Rome in transition

[juantoo3]

Moving right along, here is a bit about Justinian:

Justinian achieved …the complete revision of all Roman law…The total of Justinian's legislature is known today as the Corpus juris civilis. The first draft of the Codex Justinianus, a codification of imperial constitutions from the 2nd century onward, was issued on April 7, 529.
The Corpus forms the basis of Latin jurisprudence (including ecclesiastical Canon Law) and, for historians, provides a valuable insight into the concerns and activities of the later Roman Empire. …it gathers together the many sources in which the leges (laws) and the other rules were expressed or published:
Tribonian's code ensured the survival of Roman law. The only western province where the Justinianic code was introduced was Italy (after the conquest, by the so-called Pragmatic Sanction of 554),[19] from where it was to pass to Western Europe in the 12th century and become the basis of much European law code. It eventually passed to Eastern Europe where it appeared in Slavic editions, and it also passed on to Russia.[20] It remains influential to this day.

Emphasis mine, -jt3
Justinian I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canon Law, the ecclesiastical law of the Catholic Church, is a fully developed legal system, with all the necessary elements: courts, lawyers, judges, a fully articulated legal code and principles of legal interpretation.

Canon law (Catholic Church) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A pragmatic sanction is a sovereign's solemn decree on a matter of primary importance and has the force of fundamental law. In the late history of the Holy Roman Empire it referred more specifically to an edict issued by the Emperor.

Pragmatic sanction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thomas]

Then how are we to interpret "I have not come to do away with the law, I have come to fulfill it."?

Well, that's theology ... a completely diufferent subject. This is politics.
(Answer: Look at the Beatitudes — the Law is a doddle compared to the Law that Jesus proposed ... )

I've heard the name Bultman, but know next to nothing of his work. My comment was based essentially on stuff bobx has presented here (like the back and forth between he and bananabrain), and general info about redaction.

Bultmann is one of the giants of who shaped 'liberal Christianity' and the likes ... My argument is that if you're going to argue, you're gonna have to have done the work.

The idea of Christianity as something spun into a mythology is primarily Bultmann's — and the contra-argument is strong and convincing — so whilst I've met many a liberal Christian here, they're usually ignorant of the faults in the doctrine they follow ...

It's like the 'Historical Jesus' thing, and the Jesus Seminar ... lots of people follow the idea because it suits them, they don't question it, they don't interrogate its findings, the motives of the promoters, the counter-arguments, the inconsistencies and irregularities ... and then accuse me of 'blind faith'! How nonsense is that?

At least I am being honest enough to say I don't know exactly where the lines should be drawn ...

And I would argue that this line of pursuit isn't going to make things any easier.

I'm still lost...I think because I really don't have a context.

In the end it's not about context ... it's about faith. No amount of context is going to unveil a mystery.

The problem is that I am not really concerned about the context either.

You have to be ... nothing can be understood out of context.

I thought Carthage (Libya) was the breadbasket? Regardless ...

No, you can't do that ... you can't disregard a fundamental issue because it doesn't suit your argument.

what does one call the powerplay between the competing groups for supremacy and authority over the masses?

Is that how you see it?

You must accept that that is how you choose to see it. Especially when you don't have the full context.

What if one or both parties are seeking not power, but truth? What if someone considers the truth more important than power?

Not to mention the pure fight for survival when *your* group is on the outs? We don't have duelling preachers duking it out in the streets, throwing prayers and curses at each other. We have officially sanctioned religious bodies either using state armies and force, or justifying the raising of their own military force to compel compliance.

Where have you jumped to now? The Church had no army nor militia to compel compliance ... I would have thought it pretty obvious that the only force at this time was the whim of the emperor ...

... Sorry, Juantoo, but really it seems to me you're grabbing anything from anywhere to reinforce your argument, even if its irrelevant or ahistorical.

This wasn't as simple as Arius and Athanasius competing in a shouting match debate...it resulted in force of arms, arms supplied by the state. Politics. At root was the imperitive to control the masses. A couple hundred years later that was the reality.

OK. You prove it, for a change. You show me where the armies of the two opposing factions met in combat.

... Sorry, Juantoo, but really it seems to me you're grabbing anything from anywhere to reinforce your argument, even if its irrelevant or ahistorical. You don't know the context, you're not interested in it, you don't know the sources, and you don't know the authors of current philosophy ... and you seem totally uninterested in the theology ... so what do you know, and what is the point you're trying to make?

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Well, that's theology ... a completely diufferent subject. This is politics.
(Answer: Look at the Beatitudes — the Law is a doddle compared to the Law that Jesus proposed ... )


Bultmann is one of the giants of who shaped 'liberal Christianity' and the likes ... My argument is that if you're going to argue, you're gonna have to have done the work.

The idea of Christianity as something spun into a mythology is primarily Bultmann's — and the contra-argument is strong and convincing — so whilst I've met many a liberal Christian here, they're usually ignorant of the faults in the doctrine they follow ...

It's like the 'Historical Jesus' thing, and the Jesus Seminar ... lots of people follow the idea because it suits them, they don't question it, they don't interrogate its findings, the motives of the promoters, the counter-arguments, the inconsistencies and irregularities ... and then accuse me of 'blind faith'! How nonsense is that?


And I would argue that this line of pursuit isn't going to make things any easier.


In the end it's not about context ... it's about faith. No amount of context is going to unveil a mystery.


You have to be ... nothing can be understood out of context.


No, you can't do that ... you can't disregard a fundamental issue because it doesn't suit your argument.


Is that how you see it?

You must accept that that is how you choose to see it. Especially when you don't have the full context.

What if one or both parties are seeking not power, but truth? What if someone considers the truth more important than power?


Where have you jumped to now? The Church had no army nor militia to compel compliance ... I would have thought it pretty obvious that the only force at this time was the whim of the emperor ...

... Sorry, Juantoo, but really it seems to me you're grabbing anything from anywhere to reinforce your argument, even if its irrelevant or ahistorical.


OK. You prove it, for a change. You show me where the armies of the two opposing factions met in combat.

... Sorry, Juantoo, but really it seems to me you're grabbing anything from anywhere to reinforce your argument, even if its irrelevant or ahistorical. You don't know the context, you're not interested in it, you don't know the sources, and you don't know the authors of current philosophy ... and you seem totally uninterested in the theology ... so what do you know, and what is the point you're trying to make?

Thomas

OK Thomas, now you're pulling things out of context and trying to confuse them. I hold you in higher esteem than to do that slight of hand. The comments above wherein I admit to not knowing or caring about the context is *specifically* about Gnosticism. It is a bit disingenuous to forward that onto Christianity as a whole.

And as for thinking the matter through...I would think I would be entitled to some degree of credit for arriving at various points on my own rather than being led by the hand. So I don't know Bultmann, so what? If I came to similar conclusions...which from the sound of it is not fully correct...then I did so honestly. Think REACTIONARY, extreme right...not liberal or radical. In which case the historical Jesus is everything.

Further, I followed up my comments about use of military with reference to Justinian...which if read would show exactly what I pointed to.

Love ya bro, I hope this is just an off day....

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

Sorry if I came across as a bit iffy ... I was trying to be short and to-the-point, not rude.

... The comments above wherein I admit to not knowing or caring about the context is *specifically* about Gnosticism. It is a bit disingenuous to forward that onto Christianity as a whole.

OK ... but I'm not entirely sure ... we're talking about the development of doctrine, and the establishment of the orthodox church as an entity ... and the disputes with the gnostics was one of the major contributing factors thast shaped the mentality of the Church ... more than Constantine I would argue ... What was learnt very early (its there in Scripture), is that if the authentic teaching of Christ is going to survive, then its needs to defend itself, and robustly.

To trace the development of doctrine, from the Apostles to the Church today, does not require much of a knowledge of the political background against which Christianity took shape ... the Church as an institution had its structure and its doctrine and its praxis before Constantine ... all that happened then is that the Christian was free of the threat of persecution — and although Constantine declared Christianity the religion of the state, this did not prevent him or subsequent emperors promoting pagan causes.

My argument is that if you don't know the theological background, then the most important element of the jigsaw is missing ... and tracing the politics will not provide the theology, but simply assume that every motivation is politically oriented.

But maybe that's me ... I think which emperor was what is incidental to Christology and the development of doctrine ... Athanasius is a case in point, in one moment, out the next, yet his ideas remain constant ... I think if you take the broad view, the religious made a very poor job of manipulating the emperors, and the emperors made a very poor job of manipulating the religious ... emperors come and go, but the doctrine goes on ...

+++

... I would think I would be entitled to some degree of credit for arriving at various points on my own rather than being led by the hand.

And I do not detract from that ... all I'm saying is that there's always more to take into account ... stuff to factor in ... but then again you're doing history — and you can never know enough, I suppose. If I had any complaint it's that it's one-sided — too political, not enough theological ... but your effotrs are laudable, and I'm no expert anyway ... I suppose I would say from what I know, I know there's a lot more to to known ...

So I don't know Bultmann, so what? If I came to similar conclusions...which from the sound of it is not fully correct...then I did so honestly.

The point is you can come to similarly unreliable conclusions following a similarly unreliable methodology.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus, for all the Jesus Seminar says, was shaped by the forerunners ... the JS didn't develop it out of the blue, but out of a philosophical inheritance. The founders of the movement were a couple named Schmauss and Reimarus, and both were opposed to the idea of Revelation before they even commenced their study. One was a pantheist and the other a deist, so Christianity was wrong, in their eyes, right from the off. In the end their views were so extreme and their responses so bigoted that Albert Schweitzer, one of their number, distanced himself from them and their findings.

In which case the historical Jesus is everything.

No ... the idea of reconstituting an historical Jesus is a myth ... the Church has had one view, consistently, and that is that Jesus Christ was one person in two natures, human and divine, who lived, died, and rose from the dead ... the number of historical reconstructions are many and various, and all reply in the end on the imagination of their author ... the orthodox Christian doctrine is the only account we can say that is founded on any idea of reality, being an oral tradition attested to from the very beginning ... one might not like it, but it remains the best evidence we have, and the only 'evidence' if we discount pure speculation of the likes of the Jesus Seminar.

Further, I followed up my comments about use of military with reference to Justinian...which if read would show exactly what I pointed to.

But I'm saying it's more involved than that ...

The most brilliant feature of the reign of Justinian I. was his legislation, or rather his codification of the already existing Roman law, executed by several committees, of which Trebonius was the inspiring soul, and resulting in the so-called Corpus Juris Justiani. By this work he conferred a great and lasting benefit, not only on the Roman [1221] Empire, but on civilization at large. Of a questionable value, however, were his conquests of Africa, Southern Spain, and Italy, by his two famous generals, Belisarius and Narses. He was unable to preserve these conquests; and, what was still worse, he was unable to give the conquered countries a better government than that they had enjoyed under their barbarian rulers. Altogether objectionable, finally, was his ecclesiastical policy, - that part of his activity on which he bestowed the greatest amount of industry and care.

Justinian I. was a Christian, orthodox, full of zeal for the purity of the faith, and waging a perpetual war against Paganism and heresy. The lower classes of the population were still Pagan in many places, as, for instance, in Peloponnesus and the interior of Asia Minor; and in the upper strata of society there reigned a widespread religious indifference. The latter, Justinian I. compelled to conform, at least externally, to Christianity; and with respect to the former he boasted of conversions by the thousands. The philosophical schools of Athens he closed in 529, and banished the teachers. They went to Persia; but, by the intercession of Chosroes, they were afterwards allowed to return. Less leniently he treated the Christian heretics, - the Montanists, Nestorians, Eutychians, and others; and the marvellous success of the Mohammedan invasion of Egypt and Syria half a century later is generally ascribed to the total disaffection of the population, which resulted from the ecclesiastical policy of Justinian.

The inhabitants of Egypt, Syria, and parts of Asia Minor, were Monophysites, and rejected the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon (451) as tainted with Nestorianism. Between orthodoxy and Monophysitism a compromise was brought about by Zeno’s Henotikon (482); but that document, which the bishops of the Eastern Church had been compelled to subscribe to, was absolutely rejected by the Western Church, and formally anathematized by Felix II. In order to heal the schism thus established between the Eastern and the Western Church, Justinian repealed the Henotikon immediately after his accession. But then something had to be done with the Monophysites in order to prevent a schism within the Eastern Church. The empress Theodora, who was a secret Monophysite, persuaded her husband that the true reason why the Monophysites refused to accept the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, was that the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Ibas, had not been condemned; and that non-condemnation the Monophysites considered as implying a positive confirmation. The emperor then issued a decree condemning the above writings, and the condemnation was repeated by the fifth oecumenical Council of Constantinople (553). The Monophysites were satisfied; but what was won in the East was lost in the West by the breaking-out of the Three Chapter controversy, so called because, in Justinian’s decree of condemnation, there were three parts, or "chapters," relating to Theodore’s writings and person, to Theodoret’s treatise, and to Ibas’ letter respectively…

At last the old emperor himself lapsed into heresy. He adopted the Aphthartodocetic views of the incorruptibility of the human body of Christ, and issued a decree to force them upon the Church. But Aphthartodocetism is simply Monophysitism, and thus his principal dogmatical labors met with a somewhat similar fate to that which has overtaken his chief architectural monument. He built the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople; and this church, once the most magnificent cathedral of Christendom, is now a Turkish mosque.

Here's a good source of stuff ...

Keep at it ... although I must admit of there was more theology, I'd be more interested ... and more excited ...

Pax tecum,

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Sorry if I came across as a bit iffy ... I was trying to be short and to-the-point, not rude.

Very well. I suppose I might have misinterpreted your tenor.

OK ... but I'm not entirely sure ... we're talking about the development of doctrine, and the establishment of the orthodox church as an entity ... and the disputes with the gnostics was one of the major contributing factors thast shaped the mentality of the Church ... more than Constantine I would argue ...

Perhaps. Yet I am of the opinion that there is sufficient in the other dogmatic conflicts to bring the gist to the fore. I don't know why I have such a mental block when it comes to Gnosticism, but my mind refuses to go there. If you would like, you are more than welcome to contribute whatever pertinent information that highlights what you are saying. It would be a welcome contribution here.

What was learnt very early (its there in Scripture), is that if the authentic teaching of Christ is going to survive, then its needs to defend itself, and robustly.

No doubt; in theory and practice, doctrine and evidence, that at least one version of the story prevailed over the competition. But some competitors still exist, can we say the same for them? Are the Copts presenting the authentic teaching of Christ? No doubt they believe they are. Are the Eastern Orthodox presenting the authentic teaching of Christ? No doubt they believe they are. Is the Roman Catholic Church presenting the authentic teaching of Christ? No doubt you wish me to believe they are the sole and only, yet what then of the Copts and the Greeks?

To trace the development of doctrine, from the Apostles to the Church today, does not require much of a knowledge of the political background against which Christianity took shape ... the Church as an institution had its structure and its doctrine and its praxis before Constantine ... all that happened then is that the Christian was free of the threat of persecution — and although Constantine declared Christianity the religion of the state, this did not prevent him or subsequent emperors promoting pagan causes.

While I see you presenting variations on this same theme, the very fact that there were serious contenders such as Arius and the Gnostics pretty well calls into question the statement "the Church as an institution had its structure and its doctrine and its praxis before Constantine." I mean, you argue it as a forgone conclusion, but the evidence seems to me to the contrary. What we do have, is the *prevailing* structure-praxis-doctrine gelling into what became orthodoxy. By "prevailing" I mean the one version that won out over the others.

My argument is that if you don't know the theological background, then the most important element of the jigsaw is missing ... and tracing the politics will not provide the theology, but simply assume that every motivation is politically oriented.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

all I'm saying is that there's always more to take into account ... stuff to factor in ... but then again you're doing history — and you can never know enough, I suppose. If I had any complaint it's that it's one-sided — too political, not enough theological

I agree there's always more to be known. The more I uncover, the more tracks I find to chase down. While I think there is more than meets the eye, there is plenty as well that doesn't add up according to the standard issue propaganda.

The point is you can come to similarly unreliable conclusions following a similarly unreliable methodology.

With all due respect, isn't that an occupational hazard for all who dare to tread in the history of this period?

The Quest for the Historical Jesus, for all the Jesus Seminar says, was shaped by the forerunners ...

Ah, but I didn't write Historical Jesus, I wrote historical Jesus. It is one thing to associate semantically with an organization, and another to relate to the words for their actual meaning. I do try to avoid the corporate entity usage of words as best I can, and I can assure I have no affiliation with either of these groups.

the JS didn't develop it out of the blue, but out of a philosophical inheritance. The founders of the movement were a couple named Schmauss and Reimarus, and both were opposed to the idea of Revelation before they even commenced their study. One was a pantheist and the other a deist, so Christianity was wrong, in their eyes, right from the off. In the end their views were so extreme and their responses so bigoted that Albert Schweitzer, one of their number, distanced himself from them and their findings.

Isn't this a classic ad hominem? Even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then.

I might prefer to distance myself from liberal and radical trains of thought, not primarily for politics but for academics. What is more, I have no set agenda, I am chasing the evidence where it leads. I suppose that is why I haven't delved deeply into the theology of the matter as of yet, because that is definitely subjective "evidence" from an era where objective evidence is hard enough to find to begin with. St. Thomas, the doubter, wasn't damned for doubting. Some people are comfortable with a blind faith, not saying you are one. But I am not one.

Every bone in my body aches to believe...the truth.

No ... the idea of reconstituting an historical Jesus is a myth ...

Whoa, acid flashback....

Are you trying to tell me the mythical Jesus is real?

I mean, come on. Either the guy was real; lived, breathed, walked, talked, and died...or he didn't. Some people are content with the Turnerized colored version. Me?, I want the original. If that happens to be black and white with a few frames missing, I'm OK with that.

the Church has had one view, consistently, and that is that Jesus Christ was one person in two natures, human and divine, who lived, died, and rose from the dead ...

I really don't know how you can keep saying this, and I say this in all respect. I guess it needs to be asked directly, because you are contradicting yourself. What is this "Church" you keep alluding to? If you are talking about any time between Jesus and Constantine, we have repeatedly discussed the various conflicts. If you are talking post Constantine, you still need to account for the Eastern Orthodox and the Copts, if no other, although I suspect there were others such as the Albigensians. If by "Church" you mean the RCC, post Chalcedon 451 or whenever, then it is a moot point as relates to this subject and definitively political.

the number of historical reconstructions are many and various, and all reply in the end on the imagination of their author

Perhaps, but if that is enough grounds for disqualification, can't the same be said of the various theological interpretations? I mean no disrespect, but the logic isn't there...

the orthodox Christian doctrine is the only account we can say that is founded on any idea of reality, being an oral tradition attested to from the very beginning

Typically to an historian, oral tradition and reality are not generally associated.

Thank you for the link.

I suspect where we are at is the conflicting magisteria...science and faith.

You are asking me to accept faith as fact...and I am trying to establish fact to have faith in.

 

[Thomas]

I don't know why I have such a mental block when it comes to Gnosticism, but my mind refuses to go there.

A wise mind.

But some competitors still exist, can we say the same for them? Are the Copts presenting the authentic teaching of Christ? No doubt they believe they are. Are the Eastern Orthodox presenting the authentic teaching of Christ? No doubt they believe they are. Is the Roman Catholic Church presenting the authentic teaching of Christ? No doubt you wish me to believe they are the sole and only, yet what then of the Copts and the Greeks?

You can't lump the Copts and the Greeks in with, say, the Ebionites and the Montanists ... it's two different orders of disagreement entirely.

The section on Prayer in the Catholic Catechism was written by a Greek Orthodox priest at our request. We are now in close communion with the Copts, in agreeing that the basis for our disagreement is something of a nuance of theology.

The Catholic regards the Orthodox as 'the other lung', a phrase much used in discussion, and Catholic doctrinal documents urge the Catholic to look into 'the treasures of the East'

Arius refuted Athanasius — we obviously regard him as 'ours', and by we I mean the Roman, Eastern, and Oriental Churches — those three at least, and others, like the Anglican, agree a common heritage. We all three refuted Arius then, and we all three refute Pelagianism now, which is basically what 'Liberal Christianity' is.

While I see you presenting variations on this same theme, the very fact that there were serious contenders such as Arius and the Gnostics pretty well calls into question the statement "the Church as an institution had its structure and its doctrine and its praxis before Constantine."

Well hang on. Before Constantine the Church had penetrated every corner of the Empire, as I say, estimates of 3million members. Between 2-300 bishops came to Nicea, and they were Easterners, only a handful came from the West ... so the Church was pretty big before Constantine came along.

The gnostics? Depends who. Valentinus went to Rome to be crowned Pope, but wasn't, so went off in a fit of pique and set up a rival outfit ... not very big, comnparatively. Basilides the same ... these were individual guys with groups of followers, nothing like an ecclesial structure or numbers.

The Ebionites were roughly round Jerusalem ... the Montantists somewhere else. Sects the Church came into contact with, but nowhere near the numbers of Christians ...

Arius was a dispute within the Church, over doctrine, something completely different tocompetition with outsiders.

I mean, you argue it as a forgone conclusion, but the evidence seems to me to the contrary. What we do have, is the *prevailing* structure-praxis-doctrine gelling into what became orthodoxy.

OK, but that process was well in place by Constantine's time. The threat wasn't from without by then, it was from within.

But you can't equate gnostics, Montanists, Ebionites, Arians, Cope and Greeks as evidence of diversity ... you have to be far more precise than that to draw a proper picture.

With all due respect, isn't that an occupational hazard for all who dare to tread in the history of this period?

This and any other ... you have to have researched it.

Isn't this a classic ad hominem? Even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then.

No, I don't think that applies. They had an agenda.

Every bone in my body aches to believe...the truth.

You won't find it in facts ... only in faith ...

Are you trying to tell me the mythical Jesus is real?

No, I'm saying the 'quest for the historical Jesus' is a myth ... Jesus is there in Scripture, you won't find Him anywhere else. It's take it, or leave it.

Me?, I want the original. If that happens to be black and white with a few frames missing, I'm OK with that.

That's Scripture then. What's your problem?

What is this "Church" you keep alluding to? If you are talking about any time between Jesus and Constantine, we have repeatedly discussed the various conflicts.

Yes ... I'm talking about the 3,000,000 following their bishops ... not odd groups here and there who follow their own interpretations.

If you are talking post Constantine, you still need to account for the Eastern Orthodox and the Copts...

I've covered that.

Perhaps, but if that is enough grounds for disqualification, can't the same be said of the various theological interpretations? I mean no disrespect, but the logic isn't there...

I'm sorry, Juantoo, but I don't think you know enough about Orthodox theology to make that statement.

You are asking me to accept faith as fact...and I am trying to establish fact to have faith in.

Ahh, there's the rub ... if it was a matter of fact, it wouldn't be faith, would it?

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Thank you Thomas for your considered reply.

I'll have to return later, pressed for time. But I think we have pretty well covered what can be covered.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

The Apostolic Tradition gets really foggy and self-referential behind Irenaeus. Irenaeus is a booster of John's Gospel. Irenaeus says his Guru Polycarp was John's disciple. Irenaeus maintains that the author of the Gospel of John is the "beloved disciple" in fact. Irenaeus is on the witch hunt against heresy circ 180 or so. It's not so simple as Peter and Paul. When a lot of things are strung out around one, or very few sources it limits what can be said definitively about something. It's like what I was trying to point out about Paul. Take away Acts of the Apostles and see what's left of the "historical" figure of Paul. Take away Irenaeus and see what's left of the primitive Apostolic progression. It's not that these sources are BS, but without depth of corroboration we're either extremely limited, or we just decide to go ahead and buy the boxed set.

Chris

 

[Thomas]

Take away Irenaeus and see what's left of the primitive Apostolic progression.

50-95 Book of Hebrews (Author unknown)
50-120 Didache
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-140 1 Clement
93 Flavius Josephus
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
105-115 Ignatius of Antioch
110-140 Polycarp to the Philippians
110-140 Papias
111-112 Pliny the Younger
115 Suetonius
115 Tacitus
120-130 Quadratus of Athens
120-130 Apology of Aristides
130-150 Aristo of Pella
130-160 2 Clement
130-170 Gospel of Judas
130-200 Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum
140-160 Ptolemy
140-160 Isidore
140-170 Fronto
150-160 Martyrdom of Polycarp
150-160 Justin Martyr
150-400 Anti-Marcionite Prologues
160-170 Tatian's Address to the Greeks
160-180 Claudius Apollinaris
160-250 Octavius of Minucius Felix
161-180 Acts of Carpus
165-175 Melito of Sardis
165-175 Hegesippus
165-175 Dionysius of Corinth
165-175 Lucian of Samosata
170-175 Diatessaron
170-200 Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
170-200 Muratorian Canon
175-180 Athenagoras of Athens
175-185 Irenaeus of Lyons

There's really plenty to work on ... and probably more than on this list.

It's not that these sources are BS, but without depth of corroboration we're either extremely limited, or we just decide to go ahead and buy the boxed set.

I still think it's finding reasons not to believe, rather than seeking to believe.

If one's looking to believe, then the object is the content of the doctrine, not the peripheral issues.

Personally I delight in all this stuff ... but it hasn't deepened or advanced my faith one jot ... now, what was said, that's something else, and Irenaeus emerges as the first heavyweight theologian (although his debt to Justin Martyr is considerable) who tried to put things in order and context.

But yes ... either take it ... or leave it ...

Thomas

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

We have hints of structure from before about 150 CE, but from a minimalist point of view there isn't enough to make any definitive statements about which characters or events from that period (0-150) are strictly mythical or historical. I have to scoot off to work right now or I would take the time to show just how thin the historicity of some of the sources in that list is, at least the stuff that purports to be from the early period I mentioned. But I would assume that you know this already Thomas. And again, the point isn't that it's BS, just that it isn't enough to establish compelling proof, or disproof really.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Flavius Josephus?...and primitive apostolic progression?

I concede your better knowledge than mine of the writings of the "elders," and I concede I am no scholar of Josephus, but;

For this thread I did read extensively in Josephus. I find John the Baptist, I find Salome (extensively, she was the mother of kings), I find the disputed passage pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth...

But I saw nothing relating to any of the apostles. Would you be so kind as to cite chapter and verse please?

 

[juantoo3]

Bump, relevent to another thread.

 

[Nick_A]

Simone was right when she sited Rome's adoption of Christianity as its religion as one of the chief reasons for the perversion of Christianity into its opposite and a form of Christendom. I read these things and wonder what most of it has to do with Christianity.

 

[Thomas]

We have hints of structure from before about 150 CE, but from a minimalist point of view there isn't enough to make any definitive statements about which characters or events from that period (0-150) are strictly mythical or historical.

Secular historians are beginning to realise that there is a wealth of ancilliary detail in Luke's Acts of the Apostles that offers 'on the ground' insights to the commentaries of more favourable secular historians.

In short, wherever Luke can be compared to contemporary sources, he is reliable.

So there is no real reason to assume, other than doubt itself, that his testimony is unreliable. Remember that Luke is not writing history, nor biography. His purpose is kerygmata ... and his audience would have understood that.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Simone was right when she sited Rome's adoption of Christianity as its religion as one of the chief reasons for the perversion of Christianity into its opposite and a form of Christendom.

You might think so ... I think she's wrong.

If Weil is right, then she can have no idea of what was originally taught, as it's been lost. Therefore she has no basis on which to make a statement other than guesswork and sentimentality.

I rather view it as significant, if not actually a miracle, that Christianity survived the process ...

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

You might think so ... I think she's wrong.

If Weil is right, then she can have no idea of what was originally taught, as it's been lost. Therefore she has no basis on which to make a statement other than guesswork and sentimentality.

I rather view it as significant, if not actually a miracle, that Christianity survived the process ...

Thomas

Christianty has survived the process and continues to survive since it is underground so to speak. Exoteric Christendom supported by Roman influence has not IMO. The Catholic church though based on sound truths has as a whole simply lost its way. This is why Simone in good conscience could not become a part of it and remains the "Patron Saint of Outsiders."

 

[juantoo3]

Simone was right when she sited Rome's adoption of Christianity as its religion as one of the chief reasons for the perversion of Christianity into its opposite and a form of Christendom. I read these things and wonder what most of it has to do with Christianity.

You are not the first to Quote Ms. Weil here, but frankly you are the only I have seen quote her exclusively without appeal to any other, let alone introduce unique thoughts. I am left to wonder if your understanding is limited to that of Ms. Weil? I can appreciate if she made a profound influence, but to the exclusion of all others? Just wondering...

The Roman adoption of Christianity was most likely because it was politically expedient, Christianity did enjoy ebbs and flows of popularity in between the lion-eating purges and persecutions. And Christians weren't the only groups selectively persecuted over the course of the 300 odd years leading into the formal recognition of Christianity. The deciding factor was the military aid by British Christians in bringing Constantine to power. Political expediency...Christianity was officially recognized on behalf of those who brought Constantine into the throne of Rome. If you will, it was a political "thank you for services rendered."

Any alterations, adulterations or modifications came after the fact. Rome did not adopt Christianity with the goal of subverting it. What modifications came, came about because of internal infighting and wrestling for attention and legitimacy among the competing factions. These factions existed because Christianity was outlawed and off-again on-again persecuted, which forced Christianity to secretiveness (is that a word?). Competing paradigms sought the Emperor's favor, and to stop the infighting and settle on a single paradigm Constantine ordered the Bishops to convene and settle the matter, once and for all. They did, but they didn't, and the once and for all bit was the first part to get dismissed. Constantine himself was baptised in the chief rival paradigm to that that was officially sanctioned at Nicea, which leads me to believe that even at the end Constantine was playing the ends towards the middle. Constantine was no active Christian, receiving baptism on his deathbed, a genuine deathbed conversion.

Julian Apostate was the next Roman Emperor, no Christian at all, and it is probably only due to his reign being so short that Christianity still enjoyed a high degree of favor. Successive Emperors wrestled with more pressing matters of state, and while some conducted their affairs as Christians, there was no real political threat to removing the favored status Chrisitianity now enjoyed, primarily because the empire was crumbling around them. Civil war and incursions by various barbarian tribes on the frontiers, the loss of Britain, and the rise in power of the Eastern half of the empire, along with economic catastrophies, all took their toll.

That Roman paganism made an indelible mark on Catholic Christianity I have no doubt. That political hay was made by pitting factions of Christianity against one another I have no doubt. How deliberate all of this was I hesitate to say, I sincerely do not think any one person or group of people sat down in collusion and conspired to pollute and subvert Christianity...I think it was a perfect storm of human accidents and human foibles. That does not lessen the fact that Christianity quickly became something far different than it started out to be, but it does take the edge off of the idea that it was all deliberate and intentional with foresight.

 

[juantoo3]

Secular historians are beginning to realise that there is a wealth of ancilliary detail in Luke's Acts of the Apostles that offers 'on the ground' insights to the commentaries of more favourable secular historians.

In short, wherever Luke can be compared to contemporary sources, he is reliable.

I think this would make a welcome addition to this thread, particularly in light of comments to the contrary from our Pauline Conspiracy detractors. Any references?

 

[juantoo3]

I rather view it as significant, if not actually a miracle, that Christianity survived the process ...

Strange as it may seem as often as we disagree, I agree with you here. I do believe it *is* a miracle Christianity has survived. Of course, I am inclined to believe it is a miracle in spite of what we puny humans have done in developing the process to put Christianity through...

 

[Nick_A]

You are not the first to Quote Ms. Weil here, but frankly you are the only I have seen quote her exclusively without appeal to any other, let alone introduce unique thoughts. I am left to wonder if your understanding is limited to that of Ms. Weil? I can appreciate if she made a profound influence, but to the exclusion of all others? Just wondering...

The Roman adoption of Christianity was most likely because it was politically expedient, Christianity did enjoy ebbs and flows of popularity in between the lion-eating purges and persecutions. And Christians weren't the only groups selectively persecuted over the course of the 300 odd years leading into the formal recognition of Christianity. The deciding factor was the military aid by British Christians in bringing Constantine to power. Political expediency...Christianity was officially recognized on behalf of those who brought Constantine into the throne of Rome. If you will, it was a political "thank you for services rendered."

Any alterations, adulterations or modifications came after the fact. Rome did not adopt Christianity with the goal of subverting it. What modifications came, came about because of internal infighting and wrestling for attention and legitimacy among the competing factions. These factions existed because Christianity was outlawed and off-again on-again persecuted, which forced Christianity to secretiveness (is that a word?). Competing paradigms sought the Emperor's favor, and to stop the infighting and settle on a single paradigm Constantine ordered the Bishops to convene and settle the matter, once and for all. They did, but they didn't, and the once and for all bit was the first part to get dismissed. Constantine himself was baptised in the chief rival paradigm to that that was officially sanctioned at Nicea, which leads me to believe that even at the end Constantine was playing the ends towards the middle. Constantine was no active Christian, receiving baptism on his deathbed, a genuine deathbed conversion.

Julian Apostate was the next Roman Emperor, no Christian at all, and it is probably only due to his reign being so short that Christianity still enjoyed a high degree of favor. Successive Emperors wrestled with more pressing matters of state, and while some conducted their affairs as Christians, there was no real political threat to removing the favored status Chrisitianity now enjoyed, primarily because the empire was crumbling around them. Civil war and incursions by various barbarian tribes on the frontiers, the loss of Britain, and the rise in power of the Eastern half of the empire, along with economic catastrophies, all took their toll.

That Roman paganism made an indelible mark on Catholic Christianity I have no doubt. That political hay was made by pitting factions of Christianity against one another I have no doubt. How deliberate all of this was I hesitate to say, I sincerely do not think any one person or group of people sat down in collusion and conspired to pollute and subvert Christianity...I think it was a perfect storm of human accidents and human foibles. That does not lessen the fact that Christianity quickly became something far different than it started out to be, but it does take the edge off of the idea that it was all deliberate and intentional with foresight.

I've also quoted Meister Eckhart, Plato, and Prof Needleman for example.I quote Simone because she is Christian and not a member of a group. If I quoted some others people would argue over groups rather then to recognize Christianity. We differ since you study Christendom. There is nothing wrong with that but my interest is Christianity