Rome in transition

[Thomas]

I can’t help but wonder, the similarity of Christianity with the Pagan initiatory religions. Coincidence? I am inclined to think not.

Assuming that the pagan world was not completely devoid of the truth, of a sense of the Divine, etc., then it should be of no surprise that similarities exist. The word 'Mystery' which encompasses Christianity is from the Greek, after all.

The point is how far these and any tradition penetrates the veil, if you like, and as a Christian it's axiomatic that none penetrate as far as does Christianity. But did Christianity borrow its essence from these traditions? No. Why? Because it didn't have to ...

Look at St Paul to the Athenians, basically telling them he's got the bit they're missing, he knows their 'unknown god' ... likewise the Fathers saw the truth and insight in Stoicism and Platonism ...

I would say the meeting of Christ and Plato was, for man, fortuitous, if not providential ... but we could do without Plato, we couldn't do without Christ.

The point is that when people accuse Christianity of 'borrowing' ideas, they rarely look to see how the idea was defined, and how Christianity redefined it, and what was the result.

Again we have St. Augustine playing Pagan themes into and off of Christian themes.

No, we have a philosopher illuminating the truth according to his tradition.

I suspect this is deliberate in an effort to reach a broader audience with a majority appeal.

The assumption of Christianity is the world is its audience.

I hadn’t before this research realized the impact St. Augustine seems to have had on the metamorphasis of the Christian church soon after Constantine.

You can't really do that without taking in the other Fathers. Athanasius, the theologian of Nicea (and Hilary) laid a foundation on which Augustine built, and Irenaeus before them. Then there's Tertullian ...

Apparently he was pretty instrumental in developing a PR program that sold Christianity to a Pagan audience, by playing to common themes and mutually understood concepts, rituals and superstitions. At least, that is how this seems to be unfolding to me…

That's a jaundiced view ... or put another way, show me anyone who tries to put across a new idea without reference to what's already there?

As a PR program it depends how you wish to view it. Selling the idea of Original Sin does not seem a wise PR move to me ... Pelagius had the seemingly much more attractive proposition (even though in reality, with Augustine there's a good chance we might all be saved, with Pelagius it's pretty much a cert that we're all stuffed).

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I think it is fair to say Christianity is largely the product of Pauline "spin."

OK. Evidence? Can you point to those doctrines, before Scripture was written, that Paul spun?

Everyone here — and you and Christ seem to agree — will probably queue up to tell me I cannot be anywhere near as certain about the origins of Christian doctrine as I make out, because we don't know ... we don't have the data.

Now however, you're saying that as early as 40-60AD Paul had put his own gloss on the tradition ... so my question is then, what's your evidence for that claim?

Here's a thing. 1 John is a letter written to a schismatic group at Ephesus. Tradition has it that John settled here, although I'm ready to allow that John might not have authored the Epistle that bears his name.

But Ephesus was Pauline, before it was Johannine. John settled in the Church that Paul founded. So who were the schismatics? Were they Johannine? Pauline? Or something else? What we can say is they seem to read John's Gospel a tad too literally ... but then if that's true, they ignore Paul altogether, who's insight into soteriology and the 'Mystical Christ' is luminous throughout all his works.

I would argue we don't know enough about it to say anyone put a spin on anything. I think the 'spin doctors' are those who would divide Scripture into the real stuff (the stuff they like) and the spin (the stuff they don't — usually anything to do with morality and ethics)

And, God bless 'im, that old tentmaker from Tarsus never backed down from an argument!

If He had, we might not even have Christianity at all ...

My argument is that Paul preached what he had been taught, but if you're going to accuse him of spin, then you're going to have to demonstrate the 'spun doctrine' in support of that thesis.

Not saying good or bad, simply stating factual truth.

No, without hard evidence you can't say that.

Regardless of any traditions that might state otherwise, any other competing branches of Christianity were pruned away by the Roman politicos under Constantine and later.

Then there would not have been schism, would there? But the fact is there was. At one point, the empire was 70% Arian, but the orthodox line won out. And even after Nicea, the arguments did not go away.

The idea of state control over religion simply does not support the facts.

Poor old Athanasius was outlawed and then pardoned 5 times ... and when the Oriental Orthodox broke with the Church at Chalcedon (451) the politicos went ballistic. Egypt was the breadbasket, lose Egypt, and you risk losing the lot ... but they did, and that's what eventually happened. Your politicos would never have allowed it if they had any sway.

The response by the emperors was to forbid certain areas of theology from being discussed! That didn't last five minutes.

The West was far more robust in telling the emperors where to butt-out than the East, where 'integralism' eventually won out. Remember St Maximus and Pope Martin I were executed by the Eastern authorities in an attempt to take control of the arguments that threatened the stability of the empire in the 7th century.

And that faction that was founded by James and Peter in downtown Jerusalem was destroyed in or around 70 AD along with the Temple.

Evidence for that?

So for a student of history the idea of a pristine culture (Jewish, Christian or otherwise) is a bit of a red herring.

Forgive me, but we have never put forward Christianity as pristine ... more a case of 'warts 'n' all' ... I agree, there is no such thing as pristine culture, but that does not mean there is no such things as an authentic rising of a culture.

Christianity is not the perfect little petrie dish test tube baby some traditions would have us believe.

Not mine ... but I take your point.

It is one baby with a very mixed pedigree that wants to claim royal heritage. That want is sincere and overwhelming, but the lineage is just not there…

Junatoo! Christianity is the vision of the Person of Jesus Christ, illuminated by the Salvation History of the Jews, and the reflection thereon in the Greek Philosophical Tradition.

What both possess in spades is lineage ...

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

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

 

[juantoo3]

Thank you for your thoughtful responses, Thomas!

Thank you as well for your sincere but loving chiding at the end of your posts.

This kind of comment, I must admit, infuriates me. If I wrote that in one of my essays, I would be marked down for failing to mention Augustine's subsequent discovery and love of Platonism, which he talks about at length in the Confessions, and which infuses all his works ... and for which he's recognised in academic circles as one of the most influential figures in the incorporation of Platonism into Christian Philosophy.

Take a look at The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — both rate Augustine as a first-rate philosopher and one of the prime movers of incorporating NeoPlatonism into the Christian philosophical tradition.

OK the BBC site is a brief and populist rather than scholarly, but this is an omission of mammoth proportion. Like talking about the history of Greek philosophy, but forgetting to mention Aristotle.

Not having full access in context to this BBC presentation, I was operating under the impression that it was at least as well researched (and mildly biased) as the PBS productions here in the states.

Thank you for this about Augustine. Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Stoicism, such are terms I recall from Philosophy 101, but are otherwise vague terms to me. You are correct in that it would probably serve this thread well to investigate deeper into such as these.

Christianity did not emerge from a genepool of competing theories, but from one Apostolic Tradition of teaching, as Irenaeus, a third-generation Christian (disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John) went to great lengths to point out.

I don't think the prevailing idea is about emerging from a genepool of competing theories, if I am understanding you correctly. I think this idea in a general sense can be supported by the wealth of competing "letters" from various apostles, some of which later would be canonized, others of which were set aside, but for the time in question surrounding Nicea all were still actively read and in effect, some more so and others less so.

Those ideas that held some primacy would seem to me based on the same set of circumstances, but viewed through different interpretations. Speculating on my part, perhaps being viewed through competing pagan lenses?

Remember also that whilst the theology grew and developed, from what we're discovering in the early liturgical rites and practices is an orthodox line that goes right back to the Apostles. How many people here discuss Liturgical Theology? How many know it? And without it, you cannot discuss the history and development of Christianity in any meaningful fashion.

Christian Liturgy was established before Christian Scripture.

Christian Scripture was (somewhat loosely) established before Christian Theology.

The Church is the body of all three — Liturgy, Scripture and Tradition ...

This is one of the issues that compounds the problem for me, that of truth versus reality. Sacred truth and secular truth are often at odds with each other, and it is difficult for a layman to understand why.

If it happened, it happened. Why is what happened so wrapped in confusion? I could apply a litany of metamystical answers, but I would still be left with the material questions and no practical answers.

It is evident that the Apostolic line was obliged to defend itself right from the outset, and did so, robustly. It is also evident that many of the competitors simply took one bit of Scripture and ignored the rest, or wrote their own, or claimed a spurious 'secret tradition' that had been handed on to them ... in the last case, the proliferation of 'secret transmissions' of the 'real truth' were so many and varied that they became self-defeating.

The author makes no delineation between 'natural' error and attempts to subvert the tradition. You cannot put all competing Christianities on an equal footing.

It's poor scholarship like this that leads people to assume that there can be no certainty.

That there may have been and even were some fringe elements is not in question, and certainly such cannot be afforded the same weight going forward...that I think is the essence of why Constantine called Nicea to order in the first place.

The difference is, and you give a bit of weight to this later, is that there *were* some competing paradigms that did carry equivocal weight with Nicean Christianity (I presume that of Athanasius, as he was the chief rhetoricist competing with Arius). Arianism was only one such competing paradigm, the Coptic paradigm being another...and even the germ of what would become Greek Orthodox remained within the Athanasian paradigm. So it really wasn't a clear cut case of one paradigm being "right" and the others not so. Just the fact that the (pagan) Roman Emperor felt the need to step in and establish clarification over the matter itself alludes to some confusion among the followers of Christianity at that time.

Assuming that the pagan world was not completely devoid of the truth, of a sense of the Divine, etc., then it should be of no surprise that similarities exist. The word 'Mystery' which encompasses Christianity is from the Greek, after all.

Indeed, and I struggle sometimes in my attempts not to belittle paganism outright, yet we as Christians are supposed to distance ourselves from the pagan paradigm...

The point is how far these and any tradition penetrates the veil, if you like, and as a Christian it's axiomatic that none penetrate as far as does Christianity. But did Christianity borrow its essence from these traditions? No. Why? Because it didn't have to ...

OK, I want to agree with you, but I have to stop at your reasoning why. Is that not the same (or parallel) justification used throughout every major religious paradigm? Judaism doesn't need to borrow, Islam doesn't need to borrow, Hinduism doesn't need to borrow, Buddhism doesn't need to borrow, Taoism doesn't need to borrow...

I mean this in the kindest way, isn't this just a wee bit of presumptive self-righteous smugness? The same that pretty well hinders interfaith dialogue unless (political) conditions demand a certain air of contrition?

Look at St Paul to the Athenians, basically telling them he's got the bit they're missing, he knows their 'unknown god' ... likewise the Fathers saw the truth and insight in Stoicism and Platonism ...

I would say the meeting of Christ and Plato was, for man, fortuitous, if not providential ... but we could do without Plato, we couldn't do without Christ.

The point is that when people accuse Christianity of 'borrowing' ideas, they rarely look to see how the idea was defined, and how Christianity redefined it, and what was the result.

From what little I remember about Stoicism, it was really a matter of practicality in how one approached matters, particularly secular and material matters, not really a metaphysical outlook. I could stand correction, and will need to look into it, but I remember it not even strictly being concerned with morality and metaphysical jurisprudence.

You can't really do that without taking in the other Fathers. Athanasius, the theologian of Nicea (and Hilary) laid a foundation on which Augustine built, and Irenaeus before them. Then there's Tertullian ...

OK, but then we could also ask what the founders of the Coptic church had to offer, and why the Greek church differed...you see? We still end up with a variety of paradigms to wrestle with. If I understand correctly, you have narrowed it down for yourself to those you feel are justified by official stamp of approval. Yet there are other stamps of approval of at least equal age and one would surmise comparable authority (at least within their respective domains) that hold a modestly (but significant) differing point of view. Significant in that the church founded at Nicea upon Athanasius even at various times later in history has waged war against them as if they were enemies.

 

[juantoo3]

part 2

That's a jaundiced view ... or put another way, show me anyone who tries to put across a new idea without reference to what's already there?

As a PR program it depends how you wish to view it. Selling the idea of Original Sin does not seem a wise PR move to me ... Pelagius had the seemingly much more attractive proposition (even though in reality, with Augustine there's a good chance we might all be saved, with Pelagius it's pretty much a cert that we're all stuffed).

Pelagius, another reference to look into. I'm not sure how it is a jaundiced view to look at the possibility of amalgamation. I mean, even trying to keep in mind what I have picked up from bananabrain regarding the POV of Judaism proper towards paganism proper, there still seems to me a deliberate distancing between Christianity and paganism, particularly early on. Yet, if we take a good hard look at the matter, the Roman branch of the faith was quite at ease with pagan trappings. I haven't delved deep enough into the Coptic branch, but it seems to me the Greek branch made an effort to move away from some of the pagan trappings, at least as regards idols and icons.

What is more, Christianity seems to be imbued with so much of the pagan superstitions. It is one thing I reckon to hold a particular outlook, such as a pagan view into the metaphysical. It is quite another to be so ensnared or engulfed in baseless superstition...I mean, worshipping a "weeping statue?", or an office window or a piece of toast that looks like a shadow of the Madonna? It seems to me this is particularly the kind of thing Paul was trying to lead Christianity away *from*.

OK. Evidence? Can you point to those doctrines, before Scripture was written, that Paul spun?

Ah, straw man. And I suspect you knew it, . There was no New Testament scripture before Paul, which is actually my point about Christianity being through Paul's spin.

Now, I realize I tread perilously close here to others I disagree with. It's not difficult to search out my lengthy response to Mr. Garaffa. So it is not a fair presumption to lump me in. Even so the fact remains that without Paul, Christianity dies. Same was true then (Nicea, and before) as it is now.

Everyone here — and you and Christ (sp?) seem to agree — will probably queue up to tell me I cannot be anywhere near as certain about the origins of Christian doctrine as I make out, because we don't know ... we don't have the data.

Now however, you're saying that as early as 40-60AD Paul had put his own gloss on the tradition ... so my question is then, what's your evidence for that claim?

My evidence is a reading of the Pauline Epistles in the KJV. Paul admits as much at the beginning of a couple of his tomes, that what he is writing is sage advice but not Divine in origin, per se.

Here's a thing. 1 John is a letter written to a schismatic group at Ephesus. Tradition has it that John settled here, although I'm ready to allow that John might not have authored the Epistle that bears his name.

But Ephesus was Pauline, before it was Johannine. John settled in the Church that Paul founded. So who were the schismatics? Were they Johannine? Pauline? Or something else? What we can say is they seem to read John's Gospel a tad too literally ... but then if that's true, they ignore Paul altogether, who's insight into soteriology and the 'Mystical Christ' is luminous throughout all his works.

Very well, which side did Nicea adopt, and which got ostracized? Sincere question on my part.

I would argue we don't know enough about it to say anyone put a spin on anything. I think the 'spin doctors' are those who would divide Scripture into the real stuff (the stuff they like) and the spin (the stuff they don't — usually anything to do with morality and ethics)

Now you're just trying to confuse the issue with semantics.

And, God bless 'im, that old tentmaker from Tarsus never backed down from an argument!

If He had, we might not even have Christianity at all ...

My argument is that Paul preached what he had been taught, but if you're going to accuse him of spin, then you're going to have to demonstrate the 'spun doctrine' in support of that thesis.

Hallelujah, and thank G-d for him! Good thing he didn't back down from an argument, but he also argued with tact and decorum. To the Jews he argued as a Jew, to the Greeks as a Greek and to the Romans as a Roman. Can't argue with a Jew from a Roman POV, likewise you can't argue with a Roman from a Jewish POV. And the Greeks are so flighty everybody hears what they want to and disregards the rest.

I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but not entirely.

I find some trouble with your argument that Paul preached what he had been taught. Which teachings, and by whom? Therein lies a good portion of our problem here. Tradition holds Paul was duly trained as a Rabbi in the Rabbinical tradition, yet as evidenced by the little tussle with Peter (remember Peter?) Paul was decidedly *not* teaching what he had been taught in the Jewish tradition. If Paul had Roman citizenship, and was able to move freely in the cosmopolitan world, then he was also familiar (that is: taught) in the pagan traditions as well, evidenced as you pointed to in Athens at the monument to the unknown god. And since Paul had no direct contact with Jesus (other than the single purported metaphysical instance) one cannot imply Paul was instructed materially and factually by Jesus. At least, not without invoking some miracle of osmosis or something.

Then there would not have been schism, would there? But the fact is there was. At one point, the empire was 70% Arian, but the orthodox line won out. And even after Nicea, the arguments did not go away.

The idea of state control over religion simply does not support the facts.

Poor old Athanasius was outlawed and then pardoned 5 times ... and when the Oriental Orthodox broke with the Church at Chalcedon (451) the politicos went ballistic. Egypt was the breadbasket, lose Egypt, and you risk losing the lot ... but they did, and that's what eventually happened. Your politicos would never have allowed it if they had any sway.

The response by the emperors was to forbid certain areas of theology from being discussed! That didn't last five minutes.

The West was far more robust in telling the emperors where to butt-out than the East, where 'integralism' eventually won out. Remember St Maximus and Pope Martin I were executed by the Eastern authorities in an attempt to take control of the arguments that threatened the stability of the empire in the 7th century.

Whoa, I want to be sure I'm on the right page here. Obviously the "opposition" of the moment here at Nicea was the Arians, and though it took a while, the Athanasians won out; bodily, forcibly, politically...including exhile and execution. Now, I see a precedent begun here that extends effectively to today, but certainly at least to the Inquisition, including the Crusades, including the Gnostics and several other high visibility targets along the way. The Albigensians come to mind, I'm pretty certain there were even more.

So there is this dichotomy of argument (certainly not limited to Roman Catholism, I see it frequently in various Protestant denoms as well) of "we're all of one accord" as long as you do everything I say. Step out of line just a smidgen, and it's due cause for exhile, excommunication and execution. Hell, wars have been fought over as much. Seems I recall a little tiff in English history between Catholics and Protestants that lasted for a good little bit during the 1500's.

Now yes, this is jumping around a little through history, but it is to make the point that Nicea did not settle the differences of opinion as Constantine had hoped. If anything, it set a precedent of (political) might equals right.

And that faction that was founded by James and Peter in downtown Jerusalem was destroyed in or around 70 AD along with the Temple.

Evidence for that?

The Roman razing of the Temple and Jerusalem circa 70 AD, the killing of James in Jerusalem and the following execution of Peter.

If Paul had not carried Christianity beyond Jerusalem it would not have survived, certainly not as anything we would recognize today.

Forgive me, but we have never put forward Christianity as pristine ... more a case of 'warts 'n' all' ... I agree, there is no such thing as pristine culture, but that does not mean there is no such things as an authentic rising of a culture.

We? Are you by chance speaking here in the plural as an official representative of the Catholic church proper?

I don't know...I have certainly seen and heard quite a few times things that led me to believe that Catholism felt it was the be all and end all. Kinda hard to have warts riding on a high horse, or maybe the high horse is to make the warts seem less visible?

 

[juantoo3]

part 3

It is one baby with a very mixed pedigree that wants to claim royal heritage. That want is sincere and overwhelming, but the lineage is just not there…

Junatoo! Christianity is the vision of the Person of Jesus Christ, illuminated by the Salvation History of the Jews, and the reflection thereon in the Greek Philosophical Tradition.

What both possess in spades is lineage ...

I suppose. I mean, again we are back at metaphysical justifications...

For example, the prophecy that the Messianic child would be of both the lines of King and Priest (I forget where, but I do remember reading it long ago, I need to look it up). Now, for Jesus to fulfill that takes two genealogies...his mother Miriam is evidently of the House of Levi, and she has close relatives who are actually in the line of priests. Little argument there.

However, to cover the Kingship line requires his father's pedigree...but wait a minute, he doesn't have an earthly father, he was Divinely conceived. So there is no connection to the Davidic line unless he is conceived in a "normal" fashion, and if he is Divinely conceived he doesn't fulfill the prophecy. What's more, if he has no earthly father, then what on earth is Joseph's genealogy doing in the Gospel?

I bring this up not as a taunt, but as a matter of bewilderment. I want to believe, but which is correct?

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.

See, now, I disagree. Here's my reasoning:

Moses did not need to be Divinely procreated to save Israel, he only needed to be Divinely led. Abraham did not need to be Divinely procreated to father Israel, he only needed to be Divinely led. Elijah did not need to be Divinely procreated to ascend to heaven and not taste death, he merely needed to be Divinely led. I can go on...Noah, Jacob, Joseph, Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Elisha, Jeremiah, Daniel, I could even suggest the enigmatic Melchizadec, none of whom *required* Divine procreation to make a huge impact on Judaism (and by extension Christianity).

By contrast, how many in the pagan pantheon were quasi-gods born of mortals and eternals mixing? Let's see, wasn't Zeus one of them?

Jesus does not require Divine heritage to heal the sick, cast out devils or raise from the dead. All he needs to be is Divinely led in order to show the rest of us the way.

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.

OK, at what point does the Catholic church itself say it began? Authoritatively I have often heard "with Peter." Kinda difficult, Rome was busy persecuting the church, sacking Jerusalem, razing the Temple and executing Peter,all within a few short years.

I see Nicea as the birth of the Catholic church de jure. It just happens to also be the birth of the Greek Orthodox de jure, conjoined twins so to speak.

The Copts, and perhaps a few others (some, like the Arians, no doubt long gone) were the red-headed step children that were kept around only to have something to beat on and vent frustrations, figuratively of course. Although I'm sure an Albigensian might have something to say, if there were any left.

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.

I am actually pleasantly surprized. You are the first Catholic I have ever witnessed even acknowledge the others.

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.

You mentioned it earlier: Chalcedon, 451 AD, 126 years after Nicea. Byzantium, by contrast, lasted up into the 1400's as I recall, although it never quite recovered from the 4th Crusade.

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.

A state is fractured because it has multiple religious views?

While I agree the Eastern Orthodox church has been wedded through history with various political entities, I am seeing this a bit differently. Catholism too is wedded with politics, inexorably so. The difference as I see it is that, typically, the Greek Orthodox church *tends to be* subservient to the political structure, whereas the Catholic church *tends to be* in a position of power *over* the political structure. And once again I point to the Holy Roman Empire as example, but it can still be seen even today (Poland, Mexico, the Phillipines) the sway that the Vatican holds over certain political entities, and how it actively engages still others. I mean, c'mon, even US presidents get down on one knee and kiss the Pope's ring...but the Vatican has no political aspirations? I'm afraid the words just don't jibe with the observations.

Goodness, even a casual glance at the Conquests of Central and South America by Spain and Portugal drives the point home...

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).

How so? I am no direct fan of Pagels, I haven't read her work. I understand she gets trotted out by modern day Gnostics (and wannabees). I was drawing from a source that quoted her (probably Wiki) and some other fellow I don't know...but the quotes provided seemed to highlight the pagan attributes of Christianity. The same attributes you earlier agreed existed and even seemed to excuse.

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.

But see, this only adds to the confusion. One church, various schisms; and like the serpent eating itself if you are too large or out of reach you continue, otherwise if you are too small and powerless (and hapless enough to get caught up in the battles of expansion) you are grist for the mill. And it all comes back to politics; political sanction and endorsement.

 

[juantoo3]

part 4

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.

Never is a mighty long time...and I know enough not to throw everything in together, which is why I do try to warn you or anybody when I move along in history. And while the Crusades are a fascinating point of history, other than some random but pertinent tangents I have been for the most part leaving that for another time. So I can talk about Catholic primacy by virtue of political force, and be truthful (or at least sincere), by the fact that had Arius "won the debate" and gained the favor of Constantine (and the political machine) it would have been Athanasius who would have been on the outs, and this discussion between us would have an entirely different tenor.

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 ...

Thanks.

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.

The political motivation was survival. Hasn't the ensuing history taught us that much? I don't know how you can say they were not politically solved? OK, maybe not "solved" in the sense of "fixed" or "repaired." But you surely must concede that political resources were brought to bear against those found treasonous or heretical? I mean, it wasn't the Pontifex himself that went out and hand-prosecuted every petty dogmatic offender; he brought the resources of the nation to bear (armies, etc.), ergo, political solution.

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 probably some element of truth to what you say here, but it does not absolve me of my internal drive to pursue the truth as the truth is.

G-d is. Of that much I am certain. But there is a great deal of risk taking beyond that, particularly within the Christian institution. Especially for those of us who don't really care to be spoon fed anymore.

I gotta give you credit. You've covered a great deal more than I ever expected.

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.

A foot in which camps? Do I want my cake and eat it too? No. I want to know what the cake looks like, what it is made of, and most of all what G-d wants me to do with it. What's more, I need that answer to come from G-d, not a human claiming to be G-d's representative on earth.

 

[juantoo3]

part 5

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.

Well, or so I hear the institutions say. Dunno, the terms the still small voice whispers don't come across quite like that. Yeah, on His terms, OK, but there is a love that goes with that that is overlooked I think with the "my way or the highway" crowd. There's a difference between coersion and loving guidance.

As a Zen master I highly respected used to say — after less than 10 minutes ... "Enough talk. Zazen!"

Chop wood, carry water.

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.

Invoking C.S. Lewis now? Don't get me wrong, it is certainly good to absorb input from disparate sources, but I also am of the opinion that one must not dwell within those sources, that one must be able to step back and take a long, hard, exploratory and discerning look at the puzzle, and then be able and capable of formulating one's own conclusions on the matter.

Does C.S. Lewis have anything to say to this, I don't know. I have read some of his work, mostly for pleasure, and enjoy his fantasy and dreams (even if they are not my favorites, they are still quite good). I understand he has written a great deal more sobering material, but would it expand or edify my own comprehension to this matter?

More importantly, will I come away with his opinions and not my own?

I suppose that is a part of the reason I haven't delved into the early church fathers (other than the occasional smattering I pick up here and there).

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.

Ah, now that's not fair! If I had known that was where you were leading me, perhaps I would have answered differently.

Truth is, I have read some, historically and inspiring, no doubt you would still hold issues with. Foxe's Book of Martyrs, for one. But even more compelling to me was the 4th Book of Maccabees, and the Letter of Aristeas.

And you know.

But I do know. I did not learn from a book, that is, not from any other book. I learned from the spirit of THE book, but it was indeed spirit that taught. It is still spirit that continues to teach.

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.

Ah, but I have, and continue to do so.

I think many people misunderstand my motivation, as though I were trying to undermine or destroy Christianity...or at least my own faith. That is not my motivation.

In a sense, maybe I am like Constantine. I just need clarification. I already have a working knowledge, but there are some pretty serious questions that need resolution, at least in my mind if not for others. Too many loose ends begging to be tied up and hemmed so they don't unravel.

If G-d is real, and I think we both agree He is, then there is a reality that can be known. That reality doesn't require fairy tales and allusions, or so I suppose, and what does that say if reality does require hints and allegations?

Perhaps the metaphysical cannot be approached with the physical...but there are tantalizing clues that the two realms do touch each other, at least on occasion, and it is in those moments that we can know; at least as much and as well as we ever will know in this life and in this existence.

Beyond that, everything else is speculation and hope.

 

[juantoo3]

Some info on the first Council at Nicea:

In 321, Arius was denounced by a synod at Alexandria for teaching a heterodox view of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria—counterparts to modern universities or seminaries—their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean.
By 325, the controversy had become significant enough that the Emperor Constantine called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arius' doctrine and formulated the Original Nicene Creed[2], forms of which are still recited in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and some Protestant services. The Nicene Creed's central term, used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, is Homoousios, or Consubstantiality, meaning "of the same substance" or "of one being". (The Athanasian Creed is less often used but is a more overtly anti-Arian statement on the Trinity.)
The focus of the Council of Nicaea was the divinity of Christ (see Paul of Samosata and the Synods of Antioch). Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and to the Holy Spirit (giver of life). Under Arianism, Christ was instead not consubstantial with God the Father.[3] Since both the Father and the Son under Arius were made of "like" essence or being (see homoiousia) but not of the same essence or being (see homoousia).[4] Ousia is essence or being, in Eastern Christianity, and is the aspect of God that is completely incomprehensible to mankind and human perception. It is all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another.[5] God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all being uncreated.[6] According to the teaching of Arius, the preexistent Logos and thus the incarnate Jesus Christ was a created being, of a distinct, though similar, essence or substance to the Creator; his opponents argued that this would make Jesus less than God, and that this was heretical.[7] Much of the distinction between the differing factions was over the phrasing that Christ expressed in the New Testament to express submission to God the Father.[8] The theological term for this submission is kenosis.[9] This Ecumenical council declared that Jesus Christ was a distinct being of God in existence or reality (hypostasis), which the Latin fathers translated as persona. Jesus was God in essence, being and or nature (ousia), which the Latin fathers translated as substantia.
Constantine exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed—Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios, and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais—and also the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in condemnation of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea. The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned.
Although he was committed to maintaining what the church had defined at Nicaea, Constantine was also bent on pacifying the situation and eventually became more lenient toward those condemned and exiled at the council. First he allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a protégé of his sister, and Theognis to return once they had signed an ambiguous statement of faith. The two, and other friends of Arius, worked for Arius' rehabilitation. At the First Synod of Tyre in AD 335, they brought accusations against Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the primary opponent of Arius; after this, Constantine had Athanasius banished, since he considered him an impediment to reconciliation. In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem under Constantine's direction readmitted Arius to communion in AD 336. Arius, however, died on the way to this event in Constantinople. Several scholarly studies suggest that Arius was poisoned by his opponents.[10] Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor's favour, and when Constantine, who had been a catechumen much of his adult life, accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was from Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Emphasis mine, -jt3
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius. The latter continued to officiate in his church and to recruit followers. Being finally driven out, he went to Palestine and from there to Nicomedia. During this time St. Alexander published his "Epistola encyclica", to which Arius replied; but henceforth it was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control. Sozomen even speaks of a Council of Bithynia which addressed an encyclical to all the bishops asking them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.
Of all the Acts of this Council, which, it has been maintained, were numerous, only three fragments have reached us: the creed, or symbol, given above (see also NICENE CREED); the canons; the synodal decree. In reality there never were any official acts besides these. But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus. There has long existed a dispute as to the number of the canons of First Nicaea. All the collections of canons, whether in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth and fifth centuries agree in attributing to this Council only the twenty canons, which we possess today. Of these the following is a brief résumé:
Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.
Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

The agenda of the synod were:
The Arian question;
The date of celebration of the Paschal Feast;
The Meletian schism;
The Father and Son one in purpose or in person;
The validity of baptism by heretics;
The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, with preliminary discussions on the Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. “Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous.”[5] Bishops Theognis of Nicea and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.
Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed (symbol) of his own diocese at Caesarea in Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that this Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed. Another possibility is the Apostle's Creed.
In any case, as the council went on, the orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops “but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning.”[6] No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the creed.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this Meletian schism?

Melitius (died after 325) was bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt. He is known to us mainly as the founder and namesake of the Melitians (c. 305), one of several sects in early church history which were concerned about the ease with which lapsed Christians reentered the Church. [1]
The details of his life are not clear as we have conflicting accounts of it. According to one version he was imprisoned for his Christianity during the persecution under Diocletian along with Peter of Alexandria (another source has Peter fleeing the scene; a third has Melitius himself avoid prison). Apparently as early as during the persecution itself Melitius began to refuse to receive in communion those Christians who had renounced their faith during the persecution and later repented of that choice. Melitius' rigorous stance on this point stood in contrast to the earlier willingness of bishops to accept back into communion those who seemed to have truly repented (a pattern which was addressed during previous similar controversies, including those about the lapsed during the Decian persecution about 50 years earlier).
As bishop of Alexandria Peter would have been recognized as the leader of the Egyptian church and thus Melitius' superior in church hierarchy. Historian Philip Schaff tells us that prior to Peter's death in 311 he spoke out against Melitius' actions and "deposed him as a disturber of the peace of the church". [2]
The supporters that Melitius drew around him included twenty-eight other bishops, at least some of whom he personally ordained, and the objections against him included that he ordained people in regions where he lacked authority.[3] His group went by the name Church of the Martyrs, inherently objecting to the reacceptance by other bishops of people who chose to avoid the risk of martyrdom. Melitius' influence extended even so far away as Palestine.[4]
It is believed by some that Melitius ordained Arius (known for the Arian controversy) as a priest, but scholarship is divided on whether this is the case.[5]
The Council of Nicaea in 325 attempted to create peace with the Melitians.[6] Melitius was allowed to remain bishop of Lycopolis, but was no longer to ordain bishops outside his region. The bishops he had already ordained were accepted under certain restrictions, and had to be reordained.[7] Melitius' death followed soon after the council met, and the effort to bring unity proved unsuccessful. His followers sided with the Arians in their controversy and existed as a separate sect till the 5th century.

Meletius of Lycopolis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meagre references by St. Athanasius were our only source of information until important documents were discovered in the eighteenth century by Scipio Maffei at Verona in a manuscript dealing with the Meletian schism in Egypt.

The suppression of the Meletian schism was one of the three important matters that came before the Council of Nicæa. Its decree has been preserved in the synodical epistle addressed to the Egyptian bishops.

About 325 the Meletians counted in Egypt twenty-nine bishops, Meletius included, and in Alexandria itself, four priests, three deacons, and one army chaplain. Conformably to the Nicene decree, Meletius lived first at Lycopolis in the Thebaid, but after Bishops Alexander's death he took a personal part in the negotiations which united his party to the Arians. The date of his death is not known. He nominated his friend, John, as his successor. Theodoret mentions very superstitious Meletian monks who practised Jewish ablutions. The Meletians died out after the middle of the fifth century

Emphasis mine, -jt3
Ah, the plot thickens…couple of thoughts, an army chaplain! Who’da thunkit? And early Christian Monks practising *Jewish* ablutions? What’s an ablution? More importantly, these monks apparently were ostracized for holding Jewish practices. We formerly noted Constantine’s antisemetic bent, is this an extension of that?
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Meletius of Lycopolis - Wikisource

 

[juantoo3]

ABLUTION​

Ritual washing, or ablution, takes two main forms in Judaism: tevilah, full body immersion in a mikvah, and netilat yadayim, washing the hands with a cup. The first written records for these practices are found in the Hebrew Bible, and are elaborated in the Mishnah and Talmud. They have been codified in various codes of Jewish law and tradition, such as Maimonides's Mishneh Torah (12th century) and Joseph Karo's Shulchan Aruch (16th century.) These customs are most commonly observed within Orthodox Judaism. In Conservative Judaism, the practices are normative with certain leniencies and exceptions. Ritual washing is not generally performed in Reform Judaism.

This is ablution. Those monks were ostracized for performing a Jewish ritual washing. OY!
Ritual washing in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Ecumenical Council — Nicaea I
Site: Nicaea (in N.W. Asia Minor)
Year: A.D. 325
Pope: St. Sylvester I, 314-335
Emperor: Constantine I, Western Roman Emperor 306-337; Sole Emperor 324-337
Action: Called by the emperor and ratified by the Pope, this council condemned the heresy of Arius (priest of Alexandria, d. 336) by defining the CONSUBSTANTIALITY of God the Son with God the Father. The Son is of the "same substance," homo-ousion, as the Father (St. Athanasius); not merely a "like substance," homoi-ousion (as with the semi-Arians); nor is He (as Arius taught) some sort of super-creature.
Note: St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church (d. 373), Bishop of Alexandria, was present as deacon and peritus at Nicaea; exiled five times and excommunicated by the Arians. St. Ephrem, Doctor of the Church (d. 373), deacon, was also present at Nicaea as peritus.
Heresiarch: Arius.

Rather scanty, and somewhat misleading, summary for being posted on an official Catholic site…exiled five times and excommunicated, *by the Arians*??? Yet, effectively in the same breath, Arius is noted as an heretic.
How can an heretic excommunicate anybody?
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary : The Ecumenical Councils

The following appears to be a very good resource pertaining to the details of Nicea, excepting I saw nothing in my cursory overview in respect to the Arian controversy.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

There were some three hundred bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea from all around the world. Eusebius lists many of them and their country of origin in his writings. It should be remembered that many of those present had, because of the recent persecutions, suffered and had faced threat of death for their faith. These were not wishy-washy men. It might also be remarked, that they were extremely sensitive to details of doctrine. As evidence of this, the second major concern of the Council of Nicea was to address the hotly debated question of what the proper day was to celebrate the resurrection.
The bishops of the Council stopped their ears on hearing the words of Arius and immediately rejected his teaching as distant and alien from the belief of the Church. They tore to pieces a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia containing Arius' teaching, as well as an Arian confession of faith (see the appendix on the Council of Nicea in Baker Book House's, "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History").
Originally seventeen of those bishops gathered at the council were unwilling to sign the Creed penned by the Council, and all but three of these were convinced to sign by the end. It is thus apparent that the Arians were a distinct minority among the bishops. Initially there was some resistance to the Nicene Creed, not because of what it said but because of how it said it. Many objected to the use of the word "homoousias" in an official document because it was not used in Scripture, despite their agreement with the meaning it conveyed.
The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)
It must be concluded, then, that the controversy was between a great majority who held the belief that the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed was ancient and Apostolic, and a minority who believed that Arius' new interpretation of the faith was correct .

The Council of Nicea

 

[juantoo3]

But I think Constantine in an astute political move hitched his wagon to the ascending star. Mithraism was a soldier's cult, so one would assume he'd support Mithras, but he saw that Christianity was more widespread and more capable in its ethos as a state religion. He'd gain more from Christianity than the others.

Constantine’s ‘conversion’ poses problems for the historian.

Doesn't it just! My 'pragmatic' approach is acceptable theologically, I think.

If this were strictly so though, don't you think he might have done so *much* sooner?

Dunno. After looking at today's entries, and how Constantine rescinded Arius' excommunication at the Synod of Jerusalem in 336, seems more to me he might have been playing both ends towards the middle. This also lends weight to the assertion Constantine's deathbed conversion to Christianity was by a priest of the Arian persuasion.

 

[juantoo3]

EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HOMOUSIOS.(4)

The Fathers of the Council at Nice were at one time ready to accede to the request of some of the bishops and use only scriptural expressions in their definitions. But, after several attempts, they found that all these were capable of being explained away. Athanasius describes with much wit and penetration how he saw them nodding and winking to each other when the orthodox proposed expressions which they had thought of a way of escaping from the force of. After a series of attempts of this sort it was found that something clearer and more unequivocal must be adopted if real unity of faith was to be attained; and accordingly the word homousios was adopted. Just what the Council intended this expression to mean is set forth by St. Athanasius as follows: "That the Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours: for in us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling the divine commands. Moreover, they wished to indicate by this that his generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same, as the Son himself said: 'The Logos is always in the Father, and, the Father always in the Logos,' as the sun and its splendour are inseparable."(1)

The word homousios had not had, although frequently used before the Council of Nice, a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the Council of Antioch,(2) and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul of Samosata and this rendered it very offensive to many in the Asiatic Churches. On the other hand the word is used four times by St. Irenaeus, and Pamphilus the Martyr is quoted as asserting that Origen used the very word in the Nicene sense. Tertullian also uses the expression "of one substance" (unius substanticoe) in two places, and it would seem that more than half a century before the meeting of the Council of Nice, it was a common one among the Orthodox.

emphasis mine, -jt3

This is the closest I saw pertaining to the Arian controversy after going back to the Fordham Univ. site. Actually a very detailed analysis by a number of scholars, apparently.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

This might seem trivial to us now, arguing over a word, but I have seen repeated references to this debate over this word, "HOMOUSIOS," and what it was intended to mean. The fight between Arius and Athanasius appears to have whittled down essentially to the meaning attached to this one word.

+++

Augustine

Augustine is a fourth century philosopher whose groundbreaking philosophy infused Christian doctrine with Neoplatonism. He is famous for being an inimitable Catholic theologian and for his agnostic contributions to Western philosophy. He argues that skeptics have no basis for claiming to know that there is no knowledge. In a proof for existence similar to one later made famous by Descartes, Augustine says, “[Even] If I am mistaken, I am.” He is the first Western philosopher to promote what has come to be called the argument by analogy: there are bodies external to mine that behave as I behave and that appear to be nourished as mine is nourished; so, by analogy, I am justified in believing that these bodies have a similar mental life to mine. Augustine believes reason to be a uniquely human cognitive capacity that comprehends deductive truths and logical necessity. Additionally, Augustine adopts a subjective view of time and says that time is nothing in reality but exists only in the human mind’s apprehension of reality. He believes that time is not infinite because God “created” it.


Augustine tries to reconcile his beliefs about freewill, especially the belief that humans are morally responsible for their actions, with his belief that one’s life is predestined. Though initially optimistic about the ability of humans to behave morally, at the end he is pessimistic, and thinks that original sin makes human moral behavior nearly impossible: if it were not for the rare appearance of an accidental and undeserved Grace of God, humans could not be moral. Augustine’s theological discussion of freewill is relevant to a non-religious discussion regardless of the religious specific language he uses; one can switch Augustine’s “omnipotent being” and “original sin” explanation of predestination for the present day “biology” explanation of predestination; the latter tendency is apparent in modern slogans such as “biology is destiny.”


In his thirty-first year he was strongly attracted to Neoplatonism by the logic of his development. The idealistic character of this philosophy awoke unbounded enthusiasm, and he was attracted to it also by its exposition of pure intellectual being and of the origin of evil. These doctrines brought him closer to the Church, though he did not yet grasp the full significance of its central doctrine of the personality of Jesus Christ. In his earlier writings he names this acquaintance with the Neoplatonic teaching and its relation to Christianity as the turning-point of his life. The truth, as it may be established by a careful comparison of his earlier and later writings, is that his idealism had been distinctly strengthened by Neoplatonism, which had at the same time revealed his own will, and not a natura altera in him, as the subject of his baser desires. This made the conflict between ideal and actual in his life more unbearable than ever. Yet his sensual desires were still so strong that it seemed impossible for him to break away from them.

Augustine [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Born in 354 C.E. in Thagaste (in what is now Algeria), he was educated in Thagaste, Madauros, and Carthage, and sometime around 370 he began a sixteen-year, monogamous relationship with the mother of his son, Adeodatus (born 372). He subsequently taught rhetoric in Thagaste and Carthage, and in 383 he made the risk-laden journey from Northern Africa to Rome, seeking the better sort of students that was rumored to be there. Disappointed by the moral quality of those students (academically superior to his previous students, they nonetheless had an annoying tendency to disappear without paying their fees), he successfully applied for a professorship of rhetoric in Milan. Augustine's professional ambitions pointed in the direction of an arranged marriage, and this in turn entailed a separation from his long-time companion and mother of his son. After this separation, however, Augustine abruptly resigned his professorship in 386 claiming ill health, renounced his professional ambitions, and was baptized by Bishop Ambrose of Milan on Easter Sunday, 387, after spending four months at Cassiciacum where he composed his earliest extant works. Shortly thereafter, Augustine began his return to Northern Africa, but not before his mother died at Ostia, a seaport outside Rome, while awaiting the voyage across the Mediterranean. Not too long after this, Augustine, now back in Thagaste, also lost his son (389). The remainder of his years would be spent immersed in the affairs and controversies of the Church into which he had been recently baptized, a Church that henceforth provided for Augustine the crucial nexus of relations that his family and friends had once been. In 391, Augustine was reluctantly ordained as a priest by the congregation of Hippo Regius (a not uncommon practice in Northern Africa), in 395 he was made Bishop, and he died August 430 in Hippo, thirty-five years later, as the Vandals were besieging the gates of the city. However, when Augustine himself recounts his first thirty-two years in his Confessions, he makes clear that many of the decisive events of his early life were, to use his own imagery, of a considerably more internal nature than the relatively external facts cited above.

Saint Augustine (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So Augustine was born almost thirty years after Nicaea, and wasn’t baptised into the Christian faith until 387, about 62 years after Nicaea, becoming ordained as a priest four years after that.

Just trying to compose my thoughts and put this man and his influence on the faith into context. He obviously had nothing to do with the proceedings at Nicaea. But he did influence the philosophical outlook of the developing church going forward, beginning in the late 300’s.

I think I am beginning to see as well the suggestion by the former quote attributing Pagels and Maccoby as saying Augustine aided in moshing the Judaic ingredients of Christianity with a decidedly pagan philosophical outlook. I don't see a direct correlation with pagan superstition, but that may just as well be an unintended consequence or a latent byproduct. Considering a prevailing zeitgeist of antisemetism promoted by Constantine, I can see the possiblilty of the political powers in control of the formative church doing their best to steer the philosophical outlook away from the preceeding Jewish philosophical outlook.

It is simply a really, really curious development that a radical sect born out of a faltering Judaism should so readily, rapidly and insistently distance itself from its parent stock and merge so thoroughly with the competing stock the parents had so much institutional angst with.

Then again, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.


+++
1. What is Neoplatonism?

Neoplatonism is a modern term used to designate the period of Platonic philosophy beginning with the work of Plotinus and ending with the closing of the Platonic Academy by the Emperor Justinian in 529 CE. This brand of Platonism, which is often described as 'mystical' or religious in nature, developed outside the mainstream of Academic Platonism. The origins of Neoplatonism can be traced back to the era of Hellenistic syncretism which spawned such movements and schools of thought as Gnosticism and the Hermetic tradition. A major factor in this syncretism, and one which had an immense influence on the development of Platonic thought, was the introduction of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek intellectual circles via the translation known as the Septuagint. The encounter between the creation narrative of Genesis and the cosmology of Plato's Timaeus set in motion a long tradition of cosmological theorizing that finally culminated in the grand schema of Plotinus' Enneads. Plotinus' two major successors, Porphyry and Iamblichus, each developed, in their own way, certain isolated aspects of Plotinus' thought, but neither of them developed a rigorous philosophy to match that of their master. It was Proclus who, shortly before the closing of the Academy, bequeathed a systematic Platonic philosophy upon the world that in certain ways approached the sophistication of Plotinus. Finally, in the work of the so-called Pseudo-Dionysius, we find a grand synthesis of Platonic philosophy and Christian theology that was to exercise an immense influence on mediaeval mysticism and Renaissance Humanism.


The term 'Neoplatonism' is a modern construction. Plotinus, who is often considered the 'founder' of Neoplatonism, would not have considered himself a "new" Platonist in any sense, but simply an expositor of the doctrines of Plato. That this required him to formulate an entirely new philosophical system would not have been viewed by him as a problem, for it was, in his eyes, precisely what the Platonic doctrine required. In a sense, this is true, for as early as the Old Academy we find Plato's successors struggling with the proper interpretation of his thought, and arriving at strikingly different conclusions. Also, in the Hellenistic era, certain Platonic ideas were taken up by thinkers of various loyalties -- Jewish, Gnostic, Christian -- and worked up into new forms of expression that varied quite considerably from what Plato actually wrote in his Dialogues. Should this lead us to the conclusion that these thinkers were any less 'loyal' to Plato than were the members of the Academy (in its various forms throughout the centuries preceding Plotinus)? No; for the multiple and often contradictory uses made of Platonic ideas is a testament to the universality of Plato's thought -- that is, its ability to admit of a wide variety of interpretations and applications. In this sense, Neo-Platonism may be said to have begun immediately after Plato's death, when new approaches to his philosophy were being broached. Indeed, we already see a hint, in the doctrines of Xenocrates (the second head of the Old Academy) of a type of salvation theory involving the unification of the two parts of the human soul -- the "Olympian" or heavenly, and the "Titanic" or earthly (Dillon 1977, p. 27). If we accept Frederick Copleston's description of Neoplatonism as "the intellectualist reply to the ... yearning for personal salvation" (Copleston 1962, p. 216) we can already locate the beginning of this reply as far back as the Old Academy, and Neoplatonism would then not have begun with Plotinus. However, it is not clear that Xenocrates' idea of salvation involved the individual; it is quite possible that he was referring to a unified human nature in an abstract sense. In any case, the early Hermetic-Gnostic tradition is certainly to an extent Platonic, and later Gnosticism and Christian Logos theology markedly so. If an intellectual reply to a general yearning for personal salvation is what characterizes Neoplatonism, then the highly intellectual Gnostics and Christians of the Late Hellenistic era must be given the title of Neoplatonists. However, if we are to be rigorous and define Neoplatonism as the synthesis of various more or less 'Platonistic' ideas into a grand expression of Platonic philosophy, then Plotinus must be considered the founder of Neoplatonism. Yet we must not forget that these Platonizing Christian, Gnostic, Jewish, and other 'pagan' thinkers provided the necessary speculative material to make this synthesis possible.

Emphasis mine, -jt3
Neoplatonism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

This does raise some interesting questions…Neoplatonism’s “ability to admit of a wide variety of interpretations and applications” seems to fly boldly in the face of the Nicaean (and by extension, Christianity’s) tradition of “my way or the highway.” In my opinion.

Thank you Thomas, for the references.
+++

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

A couple of comments ... a comparative view ...

The first is that in discussions like this, on gets the impression that 'orthodox' Christianity didn't emerge until sometime in the early fourth century — many going so far as to imply that effectively Niceas 'invented' Christianity with the implication that there is little or no continuity between what was preached before Nicea and after.

I think this is a common view, certainly it's much favoured by popular writers who can then affirm that everything is open to interpretation, or at least that their view is as viable as any other. I think this is erroneous, and deceptive. The fact that the origins lie in oral tradition does not mean they are unknown nor unreliable ... to say that will require a thorough knowledge of all the Patristic writings, which display a remarkable cohesion of doctrine and ideas — we can learn much, for example, from Pope Clement's letter to the Corinthians about 90AD, not only by its reference to an emerging written as well as oral tradition, but also to the fact that the Bishop of Rome assumes, without question, some primacy over the Bishop of Corinth.

Rather, one should look at 'orthodox' Christianity as being the norm as practiced across the empire — from England to Asia Minor — by somewhere into the second century. Irenaeus, who famously wrote a document refuting the practice of the gnostics of 'rolling' all and every doctrine into their own syncretic systems, also wrote was might effectively be called the first catechism summing up this universal teaching. Irenaeus came from the East, but was posted to Gaul in the West, and settled in what is now Lyon. There were (how could there not be?) fringe groups, schisms, etc., but these were, in scope and in numbers, marginal and peripheral.

In short, even by the close of the first century, one can say with some reliability that there was an orthodoxy, based on the Apostolic Teaching. Note for example that the Church in Ephesus was founded on a partial understanding of the faith (via followers of John the Baptist), and that St Paul was invited to go and teach there — which he did. So we can say that, for the most part, the Christian communities across the empire followed a common tradition for the instruction of catechumens, the reception by Baptism and the Mystery of the Eucharist. We can also safely assume there were a number of false teachers (eg Simon Magus, Acts 8), and a number who thought they were right, and everyone else wrong.

But I think it's important to get the idea of a faith that reaches from England to Asia Minor, which is in agreement on the principle points, that there exists a threefold Godhead in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that the Son became incarnate in man, and died for the redemption of all men, and that the Holy Spirit can lead men to the Son, and in and through the Son, to the Father.

I would even argue that the 'average Christian' of the first century had a more profound understanding of the Holy Spirit than the average Christian of today (certainly the Third Person of the Trinity rarely appears in these discussions — most modern Christians seem to have disposed of Him altogether)

+++

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

I would even argue that the 'average Christian' of the first century had a more profound understanding of the Holy Spirit than the average Christian of today (certainly the Third Person of the Trinity rarely appears in these discussions — most modern Christians seem to have disposed of Him altogether)

I agree, and thank you for noticing.

Not that it really matters, I do realize it is difficult to tell the extremists apart without a program, but I do feel it needs mentioned.

I am not a liberal in this. Quite the contrary, I am reactionary.

The thought occurred to me today, and I mean no slight in saying, but if forced to choose between orthodox Christianity and orthodox Judaism, with no other choice available, knowing what I do at this time, I would choose Judaism without hesitation.

The deciding point being if we are to emulate Jesus...Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

Not that it really matters, I do realize it is difficult to tell the extremists apart without a program, but I do feel it needs mentioned.

This era of history ... or rather the theology of Christology ... is one of my delights, I'm not against any party, rather I'm in favour of keeping a balance. As my tutor said, the real miracle is not that Athanasius won through, but that Christianity as such survived the weight of political interference ... and I think it can be argued that as East and West grew apart, the Eastern Church eventually succumbed.

In the Arian debate above, you reference the homoousians, and the homoiousians ... but the biggest party were in the middle ground, the homoeousians!

The resolution was not a political one — it was a theological one, and that's where the real interest lies.

+++

To me, if you chase the politics, it's all just about the merry-go-round of politics, you certainly won't learn anything about Christianity ... if you chase the theology, then some interesting things come to light ... Arian theology was a dead end ... Jesus is neither God nor man, and the chasm between God and man is absolute, and eventually much of Scripture is rendered meaningless (like the image of the vine — that could not survive an Arian Christology in any meaningful sense).

The contra-Arian theology, on the other hand, opens up a whole realm of debate in metaphysics that pushed the lexicon of the philosophers to their limit ... and beyond ... as I understand it, the Greeks had no concrete idea of 'the person' until Christianity, and this was one of the stumbling blocks (physis, ousia, hypostasis, prosopon ... all could mean person in a different sense).

+++

The thought occurred to me today, and I mean no slight in saying, but if forced to choose between orthodox Christianity and orthodox Judaism, with no other choice available, knowing what I do at this time, I would choose Judaism without hesitation.

OK. Good for you.

The deciding point being if we are to emulate Jesus...Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

Well that's obviously not the case, as 'Christian' in its pure sense defines itself as one who follows Christ ... and Christ said 'follow me' which is decidedly not Jewish ... Judaism would reject that hands down, the Decalogue and the Shema Israel forbids it, unless ...

I would have thought a better bet would be Islam?

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Well that's obviously not the case, as 'Christian' in its pure sense defines itself as one who follows Christ ... and Christ said 'follow me' which is decidedly not Jewish ... Judaism would reject that hands down, the Decalogue and the Shema Israel forbids it, unless ...

I would have thought a better bet would be Islam?

But of course...I find a different conclusion to the "unless...," which is how I end up where I am at.

Did you happen to catch the news article over the weekend about the stone tablet dated to just before the life of Jesus?

July 6, 2008
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM —
The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

...its authenticity has so far faced no challenge, so its role in helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase.

Much of the text, a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel, draws on the Old Testament, especially the prophets Daniel, Zechariah and Haggai.

...a larger scholarly movement that focuses on the political atmosphere in Jesus’ day as an important explanation of that era’s messianic spirit. ...after the death of Herod, Jewish rebels sought to throw off the yoke of the Rome-supported monarchy, so the rise of a major Jewish independence fighter could take on messianic overtones.

“Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”

Moshe Bar-Asher, president of the Israeli Academy of Hebrew Language and emeritus professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University, said he spent a long time studying the text and considered it authentic, dating from no later than the first century B.C.

“There is one problem,” he said. “In crucial places of the text there is lack of text.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

I wanted to add it here as well because I think it is directly germane to the discussion, even though I haven't had a chance yet to really digest the info.

I did look up the scholar, D. Boyarin, and he does in fact seem to be a well written scholar of Talmudic studies, but I found no reference to this tablet. Likewise, I looked up the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, and found nothing related to this artifact.

I so want this to be genuine, but after the bone box fiasco of a few years back I'm just a little gun-shy.

I look forward to your comments.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

But of course...I find a different conclusion to the "unless...," which is how I end up where I am at.

I can understand that. For my part, re the Jewish debate, is that if Jesus was 'strictly' Jewish, He would not have become alienated from the community, nor arrested, tried and killed.

Whatever we believe, I think we can safely say that the Jewish authorities saw Him as a threat to security and the social order. Whatever His message, He was either a trouble-maker, a madman, or an idealistic Jewish reformer ... but then the focus would have been on the God of Israel, not Himself ... as it is, it would seem He saw Himself to be the Messiah ...

Did you happen to catch the news article over the weekend about the stone tablet dated to just before the life of Jesus?

I saw it here.

It doesn't upset me. The Wisdom Books of the Catholic Canon, written just prior to Christ, show a remarkable degree of speculation and Hebrew/Hellenic cross-fertilisation.

John's Gospel was always regarded as heavily Hellenic/gnostic ... now we know it is steeped in 1st Century Rabinnic speculation ... very Jewish, not gnostic at all.

Christ, and the authors of Scripture, would employ the language of the day to make their point ... if the tablet is authentic, then this is just another case of a reference to telegraph the reality of the Incarnation as the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic expectation.

If you've time, listen to "In Our Time" on the BBC Radio 4 website. It's a programme discussing Tacitus, the Roman historian ... there's an interesting commentary on how he saw the degeneration of Roman culture in the 1st century AD.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

if Jesus was 'strictly' Jewish, He would not have become alienated from the community, nor arrested, tried and killed.

I don't think this is an either / or matter. I see varying shades of gray of potentialities here. There is no guarantee whether Jesus was a fully and completely observant Jew, that he might not still through accident of circumstance find himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I guess what I am trying to say is that there are too many variables to take into consideration for me to agree with this statement.

Whatever we believe, I think we can safely say that the Jewish authorities saw Him as a threat to security and the social order. Whatever His message, He was either a trouble-maker, a madman, or an idealistic Jewish reformer ... but then the focus would have been on the God of Israel, not Himself ... as it is, it would seem He saw Himself to be the Messiah ...

Well, this is where we begin to diverge. I agree, up to your final conclusion. What we have are words written by others that *claim* he saw himself as Messiah. Now, I understand this reasoning can become fraught with difficulties, and knowing quite where to draw the lines is one of the biggest difficulties. But in this instance I think it is reasonable to leave the shadow of doubt that it may not have been Jesus pointing to himself...that may have been added later to embellish the mythos.

It doesn't upset me. The Wisdom Books of the Catholic Canon, written just prior to Christ, show a remarkable degree of speculation and Hebrew/Hellenic cross-fertilisation.

That would be...Saruch? Any others?

John's Gospel was always regarded as heavily Hellenic/gnostic ... now we know it is steeped in 1st Century Rabinnic speculation ... very Jewish, not gnostic at all.

I don't know enough about the Gnostics to speak with anything resembling understanding. They seem to me a fringe group enamoured with minutiae and ever seeking some elusive...mystery? Forgive my ignorance, but I do believe there is a point beyond which further tail chasing is limited to one's personal amusement, and does nothing to further one along the path towards the goal of at*one*ment with the Father. As Solomon teaches us, of the making of many books there is no end. All is vanity.

Having said that, I do sense truth in what you say here by virtue of the existence of the Septuigent translation. I have heard many arguments in both directions as to how familiar and conversant the typical Jew of the day was with the Greek language, some suggesting Paul's familiarity with that language was a fluke and not the norm. I am inclined to disagree, and the Septuigent is a large part of the evidence I base that disagreement on. Outside of Judaism a Jewish sacred text would be a curiosity at best, certainly not a best-seller. Considering the cost and effort to hand copy scrolls, the Septuigent would hardly be a worthwhile undertaking without a sizeable clientele, which suggests to me in pretty strong terms that Greek must have been a reasonably well understood language among the Jews of that era. Not to seem stereotypical, but I seem to recall Greek being the language of commerce in that region at that time...and Jews are famous for their commerce.

Ever the caveats...what seems strange to me is the dearth of New Testament texts in Hebrew. I have heard there are (were?) some in Aramaic that survived into modern times among the Armenians and others in the East.

Christ, and the authors of Scripture, would employ the language of the day to make their point ... if the tablet is authentic, then this is just another case of a reference to telegraph the reality of the Incarnation as the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic expectation.

Aside from the fact that the only reference to Jesus actually writing was in the sand, not intended to be durable. Some contend that even that reference may be an addition (pity, it's one of my favorites). Using the language of the day is not really a given...unless the language of the day was Greek? But the tablet is in Hebrew I believe, which would contrast with the NT Gospels and Epistles. I do see places in the text that suggest a popular vernacular, slang if you will, a certain pre-existing understanding between the writer and the reader. I think that helps cloud certain interpretations existing among various denoms today.

If you've time, listen to "In Our Time" on the BBC Radio 4 website. It's a programme discussing Tacitus, the Roman historian ... there's an interesting commentary on how he saw the degeneration of Roman culture in the 1st century AD.

I would probably enjoy it immensely, Tacitus is referred to reasonably often when looking to this era. I doubt I would be able to listen where I am at, bandwidth limits and so forth. Is there a link to a transcript?

I began looking into this subject about 20 years ago, reached a plateau and just didn't carry it any further. Writing this thread has made me go back into some of the material I covered way back when, and now with the internet so many more references are easier to access, so I've been able to flesh out my understanding even more. I remember back when the DSS were finally being made available to general scholarship back in the early '90's, I was so excited to hear of it I went to a lecture at a local college even though I was really out of place and sorts there. Before that time, only those scrolls in the hands of Israel were readily available, those in other hands (who for now will remain nameless) were jealously guarded and hidden from public view for many years. So it really was a momentous occasion. Within a few years I had (still have) my first English translation of those fragments.

What really expanded my grasp here was taking a better account of the Roman history, getting a feel for the context. Rome was in some pretty dire straights of her own after about 100 AD, and other than a few brief moments really didn't recover leading into the demise of the Western half of the Empire (476 AD +/- ?). There was quite a bit of infighting, bordering on civil war apparently, and not a few "barbarian" outsiders willing and ready to take advantage of the situation when opportunities presented themselves. So while Rome was a formidable adversary, just what that meant trended to decrease as time went by.

Perhaps you are correct in that I fail to give enough credit to the theological philosophy between the key "fathers" of that era, but I disagree that politics were not a consideration. The more I consider, I think both of us are choosing colored lenses to view the matter with. Religion and politics are intertwined throughout history, going back at least to the agricultural revolution and walled cities, and leading up to today in many places. The US was a political pioneer in separating church and state, a model that some other "modern" nations have realized and adopted, but that is not the historical norm. We shouldn't try to force modern models onto historic times to ...what?, reinforce our cherished idealisms?

Thank you for your thoughts, Thomas. As ever, I look for your reply.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

I guess what I am trying to say is that there are too many variables to take into consideration for me to agree with this statement.

I would say that, based on the only data we have (Scripture) ... every source regarded Jesus as teaching something 'new' ... a new covenant that surpassed the Law ... so nowhere in Scripture do I see Jesus presented as a Jew, good, bad or indifferent ... but as Someone who surpasses the old dispensation.

Well, this is where we begin to diverge. I agree, up to your final conclusion. What we have are words written by others that *claim* he saw himself as Messiah. Now, I understand this reasoning can become fraught with difficulties, and knowing quite where to draw the lines is one of the biggest difficulties. But in this instance I think it is reasonable to leave the shadow of doubt that it may not have been Jesus pointing to himself...that may have been added later to embellish the mythos.

OK ... but that premise has been undermined considerably as our knowledge and understanding advances. Bultmann was the champion of the position you outline, and argued so forcefully that his name was enough ... but subsequently new developments, new discoveries and new critical thinking has radically undone his argument.

That would be...Saruch? Any others?

Yes.

I don't know enough about the Gnostics to speak with anything resembling understanding.

Their various cosmologies are fundamentally dualist, whereas Hebrew thinking is holistic. 'gnostic Christianity' is an oxymoron ... 'Christian gnosis' is something else.

Perhaps you are correct in that I fail to give enough credit to the theological philosophy between the key "fathers" of that era, but I disagree that politics were not a consideration.

I can agree that politics continually tried to interfere ... but largely unsuccessfully ... politics never managed to silence theological dispute (even when the emperors simply forbad discussion of a topic, it continues ... ), and when imperial support favoured one camp or the other, that did not succeed in determining a winner ... so in the development of theology, I would say politics was a pressure, but was always external with regard to the development of doctrine.

The only example we have is Constantine's request for clarification of one line of the Creed, to make it more definite and dogmatic ... which was done ... and it still left enough room for the Arians to wriggle round it ...
(As I don't think anyone thinks Constantine was a theologian, the request probably stemmed from his ecclesial adviser, Ossius ... who was a bishop.)

An acid test is Egypt, the 'breadbasket of the empire' and absolutely crucial to its continuance. If politics could determine anything, it would be that no schism ever separated Egypt from the Empire ... and yet that happened, and the emperors were powerless to prevent it ...

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

I would say that, based on the only data we have (Scripture) ... every source regarded Jesus as teaching something 'new' ... a new covenant that surpassed the Law ... so nowhere in Scripture do I see Jesus presented as a Jew, good, bad or indifferent ... but as Someone who surpasses the old dispensation.

Then how are we to interpret "I have not come to do away with the law, I have come to fulfill it."?

OK ... but that premise has been undermined considerably as our knowledge and understanding advances. Bultmann was the champion of the position you outline, and argued so forcefully that his name was enough ... but subsequently new developments, new discoveries and new critical thinking has radically undone his argument.

<chuckles to self, once again I wander haphazardly into the realm of previous thinkers>

I've heard the name Bultman, but know next to nothing of his work. My comment was based essentially on stuff bobx has presented here (like the back and forth between he and bananabrain), and general info about redaction.

Like I tried to say, it can become difficult to discern where the lines should be drawn, but it is kinda hard to refute the need for the lines. Experience with you here now, and with others previously, tells me that the lines tend to get drawn by people where those people deem most "politically" appropriate (wherever best promotes their point of view), not necessarily the factual truth. At least I am being honest enough to say I don't know exactly where the lines should be drawn, but I am leaving the possibility because that possibility seems quite reasonable to me in light of other circumstances surrounding the issue.

Their various cosmologies are fundamentally dualist, whereas Hebrew thinking is holistic. 'gnostic Christianity' is an oxymoron ... 'Christian gnosis' is something else.

I'm still lost...I think because I really don't have a context. The problem is that I am not really concerned about the context either. I don't mean any disrespect, but Gnosticism just seems superfluous and inconsequential to me. I suppose if there were someone here to highlight the nuances maybe it would begin to make sense...but as it stands (as far as *me*) it just seems irrelevent.

I can agree that politics continually tried to interfere ... but largely unsuccessfully ... politics never managed to silence theological dispute (even when the emperors simply forbad discussion of a topic, it continues ... ), and when imperial support favoured one camp or the other, that did not succeed in determining a winner ... so in the development of theology, I would say politics was a pressure, but was always external with regard to the development of doctrine.

The only example we have is Constantine's request for clarification of one line of the Creed, to make it more definite and dogmatic ... which was done ... and it still left enough room for the Arians to wriggle round it ...
(As I don't think anyone thinks Constantine was a theologian, the request probably stemmed from his ecclesial adviser, Ossius ... who was a bishop.)

An acid test is Egypt, the 'breadbasket of the empire' and absolutely crucial to its continuance. If politics could determine anything, it would be that no schism ever separated Egypt from the Empire ... and yet that happened, and the emperors were powerless to prevent it ...

I thought Carthage (Libya) was the breadbasket? Regardless, what does one call the powerplay between the competing groups for supremacy and authority over the masses? Not to mention the pure fight for survival when *your* group is on the outs? We don't have duelling preachers duking it out in the streets, throwing prayers and curses at each other. We have officially sanctioned religious bodies either using state armies and force, or justifying the raising of their own military force to compel compliance.

This wasn't as simple as Arius and Athanasius competing in a shouting match debate...it resulted in force of arms, arms supplied by the state. Politics. At root was the imperitive to control the masses. A couple hundred years later that was the reality.