Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
Joined Jan 2010
2,974 Posts | 1+
Incline Village near Lake Tahoe
There is but one God (Ancient of Days). ..... Christ the 'Son of God" (God like) when, as now, after he is risen and at God's side. He is the "Son of man" when on earth with us as before he had risen and again when he returns for a time as the Messiah. The question whether Jesus is God or man has festered since the beginning. Constantine decreed that he was both at the Council of Nicaea. However, God proclaimed that He is the only God. Daniel 7:13 makes it clear that the Ancient of Days passes authority to one "like a son of man". Many other references exist making the point both ways but I think that these are the best.
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
I haven't read the whole thread, but I suspect he was just some rabble-rousing Jewish preacher that the Romans had to deal with to keep the peace.
Joined Jan 2010
2,974 Posts | 1+
Incline Village near Lake Tahoe
That too. The Romans had to have some order so they destroyed JERUSALEM, Masada, jews, Jesus, John the Baptist, Roman zealots ... and a few desert snakes. The question at this segment is: Was Jesus God or Man?? . You seem to know Constantine? ....According to many accounts, debate at the Council of Nicaea became so heated that at one point, Arius was slapped in the face by none other than Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized and became better known as "Santa Claus".[22] Under Constantine's influence, the majority of the bishops ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene creed. It included the word homoousios, meaning "consubstantial", or "one in being", which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs.[23] On June 19, 325, council and emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius and two of his unyielding partisans (Theonas and Secundus)[23] were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other supporters—Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Maris of Chalcedon—affixed their signatures solely out of deference to the emperor. However, Constantine soon found reason to suspect the sincerity of these three, for he later included them in the sentence pronounced on Arius.
Did you agree with his decrees ???
Joined Nov 2009
1,307 Posts | 1+
Massachusetts
Last edited:
There is no supporting evidence showing Constantine having any influence over doctrines or the creation of the Nicene Creed.
Constantine's main reason for calling the council was to get the Bishops together to hammer out the differences in doctrines. Arianism was rejected,
but when Constantine finally accepted Baptism on his death bed, it was an Arian Bishop who Baptised him.
Jim
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Joined Nov 2009
1,307 Posts | 1+
Massachusetts
I'm sure you meant an Arian bishop who baptised him!
Yes thats what I wrote.
Jim
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01718a.htm:
From where I am, that seems indeed like a lot of influence, in fact of direct intervention of Constantine I.
Joined Nov 2009
1,307 Posts | 1+
Massachusetts
He had no influence on the doctrines, but of course the politics. After all, he was the Roman emperor.
Jim
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
Please read the Catholic quotation from my previous post again: what could have influenced the doctrines any more than politically supporting one side while exiling the priests & burning the books of the other?
Joined Jan 2010
2,974 Posts | 1+
Incline Village near Lake Tahoe
I must disagree with you. Constantine lavishly arranged, presided over the Council. He admonished the 300 Bishops to make a decision. When it was nearly a tie, he determined for the Bishop of Alaxender and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. Afterward Constantine banished Arian. That said, Arianism was reestablished and Arain returned.
True but they considered much more than Arian. This is also the first time an Emperor planned, attended, presided, and made religious determinations thus showing how important his church was to him. No one, particularly Religious Bishops, would dare argue against his interests or authority. In those days, he was the head of the church.
He may have been Baptized (what ever that maybe) by Arian's Bishop but I doubt it. At that time, who had the authority to baptize him but Christ himself. Baptism is only a public recognition ceremony and has no real bearing in Christendom anyway. Constantine was most likely a Mithraist and accepted as also a Christian at the Edict of Milan.
Joined Jul 2007
9,098 Posts | 19+
Canada
Last edited:
The wolves aren't sheep, but yet, they are among them. Just like the Greeks are among the worshippers. Very simple.
It is not an analogy, but a demonstration of language. "Among" does not carry any connotation of homogeneity - in fact, quite the opposite. It presumes the heterogenous.
They were disinterested after Paul talked. Not before. Before, they were extremely curious; it's not like every babbler on an Athens street corner was accosted by a gang of philosophers and asked to give a speech at the Areopagus. As the story goes, whatever Paul was going on about, got a lot of people curious, at first; but when they got him on the stage and lifted the curtain, they got a groaner of a show, and were wholly unimpressed.
Also, Athens is not apart from Greece. The people in Athens are from Greece. And, at least as the Bible claims, they were temporarily very curious. Not just the Bible, though, since many of the early Church fathers also happen to be Greek, and the background of early Christian development - with influences such as Neoplatonism appearing soon after it is exported - show that Greek (and Alexandrian) intellectuals were heavily involved in its formative years.
No, actually, the only relevant portion of Passover to our discussion is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, since it is at this, specifically, that the encounter takes place. And as indicated, you are simply totally incorrect on this point; the Feast of Unleavened Bread takes place at the Temple, and nowhere else (at this point in time). The meal may take place in homes (or not; it is irrelevant) but the Feast takes place in the Temple.
No, but you can go up to it among those who are worshipping. The gates were wide open, and anyone - circumcised or not - could go up there (as my sources have shown). There were even Roman guards present, and there was an even a tradition whereby the procurator attended to release a prisoner.
The Feast of Unleavened Bread was celebrated ONLY at the Temple. Period. The rest of Passover is 100% irrelevant, since the encounter specifically happened during the Feast.
No, Passover was celebrated all over the city, but the Feast (of Unleavened Bread) was only celebrated at the temple.
In context, at there means just at. At the Feast, which has a specific location - the Temple.
Again, final time: the Feast portion of Passover - that is, the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the eating of the lamb isn't termed a "feast" - it is the Passover meal) - was celebrated ONLY in the temple. Period.
See above.
I'm not trying to make it sound like Romans "gathered" at the Temple. I'm pointing out that a few Romans did go to the Temple during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which was being held at the Temple. A handful of guards to make sure the Feast didn't get out of hand, and apparently a procurator traditionally put in an appearance to hand over a prisoner as a gesture of good will and to pay lip service to the local religious traditions.
Not Josephus. It is Deuteronomy which makes it law for the paschal offering, at least, to be performed at the Temple and nowhere else. So more than a "customary" role, unless you define religious law as custom. As far as the Feast (of Unleavened Bread) goes, it does seem to have been customary to hold it at the Temple. As multiple primary sources attest, it was customary in the sense that it was the way it was always done.
Wow, you really don't have a clue what a primary source is, do you?
Primary sources are never peer-reviewed (at least, not back then), almost always strongly biased, and rarely scholarly. Secondary sources - such as your list above - take these primary sources and interpret them for those who cannot. For this reason, anyone who relies exclusively on secondary sources demonstrates only that they are not educated in and cannot grasp the content of the primary sources. Secondary sources are a fine introduction, but someone familiar only with secondary sources is incapable of actually formulating their own position - they can only regurgitate positions others have formulated.
As Carlo Cippola wrote, "Even the least expert historian now knows that whenever possible he must refer back to primary sources, and that, if there are none available, it is only with great caution that he may proceed to make use of secondary sources . . . The distinction between primary and secondary sources is crystal clear to all historians and ought to be self-evident to any educated person. The hypothetical example of the road accident, distinguishing between those who were present and those who merely heard an account from others, should clarify the two concepts."
If you think that it is irrational to refuse to join a mailing list, you are either completely insane, or have a different definition of irrational than the rest of us. Unless said mailing list gives out briefcases of money to new members or something.
Of course. Estimations and opinions are never facts. Didn't you know that?
And so is Women's Studies (and Men's Studies) and "..... theory". If your test is only as rigorous as whether it is an academic field of study or not ... well, you must be capable of holding dozens of contradictory ideas, not to mention boatloads of fruity nonsense, in your head. Thankfully the really fruity wing of feminism hasn't caught on to this trick yet! Imagine them browbeating everyone with the fact of their academic presence.
It's not hard to get a place in the humanities. The Wiccans did it. Surely Christianity could! Yet all it's given us is a truckload of neothomist babblers that have, collectively, zero relevance outside their discipline. This last is a notable feature common to all academic quackery. This bunch would be happy taking education back to the Dark Ages and the only reason they are tolerated in academia is because kicking them out would look discriminatory, given all the other fruity disciplines allowed in the humanities. Given the sheer number of Christians, and the mountain of butthurt they'd feel, and the kind of backlash against universities that would ensue (which would probably include a few bombings and whatnot), it's likely that Christian studies will be present in academia forever, regardless of merit or lack thereof.
Believe it or not, it's possible to get a spot in the humanities through political pressure from the student body. Any sufficiently large gaggle of fanatics can do it, and most have.
Thus, the presence of Biblical studies in universities lends the participants no additional credence.
I've never said you've tried to present yourself as scholarly. I've said you've tried to present your position as being true merely because there are some scholars who support it, and I find you to be incredibly credulous about scholarly authority. Or you are when it suits you, at least. I'm sure you could muster up a smidgen of skepticism when faced with Eastern Orthodox scholars espousing a conflicting theological point. Or, you know, dodge the issue.
Ok, now let me get this straight - you're denying that the Temple was the only specific location associated with Passover, and so you're providing us with a bunch of nonspecific locations such as "the family home" and "the court of Pilate"?
Don't mind that noise; it's just the sound of me banging my head.
I'm beginning to wonder if a little more English and a little less magic apples and talking snakes might not have served you well.
Well, Passover itself is broad, and largely immaterial. There is only one portion that matters, and that's the Feast of Unleavened Bread, since it was at the Feast where the encounter supposedly takes place. And as we have seen, the Feast does not involve eating the Passover lamb, does not require circumcision, and is eaten at the Temple (and only at the Temple, in that time). That's why the crowd is said to be going up to the Temple to the Feast. Simple.
Joined Apr 2010
1,297 Posts | 2+
Deuteronomy was written seven or eight hundred years before Josephus, and can hardly be relied upon to accurately portray Jewish ritual in Jesus' times. Josephus is the ONLY real source we have. And no where does he indicate that the Temple served as a giant cafeteria for millions of Jewish worshipers. Celebrating the "feast" referred to the festival itself. The point of the festival to the High Priesthood was the sacrificing of animals, which they made money one, and the bringing in of tithes by the Jewish men, and the offering from the people of the "first fruits" from their fields and livestock- also profitable. It was a great social occasion as well and there were obviously countless parties and gathering throughout the city where feasting was done. The Passover was celebrated throughout the Jewish world of course, but the High Priesthood like to have as many people come to Jerusalem as possible, for obvious reasons.
And you have to differentiate between the walled inner courtyards of the Temple, where ONLY Jews could go, who had been properly purified and wearing the appropriate dress. That was where the large alter and the sanctuary building was.
In the outer courtyard, also a part of the Temple in the generic sense, anyone could walk up to, and there were vendors selling god-know-what, and moneychangers as well. Here, the Romans could be as well. Anyone at all, actually. And it was here where Jesus preached. The Romans had a stronghold in the north-adjoining tower of Antonia where there were towers and passageways to the ramparts on the Temple cloister roofs that they could access at a moment's notice.
So, the point is in discussing the Passover festival in Jesus' time, whatever your assertions are better have strong support in Josephus.
source Hagan "Year of the Passover", "Fires of Rome"
And you have to differentiate between the walled inner courtyards of the Temple, where ONLY Jews could go, who had been properly purified and wearing the appropriate dress. That was where the large alter and the sanctuary building was.
In the outer courtyard, also a part of the Temple in the generic sense, anyone could walk up to, and there were vendors selling god-know-what, and moneychangers as well. Here, the Romans could be as well. Anyone at all, actually. And it was here where Jesus preached. The Romans had a stronghold in the north-adjoining tower of Antonia where there were towers and passageways to the ramparts on the Temple cloister roofs that they could access at a moment's notice.
So, the point is in discussing the Passover festival in Jesus' time, whatever your assertions are better have strong support in Josephus.
source Hagan "Year of the Passover", "Fires of Rome"
Joined Jul 2007
9,098 Posts | 19+
Canada
Last edited:
There were not millions of Jews - probably not even 1 million - so this wildly exaggerated strawman of yours certainly would be difficult. Millions of Jews would not have been able to bring paschal lambs to the Temple, either. A modern, mechanized slaughterhouse couldn't process that in just one afternoon (which is required as part of the ritual; the paschal offering must take place on the afternoon of 14th Nisan, and the lamb must be eaten that night).
However, Josephus does confirm precisely that the Feast of Unleavened Bread takes place at, and only at, the Temple - and that all were welcome.
The Feast is the Feast of Unleavened Bread; the paschal offering is a different part of Passover (although it, too, took place at the Temple). There is a consistent failure in this thread to recognize that Passover was not just one single thing, but had a number of elements; the paschal offering, the Passover meal, the Feast, etc. What we are concerned with here is, specifically, the feast.
For certain, the Greeks were not taking part in the Korban Pesach (the sacrifice and eating of the paschal lamb) because it was strictly forbidden to non-Jews. The only "feast" they could have been going up to at the Temple (as stated in the passage) is the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
This whole line of argument is entirely bizarre; we have a passage saying that the Greeks are going up, with a crowd, to a feast, at the Temple.
Claiming that the passage is pure fantasy is hardly a good way of promoting the historical veracity of Christian mythology! Oh, the irony! Jerking knees will have them arguing against their own position!
It's not really relevant to this discussion; the passage does not claim that the Greeks went into the inner Temple and the Feast was certainly not held there. It would've been held in the outer courtyard, since we are specifically told that anyone, Jew or Gentile, circumcised or not, was welcome to the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
The Feast took place at the Temple; the Passover meal took place elsewhere, but the Feast is nowhere mentioned as taking place in private homes at that time, only in the Temple.
Joined Apr 2010
1,297 Posts | 2+
Josephus distinctly mentions three million for the Passover of A.D. 66, just before the outbreak of the revolt. In another section, he states that over a quarter million separate sacrifices were held one Passover, with ten men participating in a single sacrifice.
But I agree Josephus' "very large numbers" can be questions.
In Jotapata, a Jewish stronghold during the revolt, he states that 40 thousand people were killed during the Roman siege. The site of Jotapata has been found, and that is not a likely figure- perhaps off by a factor of ten.
Most, if not all, of the pilgrims bought their sacrificial animals at the outer courtyard. That's how the High Priesthood made a lot of their money. It was a solemn event to "slow-walk" up the stone steps to the Temple's outer courtyard. Imagine if tens of thousands of people were hauling up bellowing animals as well!! Sheer mayhem..
"Feast" in the vast majority of cases was a generic reference to the festival itself- "feast" in fact is the root word for festival.
Again, if you can support your assertions from passages in Josephus, I will change my opinion. But you can't take Medieval Judaism and Old Testament Judaism and apply them to Jesus' time with any veracity.
There is no indication in Josephus that the great Temple served as a giant eatery during the Passover. Logistically, it makes little sense, unless very small aliquots of "holy" food were given out symbolically.
But I agree Josephus' "very large numbers" can be questions.
In Jotapata, a Jewish stronghold during the revolt, he states that 40 thousand people were killed during the Roman siege. The site of Jotapata has been found, and that is not a likely figure- perhaps off by a factor of ten.
Most, if not all, of the pilgrims bought their sacrificial animals at the outer courtyard. That's how the High Priesthood made a lot of their money. It was a solemn event to "slow-walk" up the stone steps to the Temple's outer courtyard. Imagine if tens of thousands of people were hauling up bellowing animals as well!! Sheer mayhem..
"Feast" in the vast majority of cases was a generic reference to the festival itself- "feast" in fact is the root word for festival.
Again, if you can support your assertions from passages in Josephus, I will change my opinion. But you can't take Medieval Judaism and Old Testament Judaism and apply them to Jesus' time with any veracity.
There is no indication in Josephus that the great Temple served as a giant eatery during the Passover. Logistically, it makes little sense, unless very small aliquots of "holy" food were given out symbolically.
Joined Jul 2007
9,098 Posts | 19+
Canada
Last edited:
In the timeframe of a single afternoon - whether they had the lambs there for sale and ready to go, or whether people were bringing them in - this is still impossible even for a 21st century, mechanized slaughterhouse, so it is definately a no-go for an Iron Age temple. Josephus is exaggerating.
Are you seriously applying English etymology to the text of the New Testament?
I already have; this ipse dixit does not constitute a rebuttal. Post 131. I'm not big on frivolous repetition.
Medieval Judaism? What hat did you pull that rabbit out of?
As far as Old Testament Judaism, it depends on whether the practices can be established as ongoing during Jesus' time, which many were. Josephus establishes that the FUB happened at the Temple, which confirms the NT passage that the Greeks were going up to the Temple for it. I'm not really sure why you're so keen on the OT, since it has nothing really to do with this. It is not mentioned; this is a rather informal portion of Passover that was happening. It is the NT passage itself, plus Josephus, who tell us about it.
Whether they were eating some bread when they got there or not is probably irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that these Greeks were not, and could not have been, proselytes:
After the solemn custom: the Greeks were first so called by the name of the country of Greece, where they lived: but afterward, all that were not of the Jew's religion, but worshipped false gods and were also called heathens, were called by the name Greeks.
http://gsb.biblecommenter.com/john/12.htm
This commentary refers specifically to the very passage under discussion. "Greek" could therefore refer to a Roman, or Egyptian, or any heathen. Most likely to Greeks, being the most numerous foreigners, but not necessarily. By that time, it was a catch-all for heathen foreigners and it would be reasonable and in fact more precise to translate the term at this point as "heathen".
This, of course, gels with what we know about non-Jews and the uncircumcised being welcome to this particular event at the (outer) Temple. Josephus tells us this was permissable, provided they "desired to worship God" which even a devoutly pagan Greek, with his syncretic outlook, would have felt he did (Yahweh being Zeus, in his mind). Not that he was likely to be interrogated much about it anyway.
It wasn't a "giant eatery" serving "millions". Unlike the Passover meal, which had to be sacrificed and eaten on the same day and night, the FUB lasts seven days, during which the courtyard of the Temple - which was quite large - could certainly dispense bread to very large numbers of people; and it probably was just a very tiny portion, because that is what makes sense, yes? You're looking to make all the accounts into nonsense by adopting the most absurd interprations of statements that you can imagine. It's not effective sabotage, and it's abysmally bad historical methodology! Normally we look to the most likely things that statements meant, to what reasonably fits with statements, not the most unlikely things that don't fit.
Also unlike the paschal meal, it was not actually necessary to go to the Temple; you could if you wanted to, but the only thing that a Jew had to do was not eat any leavened bread for seven days. The feast at the Temple was not a critical part of Passover; it was not religiously necessary, there is nothing in the OT that mandates it, it was simply a festive courtesy on the part of the religious authorities.
Joined Apr 2010
1,297 Posts | 2+
What type of historian are you, anyway?
I look at an "ancient" statement, and try not to read anything into it at all. I take it at face value, trusting the translations, but I will evaluate an "ancient" statement in terms of other contemporaneous historians or historical works, if possible (Tacitus, Philo, others).
Using the Judaism as described in Deuteronomy, and applying it to the times of Jesus, is REALLY stretching things without a VERY STRONG basis in Josephus. In fact, your major points should be from Josephus, and the New Testament (not much there, really), with Deuteronomy only being used in an ancillary fashion, if at all- and even then to support Josephus, and not to contradict him.
I look at an "ancient" statement, and try not to read anything into it at all. I take it at face value, trusting the translations, but I will evaluate an "ancient" statement in terms of other contemporaneous historians or historical works, if possible (Tacitus, Philo, others).
Using the Judaism as described in Deuteronomy, and applying it to the times of Jesus, is REALLY stretching things without a VERY STRONG basis in Josephus. In fact, your major points should be from Josephus, and the New Testament (not much there, really), with Deuteronomy only being used in an ancillary fashion, if at all- and even then to support Josephus, and not to contradict him.
Joined Jul 2007
9,098 Posts | 19+
Canada
This is poor methodology! Professional historians do not take ancient statements at face value. They are always taken in context. The bias of the author, the motive behind the work in question, and many other factors are kept in mind by scholars when reading primary sources.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-