| Kris Krieger 2008-03-22, 3:26 am |
| Roger Pearse <roger.pearse@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:ebc0dc0d-0f89-41ca-a425-cc86e8a69914@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On 19 Mar, 22:32, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
> Firstly, Constantine did not pick a council of bishops. He merely
> agreed to host a convention of bishops. Not quite the same thing, I
> think!
I'll try to recheck, but I'd noted (i.e. written note) that he'd assembled
it.
>
> Secondly this idea about reincarnation is actually a modern myth. The
> teaching is not found in the Fathers, for obvious reasons; it
> contradicts the NT. The nearest that we get is the idea that souls
> existed before conception, found in one of Origen's works -- and since
> he had a day-job as a philosopher, and that work is largely
> philosophical, it's not much help.
Modern myth...? Why? Because it questions what a group of people write
about themselves?
In what way does reincarnation contradict the New Testament (which is what
I assume you cute abbreviation stands for)? THere is nothing that either
praises or condemns it - it's not mentioned at all, at least not by Jesus,
so how can you say it "contradicts" anything? Also, what comprised
Christian literature *before* the council?
I also don't see why philosohpy is "not much help", unless one is speaking
only from the standpoint of religious orthodoxy and rejecting anything that
isn't part of its tenets - the problem therein being that sectarian
religious orothodoxies aren't strong on maintaining historical fact, or
acknowledging even the tenets of other sects.
>
>
> Um, well, this is speculation, whether well founded or not. The idea
> that Constantine was not a sincere enthusiast was started ca. 1850 by
> people trying to undermine the ideological legitimacy of the Hapsburg
> empire, which was based on the concept of Christian Empire. I don't
> think that we need pay a lot of attention to it now.
I guess those Bible scholars I saw interviewed don't know anything...
Anyway, I didn't say he "wasn't sincere" - he might have been, however,
sincerity does not in any way whatsoever rule out either political intrigue
or the recognition that religion can be a powerful tool of state. People
don't get to be emperor (or Pope for that matter), and most especially do
not *remain* such, if they close their eyes to the means of accumulating,
wielding, and consolidating political power.
>
> - so the council was
>
> No, this is a mistake. Constantine did not direct the Council in this
> way. Indeed T.D.Barnes, in "Constantine and Eusebius" (Oxford, 1980)
> points out that Constantine's religious policy was hamstrung precisely
> by his unwillingness to do this sort of thing (an unwillingness not
> shared by his successors, of course).
Is Barnes' theory a stand-alone?
>
>
>
> I'm afraid that someone has fed you a load of nonsense here. None of
> this sort of thing can be found in any of the surviving ancient texts
> that tell us what went on at Nicaea, which you can access in English
> from here:
>
> http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Um, of ocurse the documents issued by the council would be favorable to the
council. THere are historical documents in addition to what they produced,
which were also used to look at what the council did.
>
> In fact the terms in which the above is put simply smells of the
> second half of the 20th century in the USA.
Oh Brother. THat in and of itself makes me not want to look at your claims
seriously. It's not just poeple in the USA, but includes scholars in other
countries; re: the time period, it makes sense that people prior to the
20th century didn't look as closely at such matters, because they were not
as inclined to stand up to religious tenets.
Also, it's no secret that society was quite patriarchical. What about the
apostolic admonition that women should never be permitted to speak in
church, telloing wives to "be in subjugation to your husbands", and so on?
Then thre are the writings of St. Jerome - or are those writings all also
"myth"? ((Same can be asked of what I'd learned in Catechism 40+ years
ago, which was also quite misogynist.)) None of them indicate a good
opinion of women, so I don't any sort of contradiction between that low
opinion, and rejecting the idea of reincarnation, even if only partially,
out of a rejection of the possibility of a man being reincarnated as a
woman.
>
> ly promote the idea of
>
> No, they don't. But we cannot therefore infer that either he or his
> followers accepted it; particularly since they did get around to
> explicitly rejecting it.
I didn't say they believed in it, I said that it wasn't rejected in the
writings, so one also cannot say the teachings were opposed to the idea -
they simply don't address it at all, however, it seems that other writings
(i.e. those not included in the official Testament) did express a belief in
it.
|