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
    But see, every time you do this, you leave out half of the story. Your consistency in doing this broadcasts your bias. A scholar worthy of the title *cannot* be biased. Any bias *must* be set aside.

    Taking you at your word here...why the need to call the Council at Nicea if everyone already agreed regarding Easter and over Arius? If everyone agreed...as you imply...there would be no dispute and no need to call the Council.

    More accurate would be "(A)s *some* of us have done, some less time and some more time...."
     
  2. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,004
    Likes Received:
    374
    But this is just uncalled for, the inconsistency you see is what you two have been arguing since forever. He states that there was a consensus in the Christian Community/Church based on scripture. You say that there were no consensus. Neither of you have been able to convince the other of your position so calling the other party bias because you disagree sets a very poor tone.
     
  3. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    I am not understanding.

    The tenor of your comment leads me to believe that by pointing out bias it is somehow a slur or derogatory. There is no "poor tone" inferred or implied, least of all by me.

    Name any other here who will leap to Thomas' defense? I am always first in line. He and I don't always see eye to eye, but he is still my brother.
     
  4. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,004
    Likes Received:
    374
    Telling someone they aren't a good scholar when doing scholarly work is criticism, yes? But the source of the criticism is that he holds the opposite view. As you are also the opposing party there is also a conflict of interests. Why don't just keep to the sources and leave the person out of it.

    I'm fine with Thomas having an underlying bias in the sense that all humans have, but to imply that you are a superior scholar on your own say so sets, I think, a poor tone.

    @Thomas I'm sorry for this. I did this because of the tone on the board, not because I don't think you can take care of yourself. And you might very well disagree with me on this. If not to reprimand me, please ignore my posts here.
     
    Namaste Jesus likes this.
  5. Namaste Jesus

    Namaste Jesus Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,804
    Likes Received:
    496
    Sounds like it might be time to call this one a draw before things get too far out of hand....;)
     
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Forgive me, but I have always been taught not to call someone stupid...for example...but to illustrate to them how a particular behavior might be a bit less than smart.

    I will leave to you to understand how that applies here.

    While yes, it may be called "criticism," there are many meanings attached to that word. The non-derogatory meaning that relates directly to scholarship, also colloquially known as "constructive criticism," is not the same as you imply. "Critique" is a fundamental part of scholarship, otherwise the term "scholarship" has no meaning. Critique is the very basis of peer review.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2017
  7. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,004
    Likes Received:
    374
    I agree that it was constructive and that constructive criticism is good. But then I followed with:
    Again:
     
  8. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    :) Which means that you equate "good" with "poor tone." Perhaps now you understand why I don't understand?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  9. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    767
    That's a bit of a sweeping and inaccurate assumption.

    The Passover recalls a moment in the Salvation History of the Jews, but the Passion recalls a moment in the Salvation History of humanity. It's a much bigger deal. The Easter celebration of the Jews is for the Jews alone, whereas the Easter celebration of the Christian is for the whole world. The connection between the Passover and Christ is not overlooked, the Hebrew Scriptures are not ignored, but with a decade of His death was spoken of as 'our Pasch' and Jewish history is seen in that light.

    The man-made traditions of Abraham and Moses, like the circumcision or divorce, were for an unruly people. The New Testament argued that it was not necessary for the Christian to observe these laws — what mattered was Baptism, and again, even in Paul's time the baptism of John the Baptist was seen as deficient, and anyone coming to the faith had to be rebapised.

    But if you were steeped in the Christian Liturgy, you would not say the rituals and traditions set forth by God were no longer obligatory — again, Paul argued that the Covenant with Israel still holds. The Hebrew Scriptures we read and prayed at the sabbath observances.

    Constantine told Arius to toe the line. Arius refused. Constantine exiled him. Arius continued to rouse support. Constantine told both Arius and Athanasius to shake hands. Both refused... both answered, as they saw it, to a higher authority. The will of the emperor was just something to be managed.

    Thank you, that's all I have been trying to clarify.

    Why? There's no evidence for it.

    Personally, I don't it. By now things were becoming a matter of record. A synod at least would be necessary for an emperor to declare a new feast — as every other decision the emperors made were transmitted via synods. We have no reference of Dec 25 being proposed or discussed at any synod ...

    The sabbath and the Lord's Day were well established traditions by Constantine's time, we can see that is the Fathers. Even at Laodicea, 40 years later, and a decidedly anti-semitic synod, Christians still celebrated both days, the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, even though there are so many proscriptions against consorting with Jews. The Sabbath wasn't abolished, but the emphasis was definitely on the Day of Rest.
     
    juantoo3 likes this.
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    767
    But all your unsupported assertions are founded on nothing but your bias!

    As far as we can tell, the practice was common in the west, but not so in the east.

    The synod of Antioch (341) forbade the Christians to celebrate Easter when the Jews were observing Passover — over fifteen years after Nicea! John Chrysostom (366-387) delivered six sermons in Antioch in which he denounced those Christians in Antioch who attended synagogues and resorted to the Jewish law courts.

    Same with Arius. Whatever Constantine hoped, things went on pretty much as they did before.

    For the Christian, emperors come and go. What guarantee did they have that he wouldn't change his mind, or be killed in battle, or be murdered in his bed, or be succeeded by a new Caligula? None.
     
  11. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Perhaps, but I do make it as clear as I possibly can when I make an "unsupported" assertion. I want to believe my assertions have some merit, but in the end I agree they are educated guesses.

    :) Part of the cost of doing business, I guess... But yeah, nothing in life is guaranteed.
     
  12. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    767
    I came across the term 'caesaropapism' while looking at stuff on this, and thought it useful.

    Caesaropapism is generally regarded as a pejorative term, applied to the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox communion by the Western (Latin) communion.

    It was never really a western phenomena, rather an eastern one that visited itself on the west ...

    Discussion of the process in the Byzanyine Church here
     

Share This Page