Jesus is a Roman god

[huckelberry]

Kishkumen, I am first puzzled by your seeing the reformation as anti Hellenism. To my awareness attitudes varied and being against philosophy was not uniform or general. I got the impression that a variety of attitudes existed about that classic past. Is there not at least some connection with the Renaissance?

I think an important aspect of both ancient Judaism and Christianity is that they are criticism of previous belief intended to improve it. The Old Testament contains a development from Canaanite religious culture which was intended to be an improving reformation. One can see the same relationship between Christianity and Judaism. It should be considered that to make a reformation one needs both a connection to the thing being reformed and sufficient respect for it that it is worth being reformed. A certain amount of maintenance of that past is natural and necessary. I find myself thinking of how much old testament practical living thought went into a basis for living Christianity in the world.

I think this observation would apply to the Protestant reformation as well. There was a good deal of respect for Catholic past, well way past such as for Augustine. Reformation Protestantism has a good deal of Catholic carry on. This has faded in some evangelical circles in America. Perhaps that has encouraged cancerous growths but I doubt it is the sole reason.

[Kishkumen]

I wouldn't have thought of putting things in the form of this thread, but I've been persuaded that there is real point here. Christianity and classical paganism have often been presented—especially by later Christians—as polar opposites, one of which defeated the other. That should never really have been plausible, though. Everyone has always noticed how Christians took over popular pagan festivals, pasting Christian labels on top of them without even changing much else, but it should have been obvious that there must have been a lot more continuity than just that between classical pre-Christian religion and the imperial Roman religion that Christianity became. The New Testament is written in Greek, after all.

Spot on. What became Christianity was Hellenized long before it became Roman. In other words, Hellenic seeds planted in Jewish civilization led to the Jesus movement, which arose in response to Roman imperialism. By making Jesus a god, Christianity became an even closer fit for the Hellenic and Roman civilization it was part of. The language of Christian scripture that became the primary vehicle of Western spirituality was Greek, and then in the 4th century also Latin. Greco-Roman civilization left its mark all over Christianity, which is not exactly the right way of putting it. Christianity is a form of Judaism that is almost completely Greco-Roman.

This does not mean that it is completely interchangeable with any other form of Greco-Roman religion. Each Greco-Roman cult had its own unique characteristics. Isaism in not Mithraism is not Eleusianism is not Judaism is not Christianity, and yet the development of each owes a whole lot to the Greco-Roman milieu that it evolved in for centuries.

Is it a problem, though, that this famously demanding and otherworldly world religion actually has this thick taproot of comfortable conformity in a materialistic secular culture?

Now that I think about it, I reckon it's a good thing, in fact. It's probably what kept Christianity from becoming (entirely) a crazy apocalyptic cult that would have just sputtered out in some ancient massacre. Those pagan feet of clay may be what gave the thing legs.

I am pretty close to where you are on this. You are definitely onto something there. Where I would differ is in the characterization of Ancient Rome as a "materialistic secular culture." It wasn't materialistic and secular in the way our culture is, but I think our civilization's development into such is tied up in things learned from Classical civilization. What Roman culture was, that our fanatical fundamentalist heretic neighbors are not, is more tolerant of difference because Mediterranean polytheism was an open system.

The first real peril was when Rome became officially "Nicene Christian" at the exclusion of other religions and theologies. It was then that it became an intolerant absolutist monarchy. The flaws in this system, especially as it was manifested in papal tyranny, spurred the Reformation, the benefits of which were to untether the West from the political power of the Catholic Church. The downside is that Catholicism was a well developed civilizational system, that, once abandoned, could not be easily replaced.

Bring Christianity to the United States with perfect religious freedom and an entrepreneurial spirit, and you get all kinds of half-baked and potentially dangerous forms of ecstatic, utopian religions for people who want the miracles and power without the tempering influence of philosophy, theology, and law. Snakehandling yes; Synesius who?

At the same time, though, a lot of radical stuff did survive in Christianity. You can make the emperor of the day into Christ's representative on Earth, but you can't erase the fact that Jesus was crucified by the Roman state as a criminal. A lot of Christianity's DNA may in fact be inherited from classical paganism, but there's an alien virus in there as well. Credit Caesar for that which is Caesar's, and God for that which is God's.

Yes, it is an imperfect yoking, to be sure. This is argument one that the extremists on both sides make. Rome bad: let's get back to Jesus. Rome good, religion bad: let's jettison religion altogether. Neither works very well in the end, in my opinion. It is much better to accept that tradition has a role and to tinker with it incrementally in order to improve what is there. Other paths end in much blood and suffering. The slaughter of millions can be partly blamed on the bad thinking of Western civilization's half-educated zealots. Your Hitlers, your Trumps. As the alt-right has shown us, you can even dress up Western civilization as a fascist caricature of itself and make it deadly.

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, I am first puzzled by your seeing the reformation as anti Hellenism. To my awareness attitudes varied and being against philosophy was not uniform or general. I got the impression that a variety of attitudes existed about that classic past. Is there not at least some connection with the Renaissance?

I think an important aspect of both ancient Judaism and Christianity is that they are criticism of previous belief intended to improve it. The Old Testament contains a development from Canaanite religious culture which was intended to be an improving reformation. One can see the same relationship between Christianity and Judaism. It should be considered that to make a reformation one needs both a connection to the thing being reformed and sufficient respect for it that it is worth being reformed. A certain amount of maintenance of that past is natural and necessary. I find myself thinking of how much old testament practical living thought went into a basis for living Christianity in the world.

I think this observation would apply to the Protestant reformation as well. There was a good deal of respect for Catholic past, well way past such as for Augustine. Reformation Protestantism has a good deal of Catholic carry on. This has faded in some evangelical circles in America. Perhaps that has encouraged cancerous growths but I doubt it is the sole reason.

Good eye, huckelberry. I am oversimplifying because I do not want to get into the complications of discussing the internal argument on how to read Plato. What I would say is that the Anti-Hellenists essentially won the debate, and part of the way we know that is the impression many of us carry around that Hellenism was a problem to be overcome or kept out of the house. Mormonism did not make that up. Anti-Hellenism was an Early Modern phenomenon within Reformation Christianity. Was it the only view? No. Protestants and Catholics do different things with Plato. It is not like Protestants rejected Plato altogether.

One thing that did happen to Plato, however, was that he was sanitized in order to play well, in his own sandbox, far away from "true religion." Western Plato was de-religionized. According to this view, the real Plato, or the "good" Plato, is the one who sticks to non-spiritual topics. It is for this reason that Western universities do not spend much time on the Timaeus and they hardly study later stages of Platonism at all, seeing them as corrupted and "bad" forms of Platonism.

This is not, of course, what the Renaissance thinkers like Ficino were limiting themselves to. They were embracing the integration of the Classical past into their spiritual thought in ways that look confusing and bizarre to people today. It makes for fascinating reading.

In the American milieu, which is where my argument points, the vast majority of so-called Protestants are completely ignorant of the role of Classical thought in Christianity. And here I am not talking about your MsJacks. I am talking about your average churchgoer, and probably your average pastor. You should see what passes for a seminary education these days. It does not tend in the direction of appreciating the finer points of the Hellenic influence on Christianity.

[Kishkumen]

If you want to know about Anti-Hellenism in Mormon Christianity today, take a look at this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Tx2uE ... navlinks_s

Consider this connection between Anti-Hellenism and heretical Christian radicals: the above Mormon book was printed by the same outfit that produces a lot of the other looney literature that is tied to the latest NDE cult.

Check out this MA thesis from Olivet Nazarene University:

https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/v ... tianity%22

Quote from the thesis:

Christian thinkers who assert Greek philosophy and Christianity are incompatible include: early Church Father Tertullian, Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd, reformers James Skillen and Paul Marshall, Bishop N.T. Wright, and postmodern thinker Brian McLaren. Although these scholars represent different Christian traditions, they each suggest, in some way, that Greek dualism prevents a genuine biblical approach to Christianity. By combining the two modes of thought, believers often miss the centrality of the Gospel. These thinkers are not opposed to reason or the consideration of philosophical issues. They are, however, opposed to syncretism – combining different systems of beliefs. Syncretism taints our perception of faith.

A quote from its conclusion:

I am suggesting that Christians allow Scripture to shape their minds and their hearts, their worldviews and their perspectives. Many believers, whether consciously or unconsciously, view Christianity through Greek eyes. For example, the vertical view of salvation which aims to escape this world is of Plato, not Scripture. The devaluation of physical things – the body, earth, etc. – stems from Platonism, not Scripture. Platonic Christianity distinguishes between sacred and secular realms of the cosmos. The authority behind Greek philosophy is knowledge (i.e. the mind, the intellect). The authority behind Christianity is Christ. Mixing Greek philosophy with Christianity distorts Christian faith.

My hope is that this study contributes to the conversation surrounding this topic. Christian theology is often incorrectly interpreted through Platonic metaphysics. I hope this thesis prompts readers to reflect upon their approach to Christianity. The way in which we view the world and faith shapes the way we live, the way we interact with God, man, and nature. My aim throughout this study has been to encourage readers to approach Christianity biblically, seeking to live in the world but under the Word.

This is very illuminating. Notice the assumption that Scripture, a set of diverse texts, is essentially self-referential because it is the Divine World of God. One has to take away "Greek" lenses in order to see the Word of God clearly.

Oh, and by the way, her interpretation of Plato is common but not the only view.

[huckelberry]

If you want to know about Anti-Hellenism in Mormon Christianity today, take a look at this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Tx2uE ... navlinks_s

Consider this connection between Anti-Hellenism and heretical Christian radicals: the above Mormon book was printed by the same outfit that produces a lot of the other looney literature that is tied to the latest NDE cult.

Check out this MA thesis from Olivet Nazarene University:

https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/v ... tianity%22

Quote from the thesis:

Christian thinkers who assert Greek philosophy and Christianity are incompatible include: early Church Father Tertullian, Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd, reformers James Skillen and Paul Marshall, Bishop N.T. Wright, and postmodern thinker Brian McLaren. Although these scholars represent different Christian traditions, they each suggest, in some way, that Greek dualism prevents a genuine biblical approach to Christianity. By combining the two modes of thought, believers often miss the centrality of the Gospel. These thinkers are not opposed to reason or the consideration of philosophical issues. They are, however, opposed to syncretism – combining different systems of beliefs. Syncretism taints our perception of faith.

A quote from its conclusion:

I am suggesting that Christians allow Scripture to shape their minds and their hearts, their worldviews and their perspectives. Many believers, whether consciously or unconsciously, view Christianity through Greek eyes. For example, the vertical view of salvation which aims to escape this world is of Plato, not Scripture. The devaluation of physical things – the body, earth, etc. – stems from Platonism, not Scripture. Platonic Christianity distinguishes between sacred and secular realms of the cosmos. The authority behind Greek philosophy is knowledge (i.e. the mind, the intellect). The authority behind Christianity is Christ. Mixing Greek philosophy with Christianity distorts Christian faith.

My hope is that this study contributes to the conversation surrounding this topic. Christian theology is often incorrectly interpreted through Platonic metaphysics. I hope this thesis prompts readers to reflect upon their approach to Christianity. The way in which we view the world and faith shapes the way we live, the way we interact with God, man, and nature. My aim throughout this study has been to encourage readers to approach Christianity biblically, seeking to live in the world but under the Word.

This is very illuminating. Notice the assumption that Scripture, a set of diverse texts, is essentially self-referential because it is the Divine World of God. One has to take away "Greek" lenses in order to see the Word of God clearly.

Oh, and by the way, her interpretation of Plato is common but not the only view.

Kishkumen, I thought this and your previous post were helpful and thoughtful. Thankyou for your response.

I started reading the linked thesis and did not find anything new or insightful or the promise of such in the first few pages so gave up. I am glad you provided a conclusion. It reads like a general observation made by a variety of people criticizing older Reformation thinking. Can we escape a picture of God not involved personally now but instead predestining all things from before creation ? Similar or related question come up .


People might criticize Hellenistic influence as a device to open some aspects of Christian tradition to rethinking . I notice Tom Wright is mentioned. He is interested in coming to better more useful ideas as to the meaning of some Christian basics.I have read a bunch of his material. I do not recall him criticizing something just for being Hellenic but simply saying some better understandings are possible.Without insisting that Mr Wrights views are necessarily the best I do think being open to new understandings is the best policy.

I suppose the Mormon tradition of calling the philosophy influence as apostasy, though historically bogus does open the possibility for new thought which is,or was, LDS hallmark.

But as you are pointing to opening the door to reconsideration opens the door as well to all sorts of half baked nonsense, fanaticism and power grabs. One might consider just sticking with tradition but that contains cancers of its own.

///
weird how putting and n and a t before Wright turns into New Testament Wright

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, I thought this and your previous post were helpful and thoughtful. Thankyou for your response.

I started reading the linked thesis and did not find anything new or insightful or the promise of such in the first few pages so gave up. I am glad you provided a conclusion. It reads like a general observation made by a variety of people criticizing older Reformation thinking. Can we escape a picture of God not involved personally now but instead predestining all things from before creation ? Similar or related question come up .


People might criticize Hellenistic influence as a device to open some aspects of Christian tradition to rethinking . I notice Tom Wright is mentioned. He is interested in coming to better more useful ideas as to the meaning of some Christian basics.I have read a bunch of his material. I do not recall him criticizing something just for being Hellenic but simply saying some better understandings are possible.Without insisting that Mr Wrights views are necessarily the best I do think being open to new understandings is the best policy.

I suppose the Mormon tradition of calling the philosophy influence as apostasy, though historically bogus does open the possibility for new thought which is,or was, LDS hallmark.

But as you are pointing to opening the door to reconsideration opens the door as well to all sorts of half baked nonsense, fanaticism and power grabs. One might consider just sticking with tradition but that contains cancers of its own.

///
weird how putting and n and a t before Wright turns into New Testament Wright

Yes, my basic point is to look at big historical trends and where they lead. I am not here to condemn individual thinkers or religious points of view, which should all be judged on their own merits. I do think, however, that I hear/read too often about how the Bible is practically self-interpreting or that it has self-evident meaning, and those who make these claims frequently also take it quite literally. That is the kind of extreme I am talking about, and it is very widespread. Those who take such views may not know they are riding on the backs of other earlier thinkers who reject philosophically-informed Christianity, but they are, in my opinion.

[huckelberry]

Jesus is a Roman god, Pt. 7

Heresy

Because Jesus is fundamentally a Roman god, whose cult was picked up and propagated by official Roman imperial authorities, the traditions most faithful to the cult’s actual beginnings are Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Anti-Hellenism in Christianity is a direct assault on the tradition itself, much like Judaizers who insisted that Gentiles keep the Law were attacking one of the central premises of what became orthodox Christianity. Worse yet, as mentioned above, the Anti-Hellenists have an anachronistic view of Judaism and are thus unable to recover the Christianity they see being at odds with Hellenistic and Roman culture.

Sola scriptura, like Anti-Hellenism, could be called heretical, because it proceeds along interpretive lines that are at odds with and uninformed by tradition. The Bible, much like the works of Homer, was interpreted with certain Hellenic tools and from a perspective that is now, for the most part, lost. The worst kind of heretical thinking is Biblical literalism. The Bible was viewed as oracular and only properly understood by those who had the right tools to interpret it. This did not mean that the apparent surface meaning was literally correct. It meant that God had put all truth in the text, and also that this truth needed to be pulled out in the right way. That was NOT achieved by taking the text at face value.

Today’s American Christianity is a fanatical cult that cuts across sectarian lines to include Protestants, Mormons, Catholics, and Orthodox people who are Biblical literalists seeking to overthrow liberal society and impose their literalist views on everyone else. Having forgotten the Classical roots of Christianity and the liberal culture that helped Christianity hold onto a measure of reason (Christ is the Logos!), American Christianity has become a tyrannical force that threatens to destroy the last, best expression of Roman civilization, the American Republic.

Yesterday and day before I took time to go through that Mormon stories presentation about the book Visions of Glory which is repulsive and disturbing. It pushed my mind into ways of trying to understand heretical fanatics. I suspect more dangerous and volatile influence are at play. I do think the idea of inerrant literal biblical interpretation limits understanding and respect for science and historical experience. That removes or weakens barriers against fanaticism.

I am not a supporter of blanket literalism for the Bible but certainly literal events and statements form a substantial portion of the collection of writing. My reading, limited of course, of patristic authorities noticed that literal reading of scripture was the most common standard procedure. Yes there was allegorical interpretation but I certainly have the impression that it played second fiddle to literal reading. (submit Augustine City of God for example)
Kishkumen that is my disagreement with your post. I see that complaint is quite limited. I cannot help but agree with your conclusions and I think the continuation in part 8 is clear strong and worth keeping for consideration.

[Kishkumen]

Yesterday and day before I took time to go through that Mormon stories presentation about the book Visions of Glory which is repulsive and disturbing. It pushed my mind into ways of trying to understand heretical fanatics. I suspect more dangerous and volatile influence are at play. I do think the idea of inerrant literal biblical interpretation limits understanding and respect for science and historical experience. That removes or weakens barriers against fanaticism.

I am not a supporter of blanket literalism for the Bible but certainly literal events and statements form a substantial portion of the collection of writing. My reading, limited of course, of patristic authorities noticed that literal reading of scripture was the most common standard procedure. Yes there was allegorical interpretation but I certainly have the impression that it played second fiddle to literal reading. (submit Augustine City of God for example)

Kishkumen that is my disagreement with your post. I see that complaint is quite limited. I cannot help but agree with your conclusions and I think the continuation in part 8 is clear strong and worth keeping for consideration.

Thanks, huckelberry. Yes, for Augustine allegorical readings are brought in when literal ones fail in one way or another. Of course, he lived in a time when certain kinds of failures would have been out of the reach of his perception. So what does one do? Go by Augustine’s hermeneutic principle or insist that most of the Bible should be read literally because he knew no better than to accept it at face value? That is a serious and important question. One of the big changes between Augustine and us is that we now know not to integrate uncritically a lot of Biblical events as history. Fanatics hold onto the uncritical historical reading of scripture. They insist that it must literally work somehow. This goes for many Mormons too.

I am also not a big fan of Augustine because he was a poor reader of Greek and therefore misconstrued Greek texts in ways that had profound theological consequences. No matter who we look to for guidance or a historical footing, we have to be critical readers of their words.

[huckelberry]

Yesterday and day before I took time to go through that Mormon stories presentation about the book Visions of Glory which is repulsive and disturbing. It pushed my mind into ways of trying to understand heretical fanatics. I suspect more dangerous and volatile influence are at play. I do think the idea of inerrant literal biblical interpretation limits understanding and respect for science and historical experience. That removes or weakens barriers against fanaticism.

I am not a supporter of blanket literalism for the Bible but certainly literal events and statements form a substantial portion of the collection of writing. My reading, limited of course, of patristic authorities noticed that literal reading of scripture was the most common standard procedure. Yes there was allegorical interpretation but I certainly have the impression that it played second fiddle to literal reading. (submit Augustine City of God for example)

Kishkumen that is my disagreement with your post. I see that complaint is quite limited. I cannot help but agree with your conclusions and I think the continuation in part 8 is clear strong and worth keeping for consideration.

Thanks, huckelberry. Yes, for Augustine allegorical readings are brought in when literal ones fail in one way or another. Of course, he lived in a time when certain kinds of failures would have been out of the reach of his perception. So what does one do? Go by Augustine’s hermeneutic principle or insist that most of the Bible should be read literally because he knew no better than to accept it at face value? That is a serious and important question. One of the big changes between Augustine and us is that we now know not to integrate uncritically a lot of Biblical events as history. Fanatics hold onto the uncritical historical reading of scripture. They insist that it must literally work somehow. This goes for many Mormons too.

I am also not a big fan of Augustine because he was a poor reader of Greek and therefore misconstrued Greek texts in ways that had profound theological consequences. No matter who we look to for guidance or a historical footing, we have to be critical readers of their words.

I mentioned Augustine just as an example from the time, well a large one, but not to propose unqualified agreement with him. His work is broad and touches(initiates) some disputed and problematic ideas. I am not informed enough to know what you reference to misconstrued Greek, but to pressure scripture to fit predestination or anti Pelegian arguments is a tradition going back to him.

Long ago I remember reading in his work a statement dismissing some historical Old Testament problem saying literal accuracy is not necessary or the point. Later I went searching and failed to find it. I suppose it is there somewhere. You are right that our historical understanding which is far broader than what was available to him presents more problems. Or maybe more opportunity.

[Kishkumen]

I mentioned Augustine just as an example from the time, well a large one, but not to propose unqualified agreement with him. His work is broad and touches(initiates) some disputed and problematic ideas. I am not informed enough to know what you reference to misconstrued Greek, but to pressure scripture to fit predestination or anti Pelegian arguments is a tradition going back to him.

Long ago I remember reading in his work a statement dismissing some historical Old Testament problem saying literal accuracy is not necessary or the point. Later I went searching and failed to find it. I suppose it is there somewhere. You are right that our historical understanding which is far broader than what was available to him presents more problems. Or maybe more opportunity.

You can’t leave out Augustine. He is too important. I didn’t imagine you uncritically accept all his views.