Is Christianity an Eastern or Western religion?

[Stylteralmaldo]

The Nestorian Stele suggests otherwise, as the history it documents mainly points to Persian influence, despite the name of the religion being identified with the Roman Empire (Daqin).

I’m sure they would.

dzheremi:

So what? Both India and China have a boatload of everything. I’m sorry, I really don’t see what any of this is supposed to prove.

I’m really not trying to prove anything. Just making conversation based on my own frame of reference.

dzheremi:

Yeah, I’m sorry, I’m really not understanding you. I hope it’s not coming across as rude. When I ask what your point is, I mean that very literally, as I’m not seeing it. I can be pretty dense sometimes, I guess.

No, not at all. I’m sure it’s me. I’m an accountant by trade and my expertise is in the realm of numbers, not language. I know what I want to convey and it’s in my head, but getting that across in the written word isn’t always easy I’m afraid.

dzheremi:

I have argued since the beginning of this thread that Christianity is not in any way essentially Eastern or Western, as I believe these divisions to be unhelpful and revealing a certain kind of ignorance or bigotry (unintentional, sure) regarding the actual history of the religion the world over, but certainly particular expressions have developed in regions that can be broadly characterized as “Eastern” or “Western” (again, using rather arbitrary European geographical divisions) – but that doesn’t mean they stayed there.

I think I understand where your coming from. I have been taking the approach that it is “both” rather than merely “universal” so as to preserve the very nature of the varying rites contained within the Church.

As far as how I identify myself, my faith identity on these forums is Catholic: Latin Rite. I wish to acknowledge that there are indeed differences, but those differences do not need to be divisions, but rather how the faith is expressed.

dzheremi:

Our holy Fathers amongst the Romans, St. Arsenius the Great and Sts. Maximus and Domatius, pray for us. We’re idiots.

I’m sure they are laughing at us up above as we try to express what is (by now especially) so obvious to them.

 

[nmgauss]

Hi,

Is Christianity an Eastern or Western religion, since it possibly stated in the Iraq area with the Garden of Eden or with Abraham somewhere in the East?

Thanks You.

The Garden of Eden and the life of Abraham pre-dated the start of Christianity by at least a thousand years. Some say that the Garden of Eden of Genesis was created in about the year 6,000 BCE.

Christianity got started after the Apostolic Creed began to be spread by the disciples. This did not happen until after about the year 35 CE.

Christianity is based on New Testament scripture. Any references to the Old Testament are mainly for background information. The Old Testament is Jewish scripture. The New Testament is Christian scripture.

How do these two ideas relate to each other?

 

[Denho]

The Garden of Eden and the life of Abraham pre-dated the start of Christianity by at least a thousand years. Some say that the Garden of Eden of Genesis was created in about the year 6,000 BCE.

Christianity got started after the Apostolic Creed began to be spread by the disciples. This did not happen until after about the year 35 CE.

Christianity is based on New Testament scripture. Any references to the Old Testament are mainly for background information. The Old Testament is Jewish scripture. The New Testament is Christian scripture.

How do these two ideas relate to each other?

There is a bit of Marcionism going on in these posts it seems. It is dangerous to pit the apostles against one another and even more dangerous to somehow place the Old Testament against the New. It is certainly more than just a “reference work.”

 

[nmgauss]

There is a bit of Marcionism going on in these posts it seems. It is dangerous to pit the apostles against one another and even more dangerous to somehow place the Old Testament against the New. It is certainly more than just a “reference work.”

By accepting both the Old Testament and New Testament as valid scripture for Christians, it is useful to realize that there is much inconsistency and many contradictions in the Bible. To have Yahweh, Adonnay, Elohim, and God all portrayed differently in the same book, hardly makes the Bible a reliable source of information on the true nature of God. The Bible is a collection of writings from various people with differing experiences of God. Moses had a completely different experience with God than Paul of Tarsus. So, is it the same God, or different Gods?

 

[Filii_Dei]

The Nestorian Stele suggests otherwise, as the history it documents mainly points to Persian influence, despite the name of the religion being identified with the Roman Empire (Daqin).

Sorry dzheremi, but although your posts have been very informative, I have to correct you here. Historical presence does not equate to current influence. If we speak of modern China, as it is right now, it is still true that it considers Christianity to be a western religious phenomenon. One must remember that China considers territories to their geographical west to be westerners in general, and that includes Eastern Christians as well. This means that all Christians are considered to be a western influence, and that is why they remain under tight communist control while other more ‘native’ religions like Taoism and Buddhism have relatively free reign.

Furthermore, an early presence does not equate to naturalisation. Historical evidence also indicates that historical China considered those first Christians to be a western import. In fact, Buddhism was also considered foreign, despite having had a longer presence in China and a far bigger following. If it was considered to be a foreign religion, we cannot avoid the fact that Christianity would be considered foreign as well. To underscore this, the very fact that the Stele labels Christianity as the Daqin Jingjiao (Romish Religion) suggests that the historical Chinese considered the religion as belonging to a western empire - in this case, Rome, although it may appear a misnomer (more on this later). The fact that the Emperor recognised them under a policy of tolerance did not mean that they were considered to be natively Chinese, as they would realise a century later.

And so it was, that in 845, the Emperor decreed that all religions foreign to China were to be suppressed. While his chief focus was persecuting Buddhism, he also named the “Romish Religion” as one such foreign religion. Thus, despite having a large church of at least three bishops and many priests, it was all dismantled and suppressed. Christianity was effectively made extinct in China and the Stele was buried. By 986, the Patriarch of the East received word that only one Christian was left in China. Whatever influence the Syrian Christians had on early China was erased and China was returned to the same state of Paganism as it had been before the Christians arrived. The very fact that the rediscovery of the Stele provoked such surprise and attention amongst the Chinese pretty much shows how little memory remained of their early presence.

There are a few interesting tidbits from this:

1. 
   *]One should remember that although Daqin was initially used as the name of the Roman Empire, in practice it was actually used to refer the Syrians, as they were the only significant point of contact between the West and China. Hence, it is not a misnomer in the eyes of the Chinese, but more due to a misconception that the Syrians were the Romans.
   *]Interestingly, the ancient Chinese considered Christianity (along with Zoroastrianism) to be heretical forms of Buddhism.
   *]It is also interesting to note that although Buddhism was considered foreign in those times, it survived and is now considered a native religion of China. The same cannot be said of Christianity, which was subsequently reintroduced and ejected in quick succession several times in China’s history.

 

[Filii_Dei]

By accepting both the Old Testament and New Testament as valid scripture for Christians, it is useful to realize that there is much inconsistency and many contradictions in the Bible. To have Yahweh, Adonnay, Elohim, and God all portrayed differently in the same book, hardly makes the Bible a reliable source of information on the true nature of God. The Bible is a collection of writings from various people with differing experiences of God. Moses had a completely different experience with God than Paul of Tarsus. So, is it the same God, or different Gods?

None of which is relevant here. If you wish to go on a tangent about the supposed inconsistencies of the bible, you should start your own thread instead of hijacking a thread for your personal agenda.

 

[Filii_Dei]

By accepting both the Old Testament and New Testament as valid scripture for Christians, it is useful to realize that there is much inconsistency and many contradictions in the Bible. To have Yahweh, Adonnay, Elohim, and God all portrayed differently in the same book, hardly makes the Bible a reliable source of information on the true nature of God. The Bible is a collection of writings from various people with differing experiences of God. Moses had a completely different experience with God than Paul of Tarsus. So, is it the same God, or different Gods?

None of which is relevant here. If you wish to go on a tangent about the supposed inconsistencies of the bible, you should start your own thread. This is not the appropriate place for such a discussion.

 

[dzheremi]

Historical presence does not equate to current influence.

Where did I say it did? Please read my post in context. I was answering the idea that the Chinese must not have considered Christianity an “Eastern religion”, which is a little silly when their own monuments recorded Persian and Syrian missionaries in the country for about 150 years as of the time of the Nestorian stele.

If we speak of modern China, as it is right now, it is still true that it considers Christianity to be a western religious phenomenon.

Obviously if we’re talking about things from the 7th century (the Nestorian presence; and that’s at least what I’m talking about…maybe we’re actually having different conversations), this is irrelevant. This is like saying “Well, most people in the Middle East today consider Christianity to be Western, therefore it clearly is Western even though it started in the Middle East.” The beliefs of people who are wrong and don’t know any better don’t make history anything other than what it actually is.

The fact that the Emperor recognised them under a policy of tolerance did not mean that they were considered to be natively Chinese, as they would realise a century later.

If it’s practiced by native Chinese people, then what does this matter? Do government policies determine who can believe in what? I do not think the world functions according to who can be considered to be native to what. If it did, the Nestorians would’ve been confined to Mesopotamia in the first place (and the various ethnic minorities in China proper to their original places of origin, and others in other places likewise) and we would probably not be having this conversation because I would not be typing in English nor understanding English right now. This is clearly not how the world is, so what is your point?

And so it was, that in 845, the Emperor decreed that all religions foreign to China were to be suppressed. While his chief focus was persecuting Buddhism, he also named the “Romish Religion” as one such foreign religion.

Yep, he sure did…

The very fact that the rediscovery of the Stele provoked such surprise and attention amongst the Chinese pretty much shows how little memory remained of their early presence.

Again, I don’t even understand why you’re focusing on this when the original post I was responding to said that the Chinese wouldn’t consider Christianity an Eastern religion, to which I replied that this wasn’t always the case, as it clearly had native practitioners for about 700 years (intermittently), mostly before any other Christian religion ever got there (the Roman Catholics didn’t really arrive until after the heyday of Nestorianism in China). Apparently, it wasn’t until over 100 years after the introduction of Nestorian Christianity in China that it was declared that what had previously been known as “Persian Temples” (read: Nestorian churches) should be renamed “Daqin temples”, under Tang emperor Xuanzong in 745.

 

[jerry_joseph]

Christianity is not Eastern or Western. It is a global religion. But there are eastern and western christianity. Christian churches originated in Western Roman Empire is Known as Roman Catholic church. Latin is the liturgical language of this church. Protestantism, Evangelical churches are originated due to schism from this church.They are also western churches. In Eastern Europe , Greek and West Syriac (Anthioch) churches originated. Churches with Byzantine liturgies belongs to this church groups.

Christian churches originated in Mesopotamian Culture is known as East Syriac churches. Chaldean church. It is also known as church of East. Neztorianism and Manicheaism originated as schism from East Syriac churches (same like Protestantism originated as a schism from Roman catholicism).

Christian churches originated in Egyptian culture is known as Coptic christian churches.

So we cannot call Christianity a western or eastern religion. It is a global religion.

 

[Peter_J]

None of which is relevant here. If you wish to go on a tangent about the supposed inconsistencies of the bible, you should start your own thread. This is not the appropriate place for such a discussion.

Well said.

 

[Filii_Dei]

To avoid confusion, allow me to clarify that thus far I have used and will use “Eastern” in relation to the Chinese, because we are discussing the attitudes of the Chinese on whether they consider(ed) Christianity to be Eastern (ie: whether they believe it is a native faith that belongs to the Chinese), regardless of whether we believe that they are mistaken. The only exception is if I use the phrase “Eastern Christian”, in which case I am referring to the Orthodox and Nestorian churches. If we have been misinterpreting each other’s arguments thus far, I truly apologise.

Where did I say it did? Please read my post in context. I was answering the idea that the Chinese must not have considered Christianity an “Eastern religion”, which is a little silly when their own monuments recorded Persian and Syrian missionaries in the country for about 150 years as of the time of the Nestorian stele.

I read your post in context, and several times in fact, to make sure I did not misinterpret your words. I will state it thus.

You were responding to another poster, who asserted:

China I presume does not consider Christianity an Eastern religion phenomenon.

To which you replied:

The Nestorian Stele suggests otherwise, as the history it documents mainly points to Persian influence, despite the name of the religion being identified with the Roman Empire (Daqin).

Basically, Stylteralmaldo has said that China does not (in present tense) consider Christianity to be Eastern, and your counterargument was that this must be wrong, because Nestorian Christians did (in past tense) have a previous presence in China more than a millennia ago, citing evidence of a historical artifact which shows this, and therefore present China must consider Christianity to be Eastern. However, that is not how it works. That is why I said:

Historical presence does not equate to current influence.

I was basically pointing out the discrepancy in your argument that the establishment of missionaries and churches in the past, that somehow that it disproves that present China considers (subjectively) Christianity to be Western.

I thank you for pointing out that the first missionaries were Persians and Syrians, and I truly believe that they did great things in starting the first church in China, blessed be their memory. However, what you have told me does not change whether the Chinese considered Christianity to be foreign. In fact, the Chinese did consider said Persian and Syrian missionaries to be Westerners, which was why they were termed as Daqin missionaries. That still means that they do not consider them to be “Eastern”.

Obviously if we’re talking about things from the 7th century (the Nestorian presence; and that’s at least what I’m talking about…maybe we’re actually having different conversations), this is irrelevant. This is like saying “Well, most people in the Middle East today consider Christianity to be Western, therefore it clearly is Western even though it started in the Middle East.” The beliefs of people who are wrong and don’t know any better don’t make history anything other than what it actually is.

I never said that Christianity was Western. Please read my post again. I said that the Chinese considered Christianity to be Western. Our current debate with each other is not about whether Christianity is truly Eastern or Western, but whether China considers it as such, as sparked off by the Stylteralmaldo who said:

China I presume does not consider Christianity an Eastern religion phenomenon.

Your argument here gives me pause for doubt - are we still debating whether the China perceives Christianity to be Eastern, or are you now arguing that Christianity is objectively Eastern (in relation to China)? Because if it is the latter, then we may have been truly talking past each other rather than to each other, and I truly apologise for that. However, if it is the former, then your argument that people wrong in believing that Christianity in Western still does not change the fact that they do believe (though wrongly) that it is Western. This is because we are not arguing about whether their attitudes are wrong, but whether they actually hold such attitudes.

 

[Filii_Dei]

If it’s practiced by native Chinese people, then what does this matter? Do government policies determine who can believe in what? I do not think the world functions according to who can be considered to be native to what. If it did, the Nestorians would’ve been confined to Mesopotamia in the first place (and the various ethnic minorities in China proper to their original places of origin, and others in other places likewise) and we would probably not be having this conversation because I would not be typing in English nor understanding English right now. This is clearly not how the world is, so what is your point?

Certainly government policies do not determine whether natives can be Christians. And I never once asserted that Christianity should be confined to its region of origin, so I don’t understand what your polemic about confining Nestorians to Mesopotamia, English to England and Chinese minorities to their land is about. I am only pointing out that modern China - government and society - considers Christianity to be Western. The fact that there are native practitioners of Christianity does not change that view, because the view is defined by the attitudes (however mistaken they may be) of the Chinese society. I am truly glad that there are native Christians in China, and I truly believe that Christianity belongs to China as much as it does to every other corner of the world, but it does not change the fact that they are viewed as under foreign influence by both their government and their fellow Chinese, and this has been the thrust of the whole debate.

Again, I don’t even understand why you’re focusing on this when the original post I was responding to said that the Chinese wouldn’t consider Christianity an Eastern religion, to which I replied that this wasn’t always the case, as it clearly had native practitioners for about 700 years (intermittently), mostly before any other Christian religion ever got there (the Roman Catholics didn’t really arrive until after the heyday of Nestorianism in China). Apparently, it wasn’t until over 100 years after the introduction of Nestorian Christianity in China that it was declared that what had previously been known as “Persian Temples” (read: Nestorian churches) should be renamed “Daqin temples”, under Tang emperor Xuanzong in 745.

What I don’t understand is whether you are arguing about the present or the past, or whether you are arguing about whether Chinese subjectively view Christianity as Eastern or whether Christianity is truly, objectively Eastern. In this post, my replies have been based on the original question, which I restate again (for the third time) thus:

China I presume does not consider Christianity an Eastern religion phenomenon.

Again, your reply that there have been native practitioners of Christianity still does not change the view of Chinese as a civilisation, nation, society or government (or whatever interpretation of that collective noun you may have) that Christianity is foreign and not Eastern. Now, you and I both agree that attitude is wrong, and that Chinese should be Christians as much as everybody else, but that is not what we are arguing. We are arguing whether the Chinese view it so, regardless of how incorrect they are. Yes, I have long been aware (even before this thread) that Catholics were late to the party, but this is not relevant.

In parting, I wish to point out that I have been focusing my arguments on just one thing: whether China considers Christianity to be a Eastern religious phenomenon. That is the basis of current debate that we are having with each other. In my previous post I also additionally touched on whether historical China considered Christianity to be Eastern, and I apologise if this may have confused you.

 

[dzheremi]

Your argument here gives me pause for doubt - are we still debating whether the China perceives Christianity to be Eastern, or are you now arguing that Christianity is objectively Eastern (in relation to China)? Because if it is the latter, then we may have been truly talking past each other rather than to each other, and I truly apologise for that.

I do not care what modern day Chinese perceive Christianity to be one way or another. I was under the impression based on the question in the OP that we are discussing in this thread whether Christianity is inherently/essentially Eastern or Western. This is why I objected to Stylteralmaldo’s original contention that the penetration or lack thereof of Christianity into China means anything at all, as China is not some sort of crucible through which Christianity may prove its “Easterness” (in the sense that this is not necessary, not that I just flat out don’t care about Chinese Christians). This is also why I’ve brought up the inherently Eurocentric view of all this stuff, as you are right that for the Chinese everything to their West is “western” whether its Persian or Roman or whatever, so division into “East” and “West” largely arbitrary. But, in response to this point (which I made by bringing up the Nestorians in China in the first place, in post #11 in this thread), I can only reply once more that this has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is inherently Western or Eastern. So, yes, it does seem that we are talking past each other, or have been for some time. My apologies. I have nothing more to say on this topic.