Historicity of Christian Redemption as A Problem in the History of Ideas

[Weltschmerz]

Christians insist that the spiritual conditions are different after the life of Jesus. Being the incarnation of Christ, and thus of God, the understanding of his death as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of humanity plays a central role in Christian theology.

Many times have I asked myself if there is anything that supports this Christian interpretation. I have contemplated it at great length, but it does not make sense to me. I have also turned my attention to the history of ideas, to ask if there is anything even remotely bearing likeness to evidence of the historicity of redemption as conceived in Christianity. Did writers of philosophy and writings on spiritual topics make a huge leap after the life of Jesus? As a rule, Christians put a lot of emphasis on it that pre-Christian sources are lacking something. But is it true? Did pre-Christian writers already have as much insight into Truth as Christian writers had? I must say I have never encountered anything that could support the point of view of history that is typically Christian. Pre-Christian writers appear indeed to be just as insightful as Christian writers. It is also widely acknowledged that the metaphors and frameworks of Christianity already existed before Christianity in India, in Persia, in the Middle East and in Greece.

What do you think?

[Waarnemer]

Perhaps a separation between general Philosophy and pure Theology as Spinoza emphasized - although for a different reason - would be a frist rational move. So, I don't think its possible to just transfer between a more general idea of what could be redemption towards and with God in a wider context and a Christian interpretation of Original Sin linked redemption.

If Christianity is absolute in its representation would moral or logic support ( I don't know what you seek), not only exist in its own writings?

Did pre-Christian writers already have as much insight into Truth as Christian writers had?

What is this 'Truth' to you?

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

Perhaps a separation between general Philosophy and pure Theology as Spinoza emphasized - although for a different reason - would be a frist rational move. So, I don't think its possible to just transfer between a more general idea of what could be redemption towards and with God in a wider context and a Christian interpretation of Original Sin linked redemption.

Such a division would, in my opinion, if made before enquiring into the possibility that the Christian view of history may be correct, cause confusion and add nothing to the understanding of anything, except maybe for some kind of hypothetical understanding of two exclusively theoretical and man-made parallell universa - those of "general philosophy" and "pure theology".

If Christianity is absolute in its representation would moral or logic support ( I don't know what you seek), not only exist in its own writings?

That's not the question at stake here as formulated in the introduction. The question is if the historical outlook of Christianity makes sense as such in the history of ideas. A negative answer could - and would to most Christians - imply that Christianity is false. Disturbing as that may be, Christians have, here on Stirpes as elsewhere, insisted that Christianity embodies a voice of reason. For that to hold, there needs also be some kind of ground for having a discussion about it in the first place, just like it is needed for any discussion. Logic/logics is/are definitely needed for a discussion to be meaningful, and in this case we need to regard ethics as well, since the Christian concept of redemption has that dimension to it.

What is this 'Truth' to you?

I wrote it with capital T to denote spiritual truth rather than the shallow truth that a statement like "this is a text message" is intended to have. Apart from that, see my previous paragraph about a common ground for intellectual discourse. If you insist that nothing is true, then what value do you ascribe to your own sentences? They can't be true or false then, so already at that you have a problem. Are they nothing but emotive sounds? It may sound as a provocation, although it isn't. I believe the italicised question needs an answer, and it better be a good one. ^^

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gnist

Many times have I asked myself if there is anything that supports this Christian interpretation. I have contemplated it at great length, but it does not make sense to me.

That the world is in some kind of fallen state, the ancients also knew. They spoke of bygone "golden ages". You do not have to be a Christian to come to conclusion, with your own reasoning, that something is wrong with the world - and especially with the human kind. The Christian theology calls it original sin, although there are diverging opinions on the nature of that sin. Wrongs call for remedies. It does not though automatically "prove" some kind of need or even less "necessity for redemption" because for wrong other remedies might be applied as well.

As for historicity, the coming of Jesus Christ as a redeemer was announced numerous times in the Old Testament, through the words of Prophets. The Jewish interpretation of that book differs though from the traditional interpretation of the Christian Church. But let us here stick to the latter because here Christianity is at issue.

Originally Posted by Gnist

I have also turned my attention to the history of ideas, to ask if there is anything even remotely bearing likeness to evidence of the historicity of redemption as conceived in Christianity.

There are also religious ideas, as expounded in great many myths and legends of ancient times.

The Mysterious dying God

Pre-Christian resurrected Gods

An inscription in the Vatican states plainly, "He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." This is not terribly surprising, unless you consider that this is inscribed on the remains of the temple the Vatican was built on- one dedicated to the God Mithras. Mithras was a solar deity whose worshippers called him redeemer; his religion died out not long after the advent of Christianity.
Such eerie parallels between the pronouncements of Jesus and Mithras are not the only similarities between the two religions. Mithras was known to his followers as "The light of the world," or "The Good Shepherd," and exhorted his followers to share ritual communion meals of bread and wine. His preists were called "Father."
Mithras was also born in a cave, with shepherds in attendance, on the twenty-fifth of December. (Alternatively, he is assisted in his birth from a stone by shepherds.)
Are these just coincidences? Absolutely not. Fourth century Bishop John Chrysostom writes : "On this day also the Birthday of Christ was lately fixed at Rome in order that while the heathen were busy with their profane ceremonies, the Christians might perform their sacred rites undisturbed. They call this the Birthday of the Invincible One; but who is so invincible as the Lord? They call it the Birthday of the Solar Disk, but Christ is the Sun of Righteousness."



Consider this- several other Gods share the December birthday, and like Mithras, they are also solar deities, who are born in the winter solstices, often of virgin mothers, die, and are reborn. One of these, a pre-Christian deity called Attis, was called "The lamb of God," and his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection were celebrated annually, with ritual communions of bread and wine. His virgin mother, Cybele, was worshipped as "The Queen of heaven." It gets more interesting the further back we look- Attis and Cybele's predecessors are the Babylonian Goddess Ishtar, and her consort Tammuz. It is from their legend that we get the name for the annual celebration of the resurrection of Christ- Easter, a name of the Goddess Ishtar.

This is not the only coincidence related to this ancient couple- the earliest use of the cross as a religious symbol is related to Tammuz. In fact, crosses are related to a variety of solar deities. Of course, the cross was not popular with early Christians, except in the form of an X, the Greek initial of "Christos." (Even this was borrowed symbolism- the initials belonging to the Greek Chronos.)

Hundreds of years before Jesus, there was a passion story told about a God man, born of a virgin mother, in a stable. He travels about with his followers, preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. Eventually, he incurs the wrath of the religious authorities, who are appalled that he refers to himself as the son of god. He allows himself to be arrested and tried for blasphemy- a willing self-sacrifice. He is found guilty and executed, only to rise from the grave three days later, where the women weeping at his tomb do not recognize him until he assumes his divine form. This god, also one of the first depicted crucified, is the vine-God Dionysus.

Common to all of these 'mystery' religions (so called because one was required to be initiated or baptized into the faith to learn its doctrines)- including early Christianity- are themes of rebirth, redemption, and the transmission of life-changing information- spiritual salvation. So many religions in those times shared similar themes with that usually the deities became melded together. Early depictions of Jesus show him holding the Lyre of Orpheus, or driving Apollo's chariot. A talisman bearing the crucified likeness of Dionysus is inscribed Orpheus-Bacchus. The follower of Jesus, named Lazarus ('resurrected,' a derivitive of the name of Osiris, the resurrected God of Egypt).




It is impossible to tell just by looking at old artwork which haloed infant gods are cuddled in the arms of which mothers. The Emperor Constantine, who legitimized Christianity in Rome, was a worshipper of Sol Invictus- an amalgamation of solar deities Mithras, Helios, and Apollo-and he recognized Jesus' place in that company almost immediately. Even today, ancient solar symbols abound in Christian iconography. Not that Constantine was the only one to muddle these gods together- in fact, Christianity's oldest known mosaic depicts Jesus as a triumphant Helios, complete with chariot.

[size=2]

Of course, later Christians were terribly perturbed by these similarities to Pagan religions- these coincidences so disturbed one early Christian church father, Justin Martyr, that he accused the devil of sending an imitator of Christ in advance. Had he paid a little more attention to the past, he might have noted that the association of Jesus with Dionysus is not so strange-philosophers had been making connections between Jehovah and Dionysus for centuries.




Did early Christians, like their modern descendents, believe that theirs was the one and only true manifestation of religion? Consider the words of Clement, of Alexandria, "There is one river of Truth, which receives tributaries from every side." If only the later followers of the religion listened more closely, these mysteries may not have been lost.



Orpheus


Christ


Mithras, in his role as "Unconquerable Sun," was called the "light of the world" and "savior." His followers practiced eucharistic meals of bread and wine, and the highest grade in the cult was "Papa," Pope. The Vatican was built atop a Mithraic Temple.


Christ (as Helios)


Another Christ-Orpheus hybrid


Haloed Dionysus

Already St. Justin Martyr (2. century AD) made such comparisons, as well as hinted that Pagan philosopher might have grasped some truth, albeit imperfectly, through their reasoning abilities. He does not mention redemption though, but some other Christian truths.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
OCA - Feasts and Saints

The Hindu deity Prajapati:

Writing on this subject, C. Jinarajadasa says in his essay entitled The
Eternal Sacrifice of God as follows:
"... they say in ancient Hindu tradition that Prajapati, the Lord of all
creatures, before creation began, voluntarily laid himself down on the
altar to be slain, for it was only by His being so slain that creation
would become in existence.
He called upon His elder children, the Great Angels, and He laid Himself
down upon the altar. According to His command, they dismembered and slew
Divinity, and by the death of the God, by his martyrdom and sacrifice,
came the Creation of the universe.
We are told that it is only because God, in the beginning of time, so died
to His full and free nature, that you and I have our separate individual
existences".

[source]

In Hinduism, at the centre of vedic revelations is the idea of sacrifice. There it is said that the Lord Prajapati, the God, sacrificed himself and out of that sacrifice came a new word. He was both the sacrifice and the sacrificer. At the origin of everything there is a sacrifice that has created it. The texture of the universe is sacrifice. The cosmic law, according to Hinduism, is not a mathematical law but a sacrificial order. The universe is created by self sacrifice, by self giving love and is sustained by it. It is this sacrifice which preserves the universe in existence, it is that which gives life and hope of life. This also is tine of Christianity.

[source]

Even according to the traditional Catholic teaching, man is naturally religious (anima naturaliter religiosa, Tertullian) and can come to conclusions about certain things and concepts even without revelation. But revelation is central to attain the true salvation, to come into true communion with God, through eucharist and prayer.

Originally Posted by Gnist

Did writers of philosophy and writings on spiritual topics make a huge leap after the life of Jesus?

Yes, but not through their own reasoning powers, but by the grace of God, through the revelation.

Originally Posted by Gnist

As a rule, Christians put a lot of emphasis on it that pre-Christian sources are lacking something.

There are great many approaches to the issue of pre-Christian sources in the traditional Christian literature.

Originally Posted by Gnist

But is it true? Did pre-Christian writers already have as much insight into Truth as Christian writers had? I must say I have never encountered anything that could support the point of view of history that is typically Christian. Pre-Christian writers appear indeed to be just as insightful as Christian writers.

It is usually forgotten that the Roman Empire did not pass from paganism to Christianity directly, but through the intermediary of Neoplatonism which has many similarities with Christianity.

Originally Posted by Gnist

It is also widely acknowledged that the metaphors and frameworks of Christianity already existed before Christianity in India, in Persia, in the Middle East and in Greece.

That is very correct.

Horus

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gnist

some kind of hypothetical understanding of two exclusively theoretical and man-made parallell universa - those of "general philosophy" and "pure theology".

Some strains of thought in the Christian theology have such an inclination, especially in the Protestant area and some Catholic doctrines, like Jansenism.

Originally Posted by Gnist

Disturbing as that may be, Christians have, here on Stirpes as elsewhere, insisted that Christianity embodies a voice of reason.

Arguments of reason give an indication to the Christian beliefs but do not "prove" Christianity. Reason only, to exclusion of anything else, proves nothing, not even itself. There is a difference between reason and (hyper)rationalism, a belief that reason can anwer all questions. In Christian theology there is a current which seeks to explain faith and all Christian dogmas solely by rationalist arguments. A seed was planted by Augustine, the plant grew in the times of the medieval Schoolmen (Thomas Aquinas etc) and bore fruits, whereas its modern. degenerated progeny are the rotten fruits of reductionist materialist atheism.

Originally Posted by Gnist

Logic/logics is/are definitely needed for a discussion to be meaningful

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Gnist

and in this case we need to regard ethics as well, since the Christian concept of redemption has that dimension to it.

It is the very strong dimension, but not the only one.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Yes, but not through their own reasoning powers, but by the grace of God, through the revelation.

It's a very conventional answer. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but can you give examples? The material you brought forward suggests to me something like cultural relativism rather than a giant leap by grace. It is of course possible that truth emanated by a process in ways that the bible does not tell us about. But Christian tradition does not put it that way. Dionysus's death has no special meaning in Christianity, but Jesus's death has. It's some historical sign of the difference between the time before and the time after Jesus's death that I am asking for, not of signs that God had something in the making.

My question is a direct follow up to the Christian insistence on the historicity of redemption. I am not saying that redemption must be historical, but Christianity says that it is. You speak about "different approaches" or so, but there is no Christian denomination that I know of that does not have the historicity of redemption as its central creed.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gnist

It's a very conventional answer.

It may seem conventional, but the question of revelation is important, it is central to the Christian message. The revelation is a supra-natural occurrence, one of the mysteries of the world, so to say it came about by grace of God is a correct answer, though it may seem "conventional".

Originally Posted by Gnist

That doesn't mean it is wrong, but can you give examples?

Example? The best example is the European culture as such, which ia a synthesis of Christian faith, which came into being as a result of the belief in Redemption, and pre-existent Greco-Roman culture. The Christian code of ethics keeps on determining much of norms of present-day societies of all nations which were once Christian in religion, not always for the good, to be sure. Some originally Christian concepts got diabolically perverted and turned into another extreme.

Originally Posted by Gnist

The material you brought forward suggests to me something like cultural relativism rather than a giant leap by grace.

I do not see any cultural relativism in all of this. In that case Justin the Martyr, Thomas Aquinas, many Catholic missionaries (who saw similarities between some tenets of Confucianism and Christian ethics etc.) and many other Christian thinkers would be "relativists".

There comes the issue of different approches whereto I hinted already.

One of them sees Revelation in absolute terms, as absolutely the only source of faith and dogma, which should be taken at face value, any other arguments in favour of it being not only unnecessary, but potentially also blasphemous. God revealed himself in a totally rotten and perverted world, where huamns are corrupted by the Original Sin so thoruoghly that it prevents them from knowing God even partially, from conceiving anything good in their hearts. Following the tenets of Revelation does not make man better in any sense, but merely gives him God's command that he is to obey blindly, if he wants to attain salvation. It is somehow a fundamentalist approach.

Another one sees humanity after the fall as having still retained ability, albeit imperfect, to know something of the truth. It is especially seen in the moral ability, in ability to tell apart good from evil, which proceeds from the divine consciousness in man. Religious ideas are in this perspective also distant echos of the ultimate truth, just perverted by demonic influence, as Justin the Martyr claims.

I support the second approach, because the first one seems to me as inclining towards some sort of paganism in "Christian" garb.

Some of the fundamentalists, those of the first approach, in modern times degenerated towards Judeo-Christianity. Not to wonder about that, because if they consider Revelation as an event without context, they will also tend to regard the people who received it as especially "sacred", even their carnal descendants (primitivistic tribalism and materialism is here to be scented).

Originally Posted by Gnist

It is of course possible that truth emanated by a process in ways that the bible does not tell us about.

Of course, yes. Traditional Christianity (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) is not Bible worship. The tendency towards the latter started with the Reformation.

Originally Posted by Gnist

But Christian tradition does not put it that way.

Sometimes it has references to it. Justin the Martyr is also part of the Christian tradition. So is Tertullian with his notion of anima naturaliter Christiana.

Originally Posted by Gnist

Dionysus's death has no special meaning in Christianity, but Jesus's death has.

Of course that Dionysus's death has no special meaning in Christianity and it need not have any special meaning in the Christian faith as such, but it can have meaning in putting Christianity into the historical context and explaining it as the ultimate truth, by the means of other parallels and analogies. Christian writers were not reluctant to historical exegesis from the earliest days.

Originally Posted by Gnist

It's some historical sign of the difference between the time before and the time after Jesus's death that I am asking for, not of signs that God had something in the making.

What do you mean by "historical sign of the difference"? Some spiritual sign that manifests itself somehow in history?

Originally Posted by Gnist

My question is a direct follow up to the Christian insistence on the historicity of redemption. I am not saying that redemption must be historical, but Christianity says that it is. You speak about "different approaches" or so, but there is no Christian denomination that I know of that does not have the historicity of redemption as its central creed.

The historicity of redemption is tightly connected with the historicity of persona of Jesus Christ. It may not be sharply divided therefrom. It is also connected with the Old Testament and its annunciations in advance of future Messiah.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Marulus

It may seem conventional, but the question of revelation is important, it is central to the Christian message. The revelation is a supra-natural occurrence, one of the mysteries of the world, so to say it came about by grace of God is a correct answer, though it may seem "conventional".

Yes. I didn't mean that it being a common answer makes it false. I mean that I have heard it many times before, and that in my opinion, it does not make sense out of the historicity of redemption.

Example? The best example is the European culture as such, which ia a synthesis of Christian faith, which came into being as a result of the belief in Redemption, and pre-existent Greco-Roman culture. The Christian code of ethics keeps on determining much of norms of present-day societies of all nations which were once Christian in religion, not always for the good, to be sure. Some originally Christian concepts got diabolically perverted and turned into another extreme.

I have visited a completely different culture, non-European and not Christian but Islamic, and although there is certainly a big difference, I don't think that the difference is necessarily the difference between an incomplete reach of truth and a complete reach of truth - even if it should also be accounted for that the completion is only a potential (which is what Christianity teaches, as far as I know).

I do not see any cultural relativism in all of this. In that case Justin the Martyr, Thomas Aquinas, many Catholic missionaries (who saw similarities between some tenets of Confucianism and Christian ethics etc.) and many other Christian thinkers would be "relativists".

All right then, but I also don't see any kind of support in the material for the historicity of redemption.

There comes the issue of different approches whereto I hinted already.

One of them sees Revelation in absolute terms, as absolutely the only source of faith and dogma, which should be taken at face value, any other arguments in favour of it being not only unnecessary, but potentially also blasphemous. God revealed himself in a totally rotten and perverted world, where huamns are corrupted by the Original Sin so thoruoghly that it prevents them from knowing God even partially, from conceiving anything good in their hearts. Following the tenets of Revelation does not make man better in any sense, but merely gives him God's command that he is to obey blindly, if he wants to attain salvation. It is somehow a fundamentalist approach.

Another one sees humanity after the fall as having still retained ability, albeit imperfect, to know something of the truth. It is especially seen in the moral ability, in ability to tell apart good from evil, which proceeds from the divine consciousness in man. Religious ideas are in this perspective also distant echos of the ultimate truth, just perverted by demonic influence, as Justin the Martyr claims.

I support the second approach, because the first one seems to me as inclining towards some sort of paganism in "Christian" garb.

Some of the fundamentalists, those of the first approach, in modern times degenerated towards Judeo-Christianity. Not to wonder about that, because if they consider Revelation as an event without context, they will also tend to regard the people who received it as especially "sacred", even their carnal descendants (primitivistic tribalism and materialism is here to be scented).

In either case, how do you make sure that Aristotle did not have as much (or more) of truth within his reach as did Augustine of Hippo? (I am only putting an example. Of course there could be other ways to argue in favour of the historicity.)

Of course, yes. Traditional Christianity (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) is not Bible worship. The tendency towards the latter started with the Reformation.

I think that there is a gross generalisation in this. I am trained in the history of Christianity, and as far as I know, all the doctrines of early traditional Christianity are based on, or are presented as based on, the bible. Bible worship is considered wrong in any Christian denomination, I would say, although the individual perceptions of where to draw the boundaries will vary a whole lot. To say that reformed Christianity is bible worship makes as much sense to me as it does to say that unreformed Christianity is paganism and ritual magic.

Sometimes it has references to it. Justin the Martyr is also part of the Christian tradition. So is Tertullian with his notion of anima naturaliter Christiana.

I know that Christian tradition comprises a very rich literature with many interesting points and differing points of view. Some of the early apologetics believed in sophia perennis and that God could be known in nature, if my memory is not failing me.

Of course that Dionysus's death has no special meaning in Christianity and it need not have any special meaning in the Christian faith as such, but it can have meaning in putting Christianity into the historical context and explaining it as the ultimate truth, by the means of other parallels and analogies. Christian writers were not reluctant to historical exegesis from the earliest days.

I know that. ^^

What do you mean by

"historical sign of the difference"? Some spiritual sign that manifests itself somehow in history?

Yes, because after all, that is what historicity is about. It is really about historical proof at face value. Remember, I do not insist that Christianity needs be proved, but this is a point coming in my face from just about every Christian I have debated spirituality with. I also know that they have Christian tradition on their side in their insistence. Roman Catholics are no less insistent on historicity than are Lutherans. Their views are the same in this regard, or at least they are the same to the point that I have never met anyone who was the embodiment of any supposed difference, nor have I read any text that would make such a difference.

The historicity of redemption is tightly connected with the historicity of persona of Jesus Christ. It may not be sharply divided therefrom. It is also connected with the Old Testament and its annunciations in advance of future Messiah.

Yes, it is. But even if Jesus made a difference in the israelitic context, it needs also be that it made a difference in the very widest context, since Christianity is a universalist religion and not a tribal creed.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Gnist

I think that there is a gross generalisation in this. I am trained in the history of Christianity, and as far as I know, all the doctrines of early traditional Christianity are based on, or are presented as based on, the bible. Bible worship is considered wrong in any Christian denomination, I would say, although the individual perceptions of where to draw the boundaries will vary a whole lot. To say that reformed Christianity is bible worship makes as much sense to me as it does to say that unreformed Christianity is paganism and ritual magic.

The principle of Sola Scriptura is in it self a proof to the reformed Christianity being "bible worship" more so than its mother church or other traditional forms of Christianity. Though even protestants preserved Catholic traditions outside of the protestant theology for several centuries after the reformation; this was gradually degraded by iconoclasm, but even today it is a little more than just bible worship. The worst examples would be non-denominational "evangelicalist" nuts.

Further, the Sacred Tradition is not just based on the bible, but the manners going back to the earliest apostolic Christians. Therefore it would be wrong to assume traditional Christianity is based on the bible to the same degree of exclusivity as reformed Christianity, but instead a more direct and broad connection to the original faith.