And finally!
Even more, I don't see where it matters to salvation whether he is or not.
Oh that's simple.
If He's just a man, then He's either dead ... or He's saved Himself ... but either way we're in the same boat we were before, if not worse, because if He was just a man, and that's the way to get saved, then I'm not sure I'm up to it ... as one man cannot save other men, any more than healing one sick man heals all men.
then it troubles me to see just how Pagan modern Christianity really is.
Tell me about it!
+++
this was the home of the Eastern Orthodox branch of the church, the same church founded at Nicaea.
I don't think you can say it that way. The faith of the Church was professed at Nicea, which was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox ... that was yet to happen.
It is also the same church with which Rome sparred numerous times; The East-West schism, the Iconoclastic controversy, etc. The primary source of friction appears to be that of jurisdiction, the complaint being that Rome frequently overstepped her bounds trying to extend her influence beyond what was rightly hers into that that belonged to others.
Agreed. Traditionally there was three patriarchates, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, and Rome always took precedence (there's plenty of material evidence for this). Then Constantinople declared itself a patriarchy because of the seat of the empire ... then Constantinople claimed superiority over Alexandria and Antioch ... second only to Rome ... which in a roundabout way is another proof that Rome was always given pride of place.
So, while the Western Empire fell a scant 150 years after the creation of Catholic Christianity, the Eastern Byzantine Empire flourished for nearly a thousand years after the same time and creation of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Depends when you determine the separation of East and West.
And what you mean by 'flourished' — the Eastern Byzantine Empire was already a fractured and schismatic state — the Nestorians, the Coptics — and in the East the Emperors eventually managed to wrest some measure of control from the Bishops ... the Iconoclast persecutions led to more Christians being killed by fellow Christians than all the persecutions of Rome, and all as a sop to Moslem neighbours ... today the orthodox patriarchies are wedded to national and political aspirations, it's the biggest single stumbling block to reunification.
+++
Did anybody else happen to catch the similarity here? It seems that even scholars such as Maccoby and Pagals might be overlooking or discounting the impact of Augustine and Mani. Or vice versa…which helps illustrate the difficulty in trying to unravel this puzzle. The one thing it seems is agreed is the impact and infiltration of Pagan and other source materials into the fledgling Christianity.
You seem to be jumping about in time quite alarmingly ... and remember that Pagels has been discredited, and her views are largely her own opinion that reflects her personal dispute with the Church. If you base an argument on her work alone, you're in trouble ... she conflates texts (cuts and paste 2 text into one to make it say what she wants to hear).
+++
First, there are 3 primary Christian churches that have survived into modern times, not just one.
No, there was one church that suffered various schisms along the way. What about Nestorianism, that pre-dates the Copts? And who did the Copts break with, not the Roman Catholic, nor the Greek Orthodox, as neither existed as an entity. So they broke with the Church proper, if you like.
The Roman Catholic church holds primacy *only* by virtue of political force,
Again wrong, and never did ... the Easterners kidnapped, tried and killed a pope ... if you're talking about the Crusades, you're jumping about in time in such manner as to throw everything into the hat as contemporaneous.
it is joined in longevity by the Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) and the Egyptian Coptic churches.
Well technically the Copts are older than both because neither existed when the Copts separated ... so if you're going to make the chronological error of three primary churches, the Coptic is the older of the three ...
But a crucial point that seems to be glossed over frequently is that some of these politically motivated spats are about *the nature of Christ.* Meaning; was he or wasn't he "the son of G-d?," and what precisely that meant.
If you can show the political motivation of Arius, or Nestorius, or Eutyches, or Serverus ...yeah the politicians interfered, poor dears, they can't help do anything else, but the spats were not politically motivated, nor indeed were they politically resolved. And again, no-one questioned whether He was the Son of God, but rather how He was the Son of God, and what that means.
Part of all this is Jesus' Soteriology ... how does Jesus' sacrifice save the world? Assuming that God is not some bloodthirsty tyrant who just wants his pound of flesh for a wrong, the Fathers sought a metaphysical solution to the problem ... it's there in Irenaeus (the first after the Apostles) and it's founded on John, and Paul, and Hebrews ... Athanasius: "Christ became man, that man might become God" and Gregory Nazianzen: "What was not assumed was not saved" ... it all situates on the Cross, and the Cross was not a piece of cheap theatre nor an unforseen disaster ... if Christ did not rise from the dead, as Paul points out, then the whole Christian thing is a complete waste of time.
I want to believe. Formost I want to believe the truth. The truth is hard to ascertain for this place and time. We have myths and allegations, we have hints and suspicions, we have lies and forgeries, we have tantalizing echoes and gossip, we have rituals and superstitions that long predate the era to which they are now attached. All is ephemeral, all is wind. It seems as though nothing can be taken for granted or accepted at face value. Otherwise, the so-called "Christian tradition" is little more than a rewrap of the same old Pagan hero-god drama. Hate to say it, but that is where the evidence leads to....
So where do we go from here?
Either you walk away and do something productive with your life ... or you get off the fence and get on with it, take a risk, and go with it ... but all this theorising is getting you nowhere, and I'd bet you've a less certain grasp of any truth now, than when you started.
It seems to me your saying "I want to believe" and searching out the reasons why you shouldn't. You've not quoted any theologian of any standing in any tradition in any thread!
There is no real reference to the actual nature of the disputes which shaped Christianity, and yet that is the one crucial point ... were they meaningful or were they not ... and what did it mean?
+++
No-one can magic those reasons away, it's up to you as to whether they're a good enough reason or not ... now you find yourself in the position of the most of us ... you want a foot in both camps.
Well, here's where Jesus turns out to be one hard b*st*rd ... cos it's a flat no to that alternative. He'll never abandon you, but if you want in, it's on His terms ... because that's the only way it can work.
As a Zen master I highly respected used to say — after less than 10 minutes ... "Enough talk. Zazen!"
+++
C.S. Lewis observed, when critiquing the 'Biblical Scholars', that not one critic of his own work had ever been accurate with regard to its source or its inspiration, and when it came to comparing him to his contemporaries, they were often so wildly off the mark as to be in pure fantasy.
How can the same discipline unwrap history? It can't. Historians make a living by telling the story differently to other historians.
What to do then?
If you really want to know what Christianity is about, if you want to believe in it, find out what it is you're supposed to believe in, and not from wiki, or some latest popular theory ... read the guys who lived it, the ones who did it ... and then ask, is that the kind of life I aspire to?
For some its the saints. For others, it's the mystics. For me, its the Fathers ... if I had one whit of the strength or will and luminosity of intellect of those guys, I'd be a hundred times a better man than I am now. But they do let you rub shoulders, from time to time, and you know it when you do ... and when I get a glimpse into their world, then like the Baptist child in the womb, your heart leaps.
And you know.
Of course, the feeling fades ... and after a while the memory has lost its content and you think ... 'really?' ...
That's when the work begins ... the cross-carrying ... when you drag yourself back to what you said you believed in, in the face of a tide of evidence that says you needn't, or perhaps shouldn't ... when the whole world is whispering in your ear "you mutt!"
Try it.
Thomas