The list of Popes

[Lorenzo]

Oriental means eastern and includes Asia south of the Himalaya Mountains and the islands of the Malay Archipelago. It would also include India where some of the oldest religions and yajnas are to be found.

[Lorenzo]

I'm kinda weak in my understanding of Paul so I'm not sure what he said about atonement.

Paul said, in Hebrew 9, "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin."

Originally, atonement was an ancient oriental practice designed to appease the gods with sacrifice. It evolved from there if history is of any worth.

Hebrews is among the books thought least likely to have actually been written by Paul.

Right. Most people who accept the KJV also think Paul wrote Hebrews, so I don't quarrel with it.

[Nanohedron]

Oriental means eastern and includes Asia south of the Himalaya Mountains and the islands of the Malay Archipelago. It would also include India where some of the oldest religions and yajnas are to be found.

Well, of course. My point was hinting at practices in the pre-Columbian Americas, Polynesia, and Africa. To suggest that sacrificial rites of these regions were the result of Asian influence is a bit facile, I think, besides being hard to credit.

[Lorenzo]

Of course ancient Egyptian sacrifices would be African, so there may be that connection to the biblical since many other beliefs and myths seem to be associated with that era and area.

[Nanohedron]

I now understand that your primary emphasis about rites in this thread is Biblical. Be that as it may, you did not specify as such when you made your statement about Oriental influences. In that regard, I submit that the emergence of sacrificial rites and practices in human society at large is a human tendency, much like having ears or eyes.

[Lorenzo]

And it's no sacrifice
Just a simple word
It's two hearts living
In two separate worlds
But it's no sacrifice
No sacrifice
It's no sacrifice at all -EJ

I think the human sacrifices in the bible were something the biblical writers and editors learned from other cultures. Not to be outdone, they took it to the max--the sacrifice of a god (or son of a God). Who can top that?

I submit that it was a practice originating somewhere in the orient, long before Australia and surrounding islands broke off from the mainland. Also, long before the Americas separated from the Euro African continent.

[Nanohedron]

Ah, but then that would be a Gondwanalandish influence!

[Dale]

Paul said, in Hebrew 9, "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin."

Originally, atonement was an ancient oriental practice designed to appease the gods with sacrifice. It evolved from there if history is of any worth.

Hebrews is among the books thought least likely to have actually been written by Paul.

Right. Most people who accept the KJV also think Paul wrote Hebrews, so I don't quarrel with it.

Paul didn't write Hebrews. If you read it side-by-side with any of the books reliably attributed to Paul, it's easy to see. Thus the ironic line: "The Letter of Paul to the Hebrews" is not a letter, is not addressed to the Hebrews, and is not by Paul.

[Lorenzo]

One of the older evdences of spiritual awakening in the cro-magnon era. But there's more primative evidence than this, even among Neanderthals.

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisat ... -cave.html
The Shaman of Les Trois Rreres

[Walden]

I submit that it was a practice originating somewhere in the orient, long before Australia and surrounding islands broke off from the mainland. Also, long before the Americas separated from the Euro African continent.

Or, rather, before the Eurasian-African land mass pulled out of the Americas.

[Lorenzo]

Paul didn't write Hebrews. If you read it side-by-side with any of the books reliably attributed to Paul, it's easy to see. Thus the ironic line: "The Letter of Paul to the Hebrews" is not a letter, is not addressed to the Hebrews, and is not by Paul.

Right. I don't quarrel with it even if Peter says Paul wrote to the Hebrews, even if Eusebius says Paul wrote Hebrews, or even if the modern Catholic Encyclopedia does very much attribute the Epistle to Paul, stating that "these doubts as to the Apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews gradually became less marked in Western Europe."

[Kansas]

Actually marriage was allowed in the eastern rite Catholics until after 1970. I went to a Benedictine run boarding school in the 1960s. We were vistied by Benedictines from the eastern - perhaps Coptic rite. They came with their wives and children. They said mass that we attended. They were/are in full communion with Rome and are not of the Eastern Orthodox community which does not recognize the Pope. From what I remember the seminarian candidate would have to declare his intention to marry while a sub deacon. Then he would be unable take the Holy Order of a bishop as he had marital and family responsiblities. He would stay a priest.
I believe it was John XXXIII that finally extended the ban to the Eastern rite as it had been in the Roman rite. The Dutch Theologians I believe were making "well the Eastern rite can marry" noises and John XXXIII made it "fair" the way he knew how.
If anyone has different information, let me know, but I know the monks came and said mass. Our monks would not have let them say mass for us if they were not in communion with Rome. This would have been about 1962 to 1964 as I remember.

[Dale]

Paul didn't write Hebrews. If you read it side-by-side with any of the books reliably attributed to Paul, it's easy to see. Thus the ironic line: "The Letter of Paul to the Hebrews" is not a letter, is not addressed to the Hebrews, and is not by Paul.

Right. I don't quarrel with it even if Peter says Paul wrote to the Hebrews, even if Eusebius says Paul wrote Hebrews, or even if the modern Catholic Encyclopedia does very much attribute the Epistle to Paul, stating that "these doubts as to the Apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews gradually became less marked in Western Europe."

Actually, I should apologize. I made that statement about Paul not writing Hebrews as much more of a declarative than I should have. As you know, this has been widely debated, with most critical scholars arguing that it isn't Paul and most KJV people and most fundamentalists, I guess, arguing for Paul. I studied Hebrews more carefully than anything in the scriptures other than the Gospels and wrote a paper on it for my M.T.S. degree. I ended up siding with those who see it as a written version of a sermon by an anonymous (human) author. It just doesn't read like Paul. The author doesn't refer to himself and none of the manuscripts bear the name of a writer. I gather that Hebrews was circulated in the early Church along with various collections of Pauline letters, and that it naturally would have come to be regarded as part of the Pauline letters. In the absence of any clear information or definitive answer, people are obviously free to believe Paul wrote it and I can't imagine that hurts a thing.

[Dale]

.... or even if the modern Catholic Encyclopedia does very much attribute the Epistle to Paul, stating that "these doubts as to the Apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews gradually became less marked in Western Europe."

But as a point of information, it's not the teaching of the Catholic Church that it's Paul. Nor does the Church declare that it isn't Paul and admits it may have come from the Pauline circle. The author is unknown. From the Introduction to the Book of Hebrews in the New American Bible (Catholic):

Hebrews

Introduction


As early as the second century, this treatise, which is of great rhetorical power and force in its admonition to faithful pilgrimage under Christ's leadership, bore the title "To the Hebrews." It was assumed to be directed to Jewish Christians. Usually Hebrews was attached in Greek manuscripts to the collection of letters by Paul. Although no author is mentioned (for there is no address), a reference to Timothy (Hebrews 13:23) suggested connections to the circle of Paul and his assistants. Yet the exact audience, the author, and even whether Hebrews is a letter have long been disputed.

[Walden]

As you know, this has been widely debated, with most critical scholars arguing that it isn't Paul and most KJV people and most fundamentalists, I guess, arguing for Paul.

I don't know that this latter is true. It is as commonly debated among the Fundamentalist types that I have known, with a good many arguing for non-pauline authorship, and many modern printings of the KJV not afixing the name of St. Paul to the title.