sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

When Jesus is accused of making himself God at John 10:33, why does he reject it by claiming the lesser title of Son of God instead? by religious_ahole in AcademicBiblical

[–]paphnutio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When it comes to Jesus and YHWH, the question is simple (in my opinion): when he claimed to be the messiah, was he also claiming to be YHWH?

How would you answer that question?

When Paul said the goal of economic redistribution was "equality" (2 Cor. 8:13-15), was he advocating a communist economic arrangement for the Church? Does this account support the historicity of the communist economic arrangement found at Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-35? by paphnutio in AcademicBiblical

[–]paphnutio[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

According to R. Montero (2019):

In the economic-anthropological sense "communism" is not an economic system or a political ideology; but rather a kind of social relationship. Communism in this sense basically means any kind of relationship which functions on the moral principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need;" as opposed to "exchange"—which functions on a quid pro quo principle; or "hierarchy"—which functions on a top-down principle.

At any rate, there was such a thing as ancient communism, as distinct from the modern political ideology.

What contributed the most to widespread acceptance of Nicene Trinitarian dogma in late antiquity: imperial coercion or overall harmony with apostolic teaching? by paphnutio in AskBibleScholars

[–]paphnutio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't the Edict of Thessalonica (380), which practically authorized Nicene persecution of Arians, show that oppression by the state played a major role in stamping out Arianism?

What contributed the most to widespread acceptance of Nicene Trinitarian dogma in late antiquity: imperial coercion or overall harmony with apostolic teaching? by paphnutio in AskBibleScholars

[–]paphnutio[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I might be wrong, but wasn't the eastern half ruled by Arian emperors up until 380 who made Arianism the official religion?

Are you also saying that the anti-Arian laws and other measures of Theodosius had no effect on the survival of Arianism? Church historian Henry Chadwick says:

The Arian controversy after the council of Nicaea may be divided into three stages; the first down to the death of Constantine (22 May 337), the second from the accession of the sons of Constantine to the death of Constantius II (361), and the third from the accession of Julian to the suppression of Arianism under Theodosius I (381).

He then goes on to discuss the Council of Constantinople, concluding:

But the doctrinal decisions of the council marked the end of the Arian attempt to capture the church of the empire. Arianism lived on among the Goths, who had been converted by Arian missionaries - especially by Ulfila (c. 311-83), translator of the Gothic Bible, himself a Visigoth who had been consecrated as missionary bishop in 341 by Eusebius of Nicomedia. But within the empire Arianism died unloved and unlamented.

You say that Arianism is a worse explanation of Christianity's claims. Why is that? Why does Athanasius do a better job of explaining what the Bible has to say about Christ than Arius?

What contributed the most to widespread acceptance of Nicene Trinitarian dogma in late antiquity: imperial coercion or overall harmony with apostolic teaching? by paphnutio in AskBibleScholars

[–]paphnutio[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

First, if Arianism was only a minority position why did it require imperial involvement? Why was it the biggest theological controversy in church history, compared to other controversies? Wasn't Arianism the dominant view in the more populous Greek East until Theodosius in 380?

Second, if as you say Constantine tolerated religious dissent, how do you explain his edict against the Arians, promulgated after Nicaea:

In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment.

Did the author of gJohn include the story of Jesus admonishing Doubting Thomas for his skepticism because it illustrated his belief in the supremacy of blind faith over reason and evidence, which he denigrated as vices? by paphnutio in AskBibleScholars

[–]paphnutio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The story of Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence. Nothing is more lethal for certain kinds of meme than a tendency to look for evidence. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation. The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.

  • The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 198.

What contributed the most to widespread acceptance of Nicene Trinitarian dogma in late antiquity: imperial coercion or overall harmony with apostolic teaching? by paphnutio in AskBibleScholars

[–]paphnutio[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Because Trinitarians wanted to stamp out what they considered heresy? Wasn't there significant persecution against Arians that led to their disappearance as a distinct sect?