Christianity in the hands of the ancient Romans.

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




Apart from a rewrite of the Second Commandment, there is no evidence that there was anything other than a cultural aversion (if that) of the Israelites to making images of God, and a cultural aversion is of no consequence.


Actually, you are the one rewriting commandments here, saying its ok to make images of God, with a special clause "as long as its not worshipped". You are just making excuses for the Romans who framed your religion.

Also, its not just a cultural aversion to making images of God, on the part of the Isralites. They didn't make images of God because of a religious command. Their religion formed their cultural practises. So even if they had a cultural aversion towards making images of God, it is rooted in their religious belief system.

In contrast, the Romans were culturally inclined to making images of their gods, and so naturally when they got their hands on Christianity, they decided it was ok to make images of the biblical God. They weren't even very creative, as their rendition of the biblical God is no different from some of their older gods.

The Romans also employed the same kind of logic and scripture skewing that you have displayed in this thread... that "Its ok to make images of God as long as its not an object of worship." .

Again, show me one instance where the biblical hebrews ever made an image of God and I'll admit I am wrong.


edit on 16-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
lonewolf


The "Son of God" is not a unique idea to christianity, it's roots lie in mosaic judaism and you can find it in Daniel 3 and Proverbs 30 amoung some other places. God did say he himself would visit Israel for punishment Exodus 32:34, so God showing up in person is also not unique to christianity as he also appeared in the flesh in Exodus 33:19-23.


The phrase surely predates Christianity. What may be the oldest part of the Bible, the beginning of Job, has the angels, apparently including Satan, as sons of God. In Daniel 3: 92, King Nebuchadnezzar describes an angel that way. Proverbs 30 : 4 asks what person does what God does. The question is rhetorical, and so, too, is the question about that person's son. The Exodus passages are temporal interventions of God himself, then or in the near funture, not by a son, and not centuries later, in my reading.

The Christian distinction is to posit the unique literally begotten Son of God, a human being, and to work through what that would mean. That is not a Jewish or Hebrew idea.

Scorpie


If they decided to violate an important commandment


They didn't decide to violate a commandment, they decided conscientiously what acts would, and what acts would not, be violations, much as you and I are deliberating right now.


When did Christianity become an "anything goes" kind of religion?


I am unsure what you're asking. To act in accordance to a well-formed conscience is hardly "anything goes."


Nicene Christianity decided that Jesus is both God and man.


I doubt that anyone gets to decide the truth of any matter or their beliefs about it. It appears that the proto-orthodox (that is, Christians before Nicaea) inferred to the best explanation of the facts they had accepted, and concluded that Jesus was God. Nicene Christians continue to hold that view.

The bishops at Nicaea voted about other things, but they didn't vote about whether Jesus was God. Nobody with a vote there believed otherwise. There was nothing about that to vote on.


Does your bible narrate the angel telling Mary she would be giving birth to a child who is fully man and fully God?


No, the scene in Luke has the angel addressing Mary's own concerns about the project.

A remarkable thing about the Mary-Gabriel scene is how realistically Jewish it is. Mary is entirely at liberty to tell the Creator of the Universe to go fly a kite. Gabriel asks for her permission, and responds to her objections. She decides what she will do, according to her conscience. God doesn't dictate, he asks.

In reviewing my answer to you, I see that you still project Islamic notions of scripture onto the thoroughly unIslamic Bible. Neither the New Testament nor the Hebrew Bible before it is dictation from God. A revelation is described, and thinking men and women figure out what that means. Generally, this results in a diversity of opinions surrounding a core of consensus.

It is almost as if God, having created thinking men and women, now expects men and women to think.


Christianity has its roots in the Jewish religion.


Which, as we have had occasion to discuss, includes a role for righteous Gentiles. That role does not involve Gentiles becoming Jewish. The two religions, then, are distinct. Christianity has no roots in the current living form of Judaism. Although they share some scripture, the two groups read those scriptures differently, often very differently. Other scriptures, like the Talmud on the Jewish side and the New Testament on the Christian side, are not shared.


Which group of "Christians" are correct on this matter? You tell me.


I don't know. However, you and I were discussing Nicene Christians, all of whom believe that Jesus is God and man, as other Christians did before them, and did before the Roman Imperial establishment (which, BTW, Nicaea itself was before). But it's good to see that you appreciate how many other meaty issues there are in christology besides the defining one.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Again, show me one instance where the biblical hebrews ever made an image of God and I'll admit I am wrong.



So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27 NIV)


Logically, every time they had a baby, they were making an image of God, eh?


Seriously, though, there's no compulsion on my part to demonstrate anything to you. The fact that I (and others) have shown you, repeatedly, that the Second Commandment does not, in any way, support your claim, and you totally ignore it, shows that there is no getting through to you -- you are ignorant and choose to remain that way, so no amount of proof would serve any purpose.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits


I doubt that anyone gets to decide the truth of any matter or their beliefs about it. It appears that the proto-orthodox (that is, Christians before Nicaea) inferred to the best explanation of the facts they had accepted, and concluded that Jesus was God. Nicene Christians continue to hold that view.

The bishops at Nicaea voted about other things, but they didn't vote about whether Jesus was God. Nobody with a vote there believed otherwise. There was nothing about that to vote on.




That is not quite the way I see the Trinity.

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.



Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

home.pacific.net.au...


Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


I will be using some of the information you have put forth in regards to the manipulation of the Christian belief by the Romans for a research paper I am writing for a class.

I will post the research paper on ATS and further explicate on your positioning, as I think that this type of information would be helpful in one's search for the existential questions of life and spiritual development. This will be done around November.

If we could keep in contact via PM so I can receive the sources of the information you present would be greatly appreciated. Please and thank you in advance, sk0rpi0n.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I looked through the pages and didnt see this mentioned. Though I have my own personal beliefs that may differ then most, I feel that it is only fair that everyone learn about everything, especially if trying to share your own thoughts.

There is a man by the name of Joseph Atwill that has come to some conclusions that may benefit some of this thread, even though I see a debate, this might help both sides.



Here is the trailer, for those that want to just see it before watching the next video. Caesar's Messiah Documentary Trailer.


Joseph Atwill Ceasars Messiah The Roman Conspiracy To Invent Jesus.

Joseph Atwill is an independent scholar who has set the world of New Testament scholarship in a new direction. In his book "Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus", Atwill outlines the series of events in Jesus' ministry that are parallels with the events of the battle campaign of Titus Flavius as recorded by Josephus Flavius in "War of the Jews". Numerous scholars had noticed the parallels between the Gospels and Josephus' work before, but Atwill is the first to notice that all the parallels take place in exact sequence and draw a revolutionary conclusion. Follow along in this program as Atwill contends these correlations, talks about linguistic typology and the reasons why the imperial Cult of Rome, with the Flavians at the center, wanted to invent the story of Jesus Christ for their own benefit.



And here is his site.
caesarsmessiah.com...


I wanted to write a thread about this myself, but this thread seems to be going well, and the people participating are being very civil, even though disagreeing.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
There is a man by the name of Joseph Atwill that has come to some conclusions that may benefit some of this thread, even though I see a debate, this might help both sides.


Oh, good Lord... he's citing D.M. Murdoch, for pete's sakes.

When that idiot shows up, there should be bells, red lights and an optional boxing glove to hit the viewer in the face, in case they don't happen to know that she is one of the most well known frauds in the "Historical Jesus" movement.

If you're interested, here's a post from a guy who doesn't appreciate another one of Atwill's theories, that Shakespeare's plays are "Jewish revenge literature".




posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Are you speaking solely of Atwill, or the others that have participated or shared the same conclusions that are in the documentary?

Peace, NRE.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
reply to post by adjensen
 


Are you speaking solely of Atwill, or the others that have participated or shared the same conclusions that are in the documentary?

Peace, NRE.


I'm not personally familiar with him, but anyone who cites D.M. Murdoch as a source pretty much destroys their own credibility. She's that bad.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



so no amount of proof would serve any purpose.


The only proof I asked for is ONE instance where the Israelites made an image of God. You haven't done that.

You know you cant, because there is NO record of Israelites(the ones who took their scriptures seriously) ever making an image of their God. You also know it was because they were bound by religious law, but choose to defend the Romans making images of the biblical God.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
G I Am

It's not entirely clear why all that was addressed to me, and a good deal of what's quoted as my post isn't mine. I have stated throughout my posts that Christian views developed over time, as thinking men and women grappled with the meaning of the revelation they believed they'd had.

As your written source confirms, the big fight at Nicaea (if a walkover can be described as a big fight) was about the Arian heresy, which held that the Christ was God, but made and begotten by the Father, rather than begotten but not made by the Father.

www.fourthcentury.com...


But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full (of grace and truth,) God, the only-begotten, unchangeable.


Neither side at Nicaea denied the divine character of the Christ; they differed on the mechanics of the arrangement. Begotten but not made won out over begotten and made.

There was plenty of christological wrestling still to come, but within a consensus that the Christ was divine, uniquely the Son of his Divine Father. As already noted, that consensus was older than any reliable Imperial toleration, much less establishment. No version of it is a Jewish or Hebrew idea, and all versions of it distinguish the Christian concept of divinity from the Islamic.

Scorpie

Although your remarks were directed at adj, since he has answered your question (whether you liked his answer or not), I'd like to add something about the "image making" issue.


You know you cant, because ...


The "because" is your retrojection onto an incomplete written and archaeological record in which we haven't found an object which we wouldn't recognize if it were staring us in the face. What does the Isaraelites' God "look like"? What does the God of Islam "look like"? What does the God of Christianity "look like"? Oh wait - I know the last one, he's a bearded fellow with dark, somewhat wooly hair and an olive complexion. I still couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

We do have a written record of the Israelites constructing dwelling places for their God, a tent and then the first Temple, both conceived of literally as places where God resides. The conception of the Second Temple may not have been quite so literally a divine dwelling place, but it was equipped with an inner sanctum where God might be faced. None of these dwelling or meeting places survives, nor their furnishings. These are the places where you'd look for a "depiction," but they do not now exist.

Manifestations of the Hebrew God in time and space were eminently depictable. For example, there was a man glimpsed from behind, a burning bush, a pillar, and the clouds shrouding a mountaintop. Were there in fact no depictions of these things? How the hell would you know?

We have already mentioned the angels on the Ark. Although the modern conception of an angel is as a separate being, it is not at all clear that the oldest Hebrew conception wasn't as a manifestation of God in time and space. In which case, all that separates those angels from being a depiction of God is your anachronistic interpretation of them.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


I will be using some of the information you have put forth in regards to the manipulation of the Christian belief by the Romans for a research paper I am writing for a class.

I will post the research paper on ATS and further explicate on your positioning, as I think that this type of information would be helpful in one's search for the existential questions of life and spiritual development. This will be done around November.

If we could keep in contact via PM so I can receive the sources of the information you present would be greatly appreciated. Please and thank you in advance, sk0rpi0n.


This book may interest you.

www.amazon.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 




The "because" is your retrojection onto an incomplete written and archaeological record in which we haven't found an object which we wouldn't recognize if it were staring us in the face.


Its not a lack of archaeological finds that tells us that the Israelites refrained from creating an image of God.
The religious prohibition against making an image of God formed the Israelites view on depicting divinity.

Throughout the biblical record, we find zero evidence of the Israelites depicting God in the manner that the Romans did.


For example, there was a man glimpsed from behind, a burning bush, a pillar, and the clouds shrouding a mountaintop. Were there in fact no depictions of these things? How the hell would you know?


And even then, the Israelites refrained from depicting God according to how he was "seen" in Biblical records ( burning bush, clouds etc.) Could it be that the Israelites were just bad at drawing stuff?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Anyway, I think my thread is being derailed by arguments on interpretations of the 2nd commandment.
That was NOT what I intended this thread to be.

Therefore, I request any further debate on the 2nd commandment towards a entirely different thread I started on the same matter here.


Thanks.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DelayedChristmas
 




I will be using some of the information you have put forth in regards to the manipulation of the Christian belief by the Romans for a research paper I am writing for a class.

I will post the research paper on ATS and further explicate on your positioning, as I think that this type of information would be helpful in one's search for the existential questions of life and spiritual development. This will be done around November.

If we could keep in contact via PM so I can receive the sources of the information you present would be greatly appreciated. Please and thank you in advance, sk0rpi0n.


You might find this link useful.

www.roman-empire.net...



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

This book may interest you.

Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years by Philip Jenkins

Looks interesting and I put it on my list for buying later.
It is about the Fifth Century and may be later that what the general topic is on this thread.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by eight bits
 




The "because" is your retrojection onto an incomplete written and archaeological record in which we haven't found an object which we wouldn't recognize if it were staring us in the face.


Its not a lack of archaeological finds that tells us that the Israelites refrained from creating an image of God.
The religious prohibition against making an image of God formed the Israelites view on depicting divinity.

Throughout the biblical record, we find zero evidence of the Israelites depicting God in the manner that the Romans did.


For example, there was a man glimpsed from behind, a burning bush, a pillar, and the clouds shrouding a mountaintop. Were there in fact no depictions of these things? How the hell would you know?


And even then, the Israelites refrained from depicting God according to how he was "seen" in Biblical records ( burning bush, clouds etc.) Could it be that the Israelites were just bad at drawing stuff?



In terms of Idol or icon worship by Israelites, I include their statues of Asherah and the Ark of the Covenant. These would have been used in the same way that Christianity uses the cross.

Status of Asherah are shown in this clip.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL





top topics
 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join