The next terminology subject arises directly from yesterday's term

Yesterday's discussion of the Immaculate Conception is related directly to a philosophy that swept the early Christian Church, culminating in the reorganization of Christian theology in the Fourth Century, which was marked by the Council of Nicea: "a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325. The Council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

"Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father; the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed; settling the calculation of the date of Easter; and promulgation of early canon law," according to Wikipedia.org.

The Christological issue of the day was a concensus on the nature of Christ.  There were several well-known ideas going on at the time; a decision was made between all the contending ideas and the issue was settled, although the heresies didn't go away.

We will look at each of these ideas because all of them have some influence on Christianity, either historically or in the present day.  But the main emergent idea in the Church in that era was Neo-Platonism, which I consider a heresy in the classic sense.  Why would I consider it a heresy?  Well, let's define it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia.com says this of the Neo-Platonic worldview: "Man, being composed of body and soul, is partly, like God, spiritual, and partly like matter, the opposite of spiritual. It is [man's] duty to aim at returning to God by eliminating from his being, his thoughts, and his actions, everything that is material and, therefore, tends to separate him from God. The soul came from God. It existed before its union with the body; its survival after death is, therefore, hardly in need of proof. It will return to God by way of knowledge, because that which separates it from God is matter and material conditions, which are only illusions or deceptive appearances. The first step, therefore in the return of the soul to God is the act by which the soul, withdrawing from the world of sense by a process of purification (katharsis), frees itself from the trammels of matter."

We still use the word catharsis to describe a transformative experience that frees us from a previous world view through intense self-knowledge.  It might be compared to the conversion experience.

But I see no Neo-Platonism in Judaism.  Judaism, from which Christianity emerged, teaches that God made the world and everything in it, and said it was all good.  All the processes of life, such as raising food, the processes of eating, reproducing, worshipping and community life, are good, not evil.

You can see this philosophy in Saint Paul's writings; he knows nothing of "mortifying the flesh," the loathsome practice by which self-abuse (in the literal sense) became popular in medieval times.  As monks and nuns beat themselves obsessively with knotted whips, they learned to hate themselves more and more, and passed this idea to the parishioners, who hated the world they lived in and didn't question authority--the soft clothing and wealth that the larger monastaries reveled in, the education that the peasants didn't feel worthy to receive.

It is no wonder that the printing of the Bible, and the ability to read it for themselves, led to a mass rejection of medieval Neo-Platonism by the masses of Christians, and to their embrace of the idea of education (in order to read the Scriptures).  It is hard to tell people that they are worthless and sinful when they can read for themselves how "God so loved the world, that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him shall have etermal life." [John 3:16]

But still it cannot be denied that the emerging Church in Jerusalem was overwhelmed by the Neo-Platonic Christian philosophers and what they taught.  This is why I write frequently that St. Paul's actual religious philosophy, which we read of almost every Sunday of the church year, has actually been abandoned by the present teachings of the Church. 

Paul's doctrine of pure Grace, which is given for "the sins of the whole world," does not contribute much to the Church as the dispenser of salvation, so it is not as popular in today's sermons as the exhortation to abide by the rules and earn your salvation. 

Even though, when pressed for an explanation, most preachers will admit that we do not merit salvation as human beings, they will still tell you most of the time that their denomination is the only sure ticket through the Pearly Gates.  Bishop Carlton Pearson, a Pentecostal preacher, says openly that the realization of the meaning of the phrase, "and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world," started him on a journey that took him to excommunication from the Pentecostal Church and beyond. (The phrase I quote is from 1 John 2:2.)

Because of Neo-Platonism, the Christian Church has lost the grand vision of God's self-emptying, wasteful, extravagant love (as Bishop Spong puts it), and retreated into a mire of sinfulness and unworthiness.  What motivates you more:

"Get religion, you worthless thing, and raise yourself above the sinful world!"

or:

"Take heart  God loves and understands you, you aren't walking alone!"

You know, you have that choice every Sunday morning when you wake up and decide whether you will go to church.