relda,

Thanks.

With my earlier post, I was asking for your perspective on Pandora and Eve in relation to our earlier discourse on Tillich:

"Can one justify the non-Christian religions whilst still accepting the non-literal facbrications of lore, as Tillich allows for Christianity?"." - O

Yes Oliver. I believe you can.- R

I was seeking confirmation or refutation of insights I have gained into your beliefs, regarding Tillich and extending to that belief system to a wider frame.

I was wondering if you would agree that fabrications are necessary for all religions of non-existent gods including Christianity? Herein, Eve & Pandora and Greek Olympus & Christian Heaven do not exist, literally. Herein, sustaining the implied Tillich thesis that smaller non-literal myths upholds larger myths.

The alternative scheme I have sketched is one of; "what is good for the goose is good for the gander". Can one apply the Tillich hypothesis to other religions, all religions, even non-existent religions? (Of course, Tillich would hold that only Christians can have faith in their fabrications being legitimate falsehoods).

Is the position of Christianity's claim to the Tillich hypothesis vis-a-vis other religions superior or equal to other religions?

Is your passion for Tillich's approach or the approach's support of Christianity?

relda wrote: The introduction of mediators and the Christcentrism replaced the Theocentrism of Jesus, thus separating Christians from Jews, not however Jews from Jesus

Dear relda,

Christianity separates Jews from Jesus. Whatever the reality of Jesus, Jewish blood spilled by Christianity in Jesus' name in an effort to get Jews to accept Christianity has made Jesus a figure of horror to most Jews with knowledge of our history. The followers of the other false messiahs such as David Alroy, Shabbetai Tzevi, Jacob Frank, Bar Kokhba, Serene, Abu Al-isfahani and David Reubeni have not caused as much suffering.

Some branches of Judaism now reject the concept of a personal messiah and have an optimistic faith in the advent of a messianic era with “the unity of all men as the children of God in the confession of the One and Sole God” (Philadelphia program, 1869) or “the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice and peace” (Pittsburgh program, 1885).

I think Matthew Arnold in “Dover Beach got it right.

The Catholic Church has recognised the past of Christianity and has stopped targeting Jews for missionising. Anglican Bishop Spong has recognised the Jew hatred in the New Testament as well as the Jewish roots of Christianity. Anglican Archbishop Jensen and Protestant Fundamentalists still harass us.

"The emperor (Hadrian)founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion,to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages. They elected Marcus for their (Latin) bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, ...**in the practice of which they had persevered above a century**... [emphasis added] (many in exile in Pella). By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian, and more firmly cemented their union ..." - Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Macus was the first Latin bishop, after fifteen Jewish bishops, as I have mentioned in other threads.

Relda,

I assume you are busy. I will check for your response in a few days.

Oliver,
Yes, my apologies, I’ve been a bit on the busy side – so, here goes...

Western secular humanism as it has developed since the 18th century Enlightenment i.e., a proud, self-contained and self-sufficient worldview, came to grief in the debacle of Western civilization in the world wars and genocides of the mid-twentieth century. The crisis of modernity remains, but the axis of theology has shifted, moving from a dialogue with secularisrn, agnosticism, atheism and even nihilism - basically 19th century obsessions - into a dialogue with other forms of religion, generally kept at bay in the realms of Christendom.

The great theologians of the recent past, for example Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich in the Protestant Christian tradition, have spun their ideas in dialogue with modernity. It is not so much a matter of superiority of one religion over another, but that it is Tillich’s approach in particular, for me at least, in allowing for genuine dialogue. So yes… it is more in his approach that I respect him rather than for his professed Christianity. The approach, in 388, where the Christian population set fire to the Synagogue in Callinicum, a small town in Mesopotamia, was obviously quite wrong. This incident was also significant as it exemplified the movement from a pluralistic Empire into a Christian State.

Interestingly, and a little aside, the separation of the Church from Judaism, effected theologically at the Council of Nicaea, was now law under the Christian Emperors who took their advice from the Church. The incident at Callicium is the symbol of the conquest of ecclesiastical anti-Semitism. The Church could, and did manage to influence imperial legislation in a way detrimental to Jews. This really, in effect, served only to antagonize and confuse the ‘message’ of the Church, from an obscure Jew, to her listeners.

david f,
I’m generally amazed at the layered complexity of historical event – where some digging sometimes puts many of our assumptions on their head.

Quite unarguably, one of Constantine's first official acts had been to ban Jewish proselytism as dangerous competition to the Church. It was flagrant inequality where Christians were free to evangelize but Jews were forbidden to increase their membership. The context, in which the prohibition appears,however,is significant because it constitutes the second part of a law which aimed to protect Jews who converted to Christianity from reprisals inflicted by their co-religionists.

An understanding of ancient Judaic culture is noteworthy, where their view of Gentiles as "dogs" was deeply ingrained and shaped by regulations within the Torah such as:"You must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons" (Deuteronomy). Jesus’ own reference to the ‘Cannanite’ woman as a "Gentile dog" is ample NT evidence of this – and an interesting encounter.

Their ban on proselytism effectively altered the status of the Jews who allegedly enjoyed equality with Pagans and Christians. The once equal status granted to Jews under the Edict of Milan was eroded piece by piece until the Emperor Theodosius (379-395) founded an orthodox Christian state and banned the practice of any other religion. In the intervening period between Constantine and Theodosius the ‘civil rights’ of Jews had been more than compromised. The politics of Constantine probably bore good reason and today’s politicians, in order to be successful, will show similar pragmatism. But this, David, has little to do with Jesus the Jew.

Ironically, Niebuhr once said that only two ‘Christians’ lived in Detroit, and they were both Jews - he meant that Jews seemed to have developed a superior capacity for what he called 'civic virtue' than most Christians – probably because of their long experience as a minority in a Christian world, and partly because of Judaism itself, with its unique" Hebraic-prophetic passion for social justice."