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

[sambos671]

Publisher,

This ‘Christian competing faith’ concept is rather new to me, only since coming to this forum as a matter of fact. Would you please suggest some sources that I may study this further. No offense, but this sounds somewhat like it may have its origins from the Ivy League. I am always curious. Thank you.

Peace, Graubo

It is held by some Ivy leagers. As well as some from Oxford. What it basically purports is that Gnosticism which can be viewed by the literature found in Nag Hammurabi, Egypt was just as viable an early Christian view as what we consider Orthodox today. It states that there were many divergent Christian views and the books selected and theological implications were in the end favored by politics and majority view. That No Christian Tradition is truely reflective of Jesus and his disciples. That the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches have only given us one or two of the many christianities. That there was a conserted effort to rid the world of the “other” traditions so now we are not left with an accurate or full picture of Christianity. Dan Brown touches on this in his books. John Dominic Crossan also holds to this. They even go so far as to “vote” on what is accurately recorded of Jesus in the Gospels by bead count. Unfortunately its based on a predetermined bias. Dr. Crossan believes that the ressurection is found in Jesus’ body being thrown in a pit and eaten by wild dogs. Many who hold this view also deny the historicity of the person of Jesus Christ but not all.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher,

This ‘Christian competing faith’ concept is rather new to me, only since coming to this forum as a matter of fact. Would you please suggest some sources that I may study this further. No offense, but this sounds somewhat like it may have its origins from the Ivy League. I am always curious. Thank you.

Peace, Graubo

You may want to examine Eilene Pagel’s "The Gnostic Gospels"and "Beyond Belief, Robert Price’s “Pre-Nicene New Testament” and Bart Erhman’s “Lost Christianities” for a “short list”.

 

[SimonArizona]

wow Quaker. Very cool. what is that exactly?

 

[Bob4BVM]

You may want to examine Eilene Pagel’s "The Gnostic Gospels"and "Beyond Belief, Robert Price’s “Pre-Nicene New Testament” and Bart Erhman’s “Lost Christianities” for a “short list”.

All fact and supported by the real Gospels I assume ?

+Peace,
Bob

 

[Bob4BVM]

It is held by some Ivy leagers. As well as some from Oxford. What it basically purports is that Gnosticism which can be viewed by the literature found in Nag Hammurabi, Egypt was just as viable an early Christian view as what we consider Orthodox today. It states that there were many divergent Christian views and the books selected and theological implications were in the end favored by politics and majority view. That No Christian Tradition is truely reflective of Jesus and his disciples. That the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches have only given us one or two of the many christianities. That there was a conserted effort to rid the world of the “other” traditions so now we are not left with an accurate or full picture of Christianity. Dan Brown touches on this in his books. John Dominic Crossan also holds to this. They even go so far as to “vote” on what is accurately recorded of Jesus in the Gospels by bead count. Unfortunately its based on a predetermined bias. Dr. Crossan believes that the ressurection is found in Jesus’ body being thrown in a pit and eaten by wild dogs. Many who hold this view also deny the historicity of the person of Jesus Christ but not all.

I’d be careful with some of these ‘sources’.
Dan Brown has written as ‘documentary fact’, what is a pack of half-truths, misconceptions, and outright lies.
Crossan also has his own version of ‘history’.
No honest historian gives these nuts any credence.

And then there is the Bible’s account of Jesus, the Man.
Handed to us by the church He founded and promised to protect from error.

+Peace,
Bob

 

[Bob4BVM]

Indeed. God has called us from the beginning. And all who Follow the Will of God are indeed His friends, and His Children.
Christ has called us friends and these friends of God did indeed join together in a society. They did so from the beginning and so the “Society of Friends”, better known as the Universal (Catholic) Church has been in existance ever since.

I do not say the above in opposition to you or your faith community, but rather to try and demonstrate that the Friends of God have been organized for much longer than the last couple hundred years.
Also, it is not that I feel you are wrong in your faith, but rather to encourage you (and others) to seek the fullness available in the Ancient Church, particularly through the great gift of the Holy Eucharist.

May God continue to Bless you on Your Journey.

peace
James

Indeed James !
Though this is a side discussion for this thread, your comments and others’ are good.
To our friend Publisher, I would happily repeat that it is not about any one group being right or wrong, but rather it is a question of HOW MUCH of the total truth we can gain in our paths to God.
Like when moving from high school to college… maybe the same general subjects, but much more in-depth.
And that is where the difference lies between the Catholic Church and other Christian groups- the degree of fullness of truth.
Why would I care ? because from my perspective as a previous-Protestant, I can as a Catholic get so much closer to Christ by participating in His Sacraments, especially Holy Eucharist. Knowing this now, I cannot even IMAGINE myself anywhere else.
It’s a matter of degree of Truth.
+Peace,
Bob

 

[Bob4BVM]

Also, I found this-
To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant. — Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890), Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bob4BVM,

I think there is still a lot to learn from Cardinal Newman - especially about his journey to the Catholic Church.

Also, I found this-
To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant. — Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890), Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine

God bless,