The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

Christianity sects Nestorianism Arianism

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#1  Postby duvduv » Aug 20, 2015 9:24 pm

Can anyone explain how it was possible for official Roman Christianity to successfully wage persecution against Arianism and Nestorianism when the entire dispute was over some intangible, abstract and obscure notion about the nature of the Christ?
What PRACTICAL significance could that have possibly had among the ordinary people, or even among the elites? Evidently when Arianism became unkosher after Nicaea and the so-called Alexandrian version of Christianity became official, the regime decided to persecute Arians. But what did this mean in PRACTICAL TERMS? How could ordinary people relate to the dispute especially if they kept their opinions to themselves?

Was there an ethnic or economic aspect to it, whereby certain people identified with one view or the other in the case of Arianism and Nestorianism and therefore had a STAKE in which side of the obscure issue "won"?

Of course I don't understand what "winning" meant. Did it mean Christians had to swear which theory of Jesus' nature they believed in, and then the government would decide what to do with that person or community? Was it really something that had any real significance to anyone other than the ones sitting in their ivory towers?
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#2  Postby duvduv » Aug 26, 2015 7:31 pm

IF the fights take the form of very serious intellectual and philosophical disputes over the nature of theological reality as described in the web page http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... _Index.htm,
then it still remains to understand how the ordinary man in the street related to these kinds of disputes in a practical everyday kind of a way, to be able to be persecutor and persecuted over these highly abstract ideas. There must have been a way that the ordinary person could identify and be identified with one side or the other of a very complicated dispute.
But we know know which side controlled the media, so to speak. Who controlled the discourse, and who controlled the army and economy. And it sure wasn't the Platonist/Arian or Nestorian Parties.

And people STILL want to believe that the Roman empire just happened to fall in love with a pre-existing canon of texts of a pre-existing community of peace-loving Christians in communities where there is no evidence of their existence, where there is NO evidence as to WHO created the canon or why.
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#3  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 27, 2015 6:04 am

duvduv wrote:Can anyone explain how it was possible for official Roman Christianity to successfully wage persecution against Arianism and Nestorianism when the entire dispute was over some intangible, abstract and obscure notion about the nature of the Christ?



ARIUS


While Constantine ruled (325-337 CE) Official Roman Christianity was Constantinian. Constantine persecuted Arius on account of a number of related issues:

(1) His unacceptable statements about Jesus in the Nicene Council (5 sophisms - there was a time when he was not, etc)
(2) His opinion that the essence of Jesus was similar but not the same as the essence of god
(3) the controversial books that Arius had written, which were to be burnt, with the death penalty if not burnt.

That the entire dispute was over some intangible, abstract and obscure notion about the nature of the Christ is simply a fabrication of the 5th and subsequent century heresiological historians rendered over the top of the political history which they have suppressed.

IMO Arius and his associates authored at least some of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". These stories were full of very exciting adventures of Jesus and the Apostles, and were popular with the common people. This IMO is one of the major historical events that the Ecclesiastical Histories authored in the 5th century (concerning the rule of Constantine and the Arians) purposefully suppressed. Instead, the orthodoxy decided to retroscript references to nameless heretics of blasphemous books to the 2nd and 3rd century. This forgery and interpolation of supposedly earlier authors, for posterity took the heat off the utter controversy which ensued when the NT+LXX Bible was first published and made an authority by Constantine c.325 CE.

So there is reason to believe that the Arian controversy included a massive war of books. Constantine held the canon. His opposition - the Arians - authored and held the non canonical. In the end Constantine wiped out the Greek non canonical books from the city of Alexandria. Perhaps the last copies were those taken 400 miles up the Nile to the Pachomian monastic settlement where they were translated to Coptic and codices were manufactured and ultimately buried as the NHL.




What PRACTICAL significance could that have possibly had among the ordinary people, or even among the elites? Evidently when Arianism became unkosher after Nicaea and the so-called Alexandrian version of Christianity became official, the regime decided to persecute Arians. But what did this mean in PRACTICAL TERMS? How could ordinary people relate to the dispute especially if they kept their opinions to themselves?


Besides persecuting Arius, Constantine persecuted and prohibited the pagan philosophical traditions and the long standing customary practices associated with the pagan temples. Just think about that for a moment. The incoming Roman Emperor destroys temples and prohibits customary religious practices. Was there any opposition to this? Perhaps Arianism was the term the victors used to represent the resistance to the Constantinian revolution?

The ordinary people were caught in the middle of a revolution between the Emperor and Pontifex Maximus Constantine and the traditional Graeco-Roman priesthoods of the Eastern empire. Constantine wanted to implement Christianity as the monopoly religious business. He may have met - temporarily - with some resistance.



Was there an ethnic or economic aspect to it, whereby certain people identified with one view or the other in the case of Arianism and Nestorianism and therefore had a STAKE in which side of the obscure issue "won"?


Constantine surrounded himself with a close-knit circle of barbarian chieftains, who's tribes served in the army. Arius and his supported are Hellenistic philosophers and literary experts perhaps priests.

Cyril and Nestorius need to be dealt with separately.



Of course I don't understand what "winning" meant. Did it mean Christians had to swear which theory of Jesus' nature they believed in, and then the government would decide what to do with that person or community? Was it really something that had any real significance to anyone other than the ones sitting in their ivory towers?



The ecclesiastical histories of the Arian controversy were written from the ivory towers of 5th century heresiologists. Heresiologists are likely to look kindly upon "Constantinianism" and take exception to anything which resisted it.

The only political history we have of the 4th century is from Ammianus and commenced in the year 353 CE. It reveals that in that decade there was in place at least one Christian "inquisition" to which numbers without end of pagans were dragged for torture and execution.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#4  Postby duvduv » Aug 27, 2015 8:02 am

If Arius was a Platonist why would he be involved directly in writing gnostic texts about Jesus etc.?
And what really happened in the case of the Nestorians?
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#5  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 28, 2015 5:43 am

duvduv wrote:If Arius was a Platonist why would he be involved directly in writing gnostic texts about Jesus etc.?


The figure of Jesus had been brought to Alexandria by Constantine in a codex.
I don't think Jesus or Constantine were received very well in the first instance.

    "the sacred matters of inspired teaching
    were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
    in the very theatres of the unbelievers
    .


    How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius
    Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI

and also in "The Incarnation of the Word of God", Athanasius claims that

    "the Hellenes derided the mystery that the Christians adored"



I think these people derided the mystery of the canonical books by writing their own stories.




And what really happened in the case of the Nestorians?



The thug bishop Cyril of Alexandria ran Nestorius - the ex Bishop of Constantinople - out of the empire.

It's a long story.

Nestorius and Arius were both "anathematized" by the orthodoxy of their day.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#6  Postby Nicko » Aug 28, 2015 8:27 am

duvduv wrote:Can anyone explain how it was possible for official Roman Christianity to successfully wage persecution against Arianism and Nestorianism when the entire dispute was over some intangible, abstract and obscure notion about the nature of the Christ?


Image


duvduv wrote:What PRACTICAL significance could that have possibly had among the ordinary people, or even among the elites?


Dunno. Something along the lines of people from one faction pointing at a member of another faction and screaming, "Heretic! Burn the heretic! BUUUURN them!" I expect.

The whole point of adopting Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire was to provide unity. Kind of defeats the purpose if the divisions within Christianity prove worse than the divisions between competing religions.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8638
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#7  Postby duvduv » Aug 28, 2015 2:53 pm

Yes, except on a day to day basis the abstract obscure issue of the nature of Jesus had no practical significance except perhaps in the back of one's head.
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#8  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 29, 2015 3:20 am

duvduv wrote:Yes, except on a day to day basis the abstract obscure issue of the nature of Jesus had no practical significance except perhaps in the back of one's head.



SPONG: "Religion is always in the control business"

Luke 16:16: The Good News of God's Kingdom Is Proclaimed and Everyone Is Forced into It
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#9  Postby duvduv » Aug 30, 2015 2:12 am

So Leucius, you mean that Arius the Platonist did not seemingly actually take his involvement on the Jesus issue seriously and got into trouble, or do you mean they simply targeted him as an example for others who refused to buckle under and accept the new church and dogma?
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#10  Postby Nicko » Aug 30, 2015 7:00 am

duvduv wrote:Yes, except on a day to day basis the abstract obscure issue of the nature of Jesus had no practical significance except perhaps in the back of one's head.


If a group is in the business of using the assertion that they have access to the infallible truth of the revealed Word Of God to justify a claim of absolute authority, dissent on the nature of that truth has huge practical significance.

You're looking at this issue as a philosophical debate, when it was actually a political conflict.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8638
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#11  Postby duvduv » Aug 30, 2015 7:04 pm

OK, Nicko. So could you describe the actual political conflict between the Regime and the set-up enemy of the Nestoians?
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#12  Postby thaesofereode » Aug 30, 2015 7:19 pm

Leave it to humans to (in their copious spare time) dream up and then to evoke the most obscure distinctions imaginable, and then to press these into service as pretexts for killing one another.
:doh:
thaesofereode
 
Posts: 823

Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#13  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 31, 2015 3:16 am

duvduv wrote:So Leucius, you mean that Arius the Platonist did not seemingly actually take his involvement on the Jesus issue seriously and got into trouble ....


I don't think anyone could believe the situation with Constantine and his burning ambition to unite the Roman Empire under the umbrella of a centralised monotheistic state religious cult based on a canonised holy writ. And this would have been BEFORE the people even got to read (and for the majority hear) the Greek NT+LXX Bible.

You are also asking what the people thought of all the conflict? Well let's go through the people by their classes:

1) ARMY: These people believed and did exactly what their fearless leader Constantine ordered them to do: destroy temples, execute priests, conduct search and destroy missions for "prohibited books", burn books, execute preservers of prohibited books, pillage and loot the temples for gold, silver, statues, art, etc.

2) PREBS and SLAVES: They did what they were told, and believed what they were told.

3) CIVITAS: PATRICIANS, SENATORS, EQUESTRIANS and LANDHOLDERS: the subject of increasing taxation.

4) EGYPTO-GRAECO-ROMAN PRIESTHOODS: Constantine prohibited the pagan worship and overnight this entire class became redundant because the temples were "off limits". I do not know how to estimate the number of people in this class. But as soon as Constantine became supreme all the other religious practices became the subject of an imperial prohibition. What were these people to do? Any ideas?

5) "GUARDIAN CLASS": I will include a "Guardian Class" perhaps drawn from the highest of the literate civilians and priests and philosophical schools. In the centuries of the Roman Empire leading up to Constantine's supremacy there were "Sacred Assemblies" of the Pontifices (or high priests) serving the Pontifex Maximus - the Emperor. They provided counsel, intelligence, advice, etc to the Emperor in the running of the Roman Religions. These were highly literate people. But Constantine did not need any of them because he was getting all his advice from the NT+LXX Bible.


The Platonists at the beginning of the 4th century were represented by Porphyry, student of Plotinus whose school had been sponsored by the Emperor Gallenius. I have reason to believe that Arius of Alexandria was a follower of Porphyry and Plotinus, but that the victors who wrote the history of this conflict, painted him as a Christian. This allowed them to tell the story of the reception of the Bible under Constantine involving only a minor inter-Christian theological dispute. What really happened in the political sense - that the Alexandrian Greeks laughed at the Jesus Story, and wrote their own Jesus Stories - was suppressed.

I think most people may have expected it to blow over. Wait until Constantine died and then go back to whatever they were doing before he turned up. But that was not to be. The political Nicene church organisation had been given over a decade to get control of a lot of money and gold and power. Constantine's son Constantius, after he had executed a great many of his family members, continued with the Christian State for more than another decade, in which the first Christian inquisition of pagans is attested. Emperor Julian's brief three years did nothing to soften the backlash of the Nicene Church Industry getting back into the lucrative business that it enjoyed before Julian. Theodosius 381 CE decrees that Nicene Christianity is the One True Way to Go. The heretics are insane maniacs and must be executed. In the mid 5th century Cyril writes against Julian and against Nestorius and a new history is ratified for the church organisation.




duvduv wrote:......, or do you mean they simply targeted him as an example for others who refused to buckle under and accept the new church and dogma?


Look at the earliest Nicene Creeds (they are not actually creeds they are "OATHS" to Constantine). There is found a disclaimer clause featuring the opinions of Arius. "There was a time when he was not" etc. This was appended in order to make it quite clear what Constantine and the Nicene Church Organisation would NOT accept.


Likewise another aspect is in Constantine's rejection of the claim that Jesus was just "similar" to God. Arius appears to have used this as some sort of stalling tactic or loophole. Constantine would not have that Jesus was similar to God. Constantine wanted Jesus to be the same as God, and Constantine's opinion seems to have been quite final.

SO to answer your question I think they seized upon the arguments of the focal point of the resistance against the formation of the political Nicene Church Organisation and the centralised monotheistic state. And this focal point of resistance seems to have been in the figure of Arius. So they said, these opinions of Arius are lies, bullshit and the ravings of a lunatic heretic who needed to be executed quickly (if they could find him). What did Stalin do to his opposition? We must not forget Constantine was at war with the Eastern Empire, and his treaty for "peace" included the Bible. FFS !!!
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#14  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 31, 2015 3:27 am

thaesofereode wrote:Leave it to humans to (in their copious spare time) dream up and then to evoke the most obscure distinctions imaginable, and then to press these into service as pretexts for killing one another.
:doh:


Too true !!!

Have a look at the First Seven Heresies / Sects in the Index of Eighty compiled by Epiphanius: (later 4th century)


    Heresy 1 of 80 - Against Barbarism
    Heresy 2 of 80 - Against Scythianism
    Heresy 3 of 80 - Against Hellenism
    Heresy 4 of 80 - Against Judaism
    Heresy 5 of 80 - Against Stoics
    Heresy 6 of 80 - Against Platonists
    Heresy 7 of 80 - Against Pythagoreans


The 4th century Christian State regime divided up and conquered by means of "the most obscure distinctions imaginable".

All that is left over after this exercise in heresiology are the orthodox heresiologists
and the imperially sponsored and utterly corrupt Nicene Chri$tian Church BU$INE$$ and INDU$TRY.

It started as a racket and on the wings of war (which is a racket).
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#15  Postby duvduv » Aug 31, 2015 10:18 am

Wasn't Epiphanius something of Eusebius' successor?
They must have been so pleased with themselves to be able to exhaustively identify every little heresy against the regime. All without the technology of the Homeland Security apparatus of our times....
One wonders why Arians or later Nestorians thought they could escape the regime.
It sounds like bribery of officials wasn't successful enough around the empire. If the regime was so obsessed with doctrinal purity it must mean that sects either sincerely tried to accommodate the regime or were engaged in widespread attempts at disseminating parody and entertainment as you suggest.
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#16  Postby Nicko » Aug 31, 2015 1:06 pm

duvduv wrote:OK, Nicko. So could you describe the actual political conflict between the Regime and the set-up enemy of the Nestoians?


I'm not sure what you're asking.

There was a power struggle.

One side ended up with the power and the other didn't.

Is that what you're after?

:scratch:
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8638
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#17  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 31, 2015 1:09 pm

duvduv wrote:Wasn't Epiphanius something of Eusebius' successor?


All Christians with few exceptions in the 4th century were successors of Eusebius to the extent they are able to be classified as "heresiologists" - important people concerned with the recording and management of heresies - "bad opinions about the Church INDU$TRY".

As far as historiography is concerned the next series of historians writing "Christian Church History" (Ecclesiastical history) are the three 5th century "continuators of Eusebius - Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret.


They must have been so pleased with themselves to be able to exhaustively identify every little heresy against the regime. All without the technology of the Homeland Security apparatus of our times....


The technology they used was very effective. It was still being used by the church industry between the middle ages and the 20th century. It was a very simple idea. It was a list of "prohibited books", and it was referred to from the 16th century as the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum". Eusebius prepared the prototype of such a list in the 4th century. The Decretum Gelasianum of the 4th-6th century offers a great more entries. SPONG is right about political control. The JE$US BUSSINESS INDU$TRY fought for monopoly and acquired it.


SPONG: "Religion is always in the control business". Not only did they forge the manuscripts that they then presented as evidence for their dogma, but they openly engaged in the political censorship. The army was deployed by the Christian emperors to search and destroy these "forbidden books". They needed a "Hit List". Central Office supplied it, and the legion(s).


One wonders why Arians or later Nestorians thought they could escape the regime.


One way of looking at it is the "Christian Revolution" of the 4th century. It was a top-down revolution and stayed that way. It resulted, with the canonical Jesus Story as the "Supreme Writings", with the monopoly of the religious business in the Roman Empire.

Arius was reacting to the Christian revolution. He may have been the focus of (Greek) literary "resistance".

Nestorius OTOH was anathematized by the thug bishop Cyril a century later.


429 CE: Cyril's Censorship of the Heresies Nestorius

Blasphemies and Heresies of Nestorius according to Cyril:

An examination of the five books composed in 429 CE by the orthodox tax-exempt murderer and christian Bishop of Alexandria Cyril, against the "blasphemies and heresies" of Nestorius.

    "I will speak the words too of offence.
    Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ discoursing to them;
    Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man
    and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you:
    the hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said,
    they imagined of their unlearning
    that He was bringing in cannibalism."


Nestorius is today seen as a systematic reported of what he sees and hears around him in the world, but Cyril does not want any of these things written. Nestorius reports that some of the people imagined Jesus to be bringing in cannibalism. The clever pagan priests were polemicists and seditionists against the agenda of the Constantinian Canonical writings. One of them even went as far to write an entire tractate, entitled The Acts of Andrew and Matthias (Matthew) (from "The Apocryphal New Testament" M.R. James-Translation and Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924) in which Matthew is sent to preach into the Land of the Cannibals:

    "At that time all the apostles were gathered together
    and divided the countries among themselves, casting lots.
    And it fell to Matthias to go to the land of the anthropophagi. (cannibals)
    Now the men of that city ate no bread nor drank wine,
    but ate the flesh and drank the blood of men;
    and every stranger who landed there they took, and put out his eyes,
    and gave him a magic drink which took away his understanding. "




It sounds like bribery of officials wasn't successful enough around the empire.


Constantine had to decree that rich pagans could not easily buy themselves into the position of a Christian Bishop which of course attracted tax exemption status, a very valuable commodity in antiquity as it is today. The Christian Emperors controlled the monopoly business of religious belief. Any resistance was not for the faint hearted.



If the regime was so obsessed with doctrinal purity it must mean that sects either sincerely tried to accommodate the regime .....


I think so too. For a start Constantine was the rightful and lawful Pontifex Maximus, he was the Lord God Caesar, he was the supreme military commander, and he was very good with the sword. These are just some of the compelling reasons that people of all classes would at least pay lip-service to this publisher of the "Good News". The 4th century heretics used the same sacred names that they found in the 4th century Constantine Bible. They tried to conform to the system somehow.

.... or were engaged in widespread attempts at disseminating parody and entertainment as you suggest.


I think that it may be reasonable to believe that at least some of the literate Alexandrian Greeks thought that the Jesus Story in particular, and the NT+LXX Bible codex of Constantine in general, was complete and utter bullshit. They were the UNBELIEVERS and they peddled UNBELIEF to their doom. The Bilbo Jesus Baggins brigade. Fellowship with the Emperor's New Chi-Rho Ring and the political appearance and constitution of the Nicene Church Revolution slash Monopoly Opportunity.



SPONG: "Religion is always in the control business".

A pseudo-history of at least the heretics (if not the orthodoxy) has been fabricated by the heresiologists
with respect to the epoch 324-353 CE in order to control the business of history.

Nestorius appears at the end game. His blasphemies were mopped up by Cyril along with the LIES of the Emperor Julian.

Arius plays the opening gambits of a futile resistance against the forces of General Clark Jesus Kent.


Long live the heretics !!!!!!!!!
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Aug 31, 2015 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#18  Postby duvduv » Aug 31, 2015 1:27 pm

You can't really have a power struggle where one side has all the power and the other has none!

Nicko wrote:
duvduv wrote:OK, Nicko. So could you describe the actual political conflict between the Regime and the set-up enemy of the Nestoians?


I'm not sure what you're asking.

There was a power struggle.

One side ended up with the power and the other didn't.

Is that what you're after?

:scratch:
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#19  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 31, 2015 2:02 pm

You can have a power struggle where the all powerful side is relatively small with respect to the populace. This power struggle starts often starts with the major cities (most populous) and then works outward into the provincial areas. This is what we find with the Christian revolution of the 4th century. The earliest pejorative uses of the term "pagani" [pagan] by the later 4th century Christians of the cities refers to the unwashed country people - the rustics - who had not yet been FORMALLY converted to the revolution. Diocese by diocese.

This power struggle went on for many generations, and insidiously continued through the Middle Ages. It was not all over 337 CE when Constantine went to the underworld. The packaged reports of the conflict was still being wrapped up as late as 444 CE when Bishop Cyril went to the underworld.

But in the end it was "lights out for 1000 years" for the Greek intellectual traditions of mathematics, geometry, astronomy, medicine, philosophy, geography, physics, optics, Antikythera mechanism making, etc, etc, etc.

The power struggle is not over.




duvduv wrote:You can't really have a power struggle where one side has all the power and the other has none!

Nicko wrote:
duvduv wrote:OK, Nicko. So could you describe the actual political conflict between the Regime and the set-up enemy of the Nestoians?


I'm not sure what you're asking.

There was a power struggle.

One side ended up with the power and the other didn't.

Is that what you're after?

:scratch:
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Aug 31, 2015 2:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: The Fight Over Nestorianism and Arianism

#20  Postby Nicko » Aug 31, 2015 2:16 pm

duvduv wrote:You can't really have a power struggle where one side has all the power and the other has none!


Of course you can.

Quickly, I'll grant you.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8638
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest