Some comments on Christmas

Discussion in 'Ancient History and Mythology' started by Thomas, May 25, 2017.

  1. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Picking up where I left off, now that we seem to be on more stable footing, I will attend the rest as convenient as I am at work and have other duties pending.

    From the wiki about Constantine:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

    Still trying to find the specific reference, but what is here serves well to validate a great deal of my position.

    Quartodecimanism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism
     
  2. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Really, really warm:

    Eusebius, The Life of Constantine/Book III
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nice...e/The_Life_of_Constantine/Book_III/Chapter_18
     
  3. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_controversy
     
  4. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Found it:

    http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/const1-easter.asp

    I do not wish to highlight the offending part, let it at least remain buried in the middle of the text. It is here you will find Constantine's anti-Semitism given official sanction, and as already shown that clearly continued to Laodicea where it reached full fruition.

    So, to your comment Thomas:
    I say perhaps, but it is pretty clear the church was even more zealous to separate from the influence of Messiah's native Judaism.
     
  5. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism
     
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-early-church-and-the-beginnings-of-anti-Semitism

    Not sure I buy into this at face value, but worth reviewing
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    767
    OK. Here's something from the same wiki I'm uncertain of:

    So far, despite a stumble, so good.

    Yes, I'm wondering about that, too.

    The Codex Justinianus, to which the footnote refers, is 6th century? Interesting that he creates a day of rest on the existing Lord's Day of the Church.

    I can only look at the history of disputes and schisms and disagree. Constantine sought unity, but he and his successors failed to find a way to it, so really his 'regulatory authority' was dubious at best. He backed whom he thought were the main players, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but they — the likes of Athenasius and Hilary of Poitiers or Arius and Eusebius (among others in either camp) — were the main players.
     
  8. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    OK, if you wish to be literal, who ended the very first persecution of Christians by Nero, or Domitian, or Trajan...all of whom came before and were therefore "first?" The Persecution of Diocletian was not the only Persecution of Christians. Galerius (said to be the instigator on prodding from his zealous Mother) inherited (gladly!) the Persecution initiated by Diocletian...while in the western Empire in the lands under the rule of Constantine's Father enjoyed relative calm with no molestation. I haven't found direct evidence, though it is said some property was confiscated, but there were no executions, no purges of the military, and Christians on the whole were allowed to worship, whereas the story in the east and central parts of the Empire the story was quite different.

    Galerius, ruthless and cunning as most Emperors were, had been conniving to gain control of the Empire for himself when a series of events occurred that upset his applecart...the first being Constantine's escape from his court. Before he could effectively deal with that, Maxentius (the son of one of the previous Emperors Maximian, who had been forcibly retired by the outgoing Diocletian) usurped Rome with the aid of the Senate and the Praetorian Guard.

    Condensed version: Galerius sent his junior Caesar Severus to deal with Maxentius, Maximian still eager for power joined forces with his son and defeated Severus, putting Galerius on his heels. At some point in here, Galerius contracted a bizarre tumor of his scrotum that none of his physicians were able to cure. It was only as he was staring death in the face that he recanted the Persecution of Diocletian, asking for the prayers of Christians to go with those of the pagans for his health and well being.

    Max Sr and Max Jr had a falling out, Daddy ran back to Constantine, who by now was Emperor in the west and to whom by marriage there were familial ties. Max Sr attempted a coup, Constantine put Max Sr on house arrest, there is disagreement over whether Constantine ordered Max Sr executed or if he committed suicide, Max Jr used that as a pretext to declare war on Constantine, but since Max Jr wasn't much of a military man the only serious obstacle was the Praetorian General Ruricus at (I want to say) Verona, which Constantine was able to defeat in two battles, leaving the path clear to Rome. Rome was shuttered in anticipation of siege, the Milvian Bridge was made impassible, Constantine's forces camped outside the city a day or two when he received his "vision," give or take around the same time Maxentius received a divination that the "enemy of Rome" would be destroyed so he hastily built a pontoon bridge and ordered his troops out of the city to engage Constantine's forces. Constantine routed the mostly unseasoned troops of Maxentius, the only serious opposition came from the Praetorian who stood their ground on the river's edge while the others attempted retreat including Max Jr, the bridge capsized and Max Jr drowned....Constantine marched into Rome victorious.

    I think it is fair to say: Constantine was the first Emperor to stop Christian persecutions for good and always, at least throughout the Empire. Even after Milvian Bridge, Constantine and Licinius issued their own toleration called the Edict of Milan, which was subsequently broken and officially Licinius opened a new Persecution of Christians, but because of circumstances was unable to fully effect it with Constantine hot on his tail. Shortly after Licinius was defeated, Constantine gained unified control of the Empire, the following year the Council at Nicea was convened, some time during this period Constantine's mother Helena was travelling the Levant seeking out various places for Christian pilgrimage, Constantine himself ordered construction of the original Church of St Peter at the Vatican as well as the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, among others.

    Point being, the statement you consider "wrong," is only wrong in the absolute literal sense. The statement is wrong only if one views the entire period spanning the better part of 20 years as functionally focused on Galerius' deathbed without looking at anything preceding or following.

    Needless to say, I agree Constantine was *the* Roman Emperor who ended all persecutions of Christians throughout the Empire for good and always. A bit broader interpretation, but one I believe to be in keeping with the context of the original statement, particularly if you reinstall the second half of your edit "and to legalise Christianity along with all other religions and cults in the Roman Empire." No other Emperor did that *except* Constantine. Those that came later persecuted the pagans...
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  9. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    While I don't disagree, each of the early church fathers could have influenced his given congregation, but not the whole. There were also at the same time congregations that, in greater and lesser degree, still maintained the long established, Biblical, traditional ways and methods. You demonstrated this in some of your own evidence, to which you agreed when I pointed it out.

    First...Constantine was in a unique position as Emperor...I know you downplay the significance, but you can't possibly write it off completely. EVERY Roman Emperor prior to him back to Ceasar Augustus before Christ was born was deified. As was Constantine himself. It wasn't a role he was comfortable in, and he is the first Emperor since Augustus to minimize or downplay that role. It is said that when he entered Rome in victory after defeating Maxentius, he refused to sacrifice to the gods of Rome...unheard of before his time, you just didn't do that! Constantine didn't care, the city of Rome was *never* a priority to him, and he disbanded the Praetorian Guard (or had them executed outright). Constantine turned his back on Rome, quite literally, and never looked back for 20 years, until the anniversary of his leadership...those are the only two times recorded that he personally stepped foot in the city of Rome. As a religious leader in his own right (indeed, there are those that say he bore the traditional Roman title of Pontifex Maximus), he had the authority to bring the various church leaders together in his failed bid to unify them.

    I will grant, it wasn't as easy as snapping ones fingers and commanding all to obey, and Constantine was smarter than that, you gotta give the guy credit. Constantine held the full authority to order observances, whether you fully grasp that I don't know...I suspect you would viscerally deny, but the first known observance of a "Feast of the Nativity" happened within the Great King's lifetime. There isn't anything *extant* to indicate that he did so order that "holiday," but like the implication or not Constantine was well within his authority, secular and religious, to so order such. I cannot emphatically state he did, but you cannot emphatically state he did not...all we have is a mysterious Christmas observance that popped up on the calendar late in the King's life with no record of how it got there and no precedence to go before.

    Changing subject, where the various regional church councils and administrative meetings simply were not meeting the goals, as Emperor, Constantine had the persuasion of secular authority to back him up. Not saying he used it, or that he even would...but you don't snub the king without repercussion, that's just common sense.

    Second...Constantine was a consummate politician. We've focused on his contributions to Christianity, which frankly since last I was here I learned he contributed GREATLY to the establishment of...bluntly...the CATHOLIC Church. I believe it was you who taught me "Catholic" meant "Universal." Constantine ordered Nicea to consolidate and "UNIFY" the beliefs among the various churches. I have not at any time said he told them what to say, do or think, but I have in times past intimated that perhaps he had more sway than some are willing to admit. He didn't write the book, but he didn't sit idly by either...that wasn't his nature. Only a person unfamiliar with Constantine's character could imply such. The truth I've long thought lay somewhere in the middle, and discovering just how encompassing his anti-Semitism was, to the point of issuing Royal, Legal, Authoritative documents professing such and thereby granting them essentially power of law goes very far in my mind to explaining a great deal of the transformation. Throughout his Emperorship, Constantine simultaneously lived as a nominal pagan, and had a strange appeal to both components of his citizens. As pointed out in the quote in the previous post...he essentially allowed *everyone* freedom to worship...though there were a couple of exceptions that I suspect pissed him off in one way or another, I never chased the stories out. I do know he executed his own son on false accusation from the boy's step mother, and when he learned the truth of the matter he had the woman (his wife) basically cooked alive in a bathhouse. So he wasn't a Saint, even though he was later Sainted! These events happened before Nicea, so were open knowledge (well, apart from deliberately killing his wife, that was a convenient tragic accident...his son however was executed in public). Point being Constantine had a temper, and the authority to back it up if he felt the need.

    Off topic but closely related are the efforts of some of the later church fathers, I'm not as familiar as you, but I know there was one fellow that came along just after Constantine died who was instrumental in PR and spin, selling the Catholic Church to the masses of as yet unconverted pagans. Not saying this was bad, just saying it happened. And this fellow if I recall the story, had some rather shady beginnings of his own.

    The consolidation of practices (what I've been calling "dogmatically and doctrinally") , began *in earnest* at Nicea and *pointedly* at Laodicea by distancing from the original native Judaism. Previously there had been pockets that observed, and pockets that didn't, going through and listing who, why and what only drags the conversation...the point is across all of the various churches there were a variety of rituals and traditions, some in conflict with each other, and this was causing strife among them that Constantine hoped, in vain it turned out, to overcome. (A bit like trying for peace in the Middle East...)
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2017
  10. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    I can allow for that, anti-Semitism didn't begin with Constantine, but his position of power gave that prejudice teeth, legislative teeth, with fangs.

    Not saying he wouldn't mop the floor with me, but he would be facing stiff Aristotelian logic, particularly fleecing out logical fallacies. Doesn't always work with rhetoric, because rhetoric has no requirement to be true in the sense of reality. As for Athanasius...might doesn't make right.

    Sounds to me like a wise teacher.

    I've already posted the quotes from the letters from Constantine written to the Bishops unable to attend, where essentially Constantine's prejudice is given weight of law.

    In places, and not uniformly. That was a big part of the reason for Nicea. Supplanting Passover in exchange for (pagan!) Easter was clearly on the docket.

    I would have to pursue this further, I have certain doubts. I know you know I am a keen supporter of the Christians that served in Constantine's army, even prior to his "vision," helping him gain the throne. Something here just doesn't sound correct.
     
  11. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    I wouldn't rule out so quickly. Nothing tangible, nothing concrete, but certain plenty of room for distinct possibility.

    Sure the Jews had their martyrs, not sure if that is the name they used, dating back I am aware of to at least Antiochus Epiphanes and the desecration of the Temple by sacrificing swine...the whole Hannukah story is based from events of that time, predating Messiah by at least two hundred years.

    There is an intertestamental apocryphal book, I want to say the Letters of Aristeas, that tells the story of the 7 brothers, gut wrenching and inspiring and really sets you in the place to see what these people endured, and why they were so fiercely independent. This story dates from that period. So yes, Judaism has a long history of martyrs.

    I must correct myself, not sure where now I stumbled on the other date for Constantine's death, but I just confirmed he died in 337.

    In 354 Constantius II was on the throne, one of Constantine's sons (the other two having died, one in battle and the other by assassination, *not counting the one that was executed - 4 total). So it is entirely possible Constantine did *not* see the first Christmas, that it may have been one of his sons who possibly could have ordered it. Again, without anything to go by and only working on the known and accepted authority and power of the Emperor, this is purely speculation, but the only that makes any real sense in any form of broad application.

    Your speculation is as good as mine...

    I don't think so. Various feasts and honorary holidays seemed to be introduced by various Emperors through the years...some stuck, most didn't. I think in a case like this where you had a wholesale move to distance from Judaism, already syncretized/assimilated/re-purposed both the pagan Easter and the pagan Sun-god Sabbath to set precedence, increasing Christianization and decreasing paganization throughout the Empire, I think it stands to reason quite well actually that the winter solstice, which was kind of a snobs / upper crust holiday anyway (except for the Mummers / Wild Man, which continued unabated in rural areas), so converting that holiday into a celebration of the birth of Messiah, particularly if there were some strains of thought that hinted in that direction anyway (although it is reasonable to question some of that as well, another day)...yes, I can easily see how it *could* happen. Not saying this is what did happen, just one distinct possibility...the Emperor did have the authority.

    I don't know...anytime I hear "mystery" and "secret" in this context, my bat-sense tells me something isn't right.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  12. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Theodoret? Nicea? Anti-Semitism? It's all there in the link, I only quoted the first two sentences of the second paragraph in order to find that part I was directing to.
     
  13. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Not fully accurate, but close enough. Constantine bankrolled the building projects. My understanding, very limited, is that Constantine gave his mother free reign to pursue her interests. She could have just as easily planted a garden at a summer villa on one of the islands and retired in luxury, but that wasn't what she wanted.

    All the sources I've read never question her Christianity. That on Constantine's father is another matter, he was clearly ambitious but apparently far more level headed and level hearted than most Emperors. He made his way through the ranks of the Praetorian and became one of Diocletian's body guards, and from there a junior part in the Tetrarchy. Technically, when Diocletian and Maximian retired, he and Galerius were elevated at the same time, but Constantius' junior officer was snubbed in favor of another Galerius picked - Severus. So Galerius had two of the junior Emperors loyal to him, leaving Constantius as the odd man out. I'm off topic, but it lays some groundwork.

    Before all this, Constantius had a son out of wedlock with Helena...this part remains in some dispute, some say she was a concubine, some a genuine wife but not of royal stock, more of a barmaid fling as it were. When it came time for Constantius to move up the ladder, as was Roman custom, he had to marry into the Royal line...hence he had to divorce or set aside Helena so he could marry the (step?) daughter of Maximian, Fausta, by which he had sons and daughters...so Constantine had some half-siblings. Helena is always depicted as devoutly Christian, Constantius is always depicted as tolerant of Christianity, if not sympathetic to Christianity, though he was never Christian.

    Constantine's personal life is somewhat ambiguous, but it is clear he had great tolerance and sympathy for the faith, evident by his great gifts and building of churches and preserving various places in the Holy Land, many of which are there now today because of his efforts and those of his mother. Once he became Emperor and was secure in that position (as one can ever be, there is no guaranteed job security!), he funded his mother's excursions to locate these places in the Holy Land, places like the Manger Cave in Bethlehem, Church of the Holy Seplechre (sp?), Golgotha, there may be others not coming to mind. As I understand, subject to correction, Helena found the places and worked with the builders, but Constantine bankrolled the projects in the Holy Land. Constantine was more directly responsible for The Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, I seem to recall 3 or 4 of the Apostles being buried there, and a crypt for himself...he was deliberately buried with some of the Apostles. Not sure who was behind St. Peters as Constantine only returned to Rome once, so my guess would be his mother. St. Peters was vastly expanded some centuries later.

    It is easy to want to go to the cave bit...I mean, frankly it was eye opening to me to see the manger was actually a cave. But with the overt symbolic use in Mithraism...there I will stop...that does raise questions that I feel are legitimate. So when you say "cult of the place" and that place is a cave...what else is one to think? But yes, the whole "icon" and "relic" and "place" thing I see as so integral to so many Catholics of my acquaintance, I don't understand it. I don't hold this against anyone, if it honestly assists their faith, but I don't comprehend the spiritual value. Such things are not aids to me in my walk, so the concept just seems rather foreign to me.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  14. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    767
    Agreed.
     
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    767
    Agreed ... but let's step back a moment.

    Who, in the ancient world, was not anti-semitic? (The whole of Europe was, right up and into the Second World War. One could single out Hitler as being particularly anti-semitic, but really he was just riding on the wave of anti-semitism that was prevalent. Like all bullies, he picked on the kids that no-one liked anyway. He's quoted as saying, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" in 1939, justifying his Lebensraum policy towards the East.)

    The first Christian apologist, Justin Martyr was. Hippolytus was. Tertullian was. Origen was. Africanus was. As ill-feeling grew between the two communities, it was inevitable that supercessionism would emerge. Again, it's not so much a case of who was — that's almost a given — as who wasn't. This is not to say the Christians disregarded the Hebrew Scriptures, that was dealt with in the Marcionist disputes (c144AD).

    Yes, they accepted the Bible in relation to their history, but still saw the Jews as failing God in failing to acknowledge the divinity of the Son. So they followed ancient temple practice, the Ten Commandments, etc., but they saw the Jews as defaulters with regard to the Covenant, and the mantle of 'the people of God' had passed to them. In their eyes, they continued the spiritual heritage of Abraham, not the Jews.

    I don't.

    As emperor, yes. What observances and when, with reference to Christianity, came from within Christianity, not from him. So at Nicea he says, what day d'you want Easter? And they say, "As we have always done ..." and regarding the dispute with Arius, "Is he right or wrong?" And they say, "He's wrong." And he says, "OK. He's wrong, he's exiled. Everything he's written will be burnt ..."
    But his word was ignored. If he had full authority over the church, the dispute would have stopped there.

    Evidence, please.

    No, but every time I imply, from interpretation of the data, you ridicule it ... then when you imply, on far weaker grounds than I, it's a reasonable argument?

    Consider: Working from *what is extant* — Constantine established Sunday as a Roman day of rest. It already was for Christians. So he brought in that rule to impose Christian practice, or at least bring Roman practice in line with Christian. In the same way then, he fixes the date of the Sol Invictus celebrations to December 25 to coincide with the date of the nativity celebrated in the Western Christian tradition. His theological advisers would have told him of the relationship between Christ and the sun, so it would be natural to make a discreet move, in line with Acts 17:23 — "What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you."

    We need to qualify this.

    His single greatest contribution was social: lifting the threat of persecution on Christians. This no doubt led to an expansion as many came out of the closet, as it were. It also meant that movement between the communities was much easier. Properties were restored, etc. This was massive, and it changed the face of the church without a doubt.

    Second was his financial contribution, which paid for the bishops to travel from across the empire to Nicea. Notably the Pope/Patriarch of Rome, the senior patriarchy in the Christian world, was not there, although he sent representatives. I wonder how many saw that as a snub?

    But it did allow the church to establish itself as a single, cohesive entity, and again, that is massive.

    Beyond that — and that is no mean achievement at all — I see little else. Doctrinally, nothing at all.

    Yes. That was in use long before Constantine.

    I'm not disputing that, but it was for them to unify their beliefs, not for them to adopt his.

    Or perhaps less, as the evidence seems to demonstrate.

    His impatience is a matter of note, apparently, but his theological insight is a matter of question.
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    767
    The Canon is there for all to see ...
     
  17. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    767
    I don't think so, as both his pro-Christian and anti-pagan edicts are well documented. A Feast of the Nativity of Christ would have been introduced through a council or synod, especially when the Arian dispute was alive and focussed on the relation of the Son to the Father — there's no-way you could slip in Christmas without anyone noticing or commenting — and there's no record. And he was based in Constantinople, whereas the Dec 25 feast originated in the West and spread East, not the other way round.

    The problem here is then they would not see it as you do. The Jewish calendar was not considered syncretized/assimilated/re-purposed, so that argument is really asking ancient man to treat matters with a post-modern sensibility. Nor was Easter a distancing from from Judaism, its relation to the Passover is absolutely fundamental — all that changed was the establishing the day of the Resurrection on a Sunday and again, all this before Constantine.

    LOL, that's just you dismissing the historical evidence that doesn't suit you!
    "
     
  18. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    767
    Actually, the more evidence you pile in, the more I'm convinced a Christian celebration of the nativity on December 25 had to pre-date Nicea.

    We know it was practiced in Rome, probably North Africa also, Gaul and all points west. Last of all, it spread east to Byzantium/Constantinople.

    The point is, if Constantine or his successors wanted to introduce a major feast such as the Nativity, he would have done so through a council or a synod — he had the clout so why not? — he would not have done it anonymously, surreptitiously or discreetly, setting the ground for dispute later on, he would want it introduced across the whole church, rather than piecemeal. That goes against everything we know about Constantine who wanted, first and foremost, *unity*!

    Secondly, introducing a feast, with no Scriptural, Apostolic or Traditional precedent, in the middle of the Arian Dispute, would have been somewhat problematic, if not incendiary.

    Thirdly, that something has no precedent in anything other than a pagan festival would have not passed without outcry.

    Fourthly, that practice was in Rome and all points west, but not his home city of Constantinople.
     
  19. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    I hesitate to paint with too broad of a brush. Frankly, had I not broached the issue, I doubt this subject would have ever come up between us. And the implications would never be explored.

    But this was incidental. Did it have an impact? Clearly. Was it all encompassing? I doubt it. My reasons: the Jews continued to exist, they were still tolerated to worship throughout the Empire, and some of the most crucial businesses were conducted or owned, wholly or in part, by Jews. Constantine showed he could persecute cults if he desired...while he clearly didn't care for Jews, he allowed them to continue and "legislatively tolerated" them. The Jews had to form some crucial function to the fabric of society. I can't flesh out details, but the proof is they were still there. If the hatred for them was as encompassing as you say, there would have been all out war to extinguish or exile Jews sometime during Constantine's reign...that didn't happen, so I think a broad brush approach isn't warranted in this situation.

    OK, but then this becomes a bit of a two-faced argument (not accusing you), in that the verbiage used to justify establishment of Easter and Sunday quite plainly states that it is no longer obligatory to comply with rituals and traditions set forth by G-d through Moses and Abraham. I sure wouldn't want to be the scribe that originally put those thoughts in words...to my way of thinking, that is blasphemous.

    Bit of a moot point now, but I am incredulous every time I read that. Superseding G-d's Commands with the commands of men.

    Perhaps, but also a bit politically convenient... ;)

    I think you perhaps misunderstood. At Nicea...yes...

    That does not preclude the authority and ability of the Emperor to proclaim a feast day, to honor a dead goldfish, if he so desired. The Emperor was traditionally, including Constantine, vested with both secular and religious authority. Yes, Constantine was not deeply versed in the minutiae of Christian philosophy, he was engaged with more pressing matters...he had a nation to rule, people to feed, jobs to be done, borders to protect, etc, etc, etc...that professional clergy typically had no working knowledge of. So I absolutely agree...Constantine didn't insert anything at Nicea, however it remained that ordering a feast day was well within his secular and religious authority as the Emperor, as it would be for any of the Roman Emperors. That a "Nativity Feast" is not mentioned at Nicea or Laodicea, compels me to believe it may have been a unilateral order from the Emperor, who was the only person in the Empire with broad enough authority to do such a thing. We have no evidence, this is speculation, but increasingly the more I think of it, it makes too much sense. That Emperor may not have been Constantine, although I am inclined to think he is the most likely culprit, but it was within the authority vested in the office.

    Covered

    The difference being that when I speculate, I make it very clear I am speculating. Not always the case with your speculations...

    Not correct...it was for *some* Christians, not all. That was the kind of problem that Nicea tried to address.

    Social, Secular...cum se, cum sa

    Doctrinally, nothing at Nicea apart from the pronouncements he sent out with his "seal of approval" carrying his weight of authority using anti-Semitism to justify the changes so ordered.

    What may have been done unilaterally by religious authority as Pontifex Maximus may no longer have records extant to show. That he acted, unilaterally and legally to issue "toleration" for other sects and religions is known, that he persecuted at least two minor sects is known, so he had and exercised his religious authority. I don't believe that to be a primary concern of his, but such authority was his to exercise.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  20. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Hang on a minute, this flew by my radar. Had to reassess...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

    I think yours may be a rather convenient reading of the situation....

    Not to mention supplanting the G-d Commanded Sabbath with what amounts to a civil ordinance. :cool:
     

Share This Page