A movement can have more than one founder. The founders of Hinduism, as opposed to its predecessor, Vedism, were the rishis, the authors of the Upanishads. Peter founded Christianity as a Jewish sect and Paul relaunched it as a Gentile religion.
Torvald Anker wrote some philosophy.
Laird:
appeared as if from nowhere;
popularized Anker's ideas;
called them "Constitutionalism";
claimed to apply them to a concrete situation;
(the Prophets applied the Mosaic Law to concrete situations;)
gave moral leadership to defeated North Americans;
disappeared as quickly as he had appeared.
That all sounds dodgy. Anyhow, Laird, not Anker, founded Constitutionalism.
22 comments:
Note that when Christianity started up, there was a fair penumbra of Gentiles who were sympathetic to the Jewish religion ("God-fearing") but not quite prepared to go "the whole hog" and convert, with circumcision and obedience to the dietary laws and so forth.
Christianity made its first non-Jewish converts among that group.
They were Paul's target group. He preached in synagogues and was cast out, taking some God-feaers with him.
Kaor, to Both!
It was St. Paul's custom to preach first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles if the former rejected the Message he brought.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Also, neither Peter or Paul "founded" Christiantiy. That was the work of Jesus Christ, thru his Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Christianity is the belief that Jesus was risen so it could only have been founded after his death. Jesus taught that the kingdom was at hand.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree. because I would say the Church was founded AFTER Christ's resurrection. Here I have in mind Matthew 28.16-20, the Great Commission in which Christ commanded His Apostles to proclaim the Gospel to all nations.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not accept that resurrection appearance account as in any way historical. The author of that Gospel thought that there was a single resurrection appearance in Galilee because he had heard or read a phrase that appears in different forms in other gospels.
Paul.
Paul: in a historical/institutional analysis, it's irrelevant whether the Resurrection actually happened as described in the Gospels.
The people concerned -believed- it happened, which is why Christianity is called what it is.
The belief is a fact; whether the thing believed in is a fact too just isn't relevant.
in one sense, yes. Christianity has been a powerful force because it has been believed, whether or not it is true.
On another level, I am concerned about whether it is true: partly intellectual interest/curiosity; partly because, as far as possible, I want to know the truth about such matters - if I believed in a self-revealing deity, then I would address him in prayer before, or as well as, meditating.
Kaor, Paul!
And Stirling explained very well why I still disagree with you, altho I do believe the Resurrection to be literal historical fact.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"The belief is a fact; whether the thing believed in is a fact too just isn't relevant."
The belief is a fact: true. But you also believe that whether the thing believed is a fact is relevant. I also believe that it is relevant. If someone had died and risen and become immortal, then that would be very important.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
For once, we can agree, albeit I would have worded what you wrote immediately above some what differently. Because I believe that "someone" to be more than merely a man.
Ad astra! Sean
Julius Caesar probably believed that the Goddess Venus was one of his ancestors; he most certainly said he did.
That belief had contemporary relevance because it actually aided his political career somewhat, and gave him more self-confidence.
Which is a reason why orthodox Jews did (and still do) find the Christian claim that Jesus was the -begotten son- of God so upsetting.
It makes Jehovah far too much like Zeus or Melkart for comfort.
Judaism emerged from the general Semitic polytheism of its original setting by making increasingly drastic claims about Jehovah -- first that he was -their- God, then that he was the biggest, baddest, strongest God, and ultimately that he was the only God and that the others were, at most, evil spirits.
Hence it became very sensitive about blurring the distinction between Gods and human beings.
In polytheistic systems, there's an infinite gradation of spirit-to-flesh; that's a derivative from animism.
If you look at Shinto, which is a polytheistic religion that still shows a lot of its shamanist/animist roots, you see where it came from. Every rock and tree and stream has a spirit, and you work your way up to ones like Amaterasu-Omikami, who with her siblings is the offspring of the Creator-God Izangi.
I agree about the 3 stages of Judaism:
the one god of our tribal confederation;
the most powerful god;
the only god.
Since godhood was power, to deny power to other gods became effectively to deny their existence.
This is the opposite of the Hindu route from poly- to mono-theism.
The 2 routes are:
there is only one god;
all gods are one.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I knew Julius Caesar claimed to be descended from Venus in PUBLIC, but I wonder if he really believed that in private? I would expect many, but not all educated Romans of his times to have views more like that of the Roman in THE GOLDEN SLAVE, who dismissed the Olympians as "those children."
And I consider Judaism to show a gradual revealing of God as He really is to Abraham, his descendants, the Jews, etc. The God of Abraham, the God of the Israelite confederacy, the most powerful of gods, the ONLY God, Christ culminating that revelation.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: that's about what I said of the ancient Judaic concept of divinity's progression.
Note that as Paul said, Hinduism, and religions deeply influenced by it, like most varieties of Buddhism and, oddly enough, Wicca(*) came to a monotheistic position by the opposite process. That is, rather than denying other gods, it merged them.
It's a similar outcome, but the process influences the product -- the Hindu version doesn't require that you deny the various Gods, just integrate them on a higher level.
(*) Gardner, the founder of modern Wicca, spent time in India and was deeply influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism, both directly and through Theosophy.
That's most apparent in the -theology- of Wicca, particularly the doctrine of reincarnation; the ritual practices owe more to folk-magic, and the traditions of Western esotericism.
But Wicca follows Hinduism quite closely in seeing all aspects of the Divine as true, but limited, aspects of a higher unity -- the Lord and Lady, who in turn unite to form the ultimate Godhood.
It just takes it even further, and will cheerfully incorporate -any- divinity.
Sean: there were philosophical skeptics in classical times, who were close to what we'd call Deism, but they weren't as common as many people think -- that's probably a back-projection from a monotheistic worldview, which has trouble taking polytheism seriously.
Judging from other indications (including the episode in the Gospels where Paul gets mistaken for Zeus) most Greeks and Romans of the time, in all classes, took the myths quite literally. Caesar was well-educated but not an intellectual.
Note that in the pagan Germanic world, nearly all royal dynasties claimed descent from some God or other, usually but not always from Wodan/Odin.
The royal house of Wessex did, and didn't stop doing so when they became Christian -- hence the Windsors are descendants of Wotan too!
In fact, this element probably contributed heavily to the sense of dynastic legitimacy that was so powerful an element in medieval European political culture. Christianity sort of inserted itself into this by its anointing rituals.
It's notable that the sense of blood descent as a "holy" element in royal status is strongest in Western and Northern Europe -- precisely the areas where the institution descended from Germanic roots. It never caught on in Byzantium.
It also added in primogeniture, which heavily reduced the fratricidal wars between claimants who all blood claims that was so common in pagan Scandinavia.
Rome became a monarchy, but it was crippled by the lack of this sort of thing -- the Imperial crown could be seized by force without blood right.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for these fascinating comments, most of which I have no objection to, just a few quibbles, here and there.
Yes, I knew of Gerald Gardner's role in founding Wiccaism, both from your own books and another book called WICCA'S CHARM, a critical but friendly look at it by a Protestant.
Yes, I can see Wiccaism as a kind of stripped down imitation of the more philosophical strains of Hinduism (with some Buddhism mixed in), minus the caste system and the hard polytheism of many ordinary Hindus. And orthodox Catholics simply won't believe in things like "aspects" and reincarnation. Nor can we.
Granted, what you said about the need to avoid overstating the numbers and influence of skeptics who disbelieved in the Olympians in Julius Caesar's time.
I agree one element leading to that strong sense of dynastic legitimacy which became so prevalent in Europe came from dynasties like those of Wessex*, the Merovingians in Gaul, Scandinavia, etc., claiming descent from pagan gods like Odin. Albeit, that kind of claim was not made by the Capetians after they succeeded the Carolingians in 987.
Yes, it was unfortunate for Rome that it failed to develop a similar sense of strong dynastic loyalty after Augustus founded the Principate.
Ad astra! Sean
*One quibble I have is that many historians now doubt that the earliest king of Wessex the present British royal family descend from, Egbert (d. in 837), may not TRULY have been of the old Wessex royal family. His antecedents are cloudy and his relationship to the Wessex dynasty is not clear.
Post a Comment