George wrote: The term "Christian" branched during Reformation into the Roman Catholic and Protestant streams.

Dear George,

Many Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, think of their church as a seamless whole before the Reformation. That is far from the truth. The newly Christianised churches of the west started to split from the east in the eighth century. The breach widened until Pope Leo IX excommunicated the eastern churches, and the eastern churches hurled anathema at the west in the eleventh century. The eastern Orthodox churches are still going strong. Most Christians in Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Syria, Turkey, Albania, Finland, Esthonia and Ethiopia belong to them.

There are also Coptic, Armenian and Indian Christians who owe their allegiance to neither Rome nor the Orthodox prelates and date their origins to the early centuries of Christianity.

There have also been schisms such as the Arian – Catholic during the fourth century. Arianism even prevailed for a while. During this time Christianity spread mainly through Arian efforts.

Probably the first division of Christianity was into the group under Paul which readily accepted gentiles and the group under James which was almost exclusively Jewish in origin. The James group was eliminated in the unsuccessful revolt against the Roman Empire.

There have been three major schisms in Christendom and many minor ones.

The First Major Schism was the Chalcedonian Schism in 451.
Today, all Christendom (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and the major Protestant denominations) except for the Oriental Orthodox all Christendom accepts the language of Chalcedon.
The Second Major Schism (July 1054) separated the Orthodox from the Catholic.
The Third Major Schism (1521) was The Protestant Reformation

The term “Christian” has had many branches throughout its history.

Dear csteel: I was horrified by Albright's remark about the deaths of the children being 'worth it'. In addition to being callous Albright was all stupid.

According to Harry Gersh's 'Sacred Books of the Jews' the book of Esther took its final form around 200 BCE although it could have been around in some form much earlier. That would explain it not being in the Dead Sea Scrolls since their date is uncertain and may have been before 200 BCE.

At one time the middle east was well watered with forests. Increasing population resulted in deforestation and more arid conditions. As a result settled hunter gatherers or farmers became nomadic. In a nomadic society the roles of men and women become more sharply differentiated and women have less status. Thus the change from the independent Vashti to the subservient Esther. In addition to not being herd animals pigs need more water and shade than sheep, cattle or goats. The land became unsuitable for independent women and pigs except for the male chauvinist kind.

There can be the same explanation of both the change in the role of the goddess and the prohibition of eating pork.

By the waters of Brisbane I sat and wept. I miss the USA.

Dear David f,
Of course, you are right, I should have written “Christianity in the West”. I was carried away with my emphasis on the fact, that not only Christianity but also Catholicism evolves and diversifies through history, and often different branches see themselves as mainstream.

George,
I guess much of our understanding is owed as to how we interpret things – how we critically analyse our suppositions or traditions. Bernhard Philberth, a German physicist, philosopher and Catholic Theologian was taking aim not only at his own tradition and other institutions but referred also to the individual when he said, “Progress leads to chaos if not anchored in tradition. Tradition becomes rigid if it does not prepare the way for progress. But a perverted traditionalism and a misguided progressivism propel each other toward a deadly excess, hardly leaving any ground between them." No doubt I think you’d agree.

Evangelical Christians who hold to inerrant Scripture are often in effect little different to Romanists who posit inerrancy in Papal succession and their church. Interestingly, the claim of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which later resulted in the proclaiming of his infallibility, is considered the main cause of separation of the Western branch from the Eastern (the insertion of Filioque into the Nicene Creed was the other major reason) – i.e. the occurrence of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west.

At the ‘great schism’, when absolute canonical value was given to the Priesthood, it was concluded as being above political authority; the head of the Priesthood is the Pope and the Pope then is then "Head of the Universe" (caput totius orbis). This "conclusion" was also supported by clever forgery where Constantine the Great left to the Pope the political power of his position in Rome as a Donation to him. Orthodoxy (Eastern) has actually suffered more from the Christian West than from the Muslim East.

Accusations on the idolatry of Catholicism , often alluding to it as the pagan “whore of Babylon” are generally made in the name of a similar absurdity. The so called “direct antipode”, i.e. - the Protestant principle of the absolute supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures serves as merely a substitute for ‘Papal infallibility’ - if, when all words are considered, are taken literally.

George and Relda,

We also have the Great Schicism (1054) between the Eastern and Western Christrian Churches.

"...The older creed had declared the 'Holy Ghost' proceeded from the Father. The Latins wanted to and did add 'Filioque' (=from the Son)and place the Greeks out of communiion because they didn't want to follow the lead." (Wells)

Have enjoyed reading your posts. Bit busy at work at the moment.

Oliver,
I’m no expert on trees or metals.

I’ve not heard of any tree that is clearly older than 6000 years.

The point I would like to highlight is how anyone could possible know that a tree is that old. Using observation (a key feature of the scientific method), the only definitive way one could determine the age of anything is by seeing its beginning. How can anyone say with certainty that any tree is older than 6000 years unless they measured the time while it was elapsing, and was therefore that old as well?

Other summations require some form of theoretical reasoning or entering the domain of history. It may seem reasonable, but could never be definitive.

Something similar could be said of star formation and metals forming within them. No one knows with any degree of certainty how stars were formed. I heard one statement from a well known cosmologist that was unintentionally amusing. He said that we now understand nearly everything about the formation of all that is in the cosmos, except for stars and galaxies. Hang on! Apart from stars and galaxies, just what precisely in the universe is there left?