp (a disciple of John), yet casually dismiss the disciples of James the Just, and likely disciples of Peter and disciples of still other Apostles that walked with Jesus. Why?

The Church was all over the empire by the time Constantine sanctioned it, ... I believe he made a pragmatical political decision that Christianity was emerging as (a) viable force which could demonstrate an ability to unify the empire.

I can go along with this slightly amended version.

And your evidence for that?

Already presented.

Which means they were there before the persecution, and the evidence suggests that the purges were unsuccessful and often ignored, even under Diocletian's direct control. I suggest they were there throughout the empire.

I *did* say "at other times." By contrast, you seem to suggest that there is no way in Hades there could be British Christians in Constantine's army...in spite of the following:

Which shows the degree of permeation of Christianity in culture. H married a woman whom he knew to be Christian.

Politics again. Constantine was a virtual hostage of Diocletian (a way of keeping his father in check) and his life was at more immediate risk when Diocletian stepped down. Constantine 'escaped' from Galerius in 306, under who's command, legend has it, he was given a number of suicidal missions in the hope he would be killed. His escape is a matter of record.

Constantine was in Diocletians' household when the persecutions were declared, and later wrote that he resisted the edits, but there is no evidence to suggest he actually opposed Diocletian, more likely he (wisely) stayed quiet, on the other hand he might well have been happy to take part. No Christian challenged his silence nor inactivity during these years. His later writings I can see as attempts at self-justification ... but who knows?

No argument from me, I find Constantine's life story fascinating.

You're basically saying that Constantine established the Church. I'm saying he didn't, and he didn't determine its doctrine.

No, I didn't. I do however give what I feel is appropriate credit where credit is due. Constantine deserves *a share of* culpability, but that culpability spreads across many persons. Constantine was the benefactor that instigated the process.

In short, Constantine saw 'if you can't beat it, join it' and then took the political step of 'join it, then subvert it' ... in which he failed utterly.

Simplistic, but OK...if that's as close as you're willing to go I'll deal with it.

Yes, that the politicians aren't bothered about doctrine, just power. Any doctrine will do, if it brings power. But the politicians couldn't get control of making of doctrine, and so couldn't get control of the church, and couldn't come up with a counter to it ... the Church was too big, and too powerful, being too entrenched in its beliefs, by the time Constantine came along.

It's taken me what?, about a year or so to get this much out of you. Now if I can only get you to see the implications...then and now.

 

[juantoo3]

Gong, gong, gong

Fencing is done with Foils, not Cutlass and Sabre...

Touche!

Yet, never is a quarrel so nasty as that between brothers. But just try to come between them...and face the fury of both!

BTW, point taken and I am trying to soften some of my replies...but that in no way changes my position.

 

[Dogbrain]

The point is that no-one challenged the tradition, attested to by the earliest Christian writings, that Peter died in Rome, until the Reformation. And not on any evidence, but rather to dispute the tradition and authority of the Church and the authority of the Petrine office.

We Orthodox have never had need to dispute the martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome, or even claims that he was a Bishop with Patriarchial authority at Rome. However, we certainly have never accepted the overweening claims of his misguided successors for a "Petrine office".

 

[bob x]

Governor de Neve recorded the date, September 4, 1781, as the official date of establishment of El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles or The Town of the Queen of the Angels

The full name, actually, was El Pueblo de Nuestra Sen~ora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula. They wanted to make sure we understood that this town belonged to Our Lady of Porciuncula, not Our Lady of Guadalupe or any of those others (Latin American towns devoted to this or that particular vision of the Blessed Virgin often have fights over "Our Lady is better than Your Lady!")

The abbreviation of this name (which is still the official name, I guess, since nobody has ever bothered to change it) to "LA" is probably, percentagewise, the most severe abbreviation in the world!

 

[Thomas]

From a point inside the process this is probably pretty accurate, and I have no serious challenge to offer other than that of stepping back to observe from outside...there was a bit more going on in that respect, and it doesn't hurt to consider the context in which all of this was taking place.

Indeed not, but there is no evidence to suggest that any external influence determined the development of the doctrine.

This is likely an astute observation, one I am sure will dawn on me when I get to a point of taking in more of Plato.

Not only Plato, but the whole Greek philosophical tradition, by which the Fathers sought to understand and explain the Faith. There are many correspondences between Stoicism and Christianity, especially in St Paul. The Greek term 'logos' was a Stoic principle, although its Christian development was founded in Scripture and its theological development was Platonic.

I am finding some serious doctrinal differences not only between Arius and Athanasius, but with other branches or camps of Christianity that were then extant, notably the Ebionites.

But these were always marginal groups, not the mainstream, some were incorporated into Christianity relative easily (as the decrees of the councils note), some, like the Ebionites, were incompatible.

I have made it through 3 chapters of Gibbons so far, and this last chapter (vol.1, chap 15) is devoted to the religions at that time.

I wouldn't trust Gibbons today. Most scholars accept his highly polemic account as just that.

A point he notes, and one I *sort of* suspected, is that the view of heaven was entirely different than that we commonly view today.

Depends on who 'we' are.

It really makes a great deal of sense when considering how Christianity was grabbed onto, although Gibbons suggests there likely was no more than about 20% of the population at major urban centers like Rome that were Christian prior to Constantine.

That's a pretty considerable figure, considering.

Paganism didn't really have any focus on an afterlife.

I tend to disagree ... Greek philosophy and the gnostics did. Judaism was developing its own doctrines.

Along came Christianity and now people had something to look forward to.

Not only look forward to, but an immanent participation in.

It didn't hurt the cause any that Christianity also probably invented the concept of social services; providing for the poor, widows and orphans, and those in prison. These two points in particular seem to be impressive draws that brought in very many converts.

That was a continuation of Hebrew tradition. Neither Jews nor Christians saw infanticide as a socially acceptable practice.

An interesting consideration I have mulled in the past without fuel to feed the fire is the implication of superstition. Gibbons touches on this too, and how such impacted both Paganism *and* Christianity.

Yes, but can you dare entertain the consideration that both were mistaken?

About what? Arius departed from the then orthodox doctrine, Athanasius was entirely within it, his theology 'progressed' it.

That really is a core component of my position, that Nicaea deliberately bypassed anything to do with those that attempted to hold onto the fundamental principles laid out by Jesus himself.

I don't see how, or where. Nicea affirmed its dogma on the basis of Scripture.

I know you must adhere to the party line, one that attempts to plausibly deny this...but really, Nicaea was all about distinguishing away from anything to do with Judaism,

Not it wasn't, the Jewish root of Christianity was a given. The Christians regarded the Christ as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy and the completion of the Old Testament.

and it really is a profound point that must be stressed that Jesus is a Jew, and he taught Jewish lessons from Jewish sources by Jewish means, living a devout Jewish life and presenting a Jewish praxis.

We would say He presented the errors of a Jewish praxis too closely involved with the letter of the law, and not the spirit — He recast the Decalogue in the Sermon on the Mount, He gave a new commandment, founded on the Shema Israel.

He also presented Himself as He in which all Judaism is fulfilled. So Jesus' teaching was not a reformed Judaism, it was way more than that.

I do struggle over how Paul fits into the puzzle, I confess that much. But I also think those who dismiss Jesus in favor of Paul, or more properly take the form of Jesus at the expense of the function of Jesus, really do miss the point.

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

It is very easy to connect the dots from here and see how a mythology was constructed around the man Jesus, and it seems to me very easy to see why.

It's also very easy to connect the dots according to one's own pre-suppositions and draw one's own picture.

He had to be made into an image that was more acceptable to Pagan sensibilities.

No He didn't, and He wasn't. Pagan sensibilities found the whole idea fantastical and offensive.

So the radical Jewish itinerant rabbi suddenly becomes a non-sexual Pagan monk in the hermit tradition...

I don't think so ... I think here is evidence of fitting Jesus into a box.

He is a pacifist who consorts with rebels (thank you China Cat)

He consorts with sinners of every ilk ... not to affirm their actions but to bring them to the truth.

He dies a Roman criminal's death but not by the instigation of the Romans,

For reasons explained.

He is executed but does not die, He dies in obscurity in a backwater of the Roman Empire yet is raised as a Savior of the world in the Pagan Superman tradition by the instigation of a Pagan Emperor...

But that is totally false. Constantine instigated nothing, other than a council. According to textual evidence the doctrine of the Passion, Death and Resurrection, and the implication for the salvation of humanity, was a given in the earliest writings, those of St Paul, by 50AD. So was the doctrine of the Mystical Body, the spiritual rebirth in Baptism, the spiritual incorporation into the risen body in the Eucharist, the unity of the Church and the salvation of the world were written about by a number of exegetes by the close of the first century ...

Oh my...I think we have enough on our plates at the moment. As a Protestant, I think you might see how I interpret this differently...

But you'd be interpreting it wrong, applying a Post-reformation sensibility to events that happened a thousand years earlier. The causes of the Iconoclast dispute was a sop to Islam, that is historically evidenced. The Protestant rejection of imagery was a rejection of the Tradition, forced on the populace by the reformers, and not happily accepted — See Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars".

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Sounds strikingly familiar...Arthur and Guinevere...

Only by the thinnest of comparison. And there is no material evidence to support the Arthurian legends.

Two things: it is not encumbant to prove a negative,

Nor is a negative sufficient to undermine tradition. A tradition is the accepted truth, evidence is necessary to refute it.

and more important is that prior to the Reformation any protest was not possible without risk of life or liberty.

Nor were the Reformers any more acceptable to protest, were they?

Thomas the disciple was chastised but not condemned for his disbelief...of course, he disbelieved Jesus, not an institutional tradition.

No, he disbelieved the physical Resurrection, not Jesus – he was still a disciple. And he saw the error of his ways, and was instrumental in establishing the institutional tradition by which that truth could be communicated to the world.

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

Gentlemen:

Fencing, has rules.

1. do not strike any point apart from the padded "Heart".
2. do not strike any observer while in the "en-garde" position.
3. back away when it is an obvious impasse...

Q sends