Jesus died so he could enter Hell and carry out the Harrowing. This was because all the virtuous souls who died previously were trapped there. Jesus goes down into the Underworld to free them, taking them to Heaven, which is now where people go due to God’s grace. Since humans were exiled out of Paradise, they were no longer able to enter a proper afterlife.
This bit of mythology is shortened to “Jesus died for our sins.” People were already saved when they accepted Christ as their lord, which they could do when they were still alive. Jesus’ death was strictly for tricking Satan into letting 30 AD Doomguy into his base, who proceeded to go medieval on the demons holding everyone hostage.
This is the doctrine held by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy. Rejection of the Harrowing is only seen among certain sects of Protestants.
yeah there’s a part in the Divine Comedy when Dante is touring hell that describes the aftermath of how Jesus apparently punched through a bunch of castle walls and slaughtered scores of demons, like the poem describes all the collapsed walls and destruction that’s apparent even after like 1300 years
I am a fool and forgot about this if I heard about it at all. Is that why they talk about there being a massive earthquake in Hell corresponding to the crucifixion in the Inferno?
Wait, I’m Catholic, and the explanation of the mechanism of Salvation I learned (and I read more theology as a teen than I read theory now) is that the Crucifixion is a critical part of Salvation for all the living souls (fully agree with you on the Harrowing and all the previous souls), In the process of Jesus being crucified and killed, the Holy Ghost is spilled over all the earth and all those who accept it are saved; like a delicate flask of perfume being shattered and imbuing its scent on the surroundings. Do you remember where you read this?
I am from a USian church, so what I learned may be completely heretical, but what I was taught was that Jesus served the role of a sacrificial animal, but by being entirely flawless his sacrifice was final and forgave all sins? I dunno. No matter how specific they get in parallels with OT sacrifices, they remain fairly vague about how precisely it saves us.
If you’ve played the elder scrolls. Jesus’s is the divine logos of the world (to say he is the amaranth is wrong but also a decent inital grasping) and his sacrifice was a dragon break that changed the vector of the logos towards salvation and re-communion with God, this time as fully mature beings graced with knowledge.
That also expresses the same meaning as what I said; the point is that Christ, by virtue of being fully divine, has an infinite amount of mercy and grace that, via the Passion, gets extended out to all of humanity like an olive branch (covenant) from the Father. I know the chud megapastors spam the verse a lot, but John 3:16 explains the idea, too.
is it fair to say that Protestantism is just Christianity with capitalist characteristics (which is to say Catholicism was Christianity with feudal characteristics, etc) ?
No, it isn’t. Like what do you even mean?
Protestantism has no inherent stand on the mode of production, it has no inherent stance on any non theological issue. The only thing that defines “Protestantism” as a distinct set of beliefs is the three solaes. Faith, scripture and grace.
Saying Anabaptists are more capitalist because of their belief structure than Opus Dei (who did religious neoliberalism in Spain) is just an absurd notion. There are hundreds of protestant denominations with their own kinds of brain worms, some of them even don’t suck entirely.
What I mean is that it arose and became dominant in the wake of Capitalism’s rise in western political theaters. Catholicism has historically been hand-in-glove with feudal lords and curbed the expansion of economic liberalism, a few examples you are probably familiar with:
-Papal bulls regulating colonial trade along national lines
-Catholicism’s protections of trade guilds
-Catholicism rejected the sanctity of free trade and the profit motive (i.e. Weber’s “protestant work ethic”)
-Catholicism held large swaths of land and infrastructure which resisted market privatization
-Catholicism’s condemnation of usury and credit systems
All of the above led to not only nations adopting Protestantism in order to escape the limitations imposed on them by the Holy See, but also for capitalists to enthusiastically and materially lend their support to protestant movements leading to the critical mass required to cement the schism.
I agree the explicit, theological distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism is not one of economic modes of production, but I don’t think it is hard to see why historically Capitalism and Protestantism grew to power and prominence, while influencing and supporting each other, during the same centuries. Protestantism provided the necessary “grey-areas” to allow for capitalism to flourish in Europe compared to the Catholics who were institutionally reluctant to ingest capitalism’s rise. The manifold denominations means that essentially, Protestants can have whatever religious rules they want (just start another denomination whenever you need to change the rules). On top of that, the feudal monarchs of Europe were quick to identify their common ground with the Vatican; both feudalism and Catholicism were having to suppress revolutionary upstarts.
Now, yes, but previously it was Christianity with feudal/monarchist characteristics (thinking church of England and such), and before that it was Christianity with early enlightenment characteristics (Martin Luther).
Because there’s not a central authority it is now adaptable to the social structures around it. In the modern day it is predominantly [settler] colonial flavored.
Since it is prone to splintering you see denominations like the Quakers adapting to pacifism and and simple lifestyle/spiritual practice. You see black churches that have a liberationary message. Ofc they are in the minority.
The Protestant Reformation and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Jesus died so he could enter Hell and carry out the Harrowing. This was because all the virtuous souls who died previously were trapped there. Jesus goes down into the Underworld to free them, taking them to Heaven, which is now where people go due to God’s grace. Since humans were exiled out of Paradise, they were no longer able to enter a proper afterlife.
This bit of mythology is shortened to “Jesus died for our sins.” People were already saved when they accepted Christ as their lord, which they could do when they were still alive. Jesus’ death was strictly for tricking Satan into letting 30 AD Doomguy into his base, who proceeded to go medieval on the demons holding everyone hostage.
This is the doctrine held by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy. Rejection of the Harrowing is only seen among certain sects of Protestants.
tl;dr-- correct.
Jesus is doom guy? 😲
yeah there’s a part in the Divine Comedy when Dante is touring hell that describes the aftermath of how Jesus apparently punched through a bunch of castle walls and slaughtered scores of demons, like the poem describes all the collapsed walls and destruction that’s apparent even after like 1300 years
it’s pretty metal honestly
I am a fool and forgot about this if I heard about it at all. Is that why they talk about there being a massive earthquake in Hell corresponding to the crucifixion in the Inferno?
yes
Wait, I’m Catholic, and the explanation of the mechanism of Salvation I learned (and I read more theology as a teen than I read theory now) is that the Crucifixion is a critical part of Salvation for all the living souls (fully agree with you on the Harrowing and all the previous souls), In the process of Jesus being crucified and killed, the Holy Ghost is spilled over all the earth and all those who accept it are saved; like a delicate flask of perfume being shattered and imbuing its scent on the surroundings. Do you remember where you read this?
Art history class lmao
But also I haven’t been a practicing catholic in decades. Ironically, I’ve read more parts of the Bible as an atheist than I ever did as a believer.
I am from a USian church, so what I learned may be completely heretical, but what I was taught was that Jesus served the role of a sacrificial animal, but by being entirely flawless his sacrifice was final and forgave all sins? I dunno. No matter how specific they get in parallels with OT sacrifices, they remain fairly vague about how precisely it saves us.
If you’ve played the elder scrolls. Jesus’s is the divine logos of the world (to say he is the amaranth is wrong but also a decent inital grasping) and his sacrifice was a dragon break that changed the vector of the logos towards salvation and re-communion with God, this time as fully mature beings graced with knowledge.
This post brought to you by Teilhard de Chardin
That also expresses the same meaning as what I said; the point is that Christ, by virtue of being fully divine, has an infinite amount of mercy and grace that, via the Passion, gets extended out to all of humanity like an olive branch (covenant) from the Father. I know the chud megapastors spam the verse a lot, but John 3:16 explains the idea, too.
Yes, this is correct, though you can add a few more levels of abstraction. (The logos of reality sacrificing itself and being remade anew, etc.)
raised Mormon and literally never heard of this
That’s metal af
Jesus Christ Demon Slayer, I want to see the anime
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/435725
Bosch has my favorite depiction of the Harrowing, dude said he was a devout Christian but I think he was an entertainer first and foremost
It’s not like Catholics are much better, look at what we did in central and south America
The Christian religion is also a one-denomination religion but, with typical Western[1] extravagance, they have two of them.
yeah yeah Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic Christians, and all other siblings in Christ, I see you and I love you I just needed the bit to work ↩︎
Eastern Orthodoxy is the real catholic church. The Bishop of Rome is a pretender of Peter.
sup, Dreher?
is it fair to say that Protestantism is just Christianity with capitalist characteristics (which is to say Catholicism was Christianity with feudal characteristics, etc) ?
No, it isn’t. Like what do you even mean? Protestantism has no inherent stand on the mode of production, it has no inherent stance on any non theological issue. The only thing that defines “Protestantism” as a distinct set of beliefs is the three solaes. Faith, scripture and grace.
Saying Anabaptists are more capitalist because of their belief structure than Opus Dei (who did religious neoliberalism in Spain) is just an absurd notion. There are hundreds of protestant denominations with their own kinds of brain worms, some of them even don’t suck entirely.
What I mean is that it arose and became dominant in the wake of Capitalism’s rise in western political theaters. Catholicism has historically been hand-in-glove with feudal lords and curbed the expansion of economic liberalism, a few examples you are probably familiar with:
-Papal bulls regulating colonial trade along national lines
-Catholicism’s protections of trade guilds
-Catholicism rejected the sanctity of free trade and the profit motive (i.e. Weber’s “protestant work ethic”)
-Catholicism held large swaths of land and infrastructure which resisted market privatization
-Catholicism’s condemnation of usury and credit systems
All of the above led to not only nations adopting Protestantism in order to escape the limitations imposed on them by the Holy See, but also for capitalists to enthusiastically and materially lend their support to protestant movements leading to the critical mass required to cement the schism.
I agree the explicit, theological distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism is not one of economic modes of production, but I don’t think it is hard to see why historically Capitalism and Protestantism grew to power and prominence, while influencing and supporting each other, during the same centuries. Protestantism provided the necessary “grey-areas” to allow for capitalism to flourish in Europe compared to the Catholics who were institutionally reluctant to ingest capitalism’s rise. The manifold denominations means that essentially, Protestants can have whatever religious rules they want (just start another denomination whenever you need to change the rules). On top of that, the feudal monarchs of Europe were quick to identify their common ground with the Vatican; both feudalism and Catholicism were having to suppress revolutionary upstarts.
Now, yes, but previously it was Christianity with feudal/monarchist characteristics (thinking church of England and such), and before that it was Christianity with early enlightenment characteristics (Martin Luther).
Because there’s not a central authority it is now adaptable to the social structures around it. In the modern day it is predominantly [settler] colonial flavored.
Since it is prone to splintering you see denominations like the Quakers adapting to pacifism and and simple lifestyle/spiritual practice. You see black churches that have a liberationary message. Ofc they are in the minority.
deleted by creator