Syncretism and the Church

[themuzicman]

OK, this is from Justin's thread on theonomy, which quickly got off topic.

I would like to include in the scope of this thread both syncretism in the history of the church and Justin's claims about Jesus and Christianity. I suppose they'll be somewhat separate.

Syncretism: Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.

Specifically, we're talking about religous syncretism where the result is heterogeneous.

Granted that my Church history is a bit weak, so I'm sure I'll pick up some tidbits here and there, but I think Paul deals pretty effectively with syncretism in Colossians.

So, let's hear it, Justin.

Michael

[technomage]

Thanks, Michael,

OK, I suppose the first step is to look at what syncretism is. Michael's provided a definition:

Syncretism: Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.

But perhaps that definition is ... onesided. Here's what the OED says about syncretism:

...attempted union or reconciliation of diverse or opposite tenets or practices, especially in philosophy or religion.

Citing "partial success" or "heterogeneous" is adding in a connotation of partial failure--and it's a connotation that must be recognized not only for what it is, but for why it exists. Syncretism, to many Christians, is a perjorative--a "dirty word," used to accuse "compromisers."

And sometimes we see Paul arguing against syncretism, such as the passage in Collosians, where he says "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Col 2:8) Yet sometimes we see Paul portrayed as using a form of syncretism called "contextualization," such as when he preached the "Unknown God" to the residents of Athens.

Christianity itself is a syncretic religion, and has been from the days of Paul. In Judaism, followers of YHVH were told to keep the signs of the Covenant (including circumcision). Christianity, instead, teaches that Gentiles can be part of the Covenant without following the signs of the Covenant--they need not be circumcised. In doing so, Christianity reconciled the Covenant with the Greek aversion to circumcision.

Indeed, one of the core doctrines of Christianity--the Trinity--is itself of syncretic origins, in an attempt to reconcile Judaic monotheism with Christian claims that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three persons of One God. Now, I do need to note at this point that the doctrine of the Trinity is a perfectly logical outcome, and it is one I appreciate intellectually and assent to spiritually. To my mind, it is a correct reconciliation of the claims--but it is still syncretic.

This is just the beginning ... but it is a beginning.

[themuzicman]

Thanks, Michael,

OK, I suppose the first step is to look at what syncretism is. Michael's provided a definition:



But perhaps that definition is ... onesided. Here's what the OED says about syncretism:

...attempted union or reconciliation of diverse or opposite tenets or practices, especially in philosophy or religion.

Mine was from the American Heritage Dictionary as cited on dictionary.com

Citing "partial success" or "heterogeneous" is adding in a connotation of partial failure--and it's a connotation that must be recognized not only for what it is, but for why it exists. Syncretism, to many Christians, is a perjorative--a "dirty word," used to accuse "compromisers."

I think heterogenous is important, because the foundation of the word implies trying to put two or more different religions together.

And sometimes we see Paul arguing against syncretism, such as the passage in Collosians, where he says "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Col 2:8) Yet sometimes we see Paul portrayed as using a form of syncretism called "contextualization," such as when he preached the "Unknown God" to the residents of Athens.

How is that syncretization? Paul is simply engaging his audience in such a way as to get their attention. In no way does he give credence to the Greek gods, nor does he embrace their religous practice or doctrine.

If this is your best shot, I'm afraid you're going to be seriously disappointed.

Christianity itself is a syncretic religion, and has been from the days of Paul. In Judaism, followers of YHVH were told to keep the signs of the Covenant (including circumcision). Christianity, instead, teaches that Gentiles can be part of the Covenant without following the signs of the Covenant--they need not be circumcised. In doing so, Christianity reconciled the Covenant with the Greek aversion to circumcision.

Once again, you've misread Paul and Christian doctrine. As I pointed out in your theonomy thread, Christianity is based on a new covenant. The Old one is obsolete and already passing away (Heb 8:13).

The New Covenant doesn't require that Gentiles become Jews (and circumcision is the sign of the covenant with the Jews), but that Jews become Christians, coming OUT of that Covenant into the New Covenant!

Sorry, Justin, but this doesn't cut it, either.

Indeed, one of the core doctrines of Christianity--the Trinity--is itself of syncretic origins, in an attempt to reconcile Judaic monotheism with Christian claims that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three persons of One God.

Syncretic with what? If Christianity affirms one God in and of itself (and it does), then the fact that Judaism is monotheitic is irrelevant. That would be like saying that Christians came up with the trinity because Islam is monotheistic.

In fact, the bible doesn't address the nature of the trinity directly, other than to identify the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as being God, and claiming that there is only one God. If there was some aspect if syncretism going on, you'd think there would be more than just a declaration as such.

Also, if you think about it, the doctrine of the trinity isn't established as foundational church doctrine until 325AD. Yes, the apostles believed it in concept,, as did the ECFs, but it really wasn't an issue until Arius in the 4th Centuty, when the council of Nicea was formed. Issues with Jewish objections would have long since been abandoned 300 years later.

In fact, the early church controversies regarding Christ surrounded his HUMANITY, not his Deity (i.e. Docetism.)


Now, I do need to note at this point that the doctrine of the Trinity is a perfectly logical outcome, and it is one I appreciate intellectually and assent to spiritually. To my mind, it is a correct reconciliation of the claims--but it is still syncretic.


Well, I don't see the need to say that it is syncretic at all. Certainly not with Judaism.

Michael

[technomage]

I think heterogenous is important, because the foundation of the word implies trying to put two or more different religions together.

But "heterogeneous" also has the connotation that the end result is a mishmash. As we shall see, either this connotation is faulty ... or there may be some serious problems with Christian doctrine.

How is that syncretization? Paul is simply engaging his audience in such a way as to get their attention. In no way does he give credence to the Greek gods, nor does he embrace their religous practice or doctrine.

In no way does he give credence to the Greek Gods? "It is this 'Unknown God' that I preach to you."

Once again, you've misread Paul and Christian doctrine. As I pointed out in your theonomy thread, Christianity is based on a new covenant. The Old one is obsolete and already passing away (Heb 8:13).

Michael, you are either speaking of the Mosaic Covenant--or you have just invalidated Christianity entirely.

And if you look at the balance of Hebrews 8, you see that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Mosaic Covenant.

It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

But I do not claim that Paul tried to reconcile Christianity with the Mosaic Covenant, but with the Abrahamic Covenant--the older covenant that required no law, but only required the sign of circumcision.

And this is where Christian syncretism comes in: let us look at the Abrahamic Covenant.

I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.

The Abrahamic Covenant cannot be supplanted, nor can it pass away--it is an everlasting covenant. But what was the sign of that covenant?

Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Just as the sign of the Mosaic covenant is following the Law, the sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision. Now, as you note, the author of Hebrews says that the Mosaic covenant will be supplanted ... yet one cannot supplant the Abrahamic Covenant. It is eternal.

Then why do Christians not circumcise their children? Because Paul reconciled the two with the following:

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Now, a more cynical twist of mind would say that Paul was contradicting Genesis, in that where YHVH clearly states that he who is not circumcised is "cut off," Paul states that "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value." Michael, this is syncretism in its purest and simplest form: the reconciliation of the absolute requirement for circumcision in Judaism with the freedom from that requirement in Christianity. Paul calls uncircumcised Gentile Christians "Children of Abraham," while also explicitly arguing against circumcision.

Syncretic with what?

Syncretic in that it reconciled the Church's claim of Christ's divinity with the Jewish claim of "One God."

[themuzicman]

Let's dispense with the easy ones first:

1) Trinity, One God. If you know your church history, then you know the the controversies surrounding the nature of Christ in the first two centuries surrounded his humanity not his deity. Were there syncretism issues in this time regarding monotheism, one would expect controversies about His deity from the Jewish Christians, and there were not. Monotheism/Deity of Christ was simply NOT an issue in the early church.

See Docetism and Gnositicism, if you're unsure.

The deity of Christs isn't really an issue until we get to Arius in the 4th century.


2) Paul at Mars Hill:

24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined [their] appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His offspring.' 29 "Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. "

If you'll take note of verse 29 (and the context of this entire passage), you'll see that Paul espouses ONE GOD, and relegates all of their other gods to images formed by the art and thought of man.

You'll also note in their reaction that the resurrection from the dead is a concept foreign to them, and is clearly NOT syncretic with their views.

So, this doesn't make the grade, either.


3) Abraham...

I think you're missing Paul's point. The point of the Abrahamic covenant and the covenant of circumcision was ultimately to produce the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is [only] a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [referring] to many, but [rather] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ

All the nations ARE blessed through Christ. He is the everlasting descendent of Abraham through whom the promise is fulfilled. The covenant of circumcision, which Paul clearly identifies as the law, continued through the Mosaic covenant, which Jesus ultimately fulfilled without sin, and then was beaten, crucified, buried, and resurrected soas to bring a NEW covenant by which we all might be saved through and in Him.

If we go over to Romans 9:

8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants .

The physical descendents of Abraham were those who were under the Old Covenant. However, you'll see that Paul chooses his words carefully, here, in stating that children of the promise are regarded as descendants. We aren't under the Covenant of circumcision as physical descendents, because we are only associated with Abraham via the promise which was fulfilled in Christ.

This is why Paul says that physical circumcision has little value: It is associated with the law. It's only real value is exposure to the Word of God, which points to Christ.

Thus, what we REALLY see here is the establishing of a separate covenant from the one given to the Israelites, and the fulfilling of the covenant given to Abraham in Christ through the Mosaic covenant.

It is the opposite of syncretism: It is clear distinction between the two! If you read Galatians, Paul is clearly fightig those who want Jews and Gentiles to adhere to the Old Covenant and remain in the ways of the Jewish people, including circumcision. Paul is calling Jews and Gentiles OUT of the Jewish religion, and into Christianity, making a clean and clear break, not syncretizing!

Michael

[technomage]

1) Trinity, One God. If you know your church history, then you know the the controversies surrounding the nature of Christ in the first two centuries surrounded his humanity not his deity. Were there syncretism issues in this time regarding monotheism, one would expect controversies about His deity from the Jewish Christians, and there were not. Monotheism/Deity of Christ was simply NOT an issue in the early church.

Michael, I well and truly believe your earlier statement that Church History was "a bit weak." The question of "How can Jesus be God" goes all the way back to the first century, and the arguments are recorded in GoJohn and Acts. Indeed, according to your own doctrines, Jesus was condemned on the basis of two words: "I AM."

From the beginnings of the Church, Jesus was proclaimed as being somehow related to God ... but the relationship was unclear, and prone to confusion. Hence, we see the Docetism and Sabellianism which denied Jesus' humanity, side by side with the Arianism and Adoptionism that denied his divinity.

Muz, the Nicean Council was not a place to develop the disputes discussed therein--these disputes (and others) had developed starting in the first century. And one of the primary disputes was "Just what is the relationship between Jesus and God?" Nicea may have been the end (officially) of the dispute, but it was not the beginning.

If you'll take note of verse 29 (and the context of this entire passage), you'll see that Paul espouses ONE GOD, and relegates all of their other gods to images formed by the art and thought of man.

Evidently you took my statement much farther than I was meaning for you to. He expresses the One God in a contextualized manner ... but nonetheless, in doing so, he expressed Christian theology in terms of Greek rhetoric.

You're quite correct that this is not an ideological syncretism--instead, it's a methodological syncretism. Paul didn't have the "audience receptiveness" to the Hebrew Scriptures that he would have had with a Jewish audience: so he had to adapt his methods.

I think you're missing Paul's point. The point of the Abrahamic covenant and the covenant of circumcision was ultimately to produce the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

That's Paul's argument--but that's not what we read in Genesis.

And ... well, if you feel that the New Covenant replaces the Mosaic Covenant, I'll not disagree with you. But if you think the New Covenant replaces the Abrahamic Covenant, then you just called God a liar. The Abrahamic Covenant cannot be replaced or overturned without making God break a promise.

Paul syncreted the Abrahamic Promise with Christian teachings to allow a doctrinal logic whereby Gentiles could partake of the Abrahamic Covenant without being circumcised.

Thus, what we REALLY see here is the establishing of a separate covenant from the one given to the Israelites, and the fulfilling of the covenant given to Abraham in Christ through the Mosaic covenant.

Do you state that this new covenant subsume the Abrahamic??

It is the opposite of syncretism: It is clear distinction between the two!

Incorrect, Michael, and blatantly so. Any supercessionism of the Abrahamic Covenant is God breaking His promise.

[themuzicman]

Michael, I well and truly believe your earlier statement that Church History was "a bit weak." The question of "How can Jesus be God" goes all the way back to the first century, and the arguments are recorded in GoJohn and Acts. Indeed, according to your own doctrines, Jesus was condemned on the basis of two words: "I AM."

From the beginnings of the Church, Jesus was proclaimed as being somehow related to God ... but the relationship was unclear, and prone to confusion. Hence, we see the Docetism and Sabellianism which denied Jesus' humanity, side by side with the Arianism and Adoptionism that denied his divinity.

Muz, the Nicean Council was not a place to develop the disputes discussed therein--these disputes (and others) had developed starting in the first century. And one of the primary disputes was "Just what is the relationship between Jesus and God?" Nicea may have been the end (officially) of the dispute, but it was not the beginning.

OK, Sabellianism is around 200AD, a hundred forty YEARS after Paul's death. (He was excommunicated in 220AD). So, we're LONG since past the time when Judaism would need to be syncretized with Christianity, if it were to happen. Docetism and gnosticism have their roots during and shortly after the time of the apostles, and would be the most likely candidates, should there be syncretism coming into Christian doctrine, but both try to deny the humanity of Christ, not the deity.

Nicea did deal with Christ's diety, but that's 250 years after the time of the apostles, long after the influence of the Jews is gone.

Evidently you took my statement much farther than I was meaning for you to. He expresses the One God in a contextualized manner ... but nonetheless, in doing so, he expressed Christian theology in terms of Greek rhetoric.

You're quite correct that this is not an ideological syncretism--instead, it's a methodological syncretism. Paul didn't have the "audience receptiveness" to the Hebrew Scriptures that he would have had with a Jewish audience: so he had to adapt his methods.

And that's not the kind of syncretism we were talking about.

That's Paul's argument--but that's not what we read in Genesis.

And ... well, if you feel that the New Covenant replaces the Mosaic Covenant, I'll not disagree with you. But if you think the New Covenant replaces the Abrahamic Covenant, then you just called God a liar. The Abrahamic Covenant cannot be replaced or overturned without making God break a promise.

I didn't say that it replaced it, I said that it fulfilled it in Christ. And, since it is fulfilled in Him, there is no need for circumcision in the New Covenant. That's Paul's point, as well, when he says that the promise was to Abraham's seed (singular).

Paul syncreted the Abrahamic Promise with Christian teachings to allow a doctrinal logic whereby Gentiles could partake of the Abrahamic Covenant without being circumcised.

Actually, the fulfilling of that covenant was sufficient.


Do you state that this new covenant subsume the Abrahamic??

No, it fulfilled it in Christ.

Incorrect, Michael, and blatantly so. Any supercessionism of the Abrahamic Covenant is God breaking His promise.

Not at all. Since Christ fulfilled the promise of the Covenant, and is the eternal fulfillment of it, it is everlasting in Him. It is neither replaced nor does it go away. It's just not pointed at us.

Michael

[technomage]

OK, Sabellianism is around 200AD, a hundred forty YEARS after Paul's death. (He was excommunicated in 220AD). So, we're LONG since past the time when Judaism would need to be syncretized with Christianity, if it were to happen. Docetism and gnosticism have their roots during and shortly after the time of the apostles, and would be the most likely candidates, should there be syncretism coming into Christian doctrine, but both try to deny the humanity of Christ, not the deity.

Yet the Ebionites, and Cerinthus, and possibly the Nasoreans are all mid-to-late first century--and all of these movements came from Jewish Christianity. (Cerinthus was Gnostic in his creation account, but Ebionite in his Christology, teaching that Jesus was the son of Joseph and saying that "the Christ" came upon Jesus at his baptism.)

Nicea did deal with Christ's diety, but that's 250 years after the time of the apostles, long after the influence of the Jews is gone.

Yet many of the issues that Nicea dealt with started in the first century. Michael, as I said--Nicea was not the start of these arguments.

And that's not the kind of syncretism we were talking about.

Not directly--but Paul's adoption of Greek rhetorical methods also shows a reliance on Greek logic to explain Christian doctrines. Look at the Epistles: unlike some books of the New Testament (such as Mark), Paul wrote polished, impassioned Greek, relying heavily on Greek logical concepts. Yet Greek logic and rhetoric are firmly and inextricably rooted in Greek philosophy.

Paul was the first Christian syncretist ... and in many respects, he was one of the best.

I didn't say that it replaced it, I said that it fulfilled it in Christ.

Michael, that's so much semantic hand-waving. An "eternal" covenant cannot be "fulfilled" in any sense that tears down that covenant. God didn't include an "out" clause for any sort of "fulfillment."

Not at all. Since Christ fulfilled the promise of the Covenant, and is the eternal fulfillment of it, it is everlasting in Him. It is neither replaced nor does it go away. It's just not pointed at us.

That has got to be the most illogical statement I've seen on this forum. Michael, if a Covenant is "no longer pointed at you," then you don't benefit from it. According to your doctrine, Jesus payed for sins, not foreskins!

Paul syncretized the Abrahamic Covenant with Greek aversion to circumcision in such a way that Gentiles could become part of the covenant without undergoing the physical circumcision.

[themuzicman]

Yet the Ebionites, and Cerinthus, and possibly the Nasoreans are all mid-to-late first century--and all of these movements came from Jewish Christianity. (Cerinthus was Gnostic in his creation account, but Ebionite in his Christology, teaching that Jesus was the son of Joseph and saying that "the Christ" came upon Jesus at his baptism.)

However, there isn't any need based upon these to syncretize with Judaism. These were all rejected. Furthermore, you STILL don't have anyone claiming that Jesus wasn't God until Arias. These issues aren't problems with His deity, but with his humanity and the compatibility between humanity and deity.

Yet many of the issues that Nicea dealt with started in the first century. Michael, as I said--Nicea was not the start of these arguments.

No, the start of the process that ended (sort of... can't count out Constantinople, I guess), was really Arias, and that was long after Jewish influence had gone away.

Not directly--but Paul's adoption of Greek rhetorical methods also shows a reliance on Greek logic to explain Christian doctrines. Look at the Epistles: unlike some books of the New Testament (such as Mark), Paul wrote polished, impassioned Greek, relying heavily on Greek logical concepts. Yet Greek logic and rhetoric are firmly and inextricably rooted in Greek philosophy.

However, we're not talking about philosophical syncretism, but religious syncretism!

Paul was the first Christian syncretist ... and in many respects, he was one of the best.

I would disagree that he was a syncretist. I think he used many of the methods and images that he found around him to explain Christianity, but I don't see the insertion of other religions into Paul's theology.

Michael, that's so much semantic hand-waving. An "eternal" covenant cannot be "fulfilled" in any sense that tears down that covenant. God didn't include an "out" clause for any sort of "fulfillment."

I didn't say anything about tearing it down. I said (as did Paul) that it continues eternally in Christ.

That has got to be the most illogical statement I've seen on this forum. Michael, if a Covenant is "no longer pointed at you," then you don't benefit from it. According to your doctrine, Jesus payed for sins, not foreskins!

The only benefit Christians derive from the Abrahamic covenant is that Christ is the fulfillment of it. We are saved through the creation of the New Covenant. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Paul syncretized the Abrahamic Covenant with Greek aversion to circumcision in such a way that Gentiles could become part of the covenant without undergoing the physical circumcision.

You've made that assertion several times, but haven't really backed it up. You think that Galatians shows syncretism, when, in reality, it exegetes how the Abrahamic covenant plays out to the Christian world: Abraham's "seed" (singluar, as Paul points out) is Christ. Christ came as the promised seed to Abraham, and the promised Messiah to Israel, and formed the New Covenant, so that all nations might be blessed through Him.

Michael

[technomage]

However, there isn't any need based upon these to syncretize with Judaism. These were all rejected.

I'm not listing these to show a "need" to syncretize with Judaism--the very fact that Christianity posits that Jesus is in some method related to God shows that need. Or, to be more specific, it shows that Judaism and Christianity are different faiths: the syncretism was necessary to argue that Christianity was an outgrowth or "fulfillment" of Judaism.

Furthermore, you STILL don't have anyone claiming that Jesus wasn't God until Arias.

Excuse me, Michael, are you actually reading my posts? All of these groups claimed to be true followers of Jesus ... but all deny his divinity.

1: The Ebionites directly denied the divinity of Jesus.
2: The Nasoreans denied the divinity of Jesus. (The problem here is that we're not sure if the Nasoreans were a separate first-century movement, or a later outgrowth of the Ebionites).
3: Cerinthus denied the divinity of Jesus.

Let's please stay on the same page.

No, the start of the process that ended (sort of... can't count out Constantinople, I guess), was really Arias, and that was long after Jewish influence had gone away.

See above.

However, we're not talking about philosophical syncretism, but religious syncretism!

Um, Micheal--the philosophies we're discussing dealt with questions of the existance and nature of the Gods, among other things. We may divide such syncretism into "religious" and "philosophical," but in Greek, "religion" was the actual rituals performed. Philosophy was the beliefs. Paul demonstrates this clearly in Col 2:8: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

I would disagree that he was a syncretist. I think he used many of the methods and images that he found around him to explain Christianity, but I don't see the insertion of other religions into Paul's theology.

Because you're making an inaccurate distinction between what you term "religious syncretism" and "philosophical syncretism."

I didn't say anything about tearing it down. I said (as did Paul) that it continues eternally in Christ.

The only benefit Christians derive from the Abrahamic covenant is that Christ is the fulfillment of it. We are saved through the creation of the New Covenant. Why is this so hard to grasp?


Then make a distinction: was the "old covenant" that passed away the covenant with Abraham, or the covenant with Moses?

You've made that assertion several times, but haven't really backed it up.

Michael ... your redefinition of syncretism to "something other people do," and your refusal to even consider the possibility, does not mean that I haven't backed it up. It means only that you refuse to see.

And that's probably going to be the end of fruitful discussion between us on this issue ... which I regret. But if you have set in your mind that white is black, then you're not going to be able to see the facts for what they are.

[themuzicman]

I'm not listing these to show a "need" to syncretize with Judaism--the very fact that Christianity posits that Jesus is in some method related to God shows that need. Or, to be more specific, it shows that Judaism and Christianity are different faiths: the syncretism was necessary to argue that Christianity was an outgrowth or "fulfillment" of Judaism.

But that wasn't necessary, nor was it part of the doctrine that demostrated that.

Excuse me, Michael, are you actually reading my posts? All of these groups claimed to be true followers of Jesus ... but all deny his divinity.

1: The Ebionites directly denied the divinity of Jesus.

They also considered Peter and Paul to be apostate, and were located in a specific province near Israel. This is hardly a basis for saying that Christianity had to resolve monotheism with Judaism.

2: The Nasoreans denied the divinity of Jesus. (The problem here is that we're not sure if the Nasoreans were a separate first-century movement, or a later outgrowth of the Ebionites).

Right

3: Cerinthus denied the divinity of Jesus.

None of these are major heresies for the early church, and certainly weren't a problem sufficient to needing to form the doctrine of the trinity in 325AD.

Um, Micheal--the philosophies we're discussing dealt with questions of the existance and nature of the Gods, among other things. We may divide such syncretism into "religious" and "philosophical," but in Greek, "religion" was the actual rituals performed. Philosophy was the beliefs. Paul demonstrates this clearly in Col 2:8: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

OK, but you're going off into rhetorical style and engaging philosophical ideas and claiming that Paul is syncretizing because he uses them. If that's the case, then EVERY religion is syncretic when it goes beyond the culture from which it originates. Syncretism loses any significant meaning, if we're going to go that far.

Again, this is the reason for 'heterogenous'. Syncretism ultimately has to result in the combining of the two religions being syncretized, with obvious elements of each that wouldn't otherwise exist in the other.

Christianity is inherently monotheistic. To say that the development of the doctrine of the trinity was an attempt to syncretize with Judaism's monotheism is invalid, because you can't syncretize something upon which two religions already agree!

Because you're making an inaccurate distinction between what you term "religious syncretism" and "philosophical syncretism."

And you're including far too much in what you consider syncretic. Just because Paul uses a particular style or engages a particular audience at a particular point doesn't mean that he's syncretizing Christianity with that philosophy.

Then make a distinction: was the "old covenant" that passed away the covenant with Abraham, or the covenant with Moses?

The Mosaic covenant was made obsolete when Christ instituted the New.

Michael ... your redefinition of syncretism to "something other people do," and your refusal to even consider the possibility, does not mean that I haven't backed it up. It means only that you refuse to see.

All you've done on this point is claim that Paul disassocated Christianity from circumcision for the purpose of evangelizing the Greeks, and provided nothing more than your assertion to back it up.

In fact, in the very passages you cite (when taken in the larger context of Galatians and Paul's other writings) give another explanation of why circumcision is unnecessary in Christianity.

And that's probably going to be the end of fruitful discussion between us on this issue ... which I regret. But if you have set in your mind that white is black, then you're not going to be able to see the facts for what they are.

ok

Michael

[technomage]

Hi, Michael,

First and foremost, I want to apologize for losing my patience with you yesterday. However ... my friend, it looks very much like you are arguing solely for the basis of "winning" the argument--which, in turn, means that you seem to be far more interested in the rhetoric of the debate than an honest inquiry.

That's not an accusation of lying: if anything, if you are lying to anyone (something I rather doubt), it's to yourself, not to me. I have absolutely no doubt that you're quite confident that you're factually correct. But I'd like to walk through the argument with you so you can see how it looks from my side.

We basically have three areas of contention we've been discussing--well, four, if you include the definition of the word "syncretism." Let's look at those four areas as I've phrased them in my assertions:

* Definition of syncretism.
Example 1: Monotheism + Claims of Christ's Divinity = Trinity
Example 2: Christian Beliefs + Greek Philosophy = formalized Christian doctrine
Example 3: Abrahamic Covenant + Gentile Christians = New Covenant

And you've bucked me on every step of the way. Let's just look at the statements about the Trinity and the groups that reject Jesus' divinity.

* You rejected my argument for the doctrine of the Trinity being syncretic by first alledging that arguments about the deity of Christ didn't exist until Arius (Post 3).
* When I demonstrated that there were groups that denied the deity of Christ before Arius, first you blatantly ignored me (Post 5), stating that issues of Christ's deity were not present in the Early Church or with Jewish Christians.
* When I repeated the assertion, demonstrating conclusively that there were questions about Christ's Deity before Arius, you asserted that one of the groups I mentioned was too late, so it didn't count (Post 7).
* When I named first-century groups (Jewish and Gentile) who rejected Jesus' divinity, you rejected the assertion because they (according to you) didn't reject Jesus' divinity. (Post 9)
* And when I again repeated the assertion, clearly demonstrating that there were first century rejections of Christ's deity within the Church, and there were Jewish Christians who rejected the claim, you argue that they don't count because you consider them heretics, but not "major" heretics. (Post 11)

Michael, you're not standing for "truth"--you are doing nothing but throwing up objections against assertions that you don't like. The objections are not substantive--heck, many of them are not even accurate, as I've demonstrated, yet you've refused to acknowledge. That's not "honest argument," Michael. That's the moral equivalent of throwing feces at a billboard you don't agree with, solely because you don't agree with it but cannot demonstrate that it's wrong.

Do me a favor, my friend: this is not a "faith-based" discussion. This is a discussion of history, which deals with facts, not opinions or faith. Set aside your absolute certainty long enough to examine the assertions and do some research. If you cannot do that, then we can drop this discussion, because so far all you've done is waste my time.

[themuzicman]

Hi, Michael,

First and foremost, I want to apologize for losing my patience with you yesterday. However ... my friend, it looks very much like you are arguing solely for the basis of "winning" the argument--which, in turn, means that you seem to be far more interested in the rhetoric of the debate than an honest inquiry.

We all do it. It was just your turn. It's forgiven and fogotten.

We basically have three areas of contention we've been discussing--well, four, if you include the definition of the word "syncretism." Let's look at those four areas as I've phrased them in my assertions:

* Definition of syncretism.
Example 1: Monotheism + Claims of Christ's Divinity = Trinity
Example 2: Christian Beliefs + Greek Philosophy = formalized Christian doctrine
Example 3: Abrahamic Covenant + Gentile Christians = New Covenant

And you've bucked me on every step of the way. Let's just look at the statements about the Trinity and the groups that reject Jesus' divinity.

* You rejected my argument for the doctrine of the Trinity being syncretic by first alledging that arguments about the deity of Christ didn't exist until Arius (Post 3).
* When I demonstrated that there were groups that denied the deity of Christ before Arius, first you blatantly ignored me (Post 5), stating that issues of Christ's deity were not present in the Early Church or with Jewish Christians.
* When I repeated the assertion, demonstrating conclusively that there were questions about Christ's Deity before Arius, you asserted that one of the groups I mentioned was too late, so it didn't count (Post 7).
* When I named first-century groups (Jewish and Gentile) who rejected Jesus' divinity, you rejected the assertion because they (according to you) didn't reject Jesus' divinity. (Post 9)
* And when I again repeated the assertion, clearly demonstrating that there were first century rejections of Christ's deity within the Church, and there were Jewish Christians who rejected the claim, you argue that they don't count because you consider them heretics, but not "major" heretics. (Post 11)

Michael, you're not standing for "truth"--you are doing nothing but throwing up objections against assertions that you don't like. The objections are not substantive--heck, many of them are not even accurate, as I've demonstrated, yet you've refused to acknowledge. That's not "honest argument," Michael. That's the moral equivalent of throwing feces at a billboard you don't agree with, solely because you don't agree with it but cannot demonstrate that it's wrong.

I've not dealt with this properly. I apologize.

Do me a favor, my friend: this is not a "faith-based" discussion. This is a discussion of history, which deals with facts, not opinions or faith. Set aside your absolute certainty long enough to examine the assertions and do some research. If you cannot do that, then we can drop this discussion, because so far all you've done is waste my time.


Let me start here with the monotheism issue:

Christianity began as inherently monotheistic (See John 1:18.) It was believed and preached by the apostles of Christ. Regardless of how, the church at large has embraced the monotheism of the apostles. In order for monotheism to have been a syncretic issue in Christianity (going back to my 'heterogeneous" position), Christianity will have needed to adopt some doctrine about monotheism from Judaism that it did not originally believe.

No, the fact that Christians claim Christianity is the natural product of the fulfilling of Jewish prophecy doesn't make it syncretic. It would naturally inherit many of the views of God from Judaism, but that doesn't imply syncretism.

The problem regarding embracing monotheism became explaining how Jesus is God and God the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet only having one God. This isn't a syncretic issue, but an internal theological/philosphical one. It isn't easily explained because it requires an appeal to mystery. We can talk about it and give terms to explain it, but in the end, we have to say, "That's what the bible says, don't understand it all."

My point about early heresies in the church being about Christ's humanity has been demonstrated to be sufficiently inaccurate soas to cause me to abandon it for the sake of this argument.

Now, the doctrine of the trinity does use some Greek philosophical concepts to establish a firm definition of what we mean when we say "trinity", but, again, I don't see where Christianity has syncretized with Greek Philosophy in regards to Greek religion in explaining itself.

This goes back to the problem of defining syncretism to mean including any reference to another culture or philosophical ideas to explain your own. If that were the case, Christianity would have to be limited to the Jews, because no one else could grasp its purpose without a common reference point from which to begin.

Is there a danger of syncretism in expanding to other cultures? Naturally. But it is something the church has always been conscious of and tried to avoid.

Let me give you a modern day example. In Korea, they worship their ancestors as deities. Many have a corner of their house or an area dedicated to praying to them. When they become Christians, many will try to syncretize their worship of God with their worship of ancestors. Apparantly this comes fairly easily to them. (This is according to a fellow student who is from Korea and deals with this problem frequently.)

However, the church there is constantly fighting this problem, and exhorting their members to put aside worshipping idols and only worshipping God.

[technomage]

Let me start here with the monotheism issue:

Christianity began as inherently monotheistic (See John 1:18.)

Wait--stop. John is not the "beginning" of Christianity--as the last of the Gospels (both from modern scholarship and from Christian tradition), John shows a fairly well-developed Christology already. Let us, instead, look to the earliest extant Christian writings--the genuine Pauline epistles, which include 1 Thessalonians, Phillipians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corintians, Romans, Philemon, and maybe Colossians.

In all of these epistles, we see Jesus as treated gramatically as a separate entity from God, yet related somehow--the "Son" of God. It's never clearly stated "Hey, Jesus is God just like God is," or anything of the sort. There's just not that much in the way of clarity: it's either as though Paul is deliberately being ambiguous, or can't quite figure out the words he needs to talk about the relationship, or the relationship between God and Jesus Christ was something he had explicitly taught when he was present in the Churches, so he figures he doesn't need to cover it again in his letters. So even if we assume that the Nicene conclusion was identical to the beliefs of the original apostles (as you know, not all Christians accept this view),we have a situation where God has a Son.

It was believed and preached by the apostles of Christ. Regardless of how, the church at large has embraced the monotheism of the apostles. In order for monotheism to have been a syncretic issue in Christianity (going back to my 'heterogeneous" position), Christianity will have needed to adopt some doctrine about monotheism from Judaism that it did not originally believe.

Hmmm ... not quite. Judaic monotheism has absolutely no place in their theology for God to have a Son ... but the Greeks do. This was one of the major points of dissention between the Jews and the Christians--indeed, we see this clearly demonstrated in Acts 9, where Saul proclaims Jesus as the Son of God ... and the Jews of Damascus try to kill him for it!

So we can clearly see that Jewish monotheism was incompatable with the idea of God having a Son, just as it is today. And we see that Paul (and the other authors of the New Testament) spent a great deal of time trying to explain that relationship.

Yet groups of Christians rejected this explanation--as we can see by the advent of a multitude of differing explanations of the relationship between God and Jesus. Groups ranging from the Ebionites (who existed before the fall of Jerusalem, and who explicitly denied the deity of Christ), to Cerinthus (who claimed that Jesus was mortal, but that the spirit of Christ posessed Him upon his baptism). Now, you state that there were also arguments about Jesus' humanity--such as Doceticism and Sabellianism--but we see that these arguments actually were later than the arguments of Christ's divinity.

No, the fact that Christians claim Christianity is the natural product of the fulfilling of Jewish prophecy doesn't make it syncretic. It would naturally inherit many of the views of God from Judaism, but that doesn't imply syncretism.

But the fact that the Jews--then as now--state that Christians have "added" to their religion is certainly an indication that Christianity is syncretic. Christianity is more than Judaism, and there are elements of Christianity that Judaism could not have produced--the Trinity, and the concept of God having a son, being one of the biggest.

Muz, even the central credo of Judaism--the Shema--is a blatant contradiction of Trinity doctrine. The Jews state that GOD IS ONE--God cannot have a "Son," else God becomes two--even if they are two Persons of the same Godhood, they are still two persons. And adding in the Holy Spirit just makes for complete confusion to the Jews.

However, this requires a small side note: some Christians will claim that the word for "one" in the Shema refers to a compound unity. This is a false claim ... though it has been taught as such within Christianity for centuries at least. The word Echad refers to a single unity, not a "compond unity." If you'd like to discuss this later in the thread, I'm at your disposal.

The problem regarding embracing monotheism became explaining how Jesus is God and God the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet only having one God. This isn't a syncretic issue, but an internal theological/philosphical one.

This ... is an area where we had some grave difficulties on the definition of syncretism. Muz, to both the Jews and the Greeks fo the First Century, there was no difference between philosophy and theology--theology was a subset of philosophy, not a separate definition. The combination of Greek philosophy with Jewish theology is syncretism--just as it would be if they had combined the tales of Heracles with those of Samson, or tried to place YHVH on Mount Olympus.

It isn't easily explained because it requires an appeal to mystery. We can talk about it and give terms to explain it, but in the end, we have to say, "That's what the bible says, don't understand it all."

Eh ... I actually disagree. The concept of the Trinity is quite easy to understand ... but that's also an entirely different subject.

Now, the doctrine of the trinity does use some Greek philosophical concepts to establish a firm definition of what we mean when we say "trinity", but, again, I don't see where Christianity has syncretized with Greek Philosophy in regards to Greek religion in explaining itself.

Muz, to the Greeks, there was no difference between philosophy and religion. Well, let me rephrase" the Greek word translated as "religion" qrhskeia, meant solely "religious service or ritual." The religious beliefs of the Greeks would be their filosofia.

The concept that God could even have a Son was not Jewish--it was Greek. Furthermore, the concept that the Son could be One with God is an outgrowth not of Judaic theology, but of Greek philosophy (theology, if you prefer).

This goes back to the problem of defining syncretism to mean including any reference to another culture or philosophical ideas to explain your own. If that were the case, Christianity would have to be limited to the Jews, because no one else could grasp its purpose without a common reference point from which to begin.

Michael, the problem is--I'm not rejecting syncretism. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. You are. All I'm trying to do is to point out that a Christian has little or no room to condemn syncretism.

Is there a danger of syncretism in expanding to other cultures? Naturally. But it is something the church has always been conscious of and tried to avoid.

Muz, even a cursory examination of Church history will provide a refutation of such a statement. The celebration of Easter, for instance, is a perfectly logical outgrowth of the Crucifixion account, as is the subsumation of the paschal feast. But there are aspects of the Easter celebration that have been directly lifted from surrounding customs.

The observance of any special holiday throughout the Christian year is believed by some to be an innovation postdating the early church. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates Scholasticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates_Scholasticus) attributes the observance of Easter by the church to the perpetuation of local custom, "just as many other customs have been established", stating that neither Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) nor his apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival. However, as the [sic] read in context (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.viii.xxiii.html) this is not a rejection or denegration of the celebration—which, given its currency in Scholasticus' time would be surprising—but is merely part of a defense of the diverse methods for computing its date. Indeed, although he describes the details of the Easter celebration as deriving from local custom, he insists the feast itself is universally observed.

(Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter))

Let me give you a modern day example. In Korea, they worship their ancestors as deities. Many have a corner of their house or an area dedicated to praying to them. When they become Christians, many will try to syncretize their worship of God with their worship of ancestors. Apparantly this comes fairly easily to them. (This is according to a fellow student who is from Korea and deals with this problem frequently.)

And it was exactly this kind of syncretism that led to a wide variety of practices within various branches of the Christian church: the celebration of Saint's days; the celebration of Christmas; glossolalia as a form of speaking in tongues; ceremonial exorcisms (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant); even the adoption of grape juice instead of wine in some Baptist and Charismatic churches; relics, a fixed canon, Prayer Books ... Michael, I literally do not have the space in ten posts, much less one, to list the syncreted elements.

However, the church there is constantly fighting this problem, and exhorting their members to put aside worshipping idols and only worshipping God.

Idolatry is only one particular point--though having grown up Baptist, I can definitely see some problems with Saint's Days, relics and Marian veneration that I still cannot reconcile.

[Vivian]

The concept that God could even have a Son was not Jewish--it was Greek. Furthermore, the concept that the Son could be One with God is an outgrowth not of Judaic theology, but of Greek philosophy (theology, if you prefer).





Hello Justin,

Are you choosing to leave the Kabbalah/Zohar out of this discussion? Although these traditions have been contaminated through the years they are part of Jewish theology and certain do speak of God as the Father, the Mother (Shekinah or Holy Spirit), and the two giving birth to the Son.

Jewish oral tradition is not void of this differentiation either.

This understanding can also be found in many other spiritual traditions - Greek, as you mentioned, being only one.

Methinks the reason Jesus was rejected by the ruling Jews goes much deeper.



viv

[technomage]

Hello Justin,

Greetings, Vivian.

Are you chosing to leave the Kaballah/Zohar out of this discussion?

For the moment, yes: it may come into the scope of the conversation at a later point, but at the moment it is merely tangential to the discussion, and could lead to confusion of the conversation.

But I do thank you for your kind reminder.

[technomage]

Hi, Michael,

Just a bump--I hadn't heard a response to my last post.

And if anyone else wants to jump in, you're more than welcome....

[themuzicman]

Hi, Michael,

Just a bump--I hadn't heard a response to my last post.

And if anyone else wants to jump in, you're more than welcome....
I apologize, Justin, but I'm in a crunch regarding school, and a reply to your post is going to require a few hours of focused effort, so I'm not sure when I'll be back to it.

Michaelo

[TuckEverlasting]

I'm in a crunch regarding school...

Michaelo

Are you painting the Sistine Chapel?

[technomage]

I apologize, Justin, but I'm in a crunch regarding school, and a reply to your post is going to require a few hours of focused effort, so I'm not sure when I'll be back to it.

Michaelo
Hey--absolutely no problem. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't irritated you. :wink: