Would anyone be interested in answering a question re: Christianity and Judaism?

[Lisa in SC]

Thank you to everyone who has responded. I wish I could reply individually, but my time is limited due to an appointment I have soon. I will look at everything that has been recommended. Again, please know everything I'm writing is meant respectfully.

 

Although I have far too many questions to list, all of which have surfaced from my original question, I'm going to ask only one (at least I hope it will end up being just one). In posts upthread, there were references to the fact that the Roman Catholic & its offshoots vs. the Orthodox Church have different understandings of sin and original sin. Also, upthread, it's stated that Christians reinterpret the Tanakh (which, I'm ashamed to admit, had never occurred to me before...I hate when I am so ignorant). These things raise huge concerns for me. If major concepts have different meanings and foundational scripture has been reinterpreted, then how do we know which we should be following, and that we haven't been "deceived" (for lack of a better word)?

 

I hate that it seems like I'm trying to stir the pot. I'm really not. If someone know of a better place where I can ask these sorts of questions, I will go back to less controversial topics here. :)

 

I do have to leave soon and will be gone for a few hours, but I'm not abandoning the thread.

[Onceuponatime]

These things raise huge concerns for me. If major concepts have different meanings and foundational scripture has been reinterpreted, then how do we know which we should be following, and that we haven't been "deceived" (for lack of a better word)?

 

 

 

From personal experience, it may take years of studying various points of view to come to any kind of conclusion in answer to any of your questions. The journey may be enlightening, disturbing, or reassuring, depending how you interpret your findings. You may find that you end up with more questions than answers. But it will be YOUR journey, noone else's. As you can see, there are multiple possible destinations.

[Kathryn]

If major concepts have different meanings and foundational scripture has been reinterpreted, then how do we know which we should be following, and that we haven't been "deceived" (for lack of a better word)?.

It is questions like this that are leading me into the Orthodox Church, which, as I am understanding it, has remained largely unchanged for almost 2,000 years.

 

That's where we ended up. Our family was chrismated last weekend.

[albeto]

I guess your post leads us to a new question (does that mean I need to start a new thread? Re-title this one?). Why is Paul given so much "space" in the Bible? Is it because there weren't any others who were as outspoken as he? There were others, though. So, was this just a decision made by man a long time ago for a reason we may possibly never know?

 

 

There's a growing body of scholars who find support for the theory that Paul, being the earliest writer of what we recognize as Christian theology, created it. There had been numerous cults that worshiped resurrected man/gods for centuries in this region. Jesus was one of many (and there were various Jesus cults, which helps explain why Christians today can support diametrically opposing theological arguments with scripture). Paul's letters were prolific and wide-read, and that helped inspired the Christian cult to grow into the enormous religion we recognize centuries later. In essence, he was like a 1st century Joseph Smith who found the "real faith" not written on tablets of gold (only he could see) but through a vision (only he could see) on a road. This "real faith" was not persuasive to the Jews, but mighty appealing to the Gentiles, which helped its spread. So Paul is given so much "space" in the bible because, well, it's his theology.

[speedmom4]

Thank you to everyone who has responded. I wish I could reply individually, but my time is limited due to an appointment I have soon. I will look at everything that has been recommended. Again, please know everything I'm writing is meant respectfully.

 

Although I have far too many questions to list, all of which have surfaced from my original question, I'm going to ask only one (at least I hope it will end up being just one). In posts upthread, there were references to the fact that the Roman Catholic & its offshoots vs. the Orthodox Church have different understandings of sin and original sin. Also, upthread, it's stated that Christians reinterpret the Tanakh (which, I'm ashamed to admit, had never occurred to me before...I hate when I am so ignorant). These things raise huge concerns for me. If major concepts have different meanings and foundational scripture has been reinterpreted, then how do we know which we should be following, and that we haven't been "deceived" (for lack of a better word)?

 

I hate that it seems like I'm trying to stir the pot. I'm really not. If someone know of a better place where I can ask these sorts of questions, I will go back to less controversial topics here. :)

 

I do have to leave soon and will be gone for a few hours, but I'm not abandoning the thread.

 

 

I have also been on a spiritual journey. It has been very enlightening. I became very interested in the early church. I wanted to know what the apostles were teaching. I also am very interested in church history. Currently I am reading a book titled Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. The author teaches History of the Church at Oxford. He comes from an Anglican background but no longer identifies with any denomination. He comes at the history of Christianity as an historian. It's really really interesting. I am particularly interested in the Reformation and what it's true motivation was. Also he has a complete section all about Orthodoxy.

 

I also just finished a light read. The book is titled My Jesus Year by Benyamin Cohen. He is an Orthodox Jew who decided to spend a year attending different Christian denominations in the Bible Belt. It was a great book and I highly recommend it. It's interesting to see Chriatianity from an outsider's perspective.

 

I think asking all these questions is a good thing. Instead of taking someone else's word for it you're looking for the truth. My own journey led me away from evangelical Christianity back to my Roman Catholic roots. I now feel completely authentic. It has taken me a while to get here but it has been worth all the struggle. My advice is to keep searching.

 

Elise in NC

[albeto]

I'm really unclear on what the issue is. Do you not believe in free will? Do you think that God should have "made" the Jews believe in Jesus?

 

 

I think, and I desperately hope the OP will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue is: If the sheep shall hear the shepherd's voice, and the Jews were created to be those sheep, why did they not hear the shepherd's voice?

[albeto]

These things raise huge concerns for me. If major concepts have different meanings and foundational scripture has been reinterpreted, then how do we know which we should be following, and that we haven't been "deceived" (for lack of a better word)?

 

 

Good question. If the answer is, "take it on faith," then how does one know which faith tradition to take it on?

[Lisa in SC]

 

 

It is questions like this that are leading me into the Orthodox Church, which, as I am understanding it, has remained largely unchanged for almost 2,000 years.

 

Respectfully, how are you understanding this? What books or research did you read or how did you arrive at the conclusion that the Orthodox Church has remained largely unchanged for 2,000 years? Again, I'm asking with good intentions. I'm looking for sources, etc. because I'm now on a journey of my own.

[Lisa in SC]

There's a growing body of scholars who find support for the theory that Paul, being the earliest writer of what we recognize as Christian theology, created it. There had been numerous cults that worshiped resurrected man/gods for centuries in this region. Jesus was one of many (and there were various Jesus cults, which helps explain why Christians today can support diametrically opposing theological arguments with scripture). Paul's letters were prolific and wide-read, and that helped inspired the Christian cult to grow into the enormous religion we recognize centuries later. In essence, he was like a 1st century Joseph Smith who found the "real faith" not written on tablets of gold (only he could see) but through a vision (only he could see) on a road. This "real faith" was not persuasive to the Jews, but mighty appealing to the Gentiles, which helped its spread. So Paul is given so much "space" in the bible because, well, it's his theology.

 

Well this is interesting, and it's definitely news to me. I feel more and more ignorant with each passing hour, I think. Ok. In order to take a serious look at this theory, should I simply start with a search and only read from sources that are from scholars, universities, etc.? I want to avoid the types of sites I came up with when I went searching for answers regarding my original question.

 

I think, and I desperately hope the OP will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue is: If the sheep shall hear the shepherd's voice, and the Jews were created to be those sheep, why did they not hear the shepherd's voice?

 

Thank you. No need to correct anything. :)

 

Good question. If the answer is, "take it on faith," then how does one know which faith tradition to take it on?

 

Yes! This. Exactly this. I can't even add a thought to it, because it's exactly what I mean.

[albeto]

Well this is interesting, and it's definitely news to me. I feel more and more ignorant with each passing hour, I think.

 

 

I know exactly how that feels!

 

 

was my first introduction to challenging what has traditionally been considered evidence of the existence of Jesus, followed by the theory that is gaining traction in academic and historical fields. (This looks like a decent summary/introduction of the same argument.)

 

Here is a lengthy article. The whole website is nice to explore.

 

I like

(and the

) because it offers a more plausible explanation of the origins of religious communities, including the Christian community, than "God did it, trust me."

[Lisa in SC]

Thank you, albeto. All of this is much appreciated.

[Lisa in SC]

 

I hope some of this is helpful. I am still just learning and there is so much more out there. I'm sure some of the Orthodox ladies on here could answer the question much better than I.

 

 

It's very helpful. Thank you for taking the time to share all of this. :)

[KarenNC]

To be fair, one should also realize that Judaism has also changed over the course of the last 2000 years (and, indeed, wasn't monolithic at the time of Jesus, either). It also continues to change. Rabbinic Judaism is not the same as, well, I suppose one could call it Temple-based Judaism, since there had to be a change after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. There are also different denominations within modern Judaism, with different interpretations of what is required of Jews. When looking for information on Jewish belief, I would strongly recommend avoiding any Messianic Jewish sites and groups like Jews for Jesus-- IME, Jews regard them as Christian and representative of a branch of Christianity rather than Judaism (along the same lines as not looking to Islamic sources for information on Christian belief, but going to a Christian source instead and vice versa).

 

http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm

http://www.jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

[Kathryn]

 

 

Well this is interesting, and it's definitely news to me. I feel more and more ignorant with each passing hour, I think. Ok. In order to take a serious look at this theory, should I simply start with a search and only read from sources that are from scholars, universities, etc.? I want to avoid the types of sites I came up with when I went searching for answers regarding my original question.

 

 

 

Thank you. No need to correct anything. :)

 

 

 

Yes! This. Exactly this. I can't even add a thought to it, because it's exactly what I mean.

 

It helps to know your source and their possible biases. when searching for "the truth" keep in mind what perspective people/sites are coming from. For example, of the last few posters here, I'm (newly) Orthodox, cloudsmom is inquiring into Orthodoxy, KarenNC appears to be Jewish (is that correct?), and albeto is atheist. We are all going to approach the question from a different angle. I'd definitely look to each religion/denomination to answer the question from its own perspective and not necessarily trust an academic response from outside of that faith.

[milovany]

I think, and I desperately hope the OP will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue is: If the sheep shall hear the shepherd's voice, and the Jews were created to be those sheep, why did they not hear the shepherd's voice?

 

And the ancient Christian answer is, they did. Many did. 3000 in one day at one point. Some did not. It was a choice. All the apostles were Jewish from what I understand -- they did recognize his voice and followed their good shepherd. That's what the New Testament and Holy Tradition teach (in the Christian perspective).

 

 

Good question. If the answer is, "take it on faith," then how does one know which faith tradition to take it on?

 

The original one. That one Christ gave to the apostles through the Holy Spirit. He said the church would endure through the ages and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, so it's still there. I know to many it seems simplistic, but it just is. The physical, tangible church that Christ gave the world through the apostles never went away. People can choose whether or not that means something, or whether or not they want to do anything with it, but for those that want to find that original church, it's still around.

[albeto]

And the ancient Christian answer is, they did. Many did. 3000 in one day at one point. Some did not.

 

Sure, but most did not. So many did not that the gospel message was brought to the Gentiles. Why would the vast majority of the sheep not recognize the shepherd's voice? They were created and set aside for this very purpose. Pardon my analogy, but it would be like wondering why so many greyhounds just don't run.

 

The original one.

 

Original according to whom? As a former Catholic, I could offer all kinds of "evidence" to show the office of the bishop of Rome (the papacy) was created by Jesus to preserve and protect The Original Faith. Karen can probably blow all our minds away with evidence that reveals there were a number of The Original Faiths among the Jewish people throughout the middle east and norther Africa.

 

That one Christ gave to the apostles through the Holy Spirit.

 

The one preserved by the the pope, or the one preserved by the Baptists and their Trail of Blood? Or the one given to Joseph Smith to restore centuries later after everyone messed it all up so badly that there was nothing but chaos? See the problem?

[albeto]

It helps to know your source and their possible biases. when searching for "the truth" keep in mind what perspective people/sites are coming from. For example, of the last few posters here, I'm (newly) Orthodox, cloudsmom is inquiring into Orthodoxy, KarenNC appears to be Jewish (is that correct?), and albeto is atheist. We are all going to approach the question from a different angle. I'd definitely look to each religion/denomination to answer the question from its own perspective and not necessarily trust an academic response from outside of that faith.

 

Either Jesus is the Son of God or he isn't, not because of who shares the idea, but because it's fact or it isn't a fact. One's personal perspective shouldn't make a difference in this case.

[albeto]

sorry, double post

[Lisa in SC]

 

 

It helps to know your source and their possible biases. when searching for "the truth" keep in mind what perspective people/sites are coming from. For example, of the last few posters here, I'm (newly) Orthodox, cloudsmom is inquiring into Orthodoxy, KarenNC appears to be Jewish (is that correct?), and albeto is atheist. We are all going to approach the question from a different angle. I'd definitely look to each religion/denomination to answer the question from its own perspective and not necessarily trust an academic response from outside of that faith.

 

I would agree that biases are likely in every perspective, but that would be true of other topics as well. I intend to research as many different perspectives as possible. I don't see how I could arrive at a conclusion using any other method. I'm glad that so many people from so many different faiths have taken the time to contribute to this discussion. This has only given me more resources to look into.

 

Approaching a question from numerous angles gives one the best possible opportunity to discover the answer, does it not? I trust you meant your advice to be kind, and I've received it as such. :) I can assure you that I don't blindly trust any response from any source. I'm a skeptic like that. ;)

 

I do sincerely thank everyone for all of the time, patience, resources and knowledge shared with me. I've spent too much time researching today. I need to establish a daily time limit, or I will spend too much time on this one thing. I mustn't forget to enjoy the summer!

[Lisa in SC]

 

 

Either Jesus is the Son of God or he isn't, not because of who shares the idea, but because it's fact or it isn't a fact. One's personal perspective shouldn't make a difference in this case.

 

 

Well that was well and succinctly said. I'm far too verbose. Anyway, you're correct. Either he is or he isn't. My journey is to determine for myself which of these things is true. The same is true for dd.

[milovany]

Sure, but most did not. So many did not that the gospel message was brought to the Gentiles. Why would the vast majority of the sheep not recognize the shepherd's voice? They were created and set aside for this very purpose. Pardon my analogy, but it would be like wondering why so many greyhounds just don't run.

 

Speaking as a Christian, for the same reason most of the world is not Christian, even though God made them and would like them to come to the fullness of faith through Christ (and has given them knowledge of Himself even if they don't have a church or the scriptures). Most choose not to, and this free will was a gift God gave to man. But he waits in love and will extend mercy.

 

Original according to whom? As a former Catholic, I could offer all kinds of "evidence" to show the office of the bishop of Rome (the papacy) was created by Jesus to preserve and protect The Original Faith. Karen can probably blow all our minds away with evidence that reveals there were a number of The Original Faiths among the Jewish people throughout the middle east and norther Africa.

 

 

Original according to history. One of course has to decide how to "read" history, but for us it was an apostolic tie (leaving Orthodoxy and Catholicism) plus least changed. Orthodoxy was the clear choice for us.

 

The one preserved by the the pope, or the one preserved by the Baptists and their Trail of Blood? Or the one given to Joseph Smith to restore centuries later after everyone messed it all up so badly that there was nothing but chaos? See the problem?

 

 

The one preserved through time by the Holy Spirit. Which one was there and which one still has the same teachings as the apostles and their direct successors? The Holy Spirit has kept the church.

[Shahrazad]

Don't Christians believe that the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Son of God led to the replacement of the Jews as the chosen ones to the Christians being those chosen by God? Or is that only specific sub-groups.

 

Obviously, I don't believe Jesus is the son of God or divine or that the Jews are still the chosen ones anymore so I'm afraid I'm of little helpful input to you, OP.

[Laurie4b]

 

I think, and I desperately hope the OP will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue is: If the sheep shall hear the shepherd's voice, and the Jews were created to be those sheep, why did they not hear the shepherd's voice?

 

OP, short answer to this question is here, from Luke 13: ³⁴ “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing

 

Longer answer: This quote about the sheep hearing his voice is from John, chapter 10. If you read it in the context of John 8-10, you'll see the flow of the conversation. Not even needing to rely on Paul, you can read what Jesus says. In John 8, it's quite clear that ethnicity alone doesn't determine who is and isn't one of his sheep (though in John 8, he's using different words.) It's a matter of the heart. The books Christians call the Old Testament don't identify everyone who is physically or ethnically Jewish as one of his people, either. There are many, many instances where a portion--often the majority--turned away from God and a smaller number remained faithful. Caleb & Joshua, for instance. This is a continuation of a theme from the books of the Law, the history, and the prophets.

 

Compare Hosea chapter 11 (Old Testament) with the passage above from Luke 13.

 

While there are some differences in the main branches of Christianity that hold to the creeds (Apostle's and Nicene), commonly referred to as orthodox Christians (including the Orthodox (capital O), Roman Catholic Church, and Protestant church), you'll find there is much they have in common even if they argue about the particulars. There is really overwhelming evidence that we have very reliable transmission of Scripture over the years. Where there are differences, they tend to be very minor and there are a ton of other documents to compare them to. Yes, there are some differences in interpretation, but there is a lot of area of common ground. And a lot of the time, the interpretive differences are a matter of emphasis, or a tendency to come down hard on one side of a paradox in a different direction than someone else comes down on a different side of the same paradox. Most lay people can hardly untangle the differences. For instance, someone has mentioned the difference between the teachings of the western (Catholic & Protestant) and eastern (Orthodox) branches of the church re: Adam's sin and its effect, with the eastern branch of Christianity having more of an understanding that it resulted in a propensity for all of us to sin, and the western branch saying we all bear the guilt of that sin. However, both branches agree that we all have sinned and that Christ's death was needed to bring healing, forgiveness of sin, and new life. Given that it's undeniable that I have sinned, the most relevant part to me is the offer of forgiveness and the ability to enter into new life with God .

 

People mean different things when they say "take something on faith." Some mean "believe something all your reason is telling you isn't true." I would not be a Christian if that's what faith is. I was brought into the faith in a dry, cognitive way as I sifted the evidence. I didn't even want to be a Christian; I wanted to be a hedonist with some spiritual tones in there. After deciding that the evidence favored Christianity, it took some years before my experience caught up with my reason. I now would say I believe both because of my reason and because of numerous experiences I've had that just can't be explained away. Faith is assurance of things you don't necessarily see now because of who you do know now. Because I know dh, I have faith that if he says he'll come home right after he's done his work, that that is what he'll do. I don't worry that he'll see a babe on the way home. I have faith in God in the same way. Faith is an aspect of relationship, not an alternative to the using the mind that God gave us. However, I'm with Pascal that the heart has reasons which reason doesn't know. They are still reasons, but may be arrived at by a different way of knowing.

[Kathryn]

 

 

I would agree that biases are likely in every perspective, but that would be true of other topics as well. I intend to research as many different perspectives as possible. I don't see how I could arrive at a conclusion using any other method. I'm glad that so many people from so many different faiths have taken the time to contribute to this discussion. This has only given me more resources to look into.

 

Approaching a question from numerous angles gives one the best possible opportunity to discover the answer, does it not? I trust you meant your advice to be kind, and I've received it as such. :) I can assure you that I don't blindly trust any response from any source. I'm a skeptic like that. ;)

 

I do sincerely thank everyone for all of the time, patience, resources and knowledge shared with me. I've spent too much time researching today. I need to establish a daily time limit, or I will spend too much time on this one thing. I mustn't forget to enjoy the summer!

 

Yes, I did. Thank you for taking it as intended. To me, faith/religion is an intensely personal decision. I wasn't one to evangelize when I was an atheist and I'm not one to evangelize as a Christian. I just wanted to make sure that you approach your question from the multiple angles involved.

[Kathryn]

 

 

Either Jesus is the Son of God or he isn't, not because of who shares the idea, but because it's fact or it isn't a fact. One's personal perspective shouldn't make a difference in this case.

 

While this is correct, his existence and who he was/is cannot be proven or disproven. That IS a matter of faith and something each person must decide for themselves.

[albeto]

Speaking as a Christian, for the same reason most of the world is not Christian, even though God made them and would like them to come to the fullness of faith through Christ (and has given them knowledge of Himself even if they don't have a church or the scriptures). Most choose not to, and this free will was a gift God gave to man.

 

Where I part company with your line of reasoning here is that the ancient Jews seemingly had what no other culture had: a personal relationship with YHWH. They had pillars of fire, manna from Heaven, rules and expectations written on stone in the handwriting of God Himself, and of course lots and lots of prophets. Other cultures didn't have these things, but supposedly would have had the law (knowledge of God's will) written on their hearts (Romans 2). Logically, don't you think they would have attributed their conscience to support their own religious teachings? It's hard to have the free will to make a choice when that choice is unknown to you to make.

 

But he waits in love and will extend mercy.

 

Perhaps. Then again, the bible also says the opposite.

 

Original according to history. One of course has to decide how to "read" history, but for us it was an apostolic tie (leaving Orthodoxy and Catholicism) plus least changed. Orthodoxy was the clear choice for us.

 

Historical events either happened or they didn't. There's no "reading" facts. Conclusions can be made differently when analyzing those facts, but facts are facts. Events either happened or they didn't. Either there was a Jewish consensus about what the real faith was, or there wasn't. Either Paul was visited by the real god/man Jesus, or he wasn't.

 

The one preserved through time by the Holy Spirit. Which one was there and which one still has the same teachings as the apostles and their direct successors? The Holy Spirit has kept the church.

 

 

The problem for the OP, if I understand correctly, is in figuring out which church the holy spirit kept. Lots of religious sects believe this. Lots of religious sects say they can trust theirs is the right one because the holy spirit told them so. What makes your claim of divine authority more credible than Muhammed's, or Joseph Smith's, or Pope Francis'? Do you see the difficulty for one who doesn't share your faith? That you've made this choice to believe it isn't particularly persuasive in an argument about facts. Suggesting you are right certainly has no support because we've yet to identify the holy spirit, much less determine which religious tradition it approves of, kwim? I hope you understand I'm not trying to put you on the spot to defend your faith, just point out what the question really entails - How to best take a long, honest look at the facts as they are known outside personal faith.

[albeto]

If you read it in the context of ....

 

I've heard this phrase many times, each one suggesting a different (often diametrically opposing) context. How would the OP know which context is the right one?

 

Where there are differences, they tend to be very minor and there are a ton of other documents to compare them to. Yes, there are some differences in interpretation, but there is a lot of area of common ground. And a lot of the time, the interpretive differences are a matter of emphasis, or a tendency to come down hard on one side of a paradox in a different direction than someone else comes down on a different side of the same paradox.

 

This argument only works if one assumes the canon of the bible is accurate. Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and Jews each believe different texts are divinely inspired. Historians have discovered similar letters and epistles over time that were easily considered divinely inspired during their day. On what objective information can the OP know which texts really are the ones God is speaking through?

 

Given that it's undeniable that I have sinned, the most relevant part to me is the offer of forgiveness and the ability to enter into new life with God .

 

Why is that undeniable? The more we understand human behavior, the less the concept of sin makes sense. It's becoming obsolete in the same way attributing earthquakes to God's wrath is becoming obsolete. Now that we know about plate tectonics, we no longer assume it's God willfully moving the earth (most people anyway). The more we learn about behavior, including impulses, conditioning, environmental factors, mental health, etc, the more obsolete the theory of sin becomes. If that's the case, then in what way does Jesus play into this, and how would the OP know?

[albeto]

While this is correct, his existence and who he was/is cannot be proven or disproven. That IS a matter of faith and something each person must decide for themselves.

 

 

Then how does the OP and her dd answer the question? If they decide one way, those consequences are true, but if they decide another way, those consequences are false?

[milovany]

I hope you understand I'm not trying to put you on the spot to defend your faith, just point out what the question really entails - How to best take a long, honest look at the facts as they are known outside personal faith.

 

I'm with you on this part! I think one can take an objective look outside the faith to find the original church. I agree with you that something either is or isn't. There's one original Christian church, or there isn't. If there is, it can be found today or it can't. If it can, there has to be one church that exists today that can make the claim to being this original church. Which one has the best claim to that? I realize others think differently, but I believe it's the Orthodox church. Its historical and apostolic line can be pinpointed right to Pentecost. The Catholic Church can also make this same claim since the two split from each other in 1054 AD, but since (comparatively) it's the Orthodox church that has changed precious little in practice and theology since the beginning, that's the one we went with. I don't think the Mormon church or the Muslim faith (or others mentioned) can make the same apostolic claim, and that's where the difference lies. Either there's an actual, tangible apostolic link through all of real history, or there's not.

 

The following graphic is one that helped me find the Orthodox church (it was published in US News & World Report, so no specific religious bias, just a general picture of small-0 orthodox/mainstream Christian church history).

 

 

I'm sure there's something about this graphic that will bother you, but it works for me and seems to present history objectively (as you said, things either developed this way or they didn't; I believe they did).

 

Thanks for your time! Not trying to convince you, just stating where we're coming, because the questions were asked upthread. May the rest of your weekend be blessed.

[KarenNC]

It helps to know your source and their possible biases. when searching for "the truth" keep in mind what perspective people/sites are coming from. For example, of the last few posters here, I'm (newly) Orthodox, cloudsmom is inquiring into Orthodoxy, KarenNC appears to be Jewish (is that correct?), and albeto is atheist. We are all going to approach the question from a different angle. I'd definitely look to each religion/denomination to answer the question from its own perspective and not necessarily trust an academic response from outside of that faith.

 

No, not Jewish ;), just a hobbyist in comparative religion who's had a rather convoluted spiritual journey. Raised uber-Calvinist until my late teens, journeyed briefly through Assembly of God (due to parents, not conviction), Episcopalian looking for the most liberal church theologically while staying traditional liturgically (where I was very active in parish life for a number of years and studied lay ministry through EFM), studied with a rabbi for a year toward conversion to Reform Judaism when I could no longer convince myself Christianity was my path (we've maintained involvement there for about 18 years, though we ultimately didn't convert), and have ended up at the Unitarian Universalist church for the last 14 or so years. I consider myself Hellenic Neopagan UU with influences from Shinto, Zen Buddhism, liberal Christianity, and Reform Judaism. :001_smile: I can't seem to be a mainstream anything, :p but I love learning more about all religions and could talk about this sort of thing for days. :D

[Lisa in SC]

I'm only at the very beginning of this journey, and I can already see that it seems to be morphing into a Gordian knot of sorts. I have my work cut out for me. Honestly, I am amazed how each attempt at research simply unearths a wealth of new questions. I asked for it, though, didn't I? It does promise to be an interesting, if enormously challenging, search.

[Joanne]

(This is not what you are looking for but I love religious and spiritual discussions).

 

Or, maybe God is like the parent who secretly tells each kid he loves them best. ;)

[Shahrazad]

I don't think the Mormon church or the Muslim faith (or others mentioned) can make the same apostolic claim, and that's where the difference lies. Either there's an actual, tangible apostolic link through all of real history, or there's not.

 

 

I don't think the Muslim faith makes any apostolic claim whatsoever? :confused1:

Or are you instead talking about the age of the faith in general? Honestly, I just was confused by what you meant and am trying to clarify what the statement meant. I understood it when I read it as Mormonism can't make the same apostolic claim but since Muslims are not Christians (as I know you're well aware, of course) I was just unsure of what you meant.

 

It is interesting, when I was Christian, I was very familiar with the RCC but never encountered anyone related to EO or even really knew much about it, although I guess I was slightly familiar with Coptic Christians. Most of what I have learned regarding Eastern Orthodoxy has been from this forum.

[Josephine]

Ok, I haven't had time to read through the posts but one area that Jews and Christians differ is their holy texts. Christians believe that the Bible alone is the inspired word of God. Most Jews also believe in the various texts of the oral law to be from God e.g. Talmud and Mishnah. There are a few sects of Jews though that believe in the Tanakh (Old Testament) only. Since the oral law is basically an interpretation of scripture then I would think this also influences how Jews view Jesus. Hope this helps.

[milovany]

Christians believe that the Bible alone is the inspired word of God...

 

I think it needs to be said that this is very much NOT true. Some Christians think this. In the ancient traditions, which is far more than half the Christians around the world throughout time, the inspired Word of God is Christ. The Bible is one of many ways Christ has spoken to us. What you wrote is true for some segments of protestant Christianity. Not wanting to argue that point, just making the correction on behalf of the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and probably other Christian believers.

[Onceuponatime]

 

.

 

For historical accuracy, this is wrong when it comes to Churches of Christ, The Christian Church, and Disciples of Christ. It would be more accurate to show them coming off the Presbyterian branch, joined by a branch from the Baptists, definitely not Dutch reformed. They are part of what is called the restoration movement in America, which became a collaboration of a few groups of people from various denominations who wanted to "restore" the NewTestament church as they believed it must have been, from Bible study alone.

[Laurie4b]

I've heard this phrase many times, each one suggesting a different (often diametrically opposing) context. How would the OP know which context is the right one?

 

Umm, the common literary meaning of context. You quoted one verse. I gave the greater context in which that verse was embedded. It's the same use of "context" as if you quoted a sentence or two from To Kill a Mockingbird and I referred to the part of the book in which the quote was found as the context.

 

This argument only works if one assumes the canon of the bible is accurate. Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and Jews each believe different texts are divinely inspired. Historians have discovered similar letters and epistles over time that were easily considered divinely inspired during their day. On what objective information can the OP know which texts really are the ones God is speaking through?

 

Jews and Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant churches believe the books in the Jewish canon to be inspired Scripture.

 

Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants believe the books included in the Protestant New Testament to be inspired Scripture.

 

The tiny proportion of books about which there has been controversy are those called deuterocanonical by the Catholic and Orthodox Church.

 

They are not accepted in the canon of the Old Testament by Jews or most Protestants.

 

(People within the following traditions can correct me if I'm wrong)

 

It's my understanding that the Orthodox include them in their Bibles but view them as having secondary authority (I believe that's the Anglican view as well) . The Catholic use of the same term deuterocanonical to mean secondary in that they were accepted later into their canon. This is a tiny portion of Scripture whose inclusion has aroused debate from early on.

 

So yes, there is small area of long acknowledged disagreement, but it is a small percentage compared to the huge areas of agreement.

 

Why is that undeniable? The more we understand human behavior, the less the concept of sin makes sense. It's becoming obsolete in the same way attributing earthquakes to God's wrath is becoming obsolete. Now that we know about plate tectonics, we no longer assume it's God willfully moving the earth (most people anyway). The more we learn about behavior, including impulses, conditioning, environmental factors, mental health, etc, the more obsolete the theory of sin becomes. If that's the case, then in what way does Jesus play into this, and how would the OP know?

Haha. You'd have to know me, I guess ;)

 

More seriously, I don't see any of those things as incompatible with the term sin.

 

It's undeniable that I do things that are wrong and it's undeniable that there are times when I neglect to do things that are right.

 

I'll stick to me as an example. There are areas in my life in which I'm very aware that biology (effects of meds, specifically), conditioning, etc. makes it harder for me to choose not to do things I know full well I shouldn't. My mother yelled at me constantly. Am I still responsible for whether or not I yell at my kids? Yes.

 

I am taking meds to prevent a cancer recurrence that make it much harder for me to maintain my emotional equilibrium than it used to be. Does that mean that I am not responsible if I yell at my kids cause now I've got environmental factors AND biological factors working against me? I think I'm still responsible.

 

I can control the impulse to yell though it takes more effort for me than for most people. Sometimes I don't. Doing something I know is wrong is sin. Not doing something I know is right is sin. I'm still responsible. Some choices may be harder for me to resist than for another person, but I still have the choice.

[KarenNC]

While this is correct, his existence and who he was/is cannot be proven or disproven. That IS a matter of faith and something each person must decide for themselves.

 

 

I think all religion boils down to UPG (unverifiable personal gnosis). It's not something that, in the end, one comes to by logic, research, etc because, no matter how far those take you, there's ultimately a leap of faith required. There will always be faiths that are bigger, newer (or older), more popular, have cooler miracles or cooler liturgy, say something different in their sacred stories, or whatever (sounds kind of like homeschool curricula,doesn't it ;) ). Either the core tenets (for instance, Jesus is divine, there is only one God, there are many Gods, etc) fairly accurately mesh with your experience of spiritual reality or they do not. There's not an objective way to measure any of it. I'm not inside others' spiritual experiences and they're not inside mine, so I have a hard time saying someone else's UPG is right or wrong----all I can do is say that that hasn't been my experience of spiritual reality.

 

One needs to first decide whether s/he accepts the broad core tenets of a particular faith and only then worry about the details of the individual denominations. I would also encourage a person to exhaust the wide range of possibilities and variations in interpretation/worship style in their current faith (Christianity, for example) before deciding to switch to something else. IMO, that should only be done with incredibly deep conviction that there is absolutely no way in which one can honestly stay within the current faith. I speak from experience when I say that it is not the easiest thing to go against the faith of your extended family and community.

[milovany]

I don't think the Muslim faith makes any apostolic claim whatsoever? :confused1:

Or are you instead talking about the age of the faith in general? Honestly, I just was confused by what you meant and am trying to clarify what the statement meant. I understood it when I read it as Mormonism can't make the same apostolic claim but since Muslims are not Christians (as I know you're well aware, of course) I was just unsure of what you meant.

 

It is interesting, when I was Christian, I was very familiar with the RCC but never encountered anyone related to EO or even really knew much about it, although I guess I was slightly familiar with Coptic Christians. Most of what I have learned regarding Eastern Orthodoxy has been from this forum.

 

 

I was responding to the point made by Albeto above that the Muslim faith sees itself as the fulfillment of Judaism and Christianity. It's not Christianity, but from what I understand, they see it that there was Judaism, then Christianity as a fulfillment of that, and then Islam as a fulfillment of that. So they are post-Christian, but without apostolic succession.

[albeto]

I think all religion boils down to UPG (unverifiable personal gnosis). It's not something that, in the end, one comes to by logic, research, etc because, no matter how far those take you, there's ultimately a leap of faith required.

 

Yes. Exactly. Each poster here is responding to questions from the point of view of their own UPG. This isn't what the OP is asking for, though. The OP is asking for facts, not faithful beliefs.

 

Either the core tenets (for instance, Jesus is divine, there is only one God, there are many Gods, etc) fairly accurately mesh with your experience of spiritual reality or they do not.

 

I would suggest either the core tenets of a religion are real, or they are not. Each religious person finds the explanation that best meshes with their experiences in conjunction with the religious information of which they are aware. That doesn't mean their interpretation is correct. For example, either the Muslim is right and Jesus was a prophet but not divine, or the Christian is right and Jesus was and is the living God spoken about throughout the scriptures. He cannot be both man-but-not-god and man/god. If I understand the OP correctly, she is asking how one knows the facts, not how does one come to their own personal beliefs.

 

There's not an objective way to measure any of it. I'm not inside others' spiritual experiences and they're not inside mine, so I have a hard time saying someone else's UPG is right or wrong----all I can do is say that that hasn't been my experience of spiritual reality.

 

Respectfully, I disagree. We can measure all kinds of things, spiritual experiences included. If the OP is looking for information, she should include non spiritual explanations as well, especially when those explanations can be objectively identified, verified, repeated, and analyzed with common ground.

[JenniferB]

My priest just did a series of teachings on the continuation of the faith from Judaism through the early church up to today. He organized his talks by topics of practice. For example the first week was on worship: how did the Jews worship and how did the earliest Christians worship (most of whom were Jews), and how do we worship today in the Orthodox Church. He explained how it went from this (Jewish custom) to that (Christian custom.). Like the blessing at the end of the service for example: the Jewish celebrant would hold up his hands and make an open triangle with his ring fingers and pinkie fingers separated from Their ring fingers (like the vulcan salute but with two hands put together) and he would pronounce the blessing on the people. It was believed that the blessing would come from God and go through the triangle shape of his hands and go out to the people. When some Jews became Christian and they held their services (at first in Jewish synagogues - until they got kicked out) the blessing portion of the service morphed into making the sign of the cross over the people.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Synagoge%2C_Enschede%2C_Mozaiek.jpg'>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Synagoge%2C_Enschede%2C_Mozaiek.jpg

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Synagoge%2C_Enschede%2C_Mozaiek.jpg

 

There are many more examples he gave over a period of 6 or 7 talks. If you are interested in reading my priests notes - he might be willing to share them by emailing a copy to me. I've been meaning to ask him for a copy for a while because the talks were so informative and confirming that we Orthodox Christians are practicing the faith as it was handed down by the earliest Christians and therefore as a completion of the Jewish faith since the earliest Christians were practicing the Jewish faith as fulfilled in Christ.

 

Send me a PM if you are interested in his notes, or if he doesn't share them I could ask him for the names of the resources he used to form his talks - I'm sure he'd be willing to share those.

[KarenNC]

I would suggest either the core tenets of a religion are real, or they are not. Each religious person finds the explanation that best meshes with their experiences in conjunction with the religious information of which they are aware. That doesn't mean their interpretation is correct. For example, either the Muslim is right and Jesus was a prophet but not divine, or the Christian is right and Jesus was and is the living God spoken about throughout the scriptures. He cannot be both man-but-not-god and man/god. If I understand the OP correctly, she is asking how one knows the facts, not how does one come to their own personal beliefs.

 

Or the entity/experience people interpret as Jesus might be something else all together, something for which we currently have no tangible explanation or concept (just to throw in another option :001_smile: ). I have to admit that I'd love to know exactly how one would go about objectively determining the "fact" of Jesus' divinity or non-divinity (or any other such claim about a supernatural entity) without resorting to faith.

 

Respectfully, I disagree. We can measure all kinds of things, spiritual experiences included. If the OP is looking for information, she should include non spiritual explanations as well, especially when those explanations can be objectively identified, verified, repeated, and analyzed with common ground.

 

Agreed that we can measure all sorts of things, but we don't know all there is to know and therefore can't effectively measure all there is. IMO, it is possible for something to have *both* a spiritual and a non-spiritual explanation or interpretation--the one does not invalidate the other. Now, the interpretation one puts on those events will likely differ widely depending on the particular faith filter one sees them through.

[albeto]

Or the entity/experience people interpret as Jesus might be something else all together, something for which we currently have no tangible explanation or concept (just to throw in another option :001_smile: ).

 

Do I understand this correctly? Are you suggesting it might be possible for something to be both a thing and the opposite of that thing at the same time because of some unknown reason that we have yet to uncover, a reason that doesn't affect anything else in the world? That's quite a difficult hypothesis to explore. After all, how would one know if something about God is true if it could be simultaneously untrue, but not necessarily, and there's no way to know?

 

I have to admit that I'd love to know exactly how one would go about objectively determining the "fact" of Jesus' divinity or non-divinity (or any other such claim about a supernatural entity) without resorting to faith.

 

No one has yet to do such a thing, which is why the claim of the divinity of a man named Jesus relies on personal faith. We can explore the possibility of the character from the bible having existed, but not the possibility of his supposed divinity for no other reason than we can't explore divinity. It can't be successfully identified in order to explore it.

 

Agreed that we can measure all sorts of things, but we don't know all there is to know and therefore can't effectively measure all there is. IMO, it is possible for something to have *both* a spiritual and a non-spiritual explanation or interpretation--the one does not invalidate the other. Now, the interpretation one puts on those events will likely differ widely depending on the particular faith filter one sees them through.

 

 

Once we know the non-spiritual explanation of an event, the spiritual explanation becomes obsolete. For the same reason we don't hang witches or burn them at the stake for bringing drought upon the land, we don't punish autistic children of sinning when their behavior is socially unacceptable (okay, bad example - that happens depressingly often). Religious beliefs have evolved to incorporate information for centuries (flat earth, rotating sun, 6000 year old universe). That information is then incorporated into the belief system, rendering the old explanation unnecessary. So it's possible that spiritual explanations could be accurate representations of reality, but not plausible. But then we must agree that it's possible that burps keep unicorns away, but not plausible (after all, have you ever burped? have you ever seen a unicorn? case closed? ;)). Just because we can conceive of something doesn't mean it's a factual explanation.

[Shahrazad]

 

I was responding to the point made by Albeto above that the Muslim faith sees itself as the fulfillment of Judaism and Christianity. It's not Christianity, but from what I understand, they see it that there was Judaism, then Christianity as a fulfillment of that, and then Islam as a fulfillment of that. So they are post-Christian, but without apostolic succession.

 

 

Ah, that makes more sense then how I was understanding it. Just to clarify, Muslims don't only believe that they are a fulfillment of Christianity and Judaism but that Islam is the evolution of the original monotheistic faith, called the Hanif which Muslims believe was the original faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus before their messages were 'corrupted'. So, my point is only that Muslims believe that although Islam as we call it is a newer faith, the religious teachings have existed through God's prophets since the beginning.

[KarenNC]

Do I understand this correctly? Are you suggesting it might be possible for something to be both a thing and the opposite of that thing at the same time because of some unknown reason that we have yet to uncover, a reason that doesn't affect anything else in the world? That's quite a difficult hypothesis to explore. After all, how would one know if something about God is true if it could be simultaneously untrue, but not necessarily, and there's no way to know?

 

I am saying that when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails. The methods of science are the hammer and a hammer just won't work in this situation. "Is it true" in the sense of "Is it able to be scientifically or objectively verified?" is simply not the appropriate question to ask, because it cannot be answered in that way given our current limitations. We don't currently have the tools to answer this sort of question (does the God of x religion exist, is Jesus then the son of the Christian God, etc) by any other means than faith. Whether we ever will is an unanswerable question.

 

No one has yet to do such a thing, which is why the claim of the divinity of a man named Jesus relies on personal faith. We can explore the possibility of the character from the bible having existed, but not the possibility of his supposed divinity for no other reason than we can't explore divinity. It can't be successfully identified in order to explore it.

 

Exactly. I am saying that this is not a question that logic or science can answer. There does not exist a "factual" answer to the question. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," as Sagan put it. I do not believe that we can assume that we know everything it may ever be possible to know in this arena, so the best we can do is to say that it cannot be either proven or disproven *at this time and with these methods.*

 

Once we know the non-spiritual explanation of an event, the spiritual explanation becomes obsolete. For the same reason we don't hang witches or burn them at the stake for bringing drought upon the land, we don't punish autistic children of sinning when their behavior is socially unacceptable (okay, bad example - that happens depressingly often). Religious beliefs have evolved to incorporate information for centuries (flat earth, rotating sun, 6000 year old universe). That information is then incorporated into the belief system, rendering the old explanation unnecessary. So it's possible that spiritual explanations could be accurate representations of reality, but not plausible. But then we must agree that it's possible that burps keep unicorns away, but not plausible (after all, have you ever burped? have you ever seen a unicorn? case closed? ;)). Just because we can conceive of something doesn't mean it's a factual explanation.

 

 

And just because someone can't conceive of something doesn't mean it cannot be real :001_smile:. Now, for me, the fact that a non-spiritual explanation of something exists does not mean that it is stripped of all possible spiritual significance. I'm talking about something deeper than a simplistic surface cause and effect. To limit oneself to such is the trap of the literalist, whose faith is destroyed when a non-supernatural or non-spiritual explanation is found. It's an example of Stephen J Gould's NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). The only possible way for people to answer the OP's question (Ãf Jesus is the Messiah, why didn't the Jews accept him, so which of the two religions is right) is through their beliefs. The very question of which of these is right assumes that one of them is. In my case, I ended up with the conclusion that neither was "right" in light of my UPG, which is why I ended up polytheist. ;) Others ended up in different places. The best I can offer is to provide as accurate information as I can to the OP about the teachings of the religions in question so that she can see whether one fits with her UPG. :001_smile:

[albeto]

I am saying that when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails. The methods of science are the hammer and a hammer just won't work in this situation. "Is it true" in the sense of "Is it able to be scientifically or objectively verified?" is simply not the appropriate question to ask, because it cannot be answered in that way given our current limitations. We don't currently have the tools to answer this sort of question (does the God of x religion exist, is Jesus then the son of the Christian God, etc) by any other means than faith. Whether we ever will is an unanswerable question.

 

What knowledge has been discovered through methods other than the scientific method? What methodology should the OP use to gain information about such things?

 

Exactly. I am saying that this is not a question that logic or science can answer. There does not exist a "factual" answer to the question. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," as Sagan put it. I do not believe that we can assume that we know everything it may ever be possible to know in this arena, so the best we can do is to say that it cannot be either proven or disproven *at this time and with these methods.*

 

Valid point. At the same time, if we can assume with a measure of confidence that tsunamis are not the result of Poseidon unleashing his army against man, that Odin didn't defeat the Ice Giants, thus saving mankind, can we not similarly assume that Jesus didn't invite a community of undead to descend upon Jerusalem to convert unbelievers? If we can dismiss the fantastic claims of one religious story, why not dismiss the fantastic claims of another just because it happens to be familiar to us? I understand not dismissing it if we're personally invested in that religious belief, but the OP is asking how to gain knowledge outside the parameters of accepting things on faith.

 

In my case, I ended up with the conclusion that neither was "right" in light of my UPG, which is why I ended up polytheist. ;) Others ended up in different places. The best I can offer is to provide as accurate information as I can to the OP about the teachings of the religions in question so that she can see whether one fits with her UPG. :001_smile:

 

 

Understood. I'm trying to explore the question without any UPG in the same way I would explore the mythical claims of Persephone, for example. I'm suggesting this method of exploration should be used to test the mythical claims of Jesus.

[KarenNC]

What knowledge has been discovered through methods other than the scientific method? What methodology should the OP use to gain information about such things?

 

As I've said, the question of provable fact is simply not a useful question to ask in this instance because it is not an area that can be measured in such a way. To even ask the question, one has to move outside the realm of science and start from an unprovable premise---that a deity exists and that there is one way of representing that deity that is "truer" than another. Certainly one can find out facts such as how many adherents a religion has, how long it has existed, what rituals does it employ, etc, but those are of limited use. Neither a religion nor its claim is valid to its followers because of such things. An argument from numbers is self-defeating. If a religion is most "true" because of the number of adherents or length of survival or number of miracles, then changing those factors should be as equally able to make it "untrue." So, then, one asks is a religion "truer" than another because it has 5 more members? 50? 50,000? What if that difference changes and the other religion has more?

 

I cannot suggest an objective method by which one can ascertain whether one religion is "truer" than another because I don't think such exists.

 

Valid point. At the same time, if we can assume with a measure of confidence that tsunamis are not the result of Poseidon unleashing his army against man, that Odin didn't defeat the Ice Giants, thus saving mankind, can we not similarly assume that Jesus didn't invite a community of undead to descend upon Jerusalem to convert unbelievers?

 

???? Reference for this story about Jesus? I can't interpret what you might be referring to with this one. I'm familiar with the story of Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones, but not something similar with Jesus. I don't think Lazarus equates to a "community of the undead." As for Poseidon, I can certainly understand and honor Poseidon as the energy inherent in the sea and storm, beyond the ability of man to control, operating according to its own parameters, able to be a source of life and livelihood, but also to be incredibly destructive. My knowledge of geology and fluid dynamics does not interfere with that, nor does the fact that I don't see a giant man with a trident in a chariot pulled by hippocampi every time I go to the beach. ;)

 

If we can dismiss the fantastic claims of one religious story, why not dismiss the fantastic claims of another just because it happens to be familiar to us? I understand not dismissing it if we're personally invested in that religious belief, but the OP is asking how to gain knowledge outside the parameters of accepting things on faith.

 

I think it may be time for the OP to weigh in on the question she is specifically asking, because I don't think it is as exactly as you are proposing.

 

Understood. I'm trying to explore the question without any UPG in the same way I would explore the mythical claims of Persephone, for example. I'm suggesting this method of exploration should be used to test the mythical claims of Jesus.

 

The problem, I believe, is that we are using totally different approaches to sacred story (myth). You appear to be saying that if an event is not objectively provable and did not happen literally as it is stated then the story has no value. You seem to use the term "myth" to be the equivalent of a lie, a fairy tale, something only fit as entertainment and which only someone who is, shall we say, unsophisticated would accept as having any truth. As I see it, this is the limitation of a literalist approach, and not the way in which the vast majority of people who follow any religion approach their own sacred stories. To be fair, this is the common approach that many take toward the sacred stories of any culture/religion not their own. I believe it was Joseph Campbell who defined myth as "other people's religion." It makes it easier to dismiss them as without value. :001_smile:

 

The purpose of sacred stories (myths) is not to simply record literal events (though at times these may form the basis for a myth). They exist to convey information about truths of more importance to a culture than mere facts--truths about how to be human, how to relate to other humans, and how to relate to that which is beyond our current understanding. They may contain traces of memory of actual events or be entirely allegorical. We still create them today, both religiously and as part of our secular society. The myth of George Washington and the cherry tree is one----we have, to the best of my knowledge, no concrete proof that on a particular day George Washington cut down a specific cherry tree and said the exact words attributed to him. Nevertheless, this story has value beyond the literal. It conveys that we, as Americans, value (in ideal, at least--it obviously falls far short in reality ;) ) honesty in our leaders and ourselves, and that honesty even in small things is a virtue toward which we should strive.

 

I do, indeed, explore the myths of Jesus in the same way I explore the Greek myths, even though the Christian myths are not my religion, because they are important, important enough to have been kept alive for thousands of years. This means that I go beyond the surface, looking for the value that the stories have other than a literal reading. I don't "dismiss" any of them, rather I look to see what can be learned from them. What makes them important enough to be kept alive? I do acknowledge a few differences----the Greek myths were not 'canonized" or seen as dictated by a deity as the stories of the Tanakh or the Christian Bible, for example, and there was no expectation of imitatio dei in Greek myth. We have only the versions of the Greek and Roman stories that have survived, not the entirety of them, and often those survivals are from literature or plays, in which they may or may not be being used (or even created) for literary effect. Their origins are not based in a literate society, the way the Christian ones are (at least those in the New Testament). There is not a single "orthodox" version of Persephone or Arachne from the practitioners of a religion including them. We know there are versions of the story of Jason, for instance, which haven't survived because there is artwork on pottery that appears to make reference to the story, but contains unfamiliar elements. These factors mean that it is not possible to tell exactly how representative the myths were of the day to day core beliefs of the majority of Greeks at a particular time in history (since the culture spanned quite a period and things do change ;) ) or of actual religious practice. We are also not surrounded by the culture from which they sprang, so there may be many nuances to the stories that would have been obvious to someone of the time and culture that we are missing entirely (of course, the same is true of the Christian myths).

 

Elizabeth Vandiver's Classical Mythology lecture series through the Great Courses is very interesting, btw, if you want to explore this further. Amy Jill Levine's lectures on the Old Testament are proving just as interesting.

 

ETA: never mind about the reference, I think I found it. I presume you are referring to Matthew 27 and the reference to the veil in the temple being split, the earthquake, tombs opening, etc at the time of the crucifixion. Gotcha--it's relevant to realize that Matthew was aimed at the Jews and so had a vested interest in finding connections to Jewish sacred writings or expectations of a messianic age. There are no non-Christian records of either earthquakes or hordes of the dead at the time to my knowledge, nor do the other Gospels mention hordes of the dead, so I would certainly personally be inclined to read this as other than literal.

[Juniper]

Respectfully, how are you understanding this? What books or research did you read or how did you arrive at the conclusion that the Orthodox Church has remained largely unchanged for 2,000 years? Again, I'm asking with good intentions. I'm looking for sources, etc. because I'm now on a journey of my own.

 

 

I have been absent from the bards for quite awhile, but wanted to give a little insight into my own journey towards EO. After, leaving Evangelical ministry I started asking similar questions as you. There were two things that helped me along my path (and hurt me. Quite the double edged sword.) One was traveling to Rome and time spent in the catecombs and Paul's prison cell. The Icons, the incense burners, the altars. The other was reading the ECFs (Early Church Fathers). Reading the ECFss is like reading primary source documents on the Original church. I had to let it sink in that these were writers within a generation of the Apostles, and with the great oral traditions of the jewish faith (from whence many came), their attention to detail and truthful discription of events and practices...I could find as accurate as possible account of the Early Church. This was good and bad. It settled that the religous practices, the rituals were a more original aspect of the church, but I also found much that I did not admire in the ECFs personal pregudices and outlooks. Many of these I could graciously understand in light of the world they lived, but it has colored my faith with some somber tones.

 

I then had to settle in myself if it had changed as little as was proported. Much of that was resolved for me in reading more on the history of the Orthodox Church.

 

It is not a bad idea to read the ECF's for yourself, just be prepared for more questions. Becoming Orthodox has not been a cake walk for me. I wish you the best on your and your dd's journey.

 

 

I also realize that I did not answer your OP. I think I would muddy the waters even more with my answer, but with my understanding of Heaven and Hell I do not believe that ANYONE who truly loves God and wants to experience His love will be cast away from the very presence and embodiment of LOVE.

[Lisa in SC]

KarenNC suggested it might be time for me to weigh in regarding my question. My original question was pretty much just as I stated it when I started this thread. Now, countless new questions have arisen. I need time to read, research, think about, and discuss the many resources that have been suggested here, as well as ones that I'm sure I will discover along the way.

 

I think the second question I had was regarding how one would go about determining the truth of a particular faith. Each claims to be right, but all can't be. It's becoming very confusing to me. Because I'm in such a place as this, I don't think I can clearly articulate my questions. It's not that I'm tring to avoid the conversation. It's more that my mind is shooting off into a thousand different directions, and the questions are coming faster than I can write them down. Not that any of you would be interested in devoting hours of your time trying to answer them -- nor would I dream of asking that of any of you.

 

So, I'm afraid that I am pretty useless at clarifying much of anything at this point. I'm re-reading responses. I've made a list of the links and books provided so that I can systematically go through them. Indeed, I've already begun the process. If I can clarify something, please let me know. I'll certainly do my best. I do sincerely thank you all.

[albeto]

As I've said, the question of provable fact is simply not a useful question to ask in this instance because it is not an area that can be measured in such a way.

 

I disagree. I maintain no information has been gained outside the scientific method (observation, critical analysis of data, etc). There have been many hypotheses made outside the scientific method, hypotheses such as the weather is controlled by gods, ancestors can help procure the needs of their living descendants, the concept of sin explains why people behave in ways that create problem for themselves or others. None of these concepts have been discovered systematically using objective observation, collection of facts, rational analysis of facts. None of these concepts have been able to withstand reasoned challenges derived from the scientific method (weather patterns, cause and effect, human behavior).

 

I cannot suggest an objective method by which one can ascertain whether one religion is "truer" than another because I don't think such exists.

 

When combined with information gained in an objective, systematic way, is it illogical then to conclude it is likely that no religion is "true"?

 

???? Reference for this story about Jesus?

 

 

"And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs. After His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many". Matt 27:50-53

 

"Many bodies of the saints [believers] who had fallen asleep [died] were raised [undead]." They entered the holy city [Jerusalem] and appeared to many. The concept of a god/man defeating death and coming back to prepare a place in heaven for his followers is not new to Christianity (this was a common religious theme in the greater region for centuries, if not millenia). I don't know about having a group of undead working as missionaries among the living in other religions, but certainly this is a story that, if it weren't a part of the greater Christian identity, would be soundly dismissed by rational argument. In any other context, the story itself is not plausible. The only context in which this story is plausible is within the context of faith, and the OP is asking how to get information outside the context of faith (because, like you say, there is no way to know whose faith is accurate, or if any is accurate).

 

As for Poseidon, I can certainly understand and honor Poseidon as the energy inherent in the sea and storm, beyond the ability of man to control, operating according to its own parameters, able to be a source of life and livelihood, but also to be incredibly destructive. My knowledge of geology and fluid dynamics does not interfere with that, nor does the fact that I don't see a giant man with a trident in a chariot pulled by hippocampi every time I go to the beach. ;)

 

This is a good example of what I meant by modifying one's belief to include information. The character of Poseidon has been modified from a literal god mindfully controlling the ocean, to an anthropomorphic image of the powerful nature of the oceans.

 

The problem, I believe, is that we are using totally different approaches to sacred story (myth). You appear to be saying that if an event is not objectively provable and did not happen literally as it is stated then the story has no value.

 

Not at all. I'm saying if an event did not happen literally as it is stated, then it did not happen literally as stated.

 

In response to the rest of your post, I think you and I see more similarly than apart, and I would probably enjoy discussing this with you more (but don't want to totally and completely derail this thread).

 

:)