Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-17-2012, 01:57 PM

I sometimes wonder if these same stupid white people (hereafter referenced by the acronym SWP) have any clue what Christians believed for centuries before Luther drank too much beer and ruined the party. Here is a useful summary I took the time to transcribe:

Quote:

To gain a proper perspective on the Eastern view of salvation, we have to be aware of its distinctive anthropological outlook and its implications. In the main, Eastern anthropology looks forward to the renewing of the image of God. The underlying anthropology" is not necessarily more positive but, instead of operating mainly in guilt-concepts, it looks upward, so to speak, to the image of God to be fulfilled in mortal human beings. This sets the tone for the soteriology and theology in general.

The view of the human being in the Christian East is based upon the notion of "participation" in God. This "natural" participation, however, is not a static givenness; rather, it is a challenge, and the human being is called to grow in divine life. Divine life is a gift, but also a task which is to be accomplished by a free human effort.

A person becomes the perfect image of God by discovering his or her likeness to God, which is the perfection of the nature common to all human beings. The Greek term homoiousios, which corresponds to likeness in Genesis 1:26, means precisely that dynamic progress and growth in divine life and implies human freedom. In Greek patristic thought there is no opposition between freedom (likeness) and grace (God's image in human beings): the presence in man of divine qualities, of a "grace" (God's image) which makes him fully man, "neither destroys his freedom, nor limits the necessity for him to become fully himself by his own effort; rather, it secures that cooperation, or synergy, between the divine will and human choice which makes possible the progress 'from glory to glory' and the assimilation of man to the divine dignity for which he was created." (Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology, Theology and Life Series 30 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991) p 46)

Unlike much of classical Western theology, the Eastern fathers never viewed the creation of human beings as perfect even before the Fall. Humans were created imperfect and they had to be tested as free rational beings in order to become perfect through the stages of growth and maturity. According to Irenaeus, in Paradise "'they were both naked and were not ashamed,' having been created a short time previously; they had not understanding of the procreation of children, for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.38.1 - 3) The first human beings then fell during the growth period while they were still immature.

In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nyssa was asked a difficult question about children who die young. The ascetic who asked this question was wondering what could really be achieved by his spiritual labors, when he knew for sure that he was going to commit sins that would hinder his entrance into the kingdom. So it seemed like the child who died young was better off. Gregory's answer reveals the basic orientation of Eastern theology. The human condition in the next life is not primarily a matter of justice, reward, and punishment. God's aim is rather to fulfill the purpose for which he created human beings, namely to participate in God's life.

The earthly life is for growth and development for this eternal communion.1" From this perspective it becomes understandable that according to Irenaeus, God originally intended that humans would enter into theosis through a natural process of growth. Unfortunately, sin deflected humanity from this path and disrupted God's purposes.

What then is the effect of the Fall in Eastern theology? Rather than thinking in terms of Augustinian transmittal of corrupt nature from generation to generation, Eastern thought focuses on two interrelated effects of the Fall: physical death and the obscuring or distortion of the image of God. Adam's sin was a personal choice and act, not a collective sin nor a "sin of nature." Hence, inherited guilt is impossible. The consensus of the Greek fathers, especially John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximos Confessor, emphasizes this critical point quite often.

According to Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, this view in the East differs from the Western counterpart in several crucial respects. In opposition to the Western anthropology, influenced by Augustine's sharp polemics against Pelagius, the Eastern view of human beings and the Fall is critical of the understanding of original sin and its influences: "1) as inherited guilt; 2) as total destruction of God's image in the human being; 3) as a 'sin of nature' and not a 'personal sin of Adam and Eve' and 4) as legalistic relations of human beings with God and salvation based on Christ's death as satisfaction of divine justice.

In the East, the cross of Christ is envisaged not so much as the punishment of the just one, which "satisfies" transcendent Justice requiring a retribution for human beings' sin. Rather, "the death of the Cross was effective, not as the death of an Innocent One, but as the death of the Incarnate Lord." The point was not to satisfy a legal requirement, but to vanquish death. God alone is able to vanquish death because he alone has immortality (1 Tim 6:16). It is noteworthy that Eastern theology never produced any significant elaboration of the Pauline doctrine of justification. Even the commentaries on Romans and Galatians by the Fathers generally interpreted passages such as Galatians 3:13 as victory over death and sanctification of life. Understandably, the Eastern fathers also never developed the theory of "satisfaction" along the lines of Anselm's theory. As Meyendorff puts it, "The voluntary assumption of human mortality by the Logos was an act of God's condescension by which he united himself to the whole of humanity."

According to Meyendorff, this is what Gregory of Nazianzus taught when he said, "What is not assumed is not healed, and what is united to God is saved"; therefore, "we needed a God made flesh and put to death in order that we could live again." One of the preferred images of the effects of Christ's death in the Christian East has been "medical": the cross is an antidote to the poison of corruptibility and sin. A clear example of the orientation of Eastern anthropology and Christology is offered by a quote from Athanasius in which he reflects on the meaning of the cross in light of the mortality of human beings:

Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by .the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.

Eastern anthropology accepts punishment, death, and mortality, not as God's retribution or revenge for sin as much as pedagogy. The human being's finitude would make repentance well up within her, the possibility of free love to God, the Creator and the source of all life. And, "God's plan has not changed; He always desires that man should be united with Him and transfigure the whole earth. The whole history of humanity will thus be that of salvation." As microcosm the human being represents and assimilates in herself the whole macrocosm, the creation. What happens to human beings, happens to creation. God is the Savior of all. The above-mentioned two major results of the Fall, namely physical death and the distortion of the image of God, call for the regaining of immortality and the restoration of the image. Salvation, then, is not primarily viewed as liberation from sin even though that is not a matter of indifference, but rather as a return to life immortal and the reshaping of the human being into the image of her creator.

These two elements constitute the two greatest reasons for the incarnation of the Son of God. Consequently, Eastern theology takes the New Testament term soteria (salvation) in its biblical sense, which goes beyond terms such as "redemption," "reconciliation," "justification" and the like to encompass the wholeness of new life under God. God did not "fail" in the creation of human beings. If, like Athanasius and others argued, God is the embodiment of truthfulness and goodness, then incarnation means the restoration of human beings and the creation:

It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits ... [S]uch indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation ... Yet, true though this is, it is' not the whole matter ... [I]t was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself ...

The perfect God-man was the only qualified person to sum up in his own life the corruptibility and distortion of the image and bring about a "recapitulation" of the whole human race and creation.

We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Saviour Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols ... In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection. [Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, One With God p. 23 - 25]

ApostateAbe · 03-17-2012, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Damn aa, your facts are always getting the way of everyones pet theories. :Cheeky:

Shesh, I hope your tongue is in your cheek here, because virtually every one of aa's points is his characteristically ornery distortion and misrepresentation of the 'fact' he presents. Largely, his interpretation of each 'fact' is governed by his disposition to regard Paul as later than the Gospels. But it's impossible (and a waste of time) to try to point such things out to him. Circularity has a habit of creating a dizzying impediment to seeing straight, let alone being able to hear what anyone else has to say.

Earl Doherty

`In that direction,' the Cat said, waving its right paw round, `lives a Hatter: and in that direction,' waving the other paw, `lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad.'

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.

`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'

`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.

`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'

maryhelena · 03-17-2012, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

myth is a word that has many connotations. I grant that it’s good to try for clarity in ones use. But wanting to pinpoint one exact ‘true’ definition is a bit like trying to define what the word ‘god’ should mean

Thank you mary helena, for a thoughtful and detailed explanation. I appreciate your effort. Your posts on the forum are a joy to encounter.

To demonstrate more carefully why I dispute your argument, (which from my perspective, is identical to Bart Ehrman's use of "myth", and spin's, and Earl's, though I am sure that all four of you would deny my assessment!!!) let me provide some examples.

First a rehash: spin, Bart, Earl and maryhelena all believe that a "myth" can include a variety of parameters and attributes. I dispute this.

For me, "myth" is juxtaposed to "genuine", and differentiated from "legend" by virtue of the latter's possessing an historical aspect, perhaps unverified, and probably exaggerated, but nevertheless, falling within the range of human ability/experience. "Myth" is applicable to any situation/text/artifact in which superhuman attributes must be acknowledged. Simple "fiction", not true, is a broader category, exemplified by the existence of imaginary plot/characters, without obligation to invoke supernatural conditions.

Which is it, and WHY? M = Myth, L = Legend; G = Genuine; F = fiction; T = no idea?

A. John put his 3 month infant in a rocket, and sent him to planet Earth, from their home on Gliese 581c, 20.3 light years from Earth. The child arrived the following day, tired, but eager to begin life in his adopted home.

B. Mark put his 3 month infant in a stroller, and set off for a morning jog, around the lake. En route, Mark collapsed, but a passerby called paramedics and he was rescued. The child had disappeared, but, after the sirens had stopped, and the crowd dispersed, a little boy, 8 years old remained behind. He informed the investigating police that an invisible force had taken the baby and the stroller, both of which flew through the air, and disappeared.

C. Luke put his 3 month infant boy in a stroller, and set off for a morning jog, around the lake. Upon returning home, he was quite astonished to discover, as he changed the soiled diaper, that his son had changed gender, and become a little girl.

D. Matthew put his 3 month infant in a stroller, and set off for a morning jog, around the lake. An elderly gal accidentally slipped and fell into the lake, as they passed by her, and his son leaped out of the stroller, ran to the lake, swam to the lady, and helped her back to shore.

These are all four, mythical vignettes. All of them describe a violation of the laws of physics, i.e. they are all "supernatural", not genuine. None of them can be legendary, for no amount of investigation can change the speed of light, or the time needed to accomplish gender transformation, or attain physical maturity sufficient to swim in the ocean.

Notice that none of these four have anything to do with religion, or stories, or fables, or folklore, etc, etc....

For spin, and maryhelena, and probably Bart and Earl, as well, a "myth" embraces some quality relating to religion. My definition embraces no such feature. My definition trumps theirs, in view of its increased breadth of scope, and counterintuitively, reliance upon far fewer words to explain it: myth :== supernatural attribution, implied or elaborated, within some text, illustration, cinema, monument or artifact.

There is no need to clutter the definition of "myth" with "fables", folklore", or "religion". But, the definition of Bart, maryhelena, spin, and Earl is not simply too elaborate, it is also TOO LIMITED, for it fails on application to modern era mythical situations, having no relationship to religion, for example, the story of Superman, as Philosopher Jay has explained, many times, for our benefit.

I understand Bart Ehrman's objection to my terse definition of "myth". Armed with that simple description, ("myth" :== supernatural attribution) it is clear that one is not obliged to invoke "new" interpretations of the gospels to prove that Jesus was a mythical creature, as he has argued. Jesus' mythical behaviour, with my definition of myth, is exposed already in the first verse of the first chapter of Mark.

Finally, it is worth noting that a far simpler, yet more potent definition will serve us well, in the forthcoming engagement with the forces supporting Bart Ehrman. That mythicists need such a defensive advantage is seen in this exchange:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Thanks for a useful posting on the many applications of "myth", which is why we have to be careful in using the term to make clear our intent.

As for the above, you are right on the last part, wrong on the first part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by "maryhelena quoting J.W. Rogerson

A myth is a single story, or longer stretch of narrative, which expresses the ideals, hopes and faith of a people.

No, you both err. Your visions of "myth" are distorted. A myth is not a story, and has nothing to do with religion. One could easily create a religion based on NON-mythical tenets. Myths relate exclusively to supernatural attribution.

tanya - if myth related "exclusively to supernatural attribution" then myth is nothing more than pure imagination. And if that was the case myth would have no intrinsic ability to sustain itself. However small the reality element of myth is, its needed in order to generate, to give power, to that myth. Its like that little bit of irritation, that foreign element, that allows the oyster to produce a pearl. In other words; the supernatural element fused with an irritating foreign element, a reality, a human element, can produce a meaningful story - a pearl of wisdom

And no, of course not, myth is not exclusively a religious phenomenon.

GakuseiDon · 03-17-2012, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Gd

How could rom 8:29 be about a human jesus?

I don't see the issue I'm afraid. Paul's Jesus was a perfect man, the second Adam, who, unlike the first Adam, obeyed God to crucifixion and death. In Paul's time, they were trying to conform to the image of Jesus -- perfection in Christ -- and so to become sons of God themselves. I don't see anything in Rom 8:29 stopping it being about a human Jesus.

stephan huller · 03-17-2012, 03:18 PM

No that won't work. The transformation of man into God has to assume that God was really here. This wasn't a poetic 'exaggeration.' The Coptic Pope just died today. If I wasn't busy this month I would go to Alexandria to see the enthronement ceremony. It is a deliberate recreation of the three day resurrection which involves Mark in the reenactment. It is all based on Romans 8:29. Jesus impressed his likeness on his chosen disciple that disciple impressed Mark and Mark continues to impress the divine likeness on those who sit in the place of Christ. This is Christianity - the only Christianity. The rest is just white noise.

If you see someone taping the ceremony on Youtube I hope you will watch. You will understand I hope.

Another example. White people reference 'the apostle Thomas' - it is Judas the twin. An Aramaic speaker would differentiate between the name of the disciple and his title. Being made a twin is being made a brother. So too Jacob who is said to be the brother (only Jacob was a twin already). The same idea in either case - adelphopoiesis = Rom 8:29. But you have to start with God. All of Christianity falls apart if we start with the assumption that Jesus was a mere man. The adoption ritual of brother making is rendered senseless.

aa5874 · 03-17-2012, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Price was offering a rebuttal to Ehrman's argument, which was based on the idea that myths are created around real people so just because there are supernatural events in the Bible doesn't show that Jesus was supernatural (aa's argument.)

There are very few myths around Jesus in Paul's letters, or the Epistle of James.

Apart from Jesus speaking directly to Paul, that is.

The Pauline character is the ONLY writer to DECLARE that his Jesus was NOT human and CERTIFIED that he did NOT get his gospel from human beings but of a Resurrected character called Jesus. Galatians 1.1-12

The Pauline writer has destroyed the historical Jesus unless there is evidence that can contradict Paul.

The claim by the Pauline writer is completely compatible with the teachings of the Church.

Bernard Muller · 03-17-2012, 03:25 PM

to Diogenes the Cynic,

Quote:

I haven't listened to this particular podcast yet (though I intend to very shortly), but my impression of Price's past opinions is not that he thinks a figure exactly like you describe couldn't have existed, but that if he did, he is completely unrecoverable from Christian mythology

Why would he be not recoverable? Just remove the Christian mythology. That may be over simplistic but, nevertheless, that's the basic idea.

Quote:

that it would have been a person so far removed from the character of the Gospels as to be (in Price's view) unidentifiable as a substantive HJ.

Even if it was so, that would not prevent his existence. I have no scrupple to remove that HJ from the "Christian" character of the gospel. I do not care if what is left is a false prophet, accidental healer, trouble maker and "little".
Sure that minimal HJ could not have started Christianity on his own, even if he wanted to (which he did not!). But as one in a chain of events, involving Pilate, John the Baptist, some hellenized activist Jews, Paul, etc., within the context of an evolving Judaism (i.e. Philo of Alexandria), he had a role into unwittingly starting Christian & cultic beliefs. I like to compare it as what Rosa Parks did for the Civil Rights Movement.

aa5874 · 03-17-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

I like to compare it as what Rosa Parks did for the Civil Rights Movement.

Rosa Parks did NOT start the Civil Rights Movement and was NOT ever considered to be the first person in the Civil Rights Movement.

The earliest Jesus story, gMark, does NOT state anywhere that Jesus started a new religion under the name of Christ.

It is the complete opposite.

In gMark, Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be Converted but to REMAIN in Sin.

In gMark, Jesus did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ.

In gMark, Jesus was NOT human--he walked on water and transfigured.

There is NO evidence whatsoever from non-apologetic sources that gMark's Jesus did exist.

The NT is questionable and cannot be PRESUMED to be history and to do so WITHOUT a shred of corroboration from credible sources.

Vorkosigan · 03-17-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Why would he be not recoverable? Just remove the Christian mythology. That may be over simplistic but, nevertheless, that's the basic idea.

There's no reliable methodology for doing this.

Further, if you remove the mythologizing, there's nothing left.

stephan huller · 03-17-2012, 04:21 PM

Here is Stephen J Davis's discussion of the continuation of the idea that Jesus impressed the divine likeness on human beings and these human beings in turn passed on that same image to others and so on and so on. The main conduit is the Coptic Papacy. Here Davis starts with the writings of Clement and works his way up through Athanasius to the modern period. It is well worth the read:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sff...elf%22&f=false

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2012, 03:18 PM	#195
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No that won't work. The transformation of man into God has to assume that God was really here. This wasn't a poetic 'exaggeration.' The Coptic Pope just died today. If I wasn't busy this month I would go to Alexandria to see the enthronement ceremony. It is a deliberate recreation of the three day resurrection which involves Mark in the reenactment. It is all based on Romans 8:29. Jesus impressed his likeness on his chosen disciple that disciple impressed Mark and Mark continues to impress the divine likeness on those who sit in the place of Christ. This is Christianity - the only Christianity. The rest is just white noise. If you see someone taping the ceremony on Youtube I hope you will watch. You will understand I hope. Another example. White people reference 'the apostle Thomas' - it is Judas the twin. An Aramaic speaker would differentiate between the name of the disciple and his title. Being made a twin is being made a brother. So too Jacob who is said to be the brother (only Jacob was a twin already). The same idea in either case - adelphopoiesis = Rom 8:29. But you have to start with God. All of Christianity falls apart if we start with the assumption that Jesus was a mere man. The adoption ritual of brother making is rendered senseless.

03-17-2012, 04:21 PM	#200
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here is Stephen J Davis's discussion of the continuation of the idea that Jesus impressed the divine likeness on human beings and these human beings in turn passed on that same image to others and so on and so on. The main conduit is the Coptic Papacy. Here Davis starts with the writings of Clement and works his way up through Athanasius to the modern period. It is well worth the read: http://books.google.com/books?id=Sff...elf%22&f=false

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.