Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

We Have Two Swords

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    As Paul is the earliest writer, it could not go "in either direction" and nor as I have previously mentioned does Paul ever indicate he is aware of circulating texts dealing with the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
    The gospels equally show a lack of awareness of Paul's writing. If one was written well in advance of the other, awareness would likely be apparent.

    I have never contended that these alleged prophecies were in fact prophecies. I therefore have no need to catch on.

    You keep confusing the two terms as you do "forecast" and "prophecy".
    I have not argued that it was prophecy. You have - it is almost the sole basis for your claim that the gospels are of late composition. Once it is noted that the statement could have been a simple forecast, the foundation for the claim goes the way of the temple.

    As history has shown, self-evidently it does not.
    Make a note of the client kings of the Roman Empire. Where does this history of yours show that they had the right to act externally to their own realms without the permission of the emperor?

    Why? Recording [post-eventum] someone making an allusion to that event is hardly unknown.
    Alluding to an event does not pretend that the event had yet to happen at the time of the statement.

    Evidence that Paul does not mention them exists.
    Nor do the gospels mention Paul, or anything that he wrote.

    It was conducted and demonstrates cultural affinity.
    With one (disputed) exception, not by devout Yahwists. The evidence is more for synchretism than for "cultural affinity," though there was a marked affinity for the "old gods."

    I was being facetious.
    You were being snarky.

    Given the general tenor of John's gospel I suspect that is an allegory.
    Of course you do, but you won't have a lot of luck demonstrating what it allegorised.

    Your speculation is duly noted.
    An unsurprising response. You yet again asked a question that demanded speculation. In future I will endeavour to not supply a response when you demand speculation.

    As Inowlocki notes in her conclusion:

    In sum, if it cannot be proved irrefutably that Josephus’ alleged passage on James and Jerusalem is authentic


    Although she continues:

    , it can nevertheless be argued that it is plausible.


    It may indeed be considered plausible but without any evidence it has to remain questionable.
    Yet you saw fit to ridicule mention of the citation and declare that Josephus had never made the claim. The best you can provide as evidence for your position is speculation.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

      How is Mark's versions different than Matthew's?
      Without giving a three thousand plus word essay in response, here's food for thought.

      In modern day university courses, there are exercises where a given author's work (e.g. Athanasius. On the Incarnation) is to be written up in the students' own words. The exercise places focus on the main themes of that particular work. On the Incarnation has passages at the beginning which provide background information, and at the end that don't directly address the incarnation (quite a number). Those ancillary passages are not covered in the students' essays. The resulting work winds up being predominantly the same as the source text (though with only a small part being direct quotes), and a small percentage added from other sources. It is an exercise that was given to trainee rhetoricians (though the requirement to avoid long sections of direct quote was not considered unseemly) long before Rome became significant. Rhetoricians would follow the same process, dealing with a synthesis of three or four source texts.
      If we were to give this exercise to students today, basing it on the gospels of Matthew and Luke, what would be the outcome? The resulting work would not include the background information - the nativity, and all the rest of the background being "off topic" - nor would it include the events that occurred after Jesus' crucifixion, though it could possibly make mention of them in no more than a few sentences. In short, a modern day student presented with the exercise would produce an essay quite closely resembling the gospel of Mark. Tatian's Diatessaron was a similar exercise based on the four gospels.

      Given that the scene is presented as an attempt by the Pharisees to entrap Jesus into openly subverting Cæsar and failed, your interpretation is lacking.
      Among other evidence provided by the gospels, yes. It has to be acknowledged that the passage might have a double meaning though, provided that it is taken wholly in isolation.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

        You've yet to 1) differentiate the two versions
        Mark 12: Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere and show deference to no one, for you do not regard people with partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” 16 And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose title?” They answered, “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.

        Matthew 22: Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. 16 So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one, for you do not regard people with partiality. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose title?” 21 They answered, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed, and they left him and went away.


        What major differences do you detect between those two texts?


        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        and 2) persuade me of your interpretation as my current interpretation is independent of which version is used.
        I am not attempting to persuade you of anything. I simply noted that Jesus' comment may be interpreted [given the known situation at the time] in an alternate manner.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          The gospels equally show a lack of awareness of Paul's writing. If one was written well in advance of the other, awareness would likely be apparent.
          Consider I Corinthians chapter eleven.

          For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[f] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.


          Paul's is the earliest text to make a comparison between bread and wine and flesh and blood. As for comparisons between Paul and the Synoptics a new OUP Handbook on the Synoptics due to be published at the end of this month, has a chapter dealing with Pauline influence on Mark:

          https://academic.oup.com/edited-volu...dFrom=fulltext

          This chapter begins by presenting a case for Mark’s possible dependence on select Pauline letters through an investigation of the two authors’ shared poetic method. Focusing on Mark’s anonymous exorcist (Mk 9:38-40), it argues that, if Mark knows Pauline theology and presumes the apostle’s mission to be essential content to the salvation-historical plan of God, Mark uses Paul’s synecdochical hermeneutic vis-à-vis the Christian kerygma to seed Paul’s mission into his text. The chapter then explores how the Paulinism of Mark is picked up and incorporated into the other synoptic Gospels. It argues that the Paulinism of Matthew is unwitting, and it demonstrates this by showing how Matthew’s indebtedness to the structure and content of the Gospel of Mark results in the first evangelist (re)presenting the Pauline mission—a mission to the Jew first and then to the Gentile—even as he significantly modulates its theological implications. In the case of the Gospel of Luke, the chapter suggests that there is a more complicated and proactive process of harmonization between the “Paul” with whom the author of Luke is familiar and the Paulinism that is represented within Mark’s text. Analyzing the Last Supper accounts of the three authors, it argues that Luke shares with both Mark and Paul an essential understanding of the ecclesiological significance of the Eucharistic rite, but in the course of crafting his own Last Supper scene, Luke blends the stories of Mark and Paul together. The chapter concludes with some implications for further study.


          The two essays by Crossley and Bird in the 2011 Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences also make for interesting reading. The Introduction [written by Bird] to that volume notes:

          Werner regarded the agreements between Paul and Mark as deriving from general Christian teaching and not due to Pauline influence on Mark. However, ten years ago Joel Marcus noted a resurgence in the view that Mark was flexibly a ‘Paulinist’. Amid this debate two studies about Mark and Paul are included by James G. Crossley and Michael F. Bird, who take diverging views on this subject.


          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          I have not argued that it was prophecy. You have - it is almost the sole basis for your claim that the gospels are of late composition.
          We are left to ponder why the comment was put into the mouth of Jesus who died over thirty years before the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Make a note of the client kings of the Roman Empire. Where does this history of yours show that they had the right to act externally to their own realms without the permission of the emperor?
          My reference was to the historical behaviours of various monarchs and/or states, not specifically to the behaviours of Rome's various client kings.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Alluding to an event does not pretend that the event had yet to happen at the time of the statement.
          See my above question.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Nor do the gospels mention Paul, or anything that he wrote.
          See my comment on what has come to be known as the Eucharist.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          With one (disputed) exception, not by devout Yahwists. The evidence is more for synchretism than for "cultural affinity," though there was a marked affinity for the "old gods."
          You do realise i suppose that the cult of Yahweh developed over a considerable time? It did not spring fully formed like Athene from Zeus' brow.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Of course you do, but you won't have a lot of luck demonstrating what it allegorised.
          John's gospel is generally recognised as a more theologically developed text and nor does the Jesus figure with which we are presented in that gospel bearn any comparison with a Jewish Galilean charismatic healer, exorcist, and teacher, preaching of the kingdom of God to his fellow Jews.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Yet you saw fit to ridicule mention of the citation and declare that Josephus had never made the claim.
          You are yet again accusing me of something I did not do. I suggested that you read Josephus. However, to reply to me claiming you had done so when the precise text in his writings to which you alluded does not exist, is a remarkable feat on your part.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          The best you can provide as evidence for your position is speculation.
          The best I can provide is to repeat my suggestion that you read Josephus and also some modern historians who have expertise on the history of Rome at this period.

          However, I would suggest we have reached a point in this exchange at which we can go no further, short of repeating our-selves.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            Methinks the author doth largely protest too much.
            Methinks that unless you have read all of Pollini's paper you are making an observation premised on insufficient information.

            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            While the Orthodox debate over icons was highly contentious and a few people were killed, it was hardly a bloodbath
            That is down to definitions of what constitutes a bloodbath. It is a fact that all too often Christians of all persuasions have resorted to violence to persecute those who reject or challenge their particular understanding and interpretation of their religion.


            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            Indeed. I found a copy online here. A quick skim suggests that it may not help your case as much as you appear to assume.
            Once again methinks you giving the appearance of assuming too much.

            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              Consider I Corinthians chapter eleven.

              For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[f] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.


              Paul's is the earliest text to make a comparison between bread and wine and flesh and blood. As for comparisons between Paul and the Synoptics a new OUP Handbook on the Synoptics due to be published at the end of this month, has a chapter dealing with Pauline influence on Mark:

              https://academic.oup.com/edited-volu...dFrom=fulltext

              This chapter begins by presenting a case for Mark’s possible dependence on select Pauline letters through an investigation of the two authors’ shared poetic method. Focusing on Mark’s anonymous exorcist (Mk 9:38-40), it argues that, if Mark knows Pauline theology and presumes the apostle’s mission to be essential content to the salvation-historical plan of God, Mark uses Paul’s synecdochical hermeneutic vis-à-vis the Christian kerygma to seed Paul’s mission into his text. The chapter then explores how the Paulinism of Mark is picked up and incorporated into the other synoptic Gospels. It argues that the Paulinism of Matthew is unwitting, and it demonstrates this by showing how Matthew’s indebtedness to the structure and content of the Gospel of Mark results in the first evangelist (re)presenting the Pauline mission—a mission to the Jew first and then to the Gentile—even as he significantly modulates its theological implications. In the case of the Gospel of Luke, the chapter suggests that there is a more complicated and proactive process of harmonization between the “Paul” with whom the author of Luke is familiar and the Paulinism that is represented within Mark’s text. Analyzing the Last Supper accounts of the three authors, it argues that Luke shares with both Mark and Paul an essential understanding of the ecclesiological significance of the Eucharistic rite, but in the course of crafting his own Last Supper scene, Luke blends the stories of Mark and Paul together. The chapter concludes with some implications for further study.


              The two essays by Crossley and Bird in the 2011 Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences also make for interesting reading. The Introduction [written by Bird] to that volume notes:

              Werner regarded the agreements between Paul and Mark as deriving from general Christian teaching and not due to Pauline influence on Mark. However, ten years ago Joel Marcus noted a resurgence in the view that Mark was flexibly a ‘Paulinist’. Amid this debate two studies about Mark and Paul are included by James G. Crossley and Michael F. Bird, who take diverging views on this subject.

              Everything there depends of speculating that Jesus had never actually uttered that allusion. Had he done so, the entire "theory" would fall apart.
              Last edited by tabibito; 03-26-2023, 09:22 AM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post


                What major differences do you detect between those two texts?

                None


                I am not attempting to persuade you of anything. I simply noted that Jesus' comment may be interpreted [given the known situation at the time] in an alternate manner.
                The Ancient Aliens theory is merely an alternative interpretation of the archeological record [knowing the situation of terrestrial technology at the time] as well
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


                  None
                  So why the question?

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  The Ancient Aliens theory is merely an alternative interpretation of the archeological record [knowing the situation of terrestrial technology at the time] as well
                  You need to talk to someone.
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                    None
                    There is a major difference. Matthew used 115 words, but Mark only used 108.





                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      There is a major difference. Matthew used 115 words, but Mark only used 108.

                      Mark's Scores | Matthew's Scores
                      Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease: 93.7 | 90.1
                      New Dale Chall Readability: 2.5 | 3
                      Spache Readability Score: 3.4 | 4.1
                      Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 2.1 | 2.7
                      Gunning Fog Index: 4.7 | 5.1
                      Coleman-Liau Index: 6.6 | 7.5
                      SMOG Index Score: 7 | 7.2
                      Automated Readability Index: 0.4 | 1.4
                      Both Matthew and Mark must be in absolute shambles at the same time as both a higher or lower score could be preferable.

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      So why the question?
                      Because there's no reason to bring up Mark or Matthew as if the interpretation would differ.

                      You need to talk to someone.
                      Because you don't like it when people turn your quips around back at you? I never said the Ancient Aliens theory was true or that one ought to be persuaded by it. It's merely an alternative interpretation.
                      Last edited by Diogenes; 03-26-2023, 02:20 PM.
                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                        Because there's no reason to bring up Mark or Matthew as if the interpretation would differ.
                        If they agree, it's obvious that copying or collusion behind it. If they don't agree, they obviously didn't know what they were talking about.



                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                          If they agree, it's obvious that copying or collusion behind it. If they don't agree, they obviously didn't know what they were talking about.



                          You're ready for an honorary fedora.
                          P1) If , then I win.

                          P2)

                          C) I win.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            Methinks that unless you have read all of Pollini's paper you are making an observation premised on insufficient information.
                            Given you wholly stripped out my reasoning for making such a statement, I rather suspect that I am not so far off from his whole as you strive to imply.
                            That is down to definitions of what constitutes a bloodbath. It is a fact that all too often Christians of all persuasions have resorted to violence to persecute those who reject or challenge their particular understanding and interpretation of their religion.
                            Consider that, as an Orthodox Christian, I might have some knowledge of that whereof I speak. There was certainly violence and persecution, but to label it a bloodbath is to stray quite far from actuality.
                            Once again methinks you giving the appearance of assuming too much.
                            What, pray tell, did I assume? I made an observation based on what I'd read. Given time and opportunity, I'll read it through and make a more thoroughly informed response. There is no evidence that you've done so much as skim it; it is not out of the question that you discovered it in a Google search and proffered it without bothering to read a smidgen of it first.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Methinks the author doth largely protest too much. While the Orthodox debate over icons was highly contentious and a few people were killed, it was hardly a bloodbath (and this is coming from someone on the persecuted side in that debate). Further, Christianity has had far more opportunity for such destruction; Judaism hasn't had much power to do so since the conquest of Canaan, and Islam did most of its expansion against Christian cultures, not pagan ones.

                              Indeed. I found a copy online here. A quick skim suggests that it may not help your case as much as you appear to assume.
                              It would seem that you are right - and it is not necessary to dig too far into the book to find that out.


                              All together now



                              She has presented a grossly oversimplified view of very complex circumstances.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 03-26-2023, 10:58 PM.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Given you wholly stripped out my reasoning for making such a statement, I rather suspect that I am not so far off from his whole as you strive to imply.
                                Methinks the author doth largely protest too much. While the Orthodox debate over icons was highly contentious and a few people were killed, it was hardly a bloodbath (and this is coming from someone on the persecuted side in that debate). Further, Christianity has had far more opportunity for such destruction; Judaism hasn't had much power to do so since the conquest of Canaan, and Islam did most of its expansion against Christian cultures, not pagan ones.


                                No one is disputing the destruction caused by Islam but Islam was not the topic - likewise early Israelites.

                                In the opening paragraph of his paper which commences with the protests of fundamentalist Christians in the 1990s [led by minister Mel Perry] against a replica of Athena Parthenos being placed in the Nashville Pantheon, Pollni notes:

                                Shenoute is reported to have said that “there is no crime for those who have Christ,” a belief shared and acted upon by fundamentalist Christians from late antiquity to the present.


                                On page four Pollini discusses St Nicholas and how our jolly gift giver is rather removed from his origins.

                                The St. Nicholas of late antiquity was in reality a composite of at least two individuals, a shadowy figure said to be bishop of Myra, who lived at the time of the Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, and Nicholas of Sion, bishop of Pinara, a true historical individual who lived at the time of Justinian in the 6th century. Many of the stories about Nicholas of Sion were attributed to Nicholas, bishop of Myra. In reality, the composite St. Nicholas was anything but jolly or lovable; he was in fact an ascetic fanatic, admired for his destruction of the sacred images, objects, and temples of the gods of polytheistic peoples in Lycia in southwestern Asia Minor [modern Turkey].


                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Consider that, as an Orthodox Christian, I might have some knowledge of that whereof I speak. There was certainly violence and persecution, but to label it a bloodbath is to stray quite far from actuality.
                                However, the dispute [if that is what you consider it to have been] over icons continued for over a century commencing under Emperor Leo III in 726 who denounced icons and his council of 730 that forbade the veneration of icons up to the reign of Theophilus in the 800s. .

                                Under Leo III's successor Constantine V [Copronymus] monks, clergy, and laity who resisted decrees against images were harassed and persecuted. This included the torture and often murder of thousands of monks, among them Stephen of St Auxentius' monastery. Now while some might take issue with the term "bloodbath" which, I agree, has a highly emotive inference, I would suggest that most people would consider such behaviours as those outlined to be, at the very least, state intimidation and brutality of some duration and on a large scale.

                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                What, pray tell, did I assume? I made an observation based on what I'd read. Given time and opportunity, I'll read it through and make a more thoroughly informed response. There is no evidence that you've done so much as skim it; it is not out of the question that you discovered it in a Google search and proffered it without bothering to read a smidgen of it first.
                                Having read Rohmann's book [which is not a polemic] he presents a measured response to the destruction of certain texts in the ancient world which in many respects reflected the Christian pre-occupation with demons, the refutation of any philosophical ideas that challenged biblical texts, as well as much needed attempts to create a unified religion/church. However, from the reign of Augustus there had always been severe imperial concerns and/or edicts against astrology [particularly any predictions that might relate to, or hint at, of imperial deaths]
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                57 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X