Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:59, 16 July 2004

I don't think that Tertullian is universally regarded as a Church father. According to his wiki article, he didn't even remain within the main body of the Church, but broke communion with the "Montanists" whoever they are. Seems he was always opposed to seeing any harmony between philosophy and theology, whereas many of the Eastern fathers happily drew from Plato and other Greed philosophers. Later, Thomas Aquinas in the West drew heavily on Aristotle in another attempt to harmonize faith and reason. The point that the incarnation seems illogical to Judaism is a valid one. However, I don't think that holding up Tertullian's repudiation of reason in this way is a fair characterization of the Christian understanding of the incarnation. --Wesley

Many Catholic seem pretty sure that Tertullian is a church father. Even if he politically wasn't, his theology certainly was - and is - mainstream. I have met many Protestant Christians whose theology (in this regard) was identical to his. It still seems like a representative view of what many Christians believe. RK

His theology may be mainstream in the West, but most definitely isn't in Eastern Orthodoxy. The East does not recognize him as a saint, and his teachings tend to emphasize a legalistic slant on things. This would match up well with Augustine and much of Western theology, but is heavily contrasted with East's less legal, more relational approach. Tertullian also scorned the Greek philosophers at a time when most Eastern theologians were using Greek philosophy to explain and defend Christianity. However widely read he is in general, most Christians rely on the eye-witness accounts of the apostles, or the scriptural accounts of them in the New Testament, for their faith in the Incarnation. I've never heard of anyone suggesting that we should believe in the Incarnation because it seems illogical. (By some accounts I've just recently read, Tertullian sounds a lot like a modern day Pentecostal Fundamentalist.) --Wesley

I don't know what kind of Catholics you've talked to about Tertullian, RK, but I have never met a modern Catholic who believed in the veiling of women, to give one example, RK. Tertullian is not mainstream.

You totally misread what I wrote. I was talking about his theology. RK

He died in schism - he was a Montanist. His position on private revelation is entirely outside the bounds of the church. He is not a saint in the West. He is considered a 'Father' only in the sense that he wrote during the third century. His influence was at its high point in the 17th and 18th century in France among the Jansenists, who shared both his puritan tendencies and his practice of trusting in private revelation. I think his position vis-a-vis the Roman Church is remarkably similar to that of Origen to the Orthodox. --MichaelTinkler

You miss my point. None of these things that you mention have anything to do with the specific topic at hand. Most Christians alive today are not Saints, either. But they do have viewpoints on the trinity. Many Christians alive today have the viewpoint that I described. No one is deabting whether or not Tertullian views on other issues were acceprted. In fact, no one was talking about Tertullian at all. Rather, I was merely giving an example of a mainstream Christian concept. Everyone else seems concerned with the particular person, but they are ignoring the idea, the main point of all this. The view expressed by Tertullian on Jesus is still a very widely held belief among Chrisitians. It, thus, is representative. I fail to understand the controversy. RK

I realize this is an old thread; happened across it while fixing old sigs. The view that Jesus rose from the dead is of course widely held among Christians. The view that its unlikeliness is proof that it happened, I'm not so sure about. Tertullian held a number of other views that are not mainstream, and some that are; quoting him is no guarantee that you're representing Christianity. Is there better documentation of the "proof from absurdity"? Wesley 23:15 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. This is a valid point. I concur that just because his beliefs on issues A, B, and C (to make things generic, and applicable to many cases) are still accepted by many (most?) Christians, that does not prove that his views on issues D, E, or F still are (or were) widely accepted. RK

That's exactly my point. For that matter, why should this article discuss Christian eschatology? Would it be sufficient to first describe the Jewish conception of the messiah (as it does now), and then perhaps note that various people including Jesus Christ have claimed to be the messiah, but have not generally been accepted by Jews as such because they haven't met those criteria? Wesley 15:36 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)

This article has to discuss at least some Christian eschatology, as it must show where and how Judaism differs from Christianity on this topic. The vast majority of English speakers who have access to Misplaced Pages are either themselves Christian, or from predominantly Christian nations, or at least know more about Christianity than about Judaism. Look at the situation we are dealing with: I still meet people ever week who think that Jews are some denomiantion of Christianity, and must worship Jesus. The ignorance of most people towards even the most basic ideas within Judaism is truely staggering. RK

Most Christians still incorrectly imagine that Judaism is the religion of the Old Testament, when in fact that would be another religion entirely (i.e. Karaites.) When people read the words "Heaven" or "messiah", most English speakers think first of the Christian definitions of these words, and thus misunderstand the Jewish point of view. There is no way around this confusion unless a word is used, and then the Christian and Jewish understanding of the term is contrasted. RK

That's a good reason for there to be some contrast with Christian eschatology. Even so, I'm going to remove the reference to Tertullian's "proof from absurdity" because I don't think it's very representative, although I could be wrong about this. Wesley

Also, regarding the resurrection of the dead, wasn't this a point of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducees? If so, is that worth mentioning in this context, or was it just a blip in history? --Wesley

I'll have to look up some info on this to be sure, but it sure is worth mentioning. RK

Does anyone know the role of Elijah in the coming of the Messiah? I've read only New Testament talk regarding the idea that Elijah must come before the Messiah comes. This is significant to Unification Church theology, according to which the Jewish people would have recognized Jesus as the Messiah if they had seen Elijah appear and endorse him. Basically, i'm asking whether Elijah plays an important eschatological role in Judaism. Ed Poor

There is a well established Jewish tradition that Elijah the prophet never died, but was taken by God into Heaven, and that he will come back (alive) to Earth to announce the coming of moschiach (the Jewish messiah). However, none of the various Jewish principles of faith ever mention this as a belief that Jews must, or even should, maintain. It is a legend with high regard that some Orthodox Jews take literally, and that most non-Orthodox Jews are at the very least familiar with. RK

Isn't there a Passover tradition about leaving a chair empty for Elijah, in case this is the Passover that he returns? It probably doesn't bear mentioning in this article, but for what it's worth, some Christians believe this prophecy has already been fulfilled when Elijah and Moses appeared with Christ on Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration, while others believe Moses and Elijah are the two prophets mentioned in Revelation who are yet to come (back). --Wesley

Yes, there is such a tradition. We also leave out a glass of wine for him to drink. When the children's attention is diverted, sometimes an adult takes a swig from Eliyahu's cup, and then announces "Eliyahu was here!" Little kids look in amazement! BTW, I did not know that Christians believe that Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus; is this in the New Testament? RK

Yes, it appears in Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-10, and Luke 9:28-36. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the Transfiguration is one of about twelve of our major feasts, and is celebrated on August 15 (I think). Moses and Elijah are thought to represent the Law and the Prophets, to show Peter, James and John (the only witnesses to the event) that Christ is about to fulfill both through his death. Also, the fact that all three were shining is thought to indicate that it is possible we shall all one day appear as Jesus did at this time: "His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as light." Ok, I'll stop now, and save the rest for the appropriate subpage under Eastern Orthodoxy...  :-) --Wesley

Since I last worked on this page a large amount of material explaining Christian eschatology has been added. This doesn't seem appropriate here, and it almost feels like a theological disputation, although I am sure that this was not the intent. Shouldn't this material be in an entry on Christian eschatology or Christian theology? This entry attempts to explain the Jewish view, and not how Judaism's theology can be reinterpreted to be valid within Christianity. I think the proper place for detailed comparisons of religious views on eschatology is in the parent eschatology article itself. RK

I wonder if anyone who contibuted to this article can refute or confirm that there are significant Jewish sects which have any theory of reincarnation, as claimed at that article. If not, I'll remove the claim; if so, any details which compare or contrast the Jewish view of this phenomenon with other views would be a valuable addition to that article. Cheers Chas zzz brown 10:20 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

You are right; this belief, while having no basis in Judaism's written or oral law, did develop, and it still exists among some Jews even today. I have added a new section in the main entry. RK

Christian POV figures too heavily in intro

I'm uncomfortable with the way the article begins mentioning the Christian POV so early. It's almost as if the authors can't conceive of explaining the subject without contrasting with the Christian beliefs about eschatology. Jewish eschatology can and should stand on its own right; I believe this section should be revised and moved down lower in the article. Since most of what is said involves Christian perspectives on the Messiah, perhaps that should be moved to the Messiah page. If necessary to mention those views here, it would seem sufficient to just state, "The Jewish perspective on the Messiah is different from the Christian perspective with which many are familiar," and then go on to describe the Jewish concept as it relates to eschatology. Jdavidb 21:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

biblical support => verses used to argue_verses_used_to_argue">

I disagree that the phrase "Biblical support for an afterlife" was POV. The term support means exactly what the phrase was changed to: these passages support the idea (provide possible evidence for). I do think "Biblical support for no afterlife" is awkward and should be changed to "Biblical support against an afterlife" (or something); however, it is nowhere near as awkward as these phrases have been changed to. I vote to change them back. Jdavidb 13:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think "Biblical support for" is also cleaner and more accurate. And I think "Biblical support for no afterlife" is just fine. Jayjg 14:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)