christian mystics

But it's usually pretty warm in Spain - even in winter.

 

Not in the 14th century.

 

One that I haven't seen mentioned here is Thomas a Kempis:


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation.pdf

Some more recent examples include Sadhu Sundar Singh:

http://www.bruderhof.com/e-books/WisdomSadhu.htm

and Thomas Merton.

 

Perhaps not so warm as it is now.

 

I was quoting from memory, so I mistakenly quoted another scholar's (besides Justin Martyre) interpretation of what Justin was saying.

Here's the actual quote;

"We have been taught that Christ was the first begotten of God and we have indicated... that He is the logos of whom all mankind partakes (not just those who call themselves "Christians). Those who lived by reason are christians even though they've been considerred atheists, as among the greeks, Socrates and Herecllitus and others like them, and among all forgieners, Abraham and Ananias...So they who lived before Christ and did not live by reason were useless men, eneimies of Christ and murderers of those who live by reason. But those who have lived reasonably, and still do, are Christians and are fearless and untroubled."

Justin equated reason with the logos of Philo of alexandria and later St. John, the "Devine Reason" of Socrates, and the "Divine Law" of Hereclitus--all manifestations of the same force or principle, which ultimately took physical form (as the Christ) in the gospels.
Whether he believed this liturally or symbolicaly, he was adamant about the idea that this Logos or Divine reason was something that resided in all people, "christian" or not.

 

No, he posited the existence of "anonymous Christians" who'd never heard of Christ. This wouldn't include those who reject Christ.

 

I am deeply involved with Christian Mysticism.
The book you want is called "The Spiritual Guide of Molinos"
run it thru google or feel free to contact me privately

 

Where is that in Justin's writings? I haven't read enough of what he said to have an opinion one way or the other so I'm just asking.

Still, it seems like a strange idea to me; it would be the same as saying that the logos resided in all people until the birth of Jesus of Nazerath, and that it still resides in anyone who hasn't heard about him, but that once someone has heard of him the logos suddenly becomes something outside of a person that he has to accept or reject.

 

It doesn't reside in "all people" who haven't heard of Christ. It resides in those who "listen to the Father," as Jesus said in Jn. 6:45. In this same verse, he said that these people will also listen to him. Those who reject Christ demonstrate that they've already rejected the Father.

 

How can you listen to Him if he's not already there?

 

"He is not far from any of us," as Paul told the Athenians in Acts 17, but he only dwells in those who embrace the truth of his revelation. Jesus is truth. To reject him is to reject the Father.

 

I think I see what you're saying; If Jesus is the logos incarnate, than someone who's already accepted the logos, albiet under another name (ie, God's will, devine reason, devine law, or the still small voice...) or no name at all would naturally recognise it personified.

By the same token these people--"So they who lived before Christ and did not live by reason were useless men, eneimies of Christ and murderers of those who live by reason"--would have (or still would) rejected him anyway.


But, if you look at what Justin was saying--"Those who lived by reason are christians even though they've been considerred atheists... those who have lived reasonably, and still do, are Christians..."--and apply it to this line of reasoning you could ask why these people, who are already christians, would need to be converted to recognised christianity (In fact an extreme, albiet a narrow minded, interpretation of this idea would imply that christ is only available to those who already have him, although I know that's not what you're saying).

I know the gospel of John and the epistles of Paul say "There is no other name by which we are saved" but we're talking about Justin Martyres perspective here, and his theory seems to refute this.

 

I think Justin is wrong to include atheists among anonymous Christians. According to the Bible, the truth of theism is self-evident to all, though it is supressed by wickedness.

 

Anyone know of any notable protestant mytics? The ones mentioned in this thread all seem to be catholics.

 

quakerism is considerred a protestant mystical movement, so I guess you could include Jakob Buer (sp).

 

Well, Justin actually said "those who have been considerred atheists".

It's probable that the greeks considerred Socrates and Hereclitus atheists for rejecting the greek panthian.
For that matter Abraham was probably considerred an atheist by his contemporaries for turning his back on the Sumarian gods.

Even today people have a hard time seperating the idea of god from whatever religious enviroment they were born into (I've had christians ask me how I could possibly believe in God and not believe in jesus christ).

By the same token there are people who call themselves atheists but if you talk to them long enough you find that they actually do believe (or at least suspect) that there must be some form of intellegence behind the workings of the universe, just not the orthodox christian version thereof.

 

I don't think Sadhu Sundar Singh was Catholic. Neither were the ancient Celtic Christians or the Desert Fathers, though Rome has wrongly tried to claim them. There have also been many Eastern Orthodox mystics.