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

[Publisher]

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

If by “Trail of Blood” you mean an “underground” church existing within the Roman church as outlined by some Baptist groups…no, that is not a Quaker belief.

If you mean people of faith who sought to follow Christ in the belief structure available to them through the teachings of the Roman church…then…yes…Friends believe that there is the Universal Light of Christ in all people that leads them to salvation whether they know of the man from Nazareth or not…God’s grace is universal in scope…and all who live according to the Light Within know salvation. That the beliefs of the existing faith tradition would exempify the Inner Light is a different matter…some faith traditions have a better understanding of the Light Within than others…but this Light is available to all.

One of the reasons Friends used the term “Society of Friends” instead of “Church of Friends” is because it is our testimony there is only One Church and it is found where two or three gather together in his Name. The Church meets for worship…hence “Friend’s Meeting”.

 

[StillWondering]

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

I think reading the Bible can lead to the Orthodox Church except for one part, Peter. Within John 21: 15-19, Jesus charge him with care of the flock. From my limited understanding, “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, “Feed my Sheep” and “Follow me” after describing how Peter will live and die implies that we as Christ’s flock should be under Peter’s care, follow him, and trust those who are his successors.

 

[JonNC]

I think reading the Bible can lead to the Orthodox Church except for one part, Peter. Within John 21: 15-19, Jesus charge him with care of the flock. From my limited understanding, “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, “Feed my Sheep” and “Follow me” after describing how Peter will live and die implies that we as Christ’s flock should be under Peter’s care, follow him, and trust those who are his successors.

Ok.
I would consider that a narrow reading, but I can see where Catholics might think this way.

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

I think reading the Bible can lead to the Orthodox Church except for one part, Peter. Within John 21: 15-19, Jesus charge him with care of the flock. From my limited understanding, “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, “Feed my Sheep” and “Follow me” after describing how Peter will live and die implies that we as Christ’s flock should be under Peter’s care, follow him, and trust those who are his successors.

Actually, an implication is not a strong enough basis for what the church claimed in 1870AD for the bishop of Rome (which, if denied could merit a Catholic damnation).

In the rest of the world this passage is understood as part of the castigation of Saint Peter, after a grueling confession over his triple denial of Christ. The result was Saint Peter was once again allowed to join his brothers and admonished to do his job as bishop properly.

The manner of his death he would accept as his penance.

 

[JRKH]

If by “Trail of Blood” you mean an “underground” church existing within the Roman church as outlined by some Baptist groups…no, that is not a Quaker belief.

If you mean people of faith who sought to follow Christ in the belief structure available to them through the teachings of the Roman church…then…yes…Friends believe that there is the Universal Light of Christ in all people that leads them to salvation whether they know of the man from Nazareth or not…God’s grace is universal in scope…and all who live according to the Light Within know salvation. That the beliefs of the existing faith tradition would exempify the Inner Light is a different matter…some faith traditions have a better understanding of the Light Within than others…but this Light is available to all.

One of the reasons Friends used the term “Society of Friends” instead of “Church of Friends” is because it is our testimony there is only One Church and it is found where two or three gather together in his Name. The Church meets for worship…hence “Friend’s Meeting”.

Thanks for the clarifiaction.

Peace
James

 

[chaunceygardner]

I would say that a very thorough reading of the NT, and a good understanding of how and why these writings came to be, will lead some people into a deeper understanding of God. Personally, I can’t say it would bring me closer to the Catholic Church, but it is bringing me closer to Him.

Sambos671 wrote: “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."

I would generally agree with *Publisher *regarding his response to “one tradition”. If one reads the Gospels and some of Paul’s letters carefully and with a focus on meaning and intent, you can see that they came from somewhat different faith traditions. They each focused on different aspects of Jesus. Since there was little “cross-communication” (no internet, no tv, no newspapers, no books) there was no easy method of communicating, and the widespread Christian communities developed somewhat different beliefs, traditions and practices. This is further emphasized in the many “non-canonical” texts that have come to light. Over time, these varying beliefs and practices were consolidated, as we know. The history of the process is plainly evident in the writings of the Church Fathers of the first few centuries, and in the records of the councils where these ideas were sifted through.

However, I would take issue with Publisher over this statement: "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.”

That would seem to imply that every community, the followers of each Apostle, all had a differering set of beliefs and all were in competition with one another. There was likely more unity of belief amongst the majority than there was discord. Not every different “belief” was of a serious nature, and as we know from Paul and Acts, some of those disagreements were resolved.

Publisher also brings up one of the great questions of the NT. Were the quotes from the OT prophets really made at the time of the NT events, or were some added later, during the telling and the writing, to build the connection between the the two, and to reinterpret the prophecies to reflect on Jesus?

A great example is in the birth narrative, contained in only Luke and Matthew (with each telling the story differently). Who was there at the time to note what happened? Who would recall or record 30, 40 or 50 years later what Anna and Simeon said at the Temple? Why was it important to some of the disciples that Jesus be born in Bethlehem? Why was that story in Luke and Matthew and not in Mark and John? Was it not important to Mark or John, or perhaps would it not agree with the theology contained in their Gospels?

These are the kind of questions that come to mind when you read the bible without pre-conceptions. They make you think, and wonder, and search for the answers, for the meaning.

In doing so, you can also strip away the restrictive conditions, the baggage, the misdirections that each denomination has placed on these writings over the years, trying to prove they are right. It can be very refreshing, like coming upon a cool, sparkling spring after a long trek through the desert.

 

[Publisher]

I would say that a very thorough reading of the NT, and a good understanding of how and why these writings came to be, will lead some people into a deeper understanding of God. Personally, I can’t say it would bring me closer to the Catholic Church, but it is bringing me closer to Him.

Sambos671 wrote: “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."

I would generally agree with *Publisher *regarding his response to “one tradition”. If one reads the Gospels and some of Paul’s letters carefully and with a focus on meaning and intent, you can see that they came from somewhat different faith traditions. They each focused on different aspects of Jesus. Since there was little “cross-communication” (no internet, no tv, no newspapers, no books) there was no easy method of communicating, and the widespread Christian communities developed somewhat different beliefs, traditions and practices. This is further emphasized in the many “non-canonical” texts that have come to light. Over time, these varying beliefs and practices were consolidated, as we know. The history of the process is plainly evident in the writings of the Church Fathers of the first few centuries, and in the records of the councils where these ideas were sifted through.

However, I would take issue with Publisher over this statement: "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.”

That would seem to imply that every community, the followers of each Apostle, all had a differering set of beliefs and all were in competition with one another. There was likely more unity of belief amongst the majority than there was discord. Not every different “belief” was of a serious nature, and as we know from Paul and Acts, some of those disagreements were resolved.

Publisher also brings up one of the great questions of the NT. Were the quotes from the OT prophets really made at the time of the NT events, or were some added later, during the telling and the writing, to build the connection between the the two, and to reinterpret the prophecies to reflect on Jesus?

A great example is in the birth narrative, contained in only Luke and Matthew (with each telling the story differently). Who was there at the time to note what happened? Who would recall or record 30, 40 or 50 years later what Anna and Simeon said at the Temple? Why was it important to some of the disciples that Jesus be born in Bethlehem? Why was that story in Luke and Matthew and not in Mark and John? Was it not important to Mark or John, or perhaps would it not agree with the theology contained in their Gospels?

These are the kind of questions that come to mind when you read the bible without pre-conceptions. They make you think, and wonder, and search for the answers, for the meaning.

In doing so, you can also strip away the restrictive conditions, the baggage, the misdirections that each denomination has placed on these writings over the years, trying to prove they are right. It can be very refreshing, like coming upon a cool, sparkling spring after a long trek through the desert.

In reading the gospels in order…after reading Paul, we see something emerge…Paul understood that Jesus became God’s Son at his resurrection…or at least Jesus was vindicated and was “raised a life giving spirit” as he mentions in 1 Cor. Mark seems to indicate that Jesus became God’s Son at his baptism…“Today I have begotten you…”…Luke and Matthew have Jesus God’s Son at his birth…and John has Jesus God’s Son before his birth and existed with Him from the beginning.

Christian belief grew…and as new understandings of who this man was came to be taught…so did the writings begin to take on this appearance. Also the writings of the “Other Christians” of the time give even more radical and different “interpretations” of who Jesus was and what was his nature. The Marcionites sought to divorce Christianity completely from it’s Jewish roots and in fact Marcion was the first to suggest a “canon of Christian scripture”…which he compled using some of Paul’s letters and an abreviated version of Luke. He wanted Christianity to be completely other.

I don’t suggest that each of the early Christian communities truly had an apostle that they decended from…each Christian community CLAIMED to have one. We know very very little of what happened to any of the apostles other than what has been preserved in tradition. That there were “twelve apostles” may have simply been a literary device for the gospel writers to harken back toward their Jewish roots and recall the “twelve tribes” and Jesus as the new Moses. Not too many of the apostles are even mentioned in Acts…and Paul doesn’t mention too many other than Peter and James, the Lord’s brother, who wasn’t an original “apostle”.

The time between Jesus’ death and the claims of the ECF’s as they consolidated some of their version and interpretation of the “Jesus story” was a good 50-100 years. Again, those who’s beliefs gained prominence became the writers and preservers of “history”…not those who lost and who’s different faith traditions faded into the backgroud of obscurity.

What we know of those early “Christianities” comes to us from their writing that have been discovered in the last 150 years or so…before that we relied on the ECF’s to tell us what they termed “heresies” believed. The Nag Hamaddi Library contained some of the scriptures of these spread out different communities.

A good book on the subject and a good overview of the Early Christian movement is Robert Price’s book “The Pre-Nicene New Testament”.

 

[chaunceygardner]

A very good point about the four gospels, providing more detail about a major difference in them. When does Jesus become “divine”? The accepted doctrine developed by the church is that He is eternally divine, one with God from the beginning. But the synoptic Gospels and Paul don’t say that.

Was Jesus a divine being who became a man? Was Jesus a man who became a divine being? And if so, when?

These questions obviously take issue with the doctrine of the Catholic Church and other denominations, but they are questions that pop out at you when you read the bible with an open mind and heart. They occurred to many of the earliest disciples and they still occur today.

 

[JRKH]

If by “Trail of Blood” you mean an “underground” church existing within the Roman church as outlined by some Baptist groups…no, that is not a Quaker belief.

Yes - This is mainly what I was thinking of. I am glad that the quakers do not subsribe to this.

If you mean people of faith who sought to follow Christ in the belief structure available to them through the teachings of the Roman church…then…yes…Friends believe that there is the Universal Light of Christ in all people that leads them to salvation whether they know of the man from Nazareth or not…God’s grace is universal in scope…and all who live according to the Light Within know salvation. That the beliefs of the existing faith tradition would exempify the Inner Light is a different matter…some faith traditions have a better understanding of the Light Within than others…but this Light is available to all.

This is well said, but then leads me to another question - more related to the OP. The Catholic Church has always held a wide range of practices ranging from the highly rational and logical such as Augustine and Aquanis, to the highly mystical such as John of the Cross and Catherine of Sienna. She has supported many different communities of religious with widely varying approaches to holiness and growing closer to God. She has also taught that salvation outside of the Church is possible, but more difficult. The Catholic Church has always been a “kingdom with many mansions”. In light of this fact I wonder why the Quakers feel it necessary to have their community outside of the ancient Church instead of inside her.

One of the reasons Friends used the term “Society of Friends” instead of “Church of Friends” is because it is our testimony there is only One Church and it is found where two or three gather together in his Name. The Church meets for worship…hence “Friend’s Meeting”.

Since Christ, in the same passage where he says that he is with “two or three gathered in His name”, also tells us to take our troubles to “The Church” and to abide by the decision of “The Church” (Mt 18 15-18) May I ask how Quakers interpret this passage?

I apologize if the above seems too off topic, but in all honesty this is one of the passages that reaffirmed me in my return to The Church three years ago, so maybe it is germain to the topic.

Peace
James

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sambos671,

Great Post…

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

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?

Ah, but one thing I am dying to ask… just what is the: “Tiber Bungee Jumping team” ?

Have a great day!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

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.

That is unsound reasoning - it’s no different from saying “Only a liar could remain Catholic”. Both statements rely on blackening others by assigning their failure to agree with one to bad motives, rather than to reasons which they at least find persuasive; even if those with different views do not.​

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

What religion if any people embrace depends in large measure on “subjective” factors - on one’s “personal equation”. There is no reason at all why someone with a profound knowledge of the Bible should not become, & stay, a Protestant. It is a great mistake to imagine that one can be Protestant only if one is either unlearned or unintelligent or dishonest or some combination of these. It’s also a mistake to imagine that Protestantism in all its varieties is without intellectual substance - if it were that feeble, it would not have survived so long or spread so widely or been found so satisfying to heart and mind by so many.​

Besides, none of these facts are unknown to Protestant historians of the canon - the same facts can be understood in different ways, & combined in different ways, & different (or no) conclusions drawn.

BTW, the argument from history proves nothing theological, for it does not in any way replace the grace of faith, which God Alone gives, & only as He wills. That is persuasive, because it speaks to the heart as no facts of history ever could. But history can no more prove faith than size can prove colour: they are completely unrelated. They cannot do one another’s work.

Some of your post will have some force against Protestant Fundamentalists - but not against Protestants who are not Fundamentalists: which is most of them. To PFs, some of this may be news.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Talk of a Pope in the modern sense of the word had to wait a few centuries. The word was used for other bishops as well, in the third century. Peter was never pope, or even a bishop - he was an Apostle, which is much more than a mere bishop, even if that bishop be a Pope (in the modern sense).​

Doctrinal formulae are apt to make history look far more cut-and-dried than it is.

 

[Arthur001]

Taking the top question at face value, which bible are we talking about?

Luther was reading Erasmus’s New Testament in Greek.

So were some English guys at Oxford.

My source for this is Patrick Collinson “The Reformation”.

 

[sambos671]

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.

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

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

Well, In modern times there is this distinction but either orthodoxy would compel itself to the study of scriptures in their entirety.

You’re first point is taken. However on a theoretical basis a person can “do nothing” and are legally claimed as justified. Taken for granted that they are not living a life of sin which questions their first arrangement.

Why do I suppose they aren’t? Basically from the sampling that I’ve tested. (ie speaking to pastors, College professors, etc…) When confronted with questions of these types I do not get a complete lucid argument but rather a rhetoric if that. Most Pastors would say “those type questions are theologians; I’m just trying to get people live the basics of their faith” and leave it with “I don’t know.” Strangely enough Prophesors I’ve asked while at college leave it at “those questions have been handeled” which to me is remenisent of “tote the party line” Even when I read Dr. Gleason Archer’s Encylcopedia of Bible Difficulties I do not get a satisfactory answer with regard to some of these questions.
I can not speak for other Protestants. I can only speak for myself. It seems to me the questions I pose are honest and unavoidable. My conclusion lead me back to the catholic faith. How is it then that the others who’ve encountered these same questions have not?

1. what conclusion lead them not to the orthodoxy of christianity?
2. what evidence did they find compeling to keep them away?
3. what authority or methodolgy can explain these issues?

Basically, this is what I wonder and am contemplating.

 

[sambos671]

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.

Possibly. However, I disagree somewhat. At least are they not struggling with the questions?

 

[sambos671]

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.
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”.
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.

So. Basically you’re saying that the 4 gospels won the “orthodoxy wars”. However, Let me ask you this question. Do you believe in the Historical figure of Jesus Christ? Or the Apostles? I ask this because currently we have no agree upon source of authority which to judge our questions and answers. If for instance there is a singular Jesus and specifically disciples which he taught. Then it stands to reason that there began a singular belief. The Apostles then transmitting this belief may have done so in different manners based on their personality and culture but the singularity or the bones of the their body of teaching must be discoverable. What then would be the singularity of teachings? Certainly it is discoverable. divergent claims to the basis would have to be a later development. We see in Pauls writings the first divergence play was by the Judiazers. The gnostic writers, the ebionites, Marcion were very far from the begining mind you. Looking back 2000 years it may not seem that way but if we look back say 200 + years to the founding of the US we may say how long ago that was and how many ideas have since changed. So lets say in the 100’s we have the beginings of a strong gnostic movement that picked up in popularity in the two hundreds even Marcion was excumincated in 144 AD (CE). Many years after the origins of christianity and Paul. Still, there is a core believe or bare bones what do you say it is? And is it discoverable. My contention it is by the NT it self and the consistency of the ECF where they are consistent. Many bible scholars do hold to the tradition of the authorship of the Gospels. Luke may have been cleaned up however according to his testimony he spoke with eyewitnesses. So is their any validity to Luke?
I think trite the age old addage that “The victors write history” This is only partly true. The victors do not write history in its entirety. Have you noticed how history always reveals evidence that depart from the party line of the victors? There is always evidence to the contradict or support the “victors take on history” The very rocks record history as well. How many americans look positively on their treatment of the Native Americans? Fewer than in 1900. Yet, certainly the Americans won the indian wars. Yet we have evidence that the propeganda was not true.
Final note. Dan Brown considers the gnostic gospels to be as valid as the NT ones. His story is fictional but the basis on which he portrays his story is to his liking by his own admission.

 

[sambos671]

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

No its germaine to baptist. Especially fundamental.

 

[sambos671]

Hi, Sambos671,

Great Post…

Ah, but one thing I am dying to ask… just what is the: “Tiber Bungee Jumping team” ?

Have a great day!

I was raised Catholic Jumped the tiber away from the Catholic Church and was snapped back.

 

[Publisher]

Yes - This is mainly what I was thinking of. I am glad that the quakers do not subsribe to this.

This is well said, but then leads me to another question - more related to the OP. The Catholic Church has always held a wide range of practices ranging from the highly rational and logical such as Augustine and Aquanis, to the highly mystical such as John of the Cross and Catherine of Sienna. She has supported many different communities of religious with widely varying approaches to holiness and growing closer to God. She has also taught that salvation outside of the Church is possible, but more difficult. The Catholic Church has always been a “kingdom with many mansions”. In light of this fact I wonder why the Quakers feel it necessary to have their community outside of the ancient Church instead of inside her.

**I understand you base your premise that the Catholic church IS the Church…that is where we disagree. It is an institution which presereved much of Western history and the dominant religious ideas of those first centuries after Jesus of Nazareth left this world. Friends do not believe that the “ancient church” to be the Catholic church…to keep going back asking “Why it was necessary to have…outside of the ancient church…” really doesn’t address our beliefs.

Christ is present in our world now, calling men and women to follow him. Those who follow the Light Within and share in his incarnation share in his Life. Those that share in his Life ARE members of the Church in our modern age, just as those in ancient times were members of the Church who shared in his Life then. It is our witness and testimony that “Christ is Present among his people to teach them himself.”…to teach them to love…to show mercy…to seek justice…to be people of peace and compassion. The two great commandments…"Love God and love one’s neighbor IS the sum of the Law and the Prophets…all else is “fluff”**

Since Christ, in the same passage where he says that he is with “two or three gathered in His name”, also tells us to take our troubles to “The Church” and to abide by the decision of “The Church” (Mt 18 15-18) May I ask how Quakers interpret this passage?

If I am a member of the Church and meet with other members of the Church…would I not take my trouble to them? The Church is present where his people are present. Surely you’re not implying that if a Catholic has issue with another Catholic they must take it to the 1.5 billion members of the Catholic church to resolve the issue? Wouldn’t they take their problem to a local assembly of believers?

I apologize if the above seems too off topic, but in all honesty this is one of the passages that reaffirmed me in my return to The Church three years ago, so maybe it is germain to the topic.

Peace
James

 

[Publisher]

So. Basically you’re saying that the 4 gospels won the “orthodoxy wars”.

The Gospels point us to the Source…they are not the source itself. The gospels we have seek to give meaning to this amazing Life that was lived out in our humanity. They are a window into his life…they are not the Life itself.

However, Let me ask you this question. Do you believe in the Historical figure of Jesus Christ?

I do believe that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Or the Apostles?

**I believe there were followers of Jesus called Apostles…whether there were 12 or if this was a literary device used by the writers to contrast the 12 Tribes of Israel under Moses with the New Moses is unsure to me. We know very little from the gospels or NT as a whole what happened to any of the apostles other than Peter, Judas, we know he either fell on rocks and died or hanged himself…the two accounts of his death do not agree…Philip (in Acts), John (in Acts, the rest by pious stories of exile and attempts at killing him), James brother of John, who was put to death by the sword, later Paul and James the “Lord’s brother” (Paul’s letters and Acts).

The apostles fall off the face of the earth except for a small listing in scripture…other than tradition and legend, we know nothing of these men. Just as “nature abhors a vacuum” so does church men…they composed pious stories of the men named apostles to fill the vacuum.**

I ask this because currently we have no agree upon source of authority which to judge our questions and answers.

**Perhaps it is the “questions being asked” that are the problem, not the lack of a source of authority to answer them. The questions I want answers for are, "How do I treat my neighbor? Whom do I show kindness? “Who is my neighbor?” All other issues and questions I leave to those who believe other questions are necessary. My source of authority is the Light Within…the Holy Spirit who would guide us to all Truth…not to appear as if I’m trivializing any “questions” other’s may have, but asking whether Mary kept her hymen after Jesus birth…or if she cried out in child birth…or if she died before she was assumed into heaven…how long will someone stay in purgatory…is limbo real or just pious speculation…etc etc…simply does not answer the ills of this world for me.

I don’t need a priest or minister to answer questions that have no practical application in how I deal with my neighbor…or feed those hungry…or clothe those naked…or show love and mercy to those who call me “Enemy.” My questions are answered as those of us who gather in worship seek him and listen for his voice. A Quaker addage…“We live in that virture of Life and Power of which the Apostles lived.”…our Source is the same as theirs…the Risen Christ…the Light Within…the One who is Present in our midst…the one in need who wears his face…“I was hungry…I was thirsty…I was alone…”…we know where He is.**

f for instance there is a singular Jesus and specifically disciples which he taught. Then it stands to reason that there began a singular belief.

There is…"Love one another…love your enemies…do good to those who despitefully use you…"

The Apostles then transmitting this belief may have done so in different manners based on their personality and culture but the singularity or the bones of the their body of teaching must be discoverable.

It is…in the lives of the People of God who follow him and listen…"My sheep hear my voice…"

What then would be the singularity of teachings? Certainly it is discoverable. divergent claims to the basis would have to be a later development.

**Agreed…divergent claims of what was truly necessary…of what rites and rituals now had to be performed and by whom were all “nailed to the cross”…we can approach the throne of grace in boldness and call God “Abba”…without priest or intermediary…that was what captivated and still captivates Friends…and those in every age who seek to live in incarnation with him. All those “rules and regulations” all the rituals and rites were a later development as men sought to return back to what they were comfortable with.

Friends don’t seek 'Fire insurance"…the next life will take care of itself as we share in the Kingdom now…in his Life now.**

We see in Pauls writings the first divergence play was by the Judiazers. The gnostic writers, the ebionites, Marcion were very far from the begining mind you. Looking back 2000 years it may not seem that way but if we look back say 200 + years to the founding of the US we may say how long ago that was and how many ideas have since changed. So lets say in the 100’s we have the beginings of a strong gnostic movement that picked up in popularity in the two hundreds even Marcion was excumincated in 144 AD (CE). Many years after the origins of christianity and Paul. Still, there is a core believe or bare bones what do you say it is? And is it discoverable.

It is discoverable…just as it was then…just as all the competing groups sought dominance…we can use history as a source and the fatih traditions of our Befores to shed light on what they believed…but we must find our own way and believe not because we are told what to believe…another Quaker addage…"Thee says what the apostles and prophets say…thee says what Christ has said…but what can thee say?"

My contention it is by the NT it self and the consistency of the ECF where they are consistent. Many bible scholars do hold to the tradition of the authorship of the Gospels. Luke may have been cleaned up however according to his testimony he spoke with eyewitnesses. So is their any validity to Luke?

cont next post.