History of Christianity

[Thomas]

Hi Joedjr —

I thought the icons and statues were there to spark the mind, kinda like when you see your bible on the table or when you drive across Colorado from the east and the mountains rise up before you.

That is the belief ... they are a focus of attention. The Orthodox criticise Latin art as being too subjective, and there are strict rules for the painting of ikons ... but that is the idea, yes.

But indeed I do remember some text in the OT about no image on the earth or in heaven above. So just a reminder not the real thing I guess.

I think the point here is that such images, statues, etc., became fetish objects in their own right — items of adoration rather than focus, such as the golden calf, when Moses went up the mountain.

And here one has to deliberate on the content of Scripture ... Moses goes up the mountain, and whilst he's gone, the people of Israel have enough time to entertain second thoughts, enough time to convince the uncertain to donate what little gold they have brought with them out of Egypt, enough time to melt all that gold down, enough time to create the necessary casts, enough time (and enough gold) to make a golden calf, and enough time to establish a cult of worship ... all while Moses was up the mountain ...

So is the story untrue? No.

As the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur has reasoned, by their very nature, religious texts should not and do not conform to the norms of criticism by which other genres can be measured.

Thus to read the Bible as history, for example, is to miss the point.

For such an important event in history especially for Christians, I always seem surprised that there is not a more complete history, like something concrete, that shows exactly what went on.

I think there's a very profound reason for that ... but that's me.

By extension, what's to prevent God performing a miracle at precisely 2.32pm on the last Thursday of every month, to remind people that He's there?

Or what's to prevent the original Christians recovering the cross, hiding it away, and it being around today as the cross on which He was crucified, on which His blood can be examined ... etc.

I would say that, by so doing, human freedom is radically curtailed, and what He would get is allegiance because we be mad not to, rather than allegiance because we want to, which is a different order of engagement altogether.

God desires our oblation, not our obligation.

Just wish now and again though, that there could be more of an agreement on what it presents.

To my mind it's not even agreement ... it's the allowance that the evidence, material and otherwise, that supports the 'orthodox tradition' if you like, might actually be true, authentic and valid, and that the evidence, material and otherwise, that contradicts the 'orthodox tradition', might possibly not be true, authentic and valid.

So in short, all I ask is a level playing field on which the discussion can take place.

This is in fact far from easy ... the Jesus Seminar, for example, very popular in certain circles in the US, regard the content of the Synoptic Gospels as largely false and fabricated, whilst in the next breath regard the content of the Gospel of Thomas as authentically reporting the words of Christ, beyond any shadow of doubt ... almost to the point where the GoT is the litmus test by which the veracity of the other Gospels can be judged ... but quite quite how they can affirm that the GoT is absolutely authentic, is never actually clarified, especially when the evidence to support the antiquity of the GoT and its veracity is absent.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Thank you. That is more like the Thomas I know and respect.

...certainly he (Vermes) has a viewpoint to be respected, but it is not infallible.

I haven't him ... I read through an interview, and felt a couple of points he made were rather assumptive ... but the point is that his work does not represent a proof as such, just a hypothesis.

I made it through a short book on the resurrection over the weekend, and I'm a few chapters into "Jesus the Jew" right now. I don't think he is infallible, but I do think he is providing insight that is typically overlooked.

Someone I listen to quite closely, on early Christianity and especially Pauline studies, is the Anglican theologian N.T. Wright.

I've heard his name before, but I am not familiar with his work.

if you're posting his theories as incontrovertible proof, indeed many of his critics, from what I gather, tackle him on his own ground when he asserts that non-Jewish theories of Christianity must have come from the Hellenic culture, and therefore are not properly part of Jesus' teaching, and can be disposed of.

I don't think anybody's views are incontrovertible. I am not versed well enough yet, but from what I am seeing so far it seems he is fleshing out some of the Jewish "backstory" so to speak setting the stage for the Jesus story.

Case in point is something I just read regarding the state of affairs in Galilee. Apparently it was at the same time a semi-autonomous and prosperous agricultural region reknowned for its olive oil among other things, while at the same time it was a hot bed for political subversives instigated in large part by one particular family (I would need to look up the names again) who fomented rebellion since Maccabean times through the Temple razing on into the bar Kociba rebellion. According to him, just being from Galilee was enough to raise suspicion in the minds of any governing authority (Jewish or Roman) in Jerusalem.

Recent scholarship has shown that contemporary Judaism in the time of Jesus was far more varied than is generally assumed (no doubt in part to the influence of hellenic culture) and more diverse than perhaps Vermes allows.

Well...yes...but... Let's take Catholism today as an example, surely you would agree that there are a wide variety of viewpoints expressed within Catholism, with greater and lesser widespread acceptance. And then we have the "official" party line, so to speak. For instance, on abortion alone (as I understand the matter) the official line is that abortion is taboo, a definite "no-no!" Yet, I don't think you would argue that there are also segments within Catholism...a congregation here, a diocese there...where abortion under certain circumstances is kinda winked at and overlooked, at least in practice if not in principle. I do not raise this as a poke at Catholism, merely to demonstrate how within a large institutional framework a wide variety of views can be expressed. Other examples could be raised as well, but that takes us away from the subject.

I don't think it is unreasonable to find multiple views within a wider Jewish framework in Jesus' day. We typically acknowledge Sadducean, Pharisean, Essene and probably other variants of the basic Jewish model, and no doubt within any of these there is some variety of interpretation. It seems to me apparent the ruling Jewish establishment (according to Vermes was likely primarily Sadducean) was more-or-less comfortable cooperating with the Roman occupying authority; while there was a seditious movement known as the Zealots who were anything but willing to cooperate with *any* occupying authority, Roman or not.

Remember, it was a 'given' that John's Gospel was Hellenic in its inspiration, even gnostic, because of his use of the image of light and darkness ... then it was discovered that John's language is in fact rooted in Jewish mysticism.

I don't know. I've heard so many interpretations on this one, I don't think anybody knows or is likely to know. As with so much though, it is fun to speculate...

 

[Thomas]

Well...yes...but... Let's take Catholism today as an example, surely you would agree that there are a wide variety of viewpoints expressed within Catholism, with greater and lesser widespread acceptance. And then we have the "official" party line, so to speak. For instance, on abortion alone (as I understand the matter) the official line is that abortion is taboo, a definite "no-no!" Yet, I don't think you would argue that there are also segments within Catholism...a congregation here, a diocese there...where abortion under certain circumstances is kinda winked at and overlooked, at least in practice if not in principle. I do not raise this as a poke at Catholism, merely to demonstrate how within a large institutional framework a wide variety of views can be expressed. Other examples could be raised as well, but that takes us away from the subject.

Agreed. I would still argue there is nevertheless a recognisable 'orthodoxy' — the official party line. And historically, that party line emerged quite early.

Paul challenged the party line over the incorporation of Gentiles, which the Jewish Christians saw as second-class Christians, as it were. Peter too had to answer to his own council when he accepted Cornelius into the Faith. James agreed with Paul, and so Gentile Christians were not obliged to observe all Jewish law. That does not mean, however, that all prejudice evaporated ...

... then, when the Council of Jamnia (not certain, but generally accepted) forbad Christians to enter the Temple (it was effectively an excommunication) the antipathy between the two hardened.

Some can trace anti-semitism in the Gospels — Matthew and John — but then I think it's more a falling out in the family, more bitter for sure, but not quite the same as cultural prejudice. Many argue that Jesus was raised a Pharisee, which is why He was so tough on the Pharisees, as if He expected them to know better, more than anyone else.

I don't think it is unreasonable to find multiple views within a wider Jewish framework in Jesus' day. We typically acknowledge Sadducean, Pharisean, Essene and probably other variants of the basic Jewish model, and no doubt within any of these there is some variety of interpretation. It seems to me apparent the ruling Jewish establishment (according to Vermes was likely primarily Sadducean) was more-or-less comfortable cooperating with the Roman occupying authority; while there was a seditious movement known as the Zealots who were anything but willing to cooperate with *any* occupying authority, Roman or not.

Agreed, and the same can be said of Christianity. The term 'zealot' implies one who is ready to commit violence in the name of Judaism. Paul was a zealot, and seemed to regard the Christians as the most implicit threat to Judaism.

Gamaliel, Paul's tutor in the Temple, was a moderate. When the Jewish council wanted to execute the apostles, he argued against it:
"But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him."
Acts 5:34-39. From which we can assume Gamaliel saw this new message as just one amongst a series of prophetic messages that had come to nought. If there's nothing in it, it will fail, if there's something to it, it will continue ... quite an enlightened attitude, actually.

I don't know. I've heard so many interpretations on this one, I don't think anybody knows or is likely to know. As with so much though, it is fun to speculate...

There's quite a bit to it. That John was the son of a wealthy fisherman, educated and known in Temple circles (if we follow the account of Jesus' trial) ... and other things ... but the point is that John's use of the metaphors of light and darkness were always assumed Hellenic ... and then materials have come to light in which light and dark figure ... I'm not sure if it might not be the Dead Sea Scrolls... ?

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The other point about the political situation is the increasing acceptance of Luke's accounts. For ages he was assumed to have got things wrong, then archaeological finds showed Luke was right, and the historians were wrong.

Luke is always right on his titles of the Roman officials (something the historians thought he'd got wrong), and historians have noted that when he supplies numbers, the figures are always high ... now regarded as a sign that the Romans had to be present in force for their own safety and security in the region, which was politically very volatile.

As for Jesus' trial ... the way I read it, the Sanhedrin hoped to convict Him under their own law, by a very illegal trial, failed, and then forced the Romans to do it. I doubt either side wanted to be held responsible, as He seems enormously popular.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

and then materials have come to light in which light and dark figure ... I'm not sure if it might not be the Dead Sea Scrolls... ?

I just lost a rather long response to an earlier post, and I haven't time to try again.

By chance are you referring to the War Scroll?

 

[juantoo3]

The other point about the political situation is the increasing acceptance of Luke's accounts. For ages he was assumed to have got things wrong, then archaeological finds showed Luke was right, and the historians were wrong.

Luke is always right on his titles of the Roman officials (something the historians thought he'd got wrong), and historians have noted that when he supplies numbers, the figures are always high ... now regarded as a sign that the Romans had to be present in force for their own safety and security in the region, which was politically very volatile.

Not trying to be antagonistic here, I would like to see this. Do you have a reference link?

 

[Thomas]

Not trying to be antagonistic here, I would like to see this. Do you have a reference link?

Honest to God, I've got a reprint of an article buried somewhere in a stack of papers. I mentioned it before, and I will hunt it down — that's about the numbers — I'll find the Scripture ref.

The thing about titles, etc., I can find on Google ... but am busy today.

I know that Luke placed a city in X, and historians rubbished it, because they'd located the city at Y, another place altogether. Then on a dig, what the heck? They find remains that name the city exactly where Luke said it was.

Likewise titles – Luke used titles for persons and there was no evidence to suggest that such was the case, so obviously Luke was wrong. Then, lo and behold, someone found some contemporary non-Christian texts which used the same titles Luke did.

I'll track all this down for you.

In the meantime, peruse Acts 21 on.

Paul goes up to Jerusalem, and tries to take a Gentile convert into the Temple. Red rag to a bull, and the Jews go bonkers, and a riot ensues. The Romans step in to calm things down, take Paul into protective custody. Paul asks if he can address the people once again, does so, and guess what ... kicks off another riot! What did he expect? I don't think he even thought about it, he was driven by a zeal for the Lord.

Reading between the lines, the Romans might well have been quite content for the mob to stone this blasphemer, and go home happy. But Paul claims his Roman citizenship, which places him outside Jewish jurisdiction, and the Romans were afraid of what was developing into a very tricky situation. So they decide to send Paul away, under escort.

But do not thou give credit to them (the Jews); for there lie in wait for him more than forty men of them, who have bound themselves by oath neither to eat, nor to drink, till they have killed him: and they are now ready, looking for a promise from thee. The tribune therefore dismissed the young man, charging him that he should tell no man, that he had made known these things unto him. Then having called two centurions, he said to them: Make ready two hundred soldiers to go as far as Caesarea, and seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen for the third hour of the night: And provide beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe to Felix the governor. (For he feared lest perhaps the Jews might take him away by force and kill him, and he should afterwards be slandered, as if he was to take money.) — Acts 23:21-25

Lordy, Juantoo, you must have a party with this! Four hundred foot and seventy horse, that's a battlegroup with armoured support in modern parlance, to escort one uppity citizen out of the city ... and by night, which means nigh on five hundred men is still no guarantee of security ... and faced by forty 'do-or-die' Jewish special forces volunteers!

Looking at the text, it shines out that the Pax Romana was observed more in the breach than in the rule, the Romans are bricking it, which means the Jews didn't give a fig (and they had loads of 'em) for what the Romans said.

Hey-ho.

I am shamelessly pro Paul, but good grief, the guy must have been a bloody nightmare for those around him ... hounded, beaten, whipped, the object of numerous assassination attempts, but will he shut up?

Will he ****

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

Actually Judaism gets its name from the only tribe that was able to maintain its identity after Israel was disolved. The religion that Moses "invented" was no religion at all, but simply, a monotheistic faith. The "religion" of the Hebrews or Semites (not only Judeans) began developing during the 40 trek in the desert, but the seeds of which were planted while the Hebrews lived in Egypt. And ironically, it was the Levites who created the core of beliefs, rituals and laws that governed the whole of the people (including Judeans).

I will no quibble over a faith versus a religion. Moses, an Egyptian or Egyptian Hebrew likely fell under the influence of the faith of Amenhotep IV (Akenaten) a monotheistic faith. After the fall of Atenism, many followers sought refuge elsewhere.

My personal view is that those who followed Moses out of Egypt were a mix of ethnic groups. I suspect there were some Hebrews who did travel the fertile crescent from Mesopotamia. There were a Semitic People called Hyksos of unsure origin, and perhaps some Jews who lived from Egypt down through Nubia to Ethiopia. In addition there were likely some North African Berbers who also joined the Moses religion.

Moses fused this polyglot group of refugees into a nation by imposing a one god of whom no disbelief was allowed. We know that some who reverted to older faiths, the Golden Calf story, were ordered slain by Moses (Holy Moses) of which order the Levites carried out. This is one of the earliest recorded cases of religious intolerance and religious persecution.

Moses was clearly a forceful and fearful War Lord. His narration of Jewish history was from his own brain with old fables added. The so-called Promised Land was a coastal region with a flowing river (the Jordan-Sinai Transform tectonic fault) later called Canaan. Moses and his desert nomads envied the relative lushness of the Jordan Fault Valley (Canaan) and he ordered the invasion, conquest, and extermination of the Canaanites.

Judaeans, Samaritans, Israelites, and other tribes came later as former Canaanite land was distributed to the chief War Lords of the Hebrew horde.

The faith invented by Moses later gave rise more or less directly to Islam. Christianity was a tenuous offshoot that mixed Paganism into its beliefs.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Amergin —

My personal view is ...

Whilst the forums are open for personal opinion, Juantoo and I have been bashing each other up with history throughout these discussions, trying to keep the 'personal view' in close proximity to historical evidence, and we've both at time accused the other of allowing the personal view to push the available evidence too far into the realm of speculation ... and beyond.

Not rejecting your views, but where you can support them with evidence is useful for all concerned.

Moses fused this polyglot group of refugees into a nation by imposing a one god of whom no disbelief was allowed.

This is when we need to be mindful of looking back into history with a contemporary mindset, I doubt anyone in these historical eras were as tolerant to the degree we are today, and to expect it of them is something of an anachronism.

But I do agree Moses must have been a charismatic figure, such figures are rarely known for their liberalism, and no doubt he would have attracted many to his cause. When God called Abram out of his homeland, his family and friends followed, but no doubt others, too, followed him.

Moses was clearly a forceful and fearful War Lord. His narration of Jewish history was from his own brain with old fables added.

Well, I would say his own mind, and that in his monotheism he was inspired by the tradition he inherited.

The idea that Moses followed the monotheism of Akhenaten has been considered by various scholars, and popularised by Sigmund Freud (as in "Moses and Monotheism"). On the other hand however, Freud was trained as a doctor, not an historian nor an archaeologist, so here (I think) we can see the risk of too free speculation.

Scholars and mainstream Egyptologists argue that there are direct connections between early Judaism and other Semitic religious traditions. They also point out that the principal Judaic terms for the Deity, Y•••••, Elohim and Adonai have no connection to Aten.

Nor is the rich visual imagery of Akhenaten, the Aten sundisk and agrarian symbolism, is not a feature of early Semitic culture.

I would also point out that such religions were generally agrarian and cosmological, whereas in the Bible we have a Deity both absolutely Transcendant and intimately Immanent, a metacosmic deity, which is something of a development of whatever influence, and which can, by its own coherent principles, absorb all 'lesser' or cosmological identities where they are founded on reason and reality.

It is generally accepted that there are strong similarities between Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten and the Biblical Psalm 104, but it is also accepted that such forms were widespread in ancient Near Eastern hymnology, so whether this implies a direct influence or a common heritage remains in dispute.

Donald B Redford offers this:

Before much of the archaeological evidence from Thebes and from Tell el-Amarna became available, wishful thinking sometimes turned Akhenaten into a humane teacher of the true God, a mentor of Moses, a Christlike figure, a philosopher before his time. But these imaginary creatures are now fading away one by one as the historical reality gradually emerges. There is little or no evidence to support the notion that Akhenaten was a progenitor of the full-blown monotheism that we find in the Bible. The monotheism of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament had its own separate development—one that began more than half a millenium after the pharaoh's death. ("Aspects of Monotheism", Donald B. Redford, Biblical Archeology Review, 1996. Emphasis mine.)

The same rule applies to the idea of pagan influence on Christianity. The evidence, internal and external, is the only influence on the emergence of Christianity was its parental Judaism — indeed the early Christians saw themselves still as Jews.

The work of the Apologists and Doctors is informed by Plato, beyond a doubt (as one commentator said, "when the Fathers thought, they Platonised" (cf Andrew Louth, "The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition") so the idea of pagan influenced other than Hellenic philosophy has no foundation at all and has long since been dismissed by scholars. The debate regarding Hellenism continues ... in the East Andrew Louth, John Meyendorf and Philip Sherrard have discussed the issue at length.

In the West, a reprise of early traditions has been going on since the late 50s, so there's a whole school of philosopher/theologians, including the likes of Henri de Lubac, Jean Borella, Hans Urs von Balthasar at the top, to l'il ol' me at the bottom.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

The same rule applies to the idea of pagan influence on Christianity. The evidence, internal and external, is the only influence on the emergence of Christianity was its parental Judaism — indeed the early Christians saw themselves still as Jews.

I only have a skinny minute...

I agree the earliest Christians saw themselves still as Jews, but I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the influence of Paganism as Christianity fledged and matured. For whatever reason Christianity holds to its Hebraic paternalism *by tradition,* while behaving in typically Pagan manners across the board in its ritual and superstitions. Curiouser and curiouser...

I will add briefly, as I continue through Vermes' book, that he draws a connection between Jesus and a Charismatic Jewish (Charismatic??? Jewish???) movement, and then compares at least two other Charismatic Jewish healers that were more-or-less contemporary with Jesus.

Right now the chapter I am in focuses on the title "lord," and how it may well have shifted in meaning from the original intent. In fairness, he mentions the extremes, as well as the compromise positions, before presenting his interpretation. Seems strange to me, if according to him the Greek has two distinct words; Kyrie {master, authority, or G-d} and mar {teacher, rabbi} (forgive me if I goof this up, I am trying to get the gist and the book is not handy), which in English would be "Lord" and "lord." A subtle difference in the English, but one would think the Greek should be rather clear. But apparently in the Aramaic / Greek amalgam, it was almost as easy to confuse the two. There is suggestion that *in some cases* "teacher" became confused with "G-d," although he does point out one exception that is rather emphatically clear (compared with several that are not so clear). Interesting stuff to consider...

 

[Thomas]

... but I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the influence of Paganism as Christianity fledged and matured. For whatever reason Christianity holds to its Hebraic paternalism *by tradition,* while behaving in typically Pagan manners across the board in its ritual and superstitions. Curiouser and curiouser...

Could you detail that when you've got a minute?

Greek philosophy, I agree without reservation, but 'paganism', I'm not so sure? Every Father, bar one or two exceptions (eg Irenaeus) was a Platonist, and saying that, Greek philosophy had its theurgy (and some believed Plato was a virgin birth).

I would have thought pagan ideas would have come up hard against Hebraic monotheism (as Plato did), and moreso when it comes to 'ritual and superstition' — I can see the emergence of celebrating birthdays as contra traditional doctrine, for example, but early 'ritual' was modelled on Hebrew liturgy, and both baptism and the eucharist have their roots in Hebrew tradition (if the former only relatively recently) ...

Anyway, let's catch up later.

Interesting stuff from Vermes, btw.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

I don't have a great deal of time to flesh it out, but I was referring in part to things like the "Christianizing" of the Pagan "Natalis Solis Invicti" Christmas / Solstice (let us not forget the "wildman" tradition and the Mummers plays), and the comparable Vernal Equinox / Easter with the Passover, as well as the dual nature (good versus evil) that seems to have come from Mithraism because it is not found in the Christian sense within Judaism (Satan as "district attorney" rather than "anti-G-d"). Even the "savior" and "saving from sin" stuff seems in a way to echo Mithraic principles. Even considering baptism, from Judaism it is done to make the unclean clean again, whereas the idea of baptism for remission of sin is straight out of Mithraism. It is things like these that lead me to suggest that Christian ritual and superstition lean in a more Pagan direction than they do towards their roots in Judaism. But this whole area is foggy, and subject to wide swings of interpretation. If it were easily discernable, I think it would be much easier to ascertain just what the primitive church in Judea actually believed and practiced.

 

[Dream]

Moses was clearly a forceful and fearful War Lord. His narration of Jewish history was from his own brain with old fables added. The so-called Promised Land was a coastal region with a flowing river (the Jordan-Sinai Transform tectonic fault) later called Canaan. Moses and his desert nomads envied the relative lushness of the Jordan Fault Valley (Canaan) and he ordered the invasion, conquest, and extermination of the Canaanites.

I don't think you can take Moses as a perversion of another historical figure. Without miracles and religious things there is no historical Moses left to ponder. That is not the case with many other religious figures, such as King David or Muhammad. They have some miracles associated with them, but they have a human side. Everything about Moses is necessary for some ritual, some moral lesson, some kind of indispensable religious indoctrination. The same could almost be said about Jesus. That is the problem with discussing various historical theories about those two. Take any action attributed to them and its possible to come up with a lesson for which someone may have put it in. I'm not insisting they are fictional but pointing out the impossibility of guessing what historical figure Moses could have been based on. He is beyond second guessing.

 

[Thomas]

I don't have a great deal of time to flesh it out, but I was referring in part to things like the "Christianizing" of the Pagan "Natalis Solis Invicti" Christmas / Solstice

OK. I can accept that — but do realise that Sol Invictus reflects a prior astrological event, and as those events — solstice and equinox — are entirely natural, there is no reason why they should not take their place in the Christian liturgical cycle. I tend to see it as Christianity 'baptising' nature rituals, rather than incorporating nature rituals into Christianity — it doesn't alter the doctrine.

Sun worship et al is not a revealed doctrine, but rather reasoned and personified from observation of the annual cycle. There is no reason why Christ should not or could not be represented as the Sun (which corresponds to Logos); nor why the Father and Son relationship could not be imaged as a Saturn-Jupiter relation, except that what we can derive from such observations is peripheral ...

(There is also material evidence in Scripture that would argue for a birthdate of Christ in December.)

My own view is that the natural reflects the supernatural, and that the supernatural prefigures the natural, so personally I have no problem with the incorporation of lesser truths into the greater truths.

(let us not forget the "wildman" tradition and the Mummers plays),

OK, but let's place them in their proper historical context. Wildman traditions are everywhere (and I believe a reflection of the sub/unconscious)? and the Mummers were mid to late medieval era? Prior to the Mummers were the Mystery Plays.

as well as the dual nature (good versus evil) that seems to have come from Mithraism because it is not found in the Christian sense within Judaism (Satan as "district attorney" rather than "anti-G-d").

OK, but then Christ presents satan as 'a murderer' and thus reveals something about Satan that is not immediately apparent in the Jewish tradition. The good/evil opposition in Christianity is neither Mithraic nor Manichaen, nor indeed gnostic ...

Even the "savior" and "saving from sin" stuff seems in a way to echo Mithraic principles.

I tend to think far more knowledge is claimed about Mithraism than actually exists, and for a long time many have posed Mithraism as a precursor to Christianity, from which Christianity derives its rituals ... I think the scholarly opinion is now the reverse, we actually know very little, and there is evidence that Mithraism copied Christianity.

Even considering baptism, from Judaism it is done to make the unclean clean again, whereas the idea of baptism for remission of sin is straight out of Mithraism.

Again that is, I suggest, an invention. Baptism in Judaism is to make clean, but baptism in Christianity is a rebirth, of which remission of sin is a part, but not the totality. Again, this element is not present in contemporary religious traditions.

It is things like these that lead me to suggest that Christian ritual and superstition lean in a more Pagan direction than they do towards their roots in Judaism.

I can understand that, but I do think you've been misled by anti-Christian polemical writings. The influence of Mithraism on Christianity is now largely refuted (it's been discussed elsewhere here) and I would say the actual archaeological evidence points in the other direction.

Christianity adopted pagan religious sites, and in some iunstances pagan religious festivals, but always by showing the supernatural Christian aspect that informs the vestigial pagan cosmological dimension.

But the doctrines are uniquely Christian, and the liturgical practices are proto-Jewish.

If it were easily discernable, I think it would be much easier to ascertain just what the primitive church in Judea actually believed and practiced.

I think the evidence is there, the Church today does basically what the Church did in the time Luke was writing Acts, and as for belief, then that too is evidenced in first century writings.

There's been a huge industry in trying to disprove and discredit Christian doctrine — the Mithraic thing is one example of it — but following the rule of Occam's razor, it's harder to discredit and requires more assumption without evidence than the contrary.

Without doubt the view of things has changed over time — I could lay out a pattern of how the understanding of the Eucharist has changed over the centuries, and quite a critical and challenging one for Catholics at that — but the evidence for that is drawn from contemporary Catholic theology!

In short, the primitive Church in Judea saw the breaking of bread as the central act of the Christian life, so the line is life, liturgy, eucharist; at the breaking of bread they saw Christ as present among them at the table, whereas today we tend to view Christ as present on the table.

Generally I would say that the primitive Judaen practice was of a Mystery Religion — read the Rite of Bpatism as practiced in the primitive church and the degree of ritual is staggering, and something that would not be tolerated today.

Catholicism and the Orthodox Patriarchies have continued to maintain the Mystical (or Sacramental) element as the heart of the tradition, whereas from the Reformation on, the post-reform traditions have been continual attempts to rationalise the Mystery and, in effect, explain it away, leaving precious little more than a pseudo-mystical humanism.

From the turn of the nineteenth century, institutional religion was seen as part and parcel of the 'establishment' and the Romance Movement rejected 'organised religion' as it rejected organised industrialism — and not without reason, in some respects — and sought other ways of spiritual expression, largely by the reinvention of some perceived 'golden age' in history, hence the emergence of Wiccanism, Theosophy, etc, etc.

Look at the history of faeries — the idea of lovely twinkely flowery things is a complete invention of the Romance Movement, a re-invention. Prior to that, in every tradition across the globe, faeries were dangerous, capricious, nasty little things who sought to steal human babies ... faeries were to be avoided at all cost.

The difficulty in looking at the past is removing the blinkers the present places upon us. No doubt I have certain 'romantic' notions of the Early Church, but then they are tempered with the knowledge that the first generation of Christians sought, on more than one occasion, to assassinate Paul, and a Christian mob tore Hypatia limb from limb, nor was the age of martyrs quite the golden age it is represented to be, nor was it good for recruitment as was often presented by Catholic historians ...

... but I'm also aware that the present is largely anti-Catholic, so any anti-Catholic polemic usually gets accepted with far less critical examination than the pro-Catholic — dare I say it, but the 'Mithraism invented Christianity' thing is accepted with far less supportive evidence (I would suggest no evidence at all, in fact) and far less critical evaluation than one applies to the suggestion that surviving text evidence is reliable?

Not having a go, but just saying it as it seems to me.

Thomas

 

[bananabrain]

Even considering baptism, from Judaism it is done to make the unclean clean again

Baptism in Judaism is to make clean, but baptism in Christianity is a rebirth, of which remission of sin is a part, but not the totality.

sorry, folks, but the "rebirth" part is just as important in judaism, which is why the miqweh (ritual bath) is likened to a womb, why it must hold 40 se'ah of water, the word for which is "mayim" alluding to both the letter "mem" (numerical value 40) and to the womb shape formed by the letter itself, not to mention the 40 weeks of pregnancy. women are "reborn" monthly and periodic immersion is common in many streams of judaism for men as well, particularly before a religious festival or the Sabbath - both also immerse on their wedding day, as it is the beginning of a new life. as for "making clean", shame on you both - i'm sure you're aware of my dislike for the language of hygiene around the concepts of tumah and tahara which i've written on numerous times.

This is one of the earliest recorded cases of religious intolerance and religious persecution. Moses was clearly a forceful and fearful War Lord. His narration of Jewish history was from his own brain with old fables added.

yet this terrifying warlord is also presented in his own text as a humble stammerer who felt very much unworthy of his mission, as well as being punished for his presumption by not being allowed to enter the Land. not very characteristic of, say, the sort of attila the hun figure you seem to wish to present.

careful, amergin, your prejudice is showing yet again.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Thomas]

sorry, folks, but the "rebirth" part is just as important in judaism...

Thanks, bananabrain.

I think this supports my argument that baptism was incorporated from Judaism and not paganism.

women are "reborn" monthly and periodic immersion is common in many streams of judaism for men as well, particularly before a religious festival or the Sabbath

Baptism in the Christian tradition is a one-time act, it's an initiation and a spiritual seal, and in that sense cannot be repeated as a rite. Three of the seven sacraments represent a 'seal of character' which are not repeated: Baptism, Confirmation and Orders.

Blessing with Holy Water, particularly on arrival at the Church, although now simply the sign of the cross, is a continuation of the ritual washing.

as for "making clean", shame on you both - i'm sure you're aware of my dislike for the language of hygiene around the concepts of tumah and tahara which i've written on numerous times.

Mea culpa!

Thomas

 

[Dream]

Generally I would say that the primitive Judaen practice was of a Mystery Religion — read the Rite of Bpatism as practiced in the primitive church and the degree of ritual is staggering, and something that would not be tolerated today.

I've read a translation of the Didache. Is that the record of this Rite that you are referring to or to something better? Thanks.

Catholicism and the Orthodox Patriarchies have continued to maintain the Mystical (or Sacramental) element as the heart of the tradition, whereas from the Reformation on, the post-reform traditions have been continual attempts to rationalise the Mystery and, in effect, explain it away, leaving precious little more than a pseudo-mystical humanism.

It was a long time ago, and now we are dealing with challenges without much thought about our ancestors guidance at all. Even the intermediate generations are forgotten. What you described above seems to me a bit emotionally detached. I have lived in the 'Pseudo-mystical humanism', and I think you said once you had been there as well (or were you just in a cult? Don't remember.). If Church history and tradition are land, then we are on an island. The effects of being on such an island are more personal than the above statement informs, isn't it? Its not all bad though. Really our way of life isn't so terrible and is still informed by many models of good behavior and not so different from that of Catholics. Its just amazing how much waste there is as a result of the pseudo mystical as you've called it. I'd say more but I don't want to derail the conversation. The positive is that the people that broke off from your tradition continued living. They are still alive. Also, most of their descendents don't remember the original anger and frustration that lead to the split.

 

[Thomas]

I've read a translation of the Didache. Is that the record of this Rite that you are referring to or to something better? Thanks.

I was thinking of the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem ... the catechumen received by night, stripped naked, annointed with oil ...

I have lived in the 'Pseudo-mystical humanism', and I think you said once you had been there as well (or were you just in a cult? Don't remember.).

Both!

The positive is that the people that broke off from your tradition continued living.

But I hope you can apprecaite I can only see it as an impoverished existence?

Also, most of their descendents don't remember the original anger and frustration that lead to the split.

I'm not 'writing them off' by any means.

You also bring up bigger and more profound issues than I can do justice here ... but if I can pick up on your 'living on the land' metaphor, then I think what I'm getting at, is we have become estranged from the land.

The new European Constitution wants to erase all mention of Christianity from its history, which to me is like flattening every ancient monument, every Stone Circle, every Tumulus, every Grove, Temple, shrine and chapel ... in short I can't see how that achieves anything but severing us from our organic history ... how that can do anything but leave us in the dark as to where we came from, how we got here ...

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

My 'impoverished' above might be a tad too melodramatic ...

Thomas

 

[Dream]

My 'impoverished' above might be a tad too melodramatic ...

Thomas

Thanks for clarifying, because I was going to ask. I don't know what satisfaction you do or don't have; but its going to vary from person to person.

I was thinking of the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem ... the catechumen received by night, stripped naked, annointed with oil ...

Sounds like the 60's, but I must not derail....

I'm not 'writing them off' by any means.

That is good for all concerned.

You also bring up bigger and more profound issues than I can do justice here ... but if I can pick up on your 'living on the land' metaphor, then I think what I'm getting at, is we have become estranged from the land.

So to you it seems more like being out in a boat. OK, although I see some benefits from remembering the past divisions. When Eastern Orthodox and the RC divided it left a historical landmark concerning what they believed. Similarly, after the dust of the Reformation, we see there was a lot of introspection and internal strife about certain important issues, and that leaves another beacon for future generations. When Christians separated from the Jews that is yet another beacon, with which we are able to see the tradition of those that lived during that time. We also have the various conflicts between Christians and Muslims. We don't know as much about Manicheans, because there aren't any. Beacons are best when both sides are still represented, so I think its good for the divided parties to resolve their differences but still keep their funny separate little robes. The contrast reminds me of the paper and ink used in History books, white and black together retaining knowledge. I'm in favor of remembering the divisions. At the same time, I wish that everyone could become steeped in as much traditional treasure as they need to become complete adults, so I'm not in favor of keeping and attitude of division within the divisions.

The new European Constitution wants to erase all mention of Christianity from its history, which to me is like flattening every ancient monument, every Stone Circle, every Tumulus, every Grove, Temple, shrine and chapel ... in short I can't see how that achieves anything but severing us from our organic history ... how that can do anything but leave us in the dark as to where we came from, how we got here ...

Its just a trend. If they manage to get rid of their historical links they'll start wanting them back again later, but right now it makes political sense. They get accused of being 'The beast' all the time, and there are reams of books written to tie them into a literal fulfillment of Revelation. This actually contributes to problems in the Middle East, believe it or not. Right now Euros are still avoiding representative chair #666, probably getting letters about why Europa and 12 stars are on their money, etc. Now I've become aware many of these protestant conspiracy theories also tie in with muslim conspiracy theories as well. It makes political sense for Europeans to distance themselves from the RC until sometime after the year 2016 (or 2012). After that they will want to use the RC again as a common heritage. Do you think this is speculating too far from the real situation?