Christian Forums

Quote from: Angelos on Sun Feb 07, 2010 - 10:46:05
What "Orthodox" scholars are you referring to. If you're referring to scholars before 1054, they were not "Orthodox" any more than they were "Catholic".

True, and "Catholic" scholars were "Orthodox."  Then again, the west thought Augustine was the cat's meow while the east ignored his forays into exgesis.  The western and eastern minds were separating, unfortunately, before the great schism.   The west didn't want to learn Greek so they just read Latin-writing Augustine and his descendents.

Quote
After 1054, I really don't know any "Orthodox" scholars that come close to let's say Aquinas. The truth is the Orthodox Churches had bad luck (were attacked by the Turks) and they never really recovered their ability to generate new scholars after that (the 1100s).

Please.  Have you heard of Gregory Palamas?

As for Thomas Acquinas, just because he is well-known doesn't make him great.  To use an analogy:  is Brad Pitt or Robert Duvall a greater actor?  Pitt is more well-known, but that doesn't make him a better actor.   Acquinas -- the man who tried to single-handedly tried explain transubstantation, the man who brought Aristotlean logic into Christianity--these are good things? 

Eastern theologians didn't try to explain the unexplainable nor did they give undue importance to Augustine nor to the importance of reason (Acquinas).  What these three have in common is they are steps away from the early church thinking nore were they even the thoughts of Semitic cultures.   Yes, I am simplifying this-- but not that much.

Sorry for my tone.  Thanks for reading.