Beethoven and his Beloveds

[Chris]

Yep, small technical probelm. All fixed now, though.

[~Immortal Beloved~]

Originally posted by M.Moes:
Claudie wrote:

...(Josephine Brunswick and the "Immortal beloved")

Josephine WAS the Immortal Beloved.

Nope! Josephine wasn't the immortal beloved. But I'm not going to tell you who it is!


------------------
freedom for all- Ludwig Van Beethoven

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chris:
Not really. Christianty holds that no one goes to the Father, except through the Son. Likewise, no one may go the Son unless the Father beckons. That is why, when he said "God," I think he either didn't mean it in a standard Christian sense, or else he meant God as in the whole Trinity. After all, three divine persons do not mean three gods; they are still all one God.

Well, it is difficult to avoid putting a personal slant on the issue - there's no way we can deduce whether B thought this way. I simply suggest it seems unusual for a Catholic of that time to be so interested in God yet make virtually no mention of Jesus otr the Virgin...or the Trinity. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that B showed some interest philosophy and in the more esoteric religions of the East (he copied passages from ancient Hindu and Egyptian texts) I would say that he was not referring to God, as you say, in the standard Christian sence. Instead I suggest he pushed aside the trappings and dictats of the Church to communicate with a more personal concept of God - though this God would be by and large the Christian one but influenced to a certain extent by this interest in these other religions and philosophical ideas. Perhaps he could not isolate Jesus from the mortal doctrine (hence the quote I mentioned) and therefore he just put the Christ figure to one side.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Rod]

Originally posted by ~Immortal Beloved~:

Nope! Josephine wasn't the immortal beloved. But I'm not going to tell you who it is!

Wait a moment.....Beethoven called her Immortal Beloved (a poor translation but I'm not going to pick points)....and...I've just realised...YOU'RE called Immortal Beloved!!! I knew they'd all got it wrong, Beethoven didn't write any other name because he had already written it for all to see!! . Why didn't it work out Immortal? Tell us now so that we can put an end to the whole business!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 08-20-2001).]

[Chris]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well, it is difficult to avoid putting a personal slant on the issue - there's no way we can deduce whether B thought this way. I simply suggest it seems unusual for a Catholic of that time to be so interested in God yet make virtually no mention of Jesus otr the Virgin...or the Trinity. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that B showed some interest philosophy and in the more esoteric religions of the East (he copied passages from ancient Hindu and Egyptian texts) I would say that he was not referring to God, as you say, in the standard Christian sence. Instead I suggest he pushed aside the trappings and dictats of the Church to communicate with a more personal concept of God - though this God would be by and large the Christian one but influenced to a certain extent by this interest in these other religions and philosophical ideas. Perhaps he could not isolate Jesus from the mortal doctrine (hence the quote I mentioned) and therefore he just put the Christ figure to one side.

Maybe. But then again, the current pope takes all sorts of religious ideas from non-Christian sources, and applies them to Christianity. So that by itself is not unique to people who are not too impressed with Catholic doctrine! What I can't get over is why Beethoven would ever compose a mass unless he were a believer in the Catholic faith; it just doesn't fit with his allegedly principled nature. Or maybe Beethoven just doesn't think of things like that the way I do.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chris:
What I can't get over is why Beethoven would ever compose a mass unless he were a believer in the Catholic faith; it just doesn't fit with his allegedly principled nature. Or maybe Beethoven just doesn't think of things like that the way I do.

That Beethoven was a profoundly religious man is beyond question but his not blindly accepting all the teachings of the Catholic faith wouldn't have procluded the writing of a mass - Delius wrote a mass and he was an atheist!

In Christus am oelberge, it is the earthly suffering of Christ rather than his divinity that is emphasised.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chris]

Originally posted by Peter:
...Delius wrote a mass and he was an atheist!

Which makes absolutely no sense to me. Nevertheless, to write a mass, I would think that Beethoven would have had to have a certain degree of belief in Christianity, and if he thought Christ was not the Son of God, then...Christianity is kind of ruled out, isn't it?

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chris:
Which makes absolutely no sense to me. Nevertheless, to write a mass, I would think that Beethoven would have had to have a certain degree of belief in Christianity, and if he thought Christ was not the Son of God, then...Christianity is kind of ruled out, isn't it?

We know that B had unorthodox views and that his beliefs were not based soley on Christian theology, but on classical antiquity and eastern religions as well. His perception was of an all powerful loving divinity that could be approached directly without a priest, hence his lack of attendance at church. I think he saw Christ as a teacher and philosopher - he mentions Jesus and Socrates as having been his models in life.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chris]

Originally posted by Peter:
I think he saw Christ as a teacher and philosopher - he mentions Jesus and Socrates as having been his models in life.

Which also makes no sense. Jesus claimed to be God in front of many witnesses. Whatever he was, HE claimed he was God; there is no doubt about that. So, he was either God, or he was a nut. You shouldn't have a nut as a model in life!

[Kevin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris:
[B] Which also makes no sense. Jesus claimed to be God in front of many witnesses. Whatever he was, HE claimed he was God; there is no doubt about that. So, he was either God, or he was a nut. You shouldn't have a nut as a model in life!

In fact, many scholars of various persuasions believe that the claims regarding Jesus being the Son of God are not the view of Jesus himself, but later intrepretive interpolations. They contradict other remarks that appear to many to be more authentic. Check out Geza Vermes book "Jesus The Jew" or Karl Jaspers. So, like many others of his time and since, Beethoven may have gone beyond a more conventional, surface reading or interpretation of scripture. Doesn't that fit his personality?

[Peter]

[quote]Originally posted by Kevin:
[b]

Originally posted by Chris:
Which also makes no sense. Jesus claimed to be God in front of many witnesses. Whatever he was, HE claimed he was God; there is no doubt about that. So, he was either God, or he was a nut. You shouldn't have a nut as a model in life!

In fact, many scholars of various persuasions believe that the claims regarding Jesus being the Son of God are not the view of Jesus himself, but later intrepretive interpolations. They contradict other remarks that appear to many to be more authentic. Check out Geza Vermes book "Jesus The Jew" or Karl Jaspers. So, like many others of his time and since, Beethoven may have gone beyond a more conventional, surface reading or interpretation of scripture. Doesn't that fit his personality?

Exactly! This is the problem that religion suffers from - the different interpretations and translations by man many centuries ago which are taken as definitive. Goodness knows how many different branches of Christianity there are - all claiming to be correct. Beethoven took in my view the more sensible and less dogmatic approach which doesn't take everything literally.



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chris:
Which also makes no sense. Jesus claimed to be God in front of many witnesses. Whatever he was, HE claimed he was God; there is no doubt about that. So, he was either God, or he was a nut. You shouldn't have a nut as a model in life!

You are taking the typical black and white view of it that was not Beethoven's. We are not discussing religion per se here, rather Beethoven's own religious beliefs which make perfect sense to me!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[~Immortal Beloved~]

Originally posted by Rod:
Wait a moment.....Beethoven called her Immortal Beloved (a poor translation but I'm not going to pick points)....and...I've just realised...YOU'RE called Immortal Beloved!!! I knew they'd all got it wrong, Beethoven didn't write any other name because he had already written it for all to see!! . Why didn't it work out Immortal? Tell us now so that we can put an end to the whole business!

Well...I see your going crazy on this isn't it? Well Let me tell you one thing Rod! I'm not the REAL Immortal Beloved alright! If you want to know my name is here is, I'm Linda happy now? Second, the real Immortal Beloved is Countess Guiletta! I know your going to disagree what I'm saying at this topic. Besides, if you read through the clues....you'll get some where.

------------------
freedom for all- Ludwig Van Beethoven

[Chris]

Originally posted by Kevin:
In fact, many scholars of various persuasions believe that the claims regarding Jesus being the Son of God are not the view of Jesus himself, but later intrepretive interpolations. They contradict other remarks that appear to many to be more authentic. Check out Geza Vermes book "Jesus The Jew" or Karl Jaspers. So, like many others of his time and since, Beethoven may have gone beyond a more conventional, surface reading or interpretation of scripture. Doesn't that fit his personality?

I can assure you that vast, vast majority of evidence is in favor of Christ claiming to be God. Any claim to the contrary is based on nothing more than taking a few statements completely out of context, etc.

Peter, yes, things do go through many translations and so forth. Jesus himself did not write a single word. He left his apostles to keep the truths he had brought the world. He gave Peter (the apostle, that is) the "keys to the kingdom." He promised that hell would never trimuph against the church he had established. Peter appointed a man to take his place (Linus), who appointed a man to take his place in the same way. John Paul II can trace his supreme authority back to Peter, who recieved his from Christ. So, if Christ was indeed a nut, we have a religion based on the teachings of a nut in the Catholic Church. If he was God, then we have a religion created by God himself in the Catholic Church. All other Christian religions broke off the Catholics (ultimately). The Catholics broke off from nobody. What's the logical choice to make here? Certainly not Beethoven's, I would say, if it was indeed as you are suggesting. Jesus was God or he wasn't, and he certainly said he was. Anything in between is just wishful thinking or, perhaps more accurately, willful denial.

[This message has been edited by Chris (edited 08-21-2001).]

[Jin]

I don't find it odd that atheist composer could write masses. After all, their concern is the music, and even an atheist composer might want to experiment with the format of a mass.

I've been told that in many instances, the Gospels contradict themselves (in respect to the resurrection, Mary and Jesus's divinity...), and that the four Evangelists were all writing for different audiences (Mark for people outside the homeland after the first revolt, Matthew for Jewish Christians being rejected by the larger community, Luke for gentiles), so they therefore emphasized different aspects of Jesus' story i.e. Matthew draws many parallels from Jesus to Moses for his Jewish audience, and Luke paints Jesus like a Greek Philosopher since he travelled with Paul to Greece. It's not so much that religion has been interpretted in many ways, it's mainly that the texts themselves are rather ambiguous at times.