The Christian God

[omar]

Just a quick observation as a way of criticizing harnack. Theologians like Augustine and others referenced the bible to grant weight their words would otherwise have lacked. Thus it is not a rewrite that these councils performed but a continuation of a Christian presumption.

[felix dakat]

Just a quick observation as a way of criticizing harnack. Theologians like Augustine and others referenced the bible to grant weight their words would otherwise have lacked. Thus it is not a rewrite that these councils performed but a continuation of a Christian presumption.

Huh? They referenced the Bible because they believed it was the revelation of God. What do you mean by " not a rewrite" and "Christian presumption"? The New Testament was even revised to accommodate changes in dogma.

[omar]

I had to edit this as well... Two left thumbs.

They referenced to the bible because it was the one revelation. They made deductions at these councils. They clarified the one true revelation. The councils were responses to theological controversies but not to try amending scripture or deviating from the one true revelation.

So to a set of scriptures became the presumed and true revelation of god. Theologians debated over the meaning of various passages. Each did so not according to his genius but what each felt were necessary deductions. By historical accident or state coercion one prevailed. Councils afterward would simply make official the winning theology. But from scripture to interpretation to codification it was all one harmonious process. At least that is my take on it. The councils over played the simplicity of the message but did not manufacture continuity because it was pretty much there all along.

[felix dakat]

They referenced because it was the one revelation. They made deductions at these councils. They clarified the one true revelation. The councils were responses to theological controversies but amending scripture or deviating from the one true revelation.

You seem to contradict yourself. I'm thinking maybe there's a typo in there.

So to a set of scriptures became the presumed and true revelation of god. Theologians debated over the meaning of various passages. Each did so not according to his genius but what each felt were necessary deductions. By historical accident or state coercion one prevailed. Councils afterward would simply make official the winning theology. But from scripture to interpretation to codification it was all one harmonious process. At least that is my take on it. The councils over played the simplicity of the message but did not manufacture continuity because it was pretty much there all along.

If you read the history you will see it was anything but harmonious. The decisions were the result of power politics. The creedal formula that resulted was hardly necessary or unproblematic. If the message had been there all along, they would not have had to change the Bible to make it consistent with it.

[omar]

I have to clarify the above some.

Of course the process was not smooth but my point is that for or against everyone since Paul and Jesus took on the tradition to state what was for them one timeless revelation. Take for example the five fundamentals you quoted elsewhere and you see that by each assertion you have accompanying and supportive scripture. If a council latter codified one of various theologies as orthodox the groundwork was already there to help them convince themselves and others that this was the one revelation for all to see all along. If that...
A convinction of fundamentalist like Augustine, the father of Catholicism, is that the revelation is one as god is one but that sin (Paul's ad home in or theology?) had obscured what would otherwise would have been plain for all to see even themselves (which is another reason it isn't a true ad homenin since the speaker cannot claim a higher ground since he was given the gift of sight to see what is eternal but no longer self evident in a fallen world) had made it's apprehension a battle only a few would be allowed to win.
Theologians like Paul like Augustine were tools of god same goes for the councils. This is the harmonious process I speak of. Even the opponents of one orthodoxy did so from another assumed orthodoxy. Every accident was understood as caused by god if it furthered the goals of those who would finally write history. Again from both sides of the aisle.

[felix dakat]

I have to clarify the above some.

Of course the process was not smooth but my point is that for or against everyone since Paul and Jesus took on the tradition to state what was for them one timeless revelation. Take for example the five fundamentals you quoted elsewhere and you see that by each assertion you have accompanying and supportive scripture. If a council latter codified one of various theologies as orthodox the groundwork was already there to help them convince themselves and others that this was the one revelation for all to see all along. If that...
A convinction of fundamentalist like Augustine, the father of Catholicism, is that the revelation is one as god is one but that sin (Paul's ad home in or theology?) had obscured what would otherwise would have been plain for all to see even themselves (which is another reason it isn't a true ad homenin since the speaker cannot claim a higher ground since he was given the gift of sight to see what is eternal but no longer self evident in a fallen world) had made it's apprehension a battle only a few would be allowed to win.
Theologians like Paul like Augustine were tools of god same goes for the councils. This is the harmonious process I speak of. Even the opponents of one orthodoxy did so from another assumed orthodoxy. Every accident was understood as caused by god if it furthered the goals of those who would finally write history. Again from both sides of the aisle.

Read "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" by Bart Ehrman to see how the New Testament was changed to make it line up with the party line that became the church's orthodox position. The impression of harmony was created post hoc by glossing over, covering up and sanctifying the actual process by which dogma was ratified. Rival texts were systematically destroyed. Rival voices were excommunicated or worse.

[omar]

I think that it was a novel situation and not a cruel imposition. First two centuries has churches in relative independence. Paul's letters are testimony of how fragile orthodoxy was and yet how it was wanted for the internal necessity of their theological claims. As Christianity grew and elbow room between communities disappeared it became a concern to invent a common language.
After the unification of Italy someone said:"we have created Italy, now we must create Italians". It is rarely that honest. It happens most often in shawvian drama.

While it is true that Christianity in its entire history has never been whole Paul and men like him saw it as such. That is why we have those biblical quotations. They are not the product of tampering but the arguments Paul made to his churches of one gospel and one church as the body of Christ. Multiplicity was never the goal nor was it consistent with the history of monotheism.

[felix dakat]

I think that it was a novel situation and not a cruel imposition. First two centuries has churches in relative independence. Paul's letters are testimony of how fragile orthodoxy was and yet how it was wanted for the internal necessity of their theological claims. As Christianity grew and elbow room between communities disappeared it became a concern to invent a common language.
After the unification of Italy someone said:"we have created Italy, now we must create Italians". It is rarely that honest. It happens most often in shawvian drama.

While it is true that Christianity in its entire history has never been whole Paul and men like him saw it as such. That is why we have those biblical quotations. They are not the product of tampering but the arguments Paul made to his churches of one gospel and one church as the body of Christ. Multiplicity was never the goal nor was it consistent with the history of monotheism.

Omar--Your reading of church history is not well supported. It is doubtful that the apostle Paul even wrote 6 of the books attributed to him in the New Testament. Per Wikipedia:

Seven letters are generally classified as “undisputed”, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," have no consensus on whether or not they are authentic letters of Paul. The latter three, the "Pastoral Epistles", are widely regarded to be pseudepigraphical works, though certain scholars do consider Paul to be the author.

The disputed epistles happen include many of the passages that advocate the beginnings of authoritarian church structure that have been attributed to Paul. The later letters of Paul were apparently created by the early church to dilute Paul's egalitarian message and transform him into a conservative. The phoney epistles were used to de-radicalize Paul in order to make him fit Roman social norms in regards to slavery, patriarchy, and patronage. A book to read on this is The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon by Borg and Crossan.

[omar]

Sounds like a good book but for now I stand by my reading. The idea of disputed letters is known to me. I read erhman's book on the active editing of what became scripture. From mark to job I easily concur. But the case that Paul intended one message is both the testimony of the undisputed correspondence and it's very existence.
I usually quote from 1 Corinthian and the idea is there when he talks about certain disputes within a church (was it Apollos the other leader? Can't confirm cause I don't have my bible here at this moment) and you can also deduce the principle of one church from Galatians. If everything is equal to Paul then why challenge Peter? And if all is the same to jerusalem council then why did they impose penalties upon Paul? The point is that latter controversies were already present in the first century and that then and later they were important to the players involved because of the shared belief that the path to salvation was one.

[felix dakat]

Omar--

Sounds like a good book but for now I stand by my reading. The idea of disputed letters is known to me. I read erhman's book on the active editing of what became scripture. From mark to job I easily concur. But the case that Paul intended one message is both the testimony of the undisputed correspondence and it's very existence.

I have pointed out several times that Paul shows the influence of a dualistic world-view, according to which the created order is at least partly under the control of the god of darkness. Iranian dualism had penetrated the Mediterranean, and it can be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, when they distinguish between the angel of darkness and the angel of light, the children of darkness and the children of light. There are echoes of this terminology in Paul. In 2 Corinthians 11: 14, where Satan is said to disguise himself as the ‘angel of light’, Satan is, in effect, the ‘angel of darkness’.

Again, the influence of dualism on Paul is evident in his opinion that the entire created order to be in need of redemption (Rom. 8: 19–23), though it could not have been guilty of transgression. He proposed that it was God himself who had subjected the creation to ‘futility’, and that he had done so ‘in hope’, planning its redemption. Paul believed in evil spiritual forces which he called by various names. These non-gods could blind (2 Cor. 4: 4) and enslave (Gal. 4: , as could Sin (Rom. 6: 6).

I usually quote from 1 Corinthian and the idea is there when he talks about certain disputes within a church (was it Apollos the other leader? Can't confirm cause I don't have my bible here at this moment) and you can also deduce the principle of one church from Galatians. If everything is equal to Paul then why challenge Peter? And if all is the same to jerusalem council then why did they impose penalties upon Paul? The point is that latter controversies were already present in the first century and that then and later they were important to the players involved because of the shared belief that the path to salvation was one.

I frankly do not see what this has to do with my thesis that the Christian concept of god is a marriage late Judaistic ideas influenced by dualism with Hellenism and Greek philosophy. Salvation involved union with Christ in his death and resurrection whereby he overcame the control of Satan and demonic powers which ruled not only the empire but the cosmos.

[omar]

We... Well at least I was not trying to discuss here the point of the OP. it was a tangent, a new window. What the theology meant was not my aim in the last post but the possibility, indeed probability that authoritarianism began soon after Jesus death and not simply the invention of Paul.

But you don't want to discuss that anymore? Fine. Let's get back and say that theology of Israel wasn't dualistic. Influenced by Iranian religion? Debatable. But even if it was it was only so imperfectly because it was a world full of angels and demons but these were in the end just creatures. Satan was not coeternal with god but was a rebellious creation. Creation itself is not explained as an eternal struggle between good and evil but as a perfect creation that was lost through choice. What truly is eternal with god is his law and it is that that requires Jesus sacrifice and not defeating Satan in mortal combat.

[omar]

I want to touch on something else. Every time you find a clear influence you need to be aware that (not everything that shines is gold as I said before) it is an specific section of a group rathe than the entire group. Judaism as well as Christianity were not granite monoliths. This is part of your argument. Thus some groups were influenced much more than others by Hellenism. It wasn't a uniform effect. If true for Hellenism it could be true for this dualism. For example you have Manichaeism which bears all the marks of influence to make your case but it is a type a flavor one possible Christianity. So to say that Christianity is dualistic is to exceed your histical evidence. More justice is done in saying that dualism influence some Christians. But whether they would prevail theologically was as uncertain as the theology of original sin, predestination and others. But the fact that books with stronger dualistic narratives, like Enoch, did not make the Christian cannon and those like the apocalypse did so under strong opposition makes question your notion that even a majority was dualistic. One can argue that a majority was Arian and in favor of Pelagius by the fact that today we have Christians who believe almost as they did in direct opposition to later councils, which in fact existed because of the strength of these "heresies".

[felix dakat]

We... Well at least I was not trying to discuss here the point of the OP. it was a tangent, a new window. What the theology meant was not my aim in the last post but the possibility, indeed probability that authoritarianism began soon after Jesus death and not simply the invention of Paul.

It's a topic I'm interested in, but we should probably take it up on another thread since it would take us astray from our present locus of discussion.

But you don't want to discuss that anymore? Fine. Let's get back and say that theology of Israel wasn't dualistic. Influenced by Iranian religion? Debatable. But even if it was it was only so imperfectly because it was a world full of angels and demons but these were in the end just creatures. Satan was not coeternal with god but was a rebellious creation. Creation itself is not explained as an eternal struggle between good and evil but as a perfect creation that was lost through choice. What truly is eternal with god is his law and it is that that requires Jesus sacrifice and not defeating Satan in mortal combat.

Currently my research on the issue has brought me to PAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS A CRITICAL HISTORY BY ALBERT SCHWEITZER D. THEOL., D. PHIL., D. MED. TRANSLATED BY W. MONTGOMERY, B.D. from which I draw the following. Schweitzer points out that passages in which Paul speaks of Satan, the angels, and the demons, have parallels in Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Apocalypse of Baruch. Paul's statements about angelology and demonology were not received from the resurrected Jesus or from Paul's imagination, but all have their earlier analogues in the Late-Jewish theology, or at any rate can be understood as inferences from the conceptions there laid down.

It further appears that his statements stand in systematic connection and mutually supplement one another. In its main lines Paul's doctrine of angels presents the following picture: Spiritual beings who, in accordance with the hierarchic arrangement adopted in Late-Jewish theology, are divided into various classes, played a prominent part at the giving of the law. From that time forward they acted as overseers of the chosen people, and also as the real powers behind the gods of the heathen.

By the death and resurrection of Christ the power of angels and demons has been in principle abolished, although it continues to be still in some way exercised upon those who offer sacrifices to idols or submit themselves to the law. Believers in Christ, however, stand over against them as a class of men who are liberated from their sway, and who possess a wisdom which understands better than their own the great events in which the history of the world is about to close.

These angelic entities feel that their domination is threatened, and fight with all the weapons at their command. It is at their instigation that the attempt is made to corrupt the Gospel by legalism; all the difficulties which Paul encounters, all the physical sufferings which he has to bear, are to be attributed to them.

It is on the account of evil angels and demons that women must be veiled at church meetings, since otherwise they run the risk of becoming the victims of angelic lust, as Eve was seduced by the devil. Theses evil entities are skilled at deception: Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light.

With the appearance of the Lord begins the decisive struggle which is to lead to the destruction of these powers. They are to be delivered up to judgment, to receive their sentence at the mouth of the saints, whom, until the parousia, they have still the power to harass with cunning and cruelty, though not to destroy.

When Paul’s statements regarding God, the devil, the angels, and the world are seen clearly, it becomes abundantly evident that for him redemption, in its primary and fundamental sense, consists in a deliverance from the powers which have their abode between heaven and earth. It is therefore essentially a future good, dependent on a cosmic event of universal scope. So, if there are limits to the extent to which Paul imbibed the dualistic world view of his contemporary culture, let us first acknowledge just how deep was its influence on his theology and preaching.

[felix dakat]

I want to touch on something else. Every time you find a clear influence you need to be aware that (not everything that shines is gold as I said before) it is an specific section of a group rathe than the entire group. Judaism as well as Christianity were not granite monoliths. This is part of your argument. Thus some groups were influenced much more than others by Hellenism. It wasn't a uniform effect. If true for Hellenism it could be true for this dualism. For example you have Manichaeism which bears all the marks of influence to make your case but it is a type a flavor one possible Christianity. So to say that Christianity is dualistic is to exceed your histical evidence. More justice is done in saying that dualism influence some Christians. But whether they would prevail theologically was as uncertain as the theology of original sin, predestination and others. But the fact that books with stronger dualistic narratives, like Enoch, did not make the Christian cannon and those like the apocalypse did so under strong opposition makes question your notion that even a majority was dualistic. One can argue that a majority was Arian and in favor of Pelagius by the fact that today we have Christians who believe almost as they did in direct opposition to later councils, which in fact existed because of the strength of these "heresies".

All orthodox Christians accept the Pauline epistles of the New Testament as holy scripture. So, having adduced dualism in Paul's epistles, we may conclude that it is present in the heart of Christian orthodoxy.

[omar]

All orthodox Christians accept the Pauline epistles of the New Testament as holy scripture. So, having adduced dualism in Paul's epistles, we may conclude that it is present in the heart of Christian orthodoxy.

Not at all. Contents of scripture go against the official dogma but scripture is quoted selectively and heavely interpreted to erase any unorthodox teaching which may lay in there. Interestingly this goes against the idea of a massive re-editing process in the redaction of the bible by the orthodox. If it had been as active as many would make it seem such controversies would not exist because they would have edited the bible in it's entirety to read either this or that orthodoxy in general and unambiguously.

[omar]

Hello Felix,

--- Currently my research on the issue has brought me to PAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS A CRITICAL HISTORY BY ALBERT SCHWEITZER D. THEOL., D. PHIL., D. MED. TRANSLATED BY W. MONTGOMERY, B.D. from which I draw the following. Schweitzer points out that passages in which Paul speaks of Satan, the angels, and the demons, have parallels in Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Apocalypse of Baruch. Paul's statements about angelology and demonology were not received from the resurrected Jesus or from Paul's imagination, but all have their earlier analogues in the Late-Jewish theology, or at any rate can be understood as inferences from the conceptions there laid down.
O- I concur. But Enoch was not added into the canon, nor some of the others, left rather as apocraphia...interesting reading but not part of the one revelation. And the reason was probably the same other books were often disputed, such as the apocalypse, because in it you found the passages that could support views of competing theologies. After hearing these tied constantly with a heresy, I think that some were inclined to leave out books which would be confusing to the flock. All these books were important inter-testament literature, but Christianity made a name for itself, literally, by shedding it's jewish heritage. The OT was problematic, unaccepted by Manichees and salvaged only by the rhetorical powers of Ambrose and others who made it a proper gentleman religion.

--- It further appears that his statements stand in systematic connection and mutually supplement one another. In its main lines Paul's doctrine of angels presents the following picture: Spiritual beings who, in accordance with the hierarchic arrangement adopted in Late-Jewish theology, are divided into various classes, played a prominent part at the giving of the law. From that time forward they acted as overseers of the chosen people, and also as the real powers behind the gods of the heathen.
O- Fair enough. But as a principle of evil, co-eternal with the good that is not self-evident. Isaiah is read as either a man or as an angel turned demon, but certainly not as the root of all evil. Demons cause bodily harm but can be destroyed by the Holy One (Luke 4:34). The inequities of the world are a temporary occurrence and not an eternal pre-condition, for the Devil lived in Eden and yet God called it perfect. part of the problem of evil is man. Through His Law God promised well-being...to put it mildly. Heaven on earth so to speak. The prophecy of the Messiah originally involved a very terrenal paradise, when earthly opponents, not merely demons (For Babylon is always just below the surface) would be defeated in a battle that pitted God's people and angels against the powers of this world and the devil. I get all that....but this echoes back to Pharaoh, who had magicians working for him who pitted their magic against Moses, and to David and other patriarchs of old, who often were assisted by God directly or through his angels. The narrative is of the Almighty being inactive for some unknown reason while his people are subjected. But when it is His time, and He awakes from His rest, nothing on earth, Heaven or Hell can oppose His will. Evil is only indirectly attributable to demons. The Psalmist, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Job, Ecclesiates among others see it as directly God's will. And if we get to Paul, again in Roman's tale of the Potter, Paul destroys any need for a co-existing principle of evil, or a creator of evil-- He has fingered God for all evil.

--- By the death and resurrection of Christ the power of angels and demons has been in principle abolished, although it continues to be still in some way exercised upon those who offer sacrifices to idols or submit themselves to the law. Believers in Christ, however, stand over against them as a class of men who are liberated from their sway, and who possess a wisdom which understands better than their own the great events in which the history of the world is about to close.
O- The power of the demons is broken because Jesus ' death brings the release of the Spirit by which men can call on His name and defeat any wandering demon. But angels were not "abolished", not by a long shot. Augustine's world was one where you were told to sneeze or spit backwards for there were invisible angels before them. But note that again Augustine is another that fingers God for evil as much as good. There is a pattern then.

--- These angelic entities feel that their domination is threatened, and fight with all the weapons at their command. It is at their instigation that the attempt is made to corrupt the Gospel by legalism; all the difficulties which Paul encounters, all the physical sufferings which he has to bear, are to be attributed to them.
O- To demons? He endured some hardship from the ruling of the Jerusalem Council but I doubt that he call them demons. Ephesians makes that case, but isn't it disputable in origin? So how native is it as a belief?

--- It is on the account of evil angels and demons that women must be veiled at church meetings, since otherwise they run the risk of becoming the victims of angelic lust, as Eve was seduced by the devil. Theses evil entities are skilled at deception: Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light.
O- Sure. Still does not make them the cause, the root cause of evil, in a universe that bears an omnipotent God.

--- When Paul’s statements regarding God, the devil, the angels, and the world are seen clearly, it becomes abundantly evident that for him redemption, in its primary and fundamental sense, consists in a deliverance from the powers which have their abode between heaven and earth.
O- Not so clear actually. Ephesians is of disputed authorship and he speaks of a fallen world, original sin, a sin not caused by the devil but by the seduction of man, the disobedience of man. Therefore and predictably, for him, part of man's redemption is becoming a slave to Christ, which is what man should have been to God. In Isaiah for example it is Israel that is a "born-slave". To bring back something you brought up in the ad hom tread, Paul holds man as responsible for not believing what was self-evident, and in return, God, not devils, gives them "over" to their shameful lust.
But let's say that the duality is there. God working through the Spirit and through the mind, while Satan works through the sinful nature and our flesh. It is still not by the strenght of the flesh or the sinful nature or the devil but whether God has given us over, or predestined us in such a way. That is part of the paulinian theology. So what appears as a duality ends up monism.

--- It is therefore essentially a future good, dependent on a cosmic event of universal scope. So, if there are limits to the extent to which Paul imbibed the dualistic world view of his contemporary culture, let us first acknowledge just how deep was its influence on his theology and preaching.
O- Agreed. But ask this question: Was it more the zoroastrian influence or the hellenic influence that peppered his thought? And are they one and the same? I think that there is a reason Plato and not zoroaster is seen as a pseudo-christian convert.

[Sha Tara]

The christian concept of god is a syncretistic creation ---a synthesis of disparate concepts brought together by ecstatic religious imagination.
[...]
No longer, and not for a long time, have we had the ability to write scripture and/or to reveal the Christian God (or the God of the Jews).

(I think that this cultural loss is one of the greatest that we've suffered as a species and something that we desperately need restored.)
So as to your main thesis, that the Christian God is a syncretistic creation, I would say yes and no. I believe that the Christian scriptures reveal the same God as the Old Testament and therefore is not.

This begs the questions, "Why/how did this loss come about?" and "How will it be restored?"

I have some very strong ideas about this. The loss, the inability to "write inspired scripture" came about because faith became religion. Belief became a system imposed on people in general. Fear of being persecuted for heresy - and how many Hebrew prophets were cruelly tortured and killed for their revelation of God's will; for their visions? - and oppression by the priesthood led to conformity and apathy. "God" did not speak in the inspired way through an apostate religion and those who were called were effectively silenced to this day, thus terminating that process. The leaders of organized religion made certain their position of power would henceforth never again be challenged successfully. Even the Protestant "reformation" only shifted power among the elites. The torture and murder of prophetic voices continued apace between Catholicism and Protestantism as history attests to.

Assuming it (inspired writing) needs to be restored, then the "people" need to listen to those who are legitimate prophets for their god. It is said that "when the student is ready the teacher appears." So it is with prophecy (which undergirds inspired writings). When the people, or enough people, are ready, the prophet will appear, will say what needs to be said - and make no mistake, it will not be a pleasant message - and the people will have to accept this message and change their ways accordingly.

Well, that is the old way, and on that I've said enough. There is a new way, of course, to express higher ideals. There is a "new" path opened to man that he may rise up and "boldly go where no one has gone before." It is not new in concept, just new in application. And that path would be called ...?

[felix dakat]

Omar-

O- I concur. But Enoch was not added into the canon, nor some of the others, left rather as apocraphia...interesting reading but not part of the one revelation. And the reason was probably the same other books were often disputed, such as the apocalypse, because in it you found the passages that could support views of competing theologies. After hearing these tied constantly with a heresy, I think that some were inclined to leave out books which would be confusing to the flock. All these books were important inter-testament literature, but Christianity made a name for itself, literally, by shedding it's jewish heritage. The OT was problematic, unaccepted by Manichees and salvaged only by the rhetorical powers of Ambrose and others who made it a proper gentleman religion.

The church left those books out of the New Testament but they included Paul's and he writes about the same thing i.e. Satan, demons, principalities, powers and such being in control of the present world that we live in. Orthodoxy accepts Paul carte blanche. So, while the Christian God is not ultimately dual , it is temporarily dual. Thus duality is unavoidably part of orthodox Christianity.

O- Fair enough. But as a principle of evil, co-eternal with the good that is not self-evident. Isaiah is read as either a man or as an angel turned demon, but certainly not as the root of all evil. Demons cause bodily harm but can be destroyed by the Holy One (Luke 4:34). The inequities of the world are a temporary occurrence and not an eternal pre-condition, for the Devil lived in Eden and yet God called it perfect. part of the problem of evil is man. Through His Law God promised well-being...to put it mildly. Heaven on earth so to speak. The prophecy of the Messiah originally involved a very terrenal paradise, when earthly opponents, not merely demons (For Babylon is always just below the surface) would be defeated in a battle that pitted God's people and angels against the powers of this world and the devil. I get all that....but this echoes back to Pharaoh, who had magicians working for him who pitted their magic against Moses, and to David and other patriarchs of old, who often were assisted by God directly or through his angels. The narrative is of the Almighty being inactive for some unknown reason while his people are subjected. But when it is His time, and He awakes from His rest, nothing on earth, Heaven or Hell can oppose His will. Evil is only indirectly attributable to demons. The Psalmist, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Job, Ecclesiates among others see it as directly God's will. And if we get to Paul, again in Roman's tale of the Potter, Paul destroys any need for a co-existing principle of evil, or a creator of evil-- He has fingered God for all evil.

Right the Christian concept of God is not thoroughly dualistic. I never asserted that it was. My contention has always been that it combines monotheistic and dualistic aspects. These conflicting elements superficially deal with the problem of evil, by 1] ascribing evil to divine entities other than God 2] asserting that the evil entities will ulitmately be destroyed. However, this does not solve the problem because the ultimate source of everything has ultimate responsibility for everthing including the suffering of innocents which is unjusitifiable even if it is temporary. The typical answer is the greater good theodicy for which thereis no evidence. The escape hatch is "we will understand it better by and by."

O- The power of the demons is broken because Jesus ' death brings the release of the Spirit by which men can call on His name and defeat any wandering demon. But angels were not "abolished", not by a long shot. Augustine's world was one where you were told to sneeze or spit backwards for there were invisible angels before them. But note that again Augustine is another that fingers God for evil as much as good. There is a pattern then.

There is no evidence that I know of that the cosmos was actually changed in any way by the death of Jesus. Further,although dogma maintain that Jesus broke the power of demons, Roman Catholics and Pentecostals Christians battle demons today. It's hard to see that Jesus accomplished anything vis a vis demons on the cross.

O- To demons? He endured some hardship from the ruling of the Jerusalem Council but I doubt that he call them demons. Ephesians makes that case, but isn't it disputable in origin? So how native is it as a belief?

For Paul human society is contolled by evil entites in this age. Any persecution he suffered had it's source in divine "principalities and power" who control this evil aeon. As Paul said:"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." For Paul demonic control was behind The Jerusalem Council, non-Christian Jews, and Gentiles who apposed the Lord.

O- Sure. Still does not make them the cause, the root cause of evil, in a universe that bears an omnipotent God.

That implies a collusion between God and the devil which calls into question the goodness of God and implicates God in the problem of evil.

O- Not so clear actually. Ephesians is of disputed authorship and he speaks of a fallen world, original sin, a sin not caused by the devil but by the seduction of man, the disobedience of man. Therefore and predictably, for him, part of man's redemption is becoming a slave to Christ, which is what man should have been to God. In Isaiah for example it is Israel that is a "born-slave". To bring back something you brought up in the ad hom tread, Paul holds man as responsible for not believing what was self-evident, and in return, God, not devils, gives them "over" to their shameful lust.
But let's say that the duality is there. God working through the Spirit and through the mind, while Satan works through the sinful nature and our flesh. It is still not by the strenght of the flesh or the sinful nature or the devil but whether God has given us over, or predestined us in such a way. That is part of the paulinian theology. So what appears as a duality ends up monism.

Paul is not the only issue here. Ephesians is part of the Church's Word of God whether or not Paul wrote it. How could a future monism justify a present dualism in which demons are allowed to prey on innocent humans in the God created system?

O- Agreed. But ask this question: Was it more the zoroastrian influence or the hellenic influence that peppered his thought? And are they one and the same? I think that there is a reason Plato and not zoroaster is seen as a pseudo-christian convert.

It's an open question, as the experts disagree at this time. Harnack in his "History of Dogma, Volume 1" reveals the complexity of the issue :

The Jewish speculations about Angels and Mediators, which at the time of Christ grew very luxuriantly among the Scribes and Apocalyptists, and endangered the purity and vitality of the Old Testament idea of God, were also very important for the development of Christian dogmatics. But neither these speculations, nor the notions of heavenly Archetypes, nor of pre-existence, are to be referred to Hellenic influence. This may have co-operated here and there, but the rise of these speculations in Judaism is not to be explained by it; they rather exhibit the Oriental stamp. But, of course, the stage in the development of the nations had now been reached, in which the creations of Oriental fancy and Mythology could be fused with the ideal conceptions of Hellenic philosophy.
Palestinian Judaism, without any apparent influence from Alexandria, though not independently of the Greek spirit, had already created a multitude of intermediate beings between God and the world, avowing thereby that the idea of God had become stiff and rigid. Its original aim was simply to help the God of Judaism in his need.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

The Christian God died. It's started when all His contradictions short-circuited the wires in His head, and God went up in smoke. So those still following this God are high on the smoke and fumes of God. All that's left of the Christian God is smoke and mirrors ... His fumes only leave his followers dazed, confused, with God stricken starry eyes ..

[felix dakat]

The Christian God died. It's started when all His contradictions short-circuited the wires in His head, and God went up in smoke. So those still following this God are high on the smoke and fumes of God. All that's left of the Christian God is smoke and mirrors ... His fumes only leave his followers dazed, confused, with God stricken starry eyes ..

The death of God on the cross distinguishes the Christian God from other conceptions of God. Rumors of His death in modern times were greatly exaggerated.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

The Christian God died. It's started when all His contradictions short-circuited the wires in His head, and God went up in smoke. So those still following this God are high on the smoke and fumes of God. All that's left of the Christian God is smoke and mirrors ... His fumes only leave his followers dazed, confused, with God stricken starry eyes ..

The death of God on the cross distinguishes the Christian God from other conceptions of God. Rumors of His death in modern times were greatly exaggerated.

I have no recipes, but am willing to stir the pot ...

[omar]

All the books left out spoke about Jesus. It is not that they were rejected because they treated different material but what interpretation was given and what conclusions could be reached. It also had to do with eminence and next to Paul very few could stand. Dualism on par with Manichaeism is hard to draw from Paul. It is for this reason that the ways of god become problematic. Sure, Paul may have believed that this world was satan's and that he was facing them in war...but all because wanted it that way. Ultimately our disagreement on this point has to do about how we define a religion. I don't define it by temporal facts but by ultimate facts.

The world was changed by the release of the spirit. Now, in his name, many will do great things like healing and casting out demons (which often end up being the same thing).

I really disagree with your speculations about what Paul thought about the Jerusalem council. He uses the word "we" and yet you dismiss the possibility outright that he was referring to his coreligionists?

Paul does line up god right in the middle of what is bad. He does so with eyes wide open. So did Jeremiah, isaiah, the writer of Job, Ecclesiastes, and even Jesus, who knows that his death could be avoided. But it is His will and His will is inscrutable.

I don't use "present" or "future" as qualifiers of monism or dualism because the present is part of a narrative just as the future. It is the overall narrative which you should judge as either monistic or dualistic. All the awkward moments in the bible would be absent if it was a dualism. But it retains those moments, like Job before the whirlwind and Jesus in the garden...they face their own conclusions about a god to whom one must submit to despite a lack of explanation.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

The death of God on the cross distinguishes the Christian God from other conceptions of God. Rumors of His death in modern times were greatly exaggerated.

Patripassianism was declared heresy. But I think it's central to all the contradictions (mystery, so called) of the Christian God. We can't imagine that God the Father suffered and died on the cross, but if Jesus was God He did. This brings us to the absurd in absolutes concerning Jesus as God.

[felix dakat]

The Christian God died. It's started when all His contradictions short-circuited the wires in His head, and God went up in smoke. So those still following this God are high on the smoke and fumes of God. All that's left of the Christian God is smoke and mirrors ... His fumes only leave his followers dazed, confused, with God stricken starry eyes ..

The death of God on the cross distinguishes the Christian God from other conceptions of God. Rumors of His death in modern times were greatly exaggerated.

I have no recipes, but am willing to stir the pot ...

Recipes for God? Seems you are willing to stir up trouble.

[felix dakat]

The death of God on the cross distinguishes the Christian God from other conceptions of God. Rumors of His death in modern times were greatly exaggerated.

Patripassianism was declared heresy. But I think it's central to all the contradictions (mystery, so called) of the Christian God. We can't imagine that God the Father suffered and died on the cross, but if Jesus was God He did. This brings us to the absurd in absolutes concerning Jesus as God.

Patripassianism implies that God the Father died on the cross. Christian orthodoxy states that God the Son did and that the Father and Son are distinct persons. These questions are even more difficult than the ones we have been discussing. The theologians who formulated orthodoxy were aware of the contradictions which they termed paradoxes. Like you say, they are central to The Faith.