juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
OH yeah!
And Thanks Bandit! It's really good to see you back around.![Smile :) :)]()
And Thanks Bandit! It's really good to see you back around.
post #4 said:There is no pristine, original point Christianity. You can't isolate the original artifact. It grows out of a soup of syncretic activities and sometime later is standardized and codified, labeled, organized, and institutionalized. It's mythology is polymorphic, and it's theology is equally multi-adaptive. It's philosophy and ethics are divinely Greek, but the storyline is Jewish. It became the perfect ideological meme for the conquests and crusades to follow, and it still works like that today.
post #16 said:I think that the story line is all wrong. There are lots of little hints in the Gospels of some sort of zealot movement providing the main cast of characters in the story. Layered on that is a kind of proto-Gnostic ideology that comes out clearly in the beatitudes.
post #17 said:Look at the whole "clean meats" argument that made Peter bristle. Paul was taking the whole show into a new direction. And comments about food that had been offered to idols as being acceptable because the idols were non-entities, but that if it caused a brother or sister to stumble to refrain from such foods.
post #18 said:Of course, it is a bit complicated.....How justifiable is it to believe G-d has a hand in the worldly affairs of humans? Is the same G-d that gave us all of the glories of the Christian faith also responsible for the horrors of the Holocaust, the Inquisition and the Crusades?
post #19 said:The Gospels exhibit a set of influences in the process of creating the liturgical Christ. First is the zealotry. But somehow the zealots are preaching pacifism. Now that's a weird mix. With that is a sort of Pythagorean mystery school kind of gematria that shows up in the parables. And layered upon that is a very Greek avatar concept. With Paul we get obvious tie-ins with Stoicism and Cynicism. And all of that is primitive. So it's obvious that it was never so simple as Paul and Peter: A gentile movement and a central Jerusalem church.
post #22 said:CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea
....was the first Ecumenical council[1] of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed.....Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[3] A precedent was set for subsequent general councils to create creeds and canons.....
post #23 said:Separation of Easter from Jewish Passover
...."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]
Post #27 said:No grand theory here Juan. Just some observations.
The zealotry is clear in the cast of characters. The core group of disciples are either zealots, or recently ex-zealots. We know that Peter is still carrying a sword at the very end. We know from the story that they are Galileans with ties to Nazareth, so they're from a famous hot bed of zealotry. It's unclear whether John the Baptist's movement was more militant. As a matter of fact, it isn't at all clear who John the B. really is, and the logistics of his group's merger with the Jesus group is very murky.....
....The (sort of) Pythagorean mystery school stuff is a combination of what's commonly referred to as sacred geometry and Greek gematria. Sacred geometry is an expression of the perfection of ratios discovered by Pythagoras and others. In that sense it's the geometry of the Logos. In the parables, most particularly the stories of the miraculous catch of fish and the feeding of the five thousand, underlying the text, is a metaphysical grid of this geometry. That's what the numbers relate to.....
Paul is all about ethics. Reading his thesis in Romans; it's not just about the law, it's about discipline and how to control one's self. He's trying to fuse his message with Greek ethics. This is also self-evident from the text.
So, already in the primitive materials, the Gospels and Paul, the earliest stuff, we can see this variety of influences. And there are no clear cultural boundaries because within Judaism there were mystery schools dealing with Pythagorean mathematics. Everybody with scholarly aspirations was interested in that stuff. It was like the quantum physics of the day. Similarly, there was no cultural chasm between Judaism's dialog about ethics and that of the Stoics, Cynics, and Epicureans of the day.
Post #28 said:Back to this question: How do zealotry and pacifism mix? Thinking about Judaism as a continuum, it's hard to to find any roots of turn the other cheek- ism. There is a prolonged discussion of ethics that, basically, starts at the beginning and hasn't stopped. That is: what is it to be righteous (so God won't keep whacking us)? But there's no loving one's enemies.
Post #32 said:We know that the material has been redacted....it's less important to have answers than learn the ability to construct the right questions....Before we ever get to the point where we question the literalness of the narrative we should be asking all these questions about practical origins.
Post #43 said:I don't know if you're familiar with the Society for the Creative Anachronism. It's a bunch of people who enjoy dressing up in period wear and pretending to be knights, and ladies, and such. They have these week long camporees where they stage mock battles and such. There's no way of knowing what it was to be the earliest "Christians", just like there's really know way of knowing what it was really like to live in the medieval era. We have these impossibly idealized, iconically simplistic notions of what Judaism of the day might have been. But it's a lot like how kids think that all Eskimos live in igloos. It's mighty disappointing to find out you've been punked by first grade sociology. Especially after you've built the sugar cube igloo!
Post #54 said:....I am wondering regarding baptism though, as far as I know that is not a traditionally Jewish ceremony. Now, washing is. The Jewish priest would ceremonially wash in preparation for various religious functions. And one of the proscribed duties for laypersons in transition from some states of ritual uncleanness into ritual cleanness involved washing oneself along with other things. But the act of submersing in water for the ritual washing of sins (and "dying to the world") begins AFAIK with John Baptist. Now that I think about it, symbolically it mirrors the Pagan spring fertility ritual of planting a seed (death) into the ground and sprouting (rebirth) from the ground.
....What's more, is that traditionally John is a sentinel character. Only 6 months older than Jesus, it is written that he leapt in his mother's womb when Miriam told Elizabeth about being pregnant. He grows up to live in the desert wearing course clothing and eating grasshoppers and wild honey. Yet such an eccentric manages to draw a following and invent baptising.
Post #57 said:....Some scholars[attribution needed] believe that Herod Antipas did not marry his brother's wife until his brother Philip died in 34 CE, placing these events after the date in the Gospel account....
Post #64 said:Jesus was a Jew. He was born to observant Jewish parents, in a Jewish household, raised in the Jewish Temple religion through the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*), in turn he taught his followers from the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*). For some reason he was Tortured and executed in a Roman manner.....The rest seems to me questionable at best, and this does strain credibility. What is known historically is that there were competing views of what and who Jesus really was, and what it was he taught......
......It is impossible with the evidence at hand to say exactly what the earliest Christians were taught by Jesus to believe. It would have logically been an extension of Judaism in some form. It was the Apostle Paul who was instrumental in carrying the new interpretation of Judaism to the Gentile converts, effectively opening the door to the world. It was by his efforts that one no longer needed to be a Jew first in order to be a Christian. This creates its own backlash, in that we have no valid way I am aware of to distinguish between the Jewish origins that had to comprise the fledgling Christianity, and the Pagan trappings that became intermingled with Christianity.....
Wow! I can't wait to read Maccoby's work!!! (Don't tell anybody or they might raise the price of the book!)Post #67 said:....Talmudic scholar Hyam Maccoby contends that the Paul as described in the Book of Acts and the view of Paul gleaned from his own writings are very different people. Some difficulties have been noted in the account of his life. Additionally, the speeches of Paul, as recorded in Acts, have been argued to show a different turn of mind. Paul as described in the Book of Acts is much more interested in factual history, less in theology; ideas such as justification by faith are absent as are references to the Spirit.
On the other hand, according to Maccoby, there are no references to John the Baptist in the Pauline Epistles, but Paul mentions him several times in the Book of Acts.....
F.C.Baur (1792–1860)...argued that Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, was in violent opposition to the older disciples. Baur considers the Acts of the Apostles were late and unreliable. This debate has continued ever since, with Adolf Deissmann (1866–1937) and Richard Reitzenstein (1861–1931) emphasising Paul's Greek inheritance and Albert Schweitzer stressing his dependence on Judaism.
....Maccoby theorizes that Paul synthesized Judaism, Gnosticism, and mysticism to create Christianity as a cosmic savior religion. According to Maccoby, Paul's Pharisaism was his own invention, though actually he was probably associated with the Sadducees.
Juan said:We debate all the time here about the literal versus figurative problem, and how metaphors are frequently taken as literal.
I goofed this up: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's prologue in the Acts of the Apostles?"
It should read: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's epilogue in the Acts of the Apostles?
I am retrded!
Chris
almost everything about the imagery we've built up around Paul comes from the Acts story, and the point of the Acts story is to build this legend of the lives and glorious deaths of the Apostles of the Round Table. Paul was worked into that legend. He was shoe horned, posthumously no doubt, into that pantheon of Patriarchs by Luke the Gospelier. That surely suggest politics, but I don't think, like Maccoby, that it suggests control by Paulinist editors of the final shape of the Gospels.
No problem on my account, I should make the same or similar disclaimer.I just want to point out to anyone following along that earlier in this conversation we talked about how there are all sorts of tantalizing bits and hints in the Gospels and other NT material which give little glimpses into the historical landscape of the time without ever having to worry about whether or not the narratives are literal. Arguments along the lines of literal versus figurative seem to have more to do with defending dogmatic lines in the sand than they do with an honest search for objective information.
I feel that I should reiterate that I'm just talking about ideas here. I'm no expert and I am often wrong.
I am seriously torn on the whole "Jesus" issue. It's like there are two distinct individuals; Yeshua the renegade rabbi (meant as a compliment), and Jesus the mythological analogue to G-d. Reality and truth become divergent issues. What is real is no longer truth, and what is truth is no longer real. Never the twain shall meet, and there is no clear line of demarcation.
Consequently it is really frustrating trying to interpret what is salvageable as reality, as distinguished from what is "truth."
Does it matter?
On the first part, I'm not sure — 'effectively outlawed' is not the same as 'outlawed'. As Constantine himself built pagan temples, I think that's over-stating the case. Rather, Christianity received along with others, state acceptance?By the end of the century, paganism was effectively outlawed , and Christianity was the dominant religion of the state, the army, the elite and the towns ... The bishops reciprocated the favour shown the Church by preaching loyalty to the secular power.
Overstatement again, as paganism still flourished. The relation between church and state was Scripture based on "render unto Caesar" — a head of the Church never became head of state. So there was no 'alliance' but rather the Church continued to view the state as it has always done.An alliance was forged between church and state, and henceforward Roman emperors were represented as the agents of God on Earth, charged with crushing paganism and heresy, with defending Christendom against its enemies.
OK ... but on both sides ...The story of Christianity’s rise to prominence is a remarkable one, but the traditional story of its progression from a tiny, persecuted religion to the established religion in the medieval West needs some debunking.
And the persecutions were often regional and intermittent ... but the risk was ever present. Becoming a Christian was to make a big commitment, as there was no knowing when it might happen 'here'.Although in the first few centuries AD Christians were prosecuted and punished, often with death, there were also periods when they were more secure.
Why not ... it survived the others, so more inexorable then they, at least.Secondly, the rise of Christianity to imperial-sponsored dominance in the fourth and fifth centuries, although surprising, was not without precedent, and its spread hardly as inexorable as contemporary Christians portrayed it.
But I think Constantine in an astute political move hitched his wagon to the ascending star. Mithraism was a soldier's cult, so one would assume he'd support Mithras, but he saw that Christianity was more widespread and more capable in its ethos as a state religion. He'd gain more from Christianity than the others.Well, the Roman empire was in the first few centuries AD expansionist and in its conquests accommodated new cults and philosophies from different cultures, such as the Persian cult of Mithraism, the Egyptian cult of Isis and Neoplatonism, a Greek philosophical religion.
I think Constantine was indifferent too, in essence. He was a pragmatist more than a believer. He didn't mind what it taught, as long as we all sing the same song, that's why he called Nicea, to head-off a schism, not out of some profound Christological insight.Emperors had historically been hostile or indifferent to Christianity.
Understandable ... and the Great Persecution showed that things for Christians were getting worse, not better, so this dilutes the prior assertion somewhat with regard to the Christian's outlook on security. The commentator can't have it both ways.The story of Constantine’s conversion has acquired a miraculous quality, which is unsurprising from the point of view of contemporary Christians. They had just emerged from the so-called ‘Great Persecution’ under the emperor Diocletian at the end of the third century.
Doesn't it just! My 'pragmatic' approach is acceptable theologically, I think.Constantine’s ‘conversion’ poses problems for the historian.
So hardly 'effectively outlawing' paganism ... ?Although he immediately declared that Christians and pagans should be allowed to worship freely, and restored property confiscated during persecutions and other lost privileges to the Christians, these measures did not mark a complete shift to a Christian style of rule.
So pagan religion attained state sanction and support. Not outlawed in any sense, effectively or otherwise, surely? The quote goes on to demonstrate a state ambivalence towards Christianity.Many of his actions seemed resolutely pagan. Constantine founded a new city named after himself: Constantinople. Christian writers played up the idea that this was to be a 'new Rome', a fitting Christian capital for a newly Christian empire.
But they had to find ways to explain the embarrassing fact that in this new, supposedly Christian city, Constantine had erected pagan temples and statues.
Thank you sir, so glad you could stop by!Hi Juan — thought I'd pop over.
Fair enough, I probably spent something like a week just chasing references for this thread.Not going to labour through every post ... but maybe jot some notes on those that catch my eye.
From what I gathered, that state acceptance was sporadic and conditional. I don't know how familiar you are with Constantine's biography, but he grew up in Roman England, and it was with the help of English Christians that he was able to defeat Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in 312 or 313AD. It was as a favor to these English Christians who came to his aid that Christianity received any extensive political pardon to begin with.On the first part, I'm not sure — 'effectively outlawed' is not the same as 'outlawed'. As Constantine himself built pagan temples, I think that's over-stating the case. Rather, Christianity received along with others, state acceptance?
Let's not be hasty. Are you suggesting that no Roman Emperor was ever elevated to the status of godhood? I would even dare say that the office in the Vatican now is a two and a half thousand year continuation of the office of the Roman Emperor. Denial would be to deny the entire reign of the Holy Roman Empire beginning with Charlemagne.Overstatement again, as paganism still flourished. The relation between church and state was Scripture based on "render unto Caesar" — a head of the Church never became head of state. So there was no 'alliance' but rather the Church continued to view the state as it has always done.An alliance was forged between church and state, and henceforward Roman emperors were represented as the agents of God on Earth, charged with crushing paganism and heresy, with defending Christendom against its enemies.
Well, that's what we are here to discuss. Frankly, I don't recall using the term "debunk," but I do think the subject deserves fleshing out beyond the pablum traditionally doled out.OK ... but on both sides ...The story of Christianity’s rise to prominence is a remarkable one, but the traditional story of its progression from a tiny, persecuted religion to the established religion in the medieval West needs some debunking.
Absolutely, that is the very reason I don't think some of the arguments detracting Paul among others hold any weight. So there is a bit of brinkmanship being played around this issue, frankly I think both sides play up the extremes in order to belittle the opposition. The truth I suspect lies buried in the middle underneath all of the dead bodies left in the aftermath.And the persecutions were often regional and intermittent ... but the risk was ever present. Becoming a Christian was to make a big commitment, as there was no knowing when it might happen 'here'.
I don't recall where this came from, no doubt something I quoted? I would have to view it in the greater context.Why not ... it survived the others, so more inexorable then they, at least.Secondly, the rise of Christianity to imperial-sponsored dominance in the fourth and fifth centuries, although surprising, was not without precedent, and its spread hardly as inexorable as contemporary Christians portrayed it.
I disagree. Constantine's "astute political move" was in gratitude for service rendered. Constantine was a military man, raised in a military home. There is a code of honor among military men. What is more, Constantine remained a pagan throughout his life. It is rumored he was baptised a Christian on his death bed, by a priest of the Arian persuasion. Further, the next Emperor was not a Christian either, surely you are familiar with Julian Apostate? Nicea did not demarcate an overnight shift from pagan to Christian. Mithraism did have a considerable sway among the military during the period leading up into Constantine's reign, but it was not a complete sway as noted by the English emissaries (mercenaries?) who followed Constantine.But I think Constantine in an astute political move hitched his wagon to the ascending star. Mithraism was a soldier's cult, so one would assume he'd support Mithras, but he saw that Christianity was more widespread and more capable in its ethos as a state religion. He'd gain more from Christianity than the others.
I am inclined to agree. The nature of the schism however, seems to be where there is some contention. For example, Arius was merely vocalizing *one* POV that existed, there were others who agreed with him who likely out of fear for their lives (gee, why might that be?) tended to remain silent and eventually go along with the crowd. It is important to note that Nicea was not the end of Arius. The Arian belief continued as a political adversary (a bit harsh, but I can think of no better term) for quite some time. It was as I recall almost a hundred years before the "authorized" Catholic church born in Nicea was able to eliminate the Arian opposition.I think Constantine was indifferent too, in essence. He was a pragmatist more than a believer. He didn't mind what it taught, as long as we all sing the same song, that's why he called Nicea, to head-off a schism, not out of some profound Christological insight.
I'm afraid you lost me, both ways of what? Constantine's conversion *has* taken on a somewhat miraculous quality, at least among those Christians who are even aware and care. Sadly, the history surrounding the birth and infancy of Christianity typically comes in two flavors for Christians: unimportant, or surreal. Either way is disgraceful to say the least.Understandable ... and the Great Persecution showed that things for Christians were getting worse, not better, so this dilutes the prior assertion somewhat with regard to the Christian's outlook on security. The commentator can't have it both ways.The story of Constantine’s conversion has acquired a miraculous quality, which is unsurprising from the point of view of contemporary Christians. They had just emerged from the so-called ‘Great Persecution’ under the emperor Diocletian at the end of the third century.
If this were strictly so though, don't you think he might have done so *much* sooner?Doesn't it just! My 'pragmatic' approach is acceptable theologically, I think.Constantine’s ‘conversion’ poses problems for the historian.
Not for quite some time yet. What is more, I don't recall pagans being systematically tortured for public sport by Christians. I would have to dig a bit deeper, but I suspect it was a matter of gift and graft, over time, that if you were not in the club you were not allowed to play. If you wanted to get anywhere in status symbol land, you had to join the big boys club...just like it is today and for all time in between.So hardly 'effectively outlawing' paganism ... ?Although he immediately declared that Christians and pagans should be allowed to worship freely, and restored property confiscated during persecutions and other lost privileges to the Christians, these measures did not mark a complete shift to a Christian style of rule.
I think we are bouncing back and forth in time here. Paganism was the state religion in Rome from 500 BC on, in 313 AD +/- Christianity was given a political break and official persecutions were ended. I would have to look it up but it was something like another hundred and fifty years before paganism was outlawed and Nicean Catholic Christianity became the only player in town.So pagan religion attained state sanction and support. Not outlawed in any sense, effectively or otherwise, surely? The quote goes on to demonstrate a state ambivalence towards Christianity.
Thomas
Well, was he 'briefly entranced' or 'hugely influenced' by Mani? Again, the author seems to want it both ways ...Augustine ... was briefly entranced by Manicheism during his youth ... Augustine’s Manichee past had a huge influence on the formation of his Christian theology.
Well this is quite misleading in itself. It's so general as to be banal.The once entrenched idea that early Christian heresies emerged in opposition to some ancient, permanent orthodoxy, is utterly misleading. There were in fact many different competing 'Christianities' in the first few centuries AD.