CONFLICT: the winner decides what is TRUE in history and theology

by Terry 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Terry

There was a period of time between Judaism, (Messianic Judaism, Christian-Judaism and, finally,) Christianity in which violent arguments over who/what Jesus was vis a vis deity took place.
One of the reasons for writing down the oral traditions was to solidify certain positions and "prove" a particular opinion by representing those opinions as from a higher source. After all, the Jews were the "people of the book" and no greater authority could be referenced in an argument over orthodoxy than what was "written".
Eventually hundreds (if not thousands) of Messiah stories, Jesus stories were circulated; each with yet more powerful representations of who or what his personage revealed as to nature and importance.
The names of important men became attached to these writings to bolster their authority and authenticity. (The Gospel according to.....)
Eventually.....
What became known as Christianity found an authority to back it up that had some real clout: a Roman Emperor!
The power of the STATE in the person of Constantine (worshipper in the cult of Sol-Invictus, the Sun god) championed Christianity and sought to solidify his constituency by smoothing over differences.
Constantine convoked a Council in Nicene in 325 c.e. for the purpose of working out issues of belief and airing opinions and weeding out troublemakers.
One of the most bitter controversies which seemed irreconcilable concerned the nature of Jesus in regard to his status as a human being or demi-god or deity.
The Roman world was pagan. Rome embraced the religion of Greece. Greece embraced philosophy. The philosophy of Plato and its permutations (known as neo-Platonism) were everywhere well-known. Familiarity with IDEAL FORMS and demi-gods was considered the natural state of existence. Even the emperor himself was often considered to be the son of god and of divine status. How could the leader of the Christian religion be LESS than an emperor???
Jesus, however, was from the religion of Judaism. Judaism was notorious for only having ONE supereme God and no OTHER gods. How could Jesus fit in with Judiac thought and theology if he represented a more pagan realization of theology??
The controversy was a bloody one. Churches were burned, men were beaten and deaths occured over this one issue like no other.
The Roman Empire under Constantine was in a position to settle the matter with the power of the state. It did. Contrary views were punished by violent means and writings were burned which contradicted official views of what was "true".
Eventually the Church which emerged from the Church-State union (Catholic) split within itself over the same argument over the definition of Christ's nature (substance vis a vis the Father) and the Greek Orthodox Church became a rival to the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Empire split apart into two emperors and two churches for the remainder of the Roman era of domination.
Athanasius and Arius are the two men most often quoted in the argumentations as to the nature of Jesus and his status as deity.
The writings now imputed to be Canon are writings accepted (others being burned) by the same group of arguing bishops and clergy who won the right to excommunicate their opponents.
Depending on the geographical location of a church or congregation; a different theology of Jesus would be preached as True.
The man named Saul who became the most influential self-named Apostle of Jesus, was from a pagan background in the midst of Judaism influenced by neo-Platonism. Paul sought to remove Jesus from Judaism and make his Messianic authority more broad based by appealing to pagans in their familiarity with demi-god status.
As writings about Jesus proliferated a gradual evolution is detected by scholars placing them on a timeline of change. Early writings demonstrate Jesus as human. Later writings color his deeds as superhuman. By the time the Gospel (attributed to John) of John comes along the Jesus represented is now fully on par with the Only True God of the Jews as a morph into equal status without conflict as to number. (Compare Mark with John as to the events in the garden of Gethsemane and the resurrection side by side.)
Jews could no longer accept such a Messiah which violated thousands of years of monotheism. These Jews could have (and did) represented a real holdout to any doctrine of Trinity. However, the Roman army moved against Jewish patriots who were rebellious in Jerusalem. The majority of the Jewish population was dispersed into frightened communities as Rome destroyed the center of worship in Jerusalem. The bulwark against Trinitariansim was sent packing!
This left only the neo-Platonic advocates in a position to widely influence thinking about Jesus and his role as a demi-god/true god.
This status is reflected in John 1:3.
The "truth" of history is written by the winners.
5go
Not to put down what the nazi's did to the jews. But hitler got the idea from what the americans ( USA ) did to the native american population. In fact no one was really got on the crimes against humanity charge mainly waging an agresive war. I mean look at what japan did to nanking and the chinese it just japan quickly became an ally and china an enemy. Where as germany was resistant to occupation and the jews became israel our biggest untouchable ally. Another example is turkey and WW1 they invented deathcamps but they are an ally now.
The indictments were for:
1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace ( Orwellian speak for number 2)
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity
And the USA has several time claimed it does not apply to them only to their enemies.
All signatories to the CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts of genocide, both in peace and wartime, though some barriers make this enforcement difficult. In particular, some of the signatories — namely,Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia — signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice without their consent [13] . Despite official protests from other signatories (notably Cyprus and Norway) on the ethics and legal standing of these reservations, the immunity from prosecution they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United States refused to allow a charge of genocide brought against it by Yugoslavia following the 1999 Kosovo War.
Why is it ok to for any other country to be charged with it but the USA and some of it's allies can't be without their permission.
Terry

Why is it ok to for any other country to be charged with it but the USA and some of it's allies can't be without their permission.
Although it was originally my intention to frame the discussion in strictly religion terms; I'll bite.
Pointing to worse behavior to justify bad behavior is fallacious as far as logic goes.
People try to sneak in to live in America for strong reasons. When the Nazis were destroying their own intelligentsia in concentration camps they drove their best scientists into the arms of America the beautiful.
The U.S. put Japanese in isolated communities which were not even slightly comparable to Nazi death camps. There is no comparison on any level other than superficially. It was fear of a reactionary nature which set the policy of relocation into motion. The Nazi policy was driven by a scapegoat ideology of hatred. No Japanese citizen was put to death.
The extermination of the native american population by the Federal Government has a history to it as well. There was a deliberate attempt to view anything white christians did as mandated by God through MANIFEST DESTINY. By equating the native americans with pagan savages it was easier to expunge them than not.
Many christian groups took indian children away from their tribes and put them into orphanage schools to indoctrinate them with christianity. I blame religion more than politics for this one. But, it was hideous.
There has never been a nation in the history of the world so powerful as the U.S.A. that did more to enable prosperity among those it conquered. Japan went from a feudal state of medeival mentality to a thriving economic industrail state reknowned throughout the world. This stems directly from being defeated by the U.S. and rehabilitated. So, we must weigh the past with the present. Viet Nam was a stoneage country of rice paddies before the war and is a top economic society afterward. Weigh this carefully in the balance.
It is in the nature of humanity to view its own evils as necessity.
What one country does to another country and how the U.S. frames those issues is largely a matter of political policy and little impacts on the reality of life and death per se. Opinion is mere opinion.
When there is tragedy through natural disaster the U.S. is there with its hand out filled with medicine, cash and humanitarian aid.
We allow critics from within our society to complain, villify and hold leader's feet to the fire.
This is the strength of our nation.
It is the dishonor and heartbreak of Christendom, religion and Jehovah's Witnesses specifically that no voice of the loyal opposition is permitted to counter-balance wrong-headed zeal and power mongering.
History is written by the winner and the lesson is ours to ferret out with as much objectivity as our philosophy allows.
stillajwexelder

Read "Why I am Not a Muslim" the same point is basically made. Islam spread because basically Mohammed was a winner- He was good at war and ruthless at exterminating dissent. The winner wrote the history. Always has been the case - but I hesitate to say - always will be.
Perry

Terry,
Your version of history seems like you are saying that the trinity view was the newcomer and that Arius had the orthodox view. Of course that is what I was taught when I was brought up a JW. I was quite surprised in my course on Christian history to learn that the truth was just the opposite. But of course, so much of what I was told as a JW is the opposite of truth.
The title of this thread seems to indicate that you beleive one must be a loser, or at least side with the losers of history if truth is to be found. Anyhow I checked my old college textbook and it confirmed what this Princeton Theologian says below.
The History of the Christian Church
by Henry C. Sheldon
Originally Published by Thomas Y. Crowell and Co., 1895
First Period, From Pentecost to Constantine
THE EARLY CHURCH
II. --THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY
With some revisions and type-setting by
http://edwardtbabinski.us (2005)
=
II.--THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
According to the Arian view, Christ was to be esteemed neither truly divine nor truly human, neither God nor man; but a being intermediate between the two, the first and most exalted of creatures, who at the fulness of time assumed a human body for the sake of man's redemption. Such a view as this had never been received in the Church with any favor, and indeed an exact parallel is not to be found among the preceding heresies.
Arius, who gave the name to this heresy, was a native of Libya, but came to reside at Alexandria as a presbyter of the Church there. He is described as tall and thin, ascetic in habit, and possessed of considerable tact as a logician. About the year 320, his peculiar views had attracted sufficient attention to cause the summoning of a council of Egyptian and Libyan bishops, by which he and his followers were excommunicated. But Arius was not to be silenced. For the wider circulation of his views, he sent abroad his Thaleia, a work partly in prose and partly in verse. A few bishops were found to agree with his doctrine. Others, while not holding exactly his view of the nature of Christ, still favored such an emphatic subordination of the Son to the Father as to entertain much sympathy for him. Especially prominent among these was Eusebius of Nicomedia. Others, while they were not in doctrinal agreement with Arius, deprecated agitation, and thought it impolitic to press the case against him and his adherents. To many, however, the Arian view seemed an intolerable and blasphemous innovation. When, therefore, the attention of Constantine was called to the subject, he found a great agitation existing. Careful above all things for unity, he sought to allay the controversy, and to this end addressed a letter to the disputants in Egypt. He represented that there was no adequate cause, in the nature of the question at issue, for such fierce contention, and pointed to the example of philosophers, who could differ on individual tenets, and still maintain comparative harmony in view of the teachings held by them in common. But conviction and zeal had reached too high a pitch to be quieted by such means. Constantine felt obliged to turn to some more effective expedient, and at length fixed upon the idea of calling a general council. Invitations were sent to bishops in different sections of the Empire, and means were liberally provided for conveying them to the point of meeting.
The council met and held its sessions at Nicæa in Bithynia in the summer of the year 325. According to Athanasius, with whose statements Socrates and Theodoret agree, three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. These constituted the council proper, the numerous presbyters and deacons who accompanied them not being accorded the privilege of voting. The Latin Church had but few delegates in the assembly, --only about a half dozen bishops, and two presbyters who served as representatives of Sylvester, the aged Bishop of Rome.
An assembly so largely representative of the Christian world, and meeting for the first time under the auspices of a Christian emperor, was naturally regarded as a very impressive spectacle. And truly the circumstances, as also the personal makeup of the council, endow it with a peculiar interest. The Church represented here was the Church of the peruecutions, the Church which still bore the imprint of the blows dealt by heathen tyranny. "Many," says Theodoret, speaking of the assembled bishops, "like the holy apostles, bore in their bodies the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul, Bishop of Neo-Cæsarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron. Some had had the right eye torn out, others had lost the right arm. In short, it was an assembly of martyrs."[Hist. Eccl., i. 7.]
Among the most august features, in the view of malty, was the presence of the Emperor. Eusebius, who is understood to have presented him the salutations of the bishops, records with evident delight the scene of his introduction to the council. After the entrance of several of his family and friends, "at last he himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones. He surpassed all present in height of stature and beauty of form, as well as in majestic dignity of mien and inimitable strength and vigor. All these graces, united to a suavity of manner and a serenity becoming his imperial station, declared the excellence of his mental qualities to be above all praise. As soon as he had advanced to the upper end of the seats, at first he remained standing; and, when a low chair of wrought gold had been set for him, he waited until the bishops had beckoned to him, and then sat down, and after him the whole assembly did the same." [Vita Cons., iii. 10.] After the address of Eusebius, the Emperor spoke to the assembly, re-affirming his desire for unity and concord in the Church. At a later stage of the proceedings, he gave an emphatic supplement to the main idea of this speech. Gathering up the accusations which quarrelsome persons had presented against certain bishops, he caused them to be burned openly, declaring at the same time upon oath that he had not read them. "He said that the crimes of priests ought not to be made known to the multitude, lest they should become an occasion of offence or of sin. He also said, that, if he had detected a bishop in the very act of committing adultery, he would have thrown his imperial robe over the unlawful deed." [Hist. Eccl., i. 11.]
The discussions of the council revealed at once the existence of at least three parties: (1) the Arians; (2) those commonly ranked together as semi-Arians, though they represented opinions all the way from a near approach to Arianism to a near approach to orthodoxy; (3) the orthodox party, which might also be called the Nicene, inasmuch as it framed and championed the creed that was established by the council of Nicæa. The strict Arians constituted but a small minority. According to Sozomen, they numbered seventeen at the commencement of the council.
PrimateDave

Yes, I agree that this is true for the most part. Thankfully, with the level of documentation available to scholars today, it is possible to probe a little deeper that what is provided in our "banking" education. Anyone who has read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn can see that there was way more going on beneath the veneer of names, dates, and wars presented in the average high school history text.

Noam Chomsky likewise decries the collective memory hole on significant events of recent history. The points that 5go brought out in his post are significant in illustrating the ignorance of the American public to the crimes of its own government.

Let me just have a little fun with you Terry. I always enjoy your posts and topics, but you said,

"There has never been a nation in the history of the world so powerful as the U.S.A. that did more to enable prosperity among those it conquered. Japan went from a feudal state of medeival mentality to a thriving economic industrail state reknowned throughout the world. This stems directly from being defeated by the U.S. and rehabilitated. So, we must weigh the past with the present. Viet Nam was a stoneage country of rice paddies before the war and is a top economic society afterward. Weigh this carefully in the balance."

To which I counter with a quote from What Uncle Sam Really Wants by Noam Chomsky:

"Kennan was one of the most intelligent and lucid of US planners, and a major figure in shaping the
postwar world. His writings are an extremely interesting illustration of the dovish position. One
document to look at if you want to understand your country is Policy Planning Study 23, written by
Kennan for the State Department planning staff in 1948. Here's some of what it says:

"'[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population....In this situation,
we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is
to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of
disparity....To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and
our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national
objectives....We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human
rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when
we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by
idealistic slogans, the better.'

"PPS 23 was, of course, a top-secret document. To pacify the public, it was necessary to trumpet the
'idealistic slogans' (as is still being done constantly), but here planners were talking to one another."

.....

"During World War II, study groups of the State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed
plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the 'Grand Area,' which was to be subordinated
to the needs of the American economy.

"The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former
British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East
(which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest
of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities
allowed.

"Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The industrial countries were to be
guided by the 'great workshops,' Germany and Japan, who had demonstrated their prowess during the
war (and now would be working under US supervision).

"The Third World was to 'fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market' for the
industrial capitalist societies, as a 1949 State Department memo put it. It was to be 'exploited' (in
Kennan's words) for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. (The references are to Southeast Asia and
Africa, but the points are general.)

"Kennan even suggested that Europe might get a psychological lift from the project of 'exploiting' Africa.
Naturally, no one suggested that Africa should exploit Europe for its reconstruction, perhaps also
improving its state of mind. These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find
nothing odd or jarring in all this."

And, you mentioned Vietnam...

"The Vietnam War emerged from the need to ensure this service role. Vietnamese nationalists didn't want
to accept it, so they had to be smashed. The threat wasn't that they were going to conquer anyone, but
that they might set a dangerous example of national independence that would inspire other nations in the
region."

Yes, it was just another manifestation of old fashioned Colonialism or Exploitation. And it was useful to the Powers That Be in the United States to let Japan and Western Europe exploit the other countries in their regions much as the US has exploited Latin America. The Powers That Be see no problems letting a relatively few intellectuals criticize the immorality of the global economic system because the ignorant masses continue to be lulled by the consensus trance of infotainment and living from paycheck to paycheck.

All of this only proves your original point that the Winner Decides What is True in History. So, you see I am agreeing with you after all.

Also, 5go is right. The rest of the World knows that the United States is the largest terrorist nation in the world.

You also said, "When there is tragedy through natural disaster the U.S. is there with its hand out filled with medicine, cash and humanitarian aid."

To which I turn once again to Chomsky:

"Teaching Nicaragua a Lesson

...

"From 1960 through 1978, the New York Times had three editorials on Nicaragua. It's not that nothing
was happening there -- it's just that whatever was happening was unremarkable. Nicaragua was of no
concern at all, as long as Somoza's tyrannical rule wasn't challenged.

"When his rule was challenged, by the Sandinistas in the late 1970s, the US first tried to institute what
was called 'Somocismo [Somoza-ism] without Somoza' -- that is, the whole corrupt system intact, but
with somebody else at the top. That didn't work, so President Carter tried to maintain Somoza's National
Guard as a base for US power.

"The National Guard had always been remarkably brutal and sadistic. By June 1979, it was carrying out
massive atrocities in the war against the Sandinistas, bombing residential neighborhoods in Managua,
killing tens of thousands of people. At that point, the US ambassador sent a cable to the White House
saying it would be 'ill-advised' to tell the Guard to call off the bombing, because that might interfere
with the policy of keeping them in power and the Sandinistas out."

And then came the Contras...

"Reagan used them to launch a large-scale terrorist war against Nicaragua, combined with economic
warfare that was even more lethal. We also intimidated other countries so they wouldn't send aid either.

...

"Why did the US go to such lengths in Nicaragua? The international development organization Oxfam
explained the real reasons, stating that, from its experience of working in 76 developing countries,
'Nicaragua was...exceptional in the strength of that government's commitment...to improving the
condition of the people and encouraging their active participation in the development process.'

"Of the four Central American countries where Oxfam had a significant presence (El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua), only in Nicaragua was there a substantial effort to address
inequities in land ownership and to extend health, educational and agricultural services to poor peasant
families.

...

"The success of the Sandinista reforms terrified US planners. They were aware that -- as José Figueres,
the father of Costa Rican democracy, put it -- 'for the first time, Nicaragua has a government that cares
for its people.' (Although Figueres was the leading democratic figure in Central America for forty years,
his unacceptable insights into the real world were completely censored from the US media.)

"The hatred that was elicited by the Sandinistas for trying to direct resources to the poor (and even
succeeding at it) was truly wondrous to behold. Just about all US policymakers shared it, and it reached
virtual frenzy.

...

"...we launched the contra war along with an illegal economic war to terminate what Oxfam rightly
called 'the threat of a good example.'

...

"We even refused to send disaster relief. After the 1972 earthquake, the US sent an enormous amount of
aid to Nicaragua, most of which was stolen by our buddy Somoza. In October 1988, an even worse
natural disaster struck Nicaragua -- Hurricane Joan. We didn't send a penny for that, because if we had, it
would probably have gotten to the people, not just into the pockets of some rich thug. We also pressured
our allies to send very little aid.

"This devastating hurricane, with its welcome prospects of mass starvation and long-term ecological
damage, reinforced our efforts. We wanted Nicaraguans to starve so we could accuse the Sandinistas of
economic mismanagement. Because they weren't under our control, Nicaraguans had to suffer and die."

Well, eventually, Nicaragua brought the United States before the World Court and won. But, as you know, all this has gone down the collective memory hole because the United States is such a peachy nice place and a beacon of democracy. The atrocities committed in the Philippines, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and Iraq, just to name a few, were for their own good. I'm being sarcastic.

People don't come to the United States anymore because it is such a great country. They come because much of the rest of the world is in such a shitty condition thanks to exploitation by the Global Elites at home and abroad.

Anyway, thanks for reading my rant. Now, go out and read some Chomsky or watch Manufacturing Consent.

Dave
Terry

People don't come to the United States anymore because it is such a great country. They come because much of the rest of the world is in such a shitty condition thanks to exploitation by the Global Elites at home and abroad.
An odd way to remove "great" from its own relativity with "less great". How is a person tall? Tall is not a thing in and of itself. If there were only one midget on planet Earth he'd be neither tall nor short because there would be no comparatives.
Greatness must be related to opportunity to create wealth, pursue success and claim ownership of one's own ideas and enjoy the fruits of one's own labors.
Last time I looked, America was still great at that as compared with just about everywhere else.
If I'm wrong I'd like to know how.
justhuman

Nice answer Perry!!!Indeed as an ex-JW( that turned into the Christian Orthodox faith) I agree with your post tottaly....you gave a very good answer.
Actually this is how Protestands are trying to excuse their existance, because they don't have Apostolic succesion, and in their brief history of 400 years they have more than 12000 protestand sects!!!! After they brake from Catholics, instead of going back to the Early Church, they developed their heretic theological system by ignoring major facts.
They hold the Bible as God's word(and partly it is) but they ignore those who gave them the Bible that is the Orthodox Church. On the other hand they accusing the Early Church that they have turned into Apostasy while they are accepting the Bible that it was set by the "apostate Church Fathers" of the Orthodox Church!!!
The fact is that the Early Church has NEVER apostasized from the Original teachings of the Christian faith. It was carried all the way for the last 2000 years. Below I'm listing some articles regarding the Church
http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/eksousia1.htm
http://www.oodegr.com/english/protestantism/protest_ekth1.htm
VM44

There has never been a nation in the history of the world so powerful as the U.S.A. that did more to enable prosperity among those it conquered.
Good examples are Japan and Germany after World War II.
I am sorry to say that Iraq will probably be America's greatest failure in this respect. Time will tell though what effect America's intervention into Iraq will have been.
--VM44
Happy Harvester

Many christian groups took indian children away from their tribes and put them into orphanage schools to indoctrinate them with christianity. I blame religion more than politics for this one. But, it was hideous.
I think religion is both a political tool, and a political entity, though, wouldn't you say? I 'd be willing to bet that Constantine would agree, wouldn't you, Terry?

CONFLICT: the winner decides what is TRUE in history and theology

Share this