Question for theologically liberal Abrahamic theists

[ViaCrucis]

See the previous post #59


I am aware that the NT canon wasn't finished until after the council of Nicaea. Without Constantine, do you think any of the ecumenical councils would have happened? That is the point I was trying to convey. My understanding is that the proto-orthodox were dominant in Rome and used their money to encourage other churches to follow their theology. That was happening before Constantine, but Constantine pushed for uniform standards for Christianity. He wanted to build churches, and he wanted a Bible in every church, so he pushed for a standard Bible. Constantine was very important. (My old Church was dedicated to St. Constantine, so I read a biography on him )

Arguably Rome wasn't that important on the larger scale, the two most important centers of Christian theology were Antioch and Alexandria. It was the Alexandrian church that was, largely, speaking the loudest against the Arians. In fact the bishop of Rome didn't even show up at the Council of Nicea, but was instead represented by two presbyters. It was St. Athanasius, a disciple of Alexander who was bishop when the presbyter Arius rebelled, who was perhaps one of the strongest opponents of Arius. Further, it was Constantine who forced Athanasius from his chair as bishop, largely because Constantine came to favor the Arians after the Council, through the influence of both Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea.

It's possible that Codex Sinaiticus is an example of one of the copies of Scripture which Constantine ordered, in which case it is notable that Sinaiticus contains Antilegomena which would ultimately not continue to be received, namely the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (Hermas had long been highly contentious, based on its late date as well as it was felt to promote heretical Christological views).

Canonical lists before Constantine/Nicea and canonical lists after are basically comparable in terms of mixed opinion concerning Antilegomena, with the Homolegoumena being rather firmly established long before Constantine.

Constantine was important for various reasons historically, though I think he is often considered more important than he really was. Constantine's most important contributions to Christian history is the Edict of Milan, his patronage to Christianity, and summoning bishops to Nicea for the council. All very important, but there is a persistent idea that Constantine had a significant influence in the shape of Christian teaching and theology, which I really don't think is justified. For his part Constantine ultimately came to favor the Arian cause, not the Nicene one; Constantine having copies of the Scriptures published to be placed in the fifty churches he was having built only means that--and the discussions and debates over the Canon continued for centuries after Constantine largely the same as they had before Constantine.

There is a very popular narrative in the modern age that, quite frankly, isn't supported by the historical record.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

Constantine was important for various reasons historically, though I think he is often considered more important than he really was. Constantine's most important contributions to Christian history is the Edict of Milan, his patronage to Christianity, and summoning bishops to Nicea for the council. All very important, but there is a persistent idea that Constantine had a significant influence in the shape of Christian teaching and theology, which I really don't think is justified. For his part Constantine ultimately came to favor the Arian cause, not the Nicene one; Constantine having copies of the Scriptures published to be placed in the fifty churches he was having built only means that--and the discussions and debates over the Canon continued for centuries after Constantine largely the same as they had before Constantine.

I think you're still underestimating the importance of Constantine. He was the beginning of a long line of emperors who patronized and standardized Christianity. Without Constantine and his believing mother Helena, I don't see any way that Christianity would have become a mainstream religion. All religions need political backing to become great IMO.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think you're still underestimating the importance of Constantine. He was the beginning of a long line of emperors who patronized and standardized Christianity. Without Constantine and his believing mother Helena, I don't see any way that Christianity would have become a mainstream religion. All religions need political backing to become great IMO.

Christianity was well established as well as the canon long before Constantine. While it is true that he stopped Christians being killed for their faith and establishing rights to them, he had nothing to do with the NT canon as it was already set.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think you're still underestimating the importance of Constantine. He was the beginning of a long line of emperors who patronized and standardized Christianity. Without Constantine and his believing mother Helena, I don't see any way that Christianity would have become a mainstream religion. All religions need political backing to become great IMO.

A mainstream religion in the Roman Empire, sure; Constantine legalized Christianity which certainly was a big deal.

But let's remember that Christianity wasn't confined to the Roman Empire.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

Christianity was well established as well as the canon long before Constantine. While it is true that he stopped Christians being killed for their faith and establishing rights to them, he had nothing to do with the NT canon as it was already set.

You're saying the canon was set before Constantine and @ViaCrucis is saying the canon was not set until after Constantine. Of course there is truth to both positions, because the canon was a long process that started before Constantine and didn't finish until after Constantine. (When I say "canon", I mean more than simply the Bible - I mean the traditions too.) Without Constantine, I don't think the process of standardization would have gone as far as it did. Constantine paid the travel expenses (and I assume the lodging) for all the delegates to the Council of Nicaea. Constantine was personally present when the council convened, and he applied pressure when necessary to overcome disputes. These early Christians were a very extreme group of people. Many of them were ascetics and had been imprisoned and tortured. Yet they hated fellow Christians with different theologies almost more than they hated the people who persecuted them. I read about two early Christians who were imprisoned together in the same sell, but they disagreed on theology, so they hung a blanket to divide the cell. There is the famous story of St. Nicholas assaulting a fellow Christian who did not agree with him on some issue. (Then the Virgin Mary persuaded somebody to pardon St. Nicholas.)

I see parallels between Constantine and General Washington. The U.S. never would have succeeded in creating a strong federal government under the Constitution without General Washington's shadow to pressure everybody.

 

[cloudyday2]

A mainstream religion in the Roman Empire, sure; Constantine legalized Christianity which certainly was a big deal.

But let's remember that Christianity wasn't confined to the Roman Empire.

-CryptoLutheran

That is a good point, because comparing the Christianities that existed in separate political regimes can give some idea of the role of politics in picking the winners and losers in the theological competitions. I believe the Christianity that existed under the Partian Empire was much more Gnostic, but I'm sure there were also Orthodox there too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're saying the canon was set before Constantine and @ViaCrucis is saying the canon was not set until after Constantine. Of course there is truth to both positions, because the canon was a long process that started before Constantine and didn't finish until after Constantine. (When I say "canon", I mean more than simply the Bible - I mean the traditions too.) Without Constantine, I don't think the process of standardization would have gone as far as it did. Constantine paid the travel expenses (and I assume the lodging) for all the delegates to the Council of Nicaea. Constantine was personally present when the council convened, and he applied pressure when necessary to overcome disputes. These early Christians were a very extreme group of people. Many of them were ascetics and had been imprisoned and tortured. Yet they hated fellow Christians with different theologies almost more than they hated the people who persecuted them. I read about two early Christians who were imprisoned together in the same sell, but they disagreed on theology, so they hung a blanket to divide the cell. There is the famous story of St. Nicholas assaulting a fellow Christian who did not agree with him on some issue. (Then the Virgin Mary persuaded somebody to pardon St. Nicholas.)

I see parallels between Constantine and General Washington. The U.S. never would have succeeded in creating a strong federal government under the Constitution without General Washington's shadow to pressure everybody.

The early church, very early church had established a very strict requirement on Scripture. It had to be either a disciple or someone who was writing for one. Most of the New testament could be written on the basis of the early church letters and canon was established even at that time. It wasn't compiled to later but the canon itself was established long before it was compiled.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is a good point, because comparing the Christianities that existed in separate political regimes can give some idea of the role of politics in picking the winners and losers in the theological competitions. I believe the Christianity that existed under the Partian Empire was much more Gnostic, but I'm sure there were also Orthodox there too.

We know the sort of Christianity in places outside of the Roman Empire because the churches were actively engaged in the broader Christian world. And the churches of those non-Roman places still exist:

The Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Tawahedo Orthodox Church, the Malankara Church and descendants, the Assyrian Church of the East, etc.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is unique in that ancient Armenia was the first nation in the world to adopt Christianity as its official religion, and the Armenian Church continues unabated since those ancient times. It was made the official religion of Armenia at a time when Christians were still suffering persecution under Diocletian in Rome, years before Constantine even came to power in the Roman Empire. This is also perhaps why the Armenian Church retains the ancient liturgical practice of celebrating the Nativity as part of Epiphany, on January 6th, never adopting the December 25th date which became widespread in the 4th and 5th centuries in the rest of the churches.

Yet the Armenian Church completely embraces the Council of Nicea and its symbol, there was no coercion on the part of Roman powers over the Church. The same goes with the other churches I mentioned which have existed outside of Roman imperial authority, and in some cases have always been a minority in their region. The Syriac Orthodox, the Church of the East, the Malankara Church have never been state churches, they have always existed as minorities in their historic regions, and having existed side-by-side with "Roman" churches in the (relative) West, though not subject to external bishops, or political heads.

The existence of these churches, historically and today, puts a significant monkey wrench in theories which would try and pin things almost entirely on Constantine or Roman political power and influence. And, of course, if we would want to argue that they simply accepted certain teaching in order to appease the churches within the Roman empire, that would likewise fall apart when it becomes clear that these churches were willing to fall on their sword over theological matters when it came to the controversies and the complexities surrounding the Nestorian and Eutychian debates, and the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon respectively--which ultimately did have significant political issues involved, especially in the 6th century where Justinian asserted Diaphysitism resulting in hostility toward the Miaphysites.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

We know the sort of Christianity in places outside of the Roman Empire because the churches were actively engaged in the broader Christian world. And the churches of those non-Roman places still exist:

The Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Tawahedo Orthodox Church, the Malankara Church and descendants, the Assyrian Church of the East, etc.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is unique in that ancient Armenia was the first nation in the world to adopt Christianity as its official religion, and the Armenian Church continues unabated since those ancient times. It was made the official religion of Armenia at a time when Christians were still suffering persecution under Diocletian in Rome, years before Constantine even came to power in the Roman Empire. This is also perhaps why the Armenian Church retains the ancient liturgical practice of celebrating the Nativity as part of Epiphany, on January 6th, never adopting the December 25th date which became widespread in the 4th and 5th centuries in the rest of the churches.

Yet the Armenian Church completely embraces the Council of Nicea and its symbol, there was no coercion on the part of Roman powers over the Church. The same goes with the other churches I mentioned which have existed outside of Roman imperial authority, and in some cases have always been a minority in their region. The Syriac Orthodox, the Church of the East, the Malankara Church have never been state churches, they have always existed as minorities in their historic regions, and having existed side-by-side with "Roman" churches in the (relative) West, though not subject to external bishops, or political heads.

The existence of these churches, historically and today, puts a significant monkey wrench in theories which would try and pin things almost entirely on Constantine or Roman political power and influence. And, of course, if we would want to argue that they simply accepted certain teaching in order to appease the churches within the Roman empire, that would likewise fall apart when it becomes clear that these churches were willing to fall on their sword over theological matters when it came to the controversies and the complexities surrounding the Nestorian and Eutychian debates, and the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon respectively--which ultimately did have significant political issues involved, especially in the 6th century where Justinian asserted Diaphysitism resulting in hostility toward the Miaphysites.

-CryptoLutheran

You forgot to mention the many heretical Christian churches that survived and thrived beyond the reach of the proto-orthodox. Eventually most of those believers were squashed by Islam, but they lasted for a while.

Wouldn't you agree that there was more variety in Christianity outside the Roman world? Couldn't that indicate that Christianity in its infancy had a lot of variety until the proto-orthodox finally squashed their competitors? By analogy, does the dominance of the Windows OS indicate that Windows was always dominant, or does it indicate that Microsoft ruthlessly crushed most of their competitors? Standard Oil would be an even better analogy, because the oil industry was extremely non-standardized in its infancy (based on a documentary I saw - not claiming to be an expert on monopolies LOL).

 

[cloudyday2]

If I understand correctly, @ViaCrucis and @Oncedeceived , you guys are claiming that there is a strand of Christian theology has not changed fundamentally from the time of Jesus? If we take CF's standard of Christianity, the Nicene Creed, then you are claiming that the twelve disciples would have felt comfortable reciting the Nicene Creed? So the earliest Christians had a high Christology right? Most books I have read say that the high Christology evolved over several centuries. So C.S. Lewis's explanation that God's revelation culminated in Jesus isn't persuasive to me. God's revelation keeps evolving as though there are no dramatic revelations - only billions of little revelations (or imaginations).

 

[ChetSinger]

(First off, if you don't agree with what I say next regarding the history of Abrahamic beliefs, then please don't post in this thread. I am looking for answers and ideas as opposed to a debate about history.) ... O.k., with my admittedly limited knowledge of history, it seems that the Jewish beliefs evolved gradually over centuries from earlier polytheistic religions in that region. If you don't agree with me, then that's fine, but don't derail this thread please; I have a question that I want answered.

My question is this: how do you maintain your faith while believing the historical claim I made above? Isn't God supposed to reveal Himself to Moses, as Jesus, to Muhammad, etc.? Why would the historical evolution of these beliefs look so messy?

I've been asking myself why I do not believe in an Abrahamic God, and mostly it is this historical issue.

I've heard this before, and in a nutshell I think it's a false dilemma. The Bible itself says that mankind experienced a polytheistic existence from Babel until the resurrection of Christ. At Babel God turned his back on mankind and placed an angelic layer of management between himself and the nations. There really were a collection of seventy spiritual beings running the affairs of men whom God had divided by geography and language. So yes, Israel was born in what would have appeared to be a polytheistic environment. Israel was God's personal nation, created in part to ensure a Godly place for the arrival of the messiah.

So I'm perfectly content with Israel coming out of a polytheistic environment, and having to be taught that YHWH was the Most High.

 

[ChetSinger]

If I understand correctly, @ViaCrucis and @Oncedeceived , you guys are claiming that there is a strand of Christian theology has not changed fundamentally from the time of Jesus? If we take CF's standard of Christianity, the Nicene Creed, then you are claiming that the twelve disciples would have felt comfortable reciting the Nicene Creed? So the earliest Christians had a high Christology right? Most books I have read say that the high Christology evolved over several centuries. So C.S. Lewis's explanation that God's revelation culminated in Jesus isn't persuasive to me. God's revelation keeps evolving as though there are no dramatic revelations - only billions of little revelations (or imaginations).

High Christology can be found in all of the Gospels, via Memra theology in John and Two Powers theology in the synoptic Gospels. It can also be found in some of Paul's letters. So I don't understand why some still hold to the idea that it was a later development.

 

[cloudyday2]

High Christology can be found in all of the Gospels, via Memra theology in John and Two Powers theology in the synoptic Gospels. It can also be found in some of Paul's letters. So I don't understand why some still hold to the idea that it was a later development.

Thanks, this is interesting as well as your previous post about the 70 nations with their 70 angelic overseers.
Here is something I found through google for anybody who is interested.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra

 

[ChetSinger]

Thanks, this is interesting as well as your previous post about the 70 nations with their 70 angelic overseers.
Here is something I found through google for anybody who is interested.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra

Yeah, God's Word in early rabbinical thought is a fascinating subject. In the Targums, the Word does physical things such as walk in the garden of Eden, close the door of the ark behind Noah, etc. In Deuteronomy he also sits on a throne in heaven and listens to people's prayers. All these are things that the original Hebrew scriptures say that God alone did.

And then John wrote that God's Word became flesh in the form of Jesus. To any contemporary Jew it would've been obvious that John was portraying Jesus as divine: he was implying that it was the pre-incarnate Jesus who had walked in the garden, closed the ark's door, etc. I think that would've been a hugely bold and mind-bending claim, guaranteed to stir up Jewish passions in one direction or another.

EDIT: Just to tie these two ideas together, the Targums say that when God confused the languages at Babel it was actually the "Word of God" who descended upon the city accompanied by the seventy angels.

 

[ScottA]

(First off, if you don't agree with what I say next regarding the history of Abrahamic beliefs, then please don't post in this thread. I am looking for answers and ideas as opposed to a debate about history.) ... O.k., with my admittedly limited knowledge of history, it seems that the Jewish beliefs evolved gradually over centuries from earlier polytheistic religions in that region. If you don't agree with me, then that's fine, but don't derail this thread please; I have a question that I want answered.

My question is this: how do you maintain your faith while believing the historical claim I made above? Isn't God supposed to reveal Himself to Moses, as Jesus, to Muhammad, etc.? Why would the historical evolution of these beliefs look so messy?

I've been asking myself why I do not believe in an Abrahamic God, and mostly it is this historical issue.

Because history and all the activities you mentioned are ALL under the control of God. The fact that it may appear suspect, simply means that those who do not know better of God by other means, have an out - by design.

 

[hedrick]

I’m one of the (few) people that the OP is addressed to. I accept modern archaeology, which implies that there’s limited historicity to accounts of Abraham and Moses. This needn’t mean that they didn’t exist. But the whole history as shown in Genesis and Exodus seems unlikely.

Is this an issue? I don’t think so. If Jesus didn’t exist, we’ve got a problem, because Christianity is about Jesus. But it’s not about Abraham in the same sense. Jesus came as part of God’s plan to work with Israel, so Israel being called, being disobedient, and God working with Israel to hold it accountable, does matter. But the prophets are enough to establish those things. Whether the specific account of the giving of the covenant is legend or history doesn’t matter to me so much.

 

[Hoghead1]

I’m one of the (few) people that the OP is addressed to. I accept modern archaeology, which implies that there’s limited historicity to accounts of Abraham and Moses. This needn’t mean that they didn’t exist. But the whole history as shown in Genesis and Exodus seems unlikely.

Is this an issue? I don’t think so. If Jesus didn’t exist, we’ve got a problem, because Christianity is about Jesus. But it’s not about Abraham in the same sense. Jesus came as part of God’s plan to work with Israel, so Israel being called, being disobedient, and God working with Israel to hold it accountable, does matter. But the prophets are enough to establish those things. Whether the specific account of the giving of the covenant is legend or history doesn’t matter to me so much.

Yes, but who says all the accounts of Christ are historically accurate? I sure don't. I think there was some real spin-doctoring in the gospels. I think we can know only the Christ of kerygma and myth, not the human, historical Christ.

 

[hedrick]

If I understand correctly, @ViaCrucis and @Oncedeceived , you guys are claiming that there is a strand of Christian theology has not changed fundamentally from the time of Jesus? If we take CF's standard of Christianity, the Nicene Creed, then you are claiming that the twelve disciples would have felt comfortable reciting the Nicene Creed? So the earliest Christians had a high Christology right? Most books I have read say that the high Christology evolved over several centuries. So C.S. Lewis's explanation that God's revelation culminated in Jesus isn't persuasive to me. God's revelation keeps evolving as though there are no dramatic revelations - only billions of little revelations (or imaginations).

I hope ViaCrucis hasn’t said the disciples would have been comfortable reciting the Nicene Creed, because that’s absurd. Jesus being a direct representative of God is present throughout the NT. In John and many of the letters, we get Jesus being the embodiment of God’s preexistent wisdom, his way of being present with his people. I'm not sure how far you have to go before you would call it a high Christology.

But the Nicene Creed, obviously not. That was a result of the Church’s attempt to explain their beliefs to a culture that used Greek philosophical concepts. Ideally it was an accurate translation from the vocabulary and conceptual world of the NT to a rather different vocabulary and conceptual world. How much got lost in the translation is a matter of dispute, and CF rules don’t really permit a full discussion of that question in this forum.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, but who says all the accounts of Christ are historically accurate? I sure don't. I think there was some real spin-doctoring in the gospels. I think we can know only the Christ of kerygma and myth, not the human, historical Christ.

Sure there was spin-doctoring. The writers were clear that they weren't just history buffs who thought Jesus was an interesting character. They were presenting the Gospel. But I read a sampling of current scholarship on Jesus. I don't think it's quite as hopeless as you say.

Roman historians had specific points of view. So did every other written source used by historians. That doesn't make it impossible to know anything about history.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I hope ViaCrucis hasn’t said the disciples would have been comfortable reciting the Nicene Creed, because that’s absurd. Jesus being a direct representative of God is present throughout the NT. In John and many of the letters, we get Jesus being the embodiment of God’s preexistent wisdom, his way of being present with his people. I'm not sure how far you have to go before you would call it a high Christology.

But the Nicene Creed, obviously not. That was a result of the Church’s attempt to explain their beliefs to a culture that used Greek philosophical concepts. Ideally it was an accurate translation from the vocabulary and conceptual world of the NT to a rather different vocabulary and conceptual world. How much got lost in the translation is a matter of dispute, and CF rules don’t really permit a full discussion of that question in this forum.

No, I haven't said that the disciples would have been able to recite the Creed. The Creed addresses theological issues that are several centuries removed.

But I would say that the Nicene expression of faith is a faithful reception of that ancient deposit of faith from the apostles and the earliest stratum of Christian teaching. But the debates, controversies, and distinct challenges which the Christian Church found itself engaging in the first few centuries led to the Nicene confession, that that confession is certainly more faithful than the Arian, Sabellian, or Adoptionist alternatives.

When it comes to the various Gnostic sects, I think they should be taken less seriously than the above mentioned; the Gnostic Jesus does not look anything like a Jewish teacher from Palestine, and that should be considered a significant problem in and of itself. Further, while Arian, Sabellian, and Adoptionist groups all still worked from within the framework of an apostolic faith and a received tradition of teaching, Gnostics appealed less so to historical continuity but rather to being possessors of secret or special teaching and knowledge. The Gnostic Jesus need not be an historical person at all, but merely needs to be "the Savior", a powerful expression of gnosis, a face through which the various ideas of Gnostic religion could be filtered through--it could be Jesus, or it could have been Socrates or any other person of significance, the person doesn't matter, what mattered was the teaching.

And lastly Judeo-Christian groups, these certainly have more merit than the Gnostics. The Ebionites, Elkasites, and Nasoreans. Though it seems "Ebionite" was a term used to describe more than one group as descriptions of their views tend to depend on who is writing about them--though commonly it's said that they reject St. Paul, they mostly(?) reject the virgin birth, and some (at least) seem to have held to Gnostic ideas and/or engaged in angel worship (which may represent descendents of Judaizing groups which Paul condemned in his letters). The Elkasites seemed to maintain some kind of angel worship, and like the Montanists seemed to believe a new era had dawned, for them under the reign of Trajan where a book was given to their founder Elkasai, by an angel who identified itself as the son of God. The Nasoreans are, perhaps, the most interesting in that typically they lived and believed as traditional Jews, holding to the Torah, while believing Jesus was the Messiah, born of a virgin, and they principally used some form of Matthew's Gospel in Aramaic. Communities of these seem to have largely disappeared, except in remote locations, by the 3rd century.

-CryptoLutheran