Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ambelamba

One Thing People Overlook

16 posts in this topic

Guys, after this I will lay low for a while. I will probably back to the forums around April. Or maybe a bit sooner.

We really have to separate The Early Churches and Christianity established under the decree of Constantine. Christianity as we know it was intended to be THE STATE RELIGION of a totalitarian regime, which is Roman Empire. I also pointed out that the people behind the Canon wouldn't even imagine the Bible read by general population.

No matter how churches paint the early period of Christianity, people should know that the whole periods were marred by ugly politics all the time.

OK, gotta take a nap. And gotta wait for tomorrow's booking. Tata.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, after this I will lay low for a while. I will probably back to the forums around April. Or maybe a bit sooner.

We really have to separate The Early Churches and Christianity established under the decree of Constantine. Christianity as we know it was intended to be THE STATE RELIGION of a totalitarian regime, which is Roman Empire. I also pointed out that the people behind the Canon wouldn't even imagine the Bible read by general population.

No matter how churches paint the early period of Christianity, people should know that the whole periods were marred by ugly politics all the time.

OK, gotta take a nap. And gotta wait for tomorrow's booking. Tata.

Maybe Christianity as YOU know it but not Christianity as I know it . That is, how to live using Christ as an exemplar for my life on earth.

There were many threads to early Christianity, as happens with any new religion unfolding . There was conflict and killing (but this also happened within groups such as the jews of the period) once Christianity gained power and authority, it first consolidated one doctrine and then made that official. Later it imposed that one doctrine over all others, using both secular and religious power to do so.

During Constantine's reign, approximately half of those who identified themselves as Christian did not subscribe to the mainstream version of the faith.[45] Constantine feared that disunity would displease God and lead to trouble for the Empire, so he took military and judicial measures to eliminate some sects.[46] To resolve other disputes, Constantine began the practice of calling ecumenical councils to determine binding interpretations of Church doctrine.[47]

Decisions made at the Council of Nicea (325) about the divinity of Christ led to a schism; the new religion, Arianism flourished outside the Roman Empire.[48] Partially to distinguish themselves from Arians, Catholic devotion to Mary became more prominent. This led to further schisms.[49][50]

In 380, mainstream Christianity–as opposed to Arianism–became the official religion of the Roman Empire.[51] Christianity became more associated with the Empire, resulting in persecution for Christians living outside of the empire, as their rulers feared Christians would revolt in favor of the Emperor.[52] In 385, this new legal authority of the Church resulted in the first use of capital punishment being pronounced as a sentence upon a Christian 'heretic', namely Priscillian. [53]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church

This took many centuries. For example priests were able to marry and have families for many centuries until the church realised it was losing out on property which was passed onto the sons of priests, and there were women perists for at least 500 years. There were also wars of genoicide against whole groups of Christians who disagreed with the parts of the one central theology

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, after this I will lay low for a while. I will probably back to the forums around April. Or maybe a bit sooner.

We really have to separate The Early Churches and Christianity established under the decree of Constantine. Christianity as we know it was intended to be THE STATE RELIGION of a totalitarian regime, which is Roman Empire. I also pointed out that the people behind the Canon wouldn't even imagine the Bible read by general population.

No matter how churches paint the early period of Christianity, people should know that the whole periods were marred by ugly politics all the time.

OK, gotta take a nap. And gotta wait for tomorrow's booking. Tata.

You should not be judging something by the context of something 1,600 years ago. Applying current standards to people and events completely alien to our modern understanding of things is a mistake.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Christianity as YOU know it but not Christianity as I know it . That is, how to live using Christ as an exemplar for my life on earth.

There were many threads to early Christianity, as happens with any new religion unfolding . There was conflict and killing (but this also happened within groups such as the jews of the period) once Christianity gained power and authority, it first consolidated one doctrine and then made that official. Later it imposed that one doctrine over all others, using both secular and religious power to do so.

During Constantine's reign, approximately half of those who identified themselves as Christian did not subscribe to the mainstream version of the faith.[45] Constantine feared that disunity would displease God and lead to trouble for the Empire, so he took military and judicial measures to eliminate some sects.[46] To resolve other disputes, Constantine began the practice of calling ecumenical councils to determine binding interpretations of Church doctrine.[47]

Decisions made at the Council of Nicea (325) about the divinity of Christ led to a schism; the new religion, Arianism flourished outside the Roman Empire.[48] Partially to distinguish themselves from Arians, Catholic devotion to Mary became more prominent. This led to further schisms.[49][50]

In 380, mainstream Christianity–as opposed to Arianism–became the official religion of the Roman Empire.[51] Christianity became more associated with the Empire, resulting in persecution for Christians living outside of the empire, as their rulers feared Christians would revolt in favor of the Emperor.[52] In 385, this new legal authority of the Church resulted in the first use of capital punishment being pronounced as a sentence upon a Christian 'heretic', namely Priscillian. [53]

http://en.wikipedia....Catholic_Church

This took many centuries. For example priests were able to marry and have families for many centuries until the church realised it was losing out on property which was passed onto the sons of priests, and there were women perists for at least 500 years. There were also wars of genoicide against whole groups of Christians who disagreed with the parts of the one central theology

All answer's to this must understand a statement of fact behind it, history dictate's the creation of a book of doctrine, which is still today viewed in itself as being a holy gospel, that was originally formed with-in a political view. Yes ! this religion has grown beyond the council of it's creation & may well have different view's on it's meaning but the original book of doctrine is still preached word for word in today's society & it's religion still give's it's home address as Vatican City, Rome.

Just a thought but isn't it irronic that the people who crucified him for his belief's now dictate his belief's & expect the respect of it's audience for doing so.

History teaches us that any confession of a third party is but an opinion of mind, it's what they've been given to understand so can not contain the truth of what happened so with no gospel of the nazarian, of which could not exist as he did not reach an age of which to write one, how can anyone be sure of what he felt.

Doe's doctrine cover this or was there & still is a political view behind it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All answer's to this must understand a statement of fact behind it, history dictate's the creation of a book of doctrine, which is still today viewed in itself as being a holy gospel, that was originally formed with-in a political view. Yes ! this religion has grown beyond the council of it's creation & may well have different view's on it's meaning but the original book of doctrine is still preached word for word in today's society & it's religion still give's it's home address as Vatican City, Rome.

Just a thought but isn't it irronic that the people who crucified him for his belief's now dictate his belief's & expect the respect of it's audience for doing so.

History teaches us that any confession of a third party is but an opinion of mind, it's what they've been given to understand so can not contain the truth of what happened so with no gospel of the nazarian, of which could not exist as he did not reach an age of which to write one, how can anyone be sure of what he felt.

Doe's doctrine cover this or was there & still is a political view behind it ?

The bible, both old and new testament is not primarily a political document written with political purpose. It is a collection of the thoughts of people who genuinely believed they encountered god And perhaps did so.

. As such it can be used today by a person who reads it for the first time to understand the mental workings of these people and their real or perceived connection to their god.

While the church put together this one piece of writing as "the bible", it is only part of a much wider collection of similar writings.

No I would not say that the book had a political purpose, nor does it serve one today, except incidentally. And I would not agree that the book is interpreted today as it was at any time in the past As societies and people change, they constantly re-evaluate the writings and make new personal forms of connection to it.

Rome no longer speaks for many Christians, not even many catholic Christians, although it still maintains authority over a considerable number

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should not be judging something by the context of something 1,600 years ago. Applying current standards to people and events completely alien to our modern understanding of things is a mistake.

I disagree. What standards do we have other than our modern ones? Obviously we can look back and see that given the amount of knowledge they had, and the limit of their understanding of any given situation, we can understand why they may have believed the things that they believed. However we can still look back and judge, given our understanding, and see whether what they did was right or wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread premise is faulty. Constantine did not make Christianity the State Religion, he simply declared it a "legal religion". It was a later Roman Emperor (after Constantine passed away) that declared it the state religion (and even then there is a question over whether it applied to the outlying pagan regions, or just the Christian centre). Therefore Constantine's involvement in the Council of Nicaea cannot answer the question as to its creation as *to quote the OP* - "intended to be THE STATE RELIGION of a totalitarian regime". Constantine called the bishops together to end the many various brands of Christianity to unite them under a single belief, and bring stability to a significant portion of his subjects. Thus the bishops put all their cards on the table and nutted out a set of beliefs that were common to all/most groups, and did away with the fringe views that were held by only one or two minor sects. In this way, the Christian system was codified into a unified ideal.

That is all. Constantine did not declare Christianity the "state religion" of anything, and therefore it is a non-sequitur to then argue that it was created as a state religion of a totalitarian regime *quote/unquote*

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible, both old and new testament is not primarily a political document written with political purpose. It is a collection of the thoughts of people who genuinely believed they encountered god And perhaps did so.

I don't believe the original writers of each part of the Bible intended it to be a political document, but politics had a major impact on what it is today. Why does the OT have two accounts of so many different things - two countries named Kush/Cush, two countries named Sheba/Saba, two locations for Midian, two stories of the creation of woman, two descriptions of where Eden was, etc.? Could it be because ancient Israel had two kingdoms - Israel and Judea - with two kings, two royal courts (and two sets of politics)? There were three schools that influenced the NT - Alexandria, Bagdad and Jerusalem - and that produced three competing versions of the Bible whose adherents compete with each other today.

Where would the Catholic church be today without the Petrine Doctrine? To support the idea that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the church, they have to have that bit where Jesus declares that Peter will become the head of the church. And that story is only in a few books - how is it that numerous other books didn't make it into the "official" version? That's what Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" was about - making sure competing ideas were suppressed.

While the Bible may not have originally been a political document, it sure became one.

No I would not say that the book had a political purpose, nor does it serve one today, except incidentally.

You ought to live in Oklahoma. The fundies use it like a club to beat their opponents with. Christian love is an alien concept in this state. And the Bible is at the center of right-wing ("wingnut") politics.

And I would not agree that the book is interpreted today as it was at any time in the past As societies and people change, they constantly re-evaluate the writings and make new personal forms of connection to it.

Rome no longer speaks for many Christians, not even many catholic Christians, although it still maintains authority over a considerable number

Amen.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread premise is faulty. Constantine did not make Christianity the State Religion, he simply declared it a "legal religion". It was a later Roman Emperor (after Constantine passed away) that declared it the state religion (and even then there is a question over whether it applied to the outlying pagan regions, or just the Christian centre). Therefore Constantine's involvement in the Council of Nicaea cannot answer the question as to its creation as *to quote the OP* - "intended to be THE STATE RELIGION of a totalitarian regime". Constantine called the bishops together to end the many various brands of Christianity to unite them under a single belief, and bring stability to a significant portion of his subjects. Thus the bishops put all their cards on the table and nutted out a set of beliefs that were common to all/most groups, and did away with the fringe views that were held by only one or two minor sects. In this way, the Christian system was codified into a unified ideal.

That is all. Constantine did not declare Christianity the "state religion" of anything, and therefore it is a non-sequitur to then argue that it was created as a state religion of a totalitarian regime *quote/unquote*

~ Regards, PA

See! We really do agree. Constantine just wanted to end the strife and bloodshed. I don't think he cared who won, as long as somebody did. And while he wasn't the one who made it a "state religion of a totalitarian regime," that was done later by others, so Christianity, in the end, was "the state religion of a totalitarian regime." Implications for America?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See! We really do agree. Constantine just wanted to end the strife and bloodshed. I don't think he cared who won, as long as somebody did. And while he wasn't the one who made it a "state religion of a totalitarian regime," that was done later by others, so Christianity, in the end, was "the state religion of a totalitarian regime." Implications for America?

Doug

I'm not American, so I really don't care what implications there are for your country. Actually, that's a lie, I just don't know enough about your society to really make an informed decision. It's a non-issue for me in Australia, so I've never really took too much interest. I do go by the Christian's from America that I've met online, and while some of them have been nutcases, most have simply been regular guys that I'd probably see myself meeting on the street in Australia. Though I do agree that I cannot generally say I've met that many people in real life that hold the views of Young Earth Creationism that I've also seen on the internet. It depends how much of a majority that minority group would get, I suppose.

And yes, I guess we do agree on this. But again, the idea that Constantine made Christianity the "State Religion" is a lie that's been on the net for so long that very few actually question it. I know I didn't. It's only fairly recently that I've come to this, before such I'd bought into the hype that Constantine did make it a "state religion".

And yes, Christianity did eventually become the "state religion of a totalitarian regime". But that doesn't change the fact that the OP is a non-sequitur. Christianity was not started as such. It did become a political tool, but it did not start that way, and thus we cannot make such a correlation. Right?

~ Regards,

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not American, so I really don't care what implications there are for your country. Actually, that's a lie, I just don't know enough about your society to really make an informed decision. It's a non-issue for me in Australia, so I've never really took too much interest. I do go by the Christian's from America that I've met online, and while some of them have been nutcases, most have simply been regular guys that I'd probably see myself meeting on the street in Australia. Though I do agree that I cannot generally say I've met that many people in real life that hold the views of Young Earth Creationism that I've also seen on the internet. It depends how much of a majority that minority group would get, I suppose.

And yes, I guess we do agree on this. But again, the idea that Constantine made Christianity the "State Religion" is a lie that's been on the net for so long that very few actually question it. I know I didn't. It's only fairly recently that I've come to this, before such I'd bought into the hype that Constantine did make it a "state religion".

And yes, Christianity did eventually become the "state religion of a totalitarian regime". But that doesn't change the fact that the OP is a non-sequitur. Christianity was not started as such. It did become a political tool, but it did not start that way, and thus we cannot make such a correlation. Right?

~ Regards,

The Council of Nicea was in 325 AD. Constantine became a Christian in 337 - twelve years later. Earlier he used the Chi-Rho on his soldiers' shields. His father was a pagan, but his mother was a Christian - and the source of many Christian myths. I get the impression that his real religion was pragmatism.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the original writers of each part of the Bible intended it to be a political document, but politics had a major impact on what it is today. Why does the OT have two accounts of so many different things - two countries named Kush/Cush, two countries named Sheba/Saba, two locations for Midian, two stories of the creation of woman, two descriptions of where Eden was, etc.? Could it be because ancient Israel had two kingdoms - Israel and Judea - with two kings, two royal courts (and two sets of politics)? There were three schools that influenced the NT - Alexandria, Bagdad and Jerusalem - and that produced three competing versions of the Bible whose adherents compete with each other today.

Where would the Catholic church be today without the Petrine Doctrine? To support the idea that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the church, they have to have that bit where Jesus declares that Peter will become the head of the church. And that story is only in a few books - how is it that numerous other books didn't make it into the "official" version? That's what Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" was about - making sure competing ideas were suppressed.

While the Bible may not have originally been a political document, it sure became one.

You ought to live in Oklahoma. The fundies use it like a club to beat their opponents with. Christian love is an alien concept in this state. And the Bible is at the center of right-wing ("wingnut") politics.

Amen.

Doug

I agree with most points here, but the bible is not designed, nor was it written, as a political document to support authoritarian rule. Fundamentalist Christians, (from my reading) like any human, can use any document to serve their purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My belief is that you have to separate the Early Churches and the Established Christianity completely, treating them as entirely different beasts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My belief is that you have to separate the Early Churches and the Established Christianity completely, treating them as entirely different beasts.

Well they are and, to be fair, a number of churches are deliberately going back to the bible and christ's teachings, as the source of their beliefs and behaviours. For example that bloke who just got taken by the authorities in north Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My belief is that you have to separate the Early Churches and the Established Christianity completely, treating them as entirely different beasts.

But you specifically referenced Constantine in your original post, so what's the deal? If you simply made a mistake about the role of Constantine, then so be it. But if you take the next natural step, then by this stage the biblical canon was solidified, Christianity was already created. Maybe (and only to an extent I'll agree) this was then co-opted to fit a political agenda.

But whatever the case, Christianity was not intended as the "state religion of a totalitarian regime", as claimed.

It's simply a non-sequitur to say otherwise!

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you specifically referenced Constantine in your original post, so what's the deal? If you simply made a mistake about the role of Constantine, then so be it. But if you take the next natural step, then by this stage the biblical canon was solidified, Christianity was already created. Maybe (and only to an extent I'll agree) this was then co-opted to fit a political agenda.

But whatever the case, Christianity was not intended as the "state religion of a totalitarian regime", as claimed.

It's simply a non-sequitur to say otherwise!

I guess I should just yield and give in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.