Why were Greek and Roman thinkers considered authoritative?

[ricketyclik]

Herd mentality, combined with the fact that those who could write were rare in those days, so those who could write had their version legitimised. Much like Paul in the Bible. Like you said, it's verging on religious.

[Lorizael]

You get me wrong. I wasn't talking about the specific religion, just that it was a very religious society. Together with feudalism, you have a very rigid society where starting to question dogma is very big nono.

That doesn't tell us why it became dogma in the first place.

[Jon Miller]

Herd mentality, combined with the fact that those who could write were rare in those days, so those who could write had their version legitimised. Much like Paul in the Bible. Like you said, it's verging on religious.

Except the church leaders that we know of in 100-150 AD favored Paul also.

I really think that this idea that Paul hijacked Christianity has no strong basis. Yes, there were other ideas out there. No, there wasn't a conspiracy. Why is it so hard to beleive that there were various ideas in conflict and the best ones (generally) won?

Paul was definitely a hellenized Jew and was influenced by Greek ideas. So was John. These produced many of the ideas that were most favored in the full church (not just the european part) and they built upon greek and hebrew thought in addition to their experience with Christ.

The early Indian Christians (Mar Thoma Christians) only had the book of Matthew. They were glad to later acquire the others and were part of the council of nicea.

The split of Christianity into western and eastern (and african) parts didn't happen until the Roman empire was failing. So after the cannon had mostly been developed (~100 AD, despite what conspiracy theorists may tell you. The differences between what people claimed were cannonical in ~150 AD and the formal Constantine based process in ~400 AD are minimal).

Also, recall that Israel had been conquered at had relations with the greeks or greek influenced states for 100s of years by the time of Christ. The Jews were already hellenised.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Some interesting reading about African Christianity.

http://orthochristian.com/94812.html

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/eng...cal/books.html (they have an additional 8 books in the NT, but no significantly different religion)
http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/ex...s-in-the-bible

Apparently the unique Ethiopian books in the NT have never been translated out of old Ethiopian?

Progress made (last year) on one of the Ethiopian NT books (the first from that effort):

https://ethiopianorthodoxbible.wordpress.com/2017/08/12/progress-we-have-acquired-the-book-of-gitsew/

JM

[BeBMan]

That doesn't tell us why it became dogma in the first place.

I think the fact that those ancient thinkers were "pagan" was not much of a hindrance as in the religous views of the middle ages god was da man in everything anyway. Pagans were usually seen as the poor guys who hadn't seen the light yet (missionary efforts were based on the idea they would), so they were not thought of as per se "bad" -- heresy was much worse a thing in the middle ages.

I think reconciling pre-Christian stuff with Christian ideas/dogma played a big part, and interpretations like "altho Plato and Aristoteles were pre-christian, we see the Lord's presence/deeds/whatever through their works" could have been offered easily.

[BlackCat]

That doesn't tell us why it became dogma in the first place.

I'll say historical reasons. Greek philosophy and literature was in high esteem in the roman empire and I see no reason why that should stop just because christianity took over. Didn't matter much that the roman empire fell, because at that point it was well integrated in the church (and by that, dogma).

[Jon Miller]

Greek philosophy and literature was held in high esteem by some Jews before Christ was born.

The whole region had been hellenised for over 300 years.

JM

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Except the church leaders that we know of in 100-150 AD favored Paul also.

I really think that this idea that Paul hijacked Christianity has no strong basis. Yes, there were other ideas out there. No, there wasn't a conspiracy. Why is it so hard to beleive that there were various ideas in conflict and the best ones (generally) won?

Paul was definitely a hellenized Jew and was influenced by Greek ideas. So was John. These produced many of the ideas that were most favored in the full church (not just the european part) and they built upon greek and hebrew thought in addition to their experience with Christ.

The early Indian Christians (Mar Thoma Christians) only had the book of Matthew. They were glad to later acquire the others and were part of the council of nicea.

The split of Christianity into western and eastern (and african) parts didn't happen until the Roman empire was failing. So after the cannon had mostly been developed (~100 AD, despite what conspiracy theorists may tell you. The differences between what people claimed were cannonical in ~150 AD and the formal Constantine based process in ~400 AD are minimal).

Also, recall that Israel had been conquered at had relations with the greeks or greek influenced states for 100s of years by the time of Christ. The Jews were already hellenised.

JM

I'll tell you that my basis for thinking that is a simple as I read the red letters, and I found Jesus' teachings not-complex, but profound - and when I read the letters of Paul, I see a man who never met him in the flesh, and turned something simple into something complex, and I am unsatisfied with his limited understanding of Christ as I see it. I acknowledge the purpose in addressing a Hellenized audience, but still find Paul like reading the Dune prequels - hard to believe Anderson and young Herbert read the same Dune series I have over and over.

[Jon Miller]

I think that theology was obviously going to happen. It isn't really necessary for everyone, but definitely for some people. Some people (like me) spend their time thinking about such things. Although all of my spiritual breakthroughs came from simple things (praise/worship songs, sacrificing my time to worship/share even when I didn't desire to, daily prayer).

I think that the theology that Paul led the development of was natural for both the apostles (if you look at the Jews of the time) and in the roman/greek dominated society. That is my critical view, my religious view is that the theology is imperfect but inspired.

JM

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

I, too, think on those lines a great deal. Jesus had answers I believe in, and while his teaching is (simple has unfortunate shadings I don't intend, but given that caveat, it serves well) simple, my life is not. -So there's a need and a function for some sort of Talmud to the Torah, and theology being a thing is in no way a bad one.

-But that and historical context and all still leaves me with finding myself having profound disagreement with Paul, and finding that on the whole, and most especially in our modern context, he has done and does a great deal of harm. Surely you canNOT think that Mrs. Miller's place is in back of the church with her head covered and her mouth shut. Jon, I've been following your (double-posting) act for years, and I know you're better/cooler/wiser than to swallow that. But it's in the book.

I dunno how the next sane, decent person reconciles that and other unacceptable bits in Paul - but I have to eject him from my personal headcanon as an important early Christian thinker who was often wrong, and likewise the ancients who mistakenly included him into the New Testament. I simply cannot accept him being divinely inspired/holy writ/God's scripture when he is solely the basis of the reverend doctor my-little-brother -who implements being wrong at his church- being on the wrong side of history vis women deacons.

[Jon Miller]

Paul was a person of his time, as we all are.

I do not follow verbal dictation theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblic...on#Evangelical). Even for the parts that I think are dictated, I think that the immediate audience (as well as us in the extended audience) need to be considered.

If you read in the NT, women were very active in the church (and were named/etc). My understanding is that the time was very patriarchal... as now is in some quarters. Paul may have been very patriarchal.

In any case, there were both social revolutionary components of Christianity and a desire to not be in physical conflict but rather in spiritual conflict. The latter is seen in Jesus who usually resisted direct social/political conflict in favor of realizing social change as a result of spiritual change.

The statements on women holding back (leadership/etc) may have been to reduce direct social/political conflict to keep the emphasis on the spiritual.

So, in Corinthians (11:5) there is a direction for women to cover their heads (Customary for Corinth in that time) when praying and prophesying. This seems counter to the direction (14:33) for women to keep silent. Some have thought the latter was a modification (I am not claiming this) due to this and due to Paul naming women in various letters who were evangelizing with him. Some people also maintain that Timothy was not written by Paul.

Paul is also the one who gave this doctrine (I know some disagree, but I view things like head coverings to be pastoral and not doctrine.. so both commands in Corinthians and the one in Timothy are pastoral): "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Which is revolutionary.

JM

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Gimme the chapter and verse - I'm too lazy to look it up, but too fond of tilting at windmills to not want to hit Rev Dr Lil-bro w/ that and his no women deacons.

If the Devil can quote scriptures to his own ends, I sure as fun can quote Paul, 'cause we are stuck with him...

[Jon Miller]

Romans is accepted as being from Paul. In chapter 16, he greets many women fellow evangelists:
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cen′chre-ae, ² that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a helper of many and of myself as well."
"Greet Prisca and Aq′uila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, ⁴ who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I but also all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks;"
"Greet Mary, who has worked hard among you."
^" Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphae′na and Trypho′sa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord."

I have seen some versions say that verse 7 refers to men only, but the NIV has Junia (and the early church father Chrysostom, refers to Junia as a woman)
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me.They are outstanding among^[d] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."
Here it would say that Junia was an apostle.

The earlier quote I gave was in Galations:
²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

JM
(apparently Junia has her own Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia )

[Dinner]

Greek philosophy and literature was held in high esteem by some Jews before Christ was born.

The whole region had been hellenised for over 300 years.

JM

They didn't call it the hellenic period for nothing.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Thanks, JM - that's above and beyond and mighty Christian of you, sir.