Spiritualizing Jesus And The Nt Teachings

[R. S. Martin]

ExFundies say Universalists/liberal Christians are just spiritualizing Jesus and the NT teachings. What the fundamentalists do not realize is that the Universalists are probably closer to NT interpretations than the fundies are. Scholars who have looked closely at how Jewish and Early Christian scholars of the first century AD understood Gen.1 note that they take it as myth. Why should exfundies condemn Universalists for not being real Chrisians if they take it as myth? I don't know how these early scholars viewed the Flood, Moses, and the early Israelite kingdoms, but I do know that they read the Bible VERY SERIOUSLY DIFFERENTLY from what fundamentalists do today. They read it much closer to what liberal Christians do today.

 

Any thoughts, questions, comments, insights, ideas, etc.?

[Evolution_beyond]

I wholeheartedly agree with you

[Piprus]

ExFundies say Universalists/liberal Christians are just spiritualizing Jesus and the NT teachings. What the fundamentalists do not realize is that the Universalists are probably closer to NT interpretations than the fundies are. Scholars who have looked closely at how Jewish and Early Christian scholars of the first century AD understood Gen.1 note that they take it as myth. Why should exfundies condemn Universalists for not being real Chrisians if they take it as myth? I don't know how these early scholars viewed the Flood, Moses, and the early Israelite kingdoms, but I do know that they read the Bible VERY SERIOUSLY DIFFERENTLY from what fundamentalists do today. They read it much closer to what liberal Christians do today.

 

Any thoughts, questions, comments, insights, ideas, etc.?

I'm trying to draw on memory here, but is this not the way the gnostics thought of christianity? I do know that the Roman church tried to stamp out the gnostics because they refused to accept that Christ (the "kristos") was human.

[Deva]

I just have to go on record as saying I find the term Exfundie to be offensive, especially in the context of the way you are using the term on this thread, Ruby. I plead guilty to being raised in the fundamentalist church, but I am an "ex-Christian" now. ExFundie used in your first accusatory post seems to imply that we are still just as ignorant as we were when we were a fundie, but now we are just "ex".

 

I am well aware of the fact that the early church, before it was all organized into one monolithic orthodoxy centered in Rome, had many different understandings of who Christ was, and who was a Christian. That does not change the fact that in the world today, universalists are heretical.

 

I have nothing further to say.

[R. S. Martin]

ExFundies say Universalists/liberal Christians are just spiritualizing Jesus and the NT teachings. What the fundamentalists do not realize is that the Universalists are probably closer to NT interpretations than the fundies are. Scholars who have looked closely at how Jewish and Early Christian scholars of the first century AD understood Gen.1 note that they take it as myth. Why should exfundies condemn Universalists for not being real Chrisians if they take it as myth? I don't know how these early scholars viewed the Flood, Moses, and the early Israelite kingdoms, but I do know that they read the Bible VERY SERIOUSLY DIFFERENTLY from what fundamentalists do today. They read it much closer to what liberal Christians do today.

 

Any thoughts, questions, comments, insights, ideas, etc.?

I'm trying to draw on memory here, but is this not the way the gnostics thought of christianity? I do know that the Roman church tried to stamp out the gnostics because they refused to accept that Christ (the "kristos") was human.

 

I had forgotten about this thread. Right now I'm looking for something else but I want to return. In a course I took in the Spring of 2006 I came across a few examples in the literature of very early exegetes or hermeneuts or whatever that I want to share. The course was on history of hermeneutics.

[R. S. Martin]

ExFundies say Universalists/liberal Christians are just spiritualizing Jesus and the NT teachings. What the fundamentalists do not realize is that the Universalists are probably closer to NT interpretations than the fundies are. Scholars who have looked closely at how Jewish and Early Christian scholars of the first century AD understood Gen.1 note that they take it as myth. Why should exfundies condemn Universalists for not being real Chrisians if they take it as myth? I don't know how these early scholars viewed the Flood, Moses, and the early Israelite kingdoms, but I do know that they read the Bible VERY SERIOUSLY DIFFERENTLY from what fundamentalists do today. They read it much closer to what liberal Christians do today.

 

Any thoughts, questions, comments, insights, ideas, etc.?

I'm trying to draw on memory here, but is this not the way the gnostics thought of christianity? I do know that the Roman church tried to stamp out the gnostics because they refused to accept that Christ (the "kristos") was human.

 

In the OP I referred to how people read the scriptures in the first century AD or CE (Common Era). I am not prepared to speak to the situation of the fourth century when Christianity was legalized. A bit of history:

 

The Roman Church was not more powerful than the other churches in the first century. That came only in the fourth century and later after Constantine elected their religion as the legal state religion. Somewhere along the line the gnostics were outlawed, but not before the Nicene Creed. Some think the Nicene Creed was ordered by Constantine as a way to unite the bishops in order to hold the empire together. He could not have the Christian bishops fighting among themselves because it threatened the Empire. Just now I looked up when the first Council of Nicea was held. It was the same year that Constantine legalized Christianity so I don't know what brought about what. However, I don't think the so-called "orthodox" Christians could overtly persecute or legally outlaw the gnostics until their own religion was legalized. I think they could (and did) excommunicate each other on the eclesiastical level but not on the level of the state; the latter is what I call "overt persecution."

 

I put "orthodox" in quotes because my professsors say we cannot tell which really is the true Christianity. Maybe the wrong branch got legalized. Maybe some group or other of the gnostics were the real Christians, with "real" meaning the ones descended from Jesus' apostles, with the understanding that Jesus and all of these people were historical figures. According to some original texts I read, it seems people would go to "orthdox" services and also to gnostic ceremonies, so that gnosticism and orthodox Chrisitanity were not always distinct in all cases.

 

(SIDEBAR ON GNOSTICISM: There is MUCH that is not known about the gnostics because most of their literature was burned by the "orthdox" Christians in the centuries after they came to power. So thorough was this purging that only in recent centuries have a few things come to light from very far out of the way and very well-hidden places. I guess they were in this for real. They destroyed not only literature but also people.)

 

Re how the Early Church read the Bible. I will be using a book with the title "Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church," Translated and Edited by Karlfried Froelich, 1984. The book is a collection of writings from the first four century of the Common Era (CE) from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic. Islam did not yet exist so I guess none from there. Some of the Christian Bible is clearly gnostic. Because of the very close relationship between Jews, Christians, and Gnostics, in order to know how the eary church read and wrote scripture it is necessary to understand how all three of these groups read and understood scripture. "Scripture," in this context, means sacred text.

 

Just so we know what we are talking about, we are talking about principles for how to read the Bible or scripture or sacred text. Froelich explains in his introduction:

Patristic hermeneutics (from the Greek hermneuein, to explain, interpret) concerns itself with the developing

principles

and

rules

for a

proper understanding of the Bible

in the early Christian church (p. 1; emphasis mine).

Some informative and interesting points from his introduction follow. I will put direct quotes inside quotation marks. My own summarizations will be outside quotation marks.

 

1. "At the beginning of the Christian era there was no closed and fully defined Jewish canon as yet, although the core had been established for a long time." The Jewish Canon was not closed until about 100 CE (p. 2).

 

2. End Times: "During the troubled times under the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (176-164 B.C.) the prophetic literature found increased attention in Jewish circles that understood their time as the end time and their communities as the remnant of the true Israel." Apocopyptic literature became very popular (p. 2).

 

3. [A]ll hermeneutics of sacred books...[are] determined by the theological framework and the goals of the actual community in which these Scriptures play[] a normative role (p. 3). Remember that hermeneutics are the principles and rules by which to understand the Bible.

 

4. Basis for Rabbinical Allegorism: [T]echniques as paronomasia, gematria (i.e., the computation of the numerical value of letters), and notrikon (the breaking up of one word into two or more) indicates the underlying conviction that deeper mysteries are hidden in the very words of Scripture. On this basis, there certainly is a case for rabbinical allegorism (p. 3-4).

 

This is a lot of information to lose in case something goes wrong with technology. I'll post what I've got and continue on my next post.

[R. S. Martin]

Continued from Post 6.

 

5. Froelich talks about the:

Hellenistic concept of inspiration which assumed direct divine influence upon the writing of the sacred texts ranging from a writer's ecstasy to verbal dictation (cf. Philo,

On the Special laws

1.65; IV.49). From such inspiration Hellenistic scholarship derived the notion of a deeper truth, an intended spiritual sense (hyponoia) of the human words that the interpreter has to uncover by means of "allegory," allowing the text to say something else from what the words seem to suggest (p 6).

 

He goes on to explain that "Homer and Hesiod, who were regarded as God-inspired" and that the impact of this on the Bible was the story that Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture) was the work of 72 elders each working alone in his own cell according to the diction of the Holy Spirit (pp. 6-7).

 

6. Philo, of the Alexandrian Jewish apologetics tradition, found that:

By carefully searching the inspired text for clues such as contradictions, peculiar expressions, etymologies, mysterious numbers, and so forth, the exegete could unravel the real teaching God intended to convey, a teaching that Philo thought coincided with the best of the philosophical tradition of his time (p. 7).

 

7. Here is what I mean about nonliteral reading of Genesis by first century scholars:

 

(This is about Philo.)

 

For him, the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 spoke of two different human natures, the heavenly (Gen. 1:27) and the material (Gen. 2:7). God planting a garden in Eden meant his implanting terrestrial virtue in the human race. The river going out from Eden denoted goodness, its four heads the cardinal virtues: Pison stands for prudence, Gihon for courage, Tigris for temperance, Euphrates for justice. What the story of Abraham and Sarah explained was the relation of mind and virtue. Like his Jewish and Greek predecessors, Philo used a Platonic anthropological dichotomy as the model for his hermeneutical principle: the literal meaning of the sacred text is its body, the deeper spiritual and philosophical understanding is its soul (pp. 7-8).

 

I will post this and see if there is more to post. Feel free to post. If I find more to post, I will note in bold at the top that it is a continuation of these notes.

[R. S. Martin]

Books

 

I'm looking back over my last two posts. I mentioned "original texts" about gnostics and early Christians. The main ones I read were Bart Ehrman's After the New Testament, and the Nag Hammadi Library edited by James M. Robinson (and many others but I think it's filed under his name).

[R. S. Martin]

Continued from Post 7.

 

Allegory in the Bible

Gal. 4:21 to end, about Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and their sons.

 

A Few Direct Quotes from Froelich:

1. [Pauls' baptismal candidates] were able to recognize the "spiritual" rock from which saving water flows and to identify the "spiritual" food and drink in the wilderness with Christian realities p. 9.

 

2. Christian baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 is treated as the "antitype" of Noah's rescue from the flood while Heb. 9:23-24 tied the same language to a Hellenistic-Platonic hermeneutics of copy and original, shadow and reality, even though its biblical basis is acknowledged (cf. Heb. 8:5 and Exod. 25:9, 40) (p. 10).

 

I think this is sufficient to prove that the fundamentalists do not read the Bible the way it was read by some people in the first century CE, and that allegory was used even by the NT writers themselves. Did the NT writers know these stories were myth or did they think they were history? I used to think these stories were history but that NT writers used them as patterns or parallels to explain lessons. I still think they might have thought this way. I don't think we can know for sure.

[R. S. Martin]

ExFundie used in your first accusatory post seems to imply that we are still just as ignorant as we were when we were a fundie

 

In my mind, the term fundamentalist equals a certain type of religious belief as per The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth. Therefore, I meant people who at some point in their lives held fundamentalist religious beliefs. I did not know it could mean ignorant per se. One thing you are not, Deva, is stupid. I have been unable to understand some of your posts but that is not because either of us is stupid. Gramps is probably right--some kind of cultural semantics complications going on. Sometimes I just don't get stuff.

 

As you can see, I had forgotten about this thread. Stuff sort of settled down on the thread in the Lion's Den. Other points of view were brought to bear on the situation so that I felt all sides were heard. However, since a few people had responded here I felt to show what I had found regarding first century hermeneutics.

 

Piprus raises a very important point, i.e. are these the ones that got accepted by the official church? I guess the ones that made it into the NT did get accepted. Philo was a Jewish scholar, and his writings do not show up in the Bible. However, his thinking is representative of the style of thinking that was common among scholars while Christianity was being formed and while the NT was being written.

 

Paul, as traditionally believed by Christian scholars today, was educated by Jewish scholars. Philo would have been of a very different sect than Paul's teachers--kind of one person is Lutheran and another is Mennonite but they're all Christian. Philo was Alexandrian and Paul was Pharisaic, but they were all Jewish.

 

In case anyone is interested in Froelich's book, he goes into the fourth century but I am not terribly interested in that era so I don't have it memorized so well. Feel free to take the conversation there but I may not want to take responsibility for knowing a lot of answers.

[Deva]

:angry:

Therefore, I meant people who at some point in their lives held fundamentalist religious beliefs. I did not know it could mean ignorant per se. One thing you are not, Deva, is stupid. I have been unable to understand some of your posts but that is not because either of us is stupid. Gramps is probably right--some kind of cultural semantics complications going on. Sometimes I just don't get stuff.

 

Changed my mind - I will comment-- I agree, you don't get stuff. Well at least a sort of halfway apology. OK. Great. I have read many of your posts and know you view "fundies" as about as ignorant a person as can be on the face of the earth. Throwing the term Ex in front of it doesn't mitigate that. Just so you know, some of us had no choice, we were raised in it and left it to go to different, more liberal churches, which you don't seem to have a problem with. LONG AGO. You have a very poor understanding of what fundamentalism itself is. I am sure it is due to your background. This is quite excusable. Its just difficult to see you continually post it all over the site, along with this new label for people that you have. Your professors seem to also have a very poor understanding of fundamentalism from some of the things you have posted in the past. It might be best if you would cease to listen to them sometimes. You ought to go off and do the work of actually attending a fundie church-- then maybe you would be more clued in.

 

I also totally fail to understand why the hell you continue to insist that people like these universalist and ultra "liberal" xians are somehow more legit and acceptable xians than members of all the major denominations -- Roman Catholic, Orthodox, -- and even the reformation churchs -Lutheran, Methodist, etc. They are heretics. To me- they are just as objectionable, if not more. The only thing I will give them is that they don't usually knock on my door with a fucking tract. Maybe you are thinking about reconverting and joining them since they have the "true" christian view. Be my guest!

 

Why the defense? This is the 21st century not pre 4th century. The Church of Rome prevailed, for whatever reason-- why the deuce does it matter?

[Alice]

I think one way into countering the arguments of Fundamentalism may be to demonstrate that they are not reading and understanding the Bible in the same way as first century Christians. Fundamentalists are often very keen on stating that they have 'gone back to the beliefs of the first Christians', so pointing out that universalists may be closer to this could have its uses. Unfortunately many fundamentalists if convinced of this are likely to conclude that first century Christians were wrong also!! But this approach would certainly be one I'd like to have in my range of responses to fundamentalist evangelism.

 

I do think that the 'black and white' thinking of fundamentalism can stray over beyond deconversion (not for a moment suggesting that this is the case with you Deva) and maybe this is what Ruby aimed to highlight here with the term 'ex fundy'.

 

I do know that having been raised in fundamentalist thinking I still keep coming across situations and scenarios where my 'thinking' style is still too black and white and needs to be challenged. It's as though there are still pockets and paths in my brain that are unaware of the regime change!! Doesn't stop it hurting if I think someone has indicated that I haven't shaken off my fundamentalist past however.

 

(and I have to remind myself of how this feels when I think someone else is showing 'fundy' tendencies beyond deconversion, I do forget sometimes.)

[mwc]

I guess one of the problems is how you define fundamentalist and how it would relate to 1 CE thinkers. One would do well to remember that the Jewish sects were basically caught up in the middle of (yet another) sectarian civil war. This doesn't happen when everyone holds to a "universalism" or "centrist" position. They may not have been "fundies" as we perceive them now but they brutally attacked and killed one another over their beliefs. To think the xians that came from that mindset would behave any differently is not really reasonable.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that no matter what crowd you are in that you likely can and will be able to find "fundies" lurking within.

 

mwc

[Deva]

I think one way into countering the arguments of Fundamentalism may be to demonstrate that they are not reading and understanding the Bible in the same way as first century Christians. Fundamentalists are often very keen on stating that they have 'gone back to the beliefs of the first Christians', so pointing out that universalists may be closer to this could have its uses. Unfortunately many fundamentalists if convinced of this are likely to conclude that first century Christians were wrong also!! But this approach would certainly be one I'd like to have in my range of responses to fundamentalist evangelism.

 

Alice, respectfully I will have to tell you that with most, if not all, fundamentalists arguments from history have absolutely no effect.

 

If you want to try it, though, fine.

[Alice]

I think one way into countering the arguments of Fundamentalism may be to demonstrate that they are not reading and understanding the Bible in the same way as first century Christians. Fundamentalists are often very keen on stating that they have 'gone back to the beliefs of the first Christians', so pointing out that universalists may be closer to this could have its uses. Unfortunately many fundamentalists if convinced of this are likely to conclude that first century Christians were wrong also!! But this approach would certainly be one I'd like to have in my range of responses to fundamentalist evangelism.

 

Alice, respectfully I will have to tell you that with most, if not all, fundamentalists arguments from history have absolutely no effect.

 

If you want to try it, though, fine.

 

I am sure that in the vast majority of cases you would be right - this is why I said 'unfortunately many fundamentalists if convinced of this are likely to conclude that first century christians were wrong also'. No one argument is ever going to be enough to turn around fundamentalist thinking but clearly a combination of arguments and challenges to perceptions work sometimes - thus those of us who despite being raised in fundamentalist churches who still managed to break free.

 

I was one of the few whose existence you doubt who was challenged by this kind of argument. The news that my perception of history might be just that - 'my perception' and not an agreed fact - was a very big eye opener. However, if I try this kind of tack with my brother-in-law ... he knows there are words coming out of mouth but they make no sense to him whatsoever!

[Grandpa Harley]

The Church of Rome prevailed for two reason, and both VERY earthly

 

1) Political will to back it

2) Virtually no squeamishness in using the power vested by point one to wipe out every motherfucker (nod to direction of Tarantino there) in the room who didn't agree... The Cult of Eusebeus and Constantine became the AK47 of Religions, only rivalled in viciousness and lack of humanity by the Uzi of Militant Islam.

 

[R. S. Martin]

The Church of Rome prevailed for two reason, and both VERY earthly

 

1) Political will to back it

2) Virtually no squeamishness in using the power vested by point one to wipe out every motherfucker (nod to direction of Tarantino there) in the room who didn't agree... The Cult of Eusebeus and Constantine became the AK47 of Religions, only rivalled in viciousness and lack of humanity by the Uzi of Militant Islam.

 

 

I'm not very clear on my history. The church of Rome was affiliated with other churches at the time that became known as orthodox, right? What do you think was Constantine's role as Roman Emperor with the Roman church winning out? Actually, your post gives me the idea you think the bishop cozied up to the emperor. So much for the idealizing of the early church that is done these days! As though human nature ever was not corrupt.

 

I believe in the core goodness of human nature but too often this core is covered over with too many layers of corruption for the goodness to shine through. Power so often corrupts. How do we know that there was not a secret friendship between Constantine and the Roman bishop before Christianity was legalized? Maybe that is what "caused" the "vision" that "told" Constantine "by this sign you will conquor" (sign of the cross), which supposedly led to the legalization of Christianity. (It's because he was in a war on 325--conquoring by the sign of the cross--that I don't understand how he could also have been at the Council of Nicea the same year. At least 325 was when Christianity was legalized. Wikipedia says the first Council of Nicea took place that year. From other sources I have in mind he was at that council. Did the war take place earlier?)

 

I don't think it's possible to uncover all the historical facts from beneath all the embellished legends of Christianity's origins, much as scholars have tried. But I like to balance what I learn from Christian profs with the ideas of exChristians here.

[mwc]

I'm not very clear on my history. The church of Rome was affiliated with other churches at the time that became known as orthodox, right? What do you think was Constantine's role as Roman Emperor with the Roman church winning out? Actually, your post gives me the idea you think the bishop cozied up to the emperor. So much for the idealizing of the early church that is done these days! As though human nature ever was not corrupt.

Priests and kings have always been in bed together (when they weren't one and the same).

 

Power so often corrupts. How do we know that there was not a secret friendship between Constantine and the Roman bishop before Christianity was legalized? Maybe that is what "caused" the "vision" that "told" Constantine "by this sign you will conquor" (sign of the cross), which supposedly led to the legalization of Christianity.

Do a real quick search on who wrote Constantine's bio and you'll have your answer to this question (there are two accounts but one name will really pop off the screen when you spot it...I don't want to wreck the "surprise" but I imagine you've already guessed by now and will just confirm your suspicions).

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

As to 'other churches'... the purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to get all the churches under one banner, with one set of beleifs (largely to stop them killing each other... Constantine was as religious as I am, and was pretty much interested in keeping public order rather than any truth to the religions he sponsored. ) In the end there were really only three chruches Roman, Eastern, and Coptic, all had the same oath to the Emperor as god's representative ruler on Earth, thus 'ratifying' the position of the Emperor to Christians. Thus, the three biggest cults the Jews, the Mythrans and the Chrisitans then were all in a line. The original plan was that which ever cult became the largest, then that would become the de facto religion of the Empire. It's largely chance that we don't celebrate Mythras' birthday in name, rather than Jesus (Judaism, although rich, was never going to become a mainstream religion while ever they insisted that circumcision was a prerequisite. The 'Verpa', an engorged, circumcised phallus was the sign for homosexual brothels and was something word was applied to gay men as an insult rather like 'faggot' is today...the connotations are pretty self explanatory from there...

[R. S. Martin]

I'm not very clear on my history. The church of Rome was affiliated with other churches at the time that became known as orthodox, right? What do you think was Constantine's role as Roman Emperor with the Roman church winning out? Actually, your post gives me the idea you think the bishop cozied up to the emperor. So much for the idealizing of the early church that is done these days! As though human nature ever was not corrupt.

Priests and kings have always been in bed together (when they weren't one and the same).

 

Power so often corrupts. How do we know that there was not a secret friendship between Constantine and the Roman bishop before Christianity was legalized? Maybe that is what "caused" the "vision" that "told" Constantine "by this sign you will conquor" (sign of the cross), which supposedly led to the legalization of Christianity.

Do a real quick search on who wrote Constantine's bio and you'll have your answer to this question (there are two accounts but one name will really pop off the screen when you spot it...I don't want to wreck the "surprise" but I imagine you've already guessed by now and will just confirm your suspicions).

 

mwc

 

 

I'm no good at doing google searches with so little info. I did a "quick" one but I see this is going to take me at least an hour and it's not worth it. So either I'll have to make do without knowing or someone will have to tell me. The way you put it makes it sound like you think the Roman bishop did it. I'd like to actually see the ancient document (online copy will do) that proves it before I accept it.

[mwc]

I'm no good at doing google searches with so little info. I did a "quick" one but I see this is going to take me at least an hour and it's not worth it. So either I'll have to make do without knowing or someone will have to tell me. The way you put it makes it sound like you think the Roman bishop did it. I'd like to actually see the ancient document (online copy will do) that proves it before I accept it.

Alrighty then...I'll lend a hand...

In 312 C.E. Constantine was preparing to battle Maxentius for control of the western portion of the Roman Empire. There are two different versions of the story regarding Constantine on the eve of the battle. One comes from Eusebius, his official biographer who wrote:

 

…before Constantine went into battle he considered what power to honor and rely on for protection. He contemplated weather to choose multiple deities or to fight in the name of the single, God Almighty. In this account, the leader chose to pursue God and prayed for his assistance. At broad daylight he claimed to witness a magnificent and radiant figure of a cross above the sun. Above the sign was the inscription In hoc signo vinces "by this sign conquer". The next morning he had his army paint their shields and carry this "sign" that he had seen early into battle. He was confident that Christ would deliver him. This sign was made using the Greek letters chi "X" and rho "P" as an abbreviation for Christos, meaning Christ. In 312, Constantine met his opponent in battle at Red Rocks, nine miles north of Rome, surrounded by large hills and the Tiber River. Constantine's force sent Maxentius and his army fleeing to the single Milvian Bridge across the Tiber River where Maxentius drowned. (Laing 192).

 

Another version of the story has this same image appearing to Constantine in a dream, and whether the tale actually ever happened has been disputed by scholars for centuries. No matter the actual reality of the vision, the ensuing results are certainly true: Constantine embraced the god of the Christians, essentially legalizing Christianity, and an underground persecuted mystery cult that was in grave danger of dying out, suddenly found itself at the pinnacle of the greatest nation on earth. The contribution of Constantine was enormous, and with his assistance, the drama was set upon the stage that continues to play until the present day. With Roman assistance Christianity began the battle to wipe out the old pagan gods, in the process overlaying much of earlier pre-Christian tradition, incorporating pagan ideas and religious holidays into its own structure, and ensuring that the sun would become the glorious figure of Christ. Ironically, Constantine being a pragmatic Roman, interpreted Christ as a war god, not the "prince of peace," and he apparently never truly understood the mysteries of Christianity, retaining his right to worship the pagan gods, especially the sun. He never took baptism until shortly before his death.

The point of all the above is really just to note who his official biographer was. Lo and behold it's our good friend Eusebius. He wouldn't have any sort of motivation for having his buddy Constantine see this vision? Not him. He's Mr. Ethical and had nothing to gain from being the top man around town (on par with the emperor in many ways).

 

mwc

[R. S. Martin]

As to 'other churches'... the purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to get all the churches under one banner, with one set of beleifs (largely to stop them killing each other... Constantine was as religious as I am, and was pretty much interested in keeping public order rather than any truth to the religions he sponsored. ) In the end there were really only three chruches Roman, Eastern, and Coptic, all had the same oath to the Emperor as god's representative ruler on Earth, thus 'ratifying' the position of the Emperor to Christians. Thus, the three biggest cults the Jews, the Mythrans and the Chrisitans then were all in a line. The original plan was that which ever cult became the largest, then that would become the de facto religion of the Empire. It's largely chance that we don't celebrate Mythras' birthday in name, rather than Jesus (Judaism, although rich, was never going to become a mainstream religion while ever they insisted that circumcision was a prerequisite. The 'Verpa', an engorged, circumcised phallus was the sign for homosexual brothels and was something word was applied to gay men as an insult rather like 'faggot' is today...the connotations are pretty self explanatory from there...

 

You make a lot of definitive and unsupported statements here. How do you know all this stuff so definitely and for sure when the scholars can't make definite statements? On what do you base your statements? I colour-coded them and will respond by colour.

 

Blue: I never heard about the Christians killing each other. What evidence is there for that?

 

Green: Prof strongly leaned in that direction but wouldn't make the definitive statement.

 

Red: What do you mean by "in the end"--when is that? 325?

 

Black Bold: I am esp. interested in Constantine's plans. Either the Christians don't know what his plans were or they suppressed the knowledge when it came to teaching me the history. Like I said to mwc, I'd like to actually see copies of the documents the statements are based on. It would have to be English translations.

 

I guess the two things that really interest me are the ones about Christians killing each other before 325, and Constantine's plans.

[R. S. Martin]

The point of all the above is really just to note who his official biographer was. Lo and behold it's our good friend Eusebius. He wouldn't have any sort of motivation for having his buddy Constantine see this vision? Not him. He's Mr. Ethical and had nothing to gain from being the top man around town (on par with the emperor in many ways).

 

mwc

 

Point taken, mwc. Thanks a lot.

 

Can we have the link where you found this? I'm very curious who wrote it and in what context? BTW, it's an interesting read and I'm glad you found it.

[Grandpa Harley]

The Caesarean Bishop did it... Book

[Grandpa Harley]

As to 'other churches'... the purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to get all the churches under one banner, with one set of beleifs (largely to stop them killing each other... Constantine was as religious as I am, and was pretty much interested in keeping public order rather than any truth to the religions he sponsored. ) In the end there were really only three chruches Roman, Eastern, and Coptic, all had the same oath to the Emperor as god's representative ruler on Earth, thus 'ratifying' the position of the Emperor to Christians. Thus, the three biggest cults the Jews, the Mythrans and the Chrisitans then were all in a line. The original plan was that which ever cult became the largest, then that would become the de facto religion of the Empire. It's largely chance that we don't celebrate Mythras' birthday in name, rather than Jesus (Judaism, although rich, was never going to become a mainstream religion while ever they insisted that circumcision was a prerequisite. The 'Verpa', an engorged, circumcised phallus was the sign for homosexual brothels and was something word was applied to gay men as an insult rather like 'faggot' is today...the connotations are pretty self explanatory from there...

 

You make a lot of definitive and unsupported statements here. How do you know all this stuff so definitely and for sure when the scholars can't make definite statements? On what do you base your statements? I colour-coded them and will respond by colour.

 

Blue: I never heard about the Christians killing each other. What evidence is there for that?

 

Green: Prof strongly leaned in that direction but wouldn't make the definitive statement.

 

Red: What do you mean by "in the end"--when is that? 325?

 

Black Bold: I am esp. interested in Constantine's plans. Either the Christians don't know what his plans were or they suppressed the knowledge when it came to teaching me the history. Like I said to mwc, I'd like to actually see copies of the documents the statements are based on. It would have to be English translations.

 

I guess the two things that really interest me are the ones about Christians killing each other before 325, and Constantine's plans.

You would have difficulty finding a statement as bald as that... mostly due that sort of thing being redacted from history. The only thing that seems to have survived is the references to riots, running battles, and general public nusiance problems, which were then followed by impositions of curfews and varipous other sanctions against different sects. When you have a man like Marcus Aurelius making a religion illegal, it's not for them gathering in the street and singing 'Give Peace A Chance' while refusing to worship him as a living God (which Aurelius never claimed.. he collected the taxes, since it was a revenue stream of pretty major import. For what the Christians were doing before 325 you only have to look at what they were doing after 325... which was slotting each other (Athanatheus of Alexandria... before the ink was dry on the proceedings from the Council, he'd had the Arians slaughtered, desite the fact they'd not officially declined the Creed... the tone of the chronicle, despite being triumphal over the winning out of the one true verison of the Christ cult, is such that the event was not regarded as unusual, in anything other than the local Garrison let them get on with it, which wasn't the usual state of affairs (read 'When Jesus Became God')...

 

I will confess there is an element of constructing history from known facts and Constantine's track record on my part. He had no interest in becoming Christian, since Mythraism was the religion of the army, and as the head of the Cult, Emperor and the supreme leader of the standing army he had three levels of authority with which to keep order. After 325 he continued to build a Jewsih temple and a Christian Church for every Temple of Mythras he built... we are looking at a man who had no intention of making Christianity the Religion of the Empire, simply keeping order among the largest cults. IF one reads his general approach, even when bowlderised by the big E, we see a man who was a pragmatic politician, not more pious about anything than any other man of his time, a man who used violence and assassination as a tool, not a first recourse. Every indication is that, despite having a stomach for violence, it wasn't his weapon of choice, preferring political or economical solutions, and if that meant recognising one group and then letting them sort their own dissenters out with a few soldiers, well, as long as they paid their taxes, he wasn't fussed...