Wouldn’t be a sacrifice for an all knowing God because the son goes back to him. It’s a sacrifice for the human side of son, who was kinda liking the being the human-God combo.
The sacrifice part for the God part would be that it had to be done, ’cause we were messed up and it was opening a gateway back.
Absorb enough of the God energies and you, too, can get there.
So, you gotta have a tiny hint of theology to ‘get how it’s supposed to work Otherwise, you’re missing info.
It’s a unique solution among the world’s religions to a perplexing problem: If there’s a God, how do you bridge the gap?
Christianity’s solution is a hybrid (whose nature was hotly debated for 300+ years ’til they kinda nailed it down… erhm) – that was a _physical_ along with the mental/spiritual/emotonal/whatever.
You become like the hybrid, and you have the way there.
Quite clever imo.
Well, an alt.explanation for that was “foreshadowings”. Another I’ve remember is “other christs for other cultures”, although I don’t buy that one as much. But I read some good arguments for the foreshadowings, where Christ was the final form, the others were preperations littered throughout time so that humanity would be used to the concept.
I loved Joseph Campbell’s Power of Myth stuff and in general principle for story formation, it’s excellent. But he was always a little flippant on the historicity of the various cultures to prove his point. Still loved his stuff but he was a bit shallow with some of his connections and his certainties about them.
I was always amazed at the coordination of the council of churches. Spread apart geographically to the edges of the then known world, they did not have a centralized authority figure like an emperor.
Remember, “the Pope” was an equal chair with no additional powers – he was another Patriarch of the council.
They were able to create a stability that had a different character than Rome Part 1. The Byzantine empire _was_ a more civilized place to live and enjoyed 800-900 years of relative prosperity, comfort and equality for the people there. Europe was turning to shit of course, but I found the Byzantine empire to be a marvel for its time.
Justinian’s military power was likely a strong part of this as well. Yet, consider the protection they offered: EVERY epicurean community became a monastery. No bloodshed. No fighting. Just add the Byzantine flag and stick some Christian icing on your Epicurean ways, and there ya go. Nothing changed much for the Epicureans.
Rights for women were progressive for the time (6th century AD), even compared to 19th century US or Europe.
They had a different attitude than we have today: The Byzantine empire saw “status quo” as a good thing. It was stability. We found something that works, so we’re sticking with it. Completely different outlook than we have today on the nature of society.
Of course, the well known drawback of status quo is that everything is done by committee and by full agreement of all parties. So… “who is gonna fix that broken step?”
Well as long as there’s an argument among ANY of the parties, nobody.