![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBefore the sixth century of the Common Era, the most educated people in Afro-Eurasia had the capacity to perceive the rotation of the Earth. In the next level down the ladder of education, the Earth's curvature was recognized, but the Earth was perceived as static. The majority of people conceived of the Earth as flat. They lacked the level of knowledge and experience needed to think of the Earth in any other way. By what process did the people of the third tier of education take control of the Roman Church?
Although the Trinity was crafted in the fourth century, it was not until the sixth century that the iron curtain of ignorance and superstition descended. For two hundred years, people who knew better rejected the bold-faced lie that Athanasius, Alexander, and Constantine had concocted as a loyalty oath. How did Justinian succeed in revolutionizing education to the point of crippling it for centuries to come?
When the Roman Church attacked the established educational system, the people with the highest level of education exiled themselves to domains outside of Roman authority. As ignorant priests snuffed out the light of understanding in the Roman world, the torch bearers carried the flame to more fertile territory. Before the sixth century, the top minds of the Roman Church were drop-outs from the second tier educational institutions. After the sixth century, there were no schools from which to drop out. People who sought knowledge had to leave the domain of the Church in order to find it. Later, Islam became the harbor for educational institutions as it jealously guarded the jewels of the classical world.
In the early centuries of the Common Era, second tier scholars had recorded the work of first tier scholars. They ridiculed their superiors for failing to see stars moving around the Earth. When third tier priests and monks encountered the literature of second tier educators, they accepted the work as gospel truth. Little did they know how little the Peripatetics knew. Thomas Aquinas was just such a monk. He was instrumental in establishing Peripatetic ignorance as Church policy. It was enough light to spark an economic renaissance, but not enough to disperse the shadow world of Roman power. It would take the martyrdom of Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo to pierce the veil of Roman superstition.
To this day, Romans still affirm their loyalty using the Caesarian oath. Those who know the lie behind the oath are considered outside and opposed to "Christianity." Do you espouse the bald-faced lie of trinitarian dogma?
Although the Trinity was crafted in the fourth century, it was not until the sixth century that the iron curtain of ignorance and superstition descended. For two hundred years, people who knew better rejected the bold-faced lie that Athanasius, Alexander, and Constantine had concocted as a loyalty oath. How did Justinian succeed in revolutionizing education to the point of crippling it for centuries to come?
When the Roman Church attacked the established educational system, the people with the highest level of education exiled themselves to domains outside of Roman authority. As ignorant priests snuffed out the light of understanding in the Roman world, the torch bearers carried the flame to more fertile territory. Before the sixth century, the top minds of the Roman Church were drop-outs from the second tier educational institutions. After the sixth century, there were no schools from which to drop out. People who sought knowledge had to leave the domain of the Church in order to find it. Later, Islam became the harbor for educational institutions as it jealously guarded the jewels of the classical world.
In the early centuries of the Common Era, second tier scholars had recorded the work of first tier scholars. They ridiculed their superiors for failing to see stars moving around the Earth. When third tier priests and monks encountered the literature of second tier educators, they accepted the work as gospel truth. Little did they know how little the Peripatetics knew. Thomas Aquinas was just such a monk. He was instrumental in establishing Peripatetic ignorance as Church policy. It was enough light to spark an economic renaissance, but not enough to disperse the shadow world of Roman power. It would take the martyrdom of Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo to pierce the veil of Roman superstition.
To this day, Romans still affirm their loyalty using the Caesarian oath. Those who know the lie behind the oath are considered outside and opposed to "Christianity." Do you espouse the bald-faced lie of trinitarian dogma?
Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 18:08 (UTC)When Jesus spoke to certain jews , they wanted to stone Him
"For you make yourself to be God they told Him"
If christ Himself were nothing more than another mortal prophet, he would surely have wanted to explain to them that He never intended to imply His own Divinity - and yet it is as if He says "yeah, and ..."
To the man who is lying on a man he says "Your sins are fogiven . Take up your bed and walk..." and the Scribes and pharasees rightly point out that only god, in their culture, could forgive sins, the idea of a preist saying 'Te Absolovo' does not cut it ..
"Which is easier" asks the Lord, " to say 'your sins are forgiven , or to say ' take up your bed?" the man takes his bed and goes. jesus strongly uses phrases like 'Ego Emi' - I Am' in greek. I am no great fan of Constantine, nor that anti intellectualism of later generations of clerics. however, I feel that Chrit;s divinity is found , if we seek it in the Gospels.
Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 20:05 (UTC)But the other side rightfully points out, the LXX version of Isaiah had virgin; and that was 200 years before the birth of Jesus, so at least Alexandrian Judaism read that passage as seeing a Messiah being born to a Virgin. But since the RSV only considered the Hebrew text, they changed word from "virgin" to "young maiden."
Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 20:43 (UTC)Fine. Incidently, the NEB follows the original Hebrew too, especially in translating eleph as a clan and not a town.
Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 20:46 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 21:06 (UTC)I get that many prefer the LXX reading over the Hebrew. Saves having to explain why Matthew goes for a verse that does not work in the original context.
If, though , we want to say that God speaks through mistranslations , not the original prophet Isaiah, you may have some explaining to do about the primary meaning of the verses in the hebrew.
See, Isaiah is talking to the king of israel about the foriegn threat from Assyria, in the original, and tells the king that the maid will become pregnant, she will have a son ( and she will call him Immanuel, not Jesus,, BTW) and before the boy is old enough to talk and callo out for his father and his mother, the assyrian threat will have passed.
Of course, We still have the mistranslation / change of prophecy 200 yrs before Jesus. And some would say that the gospel writers Matthew and Luke were borrowing from an oral tradition that circulated in the 1st century.
Mark does not mention a birth narrative at all, and Luke was a latecomer to the faith , joining the apostle Paul on his way to Rome.
Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 21:08 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 23:37 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 24/12/10 10:01 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 23:12 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 23:17 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 23:38 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 23:58 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 24/12/10 00:02 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 22:32 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 23/12/10 23:42 (UTC)Citation?
Re: Luddite!
Date: 24/12/10 00:42 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 24/12/10 01:40 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 24/12/10 01:51 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 24/12/10 23:39 (UTC)Re: Luddite!
Date: 24/12/10 10:13 (UTC)For the record, I was raised in the Unitarian tradition. I was told that Jesus was just a man sent to Earth on a mission , and not God incarnate. However, a reading of the Bibleheld me to doubt this position and I am not a member of Trinity Church.
So, in answer to your question , yes, I consider the Trinity to be orthodoxy and not a bare faced lie.
when you talk about ' first tier' and second tier' teachers in the church, is it first from the top or first level from the bottom?
If your claim is true "The doctrine of the Trinity was not accepted by educated Christians because it was known to be a fraud." then I have to sy that Arius was only able to gather 2 votes from hundreds of delegates at Nicea. So how come?
And yes, I want to see some evidence from all these aducated christians, please.
I welcome a discussion like this on religion - it still plays a large part in politics and history, even today. I think that if we are going to make claims , though , that we should have a few facts in support.
I do not doubt that Constantine made christianity the State religion for his own ends. he wanted to cement his empire together and the church wanted official recognition and an end to the persecutions.
but to say that the trinity was something out of character with early chrisstianity seems a step too far.
Re: Luddite!
Date: 26/12/10 23:16 (UTC)The Trinity and how it was used were completely out of step with what came before them. There are many good sources on how the Church persecuted heretics. Before the Nicene Council, Christians were persecuted for religious infidelity. After the Nicene Council, Christians did the persecuting. I see a big difference there.
Re: Luddite!
Date: 27/12/10 10:02 (UTC)Augustine, writing in the 4th C, if I recall correctly, was saying that he did not buy into a literal interpretation of Genesis. So, I don't buy it either, that the founding fathers of the Christian faith were all ignorant of classical learning.
Although it is true that the Church bought into an alliance with Constantine, and became the state religion as a result, I still don't see trinitarianism springing from Constantine - there was a controversy going on before he became a Christian. Secular historians are wont to accuse him of doing so in order to cement his Empire together, and I would not say that tese claims were entirely groundless. However, the Nicean Creed was not exclusively about the Divinity of Christ. the Divinity of christ was setttled at Nicea, true, and was carried with only two votes against. It has been consistently upheld by the non-Roman Churches, like the Eastern Orthodox tradition , and also found its way into the Westminster Confession, written by a Church that came into being at odds with Rome.
it would therefore be wrong to assert that the trinity is merely a Roman doctrine, or is something that Rome brought about to establish its supremacy.
yes, it is true that once the Church acquired political power, it was won't to use it to suppress dissent. However, it would be wrong to say that Protestantism , especially among the free Churches = Unitarianism, or that Trinitarians do not know their own texts.
Re: Luddite!
Date: 28/12/10 00:15 (UTC)Augustine wrote a full century after the Nicene Council and a full century before the Church attacked the education system from which Augustine dropped out. I spent quite a bit of time reading the writing of Augustine. His later writings bear the signature of a scribe's crabbed scrawl. They don't hold a candle to his more youthful texts.
Given your emotional attachment to the Trinity, I seriously doubt that you would be inclined to look at its history objectively. As for Protestants not understanding their texts, I like to tell a joke about a fundamentalist minister who stood before his congregation and said, "Jesus says that hypocrites pray in public, so let us pray."
Re: Luddite!
Date: 28/12/10 10:23 (UTC)The fact is that jeremiah complianed that people in Jerusalem were bowing down to 'the Queen of Heaven ', even in his day. So it comes as no suprise that the Catholic Church has venerated Mary, the mother of christ, by giving her the same title. It also comes as no suprise that the cult of Mother and Child, known as far afeild as ancient Egypt, has also been incorporated into Christianity. And yes, the Trinity , as the concept of a god as a triad, has also got very ancient roots.
Jesus morphs from being an itinerate preacher with some rather unusual powers in the Gospel of Mark, into being The Logos, a being begotten not created, the one for whom and through all things were made, the one whome monotheistic disciples actually worshipped and even prayed to in the space of a few decades.
To argue whether Jesus was Divine or not is to ignore an awful lot of the Canonical texts. See, as I said, I didn't come to a Trinitarian reading by default. for you to say to me that a trinitarian reading is wrong is an extra ordinary claim requiring extra ordinary evidence. If you want to plead that the text we have is innaccurate - then you have to show the verses, as they appear in other MMS, and show why those MMS are to be ranked above those used in producing the NEB.
I really think this should go to 'Convert me', you know...