Posted on 06/14/2005 4:01:43 PM PDT by sionnsar
Wow, this is mind-stretching stuff.
Not surprisingly, with your re-statements, I think we are indeed on the same wavelength regarding the Persons of the Trinity and on what you mean by a Being.
The quotation that you found from Lossky was interesting -- I didn't recall that passage. I'm pretty sure that when he says "the Greeks" in this context, he means "the Greek fathers" as opposed to "the pagan Greek philosophers." That is what would make the most sense, anyway.
The quotation from Lossky that I was thinking of was one that I recalled during recent discussions with Roman Catholics about the filioque. I was able to find it on-line:
By the dogma of the Filioque, the God of the philosophers and savants is introduced into the heart of the Living God, taking the place of the Deus absconditus, qui posuit tenebras latibulum suum. The unknowable essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit receives positive qualifications. It becomes the object of natural theology: we get "God in general," who could be the god of Descartes, or the god of Leibnitz, or even perhaps, to some extent, the god of Voltaire and of the dechristianized Deists of the eighteenth century. Manuals of theology begin with a demonstration of His existence, thence to deduce, from the simplicity of His essence, the mode in which the perfections found among creatures are to be attributed to this eminently simple essence. From His attributes they go on to a discussion of what He can or cannot do, if He is not to contradict Himself and is to remain true to His essential perfection. Finally a chapter about the relations of the essence — which do not at all abolish its simplicity — serves as a fragile bridge between the god of the philosophers and the God of revelation.
The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine
The Mary Magdalene story is interesting primarily because of it's iconoclastic nature.
I watched an interesting documentary on National Geographic about the Da Vinci Code stuff, and although I was biased, I'm afraid that the cases the experts made for it being hooey were quite a bit more convincing to me than were those trying to make the case in all seriousness.
One point that was made in favor of the MM story was the seeming oddity of Christ appearing first to her. That was quite interesting, because St. Gregory Palamas, in his sermon for the Sunday of the Myrrh-bearing women, makes a very strong case for the inner unwritten tradition of the Orthodox Church that Christ actually appeared first to his mother. I won't go into the details, but it is quite interesting...
Much more interesting than all that Holy Blood, Holy Grail, stuff. :-)
Well let's face it. Some of the stuff in the Bible is pretty farfetched too, but for some reason no "believer" really wants to take a serious look at debunking some of that hooey ... the virgin birth, the loaves & fishes etc etc ... it all falls under the "you must have faith" banner.
If someone is going to take the trouble to tear apart one book (the Davinci Code), shouldn't it be fair game to tear apart the other (the Bible)?
I laughed when I saw someone on this thread refer to the Bible as history.
Uh ... no ... it's a book. Fiction (or "allegory" as the Church likes to phrase it) with historical references. So is Davinci.
If you think that tearing orthodox interpretations of the Bible apart started with the Da Vinci code, you slept through any classes you attended on the Enlightenment -- not to mention any number of ancient heresies, pagan Roman polemicists, etc...
Most criticisms of the Bible are as old as the hills, and have been answered by Christians every time they come up.
What I can't figure out is why anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus is who Christianity says he is would think that it would matter in the least whether or not he was married and had children.
Jesus is of significance to the world because so many people have been utterly convinced that he was who the Church says he is, and because they believe that what the Church teaches about him is true. If he is not what Christians believe him to be, then he was an obscure failure of an itinerant Jewish preacher, then his blood-line is of no more interest than is mine, and no-one would have bothered to preserve or record it. It would certainly have no significance to future humankind, as the Holy Blood, Holy Grail people seem to think it does.
The whole Holy Blood, Holy Grail stuff has been around since the Middle Ages. The only explanation for it that makes sense is that it was a mythology that was concocted as part of some sort of subversive society pitted against the Roman Catholic church. It's power is that it took the incredible reverence for Jesus as God, and then read *that* back into a bloodline. The fact that this was completely illogical wouldn't faze the type of people who go in for "secret knowledge" and "secret histories" one bit. In fact, the kind of small minds that believe in that stuff thrive on logical fallacies.
Why would a "kingly" line be founded on a failed Jewish preacher? What claim would he have had to such a thing? Why would his bloodline have been of any significance? The whole thing is just too silly for words.
Believe that he married, died in obscurity, and that the Church created a whole fabricated mythology around made-up stories about him. That has some logic to it. Believe that he was the Son of God and the Messiah, and that what the Church passed down about him is true -- that makes sense. But believe that he was just an ordinary Jewish rabbi and that everything the Church said about him from the earliest centuries was a lie -- but yet that he also has some sort of cosmic significance that kingdoms would rise and fall over his bloodline? Give me a break...
I think that a person named Jesus did live & that he walked around his immediate surroundings saying that he was the son of God.
Someone doing this today would be 1/locked away or 2/ manage to get a lot of folks to drink Koolaid or 3/ go on Oprah, sell a few books & fade into obscurity.
But it was different times then. People were very into superstition, otherwordliness etc & so he picked up a large following.
The fascinating part of it all is the huge impact it has had on the history of the world. The religion that he started has had an enormous impact on history.
So, for many people, trying to track down some actual facts (outside of the Catholic PR manual...the Bible) is extremely interesting.
Will the discovery of Jesus' progeny amount to a hill of beans? No. But the study of the life of powerful people in history will always be interesting to many people.
Which is very good, because if we weren't on the same wavelength one of us would have to be wrong, and being wrong about this stuff is extremely bad.
You see, the line of Jesus is important because King David was a space alien, and therefore Jesus and Mary Magdalene passed superior alien DNA on to the Merovingians.
But it was different times then. People were very into superstition, otherwordliness etc & so he picked up a large following.
But you had just spoken of moderns managing to get folks to drink Koolaid, which I take it means poisoned Koolaid a la Jim Jones.
Other than Masada (which was different because of that whole Roman army thing), can you name any comparable ancient examples?
I think I saw that in a Mel Brooks movie. The Twelve Apostles were a Yiddish vaudeville troupe, very popular on the Lower East Side in the 1890's, and the whole Son of God schtik was just taken too seriously. Some people will believe *anything*.
This stuff is making my eyes cross. I think I must have Pregnancy Brain. Sigh ... two years until my next coherent thought ...
Oh.
Yes but Jim Jones only got a few hundred people for a few years.
Jesus got quite a few more.
Examples? How's about Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, Shinto etc etc ... signing onto someone's religion appears to have been quite the hobby in the days of old.
Before he made them all die. If he hadn't, how many he'd have now is unknowable.
Examples? How's about Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, Shinto etc etc ... signing onto someone's religion appears to have been quite the hobby in the days of old.
I meant ancient examples of mass suicide. None of those are related. And Islam is Medieval (as were the Cathars, so don't try the endura). And for those I can answer with Scientology, Mormonism, the Moonies, Falun Gong, etc. Your prejudice against the past is baseless.
Do you have any particular reason to believe the "Holy Grail" stuff is the real truth kept hidden be evil ecclesiastics all these years? I'm not asking you to just denounce the Bible. Give reasons for your position.
No, I don't have any incidents of mass suicides in ancient times ... I'm not even sure how this relates to the topic at hand ... that the DaVinci Code & the Bible are just two books.
Either could be right, or neither.
Is the Holy Grail a cup or Jesus' progeny or just a myth? No idea ... but books that weave a fun plot around it's existence are great entertainment.
My entire point is that Dan Brown's version of the Christian history is just as plausible as the Bible's.
If you don't think so ... why not?
According to Dan Brown, nobody thought Jesus is God until the Council of Nicea. According to the Bible, the early Christian believed that the Word was with God, and was God, and that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, as of the Only Begotten of the Father.
Now who is in a better position to know what early Christians believed? Dan Brown? Or the Apostle John?
Who's been on Oprah and who's book is being made into a mega movie with lots of real movie stars, hummm. I think those of us with modern sensibilities and intellect know the answer! ;)
"""According to Dan Brown, nobody thought Jesus is God until the Council of Nicea. According to the Bible ..."""
According to Mark Twain the Bible is full of lies.
This is what he told me just the other day:
"The Bible has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."
Could it be that Dan Brown's fiddling with the Bible is only an honest attempt to uncover some of those lies?
I see that you are refusing any real interaction.
"""I see that you are refusing any real interaction."""
I brought good old God fearing Mark Twain into the debate just to see how well you measure up against the big boys.
Now I see that you are refusing any real interaction with the big boys, you just want to debate fools like me.
Pity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.