Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:41 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
#1
My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
So xtians love to pretend that their doctrines were the natural result of scholars studying the scriptures and applying their findings and that, frankly, is just horseshit in keeping with the equine theme of the thread.  In fact in the mid 5th century there were rioting gangs of monks and common thugs perfectly willing to kill each other in the dispute over whether or not “jesus” was divine ( monophysitism) or human AND divine (dyophysitism).  And we think muslims are stupid today for fighting over who should have succeeded to be caliph!)  Anyway, this had precious little to do with doctrine and far more to do with power.  Which of the so-called Great Sees would dominate?  Those were Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and either Ephesus or Jerusalem depending on which time period you were considering.  And of course, Rome.  And herein hangs the tale.  As can be seen, all except Rome were in the East. 

As the noted xtian scholar, Albert C. Outler wrote:

[Image: Yt5d2kY.jpg]

At Ephesus II the monophysites were completely triumphant mainly because the bishop of Alexandria, a man named Dioscuros had an army of thugs as well as the support of the Emperor Theodosius II.  They ruled from Constantinople to Alexandria.  Leo, the pope in Rome, was considered a barbarian as he did not speak Greek.  Further political events in Western Europe had, by 449 AD, resulted in various Gothic kingdoms being set up in Gaul and Spain and even parts of northern Italy.  The Vandals had settled in North Africa and all these various Barbarian kingdoms were Arian xtians which meant that as far as the snooty Greeks in the East were concerned they were just fucking heretics.  It also meant that despite whatever the pretensions of Leo might have been his influence was limited to areas of Italy south of the Po River.  No wonder the Byzantines felt they could dismiss him as just another barbarian.
So the question arises if the monophysites were so dominant what went wrong?  And the answer is, a clumsy horse or a shitty rider or both.   About a year after the council closed Theodosius II either fell off his horse or the horse fell with him.  The emperor broke his back and died 2 days later.  His sister, Pulcheria, who had generally handled all the mundane affairs of actually running the government but who was a dyophysite herself, grabbed the reins of government, married a soldier named Marcian and made him emperor and in 451 called the council of Chalcedon to dump the monophysites out on their asses.
So when xtians make silly claims about how holy their fucking scriptures are just remember that the reason why today “jesus” is fully human and fully divine is because of poor horsemanship.

They should have made that horse a saint!
Reply
#2
RE: My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
Road worthless whinging in 3.2.1
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply
#3
RE: My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
That's the only kind of whinging he does.  But these are well known Xtian scholars that he has to fight with.

Quote:Albert Cook Outler is generally considered to be one of the most important John Wesley scholars in the history of the Church as well as the first real United Methodist theologian. He was also a key figure in the 20th century ecumenical movement.

Outler was born and raised in Georgia and was an ordained Methodist Elder who served as pastor in several appointments. He received his Ph.D. degree from Yale University, teaching at both Yale and Duke University before beginning a long tenure at Southern Methodist University in Texas. He served on the Faith & Order board of the World Council of Churches and was an official observer at the Second Vatican Council.

Quote:Dr. Philip Jenkins and I were both speaking at the Global Summit, a discussion related to forming a "global eldering community" for The Foursquare Church, a Pentecostal denomination with a large global constituency. Jenkins was, at the time I interviewed him, Professor at Penn State. Now, he is at Baylor University.

Dr. Jenkins has written a number of seminal works when it comes to matters of Christian history, but also history in general. Two of his most well-known books are The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Future of Christianity Trilogy) and The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia—And How It Died.


I suspect that RR would be in over his head with these two.  Besides, we have extensive records that the church maintained of these various councils.
Reply
#4
RE: My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
(December 10, 2017 at 6:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So xtians love to pretend that their doctrines were the natural result of scholars studying the scriptures and applying their findings and that, frankly, is just horseshit in keeping with the equine theme of the thread.  In fact in the mid 5th century there were rioting gangs of monks and common thugs perfectly willing to kill each other in the dispute over whether or not “jesus” was divine ( monophysitism) or human AND divine (dyophysitism).  And we think muslims are stupid today for fighting over who should have succeeded to be caliph!)  Anyway, this had precious little to do with doctrine and far more to do with power.  Which of the so-called Great Sees would dominate?  Those were Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and either Ephesus or Jerusalem depending on which time period you were considering.  And of course, Rome.  And herein hangs the tale.  As can be seen, all except Rome were in the East. 

As the noted xtian scholar, Albert C. Outler wrote:

[Image: Yt5d2kY.jpg]

At Ephesus II the monophysites were completely triumphant mainly because the bishop of Alexandria, a man named Dioscuros had an army of thugs as well as the support of the Emperor Theodosius II.  They ruled from Constantinople to Alexandria.  Leo, the pope in Rome, was considered a barbarian as he did not speak Greek.  Further political events in Western Europe had, by 449 AD, resulted in various Gothic kingdoms being set up in Gaul and Spain and even parts of northern Italy.  The Vandals had settled in North Africa and all these various Barbarian kingdoms were Arian xtians which meant that as far as the snooty Greeks in the East were concerned they were just fucking heretics.  It also meant that despite whatever the pretensions of Leo might have been his influence was limited to areas of Italy south of the Po River.  No wonder the Byzantines felt they could dismiss him as just another barbarian.
So the question arises if the monophysites were so dominant what went wrong?  And the answer is, a clumsy horse or a shitty rider or both.   About a year after the council closed Theodosius II either fell off his horse or the horse fell with him.  The emperor broke his back and died 2 days later.  His sister, Pulcheria, who had generally handled all the mundane affairs of actually running the government but who was a dyophysite herself, grabbed the reins of government, married a soldier named Marcian and made him emperor and in 451 called the council of Chalcedon to dump the monophysites out on their asses.
So when xtians make silly claims about how holy their fucking scriptures are just remember that the reason why today “jesus” is fully human and fully divine is because of poor horsemanship.

They should have made that horse a saint!

And here was I thinking this thread would be about how Henry Tudor supressed all record of the reign of Richard IV, after his son Edmund killed Richard III at Bosworth.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
Reply
#5
RE: My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
(December 10, 2017 at 6:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So xtians love to pretend that their doctrines were the natural result of scholars studying the scriptures and applying their findings and that, frankly, is just horseshit in keeping with the equine theme of the thread.  In fact in the mid 5th century there were rioting gangs of monks and common thugs perfectly willing to kill each other in the dispute over whether or not “jesus” was divine ( monophysitism) or human AND divine (dyophysitism).  And we think muslims are stupid today for fighting over who should have succeeded to be caliph!)  Anyway, this had precious little to do with doctrine and far more to do with power.  Which of the so-called Great Sees would dominate?  Those were Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and either Ephesus or Jerusalem depending on which time period you were considering.  And of course, Rome.  And herein hangs the tale.  As can be seen, all except Rome were in the East. 

As the noted xtian scholar, Albert C. Outler wrote:

[Image: Yt5d2kY.jpg]

At Ephesus II the monophysites were completely triumphant mainly because the bishop of Alexandria, a man named Dioscuros had an army of thugs as well as the support of the Emperor Theodosius II.  They ruled from Constantinople to Alexandria.  Leo, the pope in Rome, was considered a barbarian as he did not speak Greek.  Further political events in Western Europe had, by 449 AD, resulted in various Gothic kingdoms being set up in Gaul and Spain and even parts of northern Italy.  The Vandals had settled in North Africa and all these various Barbarian kingdoms were Arian xtians which meant that as far as the snooty Greeks in the East were concerned they were just fucking heretics.  It also meant that despite whatever the pretensions of Leo might have been his influence was limited to areas of Italy south of the Po River.  No wonder the Byzantines felt they could dismiss him as just another barbarian.
So the question arises if the monophysites were so dominant what went wrong?  And the answer is, a clumsy horse or a shitty rider or both.   About a year after the council closed Theodosius II either fell off his horse or the horse fell with him.  The emperor broke his back and died 2 days later.  His sister, Pulcheria, who had generally handled all the mundane affairs of actually running the government but who was a dyophysite herself, grabbed the reins of government, married a soldier named Marcian and made him emperor and in 451 called the council of Chalcedon to dump the monophysites out on their asses.
So when xtians make silly claims about how holy their fucking scriptures are just remember that the reason why today “jesus” is fully human and fully divine is because of poor horsemanship.

They should have made that horse a saint!

Duh, but back then all of the world stupidly thought our species success/failure/morality was magically handed to them.

I cant say this enough, but even Asia and India had/has its superstitions and histories of holy leaders feeling entitled to fight rival sects. I think far too many humans think of "us vs them" as being umbrella label vs umbrella label, but the truth is religion is just as divisive under the umbrella label with all the sub sects competing for power.
Reply
#6
RE: My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
Quote:And here was I thinking this thread would be about how Henry Tudor supressed all record of the reign of Richard IV, after his son Edmund killed Richard III at Bosworth.

See what happens when you assume?


Quote: I cant say this enough, but even Asia and India had/has its superstitions and histories of holy leaders feeling entitled to fight rival sects.

True enough, Brian.  But they all go out  of their way to deny that rather base history.
Reply
#7
RE: My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
(December 11, 2017 at 10:22 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Road worthless whinging in 3.2.1


Actually, I haven't really studied that late in Christian history as much (so I have little to comment).  I was always more concerned with those views early on and closer to the sources.  My question for any of this, is why did they think that? 

Also, I believe that your constant calling me out, is against the forum rules.  It only makes you look foolish, as you clearly don't understand context and reason.  I would kindly ask, that you stop, as I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself.  You may be better off by spending more time by contributing intelligent responses, rather than just attacking people and misrepresenting them.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire.  - Martin Luther
Reply
#8
RE: My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
Bait taken  Big Grin
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply
#9
RE: My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
(December 13, 2017 at 12:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:And here was I thinking this thread would be about how Henry Tudor supressed all record of the reign of Richard IV, after his son Edmund killed Richard III at Bosworth.

See what happens when you assume?


Quote: I cant say this enough, but even Asia and India had/has its superstitions and histories of holy leaders feeling entitled to fight rival sects.

True enough, Brian.  But they all go out  of their way to deny that rather base history.

Ah, but anything with a cunning plan is ten times more awesome. Time Team's Tony Robinson proved that.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
Reply
#10
RE: My Kingdom For A Horse... A SUREFOOTED Horse!
Quote: My question for any of this, is why did they think that?

That's a complex issue, especially if you are not ready or willing to examine the realities of the earliest, so-called, xtians.

The first step is to lose the idea that the earliest xtians were some sort of unified group.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)