Tags
Theology comes out of our encounter with God through Christ. If we have received for whatever reason the Grace that leads us to faith we have, as Struans has emphasised, to reconcile what we have received with what the Christian Church has taught. We are, of course, at liberty to proclaim that the God we have encountered has nothing to do with any Trinity and has told us, personally, what to believe; we can even tell others that he or an angel has given us a fresh revelation in a new book, and we can tell the world we are Christians. That’s a bit like someone who has read a lot about America and watched a lot of movies telling us he’s an American when he’s never been there. In our post-modern world who knows, folk might even believe him; but he’ll not get through at the appointed passport points. Orthodox Christians would say the same about the person claiming personal revelation if it does not chime with that of the Church founded by Jesus, although we might moderate it in humility with the comment that God alone stamps the passports, so to-day. Still, we can say only what we’ve been told, which is that Jesus is the way. We know of no other.
Do I have to understand the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved? No, but I do have to accept that God is a Trinity. Why does that matter? Well, Struans post here expresses one reason very well:
In Trinitarian faith, we believe that this was how it was from the very beginning—God lives and loves as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Right from the very beginning, there is love, personal relationship, and the creation of community.
God is one but the unity of this one God is a ‘koinonia of persons in love’. We understand the persons of the Trinity in relationship to each other and in relationship to us. The mutual giving and receiving of love, uniting each with the other—so they are both differentiated and yet inseparable—filled as nothing else can be with one another.
Made in God’s image, we too are called into relationship with God—with other human beings and with all creation.
That’s what it means, at least in part, to say God is love. The Trinity is a community of love which overflows into creation – and redemption – yes, it is as radical as that. We are the product of the mutual love that is the Trinity, and so powerful, so overwhelming is it that everything we see, including ourselves, is its product. The Trinity loves the products of its love, and in turn, calls us to love Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But so radical is that love that it allows us to reject it and do whatever it is we want.
We cannot know the full reason for the incarnation, but Christians have believed that it was necessary to redeem our flesh. We fell in Adam, we are saved by the new Adam. What one man lost, another retrieved, but did so not by being just man, but also by being at the same time God. Ah, there we go again, how can we reconcile these seeming contradictions? That was the argument which rumbled through the first five Christian centuries, and so good were the results of that God-talk, that it is with us today and informs our modern talk about God.
If you haven’t read through Struans’ postings on theology, do, please, because it nicely demystifies what is crucial to us all – talking about God.
That’s a bit like someone who has read a lot about America and watched a lot of movies telling us he’s an American when he’s never been there.
Certainly there is a degree of efficacy in the statement. I could never claim to be an expert on any country through reading and viewing movies as the quote avers. Fortunately, however, America is unique. America is more of an idea than a geographic place. All non Americans who champion the ideas of Thomas Jefferson are in essence , Americans.
LikeLike
Not to mention that In Obama’s America, you don’t need a passport to get in. Just become an illegal alien and you’ll not only not be deported, you will gain a protected status that includes, food stamps, healthcare, welfare, and preferential treatment and financial helps if you want to go to college. They may not really be Americans but they get more of the toys from Santa Clause than those who earned or worked for the privilege of calling themselves Americans.
LikeLike
Servus I thought that the term ‘illegal alien’ had been declared politically incorrect and that you were supposed to be referring to them as ‘undocumented’ something or other.
The British prime minister is (too late for 82% of the electorate) trying to modify the free movement of workers with the EEC and the benefits available to those entering UK. The UK has received about a million so far and they are being referred to as ‘benefit tourists’. For which UK is earning from the EEC the description of ‘a nasty nation’. We shall have to see what becomes of the debate.
Being an immigrant and alien in another place I am not in a position to comment further.
LikeLike
You’re right Rob. I was being politically incorrect quite on purpose. 🙂
LikeLike
George V was once described by a critic as ‘alien and uninspiring’; his response was: “i may be uninspiring, but I am not a da–ed alien!’ 🙂
LikeLike
Now if only Obama could state the same thing to us with a straight face. 🙂
LikeLike
Good point, Carl – but it still won;t get me my Green Card 🙂
LikeLike
No, but Servus is right, they’re no longer required, well you might need one, since you speak English and are not a Islamic terrorist
LikeLike
I am also a Christian, so I’d better not try 🙂
LikeLike
Quite a few do self-identify as Christian, although I have doubts they live it as well as you 🙂
LikeLike
I guess I could claim to be an oppressed minority – Yorkshire Baptist 🙂
LikeLike
That’s probably a minority around here, can’t think of one anyway, heck not even many southern Baptists around these parts. 🙂
LikeLike
They will have to let me in then. 🙂
LikeLike
Most likely, besides you (like me) are old enough to be a drag on the economy so they’ll love us 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, if I promise to do no work, I’ll be in, I guess. 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed so, and medicare too. 🙂
LikeLike
Obamacare here I come 🙂
LikeLike
No point coming here for that, Geoffrey, you’ve already got the prototype. It just doesn’t have the fancy (Half-a- billion dollar, non-working) website. And we can’t seem to find Liverpool yet but, we’re working on it. 🙂
LikeLike
So I hear – can we do it? Well, no we can’t, since you ask 🙂
LikeLike
That pretty much sums it up, but as our overlords are finding, “Reality sucks!” 🙂
LikeLike
They will have to redefine that too 🙂
LikeLike
No doubt, they always try, it’s a good thing to be ungovernable, though 🙂
LikeLike
Best way to be. 🙂
LikeLike
We know, King George and Parliament taught us well. 🙂
LikeLike
NEO: I could probably export a large shipment of them to you if you are in need of such. 🙂
LikeLike
My child, one can talk about god till one is blue in the face. But if he isnt in the catholic church. he has not salvation. Thank you Mary for being the Queen of mankind and barring the way to heaven from non catholics. Thank you Mary for teaching the young catholics this. It scares the bejesus out ofthen and into remaining catholic no matter what. Thank you Mary
LikeLike
BTW: It is because of tradition and theology that I do not accept the role of women
LikeLike
Me too 🙂
LikeLike
Sorry, I went to cancel and hit post. To complete the thought of why I do not accept the role of women priests: this is probably the best reason of all:
LikeLike
That is truly horrific!
LikeLike
Yes. We always veiled what was holy and veiled women in church for the same reason. In this case we may have found another reason to do so.
Also, from a human perspective women were to veiled so that men would not be distracted and have their minds turn to the carnal while we were supposed to have our minds on the sublime. In this instance our minds would be on neither: I think we might have a good vision of the horrors of hell though. So it might scare some folks into the faith. 🙂
LikeLike
Scares me 🙂
LikeLike
Me too. What do you bet that if she becomes a bishop she will carry a whip instead of crozier?
I am happy to report that this person is not a Catholic: much to my relief. 🙂
LikeLike
That’s a dead cert, I’d guess 🙂
LikeLike
I understand that she uses a lot of foul language in the Church which I would say didn’t surprise me a bunch. I guess she is ‘doing theology’ her own way. As to whether it is effective I would have to quote the Pope: “Who am I to say?” 🙂
LikeLike
Is she an Episcopalian? Poor Struans, if so.
LikeLike
Well both Neo and Struans won’t be happy. As the article puts it: “It’s a start-up of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, with an “anti-excellence, pro-participation” policy. It meets in the parish hall of an Episcopal church.”
At least she’s not from Yorkshire, so you’re safe. 🙂
LikeLike
She’d not last in these parts 🙂
LikeLike
Well, if you had a local motorcycle gang, she might fit in with them. 🙂
LikeLike
She could sing from their hymn sheet 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed so, I hear she is proficient in four letter words but not much else. 🙂
LikeLike
She has the basics then 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed so and she’d be good in a fight. 🙂
LikeLike
But not the Good Fight 🙂
LikeLike
Well, she does fight dirty which isn’t allowed in the Good Fight. 🙂
LikeLike
Somehow can’t see her getting a congregation in these parts 🙂
LikeLike
She threatens them: they have no other choice except to get beat up. 🙂
LikeLike
I understood that you were focussing on the quality of the interior experience as being the most important aspect of Christian faith.
Far be it from me to bring up images of priests of Rome. Maxima mea culpa!
LikeLike
It is so. However, with the yoke you place on me and others, there can be no criticism whatever or of any kind no matter what consequences we have seen from those who have gone down this path. I suppose I should ignore this and embrace the changes. It does not effect me: so my point is more of grief for those High Church Anglicans who might be looking to a possible mending of fences. Do you really think that this decision will have no effect on that hope for the near future?
LikeLike
Yoke? Am I being obnoxious and oppressive? Do tell me please.
I take it from you that you mean a mending of fences between Anglicanism and Rome in general, and the perceived erection of obstacles by Anglicans.
I don’t agree.
If one wants to talk theology and strikes out what some call Anglican innovations as irreconcilable, then that is a choice that an institution makes.
However, a more sensible step, surely is to look at the whole – i.e. a more catholic understanding of church. Let’s look at some positives:- we have a broad understanding of ‘church’, the episcopacy and of theology – our churches share agreement here – yes, there are those who will point to bells and whistles and claim that they are so important that there is no agreement, but essentially the model of church is almost the same: it is just the ‘umpire’ level issues, as you have termed it, rather well. I am taking a broad view here, let me emphasise.
So, if the see of Peter wishes to see itself as some form of universal see, with a view to the coming into even greater being of a visible church militant – and I believe that it does – then why exclude those with who one differs about the correctness of theology? This is the olive branch reached out by Anglicans to restore to the see of Peter the primacy of honour. Rome cannot have a primacy of power though: Anglicans are conciliar, as are the Orthodox, and there can be no place for powers such as the present Roman arrangements are.
One could add, for those who like to talk in terms of ‘innovations’ and ‘novel’ arrangements, to use the rhetoric of a looking down on the new, that the arrangements of Rome are novel to those of us who take the synodical approach. Of course, nothing is pure and refined, but the broad principle is that Rome has been the innovator in a very important area, and continues to innovate, itself driving wedges between its adherents and others.
Is there no model of church possible where the see of Peter would chair ecumenical councils to include all of our bishops? A pope could still call the shots in the current manner for your Latin Church.
I take issue with your special concern for High Church Anglicans and concern for them. Why take a special concern for them? Surely, the Body of Christ needs to be composed of the whole host of Christian believers? High Church Anglicans already have a home with the Ordinariate, and it is known that there will be some further announcement early next year between pope Francis and the archbishop of Canterbury – of what nature we shall see.
It was good to see the recent moving of Chemin Neuf into Lambeth Palace.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ surely is generous enough to accommodate both of our traditions in one visible Body.
S.
LikeLike
Since the centrality of the Eucharist is absolute in our belief as it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ our Lord who is the center of Christianity itself then I find that innovations or novelty that might render this belief null and void of great consequence. Jessica’s priest received ordination from one who had valid orders and therefore her Eucharist is valid though not licit in the Church: the same as could be said of the Orthodox or the SSPX. Now that is a closeness that will be lost with women priests and bishops. Especially bishops who ordain other priests. There is no reason to expect that Apostlettes can receive ordination and thereby impart that ordination to others. That is a much longer journey to make from where the Anglican Church was in the past.
LikeLike
However, your understanding of aspects of the eucharist in absolute terms is your personal choice to make. Your comment here “There is no reason to expect that Apostlettes can receive ordination and thereby impart that ordination to others.” is plain false: there is reason, even if one thinks it wrong.
S.
LikeLike
Since God left blessings with men in this world to be passed on to others ,since the time of Abraham, there has never been such a transfer recorded in scripture. We can see transferal of blessing with Moses to Joshua, or Elijah to Elisha, or with the election of Judas’s successor. It is what we know and we know nothing else. Yes we can speculate and decide ‘rationally’ that this is not intellectually necessary but for 2000 years of the NT followers we have followed the original plan that God bequeathed. I, for one, do not want to roll the dice on modern man’s speculation on this matter.
LikeLike
I’m puzzled by your comment here: God left blessings with men to be passed onto others since the time of Abraham, yet no such transfer is recorded in the Scriptures – yet you then proceed to list our some.
Perhaps you mean to refer to women not being a source of blessing. Surely that is wrong though. You seem to claim “we know nothing else” as regards to Scriptural evidence, but you are changing the terms of debate. We don’t only have Scripture at all. Only a cursory look at history shows people such as Brigit of Kildare, founded or several nunneries, surely institutions of blessing.
You then change, yet again, the terms of the debate by referring to decisions made ‘rationally’ – i.e. based on reason, as if decisions that you disagree with are based on reason alone.
My friend, once again: please study the course notes I posted: there are many sources of knowledge of the work of God – one doesn’t need to flip between Scripture alone, Tradition alone, and then reason alone, if not at whim, but according to some principles about which I am baffled.
You don’t want to roll the dice on modern mans speculation of 2000 years of NT followers. Good – because that 2000 years can be seen as a series of developments of the faith. I hope that we have agreement there, and that it has not been static. Only a cursory look at the history of Christianity can show the varied nature of its development.
S.
LikeLike
Yes my mind sometimes is on the next sentence though my fingers are still trying to type the last sentence: one of the problems with a loss of agility in my hands as I grow older. 🙂 I was referring to the passing on of blessings from someone to a woman and/or a woman passing on the blessing to another.
Actually I have studied and read your class notes and agree with a great many of them: though so many, you must know that there are some that we would have to discuss and some that I would probably disagree.
As to changing the debate etc., I though that all manner of our knowledge was on the table, reason, tradition (especially age old practices) and theology. That the best point might at one time be made in the realm of reason and another in the realm of tradition or theology does not make the argument invalid. And the same can be said of the points that I might make agains a particular change in theology or practice. Reason is always working within the other two: how else can men make decisions without it.
And we are in agreement that developments have occurred throughout the 2000 years of the NT Church but in the essential, Catholic changes have been more in the realm of further development not in developing a whole new theological system or to introduce a fissure in the body of Theology that has been embraced for many centuries.
LikeLike
I have many a slip of the finger when typing – alas my proof-reading is often below standard, and spelling errors, if not errors of meaning, are evident.
I am glad that we seem to have a lot of agreement on the work of theology, although of course there will be elements of disagreement too.
Reason is part of the workings of theology of course. However, it is in that process where one is to determine the direction that God wills, where many Christians fall foul. This is why I often ask people to look at the more Spirit led process used by some Jesuits and Quakers – the book “Beyond Majority Rule”. It is too, of course, an imperfect process, but it seeks to reduce the elements of reason at work in the individual and in individuals which are motivated outside of Gods will.
One hopes that when bishops gather, their listening is likewise Spirit led and deliberative. To that end, I am not sure that all changes initiated by your church have been so. You say that changes have been more in the realm of further development and not a ‘whole new system’ – but this is rhetoric to serve and end: to label that which is of the other as being apart, as opposed to finding that of God in it.
A fissure requires two cliffs. We have seen much work in your church since Vatican II. Certainly there have been openings up of ecumenical discussion. It must be difficult, and require time, for those in your church to come to terms with lessening the claims of being the only one and true church where the fullness of truth only is to be found. Francis encourages my hope when he calls for your church to be humble. I make no claims for perfection in Anglicanism – but I do see in it the workings that are more authentic for the work of God than your church has created for itself.
S.
LikeLike
I thank you for the answer which I think I mostly agree. I might just add that humility is sometimes witnessed by taking a stance that others disagree with and yet one is convinced by faith is proper answer. In such a case, stubborn (but hopefully, good natured) disagreement must prevail. If not, then we do not truly possess faith even though we have the higher order of spirituality called love (as seen by those without spiritual eyes). Such conformity to something that lies outside of what you consider essential in ones proper understanding of the faith that you belong to is sacrosanct and is worthy of dying for. And real love is shown by that commitment and that concern for the souls of other seekers.
LikeLike
Naughty SF. Anglican bashing again? The tattoed lady shown in the photo is in a Methodist church, not an Episcopal one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/bolz-webers-liberal-foulmouthed-articulation-of-christianity-speaks-to-fed-up-believers/2013/11/03/7139dc24-3cd3-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html
S.
LikeLike
You didn’t get to page 2 of the story. She was speaking at a speaking engagement that she was invited to at the University Methodist Church. The rest is on page 2. Actually, I think if memory serves, the article is 3 pages long. Now please tell Santa that I have not been naught but nice: Christmas is coming. 🙂
LikeLike
OK. It does go on to say Episcopal church hall. Ah well, it must be being hired out. It’s not the sanctuary.
S.
LikeLike
I hope not as well. 🙂
LikeLike
I shall arrange forthwith for Santa to bring you an invitation to the next ordination service for whichever Episcopal Church diocese you reside in. You might be pleasantly surprised. And if you perceive nothing holy going in, just treat it as an art form.
S.
LikeLike
An article concerning the Episcopalian Church in the US, Struans. Note that SC divorced themselves from the established Episcopalian Church which makes the number a bit worse than they actually are.
http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2013/11/19/episcopal-church-of-usa-shows-dramatic-drop/
LikeLike
Yeah, well what’s news? The most irritating thing I can think of is the way many of their clergy, when preaching overseas, open their sermons with: ‘I bring you greetings from the USA, Guatemala, Taiwan, Guam, Mexico …..’ and wherever else they are the Anglican presence. I mean, why bother? I put it down ore as an American habit, the fascination with the international aspects of church, which to non Americans is nothing out of the ordinary. On Nov 21, 2013 8:46 PM, “All Along the Watchtower” wrote:
> Servus Fidelis commented: “An article concerning the Episcopalian > Church in the US, Struans. Note that SC divorced themselves from the > established Episcopalian Church which makes the number a bit worse than > they actually are. http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2013/11/19/episcopal- > “
LikeLike
As we’re sharing news articles, just come across this one: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/18/pope-francis-liberal-bloody-sunday-catholic
OK, it’s the Grauniad, and starts banging on about liberalism etc.. which we all know isn’t how things really are.
However, I wasn’t aware of these Magadlene laundries.
What’s your view of making a break with the past? If your church is to move forward, it seems to me, it needs to cut the cord with these abuses, and with previous statements such as Unam Sanctam.
I don’t understand why not – it just looks daft.
S.
LikeLike
Poor old Moonbat, if I may intrude for a moment. Like most secular Guardianistas, he tries to read a religious man through lenses he understand and end by showing how little he understands. I have written on my ow blog about the Magdalene laundries. GRSS
LikeLike
Her you go Geoff, It sums it up really
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/11/anglicans-no-longer-weird.html
http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/is-pope-francis-really-a-progressive-16164002
LikeLike
Thank you, Mark.
LikeLike
Geoffrey: a Labour voter dissing the idea of progress? Goodness me.
LikeLike
Well it looks like the Anglicans are moving ever closer to their Episcopalian cousins and have erected another wall between themselves and Rome. But then again, if they have women priestesses it doesn’t make sense to deny them the office of Bishop: they had already thrown out tradition in favor of the world court of opinion. Soon they may have trouble writing that Christ is Lord in a document just like the Episcopalians. This is theology on the move for the better I suppose.
I think we Catholics might see another large wave of converts soon who will be jumping from the Titanic known as Anglicanism; just like we did with the Episcopalians here in the states.
LikeLike
As Geoffrey noted, how about reading my notes on theology. Think you’ll find that your lot ought too to be able to fully subscribe to them, albeit with your absolute monarch of a pope on top calling the shots. Your comment of throwing out tradition betrays that you don’t understand what tradition is. The notes will explain, my friend.
It would be a shame if you started down a road of eisegesis: deciding that women priests were wrong and then fitting your theology to that.
S.
LikeLike
As I say, my reasons for this are many and do not exclude tradition, dogma or ability to ordain them. Notwithstanding the inappropriate symbolism of a priest during Mass and the fact that there is a large number of feminist who seem not to care a wit about the faith but about breaking taboos. They are merely agitators for change in a social construct. I do not buy that most have a ‘theological’ motivation. As I say, look at how quickly the Episcopal Church embraced women and homosexuals in their hierarchy and now you need only look at their ‘theological’ documents to see that Christ is no longer appropriately call Lord. The slide may be slow but it does seem to invade those who have traveled this road.
LikeLike
You can have your converts too: we have many RCs coming back.
It’s a shame that you appear to denigrate the Episcopal church out of an apparent knee jerk reactionary stance, rather than seek understanding with fellow Christians.
I believe that your Bishops conference maintains good relationships, or are you making a personal decision to ignore the lead of your bishops?
S.
LikeLike
They are speaking to all faiths, though there was a special hope held out for the Anglican community for a possible reconciliation which which we don’t have with the present Episcopal Church. We are not only receiving individuals from that church, we are receiving entire parishes at this time.
LikeLike
My busybody children, you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I know this may sound bad coming from a priest, but you are my friends and ill share this with you. Theology obviously is my thing. so heres the rub. You all are flapping your gums about females being priests. Are any of you armchair theologians aware that only the Levites were to be priests and that the office of priest was done away with on the cross? There is no priest class in the NT and it even isnt allowed for. Now why do i call myself a priest and my religion is top heavy with men calling themselfs priests? To be honest, its a scam. A roadblock set up by Satan himself. But its a job, and an easy job at that, and the money is limitless. So while you condemn other fake false religions for women priests, go to bed knowing your male priests a frauds also. Sleep tight my little ones.
LikeLike
Re your comment starting: “As I say, my reasons for this are many and do not exclude tradition, dogma or ability to ordain them”
I am sure that you do have your theological views. Splendid that you do.
Let us also be careful not to judge others. There are many who are frustrated by their inabilities to understand others. It is understandable, but to be avoided if possible. I speak of many in the Anglican churches here, as well as RCs – but mostly about external observers, including journalists looking for cheap headlines.
When one cannot understand the other, there is much discord. e.g. “C’mon, that’s just sexist, of course women should be priests”, or “Female priests – these people are secularists intent on entryism to do the Devils work in Christ’s Church”. And similar comments. It is easy to label peoples motivations – but I encourage people to understand the theology of the other. If they cannot articulate themselves there, then let there be criticism there, because they are not listening to God, but to secular issues.
I will say it again: there is good theology and bad: recognising good theology doesn’t mean that one has to agree.
The Lord works in mysterious ways in building the Body.
S.
LikeLike
He does indeed and this is certainly mysterious to me. But we often forget to temper that little saying with the fact that the works of Satan are mysterious as well; som much so that it is termed in theological terms as ‘the mystery of evil.’ Might not one muse about who it is that is behind the movement of one’s thought? You hold to one view while I find the opposite more in line with what has been practiced throughout Christianity for millennia.
LikeLike
“Might not one muse about who it is that is behind the movement of one’s thought? You hold to one view while I find the opposite more in line with what has been practiced throughout Christianity for millennia.”
You seem to presume my views on the Devil. Let us recall that all angels, even fallen ones, are a part of the created order. The Gnostic views otherwise were deemed heretical by the Church.
Yes, to be aware of the Devil is important. Let us not though use the fear that he engenders to impede Truth. That will only advance the work of Satan, not hinder it.
With this in mind, I think you will find that you assure yourself too much about what may have been practiced throughout Christianity for millennia (sic) – the evidence is otherwise.
S.
LikeLike
I see no female priesthood or bishops. Please show them to me. If you find that the office of Deacon is of the same order then we disagree altogether on that. Time will certainly tell us what is from God and what is from the Evil spirits: fruits will be telling. The fruits of Episcopal faith is not looking like they are fit for consumption at the moment.
LikeLike
I am aware that you see none.
I am heartened by your hope for clarity in the future. To talk in such cautious, yet expectant terms of the work of God is good. It is where absolutes are held outside of the creedal faith of the Church that problems arise.
S.
LikeLike
Creedal faith is of course of a higher order as is the Gospels of a higher order than the rest of the books of the NT. However, that does not make of the rest of scripture to be without authority and merit as are constant beliefs held by Christians in Holy Tradition.
LikeLike
Indeed, and I don’t believe that I have ever denied that attention is to be paid to such – the notes on theology that I have shared surely make this clear. There are many sources of professed authorship by the great author beyond our understanding. Let us not erect false idols of absolute authority beyond that which the church has agreed in ecumenical council.
S.
LikeLike
I don’t believe we have erected false idols, Struans. I think you will find that most of what is considered absolute authority has great importance in regard to our essential beliefs concerning the sacraments and for our desire to help all men get to Heaven. In what you see as sinister I see as gratuitous to souls who are hungering for guidance.
LikeLike
I don’t think I would like to claim Rome as sinister, my friend.
It is rather that by setting out so many apparent certainties, this limits the stirrings of God in whose image each of us is made, howsoever imperfectly. This limitation is a bar on the work of God by humans – that can never be a good thing. Your church has no mechanism for the implementation of new revelation of God which might be contrary to that which it has already set out at absolute – this is a problem inherent where absolutes are declared in defence of a creation of humans, which will always be defective.
S.
LikeLike
As I mentioned before, having a way of overturning an absolute makes interior spirituality stand on quick sand rather than bedrock They are either a foundation which is to be used to erect our own spiritual edifice or we have deluded thousands of Saints who have used this foundation to erect good and holy lives. And in the meantime while we are deciding which things we are to eliminate and which things we are going to add no personal edifice can possibly erected with any certainty or hope that we can finish the building. That makes one who want to be a builder a foolish builder who has not made provision for everything needed to erect the edifice.
LikeLike
Well, I don’t necessarily disagree. However, what has the Church determined together? Even the ecumenical councils are not necessarily absolute: look at them, which evidence changes in ideas around Christology, for one.
Certainly, I doubt one part of the Church that has decided to build itself up on a model of a medieval European court, with certainties to match – where some apparently absolute claims, Unam Sanctam, were based on distorted views deriving from forged documents such as the ‘Donation of Contstantine’ claim.
Let us consider what is more foolish there.
There is no quicksand, let me add. One has full faith in our one triune God – Christian hope is thus.
S.
P.S. Have I answered all of the comments? It’s getting very difficult to track them all.
LikeLike
Indeed you have, Struans, you are about as prolific at going back and forth as Geoffrey and I when we get going.
I think that you understand that most of us see Unam Sanctam as an historical reality that was being addressed and has absolutely nothing to do with what most serious Christians are concerned with: our own transformation in Christ.
Also, many of the questions that were asked of the Church and consequently answered by the Church had to do with things that impact our Spiritual Journey. It is nice to say that it is Christ alone: as it is. But the careful analysis and direction given by the Church for the Spiritual Life is indispensable. Sure, it is possible for a soul to make the journey and not run into difficulties but those individuals are few. Most, even most of our most celebrated Saints got some stuff wrong; straightened out their course and succeeded in their heroic gift of self to Christ, His Church and to God’s Children; ministering to the disadvantaged, the heartbroken, those without hope, faith, or love etc. So if, as we as a matter of faith believe, the Eucharist is our food for the Spiritual Journey, it would be devastating if we were in doubt about it or the validity of it (say by the ordaining of women) or for whatever reason. The same could be said of the Sacrament of Baptism, Reconciliation (Confession), or Ordination (as we would have no valid priests to consecrate the bread and wine). Essentials can’t be toyed with, without disastrous consequences to our spiritual lives.
LikeLike
Re Unam Sanctam, yes of course you are right. However, this is one reason why I hope for clarity on the status of Vatican pronouncements.
As mentioned a few days back, it seems that the real cafeteria within your church isn’t just putting on the tray the foods one likes (akin to selection of teachings one finds favour with), but rather to take all of the teachings on board – to fill ones tray with all of the menu, but then only to consume those parts that one likes because the others are ‘past their consumption date’.
Re Spiritual Journey – you are right again – and there is an enormous amount in your church that is wise and good.
Re spiritual food for the journey: but where is there doubt, unless one wants to see it? The Orthodox, whom your church places greater recognition of, have a slightly different eucharistic theology to that of your Latin Church. The drama of the liturgy is only diminished if one makes a personal decision to see it thus. The consecration of the elements is by the epiclisis – the work of the Holy Spirit – is not just through a priest, but through the whole of the gathered community.
The sacraments are where, as you will know, an outward sign is the imparting of an inward grace from the Lord. Perhaps now is the time for this blog to move onto discussion of sacramental theology, including that of the eucharist – I would find that a good and interesting discussion.
S.
LikeLike
It might be a good time to do that Struans and it could be very interesting. For in my Churches theology, blessings and the calling down of the Holy Spirit during the epiclesis is of course part and parcel to the Eucharist. But the priest is integral due to his role and to the indelible mark He received on His soul through ordination in this ritual. Just as we believe we cannot change the species being consecrated from the type that Christ used: unleavened bread, naturally fermented wine and the repetition of the same verbal formula as Christ taught us. It is similar to Baptism. If I were Baptize in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier (to please the feminists by using masculine terms) would the Baptism be valid? Our Church was only told to do this in the words our Savior gave us and we are not at liberty to change them. We can speculate as to whether or not God might accept such a formula, but this has been the faith and should continue to be the faith.
LikeLike
“the priest is integral due to his role” – but what role is that in the eucharist…..it would be very good to explore this more.
As I have noted with a recent to and fro with C, the terms Father and Son are symbolising what God is like – as seen in the credal formulae that the Church has defined. We are not to deduce that God is sexed from humans using them, nor that that sex is male. Sexuality itself is a part of the created order.
Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine: issues of sex are surely matters of humanity, and not matters of the divine nature to which we are all called.
S.
LikeLike
Apparently, Christ did not get the message when He spoke of God the Father and of Himself as the Son. Go ye therefore and baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If He was God, as we believe Him to be, He was aware of the controversies to come and yet He did not add . . . or something equivalent could be said. It is a command from Christ and I accept it as I do the fact that only men were used to celebrate the first liturgies. I don’t know the mind of God and theology will not clear this particular argument for us, not reason. All I can honestly attest to is that if we do it as He said to do it and imitate what He did as He did it, then all will be well. That is what I would intend to do. Otherwise I have introduced ambiguity into something that is established both in Scripture and in Tradition.
LikeLike
As I have already had this one out with C, I will be brief:-
Jesus as shepherd….indeed Jesus claims that “I am the gate for the sheep” – does this mean that RC priests ought to be out on the hills of Wales – one man and his dog?
Scripture affirms anyway that not all Jesus wanted, the church has to subscribe to – He wanted Torah kept, and the Church said otherwise.
Take a look at me and C having it out here: https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/anglican-attitudes/
Re the introduction of ambiguity into something established? This looks like you smuggling in absolute certainties when the Church has not established them. 🙂
S.
LikeLike
I consider 2000 years of practice as something pretty well established by its implicit conformity. 🙂
LikeLike
Roman liturgies are revised more often than that: hardly convincing. In any event, conciliar church government has 2000 years of history so why aren’t you quite so keen there? S.
LikeLike
Because neither of them did anything to the foundational beliefs of our Religions.
LikeLike
I think not. You’re in the cafeteria again, picking and choosing what you think is ‘foundational’.
S.
LikeLike
The Sacramental and Spiritual is foundational and all that they rest upon.
LikeLike
OK, so what do you mean by that: do you mean ‘the idea of the Holy’, or, perhaps, that which is eternal?
S.
LikeLike
I mean by that, that metaphorically many changes in Form and Fit are possible as long as they do not destroy Function.
LikeLike
OK, so I think we’re in agreement if by this you mean that the Truth that is communicated by sign (as well as by word) is not destroyed.
Which of course goes back, in the case of the eucharist, to whether destruction would take place if the epiclesis is initiated, not just by a human who is not Jesus, but by a human who is not Jesus isn’t of a particular way, sexually, that Jesus is presumed by many to have been. Of course, such human initiation will be done today by a sinner, as all humans (priests and popes too, as Francis has rightly reminded us all) are sinners.
So, at some point later, let us hope that there will be discussion about eucharistic theology, and indeed, other sacramental theology.
S.
LikeLike
Yes, that is a good approximation of joint agreement; though you reduce the teaching via the history of the sacraments from the OT through to the Church today, as optional and changeable whereas the Catholic Church went ‘on-record’ to codify the practice as essential to our belief and the validity of the sacraments. I think that is commendable whilst you think that is something modern man should see in a new light due to the context of modern social norms.
Perhaps a discussion along these lines will open up more discussion with more voices from across the spectrum to help us understand one another’s positions better.
LikeLike
Well, maybe. However, would you agree that all theology is contextual?
It is not that humans will attempt to see afresh the Truth in Jesus Christ, but rather that recognising that it has always been thus. So that is hardly to be dismissed as change.
I think discussion about sacramental theology will be interesting. It is a subject where I perceive Geoffrey will have very different views to the two of us, although, of course, we will not fully agree either.
The Truth that is the Word is not just carried via the Word in Scripture, but by the Word in sign, transmitted by Tradition.
It will be helpful for me though, if we are to go over this ground, which I hope, if you can tell me where I can read where your church has been ‘on record’ on this matter, as you put it. Just to do my homework!
Thanks, as ever.
S.
LikeLike
I would start with a reading of each of the Sacraments in the CCC. The Sacrament of Ordination is important since they are the normal ministers of these Sacraments (except in marriage where they are witnesses). However we do believe all Sacraments are ordered in some way to the Eucharist. And the character (the indelible mark on the soul) that is given the priest in ordination is of great importance: “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” Theological descriptions of the indescribable privilege given to us that is not unlike that of the Baptized soul. There of course are other works and modern writers that might be helpful as well.
As to all Theology being contextual I would need to know exactly how that is meant. I see the 10 Commandments of God as Revealed Theology as I do the Beatitudes etc. The revelation side is not delivered in context: but we do tend to expound a meaning and to widen our understanding of the meanings to fit every age and every culture. But never would say that it no longer means what it clearly says. So application into new areas of life and new areas of thought are always possible. And yes, I agree that symbol and ritual are important ways to not only transmit faith and tradition but can also help suspend time itself for the devout and allow them to glimpse a timeless Reality more real that our own. It can be the point where Heaven and Earth meet when done with great attention and reverence.
LikeLike
Struans, perhaps this would be a document that would help you understand our position: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
LikeLike
Thanks for this, but I rather was hoping that you would be able to point out the definitive RC view. The CCC is a summary, so I believe. That’s what I imagined that you meant by ‘on record’. The nature of the priesthood, including Melchizedek, can be examined indeed.
Re ten commandments, yes, this is certainly revelation, and within Scripture it is expounded twice, which shows at least a re-presentation of the law. So I find favour with much of your second paragraph. Indeed, at the risk of Bosco banging on about bowing down to graven images, your church has demonstrated a somewhat creative interpretation there, with earthly representation of the saints in heaven.
At some point I may launch into a discussion about sacramental theology – unless someone else gets there first. However, I have an essay to finish in my limited time in my day for religious talk. This blog is too addictive! 🙂
S.
LikeLike
Father Bosco is correct.
Spectacles, etc ….
JCMS
LikeLike
Jock – if, like me, you have your reservations about the church of Rome, it doesn’t mean that you cannot participate in the sign of the cross. Certainly a lot of churches are cross-shaped to symbolise the people being on the cross. However, do what I do – do it the Orthodox way. i.e the cross bar is the other way around. Spectacles….T……Watch and Wallet!
S.
LikeLike
I know, I’m hooked on it as well. 🙂
LikeLike
I’ll make a deal with myself. No more commenting on this blog for three days. Then I might be resurrected. I’ve got other things to do!
Thanks for being so understanding and for being my confessor in this regard 🙂
S.
LikeLike
Always my pleasure, Struans. I enjoy the conversations. 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you Geoffrey for your kind words.
I do hope that we can see less of the kind of fitting theology to ones personal views on this blog. That includes by RCs who take a lazy view that this church is always right and quote something some pope or other has said: BUT we have yet to head from RCs about the status of papal pronouncements: much fewer, it would seem, have definitive status, than would at first hand seem to be the case. That’s
LikeLike
.my understanding from recent discussions with SF and C: the rest is just opinion I guess,albeit from the monarch of a church and a postage stamped size state.
LikeLike
A bit cheeky to call the Pope a monarch, is it not, Struans. That is not how he is viewed by any Catholic. But he does have an honored position which makes his pronouncements of great interest to those who in the Church who actually care. Most are his opinions, but they are respected if for no other reason than the office he was occupies. When speaking ex-cathedra that is where the authority is truly exercised and that is rare. However, we still as Church allow him to set the course of our Church in this world: but that is usually done in practical matters not binding matters.
LikeLike
Cheeky? Well, apologies from me if they are due. I mean no disrespect to the see of Peter. It is just that I wished to emphasise that he seems to be symbolic of sovereignty – in this case, he is presented as the representative of the sovereignty of the Kingdom of God on earth. That is to say, what he says is of much interest, yes, due to the office, even though – like with republicans – one may not always agree with the nature and role of the office.
I really would like to get a better handle on the exact advisory status or dogmatic status of Vatican pronouncements – including half-life. It would improve understanding Rome no end, I suspect.
S.
LikeLike
I see the similarity of the writings of Popes as perhaps analogous to the Jewish regard for the Talmud and the Midrash and find them helpful in their understanding and to the deeper meanings contained in the Torah. The Talmud is oral tradition and the Midrash is the writings of many holy rabbis. In some way they are very similar. They didn’t produce a list of one-liners they produce great volumes of writings which the Church possesses as well. We are list makers, I fear, we are thinkers who preserve the theological understanding of our Popes, Saints and Orthodox Theologians.
LikeLike
Well, yes indeed – we are list makers and keepers of the thoughts of those gone before us. Indeed that is good. Thank goodness for the growth of those excellent universities of Oxford and Cambridge in the last 500 years or so. Indeed, throughout the whole English speaking world, and elsewhere. Such a shame that some have resorted to destruction of texts: recently in Germany, but also the library at Constantinople tragically was destroyed – containing we shall know not exactly what.
S.
LikeLike
Struans my child, i saw the pic of the female priests my son Servus put up. Now he and my child Jeff make fun of your religion for having lesbian priests. Tell me my son, do you spot the humor in that? My beloved catholic pure and white church is sitting on a mountain of homosexual priests and a totally lesbian corps of nuns. Yet he wants to throw stones at the Anglicans. This ought to show what metal these guys are made of. Go in peace.
LikeLike
Father Bosco – that was no woman.
Spectacles, etc ….
JCMS
LikeLike
Cardinal, what was that if it wasnt a broad? Good heavens. The Anglicans are catching up with us catholics in the weirdness factor,. Thank you Cardinal.
LikeLike
I am curious. I have been studying Trinitarian development, and no one seems to comment on, or even be disturbed by the clear departure of Christianity from a Semitic faith based in Asia Minor and the Levant, to a more Greek philosophical faith based in what was then the Western Mediterranean. This is evident in the philosophical arguments under the various councils, and is hardly secret, but is often not understood.
For a religion that is based on the God of Abraham and Isaac, Christianity turned instead of pagan philosophical models to explain God, instead becoming the God of Plato and Aristotle.
LikeLike
Maybe because we’re talking theology, not religious studies ?
Not too sure that a particular philosophy is taboo just because it doesn’t originate with Christians.
S.
LikeLike
Struans,
I think the fellow may have a good observation, which may help contribute to the train of thought ‘Where it all went horribly wrong for Roman Catholicism’.
The Catholic Scholastic thinking does seem to take its inspiration from Greek philosophy, much more so than from Hebrew thinking.
I don’t have the necessary background to comment further on this.
Spectacles, etc …..
JCMS
LikeLike
Don’t think so Jock. The issue with scholastics is that it assumes that one can get answers of an ultimate nature with limited inputs. It’s not that some of the inputs were aspects of Greek philosophy. Scholastics became popular with Aristotle’s rediscovery in the west, but nevertheless, it’s not that all of Aristotle’s work was off limits, but that humans chose to think that they could derive specifics of the divine.
Just because some thinking is Hebrew in origin doesn’t make it good in itself anyway.
Re-read my notes on theology pal 🙂
S.
LikeLike
You seem to misunderstand the point. The Trinitarian development process and arguments would be incomprehensible to religious thought in the Near East. Jews, and follow on Muslims who are incredibly similar to Jews in theological practice, find Trinitarian thought absurd precisely because their traditions both arise from the same region and theological mindset.
A second year philosophy undergrad, however, would be quite at home with the Trinitarian thought, since it arises from Western philosophical roots.
Simply put, without Greek philosophy, the Trinity as it is widely practiced, would not exist. It can only be explained by using thought that has no basis in the Near East. If we were to limit our theological development to the Near East only, a Social Trinity would exist, but not the Nicene formulation.
This conflict is largely ignored by those who are aware of it, and the vast majority have never stopped to consider why Plato is necessary to explain God, far more so than Isaiah.
LikeLike
I don’t misunderstand it, I dispute your premise. Alexandrian Jews and Jews in Gelilee of the Gentiles were very famiiar with the osrt of thinking which contributed to the development of the Trinity; what is your evidence for presuming and asserting otherwise?
The fact is that the idea is not an idea, it arose from the evidence of the NT and the Spirit-filled Church.
The notion that it is solely Greek philosophy was once popular, but as more recent work by Bauckham and Hurtado show, the sort of fire-wall you seem to assume between Semitic thought (whatever that might be) and Greek thought is an artificial construct.
Platonic thought was very familiar to Jews across the region, and the notion of one-way traffic ignores the Wisdom literature of the OT. There in interpentration of thought here, not a form of cultural imperialism. Hurtado’s ‘How on earth did Jesus become a God?’ is very good on all of this and explains it far better than a short comment from me. GRSS
LikeLike
No – you don’t need Plato to develop ‘Trinitarian’ thought. You do, however, need John’s gospel, which was thoroughly Jewish and Palestinian.
LikeLike
I understand the point well enough. Why are you making it? To that extent, I don’t understand your point. For interest’s take seems to me to be the only reason.
S.
LikeLike
sake
LikeLike
John’s Gospel is quite Platonised – as Geoffrey ably says, there wasn’t a firewall of thinking either. The Gospels were written in Greek, after all.
As Geoffrey clearly has read some books on this though, I’ll let him follow through on this one.
S.
LikeLike
Well, several things…
“Alexandrian Jews and Jews in Galilee of the Gentiles were very familiar with the sort of thinking which contributed to the development of the Trinity”
You are still ignoring the error in your argument. You say “were very familiar with…” as if familiarity provides justification and acceptance. I am extremely familiar with any number of things, Buddhism for example. If I use significant Buddhist principles, however, a philosophy that is vary Far Eastern and has little relationship with a Semitic and Near Eastern faith, to elaborate on and develop principles for that Near Eastern faith, have I not clearly deviated from the Near Eastern and injected a foreign element? Much like a virus recoding the DNA of the host?
As for familiarity, New Yorkers are familiar with and wear cowboy boots and hats, but that does not make them “Country”. Familiarity does not mean they can ride a horse or live like a cowboy. You failed to mention Philo of Alexandria, who wrote the most comprehensive, and only really significant, Jewish/Platonic treatise of the Ancient World, but you would also have to mention that while Philo was adored by some of the more Platonically inclined ECFs, he was completely rejected and ignored in the Levant. If the ECFs, of the West, were entranced with Platonism, the natives of Israel were completely uninterested in what was a synthesis of their beliefs with Platonism. This was and is not an accident, Philo was rejected since his ideas were not in line with the community.
When I say the Trinity is incomprehensible, it is not because they do not know of it, but because it is as foreign as Buddhism would be in the Near East. It is unthinkable that such a philosophy would be congruent with their own.
But, rather than attempt to prove a negative, can you point to an equivalent source of Platonic thinking in Jewish/Levantine thought in the OT, or in the 1st ?
“The Gospels were written in Greek, after all.”
???? No, they were not, at least not Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
LikeLike
You start off with, in the view of many scholars, a simplistic and misleading concept called ‘Semitic and Near Eastern Faith’, which you suppose has no connection with other thought-systems current in that cosmopolitan region. This was a popular, if mistaken view until the 1970s, but since then has come under steady fire from scholars. Why assume Plato and Alexandrian Jewry were somehow separated, or that if there is contact, it is Plato infecting Jewish thought? Why could there not be mutual interpenetration, with some of Plato’s ideas coming from jewish Wisdom literature? Phio is a good example, as it happens, but you signally fail to mention any of the Jewish Wisdom literature. When you say Phio is ignored in the ‘Levant’ do you mean the Syriac tradition? You seem to rule out as ECFs those Jews in Alexandria. Would you call Athanasius and Cyril ‘Western’? Alexandria has a huge influence on the early Church, and since Antioch, more influenced by the non-Alexandrian tradition was also a hotbed of decetism and Nestorianism, I am not sure why one would prefer that tradition to the Alexandrian?
You are assuming that the only influence on the Trinity was Greek thought. Do you have any actual evidence for that? I can’t sum up the evidence of Charles Hill’s ‘The Johannine Corpus in the early Church’ (OUP, 2004) easily, but it demonstrates the wide range of Jewish sources which contributed to JOhannine thought. Where is your evidence that Luke and Mark were not originally written in greek? The only evidence that any Gospel might have been written in Hebrew is a throwaway remark in Papias. I would recommend a course of reading to help if you would like one, but you seem to be relying on very outdated scholarship. GRSS
LikeLike
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/were-any-of-the-gospels-written-in-christs-own-language
As a source
LikeLike
The only evidence for an Aramaic text is Papias. If there ever was such a thing, its circulation was not wide enough for even a trace of it to have survived.
But again, why this assumption that Jesus only spoke Aramaic? Galilee was known as ‘of the Gentiles’ because of its cosmopolitan population. Try Carsten Peter Thiede’s ‘The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus’ (2004) for a pile of evidence. some of which I have summarised is earlier posts on this blog. GRSS
LikeLike
That does not support your assertion about Luke and Mark, and simply quotes one, not very reliable and incomplete source for Matthew. Not impressive scholarship. GRSS
LikeLike
“No – you don’t need Plato to develop ‘Trinitarian’ thought. You do, however, need John’s gospel, which was thoroughly Jewish and Palestinian.”
I think that when one starts from a Trinitarian perspective, and then reads the Gospel of John, then I think it is easy to see linkages.
If one starts from a more strict Hebrew/Near East experience, John comes out very differently.
John can be read any number of different ways, I think the trick is to go with what makes sense for the cultural context.
LikeLike
True, but John was a Jew, and he is drawing on Jewish Wisdom literature too. I simply don’t see that the scholarship supports your hard and fast distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish thought. SWhat is this ‘strictly Hebrew/Near East experience’ in a Graeco-Roman culture where the Jewish community in Greek-speaking Alexandria was the powerhouse of Jewish thought?
Cutlural context matters, and your idea that there is some strict Hebrew context is not one which stands up, outside the Dead Sea community. The evidence that Jewish thought interacted with and acted upon Greaco-Roman thought is pretty overwhelming. GRSS
LikeLike
“You start off with, in the view of many scholars, a simplistic and misleading concept called ‘Semitic and Near Eastern Faith’, which you suppose has no connection with other thought-systems current in that cosmopolitan region.”
You keep referring to this region as “Cosmopolitan”. Wasn’t there a recent war do drive out the foreign element and restore faith practice by the Maccabees? Didn’t the Jews at the time of Christ want a Messiah who would do the same? If this was the sentiment in Israel, why would the first Christians, who were Jews with a millennia of tradition and thought, decide that the best way to describe their relationship to God and the new Messiah would be by invoking Plato, and not the tradition that was the genesis of their faith?
For example, you have said…
“This was a popular, if mistaken view until the 1970s, but since then has come under steady fire from scholars. Why assume Plato and Alexandrian Jewry were somehow separated, or that if there is contact, it is Plato infecting Jewish thought?”
Ok…so let’s see some specific examples? If you want to refer to Philo, I addressed him above. He is the best example, but the problem with Philo is that he was largely ignored by the Jews of Palestine, and Jews since then, really. If you want to go with Gnostic or even Apocrypha, none of this was accepted at the time by observant Jews. If you think fringe Jewish thought is any more reliable than fringe Christian thought, then I suppose that is a position, but this makes no sense. If you want to refer to ECFs who are already immersed within the Platonic Christian tradition, I am not sure that answers any questions either. That some went in that direction is unquestioned, that it was a legitimate expression of an ancient Near Eastern faith remains to be seen.
“You are assuming that the only influence on the Trinity was Greek thought. Do you have any actual evidence for that?”
Other than the lack of any evidence that Christians in Jerusalem believed in the Trinity as it is normally expressed today? It is not until the Church grows to the point that the Greek becomes widespread within it, that Trinitarian thought becomes widely accepted. There is also the lack of anything even mildly resembling Trinitarian thought in Near Eastern thought.
“The only evidence for an Aramaic text is Papias. If there ever was such a thing, its circulation was not wide enough for even a trace of it to have survived.
But again, why this assumption that Jesus only spoke Aramaic? Galilee was known as ‘of the Gentiles’ because of its cosmopolitan population. Try Carsten Peter Thiede’s ‘The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus’ (2004) for a pile of evidence. some of which I have summarised is earlier posts on this blog.”
Well, having lived in Israel for a while in today’s world, where multiple languages are prevalent, there are dynamics at play. Then, like today, linguistic attributes are based on social class. Very upper class Jews would be fluent in multiple languages. Lower class Jews might know some languages, what I would call “Taxi Hebrew”. Significant fluency is not prevalent.
“That does not support your assertion about Luke and Mark, and simply quotes one, not very reliable and incomplete source for Matthew. Not impressive scholarship. GRSS”
I thought a few people here were Catholic, so I used a Catholic source. There is more scholarship supporting Hebrew/Aramaic authorship.
“True, but John was a Jew, and he is drawing on Jewish Wisdom literature too. I simply don’t see that the scholarship supports your hard and fast distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish thought. SWhat is this ‘strictly Hebrew/Near East experience’ in a Graeco-Roman culture where the Jewish community in Greek-speaking Alexandria was the powerhouse of Jewish thought?”
Jewish Alexandrian religious thought was not considered that exceptional by anyone in the Jewish world outside of Jewish Alexandria….?
http://jewishhistorylectures.org/2013/10/10/philo-judaeus-of-alexandria-jews-in-the-greek-world/
Jews were not interested in Philo, or Platonic synthesis, but Christians, who wanted a Platonic correlation loved Philo. If you are comfortable with this, I see no reason to change your beliefs, but I do not see that as legitimately Christian or Jewish.
LikeLike
Kevin – I find myself in agreement with much of this, except for the anti-Trinitarian conclusion and the conclusion that ‘Trinitarianism’ only arose at some later date.
When do you date John’s gospel or 1 John? What are your views on ‘The Priority of John’ by JAT Robinson, where he puts an early date on the gospel (pre-70 AD) and seems to attribute authorship firmly to the Beloved Disciple?
I agree with you one hundred percent on Philo – it’s difficult to see how Philo has any bearing at all, except that the author of 4G may well be reacting against Philo – garbage (as he saw it), but he rises well above Philo and presents something quite different.
At the same time, the Trinitarian view is very clearly behind 4G, almost explicitly (although the author never uses the term ‘Trinity’).
It was (of course) the fact that Trinitarian claims of Jesus (and the claim that he was the second person of the Trinity) that ultimately led to his crucifixion; John wrote his gospel after he came to understand that those claims were true.
LikeLike
Your lecture rather supports my position.
I am basing myself on recent scholarship. I am not sure what you are basing yourself upon other than your opinion that the Maccabees had succeeded in driving out non Jewish influence? the careers of Herod and his children don’t support such a view. neither can the present position of Israel be in any way compared with the ancient world. There was, as you know, a Greek text of what we call the OT, and that was widely read by the Jewish community inside and outside of Judea.
I should be most interested in sources not based on Papias which support the view that the Gospels were not written in Greek; even Papias only mentions Matthew. It may be I have missed things here, and I would be most interested if I have,as I try to keep up with these things in my retirement.
No one alleges that anyone in the first century, including Jews in Alexandria, believed in the Trinity as it was articulated by St Gregory Nazianzus, but that is not to say that Jewish Wisdom literature (a point of mine you have not addressed) did not also feed I to the mix which produced, under the guidance of the Spirit, the doctrine of the Trinity.
The idea that Jews like John and Peter who dealt with the Romans as part of their fishing business had only rudimentary Greek is dealt with well by Thiede’s book. You seem to think Jews were some monolithic entity! which is certainly a view later Jews and some at the time tried to argue – there is no good reason to fall for that.
I am a Baptist, and long ago,I did a doctorate in these things- saying all sorts of things later scholars have shown to be simplistic.It has left me with a sense of how much things have moved on since the 1960s when I worked seriously in this field. GRSS
LikeLike
The problem is that one certainly does not have to arrive at the Trinitarian conclusion from John. The language could as easily be interpreted as poetic and allegorical as it would a detailed description of homoousios. John, if read from a Near Eastern perspective would certainly be a different book.
I think there is a relationship there, but the nature of that relationship is certainly not specified in the terms of the conventional Trinitarian position. That is one possibility, if one would choose to interpret it that way, but the conventional sense is so alien to the Near Eastern mosaic, that it does not seem plausible, even if it is possible.
Even Jesus’ statements of divinity could be interpreted in multiple different ways.
LikeLike
I suspect your antagonistic use of the word “lecture” underlies the lack of support for your position
If you think Jewish Wisdom literature is so supportive, could you produce some from an actual Near Eastern source that supports Trinitarian philosophy. I asked for this before, but you keep saying it contradicts without ever producing anything concrete.
I am more than willing to be proven wrong, but there is no reason to believe that John and Peter were fluent in Latin or Greek, blue-collar workers not needing such an extensive education. Perhaps you know a car mechanic from the country that can converse in multiple languages with significant fluency, but my experience has been that they are few and far between.
You may be surprised who has doctorates, such appeals to authority are often unwise.
LikeLike
It was far from an appeal to authority read in context – more a warning to us all that things move on and if we do not keep up we find ourselves repeating the saws of an older scholarship as though they are the last word.
I have given you several books which you can read if you will, which support my position, you offer a couple of links to websites with no scholarly appartus. My appeal is not to my own scholarship, which is long out of date, but to men such as Hurtado, who is not.
If you want other references, I can offer the following: Scott McKnight, ‘A new vision for Israel: the teachingas of Jesus in National context (1999); J.D.G. Dunn ‘Jesus remembered’ (2003), both of which show that the worship of Jesus as divine is there from the beginning, along with the search to explain how Jesus and God are related.
If you are after an online survey, you can try this:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.htm
The key part here is:
‘ we are establishing that there existed in Judaism certain set motifs about Wisdom with which the writers of the New Testament worked, and that, as Hurtado (44, 46) puts it, “ancient Judaism provided the first Christians with a crucial conceptual category” that was applied to the risen and exalted Jesus.’
All of this is more complex, and better-founded than your own view thatere existed some heremtically sealed entity called ‘Semitiac’ or ‘Near Eastern thought’. What are your sources for this belief?
If you have access to a subscribing library, there is a good account here:
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557813.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199557813-e-6
There’s another good online blog here which shows how incorrect it is to think that Jewish thought had no place for the concepts which helped lead to the Trinity being revealed:
http://www.doxa.ws/Trinity/Trinity4.html
Now, it would be fair if you were to reveal what books and scholarship supports your position GRSS
LikeLike
You said “Wisdom Literature” 5 times that I saw, but you still have not posted any actual works from a Near Eastern author from a 1st century AD period, or earlier that would support a Platonic conception of God. I can read Hebrew if this is a perceived impediment.
LikeLike
You are assuming what you need to prove, namely that the conceptis purely Platonic and that there is no interpenetration of literature. You are also assuming some separate ‘Wisdom literture’ other than that in the Bible – something clear in the links I offered and below, which you appear not to have read before responding.
The links I gave you show that is not what I am arguing. The very terms in which you insist on framing the discussion seem to preclude you understanding what is being said. Try some of the weblinks, especially these:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html
http://www.doxa.ws/Trinity/Trinity4.html and then get back.
Now, I have offered you some of the many sources for my views, how about returning the courtesy – once, that is, you have actually read some of the links.
GRSS
LikeLike
I am familiar with JP Holding’s website, it has been around a while, but I am asking for something very simple. Wisdom literature from a Near Eastern, in this case Jewish, perspective. It is a simple request. If you are going to assert that the Platonism inherent in much of modern Christianity is simply a natural outgrowth, instead of a foreign injection, then you should be able to show some correlation. As I said, I can read Hebrew, so please provide the documentation.
LikeLike
I am sorry, I hadn’t realised you didn’t realise I was referring to Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Book of Wisdom, Wisdom of Sirach, and Baruch, all of which are ‘Near eastern’ in origin. You can read them in the Hebrew or the Greek Sepuagint, but they contain the substance from which Jews such as John take the concept of ‘the Word’ – unless, of course, you can show us that St John was familiar with Plato.
I have given you my literature, or at least some of it, and you have not offered anything in return. What are your sources? GRSS
LikeLike
And, not to rush you, but the Day of the Doctor is coming on soon….
LikeLike
This blog will go silent during that period 🙂
I did think of asking Jess to run a poll on which doctor was the best, but since it was Tom Baker, I saw no need 🙂
LikeLike
Since none of that (Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes) would even remotely support a Platonic view of divinity, and the Apocryphal sources are hardly accepted by even Protestants, let alone a Jewish audience, I can only assume you meant something else. The Wisdom Of Solomon is not Near Eastern, by the way.
Nevertheless, specifically, what in Sirach or Baruch supports a Platonic vision of God?
LikeLike
Holding, and the other site I suggested go through it. What, in their view, does not satisfy you? Again, you seem insistent that Platonism is a concept owing nothing to anyone save Plato, and is adopted unmediated by the Wisdom literature into Christianity. This runs counter to the scholarship I have suggested.
What scholarship supports your view? GRSS
LikeLike
The problem is that you see what you call Wisdom Literature, where you are actually mixing disparate sources (Near East which certainly are not Platonic, with Apocryphal which are Platonic), in a light with a presupposed interpretation instead of letting them speak for themselves. You have linked Canonical sources with Apocryphal, old documents with newer (relative ones), etc… all with a goal of justifying a preconceived notion of Nicene Christianity. No one outside of a Nicene Christian would take Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes as supporting Trinitarian ideas unless you start with the Trinitarian concept and apply them retrospectively on the works. Likewise to lump these in with the Wisdom of Solomon is very poor association.
Platonism is simply Platonism, nothing more, nothing less (and yes, it does come from Plato), but it is foreign to the Near East. Apologetic efforts that try to prove otherwise are certainly sincere, but misguided.
It is like the old joke…
Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?
And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.
And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?
Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”
And Jesus answering, said, “What?”
If you want to believe that God revealed this to people post Christ, you are certainly free to do so, but the conceptualization that the ECFs later applied to Christianity do not fit within a NE perspective. This is why both Jews and Muslims find the Trinity so bizarrely convoluted, not because they are heathens, but because the ideas are so foreign to their culture and heritage, which is odd since Christians share that same culture and heritage, at least by claimed history.
LikeLike
Are you really saying that Proverbs and Job do not come out of the Middle East? What is your source for insisting, without evidence of argument, that John’s ‘Logos’ idea is Platonic in origins, when, as the sources to which I linked you, make it clear there is a Semitic source for it?
Again, your narrow constructs get in the way of understanding, What do you mean by ‘Trinitarian ideas”? Have you actually read Hill or Hurtado, who show that the Wisdom literature feeds into St John’s views? No, clearly no, yet you persist, nay, insist that the rest of us accept your binary division. Alas, we can’t because the scholarship shows them to be simple-minded.
You state Platonism is Platonism as though Plato existed in a vacuum and had no idea, for example, what folk outside Greece thought, and you treat it as though is is apure, one-dimensional construct; you really need to support such an old-fashioned view.
Now, I’ve been patient and polite, and told you my sources, four times I have asked you to be courteous enough to do likewise, and four times you have simply come back and insisted that you are right because you say so.
Your idea that there is a simple ‘NE perspective’ needs supporting, and unless you provide evidence for it, it is your view and that of rather old scholarship. If you want to comment, try to actually engage with ideas and scholarship which are unfamiliar to you – that is how we do dialogue here.
Heathen is not a word I like, but if by it you mean non-Christian, by definition, believing Muslims and Jews are not Christians. Why do you have such a problem with the Trinity – is it the JW perspective, the Unitarian, of the contrarian? Or are you one who wishes to be a Christian without believing in the Trinity in some other way?
LikeLike
Sorry, I went on vacation over the Thanksgiving holidays. I think your main hang-up is an a priori assumption that you are applying retroactively on the Near East, instead of letting the area speak for itself. For example when you say “Are you really saying that Proverbs and Job do not come out of the Middle East?” what you are really saying is
“Are you really saying that Proverbs and Job as interpreted from a post-Nicene Greek philosophical perspective do not come out of the Middle East?”
To which my answer would be, of course not. Proverbs and Job come from a period and time that is very, very, very different from the Platonic, and neo-Platonic world that existed post Nicene, so applying that particular filter to their interpretation is not only silly, it is relatively pointless. What does exist, however, and what you are ignoring, is the volumes of commentaries about Proverbs and Job that exist from the Near East. These commentaries are Semitic in origin, however, and would not accept the post-Nicene interpretation, so I doubt you would be interested or consider them.
For example, when you say
“Again, your narrow constructs get in the way of understanding”
What you are really saying is
“Your refusal to accept my post-Nicene Greek philosophical narrow constructs are getting in the way of your understanding”
I am well versed in the Middle East. I’ve studied Early Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even some of the less well known sects in the region. I am approaching Christianity from one position, and one position only, that it is a Semitic faith that emerged as the culmination of Judaism, and should be understood in a Semitic fashion. This is, however, a significant challenge to modern, conventional Christianity, which is steeped far more in the Greek philosophical models than it is a Semitic mindset.
You keep saying things like “Have you actually read Hill or Hurtado, who show that the Wisdom literature feeds into St John’s views?” which is just a method of saying that we should start with your a priori assumption instead of starting with a deep understanding of the region and culture itself. When you say “You state Platonism is Platonism as though Plato existed in a vacuum and had no idea, for example, what folk outside Greece thought” are you really implying or stating that Plato’s world had something to do with Near Eastern theology, beliefs, philosophy, or anything of the sort? Plato did not exist in a vacuum, but he did exist in a Greek world, which is very different from an Israeli world.
When you say “Your idea that there is a simple ‘NE perspective’ needs supporting, and unless you provide evidence for it, it is your view and that of rather old scholarship” I have to ask, on what do you base this?
Early Christians came from a few different camps. Some from Jerusalem, from Israel, and those areas. Others from Asia Minor, and others from Greek dominant areas. The disputes that emerged were almost always settled with Greek POVs. This is a huge problem that is largely ignored because it is honestly far too difficult to deal with. If one were to accept that the current modern Trinity, for example, is more the result of Greek philosophical thought than something that would emerge from a Jewish/Near Eastern tradition, then whole millennia of Christian history would be suspect, and that is to terrible to consider…for most.
In my opinion, I think Christ is more forgiving than most consider and the Cardinal sin of believing the wrong things about Christ, so I see no reason to accept, a priori, the Greek philosophical POV. I start with the Near East, with Jewish thought, with Muslim thought, with the basis of thought that makes up the region, and see from where these sources emerged, what their genesis is/was and why they think how they do. Then you can use these sources to actually examine the sources for much of Christian theology, and a very different theology emerges.
Consider that early Christianity, and most of Christian history for that matter, was anti-Semitic. Violently anti-Semitic. Given that, is there any reason to doubt that such a mindset would ignore the Near Eastern perspective in favor of the Greek? You keep referring to “modern scholarship” but I think your sources are simple more of the resulting echo chamber of thought and not the true investigative scholarship that is necessary.
You can level the accusation of being heathen thinking, I am honestly not that concerned with that, but I think your inability to consider the heathen is part of why Christianity did what it did. Thought is sometimes scary, but I honestly think that Christianity made a massive wrong turn 2000 years ago and the inability to answer my simple question is evidence of that.
When describing a God that existed with Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and Solomon, why is all of the language used the language of Plato and Socrates?
Your only answer is that it is not, but that Emperor lost his clothes a millennia ago.
LikeLike
I am grateful to you for a more reasoned explanation of your position. It still amounts to no more than dsaying yu disagree with the perpectives of scholars such as Hurtado, without having read them; worse, it consists of accusing them of not having read the sources you have. They have, they smply come to different conclusions, not, as you state, because their scholarship is compromised by Trinitarian thought, but rather because they do not believe in this constrcut of yours, something unhistorical you call ‘Israeli thought’. There was certainly a strand of thought in Judea which was, as you state, but you treat it as the sole strand, when it was one of many. You dismiss, for reasons to do with your construct, the Jews in Alexandria.
You appear to suppose that unless thought is ‘purely semitic’ it can understand God. That is one view. The wrong turning was that taken by the Jews who failed to recognise the true Messiah. I am sad to see that two thousands years later you persist in denying the Truth of the Trinity. But as Jesus said, those who do not read with the eye of faith will not see; you show us just that.
LikeLike
Suggestion for you: figure out how to reply to people on a WordPress blog. You want to talk to Geoffrey, not me.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m not sure you have known it, but you have been the one disagreeing with Larry Hurtado, not I, I was wondering if you would ever pick up on it. Hurtado seems to be aware that Platonic thought was not native to the Levant. I’m highly doubtful that he or you would have read the sources I have, unless you read Arabic at a minim. That’s part of the problem you have, my expertise is in the region, its culture, thought, nuances, etc… I have no axe to grind, or defend, one way or another. Where you condemn ‘Israeli thought’ you fail to recognize that there is a significant corpus of Near Eastern philosophical thought that really does not fit with the current Trinity. This is one reason it took centuries to eventually arrive at the concept of the Trinity, it did not spring out of Christianity immediately, because it was foreign to the source of Christianity. It took an injection of Greek philosophy. This is why, as I said, the God that existed with Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and Solomon is described using the language of Plato and Socrates, and not Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and Solomon.
For example, when you say “You dismiss, for reasons to do with your construct, the Jews in Alexandria” you’re ignoring Larry Hurtado’s simple explanation that these were Hellenized Jews, meaning their ideas were influenced by…Greek thought, not their original Semitic thought.
I do not suppose that ‘purely semitic’ is necessary to understand God. I think a God that existed in a Semitic context for hundreds of years (or thousands if you want to accept Christianity’s and Judaism’s theological claims) has a significant history of theology and philosophy behind it. I also think that when you take a completely foreign philosophy like Platonism and use that to describe this God, while simultaneously ignoring all that went before, you sort of have a problem. But then, I am not out to defend Christianity, I do not care if there is a problem or not.
The truth is, you could have Christianity, but it would look different. It would mean admitting error. The Jews did not fail to recognize the Messiah, the first Christians were Jews. But they were not your type of Christians. They lived a Christian life that was far more Jewish than you would likely recognize.
LikeLike
The nature of God, when we have much to learn of the nature of man, let alone of the universe, seems inarguably a matter of faith. Therefore, it also seems something only pertinent to those who share said faith… (Unless I am missing something?)
LikeLike
Yes, you are missing something.
Peace be with you, my son.
Spectacles, etc ….
JCMS
LikeLike
And you intend to leave that hanging? That seems to me, either too much or not enough unless again, I am missing something…
LikeLike
It certainly is a massive step from the faith of Israel and the OT conception of God to the Christian faith in one God existing in three persons.
KG claims it took Plato’s though for this transition to come about. Christians claim it was brought about by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
The writing of Paul, as much as that of John, establishes the Christian faith in what is now referred to as ‘Trinity’. Paul’s links can more easily be seen as those with Peter and Mark the first gospel writer than with John.
As far as I am aware the first person to use the word Trinity was Tertullian who also did not seem to be inclined towards Greek philosophy I understand that he commented “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem”.
From my simple thought is must be evident that I am not equipped with the background or study of GRS or KG. But it seems obvious to me that the use of Greek philosophical language by Christians in spreading their faith does not equate to a proof that their faith was derived from that language or philosophy.
The Gospels record that post resurrection Jesus expounded to the disciples many things in the scriptures referring to Himself.
The OT scriptures, the life, death, resurrection of Christ and His reinterpretation of the scriptures are enough to explain the origin of the Christian faith while the language of Plato may well have assisted its dissemination.
Many Christians acknowledge some corruption of the faith of the early church due to the incursion of Greek philosophy and consider that theology requires some ‘de greasing’ ad a return to Hebrew roots e.g. the Greek concept of the innate immortality of the human soul.
LikeLike
Let’s assume that what you have said is completely true, that “The Gospels record that post resurrection Jesus expounded to the disciples many things in the scriptures referring to Himself.”
Let’s assume that Jesus explained who he was in terms of the Trinitarian concepts that are accepted as canonical and Gospel today. If this is true, why did the Trinity not spring up immediately? Why did the Early Christians not expound on it without hesitation? Why is the first utterance of the Trinitarian concept from a Roman and Greek educated Carthaginian who lived, worked, and operated a thousand miles from Jerusalem? Why were the terms used the Greek philosophical (translated into Latin) instead of the Aramaic and Hebrew concepts that Christ would have explained to his followers? After all, Christ was said to have discussed with the learned Jews of his day, he knew Hebrew philosophy and thought well, better than the Jewish scholars, he could have used Hebrew thought to describe himself, and certainly would have done so with his clearly Jewish followers, who would be familiar with the same tradition.
Instead it was 200 years or so after Christ, in a different part of the world, in a different continent, and from a very different philosophical tradition that the common conception of Christ’s personhood emerges?
How can this happen?
LikeLike
If you mean that Christians did not immediately use the word ‘Trinity’ you are correct; if you mean that they did not discuss what ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ meant, or what it meant when Jesus said that he and the Father was one, you are not. If your thesis is correct, one would indeed expect it to have sprung up immediately, as there were plenty of Gentiles among the early converts. Why do you suppose that in some way ‘Jerusalem’ would have had an special insight in what a man many of its chief intellectuals and priests had rejected and had crucified? There is no reason why Jews used to using the word ‘Logos’ – like John would not have used the word and known what it meant; they did not live, as you seem to suppose, in some hermetically-sealed world of ‘near eastern thought’. The concept is there from the beginning, we see its working out through the Fathers. Quite why Tertullian, who preferred Jerusalem over Athens, and was, I think, the first to use the term, should be counted as a Greek thinker, I can’t say, as that seems to be your view.
LikeLike
Except that the term Trinity was not used until roughly 200 years after Christ was born, and as I said, in a place, culture, philosophy, and language that was completely foreign to Christ’s. No one can explain this. If the ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ were discussed, it was not “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”
There were intellectuals who accepted Christ, but just not in the way you want. There is evidence of intellectual depth in New Testament writings, Hebrews is particularly rich, but like all ancient documents, be it the OT or the Quran, these must be understood in the context that produced them. You cannot read 5th century Chinese texts by assuming they were thinking the same as 1840 US Southern Plantation owners. Likewise you cannot pick up the NT, and assume that they were speaking in Greek philosophical terms….unless forced to, and you are forced to because of Nicene and modern Christian history.
“Why do you suppose that in some way ‘Jerusalem’ would have had an special insight in what a man many of its chief intellectuals and priests had rejected and had crucified?”
That is the historical Christian anti-Semitism coming out. Just because some, not all but a majority of Jews rejected Christ does not mean that Christ did not arise from over 1000+ years of Jewish theology, philosophy, culture, belief, tradition, and even linguistics.
The problem is that because of Nicene, you HAVE to interpret Logos in only one fashion, and not in the myriad of potential interpretations that would fit the culture, and history so much better. Because of 1000 years of history forcing one interpretation from an outside perspective, the faith cannot exist as an indigenous Middle Eastern faith.
“Quite why Tertullian, who preferred Jerusalem over Athens, and was, I think, the first to use the term, should be counted as a Greek thinker, I can’t say, as that seems to be your view.”
Are you really unaware of the Carthaginian history and culture? Are you really asking why I would think a 200AD Carthaginian would be influenced heavily by Greek philosophy…?
LikeLike
Please, any resort to anti-semitism as an aexplanation for an argument which fails to agree with your own is a sad reflection on you, and you should be ashamed to use it.
What it actually is is a reflection of the wide nature of Jewish thought in the period, which included Alexandria and those who produced the Septuagint. Your construct of a Jewish way of thinking which was hermetically sealed from the world of which it was a part is just that, something you have invented to serve some need of your own.
Christianity arose from God’s intervention in history, and the earliest Christians understood Jesus to be God’s word. Precisely that that meant took some working out in the context of the world in which they lived, which included Greek thought as well as Jewish thought, indeed, the idea that the two did not interpentrate each other is something you keep asserting byt not proving.
Nicaea was, as Ayres and others show, simply the culmination of lines of thought which went back across the centuries. I am well aware of Carthaginian culture, and of the dangers of your approach to it, My point was that Tertullian was aware of the dangers of Greek thought and did not see ‘Trinity’ as purely Athenian – this fails to fit with your caricature, but fits perfectly with the view I have been advancing.
Christianity did not originate out of some hermetically-sealed purely Jewish milieu, because there was not such thing. Why do you need it to be so? I take it you are not a Christian, as you fail to believe in the Trinity? Are you one of those who needs to be right when most Christians for most of history have believed otherwise? What a wise fellow you must be.
LikeLike
It was because of anti-Semitism that Christianity developed as it did. Just like you stated, Jews rejected Jesus, so Jewish thought should not be considered. But Jews also accepted Jesus, and understanding Jesus requires understanding Judaism and Jewish/regional thoughts. Your position would be like saying that since the Chinese are Communist, their opinions of the Tao Te Ching do not matter, and you are free to interpret it as you see fit, from a 20th century American perspective.
When you refer to “wide nature of Jewish thought in the period” you are ignoring the HUGE fact that according to your own theology there were 1000+ years of Jewish history, theology, culture, and belief that culminated in Christ, so since some Jews in Alexandria were Hellenistic, then it is perfectly OK to describe Christ’s nature with Greek philosophy instead of that 1000+ year history.
This makes no sense.
As for First Century Christians? They would look as bizarre to you as Jehovah’s Witnesses would. Trying to treat them as if they were 20th century Protestants is just bad history, they were not. They did not, nor should they have needed assistance. Are you telling me that the original Christians, who were Jews living in Israel who walked, talked, were taught by, and lived with Jesus needed help “working out in the context of the world in which they lived, which included Greek thought”? They would need thoughts 200 years later from non-Jews from a foreign culture, a foreign language, foreign belief system, and foreign area to help them? Why?
If you are waiting for a Messiah to come out of the Jewish tradition, waiting for 1000’s of years, and that Messiah does arrive, and in order to explain him you need to turn to another culture’s thoughts and philosophies to explain that individual…then either that probably was not the Messiah you were waiting for, or you do not understand the Messiah the way you think you do.
And if you are going to lastly argue that this is what people have thought for around 1500 years….?
There is a movie called “The Messenger” made about Muhammad. It starts out with an old tradition in Islam that says Muhammad sent letters to the major kings of the major kingdoms inviting them to Islam. The tradition is undoubtedly apocryphal, but it is in the movie regardless. One of the kings reads the letter from this new “prophet” and remarks, “I wonder if this is how Herod felt when hearing John the Baptist for the first time…”
Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true (evidence all of the Jews you think were blind) and just because something challenges your preconceived notions, Jesus did just that.
You have to jump through a LOT of hoops to explain why the God of David, Solomon, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and Adam needed to be described with Greek philosophy. Admitting that it might have been an error requires no hoops at all.
LikeLike
I am not at all interested in the term ‘Trinity’ or what particular philosophical language may be used to set out its meaning. However I assert that the teaching summarized under the heading ‘Trinity’ is clearly reasoned on scriptural basis both OT and NT. The basic concept can be summarized without any reference to the word ‘Trinity’ in a simple statement such as “The One God exists in three personal modes of being”; which was the Christian conclusion from the beginning.
Perhaps as an example you could explain to us how the scriptures such as Paul’s statement that ‘all things were created by Christ’ can be understood. That is if we are not to reason that:
a) The creator is God
b) Christ refers to the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ
c) Jesus clearly had an identity in relation to another he calls the Father an anothe he calls the Spirit to whom he attributes personality
d) The OT clearly presents God as sole creator
There are hundreds of texts that need to be considered in such a manner and the deity and personality of the Father, Son and Spirit is the only conclusion that fits them.
You seem to have missed my entire point that the ‘Trinity’ language of later centuries just communicated the reality of the deity and personality of FSS while maintaining the existence of ‘one true God’ in the language and predominant culture of the following centuries rather than creating the concepts.
A short while earlier than Tertullian Irenaeus spoke of the Son and the Spirit as the two hands of God and previous in the late first century Ignatius used the term ‘Triad of God’.
The language and explanation developed and needed to do so in the terms acceptable in that culture but the reality is presented in the scriptures.
LikeLike
When you say “However I assert that the teaching summarized under the heading ‘Trinity’ is clearly reasoned on scriptural basis both OT and NT.” I certainly believe that you mean it, but you are doing the same as GRSS and superimposing a modern perspective on an era that certainly does not fit your conceptions.
Early Christians were not what you think they were. They were largely observant Jews who thought Jesus was the Messiah. They still lived a Jewish lifestyle, in most cases, and had some interesting beliefs and orientations. There is much we do not know about them, so it is difficult to determine what the specifically believed, but there is no evidence to support your position. This does not conclusively mean that they did not believe as you assert, but there is no evidence supporting such a conclusion. There is evidence of a clear lack of that sort of thought from Jewish tradition, as well as the traditions of those who lived in the greater region.
So while it may be a possibility, it is highly unlikely, and unsupported in the voluminous writings from Judaism that preceded both Jesus and the Trinitarian debates. You say that “There are hundreds of texts that need to be considered in such a manner” and I agree. In pre-Christian Jewish texts there is a LOT of writing, and none of it supports the specific Nicene Trinitarian position. If anything it could theoretically support a more social Trinity, which some sects support, though I would not say that it is conclusive.
The potentialities are there for a lot of different Christianities, and the history of Christianity support this but a lot of the variety was stamped out because one sect became “official”.
I would like to see your evidence for the claim about Ignatius. You have made the same comment here multiple times, but I am curious what you are using for your support.
LikeLike
I think your own comment applies to some degree to your own observations. What is this Jewish lifestyle? It is one in which a Jew called John uses the word Logos to describe Jesus; it is one in which many Jews used the Septuagint and were equally part of the Graceo-Roman world and its culture. This is not imposing a modern perspective on the past; you do that with your paradigm of ‘near Eastern thought’ hermetically sealed from that culture. Nicene Trinitarianism originates in that milieus – why you think this imagined purely Jewish line if thought superior to it, you have never told us; go in, tell us why.
LikeLike
Early Christians celebrated the Jewish Calendar, kept kosher, and generally lived what would be considered Jewish lifestyles. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, why would the Jewish adherents abandon their faith, it was still their faith? In some instances it is claimed that they still reverenced the Jewish Temple. By one account, James the Brother of Jesus was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies.
What is so interesting is that in our culture today, with significant internet access, global information flow, and globalization, there is still a distinct culture in Israel compared to Greece, but in the ancient world you think it was homogenous?
As for early Christians, I know you would not respect Bart Ehrman, but there is also Robert Kraft, and then National Geographic…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0720_050720_christianity.html
But even after many Jewish thinkers adopted Platonism in terms of their outlook, like Maimonides for example, they still did not apply the concept to God. The Semitic heritage was strong enough to prohibit this even 1000 years after Christ, but early Christians completely jettisoned it?
The answer is no, they did not, but Christianity we have now is not the same as Early Christianity.
LikeLike
I am not sure what point you are trying to make? No one denies that many easrly Christians were Jews and kept Jewish customs. Many were Gentiles and did not. A Jew called John wrote about ‘Logos’ and his Gospel was the one which most obviously guided Christians, Jewish and Gentile, to an understanding of what it meant to say that He and the Father were one.
Those Jews who wished to stick to the old ways did so, those who were inpsired by the Holy Spirit moved on.
Modern Judaism isn’t the same as it was two thousand years ago, so your point is what?
LikeLike
“I am not sure what point you are trying to make? No one denies that many easrly Christians were Jews and kept Jewish customs. ”
????? Then why did you say “What is this Jewish lifestyle?” Why would you bring up the Gentiles not living the same. Given that Christianity is a natural outgrowth of the Jewish faith, and it was the Jews who interacted directly with Jesus and who were called as Apostles, shouldn’t they have a better idea about what Christianity actually is? What you should be asking is why the Gentiles did not practice the same.
And you should be attempting to interpret John in light of that tradition. When you say..
“A Jew called John wrote about ‘Logos’ and his Gospel was the one which most obviously guided Christians, Jewish and Gentile, to an understanding of what it meant to say that He and the Father were one.”
you obviously are aware that other groups in the OT were referred to as being “one” so shouldn’t this be interpreted in that light? There is a thousand year old tradition of things being “one” in Judaism, married couples are “one”, peoples are “one”, nations
“all the people came together as one”
“And I will make them one nation in the land”
“they shall become one flesh”
In all of these cases there are clear interpretations from the culture from which they emerged, and it is NEVER the Platonic assumption of being one substance, or one being, in multiple parts. But Christians chose to ignore the tradition that gave rise to Christianity, and instead define Christianity by pagan philosophies that had nothing to do with that tradition, and you’re totally OK with it. I get it. I am not saying you have to change, but at least be up front about the status.
LikeLike
No, Christians ignored nothing. You appear either ignorant of the propmptings of the Spirit and the way early Christians receved it, inlvuding John, and you appear fixated on your version of what a construction of your own called ‘the Jews’ thought, as though that people was a homogeneous mass where Alexandria and Jerusalem thought the same as the Nag Hamadi community.
My point has always been to deny such a simplistic rendering of a complex situation, and to recognise thae interprentration of thought traditions in the Greaco-Roman world, of which the Jews were part, not a separate entitty hermetically sealed. I have cited plenty of modern scholarship pointin in this direction, you give us nothing serious.
From the beginning, Christians, Jewish and Gentile, has seen that ‘one; is in some sense ‘three’ – Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Across the first three centuries of the Church this understanding was worked through, and to see it as a simple transposition of Plato onto what was Judaism, is far too simple. It ignores the fact that the Jewish Christians were thrown out of the synangogues and the fact that many Jews failed to realise the Messiah has already come.
You appear not to realise it either, Jesus was right, those untouched by the Spirit read with no understanding. I pray for your enlightenment, which may come when you stop insisting that you alone, across two thousand years of clever people thinking about this, are right.
LikeLike
Well…Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism (which is itself derived from Platonic thought), and it was far, far, FAR closer to Nag Hammadi than Jerusalem was or is, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Either you did not know Alexandria and Gnosticism were somewhat closely related, that Nag Hammadi was related to both but not Jerusalem, or of the relationships here. That you would lump Jerusalem in here with those two is not only odd, it is bizarrely ahistorical understanding of Christianity.
You want to create complexity because your position is so untenable. I was waiting, but for some reason you never realized that there is a Judaic conception of being “one” in the 1000+ years of Jewish thought that is completely contrary to the Christian conception. Why would a Christian faith that emerged from Judaism, with Jews being the first and primary adherents turn to Platonism to explain God when they had a long and distinguished history already?
You cannot answer this so you try to hide this by obscuring this point. You create complexity because it is a necessary shield. Additionally, the statement “From the beginning, Christians, Jewish and Gentile, has seen that ‘one; is in some sense ‘three’ – Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” is completely untrue, as you are presenting it. As I said, there is a 1000 year tradition of how God is “one” how nations are “one” how people are “one” and you should interpret the culmination of the Jewish faith in the tradition of the Jewish faith, not using Plato, but that is not what Christianity did. You can attempt to obscure this or claim I am not as enlightened as you are, but that is all a smokescreen. I think you’re genuinely scared here, you don’t have much to say to what is a very simple problem.
Christianity is in essence Jewish. It is a Jewish Messiah, it is a Jewish location, it has Jewish Apostles, it is a Jewish faith. And there is a LOT of Jewish thinking on what makes “one”.
Christians explain God, Jesus, and theology using Plato and Greek philosophy.
As I pointed out to Rob, Plato talked about the Triad of God, but not Ignatius.
How ironic.
And the insult at the end…your inspiration seems to be failing you, perhaps the connection is not as good as you think it is?
LikeLike
So, Alexandria has gnostics; are you suggesting that means everything out of it was gnostic, or just filling space? Again, you come with these simplistic divisions. Do you really suppose there is an entity called ‘Jerusalame’ where everyone there thought alike and no one there had ever read the Septuagint or talked and communicated with their fellow Jews in Alexandria. The point is so simple you keep missing it – there was no monolithic entity called ‘near eastern thought’ which was hermetically sealed from the rest of the culture of the region.
No one ever said that the mainstream of Judaic thought did not think onf one as one, but what was said was that the wisdom literature in the OT feeds into early Christian thought, so that there are Jewish sources for the idea of the “word” of the Father working at the creation, for example.
You are the one obsessed with Jewish thought and the idea that its culmination matters, not me. The Jews missed their Messiah, and what was valuable about that religion fed, via the early converts, into what became Christian thought.
You are the one who seems to require everything that was Jewish to remain purely Jewish, a position which makes no sense, except to a Jew. Most Jews missed the Messiah, and most of them miss Him today. Now ehy would anyone desirous of salvation want to go down a track that leads away from it?
LikeLike
You have woven a rather elaborate trap for yourself here, I took no effort to help you, and I do not think you even realize it.
Christianity is the culmination of the Jewish faith, the Jewish Messiah, and the God of Christianity is the God Abraham, Isaac, David, Solomon, Moses, etc…. Depending on your sect Christians believe that there were at least several thousand years of Judaism prior to Christ, complete with revelation, theology, and culture, beliefs, and ideas.
Christianity arrived and, as the continuation of this thousands of years tradition, would have built on what went before.
It did not. Christ was accepted by the Jews, the first Christians were Jews. And as such they would have been an intimate part of this continued tradition.
Fast forward 4 centuries and we have a Trinity which has no basis in the tradition that preceded Christianity for thousands of years. It has no basis in the Near East. There is nothing about the Triad of God in Judaism, in the OT, or in Hebrew thought, but there was and is an explicit Triad of God in Platonism. The philosophers who argued about the Trinity used Greek philosophy and Greek ideas, not Hebrew philosophy or Hebrew ideas (which all existed).
You defense of all this, is the belief that these Greek ideas were part of the Christian and Jewish world (you cannot explain at all why the Hebrew ideas were not used), and you reference Alexandria and the Greek dominant parts of the ancient world.
But you have also ignored the fact that these areas that justify the inclusion of Platonic ideas into the Christian world are also the places that gave rise to the ideas that you consider heretical. If Platonism is so common and so great, why is it heretical? Gnosticism was the direct result of Platonism, the defense you provide only further undermines your position because you are supporting the areas that also provided heresy.
It is also anti-Semitic. The reason that no one turned to Hebrew thought is that there was an inherent distrust of the Jews. It has nothing to do with not knowing of or understanding the Jewish position, it was an active effort to avoid anything Jewish because of the anti-Semitism inherent in the Early Christian world. This anti-Semitism has trickled down throughout the Christian world and is inherent in your position here. I doubt it is intentional, but it is there, regardless.
In the end, I highly doubt you would ever change your position, but it is a huge problem in your theology that you cannot answer. God never changes, by theology, and the revelations of God do not point to the Trinity that currently exists in Christian theology if one takes Hebrew beliefs into account. This problem will not go away, but I understand you are having a hard time facing it.
LikeLike
One does not ‘weave’ traps; misuse of metaphor simply enhances the defects of the scholarship behind your thoughts.
Its main defect is that it gnores the letters of Paul, which are (as a post I am preparing shows) full of references to Jesus deserving the devotion Jews have only to God. These are letters written within a decade of so of the death of Jesus, and, as Paul emphasises, they record only what those early converts already taught.
So, here we have, within a decade and in mainly Jewish circles, Jesus being talked about in terms usually used only of God. This is not four centuries later, it is not four decades later, and it is not in Gentile circles, but Jewish ones. There is neither the time, nor the space, for the sort of Gentile/Platonic influences you insist upon to have taken place.
So, yes, you rightly identify a problem and then wrongly solve it with the aid of old scholarship. Early Christianity is Jewish in the main, and yet it uses language about Jesus that is used only of God – and it insists on monotheism, so you are correct in seeing it as something needing exlaining in the context of Second Temple Jewish monotheism; where you seem to me to err is your insistence that it cannot be seen as being comptaible and is, therefore, the product of alien culture in later centuries; that does not explain Paul’s letters, his language, or what it all reveals about the way these Jews regarded Jesus.
What you ignore is what I have said all along you ignore, which is the explanation of why a Jew like Paul, steeped in second Temple Judaism who had persecuted the early followers of ‘the way’, came to write of Jesus as he does in Thessalonians and Philippians – and that is the same reason why other Jews did so; they had come to the revelation that the One God of Judiaism had commanded it.
What needs accouting for is how such a belief could have arisen within Second Temple Judaism; neither the time frame nor the demographics (that is within a decade or so and in Jewish circles) allow for your simplistic view that it was later Greek/Gnostic influences – unless, of course, you intend to show that Paul was influenced by either.
So, nice try, but the only trap is the one into which you fall by ignoring the various more recent scholarly studies of these things to which I have referred you. When you do some real work, your problem will begin to disappear; you may end up no wiser, but you will, I trust, be better informed.
LikeLike
“One does not ‘weave’ traps; misuse of metaphor simply enhances the defects of the scholarship behind your thoughts.”
Really? It is in Xenophon…?
“And do you advise me, then, to weave a trap of some sort?”
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekFeb2011&getid=1&query=Xen.%20Mem.%203.11.10
Given your predilection towards the Greek I was trying to make you feel comfortable.
“Its main defect is that it gnores the letters of Paul, which are (as a post I am preparing shows) full of references to Jesus deserving the devotion Jews have only to God.”
And certainly, when Paul states those things the thousands of years of Jewish thought that have gone into Jewish devotion and instead use Platonic conceptions to interpret Christianity.
This makes a lot of sense. You have a thousand year tradition, or an external philosophy from outside of that tradition. You chose the later.
And this is your problem. You want to fit Christianity into a conception of the Triad of God from Plato and you are trying to force Christianity into it. If one is a Hebrew, one can interpret this is multiple ways. There is Elohim thought that can be considered, the Council of Gods, and plenty of other thought in Hebrew thought that can explain this, but you would have a very different Christianity.
The problem you have is that the Trinity was conceived by people who wanted to exclude the Hebrew and specifically include the Greek. But…
Perhaps you could simply explain it to me. Using only Jewish sources, from 0 AD and earlier, show how Jewish philosophy, theology, and culture would have supported a Platonic conception of God. Commentaries would be appreciated as source material.
You have said this is the case often enough, you have a chance to prove it. 🙂
LikeLike
Do read what I wrote and respond to it. How can you say that Paul’s letters show Platonic influences? In a post for Monday I shall respond to some of the points you raise. But you continue to ignore the fact that Paul is. Product of Jewish thought and yet writes about Jesus as he dies God, whilst insisting on monotheism. It is in the answer to this paradox that the solution lies.
LikeLike
Geoffrey, KG has shown us one of his allegiances and possible sources of theistic belief in his response to my post on Freemasonry.
LikeLike
KG I think I have made reference to Ignatius just the once and I am quoting a paper by Roger Forster former chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of UK I do not have the original source of the quotation.
Neither did Judaism have the concept of a Messiah being crucified as an atonement, rising from the dead as promise of death conquered for all believers and ascending to heaven to return at the end of the age to consummate the Kingdom of God. Christians find all these things in the OT, the life of Christ recorded in the gospels and the teachings of his apostles and not in Plato.
I consider that there is good evidence for the veracity of orthodox Christianity and if Christianity as we have it was not a hoax from the beginning then the reinterpretation of the OT in light of the life of Jesus Christ and his teaching is a far more likely source of orthodox Christianity than your proposition.
Again I acknowledge that the language employed and the philosophical presentation of the nature of God in later centuries was that of the culture of the day for means of dissemination. This is no way should lead any to attribute the deity and personality of FSS to Platonic philosophy.
I am of the personal opinion that some concepts in orthodox Christianity are distortions of the Biblical / Judaist and early Christian image of God in less fundamental respects and that the same applies to the nature of mankind and that theses distortions are attributed to the application of Pre-Christian Greek speculations on the nature of both; but this is a topic apart from this discussion.
LikeLike
Actually you made the Ignatius here, and at
https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/rob-responds-to-mushtaq/
Interestingly, if you google the phrase you also get…
“To briefly summarize what was pertinent, we start with mention of the famous Greek philosopher Plato (ca. 429-347 B.C.). He believed in a divine triad of “God, the ideas, [and] the World-Spirit,” though he “nowhere explained or harmonized this triad” (Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886, p. 249).”
but Ignatius did not say it that I can find, I think your source is wrong.
Judaism certainly had a concept that the Messiah could be crucified as an Atonement, that claim is just silly, since the first Christians were….Jews. This is the problem that I’m talking about, ignoring the source of Christianity in the first place. Modern Christianity has no resemblance to any Semitic faith, which should bother a lot of people, but no one wants to address it.
Your particular faith has no resemblance to a Jewish faith that arose out of Ancient Palestine. If that does not bother you, I see no reason to bother with thinking about it.
If the fact that the faith you practice bears no resemblance to a Near Eastern religion that you claim is part of a thousands of years tradition, then I would be very concerned.
LikeLike
KG war speaking of OT JudaismG
LikeLike