Rome in transition

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

It occurred to me earlier that what is decidedly missing in Christianity is Jewish *ritual*.

Perhaps that's an easy way to look at this:

Jewish storyline + Pagan ritual and superstition = Christianity

I think that the story line is all wrong. There are lots of little hints in the Gospels of some sort of zealot movement providing the main cast of characters in the story. Layered on that is a kind of proto-Gnostic ideology that comes out clearly in the beatitudes.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Hey, Bandit! So cool of you to drop by!

Originally Posted by Bandit

Except for I did not see it as Paul/Paulines' who did it because if you look at Pauls writings through what would be more like the eyes of Jesus then I see a different picture. Paul rejected the statues, the planet worship & all that type of thinking but was not for or against esteeming days & seasons.

Yes, Paul said a number of things that get ignored or misquoted. Sometimes what he did write can become confusing to understand because of it.

Look at the whole "clean meats" argument that made Peter bristle. Paul was taking the whole show into a new direction. And comments about food that had been offered to idols as being acceptable because the idols were non-entities, but that if it caused a brother or sister to stumble to refrain from such foods.

Originally Posted by Bandit

It was the romans who took on all the pagan stuff then called themselves rcc. I mean gods who turn into men? statues all over the place & kissing them? the holy days are not so holy after all and they loved crucifixions as that was the most brutal way to kill someone... It is recorded *history* LOL! that Zeus & Hercules were godmen long before jesus ever was...and now we shall take over the world and will kill & create fear on all who do not believe this new jewish godman.

The religious landscape way back when Rome was founded was kinda complex, yet there was a lot of similarity in the surrounding area between competing cults. Roman gods followed essentially the same format that the Greek gods followed, as did the Egyptian gods and some number of others, each pantheon showing a remarkably similar structure with a sun god, god of the hunt, god of death, etc... Monotheism was pretty much the realm of the Jews, Zoroastrianism and arguably Hinduism (if one looks at the various Hindu gods as representations different aspects of the one god). Taoism I believe was more like a natural alchemical science than a religion in the sense we usually think. In that it probably shared some similarities with Celtic and Druidic "crafts" we usually think of as witchcraft and spell casting.

Originally Posted by Bandit

Has there not been at least 16 'gods' that have been crucified & all of them B.C.?

Something like that, at least according to the Theosophists. I haven't ever tried to tally them all up or put them into a context.

Originally Posted by Bandit

and when you eat this bread it will turn into body flesh & blood of god and if you do not eat it then you burn in hell. That explains why the children spit it out & I would as well. When you repeat chants or something like creeds hundreds of times from age 5 to 12, you WILL believe it, just because they say so!
Just glad I did not come up with any moms trying to force the shep pie down my throat.

...and after all, the GOOD NEWS always comes with fear and threats or it aint good news

Now I shall go & vomit the shepards pie for six months as it has made me very ill & poisoned just to look at it.

I am sorry if I am the cause, Bandit. It is not my intention to undermine any other person's faith. At the same time I have to be true to myself.

Originally Posted by Bandit

You are on track with all of this, Juan...and the other thread on superstition is going to help people, especially for those who may feel fear if they should talk about it.

I guess it depends what "truth" means to a person. If a person is content with allegory and myth, then that is sufficient to be their truth.

For me, "truth" is supposed to be true; with supporting evidence from internal *and* external sources, repeatedly verifiable, and in accord with all associated and related truths. Maybe a monkey faced Adam isn't glamorous, maybe Eden is only allegory; there are still enough unanswerable questions to keep the whole thing interesting. But I know, tried and true and tested repeatedly (even if only a subjective and personal truth) that certain Biblical elements are beyond reproach. In that much I know that G-d IS. When it comes to the rest I've got some serious questions.

It's great to see you around again, Bandit. Stick around a while this time...

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that the story line is all wrong. There are lots of little hints in the Gospels of some sort of zealot movement providing the main cast of characters in the story. Layered on that is a kind of proto-Gnostic ideology that comes out clearly in the beatitudes.

Hey Chris!

I'm still a bit fuzzy on the gnostics, were they the ones that had issues over the nature of matter?

I think the idea of the characters coming from a zealot movement sounds remarklably like what Baigent (sp?) and pals put forth in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." I don't know that I'm ready to make that leap yet, even though I know it is not too far from where I find myself standing. Yes, something caught the attention and ire of the Roman government, and brought about the execution of a remarkable teacher. Yet I suppose this is where the Divine Providence factor seems to weigh in, because if it were all a bunch of hogwash, surely nothing worthy of note in history would have come of it. I can't see the whole "Jesus movement" as just a grass-roots fad without an expiration date.

Of course, it is a bit complicated. Certainly there are those who would like to trumpet the Divine Hand card as their own, longevity as evidence of endorsement so to speak, even when some rather un-Divine things have been carried out by the same group. Its just a tad difficult to justify Divine endorsement with matters such as schisms over idols, duelling headmeisters duking it out excommunicating each other, and a cadaver synod to top it all off. How justifiable is it to believe G-d has a hand in the worldly affairs of humans? Is the same G-d that gave us all of the glories of the Christian faith also responsible for the horrors of the Holocaust, the Inquisition and the Crusades?

[China Cat Sunflower]

I dunno Juan. The whole Templar bloodline thing strikes me as medieval gilt. It's another encrustation of derived mythology. Not that there aren't granules of interesting truth here and there. But if the purpose of inquiry is to remove the patina it doesn't help to add more, in my ever so humble opinion.

The Gospels exhibit a set of influences in the process of creating the liturgical Christ. First is the zealotry. But somehow the zealots are preaching pacifism. Now that's a weird mix. With that is a sort of Pythagorean mystery school kind of gematria that shows up in the parables. And layered upon that is a very Greek avatar concept. With Paul we get obvious tie-ins with Stoicism and Cynicism. And all of that is primitive. So it's obvious that it was never so simple as Paul and Peter: A gentile movement and a central Jerusalem church.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

The whole Templar bloodline thing strikes me as medieval gilt. It's another encrustation of derived mythology. Not that there aren't granules of interesting truth here and there. But if the purpose of inquiry is to remove the patina it doesn't help to add more, in my ever so humble opinion.

Granted, and I agree. Isn't the whole Templar thing a bit of Masonic mythos? Any way one cares to look at it, the Templars are yet another bunch to provoke the ire of the Vatican in their own time. How's that for biting the hand that feeds? One day you are championing the cause of the Pope, and the next day you are on his $hit list...

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

The Gospels exhibit a set of influences in the process of creating the liturgical Christ. First is the zealotry. But somehow the zealots are preaching pacifism. Now that's a weird mix. With that is a sort of Pythagorean mystery school kind of gematria that shows up in the parables. And layered upon that is a very Greek avatar concept. With Paul we get obvious tie-ins with Stoicism and Cynicism. And all of that is primitive. So it's obvious that it was never so simple as Paul and Peter: A gentile movement and a central Jerusalem church.

I see some of what you are getting at, enough to be intrigued. Would you be so kind as to elaborate a bit?

[juantoo3]

So far, as near as I can tell from my research:

For about a hundred years prior to Constantine's victory at the Milvian bridge in 313 AD Rome was in turmoil. Various internal strifes kept the empire in a smoldering condition just short of civil war at times, the economy was in ruins in large part because of military expenses in trying to secure the borders and fend off intruders.

The hundred years or so following the battle of Milvian bridge isn't a great deal better, in spite of the legalization of Christianity and later subsequent adoption as the official state religion and outlawing of the long entrenched paganism. In 410 AD, Rome was sacked and the Western Roman Empire, the classical Rome we tend to think of, ended. Christianity was the official state religion for about 25 years or so prior (I'll get the figures presently as soon as I post some other research).

[juantoo3]

The First Council of Nicaea

First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius. The latter continued to officiate in his church and to recruit followers. Being finally driven out, he went to Palestine and from there to Nicomedia. During this time St. Alexander published his "Epistola encyclica", to which Arius replied; but henceforth it was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control. Sozomen even speaks of a Council of Bithynia which addressed an encyclical to all the bishops asking them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first Ecumenical council[1] of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent 'general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius[2]). Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the resurrection (Pascha in Greek; Easter in modern English), the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.
The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[3] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology."[3] Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[3] A precedent was set for subsequent general councils to create creeds and canons.

emphasis mine-jt3
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
continued:

The agenda of the synod were:
1. The Arian question;
2. The celebration of Passover;
3. The Meletian schism;
4. The Father and Son one in purpose or in person;
5. The baptism of heretics;
6. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, with preliminary discussions on the Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. “Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous.”[5] Bishops Theognis of Nicea and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.
Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed (symbol) of his own diocese at Caesarea in Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that this Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed. Another possibility is the Apostle's Creed.
In any case, as the council went on, the orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops “but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning.”[6] No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the creed.

The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander 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. A third group (now known as Homoiousians) tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.
Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as the same; followers of Alexander did not. Indeed, the exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264-268 Synods of Antioch.
Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one", John 10:30). Arians, on the other hand, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians likewise appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him.
The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

emphasis mine-jt3

By and large, many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council. From his perspective, even Arius could cite such a creed.
For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.
1. Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," confirming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation.
3. Finally, he is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Some ascribe the term Consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.
Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Spirit" were left; the original Nicene Creed ended with these words. Then followed immediately the canons of the council. Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the homoousian and Arian parties, as proposed by Eusebius, the council promulgated one which was unambiguous in the aspects touching upon the points of contention between these two positions, and one which was incompatible with the beliefs of Arians. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.
The text of this profession of faith is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere. Although the most vocal of anti-Arians, the Homoousians (from the Koine Greek word translated as "of same substance" which was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 264-268), were in the minority. The Creed was accepted by the council as an expression of the bishops' common faith and the ancient faith of the whole Church.

The long-term effects of the Council of Nicaea were significant. For the first time, representatives of many of the bishops of the Church convened to agree on a doctrinal statement. Also for the first time, the Emperor played a role, by calling together the bishops under his authority, and using the power of the state to give the Council's orders effect.
In the short-term, however, the council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss and a period of conflict and upheaval continued for some time. Constantine himself was succeeded by two Arian Emperors in the Eastern Empire: his son, Constantine II and Valens. Valens could not resolve the outstanding ecclesiastical issues, and unsuccessfully confronted St. Basil over the Nicene Creed.[34] Pagan powers within the Empire sought to maintain and at times re-establish Paganism into the seat of Emperor (see Arbogast and Julian the Apostate). Arians and the Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had lost, and consequently, Arianism continued to spread and to cause division in the Church during the remainder of the fourth century. Almost immediately, Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at court to sway Constantine's favor from the orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled in 330. Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra followed him in 336. Arius himself returned to Constantinople to be readmitted into the Church, but died shortly before he could be received. Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedi , and "with his passing the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended."[35]

This is a bit of reading, but hopefully will provide a brief of some of the issues faced by this council. For intents and purposes, it was this seminal event that established the institution of Christianity. While it no doubt was intended to provide a standard for all to follow, even at this early time there were unresolved differences of opinion among followers, some of those differences were severe enough to fracture the faith. As we will see as this unfolds, this is evident just a bit further along in history, not only with the Arian-Athanasius controversy, but even so far as the schism between east and west and even formed a part of the underlying motivation for the Albigensian Crusade.

[juantoo3]

I have separated this specific issue because it is very near to my heart:

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Separation of Easter from Jewish Passover

After the June 19 settlement of the most important topic, the question of the date of the Christian Passover (Easter) was brought up. This feast is linked to the Jewish Passover, as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred during that festival. By the year 300, some Churches had adopted a divergent style of celebrating the feast, placing the emphasis on the resurrection which they believed occurred on Sunday. Others however celebrated the feast on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan, the date of the crucifixion according to the Bible's Hebrew calendar (Leviticus 23:5,John 19:14). Hence this group was called Quartodecimans, which is derived from the Latin for 14. The Eastern Churches of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia determined the date of Christian Passover in relation to the 14th day of Nisan, in the Bible's Hebrew calendar. Alexandria and Rome, however, followed a different calculation, attributed to Pope Soter, so that Christian Passover would never coincide with the Jewish observance and decided in favour of celebrating on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Bible's Hebrew calendar.
According to Duchesne,[22] who founds his conclusions:
on the conciliar letter to the Alexandrians preserved in Theodoret;[23]
on the circular letter of Constantine to the bishops after the council;[24]
on Athanasius;[25]

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in the mid-4th century, "… the emperor … convened a council of 318 bishops … in the city of Nicea. … They passed certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time decreed in regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous concord on the celebration of God's holy and supremely excellent day. For it was variously observed by people…"[26]

The council assumed the task of regulating these differences, in part because some dioceses were determined not to have Christian Passover correspond with the Jewish calendar. "The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord."[27]

Constantine wrote that: "… it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. … Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."[28] Theodoret recorded the Emperor as saying: "It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. … Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. … avoiding all contact with that evil way. … who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. … a people so utterly depraved. … Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. … no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews."[29]

The Council of Nicaea, however, did not declare the Alexandrian or Roman calculations as normative. Instead, the council gave the Bishop of Alexandria the privilege of announcing annually the date of Christian Passover to the Roman curia. Although the synod undertook the regulation of the dating of Christian Passover, it contented itself with communicating its decision to the different dioceses, instead of establishing a canon. There was subsequent conflict over this very matter. See also Computus and Reform of the date of Easter.

emphasis mine-jt3

Let us remember that this anti-Semitism is not actively preached today, even if we do yet still on occasion hear echoes of it almost 1700 years later. I cannot help but wonder if this attitude fuelled a lot of the strife the Jewish people have faced through the centuries, particularly in Europe, even as recently as World War 2.

Seventy years ago a fateful meeting occurred in Rome. The Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), and Germany’s vice chancellor, Franz von Papen, formally signed a concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich on July 20, 1933. This event ended negotiations that began after Adolf Hitler became Germany’s chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933. Among the witnesses to this event were Msgr. Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Pope Paul VI) and Msgr. Ludwig Kaas, the leader of Germany’s Catholic Center Party. Neither Pope Pius XI nor Hitler attended the meeting; both had already approved of the concordat. The pope ratified the agreement two months later on Sept. 10. The Concordat of 1933 specified the church’s rights in the Third Reich.

The political significance of the signing of the Concordat of 1933 was, however, ambiguous in its day and still remains so. Hitler interpreted the concordat to mean that he had won the church’s approval, thereby gaining international recognition of his Nazi regime.

America | The National Catholic Weekly - The Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich

See also:

Reichskonkordat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pius XII and Hitler

and:

Cardinal Pacelli, who had become the Vatican Secretary of State in 1930, signed the concordat July 20, 1933 after Hitler had begun persecuting Jews, including those who had earlier converted to Catholicism.

emphasis mine-jt3

Vatican politics and war | Human Quest | Find Articles at BNET.com

[juantoo3]

The first seven Ecumenical Councils

Main article: First seven Ecumenical Councils
The period of Christianity from the First Council of Nicaea (325) to the Second Council of Nicaea (787) is called the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

1. First Council of Nicaea, (325); repudiated Arianism and Quartodecimanism, adopted the original Nicene Creed. This and all subsequent councils are not recognized by nontrinitarian churches— e.g. Arians, Unitarians, Latter-day Saints and members of other Mormon denominations, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
2. First Council of Constantinople, (381); revised the Nicene Creed into present form used in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and prohibited any further alteration of the Creed without the assent of an Ecumenical Council.
3. Council of Ephesus, (431); repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos (Greek Η Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer" or more commonly "Mother of God"). This and all following councils are not recognized by the Assyrian Church of the East.
Second Council of Ephesus or Robber Council, (449); rejected Nestorianism. Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria found Eutyches to be Orthodox. Dioscorus, however, declared anathema to Eutyches shortly after the Council of Chalcedon. This council is not recognized by the Chalcedonians (Western Catholics & Byzantine Orthodox, and Protestants).
Note: See Fourth Ecumenical Council to see the difference in numbering for this and the following council.
4. Council of Chalcedon, (451); repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, described and delineated the "hypostatic union" and two natures of Christ, human and divine; adopted the Chalcedonian Creed. For those who accept it, it is the Fourth Ecumenical Council (calling the previous council, which was rejected by this council, the "Robber Synod" or "Robber Council"). This and all following councils are not recognized by the Oriental Orthodoxy.
5. Second Council of Constantinople, (553); reaffirmed decisions and doctrines explicated by previous Councils, condemned new Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite writings, decreed Theopaschite Formula.
6. Third Council of Constantinople, (680–681); repudiated Monothelitism, affirmed that Christ had both human and divine wills.
Quinisext Council (= Fifth and Sixth) or Council in Trullo, (692); mostly an administrative council that raised some local canons to ecumenical status, established principles of clerical discipline, and addressed the Biblical canon. It is not considered to be a full-fledged council in its own right because it did not determine matters of doctrine.
7. Second Council of Nicaea, (787); restoration of the veneration of icons and end of the first iconoclasm. This doctrine is rejected by some Protestant denominations, who instead would prefer the Council of Hieria (754), which condemned the veneration of icons.

Ecumenical council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cont:

Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches recognize seven councils in the early years of the church, but Roman Catholics also recognize fourteen councils called in later years by the Pope. The status of these councils in the face of a Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation would depend upon whether one accepts Roman Catholic ecclesiology (papal primacy) or Orthodox ecclesiology (collegiality of autocephalous churches). In the former case, the additional councils would be granted Ecumenical status. In the latter case, they would be considered to be local synods with no authority among the other autocephalous churches.

The first seven councils were called by the emperor (first the Christian Roman Emperors and later the so-called Byzantine Emperors, i.e., the Eastern Roman Emperors after the Western Roman Empire ended in 476). Most historians agree that the emperors called the councils to force the Christian bishops to resolve divisive issues and reach consensus. One motivation for convening councils was the hope that maintaining unity in the Church would help maintain unity in the Empire. The relationship of the Papacy to the validity of these councils is the ground of much controversy between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Churches and to historians.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that these ecumenical councils are infallible.

The article notes that other churches, including the Eastern "Greek" Orthodox (which have every bit as much right as the Roman Catholic church does to claim legitimacy by invention at Nicaea) do not hold every council as infallible. Well worth reading to get a good look at Christian history.

*I also note that this last quote corrects one of my earlier posts in which I wasn't quite certain of the accepted final date for the fall of the Roman Empire. Here it is listed as 476 AD.

[juantoo3]

Some other points of contention regarding the history of the Roman Catholic church:

Filioque clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

East-West Schism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over papal authority—Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (see also Pentarchy) — and over the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western Church. Eastern Orthodox today state that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. The Orthodox also state that the Bishop of Rome (i.e. The Pope) has authority only over his own diocese and does not have any authority outside his diocese. There were other less significant catalysts for the Schism however, including variance over liturgical practices and conflicting claims of jurisdiction.

Iconoclasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cadaver Synod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This last actually holds a bit of grisly humor for those with a taste for dark comedy.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

The problem is that with both Christan and Jewish origins the line between history and mythology is intentionally blurred. We don't know who the first Jews or Christians were. Whoever they need to be to make one's pet ideology work out is where one inevitably draws the lines.

After tonight's research, I am left puzzling over Constantine's anti-Semetic views permeating the origins of the Roman Catholic (and Greek Orthodox) church. They had to transform Jesus from the Jew he was into something more acceptable to a Pagan audience. It probably was also beneficial to take the heat off of the Roman authorities that executed Jesus by shifting the blame entirely onto the Jews. I suppose it would strain the credibility of the political establishment to admit to wrongful execution of the fellow they were now elevating to the status of a god (just like was commonly done with Emperors). Can't be guilty of executing a god now, , can we? So we end up with a Jewish Rabbi who isn't Jewish, who is executed but doesn't die, executed in Roman fashion but not by Romans...and a criminal threat to the Roman political authority posthumously becomes a unifying religious icon and rallying point for the Roman people, under penalty of law. It's all a mystery, don't you know? You don't have to understand...you just have to believe.

In any other context this would reek of insincerity. No wonder there was such a backlash and outcry among the displaced pagans... Oh my, I think I'm having an "ah ha" moment!

Heavenly Father, save me from myself.

[China Cat Sunflower]

No grand theory here Juan. Just some observations.

The zealotry is clear in the cast of characters. The core group of disciples are either zealots, or recently ex-zealots. We know that Peter is still carrying a sword at the very end. We know from the story that they are Galileans with ties to Nazareth, so they're from a famous hot bed of zealotry. It's unclear whether John the Baptist's movement was more militant. As a matter of fact, it isn't at all clear who John the B. really is, and the logistics of his group's merger with the Jesus group is very murky. This is the starting point for a lot of Da Vinci Code kind of stuff. I don't have much interest in that because it's entirely speculative. The point is that one can easily see the connection with zealotry in the Gospel stories just reading them at face value.

The (sort of) Pythagorean mystery school stuff is a combination of what's commonly referred to as sacred geometry and Greek gematria. Sacred geometry is an expression of the perfection of ratios discovered by Pythagoras and others. In that sense it's the geometry of the Logos. In the parables, most particularly the stories of the miraculous catch of fish and the feeding of the five thousand, underlying the text, is a metaphysical grid of this geometry. That's what the numbers relate to. So, for example, the five thousand people sitiing in groups of fifty and one hundred, the two fish, the five loaves, the twelve baskets, all relate to the geometric structure being created within the story. The derived mathematical values, like the circumference of the circle within the square of 5000 units, or some other measurement extrapolated from the structure created by the number values in the story, are also in the story in the form of words that correlate with their gematrical values. So, for example, when Jesus divides the two fish among the five thousand (unit square) the two fishes become two circles equal in diameter to a circle which fits exactly in the square. The circumference of the two circles crossing the center point of the center circle creates two vessica pisces, or fishes, within the 5,000 square. Each vessica pisces has a horizontal axis of 61.2 units. Together they measure 122.4 units. 1224 is the gematrical value of the Greek word FISHES, kinda thing. Of course we should bear in mind what Bannanabrain has said numerous times about the limited value of gematria. Still, it seems to me that there is a credible and demonstrable influence coming from what I'm calling the "mystery school" source.

Paul is all about ethics. Reading his thesis in Romans; it's not just about the law, it's about discipline and how to control one's self. He's trying to fuse his message with Greek ethics. This is also self-evident from the text.

So, already in the primitive materials, the Gospels and Paul, the earliest stuff, we can see this variety of influences. And there are no clear cultural boundaries because within Judaism there were mystery schools dealing with Pythagorean mathematics. Everybody with scholarly aspirations was interested in that stuff. It was like the quantum physics of the day. Similarly, there was no cultural chasm between Judaism's dialog about ethics and that of the Stoics, Cynics, and Epicureans of the day.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Back to this question: How do zealotry and pacifism mix? Thinking about Judaism as a continuum, it's hard to to find any roots of turn the other cheek- ism. There is a prolonged discussion of ethics that, basically, starts at the beginning and hasn't stopped. That is: what is it to be righteous (so God won't keep whacking us)? But there's no loving one's enemies.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Cool, Chris! Didn't know about the gematria stuff. I'm a bit torn on the zealotry stuff, seems some want to associate at least some of the disciples to the Essenes, and I can see possible validity in both arguments. John Baptist is somewhat of an enigma. I agree about Paul's ethics, and I am inclined to agree about the lack of "chasm" between the various philosophies at least in the more cosmopolitan cities.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Back to this question: How do zealotry and pacifism mix? Thinking about Judaism as a continuum, it's hard to to find any roots of turn the other cheek- ism. There is a prolonged discussion of ethics that, basically, starts at the beginning and hasn't stopped. That is: what is it to be righteous (so God won't keep whacking us)? But there's no loving one's enemies.

OK, so does this imply that at least some amount of the Gospel story and other parts of the New Testament are *edited* or rewritten to better suit the new hosts right around 325 AD? I haven't seen anything that hints in this direction...but then, it would be somewhat compromising for such to be brazenly admitted in light of the other issues being addressed at the first council of Nicaea, especially the Arian controversy. It would be difficult enough to argue over established texts, and quite another matter to clash two different texts against each other. Maybe better said; debate of two interpretations would seem proper, but debate between two texts might present some ethical problems if word got out...