An in depth study of the bible can only lead to Catholicism

[sambos671]

I spent many years as a protestant. I was asked to teach Sunday School for adults because I knew the bible “so well”. I decided that since I wasn’t a Missionary, Evangelist, or a Pastor, that I should be about speading the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ. I have an affinity for teaching and I prayed about it and it seemed to me the direction that Jesus wanted me to serve him in my church community (body). What I found most disturbing about people at church was that many of them knew selected verses about specific issues with regard to several topics but none really knew the bible in it entirety. Some of the members that I could point to I would call very saintly. So, seeing a need and opportunity to help people grow in their faith I took the challenge of teaching the bible in its entirety. True to my form before teaching the subject and during teaching the subject I threw myself into studying the complilation of the bible to round out my knowledge so I could be knowledgeable about it. Along with this study of the bible and how it came to us I needed to be more specific about studying Church history. The combination was devistating to my Protestant beliefs. I noticed in Protestant materials and writers covering these topics that certain things are smoothly slid over. For instance they will talk about Jerome translating the bible into the Latin Vulgate from various text but none discussed the differences between he and Pope Siricius about the inclusion of certian text to which Jerome submitted to the authority of the Pope with regard to his translation. Nor do they discuss the council of Laodecia which list these books

THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

That the Catholic Church affirms in the council of Rome, Hippo, and Trent. Protestant materials cover NT writers affinity for using the LXX but then affirm the Masoretic text which purposely avoids the LXX. Though I’ve yet to see a Protestant study bible showing the referrence of Hebrews to 2 Macc. 7. Yet there is no other explination for that verse. Also the Masoretic text are seemingly in response to Christian growth and Jewish converts that could be traced to a Jewish convention around 90 AD at a probable council of Jamnia. Yet I don’t find this in protestant source books. There seems to be a jump. In Jesus day there was no defined listing of OT books and everyone was familiar with both Hebrew scriptures and the LXX. Jesus disciples show no reason to disaprove of the LXX translation they used in their writings yet there is a jump in protestant thing of 500 years to Jewish new translations of books that a Jewish convention after Christianity was already formed and growing that those books and not the ones the Apostles use are the proper text. But christianity still using all selected books primarily in the vulgate save the eastern churches who kept to the Greek Codex (Sinaticus, Alexandratus, etc) lasted until 1500 AD when the choice of text come into question. Strangely the Protestant side with the Jewsish convention (90 years after christ) of only 39 books that were copied in reaction to Christianity (500 years ***after ***christ) and notated in such a way as to agree with Jewish oral teachings. The first 500 years of regular christian use of scripture (books from LXX) is not only omited but ignored. This give a false impression the Christianity only started again (after being in dark hands) 1500 years after the last apostle dies. But no protestant questions these issues ( I’m primarily thinking of the baptist but I’m sure it can fit for others) of factual history. Also ignored are the Catholic sayings of the ECF like Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrneans. Clements writing to the Corinthians, Justin Martys writing to the Emperor, Ireaneus in defence against heresies, and the list goes on. It seems to me that an honest look at how the bible was compiled and the Catholic interpretation of scripture is more viable than certain protestant doctrine. Ie faith alone. Christ in John 6 says you must do the work of my father and believe in him who the father sent. Protestant sees this as the real work you must do is a “non work” or just believe and leave it there. But True religion is taking care of widows and the fatherless. They miss out on Belief in Jesus is to do what he says. How many seminarians come accross this stuff and purposely glaze over it or out of hand reject it? A honest look at doctrine, scriptures, and history can only lead you to the Catholic Church. Why aren’t more protestants asking these type of questions?

 

[ferdie]

Maybe they are asking that question, but they are getting their answers from protestant writers who have a different take on Christian History.

 

[sambos671]

Maybe they are asking that question, but they are getting their answers from protestant writers who have a different take on Christian History.

I can’t imagine it being a satisfactory answer. I mean history is history doesn’t change facts.

 

[Publisher]

Looking at church history through only a “religious” lens does not give an accurate portrayal of what occured during those formative years of Christianity.

I have taken university classes, read church history books…both the ‘religious’ variety and the “secular” variety and have blended the two, in my mind getting both views gives a better idea of what actually occured.

From what I’ve read and studied it has led me away from the belief of there being a homogenous whole original church. There were competing faith traditions in those first decades and centuries, and those traditions which developed the best “story” and gained the most adherants and aligned themselves with the political powers of the day…became the dominant form of Christianity. Each competing group claimed to teach correct belief directly from the hands of the apostles…be it Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Thomas, Philip or whomever. Each competing group taught the others were “in error” and “heretical”…until finally the dominating group had political backing to seek to eradicate all oposing teaching by destroying the competing writings…some of which survived to be discovered centuries later…and impose exile on those who would not conform.

How the Bible came about…what books didn’t “make the cut” and why…seeking to understand the motivation of those who eventually compiled the books of the NT as an “authoritive” representation of “true Christianity” all comes into play.

For those who find solace in their “religious history” only, I think it wonderful if it strengthens their faith journey.

For me, my faith has been strengthened at seeing the Hand of God at work in the message of Jesus of Nazareth, no matter what the competing tradition of the time.

 

[sambos671]

Looking at church history through only a “religious” lens does not give an accurate portrayal of what occured during those formative years of Christianity.

I have taken university classes, read church history books…both the ‘religious’ variety and the “secular” variety and have blended the two, in my mind getting both views gives a better idea of what actually occured.

From what I’ve read and studied it has led me away from the belief of there being a homogenous whole original church. There were competing faith traditions in those first decades and centuries, and those traditions which developed the best “story” and gained the most adherants and aligned themselves with the political powers of the day…became the dominant form of Christianity. Each competing group claimed to teach correct belief directly from the hands of the apostles…be it Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Thomas, Philip or whomever. Each competing group taught the others were “in error” and “heretical”…until finally the dominating group had political backing to seek to eradicate all oposing teaching by destroying the competing writings…some of which survived to be discovered centuries later…and impose exile on those who would not conform.

How the Bible came about…what books didn’t “make the cut” and why…seeking to understand the motivation of those who eventually compiled the books of the NT as an “authoritive” representation of “true Christianity” all comes into play.

For those who find solace in their “religious history” only, I think it wonderful if it strengthens their faith journey.

For me, my faith has been strengthened at seeing the Hand of God at work in the message of Jesus of Nazareth, no matter what the competing tradition of the time.

I’ve been to university as well. I’ve studied history from a secular as well as a religous perspective. I read all sorts of history books and my take from it is this. Advancing that I believe the Gospel accounts and the book of Acts recounts the activities of Jesus and his disciples we can say that Christianity began as a single entity. Certain teachings were passed on orally from Jesus to the apostles and to their disciples. At this point we have one tradition. Though we see Pauls frustration with certain groups with in the church making a case for their “authenticity” when he declairs “I’m glad I didn’t baptize any of you” . However, there is no indication at this point that there is a “competing” Christianity. We do find some people Baptising others with John the baptist “baptism” but that was quickly aleiviated. There were members who were accepted into the body of believers only to add their own points of view which Paul and the others such as James and Peter refute in their letters. Still this is not a competing christianity. Certainly its an off shoot attempt from a consistency of “base line” beliefs (or deposit of faith) taught by the apostles. We see entire seperations shortly after the apostles and can note them in the specified letters of Clement, Justin, Ireaneaus. 200’s seem to be a popular time to take steps to radify the deposit with gnostic teachings. But a comparison of Orthodox and Catholic teaching you can see specific items from the deposit remaining the same. There is a consistency of Christianity from the begining. So it wasn’t a bunch of divergent Christianities but the populist one won the day. Note at one time Arius followers were more popular and populas than what we consider “orthodox” Christianity today(Catholic and Orthodox).

 

[Publisher]

I’ve been to university as well. I’ve studied history from a secular as well as a religous perspective. I read all sorts of history books and my take from it is this. Advancing that I believe the Gospel accounts and the book of Acts recounts the activities of Jesus and his disciples we can say that Christianity began as a single entity. Certain teachings were passed on orally from Jesus to the apostles and to their disciples. At this point we have one tradition. Though we see Pauls frustration with certain groups with in the church making a case for their “authenticity” when he declairs “I’m glad I didn’t baptize any of you” . However, there is no indication at this point that there is a “competing” Christianity. We do find some people Baptising others with John the baptist “baptism” but that was quickly aleiviated. There were members who were accepted into the body of believers only to add their own points of view which Paul and the others such as James and Peter refute in their letters. Still this is not a competing christianity. Certainly its an off shoot attempt from a consistency of “base line” beliefs (or deposit of faith) taught by the apostles. We see entire seperations shortly after the apostles and can note them in the specified letters of Clement, Justin, Ireaneaus. 200’s seem to be a popular time to take steps to radify the deposit with gnostic teachings. But a comparison of Orthodox and Catholic teaching you can see specific items from the deposit remaining the same. There is a consistency of Christianity from the begining. So it wasn’t a bunch of divergent Christianities but the populist one won the day. Note at one time Arius followers were more popular and populas than what we consider “orthodox” Christianity today(Catholic and Orthodox).

I understand your beliefs concerning the matter, I don’t draw the same conclusions.

 

[sambos671]

I understand your beliefs concerning the matter, I don’t draw the same conclusions.

Ok I understand you don’t draw the same conclusion but that must be for a certain factor. Note Dan Brown doesn’t agree with my conclusions either but he disregards the NT. What do you believe about the 4 Gospels in the NT and the Book the Acts of the Apostles? Do you believe they recount the activities of Jesus or are they the books that “won out” in the Orthodoxy wars?

 

[JRKH]

Looking at church history through only a “religious” lens does not give an accurate portrayal of what occured during those formative years of Christianity.
I have taken university classes, read church history books…both the ‘religious’ variety and the “secular” variety and have blended the two, in my mind getting both views gives a better idea of what actually occured.

You are absolutely right. Of course one also has to be careful of which sources one uses and also recognize that everything must be weighed in the ligth of faith and the promises of Christ.

From what I’ve read and studied it has led me away from the belief of there being a homogenous whole original church. There were competing faith traditions in those first decades and centuries, and those traditions which developed the best “story” and gained the most adherants and aligned themselves with the political powers of the day…became the dominant form of Christianity.

I think that this is, in the prime, correct. The early Church was certainly not homogenous any more than the US was homogenous in the 19th Century. Consider how many regional differences there were in the US before the advent of Radio and Television and how much more “homongenous” the country is now. Does this mean that the US was not the US back then? Of course not. Does that mean that political and legal questions handled regionally back than cannot be applied nationwide now? These differences do not preclude US from being one country from 1776 till now nor does it preclude the Church from being "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic from 33 AD till now… The factors that cause the differences are several, but primarily they fall into the issues of Culture, and Communication.
The Apostles headed in different directions spreading the Good News in many lands and to many different cultures. Because of differences in cultures different questions would come up, different aspects of the Good News would be emphasized etc. to meet the needs of the faithful. Since Comminication across the Church was slow and many questions had yet to be answered “universally”. Add to that the fact that for much of the time the early Church was illegal and persecuted and communication becomes doubly difficult and many differences continued for many years, even centuries.
However, as councils met to deal with the various issues and decisions were made among the Bishops of the Church, the church could become more consistant across the globe.
As for those who “aligned themselves with the political powers of the day”, I agree that some of this went on but one also must remember that, at least in the west, it was the Church that became the political power in many cases due to the abandoning of the western Roman Empire by Constantinople. In the East, where the Church did align itself with the Emporer it wound up much more subservient than did the Church in the West.

Each competing group claimed to teach correct belief directly from the hands of the apostles…be it Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Thomas, Philip or whomever. Each competing group taught the others were “in error” and “heretical”…until finally the dominating group had political backing to seek to eradicate all oposing teaching by destroying the competing writings…some of which survived to be discovered centuries later…and impose exile on those who would not conform.

I dealt with some of this above. Regional differences in practices and explanations are to be expected. However, when you begin to base you faith upon the words recorded in the Bible, then one must recognize that God protected, just as Jesus promised, both the writings necessary AND the church teaching them. So - if there were excesses in history, and there certainly were, they were transitory and did not effect the validity of Church doctrine as promised and protected by Christ.

How the Bible came about…what books didn’t “make the cut” and why…seeking to understand the motivation of those who eventually compiled the books of the NT as an “authoritive” representation of “true Christianity” all comes into play.

For those who find solace in their “religious history” only, I think it wonderful if it strengthens their faith journey.

For me, my faith has been strengthened at seeing the Hand of God at work in the message of Jesus of Nazareth, no matter what the competing tradition of the time.

I agree. Most of us need to truly strive to keep our faith simple - Like a Child’s. Only if one is truly drawn to the kinds of questions outlined in this thread should one look carefull and openly at history from ALL it’s aspects to dicsern the Truth.

Peace
James

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I can’t imagine it being a satisfactory answer. I mean history is history doesn’t change facts.

The problem with your analysis is the pronoun, YOU. You can’t imagine, based on what YOU read and how YOU interpreted it. Your lens doesn’t allow you to be objective. I can’t imagine how anyone would be Catholic knowing what I have read, based on how I interpret. My lens doesn’t allow me to be objective either.

You essentially set yourself as the perfect interpreter and put down tens of thousands of scholars and experts, theologians and so forth who don’t agree with you, but are undeniably brilliant.

Enjoy the fact that you have found a faith that resonates with your internal compass of what is true, and stop assuming that you are the perfect berometer of truth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’ve been to university as well. I’ve studied history from a secular as well as a religous perspective. I read all sorts of history books and my take from it is this. Advancing that I believe the Gospel accounts and the book of Acts recounts the activities of Jesus and his disciples we can say that Christianity began as a single entity. Certain teachings were passed on orally from Jesus to the apostles and to their disciples. At this point we have one tradition. Though we see Pauls frustration with certain groups with in the church making a case for their “authenticity” when he declairs “I’m glad I didn’t baptize any of you” . However, there is no indication at this point that there is a “competing” Christianity. We do find some people Baptising others with John the baptist “baptism” but that was quickly aleiviated. There were members who were accepted into the body of believers only to add their own points of view which Paul and the others such as James and Peter refute in their letters. Still this is not a competing christianity. Certainly its an off shoot attempt from a consistency of “base line” beliefs (or deposit of faith) taught by the apostles. We see entire seperations shortly after the apostles and can note them in the specified letters of Clement, Justin, Ireaneaus. 200’s seem to be a popular time to take steps to radify the deposit with gnostic teachings. But a comparison of Orthodox and Catholic teaching you can see specific items from the deposit remaining the same. There is a consistency of Christianity from the begining. So it wasn’t a bunch of divergent Christianities but the populist one won the day. Note at one time Arius followers were more popular and populas than what we consider “orthodox” Christianity today(Catholic and Orthodox).

You are most decidedly wrong in claiming that there were no competing forms of Christianity. There were the Gnostics and the Ebionites, and in some areas they were certainly the majority. Publishers remarks were completely accurate.

 

[sambos671]

You didn’t take anything I said in context. First I stated that initially Christianity had no competing forms. That there is a continuity of “basis”. I did indicate that after the apostles you see competing forms that (as I said) really pick up around the 200s such as gnosticism. You take a portion of what I said and misconstrue it. Which is the same as being disengenuous. Note I begin by mentioning that I believe the gospels and the Acts are portraying the teachings and doings of Jesus and his disciples. Christianity starts off as a single entity with basic beliefs. I believe if you compare “orthodox” christianity you will find similarities (not in specifics) in doctrines that are core which follow a continuity of teaching that is from the begining.

As far as being a self styled barometer in truth we all are our ultimate barometer. It all always boils down to what you think. This is how I think. These are the facts as I see and interpret them. And I (honestly so) cannot understand why people don’t see it. Just as there are issues that you feel the same way about. So to be accusatory in this matter is disengenuous as well. You may want to argue reasonable rather that accuse. So, if you want to debate me as this forum is for read what I said. Quote me in context put forth an oppossing point and we will discuss it. If that reasonable to you? Like I did with a previous poster. In order to discuss an issue there must be a basis from which both agree. My context was from a coming out of Protestantism (specifically baptist) by studing the very item they purport is their sole authority. When looked at honestly how can they deny very core elements of Catholic Theology?

 

[excaliber]

Looking at church history through only a “religious” lens does not give an accurate portrayal of what occured during those formative years of Christianity.

I have taken university classes, read church history books…both the ‘religious’ variety and the “secular” variety and have blended the two, in my mind getting both views gives a better idea of what actually occured.

From what I’ve read and studied it has led me away from the belief of there being a homogenous whole original church. There were competing faith traditions in those first decades and centuries, and those traditions which developed the best “story” and gained the most adherants and aligned themselves with the political powers of the day…became the dominant form of Christianity. Each competing group claimed to teach correct belief directly from the hands of the apostles…be it Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Thomas, Philip or whomever. Each competing group taught the others were “in error” and “heretical”…until finally the dominating group had political backing to seek to eradicate all oposing teaching by destroying the competing writings…some of which survived to be discovered centuries later…and impose exile on those who would not conform.

How the Bible came about…what books didn’t “make the cut” and why…seeking to understand the motivation of those who eventually compiled the books of the NT as an “authoritive” representation of “true Christianity” all comes into play.

For those who find solace in their “religious history” only, I think it wonderful if it strengthens their faith journey.

For me, my faith has been strengthened at seeing the Hand of God at work in the message of Jesus of Nazareth, no matter what the competing tradition of the time.

How could there be competing tradishons when the Pope was established before Christ even left the earth. Who could compete with the Pope?

 

[BrianH]

How could there be competing tradishons when the Pope was established before Christ even left the earth. Who could compete with the Pope?

Just to quickly interject, according to scripture, Paul and Apollos are two…now whether that is a different tradition…well that is the larger issue. But obviously there were at least two other people that people were identifying with.

 

[JRKH]

The problem with your analysis is the pronoun, YOU. You can’t imagine, based on what YOU read and how YOU interpreted it. Your lens doesn’t allow you to be objective. I can’t imagine how anyone would be Catholic knowing what I have read, based on how I interpret. My lens doesn’t allow me to be objective either.

You essentially set yourself as the perfect interpreter and put down tens of thousands of scholars and experts, theologians and so forth who don’t agree with you, but are undeniably brilliant.

Enjoy the fact that you have found a faith that resonates with your internal compass of what is true, and stop assuming that you are the perfect berometer of truth.

There is some truth in what you say here. Everyone certainly does see things through a slightly different lens which effects their objectivity. This lack of objectivity on the part of the individual should lead one to these questions. Does the Holy Spirit inspire different Interpretations? Is the Holy Spirit the Author of so many different “Truths”?

I don’t know if the OP intended to “put down” other, " scholars and experts, theologians and so forth who are…undeniably brilliant", I rather doubt that he did, but do you equate brilliance with inspiration? Did the fact that Christ chose simple fishermen mean that he chose lesser qualified persons to spead the Good News? I’m sure that this is not what you mean but please consider that these brilliant men and women you refer to above are all writing through their own lens just as you point out for yourself and the OP.
Brilliance means nothing in so far as inspiration goes. Some of the most brilliant writings of the Church are from relatively uneducated people such as St Therese of Liseaux and St. Catherine of Seinna, while I imagine that hell is as well stocked with “Brilliant” people as any modern university.

All of this leads us then back to the question of personal interpretation. You admonish the OP because of his use of the pronoun “You” and dismiss his arguments because “you” interpret things differently. So “You” make the same “error” as he in that you set yourself up as “the perfect interpreter” and this is where every protestant argument fails, for the idea of multiple interpretations - mutliple truths - is an anethama to The Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit speaks for One God and Speaks One Truth. When the books of the Bible were written they were written by members of One Holy and Apostolic Church and were written with only One Truth in the mind of the author, God’s Truth. God gave us the Church, His Body on earth to safeguard these Truths. He knew man’s propensity for muddying things up and so provided a storehouse and an arbiter in the Church for the maintenance of the Truth. That is why Christ Himself told us to “Tell it To The Church” when we had problems.
The Holy Church has had it’s problems with sinful men, just as any other organization has had, but these sinful men have not been able to change or pollute the true and unbiased teachings of the Church. We submit to those teachings because they ARE true and not because we necessarily understand them. I dare say that most catholics do not understand all of the teachings of The Church - But we accept them in Humility and Submission to the Will of Christ. We submit our “Biased lens” to the clear and unbiased lens of Holy Mother Church.

Peace
James

 

[ConfusedTim]

This thread builds on another thread that highlighted the fact that there are loads of protestant bible scholars who have studied themselves into Catholicism but very few Catholic scholars who have gone the other way.

I take it as a given now a days that people who read the bible, the early church fathers and historical accounts of life in the early church years will come to the conclusion that there is only one true church. The people who continue to deny it are usually the ones who only read the bible and take passages out of context.

 

[Hisalone]

Your premise is completely in error. If you take it to its logical conclusion you are saying that there can not be any serious bible scholars that are not Catholic because if they were serious then they therefore would convert to Catholicism. Of course this is false.

 

[JonNC]

It seems to me that an honest look at how the bible was compiled and the Catholic interpretation of scripture is more viable than certain protestant doctrine. Ie faith alone. Christ in John 6 says you must do the work of my father and believe in him who the father sent. Protestant sees this as the real work you must do is a “non work” or just believe and leave it there. But True religion is taking care of widows and the fatherless. They miss out on Belief in Jesus is to do what he says. How many seminarians come accross this stuff and purposely glaze over it or out of hand reject it?

I know that you know this isn’t the case with many Protestants. Only a misinterpreation of sola fide would permit someone to think that we have no obligation to obey Christ’s commands.

A honest look at doctrine, scriptures, and history can only lead you to the Catholic Church.

Hypothetically, why couldn’t it lead to the Orthodox Church?

Why aren’t more protestants asking these type of questions?

Why do you suppose they aren’t? Now, of course, the average Sunday church attender is attending the Church he/she was raised in, or married into, or is in close proximity to. And for them, they are not thinking past this basic structure of their faith.
But for those few that do look deeper, they (we) are asking these questions.

Finally, I might add that this can become a circular conclusion:
“Those who study deeply enough, will become Catholic.”
*" I studied quite deeply, and it led me to where I am, ___________."(fill in tradition here) *
“Those who study deeply enough, will become Catholic. If you didn’t become Catholic, you didn’t study deeply enough.”

There are countless clergy and theologians down through the centuries who have studied deeply, and did not become Catholic.

Jon

 

[Publisher]

Ok I understand you don’t draw the same conclusion but that must be for a certain factor. Note Dan Brown doesn’t agree with my conclusions either but he disregards the NT. What do you believe about the 4 Gospels in the NT and the Book the Acts of the Apostles? Do you believe they recount the activities of Jesus or are they the books that “won out” in the Orthodoxy wars?

Dan Brown’s works are fiction, he states them to be so. It seems that however I answer this question at this point now casts me in the same mold as Dan Brown, of course I know you didn’t mean to intimate this did you?

The four gospels are reflections of early Christian communities and what they had come to believe about Jesus of Nazareth. They were not eyewitness accounts. Each gospel writer built layer upon layer of existing oral tradition to seek to “flesh out” the story of Jesus. Much of the gospels are Old Testament stories “retold” with Jesus as the new “hero” instead of Joshua, Jonah, Moses, David. Hannah’s story is “retold” using Mary as a pivot. John the Baptist was the new Elijah. The fact that the Gospels are “foreshadowed” in the Old Testament was not by coincidence. The Old Testament was used as a source for the stories of the New. That many of the events portrayed in the Gospels were “historical” accounts I don’t believe so. The writers were not “eyewitnesses” of them…the names each Gospel bears is a “tradition” and meant to give “authority” to each Gospel.

I no more believe “Matthew” was written by Levi than I believe the Gospel of Philip was written by Philip…or the Gospel of Thomas was written by Thomas…or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was written by her or the Gospel of Peter was written by him…naming the Gospels of Apostles or disciples was a literary device that took hold very early in the fledgling Christian community.

Paul cast Jesus as the New Adam…the proto catholic/orthodox church cast Mary as the “new Eve”. The Old Testament was “re-reinterpreted” casting New Testament characters in their roles.

The Acts was a very “cleaned up” version of the first decades of the emerging Christian community. It is not completly historical either. In fact many of the events it portrays of Paul are in contradiction to Paul’s version in some of his letters. Acts is not a factual historical retelling…however if one looks “deeper” into Acts it shows some of the early controversy…the disciples of Jesus against the disciples of John…the controversey between Paul and the more “orthodox” Jewish believers. James was seen as head of the Jerusalem community…which the Ebionites also claim…and claim him as their leader.

Matthew has been called the “most catholic”…and for good reason, it represented the emerging ‘proto-catholic/orthodox’ tradition. That the Gospel of John was used by Gnostics and that it was disputed as authentic for decades if not centuries indicates how varying groups vied for supremacy as the “true legacy” of Jesus of Nazareth after the fall of Jerusalem, when Christianity emerged as a separate religion and not just another Jewish sect.

The Marcionites were the champions of Paul…so much so to a fault…and gained prominece in Asia Minor as the predominant form of Christianity…but Roman Christianity finally “won the day” as the leaders which became known as “Early Church Fathers” gained prominence and developed their belief system of “hierarchal” church government, which other competing groups rejected…and along with the Gnostics, Ebionites to name a few, all claimed to have received their teaching directly from one of the Apostles. We have Gnostic leaders claiming to have received their teachings from John…and we have Polycarp claiming the same thing…but we are to believe Polycarps biographers and editors to his letters were “telling the truth” and that the Gnostic believers were lying?

Roman Christianity emerged victorius…“it is the victors who write history, not the vanquished”.

The simple message of Jesus of Nazareth was coupled with rituals and rites and priesthoods. The Pastoral Letters were circulated among the churches and attributed to Paul. The letters of Peter were not written by Peter but someone who very much believed they were justifed in writing in his name…as were some of the writers of the letters of Paul.

If one wishes to believe in their faith traditions “sacred story” and view history in such a way, wonderful if it strengthens one’s faith in the Eternal and causes one to show mercy, do justice and walk humbly with God. If such beliefs cause one to love one’s neighbor and to do good and walk in the Way…wonderful.

The religion of Jesus was traded for a religion about Jesus…and both need to be embraced. Jesus never intended, IMO, to begin a new set of rites and rituals with a new priesthood to mediate for people…he came to tell us each of us has direct access to God without a need for priest or preacher…we share in his Priesthood…no longer bound by rituals and rites…we did not exhange the yoke of the Law and it’s requirements for a new set to be mediated by a different “Levitical Priesthood.”

Of course…if I believed as you do…I’d be Catholic…or Orthodox…but I don’t…and I find compelling reasons not to…it satisfies my questions…and the answers I have outlined above lay to rest the doubts I have about those first few centuries of Christian history.

 

[geometer]

The whole bible is Judaism. That is where you are when you read it…

 

[JRKH]

Publisher,
Not to derail the thread but I’d like to ask you a somewhat off topic question.
I have read your responses and also some things posted by another person of quaker leanings here that lead me to believe that Quakers hold to the idea of the “Trail of Blood” wherein the “true church” was suppressed in the early centuries by the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Is this true? Do the Quakers hold such a belief?

Peace
James