Rome in transition

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Juan

We debate all the time here about the literal versus figurative problem, and how metaphors are frequently taken as literal.

I just want to point out to anyone following along that earlier in this conversation we talked about how there are all sorts of tantalizing bits and hints in the Gospels and other NT material which give little glimpses into the historical landscape of the time without ever having to worry about whether or not the narratives are literal. Arguments along the lines of literal versus figurative seem to have more to do with defending dogmatic lines in the sand than they do with an honest search for objective information.

I feel that I should reiterate that I'm just talking about ideas here. I'm no expert and I am often wrong.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I goofed this up: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's prologue in the Acts of the Apostles?"

It should read: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's epilogue in the Acts of the Apostles?

I am retrded!

Chris

Oh, so you're a retread too? Just like me!

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

almost everything about the imagery we've built up around Paul comes from the Acts story, and the point of the Acts story is to build this legend of the lives and glorious deaths of the Apostles of the Round Table. Paul was worked into that legend. He was shoe horned, posthumously no doubt, into that pantheon of Patriarchs by Luke the Gospelier. That surely suggest politics, but I don't think, like Maccoby, that it suggests control by Paulinist editors of the final shape of the Gospels.

This lends itself though to some of the confusion I referenced: I have long labored under the impression Luke was contemporary with Paul, perhaps even a travelling companion? I agree with your final point here.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I just want to point out to anyone following along that earlier in this conversation we talked about how there are all sorts of tantalizing bits and hints in the Gospels and other NT material which give little glimpses into the historical landscape of the time without ever having to worry about whether or not the narratives are literal. Arguments along the lines of literal versus figurative seem to have more to do with defending dogmatic lines in the sand than they do with an honest search for objective information.

I feel that I should reiterate that I'm just talking about ideas here. I'm no expert and I am often wrong.

No problem on my account, I should make the same or similar disclaimer.

I purposely brought this discussion here so as not to pose an "in-your-face" threat to those who may be offended by the material. It is difficult to grow up with a notion that your beloved sacred text *is* TRUTH (in all caps), only to find out later that there are some really compromising issues of reality that need to be accounted for...if one is seeking truth as reality, rather than the propaganda truth we are spoon fed and cajoled into accepting without question.

I am seriously torn on the whole "Jesus" issue. It's like there are two distinct individuals; Yeshua the renegade rabbi (meant as a compliment), and Jesus the mythological analogue to G-d. Reality and truth become divergent issues. What is real is no longer truth, and what is truth is no longer real. Never the twain shall meet, and there is no clear line of demarcation.

Consequently it is really frustrating trying to interpret what is salvageable as reality, as distinguished from what is "truth."

Does it matter?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am seriously torn on the whole "Jesus" issue. It's like there are two distinct individuals; Yeshua the renegade rabbi (meant as a compliment), and Jesus the mythological analogue to G-d. Reality and truth become divergent issues. What is real is no longer truth, and what is truth is no longer real. Never the twain shall meet, and there is no clear line of demarcation.

Consequently it is really frustrating trying to interpret what is salvageable as reality, as distinguished from what is "truth."

Does it matter?

Maybe you should reconsider whether you really want to ask me that. I whittled down my belief until it disappeared. You don't want to wind up like that do you? Don't be a Chris! Go back...go back!

What's essential? What can you not stand to give up? What is the core essential thing when it comes to Jesus? What role does he need to fill to make it all work for you? I feel dumb because I don't understand the point of the whole savior thing. I thought I did at several points, but I realized later that I was just repeating stuff that I'd heard. I like the logos idea. I like the philosophical import of the Golden Rule. But none of that stuff requires Jesus to be anything more than a metaphor. I dunno Juan. If you figure it out let me know.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Oh no, you ain't gettin' off that easy...

[Thomas]

Hi Juan — thought I'd pop over.

Not going to labour through every post ... but maybe jot some notes on those that catch my eye.

By the end of the century, paganism was effectively outlawed , and Christianity was the dominant religion of the state, the army, the elite and the towns ... The bishops reciprocated the favour shown the Church by preaching loyalty to the secular power.

On the first part, I'm not sure — 'effectively outlawed' is not the same as 'outlawed'. As Constantine himself built pagan temples, I think that's over-stating the case. Rather, Christianity received along with others, state acceptance?

An alliance was forged between church and state, and henceforward Roman emperors were represented as the agents of God on Earth, charged with crushing paganism and heresy, with defending Christendom against its enemies.

Overstatement again, as paganism still flourished. The relation between church and state was Scripture based on "render unto Caesar" — a head of the Church never became head of state. So there was no 'alliance' but rather the Church continued to view the state as it has always done.

+++

The story of Christianity’s rise to prominence is a remarkable one, but the traditional story of its progression from a tiny, persecuted religion to the established religion in the medieval West needs some debunking.

OK ... but on both sides ...

Although in the first few centuries AD Christians were prosecuted and punished, often with death, there were also periods when they were more secure.

And the persecutions were often regional and intermittent ... but the risk was ever present. Becoming a Christian was to make a big commitment, as there was no knowing when it might happen 'here'.

Secondly, the rise of Christianity to imperial-sponsored dominance in the fourth and fifth centuries, although surprising, was not without precedent, and its spread hardly as inexorable as contemporary Christians portrayed it.

Why not ... it survived the others, so more inexorable then they, at least.

Well, the Roman empire was in the first few centuries AD expansionist and in its conquests accommodated new cults and philosophies from different cultures, such as the Persian cult of Mithraism, the Egyptian cult of Isis and Neoplatonism, a Greek philosophical religion.

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.

Emperors had historically been hostile or indifferent to Christianity.

I think Constantine was indifferent too, in essence. He was a pragmatist more than a believer. He didn't mind what it taught, as long as we all sing the same song, that's why he called Nicea, to head-off a schism, not out of some profound Christological insight.

The story of Constantine’s conversion has acquired a miraculous quality, which is unsurprising from the point of view of contemporary Christians. They had just emerged from the so-called ‘Great Persecution’ under the emperor Diocletian at the end of the third century.

Understandable ... and the Great Persecution showed that things for Christians were getting worse, not better, so this dilutes the prior assertion somewhat with regard to the Christian's outlook on security. The commentator can't have it both ways.

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

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

Although he immediately declared that Christians and pagans should be allowed to worship freely, and restored property confiscated during persecutions and other lost privileges to the Christians, these measures did not mark a complete shift to a Christian style of rule.

So hardly 'effectively outlawing' paganism ... ?

Many of his actions seemed resolutely pagan. Constantine founded a new city named after himself: Constantinople. Christian writers played up the idea that this was to be a 'new Rome', a fitting Christian capital for a newly Christian empire.
But they had to find ways to explain the embarrassing fact that in this new, supposedly Christian city, Constantine had erected pagan temples and statues.

So pagan religion attained state sanction and support. Not outlawed in any sense, effectively or otherwise, surely? The quote goes on to demonstrate a state ambivalence towards Christianity.

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Juan — thought I'd pop over.

Thank you sir, so glad you could stop by!

Originally Posted by Thomas

Not going to labour through every post ... but maybe jot some notes on those that catch my eye.

Fair enough, I probably spent something like a week just chasing references for this thread.

Originally Posted by Thomas

On the first part, I'm not sure — 'effectively outlawed' is not the same as 'outlawed'. As Constantine himself built pagan temples, I think that's over-stating the case. Rather, Christianity received along with others, state acceptance?

From what I gathered, that state acceptance was sporadic and conditional. I don't know how familiar you are with Constantine's biography, but he grew up in Roman England, and it was with the help of English Christians that he was able to defeat Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in 312 or 313AD. It was as a favor to these English Christians who came to his aid that Christianity received any extensive political pardon to begin with.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Overstatement again, as paganism still flourished. The relation between church and state was Scripture based on "render unto Caesar" — a head of the Church never became head of state. So there was no 'alliance' but rather the Church continued to view the state as it has always done.

Let's not be hasty. Are you suggesting that no Roman Emperor was ever elevated to the status of godhood? I would even dare say that the office in the Vatican now is a two and a half thousand year continuation of the office of the Roman Emperor. Denial would be to deny the entire reign of the Holy Roman Empire beginning with Charlemagne.

+++

Originally Posted by Thomas

OK ... but on both sides ...

Well, that's what we are here to discuss. Frankly, I don't recall using the term "debunk," but I do think the subject deserves fleshing out beyond the pablum traditionally doled out.

Originally Posted by Thomas

And the persecutions were often regional and intermittent ... but the risk was ever present. Becoming a Christian was to make a big commitment, as there was no knowing when it might happen 'here'.

Absolutely, that is the very reason I don't think some of the arguments detracting Paul among others hold any weight. So there is a bit of brinkmanship being played around this issue, frankly I think both sides play up the extremes in order to belittle the opposition. The truth I suspect lies buried in the middle underneath all of the dead bodies left in the aftermath.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Why not ... it survived the others, so more inexorable then they, at least.

I don't recall where this came from, no doubt something I quoted? I would have to view it in the greater context.

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

I disagree. Constantine's "astute political move" was in gratitude for service rendered. Constantine was a military man, raised in a military home. There is a code of honor among military men. What is more, Constantine remained a pagan throughout his life. It is rumored he was baptised a Christian on his death bed, by a priest of the Arian persuasion. Further, the next Emperor was not a Christian either, surely you are familiar with Julian Apostate? Nicea did not demarcate an overnight shift from pagan to Christian. Mithraism did have a considerable sway among the military during the period leading up into Constantine's reign, but it was not a complete sway as noted by the English emissaries (mercenaries?) who followed Constantine.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I think Constantine was indifferent too, in essence. He was a pragmatist more than a believer. He didn't mind what it taught, as long as we all sing the same song, that's why he called Nicea, to head-off a schism, not out of some profound Christological insight.

I am inclined to agree. The nature of the schism however, seems to be where there is some contention. For example, Arius was merely vocalizing *one* POV that existed, there were others who agreed with him who likely out of fear for their lives (gee, why might that be?) tended to remain silent and eventually go along with the crowd. It is important to note that Nicea was not the end of Arius. The Arian belief continued as a political adversary (a bit harsh, but I can think of no better term) for quite some time. It was as I recall almost a hundred years before the "authorized" Catholic church born in Nicea was able to eliminate the Arian opposition.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Understandable ... and the Great Persecution showed that things for Christians were getting worse, not better, so this dilutes the prior assertion somewhat with regard to the Christian's outlook on security. The commentator can't have it both ways.

I'm afraid you lost me, both ways of what? Constantine's conversion *has* taken on a somewhat miraculous quality, at least among those Christians who are even aware and care. Sadly, the history surrounding the birth and infancy of Christianity typically comes in two flavors for Christians: unimportant, or surreal. Either way is disgraceful to say the least.

Originally Posted by Thomas

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?

Originally Posted by Thomas

So hardly 'effectively outlawing' paganism ... ?

Not for quite some time yet. What is more, I don't recall pagans being systematically tortured for public sport by Christians. I would have to dig a bit deeper, but I suspect it was a matter of gift and graft, over time, that if you were not in the club you were not allowed to play. If you wanted to get anywhere in status symbol land, you had to join the big boys club...just like it is today and for all time in between.

Originally Posted by Thomas

So pagan religion attained state sanction and support. Not outlawed in any sense, effectively or otherwise, surely? The quote goes on to demonstrate a state ambivalence towards Christianity.

Thomas

I think we are bouncing back and forth in time here. Paganism was the state religion in Rome from 500 BC on, in 313 AD +/- Christianity was given a political break and official persecutions were ended. I would have to look it up but it was something like another hundred and fifty years before paganism was outlawed and Nicean Catholic Christianity became the only player in town.

This of course for simplicity sake ignores the Eastern Greek Orthodox and the Coptic branches of Christianity, both of whom share pretty much the same official date of birth with Roman Catholism.

Thank you very much for participating Thomas. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

[Thomas]

Hi Juan —

There'll be a bit of cross-posting perhaps ... but I'm still running through the list of posts. This on Augustine:

Augustine ... was briefly entranced by Manicheism during his youth ... Augustine’s Manichee past had a huge influence on the formation of his Christian theology.

Well, was he 'briefly entranced' or 'hugely influenced' by Mani? Again, the author seems to want it both ways ...

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.

(On the next page the author references a 'dispute' highlighted in Dan Browns' DaVinci Code. That space should be accorded to him at all inclines me to toss the lot into the bin.)

Thomas

[Thomas]

The once entrenched idea that early Christian heresies emerged in opposition to some ancient, permanent orthodoxy, is utterly misleading. There were in fact many different competing 'Christianities' in the first few centuries AD.

Well this is quite misleading in itself. It's so general as to be banal.

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.

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 ...

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.

Thomas

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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 ...

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Not saying good or bad, simply stating factual truth.

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

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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

Not mine ... but I take your point.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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!

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

then it troubles me to see just how Pagan modern Christianity really is.

Tell me about it!

+++

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

+++

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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).

+++

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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 ...

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by Thomas

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