| Roger Pearse 2008-03-22, 9:25 am |
| On 22 Mar, 04:05, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote innews:ebc0dc0d-0f89-41ca-=
a425-cc86e8a69914@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> I'll try to recheck, but I'd noted (i.e. written note) that he'd assembled=
> it.
The ancient sources differ. There seems to be evidence that in fact
the council was already assembling at Ancyra, when Hosius of Cordova
persuaded Constantine to host it and pay the bills so that bishops
from all over the world could attend. The venue was then switched to
Nicaea so that the emperor could be present.
[color=darkred]
>
> Modern myth...? =A0Why? =A0Because it questions what a group of people wri=
te
> about themselves? =A0 =A0
I'm not sure that I understand you. The story is a myth because it
didn't happen, yet is circulated as if it did. It's a modern myth
because it was invented in modern times.
> In what way does reincarnation contradict the New Testament ...
I'm sorry, but I have no interest in this theological issue. Your
argument on this is not with me, after all; try one of the religious
news groups.
> Also, what comprised Christian literature *before* the council? =A0
Have a look at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2, which includes
translations of most of the ante-Nicene fathers.
> 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 tha=
t
> 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. =A0
What I meant by "not much help" is that discussing professional
philosophical problems is one thing. It isn't the same as expressing
what the church taught. Origen had to do both in his works; it is a
category mistake to take material from his day job as if it was a
prouncement by a bishop of the Holy Orthodox Faith as understood at
the time.
I hope that is clearer.
Without being insulting, you seem to have some kind of dogma to
peddle, and some antipathy to Christianity to express, since you have
introduced quite a bit of both into your reply. It's probably a
mistake for you to discuss Christianity, as it would be for me to
write about political correctness (which I detest); in both cases what
will come out is unlikely to be useful to anyone else, and terribly
tedious to read.
>
>
> I guess those Bible scholars I saw interviewed don't know anything... =A0
If you say so, whoever they might have been!
> 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 intrigu=
e
> or the recognition that religion can be a powerful tool of state. =A0Peopl=
e
> 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.
No, that's quite right. Late emperors tended to be very alive to such
things. I merely indicated that we were in speculation-land.
I think Constantine *was* sincere. Hey, he used to preach a sermon to
his court every Sunday, and (if you read between the lines), his
courtiers used to try to find excuses not to be present when he did!
In tedium there is sincerity.... :-)
put[color=darkred]
>
[color=darkred]
>
> Is Barnes' theory a stand-alone? =A0
I don't know, I have to say, since I don't read a lot of secondary
texts. But the primary accounts rather support this view of his
actions at Nicaea.
>
>
>
> Um, of ocurse the documents issued by the council would be favorable to th=
e
> council. =A0THere are historical documents in addition to what they produc=
ed,
> which were also used to look at what the council did.
Indeed. But that link takes you to *all* of them. None of them
contain that sort of story.
>
> Oh Brother. =A0THat in and of itself makes me not want to look at your cla=
ims...
I'm not sure that I understand your problem. Every period of history
has a distinctive smell. Those claims smell very definitely of that
locale and period.
> seriously. =A0It's not just poeple in the USA, but includes scholars in ot=
her
> 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.
Why not read some pre-20th century writers and find out? You might
start with Voltaire, or J.S.Mill. <unsubtle hint>
>
>
> 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 i=
n
> it.
I don't think it matters a damn what material produced by people
outside the church says, tho. It can't be a guide to what those
inside believed, can it?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|