M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
That is your perspective.
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Mikeoffaith, you said:
Mike, if you are right and the papacy (leadership of the Catholic Church) - was not instituted by Christ, you must believe that the Catholic Church is a man-made church; is that what you believe? Is that what you believe about the Eastern Orthodox church as well? Both are churches instituted by mere man as opposed to Jesus the God man?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
:tiphat:Ok. You say the Catholic Church is a Christian Church. You say Christ started the Christian Church. Now you finish up the post with ‘…don’t mean Jesus started it.’
If as you say, Christ didn’t start the Catholic Church, then Christ did not start a Church.
Christ started a Christian following. This following was first called Christian then many years later it was NAMED Catholic.
Not all of Christs disciples followed this religion. Paul started Pauline Christianity.
Then Saul, who started calling himself “Paul,” had a stroke of genius. He artfully combined traditional Hebrew ideas with those of pagan Greek philosophy, creating a new religion that could appeal to both Jews and Gentiles. He began preaching that Jesus was actually God, that Jesus’ death was linked to the Jewish system of sacrifice, that one could be saved by simply believing, and that the Mosaic law was obsolete. Paul’s zealous missionary activity and persuasive writings took his new “gospel” around the Roman Empire. The Jerusalem Church, including Peter and James, disowned Paul as a heretic and cult leader.
After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jewish Church lost authority, but the Gentile Church founded by Paul increased its influence. One of Paul’s fervent followers wrote the book of Acts, which gave Paul legendary status with its glowing portrayal of him as the hero of the church. Later, four unknown writers gathered scraps of information about Jesus and wrote books they called “Matthew,” “Mark,” Luke,” and “John”—but Paul’s theology, already dominant in the church, tainted the writers’ perspective. Thus, Paul’s religion won out over Jesus’ religion. and that the Mosaic law was obsolete. Paul’s zealous missionary activity and persuasive writings took his new “gospel” around the Roman Empire. The Jerusalem Church, including Peter and James, disowned Paul as a heretic and cult leader.
After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jewish Church lost authority, but the Gentile Church founded by Paul increased its influence. One of Paul’s fervent followers wrote the book of Acts, which gave Paul legendary status with its glowing portrayal of him as the hero of the church. Later, four unknown writers gathered scraps of information about Jesus and wrote books they called “Matthew,” “Mark,” Luke,” and “John”—but Paul’s theology, already dominant in the church, tainted the writers’ perspective. Thus, Paul’s religion won out over Jesus’ religion.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
Dr. John Eck used the term not against the Lutheran Church. There was no church at the time, there were a group of people who were aligned with Luther. Eck used this the term Lutheran to refer to this group as a pejorative. Later much later, the adherents did end up using the name. However if you read Luther’s collected works, you would know that Luther himself said that his name should not be used for anything, that if people wanted to call themselves anything they should call themselves Christians, because it is Christ who we must have in sight at all times.
And despite the name I will still claim that Lutheran Church is just as catholic as the Roman Church. But you seem to be the one hung up on naming conventions not me.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
Read the post Joe and don’t twist it around. It’s the difference between what was and is now. Not was once and has always been.
J
joe370
Guest
I am not attempting to twist your words and I’m cool with what ever you believe. I was just wondering if you would simply answer the following questions: if you are right and the papacy (leadership of the Catholic Church) - was not instituted by Christ, you must believe that the Catholic Church is a man-made church; is that what you believe?
Is that what you believe about the Eastern Orthodox church as well?
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Kevin…
Cyril of Jerusalem was a theologian of the early Church (313 – 386) - who wrote:
“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D.
In your estimation, did Paul, who belonged to the CC, according to Cyril, belong to the same catholic church to which the following Bishops belonged?
Ignatius of Antioch (Turkey) - was the third Bishop of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle:
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Irenaeus (2nd century AD – 202) - was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyons, France). He was an early church father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Evangelist:
“Nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; **while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).
**
Tertullian (160 – 220 AD) - was an early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa:
“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).
Polycarp (69 – 155 AD) - was a 2nd century Christian bishop of Smyrna (Anatolia) - and disciple of John the Apostle. The Island Of Patmos is located in the Aegean Sea just off the west coast of Anatolia, or Asia Minor. It was there that the The Apostle John was given to write the book of Revelation, including the letters to the The Seven Churches - Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea:
“All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
Cyprian was a bishop of Carthage, an ancient city on the northern shore of Africa (250 AD):
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).
So, that early Christian following belonged to Jesus’ church which was eventually given the name - catholic? Agreed. Do you know why the early bishops started referring to Jesus’ church as catholic? I didn’t as a former non-Catholic.
What other religions, early on, did Christs disciples follow, other than Christianity in the Catholic Church?
Agreed. Peter and Paul belonged to the same church - correct?
Cyril of Jerusalem was a theologian of the early Church (313 – 386) - who wrote:
“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D.
In your estimation, did Paul, who belonged to the CC, according to Cyril, belong to the same catholic church to which the following Bishops belonged?
Ignatius of Antioch (Turkey) - was the third Bishop of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle:
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Irenaeus (2nd century AD – 202) - was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyons, France). He was an early church father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Evangelist:
“Nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; **while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).
**
Tertullian (160 – 220 AD) - was an early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa:
“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).
Polycarp (69 – 155 AD) - was a 2nd century Christian bishop of Smyrna (Anatolia) - and disciple of John the Apostle. The Island Of Patmos is located in the Aegean Sea just off the west coast of Anatolia, or Asia Minor. It was there that the The Apostle John was given to write the book of Revelation, including the letters to the The Seven Churches - Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea:
“All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
Cyprian was a bishop of Carthage, an ancient city on the northern shore of Africa (250 AD):
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).
J
joe370
Guest
Rev Kevin, did you write the following and do you believe the following:
“Paul’s zealous missionary activity and persuasive writings took his new “gospel” around the Roman Empire. The Jerusalem Church, including **Peter and James, disowned Paul as a heretic and cult leader…**After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jewish Church lost authority, but the Gentile Church founded by Paul increased its influence…but Paul’s theology, already dominant in the church, tainted the writers’ perspective. **Thus, Paul’s religion won out over Jesus’ religion.” **
“Paul’s zealous missionary activity and persuasive writings took his new “gospel” around the Roman Empire. The Jerusalem Church, including **Peter and James, disowned Paul as a heretic and cult leader…**After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jewish Church lost authority, but the Gentile Church founded by Paul increased its influence…but Paul’s theology, already dominant in the church, tainted the writers’ perspective. **Thus, Paul’s religion won out over Jesus’ religion.” **
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
PLEASE provide a link to the stuff you copy and paste. Thanks.
It surprises me that anyone would put the writers of the New Testament at odds with each other. Tell me, why did Paul write ALL the Churches telling them to be of the same mind and judgment?
Also tell me why the men of the Church placed writing of men ‘at odds’ with each other, to the point of considering the other as a heretic, in the same Bible?
I’m sorry, there is NO logic to that argument and I find it sad to go to such extremes for the sake of disagreeing with Catholics. :tsktsk:
L
LaymanX
Guest
Labels are used to make clear that which was originally unclear, not necessarily non-existent. Christians were first a sect within Judaism. The only difference being that their founder, Jesus was claimed to be the true Messiah, the Christ. They were known originally as “the people of the Way.” Who’s way, the way of Jesus, because he is the true Messiah, the Christ. Hence, little Christs aka Christians. This began in Antioch. If you follow the Gospel accounts with a framework which accepts Markan priority. Galilee is the central place or headquarter for Christian ministry aka primary See. In Luke, of course the See of Rome takes precedence. The reason being that the Jewish sect became predominated by more and more Gentiles. St Peter & St Paul, together moved the See from Antioch to Rome with the intention of becoming explicitly universal (without cultural boundaries). Universal = Catholic. We already see the beginnings of what later Christians would call ‘Catholic.’
1 Corinthians 3:4 explicitly rejects labeling any particular sect within Christianity by any other name than Jesus. In this case, Paul and Apollos. There may have been incipient forms of “Pauline Christianity” or Johannine Christianity" or whatever… this was never endorsed by the Apostles, and in fact, was repeatedly rejected as un-Christian. The first letter to the Corinthians is believed to be one of the authentic letters of Paul, so it would be problematic to say the St Paul intended to created a new version of Christianity.
St Peter and St James may have been uncomfortable with St Paul’s progressive ideals regarding Catholicity (no ethnic boundaries). But this was never a heretical idea. Even the genealogies in the Gospels reflect a Catholic agenda by adding non-Jewish women as part of Jesus’ history. The Gospels reflect oral traditions which most critical scholars these days would say predates the Pauline Epistles, even it was codified into the written form of the Gospels later than the Pauline Epistles.
The Jerusalem Church never had the kind of authority you are thinking about (in the sense of membership numbers or theological dominance). The Jewish Christian sect was always a minority in Jerusalem compared to the mainstream Pharisees, Sadduccees, and Herodians. The Jesus movement began in Galilee (Mark 16:8; Matt. 28:16, then moved to Antioch (then ultimately Rome) (Acts 18-28). The Antiochene School relied heavily on Pauline corpus from the outset (the only potential rival was the Alexandrian School, and they verged on the edge of Docetism, which rejected Jesus humanity). Jesus was always seen as God from the beginning of the movement. If anything the Pauline or Antiochene School made Jesus seem less divine compared to the original tendencies within the early Jesus Movement (and the older Alexandrian School).
Jerusalem had a symbolic significance because of its location which is why the first two Ecumenical Councils wanted to continue honoring the Jerusalem See. However, Jerusalem was never the “major” center with a “major” theological school (the original Sees and theological schools were in Antioch and Alexandria, then Rome). So I don’t know what you are talking about when you say Paul “created” a new kind of Christianity.
Regards,
Francis
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Rev Kev,
I am truly impressed. If CAF had an award for fictional flare … you should walk off with the top prize!
So, let me make sure I have this straight …(ah, I took a few liberties here… ) I am sure you will come up with some later edits - but, understanding what has just happened is very important … at least to undersanding the edits that will follow.
1.) Christ now did NOT start a Church - He started a ‘following’. And it was only later that this ‘following’ was called Catholic. (Ah, do you have a reference? a date? anything to back this up?)
2.) Saul, whose ‘nom de plume’ became “Paul” got a wandering physician to act as his publicist - and it was Luke the Promoter who ensured “Paul” got top billing wherever he want.
3.) Rivalry between the Jerusalem Gang and the new literary giant, “Paul” (probably generated by artistic envy and the growing royalties from all of those letter written by “Paul” and promoted by Luke) cause a break up of these groups and “Paul”. Luke, however, continued to promote “Paul” that the other guys never really had a chance.
4.) After 70AD, Luke joined up with the Gang of Three and wrote about the Life of Christ. Mark was the first one to get his version in print and then Matthew and Luke just copied what was already there. John had severe writer’s cramp and did not get started until much later. But, the real emphasis was on “Paul” and his inventive use of Jewish tradition and a new variation he dreamed up… maybe after he fell off of his horse?
Hmmmmmmm … did I miss anything?
I was amazed that God’s influence was left our of your account, Rev Kev. I would suggest an edit about now … but, I will leave that one up to you. Really, you have done so well with this creative literary spirit
God bless
I am truly impressed. If CAF had an award for fictional flare … you should walk off with the top prize!
So, let me make sure I have this straight …(ah, I took a few liberties here…
) I am sure you will come up with some later edits - but, understanding what has just happened is very important … at least to undersanding the edits that will follow.1.) Christ now did NOT start a Church - He started a ‘following’. And it was only later that this ‘following’ was called Catholic. (Ah, do you have a reference? a date? anything to back this up?)
2.) Saul, whose ‘nom de plume’ became “Paul” got a wandering physician to act as his publicist - and it was Luke the Promoter who ensured “Paul” got top billing wherever he want.
3.) Rivalry between the Jerusalem Gang and the new literary giant, “Paul” (probably generated by artistic envy and the growing royalties from all of those letter written by “Paul” and promoted by Luke) cause a break up of these groups and “Paul”. Luke, however, continued to promote “Paul” that the other guys never really had a chance.
4.) After 70AD, Luke joined up with the Gang of Three and wrote about the Life of Christ. Mark was the first one to get his version in print and then Matthew and Luke just copied what was already there. John had severe writer’s cramp and did not get started until much later. But, the real emphasis was on “Paul” and his inventive use of Jewish tradition and a new variation he dreamed up… maybe after he fell off of his horse?
Hmmmmmmm … did I miss anything?
I was amazed that God’s influence was left our of your account, Rev Kev. I would suggest an edit about now … but, I will leave that one up to you. Really, you have done so well with this creative literary spirit
God bless
P
PbloPicasso
Guest
Many years later? How many years later? How many years between being called Christian and Catholic?
When was God first called “the Trinity”? This name is not that important.
Where in the bible does it say "trinity"l Further, where in the bible does it authorize us to combine the pages of various books. And where does the scriptures call the collection of books we use today “the Bible”? We can’t go on.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I found this to be interesting. www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_historical.html
Types of Christianity in History
Who Were the First Christians?
1. Christianity was Massively Varied
Christianity is not a single, ancient religion. It is a series of religions all given the same name. Many assume that only modern Christianity to be what Christianity is. Some historical forms of Christianity have made more sense, and some have made less sense, than the Christian mythology that is common today.
“During the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day Adventists pale by comparison. Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today.
In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.”
"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)1
‘Christianity’ as a single religion is not 2,000 years old. A series of varied different religions, flowing on from one another, have all called themselves “Christian”. Rightly so. But the beliefs and form have changed so much from time to time that it is best to consider Christianity a series of religions and the word “Christianity” to be an umbrella term for multiple faiths all of which have the same name but different beliefs. Unfortunately for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment, it was thought that modern-day Christianity in its various forms, represented early Christianity. It hardly does. Christianity now is quite varied, but in history the varieties were much more exotic.
“The historian, in speaking of Christianity, has to be careful to recognize the very great changes that it has undergone, and the variety of forms that it may assume even at one epoch.”
"History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell (1946)2
“In the first few centuries CE there really was no such thing as ‘the Church’, only competing factions, of which the Literalists were one.”
"The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999)
Types of Christianity in History
Who Were the First Christians?
1. Christianity was Massively Varied
Christianity is not a single, ancient religion. It is a series of religions all given the same name. Many assume that only modern Christianity to be what Christianity is. Some historical forms of Christianity have made more sense, and some have made less sense, than the Christian mythology that is common today.
“During the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day Adventists pale by comparison. Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today.
In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.”
"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)1
‘Christianity’ as a single religion is not 2,000 years old. A series of varied different religions, flowing on from one another, have all called themselves “Christian”. Rightly so. But the beliefs and form have changed so much from time to time that it is best to consider Christianity a series of religions and the word “Christianity” to be an umbrella term for multiple faiths all of which have the same name but different beliefs. Unfortunately for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment, it was thought that modern-day Christianity in its various forms, represented early Christianity. It hardly does. Christianity now is quite varied, but in history the varieties were much more exotic.
“The historian, in speaking of Christianity, has to be careful to recognize the very great changes that it has undergone, and the variety of forms that it may assume even at one epoch.”
"History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell (1946)2
“In the first few centuries CE there really was no such thing as ‘the Church’, only competing factions, of which the Literalists were one.”
"The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999)
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, MikeofFaith,
Incorrect. In regards to the Eucharist, Luther and the Lutheran Church today believe whole heartedly in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ. The other sacraments were revered as being sacramental but did not fit into the same category with Baptism or the Eucharist and that the others should be celebrated in the church but do not hold the same weight.
This represents a real difference. Lutheran churches do not have a valid priesthood. This was rejected by the Lutherans while Luther was still alive. Without a valid priesthood there can not a valid Sacrament so that common bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ. It really does not make a difference how much good faith you have when approaching the bread and wine at your service, it simply is the Real Presence. Simply saying it is just doesn’t make it so. Luther wanted nothing to do with the organizational Catholic Church – but, this is body that validly consecrates priests who then have the authority to act in the name of Christ and consecrate the bread and wine into the Real Presence. This is not to say that God does not bless those who act in good faith, only to say that what is necessary for a valid consecration (a valid priest) is no present in Lutheran services.
Catholics believe the Sacraments confer God’s Grace when they are administered to a person with the proper disposition – the desire to please God and comply with the Laws of the Church. For example, Christ established the Sacrament of Confession in John 20:19-21. A person can go to this Sacrament in the state of mortal sin with the intention of having priest, acting in the Person of Christ, forgive the sin(s) and intending not to sin again.
Define what you mean by the Primacy of Peter.
Peter was selected by Christ to be in charge of the other Apostles, he had a special authority given by Christ and symbolized by the keys Here are two interesting links: the first explains Christ’s interventions with Peter catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp and the second are excerpts from several of the Early Church Fathers about Peter authority over the other Apostles catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
Again, incorrect. Luther taught that man made traditions had come into the church that separated people from a Christ centered perspective. Around this was the selling of indulgences, which in that time was equated with receiving God’s Grace by paying for it.
What part of “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” does not apply here? Honest, either you believe what Christ said or you don’t. Do not get me wrong, there were real abuses in the lives of many high church officials at the time of Luther – but, selling indulgences was never taught as official Catholic doctrine. This represents a major distinction and distancing – the attempted sale of indulgences or religious office or anything of a spiritual nature has always been considered simony and condemned as such. Those who did this, die not only serious wrong in the act – but, also gave public scandal to the Faithful.
I will and I will also tell you about some of the things that Lutheran changed that you now enjoy in your church today. Luther did not change any of the Marian beliefs at the time. Mary holds a place of honor as the Holy Theotokos. We retained the liturgy. That are just the two that come to mind. Somethings that changed that you enjoy today: Liturgy in the common language, scripture in the vernacular, reception by the laity of the common cup.
The common language at the time the Mass was being developed was Latin. St. Jerome translated the biblical languages of the OT and NT into the ‘vulgar’ or common language of the time: Latin. From this we call Jerome’s work the Vulgate. Bear in mind the ‘common cup’ had been around from the time of St. Paul. Recall that Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1Cor 11:27) about getting drunk and not receiving the Lord in a worthy manner. Honest, receiving Holy Communion under both species dates back to the early days of the Catholic Church. This is not something that Luther created, developed or initiated on behalf of the Catholic Church.
That’s the point, in most of these threads people put out a supposition/statement with out addressing their definitions, understandings or perspectives. Just as in the title of this post. The key thing to define here is the Catholic Church. To you, you assume that you and Bendictus 2 hold the same definition of the Catholic Church. To the Orthodox they are going to have a different definition and to Lutherans we may hold yet another definition.
I can not speak for Benedictus2, but I am happy to give you a definition of the Catholic Church. Bear in mind, this is 2,000 year old organization that has witnessed many events – from that first Pentecost Sunday to Benedict XVI today. A brief definition would go something like this: trosch.org/for/cathchur.htm A more detailed explanation can be found at this link: therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_027.htm and an even more complete definition can be found here: newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
The definition I like is that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ (the Corner Stone) on Peter (the foundation) and has four visible marks: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
God bless
Incorrect. In regards to the Eucharist, Luther and the Lutheran Church today believe whole heartedly in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ. The other sacraments were revered as being sacramental but did not fit into the same category with Baptism or the Eucharist and that the others should be celebrated in the church but do not hold the same weight.
This represents a real difference. Lutheran churches do not have a valid priesthood. This was rejected by the Lutherans while Luther was still alive. Without a valid priesthood there can not a valid Sacrament so that common bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ. It really does not make a difference how much good faith you have when approaching the bread and wine at your service, it simply is the Real Presence. Simply saying it is just doesn’t make it so. Luther wanted nothing to do with the organizational Catholic Church – but, this is body that validly consecrates priests who then have the authority to act in the name of Christ and consecrate the bread and wine into the Real Presence. This is not to say that God does not bless those who act in good faith, only to say that what is necessary for a valid consecration (a valid priest) is no present in Lutheran services.
Catholics believe the Sacraments confer God’s Grace when they are administered to a person with the proper disposition – the desire to please God and comply with the Laws of the Church. For example, Christ established the Sacrament of Confession in John 20:19-21. A person can go to this Sacrament in the state of mortal sin with the intention of having priest, acting in the Person of Christ, forgive the sin(s) and intending not to sin again.
Define what you mean by the Primacy of Peter.
Peter was selected by Christ to be in charge of the other Apostles, he had a special authority given by Christ and symbolized by the keys Here are two interesting links: the first explains Christ’s interventions with Peter catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp and the second are excerpts from several of the Early Church Fathers about Peter authority over the other Apostles catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
Again, incorrect. Luther taught that man made traditions had come into the church that separated people from a Christ centered perspective. Around this was the selling of indulgences, which in that time was equated with receiving God’s Grace by paying for it.
What part of “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” does not apply here? Honest, either you believe what Christ said or you don’t. Do not get me wrong, there were real abuses in the lives of many high church officials at the time of Luther – but, selling indulgences was never taught as official Catholic doctrine. This represents a major distinction and distancing – the attempted sale of indulgences or religious office or anything of a spiritual nature has always been considered simony and condemned as such. Those who did this, die not only serious wrong in the act – but, also gave public scandal to the Faithful.
I will and I will also tell you about some of the things that Lutheran changed that you now enjoy in your church today. Luther did not change any of the Marian beliefs at the time. Mary holds a place of honor as the Holy Theotokos. We retained the liturgy. That are just the two that come to mind. Somethings that changed that you enjoy today: Liturgy in the common language, scripture in the vernacular, reception by the laity of the common cup.
The common language at the time the Mass was being developed was Latin. St. Jerome translated the biblical languages of the OT and NT into the ‘vulgar’ or common language of the time: Latin. From this we call Jerome’s work the Vulgate. Bear in mind the ‘common cup’ had been around from the time of St. Paul. Recall that Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1Cor 11:27) about getting drunk and not receiving the Lord in a worthy manner. Honest, receiving Holy Communion under both species dates back to the early days of the Catholic Church. This is not something that Luther created, developed or initiated on behalf of the Catholic Church.
That’s the point, in most of these threads people put out a supposition/statement with out addressing their definitions, understandings or perspectives. Just as in the title of this post. The key thing to define here is the Catholic Church. To you, you assume that you and Bendictus 2 hold the same definition of the Catholic Church. To the Orthodox they are going to have a different definition and to Lutherans we may hold yet another definition.
I can not speak for Benedictus2, but I am happy to give you a definition of the Catholic Church. Bear in mind, this is 2,000 year old organization that has witnessed many events – from that first Pentecost Sunday to Benedict XVI today. A brief definition would go something like this: trosch.org/for/cathchur.htm A more detailed explanation can be found at this link: therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_027.htm and an even more complete definition can be found here: newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
The definition I like is that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ (the Corner Stone) on Peter (the foundation) and has four visible marks: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
God bless
R
rev_kevin
Guest
continued
2. The Earliest Christianities
2.1. Mithraism and Christianity (200BCE +)
Many have realized that as Christianity copied, re-named and inherited many Pagan myths, such as those of Mithraism, that it is hard to pin down a “start” date for Christian ideas. If you go back far enough, Christian history is actually pagan history.
“Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. …] The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.”
"Mithraism and Early Christianity" by Vexen Crabtree (2002)
2.2. The Therapeutae (10CE)
Early Christians were criticized for copying Pagan ideas and stories and simply re-telling them. By the 4th century, the founders of the Christian Church sought evidence and historical proof to back up their mistaken opinion that Christianity was a new religion, derived from the new revelations of Jesus. Eusebius failed to find much evidence at all, except in the book of the first century author, Philo, who described a group of people who were clearly practicing Christian rituals:
“Eusebius, the fourth-century Church propagandist, could find little evidence from which to construct a history of Christianity, so he eagerly seized upon a description in one of Philo’s books, of a group of Jews called the Therapeutae. Philo’s description of their spring festival is reminiscent of the Christian celebration of Easter and Eusebius, therefore, claimed that he had discovered the earliest Christians in Alexandria. … but] the spring, of course, was also the time when Pagans celebrated their festival of the dying and resurrecting godman, so Eusebius is unjustified in his assumption. Philo wrote about the Therapeutae in 10 CE, which would be 20 years before the supposed date of the crucifixion …]. The Therapeutae are a group of Jews clearly practising a Jewish version of the Pagan Mysteries. …] We can tell that the Therapeutae were Jews because they celebrated the Jewish festival of the Pentecost and kept sacred the Sabbath. …]”
**“The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) **
Eusebius didn’t know that Philo was writing 20 years too early, and he had therefore uncovered additional evidence that turn-of-the-millennium Jewish Paganism was almost identical to Christianity in terms of rituals and beliefs - if Jesus arrived and preached a New Testament, it seems he really didn’t have anything new to say that wasn’t already being practiced in a Christian way by pagans. The fact that “Philo can, in one sentence, compare the Therapeutae to both initiates of the Mysteries of Dionysis and the followers of Moses on the banks of the Red Sea shows just how integrated Pagan and Jewish traditions had become”. They lived “near that great melting-pot pf Pagan and Jewish cultures, Alexandria”.
Today when we trace the source of modern Christianity, we find that Christianity was codified in the 4th century. But in the fourth century, they didn’t know what the source of Christianity was although critics said it was re-hashed paganism. So in the fourth century, they too searched in history to find the source of Christianity. They found the history of their religion to pre-date the actual founding of their own religion. The ancient history of Christianity is merged with the history of Paganism and the Church Fathers in the 4th century, so much closer to original Christianity than us, even mistook a group of pagans for early Christians. It wasn’t the only time that they done this either, for when Bishop Melito in 160CE when in search of the ancient center of Christianity, he discovered only a group called the Ebionites, another ancient group that 4th century Christianity rejected as heretical
2. The Earliest Christianities
2.1. Mithraism and Christianity (200BCE +)
Many have realized that as Christianity copied, re-named and inherited many Pagan myths, such as those of Mithraism, that it is hard to pin down a “start” date for Christian ideas. If you go back far enough, Christian history is actually pagan history.
“Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. …] The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.”
"Mithraism and Early Christianity" by Vexen Crabtree (2002)
2.2. The Therapeutae (10CE)
Early Christians were criticized for copying Pagan ideas and stories and simply re-telling them. By the 4th century, the founders of the Christian Church sought evidence and historical proof to back up their mistaken opinion that Christianity was a new religion, derived from the new revelations of Jesus. Eusebius failed to find much evidence at all, except in the book of the first century author, Philo, who described a group of people who were clearly practicing Christian rituals:
“Eusebius, the fourth-century Church propagandist, could find little evidence from which to construct a history of Christianity, so he eagerly seized upon a description in one of Philo’s books, of a group of Jews called the Therapeutae. Philo’s description of their spring festival is reminiscent of the Christian celebration of Easter and Eusebius, therefore, claimed that he had discovered the earliest Christians in Alexandria. … but] the spring, of course, was also the time when Pagans celebrated their festival of the dying and resurrecting godman, so Eusebius is unjustified in his assumption. Philo wrote about the Therapeutae in 10 CE, which would be 20 years before the supposed date of the crucifixion …]. The Therapeutae are a group of Jews clearly practising a Jewish version of the Pagan Mysteries. …] We can tell that the Therapeutae were Jews because they celebrated the Jewish festival of the Pentecost and kept sacred the Sabbath. …]”
**“The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) **
Eusebius didn’t know that Philo was writing 20 years too early, and he had therefore uncovered additional evidence that turn-of-the-millennium Jewish Paganism was almost identical to Christianity in terms of rituals and beliefs - if Jesus arrived and preached a New Testament, it seems he really didn’t have anything new to say that wasn’t already being practiced in a Christian way by pagans. The fact that “Philo can, in one sentence, compare the Therapeutae to both initiates of the Mysteries of Dionysis and the followers of Moses on the banks of the Red Sea shows just how integrated Pagan and Jewish traditions had become”. They lived “near that great melting-pot pf Pagan and Jewish cultures, Alexandria”.
Today when we trace the source of modern Christianity, we find that Christianity was codified in the 4th century. But in the fourth century, they didn’t know what the source of Christianity was although critics said it was re-hashed paganism. So in the fourth century, they too searched in history to find the source of Christianity. They found the history of their religion to pre-date the actual founding of their own religion. The ancient history of Christianity is merged with the history of Paganism and the Church Fathers in the 4th century, so much closer to original Christianity than us, even mistook a group of pagans for early Christians. It wasn’t the only time that they done this either, for when Bishop Melito in 160CE when in search of the ancient center of Christianity, he discovered only a group called the Ebionites, another ancient group that 4th century Christianity rejected as heretical
R
rev_kevin
Guest
continued
2.3. The Dead Sea Scrolls (170BCE to 68BC)
Jewish history led up to Christianity to the extent that Judaism and Christianity shared a blurred boundary in history. Jesus was a Jew and historians find it difficult to classify many early texts as either Jewish or Christian. This confusion is increasingly apparent in Greek-influenced Jewish texts, or, are they Jewish-influenced texts of Roman Mystery religions? Whatever they were, we know one thing: Christianity did not suddenly arrive as a bolt from the blue, but formed part of a progression in history that led from pure paganism, through to the more ‘modern’ Christianity of the 4th century, without any sudden spurt of change or innovation.
Stephen Hodge studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written variously between 170BCE and 68BCE5, and he usefully lists many of the similarities found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to the teachings and organisation of the Jewish Christianity which was to arise from the same period in time. He concludes that these Jewish documents make the teachings and appearance of Jewish Christianity less revolutionary.
“… the collection is really an invaluable cross-section of religious material that reveals for the first time just how rich and varied Jewish spiritual life was at that time. The scrolls offer an intellectual and devotional landscape into which Jesus and his movement can be placed. No longer does Jewish Christianity seem an inexplicable, isolated occurrence. …]
In other words, the true value of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they help provide a genuine context for what was to become Christianity. For example, they tell us just how widespread was the expectation and longing for a saving Messiah among Jews at that time, and that there were a number of competing theories about the expected role of this Messiah in the world of Judaism. The scrolls also reveal that the expectation found in the Gospels that the end of the world was imminent was a dominant belief in many quarters in Judaea.”
“All biblical scholars agree that, apart from their intrinsic value, the sectarian scrolls are of tremendous importance as background information to the social and religious conditions in Judaea that led to the rise of Christianity. … There are] subtle implications that can be derived from the Qumran texts, for they not only provide interesting parallels to Christian concepts and practice but tend to reduce the uniqueness of the Yeshua movement. It is reasonable to assume that there was perhaps not that much direct contact between most members of each community, but that there was a pool of religious language and beliefs shared by many other Jewish groups which have long since disappeared.”
**“Dead Sea Scrolls” by Stephen Hodge (2001) **
Hodge lists many of the similar practices of the Dead Sea Scroll community and notes which ones were the same as those teachings accepted by the New Testament writers7. The list includes:
Common ownership of property.
Exorcism: ‘Allusions to this practice of exorcism are found in some of the writings from Qumran, such as the Genesis Apocryphon where it says, ‘so I prayed for him … and I laid my hands on his head; and the scourge departed from him and the evil spirit was expelled from him’ (XX22.29)’.
Teachings on divorce and treatment of enemies: ‘The scrolls have also been useful in providing valuable background information for ideas hitherto found only in the Gospels. For many years scholars had been baffled by the ban that Yeshua imposed upon divorce and remarriage, for this ruling had not been found in any other Jewish sources. but when works like the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document came to light, it was soon noticed that members of the Community were similarly forbidden to divorce’.
The ritual meal
The Beatitudes: ‘Even teachings of Yeshua previously thought to be unique, such as the Beatitudes which he enumerates in the course of the Sermon on the Mount, find a parallel among the writings of the Qumran Community.’ One such work is called The Beatitudes (4QBeat) where a number of virtues are mentioned in a very similar spirit to how they are in the New Testament. A series of beatitudes are listed which start ‘Blessed be they who…’
**Eschatological dualism **- a great fight between good and evil during end times
Literary style and terminology: 'Writers in the Community used the unique pesher method of interpreting older scriptural texts in terms of contemporary events. When doing so, however, they expressed their interpretations in a heavily coded manner.
2.3. The Dead Sea Scrolls (170BCE to 68BC)
Jewish history led up to Christianity to the extent that Judaism and Christianity shared a blurred boundary in history. Jesus was a Jew and historians find it difficult to classify many early texts as either Jewish or Christian. This confusion is increasingly apparent in Greek-influenced Jewish texts, or, are they Jewish-influenced texts of Roman Mystery religions? Whatever they were, we know one thing: Christianity did not suddenly arrive as a bolt from the blue, but formed part of a progression in history that led from pure paganism, through to the more ‘modern’ Christianity of the 4th century, without any sudden spurt of change or innovation.
Stephen Hodge studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written variously between 170BCE and 68BCE5, and he usefully lists many of the similarities found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to the teachings and organisation of the Jewish Christianity which was to arise from the same period in time. He concludes that these Jewish documents make the teachings and appearance of Jewish Christianity less revolutionary.
“… the collection is really an invaluable cross-section of religious material that reveals for the first time just how rich and varied Jewish spiritual life was at that time. The scrolls offer an intellectual and devotional landscape into which Jesus and his movement can be placed. No longer does Jewish Christianity seem an inexplicable, isolated occurrence. …]
In other words, the true value of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they help provide a genuine context for what was to become Christianity. For example, they tell us just how widespread was the expectation and longing for a saving Messiah among Jews at that time, and that there were a number of competing theories about the expected role of this Messiah in the world of Judaism. The scrolls also reveal that the expectation found in the Gospels that the end of the world was imminent was a dominant belief in many quarters in Judaea.”
“All biblical scholars agree that, apart from their intrinsic value, the sectarian scrolls are of tremendous importance as background information to the social and religious conditions in Judaea that led to the rise of Christianity. … There are] subtle implications that can be derived from the Qumran texts, for they not only provide interesting parallels to Christian concepts and practice but tend to reduce the uniqueness of the Yeshua movement. It is reasonable to assume that there was perhaps not that much direct contact between most members of each community, but that there was a pool of religious language and beliefs shared by many other Jewish groups which have long since disappeared.”
**“Dead Sea Scrolls” by Stephen Hodge (2001) **
Hodge lists many of the similar practices of the Dead Sea Scroll community and notes which ones were the same as those teachings accepted by the New Testament writers7. The list includes:
Common ownership of property.
Exorcism: ‘Allusions to this practice of exorcism are found in some of the writings from Qumran, such as the Genesis Apocryphon where it says, ‘so I prayed for him … and I laid my hands on his head; and the scourge departed from him and the evil spirit was expelled from him’ (XX22.29)’.
Teachings on divorce and treatment of enemies: ‘The scrolls have also been useful in providing valuable background information for ideas hitherto found only in the Gospels. For many years scholars had been baffled by the ban that Yeshua imposed upon divorce and remarriage, for this ruling had not been found in any other Jewish sources. but when works like the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document came to light, it was soon noticed that members of the Community were similarly forbidden to divorce’.
The ritual meal
The Beatitudes: ‘Even teachings of Yeshua previously thought to be unique, such as the Beatitudes which he enumerates in the course of the Sermon on the Mount, find a parallel among the writings of the Qumran Community.’ One such work is called The Beatitudes (4QBeat) where a number of virtues are mentioned in a very similar spirit to how they are in the New Testament. A series of beatitudes are listed which start ‘Blessed be they who…’
**Eschatological dualism **- a great fight between good and evil during end times
Literary style and terminology: 'Writers in the Community used the unique pesher method of interpreting older scriptural texts in terms of contemporary events. When doing so, however, they expressed their interpretations in a heavily coded manner.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
continued
2.4. Ebionite Christians (1st-4th Century)
Ebionite Christians believed that all the Jewish Laws had to be obeyed; including the Sabbath and circumcision for all males. As such, they considered St Paul to be the archenemy of Christianity as he taught that people did not have to obey the Law in order to be saved. They believed Jesus was Human, and adopted by God as a perfect sacrifice.
“The Ebionites were some of the original Christians: Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They populated the legendary Jerusalem Church. ‘Ebionite’ was sometimes used as a term to describe all Christians. Those who we now know as Pauline Christians opposed the Ebionites, after discovering them and realizing that their beliefs differed. Authors such as Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria, and many other intolerant “heresy-hunters” wrote at great length against the Ebionites. Many of the claims made against them were based on misunderstandings of their beliefs, and many anti-Ebionite claims were plainly ridiculous. [Ehrman, 2003]. Pauline Christians eradicated the Ebionites, burning all of their books (none survived) and harassing and arresting the people until none were left. They edited Luke 2:32 and 2:48 where Joseph was twice called the ‘father’ of Jesus so that it did not say so, and they also edited Luke 3:22 where it plainly stated, in accordance with Ebionite beliefs, that God adopted Jesus. Pauline Christians, as non-Jewish Romans, handily came across a mistranslated prophecy that said Jesus would be born of a virgin (like other Roman sons-of-gods), adding a whole two chapters to the beginning of Matthew to prove their point. These edits, now they are uncovered, show that the Ebionites were treated very cruelly and unfairly, and that the original readings of Matthew and Luke both support Ebionite Christianity, rather than the Pauline Christianity that the West has inherited.
If we were to guess which group was the more austere, holy and godly, we would have to guess it was the Ebionites rather than the Pauline Christians who slaughtered, slandered and oppressed them. Unfortunately the victors get to write history, and it is Pauline Christianity that became the legacy of the Roman Empire. After the fourth century, the Ebionites were vanquished.”
"1st Century Christian Ebionites: The Original Christians?" by Vexen Crabtree (2006)
2.4. Ebionite Christians (1st-4th Century)
Ebionite Christians believed that all the Jewish Laws had to be obeyed; including the Sabbath and circumcision for all males. As such, they considered St Paul to be the archenemy of Christianity as he taught that people did not have to obey the Law in order to be saved. They believed Jesus was Human, and adopted by God as a perfect sacrifice.
“The Ebionites were some of the original Christians: Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They populated the legendary Jerusalem Church. ‘Ebionite’ was sometimes used as a term to describe all Christians. Those who we now know as Pauline Christians opposed the Ebionites, after discovering them and realizing that their beliefs differed. Authors such as Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria, and many other intolerant “heresy-hunters” wrote at great length against the Ebionites. Many of the claims made against them were based on misunderstandings of their beliefs, and many anti-Ebionite claims were plainly ridiculous. [Ehrman, 2003]. Pauline Christians eradicated the Ebionites, burning all of their books (none survived) and harassing and arresting the people until none were left. They edited Luke 2:32 and 2:48 where Joseph was twice called the ‘father’ of Jesus so that it did not say so, and they also edited Luke 3:22 where it plainly stated, in accordance with Ebionite beliefs, that God adopted Jesus. Pauline Christians, as non-Jewish Romans, handily came across a mistranslated prophecy that said Jesus would be born of a virgin (like other Roman sons-of-gods), adding a whole two chapters to the beginning of Matthew to prove their point. These edits, now they are uncovered, show that the Ebionites were treated very cruelly and unfairly, and that the original readings of Matthew and Luke both support Ebionite Christianity, rather than the Pauline Christianity that the West has inherited.
If we were to guess which group was the more austere, holy and godly, we would have to guess it was the Ebionites rather than the Pauline Christians who slaughtered, slandered and oppressed them. Unfortunately the victors get to write history, and it is Pauline Christianity that became the legacy of the Roman Empire. After the fourth century, the Ebionites were vanquished.”
"1st Century Christian Ebionites: The Original Christians?" by Vexen Crabtree (2006)
R
rev_kevin
Guest
continued
2.5. Arian Christians (2nd-8th Century)
As Jewish Christianity began to develop its own character, Jesus was no longer considered to be just a man. He had a special relationship with god, and was perhaps conceived of by God before anything was created. But he was not an eternal man nor a god. Here is an excerpt from my page Arian Christianity (the Father is Greater than the Son): A Precursor to Modern Christianity:
“What Was Christian Adoptionism?
Arianism describes the pre-trinitarian doctrine of a holy, but not a godly, Jesus. It is not always adoptionism and not always monotheistic, either. It was defined by a negative principal (that logically Jesus can’t be God and still suffer on the cross). If Jesus was God (i.e., perfect), Arians realized, what chance would any Human have of imitating him? Although Arian-sounding theologies existed from the second century onwards, it only became a wide point of contention after the third century. In the third century Origen of Alexandria, the greatest theologian of his time, had declared that the Father was Greater than the Son8. This principal was later named after its principal proponent and most articulate defender, Arius (256-336CE). It was opposed by Athanasius, who became a Nicene Christian from 325CE. In the Roman Empire, Arian Christianity was supplanted by intolerant Nicene Christianity by the 5th century, but remained the most popular form of Christianity amongst the tribes surrounding the empire, until the 8th century. …]
The eventual victory of the Cappadocian Nicene faith from 380CE meant that as the Empire collapsed, the Christianity that was left behind was the dark, violent, centralized type that did not tolerate dissent. By the late fourth century, a recognizable Roman Catholic Church had emerged. The doctrine of the Trinity had been created, and the vengeful violence of Nicene Christianity was in full, open, bloody view. Anti-semitism was given its official sanction. The edited Nicene Creed was the only form of belief that was to be tolerated. Inquisitors began reviewing religious beliefs, condemning victims to imprisonment, torture and public execution for failing to believe the right things. This state of affairs persisted and plunged Christian societies into a 1000-year long dark ages. If the Arians had survived the onslaught and been the religion that the Empire left behind, we would have been left with a Christianity that would have left a glowing legacy of Jesus. Instead, the Nicene’s violence and intolerance won out, and the ‘ages of faith’ that resulted darkened humanity from the fifth until the fifteenth century.”
**
“Arian Christianity (the Father is Greater than the Son): A Precursor to Modern Christianity” by Vexen Crabtree (2008)**
2.6. Marcionite Christians (2nd-5th Century)
Marcionites believed that the God of the Old Testament (wrathful and angry) was a different God to the New Testament’s mystical and forgiving one. Their reasoning was sensible and their knowledge of Christian texts of the time was the most involved. Their collection of Christian texts into a canon was the first ever collection and formed the template for what was to become the Bible.
“At one point, the early Christian writings that were collected by Marcion, along with his own writings, were all destroyed. A domineering early Catholic Church, the Pauline Christians, committed themselves to a long-term campaign against these early Christians. Tertullian produced five volumes attacking Marcionism and distributed them throughout the Roman Empire. The honest intellectual and rational approach of Marcion to the Old Testament and the saving grace of Jesus were lost, burnt and oppressed by the more violent and aggressive Pauline Christians. It is ironic that in the name of ‘good works’, Pauline Christians murdered and tortured those who believed differently to themselves… if it is true, as Jesus says and as Marcion pointed out, that good trees do not produce rotten fruit, then have we ended up with a rotten tree grown from a rotten fruit, instead of the real Christianity as espoused by Jesus?
If it is Christian duty to ‘turn the other cheek’, ‘resist not evil’, ‘love your enemies’ and ‘love your neighbours as yourself’, then it is clear that the Pauline Christians, who eliminated Marcionism and got to choose the books of the Bible, were not the true Christians.”
"Christian Marcionites: 2nd Century Christianity" by Vexen Crabtree (2006)
]
2.5. Arian Christians (2nd-8th Century)
As Jewish Christianity began to develop its own character, Jesus was no longer considered to be just a man. He had a special relationship with god, and was perhaps conceived of by God before anything was created. But he was not an eternal man nor a god. Here is an excerpt from my page Arian Christianity (the Father is Greater than the Son): A Precursor to Modern Christianity:
“What Was Christian Adoptionism?
Arianism describes the pre-trinitarian doctrine of a holy, but not a godly, Jesus. It is not always adoptionism and not always monotheistic, either. It was defined by a negative principal (that logically Jesus can’t be God and still suffer on the cross). If Jesus was God (i.e., perfect), Arians realized, what chance would any Human have of imitating him? Although Arian-sounding theologies existed from the second century onwards, it only became a wide point of contention after the third century. In the third century Origen of Alexandria, the greatest theologian of his time, had declared that the Father was Greater than the Son8. This principal was later named after its principal proponent and most articulate defender, Arius (256-336CE). It was opposed by Athanasius, who became a Nicene Christian from 325CE. In the Roman Empire, Arian Christianity was supplanted by intolerant Nicene Christianity by the 5th century, but remained the most popular form of Christianity amongst the tribes surrounding the empire, until the 8th century. …]
The eventual victory of the Cappadocian Nicene faith from 380CE meant that as the Empire collapsed, the Christianity that was left behind was the dark, violent, centralized type that did not tolerate dissent. By the late fourth century, a recognizable Roman Catholic Church had emerged. The doctrine of the Trinity had been created, and the vengeful violence of Nicene Christianity was in full, open, bloody view. Anti-semitism was given its official sanction. The edited Nicene Creed was the only form of belief that was to be tolerated. Inquisitors began reviewing religious beliefs, condemning victims to imprisonment, torture and public execution for failing to believe the right things. This state of affairs persisted and plunged Christian societies into a 1000-year long dark ages. If the Arians had survived the onslaught and been the religion that the Empire left behind, we would have been left with a Christianity that would have left a glowing legacy of Jesus. Instead, the Nicene’s violence and intolerance won out, and the ‘ages of faith’ that resulted darkened humanity from the fifth until the fifteenth century.”
**
“Arian Christianity (the Father is Greater than the Son): A Precursor to Modern Christianity” by Vexen Crabtree (2008)**
2.6. Marcionite Christians (2nd-5th Century)
Marcionites believed that the God of the Old Testament (wrathful and angry) was a different God to the New Testament’s mystical and forgiving one. Their reasoning was sensible and their knowledge of Christian texts of the time was the most involved. Their collection of Christian texts into a canon was the first ever collection and formed the template for what was to become the Bible.
“At one point, the early Christian writings that were collected by Marcion, along with his own writings, were all destroyed. A domineering early Catholic Church, the Pauline Christians, committed themselves to a long-term campaign against these early Christians. Tertullian produced five volumes attacking Marcionism and distributed them throughout the Roman Empire. The honest intellectual and rational approach of Marcion to the Old Testament and the saving grace of Jesus were lost, burnt and oppressed by the more violent and aggressive Pauline Christians. It is ironic that in the name of ‘good works’, Pauline Christians murdered and tortured those who believed differently to themselves… if it is true, as Jesus says and as Marcion pointed out, that good trees do not produce rotten fruit, then have we ended up with a rotten tree grown from a rotten fruit, instead of the real Christianity as espoused by Jesus?
If it is Christian duty to ‘turn the other cheek’, ‘resist not evil’, ‘love your enemies’ and ‘love your neighbours as yourself’, then it is clear that the Pauline Christians, who eliminated Marcionism and got to choose the books of the Bible, were not the true Christians.”
"Christian Marcionites: 2nd Century Christianity" by Vexen Crabtree (2006)
]
R
rev_kevin
Guest
continued
**2.7. Roman Christianity / Pauline Christianity (4th Century +) **
“St Paul - History, Biblical Epistles, Gnosticism and Mithraism” by Vexen Crabtree (1999)“The gnostic Mithraists and Jewish Ebionites formed the very first Christians of the first century, with practices and beliefs based respectively on Gnostic and Judaistic rituals, symbols and practices. Pauline Christians dispensed with the difficult Jewish laws and became popular amongst gentiles, soon out-numbering the Jewish Christians, causing them to be secluded and eventually suppressed. Increasing literalism amongst roman converts then led the Pauline Christians to become obsessed with enforcing their literal interpretation of Christianities original stories, causing another huge rift with older gnostic-style Christians. With Roman power behind their printing press and the favour of Emperors, the Pauline-Nicene Christians wiped out the gnostics, annihilated the Arians after long bloody campaigns, and murdered and burnt the Marcionites and many other small sects, to leave themselves as the sole Christians within the Roman Empire, free to edit their own books to ‘prove’ how all their predecessors had been wrong. The three Cappadocian scholars promoted the Holy Spirit to the godhead to create a Trinity, which was codified strictly in to the Nicene Creed of 381, which went to careful lengths to disclaim against ‘heresy’. Emperor Theodosius published a series of forceful edicts intolerant of all non-Nicene sects. This state of affairs persisted in the West for over a thousand years from the 5th century.
Despite the number of denominations that now exist, Christian diversity has never again regained the richness it had in the first few centuries. Christianity has remained, in the West, the Pauline, Cappadocian, Nicene victor that emerged from the ashes of Christian groups within the Roman Empire and Judea. It is a shame that it appears the most worldly, least spiritual, most power-hungry, least tolerant, most violent and least honest form of Christianity is the one that survived those brutal battles of the first few centuries.”
"How Modern Christianity Began: The Cappadocian-Nicene-Pauline Roman Amalgamation" by Vexen Crabtree (2008)
**2.7. Roman Christianity / Pauline Christianity (4th Century +) **
“St Paul - History, Biblical Epistles, Gnosticism and Mithraism” by Vexen Crabtree (1999)“The gnostic Mithraists and Jewish Ebionites formed the very first Christians of the first century, with practices and beliefs based respectively on Gnostic and Judaistic rituals, symbols and practices. Pauline Christians dispensed with the difficult Jewish laws and became popular amongst gentiles, soon out-numbering the Jewish Christians, causing them to be secluded and eventually suppressed. Increasing literalism amongst roman converts then led the Pauline Christians to become obsessed with enforcing their literal interpretation of Christianities original stories, causing another huge rift with older gnostic-style Christians. With Roman power behind their printing press and the favour of Emperors, the Pauline-Nicene Christians wiped out the gnostics, annihilated the Arians after long bloody campaigns, and murdered and burnt the Marcionites and many other small sects, to leave themselves as the sole Christians within the Roman Empire, free to edit their own books to ‘prove’ how all their predecessors had been wrong. The three Cappadocian scholars promoted the Holy Spirit to the godhead to create a Trinity, which was codified strictly in to the Nicene Creed of 381, which went to careful lengths to disclaim against ‘heresy’. Emperor Theodosius published a series of forceful edicts intolerant of all non-Nicene sects. This state of affairs persisted in the West for over a thousand years from the 5th century.
Despite the number of denominations that now exist, Christian diversity has never again regained the richness it had in the first few centuries. Christianity has remained, in the West, the Pauline, Cappadocian, Nicene victor that emerged from the ashes of Christian groups within the Roman Empire and Judea. It is a shame that it appears the most worldly, least spiritual, most power-hungry, least tolerant, most violent and least honest form of Christianity is the one that survived those brutal battles of the first few centuries.”
"How Modern Christianity Began: The Cappadocian-Nicene-Pauline Roman Amalgamation" by Vexen Crabtree (2008)
R
rev_kevin
Guest
continued
3.1. Who Were the First Christians?
We have described the Ebionites, the Marcionites, touched upon the Gnostics, and the Pauline Christians. Who were the original Christians? The Pauline Christians, Greek-speaking and with Roman power, rose to power and eliminated the others in the most un-Christian way. These were the late-comers to Christendom of these four groups. The methodical historian Bauer has studied this question at great length:
“Bauer proceeds by looking at certain geographical regions of early Christendom for which we have some evidence - particularly the city of Edessa in eastern Syria, Antioch in western Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Rome. For each place, he considers the available Christian sources and subjects them to the closest scrutiny, demonstrating that contrary to the reports of Eusebius, the earliest and/or predominant forms of Christianity in most of these areas were heretical (i.e., forms subsequently condemned by the victorious party). Christianity in Edessa, for example, a major centre for orthodox Christianity in later times, was originally Marcionite; the earliest Christians in Egypt were various kinds of Gnostic, and so on. Later orthodox Christians, after they had secured their victory, tried to obscure the real history of the conflict. But they were not completely successful, leaving traces that can be scrutinized for the truth.”
"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)9
I will now summarize some contenders and explain if they could have been the true source of Christianity:
**
Ebionite Christians were the true Christians**: Aramaic-speakers like Jesus and his apostles, they would have been the Jewish witnesses to Jesus’ ministry and preaching. From this starting point, Jesus’ teachings spread. They also, however, spread from Saul of Damascus, who renamed himself Paul and who preached an anti-Ebionite version of Christianity for the gentiles, which was much easier to follow and more popular.
The Marcionites were converts to Christ, who believed truly that he had been adopted by God at his baptism, and that he had come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament, thereby defeating the evil god of the old testament. Such gnostic beliefs may be the original form of Christianity as we shall see, but Marcionism itself can only be a later re-expression of it, and no historian thinks that the Marcionites were the original Christians.
Gnostic Christians: With stories, myths and beliefs that are exactly the same as Christian ones in many of the little details, gnostic beliefs manage to pre-date Christians ones by over 200 years. They understood what the stories of the NT really meant. Jesus didn’t really exist, but was a collection of such earlier stories, rewritten in Greek, with Greek names. This is the approach taken by historians such as Freke & Gandy.
Pauline / Roman Christians: When the Roman-backed instance of Christianity went in search of the ancient centres of Christianity, they discovered to their horror that the Ebionites and Gnostics pre-dated them. Their un-Christian answer was to edit verses, burn books, invent doctrines such as the Trinity, arrest and harass the other poverty-stricken Christians until no opposition was left. The form of Christianity that we have inherited from the Roman Empire is far from what Christianity originally was, yet most modern denominations took Cappadocian-Nicene Pauline Christianity as their starting point (and few have moved far from it).
3.1. Who Were the First Christians?
We have described the Ebionites, the Marcionites, touched upon the Gnostics, and the Pauline Christians. Who were the original Christians? The Pauline Christians, Greek-speaking and with Roman power, rose to power and eliminated the others in the most un-Christian way. These were the late-comers to Christendom of these four groups. The methodical historian Bauer has studied this question at great length:
“Bauer proceeds by looking at certain geographical regions of early Christendom for which we have some evidence - particularly the city of Edessa in eastern Syria, Antioch in western Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Rome. For each place, he considers the available Christian sources and subjects them to the closest scrutiny, demonstrating that contrary to the reports of Eusebius, the earliest and/or predominant forms of Christianity in most of these areas were heretical (i.e., forms subsequently condemned by the victorious party). Christianity in Edessa, for example, a major centre for orthodox Christianity in later times, was originally Marcionite; the earliest Christians in Egypt were various kinds of Gnostic, and so on. Later orthodox Christians, after they had secured their victory, tried to obscure the real history of the conflict. But they were not completely successful, leaving traces that can be scrutinized for the truth.”
"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)9
I will now summarize some contenders and explain if they could have been the true source of Christianity:
**
Ebionite Christians were the true Christians**: Aramaic-speakers like Jesus and his apostles, they would have been the Jewish witnesses to Jesus’ ministry and preaching. From this starting point, Jesus’ teachings spread. They also, however, spread from Saul of Damascus, who renamed himself Paul and who preached an anti-Ebionite version of Christianity for the gentiles, which was much easier to follow and more popular.
The Marcionites were converts to Christ, who believed truly that he had been adopted by God at his baptism, and that he had come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament, thereby defeating the evil god of the old testament. Such gnostic beliefs may be the original form of Christianity as we shall see, but Marcionism itself can only be a later re-expression of it, and no historian thinks that the Marcionites were the original Christians.
Gnostic Christians: With stories, myths and beliefs that are exactly the same as Christian ones in many of the little details, gnostic beliefs manage to pre-date Christians ones by over 200 years. They understood what the stories of the NT really meant. Jesus didn’t really exist, but was a collection of such earlier stories, rewritten in Greek, with Greek names. This is the approach taken by historians such as Freke & Gandy.
Pauline / Roman Christians: When the Roman-backed instance of Christianity went in search of the ancient centres of Christianity, they discovered to their horror that the Ebionites and Gnostics pre-dated them. Their un-Christian answer was to edit verses, burn books, invent doctrines such as the Trinity, arrest and harass the other poverty-stricken Christians until no opposition was left. The form of Christianity that we have inherited from the Roman Empire is far from what Christianity originally was, yet most modern denominations took Cappadocian-Nicene Pauline Christianity as their starting point (and few have moved far from it).
- Status