Time Patrol ethnographer Jens Ulstrup to Unattached Agent Manse Everard and Specialist Janne Floris:
"'...Edh is not introducing the gospel of a whole new religion. That is outside the pagan mentality. In fact, I rather imagine her ideas are evolving as she goes along. She is not even adding a new deity. Her goddess is known through most of the Germanic range. The local name is Naerdha. She must be more or less identical with the Nerthus whose cult Tacitus describes.'" (p. 565)
Christianity began not as the gospel of a whole new religion but as the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets. Moses, representing the Law, and Elijah, representing the Prophets, appeared at either side of Christ at the Transfiguration. (The Law was a revelation. The Prophets applied that revelation to historical contexts. History climaxed in the Messiah.) The new movement, not yet called Christianity, was a culmination of the Abrahamic tradition, not the initiation of a new tradition. There was not meant to be a new tradition. The earliest Christians, persuaded by Peter at Pentecost, were Jews who accepted that the historical process was now complete because the Messiah had come and who continued to worship in the Temple. Paul was arrested making an offering in the Temple. After that, the two communities had to split. Later, Muhammad claimed to fulfil the prophetic monotheist tradition but was not accepted as a prophet by either Jews or Christians. Result: three different world religions. We live with that.
Has anyone ever added a new deity? I think that both the Mosaic and the Koranic names for the one God were originally names of tribal gods. Veleda's Naerdha would have become the one Goddess. We wonder what her history would have been like.
23 comments:
It took a while for Christianity to go from a Jewish heresy to a universalistic religion. It initially spread among what you might call Jewish "hangers-on" -- gentiles who were attracted to ethical monotheism, but not so enthusiastic about the intricate structure of Jewish law (which was a bit less intricate then but still formidable).
That is my understanding. Gentile "God fearers" attended synagogues without accepting circumcision because they liked Jewish monotheism and morality but disliked tribal dietary laws etc: a ready-made audience for St. Paul. All that he needed to do was to preach in a synagogue that the Messiah was come and that the letter of the Law no longer applied. He was expelled, taking the God-fearers with him. They became a Christian congregation.
Kaor, to Both!
I basically agree, altho I would stress that Christ's command to the Apostles in Matthew 28 to preach the Gospel to all nations made Christianity universalistic from the beginning.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Gospels were written when the Church had already become a separate community.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It was separate from the beginning. It took time for the first Christians to understand that. That does not mean Our Lord's command to the Apostles was not given to them in AD 33.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
While researching Jewish religious laws and customs in Marcus Aurelius' time, did you consult the Mishna? I think it was taking shape around then.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It doesn't mean it was, either. The Evangelists clearly put words into Jesus' mouth to suit their purposes.
Paul.
Sean: Yes. There was a separation at the time between what was happening in the religious schools in Palestine and Mesopotamia and Jews-in-general. For example, conversion to Judaism was much more common than it became later.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Except, in those days, many people had far more retentive and accurate memories than is the case today. Which means disciples of a revered teacher would take pains to carefully retain what their master taught. Moreover, some of the Apostles, like Matthew were already literate. Put both together and it's no surprise Matthew was written by about AD 50.*
Mr. Stirling: Just a bit surprised, I thought conversion to Judaism was always difficult. When I mentioned the Mishna I was thinking of both the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds.
Ad asrtra! Sean
*The Oxford Fragments of Matthew, found with legal documents dated to the 12th year of Nero's reign in Egypt gives us evidence Matthew's Gospel already existed, and was not written after AD 70 or 80. That, as well as the arguments presented by David L. Dungan's HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM, convinced me the Q/late dating theory was false.
Sean,
And my understanding is that sayings attributed to Jesus reflect what the church had come to believe.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Other way about, I do not agree with that kind of minimizing of the authenticity of the sayings of Christ. What the Church believes and teaches springs from Christ.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Other way about. It is not minimizing. It is scholarship. "Blessed are the poor" (Luke) or "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matthew)? Obviously editing went on, not just word for word repetition of original utterances. The Fourth Gospel puts entire speeches into Jesus' mouth.
Paul.
Kaor,. Paul!
That vindicates my argument, not yours. That is, slight differences in wording does not invalidate the essential meaning of the sayings. John's Gospel gives us speeches of Christ which I believe came from Him, with theological commentary, all divinely inspired.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Why is this an argument? Analysis of Biblical texts is a very subtle exercise. We should be able to help each other with it. We both know that there is no one answer to any of this. I have read commentaries but then my understanding has been changed by conversations with scholars who had studied Greek and Aramaic.
"Poor" and "poor in spirit" is not a slight difference! Those are two completely different groups of people. Someone edited Jesus' words. John wrote what he believed about Jesus, not what Jesus had said.
I keep asking how you claim to know that one text and not another is inspired. The answer cannot just be that I ask the question from a basis of unbelief.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I consider that editing to be ways of stressing legitimate emphases in what Christ said. Those "differences" never bothered me.
Commentaries are fine, as far as they go, and I have read some. But Catholics don't base their faith on commentaries, it's based on the teaching of the Church, which we believe is prevented by God from teaching error. It is the Protestants, with the stress many of them place on sola scriptura, who run into difficulties if all they have is the 66 Books canon.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The differences between the Gospels are enormous.
My impression is that the Church teaches error all the time!
A prominent British Catholic layman argued that the reason why no Pope makes an ex cathedra doctrinal definition against contraception is because the Holy Spirit is preventing them from teaching error!
Paul.
Points get lost in an exchange. The "poor" and the "poor in spirit" are two completely different groups. Someone didn't like the poor being championed so he changed it.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, what you said about the Gospels. And I have sent you articles in the past by writers opposing your views.
Of course you think the Church is wrong--which is exactly how I regard many of your beliefs, that they are wrong,.
That prominent British "Catholic" is wrong, he was ignoring or overlooking how Pope Paul VI explained in his 1968 encyclical HUMANAE VITAE why artificial contraceptive drugs and devices are unethical.* That was part of what Catholic theologians call "ordinary infallibility," basically a restating of the Church's teaching on a matter of faith and morals.
Ad astra! Sean
*Unlike far too many I've actually read HUMANAE VITAE.
Sean,
And I have read and disagreed with those articles.
We are reduced to saying that each thinks the other is wrong. You provide no basis for discussion, no attempt to find common ground from which to compare alternative views, no attempt to understand an alternative view more clearly instead of just dismissing it as quickly as possible. For you, it is the defence of a belief with which you identify completely. For me, it is a philosophical discussion. Reality/truth exists anyway, whatever we think about it, and whatever we think can only be a small part of the truth.
Of course if we are reduced to simply stating contrary beliefs, then we will continue just to state contrary beliefs but I present arguments for what I say.
I don't think that that prominent British Catholic was right! I just quoted him as an example of what different Catholics can think. Why has no Pope made an ex cathedra definition on contraception? A fellow philosophy student thought that it was because Popes are smart enough to know very well that they are not infallible and don't want to invoke that embarrassing doctrine.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because there was no need for Paul VI to invoke the most solemn form of making an infallible definition for two reasons: (1) he was simply restating what the Church had long believed was infallibly defined; (2) the most formal forms of infallibly are not believed necessary for matters touching natural law, ethics, what can be arrived at by logical reasoning. A third reason is that the most solemn form of invoking infallibility is reserved for matters touching on divine revelation, not for what can be deduced from natural reason.
I'll now quote from Section 25 of the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, LUMEN GENTIUM: "Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgements made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."
Therefore, if those "different Catholics" persist in denying the binding force of HUMANAE VITAE, they are in such grave error they run the risk of falling into heresy and no longer being Catholics at all.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It can be deduced from natural reason alone that contraception is wrong and should never be practiced?
I think that the Lord (making an assumption for the sake of argument) is going to have to accept that he has been served faithfully and honestly by a very large number of Catholics, heretics, Evangelicals, Muslims, theistic Hindus and also by many people who sought what was good without believing that it was a person.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, logical reasoning on why contraceptive drugs/devices are unethical. Using the kind of logical reasoning developed by Aristotle (e.g., his NICHOMACHEAN ETHICS) and his Scholastic successors. A modern example of that being RIGHT AND REASON, by Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J.
No, the Lord will judge with mercy those who were/are sincerely in error.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
So what are the purely logical reasons? Not many people accept them.
Paul.
Post a Comment