Discussion:
The Quest for the Historical Jesus
(too old to reply)
DKleinecke
2007-09-10 00:03:32 UTC
Permalink
I have just been reading some material by one of those people who
believe that "the historical Jesus" never existed. That is, there
were numerous men named Jesus in Judea in those days but none of them
had any connection with the stories we now tell about Jesus.

I remain convinced that Jesus lived and taught and that he was
crucified under Pontius Pilate (but not necessarily by Pilate
himself). The external sources are scant (mostly Josephus, Tacitus and
Lucian) but consistent and consistent with the Christian accounts (not
all biblical).

However, what passes for Christianity these days, and for the last
almost twenty centuries is not articulated in the early sources. It
may well be implied. Finding those implications and expounding them
is the work of theologians. I am speaking of clear articulation. For
example, the dogma of the Trinity (in the form now understood) might
well be implicit in the New Testament, but it is not articulated until
after 200 CE. I think Tertullian is the first teacher to make it
explicit.

The Catholic church has taken the position that implication is not yet
complete and, most likely, never will be complete. The church can
through its Councils and Popes establish new doctrines which were
previously only implicit.

I am unsure about the stance of the Orthodox churches on this matter.
Protestants deny the Catholic position and, generally, close the door
on more doctrinal innovation after some date. Not only do the dates
vary wildly. but there are usually escape hatches for innovations to
be made - but not, of course, called innovations.

Let us try a mental exercise. Suppose all Christian literature after
the lifetime of Augustine of Hippo were lost. Could we reconstruct,
without cheating, the doctrine of your church or other churches you
may be familiar with?

Catholicism - no. The doctrine of purgatory alone prevents that.
Lutheranism? Luther himself might have said yes - but I feel sure
(without much evidence) that more has been added. And so on through
all the varieties of Christianity.

Go back a century and eradicate everything after the moment
Constantine became sole emperor. Then Tertullian and everyone after
him. Then everything outside the New Testament except the Didache and,
from the New Testament, the Pastorals and Second Peter (I am aiming at
100CE).

What this exercise is intended to show is how much of what is believed
in Christianity does not stem from Jesus. In other words - is Jesus's
teaching essential to Christianity? Mightn't we just as well assume
he never existed as a person? Does his role as the atoning sacrifice
really matter? Or is it just a rationalization for his actual
execution?
Matthew Johnson
2007-09-11 02:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
I have just been reading some material by one of those people who
believe that "the historical Jesus" never existed. That is, there
were numerous men named Jesus in Judea in those days but none of them
had any connection with the stories we now tell about Jesus.
[snip]
Post by DKleinecke
Go back a century and eradicate everything after the moment
Constantine became sole emperor. Then Tertullian and everyone after
him. Then everything outside the New Testament except the Didache and,
from the New Testament, the Pastorals and Second Peter (I am aiming at
100CE).
What this exercise is intended to show is how much of what is believed
in Christianity does not stem from Jesus.
That was its intent? I never would have guessed, because it fell VERY far short
of that goal.
Post by DKleinecke
In other words - is Jesus's
teaching essential to Christianity?
Of course it is.
Post by DKleinecke
Mightn't we just as well assume
he never existed as a person?
Such an assumption is completely incompatible with Christianity. Remember, for
example, tne Nicene Creed, or even the Apostle's Creed.
Post by DKleinecke
Does his role as the atoning sacrifice
really matter?
Of course it matters.
Post by DKleinecke
Or is it just a rationalization for his actual
execution?
Of course not. WHy, that you could even pose the question shows how far you are
from the Gospels: for John made it quite clear that Christ _chose_ to die for
the salvation of mankind, nobody _took His life from Him.

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay
it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my
Father."
(Joh 10:18)
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Terence Nesbit
2007-09-11 02:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
I have just been reading some material by one of those people who
believe that "the historical Jesus" never existed. That is, there
were numerous men named Jesus in Judea in those days but none of them
had any connection with the stories we now tell about Jesus.
I remain convinced that Jesus lived and taught and that he was
crucified under Pontius Pilate (but not necessarily by Pilate
himself). The external sources are scant (mostly Josephus, Tacitus and
Lucian) but consistent and consistent with the Christian accounts (not
all biblical).
...

How would you prove that Jesus actually existed? Most trials, especially
those where the guilty was actually exonerated, would not have a record,
would they? (Pilate did actually find no fault with Jesus.) I am not
saying that I don't believe, I am saying that I am just wondering about
external sources of proof.
Jesus' teachings are important to salvation. I don't believe that the Bible
would change if you went back in time. John kept a record of Jesus' acts,
which is why his writing style is so historical. I don't believe that much
of the books written by the Apostles would change. The books that are
letters from Apostles would not alter anything either. This is just my take
on things.
Denis Giron
2007-09-12 02:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Let us try a mental exercise. Suppose all Christian literature after
the lifetime of Augustine of Hippo were lost. Could we reconstruct,
without cheating, the doctrine of your church or other churches you
may be familiar with?
Catholicism - no. The doctrine of purgatory alone prevents that.
Actually, if I am not mistaken, while Augustine did not lay out an
explicit doctrine of purgatory, his understanding of Matthew 12:32 put
forth a doctrine roughly similar. Now, an Orthodox Christian might
rightly object to this connection, but it must at least be admitted
that, from the view taken by Evangelical Protestants, Augustine does
seem to be pushing something "purgatory-esque".

And why do you say "purgatory alone"? If we are talking about
Christianity before the death of Augustine, a doctrine like the
Trinity was well established. Even a distinctly Roman Catholic
doctrine, like some of the doctrines regarding the Pope (e.g. that
Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built, that Peter was the
head of the apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome sits in the chair of
Peter), could be constructed from the available texts.
Post by DKleinecke
Lutheranism? Luther himself might have said yes - but I feel sure
(without much evidence) that more has been added.
Well, Lutheranism, like all subsequent Protestant movements, claims
the Bible as its sole authority. All the texts of Luther's Bible were
available by the time of Augustine. So the tools they use in
attempting to back up their doctrines would remain the same.
Post by DKleinecke
Go back a century and eradicate everything after the moment
Constantine became sole emperor. Then Tertullian and everyone after
him. Then everything outside the New Testament except the Didache and,
from the New Testament, the Pastorals and Second Peter (I am aiming at
100CE).
Sticking even only with New Testament texts from before 100 CE (e.g.
the gospels and the writings of Paul), you still can get a number of
distinctly Christian doctrines which might not have been explicitly
stated by Jesus in the quotes attributed to him. This includes the
Trinity.
Post by DKleinecke
What this exercise is intended to show is how much of
what is believed in Christianity does not stem from Jesus.
Perhaps, what you should argue is that we reduce our source texts to
only the quotes attributed to Jesus in the synoptics (or even just the
hypothetical Q-source), then a lot of doctrines of the broad spectrum
of Christianity (whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) would be
difficult to justify. But which doctrines do you have in mind?

For example, let me work within your thought experiment, and
presuppose that the words attributed to Jesus in the synoptics are all
true, and no other source can be employed save for the Hebrew Bible
(i.e. I'll even scarp the Deuterocanonicals!) and the synoptics.
Before I begin, allow me to recall the famous and oft-quoted passage
from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, where it is said regarding Jesus:

"[L]et us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a
great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did
not intend to."

Ironically, justification for this sentiment can be found in a verse
which is often called to witness by those attempting to discredit the
doctrine of the divinity of Jesus: Mark 10:18. It is there that Jesus
lays out a very simple proposition: "Only God is good," which can be
understood as logically implying the following biconditional
proposition: "Jesus is good if, and only if, he is God." So it is
indeed true that the words of Jesus do not leave the option of
declarimg him a good teacher who was a mere mortal.

Far more valuable is the 12th chapter of Mark. First there is the
parable of the vineyard in Mark 12:1-8. It is clear that Jesus is, in
a rather subtle way, describing himself as the son of God. Later on in
the chapter (Mark 12:35-37), Jesus describes himself as not merely
being a descendant of David, but rather as David's Lord. In between
these two passages (cf. Mark 12:29), Jesus declares Deuteronomy 6:4 to
be the greatest commandment (which seems to be a clear endorsement of
Monotheism).

Then, in Mark 14:62, Jesus explicitly accepts the title of "son of
God". From that alone it follows that if Jesus is the son of God, then
God is, in some sense, the Father of Jesus, and Matthew is replete
with references to a divine Father in heaven. More interesting,
however, is that Jesus explicitly connects himself with the Song of
Man figure in Daniel 7. As was noted elsewhere by me...

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/abukhamr?p=1

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=125682309&blogID=197268765

...Daniel 7:14 makes it clear that this figure is to be worshipped by
men from all nations.

Most interesting of all, however, is the formula of triadic
coordination explicitly put forth in Matthew 28:19, where the
disciples are told to baptize not merely in the name of God, but
rather "in the name [singular] of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit".

Thus, from the above we can derive the following doctrines from the
words of Jesus:

(1) There is only one God.

(2) Jesus is the son of God.

(3) Jesus is the Lord of King David.

(4) The Father is God in some sense.

(5) Jesus is to be worshipped by all men.

(6) In the baptismal formula, the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the same
breath as the Father and the Son, and they all fall under a single
name.

What we see is that at least two, and possibly three, divine beings
are discussed, yet there is only one God. Such propositions combine to
form a doctrine of a multipersonal Godhead, not unlike the doctrine of
the Trinity. While the doctrine is not explicitly stated, it is still
obvious that even the earliest texts of the New Testament have Jesus
making a series of statements that, if put together, imply a doctrine
similar to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Matthew Johnson
2007-09-13 00:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denis Giron
Post by DKleinecke
Let us try a mental exercise. Suppose all Christian literature after
the lifetime of Augustine of Hippo were lost. Could we reconstruct,
without cheating, the doctrine of your church or other churches you
may be familiar with?
Catholicism - no. The doctrine of purgatory alone prevents that.
Actually, if I am not mistaken, while Augustine did not lay out an
explicit doctrine of purgatory, his understanding of Matthew 12:32 put
forth a doctrine roughly similar.
A reference would be nice. I can't find this in his 70 Questions on Matthew.
Perhaps you have in mind Sermon 71? But there he seems more concerned with the
issue of what the blasphemy is, I don't see a discussion of when that "in the
future" is.
Post by Denis Giron
Now, an Orthodox Christian might
rightly object to this connection, but it must at least be admitted
that, from the view taken by Evangelical Protestants, Augustine does
seem to be pushing something "purgatory-esque".
Well, so did some Orthodox saints. In particular, I was surprised to learn that
St. Mark of Ephesus, a staunch opponent of the Roman dogma of Purgatory,
nevertheless taught that intercessions for the deceased can raise them from
their place of punishment to Paradise (http://pagez.ru/lsn/0270.php).

But please notice the difference: they did not teach _Purgatory_, they taught
something only a _little_ "purgatory-esque".

[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Zor-El of Argo City
2007-09-17 01:58:34 UTC
Permalink
We can accept the Gospels are basically accurate for this reason: they
were in circulaion (at least Mark, possibly Matthew) by the mid- 50s;
Luke no later han 62 AD or so. At this time there were still people
living who knew first-hand of he events described, and would have
objected loudly if he events were mis-reported.

The Gospel of Luke is rich in historic detail; yet to date not ONE fact
in Luke has been proven false. Indeed, some details (such as the
location of various pools around the temple) once thought fanciful have
since been proven correct.

NUCLEAR POWER: The global warming solution!

----

[This dating is earlier than the concensus. Conservative Christians
often date the synpoptics just before 70. Others typically somewhat
after. Mid 50's is unusual. --clh]
B.G. Kent
2007-09-18 04:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zor-El of Argo City
We can accept the Gospels are basically accurate for this reason: they
were in circulaion (at least Mark, possibly Matthew) by the mid- 50s;
Luke no later han 62 AD or so. At this time there were still people
living who knew first-hand of he events described, and would have
objected loudly if he events were mis-reported.
B - How do you know that they were in circulation in the 50s common era?
Besides that..not everyone could read.
Post by Zor-El of Argo City
The Gospel of Luke is rich in historic detail; yet to date not ONE fact
in Luke has been proven false. Indeed, some details (such as the
location of various pools around the temple) once thought fanciful have
since been proven correct.
B - Hmmm I'll have to check this out again.


Bren
Denis Giron
2007-10-25 01:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Denis Giron
Actually, if I am not mistaken, while Augustine did not lay out an
explicit doctrine of purgatory, his understanding of Matthew 12:32
put forth a doctrine roughly similar.
A reference would be nice.
My apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Before I give the
reference, let me again say that this does not justify purgatory by
Orthodox standards. It is more addressing a doctrine that most
Evangelical Protestants consider ridiculous or unbiblical, and is, by
their standard, purgatory-esque. Here is the quote from City of God,
book XXI, chapter 24:

"As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to
whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the
dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of
the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not
remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it
could not be truly said, 'They shall not be forgiven, neither in this
world, neither in that which is to come.'"

Also, in the 13th chapter of the same book, Augustine speaks against
those who consider all punishments to be "purgatorial," and later in
the chapter he talks of punishments which are temporary rather than
eternal. I confess upfront that I could be reading too much into the
text, but I take that to mean that Augustine considered *some* post-
mortem punishments to be "purgatorial," but I do not mean to imply
that this is necessarily the same as the RC doctrine of purgatory.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Well, so did some Orthodox saints. In particular, I was surprised to learn that
St. Mark of Ephesus, a staunch opponent of the Roman dogma of Purgatory,
nevertheless taught that intercessions for the deceased can raise them from
their place of punishment to Paradise (http://pagez.ru/lsn/0270.php).
But please notice the difference: they did not teach _Purgatory_, they taught
something only a _little_ "purgatory-esque".
Right, hence the reason I offered the clarification I did in my post,
noting that these doctrines are "purgayory-esque" (in the sense that
an Evangelical Protestant would find them too close to the doctrine of
purgatory, though the Orthodox would not consider it such).

But this provides me with an opportunity to ask a question: what
exactly is the Orthodox objection to the Roman Catholic doctrine of
purgatory? Where does the Orthodox[?] doctrine of intercessions for
the deceased raising them from their place of punishment end, and the
RC doctrine of purgatory begin? I have seen on the Orthodox Info
website an article which put a lot of focus on whether the temporary
punishment will involve fire (as Gregory of Nyssa seemed to think),
but I am not certain the Roman Catholic doctrine officially requires
that it involve fire. Aside from that, an Orthodox gentleman I
discussed this with over e-mail offered the objection that in the
Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, patristic support ultimately
took a back seat to logic and philosophy. I look forward to what you
can share on the issue of what exactly the Orthodox objection to the
RC doctrine of purgatory is.

Let me note that I have looked at the divide between Protestantism and
Orthodoxy/Catholicism, and found it easy to sympathize with the later,
but when investigating the divide between Orthodoxy and Roman
Catholicism, I find myself a bit too ignorant and simple at this time
to fully comprehend the disputes. The issue of purgatory is one I am
especially baffled by (perhapse because I started looking at the issue
the way a Protestant might look at it, e.g. prayers for the dead and
post-mortem forgiveness equals purgatory). So I look forward to any
help you can offer (especially in the way of book or website
recommendations).
Matthew Johnson
2007-10-26 03:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denis Giron
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Denis Giron
Actually, if I am not mistaken, while Augustine did not lay out an
explicit doctrine of purgatory, his understanding of Matthew 12:32
put forth a doctrine roughly similar.
A reference would be nice.
My apologies for taking so long to get back to you.
The time it took has got to be a record even for this NG;)
Post by Denis Giron
Before I give the reference, let me again say that this does not
justify purgatory by Orthodox standards.
OK, it is good to see that you realize this. The term
'purgatory-esque' does leave room to be understood either way.
Post by Denis Giron
It is more addressing a doctrine that most Evangelical Protestants
consider ridiculous or unbiblical, and is, by their standard,
purgatory-esque. Here is the quote from City of God, book XXI,
"As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to
whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the
dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of
the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not
remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it
could not be truly said, 'They shall not be forgiven, neither in this
world, neither in that which is to come.'"
'Purgatory-esque' is a pretty good description of that passage. And he
is quite close to St. Mark of Ephesus here. But note one major
difference right away (from the later Roman Catholic doctrine): he
said "acquittal from the punishment of _the eternal_ fire". No
separate fire for Purgatory is mentioned. Instead, it is the same
eternal fire Christ spoke of in the Gospels, which can only be the
fire of hell.

And another difference: the _grounds_ for the 'acquital' and
'remission' is not mentioned. The passage does _not_ say that the
grounds are 'purgatorial', i.e., cleansing. I am assuming that you
know the name 'purgatory' comes from the verb for 'cleansing' in
Latin;)
Post by Denis Giron
Also, in the 13th chapter of the same book, Augustine speaks against
those who consider all punishments to be "purgatorial," and later in
the chapter he talks of punishments which are temporary rather than
eternal. I confess upfront that I could be reading too much into the
text, but I take that to mean that Augustine considered *some* post-
mortem punishments to be "purgatorial," but I do not mean to imply
that this is necessarily the same as the RC doctrine of purgatory.
I think you are reading him mostly correctly in that the punishments
are temporary. But not 'purgatorial', since he doesn't explain _why_
they are temporary, or what is accomplished by them. But he really
does say:

Sed temporarias poenas alii in hac vita tantum, alii post mortem, alii
et nunc et tunc, verum tamen ante iudicium illud severissimum
novissimumque patiuntur. Non autem omnes veniunt in sempiternas
poenas, quae post illud iudicium sunt futurae, qui post mortem
sustinent temporales. Nam quibusdam, quod in isto non remittitur,
remitti in futuro saeculo, id est, ne futuri saeculi aeterno supplicio
puniantur, iam supra diximus.

[fm http://www.augustinus.it/latino/cdd/index2.htm]

Or, for the Latin-deprived;): But some will suffer the temporary
punishments, some in this life only, others after death, others both
now and then, truly however before that most severe Last Judgment will
they suffer them. Not all will come into eternal punishment, which
[punishments] will be in the future, who after death suffer temporary
punishments. For some, who do not receive remission [from sins] in
this life, will receive it in the future age, that is, they will not
be punished with eternal punishment, as we said above.

This is the passage used by St. Mark of Ephesus in
http://pagez.ru/lsn/0264.php to show that St. Augustine supported a
certain idea of temporary punishment for _some_ sinners, but not a
definite, distinct place that could be called 'purgatory', nor that
the punishments were 'purgatorial (cleansing)'.

Yet he didn't go into this passage from Augustine very deeply, using
it mainly to disprove the then Roman claim that 1 Cor 3:15 refers to
Purgatory. He also referred to Chrysostom's commentary on this
verse. If your French is better than your Russian, you can find it in
French translation at
http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/saints/chrysostome/index.htm.

Likewise, it sould be a good idea to look at Chrysostom's commentary
on the other "proof-texts" for Purgatory (and other relevant verses),
ie., 1 Cor 3:11-15, Mat 25:46, John 5:29. Another idea: at
http://www.tcgalaska.com/glt/ I once found bilingual (Greek/English)
texts for the services. If you can find the service for the Kneeling
Prayers on Pentecost (listed on the calendar as Monday Matins), you
can find the prayers St. Mark of Ephesus refers to in English. These
show what we hope for out of the intercessions for the dead.
Post by Denis Giron
Post by Matthew Johnson
Well, so did some Orthodox saints. In particular, I was surprised
to learn that St. Mark of Ephesus, a staunch opponent of the Roman
dogma of Purgatory, nevertheless taught that intercessions for the
deceased can raise them from their place of punishment to Paradise
(http://pagez.ru/lsn/0270.php).
Actually, there are _two_ works by St. Mark on Purgatory at this site:
I gave the URL for the wrong one. I should have given
http://pagez.ru/lsn/0264.php.
Post by Denis Giron
Post by Matthew Johnson
But please notice the difference: they did not teach _Purgatory_,
they taught something only a _little_ "purgatory-esque".
Right, hence the reason I offered the clarification I did in my post,
noting that these doctrines are "purgayory-esque" (in the sense that
an Evangelical Protestant would find them too close to the doctrine
of purgatory, though the Orthodox would not consider it such).
But this provides me with an opportunity to ask a question: what
exactly is the Orthodox objection to the Roman Catholic doctrine of
purgatory?
To answer that, I am going to have to read the rest of
http://pagez.ru/lsn/0264.php more closely, which could take some
time;) But I have been able so summarize the chief objections in this
post.
Post by Denis Giron
Where does the Orthodox[?] doctrine of intercessions for
the deceased raising them from their place of punishment end, and the
RC doctrine of purgatory begin?
In two ways: 1) claiming a specific place for the purging,
'purgatory', separate from hell and 2) claiming that the merits of the
church militant have anything to do with the 'raising'.
Post by Denis Giron
I have seen on the Orthodox Info website an article which put a lot
of focus on whether the temporary punishment will involve fire (as
Gregory of Nyssa seemed to think),
I don't recommend this website. Although I have occasionally found
good material there, I have also found a lot of misleading things
there, too. So I prefer http://www.goarch.org/, for those who only
read English.

As far as I can tell, the people doing that website are not associated
with any canonical jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church. This gives
their work somewhat of a sectarian, schismatic tinge. There are more
reliable sites out there, sites without such a tinge, such as
http://www.goarch.org/.

And indeed, this issue seems to be a perfect case in point. St. Mark's
objection had little or nothing to do with whether or not it was
'fire'. Instead, he was much more concerned about the notion of stored
merits, i.e., people still living accumulating merit by which the
punishments of those in 'purgatory' were shortened. Both Evangelicals
and Orthodox have problems with _this_ idea. I wouldn't be surprised
to find that many modern Catholic thologians reject it too. But I
don't follow them that closely.
Post by Denis Giron
but I am not certain the Roman Catholic doctrine officially requires
that it involve fire.
It might not today, but in the heyday of the disputes between Orthodox
and Roman Catholic, it certainly did.
Post by Denis Giron
Aside from that, an Orthodox gentleman I discussed this with over
e-mail offered the objection that in the Roman Catholic doctrine of
purgatory, patristic support ultimately took a back seat to logic and
philosophy.
?? That is a surprising claim. St. Mark says something different,
namely (comparing intererpretations of 1 Cor 3:15): "do you see, how
superficially your Teachers touch on the sense, and how they do not
penetrate deeply into its sense, as do St. John Chrysostom and the
Theologian (St. Gregory the Theologian), and the other Ecumenical
Luminaries of the Church?"
[fm http://pagez.ru/lsn/0264.php]

I wish I had time to translate this entire page, but of course, that
is not likely to happen any time soon.
Post by Denis Giron
I look forward to what you can share on the issue of what exactly the
Orthodox objection to the RC doctrine of purgatory is.
It is mainly the way 'merits' are handled. But as I already mentioned,
St. Mark of Ephesus also objects to a place separate from hell,
especially if, as some insisted, it is perceived to last after the
Last Judgement.
Post by Denis Giron
Let me note that I have looked at the divide between Protestantism
and Orthodoxy/Catholicism, and found it easy to sympathize with the
later, but when investigating the divide between Orthodoxy and Roman
Catholicism, I find myself a bit too ignorant and simple at this time
to fully comprehend the disputes.
Don't feel too intimidated by this. It _is_ hard to explain,
especially when, as is certainly currently the case, the divide is
heavily colord by a sharp cultural divide between the sphere of
influence of the old Eastern Empire, and that of the Western.

Let me dwell on this point a little bit, since I am sure it is far
from obvious. Despite the widespread homogenization of world culture
due to the spread of the market economy and 'globalization', there is
still a substantial cultural divide between the West on the one hand,
and all the countries that used to be under the influence (or direct
rule) of the Byzantine Empire. This includes most of Europe east of
Prague (but the border is a mess), and also the Eastern Mediterranean.

This is why, for example, the entire Orthodox East greeted the bombing
of Yugoslavia with shock and disbelief (even in Ukraine, which is
quite friendly to the US, they prayed for the deliverance of Serbia
from the "slaves of hell" i.e. NATO troops), while the entire West saw
no other alternative to stop the massive human rights abuses of the
Yugoslav (Serbian) government. This is the cultural divide, enforced
by long dark years of subjugation under Ottoman rule -- (which few in
the West ever experienced) which still keeps surprising us.
Post by Denis Giron
The issue of purgatory is one I am especially baffled by (perhapse
because I started looking at the issue the way a Protestant might
look at it, e.g. prayers for the dead and post-mortem forgiveness
equals purgatory). So I look forward to any help you can offer
(especially in the way of book or website recommendations).
I think part of what is going on here is related to what you just
mentioned: that you easily sympathize with the Orthodox/Catholic when
considering the divide between Protestant and "Orthodox/Catholic", but
see the divide between Orthodox and Catholic harder to understand and
sympathize with. For the difference between Protestant and
"Orthodox/Catholic" concerning _all_ the beliefs concerning death and
judgment is much larger than the difference between Orthodox and
Catholic. But the difference between Orthodox and Catholic, though
important, is subtle. So it is not really surprising that in a world
split much more by the difference between Protestant and Other, the
difference between Orthodox and Catholic looks small, even quibbling.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Burkladies
2007-09-13 00:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
I have just been reading some material by one of those people who
believe that "the historical Jesus" never existed. That is, there
were numerous men named Jesus in Judea in those days but none of them
had any connection with the stories we now tell about Jesus.
Ok. There is evidence to support their theory. However, I think
their theory is based entirely on coinsidence. Are these folks
atheists? Usually atheists will believe this.
The catholic church is about greed and of no consequence.
Loading...